Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Submitted: 12 January 2020
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 27 July 2020
Manuscript title: Application of the PISA Design Model to Monopiles Embedded in
Layered Soils
Authors: Harvery J. Burd*, Christelle N. Abadie†, Byron W. Byrne*, Guy T. Houlsby*,
Christopher M. Martin*, Ross A. McAdam*, Richard J. Jardine‡, Antonio M. G. Pedro§,
David M. Potts‡, David M. G. Taborda‡, Lidija Zdravković‡ and Miguel Pacheco Andrade║
Affiliations: *Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, Oxford, UK;
†Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK; formerly Department
of Engineering Science, Oxford University, Oxford, UK; ‡Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK; §ISISE, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Portugal; formerly Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK and ║Ørsted Wind
Power, London, UK
Corresponding author: Byron W. Byrne, Department of Engineering Science, Oxford
University, Oxford, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Abstract

The PISA design model is a procedure for the analysis of monopile foundations for offshore

wind turbine applications. This design model has been previously calibrated for

homogeneous soils; this paper extends the modelling approach to the analysis of monopiles

installed at sites where the soil profile is layered. We describe a computational study on

monopiles embedded in layered soil configurations comprising selected combinations of soft

and stiff clay and sand at a range of relative densities. The study comprises (i) analyses of

monopile behaviour using detailed three dimensional (3D) finite element analysis, and (ii)

calculations employing the PISA design model. Results from the 3D analyses are used to

explore the various influences that soil layering has on the performance of the monopile. The

fidelity of the PISA design model is assessed by comparisons with data obtained from

equivalent 3D finite element analyses, demonstrating a good agreement in most cases. This

comparative study demonstrates that the PISA design model can be applied successfully to

layered soil configurations, except in certain cases involving combinations of very soft clay

and very dense sand.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
INTRODUCTION

Design procedures for monopile foundations for offshore wind turbine applications typically
employ simplified models to facilitate the development of practical designs. A widely-used
simplified procedure, known as the p-y method, employs a beam model for the monopile and
a Winkler representation of the pile-soil interaction. Nonlinear functions (p-y curves) are
specified to relate the pile displacement, y, to the local distributed lateral load, p, acting on
the embedded pile. Functional forms of the p-y curves, and calibration parameters for sand
and clay soil types, are specified in design guidance documents (e.g. API 2010, DNV 2016).

Although the p-y method is widely used for offshore monopile design, there is awareness that
standard forms of the method may not provide realistic representations of behaviour for the
relatively large diameter monopiles that are now employed for offshore wind turbine
applications. These concerns are informed by observations that the fundamental natural
frequencies of wind turbine support structures – measured via SCADA instrumentation – are
often systematically higher than those implied by the analysis models employed in the design
process. A summary of issues relating to the limitations of the p-y method for monopile
design is given in Doherty and Gavin (2011).

In response to perceived shortcomings of standard forms of the p-y method for monopile
design applications, a new design approach, termed the ‘PISA design model’ has recently
been developed (Burd et al., 2020b; Byrne et al., 2020b). This model, also referred to below
as the ‘one dimensional (1D) model’, was an outcome of a project – known as PISA – that
incorporated ground characterisation (Zdravkovic et al., 2020a), field testing (Burd et al.,
2020a; Byrne et al., 2020a; McAdam et al., 2020), three dimensional (3D) finite element
analysis (Zdravkovic et al., 2020b; Taborda et al., 2020) and design model development
(Byrne et al., 2020b; Burd et al., 2020b). The PISA design model employs the same basic
Winkler modelling concept that forms the basis of the p-y method, but extensions and
enhancements are incorporated to improve the model’s performance, notably by
incorporating additional soil reaction components (distributed moment, base horizontal force
and base moment). The design model is intended to be calibrated using bespoke 3D finite
element calibration analyses for specific site conditions, rather than relying on general
purpose calibration charts and correlations. This calibration procedure has been shown (Burd
et al., 2020b; Byrne et al., 2020b) to be effective in training the design model to provide high
fidelity representations of the performance of monopiles embedded in homogeneous soils –

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
as computed using 3D finite element analysis – for design conditions within the parameter
space employed in the calibration process.

In previous work (Burd et al., 2020b; Byrne et al., 2020b; AWG, 2018), PISA design model
calibrations were developed for representative offshore sites comprising a single,
homogeneous, soil type. In reality, however, offshore wind farm sites typically consist of
interbedded layers of soil with different geological origins. The current paper tests the
application of the PISA design model to these layered soil conditions by exploring the
hypothesis ‘soil reaction curves calibrated using homogeneous soil profiles can be employed,
directly, to conduct 1D analyses of monopiles embedded in a layered soil.’ This hypothesis
follows the early work of Reese et al. (1981) for more flexible slender piles appropriate to oil
and gas applications, though there is limited supporting evidence in the literature. Subsequent
studies by Georgiadis (1983) identified simplified methods to adapt standard p-y calculations
to account for layering; these have since been incorporated as an option into commercial
software (e.g. Isenhower et al., 2019). More recent work by Yang and Jeremic (2005)
explored pile response in two and three layer systems using finite element analyses,
identifying that layering generally has an effect but without providing specific design
recommendations. There are, however, surprisingly few comprehensive studies into the
general effect of soil layering on the lateral response of piles that could support the
development of new simplified design procedures for large diameter rigid monopiles for wind
turbines.

The current paper describes a study on the response an embedded monopile at offshore sites
where the soil consists of interbedded layers with different characteristics. A range of
idealised cases are considered, comprising combinations of homogeneous reference soils for
which PISA design model calibrations have previously been obtained. The reference soils
that have been employed (referred to here as ‘reference homogeneous soil models’) are (i) a
stiff overconsolidated clay till known as ‘Cowden till’ (Byrne et al., 2020b), (ii) a marine
sand known as ‘General Dunkirk Sand Model’ with relative density in the range
(Burd et al. 2020b) and (iii) a soft clay known as ‘Bothkennar clay’ (AWG,
2018). A set of 3D finite element analyses of the performance of monopiles embedded in the
idealised layered system cases has been conducted. Results from these analyses illustrate the
various influences that soil layering has on the monopile performance. Separately, the
performance of the embedded monopiles is computed using the PISA design model.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Comparison of the PISA analyses with the 3D finite element results facilitates an assessment
of the extent to which the PISA design model is a satisfactory surrogate for detailed 3D finite
element analyses, for monopiles embedded in layered soils.

The analyses presented in this paper relate to the idealised configuration shown in Fig. 1 in
which a hollow circular steel monopile of external diameter and uniform wall thickness t is
embedded to depth at a site consisting of an arbitrary arrangement of horizontal soil layers.
The monopile is loaded by a lateral load applied at a distance above the seabed (referred
to as ‘ground level’ in the current work). The analyses are for monotonic loading only,
although it is considered that small displacement secant stiffness data for monopile
foundations, implied by the model, are applicable to the assessment of the dynamic
performance of complete foundation – support structure systems. Design applications of the
PISA design model, and other essential detail relating to calibration procedures and
performance metrics, are discussed in detail by Byrne et al., (2020b) and Burd et al., (2020b).
Pile installation effects are not considered, with the pile being modelled as ‘wished in place’.

Technical advice on choice of layered soil configurations for consideration in the study was
provided by the Industry Partners (listed in the Acknowledgements).

MODELLING PROCEDURES

PISA design model

The PISA design model representation of an embedded monopile is illustrated in Fig. 2a. The
formulation and implementation of the model is described in Byrne et al. (2020b) and Burd et
al. (2020b). The monopile is modelled as a line of two-noded Timoshenko beam finite
elements. Nodes are generated at each soil layer boundary; within each layer the mesh is
defined to a desired level of refinement. Four components of soil reaction act on the pile
(distributed lateral load, , distributed moment, ; base horizontal force, , and base
moment, ). Relationships between these reactions and the local pile displacements, , and
cross-section rotations are represented by functions known as ‘soil reaction curves’.
Parameters are selected to calibrate the soil reaction curves for the particular soil type within
each layer. The soil response is implemented in the model via consistent two-noded soil finite

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
elements. Numerical solutions are obtained by employing four Gauss points within each pile
and soil element and computing equilibrium solutions by Newton Raphson iteration.

A conic function (Appendix A, Fig. A.1) is adopted to represent each of the four soil reaction
curves in the model in normalised form, ̅ ̅( ̅ ) employing the non-dimensional forms
listed in Table A.1. Separate normalisation frameworks are adopted for clay and sand soils.
The normalised soil reaction curves have four calibration parameters; , ̅ , ̅ , ; these
parameters in general vary with depth; functions describing these spatial variations – referred
to as ‘depth variation functions’ – are specified in Table A.2 for the reference homogeneous
soil models employed in the current study.

The PISA design model is calibrated by conducting a set of 3D finite element analyses for
monopiles embedded in a single soil type. Previous calibrations for the reference
homogeneous soil models employed the parameter space ⁄ ⁄
(Byrne et al., 2020b; Burd et al., 2020b; AWG, 2018). It is demonstrated in Byrne et al.
(2020b), Burd et al. (2020b) and AWG (2018) that for monopiles with characteristics that lie
within the calibration space, the relationships between the applied lateral load and the pile
ground-level pile displacement computed using 3D finite element analysis can be
represented – to a high fidelity – by the PISA design model.

For layered soil applications of the PISA design model, soil reaction curves are defined at
points along the embedded pile as follows. Firstly, the local soil type (clay or sand) is
identified. This determines which of the frameworks in Table A.1 is relevant. The local
normalised soil reaction curve parameters are then determined, employing appropriate depth
variation functions (Table A.2). Dimensioned soil reaction curves, are computed within the
model implementation on the basis of the dimensionless forms in Table A.1, employing the
local values of small strain shear modulus , triaxial compression undrained shear strength
and initial vertical effective stress (depending on the framework) and the mathematical
definition of the conic function (Byrne et al., 2020b). In other words, the original method
(calibrated for homogeneous soils) is simply applied locally at each level in the pile, even for
a non-homogeneous soil profile.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
3D finite element model

3D finite element analyses were conducted using the program ICFEP (Potts and Zdravkovic
1999). Clay layers (Cowden till, Bothkennar clay) are modelled using the extended
generalised nonlinear elasto-plastic Modified Cam Clay model that was previously employed
to analyse the PISA field tests (Zdravkovic et al. 2020b). The use of this constitutive model
to develop PISA design model calibrations for Cowden till and Bothkennar clay is described
in Byrne et al. (2020b) and AWG (2018) respectively. Sand layers are represented with the
bounding surface constitutive model that was employed to analyse the PISA test piles at the
Dunkirk site (Taborda et al., 2020) as well as forming the basis of the calibration process for
the General Dunkirk Sand Model (Burd et al., 2020b). Clay layers are treated as undrained;
sand layers are drained.

An example finite element mesh is shown in Fig. 2b. The models exploit symmetry and so
only one-half of the problem is discretised. The soil is represented with 20-noded hexahedral
isoparametric solid elements. The soil-pile interface is modelled using 16-noded zero-
thickness interface elements (Day and Potts, 1994), and the pile is modelled with 8-noded
shell elements (Schroeder et al., 2007). The pile is extended above ground level to provide a
convenient means of imposing the applied lateral load H (via prescribed displacements).
Constitutive parameters and analysis procedures are identical to those described by Byrne et
al. (2020b) (for Cowden till), AWG (2018) (for Bothkennar clay) and Burd et al. (2020b) (for
Dunkirk sand).

Reference displacements for monopile performance metrics

The performance of the monopile is characterised by the relationship between the applied
lateral load, , and the computed ground-level pile displacement (this is referred to as the
‘ response’). For the 3D analyses, is determined as the average of the horizontal
displacement on the front and back faces of the pile at ground level. Two reference
displacements are considered. Computed values of lateral load, , at an assumed ‘small
displacement’ ⁄ are employed to quantify the secant stiffness of the monopile
for low amplitude loading. Separate data on the lateral load, , computed at an assumed
‘ultimate displacement’ ⁄ are used to characterise the ultimate limit state of the
pile.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
SPECIFICATION OF THE LAYERED SOIL STUDY

Reference homogeneous soil models

Profiles of small strain shear modulus and (for the clay soils) undrained shear strength
for the reference homogeneous soil models are shown in Fig 3. For the General Dunkirk Sand
Model, data are shown for values of relative density at the two extremes of the calibrated
range, and Data on submerged unit weights and the values of
adopted in these models are specified in Appendix B.

Monopile configurations

Monopile configurations employed in the study are specified in Table 1. These configurations
(and the pile reference codes) are consistent with previous work (e.g. Burd et al., 2020b;
Byrne et al., 2020b). Most of the analyses employ a monopile with embedment ratio ⁄
. Two variants are considered; pile D2 (wall thickness ) and pile D2t (
). The thicker-walled variant was adopted in some cases to avoid unrealistically high
bending stresses developing in the pile wall. It should be noted that the original calibration of
the PISA design model employed monopiles with embedment ratio of either 2 or 6; the
⁄ piles adopted for the majority of the current analyses are therefore regarded as
independent of the calibration pile configurations. A more limited exploratory study of
layered soils was conducted on piles with embedment ratio ⁄ . This configuration was
motivated by current trends, reported by the Industry Partners, for the specification of pile
embedment ratios in the region of this value for the next generation of offshore windfarm
designs. Again, different wall thicknesses are adopted (C1 and C1t) for these exploratory
analyses.

Layered soil configurations

The layered soil configurations considered are illustrated in Fig. 4; they represent idealised
configurations of increasing complexity and realism. To specify these configurations the term
‘matrix’ is used to describe the principal soil type and the term ‘layer’ describes any
embedded or base layers that are present. Case A comprises two soil types with a boundary at
the pile mid-depth. Case B employs a single embedded layer within an otherwise
homogeneous matrix. In Case C, a layer is placed at – or just below – the pile base; this case
was used to investigate the potential benefits of extending a monopile into a relatively stiff

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
soil layer at depth. The Case D configurations comprise selected combinations of Cases B
and C. Case E is a set of more realistic multilayer systems.

Cases A to E are analysed with a monopile of embedment ratio ⁄ (piles D1 or D1t).

In a separate set of analyses - Case F – selected cases are reanalysed for a monopile with
⁄ (piles C1 or C1t).

These analysis cases have all been previously introduced in Byrne et al. (2019). Although the
analysis cases are the same, the analysis naming conventions have been modified for the
purpose of the current paper.

Layered soil model implementation

The initial stress, strength and stiffness profiles for the layered soil models are specified in
the 1D and 3D analyses as follows.

Initial pore pressures are hydrostatic. Profiles of initial vertical effective stress are
determined from the submerged unit soil weights for the reference soils (Table B.1).
Horizontal stresses (required for the 3D analyses) are evaluated using the values of
employed in the reference homogeneous soil models (Table B.1 and Fig. B.1).

Procedures are needed to determine the profile of small strain shear modulus and, for clay
layers, the profile of undrained shear strength, . Although and are specified in the
representative models as functions of depth (Fig. 3), and are in practice dependent on
the magnitude of the local stresses. In the current layered soil models, therefore, and
are considered to be functions of local mean effective stress, ( ) ( ). To implement
these functional relationships in the analyses, pairs of numerical data [ and [ are
determined from the reference homogeneous soil models at selected depths, . These data
pairs are used to specify piecewise linear functions to represent ( ) ( ). Piecewise
linear functions ( ) ( ) – for incorporation in the layered soil analysis models – are
then determined straightforwardly for layered soil cases by employing the mean effective
stress profile ( ) that corresponds to the previously-determined profile of vertical and
horizontal effective stresses.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
3D FINITE ELEMENT BASELINE ANALYSES

To provide baseline data for comparisons with the layered soil results, 3D finite element
analyses were conducted for each of the three reference homogeneous soil models employed
in the study. For Dunkirk sand, two cases are considered, and .
Calculations were conducted employing the piles C1, D2, D2t. Pile C1t was not included in
these baseline calculations.

Computed data for piles C1 and D2 are plotted in Fig. 5 for both the small and ultimate
displacement ranges. These piles exhibit a considerable range of initial stiffness and ultimate
capacity; piles embedded in Cowden till have the greatest initial secant stiffness whereas
piles embedded in Dunkirk sand, have the greatest ultimate capacity. Piles
embedded in Bothkennar clay lie at the lower end of the stiffness and capacity ranges in all
cases. Numerical data on reference lateral loads for these baseline analyses are listed in Table
2.

ASSESSMENT METRICS

Influence of soil layers

The influence of the embedded layer and/or base layer on the response computed1
using the 3D analyses is quantified at the reference ground-level pile displacements (
⁄ and ⁄ ) in terms of a ‘mobilisation index’ and an ‘influence factor’ IF
defined by,

(1)

where is the computed lateral load for the layered analysis at a particular reference ground-
level pile displacement; and are the computed lateral loads for the pile when
embedded in reference homogeneous soils corresponding to the matrix and layer respectively,

1
For the purpose of determining assessment metrics, reference values of lateral load, , are
determined from the 1D and 3D models at reference displacements ⁄ and
⁄ . The reference loads are referred to as being ‘computed’ on the basis that they
correspond to a computed output from the model at a specified value of .

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
at the same reference pile displacement (data on and correspond to the
baseline results in Table 2). Values of these metrics are determined separately at small
( ⁄ ) and ultimate ( ⁄ ) reference
pile displacements. A mobilisation index signifies that the layer has no effect on the
monopile performance; conversely signifies that the monopile behaviour is
determined entirely by the layer. In actual cases the mobilisation index is expected to lie in
the range (although exceptions can occur). The influence factor, , provides a
separate measure on the proportional change in computed lateral load associated with the
presence of the layer.

Values of the mobilisation indices and influence factors for all of the case A, B, C and D
analyses are listed in Table 3. For case A the lower soil is arbitrarily considered to be ‘layer’
and the upper soil ‘matrix’. It can be seen that the mobilisation factor varies from less than
5% (9 out of 24 cases for and 4 out of 24 cases for ), indicating that the layer has
only a small influence, to over 30% (2 out of 24 cases for and 6 out of 24 cases for
), in which the strength and stiffness of the layer is clearly significant. In two cases, both
involving a clay layer at or near the tip of a pile in sand, the computed effect of the layer at
the ultimate displacement appears to be ‘negative’ (i.e. the overall capacity is enhanced
despite being lower than ); these cases are discussed in further detail later.

Comparisons between the PISA design model and equivalent 3D finite element analyses

To quantify the extent to which the PISA model is able to mimic the response
computed using 3D finite analysis, an ‘accuracy metric’, – consistent with previous work
Byrne et al. (2020b) – is employed. The accuracy metric is defined (Fig. 6) as,

(2)

An accuracy metric of indicates a perfect match between the 1D and 3D models.

Two sets of have been determined. A small displacement accuracy metric, , is evaluated
for ; an ultimate displacement accuracy metric, is determined for
.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
A separate measure – referred to as the ‘ratio metric’ - is determined from the computed
values of lateral load, , at the reference ground-level displacements as,

( ) (3)
( )

( ) ( )
where and are values of lateral load computed with the 1D and 3D models
respectively (Fig. 6). Values of ratio metric are determined at the small and ultimate
displacement reference pile displacements ( and respectively). Data on ratio and
accuracy metrics for all of the analyses in the current study are listed in Table 4. For
comparison purposes, averages of the ratio and accuracy metrics for all homogeneous soil
calculations previously completed in connection with the development of the PISA design
model (Byrne et al., 2019) are also provided in the table.

LAYERED SOIL ANALYSES

Overview

The current study had the twin aims of (a) exploring the performance of the PISA design
model for a wide range of realistic soil layering conditions, and (b) identifying cases where
the approach adopted in the current form of the model – in which homogeneous soil reaction
curves are assigned to each of the layers - appears to have limitations.

Data on the full set of 35 analysis configurations considered in the study (Table 4) indicate
that in all cases the small displacement accuracy metric, , is 0.9 or better, demonstrating
that the 1D model matches closely the equivalent 3D finite element calculation for
. There is a greater variation in the ultimate displacement metrics; for the majority
of the analyses (26 cases) ; for 8 cases and there is a single
case (F5, discussed later) for which .

Summary discussions are provided below on each of the layered soil configurations that have
been considered. These discussions deliberately focus on cases where the PISA design model
performed less well.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Case A: Two layer systems

Four analyses employing the configuration in Fig 4(A) have been conducted, as specified in
Table 5. Combinations of soils in which lower layers are stronger than upper ones (e.g. as
quantified by the relative magnitudes of in Table 2) are employed, reflecting the likely
conditions at most sites. Pile D2 was employed for cases A1 and A4; the thicker-walled
variant D2t was selected for cases A2 and A4 on the basis of initial assessments using the 1D
model.
( )
Values of computed at small and ultimate reference displacements are listed in Table 4.
Corresponding data on mobilisation index, , and influence factor, , are listed in Table 3.
Data on mobilisation factor all lie in the range indicating that the computed
response is intermediate between the relevant baseline data.

The PISA design model accuracy metrics, Table 4, indicate that cases A2, A3 and A4 all
have both and . The computed response for case A2 is plotted
in Fig. 7b, indicating the closeness of the match between the 1D and 3D models. For case A1,
although a close match with the 3D model is obtained at small displacements ( )
the ultimate response accuracy metric ( ) is not quite so good. Case A1 involves
the combination Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand, . These soils lie at opposite
( )
extremes of the strength range, as indicated in Fig. 5 and by the baseline data on in
Table 2; combinations of these two soils were consistently found in the current work to
present a challenging test of the 1D model.

Fig. 7 also provides comparisons of the bending moments in the embedded piles, computed
from the 1D and 3D analyses, for cases A1 and A2. These bending moment data relate to the
( )
load ( ) computed from the 3D finite element calculation at , and also
( )
. The bending moment data computed from the 1D and 3D models are in close
agreement. An exact match is naturally achieved at the ground surface, since in this
comparison the 1D and 3D data both correspond to the same pile head moment.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
The magnitudes of the bending moments induced in the pile are strongly conditioned by the
pile head moment – which is determined solely by the applied loading. Consequently,
subsurface bending moments computed with the PISA design model were found to provide a
well-conditioned match with equivalent 3D finite element data for all of the cases considered
in the study. Bending moment data for other cases are therefore not further discussed in this
paper.

Case B: Single embedded layer

Two configurations have been considered; a soft layer embedded in a relatively stiff matrix
(case B1) and stiff layer in a relatively soft matrix (cases B2 and B3). These cases are
illustrated in Fig. 8 and defined in Table 6. The layer is located either in the upper half of the
pile (mean depth ) or in the lower half (mean depth ). Two layer thicknesses are
considered ⁄ and ⁄ . Cases B1 and B3 involve combinations of the
two least similar reference soils considered in the study (Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand
). Case B2 comprises dissimilar clays; stiff layer (Cowden till) and soft matrix
(Bothkennar clay). Initial analyses with the 1D model indicated that the influence of layers
placed in the lower half of the pile is relatively small, and this is of course explained by the
fact that a stiff pile tends to rotate under moment loading about a pivot point at a depth of
about 2/3 of its length. Thin layer cases ( ⁄ ) in the lower half of the pile were
therefore excluded from the schedule of 3D finite element runs.

Mobilisation indices and influence factors (Table 3) indicate, as expected, that incorporating
a weak layer within a relatively strong matrix (case B1) causes a reduction in stiffness and
strength of an embedded monopile (negative values of IF). In cases B2 and B3 (stiff layer in
a soft matrix), incorporating a layer increases the stiffness and strength (positive values of
IF). In all cases, when a thick layer is present in the upper half of the pile it has a greater
influence on monopile performance than when it is in the lower half.

The PISA model provides a close match (Table 1) to the 3D finite element data for
combinations of Bothkennar clay matrix and Cowden till layer (case B2), and for Bothkennar
clay and Dunkirk sand. In every case the metrics and are 0.90 or greater, except only
for B1BK ( ). Example data, for cases B2UN and B1BK are shown in Fig. 9.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Case C: Base layer

The configurations that have been considered are illustrated in Fig. 10 and specified in Table
7. The configuration in Fig 10a ( ⁄ ) represents a monopile with a significant
embedment in the base layer. For (Fig 10b) the pile base coincides with the upper
boundary of the base layer. In this configuration, the base force and moment components are
determined in the PISA design model by the base layer material; the distributed load and
moment components are determined by the matrix. The configuration ⁄ (Fig 10c) is
a special case, incorporated in the study to investigate whether a deep-lying layer is ‘felt’ by
the pile in the 3D finite element calculations. The PISA design model does not include any
representation of deep layers with a clearance below the pile tip; the ⁄ cases are
therefore equivalent to matrix-only analyses in the model.

The ultimate mobilisation indices, , for cases C2T and C2B (Table 3) have small negative
values, signifying in these cases that the ultimate capacity of the monopile exceeds the
capacity for the separate cases in which the monopile is embedded in homogeneous soils
corresponding to the layer and matrix materials. This apparently paradoxical result has been
investigated as follows. Pile C2 has a lower ultimate capacity when embedded in Cowden till
(the layer material) than when embedded in sand (the matrix material). However,
the horizontal force and moment developed at the base of the pile at are actually
greater when the pile is embedded Cowden till than when embedded in sand. In
configurations C2T and C2B, therefore, the strength of the pile is slightly enhanced by the
presence of Cowden till base layer. Additionally C2 is something of a special case since the
values of and are numerically similar, with the consequence that the
denominator in the definition of the index (equation 1) is relatively small, thereby amplifying
the value of the index.

Influence factor data in Table 3 indicate a substantial uplift ( ) in the ultimate

capacity for C1E (matrix = Bothkennar clay, base layer = Dunkirk sand, ) due to
embedment into the stiff base layer. Case C3E (matrix = Bothkennar clay, base layer =
Cowden till) also indicates a significant ultimate capacity uplift ( ). Monopile
embedment in a stiff base layer is clearly beneficial for the ultimate capacity of the monopile
(and to a lesser extent the initial stiffness) in these cases. For case C1, the stiff base layer has

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
a significant influence on the ultimate capacity even when the top of the layer lies below the
pile base (case C1B, ).

Ultimate displacement accuracy metric data (Table 4) indicate that cases C2 and C3 both
have . However the C1 cases (layer = Dunkirk sand, ; matrix =
Bothkennar clay) all have ; in these cases the 1D model systematically
underestimates the ultimate displacement response as computed with the 3D model (
). This tendency presumably reflects the fact that the 1D model does not incorporate the full
beneficial effect of the stiff material below the pile base. Example data, for C1E and C1T, are
plotted in Fig. 11.

Case D: Conceptual multi-layer systems

The case D analyses consider the combined effect of an embedded layer and pile embedment
in a stiff material (Dunkirk sand, ), with a relatively soft matrix (Bothkennar clay),
Fig 12 and Table 8. The two cases considered comprise a combination of C1E with B3UN
(Case DN) and C1E with B3UK (DK).

The influence factors for cases DN and DK are comparable in all cases to the sum of the
relevant influence factors from the corresponding B and C cases (Table 3).

Fig. 13 shows results for both D cases; for DK , but the other accuracy metrics
are all 0.95 or better (Table 4). The D cases were devised specifically to further test the
capabilities of the 1D model for highly dissimilar soils and it is noteworthy that the model
performs well in these configurations, especially for case DN.

Case E: Exploratory multi-layer systems

Table 9 and Fig. 14 specify the analyses that have been conducted.

Cases E1A and E1B were intended to test the capabilities of the General Dunkirk Sand
Model, which provides a general sand calibration in the relative density range
. Consistent with likely density variations at offshore sites, the relative density in both
E1 cases increases with depth.

Case E2 is a three-layer system employing all of the reference soil models. Cases E3 and E4
are more complex systems, proposed by the Industry Partners, to resemble cases encountered
in typical design applications.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
For all of these multi-layer systems, the 1D model performed well, with ultimate
displacement metrics all in the range (Table 4). Example data, for E2 and E4, are
plotted in Fig 15.

Case F: Selected repeated cases with a low embedment ratio monopile (L/D = 2)

The analyses that have been conducted are specified in Table 10.

The small displacement accuracy metrics obtained for these cases are comparable to the
equivalent cases with the ⁄ piles (Table 4). In all cases, however, (except for F4) the
ultimate response accuracy metrics for the F cases are lower than those from the equivalent
cases B to E. This is especially the case for F5 for which the ultimate displacement metric is
( ). This is the lowest value of accuracy metric obtained in the entire study, and
indeed the only value below 0.85. Data for F3 and F5 are plotted in Fig 16.

DISCUSSION

The paper describes a set of 35 3D finite element analyses on monopiles embedded in a

variety of layered soil configurations and 12 reference calculations for homogeneous soils.
The layered soil analysis results are all broadly consistent with expectations. A soft layer in a
stiff matrix reduces the strength and stiffness of an embedded monopile. Conversely,
incorporating a stiff layer in a soft matrix causes the strength and stiffness of an embedded
monopile to increase.

Cases are examined in which a stiff layer is incorporated below the level of the pile base
(cases C1B, C2B and C3B). In case C1B (matrix = Bothkennar clay; layer = Dunkirk sand,
) the stiff deep-lying layer has a significant influence on the computed ultimate
strength of the monopile (uplift of 11% computed with the 3D model). These two soil types
(Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand, ) have highly contrasting strength and
stiffness characteristics. Significant strength uplift was not observed for cases C2B and C3B
(involving combinations of Dunkirk sand, / Cowden till and Bothkennar clay /
Cowden till). It appears that an uplift in monopile capacity due to a deep-lying layer is only
available if the layer material is very substantially stronger/stiffer than the matrix. The
potential benefit of a deep-lying stiff layer is not incorporated in the current implementation
of the PISA design model.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Assessments of the performance of the PISA design model are based on the numerical values
of the ratio and accuracy metrics, and . For all small displacement cases, these metrics
indicate a close match between the PISA design model and corresponding 3D finite element
analysis ( and ).

In 26 of the cases considered a similarly close match between the PISA design model and the
corresponding 3D finite element analysis for ultimate displacements is obtained (
and ). In eight other cases, however, the ultimate displacement match is
less close ( and ). A single case (F5,
) is an outlier. The cases with all involve combinations of Bothkennar
clay and Dunkirk sand, . Combinations of soft clay and very dense sand - at
opposite ends of the strength spectrum - present a challenge to the PISA modelling approach
in its current form.

Certain patterns are apparent in the cases with . The computed lateral load at
ultimate displacements is underestimated by the 1D model in five cases (A1, C1E, C1T, C1B,
F4). These cases have the common characteristic that they incorporate very dense Dunkirk
sand base layers. In these cases the sand layer appears to constrain the softer matrix soil – to
increase its effective strength - in a way that is not captured by the PISA model.

In the five other cases with (including the worst case), the 1D model overestimates
the ultimate capacity of the monopile (B1BK, D1N, F3, F5). Three of these cases (D1N, F3,
F5) involve a thick layer of very dense Dunkirk sand in the upper half of the pile. It appears
that in these cases the presence of the softer soil above and below the stiff layer has the effect
of degrading the strength of the layer. The current 1D model does not include a means of
incorporating this degraded strength effect. In case B1BK the configuration involves a soft
embedded layer (Bothkennar clay) in a very dense Dunkirk sand matrix. In this case, it is
considered that the presence of the soft embedded layer degrades the performance of the sand
matrix material in a way that is captured by the 3D model but not the 1D analysis.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
For some combinations of soft clay and very dense sand, however, the ultimate response
performance of the 1D model does give (i.e. all of the B3 cases and DN). In Case
DN the tendency for the 1D model to underestimate the influence of the stiff base layer may
have compensated for the tendency to overestimate the influence of the embedded stiff layer.
The B3 cases are perhaps anomalous; the performance of the 1D model is better than might
be expected on the basis of the other soft clay / very dense sand combinations.

The case F calculations provide a means of comparing the performance of the 1D model for
low embedment ratio monopiles ( ) with the larger embedment ratio monopiles
( ) that form the basis of the main study. The small displacement metrics for the F
cases are comparable to those from the main study. The ultimate displacement case F metrics
are, however, lower than the equivalent analyses (with the exception of F4). Piles
with pile lie at the lower end of the parameter space adopted to calibrate the
reference soils. At this relatively low embedment ratio, the lateral reactions reduce in relative
importance and the other soil reaction components become increasingly significant (Burd et
al., 2020b; Byrne et al., 2020b). These factors combine (as addressed in the discussion in
Burd et al. 2020b and Byrne et al. 2020b for piles embedded in homogeneous soils) to cause
a tendency for the accuracy of the 1D model to be lower for low embedment ratio piles.
Improved performance may be obtained by restricting the homogeneous soil calibration
process to a tighter geometrical space. Losses in accuracy of the 1D model due to the separate
influences of low embedment ratio and layers with contrasting strength tend to reinforce each
other, as is evident in the relatively low ultimate displacement accuracy metric for case F5.

Figure 17 indicates the accuracy metrics for the full set of layered soil analyses presented in
this paper, together with the accuracy metrics for previous analyses on homogeneous soils
(Byrne et al. 2019). It is apparent that the PISA design model small displacement response
provides a close match with the corresponding 3D analyses in all layered and homogeneous
cases. The ultimate displacement performance of the PISA model falls below the general
small displacement trend for only a small number of cases, mostly for the piles with L/D = 2.

The mean value of the ratio metrics for all the layered soil analyses is close to 1 for both the
small and ultimate displacement cases (Table 4); this is similar to the previously-reported
data (also listed in Table 4) for homogeneous soil analyses conducted using the PISA design
model (Byrne et al. 2019). The Coefficient of Variation (CoV) of the small displacement

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
ratio metric, , for the current layered study (3.9%, Table 4) is consistent with previous
homogeneous soil calculations, indicating that the PISA design model is able consistently to
deliver small displacement analyses of layered soil cases at the same level of fidelity as
homogeneous cases. For ultimate displacement cases, the slightly larger CoV of the ratio
metric, compared to the homogeneous cases (Table 4) is driven largely by a few
challenging configurations (e.g. F5, F3, B1BK) involving combinations of dense sand and
soft clay.

CONCLUSIONS

The PISA design model, suitably calibrated for homogeneous soils following the
methodology reported in Byrne et al. (2020b) and Burd et al. (2020b), captures the fidelity of
3D finite element analyses of monopile behaviour, but at a fraction of the computational cost.
This enables a wide range of scenarios to be explored during the design phase for an offshore
wind farm. The current paper describes an extension of the model to layered soils, relevant to
many offshore wind farm sites. This extended form of the model is shown to provide close
representations of the behaviour of an embedded monopile, as computed with 3D finite
element analysis, for a wide range of layered soil cases.

The study suggests that for many practical layered soil configurations the PISA modelling
approach can be used with high confidence to conduct design calculations. Challenging cases,
where the model performs less well, involve specific combinations of very soft clay and very
dense sand. In all design applications employing the PISA design model it is recommended
that the final designs are checked using bespoke 3D finite element analysis. This is especially
the case when combinations of soft clay and very dense sand (e.g. the conditions in case F5)
are present at the site.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Various options are available to develop the PISA approach further for cases where
substantial differences in strength and stiffness exist in adjacent soil layers. One option would
be to assume that the pile is only embedded in the weaker material (i.e. ignore the stronger
material completely), although this is likely to be excessively conservative. Another
possibility is to develop rules on how the strength of stronger layers is degraded by nearby
softer soils. A consideration of these possibilities could straightforwardly be developed in the
future, most probably motivated by a site specific application of the modelling approach
rather than for generic application.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The PISA Project was funded through the joint industry Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA)
program, designed and led by the Carbon Trust, with PISA Phase 1 supported by the UK
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and PISA Phase 2 supported by the
Scottish Government. The Authors acknowledge the provision of financial and technical
support by the following project partners: Ørsted (formerly DONG Energy, lead partner),
E.ON, EDF, GE Renewable Energy (formerly through Alstom Wind), Iberdrola, innogy,
SSE, Statkraft (Phase 1 only), Equinor (formerly Statoil), Van Oord and Vattenfall.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Appendix A : Formulation details for PISA design model

Full details of the PISA design model formulation and implementation are given in Byrne et
al. (2020b) and Burd et al. (2020b). Brief details are provided below.

The soil reaction curves employed in the model are represented in normalised form by the
four-parameter conic function illustrated in Fig. A.1. Separate frameworks are employed for
clay and sand soil types. Variations of the calibration parameters with depth (known as ‘depth
variation functions’) for the three reference homogeneous soils employed in the current work
are listed in Table A.2.

The monopile is represented in the model by Timoshenko beam theory employing a shear
factor . Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are 200 GPa and 0.3 respectively.
Second moment of area and cross-section area are determined using thin-walled theory.

Appendix B – Data for reference homogeneous soil models

The data provided below are employed to formulate the layered ground models for
incorporation in the PISA design model and the 3D finite element analysis

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
NOTATION
pile diameter
relative density
small-strain soil shear modulus
( )
lateral load applied to pile, computed with the 1D model
( )
lateral load applied to pile, computed with the 3D model
horizontal force at pile base
( )
lateral load applied to pile, computed with the 3D model at ground-level pile
displacement ⁄
( )
lateral load applied to pile, computed with the 3D model at ground-level pile
displacement ⁄
influence factor
influence factor, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
influence factor, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
load eccentricity
initial stiffness of parametric soil reaction curve
pile embedded length
moment at pile base
M bending moment
distributed moment acting on pile
curvature parameter for parametric soil reaction curve
distributed lateral load acting on pile
undrained shear strength of soil
pile wall thickness
lateral pile displacement
ground-level lateral pile displacement
̅ ultimate displacement for parametric soil reaction curve
̅ ultimate load for parametric soil reaction curve
z depth coordinate along the pile
accuracy metric
small displacement accuracy metric, ground-level pile displacement up to ⁄
ultimate displacement accuracy metric, ground-level pile displacement up to ⁄
ratio metric
small displacement ratio metric, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
ultimate displacement ratio metric, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
initial vertical effective stress
mobilisation index
mobilisation index, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
mobilisation index, ground-level pile displacement ⁄
rotation of the pile cross-section

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
REFERENCES
API, 2010. RP 2A-WSD - Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms. Washington: Amaerican Petroleum Institute.
AWG, 2018. PISA2 Final Report. Confidential Report by the PISA2 Academic Work Group
to the PISA2 Industrial Partners, REV E. Document No. 3107410.
Burd, H.J., Beuckelaers, W.J.A.P., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K.G, Houlsby, G.T., Igoe, D.J.P.,
Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam, R.A., Muir Wood, A., Potts, D.M., Skov
Gretlund, J., Taborda, D.M.G. and Zdravković, L. 2020a. New data analysis methods
for instrumented medium-scale monopile field tests. Géotechnique,
doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.002
Burd, H.J., Taborda, D.M.G. Zdravković, L. Abadie, C.N., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T.,
Gavin, K.G, Igoe, D.J.P., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam, R.A., Pedro, A.M.G.
and Potts, D.M. 2020b. PISA Design Model for Monopiles for Offshore Wind
Turbines: Application to a Marine Sand Géotechnique,
doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.p.277
Byrne, B.W., Burd, H.J., Zdravkovic, L., Abadie, C,N., Houlsby, G.T., Jardine, R.J., Martin,
C.M., McAdam, R.A., Pacheco Andrade, M., Pedro, A.M.G. Potts, D.M. and
Taborda, D.M.G. 2019. PISA Design Methods for Offshore Wind Turbine Monopiles.
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper number 29373
Byrne, B.W., McAdam, R.A., Burd, H.J., Beuckelaers, W.J.A.P., Gavin, K.G, Houlsby, G.T.,
Igoe, D.J.P., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., Muir Wood, A., Potts, D.M., Skov Gretlund,
J., Taborda, D.M.G. and Zdravković, L. 2020a. Monotonic laterally loaded pile
testing in a stiff glacial clay till at Cowden. Géotechnique,
doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.003
Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., Gavin, K.G, Igoe, D.J.P., Jardine, R.J., Martin,
C.M., McAdam, R.A., Potts, D.M., Taborda, D.M.G. and Zdravković, L. 2020b. PISA
Design Model for Monopiles for Offshore Wind Turbines: Application to a Stiff
Glacial Clay Till. Géotechnique, doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.p.255
Day, R.A. and Potts, D.M. 1994. Zero thickness interface elements - numerical stability and
application. Int. Jnl. Num. Analy. Meth. Geomech. 18: 689-708.
DNV-GL, 2016. DNVGL-ST-0126 – Support structure for wind turbines. Oslo: Det Norske
Veritas.
Doherty, P. and Gavin, K.G 2011. Laterally loaded monopile design for offshore wind farms.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Energy 165 1:7-17.
Georgiadis, M. 1983. Development of p-y curves for layered soil. Proceedings of
Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering (ASCE) 1: 536-545.
Isenhower, W.M., Wang, S.-T. and Gonzalo Vasquez, L. 2019. LPILE v2019 User’s Manual:
A program for the analysis of deep foundations under lateral loading. ENSOFT Inc.
USA.
McAdam, R.A., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., Beuckelaers, W.J.A.P., Burd, H.J., Gavin, K.G,
Igoe, D.J.P., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., Muir Wood, A., Potts, D.M., Skov Gretlund,
J., Taborda, D.M.G. and Zdravković, L. 2020. Monotonic laterally loaded pile testing
in a dense marine sand at Dunkirk. Géotechnique, doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.004
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. 1999. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
theory. London, Thomas Telford.
Reese, L.C., Allen J.D. and Hargrove, J.Q. 1981. Laterally loaded piles in layered soils.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symp. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering 2: 819-822.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Schroeder, F.C., Day, R.A., Potts, D.M. & Addenbrooke, T. I. 2007. An 8-node isoparametric
shear deformable shell element. Int. Jnl of Geomechanics 7 1: 44-52.
Taborda, D.M.G., Zdravković, L., Potts. D.M., Burd, H.J., Byrne, B.W., Gavin, K.G,
Houlsby, G.T., Jardine, R.J., Liu, T., Martin, C.M. and McAdam, R.A. 2020. Finite-
element modelling of laterally loaded piles in a dense marine sand at Dunkirk.
Géotechnique, doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.006
Yang, Z. and Jeremic, B. 2005. Study of soil layering effects on lateral loading behaviour of
piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 131 6:
762-770.
Zdravković, L., Jardine, R.J., Taborda D.M.G., Abadias, D., Burd, H.J., Byrne, B.W., Gavin,
K.G., Houlsby, G.T., Igoe, D.J.P., Liu, T., Martin, C.M., McAdam, R.A., Muir Wood,
A., Potts, D.M., Skov Gretlund, J. and Ushev, E. 2020a. Ground characterisation for
PISA pile testing and analysis. Géotechnique, doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.001
Zdravković, L., Taborda, D.M.G., Potts, D.M., Abadias, D., Burd, H.J., Byrne, B.W., Gavin,
K.G, Houlsby, G.T., Jardine, R.J., Martin, C.M., McAdam, R.A. and Ushev, E.
2020b. Finite-element modelling of laterally loaded piles in a stiff glacial clay till at
Cowden. Géotechnique, doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.PISA.005

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table captions

Table 1: Monopile configurations considered in the layered soil analyses.

Table 2: Values of horizontal force ( ) determined from the 3D finite element baseline
( )
analyses at the reference pile ground-level displacement ⁄ (for )
( )
and ⁄ (for ).
Table 3: Mobilisation index, and influence factor metrics computed using the 3D finite
element results for Cases A, B, C and D. For case A the upper soil is designated as
‘matrix’ and the lower soil as ‘layer’. Subscripts sd signifies small displacement and
ult signifies ultimate displacement.
Table 4: Values of horizontal force ( ) determined from the 3D finite element layered soil
analyses at the two reference displacements [small ( ⁄ ) and ultimate
( ⁄ )] Values of ratio metric and accuracy metric are listed at the two
reference displacements. Subscripts sd signifies small displacement and ult signifies
ultimate displacement.
Table 5: Case A analyses - two layer systems.
Table 6: Case B analyses - single embedded layer.
Table 7: Case C analyses - base layer.
Table 8: Case D analyses - conceptual multi-layer systems.
Table 9: Case E analyses - exploratory multi-layer systems.
Table 10: Case F analyses - selected repeated analyses with a low embedment ratio ( ⁄
) monopile. Shown in brackets is the equivalent case from the main ⁄ study.

Table A.1: Non-dimensional forms employed in PISA design model; is local value of
triaxial compression undrained shear strength, is local value of small strain shear
modulus, is local value of initial vertical effective stress.
Table A.2: Depth variation functions for Cowden till, Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand
(GDSM) (calibrated for ⁄ ). For the GDSM, relative density is expressed
as a decimal in the calibration range .
Table B.1: Submerged unit weights and coefficient of lateral pressure for reference
homogeneous soil models.

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table 1: Monopile configurations considered in the layered soil analyses.
Pile D (m) h (m) h/D L (m) L/D t (mm) D/t
C1 10 50 5 20 2 91 110
C1t 10 50 5 20 2 150 110
D2 8.75 87.5 10 35 4 91 96
D2t 8.75 87.5 10 35 4 150 59

Table 2: Values of horizontal force ( ) determined from the 3D finite element baseline
( )
analyses at the reference pile ground-level displacement ⁄ (for ) and
( )
⁄ (for ).
( ) ( )
Pile Reference homogeneous soil model (kN) (kN)
Bothkennar clay 211.3 3747.5
Cowden till 761.5 12916.5
C1
Dunkirk sand 500.7 14065.1
Dunkirk sand, 604.4 30587.1
Bothkennar clay 164.8 7654.0
Cowden till 407.3 21851.9
D2
Dunkirk sand, 301.1 27712.8
Dunkirk sand, 344.4 56165.1
Bothkennar clay 196.7 7799.2
Cowden till 505.6 22071.8
D2t
Dunkirk sand, 369.9 28237.5
Dunkirk sand, 425.1 58756.4

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table 3: Mobilisation index, and influence factor metrics computed using the 3D finite
element results for Cases A, B, C and D. For case A the upper soil is designated as ‘matrix’
and the lower soil as ‘layer’. Subscripts sd signifies small displacement and ult signifies
ultimate displacement.
sd % ult % IFsd% IFult%
A1 10.4 26.6 11.3 168.7
A2 14.1 25.5 5.2 -5.6
A3 9.9 21.8 14.5 40.4
A4 13.7 38.8 2.0 42.0
B1UN 6.1 16.4 -3.3 -14.2
B1UK 25.6 48.8 -13.8 -42.3
B1BK 4.2 22.5 -2.2 -19.5
B2UN 8.0 11.6 11.7 21.6
B2UK 29.5 32.8 43.4 60.9
B2BK 5.2 12.0 7.6 22.3
B3UN 9.2 7.3 10.1 46.2
B3UK 31.8 23.8 34.7 150.6
B3BK 5.8 9.1 6.3 58.0
C1E 2.8 6.7 3.1 42.4
C1T 1.6 1.9 1.7 12.0
C1B 0.3 1.7 0.4 11.0
C2E 5.7 10.3 2.1 -2.3
C2T 3.6 -5.9 1.3 1.3
C2B 1.5 -5.8 0.6 1.3
C3E 2.7 6.3 4.0 11.6
C3T 1.6 2.6 2.3 4.8
C3B 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.3
DN 11.9 13.7 13.0 86.5
DK 34.3 37.8 37.3 239.6

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table 4: Values of horizontal force ( ) determined from the 3D finite element layered soil
analyses at the two reference displacements [small ( ⁄ ) and ultimate (
⁄ )] Values of ratio metric and accuracy metric are listed at the two reference
displacements. Subscripts sd signifies small displacement and ult signifies ultimate
displacement.
3D finite element 1D/3D model comparisons
( ) ( )
Case Code Pile sd ult sd ult
A1 D2 183.4 20567.3 0.99 0.89 0.98 0.89
A2 D2t 389.1 26666.4 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.98
Case A
A3 D2 188.8 10748.9 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95
A4 D2t 377.5 40086.8 1.04 0.96 0.95 0.98
B1UN D2t 411.2 50402.3 1.04 1.02 0.95 0.94
B1UK D2t 366.7 33887.6 1.08 1.03 0.90 0.95
B1BK D2t 415.6 47279.8 1.04 1.16 0.95 0.85
B2UN D2 184.2 9305.7 1.06 0.96 0.94 0.96
Case B B2UK D2 236.4 12314.0 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.98
B2BK D2 177.4 9364.4 1.03 0.94 0.97 0.94
B3UN D2 181.4 11187.2 1.04 1.06 0.96 0.96
B3UK D2 222.0 19181.6 0.99 1.04 0.99 0.94
B3BK D2 175.3 12091.9 1.01 0.89 1.00 0.90
C1E D2 169.9 10901.1 1.07 0.88 0.94 0.87
C1T D2 167.6 8575.8 1.07 0.88 0.94 0.87
C1B D2 165.4 8498.7 1.07 0.88 0.94 0.89
C2E D2t 377.6 27601.3 1.06 1.04 0.94 0.95
Case C C2T D2t 374.9 28602.8 1.04 1.03 0.96 0.97
C2B D2t 372.0 28594.8 1.04 1.02 0.95 0.97
C3E D2 171.4 8543.3 1.06 0.99 0.95 0.98
C3T D2 168.6 8022.0 1.05 0.94 0.96 0.95
C3B D2 165.6 7753.7 1.07 0.97 0.94 0.98
DN D2 186.2 14277.6 1.04 1.07 0.96 0.95
Case D
DK D2 226.4 25995.9 0.99 1.19 0.98 0.86
E1A D2t 385.6 46564.1 1.04 0.96 0.96 0.97
E1B D2t 393.5 45166.5 1.04 0.97 0.96 0.98
Case E E2 D2 241.9 18294.0 0.97 1.01 0.97 0.97
E3 D2t 448.2 32632.8 1.00 1.05 0.99 0.97
E4 D2 251.3 19599.9 0.98 1.07 0.98 0.95
F1 C1t 646.9 14699.7 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.90
F2 C1 271.8 4904.2 1.00 0.92 0.98 0.91
F3 C1 324.6 7967.7 1.02 1.22 0.99 0.85
Case F
F4 C1 256.1 5053.2 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.89
F5 C1 377.4 10375.8 0.99 1.48 0.99 0.66
F6 C1t 602.2 24779.6 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.96
Average 1.02 1.01 0.96 0.93
35 layered soil calculations
CoV 3.9% 11.5%
Average 86 homogeneous soil calculations 1.00 1.01 0.96 0.96
CoV (Byrne et al., 2019) 4.8% 4.5%
Average 121 calculations 1.01 1.01 0.96 0.95
CoV (Byrne et al., 2019) 4.7% 7.2%

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table 5: Case A analyses - two layer systems.
Case Upper layer Lower layer Pile
A1 Bothkennar clay Dunkirk sand, D2
A2 Dunkirk sand, Cowden till D2t
A3 Bothkennar clay Cowden till D2
A4 Dunkirk sand, Dunkirk sand, D2t

Table 6: Case B analyses - single embedded layer.

Case Code (m) (m) Matrix Layer Pile

B1UN (upper) (thin)

Dunkirk sand
B1 B1UK (upper) (thick) Bothkennar clay D2t
B1BK (lower) (thick)
B2UN (upper) (thin)
B2 B2UK (upper) (thick) Bothkennar clay Cowden till D2
B2BK (lower) (thick)
B3UN (upper) (thin)
Dunkirk sand
B3 B3UK (upper) (thick) Bothkennar clay D2
B3BK (lower) (thick)

Table 7: Case C analyses - base layer.

Case Code Matrix Layer Pile
C1E ⁄
Dunkirk sand
C1 C1T 0 Bothkennar clay D2
C1B ⁄
C2E ⁄
Dunkirk sand
C2 C2T 0 Cowden till D2t
C2B ⁄
C3E ⁄
C3 C3T 0 Bothkennar clay Cowden till D2
C3B ⁄

Table 8: Case D analyses - conceptual multi-layer systems.

Case Configuration (m) Pile
Matrix = Bothkennar clay
DN L/15 D2
Base and thin Layer = Dunkirk sand,
Matrix = Bothkennar Clay
DK L/4 D2
Base and thick Layer = Dunkirk sand,

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table 9: Case E analyses - exploratory multi-layer systems.
Case Configuration (m) Pile
Top layer Dunkirk sand, L/4
E1A Followed by Dunkirk sand, D2
Embedded in Dunkirk sand, L/8
Top layer Dunkirk sand, L/4
E1B Followed by Dunkirk sand, D2
Embedded in Dunkirk sand, L/8
Top layer Bothkennar clay L/4
E2 Followed by Cowden till D2
Embedded in Dunkirk sand, L/8
Dunkirk sand, 3m
Cowden till 4m
Dunkirk sand, 3m
Cowden till 4m
E3 Dunkirk sand, 6m D2t
Cowden till 5m
Dunkirk sand, 2m
Cowden till 6m
Dunkirk sand, (embedment) 2m
Bothkennar clay 3m
Dunkirk sand, 2m
Bothkennar clay 5m
Dunkirk sand, 3m
E4 Cowden till 4m D2
Dunkirk sand, 2m
Cowden till 7m
Dunkirk sand, 4m
Cowden till (embedment) 5m

Table 10: Case F analyses - selected repeated analyses with a low embedment ratio ( ⁄
) monopile. Shown in brackets is the equivalent case from the main ⁄ study.
Case Configuration Pile
F1 (A2) Dunkirk sand, over Cowden till C1t
Matrix = Bothkennar clay
F2 (B2BK) Layer = Cowden till C1
location: ; thickness:
Matrix = Bothkennar clay
F3 (B3UK) Layer = Dunkirk sand, C1
location: ; thickness:
Matrix = Bothkennar clay
F4 (C1E) Layer = Dunkirk sand, C1
location: tip ( ); embedment:
Matrix = Bothkennar clay
Layers = Dunkirk sand,
F5 (DK) C1
Layer1: location: ; thickness:
Layer 2: location: tip ( ); embedment:
Layering of sands at variable relative densities:
Upper L/3 layer: Dunkirk sand,
F6 (E1A) C1t
Matrix: Dunkirk sand,
Tip layer (e=L/4): Dunkirk sand,

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table A.1: Non-dimensional forms employed in PISA design model; is local value of
triaxial compression undrained shear strength, is local value of small strain shear modulus,
is local value of initial vertical effective stress.
Normalised variable Clay framework Sand framework
(Byrne et al. 2020b) (Burd et al. 2020b)
Distributed load, ̅

Lateral displacement, ̅

Distributed moment, ̅
| |
Pile cross-section rotation, ̅

Base horizontal force, ̅

Base moment, ̅

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table A.2: Depth variation functions for Cowden till, Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand
(GDSM) (calibrated for ⁄ ). For the GDSM, relative density is expressed as a
decimal in the calibration range .
Dunkirk sand
Soil reaction Cowden till Bothkennar clay
Parameter (GDSM)
component (Byrne et al. 2020b) (AWG, 2018)
(Burd et al. 2020b)
Ultimate displacement, ̅ pu 241.4
Initial stiffness, kp

Distributed Curvature, np
lateral load,
Ultimate reaction, ̅ u (
(( ) )
( ) )

Ultimate rotation, ̅ mu ̅ ⁄ ̅ ⁄ ̅ ⁄
Initial stiffness, km
Distributed
moment, Curvature, nm 0.0 0.0
Ultimate moment, ̅ u
( )
Ultimate displacement, (
̅ Hu 235.7
)

Initial stiffness, kH (
)
Base horizontal Curvature, n
H
force,
(
)

Ultimate reaction, ̅ Bu
( )

Ultimate rotation, ̅ Mu 173.1

Initial stiffness, kM

Base moment, Curvature, nM

Ultimate moment, ̅ Bu
( )

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Table B.1: Submerged unit weights and coefficient of lateral pressure for reference
homogeneous soil models
Cowden till Bothkennar clay Dunkirk sand
(Byrne et al. 2020b) (AWG, 2018) (Burd et al. 2020b)
Submerged unit soil
11.38 6.19 10.09
weight ( )
Variable (see Fig.
0.65 0.4
B.1)

Figure captions

Figure 1: Monopile configuration in layered soil.

Figure 2: (a) PISA design model (ID model). Individual soil layers are not shown for clarity;
pile head lateral load and moment are and respectively, (b)
example finite element mesh.
Figure 3: Profiles of (a) small strain shear modulus, , and (b) undrained triaxial
compression shear strength, , employed in the reference homogeneous soil models.
The stiffness and strength profiles for Cowden till, Bothkennar clay and Dunkirk sand
are specified in Byrne et al. (2020b), AWG (2018) and Burd et al. (2020b)
respectively.
Figure 4: Layered soil configurations; (A) two layer, (B) single embedded layer, (C) base
layer, (D) conceptual multi-layer systems, (E) exploratory multi-layer systems.
Configurations A to D consist of layer and matrix soils as indicated in the legend.
Figure 5: Performance of a monopile embedded in the reference homogeneous soil models,
for small and ultimate response ranges, computed using 3D finite element analysis,
(a)(b) pile C1, (c)(d) pile D2.
Figure 6: Definitions employed to determine the accuracy and ratio metrics (a) small
displacement response (b) ultimate displacement response.
Figure 7: Comparison between the computed responses from the 1D and 3D models for
selected case A analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element model; the
dashed line indicates the 1D model. The bending moment data relate to the applied
( )
load computed with the 3D model at a pile ground displacement of and also
( )
⁄ . (a) Case A1. (b) Case A2.
Figure 8: Case B configurations; single embedded layer. The letters ‘N’ and ‘K’ in the
analysis code signify ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ layer respectively. The letter ‘U’ refers to a
layer in the upper half of the pile; ‘B’ refers to a layer in the lower half. (a) Code
BnUN. (b) Code BnUK. (c) Code BnBK.
Figure 9: Comparison between the ultimate displacement responses from the 1D and 3D
models for selected case B analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element
model; the dashed line indicates the 1D model. (a) Case B2UN. (b) Case B1BK.
Figure 10: Case C configurations; base layer. The letter ‘E’ in the analysis code signifies
‘embedded’, ‘T’ signifies ‘tip’, B signifies ‘below the pile base’. (a) Code CnE,
. (b) Code CnT, . (c) Code CnB, .

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009
Figure 11: Comparison between the ultimate displacement responses from the 1D and 3D
models for selected case C analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element
model; the dashed line indicates the 1D model. (a) Case C1E. (b) Case C1T.
Figure 12: Case D configurations; conceptual multi-layer systems consisting of Dunkirk
sand, layers embedded in a Bothkennar clay matrix. (a) Code DN. (b)
Code DK.
Figure 13: Comparison between the ultimate displacement responses from the 1D and 3D
models for selected case D analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element
model; the dashed line indicates the 1D model. (a) Case DN. (b) Case DK.
Figure 14: Case E configurations; exploratory multi-layer systems.
Figure 15: Comparison between the ultimate displacement responses from the 1D and 3D
models for selected case E analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element
model; the dashed line indicates the 1D model. (a) Case E2. (b) Case E4.
Figure 16: Comparison between the ultimate displacement responses from the 1D and 3D
models for selected case F analyses. The solid line indicates the 3D finite element
model; the dashed line indicates the 1D model. (a) Case F3. (b) Case F5.
Figure 17: Accuracy metrics at small and ultimate displacement for the current layered soil
cases, compared with previous data for homogeneous soil cases (Byrne et al. 2019).
Single worst case highlighted.

Figure A.1: Conic function employed for the soil reaction curves (Byrne et al. 2020b). (a)
General form. (b) Extreme values of n.

Figure B.1: Depth variation of for the reference homogeneous soil model for Cowden till
(modified from Byrne et al. 2020b).

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgeot.20.PISA.009

Downloaded by [] on [31/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license