MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325214654 · doi:10.1061/40549(276)123

Stability of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters under Seismic Action

2001· article· en· W2325214654 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Constantine D. Memos, George D. Bouckovalas, Alexandros Tsiachris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsBreakwaterRubbleGeotechnical engineeringGeologyFoundation (evidence)Induced seismicitySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rubble-mound breakwaters are subject not only to wave action but, also, to other types of environmental loading, such as earthquakes. High seismic activity combined with soft foundation soil can lead to large settlements and even to failures of these structures. This paper reports on some aspects of the investigation undertaken to study the behaviour of rubble-mound breakwaters under seismic loading. The investigation comprised physical and mathematical modeling of two breakwaters: the first one sitting on a rigid bed, and the second on a yielding base of loose sand. Input earthquakes induced horizontal acceleration with increasing magnitude at consecutive tests. Measurements of hydrodynamic pressures and accelerations were taken. It was found that in general rubble-mound breakwaters resting on rigid bed are quite seismic resistant structures. However, a soft foundation soil plays a dominant role in the seismic behaviour of such breakwaters and may lead to quite high residual deformations. Extra care should be taken during the design phase whenever rubble-mound breakwaters are to be placed on soft soil in areas of high seismicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207