Understanding effects from overburden drilling of piles—a rational approach to reduce the impacts on the surroundings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents two case studies dealing with undesirable impacts of overburden drilling of casings for end-bearing piles to bedrock. Monitored pore-water pressures and ground settlements are used to document and assess the influence from rotary percussive drilling with “down-the-hole” (DTH) hammers. The studies show that drilling with high-pressure air-driven DTH hammers may cause considerable erosion and soil volume loss adjacent to the drill bit and along the casing, resulting in settlements of the surrounding ground. The risk of soil volume loss increases when the drilling is carried out in erodible soils such as silt and fine sands. The volume loss is found to be caused by a combined air-lift pump effect and a Venturi suction effect. Monitoring pore pressures in the vicinity of the drilling may be used to reduce soil volume loss and prevent damaging settlements. Results from drilling with water-driven DTH hammer showed significantly less ground settlements and influence on pore pressures compared to using an air-driven hammer. The study suggests that the drilling parameters flow rate and penetration rate, and the cross-sectional area of the pile casing can be combined in a non-dimensional methodology to assess the mass balance of drill cuttings when drilling with water flushing. A design framework is suggested to guide overburden drilling in urban settings to reduce potential impact on the surroundings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".