Cyclic and post-cycling anchor response in geocell-reinforced sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plate anchors are commonly used to resist static, cyclic, and monotonic post-cyclic uplift loads. Under cyclic loading, progressive sudden failure may occur, characterized by accumulated displacement — even under loads significantly less than the static capacity. Despite extensive usage of geocell materials for increasing cyclic resilience, the influence of geocell reinforcements on cyclic uplift capacity is not well understood. In this study, a series of near-full-scale experimental tests, with and without geocell, are presented. Results show that the unreinforced system fails cyclically under a load that is almost 70% of its ultimate uplift capacity (Pu), but use of geocell enables stable cyclic resistance of over 100% Pu. For the given soil and configurations, a cyclic displacement rate that reaches less than 0.05 mm/cycle tends to highlight a likely stable response. Evaluation of the soil’s response to cyclic loading demonstrates that, with increasing loading cycles, the loading is increasingly transmitted through the soil close to the anchor in the unreinforced case, but that the reinforced case is less prone to this phenomenon. The monotonic post-cycling capacity of both reinforced and unreinforced anchors decreases after application of cyclic loading; however, the unreinforced scenario demonstrates larger decreases in capacity, particularly in the residual capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".