Impact vibration test of monopile foundation model in dry sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements on full-scale offshore wind turbines have shown that the horizontal foundation stiffness for monopiles is underpredicted by current design methods. This paper presents a 1:20 model scale test of a monopile foundation for offshore wind turbines, installed in dry laboratory sand. The test is performed under fully controlled laboratory conditions, with low-stress soil effects minimised by overburden pressures applied by a vacuum system. Soil–pile interaction stiffness is indirectly measured by eigenfrequencies in a free vibration test, with vibration initiated by a horizontal impact load to the top of the pile. The purpose of the test is to provide a benchmark for evaluation of calculation methods for laterally loaded monopile foundations. Results for system eigenfrequency and system damping are presented along with measurements of small-strain stiffness for the laboratory sand. Pile displacement profiles are derived for different oscillation amplitudes, on the basis of a numerical beam model, accelerometer and strain gauge measurements. A relationship between small-strain soil stiffness and eigenfrequency is identified. The measured system eigenfrequencies and system damping are found to depend on the applied surcharge pressure and the displacement amplitude.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".