MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966431950 · doi:10.1139/t08-005

Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal anchors using upper bound limit analysis and finite elements

2008· article· en· W1966431950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jyant Kumar, K. M. Kouzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit analysisEmbedmentGeologyClassification of discontinuitiesGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodWedge (geometry)Upper and lower boundsPlasticityLimit (mathematics)GeometryMechanicsStructural engineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertical uplift capacity of strip anchors embedded horizontally at shallow depths in sand is examined by using an upper bound limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and linear programming. Velocity discontinuities were allowed along the interfaces of all the elements. The plastic strains within elements were incorporated by using an associated flow rule. The collapse load was expressed in terms of a nondimensional uplift factor Fγ, which was found to increase continuously with an increase in both embedment ratio (λ) and the friction angle (ϕ) of sand. Even though the analysis considers the development of plastic strain within all elements, however, at collapse, the soil mass just above the anchor was found to move as a single rigid block bounded by planar rupture surfaces making an angle ϕ with the vertical. The results were found to be almost the same as reported in the literature for those based upon a simple rigid wedge mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207