Evaluation of excess pore pressure and liquefaction for rocking wind turbine foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restrictions on uplifts of shallow foundations have been modified for bridge and building foundations to enable more efficient and sustainable performance-based design. This new philosophy of designing foundations against strong earthquake shaking is also being considered for wind turbine foundations in recent years. In order to allow foundation uplifts in saturated sand, the effects of induced cyclic strains on liquefaction susceptibility should be addressed. In this paper, an efficient method for computation of excess pore pressure accumulation and dissipation in saturated sand is incorporated into finite element modeling of a rocking foundation. The developed model is validated against experimental data from centrifuge tests of shallow foundation resting on saturated sand. Subsequently, the validated methodology is applied to finite element simulation of wind turbine foundations. The results demonstrated that a small uplift region can be tolerated to develop under operational conditions of a wind turbine foundation in saturated sand without occurrence of liquefaction. A reconsideration and easing of the uplift restrictions can lead to economical designs for new foundations of wind turbines and re-purposing of existing foundations for larger wind turbines. • Foundation uplifts can be allowed for wind turbines on saturated sand in operation. • Existing foundations can be used to install larger wind turbines by allowing uplifts. • Dissipation of excess pore pressure prevents liquefaction in operational conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".