Finite-Element Analysis of the Lateral Load Response of

Monopiles in Layered Sand

Qian Hu, S.M.ASCE 1; Fei Han, M.ASCE 2; Monica Prezzi, M.ASCE 3;
Rodrigo Salgado, F.ASCE 4; and Minghua Zhao 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Most of the existing design methods for laterally loaded monopiles were developed for uniform soil profiles. The application of
such design methods in cases involving layered sand profiles can lead to incorrect capacity estimations. In order to investigate the impact of
the soil layering on the response of monopiles to lateral loads and to develop a design method that is applicable to layered soil profiles, a series
of three-dimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) analyses were performed on laterally loaded monopiles embedded in layered sand profiles
using an advanced two-surface-plasticity constitutive model. The analyses take into consideration a wide range of pile geometries (pile
diameter, slenderness ratio, and wall thickness), load eccentricities, sand types and relative densities, and layered soil profiles. The study
examines the change of the lateral capacity of a monopile in a two-layer sand profile as the top layer thickness varies, as well as the impact of
the presence of a thin loose-sand layer in a dense-sand profile on the pile lateral capacity. Based on the results of these analyses, a set of design
equations is proposed to estimate the lateral capacity and load-rotation response of monopiles in layered sand profiles. The proposed method
accounts for the 3D pile–soil interaction and provides estimates of the lateral capacity that are in close agreement with those obtained from the
3D FE analyses. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002745. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction p-y method to the analysis of large-diameter monopiles (Doherty

Single very large-diameter, open-ended pipe piles, also known as
monopiles, are widely used as foundations for onshore and offshore
structures. With the rapid development of the offshore wind indus-
try in recent years, monopiles have become one of the most popular
foundation options for large-size offshore wind turbines (Arany
et al. 2017).
The p-y method (API 2014; DNV 2014) is often used to design
offshore monopiles. In the p-y method, the pile is modeled as a
one-dimensional (1D) beam, and the soil is simplified as a set
of nonlinear springs attached to the pile to provide soil reaction
when the pile is laterally loaded (Reese et al. 1975). The perfor-
mance of the p-y method highly depends on the p-y curves used
in the analysis. Because the p-y curves are mostly empirically de-
veloped based on results of specific field pile load tests, the pre-
dictions using the p-y method is not always accurate (Anderson
et al. 2003; Choi et al. 2014; Han et al. 2015, 2017a). In addition,
because the p-y method was originally developed for long, slender
piles, questions have been raised regarding the applicability of the
1
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China;
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN
47907. Email: qianhuhd@gmail.com
2 tions and developed a web application that can be used to obtain the
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824; Lyles School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7492-2778. Email: fei.han@unh.edu
3
Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: mprezzi@ecn.purdue.edu
4
Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu
5
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha
410082, China. Email: mhzhaohd@21cn.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 27, 2020; approved on
October 22, 2021; published online on January 19, 2022. Discussion period
open until June 19, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
and Gavin 2012; Suryasentana and Lehane 2016). Significant dis-
crepancies have been observed between the lateral load response of
monopiles obtained from the p-y method and those obtained from
three-dimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) analyses (Achmus et al.
2005; Hearn and Edgers 2010; Lesny and Wiemann 2005, 2006),
centrifuge model tests (Choo and Kim 2016; Hearn and Edgers
2010; Klinkvort et al. 2010; Klinkvort and Hededal 2010), and field
load tests (Hu and Yang 2018; Li et al. 2017).
Given the perceived difficulties in applying the p-y method to
monopile design, efforts have been made to develop new design
methods applicable to monopiles. Based on results of 3D FE analy-
ses, Ahmed and Hawlader (2016) proposed simplified design
equations to calculate the pile lateral capacity assuming a linear
distribution of the unit soil resistance versus depth. Li et al. (2017)
proposed modified p-y curves based on results of instrumented
load tests on reduced-scale monopiles in overconsolidated dense
sand. The Pile Soil Analysis (PISA) research project has produced
a modified p-y method, which involves the addition of three soil-
reaction components to the traditional p-y method. This method
was derived from the results of field pile load tests and 3D FE analy-
ses (Burd et al. 2019; Byrne et al. 2015, 2019b). Based on results of
a series of 3D FE analyses, Hu et al. (2021) proposed design equa-
load-rotation response of monopiles of diameters up to 10 m in
sand. All of these methods are applicable to uniform sand profiles.
In reality, monopiles are often embedded in layered soil profiles
(Fig. 1). Previous research has shown that soil layering has a non-
negligible impact on the response of monopiles (Georgiadis 1983;
McGann et al. 2011; Yang and Jeremić 2005). Suzuki et al. (2019)
found an error of 50% when comparing the lateral capacities of
short, 7-m-diameter monopiles (slenderness ratio L=B of 3 and 6,
with L being the pile length and B being the pile diameter) in a
two-layer soil profile estimated using the p-y method (the API
p-y curves were used) with those obtained from 3D FE analyses
with a modified Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion (API 2014). By ap-
plying the p-y curves that were derived from the results of the FE

© ASCE 04022001-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001


Blades
H
Tower
h tests). With different particle shapes (see Table 1), Ottawa sand and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mudline
Pile
(ground surface)
L
B 2014). Since the selected advanced constitutive model is not avail-
Fig. 1. A typical monopile subjected to a lateral load H applied at a
height of h from the mudline (ground surface).
analyses for uniform soil profiles directly into the p-y analyses of
the same monopiles in a layered soil profile, the error was reduced
to 18%. Recently, Burd et al. (2020) developed p-y curves for mo-
nopiles based on the results of FE analyses and the PISA load tests
and have indicated that the modified p-y curves proposed by them
for uniform soil profiles can also be used for layered soil profiles.
In this paper, we present results of a series of 3D FE analyses of
laterally loaded monopiles in layered sand profiles using an ad-
vanced two-surface-plasticity sand model. We performed the analy-
ses for three typical layered sand profiles: a two-layer sand profile,
a thin loose-sand layer sandwiched by two dense-sand layers, and a
general three-layer sand profile. The analyses cover a wide range of
design scenarios, considering pile diameters B ranging from 1 to
10 m, slenderness ratios L=B ranging from 2 to 20, wall thickness
tw ranging from 1=100B to 1=50B, load eccentricities h ranging
from 15 to 30 m, and two types of sands (Ottawa sand and Toyoura
sand) with relative density DR ranging from 40% to 95%. The pa-
per aims to provide quantitative insights into the impact of soil
layering on the response of monopiles to lateral loads. Based on
the data produced from the FE analyses, design equations are pro-
posed to obtain the load-rotation response of monopiles in layered
sand profiles. A web application has been developed that can be
used to easily apply the proposed method.
Finite-Element Modeling
The mechanical response of sand is highly nonlinear and is depen-
dent on the initial stress state and the relative density of the sand.
The global response of a monopile to lateral loads is closely related
to the local stress–strain response of sand at different locations
along the pile. It is critical to select a realistic constitutive model
that is able to accurately capture sand behavior under different
Table 1. Basic properties of Ottawa sand and Toyoura sand
Sand type Gs emax emin CU
Ottawa sand 2.65 0.78 0.48 1.4
Toyoura sand 2.65 0.98 0.6 1.6
Note: Gs = specific gravity; emin = minimum void ratio; emax = maximum void ratio; CU = coefficient of uniformity; and ϕc;TXC = critical-state friction angle
obtained from triaxial compression test.
© ASCE 04022001-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001
loading paths and initial stress conditions. The advanced two-
surface-plasticity sand model developed by Loukidis and Salgado
(2009) was used for the FE analyses. Developed under the
critical-state soil mechanics framework, the constitutive model
closely captures the volumetric response, peak strength, strain soft-
ening, and critical state of sand. The model was calibrated for Ottawa
sand and Toyoura sand against results of elemental tests performed on
these sands (triaxial compression, triaxial extension, and simple shear
Toyoura sand show different volumetric responses and peak strengths
upon loading. The model equations and model parameters calibrated
for Ottawa sand and Toyoura sand were summarized by Loukidis and
Salgado (2009). Both sands were considered in the present study. The
steel pipe pile was modeled as a linear-elastic material with Young’s
modulus Ep equal to 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio ν p equal to 0.2.
The FE analyses were performed in Abaqus/Explicit (ABAQUS
able in Abaqus, it was coded as a user-defined material subroutine
(VUMAT) in Fortran (Han 2017). Fig. 2 shows an example mesh
prepared for the FE analysis of a 2-m-diameter, 10-m-long pipe pile
embedded in a two-layer sand profile. Due to symmetry of the
boundary-value problem, only half of the whole soil-pile domain
was modeled using 47,940 linear, 8-node, hexahedral elements
with reduced integration. Because the results of FE analyses of
laterally loaded piles are less sensitive to mesh size (as detailed
in Hu et al. 2021) than those of FE analyses of axially loaded piles
(Han et al. 2017b, 2021), a mesh with the smallest element size of
4 cm was used in the analyses. The width and length of the soil
domain were taken as 20 times of the pile diameter B, while the
thickness of the soil domain was 2 times of the pile length L to
avoid any boundary effects. Ideally, the steel pile–sand interface
should be modeled using the contact-pair approach (Han et al.
2018), allowing slippage between the pile and the surrounding
sand. However, Hu et al. (2021) showed that the difference between
the lateral pile capacity obtained from FE analyses using the
contact-pair approach and that obtained by using the perfect-
contact approach is less than 2.5%. For this reason, the perfect-
contact approach was used in the present study, assuming the
common nodes of the soil and the pile are tied to each other with
respect to all degrees of freedom. The perfect-contact approach has
more often been used to model nondisplacement piles (Han et al.
2019; Salgado et al. 2017).
The FE analysis starts with a geostatic step, in which equilib-
rium is obtained in the pile-soil domain subjected to gravity load-
ing, producing only negligible displacement or deformation in the
domain. More details regarding the geostatic step were provided
by Hu et al. (2021). After that, the lateral load is applied by impos-
ing a horizontal velocity of 6 mm=s at a height h above the mudline
(Fig. 1). The quantity h is known as the load eccentricity. To min-
imize any dynamic effect, the imposed horizontal velocity is
smoothly increased from zero to 6 mm=s in the first 1 s, and then
it remains constant until the end of the loading. Since large-
diameter monopiles are mostly used offshore, the sands were con-
sidered to be fully saturated in the analyses. The effective unit
weight of the fully saturated sands was calculated from a value
D50 (mm) ϕc;TXC (degrees) Particle shape
0.39 30.2 Rounded to subrounded
0.19 31.6 Angular
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 of the void ratio e consistent with the relative density of the sand
being considered [i.e., ¼ γ w ðGs − 1Þ=ð1 þ eÞ, where Gs is specific
h =15m
gravity and γ w is the unit weight of water]. Fully drained conditions
were considered in the analyses.
L = 10 m
d1= 3B

In Hu et al. (2021), the simulation approach that we use in this

paper was validated against one of the lateral static load tests per-
Layer1 formed on an open-ended pipe pile that was tested as part of the
PISA project (Byrne et al. 2019a). The 2-m-diameter, 10.5-m-long
10 m

B=2m open-ended pipe pile was embedded in a multilayered soil profile

Layer2 consisting of dense sand with DR ranging from 76% to 100%.
Considering the similarities between Ottawa sand and the sand
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pile
Soil
Fig. 2. Mesh configuration for the three-dimensional FE analysis of
a pile with B ¼ 2 m, L ¼ 10 m, and h ¼ 15 m in a two-layer sand
profile with the thickness of the top layer d1 ¼ 3B.
(Dunkirk sand) at the test site, the FE analysis was performed using
the model parameters for Ottawa sand, except that the value of the
slope M cc of the critical-state line (CSL) in q–p 0 space was set to
1.28 for Dunkirk sand. Fig. 3 shows that the FE analysis closely
predicts the load-deflection response of the test pile. More details
regarding the validation case study can be found in Hu et al. (2021).
Fig. 4 shows three typical layered soil profiles that are often
encountered in practice: a two-layer sand profile with a thickness
d1 for the top layer, a thin loose-sand layer with a thickness of
1B sandwiched by two dense-sand layers, and a general three-layer
sand profile consisting of three different sands (i.e., sand A, sand B,
and sand C in the figure). To develop design equations for lateral pile
capacity estimation, a series of FE analyses (summarized in Table 2)
were performed considering three pile diameters (1, 4, and 10 m), a
range of values (2–20) for the slenderness ratio L=B, two values (50
and 100) for the wall thickness ratio B=tw , eccentricity h ¼ 15 m,
and two types of two-layer sand profiles (DR ¼ 40% over 80%
and DR ¼ 80% over 40%). The developed design equations were
then verified against results of FE analyses that are different from
those used to develop the equations (summarized in Table 2).

Analysis Results

Lateral Response of Piles in Two-Layer Sand Profiles

The lateral load response of a monopile in a two-layer sand profile
(sand A over sand B) varies between the lateral load response of
Fig. 3. Comparison of the load-deflection curves obtained from the
the pile in uniform sand A and that in uniform sand B. For example,
PISA static load test and the FE analysis [modified after Hu et al.
the lateral capacity H 40%−80% of a pile in a loose-over-dense (DR ¼
(2021)].
40% over DR ¼ 80%) sand profile is equal to the lateral capacity

d1 d2

Sand A Sand A
Loose sand 1B

L Sand B

Sand C
B

Sand B

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. The layered soil profiles considered in this paper: (a) two-layer sand profile; (b) three-layer sand that consists of a loose sand layer sandwiched
by two dense sand layers; and (c) general three-layer sand.

© ASCE 04022001-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 Table 2. Summary of the FE simulations performed to derive the design equations and to verify the proposed equations
Purpose of Number of
simulation Soil profiles B (m) L=B B=tw Sand type DR h (m) simulations
Development of Two-layer sand 1, 4, 10 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 20 50, 100 Ottawa, Toyoura 40% over 80%, 80% 15 58
design equations over 40%
Verification of Two-layer sand 1, 2, 4, 10 3–20 50–100 Ottawa, Toyoura Two-layer sand with 15–30 16
design equations DR ranging 40–95%
Verification of Three-layer sand 1, 2, 4, 10 3–20 50–100 Ottawa, Toyoura Three-layer sand with 15–30 22
design equations DR ranging 40%–95%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d1 DR=40% d1 DR=80%

DR=40%
DR=80%

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Load-rotation curves for monopiles with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m in: (a) loose-over-dense Ottawa sand (40%–80%);
and (b) dense-over-loose Ottawa sand (80%–40%) with varying top-layer thicknesses d1 .

H 80% of the pile in a uniform dense sand (DR ¼ 80%) when the
top-layer thickness d1 approaches zero. If the thickness d1 of
the top loose sand layer were to approach infinity, then the two-
layer sand profile would transition from a uniform dense sand
to a uniform loose sand, and, consequently, H40%−80% would de-
crease from H80% to the pile lateral capacity H40% that would result
for the pile installed in the uniform loose sand. To investigate how
the pile lateral capacity in a two-layer sand profile changes as a
function of the top-layer thickness d1 , we performed a series of
FE analyses simulating the response of monopiles to lateral loads
in two representative two-layer sand profiles (DR ¼ 80% over
DR ¼ 40% and DR ¼ 40% over DR ¼ 80%) with varying d1 .
Load-Rotation Response
When laterally loaded, a short, stiff pile experiences mainly rigid-
body rotation and rigid-body translation, whereas a long, flexible
pile undergoes bending in addition to rigid-body rotation and trans-
lation. The different deformation modes for the two types of piles
result in their different load responses to lateral loads. Therefore,
both short, stiff piles and long, flexible piles are considered sepa-
rately in this section.
Long Pile in Two-Layer Sand Profile. Fig. 5(a) compares the re-
sponses (in terms of lateral load versus pile rotation at the mudline)
of a laterally loaded monopile with L=B ¼ 10 (B ¼ 4 m, L ¼
40 m, h ¼ 15 m) in 40%–80% Ottawa sand with the top-layer
thickness d1 ranging from 0 to infinity (note that as d1 approaches
infinity, the soil profile is modeled as a uniform sand with DR ¼
40%). When d1 ¼ 0, the load-rotation response of the pile is the
same as that in a uniform dense (DR ¼ 80%) sand, which is shown
as the top curve in Fig. 5(a). As the thickness d1 of the top loose
sand layer increases, the load-rotation response of the pile becomes
softer and approaches that of the pile in a uniform loose (DR ¼
40%) sand deposit [shown as the bottom curve in Fig. 5(a)].
The load-rotation curve of the pile almost coincides with that for
a uniform loose sand when d1 reaches 5B. Further decrease in the
relative density (from 80% to 40%) of the sand below a depth of 5B
has a negligible effect on the lateral load response of the pile. Sim-
ilar trends were observed for the same pile (B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m,
h ¼ 15 m) in 80%–40% Ottawa sand, except that the load-rotation
response evolves from the lower bound (the case of the uniform
loose sand with DR ¼ 40%) to the upper bound (the case of the
uniform dense sand with DR ¼ 80%) as d1 increases [Fig. 5(b)].
Short Pile in Two-Layer Sand Profile. Similarly, the load-
rotation response of a pile with L=B ¼ 5 (B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 20 m,
h ¼ 15 m) in a 40%–80% sand profile transitions from that of a
uniform dense (DR ¼ 80%) sand to that of a uniform loose (DR ¼
40%) sand as d1 increases [Fig. 6(a)]. Only when d1 reaches 5B,
meaning that the relative density of sand along the entire length of
the pile becomes 40%, does the load-rotation curve become almost
identical to that for the uniform loose sand. Similar results were
observed for the same pile in an 80%–40% Ottawa sand profile
with varying d1 , as shown in Fig. 6(b). Comparing the results
for the long pile (L=B ¼ 10) and the short pile (L=B ¼ 5) in Figs. 5
and 6, the gap between the upper and lower bounds within which
the load rotation curve varies for the short pile is greater than that
for the long pile. The gradual change of thickness of the top layer

© ASCE 04022001-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d1 DR=40% d1 DR=80%

DR=80% DR=40%

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Load-rotation curves for monopiles with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 20 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m in: (a) loose-over-dense Ottawa sand (40%–80%);
and (b) dense-over-loose Ottawa sand (80%–40%) with varying top-layer thicknesses d1 .

d1 DR=40%

DR=80%

d1 DR=80%

DR=40%

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. The relationship between the lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 and the normalized top-layer thickness d1 =B for long piles: (a) pile with
B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m in 40%–80% Ottawa sand; and (b) pile with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m
in 80%–40% Ottawa sand.

has a greater impact on the lateral capacity of a short pile than of a
long pile.
Lateral Load Capacity Ratio
To quantify the change of the lateral capacity H of a monopile in a
two-layer sand profile as the top layer thickness d1 increases from
zero to infinity, it is useful to define a lateral capacity ratio
H=Hjd1¼0 using the pile lateral capacity Hjd1¼0 when d1 ¼ 0 as
a reference. The lateral pile capacities H and Hjd1¼0 are defined
corresponding to a pile rotation θ ¼ 0.5° or θ ¼ 1° at the mudline;
these are commonly used serviceability limit state criteria for the
design of laterally loaded monopiles (Arany et al. 2017; Doherty
and Gavin 2012; Hu et al. 2021).
Long Pile in Two-Layer Sand Profile. Figs. 7(a and b) show the
lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 for a 4-m-diameter pile with L=B ¼
10 as a function of the normalized top-layer thickness d1 =B in two
two-layer sand profiles. In Fig. 7(a), the pile lateral capacity Hjd1¼0
when d1 ¼ 0 is equal to the lateral capacity H80% of the pile in a
uniform dense sand (DR ¼ 80%). Starting with a value of 1, the
lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 monotonically decreases as the
thickness d1 of the top, loose sand layer increases from 0 to infinity.
Theoretically, when d1 → þ∞, the sand profile is a uniform loose
(DR ¼ 40%) sand, and the lateral pile capacity H is that (H 40% ) in
the uniform loose sand. Accordingly, the lateral capacity ratio
H=Hjd1¼0 approaches a limit value that is equal to H40% =H 80% .
For the case (B ¼ 4 m and L=B ¼ 10) shown in Fig. 7(a), the limit

© ASCE 04022001-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 d1 DR=40%
DR=80%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 8. The relationship between the lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 and the normalized top-layer thickness d1 =B for short piles: (a) pile with
B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 20 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m in 40%–80% Ottawa sand; and (b) pile with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 20 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m
in 80%–40% Ottawa sand.
values of H=Hjd1¼0 are 0.73 and 0.7 (shown as horizontal reference
lines in the figure) for pile rotations θ ¼ 0.5° and θ ¼ 1° at the mud-
line, respectively. In the limit, the pile lateral capacity H decreases
by about 30% when the thickness of the top loose sand layer ap-
proaches infinity. Fig. 7(a) shows that the lateral capacity ratio
H=Hjd1¼0 is close to its asymptotic value when d1 reaches the 4 −
5B range, suggesting that for d1 values greater than 5B, there is
minimal impact on the lateral capacity of the pile.
A similar trend of H=Hjd1¼0 as a function of d1 =B is observed
for the pile (B ¼ 4 m and L=B ¼ 10) in an 80%–40% sand profile
[Fig. 7(b)]. Note that the limit value of H=Hjd1¼0 ð¼ H 80% =H 40% Þ
for the 80%–40% sand, as d1 approaches infinity, is the reciprocal
of the limit value (¼ H40% =H80% ) for the 40%–80% sand.
Short Pile in Two-Layer Sand Profile. As shown in Figs. 8(a
and b), the trends of the lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 versus
d1 =B for a short pile (B ¼ 4 m and L=B ¼ 5) are similar to those
for the long pile (L=B ¼ 10): the pile lateral capacity H decreases or
increases monotonically with increasing top-layer thickness d1 . The
lateral capacity H of the short pile is more sensitive to the change of
top-layer thickness d1 than the long pile [shown in Figs. 7(a and b)].
For example, the lateral capacity H (for θ ¼ 1°) of the 4-m-diameter
short pile (L=B ¼ 5) in an 80%–40% sand profile increases by
about 2.3 times as the thickness of the top dense sand layer
(DR ¼ 80%) increases from zero to 5B, whereas it increases by only
1.5 times for the 4-m-diameter long pile (L=B ¼ 10).
Figs. 7 and 8 show a similar relationship between the lateral
capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 versus the normalized top-layer thickness
d1 =B for long and short piles in two-layer sand profiles (sand A
over sand B): H=Hjd1¼0 varies from 1 to the limit value
H d1¼∞ =Hjd1¼0 as d1 increases from 0 to infinity. Thus, an equation
is proposed to describe the dependency of the lateral capacity ratio
H=Hjd1¼0 on the top-layer thickness d1 for two-layer (A over B)
sand cases:


H Hjd1¼∞ Hjd1¼∞
¼ þ 1− exp½αðd1 =BÞ1.5 
Hjd1¼0 Hjd1¼0 Hjd1¼0


H H
¼ A þ 1 − A exp½αðd1 =BÞ1.5  ð1Þ
HB HB
© ASCE 04022001-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001
d1 DR=80%
DR=40%
(b)
where α defines the rate at which the H=Hjd1¼0 ðH=H B Þ ratio ap-
proaches its limit value Hjd1¼∞ =Hjd1¼0 (¼ HA =HB , with H A and
HB being the pile lateral capacity in uniform sand A and uniform
sand B, respectively). Despite small differences, the H=Hjd1¼0 ratio
for piles with slenderness ratios L=B ≥ 5 approaches the limit value
Hd1¼∞ =Hd1¼0 at similar rates, reaching values that are sufficiently
close to the limit value when d1 =B ¼ 5 (Figs. 7 and 8). Thus, a
unique value for the rate α can be used for piles with L=B ≥ 5.
In contrast, for shorter piles—with L=B < 5—the H=Hjd1¼0 ratio
approaches the limit value when the top-layer thickness d1 becomes
greater than the pile length L (i.e., d1 =B ≥ L=B, with L=B < 5). For
example, when L ¼ 3B, the H=Hjd1¼0 ratio approaches the limit
value when d1 ¼ 3B (d1 =B ¼ 3). This requires the H=Hjd1¼0 ratio
to approach the limit value at a greater rate as the pile slenderness
ratio L=B decreases further. Based on the FE results for both Ot-
tawa sand and Toyoura sand, the following equation was obtained
for α:
8
>
< −0.23; when L=B ≥ 5


α¼ L ð2Þ
>
:1 −1.07 þ 1 ; when L=B < 5
B
Table 3 compares the limit values of the H=Hjd1¼0 ratios ob-
tained from the FE analyses for piles of different slenderness ratios
in two-layer sand profiles. The limit value of the H=Hjd1¼0 ratio is
the ratio of the lateral capacities of the pile in the uniform sand
profiles with DR values equal to those of the two-layer sand profile
being considered. The limit values (¼ Hjd1¼∞ =Hjd1¼0 ) are signifi-
cantly different from 1 for piles with slenderness ratios less than 5,
suggesting that a change of the relative density of the uniform sand
has a great impact on their lateral capacity. Taking the 1-m-diameter
piles as an example, the lateral capacity H of the pile with L=B ¼
20 for θ = 0.5° decreases by 23% (corresponding to a ratio
Hjd1¼∞ =Hjd1¼0 ¼ 0.77 in the table) but that of the pile with L=B ¼
5 decreases by 65% (corresponding to a ratio Hjd1¼∞ =Hjd1¼0 ¼
0.35 in the table) when the relative density changes from 80%
to 40%. Figs. 9(a–d) compare the profiles of the pile lateral deflec-
tion and unit lateral soil resistance for the piles with slenderness
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 3. The limit value of the lateral capacity ratio H=Hjd1¼0 for segment of the pile (down to a greater depth), as shown in
monopiles in two-layer Ottawa sand when the top-layer thickness d1 Fig. 9(d). In contrast, the effective pile lengths of the pile with
approaches infinity L=B ¼ 5 are almost the same in sand with relative density DR ¼
Two-layer Two-layer 40% and DR ¼ 80%, as shown in Fig. 9(a).
sand profile sand profile
Pile dimension (40%–80%) (80%–40%) Estimation of the Lateral Load Capacity H in a Two-Layer
B (m) L (m) Slenderness ratio θ ¼ 0.5° θ ¼ 1° θ ¼ 0.5° θ ¼ 1° Sand Profile
The lateral capacity HA-B in a two-layer (A over B) sand profile can
10 80 8 0.72 0.67 1.39 1.49
be obtained as the multiplication of the pile lateral capacity ratio
4 40 10 0.71 0.66 1.41 1.51
1 20 20 0.77 0.73 1.30 1.37 HA-B =H B and the pile lateral capacity H B in uniform sand B:
10 50 5 0.57 0.49 1.76 2.03 HA-B ¼ HA-B =HB × HB . The lateral capacity ratio HA-B =H B can
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 20 5 0.46 0.43 2.18 2.34 be obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2). We have developed, in Hu et al.
1 5 5 0.35 0.33 2.85 3.07 (2021), the equations that can be used to estimate the lateral
Note: The limit values (=H40%/H80%) for the 40%–80% sand profile are the capacities H A and H B in uniform sand profiles A and B, as sum-
reciprocals to those (=H80%/H40%) for the 80%–40% sand profile. Load marized in Fig. 15 [Eqs. (7)–(10)]. The equations [Eqs. (1) and (2)]
eccentricity h ¼ 15 m for all cases in the table. tw =B ¼ 1=100 for piles for the estimation of the lateral capacity ratio were developed based
with B ¼ 10 m, and tw =B ¼ 1=50 for piles with B < 10 m. on results of FE analyses of monopiles in 40%–80% and 80%–40%
sand profiles. To verify the accuracy of the proposed equations and
ratios of 5 and 20. Because of the bending of the pile with their applicability to layered sand profiles with other combinations
L=B ¼ 20, the effective pile length—the distance from the ground of relative densities, the pile lateral capacities were calculated using
surface to the zero-deflection point—is greater for the pile in the the proposed equations [Eqs. (7)–(10) and Eqs. (1) and (2)] and
loose sand than in the dense sand [Fig. 9(b)]. This allows the pile in compared with the FE results for a number of test cases that were
the loose sand to mobilize positive soil resistance along a longer not used in the development of Eqs. (1) and (2); the results for both

Deflection (mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0 0

1 1 DR = 80%
DR = 80% DR = 40%
DR = 40%
2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
(a) (b)

Unit soil resistance (kN/m)

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
0 0
DR = 80% DR = 80%
1 DR = 40% 1 DR = 40%

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Profiles of pile deflection and unit soil resistance for short and long piles for θ ¼ 0.5°: (a) pile deflection for the short pile (B ¼ 1, L ¼ 5 m,
tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m); (b) pile deflection for the long pile (B ¼ 1, L ¼ 20 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m); (c) unit soil resistance for the short
pile (B ¼ 1, L ¼ 5 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m); and (d) unit soil resistance for the long pile (B ¼ 1, L ¼ 20 m, tw ¼ 1=50B, and h ¼ 15 m).

© ASCE 04022001-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 Table 4. Comparison of the pile lateral capacity H (obtained for θ ¼ 0.5° and 1°) of piles in two-layer Ottawa sand profiles and Toyoura sand profiles using
the proposed equations and that obtained from FE analyses for representative cases
H for θ ¼ 0.5° H for θ ¼ 1°
Layered sand
Sand type B (m) L=B h (m) profile d1 H estimated (kN) H FE (kN) Error (%) H estimated (kN) H FE (kN) Error (%)
Ottawa 10 5 15 65%–95% 5B 49,811 50,103 0 80,160 80,116 0
Ottawa 4 7.5 15 80%–40% 4B 7,131 6,870 4 12,263 12,165 1
Ottawa 4 5 15 60%–95% 4B 3,892 4,147 −6 5,856 6,307 −7
Ottawa 2 7.5 15 50%–80% 3B 756 712 6 1,198 1,130 6
Ottawa 1 10 30 80%–50% 3B 87 85 2 166 164 1
Toyoura 4 4 15 40%–70% 4B 1283 1331 −4 1567 1711 −8
Toyoura 10 8 15 65%–95% 5B 57,726 55,075 5 94,047 93,994 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: H estimated is the lateral capacity calculated using the proposed equations; H FE is the lateral capacity obtained from the 3D FE analysis; and Error is
defined as ðH estimated − H FE Þ=H FE ; tw =B ¼ 1=100 for piles with B ¼ 10 m, and tw =B ¼ 1=50 for piles with B < 10 m.

160000
Proposed equation
140000
3D FE analysis

Lateral load at pile head (kN)

120000 Ottawa sand
B = 10m
100000 L = 50m
h = 15m
d1 = 5B
80000

60000

d1 DR=40% 40000
d1 DR=80%
DR=80% 20000 DR=40%

0
0 0.5 1 1.5

(a) (b) Pile rotation at mudline (°)

Fig. 10. Lateral load-rotation responses obtained from FE analyses and the proposed equations for: (a) a 10-m-diameter pile with L ¼ 80 m and
tw ¼ 1=100B, and h ¼ 15 m in 40%–80% Ottawa sand; and (b) a 10-m-diameter pile with L ¼ 50 m and tw ¼ 1=100B, and h ¼ 15 m in 80%–40%
Ottawa sand.

Ottawa sand and Toyoura sand are shown in Table 4. The predic-
tions from the proposed equations match closely the FE results.
According to Hu et al. (2021), the lateral pile capacity H in-
creases with increasing pile rotation θ (in degrees) at the mudline
following:
θ as ultimate limit state (ULS) criteria. With Eqs. (3) and (4), a full
H¼
k þ ηθ
where the coefficients k and η control the magnitude of H and the
rate at which H increases with respect to θ. The initial stiffness
of the pile at θ ¼ 0° is equal to 1=k. The two coefficients can
be determined from the values of the lateral pile capacity Hj0.5°
and Hj1° for θ ¼ 0.5° and θ ¼ 1° using
of laterally-loaded monopiles (Arany et al. 2017; Doherty and
Gavin 2012; Hu et al. 2021); a pile rotation θ ranging from 2°
to 5° (Ahmed and Hawlader 2016; Klinkvort and Hededal 2013;
Luo et al. 2018) or a pile deflection at mudline equal to 10%B
(Zdravković et al. 2015), which corresponds to a pile rotation θ
of 1.6° to 2° for the cases considered in this study, may be used
ð3Þ
load-rotation curve (for θ ≤ 2°) can be obtained for the designer to
consider both SLS and ULS criteria. For convenient application of
the proposed equations to calculate the lateral pile capacity and to
obtain the load-rotation curve, a web-based application was devel-
oped using the design equations proposed in this paper. The link to
the web-based application is provided in the Appendix.

η ¼ 2=Hj1° − 1=Hj0.5° Effect of a Middle Loose Sand Layer

k ¼ 1=Hj0.5° − 1=Hj1°
Figs. 10(a and b) compare the predicted load-rotation curves
with the FE results for two different cases (piles with L=B ¼ 8
and 5). Excellent agreement is observed between the two methods.
Values of pile rotation θ ¼ 0.5° or θ ¼ 1° at the mudline are com-
monly used as serviceability limit state (SLS) criteria in the design
ð4Þ Because a loose sand layer is often present in a soil profile, it is
helpful to understand the impact of the loose sand layer on the
lateral load response of a monopile. For this purpose, a series of
FE analyses were performed to investigate the load response of
piles in soil profiles containing a thin (with a thickness of 1B)
loose sand (DR ¼ 40%) layer sandwiched between two dense sand
(DR ¼ 80%) layers.

© ASCE 04022001-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 d2 d2 DR=40% 1B
DR=40% 1B
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DR=80% DR=80%

(a) (b)

d2 DR=40% 1B d2 DR=40% 1B
DR=80% DR=80%

(c) (d)

Fig. 11. The effect of the loose-thin-layer on load-rotation curves and the corresponding relationships between pile lateral capacity ratio H=H uniform
versus the d2 =B ratio for: (a and c) the pile with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, and tw ¼ 1=50B; and (b and d) the pile with B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 20 m, and
tw ¼ 1=50B.

Fig. 11(a) compares the load-rotation responses of a pile
(B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, and h ¼ 15 m) in soil profiles with the thin
loose sand layer located at different depths d2 from the ground sur-
face to the bottom of the loose-sand layer. The lateral load-rotation
response of the same pile in a uniform dense sand (DR ¼ 80%) is
also plotted in the figure for reference. The lateral capacity of the
pile in dense sand with a loose sand layer in the middle is slightly
less than that in the uniform dense sand when d2 varies from 1B to
3B. As the value of d2 becomes greater than 4B, the load-rotation
response of the pile in the layered soil is almost identical to that in
the uniform dense sand.
To quantify the decrease of the lateral load capacity by the pres-
ence of the loose sand layer, the lateral capacity ratio is defined as
the pile lateral capacity H in the layered soil profile (consisting of a
thin loose sand layer in dense sand) to that (H80% ) in uniform dense
sand. As shown in Fig. 11(c), the decrease of the lateral load capac-
ity of the pile due to the presence of the loose sand layer is insig-
nificant overall: the lateral capacity H decreases by about 10%
when the thin loose sand layer is located near the ground surface
(i.e., d2 ≤ 2B), and the capacity ratio H=H80% reaches 1 when d2
becomes greater than 5B. The lateral capacity of the pile is not af-
fected by the presence of the loose sand layer that is located at
depths greater than 5B.
As shown in Figs. 11(b and d), the presence of the loose sand
layer reduces the lateral capacity of the pile with L=B ¼ 5 more
than that of the pile with L=B ¼ 10 [Figs. 11(a and c)]. The loose
sand layer has the greatest impact on the lateral capacity H of the
pile with L=B ¼ 5 when it is located near the ground surface
(within a depth of 2B) or near the pile base. This is because the
relatively short pile (L=B ¼ 5) undergoes mainly rigid-body rota-
tion when subjected to lateral loads, experiencing the largest
amount of lateral deflection near the ground surface and near
the pile base and mobilizing most of its lateral resistance from these
two regions. Fig. 11(d) shows that the lateral capacity of the pile
with L=B ¼ 5 is not affected by the loose sand layer located below
the base of the pile.

© ASCE 04022001-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 HA-B-C HA-A-A HB-A-A HB-B-C

A A B B
B A A B

= − +
C A A C

Soil profile I Soil profile II Soil profile III Soil profile IV

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Estimation of the lateral capacity H A-B-C of a monopile in a three-layer sand (A-B-C) from the linear combination of the lateral capacities
H A-A-A ; H B-A-A , H B−B−C in three uniform and two-layer sand profiles.

Unit soil resistance (kN/m) Unit soil resistance (kN/m)

-800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600
0 0
Layer 1 1 1
5 Layer 2 5

Depth below the ground surfacez (m)

Depth below the ground surface (m)

10 Layer 3 2 10 B=4m 2
15 15 L = 40 m
h = 15 m
20 20
Rsoil II−Rsoil III Rsoil II−Rsoil III
25 Rsoil IV 25
2 2 Rsoil IV
30 30
35 B=4m 35
L = 40 m
40 h = 15 m 40
Ottawa sand DR(thickness)
45 45
DR (thickness)
50 Soil profile I: 80%(1B)-40%(1B)-80% 50
55 55
(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Profiles of the soil resistance mobilized for a monopile (B ¼ 4 m, L ¼ 40 m, tw =B ¼ 1:50, h ¼ 15 m) in: (a) three-layer Ottawa sand
80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð1BÞ − 80%; and (b) uniform dense sand with DR ¼ 80%, two-layer sand profiles 40%ð1BÞ − 80% and 40%ð2BÞ − 80%. The
soil resistance is obtained for a pile rotation θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline.

Lateral Load Capacity of Piles in Three-Layer Sands
Recognizing that the lateral capacity of a monopile in a layered-
sand profile equals the summation of the lateral soil resistances mo-
bilized along the entire pile length in all sand layers, we propose a
novel method that can be used to calculate the pile lateral capacity
in three-layer (or multiple-layer) sand profiles. As illustrated in
Fig. 12, the lateral capacity HA-B-C of a monopile in a three-layer
sand profile (A-B-C) is the summation of the soil resistances R1A ,
R2B , and R3C mobilized in these three layers
H A-B-C ¼ R1A þ R2B þ R3C
Assuming that the lateral soil resistances for a pile mobilized in
the same layer of the same sand in two different soil profiles are
approximately the same (e.g., the soil resistances R2A mobilized in
the middle layer of soil profile II and soil profile III in Fig. 12 are
approximately the same), the pile lateral capacity HA-B-C in a three-
layer sand (A-B-C) can be obtained as a linear combination of the
lateral pile capacities in three uniform and two-layer sand profiles
(A-A-A, B-A-A, and B-B-C, as shown in Fig. 12)
HA-B-C ¼ HA-A-A − HB-A-A þ HB-B-C
¼ ðR1A þ R2A þ R3A Þ − ðR1B þ R2A þ R3A Þ
þ ðR1B þ R2B þ R3C Þ
¼ R1A þ R2B þ R3C ð6Þ
With Eqs. (7)–(12), summarized in Fig. 15, we can calculate the
pile lateral capacities (H A-A-A ; HB-A-A , and HB-B-C ) in uniform and
two-layer sand profiles and further obtain the lateral capacity
HA−B−C of the pile in the three-layer sand profile.
ð5Þ To demonstrate the use of the proposed method [Eq. (6) and
Fig. 12], a case of a 4-m-diameter, 40-m-long pile in a three-layer
sand is investigated. The three-layer sand consists of a 1-B-thick
dense sand (DR ¼ 80%) top layer, a 1-B-thick loose sand (DR ¼
40%) middle layer, and a dense sand (DR ¼ 80%) bottom layer. For
convenience, this soil profile is named as 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð1BÞ −
80%. Fig. 13(a) shows the unit lateral soil resistance mobilized
along the pile length in the three-layer sand when the pile rotation
θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline. The lateral capacity H 80%−40%−80% of the
pile in the three-layer sand profile is equal to the integration of the
unit soil resistance along the pile length (represented by the area

© ASCE 04022001-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 Table 5. Comparison of lateral pile capacities in three-layer sand profiles calculated using the proposed method and those obtained from FE analyses
corresponding to pile rotation θ ¼ 0.5° and 1.0° at the mudline
H for θ ¼ 0.5° H for θ ¼ 1°
B (m) L=B tw =B h (m) Three-layer sand profile H estimated (kN) H FE (kN) Error (%) H estimated (kN) H FE (kN) Error (%)
1 5 1:50 15 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð1BÞ − 80% 50 52 −4 72 75 −4
2 7.5 1:50 15 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð2BÞ − 70% 743 741 0 1,177 1,160 1
4 10 1:50 15 80%ð1BÞ − 60%ð3BÞ − 40% 6,643 6,829 −3 11,855 12,106 −2
4 10 1:50 30 40%ð2BÞ − 60%ð2BÞ − 80% 4,199 4,329 −3 7,485 7,781 −4
4 7.5 1:50 30 95%ð2BÞ − 65%ð2BÞ − 95% 5,125 5,267 −3 9,186 9,321 −1
10 8 1:100 15 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð3BÞ − 65% 53,511 53,377 0 93,708 92,547 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: B = pile diameter; L = pile length; h = load eccentricity (the distance from the lateral load to the mudline); θ = the mudline pile rotation corresponding to
which the lateral capacity H of the pile is determined; and Error is defined as ðH estimated − H FE Þ=H FE .

between the unit soil resistance curve and the vertical axis at zero
soil resistance).
According to the proposed method [Eq. (6) and Fig. 12], the pile
lateral capacity H80%−40%−80% in the three-layer sand profile can
be obtained as a linear combination of the lateral pile capacities
H 80% in a uniform dense sand (DR ¼ 80%) and H40%ð1BÞ−80%
and H 40%ð2BÞ−80% in the two-layer sand profiles: H80%−40%−80% ¼
H 80% − H 40%ð1BÞ−80% þ H 40%ð2BÞ−80% . Fig. 13(b) shows the pro-
files of the unit lateral soil resistance mobilized along the pile
length in these three soil profiles. The unit soil resistance in soil
profile II (DR ¼ 80%) is shown as the thin solid black line, whereas
the unit soil resistance in soil profile III [40%ð1BÞ − 80%] is shown
as the dotted line. Because the difference between these two lines
below a depth of 1B is negligible, the difference in the pile
capacities mobilized in soil profiles II and III can be represented
by zone 1—the shaded area with vertical stripes—in Fig. 13(b).
The pile capacity H40%ð2BÞ−80% mobilized in soil profile IV
(40%ð2BÞ − 80%) is represented by the shaded area with horizontal
stripes (zone 2) in Fig. 13(b). As shown in Fig. 13(a), the super-
position of the two zones (zone 1 and zone 2) is almost identical to
the area representing the pile capacity H80%ð1BÞ−40%ð1BÞ−80% mobi-
lized in the three-layer sand 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð1BÞ − 80%).
To verify the accuracy of the proposed method, the lateral
capacity for piles of different diameters and slenderness ratios
embedded in different soil profiles for θ ¼ 0.5° and 1° were calcu-
lated using the proposed method and compared with those ob-
tained from the FE analyses. As Table 5 shows, the proposed
method provides close estimates of the pile lateral capacity in
three-layer sand profiles. The lateral load rotation curves for two
cases listed in Table 5 were also obtained using the proposed
method and compared with those obtained from 3D FE results, as
shown in Figs. 14(a and b).
Design Method and Example
The proposed method, which consists of a set of equations (sum-
marized in Fig. 15), can be used to estimate the lateral capacity
and the load-rotation response of monopiles in uniform, two-layer,
and three-layer sand profiles under fully saturated conditions.
The method accounts for the pile geometry (pile length and cross
section), load eccentricity, and soil profile characteristics (sand type,
layer profile, and relative density). The main advantage of the pro-
posed method is that an engineer does not need to have access to a
finite element code with an advanced constitutive model imple-
mented in it to obtain equivalent results. A design example is pro-
vided below to illustrate the steps required for calculation of the
lateral capacity and load-rotation curve of a monopile using the pro-
posed method. A 10-m-diameter, 80-m-long monopile with a wall

1B DR= 80% DR= 40%

2B
3B DR= 40%
DR= 60%
2B
DR= 65% DR= 80%

(a) (b)

Fig. 14. The lateral load–rotation curves obtained from the proposed method and the FE analyses for (a) a 10-m-diameter monopile with L ¼ 80 m
and h ¼ 15 m in an 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð3BÞ − 65% Ottawa sand; and (b) a 4-m-diameter monopile with L ¼ 40 m and h ¼ 30 m in a 40%ð2BÞ −
60%ð2BÞ − 80% Ottawa sand.

© ASCE 04022001-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 Eq.
Calculation step Equations Comments
No.
Uniform sand

DR I 0.25
p L crit is the critical pile length beyond
L crit I p0.25 12.5 3ln 37.9
Step 1: Calculate the 0.5° 100% LR which the pile lateral capacity no longer
critical pile length Lcrit (7) increases.
DR Ip0.25
for = 0.5 and 1 . L crit I p0.25 12 3.3ln 40.3 is the pile rotation at the mudline.
1° 100% LR Ip B 4-Bi4)/64; Bi = inner diameter,
0.72
Step 2: Calculate the H crit Ip Hcrit is the pile lateral capacity when the
a DR, h 4 b
critical pile lateral pA L2R LR pile length is equal to or greater than Lcrit.
(8)
capacity Hcrit for = h DR h The values of the coefficients a1, a2, a3,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 and 1 . a ( DR, h ) a1 a2 a3 a4

LR 100% LR a4, and b are provided in table (6).

1 L
sin 0.5 , when L L crit
Step 3: Calculate the H Hcrit 2 L crit 2
lateral capacity ratio 1 , when L L crit (9)
H/Hcrit for = 0.5 and
DR, I p 0.084 L crit I p0.25 1.2
1 0.5°
DR, I p 0.08 L crit I p0.25 1.25
1°
Step 4: Calculate the H The critical capacity Hcrit is obtained
H 0.5° H crit 0.5°
lateral capacity H in a Hcrit 0.5° from Eq. (8)
(10)
uniform sand for = H The lateral capacity ratio H/Hcrit is
H 1° H crit 1°
0.5 and 1 Hcrit 1° obtained from Eq. (9)
Two-layer sand profile

HA B HA HA 1.5 HA-B
1 exp d1 B d1 is the thickness of the top layer
Calculate the pile lateral HB HB HB d1 A HA and HB are the lateral capacities of the
capacity HA-B for a two- 0.23 , when L B 5 (11)
pile in uniform sand A and B,
layer (A over B) sand L B
1 1.07
B
1 , when L B 5 respectively (obtained from step 1-4).

Three-layer sand
HA B C HA A A HB A A HB B C
HA-A-A HB-A-A HB-B-C HA-A-A is the pile lateral capacity for a
Calculate the pile lateral HA-B-C
A A B B uniform sand A.
capacity HA-B-C for a
B A A B (12) HB-A-A and HB-B-C are the pile lateral
three-layer (A-B-C)
sand C
=
A
−
A
+
C
capacities for two-layer sand profile
(obtained from (11)
Soil profile I Soil profile II Soil profile III Soil profile IV

Load-rotation curve

H0.5°and H1° are the pile lateral capacities

Calculate the H obtained for = 0.5 and 1 using Eqs.
relationship between k
(7)-(12)
the lateral load capacity 2 H 1° 1 H (13)
H vs. pile rotation at 0.5° Pile lateral capacity H for any rotation
the mudline. k 1H 1 H 1° level (<2°) can be estimated from Eq.
0.5°
(13)

Note: The equations for uniform sand were developed by Hu et al. (2021)

Fig. 15. Steps to calculate the lateral capacity of monopiles in uniform and layered sand profiles. (Data from Hu et al. 2021.)

thickness tw ¼ 1=100B (I p ¼ 38.11 m4 ) is loaded at h ¼ 15 m in Step 1.2. Calculate the critical pile lateral capacity H crit using
an 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð3BÞ − 65% three-layer Ottawa sand profile. Eq. (8) in Fig. 15 and the coefficients in Table 6:
Step 1 Calculate the lateral capacities H80% ; H 40% , and H65% in For θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline:
uniform sand profiles (calculation steps for H 80% are shown as an 
0.72 
example): Ip
Hcrit j0.5° ¼ aðDR ; hÞj0.5° 4 þ bj0.5° pA L2R
Step 1.1. Calculate the pile critical length Lcrit using Eq. (7) LR
in Fig. 15: ¼ f½ð−0.95 × 15 þ 49.00Þ × 0.8 þ ð−0.34Þ
For θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline:

0.25   × 15 þ 25.80 × 38.110.72 þ ð−0.01Þg × 100ðkNÞ
D Ip
Lcrit j0.5° ¼ −12.5 R − 3 ln þ 37.9 I 0.25
p ¼ 66,689ðkNÞ
100% LR
¼ ½−12.5 × 0.8 − 3 × lnð38.110.25 Þ þ 37.9 × 38.110.25 ðmÞ For θ ¼ 1° at the mudline, H crit j1° ¼ 122,731 kN.
¼ 62.5ðmÞ Step 1.3. Calculate the lateral capacity ratio H=H crit using
Eq. (9) in Fig. 15:
For θ ¼ 1° at the mudline, Lcrit j1° ¼ 68.8 m. Since L > Lcrit , then ðH=H crit Þj0.5° ¼ 1, and ðH=Hcrit Þj1° ¼ 1.

© ASCE 04022001-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 Table 6. Values of the coefficients in Eq. (8) to calculate the critical lateral For θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline:
capacity H crit for Ottawa sand and Toyoura sand for θ ¼ 0.5° and θ ¼ 1°
Case a1 a2 a3 a4 b
H80%ð1BÞ−40%ð3BÞ−65% j0.5° ¼ H 80% j0.5° − H40%ð1BÞ−80% j0.5°
Ottawa sand for θ ¼ 0.5° −0.95 49.00 −0.34 25.80 −0.01 þ H 40%ð4BÞ−65% j0.5°
Ottawa sand for θ ¼ 1° −2.05 107.00 −0.35 33.50 0.07 ¼ 66,689 − 62,754 þ 49,412
Toyoura sand for θ ¼ 0.5° −0.85 32.00 −0.35 33.50 −0.15
Toyoura sand for θ ¼ 1° −1.30 65.00 −0.42 43.00 −0.02 ¼ 53,347ðkNÞ

Similarly, for θ ¼ 1° at the mudline, H80%ð1BÞ−40%ð3BÞ−65% j1° ¼

93,708 kN
Step 1.4. Calculate the pile lateral capacity H80% using Eq. (10) Step 4 Obtain the lateral load-rotation curve:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in Fig. 15: According to Eq. (13) in Fig. 15:

 η ¼ 2=Hj1° − 1=Hj0.5° ¼ 2=93708 − 1=53347 ¼ 2.60 × 10−6
H 
H 80% j0.5° ¼ H j ¼ 1 × 66,689ðkNÞ ¼ 66,689ðkNÞ
H crit 0.5° crit 0.5° k ¼ 1=Hj0.5° − 1=Hj1° ¼ 1=53347 − 1=93708 ¼ 8.07 × 10−6

The lateral load-rotation relationship for the pile is:

H80% j1° ¼ 122,731ðkNÞ
θ θ
H¼ ¼ × 106
k þ ηθ 8.07 þ 2.60θ
Similarly, we obtain H 40% j0.5° ¼ 47,576 kN, H 40% j1° ¼
80,768 kN, H65% j0.5° ¼ 59,522 kN, and H 65% j1° ¼ 107,005 kN. Alternatively, this example problem can be solved by using the
Step 2 Calculate the pile lateral capacity H40%ð1BÞ−80% and web application resource developed for this paper (see the link in
H 40%ð4BÞ−65% in two-layer sand profiles: the Appendix).
Step 2.1. Calculate the pile lateral capacity ratio H 40%ð1BÞ−80% =
H 80% using Eq. (11) in Fig. 15:
For θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline: Conclusions
 
 
H 40%ð1BÞ−80%  H40%  H40%  In this paper, we investigated the impact of soil layering on the
 ¼ þ 1− exp½−0.23 × 11.5 
H  H  H80% 0.5° response of monopiles to lateral loads. For this purpose, a series
80% 0.5° 80% 0.5°

 of 3D FE analyses of laterally loaded monopiles embedded in a
47,576 47,576
¼ þ 1− exp½−0.23 × 11.5  variety of layered sand profiles were performed using an advanced
66; 689 66; 689 two-surface-plasticity constitutive model. The analyses cover a
¼ 0.941 wide range of pile diameters (1 m ≤ B ≤ 10 m), slenderness ratios
(2 ≤ L=B ≤ 20), wall thicknesses (1=100B ≤ tw ≤ 1=50B), load
eccentricities (15 m ≤ h ≤ 30 m), sand types (Ottawa sand and
For θ ¼ 1° at the mudline: ðH40%ð1BÞ−80% =H 80% Þj1° ¼ 0.930. Toyoura sand), and sand relative densities (40–95%).
Step 2.2. Calculate the pile lateral capacity H40%ð1BÞ−80% : In a two-layer (A over B) sand profile, the pile lateral capacity
For θ ¼ 0.5° at the mudline: HA-B of a monopile transitions from the lateral pile capacity H A for
 a uniform sand A to that (H B ) for a uniform sand B as the top layer
H40%ð1BÞ−80%  thickness d1 increases. The top 5B of the soil profile controls the
H40%ð1BÞ−80% j0.5° ¼ H80% j0.5° 
H 80%  lateral load response of the monopile. For piles with L=B > 5, the
0.5°
pile lateral capacity H A−B approaches a limit value HB when
¼ 0.941 × 66; 689ðkNÞ ¼ 62,754ðkNÞ
the thickness d1 of the top layer (sand A) reaches about 5B,
whereas, for piles with L=B ≤ 5, HA-B reaches H B as long as d1
For θ ¼ 1° at the mudline, H40%ð1BÞ−80% j1° ¼ 113,867 kN is greater than the pile length L.
Similarly, we obtain H40%ð4BÞ−65% j0.5° ¼ 49,412 kN, and The presence of a thin loose sand middle layer—one with a
H 40%ð4BÞ−65% j1° ¼ 84,844 kN thickness of 1B—in a dense-sand profile has a small impact on the
Step 3 Calculate the pile lateral capacity H 80%ð1BÞ−40%ð3BÞ−65% lateral capacity of a monopile. The greatest decrease (by 9–14%) of
using Eq. (12), as shown in Fig. 16: the lateral pile capacity is observed when the thin loose sand layer

1B DR = 80% DR = 80% DR = 40% DR = 40%

3B DR = 40% DR = 80% DR = 80% DR = 40%

= – +
DR = 65% DR = 80% DR = 80% DR = 65%

Fig. 16. Estimation of the pile lateral capacity H 80%ð1BÞ−40%ð3BÞ−65% in an 80%ð1BÞ − 40%ð3BÞ − 65% sand profile from the linear combination of
the pile lateral capacity H 80% ; H 40%ð1BÞ−80%, and H 40%ð4BÞ−65% .

© ASCE 04022001-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001

 is located between 1B and 2B below the ground surface. The pres-
ence of the thin loose sand layer near the pile base reduces the pile
lateral capacity by about 12% for a pile with L=B ≤ 5, while it has
no effect for a pile with L=B > 5.
Based on the results of the FE analyses, design equations were
proposed that can be used to obtain the lateral capacity and lateral
load–rotation relationship (for θ up to 2°) for monopiles in two-
layer sand profiles and three-layer sand profiles. The proposed de-
sign equations produce results that are equivalent to those from the
3D FE analyses under a wide range of design scenarios. The design
method can be easily extended for monopiles in multilayer sand
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
profiles. The method proposed in this study is only applicable
to: (1) monotonic lateral loading conditions; and (2) input param-
eters in the range of those considered in the analyses. Note that the
effects of pile installation and cyclic loading on the static lateral
capacity of monopiles are not considered in the development of
the equations proposed in this paper.
Appendix. Web Application
The web application can be found through the link:
https://script.google.com/macros/s/AKfycbwveAcQBPbghcXK
9WHrktAFisBe8OfDIRvU-WfP-nLwT60XXi3i923u/exec.
Data Availability Statement
Data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B = outer diameter of pile;
DR = relative density of sand;
d1 = the depth from the ground surface to the bottom of the
first soil layer;
d2 = the depth from the ground surface to the bottom of the
second soil layer;
Ep = Young’s modulus of pile;
H = pile lateral capacity;
HA-B = pile lateral capacity in a two-layer sand profile (sand A
over sand B);
Hcrit = the critical pile lateral capacity when the pile length
reaches the critical pile length Lcrit ;
Hjd1¼0 = lateral capacity of a pile in a two-layer sand when the
top layer thickness d1 ¼ 0;
Hjd1¼∞ = lateral capacity of a pile in a two-layer sand when the
top layer thickness d1 → ∞;
Hj0.5° = pile lateral capacity corresponding to a pile rotation
θ ¼ 0.5° at mudline;
Hj1° = pile lateral capacity corresponding to a pile rotation
θ ¼ 1° at mudline;
h = load eccentricity;
I p = area moment of inertia of pile;
L = pile length;
Lcrit = critical pile length beyond which the pile lateral
capacity no longer increases;
LR = reference length ¼ 1 m;
pA = reference stress ¼ 100 kPa;
tw = wall thickness of pile;
© ASCE 04022001-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001
θ = pile rotation at the mudline; and
ν p = Poisson’s ratio of pile.
References
ABAQUS. 2014. Abaqus analysis user’s manual: ABAQUS 6.14-4. Johnston,
RI: SIMULIA.
Achmus, M., K. Abdel-Rahman, and P. Peralta. 2005. “On the design of
monopile foundations with respect to static and quasi-static cyclic load-
ing.” In Proc., Offshore Wind Energy Conf. Houston: Offshore Tech-
nology Conference.
Ahmed, S. S., and B. Hawlader. 2016. “Numerical analysis of large-
diameter monopiles in dense sand supporting offshore wind turbines.”
Int. J. Geomech. 16 (5): 04016018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000633.
Anderson, J. B., F. C. Townsend, and B. Grajales. 2003. “Case history
evaluation of laterally loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
129 (3): 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)
129:3(187).
API (American Petroleum Institute). 2014. API recommended practice
2A-WSD. Washington, DC: API.
Arany, L., S. Bhattacharya, J. Macdonald, and S. J. Hogan. 2017. “Design
of monopiles for offshore wind turbines in 10 steps.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng. 92 (Jan): 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016
.09.024.
Burd, H. J., et al. 2019. “PISA design model for monopiles for offshore
wind turbines: Application to a marine sand.” Géotechnique 70 (11):
1048–1066. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.P.277.
Burd, H. J., et al. 2020. “Application of the PISA design model to monop-
iles embedded in layered soils.” Géotechnique 70 (11): 1067–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009.
Byrne, B. W., et al. 2019a. “PISA design methods for offshore wind turbine
monopiles.” In Proc., Offshore Technology Conf. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Byrne, B. W., H. J. Burd, L. Zdravković, R. A. McAdam, D. M. G.
Taborda, G. T. Houlsby, R. J. Jardine, C. M. Martin, D. M. Potts, and
K. G. Gavin. 2019b. “PISA: New design methods for offshore wind
turbine monopiles.” Revue Française de Géotechnique 158 (1): 3.
https://doi.org/10.1051/geotech/2019009.
Byrne, B. W., R. Mcadam, H. J. Burd, G. T. Houlsby, and C. M. Martin.
2015. “New design methods for large diameter piles under lateral
loading for offshore wind applications.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, 705–710. Pathumthani, Thailand:
Asian Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18442-96.
Choi, Y. S., D. Basu, R. Salgado, and M. Prezzi. 2014. “Response of
laterally loaded rectangular and circular piles in soils with properties
varying with depth.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (4): 04013049.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001067.
Choo, Y. W., and D. Kim. 2016. “Experimental development of the p-y
relationship for large-diameter offshore monopiles in sands: Centrifuge
tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (1): 04015058. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001373.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). 2014. Design of offshore wind turbine struc-
tures. DNV-OS-J101. Bærum, Norway: DNV.
Doherty, P., and K. Gavin. 2012. “Laterally loaded monopole design for
offshore wind farms.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 165 (1): 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ener.11.00003.
Georgiadis, M. 1983. “Development of P-Y curves for layered soils.” Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 22 (5): 158. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0148-9062(85)92248-X.
Han, F. 2017. Axial and lateral resistance of non-displacement piles.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
Han, F., E. Ganju, R. Salgado, and M. Prezzi. 2018. “Effects of interface
roughness, particle geometry, and gradation on the sand-steel interface
friction angle.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (12): 04018096.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001990.
Han, F., M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2017a. “Energy-based solutions for non-
displacement piles subjected to lateral loads.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (11):
04017104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001012.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Han, F., M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2021. “Group efficiencies for design of
non-displacement pile groups in sand.” In Proc., Int. Foundations
Congress and Equipment Exposition (IFCEE 2021), 303–313. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Han, F., R. Salgado, and M. Prezzi. 2015. “Nonlinear analyses of laterally
loaded piles: A semi-analytical approach.” Comput. Geotech. 70 (Oct):
116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.07.009.
Han, F., R. Salgado, M. Prezzi, and J. Lim. 2017b. “Shaft and base resis-
tance of non-displacement piles in sand.” Comput. Geotech. 83 (Mar):
184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.11.006.
Han, F., R. Salgado, M. Prezzi, and J. Lim. 2019. “Axial resistance of non-
displacement pile groups in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (7):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee" on 05/02/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
04019027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002050.
Hearn, E. N., and L. Edgers. 2010. “Finite element analysis of an offshore
wind turbine monopile.” In Proc., GeoFlorida 2010, 1857–1865.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Hu, Q., F. Han, M. Prezzi, R. Salgado, and M. Zhao. 2021. “Lateral load
response of large-diameter monopiles in sand.” Géotechnique 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.20.00002.
Hu, Z. B., and Y. X. Yang. 2018. “Study on p-y curves of large-diameter
steel pipe piles for offshore wind farm in sand based on in-situ tests.”
J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 21 (2): 171–178. https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.201806
_21(2).0004.
Klinkvort, R., and O. Hededal. 2010. “Centrifuge modelling of offshore
monopile foundation.” In Frontiers in offshore geotechnics II,
581–586. London: CRC Press.
Klinkvort, R., C. Leth, and O. Hededal. 2010. “Centrifuge modelling of a
laterally cyclic loaded pile.” In Physical modelling in geotechnics, two
volume set, 959–964. London: CRC Press.
Klinkvort, R. T., and O. Hededal. 2013. “Lateral response of monopile sup-
porting an offshore wind turbine.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng.
166 (2): 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.12.00033.
Lesny, K., and J. Wiemann. 2005. “Design aspects of monopiles in
German offshore wind farms.” In Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Frontiers
in Offshore Geotechnics: Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG
2005, 383–389. London: Taylor & Francis.
Lesny, K., and J. Wiemann. 2006. “Finite-element-modelling of large
diameter monopiles for offshore wind energy converters.” In Proc.,
GeoCongress 2006, 1–6. Reston, VA: ASCE.
© ASCE 04022001-15
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2022, 148(4): 04022001
Li, W., B. Zhu, and M. Yang. 2017. “Static response of monopile to lateral
load in overconsolidated dense sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
143 (7): 04017026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000
1698.
Loukidis, D., and R. Salgado. 2009. “Modeling sand response using two-
surface plasticity.” Comput. Geotech. 36 (1–2): 166–186. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.02.009.
Luo, R., M. Yang, and W. Li. 2018. “Numerical study of diameter effect
on accumulated deformation of laterally loaded monopiles in sand.”
Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 24 (14): 2440–2452. https://doi.org/10.1080
/19648189.2018.1506828.
McGann, C. R., P. Arduino, and P. Mackenzie-Helnwein. 2011. “Appli-
cability of conventional p-y relations to the analysis of piles in laterally
spreading soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (6): 557–567. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000468.
Reese, L. C., W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop. 1975. “Field testing and analysis
of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay.” In Proc., Annual Offshore
Technology Conf., edited by L. Reese, 671–675. Houston: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Salgado, R., F. Han, and M. Prezzi. 2017. “Axial resistance of non-
displacement piles and pile groups in sand.” Rivista Italiana di Geotecn-
ica 51 (4): 35–46.
Suryasentana, S. K., and B. M. Lehane. 2016. “Updated CPT-based p–y
formulation for laterally loaded piles in cohesionless soil under static
loading.” Géotechnique 66 (6): 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot
.14.P.156.
Suzuki, P. T., D. Maloney, and L. Hamre. 2019. “Influence of layered soil
profiles on the application of p-y curves for large diameter monopiles.”
In Proc., 1st Vietnam Symp. on Advances in Offshore Engineering,
415–420. New York: Springer.
Yang, Z., and B. Jeremić. 2005. “Study of soil layering effects on lateral
loading behavior of piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (6): 762–
770. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:6(762).
Zdravković, L., et al. 2015. “Numerical modelling of large diameter piles
under lateral loading for offshore wind applications.” In Proc., 3rd Int.
Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, 759–764. Pathumthani,
Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18
442-105.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.