An evaluation of <i>p</i>–<i>y</i> curves for fatigue analysis of offshore piles and conductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper evaluates methods for deriving p– y curves for fatigue analysis of slender piles and conductors. Updated ISO standard guidance is compared to a new approach, which is validated by centrifuge tests and based on laboratory measurements of stiffness. This new approach provides a more accurate match to previously-published data on which the ISO guidelines are based. Additionally, a third method is examined—the parallel-Iwan critical state inspired (PICSI) framework—which captures changes in p– y response through cyclic loading and consolidation. Bending moments from a pile–soil Finite Element (FE) analysis using the three methods are compared to data from flexible piles centrifuge testing. Load history effects are evident, with the bending moment profile for a given cyclic amplitude being altered by prior larger cycles, through a changing p– y response. The resulting evolution of the bending moment profile showed migration of the fatigue hotspot along the pile, which improves fatigue life. Whereas the ISO fatigue p– y curves over-predicted the observed stiffness, the alternative simplified p– y method matched the bending moments to ±25% accuracy, and the PICSI framework gave the most accurate bending moment predictions across the full test sequence. These latter two methods are recommended for design use in preference to the ISO approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".