Impact of scour on lateral resistance of wind turbine monopiles: an experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of offshore wind structures are supported on large-diameter, rigid monopile foundations. These piles may be subjected to scour due to the waves and currents that causes a loss of soil support and consequently decreases the pile capacity and system stiffness. The results of numerical models suggest that the shape of the scour hole affects the magnitude of pile capacity loss; however, there is a dearth of experimental test data that quantify this effect. This paper presents a series of centrifuge model tests on an instrumented model pile that investigates the effects of scour-hole geometry on the response of a laterally loaded pile embedded in sand. The pile instrumentation allowed load–displacement and p–y (soil reaction – displacement) curves to be derived. Three scour geometries (global, local wide, and local narrow) and three scour depths (1D, 1.5D, and 2D; where D is pile diameter) were modelled. For all three scour types, pile moment capacity decreased almost linearly with increase of scour depth. Simple empirical relations were proposed to evaluate the detrimental influence of scour on the pile moment capacity. A new method has been developed to allow designers to quantify the effect of scour-hole shape and severity of scour on the pile response.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".