MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155172861 · doi:10.1139/t03-003

Response of anchors to variations in displacement-based loading

2003· article· en· W2155172861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashraf Ghaly, Adel Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDisplacement (psychology)GeologyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of an experimental investigation on the effect of variations in displacement-based loading on the pullout capacity of anchors are presented. A single-pitch, screw helical anchor was used in the testing. The tests were conducted in dry, well-graded, dense, medium, and loose sands with relative densities of 79, 47, and 19%, respectively. Anchors were installed to, and tested at, shallow and deep depths. Measurements of ultimate pullout load and displacement at failure were made. The values of time-to-failure and mean loading rate were calculated and presented. The results of this study show that variations of displacement-based loading had some effect on the pullout capacity of shallow anchors but had only a slight effect on deep anchors. For a given depth of installation and a given sand state, the ultimate pullout load of an anchor decreases with increasing loading rate. This effect was more pronounced in anchors installed to shallow depths.Key words: anchors, displacement, displacement rate, pullout capacity, strain rate, sand, foundations, uplift.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207