Forum
Important Notice for New User Registrations
To combat an increasing number of spam and bot registrations, we now manually approve all new user registrations. While this may cause a delay until your account is approved, this step is essential to ensure the quality and security of this forum.
To help us verify your registration as legitimate, please use a clear name as user name or an official email address (such as a work, university, or similar address). If you’re concerned that we may not recognize your registration as non-spam, feel free to email us at with a request to approve your username.
Seabed Stiffness vs Subconstraints definition at the .str file
Hi all,
I tried to run a simulation for monopile, and evaluate the Fz reaction at the pile tip. I compared the Fz reaction when the Seabed Stiffness [N/m^3] parameters in the simulation parameter is really high vs really low, but seems like there is no difference in the Fz reaction.
Afterwards, I remove the DoF_tZ restrain at the subconstraint definition in the .str file, and put a massive value on the Seabed Stiffness parameter above. But now matter how much I put, seems like the turbine is not stable without this constraint. I wonder where this Seabed Stiffness value affect the results then?Any leads?
Regards,
Fredo
Hi Fredo,
the seabed stiffness model, and its parameters only affect the seabed interaction of mooring lines in QBlade.
If you aim to model the soil dynamics you can either use a distributed springs or a superelement approach, instead of the rigid constraint at the bottom of the monopile.
Checkout the IEA 15MW Monopile model in the Downloads section for an example on using distributed springs, or the section on Superelements in the documentation.
BR,
David
Hi David,
Thank you for the clarification that seabed stiffness model and its parameters only affect the seabed interaction of mooring lines. It answered my question. Yes Indeed. I was looking at the same monopile example.
Regards,
Fredo
