Ice Forces to Wind Turbine Foundations in Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ice loading on wind turbine foundations in the inner Danish seas and in the Danish straits is a decisive load. To reduce the loading, ice cones have frequently been used. A certain increase in the wave load is a consequence of an ice cone but at least for shallow waters the wave loads are increased less than originally expected because of a relatively strong phase shift between the maximum pressures on various parts of the cone and the vertical cylinder in the structure. For gravity foundations the additional cost has been limited since the weight of the ice cone stabilise the foundation. For lighter foundation types like mono piles and tripods the requirement of a cone adds simply to the cost of the structure. But for future 3 to 5 MW offshore wind turbines the increase in wave loads for the larger foundations could show to allow larger ice forces. In this case it is interesting to know if smaller and less costly cones may be used or design without a cone may be allowed. Further, the ice load design requirements in Denmark have been reviewed and in this connection 3 test series of ice model tests with a compliant structure corresponding to typical first mode and second mode frequencies and stiffness of a large wind turbine foundation have been carried out at NRC, Canada. The paper discusses the aspects mentioned above. Further, the following aspects are described in detail: (1) Review of the ice load design requirements in the inner Danish seas and in the Danish straits; (2) Detailed design requirements for upwards and downwards bending cones; (3) Design requirements to a double sided cone; (4) Design requirements to a vertical cylindrical structure; and (5) Composition of extreme ice loads and wind loads.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".