Centrifuge modelling of the pushover failure of an electricity transmission tower
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centrifuge model tests were conducted to examine foundation failure mechanisms during rapid horizontal pushover of an electricity transmission line support tower, simulating a broken transmission line response or wind gust loading. A model transmission tower supported on four pad foundations in clay and backfilled with sand was loaded horizontally and the loads at each foundation were measured during fast and slow pushover. The tests examined the influence of tensile resistance mobilized at the underside of the footings, which is difficult to reliably incorporate within design practice due to a lack of accepted quantitative design methods. The measured performance of the tower footings was compared with results from a series of tests where a single footing is subjected to purely vertical loading in compression and tension and was found to be in good agreement. The tower response was back-analysed as a simple push–pull model and the calculated uplift capacity of the footing backfill provided a close match to the observed response of the tower footings subjected to slow pushover. During fast pushover, the additional capacity mobilized due to tensile resistance (suction) created by the reverse bearing capacity beneath the base of the footings subjected to uplift was quantified using a suction capacity factor.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".