Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STIFFNESS OF SAND
D Kallehave, C LeBlanc Thilsted and MA Liingaard
DONG Energy A/S, Fredericia, Denmark
Abstract
Monopiles are currently the preferred concept of support structures for offshore wind turbines. However, experiences from operating offshore wind farms indicate that the current design guidelines (e.g. American Petroleum Institute (API)) under-predict the soil stiffness for large-diameter monopiles. Due to the structural
dynamic of a wind turbine, it is unconservative to both over-predict and under-predict the soil stiffness. Only
an exact prediction is conservative. The objective with this paper is to introduce an approximate method for
determining the soil stiffness of sand regarding large-diameter monopiles by modifying the initial stiffness of
the API p-y formulation. The modification introduces both a stress level and a strain level correction derived
on basis of sound theoretical considerations without introducing new empirical parameters. It has been shown
by benchmarking with full-scale measurements from Walney offshore wind farm that the modified approach
provides a more accurate determination of the total soil stiffness, although it is still under-predicted.
1. Introduction
The impacts of applying p-y curves empirically developed outside the verified range can now be observed. Nacelle measurements from DONG Energys offshore wind turbines show that the fundamental frequencies are much higher than bestestimate predictions using the API p-y formulation
for piles in sand. This may be due to an underprediction of the soil stiffness. For example, fullscale measurements for three randomly chosen off-
465
where A = 0.9 is a factor to account for cyclic loading; k is the initial modulus of sub-grade reaction according to Reese et al. (1974); z is the depth; and pu
is the modified ultimate soil resistance, according to
Bogard and Matlock (1980). It is given by:
(2)
where c1, c2 and c3 are factors depending on the internal friction angle of the sand; D is the diameter of
the pile; and is the effective soil weight. In the current formulation, the initial slope of the p-y curve is
assumed to be:
(3)
(1)
466
(4)
It is the opinion of the authors that k should be considered as the initial modulus of sub-grade reaction
and hence a constant. However, the soil modulus
should be evaluated based on the correct strain level.
It is therefore questionable if the API p-y formulation
is the best estimate for evaluating deformations of
large-diameter piles when the choice of the shape of
the curve and n depends on a particular deflected
shape of the pile.
(5)
Parker and Reese (1970) discussed the representation of the initial stiffness of the p-y curve in a format equivalent to Equation 5. They concluded that
for a realistic problem, k and n may not be constants,
but may be functions of a number of parameters, one
of which is the deflection of the pile. Since the variation in soil modulus with depth may be approximated by a straight line for a particular deflected
shape, the use of Equation 3 as a computational
technique is valid.
(6)
468
1.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
0.29
0.41
0.52
0.58
0.63
Figure 4: Static Mustang Island test (Reese et al., 1974)
For completeness, the unmodified API p-y curve illustrated in Figure 2 is reproduced and plotted together with the modified p-y curves in Figure 7.
They are plotted in a depth of 8m, which is below
the reference depth. Hence the initial stiffness of the
p-y curve for the D = 0.61m pile decreases, whereas
the initial stiffness of the D = 6m pile increases. Applying Equation 8 instead of Equation 3 is therefore
expected to give a more accurate evaluation of the
soil stiffness, and hence the fundamental frequency
of wind turbine structures supported by monopile
foundations.
(8)
(7)
469
A site-specific evaluation of the governing parameters k, m and n might therefore be required when
considering other structures. The current tuning has
only been made considering the total soil stiffness
and a constant strain level correction has been as-
During periods with high mean wind speed, a decrease of the fundamental frequency is observed. As
soon as the wind speed decreases, the fundamental
frequency increases to the same value as previously
observed for similar wind speed. This is expected to
be directly related to the variations of soil stiffness.
Based on this consideration and the current level of
knowledge, degradation of soil stiffness has not been
observed.
Therefore, the proposed modifications of the API py formulation provide a more accurate yet conservative approach in the determination of the total soil
stiffness than the unmodified approach. It is also believed that the soil stiffness will not degrade with
time. This hypothesis will need to be verified by
longer data records.
4. Conclusion
The current API p-y formulation was found to significantly underestimate the stiffness of sand. An attempt was made to derive corrections to the initial
stiffness of the API p-y curve by adding both a
stress-level and a diameter correction. These corrections were derived on basis of sound theoretical considerations without the introduction of new empirical parameters.
The modified p-y formulations were benchmarked
against three randomly chosen wind turbine structures on the Walney offshore wind farm. Measurements of the fundamental frequency showed that
they provide a better estimate of the total soil stiffness, although the best-estimate fundamental frequency still under-predicts the actual frequency of
the structures.
Benchmarking with full-scale measurements for
large-diameter piles is found to be the best approach
for a possible reformulation of the currently applied
API p-y formulation. However, the proposed modifications must be benchmarked with full-scale
measurements from structures within more offshore
wind farms. In addition, the theoretical p-y curves
must be compared with experimental p-y curves obtained from large-diameter piles before a complete
and rigorous p-y formulation can be obtained. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the actual soil stiffness is
under-predicted by the actual approach and that the
modified formulation provides a better prediction of
the measured fundamental frequency of the structures.
Finally, long-term effects were considered based on
the currently available data covering a five-month
period. It was concluded that the soil stiffness is not
expected to degrade over time, although longer timeseries is needed to verify this.
Figure 9: (Top) Evaluation of long-term variation of the relative 1hr average fundamental frequency for one offshore wind
turbine; (bottom) corresponding wind speed
471
References
American Petroleum Institute (API) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2011).
ANSI/API Specification RP 2GEO. Geotechnical
and Foundation Design Considerations for Offshore Structures. Washington, DC: API.
Bogard D and Matlock H. (1980). Simplified calculation of p-y curves for laterally loaded piles in
sand. Unpublished Report. Houston: The Earth
Technology Corporation, Inc.
Clayton CRI. (2011). Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Gotechnique 61: 537.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV). (2004). DNV-OS-J101
Offshore standard: Design of offshore wind turbine structures. Hellerup, Denmark: DNV.
Drnevich VP and Richart Jr FE. (1970). Dynamic
prestraining of dry sand. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Div 96: 453467.
Goddard JD. (1990). Nonlinear elasticity and
pressure-dependent wave speeds in granular
media. Proc R Soc London 430:105131.
Hardin BO and Black LB. (1968). Vibration
modulus of normally consolidated clay. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div 94: 353
369.
Hardin BO and Richart Jr FE. (1963). Elastic wave
velocities in granular soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and foundations Div 89: 3365.
Hertz H. (1881). ber die Berhrung fester
elastischer Krper. Journal fr reine und
angewandte Mathematik 92: 156171.
Hryciw RD and Thomann TG. (1993). Stresshistory-based model for of Cohesionless soils.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119: 1073
1093.
Ishibashi I and Zhang X. (1993). Unified dynamic
shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay.
Soils and Foundations 33: 182191.
Kagawa T and Kraft LM. (1980). Lateral loaddeflection relationships of piles subjected to dynamic loadings. Soils and Foundations 20: 2040.
Khouri NQ. (1984). Dynamic properties of soil,
MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Syracuse University.
Matlock H. (1970). Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. OTC 1204. Proc.
Offshore Tech Conf, Houston, USA.
Meyer BJ and Reese LC. (1979). Analysis of single
piles under lateral loading. Research report No.
244-1. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas.
ONeill MW and Murchison JM. (1983). An evaluation of p-y relationships in sands. Research Rep.
No. GT-DF02-83. Houston: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Houston.
Parker Jr F and Reese LC. (1970). Experimental and
analytical studies of behaviour of single piles in
sand under lateral and axial loading. Research Re472