MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106783580 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2019-0746

Experimental and theoretical investigations on fin configuration effects of dynamically installed anchors in clay

2020· article· en· W3106783580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yong Fu, Yong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEmbedmentFinCentrifugeGeotechnical engineeringSubmarine pipelinePosition (finance)EngineeringGeologyStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamically installed anchor (DIA) for deepwater mooring is an innovative and cost-effective technology in offshore foundation engineering; however, research on the effects of fin configuration of DIAs is limited. This study therefore systematically examines the effects of fin length–width ratio, fin surface area, fin position, and fin shape on the embedment depth and time-dependent holding capacity of DIAs by experimental and theoretical approaches. First, a series of centrifuge tests was performed on four DIA models with an identical fin surface area, but different fin configurations. It is found that the DIA model with short-wide-rectangular fins that are installed at the rear of the shaft achieves deeper embedment depth and higher holding capacity; whereas, the rectangular- and elliptical-shaped DIA models are similar in terms of embedment and capacity. This motivates the proposal for another nine types of finned DIAs in a more systematic manner. Furthermore, the performance of embedment depth and time-dependent holding capacity for these nine DIAs was theoretically assessed using the well-established theoretical methods. In this study, two scenarios with identical impact velocity or embedment depth were examined; wherein the variation of holding capacity with reconsolidation time was explicitly accounted for. Based on the findings, practical implications of fin configurations were reached that may benefit the design of finned DIAs in practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207