Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Suction Bucket Pile–Soil–Structure Interactions of
Offshore Wind Turbine Jacket Foundations Using
Coupled Dynamic Analysis
Pasin Plodpradit 1 , Osoon Kwon 2 , Van Nguyen Dinh 3, * , Jimmy Murphy 3 and Ki-Du Kim 1
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea;
P_tuay@hotmail.com (P.P.); kimkd@konkuk.ac.kr (K.-D.K.)
2 Director of Coastal and Ocean Engineering Division, Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology,
Busan 49111, Korea; oskwon@kiost.ac.kr
3 MaREI Centre, ERI Beaufort Building and School of Engineering, University College Cork, P43C573 Cork,
Ireland; jimmy.murphy@ucc.ie
* Correspondence: nguyen.dinh@ucc.ie or nguyendhhh@yahoo.com




Received: 30 April 2020; Accepted: 6 June 2020; Published: 8 June 2020


Abstract: This paper presents a procedure for the coupled dynamic analysis of offshore wind
turbine–jacket foundation-suction bucket piles and compares the American Petroleum Institute (API)
standard method and Jeanjean’s methods used to model the piles. Nonlinear springs were used to
represent soil lateral, axial, and tip resistances through the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves obtained by
either API’s or Jeanjean’s methods. Rotational springs with a stiffness equated to the tangent or secant
modulus characterized soil resistance to acentric loads. The procedure was implemented in X-SEA
program. Analyses of a laterally loaded single pile in a soft clay soil performed in both the X-SEA and
Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) programs showed good agreements. The behaviors
of a five MW offshore wind turbine system in South Korea were examined by considering waves,
current, wind effects, and marine growth. In a free vibration analysis done with soil stiffness through
the API method, the piles were found to bend in their first mode and to twist in the second and third
modes, whereas the first three modes using Jeanjean’s method were all found to twist. The natural
frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were higher than those from the API method. In a forced
vibration analysis, the system responses were significantly influenced by soil spring stiffness type.
The procedure was found to be computationally expensive due to spring nonlinearities introduced.

Keywords: offshore wind turbine; jacket foundation; coupled analysis; soil–pile–structure interaction;
suction bucket; finite element model (FEM)

1. Introduction
Renewable energy is becoming increasingly necessary in many countries where wind is one of
most available renewable sources. There are higher potential, steadier, and less-constraining sources
of wind energy in offshore locations compared to the onshore ones. In order to ensure the feasibility,
viability, safety, and serviceability of an offshore wind farm, an engineer needs to select proper
foundations for wind turbines and to develop accurate and computationally feasible models at the
design stage. The selection should be based on water depth, seabed conditions, installation equipment,
and supply chains. There are three common types of offshore wind foundations, as shown in Figure 1.
The monopile is one of simple and most widely applied foundation types [1], and it is suitable to water
depth of 20–40 m [2,3]. Tripod foundations, which have an excellent stability and overall stiffness
when compared with the monopiles, are utilized in deeper waters [4]. However, the tripod concept is

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416; doi:10.3390/jmse8060416 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 26
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 2 of 24

and overall stiffness when compared with the monopiles, are utilized in deeper waters [4]. However,
the tripod
less concept
preferable is less
in terms ofpreferable
scour, shipincollision,
terms ofcomplexity
scour, ship ofcollision, complexity
joints, deflection at of
thejoints,
towerdeflection
top, and
at the tower
overall weight top, andcompared
when overall weight
to thewhen
jacketcompared
concept [5].to the jacket concept [5].
AA jacket
jacket foundation
foundation consists
consists of
ofthree
threeororfour
fourlegs.
legs.The
Thefour-legged
four-legged jacket, which
jacket, which is supported
is supported by
main
by piles,
main is particularly
piles, is particularly suitable for the
suitable for offshore
the offshorewindwind
industry [6]. The
industry [6]. benefits of using
The benefits jacket
of using
foundations
jacket foundationsare itsarelower impact
its lower of environmental
impact of environmental loads,
loads,higher
higherlevellevelofofstiffness,
stiffness, lower soil
lower soil
dependency, and suitability for installations at sites with poor soil, deep
dependency, and suitability for installations at sites with poor soil, deep water, or high waves. water, or high waves.
Compared to
Compared to monopiles
monopiles and and tripods,
tripods, jacket
jacket foundations
foundations are are more
more suitable
suitable to to changing
changing waterwater depths.
depths.
However, a steel jacket foundation is more complex than other foundations
However, a steel jacket foundation is more complex than other foundations and is therefore more and is therefore more
costly [7]. At the design stage, understanding the behavior of offshore jacket
costly [7]. At the design stage, understanding the behavior of offshore jacket foundations and their foundations and their
pile supports
pile supports underunder dynamic
dynamic loading
loading andandpractical
practicalenvironment
environmentand andsoilsoilconditions
conditions would
would assist in
assist
lowering their costs while ensuring safety. Nevertheless, very few studies
in lowering their costs while ensuring safety. Nevertheless, very few studies have investigated the have investigated the
dynamicbehavior
dynamic behaviorofofoffshore
offshore windwind turbine–jacket
turbine–jacket foundation
foundation coupled
coupled systems systems [8,9] particularly
[8,9] particularly those
those supported
supported by suction
by suction bucketbucket
piles. piles.

(a) Monopile (B) Tripod (C) Jacket

Figure 1. Three common types of offshore wind turbine foundations.

Figure 1. Three common types of offshore wind turbine foundations.
A suction bucket is open at the bottom and completely sealed at the top, like an upturned bucket.
A suction bucket
It is penetrated into theis open
seabed at the
to abottom
certainanddepthcompletely
under its sealed
own at the top,
weight, likethe
with an upturned
outlet valves bucket.
on
It is penetrated into the seabed to a certain depth under its own weight, with the outlet valves on the
the top open to allow water inside the caisson escape. Suction is processed by pumping out encased
top open
water withto allallow wateroutlet
the closed inside the caisson
valves, drivingescape. Suction
the suction caissonis processed
to penetrate bythepumping
designedout encased
embedded
water with all the closed outlet valves, driving the suction caisson to penetrate the designed
depth [10,11]. An advantage is that the buckets do not require heavy equipment for installation
embedded
because depth pile
the driven [10,11]. An advantage
foundations’ is thatcan
installations thebebuckets
completed do faster
not require
than thoseheavy equipment
of driven for
piles [12].
installation
Latini because
and Zania [13] the driven pile
investigated thefoundations’ installations
dynamic responses can be
of suction completed
caissons, and thefaster
skirtthan those
length wasof
driven piles [12]. Latini and Zania [13] investigated the dynamic responses of suction caissons, and
found to be a significant parameter in determining their behavior. The results from the model tests
the skirt
and length was found
field installations to becaissons
of suction a significant parameter
have proven thatin thedetermining
installation their
underbehavior.
suction isThe results
extremely
from thein
effective model
fine-ortests and field installations
medium-sized of suction
sands, primarily duecaissons have proven
to the reduction that the installation
in resistance that resultsunderfrom
suction is extremely effective in fine-or medium-sized sands, primarily due to the reduction in
seepage. In addition, the dynamic stiffness coefficients of suction caissons were found to increase when
resistance
the that results
skirt length from seepage.
was increased. In addition,
Consequently, the dynamic
a coupled dynamic stiffness coefficients
analysis of suction
of offshore caissons
wind turbines
were found to increase when the skirt length was increased. Consequently, a coupled dynamic
that considers soil–structure interactions is necessary for a rational structural design [14].
analysis of offshore
In recent studieswind turbines
of offshore windthatturbine
considers soil–structure
jacket foundations,interactions is necessary
the turbine responses were forsimulated
a rational
structural
by coupleddesign
dynamic [14].
analysis using Fatigue, Aerodynamic, Structures and Turbulence (FAST), which
In recent studies
was developed of offshore
by the National wind turbine
Renewable Energy jacket foundations,
Laboratory (NREL). theFAST
turbinejoinsresponses
aerodynamic,were
simulated by coupled
hydrodynamic, dynamic
and structural analysis
modules and using Fatigue,
is able to solve Aerodynamic,
land or offshore Structures
fixed-bottomand Turbulence
or floating
(FAST), which
structures quicklywas developed
[15]. In order by the National
to obtain accurate Renewable
results forEnergy Laboratory
a sub-structure, the(NREL). FAST joins
loads simulated by
aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and structural modules and is able to solve land or offshore fixed-
waves, currents, and wind are applied into decoupled and coupled models [16] that pass displacement
bottom
and or floating
velocity structures
information to the quickly
aerodynamic[15]. In order and
module to obtain
returnaccurate
the loadsresults
at eachfor a sub-structure,
time step. Those loads the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 3 of 24

pass through the layer of soft, poorly consolidated marine clays and then into stiffer clay or sand
strata [17,18]. The interactions among environmental load conditions, the structure of the pile, and
the soil around the pile constitute complex vibrations in the system. Wei et al. [8] investigated
soil–structure interaction effects on the responses of an offshore wind turbine with a jacket-type
foundation. Two jacket models using different configurations of braces were used to compare the loads
and responses that resulting from coupled dynamic analyses [19].
In the literature, there have been several methods for analyzing pile–soil–structure interactions
(PSSIs). One of the most popular methods is the transfer of soil strata properties to spring stiffness.
Matlock [20] presented a method for determining the lateral load displacement curve (P–Y) in soft
clay from static and cyclic loads. The American Petroleum Institute (API) [21] recommends methods
for determining the pile capacity for lateral and axial end bearing loads in either clay or sandy soils
in which all the information on lateral and axial loads at specific locations with offshore data are
from laboratory soil sample data tests. Thus they are called the P–Y, axial load displacement (T–Z),
and tip load (Q–Z) data. However, because these methods were formulated using results obtained
from experiments on piles with small diameters, they have a limited ability to predict the behavior of
larger-scale piles such as suction buckets [22,23].
In this paper, the theoretical background of the coupled dynamic analysis of turbine and support
structures implemented and validated in the previous studies [6,24,25] are improved by including PSSIs
and suction bucket pile models. Soil lateral, axial, and tip resistances are included by considering the
P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves of soil behavior. Coupled dynamic analyses of a turbine–tower–foundation
system including PSSIs were performed by using the concept of exchanging of motion and force
components between the X-SEA and FAST programs at the interface nodes. Furthermore, parametric
studies of suction bucket piles supporting an offshore wind turbine jacket foundation at a specific site
in Korea were conducted in which nonlinear translational springs represent soil lateral, axial, and tip
resistances, and rotational springs characterize soil resistance to acentric loads in suction bucket piles.

2. Coupled Analysis of Turbine and Support Structure

X-SEA finite element analysis software was developed for the design and analysis of onshore and
offshore wind turbine platforms. The current version of X-SEA was developed at Konkuk University,
Seoul, Korea [24]. The program has an extensive range of uncoupled and coupled analyses between
the turbine and sub-structure using the FAST v8 program [15]. In each coupled n . o analysis, the eighteen
n .. o
components of motions represented by the displacement {Ut }, velocity Ut , and acceleration Ut
vectors are input into the X-SEA program. Simultaneously, X-SEA returns the reaction force vector
(Ft (t)) at the interface position every analysis time t, as depicted in Figure 2. This “coupling” concept
implemented and validated in the study [25] is expressed by:
n .. o n. o 
[Mt ] Ut + [Ct ] Ut + [Kt ]{Ut } = Ft (t) (1)

where Mt ,Ct , and Kt are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively, of the coupled system
at the time t.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 4 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26

{Ft (t )}
Interface position

{U } ,{U } ,{U }

t t t

Figure 2. The
Figure 2. The concept
concept of
of coupled
coupled analysis
analysis through
through the
the interface.
interface.
3. Nonlinear Soil Springs
3. Nonlinear Soil Springs
The API has developed a method for determining the pile capacity for lateral and axial bearing
The API has developed a method for determining the pile capacity for lateral and axial bearing
loads in either clay or sandy soils. All the information on pile load tests was derived in the laboratory
loads in either clay or sandy soils. All the information on pile load tests was derived in the laboratory
from soil sample data. These datasets describe the lateral load deflection (P–Y), axial load displacement
from soil sample data. These datasets describe the lateral load deflection (P–Y), axial load
(T–Z), and tip load (Q–Z) at specific offshore sites [21]. The pile length is required to achieve tension
displacement (T–Z), and tip load (Q–Z) at specific offshore sites [21]. The pile length is required to
(pullout) and compression capacities necessary to support the offshore wind turbine foundation.
achieve tension (pullout) and compression capacities necessary to support the offshore wind turbine
The soil around the pile must resist lateral and axial bearing loads, which correspond to skin friction
foundation. The soil around the pile must resist lateral and axial bearing loads, which correspond to
and end bearing capacity, respectively. These should not exceed a certain limit under similar conditions
skin friction and end bearing capacity, respectively. These should not exceed a certain limit under
with the same pile diameter and equipment used in the design.
similar conditions with the same pile diameter and equipment used in the design.
3.1. Pile Lateral Loads
3.1. Pile Lateral Loads
Pile foundations should be designed to sustain lateral loads, whether static or dynamic. A proper
Pileof
analysis foundations
lateral loadsshould be designed
in cohesive to sustain lateral
or cohesionless soils loads,
shouldwhether
use P–Ystatic
data,orwhich
dynamic. A proper
are typically
analysis of lateral loads in cohesive or cohesionless soils should use P–Y data,
provided by geotechnical engineers. P–Y data describe the nonlinear relationship between lateral which are typically
soil
provided by geotechnical engineers. P–Y data describe the nonlinear relationship between
resistance and the depth of the piles [20]. For each layer of the soil along a pile depth, the P–Y data lateral soil
resistance
show and therelationship
a nonlinear depth of the piles [20].
between For each
the lateral layer
pile of the soiland
displacement along a pile
lateral depth,
soil the P–Y
resistance per data
unit
length. For static lateral loads, the ultimate unit lateral bearing capacity of soft clay has been foundper
show a nonlinear relationship between the lateral pile displacement and lateral soil resistance to
unit between
vary length. For8cs static
and 12clateral
s , loads,
where cs isthe
the ultimate
undrained unit lateral
shear bearing
strength. In capacity
the of
absence soft
of clay
more has been
definitive
found tothe
criteria, vary betweenrelationship
following 8c s and 12ciss , where c s is the undrained shear strength. In the absence of more
recommended by the API for soft clay:
definitive criteria, the following relationship is recommended by the API for soft clay:
P y 13 1
P = 0.5( y)
Pu = 0.5(yc ) 3
(2)
(2)
Pu yc
where P is the actual lateral resistance, Pu is the ultimate resistance, y is the actual lateral deflection,
where
and theissoil
yc isP thecoefficient
actual lateral resistance,
in terms is the ultimate
of the pilePudiameter. In a moreresistance, is the actual
y Jeanjean
recent study, lateral
[26] showed
that in conventional methods for assessing the lateral performance of conductors using the P–Y curves
deflection, and y is the soil coefficient in terms of the pile diameter. In a more recent study,
resulting from the cAPI method, the soil springs might be too conservatively soft. That leads to the
Jeanjean [26]
prediction showed
of larger that
cyclic in displacements
lateral conventional methods for stresses
and bending assessing
forthe lateral
a given loadperformance
range than the of
conductors
P–Y using thefrom
curves obtained P–Ycentrifuge
curves resulting
tests andfrom
finitethe API method,
element analysis. the
Thesoil springs
latter might as
is expressed be[26]:
too
conservatively soft. That leads to the prediction of larger cyclic lateral displacements and bending
stresses for a given load range than the P–Y curves obtained from centrifuge tests and finite element
analysis. The latter is expressed as [26]:
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 26

P  G y 
= tanh  max ( )0.5  (3)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416
Pu 100.Su D  5 of 24

where Gmax is the shear modulus of the soil, Su is the undrained shear strength, y is the lateral
" #
P
displacement, and D is the pile diameter. y 0.5
Gmaxlateral
The actual
= tanh ( ) load and ultimate lateral load relations (3)
Pushear strain
can be obtained in terms of cumulative ( ξ u) asD[26]:
100.S

( −ξ the
where Gmax is the shear modulus of the P=u 12 −S4ueis
soil, d / D ) undrained shear strength, y is the lateral
DSu (4)
displacement, and D is the pile diameter. The actual lateral load and ultimate lateral load relations can
bewhere
obtained in terms of cumulative shear strain (ξ) as [26]:
S
 Pu = 12 − S4eu 0
(−ξd/D)
DSu u 0 < 6 (4)
0.25 + 0.05 for d su D
ξ = d su D (5)
where for SSu 0

 0.05 dsuu0D f or dsuu0D <>66
0.55 S
 0.25 +
ξ=

dSu0
su D (5)
 0.55 f or dsu D >6
The above equations were applied to soft clay. The ultimate resistance ( P ) for sand has been
The above equations were applied to soft clay. The ultimate resistance (P u ) for sand has been
u
found
found toto varywith
vary withthe
thedepth
depth(H) ) of
( Hof thethe soil
soil layer,asasdescribed
layer, describedby
by[26]:
[26]:
(( m H + m D )γ H
= (m1 H + m22 D)γH
Pu u=  1
P (6) (6)
 m γH
m11DDγH

Equation(5)
Equation (5)gives
givesthe
theminimum
minimum value
value ofof the
the ultimate
ultimate resistance,
resistance,where
wherem m22 ,, and
m11,,m and m arethe
m33 are
the
soil soil coefficients
coefficients determined
determined fromfrom the friction
the friction angleangle γ is γtheissoil
andand thedensity.
soil density.

3.2. Pile Axial Loads and Tip Loads

3.2. Pile Axial Loads and Tip Loads
The axial
The resistance
axial resistanceof the soil soil
of the provides axialaxial
provides adhesion alongalong
adhesion the side
theofside
the pile.
of theSeveral empirical
pile. Several
relations andrelations
empirical theoriesandare available foravailable
theories are producing forcurves for axial
producing loadfor
curves transfers andtransfers
axial load pile displacements,
and pile
or displacements,
T–Z curves. Lymonor T–Z curves. Lymon and Michael [27] developed a load deflection relationship
and Michael [27] developed a load deflection relationship from fromtest
a pile load
in arepresentative
pile load test in representative
soil profiles based soilonprofiles basedsoil
laboratory on tests.
laboratory soil tests. The recommended
The recommended curves in
curves are displayed
are displayed
Figure in Figure
3 for cohesive 3 for
soil. cohesivethe
Similarly, soil. Similarly, the
relationship relationship
between between
mobilized endmobilized end bearingand
bearing resistance
resistance
axial and axial
top deflection is top deflection
described is described
using a Q–Z curveusing a Q–Z
[28], curve [28],
as shown as shown
in Figure 4. in Figure 4.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

Figure 3. Typical axial pile load transfer–displacement (T–Z) curve for cohesive soil.
Figure 3. Typical axial pile load transfer–displacement (T–Z) curve for cohesive soil.

Figure 4. Typical
Figure tip load
4. Typical transfer–displacement
tip load (Q–Z)
transfer–displacement curve.
(Q–Z) curve.

3.3. Spring Stiffness

Structural engineering normally employs a constant spring stiffness for soil, which results in a
linear force–displacement relation. However, as the nature of soil behavior is similar to plastic, this
relation is not linear. Therefore, the interactions between the pile and the soil were modeled as a
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 6 of 24

Figure 4. Typical tip load transfer–displacement (Q–Z) curve.

3.3. Spring Stiffness
3.3. Spring Stiffness
Structural engineering normally employs a constant spring stiffness for soil, which results in a
Structural engineering normally employs a constant spring stiffness for soil, which results in a
linear force–displacement relation. However, as the nature of soil behavior is similar to plastic, this
linear force–displacement relation. However, as the nature of soil behavior is similar to plastic, this
relation is not linear. Therefore, the interactions between the pile and the soil were modeled as a
relation is not linear. Therefore, the interactions between the pile and the soil were modeled as a
system of nonlinear
system springs,
of nonlinear asas
springs, illustrated
illustratedinin Figure
Figure 5.5. The
Theinformation
information of P–Y,
of P–Y, T–Z, T–Z,
andand
Q–ZQ–Zwas was
used used
in theinpresent
the present study to predict the stiffness of these nonlinear elastic springs applied along the the
study to predict the stiffness of these nonlinear elastic springs applied along
pile length. However,
pile length. However,in the model
in the model ofofthe
thesoil
soilsurrounding
surrounding the thepile
pilewith
with several
several translational
translational springs,
springs,
the whole system
the whole is subject
system to to
is subject moments
momentsand andacentric forces(see
acentric forces (seeFigure
Figure6).6). Consequently,
Consequently, its accuracy
its accuracy
is notissufficient
not sufficient
when when using
using thethe API
API model[21]
model [21]or
or Jeanjean’s
Jeanjean’s method
method[26]. In In
[26]. thisthis
study, additional
study, additional
rotational springs were therefore proposed to be included in the model, where
rotational springs were therefore proposed to be included in the model, where their rotational stiffness their rotational
stiffness wasby
was determined determined
equatingby toequating
tangent to ortangent
secant or secant modulus
modulus [29]. [29].

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR

Figure
Figure 5.PEER
5. SoilSoil REVIEW
idealizationmodel
idealization modelwith
with soil
soil translational
translationalnonlinear
nonlinearsprings.
springs. 7 of 26

Figure
Figure 6. 6.New
New soil
soil model
modelforfor
a suction bucketbucket
a suction pile with bothwith
pile translational and rotationaland
both translational nonlinear
rotational
springs.
nonlinear springs.

4. Pile–Soil
4. Pile–Soil Structure
Structure Interaction
Interaction
DamianiDamiani
and and Wendt
Wendt simulated
simulated the the dynamic
dynamic analysis
analysis of an
of an offshore
offshore wind
wind turbine
turbine onon a fixed-
a fixed-bottom
bottom foundation while accounting for the super-element of the foundation and the piles [30]. This
foundation while accounting for the super-element of the foundation and the piles [30]. This paper
paper considered two methods for predicting the responses of suction bucket pile systems that can
considered two methods for predicting the responses of suction bucket pile systems that can be used
be used in offshore wind turbine foundations. The pile–soil interaction (PSI) method is a simulated
in offshore
behaviorwind turbine
between the foundations. The
pile and soil. PSI pile–soil
analysis interaction
is highly (PSI)
essential for method is the
predicting a simulated
responses behavior
of a
between the pile and soil. PSI analysis is highly essential for predicting the responses
pile itself. However, this method does not consider the interactions between the pile and the of asuper-
pile itself.
structure at the time of analysis. The pile–soil–structure interaction (PSSI) method was designed for
solving the interactions between the soil, the pile, and the structure [5]. This can be introduced into a
global equation of motion,

[ M ]{U} + [C ]{U } + [ K ]{U } =

{F (t )} (7)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 7 of 24

However, this method does not consider the interactions between the pile and the super-structure
at the time of analysis. The pile–soil–structure interaction (PSSI) method was designed for solving
the interactions between the soil, the pile, and the structure [5]. This can be introduced into a global
equation of motion, n .. o n.o 
[M] U + [C] U + [K]{U} = F(t) (7)

where F(t) is the time-dependent force vector, [M] is the mass matrix describing the distribution of
mass along the structure,n[Co ] is the
n .. odamping matrix that assumes 2% of critical damping [16], [K] is
.
the stiffness matrix, and u and u are the first and second order derivatives of the displacement,
respectively.
The global matrices can then be formed from the corresponding matrices of the tower (denoted
by subscript ‘t’), the sub-structure (denoted by subscript ‘s’), and the pile (denoted by subscript ‘p’).
Furthermore, PSSIs can be assembled into the global matrices for determining the deflection along the
pile length, as presented in [6] and [25]. Thus, Equation (8) can be written as:
  ..    .   
 Ut   Ut 

 Mt    Ct
    Kt
  Ut 
   ..    .     

Ms  Us  +  Cs Us  +  Ks Us  = F(t) (8)
       
 

 .. 
  

 . 
  
 

Mp Cp Kp  Up 
   
Up Up
 
  


In reality, the movement of soil is difficult to predict, and figuring out a closed-form solution to
such a problem is extremely complicated. In this study, a numerical solution for soil movement was
therefore obtained by controlling the iterations and preventing the overshoot value for soil stiffness by
using the utilized value Ni :
Ki+1
Ni = (9)
Ki+1
until Ni converges closely to 1.0, at which, Ki+1 is the new stiffness at an iteration point and Ki is the
stiffness matrix at the previous iteration.

5. Wave Excitations and Hydrodynamics

5.1. Hydrodynamic Forces, Added Mass and Damping

The hydrodynamics of fixed offshore structures can be carried out by using hydrodynamic
modules in the X-SEA program. The hydrodynamic forces, added mass, and damping and incident
wave excitations are computed by using the Morison equation [25]. For a single element, the motion
equation in terms of mass (m), damping (c), and stiffness (k) that is limited by the assumption of small
dimension/wavelength ratio is:

.. . 1 ∂v
(m + m c)w + kw = Cd ρA|v|v + Cm ρ∆
e)w + (c + e (10)
2 ∂t
where ρ is a water density; Cd and Cm are drag and inertia coefficients, respectively; and v is the
velocity of the water particle acting on the structural node and normal to the structure [25]. The term A
is the cross-sectional area of the element, and ∆ denotes the volume of the displaced fluid. The terms
.. .
w, w, and w are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively, of the structure in its local
coordinate, which are normal to or in its longitudinal axis. When the motion of the structure is
considered, the inertia force is reduced by a factor proportional to the structural acceleration, and the
drag force is reduced by the relative velocity and given in the form [25]:
e = ρ(Cm − 1)∆
m
(11)
c = Cd ρAv
e
in which v is the time-dependent cylinder velocity [25]. The terms in Equation (1) obtained in structure
local coordinates are then transformed to the global coordinates. When the diameter (D) of the cross
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 8 of 24

section in the structure is considerably larger than the wavelength (L), i.e., D/L ≥ 0.2, the Morison
theory is considered to be inapplicable and a diffraction theory implemented in X-SEA [31] can
be considered.

5.2. Random Waves

The Pierson–Moskowitz (P–M) wave spectrum is an empirical relationship that defines the
distribution of energy over frequencies within the ocean, and it has been found to fit ocean surface
elevation measurements. It assumes that if the wind blows steadily for a long time over a large area,
then the waves will eventually reach a point of equilibrium with the wind [32]. The international
electrotechnical commission (IEC) announced that this spectrum model is best for using at specific site
areas [33]. The parameters required for determining a wave spectrum are the significant wave height
(Hs ) and the peak period (Tp ). The P–M spectrum can be written as:
−4 )
S(ωn ) = 0.04974Hs2 Tp c−5 e(−1.25c (12)
ωn Tp
where c = 2π . Based on the nonlinearity of wave characteristics, the statistical distribution of wave
surface elevation (η) can be described by using the random phase angle (εn ), wave angular velocity
(ωn ), and wave number (kn ) [34] as:

η = ΣAn sin(ωn t − kn x + εn ) (13)

n

in which An is a wave amplitude corresponding to each set of wave height, frequency, and phase angle.
The wave amplitude can be expressed by using the P–M spectrum in Equation (11) in terms of the
angular velocity interval (∆ω) as: p
An = 2Sn ∆ω (14)

For each state of wave surface elevation, the associated horizontal velocity and acceleration of
the water particles are determined from the basic wave theory [35]. Assuming an one-dimension sea
where all waves are running in the same direction, the horizontal water velocity (u) and acceleration (a)
in the direction of wave propagation are given at an elevation (z) by the equations:

cosh(k z)
u = ΣAn ωn sinh(k nd) cos(kn x − ωn t + εn )
n n
(15)
cosh(k z)
a = Σ − An ω2n sinh(k nd) sin(kn x − ωn t + εn )
n n

6. Numerical Study

6.1. Verification of Soil–Pile Interactions

A single pile that had been driven 42.7 m into a single soft clay layer was considered. A numerical
model of this case using 11 nodes and 10 elements per layer is shown with the soil properties in
Figure 7. The simulation of the pile foundation involved a lateral load of 445 kN. The nonlinear
behavior for the pile–soil interactions was based on the geotechnical P–Y data from the API [21] and
Jeanjean methods [26]. This can be considered as loads corresponding to the lateral deflection along
the pile. A commercial package called “Structural Analysis Computer System” (SACS) [36] was used
to perform the analysis.
The loads corresponding to the P–Y deflection curve were simulated during the iterative process
of the X-SEA program. This was used to obtain soil stiffness and to input additional stiffness into the
structure. The resulting loads corresponding to the deflection are plotted in Figure 8, which indicates
that the maximum lateral resistance using Jeanjean’s data was 1.33 times more than that found when
using the API data. Moreover, Figure 9 shows that the lateral deflections resulting from the X-SEA and
SACS programs by using the API method were in good agreement. The deflections resulting from
both programs when using the Jeanjean method also agreed well with each other, as seen in Figure 9.
 6. Numerical Study

6.1. Verification of Soil–Pile Interactions

A single pile that had been driven 42.7 m into a single soft clay layer was considered. A
numerical model of this case using 11 nodes and 10 elements per layer is shown with the soil
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 9 of 24
properties in Figure 7. The simulation of the pile foundation involved a lateral load of 445 kN. The
nonlinear behavior for the pile–soil interactions was based on the geotechnical P–Y data from the API
These[21] and Jeanjean
agreements methodsthe
validated [26].implementation
This can be considered
of theasAPI
loads corresponding
and to the lateral
Jeanjean methods and deflection
the nonlinear
along the pile. A commercial package called “Structural Analysis Computer System” (SACS) [36] was
springs in X-SEA, which were used for further analyses in this paper.
used to perform the analysis.

Lateral Force : 445 kN

Pile Length : 42.7 m
------ Clay ------
Unit Weight : 1490 kg/m3
Undrained Shear Strength : 48 kPa
Empirical Parameter J : 0.25
Reference Strain for Clay : 0.02
42.7 m

J.J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2020,
2020, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10
10 of
of 26
26

and
and SACS
SACS programs
programs byby using
using the
the API
API method
method were
were inin good
good agreement.
agreement. The The deflections
deflections resulting
resulting
from
from both
both programs
programs when
when using
using the
the Jeanjean
Jeanjean method
method also
m, agreed
also
OD : 0.9144 tagreed well
: 0.0254 mwell with
with each
each other,
other, as
as seen
seen in
in
Figure
Figure 9.
9. These
These agreements
agreements validated
validated the
the implementation
implementation of of the
the API
API and
and Jeanjean
Jeanjean methods
methods and
and the
the
nonlinear
nonlinear springs
springs Figure
in
in
Figure 7. which
X-SEA,
X-SEA, Model
whichof
7. Model ofaasingle
were
were single
used pilefurther
used for
for
pile with
withsingle
further analyses
analyses
single stratum
in soil
in this
this
stratum layer.
paper.
paper.
soil layer.

The loads corresponding to the P–Y deflection curve were simulated during the iterative process
of the X-SEA program. This was used to obtain soil stiffness and to input additional stiffness into the
structure. The resulting loads corresponding to the deflection are plotted in Figure 8, which indicates
that the maximum lateral resistance using Jeanjean’s data was 1.33 times more than that found when
using the API data. Moreover, Figure 9 shows that the lateral deflections resulting from the X-SEA

8. Loads
FigureFigure
Figure 8. corresponding
8. Loads
Loads corresponding tothe
corresponding to thedeflection
the deflection
deflection (P–Y(P–Y
(P–Y curve).
curve).
curve).

Figure
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Lateral
9. Lateral deflection
deflection along
deflection
Lateral alongthe
along pile
the
the length.
pilepile length.
length.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 10 of 24

6.2. Coupled Dynamic Analysis of Turbine and Support Structure with Pile–Soil–Structure Interaction (PSSI)
In this example, a 5 MW offshore wind turbine [37] jacket foundation system [38] was simulated.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26
The significant wave height (Hs ) was 3.3 m, and the wave period (Tp ) was 8.0 s. A constant current
velocity of6.2.
1.2Coupled
m/s and mean
Dynamic windofspeed
Analysis Turbineof and13.156
Supportm/s at the
Structure Buan
with country siteInteraction
Pile–Soil–Structure in South Korea were
considered. (PSSI)
The turbulent wind simulator (TurbSim) program [39] was used to generate a stochastic
of wind velocity In this example,
model baseda 5 MWonoffshore
the IEC wind turbine [37]
standard jacket
[33], as foundation
illustrated system [38] was10.
in Figure simulated.
The simulation
The significant wave height (H s ) was 3.3 m, and the wave period (T p
was carried out using the wind velocity in time domain that is required in FAST v8, as illustrated in ) was 8.0 s. A constant current
Figure 10. velocity
A marine of 1.2 m/s and mean wind speed of 13.156 m/s at the Buan country site 3in South Korea were
growth 0.1 m thick with a weight density of 1100 kg/m was used in this example
considered. The turbulent wind simulator (TurbSim) program [39] was used to generate a stochastic
to represent the actual
of wind velocity size
modelandbased
weight
on the ofIEC
thestandard
jacket structure along water
[33], as illustrated in Figuredepth.
10. The The foundation was
simulation
connected was
withcarried out using tube
four circular the wind velocity
suction in time
piles, domain
each 8 m in that is required
diameter in FAST
and 0.05 m v8,thick,
as illustrated in
and embedded in
Figure
a single layer soil10.atAamarine
depthgrowthof 18 m.0.1 m Athick
framewith a weightmodel
element density ofwas1100 kg/m3 was[40]
validated usedand in this example
used to investigate
to represent the actual size and weight of the jacket structure along water depth. The foundation was
the behavior of the suction bucket pile through the pile length without considering the super-element,
connected with four circular tube suction piles, each 8 m in diameter and 0.05 m thick, and embedded
as illustrated
in a in Figure
single layer11.
soil The piles-supported
at a depth of 18 m. A frame foundation was was
element model modeled,
validated and[40]theandeffects
used toof the soil
investigate
behavior using the API the behavior
and Jeanjean of the suction
methods bucket
were pile through thethis
compared; pileformed
length without considering
an approach for the
determining
super-element, as illustrated in Figure 11. The piles-supported foundation
the pile capacity for lateral loads in soft clay. The horizontal stiffness and end bearing in either soil were was modeled, and the
effects of the soil behavior using the API and Jeanjean methods were compared; this formed an
used in accordance with API recommendations. A coupled dynamic analysis module was connected to
approach for determining the pile capacity for lateral loads in soft clay. The horizontal stiffness and
the PSSI program, which
end bearing in either considered the in
soil were used interactions
accordance withamong the pile, soil, and
API recommendations. A foundation
coupled dynamic to determine
the behavioranalysis
of the module
whole wassystem
connectedas to the PSSI program,
a function of time. which
Theconsidered
analysis the interactions
period among theas the first
was selected
200 s, whichpile, soil, and foundation
included both transient to determine the behavior
and steady of the whole
responses. The system
geometricas a function
and materialof time. The
properties of
analysis period was selected as the first 200 s, which included both transient and steady responses.
the jacket foundation are given in Table 1. Seismic excitations [41] were not accounted for, but they
The geometric and material properties of the jacket foundation are given in Table 1. Seismic
should be excitations
considered [41]in future
were analysisfor,
not accounted andbutdesign.
they should be considered in future analysis and design.

Figure
Figure 10.10.
A Awind
wind velocity
velocity simulation.
simulation.

Table 1. Material and geometric properties of the jacket structure.

Geometric Properties
Parameter Value Unit
Jacket leg diameter 1.053 m
Jacket leg thickness 0.019 m
Diagonal member diameter 0.508 m
Diagonal member thickness 0.013 m
Transition piece diameter 5.500 m
Transition piece thickness 0.700 m
Material Properties
Parameter Value Unit
Steel weight density 7850 kg/m3
Elastic of modulus 2.1 × 1011 N/m2
Shear modulus 8.08 × 1010 N/m2
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 11 of 24

Figure 11. Model of jacket foundation supported by suction bucket piles and soil properties for
pile–soil–structure interaction analysis.

The asymmetrical loads caused the structure to resonate due to the environmental loads and the
fact that the natural frequencies of the system were close to those of the turbine blades. In order to
avoid resonance, a free vibration analysis of the suction pile foundation with fixed boundary conditions
was first carried out using the X-SEA program. The natural frequencies—those related to the type
of boundary condition—were compared, and the three mode shapes were modeled, as shown in
Figure 12. A scale factor of 10–15 was used to amplify the mode shapes of the jacket foundation.
The first mode shape was a bending mode of the whole structure with a 1.537 Hz natural frequency, as
illustrated in Figure 12a, where the suction pile with fixed boundary condition is oscillating globally in
the x-direction. The second mode shape was the same as the first mode but oscillating in y-direction,
as illustrated in Figure 12b. The third mode shape was a torsional mode about the z-axis with the
natural frequency of 1.451 Hz, where twisting was occurring from the free end to the fixed boundary,
as illustrated in Figure 12c.
In the second free vibration analysis, the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z
curves were applied along the pile length and modelled by using both the API and Jeanjean methods.
The first mode shape of the suction piles with the API method was the movement in x-direction with
a natural frequency of 1.087 Hz, as illustrated in Figure 13a. In the second and third modes, the
natural frequencies were 1.213 and 1.357 Hz, respectively. The twisting occurred at the suction bucket
piles and caused the different shape size of the pile. Meanwhile, the first to the third mode shapes
using the Jeanjean method were all twisting, as shown in Figure 14a–c. By comparing the natural
frequencies resulting from soil stiffness models by using the API and Jeanjean methods, it could be
seen that natural frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were, respectively, 1.118, 1.115, and
1.005 higher than those from the API method for the first to the third modes. It was obvious that the
pile with fixed boundary conditions was stiffer than the spring model, and it had less inertia. Hence,
the natural frequencies corresponding to the fixed boundary condition were higher than those of the
spring models determined from the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 12 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 26
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3
f = 1.537 Hz f =1.537 Hz f =1.451 Hz
Figure 12. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with fixed boundary conditions. (a) 1st mode
shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.

In the second free vibration analysis, the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and Q–
Z curves were applied along the pile length and modelled by using both the API and Jeanjean
methods. The first mode shape of the suction piles with the API method was the movement in x-
direction with a natural frequency of 1.087 Hz, as illustrated in Figure 13a. In the second and third
modes, the natural frequencies were 1.213 and 1.357 Hz, respectively. The twisting occurred at the
suction bucket piles and caused the different shape size of the pile. Meanwhile, the first to the third
mode shapes using the Jeanjean method were all twisting, as shown in Figure 14a–c. By comparing
the natural frequencies resulting from soil stiffness models by using the API and Jeanjean methods,
it could be seen that natural frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were, respectively, 1.118,
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3
1.115, and 1.005 higher than those from the API method for the first to the third modes. It was obvious
f = 1.537 Hz f =1.537 Hz f =1.451 Hz
that the pile with fixed boundary conditions was stiffer than the spring model, and it had less inertia.
Hence,
Figure the
12. natural
Figure 12. Mode
Mode frequencies
shapes
shapes ofof corresponding
thejacket-suction
the to thepiles
jacket-suctionbucket
bucket fixedwith
piles boundary
withfixed condition
fixedboundary
boundary were higher
conditions. 1st than
(a) (a)
conditions. mode those
1st mode
ofshape;
theshape;
spring models
(b) (b)
2nd2 mode
nd determined
modeshape;
shape;(c)
(c)3rd from
3 mode
rd the P–Y,
modeshape.
shape. T–Z, and Q–Z curves.

In the second free vibration analysis, the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and Q–
Z curves were applied along the pile length and modelled by using both the API and Jeanjean
methods. The first mode shape of the suction piles with the API method was the movement in x-
direction with a natural frequency of 1.087 Hz, as illustrated in Figure 13a. In the second and third
modes, the natural frequencies were 1.213 and 1.357 Hz, respectively. The twisting occurred at the
suction bucket piles and caused the different shape size of the pile. Meanwhile, the first to the third
mode shapes using the Jeanjean method were all twisting, as shown in Figure 14a–c. By comparing
the natural frequencies resulting from soil stiffness models by using the API and Jeanjean methods,
it could be seen that natural frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were, respectively, 1.118,
1.115, and 1.005 higher than those from the API method for the first to the third modes. It was obvious
that the pile with fixed boundary conditions was stiffer than the spring model, and it had less inertia.
Hence, the natural frequencies corresponding to the fixed boundary condition were higher than those
of the spring models determined from the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves.
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3
f = 1.087 Hz. f =1.213 Hz f =1.357 Hz
FigureFigure 13. Mode
13. Mode shapes
shapes of of
thethejacket-suction
jacket-suction bucket
bucketpiles
pileswith
withsoilsoil
behavior using
behavior the American
using the American
Mar. Sci. Petroleum
J.Petroleum 2020, 8,Institute
Eng.Institute x (API) (API)
FOR PEER method.
REVIEW
method. (a)mode
(a) 1st 1st mode shape;
shape; (b)(b)
2nd2ndmode
modeshape;
shape; (c)
(c) 33rd
rd mode shape
mode shape 14 of 26

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

f = 1.087 Hz. f =1.213 Hz f =1.357 Hz
Figure 13. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with soil behavior using the American
Petroleum Institute (API) method. (a) 1st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3
f = 1.216 Hz f = 1.353 Hz f = 1.364 Hz
Figure
Figure 14. 14. Mode
Mode shapes
shapes ofofthe
thejacket-suction
jacket-suction bucket
bucket piles
pileswith
withsoil
soilbehavior
behaviorusing Jeanjean’s
using method
Jeanjean’s method
(a) 1st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.
(a) 1st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.

In the forced vibration analysis, random waves were simulated by using Equations (12)–(15); a
wave surface elevation profile is shown in Figure 15. The angular velocity interval ( ∆ω ) was
assumed to be at 0.01 rad/sec, and the time interval was 0.1 sec, which was sufficiently small
compared to the wave period and structural vibration periods. In order to validate the random wave
simulations, the fast Fourier transform (FFT) was used to transform time series to frequency domain
 (a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3
f = 1.216 Hz f = 1.353 Hz f = 1.364 Hz
Figure 14. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with soil behavior using Jeanjean’s method
J. Mar. (a)
Sci.1Eng.
st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.
2020, 8, 416 13 of 24

In the forced vibration analysis, random waves were simulated by using Equations (12)–(15); a
waveInsurface
the forced vibration
elevation analysis,
profile random
is shown waves 15.
in Figure wereThesimulated
angular by using interval
velocity Equations  ) was
( (12)–(15);
aassumed
wave surface elevation profile is shown in Figure 15. The angular velocity interval (∆ω)
to be at 0.01 rad/sec, and the time interval was 0.1 sec, which was sufficiently small was assumed
to be at 0.01torad/s,
compared and the
the wave timeand
period interval was 0.1
structural s, whichperiods.
vibration was sufficiently small
In order to compared
validate to the wave
the random wave
period and structural vibration periods. In order to validate the random wave simulations,
simulations, the fast Fourier transform (FFT) was used to transform time series to frequency domain the fast
Fourier transform (FFT) was used to transform time series to frequency domain [42], and
[42], and 10 realizations of wave surface elevation profiles were used. The averaged power spectrum 10 realizations
of wave of
density surface elevation
the wave profiles
elevation were used.
simulations was The averaged
in good power
agreement spectrum
with density spectrum,
the theoretical of the wave as
elevation simulations
shown in Figure 16. was in good agreement with the theoretical spectrum, as shown in Figure 16.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEERFigure

REVIEW 15. A wave surface elevation simulation. 15 of 26
Figure 15. A wave surface elevation simulation.

Figure 16. Power spectral density of surface elevation.

Figure 16. Power spectral density of surface elevation.
In the iterative process of the forced vibration analysis, the lateral and horizontal displacements
In the iterative
were received at theprocess
interfaceofand
the transferred
forced vibration analysis,
through the lateral
the spring and These
supports. horizontal
motiondisplacements
components
were received at the interface and transferred through the spring supports. These
were used to generate the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves and applied to calculate the stiffness of motion components
the springs.
were used to generate the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves and applied to calculate the
At the same time, six reaction components were fed back to the tower and turbine. The iteration stiffness of the
springs. At the same time, six reaction components were fed back to the tower and
continued until all of the components converged. In order to avoid diverging with asymmetrical loads,turbine. The
iteration continued until all of the components converged. In order to avoid diverging
the rotational stiffness was applied, whereas frame elements were used to model the jacket and the with
asymmetrical loads,
jacket foundation the rotational
resisted stiffness
for a moment. wasdid
This applied, whereasthe
not influence frame
P–Y,elements
T–Z, andwere
Q–Z used
curves toused
modelin
the jacket and the jacket
the API and Jeanjean methods.foundation resisted for a moment. This did not influence the P–Y, T–Z, and
Q–Z curves used intime
The resulting the histories
API and ofJeanjean methods.
the translation velocity (V), rotational velocity (V ), acceleration (A),
r
The resulting
rotational time(Ahistories
acceleration of the translation
r ), and rotational displacement (Ur ) (atVthe
velocity ), rotational
interface invelocity ( Vand
the x-, y-, r ), acceleration
z-directions
( A ), rotational acceleration ( Ar ), and rotational displacement ( U r ) at the interface in the x-, y-, and
z-directions in equation of motion, as described in Equation (8), are shown in Figures 17–21. The
averaged displacements, velocities, and accelerations in Table 2 show that the API method made the
foundation model more flexible than Jeanjean’s method.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 14 of 24

in equation of motion, as described in Equation (8), are shown in Figures 17–21. The averaged
displacements, velocities, and accelerations in Table 2 show that the API method made the foundation
model more flexible than Jeanjean’s method.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure
Figure 17.17.Velocity
Velocitycomponents
components at
at the
theinterface.
interface.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 15 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure
Figure 18. 18. Rotationalvelocity
Rotational velocitycomponents
components at
atthe
theinterface.
interface.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 16 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure
Figure 19.19.Acceleration
Acceleration components
components atatthe
theinterface.
interface.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 17 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 20. Rotational acceleration components at the interface.

Figure 20. Rotational acceleration components at the interface.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 18 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure
Figure 21.21. Rotationaldisplacement
Rotational displacement components
componentsatat
the interface.
the interface.

Comparing the displacement of the jacket foundation in Figure 22 shows that the API method
led to more flexible responses than Jeanjean’s method by an average factor of 1.062 in the x-direction.
As the lateral stiffness of a single point affected the horizontal stiffness of other points along the pile
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 19 of 24

depth, it caused different responses in the y- directions and z-directions by factors of 1.069 and 1.303,
respectively, as illustrated in Figures 23 and 24. The results in Figure 24 show high vertical responses at
starting up times. In order to compare the difference between two soil modelling methods, the average
percentage results are presented in Figure 25. The responses of the jacket foundation were seen to be
significantly influenced by the environmental loads, turbine responses, structural stiffness, and the
type of nonlinear three-dimensional soil spring stiffness.

J.J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Table 2. Eng.
Sci. Ratio of8,8,averaged
Eng. 2020,
2020, xx FOR
FOR PEER REVIEW
PEERmotion 21
21 of
of 26
REVIEW components resulting from the API and Jeanjean methods.26

Comparing
Comparing the the displacement
displacement of of the
the jacket
jacket foundation
foundation in in Figure
Figure 22
22 shows
shows that
that the
the API
API method
method
Factors
led
led to
to more
Motion
more flexible responses
responses than
Components
flexible than Jeanjean’s
Jeanjean’s method
method byby anan average
average factor
factor of
of 1.062
1.062 in
in the
the x-direction.
x-direction.
As
As the
the lateral
lateral stiffness
stiffness of
of aa single
single point
point affected the
the horizontal
x-Direction
affected stiffness
stiffness of
horizontaly-Direction of other
other points along
along the
z-Direction
points the pile
pile
depth,
depth, it caused different
it causeddisplacement
Rotational responses
different responses in the y- directions
(Ur ) in the y- directions
1.067 and z-directions
1.061 by factors of 1.069
and z-directions by factors of 1.069
1.343and
and 1.303,
1.303,
respectively, as
as illustrated
respectively,Velocity (V ) in
illustrated in Figures
Figures 2323 and
and 24.
24. The
The results
1.062 results in
in Figure
Figure 24
24 show
1.064 show high
high vertical
vertical
1.339responses
responses
at starting
at starting up times.
up times.
Rotational In order
In order
velocity to
(Vrto compare
) compare the the difference between
difference between1.067
1.073 two soil modelling
two soil modelling1.336 methods,
methods, thethe
average
average percentage
percentage
Acceleration results
(A)are
results are presented
presented in in Figure
1.069 25.
Figure 25. The
The responses1.072of
responses of the
the jacket
jacket foundation
1.327 were
foundation were
seen to
to be
be significantly
seenRotational significantly influenced(Ar )by
influenced
acceleration by the
the environmental
environmental
1.065 loads,
loads, turbine
1.069responses,
turbine responses, structural
1.333stiffness,
structural stiffness,
and
and the
the type
type ofof nonlinear
nonlinear three-dimensional
three-dimensional soil soil spring
spring stiffness.
stiffness.

Figure
Figure
Figure 22. 22.
22. Comparison
Comparison of the
Comparison of the
the displacements
ofdisplacements
displacementsinin the
the x-direction
inthe x-direction
x-direction of
of the
of jacket
thethe foundation
jacket
jacket resulting
foundation
foundation from
resulting
resulting from from
two
two methods
two methods methods of
of nonlinear
nonlinear
of nonlinear soil
soil stiffness
stiffness
soil stiffness models.
models.
models.

Figure
Figure 23.
23. Comparison
Comparison of the
the displacements
ofdisplacements in
displacementsin the
the y-direction
inthe y-direction of
of the jacket
thethe
jacket foundation
foundation resulting
resulting from
from
Figure 23. Comparison of the y-direction of jacket foundation resulting from
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 20 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 26
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 26

Figure 24. Comparison of the displacements in the z-direction of the jacket foundation resulting from
Figure 24. Comparison
Figure of the
24. Comparison of displacements
the displacementsininthe
the z-direction
z-direction ofof
thethe jacket
jacket foundation
foundation resulting
resulting from from
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.
two methods
two methods of nonlinear
of nonlinear soil stiffness
soil stiffness models.
models.

Figure
25.25. Averagedpercentage
Averaged percentage difference
differencebetween soil conventional methods.
FigureFigure 25. Averaged percentage difference between soil
between soil conventional
conventional methods.
methods.

During During
the the period
period in in whichthe
which the loads
loads were acting on on
the the
foundation, the structure should beshould be
During the period in which the loadswere
wereacting
acting on foundation,
the foundation, the structure
the structure should be
against and sustaining the loads. They were transferred through to the pile, corresponding to the end
against and sustaining
against the the
and sustaining loads.
loads.They
They were transferred
were transferred through
through to theto thecorresponding
pile, pile, corresponding
to the end to the
bearing and soil skin friction. These produced a distribution of deflection along the pile length. The
bearing
end bearing andand soilskin
soil skin friction.
friction. These
These produced
produceda distribution
a of deflection
distribution of along thealong
deflection pile length.
the The length.
pile
responses of the pile heads in the four piles resulting from the API method were more flexible than
responses of the pile heads in the four piles resulting from the API method were more flexible than
The responses of thefrom
those resulting pileJeanjean’s
heads inmethod
the four bypiles resulting
factors of 5.300, from
7.330, the APIand
7.0290, method
12.158 were
times, more flexible than
as shown
those resulting from Jeanjean’s method by factors of 5.300, 7.330, 7.0290, and 12.158 times, as shown
in Figure 26.
those resulting Eventually,
from Jeanjean’s the method
total computational
by factors time
of on a 7.330,
5.300, dual CPU (Inteland
7.0290, i7-7820HQ
12.158 2.9 GHz-8
times, as shown in
in Figure 26. Eventually, the total computational time on a dual CPU (Intel i7-7820HQ 2.9 GHz-8
Figurecores)
26. was 72.03 h for
Eventually, the coupled
total analysis with PSSIs
computational andon
time 5.06
a h without
dual CPU considering
(Intel
cores) was 72.03 h for coupled analysis with PSSIs and 5.06 h without considering PSSIs.
PSSIs.
i7-7820HQ 2.9 GHz-8 cores)
was 72.03 h for coupled analysis with PSSIs and 5.06 h without considering PSSIs.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 21 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 26

(a) Pile 1 (b) Pile 2

(c) Pile 3 (d) Pile 4.

Figure
Figure 26.
26. Pile
Pile deflection
deflection along
along the
the pile
pile length.
length.

7. Conclusion
7. Conclusions
A theoretical
A theoretical background
background of of the
the coupled
coupled dynamic
dynamic analysis
analysis ofof offshore
offshore wind
wind turbine
turbine and
and support
support
structures implemented and validated in the authors’ previous publications
structures implemented and validated in the authors’ previous publications was improved by was improved by including
PSSIs and PSSIs
including suction andbucket
suctionpilebucket
models. pileApproaches to computing
models. Approaches soil lateral,soil
to computing axial, and tip
lateral, resistances
axial, and tip
were provided
resistances wereby considering
provided the P–Y, T–Z,
by considering theand
P–Y,Q–Z
T–Z,curves
and Q–Z of soil behavior
curves of soilobtained
behaviorby either the
obtained by
API or Jeanjean methods. The loads corresponding to these curves could
either the API or Jeanjean methods. The loads corresponding to these curves could be simulated bybe simulated by an iterative
process
an of the
iterative X-SEAofprogram.
process the X-SEA Such soil resistances
program. Such soilwere represented
resistances werebyrepresented
nonlinear springs in the
by nonlinear
lateral and vertical directions along the piles. In order to more accurately simulate
springs in the lateral and vertical directions along the piles. In order to more accurately simulate the the suction bucket
piles subject
suction bucket to piles
acentric forces
subject to and moments,
acentric forces rotational
and moments, springs were added
rotational springs to were
the models,
added where
to the
their rotational
models, stiffness
where their was determined
rotational stiffness was by determined
equating to by theequating
tangent or to secant modulus
the tangent obtained
or secant modulusfrom
Jeanjean’s method.
obtained from Jeanjean’s method.
The implementation
The implementation of of the
the improved
improved PSSI PSSI models
models using
using soil
soil springs
springs and
and thethe API
API and
and Jeanjean
Jeanjean
methods in
methods in the
the X-SEA
X-SEA program
program was was verified
verified in in an
an example
example of of aa laterally
laterally loaded
loaded single
single pile
pile driven
driven
42.7 m into a soft clay soil. The soil spring stiffness values were based on
42.7 m into a soft clay soil. The soil spring stiffness values were based on the P–Y data obtained fromthe P–Y data obtained
from methods.
both both methods. The PSSI
The PSSI modelling
modelling and and analysis
analysis werewere performed
performed in in boththe
both theX-SEA
X-SEAand and SACS
SACS
programs. The maximum lateral resistance resulting from Jeanjean’s method
programs. The maximum lateral resistance resulting from Jeanjean’s method was 1.33 times larger was 1.33 times larger
than from
than from the
the API.
API.The
Thelateral
lateraldeflections
deflections resulting
resultingfrom
fromX-SEA
X-SEA andandSACS are in
SACS aregood agreement
in good agreementwith
each each
with otherother
whenwhenusingusing
eithereither
the APItheorAPIJeanjean methods.
or Jeanjean methods.
In order to study the behavior of suction
In order to study the behavior of suction bucket piles bucket piles and
and offshore
offshore wind
wind turbine–jacket–pile
turbine–jacket–pile
systems, a five MW offshore wind turbine in the Buan country site
systems, a five MW offshore wind turbine in the Buan country site in Korea was examined inin Korea was examined in X-SEA
X-SEA
coupled with
coupled with FAST.
FAST. Random
Random wind windand andwaves
waveswith withaasignificant
significantheight
heightofof3.3
3.3m,m,a period
a period of of
8.08.0
s, as,
current velocity of 1.2 m/s, a mean wind speed of 13.156 m/s, and a marine growth of 0.1 m thick with
a weight density of 1100 kg/m3 were considered. The four suction bucket files penetrated into a single
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 22 of 24

a current velocity of 1.2 m/s, a mean wind speed of 13.156 m/s, and a marine growth of 0.1 m thick with
a weight density of 1100 kg/m3 were considered. The four suction bucket files penetrated into a single
clay lay of 18 m thick. Free vibration and coupled dynamic analyses of the system were performed,
and the following conclusions were drawn:

1) In the free vibration analysis with fixed boundary conditions (rigid soil), the first and second
modes were globally bending and of the same natural frequencies, where the piles oscillated in
two horizontal axes. The third mode was torsional about the vertical axis.
2) In the free vibration analysis with the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z
curves using the API method, the suction piles were of lateral movement in the first mode with
a distinctly lower natural frequency, and they were twisting in their second and third modes,
whereas the first to the third modes of the suction piles using Jeanjean’s method were all twisting.
The natural frequencies of the first to the third modes resulting from Jeanjean’s method were
higher than those from the API method.
3) In the forced vibration analysis, the API method made the foundation model more flexible than
that of Jeanjean’s method, particularly the pile head. The jacket foundation responses were
seen to be significantly influenced by the environmental loads, turbine responses, structural
stiffness, and the type of nonlinear soil spring stiffness. The coupled analysis with PSSIs was
quite computationally expensive.

Scour effects, soil damping models, and seismic excitations are recommended to be considered in
future research for the further understanding of the system behaviors.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, P.P.; investigation, P.P. and V.N.D.; validation, P.P.; conceptualization, P.P.,
O.K., V.N.D., and K.-D.K.; methodology, V.N.D., J.M., and K.-D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P. and
V.N.D.; writing—review and editing, V.N.D., J.M., and K.-D.K.; funding acquisition, K.-D.K. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by Korea Electric Power Corporation (Development of analysis program of
offshore wind turbine structure and design example using FAST turbine aerodynamic load), Korea. This work
was supported by KEPCO(2017), Korea. The third author (V. N. Dinh) and the fourth author (J. Murphy) have
been supported by the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) MaREI Centre, the Sustainable Energy Authority of
Ireland under the SEAI RS&D Funding Programme 2019 (Grant number 19/RDD/545), and the VeriX-SEA project.
The authors are grateful for the support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, J.; Sun, K.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Monopile Foundation for Offshore
Wind Farm. In Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Beijing, China,
20–25 June 2010.
2. Scharff, R.; Siems, M. Monopile foundations for offshore wind turbines—Solutions for greater water depths.
Steel Constr. 2013, 6, 47–53. [CrossRef]
3. De, C.; Kai, H.; Lijun, H. Comparison of Structural Properties between Monopile and Tripod Offshore
Wind-Turbine Support Structure. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2013, 2013, 1756849.
4. Georgia, M.; Anastasios, P.; Dimosthenis, B.; Charis, J.G.; Christos, P.G. Design of Monopile and Tripod
Foundation of Fixed Offshore Wind Turbine via Advanced Numerical Analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th
GRACM International Congress on Computation Mechanics, Volos, Greek, 12–15 July 2015.
5. Schaumann, P.; Böker, C. Can jackets and tripods compete with monopiles? In Proceedings of the Copenhagen
Offshore Wind, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–28 October 2005.
6. Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Kim, K.-D. Coupled Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbine Jacket Structures with
Pile-Soil-Structure Interaction Using FAST v8 and X-SEA. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1633. [CrossRef]
7. Wei, S.; Chinwha, C. Comparison of Dynamic Response of Monopile, Tripod and Jacket Foundation System for
a 5-MW Wind Turbine. In Proceedings of the 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 23 of 24

8. Wei, S.; Park, H.C.; Han, J.H.; Na, S.K.; Kim, C.W. A Study on the Effect of Different Modeling Parameters on
the Dynamic Response of a Jacket-Type Offshore Wind Turbine in the Korean Southwest Sea. Renew. Energy
2013, 58, 50–59.
9. Ingrif, B.L.; Amir, M.K. Effect of Foundation Type and Modelling on Dynamic Response and Fatigue of
offshore wind turbine. Wind Energy 2012, 22, 12.
10. Wu, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, F. Determination of Maximum Penetration Depth of Suction Caissons in
Sand. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 22, 2776–2783. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Zeng, X. Lateral response of improved suction bucket foundation for offshore wind
turbine in centrifuge modelling. Ocean Eng. 2017, 141, 295–307. [CrossRef]
12. Tasan, H.E.; Yilmaz, S.A. Effects of installation on the cyclic axial behaviour of suction buckets in sandy soils.
Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 91, 101905. [CrossRef]
13. Latini, C.; Zania, V. Dynamic lateral response of suction caissons. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 100, 59–71.
[CrossRef]
14. Mohammadm, A.; Saif, H. Optimized frequency-based foundation design for wind turbine towers utilizing
soil-structure interaction. J. Frankl. Inst. 2010, 348, 1470–1487.
15. Jonkman, J. FAST v8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018.
Available online: https://nwtc.nrel.gov/FAST8 (accessed on 19 September 2017).
16. Chen Ong, M.; Bachynski, E.E.; David Økland, O. Dynamic Responses of Jacket-Type Offshore Wind Turbines
Using Decoupled and Coupled Models. ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2017, 139, 041901. [CrossRef]
17. Bin, Z.; De-qiong, K.; Ren-peng, C.; Ling-gang, K.; Yun-min, C. Installation and lateral loading tests of suction
caissons in silt. Can. Geotech. J. 2011, 48, 1070–1084.
18. Wang, P.; Zhao, M.; Du, X.; Liu, J.; Xu, C. Wind, wave and earthquake responses of offshore wind turbine on
monopile foundation in clay. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 113, 47–57. [CrossRef]
19. Shi, W.; Park, H.; Chung, C.; Baek, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, C.-W. Load analysis and comparison of different jacket
foundations. Renew. Energy 2013, 54, 201–210. [CrossRef]
20. Matlock, H. Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. In Proceedings of the 2nd Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 22–24 April 1970; pp. 577–594.
21. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms-Load-Working Stress Design API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD; American Petroleum Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
22. Asitha, I.M.J.S. Design of Large Diameter Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbine in Clay. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, August, TX, USA, 2016.
23. Ortolani, C. Laterally Loaded Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbines: Analysis and Improvement of the P-Y Curve;
University de Liege: Milano, Italy, 2015.
24. Kim, K.D.; Vachirapanyaku, S.; Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Park, J.-H. Development of offshore structural
analysis software X-SEA and FAST. In Proceedings of the ASME 2019 38th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore & Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, UK, 9–14 June 2019; p. OMAE 2019-96778. [CrossRef]
25. Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Kim, K.-D. Tripod-Supported Offshore Wind Turbines: Modal and Coupled
Analysis and a Parametric Study Using X-SEA and FAST. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 181. [CrossRef]
26. Jeanjean, P. Re-Assessment of p-y Curve for Soft Clays form Centrifuge Testing and Finite Element Modeling.
In Offshore Technology Conference; OTC: Houston, TX, USA, 2015.
27. Lymon, C.R.; Michael, W.O. Criteria for the Design of Axially Drilled Shafts; The Texas Hight Department,
The University of Texas at Austim: Austin, TX, USA, 1971.
28. Reese, L.C.; O’Neill, M.W. An Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Sands; A report to the American Petroleum
Institute; University of Houston: Houston, TX, USA, 1983.
29. Lam, I.; Martin, G.R. Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations. In Lifeline Earthquake Engineering:
Performance, Design and Construction; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1986.
30. Damiani, R.; Wendt, F. Development and Verification of Soil-Pile Interaction Extension for SubDyn.
In Proceedings of the AWEA Offshore WINDPOWER 2017, New York, NY, USA, 24–25 October 2017.
31. Kim, B.J.; Plodpradit, P.; Kim, K.D.; Kim, H.G. Three-dimensional analysis of prestressed concrete offshore
wind turbine structure under environmental and 5-MW turbine loads. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2018, 17, 625–637.
[CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 24 of 24

32. Pierson, W.J.; Moskowitz, L. A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas. J. Geophys. Res. 1964,
69, 5181–5203. [CrossRef]
33. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61400–3 Wind Turbines–Part 3: Design Requirements for
Offshore Wind Turbines, 1st ed.; International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
34. Dinh, V.N.; Basu, B. Passive Control of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Nacelle and Spar Vibrations by
Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2015, 22, 152–176. [CrossRef]
35. Thomas, H.D. Offshore Structure Engineering; Prentice-Hall. Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1983.
36. SACS. PSI/Pile User’s Manual; Engineering Dynamic, Inc.: Englewood, CO, USA, 2005.
37. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore
System Development; Technical Report, NREL/TP-5000-38060; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO,
USA, 2009.
38. Park, G.S. 5.5 MW Offshore Jacket Modeling of Korean Western Sea; Research Report; Seil Engineering: Seoul,
Korea, 2018.
39. Jonkman, B.J. TurbSim User’s Guide Version 1.50; National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical report,
NREL/TP-500-46198; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
40. Kim, K.D. X-SEA Validation; Konkuk University: Seoul, Korea, 2018.
41. Basu, B.; Staino, A.; Dinh, V.N. Vibration of wind turbines under seismic excitations. In Proceedings of the
Fifth Asian-Pacific Symposium on Structural Reliability and its Applications, Singapore, 23–25 May 2012.
[CrossRef]
42. MATLAB. Fourier Analysis and Filtering; The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2020; Release.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).