Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 0: 1–23

Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1064-119X print/1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1033070

Analysis and Design of Monopile Foundations for Offshore

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

Received 10 December 2012, Accepted 19 March 2015

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

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

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

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

Ocean-Environment Loading on Monopile Foundation

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

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

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

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

role, compared with the hydrodynamic loads. However wind

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

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

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

respectively, with corresponding values at the tower base

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000275
Yasin, S. J. M. and F. Tatsuoka. 2000. Stress history-dependent defor-
mation characteristics of dense sand in plane strain. Soils and
Foundations 40(2): 77–98. doi:10.3208=sandf.40.2_77
Zhu, B., B. W. Byrne, and G. T. Houlsby. 2013. Long-term lateral cyc-
lic response of suction caisson foundations in sand. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(1): 73–83.
doi:10.1061=(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000738
Zhukov, N. V. and I. L. Balov. 1978. Investigation of the effect of a
vertical surcharge on horizontal displacements and resistance of Fig. A1. Pertinent stiffness profiles for the medium dense sand
pile columns to horizontal loads. Soil Mechanics and Foundation deposit considered in the OWT monopile foundation design
Engineering 15(1): 16–22. doi:10.1007=bf02145324 example.