MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086618857 · doi:10.1139/t02-096

Drag anchor flukesoil interaction in clays

2003· article· en· W2086618857 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsEmbedmentDragGeotechnical engineeringWedge (geometry)GeologyPlasticityStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanicsMathematicsGeometryMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finite element analysis has been used to investigate the interaction between anchor flukes and undrained soil at failure. The behaviour of a rectangular and a wedge-shaped anchor has been investigated when the anchors are subject to combined rotational and translational loadings similar to those experienced during anchor dragging. The results have been presented in terms of a plasticity framework to produce an associated plastic failure locus for combined loading conditions. It is seen that the wedge-shaped anchor has a different shaped failure locus and displacements at failure because of its asymmetrical shape, and this will affect drag anchor behaviour. A new design method is introduced that aims to predict drag anchor embedment trajectory and holding capacity through examination of the fluke–soil interaction. The yield loci and plastic potentials produced from consideration of fluke–soil interaction are used in the new design method to predict drag anchor kinematics. Results from the new analysis method are compared to empirically based methods, and it is seen that there is good agreement between results, even without further calibration from physical modelling. This suggests that the approach has promise, and with further refinement of the yield loci and better approximations to the complex anchor geometry, it may develop into a useful anchor design tool that allows for both the anchor geometry and the soil conditions explicitly.Key words: drag anchor capacity, undrained clays, numerical method.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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