Evaluation of p-y Approaches for Large Diameter Monopiles in Sand

Klaus Thieken, Martin Achmus, Katrin Lemke, Mauricio Terceros

Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, Leibniz University Hannover
Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany

ABSTRACT

For the design of monopile foundations, the soil resistance is usually modeled by the subgrade reaction method. The commonly used p-y
approach described in the offshore guidelines is generally assumed to be sufficiently accurate for slender piles with diameters D 2 m.
However, several investigations indicate that the pile deflections of large diameter monopiles are underestimated for extreme loads but
overestimated for small operational loads. A three dimensional finite element model is presented to evaluate the currently used p-y approach
for piles in sand under static loading conditions in dependence on the pile dimensions and soils relative density. In addition, modified p-y
formulations of Wiemann et al. (2004) and Kirsch et al. (2014) to account for the effect of the pile diameter are compared to the FE results.

KEY WORDS: wind energy converter, monopile, p-y curve, sand, proofs, the stiffness of the monopile foundation system under
foundation stiffness, small strain stiffness operational loads has to be determined. Considering this stiffness in a
dynamic analysis of the whole OWEC structure, it has to be ensured
that the eigenfrequencies of the wind turbine have a sufficient distance
INTRODUCTION to the main excitation frequencies of the dynamic loading. In that,
neither an overestimation nor an underestimation of foundation
Monopiles are currently the preferred support structure for offshore stiffness is in general conservative. An incorrect estimation of
wind energy converters (OWEC) in water depths less than thirty foundation stiffness results in an increase of uncertainties and leads to
meters. The cost-effective and relative simple manufacturing and additional but unnecessary costs. Moreover, in the worst case it could
installation process is a great advantage in comparison to lattice have a negative influence on the structural lifetime of the structure
structures like jackets or tripods. A monopile foundation (cf. Fig. 1) (Kallehave et al., 2012).
consists of a single steel pipe pile driven into the seabed. These large
diameter monopiles have to withstand large and discontinuous
horizontal forces H and bending moments M caused by wind and
wave actions. Large water depths and sizable wind turbines necessitate
large pile dimensions. Pile diameters more than D = 6 m have already
been realized and diameters up to D = 8 m are currently planned. The
relative pile length, i.e. the ratio of embedded pile length L to diameter
D, lies usually around L/D = 5.

In the design of the wind turbine, the ultimate limit state (ULS) and
the serviceability limit state (SLS) design proof have to be fulfilled. In
the ULS proof, a sufficient soil resistance has to be guaranteed to
ensure the structural safety of the wind turbine. Thereby, effects of
cyclic loading have to be considered, i.e. degradation in soil resistance
has to be accounted for. For the SLS proof, the deflections and
rotations under the characteristic extreme load cases (hereinafter:
extreme loads) have to stay below certain serviceability limits. In that,
also the accumulation of deflection due to cyclic loading has to be
considered (cf. Achmus et al., 2008). Beside these geotechnical design Fig. 1: Schematic sketch of an OWEC with monopile foundation

IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014 Thieken 1

In all design proofs it is common practice to use the subgrade reaction
method to simulate the occurring soil resistance p in dependence on
the horizontal displacement y. The soil is herein replaced by a number
of spring elements along the pile shaft (cf. Fig. 1). In most cases the
so-called p-y method, recommended in the offshore guidelines (OGL)
of the American Petroleum Institute (API, 2007) and Det Norske
Veritas (DNV, 2013), is used. Based on experience in the oil and gas
industry, the p-y method seems to be sufficiently accurate for slender
piles with diameters up to two meters. For larger pile diameters,
several investigations showed that the horizontal deflections of
monopiles are underestimated for extreme loads (cf. Achmus, 2011).
In contrast, experience from operating offshore wind farms with
monopiles indicate that the foundation stiffnesses for small operational
loads are significantly underestimated (Hald et al., 2009), (Kallehave
et al., 2012). Investigations on the accuracy of predicting the ultimate
resistance in dependence on the pile diameter are not known by the
authors. However, Thieken et al. (2014) showed that the ultimate
bedding resistance of the p-y method is, independent of the pile
diameter, conservative in conjunction with the German standard for
earth pressure (DIN 4085, 2007).
The determination of structural loads in a dynamic analysis of the
whole OWEC system is usually carried out by considering a linear
elastic system. Therefore it is necessary to derive constant spring
stiffness values from the non-linear system which characterizes the
system behavior under usual dynamic operational loads. The spring
stiffness can be determined with a typical operational load by
calculating the secant stiffness in the considered depth from the
resulting p and y values of the static p-y curves (Epy = p/y).
However, assuming that the deflections under such operational loads
remain small, the initial bedding stiffness of the p-y curves is used in
most cases. A degradation of initial bedding stiffness due to a repeated
(cyclic/ dynamic) loading is in general not taken into account. This
assumption is supported by model tests of LeBlanc et al. (2010),
which indicated that the un- and reloading system stiffness do not
decrease, but even slightly increase with the number of load cycles.
In contrast, the effects of cyclic loading have to be considered in the
ULS and the SLS design proof. Therefore, p-y curves which account
for these effects have to be used. However, these cyclic p-y curves
as given by the OGL or the EAP recommendations (EAP, 2012) are
based on the static p-y curves, i.e. consider the cyclic load case by
modifying the static curves. A deficient formulation of the static p-y
curves will therefore not only influence the foundation stiffness for the
dynamic analysis but also the estimated horizontal deflections and the
ultimate resistance of the monopile.
To evaluate the currently used static p-y approach according to the
offshore guidelines for the design of horizontal loaded piles of various
dimensions, three dimensional numerical simulations of a monopile
foundation in homogenous sand are presented. A comprehensive study
on the discrepancy between the numerical results and the results of the
p-y approach of the OGL is depicted. Furthermore, also modified p-y
approaches proposed in literature which shall account for the effects of
a large pile diameter are compared to the numerical results.
EVALUATED P-Y APPROACHES
All suggested p-y curves have nonlinear, soil- and depth-dependent
load-displacement characteristics. The p-y approach for non-cohesive
soil according to the offshore guidelines (OGL) is given as follows:
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
k z
p A p u tanh OGL y (1)
Apu
Here, A pu is the maximum bedding resistance which depends on the
internal friction angle , the overburden pressure and the pile
diameter D. A is a calibration factor which is specified to
A = 3.0 - 0.8 (z/D) 0.9 for static loading and A = 0.9 for cyclic
loading. z is the depth below ground surface and kOGL is an initial
stiffness coefficient, which depends on the angle of internal friction
or the relative density of the sand, respectively. A good approximation
of kOGL for depths below the water table (cf. Eq. 2) is introduced by
Augustesen et al. (2009). Analyzing Eq. 1, it can be easily derived that
kOGLz is the initial slope of the p-y curve, which is also termed the
initial bedding stiffness Epy.
k OGL MN / m 0.008085 2.45 26.09 for 29 ' 45 (2)
The mentioned p-y approach was derived based on several model and
field tests (Murchison & ONeill, 1984). The most famous field test and
also the largest one with a pile diameter of D = 0.61 m was conducted at
Mustang Island near to the Gulf of Mexico in 1974 (Reese et al., 1974;
Cox et al., 1974; see also section Back-calculation). It is a prevalent
misunderstanding that the p-y curves which Reese et al. developed based
on this test are identical to the approach presented in the OGL. Actually,
the two p-y approaches differ significantly, even if the initial stiffness
Epy and the ultimate resistance pu are almost identical. Altogether, the
comparative study of Murchison & ONeill included ten static and five
cyclic field tests of different kinds. Steel pipe piles and I-profiles as well
as square precast concrete piles and tapered timber piles, all of various
dimensions, were included in the study. The test results were compared
to a total of five different p-y approaches. For the evaluation of the
approaches, the differences in the horizontal resistances and the
corresponding bending moments were analyzed for a horizontal
displacement y = 0.01D. The respective deviations were summed for
every p-y approach and compared. Concluding, it was found that the
current p-y approach is suited best for the design. It has to be noted, that
no explicit consideration of the influence of the diameter was performed.
It is remarkable that the foundation stiffness of the largest and best
instrumented pile tests at Mustang Island is overestimated
significantly by the OGL method (cf. Fig. 5 and 6). As the p-y approach
of Reese et al. was calibrated only on the Mustang Island field tests, it
is understood that this approach results in a much softer behavior.
Fig. 2: Comparison of p-y curves for a small and a large diameter pile
Thieken 2
 Fig. 3: Quotient of initial stiffness coefficients kmodified / kOGL; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)
An exemplary comparison of the p-y curves for a small and a large
diameter pile in a single depth is presented in Fig. 2. The p-y approach
by Reese et al. divides the p-y curve into four sections. In the first
section, the p-y curve is identical to the OGL formulation, as the
identical initial bedding stiffness is assumed. In the second section, a
parabolic curve is proposed crossing over to a linear course. The linear
increase is limited by the ultimate bedding resistance, which is again
almost identical to the OGL formulation. For more details with regard to
the construction of the p-y curves see Reese et al. (1974).
A modification of the OGL method to account for an overestimation
of bedding stiffness under extreme loads is proposed by Wiemann et
al. (2004). Wiemann recommends reducing the initial stiffness of the
OGL p-y curves while considering the same basic approach (cf. Eq.
1). The initial stiffness coefficient kWiemann depends on the initial
stiffness coefficient according to the offshore guidelines kOGL, the pile
diameter D and the soil stiffness exponent a as follows:
41a
D 4 a
k Wiemann k OGL ref (3)
D
The reference pile diameter is set identical to the diameter of the
Mustang Island test Dref = 0.61 m. Hence, the p-y curve in Fig. 2
(top) is identical to the curve of the OGL. The exponent is
recommended to a = 0.5 for very dense sand and a = 0.6 for medium
dense sand. In Fig. 3 (left), the resulting kWiemann are compared to the
corresponding values of the offshore guidelines kOGL. It becomes
obvious, that the stiffness coefficient from the Wiemann et al.
formulation becomes considerably smaller with increasing diameter D.
A further modified initial stiffness formulation to counteract the
overestimation of bedding stiffness for extreme loads is introduced by
Srensen (2012). Here, the initial stiffness coefficient kSrensen depends
on the depth z, the soil stiffness Es and the pile diameter D (cf. Eq. 4).
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
b c d
1 z D Es
k Srensen a (4)
D E
z z ref ref s,ref
For the dimensionless constants b, c and d the values b = 0.3, c = 0.5
and d = 0.8 are recommended. The reference stiffness a = 1 MPa is
valid for a reference depth zref = 1 m, a reference pile diameter
Dref = 1 m and a reference soil stiffness Es,ref = 1 MPa. The soil
stiffness Es is considered likewise to the numerical simulations by
using Eq. 14. It is understood, that differing soil stiffnesses would
cause differing reductions in the initial stiffness coefficient k.
However, the chosen soil stiffness formulation is assumed to give
reasonable results at least for locations of OWECs in the North Sea.
An overview of the quotient kSrensen / kOGL is given in Fig. 3.
Evidently, the reduction of the initial stiffness coefficient is even
larger than it results from the Wiemann et al. formulation. Therefore,
also the Srensens formulation leads to significantly softer p-y
curves than it results from the p-y approach of the OGL. Please note
that Srensen proposed a comparable formulation already two years
before (Srensen et al., 2010) which yields, however, differing results
(cf. Achmus et al., 2014).
Kallehave et al. (2012) suggested a modified initial stiffness
formulation (Eq. 5) to avoid an underestimation of stiffness under
small operational loads and should therefore also be valid for a
primary initial loading in general (cf. Thieken & Achmus, 2013).
m 0.5
1 z D
k Kallehave k OGL z 0
D
(5)
z z0 0
The recommended initial stiffness coefficient depends on the initial
bedding stiffness according to the offshore guidelines (kOGLz0) in a
reference depth z0 = 2.5 m. The dimensionless parameter m, which
Thieken 3
rules the course with depth z, is suggested to be 0.6. The reference
diameter is given to the diameter of the Mustang Island test
D0 = 0.61 m. Overall, the proposed formulation results in a
considerably stiffer behavior than the formulation of the offshore
guidelines. The resulting initial stiffness coefficients are also
compared to the values of the offshore guidelines (cf. Fig. 3). In
comparison to the OGL method, a strong increase can be found
especially in small depths below the surface z.
Kirsch et al. (2014) proposed a p-y approach to account for an
underestimation of foundation stiffness under small operational loads
and an underestimation of pile deflection for extreme loads
simultaneously. In contrast to the p-y formulations presented before,
the Kirsch et al. formulation shall also include the effects of a cyclic
loading. Therefore, the results of this approach are not completely
comparable to the considered static approach of the OGL and the
conducted numerical simulations. However, based on the assumption
that the foundation stiffness due to small dynamic loading does not
degrade with the number of load cycles, the approach should be able
to catch the foundation stiffness for small load levels. Regarding the
load bearing behavior for larger load levels, the predicted pile
deflections should be larger than it results from the static
calculations as the Kirsch et al. formulation purports to account for an
accumulation of pile deflection due to cyclic loading.
Because of the consideration of cyclic loading, the approach is based
on the cyclic p-y curves of the OGL (identical kOGL, A = 0.9, cf.
Eq. 1). Furthermore, the ultimate bedding resistance pu and the basic
value of the initial bedding stiffness coefficient kred (using Eq. 2) are
determined based on a reduced friction angle red (cf. Eq. 6). Here, the
diameter D must be set in meter and the internal friction angle in
degree to obtain red also in degree.
'red '0.50 D 2 (6)
Beside kred, the initial stiffness coefficient of the Kirsch et al.
formulation kKirsch depends on the ratio of dynamic to static soil
stiffness modulus Esd / Es and the ratio of bedding resistance to
ultimate bedding resistance p / pu :
p E sd
k Kirsch k red 1 1
E 1 (7)
p u s
The dependency of the initial stiffness coefficient on the bedding
resistance utilization ratio results indirectly in a complete new shape
of the p-y curve (cf. Fig. 2). A quite large initial stiffness becomes
obvious (cf. also Fig. 3) which degrades with increasing bedding
resistance and finally crosses over to a reduced ultimate bedding
resistance. Please note that likewise to the Srensen formulation the
change in bedding stiffness is dependent on the considered soil
stiffness. Here, the static soil stiffness modulus Es is scheduled
according to Eq. 14 and the dynamic soil stiffness modulus Esd is
converted from the dynamic shear modulus G0 given in Eq. 8.
Additionally to the p-y approaches, a three dimensional numerical
study on the foundation stiffness of monopiles under small operational
loads by Thieken & Achmus (2013) is to be pointed out. In a
comprehensive study it is shown that the foundation stiffness depends
strongly on the considered horizontal head displacement. For very
small loads the foundation stiffness was found to be underestimated by
the approach of the OGL. In contrast, the stiffness for larger loads was
smaller in comparison to the OGL approach. However, in this study a
quite time-consuming iterative calculation procedure was used to
account for the strain-dependency of soil stiffness.
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
In the following, the modified formulations of Wiemann et al. (2004)
and Kirsch et al. (2014) shall be evaluated with the results of
numerical simulations. The approaches of Srensen (2012) and
Kallehave et al. (2012) were already compared to these numerical
results in Achmus et al. (2014). Concluding, both modified initial
stiffness formulations were found to be not generally suitable for the
design of large diameter monopiles.
NUMERICAL MODEL
A three-dimensional numerical model of a monopile foundation
system is developed using the finite element program PLAXIS 3D
(Brinkgreve et al., 2013). With regard to the symmetry of both
geometrical and loading conditions, only one half of the monopile
foundation is modeled in order to reduce computational effort.
Preliminary analyses focused on the mesh fineness and model
dimensions to reach sufficiently accurate results and avoid an impact
of the boundary conditions. The reference system is discretized with
73407 elements. The mesh is refined in a volume which is defined by
surfaces located at a distance of 1.5D around the pile. As PLAXIS
simulates the cylindrical pile with triangular elements, a large number
of elements in one row is necessary to avoid a peak out at the corners.
Through the refinement close to the pile, 24 elements per row could be
reached. An exemplary mesh of the finite element model with is
presented in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4: Finite element mesh used in the simulations (D = 5m, L = 25m)
The monopile is modeled as an open tubular steel pile with a wall
thickness t. The steel material properties E = 210 GPa, = 0.27 were
applied, where E and represent the modulus of elasticity and
Poissons ratio of steel material, respectively. The monopile is
extended above the soil surface with a rigid pile to enable the
application of the horizontal and moment loading by a single
horizontal load H with a load eccentricity h. An elasto-plastic contact
is implemented between the inside and the outside of the steel pile and
the adjacent soil. The maximum shear stress in the contact surface max
results from the product of the horizontal stress H and the contact
friction angle = 2/3.
The calculation is done in several steps. In the first step the initial
stress state is generated by consideration of soil elements only. The
horizontal stress H is defined by a coefficient of horizontal earth
pressure at rest k0 = 1 - sin . Subsequently, the predefined elements
defining the monopile geometry are replaced by steel elements
representing the structure. In the same step, the contact between the
pile and the surrounding soil is activated. In a third step, the load is
applied by assigning the point load to the center of a rigid top plate.
Thieken 4
Constitutive model
The incorporated moduli E50 and Eur are calculated based on the
For the modeling of the soil, the HSsmall model according to Benz oedometric modulus Eoed using Eq. 15 and 16.
(Benz, 2006) was used. This soil model is an upgrade of the E 50 1 2 / 1 E oed (15)
sophisticated Hardening Soil Model according to Schanz (Schanz,
1998) which enables for instances the consideration of the stress- E ur 3 E 50 (16)
dependency of soil stiffness. The HSsmall model is additionally able The soil parameters used in the simulations are presented in Table 1 in
to account for the strain dependency of soil stiffness, being crucial for dependence of the relative density.
the description of the bearing behavior under small loads.
Table 1: Soil parameters used in the simulations
For very small shear strains ( < 10-6), the soil stiffness is described by
the dynamic shear modulus G0. For determination of G0, an approach Description Parameter Medium dense Very dense
presented by the German Geotechnical Society (DGGT, 2002) was
Buoyant unit weight ' [kN/m] 9.76 10.31
used (Eq. 8). This formulation is valid for poorly grained sandy soils
with rounded grain shapes, which are mostly found in German Friction angle ' [] 35.0 40.0
offshore wind farm areas. The dynamic shear modulus G0 depends on Dilatancy [] 5.0 10.0
void ratio e and a mean principal stress m defined by the effective Cohesion c' [kN/m] 0.1 0.1
stress components 1, 2, 3. Here stresses must be set in kPa to
Stiffness parameter [-] 400 700
obtain G0 in kPa. For constant void ratio, the dynamic shear modulus
is increased stress-dependent by the power of G0. Stiffness parameter Eoed [-] 0.6 0.5
Void ratio e [1] 0.69 0.60
G 0 6900
2.17 e2 1 ' 2 '3 G0
(8) Stiffness parameter G0 [-] 0.5 0.5
1 e 3
Poissons ratio [-] 0.25 0.20
For the description of the stiffness degradation with shear strain,
Santos & Correia (2001) suggested to use the following formulation,
which is also implemented in PLAXIS3D. Extraction of bedding resistance in PLAXIS3D
G 1
(9) The extraction of bedding resistance(4)along the pile shaft in
G 0 1 0.385 / ref PLAXIS3D is quite labor-intensive. The main problem is that
Therefore, the ratio between the actual shear modulus G and the PLAXIS offers the bedding resistance only in terms of contact stresses
dynamic shear modulus G0 depends on the value of shear strain . The in normal and orthogonal direction at the stress points (weight factors
reference shear strain ref corresponds to a secant shear modulus which of the stress points can be found in: Dunavant, 1985). In consequence,
is reduced to 72.2 % of its initial value and is chosen to ref = 10-4 as it the stresses have to be transformed in a global coordinate system and
is common practice. For large shear strains, the degradation is limited integrated for the considered pile section. This is a challenging task as
by the static soil stiffness. The Hardening Soil Model distinguishes the elements are usually of different size and the values are given in
three moduli which are the secant stiffness in a drained triaxial test tabular form more or less randomly. If p-y curves shall be created,
E50, the tangent stiffness for primary oedometric loading Eoed and the several loading steps have to be analyzed. Besides, also the deflection
un- and reloading stiffness at engineering strains Eur. All moduli are lines and the bending moments of the pile have to be extracted from
based on a stress-dependent power law with an exponent m and a stress point data in tabular form. It is desirable that PLAXIS3D in
reference stress pref. Note that the oedometric stiffness Eoed depends on future offers the possibility to output the soil resistance force or the
the major principal stress 1 instead of the minor principal stress 3. deflection line of a connected structure directly.

E oed E oed
ref
'1 / p ref m (10)
BACK-CALCULATION OF MUSTANG ISLAND TEST
E 50 ref
E 50 '3 / p ref
m
(11)

ur '3 / p ref
E ur E ref m
(12)
G 0 G 0ref '3 / p ref m (13)
Whereas the dynamic shear modulus G0 is fitted according to Eq. 8,
the modulus Eoed is adapted to the stress-dependent oedometric
stiffness formulation presented in Eq. 14. Thereby, the parameter
defines the soil stiffness at the reference pressure at = 100 kPa and
Eoed rules the stress dependency with regard to the mean principal
stress m. The parameters and are selected in dependence of the
relative density (cf. Table 1). These combinations are assumed to give
reasonable results at least in many German wind farm areas.
E oed at m / at Eoed (14) well as a course of bending moments along the pile shaft (cf. Fig. 6)
In PLAXIS the power m and the reference stress p ref are likewise valid
for all four moduli. To reach a best possible fit between the input
parameters in PLAXIS 3D and the assumptions in Eq. 8 and Eq. 14,
the (homogenous) soil has to be divided into layers if different
exponents of stress dependency (G0 Eoed) shall be considered.
As stated before, the Mustang Island test is the largest and best
instrumented pile test considered for the p-y approach of the offshore
guidelines. In consequence, the mentioned test described by Cox et al.
(1974) was also used for the validation of the numerical model. The
test pile had an embedded length L = 21 m, a diameter D = 0.61 m and
a wall thickness t = 9.52 mm. The soil conditions were specified as
dense, poorly graded sand with a friction angle = 39.3 and a
buoyant unit weight = 10.37 kN/m3. The soil conditions are
therefore quite similar to the very dense sand assumed. This enables
the usage of the identical stiffness parameters for the back-calculation.
Reese et al. (1974) presented a load deflection curve (cf. Fig. 5) as
which were determined by strain measurements on the pile. A good
agreement between the numerical back-calculations and the field test
is obtained. Besides, a quite well agreement between the results of
Thieken & Achmus (2013) and the numerical simulations performed
here can be found. Concluding, the numerical model seems to be
suitable for the determination of the monopiles load bearing behavior.

IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014 Thieken 5


Fig. 5: Load-displacement curves for the Mustang Island test
Furthermore, the field tests are back-calculated with the considered
p-y approaches. For the calculations, the program IGtHPile (Terceros,
2014) was used. As expected, the approach of Reese et al. coincides
very well with the field tests. In contrast, the current p-y approach of
the offshore guidelines predicts a significantly stiffer behavior for
large horizontal displacements (reasons are described before in section
Evaluated p-y approaches). The overestimation in soil resistance of
the OGL approach results additionally in a smaller reduction of the
bending moment with increasing depth (Fig. 6). The approach of
Wiemann et al. is identical to the approach of the OGL due to the pile
diameter D = Dref = 0.61m. The Kirsch et al. approach predicts a much
stiffer load bearing behavior, especially for small load levels. Please
remember that the Kirsch et al. approach is expected to predict smaller
resistances due to the consideration of cyclic loading.
Fig. 6: Corresponding bending moment for the Mustang Island test
RESULTS FOR A REFERENCE SYSTEM
First, the results for a reference system shall be presented and
discussed in detail. The reference system consists of a monopile with a
diameter D = 5 m, an embedded length L = 25 m and a wall thickness
t = 68.9 mm embedded in medium dense sand. The eccentricity of the
horizontal load H is chosen to h = 25 m. The horizontal resistances at
mudline are depicted in terms of load-displacement curves and secant
stiffness (Ksec = H / y) displacement curves in Fig. 7. Please note the
different range of horizontal displacements in both figures.
Evidently, the numerical simulations predict a strong dependency of
the foundation stiffness on the horizontal head displacement y. For
small head displacements, the numerical simulation gives larger
resistances than the p-y approach according to the offshore guidelines.
In contrast, for larger head displacements, the resistance resulting
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
from FEM is smaller than from the OGL approach. For head
displacements y > 20 mm, the resistance is even smaller than it results
from the p-y approach of Wiemann et al. The resistance predicted by
the approach of Kirsch et al. is significantly larger than from the
numerical simulations. Due to the smaller ultimate bedding resistances
and the degradation (cf. Eq. 7) of the initial stiffness coefficient, the
difference to the FEM results is decreasing with increasing head
displacement y.
Fig. 7: Horizontal resistances for the reference system
In Fig. 8, the correspondig secant bedding stiffnesses (Epy = p / y) for
two pile head displacements are presented. Please note that E py values
resulting from the Kirsch et al. approach are depicted by using a
secondary axis to reach a meaningful presentation. For a head
displacement y = 2.5 mm (at mudline) the bedding stiffness is overall
comparable to the stiffness resulting from the approach of the OGL.
The extreme values in the numerical simulations are due to the point
of rotation and the pile tip which strongly influences the load transfer
into the soil. Due to the very small deflection occurring near to the
point of rotation, this effect is only of marginal meaning to the bearing
behavior. By contrast, the effect of the pile toe shearing will contribute
significantly to the foundation resistance. The results of the OGL and
the Reese et al. approach for the small head displacement are identical
due to identical initial stiffness formulation underlying. The approach
of Wiemann et al. underestimates the bedding stiffness whereas the
approach of Kirsch et al. significantly overestimates Epy. For larger
head displacements, the stiffness resulting from the numerical
simulation is strongly decreased and even smaller than it results from
the Wiemann et al. approach. It is understood that the bedding
stiffness resulting from the p-y methods depend on the respective
deflections, i.e. the bedding stiffness decreases with increasing
deflection as specified by the p-y formulation.
Fig.8: Comparison of secant bedding stiffness for the reference system
Thieken 6
PARAMETRIC STUDY
In the following a comprehensive parametric study on the validity of
the mentioned p-y approaches in dependency on the pile dimension
and the relative density of the soil is presented. For this purpose, the
numerical model was extrapolated to a total of 224 pile-soil systems.
Horizontal loaded piles with diameters in a range of D = 0.5 - 8 m and
relative lengths L/D = 4 - 10 are considered. To enable a meaningful
evaluation of the p-y approaches in dependence on the pile
dimensions, the load eccentricity h and the wall thickness are
normalized with the pile diameter D. Here, the wall thickness is set to
t [mm] = 0.0125D [mm] + 6.35 [mm] and the load eccentricity is
arranged to five times the pile diameter.
The results of the parametric study are given in terms of contour plots
in Figs. 9 - 12. Black dots in the figures indicate the supporting points
of the contour plots, representing each a calculation result. Here, the
quotients of the horizontal load resulting from the p-y approaches and
the numerical simulations (Hp-y / HFEM) are presented. In consequence,
a value larger than one means that the p-y approach results in a stiffer
behavior than the FEM. Normalized head displacements y = 0.0005D,
0.01D and 0.03D are considered to give the best possible view of the
occurring discrepancy with regard to the horizontal resistance. Based
on the presentation in Fig. 7 it is understood that, especially for small
horizontal head displacements, the determined discrepancy will
strongly vary with the considered head displacement. However, this
presentation enables the characterization of the considered p-y
approaches with regard to the validity for piles of arbitrary dimension.
The approach by Wiemann et al. applies to large diameter monopiles
and extreme loads as considered in the SLS design proof. As the
authors give no explicit limitations with regard to pile dimensions or
load levels, the approach is compared to all systems analyzed.
Comparison to the approach of the offshore guidelines
For the smallest normalized head displacement y = 0.0005D (Fig. 9,
left) an almost constant overestimation of foundation stiffness can be
found for pile diameters larger than three meters, if very dense sand is
assumed. For medium dense sand, almost identical stiffnesses based
on the two methods occur. Independent of the relative density, the
stiffness is underestimated for small diameter piles. For larger head
displacements, an overestimation of foundation stiffness occurs for all
systems considered. Thereby, the pile dimensions have much more
influence than the relative density of the soil. The overestimation
becomes maximal for a large pile diameter and a small relative length,
which coincides to the dimensions of typical monopiles. Here, a
maximum value of 2.2 becomes obvious, which means that the
resistance from the numerical simulations is not even half of the
resistance predicted by the approach of the offshore guidelines.
Comparison to the approach of Reese et al. (1974)
As the initial stiffness formulation is identical to the OGL approach, it
is clear that the same results occur for small head displacements. For
larger head displacements, the qualitative distribution of discrepancies
remains identical. However, the predicted resistances for piles with
diameters D 1.5m are up to 50 % larger than it results from the
numerical simulation. In contrast, very similar results are achieved for
small pile diameters (cf. Fig. 10).
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
Comparison to the approach of Wiemann et al. (2004)
For small head displacements, the approach of Wiemann et al. results
especially for small relative lengths in significantly smaller foundation
stiffnesses than the FEM (Fig. 11). For head displacements y = 0.01D,
a relative constant overestimation of foundation resistance below 30 %
can be found for pile diameters larger than D = 3 m. For smaller pile
diameters the discrepancies increase till they exceed the values
resulting from the OGL approach for D = 0.5 m. For larger head
displacements, the overestimation of pile head deflection is increasing
especially for relative pile lengths in a range about 5 - 6.
Comparison to the approach of Kirsch et al. (2014)
The approach of Kirsch et al. results in a quite large overestimation of
foundation resistance for small head displacements in a range of
40-100%. Also for larger head displacements, a considerable
overestimation of resistance is found which becomes maximum for
piles with diameters smaller than D = 4 m. However, the
overestimation for typical monopiles lies in a range between 40-100%.
It must be remembered that Kirsch et al. purport to consider an
accumulation of pile deflection due to cyclic loading. In fact, the
overestimation of resistance for typical monopiles is comparable to the
results of the static approaches of Reese et al. (2004) and Wiemann et
al. (2004). For smaller pile diameters, the overestimation is even
larger than it results from these static approaches.
Evaluation of current p-y formulations
It can be concluded, that none of the current p-y formulations is
generally suitable for the design of large diameter monopiles without
additional calibration on the considered pile-soil system and load
level. It is to be expected that a simple modification of the initial
stiffness coefficient of the OGL approach is not the way to success. A
complete new p-y curve formulation is needed, which is able to
account for the stiffer behavior under small head displacements and
the softer behavior under large head displacements. A schematic
course of such a realistic p-y curve in comparison to the current p-y
curves is presented in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13: Schematic distribution of a realistic p-y curve
In general, the approach of Kirsch et al. could be able to fulfill this
requirement due to a load level dependent initial stiffness formulation.
However, the current formulation behaves much too stiff which is
caused by the consideration of the dynamic soil stiffness for the whole
range of horizontal displacements (cf. Eq. 7). This is in strong contrast
to experience after which the dynamic soil stiffness has only influence
under small loads or shear strains in the soil, respectively. Furthermore
it could be more meaningful to develop a formulation which leads
directly to the shape of the p-y curve instead of obscure it in the tanh-
formulation of the OGL.
Thieken 7
Fig. 9: Quotient of horizontal resistance based on the p-y approach by the OGL and FEM; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)

Fig. 10: Quotient of horizontal resistance based on p-y approach by Reese et al. and FEM; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)

IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014 Thieken 8

Fig. 11: Quotient of horizontal resistance based on p-y approach by Wiemann et al. and FEM; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)

Fig. 12: Quotient of horizontal resistance based on p-y approach by Kirsch et al. and FEM; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)

IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014 Thieken 9

CONCLUSIONS
The p-y method is usually applied for the determination of soil
resistance in the design of monopile foundations. The considered p-y
curves affect both the magnitude of the monopile deformation under
extreme loads (SLS proof) and the foundation stiffness - which
influences the structural loading in a dynamic analysis - under small
operational loads. Beside the p-y approach of the offshore guidelines,
several modified p-y approaches which shall account for the effect of
a large pile diameter are recommended in the literature.
For the evaluation of the mentioned p-y approaches, three dimensional
numerical simulations of a monopile foundation in homogenous sand
were executed. The model included a strain-dependent stiffness
formulation which enables a realistic determination of the pile-soil
system stiffness under small loads. The numerical model is validated
successfully on the Mustang Island field test, which was previously
also included in the calibration of the OGL approach. A
comprehensive parametric study on the discrepancy between the
results based on the p-y approaches and the FEM results is depicted.
The following main conclusions can be drawn.
The foundation stiffness is strongly dependent on the pile head
displacements occurring under the considered load, reflecting the
non-linearity in the load-bearing behavior of the pile-soil system.
This is in particular valid for small loads.
For small head displacements, the numerical derived foundation
stiffness is larger than it results from the approach by the offshore
guidelines. However, the stiffness is much smaller than predicted
by the approach of Kirsch et al. (2014).
For large head displacements, the foundation stiffness is smaller
than it results from the approach of the offshore guidelines and
even falls below the results of the approach by Wiemann et al.
(2004). Even if the approach of Kirsch et al. (2014) purports to
account for an accumulation of pile deflection due to cyclic loads,
the resistance is significant larger than predicted by FEM.
Concluding, none of the current p-y approaches fit suitable with the
results of the numerical simulations under arbitrary pile dimensions,
soil conditions and load levels. Even if the numerical simulations have
their own uncertainties and the relation between the relative density
and the assumed soil stiffnesses is not generally valid, the results,
however, clearly indicate that the current approaches are not generally
suitable for the design of large diameter monopiles. A new p-y
formulation is needed which does not exhibit underestimation of
foundation stiffness for small operational loads and overestimation for
extreme loads.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was partly carried out in the scope of the research project
GIGAWINDlife funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy (BMWI). The authors sincerely acknowledge
BMWI support.
REFERENCES
Achmus, M. (2011). Bemessung von Monopiles fr die Grndung von
Offshore-Windenergieanlagen, Bautechnik, 88 (9), pp. 602-616
(in German).
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
Achmus, M., Kuo, Y.-S., Abdel-Rahman, K. (2008). On the design of
monopiles with respect to cyclic loads, Bauingenieur (83),
pp. 303-311.
Achmus, M., Thieken, K., Lemke, K. (2014). "Evaluation of p-y
Approaches for Large Diameter Monopiles in Sand", Proceedings of
the 24th Internal Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
(ISOPE), Busan, South Korea.
American Petroleum Institute - API (2007). Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms -
Working Stress Design, RP 2A-WSD, Version December 2000 and
errata and supplement October 2007.
Augustesen A.H., Brodbaek, K.T., Moeller, M., Soerensen, S.P.H,
Ibsen, L.B., Pedersen, T.S., Andersen, L. (2009). Numerical
Modeling of Large-Diameter Steel Piles at Horns Rev, Proc. of the
12th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environment
Engineering Computing, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper No. 239.
Benz, T. (2006). Small Strain Stiffness of Soils and its Numerical
Consequences, Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Engin, E., Swolfs, W.M. (2013). PLAXIS 3D 2013
Manual.
Cox, W.R., Reese, L.C., Grubbs, B.R. (1974). Field Testing of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference (OTC), USA, Paper No. OTC 2079.
Det Norske Veritas - DNV (2013). Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101,
Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, January 2013.
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Geotechnik e.V. - DGGT (2002).
Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises Baugrunddynamik. Eigenverlag:
Grundbauinstitut der Technischen Universitt Berlin (in German).
Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Geotechnik e.V. - DGGT (2012).
Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises Pfhle (EA-Pfhle), Berlin: Erst &
Sohn, 2. Auflage (in German).
Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V - DIN (2007). DIN 4085:2007-10:
Baugrund - Berechnung des Erddrucks, (in German).
Dunavant, D.A. (1985). High degree efficient symmetrical Gaussian
quadrature rules for the triangle. International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering, No. 21, pp. 1129-1148.
Hald, T., Mrch, C., Jensen, L., LeBlanc Bakmar, C., Ahle, L. (2009).
Revisting monopile design using p-y curve results from full scale
measurements on Horns Rev. DONG Energy A/S. European
Offshore Wind Conference & Exhibition (EWEA).
Kallehave D., LeBlanc Thilsted, C., Liingaard M.A. (2012).
Modification of the API p-y formulation of initial stiffness of sand.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference Offshore Site
Investigation and Geotechnics, London.
Kirsch, F., Richter, T., Coronel, M. (2014). Geotechnische Aspekte bei
der Grndungsbemessung von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen auf
Monopfhlen mit sehr groen Durchmessern. Stahlbau Spezial 2014
Erneuerbare Energien, pp. 61-67 (in German).
LeBlanc, C., Houlsby, G.T., Byrne, B.W. (2010). Response of stiff
piles in sand to longterm cyclic lateral loading, Gotechnique, Vol. 60
(2), pp. 79-90.
Murchison, J.M., ONeill, M.W. (1984). Evaluation of p-y-
Relationship in Cohesionless Soils. Analysis and Design of Pile
Foundations, Editor J.R. Meyer, ASCE, NewYork, pp. 174-191.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., Koop, F.D. (1974). Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Sand. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, USA, Paper No. OTC 2080.
Santos, J.A., Correia, A.G. (2001). Reference threshold shear strain of
soil and its application to obtain a unique strain-dependent shear
modulus curve for soil. Proc. of 15th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 267-270.
Srensen, S.P.H., Ibsen, L.B, Augustesen, A.H. (2010). Effects of
diameter on initial stiffness of p-y curves for large-diameter piles in
Thieken 10
 sand. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 907-912.
Srensen, S.P.H. (2012). Soil-structure interaction for non-slender,
large-diameter offshore monopiles. PhD Thesis, Aalborg University
Denmark, Department of Civil Engineering.
Schanz, T. (1998). Zur Modellierung des Mechanischen Verhaltens
von Reibungsmaterialien, Habilitation, University of Stuttgart
(in German).
Thieken, K., Achmus, M. (2013). Small strain effects on the stiffness of
monopile foundations in sand, International Symposium on
Computational Geomechanics (ComGeoIII), Poland.
IJOPE Paper CG-09 (revised) 18.12.2014
View publication stats
Thieken, K., Achmus, M., Schmoor, K. (2014). On the ultimate limit
state design proof for laterally loaded piles, Geotechnik 37 (1).
Terceros, M. (2014). IGtHPile Software & Calculation Examples.
http://www.igth.uni-hannover.de/downloads
Wiemann, J., Lesny, K., Richwien, W. (2004). Evaluation of the Pile
Diameter Effects on Soil-Pile Stiffness. Proceedings of the 7th
German Wind Energy Conference (DEWEK), Wilhelmshaven.
Thieken 11