Model Studies on Monopile Foundation Systems

under Long-Term Repeated Lateral Loads

Project Advisor:
DR. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Project Members:
AQIB HUSSAIN
(2012-GE-03)
BURHAN ALI
(2012-GE-16)
ASAD YOUSAF
(2012-GE-18)
MUHMMAD AWAIS
(2012-GE-21)

Geological Engineering Department

University of Engineering & Technology Lahore, Pakistan

Declaration

A thesis submitted to the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the bachelor's degree
MAY, 2015

The research for this thesis was conducted at the Geological Engineering Department
University of Engineering & Technology Lahore, Pakistan, under the supervision of
DR. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

DEDICATION

We dedicate all our efforts to:

Allah Almighty,
The creator of the universe,

The Holy Prophet (SallallahoAlaiheWa-AalheWasallam),

The cause of the creation of the universe,

Our teachers,
The light of knowledge in darkness of ignorance

Our parents,
The symbol of love and kindness

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are grateful to Allah, the most Gracious and the most Merciful, who enabled us to do this
work. Without His grace and mercy, this work would have not been accomplished. All the
respect is for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who is, forever, a torch of guidance and
light of knowledge for mankind.
We are obliged to our respectable project advisor Dr. MUHMMAD ARSHAD, who helped us at
every stage during the project. He instructed us how to initiate the project, in making of
instrument, while completing the project and provision of data for this study. He also guided us
for the preparation of this thesis. Whenever we needed help for any kind of information
regarding our project, he always welcomed us and provided the necessary information.
We would like to thank all those, not mentioned, who contributed valuable comments and
assistance for successful compilation of this project work.

AQIB HUSSAIN
BURHAN ALI
ASAD YOUSAF
MUHMMAD AWAIS

Summary
Wind energy plants, dolphins, and many other ocean engineering structures are supported on
large diameter rigid monopiles. For such structures lateral loads are more critical for the design
and analysis compared with the gravitational loads and foundation piles are required to withstand
a large number of repeated lateral load cycles during their design life. In such applications, the
lateral forces and bending moments resulting from wind/wave loadings must be economically
and safely transferred to the sea bed. Such requirements make the pile response deformation
sensitive in addition to be capacity profound. The behaviour of large diameter rigid monopiles in
general, under long-term low-amplitude repeated lateral loading, is not well documented.
Existing methods for estimating the accumulated lateral strain (rotation) response of monopiles
are based on very limited field/experimental laboratory data and are currently not capable of
explicitly accounting for site-specific soil properties and loading characteristics.

The lateral load-carrying capacity of a pile depends on its geometry (dimensions), the soil
properties and type of loading. In order to improve its load carrying capacity, it is necessary
either to change the properties of the near-surface layers of soil or to change its geometry. This
thesis presents model studies investigating a novel technique to limit the lateral deflection
(rotation) of a monopile under long-term cyclic lateral loading. The technique provides enhanced
restraint of the monopole through the installation of three shorter piles, arranged in a cruciform
at 1200.

To improve the lateral load carrying capacity of the monopiles, tests were carried out using
different pile arrangements/configurations: the first one relates to the geometric modification of
the monopolies head through ring-arm arrangement; and the second one is related to the
installation of the small diameter piles in the form of concentric rings around the monopile in dry
sand. Experimental results showed that both of these methods had substantially reduced the
rotation of the monopile from its initial vertical alignment when subjected to thousands of
repeated lateral load cycles under a range of loading conditions.

Chapter 1
Introduction
There has been a rapid growth in the use of offshore (and onshore) wind farms for the production
of clean and renewable energy. wind energy plays an increasingly important role in the global
energy landscape as it is one of the energy sources that has less impact on nature. The growing
wind energy demand has led to a great development of the technology of wind turbines and the
supporting columns, seeking to greater energy production, a reduction in installation costs and
cheaper maintenance. Due to the existence of better wind resources in high sea locations, the
wind farms are now moving further away from the shore, into deeper water depths and
increasing distances from land. These requires new challenging conditions for wind turbines
projects, that now must be design to resist to some of the most severe conditions existent in the
globe, i.e. offshore environment.
In fact, wind power is now seen as one of the most promising renewable energy sources,
characterized by a mature technology developed mainly in the EU and the USA. The onshore
wind farms technologies are in a higher development stage, so it becomes common to see this
turbines as a part of a countryside, in small or big groups. This is evident in countries like
Portugal and Spain, but mostly in other European countries like Denmark, Germany and The
Netherlands, where the development of the wind energy started earlier.
For the objective of obtaining larger amounts of energy, the improving of the equipment related
to the exploration of wind resources was needed but not sufficient, so investors started thinking
about putting turbines in an offshore environment, due to offshore wind potential being much
higher than onshore, as well as there being still many areas close to the coast line with potential
to be explored. Wind power has a great potential because it is a non-polluting and inexhaustible
source, and an excellent alternative, in environmental terms, to conventional electricity
production. For this reason, onshore and offshore wind energy have a promising future, globally.
The offshore wind farms have a clear number of advantages, such as:

the wind tends to blow with more strength and stability at the sea, which generally
increase with distance from the shore, resulting in considerably higher production of
energy per unit installed;
less turbulence from the wind reduces the fatigue loads on the turbine;
lower wind-shear, which allows the use of shorter towers;
the size of an offshore wind turbine is not limited, since it is easier to transport very large
turbine components by sea;

the visual and noise impacts of wind turbines can be avoided if the turbines are installed
at a sufficient distance from shore;
large continuous areas are available, so the installations will not occupy and interfere
with land

Offshore wind turbines park

There are also other factors not mentioned above which need to be taken into account before the
installation of the turbines in a marine environment.

Water depth is a very important element for the project because of the investment costs;
Average wind speed is at least more than 7 m / s;
Study the terrain properties of the ocean floor must be done through a geological
analysis;
Examination of the wind speeds and directions on the local project;
Investigation of the wave height and period on the respective site location;

The economic development of wind farms depends on efficient solutions being available for a
number of technical issues, one aspect being the foundations. Offshore wind-turbine (OWT)
structures may be found on gravity base, suction caisson, monopile, tripod or braced frame
(jacket) foundations or, more recently, using floating platforms tethered to the seabed (Figure 1).
The foundation choice largely depends on the water depth, seabed characteristics, loading
characteristics, available construction technologies, and importantly, economic costs (Malhotra
2011).

Fig. 1 Support structure options showing their range of applicable water depths.

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 aerodynamic load cycles) and/or operation of
the installed machinery (Figure 2).
The lateral loading is essentially cyclic in nature and typically of low amplitude. For
geotechnical design, the proportion and importance of the different loading types essentially
depend upon the kind of foundation system being considered.
For gravity-base foundations, potential failure modes may be in bearing capacity or excess
settlement; hence, the vertical load is generally the major design consideration (Malhotra 2011).
For monopile foundations, 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.

Fig. 2 Environmental impacts on offshore wind turbine

For offshore wind turbine (OWT) structures, the horizontal/lateral loads (and resulting moments
about the foundation) are generally large in proportion to the gravitational loads (Byrne and
Houlsby 2003). The foundation design is dominated by considerations of the dynamic response
and fatigue under working loads, rather than ultimate loading conditions.
Monopile foundations for OWTs typically have an embedment lengthtoouter diameter ratio
(L/D) of less than 10, categorizing them as rigid piles (Tomlinson 2001; Peng et al. 2011; DNV
2011). Hence, they are more prone to rotation from their initial vertical alignment (as compared
to deflection) under the action of the repeating lateral loads and moments (Haiderali et al. 2014).
Current pile design methodology based on py curves, as presented in the American Petroleum
Institute (API 2010) and Det Norske Veritas (DNV 2011) codes, has gained widespread
recognition on account of the low failure rate of in-service piles, evidenced over many decades
(Arshad and OKelly 2013).
However, the API (2010) and DNV (2011) guidelines for monopile design mainly rely on
methods developed using empirical data obtained for long flexible piles for which bending is
generally critical. Hence, design criteria and analyses for rigid pile scenarios cast considerable
doubt on the application of such methods for OWT monopiles. Further, the py curves for
repeated lateral loading presented in the API (2010) and DNV (2011) do not provide the means
of calculating the accumulated pile displacement (rotation), and they always imply stiffness

degradation of the soilpile foundation system as a result of long-term repeated lateral loading,
irrespective of soil type or soil state. However, this is contrary to experimental observations
documented by LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya et al. (2011), Bhattacharya and Adhikari
(2011), Cullar et al. (2012), and Arshad and OKelly (2014, 2016a).
Further, disputing interpretations regarding stiffness determination are not uncommon in the
literature, possibly due to discrepancies in the terminology used by the different researchers. For
instance, the term stiffness has been reported in some literature without specifying whether it
relates to the absolute secant, tangent, or cyclic stiffness scenario. The following are also
common open questions in implementing the py method for the analysis of OWT monopile
foundations: (1) influence of vertical pile load on the lateral response of the soilpile system, (2)
diameter effect on the initial stiffness of the py curves, (3) choice of horizontal earth pressure
coefficient, (4) pilehead fixity, (5) pile installation effects, and (6) shearing force developed at
the pile base.
The inadequacy of the current py methodology for predicting the response of rigid monopiles
under repeated lateral loading has been reported by many researchers (e.g., Haiderali and
Madabhushi 2013; Lau et al. 2014; Arshad and O'Kelly 2016b; OKelly and Arshad 2016),
which has led to the development of new models for obtaining better predictions of the strain
accumulation in the soil surrounding the monopile, with due consideration of the soilpile
interaction. However, the proposed models also have inherent limitations. For instance, the
models proposed by Little and Briaud (1988), Long and Vanneste (1994), and Lin and Liao
(1999) are based on limited numbers of lateral load cycles N (<100) applied to long flexible piles
installed in sandy soil, with these models always suggesting degradation of the soilpile system
under the repeating loads.
The model proposed by Klinkvort and Hededal (2013) is based on a maximum of 500 load
cycles performed at a single value of loading frequency and for a particular soil density.
Although based on many thousands of load cycles, the model proposed by LeBlanc et al. (2010)
appears to be unrealistic because it always predicts zero displacement (rotation) of the monopile
under two-way balanced repeat loading.
This experiment presents an experimental study performed on a scaled rigid monopile subjected
to long-term repeated lateral loading. The experimental results are discussed in relation to
various controversial issues relating to the long-term performance of monopile foundations under
repeated lateral loading.
A new experimental model is proposed to estimate the accumulated rotation of the monopile,
adequately incorporating many thousands of load cycles of different load amplitude and cyclic
character. Different shapes of the lateral soil resistance (LSR) profile are evaluated on the basis
of bending strain data obtained along the embedded length of the instrumented monopile.

Chapter 2

Literature Review
The preferred foundation solution for a particular offshore structure depends, among other
factors, on the local soil conditions, water depth, anticipated loading and financial constraints
(Malhotra, 2010). Large-diameter monopiles are a frequently used foundation system for
offshore wind turbines and other offshore structures. Offshore wind far ms often contain many
hundreds of turbines supported at heights of typically 3080 m above mean sea level. The
preferred foundation type for these tall structures in water depths of up to 3040 m is largediameter monopoles, owing to their ease of construction and installation. These monopiles are
subjected to large cyclic lateral and moment loads, in addition to axial loads, as documented by
LeBlanc et al. (2010), Bhattacharya et al. (2011) and Cullar (2011). However, their lateral loadcarrying resistance may not be sufficient to withstand prolonged impact under large wind and
wave loading. A solution may be achieved by simply increasing the physical dimensions of the
monopole, but this may not be economically or practically feasible. Thus, a range of different
foundation solutions for, or modifications of, the monopiles are being investigated by different
researchers.
Modification of the conventional monopile geometry by the attachment of wings close to the
pilehead, in order to increase the lateral load-carrying capacity and stiffness of the foundation
system for weaker soil conditions (close to the mudline), has been investigated by many
researchers using small-scale tests in sand under the nor mal gravitational (1 g) condition
(Dhrkop and Grabe, 2008; Nasr, 2014; Peng et al. , 2011) and in centrifuge facilities (Bienen et
al. , 2012). These researchers found that, with the wings attached, the pilehead deflection
substantially reduces (by 5070%) and the ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity increases by
up to 80%, depending on the length of the wings compared with the length of the monopile, the
shape of the wings and the soil properties.
Another alteration, comprising a monopile combined with a footing base, has also been
proposed. Initial model tests performed in sand at 1 g were reported by Stone et al. (2007), with
apparently promising results, suggesting that the additional rotation restraint provided by the
footing can result in a stiffer lateral response and greater ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity.
Peng et al. (2011) performed small scale tests on a regular monopile and three winged model
piles with different wing lengths. They used dry sandy soil with a relative density value of
approximately 71.7%, and applied 10000 load cycles in each test in the lateral direction. The
variables applied in the study were loading frequency, direction, themagnitude of load, and the
type of pile tip. The efficiency of the wings under repeated loading was related to the vertical
displacement, the number of cycles, and the pile head load~displacement curves. The results

show that wings reduce the lateral displacement by at least 50% provided they are at least half
the length of the regular pile. Peng et al. (2010) have also shown the effectiveness of the wings
attached to a regular monopole through a 3D numerical study. The efficiency of the winged
piles was found to increase as the length of the wings, however the increase was independent of
the loading direction relative to the wings

Fig 3 effect of different wings on load displacement curves of the monopole.

Arshi et al. (2013) performed tests in sand at 1 g by adding skirts of different lengths to these
piled footings. Their results indicated that increasing the skirt length tends to increase the
ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity of the foundation system by about 50% compared with the
nonskirted hybrid system.

Bienen et al. (2012) presented results from a series of model tests, maintaining stress similitude
with the prototype, in which the performance of a pile with wings was evaluated and compared
with that of regular monopiles. Increasing the effective pile cross-section by attaching wings
close to the pile head is shown to reduce pilehead deflections by approximately 50%, when
compared with a regular monopile without wings for the same load level. The stiffer initial
response of the winged pile also leads to smaller pilehead deflections under cyclic loading,
although the relative rate of accumulation is similar to that of a monopile.

This study presents an experimental investigation performed to explore the possibility of

pilehead modification to reduce the accumulated rotation of a monopile under long-term cyclic
lateral loading. The novel solution proposed comprises four shorter SDPs, arranged in a
cruciform, which attach by way of a grillage to the pilehead at the mudline level. On the basis of
encouraging results, it can be expected that this novel technique may prove to be a viable
solution to enhance the serviceable life of structures supported by monopiles that are subjected to
long-term cyclic lateral loading, such as offshore wind-turbine structures (OWTs)

Chapter 3
Development of a Loading System and RAN arrangement to Study Model Pile
Behaviour under Lateral Loads
Governing loading for OWT monopile foundation system

Offshore wind-turbine monopiles are typically manufactured from steel tubular sections with an
outer diameter (D) of up to 75 m, wall thicknesses of up to 150 mm and embedment depths of
between 15 and 30 m (Achmus et al. , 2009). Monopile foundations are generally used in
shallow water depths (i.e. typically < 30 m), generally becoming too flexible for water depths of
between 30 and 40 m, in which case monopiles fitted with guy wires or tripod solutions are
considered as economical alternatives. For greater water depths, time-consuming installation and
the effects of soil degradation (potholing) that occurs in-service at mudline level around the
pile make monopile foundations prohibitive (Irvine et al. ,2003).
Other foundation options, as discussed by Arshad and OKelly (2013, 2016a) and OKelly and
Arshad (2016), are then considered to be viable. The serviceability limit state islargely
determined by the lateral deflection (rotation) response of the monopile under many millions of
load cycles; for example, over the service life of a 2 MW OWT structure, 107 lateral load cycles
of 14 MN magnitude (corresponding to the fatigue loading for design) are expected to occur
(Germanischer Lloyd, 2005).
The monopile must mobilise sufficient soil resistance over its embedded length to transfer all
types of applied loads to the surrounding soil, with adequate safety factors, and prevent toe
kick (displacement of the pile base) and excessive deflection/ rotation of the pile itself.
According to current practice, monopiles are analysed for the axial loads to determine their
bearing capacity and settlement responses, and then separately for the lateral loads to determine
their lateral load-carrying capacity and flexural behaviour (Karthigeyan et al. , 2006;
Moayed et al. , 2012; Rahim and Stevens, 2013). Compared with the axial loads, the lateral loads
are considered to be governing, as mentioned in several design guidelines (API, 2010; DNV,
2011; Germanischer Lloyd, 2005) and documented by many researchers (Achmus, 2010;
Bhattacharya et al., 2013; Carswell et al. , 2015; Haiderali et al. , 2013; Kuo et al., 2012; Leblanc
et al., 2010; Lombardi et al. , 2013; Malhotra, 2010; Nicolai and Ibsen, 2014; Peng et al. , 2011;
Zhu et al., 2013).
In other words, the required size and embedment length of the monopile is generally dictated by
the applied lateral loads and moments. Hence, the experimental work presented in this study
focuses on the enhancement of the lateral stability of the conventional monopile, with a novel

modification to the pilehead proposed, namely four SDPs arranged in a cruciform that attach by
way of a grillage to the pilehead.
Geometric details of proposed arrangement

Figure shows a schematic diagram of the proposed arrangement, which consists of a central
split-able ring with four radial steel arms, each fitted with a smaller diameter ring (sleeve ring)
at its far end. The two halves of the central ring, manufactured from 30 mm wide 2 mm thick
steel strip, are secured together by way of their collars, using M4 nutbolts, clamping around the
head of the monopile (D = 53 mm). Four radial struts welded to the central ring, each having
length, width and thickness dimensions of 85, 20 and 2 mm, respectively, were arranged in a
cruciform, making the four arms.

Figure.4 Schematic diagram of cruciform attachment for

monopile: (a) plan view; (b) side view

The far end of each of these ar ms was connected by an M4 nutbolt to a sleeve ring,
manufactured from 25 mm wide 2 mm thick steel strip. The connections between the radial ar ms
and sleeve rings allowed changes to be made to the inclination of the SDPs that were housed in
these rings.
The sleeve rings were equipped with jacking screws (see Figure 2) that allowed the required
adjustments to be made to the solid SDPs (D = 19 mm; i.e. 36% of the monopile diameter)
during their installation in the sand beds (described later). Figure 3 shows the arrangement
centred on the monopile, with the four solid SDPs aligned vertically and attachment by way of a
grillage to the pilehead. Hereafter, the central split-able ring (holding the monopile) and the four
radial arms holding the SDPs are collectively termed as the piled-cruciform arrangement
Working mechanism of pile cruciform arrangement
The soils around the monopile are influenced by the cyclic lateral loading (Bhattacharya and
Adhikari, 2011; Bhattacharya et al., 2011; Cullar et al., 2012; LeBlanc et al. , 2010; Rosquoet et
al., 2007). For sandy soil, it can be argued that the zone of significant influence remains limited
to within 23D, as evident from the formation of a cone of depression observed at the sand bed
surface level around the monopole during 1 g testing (Brown et al. , 1988; Cullar et al. , 2012).
For lateral loading, the upper part of the soil deposit around the monopile is more critical than
the lower part, owing to the greater level of deflection occurring closer to the pilehead
(Nasr, 2014; Zhang et al. , 2005). Conceptually, the piled-cruciform attachment is designed to
transfer some of the applied lateral load away from the zone of significant influence for the
monopile.
Under the action of the applied lateral loading/moments, the monopile and piled-cruciform
attachment tend to deflect (rotate), with resistance provided by the passive pressures
(forces/moments) mobilized along the embedded length of the monopile and four SDPs (the
latter are transmitted by way of the cruciform arms to the pilehead).
Through this arrangement, the stress intensity is reduced in the immediate vicinity of the
monopile, thereby lowering strain in the surrounding soil, as compared with the monopile alone
under the same magnitude of lateral load. Further, instead of having a free pilehead, the
rotation is restrained by the cruciform arms.
The proposed set-up also produces a significant increase in the bending stiffness, as compared
with the conventional monopile. For instance, considering the structural elements in the present
experimental set-up, the second moment of area about the centroidal axis of the 53 mm diameter
hollow monopile was 85104 mm4, whereas its value was increased to 90106 mm4 at the
mudline level when fitted with the piled-cruciform attachment; that is, 105 times greater and
lateral deflections and rotation responses of the pile (Figure 5), are presented in Arshad and
OKelly (2014).

The model pile was manufactured from steel, having an overall length of 1220 mm, outer
diameter of 450 mm and wall thickness of 145 mm,. Geometrically, the pile set-up, with an
embedment length (L) to outer diameter (D) ratio of 68 at the start of each loading test
performed, is categorised as a short rigid pile, which encompasses L/D ratios of up to 10
(DNV, 2011; Peng et al. , 2011; Tomlinson, 2001).
The model pile was partially embedded in dense sand beds prepared in a 095 m diameter by 06
m deep steel tank. These dimensions were chosen to ensure that under the static and cyclic lateral
loading scenarios investigated in the present study, the failure wedge around the pile would not
extend to the tank boundaries. With a ratio of tank diameter to pile diameter of almost 18, side
wall boundary effects were not considered to be significant (Davie and Sutherland, 1978; Rao et
al.,1996). Similarly, a soil cushion (sand in the present case) Q3 having a thickness of 34D
located below the pile tip was considered sufficient to absorb the small vertical stress field
(LeBlanc et al. , 2010).

Chapter 4
Experimental Investigations
Introduction
A schematic diagram of the ring-arm arrangement (RA-arrangement) is shown in Figure , which
consists of a central split-able ring and three steel arms, each one containing one smaller
diameter ring (sleeve ring) at their far end. The central split-able ring was manufactured from a
mild steel strip of 30 mm in width and 2 mm in thickness. The two halves of the central ring
were clamped through their side collars, making a circular ring around the monopile, which has
an outer diameter of 45 mm. Four M4 nut-bolts were used to affix them together, two on either
side of the collars. Three struts, each with length, width and thickness equal to 90, 20 and 2 mm,
respectively, were welded to the central split-able ring at a120 angle from one another, making
the three four arms.

The other ends of each of these three arms were connected by an M4 nut-bolt to the three smaller
rings (19 mm internal diameter), which were manufactured from mild steel strips of 25 mm in
width and 2 mm in thickness. The connection between the arm and smaller rings allowed
changes to be made to the inclination (with respect to the plumb line) of the small diameter piles
(SDPs) housed in these rings (sleeve rings). The smaller rings were equipped with jacking
screws that allowed the required adjustments to be made to the SDPs while fixing their position
into them. Figure 6.8 shows the RA-arrangement containing the monopile at its centre and the

three SDPs surrounding it. Hereafter, the central split-able ring (to hold the monopile), and the
three arms with the smaller diameter sleeve rings containing the SDPs, will be collectively
termed as the RA-arrangement.
Small diameter piles (SDPs) are commonly known as micropiles have been used for structural
support and less frequently for in-situ reinforcement. Structural support includes new
foundations (Juran et al., 1999; Alsaleh and Shahrour, 2009), underpinning of existing
foundations (Ousta and Shahrour, 2001), seismic retrofitting applications (Russo, 2004; Sadek
and Shahrour, 2004) and earth retention (Misra et al., 2004; Shields, 2007). Under this category
the micropiles directly support the applied loading and/or behave as an integral part of the main
foundation system.
Intended working mechanism of the RA-arrangement
Sandy soils around the monopile are influenced by repeated lateral loads, However, the zone of
significant influence remains limited to within 23 times the monopile diameter, as is evident from the
formation of a cone of depression at the sand surface around the monopile. In case of a laterally loaded
pile, the upper part of the soil around the pile is more critical than that of the lower part due to its greater
level of deflection (Zhang et al., 2005; Nasr, 2014).
The RA-arrangement is designed to transfer the applied stresses away from the zone of significant
influence. Through this, the stress intensity around the monopile is reduced, thereby lowering strain in the
surrounding soil to a relatively mild level. In addition to this, the RA-arrangement causes significant
increases in the bending stiffness of the pile when compared to a conventional monopile.
For instance, the second moment of inertia for a conventional monopile (about its centroidal axis) at the
sand surface level is 44,700 mm4, whereas the RA-arrangement yields a corresponding value of 5,108,480
mm4, i.e., more than 114 times increase. As the pile tends to rotate under the action of the horizontal
loads/moments, the RA-arrangement imparts an additional restoring moment to the foundation system.

Sand characterisation

All of the tests performed used commercially available air dried sand, comprising sub-angular to
angular grains ranging from 0075 to 0.2 mm in size, with d10, d30, d50 and d60 values of 015,
016, 018 and 019 mm, respectively, giving a coefficient of uniformity value of 126 and
coefficient of curvature value of 089. Furthermore, the sand had minimum and dry density
values of 1477kg/m3

120%
100%
80%
% finner 60%
Series1

40%
20%
0%
0.01

0.1

1
Grain size(mm)

10

Direct shear

Sand bed preparation

Furthermore, the sand bed was prepared in different layers. After each layer compaction was
done and then again filling was done.

Monopile installation

Monopile Central split-able ring Arm Smaller ring SDP pile was positioned vertically at the
centre of the tank, with temporary support to its head provided by four tensioned horizontal steel
wires that were secured radially from the wall of the tank. After fixing the monopole ,tank was
filled in different layers as shown in figure below

SDPS installation
After the preparation of the sand bed and the installation of the monopile, the central split-able
ring containing the four arms was clamped around the monopile using the four M4 nut-bolts, two
of which were used on the either side collar of the central ring. The height of the central ring was
adjusted in such a way that the arms were just above the finished sand surface level in the sand
tank.
Pics of monopile with rings in sand

In the next step, the SDPs were pushed into the sand bed through the smaller rings (sleeve rings)
up to the desired embedded length. Jacking screws were used to achieve a rigid connection and
fine adjustment of the SDPs. The different stages of the fixing of the RA- arrangement and the
installation of the SDPs

Pics of monopile with sdps in sand

Dial gauge installation and fixing

After the installation of monopole, filling of sand, SDPs installation, dial gauge were installed
around the monopile. Two dial gauges were installed to measure the upper and lower deflection
readings as shown in fig below

Testing programme
To evaluate the efficiency of the newly developed RA-arrangement, a comprehensive testing
programme, comprising of a series of sets of repeated lateral load tests, were performed on the
wished in place monopile installed in dry sand beds.
The tests performed are identified as follows: lateral loading direction (1w, one-way)/load
amplitude (N)/frequency (Hz). For instance, 1w/15/05 indicates one-way loading, with an
amplitude of 60 kg and frequency of 05 Hz. 1w/1-15/05 indicates one-way lateral loading, with
the load fluctuating from 1 to 15kg from the same side at 05 Hz

Table

In relation to the RA-arrangement, five different configurations were considered, depending

upon:
(1) ratio of embedded lengths of the SDPs (LSDP) to that of the monopile (L);
(2) inclination of the SDPs from the initial plumb line; and
(3) orientation of the RA- arrangement with respect to the line of action of the repeated lateral
loads.
These configurations are listed and described in Table 6.2. During each test, 12000 load cycles
were applied to the pilehead at the same height above the sand surface level, as with the
reference tests conducted on the regular monopile.

Pics

Procedure for the lateral load test on model monopole

The lateral deflection response of the pilehead was monitored using two horizontally mounted
displacement transducers (Figure ), with the transducer readings allowed to stabilise before the
application of the next load increment. The rotation response of the rigid pile was calculated using these
displacement measurements, as described in Arshad and O Kelly (2014).
Different assumptions have been used by researchers regarding the determination of the ultimate static
lateral load-carrying capacity, although they are generally based on excessive lateral displacement of the
pilehead or rotation of the pile (Hu et al., Q4 2006; Nasr, 2014; Peng et al., 2011). Some researchers
determine the value of Pu as corresponding to a point on the load deflection (rotation) curve where the
pile starts to deflect (rotate) significantly for a relatively small increase in the lateral load (Dickin and
Laman, 2003; Prasad and Chari, 1999).