Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Assessment of natural frequency of installed offshore wind turbines using

nonlinear finite element model considering soil-monopile interaction
Djillali Amar Bouzid a, *, Subhamoy Bhattacharya b, Lalahoum Otsmane c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University Saad Dahled of Blida, Route de Soumaa, Blida, 09000, Algeria
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tomas Telford Building, University of Surrey, Surrey, GU2 7HX, UK
c
Department of Material Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Médéa, Quartier Ain D’Hab, Médéa, 26000, Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A nonlinear finite element model is developed to examine the lateral behaviors of monopiles, which
Received 24 July 2017 support offshore wind turbines (OWTs) chosen from five different offshore wind farms in Europe. The
Received in revised form simulation is using this model to accurately estimate the natural frequency of these slender structures, as
10 October 2017
a function of the interaction of the foundations with the subsoil. After a brief introduction to the wind
Accepted 12 November 2017
Available online 13 March 2018
power energy as a reliable alternative in comparison to fossil fuel, the paper focuses on concept of natural
frequency as a primary indicator in designing the foundations of OWTs. Then the range of natural fre-
quencies is provided for a safe design purpose. Next, an analytical expression of an OWT natural fre-
Keywords:
Nonlinear finite element analysis
quency is presented as a function of soil-monopile interaction through monopile head springs
Vertical slices model characterized by lateral stiffness KL, rotational stiffness KR and cross-coupling stiffness KLR, of which the
Monopiles under horizontal loading differences are discussed. The nonlinear pseudo three-dimensional finite element vertical slices model
Natural frequency has been used to analyze the lateral behaviors of monopiles supporting the OWTs of different wind farm
Monopile head stiffness sites considered. Through the monopiles head movements (displacements and rotations), the values of
Offshore wind turbines (OWTs) KL, KR and KLR were obtained and substituted in the analytical expression of natural frequency for
comparison. The comparison results between computed and measured natural frequencies showed an
excellent agreement for most cases. This confirms the convenience of the finite element model used for
the accurate estimation of the monopile head stiffness.
Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction that offshore wind energy will play an increasingly important role
in the future development. This is supported by the fact that all
Wind, solar power and geothermal heat are representative of principal wind turbine manufacturers currently are spending huge
clean and renewable energy which have the potential to become amount of money and effort on developing larger offshore WTGs
alternatives to current supplement of fossil fuel sources of energy in for deeper waters where wind speed is generally higher and
the future. While these alternative energy sources have their ad- steadier, resulting in an increase in energy output.
vantages and drawbacks, wind energy is widely accepted as the Although there are many OWTs support options which may
cheapest and most economically available one based on current range from gravity foundations (for shallow depths of 0e15 m) to
technology. Today, wind energy has proven to be a valuable feature floating foundations (for very deep waters of 60e200 m) (Achmus
for large-scale future investment in the energy industries world- et al., 2009; Lombardi et al., 2013; Damgaard et al., 2015; Abed et al.,
wide, and many countries install their proper wind turbine gen- 2016), most OWTs are supported on monopile foundations, as they
erators (WTGs), mainly on land. As offshore wind turbines (OWTs) are simple structures which are easy and convenient to construct.
have gained their popularity, many WTG manufacturers believe The accumulated experience from limited monitored data from
OWTs over the last 15 years showed that the available design
procedures (mostly contained in the API (API and ISO, 2011) and
DNV (DNV-OS-J101, 2004) regulation codes suffer limitations.
* Corresponding author. The existing methods were established/calibrated by testing
E-mail address: d_amarbouzid@yahoo.fr (D. Amar Bouzid).
small-diameter piles used for supporting offshore platforms in gas
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences. and oil industry, often with design criteria and loading conditions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.11.010
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
334 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

which are different from those encountered in an OWT. The inap- actual operational frequency when the wind turbines are
propriateness of these methods comes from the fact that: constructed.
The natural frequency of the hub-tower-foundation system is
(1) The continuum (soil) is replaced by a series of uncoupled the key feature on which the response of an OWT to wind and wave
springs. However, reliable results necessitate a rigorous loads depends. This is due to the dynamic nature of the loads on the
method which can properly account for the true deformation wind turbine structure and the slenderness of the system. Through
mechanism of soil-monopile interaction. determination of the natural frequency, designer can assess the
(2) As they rotate freely, monopiles supporting OWT energy strains produced by loading cycles, through which the fatigue
converters undergo severe degradation in the upper soil failure of the structure can be ascertained. Therefore, an accurate
layer resulting from cyclic loading, whereas offshore jacket estimation of this parameter is essential to assess the working life
piles are significantly restrained against rotation at their of a wind turbine.
heads. Unlike most large-scale civil engineering structures, wind tur-
(3) Monopiles are relatively shorter and rigid piles with a length bines are subjected to millions of periodic excitation cycles during
to diameter ratio (Lp/Dp) in the range of 2e6 and a diameter their operating life. The rotor spinning at a given velocity induces
(Dp) of up to 8 m envisaged for the next generation of tur- mass imbalances (gyroscopic effect), causing a frequency known as
bines, whereas offshore piled foundations in the offshore oil 1P. In addition to this, the effect of a standard turbine having n
and gas industry have a length to diameter ratio (Lp/Dp) of blades induces a further excitation due to the blades passing the
over 30 and relevant recommendations have been set on the tower. The frequency of this shadowing effect is nP, where n ¼ 3 in
basis of full-scale loading tests on long, slender and flexible most cases.
piles with a diameter of 0.61 m (Reese et al., 1974). The modern installed wind turbines are characterized by a range
(4) The API model is calibrated in response to a small number of of different velocities in which their rotors are operating. This re-
cycles for offshore fixed platform applications. However, an sults in two ranges of operating frequencies around 1P and 3P. In
OWT over its lifetime of 20e25 years may undergo 107e108 order to avoid resonance, the natural frequency of the tower cannot
cycles of loading. be in any of these two ranges and must be far from 1P and 3P.
The OWT design can be performed in such a way that the first
Due to these complex issues, appropriate determination of the eigenfrequency lies within three possible ranges: softesoft, softe
dynamic characteristics of these extremely complex structures stiff and stiffestiff as shown in Fig. 1.
through their monopiles head stiffnesses is continuing to challenge
designers, as the foundation of an OWT behavior is still not (1) Softesoft range: the natural frequency is less than the lower
well understood, and also not introduced in the current design bound of 1P. This implies that the structure is too flexible,
guidelines. and moreover, this is a range where the frequency of waves
Concerning accurate prediction of the monopile head stiff- may lie, therefore leading to resonance.
nesses, numerical analysis using the finite element method (FEM) (2) Stiffestiff range: this is a range where the tower frequency is
constitutes an excellent alternative to capture the real behavior of higher than the upper bound of blade passing frequency (3P).
this type of foundations and hence to accurately estimate the dy- This range is economically unfeasible as it leads to a too rigid
namic characteristics of an OWT. (heavy and expensive) structure, making it inappropriate for
Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018) formulated a nonlinear design.
pseudo three-dimensional (3D) computation method, combining (3) Softestiff range: in this interval, the natural frequency lies
the FEM and the finite difference method (FDM). They wrote a between 1P and 3P. This range is the optimum range for the
Fortran computer code called NAMPULAL (nonlinear analysis of best possible design.
monopiles under lateral and axial loadings) to study monopiles
under axial, lateral and moment loadings in a medium charac- The system stiffness must be such that the natural frequency of
terized by the hyperbolic model for representing the stresse the wind turbine does not lie within the rotor frequency excitation
strain relationships. In this paper, we attempt to apply NAMPU- bands, as this may induce resonance which could lower the design
LAL to examining the lateral behavior of monopiles supporting life significantly.
OWTs chosen from five different offshore wind farms in In order to satisfy these requirements and to keep the natural
Europe. These offshore wind farms include Lely A2 (UK), Irene frequency of the whole structure in the adequate margin of the
Vorrink (Netherlands), Kentish Flats (UK), Walney 1 (UK) and softestiff range, thus avoiding resonance, a joint effort between
Noth Hoyle (UK). foundation designers and turbine manufacturers is performed.
To accurately estimate the natural frequency of the OWT Foundation designers need careful site investigations to obtain
structure (tower þ substructure) which is a function of monopile- reliable soil data in order to correctly assess the foundation
subsoil interaction, the monopiles head movements (displace- stiffness.
ments and rotations) and consequently, the lateral stiffness KL, the
rotational stiffness KR and the cross-coupling stiffness KLR are ob- 2.1. Appropriate OWT modeling for dynamic analysis
tained and substituted in the analytical expression of natural fre-
quency for comparison. In general, the results of comparison The natural frequency of a wind turbine is highly dependent on
between the computed and measured natural frequencies showed the material properties used in its construction, and is significantly
a good agreement. affected by the stiffness of the soil surrounding the monopile.
Assessment of foundation stiffness is the key to obtain reliable
2. Natural frequency and modal analysis estimate of system frequency.
In the computation of eigenfrequency f1, most researchers in the
OWTs are dynamically sensitive structures, in which the dy- past tried to model this complex system according principally to
namic soil-structure interaction is a pivotal aspect of their design two concepts (Prendergast et al., 2015; Yi et al., 2015). In the first
process and consequently, they require accurate soil stiffness esti- one, Yi et al. (2015) simply considered the soil as a medium having
mation in order to ensure that the design frequency matches the an infinite stiffness. In this regard, Vught (2000) used a model in
 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 335

Fig. 1. Forcing frequencies against power spectral density for a three-bladed wind turbine (Hz).

which the wind turbine is considered as an inverted pendulum frequency equation, Arany et al. (2014, 2015) derived expressions of
having a flexural rigidity EI, a tower mass per meter mT and a top natural frequency of OWTs on three-spring flexible foundations by
mass mt. Expression for the first eigenfrequency is given by means of two beam models: Bernoulli-Euler and Timoshenko. The
natural frequencies in both cases have been obtained numerically
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3:04EI from the resulting transcendental equations. They proposed a
f1 y (1) closed-form expression containing, in addition to KL and KR, the
ðmt þ 0:227 mT LT Þ4p2 L3T
cross-coupling stiffness KLR of the monopile. Their equation for the
natural frequency is
where LT is the tower height. The natural frequency expressed by
Eq. (1) is based on a uniform tower cross-section. A slight different
expression has been proposed by Blevins (2001): fh ¼ CR CL fFB (3)

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi where fFB is called fixed base frequency which can be either Eq. (1)
3EI
f1 y (2) or (2). The factors CR and CL account for the stiffness provided by the
ðmt þ 33mT LT =140 Þ4p2 L3T monopile, and are functions of tower’s geometrical properties.
Their analytical expressions are given by
It seems from the first sight that these equations are based on a
simple model which ignores the fact that the tower is tubular and
1
conical in shape and generally does not have a constant wall CR ¼ 1    (4)
h2
thickness. Additionally, Eqs. (1) and (2) depend only on the tower 1 þ a hR  hLR
L
geometrical and mechanical properties without taking into account
the OWT foundation characteristics. This physically does not make
1
sense, as the monopile head movements that occur as a result of the CL ¼ 1    (5)
h2
applied loading on the tower can lead to a finite stiffness of the 1 þ b hL  hLR
R
monopile-subsoil system. This obviously has an influence on the
value of the first natural frequency and shows that the service limit where
computations based on Eqs. (1) and (2) are inaccurate.
.
Bearing in mind that the dynamic analysis of the whole system 9
hL ¼ KL L3T EIh >
composed of tower-monopile-soil is hard to perform, Prendergast >
=
et al. (2015) tried to find a natural frequency expression consid- hR ¼ KR LT =EI
.h (6)
hLR ¼ KLR L2T EIh >
>
ering soil stiffness (Zaaijer, 2006; Yu et al., 2014; Prendergast et al., ;
2015). Alternatively, they replaced the subsoil-monopile system by a ¼ 0:6; b ¼ 0:5
a set of springs through which the tower is connected to the subsoil,
as shown in Fig. 2. This figure illustrates a mechanical model, in where a and b are the empirical constants, which have been ob-
which the subsoil-monopile interaction is represented by four tained by fitting closed-form curves; EIh is the equivalent tower
springs, i.e. a lateral, a rocking, a cross-coupling and a vertical bending stiffness; and h is the soil-foundation interaction coeffi-
spring whose stiffnesses are KL, KR, KLR and KV, respectively. Most cient depending on tower’s bending stiffness. The applicability of
researchers disregarded the axial vibrations since the wind tur- Eqs. (4) and (5) is conditioned by
bines are very stiff vertically.
The stiffness of these springs which represent the subsoil- 9
h2 >
monopile interaction may be estimated from the monopile head hR > 1:2 LR >
>
>
load-deformation curves, provided that these curves are obtained hL =
(7)
by means of a rigorous modeling method, such as FEM. h2 >>
On the basis of a numerical solution of transcendental frequency hL > 1:2 LR >
>
;
hR
equation, Adhikari and Bhattacharya (2011, 2012) proposed an
exact approach where only lateral and rotational stiffnesses have Although Eq. (3) is mathematically attractive as it contains three
been included. Furthermore, in order to improve the first natural simple factors, finding its constituting parameters is not an easy
336 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

Fig. 2. The OWT model used: (a) Principal components and (b) Model considering soil stiffness through monopile head springs.

task. This equation is very important in the sense that the two first As most towers are tapered and tubular, the value of the bending
parameters account for the interaction between the soil and the stiffness is used to evaluate the fixed base frequency and conse-
monopile through the spring stiffnesses. Moreover, they incorpo- quently the natural frequency is difficult to obtain, although the
rate terms related to the equivalent tower stiffness which should be variation law of EIT with the increasing tower cross-section is easy
evaluated properly. to establish. In this context, Bhattacharya (2011) studied a tower as
The OWTs, especially those installed in deep waters, differ from a tapered cantilever beam subjected to a concentrated force p
onshore wind turbines. This difference comes from the fact that applied at its free end (Fig. 3a). Then, by means of beam theory, he
these OWTs are considered as slender and heavy structures which computed a parameter fp(m) (termed here as ‘tower stiffness co-
require in general three elements in their construction to bear the efficient’) as the ratio of the top displacement of a tower having a
heavy masses. These include the tower, the monopile overhang and constant cross-section uconst
t
sec to that of a tower having a linearly
tapered
the transition piece which assembles the first two elements varying cross-section ut . This parameter has been determined
(Fig. 2a). as
In Fig. 3d, the length of the tower LT accounts for the distance
from the rotor nacelle assembly to the top of the transition piece. 1 2m2 ðm  1Þ3
fp ðmÞ ¼ (8)
The tower has a varying bending stiffness EIT, a thickness tT and top 3 2m ln m  3m2 þ 4m  1
2

and bottom diameters which are respectively Dt and Db. Neglecting

where m is the ratio of bottom diameter to top diameter (Fig. 3d):
the flexibilities of the grouted connection, the monopile overhang
and transition piece welded together are assumed to constitute one
Db
element, called the substructure. The latter has a length of Ls which m ¼ (9)
Dt
is defined as the distance from the mudline (seabed) to the bottom
of the tower. The diameter Ds and the thickness ts of the sub- However, it is more likely to consider the tower as a tapered
structure are assumed to have the same values as those of the beam subjected to an upward tapered load along the whole length
monopile on which the substructure is founded. Consequently, the (Fig. 3b). Integrating the beam lateral deflection equation twice and
bending stiffness of the substructure is the same as that of the setting the suitable boundary conditions, the tower stiffness coef-
monopile EIp. ficient corresponding to this load has been obtained as
 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 337

Fig. 3. OWT model used to evaluate the tower mass and bending stiffness: (a) Tower subjected to p; (b) Tower subjected to downward tapered load; (c) Tower different masses; and
(d) Geometrical properties of the tower. ms is the mass of the substructure (transition piece þ monopile) and Dp is the monopile diameter.

11 12m2 ðm  1Þ5
fqtriang ðmÞ ¼   (10)
120  18m3 þ 6m2 ln m þ 5m4 þ 11m3  27m2 þ 13m  2

Fig. 4 illustrates the evolution of fp(m) and fqtriang(m) with the The bending stiffness EIT of the tower may be evaluated as
increasing values of m. It is clearly seen that for the interval where
the ratio m varies from 1 to 2.5, both curves yield the same values.
This corresponds to the majority of practical applications. Outside EIT ¼ EIt faverage ðmÞ (11)
this range, a neat discrepancy is observed and we suggest using the
where
average value if it occurs to find a ratio m greater than 2.5.

h i.
faverage ðmÞ ¼ fp ðmÞ þ fqtriang ðmÞ 2 (12)

The equivalent bending stiffness of the whole structure (support

structure) is given by

EITs ¼ ð1  aÞEIs þ aEIt faverage ðmÞ (13)

where

a ¼ LT =L; L ¼ Ls þ LT (14)
Eqs. (1) and (2) for an onshore or offshore wind turbine, where
the tower is resting directly on the soil, should be altered to
properly find a fixed base natural frequency for an OWT having
different masses and different bending stiffnesses, as shown in
Fig. 3c. If we adopt Eq. (2), this would have the following form for an
Fig. 4. Evolution of tower stiffness coefficient with tower diameters ratio. OWT composed of both tower and substructure parts:
338 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi monopiles embedded in elastic media depends only on the

1 3EITs monopile slenderness rather than the stiffness ratio. Results from
f1 y (15)
2p ½Mt þ ð33=140ÞmTs L3 the aforementioned references are given in Table 1 for homoge-
neous soils. The corresponding values for Gibson soil are given in
where mTs is the sum of mT and ms which can be evaluated by the Table 2, and Table 3 provides values for soils where stiffness varies
following expressions: with square root of depth. For simplicity, results presented in these
tables are restricted to Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.4.
ms ¼ gsteel p Ls ts ðDs  ts Þ (16) Using the values of CR and CL, the natural frequency was found
very close to unity, i.e. close to fixed base. Precisely, it may be
mT ¼ 0:5 gsteel pLT tT ðDb þ Dt  2ts Þ (17) argued that they do not reflect the soil actual stiffness and they do
not bring an actual alteration to the natural frequency which re-
mains very close to the fixed base frequency.
mTs ¼ mT þ ms (18)
As an alternative procedure, it is appropriate to evaluate the
stiffness coefficients on the basis of initial stiffness (tangential
where gsteel is the steel density usually taken as 7860 kg/m3.
Since the support structure composed of tower and substructure values at the origin) of the monopile head-deformations curves,
resulting from the study of the nonlinear behavior of the subsoil in
is in contact with soil, the empirical soil-foundation interaction
coefficients given in Eq. (6) should be corrected in order to properly which the monopile is embedded. Assuming that the monopile
head movements and applied efforts are expressed in function of
take into account the true support structure length and its effective
bending stiffness. Thus these expressions are given by flexibility coefficients, this can be given in matrix form as

9
KL ðLT þ Ls Þ3 >
>
>  
 
hL ¼ >
> uL IL ILR H
EITs >
> ¼ (20)
>
> qR IRL IR M
K ðL þ Ls Þ =
hR ¼ R T (19)
EITs >
> where H and M are the shear force and overturning moment
>
>
2>
> applied at the monopile head, respectively; uL and qR are the lateral
KLR ðLT þ Ls Þ >
>
>
hLR ¼ ; displacement and rotation of the monopile head, respectively; and
EITs
IL, IR, and ILR are the lateral, rotational and cross-coupling flexibility
The soil-foundation interaction coefficients given by Eqs. (4) and coefficients, respectively.
(5) are evaluated on the basis of Eq. (19). As the aim is to find the stiffness coefficients, it is easy to reverse
the matrix in Eq. (20) to obtain:

2.2. Procedures to estimate the monopile head stiffnesses

 
 
H KL KLR uL
¼ (21)
In dealing with monopiles supporting OWTs, design engineers M KRL KR qR
need to compute KL, KR and KLR. Two ways are often considered to
compute these stiffnesses. The first way is to model the monopile The stiffness coefficients are related to flexibility ones by the
using the Winkler concept. This procedure which is alternatively following terms:
called p-y approach is assumed to be sufficiently accurate for
monopile diameter Dp  2 m, as p-y curves have been established Table 1
for small-diameter and slender piles in offshore gas and oil in- Short monopile stiffness coefficients proposed by different researchers in homo-
geneous soils.
dustry. However, several investigations indicated that the pile de-
flections of large-diameter monopiles are underestimated for Source KL/(EsDDp) KLR =ðEsD D2p Þ KR =ðEsD D3p Þ
service loads and overestimated for small operational loads, which Carter and Kulhawy 1.884 (Lp/Dp) 0.627
1.048 (Lp/Dp) 1.483
1.91 (Lp/Dp)2.049
has been confirmed in a separate work (Otsmane and Amar Bouzid, (1992)
2018). The second way is to directly employ values of KL, KR and KLR Higgins et al. (2013) 2.426 (Lp/Dp)0.71 1.44 (Lp/Dp)1.67 1.789 (Lp/Dp)2.459
given in the existing standards (EC8 for example, where pile-head 0.668 1.636
Aissa et al. (2017) 2.756 (Lp/Dp) 1.595 (Lp/Dp) 1.731 (Lp/Dp)2.495
stiffness of flexible pile is provided). Although the expressions
containing these coefficients have been determined for various soil Note: EsD is the soil Young’s modulus at one monopile diameter depth, and Lp is the
monopile length.
profiles (three profiles in most cases: constant soil stiffness, linear
variation of soil stiffness with depth, and variation of soil stiffness
with square root of depth), they encompass monopile-soil Young’s Table 2
Stiffness coefficients for short monopiles proposed for Gibson soils.
modulus ratio Ep/Es. However, recent research (Higgins et al., 2013;
Abed et al., 2016; Aissa et al., 2017) confirmed that the lateral Source KL/(EsDDp) KLR =ðEsD D2p Þ KR =ðEsD D3p Þ
behavior of large-diameter monopile fundamentally depends on 2.041 3.061
Higgins et al. (2013) 0.929 (Lp/Dp) 0.633 (Lp/Dp) 0.672 (Lp/Dp)3.941
monopile slenderness Lp/Dp rather than monopile-soil relative
stiffness Ep/Es. Abed et al. (2016) 1.708 (Lp/Dp)1.661 1.233 (Lp/Dp)2.655 1.153 (Lp/Dp)3.605
A different class of researchers suggested that the stiffness co-
efficients could be obtained from the elastic behavior of soil-
monopile system under lateral loading where both soil and Table 3
monopile are elastic. Indeed, some researchers (e.g. Carter and Stiffness coefficients for short monopiles proposed for soils whose stiffness in-
creases with square root of depth.
Kulhawy, 1992; Higgins et al., 2013; Abed et al., 2016; Aissa et al.,
2017) performed parametric studies using FEM, in which the ra- Source KL/(EsDDp) KLR =ðEsD D2p Þ KR =ðEsD D3p Þ
tios Ep/Es were varied and load-deflection curves were drawn.
Abed et al. (2016) 2.841 (Lp/Dp)0.977 2.933 (Lp/Dp)1.767 3.894 (Lp/Dp)2.562
These studies confirmed that the short monopile head stiffness for
 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 339

9 procedure, called nonlinear finite element vertical slices model

IR >
KL ¼ >
> (NFEVSM), involves the combination of the FEM and the FDM for
2
IL IR  ILR >
>
>
> capturing the behavior of the embedded structure and its sur-
>
>
IL = rounding soil being considered to obey the hyperbolic model as
KR ¼ 2 > (22) proposed by Duncan and Chang (1970). The 3D soil-structure
IL IR  ILR >
>
> problem plotted in Fig. 6 shows a soil-structure interaction prob-
>
>
ILR >
> lem example (Fig. 6a) and the vertical slices model where different
¼ >
2 ;
KLR
IL IR  ILR slices are acted upon by external forces and body forces (Fig. 6b).
The stress and deformation analyses in each slice are conducted
Determination of the values KL, KR and KLR is not straightforward by the conventional FEM, using two-dimensional (2D) finite ele-
in the FEM analyses controlled by forces. The flexibility coefficients ments. According to the standard formulation in the displacement
should be determined first, and then be reversed to obtain the based FEM, the element stiffness matrix in slice i can be written as
stiffness coefficients of Eq. (22). To do so, an arbitrary pure hori-
zontal load (H s 0 and M ¼ 0) is applied at the monopile head at
Z Z
the mudline level, and a plot depicting the increasing values of H
versus the corresponding values of monopile head displacements u BT Dps Bai dv ¼ N T bi dv þ pi (23)
is illustrated (Fig. 5a). The parameter 1/IL is then obtained by simply v v
computing the slope of the resulting curve at the origin. The T
where B and B are the strain field-nodal displacement matrix and
parameter 1/ILR is computed from the curve giving the variation of
its transpose, respectively; N and NT are the shape function matrix
H in function of rotation q issued from the same analysis (Fig. 5c).
and its transpose, respectively; pi is the external force vector to
As the rocking flexibility coefficient needs a pure bending, the
which the slice i is subjected; and bi is the body force vector which
monopile-soil system is analyzed under an overturning moment
has the following compact form:
(M s 0 and H ¼ 0) applied at the top of the pile at the mudline level.
From the curve portraying the M increasing values against the
obtained rotations q, the reciprocal of flexibility coefficient 1/IR is
pr pc
evaluated by simply computing the slope of curve tangent at the bi ¼ bi  bi þ bfli (24)
origin (Fig. 5b).
This procedure is followed in this paper, when OWT monopiles with
of the different wind farms are considered in the next sections.

pc
9
3. Numerical methodology: the computer program bi ¼ Lpc Nai > =
pr
NAMPULAL bi ¼ Lpr Nai1 (25)
>
;
bfli ¼ Lfl Naiþ1
A pseudo 3D FEM model has been performed to study soil-
structure interaction problems in nonlinear media. This where

Fig. 5. Monopile head load-movement curves permitting to obtain (a) spring lateral stiffness, (b) spring rocking stiffness, and (c) spring coupling stiffness.
340 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

Fig. 6. (a) Real-world soil-structure interaction problem, and (b) The vertical slices model showing the interacting slices subjected to external and body forces.

9 In Eq. (22), the matrix Dps corresponds to a problem of plane

pc
Lpc ¼ li I > = stresses, which may be given as
pr
Lpr ¼ li I (26)
>
;
Lfl ¼ lfli I
2 3
1 ns 0
9
pr 2Gi1 Gi >
> E 6 6 ns 1 0
7
7
li ¼ > Dps ¼ 6 7 (28)
ti ðGi1 ti þ Gi ti1 Þ >
>
>
> 1  n2s 4 1  ns 5
= 0 0
fl 2G G
i iþ1 (27) 2
li ¼ >
ti ðGi tiþ1 þ Giþ1 ti Þ >>
>
>
> where ns is the Poisson’s ratio, and E is the Young’s modulus.
pc pr fl >
;
l ¼ l þl
i i i From this fact, and unlike a fully 3D or plane strain problem, the
value of Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.5 is no longer a singular value. It is
where the superscripts pc, pr and fl stand for proper contribution of clear from Eq. (24) that the fictitious body forces applied to a slice i
the slice itself, contribution of the preceding slice, and contribution depend essentially on its own nodal displacements and on those of
of the subsequent slice, respectively; ai1, ai and aiþ1 are the slices sandwiching it. The numerical analysis of the vertical slicing
element nodal displacement vectors of slices i  1, i and i þ 1, model has led to the familiar equations of a pseudo plane stress
respectively; I is the identity matrix; and Gi1, Gi and Giþ1 are the problem with body forces representing the interaction between the
shear moduli at slices i  1, i and i þ 1, respectively. slices, forming the structure and its surrounding medium.
 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 341

Substituting Eqs. (24) and (25) into Eq. (23) gives a more detailed Table 4
governing equation: Soil stiffness parameters in terms of soil friction angle and confining pressure.

Z   Z   Equation Source
 0:51
BT DB þ N T Lpc N ai dv ¼ N T Lpr N ai1 dv
Es ¼ 1025e2:93Dr 1þ2k0
3
sv0 Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)
v v
Z   k0 ¼ 1  sinf Jâky (1944)
þ N T Lfl N aiþ1 dv þ pi (29)
v Note: Es is the modulus of elasticity of sand, k0 is the earth pressure coefficient at
rest, Dr is the relative density and sv0 is the overburden pressure.
In a more compact form, Eq. (29) becomes

pr Table 5
S i ai ¼ H i þ H fli þ pi (30)
Parameters governing the hyperbolic model according to correlations and
recommendations.
This equation cannot be solved straight-fully, since the right
hand terms are not available explicitly at the same time. Conse- Equation Source
quently, an updating iterative process is needed: n ¼ 0.51 Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)

j j prj j1 Rf ¼ 0.7 Wong and Duncan (1974)

S i ai ¼ H i þ H fli þ pi ðj ¼ 1; 2; .; jmax Þ (31)  0:51
Kur ¼ 1025e2:93Dr 1þ2k0
3k0
p0:49
a
Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)

where j denotes the iteration number and jmax is the maximum

K ¼ 0.667Kur Duncan and Wong (1999)
number of iterations allowed in the numerical process.
The nonlinearity in vertical slices model stems from the
implementation of the hyperbolic model proposed by Duncan and
Chang (1970) for modeling the soil. In fact, they found out that both examined a large number of well-established correlations between
tangential modulus Ei and ultimate stress difference (s1  s3)ult are soil physical parameters especially those of sandy deposits whose
dependent on the minor principal stress s3. More precisely, they behaviors are mainly governed by their internal friction angles, and
suggested for the initial tangent modulus the following formula: proposed relationships between the sand relative density and the
 n confining pressure. This has been achieved using mainly the rec-
s3 ommendations made by well-known researchers who carried out a
Ei ¼ KPa (32)
pa great number of careful experiments. These parameters are listed in
Tables 4 and 5 along with references of their origin.
where K is the dimensionless factor termed as ‘modulus number’, n Equations in both Tables 4 and 5 have been implemented in the
is a dimensionless parameter called ‘modulus exponent’, and pa is FEM computer code NAMPULAL which will be described in the next
the atmospheric pressure used to make K and n dimensionless. paragraph for evaluating soil model parameters related to the five
The ultimate stress difference (s1  s3)ult is defined in terms of wind farm sites considered in Section 4. In the Duncan-Chang’s
the actual failure stress difference by another parameter called basic model, the Poisson’s ratio ns was assumed to be constant
‘failure ratio’ Rf which is given by throughout the whole process.
A Fortran computer program called NAMPULAL for the analysis
ðs1  s3 Þf of axially and laterally loaded single monopiles has been written.
Rf ¼ (33)
ðs1  s3 Þult Although approximate, the computer code NAMPULAL is a
coherent tool which exhibits many advantages over other numer-
Using Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion where the envelope is
ical codes in dealing with nonlinear soil-structure interaction
considered as a straight line, the principal stress difference at fail-
problems. For further details, the reader can refer to Otsmane and
ure is related to the confining pressure s3 as
Amar Bouzid (2018) and only the features of this computer pro-
2c cos f þ 2s3 sin f gram are given here.
ðs1  s3 Þf ¼ (34) Although the computational process in NAMPULAL is naturally
1  sin f
iterative to fulfill slices equilibrium, it does not require a significant
where c is the cohesion and f is the internal friction angle. number of iterations to reach convergence. For the problems
The tangent modulus Et is given by analyzed so far, a number of 20 iterations are generally sufficient to
reach accurate solutions within acceptable margins.

2  n A number of 20 slices have been implemented in NAMPULAL.
Rf ð1  sin fÞðs1  s3 Þ s
Et ¼ 1 Kpa 3 (35) This number, which has been set on the basis of parametric study
2c cos f þ 2s3 sin f pa
involving many monopile behavior parameters (Amar Bouzid et al.,
For unloading and reloading cycles, Duncan and Chang (1970) 2005), has been found sufficient to accurately model many soil-
proposed the following expression: structure interaction problems (Amar Bouzid et al., 2005; Otsman
and Amar Bouzid, 2018).
 n
s3 Unlike most implemented elastoplastic constitutive models,
Eur ¼ Kur Pa (36) which necessitate a significant number of iterations to subdue the
pa
unbalanced forces, the implemented hyperbolic model in NAM-
where Eur is the unloading-reloading modulus and Kur is the cor- PULAL requires only two iterations. This fact alleviates considerably
responding modulus number. the whole process of solution and makes it easier to find fast so-
A thorough literature investigation has been performed by lutions even for the most complex soil-structure interaction
Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018) to keep the hyperbolic modeling problems.
parameters sufficiently accurate and to make their use practical for In addition to the rectangular cross-sectional monopiles that are
solving the soil-structure interaction problems. The authors automatically considered due to the shape of the vertical slice, the
342 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

solid circular or tubular cross-sectional monopiles are easily dealt the same cross-sectional area as the effective circular cross-
with by prescribing the effective bending stiffness. Hence, an sectional monopile.
equivalent Young’s modulus is adopted according to the following The performances of this computer code have been assessed
formula: against analysis of the behavior of a number of OWT monopiles
where other commercial packages are used, such as FLAC3D,
192 EIact ABAQUSÒ and PLAXIS (Otsmane and Amar Bouzid, 2018). The re-
Epeq ¼   (37) sults were in excellent agreement with those of the aforemen-
p2 Dp 4
tioned powerful numerical tools. This computer code is employed
This equation has been set on the assumption that the square to determine the monopile head stiffnesses for the OWTs examined
cross-sectional monopile under consideration in NAMPULAL has in this paper.

Table 6
List of the five OWTs with soil conditions at the sites.

No. Wind farm name Country Soil conditions at the site Sources providing data and measured natural frequencies

1 Lely A2 offshore wind farm UK Soft clay in the uppermost layer to Zaaijer (2002), Arany et al. (2016), Amar Bouzid (2016)
dense and very dense sand layers below
2 Irene Vorrink offshore wind farm Netherlands Soft layers of silt and clay in the upper Zaaijer (2002), Arany et al. (2016), Amar Bouzid (2016)
seabed to dense sand and very dense sand below
3 Kentish Flats offshore wind farm UK Layers of dense sand and firm clay Arany et al. (2016), Amar Bouzid (2016)
4 Walney 1 offshore wind farm UK Medium and dense sand layers Abed et al. (2016)
5 North Hoyle wind farm UK Sand and clay layers Leblanc (2009), Arany et al. (2016)

Table 7
Input parameters for the five OWTs chosen for this study.

OWT component dimension Symbol (unit) Lely A2 Irene Vorrink Kentish Flats Walney 1 North Hoyle

Tower height LT (m) 37.9 44.5 60.06 67.3 67

Substructure height Ls (m) 12.1 5.2/6 16 37.3 7
Structure height L (m) 50 49.7/50.5 76.06 104.6 74
Tower top diameter Dt (m) 1.9 1.7 2.3 3 2.3
Tower bottom diameter Db (m) 3.2 3.5 4.45 5 4
Tower wall thickness tT (mm) 13 13 22 40 35
Substructure diameter Ds (m) 3.2 3.5 4.3 6 4
Substructure wall thickness ts (mm) 35 28 45 80 50
Young’s modulus of tower material ET (GPa) 210 210 210 210 210
Tower mass mT (t) 31.44 37 108 260 130
Top mass mt (t) 32 35.7 130.8 234.5 100
Monopile diameter Dp (m) 3.2 3.5 4.3 6 4
Monopile wall thickness tp (mm) 35 28 45 80 50
Young’s modulus of monopile material Ep (GPa) 210 210 210 210 210
Monopile depth Lp (m) 13.5 19 29.5 23.5 33
Shear modulus of the soil Gs (MPa) 140 55 60 70 230
Poisson’s ratio of the soil ns 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
Young’s modulus of the soil Es (MPa) 392 165 168 196 644
Measured frequency f1 (Hz) 0.634 0.546/0.563 0.339 0.35 0.35

Table 8
Masses and bending stiffnesses of the OWTs constitutive elements.

Wind farm name Tower mass, mT (t) Substructure mass, ms (t) Support structure mass, mTs (t) Structure bending Monopile bending stiffness, EIp (GN m2)
stiffness, EITs (GN m2)

Lely A2 30.866 33.09 63.956 40.072 142.105

Irene Vorrink 36.955 14.403/12.482 51.358/49.437 35.222/34.234 96.65
Kentish Flats 109.399 75.649 185.048 136.833 285.916
Walney 1 263.234 436.207 699.441 664.58 1369.032
North Hoyle 180.374 34.138 214.512 139.191 254.161

Table 9
Adopted soil deformation and strength parameters as well as hyperbolic model parameters for the OWTs chosen.

Wind farm name Es (MPa) ns c (kPa) f ( ) Rf K n Kur Dr g (kN/m3) k0

Lely A2 392 0.4 0 40 0.7 524.905 0.51 787.358 0.6 21 0.3572

Irene Vorrink 165 0.5 0 40 0.7 524.905 0.51 787.358 0.6 21 0.3572
Kentish Flats 168 0.4 0 40 0.7 524.905 0.51 787.358 0.6 21 0.3572
Walney 1 196 0.4 0 40 0.7 524.905 0.51 787.358 0.6 21 0.3572
North Hoyle 644 0.4 0 40 0.7 524.905 0.51 787.358 0.6 21 0.3572

Note: g is the soil unit weight.

 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 343

4. Computed and measured first natural frequencies for five

different offshore wind turbines

In order to assess the performances of the computer code

NAMPULAL for a wide range of geotechnical applications, in terms
of the accuracy, utility and potential of the NFEVSM, five OWTs have
been selected from five wind farm sites. These are Lely A2 (UK),
Irene Vorrink (Netherlands), Kentish Flats (UK), Walney 1 (UK) and
North Hoyle (UK). These wind turbines have been chosen for the
full availability of their data, especially the measured first natural
frequency. Soil conditions at the site and sources from which the
OWT data are adopted are summarized in Table 6.
OWTs structural data along with some soil deformation char-
acteristics and measured natural frequencies are presented in
Table 7. Since these data come directly from the OWT manufac-
Fig. 7. Monopile head displacement against applied horizontal load for different turers, it is not possible to check their accuracy, except data relevant
OWTs. to the tower mass, provided that the tower height is correct.
Slight differences between computed values of mT and those
provided in the reference (Arany et al., 2016) are noticed. Thus
computed data in Table 8 are used in the coming computations.
Although the OWT structural data were available which enable
the users to compute any structural behavior parameter, the pa-
rameters relevant to soil behavior were not found. However, only
the different strata of each site are given, but nothing about
strength and deformation parameters.
The site investigations indicate that almost all the OWTs chosen
in this paper are installed through deep layers of dense sand. The
pertinent hyperbolic parameters have been computed according to
the prescribed values and relationships given in Tables 4 and 5.
These are given in Table 9.
A comprehensive mesh study has been performed to find the
optimal finite element mesh that captures the behaviors of
monopiles under lateral loading in a nonlinear medium charac-
terized by the hyperbolic model as a yield criterion. A mesh of 20
Fig. 8. Monopile head rotation against applied horizontal load for different OWTs.
times monopile diameter Dp in both sides of the monopile and one
monopile length Lp under the monopile tip has been adopted for
the study of all OWTs considered here. Furthermore, 35 finite ele-
ments in both sides of the monopile and 36 finite elements in
vertical direction as well as 20 slices have been chosen to analyze
the pseudo 3D medium under consideration.
As the monopile head stiffness does not depend on the loading
level, a horizontal load H of 1000 kN is applied in 10 increments at
the top of each monopile in the five wind farms considered, aiming
to compute the monopile head flexibility coefficients IL and ILR.
Fig. 7 shows the evolution of monopile head displacements as a
function of the increasing lateral load H.
The evolution of rotations is a function of applied lateral load
and is plotted in Fig. 8. This figure is used to determine the cross-
coupling flexibility coefficient ILR for all monopiles considered
here. As the flexibility coefficient IR requires a pure bending, an
applied moment M at the top of monopile of 20,000 kN m in
Fig. 9. Monopile head rotation against applied overturning moment for different magnitude has been considered and the corresponding rotations
OWTs. are plotted in Fig. 9.

Table 10
Flexibility coefficients IL, ILR and IR and their corresponding stiffness coefficients KL, KLR and KR relevant to monopiles in the OWTs chosen.

Wind farm IL (m/GN) IR (rad/(GN m)) ILR (GN1) KL (GN/m) KR (GN m/rad) KLR (GN)
name

Lely A2 5.788 0.115 0.571 0.339 17.049 1.682

Irene Vorrink 4.993 0.132 0.498 0.321 12.169 1.213
Kentish Flats 3.413 0.056 0.268 0.472 28.975 2.278
Walney 1 2.522 0.018 0.148 0.755 103.625 6.096
North Hoyle 3.571 0.0603 0.289 0.459 27.199 2.208
344 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

Table 11 The almost linear relationships between H and u and H and q on

Fixed base natural frequencies for different OWTs. one hand and that between M and q on the other hand somewhat
Wind farm name fFB (Hz) make it easy to compute IL, ILR and IR which can be performed by
Lely A2 0.719
simply inverting the slopes of their corresponding load-
Irene Vorrink 0.659e0.669 deformation curves. Then using Eq. (22), the stiffness coefficients
Kentish Flats 0.368 are obtained. Flexibility and stiffness coefficients are respectively
Walney 1 0.333 shown in Tables 10 and 11 for all turbines considered in this paper.
North Hoyle 0.404

et al.

Fig. 10. Values of KL, KLR and KR given by NAMPULAL against those developed by Arany et al. (2016).
 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346 345

Table 12 Stiffness of foundation is the key of natural frequency calculation

CR and CL computed values for the OWTs considered in the current study. and this work is based on three-spring model where the monopile-
Wind farm name CR CL soil interaction is modeled by lateral spring KL, cross-coupling KLR
Lely A2 0.867 0.996
and rotational spring KR. NAMPULAL code has been adopted to find
Irene Vorrink 0.867 0.997 the foundation stiffness. The code has the capability to incorporate
Kentish Flats 0.857 0.998 nonlinear soil model and in this study, Duncan-Chang hyperbolic
Walney 1 0.837 0.997 model has been used. These stiffnesses in turn were used to obtain
North Hoyle 0.849 0.998
natural frequency of the whole wind turbine system and the results
obtained were compared with the measurements. Good agreement
was noted between prediction and observation.
Table 13
Predicted and measured natural frequencies of all OWTs.
Conflict of interest
Wind farm name Predicted frequency Measured frequency (Hz) Error (%)
(fh ¼ CRCL fFB) (Hz) The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
Lely A2 0.621 0.634 2.05 interest associated with this publication and there has been no
Irene Vorrink 0.570/0.579 0.546e0.563 4.39/2.84 significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
Kentish Flats 0.315 0.339 7.08
enced its outcome.
Walney 1 0.277 0.35 20.86
North Hoyle 0.342 0.35 2.28
References

Abed Y, Amar Bouzid Dj, Bhattacharya S, Aissa MH. Static impedance functions for
As the monopile head stiffness coefficients play an important
monopiles supporting offshore wind turbines in non-homogeneous soils-
role in the correct assessment of the natural frequency, which is in emphasis on soil/monopile interface characteristics. Earthquakes and Struc-
turn a significant parameter in the design of any OWT, it is useful to tures 2016;10(5):1143e79.
compare the values listed in Table 10 with those provided by other Achmus M, Kuo YS, Abdel-Rahman K. Behavior of monopile foundations under
cyclic lateral load. Computers and Geotechnics 2009;36(5):725e35.
methods. On the basis of the formulas developed by Poulos and Adhikari S, Bhattacharya S. Dynamic analysis of wind turbine towers on flexible
Davis (1980), Randolph (1981) and Carter and Kulhawy (1992). foundations. Shock and Vibrations 2012;19(1):37e56.
Arany et al. (2016) determined the values of the monopile stiffness Adhikari S, Bhattacharya S. Vibrations of wind-turbines considering soil-structure
interaction. Wind and Structures 2011;14(2):85e112.
coefficients which are added to the histograms of Fig. 10 for Aissa MH, Amar Bouzid Dj, Bhattacharya S. Monopile head stiffness for service-
comparison. ability limit state calculations in assessing the natural frequency of offshore
One important point can emerge from the close examination of wind turbines. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2017;35(7).
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1270794.
the histograms shown in Fig. 10. NAMPULAL’s results are approxi- Amar Bouzid Dj. Monopile head stiffness and natural frequency assessment of some
mately half those given by Arany et al. (2016) for the OWTs whose installed OWTs using a pseudo 3D nonlinear FE model. In: World congress on
supporting monopiles are driven in dense sand. We believe that the Advances in Civil, Environmental and Materials research (ACEM16). Guildford,
Surrey, UK: The University of Surrey; 2016. p. 1e15. http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/
NFEVSM results are more accurate than those of Arany et al. (2016).
id/eprint/844988.
This is probably due to the fact that these authors used data from Amar Bouzid Dj, Vermeer PA, Tiliouine B. Finite element vertical slices model:
works performed on slender piles using the Winkler model for validation and application to an embedded square footing under combined
loading. Computers and Geotechnics 2005;32(2):72e91.
which many questions had been raised about its applicability to
American Petroleum Institute (API), International Organization for Standardization
large-diameter monopiles. (ISO). ANSI/API specification RP 2GEO: geotechnical considerations and foun-
Eq. (15), whose different constitutive parts are evaluated using dation design for offshore structures. Washington, D.C., USA: API; 2011.
Eqs. (16) and (17), is employed here to give the fixed base natural Arany L, Bhattachary S, Hogan SJ, Macdonald J. Dynamic soil-structure interaction
issues of offshore wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 9th international con-
frequency. This expression, which depends only on the OWT ference on structural dynamics, Porto, Portugal; 2014. p. 3611e7.
structure properties, gives the values of the fixed base natural Arany L, Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S, Hogan SJ, Mcdonald JHG. An analytical model to
frequencies for different turbines shown in Table 11. predict the natural frequency of offshore wind turbines on three-spring flexible
foundations using two different beam models. Soil Dynamics and Foundation
The factors CR and CL depend on values of IL, IR and ILR. Table 12 Engineering 2015;74:40e5.
shows the values of CR and CL for the five OWTs considered in this Arany L, Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S, Mcdonald JHG, Hogan SJ. Closed form solution
paper. These values make it quite clear that CR is the dominant of Eigen frequency of monopile supported offshore wind turbines in deeper
waters stiffness of substructure and SSI. Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engi-
factor that can bring the value of the fixed base frequency to the neering 2016;83:18e32.
measured one. However, CL is very close to unity, and hence its Bhattacharya S. SDOWT: simplified dynamics of wind turbines. User’s Manual.
influence in changing the value of fFB is very small. This has been Bristol, UK: Bristol Laboratory for Advanced Dynamics Engineering; 2011.
Blevins RD. Formulas for frequencies and mode shapes. Krieger Pub Co; 2001.
also noticed by Arany et al. (2016).
Carter JP, Kulhawy FH. Analysis of laterally loaded shafts in rock. Journal of
The natural frequency which is simply obtained by multiplying Geotechnical Engineering 1992;118(6):839e55.
the flexibility coefficients by the fixed base frequency for each OWT Damgaard M, Bayat M, Andersen LV, Ibsen LB. Dynamic response sensitivity of an
offshore wind turbine for varying subsoil conditions. Ocean Engineering
is given in Table 13. Also shown are errors between the measured
2015;101:227e34.
and the computed natural frequencies. DNV-OS-J101. Offshore standard: design of offshore wind turbine structures. Hel-
lerup, Denmark: Det Norske Veritas (DNV); 2004.
Duncan JM, Chang CY. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Journal of Soil
5. Conclusions Mechanics and Foundation Division 1970;96(5):1629e53.
Duncan JM, Wong KS. Soil properties manual. User’s manual for SAGE, vol. II.
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA: Centre for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Vir-
In this article, a nonlinear finite element computer code NAM-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1999.
PULAL developed for soil-pile interaction has been used to analyze Higgins W, Vasquez C, Basu D, Griffiths DV. Elastic solutions for laterally loaded
five different monopiles from five European wind farms. piles. Journal for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2013;139(7):
As the natural frequency of the whole wind turbine structure is 1096e103.
Jâky JA. Nyugalmi nyomâs tényezöje (The coefficient of earth pressure at rest).
of paramount importance in the design of OWTs, developing reli- Agyar Mérnok és Epitész Egylet Közlönye (Journal for Society of Hungarian
able methods for its determination is an active area of research. Architects and Engineers) 1944:355e8 (in Hungarian).
346 D. Amar Bouzid et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2018) 333e346

Leblanc C. Design of offshore wind turbine support structures - selected topics in Yu L, Bhattacharya S, Li L, Guo Z. Dynamic characteristics of offshore wind turbines
the field of geotechnical engineering. PhD Thesis. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg on different types of foundations. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
University; 2009. neering 2014;19:2917e36.
Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Wood DM. Dynamic soil-structure interaction of Zaaijer MB. Design methods for offshore wind turbines at exposed sites (OWTES) -
monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earth- sensitivity analysis for foundations of offshore wind turbines. Technical report.
quake Engineering 2013;49:165e80. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2002.
Otsmane L, Amar Bouzid D. An efficient FE model for SSI: theoretical background Zaaijer MB. Foundation modeling to assess dynamic behavior of offshore wind
and assessment by predicting the response of large diameter monopiles sup- turbines. Applied Ocean Research 2006;28(1):45e57.
porting OWECs. Computers and Geotechnics 2018;97:155e66.
Poulos HG, Davis EH. Pile foundation analysis and design. New York, USA: Wiley;
1980.
Prendergast LJ, Gavin K, Doherty P. An investigation into the effect of scour on the Djillali Amar Bouzid received his Master degree from the
natural frequency of an offshore wind turbine. Ocean Engineering 2015;101: National Polytechnic School (NPS) of Algiers in 1997 and
1e11. his PhD from both NPS and the University of Stuttgart
Randolph MF. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Géotechnique (Germany) in 2007. In 2008, he worked as a post-doctor
1981;31(2):247e59. researcher at the University of Stuttgart on the material
Reese L, Cox WR, Koop FD. Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand. In: Proceedings point method (MPM) project where he implemented inter-
of the offshore technology conference, Houston, USA; 1974. https://doi.org/ face elements in MPM code. He is currently a full professor
10.4043/2080-MS. at the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Blida
Vught JH. Considerations on the dynamics of support structures for an offshore (Algeria) after spending 15 years at the University of
wind energy converter. PhD Thesis. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Medea. He has been involved in geotechnical research,
Technology; 2000. consulting and education for more than 20 years. His
Wong KS, Duncan JM. Hyperbolic stress-strain parameters for non-linear finite research interests include (1) numerical investigation of
element analyses of stresses and movements in soil masses. Report No. TE-74e laterally loaded monopiles in both sand and clay, (2) devel-
3. Berkeley, USA: University of California; 1974. opment of new p-y curves for large-diameter monopiles
Yi JH, Kim SB, Yoon GL, Andersen LV. Natural frequency of bottom-fixed offshore supporting offshore wind turbines, (3) numerical analysis of box culverts, (4) develop-
wind turbines considering pile-soil-interaction with material uncertainties and ment of numerical tools for stability of slopes reinforced by piles, and (5) dynamic
scouring depth. Wind and Structures 2015;21(6):625e39. analysis of offshore wind turbines supported by skirted caissons.