Article

Suction Bucket Pile–Soil–Structure Interactions

of Offshore Wind Turbine Jacket Foundations
Using Coupled Dynamic Analysis
Pasin Plodpradit 1, Osoon Kwon 2, Van Nguyen Dinh 3,*, Jimmy Murphy 3 and Ki-Du Kim 1
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea;
[email protected] (P.P.); [email protected] (K.-D.K.)
2 Director of Coastal and Ocean Engineering Division, Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology,

Busan 49111, Korea; [email protected]

3 MaREI Centre, ERI Beaufort Building and School of Engineering, University College Cork,

P43C573 Cork, Ireland; [email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Received: 30 April 2020; Accepted: 6 June 2020; Published: 8 June 2020

Abstract: This paper presents a procedure for the coupled dynamic analysis of offshore wind
turbine–jacket foundation-suction bucket piles and compares the American Petroleum Institute
(API) standard method and Jeanjean’s methods used to model the piles. Nonlinear springs were
used to represent soil lateral, axial, and tip resistances through the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves
obtained by either API’s or Jeanjean’s methods. Rotational springs with a stiffness equated to the
tangent or secant modulus characterized soil resistance to acentric loads. The procedure was
implemented in X-SEA program. Analyses of a laterally loaded single pile in a soft clay soil
performed in both the X-SEA and Structural Analysis Computer System (SACS) programs showed
good agreements. The behaviors of a five MW offshore wind turbine system in South Korea were
examined by considering waves, current, wind effects, and marine growth. In a free vibration
analysis done with soil stiffness through the API method, the piles were found to bend in their first
mode and to twist in the second and third modes, whereas the first three modes using Jeanjean’s
method were all found to twist. The natural frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were
higher than those from the API method. In a forced vibration analysis, the system responses were
significantly influenced by soil spring stiffness type. The procedure was found to be
computationally expensive due to spring nonlinearities introduced.

Keywords: offshore wind turbine; jacket foundation; coupled analysis; soil–pile–structure

interaction; suction bucket; finite element model (FEM)

1. Introduction
Renewable energy is becoming increasingly necessary in many countries where wind is one of
most available renewable sources. There are higher potential, steadier, and less-constraining sources
of wind energy in offshore locations compared to the onshore ones. In order to ensure the feasibility,
viability, safety, and serviceability of an offshore wind farm, an engineer needs to select proper
foundations for wind turbines and to develop accurate and computationally feasible models at the
design stage. The selection should be based on water depth, seabed conditions, installation
equipment, and supply chains. There are three common types of offshore wind foundations, as
shown in Figure 1. The monopile is one of simple and most widely applied foundation types [1], and
it is suitable to water depth of 20–40 m [2,3]. Tripod foundations, which have an excellent stability

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416; doi:10.3390/jmse8060416 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 2 of 26

and overall stiffness when compared with the monopiles, are utilized in deeper waters [4]. However,
the tripod concept is less preferable in terms of scour, ship collision, complexity of joints, deflection
at the tower top, and overall weight when compared to the jacket concept [5].
A jacket foundation consists of three or four legs. The four-legged jacket, which is supported by
main piles, is particularly suitable for the offshore wind industry [6]. The benefits of using jacket
foundations are its lower impact of environmental loads, higher level of stiffness, lower soil
dependency, and suitability for installations at sites with poor soil, deep water, or high waves.
Compared to monopiles and tripods, jacket foundations are more suitable to changing water depths.
However, a steel jacket foundation is more complex than other foundations and is therefore more
costly [7]. At the design stage, understanding the behavior of offshore jacket foundations and their
pile supports under dynamic loading and practical environment and soil conditions would assist in
lowering their costs while ensuring safety. Nevertheless, very few studies have investigated the
dynamic behavior of offshore wind turbine–jacket foundation coupled systems [8,9] particularly
those supported by suction bucket piles.

Figure 1. Three common types of offshore wind turbine foundations.

A suction bucket is open at the bottom and completely sealed at the top, like an upturned bucket.
It is penetrated into the seabed to a certain depth under its own weight, with the outlet valves on the
top open to allow water inside the caisson escape. Suction is processed by pumping out encased
water with all the closed outlet valves, driving the suction caisson to penetrate the designed
embedded depth [10,11]. An advantage is that the buckets do not require heavy equipment for
installation because the driven pile foundations’ installations can be completed faster than those of
driven piles [12]. Latini and Zania [13] investigated the dynamic responses of suction caissons, and
the skirt length was found to be a significant parameter in determining their behavior. The results
from the model tests and field installations of suction caissons have proven that the installation under
suction is extremely effective in fine-or medium-sized sands, primarily due to the reduction in
resistance that results from seepage. In addition, the dynamic stiffness coefficients of suction caissons
were found to increase when the skirt length was increased. Consequently, a coupled dynamic
analysis of offshore wind turbines that considers soil–structure interactions is necessary for a rational
structural design [14].
In recent studies of offshore wind turbine jacket foundations, the turbine responses were
simulated by coupled dynamic analysis using Fatigue, Aerodynamic, Structures and Turbulence
(FAST), which was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). FAST joins
aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and structural modules and is able to solve land or offshore fixed-
bottom or floating structures quickly [15]. In order to obtain accurate results for a sub-structure, the
loads simulated by waves, currents, and wind are applied into decoupled and coupled models [16]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 3 of 26

that pass displacement and velocity information to the aerodynamic module and return the loads at
each time step. Those loads pass through the layer of soft, poorly consolidated marine clays and then
into stiffer clay or sand strata [17,18]. The interactions among environmental load conditions, the
structure of the pile, and the soil around the pile constitute complex vibrations in the system. Wei et
al. [8] investigated soil–structure interaction effects on the responses of an offshore wind turbine with
a jacket-type foundation. Two jacket models using different configurations of braces were used to
compare the loads and responses that resulting from coupled dynamic analyses [19].
In the literature, there have been several methods for analyzing pile–soil–structure interactions
(PSSIs). One of the most popular methods is the transfer of soil strata properties to spring stiffness.
Matlock [20] presented a method for determining the lateral load displacement curve (P–Y) in soft
clay from static and cyclic loads. The American Petroleum Institute (API) [21] recommends methods
for determining the pile capacity for lateral and axial end bearing loads in either clay or sandy soils
in which all the information on lateral and axial loads at specific locations with offshore data are from
laboratory soil sample data tests. Thus they are called the P–Y, axial load displacement (T–Z), and tip
load (Q–Z) data. However, because these methods were formulated using results obtained from
experiments on piles with small diameters, they have a limited ability to predict the behavior of
larger-scale piles such as suction buckets [22,23].
In this paper, the theoretical background of the coupled dynamic analysis of turbine and support
structures implemented and validated in the previous studies [6,24,25] are improved by including
PSSIs and suction bucket pile models. Soil lateral, axial ,and tip resistances are included by
considering the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves of soil behavior. Coupled dynamic analyses of a turbine–
tower–foundation system including PSSIs were performed by using the concept of exchanging of
motion and force components between the X-SEA and FAST programs at the interface nodes.
Furthermore, parametric studies of suction bucket piles supporting an offshore wind turbine jacket
foundation at a specific site in Korea were conducted in which nonlinear translational springs
represent soil lateral, axial, and tip resistances, and rotational springs characterize soil resistance to
acentric loads in suction bucket piles.

2. Coupled Analysis of Turbine and Support Structure

X-SEA finite element analysis software was developed for the design and analysis of onshore
and offshore wind turbine platforms. The current version of X-SEA was developed at Konkuk
University, Seoul, Korea [24]. The program has an extensive range of uncoupled and coupled
analyses between the turbine and sub-structure using the FAST v8 program [15]. In each coupled
analysis, the eighteen components of motions represented by the displacement Ut  , velocity U t  ,
 vectors are input into the X-SEA program. Simultaneously, X-SEA returns the
and acceleration U  
t

reaction force vector ( Ft (t ) ) at the interface position every analysis time t, as depicted in Figure 2.
This “coupling” concept implemented and validated in the study [25] is expressed by:

 M t Ut   Ct U t    K t U t   Ft (t ) (1)

where M t , C t , and K t are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively, of the coupled
system at the time t.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 4 of 26

Figure 2. The concept of coupled analysis through the interface.

3. Nonlinear Soil Springs

The API has developed a method for determining the pile capacity for lateral and axial bearing
loads in either clay or sandy soils. All the information on pile load tests was derived in the laboratory
from soil sample data. These datasets describe the lateral load deflection (P–Y), axial load
displacement (T–Z), and tip load (Q–Z) at specific offshore sites [21]. The pile length is required to
achieve tension (pullout) and compression capacities necessary to support the offshore wind turbine
foundation. The soil around the pile must resist lateral and axial bearing loads, which correspond to
skin friction and end bearing capacity, respectively. These should not exceed a certain limit under
similar conditions with the same pile diameter and equipment used in the design.

3.1. Pile Lateral Loads

Pile foundations should be designed to sustain lateral loads, whether static or dynamic. A proper
analysis of lateral loads in cohesive or cohesionless soils should use P–Y data, which are typically
provided by geotechnical engineers. P–Y data describe the nonlinear relationship between lateral soil
resistance and the depth of the piles [20]. For each layer of the soil along a pile depth, the P–Y data
show a nonlinear relationship between the lateral pile displacement and lateral soil resistance per
unit length. For static lateral loads, the ultimate unit lateral bearing capacity of soft clay has been
found to vary between 8cs and 12cs, where cs is the undrained shear strength. In the absence of more
definitive criteria, the following relationship is recommended by the API for soft clay:

P y 1
 0.5( ) 3 (2)
Pu yc
where P is the actual lateral resistance, Pu is the ultimate resistance, y is the actual lateral
deflection, and yc is the soil coefficient in terms of the pile diameter. In a more recent study,
Jeanjean [26] showed that in conventional methods for assessing the lateral performance of
conductors using the P–Y curves resulting from the API method, the soil springs might be too
conservatively soft. That leads to the prediction of larger cyclic lateral displacements and bending
stresses for a given load range than the P–Y curves obtained from centrifuge tests and finite element
analysis. The latter is expressed as [26]:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 5 of 26

P  G y 
 tanh  max ( ) 0.5  (3)
Pu 100.Su D 
where Gmax is the shear modulus of the soil, Su is the undrained shear strength, y is the lateral
displacement, and D is the pile diameter. The actual lateral load and ultimate lateral load relations
can be obtained in terms of cumulative shear strain (  ) as [26]:

Pu  12  4 e (   d / D ) DS u (4)

where

Su 0
 Su 0 6
0.25  0.05 for dsu D
  d su D (5)
 for Su 0
 0.55 6
dsu D

The above equations were applied to soft clay. The ultimate resistance ( Pu ) for sand has been
found to vary with the depth ( H ) of the soil layer, as described by [26]:

( m H  m2 D) H
Pu   1 (6)
 m1 D H

Equation (5) gives the minimum value of the ultimate resistance, where m1 , m2 , and m3 are
the soil coefficients determined from the friction angle and  is the soil density.

3.2. Pile Axial Loads and Tip Loads

The axial resistance of the soil provides axial adhesion along the side of the pile. Several
empirical relations and theories are available for producing curves for axial load transfers and pile
displacements, or T–Z curves. Lymon and Michael [27] developed a load deflection relationship from
a pile load test in representative soil profiles based on laboratory soil tests. The recommended curves
are displayed in Figure 3 for cohesive soil. Similarly, the relationship between mobilized end bearing
resistance and axial top deflection is described using a Q–Z curve [28], as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Typical axial pile load transfer–displacement (T–Z) curve for cohesive soil.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 6 of 26

Figure 4. Typical tip load transfer–displacement (Q–Z) curve.

3.3. Spring Stiffness

Structural engineering normally employs a constant spring stiffness for soil, which results in a
linear force–displacement relation. However, as the nature of soil behavior is similar to plastic, this
relation is not linear. Therefore, the interactions between the pile and the soil were modeled as a
system of nonlinear springs, as illustrated in Figure 5. The information of P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z was
used in the present study to predict the stiffness of these nonlinear elastic springs applied along the
pile length. However, in the model of the soil surrounding the pile with several translational springs,
the whole system is subject to moments and acentric forces (see Figure 6). Consequently, its accuracy
is not sufficient when using the API model [21] or Jeanjean’s method [26]. In this study, additional
rotational springs were therefore proposed to be included in the model, where their rotational
stiffness was determined by equating to tangent or secant modulus [29].

Figure 5. Soil idealization model with soil translational nonlinear springs.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 7 of 26

Figure 6. New soil model for a suction bucket pile with both translational and rotational nonlinear
springs.

4. Pile–Soil Structure Interaction

Damiani and Wendt simulated the dynamic analysis of an offshore wind turbine on a fixed-
bottom foundation while accounting for the super-element of the foundation and the piles [30]. This
paper considered two methods for predicting the responses of suction bucket pile systems that can
be used in offshore wind turbine foundations. The pile–soil interaction (PSI) method is a simulated
behavior between the pile and soil. PSI analysis is highly essential for predicting the responses of a
pile itself. However, this method does not consider the interactions between the pile and the super-
structure at the time of analysis. The pile–soil–structure interaction (PSSI) method was designed for
solving the interactions between the soil, the pile, and the structure [5]. This can be introduced into a
global equation of motion,

 M U  C U    K U   F (t ) (7)

where F(t) is the time-dependent force vector,  M is the mass matrix describing the

distribution of mass along the structure, C  is the damping matrix that assumes 2% of critical

damping [16], K  is the stiffness matrix, and u and u are the first and second order
derivatives of the displacement, respectively.
The global matrices can then be formed from the corresponding matrices of the tower (denoted
by subscript ‘t’), the sub-structure (denoted by subscript ‘s’), and the pile (denoted by subscript ‘p’).
Furthermore, PSSIs can be assembled into the global matrices for determining the deflection along
the pile length, as presented in [6] and [25]. Thus, Equation (8) can be written as:

M t   Ut  Ct   U t   K t  U t 
           
 Ms  U s    Cs  U s    Ks  U s    F (t ) (8)

 M p  U p   C p  U p   K p  U p 

In reality, the movement of soil is difficult to predict, and figuring out a closed-form solution to
such a problem is extremely complicated. In this study, a numerical solution for soil movement was
therefore obtained by controlling the iterations and preventing the overshoot value for soil stiffness
by using the utilized value N :
i
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 8 of 26

K i1
Ni  (9)
K i1

until N converges closely to 1.0, at which, K is the new stiffness at an iteration point and K
i i 1 i

is the stiffness matrix at the previous iteration.

5. Wave Excitations and Hydrodynamics

5.1. Hydrodynamic Forces, Added Mass and Damping

The hydrodynamics of fixed offshore structures can be carried out by using hydrodynamic
modules in the X-SEA program. The hydrodynamic forces, added mass, and damping and incident
wave excitations are computed by using the Morison equation [25]. For a single element, the motion
equation in terms of mass (m), damping (c), and stiffness (k) that is limited by the assumption of small
dimension/wavelength ratio is:
1 v
(m  m )w
  (c  c) w  kw  Cd  A v v  Cm  (10)
2 t
where  is a water density; Cd and C m are drag and inertia coefficients, respectively; and v is
the velocity of the water particle acting on the structural node and normal to the structure [25]. The
term A is the cross-sectional area of the element, and  denotes the volume of the displaced fluid.
The terms w  , w , and w are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively, of the
structure in its local coordinate, which are normal to or in its longitudinal axis. When the motion of
the structure is considered, the inertia force is reduced by a factor proportional to the structural
acceleration, and the drag force is reduced by the relative velocity and given in the form [25]:

m   (Cm  1)
(11)
c  Cd  Av
in which v is the time-dependent cylinder velocity [25]. The terms in Equation (1) obtained in
structure local coordinates are then transformed to the global coordinates. When the diameter (D) of
the cross section in the structure is considerably larger than the wavelength (L), i.e., D / L  0.2 , the
Morison theory is considered to be inapplicable and a diffraction theory implemented in X-SEA [31]
can be considered.

5.2. Random Waves

The Pierson–Moskowitz (P–M) wave spectrum is an empirical relationship that defines the
distribution of energy over frequencies within the ocean, and it has been found to fit ocean surface
elevation measurements. It assumes that if the wind blows steadily for a long time over a large area,
then the waves will eventually reach a point of equilibrium with the wind [32]. The international
electrotechnical commission (IEC) announced that this spectrum model is best for using at specific
site areas [33]. The parameters required for determining a wave spectrum are the significant wave
height ( H s ) and the peak period ( T p ). The P–M spectrum can be written as:
4
S (n )  0.04974 H s2Tp c 5e( 1.25 c )
(12)

 nT p
where c  . Based on the nonlinearity of wave characteristics, the statistical distribution of
2
wave surface elevation (  ) can be described by using the random phase angle ( n ), wave angular
velocity ( n ), and wave number ( kn ) [34] as:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 9 of 26

  An sin(nt  kn x   n ) (13)

n

in which An is a wave amplitude corresponding to each set of wave height, frequency, and phase
angle. The wave amplitude can be expressed by using the P–M spectrum in Equation (11) in terms of
the angular velocity interval (  ) as:

An  2Sn  (14)

For each state of wave surface elevation, the associated horizontal velocity and acceleration of
the water particles are determined from the basic wave theory [35]. Assuming an one-dimension sea
where all waves are running in the same direction, the horizontal water velocity ( u ) and acceleration
( a ) in the direction of wave propagation are given at an elevation ( z ) by the equations:

cosh( kn z )
u  Ann cos( kn x  n t   n )
n sinh(kn d )
(15)
cosh( kn z )
2
a    An n sin(kn x  n t   n )
n sinh(kn d )

6. Numerical Study

6.1. Verification of Soil–Pile Interactions

A single pile that had been driven 42.7 m into a single soft clay layer was considered. A
numerical model of this case using 11 nodes and 10 elements per layer is shown with the soil
properties in Figure 7. The simulation of the pile foundation involved a lateral load of 445 kN. The
nonlinear behavior for the pile–soil interactions was based on the geotechnical P–Y data from the API
[21] and Jeanjean methods [26]. This can be considered as loads corresponding to the lateral deflection
along the pile. A commercial package called “Structural Analysis Computer System” (SACS) [36] was
used to perform the analysis.

Figure 7. Model of a single pile with single stratum soil layer.

The loads corresponding to the P–Y deflection curve were simulated during the iterative process
of the X-SEA program. This was used to obtain soil stiffness and to input additional stiffness into the
structure. The resulting loads corresponding to the deflection are plotted in Figure 8, which indicates
that the maximum lateral resistance using Jeanjean’s data was 1.33 times more than that found when
using the API data. Moreover, Figure 9 shows that the lateral deflections resulting from the X-SEA
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 10 of 26

and SACS programs by using the API method were in good agreement. The deflections resulting
from both programs when using the Jeanjean method also agreed well with each other, as seen in
Figure 9. These agreements validated the implementation of the API and Jeanjean methods and the
nonlinear springs in X-SEA, which were used for further analyses in this paper.

Figure 8. Loads corresponding to the deflection (P–Y curve).

Figure 9. Lateral deflection along the pile length.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 11 of 26

6.2. Coupled Dynamic Analysis of Turbine and Support Structure with Pile–Soil–Structure Interaction
(PSSI)
In this example, a 5 MW offshore wind turbine [37] jacket foundation system [38] was simulated.
The significant wave height (Hs) was 3.3 m, and the wave period (Tp) was 8.0 s. A constant current
velocity of 1.2 m/s and mean wind speed of 13.156 m/s at the Buan country site in South Korea were
considered. The turbulent wind simulator (TurbSim) program [39] was used to generate a stochastic
of wind velocity model based on the IEC standard [33], as illustrated in Figure 10. The simulation
was carried out using the wind velocity in time domain that is required in FAST v8, as illustrated in
Figure 10. A marine growth 0.1 m thick with a weight density of 1100 kg/m3 was used in this example
to represent the actual size and weight of the jacket structure along water depth. The foundation was
connected with four circular tube suction piles, each 8 m in diameter and 0.05 m thick, and embedded
in a single layer soil at a depth of 18 m. A frame element model was validated [40] and used to
investigate the behavior of the suction bucket pile through the pile length without considering the
super-element, as illustrated in Figure 11. The piles-supported foundation was modeled, and the
effects of the soil behavior using the API and Jeanjean methods were compared; this formed an
approach for determining the pile capacity for lateral loads in soft clay. The horizontal stiffness and
end bearing in either soil were used in accordance with API recommendations. A coupled dynamic
analysis module was connected to the PSSI program, which considered the interactions among the
pile, soil, and foundation to determine the behavior of the whole system as a function of time. The
analysis period was selected as the first 200 s, which included both transient and steady responses.
The geometric and material properties of the jacket foundation are given in Table 1. Seismic
excitations [41] were not accounted for, but they should be considered in future analysis and design.

Figure 10. A wind velocity simulation.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 12 of 26

Figure 11. Model of jacket foundation supported by suction bucket piles and soil properties for pile–
soil–structure interaction analysis.

Table 1. Material and geometric properties of the jacket structure.

Geometric Properties
Parameter Value Unit
Jacket leg diameter 1.053 m
Jacket leg thickness 0.019 m
Diagonal member diameter 0.508 m
Diagonal member thickness 0.013 m
Transition piece diameter 5.500 m
Transition piece thickness 0.700 m
Material Properties
Parameter Value Unit
Steel weight density 7,850 kg/m3
Elastic of modulus 2.1 × 1011 N/m2
Shear modulus 8.08 × 1010 N/m2

The asymmetrical loads caused the structure to resonate due to the environmental loads and the
fact that the natural frequencies of the system were close to those of the turbine blades. In order to
avoid resonance, a free vibration analysis of the suction pile foundation with fixed boundary
conditions was first carried out using the X-SEA program. The natural frequencies—those related to
the type of boundary condition—were compared, and the three mode shapes were modeled, as
shown in Figure 12. A scale factor of 10–15 was used to amplify the mode shapes of the jacket
foundation. The first mode shape was a bending mode of the whole structure with a 1.537 Hz natural
frequency, as illustrated in Figure 12a, where the suction pile with fixed boundary condition is
oscillating globally in the x-direction. The second mode shape was the same as the first mode but
oscillating in y-direction, as illustrated in Figure 12b. The third mode shape was a torsional mode
about the z-axis with the natural frequency of 1.451 Hz, where twisting was occurring from the free
end to the fixed boundary, as illustrated in Figure 12c.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 13 of 26

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

f = 1.537 Hz f =1.537 Hz f =1.451 Hz

Figure 12. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with fixed boundary conditions. (a) 1st mode
shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.

In the second free vibration analysis, the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and Q–
Z curves were applied along the pile length and modelled by using both the API and Jeanjean
methods. The first mode shape of the suction piles with the API method was the movement in x-
direction with a natural frequency of 1.087 Hz, as illustrated in Figure 13a. In the second and third
modes, the natural frequencies were 1.213 and 1.357 Hz, respectively. The twisting occurred at the
suction bucket piles and caused the different shape size of the pile. Meanwhile, the first to the third
mode shapes using the Jeanjean method were all twisting, as shown in Figure 14a–c. By comparing
the natural frequencies resulting from soil stiffness models by using the API and Jeanjean methods,
it could be seen that natural frequencies resulting from Jeanjean’s method were, respectively, 1.118,
1.115, and 1.005 higher than those from the API method for the first to the third modes. It was obvious
that the pile with fixed boundary conditions was stiffer than the spring model, and it had less inertia.
Hence, the natural frequencies corresponding to the fixed boundary condition were higher than those
of the spring models determined from the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves.

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

f= 1.087 Hz. f =1.213 Hz f =1.357 Hz
Figure 13. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with soil behavior using the American
Petroleum Institute (API) method. (a) 1st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 14 of 26

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

f = 1.216 Hz f = 1.353 Hz f = 1.364 Hz

Figure 14. Mode shapes of the jacket-suction bucket piles with soil behavior using Jeanjean’s method
(a) 1st mode shape; (b) 2nd mode shape; (c) 3rd mode shape.

In the forced vibration analysis, random waves were simulated by using Equations (12)–(15); a
wave surface elevation profile is shown in Figure 15. The angular velocity interval (  ) was
assumed to be at 0.01 rad/sec, and the time interval was 0.1 sec, which was sufficiently small
compared to the wave period and structural vibration periods. In order to validate the random wave
simulations, the fast Fourier transform (FFT) was used to transform time series to frequency domain
[42], and 10 realizations of wave surface elevation profiles were used. The averaged power spectrum
density of the wave elevation simulations was in good agreement with the theoretical spectrum, as
shown in Figure 16.

Figure 15. A wave surface elevation simulation.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 15 of 26

Figure 16. Power spectral density of surface elevation.

In the iterative process of the forced vibration analysis, the lateral and horizontal displacements
were received at the interface and transferred through the spring supports. These motion components
were used to generate the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves and applied to calculate the stiffness of the
springs. At the same time, six reaction components were fed back to the tower and turbine. The
iteration continued until all of the components converged. In order to avoid diverging with
asymmetrical loads, the rotational stiffness was applied, whereas frame elements were used to model
the jacket and the jacket foundation resisted for a moment. This did not influence the P–Y, T–Z, and
Q–Z curves used in the API and Jeanjean methods.
The resulting time histories of the translation velocity ( V ), rotational velocity ( Vr ), acceleration
( A ), rotational acceleration ( Ar ), and rotational displacement ( U r ) at the interface in the x-, y-, and
z-directions in equation of motion, as described in Equation (8), are shown in Figures 17–21. The
averaged displacements, velocities, and accelerations in Table 2 show that the API method made the
foundation model more flexible than Jeanjean’s method.

Table 2. Ratio of averaged motion components resulting from the API and Jeanjean methods.

Factors
Motion Components
x-Direction y-Direction z-Direction
Rotational displacement ( U r ) 1.067 1.061 1.343
Velocity ( V ) 1.062 1.064 1.339
Rotational velocity ( Vr ) 1.073 1.067 1.336
Acceleration ( A ) 1.069 1.072 1.327
Rotational acceleration ( Ar ) 1.065 1.069 1.333
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 16 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 17. Velocity components at the interface.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 17 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 18. Rotational velocity components at the interface.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 18 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 19. Acceleration components at the interface.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 19 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 20. Rotational acceleration components at the interface.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 20 of 26

(a) x-direction.

(b) y-direction.

(c) z-direction.

Figure 21. Rotational displacement components at the interface.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 21 of 26

Comparing the displacement of the jacket foundation in Figure 22 shows that the API method
led to more flexible responses than Jeanjean’s method by an average factor of 1.062 in the x-direction.
As the lateral stiffness of a single point affected the horizontal stiffness of other points along the pile
depth, it caused different responses in the y- directions and z-directions by factors of 1.069 and 1.303,
respectively, as illustrated in Figures 23 and 24. The results in Figure 24 show high vertical responses
at starting up times. In order to compare the difference between two soil modelling methods, the
average percentage results are presented in Figure 25. The responses of the jacket foundation were
seen to be significantly influenced by the environmental loads, turbine responses, structural stiffness,
and the type of nonlinear three-dimensional soil spring stiffness.

Figure 22. Comparison of the displacements in the x-direction of the jacket foundation resulting from
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.

Figure 23. Comparison of the displacements in the y-direction of the jacket foundation resulting from
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 22 of 26

Figure 24. Comparison of the displacements in the z-direction of the jacket foundation resulting from
two methods of nonlinear soil stiffness models.

Figure 25. Averaged percentage difference between soil conventional methods.

During the period in which the loads were acting on the foundation, the structure should be
against and sustaining the loads. They were transferred through to the pile, corresponding to the end
bearing and soil skin friction. These produced a distribution of deflection along the pile length. The
responses of the pile heads in the four piles resulting from the API method were more flexible than
those resulting from Jeanjean’s method by factors of 5.300, 7.330, 7.0290, and 12.158 times, as shown
in Figure 26. Eventually, the total computational time on a dual CPU (Intel i7-7820HQ 2.9 GHz-8
cores) was 72.03 h for coupled analysis with PSSIs and 5.06 h without considering PSSIs.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 23 of 26

(a) Pile 1 (b) Pile 2

(c) Pile 3 (d) Pile 4.

Figure 26. Pile deflection along the pile length.

7. Conclusions
A theoretical background of the coupled dynamic analysis of offshore wind turbine and support
structures implemented and validated in the authors’ previous publications was improved by
including PSSIs and suction bucket pile models. Approaches to computing soil lateral, axial, and tip
resistances were provided by considering the P–Y, T–Z, and Q–Z curves of soil behavior obtained by
either the API or Jeanjean methods. The loads corresponding to these curves could be simulated by
an iterative process of the X-SEA program. Such soil resistances were represented by nonlinear
springs in the lateral and vertical directions along the piles. In order to more accurately simulate the
suction bucket piles subject to acentric forces and moments, rotational springs were added to the
models, where their rotational stiffness was determined by equating to the tangent or secant modulus
obtained from Jeanjean’s method.
The implementation of the improved PSSI models using soil springs and the API and Jeanjean
methods in the X-SEA program was verified in an example of a laterally loaded single pile driven
42.7 m into a soft clay soil. The soil spring stiffness values were based on the P–Y data obtained from
both methods. The PSSI modelling and analysis were performed in both the X-SEA and SACS
programs. The maximum lateral resistance resulting from Jeanjean’s method was 1.33 times larger
than from the API. The lateral deflections resulting from X-SEA and SACS are in good agreement
with each other when using either the API or Jeanjean methods.
In order to study the behavior of suction bucket piles and offshore wind turbine–jacket–pile
systems, a five MW offshore wind turbine in the Buan country site in Korea was examined in X-SEA
coupled with FAST. Random wind and waves with a significant height of 3.3 m, a period of 8.0 s, a
current velocity of 1.2 m/s, a mean wind speed of 13.156 m/s, and a marine growth of 0.1 m thick with
a weight density of 1100 kg/m3 were considered. The four suction bucket files penetrated into a single
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 24 of 26

clay lay of 18 m thick. Free vibration and coupled dynamic analyses of the system were performed,
and the following conclusions were drawn:
1) In the free vibration analysis with fixed boundary conditions (rigid soil), the first and
second modes were globally bending and of the same natural frequencies, where the piles
oscillated in two horizontal axes. The third mode was torsional about the vertical axis.
2) In the free vibration analysis with the soil spring stiffness determined from P–Y, T–Z, and
Q–Z curves using the API method, the suction piles were of lateral movement in the first
mode with a distinctly lower natural frequency, and they were twisting in their second
and third modes, whereas the first to the third modes of the suction piles using Jeanjean’s
method were all twisting. The natural frequencies of the first to the third modes resulting
from Jeanjean’s method were higher than those from the API method.
3) In the forced vibration analysis, the API method made the foundation model more flexible
than that of Jeanjean’s method, particularly the pile head. The jacket foundation responses
were seen to be significantly influenced by the environmental loads, turbine responses,
structural stiffness, and the type of nonlinear soil spring stiffness. The coupled analysis
with PSSIs was quite computationally expensive.
Scour effects, soil damping models, and seismic excitations are recommended to be considered
in future research for the further understanding of the system behaviors.
Author Contributions: Formal analysis, P.P.; investigation, P.P. and V.N.D.; validation, P.P.; conceptualization,
P.P, O.K, V.N.D., and K.-D.K.; methodology, V.N.D., J. M., and K.-D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P.
and V.N.D.; writing—review and editing, V.N.D., J. M., and K.-D.K.; funding acquisition, K.-D.K. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This work is supported by Korea Electric Power Corporation (Development of analysis program of
offshore wind turbine structure and design example using FAST turbine aerodynamic load), Korea. This work
was supported by KEPCO(2017), Korea. The third author (V. N. Dinh) and the fourth author (J. Murphy) have
been supported by the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) MaREI Centre, the Sustainable Energy Authority of
Ireland under the SEAI RS&D Funding Programme 2019 (Grant number 19/RDD/545), and the VeriX-SEA
project. The authors are grateful for the support.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, J.; Sun, K.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Monopile Foundation for Offshore
Wind Farm. In Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Beijing, China,
20–25 June 2010.
2. Scharff, R.; Siems, M. Monopile foundations for offshore wind turbines—Solutions for greater water
depths. Steel Constr. 2013, 6, 47–53.
3. De, C.; Kai, H.; Lijun, H. Comparison of Structural Properties between Monopile and Tripod Offshore
Wind-Turbine Support Structure. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2013, 2013, 1756849.
4. Georgia, M.; Anastasios, P.; Dimosthenis, B.; Charis, J.G.; Christos, P.G. Design of Monopile and Tripod
Foundation of Fixed Offshore Wind Turbine via Advanced Numerical Analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th
GRACM International Congress on Computation Mechanics, Volos, Greek, 12–15 July 2015.
5. Schaumann, P.; Böker, C. Can jackets and tripods compete with monopiles? In Proceedings of the
Copenhagen Offshore Wind, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–28 October 2005.
6. Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Kim, K.-D. Coupled Analysis of Offshore Wind Turbine Jacket Structures with
Pile-Soil-Structure Interaction Using FAST v8 and X-SEA. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1633, doi:10.3390/app9081633.
7. Wei, S.; Chinwha, C. Comparison of Dynamic Response of Monopile, Tripod and Jacket Foundation System
for a 5-MW Wind Turbine. In Proceedings of the 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Maui, HI, USA, 19–24 June 2011.
8. Wei, S.; Park, H.C.; Han, J.H.; Na, S.K.; Kim, C.W. A Study on the Effect of Different Modeling Parameters
on the Dynamic Response of a Jacket-Type Offshore Wind Turbine in the Korean Southwest Sea. Renew.
Energy 2013, 58, 50–59.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 25 of 26

9. Ingrif, B.L.; Amir, M.K. Effect of Foundation Type and Modelling on Dynamic Response and Fatigue of
offshore wind turbine. Wind Energy 2012, 22, 12.
10. Wu, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, F. Determination of Maximum Penetration Depth of Suction Caissons in
Sand. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 22, 2776–2783, doi:10.1007/s12205-017-1469-x.
11. Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Zeng, X. Lateral response of improved suction bucket foundation for offshore wind
turbine in centrifuge modelling. Ocean Eng. 2017, 141, 295–307, doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.06.048.
12. Tasan, H.E.; Yilmaz, S.A. Effects of installation on the cyclic axial behaviour of suction buckets in sandy
soils. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 91, 101905, doi:10.1016/j.apor.2019.101905.
13. Latini, C.; Zania, V. Dynamic lateral response of suction caissons. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 100, 59–71,
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.020.
14. Mohammadm, A.; Saif, H. Optimized frequency-based foundation design for wind turbine towers utilizing
soil-structure interaction. J. Frankl. Inst. 2010, 348, 1470–1487.
15. Jonkman, J. FAST v8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). USA, 2018. Available online:
https://nwtc.nrel.gov/FAST8 (accessed on 19 September 2017).
16. Chen Ong, M.; Bachynski, E.E.; David Økland, O. Dynamic Responses of Jacket-Type Offshore Wind
Turbines Using Decoupled and Coupled Models. ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2017, 139, 041901,
doi:10.1115/1.4035772,.
17. Bin, Z.; De-qiong, K.; Ren-peng, C.; Ling-gang, K.; Yun-min, C. Installation and lateral loading tests of
suction caissons in silt. Can. Geotech. J. 2011, 48, 1070–1084.
18. Wang, P.; Zhao, M.; Du, X.; Liu, J.; Xu, C. Wind, wave and earthquake responses of offshore wind turbine
on monopile foundation in clay. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 113, 47–57, doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.028.
19. Shi, W.; Park, H.; Chung, C.; Baek, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, C.-W. Load analysis and comparison of different jacket
foundations. Renew. Energy 2013, 54, 201–210, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.008.
20. Matlock, H. Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 22–24 April 1970; pp. 577–594.
21. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms-Load-Working Stress Design API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD; American Petroleum Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
22. Asitha, I.M.J.S. Design of Large Diameter Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbine in Clay. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, August, TX, USA, 2016.
23. Ortolani, C. Laterally Loaded Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbines: Analysis and Improvement of the P-Y Curve;
University de Liege: Milano, Italy, 2015.
24. Kim, K.D.; Vachirapanyaku, S.; Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Park, J.-H. Development of offshore structural
analysis software X-SEA and FAST. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
& Arctic Engineering, ASME 2019 OMAE 2019-96778, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 9–14 June 2019,
doi:10.1115/OMAE2019-96778.
25. Plodpradit, P.; Dinh, V.N.; Kim, K.-D. Tripod-Supported Offshore Wind Turbines: Modal and Coupled
Analysis and a Parametric Study Using X-SEA and FAST. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 181,
doi:10.3390/jmse7060181.
26. Jeanjean, P. Re-Assessment of p-y Curve for Soft Clays form Centrifuge Testing and Finite Element
Modeling. In Offshore Technology Conference; OTC: Houston, TX, USA, 2015.
27. Lymon, C.R.; Michael, W.O. Criteria for the Design of Axially Drilled Shafts; The Texas Hight Department, The
University of Texas at Austim, USA, 1971.
28. Reese, L.C.; O’Neill, M.W. An Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Sands; A report to the American Petroleum
Institute; University of Houston: Houston, TX, USA 1983.
29. Lam, I.; Martin, G.R. Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations. In Lifeline Earthquake Engineering:
Performance, Design and Construction; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1986.
30. Damiani, R.; Wendt, F. Development and Verification of Soil-Pile Interaction Extension for SubDyn. In
Proceedings of the AWEA Offshore WINDPOWER 2017, New York, NY, USA, 24–25 October 2017.
31. Kim, B.J.; Plodpradit, P.; Kim, K.D.; Kim, H.G. Three-dimensional analysis of prestressed concrete offshore
wind turbine structure under environmental and 5-MW turbine loads. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2018, 17, 625–637,
doi:10.1007/s11804-018-0021-9.
32. Pierson, W.J.; Moskowitz., L. A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas. J. Geophys. Res. 1964,
69, 5181–5203.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 416 26 of 26

33. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61400–3 Wind Turbines–Part 3: Design Requirements for
Offshore Wind Turbines, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 1st Edition, Switzerland, 2009.
34. Dinh, V.N.; Basu, B. Passive Control of Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Nacelle and Spar Vibrations by
Multiple Tuned Mass Dampers. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2015, 22, 152–176, doi:10.1002/stc.1666.
35. Thomas, H.D. Offshore Structure Engineering; Prentice-Hall. Inc, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, USA 1983.
36. SACS. PSI/Pile User’s Manual; Engineering Dynamic, Inc.: Englewood, CO, USA, 2005.
37. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore
System Development; Technical report, NREL/TP-5000-38060; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO,
USA, 2009.
38. Park, G.S. 5.5 MW Offshore Jacket Modeling of Korean Western Sea; Research Report; Seil Engineering: Seoul,
Korea, 2018.
39. Jonkman, B.J. TurbSim User’s Guide Version 1.50; National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical report,
NREL/TP-500-46198; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
40. Kim, K.D. X-SEA Validation; Korea, 2018.
41. Basu, B.; Staino, A.; Dinh, V.N. Vibration of wind turbines under seismic excitations. In Proceedings of The
Fifth Asian-Pacific Symposium on Structural Reliability and its Applications, Singapore, 23–25 May 2012,
doi:10.3850/978-981-07-2219-7_P403.
42. MATLAB. Fourier Analysis and Filtering, The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2020, Release.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).