Effect of perforations on uplift capacity of skirted foundations on clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The retrieval of deep water subsea installations resting on soft soil, such as “mudmat” shallow foundations, can be a difficult and costly operation if significant resistance to uplift is experienced. At the mudmat invert, suctions may develop, increasing the uplift resistance to greater than the weight of the mat. In this paper, a series of centrifuge model tests are performed to determine the uplift resistance of rectangular mudmats resting on lightly overconsolidated kaolin clay. The study investigates the influence of perforation, in combination with skirt length and eccentric uplift, on the uplift resistance and suction generation at the foundation invert. The outcomes demonstrate that the central and eccentric uplift of mudmats have different failure mechanisms, resulting in a different distribution of excess pore pressure at the foundation invert. In contrast, perforations do not change the failure mechanism and only alter the magnitude of suction generated. The two different configurations of perforation investigated significantly reduce the suction at the mat invert and the uplift resistance, and may potentially shorten the operating time for centred uplift. The combination of perforation and eccentric uplift has the most beneficial effect on the reduction of the uplift resistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".