The NGI Framework for Cyclic

Loading Foundation Design

Prague Geotechnical Days 2023
Lars Andresen, NGI
The framework
It is datadriven, i.e. based on a large and growing database of results
from cyclic laboratory test (DSS, triaxial compression & extension)
From the database, and site-spesific test, relationships between stress-
strain-pore pressure-time(number of cycles N) are established
These relationships can be presented as contour diagrams showing the
increasing strain and or pore pressure with increasing number of cycles
at various stress combinations (think s-N curves for steel)
Relationships are also represented by functional expressions (e.g. by
non linear regression) and used as soils-models in FE-codes, i.e.
UDACAM and PDCAM
Zbyněk Sekal (1923 - 1998) Knut Andersen (1945 ->)
Museum Kampa, Prague NGI, Oslo
Outline
Cyclic loading sources and characteristics
Foundations and piles response to cyclic loading
Transformation of irregular load histories
Undrained or drained response?
Cyclic stress laboratory testing and stress-strain characterization
Accumulation of pore pressure and accounting for drainage
during the loading
An example: Moment fixity for a spudcan foundation
Cyclic loading

...
Wave, current & Wave, current, wind, Earthquake (soil
weight rotor(1P)&blade(3P) seismic waves)

T = 8-18 sec T1P = 5 -10 sec T = 0.1 -10 sec

T3P = 1 - 3 sec

Soil inertia negligible Soil inertia important

Strain rate effects important Strain rate effects even more important
Soil undrained or partly drained Soil undrained
Cyclic loading characteristics
F = [Fx,Fy,Fz,Mx,My,Mz]
y,N
F(t) = Fa + Fcy
a)
Fy , My
Fa : Average component
Mz Fx , M x
x, E Fcy : Cyclic component
∆pw(x,y) Load
Wave direction

z
b) Topside Cyclic
Sealevel
Fz Average
∆pw(x,y) Fy , M y
Time
y, N
Cyclic loading - » cyclic soil stresses
z
Topside
τ = τa + τcy
Fz
∆pw(x,y) Fy , My τa = f(Fa)
τcy = f(Fcy)
y, N
τ
τa
τcy τa = τ0 + ∆τa
τ
∆τ a τ τ0 = ½σ’v0(1+K0)
τ 0
0
0
0 ∆τ a time
time τa
τ τcy τcy
τa
∆τ a
0
time
Response to cyclic loading (1g Snorre TLP)
monotonic capacity
NGI test field at Lysaker
Cyclic capacity Cyclic displacements increase
with increasing number of cycles
Cyclic load capacity lower than
monotonic load capacity
Response to cyclic loading (pile centrifuge test)
HKUST Centrifuge

B. He, L.Z. Wang, Z. Wang, C.W.W. Ng, D. Masin Cyclic lateral response and failure mechanisms of a semi-rigid
pile in soft clay
OWT systems generate highly irregular loads
 Idealization of irregular cyclic load
Load
Load Load Cyclic Cyclic

Fcy/Fa
2nd parcel
Average
Cyclic 1st parcel
Average
Average
Time
Total
N N

Neq

Load - time history Idealized load composition Equivalent number of cycles

(per. stress point in FEA)

Load
Noren-Cosgriff, K., Jostad,
H.P. & Madshus, C. 2015:
Idealized load composition
for determination of cyclic
undrained degradation of
soils. ISFOG 2015. Time

e.g. rainflow counting Cyclic accumulation (per. stress point in FEA)

or other method
A side note on drainage Permeability by soil type

Typical range for

offshore sands
D=6m

Drainage?

SAND permeability: k = 1E-04 - 1E-06 m/s

SAND stiffness: Eoed = 80 MPa
Drainage length: H~D=6m

Drainage time t90 = 5 - 15000 sec

Offshore sands are always undrained (or partly drained) for the
relevant load frequencies of OWT monopiles
Cyclic loading from wave, wind and rotor
Cyclic loading period: 1- 18 sec (freq = 0.05 - 1)
Soil inertia effects negligible
Cyclic strength (N=1) higher than monotonic (strain rate)
Most often partly drained or undrained soil response
Few or (non?) validation tests performed in undrained regime
Pore pressures and deformations accumulates with increasing
number of cycles; N
Stiffness and strength decreases with increasing number of
cycles; N
Cyclic loading in limite state design
Storm ULS, FLS Lifetime SLS

10 min - 24 hours
25 - 70 years
N = 100 - 103 cycles
N = 104 - 109 cycles
Mostly undrained even in sands
ULS failure state governed either by Drained soil behaviour
(a) large cyclic displacements or (b) SLS state governed by
large accumulated displacements accumulated permenant
Reduced foundation stiffnesses displcacements or rotations
affects structural design ULS and
FLS
Example cyclic DSS testing
γcy,a τcy
τa

stress-stress stress-time stress-strain

 One-way or two-way cycling
Effect of average (mean) stress and loading mode

S.Y. Thian, C.Y. Lee (2017) Cyclic stress- K. Andersen, Mc Clelland lecture
controlled tests on offshore clay
Contour diagrams

DSS Treaxial
Response surfaces (τcy,τa,γcy,γa,N)

τcy • Direct simple shear mode of

γcy,a
τa γcy = 15% loading response surfaces
3 • Response surfaces established also
for other modes of loading (TXC,

γa
1

=
0.5 TXE)

15
• FEA Constitutive model based on

%
1.0 0.25

input of these response surfaces or

0.25

5
0 .5

3
1
2
functional expressions f
10
τcy

0.5
100
τcy = f(N, τa, α)
1 000 N
0.0
τa = f(Fa)
10 000
0.0 0.5 1.0
τa
Cyclic shear strain and accumulated pore pressure
contours (τcy, γcy, N) and (τcy,up/σ’,N)

τcy, γcy, N τcy,up/σ’,N

NGI method for cyclic loading
Includes strain rate dependency and strength anisotropy
Includes the effect of cyclic pore pressure accumulation (and
dissipation) and associated strength and stiffness degradation
Cyclic load history simplified and transferred to a series of
packages of constant load amplitudes (Fcy) and constant ratio
between average and cyclic load (Fa/Fcy)
Stress-strain-time(N) relationships defined from cyclic laboratory
tests (i.e. DSS, triaxial compression and extension)
Accumulation of pore pressure for a series of cyclic
load packages (Ni , Hcy/Hmax)

up/σ’vc = 0.25
The equivalent number of cycles Neq
(increasing Hmax)
Increasing Hmax

Neq = 30
τcy,f/σv’=0.2
Accounting for partly drainage during the load
history
Cyclic effects important in many different design
considerations
Foundation stiffness
Spudcans & Suction Bucket Jackets
Jack-up rig with spudcan Three legged Jacket with Suction
foundtions Bucket foundations
Global FE model for a three legged Jacket structure

Global model including sub-

structure, suction buckets and soil
The local leg/foundation load is
stiffness dependent (load
redistribution)
The cyclic stiffness is load
dependent so iterations might be
needed to converge
Example: Spudcan rotational stiffness
OTM load history
Va = 100 MN
OTM = Mcy + Ma

Two layered foundation OCR = 40 and OCR

=4

Jostad, H.P. Torgersrud, Ø., Engin, H.K., Hofstede, H. (2015). A FE procedure for calculation of fixity of jack-up foundations with skirts using cyclic
strain contour diagrams. 15th International Conference: The Jack-Up Platform. Design, Construction & Operation. 15th - 16th September 2015. City
University London, UK
Cyclic strain accumulation to get Neq
OTM load history with total
N = 6593 cycles
Divided into a series of 9 load packages
with increasing OTM
Cyclic strain accumulation (undrained)
gives:

─ Neq = 5 for OCR = 4

─ Neq = 10 for OCR = 40

The stiffer clay needs more cycles to

generate the same cyclic shear strain
Neq can be found as per
stress point in FEM
τcy; τa stress path gives γa; γcy for Neq

Here are stress paths (green)

showed as simplifed straight lines
Paths are based on Mcy/Ma and Va
In FE the stress paths are given by
the loading Fcy; Fa and allows for
stress redistribution
FE-model and cyclic stress-strain (NGI - ADP)
Result: Cyclic secant rotational stiffness

Stiffness reduces with increasing

cyclic OTM
Stiffness redcuces with increasing
vertical load (eats capacity)
Significantly reduced stiffnesess
compared to ISO approach
 @infoNGI

NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

NGI.NO