DO ENG KD GEO0024 - Rev0b Self Stable Embedment

KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT
Procedure for
Monopile Self-Stable Embedment Assessment
Dpt. Reference
DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024
Document Approval Status
Action Name Function Signature Date

Approved by Sylvie Raymackers Team Coordinator RSY 13/07/2020
Checked by Alain Burgraeve Geotechnical Specialist ABU 13/07/2020
Prepared by Simone Corciulo Geotechnical Engineer SIMC 18/05/2020
Document Revision Status
Rev. Date Prep Check Appr Issue Purpose

0b 13/07/2020 SIMC ABU RSY For Use
KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT REV 0b
PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................3
1.1 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCUMENT ........................................................................................3
1.2 DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS AND CONVENTIONS .......................................................................3
1.2.1 Definitions .........................................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................3
1.2.3 Symbols ............................................................................................................................................4
1.2.4 Conventions ......................................................................................................................................5
1.3 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................5
2 SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION .........................................................................................................................7
2.1 SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT .........................................................................................................................7
2.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT .............................................................................................................7
3 SELF-STABLE EMBEDMENT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................8
3.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................................................8
3.2 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 p-y Curves Approach ........................................................................................................................9
3.2.2 Optimized p-y curves formulations for Monopiles ..........................................................................11
3.2.3 Finite Element Method ....................................................................................................................12
3.3 PROS AND CONS OF P-Y CURVES AND FEM ...............................................................................................13
3.4 LOAD COMBINATION .................................................................................................................................14
4 REQUIRED INPUT ...........................................................................................................................................16
4.1 MONOPILE GEOMETRY ..............................................................................................................................16
4.2 HAMMER PROPERTIES ..............................................................................................................................16
4.3 METOCEAN DATA .....................................................................................................................................16
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES ....................................................................................................................16
4.4.1 Granular Soils .................................................................................................................................16
4.4.2 Cohesive Soils ................................................................................................................................17
4.4.3 Rocks ..............................................................................................................................................17
5 EXPECTED OUTPUT ......................................................................................................................................18
5.1 P-Y CURVES APPROACH............................................................................................................................18
5.2 FE ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................19
6 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................20
Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 2 of 20

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Applicability of the Document
The geotechnical aspects required to carry out a monopile Self-Stable Embedment assessment are discussed.
The purpose of the document is to describe the methodologies followed by DEME Offshore geotechnical
engineering department to assess monopiles self-stable embedment. Required soil data and load combinations,
as well as expected output of the analysis are also discussed.
The procedure is intended for internal use only. It applies to every project or tender where monopile (or jacket
pile) foundations are planned to be installed, either by means of jack-up vessels or floating vessels.
1.2 Definitions, Abbreviations, Symbols and Conventions
1.2.1 Definitions
Definition Description
Embedment Ratio Ratio of pile penetration to pile outer diameter.
Condition in which a vertical, unsupported pile is stable, i.e. it does not lean more than
Free-Standing Condition
the maximum tolerance angle.
Tool used to support and fix position / rotation of a monopile during crane lifting,
Gripper Frame
lowering, self-weight penetration and hammering operations.
The maximum penetration length at which the gripper must be released due to
Gripper Release Depth
operational constraints.
Self-Stable Embedment Pile embedment at which free-standing conditions are achieved.
Self-Stable Stability Ratio Ratio of pile self-stable embedment to pile outer diameter.
Self-Weight Penetration Pile penetration achieved by means of pile self-weight.
1.2.2 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
3D Three-dimensional
API American Petroleum Institute
BE Best Estimate
BEF Beam on Elastic Foundation
COG Centre of Gravity
DEME Dredging, Environmental and Marine Engineering
DNVGL Det Norske Veritas – Germanische Lloyd
DO DEME Offshore
FE Finite Elements
FEM Finite Element Method
FS Safety Factor
GSI Geological Strength Index
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
HLV Heavy Lift Vessel
ISO International Organization for Standardization

Abbreviation Description
JUV Jack-Up Vessel
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LE Low Estimate
OCR Over-consolidation Ratio
PRO Procedure
RQD Rock Quality Designation
SSE Self-Stable Embedment
SWP Self-Weight Penetration
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
UU Unconfined Undrained triaxial test
XXL Extra-large
bsl Below seabed level
1.2.3 Symbols
Symbol Description
c' Effective cohesion
D Monopile diameter
E50 Secant Young modulus (at 50% of maximum deviatoric stress)
Ein Tangent (initial) Young modulus
Erm Rock mass Young modulus
Eu Undrained Young modulus
E’ Effective Young modulus
F Horizontal load at seabed
Hs Waves height
h Application point (above seabed) of lateral loads in FE analysis, h = M / F
k Modulus of subgrade reaction
k0 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
kir Model parameter (in p-y curves formulation for rocks)
krm Model parameter (in p-y curves formulation for rocks)
L Monopile length
M Bending moment at seabed
Mir Stiffness parameter (in p-y curves formulation for rocks)
mi Geomaterial constant
p Lateral soil reaction
pult Ultimate soil resistance (in p-y curves formulations)
Su Undrained shear strength
Tp Waves return period
t Monopile wall thickness
uc Current speed
uw Wind speed

Symbol Description
X Depth below seabed (in p-y curves formulation for sand)
y Pile deflection
yrm Reference displacement (in p-y curves formulation for rocks)
y50 Model parameter (in p-y curves formulation for clay)
α Monopile-soil interface adhesion factor
γ' Effective unit weight
δ Monopile-soil interface friction angle
ε50 Strain at 50% of maximum deviatoric strain
Φ’ Effective friction angle
ψ Dilatancy angle
1.2.4 Conventions
In this procedure, the metric system of units is used unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
1.3 References
[1] M.W. O’Neill and J.M. Murchison, 1983, “An evaluation of p-y relationships in sands”, Report PRAC 82-41-
1 to API, University of Houston, Texas.
[2] H. Matlock, 1970, “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in clay”, in Proceedings of the Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
[3] L.C. Reese and R.C. Welch, 1975, “Lateral loading of deep foundation in stiff clay”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Div., vol. 101(7), pp. 633-649.
[4] L.C. Reese, 1997, “Analysis of laterally loaded piles in weak rock”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 123(11), pp. 1010-1017.
[5] American Petroleum Institute, 2020, “Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms –
Working Stress Design”, API RP 2A-WSD, 22nd Edition, Reaffirmed, September.
[6] International Organization for Standardization, 2007, “Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed steel
offshore structures”, ISO 19902, 1st Edition.
[7] DNVGL, 2018, “Support structures for wind turbines”, DNVGL-ST-0126, Revised, July.
[8] S.P.H. Sørensen, L.B. Ibsen and A.H. Augustesen, 2010, “Effects of diameter on initial stiffness of p-y
curves for large-diameter piles in sand”, in Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Trondheim, June 2-4.
[9] D. Kallehave, C.L. Thilsted and M.A. Liingaard, 2012, “Modification of the API p-y formulation of initial
stiffness of sand”, in Proceedings of the 7th Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference,
London, September 12-14.
[10] F. Kirsch, T. Richter and M. Coronel, 2014, “Geotechnische Aspekte bei der Gründungsbemessung von
Offshore-Windenergieanlagen auf Monopfählen mit sehr großen Durchmessern“, Stahlbau, 83(2), pp. 61-
67.
[11] H.J. Burd, D.M.G. Taborda, L. Zdravkovic, C. Abaide et al., 2019, “PISA Design Model for Monopiles for
Offshore Wind Turbines: Application to a Marine Sand”, Géotechnique, 70(11), pp. 1048-1066.
[12] J.B. Stevens and J.M.E. Audibert, 1979, “Re-examination of p-y curve formulations”, in Proceedings of the
11th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 8-11.
[13] W.B. Byrne, G.T. Houlsby, H.J. Burd, K.G. Gavin et al., 2019, “PISA Design Model for Monopiles for
Offshore Wind Turbines: Application to a Stiff Glacial Till”, Géotechnique, 70(11), pp. 1030-1047.
[14] W.M. Isenhower, S-T. Wang L. and Gonzalo Vazquez, 2019, “LPILE v2019 User’s Manual – A Program for
the Analysis of Deep Foundations Under Lateral Loading”, Ensoft, Inc.
[15] Cathie Associates, 2015, “OPile Integrated solutions for single pile analysis – Instruction Manual”, Cathie
Associates SA/NV.

[16] R.B.J. Brinkgreve, L.M. Zampich and N. Ragi Manoj, 2019, “PLAXIS CONNECT Edition V20 – General
Information”, Build 10265.
[17] Plaxis, 2019, “PLAXIS Material Models – CONNECT Edition V20”, Build 10265.

2 SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION

2.1 Scope of the Document
The geotechnical aspects of a monopile Self-Stable Embedment assessment are discussed in this procedure.
The document applies to every project / tender where monopile (or jacket pile) foundations are planned to be
installed, either by means of jack-up vessels or floating vessels.
The goal of the document is to describe the methodologies followed by the geotechnical team of DEME Offshore
(DO) Engineering Department for the assessment of monopiles self-stable embedment. The information required
to perform the assessment, and the typical output, are also discussed.
The document is intended for internal use only.
2.2 Organization of the Document

The document is organized as follows:
• Introduction is given in Section 1.
• The scope of the document is outlined in Section 2;
• Available methodologies for SSE assessment (p-y curve approach and finite element method) are presented
and discussed in Section 3.
• Required input for the analysis is listed in Section 4.
• An example of the output of the assessment is given in Section 5.
A memo is attached in Annex A, where the results obtained by means of p-y curves approach and FEM are
compared, and the shortcomings of classic p-y curve approach when dealing with large-diameter monopile are
discussed.

3 SELF-STABLE EMBEDMENT ASSESSMENT

3.1 General
During first phase of hammering, monopiles are held in position by the gripper frame. As shown in Figure 1, the
pile gripper is a circular steel tool used to control the lower end of the monopile during crane lifting, vertically place
it and support its position / rotation during hammering for stability and safety reasons. The gripper frame can be
fixed to the vessel, in case of jack-ups (as in Figure 1), or motion compensated, in case of floating vessels.
Monopiles need to be supported during lowering and self-weight penetration phases. Moreover, during
hammering, the pile is subjected to lateral environmental loads related to hydrodynamic force (current and waves)
and wind force. As a function of soil properties, in terms of stratigraphy and horizontal bearing capacity, the
partially embedded monopile may or may not be self-stable with respect to environmental loading combination.
Hence, the gripper provides lateral support to the monopile and prevents the pile to tilt. Even if the monopile does
not fail under the action of the environmental loads, an excessive pile tilt during installation may interfere with its
functionality.
The pile gripper must be released when the hammering tools approach the gripper frame, due to operational
constraints. The maximum pile penetration that can be achieved before gripper release, or the gripper release
depth, is function of several parameters including pile length, water depth, and height of the gripper frame above
water level.
It is therefore essential to check whether the monopile can be considered self-stable before gripper release depth,
i.e. to verify that free-standing condition is achieved when pile embedment is less than the gripper release depth.
The pile embedment at which free-standing condition is achieved is called the Self-Stable Embedment (SSE).
This is function of pile geometry, environmental loads, and soil lateral capacity.
Figure 1: Pile Gripper for JUV Innovation

A way to define the SSE is to check at which penetration the maximum tilt of the unsupported monopile is less
than a certain percentage of the inclination tolerance at the end of installation. Typically, the inclination tolerance
for a monopile at the end of installation is 0.25 degrees, but it may be loosened of tightened for the specific project.
In addition, a criterion on the variation of monopile rotation as a function of embedment may be defined to
guarantee free-standing condition under the considered load combination (to be developed).
The methodologies followed to assess monopile SSE are described in the following.
3.2 Methodology
The problem is governed by lateral soil resistance. Monopile lateral stability for SSE assessment can be evaluated
by means of a) classic p-y curves analysis or b) finite element method (FEM).
3.2.1 p-y Curves Approach

Early approaches to lateral pile stability assessment, based on the work of Winkler in the late 19th century,
considered the soil as a series of independent discrete linear springs along the length of the pile, characterised
by a modulus of subgrade reaction (Figure 2). These are the Beam on Elastic Foundation approaches (BEF).
Figure 2: Subgrade Reaction Model – BEF Idealization
The development of the subgrade reaction theory was the introduction of non-linear springs by defining a complete
load transfer curve at each depth, the so-called p-y curves, where p is the soil pressure per pile unit length and
y is the pile deflection (Figure 3). Accordingly, stiffness and ultimate resistance of the soil are represented by a
series of p-y curves that vary in shape and magnitude as a function of depth and soil type.
Different formulations were proposed to simulate the lateral load transfer when dealing with different soil type. For
the materials most commonly encountered in offshore environment, the following formulations can be routinely
adopted:
• for granular soils, the sand model proposed by O’Neill and Murchison [1].
The p-y curves are defined as:
𝒌𝑿
𝒑 = 𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒉 ( 𝒚) (1)
𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕
where pult is the ultimate resistance (function of soil friction angle Φ’, pile diameter D and overburden
pressure), X is the depth below seabed, and k is the initial modulus of subgrade reaction (function of soil
friction angle).
• for soft cohesive soils, the soft clay model proposed by Matlock [2].
They p-y curves are defined as:
𝒚 𝟎.𝟑𝟑
𝟎. 𝟓𝒑 𝒖𝒍𝒕 ( ) 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒚 ≤ 𝟖𝒚𝟓𝟎
𝒑={ 𝒚𝟓𝟎 (2)
𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒚 > 𝟖𝒚𝟓𝟎
𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕

where pult is function of clay undrained shear strength Su and pile diameter, and y50 is equal to 2.5*D*ε50 where
ε50 is the strain occurring at one half of the maximum deviatoric stress measured in a UU triaxial compression
test.
• for stiff cohesive soils, the stiff clay model proposed by Reese and Welch [3].
The p-y curves are defined as:
𝒚 𝟎.𝟐𝟓
𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒚 ≤ 𝟏𝟔𝒚𝟓𝟎
𝒑 = {𝟎. 𝟓𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕 (𝒚𝟓𝟎 ) (3)
𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒚 > 𝟏𝟔𝒚𝟓𝟎
𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕
where pult is function of clay undrained shear strength Su and pile diameter, and y50 is equal to 2.5*D*ε50.
• for rocks, the weak rock formulation proposed by Reese [4]. The p-y curves are defined as:
𝑴𝒊𝒓 𝒚
𝒚 𝟎.𝟐𝟓
𝒑 = 𝒎𝒊𝒏 {𝟎. 𝟓𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕 ( ) (4)
𝒚𝒓𝒎
𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒕
where pult is function of rock properties (compressive strength, in terms of UCS, and quality, as RQD) and pile
diameter, yrm is a reference displacement computed as krm*D (where the coefficient krm ranges from 0.0005
to 0.00005 based on model calibration) and Mir is determined by multiplying the initial rock stiffness modulus
by a factor kir ranging from 100 to 500.
Figure 3: Graphical Definition of p and y
The p-y curves approach is currently included in the main offshore standards ([5], [6], [7]) and allows for a decent
description of the evolution of soil reaction with pile displacement. The different formulations can be suitably
implemented in a computer program, such as LPile [14] and OPile [15]. Such software, which solve the differential
equation governing lateral pile behaviour using finite difference and compute deflection, bending moment, shear
force and soil response over the length of the pile, can be routinely used to assess monopiles SSE.
The main assumptions of the SSE assessment are:
• monopile is modelled as a tubular pile with a constant outer diameter and wall thickness.
• only the embedded part of the monopile is modelled.
• environmental loads acting on the pile during installation, such as current / waves forces and wind thrust, are
transferred into a resulting shear force and moment applied at seabed level (as static loads).
• no scour is (usually) assumed to occur around the monopile during the time frame when self-standing stability
must be guaranteed.
Monopile SSE is determined iteratively by checking pile head rotation for several embedment depths. To do so,
monopile penetration is varied during the analysis and, for each penetration, rotation at mudline is computed. The
minimum pile embedment (typically rounded to the higher 10 cm) for which the adopted SSE criterion is fulfilled
is defined as the Self-Stable Embedment.

In addition, a multiplying factor for the environmental loads can be evaluated in order to check monopile safety in
free-standing condition. This can be performed by means of a push-over analysis increasing both shear force and
moment with the same factor.
The typical output of a SSE assessment by means of p-y curves approach is presented in Section 5.1.
3.2.2 Optimized p-y curves formulations for Monopiles

The original p-y method was originally developed for the relatively slender piles used in the offshore oil and gas
industry. The formulations presented in Section 3.2.1 are widely regarded as having significant limitations when
applied to piles with low L/D ratios of about 6 or less, like the monopiles that are currently employed for offshore
wind turbine applications. Evidence highlighting the shortcomings of the conventional p-y method for monopile
applications has been observed in laboratory tests and at field scale.
Winkler assumption (soil reactions depend solely on the local displacement and rotation) is an oversimplification
of the actual response of the soil body, and it does not represent the spatial coupling that occurs.
In addition to the distributed lateral load p, the following reaction components act on the pile when subjected to a
lateral load ():
• A distributed moment, as a consequence of the vertical tractions that are induced on the pile perimeter when
relative vertical displacements occur at the soil-pile interface.
• A lateral force acting on the base on the pile.
• A moment acting on the base of the pile.
These additional components, neglected in the conventional p-y formulations, become increasingly significant as
L/D ratio is reduced, and hence for large-diameter monopiles having a stiffer behaviour than slender piles. The
distributed moment component for example depends on pile diameter, and similarly the force and moment
reactions at the base of the pile become more significant as the diameter is increased.
Different optimized p-y curves were recently developed by several research groups for both sand (Table 1) and
clay (Table 2) in order to fix the shortcomings of traditional p-y curve method when dealing with XXL monopiles.
However, none of these modified formulations is currently included in LPile software, whereas only Sørensen and
Kallehave sand formulations are implemented in OPile.
Table 1: Optimized Formulations for Sand

Name Description Reference
Reduction factor for the initial modulus of subgrade reaction
Sørensen sand Sørensen etal. (2010) [8]
k based on depth, monopile diameter and soil stiffness
Factor for increased modulus of subgrade reaction k based
Kallehave sand Kallehave etal. (2012) [9]
on depth and monopile diameter
Modification of API sand p-y curves with large-diameter
Kirsch sand Kirsch etal. (2014) [10]
effects and increased modulus of subgrade reaction
Rule-based p-y curves for large diameter piles based on
PISA sand Burd etal. (2019) [11]
marine sands (45%, 75%, and 90% relative densities)
Table 2: Optimized Formulations for Clay

Name Description Reference
Stevens and Modification of API clay p-y curves for large-diameter Stevens and Audibert
[12]
Audibert clay effects (1979)
Kirsch clay Modification of API clay p-y curves (soft and stiff clay) Kirsch etal. (2014) [10]
Rule-based p-y curves for large diameter piles based on
PISA clay Byrne etal. (2019) [13]
Cowden clay

Figure 4: Soil Reaction Components Acting on a XXL Monopile
3.2.3 Finite Element Method

The implicit limitations of p-y curves approach can be overcome through FEM analysis. In a 3D Finite Element
(FE) model, both the monopile and the foundation soil are modelled as three-dimensional so that soil-pile
interaction can be correctly captured.
A FE model aimed at analyzing monopiles free-standing stability may be developed in a commercial software
such as Plaxis 3D [16]. An example of a partially embedded monopile modeled in Plaxis 3D is shown in Figure 5.
Assuming environmental loads (resultant shear force and moment) to be aligned and lying on symmetry plane,
geometrical and loading symmetries can be exploited considering only half of the problem. This increases
accuracy and / or computational efficiency. Preliminary sensitivity analysis shall be carried out to ensure model
dimensions and finite element mesh coarseness do not have a significant influence on the results of the
assessment.
The monopile is modelled by means of either linear elastic or elastoplastic shell elements, characterized by steel
properties. Several constitutive models can be adopted to represent the behavior of foundation soil: Mohr-
Coulomb model, Hardening Soil model, Hoek-Brown model (only for rock). Please refer to Plaxis Material Manual
[17] for a detailed description of the different constitutive models.
Usually, the simple linear elastic perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb serves the scope of SSE assessment. Soil
strength in defined in terms of undrained shear strength Su, in clay, and friction angle Φ’, in sand. For rock, strength
can be derived in terms of undrained shear strength from the UCS, as Su = UCS / 2. For both granular and
cohesive soil conditions, stiffness is governed by Young Modulus (respectively drained and undrained) and
Poisson Ratio.

Figure 5: FE Model of a Partially Embedded Monopile for SSE Assessment
The SSE assessment consists of a series of push-over analysis where a lateral displacement is imposed to the
monopile at a certain height h above seabed (h = M / F) in order to introduce a predefined ratio between shear
force F and overturning moment M for several monopile embedment depths. Typically, the analysis is carried out
for a limited number of embedment ratios L / D, i.e. the ratio of monopile diameter and outer diameter, as a
function of the specific case considered (for example L / D = 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2.0). Monopile Self-Stable
Embedment can be defined according to resulting load / displacement and moment / rotation curves.
An additional check can be performed by applying design environmental loads to the monopile assumed in free-
standing stable conditions to evaluate: (i) the actual monopile rotation at seabed, and (ii) the global safety against
failure.
The typical output of this assessment is presented in Section 5.2.
3.3 Pros and Cons of p-y Curves and FEM

Both p-y curves approach and FEM analysis can be suitably used to assess monopile self-stable embedment.
As discussed in Section 3.2, the adoption of a p-y curves approach for the analysis of piles lateral behavior is still
referred to in the main offshore standards. However, for piles with diameters of more than 1 m (i.e. always when
dealing with monopiles) a FE validation of the results obtained via p-y curves approach is also recommended
Error! Reference source not found..
The advantages of classic p-y curves approach may be summarized as:
• simplicity.
• short execution time.
• it requires very basic strength and stiffness soil parameters.
On the other hand, the main limitations of the method are:
• the soil is not treated as a continuum.

• the usefulness of the approach depends on the similarity between the actual monopile and soil conditions to
those in which the curves were developed and calibrated.
• it is widely known it has remarkable limitations when applied to pile with relatively low L / D ratios of 6 or less,
as those typically employed for offshore wind applications.
Moreover, when dealing with large-diameter monopiles additional soil reaction components (not considered in
classic p-y curves formulations) have been identified as significant, i.e. vertical shear tractions and horizontal force

at the monopile tip. Consequently, p-y curves tend to over-estimate monopile deflection, providing conservative
estimates of SSE depth.
The shortcomings of a FEM analysis are related to the implicit complexity of the method, which can make it difficult
to be routinely used when a large number of locations must be analyzed. In particular:
• a model must be defined for every location analyzed.

• high computational cost.
• additional / specific geotechnical parameters may be required to reproduce soil behavior correctly.
A comparison between FEM and p-y curves approach for large-diameter monopiles in sand, clay, and interlayered
sand is provided in Annex A. As anticipated, the memo shows p-y curves provide conservative estimates of free-
standing embedment depth for XXL monopiles.
It is concluded that p-y curves may be routinely used for quick verification, but it should be good practice to check
the conservativeness of the results via FE modeling, at least for the most critical soil / loading conditions.
3.4 Load Combination

The load combination for SSE assessment during pile installation must include:
• A horizontal force representing the wind load.

• A horizontal force representing the wave (and current) load.
• the self-weight of the monopile and the weight of the hammer (+ sleeve etc.).
A sketch of the load combination for SSE during installation is shown in Figure 6.
The total horizontal force is a combination of wind and waves / current loads that results in a shear force F at
seabed level. The total overturning moment M at seabed level results from the combination of the moment
generated by environmental loads and the second-order moment caused by the eccentricity of monopile and
hammer self-weight when the monopile starts tilting. In principle, this second-order moment is variable as it
increases with increasing monopile tilting. Conservatively, it may be computed for the maximum allowable tilt and
kept constant during the analysis.
Figure 6: Load Combination for SSE

The hydrodynamic loads (current, waves) and the wind load are assessed by Method Engineering based on the
processing of available metocean data for the site in terms of wave height and return period, current speed, and
wind speed. The selection of the metocean data to be considered must reflect the scope of the assessment, i.e.
the loads are different during installation (short timeframe) and for an abandoned pile (higher environmental
loads). Moreover, in case the SSE is performed to check the stability of an abandoned pile, the weight of the
hammer is not included in the load combination.

4 REQUIRED INPUT
In this section, information required as input for monopiles SSE assessment are listed.
4.1 Monopile Geometry

Monopile geometry shall be defined in terms of:
• outer diameter D (m).
• wall thickness t (m).
• total length L (m).
• total mass (mT).
• centre of gravity COG (m LAT).
Since a second order moment due to eccentricity of pile weight occurs when the pile starts tilting, monopile total
mass and COG are required, in addition to classic geometric properties such as diameter and wall thickness, to
define the load combination scheme.
4.2 Hammer Properties

Hammer properties in terms of weight (mT) and COG (m LAT) are required to define the load combination scheme
since a second order moment due to eccentricity of the hammer occurs when pile starts tilting.
4.3 Metocean Data

Metocean data are required to evaluate the environmental loads acting on the monopile in terms of hydrodynamic
force, due to current and waves, and wind thrust.
Metocean conditions at site shall be defined in terms of:
• waves height Hs (m) and return period Tp (s).

• current speed uc (m/s).
• wind speed uw (m/s).
Knowing this set of parameters, metocean data can be internally processed to assess hydrodynamic loading
acting on the monopiles during installation, as a function of location specific water level and pile diameter.
4.4 Geotechnical Properties

Geotechnical properties of the foundation soil are required for a realistic modelling of monopile lateral behaviour.
First, the site-specific soil stratigraphy down to monopile target penetration depth must be known. It shall be
considered good practice to adopt the set of geotechnical parameters defined by the designer, in order to be
consistent with design assumptions regarding monopile lateral response.
Low Estimate (LE) and / or Best Estimate (BE) design soil parameters may be adopted for monopile SSE
calculations. In case the assessment is carried out for both LE and BE conditions, an idea of design assumptions
influence on analysis outcomes is also provided.
4.4.1 Granular Soils

In presence of sandy layers, the following geotechnical parameters shall be (at least) provided:
• effective unit weight γ’ (kN/m3).
• effective friction angle Φ’ (deg).
These parameters are sufficient for a quick assessment performed by means of p-y curves approach. Soil stiffness
can be defined based on friction angle values [1].

If a thorough assessment is required (e.g. by means of FEM) a complete set of geotechnical parameters shall be
provided, including but not limited to:
• Young modulus E’ (MPa), possibly both tangent (Ein) and secant (E50).
• Poisson ratio ν (-).
• dilatancy angle ψ (deg).
• cohesion c’ (kPa) in case of soils with a large amount of fine particles (silty / clayey sands).
• steel – soil interface friction angle δ (deg).
• over-consolidation ratio OCR (-) and coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest K0 (-).
4.4.2 Cohesive Soils

In presence of clay layers, the following geotechnical parameters shall be (at least) provided:

• undrained shear strength Su (kPa).
• shear strain at 50% of maximum deviatoric stress ε50 (-).
These parameters are sufficient for a quick assessment performed by means of p-y curves approach. If a thorough
assessment is required (e.g. by means of FEM) a complete set of geotechnical parameters shall be provided,
including but not limited to:
• Young modulus Eu (MPa), possibly both tangent (Ein) and secant (E50).
• steel – soil adhesion factor α (-).
4.4.3 Rocks
In presence of (weak) rock deposits, the following geotechnical parameters shall be (at least) provided:

• unconfined compressive strength UCS (MPa).
• rock quality designation RQD (-).
• rock mass Young modulus Erm (MPa).
These parameters are sufficient for a quick assessment performed by means of p-y curves approach. If a thorough
assessment is required (e.g. by means of FEM) a complete set of geotechnical parameters shall be provided,
including but not limited to:
• Poisson ratio ν (-).
• geological strength index GSI (-).
• geomaterial constant mi (-).
• steel – soil interface friction angle δ (deg).

5 EXPECTED OUTPUT
Typical output of SSE assessments is discussed in the following, respectively for p-y curves approach and FEM.
5.1 p-y Curves Approach

The output of a p-y curves assessment is a graph showing the evolution of monopile rotation at seabed for
increasing embedment.
An example is provided in Figure 7. Monopile SSE depth can be defined as the smallest embedment for which
monopile rotation at seabed value is below the dashed red line, representing the acceptable inclination of the
monopile during installation (e.g. SSE = 13 m in the example). Monopile target penetration can be also included
for sake of completeness (vertical dotted black line).
Numerical results are typically summarized in a table which reports, for each analysed location:
• SSE depth (m bsl).

• monopile rotation at seabed related to SSE (deg).
• monopile displacement at seabed related to SSE (m).
• maximum bending moment in the monopile at SSE (MPa).
In case a multiplying factor is to be evaluated to check equilibrium safety under environmental loads, results of
the safety analysis can be presented as shown in Figure 8. The figure provides in a graphic and immediate manner
the indication on how far monopile is from collapse, when embedded at SSE depth, under environmental loads.
The dashed red line represents the minimum acceptable multiplying factor / safety (2.0 in the example).
Figure 7: Evolution of Monopile Rotation at Seabed with Embedment
Figure 8: Safety in Free-Standing Condition

5.2 FE Analysis
The typical outcomes of an SSE assessment carried out via FEM may be divided in two phases.
First, load / displacement and moment / rotation curves for increasing monopile embedment (i.e. for the
considered monopile embedment ratios L / D) are defined to evaluate monopile SSE range. Typical load /
displacement and moment / rotation curves are shown in Figure 9. The dashed black lines represent the horizontal
load (and moment) at seabed during installation, whereas the black dots indicate the points on the curves
corresponding to the allowable monopile tile (0.25 deg in the example).
Second, when SSE is defined, environmental loads are applied to the partially embedded monopile (in free-
standing condition) to evaluate monopile inclination and the safety factor (FS) against failure. The output is shown
in Figure 10, where the dashed black lines indicate the allowable monopile tilt and the minimum safety factor (2.0
in the example), respectively. If the safety factor results to be lower than the prescribed, the check must be
repeated for an increased monopile embedment and the SSE revised accordingly.
Numerical results are typically summarized in a table which reports, for each analysed location:
• SSE depth (m bsl).
• self-stable stability ratio (-).
• monopile rotation at seabed related to SSE (deg).
• monopile displacement at seabed related to SSE (m).
• safety factor against failure in free-standing conditions (-).
Figure 9: Load / Displacement and Moment / Rotation Curves
Figure 10: Monopile Inclination and FS against Failure in Free-Standing Stable Conditions

6 ANNEXES
A Memo: FE Analysis of XXL Monopiles Free-Standing Stability
In this memo, monopile SSE depths obtained via API p-y curves approach are compared with those obtained by
means of FE analysis, to understand the suitability of classic non-linear springs methods when dealing with large-
diameter piles in sand, clay, and interlayered soil profiles.

Memo
to Sylvie Raymackers
from Simone Corciulo
copy Sara Fernandes
Alain Burgraeve
Victoria Rodríguez
date 29/11/2019
pages 9
link to folder GOC-Engineering\31_GEO ENGINEERING\00 - Projects\01_Offshore Wind\Hornsea 2\5705 Project\5 - Self-
standing embedment\04_Plaxis
subject HOW02 monopiles free-standing stability
Hornsea 02 OWF
Finite Element Analysis of XXL Monopiles Free-Standing Stability
Simone Corciulo
Geotechnical Engineer
Scope
Orsted is developing the Hornsea 02 offshore wind farm (OWF). The wind farm is located off the England coast
and consists of 166 turbines founded on monopiles and one offshore substation.
The scope of the memo is to present Plaxis3D Finite Element (FE) assessment of monopiles free-standing stability
at three selected locations of Hornsea 02 OWF. Locations E30, A38 and R02 are considered. Free-standing is
defined as the depth at which an initially vertical monopile would not lean more than 0.25 degrees when subjected
to environmental loading during installation. Self-stable embedment lengths computed by means of finite element
analysis are compared with those obtained via API P-Y curves approach to understand the suitability of classic
methods when dealing with large diameter monopiles.
The results of the self-stable penetration assessment performed by Cathie Associates for monopiles in clay, in sand
and in a interlayered soil profile [1] are also summarized in the present memo.
Cathie Associates Assessment

Cathie Associates performed a 3D Finite Element analysis to assess monopiles self-stable penetration in the
following cases:
1. uniform clay from Galloper wind farm;
2. uniform sand from Moray West wind farm;
3. interlayered sand over clay over sand profile selected from Hornsea 02 wind farm.
Free-standing assessment was also carried out considering both native API RP 2GEO [2] P-Y curves approach
and the corrections for pile diameter effects according to Kallehave etal. [3] in sand and to Stevens and Audibert
[4] in clay.
Soil Data
Soil parameters considered in the analysis for the three cases are summarized in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 1: Soil Parameters -Galloper Location

Submerged Unit
Depth (m) Su (kPa) E (MPa) ε50 (-)
Weight (kN/m3)
0.0 – 50.0 8.7 40 + 4.4*z 13.4 to 106.0 0.009
Table 2: Soil Parameters -Moray West Location

Submerged Unit
Depth (m) φ (deg) Dr (%) k (MN/m3)
Weight (kN/m3)
0.0 – 25.0 10.0 36 60 - 65 26.6
Table 3: Soil Parameters -Hornsea 02 Interlayered Profile

Submerged
Depth (m) Unit Weight Su (kPa) E (MPa) ε50 (-) φ (deg) Dr (%) k (MN/m3)
(kN/m3)
0.0 – 2.0 9 - - - 30 40 11
2.0 – 8.5 9 15 to 45 4.5 to 13.5 0.02 - - -
8.5 – 10.0 9 - - - 30 40 11
10.0 – 26.0 9 - - - 40 80 - 100 45
2/9
Monopile Geometry and Loads
Monopile characteristics and loading conditions considered for self-stable penetration assessments are listed in
Table 4. Water depths are: 35.5 m for case 1 (Galloper); 52.0 m for case 2 (Moray West); and 42.6 m for case 3
(Hornsea 02).
Table 4: Monopiles Characteristics and Loading Conditions

Outside Diameter Wall Thickness Horizontal Overturning Application
Case
(m) (mm) Load (kN) Moment (kNm) Height (m)
1 - Galloper 7.5 80 2345 61535 26
2 - Moray West 10.5 80 4541 185914 41
3 - Hornsea 02 9.7 80 3812 123709 32
Model Description
The finite element model was developed in Abaqus 2018 software. The analysis consisted of a push over where a
lateral displacement is applied at a certain height above the seabed to introduce the predefined ratio between
horizontal load and overturning moment (see Table 4).
Assuming horizontal load and moment are aligned geometrical and loading symmetry is exploited considering only
half of the problem, as shown in Figure 1. A linear elastic perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model is
considered for the soil. Elastic behavior is assigned to the steel monopile (E = 207 GPa, ν = 0.3). Gapping between
soil and pile is allowed in normal direction whereas an elastic slip distance of 2.0 mm and a friction factor of 0.6 are
considered to model the tangential interface behavior.
Figure 1: Example of Abaqus Finite Element Model
3/9
Results
The basic output of the analysis consists of horizontal load-displacement and moment-rotation curves at mudline,
presented in [1] for the three considered cases. The derived free-standing depths are summarized in Table 5.
The following conclusions are drawn by Cathie Associates:
• The difference between the predicted free-standing depth using API P-Y curves and FE approach is large,
especially in clay;
• The adoption of Stevens and Audibert correction for monopiles in clay reduces the conservatism of P-Y curves
approach to a certain extent;
• The adoption of the modification proposed by Kallehave etal. leads to sand P-Y curves which approximate well
the result of FE approach when considering a low estimate stiffness.
Table 5: Free-standing depths from Cathie Associates Assessment

Free-standing Depth
Case
API P-Y Curves Modified PY Curves FE Approach
1. Uniform Clay 24 m 19 m 15 m
2. Uniform Sand 18 m 15 m 15 m
3. Interlayered 19 m 17 m 15 m
Plaxis3D FE Models
A Plaxis3D FE model is set up to analyze monopiles free standing stability at three selected locations of Hornsea
02 OWF. Only half of the problem is considered exploiting symmetry, as shown in Figure 2. A linear elastic perfectly
plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model is assumed for the soil whereas the monopile is modeled by means of
linear elastic plate elements. Friction factors of 0.6 and 0.35 are considered at pile-soil interface for sand and clay,
respectively.
Figure 2: Plaxis3D Finite Element Model
Model validity is first verified against Cathie Associates interlayered case (case 3). Lower pile penetration (L = 15
m) and higher pile penetration (L = 19 m) cases are considered to validate the Plaxis3D model.
4/9
The comparison between Plaxis3D and Abaqus results in terms of load / displacement and moment / rotation curves
is shown in Figure 3. The curves match reasonably well, especially in terms of capacity. Conversely, for the same
input soil parameters, Plaxis3D models result in a less stiff moment / rotation response.
Figure 3: Comparison between Plaxis3D and Abaqus Models
Location E30
Hornsea 02 wind farm location E30 consists of an interlayered dense sand over stiff clay over dense to medium
dense sand. Soil parameters are summarized in Table 6. The water depth is 30.9 m. Monopile geometry and loading
conditions are presented in Table 7.
Table 6: Soil Parameters -Hornsea 02 Location E30

Submerged
Soil Depth E Su Φ μ K0
Unit Weight
Description (m) (MPa) (kPa) (deg) (-) (-)
(kN/m3)
dense sand 0.0 to 1.9 9.7 10.0 to 18.4 - 39 0.60 1.0
stiff clay 1.9 to 7.4 11.5 42.0 140 - 0.35 1.0
stiff clay 7.4 to 12.9 11.5 61.8 to 84.9 206 to 283 - 0.35 1.0
dense sand 12.9 to 16.5 11.3 72.5 to 83.6 - 39 0.60 1.0
medium dense sand 16.5 to 41.5 11.3 55.7 to 93.6 - 29 0.60 1.0
Table 7: Monopiles Characteristics and Loading Conditions - Hornsea 02 Location E30

Outside Diameter Wall Thickness Horizontal Load Overturning Moment Application Height
(m) (mm) (kN) (kNm) (m)
8.3 66.7 1872 58817 31.4
Location A38
Hornsea 02 wind farm location A38 consists of a complex clay and sand interlayered profile. Soil parameters are
summarized in Table 8. Monopile geometry and loading conditions are presented in Table 9Table 7. The water
depth is 29.2 m.
5/9
Table 8: Soil Parameters -Hornsea 02 Location A38
Submerged
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
dense sand 0.0 to 1.9 9.7 10.0 to 18.4 - 39 0.60 1.0
very dense sand 6.3 to 8.2 10.1 55.2 to 70.6 - 41 0.60 1.0
stiff clay 11.1 to 14.3 11.5 83.7 279 - 0.35 1.0
very stiff clay 28.6 to 41.5 10.0 79.5 to 87.9 265 to 293 - 0.34 1.0
Table 9: Monopiles Characteristics and Loading Conditions - Hornsea 02 Location A38

(m) (mm) (kN) (kNm) (m)
8.3 66.0 1862 54476 29.3
Location R02
Hornsea 02 wind farm location R02 consists of stiff clay over very dense sand profile. Sand lenses are interbedded
with the shallow clay layer. Soil parameters are summarized in Table 10Table 6. The water depth is 37.2 m.
Monopile geometry and loading conditions are presented in Table 11.
Table 10: Soil Parameters -Hornsea 02 Location R02

Submerged
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
dense sand 5.4 to 6.4 11.3 31.1 to 36.7 - 34 0.60 1.0
stiff clay 6.4 to 7.8 11.5 48.6 162 - 0.35 1.0
dense sand 7.8 to 8.5 11.3 40.3 to 43.8 - 33 0.60 1.0
Table 11: Monopiles Characteristics and Loading Conditions - Hornsea 02 Location R02
(m) (mm) (kN) (kNm) (m)
9.3 68.0 2340 86698 37.1
Results
For each case the push over analysis is carried out considering four increasing embedment ratios L / D of 0.5, 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0. Resulting load / displacement and moment / rotation curves are presented in Figure 4, Figure 5 and
6/9
Figure 6. In all three cases monopile tilting under environmental loads is within the maximum allowable tilt of 0.25
degrees for an embedment ratio close to 1.0 (yellow curves).
Figure 4: Moment / Rotation and Load / Displacement Curves – Location E30
Figure 5: Moment / Rotation and Load / Displacement Curves – Location A38
Figure 6: Moment / Rotation and Load / Displacement Curves – Location R02
7/9
Based on these results, the free-standing penetration depth of the monopiles is computed by means of additional
specific push over analysis. Related safety factors are also evaluated through subsequent “phi-c” reduction
calculations.
The derived free-standing depths are summarized in Table 12, together with the corresponding tilt angle of the
monopile. Penetration depths computed via classic P-Y curves are also listed in Table 12 for sake of comparison.
Moment / rotations curves to target overturning moment and the outcomes of “phi-c” reduction numerical
simulations are shown for the three cases in Figure 7.
Table 12: Free Standing Depths for Hornsea 02 OWF selected locations
APY P-Y Curves Plaxis3D FE Analysis
Location
Free-Standing Depth (m) Tilt angle (deg) Free-Standing Depth (m) Tilt angle (deg)
E30 12.5 0.238 9.5 0.223
A38 10.5 0.241 8.5 0.227
R02 16.7 0.245 10.0 0.224
Figure 7: Monopiles Tilt Angles and Corresponding Safety Factors
Conclusions
The numerical free-standing stability analysis conducted in Plaxis3D highlighted the conservativeness of classic
API P-Y curves approach when dealing with large diameter monopiles. According to finite element analysis, lower
penetrations are required to guarantee the maximum allowable monopile rotation under environmental loads during
installation.
The difference between the outcomes of FE and API P-Y curves approaches is about 25% for the 8.3 m diameter
monopiles at locations E30 and A38, in good agreement with the results of Cathie Associates assessment.
On the other hand, the low free-standing penetration (approximately 40% lower with respect to P-Y curves
approach) computed for the 9.3 m diameter pile at location R02 might seem surprising at first sight. However, it
should be noted that the soil profile at R02 location is dominated by the presence of a very stiff clay from mudline
down to 17.6 m depth, opposite to locations E30 and A38 where a thick 1.9 m sand layer is observed at seabed.
This shallow sand deposit could have a significant influence in determining the global foundation stiffness and
consequently the rotative behavior of the monopile. In this sense, the result is in accordance with Cathie Associates
who highlighted a very large difference between FE and P-Y curves approaches when dealing with piles in uniform
clay profiles (i.e. Galloper wind farm, case 1).
8/9
Considering the outcomes of both Cathie Associates and internal assessments, it can be concluded that API P-Y
curves provide conservative estimates of free-standing depth embedment for large diameter monopiles currently
adopted in offshore wind industry. Classic P-Y curves can be used for a quick verification, but it should be good
practice to check the conservativeness of the results via finite element modeling for the most critical soil / loading
conditions.
As assessed by Cathie Associates, a reasonable tradeoff could be represented by the adoption of modified P-Y
curves for XXL monopiles in sand (e.g. Kallehave etal. [3], Thieken etal. [5]) and clay (e.g. Stevens and Audibert
[4], Zhang and Andersen [6]).
References
[1] Cathie Associates, 2019, “Monopile installation from floating vessel – Freestanding assessment for 3 representative soil
profiles”, Report No. C991R02-01, April 23.
[2] American Petroleum Institute, 2011, “Geotechnical anf Foundation Design Considerations”, API RP 2GEO.
[3] D. Kallehave, C. LeBlanc, M.A. Liingaard, 2012, “Modification of the API P-Y formulation of initial stiffness of sand”, in
Proceedings of the SUT OSIG, London (UK).
[4] J.B. Stevens, J.M.E. Audibert, 1979, “Re-examination of PY curve formulation”, in Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston (TX).
[5] K. Thieken, M. Achmus, K. Lemke, 2015, “A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand”,
Geotechnik, 38, pp. 267-288.
[6] Y. Zhang, K.H. Andersen, 2019, “Soil reaction curves for monopiles in clay”, Marine Structures, 65, pp. 94-113.
9/9

DO ENG KD GEO0024 - Rev0b Self Stable Embedment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DO ENG KD GEO0024 - Rev0b Self Stable Embedment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KNOWLEDGE DOCUMENT

Document Approval Status

Action Name Function Signature Date

Document Revision Status

Rev. Date Prep Check Appr Issue Purpose

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 2 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

1.2 Definitions, Abbreviations, Symbols and Conventions

Embedment Ratio Ratio of pile penetration to pile outer diameter.

Self-Stable Embedment Pile embedment at which free-standing conditions are achieved.

Self-Weight Penetration Pile penetration achieved by means of pile self-weight.

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 3 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 4 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 5 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 6 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

2 SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION

2.2 Organization of the Document

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 7 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

3 SELF-STABLE EMBEDMENT ASSESSMENT

Figure 1: Pile Gripper for JUV Innovation

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 8 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

3.2.1 p-y Curves Approach

Figure 2: Subgrade Reaction Model – BEF Idealization

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 9 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Figure 3: Graphical Definition of p and y

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 10 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

3.2.2 Optimized p-y curves formulations for Monopiles

Table 1: Optimized Formulations for Sand

Table 2: Optimized Formulations for Clay

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 11 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Figure 4: Soil Reaction Components Acting on a XXL Monopile

3.2.3 Finite Element Method

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 12 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Figure 5: FE Model of a Partially Embedded Monopile for SSE Assessment

3.3 Pros and Cons of p-y Curves and FEM

• the soil is not treated as a continuum.

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 13 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

• a model must be defined for every location analyzed.

3.4 Load Combination

• A horizontal force representing the wind load.

Figure 6: Load Combination for SSE

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 14 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

Dept. Ref.: DO-ENG-KD-GEO0024 Page 15 of 20

PROCEDURE FOR MONOPILE SSE ASSESSMENT 13/07/2020

4.1 Monopile Geometry

4.2 Hammer Properties

4.3 Metocean Data

• waves height Hs (m) and return period Tp (s).

4.4 Geotechnical Properties

4.4.1 Granular Soils