Fachthemen

Klaus Thieken DOI: 10.1002/gete.201400036

Martin Achmus
Katrin Lemke

A new static p-y approach for piles

with arbitrary dimensions in sand
When it comes to the general design of laterally loaded piles in off- 1 Introduction
shore environments, bedding resistance is usually modelled by the
p-y method recommended in the offshore guidelines (OGL). Several Foundation piles are preferably used for transferring loads
investigations presented in the literature indicate that the head dis- acting in the axial direction. Piles with large diameters,
placements of large-diameter monopiles are underestimated for however, can also be used for transferring lateral loads.
extreme loads but overestimated for small operational loads. An These laterally (for vertical piles also horizontally) loaded
extensive evaluation of the OGL method is presented here using piles are used for many applications, e.g. for foundation to
three-dimensional numerical simulations. The evaluation has bridges or piers. One important application for such piles
shown that the OGL method is not applicable for the design of is foundations for offshore structures due to the large and
large-diameter piles. Moreover, modified p-y formulations present- changing wind and wave loads acting on such structures.
ed in the literature accounting for the effect of the pile diameter
The horizontal loadbearing behaviour is particularly im-
are also not generally suitable for piles with arbitrary dimensions
portant for the monopile foundations (Fig. 1) to offshore
and load levels. Therefore, the derivation of a new p-y approach is
wind energy converters (OWEC). Large water depths and
presented in detail. The new approach consists of “basic p-y
sizeable wind turbines in comparison with the small self-
curves” that are valid for a pile of infinite length exhibiting a con-
weight of the OWEC lead to horizontal and moment loads
stant horizontal deflection. In an iterative scheme, these basic
curves are adapted depending on the pile deflection line and the
pile length to account for a more realistic bedding resistance along
the pile shaft. A comprehensive parametric study with 250 pile-soil
systems reveals that the new p-y approach is able to predict the
horizontal loadbearing behaviour as well as the local pile-soil inter-
action quite realistically.

Ein neuer statischer p-y-Ansatz für Pfähle beliebiger Abmessun-

gen in Sand. Für die Bemessung horizontal belasteter Offshore-
Pfähle wird der Bettungswiderstand üblicherweise durch die in
den Offshore-Richtlinien (OGL) empfohlene p-y-Methode ermittelt.
Verschiedene Untersuchungen aus der Literatur zeigen, dass die
Verformungen von Monopiles mit großen Durchmessern für Ex-
tremlasten durch die OGL-Methode unterschätzt, für geringe Be-
triebslasten dagegen überschätzt werden. Der vorliegende Artikel
beinhaltet eine umfassende Bewertung der p-y-Methode basie-
rend auf dreidimensionalen numerischen Simulationen. Als Ergeb-
nis ist festzustellen, dass die OGL-Methode zur Bemessung von
Pfählen großer Durchmesser nicht geeignet erscheint. Auch modi-
fizierte p-y-Ansätze zur Berücksichtigung des Einflusses des Pfahl-
durchmessers sind nicht generell anwendbar für Pfähle beliebiger
Abmessungen und Belastungen. Diesbezüglich soll die Ermittlung
eines neuen p-y-Ansatzes dargestellt werden. Der neue Ansatz
basiert auf sogenannten „p-y-Basiskurven“, welche Gültigkeit für
einen unendlich langen Pfahl mit einer über die Länge konstanten
horizontalen Verschiebung aufweisen. In einem iterativen Vorge-
hen werden diese Basiskurven zur Erreichung eines realistischen Fig. 1. Schematic sketch of an offshore wind energy conver-
Verlaufs der Bettungswiderstände in Abhängigkeit der Pfahlbiege- ter (OWEC) with monopile foundation (left); idealization by
linie und -länge angepasst. Eine umfassende Parameterstudie mit the subgrade reaction method (right)
250 Pfahl-Bodensystemen zeigt, dass der neue p-y-Ansatz geeig- Bild 1. Schematische Darstellung einer Offshore-Windener-
net ist, sowohl das globale Tragverhalten als auch die lokalen gieanlage (OWEC) mit Monopile-Gründung (links), Model-
Pfahl-Boden-Interaktionen realistisch zu prognostizieren. lierung durch das Bettungsmodulverfahren (rechts)

© 2015 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 267
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
being the critical aspects in the design of the foundation.
To date, monopiles with diameters D = 6 m have already
been installed and diameters up to D = 8 m are being
planned. The relative pile length, i.e. ratio of embedded
pile length L to diameter D, usually has a value of about
L/D ≈ 5. Experience with monopile foundations with such
large dimensions is essentially lacking.
In a similar way to common pile foundations, the ul-
timate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS)
design analyses have to be fulfilled for the design of
monopile foundations. In the ULS analysis, a sufficient
soil resistance has to be present to ensure the structural
safety of the wind turbine. Therefore, the effects of cyclic
loading have to be considered, i.e. degradation of the soil
resistance has to be accounted for. In the SLS analysis, the
deflections and rotations under the characteristic extreme
load cases (subsequently denoted as extreme loads) have
to remain below a certain limit, and the accumulation of
deflection due to cyclic loading has to be considered in
that (see [1]). In addition to these design analyses, the stiff-
ness of the monopile foundation system under small oper-
ational loads has to be determined. Considering this foun-
dation stiffness in an overall dynamic analysis of the
whole OWEC structure, the eigenfrequencies of the wind
turbine must be far enough away from the main excitation
frequencies of the dynamic loading. Here, neither an over-
estimation nor an underestimation of the foundation stiff-
ness is generally conservative. An incorrect estimation of
the foundation stiffness would result in an increase in un-
certainties regarding the structural loading. In the worst
case it could have a serious negative influence on the
structural lifetime of the OWEC [2].
For all design analyses it is common practice to use
the subgrade reaction method to simulate the soil resis-
tance p occurring depending on the horizontal displace-
ment y. The soil is replaced by a number of uncoupled
spring elements along the pile shaft connected to a beam
element, where the bending stiffness Ep · Ip represents the
pile (Fig. 1). In most cases the so-called p-y method, rec-
ommended by the offshore guidelines (OGL) of the Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute [3] and Det Norske Veritas [4], is
used. Based on experience in the oil and gas industry, the
p-y method seems to be sufficiently accurate for flexible
piles with diameters of up to 2 m. For larger pile diame-
ters, several numerical investigations have shown that the
horizontal deflections are underestimated for extreme
loads [5], [6], [7]. In contrast, experience from operational
offshore wind farms with monopile foundations indicate
that the deflections for small (dynamic) operational loads
are overestimated and so the foundation stiffness is under-
estimated [2], [8]. In this regard, it has to be remarked that
discussions are still ongoing regarding whether or not this
larger stiffness is partly due to dynamic effects such as in-
ertia effects and damping. Assuming that the frequency of
the wind and wave loading is rather low, however, it is cur-
rent practice to neglect the dynamic effects. Investigations
of the accuracy of predicting the ultimate resistance de-
pending on the pile diameter are not known to the au-
thors. Nevertheless, [9] shows that the ultimate bedding re-
sistance of the p-y method is, irrespective of the pile diam-
eter, conservative in conjunction with the German stan-
dard for earth pressure DIN 4085 [10].
268 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
The determination of structural loads in an overall
dynamic analysis of the whole OWEC system is usually
carried out by considering a linear elastic system. For the
calculation models it is necessary to derive constant
spring stiffness values from the non-linear system which
characterize the system behaviour under relevant opera-
tional loads. The spring stiffness is often determined with
a typical operational load by calculating the secant stiff-
ness at the depth considered from the resulting p and y
values (Epy = p/y). Assuming that the deflections under
such operational loads remain small, the initial bedding
stiffness of the p-y curves considered is used in most cases.
Degradation of the initial bedding stiffness due to a re-
peated (cyclic/dynamic) loading is not generally taken in-
to account. This assumption is supported by the model
tests of LeBlanc et al. [11], which indicate that the unload-
ing and reloading system stiffnesses do not decrease, but
rather increase marginally with the number of load cycles.
As mentioned above, the effects of cyclic loading
have to be considered in the ULS and the SLS design
analyses. Therefore, p-y curves that account for these ef-
fects have to be used. These “cyclic” p-y curves, as given by
the OGL or the EAP recommendations [12], are based on
the “static” p-y curves, i.e. the cyclic load case is consid-
ered by modifying the static curves. A deficient formula-
tion of the p-y curves for static loading will therefore not
only influence the predicted foundation stiffness for the
overall dynamic analysis, but also the estimated horizontal
deflections and the ultimate resistance of the monopile.
Three-dimensional numerical simulations of a
monopile foundation in homogeneous sand under static
loading conditions are used to evaluate the p-y method
currently used according to the OGL for the design of hor-
izontally loaded piles with various dimensions. The simu-
lations are based on a stress- and shear strain-dependent
soil stiffness formulation that enables the loadbearing be-
haviour to be predicted quite accurately, even for small
loads. Hence, a meaningful evaluation of the p-y method
can be performed for piles with arbitrary dimensions and
loads in the range of the ULS and SLS design analyses,
but also for the foundation stiffness used in the overall dy-
namic analysis. In addition to the OGL method, modified
p-y formulations intending to account for the effect of the
pile diameter are evaluated by the numerical simulations.
As none of the formulations currently available appear to
be applicable for the design of piles with arbitrary dimen-
sions and loading conditions, the numerical simulations
are further used for the derivation and calibration of a
new p-y approach.
2 State of the art
The original subgrade reaction method was established by
Winkler [13] using the model of a beam supported by
a number of uncoupled or independent elastic springs.
McClelland & Focht [14] first proposed a solution to the
problem of an elastic beam by considering a non-linear p-
y formulation that is able to represent the soil behaviour
much more accurately. This method has subsequently
been termed the p-y method and is now the predominant
method for designing horizontally loaded piles. Several
p-y curve formulations have been proposed since then.
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
The first notable formulation dates back to Reese et al.
[15], who proposed sectional p-y curves calibrated on the
Mustang Island Field Test [16]. This test is presented in de-
tail in section 3.3. The Reese et al. formulation was incor-
porated in the standard of the American Petroleum Insti-
tute until it was replaced by a continuous hyperbolic tan-
gent function proposed by Murchison & O’Neill [17] in
1984. This formulation was calibrated on a total of 10
small-diameter field tests of different kinds. Tubular steel
piles (including the Mustang Island Field Test) and I-sec-
tions as well as precast concrete piles and tapered timber
piles, all with various dimensions, were included in the
study. It was found that the hyperbolic tangent function
currently used (see Eq. (1)) was most suitable for the de-
sign. However, it is necessary to point out that no explicit
consideration of the influence of the pile diameter was
performed. It is remarkable that the results of the largest
and best instrumented pile test at Mustang Island cannot
be reproduced adequately by the OGL formulation (see
section 3.3, Fig. 5). Typical p-y curves for both approaches
are depicted for a small- and a large-diameter pile in Figs.
3a and 3b respectively. It becomes obvious that both for-
mulations differ significantly despite having almost identi-
cal values for the initial stiffness Epy and the ultimate bed-
ding resistance pu. For details regarding the construction
of the Reese et al. curves, see [15]. The p-y basic formula-
tion according to the offshore guidelines is introduced in
Eq. (1):
⎛k ·z ⎞
p = A · pu · tanh ⎜ OGL · y⎟ (1)
⎝ A · pu ⎠ magnitude of kWiemann with increasing pile diameter:
where:
A · pu maximum bedding resistance, which depends on in-
ternal friction angle ϕ′, buoyant unit weight γ ′,
depth z below ground surface and pile diameter D
A calibration factor, specified as A = 3.0–0.8 · (z/D) ≥
0.9 for static loading and A = 0.9 for cyclic loading
kOGL initial stiffness coefficient, which depends on the
angle of internal friction ϕ′ or relative density of the
sand (see Fig. 2, right)
Fig. 2. Coefficients c1, c2, c3 and initial stiffness coefficient k according to the Offshore Guidelines (OGL) [3], [4]
Bild 2. Koeffizienten c1, c2, c3 und Anfangssteifigkeitskoeffizient k gemäß der Offshore-Richtlinien (OGL) [3], [4]
A good approximation of kOGL below groundwater level is
introduced by Augustesen et al. [18] (see Eq. (2)). By
analysing Eq. (1), it can be easily derived that kOGL · z is
the initial slope of the p-y curve, which is also termed the
initial bedding stiffness Epy:
kOGL[MN/m3] = 0.008085 · ϕ′2.45 – 26.09
for 29° ≤ ϕ′ ≤ 45° (2)
The base value of the maximum bedding resistance pu can
be derived by using Eq. (3):
⎧⎪ p = (c · z + c · D) · γ′ · z
pu = min ⎨ us 1 2 (3)
⎪⎩ pud = c3 · D · γ′ · z
where c1, c2 and c3 are coefficients depending on the an-
gle of internal friction (see Fig. 2, left).
Wiemann et al. [6] suggested a theoretically derived
modification of the initial stiffness of the p-y curve de-
pending on the pile diameter D (see Eq. (4)). The ap-
proach introduced intends to account for an overestima-
tion of the bedding stiffness for large-diameter piles under
extreme loads. In Eq. (4), Dref is the reference pile diame-
ter of 0.61 m, which is identical to the diameter of the Mus-
tang Island Field Test [16]. Parameter “a” describes the
change in the original initial stiffness coefficient kOGL
with pile diameter D and lies between 0.5 and 0.6 depend-
ing on the relative density of the sand. Starting from iden-
tical initial stiffness coefficients kOGL = kWiemann for pile
diameter D = 0.61 m, the formulation leads to a decreasing
4 · (1–a)
⎛D ⎞ 4+a
k Wiemann = kOGL · ⎜ ref ⎟ (4)
⎝ D ⎠
In 2010 Sørensen et al. [19] proposed a further modified
initial stiffness formulation to account for an overesti-
mation of the bedding stiffness under extreme loads (see
Eq. (5)). Here, “a” is a reference value, with a = 50 MPa
being recommended. The reference values were set to
zref = 1 m and Dref = 1 m. The dimensionless constants are
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 269
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

given as b = 0.6, c = 0.5, d = 3.6. Note that ϕ′ is to be en-
tered in radians.
b c
1 ⎛ z ⎞ ⎛ D ⎞
kSørensen(2010) = · a · ⎜ · · ϕ′d
⎝ zref ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ Dref ⎟⎠
z
Two years later Sørensen [7] extended the formulation by
changing the term of the friction angle to a stiffness-de-
pendent term (see Eq. (6)). The values b = 0.3, c = 0.5 and
d = 0.8 are recommended for the dimensionless constants
b, c, d. The reference stiffness a = 1 MPa is valid for a ref-
erence depth zref = 1 m, a reference pile diameter Dref =
1 m and a reference soil stiffness Es = 1 MPa. Please note
that the results of both Sørensen’s formulations can differ
significantly [20]. However, only the latest version (see
Eq. (6)) is evaluated in the following.
b c
1 ⎛ z ⎞ ⎛ D ⎞ ⎛ E ⎞
kSørensen(2012) = ·a·⎜ · ·⎜
z ⎝ zref ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ Dref ⎟⎠ ⎝ Es,ref ⎠
Representative p-y curves for the three aforementioned for-
mulations are presented in Figs. 3c and 3d for a small- and
a large-diameter pile respectively. It should be noted that
the results according to the Sørensen (2012) formulation
depend on the soil stiffness ES used. In this regard, the soil
stiffness is defined by the stress-dependent formulation in
Eq. (14), which is assumed to give reasonable results, at
least for OWECs located in the North Sea. The formula-
tions of the p-y curves for large-diameter monopiles all lead
(5)
to a significantly softer initial stiffness Epy than is the case
when using the p-y method of the OGL (see Fig. 3d). This
smaller initial stiffness should prevent an underestimation
of pile head deflections for extreme loads but will also
cause a softer behaviour for small loads.
A softer behaviour for small loads contradicts with
the results of field measurements on operational offshore
wind turbines at the Walney [2] and Horns Rev [8] wind
farms, which indicate that the initial stiffness for a small
operational loading is significantly larger than the results
from the OGL formulation. Based on the differences be-
tween the measured and calculated soil stiffnesses, Kalle-
have et al. [2] suggested a modification of the initial stiff-
ness of the p-y curve according to the OGL (see Eq. (7),
d
Figs. 3e and 3f).
s
⎟ (6)
m 0.5
1 ⎛ z⎞ ⎛ D⎞
kKallehave = ·k ·z · · (7)
z OGL 0 ⎜⎝ z0 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ D0 ⎟⎠
Here, the recommended initial stiffness coefficient
kKallehave depends on the initial bedding stiffness accord-
ing to the offshore guidelines (kOGL · z) at a reference

Fig. 3. Comparison of p-y curves for a small- and a large-diameter pile for a typical depth
Bild 3. Vergleich der p-y-Kurven für einen Pfahl mit kleinem und großem Durchmesser in einer beispielhaften Tiefe

270 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4

 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
depth z0 = 2.5 m. The dimensionless parameter m, which
governs the course of the initial stiffness with the depth, is
suggested as m = 0.6. The reference diameter is equal to
the diameter of the Mustang Island Field Test, D0 = 0.61 m.
Kirsch et al. [21] proposed a p-y approach to account
for an underestimation of foundation stiffness under small
operational loads and a simultaneous underestimation of
pile deflection under extreme loads. In contrast to the p-y
formulations presented previously, the Kirsch et al. formu-
lation should also include the effects of a cyclic loading.
Therefore, the results of this approach are not fully com-
parable with the “static” approach of the OGL considered
and the numerical simulations conducted. However, based
on the aforementioned assumption that the foundation
stiffness due to small operational loads does not degrade
with the number of load cycles, the Kirsch et al. approach
should be able to account for the foundation stiffness for
small loads. As Kirsch et al. purports to account for an ac-
cumulation of pile deflections, a significantly softer re-
sponse than that obtained with the OGL method is ex-
pected to result from this formulation for larger loads.
Owing to the consideration of cyclic loads, the ap-
proach by Kirsch et al. is based on the “cyclic” p-y curve of
the OGL (identical kOGL, A = 0.9, see Eq. (1)). Further-
more, the ultimate bedding resistance pu and the basic val-
ue of the initial bedding stiffness coefficient kred (using
Eq. (2)) are determined based on a reduced friction angle
ϕ′red (see Eq. (8)) in order to account for the effect of the
pile diameter D (see [21]). Here, diameter D must be
entered in metres and the internal friction angle ϕ′ in de-
grees in order to obtain ϕ′red in degrees as well.
ϕ′red = ϕ′ – 0.50 · (D – 2) (8)
Besides kred, the initial stiffness coefficient of the Kirsch et
al. formulation kKirsch depends on the ratio of dynamic
(small strain) to static soil stiffness modulus Esd/Es and
the ratio of bedding resistance to ultimate bedding resis-
tance p/pu (see Eq. (9)).
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
p ⎞ ⎛ Esd
kKirsch = k red · ⎢1 + ⎜ 1 – ⎟ ·⎜ – 1⎟ ⎥ (9)
⎢⎣ ⎝ pu ⎠ ⎝ Es ⎠ ⎦⎥
The dependency of the initial stiffness coefficient on the
bedding resistance utilization ratio results indirectly in a
complete new shape for the p-y curve, which is compared
with the original OGL formulation in Figs. 3e and 3f for a
large- and a small-diameter pile respectively. A consider-
ably large initial stiffness becomes obvious which de-
grades with increasing bedding resistance and finally
crosses over to a reduced ultimate bedding resistance.
Please note that, similarly to the Sørensen formulation, the
results depend on the soil stiffness considered. Here, the
static and dynamic soil stiffness moduli Es and Esd are de-
fined according to Eqs. (14) and (11) respectively.
3 Numerical model
3.1 General
A three-dimensional numerical model of a monopile foun-
dation system was developed using the PLAXIS 3D finite
element program [22]. With regard to the symmetry of
both geometrical and loading conditions, only one half of
the pile-soil system was modelled in order to reduce com-
putational effort. Preliminary analyses focused on the
mesh fineness and model dimensions in order to obtain
sufficiently accurate results and avoid an impact of the
boundary conditions. Finally, the soil model width was
chosen to be 25 times the pile diameter D on the load axis
and 6 times in the orthogonal direction, with the model
depth chosen as two times the pile length L. The reference
system was discretized with a total of 118 579 ten-node
tetrahedral elements. A significant increase in the mesh
fineness was used close to the pile. As PLAXIS simulates
the cylindrical pile with triangular elements, this large
mesh fineness is very important in order to minimize a
peak out of the elements at the corners. Fig. 4 shows a typ-
ical mesh of the finite element model with geometrical pa-
rameters.
The monopile was modelled as an open tubular steel
pile with wall thickness t. The steel material properties
E = 210 GPa, ν = 0.27 were applied, where E and ν repre-
sent the modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the
steel respectively. The monopile was extended above the
soil surface with an almost rigid pile to enable the applica-
tion of the horizontal and moment loading by a single hor-
izontal load H with a load eccentricity h.
An elasto-plastic contact was inserted between the
inside and the outside of the steel pile and the adjacent
soil. The maximum shear stress on the contact surface
τmax results from the product of the horizontal stress σH
and the contact friction angle δ = 2/3ϕ′. The interface ele-
ments enable the determination of the bedding behaviour
at the soil-structure interface. Here, PLAXIS3D offers the
output of contact stresses only in the local coordinate sys-
tem of the respective interface element at the integration
points. Consequently, the normal and orthogonal stress
components have to be transformed to a global coordinate
system and integrated for the pile section considered
(weight factors of the integration points can be found in
[23]). This is a challenging task as the elements are usually
of different sizes and the integration point data is given in
tabular form more or less randomly. If p-y curves need to
Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of pile-soil system (D = 5 m,
L = 30 m)
Bild 4. Finite-Element-Netz des Pfahl-Bodensystems
(D = 5 m, L = 30 m)
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 271
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
be created, the results of several load increments must be
exported and analysed. The deflection lines and the bend-
ing moments of the pile also have to be extracted from
node and integration point data in tabular form. In this
regard, in future it would be highly desirable to have
PLAXIS3D offer the possibility of outputting the soil resis-
tance force, the stress resultants and the deflection line of
a connected structure directly as is possible in comparable
finite element programs.
The calculation is divided into several steps. In the
first step the initial stress state is generated by considering
soil elements only. The horizontal stress σH is defined by a
coefficient of horizontal earth pressure at rest k0 = 1-sin ϕ′.
Subsequently, the predefined elements defining the
monopile geometry are replaced by steel elements repre-
senting the structure. In the same step, the contact be-
tween the pile and the surrounding soil is activated. In the
third step, the horizontal load is applied by assigning the
horizontal force to the centre of a rigid top plate.
3.2 Constitutive model
The HSsmall model according to Benz [24] was used to
model the soil. This soil model is an upgraded version of
the sophisticated Hardening Soil Model (HSM) according
to Schanz [25], which enables the consideration of stress-
dependent soil stiffness, for instance. The HS model was
improved by Benz to account for the strain dependency of
the soil stiffness (HSsmall soil model), which is crucial for
small loads.
For very small shear strains (γ < 10–6), the soil stiff-
ness is defined by the dynamic shear modulus G0. An ap-
proach presented by Hardin & Black [26] was used to de-
termine G0 (see Eq. (10)), which is also incorporated in
the Recommendations of the Committee for Soil Dynam-
ics by the German Geotechnical Society (DGGT) [27].
This formulation is valid for poorly graded sandy soils
with rounded grain shapes [28], which are often found in
locations for potential German OWECs in the North Sea.
The dynamic shear modulus depends on the void ratio e
and the mean principal stress σm. For constant void ratios,
the dynamic shear modulus increases depending on the
stress to the power λ G0 = 0.5 (see Eq. (10); here, stresses
must be entered in kPa to obtain G0 in kPa).
(2.17 – e)2 λG0
G0 = 6900 · · σm
1+e
Assuming linear elastic behaviour, the dynamic shear
modulus G0 can be converted to an oedometric modulus,
denoted as dynamic soil stiffness Esd, taking into account
the Poisson’s ratio ν of the soil (see Eq. (11)).
2 · (1 – ν2 )
Esd = G0 ·
(1 – ν – 2 · ν2 )
To describe the stiffness degradation with shear strain,
Santos & Correia [29] suggested using Eq. (12), which is al-
so implemented in PLAXIS 3D.
G 1
= (12)
G0 1 + (0.385 · γ )/γ ref
272 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
Therefore, the ratio between the actual shear modulus G
and the dynamic shear modulus G0 depends on the value
of the shear strain γ. The reference shear strain γref corre-
sponds to a secant shear modulus that is reduced to
72.2 % of its initial value and is given as γref = 10–4 as is
common practice. The strain-dependent stiffness degrada-
tion is limited by a minimum stiffness in order to prevent
considering unrealistically small soil stiffnesses for large
shear strains. The minimum is set to the “static” soil stiff-
ness moduli defined in the model, which are the secant
stiffness in a drained triaxial test E50, the tangent stiffness
for primary oedometric loading Eoed and the unloading
and reloading stiffness at engineering strains Eur.
The stiffness moduli in the HSsmall soil model are
based on a stress-dependent power law controlled by an
exponent m and a reference stress pref:
m m
⎛ σ ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞
Eoed = Eoed,ref · ⎜ 1 ⎟ E 50 = E 50,ref · ⎜ 3 ⎟
⎝ pref ⎠ ⎝ pref ⎠
⎛ σ ⎞
m
⎛ σ ⎞
m
E ur = E ur,ref · ⎜ 3 ⎟ G0 = G0,ref · ⎜ 3 ⎟ (13)
⎝ pref ⎠ ⎝ pref ⎠
Thus, the stress dependence of all moduli is described by
the same exponent m, and either σ1 or σ3 is used as a
stress measure. In the investigations presented here, the
intention was to apply the following equation to describe
how the oedometric stiffness is dependent on stress:
ES = Eoed = κ · σat · (σm/σat)λES (14)
where the oedometric stiffness parameter κ defines the
soil stiffness at the reference stress σat = 100 kPa and λES
governs the stress dependency with regard to the mean
principal stress σm. Furthermore, Eq. (10) should be used
for the dynamic shear modulus, with λG0 generally differ-
ent from λΕS.
In order to apply Eqs. (10) and (14) within the
HSsmall soil model, parameter m was set to λES and the
four reference moduli were calculated from the desired
stiffness parameter κ and – in the case of G0,ref – also
from λG0. Assuming linear elastic behaviour, Eqs. (15) and
(16) were used to calculate E50 and Eur depending on
Eoed:
(10)
E50 = (1 – ν – 2ν2)/(1 – ν) · Es (15)
Eur = 3 · E50 (16)
Since the calculation depends on the current stress, the
reference moduli then become depth-dependent. There-
fore, soil strata with thickness Δz = 5 m were modelled so
that reference moduli varying with depth could be consid-
(11)
ered and thus increase the accuracy in fitting the assump-
tion for ES and G0.
The soil parameters used in the simulations are in-
troduced in Table 1 depending on the relative soil density.
These values are based on the authors’ experience gained
in projects in the North Sea and are comparable with
the bandwidths given in the Recommendations of the
Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours and Wa-
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Table 1. Soil parameters used in the simulations

Tabelle 1. Zugrunde gelegte Bodenparameter

Description very dense dense medium dense loose very loose

Void ratio e [1] 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.80
Unit weight γ′ [kN/m³] 10.31 10.00 9.76 9.41 9.10
Friction angle ϕ′ [°] 40.0 37.5 35.0 32.5 30.0
Dilatancy ψ [°] 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
Cohesion c′ [kN/m²] 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Poisson’s ratio ν [1] 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.275 0.300
Stiffness parameter κ [–] 700 500 400 325 250
Stiffness parameter λES [–] 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Stiffness parameter λG0 [–] 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

terways (EAU) by the German Society for Geotechnics
(DGGT) [30].
3.3 Back-calculation of the Mustang Island Field Test
The Mustang Island Field Test is the largest and best in-
strumented pile test considered for the determination of
the p-y approach of the offshore guidelines currently rec-
ommended. Consequently, the field test mentioned de-
scribed by Cox et al. [16] is also used for validating the
numerical model. The test pile had an embedded length
L = 21 m, diameter D = 0.61 m and constant wall thickness
t = 9.52 mm. The soil in the relevant domain z = 0 –
10.62 m (34.85 ft) was specified from borehole samples as
poorly graded fine sand with a buoyant unit weight γ ′ =
10.37 kN/m³ and relative density ID ≈ 80–100 %. Based on
data from two borehole and a combination of standard
and wire-line penetration tests, Reese et al. [17] stated the
friction angle to be ϕ′ = 39°. Regarding the simulations, the
well-known parameters γ ′ and ϕ′ are adopted directly. In
the case of the stiffness parameters and the dilatancy of
the soil, reasonable assumptions are made. The dilatancy
is set to ψ = ϕ′ – 30° = 9°, whereas the chosen stiffness pa-
rameters are equal to the values for very dense sand (see
Table 1). Since the grain size distribution and the suban-
gular grain shape is similar to soil conditions in the North
Sea, the choice of identical stiffness parameters is as-
sumed to be a good approximation for the back-calcula-
tion.
Cox et al. [16] presented a load-deflection curve (with
deflection measured at the soil surface) as well as a single
course of bending moments along the pile shaft which
were determined by strain measurements on the pile (see
Fig. 5). The results of the numerical back-calculations are
included in the same diagrams. Very good agreement with
the Cox et al. field test was obtained, leading to the con-
clusion that the numerical model presented is suitable for
the task considered.
In addition, the field test was back-calculated with
the p-y approach of Reese et al. [15] and the offshore
guidelines [3], [4]. The IGtHPile pile design program [31]
was used for the calculations. As the approach of Reese et
al. was adjusted to the test results, it is not surprising that
the results of this approach match the field test data. In
contrast, the p-y approach found in the offshore guidelines
and currently recommended predicts a significantly stiffer
behaviour for large horizontal head displacements. The
overestimation of the soil resistance by the OGL method

Fig. 5. Back-calculations for Mustang Island Field Test

Bild 5. Rückrechnung der „Mustang Island“-Pfahlprobebelastung

geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 273

K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Fig. 6. Horizontal loadbearing behaviour (D = 5 m, L = 30 m, t = 68.9 mm, very dense sand)

Bild 6. Horizontales Tragverhalten (D = 5 m, L = 30 m, t = 68,9 mm, sehr dichter Sand)

also leads to a significant underestimation of pile bending
moments for depths > 3 m. This method has been calibrat-
ed by several field tests and therefore cannot be expected
to agree perfectly with all the tests. However, it is remark-
able that the largest and best instrumented pile test con-
sidered for this approach cannot be reproduced by the rec-
ommended p-y method.
4 Evaluation of existing p-y approaches for piles
of arbitrary dimensions
4.1 General
In the following, the p-y approaches presented in section 2
are evaluated using the numerical model. This evaluation
represents a summary of two studies published by the
authors. The OGL method and the modified formulations
of Sørensen (2012) [7] and Kallehave et al. [2] were con-
sidered in [20]. The modified p-y formulations of Wie-
mann et al. [6] and Kirsch et al. [21] as well as the ap-
proach of Reese et al. [15] were evaluated in [32]. In the
following, the results for a reference system representing a
monopile system are shown and discussed in detail. Sub-
sequently, the results of a comprehensive parametric study
are summarized.
than the p-y approach according to the offshore guide-
lines. For very small head displacements, the results are
close to those of the Kallehave et al. approach. In con-
trast, for larger head displacements, the resistance result-
ing from FEM is smaller than that from the OGL method
(see Fig. 6, left). For head displacements y > 30 mm, the re-
sistance is even smaller than that of the p-y approach of
Sørensen (2012). The approach of Reese et al. leads to al-
most identical results compared with the OGL method for
small loads due to the underlying identical initial stiffness
formulation. For larger loads, however, a significantly soft-
er behaviour becomes apparent (see also Fig. 3b).
The corresponding deflection lines and secant bed-
ding stiffnesses (Epy = p/y) for a small load (H = 0.25 MN)
and a large load (H = 15 MN) are presented in Fig. 7. For

4.2 Results for a reference system

The system consists of a monopile with diameter D = 5 m,

embedded length L = 30 m and wall thickness t = 68.9 mm
embedded in very dense sand (see Table 1). The eccentric-
ity of the horizontal load H is h = 25 m. In Fig. 6, the foun-
dation response is given in terms of load-displacement
curves and secant stiffness-displacement curves (Ksec =
H/y) with displacements determined at the soil surface.
The results for the Wiemann et al. and the Kirsch et al. ap-
proach are not included in the consideration of the refer-
ence system but are introduced for a comparable
monopile foundation by Thieken et al. [32].
Evidently, the numerical simulations predict a much
larger dependence of the foundation stiffness on the hori- Fig. 7. Deflection lines (left) and secant bedding stiffnesses
zontal head displacement than the p-y approaches consid- (right) for reference system
ered (see Fig. 6, right). For small head displacements, the Bild 7. Biegelinien (links) und Sekantenbettungssteifigkeit
numerical simulations yield larger foundation stiffnesses (rechts) des Referenzsystems

274 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4

 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Fig. 8. Quotient of horizontal resistance Hp-y/HFEM for existing p-y approaches (very dense sand)
Bild 8. Quotient des horizontalen Widerstands Hp-y/HFEM für existierende p-y-Ansätze (sehr dichter Sand)

geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 275

K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
the small load, the deflection lines of the OGL method
and the Reese et al. (1974) [15] approach are in qualitative
agreement with the numerical results. In contrast, the
Kallehave et al. (2012) [2] formulation overestimates the
foundation stiffness, whereas the Sørensen (2012) [7] for-
mulation shows an underestimation. For the large load,
the numerically derived stiff pile behaviour can only be ap-
proximated by the approach of Sørensen (2012) [7]. It has
to be concluded that none of the current approaches real-
istically accounts for the distribution of the bedding resis-
tance along the pile shaft (see Fig. 7, right).
4.3 Parametric study
To give a comprehensive overview of the discrepancy be-
tween the p-y approaches and the simulations, the numer-
ical model was applied to a total of 224 pile-soil systems.
Horizontally loaded piles with diameters in the range D =
0.5 to 8 m and relative lengths L/D = 4 to 10 were consid-
ered. To enable a reasonable evaluation of the p-y ap-
proaches depending on the pile dimensions, the load ec-
centricity h and the wall thickness t were normalized with
the pile diameter D. The wall thickness was defined taking
into account the driveability criterion [3] as t [mm] =
0.0125 · D [mm] + 6.35 [mm] and the load eccentricity was
arranged as h = 5 · D, which enabled the reference system
to be integrated into the study.
The quotients of the horizontal load resulting from
the p-y approaches and the numerical simulations QH =
(Hp-y/HFEM) are presented in terms of contour plots. Con-
sequently, a value > 1 means that the p-y approaches result
in a stiffer behaviour than predicted by the FE simulations.
These contour plots are given in [20], [32] for the six p-y ap-
proaches mentioned for both medium and very dense
sand. In these studies, three normalized head displace-
ments y = 0.0005 · D, 0.01 · D and 0.03 · D are considered
to give a comprehensive view of the discrepancies occur-
ring with regard to the horizontal resistance. In the fol-
lowing, the results for normalized head displacements y =
0.0005 · D and y = 0.03 · D are shown for the very dense
sand only (see Fig. 8). It should be noted that qualitatively
similar results occur if the relative density is changed to
medium dense conditions [20], [32]. However, the devia-
tions from the numerical simulations are up to 30 % larg-
er than for the very dense sand presented afterwards.
Based on the presentation in Fig. 6 it is understood that,
for small horizontal head displacements especially, the
discrepancy determined will largely vary with the head
displacement considered. However, this presentation en-
ables an excellent characterization of the p-y approaches
with regard to the validity for piles of arbitrary dimen-
sions.
For large pile diameters, the OGL method shows
good agreement with the results of the numerical simu-
lations for the small normalized head displacement
(y = 0.0005 · D). The overestimation derived for the foun-
dation resistance increases significantly with increasing
pile diameter D, relative pile stiffness and loading. For
y = 0.03 · D, values of QH = 2.0 result, which means that
the pile resistance is twice as large as the value predicted
by the OGL method. The approach of Reese et al. gives re-
sults qualitatively comparable with the OGL method for
276 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
y = 0.03 · D, but the overestimation of the resistance is
much smaller, especially for larger pile diameters. As ex-
pected, results identical with the OGL method are ob-
tained for y = 0.0005 · D. The Wiemann et al. formulation
reduces the overestimation of the OGL method for large
pile diameters, although the results are almost identical
for small-diameter piles. However, the overestimation of
resistance for y = 0.03 · D is still > 50 % and the smaller ini-
tial stiffness also causes the foundation stiffness to be un-
derestimated for y = 0.0005 · D. The same trend can be
found when using the Sørensen (2012) formulation, with
the results more in agreement with the numerical results
for large-diameter piles than results from the Wiemann et
al. formulation. The reduction in the initial stiffness for
y = 0.0005 · D, however, appears much too great for small-
diameter piles. The formulation of Kallehave et al. leads
to a qualitatively similar distribution compared with the
OGL method, but the resistance overestimation is general-
ly higher. Therefore, the validity of the Kallehave et al.
formulation is limited to horizontal head displacements
smaller than y < 0.0005 · D (see also Fig. 6). The approach
of Kirsch et al. significantly overestimates the foundation
resistance for y = 0.0005 · D, with no approximation to the
numerical results being obtained for smaller loads [32].
For y = 0.03 · D, an overestimation comparable with the
formulation of Wiemann et al. is found. Please keep in
mind that the approach of Kirsch et al. purports to ac-
count for a cyclic accumulation of head displacement and
should therefore yield a significantly smaller resistance
than the numerical simulations under static conditions.
4.4 Interim conclusion
An evaluation of the suitability of the p-y approaches cur-
rently available was conducted in detail for a reference
system and by means of a comprehensive parametric
study. It must be concluded that none of the existing p-y
approaches is generally appropriate for the design of large-
diameter monopiles. It is doubted that a simple modifica-
tion of the initial stiffness coefficient of the OGL method
is the way to success as the modification of the initial stiff-
ness influences the bedding stiffness for small and large
loads in the same way. Therefore, it will not be possible to
use a single formulation to account for a stiffer behaviour
for small loads and a softer behaviour for larger loads. In
general, the concept of the Reese et al. approach could ful-
fil this requirement by modifying the supporting points of
the formulations [20]. Anyway, a major revision of the ex-
isting p-y formulations is urgently needed to account more
accurately for the course of the bedding resistance as well
as the pile deflections and bending moments along the
pile shaft.
5 Limitations of the common subgrade reaction method
All p-y formulations introduced and analysed above are
based on the traditional p-y method and therefore com-
prise the limitations of uncoupled springs and the lack of
the consideration of the “pile tip effect”. The approach of
uncoupled springs does not account for the soil as a con-
tinuum, i.e. the bedding resistance on a pile segment is not
influenced by the bedding resistance on adjacent pile seg-
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
Fig. 9. Influence of pile bending on bedding resistance (D = 5 m, L = 30 m, very dense sand)
Bild 9. Einfluss der Pfahlbiegung auf den Bettungswiderstand (D = 5 m, L = 30 m, sehr dichter Sand)
ments. The lack of the pile tip effect means that the bed-
ding resistances are considered independently of the dis-
tance to the pile tip, i.e. effects from the soil continuity be-
neath the pile are neglected. In the following, the conse-
quences of these limitations on the bedding behaviour of a
large-diameter monopile are depicted using numerical
simulations of three systems.
The three simulations are based on the reference
system already introduced in sections 3 and 4.2. For the
first two simulations, only the wall thickness is altered to
t = 40 mm and t = 400 mm for the first and the second sim-
ulation respectively. Both pile-soil systems, subsequently
denoted as realistically loaded piles, are loaded by a hori-
zontal load H with eccentricity h = 25 m. In the third sim-
ulation, the pile length is doubled, with the pile bending
stiffness being set so high that the pile behaviour is almost
rigid (Ep = 1 · 1012 kN/m², ν = 0.27). A horizontal surface
loading was applied to the whole pile shaft, resulting in a
constant horizontal displacement of the complete pile.
The results of the three simulations are illustrated in
Fig. 9. The deflection lines of both realistically loaded
piles are shown for a horizontal head displacement y =
50 mm in Fig. 9 (left). Here, a flexible and a relatively stiff
pile behaviour are found for wall thicknesses t = 40 mm
and t = 400 mm respectively. The same diagram illustrates
the depth of the point of rotation corresponding to the re-
spective pile head displacement. It becomes apparent that,
for the flexible pile especially, the point of rotation moves
significantly downwards as the pile head displacement in-
creases, indicating an increasing relative stiffness of the
pile. The deflection line of the third pile is not shown as it
is simply a vertical line at y = 50 mm. The corresponding
p-y curves resulting from the three simulations are illus-
trated for depths z = 8 m and z = 13 m in Fig. 9 (centre).
Fig. 9 (right) presents the secant bedding stiffness (Epy =
p/y) for a horizontal displacement y = 20 mm, i.e. the dia-
gram represents a profile from the p-y curves along the
pile shaft for a horizontal displacement y = 20 mm. As the
required horizontal displacement was not reached for a
pile head displacement y = 500 mm by the realistically
loaded piles near to the point of rotation, no Epy values
can be determined in these cases.
Considering Fig. 9 as a whole, the effects of both lim-
itations in the traditional p-y method become fully evi-
dent. Even if the same numerical model was used, strongly
deviating bedding resistances are found depending on the
pile deflection line. Shear stresses acting in the soil along
the pile length lead to redistributions in the load transfer,
causing changes to the bedding resistance depending on
the deflection line of the pile. These differences cannot be
considered by the traditional p-y method as the recom-
mended p-y curves are independent of the pile behaviour.
Existing p-y relationships, derived from field tests or nu-
merical considerations, are therefore only valid for the re-
spective underlying relative pile stiffness. An idea to deal
with these differences could be to modify the p-y relation-
ships depending on relative pile stiffness criteria. Howev-
er, these criteria are independent of the magnitude of load-
ing which is – considering the behaviour of the point of ro-
tation (see Fig. 9, left) – seen as less realistic. An iterative
procedure is therefore regarded as indispensable to ac-
count for the mutual influence of pile deflection line and
bedding resistance.
The effect of the pile tip can also be seen in Fig. 9
(right). The bedding resistances of the realistically loaded
piles increase significantly near the pile tip in comparison
to the horizontally loaded pile, which is assumed to be un-
affected by any pile tip effect due to the doubling of the
pile length. These large bedding resistances clearly show
that as the traditional p-y method disregards the soil con-
tinuity beneath the pile, this causes significant inaccura-
cies in the prediction of the pile’s loadbearing behaviour.
However, the almost identical resistances of the two real-
istically loaded piles supports the assumption that the pile
tip effect is a predominately geometrical effect that could
also be included in a traditional p-y method. It should be
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 277
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
noted that the tubular pile considered does not allow a dis-
tinction between a load-spreading of bedding resistances
and the so-called pile toe shearing. However, this distinc-
tion appears to be less important for the determination of
the pile behaviour as the resistances act on the pile at the
same depth.
In conclusion, the comparison of the bedding behav-
iour clearly shows that the limitations of the traditional p-
y method necessarily result in significant inaccuracies in
the predicted pile behaviour. A more sophisticated ap-
proach, able to account for the mutual interaction of de-
flection line and bedding resistance as well as the effect of
the pile tip, is urgently needed.
6 Derivation of a new p-y approach
6.1 Conception of the new approach
This section will introduce the derivation of a new p-y ap-
proach, the aim of which is to improve the model accura-
cy compared with the p-y method commonly used. For
this purpose, the findings from the parametric study and
the discussion regarding the limitations of the traditional
p-y method in section 5 are included. The approach is
based on a two-step procedure. In the first step, the p-y re-
lationship is determined for a pile of infinite length which
exhibits a constant horizontal displacement along the pile
shaft (see section 6.3). This relationship will serve as a
“basic p-y curve”, which excludes any effects of the pile de-
flection line or the pile tip. In the analytical formulation,
regarding maximum resistance, the ultimate bedding resis-
tance approach (see section 6.2) according to the German
standard for earth pressure DIN 4085 [10] is applied. The
shape of the basic p-y curves thus uses a completely new
formulation, accounting for the stiffer behaviour for small
loads as well as the softer behaviour for larger loads. In the
second step, the basic p-y curves are modified in an itera-
tive procedure to account for the interaction of deflection
line and bedding resistance as well as the pile tip effect
(see section 6.4). ”Stretching factors” are used here which
are applied to the basic p-y curves and thus modify the p-y
curves depending on the course of the pile deflection line
and the distance to the pile tip.
It should be pointed out that the introduction of de-
flection mode-dependent stretching factors is not a gener-
ally applicable way of overcoming the shortcomings of ne-
glecting soil continuity in a Winkler-type model. However,
for the system under consideration, the approach devel-
oped significantly improves the accuracy of a common
subgrade reaction method. The validity range is of course
bounded by the systems on which the approach is cali-
brated. Therefore, more than 250 pile-soil systems with
wide ranges of pile dimensions, relative densities and load-
ing conditions were evaluated in this study in order to en-
sure almost general applicability of the approach for hori-
zontally loaded piles in homogeneous sand.
6.2 Determination of ultimate bedding resistance
for constant horizontal pile displacement
The ultimate bedding resistance for piles with constant
horizontal displacement (pure horizontal translation) is
determined using the numerical model presented in sec-
278 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
tion 3. The pile is considered as almost rigid (E = 1 ·
1012 kN/m², ν = 0.27) and loaded with a surface displace-
ment on the whole pile shaft to reach a constant horizon-
tal displacement (see section 5). In order to eliminate the
pile tip effects in the results, the pile has twice the length
of the depth considered. Owing to mesh distortions, the
ultimate resistance is hard to determine in greater soil
depths if the soil stiffnesses described in section 3 are
used. Therefore, the soil stiffness here was set as 10 times
larger than the aforementioned values. The ultimate resis-
tances could thus be reached in the numerical simulation.
This larger soil stiffness would definitely manipulate the
calculation results for realistic pile loadings due to
changes in the load histories of the single elements. In
contrast, the larger soil stiffness has no influence on the
ultimate bedding resistances of a constant horizontally
displaced pile. This was confirmed by additional calcula-
tions with realistic soil stiffness (comparison in the part
close to the soil surface) as well as with calculations con-
sidering even larger soil stiffnesses (20 times larger than
the aforementioned values). Four pile diameters in a
range D = 1 to 8 m and relative densities from very loose
to very dense sand were considered. The results of the nu-
merical simulations are shown in Fig. 10.
The diagrams show a comparison of the ultimate
bedding resistance for the OGL method and the German
standard for earth pressure DIN 4085 [10] with the results
of the numerical simulations. Please note that the ultimate
bedding resistance approach of the OGL was already in-
troduced in Eq. (3). DIN 4085 assigns the resultant ulti-
mate horizontal resistance of a structural element com-
prising an embedded length L and a width D depending
on the passive earth pressure coefficient Kpgh (see
Eq. (17)).
L2
pgh = γ ·
E 3D · K pgh · 0.55 · (1 + 2 · tan ϕ′) · L · D (17)
2
The passive earth pressure coefficient Kpgh value depends
on the internal friction angle ϕ′ and the passive wall
friction angle, which in this study is assumed to be
δp = –2/3 · ϕ′, as it is common practice for steel or concrete
surfaces (Eq. (18)). The determination of Kpgh is described
in [33], to which DIN 4085 [10] refers.
2
⎛ ⎛ 1 + sin ϕ′ ⎞ 0.26 + 5.96 · ϕ′
⎞
⎜ ⎜⎝ 1 – sin ϕ′ ⎟⎠ · (1 – 0.53 · δ p ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
K pgh = (18)
1 + (tan δ p )2
The ultimate bedding resistance for a constant horizontal
Basic
displacement pC can therefore be calculated by deriv-
ing Eq. (17) with respect to depth z (or L in Eq. (19)), as
presented in Eq. (19).
11
pBasic
C = · γ · z1.5 · K pgh · (1 + 2 · tan ϕ′) · D (19)
16
Fig. 10 shows that the DIN 4085 approach is in good
agreement with the numerical results. This can be con-
firmed by the distributions along a small- (D = 1 m) and a
large-diameter (D = 5 m) pile (see Fig. 10, top) as well as in
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
Fig. 10. Ultimate bedding resistance resulting from FEM, offshore guidelines [3], [4] and DIN 4085 [10]
Bild 10. Maximalwert des Bettungswiderstands nach FEM, Offshore-Richtlinien [3], [4] und DIN 4085 [10]
terms of a comparison of ultimate resistances for two rela-
tive depths z/D = 2 and z/D = 5 in Fig. 10 (bottom). In
contrast, the OGL formulation leads to a significant
underestimation of the bedding resistance at depths
> 1.5 times the pile diameter. However, it should be noted
that the larger soil resistance of the OGL approach in the
upper part of the pile (z ≤ 2.625 · D) results from the cali-
bration factor A (see Eq. (1)). This factor is intended to ac-
count for the effect of a realistic loading and should there-
fore be neglected here. In conclusion, the DIN 4085 ap-
proach gives more reasonable results for a constant hori-
zontal pile displacement and, consequently, is included in
the new p-y approach.
6.3 Determination of “basic” p-y curve
Results from numerical simulations analogous to section
6.2 are used for the calibration of the “basic p-y curves”.
Here, the soil stiffnesses given in Table 1 are used to
account for realistic load-displacement characteristics.
Again, piles with diameters in a range D = 1 to 8 m and
five relative densities between very loose and very dense
sand were considered. For example, the results for a typi-
cal monopile with a pile diameter D = 5 m in very dense
sand below groundwater level are presented. Similarly to
section 6.2, the pile length was enlarged to eliminate the
effect of the pile tip. The numerical results are presented
in Fig. 11 in terms of p-y curves and secant bedding stiff-
ness displacement curves (Epy-y) for three representative
depths.
As a second example, the p-y relations for a typical
onshore pile with a diameter D = 1 m in medium dense
sand above groundwater level (γ = 19.76 kN/m³) are pre-
sented in Fig. 12.
Figs. 11 and 12 include the results obtained using the
“basic p-y curves” formulation. The conception of and the
equations for the basic curve are summarized in Fig. 14
(top) and are explained in detail below. The stretching fac-
tor SFpy, considering pile deflection line and pile tip effect,
is already included in the following equations. The calcu-
lation of this factor is explained in section 6.4. For the ba-
sic p-y curve, SFpy = 1.0 applies.
The new basic p-y curve consists of three sections,
which are valid depending on the ratio between the ulti-
mate bedding resistance pC and the soil stiffness modulus
ES. For displacements y ≤ pC/(ES · SFpy) = yB, the new p-y
curve is described by a parabolic formulation according to
Eq. (20).
1/n
⎛ y ⎞
p(y ≤ y B ) = pB · ⎜ ≤ E0py (20)
⎝ y B ⎟⎠
For displacements y ≥ 4 · pC/(Es · SFpy ) = yC, the ultimate
bedding resistance pC is assumed to be reached. For inter-
mediate displacements, p is determined from a linear in-
terpolation between pB and pC (see Eq. (21)).
⎛ p – pB ⎞
p(y B ≤ y < y C ) = pB + ⎜ C · (y – y B ) (21)
⎝ y C – y B ⎟⎠
The exponent n in Eq. (20) of the first curve section has to
be calculated with Eq. (22). For displacements y ≥ 0.005 ·
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 279
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Fig. 11. Comparison of p-y relations for a pile with constant horizontal displacement (D = 5 m, L = 60 m,
very dense sand, buoyant unit weight γ ′)
Bild 11. Vergleich der p-y-Beziehungen für einen konstant horizontal verschobenen Pfahl, (D = 5 m, L = 60 m,
sehr dichter Sand, Wichte unter Auftrieb γ ′ )

pC/(ES · SFpy) = yA, n is a function of the internal friction If the initial foundation stiffness is of minor importance,
angle ϕ′ (see Eq. (23)), whereas for displacements smaller Epy can be derived – as a lower bound solution – from the
than y ≤ 10–5 · D, the initial stiffness E0py is taken into ac- static soil stiffness modulus Es as well (see Eq. (26)). For
count. Please note that the initial stiffness (see Eq. (25)) is the design of offshore wind energy converters, however,
identical to the dynamic shear modulus G0 converted to designers are strongly recommended to determine Epy
an oedometric stiffness modulus Esd (see Eq. (11)). The based on Eq. (25) in order to account realistically for the
corresponding exponent n = n0 reaching the initial stiff- loadbearing behaviour under small loads.
ness at a displacement y = 10–5 · D can be determined us-
ing Eq. (24). In between these displacements, the expo- E0py = ES · SFpy (26)
nent n is affected in a way that results in a smooth transi-
tion between both values. The shape of the transition is The bedding resistance pB, valid for a displacement yB,
given by the exponential formulation in Eq. (22). results from the product of the ultimate bedding resistance
pc and a depth-dependent reduction factor RB (see
⎧n if y ≥ y A Eq. (27)).
⎪⎪ A 0.25
n=⎨ ⎛ y ⎞ (22)
⎪ n0 + (n A – n0 ) · ⎜ y ⎟ if y < y A pB = pC · RB (27)
⎪⎩ ⎝ A⎠
0.5
⎛ z/D ⎞
where: nA = 2.4 – (ϕ′ – 30°) · 0.08 where: R B = 0.63 – ⎜ · 0.33 ≥ 0.35 (28)
⎝ 7.5 ⎟⎠
(23)

⎛ 10–5 · D ⎞ ⎛ E0 · 10–5 · D ⎞
py
n0 = log ⎜ ⎟ / log ⎜ ⎟ (24) To obtain the basic p-y curves from the approach present-
⎝ y B ⎠ ⎜
⎝ pB ⎟⎠ Basic
ed, pC has to be set equal to pC and the stretching fac-
tor to SFpy = 1.0. The meaning of these two parameters
⎛ 2 · (1 – ν2 ) ⎞ will be introduced in section 6.4.
E0py = G0 · ⎜ ⎟ · SFpy = Esd · SFpy (25)
⎝ 1 – ν – 2ν2 ⎠

280 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4

 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
Fig. 12. Comparison of p-y relations for a pile with constant horizontal displacement (D = 1 m, L = 10 m, medium dense
sand, unit weight γ )
Bild 12. Vergleich der p-y-Beziehungen für einen konstant horizontal verschobenen Pfahl (D = 1 m, L = 10 m, mitteldichter
Sand, Wichte γ )
6.4 Consideration of pile deflection line and pile tip effect
As introduced in section 5, the mutual interactions of pile
deflection line and bedding resistance as well as the effect
of the pile tip have to be included in a p-y approach gener-
ally valid for arbitrary pile-soil systems. This requirement
necessitates the modification of the basic p-y curves. The
final modifications were obtained by adjusting the basic p-
y curves systematically to the results of the numerical sim-
ulations. To guarantee a best possible fit for the new p-y
method, these adjustments were made for more than 100
realistic pile-soil systems with various dimensions and soil
conditions, each for several load levels.
Before adapting the stiffness of the p-y curves itera-
tively using the stretching factors SFpy, an increased ulti-
mate resistance near the soil surface has to be included in
the new p-y approach. Here, the ultimate bedding resis-
tance pC is determined based on the basic value for con-
Basic
stant horizontal displacement pC (see Eq. (19)) using
Eq. (29). This equation leads to an increased ultimate re-
sistance for depths smaller than z < 2.5 · D and is – with
regard to shape and magnitude – comparable with the A
factor of the OGL or Reese et al. (1974) methods.
⎡ ⎛ z ⎞
0.25 ⎤
pC = pBasic · ⎢ 3 – 2 · ⎥ ≥ pBasic (29)
C
⎢ ⎜⎝ 2.5 · D ⎟⎠ ⎥ c
⎣ ⎦
The p-y curves, based on the ultimate bedding resistance
pC, have to be modified depending on the deflection line
and the distance of the respective depth to the pile tip. For
this purpose, a stretching factor SFpy is to be introduced.
The stretching factor directly influences the stiffness of the
p-y curve by dividing the supporting displacements (yA, yB,
yC) by the stretching factor SFpy (see Fig. 14, top). There-
fore, a stretching factor < 1 results in a softer response of
the p-y curve, whereas a stretching factor > 1 results in a
stiffer behaviour (see Fig. 14, bottom). With regard to this,
it should be noted that the initial stiffness E0py also needs
to be multiplied by the stretching factor because the initial
stiffness is influenced by the same effects (see Eq. (25)).
The total stretching factor SFpy results from both compo-
nents SFpy,bend and SFpy,tip, which account for the deflec-
tion line and the influence of the pile tip respectively (see
Eq. (30)).
SFpy = SFpy,bend + SFpy,tip (30)
The basis for the shape of the stretching factor is revealed
in Fig. 13. The figure compares the secant bedding stiff-
ness for the numerical results and the p-y curves (based on
pC and SFpy = 1.0) for the two realistically loaded piles in-
troduced in section 5. These p-y systems are loaded with
the same loads, which induce a pile head deflection y =
20 mm in the numerical simulations. It becomes obvious
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 281
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Fig. 13. Comparison of secant bedding stiffnesses between FE results and new p-y method based on pC and SFpy = 1.0
Bild 13. Vergleich der Bettungssteifigkeiten zwischen FE-Ergebnissen und neuer p-y-Methode unter Zugrundelegung von
pC und SFpy = 1,0

that in both cases the analytical model behaviour is softer effect will have very limited influence on the bearing be-
than that of the numerical one, a fact caused by deviating haviour of the pile.
bedding stiffnesses. These differences in bedding stiffness- The shape of the stretching factor is not directly com-
es are depicted by the quotient between the numerically parable with the deviations in bedding stiffness due to the
determined bedding stiffness Epy FEM and the analytically non-linearities in the modified p-y curves. However, the
determined bedding stiffness Epy SFpy=1.0 (see Fig. 13, same basic shape for the stretching factors was found in
right). Here, a value > 1 means that the p-y curves behave the comparative study conducted to reach a best possible
softer and a value < 1 means that the p-y curves behave fit between the numerical and the analytical results. In
stiffer than is the case with the numerical simulations. this regard, the fitted stretching factors for the deflection
These deviations in the bedding stiffness have to be line SFpy,bend are shown in Eqs. (30), (31) and (32). Here,
compensated for by the stretching factors to reach a bear- ymax is the maximum pile deflection (assumed to occur at
ing behaviour comparable with the numerical simulations. the pile head), ymin is the minimum deflection on the rear
Considering the shape of the deviations in bedding stiff- side of the pile, zy0 is the depth of the rotation point and
ness (Fig. 13, right) it becomes obvious that the bedding zymin is the depth of the minimum deflection. In this re-
stiffnesses are underestimated close to the soil surface, di- gard, a schematic drawing of the stretching factor resulting
rectly below at the point of rotation and close to the pile from the pile deflection line as well as the geometrical pa-
tip. In contrast, the bedding stiffness is overestimated rameters mentioned before is introduced in Fig. 14 (bot-
above the point of rotation. Furthermore, the significant tom).
dependence of these deviations on the pile deflection line
y
and the distance to the pile tip was observed for all sys- SFpy,bend = · 2.3 + 0.3 if z ≤ z y (31)
y max 0
tems considered. The basic mechanism supporting these
findings is the occurrence of shear stresses acting in the
y
soil along the pile length which lead to redistributions in SFpy,bend = · 1.2 + 0.3 if z y < z ≤ z y (32)
y min 0 min
the load transfer, i.e. pile segments with larger displace-
ments than adjacent pile segments mobilize a larger resis-
y
tance. It should be noted that the extreme values at the SFpy,bend = · 1.2 + 0.3 ≥ 1.0 if z > z y (33)
point of rotation are due to the very small displacements y min min

and the complex load transfer due to the change in the di-
rection of deflection. As the corresponding resistance and As mentioned earlier, the pile tip effect is supposed to be a
the distance to the point of rotation are rather small, this geometrical problem limited to a small pile section near

282 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4

 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

Fig. 14. Conception of and equations for the new p-y approach
Bild 14. Konzept und Gleichungen des neuen p-y-Ansatzes

the pile tip. The stretching factor for the effect of the pile 6.5 Calculation procedure
tip SFpy,tip is determined using Eqs. (34) and (35) (see
Fig. 14, bottom). The loadbearing behaviour of piles in homogeneous sand
under static loading conditions can be determined based
5 on the complete scheme of the proposed method present-
⎛z–L ⎞
SFpy,tip = 5 · ⎜ + 1⎟ if z ≥ L – 2 · D (34) ed in Fig. 14. The calculation is carried out using an itera-
⎝ 2·D ⎠
tive procedure. Starting with the basic p-y curves intro-
duced in sections 6.2 and 6.3 (see Fig. 14, top), the pile de-
5
⎛z–L ⎞ flections are calculated in the first iteration step by setting
SFpy,tip = 5 · ⎜ + 1⎟ + 3 if z ≥ L – 0.1 · D (35)
⎝ 2·D ⎠ SFpy = 1.0. The resulting deflection line is used for deter-

geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 283

K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
mining the stretching factors (see Fig. 14, bottom) applied
to the p-y curves considered in the next iteration step. The
iteration is continued until convergence is reached for the
pile head displacement.
Altogether, the new method is similar to the method
by the offshore guidelines and therefore easy to imple-
ment in existing p-y programs. The calculations presented
here were conducted with the pile design program IGtH-
Pile [31]. It is worth mentioning that the iterative adaption
of the p-y curves mentioned before does not necessitate an
additional iteration process in the program since it can be
included in the equilibration iteration necessary to ac-
count for the non-linearity of the p-y curves. Therefore,
the new concept causes almost no additional calculation
time.
7 Evaluation of the new p-y approach
7.1 General
In the following, the new p-y approach is evaluated based
on the results of the numerical simulations. A detailed
comparison is conducted on two representative systems.
The first system is identical to the reference system con-
Fig. 15. Evaluation of the OGL method and the new
approach for a monopile foundation
Bild 15. Bewertung der OGL-Methode und des neuen
Ansatzes anhand einer Monopile-Gründung
284 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
sidered for the evaluation of the existing p-y curves in
Figs. 6 and 7, representing a monopile foundation. The
second system represents a pile for a foundation beneath
an onshore structure, i.e. a small-diameter pile above
groundwater level.
7.2 Evaluation by means of a monopile foundation
A pile with diameter D = 5 m, embedded length L = 30 m
and wall thickness t = 68.85 mm in very dense sand was
considered. The load eccentricity was chosen as h = 25 m,
i.e. the moment loading results from M = H · 25 m. In
Fig. 15, the upper two figures represent a comparison of
the loadbearing behaviour of the pile in terms of the load-
displacement curves and secant stiffness-displacement
curves with displacements taken at the soil surface. Both
diagrams indicate a much better agreement using the new
approach than is the case with the OGL method. Further-
more, the local behaviour is compared in terms of the de-
flection line, the bedding resistance and the bending mo-
ment along the pile shaft for H = 5 MN. It can be demon-
strated that the course of bedding resistance is predicted
accurately by the new approach. In particular, excellent
Fig. 16. Evaluation of the OGL method and the new
approach for an onshore pile
Bild 16. Bewertung der OGL-Methode und des neuen
Ansatzes anhand eines Onshore-Pfahls
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand

agreement in the lower part of the pile could be reached
after modifying the basic p-y curves by the stretching fac-
tors. In addition, a good prediction of the bedding resis-
tance could be achieved in the residual part of the pile
length. This good agreement directly causes a significantly
improved prediction of the deflection line and the bend-
ing moments. For completeness, the corresponding
stretching factors considered for a horizontal load H =
5 MN are also presented.
7.3 Evaluation by means of an onshore pile
A pile with diameter D = 1 m, embedded length L = 12.5 m
and wall thickness t = 16.35 mm in medium dense sand
above groundwater level was considered. In this case no
additional moment loading was applied. The comparison
of the numerical simulation results, the OGL method and
the new approach is presented in Fig. 16. It is apparent
that the new approach, in contrast to the OGL method,

Fig. 17. Parametric study for evaluation of the OGL method and the new approach
Bild 17. Parameterstudie für die Bewertung der OGL-Methode und des neuen Ansatzes

geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 285

K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
coincides very well with the results of the numerical simu-
lation. This shows that the new approach can be used not
only for rather stiff monopiles, but also for flexible pile sys-
tems.
7.4 Parametric study
Starting from the reference monopile foundation system
introduced in section 7.2, the relative density was initially
varied. The relative density correlates with the angle of in-
ternal friction f′ as introduced in Table 1. In Fig. 17 (1)
(left), the secant stiffness KFEM = HFEM/y resulting from
the numerical simulations is presented for different hori-
zontal head displacements y. The secant stiffness increas-
es almost linearly with an increasing friction angle. Fig. 17
(1) (centre) shows the comparison of results from the p-y
approach according to the OGL method. The secant stiff-
ness of the OGL method KOGL is compared with the re-
sults of the numerical model KFEM. The value QH = 1.0 is
marked by a grey line to indicate identical results of both
methods. A wide range between 0.5 and 1.9 is obtained for
the quotients QH = KOGL/KFEM. The trend shows QH in-
creasing with relative density and horizontal head dis-
placement y. For friction angles larger than ϕ′ = 35°, the
underestimation of the initial stiffness is limited to head
displacements smaller than y = 0.005 · D = 2.5 mm. Fig. 17
(1) (right) shows the comparison between the numerical
results and the new approach. Here, it was found that
QH = KNEW/KFEM ranges between 0.96 and 1.04, which in-
dicates quite good agreement irrespective of the load level
and relative density.
In the same way, Fig. 17 (2) presents a variation in
the wall thickness t in the results. Again the results of the
reference system are included (t = 81.35 mm). From the
numerical results it becomes apparent that an increasing
wall thickness leads to increasing foundation stiffness, es-
pecially for small head displacements. It is obvious that
the overestimation of resistance by the OGL method in-
creases with increasing wall thickness. This is caused by
the increasing overestimation of bedding resistance with
depth. In contrast, the new approach accounts for the ef-
fect of the wall thickness very well. A small range of values
between 0.94 and 1.02 is obtained.
A parametric study concerning the influence of the
load eccentricity h is shown in Fig. 17 (3). Load eccentric-
ities in a wide range between h = 0 and 100 m are consid-
ered. First, a significant decrease in foundation stiffness
KFEM is found with increasing load eccentricity. The dis-
crepancy between the OGL method and the numerical re-
sults is large but almost constant, except for the smallest
load eccentricities. In contrast, the new approach gives
reasonable results for all cases considered.
Fig. 17 (4) evaluates the influence of varying soil stiff-
nesses on the results of both p-y approaches. For this pur-
pose, the soil stiffness factor fES describes the ratio of the
soil stiffnesses considered in this study according to the
values given in Table 1. As is to be expected, the founda-
tion stiffness KFEM determined by the numerical simula-
tions increases with increasing soil stiffness. The compari-
son with the OGL method shows a significant increase in
the overestimation of the results with decreasing soil stiff-
ness. The reason for this is simply that the soil stiffness is
286 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
not an input parameter in this method, but is correlated to
the friction angle and thus remains constant when fES is
varied. In contrast, the new approach is able to account
for this varied soil stiffness quite accurately. This stiffness-
dependent formulation is assumed to be quite advanta-
geous as different soils exhibit different relations between
soil stiffness and shear strength. Besides, this consider-
ation demonstrates the accuracy of the new approach
even if other soil stiffness formulations were used in the
study.
7.5 Parametric study of pile dimensions
The comprehensive parametric study presented in section
4.3 was used again to evaluate the new approach for piles
of various dimensions. The evaluation is limited to the
new p-y approach as the results of the OGL method are al-
ready illustrated in section 4.3 (see also [20], [32]). The
complete parametric study is presented here, i.e. the re-
sults for medium dense and very dense sand are shown for
three relative displacements y/D (see Fig. 18). For com-
parison, the quotient QH = Hp-y/HFEM resulting from the
OGL method was found to vary over a range QH = 0.6 to
2.0 for very dense sand and QH = 0.4 to 2.2 for medium
dense sand. The new approach leads to contour plots that
do not give a smooth image of the discrepancies due to
much smaller differences in the results. The quotients are
found to vary over a much smaller range QH = 0.90–1.05.
In conclusion, much better compliance is obtained using
the new approach than when using the method in the off-
shore guidelines.
8 Further p-y approaches
At present, the new p-y approach is limited to piles in ho-
mogeneous non-cohesive soil under static loading condi-
tions. Further studies based on the same concept have al-
ready been started in order to determine a new p-y ap-
proach for homogeneous cohesive soils. In addition, the
two-step procedure introduced appears quite promising in
its ability to reach an approach for stratified soils, too.
Here, the constant horizontal pile displacement consid-
ered will enable a systematic consideration of the stratifi-
cation and, with that, an accurate description of the effects
occurring. The new approaches together will constitute a
major advantage over the p-y methods currently used,
which were derived for homogeneous soil conditions only.
An existing approach to consider the soil stratification of
Georgiadis [34] is assumed to be a first step, but is not seen
as a proven method due to the very small database of only
two field tests. Furthermore, the new approach can also be
extended to assess the loadbearing behaviour for piles in
sand under cyclic loading conditions. This is planned by
adapting the new approach to the results of the Stiffness
Degradation Method (SDM) [35] often used for the design
of monopile foundations for OWECs.
9 Conclusion
Monopile foundations for offshore wind energy converters
are usually designed using the p-y method. The corre-
sponding p-y curves affect both the magnitude of the
 K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
Fig. 18. Comparison of resistance Hp-y/HFEM for the new p-y approach; very dense sand (top); medium dense sand (bottom)
Bild 18. Quotient des horizontalen Widerstands Hp-y/HFEM für die neue p-y-Methode; sehr dichter Sand (oben); mitteldich-
ter Sand (unten)
monopile deformations under extreme loads and the foun-
dation stiffness – which influences the eigenfrequency
and, with that, the structural loading on the OWEC – un-
der small operational loads. Previous investigations given
in the literature indicate that the use of the p-y curves stat-
ed in the offshore guidelines yield erroneous results for
large-diameter piles. It is supposed by different authors
that the foundation stiffness is overestimated under ex-
treme loads but underestimated for small operational
loads.
In a comprehensive parametric study using three-di-
mensional numerical simulations, the p-y method of the
offshore guidelines was evaluated using numerical simula-
tions, including the sophisticated HSsmall soil model. It
was found that both the underestimation of foundation
stiffness for extreme loads as well as the overestimation for
small operational loads can be confirmed. Furthermore,
modified p-y formulations presented in the literature to ac-
count for the effect of the pile diameter are also found to
be not generally suitable for piles with arbitrary dimen-
sions and arbitrary load levels.
The derivation of a new p-y approach for piles in ho-
mogeneous sand under static loading conditions is pre-
sented. By means of two reference systems and a compre-
hensive parametric study, the new approach is proved to
give much better predictions for the loadbearing behav-
iour as well as for the local behaviour, i.e. deflection line,
bending moment and bedding resistance. The new ap-
proach is similar to the method in the offshore guidelines
and therefore easy to implement in existing p-y programs
as is already the case for the IGtHPile pile design program
[31].
The new approach has been developed for homoge-
neous sand and is therefore only valid for comparable soil
conditions. However, the limitations of the new approach
should be the same as for the method in the offshore
guidelines, which are only calibrated on piles in homoge-
neous soil conditions. Indeed, these recommended curves
are commonly used for stratified soils, too, which also jus-
tifies using the new approach for stratified soil conditions.
As the effect of the soil stratification has not been exten-
sively investigated, pile design in such cases should still be
handled with caution.
The scheme of the new p-y approach appears
promising when it comes to determining more adequate
p-y approaches for cohesive and stratified soils as well.
Furthermore, by adapting the new approach to the results
of the Stiffness Degradation Method [35], an extension to
cyclic loading conditions is also planned.
Acknowledgments
This study was partly carried out within the scope of the
“GIGAWINDlife” research project funded by the Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWI). The
authors sincerely acknowledge BMWI’s support.
geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4 287
K. Thieken/M. Achmus/K. Lemke · A new static p-y approach for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand
References
[1] Achmus, M.: Bemessung von Monopiles für die Gründung
von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen. Bautechnik 88, No. 9
(2011), pp. 602–616.
[2] Kallehave, D., LeBlanc Thilsted, C., Liingaard, M. A.: Modi-
fication of the API p-y formulation of initial stiffness of sand.
Proc. of 7th Intl. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation & Geo-
technics, 2012, pp. 465–472.
[3] American Petroleum Institute (API): Recommended Practice
2GEO – Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations,
Oct 2014 ed.
[4] Det Norske Veritas (DNV): Offshore Standard DNV-OS-
J101, Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures, Jan 2013.
[5] Abdel-Rahman, K., Achmus, M.: Finite Element Modeling of
Horizontally Loaded Monopile Foundations for Offshore
Wind Energy Converters in Germany. Proc. of 1st Intl. Symp.
on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG), 2005, Aus-
tralia, pp. 391–396.
[6] Wiemann, J., Lesny, K., Richwien, W.: Evaluation of the Pile
Diameter Effects on Soil-Pile Stiffness. Proc. of 7th German
Wind Energy Conference (DEWEK), 2004.
[7] Sørensen S. P. H.: Soil-structure interaction for non-slender
large-diameter offshore monopiles. PhD thesis, Aalborg Univer-
sity Denmark, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2012.
[8] Hald, T., Mørch, C., Jensen, L., LeBlanc Bakmar, C., Ahle,
K.: Revisiting monopile design using p-y curves results from
full scale measurements on Horns Rev. DONG Energy A/S,
European Offshore Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition,
2009.
[9] Thieken, K., Achmus, M., Schmoor, K.: On the ultimate limit
state design proof for laterally loaded piles. Geotechnik 37
(2014), No. 1, pp. 19–31.
[10] Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V (DIN): DIN 4085:2011-
05: Subsoil – Calculation of earth-pressure, 2011.
[11] LeBlanc, C., Houlsby, G. T., Byrne, B. W.: Response of stiff
piles in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading. Géotechnique,
vol. 60 (2), 2010, pp. 79–90.
[12] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. (DGGT): Emp-
fehlungen des Arbeitskreises Pfähle (EA-Pfähle), 2nd ed., Ber-
lin: Ernst & Sohn, 2012.
[13] Winkler, E.: Die Lehre von der Elastizität und Festigkeit,
Prague, 1867.
[14] McClelland, B., Focht, J. A.: Soil Modulus for Laterally
Loaded Piles. Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), No. 2954, 1958, pp. 577–594.
[15] Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., Koop, F. D.: Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Sand. Proc. of Offshore Technology Conf.,
1974, paper No. OTC 2080.
[16] Cox, W. R., Reese, L. C., Grubbs, B. R.: Field Testing of Lat-
erally Loaded Piles in Sand. Proc. of Offshore Technology
Conf. (OTC), 1974, paper No. OTC 2079.
[17] Murchison, J. M., O’Neill, M. W.: Evaluation of p-y-Rela-
tionship in Cohesionless Soils, Analysis and Design of Pile
Foundations (ASCE), 1984, pp. 174–191.
[18] Augustesen, A. H., Brodbaek, K. T., Moeller, M., Sørensen,
S. P. H., Ibsen, L. B., Pedersen, T. S, Andersen, L.: Numerical
Modeling of Large-Diameter Steel Piles at Horns Rev. Proc. of
12th Intl. Conf. on Civil, Structural & Environment Engineer-
ing Computing, 2009, paper No. 239.
[19] Sørensen, S. P. H., Ibsen, L. B., Augustesen, A. H.: Effects
of diameter on initial stiffness of p-y curves for large-diameter
piles in sand. Proc. of 7th European Conf. on Numerical Meth-
ods in Geotechnical Engineering, 2010, pp. 907–912.
[20] Achmus, M., Thieken, K., Lemke, K.: Evaluation of p-y ap-
proaches for large diameter monopiles in sand. Proc. of 24th
Intl. Offshore & Polar Engineering Conf. (ISOPE), 2014, pp.
531–539.
288 geotechnik 38 (2015), Heft 4
[21] Kirsch, F., Richter, T., Coronel, M.: Geotechnische Aspekte
bei der Gründungsbemessung von Offshore-Windenergieanla-
gen auf Monopfählen mit sehr großen Durchmessern. Stahlbau
Spezial 2014 – Erneuerbare Energien, 2014, pp. 61–67.
[22] Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Engin, E., Swolfs, W. M.: PLAXIS 3D
2013 Manual.
[23] Dunavant, D. A.: High degree efficient symmetrical Gauss-
ian quadrature rules for the triangle. Intl. Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering (21), 1985, pp. 1129–1148.
[24] Benz, T.: Small Strain Stiffness of Soils and its Numerical
Consequences. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, 2007.
[25] Schanz, T.: Zur Modellierung des Mechanischen Verhaltens
von Reibungsmaterialien. Habilitation thesis, University of
Stuttgart, 1998.
[26] Hardin, B. O., Black, W. L.: Sand stiffness under various
triaxial stresses. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE 92 (1966), No. SM2, pp. 27–42.
[27] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. (DGGT): Emp-
fehlungen des Arbeitskreises Baugrunddynamik, Grundbauin-
stitut der Technischen Universität Berlin, 2002.
[28] Wichtmann, T., Triantafyllidis, T.: Über die Korrelation der
ödometrischen und dynamischen Steifigkeit nichtbindiger
Böden. Bautechnik 83 (7), 2006, pp. 482–491.
[29] Santos, J. A., Correia, A. G.: Reference threshold shear
strain of soil and its application to obtain a unique strain-de-
pendent shear modulus curve for soil. Proc. of 15th Intl. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, 2001, pp.
267–270.
[30] German Society for Geotechnics (DGGT): Recommenda-
tions of the Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours &
Waterways (EAU 2004), 8th ed., 2012.
[31] Terceros, M., Schnoor, K. A., Thieken, K.: IGtHPile Soft-
ware & Calculation Examples (2015), http://www.igth.uni-
hannover.de/downloads
[32] Thieken, K., Achmus, M., Lemke, K.: Evaluation of p-y ap-
proaches for large diameter monopiles in sand. Intl. Journal of
Polar & Offshore Engineering, JOPE 25(2), 2014, pp. 134–144.
[33] Pregl, O.: Bemessung von Stützbauwerken, Handbuch der
Geotechnik – Band 16, Eigenverlag des Instituts für Geotech-
nik, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna, 2002.
[34] Georgiadis, M.: Development of p-y Curves for Layered
Soils. Proc. of Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering
(ASCE), 1983, pp. 536–545.
[35] Achmus, M., Kuo, Y.-S., Abdel-Rahman, K.: On the design
of monopiles with respect to cyclic loads. Bauingenieur 83,
Jul/Aug 2008, pp. 303–311.
Authors
Dr.-Ing. Klaus Thieken
thieken@igth.uni-hannover.de
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Achmus
Dipl.-Ing. Katrin Lemke
Institute for Geotechnical Engineering
Leibniz Universität Hannover
Appelstr. 9a
30167 Hannover
Germany
Submitted for review: 24 November 2014
Revised: 19 January 2015
Accepted for publication: 24 February 2015