Stability of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters under Seismic Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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".