Effect of perforations on the bearing capacity of shallow foundation on clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a type of shallow foundation, a mudmat serves as the seabed support structure for subsea wells, pipeline manifolds, and pipeline terminations. The shallow foundations are usually designed with perforations to facilitate installation and removal, but the influence of these perforations has not been fully understood. This paper presents a method to analyze the bearing capacities of both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) perforated shallow foundations using finite element analysis. The soil was idealized as a Tresca material, with the undrained strength increasing linearly with depth. The outcome indicates that perforations have nonnegligible effects on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The bearing capacity decreases with increasing perforation ratio, R, and the degree of reduction increases with the increase of the dimensionless ratio kB/Suo, where k is the shear strength gradient, B is the width of the foundation, and Suo is the shear strength at the mudline. For 2D shallow foundations, there exists a critical perforation ratio, Rc; when the perforation ratio is lower than the critical perforation ratio, the perforated foundation does not lose its bearing capacity. For 3D shallow foundations, the bearing capacity decreases directly with the increase of perforation ratio, R.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".