Practical Seismic Design Considering Non-Linear Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction

A substructure approach is proposed for the seismic analysis considering the soil-pile-structure interaction. Two software packages are available for practical applications, DYNAN program and SAP 2000 program. The nonlinearity of soil is considered approximately using a boundary zone model with non-reflective interface. The validation of model is confirmed with dynamic tests on piles in the field, and the results for a single pile are used to compare with the predictions in this study. The liquefaction for sand soil layer can be accounted for, and a case of liquefaction is discussed. The seismic response of a vacuum tower structure supported on pile foundation is examined in a high seismic zone, including response spectrum analysis and time history analysis. To illustrate the effects of soil-pile-structure interaction on the seismic response of structure, three different base conditions are considered, rigid base, i.e. no deformation of the foundation; linear soil-pile system; and nonlinear soil-pile system. The method and procedure introduced can be applied to the design of tall buildings, bridges, industrial structures and offshore platforms with soil-pile-structure interaction under seismic, blast, sea wave and other dynamic loads

The advanced p-y method for analyzing the behavior of large-diameter monopiles supporting offshore wind turbines

The analyses of monopile foundations have been heavily based on the p-y response curves (to represent lateral soil resistances) published by API RP 2GEO (2011) and DNV (2013), which are proven reliable and applicable for piles with smaller diameters that were normally used for jacket structures in the offshore industry. However, concerns have been raised about the validity of semi-empirical p-y criteria for large-diameter piles. Wind turbine monopiles have a significantly larger diameter and smaller length to diameter ratio than typical piles used for offshore structures. The ratio of the length to the diameter for a monopile typically is also significantly smaller than those used in the API load tests. Therefore, the response of a monopile may be more like a rigid rotation, with components of resistance mobilized at the tip and axially along the sides as it rotates. This behaviour is in contrast to long slender piles that respond to lateral loading in bending rather than rotation. The objective of this paper is to analyze the factors that may contribute to the apparent conservatism in the current design practice for large-diameter monopile foundations and to provide improved solutions on how to analyze and design the large-diameter monopiles for offshore wind turbine using the p-y method

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field