Experimental investigation of reverse end bearing of offshore shallow foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shallow skirted foundations can mobilize uplift resistance from end bearing in the short to medium term. However, uncertainty exists over the magnitude of reverse end bearing resistance compared with resistance in compression, and how this might be affected by a gap between the external face of the foundation skirt and the adjacent soil. The study presented in this paper explores this problem through centrifuge model tests, investigating the effect of skirt embedment ratio on (i) the magnitude of reverse end bearing capacity compared with compression capacity, (ii) the uplift displacement associated with spontaneous loss of suction during uplift, and (iii) the existence of a vertical gap along the external skirt–soil interface. The results show that (i) peak uplift capacity equivalent to compression capacity can be mobilized for a fully sealed foundation with an intact skirt–soil interface, (ii) suction required for reverse end bearing can be maintained through considerable foundation displacement, even for a low skirt embedment ratio, and (iii) the presence of a vertical gap along the external skirt–soil interface causes abrupt loss of suction beneath the top plate after minimal foundation displacement, with subsequent uplift capacity being markedly reduced.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".