Fachthemen
Hendrik Sturm
Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base
type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines
This paper presents a novel foundation solution specially devel-
oped for offshore wind turbines installed on sandy or stiff soils. It
is a pre-fabricated cross-shaped structure which rests on the
seabed through four skirted plates. The geotechnical perfor-
mance of the foundation has been analysed numerically with re-
spect to both capacity and displacement during extreme loading
and normal operation. The effects of different geometrical as-
pects such as skirt length and structural stiffness have been
studied by means of 2D and 3D Finite Element simulations. Fully
coupled stress equilibrium and pore water flow simulations have
been performed in order to analyse the influence of accumulated
excess pore pressure due to cyclic loading. The long-term be-
haviour of the foundation is discussed based on stability and fail-
ure considerations. The results of the numerical study show that
the proposed foundation solution offers a viable alternative as a
safe foundation for offshore wind turbines. This has been demon-
strated representatively for a 5 MW wind turbine installed in a
water depth of 35 m on homogeneous ground subjected to the
governing design load cases.
Geotechnisches Verhalten eines neuartigen Flachfundaments
zur Gründung von Offshore Windenergieanlagen
In diesem Beitrag wird ein neuartiges Gründungskonzept für Off-
shore Windenergieanlagen vorgestellt, das besonders für sandi-
ge und steife Böden geeignet ist. Es handelt sich um eine vorge-
fertigte kreuzförmige Hohlkastenkonstruktion, die mittels vier
Platten mit Schürzen auf dem Meeresboden ruht. Sowohl das
Tragverhalten für ein Extremlastereignis als auch die Gebrauchs-
tauglichkeit für eine repräsentative zyklische Belastung wurden
mithilfe numerischer Berechnungen untersucht. In 2D und 3D Fi-
nite Element Berechnungen wurde der Einfluss der Schürzenlän-
ge, der Struktursteifigkeit und anderer Eigenschaften analysiert.
Neben voll dränierten Berechnungen wurden auch gekoppelte
Spannungsgleichgewichts- und Porenwasserfluss-Berechnun-
gen durchgeführt, um den Einfluss der Porenwasserdruckakku-
mulation aus quasi-statisch zyklischer Belastung aus Wind und
Wellen zu erfassen. Eine Abschätzung des Langzeitverhaltens der
Gründung wird auf Basis von Stabilitäts- bzw. Versagensbetrach-
tungen gegeben. Die Ergebnisse der numerischen Berechnun-
gen zeigen, dass das vorgestellte Fundament eine geeignete Al-
ternativlösung zur sicheren Gründung von Offshore Windenergie-
anlagen darstellt. Dies wird beispielhaft für eine 5 MW Anlage
gezeigt, die in 35 m Wassertiefe auf homogenem Grund installiert
ist und mit typischen Einwirkungen aus Wind und Wellen belastet
wird.
© 2011 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2
DOI: 10.1002/gete.201100013
1 Introduction
Offshore Wind Energy is expected to become one of the
leading renewable energy sources in the near future. In
light of this, many governments have set up research and
promotional programmes to support the development of
this energy source. Although offshore wind turbines
(OWT) have several advantages compared to onshore in-
stallations or other renewable energy sources, there are
still many unsolved questions. Solutions have to be found
for the grid integration of offshore wind parks in order to
guarantee constant and reliable current supply indepen-
dent of the actual wind conditions. The environmental
loads on turbine and structure as well as the load reac-
tions pose a particular challenge since they are different
from those typically acting on onshore wind turbines or
other offshore structures. The dynamic response and the
fatigue behaviour of blades, substructure and joints due
to these loads is subject of many research activities. And
of course, reliable and environmentally friendly founda-
tion solutions have to be found, which can survive ex-
treme and high cyclic loading, scour and different soil
conditions.
Several different foundation types are currently con-
sidered for fixed OWTs:
– Gravity Base Structure (GBS) is a shallow foundation
generally made of concrete. It rests on the seabed via
one or several large base plate(s) equipped with short
concrete or steel skirts. GBSs have a considerable
weight in order to resist the loads acting on the struc-
ture. They have been installed in several offshore wind
parks, mainly in shallow waters with up to 10 m depth;
e.g. Nysted in Denmark.
– Bucket can be considered as a turned cup driven into
the seabed. It is a lightweight shallow foundation made
of steel with an aspect ratio between skirt length and
base plate diameter of generally 1:2. Buckets are suitable
for soils with sufficiently low permeability. The resis-
tance against actions is accomplished by a temporary
suction inside the bucket. The suitability of buckets for
the foundation of OWTs has been evaluated in detail in
several research projects [1] [2] [3].
– Monopile is a single steel tube which can be considered
as an extension of the tower into the seabed. The hori-
zontal bedding of the pile allows the transmission of the
loads acting on turbine and tower into the seabed. The
85
H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines
monopile is the most common foundation type for
OWTs. But it faces some technical limitations: with in-
creasing water depths and larger turbine capacities, con-
siderable pile diameters, wall thicknesses and penetra-
tion depths are required, which cannot be achieved with
currently available pile drivers. Furthermore, the behav-
iour of very large piles is not yet completely understood
and still a subject for research [4].
– Tripod/Jackets are three or four-legged lightweight steel
structures generally founded on piles, pile groups or
buckets. The resistance against environmental loading is
mainly accomplished by axially loaded piles or suction,
respectively, in case of buckets. Tripod and jackets
founded on piles have been used in commercial offshore
wind parks; e.g. Alpha Ventus in Germany. Although
both foundation types can be installed in almost all wa-
ter depths and soil types, the jacket is generally more
favourable with respect to weight, bearing behaviour,
scour and fabrication costs.
The foundation solution proposed in this paper is a jacket-
type GBS with skirted plates, at its outer corners which
behave like buckets. It utilises weight and suction, i.e. neg-
ative pore pressure relative to the corresponding hydrosta-
tic fluid pressure, in order to resist actions from wind and
waves. The foundation is suitable for sites with predomi-
nantly homogeneous layered seabeds and water depths up
to 45 m. It has been developed as an alternative to deep
foundations where these cannot be installed due to envi-
ronmental requirements such as noise emissions. Using
the example of a 5 MW turbine, designed for the governing
loading conditions at the offshore wind park Borkum Riff-
grund in the German sector of the North Sea, the geot-
echnical performance of this novel foundation solution
has been studied numerically under both static extreme
loading and cyclic loading.
2 Foundation concept
The basic concept of a four legged structure without effec-
tive skirts was developed by the construction company
Ed. Züblin AG. A FE model of the early Züblin concept
with dimensions is shown in Fig. 1. The dimensions were
determined for a 5 MW wind turbine installed at the wind
park Borkum Riffgrund offshore Germany in 35 m water
depth on dense sand. This concept was used in this study
as a reference model.
The proposed novel foundation solution comple-
ments this reference foundation with effective skirts capa-
ble of mobilising temporary suction in order to increase
horizontal and vertical capacity. The foundation consists
of a cross-shaped box girder made of steel or reinforced
concrete. The cross rests on the seabed through four
plates equipped with effective (corrugated) steel skirts.
The plates are attached at the outer edges of the arms of
the cross, so that particularly the bottom side of the centre
of the cross is not in contact with the seabed. The shaft
may also be made of concrete up to the transition piece at
which tower and turbine are attached.
The foundation is pre-fabricated onshore and bal-
lasted after it has been placed on the seabed in the off-
shore wind park. The ballasting process is utilised to pen-
86 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2
h=51 m
a=7 m
a=7 m
d=38 m
Fig. 1. Geometry, FE mesh and dimensions of the reference
cross-shaped concrete foundation
Bild 1. Geometrie, FE Netz und Abmessungen des Referenz-
Kreuzfundamentes
etrate the skirts into the seabed. After installation, the void
between base plate and soil is grouted in order to ensure
full soil contact, even stress distribution and to eliminate
free water pockets beneath the base. In addition, geotex-
tile-coated stone embankments or equivalent protection
systems are placed around the four skirted plates, prevent-
ing scour and seabed instability.
3 Analytical preliminary design
Basic analytical formulas can be employed to estimate the
dimensions of the foundation used in the numerical simu-
lations. To simplify matters and to preserve universal ap-
plicability of the approach presented, no safety concept
was applied. But it is self-evident that in a practical de-
sign, the relevant standards will be complied with.
In the calculations, the most likely maximum load
combination, often referred to as Ultimate Limit State
(ULS)1 is used. Due to the twofold double symmetrical
geometry of the cross, two different loading directions
have to be considered; loading parallel to an arm of the
cross, in the following denoted as α = 0°, and loading par-
allel to the bisector between two arms, denoted as α = 45°.
These two loading cases are shown in Figs. 2a and 2b.
In a simplified approach, skirts are neglected and
fully drained conditions are assumed. Furthermore, any
effects of the scour protection are ignored. Based on this,
the minimum weight Vstat of the foundation can be deter-
mined by means of the resistance against sliding, viz.
Hext
Vstat ≥ (1a)
tanδ
1 The term Limit State (LS) is misleading in the author’s opi-
nion, since it is defined arbitrarily. Also, the governing loads
of the limit states are not unique but vary for different com-
ponents of a structure. Thus the terms ULS, SLS, FLS and
ALS are avoided as far as possible.
 H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

where Hext is the maximum horizontal load and δ the fric- Embedment depth, scour protection and suction affect al-
tion coefficient between plate and soil. The verification of so the bearing capacity. The resistance factors increase
safety against overturning can be used to estimate the and the actions decrease, viz.
minimum outer foundation diameter d (see Fig. 1) by as-
2Mext Vstat
suming a rotation around the geometrical centre of the R α = 0 ≥ + – Vsuc,α = 0 , for α = 0
plate(s) on compression side, viz. d–a 4
(2c)
2 2 Mext Vstat 
⎧ 2Mext R α = 45 ≥ + – Vsuc,α = 45 , for α = 45
d–a 2
⎪ + a, for α = 0
⎪ Vstat
d≥⎨ (1b) The suction forces Vhsuc and Vvsuc, however, can hardly be
⎪ 2 2 Mext + a, for α = 45
⎪⎩ Vstat determined analytically. Also it has to be clarified if one
can rely in the design on the ability to mobilise these
forces during the whole life time of the foundation. This
where a denotes the edge length of a plate and Mext the can only be proved by means of Finite Element analyses,
maximum moment acting on the foundation measured at employing effective stress based constitutive models in ful-
seabed level. Both parameters, Vstat and d, serve as input ly coupled stress equilibrium and pore water flow simula-
for the verification of safety against bearing failure, viz. tions.
In order to assess analytically the behaviour of the
2Mext Vstat
R α = 0 ≥ + , for α = 0 foundation during cyclic loading, the procedures pro-
d–a 4 posed by Andersen [8] can be used if the soil during one
(1c)
2 2 Mext Vstat  load cycle is almost undrained.
R α = 45 ≥ + , for α = 45
d–a 2
4 Numerical Model
where Ra = 0° and Ra = 45° are resistance factors determined 4.1 Finite Element models
according to Brinch Hansen [5] [6] or Meyerhof [7].
The resistance factors depend on the loading direction Three different Finite Element models were used in the
with: numerical study; two 3D models accounting for the differ-
ent loading directions α = 0° and a = 45° under utilisation
Hext of the corresponding symmetry conditions (Figs. 2a and
R α = 0 = f(H = , A = a 2, …)
4 2b), and a simplified 2D model based on a loading paral-
H lel to an arm, i.e. α = 0°. A detailed view of the 2D model is
R α = 45 = f(H = ext , A = 2a 2, …)
2 shown in Fig. 2c.
The 3D models were only used in static and cyclic
This analytical approach is an iterative procedure, which analyses under fully drained conditions2. They were used
may require several repetitions in order to find an opti- to study the influence of loading direction and to verify
mised geometry and weight of the foundation for a the 2D model; the verification is not presented here. The
specific site. In general, the foundation diameter should 2D model was also used in static and cyclic analyses un-
be minimised to reduce material and transportation der both fully drained and coupled stress equilibrium and
costs. pore water flow simulations. This model was employed in
Equations 1a to 1c become more complex if in addi- most presented simulations. Since only two of the four
tion the effect of skirts, scour protection and suction in- plates are considered in the 2D model, the weight and
side the skirt compartments are taken into account. The horizontal loads are halved so that the stresses in the soil-
sliding resistance increases due to passive earth pressure structure contact interface are the same in 2D and 3D
Ep and shear induced suction Vhsuc. Also the friction angle model. The moment loading remained unchanged, since
δ can be replaced with the (peak) friction angle ϕ of the the section modulus Iy,3D of the 3D models, where y de-
corresponding soil layer(s), since length and configuration notes the direction perpendicular to the considered sym-
of the skirts are generally designed to enforce a shear metry axis, viz.
plane reaching from tip to tip, preventing in particular
curved failure planes reaching up to the base plate or into   1 4 1
Iαy,=30d = Iαy,=345
d = I y, 3d = a + (d – a)2 a 2 (3)
weaker soil layers. Hence, Equation 1a becomes 3 2

1 are almost equal3 to the section modulus of the 2D model.

Vstat ≥ h ).
(Hext – E p – Vsuc (2a)
tan ϕ
1 4 1
I y, 2d = a + (d – a)2 a 2 (4)
Uplift, i.e. vertical unloading, generates suction Vvsuc 6 2
which allows for a smaller foundation diameter d, viz.

⎧ 2Mext
⎪ + a, for α = 0
V
⎪ stat + 2 V v
suc, α = 0
 2 Although a few coupled 3D analyses have been performed,
d≥⎨ (2b) they are, however, not considered in this study.
⎪ 2 2 Mext
+ a, for α = 45 3 The difference amounts ≈ 1.7 % for the dimensions shown
⎪V + 2 V v 
⎩ stat suc, α = 45 in Fig. 1.

geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2 87

H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines
(a) 3d FE model (α = 0° ). (b) 3d FE model (α = 45° ).
Fig. 2. The FE models used in the numerical study
Bild 2. Die in der numerischen Studie verwendeten 2D und 3D FE Modelle
Table 1. Hypoplastic and intergranular strain parameters of the two different sands used in the presented simulations.
Tabelle 1. Stoffparameter der verwendeten Sande
Name hs n eco ed0 ei0
Baskarp Sand 18,000 MPa 0.26 0.862 0.505 0.991
Model Sand 625 MPa 0.33 1.05 0.67 1.21
In all FE models contact surfaces between plates, respec-
tively, skirts and soil were considered, allowing for open-
ing, closing and tangential sliding. A friction coefficient
equal to the critical state soil friction angle was assumed,
i.e. δ = ϕc, accounting for soil disturbance due to installa-
tion. The modelled soil block has a horizontal length of
150 m by 75 m and a depth of 90 m. This equates to 21 ×
10.5 × 12 times the edge length a of the plates. All simula-
tions were performed with the commercial Finite Element
program Abaqus/Standard, using C3D8 (CPE4) elements
in drained simulations and C3D8P (CPE4P) in coupled
simulations for the 3D (2D) models. In general, the default
algorithms and settings of allowable tolerances were em-
ployed. The only exception was the use of large deforma-
tion theory, which means an updated Lagrangian formula-
tion. Numerical convergence studies with respect to ele-
ment type and size, increment length and other modelling
parameters were performed in order to prove the suitabili-
ty of the models and the independence of the results on
the discretisation and modelling. As a matter of course, the
results of the 2D and corresponding 3D model are not
identical. But the differences are small and in general less
than 10 % at maximum loading [9].
4.2 Constitutive model and material parameters
The mechanical behaviour of the soil was modelled with a
modified version of the hypoplastic constitutive model
proposed by von Wolffersdorff [10] incorporating the in-
tergranular strain extension for improving the small strain
and cyclic behaviour, introduced by Niemunis and Herle
[11], and an improvement of the stiffness response at very
high densities proposed by Niemunis [12]. The parame-
ters of two different soils used in this paper are listed in
Table 1. A procedure proposed to determine the hypoplas-
tic parameters is presented in Herle and Gudehus [13]. In
88 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2
(c) 2d FE model (≈ α = 0° ).
ϕc α β mT mR Rmax βχ χ
32.5° 0.11 1.0 6.0 6.0 1· 10–4 0.15 1
32.8° 0.18 1.12 3.5 6.0 1 · 10–4 0.2 6
general, the parameters of the Baskarp sand were used in
this study, except for the simulations presented in the sec-
tion Failure and Stabilisation Behaviour in which the pa-
rameters of a Model sand were employed. Both sands con-
sist mainly of quartz minerals. They have an uniformity
coefficient of U = 1.9 and an average grain size diameter of
d50 = 0.14 mm. The Baskarp sand is sub-angular, the Mod-
el sand almost perfectly rounded. Both represent typical
offshore sands as can be found in the North and Baltic
Sea.
Since typical sand deposits at the prospective off-
shore wind parks are expected to be rather dense, an ini-
tial relative density of Dr = 80 % was assumed in all simu-
lations.
The foundation was modelled linear elastically. Box
girder and skirts were divided into different segments with
equal cross sectional area, geometry and material parame-
ters in order to represent a realistic bending behaviour.
The cyclic loading was computed implicitly, i.e. the com-
plete loop of a cycle was followed numerically. This ap-
proach requires a significant number of load increments
and equilibrium iterations. In order to minimise the effect
of the inevitably accumulated rounding error, only the
first 20 to 25 cycles were evaluated in this study.
5 Loading conditions
Only quasi-static loading was considered in this study, be-
cause typical loads on OWTs have frequencies of less than
2 Hz. Thus any inertia effects of the soil can be neglected.
The characteristic, i.e. unfactored, extreme load
combination at the considered site amounts to Hext =
17.83 MN acting on the structure at a height of hext = 20 m
above the seabed. The required characteristic weight of
the reference foundation without skirts was determined to
be 41 MN, based on Equations 1a to 1c and the dimen-
 H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

(a) Horizontal displacement.

ampl
Hcyc 52 m
150
48 m
av
Hcyc
100

H/ H ext (%)
35 m

50
Hext 20 m
α = 0°

0 α = 45°

0m 0 10 20 30
horizontal displacement (cm)

Fig. 3. Loading on the OWT structure

(b) Vertical displacement.
Bild 3. Belastungen auf die OWT

150
sions shown in Fig. 1. A half load period of the extreme
load combination of 20 s was assumed.
H/ H ext (%)
The design load case (DLC) found to be relevant for 100
the assessment of the serviceability of the foundation con-
sists of an asymmetric loading with an average value of
50
cyc = 0.09 · Hext and a cyclic amplitude of Hcyc = 0.14 ·
Hav ampl

Hext. Due to the different environmental origins of the α = 0°

loads, the average and cyclic components act at different
0 α = 45°
heights on the structure; Hav cyc at a height of h cyc = 52 m
av

and Hcyc at a height of hcyc = 48 m above the seabed.

ampl ampl
A period of the cyclic load of 10 s was assumed, represent-
ing a typical frequency of waves during normal sea states.
A loading history consisting of an extreme load fol-
lowed by a cyclic load package was used to analysise the
long-term behaviour of the foundation. The extreme load
was the same as in the capacity analysis, while a cyclic
load Havcyc = 0.075 · Hext and Hcyc = 0.1 · Hext was used,
ampl
representing typical conditions during normal operation.
The loads act on the structure at the same heights as the
corresponding average and cyclic loads. Although this
load combination is rather arbitrary, it is sufficient for a
qualitative discussion of the foundation behaviour.
6 Foundation behaviour without skirts
6.1 Effect of loading direction
The drained average horizontal displacement of the refer-
ence foundation without skirts, evaluated at the geometri-
cal centre of the foundation at the bottom of the shaft 1 m
above seabed, is independent of the loading direction, as
shown in Fig. 4a. This is in accordance with analytical
considerations. The load ratio H/Hext denotes a safety
factor against sliding ηslide which amounts in this case to
approximately 1.6.
The vertical displacement, i.e. the average settle-
ment, evaluated at the same point of the foundation, is
shown in Fig. 4b. The load-displacement curves are iden-
tical for both loading directions until H ≈ 1.1 · Hext. Fur-
ther increase of the load leads to different responses of the
foundation. While the average settlement increases for
α = 0°, an uplift can be observed for α = 45° after exceed-
ing a load of ≈ 1.5 · Hext.
0 1 2 3
vertical displacement (cm)
Fig. 4. Load-displacement curves for different loading di-
rections under drained conditions of the reference foundati-
on without skirts predicted with the 3D models
Bild 4. Last-Verschiebungskurven des Referenzfundamentes
für unterschiedliche Belastungsrichtungen unter voll drai-
nierten Bedingungen
Although this behaviour might indicate a kind of a
bearing failure on the compression side in load case
α = 0°, comparison of the absolute values of vertical and
horizontal displacement reveals that the sliding mecha-
nism is dominant. At maximum load, the horizontal dis-
placement is approximately ten times larger than the set-
tlement. The rotation of the foundations, i.e. the differen-
tial settlements of the feet on compression and up-lift
sides, are almost identical, which confirms the sliding fail-
ure to be relevant [9].
The vertical stresses on the compression side at a
given load are higher for loading parallel to an arm
(α = 0°). In combination with the results shown in Fig. 4a,
this loading direction is identified as relevant for the de-
sign and has thus been adopted for the dimensions of the
2D FE model.
6.2 Effect of drainage condition
The influence of the drainage condition was studied for
extreme and serviceability loading performed with the 2D
model of the reference foundation without skirts. An

geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2 89

H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

isotropic permeability of k = 5.5 · 10–5m/s was assumed for (a) Horizontal displacement.
the soil. Hydrostatic pore pressure at rest was pre-defined
100 drained
at the outer boundaries and the free surface of the soil
block. coupled

6.2.1. Extreme loading

H/ H ext (%)
50
To compare the influence of the drainage conditions on
the permanent displacement and rotation of the founda-
tion after unloading, a dissipation of the excess pore pres-
sure until a steady state is reached was allowed in the cou-
pled simulations. This was achieved after ≈ 500 s. 0
Fig. 5a shows the horizontal displacement, Fig. 5c
the vertical displacement and Fig. 5b the rotation of the 0 1 2 3 4
reference model. The soil response is softer under partial- horizontal displacement (cm)
ly drained conditions during the loading phase, because of
decreasing effective stresses in the soil on the compression (b) Rotation.
·10−2
side due to pore pressure generation.
In the subsequent consolidation phase, however the drained
8
larger horizontal displacement and rotation under par- coupled
tially drained conditions are compensated again. The
foundation slides and rotates back, approaching the same 6
state as the foundation under fully drained conditions. rotationϕ ( ° )
The curve shown in Fig. 5b can be interpreted as a creep- 4
type mechanism. For energetic reasons, the foundation
has to settle during this creep phase, as shown in Fig. 5c,
because the height of the centre of gravity cannot 2
increase again. That means that heave of the foundation
is physically impossible for the considered loading [14] 0
[15].
100 101 102
time t (sec)
6.2.2 Cyclic loading

Fig. 6 shows the average excess pore pressure develop- (c) Vertical displacement.
ment in the soil nodes adjacent to the soil-structure inter- 100 drained
face during cyclic loading for the first 20 cycles. Compres-
coupled
sion side denotes here the plate with increased stresses
due to the average (static) load Hav cyc.
Both amplitude and average value of the excess pore
H/ H ext (%)

pressure increase on both sides with increasing number of 50

cycles. The pore pressure response in the first load cycle,
however, diverges from the response in the subsequent cy-
cles. Similar observations were made in cyclic laboratory
tests [16]. This irregular response is caused by the recent
loading and strain history respectively of the considered
soil element. Constitutive models capable of accounting
for such effects, like the one used in this study, are able to
reproduce this irregular behaviour of the first load
cycle(s).
The rotational response of the foundation is shown
in Fig. 7a. In particular the development of the average ac-
cumulated rotation is noticeable. While the foundation
rotates initially in the direction of the average load Hav cyc,
i.e. towards the compression side, it rotates in the subse-
quent cycles in opposite direction. This behaviour is even
more distinctive under partially drained conditions allow-
ing for pore pressure accumulation.
The rotational behaviour is accompanied by an con-
tinuous increase of the average accumulated settlement
sav, shown in Fig. 7b. And in accordance with the consid-
erations of the settlement behaviour during static loading,
the rate4 s·av is larger in the coupled simulation.
0
0 1 2 3
settlement s (cm)
Fig. 5. Load-displacement curves of the reference foundati-
ons without skirts under drained and coupled conditions
predicted with the 2D model
Bild 5. Last-Verschiebungskurven des Referenzfundamentes
unter voll drainierten und gekoppelten Bedingungen
6.3 Effect of structural stiffness
In general, the effect of structural stiffness on the soil be-
haviour is not considered in geotechnical design. Al-
though the cross foundation is rather stiff compared to
other structures, a variation of the elasticity was done in
order to study this effect on the settlement and rotational

90 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2

 H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

(a) Rotation.
100 ·10−2
compression
uplift drained
excess pore pressure u (kPa)

coupled
50 2

rotation ϕ ( ° )
1
0

0
0 5 10 15 20
number of cycles 0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 6. Excess pore pressure development under the plates number of cycles
on compression and uplift side of the reference foundation
without skirts predicted with the 2D model (b) Settlement.
Bild 6. Porenwasserüberdruck unter den Platten auf der 1
Kompressions- und Entlastungsseite bei zyklischer Belas-
tung

response, by performing comparative 2D simulations of settlement s (cm)

the reference foundation without skirts. The Young’s mod-
ulus E was increased and decreased, respectively, by a fac-
tor of 10. To simplify matters, fully drained conditions
were assumed. The footprints of the plates on compres-
sion and uplift side at rest after installation and at maxi-
mum loading is shown in Fig. 8.
The average settlement in the middle of the plates at
rest after installation is independent of the structural stiff-
ness. This is in accordance with analytical solutions. The
plates of the 100 times softer structure are somewhat in-
clined towards the inside due to larger deflection of the
superstructure and plates.
In contrast to the state at rest, the behaviour during
extreme loading depends significantly on the structural
stiffness. While the difference of uplift on the unloading
side is small, the settlement of the stiffer model on com-
pression side is much larger.
In general, the total settlement is a function of the
compaction due to an increase of mean effective stress
and the volume change due to deviatoric shearing. Since
the horizontal displacement of the plates during loading
relative to each other is larger for a softer foundation, the
dilatancy of the soil under the plates partially compen-
sates the settlement caused by the increase of mean effec-
tive stress. Hence, the total settlements of the softer model
are smaller.
7 Foundation behaviour with skirts
Shallow foundations like GBSs are generally equipped
with skirts. They serve as scour protection and increase
the resistance against sliding, overturning and bearing fail-
ure by preventing failure surfaces following weaker soil
layers or soil-structure interfaces. In addition, they pro-
vide compartments for grouting under the base. Although,
4 The term rate is understood here as the derivative of a
variable u with respect to the number of cycles du/dN.
0.5
drained
coupled
0
0 5 10 15 20
number of cycles
Fig. 7. Displacement and rotation of the reference foundati-
on without skirts during cyclic loading in drained and cou-
pled simulations predicted with the 2D model
Bild 7. Verschiebungen und Verdrehung des Referenz-Fun-
daments bei zyklischer Belastung
installation is slightly more elaborate and hence costlier,
skirts are important structural components and are bene-
ficial for the design since they may allow smaller founda-
tion diameter, plate size(s) and weight, as demonstrated in
the analytical preliminary design.
7.1 Installation
A principal diagram of the forces acting on a skirted foun-
dation during installation is shown in Fig. 9. Penetration
of the skirts is possible as long as the driving forces are
larger than the resisting forces, viz.
Rt + Rf ≤ G′ + (Pi – Po)Ai (5)
where Rt denotes the tip resistance, Rf the wall friction
and G′ the submerged weight of the foundation. The dri-
ving forces can be increased if suction, i.e. a relative un-
derpressure inside the bucket, is applied, with Pi being the
inside, Po the outside water pressure and Ai the projected
cross section area inside the skirt compartments. Two cal-
culation methods have been proposed for the computa-
tion of suction-driven installation of skirted foundations
in sand and clay; an empirical approach by Andersen et al.

geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2 91

H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

·10−2 · 10−2
2 2

at ext. load
0 0

vertical displacement (m)

vertical displacement (m)

−2 −2 at rest
at rest

−4 −4

at ext. load
−6 soft −6 soft
stiff stiff
−8 −8
outside middle inside inside middle outside
plate on compression side plate on uplift side
Fig. 8. Footprints of the plates at compression (left) and uplift side (right) at rest and at extreme load for different structural
stinesses of the reference foundation without skirts predicted with the 2D model. Stiff here denotes a 10 times stiffer, soft a
10 times softer model than the reference model. Loading is applied from the right side
Bild 8. Setzungsmulden der Platten auf Kompressions- und Entlastungsseite im Ruhezustand und bei maximaler Belastung
in Abhängigkeit der Struktursteifigkeit

[17] and an analytical/numerical approach by Houlsby do = outside diameter

and Byrne [18] [19].
A disadvantage of utilising suction for installation is G' = submerged weight
that additional equipment and installation time is re-
quired, both causing increasing costs. Thus skirts should
be optimised with respect to their length. The object Pi = inside pressure Po = outside pressure

hi = skirt length
in the design should be that the weight G′ of the bal-
lasted foundation is sufficient for complete skirt penetra- di = inside diameter
tion. z

7.2 Effect of skirt length Rf = wall friction

7.2.1 Fully drained conditions
The computed stress distribution for different skirt
lengths, evaluated at bottom side of the plates on com-
pression and uplift side at the peak extreme loading, is
shown in Fig. 10. In particular the typical extreme fibre
stresses at the edges of the shallow foundation without
skirts are noticeable, which however decrease fast with in-
creasing skirt length, since these loads are redistributed
and carried by the skirts. The stresses at the centre of the
plates are not effected by the skirts.
An important advantage of skirts becomes visible on
the uplift side. The vertical stress at the interface of the
reference foundation without skirts approaches zero,
which indicates lifting of the plate from the seabed. This
shall be avoided in order to prevent the inflow of water
and subsequent scour and erosion underneath the plate.
Just 1.5 m long skirts are sufficient to efficiently prevent
lifting of the plate for the considered loading.
The effect of skirts on the rotational behaviour of the
foundation during cyclic loading is shown in Fig. 11. The
qualitative behaviour is similar to that of the reference
foundation without skirts, shown in Fig. 7a. But the skirt-
ed foundations behave somewhat more stiffer. Both initial
rotation and rate of back-rotation are less. Increasing skirt
length reduces the amount of horizontal displacement
causing less shear-induced dilatancy or compaction re-
spectively. In addition, the skirts may get pre-stressed dur-
Rt = tip resistance
Fig. 9. Driving and resisting forces acting on a skirted foun-
dation during installation
Bild 9. Treibende und widerstehende Kräfte auf ein Funda-
ment mit Schürzen
ing extreme loading, depending on the skirt stiffness and
configuration, due to plastic deformation of the adjacent
soil in the upper part. The release of the prestress during
subsequent cyclic loading amplifies the back-rotation.
7.2.2 Partially drained conditions
The most important advantage of skirts for the proposed
foundation solution is the ability of mobilising suction on
the uplift side during unloading. The amount of suction
mainly depends on the permeability of the soil and the
geometry, i.e. plate diameter and skirt length. The excess
pore pressure u is a function of the change of mean stress
up, shear induced dilation or compaction uq and dissipa-
tion udiss.
u = up + uq + udiss (6)
Fig. 12 shows a comparison of the predicted excess pore
pressure beneath the plates at the peak extreme loading

92 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2

 H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

0 0
vertical pressure σ′ (kPa)

vertical pressure σ′ (kPa)

−500

−100
−1,000 7.0 m 7.0 m
3.5 m 3.5 m
1.5 m 1.5 m
−1,500
−200
0.0 m 0.0 m

outside middle inside inside middle outside

plate on compression side plate on uplift side

Fig. 10. Vertical effective stress distribution at the interface between plate and soil on compression and uplift side at peak of
the extreme loading predicted with the 2S model; loading is applied from the right side; after [20]
Bild 10. Vertikale effektive Spannungen in den Boden-Bauwerkkontaktzonen auf Kompressions- und Entlastungsseite bei
maximaler Belastung in Abhängigkeit der Schürzenlänge

·10−2 The actual governing component for the amount of

excess pore pressure is the shear-induced suction uq. Due
2 to the smaller horizontal displacement of the plates with
7 m long skirts, uq is also smaller. Thus, the excess pore
pressure on the compression side is higher and the suc-
tion on uplift side smaller for the foundation with longer
rotationϕ ( ° )

skirts.
1
8 Failure and stabilisation behaviour

7.0 m Almost all standards and guidelines for the design of OWTs
0 3.5 m demand an analysis of the long-term behaviour of the
foundation. This is not possible with currently available
0 5 10 15 20 soil models. But recent results of 1g model tests
number of cycles and numerical simulations indicate that only a short
Fig. 11. Rotation of the foundation for different skirt lengths time frame with alternating static and cyclic loading is
during cyclic loading predicted with the 2D model sufficient to consider in an adequate serviceability analysis.
Bild 11. Rotation des Fundaments in Abhängigkeit der
Schürzenlänge bei zyklischer Belastung 8.1 ”Stabilisation” effect

In 1g model tests and numerical simulations, a behaviour

for two different skirt lengths, evaluated in the adjacent
nodes of the soil. The foundation with longer skirts devel-
ops higher excess pore pressure on the compression side
and less suction on the uplift side than the foundation
with shorter skirts.
For typical foundation geometries and configura-
tions of effective skirts, the ratio of the loads carried by the
skirts relative to the total loads is approximately indepen-
dent of the actual skirt length and plate diameter. From
field measurements and model tests on bucket founda-
tions [21], it is known that most of the static vertical load
is taken by the skirts. Increasing excess pore pressure
within the skirt compartments during loading leads to a
redistribution of some of the loads from the skirts towards
the plate. This effect is generally more distinctive for
longer skirts because of the longer drainage paths.
The dissipative pore pressure component udiss is
small for low-permeabilty soils, rapid loading and long
skirts, since udiss is mainly governed by the length of the
drainage path, generally assumed to be lav diss = hi + d0/2
(see Fig. 9).
of cyclically loaded shallow foundations and monopiles
has been observed which is described as self-healing [9]
[22] [23] [24] [25]. It denotes the ability of a foundation
to rotate back from an inclined state due to an extreme
load event towards the previous vertical position.
A soil mechanical as well as a simplified physical ex-
planation of the governing mechanism triggering self-heal-
ing have been presented by Sturm [22] [23]. An advanced
and comprehensive physical explanation has been pre-
sented recently by Gudehus [14] [15] utilising energetic
considerations and suitable attractors for soils. In lieu of
the rather phenomenological term self-healing, the term
stabilisation will be used, accounting for the actual under-
lying physical mechanism. From a soil mechanical point
of view, stabilisation can be explained by dilatancy or re-
compaction, respectively, induced by alternating shear and
pressure of the soil adjacent to the foundation, superim-
posed with plastic deformation under constant volume,
i.e. soil squeezing.
With respect to the considered OWT foundation,
destabilisation can be identified by an increase of the

geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2 93

H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

0 0
7.0 m 7.0 m

excess pore pressure u (kPa)

excess pore pressure u (kPa)

20 3.5 m −20 3.5 m

40 −40

60 −60

80 −80

100 −100
outside middle inside inside middle outside
plate on compression side plate on uplift side
Fig. 12. Excess pore pressure and suction under the plate on compression and uplift sides at peak of the extreme loading for
two different skirt lengths predicted with the 2D model; loading applied from the right side; after [20]
Bild 12. Porenwasserüber- bzw. Unterdruck auf Kompressions- und Entlastungsseite bei maximaler Belastung in Abhängig-
keit der Schürzenlänge

accumulated rotations during cyclic loading, leading fi-
nally to a failure or collapse of the whole structure when
it tilts over. In contrast to that, stabilisation denotes a de-
crease of the accumulated rotation, i.e. a back-rotation of
the structure towards the previous vertical position. Sta-
bilisation in terms of physics also implies a decrease of
the total energy, which is accomplished here by a de-
crease of the potential energy. Thus, back-rotation is nec-
essarily accompanied by accumulated settlement of the
structure.
The rate of back-rotation is a function of the number
of applied load cycles, the cyclic amplitude and the aver-
age cyclic load. In addition, foundation geometry, soil type
and soil conditions affect the stabilisation behaviour [22]
[23].
8.2 Effect of skirt length and structural stiffness
Fig. 13 shows the rotation of the cross foundation with dif-
ferent skirt lengths subjected first to the same extreme
load analysed in Section 6.2.1, followed by a cyclic load
package having a somewhat smaller amplitude and aver-
age value than the load used in Section 6.2.2. Based on
e.g. Miner’s rule [26], classical theories assume a continu-
ous increase of the accumulated rotation being in particu-
lar independent of the order of the applied loads. Fig. 13,
however, shows a back-rotation of the foundation during
rotation ϕ ( °)
tion without skirts (0 m). The corresponding settlement,
shown in Fig. 14b, is normalised in a similar way.
⎛ sav – sav ⎞ ⎛ sav ⎞
sˆav = 100 · ⎜ 25 av 0 ⎟ · ⎜ av 0 av ⎟ [%] (8)
⎝ s0 ⎠ i ⎝ s25 – s0 ⎠ ref
In addition to the skirt length, the effect of structural stiff-
ness studied shown in Figs. 14a and 14b. The term stiff de-
notes a ten times larger, soft a ten times smaller Young’s
modulus E than the one used in the reference model.
While the amount of back-rotation is larger for foun-
dations with skirts, the actual length has only a minor in-
fluence. The effect of structural stiffness is qualitatively
the same but the amount of normalised back-rotation is
larger for the softer and smaller for the stiffer model. This
is again due to shear-induced dilatancy being smaller for
stiff and skirted foundations.
·10−2
10
0m
8 1m
2m

6 4m
cyclic loading; i.e. a stabilisation. Within only 25 cycles,
the foundation with 4 m long skirts rotates back by
4
≈ 0.005° or ≈ 18 %, relative to the state after unloading
from the extreme load.
In order to quantify the back-rotation, a normalisa- 2
tion was introduced in Fig. 14a.
0
⎛ ϕ av – ϕ av ⎞ ⎛ ϕ av ⎞ 0 5 10 15 20 25
ϕˆ av = 100 · ⎜ 25 av 0 ⎟ · ⎜ av 0 av ⎟ [%] (7) number of cycles
⎝ ϕ0 ⎠ i ⎝ ϕ 25 – ϕ 0 ⎠ ref
Fig. 13. Rotation of the foundation with different skirt
lengths under fully drained conditions predicted with the 2D
where ϕ0av denotes the rotation after unloading from the model
extreme loading and ϕav25 the rotation of the foundation af- Bild 13. Rotation des Fundamentes in Abhängigkeit der
ter 25 cycles. The index ref refers to the reference founda- Schürzenlänge

94 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2

 H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines

(a) Normalised back-rotation.

50 5.5 · 10−6
stiff 200 5.5 · 10−5
reference
5.5 · 10−4
back-rotation ϕˆ av (%)

soft

rotation ϕ̄ (%)
100

100

150

200 0 10 260 270 520

0 1 2 3 4 time t (sec)
skirt length
Fig. 15. Effect of soil permeability on the normalised rota-
tion of the foundation
(b) Normalised settlement.
60 Bild 15. Einfluss der Durchlässigkeit des Bodens auf die
stiff Rückdrehung
reference
soft
settlement ŝav (%)

80 larger embedment depth (settlement) and reorientation of

the grain skeleton. The rotational response of the founda-
tion in the second cyclic load package is similar to that ob-
served in the first cyclic load package. The average accu-
100 mulated rotation during cyclic loading seems to approach
the same state (attractor). Similar observations for a shal-
low foundation have been observed in 1g model tests [22].

120 9 Discussion and outlook

0 1 2 3
skirt length
Fig. 14. Influence of skirt length and structural stiffness on
the stabilisation and settlement behaviour predicted with
the 2D model
Bild 14. Einfluss der Schürzenlänge und der Struktursteifig-
keit auf die Rückdrehung
The effect of skirt length and stiffness on the nor-
malised accumulated settlements after 25 cycles is almost
negligible, as shown in Fig. 14b.
8.3 Effect of drainage condition
The influence of soil permeability on the stabilisation be-
haviour is shown in Fig. 15. The same loading sequence,
consisting of an extreme load and a package of 25 cycles
was applied twice. The rotation was normalised so that
the residual rotation at the end of the first extreme loading
amounts to 100 %.
The ratio of the peak rotation relative to the rotation
after unloading from the extreme loading decreases for
lower permeabilities. The absolute rotation, however, in-
creases for partially drained conditions due to the devel-
opment of excess pore pressure on the compression side
causing a softer response (see Fig. 5b). The same effect re-
sults in a faster back-rotation in subsequent cyclic loading
for lower permeabilities.
An increase of the rotational stiffness can be ob-
served for repeated extreme loading, indicating a kind of a
hardening behaviour, which could be due to a slightly
4
A novel foundation type developed for offshore wind tur-
bines has been analysed with respect to its geotechnical
performance under static monotonic and cyclic loading.
The effects of load and drainage conditions, structural
stiffness and skirt lengths have been studied numerically.
The load-bearing behaviour is a combination of that
of a GBS and a bucket foundation. It resists the loading by
its weight and suction generated within the skirt compart-
ments. Due to its distributed footprint, rocking, typical for
foundations founded on a single large plate, is prevented.
Compared to classical GBSs with no or only very
short structural skirts, the proposed foundation solution
with skirts of considerable length can mobilise suction on
the uplift side in the soil, which leads to an increase of ro-
tational stiffness. An optimum skirt length for the consid-
ered case could be found, being approximately half the
plate diameter (3.5 m). Increasing skirt length did not lead
to a further increase of the rotational stiffness. The
length/diameter ratio of 0.5 is equal to typical values for
bucket foundations. However, longer skirts than found in
this study might be necessary in order to reach deeper sus-
tainable soil layers. But longer skirts might be difficult to
penetrate if only the weight of the foundation is to be
utilised as driving force. Additional equipment such as
pumps would then be necessary for a proper installation.
The proposed cross-shaped foundation with effective
skirts can be a viable alternative to conventional gravity
base type solutions for OWT structures. If the generation
of temporary suction is taken into account in the design,
foundation weight and diameter can be reduced. In future
works, these numerical findings will be verified with mod-

geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2 95

H. Sturm · Geotechnical performance of a novel gravity base type shallow foundation for offshore wind turbines
el tests in order to support the optimisation potential of
the proposed foundation solution compared to ordinary
GBSs without or very short skirts.
References
[1] Houlsby, G., Ibsen, L. & Byrne, B.: Suction caissons for wind
turbines. Gourvenec, Cassidy (eds.): ISOFOG – International
Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, 2005, pp.
75–93.
[2] Houlsby, G., Kelly, R. Huxtable, J. & Byrne, B.: Field trials of
suction caissons in sand for offshore wind turbine foundations.
Géotechnique 56 (2006), No. 1, pp. 3–10.
[3] Ibsen, L. & Brincker, R.: Design of a new foundation for off-
shore wind turbines. Proceedings of the 22nd International
Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), Detroit, 2004.
[4] Grabe, J., Dührkop, J. & Mahutka, K.P.: Monopilegründun-
gen von Offshore Windenergieanlagen – Zur Bildung von Po-
renwasserdrücken aus zyklischer Belastung. Bauingenieur
2004, Heft 9, S. 418-423.
[5] Brinch Hansen, J.: A general formula for bearing capacity.
Geoteknisk Instituts Bulletin 5 (1961), pp. 38–46.
[6] Brinch Hansen, J.: A revised and extended formula for bear-
ing capacity. Geoteknisk Instituts Bulletin 28 (1970), pp. 5–11.
[7] Meyerhof, G.: Some recent foundation research and its appli-
cation to design. The Structural Engineer 31 (1953) No. 6, pp.
151–167.
[8] Andersen, K.: Bearing capacity under cyclic loading -off-
shore, along the coast, and on land. Géotechnique 46 (2009),
No. 5, pp. 513–535.
[9] Sturm, H.: Shallow Foundations of Offshore Wind Turbine
Structures in the North and Baltic Sea. 18th European Young
Geotechnical Engineers Conference. Ancona, 2007.
[10] v. Wolffersdorff, P.A.: A hypoplastic relation for granular
material with predefined limit state surface. Mechanics of Co-
hesive-Frictional Materials 1 (1996), No. 3, pp. 251–275.
[11] Niemunis, A. & Herle, I.: Hypoplastic model for cohesion-
less soils with elastic strain range. Mechanics of Cohesive-Fric-
tional Materials 2 (1997), pp. 279–299.
[12] Niemunis, A.: Extension to the hypoplastic model for soils.
Ph.D. thesis. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2003.
[13] Herle, I. & Gudehus, G.: Determination of parameters of a
hypoplastic constitutive model from properties of grain assem-
blies. Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials 4 (1999), pp.
461–486.
[14] Gudehus, G.: Psammodynamics: attractors and energetic.
9th HSTM International Conference on Mechanics, 2010.
[15] Gudehus, G.: Wind parks in the German Bight – a chal-
lenge for geotechnics. geotechnik 34 (2011), No. 1, pp. 3–10.
[16] Wichtmann, T.: Explicit accumulation model for non-cohe-
sive soils under cyclic loading, Ph.D. thesis. Ruhr-Universität
Bochum, 2005.
96 geotechnik 34 (2011), Heft 2
[17] Andersen, K., Jostad, H. & Dyvik, R.: Penetration resistance
of offshore skirted foundations and anchors in dense sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
134 (2008), No. 1, pp. 106–116.
[18] Houlsby, G. & Byrne, B.: Design procedures for installation
of suction caissons in clay Design procedures for installation of
suction caissons in clay and other materials. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 158
(2005), pp. 75–82.
[19] Houlsby, G. & Byrne, B.: Design procedures for installation
of suction caissons in sand, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 158 (2005), pp.
135–144.
[20] Dinier, M.: Entwurf und Bemessung einer Gründung mittels
Bucket Foundations für eine Offshore Windenergieanlage.
Master’s thesis, Institute of Soil and Rock Mechanics in Karls-
ruhe, 2008.
[21] NGI: Skirted offshore foundations and anchors in sand:
Phase 1, Activity 1.7: Back-calculation of model tests with
BIFURC. Tech. Rep. 524098-8, NGI – Norwegian Geotechni-
cal Institute, 1999.
[22] Sturm, H.:Numerical investigation of the stabilisation be-
haviour of shallow foundations under alternate loading. Acta
Geotechnica 4 (2009), No. 4, pp. 283–292.
[23] Sturm, H.: Stabilisation behaviour of cyclically loaded shal-
low foundations for offshore wind turbines. Ph.D. thesis, 2009.
[24] Sturm, H., Solf, O. & Kudella, P.: Self-healing effects of
shallow foundations for offshore wind turbine structures. 11th
Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, 2008.
[25] Solf, O., Kudella, P. & Triantafyllidis, T.: Investigation of
the self-healing effect of monopile foundations. ICPMG -Inter-
national Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,
ETH Zurich (ETHZ), 2010.
[26] Miner, M.: Cumulative damage in fatigue. Transactions of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 103 (67)
(1945), pp. 159–164.
Acknowledgement
The research in this paper was supported, in chronological order,
by the construction company Ed. Züblin AG, the Federal Minis-
try for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety (BMU) under the promotional reference No. 0327618, the
Karlsruhe House of Young Scientists (KHYS) and the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGI).
Author
Hendrik Sturm, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), P.O. Box. 3930,
Ullevål Stadion, N-0806 Oslo, Norway, Hendrik.Sturm@ngi.no
Submitted for review: 29 November 2010
Accepted for publication: 5 January 2011