Predicting Efficiency and Capacity of Drag Embedment Anchors in Sand Seabed Using Tree Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drag embedment anchors (DEAs) play a vital role in maintaining the stability and safety of offshore structures, including floating wind turbines, oil rigs, and marine renewable energy systems. Accurate prediction of anchor performance is essential for optimizing mooring system designs, reducing costs, and minimizing risks in challenging marine environments. By leveraging advanced machine learning techniques, this research provides innovative solutions to longstanding challenges in geotechnical engineering, paving the way for more efficient and reliable offshore operations. The findings contribute significantly to developing sustainable marine infrastructure while addressing the growing global demand for renewable energy solutions in coastal and deep-water environments. This current study evaluated tree-based machine learning algorithms, e.g., decision tree regression (DTR) and random forest regression (RFR), to predict the holding capacity and efficiency of DEAs in sand seabed. To train and validate the results of machine learning models, the K-fold cross-validation method, with K = 5, was utilized. Eleven geotechnical and geometric parameters, including sand friction angle (φ), fluke-shank angle (α), and anchor dimensions, were analyzed using 23 model configurations. Results demonstrated that RFR outperformed DTR, achieving the highest accuracy for capacity prediction (R = 0.985, RMSE = 344.577 KN) and for efficiency (R = 0.977, RMSE = 0.821 KN). Key findings revealed that soil strength dominated capacity, while fluke-shank angle critically influenced efficiency. Single-parameter models failed to capture complex soil-anchor interactions, underscoring the necessity of multivariate analysis. The ensemble approach of RFR provided superior generalization across diverse seabed conditions, maintaining errors within ±10% for capacity and ±5% for efficiency.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".