Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Vertical elastic dynamic impedance of a large diameter and thin-walled MARK

cylindrical shell type foundation
⁎
Rui Hea,b, Lizhong Wangc, Ronald Y.S. Pakd, Zhen Guoc, , Jinhai Zhenga,b
a
College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
c
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, PR China
d
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This paper studies the vertical vibration of a large diameter and thin-walled cylindrical shell type foundation
Offshore wind turbine embedded in a fully saturated porous seabed in contact with a seawater half-space. The solution of the coupled
Dynamic impedance fluid-shell foundation-soil vibration problem is obtained using the ring-load Green's functions for both the shell
Elastic shell and the layered fluid-seabed half-space. By considering the fully coupled boundary conditions at the shell-soil
Poroelastic seabed
interface, the shell vibration problem is reduced to Fredholm integral equations. Through an analysis of the
Vertical vibration
corresponding Cauchy singular equations, the intrinsic singular characteristics of the problem are rendered
explicit. With the singularities clear, an effective numerical method involving the Gauss-Chebyshev method is
developed to solve the governing Fredholm equations. Selected numerical results for the dynamic contact load
distributions, displacements, and dynamic impedance functions are examined based on different shell lengths,
soil materials, shell properties, and frequencies of excitation. Moreover, the results are analysed for cases in
which there is and is no fluid overlying seabed to examine the effect of fluid.

1. Introduction shell type foundations have a smaller length-diameter ratio, typically

Wind power generation is a clean method of energy utilisation.
Compared to on-land wind power, its offshore counterpart shows
significant advantages, including better wind speed, not occupying
valuable land, and less visual and noise pollution. In China, the
implementation of the ocean energy strategy has accelerated the
development of offshore wind power. In recent years, an increasing
number of offshore wind turbines (OWTs) have been built in the field
or have been planned to be built. However, there is a lack of under-
standing of the dynamic performance of OWTs. Zania [1] notes that the
dominant load conditions for wind turbines are dynamic load.
Accurately calculating the natural frequencies of OWTs is the key to
avoiding structural damages from external loads at various frequencies.
Besides, under the normal operating conditions, soils around the
foundation are almost elastic and the elastic vibration theory is suitable
[2].
The dynamic impedance (stiffness and damping) of OWT founda-
tions directly affects the natural frequencies and dynamic responses of
turbines. As widely used foundation options for OWTs, both suction
buckets and mono-piles are large-diameter and thin-walled cylindrical
shell type foundations. Compared to traditional slender piles, these
0.5–6 for bucket foundations [3], which may be more suitable to be
depicted using shell theory than beam theory. Most foundations made
of steel could be considered shell type foundations, since they are built
as an assembly of tubular steel profiles or flat/curved steel panels. Shell
type foundations can be used as foundations for both shallow water and
deep sea, as shown in Fig. 1. For OWTs with tripod pile/bucket
foundations (Fig. 1(a)), the shell foundation vibrates vertically under
the dynamic moment caused by lateral dynamic loads. For deep-sea
OWTs (Fig. 1(b)), a bucket foundation is also subject to dynamic
vertical forces transmitted by the tension legs, model tests have shown
that there is no suction between the bucket top disc and the seabed
under small tension load, the side shear developed first and reached its
peak before significant suction was measured under the top cap [4,5],
which means bucket foundations in normal tension load can be
simplified as alone shell foundations. However, we do not adequately
understand the vertical dynamic characteristics of cylindrical shell type
foundations. There have been a lot of excellent pioneering works on
bucket foundations, especially on “installation process”, “bearing
capacity”, “cyclic loading”, and “transient loading” problems [6–9].
Besides, Doherty and Deeks [10] studied the static stiffness of bucket
foundations in non-homogeneous elastic soil medium using the scaled

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nehzoug@163.com (Z. Guo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.034
Received 27 August 2015; Received in revised form 13 November 2016; Accepted 26 January 2017
Available online 06 February 2017
0267-7261/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. He et al.
Fig. 1. (a) The image of a wind turbine in shallow water; (b) The image of a wind turbine in deep sea.
boundary finite element method. However, it is still not clear about the
elastic dynamic impedance of shell type foundations, which has an
important effect on the natural frequencies of OWTs. For these new
types of foundations for OWTs that engineers can provide estimates
using the static stiffness of piles [11], the p-y and t-z curves developed
for slender piles [12–16], Novak's simplified method [17,18], experi-
ments [19,20], or numerical methods [21–25] to calculate the stiffness
of OWT foundations. However, Versteijlen et al. [26] noted that “Over
the recent years, measured natural frequencies of installed OWTs have
been found to be higher than designed for.” This inconsistency is
mainly caused by the underestimation of the stiffness of OWT founda-
tions. To save costs and make the natural frequency computation more
accurate, a new and more realistic model involving dynamic interaction
of seawater-shell type foundation-soil is needed.
Therefore, to guarantee the safety of OWTs, it is critical that
researchers understand how shell type foundations respond to vertical
dynamic forces. Although there are many papers related to the dynamic
interaction of traditional slender piles within elastic soil strata due to
vertical dynamic forces [27–32], there are few studies on the vertical
vibration of cylindrical shell type foundations. Liingaard et al. [33]
studied the impedance of bucket foundations in a viscoelastic medium
using the coupled BEM-FEM method. For a free open-ended cylind-
rical shell embedded in soil, Pak and Ji [34] obtained an analytical
result by considering the soil as a single-phase elastic solid. Ji [35]
studied the vertical dynamic vibration of an impermeable shell in soil
using the boundary element method (BEM). However, the shell in a
real shell type foundation is not free and open-ended but constrained
by a top disc or the tower of OWT, and the seafloor is a natural two-
phase medium composed of water and soil skeletons. Thus, the
constraint of the top ending and the poroelastic effect of the seabed
should be considered. Additionally, He et al. [36] noted that the
seawater overlying the seabed might have a strong effect on the
dynamic response of foundations embedded near the water-soil inter-
face due to interface waves. It would be reasonable to take the interface
effect into consideration because shell-type foundations are assembled
very close to the seawater-seabed interface.
In this study, to extend the rigorous analysis of the dynamic
problem to offshore applications, a coupled seawater-shell-seabed
model is used. In this model (refer to Fig. 2), the seawater half-space
is described by the Euler equations for a compressible inviscid fluid
[37]; The seabed is modelled as a Biot poroelastic medium [38],
whereas the shell type foundation is modelled using an elastic thin shell
theory [39]. As noted by Lin et al. [40], when permeability of soil is less
than 10−6 m/s, relative pore fluid flow is negligible, in which Biot's wave
139
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152
equations may not applicable and saturated soils that consist of fine to
medium sands may be described by Biot's theory, so we use a sandy
seabed in the numerical analysis part. For the shell problem, the
coupled water-shell-porous seabed system is treated as a superposition
of an intact water-seabed half-space and a reduced and constrained
shell, whose reduced elastic modulus and mass density are defined in
Section 4. The Green's functions for the thin shell and the layered
seawater-seabed half-space are used to formulate the governing
Fredholm equations by considering appropriate boundary conditions
on the contact interface of the shell and the seabed. By analysing the
corresponding Cauchy kernels, the fundamental singular characteris-
tics of the interfacial reactions acting on the shell are given explicitly.
The Fredholm equations are numerically solved by a piecewise linear
interpolation of the functions of the interfacial reactions using the
Gauss-Chebyshev method. The governing equations for the fluid and
the soil are presented in Section 2. In Section 3, the ring load Green's
functions for the shell and layered fluid-soil half-space are presented.
In Section 4, the coupled dynamic vibration problem is considered. The
numerical results are presented and discussed in Section 5.
Conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. Governing equations
2.1. Governing equations for the fluid
The governing equations for the compressible inviscid fluid can be
written as [36].
∂ 2Pw ∂ 2Uw
cw2 ∇2 Pw = , ρw + ∇Pw = 0.
∂t 2 ∂t 2 (1)
Considering time-harmonic motion with angular frequency ω , and
the relation Pw = pw e−iωt , Uw = uw e−iωt , we have [37].
1
∇2 pw + k w2 pw = 0, uw = ∇pw ,
ρw ω 2 (2)
where pw and uw are the amplitude of the pressure and the displace-
ment of the fluid, respectively. k w = ω / cw is the wave number of the
fluid, cw = (λ w / ρw )1/2 is the speed of sound in the fluid, and λ w is the
compressional modulus of the fluid. Besides, the term e−iωt will be
omitted from all quantities below for simplicity.
2.2. Governing equations for the shell
To model the shell type foundation, elastic thin shell theory will be
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 2. The schematic of the coupled seawater-shell-seabed problem.

used, and the governing equations for the shell under time-harmonic f1 (z ) = akp e kp z [ cos(kp z ) − sin(kp z )],
axisymmetric loads may be written as [39].
f2 (z ) = akp e−kp z [ cos(kp z ) + sin(kp z )],
d4wr dw f d2wz νp dwr f f3 (z ) = akp e kp z [ cos(kp z ) + sin(kp z )],
+ γp wr + νp γp a z = − r , + = z,
dz 4 dz G dz 2 a dz G1 (3) f4 (z ) = akp e−kp z [ cos(kp z ) − sin(kp z )],
f5 (z ) = 0, f6 (z ) = −aνp, g1 (z ) = −νp e kp z cos(kp z ),
where
g2 (z ) = νp e−kp z cos(kp z ), g3 (z ) = −νp e kp z sin(kp z ),
γp = 12/ a2h2 , fr = pr − ρp hω 2wr , fz = pz − ρp hω 2wz , 3(1 − νp2)
g4 (z ) = −νp e−kp z sin(kp z ), g5 (z ) = 1, g6 (z ) = z, kp4 = . (7)
G= μp h3 /6(1−νp ), G1 = 2μp h /(1−νp ), a2h2
(4)

and wr and wz are the displacements of the shell, μp and νp are the shear
2.3. Governing equations for soil
modulus and Poisson's ratio of the shell, respectively; pr and pz are the
resultants of the distributed radial and vertical contact stresses acting
When time-harmonic motion with an angular frequency ω is
on the surface of the shell, respectively; a is the mid-surface radius, l is
considered, using Biot's theory for saturated soil, and the theory of
the length, and h is the thickness of the shell with h < < a ; and ρp is the
potential, we can write the displacements of the solid part and pore
density of the shell.
pressure of the seabed as [37]
The stress-resultants per unit length in the vertical, angular,
bending, and shear directions acting on an infinitesimal shell element 1
ur = φf , r + φs, r + ψ, rz, uz = φf , z + φs, z − r ψ, r − ψ, rr ,
are expressed as [39]
ρ∼22 ω 1 1
pf = [Af (φf , rr + r φf , r + φf , zz ) + As (φs, rr + r φs, r + φs, zz )],
φ (8)
∂ 2w ∂ 3w
Nz = G1 (εz + νp εθ ), Nθ = G1 (εθ + νp εz ), Mz = G 2r , Qz = G 3r
∂z ∂z (5)
Table 1
Mechanical properties of the shell and soil.
The solution to (3) can be written as [34]
Material E (Pa) ρ (kg/m3) ν νu φ B k (m/s)
6 6
wr (z; c ) = ∑i =1 Ci fi (z ), wz (z; c ) = ∑i =1 Ci gi (z ), 0 ≤ z < c,
6 6 Steel 2e11 7800 0.3
wr (z; c ) = ∑i =1 Pi fi (z ), wz (z; c ) = ∑i =1 Pi gi (z ), c < z ≤ l , (6) Concrete 3e10 2500 0.2
Loose sand 1.5e7 1600 0.25 0.495 0.5 1.0 e-3
where, Dense sand 6e7 1900 0.35 0.495 0.4 1.0 e-4

140
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 3. (a) Comparison of the vertical dynamic contact load distribution given in Pak and Ji [34] versus that obtained in this study; (b) Comparison of the vertical displacement of the
shell given in Pak and Ji [34] versus that obtained in this study; (c) Comparison of the vertical dynamic impedance given in Rajapakse and shah [29] versus that obtained in this study;
(d) Comparison of the vertical dynamic compliance given in Ji [35] versus that obtained in this study.

where ur and uz are the radial and vertical displacements of the solid represented as
part of the seabed, respectively. pf is the pore pressure of the seabed. δ (r − a )
ϕf , ϕs and ψi are three potentials for the fast, slow P wave and S wave, fz (z ) = δ (z − c ), fr (z ) = 0,
2πr (10)
respectively. Af and As are coefficients defined in [37]. The mass
coefficients ρ∼mn is defined as ρ∼mn = ρmn + (−1)m + n ω , and b = ηφ 2 / κ
ib for the vertical ring-load and
represents the resistive damping due to the relative motion between δ (r − a )
fz (z ) = 0, fr (z ) = δ (z − c ),
the solid and the fluid [38], η is the fluid viscosity, κ is Darcy's 2πr (11)
coefficient of permeability. The stress of the soil can be represented as
for the radial ring-load, where δ () is the Dirac's delta function.
[37]
For the shell of a bucket foundation, there are two limiting
σrz = μ (ur , z + uz, r ), boundary conditions for the top ending of the shell
1 R+Q
σz = 2μuz, z + λ (uz, z + r ur + ur , r ) − ϕ R
pf ,
1 R+Q (a) Free top: totally no constraint on the top ending of the shell
σr = 2μur , r + λ (uz, z + r ur + ur , r ) − ϕ R pf , (9)
wz (0) = 0, Mz (0) = 0, Qz (0) = 0, z = 0, (12)
where λ and μ are the Lame constants of the solid part, and φ is the
which means the top of the shell can deform freely.
porosity of the porous medium. σr , σz and σrz are total stresses of the
(b) Fixed top: perfect constraint on the top ending of the shell
seabed. The coupling between the solid and the fluid is characterized by
the two parameters Q and R, which can be calculated from the bulk wz (0) = 0, wr (0) = 0, dwr (0)/dz = 0, z = 0, (13)
moduli of the solid and the fluid [41].
which means the top of the shell cannot deform. The real boundary
conditions will be within the two limiting conditions, e.g. hinge top:
3. Ring load Green's function
wz (0) = 0, wr (0) = 0, Mz (l ) = 0, z = 0, (14)
In this section, Green's function for the shell and the layered fluid-
which means the weld between the shell and the top disc is not so
soil half-space under ring-load will be studied.
strong or a plastic hinge is formed here. We will compare the numerical
results obtained by the three boundary conditions in Section 5.
3.1. Green's functions for a shell The appropriate boundary conditions for the bottom end of the
shell may be written as [34]
When a shell is subjected to an vertical or radial ring-load of unit
total weight at the plane z = c, the boundary conditions can be Nz (l ) = 0, Mz (l ) = 0, Qz (l ) = 0, z = l , (15)

141
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 4. (a) Comparison of the vertical dynamic contact load distribution obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions of the shell; (b) Comparison of the radial dynamic
contact load distribution obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions of the shell; (c) Comparison of the real part of vertical displacement of the shell obtained with
three different top ending boundary conditions; (d) Comparison of the imaginary part of the vertical displacement of the shell obtained with three different top ending boundary
conditions; (e) Comparison of the radial displacement of the shell obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions; (f) Comparison of the real part of the internal axial force
of the shell obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions; (g) Comparison of the imaginary part of the internal axial force of the shell obtained with three different top
ending boundary conditions; (h) Comparison of the real part of the internal shear of the shell obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions; (i) Comparison of the
imaginary part of the internal shear of the shell obtained with three different top ending boundary conditions; (j) Comparison of the K vs of a steel shell embedded in dense sand obtained
with three different top ending boundary conditions.

which are appropriate for friction pile foundations. for the vertical ring-load case, and
From the load conditions and the required continuous conditions at
dwr (c−) dwr (c+)
the plane z = c, the boundary conditions at the plane z = c can be wr (c−) = wr (c + ), wz (c−) = wz (c + ), = ,
dz dz
written as d2wr (c−) d2wr (c+) d3wr (c−) d3wr (c+) 1
= , G −G = , Nz (c + ) − Nz (c−) = 0,
dz 2 dz 2 dz 3 dz 3 2πa

dwr (c−) dwr (c+) (17)

wr (c−) = wr (c + ), wz (c−) = wz (c + ), dz
= dz
,
d2wr (c−) d2wr (c+) d3wr (c−) d3wr (c+) 1 for the radial ring-load case.
= , = , Nz (c + ) − Nz (c−) = ,
dz 2 dz 2 dz 3 dz 3 2π a (16) Based on the governing equations and boundary conditions of the

142
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 4. (continued)

shell, the corresponding Green's functions can be obtained easily, and η1 = −Af k f2 ρ∼22 ω / ϕ, η2 = −As ks2 ρ∼22 ω / ϕ,
only the results for the fixed top will be given in Appendix A for
α 2 = ξ 2 − k f2, β 2 = ξ 2 − ks2, γ 2 = ξ 2 − kt2, ϑ 2 = ξ 2 − k w2, (21)
simplicity.
z = c is the plane where the loads act, and k f , ks and kt are complex
wave numbers for the fast, slow P wave and S wave, respectively [37].
3.2. Green's functions for layered fluid-soil half-space The way to obtain the Green's functions for layered fluid-soil half-
space due to vertical and radial ring load is almost the same as that
Through the theory of potential and the governing equations for the given in [37], except that the discontinuous conditions at the plane z
porous medium, the Green's function for the seabed can be written as = c should be replaced by
∞
uz +(r , z ) = ∫ (−αA1 e−α z − βA2 e−β z + ξA3 e−γ z) J0 (ξr ) ξ dξ, δ (r − a )
0 σz (c + )−σz (c − ) = − .
∞ 2πr (22)
ur +(r , z ) = ∫ (−(A1 e−α z + A2 e−β z) ξ + A3 γ e−γ z) J1 (ξr ) ξ dξ,
0
∞ for the vertical ring-load, and
pf + (ξ, z ) = ∫ (η1 A1 e−α z + η2 A2 e−β z) J0 (ξr ) ξ dξ, (18)
0
δ (r − a )
σzr (c + )−σzr (c − ) = − .
for c ≤ z ≤ ∞, and 2πr (23)

∞ for the radial ring-load.

uz −(r , z ) = ∫ [α (A4 eα z−A5 e−α z) + β (A6 e β z−A7 e−β z)
0 Using Hankel transform and the boundary conditions at the plane
+ ξ (A8 eγ z + A9 e−γ z)] J0 (ξr ) ξ dξ, passing through the force and the water-soil interface, we can easily
∞ obtain the corresponding coefficients for the vertical ring load of radius
ur −(r , z ) = ∫ [−(A4 eα z + A5 e−α z + A6 e β z + A7 e−β z) ξ−γ (A8 eγ z−A9 e−γ z)] J1
0 a
(ξr ) ξ dξ,
∞ A1 = A5 −A4 e2α c , A2 = A7 −A6 e2β c , A3 = A9 + A8 e2γ c ,
pf − (r , z ) = ∫ [η1 (A4 eα z + A5 e−α z) + η2 (A6 e β z + A7 e−β z)] J0 (ξr ) ξ dξ,
0
A4 = η2 e−αcJ0 (ξa )/4πN1,
(19)
A5 = (Δ1 η2 e−αc−2Δ2 η1 e−βc−4Δ3 k1 μξ 2 e−γc) J0 (ξa )/(−4πN1 R1),
for 0 ≤ z ≤ c , and A6 = −η1 e−βcJ0 (ξa )/4πN1, A8 = k1 ξ e−γcJ0 (ξa )/4πγN1,
∞ A7 = (2Δ4 η2 e−αc−Δ5 η1 e−βc−4Δ6 k1 μξ 2 e−γc) J0 (ξa )/(−4πN1 R1),
pw (r , z ) = ∫0 B1 (ξ ) eϑzJ0 (ξr ) ξ dξ,
(20) A9 = (−4Δ7 γη2 ξ e−αc + 4Δ8 γη1 ξ e−βc + Δ9 k1 ξ e−γc) J0 (ξa )/(4πγN1 R1),
for −∞ ≤ z ≤ 0 , where B1 = (Δ10 η2 e−αc + Δ11 η1 e−βc + 2Δ12 k1 μξ 2 e−γc) J0 (ξa )/(−2πN1 R1), (24)

143
R. He et al.
Fig. 5. (a) The vertical dynamic contact load distribution for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils; (b) The radial dynamic contact load distribution for a steel shell with l = 2a
in various type of soils; (c) Real part of the vertical displacement of the shell for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils; (d) Imaginary part of the vertical displacement of the shell
for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils; (e) The radial displacement of the shell for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils; (f) Real part of the internal axial force of the
shell for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils; (g) Imaginary part of the internal axial force of the shell for a steel shell with l = 2a in various type of soils.
where the variables ki , Δi , etc., appearing in (24) are defined in the
Appendix B, and the coefficients for the radial ring load of radius a
A1 = A5 + A4 e2α c , A2 = A7 + A6 e2β c , A3 = A9 − A8 e2γ c ,
A4 = η2 e−αcJ1 (ξa )/4παμN2 ,
A5 = (Δ1 η2 βξ e−αc−2Δ2 η1 αξ e−βc−2Δ3 k1 k3 α e−γc) J1 (ξa )/(4παβμN2 R1),
A6 = η1 ξ e−βcJ1 (ξa )/4πβμN2 , A8 = −k1 e−γcJ1 (ξa )/4πμN2 ,
A7 = (2Δ4 η2 ξβ e−αc−Δ5 η1 αξ e−βc−2Δ6 αk1 k3 e−γc) J1 (ξa )/(−4παβμN2 R1),
A9 = (4Δ7 βη2 ξ 2 e−αc − 4Δ8 αη1 ξ 2 e−βc− Δ9 k1 e−γc) J1 (ξa )/(−4παβμN2 R1),
B1 = (Δ10 βξη2 e−αc + Δ11 η1 αξ e−βc + Δ12 αk1 k3 e−γc) J1 (ξa )/(−2παβμN2 R1).
(25)
4. The coupled dynamic vibration problem
We now consider the dynamic interaction of the shell and the soil.
For the reduced shell, its elastic modulus and mass density are defined
as [42]
Ep* = Ep − E , ρp* = ρp − ρ ,
(26)
where Ep and E are elastic modulus of the shell and the soil,
respectively. In the coupled dynamic vibration problem, the reduced
modulus and density are used for the shell in the following. The Green's
function obtained in Section 3 will be used, and will be written with a
roof, for example, ŵrR means the Green's function of wr of the shell
caused by a radial ring load, other Green's functions used below has a
similar definition. For this coupled problem, assume the interfacial
forces on the soil half-space and the reduced shell are pr and pz , we can
144
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152
have the displacements of the soil under the interfacial forces pr and pz
l l
ur (r , z ) = ∫ uˆrR (r , z; s ) pr (s )ds + ∫ uˆrZ (r , z; s ) pz (s )ds,
0 0
l l
uz (r , z ) = ∫ uˆzR (r , z; s ) pr (s )ds + ∫ uˆzZ (r , z; s ) pz (s )ds,
0 0
l l
pf (r , z ) = ∫ pˆ fR (r , z; s ) pr (s )ds + ∫ pˆ fz (r , z; s ) pz (s )ds. (27)
0 0
For the shell, considering Eqs. (3), (4) and (6), the displacements
caused by the interfacial forces pr and pz can be represented as
l l
wr (a, z ) = ∫ wˆrR (z; s ) fr (s )ds + ∫ wˆrZ (z; s ) fz (s )ds,
0 0
l l
wz (a, z ) = ∫ wˆzR (z; s ) fr (s )ds + ∫ wˆzZ (z; s ) fz (s )ds + Δz , (28)
0 0
where Δz is the vertical displacement of the top ending of the shell.
In this study, the foundation embedded in the seabed is in full
contact with the seabed, and no slippage and separation between the
shell and the soil are allowed. For the hydraulic boundary condition
alongside the shell in detail, the contact shell-soil interface can be
considered fully permeable or impermeable, Halpern and Christiano
[43] stated that there are negligible differences between the load
transfer mechanism and the vertical compliances of impermeable and
permeable rigid plates on a poroelastic half-space in the low frequen-
cies (ω < 1.0 ). Similar results can also be found in [37]. So, it is
reasonable to assume that the hydraulic boundary condition is not
important in the vertical vibration model. This assumption will be
confirmed in Section 5.1 by comparing this study with Ji's work, who
considered a totally impermeable shell using BEM [35]. In this paper,
we do not impose a hydraulic boundary condition on the contact
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 5. (continued)

surface following Zeng and Rajapakse [30]. The perfectly bonded From the point view of engineering, we can also define
contact conditions can be written as
Kvs = Fv / Δz , (34)
wz (a, z ) = limr → a ± uz (r , z ), 0 ≤ z ≤ l ,
wr (a, z ) = limr → a ± ur (r , z ), 0 ≤ z ≤ l , as the vertical dynamic impedance for the shell in saturated seabed,
(29)
where Fv is the external force which sustains the shell's vibration, and
Combining the above equations, we can have the following bound- the dimensionless vertical dynamic impedance coefficient
ary conditions for the shell and the soil
K vs = Kvs / μa, (35)
wz (a, z ) = uz (a, z ), 0 ≤ z ≤ l ,
wr (a, z ) = ur (a, z ), 0 ≤ z ≤ l , (30) which can be divided into stiffness and damping ratio

which are Fredholm integral equations for pr and pz , and can be solved K vs = Re(K vs ) − iIm(K vs ) = k − iωc , (36)
numerically.
Following the way of [34], it will be useful to study the correspond-
ing Cauchy singular equations
dwz (a, z ) ∂uz (r , z )
dz
= limr → a ± ∂z
, 0 < z < l,
dwr (a, z ) ∂ur (r , z )
dz
= limr → a ± ∂z , 0 < z < l, (31)
and by the theory of singular integral equations, the singularity of pr
and pz , can be represented as
gz (z )
pz (z ) = , 0 < Re(αz ) < 1, 0 < Re(βz ) < 1,
z αz (l − z ) βz
gr (z )
pr (z ) = , 0 < Re(αr ) < 1, 0 < Re(βr ) < 1,
z αr (l − z ) βr (32)
where αz , βz , αr , and βr satisfy the characteristic equations

(3 − 4ν )cos(παz ) = 8ν 2−12ν + 5−2(αz−1)2 , cos(πβz ) = 0,

(3 − 4ν )cos(παr ) = 8ν 2−12ν + 5−2(αr −1)2 , cos(πβr ) = 0, (33)
where ν is the drained Poisson's ratios for the soil, it can also be found Fig. 6. Comparison of impedance coefficient of a rigid disc with r = a and a steel shell
that when ν = 0 , both αz and αr tend to 0. with l = a.

145
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 7. (a) The influence of the seawater on Re(K vs ) for a steel shell with various length/radius ratio embedded in dense sand; (b) The influence of the seawater on Im(K vs ) for a steel shell
with various length/radius ratio embedded in dense sand.

where k and c mean stiffness and damping coefficients the foundation
can provide, respectively.
5. Numerical results
When the singularities are known, the Fredholm integral Eq. (30)
can be solved numerically. A computer program using a piecewise
linear interpolation of gr and gz with the Gauss-Chebyshev method was
written to calculate the value of gr and gz . Then, we can obtain the full
responses of the foundation and K vs by using the corresponding Green's
functions.
Interpolate functions Ni (z ) satisfy Ni (zi ) = 1 and Ni (zj ) = 0 if j ≠ i ，
which are defined as

Fig. 8. (a) The difference of Re(K vs ) between a steel shell and a concrete shell embedded in loose sand; (b) The difference of Im(K vs ) between a steel shell and a concrete shell embedded in
loose sand; (c) The difference of Re(K vs ) between a steel shell and a concrete shell embedded in dense sand; (d) The difference of Im(K vs ) between a steel shell and a concrete shell
embedded in dense sand.

146
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 9. (a) K vs for a steel shell with l = a embedded in various types of soils; (b) K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in various types of soils; (c) K vs for a steel shell with l = 4a
embedded in various types of soils; (d) K vs for a steel shell with l = 10a embedded in various types of soils; (e) K vs for a concrete shell with l = a embedded in various types of soils; (f) K vs
for a concrete shell with l = 2a embedded in various types of soils; (g) K vs for a concrete shell with l = 4a embedded in various types of soils.

⎧ (z − z )/ h1, z1 ≤ z ≤ z2 l
Hi, j = ∫ uˆzz (zi , s ) αz
j N (s ) l
ds, Hi,(n +1)+ j = ∫ uˆzr (zi , s ) αr
jN (s )
ds,
N1 (z ) = ⎨ 2 , 0 s (l − s ) βz 0 s (l − s ) βr
⎩ 0, other
l j N (s )
⎧ (z − zi −1)/ hi −1, zi −1 ≤ z ≤ zi H(n +1)+ i, j = ∫ uˆrz (zi , s ) αz ds ,
s (l − s ) βz
⎪ 0
Ni (z ) = ⎨ (zi +1 − z )/ hi , zi ≤ z ≤ zi +1 , l j N (s )
⎪ 0, H(n +1)+ i,(n +1)+ j = ∫ uˆrr (zi , s ) αr ds ,
⎩ other 0 s (l − s ) βr
l N (s ) l N (s )
⎧ (z − zn )/ hn , zn ≤ z ≤ zn +1 Wi, j = ∫ wˆzz (zi , s ) αz
j
ds, Wi,(n +1)+ j = ∫ wˆzr (zi , s ) αr
j
ds ,
Nn +1 (z ) = ⎨ , 0 s (l − s ) βz 0 s (l − s ) βr
⎩ 0, other (37) l j N (s )
W(n +1)+ i, j = ∫ wˆrz (zi , s ) αz ds,
0 s (l − s ) βz
where，hi = zi +1 − zi , i = 1, 2.... n. l j N (s )
Using functions Ni (z ), continuous functions gz ,gr ,wz and wr can be W(n +1)+ i,(n +1)+ j = ∫ wˆrr (zi , s ) αr ds ,
0 s (l − s ) βr
represented as l l
Wˆi, j = ∫ wˆzz (zi , s ) Nj (s )ds, Wˆi,(n +1)+ j = ∫ wˆzr (zi , s ) Nj (s )ds,
0 0
n +1 n +1
gz (z ) = ∑i =1 Ni (z ) gzi , gr (z ) = ∑i =1 Ni (z ) gri , l l
Wˆ(n +1)+ i, j = ∫ wˆrz (zi , s ) Nj (s )ds, Wˆ(n +1)+ i,(n +1)+ j = ∫ wˆrr (zi , s ) Nj (s )ds.
0 0
n +1 n +1
wz (z ) = ∑i =1 Ni (z ) wzi , wr (z ) = ∑i =1 Ni (z ) wri . (38) (41)
where, gzi and gri are the regular part of the vertical and radial The unknown forces are
distributing forces on the shell-soil interface in the i-direction, respec-
tively. wzi and wri are the vertical and radial displacement of the shell in g(2(n + 1) × 1) = {gz1 ~gzn +1, gr1 ~grn +1}. (42)
the i-direction, respectively.
The initial displacement of the shell u 0 is
The Gauss-Chebyshev integral formula can be written as
1
u 0 (2(n + 1) × 1) = {Δz ... Δz , 0...0}T , (43)
f (x ) n
∫−1 dx = ∑i =0 Ai f (xi ),
1 − x2 and (40) can be solved numerically.
π ⎛ (2i + 1) π ⎞ In Sections 5.2 and 5.3, some numerical results are given. For
Ai = , xi = cos ⎜ 2(n + 1) ⎟ .
n+1 ⎝ ⎠ (39) better practical engineering use, the dynamic responses of two types of
shells, steel shells and concrete shells embedded in two types of soils,
By substituting (37) and (38) into (27), (28) and (30), we can obtain loose sand and dense sand, are fully studied. The material properties of
j − W) g = u 0,
(H + ρp hω 2 WH (40)
the shell and the soil can be found in Table 1, where B is Skempton's
pore pressure coefficient and k is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil.
where, νu is the undrained Poisson's ratios of the soil. The radius of the shell is

147
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 9. (continued)

a = 5 m. The thickness of the steel shell and the concrete shell are h
= 0.01a and h = 0.03a, respectively. Length of the shells of l = a, l = 2a,
l = 4a, and l = 10a are studied. The parameters R, Q, and b can be
obtained from the given parameters [41]. For seawater, we have
ρw = 1.0 × 10 3 kg/m3 and vw = 1.414 × 10 3 m/s.
5.1. Comparison with existing solutions
To verify the correctness of this method and the computer program,
we compare the results obtained here with the existing solutions for an
elastic shell vibrating in an elastic half-space given by Pak and Ji [34],
and Rajapakse and shah [29]. The solution for a shell embedded in an
elastic half-space can be obtained by setting cw , b , R , Q , and ρf to
equally small values. Fig. 3(a)-(c) show that our solution corresponds
well with those provided in [34] and [29], which validates the Green's
functions and the numerical implementation in this study.
To validate the statement “the hydraulic boundary conditions of the
shell are unimportant for vertical impedance”, we compare our result
with Ji's work, who considered a totally impermeable shell using BEM
[35]. From the comparison in Fig. 3(d), the correctness of the

Fig. 10. (a) The influence of the radius a of the shell on K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in dense sand; (b) The influence of the thickness h of the shell on K vs for a steel shell
with l = 2a embedded in dense sand.

148
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

Fig. 11. (a) The influence of the permeability k of the seabed on K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in dense sand; (b) The influence of the drained Poisson's ratio ν of the seabed
on K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in dense sand; (c) The influence of the undrained Poisson's ratio νu of the seabed on K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in dense sand;
(d) The influence of the Elastic modulus E of the seabed on K vs for a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in dense sand; (e) The influence of the elastic modulus E of the seabed on K vs for a
steel shell with l = 10a embedded in dense sand.

statement is validated.
5.2. Dynamic responses of the shell
The influence of the boundary conditions of the top ending of the
shell on the dynamic responses of the shell-soil vibration problem must
first be made clear. A steel shell embedded in dense sand case is
illustrated here for an example. We choose to compare the dynamic
interaction forces pz and pr and wz , wr , Nz and Qz of the shell at a non-
dimensional frequency ω = 0.25 (ω = ωa / μ / ρ ) with l = 2a, and K vs for
the shell with l = 2a and l = 10a between the three boundary
conditions. From Fig. 4(a)-(j), we find that the differences of the
dynamic responses between the three cases are localised for the shell
(refer to pz ,wr and Qz at the vicinity of the top ending of the shell), and
the impedance coefficient K vs is minimally influenced by the boundary

149
R. He et al.
effect. Similar results are found for shells with different lengths in other
types of soils. Therefore, the following parameter analysis can be based
on any one of the three boundary conditions, and we use the fixed top
ending boundary conditions (Eq. (13)) here.
To understand the coupled dynamic vibration problem, it is
necessary to know the resultant dynamic interaction forces pz and pr
on the shell and the soil. Fig. 5(a) and (b) show both pz and pr for the
case of a steel shell with l = 2a embedded in various types of soils at
ω = 0.25, respectively. From Fig. 5(a) and (b), we find that both pz and
pr are singular at both the top and bottom of the shell, and the forces in
the lower portion are larger than the forces on the upper half portion,
which means most of the load transfer occurs at the lower portion of
the shell. pz and pr in the two cases are very similar, which means the
mechanism of the load transfer in dense sand and loose sand are very
similar. The displacements of the shell are plotted in Fig. 5(c)–(e). We
can see that shell has larger displacements when the soil has a larger
stiffness; however, for the steel shell with l/a=2, both the vertical and
the radial displacements are very small, which means the steel shell
with a small length/radius ratio acts like a rigid one. The axial force
Nz (s ) of the shell can be obtained by integrating the inertial force and
the vertical contacting force from z=s to the end of the shell, and Nz (0)
is equal to Fv defined above. The results of Nz (s ) for a steel shell in dense
sand are given in Fig. 5(f) and (g), from which we can see that the real
part of Nz (s ) for the two types of soils are almost the same, whereas the
imaginary part of Nz (s ) has some difference, however, the values are all
very small.
5.3. Numerical results for the dynamic impedance
To obtain a first sight of the dynamic response of a shell, a comparison
of the dynamic impedance between a rigid disc with r = a and a shell with
l = a in dense sand is studied. From Fig. 6, we find that the real part of the
impedance of the shell is about 20% larger than that of the disc, while the
imaginary part of the shell is about 60% larger than that of the disc.
5.3.1. Numerical results for K vs
The numerical results for the vertical dynamic impedance coeffi-
cient K vs as a function of the shell length/radius ratio (l/a), shell type,
soil type, and the non-dimensional frequency ω are presented below.
From Fig. 7, we find that for a steel shell in loose sand, the existence of
a fluid half-space only has some influence on Im(K vs ), which means
damping increases. The length/radius ratio l/a has a very large
influence on K vs . From the cases l = a to l = 10a, K vs increases gradually.
For the case of a steel shell embedded in other types of soils or a
concrete shell, very similar results can be obtained.
To consider the difference between a steel shell and a concrete shell,
we find from Fig. 8 that the difference of K vs between them increases
with the length/radius ratio for the case embedded in dense sand, and
when l / a = 10 ，the difference is considerable, whereas the differences
of K vs for the loose sand are much smaller. These results mean when the
soil type is given, whether a steel shell or concrete shell is used, similar
dynamic responses are obtained, except in the case when the shell is
embedded in dense sand with a large length/radius ratio.
Fig. 9 shows the results for both a steel shell and a concrete shell
embedded in various types of soils with different length/radius ratios.
From Fig. 9, we find an interesting phenomenon: when the length/
radius ratio of the steel shell is l = a, l = 2a, and l = 4a, and when the
length/radius ratio of the concrete shell is l = a and l = 2a, the obtained
K vs is not related to the soil types and is almost only dependent on l/a
and ω , which means K vs in these cases can be written as a simple
equation of ω . The fitted equations are given in Fig. 9. The error of the
fitted equation and the real value is acceptable: the maximum errors
are within 5%. Considering the case a rigid shell embedded in soil, K vs is
independent on the soil's rigidity, this phenomenon can be explained
by the fact that the rigidity of the shell embedded in any type of the two
sands is large enough with a steel shell with a length/radius ratio
150
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152
l / a ≤ 4 and a concrete shell with a length/radius ratio l / a ≤ 2 .
5.3.2. The influence of a and h on K vs
To know whether the results obtained above can be used when the
radius and the thickness of the shell are changed, the effect of changing
the radius a and the thickness h on K vs is studied below. From Fig. 10(a),
we can see that for the steel shell with a small length ratio (l = 2a) in dense
sand, when changing the radius a from 0.025 to 5 m (from a small model
bucket foundation to a real bucket foundation), K vs varies minimally,
except when a is smaller than 0.5 m at a very small frequency, which
means K vs obtained by a model test can be used directly for a real case
when the radius of the model bucket is properly chosen (larger than
0.5 m). From Fig. 10(b), we also find that varying the shell thickness h
from 0.01a to 0.1a (in the range of h < < a , if h is comparable to a, the
bottom of the shell should be treated as an annulus disc) also has very
small influence on K vs , however, when h is 0.001a, one will obtain a much
smaller K vs . Similar results are obtained for other types of soils and a large
length/radius ratio (l/a = 10) shell. From the above results, we find that
K vs is not sensitive to the radius of the shell, and not sensitive to h/a of the
shell, except when h/a is very small.
5.3.3. The influence of k, ν , νu and E of the soil on K vs
To determine whether the above obtained results can be used when
the properties of the soils are not the same as we have used, we studied
how the parameters of the soil affect K vs , and take the steel shell
embedded in dense sand covered by seawater as an example. For dense
sand, we assume the hydraulic conductivity k is 10−3 m/s~10−5 m/s, the
drained Poisson's ratio is 0.25–0.45, the undrained Poisson's ratio is
0.49–0.4995, and the elastic modulus E is 50 MPa~120 MPa. From
Fig. 11, we find that varying ν , κ , νu and E has a very small effect on the
K vs , which means that the results obtained above for dense sand can be
used for dense sand even if their mechanic parameters are not the
same. In contrast to the small length/radius ratio case, E has a
pronounced effect on K vs in the large length/radius ratio case, as seen
in Fig. 11(e). Similar results can also be obtained for loose sand. From
the above results, we reach the conclusion that for the dynamic
impedance coefficient of a steel or concrete shell embedded in common
sands at a low frequency, the most dominant factors are the relative
rigidity of the shell and the soil. For the shell, its rigidity increases with
decreasing length/radius ratio l/a, increasing thickness/radius ratio h/
a and increasing elastic modulus Ep , whereas for the soil, its rigidity is
most affected by its elastic modulus E. That means K vs of a shell can be
written as a function of l/a, h/a,Ep / E and ω . For the shell with a small
length/radius ratio, its rigidity is large enough compared to any type of
common sands, so varying the soil's rigidity does not influence the
results significantly. For the shell with a large ratio, its rigidity is
comparable with the soil's rigidity, and K vs is affected by both the shell
and the soil's rigidity. The threshold value for small length/radius ratio
and large length/radius ratio is dependent on the elastic modulus of the
shell. For a steel shell, we suggest l = 4a and for the concreted shell l
= 2a.
6. Conclusions
This study investigates the problem of an offshore shell- type
foundation vibrating vertically in a sandy seabed, potential theory
and the integral equation method are used. The problem is shown to be
reducible to a couple of Cauchy equations and Fredholm equations.
From the theoretical analysis, we find that both the top and bottom of
the shell have stress concentrations of Cauchy type, relates to the
drained Poisson's ratio of the soil and keeps the same for all soils for
the top and bottom, respectively. By solving the Fredholm equations
numerically, we find the non-dimensional impedance coefficient K vs is
highly related to four non-dimensional quantities: length to radius
ratio l/a, non-dimensional frequency ω , thickness to radius ratio h/a
and elastic modulus ratio Ep / E . The detailed results are:
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

1) Seawater only has some effect on Im(K vs ).
2) When h/a is properly chosen, the dynamic properties of a steel shell
and a concrete shell are similar for shells with a small l/a. The
difference between them increases with increasing l/a.
3) When h/a is properly chosen, for the shell with a small l/a (steel
shell with l ≤ 4a , and concrete shell with l ≤ 2a ), K vs is mostly
related to l/a and ω and can be treated independent of the soil
types.
4) When l/a is chosen, K vs is not sensitive to varying h/a of the shell,
except when h/a is very small. A very small h/a will induce a quite
small K vs .
5) When l/a and h/a are chosen, K vs is not sensitive to varying radius
of the shell, except when a is very small, so K vs obtained from a
small scale model test can be used directly in the real case when a is
properly chosen (mechanic properties of the soil in the model test
and real case should be the same).
6) When l/a and h/a are chosen, varying the permeability κ , drained
Poisson's ratio ν , and undrained Poisson's ratio νu of the sand has a
small effect on K vs .
7) When h/a is properly chosen, K vs of the shell with small l/a is not
sensitive to E of the soil, whereas K vs of the shell with a large l/a is
sensitive to E.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to acknowledge the support of the Grant
No. 51509082 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China,
the Grant No. BK20150804 from the Natural Science Foundation of
Jiangsu province, and to acknowledge China Scholarship Council
supporting him to study in University of Colorado, Boulder. The fourth
author would like to acknowledge support grant 51209183 from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Appendix A. Green functions for the fixed top shell

1) For vertical ring load on z = c

C1 = (e−kp cνp (4e kp c + 4e kp (2l + c) + (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp (2l − c )) + (2e kp l + e 4kp l − 3e 2kp c − 2e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp c ) − 4e kp (2l + c) sin(2kp l )
+ 3e 2kp l sin(kp (2l − c )) + e 2kp (l + c) sin(kp (2l − c )) − 4e 2kp l sin(kp c ) − 4e 4kp l sin(kp c ) + e 2kp c sin(kp c ))/Sv,
C2 = (e−kp cνp (4e kp (2l + c) + 4e kp (4l + c) + (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp (2l − c )) + (−2e kp l + e 2kp c − 3e 4kp l + 2e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp c ) + 4e kp (2l + c) sin(2kp l )
− e 2kp l sin(kp (2l − c )) − 3e 2kp (l + c) sin(kp (2l − c )) − e 4kp l sin(kp c ) + e 2kp c sin(kp c ) + 4e 2kp (l + c) sin(kp c ))/Sv,
C3 = C4 = (e−kp cνp (4e kp (2l + c) + 4e kp (4l + c) cos(2kp l ) − (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )* cos(kp (2l − c )) + (e 2kp c + e 4kp l )cos(kp c ) − e 2kp l sin(2kp (2l − c ))
+ e 2kp (l + c) * sin(kp (2l − c )) + (e 4kp l + 2e 2kp l − e 2kp c − 2e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ))/ Sv,
C5 = −4(e−kp cνp2 (−e kp c + e kp (4l + c) − (1 + e 2kp l )(e 2kp l − e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) + 2e kp (2l + c) sin(2kp l ) − (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp (2l − c ))
+ (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ))/ Sv, C6 = 1/[G1 (−1 + νp2 ),
(A-1)

P1 = (e−kp cνp (4e kp c + 4e kp (2l + c) + e 2kp (l + c) cos(kp (2l − c )) − (1 + 2e kp l + 3e 2kp c + 2e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp c ) − e 2kp l cos(kp (2l + c ))
− 4e kp (2l + c) sin(2kp l ) + 2e 2kp l sin(kp (2l − c )) + e 2kp (l + c) sin(kp (2l − c )) + (1 + e 2kp c )sin(kp c ) + e 2kp l sin(kp (2l + c )))/Sv,
P2 = −(e 2kp l − kp cνp (−4e kp c − 4e kp (2l + c) − cos(kp (2l − c )) + (2 + 3e 2kp l + 2e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp c ) + e 2kp c cos(kp (2l + c ))
− 4e kp c sin(2kp l ) + (1 + 2e 2kp l )sin(kp (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ) + e 2kp c sin(kp (2l + c )))/ Sv,
P3 = −(e−kp cνp (−4e kp (2l + c) − 4e kp (2l + c) cos(2kp l ) + e 2kp l (2 + e 2kp c )cos(kp (2l − c )) + (1 + 4e 2kp l − e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) + e 2kp l cos(kp (2l + c ))
− e 2kp (l + c) sin(kp (2l − c )) + (1 + 2e 2kp l + e 2kp c + 2e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ) + e 2kp l sin(kp (2l + c )))/ Sv,
P4 = −(e 2kp l − kp cνp (−4e kp c − 4e kp c cos(2kp l ) + (1 + 2e 2kp c )cos(kp (2l − c )) − (e 2kp l − 4e 2kp c − e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp c ) + e 2kp c cos(kp (2l + c ))
+ sin(kp (2l − c )) − (2 + e 2kp l + 2e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ) − e 2kp c sin(kp (2l − c )))/ Sv,
P5 = 4(e kp c ((e kp c + 4e 2kp (l + c) + e kp (4l + c) + 2e kp (2l + c) cos(2kp l )) kp c + (e kp c − e kp (4l + c) ) νp2 + (1 + e 2kp l )(e 2kp l − e 2kp c ) νp2 cos(kp c )
− 2e kp (2l + c) νp2 sin(2kp l ) + (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) ) νp2 sin(kp (2l − c )) − (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) ) νp2 sin(kp c ))/Sv,
P6 = 0.

where，
Sv = 4G1 kp (−1 + νp2 )(1 + 4e 2kp l + e 4kp l + 2e 2kp l cos(2kp l )).
2) For radial ring load on z = c
C1 = (e−kp c (−2e 2kp l cos(k p (2l − c )) − (3e 2kp l + e 4kp l + e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(k p c ) − (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(k p (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + 2e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(k p c ))/ Sr ,
C2 = (e−kp c (2e 2kp (l + c) cos(k p (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + e 4kp l + e 2kp c + 3e 2kp (l + c) )cos(k p c ) + (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(k p (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + 2e 4kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(k p c ))/ Sr ,
C3 = C4 = (e−kp c ((e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )cos(k p (2l − c )) − e 2kp l (−1 + e 2kp c )cos(k p c ) − (1 + e 2kp l )(e 2kp l + e 2kp c )sin(k p c )))/ Sr ,
C5 = −2(e−kp cνp ((e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(k p (2l − c )) + (2e 2kp l + e 4kp l + e 2kp c + 2e 2kp (l + c) )cos(k p c ) + + (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(k p (2l − c ))
+ (e 4kp l − e 2kp c )sin(k p c ))/ Sr ,
C6 = 0,
(A-2)

151
R. He et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 95 (2017) 138–152

P1 = (e−kp c (−e 2kp l cos(kp (2l − c )) − (1 + e 2kp l )(−1 + e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) − (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + 2e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ))/Sr ,
P2 = (e−kp c (−e 2kp l cos(kp (2l − c )) − (1 + e 2kp l )(−1 + e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) − (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp (2l − c )) + (e 2kp l + 2e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp c ))/Sr ,
P3 = (e−kp c ((e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp (2l − c )) − e 2kp l (−1 + e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) − (−1 − 3e 2kp l + e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) − 2e 2kp l cos(2kp l ))sin(kp c ))/ Sr ,
P4 = (e 2kp l − kp c (−(−1 + e 2kp c )cos(kp (2l − c )) − (−1 + e 2kp c )cos(kp c ) + (−1 − e 2kp l + 3e 2kp c + e 2kp (l + c) + 2e 2kp l cos(2kp l ))sin(kp c ))/ Sr ,
P5 = −2(e−kp cνp (−e kp c − 4e 2kp (l + c) − e kp (4l + c) − 2e kp (2l + c) cos(2kp l ) + (e 2kp l + e 2kp (l + c) )cos(kp (2l − c )) + (2e 2kp l + e 4kp l + e 2kp c + 2e kp (2l + c) )cos(kp c )
+ (e 2kp l − e 2kp (l + c) )sin(kp (2l − c )) + (e 4kp l − e 2kp c )sin(kp c ))/ Sr , P6 = 0,

where，
Sr = 8aGkp4 (1 + 4e 2kp l + e 4kp l + 2e 2kp l cos(2kp l )).

Appendix B. The variables defined in Eqs. (24) and (25)

k1 = η1−η2 , k2 = η1 β2−η2 β1, k3 = 2βγμξ, k 4 = 2αγμξ, Ω0 = β1 η2−β2 η1, Ω1 = β1 Γ2−β2 Γ1, Ω2 = η1 Γ2−η2 Γ1, Ω3 = β1 + η1, Ω4 = β2 + η2 , Ω5 = Γ1−η1 Ω ,
Ω = Γ −η Ω , Ω = η Γ + η Γ , Ω = Γ + η Ω , Ω = Γ + η Ω , s = γ 2 + ξ 2, β = 2μα 2−λk 2 + A k 2 ρ∼ ω (R + Q)/ R,
6 2 2 7 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 9 2 2 1 1 f f f 22

β2 = 2μβ 2−λks2 + As ks2 ρ∼22 ω (R + Q)/ R, Ω = ϑ/ ρw ω 2 , N1 = 2μξ 2k1−k2, N2 = k1 (s1 − 2ξ 2 ),

R1 = s1 (Ω1 + Ω2 + Ωk2 ) + 2ξ (−βΓ3 Ω3 + αΓ3 Ω4 + k3 Ω5−k 4 Ω6 ), Δ1 = s1 (Ω 7 + Ω8 + Ω6 β1)−2ξ (βΓ3 Ω3 + k3 Ω8 + αΓ3 Ω4−k 4 Ω6 ),
Δ2 = s1 Γ2 Ω4−2βξΓ3 Ω4−2ξk3 Ω , Δ3 = −s1 Γ2 + 2βξΓ3 + s1 η2 Ω , Δ4 = s1 Γ1 Ω3−2αξΓ3 Ω3−2η1 k 4 Ω ,
Δ5 = s1 (Ω 7 + Ω5 β2 + Ω9 β1)−2ξ (βΓ3 Ω3−k3 Ω5 + αΓ3 Ω4 + k 4 Ω9 ), Δ6 = −s1 Γ1 + 2αξΓ3 + s1 η1 Ω , Δ7 = βΓ1 Ω3−αη1 (Γ2 + β2 Ω )−αβ1 Ω6 ,
Δ8 = −αΓ2 Ω4 + βη2 (Γ1 + β1 Ω ) + ββ2 Ω5, Δ9 = s1 (−Γ1 Ω4 + Γ2 Ω3 + Ωk2 )−2ξ (−βΓ3 Ω3−k3 Ω5 + αΓ3 Ω4 + k 4 Ω6 ),
Δ10 = s1 Γ1 Ω0 + 2ξ (Γ1 η1 k3 + αΓ3 Ω0 + k 4 Γ2 η1), Δ11 = 2ξ (Γ2 η2 k 4 + βΓ3 Ω0−k3 Γ1 η2 )−s1 Γ2 Ω0 , Δ12 = −s1 Ω2 + 2Γ3 ξ (βη1−αη2 ).
(B-1)

References Offshore Wind Energy Converters, Proceedings; 2006.. p. 1–6.

[1] Zania V. Natural vibration frequency and damping of slender structures founded on
monopoles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;59:8–20.
[2] Damgaard M, Ibsen LB, Andersen LV, Andersen JKF. Cross-wind modal properties
of offshore wind turbines identified by full scale testing. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
2013;116:94–108.
[3] Tjelta TI. Suction piles: their position and application today, In: Proceedings of the
11th international symposium on offshore and polar engineering, vol. 2, Stavangar,
ISOPE, Mountain View, CA; 2001. p. 1–6.
[4] EI-Sherbiny RM. Performance of suction anchor anchors in normally consolidated
clay [Ph.D. dissertation]. Houston: The University of Texas at Austin; 2005.
[5] Guo Z, Wang LZ, Yuan F. Set-up and pullout mechanism of suction caisson in a soft
clay seabed. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 2014;32:135–54.
[6] Byrne BW, Houlsby GT. Experimental investigations of the response of suction
caissons to transient vertical loading. Proc ASCE J Geotech Eng
2002;128(2002):926–39.
[7] Houlsby GT, Kelly RB, Huxtable J, Byrne BW. Field trials of suction caissons in
sand for offshore wind turbine foundations. Geotechnique 2006;56:3–10.
[8] Kelly RB, Houlsby GT, Byrne BW. A comparison of field and laboratory tests of
caisson foundations in sand and clay. Geotechnique 2006;56:617–26.
[9] Achmus M, Thieken K. Numerical simulation of the tensile resistance of suction
buckets in sand, In: Proceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering
conference; 2014. p. 475–83.
[10] Doherty JP, Deeks AJ. Elastic response of circular footings embedded in a non-
homogeneous half-space. Geotechnique 2003;53:703–14.
[11] Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S. Experimental validation of soil-structure interaction of
offshore wind turbines. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31:805–16.
[12] Institute AP. Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing
fixed offshore platforms-working stress design: upstream segment. API
Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD), API; 2000.
[13] Jonkman J, Butterfield S, Musial W, Scott G. Definition of a 5-MW reference wind
turbine for offshore system development. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2009.
[14] DNV . Design of offshore wind turbine structures. Det Norske Veritas AS; 2011.
[15] Bisoi S, Haldar S. Dynamic analysis of offshore wind turbine in clay considering
soil-monopole- tower interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;63:19–35.
[16] Achmus M, Thiken K, Lemke K. Evaluation of p-y approaches for large diameter
monopiles in sand. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 2016;25:531–9.
[17] Novak M, Beredugo Y. Vertical vibration of embedded footings. J Soil Mech Found
Div ASCE 1972;12:1291–310.
[18] Novak M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can Geotech J 1974;11:574–98.
[19] Hokmabadi AS, Fakher A, Fatahi B. Full scale lateral behaviour of monopiles in
granular marine soils. Mar Struct 2012;29:198–210.
[20] Devriendt C, Jordaens PJ, Sitter GD, Guillaume P. Damping estimation of an
offshore wind turbine on a monopile foundation. IET Renew Power Gener
2013;7:401–12.
[21] Achmus M, Kuo YS, Abdel-Rahman K. Behavior of monopile foundations under
cyclic lateral load. Comput Geotech 2009;36:725–35.
[22] Lesny K, Wiemann J. Finite-Element-Modelling of Large Diameter Monopiles for
[23] Dan AB, Shie CF. Three dimensional finite element model of laterally loaded piles.
Comput Geotech 1990;10:59–79.
[24] Damgaard M, Zania V, Andersen LV, Ibsen LB. Effects of soil-structure interaction
on real time dynamic response of offshore wind turbines on monopiles. Eng Struct
2014;75:388–401.
[25] Damgaard M, Bayat M, Andersen LV, Ibsen LB. Assessment of the dynamic
behaviour of saturated soil subjected to cyclic loading from offshore monopile wind
turbine foundations. Comput Geotech 2014;61:116–26.
[26] Versteijlen WG, Dalen KN, Metrikine AV, Hamre L. Assessing the small strain soil
stiffness for offshore wind turbines based on in situ seismic measurements, In:
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics, Eurodyn,
3589–3594; 2014. p. 3589–94.
[27] Wolf JP, Arx GA. Impedance function of a group of vertical piles, In: Proceedings of
the specialty conference on soil dynamic earthquake engineering, ASCE, Pasadena,
CA; 1978. p. 1024–41.
[28] Kuhlemeyer RL. Vertical vibration of piles. J Geotech Eng Div 1979;105:273–87.
[29] Rajapakse RKND, Shah AH. On the longitudinal harmonic motion of an elastic bar
embedded in an elastic half-space. Int J Solids Struct 1987;23:267–85.
[30] Zeng X, Rajapakse RKND. Dynamic axial load transfer from elastic pile to
poroelastic medium. J Eng Mech 1999;125:1048–55.
[31] Maeso O, Aznarez JJ, Garcia F. Dynamic impedances of piles and groups of piles in
saturated soils. Comput Struct 2005;10:769–82.
[32] Millan MA, Dominguez J. Simplified BEM/FEM model for dynamic analysis of
structures on piles and pile groups in viscoelastic and poroelastic soils. Eng Anal
Bound Elem 2009;33:25–34.
[33] Liingaard M, Andersen L, Ibsen LB. Impedance of flexible suction caissons. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:2249–71.
[34] Pak RYS, Ji F. Mathematical boundary integral equation analysis of an embedded
shell under dynamic excitations. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
1994;37:2501–20.
[35] Ji F. Boundary element analysis of dynamic poroelastic soil-structure interaction
problems [Ph.D. thesis]. University of Colorado at Boulder; 1993.
[36] Chorin AJ, Marsden JE. A mathematical introduction to fluid mechanics, 3rd ed.
New York: Springer-Verlag; 1993.
[37] He R, Wang LZ, Yu HY. Time harmonic point load and dynamic contact problem of
contacting fluid and poroelastic half-spaces. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;36:20–31.
[38] Biot M. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturate porous solid. I.
Low-frequency range. J Acoust Soc Am 1956;28:168–78.
[39] Fliigge W. Stresses in shells. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1962.
[40] Lin CH, Lee VW, Trifunac MD. The reflection of plane waves in a poroelastic half-
space saturated with inviscid fluid. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2005;25:205–23.
[41] Rice JR, Cleary MP. Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid saturated elastic
porous media with compressible constituents. Rev Geophys Space Phys
1976;14:227–41.
[42] Muki R, Sternberg E. Elastostatic load transfer to a half space from a partially
embedded axially loaded rod. Int J Solids Struct 1970;6:69–90.
[43] Halpern MR, Christiano P. Steady state harmonic response of a rigid plate baring
on a liquid-saturated poroelastic half space. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
1986;14:439–54.

152