0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 3110 стр.Marine structure design procedure

Apr 05, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Marine structure design procedure

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 31

Marine structure design procedure

© All Rights Reserved

- Critical Soil Parameters
- Experiment Unconfined Compression
- Nanda 2011
- 2005 Nbc User Guide Revisions December2007
- 2011 Pengaruh Modifikasi Tepung Kentang Pada Parameter Dan Butiran Mekanik Morfologi
- Ce Gate 2015 Morning Session
- Slope Failure on Embankment-clayshale
- Bearing Capacity Shear Wave(1)
- Design Foundation
- Article 6 v4sldier Pile and Lagging
- Soil Nails Loose Fill Slopes
- 51_483
- abdrabbo2005.pdf
- Deep Foundation
- Lab Manual Ce324 Sm II
- A Practical Iterative Procedure to Estimate
- 1-s2.0-S1877705810005126-main
- THREE-DIMENSIONAL SLOPE STABILITY METHODS IN GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICE
- criticalstateofsands-beenetal1991
- Pile Introduction

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

METS13

April 10-11, 2013, Washington, D.C.

FOUNDATIONS

Amir Rahim

NGI, Inc.

Houston, TX, USA

1Corresponding

author: amir.rahim@ngi-inc.com

ABSTRACT

The Geotechnical Sub-Committee of the ASCE

COPRI Marine Renewable Energy Committee is

preparing a general guide for foundation design.

The content of this paper is a brief summary of

what would be included in the guide document.

Existing foundation concepts include gravity

bases, monopiles, jackets/tripods and more

recently, floating turbines tethered to the seabed

with anchor lines.

At shallow water sites with suitable soils, gravity

bases have proven to be successful. Monopiles,

consist of a single large diameter steel driven pile,

have proven to be an efficient solution in water

depths up to 35m and have formed 75% of

existing turbine foundations worldwide. These

piles resist lateral wind and wave loadings

through cantilever action. From 35m to 60m

water depths, jacket structures have been used to

support the wind turbine super structure. The

jacket consists of a steel lattice frame founded on

piles under the legs of the structure. For deeper

deep waters, floating turbines moored by mooring

lines attached to suction anchors or driven pile

anchors may be suitable.

Included in the proposed guide are procedures

recommended for computing the axial and lateral

capacity of driven and suction piles, the

installation of driven and suction piles, and the

bearing capacity and settlement of gravity base

structures.

Unlike offshore foundation of oil installation

which are governed by soil capacity, foundations

of wind turbines tend to be governed by the

lateral and rotational foundation stiffness, which

controls the dynamic response of the turbinetower-foundation system.

INTRODUCTION

There are mainly four most widely used

foundation types for offshore wind turbines.

These are gravity bases, monopiles, jacket

Robert F. Stevens

Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences, Inc.

Houston, TX, USA

foundations and mooring anchors for deep water

floating turbines. See Figure 1. Jacket foundations

and mooring anchors may consist of driven piles

or suction buckets.

Increasing Water Depth

<27m

<35m

Gravity Base

30-70m

Monopile

>120m

Jacket

Structures

Floating

Platforms

E.g. Beatrice,

Scotland

E.g. Nysted

Denmark

E.g. Arklow

Ireland

E.g. Hywind,

Norway

DEPTH [FROM REF 1]

design concepts are often dictated by limitations

to construction, transportation, installation,

structure design life, safety class/group.

This guide document covers the important design

aspects including required design soil parameters,

determining failure mechanism and foundation

capacity to resist applied environmental loads,

evaluating foundation response to long term cyclic

loading, foundation stiffness, settlement and tilt,

and foundation installation and removal aspects.

presented with emphasis on soil investigations

and safety concepts. Several industry standards

and guidelines are discussed. The IEC 61400-3

standard is generally formulated and refers to ISO

19901-4, 19902 and 19903 for a more detailed

design. The DNV-OS-J101 is a comprehensive and

specifically written standard for the design of

offshore wind turbine foundations. The API

standard may also be used, though care is needed

1

since the API p-y and t-z curves are not validated

for large diameter piles and high-cyclic loading.

The cost of the wind turbine foundations could be

up to 45% of the total development cost.

Therefore, its one of the primary areas requiring

improved efficiency.

The following main design requirements need to

be considered:

applicable codes and rules, soil parameters,

foundation geometry, design load cases,

detailed bathymetry, requirements for scour

protection etc.

Installation of the foundation e.g. skirt

penetration, need for grouting (for GBS), pile

drivability (for driven piles) need for scour

protection, soil reaction contact stresses

during the installation phase etc. Also address

possible removal of the foundation, e.g.

methods for removal, skirt uplift resistance,

soil plugging etc.

Establish the load dependent soil design

strengths and calculate the foundation

capacity. Evaluate sliding stability for GBS.

Loads used are ultimate- (ULS) and the

accidental- (ALS) limit states. This should

determine the required dimensions and

weight of the foundation

Calculate the settlement and other permanent

displacements

(e.g.

tilt,

horizontal

displacements) of the foundation during the

design lifetime

Establish the vertical, horizontal and moment

load-displacement (or rotation) relationships

or spring stiffnesses. This is to be used for

soil-structure-interaction (SSI) analysis, soil

response

for

dynamic

amplification

assessment, soil support for FLS check etc.

Establish the soil-foundation contact stress

distributions for the relevant load cases. This

would be used for the structural design of the

foundation.

Addresses the geotechnical earthquake

engineering issues such as seismic response

spectra,

foundation

stiffness

matrix,

liquefaction potential etc.

The geotechnical design of the foundation

should meet the requirements of one or more of

the following set of international standards:

DNV-OS-J101, Feb 2013

GL-OW, June 2005 / Ed. 2

ISO 1990x

ISO 19901-4:2003

API RP 2GEO-2011 Geotechnical and

Foundation Design Consideration, 1st Edition,

April 2011. This is aligned with ISO 199014:2003 (Modified)

Resistance Factor Design) method. Applicable load

factors L and material coefficients M are used for

the various Limit States considered.

For axial capacity of jacket piles, the material

coefficient m is only applied to the terms that

involve soil strength.

settlements, displacements and rotations (tilt) in

the serviceability limit state (SLS) should be

provided. For a GBS structure, the requirements

on the rotational stiffness of the foundation during

environmental loading might be of particular

relevance since the foundation stiffness is an

essential input to the calculation of eigen

frequencies of the structure.

Design loads

The characteristic external loads which the

foundation shall be designed for should include

both permanent loads, variable functional loads

and environmental loads.

The different codes define different limit states.

The limit states are defined as the conditions

beyond which a structure or structural component

will no longer satisfy the design requirements. The

following limit states may be investigated in a

driven pile design.

Accidental limit state (ALS)

Serviceability limit state (SLS)

Fatigue limit state (FLS)

vary between the different design codes

applicable.

Load history input will be needed if degradation of

stiffness and strength of the soil is considered to

be of importance for design.

standard practice is to use cyclic p-y curves to

account for cyclic behavior of the soil.

and trough load Ftrough are shown in Figure 2.

2

established. In general, loads at seabed level can

be collected in a 6 component vector F = [Fx, Fy,

Fz, Mx, My, Mz].

FA LOAD COMPONENTS

combinations and loading directions to find the

most critical load condition for the different

buckets. It is therefore also important to discuss

with the structural designers whether there is a

domination load direction with respect to the

orientation of the platform. A typical layout of

suction bucket jacket is shown in Figure 3.

The geotechnical investigation is generally

performed by drilling a borehole to pre-selected

depths and downhole equipment which is lowered

to the bottom of the borehole to perform sampling

and in-situ testing. Cone penetration tests (CPTs)

are often used in combination with drilling and

sampling techniques. Typical borehole depths

range from about 30 m (for jack-up leg

penetration analyses) to about 100 m (for

platform foundation pile studies).

Soil

investigation may consist of a single borehole with

alternating testing and sampling, separate

boreholes for testing and sampling, or multiple

boreholes.

The soil investigation shall comprise of:

Determination of shear strengths and

deformation properties

Determination of consolidation parameters

and soil permeabilities

Assessment of the stiffness and damping

parameters

DIRECTION

calculated based on rotational foundation spring

stiffnesses for each bucket. Due to the non-linear

behavior of the soil, it is important that these

moments are calculated for springs that are

representative for the actual load level and load

history. In the verification of the bearing capacity

in ULS or ALS these local moments may be

reduced to zero if these local moments are not

required due to structural aspects.

The foundation loads may initially be established

from global analyses of the structure assuming

pinned footing, i.e. vertical and horizontal fixity

(no rotational fixity) at the bottom of each leg.

These analyses should later be repeated with

representative soil springs in order to check the

effects of the actual flexibility of the bucket

foundations. If the loads change significantly the

analysis should be repeated with high and low

estimates of the soil spring stiffnesses.

layer:

Total unit weight

Pore water pressure

Cone penetration tests (CPT) resistance

Sensitivity (clays), ie undrained intact and

remolded shear strength

Plasticity (clays)

In situ relative density and grain size

distribution (sands)

Angle of internal friction at representative

stress level (sands)

Water content and Atterberg limits

Over-Consolidation-Ratio, OCR

In addition, for the wider and shorter suction

buckets and monopiles, the following parameters

are needed:

Dilatancy angle at representative stress level

(sands)

Permeability as function of void ratio

Oedometer

modulus

including

unloading/reloading

modulus

at

representative stress levels

Anisotropic static (monotonic) undrained

shear strengths.

3

sand) and pore pressures (sand)

Cyclic shear strengths which account for:

o Effective stress level

o Drainage condition and load history

o Stress path direction

o Combination of average and cyclic loads

o Cyclic degradation

The cyclic shear strength is load and load history

dependent and is assessed on the basis of the

shear strain and pore pressure contour diagrams

in Figure 4 and Figure 5 as part of the bearing

capacity or horizontal sliding capacity checks.

(a)

cy/vc

recommended by API RP 2GEO are fundamentally

better and have shown statistically closer

prediction of pile test results than the traditional

methods in older API revisions for piles in sand.

to at least three different processes listed below:

AVERAGE SHEAR STRAIN AND CYCLIC SHEAR

STRAIN AMPLITUDES

0.20

1%3% 15%=cy

0.5%

0.15

a=0

0.25%

0.10

0.1%

0.05

0.0

100

10

1000

10000

Number of cycles

(d) 0.20

cy/vc

plugged during driving or not is based on the

general observation that open ended piles seldom

plugs during driving through homogeneous soil

profiles. Inhomogeneous and layered profiles

need case specific consideration.

published methods such the NGI-05 method for

clay.

(b)

(c)

formulae, and they make different assumptions in

order to determine if an open-ended pile is

plugged or coring.

a=0

0.15

Fail

u

0.5 re enve

lope

0.2

5

0.10

up /

0.0

0.1

vc =0

.

0.05

05

10

100

1000 10000

Number of cycles

PORE PRESSURE FOR DIFFERENT NUMBER OF

CYCLES

AND FLS

For single piles, axial compression capacity

may be evaluated by using any of the methods

detailed in Section C.8.1 of API RP 2GEO.

Some of these methods use the CPT resistance

near the pile tip to find the tip resistance. Each of

2) Consolidation and Dissipation of Excess PWPs

3) Ageing Under Constant Effective Stresses

be considered.

The effect of cyclic loading is likely to be small. API

RP 2GEO expresses a similar opinion in the

commentary C8.3.2.3:

"For most fixed offshore platforms supported on

piles, experience has proven the adequacy of

determining pile penetration based on static

capacity evaluations, and static ultimate design

loads and commonly accepted factors-of-safety

that, in part, account for the cyclic loading

effects."

There is at present limited bases for similar

methods in sand. The effect of cyclic loading will

primarily be related to the wall friction capacity,

for two reasons: 1) on the tension side the wall

friction is the only contribution to the capacity

(plus the pile weight), and 2) wall friction is

mobilized for a significantly smaller displacement

than end bearing.

soil springs in a beam-column program (eg NGIs

SPLICE program). This models the p-y curves,

where p is the local lateral stress (kPa) against

the pile, and y is the lateral displacement (m).

The API recommendations may be used to

calculate p-y curves for both sand and clay layers.

4

analysis. Static p-y curves are used for ship impact

analysis.

Pile group effect should be considered when piles

are closely spaced. The capacity of a group of piles

may be smaller than the sum of the individual

piles. This is referred to as group efficiency.

and extension stress paths.

maximum displacement of the foundation should

be checked. Characteristic loads (i.e. with all

partial load factors equal to unity) and material

properties are used. Soil response is normally

modeled by standard p-y, t-z and q-d curves.

SHEAR STRENGTH F,CYE AND COMPRESSION

SHEAR STRENGTH F,CYC

considered in the FLS calculations.

failure surface, see Figure 7, may then be found by

checking both equilibrium under the average

loads and the under the peak loads, and assuming

strain compatibility of the maximum average and

the peak (failure) shear strains. This procedure is

described in Andersen [2]. Even more accurate

ratios may be found by finite element analyses.

checked against failure due to fatigue damage. To

check the effect of soil support or fixity on the

stress distribution in the above structure,

equivalent elastic high and low estimates of the

soil stiffness for a realistic load level should be

considered.

BEARING CAPACITY FOR SUCTION BUCKETS

The capacity a bucket foundation may be

checked by either limit equilibrium methods,

bearing capacity equations or the finite element

method. It is essential to find the most critical

failure mode.

Clays can generally be considered as undrained

under the environmental loads, while sand often

can be considered as undrained during one single

cycle component of the environmental loads.

weight of the platform (permanent loads) before

application of the design loads needs to be

checked in order to utilize the increase in strength

due to the weight of the platform. In this case it is

important to know whether the foundation base

should be considered as sealed or not for the

actual consolidation period.

the average and the cyclic components of the peak

design load one may as a simplification assume

the same ratio between the maximum average and

the maximum cyclic shear stress as the ratio

between the average and cyclic loads. This ratio is

then used to find the cyclic shear strength, f,cy =

(a + cy)f, for compression, direct simple shear and

extension stress paths. This procedure is

illustrated in Figure 6 for a condition where the

average (undrained) shear stress a is equal to the

Hcy

Time

DSS

Triax ext.

Triax comp.

Time

DSS

SHEAR STRESSES ALONG A POTENTIAL

FAILURE UNDER A FOUNDATION

of the peak cyclic loads may be found by

calculating the equivalent number of cycles of the

maximum cyclic load components that gives the

same degradation as the actual loading history.

Checks of the foundation bearing capacity and

sliding stability are done for the environmental

loads in the ultimate limit state ULS and

sometimes for the accidental limit state ALS if that

load case may be governing. This provides a basis

for the assessment of the required minimum

submerged weight (on-bottom weight) W' of the

structure, the need for ballast, the need for skirts

and sometimes the foundation area.

the environmental or functional loads with

components of average and cyclic.

essentially undrained for at least one single cycle

and the bearing capacity/sliding check will then

be based on the undrained cyclic shear strength

f,cy using a total stress approach. The strength

definition and the laboratory data typically

required for establishing the strength is given in

Andersen [2]. The cyclic strength f,cy is defined as

f,cy = (a + cy)f, at Neq number of cycles. The

equivalent number of cycles Neq accounts for both

the degrading effect of increasing number of

cycles of load and the strengthening effect of

drainage through dissipation of pore pressure

with time for partial drained loading. Neq

expresses the number of cycles of the peak load

that would have the same degrading effect as the

total number of cycles N of the design storm at

different load levels.

The combined vertical and lateral capacity of

the monopile should be checked by 3D finite

element analyses. Preliminary checks can be

performed using an idealized beam soil spring

model.

The shear strengths to be used in the capacity

analyses depend on whether the soil is drained

under the weight of the structure (permanent

loads), under the average operating and

environmental design loads or the cyclic

environmental design loads. Clays can generally

be considered as undrained under the

environmental loads, while sand often can be

considered as undrained during one single load

cycle.

The effect of drainage may be checked by coupled

pore water flow and stress equilibrium

(consolidation) finite element analyses. This may

be done by using the material model including the

effect of accumulated pore pressure.

The effect of cyclic degradation before application

of the peak loads may be found by calculating the

equivalent number of cycles of the maximum

cyclic load components that gives the same

degradation as the actual design load history.

pore pressure or cyclic shear strain accumulation

procedure, for example as described in Andersen

[2]. For sand it is necessary to take into account

the effect of drainage during the pore pressure

accumulation.

affected by the set-up effect after installation. This

adhesion factor along piles can for instance be

found in API RP 2GEO.

In sand the maximum shear stress at the steel-soil

interface can be taken as:

f,inf = K tan v

0.8 and is the interface friction angle which

depends on the relative density of the soil.

Settlements are usually not an important issue for

piled jacket structures, since the weight of the

structure is small compared to the vertical

loading. For other types of foundations, the

permanent and cyclic settlements, displacements

and tilt may need to be evaluated. This is done for

the serviceability limit state SLS. The

requirements and allowable values have to be

provided by the Client.

foundations are obtained from the following

contributions:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

of additional weights after installation of the

buckets

Settlements during consolidation of excess

pore pressure after application of additional

weights after installation of the buckets

Permanent

displacements

due

to

accumulated shear deformations during

cyclic loading.

Settlements due to dissipation of

accumulated pore pressure due to cyclic

loading

Displacements during application of the

maximum average design loads

Cyclic displacement amplitudes during

application of the cyclic design loads

to volumetric strains can be calculated by using an

oedometer modulus M and a Poisson ratio

representative for the actual stress level and

stress changes. This also means that M and will

be different during virgin loading, unloading and

reloading.

The displacements under the average and cyclic

loads can also be established from the foundation

spring stiffnesses established in the next section.

6

design it may be necessary to calculate the

displacements by finite element analyses. Proper

material models for describing the stress-strain

relationship of the different soil layers are then

required.

Severe earthquakes will also impose cyclic loading

on the soil and will result in additional

settlements.

The global stiffness of the foundation will be

represented by soil springs connected to the

center point at seabed level. For general load

conditions the stiffness is represented by a 6x6

matrix, defined by 3 independent displacement

degrees of freedom (two horizontal and one

vertical) and 3 independent rotational degrees of

freedom (rotation about two horizontal axes and

rotation about the vertical axis). Due to the nonlinear behavior of the soil, the stiffnesses depend

on the actual load level.

horizontal displacements and rotations, the

stiffnesses may be establish at a de-coupling point

instead of at the seabed. A de-coupling point is a

point where a horizontal load can be applied to an

individual caisson without resultant rotation of

the caisson.

Foundation stiffnesses can in general be evaluated

for all limit states (ULS, SLS, FLS and ALS) and

loading conditions based on the need of the

structural engineer for soil-structure-interaction

analysis.

Typically, foundation stiffnesses are provided for

dynamic analysis, earthquake loading and fatigue

assessments. These foundation stiffnesses will be

established by non-linear 3D finite element

analyses.

High/low estimates of stiffnesses should be

assessed and implemented when the results of the

analyses are sensitive for variation of foundation

stiffnesses. e.g. in a soil-structure-interaction

analysis intended used for structural checks of

ULS, or in an analysis used for assessment of

dynamic amplification of loads. Thus uncertainties

in soil properties are taken into account but

material factors are not used directly.

Generally low foundation stiffnesses are critical

for offshore structures subjected to wave loading.

However, high foundation stiffness can be

governing as they are subjected to lower period

(2-5 sec) loading from wind and turbine. A high

stiffness with no cyclic degradation may therefore

be critical and will also be evaluated.

The current state of the art hydraulic

hammers can handle pile diameters with up to 6m

diameter using anvil-connector sleeve. These

hammers have rated energies of up to 2000 kJ.

is a complex process that requires the

geotechnical engineer to determine the likely

blow counts and driving stresses for a given

hammer-pile-soil configuration. If the predicted

response is within acceptable limits then the

hammer is appropriate for the task. Part of this

process involves predicting the soil resistance to

driving (SRD), which is calculated using empirical

design approaches such as Toolan and Fox [3],

Stevens et al. [4] and Alm and Hamre [5].

Pile self-weight penetration is estimated using the

lower bound coring case for clay and the lower

bound plugged case for sand computed using

Stevens et al. [4].

will be taken equal to the measured remolded

strength. In case reliable test results are not

available, the -value (= skin / su intact) to be used in

clays will be calculated based on the SHANSEP

model as detailed in API.

In case well documented experience that involves

similar piles and soils exist, the results found by

the above methods will be adjusted to reflect such

experience.

The pile tip resistance acting against the pile wall

is 9 su in clay layers, where su is the undrained

shear strength.

Effects due to any special conditions, e.g. an

internal pile driving shoe or internal pile surface

treatment, may be taken into account.

The assessment of expected pile self-weight

penetration will be carried out without and with

the hammer placed on the pile. The time between

pile stabbing and docking of the hammer on top of

the pile may cause a set-up effect on the pile skin

friction that will be taken into account.

Several methods are available for calculating the

pile tip resistance and skin friction in sand layers,

e.g., the methods listed in API RP 2GEO.

Program GRLWEAP, Pile Dynamics [6], may be

used for the pile driving analysis. The purpose of

this analysis is to:

Demonstrate that piles can be driven to

required tip depth by the selected hammers.

Determine pile steel stresses and blow count.

These stresses/blow counts will be used by

the jacket designer to assess the pile fatigue

damage caused by pile driving.

7

calculated by the API code, multiplied by an

empirical factor , i.e. = dynamic skin friction /

static skin friction. For assumed values of one

may use the GRLWEAP program to find a

predicted pile driving resistance. The value of

needs to be determined from back-analysis of

relevant practical experience, i.e. observed driving

resistance from jacket pile or anchor pile

installations with similar soils, piles and hammers.

Such back-analysis may typically result in an range of 0.35-0.85, highest for soil profiles with

mainly sand.

Input on damping and pile tip quake are to a large

extent based on literature references.

Common values from the literature are as follows:

=0.2+0.4Q clay/Q skin (sec/m), where Q clay is the

static skin friction force from clay layers, and Q skin

is the total static skin friction force.

The skin friction and pile tip quake are both taken

as 2.5 mm (0.1 inch), where quake is the

displacement needed to fully mobilize the

resistance.

The pile tip resistance acting against the pile wall

is 9su in clay layers and 0.5 times the measured

CPT tip resistance qc in sand layers. If the tip

resistance qc exceeds the capacity of the

equipment used, qc is taken as the maximum of

qc measured and 100 MPa.

Alternative methods for calculation of soil

resistance during pile driving are given by Stevens

et al. [4], Dutt et al. [7] and Alm & Hamre [5].

These methods may be used as a supplement.

The GRLWEAP program contains a library of

standard offshore hammers. In addition the user

can specify particular hammer properties, if

requested.

Presentation of Results

Pile driving resistance is expressed as number of

blows / 25 cm. Calculated pile steel stresses along

the pile are presented for the selected hammer,

efficiency, soil type (Best estimate and "High

estimate) and pile tip depth. The results may also

include effects of pile set-up due to a hammer

break-down.

Detailed results from the GRLWEAP runs that

include plots of steel stresses versus time during a

single hammer blow will be provided for the

jacket designer to assess the fatigue damage due

to pile driving.

Pile removal

Different requirements may apply with respect to

removal and disposal of offshore structures.

For instance in the North-East Atlantic Sea

regulations have been established by Convention

for the Protection of the Marine Environment of

the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) with respect to

removal and disposal of offshore structures.

In order to check the feasibility and the

required suction to install the skirt to the required

penetration depth the following calculations

should be performed:

If the penetration resistance is larger than the

available weight (vertical load) at the top of

each bucket, the maximum required suction to

be applied inside the skirt compartment in

order to achieve the target penetration depth

must be calculated;

If suction needs to be applied, calculate the

maximum allowable suction, ie maximum

suction before unacceptable soil heave inside

the skirt compartment or piping channels

around the skirts develops;

Calculate the soil heave inside the skirt

compartment, ie soil displaced upwards

inside the bucket due to penetration of the

steel structure into the ground. The total skirt

length must take into account the effect of soil

heave inside the bucket;

For sand layers, estimate the change in relative

density due to the penetration of the skirts.

estimate and a High estimate soil strength

profiles. For skirt penetration in sand with applied

suction, the effect of pore water flow is taken into

account. This gives reduced friction inside the

buckets and reduced tip resistance and somewhat

increased friction along the outer skirt walls.

The penetration resistance of internal stiffeners, if

present, needs to be considered.

Layered soils are a challenge with respect to

installation of skirted foundations by use of

suction. In such case special attention must be

given to water flow from outside the bucket and

possible internal soil plug heave. The penetration

rate and pump performance may be crucial in this

case.

The skirt penetration resistance is calculated as

the sum of side shear and bearing capacity as

given below:

Qside + Qtip

Qtot =

8

depend on the soil conditions, ie clay or sand.

Required suction

The required suction to be applied within the skirt

compartment is calculated using the expression:

ureq =

(Qtot V) / Ain

where

Required suction

ureq =

V = Effective vertical load (weight) at the

top of the bucket

Plan view inside area where

Ain =

suction is applied.

Allowable suction

Clay layers

In order to reduce the possibility of large soil

heave inside the bucket, and to include some

safety margin against penetration refusal, the

maximum allowable suction, ua, that may be

applied within the bucket, is given as:

ua = Nc su,tipAV + Ainside su DSS /Ain

of mobilized average shear stress along a critical

failure surface involving soil flowing into the

bucket. The bearing capacity factor, Nc, is taken as

9 at penetration depths larger than 2.5 times the

bucket diameter.

Sand layers

When the critical gradient is reached and the

vertical effective stress inside the skirt is reduced

to zero, there is a potential for piping and

channeling to occur. Piping and channeling would

make it impossible to increase the suction and

inhibit further skirt penetration. There is also a

potential for loosening the sand giving reduced

density and increased permeability of the sand

inside the skirt compartment.

The soil heave inside the skirts during installation

may be estimated by assuming that the clay

replaced by the skirts and stiffeners goes into the

skirt compartment:

Removal of suction buckets

If relevant, the design will include an evaluation of

geotechnical aspects related to the removal of the

structure and foundation.

Generally a check of the foundation bearing

capacity/sliding stability is performed for loading

in the installation phase, e.g. prior to assembly of

tower and turbine and before the turbine is set

into operation. It takes some time to get all the

ballast in place, and for clay soils it take time to

obtain the strengthening effect of full

consolidation for the weight. Full strength may not

have been obtained, however usually a less severe

load case can be considered for this phase. For oil

and gas structures the 10 year return period

storm is sometimes used. Grouting of the

underbase to fill the soil voids may be needed.

Scour protection may also be necessary. It should

also be noted that installing the GBS will affect the

soil properties strength and consolidation

parameters. The design may also include steps for

potential removal of the GBS.

INSTALLATION OF MONOPILE

Monopiles are driven piles and the procedure

for installation is identical to that in Section 10

above. The only difference is that a monopile is a

single and no jacket is used with a monopile

foundation.

Soil reactions against the structural members

(e.g. base plate and skirts) should be evaluated.

These reactions are used for structural design of

the foundation and in general all design conditions

and limit states should be considered. In practice,

the governing design conditions will be identified

in collaboration with the structural designer.

The soil reactions magnitude and distribution will

be estimated from conservative variations in

strength, stiffness, seabed unevenness, soil

variability and accounting for installation effects.

Conservative idealized distributions will be

established and based on engineering judgment,

elastic theory, limiting equilibrium and finite

element analyses. Examples of such idealized

stress distributions are shown in Figure 8 or pure

drained vertical loading. High and low estimates

of the different stress components must be given

in order to account for uncertainties in the actual

distribution.

using the same procedures as for skirt

penetration, however, including the actual time

dependent setup strength. The possibility of soil

plugging in-between the skirts and the added soil

weight during uplift will be evaluated.

9

mooring lines. Design procedures are summarized

for computing the axial and lateral capacity of

driven and suction piles, their installation, and the

bearing capacity and settlement of gravity base

structures. References are made to published data

and relevant industry codes.

FIGURE 8 EXAMPLE OF IDEALIZED SOIL REACTION

DISTRIBUTION UNDER PURE VERTICAL DRAINED

LOADING

SEISMIC DESIGN

Effects of earthquakes should be considered

for foundations intended to be installed in areas

that are considered seismically active.

Appropriate foundation stiffnesses for this

purpose should be used. In addition, if it turns out

that the soil damping has a significant effect on the

response, it would be computed by using

analytical methods or special-purpose computer

codes such as SASSI (1981) or SUPELM (1982).

The site specific earthquake motion may be

described by the peak ground acceleration and the

response spectra specified in the applicable code.

Usually, earthquake acceleration records histories

are given at the deep bedrock below seabed.

Therefore, site response analyses would be

needed by using an equivalent linear method, such

as in program SHAKE in order to compute the

earthquake design motions on the seabed.

The foundation performance, including bearing

capacity or sliding resistance, should in general be

checked for the Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE)

under ULS criteria and the Abnormal Level

Earthquake (ALE) for ALS conditions.

If the soil is prone to liquefaction, then this should

be assessed based on the type of available data.

The methods include those based on field test data

such as CPT and SPT, and those based on lab

testing.

INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING

It is recommended that instrumentation and

monitoring systems be installed to check the

foundation performance for the installation and

operational phase. Such systems may monitor the

vertical and lateral displacement of the

foundation, tilt, pore pressures inside suction

bucket foundation and verification that the valve

system remains sealed in such foundations.

CONCLUSIONS

Marine renewable energy foundations include

gravity bases, monopiles, jacket structures, and

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writers wish to express sincere thanks to

NGI colleagues for their valuable contributions,

particularly Karl Henrik Mokkelbost, Hans Petter

Jostad, Lars Andersen, and Morten Saue.

REFERENCES

[1] Houlahan, G., Doherty, P., Stevens, R.F.,

Identifying Some Knowledge Gaps in Marine

Foundation Practice - A Design and Construction

Perspective OTC 23635, May 2012

Bearing capacity under cyclic loading-offshore,

along the coast, and on land. The 21st Bjerrum

Lecture presented in Oslo, 23 November 2007.

Can. Geotech. J (46), pp. 513-535.

Geotechnical planning of piled foundations for

offshore platforms, Proceedings of the Institution

of Civil Engineers, London Part 1(62).

(1982)

Evaluating Pile Drivability for Hard Clay, Very

Dense Sand, and Rock, Proceedings, 14th Offshore

Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 465481.

Soil model for pile driveability predictions based

on CPT interpretations.

Proc., The 15th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and

Geotech. Eng., Istanbul, Vol.3, 1297-1302

[6] GRLWEAP (2005)

"GRLWEAP, Wave Equation Analysis of Pile

Driving, Procedures and Models, Version 2005".

www.pile.com

A Simple Model to Predict Soil Resistance to

Driving for Long Piles in Deepwater Normally

Consolidated Clays. OTC, 1 May 1995, Houston,

Texas. ISBN 978-1-61399-090-2

[8] API RP 2GEO

Geotechnical and Foundation Design

Considerations, 1st Edition, April 2011

10

- Critical Soil ParametersЗагружено:Marshita Ramlee
- Experiment Unconfined CompressionЗагружено:Lon Odi
- Nanda 2011Загружено:Zahraa Abd El Naser
- 2005 Nbc User Guide Revisions December2007Загружено:Shervin2010
- 2011 Pengaruh Modifikasi Tepung Kentang Pada Parameter Dan Butiran Mekanik MorfologiЗагружено:PCarolina
- Ce Gate 2015 Morning SessionЗагружено:PalakJain
- Slope Failure on Embankment-clayshaleЗагружено:zalfazifa
- Bearing Capacity Shear Wave(1)Загружено:downloadfast
- Design FoundationЗагружено:Vignesh Rajendran
- Article 6 v4sldier Pile and LaggingЗагружено:BambangBuwono
- Soil Nails Loose Fill SlopesЗагружено:isaych33ze
- 51_483Загружено:G
- abdrabbo2005.pdfЗагружено:Gill Gourav
- Deep FoundationЗагружено:Visnu Drxs
- Lab Manual Ce324 Sm IIЗагружено:Hafiz Ur Rehman
- A Practical Iterative Procedure to EstimateЗагружено:lolica14
- 1-s2.0-S1877705810005126-mainЗагружено:Eknath Talele
- THREE-DIMENSIONAL SLOPE STABILITY METHODS IN GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICEЗагружено:oadmse
- criticalstateofsands-beenetal1991Загружено:sandstone92
- Pile IntroductionЗагружено:Suman Nakarmi
- AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE UPWARD AND LATERAL SOIL-PIPELINE INTERACTION IN SAND USING FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD*Загружено:Mukil Dev
- manu_eg1 (1)Загружено:shamind
- Guide to Foundation_7Загружено:RC Dela Roca
- Chapter 2 Theoretical Background _introductionЗагружено:Fitsumbirhan Amanuel
- 10referen.pdfЗагружено:Siencia No Enjinaria Dit
- Numerical model comparison on deformation behavior of a TSF embankment subjected to earthquake loadingЗагружено:Amin Kotb
- IntroductionЗагружено:SaleemAhmadMalik
- Cambridge 73mm High Pressure Dilatometer - Working InstructionsЗагружено:Anonymous Re62LKaAC
- Proejcr manduaЗагружено:Danny Nguyen
- Design of Pile FoundationsЗагружено:prabhu81

- Retaining Wall Design ExampleЗагружено:Tuan Metuan
- paper 7Загружено:Asad Hafudh
- pulleyЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Seep ModelingЗагружено:Gan Chin Phang
- Print SummaryЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- EJGEЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- 8th ICPMG2014 Peth AustrailiaЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Effect of Construction Joints on Performance of Reinforced.pdfЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- 2 Bank Stability FinalЗагружено:Rita Sousa
- standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction-2014 (1).pdfЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Fa Qar 25032018Загружено:Asad Hafudh
- textЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Air ModelingЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- BrochureЗагружено:নীল জোছনা
- ICSI_2016_-_Call_for_Papers_02.18.16Загружено:Asad Hafudh
- syllabus.pdfЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- 233644776-Understanding-Technical-English-1.pdfЗагружено:kaka
- Temp ModelingЗагружено:Gan Chin Phang
- Air ModelingЗагружено:Gan Chin Phang
- plaxis manualЗагружено:burntbread90
- 31591_01Загружено:Chiranjeevi Chanakya
- CrankЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Engineering Use of Geotextiles.pdfЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Prezentare EN1997 2 SchuppenerЗагружено:CristianToma
- FrameЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Pluviator main.PDFЗагружено:Asad Hafudh
- Install GuideЗагружено:kurtarne
- Pully DetailsЗагружено:Asad Hafudh

- Delta Web ServicesЗагружено:RajShah
- mini unit 2- geography lesson-continentsЗагружено:api-284886334
- Allophonic Variation in English PhonemeЗагружено:Neng Ine
- New Appendix BЗагружено:AlbertoSanSegundoAhijado
- e-book rachel martinezЗагружено:api-301980779
- physcis hkcee pastpaperЗагружено:petecostein2
- 4:3 Ratio Recording With ML (for Anamorphic)Загружено:stefanvuk
- SACN Vitamin D and Health ReportЗагружено:izeldien5870
- correlationppt-111222215110-phpapp02Загружено:Ranaque Jahan
- Generating Test Cases From the GUI Model PaperЗагружено:Izzat Alsmadi
- Classical and Fuzzy Logic VtuЗагружено:Natarajan Subramanyam
- Answer Key for TLE ReviewЗагружено:api-3729315
- Epidemiologi Skrining DBD Puskesmas Banjarbaru Utara (English)Загружено:rinaaanggraini_
- Local Good Governance of Rural Infrastructure Development Planning: Case Studies of Commune Councils in CambodiaЗагружено:Sophal Ear
- Punished by Laugh Craft SAMPLEЗагружено:api-3722432
- Mothman PropheciesЗагружено:Pedro Gum
- NAMF Address Data Interchange FormatЗагружено:Michael Awad
- Uv ProbeЗагружено:Oana Mîrzan
- Barriers to Innovation in Indian Small and Medium-Sized EnterprisesЗагружено:ADBI Publications
- AN INVESTIGATION INTO DISTORTION IN WELDED TEE JOINTS.PDFЗагружено:Emad A.Ahmad
- MANUAL PG2000.pdfЗагружено:Anthony Verges
- Soil ClassificationЗагружено:Aline Silverol
- Provisions- Hazardous ProcessЗагружено:teena677888
- CRISIS & CRITIQUE - Vol 3, Issue 3, 2016_Critique of Political EconomyЗагружено:SamuelCampos
- Bj Chapter 4Загружено:shitthisisreal
- Standard Operating Procedures - A Writing GuideЗагружено:Daniel Checchia
- White Paper - In vivo Fiberoptic Fluorescence Microscopy in freely behaving miceЗагружено:VisualSonics
- INB- TROUBLE SHOOTING.pdfЗагружено:Sakthhi Lakshmi
- MAKESENS-Manual_2002.pdfЗагружено:LeeMinra
- the_human_element_a_guide_to_human_behaviour_in_the_shipping_industryЗагружено:Juan Grana

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.