Yu Et Al. (2016) Consideration of The Cyclic Degradation of Cohesive Soils in Pile Foundation Design For Onshore Wind Turbines

Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 270 195
Consideration of the Cyclic Degradation of Cohesive Soils in Pile Foundation Design

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arizona State Univ on 08/17/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for Onshore Wind Turbines
Hao Yu, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; Carlos Guzman, P.E., M.ASCE2; and Eric Ntambakwa,
P.E., M.ASCE3
1
Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 1601 Rio Grande St, Suite 400, Austin, TX
78701. E-mail: chris.yu@dnvgl.com
2
Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 1601 Rio Grande St, Suite 400, Austin, TX
78701. E-mail: carlos.guzman@dnvgl.com
3
Principal Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, DNV GL, 9665 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 435,
San Diego, CA 92123. E-mail: eric.ntambakwa@dnvgl.com
Abstract: An onshore wind turbine foundation is typically designed for an intended

life of 20 years, and often considered for an extended lifetime of 25 to 30 years. A
wind turbine supported on a pile foundation is subjected to long-term cyclic axial
loading and cyclic lateral loading due to dynamic vibrations primarily caused by wind
loads and rotation of the blades. The cyclic loading may result in strength and
stiffness degradation, accumulation of pile head displacement, significant reduction
of pile capacity or even the failure of the wind turbine foundation. The potential for
changes in the foundation stiffness could impact the operation frequency and
foundation loads over time which could adversely influence wind turbine production
and have implications for fatigue and ultimate loads on the foundation system.
However, the long-term performance of pile foundations under cyclic loading has not
been well incorporated in design standards of onshore wind turbine foundations. In
this study, a comprehensive literature review has been performed on mechanisms of
cyclic degradation of pile foundations in cohesive soil as well as the potential impact
on the long-term performance of wind turbines. Additionally, this paper summarizes
existing methods in evaluating cyclic behavior of pile foundations in cohesive soils
and provides a framework for analysis of both axial and lateral cyclic degradation of
soils supporting pile foundation designs for onshore wind turbines.
Keywords: Onshore, Wind turbine, Pile foundation, Cyclic loading, Degradation,
Cohesive soil.
INTRODUCTION
In 2014, a total of 182 terawatt-hours of electricity was produced from wind power
and accounted for nearly 5% of all generated electrical energy in the United States.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
The growth of onshore wind power remains at a fast and steady pace in the U.S.
energy market.
Pile foundations are one of the most favorable foundation types used for support of
onshore wind turbines and are typically suitable for use in regions where stratum of
adequate capacity is found at much greater depths (Morgan and Ntambakwa 2008).
Due to dynamic vibrations caused by continuous wind loads and rotation of blades,
pile foundations are often subjected to axial and lateral cyclic loading over the design
life. Long-term cyclic loads can lead to cyclic degradation of pile foundation support
soils in the form of accumulation of pile head displacement, reduction of foundation
stiffness and gradual loss of skin friction or bearing capacity. The degradation of pile
bearing capacity and stiffness due to cyclic loading has not typically been directly
incorporated into wind turbine pile foundation designs in the earlier standards and
codes (Hauschildt et al. 2011). Cyclic behavior of piles is indirectly considered in the
design of wind turbine foundations and only general guidelines to account for effects
of cyclic loading on soil properties are provided in current codes and guidelines (e.g.
DNV/RISØ 2002 and DIN 2010).
The aim of the paper is to discuss the mechanisms of cyclic degradation of cohesive
soils supporting pile foundations as well as the potential impact on the long-term
performance of onshore wind turbines through a comprehensive literature review of
existing design codes, standards and research findings. In addition, this paper
summarizes existing methods in evaluating cyclic behavior of pile foundations in
cohesive soils and provides a framework for analysis of both axially and laterally
cyclic degradation of pile foundation designs for onshore wind turbine.
An important aspect of wind turbine foundation loads which facilitates practical
implementation of soil cyclic degradation principles is that design loads are typically
developed by turbine manufactures through simulations of the wind regime expected
for the design life of 20 years. Project owners are also commonly considering
extended life operations to 25 or 30 years which requires that cyclic loading aspects
are evaluated for the additional operation. The turbine manufacturer typically
provides loads representing normal (average) turbine operating conditions, extreme
loading events (e.g. a 1 in 50 year gust) as well as fatigue loading information. The
fatigue loading information includes loads (overturning moment, shear and torsion)
and the corresponding load cycles for each load or range of loads. The fatigue loading
information is useful for evaluating the fatigue life of reinforced concrete and steel
and can be utilized to evaluate cyclic degradation effects for the foundation support
materials following appropriate frameworks available in the literature. If extended life
operation of the turbines is being considered, appropriate cyclic loading data for the
additional years should be provided by the turbine manufacturer for use in foundation
design validations.
STANDARDS REVIEW
Various codes and standards which provide guidance for considering cyclic
degradation effects in designing of pile foundations for onshore wind turbines have
been reviewed in this paper. Widely-used standards for offshore wind turbines and
other offshore structures (i.e. offshore oil and gas infrastructure) were also reviewed
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
considering that the existing design codes for onshore wind turbines do not provide
direct recommendations to cover the full range of impacts of cyclic loading on the
soils supporting the turbine foundations. General recommendations for evaluating pile
behavior under cyclic loading conditions are summarized in Table 1.
Table1. Recommendations for Evaluating Cyclic Pile Behavior in Design Codes
Design Codes Recommendations

DNV/RISØ Guideline • Laboratory testing (i.e. cyclic triaxial test and resonant
(2002) column tests) for assessment of strength and stiffness

degradation of turbine foundations under cyclic loading
DNV-OS-J101 (2011) • Incorporating cyclic effects on shear strength of the soil
BSH (2007) in the applicable limit state and cyclic effects on soil
shear modulus in the serviceability limit state (no
detailed methods)
• Cyclic pile behavior is more evident in cohesive soils
than in medium to coarsely grained cohesionless soils
API-RP-2A-WSD • Lab/on-site soil testing and pile load testing in
(2000) determining the elastic properties of the soil and
API-RP-2GEO resistance-displacement relationship along the vertical
(2014) and horizontal direction of the pile
• Framework for evaluation of cyclic response of pile
foundations using discrete element or continuum models
Overall, the analyses of cyclic behavior of pile foundation and assessment of cyclic
degradation are not directly addressed in current design standards for onshore wind
turbine foundation.
EFFECTS OF CYCLIC DEGRADATION ON PILE FOUNDATIONS
Over the past few decades, the mechanisms of cyclic effects on pile foundations in
cohesive soils have been well studied. The degradation behavior of cyclically loaded
pile foundations can be generally characterized by effects on the bearing capacity
(skin friction, end bearing and lateral capacity), stiffness of the pile-soil system and
pile head displacement. A number of experimental investigations on cyclic behavior
of pile foundation in cohesive soils have been carried out and the results indicate that
the extent of cyclic degradation is dependent on the soil type, characteristics of the
cyclic load (i.e. amplitude, number of cycles and loading rate) and group effects.
Based on a literature review some significant observations are summarized in Table 2.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
Table 2. Summary of Research on Cyclic Degradation Effects
Author Testing Method Comments

• Decrease in skin friction during cyclic
Steenfelt et al. Model piles loading with the development of excess
(1981) in clay pore water pressure in the soil adjacent to
the pile foundation
• Increasing cyclic displacement resulted in
degradation and loss of pile skin friction
Poulos Model piles

• Degradation depended on number of
(1981) in remoulded clay
cycles but majority of degradation
occurred in the first 10-20 cycles
• Maximum of 10 to 20% reduction in load
capacity under “one-way” cyclic loading
Review of lab & and greater than 20% reduction might
Bea et al.
field pile load test occur under “two-way” loading
(1980)
data • A trend of increasing pile head
displacement with number of cycles and
level of cyclic loading
• Cyclic behavior was dependent on load
reversal and level of stress range
Yilmaz et al. Cyclic triaxial tests
on natural clay soil • Strain accumulation was smaller when the
(2004)
peak cyclic stress below monotonic
strength
Full-scale model • Maximum lateral capacity under cyclic
Tuladhar et al.
pile in cohesive loading was about 60% of the lateral
(2007)
soil capacity under static loading
• Confirmed concept of critical stress level
below which a state of non-failure stress
Cyclic triaxial tests
Shahin et al. equilibrium exists
on reconstituted
(2011) • No degradation occurred up to CSR=0.63
soft clay
• Degradation was dependent on the value
of OCR
• Increasing pile head displacements with
Cyclic tests on
applied cycles at service loads
sand and clay
Garnier • Displacements dependent on severity of
samples, static
(2013) applied cyclic loads
load testing,
centrifuge testing • Displacements higher than API predicted
values above 10 cycles
• Rate effects impact clays more than sands
• Cyclic load thresholds exist below which
Jardine
Literature review no degradation occurs
(2012)
• Cyclic failure affected by local shaft
capacity
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
EVALUATION OF CYCLIC DEGRADATION IN COHESIVE SOIL
Axial Cyclic Degradation
In order to evaluate the overall stability under cyclic loading, various simplified
analysis methods have been proposed based on results of experimental results by
various researchers. The general approach primarily consists of comparing the
amplitude of cyclic loading with the static capacity and defining thresholds for cyclic
failure (e.g., Jardine, et. al. 2012; Steenfelt et al. 1981). Design charts are typically
presented in the form of interaction diagrams relating the average and cyclic load
components normalized with the static capacity (Figure 1).
FIG. 1. Cyclic interaction diagram for bored pile in high OCR clay (after Puech,
2013).
(Qcy is cyclic load, Qa is average load and Quc is ultimate static capacity)
The interaction diagrams indicate that cyclic degradation would not be anticipated
when cyclic loading levels remain below a certain threshold. Puech (2013) found that
the threshold was largely dependent on the amplitude of cyclic load Qcy and the
average value of the load Qa and developed a cyclic interaction diagram for screening
analysis of pile’s potential sensitivity to cyclic loading. The data points below the
unstable zone curve indicate no cyclic failure. Cyclic loading of relatively small
magnitude was also reported to potentially increase pile capacity by accelerating the
ageing process (Jardine 1998) similar to effects previously indicated by others (Bea et
al. 1980; Poulos, 1981). A simplified threshold for pile degradation under one-way
cyclic loading was defined as the ratio of (Qcy + Qa)/Quc of about 0.8 (Jardine et al.,
2012). Overall, the reviewed information suggests that the potential for cyclic
degradation would be expected to be low if the cyclic load components remain below
about 20% of the ultimate static axial pile capacity.
A variety of degradation criteria have also been postulated for skin friction and end
bearing. Poulos (1981) presented cyclic degradation criteria in terms of degradation
factors DN defined as the ratio of the property after cyclic loading and the property
under static loading. Matlock and Foo (1979) similarly studied cyclic axial behavior
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
of pile foundation by using a hysteretic and degrading soil model. They developed a
relatively simple degradation model which is expressed as:
D = 1− + 1− 1− D (1)
Poulos (1988) recommends the following values for degradation parameters λ and
Dmin:
Table 3. Recommended Values of Degradation Parameters (after Poulos 1988)

Pile Type Soil Type λ Dmin

Driven or Jacked Clay 0.2 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.6
Pile
Silica Sand 0.2 – 0.4 0.5 – 0.7
Calcareous Sand 0.3 – 0.6 0.2 – 0.6
Drilled Pile Clay - -

Silica Sand 0.3 – 0.5 0.2 – 0.4
Calcareous Sand 0.4 – 0.6 0.05 – 0.1
For clay soils, the model indicates maximum degradation of between 40 and 60%
although corresponding stress or strain levels which would be expected to impact the
level of degradation are not directly incorporated. The degradation level of between
40 and 60% also appears to be within the typical range indicated by various
researchers based on conducted literature review.
The reviewed cyclic degradation models for pile foundations are also consistent
with the general behavior of soils under cyclic loads discussed in the literature. Idriss
et al. (1978) studied cyclic degradation properties of soft clay based on the results of
cyclic triaxial tests and proposed a degradation model to describe the relationship
between degradation index and number of cycles. The test results indicated that the
rate of degradation was essentially controlled by the amplitude of the cyclic axial
strain and the degradation factor is expressed as:
D =N (2)
Correlations between the degradation parameter (t), cyclic shear strains and
plasticity index have been obtained by Tabata and Vucetic (2010) and appropriate
values can therefore be selected for specific values of plasticity index and applicable
cyclic shear strains for assessment of stiffness degradation. For reference, cyclic shear
strains of about 0.1% are typical of wind turbine foundation loading (DNV/RISØ,
2002).
With regard to threshold levels of loading below which degradation would not be
expected, Sangrey, et. al. (1969) discussed the concept of Critical Level of Repeated
Loading (CLRL). Based on results of cyclic load tests, at levels of loading below the
CLRL, cyclic degradation of the soil would not be expected. Strain-based thresholds
have also been developed (Vucetic, 1994) which define cyclic shear strain levels
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
belo ow which soil stiffneess degradaation wouldd not be eexpected. D Degradation

relaationships prrovide a useful tool in ev valuating pootential cycliic degradatioon for wind
turbbine pile fouundations reelative to thee applied cyyclic stressees, expected strains and
the number off load cyclees. Since th he resultingg levels of degradationn may vary
deppending on the analyssis framewo ork or moddel selectedd, consideriing various
appproaches app plicable to th
he soil type and anticippated loadingg conditionss appears to
be a prudent ap pproach. Add ditional disccussion of thhe unique natature of desiggn loads for
utillity scale wiind turbines,, which mak kes them ideeal for applyying cyclic ddegradation
prinnciples for fo
oundation deesigns, is preesented laterr in this papeer.
Latteral Cyclic Degradation

D n
Laterally
L loaaded piles area typically y analyzed by using thhe p-y conncept which
pro
ovides a relationship between the mobilized resiistance of thhe surroundiing soil and
pilee deflection. Although seeveral refereences (DNV V/RISØ 20022 and API-R RP-2A-WSD
20000) provide guidance for generating g p-y curves considered to be repressentative off
cycclic loading the formulattions do nott reduce the static ultimate lateral reesistance pu
by capturing th he effects off the cyclic load characcteristics andd the numbeer of cycles
(Gaarnier, 2013)). Therefore,, the main ob bjective shoould be to coonsider the ammplitude off
the cyclic load ding and the number of cycles appl ied that will result in soil strength
deggradation and d to determiine a degrad dation coeffiicient that can be used tto calculate
the degraded laateral resistan nce.
Cyclic
C p-y cuurves for clay y soils proviide an envellope to the bbehavior of a pile under
cycclic loading (Figure
( 2) annd can be appproximatelyy derived frrom the static curves by
intrroducing a degradation
d coefficient rc which waas found to bbe a functioon of cyclic
loadd characterisstics (Qcy annd Qa), numb ber of cycless, depth beloow the pile hhead and the
cycclic load to sttatic pile cap
pacity ratio (Khemakhem
( m, 2012).
FIG.. 2. Example of envelop

pe P-y curvee (after Kheemakhem 20012).
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
Garnier (2013) proposed a global analysis based on the results of centrifuge

modelling tests in regard to the lateral cyclic response of pile foundations under
operational condition where pile loads are less than 1/3 of the ultimate static pile
capacity. The global analysis method estimates the evolution of normalized pile head
displacement and maximum bending moment under the cyclic loading and is
expressed for cohesive soils as follows:
yN M
=k×N α ; max,N =μ×N β (3)
y1 M max,1
where yN and Mmax,N are displacement and maximum bending moment at cycle N; y1
and Mmax,1 are displacement and maximum bending moment at cycle 1 (or end of
static loading phase); k,α,β,μ are empirical parameters and dependent on the cyclic
load level, soil conditions and pile geometry (stiffness).
As discussed for axial loading, it is apparent that under smaller cyclic stresses the
soil is not likely fail (for lateral cyclically loaded soils, failure can be defined in terms
of accumulated strain) even when subjected to a large number of cycles similar to the
CLRL or threshold strain concepts discussed herein. In addition, Lee and Focht (1976)
indicate that cyclic deterioration appears to be a strain dependent process by which
cyclic strains develop large excess pore pressures that in turn lead to softer and
weaker soil and therefore a lower threshold value should be considered for saturated
soils.
DISCUSSION
As discussed herein, various researchers have developed models and frameworks

for evaluating both axial and lateral behavior of pile foundations under cyclic loading.
Cyclic behavior of pile foundations is noted to be a function of various factors
including the cyclic load level, number of load cycles, loading rate and direction of
loading. “Two-way” cyclic loading tends to cause much more dramatic degradation
than “one-way” loading (Poulos, 1983; Seed, 1966). In the design of onshore wind
turbine pile foundations, degradation effects are typically indirectly accounted for by
limiting two-way cyclic loading in the piles under normal operating conditions. The
design approach for axial cyclic loading essentially involves evaluating specific pile
configurations and ensuring that all piles only experience compressive forces during
normal operation (i.e. no two-way loading in the piles). For lateral loading, the
approach essentially consists of developing P-y relationships for static loading
conditions and applying factors to account for additional deformations. Although the
current typical approaches appear to result in reliable foundation performance, they
may also lead to overly conservative designs and translate into increased foundation
costs for projects. Optimizing the foundation designs by utilizing the available body
of research on cyclic degradation of soils is therefore beneficial and would lead to
reduced costs for foundations. On-going studies such as those described by Peuch
(2013) are providing encouraging results which appear to represent enhancements to
current typical approaches by incorporating cyclic loading characteristics and number
of loading cycles in the frameworks.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
Although there are a wide range of approaches that can be adopted, frameworks that
incorporate appropriate strength and deformation properties of the soil, number of
load cycles, representative pile loads and strains due to cyclic loading and cyclic
thresholds for loads and strains would be expected to provide reliable results. An
example framework based on recommendations by Jardine et al. (2012) is presented
in Figure 3 for evaluating potential cyclic effects on wind turbine pile foundations.
Static Pile Capacity Cyclic Loads

Screening Analysis
(Cyclic Stability Diagram or Degradation Criteria)
Cyclic Design Static Design
Degradation Laws
In-situ Testing Lab Testing Experimental Data

(CPT/PMC) (Soil Dynamic Properties) (Model Tests/Field Tests)
Local Soil-Pile Analysis FEM Analysis Global Pile Analysis
Degraded Capacity
Cyclic t-z Curves Degraded Stiffness
Cyclic P-y envelope Increased Moment
Accumulated Pile-Head Displacement
FIG. 3. Example framework for evaluating soil cyclic degradation for wind
turbine pile foundations (After Jardine, et. al., 2012).
Overall, the pile foundation design parameters including pile dimensions and
embedment depths should be determined by incorporating appropriate safety margins
and ideally be based on the results of laboratory cyclic soil testing and full scale axial
and lateral pile load testing.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a comprehensive review has been performed on available standards

and codes for designing of pile foundations for wind turbines. It is noted that the
effects of cyclic loading for pile foundation design are not addressed in great detail in
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
these standards. The mechanisms of cyclic effects on pile foundations in cohesive

soils have been summarized in this paper based on a review of research findings
reported in the literature.
Current typical practice for design of onshore wind turbine pile foundations
indirectly accounts for axial loading degradation effects by limiting two-way cyclic
loading in the piles under normal operating conditions. Commonly used standards
(e.g. DNV/RISØ 2002 and API-RP-2GEO 2014) provide guidance for generating P-y
curves considered to be representative of cyclic loading but do not directly
incorporate the effects of the cyclic load characteristics and the number of cycles. The
approaches which are currently in use for cyclic loading design for onshore wind
turbine pile foundations appear to be reliable but may also lead to overly conservative
designs and translate into increased foundation costs for projects in poor soil
conditions or as turbines continue to increase is size with increasing design cyclic and
extreme loads. Therefore, approaches which consider the amplitude of the cyclic
loading and the number of cycles applied as discussed herein provide more reliable
results to represent soil strength degradation and cyclic load response and
deformations of the piles. Wind turbine pile foundation designs could be further
optimized by utilizing the available body of research on cyclic degradation of soils
and foundation response to develop more efficient designs and reduce foundation
costs.
REFERENCES
API (2014). “Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations.” ANSI/API

Recommended practice 2GEO, Addendum 1, October 2014, American Petroleum
Institute.
API (2000). “Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed
offshore platforms – working stress design.” 21st Edn. Washington, DC, American
Petroleum Institute; 2000 RP2A-WSD.
Bea, R.G., Audibert, J.M.E., and Dover, A.R. (1980). “Dynamic response of laterally
and axially loaded piles.” Proc. 12th OTC Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 3749, 129-
139.
BSH (2007). “Design of offshore wind turbines.” Standard, Federal Maritime and
Hydrographic Agency, Hamburg and Rostock, 20 December 2007.
DIN 1054: 2010-12 (2010). “Subsoil - Verification of the safety of earthworks and
foundations - Supplementary rules to DIN EN 1997-1.” Standard, December 2010.
DNV Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101 (2011). “Design of offshore wind turbine
structures.” Standard, Det Norske Veritas, September 2011.
DNV/RISØ (2002). “Guidelines for design of wind turbines.” Second Edition.
Garnier, J. (2013). “Advances in lateral cyclic pile design: contribution of the
SOLCYP project.” Proc. Of TC 209 Workshop, 18th ICSMGE, Paris, September
2013.
Grosch, J.J. and Reese, L.C. (1980). “Field tests of small-scale pile segments in a soft
clay deposit under repeated axial loading.” Proc. 12th OTC Conf., Houston, Paper
OTC 3869, 143-151.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
Hauschidt, M., Kirsch, F., and Richter, T. (2011). “Analysis of axial-cyclic loaded
piles from the certifier’s view.” Proc. of EWEA Offshore 2011 conference,
Amsterdam.
Idriss, I.M., Dobry, R. and Singh, R.D. (1978). “Nonlinear behavior of soft clays
during cyclic loading.” J. Geotechnical Engineering. Div., ASCE, Vol.104 (12):
1427-1447.
Jardine, R.J. (1998). “Interim Report on Cyclic Loading Model and Synthetic Soil
Profile for HSE Funded Pile Cyclic Loading Study”, Imperial College Consultants
(ICON), 1998.
Jardine, R.J., Puech A. and Andersen, K.H. (2012). “Cyclic Loading of Offshore Piles:
Potential Effects and Practical Design.” 7th Int. Conf. on Offshore Site
Investigations and Geotechnics, Society for Underwater Technology, 59-100.
Khemakhem M. (2012). “Experimental study of a bored pile response under
monotonic and cyclic lateral loads in clay”, Thèse, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, 314.
Lee, K.L. and Focht, J.A. (1976). “Strength of clay subjected to cyclic loading.”
Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 1 (3): 165-185.
Lombardi D., Bhattacharya, S. and Wood D.M. (2013). “Dynamic soil-structure
interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive soil.” J. Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Engrg., Vol.49: 165-180.
Matlock, H. and Foo, S. C. (1979). "Axial analysis of a pile using a hysteretic and
degrading soil model." Proc., Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Institution
of Civil Engineers, London, England, 165-185.
Morgan, K. and Ntambakwa, E. (2008). “Wind turbine foundation behavior and
design considerations.” AWEA WINDPOWER Conference, Houston, 1-14.
Puech, A. (2013). “Advances in axial cyclic pile design: contribution of the SOLCYP
project.” Proc. Of TC 209 Workshop, 18th ICSMGE, Paris, September 2013.
Poulos, H.G. (1981). “Some aspects of skin friction of piles in clay under cyclic
loading.” Jnl. Geot. Eng., Vol. 12 (1): 1-17.
Poulos, H.G. (1983). “Cyclic axial pile response – alternative analyses.” Spec. Conf.
on Geot. Practice in Offshore Eng., ASCE, Austin, 403-421.
Poulos, H.G. (1988). “Cyclic stability diagram for axially loaded piles. ” Jnl
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.114 (8): 877-895.
Puech, A. and Jezequel, J.F. (1980). “The effect of long time cyclic loadings on the
behavior of a tension pile.” Proc. 12th OTC Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 3870,
153-162.
Steenfelt, J.S., Randolph, M.F. and Worth, C.P. (1981). “Model tests on instrumented
piles jacked into clay.” Proc. 10th Int. Conf. S.M. & F.E., Stockholm, Vol. 2: 857-
864.
Sangrey, D. A., Henkel, D. J., and Esrig, M. I. (1969). “The effective stress response
of a saturated clay soil to repeated loading.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
6 (3): 241-252.
Seed, H.B. and Chan, C.K. (1966). “Clay strength under earthquake loading
conditions.” J. Soil Mech. and Fnds. Div., ASCE, Vol. 92(2): 53-78.
Shahin, M.A., Loh, R.B.H., and Nikraz, H.R. (2011) “Some Observations on the
Behavior of Soft Clay under undrained cyclic loading.” J. GeoEngineering, Vol. 6
(2): 109-112.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016
Tabata, K. and Vucetic, M. (2010). “Threshold Shear Strain for Cyclic Degradation
of Three Clays.” Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor
I.M. Idriss, No. 1.15a, San Diego, California.
Tuladhar, R., Maki, T. and Mutsuyoshi, H. (2008). “Cyclic behavior of laterally
loaded concrete piles embedded into cohesive soil.” Earthquake Engng. Struct.
Dyn., 37: 43–59.
Vucetic, M. (1994). “Cyclic Threshold Shear Strains in Soils.” J. Geotech. Engrg.,
ASCE Vol. 120 (12): 2208-2228.
Yilmaz, M.T., Pekcan, O. and Bakir, B.S. (2004) “Undrained cyclic shear and
deformation behavior of silt-clay mixtures of Adapazari, Turkey.” Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 24: 497-507.
© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016

Yu Et Al. (2016) Consideration of The Cyclic Degradation of Cohesive Soils in Pile Foundation Design For Onshore Wind Turbines

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Yu Et Al. (2016) Consideration of The Cyclic Degradation of Cohesive Soils in Pile Foundation Design For Onshore Wind Turbines

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 270 195

Consideration of the Cyclic Degradation of Cohesive Soils in Pile Foundation Design

for Onshore Wind Turbines

Abstract: An onshore wind turbine foundation is typically designed for an intended

Table1. Recommendations for Evaluating Cyclic Pile Behavior in Design Codes

Design Codes Recommendations

(2002) column tests) for assessment of strength and stiffness

EFFECTS OF CYCLIC DEGRADATION ON PILE FOUNDATIONS

Table 2. Summary of Research on Cyclic Degradation Effects

Author Testing Method Comments

Poulos Model piles

EVALUATION OF CYCLIC DEGRADATION IN COHESIVE SOIL

Axial Cyclic Degradation

D = 1− + 1− 1− D (1)

Table 3. Recommended Values of Degradation Parameters (after Poulos 1988)

Pile Type Soil Type λ Dmin

Drilled Pile Clay - -

belo ow which soil stiffneess degradaation wouldd not be eexpected. D Degradation

Latteral Cyclic Degradation

FIG.. 2. Example of envelop

Garnier (2013) proposed a global analysis based on the results of centrifuge

As discussed herein, various researchers have developed models and frameworks

Static Pile Capacity Cyclic Loads

Cyclic Design Static Design

In-situ Testing Lab Testing Experimental Data

Local Soil-Pile Analysis FEM Analysis Global Pile Analysis

In this study, a comprehensive review has been performed on available standards

these standards. The mechanisms of cyclic effects on pile foundations in cohesive

API (2014). “Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations.” ANSI/API

Anda mungkin juga menyukai