Internal seminar at UK, Prague

Soil cyclic behaviour – experimental evidence,

constitutive description and simulation of wind
farm foundations

Maciej Ochmański ochmaskm@natur.cuni.cz

Jose Duque duquefej@natur.cuni.cz

2nd November 2020

 Outline

1. Introduction

2. Experimental evidences

3. Constitutive description of soil cyclic behaviour

4. Numerical simulations of wind farm foundations

• Monopile
• Tripod

2nd November 2020

 Introduction
Examples of cyclically loaded structures

locks wind turbines

compaction tanks, silos

traffic loading cranes

2nd November 2020

 Introduction
Low vs high-cycle loadings

Low-Cycle loading High-Cycle loading

• Low number of cycles () • Large number of cycles ()

• Large amplitudes () • Small amplitudes ()
• Example: Earthquake loading, possibly • Example: foundations for offshore wind
leading to “soil liquefaction” turbines

Combinations of both: i.e. typhoon loading followed by long periods of low-amplitude loading (common environmental loading)

2nd November 2020

 Introduction
Multi-axial cyclic loading

σ,τ
σv σ
σv v

σhσσh h
ττ t

2nd November 2020

 Outline

1. Introduction

2. Experimental evidences

3. Constitutive description of soil cyclic behaviour

4. Numerical simulations of wind farm foundations

• Monopile
• Tripod

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

This section is based on the cyclic experimental results presented by Wichtmann (2016) on Karlsruhe Fine Sand

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and stress cycles. Experiments on medium dense samples () with variation of the stress
amplitude

𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝= q= 𝜎 ′ 1 −𝜎 ′ 3
q amp 3

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and stress cycles. Influence of the sample density

𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3

q= 𝜎 ′ 1 − 𝜎 ′ 3

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and stress cycles. CSR-N analysis

𝜎 ′ 1+ 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3

q= 𝜎 ′ 1 −𝜎 ′ 3

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and low amplitude strain cycles. Influence of the strain amplitude and density

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Granular soils

Experimental evidence on granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and high amplitude strain cycles. Influence of the strain amplitude and density

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

This section is based on the cyclic experimental results presented by Wichtmann (2016) on a kaolin silt

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Monotonic loading: influence of the initial mean effective stress and inherent anisotropy

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Typica results by Hyodo et al. (1999), space
With increasing plasticity index the eight-shape is deleted and the distance from the state increase

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils
𝜎 ′𝑐
Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils 𝑂𝐶𝑅=
𝜎 ′0
Cyclic loading: samples with isotropic consolidation. Influence of the stress amplitude and overconsolidation ratio

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Cyclic loading: summary of the influence of the stress amplitude
CSR

For this case, failure is defined as

2nd November 2020

 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Fine-grained soils

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Cyclic loading: samples with horizontal cutting direction

2nd November 2020

 Outline

1. Introduction

2. Experimental evidences

3. Constitutive description of soil cyclic behavior

4. Numerical simulations of wind farm foundations

• Monopile
• Tripod

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Basic concepts

• Problems to be solved related to offshore foundations involve complex

phenomena, such as cyclic and non-monotonous loading, where non-
linearity, small strain stiffness, cyclic hysteresis and recent stress history
may play a significant role. In order to simulate the previously mentioned
effects, advanced constitutive models are required.

• This presentation is based in the hypoplastic framework for geomaterials.

Hypoplasticity is a type of constitutive model which abandons classical
elasto-plastic notions as yield surface, flow rule, consistency condition,
decomposition of strain, etc. Hypoplasticity is based on single rate
equation non-linear in strain rate.

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Basic concepts

• Let’s first analyse a simple example of the behaviour of Hypoplasticity in 1D for shear:

• Case 1: If ,
• Case 2: If and (loading),
• Case 3: If and (unloading),

Under general conditions, the equation is rewritten as:

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Monotonic loading

• Hypoplastic model for sand by Von Wolffersdorff (1996). Experiments on Karlsruhe fine sand. Performance under
oedometric loading

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Monotonic loading

• Hypoplastic model for sand by Von Wolffersdorff (1996). Experiments on Karlsruhe fine sand. Performance under
undrained monotonic loading

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Monotonic loading

• Hypoplastic model for sand by Von Wolffersdorff (1996). Experiments on Karlsruhe fine sand. Performance under
drained monotonic loading

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Under small strain amplitudes , it shows ratcheting and lacks of the cyclic mobility effects

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Enhancement of hypoplastic models “Intergranular strain” by Niemunis and Herle (1997)
• Introduce a new state variable h “intergranular strain”
• Increase the stiffness for reversal and transverse loading Red line: behaves
• Reduction of the accumulation rate as by monotonic
• Example: 1D strain cycles: loading

Inside the red

lines: behaves as
by cyclic loading

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Extended hypoplastic model with intergranular strain:

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Some extensions of the conventional intergranular strain model were developed by Wegener and Herle (2014) and Duque
et al. (2020). The main idea of these modifications is to improve the performance under cyclic loading.

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Summary of the accumulated por water pressure

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Model formulation

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Model formulation

• Example of monotonic loading after reverse loading: a),b) strain path passes through the elastic range; c) kinematic
movement of the yield surface; d) bounding surface is finally reached

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Model formulation

• The model by Mašín (2014) introduced an anisotropic factor to simulate inherent anisotropy

Experiment =1 (isotropic) =1.9 (anisotropic)

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Monotonic loading

• Satisfactory performance under undrained monotonic loading

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Cyclic loading

Experiment ISA IS (Niemunis and Herle)

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Cyclic loading

• Summary of the accumulated por water pressure

2nd November 2020

 CONSTITUTIVE DESCRIPTION
Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity for fine-grained soils: Cyclic loading

• The proposed model is able to accurately reproduce the performance on samples with horizontal bedding plane and the
same parameters!
ISA IS (Niemunis and Herle)
 Outline

1. Introduction

2. Experimental evidences

3. Constitutive description of soil cyclic behaviour

4. Numerical simulations of wind farm foundations

• Monopile
• Tripod

2nd November 2020

 Project overview
Two case studies

Monopile foundation Tripod bucket foundation

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Reference centrifuge modelling

Parameter Scaling factor

(model/prototype)
Length 1/N
Mass 1/N3
Time (diffusion) 1/N2
Time (dynamic) 1/N
Velocity 1
Seepage velocity N
Acceleration N
Gravity acceleration N
Force 1/N2
Stress 1
Strain 1
Energy 1/N3
Centrifuge testing at Zhejiang University (Lai et al., 2020)

N = 200g diffusion = 1/40000 10y ~2 hours

2nd November 2020
 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Reference centrifuge modelling

• Centrifuge testing at Zhejiang University • Malaysian kaolin

(Lai et al., 2020) • Multi-stage one-way cyclic loading
• Centrifugal acceleration 100 g • Amplitude of cyclic loading 25, 45 and 65% Fu

Elevation view Plan view

Centrifuge model package (Lai et al., 2020)

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Reference centrifuge modelling

Nine episodes of 100 cycles with

var. load amplitude

65% Fu

45% Fu

25% Fu

Monotonic load-displacement relation at the head of monopile

(Lai et al., 2020)

The multi-stage cyclic loading procedure applied for a 6 m

monopile (Lai et al., 2020)

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Computational model (0.06 m φ pile)

• Free FEM code - Tochnog Professional (

www.tochnogprofessional.nl)
• Coupled hydromechanical simulation
• Soil-structure interface – plane interface element with
elastic response and plastic MC failure
• Around 45 000 1st order 8-node cubic and 6-node prism
elements
• Monopile made from aluminium alloy, linear-elastic
model with E = 72GPa, ν=0.33
• Soil mechanical response replicated using conventional
hypoplastic model for clay (Mašín, 2013) with ISC
(Niemunis & Herle, 1997)

• To improve convergence thin elastic layer near the

ground surface

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Calibration of element tests for Malaysian kaolin

Element tests:
• Monotonic shear tests in Triaxial cell
Hypoplastic model for clays (Mašín, 2013)
(p’=200, 300, 600 kPa)
with ISC (Niemunis & Herle, 1997)
• Cyclic shear tests in Triaxial cell
(qamp = 0.4, 0.6, 0.7 q200) with N=150

po = 600 kPa

eo = 1.096
po = 300 kPa

eo = 1.276
po = 200 kPa

eo = 1.405

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Calibration of element tests for Malaysian kaolin

Element tests:
• Monotonic shear tests in Triaxial cell
Hypoplastic model for clays (Mašín, 2013)
(p’=200, 300, 600 kPa)
with ISC (Niemunis & Herle, 1997)
• Cyclic shear tests in Triaxial cell
(qamp = 0.4, 0.6, 0.7 q200) with N=150
qamp = 0.7
0.4 q200
0.6

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – monotonic loading

Vertical displacements induced by monotonic loading

(deformations in exaggerated scale)

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – cyclic loading

each episode N = 100

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – cyclic loading

2nd November 2020

 MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – cyclic loading

peak

residual

2nd November 2020

 Project overview
Two case studies

Monopile foundation Tripod bucket foundation

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Reference centrifuge modelling

• Centrifuge testing at Zhejiang University • Medium dense dry silica Fuijan sand (Dr=60%)
(Wang et al., 2018) • Multi-stage one-way cyclic loading
• Centrifugal acceleration 100 g
• Amplitude of cyclic loading 10-60% Fu

Elevation view Plan view

Centrifuge model package (Wang et al., 2018)

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Reference centrifuge modelling

Monopod Tripod

Development of rotation during the multi-amplitude lateral cycling: a) the monopod, b) the tripod (Wang et al., 2018)

2nd November 2020

TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Stiffness recovering

Tripod

Cyclic loading of a model suction

caisson in sand (Houlsby, 2016)

Damage to the soil fabric

2nd November 2020

TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Computational model

• Simulation of 6 episodes of 100 one-way loading cycles

with increasing amplitude

• Free FEM code - Tochnog Professional (

www.tochnogprofessional.nl)

• 260000 1st order 8-node cubic elements

• Soil-structure interface – plane interface element with

elastic response

• Tripod made from aluminium alloy, linear-elastic model

with E = 72GPa, ν-0.3

• Soil mechanical response replicated using conventional

hypoplastic model for sand (von Wolffersdorff, 1996)
with ISC (Niemunis & Herle, 1997)

• To improve convergence thin elastic layer near the

ground surface

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Element tests - Fujian sand
Stress paths of Hypoplasticity (von Wolffersdorff, 1996) with ISC (Niemunis & Herle, 1997) – set 1
drained triaxial test

q: kPa

150 E

50
D

C O A
0 50 100 200 p’: kPa

-50
B

2nd November 2020

TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Element tests - Fujian sand

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Element tests - Fujian sand
Stress paths of Hypoplasticity (von Wolffersdorff, 1996) with ISC (Niemunis & Herle, 1997) – set 2
drained triaxial test

q: kPa

150 E

50
D

C O A
0 50 100 200 p’: kPa

-50
B

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Implicit approach – monotonic response
Monotonic loading
+α

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Implicit approach – results

+α

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Implicit approach - deformation mechanism – ep. 1 (10% Fu)

After 10
100 cycle
thth
cycle

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Implicit approach - deformation mechanism – ep. 3 (30% Fu)

After 100 cycle

10ththcycle

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Implicit approach – pods settlements

+α

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Summary

Alternative for convention (implicit) approach?

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Explicit approach – High-cycle accumulation (HCA) model (Niemunis et al. 2005)

- strain amplitude

- number of cycles

- average mean pressure

- average stress ratio

- void ratio
Explicit calculation strategy of the cumulative deformation
(Niemunis et al., 2005) - polarization of the strain loop

Explicitly defined the rate of strain accumulation: 8 parameters

𝑫 𝑎𝑐𝑐 =𝒎 ∙ 𝑓 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙 ∙ 𝑓˙𝑁 ∙ 𝑓 𝑝 ∙ 𝑓 𝑌 ∙ 𝑓 𝑒 ∙ 𝑓 𝜋

2nd November 2020

 TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Explicit approach – results

+α

Cyclic loading

2nd November 2020

TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
Explicit approach – results

2nd November 2020

 SUMMARY

• A wide range of geotechnical problems deals with cyclic loading. Therefore, accurate models and understanding of
how the soil behaves under cyclic loading is necessary.

• The experimental evidence suggest that the behaviour under cyclic loading is complex. Under this conditions, non-
linearity, small strain stiffness, cyclic hysteresis and recent stress history play a significant role.

• Two new “implicit” models (improved versions) for cyclic loading were recently proposed at Charles University: a) ISI
(2020) and b) AHP+ISA (2020). These models show an accurate performance under cyclic loading with

• Simulation results suggest that the hypoplastic model for sands by Von Wolffersdorff (1997) have some serious
issues to predict soil liquefaction (the state is not reached) and needs to be improved.

2nd November 2020

 SUMMARY

MONOPILE:

• Well reproduced increase of the magnitudes of the cumulative peak and residual displacements of the monopile with
the number of cycles and strongly reduced after each episode of reconsolidation. Increase of unloading stiffness
after reconsolidation was not reproduced.

• An overestimation of the excess pore water pressure was reproduced by the model during the first loading stage.

TRIPOD:

• Uneven progressive damage in soil fabrics leads to a significant change in stress state around both buckets.

• When the cumulative settlement of the pulled bucket overcome those for the pushed one, the whole foundation
change direction of rotation to clockwise producing ”self-healing” effect.

2nd November 2020