Evaluation of ground vibrations due to vibro-compaction of rockfill columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rockfill columns are a versatile ground improvement technique that uses rockfill to replace some of the weak soil of the original ground. The performance of the rockfill columns for riverbank and embankment stabilization may be improved by densifying the rockfill. This densification may be done, for example, by vibrating pre-embedded steel casings, while removing them from the column hole. Rockfill columns have been extensively and successfully used to stabilize riverbanks in Manitoba since the 1990s. Riverbank instability was noted in a certain area in Winnipeg, in a region where a centenary aqueduct was buried. To stabilize this bank, a project involving the installation of about 80 rockfill columns was proposed and executed, but the unknown possible impacts of the vibration on the buried aqueduct was a major concern. Constant field monitoring was crucial to guide the installation of the columns in the field. In the end, the final field assessment showed that the integrity of the aqueduct was maintained. However, the understanding of any possible impact of the vibratory waves on the aqueduct remained a grey area to the parties involved in the project, especially because this information is lacking in the literature. To rectify the current lack of information on the impact of ground-borne vibration on buried aqueducts, this study presents a comprehensive numerical study of three columns of this case study. Based on the results obtained through the 2-D finite element models, it became clear that the vibratory and non-vibratory removal of steel casings generate some wave propagation in the ground, which could potentially affect the integrity of the aqueduct. The results in terms of particle velocities were used to increase the guidance available in the literature, using Peak Particle Velocity as limiting factor. However, the results obtained in this thesis demonstrated that particle velocity was not the best factor to be used as the limiting value to protect an aqueduct against vibration, but strains on the aqueduct wall were more representative of possible damage from the vibratory wave and should be used to monitor the vibration in future projects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".