MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379380875 · doi:10.21838/uhpc.16727

The First UHPC Piles Project in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4379380875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Loh, Sri Sritharan, Kam Ng, Don Gardonio

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbutmentEngineeringPileBridge (graph theory)BedrockChristian ministryGeotechnical engineeringCivil engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through a Change Proposal, Facca Incorporated was approved by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to replace the as-tendered steel H-piles by the UHPC piles for supporting the west abutment of the Lily River Detour Bridge. The 11.8 in. deep UHPC piles were designed and installed at the west abutment based on the previous successful development and testing of a tapered H-shaped pile at Iowa State University in partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation. The east abutment, as tendered, was designed to be supported by six steel H-shaped battered piles driven to bedrock. For the west abutment, six UHPC piles were produced and installed using the same batter. Since the site contained occasional boulders and the design intent to drive the piles to bedrock, the UHPC piles were fitted with steel shoes. All piles were successfully installed to reach the targeted load bearing capacities. After the replacement bridge was constructed, the detour bridge was removed and the UHPC piles were extracted to examine the conditions of the piles. This presentation will provide details of the innovative design of the piles, fabrication and driving of the piles, and lessons learned from analyzing the driving data and removal of the piles. As well, a comparison of the environmental impact of the UHPC and steel piles will be provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Safety and Impact AnalysisFrench-language works237,207