Numerical study of pull-out capacities of dynamically embedded plate anchors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamically embedded plate anchors (DEPLAs) are a type of offshore anchor that combine the capacity advantages of vertically loaded plate anchors with the installation benefits of dynamically installed anchors. DEPLA capacity under monotonic loading conditions in clay has been investigated through centrifuge and field tests. In this paper, the monotonic capacity of DEPLAs in normally consolidated clay was studied using a three-dimensional large deformation finite element approach based on frequent mesh regeneration. Results from the numerical simulations were validated by comparison with centrifuge test data and existing numerical and analytical solutions for circular and rectangular plates. The effect of anchor embedment depth, anchor roughness, fluke (or plate) thickness, plate inclination, and DEPLA geometry were investigated in a parametric study where soil was prescribed to remain attached to the DEPLA base. The findings indicate that for a horizontal anchor subjected to vertical loading, most DEPLA geometries exhibit deep behaviour at an embedment ratio of 2.5, but that this embedment ratio is dependent upon the plate inclination, with vertical plates requiring the highest embedment depth for a deep localized failure mechanism. At a shallow embedment depth equal to one plate diameter, the reduction in capacity factor as the plate inclination changes from horizontal to vertical is 23.4%, compared with 1.3% at an embedment depth equal to four plate diameters. Plate roughness and fluke thickness are shown to have a minimal effect on the anchor capacity factor for vertical loading. Analyses that considered the breakaway (no tension) at the DEPLA base demonstrated that the anchor capacity factor approaches the no breakaway value as the embedment depth increases and as the soil strength (relative to the effective unit weight of the soil) decreases. The paper proposes a simple means of approximating the anchor capacity factor for breakaway conditions, by summing the capacity factor in weightless soil (which is unique for a given DEPLA geometry) and the normalized overburden pressure.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".