Numerical Investigation of Large-Diameter Monopiles in

Sands: Critical Review and Evaluation of Both API and Newly

Proposed p-y Curves
Djillali Amar Bouzid1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Despite the increase in offshore wind turbine (OWT) capacities, the preferred foundations for these marine structures are large-
diameter monopiles due to their ease of installation in shallow to medium water depth. The current design methodologies based on p-y curves
[the American Petroleum Institute (API) method, for instance] have gained a confirmed recognition in designing slender monopiles, such as
those used for supporting offshore gas and oil platforms. However, when applied to large-diameter monopiles, these regulation codes failed to
properly address the behavior of these extremely stiff structures, which is why many researchers tried to enhance the p-y method performance
by suggesting new p-y formulas incorporating monopile properties. The paper reviews the analytical formulas of the p-y curves adopted by the
current offshore guidelines and documents in detail the limitations and the shortcomings inherent to their formulations. The latest versions of
p-y curves proposed to improve the performance of the Winkler model were also given. To show how well the finite-element (FE) analysis pre-
dicts the lateral response of large-diameter monopiles under horizontal loading on one hand, and how inappropriate the models using p-y
curves are in studying this crucial problem on the other hand, two Fortran computer programs were considered. The first program, a computer
code called NAMPULAL, combines the FE vertical slices method (VSM) and the hyperbolic model to describe the behavior of cohesionless
soils. The second program, called Winkler-ROWKSS, is written using the finite-differences method. In the latter, the original and the newly
developed p-y curves were implemented. The comparative study was made by considering two case histories. The first case is a monopile em-
bedded in a multilayer sandy soil, which serves as a support foundation to 5-MW National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind tur-
bines, and the second case is a monopile supporting OWTs at Horns Rev in the Danish sector of the North Sea. At the first site, the evolution
of the monopile head movements with applied loading provided by the different models of beams on nonlinear Winkler foundations
(BNWFs) as well as the FEM was examined and compared. However, at the second site, only the monopile lateral displacement profile
was studied. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001204. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Winkler model; p-y curves; American Petroleum Institute (API); Finite-element vertical slices model (FE VSM);
Large-diameter monopiles; Offshore wind turbines (OWTs).

Introduction shallow depths up to 40 m because they are cost-effective and rela-

The depletion of traditional energy sources has led to an increase in
the search for alternatives in renewable energy sources to supply
societal needs. Consequently, there has been rapid development in
the installation of wind farms in both onshore and offshore locations
to secure clean electricity as a permanent source of energy. Because
offshore winds tend to have higher speeds and are less turbulent
than onshore winds, resulting in a greater increase in the potential
energy produced in offshore locations than in onshore ones, several
offshore wind farms have been already installed all over the world
in the last decade, and a vast number of farms are planned for the
near future. Although there are many offshore wind turbines
(OWTs) to support options depending on water depth (ranging from
gravity foundations for shallow depths of 0–15 m to floating foun-
dations for very deep waters of 60–200 m), the monopile is the pre-
ferred foundation concept for offshore wind energy converters in
1
Professor, Dept. Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Univ.
Saad Dahled of Blida, Route de Soumaa, Blida 09000, Algeria. Email:
d_amarbouzid@yahoo.fr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 13, 2017;
approved on February 2, 2018; published online on August 23, 2018.
Discussion period open until January 23, 2019; separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International
Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
tively simple to install (Ahmed and Hawlader 2016; Abed et al.
2016; Aissa et al. 2017). The monopiles consist of welded steel pipe
piles driven open ended into soil. Monopiles with diameters up to
6 m are already installed and even larger diameters are currently
planned (Achmus et al. 2009; Adhikari and Bhattacharya 2011,
2012; Carswell et al. 2015; Lombardi et al. 2013; Arany et al. 2016,
2017; Galvín et al. 2017; Sheil and Finnegan 2017).
The key element in the design of monopile foundations is to ful-
fill the ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state
(SLS) design analyses. In the ULS analysis, the monopile properties
should be chosen so that soil resistance is kept within a safe margin
far away from the soil failure to ensure the structure safety of the
entire OWT. In the SLS proof, the monopile head movements
(deflection and rotation) under extreme load cases have to remain
below certain limits.
To satisfy both ULS and SLS requirements, the design of the
structure and the substructure of an OWT should be performed
properly by including the soil/monopile interaction. This is done so
that OWTs sustain the permanent dynamic forces induced by vibra-
tions during their operational life because they are dynamically sen-
sitive structures. The induced forces combined with the operating
frequency could potentially trigger the resonance phenomenon.
To avoid this problematic phenomenon, which may lead to the
entire damage of an OWT, the latter should be designed such that
the first eigenfrequency is sufficiently far away from the main

© ASCE 04018141-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 excitation frequencies of the dynamic loading. In other words, it
should lie between turbine (1 P) and blade-passing frequencies
(3 P), i.e., in the interval corresponding to the “soft-stiff” interval.
This permissible interval frequency is shown in the Campbell dia-
gram of Fig. 1 (Bisoi and Haldar 2015).
The American Petroleum Institute (API 2014) and Det Norske
Veritas (DNV 2013) standards, which are the most used offshore
guidelines, recommend using the Winkler model approach to
design monopiles subjected to lateral loading. In this approach the
monopiles are considered as beams on nonlinear Winkler founda-
tions (BNWFs), and the soil response is analyzed by means of p-y
curves providing the soil reaction p in the function of lateral deflec-
tion y. However, this method of analysis fails when applied to large-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
diameter monopiles (with diameters of 5–8 m and slenderness ratios
around 5). The limitations of this empirical method are discussed in
detail in this paper in a later section.
As far as fulfilling both ULS and SLS requirements is concerned,
the monopile design should rely on a rigorous method, such as the
FEM. In this regard, the computer code called nonlinear analysis of
monopiles under lateral and axial loading (NAMPULAL), written
on the basis of the finite-element (FE) vertical slices model (VSM)
combined with the use of a hyperbolic model for modeling sandy
soils (Otsmane and Amar Bouzid 2018), is used to analyze the
monopiles under monotonic loading.
The objective of this paper is divided into three separate subtar-
gets. The first objective is to show that an FE analysis based on a
nonlinear soil hyperbolic model implemented in NAMPULAL is
the best choice as a method of analysis for the safe design of OWTs.
This is achieved by examining the monopile head displacements
and rotations by NAMPULAL as well as the monopile displace-
ment profile, which is consistent with the deformation pattern of
stiff monopiles. The second objective is to confirm statements about
the behavior of laterally loaded monopiles. Since the emergence of
the OWT industry, many researchers ascertain that the O’Neill and
0 .6
0 .5
S t iff- S t if f
0 .4
Frequ en cy (H z)
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 1. Campbell diagram. (Data from Bisoi and Haldar 2015.)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141
Murchison (1983) formulation, which was adopted first by the API
and then by DNV, is no longer appropriate for the analysis of large-
diameter monopiles under a horizontal loading setting thus, far
apart from the FE analysis. In other words, the Winkler models
inappropriately predict the response of laterally loaded monopiles.
The third objective is to properly evaluate the Winkler models based
on the latest proposed modifications of sand p-y curves in the range
bounded by both API and FE results. Here, the purpose is to get a
better overview of whether these models have improved the accurate
assessment of the lateral behavior of large-diameter monopiles sup-
porting OWTs or failed to correctly address this issue.
To prepare the necessary material to achieve these distinct objec-
tives and for a better understanding of the behaviors of both small-
and large-diameter monopiles, the next section is dedicated to a
description of the failure mechanisms of these kinds of deep foun-
dations followed by the p-y formulations adopted by the offshore
guidelines from API and DNV. In this section the author provides
in detail a critical view of BNWF as a method of analysis and gives
the limitations of its application to large-diameter monopiles. In a
subsequent section the most recently proposed modifications of the
sand p-y curves are given. These modified p-y curves have been
implemented by the author of this paper in a computer program
called Winkler-ROWKSS to be used later for comparison purposes.
The three objectives targeted by the present work are achieved by
the analysis of two case histories.
Flexible and Stiff Failure Mechanisms of Small- and
Large-Diameter Monopiles
Single piles (monopiles) are those used to support high-rise build-
ings, bridges, or offshore platforms in the oil and gas industry. They
can be distinguished in terms of lateral behavior and categorized
into two main classes, namely flexible (slender) piles and short
on
a ti
c it
ex
3P
S o ft - S t iff
A c c e p t a b le r a n g e
o f fr e q u e n c y
ta tio
n
xci
1P e
S o ft - S o ft
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
R o to r sp e e d (r p m )
04018141-2 Int. J. Geomech.
 (rigid) piles. In the first class, the behavior of monopiles is charac-
terized by the movement of only the upper part, whose length
depends on soil/monopile stiffness. In the extreme situation, the
failure occurs in the pile because of the formation of plastic hinges
at zero displacement locations. In the second class, a “toe kick”
occurs in response to the applied loads; in other words, the entire
monopile length undergoes movement. The failure mechanism for
stiff monopiles occurs in the soil first as the monopile undergoes a
significant rotation at its head. Because the diameter is generally
less than 2 m, this flexibility or rigidity depends on whether the
monopile’s effective length Lp is less than or greater than a value
termed critical length Lpc [Figs. 2(b and c)]. These small-diameter
piles are short and stiff if their effective length is less than the criti-
cal length, and slender and flexible in the reverse situation. The con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
certain OWT dynamic characteristics depending to a large extent on
the nature of the monopile. In long flexible monopiles, the lateral
spring stiffness KLFlexible , the rocking spring stiffness KRFlexible , and
Flexible
the cross-coupling spring stiffness KLR depend, in addition to
soil Young’s modulus Es and monopile diameter Dp , on the
monopile/soil relative rigidity Ep =Es . Appendix I gives the most
known established relationships. However, for the large-diameter
monopiles and the small-diameter short monopiles, the stiff-
nesses KLRigid ; KRRigid , and KLR
Rigid
depend, in addition to modulus Es
and monopile diameter Dp , on the monopile slenderness ratio
Lp =Dp . This was stated more than two decades ago by Carter and
Kulhawy (1992) for homogeneous soils and confirmed recently by
many authors (Higgins et al. 2013; Shadlou and Bhattacharya 2016;

cept of critical length or critical slenderness Lpc =Dp (Dp = pile diam-
eter) is the main distinguishing key between these two behaviors.
The notion of critical length has been well addressed by many
researchers, decades ago (Randolph 1981; Davies and Budhu 1986;
Amar Bouzid 1997).
Although monopiles used to support OWTs are deeply driven
into marine subsoils, in which the embedment length may reach
35 m in some situations, their effective length is less than the corre-
sponding critical length because of their large diameter, which is
currently 6 m in routine practice and planned to be 8 m for future
installations (Thieken et al. 2015). Consequently, these monopiles
are long and stiff. Fig. 2(a) shows the mechanism of failure of a
monopile, which takes place by excessive monopile top and bottom
rotations, and there is no plastic hinge formation.
The stiffnesses characterizing the springs are usually used to rep-
resent the soil/monopile interaction; hence, it is used to compute
Abed et al. 2016; Aissa et al. 2017) for three different soil profiles.
These stiffness impedance functions are listed in Appendix I.
P-Y Formulations as Adopted by API and DNV
In current geotechnical practice, analysis of laterally loaded piles
is commonly conducted using an approach in which the soil-
foundation system is modeled as a BNWF with the soil repre-
sented by a series of uncoupled springs whose response is
described by a curve called the p-y curve (Fig. 3). This model
involves the resolution of the fourth-order differential equation
d4 y
ðEI Þp ðzÞ p¼0 (1)
dz4
where y = lateral deflection of the monopile at a point z along the
monopile length; p = soil reaction in force unit per unit length; and

(a) Tilting of an OWT founded on a monopile

(b) Tilting of a short monopile in

bridge engineering or building
sectors

(c) Deflection of small diameter long (e) Springs representing

(d) Springs representing the SSI the SSI in (c)
monopiles experiencing two or more
in (a) and (b)
points of zero deflection.

Fig. 2. Failure mechanisms of large- and small-diameter monopiles used to support both OWTs and bridges, respectively, in energy and building sec-
tors. SSI = soil–structure interaction.

© ASCE 04018141-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 Ficve monopile +1
overhang ℎ

−1 Imaginary nodes
at the monopile
Spring −1 −1
−1
−2 ℎ head

Spring −2 −2
−2

−2
ℎ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ℎ
Spring
ℎ
+1
ℎ
+2
Imaginary monopile
p segment 2

Spring 1 1 Imaginary nodes

ℎ at the monopile p
0

ℎ
−1

−2

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 3. BNWF model applied to a slender monopile: (a) under lateral loading; (b) spring model; (c) prescribed p-y curves; and (d) finite-difference
modeling of the monopile.

ðEI Þp ðzÞ = monopile flexural rigidity, which may vary with depth,
as in the case of segmented or tapered monopiles.
Over six decades, the solution of Eq. (1) has been usually
based on the combination of two fundamental concepts. The first,
relevant to the lateral behavior of the monopile, is the use of the
finite-differences method to discretize the monopile into n seg-
ments resulting in ðn þ 1Þ nodes. Because Eq. (1) is a fourth-order
differential equation, the formulation of finite differences at the
level of each node results in a five-term equation containing the
lateral displacement of the targeted node and the displacements of
the four adjacent nodes. Consequently, two imaginary points over
the monopile head and two imaginary points below the monopile
tip are required to find yn and y0 , respectively (Fig. 3). The entire
monopile finite-difference modeling results in ðn þ 5Þ unknown
lateral deflections. The second concept is the use of p-y curves,
which are provided at each node level giving the soil response in
terms of lateral deflections. The global solution depends funda-
mentally on the assumption made in the equations encompassing
the imaginary nodes, especially at the monopile tip. The solution
proceeds iteratively using both concepts, in which the soil reac-
tion in the current iteration is determined on the basis of the
deflection found in the previous iteration, until a convergence cri-
terion is fulfilled.
The original formulation of p-y curves goes back to the early
1970s, in which there has been a great demand for designing piles
supporting platforms in the gas and oil offshore industry for
which the soil–pile interaction became crucial to analyze. In that
period Reese et al. (1974) tested two identical instrumented
piles installed at Mustang Island, Texas. A total of seven load
tests were performed on the piles consisting of two static tests
and five cyclic tests. Both piles had a diameter of 0:61 m and a
slenderness ratio of 34:4, and both were installed in a medium
sand. Based on these field tests, Reese et al. (1974) proposed a
semiempirical p-y curve consisting of four segments. Using this
piecewise p-y curve proposed by Reese et al. (1974) and a rela-
tively large database of laterally loaded pile tests, O’Neill and
Murchison (1983) suggested a hyperbolic formula for the p-y
curve to describe the relationship between soil resistance and
lateral pile deflection in sand


kz
pðy; zÞ ¼ Apu tanh y (2)
Apu
where k represents the initial coefficient of subgrade reaction
depending on the angle of internal friction or the relative density of
the cohesionless soil. Its values can be obtained either from Fig. 4(a)
or from Eq. (3), which has been fitted from Fig. 4(a) by Augustesen
et al. (2009)
 
k ¼ 0:008085 f 2:45  26:09 103 ½kPa=m for 29  f  45
(3)
where f is in degrees.
The ultimate resistance pu is determined by the following
equation:

© ASCE 04018141-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 '
φ , Angle of internal friction
nn
100
30°
28° 29° 36° 40° 45°

Very Medium Very

Loose Dense
Loose Dense Dense
80

Sand above
60 the water table

40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sand below
20 the water table
k (MPa/m)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Relative density Dr (%)

5 100

90

4 80

Values of coefficients c3
70
Values of coefficients c1 , c2

3 60

50

2 40

C3 30

1 C1 20
C2
10

0 0
20 25 30 35 40
'
Angle of internal friction φ (°)
(b)

Fig. 4. (a)Variation of initial coefficient of subgrade reaction k as a function of relative density; and (b) variation of the coefficients C1 , C2 , and C3 as
a function of the angle of internal friction. (Data from DNV 2013.)

8
< ðC1 z þ C2 Dp Þ g z The coefficient A is determined from the equations
pu ðzÞ ¼ min (4)

: ðC3 Dp g zÞ z
A ¼ 3:0  0:8  0:9 for static loading (6)
Dp

where the coefficients C1 , C2 , and C3 are functions of the angle of A ¼ 0:9 for cyclic loading (7)
internal friction, which can be either determined using the graph of
Fig. 4(b), or the following expressions: The original p-y curve proposed by Reese et al. (1974) has been
adopted by the API for designing piles supporting platforms in the
C1 ¼ 0:115 100:0405 f ; C2 ¼ 0:571 100:022 f ; and oil and gas industry and then was replaced later by the hyperbolic
formula of Eq. (2). This formula is still in use in the current design
C3 ¼ 0:646 100:0555 f (5) practice of monopiles.

© ASCE 04018141-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 Critical Review of the p-y Curve Method Loading
Because many inconsistencies and drawbacks have been observed ,
in the previous p-y formulations when dealing with monopiles
under horizontal loading, the critical review presented in this sec- ≤ 30 for
tion is organized according to three broad categories, and each is most
thoroughly detailed. monopiles Wedge
installed so far failure
Drawbacks in the Original p-y Formulation as Proposed
by Reese et al. (1974)
The p-y curve suggested by Reese et al. (1974) consists of three Horizontal flow
straight lines and a parabola. The limiting lateral displacements sep- around
arating the segments have been set empirically without any theoreti-
cal evidence, although the entire method has been developed on the Cohesionless soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

basis of a theoretical background. From the considerable amount of = 0, ≠ 0.

empiricism that has been involved in the recommendations by
Reese et al. (1974), two significant limitations are worth detailing in
this paper.
Limitation Relevant to the Earth Pressure Coefficient at Rest. Fig. 5. Soil deformation models according to Reese et al. (1974).
Among the soil parameters that affect the soil behavior is the earth (Data from Reese et al. 1974.)
pressure coefficient at rest K0 . Although simple, this coefficient is
by far the most influential parameter with respect to the lateral
behavior of monopiles. In fact, it has been overlooked by research-
ers in the original formulation of Reese et al. (1974), who adopted a Sand friction angle φ (°)
30 32 34 36 38 40 42
value of 0:4 for K0 for the calculation of the soil reaction at failure. 0
This meant that in Jâky’s (1944) point of view, in which he pro-
posed K0 ¼ 1  sin f , Reese et al. (1974) developed their theory for 20
a sand whose friction angle is equal to f ¼ 37 , and generated the
p-y curves for any sand, regardless of its density state. Researchers 40

who investigated this parameter concluded that the earth pressure

60
coefficient at rest is dependent on many soil physical parameters,
such as the void ratio, the friction angle, the relative density, and the 80
overconsolidation ratio (OCR), for cohesive soils as well as the pro-
cess by which the soil deposit was formed (Jâky 1944; Mayne and 100
Kulhawy 1982; Michalowski 2005; Sherif et al. 1984). The values
Depth ZWF (m)

Dp=0.61 m
of K0 vary significantly when the sand varies from a loose state to a 120
Dp=2 m
very dense state. Consequently, the most affected parameter is the Dp=4 m
pile displacement and therefore the ultimate soil resistance. In this 140
Dp=6 m
context, and using a computer code based on a conventional three-
160
dimensional (3D) FEM, Dickin and Laman (2003) analyzed a short
pier in sandy soil and examined the variation of the pier head rotation Fig. 6. Variation of ZWF in function of f and Dp .
in the function of the variation of K0 . They found that the pier head
rotations are markedly sensitive to the values of K0 , especially those
ranging between 0:25 and 0:60, and relatively minor variations were two concepts are equal. The author of this paper performed the cal-
noticed in rotations for K0 values greater than 0:60. Fan and Long culations and found this depth as
(2005) performed FE analyses on laterally loaded piles and studied
the effect of varying K0 on the shape of p-y curves. They found not a5 a2 a
only an increase in the initial p-y curve stiffness but also a significant þ 2k0 4 
b5 ð1 bÞ b bð1  bÞ
increase in the ultimate soil resistance. ZWF ¼ Dp
 (8)
2k0 a2 2d
Ambiguous Definition of the Depth at Which the Ultimate Soil pffiffiffi þ 2 þ k0 pffiffiffi  1
Resistance Changes from Wedge Type to Flow-Around Type. 2b b 2b
Reese et al. (1974) adopted two soil models for computing the ulti-
mate soil resistance. Using a wedge model near the ground surface where a ¼ 1 þ tanð f =2Þ, b ¼ 1  tanð f =2Þ, and d ¼ cosð f =2Þ;
(at shallow depth) and on the basis of the Rankine theory and the Dp = pile diameter; and f = internal friction angle of sand.
Mohr-Coulomb failure condition, they formulated an expression for Calculation steps leading to Eq. (8) have been detailed in
the ultimate soil resistance containing the pile diameter, the depth Appendix II.
of the sand wedge, and most importantly the sand friction angle. At In the author’s opinion, for large-diameter monopiles, ZWF is
some distance from the ground level, which is not quantified, they simply a depth at which the two failure concepts yield the same
considered another model of sand failure that consists in a horizon- value of ultimate pressure occurring well beneath the monopile tip.
tal flow around the pile. A different expression for the ultimate re- It does not define a shallow depth of a few diameters at which the
sistance has been proposed containing the same parameters (Fig. 5). ultimate sand resistance changes from the first soil model to the sec-
The shift in the failure mechanism from the first model to the second ond one.
has been set to occur according to Reese et al. (1974) at a particular To discuss this issue, the variation of ZWF in the function of the
depth ZWF (Fig. 5) in which the ultimate pressures provided by the sand friction angle f for a number of monopile diameters has been

© ASCE 04018141-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 plotted for examination in Fig. 6. The figure shows that even for a
diameter Dp ¼ 2 m, which most authors claim as a limiting diame-
ter of Winkler model validation, the entire monopile embedment,
which is in most cases less than 30 m, falls within the shallow depth
concept according to Reese et al. (1974). For monopiles with larger
diameters the shallow depth is even deeper. Consequently, the con-
cept of soil failure as a horizontal flow around the monopile would
never take place because all monopiles are larger than 2 m. A more
appropriate definition should be considered using a different theo-
retical background.
Shortcomings in the p-y Formulation as Proposed by
O’Neill and Murchison (1983)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
medium elastic properties, Vesic (1961) demonstrated that the mod-
ulus of subgrade reaction is independent of the pile diameter
because the latter disappears due to the fact that it has the same
power in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (10)
" #1=2
0:65Es Es D4p
K¼  (10)
1  s2 ðEI Þp
where, Es = soil modulus of elasticity; s = soil Poisson’s ratio;
Dp = monopile diameter; and EIÞp = monopile flexural rigidity.
Pender et al. (2007) and Ashford and Juirnarongrit (2003) con-
ducted a series of FE analyses to investigate the effect of the monop-
ile diameter on the initial stiffness of the p-y curve. The research,

The analytical formula [Eq. (2)] proposed by these authors and

adopted by the API regulation code was attractive because it is sim-
ple to implement in computer code. However, the formula failed to
design large-diameter monopiles in the same way as the formulation
by Reese et al. (1974) did. The major drawbacks in the formulation
by O’Neill and Murchison (1983) lie in the fact that the initial stiff-
ness of their p-y curve significantly overestimates the soil stiffness
at large depths and does not include any monopile geometrical
property. This has been considered by many researchers to be at the
origin of the poor performance of this Winkler model.
Monopile Geometrical and Bending Stiffness Properties Are
Disregarded. The initial stiffness of the p-y curves Epy 
recom-
mended in the design can be obtained by evaluating the slope of the
p-y curve tangent at y ¼ 0
kz
 
dp  Apu  In addition to the confused situation of whether the p-y constitu-

Epy ¼  ¼ Apu
  ¼ kz (9)
dy y¼0 kzy
cosh2 y¼0
Apu
It is quite clear from Eq. (9) that the initial stiffness is independ-
ent of pile properties (diameter and bending stiffness), and it is line-

arly dependent of the depth z. Because Epy , through the parameter k,
relies only on the sand relative density and does not depend on the
monopile properties, many questions can arise because research on
this issue gave contradictory conclusions. We will see in the re-
mainder of this paper that most authors who tried to enhance the
performance of the p-y curves intervened at the level of the initial
stiffness of the p-y curve rather than at the level of the ultimate pres-
sure. The literature about this issue is scarce, and very little research
has been performed over nearly six decades. Indeed, Terzaghi
(1955) provided an explanation of how the depth of the stress bulb
can be affected by the pile diameter whether it is small or large. He
concluded that the modulus of subgrade reaction is independent of
the pile diameter. By providing the expression given by Eq. (10),
which relates the modulus of subgrade reaction to both pile and
however, concluded that there is a negligible impact of the pile diam-
eter. Fan and Long (2005) also performed a FE investigation in
which they kept the monopile bending stiffness ðEI Þp constant and
increased the monopile diameter. This research confirmed the same
observation. However, the numerical modeling of the monopiles
under lateral loading by Wiemann et al. (2004) and Sørensen et al.
(2010) reported that the initial stiffness of the soil–monopile interac-
tion is affected by changing the monopile diameter.
Although significant, the influence of pile bending stiffness on
the p-y curve has not been given much attention in the literature.
Only Ashour and Norris (2000) and Fan and Long (2005) have
focused on this issue. Adopting the strain wedge method, the first
investigation confirmed the effect of ðEI Þp on the soil ultimate re-
sistance, whereas the second investigation reported no significant
influence of ðEI Þp on the p-y curve.
tive elements k and pu depend on the monopile diameter and its
bending stiffness, it is also difficult to find k for a very dense sand
that has an internal friction angle greater than 40 [Fig. 4(a)]. As a
consequence of these inconsistencies, many researchers reported
that the linear variation of stiffness with depth, as shown by Eq. (9),
leads to an overestimation of soil stiffness at large depths.
Furthermore, the currently used design codes lead to an underesti-
mation in the head displacements for large-diameter monopiles
under extreme loads (Abdel-Rahman and Achmus 2005; Wiemann
et al. 2004; Sørensen 2012) and to an overestimation for monopiles
under small operational loads (Kallehave et al. 2012; Hald et al.
2009). These facts have been recently confirmed by Otsmane and
Amar Bouzid (2018).
These contradictory conclusions are summarized chronologi-
cally in Table 1.
Drawbacks in the BNWF as a Method of Analysis
of Large-Diameter Monopiles
The poor performance noticed in the BNWF approach when
applied to large-diameter monopiles is due to the extrapolation of

Table 1. Conclusions reached by some researchers about the effects of Dp and ðEI Þp on the p-y curve

Effect of the monopile Effect of the monopile

Authors diameter Dp bending stiffness ð EI Þp Method used
Terzaghi (1955) No effect — Full-scale experiments
Vesic (1961) No effect — Empirical research
Ashour and Norris (2000) — Important effect Numerical analysis
Ashford and Juirnarongrit (2003) Negligible effect — Experimental program including vibration and impact tests
Wiemann et al. (2004) Significant effect — 3D FE analysis
Fan and Long (2005) Negligible influence No significant effect 3D FE analysis
Pender et al. (2007) Apparent effect — Numerical computations
Sørensen et al. (2010) Confirmed effect — Numerical computations using FLAC3D

© ASCE 04018141-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 p-y curves to this kind of foundation (originally calibrated for
small-diameter piles) and to the BNWF model itself as a method
of analysis. Shortcomings inherent to this Winkler model can be
summarized as follows.
Inconsistency between the Monopile Behavior Pattern and
Boundary Conditions Adopted. Regarding the behavior of either
short monopiles used in the sector of bridge engineering or in the oil
and gas industry, or large-diameter monopiles used to support wind
energy converters, there is only one point of zero deflection along
the monopile length. In this case, the deflection of the bottom of the
monopile could cause a shearing force to develop. However, the
finite-difference procedure generally formulated to solve the fourth-
order differential [Eq. (1)] does not distinguish between flexible and
stiff monopiles. This is supported by the fact that most written
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
monopile. In this regard, Ibsen et al. (2009) proposed an empirical
equation giving f in the function of sand relative density Dr as well
as the minor principal stress s 3
f ¼ 15 Dr þ 27 s 30:28 þ 23½  (13)
This equation cannot be introduced in the Winkler model
regardless of the quality of the p-y curve; however, it can be easily
introduced into an FE analysis. Eq. (13) confirms that the sand
stiffness is governed to a large extent by the confining pressure
s 3 , showing the suitability of hyperbolic models for the descrip-
tion of sand behaviors as it constitutes the key element in their
formulations. This kind of model is used in the FE analysis pre-

sented subsequently in this paper, and Eq. (13) is implemented to

Winkler approach-based codes, such as COM624 (Reese and
Sullivan 1980) or LPILE6 (Wang and Isenhower 2010), have been
established on the assumption that the monopile will experience
two or more points of zero deflection (Reese and Van Impe 2011).
Thus, the hypothesis of the zero shearing force and zero bending
moment at the bottom of the monopile is usually adopted to find the
complete set of unknowns. However, because monopiles exhibit
one zero deflection along their entire length, the deflection at the
bottom could give birth to a shear force. In these circumstances, and
referring to Fig. 3(d), the needed equations of boundary conditions
encompassing imaginary points at the bottom of monopile are
R0
ðy2  2y1 þ 2y1  y2 Þ ¼ V0
2h3
R0
ðy1  2y0 þ y1 Þ ¼ M0
h2
where R0 = monopile bending stiffness at node 0. It is difficult to
find appropriate values for V0 and M0 without any additional infor-
mation (Reese and Van Impe 2011). This makes the Winkler model
less viable in analyzing large-diameter monopiles and hampering
thus, to obtain accurate profiles of deflections along the monopile
shaft.
BNWF Cannot Update the Soil Stiffness during the
Loading/Unloading Process
During the process of monopile loading, the sand can densify in
front of the monopile head and in the back of the monopile tip while
it loosens at the back of the monopile head and in front of the pile
tip. Consequently, the angle of internal friction f may change sig-
nificantly during this process in the vicinity of a large-diameter
follow the sand stiffness variation during the process of loading/
unloading.
Design Parameters Are Inaccurately Estimated in the BNWF
In the BNWF model the design parameters, such as rotations, bend-
ing moment, shear forces, and earth pressures, along the monopile
shaft are inaccurately computed because they are all related to the
lateral displacement by a differential equation with increasing
order. In this model the obtained nodal displacements are used in a
finite-difference scheme to evaluate the previously mentioned pa-
rameters. In this regard, it is well known that the finite-difference
method loses its accuracy when the differential equation order gets
(11) bigger. However, in the FEM only the monopile rotations are based
on the finite-difference method, and the shear and normal stresses
that develop at the vicinity of the monopile are integrated over the
monopile circumference and along the monopile shaft to evaluate
(12)
the other design parameters. The results are more accurate if the
monopile/soil interface is properly modeled (Amar Bouzid et al.
2004).
Latest Propositions to Enhance the BNWF Model:
Computer Code Winkler-ROWKSS
Because the standard p-y method provided an unsatisfactory basis
for the design of wind turbine monopile foundations, many
researchers proposed analytical formulas for p-y curves in an
attempt to enhance the analysis by accounting for the monopile di-
ameter and sometimes for monopile stiffness parameters. Hence,
most of them suggested modifications altering the shapes of the p-y
curves at the level of their initial stiffness, whereas they considered
the formulation by Reese et al. (1974) adequate for the design of

Table 2. Proposed formulas for the p-y curve initial stiffness

Authors Proposed formulas Assigned parameters


O’Neill and Murchison (1983) (API 2014; DNV 2013) Epy ¼ kAPI z kAPI ¼ k appearing in Eqs. (2) and (3)
Wiemann et al. (2004) !4ð4þa
1aÞ
a ¼ 0:6 for a medium dense sand,
Dref

Epy ¼ kWiemann z ¼ z kAPI
p a ¼ 0:5 for a dense sand,
Dp
!c p ¼ 1:0 m
Dref

b a ¼ 50;000; zref ¼ 1 m; Dref
Sørensen et al. (2010)
 z Dp p ¼ 1 m,
Epy ¼ kSørensen1 z ¼ a fd b ¼ 0:6; c ¼ 0:5; d ¼ 3:6, f in radians
zref Dref
p

!0:5
m
Kallehave et al. (2012) Dpz m ¼ 0:6; zref ¼ 2:5 m,

Epy ¼ kKallehave z ¼ kAPI zref D ref
zref Dref
p p ¼ 0:61 m

b !
d
Sørensen (2012) z Dp
c
Es a ¼ 1 MPa; zref ¼ 1 m; Dref
p ¼ 1 m,
Epy ¼ kSørensen2 z¼a Eref ¼ 1 MPa,
zref Dref
p Esref s
b ¼ 0:3; c ¼ 0:5; d ¼ 0:8

© ASCE 04018141-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 large-diameter monopiles and kept the ultimate soil resistance pu
unaltered in their new p-y curve formulations.
Wiemann et al. (2004) noticed that the initial stiffness in the
original API approach overestimates grossly the soil stiffness at
large depths. Consequently, they proposed a formula that mitigates
the soil stiffness by introducing a monopile diameter ratio and an
exponent less than one. Sørensen et al. (2010) conducted numerical
experiments using the commercial package FLAC3D in which they
considered the monopile diameter and soil/monopile interaction
effects on the initial stiffness of the proposed p-y curve. Further
modifications have been proposed by Sørensen (2012) in which soil
Young’s modulus has been added and the sand friction angle
removed. On the basis of theoretical considerations, Kallehave et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2012) introduced a stress-level and diameter correction into the
API p-y curve. Unlike the other researchers, Kallehave et al. (2012)
chose a reference monopile diameter, which is the diameter used by
Reese et al. (1974) in their Mustang Island experiments. These dif-
ferent formulas are listed in Table 2.
The computer code Winkler-ROWKSS, which stands for
Winkler model using Reese et al. (1974), O’Neill and Murchison
(1983), Wiemann et al. (2004), Kallehave et al. (2012), Sørensen
et al. (2010), and Sørensen (2012) p-y curves, has been written by
the author of this paper on the basis of an existing Fortran computer
code called COM622, which is still in use, to deal with axially and
horizontally loaded piles (Reese and Manoliu 1973; Reese 1977).
COM622 numerically solves Eq. (1) using the finite-differences

Medium to
be sliced

(a)

V The slice
M The irst three slices

3
2

2
3

2 3

(b)

Fig. 7. (a) OWT as a soil–structure interaction problem; and (b) the VSM showing the interacting slices subjected to external and body forces.

© ASCE 04018141-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 method. It is based on a special flowchart in which the different
computation steps are performed iteratively, and the soil reaction in
the current iteration is determined on the basis of the deflection
found in the previous iteration, until a convergence criterion is satis-
fied. The major drawbacks of this computer code are threefold.
First, the implementation is limited to deal with only experimental
p-y curves provided as input data at a very limited number of depth
levels, which are in most cases insufficient to cover the entire
monopile length. Second, for a node that does not coincide with a
p-y curve depth level, the computer interpolates between the two
sandwiching experimental p-y curves to compute the soil pressure.
This pressure is less accurate if the distance between the two consid-
ered p-y curves is bigger. Third, because the soil reactions within
the experimental p-y curve are provided only at discrete points, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
curves are provided analytically in both deflection (y) and depth
(z) values. This program is used for comparison purposes with FE
analysis.
FE VSM Combined with the Hyperbolic Model for
Modeling Cohesionless Soils
The concept of the so-called VSM is fundamentally based on subdi-
viding the structure and the surrounding soil into vertical panels of
different thicknesses in the z-direction, in which two-dimensional
(2D) conventional FEs are used to discretize each panel. The 3D as-
pect of the problem is accounted for by coupling the shear forces

between the slices. A soil/monopile interaction problem portrayed

computer code uses a linear interpolation to find the soil reaction
between two successive soil pressures in the same p-y curve.
To enable the calculation of the behavior of open pipe piles
under lateral loading, the originally developed p-y curves and
those recently enhanced expressions that appeared in Table 2
have been implemented as separate subroutines for each model in
Winkler-ROWKSS. No interpolations are needed because the p-y
in Fig. 7 shows the 3D problem [Fig. 7(a)] and the VSM in which
the different slices are acted on by external forces and body forces
[Fig. 7(b)].
Main FE Equations Describing the VSM
The response of an individual slice to an external loading is gov-
erned by the following equilibrium equations:

∂s x ∂t xy ∂t xy ∂s y
þ þ bx ¼ 0; þ þ by ¼ 0 (14)
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
Deviator stress

Ulmate deviator stress ( − )

where bx and by are considered to be the key elements in the devel-
Deviator stress at failure ( − ) opment of the FE VSM. These physical parameters, termed body
Hyperbola
1
forces in this model, have been interpreted as fictitious forces trans-
mitted to the slice under consideration by shear forces applied from
Actual test slices at the left and at the right. For a given slice i, this can be math-
ematically expressed as

Hyperbolic representaon t lzxi  t rzxi t lzy  t rzyi

1 bx ¼ ; by ¼ i (15)
( − )= ti ti
+
( − )
where t lzxi and t lzyi are shear stresses acting at the left interface of
slice i; t rzxi and t rzyi are shear stresses acting at the right interface of
Axial strain ( ) slice i; and ti = slice thickness. The stress and deformation analyses
in each slice are conducted by the conventional FEM, using 2D
Fig. 8. Hyperbolic model of stress–strain behavior. FEs. According to the standard formulation in the displacement
based FEM, the element stiffness matrix in slice i can be written as

Table 3. Soil stiffness parameters in terms of soil friction angle and confining pressure

Parameter Relevant expression or value Reference

Sand relative density ðDr Þ f ½  Ibsen et al. (2009)
 1:8 s 30:28  1:53
15

0:51
Sand modulus of elasticity ðEs Þ Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)
2:93 Dr 1 þ 2k0
1;025 e s v0
3
Earth pressure coefficient at rest ðk0 Þ 1  sin f Jâky (1944)

Table 4. Parameters governing the hyperbolic model according to correlations and recommendations

Parameter Relevant expression or value Reference

Modulus exponent ðnÞ 0.51 Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)
Failure ratio ðRf Þ 0.7 Wong and Duncan (1974)

0:51
Unloading/reloading modulus number ðKur Þ 1 þ 2k0 Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)
1;025 e2:93 Dr p0:49
a
3k0
Loading modulus number ðK Þ 0:667 Kur Duncan and Wong (1999)

© ASCE 04018141-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 ð ð
where pc ¼proper contribution of the slice itself; pr ¼contribution
Bt Dps B ai dv ¼ Nt bi dv þ pi (16)
v v of the preceding slice; fl ¼contribution of the subsequent slice; ai1 ,
ai , and aiþ1 are the element nodal displacement vectors of slices
where pi is the external forces vector to which slice i is subjected; i  1, i, and i þ 1, respectively; I = identity matrix; and Gi1 , Gi , and
and bi is the body forces vector that has the following compact form: Giþ1 are, respectively, the shear moduli at slices i  1, i, and i þ 1.
In Eq. (16) the matrix Dps is the matrix corresponding to a prob-
bi ¼ bpr pc fl
i  bi þ bi (17) lem of plane stresses, which may be given as
fl
2 3
with bpc pc pr
i ¼ L Nai ; bi ¼ L Nai1 ; bi ¼ L Naiþ1
pr fl
(18) 1 s 0
E 6 6 s 1 0 7 7
Dps ¼ 4 (21)
where Lpc ¼ lpc pr fl 1  s 1  s 5
i I; L ¼ li I and L ¼ li I
pr fl 2
(19) 0 0
2
2 Gi1 Gi 2 Gi Giþ1
and lpr
i ¼ ; lfl ¼ ;
ti ðGi1 ti þ Gi ti1 Þ i ti ðGi tiþ1 þ Giþ1 ti Þ From this fact, and unlike a fully 3D or plane strain problem, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value of Poisson’s ratio equal to 0:5 is no longer a singular value.

and lpc pr fl
i ¼ li þ li (20) Eq. (17) shows that the fictitious body forces applied to a slice i
depend essentially on its own nodal displacements and on those of
slices sandwiching it. The numerical analysis of the vertical slicing
model has led to the familiar equations of a pseudo plane stress
Table 5. Reference wind turbine masses problem with body forces representing the interaction between the
slices forming the structure and its surrounding medium. The sub-
Turbine part Reference mass (t)
stitution of Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eq. (16) gives a more detailed
Rotor 110.0 governing equation
Nacelle 240.0 ð ð
Tower 347.5 ðBt D B þ Nt Lpc NÞ ai dv ¼ ðNt Lpr NÞai1 dv
v v
ð
Table 6. Reference wind turbine geometrical properties
þ ðNt Lfl NÞaiþ1 dv þ pi (22)
v

Tower property Reference (m)

In a more compact form Eq. (22) becomes
Tower height 87.6 fl
Tower diameter Si ai ¼ Hpr
i þ H i þ pi (23)
At the base 6.0
At the top 3.87
This equation cannot be solved as is because the right-hand
Tower wall thickness
terms are not available explicitly at the same time. Consequently, an
At the base 0.027
updating iterative process is needed
j j1
At the top 0.019 Sji aji ¼ Hpr fl
i þ Hi þ pi for j ¼ 1; 2; ………; jmax (24)

Fig. 9. Soil profile and monopile dimensions for the NREL-5 MW reference wind turbine. MSL = mean sea level.

© ASCE 04018141-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 where, j denotes the iteration number; and jmax = maximum number
of iterations allowed in the numerical process.
It is quite clear from Eq. (24) that the iterative nature is inherent
to the FE VSM even if the analysis is restricted to elastic deforma-
tions. In this way, this equation is the backbone of the numerical
procedure presented in this paper, which will be extended to encom-
pass the hyperbolic model next for analyzing nonlinear problems,
particularly because the main purpose of this paper is to present the
monopiles in cohesionless soils.
Kondner (1963) and Kondner and Zelako (1963) approxi-
mated the relationship between the deviatoric stress and the axial
strain for both clays and sands according to an analytic formula
as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eq. (25) is a hyperbola (Fig. 8), in which ðs 1  s 3 Þ is the princi-
pal stress difference; ðs 1  s 3 Þult is the asymptotic value of the
principal stress difference at large axial strain; ɛ = axial strain; and
Ei = initial tangent modulus.
On the basis of a wide variety of soil experiments performed by
Janbu (1963), Duncan and Chang (1970) found that the initial modu-
lus Ei increases with the confining pressure s 3 . Consequently, they
proposed for the initial tangent modulus the following formula:

n
s3
Ei ¼ KPa (26)
Pa
where K is a dimensionless factor termed “modulus number”; n is a
dimensionless parameter called “modulus exponent”; and Pa =

ɛ
ðs 1  s 3 Þ ¼ 1 ɛ
(25) atmospheric pressure (101:4 kPa) used to make K and n
þ nondimensional.
Ei ðs 1  s 3 Þult In the process of loading, the tangential stiffness of soil is often
required. This is given by
" #2
n
Table 7. Monopile properties Rf ð1  sin f Þðs 1  s 3 Þ s3
Et ¼ 1  KPa (27)
Monopile property Reference (m) 2c cos f þ 2s 3 sin f Pa
Monopile length
Embedment length 36.0 However, the value of Et cannot reflect the soil stiffness in
Overhang 30.0 cases of unloading/reloading; consequently, another expression is
Monopile diameter 6.0 needed. Assuming the same stress paths for both unloading and
Monopile wall thickness 0.06 reloading, Duncan and Chang (1970) proposed the following
expression:

25
H o r iz o n ta l fo r c e H ( M N )

W in k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n 2 0 1 2 )
W i n k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n e t a l. 2 0 1 0 )
W i n k l e r - R O W K S S ( W i e m a n n e t a l. 2 0 0 4 )
20 W in k le r -R O W K S S ( K a lle h a v e e t a l. 2 0 1 2 )

W in k le r -R O W K S S ( O 'N e ill a n d M u r c h is o n 1 9 8 3 )

W in k le r -R O W K S S ( R e e s e e t a l. 1 9 7 4 )
15 L P IL E ( Ju n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

10

N A M P U L A L ( O ts m a n e a n d A m a r B o u z id 2 0 1 8 )
F E M ( Ju n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

0
0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4

M o n o p i l e h e a d d is p l a c e m e n t u ( m )

Fig. 10. Monopile head horizontal displacement u against H loading.

© ASCE 04018141-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141


n
s3
Eur ¼ Kur Pa
Pa
where Eur = loading-unloading modulus; and Kur = corresponding
modulus number. In the Duncan-Chang basic model, the
Poisson’s ratio s was assumed to be constant throughout the
entire process.
To reduce the large number of experiment-based parameters
needed in the hyperbolic model, Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)
established empirical relationships requiring only the soil friction
angle and the confining pressure s 3 . These relationships are listed
in Tables 3 and 4. [For more details the reader is referred to
Otsmane and Amar Bouzid (2018)].
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
is generally sufficient to reach accurate solutions with acceptable
(28)
margins:
1. A number of 20 slices has been implemented in NAMPULAL.
This number, which has been set on the basis of a parametric
study involving many monopile behavior parameters (Amar
Bouzid et al. 2005a), has been found sufficient to model accu-
rately many soil–structure interaction problems (Amar Bouzid
et al. 2005b; Otsmane and Amar Bouzid 2018).
2. Unlike most implemented soil elastoplastic behavior criteria,
which necessitate a significant number of iterations to subdue
the out-of-balance equilibrium forces, the implemented hyper-
bolic model in NAMPULAL requires only two iterations. This
fact alleviates considerably the entire process of the solution
and makes it easier to find fast solutions, even for the most

These expressions have been implemented in the FE com-

complex soil/structure interaction problems.
puter code NAMPULAL, which will be described in the next 3. In addition to the rectangular cross-sectional monopiles that are
subsection. automatically taken into account due to the shape of the vertical
slice, the solid circular or tubular cross-section monopiles are
easily dealt with by prescribing the effective bending stiffness.
Computer Program NAMPULAL Used in This Work Hence, an equivalent Young’s modulus is extracted according
A Fortran computer program called NAMPULAL for the analysis to the following formula:
of axially and laterally loaded single monopiles has been written
on the basis of the FE vertical slices equations described earlier 192 ðEI Þact
Epeq ¼ (29)
[Eqs. (14)–(24)] in conjunction with those of hyperbolic model p 2 ðDp Þ4
equations. Only the features of this computer program are given
here. Although the computational process in NAMPULAL is nat- This expression has been set on the assumption that the square
urally iterative to fulfill the slices equilibrium, it does not require cross-sectional monopile under consideration in NAMPULAL
a significant number of iterations to reach convergence. For the has the same cross-sectional area as the effective circular cross-
problems analyzed so far, a number revolving around 20 iterations sectional monopile.

25
H o r iz o n t a l f o r c e H ( M N )

W i n k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n 2 0 1 2 )
W in k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n e t a l. 2 0 1 0 )

W i n k l e r - R O W K S S ( W i e m a n n e t a l. 2 0 0 4 )
20
W in k le r - R O W K S S ( K a lle h a v e e t a l. 2 0 1 2 )

W in k le r -R O W K S S ( O 'N e ill a n d M u r c h is o n 1 9 8 3 )

W in k le r -R O W K S S ( R e e s e e t a l. 1 9 7 4 )
15
L P IL E ( Ju n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

10

N A M P U L A L ( O ts m a n e a n d A m a r B o u z id 2 0 1 8 )

F E M ( Ju n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

0
0 .0 0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6

M o n o p ile h e a d r o t a tio n • ( °)

Fig. 11. Monopile head rotation u against H loading.

© ASCE 04018141-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 NAMPULAL for FE Modeling against The flexibility factors are found first and then inversed to obtain
Winkler-ROWKSS for BNWF Analysis the stiffness coefficients of Eq. (31).

Through the analysis of two case histories the monopile head Verifying 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine from National
stiffnesses provided by the FEM using NAMPULAL are com- Renewable Energy Laboratory
pared in this section with those given by the BNWF model using
the computer code Winkler-ROWKSS. The monopile head move- To assess NAMPULAL’s FE results compared with those of the
ments (lateral displacements and rotations) are the key elements API and the recently developed p-y curves implemented in
for the determination of the monopile head stiffness, which can Winkler-ROWKSS, it is useful to consider the National Renewable
be quantified by three springs, two for controlling horizontal and Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5-MW baseline wind turbine, which is
rocking movements and one for the cross-coupling interaction. mounted atop a monopile foundation at a 20-m water depth
The relationship between lateral stiffness KL , rocking stiffness (Jonkman et al. 2009; Jung et al. 2015).
KR , and cross-coupling stiffness KLR may be expressed in a matrix To aid concept studies and research activities on offshore
wind energy, the NREL developed a reference wind turbine that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

form as
closely represents utility-scale OWTs found in the today’s mar-

 ket. The OWT properties have been obtained from publicly avail-
H KL KLR uL
¼ (30) able information on real wind turbine prototypes and conceptual
M KRL KR uR
models. The NREL 5-MW mass and structural details are listed,
respectively, in Tables 5 and 6. Fig. 9 shows a schematic of the
where H and M = shear force and the overturning moment applied reference wind turbine. It has three blades with variable speed
at the monopile head, respectively; and uL and u R = lateral displace- and pitch control. The rotor diameter is 126 m. The support struc-
ment and rotation of the monopile head, respectively. tures used for OWTs include monopiles, gravity bases, space
The stiffness coefficients appearing in Eq. (30) are related to frames, and floating structures. In this study, for a monopile foun-
their inverse flexibility coefficients by the following expres- dation investigation, a representative soil profile was assumed,
sions: which was adopted from the work of Passon (2006), as shown in
Fig. 9. This profile consists of three sand layers with the same unit
IR IL ILR
KL ¼ KR ¼ ; KLR ¼ (31) weight and three different friction angles. The geometrical char-
IL IR  ILR
2 IL IR  ILR
2 IL IR  ILR
2
acteristics are given in Table 7.

200
A p p l i e d o v e r t u r n in g m o m e n t M ( M N .m )

W i n k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n 2 0 1 2 )

W in k le r - R O W K S S ( S ø r e n s o n e t a l. 2 0 1 0 )

W i n k le r - R O W K S S ( W i e m a n n e t a l. 2 0 0 4 )
W i n k le r - R O W K S S ( K a ll e h a v e e t a l. 2 0 1 2 )
150
W in k le r - R O W K S S ( R e e s e e t a l . 1 9 7 4 )

W in k le r - R O W K S S ( O 'N e i l l a n d M u r c h i s o n 1 9 8 3 )

L P IL E ( Ju n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

100

50

N A M P U L A L ( O ts m a n e a n d A m a r B o u z id 2 0 1 8 )

F E M ( J u n g e t a l. 2 0 1 5 )

0
0 .0 0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6
M o n o p il e h e a d r o t a t i o n • ( ° )

Fig. 12. Monopile head rotation u against M loading.

© ASCE 04018141-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 The numerical investigation of this reference turbine was per-

0.0000135
0.0000943
et al. (2012)
Kallehave
formed by examining the monopile head movement (displacements

0.0011

2.233

−15.591
182.897
and rotations) evolutions with the increasing applied loading at the
monopile top, as indicated in Figs. 10–12. Fig. 10 shows the varia-
tion of u with H, whereas Fig. 11 is dedicated to the evolution of u
with H and Fig. 12 to u with M. The initial stiffnesses of these
curves have been used for the determination for monopile head flex-

O’Neill and Murchison

ibility coefficients first, and then stiffness coefficients that appear in

0.0000154
Table 8. The latter are the key elements for some dynamic charac-

0.00013
(1983)

0.0017
teristics, such as OWT natural frequency, if the soil–monopile inter-

−13.232
174.218
1.604
action is considered.
At first it is easy to notice that the curves are distinguished
into four groups. In the first group, which gathers the FE results,
a perfect agreement has been obtained between NAMPULAL’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

results and those of Jung et al. (2015) who used the commercial
FE package ABAQUS in their computations. This means that the

0.0000154
Reese et al.
computer code NAMPULAL, which has been validated against

0.00013
(1974)

0.0017

−13.232
174.218
1.604
different FE packages (Otsmane and Amar Bouzid 2018), once
again proved its validity in dealing with large-diameter monop-
iles in sandy deposits. In the second group, which is formed by
Winkler models adopted by the API method and based on the old-

0.0000187
est versions of p-y curves (Reese et al. 1974; O’Neill and

0.00317

0.00019
Sørensen
(2012)
Murchison 1983) (LPILE), the results are nearly identical. This is

134.295
0.793

−8.000
obvious because the three models were originally based on the
same work by Reese et al. (1974). These models significantly
underestimate the monopile head lateral displacement and show
that they are not suitable for large-diameter monopiles. This

0.0000146
LPILE (Jung
et al. 2015)

0.00012
underestimation leads to an overestimation in soil–monopile

0.0016

193.819
1.816

−15.092
stiffness, which wrongfully affects the dynamic properties of the
OWT. The third group is relevant to Winkler models, which used
the latest propositions to enhance p-y curves. In this group it is
easy to see that results provided by Winkler-ROWKSS using
Sørensen et al. (2010), Sørensen (2012), and Wiemann et al.

0.0000177
FEM (Jung
et al. 2015)

0.00019
(2004) curves are in close agreement with each other, although

0.0037

123.211
0.583

−6.236
they have been formulated differently, and are situated halfway
between the API and the FE models. It seems that the p-y modifi-
cations have brought some improvement toward a more accurate
monopile head displacement. Finally, in the last group, which
Wiemann et al.

consists of the Kallehave et al. (2012) model alone, the results 0.0000174
are heavily inaccurate. Lateral displacements are significantly 0.00016
(2004)

0.0024

1.086

−10.055
150.458
underestimated, which renders the method unsatisfactory to
design laterally loaded monopiles. The model by Kallehave et al.
(2012), presumably, has been calibrated only for the monopiles
they tested and on which the p-y expression was formulated, but
the model had not been verified for a large database of field
Sørensen et al.

0.0000176
0.00016
(2010)

experiments.
0.0026

0.949

−8.946
141.360

Analysis of Monopile Response at Horns Rev (Denmark)

Horns Rev is a site located in the Danish sector of the North Sea, in
Table 8. Flexibility and stiffness coefficients

which 80 Vestas V80 OWTs are installed. The turbines of this wind
NAMPULAL

0.0000187
0.00360

0.00019

farm are founded on steel monopiles with 4-m outer diameters and
117.316
0.608

−6.225

lengths varying between 30 and 32:7 m. The transition from the

tower to the monopile is secured by a transition piece whose outer
and inner diameters are, respectively, 4:24 and 4:15 m. The
monopile, subject of the present work, has an outer diameter of
4 m, a length of 31:6 m, and a variable wall thickness wt. Hence,
Flexibility coefficients

the flexural stiffness ðEI Þp varies along the monopile, as shown in

Stiffness coefficients

KR ðGN=m=radÞ

Fig. 13. The monopile has been driven to 31:8 m below the mean
IR ðrad=GN=mÞ

sea level (MSL), which results in an embedded depth equal to

KL ðGN=mÞ
ILR ð1=GNÞ
IL ðm=GNÞ

KLR ðGNÞ

21:9 m.
Coefficient

The soil profile at the location of the considered monopile con-

sists primarily of sand and it can roughly be divided into six differ-
ent layers. The first layer 6:5 m below the seabed is sand, followed

© ASCE 04018141-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 - 0.2 m
MSL 0.0

11.8
- 9.9 m

= 50 ,
4.5
( ) = 2.54 108 2

7.8 2.0
= 52 ,
( ) = 2.64 108 2
5.4

= 50 , 4.0
2.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 2
( ) = 2.54 10

= 40 , 4.0 / / 4.2
( ) = 2.05 108 2
4.0
3.7
= 30 4.0 - 31.8 m
( ) = 1.55 108 2

Fig. 13. Details of the monopile at Horns Rev.

Table 9. Soil strata including average values of the strength and stiffness parameters for each soil layer at Horns Rev
 
Soil layer Type Depth (m) Es ðMPaÞ g ð g Þ kN=m3 f ðdegreesÞ c ðdegreesÞ s
1 Sand 0.0–4.5 130.0 20(10) 45.4 15.4 0.28
2 Sand 4.5–6.5 114.3 20(10) 40.7 10.7 0.28
3 Sand to silty sand 6.5–11.9 100.0 20(10) 38.0 8.0 0.28
4 Sand to silty sand 11.9–14.0 104.5 20(10) 36.6 6.6 0.28
5 Sand/silt/organic 14.0–18.2 4.5 17(7) 27.0 0.0 0.28
6 Sand > 18:2 168.8 20(10) 38.7 8.7 0.28

0 .0 6
M o n o p ile d is p la c e m e n t ( m )

O 'N e i ll a n d M u r c h i s o n ( 1 9 8 3 )
K a ll e h a v e e t a l . ( 2 0 1 2 )
0 .0 5 3D
F la c ( A u g u s t e s e n e t a l. 2 0 0 9 )

0 .0 4 W ie m a n n e t a l. ( 2 0 0 4 )
N A M P U L A L ( O t s m a n e a n d A m a r B o u z id 2 0 1 8 )
0 .0 3 S o r e n s o n e t a l. 2 0 1 0

Soren son 2 012

0 .0 2
R e e s e e t a l. 1 9 7 4

0 .0 1

0 .0 0

-0 . 0 1
P o in t s o f z e r o d is p la c e m e n t s

-0 . 0 2
0 .0 2 .5 5 .0 7 .5 1 0 .0 1 2 .5 1 5 .0 1 7 .5 2 0 .0 2 2 .5

D ep th (m )

Fig. 14. Monopile deflected shapes according to different models at Horns Rev.

© ASCE 04018141-16 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 by 7:5 m of silty sand. From 14 to 18:2 m below the seabed, silt/
sand including organic material dominates the soil profile. Under
this layer the sand is found. The soil conditions are summarized in
Table 9.
The monopile is subjected to a static horizontal load H ¼
4:6 MN and a bending moment M ¼ 95 MN=m, both acting at
seabed level. In this study, the monopile displacements profile
has been chosen as a comparison parameter, on which the FE
models are set against those of Winkler-ROWKSS. In addition to
results of these models, results provided by the commercial pack-
age FLAC3D have been added to the graphs to assess the accu-
racy of FE analysis by NAMPULAL. Numerical computations
using FLAC3D have been performed by Augustesen et al. (2009)
who considered the sand as an elastoplastic material obeying the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Results of the comparison are
shown in Fig. 14.
At first glance, NAMPULAL’s displacements are almost iden-
tical to those of FLAC3D, not only for the point of zero displace-
ment but for the entire profile. However, slight differences are
Fig. 15. Soil stiffness variation with depth according to three patterns.
Direction of
movement
(a)
Fig. 16. Soil failure models proposed by Reese et al. (1974): (a) shallow wedge model; and (b) deep horizontal flow model. (Data from Reese et al.
1974.)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141
observed at the monopile top and tip. This is probably because of
the soil failure criteria adopted in both models. Here I believe that
the FE analysis is more accurate because the monopile behaves as
a stiff monopile with more pronounced displacements at the
monopile tip.
Further description of Fig. 14 can be made in three important
points. First, Winkler models using either Reese et al. (1974) or
O’Neill and Murchison (1983) p-y curves significantly underesti-
mate the displacement profile along the entire monopile length
producing only small values of displacements at the monopile
tip. This means that the behavior in these models tends to mimic
that of slender monopiles. Furthermore, the point of zero dis-
placement is located approximately at midlength, which is incon-
sistent with the shape pattern of a stiff monopile. Second, and
except the Winkler model based on the Kallehave et al. (2012)
p-y curve, the Winkler models using the other enhanced p-y
curves tend to provide more accurate results at the upper part of
the monopile. Results are located halfway between those of the
API and FEM; however, they show inconsistencies with the
deformed shapes of a stiff monopile behavior. The most accu-
rate model seems to be the method based on the Sørensen et al.
(2010) p-y curve because it perfectly matches the FE model at
the monopile head, but it significantly overestimates the lateral
displacements at the monopile tip. Third, it is quite clear that
displacements by the Winkler model based on the p-y curve for-
mulated by Kallehave et al. (2012) are importantly incorrect
because they are much lower than even those of the API models.
At the monopile head the displacement using this model is 2.5
times less than that of NAMPULAL. This confirms again that
this method is not appropriate for designing large-diameter
monopiles.
Conclusions
For decades the BNWF model has been a successful tool for design-
ing piles supporting offshore platforms in the oil and gas industry
and any other sector of civil engineering, such as tall buildings or
Shear failure surface
Movement of block
Direction of
movement
(b)
04018141-17 Int. J. Geomech.
 bridges. The incapability of this model to design large-diameter
monopiles supporting OWTs has been practically proven for the
overwhelming number of inconsistencies that characterize the back-
ground theories on which its p-y curves have been formulated on
one hand and for the limitations inherent to the BNWF model itself
on the other hand.
After a short description of how the failure mechanism of a
small-diameter monopile differs from that of a large-diameter
monopile, the p-y curves developed in the late 1970s and early
1980s (adopted by the API) have been thoroughly criticized, and
their weak points as well as those found in the BNWF model itself
were described in three subsections. Modifications to enhance the
performance of the p-y curves proposed recently were also given.
The targets in this paper were to confirm the convenience of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
eral displacement profile was studied. The major conclusions
reached were as follows:
1. The monopile head displacements in the FE analysis provided
by NAMPULAL are reasonably accurate. This means that the
monopile head stiffnesses KLRigid ; KRRigid , and KLR
Rigid
, which are
required to compute some dynamic characteristics of OWTs,
are sufficiently precise, and the soil–monopile interaction is
properly considered. Furthermore, the displacement profile in
this numerical method is consistent with the deformed shape of
a stiff monopile.
2. The BNWF models based on the Reese et al. (1974) or the
O’Neill and Murchison (1983) p-y curves or even LPILE,
which is based on these curves, significantly overestimate the
monopile head stiffness. Consequently, they are not able to

the FEM in analyzing large-diameter monopiles under horizontal
loading and how inappropriate the BNWF model is when dealing
with the previously mentioned subject. These objectives were
achieved by considering two computer programs. The first pro-
gram is a FE computer code called NAMPULAL, which has been
detailed in Otsmane and Amar Bouzid 2018. This code is based
on a special treatment of soil–structure interaction problems and
uses the hyperbolic model as a soil failure criterion. The second
program, which bears the acronym Winkler-ROWKSS, was spe-
cifically written for the purpose of this paper by extending an
existing Fortran computer code to encompass the API curves as
well as those recently proposed to improve the poor performance
of the BNWF approach. Two case histories were studied: the first
is a monopile embedded in a multilayer sandy soil, which serves
as a support foundation to the 5-MW NREL wind turbine, and the
second is a monopile supporting OWTs at Horns Rev in the
Danish sector of the North Sea. At the first site, the evolution of
the monopile head movements with applied loading provided by
the different models of BNWF as well as the FEM were examined
and compared. However, at the second site, only the monopile lat-
quantify correctly the soil–monopile interaction.
3. Regarding monopile head movements, the BNWF models
based on Wiemann et al. (2004), Sørensen et al. (2010), and
Sørensen (2012) p-y curves can be considered moderately pre-
cise because they are close to the FE outcomes. They can be
used to quantify the monopile head stiffnesses with an accepta-
ble margin. However, the monopile deformed shapes in these
models are not consistent with large-diameter rigid monopiles.
4. The model based on the Kallehave et al. (2012) p-y curve is not
appropriate for dealing with large-diameter monopiles.
Although significant progress has been made to enhance the
poor performance of BNWFs by suggesting new p-y curves in
which very careful experiments or powerful numerical tools have
been performed, the behavior of the monopiles has not been mas-
tered and inconsistencies in their deformations still exist. This, in
the author’s opinion, is not due to the inaccuracies in the proposed
p-y curves but to the model itself, which ignores certain soil–
monopile interaction aspects, such as the vertical shear stresses
induced on the external monopile perimeter and the moment and
horizontal force developed across the monopile base.

Appendix I. Impedance Functions for Flexible and Rigid Monopiles Embedded in Three Soil Profiles
The authors whose expressions appear in these tables considered three soil profiles in which the soil stiffness is constant with depth, varies
linearly, or varies as a square root of depth. EsD is Young’s modulus of the soil at one pile diameter (Dp Þ depth at which the three patterns of
variation meet (Fig. 15). The following table includes the impedance functions for slender piles proposed by different authors in three soil
profiles. Most expressions were deduced from flexibility coefficients computed by the different authors in their papers.

Authors KLFlexible =EsD Dp KLR

Flexible
=EsD D2p KRFlexible =EsD D3p
Homogeneous soil
 0:143  0:428  0:714
Randolph (1981) 1:630 E =E 0:342 E =E 0:197 E =E
 p sD 0:213  p sD 0:479  p sD 0:695
Amar Bouzid (1997) 1:152 E =E 0:317 E =E 0:294 E =E
 p sD 0:210  p sD 0:500  p sD 0:750
Gazetas (1991) 1:000 Ep =EsD 0:220 E =E 0:150 E =E
 0:182  p sD 0:454  p sD 0:727
Davies and Budhu (1986) 1:292 E =E 0:309 E =E 0:182 E =E
 p sD 0:186  p sD 0:500  p sD 0:730
Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 1:580 Ep =EsD 0:327 Ep =EsD 0:204 Ep =EsD
Gibson’s soil
 0:333  0:555  0:777
Randolph (1981) 0:853 Ep =EsD 0:313 E =E 0:195 Ep =EsD
 0:333  p sD 0:555  0:777
Budhu and Davies (1987) 0:734 E =E 0:270 E =E 0:173 Ep =EsD
 p sD 0:327  p sD 0:523  0:726
Amar Bouzid (1997) 1:138 E =E 0:591 E =E 0:450 Ep =EsD
 p sD 0:350  p sD 0:600  0:800
Gazetas (1991) 0:600 Ep =EsD 0:170 E =E 0:150 Ep =EsD
 0:340  p sD 0:567  0:780
Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 0:861 Ep =EsD 0:291 Ep =EsD 0:188 Ep =EsD
Parabolic nonhomogeneity
 0:280  0:530  0:770
Gazetas (1991) 0:800 Ep =EsD 0:240 Ep =EsD 0:150 Ep =EsD
 0:270  0:520  0:760
Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 1:106 Ep =EsD 0:319 Ep =EsD 0:193 Ep =EsD

However, expressions in the following table, which includes previous research impedance functions for stiff monopiles proposed by dif-
ferent authors in three soil profiles, are listed as they appeared in their respective publications:

© ASCE 04018141-18 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 Authors KLRigid =EsD Dp Rigid
KLR =EsD D2p KRRigid =EsD D3p
Homogeneous soil
 0:627  1:483  2:049
Carter and Kulhawy (1992) 1:884 Lp =Dp 1:048 Lp =Dp 1:910 Lp =Dp
 0:710  1:670  2:459
Higgins et al. (2013) 2:426 Lp =Dp 1:440 Lp =Dp 1:789 Lp =Dp
 0:620  1:560  2:500
Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 3:488 Lp =Dp 1:935 Lp =Dp 1:798 Lp =Dp
 0:668  1:636  2:495
Aissa et al. (2017) 2:756 Lp =Dp 1:595 Lp =Dp 1:731 Lp =Dp
Gibson’s soil
 2:041  3:061  3:941
Higgins et al. (2013) 0:929 Lp =Dp 0:633 Lp =Dp 0:672 Lp =Dp
 1:661  2:665  3:605
Abed et al. (2016) 1:708 Lp =Dp 1:233 Lp =Dp 1:153 Lp =Dp
 1:530  2:500  3:450
Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 2:561 Lp =Dp 1:935 Lp =Dp 1:730 Lp =Dp
Soil with parabolic variation of stiffness
 0:997  1:767  2:562
Abed et al. (2016) 2:841 Lp =Dp 2:933 Lp =Dp 3:894 Lp =Dp
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 1:070  2:000  3: 000

Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2016) 2:905 Lp =Dp 1:962 Lp =Dp 1:771 Lp =Dp

Appendix II. Analytical Expression for the Depth
 1 þ tan f

Separating the Two Failure Models as Proposed by p f 2;
c2 ¼ tan þ ¼
Reese et al. (1974) 4 2 f
1  tan
2
Soil deformation models proposed by Reese et al. (1974) are illus-

2
trated by Fig. 16. f f
The ultimate resistance at a shallow depth [Fig. 16(a)] is given 1 þ tan tan
f 2 c1 c5 2 2 ;
by c1 c2 ¼ 2tan

3
4 ; ¼ pffiffiffi

2 f c6 2 f

1  tan 1  tan
k0 ZWF tan f sin b tan b 2 2
Pct ¼ g ZWF þ
tanð b  f Þcosa tanð b  f Þ !2
 f 1 þ tan f2
c2 c3 ¼ tan
2
; and
ðDp þ ZWF tan b tanaÞ þ k0 ZWF tan b ðtan f sin b  tanaÞ  ka Dp 2 1  tan f2
0 1
(32) f
fB2 cos
2  1C
c1 c5  c3 ¼ tan B @ pffiffiffi C
A
Whereas in depth the ultimate soil resistance is reached by a 2 2 1  tan f
flow around the pile [Fig. 16(b)] 2
 
Pcd ¼ ka Dp g ZWF tan8 b  1 þ k0 Dp g ZWF tan f tan4 b (33) These formulas allow Eq. (35) to be written as

where k0 = earth pressure coefficient at rest; Dp = pile diameter; a5 a2 a

and f = internal friction angle of sand. þ 2k0 4 
b5 ð1  bÞ b bð1  bÞ
Because a ¼ f =2 and b ¼ p =4 þ f =2, it is useful to use ZWF ¼ Dp
 (36)
2k0 a2 2d
other simplifying expressions: c1 ¼ tan f , c2 ¼ tan b ¼ tanðp = pffiffiffi þ 2 þ k0 pffiffiffi  1
4 þ f =2Þ, c3 ¼ tana ¼ tanð f =2Þ, c4 ¼ tanð b  f Þ ¼ tanðp = 2b b 2b
4  f =2Þ; c5 ¼ sin b ¼ sinðp =4 þ f =2Þ; and c6 ¼ cosa ¼ cos
f =2. The active pressure coefficient is ka ¼ tan2 ðp =4  f =2Þ ¼ c24 . where a ¼ 1 þ tanð f =2Þ; b ¼ 1  tanð f =2Þ; and d ¼ cos
After writing Eqs. (32) and (33) in terms of c1  c6 , and equat- ð f =2Þ.
ing these expressions, the depth ZWF , at which the wedge failure
model ends, will have the following expression: References

c24 c72  c12 þ k0 c1 c32 þ c34  c2 Abdel-Rahman, K., and M. Achmus, 2005. “Finite element modeling of
ZWF ¼ Dp c1 c5 (34) horizontally loaded monopile foundations for offshore wind energy con-
k0 þ c22 c3 þ k0 ðc1 c5  c3 Þ verters in Germany.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore
c6 Geotechnics (ISFOG), 391–396. Perth, Australia: CRC Press.
Abed, Y., D. Amar Bouzid, S. Bhattacharya, and M. H. Aissa. 2016. “Static
Since the coefficient c4 is the reciprocal of c2 , then c2 c4 ¼ 1. impedance functions for monopiles supporting offshore wind turbines
Eq. (34) becomes in nonhomogeneous soils-emphasis on soil/monopile interface charac-
teristics.” Earthquakes Struct. 10 (5): 1143–1179. https://doi.org/10
c52 þ k0 c1 c32  c2 .12989/eas.2016.10.5.1143.
ZWF ¼ Dp c1 c5 (35) Achmus, M., K.-S. Kuo, and K. Abdel-Rahman. 2009. “Behavior of
k0 þ c22 c3 þ k0 ðc1 c5  c3 Þ monopile foundations under cyclic lateral load.” Comput. Geotech. 36
c6
(5): 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.12.003.
Adhikari, S., and S. Bhattacharya. 2011. “Vibrations of wind-turbines con-
To use only the angle of friction f , the constant groups in Eq. sidering soil-structure interaction.” Wind Struct. 14 (2): 85–112. https://
(35) should be written in function of f alone doi.org/10.12989/was.2011.14.2.085.

© ASCE 04018141-19 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141

 Adhikari, S., and S. Bhattacharya. 2012. “Dynamic analysis of wind turbine
towers on flexible foundations.” Shock Vib. 19 (1): 37–56. https://doi
.org/10.1155/2012/408493.
Ahmed, S., and B. Hawlader. 2016. “Numerical analysis of large-diameter
monopiles in dense sand supporting offshore wind turbines.” Int. J.
Geomech. 16 (5): 04016018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943
-5622.0000633.
Aissa, M. H., D. Amar Bouzid, and S. Bhattacharya. 2017. “Monopile
head stiffness for serviceability limit state calculations in assessing
the natural frequency of offshore wind turbines.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng.
12 (3): 267–283.
Amar Bouzid, D. 1997. “Analyse semi-analytique par elements finis des
pieux isoles sollicites horizontalement dans un milieu a comporte-
ment non-lineaire.” M.S. thesis, École Nationale Polytechnique.
Amar Bouzid, D., B. Tiliouine, and P. A. Vermeer. 2004. “Exact formula-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion of interface stiffness matrix for axisymmetric bodies under non-axi-
symmetric loading.” Comput. Geotech. 31 (2): 75–87. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compgeo.2004.01.007.
Amar Bouzid, D., P. A. Vermeer, and B. Tiliouine. 2005a. “Finite element
vertical slices model: Validation and application to an embedded square
footing under combined loading.” Comput. Geotech. 32 (2): 72–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.01.001.
Amar Bouzid, D., P. A. Vermeer, B. Tiliouine, and M. Mir. 2005b. “An effi-
cient pseudo three-dimensional finite element model: Presentation and
analysis of two soil/foundation interaction problems.” Int. J. Comput. 2
(2): 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876205000454.
API (American Petroleum Institute). 2014. Geotechnical and foundation
design considerations. API RP 2GEO. Washington, DC: API.
Arany, L., S. Bhattacharya, J. H. G. Macdonald, and S. J. Hogan. 2016.
“Closed form solution of Eigen frequency of monopile supported off-
shore wind turbines in deeper waters incorporating stiffness of substruc-
ture and SSI.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 83 (Apr): 18–32. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.12.011.
Arany, L., S. Bhattacharya, J. H. G. Macdonald, and S. J. Hogan. 2017.
“Design of monopiles for offshore wind turbines in 10 steps.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 92 (Jan): 126–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
.2016.09.024.
Ashford, S., and T. Juirnarongrit. 2003. “Evaluation of pile diameter effect
on initial modulus of subgrade reaction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
129 (3): 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:
3(234).
Ashour, M., and G. Norris. 2000. “Modeling lateral soil-pile response based
on soil-pile interaction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (5): 420–
428. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5(420).
Augustesen, A. H., K. T. Brodbaek, M. Moller, S. P. H. Sorensen, L. B.
Ibsen, T. S. Pedersen, and L. Andersen, 2009. “Numerical modelling of
large-diameter steel piles at Horns Rev.” In Proc., Twelfth Int. Conf. on
Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing, edited by
B. H. V. Topping, L. F. Costa Neves, and R. C. Barros. Stirlingshire,
Scotland: Civil-Comp Press.
Bisoi, S., and S. Haldar. 2015. “Design of monopile supported offshore
wind turbine in clay considering dynamic soil–structure-interaction.”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 73 (June): 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.soildyn.2015.02.017.
Budhu, M., and T. G. Davies. 1987. “Nonlinear analysis of laterality loaded
piles in cohesionless soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 24 (2): 289–296. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t87-034.
Carswell, W., S. R. Arwade, D. J. DeGroot, and M. A. Lackner. 2015.
“Soil-structure reliability of offshore wind turbine monopile founda-
tions.” Wind Energy 18 (3): 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1710.
Carter, J., and F. Kulhawy. 1992. “Analysis of laterally loaded shafts in
rock.” J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (6): 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:6(839).
Davies, T. G., and M. Budhu. 1986. “Non-linear analysis of laterally loaded
piles in heavily overconsolidated clays.” Geotechnique 36 (4): 527–538.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.4.527.
Dickin, E. A., and M. Laman. 2003. “Moment response of short rectangular
piers in sand.” Comput. Struct. 81 (30–31): 2717–2729. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00337-7.
© ASCE 04018141-20
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). 2013. Offshore standard: Design of offshore
wind turbine structures. DNV-OS-J101. Høvik, Norway: DNV.
Duncan, J., and C. Chang. 1970. “Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in
soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 96 (SM5): 1629–1653.
Duncan, J. M., and K. S. Wong. 1999. User’s manual for SAGE. Vol. II—
Soil properties manual. Blacksburg, VA: Centre for Geotechnical
Practice and Research, Virginia Tech.
Fan, C.-C., and J. H. Long. 2005. “Assessment of existing methods for pre-
dicting soil response of laterally loaded piles in sand.” Comput.
Geotech. 32 (4): 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.02
.004.
Galvín, P., A. Romero, M. Solís, and J. Domínguez. 2017. “Dynamic char-
acterisation of wind turbine towers account for a monopile foundation
and different soil conditions.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 13 (7): 942–954.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1227342.
Gazetas, G. 1991. “Foundation vibrations.” In Foundation engineering
handbook. 2nd ed. Edited by H.-Y. Fang, 553–593. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Hald, T., C. Mørch, L. Jensen, C. L. Bakmar, and K. Ahle, 2009.
“Revisiting monopile design using p-y curves–results from full scale
measurements on Horns Rev.” In Proc., of the European Offshore Wind
Conf. Stockholm, Sweden: WindEurope.
Higgins, W., C. Vasquez, D. Basu, and D. Griffiths. 2013. “Elastic solutions
for laterally loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (7): 1096–
1103. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000828.
Ibsen, L. B., M. Hansen, T. H. Hjort, and M. Thaarup, 2009. MC-parameter
calibration of Baskarp sand No. 15. DCE Technical Rep. No. 62.
Aalborg, Denmark: Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Aalborg.
Jâky, J. A. 1944. “Nyugalmi nyomâs tenyezöje” [The coefficient of earth
pressure at rest].” J. Soc. Hungarian Archit. Eng. 355–358.
Janbu, N. 1963. “Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and tri-
axial tests.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 19–25. Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Erd-und Grundbau.
Jonkman, J., S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and J. Scott, 2009. Reference wind
turbine for offshore system development. Technical Rep. No. NREL/TP-
500-38060. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Jung, S., S. R. Kim, A. Patil, and L. C. Hung. 2015. “Effect of monopile
foundation modeling on the structural response of a 5-MW wind turbine
tower.” Ocean Eng. 109 (Nov): 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.oceaneng.2015.09.033.
Kallehave, D., C. T. LeBlanc, and M. A. Liingaard, 2012. “Modification of
the API p-y formulation of initial stiffness of sand.” In Proc., 7th Int.
Conf. on Offshore Site Investigations and Geotechnics, 465–472. Royal
Geographical Society, London: Society for Underwater Technology.
Kondner, R. 1963. “Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils.” J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89 (SM1): 115–143.
Kondner, R. L., and J. S. Zelako, 1963. “A hyperbolic stress-strain formula-
tion for sands.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 2nd Pan American Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 289–324. Sao Paulo, Brazil:
Brazilian Association of Soil Mechanics.
Lombardi, D., S. Bhattacharya, and D. M. Wood. 2013. “Dynamic soil–
structure interaction of monopile supported wind turbines in cohesive
soil.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 49 (June): 165–180. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.015.
Mayne, P., and F. Kulhawy. 1982. “K0-OCR relationships in soil.” J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div. 108 (GT6): 851–872.
Michalowski, R. 2005. “Coefficient of earth pressure at rest.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (11): 1429–1433. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1429).
O’Neill, M. W., and J. M. Murchison, 1983. An evaluation of p-y relation-
ships in sands. Research Rep. No. GT-DF02-83. Houston: Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Houston.
Otsmane, L., and D. Amar Bouzid. 2018. “An efficient FE model for SSI:
Theoretical background and assessment by predicting the response of
large diameter monopiles supporting OWECs.” Comput. Geotech. 97
(May): 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.12.001.
Passon, P. 2006. Memorandum derivation and description of the soil-pile
interaction models. IEA-Annex XXIII Subtask 2. Stuttgart, Germany:
IEA.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Pender, M. J., D. P. Carter, and S. Pranjoto. 2007. “Diameter effects on pile
head lateral stiffness and site investigation requirements for pile founda-
tion design.” J. Earthquake Eng. 11 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460701280005.
Randolph, M. F. 1981. “The response of flexible piles to lateral loading.”
Geotechnique 31 (2): 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1981.31.2
.247.
Reese, L. C. 1977. “Laterally loaded piles: Program documentation: J.
Geotech. Engng. Div. ASCE Vol. 103 No. GT4 Proc. Paper 12862
(April 1977) pp 287–305.” Comput.-Aided Des. 10 (3): 210. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0010-4485(78)90185-9.
Reese, L. C., W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop, 1974. “Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., Sixth Annual Offshore
Technology Conf., 473–485. Dallas: OTC.
Reese, L. C., and I. Manoliu, 1973. “Analysis of laterally loaded piles by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Kentucky on 08/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
computer.” Buletinul Stiintific 16 (1): 35–65.
Reese, L. C., and W. R. Sullivan, 1980. Documentation of computer pro-
gram COM624: Parts I and II, Analysis of stresses and deflections for
laterally loaded piles including generation of p-y curves. Geotechnical
Rep. No. GS80-1. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Reese, L. C., and W. F. Van Impe. 2011. Single piles and pile groups under
lateral loading. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
Group.
Shadlou, M., and S. Bhattacharya. 2016. “Dynamic stiffness of monopiles
supporting offshore wind turbine generators.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 88 (Sept): 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.002.
Sheil, B., and W. Finnegan. 2017. “Numerical simulations of wave-
structure-soil interaction of offshore monopiles.” Int. J. Geomech.
© ASCE 04018141-21
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(11): 04018141
17 (1): 04016024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0000667.
Sherif, M., Y. Fang, and R. Sherif. 1984. “KA and K0 behind rotating and
non-yielding walls.” J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (1): 41–56. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:1(41).
Sørensen, S. P. H. 2012. “Soil-structure interaction for non-slender large-
diameter offshore monopoles.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Aalborg Univ.
Sørensen, S. P. H., L. B. Ibsen, and A. H. Augustesen, 2010. “Effects of di-
ameter on initial stiffness of p-y curves for large-diameter piles in sand.”
In Proc., 7th Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering,
907–912. Trondheim, Norway: Taylor & Francis.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. “Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.”
Geotechnique 5 (4): 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1955.5.4.297.
Thieken, K., M. Achmus, and K. Lemke. 2015. “A new static p-y approach
for piles with arbitrary dimensions in sand.” Geotechnik 38 (4): 267–
288. https://doi.org/10.1002/gete.201400036.
Vesic, A. B. 1961. “Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid.” J.
Engrg. Mech. Div. 87 (4): 35–51.
Wang, S.-T., and W. M. Isenhower. 2010. LPILE, version 6 user’s manual:
A program for the analysis of deep foundations under lateral loads.
Austin, TX: ENSOFT, Inc.
Wiemann, J., K. Lesny, and W. Richwien, 2004. “Evaluation of pile diameter
effects on soil-pile stiffness.” In Proc., 7th German Wind Energy Conf.
(DEWEK). Wilhelmshaven, Germany: Deutsches Windenergie-Institut.
Wong, K. S., and J. M. Duncan, 1974. Hyperbolic stress-strain parameters
for non-linear finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil
masses. Rep. No. TE-74-3. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Int. J. Geomech.