Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of finding the horizontal pullout capacity of vertical anchors embedded in sands with the inclusion of pseudostatic horizontal earthquake body forces, was tackled in this note. The analysis was carried out using an upper bound limit analysis, with the consideration of two different collapse mechanisms: bilinear and composite logarithmic spiral rupture surfaces. The results are presented in nondimensional form to find the pullout resistance with changes in earthquake acceleration for different combinations of embedment ratio of the anchor (λ), friction angle of the soil (φ;), and the anchor-soil interface wall friction angle (δ). The pullout resistance decreases quite substantially with increases in the magnitude of the earthquake acceleration. For values of δ up to about 0.250.5φ, the bilinear and composite logarithmic spiral rupture surfaces gave almost identical answers, whereas for higher values of δ, the choice of the logarithmic spiral provides significantly smaller pullout resistance. The results compare favorably with the existing theoretical data.Key words: anchors, earthquakes, failure, limit analysis, sands.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".