Liquefaction Mitigation Using Vertical Composite Drains: Full-Scale Testing for Pile Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) project, a follow-on activity to a previous NCHRP-IDEA project (NCHRP-94), involved full-scale field tests to evaluate the liquefaction mitigating effect of vertical composite drains for pile applications. Work in the first phase focused on site characterization and blast testing in an untreated area. A pattern of small explosive charges was established for detonation to simulate the liquefaction process produced by an earthquake, and pilot tests were performed with various charge weights and delays to better simulate the duration and intensity of an earthquake and to determine the energy required to induce liquefaction. The field tests were performed at a site near Vancouver, British Columbia. The tests also included pile load testing before and after blast testing in areas treated and untreated with drains. The field test results were complemented with modeling analysis to determine likely pore pressure response in the area treated with drains. The test results and modeling analysis verified the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".