See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309174077

Analysis and design of monopile foundations for offshore wind-turbine

structures

Article  in  Marine Georesources and Geotechnology · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

23 6,470

2 authors:

Muhammad Arshad Brendan C. O'Kelly

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Trinity College Dublin
23 PUBLICATIONS   271 CITATIONS    191 PUBLICATIONS   2,673 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Water content determinations for peat and other highly organic soils using the oven drying method View project

Geotechnics of biosolids, sewage sludge and water-treatment residue materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Arshad on 14 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Energy Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Energy 166 November 2013 Issue EN4
Volume 166 Issue EN4
Pages 139–152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ener.12.00019
Paper 1200019
Offshore wind-turbine structures: Received 22/10/2012 Accepted 08/05/2013
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly Keywords: foundations/offshore engineering/renewable energy

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Offshore wind-turbine
structures: a review
g
1 Muhammad Arshad MSc, ME g
2 Brendan C. O’Kelly PhD, FTCD, CEng, CEnv, MICE
PhD candidate, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland; Lecturer, Department of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Geological Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology,
Lahore, Pakistan

This paper reviews various issues related to wind-power generation, one of the more popular forms of renewable
energy, including attractions and challenges of electric power generation through onshore and offshore resources.
Significant increases in wind-turbine dimensions, rated power-generation capacity and size of wind farm developments
over the past two decades are projected to continue. Offshore wind-power generation presents many engineering
challenges including: limited guidelines available for analysis and design of foundation/support structures; inadequate
logistics for construction/fabrication; and comparatively expensive operation and maintenance costs, which combined
result in current levelised cost of energy approximately double that for onshore wind-power generation. Different off-
shore foundation options are discussed in terms of general layout, loading characteristics and related fundamental
natural frequency. Outlooks for some new approaches/developments and areas for further research are identified that
may go towards reducing the levelised cost of energy for wind-power generation more in line with that from other
energy resources, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of this industry for potential investors.

Notation generate electricity. Wind turbines are categorised by axis of

A scalar rotation of the main rotor shaft (either horizontal or vertical
EI bending stiffness axis) and whether they are located onshore or offshore (Tong,
fnat first natural frequency 2010). For modern commercial wind turbines, the main rotor
fwind probability density function shaft is horizontally aligned. Rated power-generation capacity
k shape factor quantifying width of wind-speed distribution is mainly dependent on rotor diameter and wind speed
L strut length (IRENA, 2012); for example, if wind speed increases two-fold,
M turbine mass its energy content increases eight-fold. Two key speed terms
U
10 wind speed at 10 m elevation above mean sea level or are ‘cut-in speed’, at which the wind turbine begins to
typically at hub height for OWTs produce power, and ‘cut-out speed’ at which the turbine must
U
z mean wind speed at elevation z above mean sea level be shut down to protect the rotor and drive-train machinery
1P first excitation frequency from possible damage (Sørensen et al., 2009; Tong, 2010).
3P blade passing frequency for three-bladed turbine
a scalar Between 2000 and 2011, global wind-power capacity approxi-
m strut mass per unit length mately doubled every 3 years, with an estimated total power
n Weibull random variable generation of 238 GW achieved by the end of 2011; China,
the USA and Germany are the top industry players (GWEC,
1. Introduction 2011). Although the market is still dominated by onshore,
Wind-power turbines harness the kinetic energy of the wind, with significant onshore wind resources yet to be explored, the
providing the motive force to rotate turbine blades and offshore wind market is growing rapidly. Global total installed
develop, by way of a drive shaft, the mechanical power to capacity for offshore of 3.12 GW was generated by the end of

139
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
2010, with 1.16 GW added in 2010 alone – a 59.4% increase on
the previous year (WWEA, 2011). Total offshore wind-power
capacity in Europe reached 2.90 GW by the end of 2010, with
0.88 GW added in 2010; again this represents a significant
increase of 43.6% on the previous year. This occurred at the
same time as onshore new-capacity additions declined by 13%
(WWEA, 2011).
The size of offshore wind farms is also increasing, with 2010
data indicating that the average size of an offshore wind farm
in terms of power output was 155 MW – more than double
the average wind farm size of 72 MW for 2009 (EWEA,
2011). Preliminary data for 2011 suggest that offshore wind-
power capacity in Europe increased by 0.86 GW (EWEA,
2012), with the offshore market likely to be driven by mainly
the UK and Germany, although France and Sweden also
have significant projects imminent. Collectively the European
Union (EU) has plans to generate approximately 40 GW from
offshore wind by 2020 (EWEA, 2009). In its 2008 communi-
cation on offshore wind energy, the European Commission
anticipated offshore wind can and must make a substantial con-
tribution to meeting the EU’s energy policy objectives through a
very significant increase – in the order of 30 to 40 times by 2020
and 100 times by 2030 – in installed capacity compared to today
(ECN, 2011a).
Interest in offshore wind power is also increasing in other
regions of the world, with, for example, China, the USA and
South Korea planning to generate 6.0 and 3.0, 2.5 GW, respect-
ively, by 2020. Building on this, China and the USA have
ambitious plans to generate 65 and 54 GW, respectively, from
offshore wind by 2030 (AWEA, 2012; Musial and Bonnie,
2010).
A significant hurdle for the offshore market, however, is the
high initial capital investment costs of the project, which is
related to: inadequate and (or) potentially unreliable design
guidelines for offshore wind-turbine (OWT) installations,
especially foundation structures; more stringent requirements
for durable construction materials to withstand the harsh
marine environment; high-tech equipment requirements for
on-site operation and also shortage of trained manpower
(Musial and Bonnie, 2010). In addition, the next generation of
OWTs will be installed at greater distances offshore and hence
in greater water depths (see Section 4). Compared with
onshore, attractions of offshore wind-power generation gener-
ally include: longer life-span of OWTs on account of less fluctu-
ation of wind speed; availability of ample free space for
installation; consistently higher wind speeds and generally
reduced adverse environmental effects (Damien and Mo, 2002).
This review paper considers the following aspects of the wind
industry
140
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
g trends in geometric size and rated power-generation
capacity of onshore and offshore wind turbines
g cost analyses
g different foundation options available, including features
of exemplary structures, with particular focus on OWT
structures
g challenges and attractions of wind-power generation.
Recommendations for future research and practice are also
proposed to make offshore wind energy comparable with
other sources of renewable energy.
2. Trends in geometric size and rated power
capacity of offshore wind turbines
Figure 1(a) shows the main components of an OWT system,
including a typical monopile foundation, the substructure, tran-
sition piece, tower, rotor blades and nacelle (hub). Modern
OWTs are installed with either pitch-regulated blades or vari-
able rotational speed systems in order to allow optimisation
of power production over a wide range of prevailing wind
speeds. The rotational speed of the main rotor shaft is typically
between 10 and 20 rpm (Alderlieste, 2010; Malhotra, 2011). The
nacelle (Figure 1(b)) contains key electromechanical com-
ponents of the wind turbine, including the gearbox and
generator. Operational details of these components have been
reported by Maria (2009) and Tong (2010). The gearbox may
cause efficiency losses for the wind turbine and is a particular
source of noise. Recent developments in the design of perma-
nent magnet generators have made it possible to construct
some types of wind turbines without the requirement for a
gearbox. In this case, the rotor is connected directly to a low-
speed multi-pole generator that rotates at the same speed,
termed a direct-drive unit. Removing the gearbox removes
one of the key components requiring more maintenance and
that is prone to failure. This simplification of the mechanical
part allows reductions in size and mass of the nacelle (Treehug-
ger, 2011).
The substructure connects the transition piece or tower to
the foundation at seabed level. In Figure 1(a), a monopile is
shown as the foundation system, although other foundation
types, discussed later in the paper, may also be used.
Together the tower, substructure/support structure and foun-
dation maintain the turbine in its correct operational
position. The transition piece provides a means of correcting
for any vertical misalignment of the foundation that may
have occurred during its installation. In some cases, the foun-
dation can extend to above the water surface, thereby also
serving as a substructure by connecting directly to the tran-
sition piece or tower.
Figure 2 shows the steady increase in rotor diameter and rated
power capacity (RPC) of wind turbines installed over the past
Energy Offshore wind-turbine structures:
Volume 166 Issue EN4 a review
Arshad and O’Kelly

Blade

Nacelle Rotor Tower

diameter Work/service
Hub platform
Intermediate
platform
Sea level
Boat landing Transition
piece Substructure
Tower
Support External J-tube
Work/service structure
platform Scour protection
Sea level
Transition
Seabed level
piece
Substructure
Seabed level
Foundation
Monopile
Monopile
Foundation

(a) (c)

1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

3
4
5

16 17 18
01. Blade 8. Aircraft warning lights 14. Transformer
2. Blade support 9. Gearbox 15. Anemometers
3. Pitch angle actuator 10. Mechanical brakes 16. Frame of the nacelle
4. Hub 11. Hydraulic cooling devices 17. Yaw driving device
5. Spinner 12. Generator 18. Supporting tower
6. Main support 13. Power converter and electrical control,
7. Main shaft protection and disconnection devices
(b)
Figure 1. Major components of OWT system: (a) wind-turbine
system; (b) electromechanical parts adapted from
ABB (2012); (c) details of monopile and transition piece

three decades. In particular, between 1990 and 2010, the RPC
increased from typically 0.5 to 7.5 MW and rotor diameter
from approximately 40 to 150 m (EWEA, 2011b). Offshore
wind turbines having 250 m rotor diameters and with
RPC ≥ 20 MW are currently in the research and development
phase (EWEA, 2011b). Table 1 presents correlations deter-
mined from data of more than 150 modern, utility-scale wind
turbines which can be used to approximate the size and mass
of different OWT components, considering RPC as a key
driving input.

141
Energy Offshore wind-turbine structures:
Volume 166 Issue EN4 a review
Arshad and O’Kelly

300

250

20 MW
Rotor diameter: m

200

6 MW
150 10 MW
7·5 MW
100
0·1 MW 5 MW
0·5 MW
50
0·01MW
0·6 MW
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
Figure 2. Increase in rotor diameter and RPC of wind turbines

3. Cost analysis of wind-power generation
Approximately 70–75% of the total cost of offshore wind-power
production is related to initial capital investment costs, including
that of the turbine, foundation, electrical equipment and grid
connection (Kooijman et al., 2001; Søren et al., 2009). The
‘levelised cost of energy’ (LCOE) is the primary measure for
quantifying and comparing underlying economics of power
projects (Fischer, 2011). For wind-power systems, LCOE
represents the sum of all costs, including capital cost, operation
and maintenance costs, and also expected annual energy
production (Cambell, 2008; Søren et al., 2009) for a fully
operational wind-power system over the project’s lifetime, with
financial flows discounted to a common year. However, empirical
methods that use the more extensive databases currently avail-
able for onshore wind-power projects in estimating the LCOE
for new offshore projects are not reliable (IRENA, 2012).
Between 40% and 70% of costs for conventional fossil-fuel-fired
technologies are related to fuel, operation and maintenance
(Søren et al., 2009). Hence, since fuel costs have no impact on
wind-power generation costs, wind turbines are more capital
intensive compared with fossil-fuel-fired technologies. In China
for instance, the LCOE for onshore wind was almost 300%
and 200% more costly compared with electric power generation
from natural gas and coal, respectively (YFH, 2011), although
such cost comparisons are somewhat dependent on the accuracy
of projected trends for the costs of fuel, other commodities and
logistic facilities. Initial capital investment costs for offshore are
approximately double (YFH, 2011) and may reach up to three
times that for onshore wind-power projects having similar
power generation capacity on account of increased investment
required in transportation of materials and turbines, construction
and installation of foundations, equipment and turbines at sea

Parameters Correlation

Rotor diameter (D, in m) and RPC (MW) D = 59.354(RPC)0·47

Rotor speed (Rspeed, in rpm) and RPC (MW) Rspeed = 22.781(RPC)−0·3595
Hub height (HH) and rotor diameter (D) HH = D/0.255(D)0·3464
Hub mass including pitch, bearing and driver system (M(pb + ds), in t) and RPC (MW) M(pb + ds) = 8.6421(RPC)1·1194
Rotor mass including hub, pitch system and blades (M(hb + ps + bl), in t) and RPC (MW) M(hb + ps + bl) = 18.453(RPC)1·1357
Mass of main rotor shaft (M(ms), in t) and RPC (MW) (M(ms)) = 0.2415(RPC)2 + 3.0699(RPC)
Mass of main bearing (M(mb), in t) and RPC (MW) M(mb) = 0.1246(RPC)2 + 1.2623(RPC)
Mass of rotor, drive-train support structure and nacelle (M(r + d + n), in t) and RPC (MW) M(r + d + n) = 37.45(RPC)0·984
Mass of all components at top of tower (M(thm), in t) and RPC (MW) M(thm) = 55.9216(RPC)1·0341
Table 1. Effect of RPC on size and mass of wind-turbine
components (Tong, 2010)

142
Energy Offshore wind-turbine structures:
Volume 166 Issue EN4 a review
Arshad and O’Kelly

and laying offshore cables (IRENA, 2012; Martin et al., 2004).
The trend for OWT installations at increasing distances offshore
and hence location in greater water depths constitutes a signifi-
cant factor in the cost analysis for offshore projects. Cost
comparisons between onshore and offshore wind-power technol-
ogies should be based on evaluations for a specific region and/or
country (EEA, 2009). Table 2 shows comparisons between costs
for different components of onshore and offshore wind-energy
projects.
For wind-power generation, the overall contribution of operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs to the LCOE is significant and also
site specific. Data from different countries including the USA,
China and many European countries indicate that O&M costs
for onshore wind power account for between 11% and 30% of
the total LCOE (IRENA, 2012). The lowest contribution of
US$0.010/kW was reported for the USA, with approximately
US$0.013-0.015/kW reported for best practice in Europe
(IRENA, 2012). However, O&M costs for offshore are signifi-
cantly greater on account of higher costs incurred in accessing
and maintaining the wind turbines, towers and cabling. In the
UK, for example, Feng et al. (2010) reported O&M costs for
offshore wind-power projects in shallow water depth were
approximately 1.5 times that for onshore projects. Offshore main-
tenance costs are also higher on account of the harsher marine
environment and higher expected failure rates for some electrical
and mechanical components. In general, O&M costs for offshore
wind power are typically in the range US$0.027–0.054/kWh
(ECN, 2011b). Many existing offshore wind farms are only at
the beginning or early stage of their deployment phase. Since
data on their O&M costs remain highly project specific, it will
be some time before observable trends emerge and means of redu-
cing these costs are identified. Offshore maintenance facilities may
also be necessary to ensure smooth operation of the next gener-
ation of OWTs to be installed at greater distances from the
shore line. Hence it is clear that the reduction of O&M costs for
offshore wind farms is a key challenge, and once addressed,
may improve the economics of offshore wind energy (Douglas-
Westwood Limited, 2002; IRENA, 2012).
In Europe, LCOE estimates of between 0.10 and 0.13 US$/kWh
were reported by IEA (2009) for onshore wind in 2011, assum-
ing a typical capacity factor (ratio of average power delivered to
theoretical maximum power) for new onshore projects of
between 25% and 30%. For a given capacity factor, assumed
cost reductions achievable by 2015 may allow reductions in
LCOE of between 6% and 7%. In North America, the LCOE
for onshore wind having a capacity factor of 30% was estimated
at between 0.10 and 0.11 US$/kWh for 2011. By 2015,
anticipated cost reductions for a given capacity factor may
allow reductions in LCOE of between 5% and 9% (Wiser and
Bolinger, 2011). Compared with Europe and North America,
LCOE estimates for onshore wind power in China and India
were significantly lower at between 0.07 and 0.08 US$/kWh
(2011 data) for a capacity factor of 25%. However, since
China and India already have very competitive installation
costs for wind-power projects compared to the norm in other
developed countries, opportunities for further cost reductions
are comparatively smaller. By 2015, average installation costs
may also increase somewhat on account of projected increases
in engineering project costs, manufacturing costs for wind
turbines in emerging economies and/or the supply situation
becoming tighter (E.ON Climate & Renewables, 2011).
As a general trend, the LCOE for offshore wind-power gener-
ation around the globe is typically almost double that of

Item Offshore Onshore

Initial capital investment cost: US$/kW 3300–5000 1700–2450

Wind-turbine cost, including production, transportation and installation: % of initial capital investment 30–50 65–84
cost
Cost of grid connection including cabling, substations and buildings: % of initial capital investment 15–30 9–14
cost
Construction cost including foundation, transportation and installation of tower and turbine and other 15–25 4–16
infrastructure (e.g. access roads for onshore) necessary for turbine installation: % of initial capital
investment cost
Other capital costs including development and engineering costs, licensing procedures, consultancy, 8–30 4–10
permits, supervision, control and data acquisition, monitoring systems: % of initial capital investment
cost
Table 2. Cost comparisons for offshore and onshore wind projects
(Douglas-Westwood Limited, 2002; Henderson et al., 2003;
IRENA, 2012; Junginger et al., 2004; Kooijman et al., 2001)

143
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
onshore having similar capacity factors (Roddy et al., 2009).
For instance, reported ratios of LCOE for offshore to
onshore wind-power projects were 1.3 for Denmark and 1.46
for the UK (Feng et al., 2010; Krohn et al., 2009). Between
2009 and 2011, the overall trend in the LCOE for offshore
wind power continued to increase gradually, compared with
onshore, which typically showed a small reduction (BNEF,
2011). Hence the LCOE for offshore wind power is likely to
remain greater than for onshore (even taking into account
higher capacity factors achievable offshore) and will probably
remain so, given the significant challenges involved in reducing
capital and O&M costs (Tricklebank, 2008). The main reason
for this is the trend of increasing distance offshore (and hence
greater water depth) necessary for the next generation of off-
shore wind-farm operations, which leads to increased costs in
all aspects of the supply chain. Turbine prices are increasing
due to necessary design improvements to achieve greater
reliability in the harsh marine environment and also on
account of larger, more sophisticated wind turbines necessary
to increase capacity factors (Maria, 2009). Construction and
cabling costs also increase as a function of water depth/distance
offshore. However, encouragingly, a recent study performed in
China (IEA, 2011) indicated that by 2020, 2030 and 2050, initial
capital investment costs for offshore wind-power projects
located in up to 50 m water depth are estimated to reduce by
25%, 36% and 50%, respectively, compared with current
initial capital investment costs (2010 data). Furthermore a
33% reduction in O&M costs was predicted by 2030, although
no further reduction was anticipated between 2030 and 2050. In
Europe, respective reductions of 15% and 20% in initial capital
investment and O&M costs are estimated to occur between 2006
and 2015, although further reductions of approximately 10% in
initial capital investment costs are expected for offshore wind-
power projects between 2020 and 2050 (CEC, 2007; Søren
et al., 2009).
4. Foundation systems
Support structures/foundations for offshore wind farms are
generally more complex than for onshore, involving greater
technical challenges, including design requirements to with-
stand the harsh marine environment and prolonged impact
under large wave loading (see Figure 3). The various support
structure/foundation concepts employed (Figure 4), which
have been adopted from the offshore oil and gas industry, are
usually categorised as either bottom-mounted structures (i.e.
rigidly connected to the seabed through a foundation system)
or floating-support structures that have no rigid connection
with the seabed. The foundation solution adopted depends on
local seabed conditions, water depth and financial constraints
(AWS True wind, 2010; Igoe et al., 2013).
At present, monopiles (Figures 4(b) and 4(c)) are by far the most
widely adopted substructure–foundation system for modern
144
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
Ambient turbulence
Wake turbulence
Operational and
accidental loads
Icing
Marine
growth
Waves
Ship impact
Currents
Seabed
Scour
Figure 3. Environmental impacts on OWTs
offshore wind farms located in shallow water depths (≤40 m).
Such monopiles consist of a steel tubular section (pipe pile),
typically 4–6 m in diameter and up to 1000 t in mass, which trans-
fers the applied vertical and larger lateral loading into the seabed
foundation. Its complete installation is usually achieved within
24 h (Fischer, 2011; Junginger et al., 2004; Saleem, 2011).
Cyclic lateral and moment loading on the monopile are resisted
by horizontal earth pressures mobilised in the surrounding soil
along the monopile embedded length. The monopile embedment
length is dependent on seabed characteristics/properties and total
applied load. An embedment length of 30 m is usually deemed
sufficient to meet design criteria, including vertical stability and
horizontal deflection requirements (Musial and Bonnie, 2010;
Tricklebank, 2008).
Braced support structures (i.e. tripod and jacket/truss) are more
suitable for deeper water and heavier turbines (Esteban et al.,
2011; Fischer, 2011). Tripods consist of a large-diameter
central steel tubular section that is supported over its lower
length by three braces (Figure 4(d)), which are connected to
the seabed. A range of different foundations can be employed
including gravity bases, suction buckets or piles. In this
manner, the structural and environmental loads applied on
the OWT and the supporting structure are mostly transferred
axially through the braces to the seabed foundation. Complete
installation of a tripod foundation system with, for example, a
water surface to seabed length of up to 50 m and mass of up
to 700 t, typically takes between two and three working days,
often requiring special equipment for driving/drilling and
working under water (Esteban et al., 2011; Fischer, 2011). A
jacket/braced frame structure (Figure 4(e)) is a lattice frame
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
Sea level
0
10
20 (a)
Water depth: m
30
Seabed
40
50
(b)
60
70
80
Figure 4. Support structure/foundation options for OWTs:
(a) gravity; (b) monopile; (c) monopile with guy wire; (d) tripod;
(e) braced frame; (f ) tension leg with suction buckets (ballast stabilised);
(g) buoy with suction anchor
of small-diameter steel struts that (similar to tripods) is
anchored to the seabed using one of the different foundation
options. Complete installation generally takes up to 3 days.
Braced frame structures are particularly suitable for severe
maritime weather since the strut components offer lower resist-
ance to prevailing ocean wave and current flow in comparison
with monopile or tripod structures. Braced frame structures
are also more adaptable to conditions encountered on site,
increasing their application range, with geometrical variations
of the substructure achieved relatively simply but without alter-
ing the stiffness of the whole structure (Vries, 2007).
In the future, it is anticipated that floating structures, which are
currently only at research and development stage, will be com-
mercially used, particularly for water depths greater than 50 m
(Saleem, 2011). Such floating platforms for wind turbines will
impose many new design challenges. Currently, tension-leg
platform concepts (see Figure 4(f)) are considered as most
economical (Fischer, 2011) because rigid body modes of the
floater are limited to horizontal translation (surge and sway)
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) (g)
and rotation around the vertical axis (yaw). Other examples
include spar-floater and barrage-floater systems. For the spar-
floater (Figure 4(g)), buoyancy is provided to the wind-turbine
structure by a long, slender cylinder/capsule that protrudes
below the water line (Esteban et al., 2011; Fischer, 2011; Vries,
2007). For the barrage floater, the wind-turbine structure is
placed on a barrage and attached by way of anchor lines to the
seabed.
From the various foundation systems described above, mono-
piles are currently by far the most popular solution used
worldwide, with 75% share, in comparison with only 5% for
jacket/tripod options (E.ON Climate & Renewables, 2011).
However, it is estimated that by 2020, between 50% and 60%
of new OWTs will be supported by monopiles and a further
35–40% by jacket/tripod systems (Babcock and Brown
Company, 2012). The main reason for this shift is the attraction
of jacket/tripod systems for deeper sea locations, which provide
consistently higher wind speeds and hence greater wind energy
(Tempel and Molenaar, 2002).
145
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
5. Comparison of environmental loading for
offshore and onshore wind-turbine
structures
Offshore wind-turbine structures are designed to resist loading
from hydrodynamic, aerodynamic and also ice and ship-impact
sources, whereas onshore structures are principally designed to
withstand aerodynamic loading. Aerodynamic loading results
from interactions of the rotor and parts of the tower within the
turbulent air field, with the generated wind power directly pro-
portional to the cube value of mean wind speed. Aerodynamic
conditions for offshore and onshore scenarios are markedly
different, with considerably lower fluctuation in loading
experienced for offshore on account of associated free-flow con-
ditions and lower surface roughness, although advantages of
reduced dynamic loading are partly undone by higher mean
wind speeds (Fischer, 2011; Tricklebank, 2008). In general,
aerodynamic loading can be characterised by (DNV, 2011)
g vertical wind profile
g mean wind-speed distribution
g turbulence effects.
For offshore, surface roughness is low, increasing only margin-
ally in the event of severe sea states with high waves. Hence wind
speed increases sharply with increasing elevation above sea
level, producing very steep wind-speed profiles compared with
onshore sites. The mean value of 10 min wind-speed data
(either measured at a reference elevation of 10 m above mean
sea level or usually determined at hub height for OWTs) is
referred to as wind speed U
10 . The mean wind speed U
z at
some other elevation z above mean sea level can be approxi-
mated by

a
z Another aspect of fluctuating wind speed is turbulence
U
z = U
10
1. 10
where values of a range between 0.11 and 0.40 depending on site
location; for example, a = 0.11 for open sea conditions, 0.16 for
grassland and 0.40 for city centre/urban environments (Haritos,
2007; Journée and Massie, 2001).
For offshore sites, steep profiles of wind speed for the vertical
direction usually necessitate lower hub heights, with minima
values generally dictated by clearance limits to the turbine’s
service platform (see Figure 1(a)). Periodic loading effects are
also reduced since the difference in mean wind speed between
upward and downward moving blades is low (Fischer, 2011).
In contrast, the gain in wind energy with increasing hub
height is the driver for onshore design. Wind-speed distribution,
which also differs between onshore and offshore, is generally
described by a Weibull distribution function (DNV, 2011)
that quantifies the probability of different mean wind speeds
occurring over a given time period at the site location. The
146
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
probability density function ( fwind) of a Weibull random vari-
able n is given by

 
 
k n k−1 n k
fwind = exp −
2. A A A
where A is a scalar and k is a shape factor that quantifies the
width of the wind-speed distribution.
The values of A and k are larger for offshore, indicating higher
probability of greater wind speeds compared with onshore
(Fischer, 2011; Tricklebank, 2008). Greater differences in
wind-speed distributions over time for offshore compared
with onshore produce higher levels of mean wind load and
hence greater power output. Long-term variations in wind
speed are significant in terms of predicting energy yield from a
wind turbine, whereas short-term fluctuations are more relevant
for generated wind loads. The degree of turbulence (defined as
momentary deviations from the mean wind speed) depends on
meteorological and geographical conditions, for example,
atmospheric layering and terrain. The main contributors to
extreme loading and fatigue are stochastic effects in short-
term fluctuations of wind speed, such as turbulence/transient
events such as gusts (Quarton et al., 1996). A measure for turbu-
lence is turbulence intensity: the ratio of the standard deviation
of wind speed to mean wind speed for a given time period
(DNV, 2011). For a particular site, turbulence intensity corre-
lates with wind speed and surface roughness; higher wind
speed and lower surface roughness produce lower turbulence
(Vries, 2007). Since wind is the primary energy source for
ocean waves, higher wind speed may produce marginal
increases in turbulence on account of ensuing increases in
roughness of the ocean surface (Letchford and Zachry, 2009).
induced in wake conditions (see Figure 3). Ambient non-
obstructed turbulence is the ‘normal’ turbulence experienced
by a single stand-alone turbine at a particular site (Frandsen
and Thøgersen, 1999). Wake effects can be significant, especially
for dense wind-park layouts, where neighbouring turbines
experience a superimposed turbulent wind coming from the
ambient and wake.
Since surface roughness and hence ambient turbulence are lower
for offshore sites, the combination of ambient and wake-
induced turbulence is also comparatively lower although wake
fields remain longer in the atmosphere compared with
onshore. The frequency of energy-rich wind turbulence is
below 0.1 Hz (LeBlance, 2009). Hence, turbulence is not
significant in the determination of the structural design loads
for extreme levels of environmental loading, although its
effect on fatigue life of wind-turbine structures cannot be
ignored (Vries, 2007). Offshore wind turbines are generally
designed for more severe wind classes since the probability of
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
extreme wind speeds (e.g. due to gusts or changes in wind
direction) is more significant compared with most onshore
sites (GL, 2005).
Compared with the rotor thrust reaction to wind loads, the
hydrodynamic forces acting on OWTs generally only have a
minor role in the development of tower deflection. LeBlance
(2009) reported that this was largely due to the reduced wave-in-
teraction area of the substructure as compared with the overall
tower length and greater lever arm of the rotor thrust (see
Figure 1(a)). However, the density of the medium must also
be considered when comparing aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
lateral loading, with the density of sea water significantly greater
than that for air. Hydrodynamic forces generally only become
significant for greater water depths and/or wave heights,
which cause the lever arm of the hydrodynamic force to increase
along with the intensity of the lateral force generated by the
water (Fischer, 2011). The height of the ocean waves is
usually expressed in terms of ‘significant wave height’; this is
defined as the mean value of the highest one-third of the
waves in a given wave record. Ocean waves that induce
fatigue loading with high frequency usually have significant
wave heights of 1.0–1.5 m and a zero-crossing period of
4–5 s (Vries, 2011).
6. Loading frequency, natural vibration
frequency and resonance
It is essential to consider the fundamental natural frequency of a
wind-turbine structure for a proper description and evaluation
of its dynamic behaviour. As for all dynamic systems, resonance
occurs when an excitation frequency gets close to the structure’s
fundamental natural frequency. For wind-turbine structures,
M, turbine mass
µ, strut mass per unit length
EI, strut bending stiffness
L, length
Figure 5. Structural model for flexible wind-turbine system
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
this invariably leads to the development of higher stresses in
the support structure and foundation, but more significantly
to a higher range of stresses – an unfavourable situation in
considering fatigue life. Hence it is important to ensure that
excitation frequencies having high energy levels do not coincide
with the support structure’s fundamental natural frequency. As
a first approximation, the support structure’s fundamental
natural frequency can be determined by considering a simplified
geometry for the whole structure (Figure 5). The turbine mass
(M) is concentrated at the top (free end) of an equivalent steel
pipe representing the support structure, with similarities to a
cantilevered vertical strut. In this instance, the first natural
frequency ( fnat , in Hz) of the combined structure can be
approximated by (Tempel, 2006)
3.04 EI
2
fnat =  
3. 4(p)2 0.227mL + M L3
where m is the strut mass per unit length, L is the strut length
and EI is its bending stiffness (N m2).
Offshore wind-turbine structures are excited by both wind and
waves, with the effective wind load determined by complex
interactions between the structural dynamics of the turbine
and wind field. Site-specific spectral densities for wind and
waves can be derived either from data measured for the particu-
lar site location, from met-ocean databases or numerical models
(LeBlance, 2009).
Dynamic amplification and large excitation forces affect mono-
piles in a cumulative unfavourable manner. With rotational
speeds of the main rotor shaft typically between 10 and
20 rpm, the first excitation frequency ‘1P’ (i.e. corresponding
to one full revolution) occurs in the range 0.17–0.33 Hz. In
general, only light excitation of the 1P frequency should
occur, with large excitations arising on account of excessive
mass and/or aerodynamic imbalances. For a three-bladed
turbine, the blade passing frequency of typically 0.5–1.0 Hz is
Wind turbulance
Waves
Power spectral density
Wanted
1P frequency 3P
0·0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0·7 0·8 0·9 1·0 1·1
Frequency: Hz
Figure 6. Excitation ranges for OWT structures
147
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
denoted as the ‘3P’ frequency and is heavily excited on account
of impulse-like excitation arising from the individual blades
passing by the tower.
Figure 6 shows the excitation ranges of 1P and 3P, along with
realistic, normalised power spectra for wind and wave exci-
tations. Referring to the figure, the ‘soft–stiff ’ zone includes
the 1P, 3P and ‘wanted frequency’ regions; the region before
the 1P range is referred to as the ‘soft–soft’ zone and the
region after the 3P range as ‘stiff–stiff ’. ‘Soft–soft’ and ‘stiff–
stiff ’ zones are unsuitable for the design solution. The structure
is considered too flexible if its fundamental natural frequency
falls within the ‘soft–soft’ zone and too rigid (heavy and expens-
ive) within the ‘stiff–stiff ’ zone. Another important reason for
avoiding the ‘soft–soft’ frequency region is that wave- and
wind-turbulence excitation frequencies usually fall within this
zone (LeBlance, 2009); see Figure 6.
Excitation/resonance of a dynamic system can be mitigated by
damping, achieved either internally by friction in components
of the structural system or externally by some source/force.
Overall damping of an offshore structure can be achieved by
combinations of aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, structural and/
or soil damping (refer to Bittkau (2010), Genta (1998) and
Rodenhausen (2010) for further details).
For the popular monopile foundation systems, ‘soft–stiff ’ design
necessitates relatively high structural and dynamic stiffness,
which can be achieved by increasing the monopile diameter,
or less efficiently, by increasing (reinforcing) the pile wall
thickness. However, larger diameter monopiles introduce draw-
backs, including greater wave loading and also larger driving
equipment/forces necessary for installation (Schaumann and
Böker, 2005). Hence there is a corresponding increase in the
initial capital investment costs of the project, although from
the authors’ perspective the LCOE may not be adversely
affected if rated power capacity is also increased by using
larger rotor blades. Compared with monopiles, the lattice
frame of jacket/truss support structures (Figure 4(e)) provides
large structural bending stiffness and more favourable
mass-to-stiffness ratio, resulting in relatively high bending
Eigen-frequencies and reduced hydrodynamic excitation
(Vries, 2011), although torsional stiffness is reduced, potentially
leading to dynamic problems. Jacket support structures are
designed for operation in or around ‘stiff–stiff ’ regions
(Fischer, 2011). In the case of tripods, bracing along the lower
length of the central tubular section increases overall bending
stiffness and reduces bending moment loading on the foun-
dation (Saleem, 2011; Schaumann and Böker, 2005), with
typical Eigen-frequencies ranging between those for monopile
(at lower end of this range) and jacket support structures/
foundations under similar rotor–nacelle configurations and
environmental conditions.
148
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
7. Challenges for offshore wind-power
generation
Offshore wind-power generation has arguably greater potential
compared with onshore, but marine conditions pose great
challenges to project delivery because outcomes are highly
influenced by environmental conditions. Some outlooks and
new approaches to offshore windpower are discussed below.
7.1 Implementation, fabrication, operation and
maintenance
It could be argued that, owing to the involvement of multiple
regulatory and planning bodies, the current planning and
implementation process for offshore wind-power farms is too
complex and time-consuming. Some primary legislation may
be helpful in order to facilitate relevant government bodies
working amicably with investors and developers for offshore
wind-power farms (CT, 2008).
Fabrication and O&M issues place major pressures on the LCOE
for offshore wind farms (ABB, 2012; IRENA, 2012). New off-
shore strategies must be developed to minimise the number of
tasks performed at offshore sites. Materials for wind-turbine
fabrication must be selected for durability and environmental
tolerance. Engineering design, beginning from preliminary con-
cepts, must rigorously place higher premiums on reliability,
float-out deployments and in situ repair methods. Fabrication
facilities must be strategically located for mass production,
onshore assembly and rapid deployment offshore, with
minimal dependence on large vessels (EWEA, 2007). Sensitive
electronic devices for remotely sensing weather conditions and
self-diagnostic systems to manage O&M of electromechanical
components are required in order to minimise downtime and
reduce equipment necessary for repairs (CleanTech, 2012). Ulti-
mately a new balance between initial capital investment costs
and long-term operating costs needs to be established that will
have a broad impact on the LCOE for offshore wind technology.
7.2 Offshore design codes and methods
One of the immediate challenges for design is the ability to
accurately predict the magnitude and distribution of applied
environmental loads and the resulting dynamic response of the
coupled wind-turbine and support structure under the action
of combined stochastic wave and wind loading (Musial and
Butterfield, 2006). At present, analysis, design and installation
of monopile foundations for wind-turbine structures usually
rely on general geotechnical standards, complemented by
more specific guidelines and semi-empirical formulas developed
by the offshore oil and gas industry (API, 2007; DIN, 2005;
DNV, 2011; GL, 2005).
However, large-diameter monopile foundations for proposed
offshore wind-turbine structures are well outside the scope of
current experience and analysis/design methods (including the
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
American Petroleum Institute (API, 2007) and Det Norske-
Veritas (DNV, 2011) standards used by the offshore oil and
gas industry). These standards are largely based on empirical
data obtained for relatively small-diameter flexible piles under
low numbers of load cycles. Furthermore, for these standards,
wave loading is of primary concern when extrapolating to
predict extreme events. However, designers of offshore wind-
turbine structures must consider wave and wind load spectra
simultaneously (IEC, 2005; Tarp-Johansen, 2005). Hence
careful consideration of these differences in applied loading
and inherent limitations underpinning semi-empirical formulae
for the offshore oil/gas industry are required in extrapolation
for design of large-diameter monopile foundation supports for
wind-turbine structures. Often these formulations cannot be
applied with confidence by the offshore wind-power industry
to achieve optimum results and economy (Dobry et al., 1982).
There is also a dearth of knowledge concerning the behaviour of
the monopile–soil foundation system and its structural stability
under long-term cyclic lateral loading. Existing literature
includes Matlock (1970), Reese et al. (1974, 1975), Little and
Briaud (1988), Ismael (1990) and Long and Vanneste (1994).
Hence the development of more realistic strain-accumulation
models and also computer codes to predict dynamic forces
and resulting displacements of OWTs will provide valuable
tools for more reliable designs.
7.3 Recommendations for future research and practice
A multidisciplinary approach is suggested in order to strive
towards making the offshore wind-power industry more
economical and practicable, including the following points.
g Some primary legislation may be helpful in order to
facilitate relevant government bodies in working amicably
with investors and developers for offshore wind-power
farms. Investors and developers for offshore-wind projects
could be facilitated by government with some easing of
current requirements to obtain obligation certificates.
g Development of innovative fabrication materials (with
appropriate strength, durability and lightweight
characteristics) for OWTs may contribute to considerable
reductions in the LCOE.
g Use of more sophisticated electromechanical parts in
OWTs (e.g. direct-drive units that eliminate the
requirement for a gearbox, thereby removing one of the
key components prone to failure) will increase the
efficiency and hence energy yield and also reduce O&M
costs for the project.
g In-depth experimental and numerical studies are necessary
in order to bridge the knowledge gap between existing
design codes/guidelines developed for the offshore oil and
gas industry and more onerous applied loading and larger
support structures/foundations adopted for OWTs.
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
8. Summary and conclusions
Wind power, particularly from offshore turbines mounted on
bottom support structures, appears to be a promising solution
to meet the universal demand for clean, cost-effective energy.
The rated power-generation capacity of individual OWTs, and
also of wind farms, has increased many-fold over the past two
decades, with strong growth projected to continue for the near-
to-medium future. Concepts for floating foundation systems for
OWT structures are also emerging, which will allow installations
even farther offshore, thereby benefiting from relatively higher
wind speeds/power generation. However, compared with conven-
tional fossil-fuel-fired technologies, initial capital investment
costs and LCOE for wind-power generation are both compara-
tively higher, particularly for offshore, on account of challenges
associated with the harsh marine environment. Reductions in
the LCOE and projected increases in design life of OWT projects
are achievable by developing and implementing improved design
criteria/methods for foundations, support structures and the
wind turbines themselves, along with the use of innovative
materials in their fabrication.
The wind-power generation industry can be facilitated through
legislation leading to primary reforms in the rules/regulations
imposed by different regulatory and monitoring bodies related
to this industry. A multidisciplinary and integrated approach is
required, with cost reductions achievable for other offshore
industries (e.g. oil/gas sector and offshore cable laying) poten-
tially also benefiting offshore wind-power projects, although
developments in commodity prices (particularly steel, copper,
cement) will also influence potential cost reductions achievable
for wind power. In spite of such challenges, it is projected that
wind-power generation will continue to increase many-fold,
particularly in Europe, North America and Asia over the next
two decades, with associated LCOE anticipated to become
comparable with other sources of renewable energy.
Acknowledgements
The first author gratefully acknowledges a postgraduate
research award from Trinity College Dublin.
REFERENCES
ABB (2012) Wind Power Plants. Technical Application Paper
No. 13. See http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot209.nsf/
veritydisplay/92faf0c1913f5651c1257937002f88e8/$file/
1sdc007112g0201.pdf (accessed 10/10/2012).
Alderlieste EA (2010) Experimental Modelling of Lateral
Loads on Large Diameter Mono-pile Foundations in Sand.
MSc thesis, Delft University of Technology, the
Netherlands.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2007) API RPA2:
Recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing fixed offshore platforms – working stress
design, 22nd edn. API, Washington, DC, USA.
149
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) (2012) Facts
About Offshore Wind. See http://offshorewindworks.tumblr.
com/facts (accessed 18/09/2012).
AWS True wind (2010) New York’s Offshore Wind Energy
Development Potential in the Great Lakes: Feasibility Study;
2010. See http://www.awstruepower.com/wp content/
media/2010/09/NYSERDA_AWST_NYGreatLakesFS.pdf
(accessed 10/07/2012).
Babcock and Brown Company (2012) The Future of Offshore
Wind Energy. See http://bluewaterwind.com (accessed
20/08/2012).
Bittkau R (2010) Concept Study for Using Active Turbine
Controls vs. Structural Control Systems for Load Mitigation for
Offshore Wind Turbines Using Monopile Support Structures.
University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, Research Report.
BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy Finance) (2011) Levelised Cost
of Energy Update, Q2 2011, Research Note. BNEF,
London, UK.
Cambell M (2008) The Drivers of the Levelised Cost of
Electricity for Utility-scale Photovoltaics. See http://large.
stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/vasudev1/docs/sunpower.
pdf (accessed 15/08/2012).
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2007)
Renewable Energy Road Map, Renewable Energies in the
21st Century: Building a More Sustainable Future. See
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/docrenewable_
energy_roadmap_full_impact_assessment_en.pdf (accessed
10/09/2012).
CleanTech (2012) Offshore Wind: the Technology Challenge.
See http://www.cleantechinvestor.com/portal/wind-energy/
5573-offshore-wind-the-technology-challenge.html (accessed
10/08/2012).
CT (Carbon Trust) (2008) Offshore Wind Power: Big
Challenge, Big Opportunity Maximising the Environmental,
Economic and Security Benefits. See http://www.
carbontrust.com/media/42162/ctc743-offshore-wind-power.
pdf (accessed 10/07/2012).
Damien T and Mo M (2002) The Potential for Renewable
Energy Usage in Aquaculture. See http://www.
aquacultureinitiative.eu/Renewable%20Energy%20Report.
pdf (accessed 05/08/2012).
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) (2005) Baugrund
Sicherheitsnachweise im Erd und Gundbau. DIN, Berlin,
Gemerany, DIN 1054: 2005. See http://www.
baunormenlexikon.de/Normen/DIN/DIN%201054/1b69b621-
74a0-4c33-8b29-a82a24afd4d4 (accessed 15/06/2012).
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (2011) Design of Offshore Wind
Turbine Structures. DNV, Oslo, Norway, DNV-OS-J101.
Dobry R, Vincente E, O’Rourke M and Roesset J (1982)
Stiffness and damping of single piles. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 108(3): 439–458.
Douglas-Westwood Limited (2002) The World Offshore
Renewable Energy Report 2002–2007. See http://
150
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.
uk/energy/renewables/publications/pdfs/offshorereport.pdf
(accessed 05/10/2012).
ECN (Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands) (2011a)
Roadmap to the Deployment of Offshore Wind Energy in the
Central and Southern North Sea (2020–2030). See http://
www.windspeed.eu/media/publications/WINDSPEED_
Roadmap_110719_final.pdf (accessed 02/03/2013).
ECN (2011b) Properties of the O&M Cost Estimator. See http://
www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2011/e11045.pdf (accessed
04/02/2013).
EEA (Eurpean Environmental Ageny) (2009) Europe’s Onshore
and Offshore Wind Energy Potential: An Assessment of
Environmental and Economic Constraints. See http://www.
envirocentre.ie/includes/documents/Europes_onshore_and_
offshore_wind_energy_potential[1].pdf (accessed 20/01/2013).
E.ON Climate & Renewables (2011) Offshore Wind Energy
Fact Book. See http://www.eon-einkauf.com/content/dam/
eoncom/en/downloads/e/EON_Offshore_Wind_Factbook_
en_December_2011.pdf (accessed 16/08/2012).
Esteban M, Lopes-Gutierrez J, Diez J and Negro V (2011)
Foundations for offshore wind farms. Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Environmental Science and
Technology, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 516–523.
EWEA (European Wind Energy Association) (2007) Delivering
Offshore Wind Power in Europe. See http://www.ewea.org/
fileadmin/ewea_documents/images/publications/
offshorereport/ewea-offshore_report.pdf (accessed 10/10/
2012).
EWEA (2009) Pure Power Wind Energy Targets for 2020 and
2030. See www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea.../Pure_Power_III.
pdf (accessed 14/03/2012).
EWEA (2011a) The European Offshore Wind Industry Key
Trends and Statistics 2010. See http://www.ewea.org/
fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA_stats_
offshore_2011_02.pdf (accessed 06/08/2012).
EWEA (2011b) Design Limits and Solutions for Very Large
Wind Turbines. UpWind Project. See http://www.ewea.org/
fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/upwind/21895_
UpWind_Report_low_web.pdf (accessed 04/02/2013).
EWEA (2012) The European Offshore Wind Industry Key
Trends and Statistics 2011. See http://www.ewea.org/
fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA_stats_
offshore_2011_02.pdf (accessed 06/08/2012).
Feng Y, Tavner PJ and Long H (2010) Early experiences with
UK Round 1 offshore wind farms. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy 163(4): 167–181.
Fischer T (2011) Executive Summary – UpWind Project. WP4:
Offshore Foundations and Support Structures. See http://
www.upwind.eu/pdf/WP4_Executive_Summary_Final.pdf
(accessed 12/09/2012).
Frandsen S and Thøgersen M (1999) Integrated fatigue
loading for wind turbines in wind farms by combining
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
ambient turbulence and wakes. Wind Engineering 23(6):
327–339.
Genta G (1998) Vibration of Structures and Machines, 3rd edn.
Springer, New York, NY, USA.
GL (Germanischer Lloyd) (2005) Rules and Guidelines, IV
Industrial Services, 2 Guideline for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines, 6 Structures. See http://onlinepubs.
trb.org/onlinepubs/mb/Offshore%20Wind/Guideline.pdf
(accessed 17/09/2012).
GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council) (2011) Global Wind
Report – Annual Market Update. See http://www.
windpower-international.com/microsites/gwec/Annual_
report_2011_lowres.pdf (accessed 14/09/2012).
Haritos N (2007) Introduction to the analysis and design of
offshore structures – an overview. Electronic Journal of
Structural Engineering 7(Special Issue): 55–65.
Henderson A, Morgan C, Smith B et al. (2003) Offshore wind
energy in Europe – a review of the state-of-the-art. Wind
Energy 6(1): 35–52.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009) Annual Report
2008. See http://www.ieawind.org/Annual_reports_PDF/
2008/2008%20AR_small.pdf (accessed 10/09/2012).
IEA (2011) China Wind Energy Development Roadmap 2050.
See http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/china_wind.pdf (accessed 01/03/2013).
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) (2005) IEC
61400–1: Wind turbines – Part 1: Design requirements,
3rd edn. IEC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Igoe D, Gavin K and O’Kelly B (2013) An investigation into the
use of push-in pile foundations by the offshore wind sector.
International Journal of Environmental Studies, http://dx.doi.
org.10.1080/00207233.2013.798496 (accessed 01/10/2013).
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) (2012)
Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series,
http://www.irena.org/Document.Downloads/Publications/
RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-WIND_POWER.pdf
(accessed 15/05/2012).
Ismael N (1990) Behaviour of laterally loaded bored piles in
cemented sands. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
116(11): 1678–1699.
Journée JMJ and Massie WW (2001) Offshore Hydrodynamic,
1st edn. Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
Netherlands.
Junginger M, Agterbosch S, Faaij A and Turkenburg W
(2004) Renewable electricity in the Netherlands. Energy
Policy 32(9): 1053–1073.
Kooijman H, Noord MD, Volkers C et al. (2001) Cost and
potential of offshore wind energy on the Dutch part of the
North Sea. Proceedings of the European Wind Energy
Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Krohn S, Morthrost P and Awerbuch S (eds) (2009)
Economics of Wind Energy. European Wind Energy
Association, Brussels, Belgium.
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
LeBlance C (2009) Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support
Structures – Selected Topics in the Field of Geotechnical
Engineering. PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Letchford C and Zachry B (2009) On wind, waves, and surface
drag. Proceedings of the 5th European and African Conference
on Wind Engineering, Florence, Italy, pp. 83–114.
Little RL and Briaud JL (1988) Full Scale Cyclic Lateral Load
Tests on Six Single Piles in Sand. Geotechnical Division,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA,
miscellaneous paper GL–88–27.
Long J and Vanneste G (1994) Effects of cyclic lateral loads
on piles in sand. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
120(1): 225–244.
Malhotra S (2011) Design and construction considerations for
offshore wind turbine foundations in North America. In
Wind Turbines (Al-Bahadly I (ed.)). InTech, Rijeka,
Croatia, pp. 231–264.
Maria IB (2009) The economics of wind energy. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(6–7): 1372–1382.
Martin J, André F and Wim CT (2004) Cost reduction prospects
for offshore wind farms. Wind Engineering 28(1): 97–118.
Matlock H (1970) Correlation for design of laterally loaded
piles in soft clay. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 577–594.
Musial W and Bonnie R (2010) Large-scale Offshore Wind
Power in the United States: Assessment of Opportunities and
Barriers. See http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
(accessed 12/07/2012).
Musial W and Butterfield S (2006) Energy from Offshore
Wind. See http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39450.pdf
(accessed 15/07/2012).
Quarton D, Rasmussen F, Argyriadis K and Nath C (1996)
Wind turbine design calculations – the state of the art.
Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference,
Göteborg, Sweden, pp. 10–15.
Reese LC, Cox WR and Koop FD (1974) Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 473–484.
Reese LC, Cox WR and Koop FD (1975) Field testing and
analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. Proceedings of
the 7th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, TX,
USA, pp. 671–690.
Roddy DJ, Yu Y, Dufton DJ and Thornley P (2009) Low-
carbon energy solutions for an ecological island in China.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy
162(2): 85–95.
Rodenhausen M (2010) Soil Response of Offshore Wind
Turbines. MSc thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart,
Germany.
Saleem Z (2011) Alternatives and Modifications of Monopile
Foundation or its Installation Technique for Noise
Mitigation. See www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/223688.
pdf (accessed 03/08/2012).
151
Energy
Volume 166 Issue EN4
Schaumann P and Böker C (2005) Can Tripods and Jackets
Compete with Monopiles? See http://wind.nrel.gov/public/
SeaCon/Proceedings/Copenhagen.Offshore.Wind.2005/
documents/papers/Low_cost_foundations/P.Schaumann_
Can_jackets_and_tripods_compete_with_monopile.pdf
(accessed 06/08/2012).
Søren K, Poul-Erik M and Shimon A (2009) The Economics of
Wind Energy. See http://www.windenergie.nl/sites/
windenergie.nl/files/documents/the_economics_of_
windenergy_ewea.pdf (accessed 17/07/2012).
Sørensen SPH, Brødbæk KT, Møller M, Augustesen AH and
Ibsen LB (2009) Evaluation of load–displacement
relationships for large-diameter piles in sand. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Civil,
Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing
(Topping BHV, Costa Neves LF and Barros RC (eds)).
Civil-Comp Press, Sterling, UK, paper 244.
Tarp-Johansen NJ (2005) Partial safety factors and
characteristic values for combined extreme wind and wave
load effects. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 127(2):
242–252.
Tempel JV (2006) Design of Support Structures for Offshore
Wind Turbines. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, the Netherlands.
Tempel JV and Molenaar DP (2002) Wind turbine structural
dynamics – a review of the principles for modern power
generation, onshore and offshore. Wind Engineering 26(2):
211–220.
Tong W (2010) Wind Power Generation and Wind Turbine
Design. WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
152
Offshore wind-turbine structures:
a review
Arshad and O’Kelly
Treehugger (2011) Is Direct Drive the Future? Wind Turbines
Without Gears Are Lighter, Cheaper, More Reliable. See
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/is-direct-
drive-the-future-wind-turbines-without-gears-are-lighter-
cheaper-more-reliable.html (accessed 15/11/2012).
Tricklebank AH (2008) Briefing: Offshore wind energy – a
challenge for UK civil engineering. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy 161(1): 3–6.
Vries WE (2007) UpWindProject.WP4: Assessment of
Bottom-mounted Support Structure Types with Conventional
Design Stiffness and Installation Techniques for Typical
Deep Water Sites. See http://www.upwind.eu/pdf/Upwind_
WP4_D4.2.1_%20Assessment%20of%20bottom-
mounted%20support%20structure%20types.pdf (accessed
12/05/2012).
Vries WE (2011) UpWindProject.WP4: Support Structure
Concepts for Deep Water Sites. See http://www.upwind.eu/
pdf/Final%20report%20WP4.2.pdf (accessed 10/08/2012).
Wiser R and Bolinger M (2011) 2010 Wind Technologies
Market Report. US DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
WWEA (World Wind Energy Association) (2011) World Wind
Energy Report 2010. See http://www.wwindea.org/home/
images/stories/pdfs/worldwindenergyreport2010_s.pdf
(accessed 10/08/2012).
YFH (Yuanta Financial Holdings) (2011) Industry Update.
Greater China: Energy. See http://ipreo.YUANTA.com/
NSightWeb_v2.00/Downloads/Files/29907.pdf (accessed
17/07/2012).
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illus-
trations and references. You can submit your paper online
via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
International Journal of Physical Modelling
in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
Development of a rig to study model pile
behaviour under repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,
2014, 14(3), 54–67
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.13.00015
Paper 1300015
Received 21/11/2013 Accepted 28/05/2014
Keywords: foundations/models (physical)/wind loading & aerodynamics
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Development of a rig to study model

pile behaviour under repeating
lateral loads
&1 Muhammad Arshad MSc, ME &2 Brendan C. O’Kelly PhD, FTCD, CEng, CEnv, MICE
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

1 2

This paper deals with an important problem of the effect of repeating lateral loads on large-diameter monopile
foundations for offshore wind turbine (OWT) structures. The cycles of typically low-amplitude repeating lateral
loads and moments generated by various environmental factors are resisted by horizontal earth pressures
mobilised in the soil surrounding the pile. Laboratory testing on reduced-scale piles is an efficient and economical
way to investigate such pile–soil behaviour. This paper presents the development of a new mechanical loading
system to apply many thousands of repeating cycles of lateral load in different forms to a 1g model, with full
control provided over the loading direction (i.e. one-way or two-way lateral loading), amplitude, frequency and
waveform shape (e.g. sinusoidal, square or haversine). Compared with equivalent setups employing pneumatic or
hydraulic actuators, the new loading system is able to produce similar performance at lower cost and also provides
more control over the waveform shape. A programme of lateral load tests, each involving many thousands of load
cycles, was performed on a rigid model pile installed in dry sand beds to demonstrate some of the main capabilities
of the new system.
^
Notation h non-dimensional parameter for pile rota-
D pile outer diameter tion from its initial alignment
Dl spring extension
d50 mean particle size
^
e non-dimensional parameter for moment
arm 1. Introduction
EI pile bending stiffness At present, there is some uncertainty in the literature regarding
g gravitational constant the change in stiffness of the soil surrounding a monopile under
H applied lateral load long-term repeated lateral loading. In the case of rigid
^
H non-dimensional parameter for lateral load monopiles, the soil would fail rather than the piles failing by
L pile embedment length plastic hinges. For sandy soil, the API (2010) and DNV (2011)
M bending moment applied at pilehead models always predict degradation of the absolute secant
^
M non-dimensional parameter for bending stiffness under repeated lateral loading, irrespective of the
moment density state or number of load cycles. Achmus et al. (2009)
Nh vertical distance between loading node reported degradation of the absolute secant stiffness for medium
position and the bottom of chain loop dense and dense sands with increasing number of load cycles.
when sliding node is at its mean position However model studies on monopiles in loose (Bhattacharya
pa atmospheric pressure et al., 2011; LeBlanc et al., 2010) and dense (Cuéllar et al., 2012,
c9 effective unit weight Rosquoet et al., 2007) sands suggested that the foundation

54
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
stiffness (cyclic) increases with the number of load cycles.
LeBlanc (2009), Bhattacharya and Adhikari (2011) and Cuéllar
et al. (2012) suggested that the stiffness increase occurs as a
result of densification of the soil next to the pile. There are also
differences of opinion regarding the rate of accumulation of
lateral strain in the surrounding soil for piles subjected to one-
way or two-way lateral loading. Under one-way loading, the
magnitude of the load wave fluctuates between zero and the
applied maximum load amplitude. In response, the pile tends to
deflect (rotate) only in one direction from its initial (vertical)
alignment. Under two-way loading, the pilehead is sequentially
pulled in opposite directions, such that the pile tends to deflect
(rotate) alternately in opposing directions from its mean vertical
position (Peng et al., 2011). For two-way lateral loading, the
accumulative tilt of the pile usually follows the direction of the
first quarter of the loading cycle (Long and Vanneste, 1994;
Rosquoet et al., 2007). Some researchers (LeBlanc et al., 2010;
Klinkvort and Hededal, 2013; Zhu et al., 2013) have shown that
two-way lateral loading produces higher rates of accumulation
of lateral strain in the surrounding soil compared with one-way
lateral loading. Long and Vanneste (1994), Lin and Liao (1999)
and Peng et al. (2011) were of the opinion that the opposite was
the case. The findings of such studies awere based on results
generated by experimental loading systems having limited
operational capabilities, with all of these studies considering
only one waveform shape (i.e. sinusoidal) and for a particular
loading frequency.
In reality, the pile deflection (rotation) response under lateral
loading arises from the soil behaviour and also from dynamic
pile–soil interaction, which are dependent on the loading history
and applied loading conditions. There are many examples of
structures supported on pile foundation systems for which
lateral loading may prove to be critical over gravitational forces.
For instance, in a study related to offshore wind turbines
(OWTs) supported by monopile foundation systems in the
North Sea, it was found that the magnitude of dynamic lateral
loading can be up to 66% of the gravitational loads (Byrne and
Houlsby, 2003). This scenario is more onerous when the lateral
loading is continuously repeating at varying frequency, load
amplitude and direction (Arshad and O’Kelly, 2013). At some
critical level of load amplitude and/or frequency, these repeating
lateral loads can cause significant reductions in the lateral soil
resistance for a monopile foundation structure (Ramakrishna
and Rao, 1999). The required lateral load-carrying capacity of
the pile depends on the type and purpose of the structure in
which it is an integral part. The rotation of the pile from its
initial (vertical) alignment must be limited in the range 0?17–2?0 ˚
(Lee et al., 2010, 2011) for proper functioning of different types
of supported structures.
Under field loading, the proper operation of OWTs supported
by monopile foundation systems generally necessitates limiting
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
the lateral pile deflection at seabed level to 0?11 m (Malhotra,
2011) or the pile rotation from its initial (vertical) alignment to
0?5 ˚ (LeBlanc, 2009).
The foundation response under repeated lateral loading is a
major design consideration. An economical design procedure
can be efficiently and confidently applied if experimental
verifications are achievable, either through full-scale testing or
model studies. In situ full-scale pile tests are expensive and
time-consuming to perform. Hence the literature contains
many reduced-scale model studies performed in the field (e.g.
Gavin and O’Kelly (2007) and Igoe et al. (2013)) or in the
laboratory employing different types of loading systems to
validate numerical predictions and design rules, such as given
by Achmus et al. (2009).
Model pile tests involving static lateral loading have been
performed to determine ultimate lateral capacity (e.g. Reese
et al. (1974) and Ramakrishna and Rao (1999)) and to
investigate the influence of the piles’ cross-section and rigidity
on lateral load-carrying capacity (Mahmoud and Burley, 1994;
Rao et al., 1998; Raongjant and Meng, 2011). Some of these
studies have focused on investigating the behaviour of tapered
piles (Dührkop et al., 2010; El Nagger and Wei, 1999), finned
piles (Peng et al., 2011) and (or) piles subjected to many
thousands of load cycles in the lateral direction (Dührkop et al.,
2010; LeBlanc et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2011; Cuéllar et al., 2012).
Model testing results can be directly applied once the soil at site
is the same for the scaled tests. The best way is to link the model
tests with element test parameters. For example, Lombardi et al.
(2013) linked their model tests with threshold strains that can be
obtained from standard element tests such as the resonant
column.
The reliability (acceptability) of laboratory model studies
depends, among other factors, on the accuracy and efficiency
of the loading system in simulating the actual field loading
conditions through certain scaling laws. In the case of model
studies for offshore structures, the experimental loading system
must be capable of simulating the environmental loading,
particularly that acting in the horizontal direction, with
varying amplitude and frequency.
This paper describes the development of a novel mechanical
loading system for the application of many thousands of lateral
loading cycles, with full control provided over the direction,
amplitude, frequency and waveform shape. Experimental
data for repeated lateral loading of an instrumented model
pile installed in dry sand are presented to demonstrate the main
capabilities of the new loading system. The effects of different
loading scenarios (load directions, amplitudes and frequencies)
are also investigated.
55
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
2. Forcing frequency, fundamental natural
frequency and resonance
It is essential to consider the fundamental natural frequency of a
wind-turbine structure for a proper description/evaluation of its
dynamic behaviour. In the literature related to OWTs, the term
‘cyclic loading’ is generally used in connection with the
harmonic variation of the repeating load wave in time domain.
When the forcing (loading) frequency gets closer to the
structure’s natural frequency, the repeating load can be termed
as dynamic load, which tends to excite the structure dynami-
cally, leading to resonance. Dynamic effects can be considered
simplistically in a linear system through dynamic amplification
factors. However this approach is strictly not valid for an OWT
foundation structure owing to various non-linear ties in the
system, as shown experimentally by Bhattacharya et al. (2012),
although the error may not be great. Hence, engineers need to
adjust the cyclic load results to take into account the dynamic
behaviour of the system.
Major sources of forcing frequencies for OWTs are wind,
wave, current and any out-of-line imbalances of the rotating
electromechanical parts installed in the turbine’s nacelle-rotor
system (Bhattacharya et al., 2011). For a typical 5 MW OWT
having rotational speeds of typically 10–20 rpm for the main
rotor shaft, the first excitation frequency 1P (i.e. corresponding
to one full revolution) occurs in the range 0?17–0?33 Hz. For a
three-bladed turbine, the blade passing frequency of typically
0?5–1?0 Hz is denoted as the 3P frequency, which is heavily
excited on account of the impulse-like excitation arising from
the blades passing by the tower. In the North Sea environment,
excitation from wind and waves usually occurs with frequen-
cies of 0?01 and 0?1 Hz, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The region of ‘wanted frequency’ (i.e. between the 1P and 3P
ranges) identified in this figure is referred to as the ‘soft–stiff’
zone; the region before the 1P range as the ‘soft–soft’ zone and
Wind turbulance
Power spectral density
1P Wanted 3P
frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Frequency: Hz
Figure 1. Typical excitation frequency ranges for 5 MW offshore
wind-turbine structure
56
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
the region after the 3P range as the ‘stiff–stiff’ zone. ‘Soft–soft’
and ‘stiff–stiff’ zones are unsuitable for the design solution.
The structure is considered too flexible if its natural frequency
falls within the ‘soft–soft’ zone and too rigid (heavy and
expensive) within the ‘stiff–stiff’ zone. Another important
reason for avoiding the ‘soft–soft’ frequency region is that
wind turbulence and wave excitation frequencies usually fall
within this zone (LeBlanc, 2009). For wind-turbine structures,
this invariably leads to the development of higher stresses in
the support structure/foundation, which is an unfavourable
situation in considering fatigue life. This dynamic interaction of
the soil–pile system produces greater strain in the surrounding
soil and may lead to higher stiffness degradation (Achmus et al.,
2009) or soil stiffening (Cuéllar et al., 2012; LeBlanc et al., 2010).
It is therefore important to ensure that excitation frequencies
having high energy levels do not coincide with the support
structure’s natural frequency. DNV (2011) suggests that the
natural frequency of the structure should not come close to the
1P or 3P frequency regions, remaining away from these zones by
a margin of at least 10%. A detailed insight into the dynamic of
the soil-structure behaviour for OWTs is given by Adhikari and
Bhattacharya (2011, 2012), Bhattacharya et al. (2011, 2012,
2013), Bhattacharya and Adhikari (2011) and Lombardi et al.
(2013).
3. Scaling issues for model testing
To relate the results from reduced-scale physical modelling
with the corresponding results of the prototype system, certain
conditions must be met to preserve constitutive and kinematic
similarities between the systems. Examples of the derivation of
scaling laws for offshore monopile foundations have been
reported by Lai (1989), Muir Wood et al. (2002), LeBlanc et al.
(2010), Bhattacharya et al. (2011) and Cuéllar et al. (2012).
However, the satisfaction of such scaling conditions for
similarity in granular soils is not trivial (Bhattacharya et al.,
2011; Dong et al., 2001), especially for a complex problem such
as OWTs where one has dynamics, aerodynamics, soil–
structure interaction and fluid flow around the foundations.
Waves
Among other technical difficulties of performing physical tests
with geomaterials, the direct scaling of the particle grain
dimensions is particularly problematic as it may introduce
undesired forces into play unless a certain minimum ratio is
maintained between mean grain size (d50) and a characteristic
dimension (pile diameter in the present investigation) of the
model (Sedran et al., 2001; Verdure et al., 2003). Moreover,
constitutive laws describing the load–deformation behaviour of
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 the soil are stress-level dependent, which implies that for 1g
conditions, homologous points of the soil foundations for the
model and prototype may experience different deformational
responses. For instance, the load–deformation response of
structures founded on sand is governed, among other factors,
by the magnitude of mean effective confining pressure, which is
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
different for the model and prototype. Laboratory model tests
on sand at 1g (i.e. at low confining pressure) are generally
performed at a lower density index compared with full-scale in
order to match the angle of shearing resistance and take into
account the dilation (LeBlanc et al., 2010). Similitude relation-
ships in the form of non-dimensional parameters (NDPs) can be
applied to relate the results for the model with the prototype,
and vice versa (see LeBlanc et al., 2010). These NDPs consider
the pile’s geometry, material properties, applied loading and its
lateral displacement (rotation) response, as given in Table 1,
with due consideration of the pile tip displacement under
repeating lateral loads.
4. Existing systems for lateral loading of
model piles
Over the past two decades, a number of different systems have
been developed to apply monotonic and (or) repeating lateral
loads in performing laboratory studies on model piles. The
methods of operation of these systems can be broadly
categorised as mechanical (Rao et al., 1998), electromechanical
(Basack, 2005; LeBlanc, 2009; LeBlanc et al., 2010), pneumatic
and (or) hydraulic (Chandrasekaran et al., 2010; El Nagger and
Wei, 1999; Kumar and Rao, 2012). As discussed and presented
in these experimental studies, the loading systems have varying
complexities in their operation and capabilities to simulate
the field conditions. For instance, some loading systems (Rao
et al., 1998; El Nagger and Wei, 1999) can apply only
monotonic lateral loading in a certain range. Others can apply
one-way repeating load and have been used in studies to apply
limited numbers of lateral loading cycles (Chandrasekaran
et al., 2010; Kumar and Rao, 2012; Qin, 2010). A few systems
(Basack, 2005; LeBlanc et al., 2010; Peng et al., 2006) have
been designed to apply many thousands of load cycles for one-
way and two-way loading conditions, with sufficient control
provided over the load amplitude and frequency. A detailed
discussion of existing loading systems is beyond the scope of
this paper and the reader is referred to the publications cited
above for further information.
Moment loading ^ M
M~
L3 Dc’
Horizontal loading ^ H
H~ 2
L Dc’
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rotation ^ pa
h~
Lc’
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
Moment arm (i.e. vertical distance between M
^
e~
initial level of sand bed surface and point of HL
horizontal load application)
Table 1. Non-dimensional parameters for scaling laws (after
LeBlanc et al., 2010)
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
The novel rig for model pile studies developed at Trinity
College Dublin (TCD) which is presented in this paper is not
only capable of applying many thousands of load cycles under
one-way and two-way loading conditions but is also efficient in
generating different waveform shapes within the frequency
range compatible with offshore environmental loading.
5. Development of the new rig for model
pile studies
5.1 General layout and components
Figure 2 shows the general layout of the new rig that is used to
apply repeating lateral loads to the head of an instrumented model
pile. The pile (identified as (15) in the figure) is installed in a soil
bed that is contained in a steel tank (8) having an internal diameter
of 0?95 m, overall depth of 0?60 m, and which is reinforced by box
sections welded around its outer perimeter. The driving torque to
the loading system is provided by a three-phase 1?5 kW AC motor
(1), which torques gearing through a system of metallic chain
linkages – that is, a bicycle chain. The drive motor and gearing are
mounted on a reaction frame (9). The steel tank and soil bed
within are isolated from the reaction frame and hence any
vibrations produced by the operation of the mechanical loading
system. In the present set-up, the chains had a pitch length of
12?7 mm, pin length of 6?0 mm and roller diameter of 7?2 mm.
The speed control unit for the motor provides control over the
speed of rotation of the motor shaft and hence the loading
frequency. Rotation of gear x (3) moves the sliding node (13) to-
and-fro between points L and R. The sliding node is connected to
gear x by an articulated arm (12). The travel range of the sliding
node is controlled by adjusting the location of the pivot point (pin
joint) and the arm length. Referring to the right-hand side (RHS)
of the schematic arrangement shown in Figure 2: one end of the
RHS chain is connected to the sliding node and its other end to the
RHS of the pilehead by way of a miniature load cell (10) and
spring (11). As shown in the figure, this chain loops, engaging with
80 mm diameter upper (2) and lower (5) cogs, from which a dead
weight (7) can be attached to a specific chain linkage by way of a
load hanger. Under two-way loading, a similar arrangement is
used to apply and measure the loading to the left-hand side (LHS)
of the pilehead. The loading system can be operated from a very
low frequency of 0?01 Hz up to 2?0 Hz by simply adjusting the
speed of rotation of the drive motor. Another determining factor
in achieving the desired frequency is the stiffness of the spring(s).
Loading frequencies in the range 0?1–2?0 Hz have been used by
different researchers (Cuéllar et al., 2012; LeBlanc et al., 2010;
Lombardi et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2011) in performing model
studies at 1g on monopile foundations for OWTs.
5.2 Working mechanism
The working mechanism of the new loading system depends on
the required loading scheme, with the range of possibilities
described in the next section of the paper. Referring to
57
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
L O
Sand level in steel tank
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the TCD rig for model pile studies,
set up for two-way lateral loading. Key: 1, drive motor; 2, upper
right cog; 3, gear x; 4, upper right chain segment; 5, lower right
cog; 6, lower right chain segment; 7, right loading weight with
Figure 3, repeating lateral loading behaviour is obtained
through the transfer of loads (supplied by the loading weights
and hangers) from the upper chain segments to the lower chain
segments, and vice versa; that is, tension forces are generated in
the upper and lower chains alternately. The RHS lower chain
segment (6) goes from the spring (8) to the bottom of the chain
loop, passing over the lower cog (5). The RHS upper chain
segment (4) goes from the sliding node (2) to the bottom of the
chain loop, passing over the upper cog (3).
In addition to the applied hanger loads and speed of the drive
motor, other governing inputs for the loading scheme are as
outlined below.
(a) The locations of the attachment points for the RHS and
(or) LHS load hangers along the chain loops, with reference
to the centres of the upper cogs; that is, the loading node
position on the vertical chain-loop length. Referring to
Figure 3, the vertical chain-loop length (VCLL) equals the
horizontal chain-loop length (HCLL) when the sliding node
(2) is at its mid-range (i.e. point O), which represents zero
wave amplitude. The loading node position determines the
loading impact on the pilehead; that is, the duration and
portion of the load cycle for which a particular chain
segment (upper or lower) remains under the action of the
applied tension force. For example, with the loading node
58
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
R
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
hanger; 8, steel tank; 9, reaction frame; 10, right load cell; 11, right
spring; 12, articulated arm; 13, sliding node; 14, reference support
with LVDTs; 15, pile
position for the RHS chain loop located on the upper chain
segment (4), the tension force applied by the loading weight
and hanger (7) remains in the upper RHS chain segment for
a greater proportion of the load cycle. When the sliding
node (2) moves to location R, the bottom section of the
RHS chain loop is at its lowest position.
(b) The stiffness of the connecting spring(s) (8) which contributes
to generating the required waveform shape. If the spring(s)
is removed (i.e. lower chain segment(s) connected directly to
the pilehead), then an almost square wave form is produced
by the loading system owing to the abrupt action and
interaction of the loading to the pilehead. In other words, for
a particular load amplitude, the loading frequency is also
determined by the response time (stiffness) of the spring(s).
A synchronised adjustment/correlation between the range of
node movement (i.e. points L to R in Figure 3) and elongated
length(s) of the spring(s) under loading to get the desired
loading scheme is a difficult task. This is more onerous for two-
way than one-way loading. This task was completed incremen-
tally by experimental trials.
For demonstration purposes, Tables 2 and 3 show the relative
positions of the sliding node and loading hangers at interim
stages for loading under one-way and balanced two-way
sinusoidal load waves.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Development of a rig to study
Volume 14 Issue 3 model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly

2 HCLL

L O R

VCLL
9 8 6
7

10 Loading node position

Nh
Bottom of chain loop
when sliding node is at
midrange (point O)

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of new loading system, set up for right cog; 6, lower right chain segment; 7, right loading hanger
two-way lateral loading. Key: 1, slot for sliding node; 2, sliding with weights; 8, right spring; 9, right load cell; 10, pilehead; HCLL
node; 3, upper right cog; 4, upper right chain segment; 5, lower and VCLL, horizontal and vertical chain-loop lengths, respectively

Relative position
Sliding node Spring of chain and Load cell
Stage position response load hanger measurement Remark

1 L O R Dl Load cycle starts from maximum applied load

amplitude, with lower right chain segment under
Load

Time
tension.

2 L O R Extension in spring (and hence tension force)

reduces as sliding node moves towards the LHS.
Load

Time

3 L O R Dl = 0 With the sliding node at point L, the spring has

returned to its original length and the hanger load
Load

Time
tends to shift onto the upper right chain segment.

4 L O R As the sliding node moves from points L to R, the

spring extends and the load applied to the
Load

Time
pilehead increases again.

5 L O R When the sliding node reaches point R, the spring

is under maximum elongation and the maximum
Load

Time
lateral load is applied to the pilehead, completing
one full sinsuoidal cycle.

Table 2. Reference positions of moving parts in loading system for

one-way sinusoidal wave

59
60
Volume 14 Issue 3

Sliding Response Response Position of Position of Response Response

node of LHS of RHS LHS chain and RHS chain and of LHS of RHS
Stage position spring spring load hanger load hanger load cell load cell Remark

1 L O R Dl = 0 Dl At point R, the RHS spring is at its full elongation, with the full
weight of the RHS hanger acting on the RHS lower chain segment.
Time

Load

Load
Time

2 L O R At point O, the RHS spring has returned to its original length.

Further movement of the sliding node towards point L causes

Load

Load
Time
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

the LHS spring to extend.

3 L O R Dl At point L, the LHS spring is at its full elongation, with the full
weight of the LHS hanger acting on the LHS lower chain

Load
Load
Time
segment.

4 L O R At point O, the LHS spring has returned to its original length.

Further movement of the sliding node towards point R causes

Load
Load
Time
the RHS spring to extend.
Arshad and O’Kelly

5 L O R At point R, the RHS spring is at maximum elongation under

the lateral force equivalent to that of the RHS load hanger and
repeating lateral loads

Load

Load
Time
weights.
model pile behaviour under
Development of a rig to study

Table 3. Reference positions of moving parts to produce sinusoidal

wave under balanced two-way loading
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
5.2.1 One-way sinusoidal load wave
For this configuration, only one load hanger with dead weights is
attached to the chain system (RHS chain in the scenario
considered below (see Table 2 and Figure 2)). During set up,
with the sliding node positioned at point L, the RHS load hanger
is attached to the chain link at the bottom of the RHS chain loop
system. The range of sliding node movement (i.e. distance
between points L and R) is adjusted such that it equals the
extension (Dl) of the RHS spring, located between the lower chain
segment and load cell, in response to the applied load. For
instance, suppose that at the start of the load cycle considered, the
sliding node is at its extreme right position (point R), in which
case the RHS spring is elongated by length Dl under the force
applied by the RHS load hanger with weights (see stage 1,
Table 2). At this stage, the pilehead experiences the maximum
lateral tension force. With the movement of the sliding node from
point R towards point L (stage 2, Table 2), the extension in the
spring reduces, such that when the sliding node is positioned at its
extreme left position (point L), the spring experiences no
extension (stage 3, Table 2); in other words, no lateral load is
applied to the pilehead. At this moment, the tension force in the
upper right chain segment due to the load hanger with weights is
completely carried by the torque of the drive motor. With the
sliding node moving from point L to R, the spring extends and the
lateral load applied to the pilehead increases again, reaching its
maximum value when the sliding node reaches point R (stage 5,
Table 2), thereby completing one full sinusoidal cycle. For one-
way sinusoidal wave loading, the vertical distance between the
loading node position and the bottom of the chain loop remains
practically zero when the sliding node is at its mean position.
5.2.2 Balanced two-way sinusoidal load wave
For this configuration, load hangers with weights are attached
to the RHS and LHS chains (see Table 3 and Figure 3). During
set-up, with the sliding node located at point O, the load hangers
with weights are attached at the bottom of the RHS and LHS
chain loop systems. As long as the sliding node remains in the
right-half span of node movement (i.e. between points O and R),
the RHS lower chain segment and spring remain under varying
tension force, with the pile tending to deflect towards the right
side from its initial (mean) vertical position. Similarly, when the
sliding node moves within the left-half span, a varying tension
force acts in the LHS lower chain segment and spring, with the
pile tending to deflect towards the left side. During set-up, the
half-span length is adjusted such that it equals the extension (Dl)
of the spring at the maximum load amplitude; that is, under the
action of lateral force equivalent to load hanger with weights.
With the sliding node located at point R, the maximum tension
force acts in the RHS lower chain segment (see stage 1, Table 3).
As the sliding node moves away from point R, the lateral tension
force applied to the RHS of the pilehead reduces, with the force
shifting to the RHS upper chain segment. On reaching point O
(i.e. at midrange: stage 2, Table 3), the RHS lower chain
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
segment applies zero force to the pilehead. As the sliding node
moves within the left-half span, the tension force in the LHS
lower chain segment increases. When the sliding node reaches
point L, the pilehead experiences the maximum load amplitude
acting towards the LHS (stage 3, Table 3). A full sinusoidal
cycle is completed when the sliding node reaches point R again;
that is, the maximum load amplitude is achieved in the RHS
lower chain segment (stage 5, Table 3).
5.3 Capabilities of the new loading system
The new loading system was designed to generate many
thousands of load cycles of varying load amplitude, frequency
and waveform shape. The load amplitude depends on the
magnitudes of the weights applied to the RHS and (or) LHS
load hangers. Referring to Figure 3, the required waveform
shape (i.e. sinusoidal, square, haversine etc.) can be obtained
by adjusting the length Nh (i.e. distance between the loading
node position and the bottom of the chain loop when the
sliding node is at midrange) and (or) by using springs with
different stiffnesses. Control over the frequency of the load
wave is primarily achieved by adjusting the speed of the drive
motor and to a less extent by the spring stiffness. The loading
scheme can be arranged to produce
(a) one-way loading, achieved when only one load hanger
with dead weights is used, with the magnitude of the load
wave fluctuating between zero and the applied maximum
load amplitude
(b) one-way loading, with the magnitude of the load wave
fluctuating between the applied maximum load amplitude
and some value above the zero value, hereafter termed as
partial one-way loading
(c) balanced two-way loading when equal weights are applied
to the two load hangers
(d) unbalanced two-way loading when unequal weights are
applied to the two hangers.
For balanced or unbalanced two-way loading of any waveform
shape, the RHS load cell shows zero force when the LHS load
cell measures a tension force, and vice versa. The resultant shape
of the load wave for the whole system is obtained by
superimposing the load–time curves measured by both load
cells. For demonstration purposes, different shapes of repeating
lateral load waves were generated in the present study for
maximum load amplitudes in the range of 30–45% of the pile’s
ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity under monotonic loading.
These percentages correspond to the fatigue and serviceability
limit states respectively (DNV, 2011). The experimental scenarios
considered in this paper are presented qualitatively in Figure 5.
The loading system can also be configured to generate two
different types of load wave under two-way loading; for
example, the tension force to the LHS of the pilehead could be
61
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
applied as a sinusoidal wave and the load to its RHS could be
applied as a haversine wave. Such scenarios can be generated
by using springs having different elastic moduli and (or)
changing the locations of the attachment points for the load
hangers on the chains.
6. Experimental demonstrations
An extensive programme of testing was performed on a model
pile installed in dry, dense sand beds to demonstrate the
performance and repeatability of the new loading system in
producing one-way and two-way sinusoidal lateral loading
conditions. These tests were performed in a constant tempera-
ture environment at 20¡2 ˚C.
6.1 Model pile
The 540 mm long model pile was manufactured from brass tubing
having outer and inner diameters of 53?0 and 51?4 mm,
respectively, which produced a bending stiffness (EI) of
4?33 kN m2. Its lower end was closed using 3 mm thick brass
plate to represent a fully plugged tubular pile. The model pile was
instrumented over its embedment length using eight strain gauges
of type TML-PL-10-11, manufactured by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo
Co. Ltd, Japan. These gauges were arranged in a line at 50 mm
centre-to-centre spacings and attached to the pile’s outer wall
surface using an epoxy adhesive, with the lowermost gauge located
at a distance of 20 mm above the pile tip. They had gauge length
and width dimensions of 10 and 5 mm, respectively, a gauge factor
of 2?07 and full Wheatstone Bridge circuit configuration. A thin
cover layer of epoxy was applied over the attached gauges, and also
locally on their lead connections, in order to provide protection
from potential damage during handling of the pile, its installation
in the sand beds and under repeated lateral loading of the pile.
6.2 Sand characterisation and sand bed preparation,
including pile installation
In the present investigation, the model pile was partially embedded
in dense sand beds contained within the 0?95 m diameter by 0?6 m
deep steel tank. The sand beds were prepared using dry sub-
angular to angular medium silica sand having a d50 of 0?27 mm,
coefficient of uniformity of 1?85 and coefficient of curvature of 1?0.
The sand was air-pluviated into the tank, raining in six layers, each
100 kg in mass, which produced deposited layers of approximately
90 mm in thickness. After depositing the first two layers, the model
pile was aligned vertically at the centre of the tank, with temporary
support to the pilehead provided by tensioned horizontal steel
wires which were secured radially to the wall of the tank. Four
more layers of sand were deposited, bringing the sand bed to its full
depth of 0?54 m, and producing a pile embedment length of
0?36 m. This installation scenario represents a ‘wished in place’
closed-ended pile. The test sand had minimum and maximum dry
density values of 1388 and 1662 kg/m3, respectively, which equate
to maximum and minimum void ratio values of 0?92 and 0?60
respectively. This preparation technique produced sand beds with a
62
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
dry density of 1577¡6 kg/m3 for the 15 sand beds prepared in the
present investigation (density index range of 70–74%). At
maximum density, the dry sand had a peak friction angle of 39˚,
determined from 60 mm square shearbox tests. Geometrically the
pile set-up, with a pile embedment length to outer diameter (L/D)
ratio of 6?8, is categorised as a short rigid pile, which encompasses
L/D ratios of up to 10 (Peng et al., 2011; Tomlinson, 2001). This
scenario typically represents a field monopile (made of steel) for an
OWT foundation system at 1/100 scale. Regarding possible
boundary effects associated with the relative dimensions of the
tank and model pile under the repeated lateral loading scenarios
investigated in the present study: (a) a soil cushion (sand in our
case) having a depth of three to four times the pile diameter located
below the pile tip is considered sufficient to absorb the vertical
stress field (LeBlanc et al., 2010); (b) with the ratio of the tank
diameter to pile diameter greater than 17, side wall boundary
effects were not significant (Davie and Sutherland, 1978; Rao et al.,
1996).
6.3 Instrumentation and data acquisition
Figure 5 illustrates the arrangement of load cells and linear-
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) used to measure the
load–displacement (rotation) behaviour of the model pile. The two
horizontally mounted miniature load cells (series LCM-703, range
of ¡250 N, manufactured by Omega Engineering Ltd, UK)
recorded the magnitudes of the repeating lateral loads applied to
the pilehead by the loading system. Along the section of the pile
protruding above the sand bed surface, two horizontally mounted
LVDTs, one located 50 mm directly above the other, recorded
lateral displacements of the pilehead (see Figure 4). This arrange-
ment allowed the determination of the rotation (tilt) of the rigid pile
from its initial vertical alignment, the depth to its point of rotation
along its embeded length and its lateral displacement at the sand
bed surface level. A third LVDT, mounted coaxially with the pile,
measured the pile’s vertical displacement response. The LVDTs
(series TR-0050, manufactured by Novotechnik Ostfildern,
Germany) had a maximum range of 50 mm with linearity up to
0.075%. Figure 6 shows photographs of the partially embedded
instrumented pile undergoing two-way lateral loading applied by
the newly developed apparatus.
The outputs from the load cells, LVDTs and strain gauges were
recorded by a System-7000 data acquisition system (Vishay
Precision Group, USA). This system simultaneously scanned
each sensor/channel at ten data points/s, with a measurement
accuracy of ¡0?05% full-scale and 0?5 microstrain resolution.
An ethernet interface allowed flexible positioning of the sensor
displays on a laptop computer in numeric and graphic modes
using Windows-based ‘Smart-Strain’ software.
6.4 Testing programme
A programme of 15 repeating lateral load tests was performed
on the ‘wished in place’ model pile installation in dry sand
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Development of a rig to study
Volume 14 Issue 3 model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly

One-way
LVDT in vertical direction

LVDTs in horizontal direction

Balanced
Pilehead
Sinusoidal

two-way
50 mm Right load cell
Right spring
Load

Lower right chain segment

Unbalanced 90 mm
two-way Sand bed surface level

Time

One-way Balanced
two-way Figure 5. Arrangement of load cells and LVDTs at the pilehead

Unbalanced
indicates two-way lateral loading, 30 N in one direction, 60 N
two-way
Haversine

in the other (i.e. unbalanced), at a frequency of 0?4 Hz.

Load

The ultimate static lateral load-carrying capacity of the model pile

set-up at the same embedment depth of 0?36 m in the sand beds
was estimated at 140 N, which corresponds to a point on the
Time load–rotation curve where, apparently, plastic deformation of the
surrounding sand starts. At this point, the pile had rotated 1?5˚
Balanced Unbalanced One-way
two-way two-way from its initial vertical alignment and its lateral deflection at the
sand bed surface level was approximately 7 mm; that is, 0?13
times the pile outer diameter D. In previous studies of rigid model
Square

piles performed at 1g, the ultimate load-carrying capacity was

Load

usually estimated for lateral pile deflections of 0?1–0?2D (Cuéllar

et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2011; El Sawwaf, 2006) occurring at the
sand bed surface. In the present study, the load amplitudes of 40
and 60 N investigated correspond to the fatigue and serviceability
Time
limit states, respectively, in relation to the pile’s ultimate static
lateral load-carrying capacity of 140 N (DNV, 2011).
Partial one-way loading

sinusoidal 6.5 Experimental results

Figures 7 to 9 present the experimental results in terms of the
haversine
pile’s rotation from its initial vertical alignment against number
square
of load cycles. The same pile, embedment depth and sand bed
Load

preparation method were used for all of the tests. The

Time
Figure 4. Loading scenarios and generated wave shapes
beds, prepared as described in Section 6.2. In these tests, the
effects of different loading scenarios (balanced and unbalanced
two-way and one-way loading), load amplitudes and frequen-
cies were investigated, each test involving 6000 lateral loading
cycles applied to the pilehead. The different tests are listed in
Table 4 and identified as follows: loading direction (1w, one-
way; 2w, two-way)/load amplitude (N)/frequency (Hz). For
example, 1w/40/0?1 indicates one-way lateral loading having an
amplitude and frequency of 40 N and 0?1 Hz; 2w/30–60/0?4
experimental data are discussed below in terms of the effects
of loading direction, amplitude and frequency. Using similitude
relationships in the form of non-dimensional parameters (e.g.
see Table 1), such data can be used to interpret the prototype
behaviour. As the model pile was closed-ended and experienced
no vertical loading other than self-weight, its settlement was
negligible, with a maximum of 0?2 mm vertical movement
recorded after 6000 cycles of lateral loading.
The structural behaviour of a rigid (mono) pile under lateral
loading is defined by its rotation as a rigid body. However, since
the pile’s stiffness is not infinite, and provided a high-resolution
data-acquisition system such as the System-7000 is used, some
bending strains at microstrain level can be measured by strain
gauges bonded to the pile shaft. These data are usually employed
for evaluations/interpretations related to the pile’s bending
moment profile, the lateral soil reaction and deformations

63
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Development of a rig to study
Volume 14 Issue 3 model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly

Test ID Loading scenario Left hanger load: N Right hanger load: N Frequency: Hz

1w/40/0?10 One-way 0 40 0?10

1w/40/0?25 One-way 0 40 0?25
1w/40/0?40 One-way 0 40 0?40
2w/40–40/0?10 Balanced two-way 40 40 0?10
2w/40–40/0?25 Balanced two-way 40 40 0?25
2w/40–40/0?40 Balanced two-way 40 40 0?40
1w/60/0?10 One-way 0 60 0?10
1w/60/0?25 One-way 0 60 0?25
1w/60/0?40 One-way 0 60 0?40
2w/60–60/0?10 Balanced two-way 60 60 0?10
2w/60–60/0?25 Balanced two-way 60 60 0?25
2w/60–60/0?40 Balanced two-way 60 60 0?40
2w/30–60/0?10 Unbalanced two-way 30 60 0?10
2w/30–60/0?25 Unbalanced two-way 30 60 0?25
2w/30–60/0?40 Unbalanced two-way 30 60 0?40

Table 4. Lateral load testing programme on model pile

occurring in the soil strata over the pile embedment length.
However, to follow the scope of this paper, data obtained from the
8 strain gauges mounted along the shaft of the model pile over its
embedment depth are not included here and will be used in a
companion paper.
6.5.1 Effect of loading direction
Figure 7 considers the same load amplitude of 60 N (service-
ability limit state) and indicates that the measured angle of
rotation of the pile under unbalanced two-way loading was
significantly greater compared with balanced two-way loading.
Both of these scenarios were more onerous that one-way
loading. Similar experimental observations have been reported
from 1g testing of model piles by LeBlanc (2009) and LeBlanc
et al. (2010). For these three loading scenarios, approximately
80% of the accumulated rotation measured at 6000 load cycles
(i.e. end of the tests) had occurred by the 500th load cycle
(Figure 7). At 500 load cycles, unbalanced two-way loading
produced 180% and 75% greater rotation compared with one-way
and balanced two-way loading respectively. The corresponding
percentages for the 6000th load cycle were 120% and 70%.
6.5.2 Effect of load amplitude
Figures 8 and 9 indicate that the pile rotation was significantly
dependent on the load amplitude (LA), particularly for one-way
loading. For example, with LA increased by 50% (i.e. from 40 to
60 N), the pile rotation produced at the 500th load cycle
increased by 600% and 100% for one-way and balanced two-way
loading respectively. At 6000 load cycles, the corresponding
percentages were 400% and 80%. Based on the calculated
gradients of the data plots between 2000 and 6000 load cycles in
Figures 8 and 9, it can be interpreted that the sand surrounding
the pile tended to reach the elastic shakedown state more rapidly
for the lower LA of 40 N, as compared with 60 N.
6.5.3 Effect of loading frequency
In relative terms, the effect of loading frequency was more
pronounced for the lower LA of 40 N, as compared with 60 N,
particularly for one-way loading. For example, between the
500th and 6000th load cycles under one-way loading, the pile
rotation for 0?4 Hz was approximately 75% greater compared
with 0?1 Hz (Figure 8). At the higher LA of 60 N, the
corresponding figure was approximately 10%. Under balanced
and unbalanced two-way loading, the respective figures were
approximately 20% and less than 10% (Figure 9). The increase in
pile rotation was not proportionall to the increase in LF; for
example, under one-way loading, the LF increments from 0?1 to
0?25 Hz and 0?1 to 0?4 Hz produced increases in pile rotation of
40% and 60% respectively (Figure 8). Under balanced two-way
loading, the increase in pile rotation was considerably lower, with
corresponding values of 8% and 22% (Figure 9). For unbalanced
two-way loading, the LF range investigated was found to have a
negligible effect on the pile rotation response (Figure 7).
In the existing literature, the effect of LF on accumulated pile
rotation (deflection) is not clear. Our experimental findings are in
broad agreement with Peng et al. (2011), who reported that up to a
certain limit of LF and for a given LA, pile deflection (lateral
response) increased with increasing LF. Other researchers
(Giannakos et al., 2012; Kagawa, 1986) have reported that at
higher LF, the surrounding soil becomes stiffer and hence lower
deformations are expected under long-term repeating lateral loads.

64
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Development of a rig to study
Volume 14 Issue 3 model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.0

2.5

2.0

Rotation: degree
8 9 1w/60/0.10
1w/60/0.25
13 1.5 1w/60/0.40
2w/60-60/0.10
14 1.0 2w/60-60/0.25
2w/60-60/0.40
15
16 0.5 2w/30-60/0.10
2w/30-60/0.25
17 2w/30-60/0.40
10 0.0
18 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
11
19 Number of load cycles
12

Figure 7. Effect of loading direction on pile rotation for the same

(a)
load amplitude of 60 N
1

set-ups employing pneumatic or hydraulic actuators, the new

loading system is able to produce similar performance at lower
cost and also provides more control over the waveform shapes.

2
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 (40 and 60 N, respectively, in the present investigation) to
(b)
Figure 6. Repeating lateral load testing of model pile using the
newly developed apparatus: (a) pile in dense sand bed undergoing
two-way lateral loading; (b) instrumentation at the pilehead. Key
(a): 1, sliding node; 2, slot for sliding node; 3, articulated arm; 4,
upper right chain segment; 5, drive chain tensioning device; 6,
drive motor; 7, upper right cog; 8, laptop computer; 9, System-
7000 data acquisition system; 10, lower right cog; 11, right load
hanger; 12, right loading weights; 13, upper left chain segment;
14, vertical LVDT; 15, horizontal LVDT; 16, pilehead; 17, steel tank;
18, sand bed surface; 19, braced reaction frame. Key (b): 1, vertical
LVDT; 2, pilehead; 3, sand bed surface; 4, lower right chain
A programme of lateral load tests, each involving 6000 load cycles,
was performed on ‘wished in place’ rigid model piles installed in
dense sand beds. These tests were performed at load amplitudes
(LAs) corresponding to the fatigue and serviceability limit states
demonstrate some of the main capabilities of the new loading
system. The following trends were observed from the experimental
data: (a) two-way loading produced significantly greater rotation
of the pile from its initial vertical alignment compared with one-
way loading; (b) for two-way loading, unbalanced loads produced
greater pile rotation than balanced loads; (c) the higher LA of 60 N
produced significantly greater pile rotation, particularly for one-
way loading; (d) the effect of loading frequency was not as
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Rotation: degree

segment; 5, right spring; 6, right load cell; 7, left load cell; 8,

1.0 1w/40/0.10
horizontal LVDTs; 9, left spring; 10, lower left chain segment.
0.8 1w/40/0.25

0.6 1w/40/0.40
1w/60/0.10
7. Conclusion 0.4
1w/60/0.25
A new loading system has been developed to apply many 0.2
1w/60/0.40
thousands of repeating lateral load cycles to a 1g model, with full 0
control provided over the loading direction (i.e. one-way or two- 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
way), amplitude, frequency and waveform shape (e.g. sinusoidal, Number of load cycles
square or haversine). The new loading system is easy to operate
and can create realistic repeating cycles of lateral loadsing. Figure 8. Pile rotation for one-way loading at different load
Hence it is particularly suited to investigations of monopiles amplitudes and frequencies
for offshore structure foundations. Compared with equivalent

65
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
1.8
1.6
1.4
Rotation: degree
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Bhattacharya S, Nikitas N, Garnsey J, Alexander NA, Cox J,
0 2000 4000 6000
Number of load cycles
Figure 9. Pile rotation for balanced two-way loading at different
load amplitudes and frequencies
significant as loading direction or LA. From the series of tests
performed, it was found that the characteristics of the repeating
lateral loads were more pronounced for the model pile’s fatigue
limit state than its serviceability limit state. A more comprehensive
programme of repeating lateral load tests is required to further
understand the physics behind the problem.
Acknowledgement
The first author gratefully acknowledges a postgraduate
research scholarship award from Trinity College Dublin.
REFERENCES
Achmus M, Kuo Y-S and Abdel-Rahman K (2009) Behavior of
monopile foundations under cyclic lateral load. Computers
and Geotechnics 36(5): 725–735.
Adhikari S and Bhattacharya S (2011) Vibrations of wind-
turbines considering soil-structure interaction. Wind and
Structures 14(2): 85–112.
Adhikari S and Bhattacharya S (2012) Dynamic analysis of wind
turbine towers on flexible foundations. Shock and Vibration
19(1): 37–56.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2010) Recommended
Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms — Working Stress Design, API RP 2A-
WSD (R2010), 22nd edn. API Publishing Services,
Washington, DC, USA.
Arshad M and O’Kelly BC (2013) Offshore wind-turbine
structures: a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Energy 166(4): 139–152.
Basack S (2005) Development of an apparatus for imparting
lateral cyclic load on model pile foundation. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Mechanical Engineering,
Dhaka, Bangladash, paper AM10.
Bhattacharya S and Adhikari S (2011) Experimental validation
66
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
of soil-structure interaction of offshore wind turbines. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(5–6): 805–816.
Bhattacharya S, Lombardi D and Muir Wood D (2011) Similitude
relationships for physical modelling of monopile-supported
offshore wind turbines. International Journal of Physical
2w/40-40/0.10 Modelling in Geotechnics 11(2): 58–68.
2w/40-40/0.25 Bhattacharya S, Cox J, Lombardi D and Muir Wood D (2012)
2w/40-40/0.40
Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on two
2w/60-60/0.10
foundations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
2w/60-60/0.25
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 166(2): 159–169.
2w/60-60/0.40
8000 Lombardi D, Muir Wood D and Nash DFT (2013) Observed
dynamic soil–structure interaction in scale testing of
offshore wind turbine foundations. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 54(2013): 47–60.
Byrne BW and Houlsby GT (2003) Foundations for offshore
wind turbines. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London 361(1813): 2909–2930.
Chandrasekaran S, Boominathan A and Dodagoudar G (2010)
Experimental investigations on the behaviour of pile
groups in clay under lateral cyclic loading. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 28(5): 603–617.
Cuéllar P, Georgi S, Baeßler M and Rucker W (2012) On the
quasi-static granular convective flow and sand
densification around pile foundations under cyclic lateral
loading. Granular Matter 14(1): 11–25.
Davie JR and Sutherland HB (1978) Modeling of clay uplift
resistance. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 104(6): 755–760.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (2011) DNV-OS-J101: Design of
Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. DNV, Oslo, Norway.
Dong P, Newson TA, Davies MCR and Davies PA (2001) Scaling
laws for centrifuge modelling of soil transport by turbulent
fluid flows. International Journal of Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics 1(1): 41–45.
Dührkop J, Grabe J, Bienen B, White DJ and Randolph FM (2010)
Centrifuge experiments on laterally loaded piles with wings.
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Zurich, Switzerland
(Springman S, Laue J and Seward L (eds)). CRC Press/
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, vol. 2, pp. 919–924.
El Nagger MH and Wei JQ (1999) Response of tapered piles
subjected to lateral loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
36(1): 52–71.
El Sawwaf M (2006) Lateral resistance of single pile located near
geosynthetic reinforced slope. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(10): 1336–1345.
Gavin KG and O’Kelly BC (2007) Effect of friction fatigue on pile
capacity in dense sand. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 133(1): 63–71.
Giannakos S, Gerolymos N and Gazetas G (2012) Cyclic lateral
response of piles in dry sand: finite element modeling and
validation. Computers and Geotechnics 44(2012): 116–131.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Volume 14 Issue 3
Igoe D, Gavin K and O’Kelly B (2013) An investigation into the
use of push-in pile foundations by the offshore wind sector.
International Journal of Environmental Studies 70(5): 777–
791.
Kagawa T (1986) Cyclic and loading-rate effects on pile
responses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France.
Editions Technip, Paris, France, pp. 417–432.
Klinkvort RT and Hededal O (2013) Lateral response of
monopile supporting an offshore wind turbine. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical
Engineering 166(2): 147–158.
Kumar ND and Rao SN (2012) Lateral load: deflection response
of an embedded caisson in marine clay. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology 30(1): 1–31.
Lai S (1989) Simlitude for shaking table test on soil-structure-
fluid model in 1-g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations
29(1): 105–118.
LeBlanc C (2009) Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support
Structures — Selected Topics in the Field of Geotechnical
Engineering. PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg,
Denmark.
LeBlanc C, Houlsby GT and Byrne BW (2010) Response of stiff
piles in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading.
Géotechnique 60(2): 79–90.
Lee J, Kim M and Kyung D (2010) Estimation of lateral load
capacity of rigid short piles in sands using CPT results.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(1): 48–56.
Lee J, Kyung D, Hong J and Kim D (2011) Experimental
investigation of laterally loaded piles in sand under
multilayered conditions. Soils and Foundations 50(5): 915–927.
Lin SS and Liao JC (1999) Permanent strains of piles in sand due
to cyclic lateral loads. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 125(9): 798–802.
Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S and Muir Wood D (2013) Dynamic
soil–structure interaction of monopile supported wind
turbines in cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 49(2013): 165–180.
Long JH and Vanneste G (1994) Effects of cyclic lateral loads on
piles in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE 120(1): 225–244.
Mahmoud M and Burley E (1994) Lateral load capacity of single
piles in sand. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 107(3): 155–162.
Malhotra S (2011) Design and construction considerations for
offshore wind turbine foundations in North America. In
Wind Turbines (Al-Bahadly I (ed.)). InTech, Rijeka,
Croatia, pp. 231–264.
Muir Wood D, Crewe AJ and Taylor CA (2002) Shaking table
testing of geotectnical models. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 2(1): 1–13.
Peng J, Clarke B and Rouainia M (2006) A device to cyclic lateral
loaded model piles. Geotechnical Testing Journal 29(4): 1–7.
Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under
repeating lateral loads
Arshad and O’Kelly
Peng J, Clarke B and Rouainia M (2011) Increasing the resistance
of piles subject to cyclic lateral loading. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 137(10): 977–982.
Qin H (2010) Response of Pile Foundations Due to Lateral Force
and Soil Movements. PhD thesis, Griffith University,
Nathan, Australia.
Ramakrishna VGST and Rao SN (1999) Critical cyclic load levels for
laterally loaded piles in soft clays. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Offshore and Nearshore
Geotechnical Engineering, Panvil, Mumbai, India (Sing SK and
Lacasse S (eds)). Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp.
301–307.
Rao SN, Ramakrishna VGST and Rao MB (1998) Influence of rigidity
on laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay. Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(6): 542–549.
Rao SN, Ramakrishna VGST and Raju GB (1996) Behavior of pile-
supported dolphins in marine clay under lateral loading.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122(8): 607–612.
Raongjant W and Meng J (2011) Experimental investigation on
seismic behavior of single piles in sandy soil. Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration 10(3): 417–422.
Reese LC, Cox WR and Koop FD (1974) Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 473–484.
Rosquoet F, Thorel L, Garnier J and Canepa Y (2007) Lateral
cyclic loading of sand-installed piles. Soils and Foundations
47(5): 821–832.
Sedran G, Stolle DF and Horvath RG (2001) An investigation of
scaling and dimensional analysis of axially loaded piles.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38(3): 530–541.
Tomlinson MJ (2001) Foundation Design and Construction,
7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Verdure L, Garnier J and Levacher D (2003) Lateral cyclic
loading of single piles in sand. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 3(3): 17–28.
Zhu B, Byrne BW and Houlsby GT (2013) Long-term lateral cyclic
response of suction caisson foundations in sand. Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(1): 73–83.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
relies entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering
professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–
2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and refer-
ences. You can submit your paper online via www.icevir-
tuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find
detailed author guidelines.
67
 Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Analysis and Design of Monopile Foundations for

Offshore Wind-Turbine Structures

Muhammad Arshad & Brendan C. O'Kelly

To cite this article: Muhammad Arshad & Brendan C. O'Kelly (2015): Analysis and Design
of Monopile Foundations for Offshore Wind-Turbine Structures, Marine Georesources &
Geotechnology, DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1033070

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2015.1033070

Accepted author version posted online: 28

Jul 2015.
Published online: 28 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 162

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20

Download by: [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] Date: 03 February 2016, At: 01:19
 Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 0: 1–23
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1064-119X print/1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1033070

Analysis and Design of Monopile Foundations for Offshore

Wind-Turbine Structures
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1,2 and BRENDAN C. O’KELLY1
1
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
2
Department of Geological Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

Received 10 December 2012, Accepted 19 March 2015

Offshore wind turbines (OWTs) are generally supported by large-diameter monopiles, with the combination of axial forces, lateral
forces, bending moments, and torsional moments generated by the OWT structure and various environmental factors resisted by
earth pressures mobilized in the soil foundation. The lateral loading on the monopile foundation is essentially cyclic in nature and
typically of low amplitude. This state-of-the-art review paper presents details on the geometric design, nominal size, and structural
and environmental loading for existing and planned OWT structures supported by monopile foundations. Pertinent ocean-environ-
ment loading conditions, including methods of calculation using site-specific data, are described along with wave particle kinemat-
ics, focusing on correlations between the loading frequency and natural vibration frequency of the OWT structure. Existing
methods for modeling soil under cyclic loading are reviewed, focusing in particular on strain accumulation models that consider
pile–soil interaction under cyclic lateral loading. Inherent limitations=shortcomings of these models for the analysis and design
of existing and planned OWT monopile foundations are discussed. A design example of an OWT support structure having a mono-
pile foundation system is presented. Target areas for further research by the wind-energy sector, which would facilitate the devel-
opment of improved analyses=design methods for offshore monopiles, are identified.
Keywords: foundation, lateral load, monopile, ocean environment, soil, strain accumulation

Introduction design, the proportion and importance of the different load-

There has been a rapid growth in the use of offshore (and
onshore) wind farms for the production of clean and renew-
able energy. The economic development of wind farms
depends on efficient solutions being available for a number
of technical issues, one aspect being the foundations. Off-
shore wind-turbine (OWT) structures may be found on grav-
ity base, suction caisson, monopile, tripod or braced frame
(jacket) foundations or, more recently, using floating plat-
forms tethered to the seabed (Figure 1). The foundation
choice largely depends on the water depth, seabed character-
istics, loading characteristics, available construction technol-
ogies, and importantly, economic costs (Malhotra 2011).
Offshore foundations are subjected to a combination of
loads, namely the axial (self-weight) forces of the
structure=machinery (V), repeating horizontal=lateral loads
(H), and bending (M) and torsional moments. Apart from
the self-weight, these loads are generated by environmental
conditions (ocean waves, currents, tidal action, and aerody-
namic load cycles) and=or operation of the installed machin-
ery (Figure 2). The lateral loading is essentially cyclic in
nature and typically of low amplitude. For geotechnical
Address correspondence to Muhammad Arshad, Department
of Geological Engineering, University of Engineering & Tech-
nology, GT Road Lahore, Pakistan. E-mail: arshadm@tcd.ie
ing types essentially depend upon the kind of foundation
system being considered. For gravity-base foundations
(Figure 1a), potential failure modes may be in bearing
capacity or excess settlement; hence, the vertical load is gen-
erally the major design consideration (Malhotra 2011). For
monopile foundations (Figure 1b), lateral deflection
(rotation) of the monopile controls the serviceability limit
state of the whole structure; hence, lateral loads are more
critical when compared with the vertical loads.
In general, offshore foundations must be designed to
resist large numbers of aerodynamic and hydrodynamic load
cycles of varying direction, amplitude, and frequency
(Figure 2) at the proposed site over the project’s lifetime of
typically 25 years or more (Şahin 2004). In most parts
of the world, the most popular foundation choice in terms
of ease of installation, economy, and logistics is the mono-
pile, with an estimated 75% of all installed OWTs using this
solution (Blanco 2009; Fischer 2011; Malhotra 2011). For
OWT monopile foundation systems, the lateral loads (and
resulting moments) are generally large in proportion to the
axial loads. Hence, the foundation response under repeating
lateral loading is a major consideration, with the foundation
design dominated by considerations of the dynamic and fati-
gue responses under working loads, rather than the ultimate
load-carrying capacity. The overall feasibility of a wind-farm
project is invariably determined by upfront capital costs,
 2 M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 1. Support structure options showing their range of appli-
cable water depths.
with the material, fabrication, and installation costs for
OWT foundations, typically accounting for 25% of the
overall project cost (Blanco 2009). This significant invest-
ment demands reliable foundation designs to achieve the
overall goals of pollution-free wind-generated power at
economical rates.
The aims of this review article are to present:
. Details on the geometric design and structural and
environmental loading for existing and planned OWTs
supported by monopile foundations.
. Describe ocean-environment loading conditions, including
methods of calculation using site-specific data.
. Discuss wave particle kinematics, focusing on correlations
between the loading frequency and natural vibration fre-
quency of OWT structures.
. Critically review existing semi-empirical methods for mod-
eling soil under cyclic loading, focusing on cyclic design
for fatigue life. The inherent limitations=shortcomings of
these models for the analyses=design of existing and
planned OWT monopile foundations are identified along
with further research needs.
. Present a typical example of the geometric design for an
OWT-monopile foundation system.
Other aspects related to offshore monopile structures
(e.g., construction materials, manufacturing advancements,
corrosion assessment, and control) are beyond the scope of
this article.
General Aspects of OWT-Monopile Foundation
System
A monopile is a single large-diameter steel tube that pene-
trates into the seabed. The required monopile length and
diameter are primarily dependent on the OWT’s power
Fig. 2. Environmental impacts on offshore wind turbine.
generation capacity, which is an indirect measure of the
applied loading. Other significant influencing factors include
the soil condition and severity of environmental loading.
Existing offshore monopiles are typically 5–7.5 m in diam-
eter (Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman 2009), with slender-
ness [embedded length (L) to outer diameter (D)] ratio
values of <10, and are; therefore, considered to behave as
rigid structures for which rotation is prominent over bending
(Tomlinson 2001; Peng, Clarke, and Rouainia 2011). For a
typical OWT having a rated power of 5 MW and installed
in the North Sea, a hub height (see Figure 3) of 95 m above
the mean sea level and rotor diameter of 125 m lead to the
approximate quasi-static loading scenario summarized in
Table 1 (Lesny and Wiemann 2005; IEC [International
Electrotechnical Commission] 2009) and which acts at the
seabed level. This example demonstrates that torsional
moments are negligibly small, whereas lateral loading causes
extremely high bending moments and principally controls
the foundation design.
The monopile foundation transfers the horizontal forces
and bending moments generated by wind and wave loading
(via horizontal earth pressure acting along the pile) into the
surrounding ground through cantilever action. Factors
affecting the cyclic response include the monopile size and
embedment length, soil properties, soil–pile relative stiffness,
loading characteristics, and pile installation method (Malho-
tra 2011). Depending on subsoil conditions, the monopile is
typically installed into the seabed by drilling and grouting,
driving using large impact or vibratory hammers, or a com-
bination of drilling and driving (Malhotra 2011).
In current practice, OWT monopile foundations are
usually designed using general geotechnical standards in
combination with more specific guidelines and semi-
empirical formulas that have been largely developed by the
offshore oil=gas industry. The latter are usually based on
limited field data obtained for piles having significantly
smaller diameters (DIN [Deutsches Institut fur Normung]
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 3. Main components of offshore wind turbine system.
2005; GL [Germanischer Lloyd] 2005; API [American
Petroleum Institute] 2010; DNV [Det Norske Veritas]
2011). Hence, extrapolation of these formulations for
present and future design of OWT monopile foundations
requires careful consideration of the applied loading and
the inherent limitations underlying such approaches.
Another significant shortcoming is that current design
standards and guidelines on the serviceability of piles under
cyclic lateral loading are limited. For instance, over its ser-
vice life, a typical 2 MW OWT structure is usually subjected
to 102 and 107 cycles of lateral loading with magnitudes of
Table 1. Loading at seabed level for 5 MW wind turbine
supported by monopile foundation (Lesny and Wiemann 2005)
Component Magnitude
Vertical load 35 MN
Horizontal load 16 MN
Bending moment 562 MN  m
Torsional moment 4 MN  m
3
2.0 and 1.4 MN, respectively: these scenarios correspond to
the serviceability and fatigue limit states respectively (GL
2005). Further, the strategy of predictions and in-situ
measurement of the behavior of every OWT monopile foun-
dation in a wind farm project is technically and economically
laborious and; hence, not practical. The application of fast
countermeasures to mitigate against unexpected conditions
developing into potentially alarming situations also cannot
be guaranteed (Richwien, Lesny, and Wiemann 2002).
Many constitutive models have been proposed to estimate
the soil response under large numbers of load cycles, although
very few of these specifically consider simulation of the soil–
pile interaction, instead focusing on the soil’s strength and
stiffness responses. The most popular method of analysis for
predicting the pile deflection under lateral loading, and the
method recommended in offshore design codes including
API (2010) and DNV (2011), are based on the Winkler model;
commonly referred to as the p-y method. Although it has a
long history of use in design practice, the original database
on which this method is based largely consists of a single set
of pile tests, involving limited numbers of lateral load cycles,
performed at a medium-dense sand site. In contrast, many
millions of low-amplitude cycles of lateral loading are applied
over the operational life of OWT structures.
As a general rule, under field loading, rotation of the
monopile of up to 0.5 from its vertical alignment (Achmus,
Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman 2009; LeBlanc, Houlsby, and
Byrne 2010; DNV 2011) or lateral pile deflections (based
on practical experience) of up to 120 mm occurring at seabed
level (Malhotra 2011) are considered as limiting values for
the proper operation of the wind turbine.
Geometric Details of OWTs Supported by Monopile
Foundations
The main components of the wind-turbine system are its
foundation, support structure, transition piece, tower, rotor
blades, and nacelle (Figure 3). Together, the support struc-
ture and foundation maintain the turbine in its proper oper-
ational position. The transition piece provides a means of
correcting any misalignment of the monopile that may arise
during its installation. In some instances, the monopile can
extend from the seabed level to above the water surface level,
connecting with the transition piece or tower (Arshad and
O’Kelly 2013). The nacelle (hub) contains the key electro-
mechanical components of the wind turbine, including the
gearbox and generator (Malhotra 2011). Rotor diameters
of existing OWTs typically range 90–120 m, producing
power-generation capacities of 3–6 MW respectively (Tong
2010). Gravitational loading typically ranges 2–8 MN. For
instance, Byrne and Houlsby (2003) reported vertical load
of 6 MN for an anticipated 3.5 MW OWT in the UK region,
with lateral loading from aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
factors accounting for up to 67% of the vertical loading.
These loads will vary with the size of the installation, the
detailed design, and local environmental conditions. OWTs
having rotor diameters of 250 m and a power-generation
capacity of 20 MW are currently in the research and develop-
ment phase (EWEA [European Wind Energy Association]
 4 M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
 a
2011), creating even more onerous design loading scenarios Z
for (monopile) foundations. U z ¼ U 10 ð1Þ
10
OWT monopile foundations are typically manufactured
from steel tubular sections having outer diameters of up to ln Z=Z0
7.5 m, wall thicknesses of up to 150 mm, and embedment U z ¼ U 10 ð2Þ
ln 10=Z0
(penetration) depths of between 15 and 30 m (Achmus,
Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman 2009). Monopiles are generally where the values of exponent a and the roughness parameter,
used in shallow water depths (i.e., typically <30 m), gener- Z0, are dependent on the site location, with typical values of
ally becoming too flexible for water depths between 30 0.11 and 0.0001, respectively, for open-sea environments.
and 40 m, in which case, monopiles fitted with guy wires or The wind velocity fluctuates with time for a given height,
tripod solutions (see Figure 1) are considered as economical and also with change in height, above the sea level or ground
alternatives. For greater depths, time-consuming installation surface (Figure 4). However, a mean value (U z) can be estab-
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

and the effects of soil degradation (‘potholing’), which
occurs at seabed level around the pile, make monopile foun-
dation solutions prohibitive (Irvine et al. 2003). Other foun-
dation options, as illustrated in Figure 1, are then considered
as viable options. The serviceability limit state is largely
determined by the lateral deflection (rotation) of the mono-
pile under many millions of load cycles; e.g., 107 lateral load
cycles of 1.4 MN magnitude (corresponding to the fatigue
loading for design) are expected to occur over the service life
of OWT structures (GL 2005).
lished for a particular site location provided sufficient wind
speed data are available. The instantaneous wind velocity
can be considered as the superposition of the turbulent
component (wz) on the mean value. Hence the total aerody-
namic drag force (FDWind) acting on an offshore structure
can be determined by (Jang and Shinn 1999; API 2010):
 2  
FDWind ¼ 0:5qair Cdair Aw U z þ qair Cdair Aw U z wz
þ 0:5qair Cdair Aw ðjwz jwz Þ ð3Þ

Ocean-Environment Loading on Monopile Foundation

System
In the ocean-environment, the primary sources of variable=
cyclic loading on OWTs are aerodynamic, hydrodynamic,
and (depending on the geographic setting) ice loading.
Seismic loads (considered as a special type of dynamic load-
ing) and ship impact may threaten the serviceability of the
structure or even ultimately lead to its collapse. However,
the focus of this paper is on aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
loading, since these are considered more important in assess-
ments of the OWT structure’s fatigue life.

Aerodynamic Loading
Wind conditions are important in defining, not only the
loads imposed on a wind turbine’s structural components,
but also in predicting the amount of future energy produced
as a function of wind velocity. A realistic assessment of wind
direction through statistical analysis of recorded wind data
must be based on a realistic representation of wind speed
(preferably occurring at hub height), speed frequency distri-
bution, wind shear (i.e., rate of change in wind speed with
height), turbulence intensity (i.e., standard deviation of wind
speeds sampled over a 10 min period as a function of the
mean speed), wind direction distribution, and also extreme
wind gusts with return periods of up to 100 years (DNV
2011). The mean value of the 10 min period wind speed data
measured at a reference elevation of 10 m above mean sea
level (usually determined at hub height for OWTs) is referred
to as the wind speed U 10 , from which the mean wind speed
U z for some other height, Z, above mean sea level can be
approximated using either the power law or logarithmic Fig. 4. Fluctuation of wind speed about the mean value. (a) In
law given by: time domain. (b) In three-dimensional space.
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations 5

where qair is the density of air, Aw is the exposed area of the

offshore structure, Cdair is an aerodynamic drag coefficient
that is dependent on the structure’s geometry and size, jwzj
is the turbulent component (with the absolute value taken
in order to make the direction of the drag force coincident
with the wind velocity).
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) represents
the mean drag force, with the second and third terms denot-
ing the drag force components associated with wind velocity
fluctuations.
Wind loads on offshore structures are seldom greater than
the hydrodynamic loads and often play a relatively minor
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

role, compared with the hydrodynamic loads. However wind

loading has a longer lever arm when considering moments
generated about the structure’s foundation. Hence, it is best
not to neglect the effects of wind loading, particularly in the
calculation of overturning (bending) moments acting on the
foundation. Wind loads on offshore structures are seldom
greater than the hydrodynamic loads. However, in the calcu-
lation of the overturning (bending) moments acting on the
foundation, wind loading has a longer lever arm compared
with the wave load interaction with the OWT structure. For
instance, Byrne and Houlsby (2003) reported that in a typical
North Sea environment, the rotor thrust reaction due to the
wind loads contributes 25% of the total horizontal load
but generates 75% of the total overturning moments.
Variations in mean wind speed are relatively small com-
pared with variations in the wave period. Fluctuations about
the mean wind speed impose aerodynamic forces, although
when considering the dynamic behavior of offshore struc-
tures, these forces are also generally insignificant compared
with the hydrodynamic forces (Journée and Massie 2001).
Hence wind speed is generally considered as steady (i.e., with- Fig. 5. Definitions of harmonic wave propagation and para-
out fluctuation), resulting in constant force(s) and; hence, meters. (a) In time domain. (b) In three-dimensional space.
constant moment(s). Dynamic analysis of offshore structures
is necessary in cases where the wind field contains energy at useful in many applications since it allows one to predict
frequencies near the offshore structure’s natural frequencies complex irregular behavior in terms of the theory of regular
of vibration (API 2010), although for monopile foundations, waves; e.g., see St. Denis and Pierson (1953).
the difference between these frequencies is usually high [see
later section on Correlation between Loading Frequency Wave Particle Kinematics
and Natural Frequency of OWT Structures]. Some statistical Wave Theory
manipulations can be applied to the wind data (e.g., refer to
Jang and Shinn 1999; Haritos 2007) for the inclusion of Many regular wave theories have been developed to capture
dynamic forces due to wind velocity turbulence. the water particle kinematics associated with ocean waves.
Each theory pertains to a certain scenario with different
degrees of complexity. Hence, they have different ranking
Hydrodynamic Loading
among the offshore engineering community (Chakrabarti
For OWT monopile foundations, the dominant hydrody- 2005). Airy wave theory is the simplest of the routinely-used
namic loads are generated by ocean waves and currents, with regular wave theories. Its key features are introduced in this
minor contributions arising from other sources such as sea paper in the context of describing its role in modeling the
level variations due to tides or swell. The main sources of character of irregular sea states. Referring to Figure 5, with
wave generation are wind and astronomical forces. Earth- the wave moving in the positive horizontal direction (x), the
quakes, submarine landslides, and shipping or other nearby form of the water surface (wave profile) can be expressed as
floating structures may also be important sources of wave a function of x and time (t) by:
generation. Irregular waves are usually observed on the
ocean surface, although these can be treated as a superpo- f ðx; tÞ ¼ fa cos ðkx  xtÞ ð4Þ
sition of many regular harmonic waves, each having its and with the wave moving in the opposite direction by:
own amplitude (na), wavelength (k), frequency (f), and direc-
tion of propagation (see Figure 5). This concept can be very f ðx; tÞ ¼ fa cos ðkx þ xtÞ ð5Þ
 6 M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
where k is the wave number, x is the circular wave
frequency, and fa is the maximum amplitude of the water
particle measured from the mean water surface level.
The resulting water particle velocity components u(t) and
v(t) in the respective x and vertical directions can be
expressed by:
coshðkhw þ kzÞ
uðtÞ ¼ fa x cos ðkx  xtÞ ð6Þ
sinhðkhw Þ
sinhðkhw þ kzÞ
vðtÞ ¼ fa x sin ðkx  xtÞ ð7Þ
sinhðkhw Þ
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
where hw is the mean depth of the water body and z is the
elevation of the water particle above the mean surface level
in the vertical direction.
For deep water conditions, these velocity equations
reduce to:
uðtÞ ¼ fa xekz cos ðkx  xtÞ ð8Þ
vðtÞ ¼ fa xekz sinðkx  xtÞ ð9Þ
From Eqs. (9) and (10), a simple interpretation is that for
deep water conditions, the elliptical orbits of water particles
associated with Airy wave theory reduce to circular orbits.
Different methods are available to determine the horizontal
velocity profile with depth, including Wheeler profile stretch-
ing, extrapolation, and constant extension methods. Since
the wave loads are dependent on the water particle velocity,
horizontal wave loads for shallow waters may be scrupu-
lously undervalued if the calculations are based on deep
water equations. When considering maximum velocity
values, the time function of Eq. (6) can be ignored without
any significant loss in accuracy. The time derivatives of
Eqs. (6–9) give the respective accelerations, which are key
parameters for the estimation of the inertial forces acting
on offshore structures located in the flow field.
Morison’s Equation
Morison, Johnson, and Schaff (1950) formulated an equa-
tion to predict the wave forces acting on a vertical pile
exposed to horizontal sinusoidal oscillatory flow. In their
equation, the linear inertial force and adapted quadratic
drag force (from real flows and constant currents) are super-
imposed to obtain the resultant force acting on the projected
area. For larger offshore structures (e.g., gravity foundations
and also large diameter monopiles), the wave field is signifi-
cantly influenced and a diffraction regime emerges. The
potential flow theory is more suitable for the calculation of
wave loads on such structures (Batchelor 1967). Morison’s
formula is strictly limited for use with slender structural ele-
ments; i.e., characterized by D=k < 0.2: where D is the diam-
eter of the structural element between the seabed level and
the transition piece (see Figure 3) and k is the impinging
wavelength of the ocean wave. However a significant num-
ber of existing offshore structure designs have employed
Morison’s equation even though the criterion of D=k < 0.2
may not have always been fully satisfied (Haritos 2007).
In the time domain, the total horizontal load per unit
length [F(t)] exerted on a fixed object (e.g., OWT monopile
foundation) as a result of wave motion and currents can
be considered as the linear addition of the inertial [Finertia(t)]
and drag [Fdrag(t)] forces given by Morison, Johnson, and
Schaff (1950):
F ðtÞ ¼ Finertia ðtÞ þ Fdrag ðtÞ
p
Finertia ðtÞ ¼ q CM D2  u_ ðtÞ ð10Þ
4 w
1
Fdrag ðtÞ ¼ qw CD D  uðtÞ  juðtÞj ð11Þ
2
where qw is the density of sea water, D is the cylinder (i.e.,
monopile) diameter over the distance between the seabed
and ocean surface, and u(t) ¼ uacos(xt), ju(t)j and u_ ðtÞ are
the horizontal water particle velocity, its absolute value
and its time derivative (acceleration), respectively, with ua
equal to the maximum along wave water-particle velocity
[discussed earlier in section on Wave theory], CM and CD
are the inertial and hydrodynamic drag force coefficients,
respectively, whose values are dependent on Reynold’s num-
ber (Re) and Keulegan–Carpenter’s number (KC):
ua D
Re ¼ ð12Þ
W
ua T
KC ¼ ð13Þ
D
where W is the kinematic viscosity and T is the oscillating
wave period.
A correct evaluation of the total hydrodynamic load act-
ing on an offshore structure must consider the combined
current flow and wave particle velocities. Wave particle velo-
cities and accelerations are sinusoidal in time, and when seen
as functions of time, are out of phase by 90 from each other.
Adopting the absolute value of the velocity term (i.e., ju(t)j)
in Eq. (11) synchronizes the drag force and flow direction.
Irregular variations of the total hydrodynamic load are pro-
duced against time for an idealized record, as demonstrated
by the experimental data shown in Figure 6 for a monopile
at reduced laboratory scale. For inertia dominated wave
loads and (or) small current velocity, the loads arising from
the ocean current can be ignored (DNV 2011).
The dominancy of the drag force or inertial force has been
assessed in terms of the Keulegan–Carpenter number. Typi-
cal recommendations give the inertial force dominating for
KC < 10, comparable inertial and drag forces for
10 < KC < 20, with the drag force dominating for KC > 20.
In general, the CM and CD coefficients are dependent on
both the Reynold’s and Keulegan–Carpenter’s numbers
(Haritos 2007). For OWT monopile foundations, widely
used design codes such as API (2010) and DNV (2011)
specify=recommend appropriate CD and CM values, depend-
ing on the pile surface roughness and (or) the Re number.
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 6. Graphical representations of variations in (a) velocity
and acceleration, and (b) horizontal force against time for an
idealized record related to a monopile at reduced laboratory
scale (Morison, Johnson, and Schaff 1950).
Correlation between Loading Frequency and Natural
Frequency of OWT Structures
It is essential to consider the fundamental natural frequency
of an OWT structure for a proper description and evaluation
of its dynamic behavior. For dynamic systems, resonance
occurs if an excitation frequency gets close to the structure’s
natural frequency. For OWTs, this invariably leads to the
development of higher stresses and, more significantly, to a
higher range of stresses in the support structure, which is
an unfavorable situation with respect to fatigue life. Hence
it is important to ensure that excitation frequencies having
high energy levels do not coincide with the support struc-
ture’s natural frequency. As a first approximation, the sup-
port structure’s natural frequency can be determined by
considering a simplified geometry for the whole structure
(Figure 7). The turbine mass (Mt) is concentrated at the top
(free end), similar to a cantilevered strut, which represents an
7
Fig. 7. Structural model of flexible wind-turbine system.
equivalent steel pipe for the support structure. In this case,
the first natural frequency (fnat, in Hz) of the whole structure
can be approximated by (Tong 2010):
2 3:04 EI
fnat ¼ ð14Þ
4ðpÞ ð0:227 lLi þ Mt Þ ðLi Þ3
2
where l is the structure mass to length ratio (kg=m); Li is the
structure height=(strut length) and EI is its bending stiffness
(Nm2).
Offshore wind-turbine OWT structures are excited by
wind and waves, with the effective wind load determined
by a complex interaction between the structural dynamics
of the turbine and the wind field, which contains turbulent
gusts caused by eddies in the flow. The turbulent wind field
originates from atmospheric turbulence, with nearby
turbines also contributing to the disturbance of the flow.
Energy-rich wind turbulence occurs at below 0.1 Hz
(LeBlanc 2009). The height of the ocean waves is usually
defined in terms of ‘significant wave height’ and determined
as the mean value of the highest one-third of the waves in a
given wave record. Ocean waves that induce fatigue loading
with high frequency on offshore structures usually have sig-
nificant wave heights ranging 1.0–1.5 m and also have a
zero-crossing period (Tz) of 4–5 s (De Vries 2007).
Modern OWTs are installed with either pitch-regulated
blades or variable rotational-speed systems to enable optimi-
zation of their power production over a wide range of wind
speeds. The rotational speed of the main rotor shaft is typi-
cally in the range 10–20 rpm. Hence the first excitation fre-
quency ‘1P’ (i.e., corresponding to one full revolution)
occurs in the range 0.17–0.33 Hz and, in general, should only
be lightly excited. Large excitations in the 1P frequency
range generally arise from excessive turbine mass or
 8 M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 8. Excitation frequency ranges for offshore wind turbines
having rated power-generation capacities ranging 2.0–3.6 MW
(LeBlanc 2009). (a) Deflected shape of monopile. (b) Soil press-
ure pt exerted due to pile deflection yt for a specific depth xt. (c)
Winkler model approach and change in shape of p–y curves
with depth.
aerodynamic imbalances. For a three-bladed turbine, the
blade passing-frequency of typically 0.5–1.0 Hz is denoted
by the ‘3P’ frequency, which is heavily excited, mainly on
account of the impulse-like excitation arising from the blades
passing by the tower. Site-specific spectral densities for wind
and waves can be derived from measured site data, met-ocean
databases or using numerical models (LeBlanc, Houlsby, and
Byrne 2010). Figure 8 illustrates the 1P and 3P excitation
ranges, along with realistic normalized power-spectra
representing aerodynamic and hydrodynamic excitations.
The regions before the 1P frequency range and after the
3P frequency range are referred to as the ‘Soft–Soft’ and
‘Stiff–Stiff’ zones, respectively. The structure will be too flex-
ible if its natural frequency falls within the ‘Soft–Soft’ zone
and too rigid (heavy and expensive) if its natural frequency
falls within the ‘Stiff–Stiff’ zone; both of these scenarios
making it unsuitable for the design. Wind and wave-turbu-
lence excitation frequencies usually fall within the ‘Soft–Soft’
zone: another important reason for avoiding this frequency
region (LeBlanc, Houlsby, and Byrne 2010).
Modeling Soil Behavior Under Cyclic Loading
Real Soil Behavior
Soil deposits can be classified in many ways; e.g., by forma-
tion process, grain size (fine or coarse), plasticity index, age
(recent or aged deposits), mineralogical content, etc. Apart
from at very small strain levels of <103 strain (Atkinson
and Sallfors 1991; O’Kelly and Naughton 2008), the stress–
strain relationship for soil is generally highly nonlinear
(inelastic) (Budhu 2011), with the strength and stiffness
properties strongly dependent on stress history, drainage
conditions (drained or undrained) and the stress path
followed during loading. For undisturbed deposits,
comprehensive literature supports inherent anisotropic
behavior (or the general cross-anisotropy present in many
sedimentary deposits) for the soil’s strength=deformation
characteristics and also seepage properties (Yasin and
Tatsuoka 2000; Wang and Lade 2001; O’Kelly 2005, 2006).
Due to the initial and stress-induced anisotropy of most
deposits (Naughton and O’Kelly 2004), soil deformations
can occur whenever the magnitudes of the three principal
stresses change and (or) the principal stress axes reorientate
on account of the cyclic lateral loading. An analogy may be
drawn between the behavior of the soil in the immediate
vicinity of an OWT monopile foundation and that of a
pavement under repeated wheel loading of varying intensity.
For both scenarios, changes in both the magnitudes and the
directions of the principal stresses occur in a single cycle.
Simulation of In-situ Stress Conditions in the Geotechnical
Laboratory
The values of pertinent parameters used to describe the soil
response under cyclic loading can be determined in the geo-
technical laboratory using cyclic triaxial tests (Das 2008),
although the system of cyclic axial loading and lateral con-
finement pressure acting on the test-specimen is axisym-
metric. An advancement on the cyclic triaxial apparatus is
the hollow cylinder apparatus (HCA) (O’Kelly and
Naughton 2005a) which allows independent control of the
magnitudes of the three principal stresses and also the orien-
tation of the major–minor principal stress axis. The HCA is
ideal for simulating cyclic multi-directional loading con-
ditions on cross-anisotropic test specimens. Generalized
stress-path testing can be performed in which the stress his-
tory and in-service loading conditions at specific locations in
the soil foundation can be simulated under stress- (O’Kelly
and Naughton 2009) or strain-controlled conditions
(Naughton and O’Kelly 2005; Das 2008). Special prep-
aration techniques (O’Kelly and Naughton 2005b) are
required to prepare=reconstitute the test specimen (which
is often disturbed during the sampling procedure) in a phy-
sically identical condition to that of the in-situ deposit. In
many practical situations, laboratory testing may become
too laborious, expensive, and (or) time consuming. In-situ
testing techniques, including the Cone Penetration Test
method (Igoe et al. 2013) are used for offshore site investiga-
tions and afford another approach in the determination of
the pertinent design parameter values.
Modeling Soil Under Cyclic Loading
The strain accumulation occurring in soil under repeated
loading is dependent on the material properties, stress
path=level, and number of load cycles (Niemunis,
Wichtmann, and Triantafyllidis 2005; Karg 2007). Many
models with different complexity and acceptability have
been developed for the prediction of the strain accumulation
occurring in a soil element under cyclic loading. These
include models that are broadly based on: the number of
load cycles (Barksdale 1972; Sweere 1990; Hornych, Corte,
and Paute 1993); the stress level (Paute, Hornych, and
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations 9

Benaben 1996); the number of load cycles and the stress level
(Pappin 1979; Lentz and Baladi 1981; Li and Selig 1996;
Lekarp and Dawson 1998; Chai and Miura 2002) or the
number of load cycles, stress level and material properties
(Niemunis, Wichtmann, and Triantafyllidis 2005; Karg
2007). A major limitation to their application in offshore
foundation design calculations is that none of these models
explicitly consider the (mono)pile–soil interaction under lat-
eral loading. In reality, the pile deflection (rotation) response
under lateral loading arises from the soil behavior, which is
dependent on the loading conditions. A few models have
been tailored for this particular scenario; these are described
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
in-service over many decades. However, caution is necessary
in applying this methodology to OWT monopile foundation
design, since the approach may often be applied outside of
its verified range and several important design issues may
not be properly considered. The API (2010) and DNV
(2011) standards rely on methods (models) built upon
empirical data obtained for long flexible piles, for which
bending (deflection) is significant. In contrast, existing and
planned OWT monopile foundations invariably have slen-
derness ratios of <10 (typical range of 5–6), indicating rigid
pile behavior (Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman 2009;
Peng, Clarke, and Rouainia 2011). Under these circum-

in the next section, in the context of the design of OWT stances, the pile rotation is generally more prominent over
monopile foundations. A discussion on numerical modeling, bending, with the rotation occurring about a point (‘axis
considering dynamic constitutive soil models, torsional load- of rotation’) located approximately one pile diameter above
ing, and damping related issues, is beyond the scope of this the pile base. Hence the design criteria and analyses appro-
review article. Details on these topics can be found in Basack priate for flexible and rigid piles are considerably different
and Dey (2012), Basack and Sen (2014), Guo (2006, 2013) (Dobry et al. 1982), casting doubt on the application of
and Rani and Prashant (2014). the API (2010) and DNV (2011) methods based on p–y
curves in predicting the in-service behavior of offshore
monopiles. Further, the p–y curves for cyclic loading pre-
Strain Accumulation Models Considering Pile–Soil sented in API (2010) and DNV (2011) were primarily formu-
Interaction lated for the evaluation of the ultimate lateral load-carrying
capacity mobilized under relatively few load cycles. In con-
p–y Model trast, OWT monopile foundations experience many millions
In general terms, a p–y curve is typically obtained by plotting of low-amplitude cycles over their in-service life. Further, the
the soil pressure (p) response against the pile’s lateral
deflection (y) arising from the action of a horizontal load
(H) applied at the pile head (Figure 9a). Figure 9b shows
the soil pressure (pt) distribution generated around the pile
circumference at a particular depth (xt) and the correspond-
ing pile deflection (yt) response. In the literature curves (e.g.,
Matlock 1970; Reese, Cox, and Koop 1975; Ismael 1990; API
2010), p–y curves can be categorized on the basis of soil type
(granular or cohesive), loading type (monotonically increas-
ing or cyclically repeated) and the groundwater table level.
The effects of soil stratification, nonlinearity, and other
soil properties are automatically considered by determining
p–y curves specific to different depth ranges along the length
of the pile (Figure 9c), which is typically modeled using
Winkler’s approach; i.e., the pile member acts as a beam
supported by a series of uncoupled nonlinear elastic springs
that represent the soil reaction. For instance, soil stiffness
generally increases with depth (overburden pressure), which
is reflected by increasing values of the spring stiffness (Epy),
defined as the secant modulus of the p–y curve (Figure 9c).
The pile deflection that develops under given loading con-
ditions and constrains can be predicted by implementing
the related p–y curve in a simple non-dimensional frame-
work, such as Randolph’s method (Randolph 1981), or by
numerical methods using computer software such as
COM624P (1993). However, despite the stiffness Epy being
a soil–structure interaction parameter, API (2010) and
DNV (2011) only consider the soil properties in formulating
the p–y curves, and the influence of the pile properties on the
mobilized p–y curves remains an open question.
Current pile design methodology based on p–y curves, as
described in API (2010) and DNV (2011), has gained
broad recognition on account of the low failure rate for piles Fig. 9. p–y method of analysis for laterally loaded pile.
 10
API (2010) and DNV (2011) methods do not provide a
means of calculating the accumulated pile deflection
(rotation) that occurs during cyclic loading. Changes in the
foundation stiffness as a result of long-term cyclic loading,
which typically densifies (but in some circumstances may
loosen) the surrounding soil (LeBlanc, Houlsby, and Byrne
2010), are also poorly accounted for in current design meth-
odologies based on p–y curves.
Model of Little and Briaud (1988)
The Little and Briaud (1988) model is based on experimental
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
results obtained from six cyclic lateral load tests performed
on long pre-stressed concrete and steel pipes (D ¼ 0.6–1.06 m)
installed in a 22 m thick stratum of loose to medium dense sand,
overlying stiff clay. Twenty load cycles were performed for each
test pile. The following power function was proposed for esti-
mating the accumulated lateral strain (en) developed at ground
surface level for N number of load cycles:
en ¼ e 1 N m ð15Þ
where e1 is the strain response at the end of the first load cycle
and exponent m is a parameter that accounts for the influence
of the soil properties, pile material, installation method, and
loading characteristics, with experimentally derived m values
ranging 0.04–0.09 for the ‘flexible’ test piles investigated (Little
and Briaud 1988). In this context, the lateral strain is calculated
as the pile’s lateral deflection occurring at the seabed level div-
ided by its outer diameter; a dimensionless quantity.
Numerical studies by Kuo, Achmus, and Abdel-Rahman
(2012) indicated an m value of 0.07 for ‘flexible’ piles (agree-
ing with the experimental range reported by Little and Briaud
(1988)) and 0.135 for ‘rigid’ piles. The validity of Eq. (15) has
been verified using cyclic lateral load test data obtained for
model piles installed in medium-dense quartz sand (Peralta
and Achmus 2010). It has also been shown that the value of
exponent m can be evaluated from consolidated–drained cyc-
lic triaxial test data (Peralta and Achmus 2010). Nevertheless,
Eq. (15) is empirical and formulated on limited test data
(N < 20) for a loose to medium dense sand deposit.
Model of Long and Vanneste (1994)
The Long and Vanneste (1994) model is based on a closed-
form solution for a pile in an elastic foundation soil, with
the soil reaction modulus increasing linearly with depth.
By applying this approach and using input parameters
derived from reported field data for cyclic lateral load tests
performed on thirty-four piles of different lengths, dia-
meters, materials, and installation techniques, Long and
Vanneste (1994) proposed that the accumulated lateral strain
occurring at ground surface level for N load cycles can be
estimated by:
AH BM
en ¼ þ ð16Þ
EI0:4 ðnhN Þ0:6 EI0:6 ðnhN Þ0:4
where EI is the flexural rigidity of the pile; nhN is the
coefficient of soil reaction for the Nth cycle of loading; H
and M are the horizontal load and moment, respectively,
applied at the ground surface level; A and B are scalars
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
determined by the pile length and the relative stiffness Tr
[¼(EI=nhN)0.2] value.
In Eq. (16), all of the variables can be taken as known
except for coefficient nhN, which is calculated as:
nhN ¼ nh1 N t ð17Þ
where nh1 is the coefficient of soil reaction for the first cycle
of loading, its value dependent on the relative density of the
soil and the location of the groundwater table (Terzaghi
1955; Reese, Cox, and Koop 1974), with the exponent t (hav-
ing a recommended range of 0.2–0.4 (Broms 1964; Davisson
1970)) determined empirically by:
t ¼ 0:17 FL Fi FD ð18Þ
where FL, Fi, and FD are empirically determined factors that
take into account the influence of the cyclic load ratio, pile
installation method, and soil density, respectively. Note
nh1 ¼ nh; i.e., its value is the same as that for the monotonic
(static) loading condition.
The Long and Vanneste (1994) model provides a rela-
tively straightforward procedure for predicting the effect of
cyclic lateral loading, but specifically restricted to scenarios
involving the soil reaction modulus increasing linearly with
depth. Soil stratification, nonlinearity, and other fundamen-
tal parameters (e.g., unit weight and strength) that affect the
lateral load response are not explicitly taken into account by
this model. Further, most of the thirty-four pile tests
considered in the development of Eq. (16) involved the
application of less than fifty lateral load cycles.
Model of Lin and Liao (1999)
Based on the results of twenty-six full-scale piles tested under
cyclic lateral loading (N < 50), Lin and Liao (1999) proposed
a logarithmic trend to capture the accumulated strain en
developed at the ground surface level for N load cycles:
en ¼ e1 ½1 þ t lnðN Þ ð19Þ
where t is a degradation parameter determined by:
L
t ¼ 0:032 FL Fi FD ð20Þ
Tt
where Tt ¼ ðEI=nh Þ0:2 , L is the embedded length of the pile
and nh is the coefficient of soil reaction for the monotonic
(static) loading condition.
The other contributing factors in Eq. (20) are similar to
those in Eq. (18), with insignificant differences in values
from those reported for the Long and Vanneste (1994)
model. However, considering the various influencing factors,
caution is urged regarding empirical parameters used in
describing the logarithmic change in the pile deflection=
rotation.
In their study, Lin and Liao (1999) considered two load-
ing scenarios: one-way loading, in which the applied hori-
zontal load increases from zero to its maximum value
(Hmax) before reducing back to zero, thereby completing
one cycle of loading; two-way loading, in which the horizon-
tal load is applied in the opposite direction for half of each
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 10. Different modes of load variation against time.
cycle, reducing its value below zero to a minimum of Hmin
(see Figure 10).
According to the Long and Vanneste (1994) and Lin and
Liao (1999) models, one-way loading produces greater accu-
mulated strain compared with two-way loading. Similar
overall behavior has been reported from studies on model
monopiles (Peng, Clarke, and Rouainia 2011), with balanced
two-way loading (Hmax ¼ Hmin) producing about 80% of
the lateral deflection recorded under one-way loading of
the same magnitude. Unbalanced two-way loading
(Hmax 6¼ Hmin) was reported to produce even lower
amounts of lateral deflection. However some recent physical
model studies suggest that unbalanced two-way loading is
more damaging to the lateral stability of the monopile
(Zhu, Byrne, and Houlsby 2013; Arshad and O’Kelly
2014). An increase in soil stiffness was also observed with
increasing number of load cycles. Similar formulations to
that given by Eq. (19) have been proposed by Verdure,
Garnier, and Levacher (2003) and Li, Haigh, and Bolton
(2010) based on centrifuge experiments performed on minia-
ture piles installed in sandy deposits, with the degradation
parameter t estimated by curve-fitting analysis of the experi-
mental data. The change in soil stiffness was found highly
dependent on the cyclic load amplitude. Up to certain levels
of cyclic load amplitude and numbers of load cycles, the stiff-
ness was found to increase rapidly, but no further change was
observed for higher load amplitudes, even during the first few
cycles (Verdure, Garnier, and Levacher 2003).
High Cycle Accumulation Model (2005, 2010)
The high cycle accumulation model is based on the experi-
mental data obtained from a large collection of experimental
work, comprising index tests and drained cyclic triaxial, res-
onant column and simple shear tests performed on sand spe-
cimens having a wide range of initial relative densities
(Niemunis, Wichtmann, and Triantafyllidis 2005). Although
this model was initially developed without consideration of
pile–soil interaction, its potential application in modeling a
pile–soil system under low-amplitude stress cycles has been
demonstrated by finite-element calculations using ABAQUS
software (Wichtmann et al. 2010). The formulation of this
11
model explicitly considers the effects of soil density, mean
effective confining pressure, cyclic stress amplitude, simul-
taneous oscillation of stresses from different directions,
and the number of load cycles:
e_acc ¼ fampl f_N fe fp fY fp ð21Þ
where e_acc is the derivative of strain accumulation with
respect to the number of load cycles N, fampl is the strain
amplitude function, f_N is the load-cycle number function,
fe is the soil density function, fp is the mean effective confin-
ing pressure function, fY is the average stress ratio (i.e.,
mobilized deviatoric stress to average mean confining press-
ure applied during a load cycle) function and fp is the polar-
ization (load cyclic shape) function. Further details on the
determination of these functions and commonly adopted
values are reported by Wichtmann, Niemunis, and Trianta-
fyllidis (2009), Wichtmann et al. (2010).
Wichtmann et al. (2010) applied the high cycle accumulation
model for typical North Sea fine sand deposits and found that
greater permanent (plastic) lateral deflection occurred for:
. Decreasing relative density, with the average value of the
applied moment (Mave) and its amplitude (Mampl) held
constant;
. Increasing Mampl, with the relative density and Mave held
constant;
. Increasing Mave, with the relative density and Mampl held
constant.
These outcomes are qualitatively conceivable and broadly
consistent with the behavior observed in laboratory studies
on model monopiles by LeBlanc, Houlsby, and Byrne
(2010) and Peng, Clarke, and Rouainia (2011), although
further physical model studies and in-situ testing are
required to confirm these findings. Potentially significant
shortcomings of the high cycle accumulation model include:
the multiplicative approach used in Eq. (21) means that
potentially small errors in the values of the individual func-
tions may produce an objectionable error in the final calcu-
lation value; the formulation includes no measure of loading
frequency which is an important factor in connection with
the natural vibration frequency of OWT structures [see
Section on Correlation between Loading Frequency and
Natural Frequency of OWT Structures] and the strain
accumulation rate.
Model of Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman (2009)
The Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman (2009) model is
based on the concept of the soil stiffness degradation
approach suggested by different researchers (e.g., Little
and Briaud 1988; Long and Vanneste 1994), with emphasis
on the degradation of the soil secant stiffness (Es), in keeping
with formulations proposed by Huurman (1996) and Werk-
meister (2003). According to this model, an increase in the
plastic strain can be interpreted as a decrease in the Es value.
In cyclic triaxial tests (for which elastic strains are usually
negligible) and referring to Figure 11, the plastic axial strains
produced at the end of the first and Nth cycles (epN ¼ 1 and
epN ¼ N) can be determined from the rate of degradation of
the secant modulus measured for the first and Nth cycles
 12
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 11. Degradation of soil secant modulus (Es) under cyclic loading.
(EsN ¼ 1 and EsN ¼ N respectively) by:
epN¼1
EsN¼N
¼ ð22Þ
epN¼N EsN¼1
In the Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman (2009) study,
the characteristics of the permanent strains derived from
drained cyclic triaxial test data for medium and dense sand
were implemented in a 3D finite-element model of a laterally
loaded pile. The Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman (2009)
model suggests that the accumulated strain en developed
for N load cycles can be estimated using the semi-empirical
approach proposed by Huurman (1996) for the calculation
of the accumulated plastic strains in cyclic triaxial tests, as:
e1
en ¼ ð23Þ
b1 ðxc Þb2
ðN Þ
where b1 and b2 are model parameters and xc is the charac-
teristic cyclic stress ratio (ranging 0–1 (Achmus, Kuo, and
Abdel-Rahman 2009)), defined as:
ðcyclic stress ratio at loadingÞ
 ðcylic stress ratio at unloadingÞ
xc ¼
1  ðcylic stress ratio at unloadingÞ
The cyclic stress ratio at constant confining pressure is
defined as the ratio of the major principal stress under cyclic
loading to the major principal stress at failure under static
loading. Since the horizontal loading varies cyclically for
OWT monopile foundations, the confinement pressure act-
ing on soil elements surrounding the pile shaft also changes.
Hence the cyclic stress ratio values for cyclic triaxial tests (in
which the axial load is varied cyclically) and OWT monopile
foundations (where the axial load remains constant and the
horizontal load varies cyclically) are different. To overcome
this, the ‘characteristic cyclic stress ratio’ is used in Eq. (23)
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
and accounts for the loading and unloading phases emerging
due to the cyclic horizontal loading. Achmus, Kuo, and
Abdel-Rahman (2009) found good agreement between
numerical simulations performed using cyclic triaxial test
data (Timmerman and Wu 1969) and experimental data
for laterally loaded model monopiles installed in sand.
Model of LeBlanc (2009)
The LeBlanc (2009) model is based on lateral load tests,
involving between 8  103 and 6  104 load cycles, performed
on rigid model piles having a slenderness ratio of 4.5 and
which were installed in unsaturated, very loose and medium
dense Leighton Buzzard sand beds. A non-dimensional
framework was developed to identify realistic pile dimen-
sions and loading ranges for the laboratory study. Some
particular loading characteristics were found to cause signifi-
cant increases in the accumulated pile rotation to occur, with
the soil stiffness increasing with the number of load cycles.
This contrasts starkly with the Long and Vanneste (1994),
API (2010) and Achmus, Kuo, and Abdel-Rahman (2009)
models for which the static load–displacement curves are
degraded to account for cyclic loading.
LeBlanc (2009) proposed that the accumulated rotation hN
(and hence the lateral displacement) of a ‘rigid’ pile developed
for N load cycles can be estimated by (see Figure 12):
hN ¼ h0 þ DhðNÞ ð24Þ
where h0 is the pile rotation achieved when the applied
moment reaches its maximum value during the first load cycle
and Dh(N) is given by:
DhðN Þ ¼ hs Tb ðfb ; Rd ÞTc ðfc Þ N 0:31 ð25Þ
where hs is the pile rotation produced by a static load having
the same magnitude as the maximum cyclic load (Figure 12b),
Tb and Tc are dimensionless functions, Rd is the relative
density of the sand, with fb (a measure of the cyclic load
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 12. Variation in pile rotation h with fluctuation in moment
M. (a) Cyclic test (b) Static test.
amplitude normalized with respect to the static moment
capacity, MR) and fc (quantifies characteristics of the cyclic
load) given by:
Mmax
fb ¼ ð26Þ
MR
Mmin
fc ¼ ð27Þ
Mmax
where Mmin and Mmax are the minimum and maximum
moments developed in a load cycle.
It follows that 0 <fb < 1, with fc equal to unity for a static
load test, zero for one-way loading and 1 for balanced two-
way loading. Values of Tb and Tc, determined from experi-
mental data of Dh(N)=hs against N, were plotted against fb
and fc, as shown in Figure 13. Note that with Tc ¼ 0 for
fc ¼  1.0, Eq. (25) proposes that the rotation occurring
after the first load cycle is equal to zero for balanced two-
way cyclic loading, which is fairly unrealistic in practice.
13
Fig. 13. Functions relating (a) Tb and (b) Tc to the cyclic load
characteristics in terms of fb and fc respectively.
Further, this model cannot account for the multidirectional
loading typical of offshore wind-farm environments.
Considering the accumulated strain en produced at the
ground surface level for a rigid pile is proportional to the
accumulated rotation, then the predictions by this model
(with due consideration for the cyclic character of the load-
ing) are contrary to those for flexible piles according to the
Long and Vanneste (1994) and Lin and Liao (1999) model.
For loose and medium dense sand, LeBlanc (2009) also
reported an increase in soil stiffness due to cyclic loading
of the rigid pile, although further research for higher densi-
fication levels, other loading frequencies and degrees of satu-
ration are necessary to confirm this preliminary experimental
finding.
Model of Bienen et al. (2012)
The Bienen et al. (2012) model is based on experimental data
from miniature monopiles installed in dry medium-dense
sand and tested at 1g and 200g, using a centrifuge apparatus
for the latter. The test piles were representing a prototype
 14
pile 2.4 m in diameter (D), with embedment lengths (L) of 9.6
and 30 m; i.e., 4D (‘rigid’) and 12.5D (flexible) piles, respect-
ively. Using a sinusoidal waveform, different magnitudes of
one-way lateral loading were investigated considering 104
load cycles and a single model frequency of 0.25 Hz. The
accumulated lateral deflection y occurring at the pile head
(assumed flush with the surrounding ground surface) for N
load cycles can be estimated by:
 as
H
y ¼ D fN As 100 2 ð28Þ
D LQc
where H is the horizontal load applied to the pile head, Qc is
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
the rate of change in CPT cone-tip resistance with depth, As
and as are dimensionless parameters dependent on the soil
properties and pile dimensions (Dyson and Randolph
2001; Dührkop 2009), with reported values of As ¼ 1.4 and
as ¼ 0.0072 for monopiles (Bienen et al. 2012), and fN (factor
to modify the monotonic response (deflection) into a cyclic
response) approximated by:
N 1
fN ¼ 1 þ BN1 ðlnðBN2 þ 1Þ ð29Þ
N
where the parameters BN1 and BN2 are determined from a
plot of [(y=D)n=(y=D)1] against number of load cycles N.
This model, based on the one-way lateral loading and sin-
gle frequency of 0.25 Hz investigated, was found to provide
reasonable predictions of the accumulated strain produced
under cyclic loading, although the soil stiffness response
was not clear: increasing for up to certain levels of accumu-
lated strain, but then decreasing with further load cycles.
Hence these findings should be verified for greater numbers
of load cycles occurring in multiple directions and for other
frequency ranges, degrees of soil saturation and densification
levels.
Model of Klinkvort and Hededal (2013)
Klinkvort and Hededal (2013) applied the model proposed
by LeBlanc (2009) to experimental data for ‘rigid’ model
piles (slenderness ratio of 6) installed in saturated and dry
dense sand that were tested at ng using a centrifuge appar-
atus. These tests involved a maximum of 500 load cycles
and were performed at the same frequency and soil density.
They proposed that the pile’s accumulated lateral strain pro-
duced at the ground surface level after N number of load
cycles (en) can be estimated as:
Tb ðfbb ÞTc ðfcc Þ
en ¼ e1 N ð30Þ
with fbb and fcc defined as:
Pmax
fbb ¼ ð31Þ
Pu
Pmin
fcc ¼ ð32Þ
Pmax
where Pu is the ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity under
monotonic loading applied to the pilehead; Pmax and Pmin
are the maximum and minimum lateral loads, respectively,
applied to the pilehead during the cyclic loading.
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
Design Procedure for OWT Foundation System
Design Motive
The basic driving motive for the design procedure is to avoid
the occurrence of resonance in the dynamic behavior of the
structural system under in-service loading (Jaimes 2010). An
iterative procedure is usually adopted in design, with the
basic steps involved in the design process for an OWT mono-
pile foundation system illustrated in Figure 14. The data
required include environmental, turbine and site stratigra-
phy (soil profile) data. The environmental data is used to
determine the required work-platform and hub elevations
(see Figure 3) for the proposed OWT, and to select initial=
trial dimensions=geometry for the monopile foundation,
leading to the determination of the natural frequency of
the whole structural system. Checks on resonance frequency
are applied along with predictions of the anticipated
rotation, deflection, and settlement responses of the pro-
posed foundation system produced by the applied loads=
moments that are determined from the environmental and
wind turbine data. Fatigue and buckling checks are per-
formed at a more advanced stage of the design process,
usually using some computer software package, and hence
are beyond the scope of this paper. The following sections
present a design example in which the work-platform and
hub elevations along with the required embedment length
for a monopile foundation supporting a typical 5 MW
OWT (Jonkman et al. 2009) are determined.
Determination of Work Platform and Hub Elevations
Referring to Figure 14, the first step in the design process
requires the determination of the turbine platform and hub
elevations, usually with reference to the lowest astronomical
tide (LAT); defined as the lowest tide level to occur under
average meteorological conditions and any combination of
astronomical conditions. LAT is below the mean sea level
(MSL). The high astronomical tide (HAT) is above the
MSL, but below the storm surge level.
The work-platform level is located at the top of the
transition piece and it determines the location of the flange
Fig. 14. Flowchart for the design of offshore wind-turbine
support structure and monopile foundation.
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations 15
Table 2. Values of key parameters for typical 5 MW wind Determining the Required Natural Frequency and
turbine Preliminary Tower Dimensions
Parameter Magnitude From the rotational speed interval of the main rotor shaft,
as given in Table 2, the 1P region ranges 0.12–0.20 Hz and
Turbine mass (rotor and nacelle) 350 tonnes the 3P region ranges 0.36–0.60 Hz (Jonkman et al. 2009).
Rotor diameter 126 m For this particular design example, the target value of the
Nominal rotor speed 10.1 rpm natural frequency [Eq. (14)] was set as 0.27 Hz; i.e., within
Rotational speed interval 6.9–12.1 rpm the ‘wanted frequency’ range of 0.20–0.36 Hz. By taking into
of the main rotor shaft
account the hub height, wind-turbine mass and target natu-
Cut-in wind speed 4 m=s
ral frequency, the outer diameter and wall thickness at the
Nominal wind speed 11 m=s
top of the steel tower were estimated as 3.9 m and 40 mm,
Cut-out wind speed 25 m=s
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

respectively, with corresponding values at the tower base

connection between the transition piece and the turbine
tower (see Figure 3). The magnitudes of the applied wind
loads and the location of the centre of gravity of the nacelle
mass is strongly dependent on the hub height. Representa-
tive values for key parameters of the typical 5 MW wind tur-
bine considered in this design example are given in Table 2.
Environmental data characteristic of an offshore wind-farm
located in the North Sea are given in Table 3. For this
location, a tidal range (DZtide ¼ HATLAT) of 1.6 m and
storm surge (DZsurge) of 2.0 m may be adopted (Jonkman
et al. 2009; Fischer 2011).
The required work-platform level (Zplatform) is given by:
Zplatform ¼ LAT þ DZtide þ DZsurge þ DZair þ n ð33Þ
where DZair is the air gap of typically 1.5 m between the
work-platform level and the highest wave crest elevation (n).
For an assumed wave-height coefficient value of 0.65 and
a maximum wave height, relative to the MSL, having a 50
year return period (Hmax(50 year)) of 20.3 m, the value of
n is given in DNV (2011) as:
n ¼ 0:65 Hmax ð50 yearÞ  13:2 m ð34Þ
And hence the value of Zplatform is determined as
LAT þ 19 m (rounding the latter up to the nearest whole
integer). A check should also be applied (De Vries and van
der Tempel 2007 DNV 2001) such that Hmax(50
year) < 0.78  30 m; the assumed MSL value for these calcula-
tions. The required hub height (Zhub) of LAT þ 87m above
seabed level is determined from:
Zhub ¼ Zplatform þ 0:5ðrotor diameterÞ þ 5 ð35Þ
With LAT ¼ MSL  Ztide=2, Zhub ¼ 116.2 m from seabed
level.
Table 3. Extreme wind velocity (Vw), current velocity (Uc),
significant wave height (Hs), and maximum wave height (Hmax)
as a function of return period (Treturn) for reference offshore
wind-farm site (Jonkman et al. 2009)
of 6.6 m and 100 mm. These preliminary selected dimensions
must also satisfy the buckling and fatigue checks; otherwise
the calculations are revised iteratively. The outer diameter of
the transition piece (DTP) subsequently depends on the diam-
eter of the monopile, as:
 
DTP ¼ D þ 2 tTP þ tgrout ð36Þ
where D is the monopile diameter (usually equal to the tower
base diameter), tTP is the wall thickness of the transition
piece and tgrout is the thickness of grout connection.
Calculation of Design Loads
The design loads for the subject monopile foundation
system were estimated using the preliminary tower geometry,
the wind-turbine parameter values given in Table 2 and the
environmental data given in Table 3. For this example, the
software package ‘RECAL’ was used to estimate the shear
force and bending moment acting on the monopile foun-
dation at seabed level, as documented by De Vries and
van der Tempel (2007). The torsional moments are usually
only a small fraction (<1%) of the bending moment (Lesny
and Wiemann 2005); e.g., see typical loading values listed in
Table 1 for a 5 MW wind turbine having a monopile foun-
dation system. Hence, provided checks on lateral forces
and bending moments are satisfied, torsional moments are
generally not critical and have not been specifically con-
sidered in design examples for OWT monopile foundation
systems reported in the literature. RECAL can simulate both
wind and wave time-series, from which it calculates the
environmental loads acting on the support structure, as well
as the structure’s dynamic behavior. For the design example
under consideration, Table 4 presents load data in terms of
the lateral forces and bending moments generated by
RECAL. The reported load values take into account the
safety factors for hydrodynamic loading and aerodynamic
Table 4. Estimated design loads occurring at seabed level for
design example

Treturn (year) Vw (m=s) Uc (m=s) Hs (m) Hmax (m) Lateral force, H Bending moment, M
Load type (MN) (MN.m)
1 33.9 0.70 7.72 14.35
5 38.0 0.80 9.03 16.80 Aerodynamic 1.42 127
10 39.8 0.84 9.60 17.85 Hydrodynamic 9.27 298
50 43.9 0.94 10.91 20.29 Total 10.69 425
 16 M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly

thrust on the rotor, in addition to the different critical
combinations of wind and wave loading, as reported in
several guidelines=standards (API 2010; DNV 2011).
Monopile Embedment Length and Foundation Stability
The monopile’s embedment length must be sufficient to
ensure vertical and lateral stability. Studying the interaction
effects for piles under combined axial and lateral loading
would call for a systematic and sophisticated analysis,
although the pertinent literature is limited and sometimes
contradictory. For instance, analytical studies by Ramasamy
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
design example are given in Figure A1 of the Appendix. It
was assumed that the monopile was made of steel having
yield stress and Young’s modulus values of 248 MPa and
207 GPa, respectively.
The embedment length of the monopile was initially
assumed equal to nine times its outer diameter. Checks on
the pile rotation and (or) its deflection occurring at the
seabed level are applied and the monopile embedment length
is optimized accordingly. The monopile’s rotation (h0) and
lateral deflection (v0) occurring at the seabed level under
the design loads (horizontal force (H) and bending moment
(M)) are calculated by considering the closed-form solutions

(1974) and Goryunov (1973) indicate that for a given lateral proposed by Randolph (1981), Broms (1964) and Matlock
load, the pile’s lateral deflection increases for the combi- and Reese (1960). These methods are related to monotonic=
nation with vertical loading but some experimental static loading conditions and hence there is no consideration
(Sorochan and Bykov 1976; Jain, Ranjan, and Ramasamy of the number of load cycles. Randolph’s (1981) method,
1987) and field (Bartolomey 1977; Zhukov and Balov illustrated in Figure 15, employs Eqs. (37) and (38) to calcu-
1978) studies have indicated the contrary. Numerical analy- late v0 and h0, respectively; with parameters Ep (effective
sis by Karthigeyan, Ramakrishna, and Rajagopal (2007) Young’s modulus of the pile), Gc (equivalent shear modulus
indicated that for sandy soils, the presence of vertical loads of the soil at a depth of 0.5Lc), Lc (active pile length) and Rc
increases the pile’s lateral load-carrying capacity by as much (the soil’s equivalent shear modulus profile parameter)
as 40% (depending on the magnitude of the axial loading), defined in Figure 15. In this method, the monopile dimen-
although marginal reductions in the lateral load-carrying sions are incorporated in terms of its active length and
capacity were found to occur for clayey soils. second moment of area, I; the latter an indirect involvement
According to current practice, for monopile design, separ- of its cross-sectional area (i.e., its inner and outer diameter
ate analyses are performed that consider (i) the axial loading dimensions). When the active length exceeds the actual=pro-
only, to determine the bearing capacity and settlement posed monopile embedment length (L), the monopile tends
response, and (ii) the lateral loading only, to determine the
flexural behavior through cantilever action (Karthigeyan,
Ramakrishna, and Rajagopal 2006; Moayed, Mehdipour,
and Judi 2012; Rahim and Stevens 2013). However, com-
pared with the axial loads, the lateral loads are considered
governing, as mentioned in several design guidelines (e.g.,
GL 2005; API 2010; DNV 2011) and documented by many
researchers (Achmus 2010; LeBlanc, Houlsby, and Byrne
2010; Malhotra 2011; Peng, Clarke, and Rouainia 2011;
Bhattacharya et al. 2012; Kuo, Achmus, and Abdel-Rahman
2012; Haiderali, Cilingir, and Madabhushi 2013; Lombardi,
Bhattacharya, and Wood 2013; Zhu, Byrne, and Houlsby
2013; Nicolai and Ibsen 2014; Carswell et al. 2015). For
OWT monopile foundations, the pile must mobilize suf-
ficient soil resistance over its embedded length to transfer
all the different types of applied loads to the surrounding
soil, with adequate safety factors, and prevent toe ‘kick’ (dis-
placement at the pile base) and excessive deflection=rotation
of the pile itself from occurring. The pile size and embed-
ment length necessary to satisfy the lateral load requirements
are generally greater compared with those necessary to
satisfy the axial loading requirements (Kopp 2010). Hence
this design example focuses on the lateral stability of the sub-
ject monopile.
The input data for the monopile design includes the soil
strength and stiffness (e.g., elastic (Es) and shear (Gs) modu-
lii and Poisson’s ratio) profiles against depth, the pile
properties (e.g., cross-sectional dimensions=properties and
material strength=stiffness), and the design loads (De Vries
2007; Jaimes 2010; Tong, 2010). The soil (medium dense
sand considered for the present case) properties used in the Fig. 15. Closed-form solution after Randolph (1981).
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations 17

to translate somewhat in the soil foundation as well as embedded length of the pile. However, for a ‘rigid’ pile, this
deflecting; hence the monopile deflection obtained through decreasing trend may not be applicable. According to this
Eq. (37) must be modified according to Eq. (39). method (Matlock and Reese 1960), beyond a certain value
 0:142  1  2 ! of embedment length, there will be no further reduction in
Ep =GC Lc Lc the monopile’s deflection or rotation. Calculations are not
v0 ¼ 0:27H þ 0:3M ð37Þ
Rc Gc 2 2 included for the present design example, but the pile embed-
ment length should be sufficient to achieve tolerable values
 0:142  2  3 ! of v0 and h0 occurring at the pile toe level. For the calcu-
Ep =GC Lc 0:5 Lc
h0 ¼ 0:3H þ 0:8ðRc Þ M lation of the v0 and h0 values occurring at the seabed level,
Rc Gc 2 2
a parametric study was performed, varying the pile’s embed-
ð38Þ ment length, outer diameter and inner diameter in the ranges
  20–40 m, 5.5–7.0 m, and 5.4–6.5 m, respectively. A summary
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

Lc
v0 ðadjusted valueÞ ¼ 0:8v0ðfrom Equation 37Þ: ð39Þ of the results of this study is presented in Figures 17–19 and
L conversed as:
. The monopile deflection=rotation values predicted by the
Broms’s (1964) method of calculation for v0 is illustrated three selected methods for the static design load conditions
in Figure 16. Matlock and Reese’s (1960) method employs grossly differed from one another; e.g., for the applied
Eqs. (40) and (41) to calculate the values of v0 and h0, loads and range of monopile embedment lengths and
respectively, occurring at the seabed level.
HTt 3 MTt 2
v0 ¼ Av0 þ Bv0 ð40Þ
EI EI
HTt 2 MTt
h0 ¼ Ah0 þ Bh0 ð41Þ
EI EI
where Av0, Bv0, Ah0, and Bh0 are sets of non-dimensional
coefficients (scalars) whose values are dependent on the
depth along the embedded length of the pile and Tt ¼ (EI=
nh)0.2, with the value of the coefficient of soil modulus vari-
ation, nh, dependent on the soil relative density and the
location of the groundwater table (Terzaghi 1955; Reese,
Cox, and Koop 1974).
For the seabed (ground surface) level, the values of coeffi-
cients Av0, Bv0, Ah0, and Bh0 are 2.43, 1.62, 1.62, and 1.75,
respectively, with these coefficients decreasing in value with
increasing depth along the pile embedment length, reflecting
the reduction in v0 and h0 as we move down along the

Fig. 16. Charts for calculating the lateral deflection occurring at Fig. 17. Using Randolph’s (1981) method, effects of pile’s
the ground surface level for laterally loaded piles in cohesionless embedment length and diameter on its (a) lateral deflection
soil (after Broms (1964)). occurring at the seabed level and (b) rotation.
 18
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Fig. 18. Summary of the results deduced using Broms’s (1964)
method.
inner=outer diameters considered in the design example,
the predicted values of v0 ranged 70–270, 25–115 and
25–90 mm for the Randolph’s (1981), Broms’s (1964)
and Matlock and Reese (1960) methods respectively. This
noticeable difference is perhaps due to the involvement of
marked empiricism in the methods used to evaluate the
lateral stability of the different monopile set-ups and the
limited available experimental data used in their
formulation=calibration.
. For Randolph’s (1981) method, v0 was found sensitive to
the pile’s embedment length and its inner and outer dia-
meters (incorporated in calculations of the cross-sectional
area and second moment of area, I) (Figure 17a), whereas
h0 was sensitive to the pile cross-sectional area only
(Figure 17b).
. For Broms’s (1964) method, v0 was found dependent on
the embedment length and inner and outer diameters
(cross-sectional area) of the monopile, although only a
Fig. 19. Summary of the results deduced using the Matlock and
Reese’s (1960) method.
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
minor change in v0 was observed for pile embedment
lengths greater than 26 m, irrespective of the pile’s cross-
sectional area (Figure 18).
. For the Matlock and Reese’s (1960) method, v0 and h0
were both found dependent on the inner and outer dia-
meters (cross-sectional area) of the monopile, although,
their significance tended to reduce substantially for pile
inner and outer diameters greater than 5.8 and 6.0 m
respectively (Figure 19).
The monopile’s lateral response for the long-term cyclic
lateral loading condition was assessed for the presented
design example using the models after Little and Briaud
(1988), Long and Vanneste (1994), Lin and Liao (1999)
and Klinkvort and Hededal (2013), which have been dis-
cussed previously in this paper. It was assumed that the
monopile had been driven into the medium dense sand
deposit and was subjected to one-way cyclic loading.
Figure 20 presents the accumulated lateral response of the
monopile predicted by the different models considered.
The accumulated lateral response is in fact a multiple of
the response for the end of the first load cycle, realistic values
of which cannot be estimated using the models considered,
and for the purpose of these calculations, its value was
assumed equal to unity. Hence Figure 20 should be viewed
in the context of a qualitative comparison of the long-term
predictions by the different models. From Figure 20, it can
be concluded that for the same loading conditions, large dif-
ferences can occur between the accumulated lateral
responses of the monopile predicted by the different models,
perhaps by many folds for large numbers of load cycles. One
reason for these large differences can be put down to the
empirical selection of values for the coefficients=non-dimen-
sional parameters incorporated in these models for the pre-
diction of the monopile’s lateral response under long-term
cyclic loading.
The monopile’s ultimate axial load-carrying capacity
(under static loading) (Qd) can be determined using
Fig. 20. Accumulated lateral strain responses predicted for the
monopile at seabed level under long-term cyclic loading.
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Eq. (43), which is the recommended practice by API (2010),
and has been employed by many researchers; e.g., De Vries
(2007); Igoe, Gavin, and O’Kelly (2010); Haiderali, Cilingir,
and Madabhushi (2013); Bisoi and Haldar (2014); to name
a few.
Qd ¼ Qf þ Qb ¼ fAsur þ qAb ð42Þ
where Qf is the shaft-friction capacity, Qb is the end-bearing
capacity, f is the unit skin friction, Asur is the shaft area
pertaining to the pile embedment length, q is the unit end-
bearing capacity, and Ab is the base area of the plugged
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
monopile.
For monopiles having a diameter of 4 m diameter or
greater, the pile plug resistance is usually not taken into
account in the calculations (van der Tempel 2006). Further,
it has been shown that degradation of the shaft-friction
capacity due to cyclic axial loading leads to accumulating
displacements and potentially a severe reduction in the axial
load-carrying capacity (Gavin and O’Kelly 2007), although
consideration of this degradation of the shaft friction in
the design process is still an open question. Numerous design
charts available in the literature make it possible to dis-
tinguish between stable and unstable loading levels to ensure
a design solution on the safe side. Further, no reduction in
axial load-carrying capacity is expected if a certain magni-
tude of the cyclic load amplitude is not exceeded (see Poulos
1988, and Abdel-Rahman and Achmus 2011, for further
details).
Discussion
There is no overall agreement in the literature regarding the
determination of the pile’s rotation=lateral deformation
response to the many millions of low-amplitude lateral load
cycles associated with OWT monopile foundation scenarios.
Considerable differences of opinion exist on the rate of cyclic
strain accumulation; e.g., power function (Little and Briaud
1988) and logarithmic-trend relationships (Lin and Liao
1999) have been proposed. Most of the reported field and
laboratory pile tests were performed for medium dense sand
(Little and Briaud 1988; LeBlanc 2009; Bienen et al. 2012).
Compared with the Bienen et al. (2012) and LeBlanc
(2009) models which are based on N  104 lateral load cycles,
other widely used models for predicting the pile’s rotation=
lateral displacement response, including the API (2010),
DNV (2011), Little and Briaud (1988) and Long and
Vanneste (1994) approaches, are based on experimental data
for relatively few load cycles (N < 200). Since no reliable
model presently exists, design requirements regarding the
pile’s rotation=lateral displacement behavior under mono-
tonic (static) extreme load are used as a substitute. Areas
warranting further in-depth research are the effects on
monopile behavior of:
. Soil properties; e.g., relative density, over-consolidation
ratio, and the relative significance of the at-rest earth
pressure coefficient (K0) and the soil stiffness, including
their variations with depth;
19
. Pile properties (e.g., diameter and slenderness ratio) and
the soil–pile interaction;
. Varying the direction and frequency of the applied lateral
loading;
. Combined (e.g., axial and lateral) cyclic loading.
The scarcity of field data for cyclic lateral loading of large
diameter (rigid) piles available in the literature, particularly
for high load cycling, makes the validation of current and
improved design methods=theories and the calibration of
numerical models for offshore monopiles difficult. Many
of the proposed models=formulations, with the principal
ones described earlier in the paper, were calibrated against
experimental data obtained from model-scale pile tests.
Further instrumented field testing of full-scale monopiles,
ideally having comparable size and geometry (slenderness
ratio) with that of current and proposed OWT monopile
foundations, and subjected to high numbers of lateral load
cycles, is warranted and would provide a valuable source
of information in this regard for the wind-energy sector.
Summary and Conclusions
Sources, types, and methods of analyses for the determi-
nation of the magnitude of the environmental loading and
resulting moments exerted on offshore monopiles, including
for long-term and extreme conditions, are well documented
in the literature. However the behavior of the pile–soil sys-
tem in response to these cyclic (dynamic) loading scenarios
is not entirely clear. Further, the analysis=design of large
diameter (rigid) monopile foundations for current and pro-
posed OWT structures is well outside the scope of present
experience and analysis=design methods, which are mainly
based on experimental data obtained for relatively small-
diameter flexible piles subjected to low numbers of load
cycles (N < 200). This includes the widely used API (2010)
and DNV (2011) standards developed primarily for the off-
shore oil=gas industry.
The behavior of large-diameter monopiles in general, and
the long-term low-amplitude cyclic lateral loading response
in particular, are not well documented. Existing models for
estimating the accumulated lateral strain (rotation) response
of monopiles are based on very limited field=laboratory data
and are currently not capable of explicitly accounting for
site-specific soil properties and environmental loading char-
acteristics. There is also no consensus among researchers
regarding the severity of strain accumulation due to one-
way and two-way loading scenarios, the effects of varying
the load direction and frequency or changes in soil stiffness
under long-term stress application.
Instrumented field tests on full-scale ‘rigid’ monopiles,
combined with a more extensive program of testing on
model-scale piles installed in different soil conditions, con-
sidering changing load characteristics (amplitude, frequency,
and direction) and subjected to high numbers of load cycles
of more than 106 are warranted. Such studies would provide
valuable information for the validation of current and
improved design methods=theories for offshore monopiles
and the calibration of pertinent numerical models. They
 20
would also be helpful in generating computer code for
numerical simulations of more realistic conditions, especially
in-situ soil conditions and in-service loading characteristics.
Acknowledgment
The first author gratefully acknowledges a Postgraduate
Research Scholarship Award from Trinity College Dublin.
The writers also thank the reviewers for many helpful
comments.
References
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
Abdel-Rahman, K. and M. Achmus. 2011. Behavior of foundation
piles for offshore wind energy plants under axial cyclic loading.
Proceedings of the SIMULIA Customer Conference, Barcelona,
Spain, Dassault Systèmes Press, Paris, France, 17–19th May
2011, 331–41.
Achmus, M. 2010. Design of axially and laterally loaded piles for the
support of offshore wind energy converters. Proceedings of the
Indian Geotechnical Conference GEOtrendz–2010, Mumbai,
India, December 16–18th, 2010, 92–102.
Achmus, M., Y.-S. Kuo, and K. Abdel-Rahman. 2009. Behaviour of
monopile foundations under cyclic lateral load. Computer and
Geotechnics 36(5): 725–35. doi:10.1016=j.compgeo.2008.12.003
API (American Petroleum Institute). 2010. Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms—
Working stress design. API RP 2A-WSD (R2010), 22nd ed.,
API Publishing Services, Washington, DC, USA.
Arshad, M. and B. C. O’Kelly. 2013. Offshore wind-turbine structures:
A review. Proceedings of the ICE, Energy 166(4): 139–52.
doi:10.1680=ener.12.00019
Arshad, M. and B. C. O’Kelly. 2014. Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under repeating lateral loads. International
Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 14(3): 54–67.
doi:10.1680=ijpmg.13.00015
Atkinson, J. H. and G. Sallfors. 1991. Experimental determination of
stress–strain–time characteristics in laboratory and in-situ tests.
Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Florence, Italy. Balkema: Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, May 26–30th, 1991, Vol. 3, 915–56.
Barksdale, R. D. 1972. Laboratory evaluation of rutting in base course
materials. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the
Structural Design of Asphalt Pavement, London, UK, September
11–15th, 1972, Vol. 1, 161–74.
Bartolomey, A. A. 1977. Experimental analysis of pile groups under lat-
eral loads. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, July 10–
15th, 1977, 187–88.
Basack, S. and S. Dey. 2012. Influence of relative pile-soil stiffness and
load eccentricity on single pile response in sand under lateral cyclic
loading. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30(4): 737–51.
doi:10.1007=s10706-011-9490-1
Basack, S. and S. Sen. 2014. Numerical solution of single piles
subjected to pure torsion. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering 140(1): 74–90. doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.
0000964
Batchelor, G. K. 1967. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bhattacharya, S., J. A. Cox, D. Lombardi, and D. M. Wood. 2012.
Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on two founda-
tions. Proceedings of the ICE, Geotechnical Engineering 166(2):
159–69. doi:10.1680=geng.11.00015
Bienen, B., J. Dührkop, J. Grabe, M. F. Randolph, and D. J. White.
2012. Response of piles with wings to monotonic and cyclic lateral
loading in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
Engineering 138(3): 364–75. doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-
5606.0000592
Bisoi, S. and S. Haldar. 2014. Dynamic analysis of offshore wind tur-
bine in clay considering soil–monopile–tower interaction. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 63: 19–35. doi:10.1016=
j.soildyn.2014.03.006
Blanco, M. I. 2009. The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 13(6–7): 1372–82.
Broms, B. 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE 90(3):
123–56.
Budhu, M. 2011. Soil Mechanics and Foundations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Byrne, B. W. and G. T. Houlsby. 2003. Foundations for offshore wind
turbines. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
361(1813): 2909–30.
Carswell, W., S. R. Arwade, D. J. DeGroot, and M. A. Lackner. 2015.
Soil–structure reliability of offshore wind turbine monopile foun-
dations. Wind Energy 18(3): 483–98. doi:10.1002=we.1710
Chai, J.-C. and N. Miura. 2002. Traffic-load-induced permanent defor-
mation of road on soft subsoil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Engineering 128(11): 907–16. doi:10.1061=(asce)1090-
0241(2002)128:11(907)
Chakrabarti, S. K. 2005. Handbook of Offshore Engineering. London,
UK: Elsevier.
Das, B. M. 2008. Advanced Soil Mechanics. New York: CRC Press.
Davisson, M. T. 1970. Lateral Load Capacity of Piles, Vol. 333, 104–12.
Washington, DC: Highway Research Record.
De Vries, W. E. 2007. Project UpWind WP4 deliverable D4.2.1: Assess-
ment of bottom-mounted support structure types with conven-
tional design stiffness and installation techniques for typical
deep water sites. http://www.upwind.eu/Publications/~/media/
UpWind/Documents/Publications/4%20-%20Offshore%20Foun-
dations/UpwindWP4D421%20Assessment%20of%20bottom-
mounted%20support%20structure%20types.ashx (accessed March
15th, 2015).
De Vries, W. E. and J. van der Tempel. 2007. Quick monopile design.
Proceedings of the European Offshore Wind Conference & Exhi-
bition, Berlin, Germany, December 4–6th, 2007.
DIN (Deutsches Institut fur Normung). 2005. Baugrund Sicherheits-
nachweise im Erd und Grundbau. DIN 1054: 2005. DIN: Berlin,
Germany. http://www.baunormenlexikon.de/Normen/DIN/
DIN%201054/1b69b621-74a0-4c33-8b29-a82a24afd4d4 (accessed
March 15th, 2015).
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). 2011. Design of offshore wind turbine
structures. DNV-OS-J101, DNV, Oslo, Norway.
Dobry, R., E. Vicenti, M. J. O’Rourke, and J. M. Roesset. 1982. Hori-
zontal stiffness and damping of single piles. Journal of Geotechni-
cal Engineering Division, ASCE 108(3): 439–59.
Dührkop, J. 2009. On the influence of expanders and cyclic loads on the
deformation behavior of lateral stressed piles in sand. PhD Thesis,
Hamburg University of Technology.
Dyson, G. J. and M. F. Randolph. 2001. Monotonic lateral loading of
piles in calcareous sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering 127(4): 346–52. doi:10.1061=(asce)1090-
0241(2001)127:4(346)
EWEA (European Wind Energy Association). 2011. Design limits and
solutions for very large wind turbines. UpWind project. http://
www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/upwind/
21895_UpWind_Report_low_web.pdf (accessed March, 15th 2015).
Fischer, T. 2011. Executive summary – Upwind project WP4: Offshore
foundations and support structures. http://www.upwind.eu/Pub-
lications/~/media/UpWind/Documents/Publications/4%20-
%20Offshore%20Foundations/WP4_Executive_Summary_Fina-
l.ashx (accessed March, 15th 2015).
Gavin, K. G. and O’Kelly, B. C. 2007. Effect of friction fatigue
on pile capacity in dense sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(1): 63–71. doi:10.1061=
(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:1(63)
GL (Germanischer Lloyd). 2005. Guideline for the Certification of Off-
shore Wind Turbines. Hamburg, Germany: GL.
Goryunov, B. F. 1973. Analysis of piles subjected to the combined
action of vertical and horizontal loads (discussion). Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering 10(1): 10–13. doi:10.1007=bf01706631
Guo, W. D. 2006. On limiting force profile, slip depth and response of
lateral piles. Computer and Geotechnics 33(1): 47–67. doi:10.1016=
j.compgeo.2006.02.001
Guo, W. D. 2013. Pu is subscripted-based solutions for slope stabilizing
piles. International Journal of Geomechanics 13(3): 292–310.
doi:10.1061=(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000201
Haiderali, A., U. Cilingir, and G. Madabhushi. 2013. Lateral and axial
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
capacity of monopiles for offshore wind turbines. Indian Geotech-
nical Journal 43(3): 181–94. doi:10.1007=s40098-013-0056-4
Haritos, N. 2007. Introduction to the analysis and design of offshore
structures – An overview. Electronic Journal of Structural
Engineering 7(Special Issue: Loading on Structures): 55–65.
Hornych, P., J. F. Corte, and J. L. Paute. 1993. Etude des déformations
permanentes sous chargements répétés de trois graves non traitées.
Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées, Presse
de l’ENPC, Paris, France 184: 45–55.
Huurman, M. 1996. Development of traffic induced permanent strains
in concrete block pavements. Heron 41(1): 29–52.
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). 2009. Wind turbines
– Part 3: Design requirements for offshore wind turbines. IEC
61400–3: 2009, International Electrotechnical Commission, Gen-
eva, Switzerland.
Igoe, D., K. Gavin, and B. O’Kelly. 2010. Field tests using an instru-
mented model pipe pile in sand. Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,
Zurich, Switzerland, June 28th–July 1st, 2010, ed. S. Springman,
J. Laue, and L. Seward, Vol. 2, 775–780. Leiden, The Netherlands:
CRC Press.
Igoe, D., K. Gavin and B. O’Kelly. 2013. An investigation into the use
of push-in pile foundations by the offshore wind sector. Inter-
national Journal of Environmental Studies 70(5): 777–91.
doi:10.1080=00207233.2013.798496
Igoe, D. J. P., K. G. Gavin, B. C. O’Kelly, and B. Byrne. 2013. The use
of in-situ site investigation techniques for the axial design of off-
shore piles. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Pernam-
buco, Brazil, September 18–21st, 2012, ed. R. Q. Coutinho and
P. W. Mayne. Vol. 2, 1123–29. CRC Press.
Irvine, J. H., P. G. Allan, B. G. Clarke, and J. R. Peng. 2003. Improv-
ing the lateral stability of monopile foundations. Proceedings of
the BGA International Conference on Foundations: Innovations,
Observations, Design and Practice, Dundee, UK, September 2–
5th, 2003, ed. T. A. Newson, 371–80. London: Thomas Telford.
Ismael, N. F. 1990. Behavior of laterally loaded bored piles in cemented
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 116(11): 1678–
99. doi:10.1061=(asce)0733-9410(1990)116:11(1678)
Jaimes, O. G. 2010. Design concepts for offshore wind turbines:
A technical and economic study on the trade-off between stall
and pitch controlled systems. MSc Thesis, Delft University of
Technology.
Jain, N. K., G. Ranjan, and G. Ramasamy. 1987. Effect of vertical load
on flexural behaviour of piles. Geotechnical Engineering: Journal of
the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society 18(2): 185–204.
Jang, J. J. and G. J. Shinn. 1999. Analysis of maximum wind force for
offshore structure design. Journal of Marine Science and Tech-
nology 7(1): 43–51.
Jonkman, J., S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott. 2009. Definition
of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system
21
development. Technical Report NREL=TP-500–38060, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Colorado, USA.
Journée, J. M. J. and W. W. Massie. 2001. Offshore Hydrodynamics, 1st
ed. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Karg, C. 2007. Modelling of strain accumulation due to low level vibrations
in granular soils. PhD Thesis. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Karthigeyan, S., V. V. G. S. T. Ramakrishna, and K. Rajagopal. 2006.
Influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand.
Computers and Geotechnics 33(2): 121–31. doi:10.1016=j.comp-
geo.2005.12.002
Karthigeyan, S., V. V. G. S. T. Ramakrishna, and K. Rajagopal. 2007.
Numerical investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lateral
response of piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 133(5): 512–21. doi:10.1061=(asce)1090-0241(2007)
133:5(512)
Klinkvort, R. T. and O. Hededal. 2013. Lateral response of monopile
supporting an offshore wind turbine. Proceedings of the ICE, Geo-
technical Engineering 166(2): 147–58. doi:10.1680=geng.12.00033
Kopp, D. R. 2010. Foundations for an offshore wind turbine. MSc
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kuo, Y.-S., M. Achmus, and K. Abdel-Rahman. 2012. Minimum
embedded length of cyclic horizontally loaded monopiles. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138(3): 357–63.
doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000602
LeBlanc, C. 2009. Design of offshore wind turbine support structures:
Selected topics in the field of geotechnical engineering. PhD The-
sis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
LeBlanc, C., G. T. Houlsby, and B. W. Byrne. 2010. Response of stiff
piles in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading. Géotechnique
60(2): 79–90. doi:10.1680=geot.7.00196
Lekarp, F. and A. Dawson. 1998. Modelling permanent deformation
behaviour of unbound granular materials. Construction and Build-
ing Materials 12(1): 9–18. doi:10.1016=s0950-0618(97)00078-0
Lentz, R. W. and G. Y. Baladi. 1981. Constitutive equation for perma-
nent strain of sand subjected to cyclic loading. Transportation
Research Record 810: 50–54.
Lesny, K. and J. Wiemann. 2005. Design aspects of monopiles in Ger-
man offshore wind farms. Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics. Perth, Austra-
lia, September 19–21st, 2005, ed. S. Gourvenec and M. Cassidy,
383–89. Leiden, The Netherlands: Balkema.
Li, D. and E. Selig. 1996. Cumulative plastic deformation for fine-
grained subgrade soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
122(12): 1006–13. doi:10.1061=(asce)0733-9410(1996)122:12(1006)
Li, Z., S. K. Haigh, and M. D. Bolton. 2010. Centrifuge modelling of
mono-pile under cyclic lateral loads. Proceedings of the 7th Inter-
national Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Zur-
ich, Switzerland, 28th June–1st July 2010, ed. S. Springman, J.
Laue, and L. Seward, Vol. 2, 965–70. Leiden, The Netherlands:
CRC Press.
Lin, S.-S. and J.-C. Liao. 1999. Permanent strains of piles in sand due
to cyclic lateral loads. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering 125(9): 798–802. doi:10.1061=(asce)1090-
0241(1999)125:9(798)
Little, R. L. and J.-L. Briaud. 1988. Full scale cyclic lateral load tests on
six single piles in sand. Miscellaneous paper GL-88–27, Geotech-
nical Division, Civil Engineering Department, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, TX, USA.
Lombardi, D., S. Bhattacharya, and D. M. Wood. 2013. Dynamic soil–
structure interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in
cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 49:
165–80. doi:10.1016=j.soildyn.2013.01.015
Long, J. H. and G. Vanneste. 1994. Effects of cyclic lateral loads on
piles in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 120(1):
225–44. doi:10.1061=(asce)0733-9410(1994)120:1(225)
 22
Malhotra, S. 2011. Design and construction considerations for offshore
wind turbine foundations in North America. Proceedings Geo-
Florida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling and Design, West
Palm Beach, Florida, USA, February 20–24th, 2010, ed. D. O.
Fratta, A. J. Puppala, and B. Muhunthan, Vol. 2, 1533–42, GSP
199. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates, Inc.
Matlock, H. 1970. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay. Proceedings of the 2nd Offshore Technology Conference, 22–
24th April 1970, Houston, TX, USA. Paper Number 1204. Vol. 1,
77–94.
Matlock, H., and L. C. Reese 1960. Generalized solutions for laterally
loaded piles. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division ASCE 86(5): 63–94.
Moayed, R. Z., I. Mehdipour, and A. Judi. 2012. Undrained lateral
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016
behavior of short pile under combination of axial, lateral and
moment loading in clayey soils. Kuwait Journal of Science and
Engineering 39(1B): 59–78.
Morison, J. R., J. W. Johnson, and S. A. Schaff. 1950. The forces
exerted by surface waves on piles. Journal of Petroleum Technology
2(5): 149–54. doi:10.2118=950149-g
Naughton, P. J. and B. C. O’Kelly. 2004. The induced anisotropy of
Leighton Buzzard sand. Proceedings Advances in Geotechnical
Engineering: The Skempton Conference, London, UK, March
28th–31st, 2004, ed. R. J. Jardine, D. M. Potts, and K. G. Higgins,
Vol. 1, 556–67. London, UK: Thomas Telford.
Naughton, P. J. and B. C. O’Kelly. 2005. Yield behavior of sand under
generalized stress conditions. Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka,
Japan, September 12–16th, 2005. IOS Press. Vol. 2, 555–58.
Nicolai, G. and L. B. Ibsen. 2014. Small-scale testing of cyclic laterally
loaded monopiles in dense saturated sand. Journal of Ocean and
Wind Energy 1(4): 240–45.
Niemunis, A., T. Wichtmann, and Th. Triantafyllidis. 2005. A high-
cycle accumulation model for sand. Computers and Geotechnics
32(4): 245–63. doi:10.1016=j.compgeo.2005.03.002
O’Kelly, B. C. 2005. Consolidation anisotropy of some natural soft
soils. Proceedings of the International Conference on Problematic
Soils, Famagusta, North Cyprus, May 25–27th, 2005, ed. H. Bilsel
and N. Zalihe, Vol. 3, 1183–92. North Cyprus: Eastern Mediterra-
nean University Press.
O’Kelly, B. C. 2006. Compression and consolidation anisotropy of
some soft soils. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 24(6):
1715–28. doi:10.1007=s10706-005-5760-0
O’Kelly, B. C. and P. J. Naughton. 2005a. Development of a new hol-
low cylinder apparatus for stress path measurements over a wide
strain range. Geotechnical Testing Journal 28(4): 345–54.
doi:10.1520=gtj12252
O’Kelly, B. C. and P. J. Naughton. 2005b. Engineering properties of
wet-pluviated hollow cylindrical specimens. Geotechnical Testing
Journal 28(6): 570–76. doi:10.1520=gtj12325
O’Kelly, B. C. and P. J. Naughton. 2008. Local measurements of the
polar deformation response in a hollow cylinder apparatus. Geo-
mechanics and Geoengineering 3(4): 217–29. doi:10.1080=
17486020802400981
O’Kelly, B. C. and P. J. Naughton. 2009. Study of the yielding of sand
under generalized stress conditions using a versatile hollow cylin-
der torsional apparatus. Mechanics of Materials 41(3): 187–98.
doi:10.1016=j.mechmat.2008.11.002
Pappin, J. W. 1979. Characteristics of granular material for pavement
analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
Paute, J.-L., P. Hornych, and J. P. Benaben. 1996. Repeated load triax-
ial testing of granular materials in the French Network of Labora-
tories des Ponts et Chaussées. Flexible Pavements: Proceedings of
the European Symposium Euroflex, Lisbon, Portugal, September
20–22nd, 1993, ed. A. G. Corriea, 53–64. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Balkema.
M. Arshad & B. C. O’Kelly
Peng, J., B. G. Clarke, and M. Rouainia. 2011. Increasing the resistance
of piles subject to cyclic lateral loading. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137(10): 977–82. doi:10.1061=
(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000504
Peralta, P. and M. Achmus. 2010. An experimental investigation of
piles in sand subjected to lateral cyclic loads. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotech-
nics, Zurich, Switzerland, 28th June–1st July 2010, ed. S. Spring-
man, J. Laue, and L. Seward, Vol. 2, 985–90. Leiden, The
Netherlands: CRC Press.
Poulos, H. G. 1988. Cyclic stability diagram for axially loaded piles.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(8): 877–95.
doi:10.1061=(asce)0733-9410(1988)114:8(877)
Rahim, A. and R. F. Stevens. 2013. Design procedures for marine
renewable energy foundations. Proceedings of the 1st Marine
Energy Technology Symposium, Washington, DC, April 10–
11th, 2013, 10.
Ramasamy, G. 1974. Flexural behaviour of axially and laterally loaded
individual piles and groups of piles. PhD Thesis, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore.
Randolph, M. F. 1981. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading.
Géotechnique 31(2): 247–59. doi:10.1680=geot.1981.31.2.247
Rani, S. and A. Prashant. 2014. Estimation of the linear spring con-
stant for a laterally loaded monopile embedded in nonlinear soil.
International Journal of Geomechanics. doi:10.1061=
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000441. Online Publication Date: 29th
August 2014.
Reese, L. C, W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop. (1974). Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Offshore Tech-
nology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 6–8th, 1974, 473–84.
Reese, L. C, W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop. (1975). Field testing
and analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. Procedings
of the 7th Annual Offshore Technology Conference. Paper No.
2312, Houston, Texas, May 5–8th, 1975, 671–690. doi: 10.4043/
2312-MS.
Richwien, W., K. Lesny, and J. Wiemann. 2002. Bau- und umwelttech-
nische Aspekte von Off-shore Windenergieanlagen (Construction
and environmental aspects of offshore wind turbines). Gigawind
Annual Report 2001, Chapter 6: Support structure – Foundation,
36–46. Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany.
Şahin, A. D. 2004. Progress and recent trends in wind energy. Progress
in Energy and Combustion Science 30(5): 501–43. doi:10.1016=
j.pecs.2004.04.001
Sorochan, E. A. and V. I. Bykov. 1976. Performance of groups of
cast-in place piles subjected to horizontal loading. Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering 13(3): 157–61. doi:10.1007=
bf01705310
St. Denis, M. and W. J. Pierson. 1953. On the motions of ships in con-
fused seas. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Transactions 61: 280–354.
Sweere, G. T. H. 1990. Unbound granular bases for roads. PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.
Géotechnique 5(4): 297–326.
Timmerman, D. H. and T. H. Wu. 1969. Behavior of dry sands under
cyclic loading. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division ASCE 95(4): 1097–114.
Tomlinson, M. J. 2001. Foundation Design and Construction, 7th edn.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Tong, W. 2010. Wind Power Generation and Wind Turbine Design.
Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
van der Tempel, J. 2006. Design of support structures for offshore wind
turbines. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Verdure, L., J. Garnier, and D. Levacher. 2003. Lateral cyclic loading
of single piles in sand. International Journal of Physical Modelling
in Geotechnics 3(3): 17–28.
 Analysis and Design of Offshore Monopile Foundations 23
Wang, Q. and P. V. Lade. 2001. Shear banding in true triaxial tests and Appendix
its effect on failure in sand. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
127(8): 754–61. doi:10.1061=(asce)0733-9399(2001)127:8(754)
Werkmeister, S. 2003. Permanent deformation behaviour of unbound
granular materials in pavement constructions. PhD Thesis, Tech-
nical University Dresden.
Wichtmann, T., A. Niemunis, and Th. Triantafyllidis. 2009. Validation
and calibration of a high-cycle accumulation model based on cyc-
lic triaxial tests on eight sands. Soils and Foundations 49(5): 711–
28. doi:10.3208=sandf.49.711
Wichtmann, T., H. A. Rondón, A. Niemunis, Th. Triantafyllidis, and
A. Lizcano. 2010. Prediction of permanent deformations in pave-
ments using a high-cycle accumulation model. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(5): 728–40.
Downloaded by [University of Engineering & Technology Lahore] at 01:19 03 February 2016

doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000275
Yasin, S. J. M. and F. Tatsuoka. 2000. Stress history-dependent defor-
mation characteristics of dense sand in plane strain. Soils and
Foundations 40(2): 77–98. doi:10.3208=sandf.40.2_77
Zhu, B., B. W. Byrne, and G. T. Houlsby. 2013. Long-term lateral cyc-
lic response of suction caisson foundations in sand. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(1): 73–83.
doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000738
Zhukov, N. V. and I. L. Balov. 1978. Investigation of the effect of a
vertical surcharge on horizontal displacements and resistance of Fig. A1. Pertinent stiffness profiles for the medium dense sand
pile columns to horizontal loads. Soil Mechanics and Foundation deposit considered in the OWT monopile foundation design
Engineering 15(1): 16–22. doi:10.1007=bf02145324 example.
 Model Studies on Monopile Behavior under Long-Term
Repeated Lateral Loading
Muhammad Arshad, Ph.D.1; and Brendan C. O’Kelly, Ph.D., C.Eng.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Monopiles are the most commonly used foundation type for offshore wind turbine (OWT) structures and are characterized by rela-
tively large geometric dimensions, compared with offshore pile foundations typically used in the oil and gas industries. To date, there are no
established technical guidelines tailored for the design and analysis of OWT monopiles. This paper first identifies various intrinsic drawbacks
involved with the existing design and analysis methodologies as applied to OWT monopiles. Next, a comprehensive experimental program of
1g repeated lateral load tests, performed on a scaled rigid monopile installed in dry sand beds, is presented to investigate its behavior under var-
ious loading scenarios. The experimental results provide insights into the various blurry issues in the existing literature related to monopile
behavior under long-term repeated lateral loading. Lateral soil resistance profiles were determined from the measured pile bending strain data
and found to be markedly dependent on the degree of the polynomial function used for curve-fitting of the bending strain data. Finally, an ex-
perimental model is presented for estimation of the pile’s accumulated rotation, which takes into account various basic characteristics of the
applied lateral load cycles. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000679. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cyclic loading; Footings; Foundations; Lateral loading; Model tests; Offshore engineering.

Introduction
For offshore wind turbine (OWT) structures, the horizontal/lateral
loads (and resulting moments about the foundation) are generally
large in proportion to the gravitational loads (Byrne and Houlsby
2003). The foundation design is dominated by considerations of the
dynamic response and fatigue under working loads, rather than ulti-
mate loading conditions. Monopile foundations for OWTs typically
have an embedment length–to–outer diameter ratio (L/D) of less
than 10, categorizing them as rigid piles (Tomlinson 2001; Peng et
al. 2011; DNV 2011). Hence, they are more prone to rotation from
their initial vertical alignment (as compared to deflection) under the
action of the repeating lateral loads and moments (Haiderali et al.
2014). Current pile design methodology based on p–y curves, as pre-
sented in the American Petroleum Institute (API 2010) and Det
Norske Veritas (DNV 2011) codes, has gained widespread recogni-
tion on account of the low failure rate of in-service piles, evidenced
over many decades (Arshad and O’Kelly 2013). However, the API
(2010) and DNV (2011) guidelines for monopile design mainly rely
on methods developed using empirical data obtained for long flexi-
ble piles for which bending is generally critical. Hence, design crite-
ria and analyses for rigid pile scenarios cast considerable doubt on
the application of such methods for OWT monopiles. Further, the
p–y curves for repeated lateral loading presented in the API (2010)
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geological Engineering, Univ. of
Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan; formerly, Ph.D.
candidate, Dept. of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering,
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland (corresponding author).
E-mail: arshadm@tcd.ie
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail:
bokelly@tcd.ie
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 30, 2014; approved
on February 23, 2016; published online on April 26, 2016. Discussion pe-
riod open until September 26, 2016; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
and DNV (2011) do not provide the means of calculating the accu-
mulated pile displacement (rotation), and they always imply stiffness
degradation of the soil–pile foundation system as a result of long-
term repeated lateral loading, irrespective of soil type or soil state.
However, this is contrary to experimental observations documented
by LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya et al. (2011), Bhattacharya
and Adhikari (2011), Cuellar et al. (2012), and Arshad and O’Kelly
(2014, 2016a). Further, disputing interpretations regarding stiffness
determination are not uncommon in the literature, possibly due to
discrepancies in the terminology used by the different researchers.
For instance, the term stiffness has been reported in some literature
without specifying whether it relates to the absolute secant, tangent,
or cyclic stiffness scenario. The following are also common open
questions in implementing the p–y method for the analysis of OWT
monopile foundations: (1) influence of vertical pile load on the lateral
response of the soil–pile system, (2) diameter effect on the initial
stiffness of the p–y curves, (3) choice of horizontal earth pressure
coefficient, (4) pilehead fixity, (5) pile installation effects, and (6)
shearing force developed at the pile base.
The inadequacy of the current p–y methodology for predicting
the response of rigid monopiles under repeated lateral loading has
been reported by many researchers (e.g., Haiderali and Madabhushi
2013; Lau et al. 2014; Arshad and O’Kelly 2016b; O’Kelly and
Arshad 2016), which has led to the development of new models
for obtaining better predictions of the strain accumulation in the
soil surrounding the monopile, with due consideration of the soil
–pile interaction. However, the proposed models also have in-
herent limitations. For instance, the models proposed by Little
and Briaud (1988), Long and Vanneste (1994), and Lin and
Liao (1999) are based on limited numbers of lateral load cycles
N (<100) applied to long flexible piles installed in sandy soil,
with these models always suggesting degradation of the soil–pile
system under the repeating loads. The model proposed by
Klinkvort and Hededal (2013) is based on a maximum of 500
load cycles performed at a single value of loading frequency
and for a particular soil density. Although based on many thou-
sands of load cycles, the model proposed by LeBlanc et al.
(2010) appears to be unrealistic because it always predicts zero

© ASCE 04016040-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

 displacement (rotation) of the monopile under two-way balanced
repeat loading.
This paper presents an experimental study performed on a scaled
rigid monopile subjected to long-term repeated lateral loading. The
experimental results are discussed in relation to various controver-
sial issues relating to the long-term performance of monopile foun-
dations under repeated lateral loading. A new experimental model
is proposed to estimate the accumulated rotation of the monopile,
adequately incorporating many thousands of load cycles of different
load amplitude and cyclic character. Different shapes of the lateral
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
soil resistance (LSR) profile are evaluated on the basis of bending
strain data obtained along the embedded length of the instrumented
monopile.
Scaling Issues for Model Testing
An important task for reduced-scale model testing is determining
how to generalize the results for prototype cases. Differences in a
number of aspects, such as the soil stresses developed and the rela-
tive soil–structure size, can create dissimilarities in the soil–structure
interaction and response between the model and prototype, and so
often invalidate simple extrapolation of the 1g (i.e., normal gravity
condition) data to large-scale cases. Nevertheless, scaled model test-
ing can be useful if it preserves geometric, kinematic, or dynamic
similarity to the prototype. Among other technical difficulties, the
direct scaling of the soil particle (grain) dimensions is particularly
problematic because it might introduce undesirable forces into play
unless a certain minimum ratio is maintained between the mean
grain size (d50) and a characteristic dimension (pile diameter in the
present investigation) of the model (Sedran et al. 2001; Verdure
et al. 2003). As reported by Cuellar (2011), model tests performed
with prototype sand might show disproportionate shear bands and
the mobilization of higher ultimate loads, although he goes on to
point out that “several studies have shown that the influence of
these shear-zones on the overall response of the foundation may
be neglected if the applied loads lay well below the failure limit”
(Hettler 1981) “or if the ratio of foundation diameter to grain size
(D/d50) is greater than 30 to 60” (Ovesen 1979; Franke and Muth
1985; Sedran et al. 2001; Verdure et al. 2003). In the present
investigation, a real-size sand was used because both of these con-
ditions were reasonably met for the model tests performed.
Further, the constitutive laws describing the soil load–deformation
behavior are stress-level dependent, which implies that for 1g condi-
tions, homologous points of the soil foundations for the model and
prototype might experience different deformational responses. For
instance, the load–deformation response of a structure founded on
sand is governed, among other factors, by the magnitude of the mean
in situ effective confining pressure, which is certainly different com-
paring the model tests under 1g conditions and the prototype (Arshad
and O’Kelly 2014; LeBlanc et al. 2010). For a model test using a shal-
low soil container, the isotropic stress level controlling the mecha-
nisms under investigation is low, which leads to higher mobilized fric-
tion angle and low shear modulus values, when compared to its
equivalent prototype. Many researchers address this issue by perform-
ing their 1g tests on sand beds prepared at a lower relative density
(Kelly et al. 2006; LeBlanc et al. 2010).
Similitude relationships in the form of nondimensional parame-
ters (NDPs) can be applied to relate the results for the model to
those for the prototype, and vice versa (LeBlanc et al. 2010). These
NDPs consider the applied loading, the geometry and material prop-
erties of the pile, and its lateral displacement (rotation) response,
with due consideration of the pile toe displacement occurring under
repeated lateral loading. Examples of the derivation of scaling laws
© ASCE 04016040-2
Int. J. Geomech., 04016040
for OWT monopile foundations have been reported by Lai (1989),
Muir Wood et al. (2002), LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya et al.
(2011), and Cuellar et al. (2012).
Testing Facility, Model Pile, and Instrumentation
For the present investigation, the Trinity College Dublin electro-
mechanical loading system, which can apply many thousands of lat-
eral load cycles of sinusoidal waveform shape to the head (top) of a
scaled monopile embedded in a sand bed, was used (Fig. 1).
Different loading schemes can be applied to the pilehead, with full
control provided over the loading direction, load amplitude, and fre-
quency. Further details on the working mechanisms and capabilities
of the loading system, the instrumentation and data-acquisition sys-
tem used to measure the applied lateral loads and the displacement
(rotation) response at the pilehead (Fig. 2), the sample (sand bed)
preparation technique, and the method of pile installation (nondis-
placement) are presented in Arshad and O’Kelly (2014). Some
properties of the test sand are given in Table 1.
The 540-mm-long pile was manufactured from brass tubing
(Young’s modulus value of 96 GPa) with an outer diameter of 53.0
and a wall thickness of 0.8 mm, which produced a bending stiffness
(EI) value of 4.33 kN·m2. The lower end of the pile was closed by
using 3-mm-thick brass plate to represent a fully plugged tubular pile.
The dimensions of the model pile typically represent a field monopile
(made of steel) for an OWT foundation system at 1/100th scale.
The outer wall surface of the model pile was instrumented with
8-strain gauges of type TML–PL–10–11 (manufactured by Tokyo
Sokki Kenkyujo, Tokyo), which were equi-spaced over its embed-
ment length of 360 mm. The center of the lowermost gauge was
located at a distance of 10 mm above the pile toe level, with the
uppermost gauge located just beneath the finished sand bed surface
level in the 0.95 m diameter by 0.6-m-deep steel tank (Item 5 in
Fig. 1). The dimensions of the steel tank were chosen to ensure that
the failure wedge developed around the pile for the static and
repeated lateral loading scenarios investigated did not extend to the
tank boundaries. With a tank diameter–to–pile diameter ratio of
approximately 18, side wall boundary effects were not considered
significant (Davie and Sutherland 1978; Rao et al. 1996). LeBlanc
et al. (2010) reported that a soil cushion with a depth of 3–4
D,
located below the pile toe, was considered sufficient to absorb the
vertical stress field. In our experimental setup, the sand cushion
located beneath the pile toe was 3.4
D in thickness and, further-
more, the only vertical loading was caused by the self-weight of the
model pile. In the present investigation, the model pile was partially
embedded in dry sand beds prepared at a density of 1577 6 6 kg/m3
[density index of 70–74% (i.e., dense state)].
Testing Program
The ultimate static lateral load-carrying capacity (Pu) value of the
model pile (for the given height of 90 mm used as the point of lateral
load application above the sand bed surface level) was deduced as
140 N. This load value corresponds to a point on the experimental
load against rotation curve where the pile had rotated from its initial
vertical alignment by 1.5°, producing a lateral displacement at the
sand bed surface level of 7 mm (i.e., 0.13 D). This is in the range
of pile lateral displacements (at the sand bed surface level) of
between 0.1 and 0.2 D, often used to estimate the Pu value of later-
ally loaded piles (El Sawwaf 2006; Peng et al. 2011; Cuellar et al.
2012).
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the Trinity College Dublin experimental rig for model pile studies, showing setup for two-way lateral loading of the
pilehead. 1, drive motor; 2, upper-right chain segment; 3, lower-right chain segment; 4, right loading hanger, with weight; 5, steel tank; 6, reaction
frame; 7, right load cell; 8, right spring; 9, articulated arm; 10, sliding node; 11, left loading hanger, with weight; 12, reference support with two hori-
zontal displacement transducers; 13, model pile (adapted from Arshad and O’Kelly 2014, with permission)

Fig. 2. Arrangement of load cells and displacement transducers at the pilehead (adapted from Arshad and O’Kelly 2014, with permission)

Table 1. Properties of Test Sand Different loading schemes, designed on the basis of various loading
directions (balanced and unbalanced two-way and one-way load-
Property Value (mm) ing), load amplitudes, and frequencies, were investigated. The tests
Effective grain sizes, d10, d30, d50, d60 0.16, 0.22, 0.27, 0.31 (loading schemes), listed in Table 2, are identified as follows: load-
Coefficient of uniformity 1.94 ing direction (1w, one way; 2w, two way)/load amplitude (N)/fre-
Coefficient of curvature 1.0 quency (Hz). For example, 1w/0–60/0.25 indicates one-way lateral
Maximum void ratio 0.92 loading having an amplitude of 60 N and a frequency of 0.25 Hz;
Minimum void ratio 0.60 2w/30–60/0.25 indicates two-way lateral loading, 30 N applied in
Density index of sand beds 70–74% one direction and 60 N in the other (i.e., unbalanced) at 0.25 Hz;
Dry sand peak friction angle 39° 1w/15–50/0.25 indicates partial one-way lateral loading, with the
load amplitude fluctuating from 15 to 50 N from the same side, at a
frequency of 0.25 Hz. All of the tests presented in this paper were
A total of 18 lateral load tests, each involving the application of performed at a loading frequency value of 0.25, which corresponds
6,000 lateral load cycles to the pilehead, were performed on the to the typical frequency of the fatigue loading caused by the ocean
model pile embedded in the identically prepared dry sand beds. waves, and if scale effects are considered, it almost corresponds to

© ASCE 04016040-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

 Table 2. Lateral Load Testing Program on Model Pile

Loading scheme, Test ID Loading direction Left hanger load (N) Right hanger load (N) Frequency (Hz) z b = Pmax/Pu z c = Pmin/Pmax
1w/0–40/0.25 One way 0 40 0.25 0.28 0
1w/12–40/0.25 Partial one way 0 12–40 0.25 0.28 0.3
1w/20–40/0.25 Partial one way 0 20–40 0.25 0.28 0.5
2w/20–40/0.25 Unbalanced two way 20 40 0.25 0.28 −0.5
2w/30–40/0.25 Unbalanced two way 30 40 0.25 0.28 −0.75
2w/40–40/0.25 Balanced two way 40 40 0.25 0.28 −1
1w/0–50/0.25 One way 0 50 0.25 0.35 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1w/15–50/0.25 Partial one way 0 15–50 0.25 0.35 0.3

1w/25–50/0.25 Partial one way 0 25–50 0.25 0.35 0.5
2w/25–50/0.25 Unbalanced two way 25 50 0.25 0.35 −0.5
2w/33–50/0.25 Unbalanced two way 33 50 0.25 0.35 −0.66
2w/50–50/0.25 Balanced two way 50 50 0.25 0.35 –1
1w/0–60/0.25 One way 0 60 0.25 0.42 0
1w/18–60/0.25 Partial one way 0 18–60 0.25 0.42 0.3
1w/30–60/0.25 Partial one way 0 30–60 0.25 0.42 0.5
2w/30–60/0.25 Unbalanced two way 30 60 0.25 0.42 −0.5
2w/45–60/0.25 Unbalanced two way 45 60 0.25 0.42 −0.75
2w/60–60/0.25 Balanced two way 60 60 0.25 0.42 −1

the typical energy-rich wind turbulence acting on offshore struc-
tures in the North Sea (LeBlanc 2009). However, the satisfaction of
such scaling conditions for similarity in heterogeneous materials
such as granular soil is not trivial (Dong et al. 2001; Bhattacharya
and Adhikari 2011). This situation becomes more complex for sit-
uations such as OWT foundation structures, where one has dynam-
ics, aerodynamics, soil–structure interaction, and fluid flow around
the foundations. Other lateral repeating load characteristics consid-
ered in this investigation are defined in Eqs. (1) and (2).
Pmax
zb ¼
Pu
Pmin
zc ¼
Pmax
where Pu is the ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity of the pile;
Pmax and Pmin are the maximum and minimum lateral loads, respec-
tively, applied to the pilehead during the repeated loading tests.
In the present investigation, load amplitudes of 40, 50, and 60
N (i.e., z b  0.28, 0.35, and 0.42) were considered, with the 40
and 60 N values corresponding to the fatigue and serviceability
limit states, respectively, in relation to the pile’s ultimate static lat-
eral load-carrying capacity of 140 N (DNV 2011).
the soil–pile system under repeated loading, as reported by
Bhattacharya et al. (2011) and Cuellar et al. (2012).
Under repeated lateral loading, Achmus et al. (2009), API (2010),
and DNV (2011) suggest that degradation of the soil–pile system
occurs, whereas Rosquoët et al. (2007), LeBlanc et al. (2010),
Bhattacharya et al. (2011), and Cuellar et al. (2012) have documented
that the foundation stiffness actually increases with increasing N, on
account of densification of the soil around the monopile. These con-
tradicting interpretations might arise due to discrepancies in the ter-
minology used by different researchers in the various literature. For
example, in some cases, the generic term stiffness is reported and
(1)
used without specifying whether it refers to initial tangent stiffness,
absolute secant stiffness, or cyclic stiffness values. Cuellar (2011)
pointed out that the term stiffness has sometimes been incorrectly
(2) used in describing different things, such as (1) the shear modulus of
the soil, (2) the macromechanical load–displacement relationship for
the foundation system, and (3) the subgrade reaction modulus.
During the present experimental investigation, it was observed
(Fig. 3) that the initial few cycles substantially contributed to the
total accumulated rotation of the model pile produced after many
thousands of load cycles had been applied. This observation implies
that the entire experimental curve for all the numbers of load cycles
cannot be described by a single formulation while ensuring reasona-
ble accuracy. LeBlanc et al. (2010) suggested the following bifur-
cating expression can be used to describe the total accumulated
rotation of the monopile:

Rotation Accumulation Model for Monopile under
Cyclic Loading
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the normalized accumulated rotation
[Du ðNÞ=u 0  increases with the number of load cycles, but at a
decreasing rate. This implies that the cyclic stiffness of the soil–pile
system increases with increasing N. Compared with the absolute se-
cant stiffness (ratio of the applied load to the absolute displace-
ment), the cyclic stiffness might replicate more precisely the actual
state of the soil–pile system, particularly when its dynamic behavior
is under consideration. By contrast, the absolute secant stiffness
will always have a decreasing trend, although such degradation has
no physical significance when evaluating the dynamic behavior of
u N ¼ u 0 þ Du ðNÞ (3)
where u N is the accumulated rotation produced for N load cycles;
u 0 is the rotation for the first load cycle; and Du ðNÞ is the rotation
produced from the second load cycle up to the Nth load cycle. Note
the value of u 0 is assumed equal to the rotation that would occur in
a monotonic test for a load amplitude equal to the maximum value
of the load cycle achieved during cyclic loading.
For the present investigation, two potentially promising options
of curve fitting, namely logarithmic [Eq. (4)] and power [Eq.(5)]
law approaches, were analyzed by using the experimental data sets.
The logarithmic law technique of curve-fitting to relate the experi-
mental model parameters to the load cycle characteristics has been
used previously; e.g., LeBlanc (2009), LeBlanc et al. (2010),

© ASCE 04016040-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Curve fitting of normalized accumulated rotation against number of load cycle relationships for various loading schemes

© ASCE 04016040-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

 Klinkvort and Hededal (2013), and Zhu et al. (2013). However, the
proposed logarithmic law option, having model parameters a1 and
b 1 , is novel in that it uses an additive approach rather than the mul-
tiplicative approach involving different model parameters used in
existing models (e.g., Little and Briaud 1988; Niemunis et al. 2005;
Wichtmann et al. 2010; LeBlanc et al. 2010).
Sample results of regression analysis for the proposed Eqs. (4)
and (5) are shown in Fig. 3, with normalized accumulated rotation
[Du ðNÞ=u 0  plotted against the number of load cycles. From this
figure, the coefficient of determination (R2) values for the logarith-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mic law approach were relatively higher when compared with the
corresponding values for the power law approach, suggesting that
the logarithmic law captures the accumulation of the pile rotation
with better accuracy.

Du ðNÞ
¼ a1 lnðN Þ þ b 1 (4)
u0

Du ðNÞ
¼ a2 ðNÞ b 2 (5)
u0

where a1 , a2 , b 1 , and b 2 are model parameters.

The power law approach showed reasonable accuracy for the
one-way and partial one-way loading scenarios ( z c ≥ 0 in Fig. 3)
but was found to be markedly inaccurate for the balanced and unbal-
anced two-way loading scenarios ( z c < 0), underestimating the
measured accumulated rotation occurring up to N = 2,000 and over-
estimating this rotation from there up to N = 6,000.
The additive approach of the logarithmic law technique [Eq. (4)]
for the influencing factors ( z c ; z b Þ had the following advantages
over the power law:
1. The power law was found to produce lower R2 values for the
data sets analyzed, and furthermore, a methodical relationship
between a2 and z c or between b 2 and z b could not be
established. Fig. 4. Functions relating (a) a1 with z c and (b) b 1 with z b
2. Calculation errors might be intolerably high with the multipli-
cative approach [Eq. (5)] if either of the a2 and b 2 parameter
values was wrongly estimated.
3. The logarithmic law approach could capture the response for through the origin) exists between b 1 and z b , which is also con-
the initial few cycles, which was found to be substantially de- vincing, because rotation of the monopile cannot be expected for
pendent on z b , with reasonable accuracy. z b = 0 (i.e., b 1 = 0).
Regarding the logarithmic law approach, from regression analy-
sis of the experimental data, the parameter a1 was generalized as a
function of z c [= (Pmin/Pmax)] and the parameter b 1 , as a function Variations in LSR
of z b [= (Pmax/Pu)], as illustrated in Figs. 4(a and b), respectively.
In other words, in applying Eq. (4), the values of a1 and b 1 can be Analytically, the ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity (Pu) of a
estimated from Figs. 4(a and b). These figures realistically capture rigid pile is calculated from the lateral soil resistance (LSR) dis-
the behavior of the monopile subjected to repeated lateral loading tribution profile [denoted by pðzÞ, having unit of force/length]
and show that accumulated rotation always occurs, even for the bal- over its embedded length. The LSR is mobilized in response to
anced two-way loading scenario [i.e., a1 > 0 for z c ¼ 1 in Fig. 4 the lateral displacement of the rigid pile when a lateral load (H) is
(a)], which is a realistic approach. In fact, the direction of the first applied to the pilehead. In general, the LSR can be expressed as
quarter of a two-way load cycle decides the direction of the net the sum of the frontal normal resistance (Q) and the side frictional
accumulated rotation (Rosquoët et al. 2007). Hence, there will resistance (F) (Briaud et al. 1983; Smith 1987). The lateral dis-
always be a net accumulated rotation for balanced two-way loading. placement (d ) of the pile will cause a very complex strain field in
Further, Fig. 4(a) illustrates that the rate of accumulated rotation the soil around it [e.g., refer to Smith (1987) and Zhang et al.
(i.e., a1 value) is much greater for unbalanced two-way loading (2005)]. Fig. 5 shows schematically the idealized stress field
( z c = –0.5), when compared with one-way, partial one-way, and around the pile for a particular depth (z) due to the soil–pile
balanced two-way loading ( z c = 0, 0.5, and –1). This observation interaction.
supports the opinions of LeBlanc et al. (2010) and Zhu et al. (2013) Several theoretical methods to predict the behavior of short rigid
but generally contradicts the trends documented by Long and piles subjected to lateral loading in cohesionless soils have been
Vanneste (1994), Lin and Liao (1999), and Peng et al. (2011). In presented (Brinch Hansen 1961; Broms 1964; Petrasovits and
terms of the accumulated displacement of the monopile, Fig. 4(b) Award 1972; Meyerhof et al. 1981). These methods assume some
tentatively indicates a linear relationship (approximately passing form of LSR distribution profile along the pile embedment length,

© ASCE 04016040-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of soil–pile interaction: (a) long section showing rigid pile under lateral loading; (b) cross section showing initial and dis-
placed positions of pile and induced stress regime for depth z

Fig. 6. Different options suggested/adopted for LSR distribution profile along embedded length of rigid pile: (a) Brinch Hansen (1961); (b) Broms
(1964); (c) Petrasovits and Award (1972); (d) Meyerhof et al. (1981); (e) Adams and Radhakrishna (1973); (f) Meyerhof and Sastry (1985); (g) Joo
(1985); (h) Prasad and Chari (1999); (i) Chari and Meyerhof (1983)

which is considered to be uniform across the pile width (Prasad and along the embedded length of the model pile were determined
Chari 1999). Different profile shapes for the LSR distribution by using Eqs. (6) and (7).
along the embedded length of rigid piles have been suggested/
adopted by different researchers, as shown in Fig. 6, and these EIɛ
M ðzÞ ¼ (6)
are considered in the present investigation. c
The structural behavior of a rigid pile under lateral loading is
defined by its rotation as a rigid body, rather than bending (flex- d2 ðMÞ
ing) in the case of long flexible piles. However, because the pðzÞ ¼ (7)
dz2
stiffness of the model pile was finite, some bending strains were
measured at the microstrain level by the strain gauges (bonded
where c (= D/2) = outer radius of the pile; EI = bending stiff-
to its outer wall surface) located at discrete points along its em-
ness of the pile; and « = strain value measured for a particular
bedded length. In the present experimental setup, this was facili-
tated using a System-7000 (Vishay Precision Group, Malvern, depth (z) along the pile embedment length.
PA) data-acquisition system. Bending strain data are usually
used for evaluations/interpretations related to the pile’s bending
moment profile and the LSR and deformations occurring in the Variation in LSR under Static Lateral Loading
soil over the pile embedment length (Arshad and O’Kelly
2014). In the present investigation, the bending moment MðzÞ Fig. 7 shows the shapes of the derived LSR profiles, including the
distribution profile and the LSR pðzÞ (force/length) variation values of LSR (force/length) mobilized along the pile embedment

© ASCE 04016040-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Variation of LSR along embeded length of monopile for applied lateral loads at the pilehead of (a) 40 N, (b) 100 N, and (c) 140 N

© ASCE 04016040-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016040

 length for three different levels of static (monotonic) applied lateral
load [40, 100, and 140 N shown in Figs. 7(a–c), respectively]. From
these figures, it can be concluded that the shapes of the generated
LSR profiles, and the LSR values themselves, are markedly depend-
ent on the degree of the polynomial functions employed. For
instance, 3rd-order (piecewise) and 5th-order polynomial functions
of the bending strain data generated LSR profiles roughly similar to
the one proposed by Broms (1964), i.e., increasing linearly with
depth, only on one side [see Fig. 6(b)]. Fourth-order polynomial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
functions of the bending strain data followed the LSR profile pat-
terns suggested by Adams and Radhakrishna (1973), Chari and
Meyerhof (1983), Joo (1985), Meyerhof and Sastry (1985), and
Prasad and Chari (1999), i.e., curvilinear, bending back on them-
selves [see Fig. 6(e–i)].
Variation in LSR and Point of Rotation of Monopile
under Repeated Lateral Loading
The bending strains were also measured along the pile embedment
length during the series of repeated lateral loading tests. For
N < 6,000, the bending strains either remained constant at very small
values or showed only very small increases with the number of load
cycles (their values always remained below 100 m m). This experi-
mental evidence confirms the rigid-body rotation response of the
model pile [i.e., not bending (flexing) associated with long flexible
piles].
The bending moment and the values of LSR were calculated
using Eqs. (6) and (7). Sample results obtained for LSR profiles
deduced on the basis of 4th-order polynomial functions of the bend-
ing strain data are presented in Fig. 8. Fourth-order polynomial
functions were selected (over 3rd- and 5th-order polynomials) for
this discussion because these LSR profiles were found to match
closely with actual LSR profiles measured by using pressure trans-
ducers (Adams and Radhakrishna 1973; Chari and Meyerhof 1983;
Joo 1985; Meyerhof and Sastry 1985; Prasad and Chari 1999). On
comparing the sample results with the options presented in Fig. 6, it
can be concluded that the experimental results based on 4th-order
polynomial functions of the bending strain data follow the profile
Fig. 8. LSR distribution profiles for various repeated lateral loading schemes
© ASCE 04016040-9
Int. J. Geomech., 04016040
patterns suggested by Adams and Radhakrishna (1973), Chari and
Meyerhof (1983), Joo (1985), Meyerhof and Sastry (1985), and
Prasad and Chari (1999). These profiles propose that a reversal of
LSR occurs at some distance above the toe of the pile (Fig. 6), i.e.,
at its point of rotation. It should be noted that the accuracy of model-
ing the LSR profiles by using the bending strain data depends on
both the quality and quantity of the strain data.
The lateral displacement of the monopile from its initial vertical
alignment was measured by using two horizontally mounted dis-
placement transducers that contacted against the shaft of the pile
that protruded above the finished sand bed surface in the steel tank
(Figs. 1 and 2). From these readings and knowing the vertical sepa-
ration of the transducers, the depth to the point of rotation of the pile
(measured from the sand bed surface level) was determined through
the use of the trigonometric relationship between similar triangles.
Sample results are given in Fig. 9, which illustrates that the point of
rotation of the model pile fluctuated between approximately 275
and 325 mm, along its embedded length of 360 mm. This range of
fluctuation for the depth to the point of rotation of the pile approxi-
mately matches with the point of reversal of the LSR profiles for the
different loading schemes investigated (see Fig. 8).
Possible Limitations of This Investigation
The experimental model developed in the present investigation is
based on experimental data obtained for a narrow initial density
index range of 70–74% for the sand beds and also considered only
one particular pile diameter and embedment depth. However, the
basic framework of the model is not expected to change for other
density index values of the sand beds. Ideally, 1g testing should be
performed using sand beds prepared in a (very) loose state, although
it is not uncommon to find comparable experimental studies
reported for similar or higher dense states (e.g., Peng et al. 2011;
Cuellar et al. 2012; Nasr 2014; Arshad and O’Kelly 2016c), prob-
ably to explore the generic response of the monopile under load-
term repeated loading. Further, because homogeneous saturation of
the sand beds would have been challenging, the entire experimental
program investigated the performance of the model pile installed in
dry sand beds.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Variation in depth to point of rotation of model pile for repeated lateral loading tests
Another limitation of this investigation might be that the
number of load cycles applied in each model test was limited to
6,000, whereas for field conditions, an OWT monopile might be
subjected to as much as N = 107 for the fatigue limit state
(Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services 2005). The application
of such a large number of load cycles in the present investigation
would be very time consuming, even for a single test. However,
from the experimental data gathered, the authors observed that
the trend in the rotation behavior of the model pile under
repeated lateral loading had essentially become stable by N =
6,000; i.e., its rotation might continue to increase with increas-
ing N, but at a diminishing rate. Any quick change in the curve
describing the rotation against number of load cycles relation-
ship, as had occurred during the application of the first 500 load
cycles, seems unlikely.
Conclusions
This paper has identified various limitations and discrepancies asso-
ciated with the design and analysis methodologies currently used
for large-diameter monopiles subjected to repeated lateral loading.
A series of tests was performed on a model monopile to understand
its response under long-term repeated lateral loading. At z b ¼ 0:42
(serviceability limit state), unbalanced two-way loading ( z c ¼
0:5) was found to generate approximately 125–155% more rota-
tion of the monopile (normalized values) compared with that pro-
duced for one-way loading ð z c ¼ 0Þ for N = 500–6,000. The corre-
sponding increase for z b ¼ 0:28 (fatigue limit state) was 350–450%.
© ASCE 04016040-10
Int. J. Geomech., 04016040
The test results also show that the cyclic stiffness of the soil−pile sys-
tem always increased under repeated lateral loading, probably as a
result of densification of the sand around the pile, whereas the abso-
lute secant stiffness always had a decreasing trend due to the continu-
ous accumulating rotation of the pile. The proposed logarithmic law,
which involved an additive approach, captured the experimental
accumulated rotation against number of load cycles relationship
more precisely, when compared with the power law approach. In the
development of the experimental model, only a narrow range of den-
sity index values for the sand beds was considered. Further investiga-
tions of this framework for other values of sand density through ex-
perimental and numerical studies are recommended. As a general
observation, interpretations of the distribution profiles and values of
the LSR based on curve-fitting of measured bending strain data can
highly misleading/unreliable.
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges a postgraduate research
award received from Trinity College Dublin. The authors thank
the reviewers for many helpful comments.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
c ¼ outer radius of pile;
D ¼ outer diameter of pile;
d50 ¼ mean effective grain size;
Int. J. Geomech.
 EI ¼ bending stiffness;
F ¼ side frictional resistance mobilized along pile
embedment length;
H ¼ lateral load;
L ¼ pile embedment length;
LSR ¼ lateral soil resistance;
Pmax ¼ maximum lateral load at pilehead during repeated
lateral loading;
Pmin ¼ minimum lateral load at pilehead during repeated
lateral loading;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pu ¼ ultimate static lateral load-carrying capacity of
pile;
pðzÞ ¼ LSR profile (force/length);
MðzÞ ¼ bending moment distribution profile;
N ¼ number of load cycles;
OWT ¼ offshore wind turbine;
Q ¼ frontal normal resistance mobilized along pile
embedment length;
R2 ¼ coefficient of determination;
z ¼ particular depth below sand bed surface level;
a1 ¼ model parameter for logarithmic law[(= fn ( z c )];
b 1 ¼ model parameter for logarithmic law [= fn ( z b )];
a2 ; b 2 ¼ models for power law;
d ¼ lateral displacement;
« ¼ strain value corresponding to depth z along embed-
ded length of pile;
u N ¼ accumulated rotation of monopile for N load
cycles;
u 0 ¼ rotation of monopile for end of first load cycle;
Du ðNÞ ¼ rotation produced from second load cycle up to
Nth load cycle;
z b ¼ parameter to define cyclic character of repeating
loads;
z c ¼ parameter to define cyclic character of repeating
loads;
1g ¼ normal gravitational condition;
1w ¼ one-way (loading); and
2w ¼ two-way (loading).
References
Adams, J. I., and Radhakrishna, H. S. (1973). “The lateral capacity of deep
augured footings.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Strojizdat, Moscow, 1–8.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2010). API RPA2: Recommended
practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore plat-
forms—Working stress design, 22nd ed., Washington, DC.
Arshad, M., and O'Kelly, B. C. (2013). “Offshore wind-turbine structures: a
review.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy, 166(4), 139–152.
Arshad, M., and O’Kelly, B. C. (2014). “Development of a rig to study model
pile behaviour under repeating lateral loads.” Int. J. Phys. Modell.
Geotech. 14(3), 54–67.
Arshad, M., and O'Kelly, B. C. (2016a). “Piled-cruciform attachment to
monopile head reduces deflection.” Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng.,
169, in press.
Arshad, M., and O’Kelly, B. C. (2016b). “Analysis and design of monopile
foundations for offshore wind-turbine structures.” Marine Georesour.
Geotechnol., 34, in press.
Arshad, M., and O'Kelly, B. C. (2016c). “Reducing monopile rotation under
lateral loading in sandy soils.” Geomech. Geoeng., 11, in press.
Bhattacharya, S., and Adhikari, S. (2011). “Experimental validation of soil-
structure interaction of offshore wind turbines.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 31(5–6), 805–816.
Bhattacharya, S., Lombardi, D., and Muir Wood, D. (2011).
“Similitude relationships for physical modelling of monopile-
© ASCE 04016040-11
Int. J. Geomech., 04016040
supported offshore wind turbines.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech.
11(2), 58–68.
Briaud, J. L., Smith, T. D, and Meyer, B. J. (1983). “Using the pressure-
meter curve to design laterally loaded piles.” Proc., 15th Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX. Vol. 1, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Houston, 495–502.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against
transversal forces, Bulletin No. 12, Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 5–9.
Broms, B. B. (1964). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.” J.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 90(SM3), 123–156.
Byrne, B. W., and Houlsby, G. T. (2003). “Foundations for offshore
wind turbines.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 361(1813),
2909–2930.
Chari, T. R., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1983). “Ultimate capacity of rigid sin-
gle piles under inclined loads in sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 20(4),
849–854.
Cuellar, P. (2011). “Pile foundations for offshore wind turbines: Numerical
and experimental investigations on the behaviour under short-term and
long-term cyclic loading.” Ph.D. thesis, Technical Univ. of Berlin,
Berlin.
Cuellar, P., Georgi, S., Bæßler, M., and Rucker, W. (2012). “On the
quasi-static granular convective flow and sand densification around
pile foundations under cyclic lateral loading.” Granular Matter,
14(1), 11–25.
Davie, J. R., and Sutherland, H. B. (1978). “Modeling of clay uplift resist-
ance.” J. Geotech. Eng., 104(6), 755–760.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (2011). DNV–OS–J101: Design of offshore
wind turbine structures. DNV, Oslo, Norway.
Dong, P., Newson, T. A., Davies, M. C. R., and Davies, P. A. (2001).
“Scaling laws for centrifuge modelling of soil transport by turbulent
fluid flows.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 1(1), 41–45.
El Sawwaf, M. (2006). “Lateral resistance of single pile located near
geosynthetic reinforced slope.” Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:10(1336), 1336–1345.
Franke, E., and Muth, G. (1985). “Scale effect in 1-g model tests on
horizontally loaded piles.” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 1011–1014.
Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services. (2005) Guidelines for the certifica-
tion of offshore wind turbines, Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie
GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Haiderali, A. E., and Madabhushi, G. S. P. (2013). “Evaluation of the p-y
method in the design of monopiles for offshore wind turbines.” Proc.,
Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Houston, 1824–1844.
Haiderali, A. E., Lau, B. H., Haigh, S. K., and Madabhushi, G. S. P. (2014).
“Lateral response of monopiles using centrifuge testing and finite ele-
ment analysis.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, Vol. 2, C. Gaudin and D. J. White, eds., CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 743–749.
Hettler, A. (1981). “Verschiebungen starrer und elastischer gründungskörper
in sand bei monotone und zyklischer belastung.” Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany (in German).
Joo, J. S. (1985). “Behavior of large scale rigid model piles under inclined
loads in sand.” M.S. engineering thesis, Memorial Univ. of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
Kelly, R. B., Houlsby, G. T., and Byrne, B. W. (2006). “A comparison of
field and laboratory tests of caisson foundations in sand and clay.”
Geotechnique, 56(9), 617–626.
Klinkvort, R. T., and Hededal, O. (2013). “Lateral response of monopile
supporting an offshore wind turbine.” Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Geotech.
Eng., 166(2), 147–158.
Lai, S. (1989). “Similitude for shaking table test on soil-structure-fluid
model in 1-g gravitational field.” Soils Found. 29(1), 105–118.
Lau, B. H., Lam, S. Y., Haigh, S. K., and Madabhushi, G. S. P. (2014).
“Centrifuge testing of monopile in clay under monotonic loads.” Proc.,
8th Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 2, C. Gaudin
and D. J. White, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 689–695.
Int. J. Geomech.
 LeBlanc, C. (2009). “Design of offshore wind turbine support structures:
Selected topics in the field of geotechnical engineering.” Ph.D. thesis,
Aalborg Univ., Aalborg, Denmark.
LeBlanc, C., Houlsby, G. T., and Byrne, B. W. (2010). “Response of stiff piles
in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading.” Geotechnique, 60(2), 79–90.
Lin, S-S., and Liao, J-C. (1999). “Permanent strains of piles in sand due to
cyclic lateral loads.” Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(1999)125:9(798), 798–802.
Little, R. L., and Briaud, J. L. (1988). “Full scale cyclic lateral load tests on
six single piles in sand.” Rep. GL–88–27, Geotechnical Division, Civil
Engineering Dept., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 05/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Long, J. H., and Vanneste, G. (1994). “Effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles
in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:1(225),
225–244.
Meyerhof, G. G., Mathur, S. K., and Valsangkar, A. J. (1981). “Lateral re-
sistance and deflection of rigid walls and piles in layered soils.” Can.
Geotech. J., 18(2), 159–170.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Sastry, V. V. R. N. (1985). “Bearing capacity of rigid
piles under eccentric and inclined loads.” Can. Geotech. J., 22(3),
267–276.
Muir Wood, D., Crewe, A. J., and Taylor, C. A. (2002). “Shaking table
testing of geotechnical models.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech., 2(1),
1–13.
Nasr, A. M. A. (2014). “Experimental and theoretical studies of laterally
loaded finned piles in sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 51(4), 381–393.
Niemunis, A., Wichtmann, T., and Triantafyllidis, T. (2005). “A high-cycle
accumulation model for sand.” Comput. Geotech. 32(4), 245–263.
O’Kelly, B. C., and Arshad, M. (2016) “Chapter 20: Offshore wind turbine
foundations—Analysis and design.” Offshore wind farms: technologies,
design and operation, C. Ng and L. Ran, eds., Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, U.K., 589–610.
Ovesen, N. K. (1979). “Panel discussion in session 9: The use of physical mod-
els in design.” Proc., 7th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 4, British Geotechnical Society, London, 319–323.
© ASCE 04016040-12
Int. J. Geomech., 04016040
Peng, J., Clarke, B., and Rouainia, M. (2011). “Increasing the resistance of
piles subject to cyclic lateral loading.” Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000504, 977–982.
Petrasovits, G., and Award, A. (1972). “Ultimate lateral resistance of a rigid
pile in cohesionless soil.” Proc., 5th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Spanish Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations, Madrid, 407–412.
Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Chari, T. R. (1999). “Lateral capacity of model rigid
piles in cohesionless soils.” Soils Found., 39(2), 21–29.
Rao, S. N., Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T., and Raju, G. B. (1996).
“Behavior of pile-supported dolphins in marine clay under lateral
loading”. J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:
8(607), 607–612.
Rosquoët, F., Thorel, L., Garnier, J., and Canepa, Y. (2007). “Lateral cyclic
loading of sand-installed piles.” Soils Found., 47(5), 821–832.
Sedran, G., Stolle, D. F. E., and Horvath, R. G. (2001). “An investigation of
scaling and dimensional analysis of axially loaded piles.” Can. Geotech.
J., 38(3), 530–541.
Smith, T. D. (1987). “Pile horizontal modulus values.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:9(1040), 1040–1044.
Tomlinson, M. J. (2001). Foundation design and construction, 7th ed.,
Pearson, Essex, U.K.
Verdure, L., Garnier, J., and Levacher, D. (2003). “Lateral cyclic loading of
single piles in sand.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech., 3(3), 17–28.
Wichtmann, T., Rondón, H. A., Niemunis, A., Triantafyllidis, Th., and
Lizcano, A. (2010). “Prediction of permanent deformations in pave-
ments using a high-cycle accumulation model.” Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000275, 728–740.
Zhang, L., Silva, F., and Grismala, R. (2005). “Ultimate lateral resistance to
piles in cohesionless soils.” Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:1(78), 78–83.
Zhu, B., Byrne, B. W., and Houlsby, G. T. (2013). “Long-term lateral cyclic
response of suction caisson foundations in sand.” Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000738, 73–83.
Int. J. Geomech.
Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.15.00001
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile Paper 1500001
Received 13/02/2015 Accepted 09/02/2016
head reduces deflection
Keywords: foundations/models (physical)/offshore engineering
Arshad and O’Kelly

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Piled-cruciform attachment to
monopile head reduces
deflection
&
1 Muhammad Arshad BSc, MSc, ME, PhD &
2 Brendan C. O’Kelly PhD, FTCD, CEng, CEnv, MICE
Assistant Professor, Department of Geological Engineering, Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan; Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
formerly PhD candidate, Department of Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
(corresponding author: arshadm@tcd.ie)

1 2

Much critical infrastructure, including bridges, wind turbine structures, dolphins and some other ocean engineering
structures, is supported on large-diameter rigid monopiles. For such structures, compared with the gravitational loads,
cyclic lateral loading may often be more critical for the analysis and design. The lateral load-carrying capacity of a pile
depends on its geometry (dimensions), the soil properties and type of loading. In order to increase its lateral load-
carrying capacity, it is necessary either to change the properties of the near-surface layers of soil or to change its
geometry. This paper presents model studies investigating a novel technique to limit the lateral deflection (rotation)
of a monopile under long-term cyclic lateral loading. The technique provides enhanced restraint of the monopile
through the installation of four shorter piles, arranged in a cruciform, which attach to the head of the central
monopile by way of a grillage. Different aspects of this modification, including its fabrication and attachment to the
monopile, are presented. Its efficiency in reducing the monopile rotation under cyclic lateral loading is evaluated
through a comprehensive testing programme, with reasonably encouraging results.

Notation conditions, water depth, anticipated loading and financial con-

a monopile rotation straints (Malhotra, 2010). Large-diameter monopiles are a fre-
b rotation of monopile with piled-cruciform attach- quently used foundation system for offshore wind turbines and
ment in situ other offshore structures. Offshore wind farms often contain
D outer diameter of pile can comprise many hundreds of turbines supported at heights
d10 effective grain size for 10% passing by mass of typically 30–80 m above mean sea level. The preferred foun-
d30 effective grain size for 30% passing by mass dation type for these tall structures in water depths of up to
d50 mean effective grain size 30 m is large-diameter monopiles, owing to their ease of con-
d60 effective grain size for 60% passing by mass struction and installation. These monopiles are subjected to
EI bending stiffness large cyclic lateral and moment loads, in addition to axial
kh initial coefficient of subgrade reaction loads, as documented by LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya
L monopile embedment length et al. (2011) and Cuéllar (2011). However, their lateral load-
LSDP embedment length of small diameter pile carrying resistance may not be sufficient to withstand pro-
Pu ultimate static lateral load-carrying capacity longed impact under large wind and wave loading. A solution
ηL dimensionless embedment length of monopile may be achieved by simply increasing the physical dimensions
of the monopile, but this may not be economically or practi-
1. Introduction cally feasible. Thus, a range of different foundation solutions
The preferred foundation solution for a particular offshore in place of, or modifications of, the monopile are being investi-
structure depends, among other factors, on the local soil gated by different researchers.

1
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Modification of the conventional monopile by the attachment
of ‘wings’ close to the pilehead, in order to increase the lateral
load-carrying capacity and stiffness of the foundation system
for weaker soil conditions (close to the mudline), has been
investigated by many researchers using small-scale tests in sand
under the normal gravitational (1g) condition (Dührkop and
Grabe, 2008; Nasr, 2014; Peng et al., 2011) and in centrifuge
facilities (Bienen et al., 2012). These researchers found that,
with the wings attached, the pilehead deflection substantially
reduced (by
50−70%) and the ultimate lateral load-carrying
capacity increased by up to 80%, depending on the length of
the wings compared with the length of the monopile, the shape
of the wings and the soil properties. Another alteration, com-
prising a monopile combined with a footing base, has also been
proposed. Initial model tests performed in sand at 1g were
reported by Stone et al. (2007), with apparently promising
results, suggesting that the additional rotation restraint provided
by the footing can result in a stiffer lateral response and greater
ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity. Arshi et al. (2013) per-
formed tests in sand at 1g by adding skirts of different lengths
(depths) to these piled footings. Their results indicated that
increasing the skirt length tends to increase the ultimate lateral
load-carrying capacity of the foundation system by about 50%
compared with the non-skirted hybrid system. More recently,
Arshad and O’Kelly (2016b) reported 1g tests in sand that
investigated the use of concentric rings of small-diameter piles
(SDPs) installed centrally around the model monopile. Their
results showed that the rotation of the monopile, investigated
under a range of cyclic lateral loading scenarios, was reduced
by 40–65% owing to the enhanced confinement and densifica-
tion of the sand test bed provided by the presence of the SDPs.
This paper presents an experimental investigation performed
to explore the possibility of pilehead modification to reduce
the accumulated rotation of a monopile under long-term cyclic
lateral loading. The novel solution proposed comprises four
shorter SDPs, arranged in a cruciform, which attach by way of
a grillage to the pilehead at the mudline level. From a review
of the literature, this would appear to be the first study of its
kind in relation to the proposed set-up for deep foundation
structures. On the basis of encouraging results, it can be
expected that this novel technique may prove to be a viable sol-
ution to enhance the serviceable life of structures supported by
monopiles that are subjected to long-term cyclic lateral loading,
such as offshore wind-turbine structures (OWTs).
2. Development of the proposed
arrangement
2.1 Governing loading for OWT monopile foundation
system
Monopile foundations for offshore wind-turbine structures are
typically manufactured from steel tubular sections with an
outer diameter (D) of up to 7·5 m, wall thicknesses of up to
150 mm and embedment depths of between 15 and 30 m
2
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
(Achmus et al., 2009). Monopile foundations are generally
used in shallow water depths (i.e. typically < 30 m), generally
becoming too flexible for water depths of between
30 and
40 m, in which case monopiles fitted with guy wires or tripod
solutions are considered as economical alternatives. For greater
water depths (> 40 m), time-consuming installation and the
effects of soil degradation (‘potholing’) that occurs in-service
at mudline level around the pile make monopile foundations
prohibitive (Irvine et al., 2003). Other foundation options, as
discussed by Arshad and O’Kelly (2013, 2016a) and O’Kelly
and Arshad (2016), are then considered to be viable. The servi-
ceability limit state is largely determined by the lateral deflec-
tion (rotation) response of the monopile under many millions
of load cycles; for example, over the service life of a 2 MW
OWT structure, 107 lateral load cycles of 1·4 MN magnitude
(corresponding to the fatigue loading for design) are expected
to occur (Germanischer Lloyd, 2005).
The monopile must mobilise sufficient soil resistance over its
embedded length to transfer all types of applied loads to the
surrounding soil, with adequate safety factors, and prevent toe
‘kick’ (displacement of the pile base) and excessive deflection/
rotation of the pile itself. According to current practice, mono-
piles are analysed for the axial loads only to determine their
bearing capacity and settlement responses, and then for the
lateral loads only to determine their lateral load-carrying
capacity and flexural behaviour (Karthigeyan et al., 2006;
Moayed et al., 2012). Compared with the axial loads, the
lateral loads are considered to be governing, as mentioned in
several design guidelines (API, 2010; DNV, 2011;
Germanischer Lloyd, 2005) and documented by many
researchers (Achmus, 2010; Bhattacharya et al., 2013; Carswell
et al., 2015; Haiderali et al., 2013; Kuo et al., 2012; Leblanc
et al., 2010; Lombardi et al., 2013; Malhotra, 2010; Nicolai
and Ibsen, 2014; Peng et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2013). In other
words, the required diameter, wall thickness and embedment
length of the monopile is generally dictated by the applied
lateral loads and moments. Hence, the experimental work pre-
sented in this paper focuses on the enhancement of the lateral
stability of the conventional monopile, with a novel modifi-
cation to the pilehead proposed, namely four SDPs arranged
in a cruciform that attach by way of a grillage to the pilehead.
2.2 Geometric details of proposed arrangement
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed arrange-
ment at reduced scale, which consists of a central ‘split-able’
ring with four radial steel arms, each fitted with a smaller
diameter ring (sleeve ring) at its far end. The two halves of the
central ring, manufactured from 30 mm wide  2 mm thick
steel strip, are secured together by way of their collars, using
M4 nut–bolts, clamping around the head of the monopile
(D = 53 mm). Four radial struts welded to the central ring,
each having length, width and thickness dimensions of 85, 20
and 2 mm, respectively, were arranged in a cruciform, making
the four arms. The far end of each of these arms was
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
125 mm
125 mm
19 mm
A the side collar
(a)
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of cruciform attachment for
monopile: (a) plan view; (b) side view (section A–A)
connected by an M4 nut–bolt to a sleeve ring, manufactured
from 25 mm wide  2 mm thick steel strip. The connections
between the radial arms and sleeve rings allowed changes to be
made to the inclination of the SDPs that were housed in these
rings. The sleeve rings were equipped with jacking screws (see
Figure 1) that allowed the required adjustments to be made to
the solid SDPs (D = 19 mm; i.e. 36% of the monopile diam-
eter) during their installation in the sand beds (described
later).
Figure 2 shows the arrangement centred on the monopile, with
the four solid SDPs aligned vertically and attached by way of
the grillage to the pilehead. Hereafter, the central split-able
ring (holding the monopile) and the four radial arms holding
the SDPs are collectively termed as the piled-cruciform
arrangement.
2.3 Working mechanism of piled-cruciform
arrangement
The soil around the monopile is influenced by the cyclic lateral
loading (Bhattacharya and Adhikari, 2011; Bhattacharya
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
125 mm
53 mm
Central ring to house 53 mm
diameter monopile
M4 nut–bolt passing through
A
20 mm wide and 2 mm thick
mild steel arm
M4 nut–bolt
Smaller diameter ring to
house 19 mm diameter pile
Jacking screw
30 mm 20 mm
(b)
et al., 2011; Cuéllar et al., 2012; LeBlanc et al., 2010;
Rosquoët et al., 2007). For sandy soil, it can be argued that
the zone of significant influence remains limited to within
2–3D measured from the monopile axis, as evident from the
formation of a cone of depression observed at the sand bed
surface level around the monopile during 1g testing (Brown
et al., 1988; Cuéllar et al., 2012). For lateral loading, the upper
part of the soil deposit around the monopile is more critical
than the lower part, owing to the greater level of deflection oc-
curring closer to the pilehead (Nasr, 2014; Zhang et al., 2005).
Conceptually, the piled-cruciform attachment is designed to
transfer some of the applied lateral load away from the zone
of significant influence for the monopile. Under the action of
the applied lateral loading/moment, the monopile and piled-
cruciform attachment tend to deflect (rotate with respect to
their initial vertical alignment), with resistance provided by the
passive pressures (forces) mobilised along the embedded
lengths of the monopile and four SDPs (the latter are trans-
mitted by way of the cruciform arms to the pilehead). Through
this arrangement, the stress intensity is reduced in the
3
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Monopile
Central split-able ring
Arm
Smaller
ring
SDP
Figure 2. Piled-cruicform arrangement attached to monopile
immediate vicinity of the monopile, thereby lowering the strain
developed in the surrounding soil, as compared with the mono-
pile alone for the same magnitude of lateral load. Further,
instead of having a ‘free’ pilehead, the rotation is restrained
by the cruciform arm attachment. The proposed set-up also pro-
duces a significant increase in the bending stiffness, as compared
with the conventional monopile. For instance, considering the
structural elements in the present experimental set-up, the
second moment of area about the centroidal axis of the 53 mm
diameter hollow monopile was 4·5  104 mm4, with its value
increased to
8·9  106 mm4 at the mudline level when fitted
with the piled-cruciform attachment; that is, 200 times greater.
3. Testing facility, instrumentation and
model pile
For the present study, the Trinity College Dublin electro-
mechanical loading system for testing model piles at 1g
(Figure 3) was used. This system is capable of applying many
thousands of lateral load cycles on scaled models, with full
control provided over the loading direction, amplitude, fre-
quency and waveform shape. Further details on its working
mechanism and capabilities, including the instrumentation
used to measure the lateral loads applied to the pilehead and
4
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
the resulting axial and lateral deflections and rotation response
of the pile (Figure 4) are presented in the paper by Arshad and
O’Kelly (2014).
The model pile was manufactured from smooth brass tubing,
having an overall length of 540 mm, outer diameter of
53·0 mm and wall thickness of 0·8 mm, which produced a
bending stiffness (EI) value of 4·33 kN m2. Its lower end was
closed using a 3 mm thick brass plate in order to represent a
fully plugged tubular pile. Geometrically, the pile set-up, with
an embedded length (L) to outer diameter (D) ratio of 6·8 at
the start of each loading test performed, is categorised as a
short ‘rigid’ pile, which encompasses L/D ratios of up to 10
(DNV, 2011; Peng et al., 2011; Tomlinson, 2001). To verify
this, the pile’s rigidity was evaluated based on its value of the
dimensionless embedment length, ηL (Broms, 1964). The coef-
ficient η is calculated as
 1=5
kh
1: η¼
EI
where kh is the initial coefficient of subgrade reaction and EI is
the bending stiffness of the monopile.
According to Terzaghi (1955), the value of kh is 19·8 MN/m3
for dense sand (which was the soil investigated in the present
study). A pile is considered to be a short rigid pile for ηL < 2
and a long elastic pile for ηL > 4 (Broms, 1964; Chari and
Meyerhof, 1983). The estimated ηL value of 1·94 for the mono-
pile set-up in the present investigation indicates that the model
pile satisfied the criterion for short rigid piles.
The model pile was partially embedded in dense sand beds pre-
pared in a 0·95 m dia. by 0·6 m deep steel tank. These dimen-
sions were chosen to ensure that for the static and cyclic lateral
loading scenarios investigated in the present study, the failure
wedge for the pile would not extend to the tank boundaries.
With a ratio of tank diameter to pile diameter of almost 18,
side wall boundary effects were not considered to be significant
(Davie and Sutherland, 1978; Rao et al., 1996). Similarly, a
soil cushion (sand in the present case) having a thickness of 3–
4D located below the pile base was considered sufficient to
absorb the small vertical stress field (LeBlanc et al., 2010).
4. Sand characterisation and sand bed
preparation, including monopile and SDP
installation
All of the tests performed used commercially available air-
dried Glenview sand, comprising sub-angular to angular
grains ranging from 0·1 to 1·0 mm in size, with d10, d30, d50
and d60 values of 0·16, 0·22, 0·27 and 0·31 mm, respectively,
giving a coefficient of uniformity value of 1·94 and coefficient
of curvature value of 0·98. Furthermore, the sand had
minimum and maximum dry density values of 1388 and
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

L O R

Sand level in steel tank

7
8 3

10
11 4
12
13 5

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental rig for model
pile studies, set up for two-way lateral loading of the pilehead.
Note: 1, drive motor; 2, upper right chain segment; 3, lower right
chain segment; 4, right loading hanger, with weight; 5, steel
tank; 6, reaction frame; 7, right load cell; 8, right spring; 9,
articulated arm; 10, sliding node; 11, left loading hanger, with
weight; 12, reference support with two horizontal displacement
transducers; 13, monopile, shown without piled-cruciform
attachment (adopted from Arshad and O’Kelly (2014))

Vertical displacement
transducer
Two horizontal displacement
transducers
Pilehead
Right load cell
50 mm
Right spring
Lower right chain segment

90 mm ( = moment arm)
Sand bed surface level

Figure 4. Arrangement of load cells and displacement

transducers at the pilehead (adopted from Arshad and O’Kelly
(2014))

1662 kg/m3, respectively, equating to maximum and minimum The sand was air-pluviated into the steel tank, gently raining
void ratio values of 0·92 and 0·60, respectively. At maximum in six separate layers, each 100 kg in mass. This produced
density, the dry sand had a peak friction angle of 39°, deter- approximately 90 mm thick deposited layers. After the first
mined using 60 mm-square shearbox tests. two layers of sand had been deposited in the tank, the model

5
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

pile was positioned vertically at the centre of the tank, with

temporary support to its head provided by four tensioned hori- Test number Set-up Loading scenario
zontal steel wires that were secured radially from the wall of (refer to Table 2) (test ID)
the tank. Four more layers of sand were then deposited, bring-
1 Reference 2w/30–60/0·4
ing the sand bed to its full depth of 0·54 m (i.e. pile embed-
2 A 2w/30–60/0·4/A
ment length of 0·36 m). During this process, the surface of the
3 B 2w/30–60/0·4/B
deposited sand layer was levelled, as necessary, using a straight
4 C 2w/30–60/0·4/C
edge before depositing the next sand layer. For all of the sand
5 D 2w/30–60/0·4/D
beds prepared in the present investigation, this preparation tech-
6 E 2w/30–60/0·4/E
nique was found to produce sand beds having a dry density of
7 Reference 2w/60–60/0·4
1577 ± 6 kg/m3 (density index range of 70–74%). The resulting
8 A 2w/60–60/0·4/A
‘wished in place’ pile simulated a pre-bored pile; in other
9 B 2w/60–60/0·4/B
words, no displacement would occur in the sand deposit as a
10 C 2w/60–60/0·4/C
result of the pile installation.
11 D 2w/60–60/0·4/D
12 Reference 1w/60/0·25
On completion of the sand bed with pile installed, the split-able
13 A 1w/60/0·25/A
ring attachment was clamped around the pilehead such that its
14 B 1w/60/0·25/B
cruciform arms were located just above the finished sand
15 C 1w/60/0·25/C
surface level in the steel tank. In the next step, four SDPs were
16 Reference 1w/30–60/0·25
inserted through the sleeve rings and pushed into the sand bed
17 A 1w/30–60/0·25/A
to the required embedment depth (Figure 5). Jacking screws on
18 B 1w/30–60/0·25/B
the sleeve rings (see Figure 1) allowed some fine adjustments
before rigidly connecting them to the heads of the SDPs. Table 1. Cyclic lateral loading test programme

5. Testing programme
A comprehensive programme of cyclic lateral loading tests (see
Table 1) was performed on the model pile in the dense sand
beds to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed arrangement.
The tests investigated a load amplitude of 60 N, two loading
frequencies of 0·25 and 0·4 Hz, and different loading direc-
tions (one-way, partial one-way, balanced and unbalanced
two-way loading conditions), with typically 12 000 lateral load
cycles applied during each test. For one-way loading, the
applied load ranged between zero and some maximum load
value, whereas for partial one-way loading, the applied load
ranged between some value above zero and the maximum
load value. With respect to the ultimate static lateral load-
carrying capacity (Pu) of the pile, the load amplitude of 60 N
corresponds to its serviceability limit state (
42% of Pu
(DNV, 2011)).

1 5 The tests performed are identified as follows: lateral loading

6 direction (1w, one-way; 2w, two-way)/load amplitude (N)/fre-
2 quency (Hz). For instance, 1w/60/0·25 indicates one-way lateral
3 7 loading of the monopile (without the piled-cruciform arrange-
4 8 ment in situ) for an amplitude of 60 N and frequency of
0·25 Hz. 1w/30–60/0·25 indicates one-way lateral loading, with
the load fluctuating from 30 to 60 N from the same side at
0·25 Hz. 2w/30–60/0·4 indicates unbalanced two-way lateral
loading, 30 N in one direction and 60 N in the other, applied
at a frequency of 0·4 Hz.

Table 2 shows the different formations of the piled-cruciform

Figure 5. Piled-cruciform arrangement attached to head of
monopile installed in dry sand bed. Note: 1, sand bed surface;
2, protruding head of SDP; 3, sleeve ring; 4, central ‘split-able’
ring; 5, steel tank perimeter; 6, protruding head of central
monopile; 7, cruciform arm; 8, miniature load cell attached to pile
shaft at a distance of 90 mm above the sand bed surface level
arrangement investigated (labelled set-ups A–E), namely:
(a) ratio of embedment length of the SDPs (LSDP) to that of
the monopile (L); (b) inclination of the SDPs from the vertical
direction; (c) orientation of the cruciform grillage with respect
to the line of action of the applied loading. For all of the static
and cyclic tests performed, the lateral loading was applied to
the side of the model pile at an elevation of 90 mm above the
sand bed surface level.

6
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Set-up SDP length (LSDP) and Offset of cruciform arms Comment

inclination to vertical with respect to line of action
direction of applied loading

Cruciform arms are

aligned with the line of
action of the cyclic
lateral loading.
A
Vertical SDPs are half
the length of the central
monopile (L) – that is,
LSDP /L = 0·5.

As per set-up A, apart

from the SDPs being
one-third of the
monopile length – that is,
B LSDP /L = 0·33.

Cruciform arms are

offset by 45° from the
line of action of the
cyclic lateral loading.
C
Vertical SDPs are one-
third of the monopile
length; that is, LSDP /L =
0·33.

As per set-up B, apart

from the SDPs being
inclined at 15° to the
vertical direction.
D

As per set-up C, apart

from the SDPs being
inclined at 15° to the
vertical direction.
E

Table 2. Different set-ups of the piled-cruciform attachment

investigated

7
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
6. Ultimate static lateral load-carrying
capacity of monopile
Static lateral loads were applied in small increments of 10 N to
the model pile in order to evaluate its ultimate static lateral
load-carrying capacity, with and without the piled-cruciform
attachment in situ. The lateral deflection response of the
pilehead was monitored using two horizontally mounted dis-
placement transducers (Figure 4), with the transducer readings
allowed to stabilise before the application of the next load
increment. The rotation response of the rigid pile was calcu-
lated using these displacement measurements, as described in
the paper by Arshad and O’Kelly (2014).
Different assumptions have been used by researchers regarding
the determination of the ultimate static lateral load-carrying
capacity, although they are generally based on excessive lateral
displacement of the pilehead or rotation of the pile (Hu et al.,
2006; Nasr, 2014; Peng et al., 2011). Some researchers deter-
mine the value of Pu as corresponding to a point on the load–
deflection (rotation) curve where the pile starts to deflect
(rotate) significantly for a relatively small increase in the lateral
load (Dickin and Laman, 2003; Prasad and Chari, 1999).
Figure 6 shows the static lateral load–rotation relationships
obtained for monopiles having five different piled-cruciform
arrangements (set-ups A–E in Table 2) investigated as part of
the present study, along with reference data for the monopile
alone. Previous studies of rigid, model pile behaviour per-
formed at 1g usually estimated the Pu value for lateral pile
deflections of 0·1–0·2  D (Cuéllar et al., 2012; El Sawwaf,
220
200
180
160
140
Static load: N
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0·25 0·50
Figure 6. Static lateral load plotted against rotation relationships
for the different experimental set-ups shown in Table 2
8
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
2006; Peng et al., 2011; Uncuoğlu and Laman, 2011) occurring
at the sand bed surface level. Hence, in the present investi-
gation, the value of Pu for the reference monopile was esti-
mated as 140 N, which corresponded to a point on its
experimental load–rotation curve (Figure 6) where, apparently,
the surrounding sand began to yield substantially; that is, its
rotation increased by 0·4° over the load increment from 120 to
140 N, whereas it increased by almost 1·0° for the load incre-
ment from 140 to 160 N. For this point (140 N), the model
pile had rotated by 1·5° from its initial vertical alignment, pro-
ducing a lateral deflection (measured at the sand bed surface
level) of
7 mm; that is, 0·13  D. From Figure 6, it can be
interpreted that the inclusion of the different piled-cruciform
arrangements all substantially improved the ultimate static
lateral load-carrying capacity of the monopile, as summarised
in Table 3 for quick comparison.
7. Performance of piled-cruciform
arrangement in reducing monopile
rotation under cyclic lateral loading
7.1 Effect of SDP embedment length
Twelve tests were performed to investigate the effect of the
SDP embedment length on the rotation response of the mono-
pile, considering four different loading scenarios and two
LSDP/L values of 0·5 and 0·33 (set-ups A and B, respectively,
in Table 2). Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the rotation responses
of the monopile for one-way and partial one-way loading,
respectively, while Figures 7(c) and 7(d) show its responses
for balanced and unbalanced two-way loading, respectively.
Reference monopile
Set-up A
Set-up B
Set-up C
Set-up D
Set-up E
0·75 1·00 1·25 1·50 1·75 2·00
Rotation: degrees
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

From these figures, it can be interpreted that the piled-cruci-

Set-up Lateral
(refer to Table 2) resistance: N
Reference 90
A 200
B 136
C 122
D 106
E 96
Reference 150
A 150
B 150
C 150
D 150
E 150
Table 3. Lateral resistance mobilised for 0·5° rotation of monopile,
and monopile rotation produced by an applied lateral load of
150 N, for the different set-ups of the piled-cruiform attachment
Rotation: form attachment to the monopile considerably reduced
degrees its accumulated rotation, when compared with the reference
monopile for the same loading condition. For instance, at 6000
0·5
load cycles for the unbalanced two-way loading scenario of
0·5
2w/30–60/0·40 (Figure 7(d)), the reference monopile had
0·5
rotated by 2·75°, whereas with the piled-cruciform attachment
0·5
in situ, its rotation was limited to 0·49° and 0·38° for LSDP/L
0·5
values of 0·33 and 0·5, respectively; that is, 82% and 86%
0·5
reductions in the monopile rotation were achieved (as deter-
1·88
mined using Equation 2). The respective reductions in the
0·32
monopile rotation were 57% and 68% for balanced two-way
0·62
loading (i.e. 2w/60–60/0·40 in Figure 7(c)), and 24% and 31%
0·76
0·96 for one-way loading (i.e. 1w/60/0·25 in Figure 7(a)). For partial
1·2 one-way loading (i.e. 1w/30–60/0·25 in Figure 7(b)), when
compared with the reference monopile, the rotation was found
to reduce by 73% for both LSDP/L values investigated. The
reduction in the monopile rotation can be largely explained by
the additional passive resistances mobilised along the

1·4 0·7
1w/30–60/0·25
1·2 0·6
1w/30–60/0·25/A
1·0 0·5 1w/30–60/0·25/B
Rotation: degrees
Rotation: degrees

0·8 0·4

0·6 0·3

0·4 1w/60/0·25 0·2

1w/60/0·25/A
0·2 0·1
1w/60/0·25/B
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
Number of load cycles Number of load cycles
(a) (b)

1·8 3·0
2w/60–60/0·40 2w/30–60/0·40
1·6
2w/60–60/0·40/A 2·5 2w/30–60/0·40/A
1·4
2w/30–60/0·40/B
Rotation: degrees
Rotation: degrees

2w/60–60/0·40/B
1·2 2·0
1·0
1·5
0·8
0·6 1·0
0·4
0·5
0·2
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
Number of load cycles Number of load cycles
(c) (d)

Figure 7. Effect of SDP embedment length on accumulated

rotation of the monopile: (a) one-way loading; (b) partial one-way
loading; (c) balanced two-way loading (d) unbalanced two-way
loading

9
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

embedded lengths of the four SDPs, as described in Section 2. 125·0 to 88·4 mm) between the SDP centres and the axis of the
monopile orthogonal to the loading direction (see Figure 10),
 
ab which may have the effect of causing some greater overlap
2: Reduction ðas %Þ ¼  100
a between the zones of significant influence for the laterally loaded

where a is the monopile rotation and b is the rotation of the

monopile with the piled-cruciform attachment in situ. 1·2

Figure 8 shows the percentage reduction in the monopile 1·0

Rotation: degrees
rotation produced when the LSDP/L ratio was increased from
0·33 to 0·5. From this figure, it can be concluded that, for this 0·8
50% increase in the LSDP/L value, the monopile rotation was
0·6
reduced by between 9% and 27% over the 12 000 load cycles
applied. Hence, for practical purposes, based on these model 0·4
test results, there is no major benefit achieved in increasing the
LSDP/L ratio from 0·33 to 0·5. 0·2 1w/60/0·25/B
1w/60/0·25/C
0
7.2 Effect of loading direction orientation 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
Six of the tests performed were designed to investigate two differ- Number of load cycles
ent orientations of the piled-cruciform arrangement, with respect (a)
to the line of action of the applied loading (set-ups B and C in
0·8
Table 2), considering three different loading scenarios and an
LSDP/L value of 0·33. Figure 9 shows that relatively greater rota- 0·7
tion of the monopile occurred when the cruciform arms were
Rotation: degrees

0·6
offset by 45° from the line of action of the applied loading (set-
0·5
up C), as compared with full alignment (set-up B), although the
difference was marginal for the one-way and balanced two-way 0·4
loading scenarios investigated. For instance, at 6000 load cycles, 0·3
the monopile had rotated by 0·92° (1w/60/0·25/C in Figure 9(a))
0·2
and 0·73° (2w/60–60/0·40/C in Figure 9(b)) for set-up C, com-
0·1 2w/60–60/0·40/B
pared with 0·88° and 0·69°, respectively, for set-up B. However,
2w/60–60/0·40/C
the effect was significant for unbalanced two-way loading 0
(2w/30–60/0·4 in Figure 9(c)), with monopile rotations of 0·76° 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
and 0·49° measured for set-ups C and B, respectively, at 6000 Number of load cycles
load cycles. A possible reason for the greater rotation experienced (b)
0·9
for set-up C may be the decrease in perpendicular distance (from
0·8
0·7
Rotation: degrees

30
0·6

25 0·5
Reduction in rotation: %

0·4
20
0·3
15 0·2
2w/30–60/0·40/B
0·1
10 2w/30–60/0·40/C
0
1w/60/0·25 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
5 2w/30–60/0·40 Number of load cycles
2w/60–60/0·40 (c)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
Number of load cycles Figure 9. Effect of orientation of piled-cruciform attachment,
with respect to line of action of the applied loading, on
Figure 8. Percentage reduction in accumulated rotation of accumulated rotation of monopile: (a) one-way loading;
monopile achieved by increasing LSDP/L value from 0·33 to 0·5 (b) balanced two-way loading; (c) unbalanced two-way loading

10
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

0·8
0·7
0·6

125 mm

Rotation: degrees
88·4 mm
0·5
0·4
0·3
0·2
Monopile 2w/60–60/0·40/B
0·1
2w/60–60/0·40/D
SDPs 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
Number of load cycles
(a)

1·0
0·9
Figure 10. Relative positions of SDPs when the cruciform arms
0·8
were aligned with, and offset by 45° from, the line of action of
Rotation: degrees

0·7
the applied loading
0·6
0·5
monopile and SDPs. For practical reasons, it can be considered 0·4
that the more favourable orientation occurs for the cruciform 0·3 2w/30–60/0·40/B
arms aligned with the line of action of the applied loading. 0·2
2w/30–60/0·40/D
0·1
2w/30–60/0·40/E
0
7.3 Effect of SDP inclination 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000
The efficiency of the piled-cruciform arrangement was also eval- Number of load cycles
uated for different inclinations (to the vertical direction) of the (b)
SDPs at an LSDP/L value of 0·33. For this purpose, the four
1·2
SDPs were inclined outward, at 15° to the vertical direction, and
the monopile tested under balanced and unbalanced two-way 1·0
loading, with the cruciform arms aligned with the line of action
of the applied loading (set-up D in Table 2). Figures 11(a) and 0·8
Rotation: degrees

11(b) show the effect of this change in inclination, comparing

set-up D with set-up B (see Table 2). From these figures, it 0·6
can be concluded that, for both of these loading scenarios inves-
tigated, the set-up with the inclined SDPs produced greater 0·4
2w/30–60/0·40/SDPs inclined at 15°
monopile rotation. For instance, compared with the vertical
SDPs (set-up B), the monopile rotation for the SDPs inclined at 0·2 2w/30–60/0·40/SDPs inclined at 25°
15° under balanced two-way loading (2w/60–60/0·4/D in 2w/30–60/0·40/SDPs inclined at 40°
0
Figure 11(a)) was 5–9% greater between the 1000th and 6000th 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
load cycles. For unbalanced two-way loading (2w/30–60/0·4/D Number of load cycles
in Figure 11(b)), the corresponding increase was in the range (c)
16–25% (the same percentage range increase also occurring for
up to the maximum number of load cycles of 12 000 applied). Figure 11. Effect of SDP inclination to vertical direction on
accumulated rotation of monopile: (a) 15°, balanced two-way
Another test was performed for unbalanced two-way loading, loading; (b) 15°, unbalanced two-way loading; (c) 15°, 25° and
with the SDPs inclined at 15°, but with the cruciform arms 40°, unbalanced two-way loading
offset by 45° from the line of action of the applied loading
(set-up E in Table 2). Compared with set-up B (i.e. cruciform
arms aligned with the lateral loading direction), the monopile A possible reason for the increase in monopile rotation for
rotation for this arrangement (2w/30–60/0·4/E in Figure 11(b)) the inclined SDPs may be their lower resistance against the
was 97% greater at the 1000th load cycle, reducing to 74% at pulling action of the applied lateral loading, which is certainly
the 12 000th load cycle. greater for vertical SDPs. This hypothesis was investigated by

11
Geotechnical Engineering Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

performing some additional tests, each involving 1500 cycles 2000

of unbalanced two-way lateral loading (2w/30–60/0·4), for the 1800

Cyclic stiffness: N/mm

same LSDP/L value of 0·33, with the cruciform arms in line 1600
with the loading direction, but setting the inclination of the 1400
SDPs at 15°, 25° and 40° to the vertical direction (Figure 11(c)). 1200
1000 1w/60/0·25/B
At the 1500th load cycle, the monopile rotation values for the 1w/60/0·25/C
800
25° and 40° settings were found to be 17% and 28% greater 1w/60/0·25
600
compared with the 15° setting. It is the authors’ view that it is 1w/30–60/0·25/A
400
probable this situation could be reversed if these SDPs were 1w/30–60/0·25/B
200 1w/30–60/0·25
replaced by helical piles of similar dimensions. 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000
8. Effect of piled-cruciform on cyclic Number of load cycles
stiffness of soil–pile system (a)
The cyclic stiffness of the soil–pile system was calculated and
600
plotted in Figure 12 for the series of tests reported in Tables 1
and 2. The overall trend in the variation of cyclic stiffness with 500
increasing number of load cycles was broadly similar for set-
Cyclic stiffness: N/mm

ups with and without the piled-cruciform attached to the 400

monopile. For a given set-up, a marginal overall increase in
cyclic stiffness occurred for one-way loading (Figure 12(a)); for 300
example, compared with the reference monopile (1w/60/0·25),
200 2w/60–60/0·40/A
the values of cyclic stiffness mobilised with the piled-cruicform
2w/60–60/0·40/B
attachment in situ (set-ups B and C) were typically 20–30% 100 2w/60–60/0·40/C
greater over the 1000–6000 load cycle range. For partial one- 2w/60–60/0·40
way loading (1w/30–60/0·25 in Figure 12(a)), the increase in 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000
cyclic stiffness was significantly greater (typically 70–130%
Number of load cycles
over the same load cycle range for set-ups A and B).
(b)
For balanced two-way loading with the piled-cruciform attach- 600
ment in situ (set-ups A–C in Figure 12(b)), the values of cyclic
stiffness increased from
230 N/mm to 380 N/mm over the 500
Cyclic stiffness: N/mm

1000–6000 load cycle range (and to 450 N/mm at 10 000 load

400
cycles), whereas the reference data increased from
170 to
265 N/mm over the same range. For unbalanced two-way 300 2w/30–60/0·40/A
loading over the 1000–6000 load cycle range, with the piled- 2w/30–60/0·40/B
cruciform attachment in situ (considering set-ups A–C in 200 2w/30–60/0·40/C
Figure 12(c)), the cyclic stiffness increased from
350 to 2w/30–60/0·40/D
100 2w/30–60/0·40/E
415 N/mm, compared with
195 to 310 N/mm for the refer-
2w/30–60/0·40
ence data (2w/30–60/0·4). Comparing the responses for set-ups 0
A and B, it was found that the initial values and rates of 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 12 000
increase in cyclic stiffness were marginally greater for set-up A, Number of load cycles
which can be explained by its greater LSDP/L value of 0·5 (c)
(compared with 0·33 for set-up B), although overall, the differ-
ence was not great. This is consistent with the earlier finding Figure 12. Cyclic stiffness response of the different foundation
that there was no major benefit (in terms of the reduction in set-ups: (a) one-way loading; (b) balanced two-way loading; (c)
monopile rotation) achieved in increasing the LSDP/L ratio unbalanced two-way loading
from 0·33 to 0·5 (see Figures 7 and 8).

Achmus et al. (2009), API (2010) and DNV (2011) have sug-
gested that, irrespective of soil type, the stiffness of the soil–
pile system degrades under cyclic lateral loading. In contrast,
Rosquoët et al. (2007), LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya
et al. (2011) and Cuéllar et al. (2012) have reported that the
foundation stiffness actually increases with the number of
lateral load cycles, on account of densification of the sandy
soil next to the monopile. The present experimental findings
also indicate an increase in foundation stiffness with increasing
number of lateral load cycles.
The change in stiffness of the soil–pile system with increasing
number of load cycles may adversely affect the performance of
the structure supported by the monopile. For instance, an

12
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
increase in cyclic stiffness of the foundation system would
increase its natural frequency of vibration, which could poten-
tially lead to resonance occurring when the forcing frequency
and the natural vibration frequency of the system come close to
one another. This would cause increased deflection (rotation)
of the monopile, which in turn may cause more rapid deterio-
ration of the on-board machinery and, in some cases, may ulti-
mately lead to structural failure (Adhikari and Bhattacharya,
2011). In the case of a strain-hardening site (e.g. loose to
medium-dense sand or normally consolidated clay deposit), the
natural vibration frequency of the foundation system is expec-
ted to increase, whereas for a strain-softening site (e.g. dense
sand or overconsolidated clay deposit), its natural frequency of
vibration would decrease (Bhattacharya et al., 2011, 2013).
9. Limitations of this study
The present investigation was performed using a model pile,
partially embedded in dense sand beds (density index range of
70–74%). Additional testing should be undertaken to evaluate
the behaviour of the monopile for other density ranges and
different soils types. Further, the field stress conditions can be
simulated more adequately within the soil mass (beds) using a
centrifuge testing facility, rather than performing the tests at 1g.
It may be a limitation of this study that only 6000 load cycles
were applied in some of the tests performed, because the num-
ber of load cycles considered for the fatigue limit state of an
offshore wind-turbine foundation is significantly greater
(Germanischer Lloyd, 2005). It was found that the general
trend in the monopile behaviour under cyclic lateral loading
had practically stabilised by the 6000th load cycle; that is,
although the monopile continues to rotate for greater numbers
of load cycles, the experimental data plots presented indicate
that this occurs at a decreasing rate. Any quick change in the
experimental curve describing the rotation against number of
load cycles relationship, as occurred during the first 500 load
cycles applied, seems unlikely.
The model pile used in this investigation geometrically
represents the field monopile at a scale of approximately
1:100. Among other technical difficulties encountered in per-
forming physical tests with geomaterials, the direct scaling
of the particle (grain) dimensions is particularly problematic.
Undesirable forces may be introduced unless a certain mini-
mum ratio is maintained between the effective grain size d50
and a characteristic dimension of the model (pile diameter for
the present investigation) (Sedran et al., 2001; Verdure et al.,
2003). Examples of the derivation of scaling laws for monopile
foundation testing at 1g have been reported by Lai (1989),
Muir Wood et al. (2002), LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya
et al. (2011) and Cuéllar et al. (2012), although the satisfaction
of such scaling conditions for similarity in granular soils, and
scaling issues related to the stress field corresponding to hom-
ologous points, is not trivial (Bhattacharya et al., 2011; Dong
et al., 2001).
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
10. Conclusions
The improvement in performance produced by the piled-
cruciform attachment to the monopile head was investigated
for many thousands of lateral load cycles. Based on the results
of the different series of tests presented, the following con-
clusions can be drawn.
(a) The accumulated rotation of the monopile was dependent
on the cyclic load characteristics, the embedment depth
and inclination of the SDPs and the loading direction
orientation (i.e. orientation of the cruciform arms relative
to the line of action of the applied loading).
(b) For four vertical SDPs having LSDP/L values of 0·33 and
0·5, the greater reduction in monopile rotation at 6000 load
cycles was recorded for unbalanced two-way loading (82%
and 86%, respectively), followed by partial one-way loading
(73% for both), balanced two-way loading (57% and 68%,
respectively) and finally one-way loading (24% and 31%,
respectively). The performance of the piled-cruciform
modification reduced when the cruciform arms were offset
by 45° from the line of action of the applied loading.
(c) The monopile rotation reduced for greater embedment of
the SDPs, although for the LSDP/L values of 0·33 and 0·5
investigated, comparable overall reductions in the monopile
rotation were achieved for the experimental conditions
investigated. Hence, the shorter SDPs (i.e. one-third of the
monopile length) may be adequate for practical purposes.
(d) Vertical SDPs were more efficient in reducing the
accumulated rotation of the monopile compared with
SDPs inclined at 15°, 25° and 45° (the last of these was
the least efficient among those investigated) to the vertical
direction.
For the prototype, the cruciform arms have to be strong and
stiff enough to transmit the forces and the monopile will poss-
ibly require some strengthening near the head level (possibly
achieved through increased wall thickness of the monopile) to
avoid buckling.
Acknowledgement
The first author gratefully acknowledges a postgraduate
research award received from Trinity College Dublin.
REFERENCES
Achmus M (2010) Design of axially and laterally loaded piles
for the support of offshore wind energy converters.
Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference
GEOtrendz, Mumbai, India, pp. 92–102.
Achmus M, Kuo YS and Abdel-Rahman K (2009) Behavior of
monopile foundations under cyclic lateral load. Computers
and Geotechnics 36(5): 725–735.
Adhikari S and Bhattacharya S (2011) Vibrations of wind-
turbines considering soil-structure interaction. Wind and
Structures 14(2): 85–112.
13
Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2010) API RPA2:
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress
Design, 22nd edn. API, Washington, DC, USA.
Arshad M and O’Kelly BC (2013) Offshore wind-turbine
structures: a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Energy 166(4): 139–152.
Arshad M and O’Kelly BC (2014) Development of a rig to study
model pile behaviour under repeating lateral loads.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
14(3): 54–67.
Arshad M and O’Kelly BC (2016a) Analysis and design of
monopile foundations for offshore wind-turbine structures.
Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1064119X.2015.1033070.
Arshad M and O’Kelly BC (2016b) Reducing monopile rotation
under lateral loading in sandy soils. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2016.
1153730.
Arshi HS, Stone KJL, Vaziri M et al. (2013) Modelling of
monopile-footing foundation system for offshore structures
in cohesionless soils. Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Paris, France, vol. 3, pp. 2307–2310.
Bhattacharya S and Adhikari S (2011) Experimental validation
of soil–structure interaction of offshore wind turbines.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(5–6):
805–816.
Bhattacharya S, Lombardi D and Muir Wood D (2011) Similitude
relationships for physical modelling of monopile-supported
offshore wind turbines. International Journal of Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics 11(2): 58–68.
Bhattacharya S, Cox J, Lombardi D and Muir Wood D (2013)
Dynamics of offshore wind turbines supported on two
foundations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 166(2): 159–169,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00015.
Bienen B, Dührkop J, Grabe J, Randolph MF and White D (2012)
Response of piles with wings to monotonic and cyclic
lateral loading in sand. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 138(3): 364–375.
Broms BB (1964) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless
soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division, ASCE 90(SM3): 123–156.
Brown DA, Morrison C and Reese LC (1988) Lateral load
behavior of pile group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 114(11): 1261–1276.
Carswell W, Arwade SR, DeGroot DJ and Lackner MA (2015)
Soil–structure reliability of offshore wind turbine monopile
foundations. Wind Energy 18(3): 483–498.
Chari TR and Meyerhof GG (1983) Ultimate capacity of rigid
single piles under inclined loads in sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 20(4): 849–854.
Cuéllar P (2011) Pile Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines:
Numerical and Experimental Investigations on the
14
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
Behaviour under Short-term and Long-term Cyclic Loading.
PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin,
Germany.
Cuéllar P, Georgi S, Baeßler M and Rucker W (2012) On the
quasi-static granular convective flow and sand densification
around pile foundations under cyclic lateral loading.
Granular Matter 14(1): 11–25.
Davie JR and Sutherland HB (1978) Modeling of clay uplift
resistance. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE 104(6): 755–760.
Dickin EA and Laman M (2003) Moment response of short
rectangular piers in sand. Computers and Structures
81(30–31): 2717–2729.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (2011) DNV–OS–J101: Design of
Offshore Wind Turbine Structures. DNV, Oslo, Norway.
Dong P, Newson TA, Davies MCR and Davies PA (2001) Scaling
laws for centrifuge modelling of soil transport by turbulent
fluid flows. International Journal of Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics 1(1): 41–45.
Dührkop J and Grabe J (2008) Improving the lateral bearing
capacity of monopiles by welded wings. Proceedings of the
2nd BGA International Conference on Foundations (ICOF
2008), Dundee, UK (Brown MJ, Bransby MF, Brennan AJ
and Knappett JA (eds)). IHS BRE Press, Garston, UK,
vol. 1, pp. 849–860.
El Sawwaf M (2006) Lateral resistance of single pile located
near geosynthetic reinforced slope. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(10): 1336–1345.
Germanischer Lloyd (2005) Guideline for the Certification of
Offshore Wind Turbines. Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie
GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Haiderali A, Cilingir U and Madabhushi G (2013) Lateral and
axial capacity of monopiles for offshore wind turbines.
Indian Geotechnical Journal 43(3): 181–194.
Hu Z, McVay M, Bloomquist D, Herrera R and Lai P (2006)
Influence of torque on lateral capacity of drilled shafts in
sands. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
132(4): 456–464.
Irvine JH, Allan PG, Clarke BG and Peng JR (2003) Improving
the lateral stability of monopile foundations.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Foundations:
Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice, Dundee,
UK (Newson TA (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, UK,
pp. 371–380.
Karthigeyan S, Ramakrishna VVGST and Rajagopal G
(2006) Influence of vertical load on the lateral response
of piles in sand. Computers and Geotechnics 33(2):
121–131.
Kuo YS, Achmus M and Abdel-Rahman K (2012) Minimum
embedded length of cyclic horizontally loaded monopiles.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138(3):
357–363.
Lai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table test on soil–structure–
fluid model in 1-g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations
29(1): 105–118.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
LeBlanc C, Houlsby GT and Byrne BW (2010) Response of stiff
piles in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading.
Géotechnique 60(2): 79–90.
Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S and Muir Wood D (2013) Dynamic
soil–structure interaction of monopile supported wind
turbines in cohesive soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 49(2013): 165–180.
Malhotra S (2010) Design and construction considerations for
offshore wind turbine foundations in North America. In
Proceedings of GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis,
Modeling and Design, Orlando, FL, USA (Fratta DO,
Puppala AJ and Muhunthan B (eds)). ASCE, Reston, VA,
USA, Geotechnical Special Publication no. 199, vol. 2,
pp. 1533–1542.
Moayed RZ, Mehdipour I and Judi A (2012) Undrained lateral
behavior of short pile under combination of axial, lateral
and moment loading in clayey soils. Kuwait Journal of
Science and Engineering 39(1B): 59–78.
Muir Wood D, Crewe AJ and Taylor CA (2002) Shaking table
testing of geotectnical models. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 2(1): 1–13.
Nasr AMA (2014) Experimental and theoretical studies of
laterally loaded finned piles in sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 51(4): 381–393.
Nicolai G and Ibsen LB (2014) Small-scale testing of cyclic
laterally loaded monopiles in dense saturated sand. Journal
of Ocean and Wind Energy 1(4): 240–245.
O’Kelly BC and Arshad M (2016) Offshore wind turbine
foundations – analysis and design. In Offshore Wind
Farms: Technologies, Design and Operation (Ng C and
Ran L (eds)). Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK,
ch. 20, pp. 589–610.
Peng J, Clarke B and Rouainia M (2011) Increasing the
resistance of piles subject to cyclic lateral loading.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137(10):
977–982.
View publication stats
Piled-cruciform attachment to monopile
head reduces deflection
Arshad and O’Kelly
Prasad YVSN and Chari TR (1999) Lateral capacity of model
rigid piles in cohesionless soils. Soils and Foundations
39(2): 21–29.
Rao SN, Ramakrishna VGST and Raju GB (1996) Behavior of
pile-supported dolphins in marine clay under lateral
loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
122(8): 607–612.
Rosquoët F, Thorel L, Garnier J and Canepa Y (2007) Lateral
cyclic loading of sand-installed piles. Soils and Foundations
47(5): 821–832.
Sedran G, Stolle DFE and Horvath RG (2001) An investigation
of scaling and dimensional analysis of axially loaded piles.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38(3): 530–541.
Stone K, Newson T and Sandon J (2007) An investigation of the
performance of a ‘hybrid’ monopile-footing foundation for
offshore structures. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics,
London, UK. Society for Underwater Technology, London,
UK, pp. 391–396.
Terzaghi K (1955) Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade
reaction. Géotechnique 5(4): 297–326.
Tomlinson MJ (2001) Foundation Design and Construction,
7th edn. Pearson, Harlow, UK.
Uncuoğlu E and Laman M (2011) Lateral resistance of a short
rigid pile in a two-layer cohesionless soil. Acta Geotechnica
Slovenica 8(2): 19–43.
Verdure L, Garnier J and Levacher D (2003) Lateral cyclic
loading of single piles in sand. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 3(3): 17–28.
Zhang L, Silva F and Grismala R (2005) Ultimate lateral
resistance to piles in cohesionless soils. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 131(1): 78–83.
Zhu B, Byrne BW and Houlsby GT (2013) Long-term lateral
cyclic response of suction caisson foundations in sand.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(1):
73–83.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
15