The effects of stiffness anisotropy on elastic solutions of circular foundations under complex loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current wind turbine (WT) foundation codes and design approaches rely on rather conservative geotechnical assumptions to aid the simplification of design processes. Moreover, the industry often treats WT foundations as an extension of the turbine itself, using catalog approaches for design; which can lead to over-design and cost increases. Existing design codes incorporate uncoupled analytical elastic solutions that can be used for preliminary designs under idealized soil conditions such as linear elasticity and isotropy. However, most natural soil deposits exhibit some degree of stiffness anisotropy and stiffness degradation with cyclic strains. This paper describes the results from a series of analyses performed to obtain coupled elastic solutions of shallow and embedded foundations founded on anisotropic soils with linear increase of stiffness with depth under complex loading. The effect of the domain dimensions was examined and a domain width of 50 times the circular foundation diameter was found to be sufficiently accurate for the finite element analysis. Correction factors were derived to account for the effects of soil vertical non-homogeneity and foundation embedment. The results show that the vertical stiffness rate of change affects the vertical, horizontal and moment stiffness, but does not affect the coupling between horizontal and moment responses. The effect of soil stiffness anisotropy on foundation responses was investigated by an application of the stiffness equations. The comparison shows that the stiffness anisotropy can considerably affect the vertical and horizontal translations of the foundation but has a limited influence on the rocking behavior.
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".