Seismic uplift capacity of inclined strip anchors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uplift capacities of inclined strip anchors in soil with a horizontal ground surface are obtained under seismic conditions. Limit equilibrium approaches with a logarithm-spiral failure surface and pseudostatic seismic forces are adopted in the analysis. The results are presented in the form of seismic uplift capacity factors as functions of anchor inclination, embedment ratio, angle of internal friction of the soil, and horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration coefficients. The uplift capacity factors are worked out separately for cohesion, surcharge, and density components. Use of the principle of superposition for calculating anchor uplift capacity is validated. The vertical seismic acceleration coefficient always reduces the uplift capacity, whereas the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient reduces the uplift capacity in most cases. The roles of anchor embedment ratio, soil friction angle, and anchor inclination in determination of the seismic uplift capacity are also discussed. Comparisons of the proposed method with available theories in the seismic case are also presented. The present study gives the minimum seismic uplift capacity factors compared with the existing theory.Key words: seismic uplift capacity factors, inclined strip anchors, limit equilibrium, pseudostatic, cϕ soil.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".