The majority of installed offshore wind turbines are supported on large-diameter, open-ended steel pile foundations, known as monopiles. These piles are subjected to vertical and lateral loads while in service. In current design practice, interaction of vertical and lateral loads are not considered, rather piles are designed to resist vertical and lateral loads independently. Whilst interaction effects are widely studied for shallow foundations, the limited research on this topic for pile foundations often produces conflicting results. This paper reviews the research of the influence of vertical loading on the lateral response of pile foundations under combined loads, from the perspective of analytical research, numerical research, and experimental research from tests performed on 1-g (gravitational acceleration) model, centrifuge, and full-scale piles. The potential reasons for the differences among the results of previous research are discussed. Some guidance for future research on the effect of vertical loads on the lateral response of piles is provided.@en

Monopiles are the most common Offshore Wind Turbine (OWT) foundations due to their simplicity in design, fabrication, and installation. However, large new-generation turbines have led to significant changes in monopile dimensions, necessitating extensive finite element analyses and ground investigations to meet design requirements. While Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-based p-y methods can analyse slender pile lateral behaviour, they often miss additional resistance mechanisms relevant to rigid monopiles. This paper introduces CPT-informed resistance mechanisms for monopiles to incorporate additional lateral resistances beyond p-y modelling capabilities. Distributed moment–rotation (m-θ) springs are defined by repurposing CPT-based axial capacity estimation methods for piles; and pile tip shear and moment springs are informed by approximating a residual bearing stress post-installation using local CPT qc values. The performance of the multi-spring model is appraised against data reported from monotonic pile pushover tests conducted at two sand sites. Results show that the multi-spring model is capable of predicting pile head deflections reasonably well within serviceability deflection limits against the reported test data, but ultimate failure loads cannot be predicted using the proposed model. A clear sensitivity in pile response to local variations in CPT qc is demonstrated.@en

This paper investigates the applicability of Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-based axial capacity approaches, used for estimating pile static capacity, to the prediction of pile driveability. An investigation of the influence of various operational parameters in a driveability study is conducted. A variety of axial capacity approaches (IC-05, UWA-05 and Fugro-05) are assessed in unmodified and modified form to appraise their ability to be used in estimating the driveability of open-ended steel piles used to support, for example, offshore jackets or bridge piers. Modifications to the CPT-based design approaches include alterations to the proposed base resistance to account for the resistance mobilized under discrete hammer impacts and the presence of residual stresses, as well as accounting for the effects of static capacity increases over time, namely ageing. Furthermore, a study on the influence of various operational parameters within a wave equation solver is conducted to ascertain the relative impact of uncertain data in this respect. The purpose of the paper is not to suggest a new design procedure for estimating pile driveability, rather to investigate the influence of the various operating parameters in a driveability analysis and how they affect the magnitude of the resulting predictions. The study will be of interest to geotechnical design of piles using CPT data.@en

This paper compares the application of two recently published guidance documents for risk-based assessment of hydraulic actions on bridges, namely the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines, to two case study bridges (Staverton Bridge, UK; Borgoforte Bridge, Italy). This work is one of the first to illustrate how to apply these guidelines. Both documents present risk-based methods for the assessment of hydraulic actions, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For example, the UK method prescribes calculations for local and constriction scour, water depth, and velocity at several cross-sections; by comparison, the Italian method does not prescribe calculations to assess the risk level. For the case studies in this paper, the hydraulic risk obtained for Staverton Bridge resulted as ‘High’ using both methods. The scour score for the Borgoforte Bridge resulted higher using the Italian method (Medium-High), as compared to the UK approach (Medium). This difference is due to how the guidelines assess the vulnerability associated with the minimum clearance. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches and the resulting discussion may serve as a useful resource for those wishing to develop new risk-based methods for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges.@en

This paper compares the application of two recently published guidance documents for risk-based assessment of hydraulic actions on bridges, namely the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines, to two case study bridges (Staverton Bridge, UK; Borgoforte Bridge, Italy). This work is one of the first to illustrate how to apply these guidelines. Both documents present risk-based methods for the assessment of hydraulic actions, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For example, the UK method prescribes calculations for local and constriction scour, water depth, and velocity at several cross-sections; by comparison, the Italian method does not prescribe calculations to assess the risk level. For the case studies in this paper, the hydraulic risk obtained for Staverton Bridge resulted as ‘High’ using both methods. The scour score for the Borgoforte Bridge resulted higher using the Italian method (Medium-High), as compared to the UK approach (Medium). This difference is due to how the guidelines assess the vulnerability associated with the minimum clearance. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches and the resulting discussion may serve as a useful resource for those wishing to develop new risk-based methods for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges.@en