Response of suction caissons for tidal current turbine applications in soft clay to monotonic and cyclic vertical loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In soft marine clays, suction caissons provide a foundation system for tidal current turbines that further promote the sustainable nature of the system by allowing for their removal at the end of the structure’s design life. When configured as a multipod, the moment loads resulting from the horizontal flow of water will be transferred to the suction caissons as compression–uplift loads on opposing foundation legs. The behavior of a suction caisson in soft clay was investigated at aspect ratios of 1 and 2 under monotonic and cyclic vertical loading applicable to multipod-supported tidal current turbine design. Installation and solely monotonic vertical load tests indicated lower back-calculated adhesion factor, α, values and higher back-calculated bearing capacity factor, Nc, values than design standards recommend. The capacity and stiffness response of the foundation after undergoing cyclic loading was found to be largely dependent on the magnitude of displacement the foundation underwent during cyclic loading. Additionally, a threshold of elastic foundation response was observed during cyclic loading defined by a cyclic displacement amplitude. These results indicate serviceability constraints will be critical in the design of suction caisson foundations for tidal current turbine applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".