sustainability
Article
A New p–y Curve for Laterally Loaded Large-Diameter
Monopiles in Soft Clays
Mingyuan Wang 1 , Miao Wang 2 , Xinglei Cheng 2, *, Qun Lu 2 and Jiaqing Lu 2
Citation: Wang, M.; Wang, M.;
Cheng, X.; Lu, Q.; Lu, J. A New p–y
Curve for Laterally Loaded
Large-Diameter Monopiles in Soft
Clays. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142215102
Academic Editors: Jun Hu, Guan
Chen and Yong Fu
Received: 3 October 2022
Accepted: 8 November 2022
Published: 15 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215102
1 Powerchina Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited, Hangzhou 310014, China
2 Key Laboratory of Soft Soil Engineering Character and Engineering Environment of Tianjin,
Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384, China
* Correspondence: chengxinglei110@163.com
Abstract: In harsh offshore environmental conditions, the monopile foundations supporting offshore
wind turbines must be designed for lateral loads such as winds, waves, and currents. The Beam on
Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) method has been widely used because of its clear concept and
lower calculation cost. The selection of a reasonable p–y curve is critical to the calculation accuracy of
this method. This paper clarified the defects of widely used API p–y curves for soft clays and then
proposed a new p–y curve with better versatility and applicability. The suitability of the proposed
p–y curve was validated by comparing it with the calculation results from the three-dimensional
finite element method (3D FEM). Compared with the API p–y curve, the proposed p–y curve can
better predict the lateral behavior of large-diameter piles in soft clays, such as the load–displacement
curve of the pile head, lateral deflection profile, and bending moment profile. The research findings
can provide guidance for the design of monopile foundations supporting offshore wind turbines in
soft clays.
Keywords: p–y curve; lateral loading; large-diameter monopile; BNWF method; soft clays
1. Introduction
Natural resources such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas are being consumed at
an alarming rate, hence many countries are actively promoting green and sustainable
new energy technologies. Wind energy is one of the most promising new energies due
to its advantages of cleanness and renewability. In addition, compared with land-based
wind energy, offshore wind energy is attractive for its various advantages including high
speed, low wind shear, low turbulence, and high output. The urgent demand for wind
power is promoting the development of construction technology for offshore wind turbines
(OWTs) [1]. The design of the foundations supporting OWTs is extremely important
because it may account for as much as 30% of the total cost of a typical offshore wind
project [2,3]. Nonetheless, the large diameter monopile foundation remains by far the
most popular foundation type being deployed in more than 75% of the currently installed
OWTs [4,5]. In harsh offshore environmental conditions, pile foundations must be designed
for lateral loads because OWTs are always subjected to such loads caused by winds, waves,
and currents.
The Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) method based on the p–y curve
is widely used to analyze the behavior of laterally loaded piles. McClelland and Focht [6]
first proposed the concept of a p–y curve by comparing the measured curve of lateral
soil resistance versus the pile lateral deflection with the soil stress–strain curve in the
consolidated undrained tests. Matlock [7] proposed a p–y curve model for piles installed
in clay based on limited pile load tests at the Sabine River site, which was adopted by the
API RP 2GEO (American Petroleum Institute (API)) [8] and is widely used in industry. In
the BNWF approach, the pile is simulated as an elastic beam while the soil is idealized
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 2 of 16

as a series of discrete nonlinear springs along the depth of the pile. The nonlinear p–y
springs describe the relationship between the local lateral soil resistance p and the pile
lateral relative displacement y. The BNWF method based on the p–y curve is actually a
simplified method ignoring the soil continuity.
In recent decades, some new p–y curves for soft clay have been proposed to analyze
the lateral behavior of piles. The hyperbolic equation, initially proposed by Kondner [9] and
later identified by Georgiadis et al. [10] as a suitable formulation, is used to define the shape
of the p–y curves. Dewaikar and Patil et al. [11] developed an improved method for the
construction of hyperbolic p–y curves, in which the initial stiffness of the p–y curve is taken
to be increasing with depth. Jeanjean [12] proposed a hyperbolic tangent p–y curve and
verified its rationality using the centrifugal test and finite element simulation results of pile
in clays. Klinkvort and Hededal [13] performed a series of centrifuge tests to investigate
the behavior of a rigid pile loaded with a high eccentricity and presented a reformulation
of the p–y curve. Rathod et al. [14] developed new p–y curves for piles located on crests
of soft clay with different sloping ground surfaces under static lateral loading by carrying
out a series of laboratory model tests. Zhu et al. [15] modified the hyperbolic tangent p–y
curve by introducing an additional constant and verified its rationality using the field
tests of offshore driven piles. Xu et al. [16] found that the hyperbolic method yields larger
prediction errors than the API method and proposed a modified p–y approach based
on field measurements. The p–y curve method has been developed to better simulate
lateral responses based on model tests and numerical simulation results [17–24]. The above
research mainly focus on the p–y curve under lateral monotonic loads.
The pile cyclic lateral response was also analyzed by developing cyclic p–y hysteresis
curves based on the Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) method. In these
models, some pile–soil interaction characteristics are simulated using specific components
such as spring, dashpot, drag cell, and gap cell to capture the dynamic hysteretic behavior
of the soil–pile interface [25–29]. However, the introduction of too many components
usually makes the implementation of the model more complex. In addition to the p–y
method, the three-dimensional finite element method (3D FEM) was also used to analyze
the lateral response of piles even though it requires larger costs of calculation [30–38]. The
3D FEM can better simulate the pile–soil interaction because both the pile and soil are
simulated by continuum elements. Compared with the method, although discrete the
p–y springs do not rigorously capture the soil continuum behavior, the BNWF method
based on the p–y curve has still been widely utilized because of its clear concept and less
calculation cost.
At present, the API p–y curve for soft clay [8], which is most widely used in industry,
is proposed based on the specific field test of small diameter piles. Its applicability to
larger diameter pile foundations, such as large-diameter steel pipe piles for offshore wind
turbines, has been questioned. P–y curves with better applicability urgently needs to be
developed. This research has two main objectives: (a) clarify the defects of widely used
API p–y curve for soft clays and (b) develop a new p–y curve of soft clay with better
applicability for large diameter monopile foundations.
In order to achieve the above research purposes, the BNWF method based on the p–y
curve and three-dimensional finite element method for analyzing the lateral responses of
monopile are developed based on ABAQUS software; then, the accuracy of the proposed
two methods are verified using the field test results of pile in soft clays [7]. Subsequently,
the lateral responses of monopiles with different diameters are simulated employing the
two methods. The defects of the API p–y curve are clarified by comparing the calculated
results obtained by the two methods. Based on the above findings, a new p–y model for
soft clay is proposed and the good applicability of the model to large diameter monopiles
is validated by the above three-dimensional numerical simulation results. The novelty of
this study is that a new p–y model with variable parameters was proposed, which is more
versatile and offers a wider applicability to represent different soft clay and pile diameters.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 3 of 16

pile diameters. Compared with the API p‒y curve, the proposed p‒y curve can better pre-
dict the lateral behavior of large diameter monopiles in soft clays.
Compared with the API p–y curve, the proposed p–y curve can better predict the lateral
behavior of large diameter monopiles in soft clays.
2. Two Methods for Analyzing Lateral Responses of Piles in Soft Clays
2.1. BeamMethods
2. Two on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation
for Analyzing (BNWF) Method
Lateral Responses of Piles in Soft Clays
2.1. The
Beam on Nonlinear
BNWF model is Winkler Foundation
developed based(BNWF)
on ABAQUS Methodsoftware [39] to simulate the lat-
eral monotonic
The BNWF model is developed based on ABAQUS clay
load tests on teel pipe piles installed in soft at a site
software [39]near the Sabine
to simulate the
River
lateral[7].monotonic
The test pile
loadhad anon
tests outer
teeldiameter
pipe pilesofinstalled
0.324 m in
withsofta clay
wall at
thickness of 12.7
a site near mm.
the Sabine
The total
River length
[7]. of the
The test pilepile
hadwasan 13.1
outer mdiameter
with an embedded
of 0.324 m depth
with aofwall12.8thickness
m. The lateral
of 12.7load
mm.
was
Theapplied at 0.3ofmthe
total length above the ground
pile was surface.
13.1 m with The average
an embedded undrained
depth shear
of 12.8 m. Thestrength of
lateral load
was applied
clays su = 14.4atkPa,
0.3 meffective
above the unitground 
gravitysurface.
= The
7.85 average
kN/m undrained
3, elastic modulus shear
of strength
pile mate- of
rial EP = u210 GPa, density  = 1820 kg/m3, and Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 were all utilized.
clays s = 14.4 kPa, effective unit gravity γ = 7.85 kN/m 3 , elastic modulus of pile material

EP = 210 GPa, density ρ = 1820 kg/m3 , and Poisson’s ratio υ = 0.33 were all utilized.
The schematic diagram of the BNWF model is shown in Figure 1. The pile is discre-
The schematic diagram of the BNWF model is shown in Figure 1. The pile is discretized
tized by 128 two-dimensional beam column elements (B21 element) and the length of each
by 128 two-dimensional beam column elements (B21 element) and the length of each
element Le = 0.5 m. A nonlinear spring element is set at each element node to simulate the
element Le = 0.5 m. A nonlinear spring element is set at each element node to simulate the
pile‒soil interaction. The elastic modulus of the nonlinear spring is set according to the
pile–soil interaction. The elastic modulus of the nonlinear spring is set according to the API
API p‒y curve for soft clay. The spring resistance force F = p·Le·D (D is the outer diameter
p–y curve for soft clay. The spring resistance force F = p · Le · D (D is the outer diameter of
of the pile). The continuous variation of the elastic modulus of spring reflects the nonlin-
the pile). The continuous variation of the elastic modulus of spring reflects the nonlinear
ear relationship between the spring resistance force F (or lateral soil resistance) and the
relationship between the spring resistance force F (or lateral soil resistance) and the spring
spring displacement y (the pile lateral relative displacement). The API p‒y formula and
displacement y (the pile lateral relative displacement). The API p–y formula and relevant
relevant parameter values for this study are as follows:
parameter values for this study are as follows:

F
0.3m

y
p
12.8m

API p-y

0.324m
y
0.2986m

z
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of BNWF model for laterally loaded pile in soft clays.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of BNWF model for laterally loaded pile in soft clays.
  1/3
p y y
 = ≤8
 p  y  13 yy50y
pu
p
y50 (1)
 = pu=1
 yy50
>88
 pu  y50  50

where p is the mobilized lateral resistance (kPa); y is the local pile lateral displacement (1)
(m);
y50 is the pile lateral displacement atp half of ultimateysoil resistance (m); and y50 = 2.5ε 50 D,
 p = 1 deviator stress
8
ε 50 is the strain at one-half the maximum y50 in laboratory undrained compres-
 u ε 50 = 0.02 in this study. D is the pile diameter and
sion tests of undisturbed soil samples.
D = 0.324 m. γ is effective unit weight of soil (kN/m3 ) and γ = 7.85 kN/m3 . pu is the
ultimate resistance (kPa); pu = 3su + γz + Jsu z/D for z < zr and pu = 9su for z ≥ zr . su
is the undrained shear strength (kPa) and su = 14.4 kPa; z is the depth below the original
 the pile diameter and D = 0.324 m.  is effective unit weight of soil (kN/m3) and  =
7.85 kN/m3. pu is the ultimate resistance (kPa); pu = 3su +  z + Jsu z / D for z  zr
and pu = 9su for z  zr . su is the undrained shear strength (kPa) and su = 14.4 kPa;
z is
Sustainability the
2022, 14, depth
below the original seafloor (m); J is the dimensionless empirical constant 4 of 16
15102

with values ranging from 0.25 to 0.5 having been determined using field testing, and J =
0.5 in this study.
Figure 2a,b compare the Jcalculated
seafloor (m); is the dimensionless empirical constant
lateral deflection with values
and bending rangingprofiles
moment from 0.25 to 0.5
having been determined using field testing, and J = 0.5 in this study.
along the pile and those evaluated from the field measurements for four different pile
Figure 2a,b compare the calculated lateral deflection and bending moment profiles
head load levels. Italong
can the
be pile
seenandthat
thosetheevaluated
calculatedfromresponses agree well with
the field measurements thedifferent
for four test re-pile head
sults for all load levels
load despite
levels. Itthe
canslight
be seen deviations. One reason
that the calculated for the
responses slight
agree welldeviation
with the testis results
that the soil strength is idealized as uniform strength, but it is not uniform in the field test. is that
for all load levels despite the slight deviations. One reason for the slight deviation
Another reason is thethe soil strengthof
limitation is the
idealized
BNWF as method
uniform strength,
itself, i.e.,but
it it is not uniform
ignores in the field test.
the continuity
Another reason is the limitation of the BNWF method itself, i.e., it ignores the continuity
of soil, which will cause the error of calculation. This good agreement demonstrates that
of soil, which will cause the error of calculation. This good agreement demonstrates that
the developed BNWF model based on ABAQUS software can well predict the increase in
the developed BNWF model based on ABAQUS software can well predict the increase
lateral deflection and bending moment
in lateral deflection and profiles with theprofiles
bending moment increasing
with theload level and
increasing loadthe lo- and the
level
cation of the maximum bending
location moment bending
of the maximum for different
momentloadforlevels. It also
different load demonstrates the
levels. It also demonstrates
the ability of the developed model to predict the lateral monotonic
ability of the developed model to predict the lateral monotonic behavior of the pile in soft behavior of the pile in
clays. soft clays.

0
0

2
2

4
4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

6 6

8 8
Test (11.792kN) Test (11.792kN)
Test (35.584kN) Test (35.584kN)
Test (71.168kN) Test (71.168kN)
10 Test (80.064kN) 10 Test (80.064kN)
BNWF API p-y (11.792kN) BNWF API p-y (11.792kN)
BNWF API p-y (35.584kN) BNWF API p-y (35.584kN)
BNWF API p-y (71.168kN) BNWF API p-y (71.168kN)
12 BNWF API p-y (80.064kN) 12 BNWF API p-y (80.064kN)

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Lateral displacement (m) Bending moment(kN×m)

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Comparison between
Figure calculated
2. Comparison and measured
between calculated test results based
and measured on the
test results BNWF
based method.
on the BNWF method.
(a) Lateral deflection profile (b) Bending moment profile.
(a) Lateral deflection profile (b) Bending moment profile.

2.2. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method (3D FEM)

2.2. Three-Dimensional Finite Element Method (3D FEM)
A three-dimensional finite element model is established by employing the finite
A three-dimensional
element finite
software element
ABAQUS model is established
to simulate by employing
the interaction betweenthe softfinite ele-the pile
clay and
ment software ABAQUS to simulate
foundation considering thethe
interaction betweenfor
specific conditions soft clay and
Matlock’s thetests.
filed pile Exploiting
foun- the
dation consideringsymmetries
the specific of conditions
the geometryfor andMatlock’s filed tests.
loading conditions, theExploiting the symme-
model simulates only one half of
the system,
tries of the geometry as shown
and loading in Figure 3,the
conditions, to improve the computational
model simulates only one efficiency.
half ofAthesensitivity
study indicates that a model of size 20 D ×
system, as shown in Figure 3, to improve the computational efficiency. A sensitivity study D is the
50 D (the cross section is a semicircle and
pile diameter) is sufficient to avoid boundary effects on the simulation results. The pile and
indicates that a model of size 20 D × 50 D (the cross section is a semicircle and D is the pile
the soils are all simulated using 5466 8-node linear brick elements with reduced integrations
diameter) is sufficient to avoid
(C3D8R). Normal boundary
horizontal effects on the
constraints aresimulation
applied to the results.
verticalThe pile and
boundaries and fixed
constraints are applied to the bottom boundary. The top boundary is fully free. Lateral
loads are applied to the pile according to the loading condition in the above field tests.
 the soils are all simulated using 5466 8-node linear brick elements with reduced integra-
tions (C3D8R). Normal horizontal constraints are applied to the vertical boundaries and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102
fixed constraints are applied to the bottom boundary. The top boundary is fully free. Lat-
5 of 16
eral loads are applied to the pile according to the loading condition in the above field tests.

Lateral load

0.3m
12.8m(40D)
16.34m(50D)

Figure 3. Three-dimensional finite element model for laterally loaded pile in soft clays.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional finite element model for laterally loaded pile in soft clays.
The interaction between the monopile and surrounding soil is simulated utilizing the
surface-to-surface contact method. The surface of the pile is defined as the master surface
The interaction between the monopile and surrounding soil is simulated utilizing the
(relatively stiff) and the soil surface in contact with the pile is defined as the slave surface
surface-to-surface contact method. The surface of the pile is defined as the master surface
(relatively soft). Hard contact is set in the normal direction of the contact surface, which
(relatively stiff) and
allows separation the soil
between thesurface
interface inelements
contact with
whenthe theypile
are is definedtoastension.
subjected the slave Thesurface
(relatively
penalty contact method is used in the tangential direction. When the two surfaces are which
soft). Hard contact is set in the normal direction of the contact surface,
allows separation
in contact, between
the interface the interface
behavior is governed elements when they
by Coulomb’s are subjected
friction theory. The tocritical
tension. The
penalty
friction contact method
shear stress isthe
τcrit at used in the
contact tangential
surface can bedirection.
expressedWhenby τcritthe
= µtwo· pc surfaces
in terms are in
of the frictional
contact, coefficient
the interface µ andiscontact
behavior governed pressure pc , with µ = friction
by Coulomb’s 0.3 in this study. The
theory. When the fric-
critical
crit = μ × pc
shear stress at the contact surface
tion shear stress τcrit at the contact surface exceeds τ , the tangential slip
crit can be expressed by τ occurs. in terms of
The behavior of clay is simulated by employing the elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive
the frictional coefficient μ andThe
model with Mises yield criterion.
contact pressure pc include
model parameters
, with theμ soil
= 0.3elastic
in this study. When
modulus,
the shear stress
Poisson’s at the
ratio, and contact
shear surface
strength, which exceeds τcrit , the tangential
can be determined slip occurs.
using the laboratory tests or
fieldThe
tests. In this study,
behavior of claythe is model
simulated parameters are set according
by employing to the research
the elastic-perfectly of Mat-
plastic constitu-
lock [7] and Hong et al. [37] as shown in Table 1. The material behavior
tive model with Mises yield criterion. The model parameters include the soil elastic mod- of the hollow steel
pipe pile is simulated using the linear elastic constitutive model. The model parameters are
ulus, Poisson’s ratio, and shear strength, which can be determined using the laboratory
set according to the above steel properties. During the finite element simulation, geostatic
tests or field tests. In this study, the model parameters are set according to the research of
stress balance analysis shall be carried out first, i.e., gravity is applied to the soil domain to
Matlock
establish[7]theand Hong
initial stresset field.
al. [37] as shownthe
Meanwhile, in initial
Table displacement
1. The material fieldbehavior
is set to 0.ofThen,
the hollow
steel pipe pile is simulated using the
lateral monotonic behavior of the pile is analyzed. linear elastic constitutive model. The model param-
eters are set according to the above steel properties. During the finite element simulation,
geostatic stress balance
Table 1. Constitutive modelanalysis shall
parameters and be carried
relevant out first,
calculation i.e., gravity is applied to the soil
parameters.
domain to establish the initial stress field. Meanwhile, the initial displacement field is set
Soil
to 0. Then, lateralSoil Elastic
monotonic Soil of theSoil
behavior pileShear
is analyzed.Effective
Pile–Soil
Parameter Modulus Poisson’s Strength Frictional
Unit Weight
(Mpa) Ratio (kPa) Coefficient
(kN/m3 )
Value 8 0.3 14.4 7.85 0.3
 Soil Elastic Modulus Soil ==Pois- Unit
Parameter Strength==(k Frictional
(MPa) son’s Ratio Weight==(kN/m3
Pa) Coefficient
)
Value 8 0.3 14.4 7.85 0.3
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 6 of 16

Figure 4 shows the comparison between the calculated results and test results of the
lateral deflection and bending moment profiles along the pile for four different pile head
Figure 4 shows the comparison between the calculated results and test results of
load levels. The calculated results agree with the test results in the overall trend although
the lateral deflection and bending moment profiles along the pile for four different pile
there is some deviation. One reasonThe
head load levels. forcalculated
the deviation
results is thatwith
agree the the
soiltest
strength
results inis the
idealized
overall trend
as uniform strength,although
but it is notis uniform
there in theOne
some deviation. field test.forAnother
reason reason
the deviation is the
is that thatsoilit strength
is a is
idealized as uniform strength, but it is not uniform in the field
simplification to use the elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive model to simulate the stress– test. Another reason is that
it is a simplification to use the elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive model to simulate the
strain responses of the soil; when more advanced constitutive models are adopted, better
stress–strain responses of the soil; when more advanced constitutive models are adopted,
calculation results can
betterbe expected.
calculation This
results cancomparison
be expected. This demonstrates that the developed
comparison demonstrates that the developed
three-dimensional finite element model
three-dimensional finite based
elementon ABAQUS
model based onsoftware
ABAQUScan wellcan
software predict the the
well predict
lateral monotonic behavior
lateral monotonic behavior of the pile in soft clays. of the pile in soft clays.

0 0

2 2

4 4
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

6 6

8 Test (17.792kN) 8 Test (17.792kN)

Test (35.584kN) Test 35.584kN)
Test (71.168kN) Test 71.168kN)
Test (80.064kN) Test (80.064kN)
10 3D FEM (17.792kN) 10 3D FEM (17.792kN)
3D FEM (35.584kN) 3D FEM (35.584kN)
3D FEM (71.168kN) 3D FEM (71.168kN)
3D FEM (80.064kN) 3D FEM (80.064kN)
12 12

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Lateral displacement (m) Bending moment(kN×m)

(a) (b)
Figure 4. ComparisonFigure
between4. Comparison
calculated between calculated and
and measured testmeasured test results
results based on 3Dbased on 3D
FEM. (a)FEM. (a) Lateral
Lateral
deflection profile (b)
deflection profile (b) Bending moment profile.Bending moment profile.

3. Lateral Behavior Analysis of Monopiles with Different Diameters

3. Lateral Behavior 3.1.
Analysis ofModel
Numerical Monopiles with Different Diameters
3.1. Numerical Model Two methods for analyzing horizontally loaded piles, namely the BNWF method and
3D finite element method, have been established and validated, respectively, in Section 2
Two methods for analyzing
above. It shouldhorizontally
be noted thatloaded
the BNWFpiles, namely
model the BNWF
is actually method andsimpli-
a two-dimensional
3D finite element method,
fied calculation model of the pile–soil interaction; the accuracy of thein
have been established and validated, respectively, Section 2results
calculation
above. It should be employing
noted thatthis themodel
BNWF model
mainly is actually
depends a two-dimensional
on the rationality simplified
of the p–y curve, hence it has
certain limitations when using the currently questionable API
calculation model of the pile‒soil interaction; the accuracy of the calculation results em- p–y curve. In comparison,
the three-dimensional finite element method has a better applicability for different pile
ploying this model mainly depends on the rationality of the p‒y curve, hence it has certain
diameters and site soil characteristics, although the calculation cost is relative larger. In this
limitations when using the
chapter, thecurrently questionable
above two methods API top‒y
will be used curve.
simulate the In comparison,
lateral the
behavior of monopiles
three-dimensional finite elementdiameters.
with different method Using
has a3Dbetter
finiteapplicability
element simulationfor different
results as apile diam-correct
relatively
reference standard,
eters and site soil characteristics, the limitation
although of the currentcost
the calculation API p–y curve is clarified
is relative larger. byIn comparing
this
the calculation results obtained from two methods.
chapter, the above two methods will be used to simulate the lateral behavior of monopiles
Four diameter piles (1 m, 2 m, 3 m, 5 m) were selected to build both two-dimensional
with different diameters.
BNWFUsing
models3D andfinite element
3D finite elementsimulation
models. The results as a relatively
total length of all pilescorrect
is 60 m with
reference standard, antheembedded
limitation of the
depth of 50current API
m and the p‒y
wall curve is
thickness is 30
clarified by comparing
mm. A lateral load of 2 MN is
the calculation results obtained
applied from
at the pile two
head (10 methods.
m above the mud surface). The three-dimensional finite element
models of the four diameter piles are shown in Figure 5. In the 3D numerical model, the
 embedded depth of 50 m and the wall thickness is 30 mm. A lateral load of 2 MN is appl
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 at the pile head (10 m above the mud surface). The three-dimensional finite7 element of 16 mo
els of the four diameter piles are shown in Figure 5. In the 3D numerical model, the co
stitutive models and material parameters of pile and soil, pile‒soil contact conditi
boundary conditions,
constitutive models andetc. are consistent
material parameterswith
of pilethose in Section
and soil, pile–soil2contact
above,condition,
which will not
boundaryhere
repeated conditions,
due toetc. are consistent
space with
limitations. those
The in Section
setting 2 above,
of the which will notmodel
two-dimensional be is a
repeated here due to space limitations. The setting of the two-dimensional
consistent with those in Section 2 except for the different pile sizes. model is also
consistent with those in Section 2 except for the different pile sizes.

Lateral load

10m
Lateral load

10m

50m
70m
60m

50m

(a) Diameter = 1 m (b) Diameter = 2 m

Lateral load
10m
50m
75m

(c) Diameter = 3 m (d) Diameter = 5 m

Figure 5. 3D finite element model for laterally loaded pile with different diameter in soft clays.
Figure 5. 3D finite element model for laterally loaded pile with different diameter in soft clays.
3.2. Comparison of Predicted Lateral Behavior for Two Methods
3.2. Comparison of Predicted
Figure 6 compares Lateral
the lateral Behavior
response for with
of piles Two various
Methodsdiameters obtained using
the BNWF
Figuremethod based on
6 compares thethe API p–y
lateral curve and
response of3D FEM
piles when
with the pilediameters
various head load equals
obtained usi
250 kN. It can be seen from Figure 6a that the nonlinearity of pile head load–displacement
the BNWF method based on the API p‒y curve and 3D FEM when the pile head lo
curve becomes more significant as the pile diameter decreases. The displacement of the pile
equals 250 kN. It can be seen from Figure 6a that the nonlinearity of pile head load–d
head is greater for the smaller pile diameter under the same lateral load. The prediction
placement curve becomes
result of displacement more
based on significant
the BNWF methodasis the pile
larger diameter
than that of thedecreases.
3D FEM, which The displa
ment of the
indicates thatpile head ismethod
the BNWF greater for the smaller
underestimates pile diameter
the bearing under
capacity of piles. the same in
As shown lateral lo
Figure 6b, the lateral deflection of the pile along the depth (range from −
The prediction result of displacement based on the BNWF method is larger than that10 to 10) increases
significantly
the 3D FEM,aswhich the pile diameter that
indicates decreases, which ismethod
the BNWF because underestimates
the pile becomes more flexible capac
the bearing
due to the decrease in the stiffness. The lateral deflection profile obtained by the BNWF
of piles. As shown in Figure 6b, the lateral deflection of the pile along the depth (ran
from −10 to 10) increases significantly as the pile diameter decreases, which is because
pile becomes more flexible due to the decrease in the stiffness. The lateral deflection p
file obtained by the BNWF method is larger than 3D FEM and the difference between
4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 8 of 16

pile becomes more flexible due to the decrease in the stiffness. The lateral deflection pro-
file obtained by the BNWF method is larger than 3D FEM and the difference between the
two calculation results is more
method significant
is larger than 3D for
FEM the smaller
and diameter
the difference piles.the
between It can
twobe observed
calculation results is
from Figure 6c that more
the bending
significantmoment of the diameter
for the smaller pile along theItdepth
piles. can beincreases significantly
observed from Figure 6c that the
as the pile diameterbending
increasesmoment of the
and the pile along
location of the
thedepth
maximumincreases significantly
bending moment as themoves
pile diameter
downward gradually. The bending moment profile obtained by the BNWF method gradually.
increases and the location of the maximum bending moment moves downward is
The bending moment profile obtained by the BNWF method is larger than 3D FEM and the
larger than 3D FEM and the difference is more significant for the larger diameter piles.
difference is more significant for the larger diameter piles. From the above comparison, it
From the above comparison, it canthat
can be concluded be concluded that the
the BNWF method BNWF
based method
on the API p–ybased on the
curve will API
overestimate the
p‒y curve will overestimate the deflection and bending moment and underestimate
deflection and bending moment and underestimate the ultimate bearing capacity the of the
ultimate bearing capacity of the pile.
large diameter large diameter pile.

0.25

0.20
Load (MN)

0.15

0.10 3D FEM, Diameter=1m

BNWF API p-y, Diameter=1m
3D FEM, Diameter=2m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=2m
0.05 3D FEM, Diameter=3m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=3m
3D FEM, Diameter=5m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=5m
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Lateral displacement (m)
(a)
-10 -10

0 0

10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

20 20

30 30
3D FEM, Diameter=1m 3D FEM, Diameter=1m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=1m BNWF API p-y, Diameter=1m
3D FEM, Diameter=2m 3D FEM, Diameter=2m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=2m BNWF API p-y, Diameter=2m
40 3D FEM, Diameter=3m
40 3D FEM, Diameter=3m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=3m BNWF API p-y, Diameter=3m
3D FEM, Diameter=5m 3D FEM, Diameter=5m
BNWF API p-y, Diameter=5m BNWF API p-y, Diameter=5m
50 50
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Displacement (m) Bending moment (kN×m)

(b) (c)
Figure 6. ComparisonFigure
of lateral responseofoflateral
6. Comparison pilesresponse
obtainedof by
pilesBNWF method
obtained by BNWF (API p‒y curve)
method (API p–yand
curve) and
3D FEM. (a) Load–displacement curve of pile head.
3D FEM. (a) Load–displacement (b) of
curve Lateral deflection
pile head. profile.
(b) Lateral (c) Bending
deflection profile. mo-
(c) Bending
ment profile. moment profile.

3.3. Limitations of API p‒y Curve for Soft Clay

The pile‒soil interaction is simulated through the surface‒surface contact mode for
the 3D finite element model. The soil resistance value P at a certain depth of the pile shaft
is calculated by extracting the contact force on the contact surface. Figure 7a shows the
typical distribution of the calculated contact normal force (CNF) and the contact shear
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 9 of 16

3.3. Limitations of API p–y Curve for Soft Clay

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW The pile–soil interaction is simulated through the surface–surface contact mode for the
3D finite element model. The soil resistance value P at a certain depth of the pile shaft is
calculated by extracting the contact force on the contact surface. Figure 7a shows the typical
distribution of the calculated contact normal force (CNF) and the contact shear force (CSF)
certain
around the position on7bthe
pile. Figure pilethecross-section.
shows Figure
diagrammatic sketch for 7b,c shows the
the x-direction typicalofdistribu
component
CNF1
the CNFand(CNF1)CSF1 andaround the pile.
the x-direction It can be
component observed
of the thatat CNF1
CSF (CSF1) isposition
a certain the largest
on in th
the pile cross-section. Figure 7b,c shows the typical distribution of CNF1 and
direction and the smallest at the edges on both sides of the section (almost 0); on tCSF1 around
the pile. It can be observed that CNF1 is the largest in the x-axis direction and the smallest
trary, CSF1 is the smallest (almost 0) in the x-axis direction and the largest at the e
at the edges on both sides of the section (almost 0); on the contrary, CSF1 is the smallest
both sides
(almost 0) in of
thethe section.
x-axis direction and the largest at the edges on both sides of the section.

CSF1
CSF
Y
F CNF
X
CNF1

(a) Distribution of CNF and CSF (b) Sketch for the CNF1 and CSF1

CNF1 CSF1

(c) Distribution of CNF1 (d) Distribution of CSF1

Figure 7. Typical distribution of the calculated contact normal force (CNF) and contact shear
Figure 7. Typical distribution of the calculated contact normal force (CNF) and contact sh
force (CSF).
(CSF).
The soil resistance P at a certain depth of the pile shaft can be determined by the sum
of CNF1
Theand CSF1
soil around the
resistance pile,
P at as represented
a certain depthby:of the pile shaft can be determined by t
of CNF1 and CSF1 around the pile,
n as represented by:
P= ∑ (CNF1 + CSF1 ) (2)
i =1 n
P =  ( CNF + CSF )
where n is the number of nodes outside the pile cross-section 1 at a certain
1 depth of the pile
i =1
shaft. Then, the p–y curve can be determined based on the numerical simulation results.
Figure 8 compares the API p–y curve with the p–y curve obtained using the 3D finite
where n is the number of nodes outside the pile cross-section at a certain depth of
element method. These p–y curves correspond to different depths (depth = 1 m, 3 m, 5 m,
shaft. Then,
and 10 m) the p‒y
for various curve
pile can be
diameters determined
(diameter = 1 m, 2based
m, 3 m,onandthe numerical
5 m). simulation r
For these larger
Figure
diameter piles,8 there
compares the APIdifference
are significant p‒y curve with the
between p‒y p–y
the API curve obtained
curve and the using
p–y the 3
element method.
curve obtained usingThese
the 3D p‒y
finitecurves
element correspond to different
method. The comparison depths (depth
demonstrates: (1) the= 1 m, 3
API p–y curve significantly underestimates the ultimate soil reaction
and 10 m) for various pile diameters (diameter = 1 m, 2 m, 3 m, and 5 m). of soft clays and theFor thes
degree of the underestimation increases as the soil depth increases; (2) the API p–y curve
diameter piles, there are significant difference between the API p‒y curve and
significantly underestimates the initial stiffness of soft clays. This conclusion can well
curve
explainobtained
why the BNWFusingmethod
the 3Dbased
finite
onelement
the API p–ymethod. The comparison
curve overestimates demonstrates
the deflection
API p‒y curve significantly underestimates the ultimate soil reaction of soft clays
degree of the underestimation increases as the soil depth increases; (2) the API p‒
significantly underestimates the initial stiffness of soft clays. This conclusion can
plain why the BNWF method based on the API p‒y curve overestimates the de
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 10 of 16

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

and bending moment while it underestimates the ultimate bearing capacity of the10 of 17
large
diameter pile.

200 200
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
p (kPa)

p (kPa)
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
3D FEM, Depth=1m 3D FEM, Depth=3m 3D FEM, Depth=1m 3D FEM, Depth=3m
20 BNWF API p-y, Depth=1m BNWF API p-y, Depth=3m
20 BNWF API p-y, Depth=1m BNWF API p-y, Depth=3m
3D FEM, Depth=5m 3D FEM, Depth=10m 3D FEM, Depth=5m 3D FEM, Depth=10m
0 0 BNWF API p-y, Depth=5m BNWF API p-y, Depth=10m
BNWF API p-y, Depth=5m BNWF API p-y, Depth=10m

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
y (m) y (m)
(a) (b)
220
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
p (kPa)
p (kPa)

120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
3D FEM, Depth=1m 3D FEM, Depth=3m
20
3D FEM, Depth=1m 3D FEM, Depth=3m 20 BNWF API p-y, Depth=1m BNWF API p-y, Depth=3m
BNWF API p-y, Depth=1m BNWF API p-y, Depth=3m
3D FEM, Depth=5m 3D FEM, Depth=10m
0 3D FEM, Depth=5m 3D FEM, Depth=10m 0 BNWF API p-y, Depth=5m BNWF API p-y, Depth=10m
BNWF API p-y, Depth=5m BNWF API p-y, Depth=10m

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

y (m) y (m)
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure8.8.Comparison
Comparisonof
ofthe
theAPI
APIp‒y
p–ycurve
curve and
and the
the p‒y
p–y curve obtained by 3D
obtained by 3D finite
finiteelement
elementmethod.
method.
(a)
(a)Diameter
Diameter==11m,
m,(b)
(b)Diameter
Diameter ==22m,
m, (c)
(c) Diameter
Diameter = 3 m, and (d)
(d) Diameter
Diameter== 55 m.
m.

4.4.New
Newp‒y
p–yCurve
Curvefor
forSoft
Soft Clay
Clay
4.1. New p–y Formula and Parameter Influence
4.1. New p‒y Formula and Parameter Influence
InInorder
ordertotoimprove
improvethe theshortcomings
shortcomingsofof thethe
API API p–y
p‒y curve,
curve, a new
a new p‒yp–y curve
curve is
is pro-
proposed in this section, as shown in the formula:
posed in this section, as shown in the formula:
!A A
B · Gmax · y  y 
p= 1 − D· p (3)
A·D
B × Gmax × y  max
+
B· Gmax y y 
p= 1 −  (3)
A × D  D × p 
where Gmax is the maximum shear modulus and Gmax is usually
 experience
max
+y considered to be a multiple
of su for soft clay according to the engineering  B × Gmax (e.g.,  typical range of Gmax =
from 300 su to 1800 su ); parameters A and B control the shape of the p–y curve. pmax is the
ultimate
where Gmax
lateral soil maximum
is the resistance, shear
which modulus
is calculated Gmaxonisthe
andbased expression
usually proposed
considered by a
to be
Murff and Hamilton [40] for shear strength profiles approximately linearly increasing with
multiple of su for soft clay according to the engineering experience (e.g., typical range of
depth, i.e.,:
Gmax = from 300 su to 1800 supmax ); parameters
= Np · su A and B control the shape of the p‒y curve.
pmax is the ultimate lateral soilNpresistance, exp −Dζis
= 12 − 4 · which ·z calculated based on the expression

proposed by Murff and Hamilton ζ = [40]

0.25 for shear
+ 0.05 · λ strength
f or λ < 6profiles approximately linearly (4)
increasing with depth, i.e.,: ζ = 0.55 f or λ ≥ 6
λ = su0 /(su1 · D )
 where su is the undrained shear strength of soil at the point in question; N p is a non-
dimensional lateral bearing factor;  ' is the soil submerged unit weight; z is the soil

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 depth below the original seafloor; D is the pile outside the diameter; su 0 is the
11 of 16 shear

strength intercept at the seafloor; and su1 is the rate of increase in shear strength with
depth.
where su is the undrained shear strength of soil at the point in question; Np is a nondimen-
In order
sional to bearing
lateral investigate the
factor; γ0 influence of the relevant
is the soil submerged parameters
unit weight; z is the on
soilthe p‒ybelow
depth curve, the
soil properties are assumed
the original seafloor; aspile
D is the outside sthe
follows: u = ( sisu 0the
14.4 kPasu0
diameter; = 14.4
shearkPa, su1 intercept
strength = 0 in Equation
at
the seafloor; and su1 is the rate of increase in shear strength with depth.
500 stou investigate
(4)); GmaxIn= order = 7.2 MPa;the
pile diameter
influence D relevant
of the = 3 m; pparameters
max = 170 kPa according
on the to Equation
p–y curve, the
soil properties
(4) when soil depth = 15 m.as follows: su = 14.4 kPa (su0 = 14.4 kPa, su1 = 0 in Equation (4));
are zassumed
GA = 500of
series
max su A
= 7.2 MPa;are
values pileset
diameter D = 3 m;its
to investigate pmax = 170 kPaon
influence according
the shape to Equation (4) curve
of the p‒y
when soil depth z = 15 m.
(B = 1 for all cases). Figure 9a,b show the p‒y curves and the normalized p‒y curves (p is
A series of A values are set to investigate its influence on the shape of the p–y curve
normalized
(B = 1 forby pmax Figure
all cases). and y 9a,b
is normalized bycurves
show the p–y D) forand
various A values.p–y
the normalized It can be(pobserved
curves is
that normalized
the decreaseby pin the
max y isstiffness
andsoil normalized by D) formodulus)
(tangent various A values.
becomes It can be observed
slower as the that
displace-
the decrease in the soil stiffness (tangent modulus) becomes slower as the displacement
ment increases and the variation of the p‒y from linear to nonlinear becomes more grad-
increases and the variation of the p–y from linear to nonlinear becomes more gradual
ual and starts earlier as A increases. It is found that the p‒y (or normalized p‒y) curve has
and starts earlier as A increases. It is found that the p–y (or normalized p–y) curve has
insignificant change
insignificant changewhen
whenAAisis less than0.01
less than 0.01and
andhence
hence A usually
A usually rangesranges
from from
0.1 to 0.1 to 10 to
10 to
fit the
fit the actual p–y curves. It is worth noting that the current model can be simplified into into
actual p‒y curves. It is worth noting that the current model can be simplified
Kondner’s
Kondner’shyperbolic
hyperbolicp‒y
p–ymodel
model [9] whenAA==1,1,asas
[9] when represented
represented by: by:

180 1.0

160
0.8
140

120
A=0.01 A=0.01
p (kPa)

0.6
p/pmax

100 A=0.01~10
A=0.01~10 A=0.1 A=0.1
80 A=0.5 A=0.5
A=1 0.4 A=1
Hyperbolic
60 A=3 A=3
40 A=5 A=5
0.2
A=7 A=7
20 A=10 A=10
0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
y (m) y/D
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9. Effect
9. Effect of parameterAAon
of parameter on the
the proposed
proposedp–y curve.
p‒y (a) (a)
curve. p–yp‒y
curve (b) normalized
curve p–y curve.
(b) normalized p‒y
curve.
y
p= 1 y (5)
B· Gmax + pmax
D
y
p =
For this case, the initial maximum tangent modulus of the p–y curve is B · Gmax /D.
1 y on the shape of the p–y curve
+
A series of B values are set to investigate its influence (5)
× Gmax
(A = 1 for all cases). Figure 10a,b show theBp–y curves pand
max
the normalized p–y curves for
various B values. Contrary to the effect of parameter
D A on the p–y curve, the decrease
in the soil stiffness (tangent modulus) becomes faster as the displacement increases, and
the
Forvariation
this case,of p–y from linear
the initial to nonlinear
maximum becomes
tangent moreof
modulus abrupt as Bcurve
the p‒y increases. × Gmax / D .
is BWhen
parameter B exceeds 10, it has little effect on the p–y (or normalized p–y) curve and hence B
usually ranges from 1 to 10 to fit the actual p–y curves. Obviously, the proposed p–y model
with variable A and B is more versatile and offers wider applicability to represent different
soft clays and pile diameters.
 various Bofvalues.
variation Contrary
p‒y from linear to
tothe effect ofbecomes
nonlinear parameter
moreA on the p‒y
abrupt as Bcurve, the decrease
increases. When pa- in
the soil stiffness
rameter B exceeds(tangent
10, it hasmodulus) becomes
little effect on thefaster as normalized
p‒y (or the displacement increases,
p‒y) curve and the
and hence B
variation of p‒y from linear to nonlinear becomes more abrupt as B increases.
usually ranges from 1 to 10 to fit the actual p‒y curves. Obviously, the proposed p‒y When pa-
rameter
model B exceeds
with variable10,
A itandhasBlittle effect
is more on the p‒y
versatile and (or normalized
offers p‒y) curve to
wider applicability and hence B
represent
usually ranges
different from
soft clays and1 pile
to 10 to fit the actual p‒y curves. Obviously, the proposed p‒y
diameters.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 12 of 16
model with variable A and B is more versatile and offers wider applicability to represent
180 1.0
different soft clays and pile diameters.
160
180 1.0
0.8
140
160
120
B=1~15 0.8
B=1~15
p (kPa) p (kPa)

140 0.6

p/pmax p/pmax
100
120
80 B=1~15 B=1~15
0.6
0.4
100 B=1 B=1
60
B=3 B=3
80 B=5 B=5
40 0.4
0.2
B=1 B=1
60 B=10 B=10
20 B=3 B=3
B=15 B=15
40 B=5 B=5
0 0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0B=10 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 B=10 0.4
20
B=15 B=15
y (m) y/D
0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 (a) 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 (b) 0.2 0.3 0.4
y (m) y/D
Figure 10. Effect of parameter B on the proposed p‒y curve. (a) p‒y curve (b) normalized p‒y
(a) (b)
curve.
Figure
Figure10.
10.Effect
Effectof
ofparameter on the
parameter B on theproposed
proposedp–y
p‒ycurve.
curve.(a)(a)
p–yp‒y curve
curve (b)(b) normalized
normalized p–y p‒y
curve.
4.2. Effect of Pile Diameter and Soil Depth on p‒y Curve
curve.
4.2. Effect of Pile Diameter and Soil Depth on p–y Curve
The soil layer parameters are set as in Section 4.1, then different D values are set to
4.2. Effect
Theofsoil
investigate Pile
the Diameter
layer
effect anddiameter
parameters
of pile Soil
areDepth
set as
ononinthe
p‒y Curve
Section
shape 4.1,
of then curveD(A
different
the p‒y values are set
= 1, and B =to3).
investigate
Figure The the
soilshow
11a,b effect
layerthe of pile
parameters diameter
p‒y curvesareand on
set the
as in the shape of
Section 4.1,
normalized the p–y
then
p‒y curve
different
curves (A = 1, and
D values
for various B
are=set
3). It
D values. to
Figure 11a,b
investigate show
the effectthe p–y curves
of pile 11a and
diameter the normalized
ondecrease
the shape p–y curves for various D values.
B =It 3).
can be observed from Figure that the in of
thethe
soilp‒y curve (tangent
stiffness (A = 1, and
modulus)
can be observed from Figure 11a that the decrease in the soil stiffness (tangent modulus)
Figure
becomes 11a,b
slowershow asthe
thep‒y curves and increases
displacement the normalizedand thep‒yultimate
curves for various
lateral soilDresistance
values. It
becomes slower as the displacement increases and the ultimate lateral soil resistance pmax
can be observedsmaller
pbecomes from Figure 11a that the decrease theinnormalized
the soil stiffness (tangentformodulus)
max becomessmaller as D as D increases.
increases. However,
However, the normalized p‒y curves
p–y curves different
for different pile
becomes slower as the displacement increases and the ultimate lateral soil resistance
diameters
pile diameters areare
completely
completelyconsistent, as shown
consistent, as shownin Figure 11b. 11b.
in Figure
pmax becomes smaller as D increases. However, the normalized p‒y curves for different
1.0
180 pile diameters are completely consistent, as shown in Figure 11b.
160
180 1.0
0.8
140
160
120 D=1m,2m,3m,5m 0.8
p (kPa) p (kPa)

140 0.6
p/pmax p/pmax

100
120 D=1m,2m,3m,5m
80
0.6
0.4
100
60 D=1m D=1m
80 D=2m D=2m
40 0.4
0.2
60 D=3m D=3m
20 D=1m D=1m
D=5m D=5m
40 D=2m D=2m
0 0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0D=3m 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0D=3m 1.2
20 D=5m D=5m
y (m) y/D
0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 (a) 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 (b) 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
y (m) y/D
Figure Effect
11.11.Effect
Figure of of pile
pile diameter DD
diameter onon
thethe proposed
proposed p–y
p‒y curve.
curve. (a)(a)
p‒yp–y curve
curve (b)(b) normalized
normalized p‒y
(a) (b)
curve.
p–y curve.
Figure 11. Effect of pile diameter D on the proposed p‒y curve. (a) p‒y curve (b) normalized p‒y
curve. Different z values are set to investigate the effect of soil depth on the shape of the
p–y curve (A = 1, and B = 3). Figure 12a,b shows the p–y curves and the normalized p–y
curves for various z values. As expected, the ultimate lateral soil resistance pmax becomes
larger and the increasing rate of pmax decreases gradually as the soil depth increases, as
shown in Figure 12a. However, the normalized p–y curves for different soil depths have an
insignificant difference, as shown in Figure 12b. Hence, it can be approximately considered
that the normalized p–y curve at different depths is unique.
 y curve (A = 1, and B = 3). Figure 12a,b shows the p‒y curves and the normalized p‒y
curves for various z values. As expected, the ultimate lateral soil resistance pmax be-
comes larger and the increasing rate of pmax decreases gradually as the soil depth in-
creases, as shown in Figure 12a. However, the normalized p‒y curves for different soil
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 13 of 16
depths have an insignificant difference, as shown in Figure 12b. Hence, it can be approxi-
mately considered that the normalized p‒y curve at different depths is unique.

180 1.0

160
0.8
140

120
z=1m z=1m
p (kPa)

0.6

p/pmax
100
z=3m z=3m
z=1m~45m
80 z=5m z=5m
z=7m 0.4 z=7m
60
z=10m z=10m
40 z=15m z=15m
0.2
z=30m z=30m
20
z=45m z=45m
0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
y (m) y/D
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.Effect
Effectof
ofsoil
soildepth
depthzzon
onthe
theproposed
proposedp‒y
p–y curve.
curve. (a)
(a)p‒y
p–ycurve
curve (b)
(b) normalized
normalized p‒y
p–y curve.
curve.
4.3. Validation of New p–y Formula
4.3. Validation of New p‒y
The normalized p–yFormula
curves corresponding to different depths for various pile diame-
ters The
can normalized
be obtained p‒y curves to
according corresponding
the above 3Dtofinite
different
elementdepths for various
analysis results,pile diam-
as shown
eters can be
in Figure 13.obtained according
The proposed p–ytocurves
the above
(A = 3D finite
1 and B =element analysis
3) and API results,are
p–y curves as shown
plotted
also
in in the
Figure 13.figure. It can be observed
The proposed p‒y curves that
(A the
= 1 proposed
and B = 3)p–yandcurves cancurves
API p‒y generally
are fit those
plotted
obtained
also in the from 3DIt numerical
figure. simulation
can be observed well.
that the However,
proposed p‒y as a comparison,
curves can generallythe fit
API p–y
those
curve significantly
obtained underestimates
from 3D numerical the soil
simulation stiffness.
well. It should
However, as a be noted that the proposed
comparison, API p‒y
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
normalized
curve p–y curve
significantly does not correspond
underestimates to a specific
the soil stiffness. soil depth,
It should which
be noted is due
that 14 fact
to the
the proposed of 17
that the soilp‒y
normalized depth hasdoes
curve an insignificant
not correspondeffect
to on the shape
a specific soilof the normalized
depth, which is due p–ytocurve,
the factas
described in Section 4.2 above. This comparison reflects the superiority of the
that the soil depth has an insignificant effect on the shape of the normalized p‒y curve, as proposed
p–y curvein
described over the API
Section 4.2 p–y curve.
above. This comparison reflects the superiority of the proposed
p‒y curve over the API p‒y curve.
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 3D FEA, Depth=1m 0.6 3D FEA, Depth=1m

p/pu

p/pu

3D FEA, Depth=3m 3D FEA, Depth=3m

3D FEA, Depth=5m 3D FEA, Depth=5m
0.4 0.4
3D FEA, Depth=8m 3D FEA, Depth=8m
3D FEA, Depth=10m 3D FEA, Depth=10m
0.2 3D FEA, Depth=15m 0.2 3D FEA, Depth=15m
Proposed p-y curve A=1, B=3 Proposed p-y curve A=1, B=3
API p-y curve API p-y curve
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
y/D y/D

(a) (b)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 3D FEA, Depth=1m 0.6 3D FEA, Depth=1m

p/pu

p/pu

3D FEA, Depth=3m 3D FEA, Depth=3m

3D FEA, Depth=5m 3D FEA, Depth=5m
0.4 0.4
3D FEA, Depth=8m 3D FEA, Depth=8m
3D FEA, Depth=10m 3D FEA, Depth=10m
0.2 3D FEA, Depth=15m 0.2 3D FEA, Depth=15m
Proposed p-y curve A=1, B=3 Proposed p-y curve A=1, B=3
API p-y curve API p-y curve
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
y/D y/D

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Comparison of the
Comparison of theproposed
proposednormalized
normalizedp–y
p‒y curves
curves and
and those
those obtained
obtained from
from 3D numer-
3D numerical
ical simulation. (a) Diameter = 1 m. (b) Diameter = 2 m. (c) Diameter = 3 m. (d) Diameter = 5 m.
simulation. (a) Diameter = 1 m. (b) Diameter = 2 m. (c) Diameter = 3 m. (d) Diameter = 5 m.

The lateral responses of the piles with various diameters are predicted employing the
BNWF method based on the proposed API p‒y curve. The prediction results are compared
with the 3D finite element results on Section 3.2, as shown in Figure 14. The prediction
results including the load–displacement curve of the pile head, lateral deflection profile,
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 14 of 16

The lateral responses of the piles with various diameters are predicted employing the
BNWF method based on the proposed API p–y curve. The prediction results are compared
with the 3D finite element results on Section 3.2, as shown in Figure 14. The prediction
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
results including the load–displacement curve of the pile head, lateral deflection profile,15 of 17
and bending moment profile agree well with the 3D finite element results. This comparison
demonstrates that, compared with API p–y curve, the proposed p–y curve can better predict
the lateral behavior of piles in soft clays and has better applicability to large-diameter piles.

0.25

0.20

Load (MN)
0.15

3D FEM, Diameter=1m
0.10 BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=1m
3D FEM, Diameter=2m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=2m
3D FEM, Diameter=3m
0.05 BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=3m
3D FEM, Diameter=5m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=5m
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Lateral displacement (m)
(a)
-10 -10

0 0

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

30 30 3D FEM, Diameter=1m
3D FEM, Diameter=1m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=1m BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=1m
3D FEM, Diameter=2m 3D FEM, Diameter=2m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=2m BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=2m
3D FEM, Diameter=3m 40 3D FEM, Diameter=3m
40 BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=3m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=3m
3D FEM, Diameter=5m
3D FEM, Diameter=5m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=5m
BNWF proposed p-y, Diameter=5m
50
50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Displacement (m) Bending moment (kN×m)

(b) (c)
Figure
Figure14.14.
Comparison
Comparisonofofthe thelateral
lateralresponses
responses of piles
piles obtained
obtainedusing
usingthe
theBNWF
BNWFmethodmethod (proposed
(proposed
p‒y
p–ycurve)
curve)andand3D 3Dfinite
finite element
element method.
method. (a)(a) Load–displacement
Load–displacementcurve
curveofofpile
pile head.
head. (b)(b) Lateral
Lateral
deflection
deflectionprofile
profile(c)
(c)Bending
Bendingmoment profile.
moment profile.

5. 5. Summaryand
Summary andConclusions
Conclusions
5.1.
5.1. MainConclusions
Main Conclusions
(1) The BNWF method based on the p–y curve and 3D FEM for analyzing the lateral
(1) The BNWF method based on the p‒y curve and 3D FEM for analyzing the lateral
responses of monopiles are developed based on ABAQUS software and the accuracy
responses of monopiles are developed based on ABAQUS software and the accuracy
of the two methods is validated using the field test results of the piles in soft clays.
of the two methods is validated using the field test results of the piles in soft clays.
(2) The lateral responses of monopiles with different diameters are simulated by em-
(2) The lateralthe
ploying responses of monopiles
two methods. It is foundwith
thatdifferent
the BNWF diameters are simulated
method based on the APIby p–yem-
ploying the two methods. It is found that the BNWF method based on the
curve overestimates the deflection and bending moment while it underestimates the API p‒y
curve overestimates
ultimate the deflection
bearing capacity anddiameter
of the large bendingpile.
moment while it underestimates the
ultimate bearing capacity of the large diameter pile.
(3) The API p‒y curve significantly underestimates the ultimate soil reaction of soft clays
and the degree of the underestimation increases as the soil depth increases; it also
significantly underestimates the initial stiffness of the soft clays. These findings are
supported by previous research results [12,15].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 15 of 16

(3) The API p–y curve significantly underestimates the ultimate soil reaction of soft clays
and the degree of the underestimation increases as the soil depth increases; it also
significantly underestimates the initial stiffness of the soft clays. These findings are
supported by previous research results [12,15].
(4) A new p–y model with variable parameters A and B was proposed that is more versa-
tile and offers wider applicability to represent different soft clay and pile diameters.
The current model can be simplified into the hyperbolic p–y model when A =1.

5.2. Significance and Application

As the most popular foundation type for supporting offshore wind turbines, large
diameter monopile foundations must be designed for lateral loads such as winds, waves,
and currents. The Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) method has been
widely used because of its clear concept and lower calculation cost. Compared with
the three-dimensional finite element method, the BNWF method is easier to implement
numerically. This method can be realized using ABAQUS software or, alternatively, by
using other special calculation software for pile foundation such as LPILE or by compiling
simple MATLAB programs. Hence, it has better applicability in engineering practice. The
selection of a reasonable p–y curve is critical to the calculation accuracy of this method. This
paper proposes a new p–y curve with better versatility and applicability. Compared with
the API p–y curve, the proposed p–y curve can better predict the lateral behavior of piles
in soft clays, such as the load–displacement curve of the pile head, lateral deflection profile,
and bending moment profile, and has better applicability to large-diameter piles. However,
it should be noted that the proposed p–y curve is mainly applicable to soft clay and not to
other types of soil such as stiff clays and sands. When applied to engineering practice, the
proposed p–y model can play a good role in the design of monopile foundations supporting
offshore wind turbines in soft clays.

Author Contributions: Data curation, Q.L. and J.L.; Funding acquisition, M.W. (Mingyuan Wang);
Investigation, M.W. (Mingyuan Wang) and J.L.; Methodology, M.W. (Mingyuan Wang), M.W. (Miao
Wang) and X.C.; Resources, Q.L.; Software, M.W. (Miao Wang) and X.C.; Supervision, Q.L.; Validation,
M.W. (Miao Wang); Writing—original draft, X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52108334),
the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City (20JCYBJC00570), and the Science and Technology
Projects of Powerchina Huadong Engineering Corporation Limited (KY2020-KC-08-01-2021).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the follow-up research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Carter, J.M.F. North Hoyle offshore wind farm: Design and build. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Energy 2007, 160, 21–29. [CrossRef]
2. Oh, K.Y.; Nam, W.; Ryu, M.S. A review of foundations of offshore wind energy convertors: Current status and future perspectives.
J. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 16–36. [CrossRef]
3. Wu, X.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y. Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 379–393. [CrossRef]
4. Hamilton, B.; Battenberg, L.; Bielecki, M.; Bloch, C.; Decker, T.; Frantzis, L.; Paidipati, J.; Wickless, A.; Zhao, F. Offshore Wind
Market and Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment; Navigant Consulting, Inc.: Burlington, MA, USA, 2013.
5. Esteban, M.D.; Lopez-Gutierrez, J.S.; Negro, V.; Matutano, C.; Garcia-Flores, F.M.; Millan, M.A. Offshore wind foundation design:
Some key issues. J. Energy. Resour. Technol. 2015, 137, 051211. [CrossRef]
6. McClelland, B.; Focht, J.A. Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles. Trans. ASCE 1956, 182, 1–22. [CrossRef]
7. Matlock, H. Correlations for design of laterally-loaded piles in soft clay. In Proceedings of the 2nd Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, USA, 22–24 April 1970; p. 1204.
8. API Recommended Practice 2GEO. Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations, 1st ed.; Addendum 1; American Petroleum
Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
9. Kondner, R.L. Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils. J. Soil. Mech. Found. Div.—ASCE 1963, 89, 115–143. [CrossRef]
10. Georgiadis, M.; Anagnostopoulos, C.; Saflekou, S. Cyclic lateral loading of piles in soft clay. Geotech. Eng. 1992, 23, 47–60.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15102 16 of 16

11. Dewaikar, D.M.; Patil, P.A. A new hyperbolic p-y curve for laterally loaded piles in soft caly. Found. Anal. Des. 2006, 152–158.
12. Jeanjean, P. Re-assessment of p-y curves for soft clays from centrifuge testing and finite element modelling. In Proceedings of the
Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 20158), Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2009.
13. Klinkvort, R.T.; Hededal, O. Effect of load eccentricity and stress level on monopile support for offshore wind turbines. Can.
Geotech. J. 2014, 51, 966–974. [CrossRef]
14. Rathod, D.; Muthukkumaran, K.; Sitharam, T.G. Effect of slope on p-y curves for laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 2018, 36, 1509–1524. [CrossRef]
15. Zhu, B.; Zhu, Z.J.; Li, T.; Liu, J.C.; Liu, Y.F. Field tests of offshore driven piles subjected to lateral monotonic and cyclic loads in
soft clay. J. Waterw. Port. C ASCE 2017, 143, 05017003. [CrossRef]
16. Xu, D.S.; Xu, X.Y.; Li, W. Field experiments on laterally loaded piles for an offshore wind farm. Mar. Struct. 2020, 69, 102684.
[CrossRef]
17. Wang, Z.; Xie, X.; Wang, J. A new nonlinear method for vertical settlement prediction of a single pile and pile groups in layered
soils. Comput. Geotech. 2012, 45, 118–126. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, C.; Yu, J.; Huang, M. Winkler load-transfer analysis for laterally loaded piles. Can. Geotech. J. 2016, 53, 1110–1124.
[CrossRef]
19. Choo, Y.W.; Kim, D. Experimental development of the p-y relationship for large-diameter offshore monopiles in sands: Centrifuge
tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2016, 142, 04015058. [CrossRef]
20. Boonyatee, T.; Lai, Q.V. A non-linear load transfer method for determining the settlement of piles under vertical loading. Int. J.
Geotech. Eng. 2017, 14, 206–217. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, Y.; Andersen, K.H. Scaling of lateral pile p-y response in clay from laboratory stress-strain curves. Mar. Struct. 2017, 53,
124–135. [CrossRef]
22. Elkasabgy, M.; El Naggar, M.H. Lateral performance and p–y curves for large-capacity helical piles installed in clayey glacial
deposit. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019078. [CrossRef]
23. Li, S.; Yu, J.; Huang, M.; Leung, C.F. Application of T-EMSD based p-y curves in the three-dimensional analysis of laterally loaded
pile in undrained clay. Ocean. Eng. 2020, 206, 107256. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, Y.; Andersen, K.H. Soil reaction curves for monopiles in clay. Mar. Struct. 2019, 65, 94–113. [CrossRef]
25. El Naggar, M.H.; Novak, M. Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile response. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 1996, 15, 233–244.
[CrossRef]
26. Gerolymos, N.; Gazetas, G. Phenomenological model applied to inelastic response of soil-pile interaction systems. Soils Found.
2005, 45, 119–132. [CrossRef]
27. Allotey, N.; El Naggar, M.H. Generalized dynamic Winkler model for nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis. Can. Geotech. J.
2008, 45, 560–573. [CrossRef]
28. Heidari, M.; El Naggar, M.H.; Jahanandish, M.; Ghahramani, A. Generalized cyclic p-y curve modeling for analysis of laterally
loaded piles. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 63, 138–149. [CrossRef]
29. Liang, F.Y.; Chen, H.B.; Jia, Y.J. Quasi-static p-y hysteresis loop for cyclic lateral response of pile foundations in offshore platforms.
Ocean Eng. 2018, 148, 62–74. [CrossRef]
30. Wu, K.; Chen, R.; Li, S. Finite element modeling of horizontally loaded monopile foundation of large scale offshore wind turbine
in non-homogeneity clay. IEEE Softw. 2009, 2, 329–333.
31. Abdel-Rahman, K.; Achmus, M. Numerical modeling of the combined axial and lateral loading of vertical piles. In Proceedings of
the 6th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Graz, Austria, 6–8 September 2006; pp. 575–581.
32. Haiderali, A.; Madabhushi, G. Three-dimensional finite element modelling of monopiles for offshore wind turbines. In Pro-
ceedings of the World Congress on Advances in Civil, Environmental and Materials Research, Seoul, Korea, 26–29 August 2012;
pp. 3277–3295.
33. Haiderali, A.; Cilingir, U.; Madabhushi, G. Lateral and axial capacity of monopiles for offshore wind turbines. Indian Geotech. J.
2013, 43, 181–194. [CrossRef]
34. Cheng, X.L.; Wang, T.J.; Zhang, J.X.; Liu, Z.X.; Cheng, W.L. Finite element analysis of cyclic lateral responses for large diameter
monopiles in clays under different loading patterns. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 134, 104104. [CrossRef]
35. Achmus, M.; Abdel-Rahman, K.; Kuo, Y.S. Numerical modelling of large diameter steel piles under monotonic and cyclic
horizontal loading. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Rhodes,
Greece, 25–27 April 2007; Taylor Francis: London, UK, 2007; pp. 453–459.
36. Heidari, M.; Jahanandish, M.; El Naggar, H.; Ghahramani, A. Nonlinear cyclic behavior of laterally loaded pile in cohesive soil.
Can. Geotech. J. 2014, 51, 129–143. [CrossRef]
37. Hong, Y.; He, B.; Wang, L.Z.; Wang, Z.; Ng, W.W.C.; Masin, D. Cyclic lateral response and failure mechanisms of semi-rigid pile in
soft clay: Centrifuge tests and numerical modelling. Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 54, 806–824. [CrossRef]
38. He, B.; Lai, Y.; Wang, L.; Hong, Y.; Zhu, R. Scour effects on the lateral behavior of a large-diameter monopile in soft clay: Role of
stress history. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 170. [CrossRef]
39. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp. Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual Version 6.14; Simulia: Johnston, RI, USA, 2014.
40. Murff, J.D.; Hamilton, J.M. P-ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles. J. Geotech. Eng. 1993, 119, 91–107. [CrossRef]