Seminar CUNI 2021

Special Issues of Geotechnics at UK, Prague
Overview of soil behavior under cyclic loading:

experimental evidence, constitutive description
and applications in offshore geotechnics
Jose Duque duquefej@natur.cuni.cz
23rd February 2021

Outline
1. Motivation
2. Experimental evidences
3. Methods for analysis of offshore foundations
4. Applications in offshore geotechnics
23rd February 2021

Motivation
Examples of cyclically loaded structures
locks wind turbines

compaction tanks, silos
traffic loading cranes
23rd February 2021

Motivation
Energy consumption
The worldwide energy consumption

is exponentially growing year by year.
Most of the energy comes from Oil
and Coal.
MTOE: million tonnes of Oil equivalent
Source: Enerdata, 2019
23rd February 2021

Motivation
Energy consumption
Around 84.3% of the energy comes

from Fossil fuels in 2019. The world
needs more clean sources of energy,
which now are roughly 9.7%.
Source: BP, 2020
23rd February 2021

Motivation
Offshore wind potential
A very promising alternative is the

production of clean energy through
offshore wind farms.
Terawatt-hour (TWh), is equivalent

Source: IEA, 2019 1012 watt-hours
23rd February 2021

Motivation
The offshore wind
energy industry has
been growing at a
positive rate of 30 per
cent each year from
2010 to 2018.
Offshore wind energy

stands as a latent
pillar of the future
world’s energy supply,
having the technical
potential to supply
more than the total
energy consumed
worldwide (IEA 2019).
Source: Bienen, 2020

23rd February 2021
Motivation
Offshore foundations are subjected to complex cyclic loading histories due to

the action of wind and waves. Therefore, the soil behaviour under cyclic loading
should be very well understood in order to design safe and cost-efficient
foundations.
Offshore vs onshore: offshore locations provide benefits over onshore sites such
as more consistent wind speed and direction, as well as the avoidance of land
use and less aesthetic impact.
Source: Page et al., 2018

23rd February 2021
Motivation
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 of offshore wind
leading to “soil liquefaction”, typhoon turbines, traffic loading
Combinations of both: i.e. typhoon loading followed by long periods of low-amplitude loading (common environmental loading)
23rd February 2021

Outline
1. Motivation
23rd February 2021

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Cohesive soils
Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

This section is based on the cyclic experimental results developed at Charles University by Duque, Roháč, Mašín and
Najser on Malaysian kaolin. Variations analyzed: Deviator stress amplitude, plasticity, isotropic/anisotropic initial
stresses and packages of cycles
23rd February 2021

Fine-grained soils
Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Cyclic loading: samples with isotropic consolidation
𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
q= 𝜎 ′ 1 − 𝜎 ′ 3
23rd February 2021

Fine-grained soils
Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

Cyclic loading: summary of the influence of the stress amplitude
𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
q= 𝜎 ′ 1 −𝜎 ′ 3
𝑞 𝑎𝑚𝑝
𝐶𝑆𝑅=
2 𝑝0
23rd February 2021

Cohesive soils

With increasing plasticity index the number of cycles to reach failure conditions increase
23rd February 2021

Cohesive soils

Cyclic loading: samples with anisotropic consolidation.
𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
q= 𝜎 ′ 1 − 𝜎 ′ 3
23rd February 2021

Cohesive soils

Cyclic loading: summary of the influence of the stress amplitude
𝜎 ′ 1 + 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
𝑞 𝑎𝑚𝑝 q= 𝜎 ′ 1 −𝜎 ′ 3
𝐶𝑆𝑅=
2 𝑝0
23rd February 2021

Cohesive soils

Cyclic loading: samples with packages of cycles
23rd February 2021

Cohesive soils
𝜎 ′ 1+ 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
q= 𝜎 ′ 1 − 𝜎 ′ 3
23rd February 2021

Granular soils
Experimental evidence on granular soils

This section is based on the cyclic experimental results presented by Wichtmann (2016) on Karlsruhe Fine Sand
23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

Granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and stress cycles. CSR-N analysis
𝜎 ′ 1+ 𝜎 ′ 2+ 𝜎 ′ 3
𝑝=
3
q= 𝜎 ′ 1 −𝜎 ′ 3
23rd February 2021

Granular soils

Isotropic initial stresses and packages of cycles
23rd February 2021

Outline
1. Motivation
23rd February 2021

Applications in offshore geotechnics
Types of foundations
Source: Arshad and O’kelly, 2016

Source: Wichtmann, 2016
23rd February 2021

The most popular foundation for offshore

wind turbines are monopiles (approximately
82%), mostly because of its relatively low-
cost, “well known” behaviour and ease of
installation. A monopile foundation consists
of an open-ended pipe pile made of steel with
a large diameter of several meters. These
foundations are installed into the seabed by
driving (golpes undido), jacking (empujado
hacia adentro) or vibrating installation
methods.
Monopile foundations are suitable for

shallow to intermediate water depths of less
than 50 m (IEA 2019a). The typical outer
diameter of monopiles ranges between 𝐷= 3-
10 m. Monopiles usually have embedment
lengths between 𝐿= 20 - 40 m.
Source: Fuentes et al., 2020
23rd February 2021

For monopile foundations, lateral loads are

more significant in magnitude than vertical
loads. Therefore, the analysis of monopile
foundations under lateral loading is the major
concern (Arshad and O’Kelly 2016).
Often, the loading conditions on monopiles

are simplified as unidirectional cyclic loading
composed by several load parcels with
constant amplitude.
Source: Fuentes et al., 2020
23rd February 2021

Design considerations
According to current design standards, such as the Det Norske Veritas - Germanischer Lloyd Group (DNV-GL-AS 2016) and
the American Petroleum Institute (API 2014a) standards, the geotechnical design of monopiles in sands must be checked with
respect to two limit states, namely, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). The design is
usually controlled by the SLS rather than the ULS.
For the design in the ULS, monopiles must resist the action of lateral and axial loading under extreme loading conditions.
According to the DNV-GL standards (DNV-GL-AS 2016), two requirements shall be met. First, the theoretical ultimate pile
resistance must be compared to the design loads. Second, the pile displacements and rotations at the pile head under extreme
lateral loading conditions must not reach excessive values that can be considered as a failure state.
For the design in the SLS, the permanent pile displacements and rotations at the pile head must be under some defined
deformation limit to ensure adequate turbine performance. Special attention must be given to the behaviour under long-term
cyclic loading. The DNV-GL standards (DNV-GL-AS 2016) recommend to set 0.5° as the maximum allowable accumulated
rotation at the pile head, from which 0.25° account for possible pile rotations caused during the installation of the monopile
and 0.25° account for the permanent rotation due to the lateral loading.
23rd February 2021

Design considerations
A list of some design guidelines used for the analysis and design of offshore monopile foundations is presented as follows:
1) DNVGL-ST-0126: Support structures for wind turbines (DNV-GL-AS 2016).

2) API RP 2A-WSD: Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design (API 2014a).
3) API RP 2GEO: Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations (API 2014b).
4) ISO 19902:2007/AMD 1:2013: Petroleum and natural gas industries - Fixed steel offshore structures (ISO 2013).
5) ISO 19901-4:2016: Petroleum and natural gas industries - Specific requirements for offshore structures - Part 4:
Geotechnical and foundation design considerations (ISO 2016).
These methods are mainly based on p-y analysis
23rd February 2021

Most common methods for the analysis of Monopiles
1) Beam on a Non-Linear Winkler: also known as the 𝑝-𝑦 method, the monopile is simplified as an elastic Euler-Bernoulli
beam supported by uncoupled springs with non-linear depth-dependent elastic behavior, which represent the lateral soil
reaction. Advantages: very simple for engineering practice, overdesign the dimensions of the monopiles. Disadvantages: too
simple and conservative, most of the p-y model does not properly account for the effect of cyclic loading
23rd February 2021

2) Simplified experimental methods: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) method. Advantages: based on real
experiments, simple, account for cyclic loading effects. Disadvantages: soil-structure interaction?
Source: Tofte (2021)
23rd February 2021

3) Finite Element simulations with advanced constitutive models. Advantages: accurate results, proper reproduction of soil-
structure interaction. Disadvantages: too complex for common engineering practice, time consuming.
Source: Hong et al., 2018
23rd February 2021

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.
23rd February 2021

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:
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on granular soils: Monotonic loading

• Hypoplastic model for sand by Von Wolffersdorff (1996). Experiments on Karlsruhe fine sand. Performance under
oedometric loading
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on granular soils: Monotonic loading

undrained monotonic loading
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity for granular soils: Monotonic loading

drained monotonic loading
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on granular soils: Cyclic loading

• Under small strain amplitudes , it shows ratcheting and lacks of the cyclic mobility effects
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• 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
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• Extended hypoplastic model with intergranular strain:
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• 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.
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

Hypoplasticity

• Summary of the accumulated por water pressure
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on cohesive soils: Model formulation
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• 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
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• The model by Mašín (2014) introduced an anisotropic factor to simulate inherent anisotropy
Experiment =1 (isotropic) =1.9 (anisotropic)
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on cohesive soils: Monotonic loading

• Satisfactory performance under undrained monotonic loading
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity
Hypoplasticity on cohesive soils: Cyclic loading

Experiment ISA IS (Niemunis and Herle)
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• Summary of the accumulated por water pressure
23rd February 2021

Hypoplasticity

• 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. Motivation
23rd February 2021

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 = 100g Length = 1/100 40 m 40 cm

23rd February 2021
Project overview
Two case studies
Monopile foundation Tripod bucket foundation
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
• 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)
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
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)
23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

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)
• 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
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – monotonic loading
Vertical displacements induced by monotonic loading

(deformations in exaggerated scale)
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
Model verification – cyclic loading
each episode N = 100
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
23rd February 2021

MONOPILE FOUNDATION
peak
residual
23rd February 2021

Project overview
Two case studies
Monopile foundation Tripod bucket foundation
23rd February 2021

TRIPOD BUCKET FOUNDATION
• 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)
23rd February 2021

Monopod Tripod
Development of rotation during the multi-amplitude lateral cycling: a) the monopod, b) the tripod (Wang et al., 2018)
23rd February 2021

Stiffness recovering
Tripod
Cyclic loading of a model suction

caisson in sand (Houlsby, 2016)
Damage to the soil fabric
23rd February 2021

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)
• To improve convergence thin elastic layer near the

ground surface
23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

23rd February 2021

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
23rd February 2021

Implicit approach – results
+α
23rd February 2021

Implicit approach - deformation mechanism – ep. 1 (10% Fu)
After 10
100 cycle
thth
cycle
23rd February 2021

Implicit approach - deformation mechanism – ep. 3 (30% Fu)
After 100 cycle

10ththcycle
23rd February 2021

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.
23rd February 2021

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.
23rd February 2021

Seminar CUNI 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Seminar CUNI 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Issues of Geotechnics at UK, Prague

Overview of soil behavior under cyclic loading:

Jose Duque duquefej@natur.cuni.cz

23rd February 2021

3. Methods for analysis of offshore foundations

4. Applications in offshore geotechnics

23rd February 2021

locks wind turbines

traffic loading cranes

23rd February 2021

The worldwide energy consumption

MTOE: million tonnes of Oil equivalent

Source: Enerdata, 2019

23rd February 2021

Around 84.3% of the energy comes

Source: BP, 2020

23rd February 2021

A very promising alternative is the

Terawatt-hour (TWh), is equivalent

23rd February 2021

Offshore wind energy

Source: Bienen, 2020

Offshore foundations are subjected to complex cyclic loading histories due to

Source: Page et al., 2018

Low-Cycle loading High-Cycle loading

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

23rd February 2021

3. Methods for analysis of offshore foundations

4. Applications in offshore geotechnics

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on fine-grained soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on cohesive soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on granular soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on granular soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on granular soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on granular soils

23rd February 2021

Experimental evidence on granular soils

23rd February 2021

3. Methods for analysis of offshore foundations

4. Applications in offshore geotechnics

23rd February 2021

Source: Arshad and O’kelly, 2016

23rd February 2021

The most popular foundation for offshore

Monopile foundations are suitable for