Pullout behaviour of plate anchor in clay with linearly increasing strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plate anchors are widely adopted to provide uplift resistance for structures. For most offshore seabeds, the undrained shear strength profile can be reasonably approximated as varying linearly with depth. At present, there are two possible approximate approaches to determine uplift capacity of a square plate anchor in such a profile, but the validity of both approaches cannot be ascertained due to unavailability of a rigorous solution. This study addresses these uncertainties by establishing the capacity factors for a square anchor in a linearly increasing strength profile using a three-dimensional large-deformation finite element approach for a wide range of geometric and material combinations. It was found that both approaches give the correct solution only under specific conditions. Earlier studies on the uplift capacity of a plate anchor typically follow a classical path of deriving the solution for a weightless soil and extending this solution to a soil with self-weight. The applicability of such an approach to the uplift of a square anchor is examined in this study. A direct design method for a square plate anchor embedded in a linearly increasing strength profile, which enables the capacity factors for a square anchor to be directly obtained without any simplified assumptions, is then proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".