APPLICATION OF A NUMERICAL-BASED DESIGN METHOD

FOR LATERALLY LOADED MONOPILES IN LAYERED SOILS

Y He
AECOM, Birmingham, UK; formerly Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;
Email: yiling.he@yahoo.com
BW Byrne and HJ Burd
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract
The Pile Soil Analysis (PISA) project, established to improve design methods for laterally loaded monopiles
for offshore wind turbines (OWTs), proposes two new one-dimensional (1D) design methods: (a) a rule-based
method similar to existing design standard approaches, and (b) a numerical-based method drawing on the
results of three dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) computations. This paper examines the applicability of
the numerical-based method for analysing monopile response in layered soil conditions. Soil reaction
components were extracted from 3D FE through a calibration exercise on homogeneous soils, parameterised
to develop soil reaction curves, with these curves then incorporated into a 1D beam model for predicting pile
responses in layered soils. Good agreement in the ultimate capacity and initial stiffness between the results
obtained using the calibrated 1D model and the 3D FE simulations provided evidence that the numerical-
based method is applicable for layered soil analyses. Further insights into layering were obtained by
comparing soil reaction components extracted from layered soil analyses to those from homogeneous soil
analyses.

1. Introduction methods for large diameter monopiles (Byrne et al.,

Monopile foundations are the major foundation type 2015a, b; Zdravković et al., 2015). Two design
for OWTs, being used for over 75% share of the UK procedures, the rule-based method (equation based)
market (Doherty and Gavin, 2011). They typically and the numerical-based method (calibration through
comprise large diameter (4 to 10m) steel tubes with finite element calculations), are proposed.
relatively low slenderness ratios (L/D < 10). Because
OWT operation is sensitive to tilting and rotation of
the foundation, the design of monopiles must satisfy
strict pile head deflection and rotation tolerances
(e.g. as described in design standards).

The recommended approach for lateral pile design

(e.g. in the API and DNV standards) is the p-y
method, originally developed for long and slender
piles used in the oil and gas industry (Matlock,
1970; Reese et al., 1974). It is now recognised that
extrapolating these methods to monopile geometries
appropriate to wind turbines may not be entirely
appropriate (e.g. Roesen et al., 2011; Doherty and
Gavin, 2011; Byrne et al., 2015a). For example,
evidence from full-scale field measurements (Hald
et al., 2009) demonstrates that current p-y methods
underestimate the stiffness of measured pile lateral
response, identifying that current design methods are Figure 1: Soil reaction components and the 1D beam model
(excessively) conservative. A joint-industry project proposed by the PISA project (Byrne et al., 2015a)
–PISA– was established to develop improved design
The PISA methodology decomposes the pile-soil
interaction into four components. In addition to the
distributed lateral soil reaction acting on the pile
shaft (i.e. corresponding to the conventional p-y
response) there is a distributed moment acting along
the pile due to shear tractions developed at the pile-
soil interface. A horizontal force and a moment is
developed across the pile annulus and soil plug at
the pile base. The four soil reaction components are
incorporated into a 1D beam model as illustrated in
Figure 1 (Byrne et al., 2015a).
Most design guidelines for laterally loaded piles do
not explicitly account for soil layering. In practice, it
is common for monopiles to be embedded in layered
soils, for example at Kentish Flats and Barrow
offshore wind farms in the UK, and Lely and Irene
offshore wind farms in Netherlands (Arany et al.,
2016). The potential effects of soil layering on pile
capacity and deflection are not well documented in
the literature. Pile responses in a two-layer system
under small working loads was first investigated by
Davisson and Gill (1963) using a linear p-y method.
This approach is not appropriate for cases where
ultimate limit states need to be considered. Reese et
al. (1981) conducted small-scale model tests and a
field test on slender piles in layered soils, and found
that there was relatively good agreement between
experimental results and predictions using the non-
linear p-y curves derived from homogeneous soil
analyses at the same depth.
Georgiadis (1983) proposed an ‘equivalent depth’
concept for developing p-y curves for layered soils.
The p-y curves for the lower soil layer are
determined using expressions derived from
homogeneous soil analyses that account for the
equivalent depths of the overlying layers. This
method has been incorporated in the commercial pile
design software LPILE (LPILE User’s Manual,
2013).
Ashour et al. (1998) proposed a semi-empirical
strain wedge approach to develop p-y curves for
layered soils, and the predictions indicated a good
match with full-scale test results. Yang and Jeremić
(2002) extracted p-y curves from 3D FE analyses on
a single pile in clay-sand interbedded deposits, and
suggested that the soil layering has an effect in both
the lower and the upper layers.
The study reported in this paper provides a
preliminary study on the application of the PISA
numerical-based method to analysis of laterally
loaded monopiles in layered soils. Two sets of
homogeneous soil reaction curves, for clay and for
sand, were required as input for the layered soil
analyses. The development and calibration of these
soil reaction curves followed the procedure
described in Byrne et al. (2015a). The overall
methodology adopted for the study is given in
Figure 2. The first step in the process was to conduct
the “calibration” finite element calculations, to
determine the soil reaction curves, completed for the
two homogeneous soil cases, across a small set of
representative geometries. These were then
combined for the layered soil case, and compared
against a finite element calculation specific to the
layered case. The study adopted simplified forms of
the parameterised expressions, consistent with the
limited scope and focus of the study.
Figure 2: Flowchart of the methodology adopted in this study
2. 3D finite element models
2.1 General description
The 3D FE models were developed using the
commercial software Abaqus (Abaqus/Standard,
Version 6.13). A circular pile with cross-sectional
diameter D and embedded length L within the soil
deposit was considered. Half-symmetry was adopted
to reduce the computational effort. The pile was
discretised with 4-noded doubly curved shell
elements with hourglass control and finite
membrane strains. The soil was discretised with 8-
noded linear reduced integration solid elements, with
hourglass control. An example of the model
geometry and mesh is shown in Figure 3. The
adopted mesh ensured a good balance between
computational cost and result quality. The pile
thickness, t, was found to have a minor effect on the
pile response, hence its variation was not considered
in the calibration process.
The bottom of the soil domain was fixed in all
coordinate directions (x, y and z). The displacement
in the y-direction and the x- and z- axis rotational Table 1 Pile geometries adopted in the analyses
degrees of freedom at the symmetric plane (y=0) and
Pile D L h t L/D
along the edge of pile shell elements were set to reference
zero. The pile-soil interaction was modelled using (unit) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
small displacement, surface-to-surface master/slave Calibration analysis (homogeneous soils)
contact pair formulation. The tangential contact
P1 10 20 50 91 2
behaviour at the interface was modelled using the
Coulomb friction law with a friction coefficient, μ. P2 10 60 150 91 6
P3 5 10 25 83 2
P4 5 30 25 45 6
Layered soil analysis
PA 10 60 50 91 6
PB 7.5 15 37.5 68 2

2.3 Soil models and parameters

The layered soil profiles consisted of a layer of clay
and a layer of sand. The clay layer was modelled as
an elastic perfectly plastic material with a Von
Mises failure criterion, and a Poisson’s ratio close to
Figure 3: Geometry and mesh for a typical 3D model 0.5. The sand layer was modelled as an elastic
perfectly plastic material with Mohr-Coulomb
The analysis consisted of three steps. An initial failure criterion. For simplicity, each layer is
geostatic stress field was computed in the first step. assumed uniform. The soil models employed in this
The contact condition between the pile and the soil study are relatively rudimentary and may not,
was then activated. Next, the pile was either therefore, provide a close representation of the
displaced or loaded incrementally along the x-axis performance of actual installed monopiles. This is
until failure. In the layered soil analyses, instead of justified on the basis that the study is concerned with
applying loads directly, an incremental displacement exploring differences in behaviour between piles
along the x-axis was applied around the pile top embedded in homogeneous soils and layered soils,
perimeter to achieve better convergence. The total rather than predicting pile behaviour for a site-
horizontal load acting on the pile was obtained as the specific soil profile. Further investigations are
reaction to the imposed displacement. needed to confirm the applicability of the current
study to more advanced soil models.
2.2 Pile model and parameters
The pile was modelled as a linear elastic material, The soil parameters for the homogeneous clay and
with a Young’s modulus of 200 GPa and a Poisson’s sand layers are given in Table 2 and Table 3,
ratio of 0.3. The pile parameters for the layered soil respectively. The friction coefficient of the clay
analyses were selected within the parameter range layer was estimated based on an empirical
from the calibration analyses (see Figure 4 and relationship between the plasticity index and friction
Table 1). For simplicity, the pile was wished in place coefficient used by Lehane et al., 2000, assuming an
and assumed weightless (though attributing weight average plasticity index PI = 18 and the adhesion
to the pile is not anticipated to affect the results). parameter as unity. The sand layer parameters were
based on the profile used by Abdel-Rahman &
20
Achmus (2005) and a friction coefficient of 0.4 was
PA
6 adopted to maintain consistency. The derivation of
Stickup height ratio h/D

15
the soil parameters and details of the calibration 3D
Aspect ratio L/D

4
10 FE analyses are further discussed in He (2016).
PB PA PB Gapping at the pile-soil interface was allowed in the
2
5 clay layer, but not in the sand layer. A small
Calibration
Layered soils cohesion was adopted for the sand layer to avoid
0 0
4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10 numerical singularity issues.
Pile diameter D Pile diameter D
Figure 4: Pile parameters employed in the calibration and
layered soil analyses (PA and PB please refer to Table 1)
 Table 2 Material parameters for clay layer
Parameter
Shear modulus, G (MPa)
Undrained shear strength, su (kPa)
Poisson’s ratio, υ
Saturated bulk unit weight, γ (kN/m3)
Earth pressure coefficient at rest, K0
Friction coefficient at pile-soil interface, μ
Table 3 Material parameters for sand layer
Parameter
Shear modulus, G (MPa)
Effective internal friction angle, φ' (°)
Dilation angle, ψ (°)
Poisson’s ratio, υ
Submerged unit weight, γ' (kN/m3)
Earth pressure coefficient at rest, K0
Friction coefficient at pile-soil interface, μ
Cohesion (kPa)
2.4 Extraction of soil reaction curves
After the 3D FE calibration analyses were
completed, the nodal force of the soil elements
immediately surrounding the pile, and the nodal
displacements of the pile elements, were processed
to obtain the soil reaction components. As mention
previously, this process follows the procedures
outlined in Byrne et al. (2015a).
The distributed soil reaction curves along the pile
length were derived at the reference nodes, which
were defined at the centre of each quadrilateral shell
element used to model the pile. The distributed
lateral soil reaction, p, was calculated by dividing
The base horizontal force, S, and base moment, M
were derived by summing the nodal forces and the
Value
moments due to the nodal forces of the soil elements
37.5
located immediately below the pile base and the soil
150 plug.
0.49
21.2 2.5 Parameterisation
1.0 The extracted soil reaction components from the
0.4 calibration analyses were normalised and
parameterised to produce dimensionless soil reaction
curves (described further in He, 2016). The
parameterised soil reaction curves were then
Value
provided as input to the 1D beam model to predict
20
pile lateral responses in layered soil cases.
35
5 The effectiveness of the soil reaction extraction and
0.25 parameterisation was determined by comparing the
11 results from the 1D beam model using the
0.426 parameterised soil reaction curves and those from
0.4 3D FE analyses for (a) the ultimate lateral load
1.0 defined at 0.1D ground level displacement and (b)
the initial stiffness defined at 0.0001D ground level
displacement. This is presented in Figure 5. The
maximum difference in the ultimate lateral load is
within 10%, while the differences in the initial
stiffness are largely within 10%. Overall, the
calibrated 1D model was considered acceptable for
exploring application to layered soil cases,
particularly considering the small number of
analyses from which the reaction curves are drawn
and the range of geometries to which they apply.
Improved agreement could be obtained by
increasing the number of calibration analyses and by
introducing more complex parameterisation
expressions.
500
k0.0001D computed by 1D analyses
Hult computed by 1D analyses

60
the sum of the horizontal nodal forces of a ring of 400 overpredicted
elements at the same depth, by the shared length of overpredicted
300
40
the ring of elements along the pile length direction.
The pile lateral displacement, v, at the reference underpredicted
200
underpredicted
20
location was interpolated from the average nodal L/D = 2 100 L/D = 2
L/D = 6 L/D = 6
displacement of the shell element at the same depth. 10% band 10% band
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 100 200 300 400 500
The distributed moment (denoted by m) was Hult computed by 3D analyses k0.0001D computed by 3D analyses

calculated by multiplying the distributed vertical
shear forces at the pile-soil interface with their
distance along the x-axis from the neutral axis of the
pile. The distributed vertical shear forces were
calculated by dividing the sum of the vertical nodal
forces of an element, by the length of the element
along the pile length direction. The rotation of the
pile cross-section, θ, was determined by regression
of the vertical nodal displacement against the
distance of the reference node from the central axis
of the pile cross-section, to obtain the best linear fit
slope.
(a) Hult (MN) (b) k0.0001D (MN/m)
Figure 5: Comparison of the ultimate lateral load (Hult) and
initial stiffness (k0.0001D) predicted by the 1D model (with
parameterised curves) and 3D models for the calibration
analyses (solid symbols:sand, open symbols: clay)
3. Layered soil analyses
3.1 Problem definition
Two simple layered soil profiles were analysed in
this study: a uniform sand layer over a uniform clay
layer (denoted ‘S/C’), and a uniform clay layer over
a uniform sand layer (denoted ‘C/S’), as illustrated
in Figure 6. The input soil reaction curves for the
 10
sand or clay layer were produced from the 3D

Lateral load at pile top (MN)

homogeneous sand or clay analyses accordingly. In 8

the following, a unique code is given to each 6

analysis, formatting as AA-BB. AA corresponds to
4
pile references (PA or PB, see Table 1), and BB 3D
2
refers to soil profiles (S/C or C/S). 1D Parameterised
1D Numerical
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Displacement at ground level (m)
(c) PB-S/C analysis
10

Lateral load at pile top (MN)

8

4
3D
2 1D Parameterised
1D Numerical
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Displacement at ground level (m)
(d) PB-C/S analysis
(a) S/C (b) C/S Figure 7: Comparison of the load-displacement responses for
Figure 6: Soil profiles for the layered soil analyses 1D and 3D analyses

3.2 Load-displacement results 800

Hult computed by 1D analyses

k0.0001D computed by 1D analyses

The load-displacement results predicted by the 1D 100
overpredicted overpredicted
model, using the parameterised curves (1D 600

Parameterised) are compared to the 3D FE analysis

400
results, as shown in Figure 7. Additional analyses 10
underpredicted
(1D Numerical) were completed to determine underpredicted
L/D = 2 200
whether the differences between the 1D results L/D = 6
L/D = 2
L/D = 6
predicted using the parameterised curves (1D 1
20% band
0
15% band

Parameterised) and the 3D FE results were due to 1 10 100 0 200 400 600 800
the parameterisation of soil reaction components or Hult computed by 3D analyses k0.0001D computed by 3D analyses

soil layering effects. This involved conducting 3D (a) Hult (MN) (b) k0.0001D (MN/m)
FE for the piles PA and PB in homogeneous soil Figure 8: Comparison of the ultimate lateral load (Hult) and
profiles, extracting the soil reaction components, and initial stiffness (k0.0001D) of pile response predicted by the 1D
model (with parameterised curves) and 3D models for the
then incorporated these as numerical data into the layered soil analyses (solid symbols: S/C, open symbols: C/S)
1D model at the corresponding depth for the layered
soil analyses. Figure 7 and Figure 8 indicate satisfactory
150
agreement between the 3D results and the 1D
prediction using the parameterised curves. The
Lateral load at pile top (MN)

120
maximum difference in the ultimate capacity of
90 approximately 20% is for the PB-S/C analysis of a
60 short pile embedded in sand over clay. The
30
3D differences in the initial stiffness of pile response are
1D Parameterised
1D Numerical
within 15%. Note that the maximum displacement
0 achieved in the short pile analysis was limited due to
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Displacement at ground level (m) convergence issues in the FE analysis; the maximum
(a) PA-S/C analysis load was thus taken as the ultimate lateral load.
150
Lateral load at pile top (MN)

120 The difference between predictions using numerical

90
and parameterised curves indicates that employing
parametric soil reaction curves has an influence on
60 the load-displacement predictions, with the influence
3D
30 1D Parameterised more pronounced for the short pile (PB) than for the
0
1D Numerical long pile (PA). This is due to the parameterisation
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 process averaging the response across a number of
Displacement at ground level (m) different calibration analyses. However, the overall
(b) PA-C/S analysis difference due to parameterisation of soil reaction
components is less than 10% compared with the 3D
 15 10
analysis results. It is therefore likely that
8
parameterised curves, extracted from 3D analyses of

Normalised p

Normalised p
10
homogeneous soil profiles, can be satisfactorily 6

applied to layered soil profiles. 5 at depth = 0.6L

4
at depth = 0.9L
Homogeneous 2 Homogeneous
Layered Layered
3.3 Comparison of soil reaction curves 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
The soil reaction components developed from the Normalised v Normalised v
3D FE analyses for homogeneous soil profiles (sand (a) PA-S/C analysis
or clay) and layered soil profiles (S/C, or C/S) were
6 12
compared to investigate the effects of layering. The
soil reaction curves were compared at four depths

Normalised p

Normalised p
4 8
(0.1L, 0.4L, 0.6L and 0.9L), where L is pile
embedded length, with the soil reaction components 2 depth = 0.1L 4 at depth = 0.4L
extracted from the layered soil analyses compared to Homogeneous Homogeneous
Layered Layered
those obtained from the homogeneous soil analyses 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 4 8 12
at the same depth. Normalised v Normalised v
1.5 3
at depth = 0.6L
Normalisation of the soil reactions was adopted to Homogeneous

Normalised p
Normalised p
1.0 Layered 2
facilitate comparison between the sand and clay
layers. The distributed load was normalised by the 0.5 1 at depth = 0.9L
undrained shear strength (su) times diameter (D) for Homogeneous
Layered
the clay layer (i.e. p/suD), and by the local effective 0.0 0
stresses (σvi΄) times the diameter for the sand layer 0.0 0.1 0.2
Normalised v
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4
Normalised v
0.6 0.8 1.0

(i.e. p/σvi΄D). The horizontal pile displacement was (b) PA-C/S analysis
normalised by suD divided by the shear modulus (G)
for clay (i.e. vG/suD), and by σvi΄D/G for sand (i.e. 10 10

vG/σvi΄D). The distributed moment for clay was 8 8

Normalised p

normalised by suD2, and by σvi΄D2 for sand. The pile

Normalised p
6 6

rotation was normalised by su/G for clay, and by 4

at depth = 0.1L
4
at depth = 0.4L
σvi΄/G for sand. 2 Homogeneous 2 Homogeneous
Layered Layered
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4 5
3.3.1 Distributed lateral load curves Normalised v Normalised v
The normalised distributed lateral load against 5 10

normalised ground level displacement at different 4 8

Normalised p

Normalised p

depths is presented in Figure 9 (denoted by 3 6

normalised p and v respectively). The initial stiffness 2

at depth = 0.6L
4
at depth = 0.9L
of the distributed lateral load curves extracted from 1 Homogeneous 2 Homogeneous
Layered Layered
the layered and homogeneous soil analyses is 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
generally in good agreement. However, differences Normalised v Normalised v

are observed for large lateral displacements in both (c) PB-S/C analysis
the upper and lower layers; this may be due to 5
effects of soil layering. For the cases considered, the 4
6

ultimate lateral responses in the layered soils tended

Normalised p

Normalised p

3 4
to be higher than those in the homogeneous soils for 2
at depth = 0.1L at depth = 0.4L
sand, while they tended to be lower for clay. In 1 Homogeneous
2
Homogeneous
addition, the differences in the ultimate lateral 0
Layered
0
Layered

response are not constant within the same layer, as 0 10 20 30 40 0 5

Normalised v
10 15 20
Normalised v
can be seen in both the upper and lower layers of 0.8 6

PA-C/S analysis. 0.6

Normalised p

Normalised p

5 0.4
12
4 at depth = 0.6L 2 at depth = 0.9L
0.2
Homogeneous
Normalised p

Homogeneous
Normalised p

8 3 Layered Layered
0.0 0
2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
at depth = 0.1L at depth = 0.4L Normalised v
4 Normalised v
Homogeneous 1 Homogeneous
Layered Layered (d) PB-C/S analysis
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 9: Comparison of the distributed lateral load curves
Normalised v Normalised v from the homogeneous and layered soil analyses
 0.6 0.8
3.3.2 Distributed moment curves at depth = 0.4L
The normalised distributed moment against 0.6 Homogeneous

Normalised m
0.4 Layered

Normalised m
normalised pile rotation at different depths is shown 0.4
in Figure 10 (denoted by normalised m and θ 0.2 at depth = 0.1L
Homogeneous 0.2
respectively). The comparison indicates that initial Layered
stiffness determined from the homogeneous and 0.0
0 10 20 30 40
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
layered soil analyses matches well. Differences are Normalised  Normalised 
0.3 1.0
again observed for the ultimate response. at depth = 0.6L
Homogeneous 0.8

Normalised m

Normalised m
0.2 Layered
2.0 0.5 0.6
at depth = 0.4L
0.4 0.4
1.5 Homogeneous 0.1 at depth = 0.9L
Normalised m

Normalised m

Layered 0.2 Homogeneous

0.3
1.0 Layered
0.2 0.0 0.0
at depth = 0.1L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1 2 3 4
0.5 Homogeneous 0.1 Normalised  Normalised 
Layered (d) PB-C/S analysis
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Figure 10: Comparison of the numerical distributed moment
Normalised  Normalised 
1.0 0.5
curves extracted from homogeneous and layered soils
at depth = 0.9L
0.8 0.4 Homogeneous
The above detailed comparison of the distributed
Normalised m

Layered
Normalised m

0.6 0.3
lateral load and moment determined from the
0.4 0.2
at depth = 0.6L homogeneous soil and layered soil analyses
0.2 Homogeneous
Layered
0.1
illustrates the complexity of the soil layering effects.
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
However these differences appear to balance out
0 2 4 6 8
Normalised  Normalised  when integrated into the overall load-displacement
(a) PA-S/C analysis response. Further studies are required to investigate
0.5 1.0
soil layering effects on the individual soil reaction
0.4 0.8
at depth = 0.4L components, particularly more complex layering
Homogeneous
profiles, and therefore the overall pile behaviour.
Normalised m

Normalised m

Layered
0.3 0.6
Also, care should be employed when applying base
0.2 0.4
at depth = 0.1L shear and base moment in layered soils, as soil
Homogeneous
0.1
Layered
0.2
layers above and below the actual pile tip may have
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
0.0
0 4 8 12
influence on the soil resistance. However, due to
Normalised  Normalised  limited scope of this study, the potential effect of
0.25 0.4
variation of base soil layer has not been examined,
0.20
0.3 and further analysis will be needed to address this
Normalised m

Normalised m

0.15
0.2
matter.
0.10
at depth = 0.6L at depth = 0.9L
0.1
0.05 Homogeneous Homogeneous
Layered
4. Conclusions
Layered
0.00 0.0 3D FE and 1D pile analyses have been performed to
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalised  Normalised  examine the application of the PISA numerical-
(b) PA-C/S analysis based method to monopile analyses in layered soils.
2.0 1.5
The comparison of results using a 1D model
incorporating homogeneous soil reaction curves and
1.5 3D finite element calculations for layered profiles
Normalised m
Normalised m

1.0

1.0 show excellent agreement in both the ultimate

at depth = 0.1L 0.5
at depth = 0.4L
capacity and initial stiffness, considering the relative
0.5 Homogeneous
Layered
Homogeneous simplicity of the input data and the methodology
Layered
0.0 0.0 adopted. This demonstrates that soil reaction curves
0 10 20 30 0 2 4 6 8
Normalised  Normalised  extracted and parameterised from 3D homogeneous
0.6 0.6
soil analyses can be feasibly applied to analyse
layered soil conditions. Inspection of the distributed
Normalised m
Normalised m

0.4 0.4
soil reaction components (normalised p and m),
0.2 at depth = 0.6L 0.2 at depth = 0.9L show differences in the ultimate response, for both
Homogeneous Homogeneous the upper and lower layers, but this appeared to even
Layered Layered
0.0 0.0 out when integrated along the 1D model. The soil
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalised  Normalised  reaction component comparisons show the complex
(c) PB-S/C analysis nature of the soil laying effects. Further work is
needed to explore the application of this method to
more complex layering conditions.
5. Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful to Dr Ross McAdam,
Stephen Suryasentana and William Beuckelaers for
their valuable discussions and suggestions.
References
Abaqus. (2013). User’s manual. Dassault Systemes
Simulia Corp. Providence; Version 6.13.
Abdel-Rahman, K. and Achmus, M. (2005). Finite
element modelling of horizontally loaded
monopile foundations for offshore wind energy
converters in Germany. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnic (ISFOG 2005), Perth,
Australia, 391-396.
API, American Petroleum Institute. (2014).
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Construction Fixed Offshore Platforms -
Working Stress Design, 22nd Edition, Dallas.
Arany L, Bhattacharya S, Macdonald JHG and John
Hogan S. (2016). Closed form solution of Eigen
frequency of monopile supported offshore wind
turbines in deeper waters incorporating stiffness
of substructure and SSI. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 83, 18–32
Ashour M, Norris G and Pilling P. (1998). Lateral
Loading of a Pile in Layered Soil Using the
Strain Wedge Model. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124, No.4,
303–315.
Byrne BW, McAdam R, Burd HJ, et al. (2015a).
New design methods for large diameter piles
under lateral loading for offshore wind
applications. Proc 3rd International Symposium
on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG
2015). Oslo, Norway, 705–710.
Byrne BW, McAdam R, Burd HJ, et al. (2015b).
Field testing of large diameter piles under lateral
loading for offshore wind applications.
Proceedings of XV European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
(XVECSMGE), Edinburgh.
Davisson MT and Gill HL. (1963). Laterally loaded
piles in a layered soil system. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Engineering (ASCE)
89, No.SM3, 63–94.
De Vries WE and Van der Tempel J. (2007). Quick
monopile design. Proceedings of the European
Offshore Wind Conference and Exhibition.
Berlin, Germany.
DNV-OS-J101 Design of Offshore Wind Turbine
Structures 2014.
Doherty P and Gavin K. (2011). Laterally loaded
monopile design for offshore wind farms.
Proceedings of the ICE - Energy, 165(1): 7–17.
Georgiadis M. (1983). Development of p-y curves
for layered soil. Proc. Geotech. Practice in
Offshore Engineering (ASCE), 1, 536-545.
Gupta BK and Basu D. (2016). Analysis of laterally
loaded rigid monopiles and poles in multi-layered
linearly varying soil. Computer and Geotechnics
72, 114–125.
Hald T, Mørch C, Jensen L, LeBlanc Bakmar C and
Ahle K. (2009). Revisiting monopile design using
p-y curves results from full scale measurements
on Horns Rev. DONG Energy A/S, Proceedings
of European Offshore Wind Conference and
Exhibition.
He Y. (2016) Application of a numerical-based soil
reaction curve method for design of laterally
loaded monopiles. MSc (by Research) Thesis.
University of Oxford.
Lehane, B.M., Chow, F.C., McCabe, B.A. and
Jardine, R.J. (2000). Relationships between shaft
capacity of driven piles and CPT end resistance.
Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering 143, 93-101.
LPILE User’s Manual 2013 (2014), Ensoft Inc.
Matlock H. (1970). Correlations for Design of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Proceedings
of the 2nd Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 1204, Houston, Texas, 577–
588.
Reese LC, Cox WR and Koop FD. (1974). Analysis
of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. Proceedings of
the 6th Offshore Technology Conference, paper
No. OTC 2080, Houston, Texas, 473–483.
Reese LC, Allen JD and Hargrove JQ. (1981).
Laterally loaded piles in layered soils. Proc. 10th.
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. And Found. Engrg.
Stockholm: A.A. Balkema, 2, 819–822.
Roesen HR, Thomassen K, Ibsen LB and Sørensen
SPH. (2011). Evaluation of Small-Scale Laterally
Loaded Monopiles in Sand. In Symposium
Proceedings: 64th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference and 14th Pan-American Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Engineering, 5th Pan-
American Conference on Teaching and Learning
of Geotechnical Engineering. Toronto, Ontario:
Pan-AM CGS Geotechnical Conference.
Yang Z and Jeremić B. (2002). Numerical analysis
of pile behaviour under lateral loads in layered
elastic-plastic soils. International Journal of
Numerical Analytical Method Geomechanics 26,
1385–1406.
Zdravković L, Taborda DMG, Potts DM, et al.
(2015). Numerical modelling of large diameter
piles under lateral loading for offshore wind
applications. Proc. 3rd International Symposium
on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG
2015). Oslo, Norway, 759–764.