Numerical Analysis of Pullout Capacity of Composite Suction Caisson Foundation Used For Large Scale Underwater Compressed Gas Energy Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The suction caisson foundation, characterized by its unique installation methodology and excellent bearing capabilities, has emerged as a crucial supporting structure for marine constructions. However, the distinctive alternating cyclic high load patterns exhibited by underwater compressed gas energy storage systems significantly challenge the vertical pullout bearing capacity of regular suction caisson foundations. In this study, a novel composite suction caisson foundation is proposed to enhance the vertical pullout capacity. The pullout capacity under perfectly drained conditions is investigated by finite element analysis with ABAQUS/Standard 2020. A comparative analysis of the pullout capacity between regular suction caisson (RSC) and composite suction caisson (CSC) is conducted, focusing on aspect ratios of 0.5, 1, and 1.5. The results show that the pullout load of the proposed CSC, with the same aspect ratio, increased by a range of 12.8% to 100% compared to that of the RSC. As the aspect ratio increases, the trend of increasing pullout load decreases. The variation of displacement for the caisson at its ultimate pullout capability is relatively small, between 0.01D and 0.027D.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".