Determining the embedded pile length for large diameter Monopiles

Victor D. Krolis1, Gerrit L. van der Zwaag1, Wybren de Vries2

1

Fugro Engineers B.V., Veurse Achterweg 10, 2260 AG Leidschendam, The Netherlands, Tel.: +31 70 311 5386 Fax: +31 70 320 3640 E-mail: v.krolis@fugro.nl

DUWIND, Offshore Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628CN Delft, The Netherlands

SUMMARY The use of the monopile support structure further offshore requires a large amount of construction steel. Designing an efficient foundation can significantly reduce the amount of steel needed and thus the total costs. This paper evaluates the applicability of current foundation design criteria for large diameter monopiles. Emphasis will be on the vertical tangent criterion as suggested by Germanischer Lloyd and the zero-toe-kick criterion for determining the required embedded pile length under static loading conditions. The lateral behaviour of a total of 40 different design cases of monopile support structures in water depths ranging from 15 to 35 meters have been studied. The soil conditions ranged from loose to very dense sand which is typical for the North Sea. It has been concluded that the vertical tangent and the zero-toe-kick criteria leads to very large embedded pile lengths. A preliminary design approach is presented which is based on the knowledge that shortening the embedded pile length will decrease the natural frequency of the support structure. The results from this preliminary design approach study have been compared with the current monopile design practice and it was concluded that the embedded monopile length can be reduced, while both achieving lateral stability and maintaining small values of deflection at mudline and the pile toe. Keywords: monopile, natural frequency, foundation design criteria 1. INTRODUCTION Near shore locations for offshore wind turbines are becoming scarce. Therefore it is necessary to move these turbines into deeper waters resulting in an increase of the amount of steel needed for longer foundation piles. The future trend for offshore wind turbines seems to be one in which the turbine capacities and sizes are increasing in magnitude. Prototypes of 5 MW and higher with turbine weights of over 300 tons are already available and installed. Several support structure concepts are being studied in order to give support to these heavy turbines in deep offshore waters. The tripod and jacket support structure concepts are now seriously considered as alternatives for deeper waters. Nevertheless, the monopile support structure is still an attractive concept to consider since it possesses many advantages. These advantages are for example a relatively small footprint which is favorable with respect to the available area in which a wind farm must be fitted. This concept also has a relatively easy transportation and installation method compared with other concepts. Therefore, it seems necessary to study the interaction between the heavy wind turbines and the implementation of the monopile in deeper waters, typically 35 meters, as a support structure for these future turbines. The current foundation design practice to determine the necessary embedded monopile length have been studied and critically evaluated. This in order to understand what happens when current design methods are used to design monopiles for deeper waters. Are these design methods still cost effective with respect to designing foundations for large diameter monopiles in deeper waters?

2. EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT MONOPILE DESIGN PRACTICE 2.1 Current Monopile Design Practice The current foundation design procedure is explained in the flowchart presented below.
CURRENT MONOPILE DESIGN PRACTICE
M F

L = Pile length

D = Diameter

Requirements

Lateral stability

Natural frequency

Penetration depth L Current Foundation criteria

Monopile diameter D

OK?

OK?

Vertical Tangent Criterion:

Deflection [m]

Maximum Mudline deflection ( 120 mm):

Maximum Pile toe deflection ( 20 mm or zero-toe kick):

Dept [m]

Figure 2.1: Flowchart current monopile design practice

Designing the monopile support structure basically comes down to making sure that the required performance criteria are met and no premature failure occurs. For the foundation three aspects are important: 1. Acceptable deformations during and after storm loads 2. A dynamic stiffness such that the natural frequency of the Offshore Wind Turbine (OWT) remains within certain boundaries 3. Sufficient margin with respect to foundation failure Throughout the whole design procedure of the monopile support structure, the natural frequency is the beacon on which to navigate through all the different design aspects which have to be considered. Having determined the diameter and knowing that the monopile must be penetrated deep enough into the soil to ensure lateral stability, the next step is to determine how long the monopile has to be embedded into the soil. In order to determine this embedded pile length, currently three foundation design criteria are used. Boundaries are set for the behaviour of the monopile with respect to the lateral deflection and the bending of the monopile. These boundaries are (see also Figure 2.1):

1. A vertical tangent criterion at the deflection curve of the bending monopile or a so called zero-toe-kick criterion 2. A maximum value for the lateral deflections at mudline of 120 mm 3. A maximum value for the lateral deflection at the pile toe of 20 mm The values given for the maximum lateral deflection at mudline and pile toe are merely estimates. The maximum allowable foundation deflections which obviously will result in lateral deflections of the tower and nacelle are still issues which have never been seriously studied before with respect to the operability conditions of the nacelle under certain lateral deflections from the main vertical axis. Through the pioneering years of offshore wind energy developments, there seems to have been insufficient interaction between turbine manufactures at one side and geotechnical and structural engineers at the other side of the design practice of offshore wind turbines. Nevertheless, based on practical experience from previously built monopile support structures, the mentioned maximum deflections for ULS conditions are generally considered to be a safe foundation design [1]. 2.2 The API 2000 and the Germanischer Lloyd rules and regulations The current practice to determine the interaction between the monopile and the soil is mainly based on the American Petroleum Institute (API 2000) [2] and Germanischer Lloyd (GL) [3] rules and regulations. The API recommends the use of the so called p-y curves to determine the lateral behaviour of the embedded monopile. The pile-soil system is modeled as a beam on an elastic foundation. The py implements nonlinear soil springs along the length of the embedded monopile. These nonlinear soil springs are represented by so called p-y curves. The p-y curves represent the stressstrain relation for non-linear behaviour of the lateral resistance p of the soil against pile deflections y. By placing these equivalent non-linear springs along the length of the pile the nonlinear lateral resistance of the soil profile for a specific L interval can be plotted (Figure 2.2 and 2.3). Summation of the individual deflections y per interval L results in the total deflection curve for the embedded monopile.

M F
1250 1000

1250 pu

1000 ]

`
L

] 750 (p) [ 500

250

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

1250

1000 ]

750 (p) [

500

250

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

1250

1000 ]

750 (p) [

500

p [N/m]

(p) [

750

500

250

250

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06 y

0.07 [m]

Figure 2.2: Pile soil system modeled as a beam supported by non linear soil springs

Figure 2.3: API p-y curve

The Germanischer Lloyd rules and regulations suggests as a design criterion that the monopile deflection line should have a vertical tangent at a certain depth below the rotation point at mudline or the deflection line should match the so called zero-toe-kick criterion. The zero-toe-kick criterion implies that the deflection line should have at least two zero crossing points with the vertical depth axis. This results in a negligible deflection at pile toe level. These design criteria originate from the design perspective that the monopile should behave as a flexible bending beam in order to limit the accumulation of pile deflections at especially the mudline. The API p-y

curves and the GL flexible bending beam perspective suits piles well with diameters of approximately 2 meters or less. However, monopiles placed further offshore to support wind turbines of 3 to 5 MW will typically have diameters between 3.5 and 6 meters. This results in a rigid (stiff) rather then a flexible bending behaviour of the embedded monopile. For rigid pile behaviour the shear stresses increases at mudline and pile toe level, resulting in an increase of pile deflections. The allowable increase of pile deflections up to the point where the foundation can still be considered a safe design are obviously bounded by maximum deflection values at mudline and pile toe as mentioned in paragraph 2.1. 2.3 Large diameter monopiles The extrapolation of the p-y method to large diameter piles has been studied by Lesny et-al [4]. In this study it was concluded that the p-y method apparently overestimates the soil stiffness at great depth resulting in an insufficient embedded pile length to achieve lateral stability. They proposed a modification factor to the p-y curves in order to include the overestimation of the soil stiffness. For further details the reader can refer to reference [4]. As already mentioned the vertical tangent criterion is a criterion that accounts for the assumption that the monopile should start to bents back to its center of origin. This criterion ensure that the pile behave like a flexible bending beam. However, once the diameter starts to increase and the pile length gets relatively shorter, the pile will not behave like a flexible bending beam anymore but rigid. Shearing behaviour will become more important. Therefore, using a vertical tangent criterion to design large diameter monopiles (which want to behave rigid) will result in the necessity of adding extra pile length in order to match this criterion. Consequently, the question arises whether it is necessary to add this extra pile length in order for the large diameter monopile foundation to still fulfill the foundation requirements of the natural frequency remaining within the desired boundaries and of achieving enough lateral stability. Therefore, in the next paragraph an alternative preliminary design approach is proposed which is based on keeping the predetermined fixed first natural frequency for the support structure within certain boundaries while achieving less conservative embedded pile lengths with deflections at mudline and pile toe which are still bounded by the maximum deflection values mentioned in paragraph 2.1. 3. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN APPROACH The proposed preliminary design approach has the perspective of designing large diameter monopiles as rigid instead of flexible beams. Emphasis within the proposed alternative design approach lies on determining the required embedded pile length as a function of a preliminary determined fixed first natural frequency. The maximum allowable deflections at mudline and pile toe have still been considered since those are the practical standards for maximum allowable lateral behaviour of the whole support structure. The apparent overestimation of the soil stiffness by the API as stated by Lesny et-al has not been included in this study. Therefore, a conservative approach has been taken. The steps taken towards substantiating this alternative design approach are as follows: 1. Perform parametric studies for several design cases of monopiles to support 3.6 MW and 5 MW in water depths ranging from 15 to 35 meters. The soil conditions ranged from loose to very dense sand which is typical for the North Sea 2. Compare and evaluate the results from these parametric studies with the current monopile design practice 3.1 Design cases With the Excel based MPBUILDER program 1 and the finite element program ANSYS the monopile support structure are designed for the Vestas V90 3.6 MW and NREL 5 MW turbines.

MPBUILDER is an Excel based program developed by the Delft University of Technology to perform preliminary designs for offshore monopile wind turbines

The design cases have been determined for a location North-West of the coast of the Netherlands. The basic model used for all design cases is presented in figure 3.1.
Turbines: Vestas - V90 3 MW at 0.32 Hz NREL 5 MW at 0.29 Hz
Vestas V90 3.0 MW 0.143 0.32 0.306 0.43 0.92
0.1 0.201 NREL 5.0 MW 0.29 0.3 0.605

1P

3P

1P

3P

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3 f1

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Frequency [Hz]

f1 Frequency [Hz]

Water depths: From 15 to 35 meters Monopile: Diameter depends on Fnat and water depth Wall-thickness is Diameter / 80 Esteel = 210E9 N/m2

Soil profiles: Loose to Dense sand

Figure 3.1: Basic model for design cases

A total of 40 design cases were generated for the parametric study. In this paper only the design cases for both turbines in 25 meter of water depth will be discussed. The dimensions of the monopile diameter and embedded pile length of the design cases determined with the current monopile design practice are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Design cases determined with current foundation practice

Vestas - V90 3MW designed for a water depth of 25 meters

Angle of internal friction sand [deg] Pile length with GL design rules L [m] Monopile diameter D [m] Total lateral force at mudline [kN] Total moment at mudline [kNm]

30 37 4.10 3191 84114

32 31.2 4.05 3145 83286

34 29 4.02 3118 82808

38 25.9 3.96 3065 81859

NREL 5MW designed for a water depth of 25 meters

Angle of internal friction sand [deg] Pile length with GL design rules L [m] Monopile diameter D [m] Total lateral force at mudline [kN] Total moment at mudline [kNm]

30 49 6.15 6047 175531

32 42 6.05 5916 173295

34 39 6 5851 172187

38 34 5.95 5786 171088

3.2 Mechanical model used for parametric studies in RECAL The next phase in this study is to perform parametric studies to analyze the pile soil interaction as a function of the first natural frequency. The parametric studies have been performed in RECAL2 [5] and MPILE3 [6]. RECAL has been used to study the behaviour of the first natural frequency of the support structure when shortening the embedded monopile length. MPILE has been used to determine the lateral deflections of the embedded monopile. Both programs use the recommended API p-y curves. The mechanical model which is assumed to best describe a monopile offshore wind turbine is presented in Figure 3.2. This model has been programmed in RECAL. The foundation is modeled as a beam on an elastic foundation, in which the non linearity
2

RECAL is a MATLAB based program developed by the Delft University of Technology to model the behaviour of the offshore monopile wind turbine. This includes the turbine itself and the interaction with the support structure 3 MPILE is program developed by DELTARES to model pile-soil interaction

of the soil spring can be integrated. The turbine itself is modeled as a top mass. This enables the possibility to perform parametric studies for different masses of the turbine. The support structure is divided into three sections for which the length, diameter and wall thicknesses can be varied. Also the subgrade modulus is considered to be a variable. This enables the possibility to program any function for the subgrade modulus as a function of depth z. Eventually, scale effects of large diameter monopiles [3] can also be taken into account. As already stated this has not been included in this study. M F
Wind Loads
] 750 (p) [ 500 250 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 1250 1000 ] 750 (p) [ 500 250 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 1250 1000 ] 750 (p) [ 500 250 1250 1000

Wave Loads

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

1250

1000 ] 750 (p) [ 500 250 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 1250 1000 ] 750 (p) [ 500 250 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 1250 1000 ] 750 (p) [ 500 250 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Soil Reaction

Figure 3.2: Mechanical model used for numerical parametric studies in RECAL

3.3 Results of parametric studies The results of the design cases shown in Table 3.1 which were implemented in RECAL are presented.
Vestas - V90 / 0.32 Hz
0.000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.050 0.100 0.150

Natural frequency [Hz]

0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

f ric t io n a ngle 3 0 f ric t io n a ngle 3 2 f ric t io n a ngle 3 4 f ric t io n a ngle 3 8

1P-region

L/D [-]

difference in pile length between current and proposed design approach

NREL / 0.29 Hz
0.000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.050 0.100 0.150 1P-region

Natural frequency [Hz]

0.200 0.250 0.300

fric tio n angle 30 fric tio n angle 32 fric tio n angle 34 fric tio n angle 38

As the above graphs show, shortening the embedded pile length will obviously result in a less stiff support structure. The natural frequency shifts towards lower values reaching the 1P rotational

L/D [-]

frequency interval of the turbine. The shifting only starts to occur at certain ratios between embedded pile length and diameter (L/D). This can be explained due to the pile soil interaction at lower depths. When installing the monopile, the soil within a first meters below mudline will deform plastically providing no lateral stability. When the monopile is installed further to greater depths the soil mobilizes along the length of the monopile, resulting in an elastic deformation of the soil. Lateral stability is reached when the soil deforms elastically over the whole length of the monopile. This results at the same time for the acquirement of a stiff foundation. So working the other way around means that when the monopile is shortened the overall elastic deformations along the length of the monopile will decrease resulting in a less stiff pile soil system. Determining the lateral deflections for embedded monopiles with lengths retrieved from the L/D ratios at which the natural frequency starts to shift are presented in the graphs below.
Vestas V90 with current design practice
-0.01 0 1 2 3
f rict io n angle 30 f rict io n angle 32

Deflection [m]
0.04 0.05 0.06

Vestas V90 with proposed design approach

-0.02 0 1 2 0 0.02 0.04

Deflection [m]
0.06 0.08

0.01

0.02

0.03

f ric t io n a ngle 3 0 f ric t io n a ngle 3 2 f ric t io n a ngle 3 4 f ric t io n a ngle 3 8

L/D [-]

5 6 7 8 9 10

f rict io n angle 38

L/D [-]

f rict io n angle 34

3 4

Embedded pile length varies between 9D 6.5D

5 6

Embedded pile length varies between 5.3D 4.4D

NREL with current design practice -0.01 0 1 2 3

L/D [-]

Deflection [m]

NREL with proposed design approach

0.05 -0.02

Deflection [m]

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

-0.01 0 1

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

f ric t io n a ngle 3 0 f ric t io n a ngle 3 2 f ric t io n a ngle 3 4

2 L/D [-] 3 4
Embedded pile length varies between 5D 3.3D

f ric t io n a ngle 3 0 f ric t io n a ngle 3 2 f ric t io n a ngle 3 4 f ric t io n a ngle 3 8

4 5 6 7 8 9

f ric t io n a ngle 3 8

Embedded pile length varies between 8D 5.9D

5 6

Comparing the current design approach with the proposed alternative approach clearly show differences with respect to the embedded pile length. Using this preliminary design approach, embedded pile lengths can be reduced, while both achieving lateral stability and maintaining values of deflection at mudline and the pile toe which are still smaller than the maximum allowable deflections as shown in Figure 2.1. This trend has been seen for all the 40 design cases during this study. Further details can be found in reference [1]. It has to be stated that this study has been performed for only sandy soil profiles. This design approach should also be validated for other types of soil profiles, before definite statements can be made whether this design approach is the way to go to determine the 4. CONCLUSIONS The applicability of the current monopile design approach has been evaluated for large diameter monopiles. It is concluded that the vertical tangent criterion as suggested by the Germanischer Lloyd or the so called zero-toe-kick both lead to very conservative embedded pile lengths. This

is due to the fact that both criteria assume the large diameter piles to behave like flexible beams as small diameter piles do. However, with increasing diameter and relatively short embedded pile length the large diameter monopile will behave rigid rather than flexible. An alternative design approach was presented in which the necessary embedded monopile length was determined as a function of the natural frequency. From parametric studies performed for a number of design cases it can be concluded that shorter embedded pile lengths can be achieved while still maintaining lateral stability. Thus, the presented alternative design approach can result in more cost effective monopile foundations which can make a significant difference when an offshore wind park of 80 wind turbines is considered. It has to be stated that this study has been performed for only sandy soil profiles. This design approach should also be validated for other types of soil profiles, before definite statements can be made whether this design approach is the way to go to determine the

REFERENCES 1. Krolis, V.D, Back to basics for foundation design of offshore monopile wind turbines, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2008 2. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms, 2000 3. Germanischer Lloyd rules and regulations, 2005 4. K. Lesny, S.G. Paikowsky, A. Gurbuz, Scale effects in lateral load response of large diameter monopiles, GeoDenver 2007, February 18 to 21, Denver, USA 5. Cerda Salzmann, D.,Dynamic Response Calculations of Offshore Wind Turbine Monopile Support Structures, Delft University of technology, 2004 6. Bijnagte, J.L., Luger, H.J.,Mpile Version 4.1 Analysis of piles and pile groups manual, GeoDelft, Delft, 2006