Deep cavity flow mechanism of pipe penetration in clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of penetration resistance as a function of penetration depth of a pipe into a cohesive seabed is of practical importance, particularly in the areas of pipeline on-bottom stability assessment and T-bar penetrometer data interpretation. In the past, this subject was addressed primarily in a discontinuous manner by separating the penetration response into two broad regimes of shallow and deep penetrations followed by deriving plasticity solutions assuming a simplified “wished-in-place” configuration. In this manner, the effects of evolving seabed topology and the progressive transition from a shallow failure mechanism to a deep failure mechanism are neglected. This paper aims to provide greater insights into the transition zone, which is especially important for the interpretation of T-bar test data at shallow depths. In this study, the penetration response of a smooth pipe over a wide range of normalized clay strengths is numerically simulated. A deep cavity flow mechanism where the bearing capacity factor is 12% less than the conventional full-flow mechanism is identified and found to be operative up to a depth of 10 pipe diameters under a certain combination of material properties. An analysis method is proposed to predict the load–penetration response for a given set of clay strengths and pipe diameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".