You are on page 1of 76

Development of P-Y Curves for Monopiles

in Clay using Finite Element Model Plaxis


3D Foundation

Dhruba Lal Pradhan

Geotechnics and Geohazards


Submission date: June 2012
Supervisor:
Gudmund Reidar Eiksund, BAT
Co-supervisor:
Liv Hamre, DNV

Norwegian University of Science and Technology


Department of Civil and Transport Engineering

ReportTitle:

Date:June2012

Numberofpages(incl.appendices):71
DevelopmentofPYCurvesforMonopilesinClayusingFinite
ElementModelPlaxis3DFoundation

MasterThesis

ProjectWork

Name:DhrubaLalPradhan
Professorincharge/supervisor:Prof.GudmundReidarEiksund
Otherexternalprofessionalcontacts/supervisors:LivHamre(DetNorskeVeritas,Oslo)

Abstract:
Themonopileswithtypicaldiametersof46maremostlyusedasfoundationsfortheoffshorewindturbinestructurestoresist
theverticalandhorizontalloads.Theresponseofthelaterallyloadedpiledependsuponthesoilandpilebehaviorandalsoon
the interaction between them. Various methods for the development of py curves exist and the accuracy of such methods
dependsuponthedatafromwhichitwasdeveloped.Theaccuracyoftheanalysisofthepiledependsontheaccuracyatwhich
thepycurverepresentsthesoilresponsetothelateralpiledeflectionbecausemostofthecommonlyusedpycurvecriteria
arebasedonaverylimitednumberoftests.
ThepycurverecommendedbyAPI(AmericanPetroleumInstitute)codewhichiswidelyusedbygeotechnicalengineersforthe
analysisoflaterallyloadedpiles;howeverthemethodwasdevelopedfortheslenderpileswithdiametersuptoapproximately
2m.Henceseveralauthorshaveclaimedthatpycurvesshouldberevisedtobeapplicableforlargediameterrigidpile.
Thethesispresentsthefiniteelementmodel(FEM)analysisofmonopilesinmarineclaywiththediameterfrom1mto6mby
meansoftheFiniteElementprogramPlaxis3DFoundation.Toavoidtheinfluenceofthepileflexibilityandpilerotation,lateral
translationofrigidpilesisanalyzed.
TherigidpileandsoilwithhardeningsoilparameterismodeledinFEMPlaxis3DFoundation.Pilesareloadedwithlateralloads
toobtainthesoilresponseonpileandpiledeflectionatdifferentstageswhichinturnisusedforthedevelopmentofpycurve
andarecomparedwiththeAPIpycurves.Theresultdoesnotshowanydiametereffectintheinitialstiffnessbuttheinitial
stiffnessofsoilisverylowincomparisontothatgivenbythepycurve(APIcode).LowstiffnesscomparedtoAPIpycurvemay
beduetotheselectedparametersofthesoilmodel.
As the result shows difference in py curve from FEM 3D plaxis foundation and API code, some field test results for larger
diameterwillbefruitfultodecidewhichmethodisvalidfortheanalysisofthelargerdiametermonopiles.

KeyWords:
1.DevelopmentofPYCurve
2.LateralDisplacement
3.FEMPlaxis3DFoundation
4.SecantStiffness

___________________________________


Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi
Institutt for bygg, anlegg og transport

MASTERDEGREETHESIS
Spring2012
for
Student:DhrubaLalPradhan

DevelopmentofPYCurvesforMonopilesinClayusingFinite
ElementModelPlaxis3DFoundation
BACKGROUND
Wind energy is a renewable energy source believed to have potential for delivering a
significant amount of the future energy demands. Offshore wind turbines are one
possibilityfordevelopmentofthisenergysource.Thewindturbinesareexposedtolarge
cyclic loads from wind and waves while installation and maintenance of offshore
structures are costly. It is therefore important that the foundation methods are both
robustandeconomicaloptimal.Afrequentlyusedfoundationmethodforwindturbines
is monopiles. Typical monopile dimensions are 3 6 m in diameter and 20 to 50 m
penetration depth. The dominating design practice for the monopiles is to use PY
curves recommended by API. The API PY curves are originally developed for smaller
andmoreflexiblepiles.
TASKDESCRIPTION
The objective for this thesis research is to compare results from 3D finite element
analysis of monopiles with results from the PY approach recommended by API. This
topicwasinvestigatedinaprojectworkin2011.Intheprojectreportitwasconcluded
that the existing PY curves may not be applicable for large diameter monopiles and
that this topic could further investigated in a thesis work were more parameter
variationscanbeincluded.
Thisthesiswillincludethefollowingactivities:

AreviewofproposedPYcurves
Backgroundandmotivationfortheparametervariations
Evaluation of the selected parameters for the soil material model in relation to
theparametersforthePYcurves
Presentationofthe3Dfiniteelementmodel
Presentationandevaluationoftheresults
RecommendationsfordevelopmentofPYcurvesformonopiles
ii


Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi
Institutt for bygg, anlegg og transport

Professorincharge:GudmundReidarEiksund
Othersupervisors:LivHamre,DNV
DepartmentofCivilanTransportEngineering,NTNU
Trondheim,June06,2012.

_______________________________________
Professorincharge(sign)

iii

Acknowledgement

This report is prepared for the result of the Geotechnical Master Thesis at Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU) spring 2012. The thesis is based on the
theoretical background and analyses of laterally loaded monopiles for offshore wind
turbinesinFEMPLAXIS3DFoundation.
The project was proposed by the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and would like to thank
Professor Gudmund Eiksund and Liv Hamre (DNV) for their valuable guidance and
suggestions.
IwouldliketothanksProfessorThomasBenz,ProfessorLarsGrande,ProfessorSteinar
Nordal,AssistantProfessorArnfinnEmdalfortheliteratureandguidanceinthegraduate
yearatNTNU.

..
DhrubaLalPradhan
June2012,Trondheim

iv

Abstract
The monopiles with typical diameters of 46m are mostly used as foundations for the
offshorewindturbinestructurestoresisttheverticalandhorizontalloads.Theresponse
of the laterally loaded pile depends upon the soil and pile behavior and also on the
interactionbetweenthem.Variousmethodsforthedevelopmentofpycurvesexistand
theaccuracyofsuchmethodsdependsuponthedatafromwhichitwasdeveloped.The
accuracy of the analysis of the pile depends on the accuracy at which the py curve
representsthesoilresponsetothelateralpiledeflectionbecausemostofthecommonly
usedpycurvecriteriaarebasedonaverylimitednumberoftests.
ThepycurverecommendedbyAmericanPetroleumInstitute(API)codewhichiswidely
used by geotechnical engineers for the analysis of laterally loaded piles; however the
method was developed for the slender piles with diameters up to approximately 2m.
Henceseveralauthorshaveclaimedthatpycurvesshouldberevisedtobeapplicablefor
largediameterrigidpile(Augustesen,Sorensen,&Ibsen,2010),(Achmus,AbdelRahman,
&Kuo,2008).
Thethesispresentsthefiniteelementmodel(FEM)analysisofmonopilesinmarineclay
with the diameter from 1m to 6m by means of the Plaxis 3D Foundation. To avoid the
influence of the pile flexibility and pile rotation, lateral translation of rigid piles is
analyzed.
The rigid pile and soil with hardening soil parameter is modeled in FEM Plaxis 3D
Foundation.Pilesareloadedwithlateralloadstoobtainthesoilresponseonpileandpile
deflectionatdifferentstageswhichinturnisusedforthedevelopmentofpycurveand
arecomparedwiththeAPIpycurves.Theresultdoesnotshowanydiametereffectin
theinitialstiffnessbuttheinitialstiffnessofsoilisverylowincomparisontothatgiven
bythepycurve(APIcode).LowstiffnesscomparedtoAPIpycurvemaybeduetothe
selectedparametersofthesoilmodel.
AstheresultshowsdifferenceinpycurvefromFEM3DPlaxisfoundationandAPIcode,
somefieldtestresultsforlargerdiameterwillbefruitfultodecidewhichmethodisvalid
fortheanalysisofthelargerdiametermonopiles.

TableofContents
Acknowledgement............................................................................................................................iv
Abstract..............................................................................................................................................v
ListofFigures..................................................................................................................................viii
ListofTables......................................................................................................................................x
ListofSymbols.................................................................................................................................xii
1.

2.

Introduction...............................................................................................................................1
1.1

Background........................................................................................................................1

1.2

ChoiceofSubject...............................................................................................................1

1.3

Objectives..........................................................................................................................2

MethodsforpycurveDevelopment........................................................................................3
2.1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................3

2.2

CharacteristicsofPyCurve...............................................................................................3

2.3

FailureMechanismofSoilSurroundingthePile................................................................4

2.4

PYCurveCriteriaforClays................................................................................................6

2.4.1

Softclaycriteria(Matlock,1970)...............................................................................6

2.4.2

AboveWaterTable(AWT)StiffClayCriteria(Reese&Welch,1975).......................6

2.4.3

BelowWaterTable(BWT)StiffClayCriteria(Reeseetal,1975)...............................7

2.4.4

DesigncodesrecommendationsforPycurve(API,1993).......................................8

2.4.5

UnifiedClayCriteria(Sullivan,Reese,&Fenske,1980)...........................................11

2.4.6

IntegratedClayCriteria(O'Neill&Gazioglu,1984).................................................12

2.4.7

UseofBezierEquationstoRepresentpyCurve(Kodikara,Haque,&Lee,2010)..13

2.5
3.

DiscussiononDifferentClayCriteria...............................................................................15

DescriptionofModel...............................................................................................................17
3.1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................17

3.2

SoilCondition...................................................................................................................18

3.3

PileProperties..................................................................................................................19

3.4

Loads................................................................................................................................19

3.5

ModelingandAnalysisinPlaxis3DFoundation..............................................................22

4.

Results......................................................................................................................................27

5.

Discussion................................................................................................................................46

6.

Conclusion................................................................................................................................48
vi


7.

References...............................................................................................................................49

Appendices......................................................................................................................................51

vii

ListofFigures
Figure1:CharacteristicspyCurveforshorttermStaticLoad.........................................................4
Figure2:ComponentsofLateralresistanceinclayclosetogroundsurface(Randolph&Susan,
2011)..................................................................................................................................................5
Figure3:Flowroundmechanismfordeeplateralresistanceinclay(Randolph&Susan,2011).....5
Figure4:pycurveforabovewatertablestiffclaycriteria(StaticLoading).....................................7
Figure5:pycurveforbelowwatertablestiffclaycriteria(StaticLoading).....................................8
Figure6:CharacteristicshapeofPycurveforsoftclaygivenbyAPIcode(Staticloading)...........10
Figure7:CharacteristicshapeofPycurveforsoftclayforcyclicloading.....................................11
Figure8:pycurveforunifiedclaycriteria(StaticLoading)............................................................12
Figure9:pycurvedevelopedbyintegratedclaycriteria(Staticloading)......................................13
Figure10:TypicalRepresentationsofpyCurve(Bransby1996)andBeizerTechnique................14
Figure11:Sketchofthetypicalmodel............................................................................................17
Figure12:DefiningtheDifferentClusterforSoilModeling............................................................23
Figure13:PileModeling..................................................................................................................23
Figure14:BoreholePropertiesfortheAnalysis..............................................................................24
Figure15:MeshinginHorizontalDirection.....................................................................................24
Figure16:ThreeDimensionalModelsoftheSoilandPilewithMeshing.......................................25
Figure17:DifferentPhasesfortheAnalysis....................................................................................25
Figure18:DeformedMesh..............................................................................................................26
Figure19:IncrementalShearStrain................................................................................................26
Figure20:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof1mDiameter.................34
Figure21:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof2mDiameter.................35
Figure22:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof3mDiameter.................36
Figure23:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof4mDiameter.................37
Figure24:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof5mDiameter.................38
Figure25:SoilResistancevestLateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof6mDiameter..............39
Figure26:PYcurvesforthepilewith1mdiameterat1.05mdepth.............................................40
Figure27:PYcurvesforthepilewith1mdiameterat5.0mdepth...............................................40
Figure28:PYcurvesforthepilewith2mdiameterat2.25mdepth.............................................41
Figure29:PYcurvesforthepilewith2mdiameterat10.13mdepth...........................................41

viii


Figure30:PYcurvesforthepilewith3mdiameterat3.0mdepth...............................................42
Figure31:PYcurvesforthepilewith3mdiameterat15.0mdepth.............................................42
Figure32:PYcurvesforthepilewith4mdiameterat3.75mdepth.............................................43
Figure33:PYcurvesforthepilewith4mdiameterat20.0mdepth.............................................43
Figure34:PYcurvesforthepilewith5mdiameterat5.25mdepth.............................................44
Figure35:PYcurvesforthepilewith5mdiameterat25.38mdepth...........................................44
Figure36:PYcurvesforthepilewith6mdiameterat6.25mdepth.............................................45
Figure37:PYcurvesforthepilewith6mdiameterat30.0mdepth.............................................45

ix

ListofTables
Table1:PYcurveforShorttermstaticloadforsoftclay.................................................................9
Table2:PYcurveforthecasewhereequilibriumisreachedundercyclicload............................10
Table3:Thesoilparametersforfirstlayersoil...............................................................................18
Table4:Thesoilparametersforthesecondlayersoil....................................................................18
Table5:Theparametersusedforequivalentsolidpileinanalysis.................................................19
Table6:Loadcombinationfor1mdiameterPile............................................................................20
Table7:Loadcombinationfor2mdiameterPile............................................................................20
Table8:Loadcombinationfor3mdiameterPile............................................................................20
Table9:Loadcombinationfor4mdiameterPile............................................................................21
Table10:Loadcombinationfor5mdiameterPile..........................................................................21
Table11:Loadcombinationfor6mdiameterPile..........................................................................21
Table12:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor1mDiameterPileat1.05m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................28
Table13:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor1mDiameterPileat5.0m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................28
Table14:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor2mDiameterPileat2.25m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................29
Table15:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor2mDiameterPileat10.13m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................29
Table16:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor3mDiameterPileat3.0m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................30
Table17:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor3mDiameterPileat15.0m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................30
Table18:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor4mDiameterPileat3.75m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................31
Table19:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor4mDiameterPileat20.0m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................31
Table20:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor5mDiameterPileat5.25m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................32
Table21:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor5mDiameterPileat25.38m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................32
Table22:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor6mDiameterPileat6.25m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................33
x


Table23:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor6mDiameterPileat30.0m
DepthbelowMudline.....................................................................................................................33

xi

ListofSymbols
Symbol

Explanation

KN/m2

Lateralsoilresistance

Lateralpiledisplacement

ki

Initialsoilstiffness

KN/m3

Ultimatelateralsoilresistance

KN/m2

pu,pult
yc,yu,y50
ye
pe
Z
Zcr

Ultimatelateralpiledeflection
Maximumdisplacementofpileforlinearportionof
pycurve
Maximumsoilresistanceforlinearportionofpy
curve
Depthbelowsoilsurface

m
m
KN/m2
m

Su

Criticaldepthbelowsoilsurface
depthbelowsoilsurfacetobottomofreduced
resistancezone
Diameterofpile
Strainat50%ofmaximumshearstressinunconfined
undrainedtriaxialtest
Undrainedshearstrength

Np

Ultimatelateralsoilresistancecoefficient

EffectiveoverburdenstressatdepthZ
API(1987)lateralresistancefactor.Normal
valuefrom0.25to0.8
Effectiveunitweightofsoil
averageundrainedshearstrengthfromground
surfacetodepthZ
averageeffectiveunitweightfromgroundsurfaceto
depthZ
empiricalparameterusedinunifiedclaycriteria
empiricalreductionfactorrepresentativeofsoil
strengthdegradability
empiricalreductionfactorrepresentativeofsoil
strengthdegradabilityforstaticloading
Criticalpilelength

KN/m2

Bendingstiffnessofpile

KNm2

Ep

Youngsmoduluselasticityforpilematerial

KN/m2

Es

Youngsmodulusofsoil

KNm2

ZR
D,d
50

Suavg
avg

A
F
Fs
Lc
EpIp

xii

Unit

m
m
m

KN/m2

KN/m3
KN/m2
KN/m3

DummyvariableusedinBeizersequationvaries
from0to1
Stiffnessmodulusforprimaryloadingindrained
triaxialtest
Stiffnessmodulusforprimaryloadinginoedometer
test
Stiffnessmodulusforunloading/reloadingindrained
triaxialtest
Modulusexponentforstressdependency

Poissonsratio

u
E50ref
Eoedref
Eurref

KN/m2
KN/m2
KN/m2

Saturatedunitweight

KN/m3

Unsaturatedunitweight

KN/m3

InternalFrictionAngleofsoil

degree

DilationAngle

degree

ShearforceonpileatdepthZ

BendingmomentatdepthZ

sat
unsat

xiii

kN
kNm

1.Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1

Background

Pilefoundationsarecommonlyusedtosupportarangeofheavilyloadedstructureslike
electrical transmission towers, highrise buildings, bridge foundations, retaining
structures and wind turbines (Kodikara, Haque, & Lee, 2010). Monopile is one of the
foundation options for offshore wind turbines employed in shallow water up to the
depthsof30m.Since,thesepilesareoftensubjectedtoheavyverticalandlateralloads;
they should be designed to resist both vertical and lateral loads without failure or
excessive lateral deflection. It is important to understand the loaddisplacement
response of the laterally loaded pile for the design purpose. Recently large diameter
monopileshavebeenusedasfoundationfortheoffshorewindturbinetoresistthelarge
lateralloading(Augustesen,etal.,2009).Thediametersofsuchmonopilesarearound4
6mandembeddedlengthof2030mdependinguponthemagnitudeofloadsandthesoil
conditions.
Intheanalysisofpilessupportingoffshorestructure,thekeyelementinpredictingthe
response to lateral loads is the determination of the appropriate lateral load
deformationrelationships(pycurves)forthesoil. Thepresentpracticeofconstructing
the py curves are based on the result of lateral load tests on instrumented piles and
strengthdeformationcharacteristicsofthesoil.
The pile analysis method commonly used in practice is the py approach (Reese et al.
1974) and py approach (Matlock, 1970), where the py curves represents the
relationshipsbetweenthelateralload(p)andthedisplacement(y)atapointinthepile.
Thisreportwilldescribeandsummarizeanumberofdifferentmethodsforanalysisand
designedoflaterallyloadedpilefoundationandmostlyfocusedonthedevelopmentof
the py curve for the laterally loaded monopile embedded in marine clay using finite
elementprogram3DPlaxisfoundation.

1.2

Choice of Subject

ThesubjectDevelopmentofpycurveformonopilesinmarineclayisthecontinuation
of the project work with subject A Parametric study of monopile Wind turbine
FoundationwhichwaschosenincooperationwithDetNorskVeritas(DNV).
The project work was focused on the comparison of lateral displacement of the pile
under static loading calculated from FEM Plaxis 3D Foundation and traditional py
method (Geosuite 2010, Pile Analysis). The results for the combination of different
diameterandembeddedlengthofpilewerecompared,whichshowsthatthetraditional

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

1.Introduction

pycurvesuggestedbyAPIcodegivesalmostthesameresultforthe2.5mdiameterpile
but more lateral displacement for 5m and 6m diameter pile in comparison to result
obtained from the FEM 3D Plaxis Foundation. The kick back effect can also be seen in
largerdiameterpile.Someresultsfromtheprojectworkareattachedinappendix(A.2).
Development of the py curve for the monopiles in marine clay using FEM 3D Plaxis
Foundationisthereforeoftheinterest.

1.3

Objectives

Themainobjectivesofthisthesisare:
1. Areviewoftheproposedpycurvesforclay.
2. Evaluationoftheselectedparametersforthesoilmaterialmodelinrelationto
theparametersforthepycurvesgivenbyAPIcode
3. Developmentofthesoilresponsedisplacementcurvesforthemonopileinclay
usingFEM3DPlaxisFoundation
4. Studyoneffectofpilediameterinsoilresponseandpiledisplacement
5. ComparisonoftheresultwiththepycurvesuggestedbyAPIcode.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

2. MethodsforpycurveDevelopment
2.1

Introduction

Somestudieshavebeendonefordevelopingthepycurveforthepileindifferenttimes
andsomehavebeenongoingcontinuouslytoimprovetheexistingmethods.Anumberof
different methods have been proposed for the development of the py curves. The py
curvewhichisoriginatedfromthesubgradereactionmethodrepresentsthelateralload
perunitlength,p,whichisanintegraloftheshearandnormalpressureactingonapile
segment when the pile is translated laterally into the soil by a displacement of y
(Matlock,1970).
Because of the complexity of the manner in which unit soil resistance is mobilized, its
characteristicshavegenerallybeendeterminedempiricallyfromtheresultsoffullscale
and model pile load tests. Empirical determination of the py behavior from load test
resultisvalidandreasonableinmostcasesbutitisimportanttorecognizethelimitation
ofsuchempiricalapproach.Theaccuracyofsuchempiricalmethodsdependsuponthe
datafromwhichitwasdeveloped.Thereliabilityoftheapproachisbasedonthenumber
of tests (Kramer, 1988). The most commonly used py curve criteria (Matlock, 1970) is
basedonaverylimitednumberoftests.
Thischapterwilldiscussthegeneralcharacteristicofpycurveanddescribethedifferent
methodsproposedfordevelopingpycurvefordifferentsoilcondition.

2.2

Characteristics of Py Curve

The py curve which is originated from the subgrade reaction method represents the
lateral load per unit length, p, which is an integral of the shear and normal pressure
acting on a pile segment when the pile is translated laterally into the soil by a
displacementofy(Matlock,1970).
Thepycurvesimplyrelatestheunitsoilresistancetopiledeflection.Theoretically,itis
normally assumed that the soil in the back and front of the pile will remain in contact
withreferencetothepileduringlateraldisplacement.Typicalrepresentationofpycurve
applicabletothesinglepileintheclayeysoilisshowninFigure1.Theslopeofpycurve
atanydeflectionrepresentsthetangentsoilstiffnessatthatdeflection.Theratiop/yat
any deflection represents the secant soil stiffness corresponding to that deflection
(Kramer,1988).
Matlock(1970)developedtheempiricalexpressiontorepresentthepycurvedefinedby
thepowerfunctionofdeflectionnormalizedbypiledeflectionat50%oftheultimatesoil

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

reaction.Integratedclaycriteria(O'Neill&Gazioglu,1984)proposedthreeexpressionsto
representthedifferentsegmentofthepycurve.
The reference displacement (yc) is taken as the displacement of pile that will occur at
50%oftheultimatesoilresistance.Theultimatesoilresistanceoccursatadisplacement
ofyuandbeyondtheseremainsconstantforideallyplasticclays(Kodikara,Haque,&Lee,
2010).

0.5pu

LateralSoilresistance,p

pu

yc

(yu,pu)

yu

PileDisplacement,y

Figure1:CharacteristicspyCurveforshorttermStaticLoad


2.3

Failure Mechanism of Soil Surrounding the Pile

The magnitude of ultimate soil resistance i.e. the soil resistance under fully plastic
behaviorpu isrelatedtotheundrainedshearstrengthandvarieswiththedepthandwill
depend upon the governing type of failure mechanism of soil surrounding the pile. For
laterally loaded piles, two types of failure mechanism are considered. The first type of
failure mechanism usually occurs at relatively shallow depths involves the failure of a
wedgeofsoilinfrontofthepilewithagapformingbehindthepile.Thesecondtypeof
failure mechanism occurs at greater depth and represented by plastic flow of the soil
around the pile as it deflects laterally (Randolph & Susan, 2011). The depth at which
thesetwofailuremechanismpredictthesameultimatesoilresistanceisknownascritical
depth(Zcr).Theultimatesoilresistanceuptocriticaldepthvarieswithdepthbutbelow
criticaldepthitistakenconstant.
ThetwofailuremechanismsareillustratedinFigure2andFigure3below.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

Figure2:ComponentsofLateralresistanceinclayclosetogroundsurface(Randolph&Susan,2011)

Figure3:Flowroundmechanismfordeeplateralresistanceinclay(Randolph&Susan,2011)

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

2.4

PY Curve Criteria for Clays

Many py criteria are proposed for the development of the py curve for clays. These
criteriahavebeendevelopedbasedontheresultoffullscalelateralloadtestsforstatic
andcyclicloadingconditions.Somecriteriaarereviewedinthissection.
2.4.1

Soft clay criteria (Matlock, 1970)

Matlock(1970)proposedaprocedureforthedevelopmentofpycurvesforpilesinsoft,
saturatedclays.Thestrainhardeningcriteriaarebasedontheresultsoffourlateralload
test performed on a fully instrumented 12.75 inch diameter pile driven into soft to
mediumsiltyclaysattwodifferentsites(Stevens&Audibert,1979).
Theparametersusedforcalculationare:
P=lateralsoilresistance
pu=ultimatelateralsoilresistance
y=lateralpiledeflection
yc=2.5*50*d.........................(1)
50=strainatonehalfthemaximumdeviatorstressinundrainedtest
d=pilediameter.

Theultimatesoilresistance,pu,iscalculatedas

pu=Np*Su*d.........................(2)
Where,Su=undrainedshearstrengthofsoil

Np=ultimatelateralsoilresistancecoefficient
Matlock suggested that Np =9 for the great depths where sufficient confinement exists
that corresponds to horizontal flow of the soil around the cylindrical pile. But near the
surface the soil in front of pile is not well confined and as the pile deflects the soil is
pushedupandawayfromthepileNp=3atthesurfaceandincreaseswithdepthwith
thefollowingrelationship

Np=3+z/Su+J*Z/d.........................(3)
Where,z=effectiveoverburdenstressatdepthz.

Su=undrainedsoilshearstrengthatdepthz
J=anempiricalconstantwithanapproximatevalueof0.5forthesoftoffshore
claysandavalueof0.25forsomewhatstifferclays.

2.4.2

Above Water Table (AWT) Stiff Clay Criteria (Reese & Welch, 1975)

Reese and Welch (1975) developed py curve criteria for piles embedded in stiff clays
abovethewatertableonthebasisofonefullscalefieldlateralloadtest.Theloadtest
was performed on a 30inches diameter drilled shaft in which a 10.75inches diameter
instrumented pipe was embedded. The authors recommended that the reference

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

deflectionandtheultimatesoilresistancecalculatedasforsoftclayusingequations(1),
(2) and (3). The ultimate soil resistance is considered to be mobilized at deflections
greater than or equal to 16 times the reference deflection. At smaller deflection, the
shapeofthepycurveisasshowninFigure4.
Thepycurvesfortheshorttermstaticloadcasemaybegeneratedfromthefollowing
expression:
p/pu=0.5*(y/yc)(1/4).........................(4)

Figure4:pycurveforabovewatertablestiffclaycriteria(StaticLoading)

2.4.3

Below Water Table (BWT) Stiff Clay Criteria (Reese et al, 1975)

Reese, et al. (1975), proposed a procedure for the development of py curve for piles
embedded in stiff clays below the water table. Development of a strain softening clay
criteria for py curves was based on the results of lateral load test on two fully
instrumented 24 inches and one 6 inch diameter piles driven into stiff clays withshear
strengthsbetween1and5tsf.
Reese developed separate expressions for the ultimate soil resistance for two distinct
mechanisms by which the pile was assumed to move through the soil. Based on the
failureofwedgeofsoilinfrontofpileandontheplasticflowofsoilaroundthepileina
horizontal plane, the ultimate lateral soil resistance, pu, per unit length of the pile is
determinedasthelesserofthefollowingequations
pu=2*Su*d+z*d+2.83*Su*Z.........................(5)
or,Pu=11*Su*d.........................(6)
Where, z=effectiveoverburdenstressatdepthZ

Su=undrainedsoilshearstrengthatdepthZ

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

d=pilediameter
Thedeflectionatonehalftheultimatesoilresistanceisgivenby:

yc=50*d

.........................(7)
50=strainatonehalfthemaximumdeviatorstressinundrainedtest
d=pilediameter
Theshapeofthepycurveforstaticloadingconditiongeneratedbybelowwatertable
stiffclaycriteriaisshowninFigure5.

Figure5:pycurveforbelowwatertablestiffclaycriteria(StaticLoading)

2.4.4

Design codes recommendations for Py curve (API, 1993)

AmericanPetroleumInstitute(API,1987,1993)andDetNorskeVeritas(DNV2007)have
recommendations for design of piles in offshore industries. The design regulations for
pile in soft and stiff clay are based on the work of (Matlock, 1970) and (Reese, Cox, &
Koop,1974).TheonlydifferenceisvariationofNpwithdepth.TheAPIintroducesanew
termZRtorelatethevariationofNp dependinguponthedepth.TheNpvaluesnearthe
mudlinearepresumedtovarylinearlyfromzeroatmudlinetonineatdepthsequalor
greaterthanZR.TherelationforZRgivenas:
ZR=6d/(d/Su+J).........................(8)
Forstaticlateralloadstheultimateunitlateralbearingcapacityofsoftclaypuhasbeen
foundtovarybetween8Suand12Suexceptatshallowdepthswherefailureoccursina
differentmodeduetominimumoverburdenpressure.Cyclicloadscausedeteriorationof
lateral bearing capacity below that for static loads. In the absence of more definitive
criteria,thefollowingisrecommended:

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

puincreasesfrom3Suto9SuasZincreasesfrom0toZRaccordingto:
p

3 Su

.........................(9)

.......................(10)

And
9 Su for Z

Where,pu=ultimateresistance,(kPa)

Su=undrainedshearstrengthforundisturbedclaysoilsamples,(kPa)

d=pilediameter(m)

=effectiveunitweightofsoil,kN/m2
J=dimensionlessempiricalconstantwithvaluesrangingfrom0.25to0.5having
beendeterminedbyfieldtesting.
Z=depthbelowsoilsurface,(m)
ZR=depthbelowsoilsurfacetobottomofreducedresistancezonein(m).Fora
conditionofconstantstrengthwithdepth,

Forundrainedshearstrengthvaryingwithdepth,ZR,isfoundbyplottingequations(9)
and (10) with depth and Z value at the intersection is used. In general, minimum
valuesofZRshouldbeabout2.5timespilediameter.
Lateral soil resistancedeflection relationships for piles in soft clay are generally
nonlinear.Thepycurvesfortheshorttermstaticloadcasemaybegeneratedfrom
thefollowingexpression:
p/pu=0.5*(y/yc)(1/3)

.......................(11)

which gives the nondimensional values for the generation of static py curve as
presentedintheTable1.
Table1:PYcurveforShorttermstaticloadforsoftclay

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

p/pu

y/yc

0.00

0.0

0.23

0.1

0.33

0.3

0.50

1.0

0.72

3.0

1.00

8.0

1.00

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

Where,
p=actuallateralresistance,(kPa)
y=actuallateraldeflection,(m)
yc=2.5*50*d,(m)
50 = strain which occurs at one half the maximum stress on laboratory
unconsolidatedundrainedcompressiontestsofundisturbedsoilsamples.
Forthecasewhereequilibriumhasbeenreachedundercyclicloading,thepycurves
maybegeneratedfromthefollowingtable:
Table2:PYcurveforthecasewhereequilibriumisreachedundercyclicload

p/pu

y/yc

p/pu

y/yc

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

0.23

0.1

0.23

0.1

0.33

0.3

0.33

0.3

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.72

3.0

0.72

3.0

0.72

0.72*Z/ZR

15

0.72*Z/ZR

Figure6:CharacteristicshapeofPycurveforsoftclaygivenbyAPIcode(Staticloading)

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

10

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

Figure7:CharacteristicshapeofPycurveforsoftclayforcyclicloading

2.4.5

Unified Clay Criteria (Sullivan, Reese, & Fenske, 1980)

Sullivanet.Al.(1980),proposedaunifiedapproachtopycurvedevelopmentforclays.
This method is based upon the soft clay criteria proposed by Matlock and stiff clay
criteria proposed by Reese, et al., and consequently on the lateral load test data from
which they were developed. It is recommended for use in pile design in any clay soil.
Sullivan,etal.,reviewedtheexpressionsforpultdevelopedbyanumberofinvestigators
and recommended that the ultimate unit soilresistance be taken as the smallestvalue
computedbythefollowingthreerelationships:
Pult=(2+avg*z/Suavg+0.833/d*Z)*Suavg*d

.......................(12)

Pult=(3+0.5/d*z)*Su*d

.......................(13)

Pult=9Su*d

......................(14)

Where,avg=averageeffectiveunitweightfromgroundsurfacetodepthz

d=pilediameter

Suavg=averageundrainedshearstrengthfromgroundsurfacetodepthz
Su=undrainedshearstrengthatdepthz
Likethestiffclaycriteria,theunifiedclaycriteriaproposesaninitiallinearportion
followedbyacurvedportion,whichisdescribedbythecubicequationsrelatingpile
deflectiontoacriticaldeflectiony50,definedas
y50=A*50*d

.......................(15)

whereAisanempiricalparameterthatisequalto2.5forMatlockstestsinsoftclayand
0.35fortestinstiffclay.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

11

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

TheshapeofpycurvegivenbyunifiedclaycriteriaisshowninFigure8.Theuserofthis
criterionisstillrequiredtojudgewhetherthesoilissoftorstifffortheevaluationofthe
empiricalparametersAandF.TheparameterFhasbeenestimatedas1.0atasoftclay
siteand0.5forthestiffclaysite.

Figure8:pycurveforunifiedclaycriteria(StaticLoading)

2.4.6

Integrated Clay Criteria (O'Neill & Gazioglu, 1984)

ONeillandGazioglu(1984)proposedapycurvedevelopmentprocedurethatwouldbe
applicable to all clays to remove the subjective distinction associated with
characterizationofcohesivesoilsaseithersoftclaysorstiffclays.Thisprocedureisbased
ontheresultofthe21fieldlateralloadtestsat11differentlocations.Thefieldlateral
loadtestsusedtodeveloptheintegratedclaycriteriawereselectedtoincludeavailable
high quality tests on a wide range of soils. The integrated clay criteria is developed by
makinganumberofreasonableassumptionsregardingtheinfluenceoffactorslikepile
diameter, pile length and soil stiffness and by optimizing the several parameters to
produceaprocedurethatprovidesthebestagreementwiththeavailablefielddata.
Thefollowingstepscanbeusedtoconstructthepycurvebyintegratedclaycriteria.
Theultimatesoilresistanceisgivenby
Pult=F*Np*Su*d

.......................(16)

Where,F=empiricalreductionfactorrepresentativeofsoilstrengthdegradability
Factor
F(StaticLoading)

UUTriaxialCompressionFailureStrain
<0.02
0.020.06
>0.06
0.5

0.75

1.00

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

12

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

Np=3+6*(Z/Zcr)
Np=9

forZZcr

.......................(17)

forZZcr

Zcr=criticaldepth=Lc/4
Lc=criticalpilelength=3.0*(EI/Es*d0.5)0.286.......................(18)
Thecriticaldeflectioniscalculatedusingthefollowingexpression:
yc=0.8*50*d0.5*(EI/Es)0.215.......................(19)
TheshapeofpycurveforstaticloadingwhichisshowninFigure9isdeterminedfrom
thefollowingequations,
p=0.5*pu*(y/yc)0.387fory<6yc

.......................(20)

p=pu*(Fs+(1Fs)*Z/Zcr)

fory>6ycandZ<Zcr.......................(21)

p=pu

fory>6ycandZ>Zcr.......................(22)

Figure9:pycurvedevelopedbyintegratedclaycriteria(Staticloading)

2.4.7

Use of Bezier Equations to Represent py Curve (Kodikara, Haque, & Lee, 2010)

Thetypicalrepresentationofpycurveapplicabletothesinglepileinthesoftclayeysoil
isshowninFigure10.Thecurveischaracterizedbythreesegments;aninitialsegmenthas
alinearportionuptoadisplacementyecharacterizedbystiffnessKi(MPa)signifyingthe
linearelasticbehaviorofthesoil,acurvedsegmentbetweenyeandyuandthefinallinear
segment featuring the ultimate failure after reaching the ultimate soil resistance pu
(KN/m) that occurs at a displacement of yu. The middle curve segment needs to be

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

13

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

asymptotic to the two linear segments. For y > yu, the resistance is considered to be
constantforideallyplasticclay.Therefore,fortheaccuraterepresentationofpycurve,
alltheseparameters(yu,ye,Ki,andpu)needtobeevaluated.
The family of curves known as de Casteljaus algorithm introduced by the French
engineerPierreBezier,inthe1970s(Mortenson1985)andcurrentlyusedinautomotive
design was found to be worthy of consideration. For the prediction of the py curve in
Figure10,onecanconsiderthat
(y1,p1)=(ye,pe)=(ye,Ki*ye),
(y2,p2)=(1/Ki*pu,pu)and
(y3,p3)=(yu,pu).
Onthisbasis,entirepycurvecanberepresentedbythefollowingsegments
yye

p=Ki*y

yeyyu

y=(1u)2*ye+2u(1u)*1/Ki*Pu+u2*yu

.......................(23)
for0u1.......................(24)

p=(1u)2*Ki*ye+2u(1u)*Pu+u2pu for0u1
yyu

.......................(25)

p=pu .......................(26)

whereuisthecontinuousdummyvariablebetween0and1.

Figure10:TypicalRepresentationsofpyCurve(Bransby1996)andBeizerTechnique

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

14

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

2.5

Discussion on Different Clay Criteria

Matlock soft clay criteria used the strain at one half the deviator stresses in undrained
testanddiametertocalculatethereferencedeflection(yc).Empiricalexpressiondefined
by power function of deflection normalized by pile at 50% of ultimate soil reaction is
usedtorepresentthepycurve.Thiscriteriondoesnottakeintoaccountshearmodulus,
poisonsratio,tensilestressofsoil,initialstresslevel.Theultimatelateralsoilresistance
is calculated using undrained shear strength, ultimate lateral soil resistance coefficient
whichvarieswithdepthfrom3to9anddiameterofthepile.
The above water table stiff clay criteria also used the same relation as Matlock to
calculatetheultimatesoilresistanceandultimatelateraldeflectionbuttheultimatesoil
resistanceisconsideredtobemobilizedatdeflectiongreaterthanorequalto16times
thereferencedeflection.
Inbelowwatertablestiffclaycriteria,Reesedevelopedtheseparateexpressionforthe
ultimatesoilresistancebasedonthemechanismbywhichthepileismovedinsoil.The
ultimatesoilresistancevariesfrom2*Su*dto11*Su*d.Thereferencedeflectionistaken
astheproductofstrainatonehalfthemaximumdeviatorstressinundrainedtestand
diameter of pile. The initial portion of the py curve is considered to be linear with an
initial soil modulus. This criterion also gives an expression to consider the reduction of
soilresponsebeyondtheultimatestressstage.
API code recommendation is based on the work of Matlock and Reese. The only
differenceisthevariationoftheultimatesoilresistancecoefficient.APIintroducesanew
term ZR to relate the variation of the Np depending upon the depth. The ultimate soil
resistanceisconsideredtobemobilizedatdeflectiongreaterthanorequalto9timesthe
referencedisplacement.
Unifiedclaycriteriagivethreerelationshipstocalculatetheultimatesoilresistanceand
theminimumvalueisconsidered.Itintroducedtheaverageshearstrengthandaverage
effective unit weight term for the calculation of ultimate soil strength. So it is also
applicabletothelayeredsoil.Thereferencedeflectioniscalculatedastheproductof50
anddiameterofpilewithempiricalcoefficientwhichdependsonthe typeofclay.This
criterionalsoconsideredtheinitialportionofpycurvetobelinearandreductionofsoil
responsebeyondtheultimatepointistakenintoaccount.
The integrated clay criteria calculated the ultimate soil resistance and reference
deflection based on the shear strength, diameter of pile, stiffness of pile and youngs
modulusofsoil.Basedonthecriticaldepthand6timesthereferencedeflectionitgives
separaterelationshipstocalculatethesoilresponseatdifferentdeflection.
Pierre Beizer characterized the py curve by three segments and introduces three
equationstodescribethesethreeportionsofpycurve.Theinitialportionisconsidered
tobelinear.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

15

2.MethodsforpycurveDevelopment

Even there are numbers of methods to describe the py curve for clay; the API code
methodismostwidelyusedbygeotechnicalengineer.Thismethodisonlymethodthatis
well described in the design standard code and easy to use. It is better to follow the
standardcodesfortheanalysisofpilewhichisacceptedbyall.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

16

3.DescriptionofModel

3. DescriptionofModel
3.1

Introduction

For the development of py curve, Finite Element 3D Plaxis Foundation is used for the
analysis purpose. Soil pile modeling is done in three dimensional finite element Plaxis
Foundationtoinvestigatethelateraldeformationofpileandsoilreaction.
NowadaysFEM3DPlaxisfoundationisoneofthemostlyusedprogramsbygeotechnical
engineers to analyze the foundation of different structure. The existing empirical
expressionsofpycurvesforthemonopileswereproposedbasedonthefieldtest.This
numericalanalysisisdonetochecktheapplicabilityofFEMPlaxis3Dfoundationforthe
analysisofthelaterallyloadedmonopilebycomparingresultwiththeexistingempirical
expressions. In reality the monopile is loaded with vertical load, lateral load and
overturning moment at the head of monopiles. When the monopile is analyzed with
these loads in 3D Plaxis, it shows the kick off effect at the tip of the pile and also
influencedbythepileflexibilitywhichmakesdifficulttostudythesoilreactionandpile
displacementeffect.Soforthestudyofthesoilreactionandpiledisplacementrelationof
thesoilthroughthesoildepth,itisdecidedtoapplytheloadsbothatheadandtipofthe
rigidpiletoachievethepurelateraltranslationofthepile.
ThesketchofthetypicalmodelusedforanalysisisshowninFigure11.

Water Level

Depth of water
Mud line
HT
First Layer

Pile

Lengthofpile
belowmudline

HB
Second Layer
Figure11:Sketchofthetypicalmodel

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

17

3.DescriptionofModel

3.2

Soil Condition

Themarineclayisconsideredforthesoilprofile.Thesoilismodeledintwolayersofsoil
fortheanalysis.Thesoilmodelabovethetipofthepileisconsideredasfirstlayerand
belowthetipofthepileisconsideredassecondlayer.Thepropertiesofthefirstlayer
soil are described by the undrained hardening soil model and the undrained shear
strengthiskeptconstantthroughoutthelayer.Forthesecondlayerthelinearelasticsoil
modelisusedtodescribethesoilproperties.
Thestudyisfocusedinthesoilresponseandpiledisplacementinthefirstlayer.Thereis
probleminmodelingthepilewiththefreelateraltranslationofpiletipwithoutincluding
thesoilbelowthetip.Soalayersoilbelowthetipofpileisincluded.Forthesoilwith
hardeningsoilmodelbelowtipresultgreatershearresistanceatthetipofthepile,sothe
soilbelowthetipismodeledwithassumedlinearelasticparameterstoreducetheshear
resistanceatthetipofthepileduringthelateraltranslation.
Theequivalentsoilparametersrequiredtoexplainthehardeningsoilmodelofthefirst
layerisdeterminedfromthePlaxissoiltestforthesoilwithundrainedshearstrength(Su)
of100kPaandstrainathalfmaximumstrengthvalue(50)of0.45%.ThePlaxistestmodel
ispresentedintheappendixA.1.
ThesoilparametersofdifferentlayersarepresentedinTable3andTable4.
Table3:Thesoilparametersforfirstlayersoil
SN

Parameters

Value

Unit

E50ref

18.75E+03

KN/m2

Eoedref

18.75E+03

KN/m2

Eurref

56.25E+03

KN/m2

UndrainedShearStrength(Su)

100

kPa

Unitweight(sat)

20

KN/m3

InternalFrictionAngle()

degree

DilationAngle()

degree

Table4:Thesoilparametersforthesecondlayersoil
SN

Parameters

Value

Unit

Eref

1000

KN/m2

0.35

Unitweight(sat)

20

KN/m3

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

18

3.DescriptionofModel

3.3

Pile Properties

Monopiles of steel are used as the foundation for the offshore wind turbines. In the
analysisthepileismodeledasasolidcylindricalbeamwithinterfaceelementbetween
pileandsoil.Nowadaysmonopileof46mdiameteraretypicallyused.Ahighstiffnessis
assignedforthepiletomakeitrigidsothatthebendingofthepilebecomesnegligible.
ThebendingstiffnessEpIpiskeptconstantalongthepilelength.Thisisdonetogetthe
uniformdisplacementthroughoutthedepthwhenlateralloadisapplied.Theunitweight
ofthepilematerialistakensameassoiltoavoidtheverticalsettlementofthepileinthe
analysis.
Thesolidcylindricalpilewithdiametersof1m,2m,3m,4m,5mand6mwereconsidered
fortheanalysistostudytheeffectofpilediameter.Thelengthtodiameterratio(L/D)in
between5to10istakentoavoidtheslenderpileeffect.Hencethelengthofthepile
10m,15m,20m,25m,35mand45mforrespectivepilediameterareconsideredinthe
analysis.
TheparametersusedforthepileispresentedinTable5.
Table5:Theparametersusedforequivalentsolidpileinanalysis

SN

Parameters

Value

Unit

YoungsModulusofElasticity(Ep)

2.15E+12

KN/m2

Poissonsratio()

0.3

Unitweight(p)

20.0

KN/m3

3.4

Loads

The monopile is normally designed to carry the vertical load, lateral load and bending
moment. But in the analysis only the static lateral load is considered. For the
development of the soil resistancepile displacement curves the loads are applied in
steps.Theloadmodelconsistsoftwopointloadsoneattheheadandotheratthetipof
thepile.Theloadswereincreasedinsteps.Thetopandbottomloadswereadjustedin
suchawaythatthelateraldisplacementofthepileachievedtobeuniformthroughout
thelength.Thepointloadswerefinalizedbytrialanderrormethod.Thecombinationof
loadsappliedineachstepfordifferentdiameterofpilesispresentedinthetablesbelow.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

19

3.DescriptionofModel
Table6:Loadcombinationfor1mdiameterPile.

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
2
2.1

25

26

98

100

200

200

400

400

800

800

1000

1000

Table7:Loadcombinationfor2mdiameterPile

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
10
11

100

105

420

430

840

855

1680

1710

3360

3450

4200

4330

Table8:Loadcombinationfor3mdiameterPile

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
25
27

250

265

1000

1060

2000

2120

4000

4240

8000

8480

10000

10900

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

20

3.DescriptionofModel
Table9:Loadcombinationfor4mdiameterPile

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
50
53

475

495

1900

2100

3800

4000

7600

8050

15200

16350

19000

20400

Table10:Loadcombinationfor5mdiameterPile

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
80
84

800

860

3125

3250

6250

6500

12500

12900

25000

27800

31250

34800

Table11:Loadcombinationfor6mdiameterPile

Load
Steps
1

LateralLoadAppliedat
HeadofthePile(kN) TipofthePile(kN)
100
95

1000

925

4000

3780

8000

7625

16000

15600

32000

34000

48000

52400

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

21

3.DescriptionofModel

3.5

Modeling and Analysis in Plaxis 3D Foundation

Soilpilemodelingisestablishedinthreedimensionalnumericalmodelstoinvestigatethe
lateral deformation and soil reaction on pile during the horizontal loading. The
computationsarecarriedoutbymeansFiniteElementprogram3DPlaxisFoundation.
Duetosymmetryofloadingconditionandmaterialmodel,onlyonehalfofthepileand
its surrounding soil are modeled for the analysis which helps in the saving calculation
time.
Thesoilismodeledasacylindricalwithouterdiameterlargerthan30timesdiameterof
pile.Foreachanalysis,themeshwith15nodedelementsisconsideredtobesufficient.
Thestudyisfocusedonthelateraldisplacementandsoilreaction,thepileisdesignedas
solidcylinderpilewithhighstiffnesstoreducethelocaldeformation.Thelinearelastic
material with 15 noded continuum elements is used to model pile elements in finite
elementmodel.Thepileheadiskeptatthelevelofmudline.Theunitweightofthepile
isconsideredsameasthesoilmodeltoavoidtheverticalsettlementofthepile.
ThesoilandpilepropertiesaredescribedastheparameterspresentedinTable3, Table
4andTable5.Thevalueofinterfacecoefficientistakenas1.
Theanalysisisexecutedstepwise.Firsttheinitialstressstateisestablishedintheentire
modelusingsubmergedunitweightforboththesoilelementandtheelementthatlater
becomesthepile.AK0procedureisemployedtoestablishtheinitialhorizontaleffective
stress.Astheinternalfrictionalangleforthesoilisassumedtobezero,theappropriate
K0value0.65isassigned.
Inthesecondstep,thepileisgeneratedbyreplacingthesoilelementthatnowbecomes
the pile with the adjusted strength and stiffness parameter. Between the pile element
and the soil element, an interface is established to model the soilpile interaction. The
system is brought to equilibrium. The combinations of lateral loads are applied in each
stagetogettheuniformlateraldisplacement.Thehorizontalloadingsforeachstagesof
differentdiameterofpilesareassignedasgiveninTable6toTable11.
ThestepwisemodelinginPlaxis3Dfoundationisshowninfiguresbellow:

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

22

3.DescriptionofModel

Figure12:DefiningtheDifferentClusterforSoilModeling

Figure13:PileModeling

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

23

3.DescriptionofModel

Figure14:BoreholePropertiesfortheAnalysis

Figure15:MeshinginHorizontalDirection

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

24

3.DescriptionofModel

Figure16:ThreeDimensionalModelsoftheSoilandPilewithMeshing

Figure17:DifferentPhasesfortheAnalysis

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

25

3.DescriptionofModel

Figure18:DeformedMesh

Figure19:IncrementalShearStrain

Aftercompletingtheanalysis,theoutputrelatedtostressandlateraldisplacementfor
thecentralbeamelementofthepileistakenandusedforthefurthercalculation.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

26

4.Results

4. Results
The results from the analyses of laterally loaded piles in the Finite Element Program
Plaxis3DFoundationarepresentedinthischapter.Theanalysisisdoneforstaticloading
only. The soil reaction is plotted with the corresponding displacement and compared
withthepycurvegivenbyAPIcode.
DerivationofthepycurvesusingoutputdatafromFiniteElementPlaxis3DFoundation
involvethemathematics.Thesoilresistanceperunitlength,p,ofthepilecanbederived
usingthedifferentiationtechniqueontheshearforcedepthprofileorbendingmoment
depthprofile(Brown&Shie,1990).Itcanbeexpressedas

P=dV/dZor.(27)
P=d2M/dZ2.(28)

Wherep=netsoilresistanceperunitlengthofthepileatdepthZand

V=theshearforceatdepthZ

M=thebendingmomentatdepthZ

The lateral displacement of the pile is analyzed using the finite element program 3D
Plaxisfoundation.Theanalysisisdoneforthepileswithdifferentdiameter.Theanalysis
focusedonthepurelateraldisplacementtodeterminethesoilreactionforthedifferent
displacement. The soil response is calculated using the shear force acted upon the pile
fromthesoil.Asthepileismodeledassolidcylinderwithveryhighstiffness,thecentral
elementofthepilebehaveslikebeamelement.Thecentralnodeelementisconnected
to the circumferential nodes of the piles, so the shear force and bending moment and
displacementofthecentralelementisrepresentativesforthepile.Hencetheshearforce
andbendingmomentonthiscentralelementcanbeusedforthecalculationofthesoil
responseonpileusingtheexpressionsgivenin27and28.
Thelateraldisplacement,y,alongthedepthwasdirectlyobtainedfromtheoutputofthe
FiniteElement3DPlaxisFoundation.Theobtainedsoilreactionisplottedwithrespectto
therespectivelateraldisplacementtogetthepycurve.
The groups of soil resistance vs lateral displacement curves are plotted for the each
diameterofpileatthedepthof1*Diameter,2*Diameter,3*Diameter,4*Diameterand
5*Diameter.Butthesoilresistancevslateraldisplacementcurvesfromplaxisresultalong
withthepycurvesobtainedbytherelationprovidedbyAPIcodewereplottedonlyfor
thedepthof1*Diameterand5*Diameter.
The soil reaction and lateral displacement for different diameter of pile at the depth
corresponding to about 1*Diameter and 5*Diameter were presented in the Table 12 to

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

27

4.Results
Table 23 which are used for the comparison purpose. The secant stiffness at different

load steps are also calculated and presented in these tables. The secant stiffness
corresponding to respective lateral displacement obtained from FEM analysis is also
calculatedfromtheAPIcodeandispresentedforthecomparison.

Table12:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor1mDiameterPileat1.05m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000014

0.39

28575

18.33

1262300

0.000174

5.04

28910

42.55

234385

0.000712

18.81

26430

67.20

93975

0.001530

39.01

25500

85.64

57850

0.003250

82.06

25250

109.83

35175

0.007420

161.89

21820

144.86

20220

0.009775

201.55

20620

159.22

16735

Table13:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor1mDiameterPileat5.0m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000015

0.41

28130

18.75

1206625

0.000182

5.11

28170

43.25

226880

0.000715

20.23

28285

67.32

93600

0.001480

42.14

28465

84.42

59530

0.003122

80.38

25740

107.90

36440

0.007164

161.64

22560

142.65

20850

0.009512

202.90

21330

157.34

17140

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

28

4.Results
Table14:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor2mDiameterPileat2.25m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000042

1.29

30430

43.30

1021735

0.000433

13.38

30930

93.94

217110

0.001891

55.43

29310

153.59

81210

0.003964

107.26

27055

196.56

49580

0.008598

228.25

26545

254.44

29590

0.021146

444.50

21020

343.45

16240

0.029571

560.01

18940

384.06

12985

Table15:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor2mDiameterPileat
10.13mDepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000048

1.43

29585

45.12

937145

0.000464

13.67

29430

96.17

207130

0.001924

56.43

29335

154.46

80295

0.003890

114.63

29470

195.33

50210

0.008348

231.87

27775

251.95

30180

0.020766

465.03

22395

341.38

16440

0.029184

583.70

20000

382.78

13100

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

29

4.Results
Table16:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor3mDiameterPileat3.0m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000081

2.44

30135

71.28

880500

0.000821

24.99

30440

154.28

187955

0.003391

98.26

28975

247.56

73000

0.007095

185.17

26100

316.63

44625

0.015869

379.87

23940

414.07

26090

0.040317

780.50

19360

565.01

14015

0.050877

795.13

15630

610.57

12000

Table17:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor3mDiameterPileat15.0m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000091

2.63

28840

74.16

813420

0.000896

25.77

28770

158.85

177300

0.003601

103.51

28745

252.56

70135

0.007287

210.27

28855

319.46

43840

0.015743

433.19

27515

412.98

26230

0.040943

866.66

21170

567.92

13870

0.050158

980.26

19545

607.68

12115

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

30

4.Results
Table18:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor4mDiameterPileat3.75m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000131

3.94

30095

103.04

787270

0.001260

38.30

30395

219.20

173985

0.005144

148.14

28800

350.33

68110

0.010871

280.42

25795

449.59

41355

0.024236

604.74

24950

587.32

24230

0.065018

1188.50

18280

816.09

12550

0.101835

1513.35

14860

947.74

9305

Table19:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor4mDiameterPileat20.0m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000145

4.11

28330

106.64

735030

0.001354

38.22

28235

224.51

165840

0.005780

164.50

28460

364.23

63010

0.011059

312.77

28280

452.16

40885

0.024103

659.41

27360

586.25

24320

0.065685

1343.07

20450

818.86

12465

0.101096

1656.76

16390

945.44

9350

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

31

4.Results
Table20:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor5mDiameterPileat5.25m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000151

4.52

30010

131.50

872715

0.001513

45.34

29970

283.68

187545

0.006092

186.06

30545

415.33

71090

0.012622

344.57

27300

575.39

45585

0.027765

655.92

23625

748.31

26950

0.069941

1356.67

19400

1018.19

14555

0.105214

1716.92

16320

1166.66

11090

Table21:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor5mDiameterPileat
25.38mDepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000165

4.63

28090

135.48

822190

0.001686

47.48

28170

294.10

174480

0.006398

179.21

28010

458.78

71700

0.012873

360.21

27980

579.17

44990

0.026457

741.58

28030

736.38

27832

0.070999

1621.63

22840

1023.30

14410

0.106364

2014.03

18935

1170.89

11010

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

32

4.Results
Table22:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor6mDiameterPileat6.25m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000124

4.17

33620

142.79

1150795

0.001309

43.00

32840

313.19

239200

0.005537

174.63

31535

506.47

91465

0.011482

331.88

28905

645.85

56250

0.024088

598.02

24825

826.79

34320

0.055121

1165.61

21145

1089.51

19765

0.101103

1796.04

17765

1333.66

13190

Table23:SoilResistance,PileDisplacementandSecantStiffnessfor6mDiameterPileat30.0m
DepthbelowMudline
FEM3DPlaxisFoundation
Lateral
Load
Displacement SoilResistance SecantStiffness
Steps
(y),m
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

APIcode
SoilResistance SecantStiffness
(p),kN/m2
Ki=p/y

0.000143

3.86

26880

149.88

1044480

0.001307

36.35

27805

313.01

239465

0.005584

150.35

26925

507.90

90950

0.011443

304.57

26615

645.12

56375

0.024024

639.89

26635

826.05

34385

0.055286

1409.85

25500

1090.59

19725

0.101481

2130.64

20995

1335.32

13160

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

33

4.Results

The Figure 20, Figure 21, Figure 22, Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25 shows the soil
resistancevs.lateraldisplacementcurvesforthepilediametersof1m,2m,3m,4m,5m
and 6m respectively. Each figure includes the soil resistance vs. lateral displacement
curvesforthedifferentdepthofsoilprofile.

Figure20:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof1mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

34

4.Results

Figure21:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof2mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

35

4.Results

Figure22:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof3mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

36

4.Results

Figure23:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof4mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

37

4.Results

Figure24:SoilResistancevs.LateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof5mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

38

4.Results

Figure25:SoilResistancevestLateralDisplacementCurveforthePileof6mDiameter

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

39

4.Results

TheFigure26toFigure37showsthecomparisonofsoilresistancevs.lateraldisplacement
curvedevelopedusingtheresultfromFEM3DPlaxisFoundationandthepycurvebased
ontherelationgivenbyAPIcode.Pycurveisplottedforthedepthofapproximatelyone
timesdiameterofpileandfivetimesdiameterofthepile.

Figure26:PYcurvesforthepilewith1mdiameterat1.05mdepth

Figure27:PYcurvesforthepilewith1mdiameterat5.0mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

40

4.Results

Figure28:PYcurvesforthepilewith2mdiameterat2.25mdepth

Figure29:PYcurvesforthepilewith2mdiameterat10.13mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

41

4.Results

Figure30:PYcurvesforthepilewith3mdiameterat3.0mdepth

Figure31:PYcurvesforthepilewith3mdiameterat15.0mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

42

4.Results

Figure32:PYcurvesforthepilewith4mdiameterat3.75mdepth

Figure33:PYcurvesforthepilewith4mdiameterat20.0mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

43

4.Results

Figure34:PYcurvesforthepilewith5mdiameterat5.25mdepth

Figure35:PYcurvesforthepilewith5mdiameterat25.38mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

44

4.Results

Figure36:PYcurvesforthepilewith6mdiameterat6.25mdepth

Figure37:PYcurvesforthepilewith6mdiameterat30.0mdepth

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

45

5.Discussion

5. Discussion
Thelaterallyloadedmonopilewithdifferentpilediametersembeddedintomarineclayis
modeled and analyzed in finite element model Plaxis 3D Foundation. The output from
the program is used to develop the soil resistancepile displacement curves and is
comparedwiththepycurvegivenbyAPIcode.
The soil resistance pile displacement curves do not reach the ultimate capacity for all
load combination. To reach the ultimate capacity further loads can be applied. As the
analysis takes a lot of time to reach ultimate stage and the study is focused in initial
stiffnessofsoil,theanalysisisnotdoneforfurtherloadcombinations.
The Figure 20 to Figure 25 shows the relation between the soil resistance and pile
deflection for different pile diameter at various soil depths. The Figure 20, Figure 21,
Figure23andFigure24indicatethatthesoilreactionisbelowtheultimatecapacity.The
initialpartofthecurveisalmostlinear.
ButintheFigure22,thepycurvedevelopedforthedepthof1*Dand2*Dindicatethe
initiation of the failure of soil, but the py curve for depth 3*D, 4*D and 5*D is not
reachedinfailuresituation.SimilarlyinFigure25,forthedepth1*Dthesoilreachedto
the ultimate capacity but for depth 2*D, 3*D, 4*D and 5*D soil is not reached to the
ultimate capacity. This indicates that the soils have lower ultimate capacity at shallow
depthsanditincreasesgraduallyingreaterdepths.Thisisduetothewedgefailuremode
i.e. shallow depth failure of the soil. There is reduction on ultimate capacity of soil at
depthof1*Dforthe3mdiameterofpile.Itisduetothesofteningofsoilresultingfrom
theinitiationoffailureatgreaterdepthi.e.atdepthof2*D.Thereductionofultimate
capacityofsoilisnotstartedatdepthof1*Dfor6mpilediameterbecausetheultimate
capacityofsoilbelowthisdepthisnotreached.
TheFigure26toFigure37presentthecomparisonofpycurvesobtainedfromFEM3D
PlaxisfoundationandAPIcodefordifferentdiametersofpileat1*Dand5*Ddepth.The
pycurveplottedfortheAPIcodeshowsthatthesecantstiffnessisveryhighintheinitial
segmentofcurveandreducedtoverylowvaluefortheultimatestage.Butinpycurve
obtainedfromFEM3DPlaxis,thesecantstiffnessisnotchangedsignificantlyfrominitial
segment to ultimate stage. The secant stiffness obtained from the FEM Plaxis 3D
foundationislowerthanthatfromAPIcodefortheinitialpartbutgreateratthelarger
displacement. Analytically the initial stiffness is approximately 4 times shear modulus
(4*E/3=4*18750/3=25000)(Kodikara,Haque,&Lee,2010),whichisclosertotheresult
obtained from analysis in Plaxis. This shows that the calculation from the Plaxis is
relevant. This difference in stiffness from two methods may be due to the parameters
thatareselectedtoexplainthesoilpropertiesinthemodelandanalysis.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

46

5.Discussion

Thepatternofthepycurveissimilarforallthediameterofpile.ReferringTable12to
Table23,theinitialsecantstiffnessforalldiameterofpileinalmostsame.Thisindicates
thattheinfluencepilediameterisnotsignificantintheinitialstiffnessoftheclayforthe
rigidpile.
Thepatternofthecurvesforalldiameterofpileissimilarinbothmethods.Butthereis
differenceincurves.Theprojectwork(AppendixA.2)showsthatthelateraldisplacement
of the pile is almost same for both methods for small pile diameters, while the
displacementfromAPIcodewasgreaterincomparisontotheFEM3DPlaxisfoundation
result for larger pile diameter. This may be due to the rigidity of pile because large
diameterpilebehavesalmostlikerigidandthepycurveforAPIcodeisactuallyderived
fromtheresultsofflexiblepile.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

47

6.Conclusion

6. Conclusion
This thesis work is focused on the development of soil resistance pile displacement
curve and to evaluate the effect of diameter in the py curve of clay through FEM 3D
Plaxisfoundationmodeling.Toavoidtheinfluenceofthepileflexibilityandpilerotation,
lateraltranslationofrigidpileisanalyzed.Thepycurvefordifferentdiametersofpileis
developedbasedontheresultfromstaticloadingofpilein3DPlaxisfoundationanalysis
andcomparedwiththepycurvegivenbyAPIcode.Fromthisstudythefollowingresults
areconcluded:
TheinitialstiffnessofpycurvefromtheFEM3DPlaxisfoundationanalysisisverylowin
comparison to that given by API code. This may be due to the selected parameters for
thesoilmodel.
Thisstudyshowsthattheinitialsecantstiffnessforalldiametersofpileisalmostsame.
This indicates that the influence of the pile diameter is not significant in the initial
stiffness of py curve for the clay and rigid piles obtained from the FEM 3D Plaxis
foundationanalysis.
Thisstudyshowsthatthereisdifferenceinthepycurveforalldiameterofpilefromtwo
methods.Theprojectwork(AppendixA.2)showsthatthelateraldisplacementofthepile
isalmostsameforbothmethodsforsmallpilediameters,whilethedisplacementfrom
APIcodewasgreaterincomparisontotheFEM3DPlaxisfoundationresultforlargerpile
diameter.
The py curves developed from FEM 3D Plaxis need to be verified with some field test
resultforlagerdiameter.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

48

7.References

7. References
Achmus,M.,AbdelRahman,K.,&Kuo,Y.S.(2008).Designofmonopilefoundationsforoffshore
windenergyconverters.11thBalticSeaGeotechnicalConference.GdanskPoland.
API.(1993).Recommendedpracticeforplanning,designing,andconstructingfixedoffshore
platformsworkingstressdesign(Vol.21edition).APIRP2AWSD,AmericanPetroleum
Institute,WashingtonD.C.
Augustesen,A.H.,Brodbaek,K.T.,Moller,M.,Sorensen,S.P.,Ibsen,L.B.,Pedersen,T.S.,etal.
(2009).NumericalModellingofLargeDiameterSteelPilesatHornsRev.InB.H.Topping,
L.F.CostaNeves,&R.C.Barros(Ed.),ProceedingsoftheTwelfthInternational
ConferenceonCivil,StructuralandEnvironmentalEnginneringComputing,Paper239.
Funchal,Madeira,Portugal.
Augustesen,A.H.,Sorensen,S.P.,&Ibsen,L.B.(2010).EffectofDiameterontheIinitialStiffness
ofpyCurvesforLargeDiameterPilesinSand.InT.Benz,&S.Nordal(Ed.),Numerical
MethodsinGeotechnicalEngineering:proceedingoftheseventheuropeanconferenceon
Numericalmethodsingeotechnicalengineering,(pp.907912).Trondheim,Norway.
Brown,D.A.,&Shie,C.F.(1990).ThreeDimensionalFiniteElementModelofLaterallyLoaded
Piles.ComputersandGeotechnics,10(1),5979.
Kodikara,J.,Haque,A.,&Lee,K.Y.(2010).TheeoreticalpyCurvesforLaterallyLoadedSinglePile
inUndrainedClayUsingBeizerCurves.JournalofGeotechnical&Geoenvironmental
Engineering,136(1),265268.
Kramer,S.L.(1988).Developmentofpycurvesfroanalysisoflaterallyloadedpilesinwestern
Washington.Technicalreport,WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,
Washington.
Matlock,H.(1970).CorrelationforDesignofLaterallyLoadedPilesinSoftClays.Proceedingof
the2ndAnnualOTC.Dallas,Texas.
O'Neill,M.W.,&Gazioglu,S.M.(1984).AnEvaluationofpyRelationshipsinClays.American
PetoleumInstituteReportPRAC82412.
Randolph,M.,&Susan,G.(2011).OffshoreGeotechnicalEngineering.2ParkSquare,MiltonPark,
Abhingdon,OxonOX144RN:SponPress.
Reese,L.C.,Cox,W.R.,&Koop,F.D.(1974).AnalysisofLaterallyLoadedPilesinSand.
ProceedingofFifthAnnualOfffshoreTechnicalConference,PaperNo.OTC2080.
HoustaonTexas.
Reese,L.,&Welch,R.C.(1975).LateralLoadingofDeepFoundationsinStiffClay.Proceeding,
ASCE,Vol101,No.GT7,pp.633649.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

49

7.References
Stevens,J.B.,&Audibert,J.(1979).ReexaminationofPYcurveformulations.Proceedingofthe
11thAnnualOTC,PaperNo.OTC3402,pp.397403.HoustonTexas.
Sullivan,W.R.,Reese,L.C.,&Fenske,C.W.(1980).UnifiedMethodforAnalysisofLaterally
LoadedPilesinClay.NumericalMethodsinOffshorePiling,ICE,London.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

50

Appendices

Appendices
A.1

BackcalculationofHSsoilparameter

BackcalculationofHSsoilparameterbasedonundrainedShearstrengthandStrainathalf
maximumstrengthusingFEMPlaxissoiltest.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

51

Appendices

E1DS

Clay HS
180

| - | [kN/m]
1
3

150

120

90

60

30

0
0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

A.2

-0.04

-0.05

Resultfromprojectwork

Duringthe projectwork thepilewith diameters2.5mandembeddedlength30mand5m,6m


and 7m with embedded length of 20m, 30m and 40m were analyzed in SPLICE (Geosuite2010)
andFEMPlaxis3DFoundation.
Calculation of Lateral displacement of pile using FEM Plaxis3D Foundation with following
combinationofsoilpilemodelisdone.

EquivalentPilewithHSsoilModel
EquivalentPilewithMCsoilModel
SteelPilewithHSsoilModel
SteelPilewithMCsoilModel

ThecomparisonoflateraldisplacementofpilecalculatedusingAPIcode(SPLICE,Geosuite2010)
andFEM3DPlaxisFoundationarepresentedbelowfor:

2.5mPilediameterand30membeddedlength
5.0mPilediameterand30membeddedlength
5.0mPilediameterand40membeddedlength
6.0mPilediameterand20membeddedlength
6.0mPilediameterand30membeddedlength
6.0mPilediameterand40membeddedlength

The result shows that the lateral displacement of the monopile calculated using API code and
FEM3DPlaxisFoundationisalmostsameforsmalldiametermonopiles.Butforlargerdiameter
monopile the lateral displacement calculated from API codes is higher in comparison to result
obtainedfromFEM3DPlaxisFoundation.ThisindicatesthattheAPIcodeisonlyusefulforthe
analysisofsmalldiameterslendermonopilesandneedsfurtherresearchtouseitintheanalysis
oflargerdiametermonopiles.

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

52

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

53

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

54

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

55

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

56

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

57

Appendices

CourseTBA4900MasterThesis

58