Experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of circular plate anchors embedded in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of relatively large scale model circular plate anchors up to 400 mm in diameter embedded in loose, medium-dense, and dense dry sand is described. Uplift capacity is strongly influenced by anchor diameter, embedment ratio, and sand density. In tests on shallow half-cut models, a gently curved rupture surface emerged from the top edge of the anchor to the sand surface at approximately ϕ/2 to the vertical, where ϕ is the angle of shearing resistance. For a deep anchor, a balloon-shaped rupture surface emerged at 0.8ϕ to the vertical immediately above the anchor and was confined within the sand bed. The load-displacement behaviour of full-shaped models was three-phase and two-phase for shallow and deep anchors, respectively. Alternative methods of determining the critical embedment ratio are considered, and values of 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8 are proposed for loose, medium-dense, and dense sand, respectively. Empirical equations are presented which yield breakout factors similar to those from many published laboratory and field studies.Key words: circular anchor, uplift capacity, sand, critical embedment ratio, failure 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".