International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISSN 1053-5381) http://www.isope.org/publications/publications.

htm

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ijope/article-pdf/25/02/156/2190387/isope-15-25-2-156.pdf?casa_token=D8n8UprjsEIAAAAA:B9V3VvYsoEjahk-dEilQdILaI-xG5tv7uI0FwQe_wGFdFZk4aXxjeDehEr3eKS2OnIL6w5rI by Ohio State University user on 20 June 2024

Copyright © by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2015, pp. 156–160; http://dx.doi.org/10.17736/ijope.2015.hb14

Comparison of Lateral Behavior of Rock-Socketed Large-Diameter Offshore

Monopiles in Sands with Different Relative Densities
Dongwook Kim
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University
Incheon, Korea
Yun Wook Choo*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University
Cheonan-si, Chungnam-do, Korea
Kiseok Kwak
Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology
Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

Centrifuge tests were performed to investigate the effect of the relative density of the sandy layer on the lateral response of
6-m-diameter offshore monopiles. The end tips of the monopiles are socketed into rock-bearing layers. For the simulation of the
rock-socketed monopiles in sands with different relative densities (dense and medium dense sand layers), centrifuge tests at an
acceleration of 60 g were conducted using well-instrumented model monopiles under significant lateral loads and bending
moments. Based on the centrifuge test results, the p–y relationship and the initial stiffness (initial gradient of a p–y curve)
changed with an increasing depth for both dense and medium dense sand layers. As a result, the newly developed p–y curves
for rock-socketed large-diameter monopiles in this study were quite different from the existing API (American Petroleum
Institute) p–y curves, which were developed based on relatively small-diameter driven piles. It was found that the initial
stiffness for the medium dense sand layer was significantly lower than that for the dense sand layer at a shallow depth;
however, the ratio of initial stiffness of the medium dense sand layer to that of the dense sand layer decreases significantly as
the depth increases and approaches the stiff rock-bearing layer.

INTRODUCTION because of the limitations of equipment settings in severe offshore

environments. Therefore, centrifuge tests using well-instrumented
Renewable energy produced by wind turbines has now become
monopiles are a good alternative and an effective method of
one of the most promising clean energy resources. At the initial
evaluating monopiles’ behavior.
stage of wind turbine energy production, onshore or inland wind
The p–y method in sands recommended by the American
turbine construction was dominant. However, offshore wind turbines
Petroleum Institute (API) is widely used for the designs of offshore
have been built recently for more steady energy production because
piles, including large-diameter offshore monopiles. The API p–y
the wind quality in terms of wind strength and duration is far better
method (API, 1993) was developed after the work done by Reese
offshore than inland. In addition, the offshore wind turbines are
et al. (1974) based on their experimental results from the lateral
freer from the problems caused by their noise and vibration than
pile load tests of small-diameter piles (a pile diameter of up to
inland wind turbines. The number of offshore construction projects
610 mm) and the simplification process of O’Neill and Murchison
of wind farms keeps increasing worldwide, including off the shores
(1983). Significant diameter effect on p–y formulation has been
of Northern Europe, the United States, China, and Korea. The sizes
experimentally identified in clays (Reese et al., 1975; Stevens and
of generators and blades are increasing for more efficient energy
Audibert, 1979), although only limited literature notes its effect in
production; therefore, larger offshore wind turbine foundations are
sands. However, in the literature (Reese et al., 1975; Stevens and
also required for higher vertical and lateral capacities (resistances)
Audibert, 1979), there was no explanation of the disagreement
against significant vertical and lateral loads and bending moments.
between experimental results and p–y analysis results.
Because the diameters of constructed offshore monopiles are as
Theoretically, Terzaghi and Peck (1948) insisted that the low-
large as 5 m and even larger diameters are required (Achmus et al.,
strain elastic soil stiffness (in this paper, the initial gradient of a
2009), full-scale lateral load tests on the monopiles are practically
p–y curve is defined by the initial soil stiffness ki ) against the
impossible. A full-scale test to estimate the monopile’s vertical and
lateral movement of the pile should be independent of pile diameter.
lateral capacities under offshore conditions is especially difficult
Ashford and Juirnarongrit (2003) also supported the results of
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) based on the full-scale pile load test
*ISOPE Member. results.
Received July 23, 2014; updated and further revised manuscript received by The use of the API p–y method in sands on large-diameter
the editors January 21, 2015. The original version (prior to the final offshore monopile designs without verification of its applicability
updated and revised manuscript) was presented at the Twenty-fourth would lead to unsafe or uneconomical designs. In this study,
International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE-2014),
Busan, Korea, June 15–20, 2014.
centrifuge tests on well-instrumented rock-socketed large-diameter
KEY WORDS: Offshore wind turbines, offshore foundations, monopole, monopiles in sands were conducted. The lateral behavior of
lateral response, initial stiffness, p–y relationship. monopiles from the centrifuge test results is compared with that
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2015, pp. 156–160 157

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ijope/article-pdf/25/02/156/2190387/isope-15-25-2-156.pdf?casa_token=D8n8UprjsEIAAAAA:B9V3VvYsoEjahk-dEilQdILaI-xG5tv7uI0FwQe_wGFdFZk4aXxjeDehEr3eKS2OnIL6w5rI by Ohio State University user on 20 June 2024

predicted by the API p–y method. In addition, the p–y curves and
their initial stiffnesses, obtained from the experimental results, are
compared with those in the API criteria.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENT

The model monopiles were selected as follows: the outer diameter
(Dm ) and thickness (tm ) of the model monopile were 101.6 mm
and 2.0 mm in model scale, respectively. Because the g-level of the
centrifuge tests was 60 g, the corresponding outer diameter (Dp )
and thickness (tp ) of the monopile in prototype scale were 6.1 m
and 0.12 m, respectively. The Young’s modulus of the model pile
was 199 GPa, and the moment inertia was 10.06 m4 . The model
monopile is not reused for other tests because of the possibility of
any damages from the previous test.
The sands used in the experiment were nonplastic silica sands
artificially made by crushing quartzite with a hammer crusher. The
main reason to use crushed sands is to minimize particle size scale
effects on the pile lateral behavior. By reducing the particle size,
we expect more realistic interface friction between sands and pile,
which is governed by the ratio of soil particle size and roughness of Fig. 2 Dimensions of the monopile and measurement system in
the pile surface (Choo et al., 2014). The particle size distribution of prototype scale (Dp is the outer diameter of the monopile)
the sands used in the experiment is presented in Fig. 1. The specific
gravity (GS ) was 2.65. The median particle size (D50 5 was 0.22 was 10%) with a moisture content of 10%. An accurately cut real
mm. The curvature and uniformity coefficients (CC and CU 5 were hard rock was located on the bottom of a centrifuge cylindrical
1.11 and 1.96, respectively. The CC and CU values indicate that the container. The completed schematic installation of the monopile
sands were not well-graded soils; however, there was no difficulty is illustrated in Fig. 2. More details of the test preparation and
in forming uniform sand layers having consistent relative density. instrumentation can be found in Choo et al. (2014).
For the formulation of the upper sand layer with different relative
densities (DR ), an automatic sand-raining device was used and we
LATERAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP
varied the opening size of the hopper and the height of sand falling
from the hopper to the upper layer of sand. The target relative
FROM EXPERIMENT RESULTS AND API
densities of this study were 85% and 55%; however, two relative RECOMMENDATIONS
density levels of 87% and 58% were constructed for the dense and Monopile behavior estimated by the API recommendations is
medium dense upper sand layer. known to be much stiffer than that observed during the numerical
Saturation of the sand layers was conducted after sand layers analyses and experiments (Achmus et al., 2007; Choo et al., 2014).
were formed in dry conditions by letting water flow slowly along However, the much stiffer lateral behavior of piles predicted by the
the tank’s inner face to minimize the disturbance of the sand layers. API method was found for homogeneous sand layers; therefore,
For more saturation, before the main tests, a pilot spinning of the it is interesting to compare the lateral behavior of rock-socketed
centrifuge model (the instrumented soil tank) was performed under
centrifuge acceleration of up to 70 g for more than one hour. After
the pilot spinning, the centrifuge model was ramped down for the
final check-up on the status of the models.
The weathered rock layer was constructed by curing the mixture
of sand and Portland cement (weight percentage of cement to sand

Fig. 3 Lateral load (H) with an increasing lateral displacement

y505 from experimental measurement and API p–y method (H is
the applied lateral load at 33 m above seabed, y505 is the lateral
displacement at 5.5 m above seabed, and DR is the relative density
Fig. 1 Particle size distribution of the sands used in the experiment of a soil layer)
158 Comparison of Lateral Behavior of Rock-Socketed Large-Diameter Offshore Monopiles in Sands with Different Relative Densities

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ijope/article-pdf/25/02/156/2190387/isope-15-25-2-156.pdf?casa_token=D8n8UprjsEIAAAAA:B9V3VvYsoEjahk-dEilQdILaI-xG5tv7uI0FwQe_wGFdFZk4aXxjeDehEr3eKS2OnIL6w5rI by Ohio State University user on 20 June 2024

large-diameter monopiles from centrifuge test results to that from
the p–y analysis following the API recommendations. In pile
design practices, the p–y analysis method is typically used to check
the serviceability limit state in terms of pile lateral movement or
rotation. The p–y method originates from a beam–column analysis
method of replacing soil with nonlinear p–y springs.
To obtain a lateral response (load-displacement curve) of the
monopile, lateral load H and lateral displacement y505 were mea-
sured at 33 m and 5.5 m above the seabed, respectively. The lateral
load was applied far above the seabed to simulate the significant
lateral load and bending moment induced by wind, waves, and
other environmental loads. The lateral displacements were measured
at multiple locations of the exposed pile; however, because of the
space limitation, to install displacement transducers, the lowest
possible displacement measurement location was 5.5 m above the
seabed in prototype scale.
For the two cases (i.e., the different relative densities of the upper
sand layers), lateral load-displacement curves were obtained and are
shown in Fig. 3. For a given lateral load, the lateral displacement
(y505 ) was lower in the denser sand layer because the dense sand
layer has a higher stiffness.
In this study, it is assumed that the pu in Eq. 4 is equal to the
pu proposed by the API. The ultimate lateral resistance pu of the
API method in sands is developed from the analytical solution,
assuming that the soil at the loading direction side of the pile
ultimately exhibits a passive wedge-type failure (Reese et al., 2004).
The passive wedge-type failure typically occurs when the piles
laterally translate without significant rotation. Therefore, the pu of
rock-socketed piles in sands could be different to some extent from
the pu proposed by the API because the deformation mode of the
rock-socketed piles involves a combination of lateral translation
and rotation. This simple assumption of the API about pu would
lead to significant disagreement between its pu prediction and the
true value of pu . Verification of the validity of this assumption,
based on the pu prediction using a more advanced model or on the
pu measurement by sophisticated experiments, is necessary.
In the experiment of this study, measurement of pu was not
possible because of the loading capacity and the limited space of
the cylindrical container of the loading equipment adopted in the

METHOD OF OBTAINING EXPERIMENTAL p–y

RELATIONSHIP
Bending moments (M5 along the well-instrumented model
monopile are available from the strain measurements (in pairs at
each vertical level) along the pile’s shaft. To obtain a mathematical
differentiable formulation of the bending moment profile, the
discrete bending moment distribution is fitted to the following form
of a polynomial, as proposed by Wilson (1998):

M = a0 + a1 z + a2 z205 + a3 z3 + a4 z4 + a5 z5 (1)

Additionally, the calculated bending moment profile is used to

calculate the soil reaction force (p5 per length and lateral displace-
ment (y5. The soil reactions are calculated by double differentiation
of the fitted bending moment profile by Eq. 2, and the lateral
displacements are obtained from double integration of the fitting
profile by Eq. 3, with the measured boundary conditions (i.e., three (a)
lateral displacement measurements on the exposed pile).

d2 M
p=− (2)
dz2
Z Z  Z Z M 
y=  dz dz = dz dz (3)
EI

where  is the curvature of the monopile (the ratio of the difference

between compression and tension strains measured at a depth of
interest to the distance between these two strain gages), M is
the bending moment at a depth of interest z, EI is the flexural
modulus of the monopile, p is the soil reaction per unit length of
the monopile, and y is the lateral displacement of the pile at a
depth of interest.

INITIAL STIFFNESS PROFILE FROM MEASUREMENT

The initial soil stiffness ki at a certain depth is obtained from
regression analysis using experimental results for the following given
hyperbolic equation with the assumed ultimate lateral resistance pu : (b)
y Fig. 4 Best-fit p–y curves based on the experimental results for
p= (4)
1 y different embedded depths: (a) dense sand upper layer and (b)
+
ki p u medium dense sand upper layer
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2015, pp. 156–160
centrifuge. Although the pu that was used may be different from
the real value, the experimental p–y curves developed in this paper
match well the experimental results within the measured range of
lateral displacements.
Unfortunately, strain measurements at all levels were not pos-
sible. The strain measurements within rock layers were erratic
or unobtainable because the strain levels of the rock-socketed
part were very small and negligible. However, most of the strain
measurements within the sand layers were successful. The fitted
equations (Eq. 4) and the p–y relationship from the experimental
measurements are plotted in Fig. 4 for dense and medium dense
sand layers, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 4, the experimental data fit well to the
hyperbolic p–y relationship curves. The initial soil stiffness ki
increases with depth for both soil profiles; yet, the increasing trends
of the initial soil stiffness of the two soil profiles are different. The
variation in the initial soil stiffness for both cases is plotted in
Fig. 5.
The initial soil stiffness ki varies with the friction angle (or
relative density) of the soil and water table conditions (i.e., whether
a soil layer is placed below or above the water table). The API
recommendations (API, 1993) propose a proportional relationship
between the initial soil stiffness and depth (Fig. 5). The initial soil
stiffness ki profiles of the dense and medium dense sand layers do
not match those recommended by the API. The ki values from
the API recommendations are much higher than those obtained
from the experiment. Davisson (1963) also mentioned that the
initial soil stiffness increases linearly with depth for granular soils,
normally loaded silts, and clays. On the other hand, Yan and
Byrne (1992) claimed that the ki increases with increasing depth,
but the relationship between ki and depth is not linear. From the
comparison between soil elastic moduli and depths, they found that
the increment of ki with an increasing depth tends to decrease.
In addition, for the two cases (the dense and medium dense sand
upper layers), as the depth z becomes deeper and closer to relatively
stiff rock layers, the gradient ki of p with respect to y becomes
much stiffer than for that installed in a single sand layer without
stiff rock layers. The experimental results without rock layers are
available in Choo et al. (2014). Furthermore, the difference in
ki between the dense sand layer and medium dense sand layer
Fig. 5 Variation in initial soil stiffness with an increasing depth
from the seabed for dense and medium dense sand upper layers
159
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ijope/article-pdf/25/02/156/2190387/isope-15-25-2-156.pdf?casa_token=D8n8UprjsEIAAAAA:B9V3VvYsoEjahk-dEilQdILaI-xG5tv7uI0FwQe_wGFdFZk4aXxjeDehEr3eKS2OnIL6w5rI by Ohio State University user on 20 June 2024
Fig. 6 Lateral load H with an increasing lateral displacement y505
from the experimental measurement and p–y method with revised
initial stiffness for dense and medium dense sand upper layers
cases becomes smaller as the depth z becomes closer to the rock
layers. The effect of a strong, stiff layer on the p–y relationship
(including ki 5 of the pile and the adjacent relatively weak layer is
also mentioned by Yang and Jeremic (2005), who revealed that
the ki of multilayers is interactively influenced by neighboring
layers (as we found in this study). “Layers with different stiffness
effects on p–y curves” were initially discussed by Georgiadis
(1983) and modified by Yang and Jeremic (2005) based on the
rigorous three-dimensional finite element analysis results. Yang and
Jeremic (2005) concluded that the p–y relationship of a pile within
a soft layer over a stiff layer becomes stiffer than the curve within
a single homogeneous soft layer.
Another issue of ki is the existence of diameter effect on ki . For
a given depth, Carter (1984) and Ling (1988) found that the initial
soil stiffness ki increases with an increasing pile diameter. The
results were derived from the literature review for pile diameter
ranging from approximately 8 cm to 90 cm. However, the centrifuge
test results derived in the present study show a disagreement with
the results by Carter (1984) and Ling (1988). A further study
should be performed regarding the pile diameter effect on the p–y
relationship.
Based on the obtained p–y relationship (Eq. 4) from the experi-
ment, a lateral load-displacement relationship is examined using
the p–y numerical analysis. The results are plotted in Fig. 6. The
p–y analysis using the experimental p–y relationship tends to
slightly overestimate the lateral displacement y505 within a small
magnitude of lateral load H (approximately H < 14 MN) and tends
to underestimate the lateral displacement for H > 14 MN. However,
the experimental p–y relationships reasonably capture the overall
lateral behavior of the large-diameter monopiles.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicability of the API p–y method in sands on rock-
socketed large-diameter offshore monopiles is examined based on
centrifuge test results. It was found that the API p–y method rea-
sonably captures the apparent lateral load-displacement relationship
from centrifuge test results within a small lateral displacement range
(lateral displacement within 0.05 m for a monopile with a 6.1 m
diameter). However, for larger lateral displacements, the API p–y
method results in a much stiffer lateral behavior compared to cen-
trifuge test results. In addition, a comparison of initial soil stiffness
in a p–y curve is made between experimental results and the API
160 Comparison of Lateral Behavior of Rock-Socketed Large-Diameter Offshore Monopiles in Sands with Different Relative Densities
recommendations. The initial soil stiffness ki of p–y curves from
the centrifuge tests was much lower than that proposed by the API.
For the piles installed along multiple layers with significantly dif-
ferent soil or rock stiffnesses, the initial soil stiffness in p–y curves
of the softer layer increases significantly as the depth approaches
the much stiffer layer. The ki in the sand layer with increasing
depth for rock-socketed piles is significantly different from that
for piles embedded in uniform sand layers. Previous researchers
claimed that the ki for a uniform sandy layer either increases
linearly or increases with reduced increment with increasing depth.
Thus, more research is required to quantify the effect of difference
in stiffness between adjacent soil or rock layers on the initial soil
stiffness of the p–y relationship.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study presented in this paper was supported by Grant
R&D/10 Technology Innovation E04 from the Offshore Wind-
Energy Foundation System Project funded by the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). The authors acknowledge
all the support from the MOLIT.
REFERENCES
Achmus, M, Abdel-Rahman, K, and Kuo, Y-S (2007). “Behavior of
Large Diameter Monopiles Under Cyclic Horizontal Loading,”
In Proc 12th Int Colloquium Struct Geotech Eng, Cairo, Egypt,
11 pp.
Achmus, M, Kuo, YS, and Abdel-Rahman, K (2009). “Behavior of
Monopile Foundations Under Cyclic Lateral Load,” Comput
Geotech, 36(5), 725–735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.12.003.
API (1993). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms: Working Stress Design,
API-RP-2A-WSD, 20th ed, American Petroleum Institute.
Ashford, S, and Juirnarongrit, T (2003). “Evaluation of Pile Diame-
ter Effect on Initial Modulus of Sugrade Reaction,” J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng, ASCE, 129(3), 234–242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:3(234).
Carter, DP (1984). A Nonlinear Soil Model for Predicting Lateral
Pile Response, Technical Report No 359, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Choo, YW, et al. (2014). “Lateral Response of Large-Diameter
Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbines from Centrifuge Model
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ijope/article-pdf/25/02/156/2190387/isope-15-25-2-156.pdf?casa_token=D8n8UprjsEIAAAAA:B9V3VvYsoEjahk-dEilQdILaI-xG5tv7uI0FwQe_wGFdFZk4aXxjeDehEr3eKS2OnIL6w5rI by Ohio State University user on 20 June 2024
Tests," Geotech Test J, ASTM, 37(1), 107–120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20130081.
Davisson, MT (1963). “Estimating Buckling Loads for Piles,” Proc
2nd Pan Am Conf Soil Mech Found Eng, Sociedad Mexicana de
Mecánica de Suelos, Mexico City, Mexico, 1, 351–371.
Georgiadis, M (1983). “Development of p-y Curves for Layered
Soils,” Proc Geotech Pract Offshore Eng, Austin, TX, USA,
ASCE, 536–545.
Ling, LF (1988). Back Analysis of Lateral Load Tests on Piles, MS
Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Auckland,
New Zealand0
O’Neill, MW, and Murchison, JM (1983). An Evaluation of p–y
Relationship in Sands, A Report to the American Petroleum
Institute, PRAC 82-41-1. Also Department of Civil Engineer-
ing Research Report No GT-DF02-83, University of Houston,
University Park, TX, USA.
Reese, LC, Cox, WR, and Koop, FD (1974). “Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Sand,” Proc 6th Annu Offshore Technol Conf,
Houston, TX, USA, OTC 2080, 473–483.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/2080-MS.
Reese, LC, Cox, WR, and Koop, FD (1975). “Field Testing and
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Stiff Clay,” Proc 7th Annu
Offshore Technol Conf, Houston, TX, USA, OTC 2312, 671–690.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/2312-MS.
Reese, LC, Wang, ST, Isenhower, WM, and Arrellaga, JA (2004).
A Program for the Analysis of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under
Lateral Loads, Ensoft, Inc, Austin, TX, USA.
Stevens, JB, and Audibert, JME (1979). “Re-examination of p–y
Curve Formulations,” Proc 11th Annu Offshore Technol Conf,
Houston, TX, USA, OTC 3402, 397–403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/3402-MS.
Terzaghi, K, and Peck, RB (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, 1st Ed, John Wiley and Sons, 566 pp.
Wilson, D (1998). Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction in Liquefying
Sand and Soft Clay, PhD Dissertation, University of California
at Davis, CA, USA.
Yan, L, and Byrne, PM (1992). “Lateral Pile Response to Mono-
tonic Pile Head Loading,” Can Geotech J, 29(6), 955–970.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t92-106.
Yang, Z, and Jeremic, B (2005). “Study of Soil Layering Effects
on Lateral Loading Behavior of Piles,” J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng, ASCE, 131(6), 762–770.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:6(762).