Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of vertical loading on the lateral behaviour of monopiles in sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of combined loading on the response of monopiles used to support offshore wind turbines (OWTs) is investigated in this paper. In current practice, resistance of monopiles to vertical and lateral loading is considered separately. As OWT size has increased, the slenderness ratio (pile length, L, normalised by diameter, D) has decreased and foundations are tending towards intermediate footings with geometries between those of piles and shallow foundations. Whilst load interaction effects are not significant for slender piles, they are critical for shallow footings. Previous research on pile load interaction has resulted in conflicting findings, potentially arising from variations in boundary conditions and pile slenderness. In this study, monotonic lateral load tests were conducted in a geotechnical centrifuge on vertically loaded monopiles in dense sand. Results indicate that for piles with L/D = 5, increasing vertical loading improved pile initial stiffness and lateral capacity. A similar trend was observed for piles with L/D = 3, when vertical loading was below ≈45% of the pile’s ultimate vertical capacity. For higher vertical loads considered, results tended towards the behaviour observed for shallow footings. Numerical analyses conducted show that changes in mean effective stress are potentially responsible for the observed behaviour.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".