Experimental investigations on seepage erosion-interface shear behavior of suction caisson in sandy seabed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the seepage erosion during the installation of suction caissons, this study developed a seepage erosion-interface shear test system to simulate the erosion phenomena. First, a parametric analysis was conducted to systematically investigate the effects of main factors (consolidation pressure, particle size distribution, and inhomogeneous pressure) on sand erosion characterization, vertical deformation, seepage characterization, and the interface strength of suction caisson. Following this, interface shear tests were performed to compare and analyze the changes in caisson–sand interface strength before and after soil erosion. It is indicated that the soil erodibility initially increases and then decreases when increasing fine particles. Seepage channels form first at the bottom and become dominant near the caisson wall, enhancing the sand hydraulic conductivity. In addition, the soil inside the caisson is less stable under smaller consolidation pressure. After the erosion, changes in sand particle distributions significantly reduce the caisson–sand interface strength with the maximum reduction of approximately 50%. This study emphasizes the influence of seepage erosion on caisson in-service capacity, which needs more attention 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".