Pullout capacity of small ground anchors by direct cone penetration test methods and neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marquees are temporary light structures that are connected to the ground by small anchors that act in tension and are designed to resist uplift forces. Due to the temporary nature of these structures, little, if any, attention is given to the pullout capacity of the anchors used to secure them. Failures of such structures are not rare and have resulted in deaths and tens of thousands of dollars of damage. This paper reports on a series of 119 in situ anchor pullout tests conducted on rough mild steel anchors of various lengths, cross-sectional shapes, and areas. Comparison tests are carried out to investigate the impact of the factors affecting the pullout capacity of small anchors. Six methods that determine the axial pile capacity directly from cone penetration test (CPT) data are presented and used to calculate the pullout capacity of small ground anchors. The capacities obtained from these CPT-based methods are compared with predictions from a recently developed artificial neural network (ANN) model. The actual pullout loads are compared with predictions from the CPT and ANN methods, and statistical analyses are carried out to evaluate and rank their performance. The results indicate that the ANN-based method provides superior predictions of the pullout capacity of small ground anchors, whereas the Schmertmann method provides the best performance of the CPT-based techniques examined.Key words: ground anchors, pullout capacity, cone penetration test, artificial neural networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".