Jalbi, Saleh; Bhattacharya, Subhamoy

A Comparison between Advanced and Simplified Methods to

Predict the Natural Frequency of Offshore Wind Turbines
Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction

Verfügbar unter / Available at:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11970/106707

Vorgeschlagene Zitierweise / Suggested citation:

Jalbi, Saleh; Bhattacharya, Subhamoy (2019): A Comparison between Advanced and Simplified Methods
to Predict the Natural Frequency of Offshore Wind Turbines Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction. In:
Goseberg, Nils; Schlurmann, Torsten (Hg.): Coastal Structures 2019. Karlsruhe: Bundesanstalt für
Wasserbau. S. 904-912. https://doi.org/10.18451/978-3-939230-64-9_090.
Coastal Structures 2019 - Nils Goseberg, Torsten Schlurmann (eds) - © 2019 Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau
ISBN 978-3-939230-64-9 (Online) - DOI: 10.18451/978-3-939230-64-9_090

A Comparison between Advanced and Simplified Methods to

Predict the Natural Frequency of Offshore Wind Turbines
Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction
S. Jalbi1, 2 & S. Bhattacharya1
1
University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
2
Sea and Land Project Engineering, Surrey, United Kingdom

Abstract: Offshore Wind Turbines (OWTs) are dynamically sensitive structures and as a result
estimating the natural frequency of the whole system is one of the major design considerations.
Currently jackets supported on multiple foundations (such as piles or suction caissons) are being
considered to support OWTs for deeper water developments. This paper presents a comparison
between different methods to predict the first natural frequency of the structure including the
additional flexibility provided by Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). This paper compares advanced
methods with simplified methods developed by the University of Surrey research group. The
advanced method utilizes 3D finite element analysis which models the continuum of the soil in
addition to the frictional interaction between the soil and the foundations. On the other hand, the
simplified method consists of representing the foundations (piles or caissons) with a set of springs (for
which impedance functions have been developed by the research group) and the structure (jacket and
tower) as Euler-Bernoulli beams. The results show that for 3 types of ground profiles: homogeneous,
linear, and parabolic soil stiffness variation with depth, the simplified method compares satisfactorily
with the advanced method. Given the cost and computational time of each method, the results show
that the simplified method can be a powerful tool in the concept design stage of the foundations of an
offshore wind farm.

Keywords: Natural Frequency, Jacket structure, multiple foundations, soil-structure interaction

1 Introduction

This paper presents a comparison between the simplified and advanced methods to compute the
natural frequency of offshore wind turbines (OWTs) supported on multiple foundations including the
additional flexibility provided by Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). The results from this comparison
provide practicing engineers with useful tools for preliminary sizing of foundations and structural
members in a low-cost and time-efficient way.
Offshore Wind Turbines are steadily becoming one of the main pillars of energy production in
Europe. Based on the experience and research over the past 20 years, future targets have been set by
many governments to expand the output from clean sources with a low levelized cost of energy
Luther, et al. (2017). This is a challenging task that requires extensive research efforts to make the
design and construction of offshore wind farms more viable. In addition to increasing capacity,
windfarms will be sited further away from shore (up to 200 km) with water depths of more than 60m.
Monopiles, which are currently the most utilized foundation systems for European waters, may or may
not be economical for soft soils (see for example Chinese Seas) or seismic areas. Furthermore,
monopiles may not be an environment-friendly solution to support large WTG (Wind Turbine
Generator) due the challenges associated with transportation and installation. As a result, other
solutions such as jacket foundations and seabed frames are also being considered.

904
2 Brief literature background

Jackets and sea-bed frames are usually mounted on piles or suction caissons, see Fig.1. Both 3-legged
and 4-legged jackets have been installed in European waters: Beatrice Offshore Windfarm consists of
a 4-legged jacket on piles whilst the Aberdeen Offshore Windfarm consists of a 3-legged jacket on
suction caissons sometimes termed as Suction Bucket Jackets (SBJs). Caisson foundations produce
less noise during installation and a few designs provide inherent scour protection due to their
geometry, Oh, et al. (2018) Stroescu, et al. (2016). The foundations are installed by allowing the
caisson to sink under its own weight and then achieving full depth of penetration required by pumping
out the trapped water and creating a pressure difference. This is an alternative installation method to
the use of impact hammers, which reduces noise pollution associated with the driven pile installation.
Another advantage of the suction caisson is the ease of decommissioning where the installation
process may be easily reversed to remove the caissons from the seabed, provided they are not grouted
to fill any space between the top lid and the soil.

Fig. 1. A schematic showing a jacket supported on piles and suction caissons.

OWTs are effectively a slender column supporting a heavy rotating mass which is subjected to
cyclic/dynamic loads such as loads from the rotor, wind loads, and wave loads Jalbi, et al. (2018b).
Thus, dynamic performance plays an important role in the overall design of the system dictating the
Serviceability Limit State and the Fatigue Limit State. The natural frequency, or the period of the
structure under free vibration, is one of the most important indicators of the dynamic performance of
the system i.e. whether or not the overall structural deformations under the applied loads will amplify
and resonate causing extensive damage. Therefore, predicting the natural frequency of the system at
the concept design stage is vital both for foundation and structural member sizing of the system.
Previous research emphasized the importance of incorporating the effect of soil structure
interaction in OWT applications where the problem has been primarily employing two approaches:
numerical methods (FEA) and experimental methods (scaled tests). The numerical work introduced
the SSI effect through distributed springs along the depth of the foundation Abhinav & Saha (2015),
Shi, et al. (2018), Abhinav & Saha (2018). Experimentally, the SSI effect was studied through scaled
tests where the frequency of OWTs supported on multiple shallow caissons correspond to low-
frequency rocking modes of vibration depending on the stiffness and configuration of the supporting
foundations. This is indicative of the importance of the additional flexibility provided by the
foundations Bhattacharya, et al. (2013), Bhattacharya, et al. (2017).
Similar research has been done on SSI effects on jackets supporting oil and gas decks/platforms.
Mostafa & El Naggar (2004) performed a numerical study on a jacket supported on piles and showed
that SSI reduces the natural period with an emphasis on the effect of the top soil layers on the
frequency. Elshafey, et al. (2009) performed scaled model tests showing the importance of SSI in
predicting the response of offshore jackets to random loads.
Simplified numerical methods to predict the natural frequency (including soil structure) interaction
have been developed by the University of Surrey research group such as the work by Arany, et al.
(2016) and Arany, et al. (2015) for monopile supported OWTs and the solutions for jacket supporting
OWTs developed by Jalbi & Bhattacharya (2018), Jalbi & Bhattacharya (2019), Jalbi, et al. (2019)

905
which are the basis of this article. These methods can be easily implemented in a spreadsheet type
program and only require limited data about the wind turbine, ground condition, geometry of the
jacket and the foundation.

3 Modelling of the dynamics of Soil-Structure Interaction system

3.1 Simplified Methods

Fig. 2 shows a mechanical idealization of the proposed simplified method for jacket supported OWTs
developed by Jalbi & Bhattacharya (2018) where a closed form solution for natural frequency is
obtained. These formulations are derived from classical principles of mechanics and structural
dynamics and are tailored to incorporate soil-structure interaction of OWT applications. The fixed
base natural frequency is the period of the structure under free vibration (ffb) assuming a fixed base
(“infinite foundation stiffness”). In the formulation, the jacket and wind turbine tower are modelled as
Euler-Bernoulli beams and the foundations are replaced with a set of linear springs.
This however is an idealization that assumes equivalent axial stiffness of the foundations in both
the push-in and pull-out direction. In reality, the stiffness is non-isotropic and slight differences in
stiffness are expected which is discussed further in the results section. The global natural frequency
of the whole system (f0) is obtained by multiplying the fixed base frequency (ffb) by a flexibility
coefficient (Cj) given by Equations 1 to 5 and explained below.

Fig. 2. Mechanical model developed by Jalbi & Bhattacharya (2018).

The fixed base frequency of the system (ffb) may be computed using Eq. (1):
1 3𝐸𝐸𝐼𝐼𝑇𝑇−𝐽𝐽
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = � 3 (1)
2𝜋𝜋 (0.243𝑚𝑚 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 +𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 )(ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 )

The flexibility of the foundations is taken though the foundation flexibility factor CJ as shown in
Eq. (2):
𝑓𝑓0 = 𝐶𝐶𝐽𝐽 × 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (2)
Where CJ is dependent on the equivalent rotational spring shown in Fig. 1(d) and is computed using
Eq. (3) and Eq. (4):
𝜏𝜏
𝐶𝐶𝐽𝐽 = � (3)
𝜏𝜏+3

906
Such that τ is a function of the equivalent rotational stiffness kR
𝑘𝑘𝑅𝑅 ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝜏𝜏 = (4)
𝐸𝐸𝐼𝐼𝑇𝑇−𝐽𝐽

Using Castigliano’s theorem, the rotational stiffness can be calculated form the vertical stiffness of the
foundation kv. Assuming ideal conditions and a square configuration (α in Fig. 1(b) =1)
𝛼𝛼 1
𝑘𝑘𝑅𝑅 = 𝑘𝑘𝑣𝑣 𝐿𝐿2𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 � � = 𝑘𝑘𝑣𝑣 𝐿𝐿2𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 (5)
1+𝛼𝛼 2

From the equations above, it is evident that the structural “fixed based” natural frequency of a system
depends on two parameters, the stiffness (EI) and the accelerating mass (MRNA) of a system. The
effect of the foundation flexibility comes through the factor CJ which reduces the value of ffb to f0 as
shown in Eq. (2). This foundation flexibility CJ is a simple function of the foundation vertical stiffness
kv and the spacing between the foundations Lbottom. The only remaining item for the simplified method
is the prediction of the vertical stiffness of the foundations kv.
It may be noted that this method has been applied to 4-legged jackets, symmetric 3-legged jackets,
and asymmetric 3-legged jackets with reasonable accuracy when compared to analysis performed on
SAP2000. However, for jackets installed in regions with a steep variation soil stiffness below each
caisson, the method presented in Jalbi, et al. (2019) is recommended as it incoporates the stiffness of
each foundation “spring” independently.

3.1.1 Vertical stiffness of the foundations kv

There are numerous research items from the field of machine foundations where formulas to
determine spring stiffness (kv) in homogeneous soils are available such as Gazetas (1983), Gazetas
(1991) Poulos & Davis (1974), and Wolf & Deeks (2004). However, it is evident that the available
methodologies are limited either by the shape of the footing and the idealized soil profiles which do
not reflect the actual heterogeneity in the soil. Thus, the research group aimed to tackle one aspect of
that where solutions are provided for rigid caissons through numerical modelling. The solutions
provide the vertical stiffness kv for homogeneous, parabolic, and linear ground profiles. Based on non-
linear regression analysis and extensive finite element simulations, the impedance functions for the
vertical stiffness kv of suction caissons with aspect ratios ranging from 0.5<LC/DC<2 are summarized
in Tab.1. For the detailed derivation of the impedance functions, readers are referred to Salem, et al.
(2019). Following previous literature, the formulations in table also include the effect of the soil
Poisson’s ratio νs through the correction factor f(νs) which is a simple function as shown in the Tab.1.
Tab. 1. Vertical stiffness for shallow skirted foundations
kV
Ground profile
DC ESO f ( υs )
0.52
L 
Homogeneous 2.31 C 
 DC 
0.96
L 
Parabolic 2.16  C 
 DC 

1.28
L 
Linear 2.37  C 
 DC 

𝑓𝑓 (𝜐𝜐𝑠𝑠 ) = [(10υ3𝑠𝑠 -5.88υ2𝑠𝑠 )(-0.34ln𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿/𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷+0.77)]+0.91υ𝑠𝑠 (-0.57lnLc/Dc+0.6)+1

907
Fig. 3. Description of parameters in Tab. 1.

With reference to the table homogeneous soils are soils which have constant stiffness with depth such
as over-consolidated clays. On the other hand, a linear profile is typical for normally consolidated
clays and parabolic can be used for sandy soils. ESO refers to the stiffness at depth of one diameter DC.
Thus, kv can also be calculated using minimum information of the ground profile and used in Eq. (1)
to calculate the natural frequency.
It is important to note that this formulation does not consider the flexibility of the caisson lid and
skirt (caissons are assumed to be fully rigid), which is expected to further reduce the natural frequency
due to the added flexibility of the system. Additional analysis is required to adjust the formulations to
incorporate the structural stiffness of the caisson.

3.2 Advanced Method

The natural frequency can be obtained using FEA software such as PLAXIS 3D. The advantage of
this method is modelling the soil as a continuum with the addition of the frictional interaction between
the soil and foundations. Moreover, modern geotechnical finite element packages have a rich library
of soil models such as the hardening model, cam-clay model, and the Hoek Brown model and thus
incorporating plastic straining of the soil in addition to appropriate stress levels which is difficult to
capture in the simplified spring model.
Fig. 4 shows a 4-legged jacket mounted on suction caissons modelled in PLAXIS 3D. As only the
vibrations with very small amplitudes are considered (in the linear range), the dynamic analysis was
run using linear elastic soil properties and by providing viscous boundary conditions. Without these
boundary conditions, the waves propagating in the soil due to vibration of the foundations would
reflect causing inaccuracies in the analysis. The jacket and tower were constructed using beam
elements, while the transition piece was modelled using plate elements. As the soil material model
was linear elastic (no strength was specified) no slip or gapping between the soil and the caisson plate
elements was allowed and a rigid contact is maintained between them. These assumptions were
implemented as the main intention of this section is to verify the validity of the fundamental
frequencies using the simplified equations provided in Section 3.1. Finally, as these are cases of
undamped free vibration, neither soil nor structural damping were considered.
After building the geometry, the lumped mass is given a small perturbation at rotor level (tower tip)
and the structure is allowed to vibrate freely. The natural frequency is then obtained from the inverse
of the period of the free vibration. The method described above to perform the natural frequency
analysis is based on a similar example provided in the PLAXIS 3D tutorial manual and the readers are
referred to the guidance for a step-by-step methodology.

908
Fig. 4. Finite Element Model (PLAXIS 3D).

4 Example analysis and results

In the analyses presented here to demonstrate the applied methodology a symmetrical 4-legged jacket
supporting a NREL 5 MW reference offshore wind turbine in deep waters is modelled, see Fig. 5.
Details about the turbine can be found in Jonkman, et al. (2009). The jacket dimensions are taken from
Alati, et al. (2015) where industry-standard software BLADED is used to obtain the fixed base
frequency and SSI frequency of the system. The necessary dimensions of the jacket are summarized in
Tab. 2. The natural frequency of this structure will be solved for both methods first assuming a fixed
base “infinitely stiff” foundation and secondly assuming that the jacket is mounted on a small suction
caisson in very soft soil with details shown in Tab. 2. This was done for two sizes of suction caissons
namely 4mx4m and 4mx2m in soft soils. The soft ground profiles had a linear and homogeneous
ground profiles. Hence, the vertical stiffness was calculated using the functions provided in Tab. 1 and
applied to Eq.(1-5) to compute the natural frequency. The same ground profiles were applied in
PLAXIS 3D for comparison. A “soft” soil (10 MPa stiffness) was implemented to assess the
suitability of the method given that a low foundation stiffness provides a high level of flexibility.

909
Fig. 5. Schematic of solved example.

Tab. 2. Summary of input parameters

Jacket
hJ (m) 70.0
Lbottom (m) 12
Ltop (m) 9.5
Area of jacket leg Ac 0.128
2
(m )
mJ including diagonals 8150
(kg/m)
Tower
hT 70
Dbottom (m) 5.6
Dtop (m) 4.0
mT (kg/m) 3730
RNA
MRNA (kg) 350000
Transition Piece
MTP (kg) 666000

Tab. 3. Summary of foundation properties

Case 1 (Homogeneous and Linear)
Foundation depth LC (m) 4
Foundation diameter DC (m) 4
Soil Young’s modulus ESO (MPa) 10
Soil Poisson's ratio υs 0.28
Case 2 (Homogeneous and Linear)
Foundation Depth LC (m) 4
Foundation diameter DC (m) 2
Soil Young’s modulus ESO (MPa) 10
Soil Poisson’s ratio υs 0.28

Tab. 4 summarizes the results obtained from both analyses, and it is shown that the proposed method
matches well with PLAXIS 3D for both very stiff and soft foundations and are also comparable to the
analysis by (Alati, et al., 2015). This is shown for the 2 cases (foundation sizes) for both homogeneous
and linear ground profiles. This justifies the structural and geotechnical idealizations shown in Fig. 2
as well as the validity of the of the impedance functions to predict the vertical stiffness of shallow

910
caissons displayed in Tab. 1. As previously stated, this work is an extension which has been
previously validated from a structural perspective where the foundations where still modelled using
lumped vertical springs using structural FEA package called SAP2000 Jalbi & Bhattacharya (2018).
In the results presented here, the continuum of the soil and the caisson-soil interaction were
considered and this further consolidates the use of the simplified methods as initial design tool in the
linear elastic range and reduces the expected modelling time by creating a template for the detailed
design stage. Moreover, this manuscript shows how the use of the developed impedance functions of
the foundation stiffness shown in Salem, et al. (2019) can assist in the prediction of the dynamic
performance of OWTs supported on multiple foundations.
Tab. 4. Summary of the results
Proposed BLADED
Foundation PLAXIS 3D
method (Alati, et al., 2015)
Fixed Base 0.303 Hz 0.315 Hz 0.314-0.317
Homogen (Case 1) 0.140 Hz 0.144 Hz -
Linear (Case 1) 0.141 Hz 0.142 Hz -
Homogen (Case 2) 0.123 Hz 0.126 Hz -
Linear (Case 2) 0.099 Hz 0.111 Hz -

Other more complex types of soil models are expected to add further flexibility to the foundation due
to the non-linear elastic nature of the soil, however, these effects will not be detrimental since the
vibrations at normal operating conditions are of low amplitude. It however is important to take soil
non-linearity and plastic straining into account when large forced vibrations such as storm design
loading conditions or earthquake loads in seismic areas. It is of interest to extend this research further
and explore the effect of advanced ground modelling on the dynamic response of offshore jacket
structures.

5 Conclusions

This paper provides an insight on the numerical methods available to predict the vibration period of
jacket supported offshore wind turbines including soil structure interaction. The results show that for
different ground profiles (soil stiffness variation with depth), the simplified method compares
satisfactorily with the advanced FEA method. The following may be considered with regards to the
simplified method:
• Considering the comparative cost and computational time of each method, the simplified
method can be a powerful tool in the concept design stage of jacket foundations for offshore
wind farms.
• Consequently, the simplified method is also expected to reduce the number of iterations in
the design loop between structural and geotechnical engineers by providing simple
formulations of structural and foundation stiffness.
• Provide template sizes for the detailed design stage and provide methods for “sanity”
checks for the detailed finite element analysis.
• Provide a good understanding of the main parameters driving the natural frequency
requirements of the system.

References

Abhinav, K. A. & Saha, N., 2015. Coupled hydrodynamic and geotechnical analysis of jacket offshore wind turbines. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Issue 73, pp. 66-79.
Abhinav, K. A. & Saha, N., 2018. Nonlinear dynamical behaviour of jacket supported offshore wind turbines in loose
sands. Marine Structures, Issue 57, pp. 133-151.
Alati, N., Failla, G. & Arena, F., 2015. Seismic Analysis of offshore wind turbines on bottom-fixed support structures.
Philosophical transaction A Royal Society, 2035(373), p. 20140086.
Arany, L. et al., 2015. An analytical model to predict the natural frequency of offshore wind turbines on three-spring
flexible foundations using two different beam models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Issue 74,
pp. 40-45.

911
Arany, L., Bhattacharya, S., Macdonald, S. J. & Hogan, S., 2016. Closed form solution of Eigen frequency of monopile
supported offshore wind turbines in deeper waters incorporating soil structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Volume 92, pp. 18-32.
Bhattacharya, S., Nikitas, G., Arany, L. & Nikitas, N., 2017. Soil-Structure Interactions for Offshore Wind Turbines.
Engineering and Technology.
Bhattacharya, S. et al., 2013. Observed dynamic soil-structure interaction in scale testing of offshore wind turbine
foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, pp. 47-60.
Elshafey, A. A., Haddara, M. R. & Marzouk, H., 2009. Dynamic response of offshore jacket structures under random
loads. Marine Structures, 22(3), pp. 504-521.
Gazetas, G., 1983. Analysis of machine foundations: state of the art. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume
2, pp. 2-42.
Gazetas, G., 1991. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1129-1141.
Jalbi, S. et al., 2018b. A method to predict the cyclic loading profiles (one-way or two-way) for monopile supported
offshore wind turbines. Marine Structures, Volume 63, pp. 65-83.
Jalbi, S. & Bhattacharya, S., 2018. Closed form solution for the first natural frequency of offshore wind turbine jackets
supported on multiple foundations incorporating soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Volume 113, pp. 593-693.
Jalbi, S. & Bhattacharya, S., 2019. Minimum foundation size and spacing for dynamic design considerations for jacket
supported offshore wind turbines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 123, pp. 193-204.
Jalbi, S., Nikitas, G., Bhattacharya, S. & Alexander, N., 2019. Dynamic design considerations for offshore wind turbine
jackets supported on multiple foundations. Marine Structures.
Jonkman, J., Buttefield, S., Musial, W. & Scott, G., 2009. Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system
development, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Luther, M., Rohrig, K. & Winter, W., 2017. Wind Power in the German System- Research and development for the
transition toward a sustainable future. In: Wind Energy Engineering: A handbook for onshore and offshore wind
turbines. London: Academic Press, pp. 95-124.
Mostafa, Y. E. & El Naggar, M. H., 2004. Response of fixed offshore platforms to wave and current loading including
soil–structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(4), pp. 357-368.
Oh, K.-Y., Nam, W. & Epureanu, B. I., 2018. A review on the foundation of offshore wind energy convertors: current
status and future perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 88, pp. 16-36.
Poulos, H. & Davis, E., 1974. Elastic solutions for soils and rock mechanics. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Salem, A., Jalbi, S. & Bhattacharya, S., 2019. Impedance functions for rigid skirted caissons supporting offshore wind
turbines. Marine Structures, Volume Under Review .
Shi, W. et al., 2018. Soil-structure interaction on the response of jacket-type offshore wind turbine. nternational Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2(2), pp. 139-148.
Stroescu, I., Fingaard, P. & Fejeskov, M., 2016. Scour development around bucket foundations. International Journal of
Polar and Offshore Engineering, Volume 26, pp. 57-64.
Wolf, J. & Deeks, A., 2004. Foundation Vibration Analysis: A Strength of Materials Approach. 1st ed. s.l.:Butterworth-
Heinemann.

912