CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Title: Continuous Assessment Submission to Prof. Brendan O’ Kelly

Student: Terry O’ Leary

Student No. 19325518

Continuous Assessment Brief:

“Write an essay describing the uses and relative advantages and limitations of the Triaxial,

DSS and HCA apparatuses for stress-strain-strength measurement and associated parameter

determinations. Illustrate you essay with appropriate diagrams and include appropriate field

scenario examples, particularly for the offshore foundations, to support your arguments.

Reference appropriately”.

Introduction:

This essay will describe the relative advantages and limitations of a number of apparatus

types used to determine stress-strain-strength measurements for the design of offshore

foundations with a particular focus on offshore wind turbines. The apparatus types to be

critiqued are the following and will be discussed in the numbered order as follows in the

essay;

1. Triaxial Apparatus

2. Dynamic Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (DSS) Apparatus

3. Hollow Cylinder Apparatus (HCA) Apparatus

Some field examples will be provided to illustrate the advantages and limitations of these

apparatus types in the area offshore wind industry.

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

1. Triaxial Apparatus

There are two types of triaxial apparatus used for the compression testing of soils and these

are Static Triaxial and Dynamic Triaxial. According to O’Kelly (2020) the primary

differences between a static triaxial apparatus and a dynamic cyclical triaxial apparatus are

the following;

i) The Load Frame

ii) The Control & Data Acquisition Hardware

iii) The Control Software

The following diagram illustrates the axisymmetric loading arrangement of the triaxial

apparatus;

Diagram 1 – Triaxial Compression Test Arrangement

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The axisymmetric loading arrangement is observed in Diagram 1 by following the green line

through the axis of the apparatus. This means that applying an axial load in the direction

through the apparatus will allow the sample to deform at a constant rate. Some key

advantages of the triaxial apparatus is that tests can be undertaken in a drained or undrained

state. This is particularly useful for offshore foundations as the substrata where the testing is

required can be of varying moisture contents, albeit of course that this can occur also in on-

shore environments. The magnitudes of force applied vertically and horizontally are know in

the triaxial test as illustrated as follows in Diagram 2;

Diagram 2 – Directions of Applied Force (O’ Kelly, 2020)

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

A really useful feature of the triaxial test is that the sample being tested in not constrained to

fail on any particular plane and this is critical for offshore foundation designs. To put this in

context the traditional shear box apparatus for example has the potential to offer very

different test results depending on the plane and the direction of the sample. In the offshore

environment soils are often anisotropic whereby particles have passed through water before

depositing on the sea bed and the concept of cross-anisotropic exists where particles have a

general horizonal alignment. Diagram 3 illustrates how the orientation of a sample can cause

the shear box to give a very different result due to the single plane failure whereas the triaxial

apparatus would identify failure on any plane

Diagram 3 – Critique of Triaxial in Comparison to Shear Box for Sample Failures

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Another key advantage of the triaxial apparatus is the ability to measure volume changes in

the sample based on the draining of water from that sample. The triaxial apparatus has a

valve at the bottom of the pedestal that supports the cylinder and this valve will also pressure

from water in the sample to dissipate. This dissipation can be measured and cross-referenced

with the volume change in the same as the volume of water reduces. The horizonal pressure

that is applied to the sample in the triaxial apparatus is applied by pressurising water around

the same. In order to prevent this water that is used to apply the horizontal pressure turning

the sample into mud, there is a rubber membrane that surrounds the sample itself. This

membrane has the benefit of not allowing water in the sample to be mixed with the water

used to apply the pressure and therefore the volume change and also pore water pressure

responses are very accurate. The rubber membrane is outlined below in Figure 1;

Figure 1 – Triaxial Apparatus

(Source: The Constructor.Org, 2020)

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The versatility of the triaxial apparatus offers the offshore foundation designer the ability to

undertakes tests in a number of ways such as;

i) Consolidated Drained Test (CD)

In a consolidated drained test the sample is consolidated and sheared in compression slowly

to allow pore pressures built up by the shearing to dissipate. The rate of axial deformation is

kept constant but this test is slower to undertake due to the draining process.

ii) Unconsolidated Undrained Test (UU)

In an unconsolidated undrained test the loads that are applied to the sample are applied quite

quickly and the sample is prevented from consolidating or draining during the test and the

valve referred to at the bottom of the apparatus remains closed. The sample is compressed at

a constant rate and for the offshore designer this test is useful where the offshore foundation

will be constructed in substrata that demonstrates moisture.

iii) Consolidated Undrained Test (CU)

In this procedure the shear characteristics are measured without the sample have been drained

and the sample is considered to be saturated. This in an offshore scenario could be where

there is an elevated water table below the mudline (Igoe, 2020). Pore water pressure is

measured until ultimate failure occurs. This is a much faster test to complete than the

consolidated drained test and because you can measure the pore water pressure with this

method you can therefore calculate the effective stress (O’ Kelly, 2020).
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

A potential advantage or possible limitation of the triaxial apparatus is that the user needs to

know what they want to find out so that they can select the correct test from the CD, UU or

CU. If the user know what they want to find out the triaxial apparatus is a very versatile piece

of equipment. On the other hand if the user does not know what they want to find out or is

not competent at selecting the correct test then they may be wasting their time. Accordingly

therefore the versatility of the triaxial apparatus can be deemed advantageous or a limitation.

One of the key limitations of the triaxial apparatus is that the water pressure is applied

equally in all directions. According to O’ Kelly (2020) we want an apparatus where we can

control stress paths independently of each other and this is not possible with the triaxial

apparatus. Diagram 4 outlines the three sources of stress paths;

Diagram 4 – Stress Path Directions Where Independent Control is not Possible with Triaxial

Apparatus
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The offshore foundation designer will have a number of variables to consider for the

foundation and naturally these forces or stresses can be different across the stress paths. In

reality the forces of stress will differ based on changing environmental conditions. For

example an offshore turbine will encounter variable lateral stress from wind and waves and

these stress will vary from day to day. Just because there is strong winds on a particular day

does not mean there will be equal pressure below the mudline and this affirms the benefit for

the offshore designer being able to vary the stress paths independently from each other. This

allows for simulations of storms and swells and is a clear limitation of the triaxial apparatus.

According to Reddy et al. (1992) there is also a shortcoming the triaxial apparatus in that it

assumes the sample will remain in a cylindrical shape and the reality is that is not the case

especially in the case of very large strains.

2. Dynamic Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (DSS) Apparatus

The dynamic cyclic direct simple shear as abbreviated to DSS is also known as direct shear or

direct simple shear (O’ Kelly, 2020). The DSS apparatus is broadly based on the principle of

a shear box but is more refined in the results that it will provide. The DSS will illustrate non-

uniform results in the soil and addresses the critique of the triaxial apparatus and the

assumption that the sample will remain in a cylindrical shape under stress. Diagram 5

illustrates how the DSS can have a variance angle of 0 to 90 degrees;

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Diagram 5 – DSS & Angle of Failure Up to 90 Degrees

A constant load is applied on to the sample to consolidate it and this is referred to as vertical

displacement. The horizontal force that is applied will then create a shearing effect and where

this occurs is referred to as the shear plane as illustrated in Diagram 6;

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Diagram 6 – DSS & Example of Offshore Testing for Foundation

An advantage of this apparatus in the offshore foundation design industry is to predict ground

behaviour in the event of major events such as earthquakes. There may be horizons in the

substrata below the mudline which will react differently to loadings from an earthquake and
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

the DSS apparatus will illustrate in angular form these variations along the shear planes. As

in the case of the triaxial apparatus the DSS is also versatile in relation to drained and

undrained samples. Cetin et al. (2004) refer to the concept of soil liquefaction and this occurs

where saturated or partially saturated material such as clay and sands can lose strength and

stiffness as a result of stresses such as shaking in seismic activity. In soil liquefaction a

material that is ordinarily a solid structure begins to behave like a liquid and hence the term

“liquefaction”.

The DSS apparatus is set up as outlined in Figure 2 below;

Figure 2 – Schematic Set-Up for DSS Test Equipment

(Source: Lacasse and Raadim, 1987)

Lacasse & Raadim (1987) outline that the DSS apparatus for static and cyclic loading can be

performed as either stress-controlled or strain-controlled. The specimen can be subjected to

varying cyclic stress / strain levels and frequencies. It is also possible to perform undrained or
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

drained creep tests by having a sustained horizontal shear stress on the specimen and

measuring shear strain versus time.

In the offshore industry this is again very useful where receptor soil conditions for the

offshore foundations can vary between drained and undrained environments. Cyclic loading

is also particularly relevant for monopiles for instance where the monopile can move so far

under cyclic loading “n” that it damages the structure. Diagram 7 below sets out this “n”

concept;

“n” (failure in structure)

Diagram 7 – Cyclic Loading Measured by DSS & Failure Modelling

Another advantage of the DSS apparatus is that it can measure reactions in different

directions when compared with the more basic functionality of the traditional shear box and

the DSS has been described as being like a rubix cube (O’ Kelly, 2020). According to Chaney

& Demars (1985) the DSS apparatus and test does overcome some issues experienced with

the triaxial apparatus but that the DSS has some limitations of its own for offshore testing.

They have identified that problems arise with the DSS when analysis of the stress state
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

present in the sample and that the apparatus does not yield a peak strength value like it

produced for instance by the triaxial apparatus.

Crucially they also assert that the DSS gives no reliable information on the shear or

deformation moduli and they conclude in their opinion that these limitations render the DSS

apparatus as inferior compared to the triaxial apparatus.

3. Hollow Cylinder Apparatus (HCA) Apparatus

The HCA apparatus is referenced by O’ Kelly (2020) as “state of the art” as the user can

independently control magnitude and the direction of each of the forces represented as Sigma

1, 2 & 3 as outlined below in Figure 3;

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Figure 3 – Independent Control of Magnitude & Direction by HCA Apparatus

(Source: Researchgate, 2020)

The advantage of being able to independently control axial load, torque, twist and outer

pressures in a sample is specifically useful for offshore foundation design. The key reason for

this as illustrated in Figure 4 below is that there are varying loads being applied in a range of

different directions and different ways to the offshore structure. By being able to vary the

different magnitudes and directions the HCA is a far more accurate, robust and

comprehensive test apparatus that the triaxial or DSS.

Figure 4 – Independent Control of Magnitude & Direction by HCA Apparatus

(Source: Researchgate, 2020)

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The offshore foundation designed has access to sample stress and strain equations for

a range of differing circumstances as outlined overleaf in Figure 5 and these provide a

framework for offshore foundation design;

Figure 5 – Sample Stress & Strain Equations

(Source: O’ Kelly, 2020)

According to O’ Kelly (2003) HCA allows independent control of the magnitude of the three

principal stresses and rotation of the major-minor principal stress axes making more general-

ised stress path testing possible. Although such equipment is still rare, development and use

has steadily increased, principally at leading research establishments (Hight et al (1983); Am-

padu and Tatsuoka (1993); and Richardson et al (1996)). The new apparatus allows accurate

measurement of the mechanical and pore-pressure responses from very small strains (of the

order of 10 -5 strain) to sample failure, following generalised stress paths.

The ability of the HCA to measure in real time and the ability to manage the stress and

responses to these stresses is a key advantage for this apparatus. The ability to continually

make adjustments and refinements to the pressures applied to the sample and the vast
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

functionality for refinements is a key attribute of the HCA. The instrumentation that is

recording the findings of the transducer and encoders in the HCA are at some distance from

the sample and this ensures that the instrumentation is not affecting a stress or a strain on the

sample.

For instance if the encoders were in contact with the sample being tested they could restrict

movement and distort the measurements. The limitations for the HCA apparatus is

predominantly its complexity and arguably the expertise that is required to be competent to

use the apparatus.

Conclusion:

Most ground engineering problems involve multi-directional loading that invariably causes

rotations of the principal stress axes and changes in the relative magnitude of the intermediate

principal stress in the ground. The HCA represents the next generation of laboratory shear

test apparatus and makes accurate measurement of the mechanical and pore-pressure

responses of soil possible over the full range of working strains, following generalised stress

paths. Excellent control of the stresses induced in the test specimen can be achieved using the

new apparatus. Tests have shown the apparatus is capable of consistently measuring the

stress-strain responses of identical test specimens; and the repeatability of the sample

preparation method (O’Kelly, 2003). Consequently this essay concludes by asserting that

both the triaxial and DSS apparatus have their advantages and limitations but that the HCA

apparatus is most comprehensive for the ground engineering problems alluded to above and

specifically in this discussion the unique environment in which the offshore engineer will be

exposed to for foundation design.

 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

References:

Chaney, R., & Demars, K., R., (1985) “Strength Testing of Marine Sediments: Laboratory

and In-situ Measurements : a Symposium Sponsored by ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and

Rock”. San Diego, CA, 26-27 Jan. 1984.

Cetin, K. O., et al. (2004). “SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic

soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-

0241(2004)130:12(1314), 1314-1340.

Lacasse and Raadim (1987). “Comparison of truly undrained and constant volume direct

simple shear tests. Geotechnique”. Vol.37, No.1, pp. 3-10.

O’ Kelly., B. (2020). “S6 Offshore Engineering Module, Semester 2 2019/2020”. Trinity

College Dublin.

Reddy, K.R.; Saxena, S.K.; Budiman, J.S. (June 1992). "Development of A True Triaxial

Testing Apparatus". Geotechnical Testing Journal. ASTM. 15 (2): 89–105.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/development-of-a-new-hollow-cylinder-apparatus-for-generalised-

stress-path-testing-01-07-2003/

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-of-the-soil-sample-tested-in-the-Hollow-Cylinder-Apparatus-

wwwwfi-couk_fig1_305936749

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Breakdown-of-Soil-Structure-Interaction-of-Offshore-Wind-Turbines-into-

two-types-of_fig3_289585642
 CE7S06 – OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280225286_Development_of_a_New_Hollow_Cylinder_Apparatus_f

or_Stress_Path_Measurements_over_a_Wide_Strain_Range

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/67163/2003_Development%20of%20the%20UCD%20hollow%20

cylinder%20apparatus.pdf?sequence=1

https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/triaxial-shear-strength-test-procedure-advantages/3422/