Experimental investigation of forces along anchors subjected to dynamic loading under tension and compression in field tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-scale field tests of dynamic rockfall have been performed on a flexible SPIDER Avalanche system to study the dynamic force distribution along the foundations under dynamic loading. Therefore, an anchor to measure dynamic tensile forces and a pile to measure dynamic compressive forces were each equipped with strain gauges. Furthermore, a static pull loading test with load steps of 1 min duration was performed on the anchor to highlight the difference between dynamic and static loading. Effective kinetic energies applied on the net of the SPIDER Avalanche system range from 25 to 492 kJ with impact velocities between 17 and 25 m/s. The results show that the dynamic forces close to the pile- and anchor head are higher and that they are decreasing with increasing distance of pile and anchor. However, the dynamic tensile force distribution is nonlinear over the length of the anchor, whereas the dynamic compressive force distribution is linear along the pile length. The comparison of static and dynamic tensile forces shows that dynamic tensile forces are depleted within a shorter distance of the anchor compared to the static tensile forces. Dynamic tensile forces present 25% less in value than the static tensile forces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".