MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106797685 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0250

Offshore anchor piles under mooring forces: centrifuge modeling

2013· article· en· W2106797685 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mohamed I. Ramadan, Stephen Butt, Radu Popescu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringMooringPileBending momentSubmarine pipelineDeflection (physics)GeologyTension (geology)Offshore geotechnical engineeringSubseaEngineeringStrain gaugeStructural engineeringMarine engineeringMoment (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshore anchor piles are seafloor moorings that keep the position of floating structures during a harsh environment. These piles are usually subjected to a wide range of monotonic and cyclic lateral-to-oblique pullout forces. Centrifuge tests were carried out to study the behavior of offshore anchor piles under mooring forces in saturated dense sand. The tests were carried out at different loading angles. All piles were jacked into the sand bed in-flight. The pile models were instrumented with strain gauges. Bending moment, soil pressure, and pile lateral deflection profiles are presented and discussed. It was found that there is a significant interaction between both tension and lateral loading. This interaction should be considered in the design of offshore anchor piles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207