Reduction of footprint problems on spudcan in sand with infilling method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents experimental data associated with the reactions on the spudcan during the reinstallation of a jack-up foundation near a footprint with and without infilling. All experiments mentioned in this paper were conducted in a 1g model spudcan testing facility. Loose Ottawa sand was used as the seabed and infilling material, and the diameter D of the conical model spudcan was 200 mm. Based on the experimental data, it was found that, with the infilling of the footprint crater, a flat bearing surface was generated on the seabed; therefore, the hazardous stamp-on-void situation was prevented. This was the major contribution of the infilling method. At the small reinstallation depth of 0.05D, between the small offsets 0 and 0.25D, the stamp-on-void condition was eliminated by infilling, and the infilling effect was especially significant. At the large offset 2.0D, since the reinstallation was conducted far from the influence of the first penetration and the footprint crater, the infilling effect nearly vanished. The effect of infilling decreased with increasing reinstallation depth and increasing offset distance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".