MODEL STUDY OF THE STATIC AND CYCLIC LATERAL

CAPACITY OF FINNED PILES

By

Kepha O. Abongo

Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee

Of Lehigh University

In Candidacy for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Civil Engineering

Lehigh University

January 2019




ProQuest Number: 13420326




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 13420326

Published by ProQuest LLC (2019 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2018 Copyright

Kepha O. Abongo

ii
 Kepha O Abongo

Model Study of the Static and Cyclic Lateral Capacity of Finned Piles

Approved and recommended for acceptance as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering on this

date of __________________.

______________________________ ______________________________
Sibel Pamukcu, PhD. Dan Frangopol, PhD.
Dissertation Supervisor and Advisor Committee Member
Department of Civil & Environmental Department of Civil &Environmental
Engineering Engineering
Lehigh University Lehigh University

______________________________ ______________________________
Jeffrey Evans, PhD.
Spencer Quiel, PhD.
External Committee Member
Committee Chairperson
Department of Civil &Environmental
Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering
Engineering
Bucknell University
Lehigh University

_______________________
Mesut Pervizpour, PhD.
Co-Dissertation Advisor
Department of Civil &Environmental
Date Accepted:
Engineering
____________________
Lehigh University

iii
 Acknowledgment

For the completion of this work I have enjoyed the assistance and support of

many people, to all of whom I am greatly indebted. First, my deepest gratitude is due

to my academic advisor, Professor Sibel Pamukcu, for her enthusiasm and constant

encouragement. With her there was never a problem that could not be solved. For the

past years, I have also had the great privilege of working with Professor Mesut

Pervizpour who gave valuable advice in numerical work during the final stages of the

doctoral endeavor. Finally, I am grateful to Professor Spencer Quiel for assuming the

chairmanship of the doctoral committee and Professors Dan Frangopol and Jeffrey

Evans for their valuable input during the doctoral committee meetings.

For the instrumental of pile and setting up the equipment, I was able to rely on

the experience and wisdom of the following staff at Lehigh University, whom I’m

greatly indebted to: Dan Zeroka, Carl Bowman, Edmond Tomlinson, Eugene Matlock,

Peter Bryan and Darrick Fritchman. Many thanks to Jianbo Gu of Lehigh University

providing valuable help with numerical modelling.

Special thanks to Victory Chapel Christian Fellowship, Allentown for their

prayers and encouragement. Special thanks to my family, later Dad, Mum, my Sisters

Dr. Deborah Abongo, Daisy Abongo and Tabitha Abongo and to my brothers John

Abongo and Joshua Abongo for their constant encouraging words.

My special appreciation is due to my dear wife Sarah, my daughter Allison and

son Ethan for enduring through hardship and choosing to support Daddy with the

hope of a better tomorrow.

iv
 Table of Contents

1 GENERAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 2

1.1 Background information......................................................................................... 2

1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Methodology and novelty of the approach .......................................................... 6

1.4 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................ 7

1.5 References...............................................................................................................10

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................12

2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................12

2.2 Foundation Types for Offshore Wind Energy Converters .............................14

2.2.1 Gravity base foundation ................................................................................15

2.2.2 Suction Buckets ..............................................................................................17

2.2.3 Monopiles foundations .................................................................................19

2.2.4 Floating foundations......................................................................................20

2.3 Tower and foundation load for wind turbine structures ..................................21

2.4 Frequency of loading of wind turbine foundation ............................................22

2.5 Lateral load transfer mechanism of single pile ..................................................23

2.6 Methods of analysis of single pile under static lateral load ..............................25

2.7 Ultimate lateral resistance methods .....................................................................25

2.7.1 Hansen method ..............................................................................................26

2.7.2 Broms method ................................................................................................27

2.7.3 Meyerhof method ..........................................................................................27

v
 2.7.4 Petrasovits and Award method ....................................................................28

2.7.5 Fleming method .............................................................................................28

2.7.6 Prasad and Chari method ..............................................................................29

2.7.7 Zhang method ................................................................................................29

2.8 Subgrade reaction approach .................................................................................30

2.9 Laboratory cyclic loading ......................................................................................34

2.10 Summary and Issues to be addressed..................................................................36

2.11 References...............................................................................................................37

3 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LATERAL RESISTANCE OF FINNED AND

MONOPILES .......................................................................................................................44

3.1 Introduction and Background..............................................................................44

3.2 Aim of the study ....................................................................................................47

3.3 Experimental Preparation .....................................................................................47

3.3.1 Experimental soil box....................................................................................47

3.3.2 Materials ..........................................................................................................49

3.3.3 Characterization of soil .................................................................................50

3.3.4 Model piles ......................................................................................................51

3.3.5 Preparation of the test soil ............................................................................52

3.3.6 Scale and boundary effects ...........................................................................53

3.3.7 Scaling of laboratory tests .............................................................................55

3.3.8 Pile installation and lateral loading ..............................................................56

3.3.9 Test cases ........................................................................................................57

3.3.10 Placement of pressure sensors .....................................................................61

3.4 Test results ..............................................................................................................62

vi
 3.4.1 Effect of loading direction with respect to orientation of fins ................62

3.4.2 Fin efficiency ..................................................................................................64

3.4.3 Effect of fins in reducing length of pile length ..........................................67

3.4.4 Relationship between fin efficiency and weight of the pile ......................68

3.4.5 Change in lateral soil pressure during lateral loading of MP and FP ......69

3.4.6 Length of strain wedge for MP and FP ......................................................70

3.5 Summary and conclusion ......................................................................................72

3.6 References...............................................................................................................74

4 SOIL-PILE INTERACTION OF LATERALLY LOADED MONOPILE

AND FINNED PILES .......................................................................................................78

4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................78

4.2 Objective of the study ...........................................................................................79

4.3 Model pile instrumentation ..................................................................................79

4.4 Test Results ............................................................................................................81

4.4.1 Static lateral load carrying capacity ..............................................................81

4.4.2 Depth of pile rotation....................................................................................83

4.4.3 Bending moment distribution ......................................................................86

4.4.4 Bending efficiency of the fin piles ...............................................................87

4.4.5 Lateral deflection of the pile inside the soil ................................................90

4.4.6 Lateral soil pressure along the length of the pile .......................................91

4.4.7 Earth pressure distribution around the perimeter of the pile ..................92

4.5 Bulge factor of finned piles ..................................................................................94

4.6 Maximum lateral soil pressure (pmax) ...................................................................97

4.7 Soil pile interaction: Force-displacement (p-y curves) ......................................99

vii
 4.7.1 p-y curves from methodology developed by Zhang ..................................99

4.7.2 p-y curves from methodology developed by API (1993) ........................103

4.8 Estimation of ultimate lateral capacity of finned pile .....................................105

4.9 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................109

4.10 References.............................................................................................................111

5 CYCLIC RESPONSE OF LATERALLY LOADED MONOPILE AND

FINNED PILES.................................................................................................................115

5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................115

5.2 Cyclic response of piles .......................................................................................116

5.3 Cyclic accumulated deflection and rotation models .......................................118

5.4 Aim of the study ..................................................................................................119

5.5 Cyclic loading device ...........................................................................................119

5.6 Generation of cyclic lateral load ........................................................................121

5.6.1 Model piles and cyclic load application .....................................................122

5.6.2 Lateral cyclic load ratio ................................................................................123

5.7 Test Results ..........................................................................................................123

5.7.1 Characteristics cyclic loads ..........................................................................123

5.7.2 Lateral cyclic load- rotation curves ............................................................125

5.7.3 Accumulated pile head rotation .................................................................130

5.7.4 Estimation of pile head rotation at fatigue limit state .............................132

5.7.5 Pile-soil stiffness ...........................................................................................136

5.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................139

5.9 References.............................................................................................................140

viii
6 NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE LATERAL RESPONSE OF MONOPILE
AND FINNED PILES .....................................................................................................143

6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................143

6.2 Materials and method ..........................................................................................144

6.2.1 Model piles ....................................................................................................144

6.2.2 Soil modelling ...............................................................................................145

6.2.3 Interface element between soil and pile ....................................................147

6.2.4 Meshing .........................................................................................................148

6.2.5 Construction of model and loading sequence ..........................................148

6.3 Numerical analysis series ....................................................................................150

6.3.1 Test series ......................................................................................................150

6.3.2 Specific objectives of the study ..................................................................152

6.4 Tests Results .........................................................................................................152

6.4.1 Boundary Effects .........................................................................................152

6.4.2 Validation of the FEM model ....................................................................154

6.4.3 Optimum fin width ......................................................................................154

6.4.4 Optimum fin length .....................................................................................158

6.4.5 Effect of fin area on pile load efficiency ...................................................159

6.4.6 Optimum fin positioning ............................................................................161

6.4.7 Effect of fin orientation ..............................................................................162

6.5 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................163

6.6 References.............................................................................................................164

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................167

7.1 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................167

ix
7.2 Areas of future research ......................................................................................169

7.3 Limitation of research .........................................................................................170

x
 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Value of  and  (Briaud and Smith, 1983)....................................................30
Table 2-2 Summary of p-y curves developed by various researchers ............................33
Table 3-1 Non-dimensional parameters for scaling of laboratory tests (Leblanc et. al,
2010) .......................................................................................................................................56
Table 3-2 Loading cases for test series 1 ..........................................................................59
Table 5-1 Summary of the cyclic load cases ...................................................................124
Table 6-1 Properties of model pile used in the analysis ...............................................145
Table 6-2 Properties of soil used in the Mohr-Coulomb soil model ..........................146
Table 6-3 Numerical analysis cases .................................................................................151

xi
 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Straight finned and slanted finned piles .............................................................. 4
Figure 1-2 Flow of the study ................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2-1 Foundations types for offshore wind turbines .............................................13
Figure 2-2 The distribution of wind turbine installations in European seas (EWEA,
2015) .......................................................................................................................................15
Figure 2-3 Typical Gravity base foundation.....................................................................16
Figure 2-4 Suction Caisson foundation for offshore wind turbine ...............................18
Figure 2-5 Monopile foundation .......................................................................................19
Figure 2-6 Floating type foundation designs (Left to right: Quadruple floater, Pill
box floater, Tripod floater (Novem, 2002)........................................................................20
Figure 2-7 Representation of environmental loads acting on offshore wind
foundation ..............................................................................................................................21
Figure 2-8 Typical excitation ranges of a Vestas V90 3 MW offshore wind turbine
(Bhattacharya et al., 2011) ....................................................................................................23
Figure 2-9 Distribution of front earth pressure and side shear around pile subjected
to lateral load (Smith, 1987).................................................................................................24
Figure 2-10 Assumed distributions of soil pressure patterns by different researchers
.................................................................................................................................................26
Figure 2-11 Winkler Spring Concept for Laterally Loaded Pile Problem ....................31
Figure 2-12 Laboratory cyclic loading devices for pile testing ......................................35
Figure 3-1 Reduction in lateral resistance due to overlapping shear zone
("shadowing" or "group interaction") in closely spaced groups (Rollins, 2005) ..........46
Figure 3-2 Schematic diagram of the soil box with mounted measurement devices .48
Figure 3-3 Particle size distribution curve for the sand ..................................................49
Figure 3-4 Shear stress vs horizontal displacement from shear box test .....................50
Figure 3-5 Peak and residual shear stresses vs normal stresses with failure and
residual lines...........................................................................................................................51
Figure 3-6 Model test piles .................................................................................................52

xii
Figure 3-7 Schematic of sand raining device ....................................................................54
Figure 3-8 Sequence of lateral load testing (a) sand box preparation (b) prepared test
box (c) installed pile ..............................................................................................................57
Figure 3-9 Experimental loading cases for series 2 .........................................................60
Figure 3-10 Placing of the earth pressure sensors in the soil box .................................61
Figure 3-11 Effect of loading direction and fin orientation on lateral capacity of
finned piles .............................................................................................................................63
Figure 3-12 Variation of lateral load efficiency of finned piles with increase in
bearing area ............................................................................................................................65
Figure 3-13 Deflection efficiency of fin piles at various normalized lateral loading ..66
Figure 3-14 Lateral load verses displacement curves for monopiles of different Lp/Dp
ratios .......................................................................................................................................66
Figure 3-15 Variation of fin efficiency with the ratio of length of FP and MP ..........67
Figure 3-16 Relationship between fin efficiency and ratio of Weight of MP to FP ...68
Figure 3-17 Measured changed in horizontal stress away from the pile along during
lateral direction of loading ...................................................................................................70
Figure 3-18 Normalized length of strain wedge with pile head displacement.............71
Figure 4-1 Positioning of pressure and strain gauges on MP and FP ..........................80
Figure 4-2 Lateral load-rotation curves of the piles indicating ultimate pile capacity 83
Figure 4-3 Rotation of rigid pile during lateral loading ..................................................84
Figure 4-4 Point of rotation verses pile head rotation ....................................................85
Figure 4-5 Strain distributions on the compressive and tensile side of the piles ........86
Figure 4-6 Bending moment distribution of the piles ....................................................88
Figure 4-7 Comparison of the bending at different sections of the test piles .............89
Figure 4-8 Variation of Moment efficiency of finned piles with embedment depth..90
Figure 4-9 Lateral deflection of the pile ...........................................................................91
Figure 4-10 Measure lateral soil pressure along pile length............................................92
Figure 4-11 Distribution of lateral soil pressure around the perimeter of the pile .....93

xiii
Figure 4-12 Distribution of lateral soil pressure along the perimeter of the pile at
normalized lateral load H=1.26 ..........................................................................................94
Figure 4-13 Idealized mechanical system of pile shaft and fin (Rudolph and Grabe,
2013) .......................................................................................................................................95
Figure 4-14 Fin efficiency, Rp against the lateral soil pressure .......................................97
Figure 4-15 Normalized ultimate soil capacity measured along the pile length ..........98
Figure 4-16 Assumed earth pressure distribution and salient depth...........................100
Figure 4-17 Constant of subgrade reaction verses relative density (Murchison and
O'Neil, 1983) .......................................................................................................................101
Figure 4-18 Comparison of experimental and theoretical p-y curves after Zhang
(2009) ....................................................................................................................................102
Figure 4-19 Variation of coefficients C1 and C2 and a function of friction angle after
API, 1993 .............................................................................................................................104
Figure 4-20 Comparison of experimental p-y curves and theoretical p-y curves after
API, 1993 .............................................................................................................................105
Figure 4-21 Variation of displacement factor with pile head rotation........................108
Figure 4-22 Comparison of measured and predicted ultimate lateral capacity..........108
Figure 5-1 Response of monopile under constant one-way cyclic loading ................117
Figure 5-2 Shematic representation of thye cyclic loading device...............................120
Figure 5-3 Cyclic lateral loading set up ...........................................................................122
Figure 5-4 Comparison of theoretical and experimental cyclic loads .........................125
Figure 5-5 Cyclic lateral load -rotation curves for MP .................................................126
Figure 5-6 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-2 ................................................127
Figure 5-7 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-3 ................................................128
Figure 5-8 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-4 ................................................129
Figure 5-9 Variation of pile head rotation with number of cycles fitted using power
function ................................................................................................................................131
Figure 5-10 Evolution of pile head rotation with number of cycles ...........................132
Figure 5-11 Accumulated pile head rotation fitted using logarithmic function ........134

xiv
Figure 5-12 Estimated pile head rotation at fatigue limit state ....................................135
Figure 5-13 Comparison of rotation stiffness at different cyclic magnitudes. ..........137
Figure 5-14 Comparison of equivalent rotation stiffness at different cyclic
magnitudes ...........................................................................................................................138
Figure 6-1 Finite element mesh of the soil and model piles ........................................149
Figure 6-2 Horizontal stress distribution on laterally loaded finned piles .................153
Figure 6-3 Comparison of the experimental and numerical test results on MP and
FP-2. .....................................................................................................................................155
Figure 6-4 Numerical modeling results of variation of rotation efficiency with
normalized fin width ..........................................................................................................156
Figure 6-5 Numerical modeling results of the variation of load efficiency with
normalized fin width ..........................................................................................................157
Figure 6-6 Numerical modeling results of the variation of lateral rotation efficiency
with normalized fin length .................................................................................................158
Figure 6-7 Numerical modeling results of the variation of load efficiency with
normalized fin length..........................................................................................................159
Figure 6-8 Numerical modeling results of the effect of fin area on the lateral load
efficiency ..............................................................................................................................160
Figure 6-9 Numerical modeling results of the effect of fin position on the lateral pile
response................................................................................................................................161
Figure 6-10 Numerical results of the effect of loading direction for FP-3 ................162
Figure 6-11 Numerical results of the effect of loading direction for FP-4 .................163

xv
 List of Symbols

c Cohesion of soil
Cu and Cc Uniformity coefficient and coefficient of soil
Dp Diameter of pile
D* Effective diameter of a finned pile considering the budge factor
Ep Elasticity modulus of pile
e Load eccentricity
e0 Initial void ratio
emax and emin Maximum and minimum void ratio
E Effective young modulus of soil
EpIp Bending (flexural) stiffness of pile
Einc Increase in soil modulus per unit depth
FP Finned pile
f Loading frequency in Hz
g Acceleration due to gravity
H(FP) and H(MP) Lateral load on fin pile and monopile at same displacement
Hmax, Maximum applied cyclic load
Hmin Minimum applied cyclic load
Ka Rankine’s active pressure coefficient
Kp Rankine’s passive pressure coefficient
Kq Hansen’s earth pressure coefficient
Krs Relative stiffness of pile
Kbr Meyerhof earth pressure coefficient
Kbr Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
Lf Length of fin
Lp Length of pile
la,lc ,l2 Lengths of loading in the cyclic device
M Bending moment of pile

xvi
m1, m2 and m3 Mass of used in cyclic load test
MP Monopile
N Number of cycles
Psh Pressure on the shaft
Pw Pressure on the wing can be defined as
Rp Efficiency of fin in terms of pressure on shaft and fin
p Horizontal Soil reaction
Pu, Hu Ultimate lateral load pressure
s Seconds
Wf Width of pile
y Pile lateral deflection
ymax, N Maximum cyclic displacement
ymin, N Minimum cyclic displacement
yN Accumulated pile head displacement
z Depth of pile inside the soil
zref Reference depth
H Cyclic loading amplitude
 Friction angle of soil
p Peak friction angle of soil
r Residual friction angle of soil
 Dilatancy friction angle of soil
 Unit weight of soil
v Vertical earth pressure
η Shape factor in Zhang’s formula (for pressure in front of the
pile)
ξ Shape factor in Zhang’s formula (for drag force at the side of
the pile)
b, Cyclic load magnitude

xvii
c Cyclic load ratio
ηH Lateral load efficiency of a finned pile
η Pile head rotation efficiency of a finned pile
η Pile head deflection efficiency of a finned pile
ηH Lateral load efficiency of a finned pile
ηM Bending moment efficiency of a finned pile
pmax Maximum frontal passive earth pressure of soil ahead of pile
shaft.
τmax Maximum side shear resistance of soil at pile shaft
δ Interface friction angle between pile surface and soil
w Budge factor of a finned pile
Kh Modulus subgrade reaction
nh Coefficient of subgrade reaction.
emax and emin Maximum and minimum void ratio
 Pile head rotation
N Accumulated pile head rotation
με Macrostrain
 Angular rotation

xviii
 Abstract

The main objective of this thesis is to examine systematically the proposed

improved performance of finned piles over monopiles when subjected to lateral static

and cyclic loading. In order to achieve this objective, both physical and numerical

simulations were conducted on finned and monopile and outcomes were analyzed for

design recommendations. The physical tests were performed on scaled model piles at

1:100 reductions of typical wind turbine monopile foundations.

The cyclic lateral load tests were conducted on the scaled down foundation

models at 1g condition. Cyclic tests were conducted to evaluate the long-term

performance of the finned piles under cyclic wind loading conditions. Both the lateral

and rotational responses of the foundation systems were evaluated at 1000 cycles of

loading. The long-term performance at 107 cycles, defined as the fatigue limit state of

the offshore wind turbine foundation, was derived from data fitting using power laws

proposed by other researches. The results of both the static and cyclic lateral loading

tests confirmed improved performance indicators of finned piles over monopiles. The

major indicators were increased lateral capacity and decreased pile head rotation, both

of which are important design and performance considerations of supported wind

turbines, as the increase in lateral capacity translates into increase in factor of safety

against excessive lateral pile head rotation.

The laboratory lateral static test results were verified numerically using PLAXIS

modeler. The physical and numerical simulation results were found to corroborate well,

allowing to determine the optimum fin dimensions from numerical analysis.

1
 CHAPTER 1

1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
1.1 Background information

Various techniques have been used to increase lateral capacity of steel piles.

Some of these techniques include improving the surrounding soil, increasing the size,

number and length of piles and using expanded pile caps for piles in groups. For

example, when an existing bridge foundation is found to have inadequate lateral

resistance, additional piles or micro piles may be added. Subsequently, an expanded pile

cap or connecting beams are often required to structurally integrate the new piles to

the existing pile group. This approach, although proven to provide the required lateral

resistance, can be relatively expensive and time consuming (NCHRP 697, 2011).

An alternative approach for increasing the lateral capacity of pile is employing

soil improvement techniques to increase the strength and stiffness of the surrounding

soil. Although soil improvement is cost effective and reduces construction time, few

studies (NCHRP 697, 2011; Weaver and Chitoori, 2011) are available to fully evaluate

and validate the effectiveness of this method.

Steel plates welded on to the perimeter of piles have been utilized to enhance

the uplift and axial capacity of open ended steel piles for over four decades (Campbell

et al., 1987; Lee and Gilbert, 1980; Lutenegger, 2012; Nottingham and Christopher,

1990; Reinert and Newarn, 2007). Fins welded orthogonally (i.e. straight) or at an angle

2
(i.e. slanted) onto the surface of a monopole, as shown in Figure 1-1, have been

reported to increase the uplift and axial capacity of steel pipe piles. Tests conducted by

Lee and Gilbert (1980) on straight finned piles in soft clay under static and repeated

loading showed that presence of fins greatly improved the cyclic capacity of the

monopile. Slanted finned piles have been reported to provide even higher bearing and

uplift capacity. Nottingham and Christopher (1990) conducted field test and reported

that slanted finned piles;

(i) Have high tensile capacity in a low embedded depth

(ii) Can reduce the pile length by as much as 50% in soft soils under axial load

(iii) Exhibit significant reserve strength with cyclic axial loading.

(iv) Absorb large amount of energy though deflection without loss of strength.

Because of the above advantages, this type of pile has been used to increase pile

tension capacity and provide enhanced positive anchorage near pile tip, negating the

need to use larger or longer piles. In addition, short piles with straight fins have been

used effectively to resists uplift forces on transmission towers (Reinert and Newark,

2007).

Model test on lateral capacity of finned piles have shown that fins can increase

the lateral capacity of pile by as much as 80% (Duhrkorp and Grabe, 2008; Peng et al.,

2005, Songlin, 2007). Cyclic load test on finned piles (Peng et al., 2011) showed that

fins reduced the lateral displacement of the pile by 50%. PND Engineers in Anchorage

Alaska have used spin piles (Figure 1-1) in marine environment to construct docks,

dolphins, retaining wall tiebacks, wave barriers, seismic anchors and oil platform

3
foundations where uplift or impact load failures were anticipated. Because of their load

deformation characteristics, these piles allowed substantial pile overload deformation

without catastrophic failure after repeated loadings.

The use of fin piles in offshore wind turbine foundations has not been explored

despite the numerous advantages they pose over monopiles. The support structure for

offshore wind turbines (OWTs) plays a significant role in maintaining the structural

reliability during their service lives. The cost of foundation contributes 15% to 40% of

the total capital cost of an offshore wind project. The choice of a foundation in these

structures has great potential in their overall cost reduction up to 6% by 2020 (The

Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2015). The selection of foundation depends on

the water depth, seabed soil condition, wave height, and turbine capacity. The monopile

foundation has been widely used for the existing shallow water OWTs, which currently

accounts for more than 78% of all the installed OWTs in Europe (Stiesdal, 2009).

Figure 1-1 Straight finned and slanted finned piles

4
 This thesis aims studying the static lateral and cyclic lateral behavior of finned

piles in comparison with monopiles, to propose an efficient and economic foundation

system that satisfies the requirements of wind turbines under the specified loads.

1.2 Research Objectives

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of finned pile

foundation systems that can support offshore wind turbines considering both the

capacity and serviceability requirements under lateral static and cyclic loading. In order

to achieve this objective physical and numerical simulations were conducted on finned

piles and monopiles.

The general objectives of the proposed study program are as following:

(a) To investigate the efficiency (i.e., ratio of the lateral load on the finned pile

to that on the monopile at a specified pile head displacement or pile head

rotation) of the fin in improving the lateral capacity of pile with respect to

the number and the orientation of the fins, and the direction of loading. The

effect of the fin in shortening the required pile length is investigated.

(b) To evaluate soil pile-interaction of finned and monopiles and estimate the

ultimate lateral capacity of multi-finned (i.e., two, three and four fins) piles

in non-cohesive soils.

(c) To investigate the effect of fins in reducing the accumulated pile heads

rotation under long term one-way cyclic loading.

5
 (d) To determine the fin dimensions (i.e., length and width), and their

positioning along the pile (i.e., top, middle or bottom) that will result in

maximum efficiency.

1.3 Methodology and novelty of the approach

This research investigates the performance finned pile foundations proposed

for wind turbines under lateral static and cyclic loading using experimental and

numerical approaches. The new processes and findings identified as original

contributions are:

1) A detailed comparative study of the fin piles with monopiles has been

performed to better understand and benchmark the behavior of finned piles.

The efficiency of fin in reducing the required length of pile; and the effect of

the number of fins and the orientation of fin with respect to lateral loading

direction on the lateral capacity of the pile have been explored effectively and

explained clearly in this study.

2) Soil-pile interaction of instrumented piles has been studied and the p-y curves

for both the finned and the monopiles developed. Experimental p-y curves have

been compared with the theoretical p-y curves suggested by other researchers.

3) Long-term lateral cyclic response of the finned piles has been investigated and

the efficiency of the finned pile was compared to that of the monopile at fatigue

limit state.

6
 4) Numerical simulation of the finned and monopile behavior under static lateral

loading verified the experimental data to elucidate the behavior of the fin piles.

The benchmarked analysis helped determine the optimum dimensions and

positioning of the fins as well as the effect of the fin area on the fin efficiency.

1.4 Outline of the thesis

This study is based on mostly experimental and partially on numerical methods.

Because of the difficulties and constrains of performing field tests on actual piles under

static and cyclic lateral loads, scaled model tests at 1g were proposed and conducted in

the laboratory. The experimental results were validated through numerical analysis

using PLAXIS™ software. The experimental results were also compared with relevant

information available in literature.

This dissertation is organized in seven chapters with the framework presented

in Figure 1-2. A brief outline of each chapter is provided as follows:

Chapter 1 outlines the background of this research and it identifies the need for

better understanding of the behavior of finned piles proposed for wind turbine pile

foundations subjected to lateral cyclic loading. The main and specific objectives of the

dissertation and the research program required to accomplish these objectives are

briefly outlined. The original contributions of this study are identified and presented.

Chapter 2 provides a literature review of various types of foundation systems

currently constructed for offshore wind turbines, and the methods used to estimate the

lateral capacity of the piles used in these systems. Also provided in this chapter is a

7
review of various laboratory scale equipment developed by other researchers that have

been used to study lateral cyclic loading of model piles.

In Chapter 3, a comprehensive description of the experimental work carried out

in the laboratory is provided. Detailed information about the materials, such as the

properties of the sand used to construct the soil medium for testing; description of the

test setup, instrumentations; determination of the appropriate scaling factors, boundary

effects; description of the test box preparation, loading mechanism, and the pile models

used in the research are presented. Analysis of the benchmarked (i.e., with respect to

the monopile) results from static lateral load test of piles with different number of fins

and the effect of varying load direction with respect to the fin orientation are provided.

The resulting fin efficiency in various configurations of the fins is presented in this

chapter, also. Finally, the effect of fin in reducing the required length of monopile is

determined and presented.

Chapter 4 discusses the response of instrumented model piles to lateral static

loading. The multi-finned piles (i.e., two, three and four fins) and monopile were

instrumented with strain gauges and earth pressure gauges. The bending moment and

earth pressure distribution were determined along the length of the piles. Pile p-y curves

were derived from the earth pressure data for both the finned and monopiles.

Chapter 5 presents the analysis of the results from the one-way cyclic testing of

the finned and monopiles. One-way cyclic loading was applied to the piles at different

cyclic load ratios. The results were used to evaluate the effects of fins in reducing

8
accumulated pile rotation. Long-term cyclic efficiency of finned pile was estimated and

benchmarked.

The results of the numerical modelling of the finned and monopiles are

presented in Chapter 6. The laboratory test results from static tests were verified

numerical simulation. The optimum dimensions and positioning of fins were

determined and suggested for design of finned foundation systems.

Lastly, Chapter 7 summarizes the main findings of this research and provides

recommendations for future studies and research.

Model Study on Static and Cyclic

Lateral Capacity of Finned Piles

CHAPTER 1
General Overview of The Thesis

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review

CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
Comparative Study Of Lateral Soil-Pile Interaction of Laterally
Cyclic Response Of Laterally
Resistance of Finned and Loaded Monopile and Finned
loaded Monopile and Finned Piles
Monopiles Piles

CHAPTER 6
Numerical Study On The Lateral CHAPTER 7
Response of Monopile and Summary and Conclusions
Finned Piles

Figure 1-2 Flow of the study

9
1.5 References

1. Campbell, R. Christopher, A. and Nottingham, D., (1987): Use of Fins on Piles

for Increased Tension Capacity (Spin-Fin Piles). Alaska Department of

Transportation Final Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-87-16, 50.

2. Duhrkop, J. and Grabe, J. (2008): Improving the lateral bearing capacity of

monopiles by welded wings. Proc. of the 2nd BGA International Conference on

Foundations, 1: 849-860.

3. Lutenegger, A. (2012): Tension Tests on Driven Fin Piles for Support of Solar

Panel Arrays. GeoCongress 2012: 305-314.

4. Lee, P. Y. and Gilbert, L. W. (1980): The Behavior of Steel Rocket Shaped Pile,"

Symposium on Deep Foundation, ASCE: 244-266.

5. Nottingham, D. and Christopherson, A. (1990): Spin-Fin Pile Technology.

Proceedings of the 15th Annual Deep Foundations Members Conference, 15

6. Peng, J. (2005): Behavior of finned piles in sand under lateral loading: PhD

Thesis, University of New Castle Upon Tyne

7. The Oxford Institute of Energy (2015): Achieving a Cost-competitive Offshore

Wind Power Industry: what is the most effective policy framework?

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EL-

15.pdf

8. TRB (2011): Design Guidelines for Increasing the Lateral Resistance of

Highway-Bridge Pile Foundations by Improving Weak Soils. NCHRP Report

697.

10
9. Reinert, G.J and F. Barry Newman, F.B (2007): Steel Finned-Pipe foundation

for single Pole Structure” Proc of Electrical Transmission in a New Age: 292-299.

10. Songlin, W. (2007). “Horizontal Resistance Behavior of Pile with Wings in

Sand”. Proceedings of the 32nd Deep Foundations Annual Members Conference (7): 253-

259.

11. Stiesdal, H. (2009): Hywind. The world’s first floating MW-scale wind turbine,

Wind Directions, 31: 52-53.

12. Weaver, T.J and Chitoori, B (2007): Influence of Limited Soil Improvement on

Lateral Pile” Proc of Soil improvement, ASCE GSP, 172: 1-10.

11
 CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

Today’s focus on renewable energy sources as replacement for fossil fuels has

caused the onshore and offshore wind industries to expand rapidly. World usage of

renewable energy in the coming few decades has been estimated to represent about

10% of the generated energy by 2050 (ISEP, 2016: https://www.isep.or.jp/en/).

Pile foundations are widely used as foundations for wind farms or as anchors

for floating facilities for oil and gas production (Bienen et al., 2012). Engineering

experience with foundations for the offshore structures was derived mainly from the

structural and operational requirements of the petroleum industry. However, there is a

major difference between the foundations supporting the oil platforms and the wind

turbines due to the difference in horizontal to vertical loads ratio. For wind turbine

foundations, this ratio is much higher, which requires different foundation systems to

support the large horizontal forces and the associated large moments. Considering the

wind loads from the turbine and the water level at the installation site, different

foundations options become more economically viable. For more than two decades of

offshore wind turbines farms, the accumulation of experience and the advent of

innovative powerful equipment now enable the installation of suitable foundations for

these facilities. Generally, shallow foundations are considered as gravity structures in

12
small water depths (Fig. 2-1a). For larger water depths, deep foundation systems are

used involving large diameter steel piles (Fig. 2-1b). For deep waters, suction caissons

and tetrapod foundations or even floating foundation systems are used (Fig. 2-1c)

(Abdelkader, 2016).

(a) Gravity Base (b) Monopile (c) Suction Caissons

Figure 2-1 Foundations types for offshore wind turbines

13
 Wind turbine foundations for onshore or offshore structures have received

much attention in an effort to develop new economical and reliable techniques,

particularly with reduced construction cost (Houlsby and Byrne, 2001). Initial

investigations were conducted on hybrid foundations by Carder and Brooks (1993).

The hybrid foundation was an innovative system which comprised of a combination

of shallow foundation and pile. Thus, the system performed similar to a retaining wall

with a stabilizing base (Carder and Brooks, 1993). Another concept was to strengthen

the pile by welding metal plates at its head to enhance its lateral and rotational resistance

(Irvine et al., 2003; Lee and Gilbert, 1980).

By 2015, a total of 2920 support structures were fully installed in European

offshore wind farms. The proportion for each type of the support structure is shown

in Figure 2-2. The most commonly used were monopiles, where 2301 units were

installed by the end of 2014 (78.8%). Gravity based foundations came second with 303

units installed (10.4%), followed by jacket foundations (137 units: 4.7%), tripods (120

units: 4.1%) and tri-piles (55 units: 1.9%). Two fully floating structures were already in

the water in 2014 (EWEA, 2015).

2.2 Foundation Types for Offshore Wind Energy Converters

Offshore wind turbines need to be fixed to the seabed with a permanent or

semi-permanent support structure. For deep waters a floating structure is used but the

most common ones are the fixed foundations used at shallow depths (up to 50 meters).

14
 Figure 2-2 The distribution of wind turbine installations in
European seas (EWEA, 2015)

There are four types of foundations used for offshore wind turbines: gravity

base foundations, suction buckets, floating foundations and monopiles. Each of these

foundation systems is best suited for a particular water depth and as described below.

2.2.1 Gravity base foundation

Gravity base type foundation consists of an extremely heavy base, placed over

the seabed as seen in Figure 2-3. It is a widely accepted traditional type of foundation

for offshore structures. Gravity base foundation is mostly used for shallow depth water

of 10m. It has been used mostly in Norwegian coast and in North Sea in UK for

medium depth offshore structures. Gravity base foundation is designed against the

failure modes of sliding, tilting, lifting and bearing capacity. In this type of foundation,

15
bearing capacity of the seabed and consolidation settlements should be considered. The

wave and current forces in the water, along with high wind loading may lead to tilting

or sliding of the foundation (Peng, 2003).

Bearing capacity limitation of the seabed brings about technical limitations to

the design, hence performance expected from the structure for lateral loading that

satisfy the tilting stability. Gravity base foundations often have large volumes and

surface areas, resulting in increase of hydraulic forces due to waves and currents in the

water. Increase in diameter of the structures results in increase of their mass. Gravity

base foundation is not commercially preferred due to some of these physical limitations

(Soker et al. 2000).

Figure 2-3 Typical Gravity base foundation

16
(Source: https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/offshore-support-structures.html)

Calculations for the bearing capacity analysis of these structures are similar to

those of shallow foundation capacity calculations. Bearing capacity equations by

Meyerhof et al. (1978) are used. Site specific ground investigations such as SPT or CPT

provide important information for design calculations (Peng, 2003). Sites where soft

rock such as chalk is present can be suitable for the bearing capacity requirements for

gravity base foundations, but site investigations should be done thoroughly (Zaaijer,

2001). In areas where high liquefaction risk is present in bottom sand, gravity base

cannot be the preferred foundation type.

2.2.2 Suction Buckets

Suction buckets are tubular steel foundations that are installed by sealing the

top and applying suction inside the bucket (Zaaijer et al. 2001). Water is evacuated from

sealed bucket by a pump from the internal cavity and a net downward pressure is

applied to the foundation forcing it to penetrate the seabed. This hydrostatic pressure

difference between inside and outside the bucket, and the deadweight of the structure

cause the bucket to be filled with the seabed material as it sinks into the ground and

fixing it to the seabed slowly. These foundation systems have been constructed in the

Norwegian oil and gas fields in North Sea, and in Angola coast (Birck and Gormesen,

1999). Figure 2-4 shows the illustration of suction bucket foundations.

17
 The suction bucket foundation type is especially suitable when seabed material

mainly consists of sands or soft clays. Suction bucket is not a favorable foundation type

for water depths more than 15m. A diameter to length ratio of 10 is a practical

maximum, which depends on water depth and soil properties (Birck and Gormesen,

1999).

The main shortcoming of this system is that, in the long term after construction,

the soil inside the bucket will drain causing the suction force to reduce. In addition,

lack of wide practical experience and unsuitability of suction bucket foundations for

higher water depths makes other foundation choices more favorable.

Figure 2-4 Suction Caisson foundation for offshore wind turbine

(Source: https://psmag.com/news/could-giant-suction-cups-turn-lake-erie-into-a-
regional-energy-hub)

18
2.2.3 Monopiles foundations

Monopile foundation (Figure 2-5) is one of the most popular and simplest

offshore wind foundations, and it has been used widely in the last few decades. This

foundation accounts for 78.8% of all existing ones in wind farms installed in Europe

by the end of 2014 with total of 2301 of foundations (EWEA, 2015; Wang et al., 2018).

The foundation is made of a hollow steel cylinder with a diameter of 3–6m and a length

of 20–50m; and 40–50% of the length is inserted into seabed to provide the required

resistances (DNV, 2013). The monopile foundation is constructed onshore and

transported to designated location and installed by the pile driving. In this operation

seabed preparations are not necessary.

Figure 2-5 Monopile foundation

(Source: https://www.scheuerle.com/communication/press/press-
releases/detail/getarticle/News/detail/1300-tonnes-worlds-largest-monopile-1.html)

19
2.2.4 Floating foundations

Floating type foundations for offshore wind energy converters have developed

since 1990s and they have the potential to provide usage of large sea surface area for

wind turbines to be located. Floating foundations are suitable for steeper seabed

conditions and very high water depths up to 500m (Tong, 1998). Figure 2-6 shows

various types of floating foundations.

Floating wind power plants have different types of support structures. Some of

them are anchored to seabed by one or several tension piles. The anchorage cables can

be fixed to a tripod structure which holds the turbine and tower (Novem, 2002). Design

of tension piles uses the same principles as in the calculation of the pull-out resistance

of piles. Grouting can be required to lower their scour sensitivity at the anchorage

location on seabed.

Figure 2-6 Floating type foundation designs (Left to right: Quadruple floater, Pill
box floater, Tripod floater (Novem, 2002)

20
2.3 Tower and foundation load for wind turbine structures

DNV (2013) regulations state that a wind turbine structure must be analyzed

for various loads that it will experience during its design life, including:

i. Aerodynamic loads that result from wind, drag and lift forces.

ii. Inertia loads that result from gravity, rotation, vibration, or gyroscopic motion.

iii. Functional loads from transient operation conditions of turbine such as braking

torque, yawing and blade pitching moments, or transmitting power to

generator.

iv. Other loads resulting from other environment sources such as waves and ice.

Figure 2-7 shows the loading acting on an offshore wind foundation.

Figure 2-7 Representation of environmental loads acting on offshore wind

foundation

21
2.4 Frequency of loading of wind turbine foundation

Figure 2-8 presents the fundamental concept of the design frequency range for

an offshore wind energy system. The response spectra in terms of power spectral

density are plotted in the frequency domain for a Vestas V120 MW offshore wind

turbine in the North Sea. The rotational speed of modern wind turbines typically ranges

from 8.6-18.4 revolutions per minute, and the first excitation frequency (1P), which

corresponds to a full revolution, typically ranges from 0.15-0.26 Hz. The 3P is defined

as the blade passing frequency and is approximately 0.47-0.77 Hz for a three-bladed

wind turbine. The 3P frequency results from shadowing effects of the blade on the

tower caused by a drop in the upstream wind velocity in the vicinity of the tower as

each of the three blades passes in front of the tower. An example of the dynamic wind

loading is also shown in Figure 2-8. In this depiction Froya wind spectrum (Andersen

and Lovseth, 2006) is used. The dynamic wave loads are modelled using the Pierson

and Moskowitz (1964) spectrum at which predominant wave frequency is 0.1Hz,

corresponding to10s wave period.

In order for turbines to remain unconditionally stable, and avoid unplanned

resonance effects, they have to be designed to minimize the magnitude of the dynamic

load applied to them. There are two challenges (Bhattacharya et al., 2011):

a) The foundation stiffness must be estimated accurately from the available soil data.

b) The potential for change in foundation stiffness with time as a result of the cyclic

loading must be understood so that the risks of the system frequency coinciding

with a loading frequency that can lead to resonance conditions can be avoided.

22
 Figure 2-8 Typical excitation ranges of a Vestas V90 3 MW offshore wind
turbine (Bhattacharya et al., 2011)

2.5 Lateral load transfer mechanism of single pile

The bearing capacity of a laterally loaded pile is mobilized due to the interaction

between the pile displacement and the resistance of the soil also known as soil-pile

interaction (Briaud and Smith 1983; and Smith, 1987). The applied load is carried by

the single pile as a combination of soil pressures and friction acting on the pile. The

soil response from these forces needs to be seen from a 3-dimensional perspective. A

2D sketch of the pressures acting on a pile cross section is shown in Figure 2-9. The

pile is subjected to soil pressure and friction on the side of the pile. To simplify the 3-

dimensional friction and pressure distributions, all these factors are merged into one

single soil resistance, sometimes called the modulus approach. The ultimate lateral

resustance (Pu) on a pile can then be calculated as the effective stress (v) at a given

23
point multiplied by an earth pressure coefficient (K) and the pile diameter (D and

integrated over the length of the pile (L). This can be written as:

𝐿
𝑃𝑢 = ∫0 𝐾𝐷𝜎𝑣 𝑑𝑧 (2-1)

Figure 2-9 Distribution of front earth pressure and side shear

around pile subjected to lateral load (Smith, 1987)

24
2.6 Methods of analysis of single pile under static lateral load

Various numerical and empirical approaches have been developed by many

researchers for analyzing the static and cyclic lateral responses of single piles. Although

these methods make slightly different assumptions, they can generally be classified as:

1) Ultimate resistance methods (Brinch Hansen, 1961; Broms, 1964; Meyerhof et al.,

1981)

2) Subgrade reaction methods (Kishida et al., 1985; Matlock, 1970; O’Neill and

Murchison, 1983; Reese et al., 1974). Some of the methods are briefly described

below.

2.7 Ultimate lateral resistance methods

Numerous methods have been published in the literature for predicting the

ultimate lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils (Brinch Hansen, 1961; Broms,

1964; Fleming, 1992; Meyerhof et al., 1981; Petrasovits and Award, 1972). The main

difference between these methods is the assumed distribution pattern of the lateral

earth pressure in front of pile during loading (Figure 2-10). Therefore, each method

results in a different value for ultimate lateral load for the same soil conditions. After

full mobilization of the lateral soil pressure due to lateral loading, some methods

assume that pile rotates at the pile base, such as in the Broms method (1964). Other

methods proposed by Petrasovits and Award (1972), Prasad and Chari (1999), Brinch

Hansen (1961), and Meyerhof et al. (1981) consider that the point of pile rotation

resides at a certain depth below the ground level.

25
2.7.1 Hansen method

Brinch Hansen (1961) recommended a method for the calculation of the ultimate

lateral resistance of free-head rigid piles in uniform or layered soils. The ultimate lateral

load acting on the pile can be calculated using Equation 2.2. The earth pressure

coefficient Kq is based on earth pressure theory. A trial and error procedure is used to

find the rotation point that satisfied the lateral force equilibrium. The ultimate lateral

resistance of soil per unit length of the pile is obtained from equation 2-2.

𝑝𝑢 = 𝐾𝑞 𝜎𝑣 (2-2)

The parameter Kq is the Hansen’s earth pressure coefficient which is a function of the

internal friction angle of soil,  and the ratio of embedded depth to diameter of pile,

z/D.

Figure 2-10 Assumed distributions of soil pressure patterns by

different researchers
26
2.7.2 Broms method

Broms (1964) developed an empirical solution for predicting the behavior of

laterally loaded rigid and flexible piles. For rigid piles failure occurs due to shear failure

in soil whereas in flexible piles, ultimate failure load relates to the section properties of

the pile. Broms method assumes that when displacement takes place due to lateral load,

soil in front of the pile moves upwards and soil at the back of the pile moves

downwards to the space generated by the movement of the pile. Based on this

assumption, Broms method ignores the effect of pile rotation. The active soil pressure

at the back of the pile is also ignored. On the other hand, soil pressure is multiplied by

Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient and a factor 3 which is relatively conservative

according to the field test results (Poulos and Davis, 1980). Equation (2-3) presented

Broms approach for computation of the ultimate resistance of the soil per length of

pile:

𝑝𝑢 = 3𝐾𝑝 𝜎𝑣 (2-3)

2.7.3 Meyerhof method

Meyerhof et al. (1981) provided a solution for the analysis of laterally loaded

rigid and flexible piles. According to their method, a flexible pile is defined when the

relative stiffness of the pile, Krs is less than 0.014, as described below:

Krs = Ep I/ Es L4 <0.014

Where

Es: Horizontal soil modulus at pile tip; Ep: Elasticity modulus of pile
27
 L: Embedded length of the pile; I: Moment of inertia of the pile

Meyerhof et al. (1981) proposed that ultimate lateral load, Qu, can be expressed

by net earth pressure computed using a lateral earth pressure coefficient Kbr, function

of the internal friction angle of soil as well as the shape of the pile (Equation 2-4).

Shape of the pile is considered by the ratio of D to L in the coefficient.

For rigid piles in sand;

𝑄𝑢 = 0.12𝛾𝐷𝐿2 𝐾𝑏𝑟 (2-4)

In Meyerhof method, the rotation point of pile is assumed at the tip of the pile

and the soil reaction is assumed to be linear.

2.7.4 Petrasovits and Award method

Petrasovits and Award (1972) recommend that the ultimate lateral resistance

per length of pile be calculated by Equation 2-5. Reactions of both passive and active

pressures are considered in the equation and a shape factor of 3.7 is introduced.

𝑝𝑢 = (3.7𝐾𝑝 − 𝐾𝑎 )𝛾𝐿 (2-5)

Where

pu: Ultimate resistance of the soil per unit pile length; Kp: Rankine’s passive pressure

coefficient; Ka: Rankine’s active pressure coefficient; γ: Unit weight of soil (kN/m3);

L: Embedded length of the pile

2.7.5 Fleming method

Fleming (1992) recommended the following form of Equation (2-5) for calculating the

ultimate pile resistance.

28
 𝑝𝑢 = 3𝐾 2 𝑝 𝜎𝑣 (2-6)

2.7.6 Prasad and Chari method

Prasad and Chari (1999) proposed Equation 2-7 for predicting ultimate soil

resistance for laterally loaded pile in cohesionless soil.

𝑝𝑢 = 10(1.3𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙+0.3) 𝜎𝑣 (2-7)

In Prasad and Chari method the depth of pile rotation is given as a function of

embedment length and the load eccentricity.

2.7.7 Zhang method

More recently, Zhang et al. (2005) proposed a method for calculating the

ultimate lateral soil resistance to piles in cohesionless soil considering both the frontal

soil resistance and side shear resistance, as given by Equation (2-8) below:

𝑝𝑢 = (𝜂𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) (2-8)

Where,

η is the shape factor to account for the non-uniform distribution of earth pressure in

front of the pile (Table 2-1); ξ is the shape factor to account for the non-uniform

distribution of lateral shear drag (Table 2-1); pmax is maximum frontal passive earth

pressure of soil ahead of pile shaft; and τmax is maximum side shear resistance of soil at

pile shaft.

29
 Table 2-1 Value of  and  (Briaud and Smith, 1983)

Pile shape  

Circular 0.8 1.0

Square 1.0 2.0

Values of (pmax) and (τmax) are calculated using Equations 2-9 and 2-10,

respectively.

𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐾 2 𝑝 𝜎𝑣 (2-9)

𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐾𝑠 𝜎𝑣 𝑡𝑎𝑛 (2-10)

Where, Ks is lateral earth pressure coefficient (ratio of horizontal to vertical effective

stress) and δ is interface friction angle between pile surface and soil, mostly a function

of soil type and its density.

2.8 Subgrade reaction approach

A laterally loaded pile has often been treated as a beam on an elastic foundation

as shown in Figure 2-11. For a true elastic medium, the soil reaction (p) and the

deflection (y) at a given point are affected by reactions and deflections at all other points

on the beam. Vesic (1961) has shown that the error inherent in Winkler’s hypothesis is

not significant. In the Winkler soil model, the soil reaction per unit length of pile (p)

and lateral displacement (y) at a point are assumed to be related through a modulus of

subgrade reaction (Kh) given bu equation 2-11 and 2-12 (Reese and Matlock, 1956).

30
 𝑃
𝐾ℎ = (2-11)
𝐷

𝐾ℎ = 𝑛ℎ 𝑧 (2-12)

Where,

Kh = modulus subgrade reaction, (in units of F/L3); D = diameter or width of pile (in

units of L); nh= coefficient of subgrade reaction.

Pile is usually assumed to act as a thin strip whose behavior is governed by

standard beam-column Equation (2-13):

𝑑4 y
𝐸𝑝 𝐼𝑝 +𝑝 =0 (2-13)
𝑑𝑧 4

EpIp and p are the bending (flexural) stiffness of pile and the lateral load per unit length

of pile, respectively.

Figure 2-11 Winkler Spring Concept for Laterally

Loaded Pile Problem

31
 The above formula is known as the governing differential equation for elastic

curve of a laterally loaded pile. Hence the subgrade reaction approach is based on the

solution of the forth order differential equation (Equation 2-12), and it can be used for

both free-and fixed head single piles. The nonlinear ‘p-y’ curves for piles in sand

described by Reese et al. (1974) and O’Neill and Murchison (1983), which were

basically obtained from two full scale slender pile tests led to recommendations in the

standards such as API, 1993. This method, which is adapted in the standards, uses a

procedure to construct non-linear ‘p-y’ curves for monopiles in sand subjected to cyclic

loading as a function of the static ultimate lateral resistance (pu), as given by equation

(2-14).
𝐾ℎ 𝑧
𝑝 = 𝐴𝑝𝑢 ( 𝑦) + 𝑃 = 0 (2-14)
𝐴𝑝𝑢

The parameter A in Equation 2-14 is a reduction factor which was used to fit full-scale

results on slender piles, and it was found to be A=0.9 for cyclic loading, and A=3-

0.8z/D for monotonic loading.

Many methods for constructing “p-y” curves for various types of soil and

loading conditions (static and cyclic) have been developed during the past few decades.

Table 2.2 lists some of these methods found in the literature (Alladdwar, 2017).

32
Table 2-2 Summary of p-y curves developed by various researchers

33
2.9 Laboratory cyclic loading

Peng et al., 2006 identified number of mechanical, electro mechanical and

hydraulic loading devices used to impart cyclic loads on model piles. The most

common devices are shown in Figure 2-12. Among these, the gravity, the gear drive

and the hydraulic drive systems are commonly used for static loading (Figure 2-12 a-

c). They have also been used in limited cyclical loading tests by manually controlling

the loading systems (Peng et al. 2004; El Naggar and Wei 1999). The statnamic device

in Figure 2-12 d has been successfully used in a field test with low loading frequency

ranging from 0 to 10 Hz (Janes et al. 1991). There is no evidence of this equipment

being tried in a laboratory test yet. The vibration system shown in Figure 2-12e has

been used to provide cyclic loading with higher frequencies up to 50 Hz. These

frequencies of loading are not suitable to model wind farm loading (Blaney and O’Neill

1989). The pneumatic loading device in Figure 2-12 f has been successfully used in one-

way cyclic loading with up to 500 cycles in each test (Ramakrishna and Rao 1999). The

mechanical loading system shown in Figure 2-12 g uses a gear box to control one-way

or two-way cyclic loading at different frequencies (Purkayastha and Basack 1999). A

three degree-of-freedom loading ring was used to provide combined loading in the

system depicted in Figure 2-12 h where cyclic vertical and horizontal loads as well as

moments were possible at the same time (Byrne and Houlsby 2004). A mechanical load

rig driven by motor, originally developed by Rovere (2004), was used successfully to

apply cyclic loads to a model pile (Le Blanc et al., 2010) and a model caisson foundation

(Zhu et al., 2013).

34
Figure 2-12 Laboratory cyclic loading devices for pile testing

35
2.10 Summary and Issues to be addressed

This chapter reviewed the previous findings and developments in analysis of

single monopile in sandy soils and subjected to lateral cyclic and static loading, with

emphasis on those used for wind turbines. The literature review covered the following

aspects: common types of wind turbine foundations used in the practice, loading

patterns of wind turbines, traditional methods of analysis of lateral loading for single

piles, assumptions of soil reaction around monopile due to lateral displacement, and

the characteristics of the common static and cyclic loading devices used for conducting

model pile load test.

The following academic and practice related issues remain unresolved, which will be

attempted to address in this dissertation:

1. It has been emphasized by many that supporting foundation for offshore wind

turbines (OWTs) plays a significant role in maintaining the structural reliability

of these facilities during their service lives. During its life time, wind turbine will

be subjected to long term sustained cyclic and/or repeated loading, magnitudes

of which may also be cyclic in nature, such as ocean waves, wind, and sediment

movement. Repeated loading and unloading of the supporting piles can lead to

accumulated displacements and rotation of the pile head (Chang and Witman,

1988). Hence, large accumulation of displacement and rotation of pile head are

likely to occur during the life time of wind turbine support piles (Leblance et al.,

2010). Since finned piles have shown to improve lateral resistance of piles, they

constitute good candidate foundation components to use to mitigate

36
 accumulation of lateral displacement and potentially reduce rotation at pile

head. There exists a need to better evaluate the effect of fins in improving the

lateral displacement of piles under cyclic loading.

2. As fins are placed at select locations along the embedded depth of a pile and are

not continuous, a finned pile can be considered a hybrid structure that exhibit

different behaviors in the finned and the un-finned sections (i.e., moment of

inertia). The soil resistance distribution resulting on the finned section of the

pile should be investigated closely for clear understanding of the lateral behavior

of the whole pile. Furthermore, influence of the orientation of the fins with

respect to the loading direction and the changing geometry of the pile has not

been studied adequately. A better understanding of the finned pile behavior for

improved design and its recommendation for offshore wind turbine foundation

structures hinges on these important analyses.

2.11 References

1. Abdelkader, M.R. (2016): Investigation of hybrid foundation system for offshore wind

turbine. The University of West Ontario, Canada.

2. Andersen, O. J. and Lovesth, J. (2006): The Froya database and maritime

boundary layer wind description. Marine Structures 19 (23): 173-192.

3. API. (1993): Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing

fixed offshore platform: Working stress design, RP2A-WSD. 20th edition.

37
4. Bhattacharya, S., Lombardi, D. and Moor Wood, D. (2011): Similitude

relationship for physical modelling of mono-pile supported wind turbines.

International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 11 (2):58-68.

5. Bienen, B., Duhrkop, J., Grabe, J., Randolph, M., and White, D. (2012):

Response of piles with wings to monotonic and cyclic lateral loading in sand.

Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering 138 (3): 364-375.

6. Birck, C. and Gormsen, C. (1999): Recent Developments in Offshore

Foundation Design. Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, France.

7. Blaney, G. W. and O’Neill, M. W. (1989) “Dynamic Lateral Response of Pile

Group in Clay,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, 12: 22–29.

8. Briaud, J.L. and Smith, T. D. (1983): Using the pressure meter curve to design

laterally loaded piles. Proceeding 15th Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Paper

4501:495–502.

9. Brinch Hansen, J. (1961): The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against

transversal forces. Bulletin No. 12, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen,

Denmark, pp. 5–9.

10. Broms, B.B.(1964): Lateral resistance of piles on cohesionless soils. Journal of Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, (SM3), Vol. 90, No. 3, pp. 123–156.

11. Byrne, B. W. and Houlsby, G. T. (2004): Experimental Investigation of the

Response of Suction Caissons to Transient Combined Loading,” Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (3): 240–253.

38
12. Carder, D.R. and Brookes, N J. (1993). Discussion in the Retaining structures (ed.C.

R. I. Clsyton), pp.498-501. London: Thomas Telford.

13. Chang, C.S. and Whitman, R.V. (1988).: Drained permanent deformation of

sand due to cyclic loading, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

ASCE, 96, (4):1605-1627

14. DNV (2013). Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures.

15. El Nagger, M. H. and Wei, J. Q., (1999): Response of Tapered Piles Subjected

to Lateral Loading,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36: 52–71.

16. European Wind Energy Association. (2015). The European offshore wind industry –

key trends and statistics 2014 (1st edition). Retrieved from EWEA website:

17. Houlsby G.T. and Byrne B.W. (2001) "Novel Foundations for Offshore Wind

Farms", Research Proposal to EPSRC (August 2001), Department of

Engineering Science, Oxford University.

18. https://psmag.com/news/could-giant-suction-cups-turn-lake-erie-into-a-

regional-energy-hub.

19. https://www.scheuerle.com/communication/press/pressreleases/detail/getar

ticle/News/detail/1300-tonnes-worlds-largest-monopile-1.html.

20. https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/offshore-support-structures.html

21. Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, 2016: https://www.isep.or.jp/en/.

22. Irvine J.H., Allan P.G., Clarke B.G., Peng, J. (2003): Improving the lateral

stability of monopile foundations. International Conference on Foundations, BGA,

UK: 371-380.

39
23. Janes, M. C., Bermingham, P.D., and Horvath, R.C. (1991): An Innovative

Dynamic Test Method for Piles,” Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Recent

Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, pp.

252–256.

24. Kishida, H., Suzuki, Y., and Nakai, S. (1985): Behavior of a pile under horizontal

cyclic loading. Proceeding of 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp. 1413-

1416.

25. LeBlanc C., Houlsby G.T. and Byrne B.W. (2010): Response of stiff piles in

sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading. Géotechnique 60 (2): 79-90.

26. Lee, P.Y. and Gilbert, L.W. (1980): The Behavior of Steel Rocket Shaped Pile

Symposium on Deep Foundation, ASCE. 244-266.

27. Matlock, H. (1970): Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in clay.

Proceeding of 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 1, Houston,

pp. 577-594.

28. Meyerhof, G. G. and Hanna, A. M., (1978): Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Foundations on Layered Soil under Inclined Load. Canadian Geotechnical Journal

15 (4):565-572.

29. Meyerhof, G. G., Mathur, S. K. and Valsangkar, A. J. (1981): Lateral resistance

and deflection of rigid wall and piles in layered soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,

18: 159–170.

30. Novem (2002): Study to feasibility of and boundary conditions for floating

offshore wind turbines

40
31. O’Neill, M., and Murchison, J. (1983): An evaluation of p-y relationships in

sands. A report to the American Petroleum Institute, PRAC 82-41-1, University

of Texas, Huston.

32. Peng, J., Clarke, B.G. and Mohamed Rouainia, M. (2006): A Device to Cyclic

Lateral Loaded Model Piles. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29 (4): 341-347.

33. Peng, J., Rouainia, M., Clarke, B., Allan, P., and Irvine, J. (2004): Lateral

Resistance of Finned Piles Established from Model Tests. Proceedings of the

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering–Beirut, CFMS, Lebanon, pp.

565–571.

34. Peng, J., (2003): Offshore renewable energy foundations pp. 54-64.

35. Petrasovits, G., and Award, A. (1972): Ultimate lateral resistance of a rigid pile

in cohesionless soil. Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Madrid, Vol.3, pp. 407-412.

36. Pierson, W.J., and Moskowitz, L. (1964): A proposed spectral form for fully

developed wind seas based on the similarity theory of SA Kitaigordskii. Journal

of Geophysical Research 60 (9): 715-721.

37. Poulos, H. G. and Davis E. H. (1980): Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley,

New York.

38. Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Chari, T. R. (1999): Lateral capacity of model rigid piles

in cohesionless soils. Soils and Foundations, 39 (2):21–29.

41
39. Purkayastha, R. D. and Basack, S. (1999): Response of Model Piles Under Cyclic

Loadings. International Conference on Offshore and Nearshore Geotechnical Engineering,

pp. 227–232.

40. Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T. and Rao, S. N. (1999): Critical Cyclic Load Levels for

Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clays. International Conference on Offshore and

Nearshore Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 301–307.

41. Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., and Koop, F.D. (1974): Analysis of laterally loaded piles

in sand. Proceeding of 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 2,

Houston, pp. 473-484.

42. Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956): Non-dimensional solutions proportional to

depth. Proceedings of 8th Texas conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering, Special publication No.29, Austin, pp. 1-41.

43. Rovere, M. (2004): Cyclic loading test machine for caisson suction foundations.

Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.

44. Smith, T. D. (1987): Pile horizontal soil modulus values. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 113 (9) :1040–1044.

45. Soker, H., Rehfeldt, K., Santjer, F., Strack, M. and Schreiber, M., (2000). Offshore

Wind Energy in the North Sea. Deutsches Windenergie-Institut (DEWI),

Wihelmshaven.

46. Tong, K. C. (1998): Technical and economic aspects of a floating offshore wind

farm. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 74-76 (98): 399-410.

42
47. Vesic, A. B. (1961): Beams on elastic subgrade and Winkler’s hypothesis.

Proceeding of 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering,

Paris, : 845-850.

48. Wang, X., Zeng X., Yang, X. and Li, J (2018): Feasibility study of offshore wind

turbines with hybrid monopile foundation based on centrifuge modeling. Journal

of Applied Energy 209:127–39.

49. Zaaijer, M. B. (2001): Suction bucket foundation Feasibility and pre-design for

the 6 MW DOWEC”, Delft University of Technology, Wind Energy Section, Delft, The

Netherlands

50. Zhang, L., Silva, F. and Grismala, R. (2005): Ultimate lateral resistance to piles

in cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131

(1): 78-83.

51. Zhu, B., Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby G.T. (2013): Long term lateral cyclic

response of suction caisson foundations in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 139(1): 73-83.

43
 CHAPTER 3

3 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LATERAL

RESISTANCE OF FINNED AND MONOPILES
3.1 Introduction and Background

Model tests on lateral capacity of finned piles have shown that fins can increase

the lateral capacity of a pile by as much as 80% (Peng et al., 2005, Songlin, 2007;

Duhrkorp and Grabe, 2008; Nasr, 2013). Fins have also been used to reduce the length

of piles required to carry axial load in soft clay by as much as 50% (PND Engineers:

http://www.pndengineers.com/research-and-development/applied-research-

development/spin-fin-piles). It is anticipated that fins welded on the sides of the piles

may also be used to reduce the required length of a pile needed for lateral load capacity.

This may be particularly advantageous for offshore wind turbine foundations where

the length of the pile drive into the sea bed can be up to 12 times the diameter of the

pile (Byrne and Houlsby, 2003). The advantage of fins in reducing the required length

of laterally loaded piles need to be investigated and its merits are weighed against those

of monopile without fins.

In most cases lateral loads exerted on piles, particularly in the offshore

environment, not only vary in magnitude but also in direction. Most of the previous

studies on piles have considered uni-directional loading on circular monopiles where

the lateral resistance do not change with the direction of loading. It is anticipated that

44
finned piles (with two, three or four fins) may exhibit difference in resistance with the

direction of loading. Such variations in lateral resistance need to be understood

adequately to select the best configuration of fins that minimize the anticipated

variation of lateral resistance with direction of loading.

Finned piles have been used in groups to carry axial loads. Experience has

shown that finned piles can reduce the required length and number of piles in a group

to support the axial load% (PND Engineers:http://www.pndengineers.com/research-

and-development/applied-research-development/spin-fin-piles).

When piles in a group are loaded laterally, the group behavior is generally

different from that of a single pile due to the interaction of neighboring piles. There is

often reduction in lateral load capacity of subsequent rows of piles the magnitude of

which depends on the spacing between the piles. If the spacing between the piles is

small, shadowing effect due to shear zone in front of the pile (illustrated in Figure 3-1)

will greatly reduce the resistance of piles in the subsequent rows.

It’s not clear how finned piles’ spacing may affect their lateral load capacity if

they were to be used in a group. It is important to recognize that as fins will modify

significantly the behavior of a single pile, it will be difficult to determine the optimum

pile-to-pile spacing to reduce the interference of finned piles in group. Determining

the size and distribution of the respective shear zones created with finned piles of

different configurations (i.e., different number of fins) may provide us with insight to

predict optimum spacing of finned piles in groups.

45
 A study on the behavior of finned piles under lateral loading may be achieved

through suitable physical model tests with scaling adjustments. In this chapter, three

main issues that motivated these experimental investigations, namely the effect of fins

in reducing the required length of a pile to sustain lateral load; the effect of variation

of the direction of loading with respect to the orientation of the fin on lateral resistance;

and the size and distribution of the shear zone in front of the finned piles are

investigated.

Leading row piles

(row 1) Shear zone
Spacing

Trailing row
piles
(row 2)
Spacing

Trailing row
piles
(row 3)
Spacing

Test pile

Trailing row piles

(row 4)

Direction of applied load

Figure 3-1 Reduction in lateral resistance due to overlapping shear zone

("shadowing" or "group interaction") in closely spaced groups (Rollins, 2005)

46
 3.2 Aim of the study

In principle, the main purpose of the experimental investigations described in the

chapter was to conduct a comparative study on the lateral resistance of finned pile (with

two, three and four fins) and monopole taking into consideration length of pile,

direction of loading and extend of shear zone in front of pile. The particular goals of

this portion of the study were:

i. To investigate the advantage of added fins in reduction of required monopile length

for lateral loading.

ii. To investigate the effect of loading direction with respect to the orientation of the

fins and determine optimum lateral capacity.

iii. To investigate the size and distribution of the strain wedge for a laterally loaded fin

pile.

3.3 Experimental Preparation

3.3.1 Experimental soil box

A steel soil box of dimension 0.9 m length, 0.7 m width and 0.7 m depth was

constructed to conduct the lateral load tests for model piles in the laboratory. Figure

3-2 below shows a schematic representation of the test equipment. In this set up,

similar to one used by Ramakrishna and Rao (1999) (see Figure 2-12 f) lateral load is

applied though a cable attached to the pile. The cable runs over a frictionless pulley

47
and carries the weights required to apply a specified lateral load. Load cell and linear

variable transducers (LVDTs) are mounted appropriately to measure the loads applied

to the piles and the resulting horizontal displacement. The load cell and LVDTs records

are collected by a data logger.

1 Model finned pile

2 LVDTs

3 Load cell
4 Cable
5 Frictionless pulley
6 Lateral pile load

4 3
2
5
2

Figure 3-2 Schematic diagram of the soil box with mounted measurement devices

48
3.3.2 Materials

Dry silica sand is used as the soil substrate in all tests. Using the vibrating table

test procedures (ASTM D 4253 and ASTM D 4254 (2006)), the characteristic

maximum and minimum void ratios (i.e., emax and emin) of the sand were determined as

0.96 and 0.53, respectively. The specific gravity of the sand was determined as 2.65

(ASTM D 854 (2014)). The particle size distribution curve of the test sand is shown in

Figure 3-3. The D10, D30, D50, D60 indices were determined as 0.24mm, 0.42mm,

0.58mm and 0.63mm. The sand was classified as UNIFORM or POORLY GRADED

with uniformity coefficient of Cu= 2.62, and coefficient of gradation of Cc= 1.16.

100

80
Percentage finer (%)

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1
Grain size, D (mm)

Figure 3-3 Particle size distribution curve for the sand

49
3.3.3 Characterization of soil

Direct shear test was conducted on a sample of the test sand at 32% relative

density ( =16.0 kN/m3) according to ASTM D 3080 (2012). Five tests were conducted

at vertical stresses of 31, 63, 94, 125 and 156 kPa. The shear stress versus displacement

curves were developed as shown in Figure 3-4. The normal stress versus peak and

residual stresses are presented in Figure 3-5 along with the fitted trend lines

representing the failure and residual curves.

Using the results from the five tests the peak and residual soil the friction angles

were obtained as p =35.3° and r =32.5°, respectively. The angle of dilatancy,  of

3.5° was obtained from the peak and the residual angle of friction (Bolton, 1986;

Houlsby, 1991; Wood, 1984) using Equation 3-1.

 p = r + 0.8 (3-1)

120
 v=31kPa
 v=63 kPa
100  v=94 kPa
 v=125 kPa
Shear stress, ( kPa)

80  v=156 kPa

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement ( mm)

Figure 3-4 Shear stress vs horizontal displacement

from shear box test

50
 120
Failure line
100 Residual line

Shear stress,  (kPa)

80
tan  = 0.70926 
p v
tan  r = 0.63794 v
60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal stress,  (kPa)
v

Figure 3-5 Peak and residual shear stresses vs normal stresses

with failure and residual lines

3.3.4 Model piles

Open ended steel pipe piles of 4cm outer and 3.8cm inner diameter were used

in all the tests. These piles were designated as “short” type, as their length to diameter

of pile ratio (Lp/Dp) was set at 9 (Byrne and Houlsby, 2003). The total length of the

pile under test was 52cm, of which 36cm was embedded into the soil through driving.

The lateral load was applied at the top of the pile providing an eccentricity of 16cm

above the packed soil surface. The fins consisted of steel plates of 1mm thickness.

Following the available findings for optimal fin dimensions in literature (Peng et al.,

2011; Nasr, 2013), the length of fin to length of pile (Lf/Lp) ratio, and the width of fin

to diameter of pile (Wf /Dp) ratio were selected as 0.45 and 1.0, respectively. A picture

of the instrumented mono and finned piles tested under monotonic lateral load are

given in Figure 3-6.

51
 MP FP-3

FP-2 FP-4

Figure 3-6 Model test piles

3.3.5 Preparation of the test soil

The experiments were conducted in packed dry silica sand prepared at 32%

relative density. In order to prepare a uniform physical model, sand raining technique

was adopted to achieve consistent density of the sand. This technique has been widely

used in laboratory to prepare model soil substrate in load-displacement tests of model

pile foundations (Turner and Kulhawy, 1994; Mezazigh and Levencher, 1998;

Rosquoet et al, 2009).

The sand raining apparatus used in this study was fabricated from plywood. A

box frame of 0.9m x 0.7m x 0.2m dimensions (same planar dimensions as the soil box),

with No. 200 size mesh affixed at its base was used to discharge the sand into the soil

box. Figure 3-7 shows the schematic representation of the raining device. The sand

rainer was suspended over the soil box using four slings at the corner of the box

connected to an overhead rail on top of the box. The vertical position of the sand

52
rainer was adjusted to achieve uniform raining height onto the filling sand layers to

attain as uniform density of the final sand mass, as possible.

The total mass of dry sand required filling the box to a set level and mass density

was determined from the known volume of the box to fill. Multiple pile tests were

conducted at the same computed sand density to verify not only the repeatability of

the test results but also the consistency of the sand preparation in the test box.

3.3.6 Scale and boundary effects

In laboratory testing small-scale pile models are widely preferred because a full

scale loading test may not always be feasible due the high cost, long time demand and

prohibiting requirements for construction, instrumentation, and loading. Alternatively,

small-scale experiments can suffer from scaling effects which should be minimized to

ensure that the observed behavior can be extrapolated to predict full scale behavior

(Wood, 2004). For small-scale models the soil particle size, construction techniques

and boundary effects are the most important factors to be considered. Particle size

scale error can be neglected when the ratio of pile diameter, Dp to mean grain size, D50

is greater than 30 (Franke and Muth, 1985). In this study the Dp /D50 ratio was 67

therefore the particle size scaling error was negligible.

Upon extensive small scale model tests, Vesic (1977) showed that results from

footings or foundations with diameters smaller than 30mm should not be considered

as experimental evidence due to large scale effect. Following Vesic (1977) guideline,

the pile diameter was selected as 40mm for all the experiments conducted in this work.

53
 Ropes for adjusting heigh of
sand raining device

sand raining device with screen

at the bottom

Sand raining height

Figure 3-7 Schematic of sand raining device

Bransby and Smith (1975) showed that using a relatively wide tank with smooth

side walls minimize the side friction boundary effects on the results of the small-scale

models. Furthermore, different authors reported that the zone of influence of laterally

loaded piles ranged between 4Dp to 6Dp. For example, NCHRP (2011) report identified

that the zone of soil improvement around a laterally loaded pile should be around 4Dp

to fully affect the lateral capacity of the pile. Similarly, Hajialilue-Bonab et al. (2013)

measured the strain wedge of a laterally loaded rigid pile using particle image

velocimetry and concluded that the zone of influence extended to a distance of about

5.5Dp. In this study, the inside walls of the steel soil box was polished smoothly to

reduce potential friction as much as possible. The distance from the center to the

boundary of the soil box along the loading direction was set to be 12Dp. This distance

54
is two times longer than the strain wedge measured by Hajialilue-Bonab et al. (2013).

Hence the design of the box and the specific experimental procedures employed were

assumed to minimize or render negligible any anticipated boundary effects.

3.3.7 Scaling of laboratory tests

LeBlanc et al., (2010) developed a scaling law for stiff pile in sand under

monotonic lateral loading to predict the behavior of the full-scale structure from low

stress laboratory tests using non-dimensional parameters, as shown in Table 3-1. The

following were considered to address the scaling of the laboratory tests:

i. In a scaled test, the stress level controlling the test behavior is low resulting into

higher soil friction angle and lower shear stiffness in comparison to full scale

test. In order to ensure that the peak frictional angle in laboratory corresponded

to that of the soil in a full-scale test, the test soil was prepared at low relative

density up to 38%.

ii. Appropriate non-dimensional scaling parameters which accounted for low

stress isotopic stress level were selected as shown in Table 3-1.

iii. Full scale behavior were estimated by plotting the non-dimensional moment

M/(L3D) and non-dimensional lateral force H/(L2D) against rotation,  and

displacement, , respectively, while keeping constant void ratio, e and other

parameters influencing stiffness of the soil.

The test results obtained in this study are presented and plotted in their non-

dimensional forms following the scaling convention derived by Leblanc et al. (2010).

55
 Table 3-1 Non-dimensional parameters for scaling of
laboratory tests (Leblanc et. al, 2010)

3.3.8 Pile installation and lateral loading

A pictorial depiction of the sequence of lateral load testing followed in this study

is presented in Figure 3-8. First the sand was rained and packed into the steel box

Figure 3-8(a-b). Test pile was installed by driving into the sand to a depth

corresponding to Lp/Dp ratio of 9 as shown Figure 3-8(c). Lateral load was applied

through a cable-pulley system attached to the pile head. The load was applied

incrementally, each increment lasting for the duration of 8 minutes. The strain

measurements were taken at the end of each load-increment. The 8-minute duration

was selected because initial calibration tests revealed that this time period was

sufficiently long for cessation of any significant changes between two successive

readings (i.e., less than 30μ ε) under the sustained load.

56
 (a) Mesh for (b) Prepared
pouring soil testing ground

(c)Installed pile
and testing

Figure 3-8 Sequence of lateral load testing (a) sand box preparation (b) prepared test
box (c) installed pile

3.3.9 Test cases

The following convention was used for naming the test piles:

i. Acronyms: FP-finned pile; MP-Monopile (no fins).

ii. First set of numbers: 2, 3 and 4 refer to the number of fins welded on the pile.

iii. Second set of numbers: 90, 120, 180, 240 and 270 refer to the angle between

the fins that can develop an effective pressure passive area.

For example, a model pile named as FP-2-180 is a finned pile with two fin wings at 180

degrees of separation between them.

57
 Three different series of tests were performed on the finned and the monopiles.

The first series involved testing finned piles with different fin configurations to evaluate

the effect of loading direction on their performance. The Lp/Dp ratio of 9 was kept

constant in all of these tests. The test configurations of the first series are given in Table

3-2.

The arrow on each pile in Table 3-2 indicates the direction of loading on the

pile. This is important because lateral loads, such as those imparted by wind or wave

action can occur in any direction hence there is a need to evaluate the efficiency of the

fin considering its orientation with respect to the loading direction.

Second series of tests involved testing monopiles of different Lp/Dp ratios

designated as 16, 14, 12, 10 and 9, as shown in Figure 3-9. Results from the second

series of tests were compared with those of the finned piles from first series in order

to evaluate the effectiveness of fin in reducing the embedded length of the pile.

The third series of tests were conducted to determine the evolution of the shear

zone (i.e., shear wedge) and its final length away from pile surface during lateral loading

of a finned pile. In analysis of the soil-pile interaction under horizontal load, the

behavior of the soil in front of the pile undergoing horizontal displacement is an

important phenomenon which needs to be understood well for accurate pile capacity

predictions.

Techniques such as particle image velocimetry (Ashour et al., 2013; Liu et al.,

2011), X-ray CT scan (Otani et al., 2010) have been used to visualize the failure pattern

and strain localization in the soil around a laterally loaded pile.

58
 Table 3-2 Loading cases for test series 1

Lateral load bearing area Increase in

Pile type Configuration effective
Loading direction Effective bearing area bearing area,af

MP D p× L p -
MP

FP-2-0 D p× L p 0
FP-2-0

FP-2-180 (Dp× Lp)+(2Wf× Lf) 0.90

FP-2-180
FP-2
FP-2-90A (Dp× Lp)+(Wf× Lf) 0.45
70
-2
-2
FP

FP-2-90B (Dp× Lp)+(1.414Wf× Lf) 0.64

FP-2-90A

0B

FP-2-270 (Dp× Lp)+(1.414Wf× Lf) 0.64

-9
-2
FP

FP-3-90A (Dp× Lp)+(1.414Wf× Lf) 0.64

FP
-3-
90A
FP-3-180

FP-3-90B (Dp× Lp)+(Wf× Lf) 0.45

FP-3
FP-3-180 (Dp× Lp)+(2Wf× Lf) 0.90
FP-3-90B

FP-3-120 (Dp× Lp)+(1.732Wf× Lf) 0.78

FP-3-120
FP-3-240

FP-3-240 (Dp× Lp)+(1.732Wf× Lf) 0.78

FP-4-90 (Dp× Lp)+(1.414Wf× Lf) 0.64

90
4-

FP-4
-
FP
FP-4-180

FP-4-180 (Dp× Lp)+(2Wf× Lf) 0.90

Dp=Wf and Lf=0.45Lp.

Dp and Lp are diameter and lengths of Pile
Wf and Lf are width and length of fin
Increase in effective bearing area is computed with respect to effective bearing are of MP
Two fins making 120° between then have an effective fin area of Af=2Wf × Lf sin 60
Two fins making 90° between then have an effective fin area of Af =2Wf × Lf sin 45

Despite such techniques being available, the evolution of the shape and length

of shear wedge in front of a laterally loaded pile, particularly of a finned pile is not

understood well. In addition, accurate determination of the extent of the lateral shear

59
wedge is particularly important for the scaled tests conducted in order to determine the

influence of any boundary effects, such as those discussed earlier. In the tests reported

here, five miniature pressure sensors of type PDB-P, 6.5mm in diameter, with 200

kPa capacity and 350  input/output resistances were positioned inside the sand on a

linear path away from the pile surface at pre-determined distances of multiple pile

diameters, Dp. These pressure sensors were used to monitor the evolution of lateral

pressure in soil in the direction of pile deflection.

Lp/Dp fixed to 9
Lp/Dp varied fron 16 to 9

(a) MP (b) FP

Figure 3-9 Experimental loading cases for series 2

60
3.3.10 Placement of pressure sensors

The miniature pressure sensors were all buried at a depth of 2Dp below the ground

surface. The layout of the sensors is shown in Figure 3-10. The sensors were positioned

at distances of 2.5, 4.5, 6.5, 8.5 and 10Dp from the center of the pile as shown in Figure

3-10 (a) below. When the pluviated sand level reached just below 2Dp from top, the

pressure sensors were held in their embedment position and pluviation of the sand was

then resumed till the final height was achieved, as shown in Figure 10 (b).

(a) Earth pressure sensors placed at different distance

(b) Soil spread over the sensors before pluviation

Figure 3-10 Placing of the earth pressure sensors in the soil box

61
3.4 Test results

3.4.1 Effect of loading direction with respect to orientation of fins

Figure 3-11 shows the measured lateral load verses displacement curves for the

first series of tests. As expected the lateral resistance of the finned piles was higher than

those of the monopole in all tests. The lateral load capacity of the finned piles showed

marked improvement when compared to the monopole response at the same pile head

displacement. All piles with fins displayed a considerable stiffer behavior than

monopile. Also observed from Figure 3-11, the lateral resistance of a finned pile

appears to depend upon the number of fins as well as the orientation of the fins to the

direction of loading. Considering the lateral resistances of the piles at serviceability limit

state, described as the lateral load at 10% of pile head displacement, the lateral

resistance was shown to increase between 15% - 98 % depending on the number of

fins and the orientation of the fins to loading direction. As the number of fins increases,

the flexural rigidity (EpIp) of the pile around the finned section increases resulting in

the increase in lateral resistance.

The surface area and the length of a pile are the two important factors in

determination of the lateral resistance of a pile. The effective area that bears against the

soil is the area orthogonal to the lateral load. In the case of a monopile, the effective

area is determined as the pile diameter multiplied by the pile length, while for a finned

pile the section of the pile containing the fin has added effective bearing area equal to

the width of the fin multiplied by the length of the fin (Peng, 2005). Orientation of fin

with respect to the loading direction may effectively reduce or increase the bearing area.

62
 1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
Normalized lateral laod, H/(L2D)

Normalized lateral load, H/(L2D)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
MP
0.4 0.4 FP-3-90B
MP FP-3-90A
FP-4-90 FP-3-180
0.2 FP-4-180 0.2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Normalized pile head displacement,  Normalized pile head displacement, 
1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

Normalized lateral load, H/(L2D)

Normalised lateral load, H/(L2D)

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
MP
FP-2-0
0.4 MP 0.4 FP-2-90A
FP-3-120 FP-2-90B
0.2 FP-3-240 0.2 FP-2-270
FP-2-180
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normalized pile head displacement,  Normalized pile head displacement, 

Figure 3-11 Effect of loading direction and fin orientation on lateral capacity of
finned piles

For example, fins oriented obliquely to the loading direction, such as those in

FP-3-120 or FP-3-240 piles will have reduced effective bearing areas to sustain the

passive pressure of soil when compared to FP-3-180 pile. As shown in Table 3-2, the

FP-3-180 pile has an increased bearing area by a factor of 0.9 compared to that of FP-

3-120 and FP-3-240 which have increased bearing areas by factor of 0.78. Similarly,

FP-4-180 has increased bearing area by a factor of 0.9 compared to FP-4-90 which has

an increased bearing area by a factor of 0.64. FP-4-180 showed higher resistance to

63
lateral load than FP-4-90 even though both configurations have similar flexural rigidity.

Results from this test indicated that as the bearing area increases, the soil resistance in

front of the fin will be increase leading to an overall increase in the expected lateral

capacity of the finned pile.

3.4.2 Fin efficiency

Efficiency of a finned pile can be defined in terms of the increase in lateral load

capacity compared to that of monopile at same pile head displacement; or in terms of

the reduction in lateral pile head displacement at the same lateral load. In this work, the

lateral load efficiency of a finned pile will be defined as the ratio of the difference in

lateral load capacity of the finned and monopole (H(FP)-H(MP)) to that of the monopile

(H(MP)) taken at the same pile head displacement, as expressed by Equation 3-2.

H ( FP ) − H (MP )
H = (3-2)
H ( MP )

Figure 3-12 shows the contribution of the effective bearing area to the finned

pile efficiency. The two-finned piles showed broad variation in efficiency ranging

between 15%-68% while those of the three-finned and four-finned piles varied

between 50%-88 % and 92%-98%, respectively. The efficiency of the two-finned piles

(FP-2-180, see Table 3-2) was similar to that reported by Nasr (2013). The three-finned

piles with fins oriented at 120° from each other (see Table 3-2) showed a much smaller

variation than the other cases, ranging from 80%-88%. As the directions of loading

can vary over time, as in the case of wind loading for instance, use of three- or four-

finned piles with less variability in their efficiency might meet the load demands best.

64
 The deflection efficiency is defined as the ratio of the displacement difference

in pile head between monopile and finned pile to displacement of the monopile pile at

the same magnitude of lateral load, as expressed by Equation 3-3.

 (MP ) −  ( FP )
 = (3-3)
 (MP )

Figure 3-13 shows the variation of the deflection efficiency with normalized

lateral load. In all cases, the finned piles reduced the lateral deflection of the pile by

more than 65%. Duhrkop and Grabe (2008) reported also lateral deflection reduction

of up to 65% from results of centrifuge tests in which they used fins of smaller aspect

ratio than those reported in this dissertation. The results for pile FP-2-0 in Figure 3-13

indicated the least reduction in lateral deflection, which ranged ranging from 15%-45%.

FP-2
0.8 FP-3
H
Lateral load efficiency, 

FP-4

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Increase in bearing area ,a
F

Figure 3-12 Variation of lateral load efficiency of

finned piles with increase in bearing area

65
 1

0.8


Deflection efficiency, 
0.6
FP-4-180
FP-4-90
FP-3-240
0.4 FP-3-120
FP-2-180
FP-2-0
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
2
Normalized lateral load, H/ (L D)

Figure 3-13 Deflection efficiency of fin piles at various

normalized lateral loading

2
L /D =16
p p
Normalized lateral load, H/(L D)

L /D =14
p p
2

1.5 L /D =12
p p

L /D =10
p p

L /D =9
p p
1

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Normalized pile head displacement, 

Figure 3-14 Lateral load verses displacement curves for

monopiles of different Lp/Dp ratios

66
3.4.3 Effect of fins in reducing length of pile length

Lateral load displacement curves for monopiles of different Lp/Dp ratios are as

shown in Figure 3-14. Superimposed on this graph are the results presented earlier in

Figure 3-11 for Lp/Dp ratio of 9, as well.

Figure 3-15 shows the variation of the normalized lateral load with the

normalized length of two-finned (FP-2), three-finned (FP-3) and four-finned (FP-4)

pile configurations, as presented in Table 3-2. The lateral load and the length values

were normalized by those of the monopiles. It’s important to note again that, while the

lengths of the finned piles were fixed at Lp/Dp ratio of 9, the length monopile was

varied form Lp/Dp ratio of 9 through 16 (as shown in Figure 3-14) in this

representation. The lateral loads were normalized by those of the corresponding

monopile load at constant deflection of δ=0.1.

2.5

FP-4
FP-3
MP(varied)(10%)

2 FP-2

1.5
/H

(40%) reduction
FP(fixed)(10%)

(35%) reduction
1
(30%) reduction
H

0.5
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
L /L
FP(fixed) MP(varied)

Figure 3-15 Variation of fin efficiency with the ratio of

length of FP and MP

67
It can be observed from Figure 3-15 that the pile length could be reduced by about

40%, 37%, and 30% for the four-, three-and the two-finned piles, respectively, for the

same lateral load capacity demand (H(FP)/H(MP) =1). These results show clearly that

fins are effective in reducing the required length of monopile in design, which in turn

can translate to reduction in cost. Shorter pile length may also bring about the added

benefit of rendering less likely the occurrence pile refusal during driving.

3.4.4 Relationship between fin efficiency and weight of the pile

Figure 3-16 shows the variation of the lateral load efficiency of finned pile at

normalized lateral displacement of 10% or y/Dp = 0.1 (i.e., serviceability limit state)

with the mass of the pile. The notations MFP and MMP stand for the mass of the finned

and monopile respectively. In here, HMP(varied)(10%) correspond to values for the

monopiles where Lp/Dp ratios were varied as 16, 14, 12, 10 and 9.

2.5
MP(varied)(10%)

2
/H

1.5
FP(fixed)(10%)

1
H

0.5
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
M /M
FP (fixed) MP(varied)

Figure 3-16 Relationship between fin efficiency and

ratio of Weight of MP to FP

68
 The efficiency increased with mass of the finned piles. This relationship was

fitted to an exponential curve, as shown in Figure 3-16. It appears from the data that

this empirical model may be valid for MFP/MMP ratio of up to 1.4.

3.4.5 Change in lateral soil pressure during lateral loading of MP and FP

The changes in soil horizontal stresses at various distances away from the pile

perimeter were measured using null pressure sensors placed in the soil at the set depth

of 2Dp, as described earlier (see Section 3.3.10). These sensors were initialized to zero

prior to application of the lateral loading. The tests were conducted by increasing the

lateral load in increments of 10N. The lateral pressure change measured at each sensor

was normalized by the overburden stress calculated at 2Dp depth of embedment.

Figures 3-17a, 3-17b and 3-17c show the variation of the change in horizontal

stress measured during lateral loading of three separate piles of MP, FP-3 and FP-4

type, respectively. The change in horizontal stress was based on the initial value of

lateral stress at each sensor location. While Figure 3-17a shows the results for the

monopile section, Figures 3-17b and 3-17c show the results for the three- and the four-

finned pile section, respectively. It can be observed from the data that horizontal stress

evolution in soil is influenced by the pile configuration. Smaller horizontal stresses were

observed with the finned pile sections, implying larger area of interaction between the

soil and the pile, and potentially wider strain wedges. In all the tests the strain wedges

did not extend to the boundary of the soil box for any of the pile sections confirming

that the dimensions of the soil box used were sufficient to carry out the lateral loading

test for the model piles without any anticipated boundary effects.

69
 20 20
P=10 N

horizontal pressure  / z
P=10 N P=20 N
P=20 N P=30 N

Normalised change in
15 15

v
horizotal pressure v/z

P=39 N P=40 N
Normalized change in

P=40 N P=50 N

Soil box boundary

Soil box boundary
P=50 N P=60 N
P=60 N
10 P=70 N
P=70N 10 P=80 N
P=80 N
P=90 N
P=100 N
5 5 P=110 N

0 0
(a) MP (b) FP-3
-5 -5
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
Normalized distance from center of pile, x/D Normalized distance from center of the pile, x/D

20
P=10 N
P=20 N
P=30 N
15 P=40 N
horiztal pressure v /z

P=50 N
Normalized change in

Soil box boundary

P=60 N
P=70 N
10 P=80 N
P=90 N
P=100 N
5 P=110 N

0
(b) FP-4
-5
2 4 6 8 10 12
Normalized distance from center of pile , x/D

Figure 3-17 Measured changed in horizontal stress away from the pile along during
lateral direction of loading

3.4.6 Length of strain wedge for MP and FP

The measured changes of pressure from the sensors were used to estimate the

length of the strain wedge formed at 2Dp embedment depth during lateral loading. For

a given pile head displacement at a constant load of H, the maximum wedge length was

assumed to extend to the point where the change in the measured earth pressure was

nearly zero. Described as such, the variation of normalized strain wedge length with

normalized pile head displacement is shown in Figure 3-18. The data indicate the wedge

70
length for the four-finned pile section (FP-4) to be about 8.5Dp from center of pile,

while it is 8.0Dp and 6.5Dp for the three-finned pile (FP-3) and monopole (MP),

respectively.

Although much study has been devoted to understanding the lateral load

response of piles, there is little reported in literature that document the length of strain

wedge determination for single piles in order to compare with the present results.

Hence, the available data for group pile behavior from literature is used to compare

with the results obtained in here, as shown in Figure 3-18.

10
Normalized strain wedge length, x/D

8
AASHTO., (2007)
Rollins et al., (2005)
6

MP
4 FP-3
FP-4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normalized pile head displacement, y/D (%)

Figure 3-18 Normalized length of strain wedge with pile head

displacement

71
 The results from full-scale tests and centrifuge model tests (Rollins et al. 2005,

AASHTO, 2007) indicate that piles in groups undergo significantly higher displacement

for a given load per pile than a single pile. Although piles in the front row of a group

may display load versus deflection curves similar to that of single pile, piles in the

trailing rows will exhibit significantly softer load versus displacement curves. As the

closely spaced pile groups move laterally, the failure zones for individual piles overlap.

The tendency for piles in the trailing row to exhibit less lateral resistance is commonly

referred to as “shadowing,” or group interaction. Group interaction effects tend to

become less significant as the spacing between piles increases. Group interaction

effects are often accounted for by using a multiplier (p-multiplier) that reduces the load

displacement as proposed by Brown et al. (1988).

The comparison of the length of strain wedge obtained by model pile tests in

this study is done by comparing the spacing of the trailing piles in a group with the p-

multiplier of unity. As shown in Figure 3-18, the results for the MP agree well with those

reported by AASHTO (2007). For finned pile sections of FP-3 and FP-4, the length of

the strain wedge or the zone of influence is larger than those reported for a single pile.

If finned piles are to be adopted for use in a group, spacing greater than 8.5Dp may be

recommended to minimize shadowing effect.

3.5 Summary and conclusion

In this chapter, a comparative study of lateral load capacity and deflection

behavior of finned and monopiles using model piles in a floor scale laboratory test set-

72
up is described and discussed. Finned piles of different configurations were tested to

determine the effect of fins in reducing the required length of piles compared to

monopiles. The effect of the orientation of the fins to loading directions on the lateral

load capacity was examined. The suitability of the soil box used in conducting the

model pile tests was assessed through measurement of the lateral earth pressure

distribution at various distances away from the pile surface to ascertain no intersection

of the soil strain wedge with the boundary of the soil box. The same data was used to

predict the length of a shear wedge that can form in front of a finned pile and make

recommendation of spacing of finned piles for use in groups.

The following conclusions were made from the comparative tests:

(i) The lateral load efficiency of the finned piles varied greatly from 15%-98%

depending on the number of fins and their orientations to the direction of

loading. Four-finned piles displayed the largest efficiency. Large variations of

lateral load efficiency were observed for the two-finned pile sections depending

on the orientation of the fins to the direction of loading.

(ii) Fins oriented obliquely with respect to direction of loading had lower efficiency

than those oriented perpendicular to the direction of loading. This was due to

the reduced effective load bearing area available with the fins. Four-finned and

three-finned piles did not show as large variations of lateral load efficiency with

orientation of fins to loading direction. Piles with three or four fins can meet

the load demands best, particularly when the loading directions are anticipated

to change with time (i.e., wind and wave loads).

73
(iii) The deflection was reduced by more than 65% for all finned piles of different

fin orientations and loading directions, except for the two-finned section (FP-

2-0) for which the reduction was between 15%-45%.

(iv) Test results also showed that the length of pile could be reduced by 40% for

four-finned pile, 37% for three-finned pile and 30% for two-finned piles for the

required lateral resistance when compared to monopile.

(v) The length of the shear wedge for a four-finned pile (FP-4) extended to up a

distance of 8.5Dp from center of pile, and those of the three-finned pile (FP-3)

and monopole (MP) were 8.0Dp and 6.5Dp, respectively. These results also

confirmed that the soil box used in the lateral load test was suitable without

introducing boundary effects.

3.6 References

1. AASHTO (2007): AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th edition,

AASHTO, Washington, DC.

2. ASTM. (2006a): Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit

weight of soils using a vibratory table. D4253–06, West Conshohocken, PA.

3. ASTM. (2006b): Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit

weight of soils and calculation of relative density. D4254–06, West

Conshohocken, PA.

4. ASTM. (2012): Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under

Consolidated Drained Conditions. D3080–12, West Conshohocken, PA.

74
5. ASTM. (2014): Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by

pycnometer. D854–14, West Conshohocken, PA.

6. Bolton, M.G. (1986): The strength and dilatancy of sand. Geotechnique, 36(1):65-

78.

7. Bransby, P.L. and Smith, I.A. (1975). Side friction in model retaining wall

experiments. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 101(GT7): 615–632.

8. Brown, D.A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L.C. (1988): Lateral load behavior of pile

group in sand, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironemental Engineering, 114 (11):

1261–1276.

9. Byrne, B. W. and Houlsby, G. T. (2003): Foundations for offshore wind

turbines, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series A (Mathematical,

Physical and Engineering Sciences), 361 (1813): 2909-2930.

10. Duhrkop, J. and Grabe, J. (2008): Improving the Lateral Bearing Capacity of

Monopiles by Welded Wings. Proc. of the 2nd BGA International Conference on

Foundations, 1: 849-860.

11. Franke, E., and Muth, G. (1985): Scale effect in 1g model tests on horizontally

loaded piles. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and

Foundations, San Francisco. Vol. 2, pp. 1011–1014.

12. Hajialilue-Bonab, M., Sojoudi, Y., and Puppala, A. J. (2013): Study of strain

wedge parameters for laterally loaded piles. International Journal of Geomechanics:

143–152

75
13. Houlsby, G.T. (1991): How dilatancy of soils affects their behavior. Soil

mechanics Report No.121/91, Oxford University, UK.

14. LeBlanc, C., Houlsby, G. T. and Byrne, B. W. (2010): Behavior of stiff piles in

sand to long term cyclic loading. Geotechnique, 60 (2): 79–90

15. Mezazigh, S. and Lavacher, D. (1998): Laterally loaded piles in sand-slope effect

on P-Y curves. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 433–441.

16. Nasr, A. M. A. (2013): Experimental and theoretical studies of laterally loaded

finned piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51: 381-393

17. Peng, J. (2005): Behavior of finned piles in sand under lateral loading. PhD

Thesis, University of New Castle Upon Tyne

18. Peng, J., Clarke, B., and Rouainia, M. (2011): Increasing the resistance of piles

subject to cyclic lateral loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 137(10): 977–982.

19. PND Engineers: http://www.pndengineers.com/research-and-

development/applied-research-development/spin-fin-piles

20. Rollins, K.M, Lane, D.J. and Gerber, T.M. (2005): Measured and computed

lateral response of a pile group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 131(1): 103–114.

21. Rosquoet, F., Thorel, L., Garnier, J and Cenepa, Y. (2009): Lateral cyclic loading

of sand-installed piles. Soils and Foundations, 47 (5): 821-832.

76
22. TRB (2011): Design Guidelines for Increasing the Lateral Resistance of

Highway-Bridge Pile Foundations by Improving Weak Soils. NCHRP Report

697.

23. Turner, J.P. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1994): Physical modelling of drilled shaft side

resistance in sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 17(3): 282–290.

24. Songlin, W. (2007): Horizontal Resistance Behavior of Pile with Wings in Sand.

Proceedings of the 32nd Deep Foundations Annual Members Conference 7:253-259.

25. Vesic, A.S. (1977): Design of Pile Foundation, National Cooperation Highway

Research Programs, TRB N0. 42

26. Wood, D.M. (2004): Geotechnical modelling. Spon Press, London.

77
 CHAPTER 4

4 SOIL-PILE INTERACTION OF LATERALLY

LOADED MONOPILE AND FINNED PILES
4.1 Introduction

When piles are loaded laterally the subgrade reaction of the surrounding soil is

mobilized. A large amount of subgrade reaction is desired in the section where large

pile deformations are experienced. Due to low overburden pressure near the ground

surface the capacity of pile in this section is limited in sand. An improvement of the

lateral capacity of the pile can be achieved by welding fins on the pile (Duhrkop and

Grabe, 2009).

The important element in estimating the lateral load capacity of a pile is

determination of the ultimate resistance that can be mobilized by the surrounding soil

on the pile. Several approaches are available in literature for estimating lateral load

capacity of piles (Broms, 1964; Fleming, 1992; Meyerhof et al., 1981; Petrovisch and

Award, 1972; Prasad and Chari, 1999; Zhang et al, 2005). These methods were

developed for circular piles and naturally do not consider the effect of fins on lateral

response of a finned pile.

As discussed previously in Chapter 3, the cross-sectional expansion of the pile

due to addition of fins results in increase of the overall resistance from the soil with

the added benefit of reduction in pile length for the same capacity. As the geometry

78
and configuration of a circular pile change due to addition of fins, there arises a need

to investigate the soil pile interaction of the finned pile. In order to study the interaction

between a finned pile and the surrounding soil during lateral loading, a series of finned

and monopiles were instrumented with strain gauges and miniature earth pressure

gauges to measure the bending strains in the piles as well as the mobilized lateral earth

pressure at the interface. The measured earth pressures were used to calculate the soil

reaction and predict the lateral capacity of the pile by employing a modified form of an

existing approach discussed in Section 2.7 of Chapter 2.

4.2 Objective of the study

The main aim of this portion of the study was to:

1) Investigate the effect of fin modification on the bending strain and bending

moment along the length of the pile.

2) Investigate the distribution of earth pressure about the perimeter and along the

length of the pile to determine the lateral soil resistance.

3) Develop a predictive approach of estimating ultimate lateral capacity of finned

piles using the test data from instrumented piles and a modified form of an

existing approach used for monopiles.

4.3 Model pile instrumentation

Lateral load tests were conducted on MP, FP-2-180, FP-3-120 and FP-4-180

piles following the same procedure outlined in Chapter 3. These tests were conducted

79
using the same sand substrate prepared at 32% relative density. The elastic modulus

and the moment of inertia of the test piles were taken to be 210 GPa and 2.331×10 -9

m4, respectively. The piles were each instrumented with 6 pairs of PDA-P type (from

Texas Instrument) earth pressure gauges of capacity 200kPa, placed at different

positions along the length of the test pile, as shown in Figure 4-1. The earth pressure

gauges were installed in the front and the rear side of each pile to ensure full coverage

measurement of the passive earth pressure acting on the pile.

5 cm 4 cm

4 cm
5 cm

4 cm
5 cm Strain gauges
4 cm

5 cm
4 cm
A A A A
5 cm 4 cm

4 cm
5 cm

4 cm
5 cm
Earth pressure gauges 4 cm

5 cm
4 cm
2 cm 1 cm

Gauges Gauges Gauge

Gauges Gauges
Gauge Gauge

MP:Section A-A
FP:Section A-A

Figure 4-1 Positioning of pressure and strain gauges on MP and FP

80
 The earth pressure gauges were held in position using multipurpose double-

sided adhesive foam tape. The tape consisted of polyurethane foam coated with acrylic

adhesive on both sides that attached well to rigid surfaces of the pile providing excellent

mount stability of the earth pressure gauges on the pile. The use of double-sided

adhesive tape allowed for the re-use of the pressure gauges on other piles and in

subsequent tests.

In addition, each pile was instrumented with strain gauges on their both sides

perpendicular to the direction of load. Nine pairs of strain gauges were attached on the

monopile (eight were buried in the soil and one outside the soil); while eleven pairs of

them were attached on the surface of the finned piles (ten were buried in the soil and

one outside the soil). They were held in position with epoxy glue. The main purpose

of using the strain gauges was to adequately compare the measured bending strains and

the calculated bending moment of finned piles relative to those of monopile and to

deduce the efficiency of the fin in reducing the bending moment during lateral loading.

All the earth pressure gauges and strain gauges were covered by foil tape to

protect them from damage during pile installation and testing.

4.4 Test Results

4.4.1 Static lateral load carrying capacity

Load-deformation criteria to define the ultimate load capacity for axially loaded

piles have been well established by others (Chin, 1970 and Davisson, 1972). In these

methods, the ultimate lateral load criteria is often related to the specific structure type

81
(Fleming et al.,1992; GAI consultants,1982; Hu et al., 2006; Lee et al.,2013 Meyerhof

et al.,1981;). Fleming et al., (1992) suggested a lateral load deflection equal to 10% of

pile diameter for a circular pile to define the ultimate load state of the pile. Hu et al.

(2006) defined the ultimate lateral capacity for traffic pole structures at pile head

rotation of 1.5°. Meyerhof et al (1981) set criteria for defining the lateral load capacity

of a pile by observing the point on the load-deflection curve where the curve becomes

approximately linear with increasing lateral load. GAI consultants (1982) and Lee et al.

(2013) specified the ultimately lateral capacity at pile head rotation of 2°. Other

researchers have defined the lateral capacity of monopiles to correspond to a load

where the pile head rotated from its vertical alignment by 1.5° producing a lateral

displacement between 0.1 Dp to 0.2 Dp at the ground surface (Peng et al., 2011 and

Sawwaf, 2006). Lee et al. (2010) estimated the lateral capacity of the pile using the

criteria set by Meyerhorf et al. (1981) and GAI consultants (1982) and the two results

were in good agreement. In this thesis principles outlined by GAI consultants (1982)

were used to define the ultimate lateral pile load capacity, due to its simplicity.

Figure 4-2 shows the normalized lateral load and deflection curves for the

monopile and the finned piles. The ultimate lateral load was defined at pile head

rotation of 2°. The pile rotation angle was computed from displacement measurements

of the two LVDTs attached to the pile. The intersection between the horizontal dashed

lines and the y-axis in Figure 4-2 indicates the lateral load capacity for each pile, the

normalized magnitudes of which are annotated on the graph.

82
 Subsequently, the normalized ultimate load capacity for MP, FP-2-180, FP-3-

120 and FP-4-180 were determined as 0.75, 0.99, 1.30 and 1.43, respectively giving

computed fin efficiencies of 32% for FP-2-180, 73% for FP-3-120 and 91% for FP-4-

180, at the pile head rotation of 2˚. The fin efficiencies were computed from Equation

3-2 given in Chapter 3.

4.4.2 Depth of pile rotation

Rigid piles subjected to lateral load rotate about a certain point as shown in

Figure 4-3. Several methods such as those proposed by Petrasovits and Award (1972)

and Prasad and Chari (1999) and Rutledge (1956) can be used to estimate the point of

rotation for a rigid pile undergoing lateral loading. The method proposed by Petrasovits

and Award (1972) is somewhat complex since the depth of pile rotation is computed

through a series of numeric iterations until a point of equilibrium in established.

2
Nomalized lateral load , H/L D
2

1.5 1.43

1.30

1 0.99

0.75
MP
FP-2-180
0.5 FP-3-120
FP-4-180

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pile head rotation,  (degrees)
Figure 4-2 Lateral load-rotation curves of the piles
indicating ultimate pile capacity

83
 b(LVDT1)

120 mm
a(LVDT2)
30 mm

 x
Point of pile
rotation

Figure 4-3 Rotation of rigid pile during lateral loading

Method proposed by Prasad and Chari (1999) is straight forward, as the depth

of pile rotation, x, can be calculated from known pile load eccentricity (e) and the

embedded length of the pile (Lp) using an empirical expression as given in Equation 4-

1 below.

2
     
7.29 e  + 10.541 e  + 5.307 − 2.7 e  + 0.567
x  Lp   Lp   Lp 
= (4-1)
Lp 2.1996

Two LVDTs (i.e b(LVDT1) and a (LVDT2)) were installed on the test pile at

the heights of 30mm and 150mm, respectively, above the prepared sand surface to

measure the lateral deflection of the pile, as shown in Figure 4-3. Using the two LVDT

readings of a and b, the depth of pile rotation and rotation angle were calculated using

equations 4-2 and 4-3 (Uchida et al., 2006).

84
 x 30b − 150a
= (4-2)
Lp L p (a − b )

(𝑎−𝑏)
𝜃 = 𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑛 (4-3)
120

Figure 4-4 shows the variation of depth of rotation with pile head rotation. For

values less than 2°, the depth of pile head rotation fluctuates, while for values equal to

or greater that 2° the depth of pile rotation point, x, approached to 0.7Lp below the

ground surface for all piles. This indicates that global mode of failure is independent

of the geometry of the pile. The experimentally determined depth of pile head rotation

point agreed fairly well with that observed by Prasad and Chari (1999) as 0.72Lp and

Rutledge (1956) as 0.68 Lp.

Pile head rotation,  (degrees)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0

0.2
p
Depth of pile rotation, x/ L

MP
FP-2-180
FP-3-120
0.4 FP-4-180
Prasad and
Chari (1999)
0.6

0.8

Figure 4-4 Point of rotation verses pile head rotation

85
 4.4.3 Bending moment distribution

The measured strains during lateral loading are as shown in Figure 4-5 below.

In all the cases, bending strains measured on the fin section was smaller than those on

monopile at same depth. The bending moment values at the location of strain gauges

were calculated from the strain measurements, which were then used in Equation 4-4

(Rollins, 2006).

E p I p ( C −  T )
M= (4-4)
Dp

Bending strain (  )
Bending strain (  )
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Lateral load Lateral load
-0.4 -0.4
p
p

Normalized depth, z/L

Normalized depth, z/ L

Ground surface Ground surface

0 0

0.4 0.4

0.8 0.8
Tensile Tensile
Compressive (a) MP Compressive (b) FP-2-180
1.2 1.2
Bending strain (  ) Bending strain (  )
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Lateral load Lateral load
-0.4 -0.4
p

p
Normalized depth, z/L

Nomalized depth, z/L

Ground surface Ground surface

0 0

0.4 0.4

0.8 0.8
Tensile Tensile
Compressive Compressive
(c) FP-3-120 (d) FP-4-180
1.2 1.2
Figure 4-5 Strain distributions on the compressive and tensile side of the piles

86
Where, T and C are measured tensile and compressive strains from the strain gauges.

Ep and Ip are pile’s elastic modulus and moment of inertia, respectively.

The distribution of bending moments along the length of piles for various

normalized lateral loads is shown in Figure 4-6. Note that the normalized load is

represented simply as (H) on these figures, instead of its dimensionless form (H/L2Dγ)

to be able to fit the annotations on the same figure. The maximum bending moment

for the monopole occurred at a depth of 0.3Lp while for the finned piles the maximum

bending moment occurred at a depth of 0.44 Lp, just below the tip of the fin, indicating

that the fins modified the location of the maximum bending moment.

4.4.4 Bending efficiency of the fin piles

The effect of the added fins on the response of a pile can be observed from the

calculated bending moment distributions from strain gauge measurements. Bending

strain is directly related to the applied load and the displacement of the pile. In order

to understand the influence of the fin on the bending moment, comparisons to the

calculated bending moment distributions at the normalized static lateral load of

H/L2Dγ = 0.84 was made as shown in Figure 4-7.

Three distinct regions can be observed in Figure 4-7. For all the finned piles,

the section of the pile above the ground surface and the section of pile below the fins

had almost similar bending moment profiles to that of monopole. Large reduction in

the bending moments was observed in the finned section of the piles. This reduction

87
is presented in Figure 4-8 in terms of moment efficiency, M, expressed as in equation

4-5:

M MP − M FP
M = (4-5)
M MP

Where, MMP and MFP are the bending moments of monopole and finned piles,

respectively.

3 3
Normalized bending moment, M/L D Normalized bending moment, M/L D
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Lateral load H=0.14
H=0.14 Lateral
-0.4 load H=0.28
-0.4 H=0.28
MP H=0.42
H=0.42 H=0.56
H=0.56
H=0.70
p

p
Normalized deoth, z/L

Normalized depth z/L

H=0.70
H=0.84
0 H=0.84 0
H=0.97 H=0.97
H=1.12 H=1.12
H=1.26 H=1.26

0.4 0.4

0.8 0.8

(a) MP (b) FP-2-180

1.2 1.2
3
Normalized bending moment, M/L D 3
Normalized bending moment, M/L D
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H=0.14 H=0.14
Lateral load Lateral load H=0.28
-0.4 H=0.28 -0.4 H=0.42
H=0.42 H=0.56
H=0.56 H=0.70
H=0.70 H=0.84
p
p

Normalized depth, z/L

H=0.98
Normalised depth, z/L

H=0.84 0 H=1.12
0 H=0.97 H=1.26
H=1.12 H=1.40
H=1.26 H=1.56
H=1.68
H=1.140 H=1.82
0.4 H=1.54 0.4
H=1.68

0.8 0.8

(c) FP-3-120 (d) FP-4-180

1.2 1.2

Figure 4-6 Bending moment distribution of the piles

88
 3
Bending Moment, M/L D
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.2
MP Pipe section above the
ground: similar bending
FP-2-180
0 FP-3-120
moment profile

FP-4-180
p
Normalized depth, z/L
0.2 Finned section:Reduction
in bending moment

0.4

0.6
Pipe section below the
ground: similar bending
0.8 moment profile

1.2
Figure 4-7 Comparison of the bending at different sections of the
test piles

As shown in Figure 4-8, significant reduction in bending moment were

observed for three- and four-finned piles which gave efficiencies of 29% and 50%

respectively. The two-finned pile showed efficiency of up to 5%. Using finite element

modelling, Peng (2006) reported an efficiency of 15% for four-finned pile of Lp/Dp

ratio of 9 with Lf/Lp of 0.25 and Wp/Dp of 0.50. Similarly, tests by Nasr (2013) on

two-finned piles of Lp/Dp of 15 with Lf/Lp of 0.4 and Wp/Dp of 1 showed efficiency

up to 39%. An experimental study by Songlin (2007) on two-finned flexible piles of

Lp/Dp ratio of 30 and different finned sizes and different soil densities indicated

efficiency ranging from 2% to 44%. These results show that fins can significantly

reduce the bending moment of the pile and the results reported in this work agree well

with the range of values reported by other researchers on similar systems.

89
 Moment efficiency, 
M

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

-0.2

0
p
0.2
Normalized depth, z/L

0.4

0.6 FP-2-180
FP-3-120
0.8 FP-4-180

1.2
Figure 4-8 Variation of Moment efficiency of finned
piles with embedment depth

4.4.5 Lateral deflection of the pile inside the soil

Lateral deflection of the piles inside the soil was computed from the readings

of the LVDTs attached to the pile. The slope of the pile head at each loading stage was

calculated from the LVDT readings and the deflection of the piles at various depths

below ground surface was computed assuming linear deflection along the pile length.

Figure 4-9 shows the distributions of lateral deflections of the piles at different

lateral loadings expressed as the normalized H (= H/L2Dγ). The lateral displacements

increased with the applied lateral loads, as expected. Small lateral displacements were

determined at the tip of the piles. The depth of pile rotation ranged between 0.72Lp -

0.75Lp, which were in good agreement with 0.72Lp reported by Prasad and Chari

(1999).

90
 Normalized lateral deflection, y/D Normalized lateral deflection, y/D
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.2 -0.2

0 (a) MP 0

p
p

Normalized depth, z/L

Normalized depth, z/L

0.2 (b) FP-2-180

0.2
H=0.14
H=0.28
0.4 H=0.14 0.4 H=0.42
H=0.28 H=0.56
H=0.42 H=0.70
H=0.84
0.6 H=0.56 0.6 H=0.98
z/Lp=0.73 H=0.70 H=1.12
H=0.84 z/Lp=0.75
H=0.98 H=1.26
0.8 H=1.12 0.8 H=1.40
H=1.26 H=1.54
H=1.68
1 1
Normalized lateral deflection y/D Normalized lateral deflection, y/D
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.2 -0.2

0 0
p
p

Normalized depth, z/L

Normalized depth, z/L

H=0.14
0.2 H=0.14 0.2 (d) FP-4-180 H=0.28
(c) FP-3-120 H=0.28 H=0.42
H=0.42 H=0.56
0.4 H=0.56 0.4 H=0.70
H=0.70 H=0.84
H=0.84 H=0.98
H=0.98
0.6 H=1.12 0.6 H=1.12
H=1.26 z/Lp=0.72 H=1.26
z/Lp=0.73 H=1.40
H=1.40
0.8 H=1.54 0.8 H=1.54
H=1.68 H=1.68
H=1.82 H=1.82
H=1.96 H=1.96
1 1
Figure 4-9 Lateral deflection of the pile

4.4.6 Lateral soil pressure along the length of the pile

Pressure cells, attached on the surface of the piles at various depths, were used

to measure the lateral soil pressure during lateral loading. Figure 4-10 shows the

measured earth pressure profiles. Increase in lateral load resulted in an increase in

lateral soil pressure in front of the pile repeating the similar shape of pressure

distribution with each load increment. The depth of maximum lateral soil pressure was

found to be at 0.45Lp. The presence of the fin had no influence on the depth where

the maximum pressure occurred. The depth of stress reversal (i.e., depth of pile

91
rotation point) was found to be in the range of 0.7Lp to 0.75Lp. Similar pressure

distribution profiles were observed by Prasad and Chari (1999) for circular piles in sand.

4.4.7 Earth pressure distribution around the perimeter of the pile

Lateral soil pressure distribution around the perimeter of the pile at the point

of maximum pressure along the pile length (i.e., on section A-A of Figure 4-1) is

presented in Figure 4-11 below. The pressure measurements made both on the pile and

the fins are represented on linear expansions of the curved and the flat surfaces at the

points marked as sensor points on section A-A in Figure 4-1.

0 0

0.2 0.2
p

p
Normalized depth z/L

H=0.14
Normalized depth, z/L

H=0.28 (b) FP-2-180

H=0.14
H=0.42 H=0.28
0.4 H=0.56 0.4 H=0.42
H=0.70 H=0.56
H=0.84 H=0.70
H=0.98 H=0.84
H=1.12 H=0.98
0.6 H=1.26 0.6 H=1.12
H=1.40 H1.26
H=1.40
z/Lp=0.70
z/Lp=0.75 H=1.54
H=1.68
0.8 0.8
(a) MP
1 (b) FP-2-180
1
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
lateral soil pressure (kPa) Lateral soil pressure (kPa)
0 0
H=0.14 H=0.14
H=0.28 H=0.28
H=0.42 H=0.42
p
Normalized pile depth, z/L

0.2
p

0.2 H=0.56
Normalized pile depth, z/L

H=0.56
H=0.70 H=0.70
H=0.84 H=0.84
H=0.98 H=0.98
H=1.12 H=1.12
0.4 H=1.26 0.4 H=1.26
H=1.40 H=1.40
H=1.54 H=1.54
H=1.68 H=1.68
H=1.82 H=1.82
0.6 0.6 H=1.96
z/Lp=0.70
z/Lp=0.72
0.8 0.8
(c) FP-3-120
(d) FP-4-180
1 1
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
Lateral soil pressure (kPa) Measured earth pressure (kPa)

Figure 4-10 Measure lateral soil pressure along pile length

92
 Smith (1987) suggested that the soil resistance to lateral movement of a pile can

be expressed in two components: (i) frontal normal bearing pressure and, (ii) side

friction. For small diameter piles, the effect of side friction on the periphery of the piles

is minimal and can be neglected (Smith, 1987; Ashour et al., 2008). The component of

soil resistance to lateral pile movement considered in here will be only the frontal

normal bearing pressure. The distribution of the lateral pressure for MP was symmetric

about the pile circumference and exhibited similar distribution as those reported by

Prasad and Chari (1999) and Smith (1987) for a pipe pile.

8 8
H=0.14
Distance around pile half circumference ( cm)

6 Distance around pile half circulmfrence ( cm) 6 H=0.28

H=0.42
H=0.58
4 H=0.72
4 H=0.84
H=0.98
2 H=1.12
2 H=1.26
H=1.40
0 H=1.54
0 H=1.68
H=1.82
-2 H=0.14 -2
H=0.28
H=0.42
-4 H=0.56 -4
H=0.70
H=0.84
-6 (a) MP H=0.98 -6
H=1.12
H=1.26 (b) FP-2-180
-8 -8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Measured lateral soil pressure (kPa) Measured lateral soil pressure (kPa)
6 8
H=0.14
Distance around pile half circumference ( cm)

Distance around pile half circumference ( cm)

H=0.28 H=0.14
H=0.42 6 H=0.28
4 H=0.56 H=0.42
H=0.70 H=56
H=0.84 4 H=0.70
H=0.98 H=0.84
2 H=1.12 H=0.98
H=1.26 2 H=1.12
H=1.40 H=1.26
H=1.54 H=1.40
0 H=1.68 0 H=1.54
H=1.82 H=1.68
H=1.96 H=1.80
-2 H=1.96
-2
-4
-4
(c) FP-3-120 -6
(d) FP-4-180
-6 -8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Measured lateral earth pressure (kPa) Measured lateral soil pressure (kPa)

Figure 4-11 Distribution of lateral soil pressure around the perimeter of the pile
93
 8

Distance along pile circumference ( cm)

6 MP
FP-2
FP-3
4 FP-4

-2

-4

-6

-8
0 5 10 15 20
Measured lateral soil pressure (kPa)

Figure 4-12 Distribution of lateral soil pressure along the

perimeter of the pile at normalized lateral load H=1.26

Comparison of lateral soil pressure distributions at the same applied lateral load

(Figure 4-12) shows that the pressure acting on monopile is larger than that acting on

finned piles. This is attributed to the fact that finned piles have a large surface area than

monopile hence smaller pressure in the shaft section of the finned pile. For a finned

pile, pressure on the shaft section was larger than the pressure in the finned section for

all fin configurations.

4.5 Bulge factor of finned piles

Rudolph and Grabe (2013) suggested that the effectiveness of the fins on a pile

can be assessed by calculating separately the amount of pressures that act on the fin

and on the pile shaft using the proposed mechanical system shown in Figure 4-13,

94
where the pile shaft is represented as a beam element with length L1= D/2 and the fin

is represented as a beam element with a length L2= Wf (Figure 4-13(b)).

Defining the total load as Qr and the load acting on the fin as Qw , the pressure

on the wing can be defined as:

Qw
pw = (4-6)
Wf

The pressure on the shaft is then defined as:

(Qr − Qw )
p sh = (4-7)
Wf

(a) Pressure distribution

Qr Qw

pw

psh

(b) Idealized beam section

EI1, L1 EI2, L2

L1=D/2 L2=Wf

Figure 4-13 Idealized mechanical system of pile shaft and fin

(Rudolph and Grabe, 2013)

95
The efficiency of the fin can then be expressed as the ratio of the two pressures:

pw
Rp =  1.0 (4-8)
p sh

Rp is used to calculate the bulge factor, w, which is described as the ratio of the

resistance provided by the pile and the fins at the same depth.

(D + 2R W )
w =
p f
(4-9)
D

In the experiments reported here, both the psh and pw were measured directly

during lateral loading. The values of psh and pw obtained at each loading stage from earth

pressure sensors attached at the mid axis of the shaft section and mid axis of the fin

section (see Section A-A in Figure 4-1) at a depth, z of 0.45Lp were used to compute

the fin efficiency, Rp as given in Equation 4-8. The variation of the computed fin

efficiency, Rp with applied lateral load for the three finned piles are shown in Figure 4-

14. Although the data shows increasing efficiency with load for each pile, the measured

ultimate load state was selected for each pile in order to effectively compare the R p

values. At the normalized ultimate lateral load state (i.e., 2° pile head rotation) for each

pile type the fin efficiency Rp was found to be 0.76 for FP-2, 0.65 for FP-3 and 0.78 for

FP-4. Values of Rp obtained for FP-2 and FP-4 were similar. The Rp for FP-3 was

lower than those calculated for FP-2 and FP-4 partly due to the oblique orientation of

the fins hence smaller area available to resist lateral movement when compared to FP-

2 and FP-4.

96
 1

0.8

p
Fin efficiency , R 0.6

FP-4 ( H=1.43), Rp=0.78

FP-2( H=0.99), Rp=0.76

FP-3( H=1.30), Rp=0.65

0.4

0.2 FP-2
FP-3
FP-4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2
Normalized lateral load ( H/L D)

Figure 4-14 Fin efficiency, Rp against the lateral soil pressure

4.6 Maximum lateral soil pressure (pmax)

Accurate determination of the maximum soil pressure is critical in estimating

the lateral pile capacity. Lateral soil resistance of a fined pile can be compared to that

of monopile by incorporating the bulge factor, w in the finned section of the piles.

Considering the fins on a pile, the effective diameter of the finned pile can be

expressed as D*=Dp w while that of the monopile it is D*=Dp . The bulge factors, w

were calculated from equation 4-9. A bulge factor of 2.56 was used for FP-2 and FP-

4, while a value of 2.30 was used for FP-3 to compute the maximum soil resistance in

this study. The ultimate soil pressure was considered to correspond to the pressure

reading taken at 2° pile head rotation. The measured earth pressure values were non-

97
dimensionalized by multiplying each quantity by coefficient (D*/L2). In this process,

D* incorporated the effect of the fins, while L2 incorporated the effect of pile length

and soil density. The ultimate lateral soil resistance along the length of the piles

measured from earth pressure gauges were then compared to those proposed by other

researchers as show in Figure 4-15.

The tests agreed well with the empirical method proposed by Prasad and Chari (1999)

with 2%-9% deviation. The data did not agree well with empirical determinations

proposed by Broms (1964) and Fleming (1992), as these two empirical methods were

developed in absence of actual pressure data. Furthermore, the ultimate soil resistances

in these latter methods were assumed to occur at the pile tip at the displacement level

of 0.1D, which in most cases is less than that of the ultimate state.

* 2
Normalized lateral soil pressure ( P D /L  )
max
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0

Brom (1964)
0.2 Fleming (1992)
Prasad and Chari (1999)
Experimental (MP)
p
Normalized depth, z/L

Experiemntal (FP-2)
Experimental (FP-3)
0.4 Experimental (FP-4)

0.6

0.8

Figure 4-15 Normalized ultimate soil capacity measured

along the pile length

98
 In the experiments the maximum pressure occurred at 0.45Lp, as observed in

Figure 4-15. The ratios of the maximum earth pressures at 0.45Lp and the earth

pressures at the pile tip were all less than 1.7, as suggested by Prasad and Chari (1999).

4.7 Soil pile interaction: Force-displacement (p-y curves)

The measured lateral earth pressure profiles along the length of the piles (Figure

4-10) were used to directly determine the soil reaction during lateral loading. The soil

reaction (force/unit length) was determined by multiplying the measured earth pressure

with the effective pile diameter, D*. The effective pile diameter for the finned section

of the pile was the taken as the product of the diameter, Dp of the monopile and the

bulge factor w, as described earlier.

Earlier, the lateral displacement of each pile at different depths along the length

of the pile was computed from two LVDTs readings at the pile head, assuming a linear

variation of displacement throughout the length as shown in Figure 4-9. The lateral

displacement profiles of the piles in Figure 4-9 and the calculated soil reaction profiles

in Figure 4-10 were used to develop the p-y curves along the length of each pile. These

p-y curves were then compared with theoretical p-y curves developed using two separate

methods: (i) API (1993) method ;(ii) Zhang (2009) method.

4.7.1 p-y curves from methodology developed by Zhang

Zhang (2009) proposed a nonlinear method for estimating p-y curves for rigid

piles in sand. The method assumed a linear variation of the ultimate soil resistance and

modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction with depth. Furthermore, it assumed that the

99
 modulus of subgrade reaction decreases with pile displacement. The process is

described as below.

i. The lateral soil resistance, p at any depth, z is expressed

𝑛𝑦0 (a−z)𝑧
𝑝 = 𝑘ℎ 𝑦 = (4-10)
𝑎

Where kh is the horizontal subgrade reaction, a is the depth of pile rotation below the

ground surface (seeFigure 4-16), y0 is the lateral pile displacement at the ground surface.

ii. The constant, n can be expressed as function of normalized pile displacement at the

ground surface, yo by equation (4-11)

iii. The maximum horizontal subgrade reaction, nmax can be obtained from Figure 4-

17 as proposed by Murchison and O’Neil (1983) and Zhang (2009).

y 
n = 0.066 nmax  o  (4-11)
D

Lateral load
e=0.45Lp

b=0.45Lp

a=0.72Lp
c=a+2/3(L-a)

Lp

Figure 4-16 Assumed earth pressure distribution and salient

depth
100
 Figure 4-17 Constant of subgrade reaction verses
relative density (Murchison and O'Neil, 1983)

Using this method, for sand of  =35.2˚, and relative density of 32% the value of

the constant nmax was estimated as 10 kN/m2. The parameters a, b and c (as described

in Figure 4-16) were directly obtained from the earth pressure distribution profiles

along the length of the piles. Values of a=0.72Lp, b=0.45Lp and c=a+2/3(Lp-a) were

used in appropriate computations, as will be discussed later in this Chapter. The bulge

factor, Kw was incorporated when describing the finned section of the pile.

The p-y curves developed using Zhang (2009) method were compared with the

experimentally determined p-y curves as shown in Figure 4-18. The experimental and

the computed p-y curves proposed by Zhang (2009) showed similar trends, but the

stiffness from the method by Zhang (2009) were systematically higher than those

obtained experimentally by about 20-35%. The empirical method overestimated the

experiment at and above z=0.44Lp, point at the maximum lateral soil pressure for all

101
finned piles. Below z=0.44Lp the empirical curves underestimated the experiment.

Regardless, the experimental and the empirical p-y curves displayed similar initial

stiffness, which was also the same for all piles at z=0.44Lp.

Zhang (z=0.11L ) Zhang (z=0.11Lp)

p
Experiment (z=0.11L ) Experiment (z=0.11L p)
p
Zhang (z=0.28Lp) Zhang (z=0.28Lp)
2 Experiment (z=0.28Lp) 2 Experiement(z=0.28L )
p
Zhang (z=0.44L ) Zhang (z=0.44Lp)
p
Experiment (z=0.44L ) Experiement(z=0.44Lp)
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L  )

Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L )

Zhang (z=0.95Lp)
2

Zhang (z=0.95Lp)

2
1.5 Experiment (z=0.95Lp) 1.5 Experiement(z=0.95Lp)
*

*
1 1

(a) MP

0.5 0.5

(b) FP-2-180
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Normalized displacement, y /D Normalized displacement, y /D
p p
Zhang (z=0.11L ) Zhang (z=0.11Lp)
p
Experiment (z=0.11L p) Experiement (z=0.11L )
p
Zhang (z=0.28L ) Zhang (z=0.28Lp)
p

2 Experiment (z=0.28L ) 2 Experiement (z=0.28L )

p p
Zhang (z=0.44L ) Zhang (z=0.44Lp)
p
Experiment (z=0.44L p) Experiment(z=0.44Lp)
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD*/L  )
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L  )

Zhang (z=0.95L )
Zhang (z=0.95L )
2
2

p
p
Experiment (z=0.95L )
1.5 p 1.5 Experiment(z=0.95Lp)
*

1 1

0.5 0.5

(c) FP-3-120 (d) FP-4-180

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Normlaized displacement, y /D Lateral displacement, y /D
p p

Figure 4-18 Comparison of experimental and theoretical p-y curves after Zhang (2009)

102
4.7.2 p-y curves from methodology developed by API (1993)

In order to determine p-y curves using the method proposed by API (1993), first

the ultimate soil resistance, pu was calculated using equation 4-12:

pu = (C1 z + C2 D)z (4-12)

Where D is the diameter of the monopile and z is the depth below the ground

surface. The coefficients C1 and C2, which depend on the friction angle, were obtained

from Figure 4-19 (API, 1993).

A hyperbolic function given by equation 4-13 below was used to determine the

soil pressure, p at various displacements, y.

 n zy 
p = Ap u tanh max  (4-13)
 Ap u 

The coefficient A was calculated from equation 4-14.

z
A = 3.0 − 0.8 (4-14)
D

In this work, estimation of the p-y curves for finned piles from API approach

followed again the incorporation of the bulge factor in the finned section of the pile

when computing the pressures. Equation 4-12 was modified my multiplying the soil

reaction by the bulge factor for section of the pile with fin. Therefore, for soil of

 =35.2˚ the value of coefficients C1 and C2 were determined 3.2 and 2.5, respectively

from Figure 4-19. The value of the constant nmax was determined as 10kN/m2 from

Figure 4-17.

103
 Figure 4-19 Variation of coefficients C1 and C2 and a function of
friction angle after API, 1993

Figure 4-20 shows the p-y curves computed for different depth using the API

method compared to those obtained experimentally. Stiffer response of the initial

tangent of the p-y curves were observed from p-y curves from API method. In addition,

the experimental and empirical plots displayed marked differences in the shape of the

p-y curves. One of the major reasons for the discrepancy may be attributed to the fact

that the API method was developed for flexible piles and its application in rigid piles

has not been verified by any past work.

104
  3
API (z=0.11Lp) API (z=0.11Lp)
Experiment(z=0.11Lp) Experiment (z=0.11Lp )

Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L  )

 2.5
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L )
API (z=0.28L ) API (z=0.28Lp)

2
2

p
Experiment(z=0.28Lp) Experiment (z=0.28L )

*
*

API (z=0.44Lp) API (z=0.44Lp)

 2
Experiment(z=0.44Lp) Experiment (z=0.44Lp )
API (z=0.95Lp) API (z=0.95Lp)
 Experiment(z=0.95L )
p
1.5 Experiment (z=0.95Lp )

 1
(a) MP
 0.5
(b) FP-2-180

 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Normalized displacement, y /D Normalized displacement, y /D
p
p

3 3
API (z=0.11L ) API (z=0.11Lp )
p
Experiment (z=0.11Lp) Experiment (z=0.11Lp)
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L  )
Normalized soil reaction, p (PD /L )

2.5 API (z=0.28L ) 2.5 API (z=0.28L )

2

p p
Experiment (z=0.28Lp) Experiment (z=0.28Lp)
*

API (z=0.44Lp) API (z=0.44Lp )

2 2
Experiment (z=0.44L ) Experiment (z=0.44Lp)
p
API (z=0.95Lp) API (z=0.95Lp )
1.5 Experiment (z=0.95L )
p
1.5 Experiment (z=0.95L )
p

1 1

(c) FP-3-120 (d) FP-4-180

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Normalized displacement, y /D
Normalized displacement. y /D p
p

Figure 4-20 Comparison of experimental p-y curves and theoretical p-y curves after API,
1993

4.8 Estimation of ultimate lateral capacity of finned pile

In order predict the ultimate capacity of laterally loaded finned pile, the method

proposed by Zhang (2009) for estimating the lateral capacity of rigid piles was modified

to take into account the effect of fins. Zhang’s approach assumed that both the

105
moment and horizontal loads were large enough to cause yielding of the soil in the

region above and below the rotation point. Accordingly, the ultimate lateral load

capacity, Hu, was expressed as:

𝑚𝑏2 𝑛𝑦0 𝑎 1
𝐻𝑢 = − [ (𝑏2 − 𝐿2 ) − (𝑏3 − 𝐿3 )] − 𝑚(𝐿2 − 𝑐 2 ) (4-15)
2 𝑎 2 3

The parameters a, b and c were described earlier in Figure 4-16. They were directly

inferred from the experimental test data of Figure 4-10. The two other parameters, m

and n in equation 4-15 must be determined in order to solve the equation. The

parameter n can be calculated from equation 4-10 and Figure 4-17 (Murchison and

O’Neil, 1983). The parameter m can be obtained from the assumption that the ultimate

soil resistance varies linearly with depth, therefore m=pu/z, which is a constant.

The ultimate lateral soil resistance, pu is calculated using equation 4-16 (Prasad

and Chari, 1999) where it is equal to the maximum pressure, Pmax, multiplied by the

diameter of the monopile, D (Note that D* is used instead of D in equation 4-16)

pu = Pmax D (4-16)

Where,

Pmax = 10 (1.3 tan  +0.3)  z (4-17)

The method by Prasad and Chari (1999) was selected to determine the variation

of pu because the method considered the ultimate soil resistance at the point of rotation

to be zero. This assumption agreed with the conditions of the experimental study in

here. Lateral displacement of the pile at the ground surface is a function of the stiffness

of the pile assembly and the soil density. The number and orientation of the fins will

modify the stiffness of the pile and lower the magnitude of the displacement at the
106
ground line when compared to that of a monopile. In order to apply equation 4-15 to

a finned pile, a displacement factor, δw is introduced which compares the ground line

deflection of a monopile to that of a finned pile at the same pile head rotation, as in

Equation 4-18.

yo ( MP )
w = (4-18)
yo ( FP )

Equation 4-15 was modified to take into account the effect of the fin by

multiplying the ground line deflection of monopile by the displacement factor. Thus,

the equation for determining the ultimate lateral capacity of finned pile was expressed

as Equation 4-15b:

𝑚𝑏2 𝑛𝑦0 𝑎 1
𝐻𝑢 = − [ (𝑏2 − 𝐿2 ) − (𝑏3 − 𝐿3 )] − 𝑚(𝐿2 − 𝑐 2 ) (4-15b)
2 𝑎𝑤 2 3

With the known ground line deflection of the monopile at ultimate load, the ultimate

lateral load of a finned pile can then be estimated from Equation 4-15b. Figure 4-21

shows the variation of the displacement factor, w with the pile head rotation of a

monopile. At 2° rotation which correspond to ultimate load state of the pile, the w

values were obtained as 2.3, 2.8 and 3.0 for FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 piles, respectively.

The measured and the predicted ultimate lateral load of the piles from Equation

4-15b is correlated in Figure 4-22. It can be observed that the predicted ultimate lateral

capacity is in good agreement with the measured capacity with errors ranging from 4%-

17%.

107
 4.5

4 FP-2
FP-3

w
FP-4

Displacement factor, 
3.5

FP-4=3.0
3
FP-3=2.8

2.5
FP-2=2.3

2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Monopile head rotation, (degree)

Figure 4-21 Variation of displacement factor with

pile head rotation

1.5
Normalized predicted ultimate lateral load, H

FP-3
FP-2 FP-4
Experiemental
Predicted
1

MP

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Normalized measured ultimate lateral load, H

Figure 4-22 Comparison of measured and predicted

ultimate lateral capacity

108
4.9 Summary and conclusion

The interaction between finned pile and the surrounding soil was investigated through

static load model pile tests. The model piles and surrounding soil were instrumented

with LVDTs, strain gauges and earth pressure sensors. The measured lateral earth

displacements and the pile head rotation at the ground line, the lateral earth pressure

and pile strain profiles along the length of the piles were used to predict the load-

displacement response and soil-pile interaction. The following conclusions were drawn

from the results of the work presented in this chapter:

(i) Addition of fins modified the bending moment distribution of the pile. The

maximum bending moment of a monopile occurred at a depth of 0.31Lp while

that of finned piles occurred at a depth of 0.45Lp from ground surface. Fins

reduced the bending moment profile of a pile within the finned section

significantly. The reduction in bending moment at the finned section ranged from

8%-55% depending on the number of fins in a pile. The bending moment

distribution of the sections above and below the fins was similar to that observed

for monopile.

(ii) The depth of pile rotation point below the ground surface calculated from

measured pile displacements above ground line ranged from 0.72Lp -0.75Lp and

the point of stress reversal from measured earth pressure data also ranged

between 0.72Lp-0.75Lp. The estimated depth of pile rotation point and the

measured point of stress reversal were in good agreement with that observed by

Prasad and Chari (1999). For all the piles, the maximum soil pressure occurred at

109
 0.45Lp below the ground surface. This depth was similar to that reported by

Prasad and Chari (1999). The presence of fins did not modify the point where the

maximum soil pressure occurred.

(iii) Lateral soil resistance of a finned pile was compared to that of monopile by

incorporating the bulge factor w in the finned section of the piles. Considering

the fins, the new diameter of the finned piles was expanded to D*=Dp w while

that of the monopile was D*= Dp. Bulge factor of 2.56 was used for FP-2 and FP-

4 while a value of 2.30 was used for FP-3 to compute the ultimate soil resistance

of finned pile. Comparison of the ultimate soil resistance measured and the

computed soil resistance from a method developed by Prasad and Chari (1999)

was in good agreement.

(iv) Comparison of the soil resistance and displacement curves (p-y curves) of finned

piles and of monopile were made possible by introduction of the budge factor w.

Experimental p-y curves were compared with p-y curves from methods proposed

by Zhang (2009) and API (1993). Empirical method by Zhang delivered better

agreement with the experimental p-y curves while the predictions from API

method resulted in large discrepancies with the experimental trends. The large

deviation between the API method predictions and the experimental curves was

attributed to the fact that API method was developed for flexible pile and its

applicability to rigid piles has not been adequately verified.

(v) Estimation of the ultimate lateral pile capacity was obtained by modifying an

equation proposed by Zhang (2009). Introduction of displacement factor, w

110
 made it possible to estimate the lateral capacity of a finned pile using Zhang (2009)

approach. Displacement factor values of 2.3, 2.8 and 3.0 were determined and

used in ultimate lateral pile capacity estimations for FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4,

respectively. The calculated and measured lateral capacities of piles at pile head

rotation of 2° were in very good agreement.

4.10 References

1. API (1993): Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing

fixed offshore platform: Working stress design, RP2A-WSD. 20th edition.

2. Ashour, M., Norris, G., and Elfass, S. (2008): Analysis of laterally loaded long

or intermediate drilled shafts of small or large diameter in layered soil, Univ. of

Nevada, Reno, NV.

3. Broms, B.B. (1964): Lateral resistance of piles on cohesionless soils. Journal of

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, (SM3), Vol. 90, No. 3, pp.

123–156.

4. Chin, F. V. (1970): Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles not carried to

Failure, Proceedings of 2nd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering,

Southeast Asian Society of Soil Engineering, Singapore: 81–90.

5. Davisson, M. T. (1972): High Capacity Piles,” Proceedings, Lecture Series,

Innovation in Foundation Construction, Vol. 52, ASCE, Chicago, Illinois: 81–

112.

111
6. Duhrkop, J. and Grabe, J. (2008): Improving the Lateral Bearing Capacity of

Monopiles by Welded Wings. Proceedings of the 2nd BGA International

Conference on Foundations, Vol. 1, pp. 849-860.

7. Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, W. K. (1992).

Piling engineering, Wiley, New York.

8. GAI Consultant Inc., 1982, “Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Vol. 2,

Research Documentation,” GAI Report EL-2197, Research project 1280–1, EPRI,

Monrocville, PA.

9. Hu, Z. H., McVay, M., Bloomquist, D., Herrera, R., and Lai, P. (2006): Influence

of Torque on Lateral Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Sands. Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132 (4): 456–464.

10. Lee, J., Paik, K., Kim, D., and Park, D. (2012): Estimation of ultimate lateral

load capacity of piles in sands using calibration chamber tests. Geotechnical Testing

Journal, 35(4): 1–12.

11. Meyerhof, G. G., Mathur, S. K. and Valsangkar, A. J. (1981): Lateral resistance

and deflection of rigid wall and piles in layered soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,

18: 159–170.

12. O’Neill, M., and Murchison, J. (1983): An evaluation of p-y relationships in

sands. A report to the American Petroleum Institute, PRAC 82-41-1, University

of Texas, Huston.

112
13. Peng, J., Clarke, B.G. and Rouainia, M. (2011): Increasing resistance of piles

subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 137 (10): 977-982.

14. Petrasovits, G., and Award, A. (1972): Ultimate lateral resistance of a rigid pile

in cohesionless soil. Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, Madrid, Vol.3, pp. 407-412.

15. Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Chari, T. R. (1999): Lateral capacity of model rigid piles

in cohesionless soils. Soils and Foundations, 39 (2):21–29.

16. Rollins, K. M., K. G. Olsen, D. H. Jensen, B. H. Garrett, R. J. Olsen, and J. J.

Egbert (2006): Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior: Analysis.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132(10):1272-1283.

17. Rudolph, C and Grabe, J. (2013): Laterally loaded piles with wings- Insitu testing

with cyclic loading from varying directions. Proceedings of ASME, 31th International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France

18. Rutledge, P. C. (1956): Design monographs for pole structure.

19. Sawwaf, M. (2006): Lateral resistance of single pile located near geosynthetic

reinforced Slope. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(10):

1336-1347

20. Smith, T. D. (1987): Pile horizontal soil modulus values. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 113 (9): 1040–1044.

21. Uchida, K., Kawabata, T. and Aki Ohara, K. (2006): Lateral load capacity for

pile with multi-stepped two diameters embedded in sand. In the Proceedings of the

113
 Sixteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco,

California, USA.

22. Zhang, L., Silva, F. and Grismala, R. (2005): Ultimate lateral resistance to piles

in cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131

(1): 78-83.

23. Zhang, L, (2009): Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded rigid piles in

cohesionless soil. Computer and Geotechnics, 36 (5): 718–724.

114
 CHAPTER 5

5 CYCLIC RESPONSE OF LATERALLY LOADED

MONOPILE AND FINNED PILES
5.1 Introduction

During its lifetime, the monopile foundation of an offshore wind turbine is

unavoidability subjected to long-term cyclic loading, originating from waves and wind.

This can lead to accumulated rotation and change in stiffness of the monopile and

seriously impact the strict operation criteria and standards of the offshore wind turbine.

The allowable accumulation of pile head rotation at mudline is limited between 0.25°

to 0.30° according to DNV standards (Malhotra,2009), and to 0.50° according to API

(1993).

Lateral capacity of pile is a function of the pile geometry, soil properties and

type of loading. Therefore, improving the capacity of a pile may require either

improving the properties of the near soil surface layers or changing the pile geometry.

It can be prohibitively expensive or virtually impossible to improve the soil properties

at the seabed hence the better alternative is to change the pile geometry. At sites where

water depths are greater than 30m the monopile diameter may be increased to provide

additional stiffness. However large cross section area may attract larger wave and

current loading and incur significantly higher manufacturing and handling costs, thus

reducing the potential benefit of increase size (Murphy et al., 2015).

115
 Alternative to increasing the monopile diameter is using finned-piles, which

involves incorporation of plates attached to monopiles to increase their lateral load

capacity, increase pile-soil stiffness and minimize the accumulated pile head rotation.

At present, little or no research has focused on cyclic response of finned piles. It is

challenging to carry out full model test or field test on finned piles with large diameters

thus model test can be used to produce intuitive results. This chapter explores the

potential of using of finned monopile for offshore wind turbine foundation though 1

g model test.

5.2 Cyclic response of piles

Cyclic response of pile can be described in terms of pile head displacement, y

or rotation , and the applied lateral load H. Four parameters are necessary to describe

the cyclic loading process, the maximum applied cyclic load Hmax, the minimum applied

cyclic load Hmin, the period of a cycle, T and the number of cycles, N. The difference

between Hmax and Hmin is the loading amplitude, H.

A schematic of typical load-displacement response of a pile under constant-

amplitude cyclic loading is shown in Figure 5-1. In each loading cycle, the maximum

and minimum value of load (Hmax, N and Hmin, N) and displacement (ymax, N and ymin, N)

can be obtained. Pile stiffness can be evaluated as defined in Figure 5-1, as either “pile

equivalent stiffness” or “pile secant stiffness”.

The characteristic of the cyclic load must be uniquely defined. Two independent

parameters are defined to characterize the applied sinusoidal loading (Leblanc, 2010).

116
 H max
b = (5-1)
Hu

H min
c = (5-2)
H max

Cyclic load magnitude b, expresses the magnitude of loading as the ratio of

applied cyclic load to the ultimate lateral load in static test. The cyclic load ratio c,

defines the direction of loading on the basis of minimum and maximum applied cyclic

load and will take maximum value of 1 for static loading, 0 for one-way loading and -1

for two-way loading.

(Hmax, ymax) (Hmax, ymax)

Cyclic load

Pile
equivalent
stiffness

(Hmin, ymin) (Hmin, ymin)

Displacement

(Hmax, ymax) (Hmax, ymax)

Cyclic load

Pile secant
stiffness

(Hmin, ymin) (Hmin, ymin)

Displacement

Figure 5-1 Response of monopile under constant one-way cyclic loading

117
5.3 Cyclic accumulated deflection and rotation models

Cyclic lateral loading is often investigated using static pile analysis, where the

pile head displacement or rotation under static condition are modified to account for

the effect of cyclic loading using degradation laws (Garnier, 2013). The most common

procedure for predicting accumulated displacement or rotation for constant amplitude

cyclic loading involves modelling the accumulated displacement, yN or rotation N, after

N number of loading cycles as a function of number of cycles, N. The displacement y1

or rotation 1 in the first loading circle is incorporated as:

y N = f (N , y1 ) (5-3)

Centrifuge model tests and 1g model tests have been used to study the response

of piles under cyclic loading which have led to the development of a logarithmic

function, as given in Equation 5-4 (Peralta and Achimus, 2010) and power law

equation, as given in Equation 5-5 (Klinkvort et al., 2012; Long and Vennester, 1994;

Peralta and Achimus, 2010). These equations have been used widely in modelling the

accumulated pile head displacement and rotation.

y N = y1 (1 + b ln (N )) (5-4)

y N = y1 N  (5-5)

Where, b and  are model parameters.

Using results from centrifuge test on monopile and finned piles, Bienen et al.,

(2012) modified the logarithmic expression (Equation 5-4) and developed the following

equation for pile head displacement.

118
  N − 1  N 
y N = y1 1 + 0.05 ln  + 1 (5-6)
 N 2 

Based on results from 1g test on stiff piles, Leblanc et al., 2010 proposed a

model for calculating the accumulated pile head rotation as:

 N = 1 (1 + TbTc N  ) (5-7)

The model parameters Tb and Tc are functions of b and c respectively.

5.4 Aim of the study

This research aims at understanding the advantage of fins in improving the

cycling response and load capacity of the piles through 1 g model test. The study will

seek to clarify:

i. Effect of fins in reducing the accumulated pile head rotation during cyclic

loading.

ii. The effect of fins in improving the soil pile stiffness.

iii. Predicting the long-term response of mono and finned piles at fatigue limit

state.

5.5 Cyclic loading device

Figure 5-2 shows a schematic depiction of the cyclic lateral loading system used

in this study, which is an improved version of a similar device used by LeBlanc et al.,

(2010). Figure 5-3 shows a photograph of the actual test set-up.

119
 The system consisted of a rectangular soil box of 0.9m length by 0.7m width

and 0.7m depth, equipped with a steel loading frame. The cyclic loading is controlled

simply using a leaver arm, weight hangers, applied masses m1, m2 and m3 and an electric

motor. The leaver is attached to the steel frame through a pivot and carries electric

motor which rotates mass m1. Cables and electric motor controls the rotation of m1.

The rotation causes oscillating motion of the leaver translated as cyclic load on the pile.

The loading to the pile is applied through the steel cable attached to the pile and

connected to the leaver arm. A load cell is attached to the leaver arm to measure the

load on the pile head.

1 Model finned pile

2 LVDTs

3 Load cell
4 Motor
5 Frictionless pulley

5 2 4
2 l2=230 mm

m3 m2 m1
1 lc=240 mm
la=420 mm

Figure 5-2 Shematic representation of thye cyclic loading device.

120
5.6 Generation of cyclic lateral load

The cyclic device worked based on the following principles. Initially when mass

m1= m2 =0, mass m3 is chosen to counterbalance the system. The mass of m3 needed to

counter balance the loading system in here was 8 kg. The masses m1 and m2 are then

carefully selected to provide the desired cyclic loading.

When the motor rotates the mass m1, a sinusoidal load is produced on the pile

head. The equation of this load can be given as following:

H (t ) = H 0 + H a sin (t ) (5-8)

 = 2f (5-9)

Where  is the angular rotation frequency of the electric motor.

The mass, m1 required to produce the desired cyclic load and corresponding

counter balance mass m2 are calculated as follows

l2 H a
m1 = (5-10)
la g

lc
Ha − Ho
la
m2 = (5-11)
g

Parameters H0 and Ha for computing the cyclic loading has defined by Leblanc

et al (2010) can be estimated from equations 5-10 and 5-11 respectively.

The rotation frequency of the motor was set to 0.1 Hz. This frequency was selected to

simulate pile subjected to long term wave loading according to Peng et al., (2011). The

dimensions la and lc used in these calculations are provided in Figure 5-2.

121
 Figure 5-3 Cyclic lateral loading set up

5.6.1 Model piles and cyclic load application

Previously reported results from cyclic lateral load tests of piles conducted in

the centrifuge showed that one-way loading produced the greatest accumulation of

displacement at the pile head (Klinkvort and Haidebal, 2013). Also reported is when

an offshore wind turbine structure is loaded by water waves the resultant load

eccentricity can change between approximately 2Dp to 25Dp (Klinkvort et al., 2012).

Following the previous findings, one-way cyclic lateral load tests were selected

and conducted on MP, FP-2-180, FP-3-120 and FP-4-180 piles. They were all

122
embedded in packed dry sand of relative density 32%. Cyclic load was applied at a

distance of 160mm from the sand surface which provided an eccentricity of about 4Dp.

This load eccentricity fell within the range suggested by Klinkvort et al., (2012). The

cyclic load applied on the pile head was directly measured using load cell attached to

the device. Lateral pile head rotation was measured from displacement transducers

attached to pile at 30mm and 150mm from the surface of the sand bed.

5.6.2 Lateral cyclic load ratio

Cyclic load magnitudes, ζb of 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8 and 1.0 of the ultimate load

capacity Hu were chosen for the tests. The ultimate load capacity was obtained from

static lateral load test on the piles at a pile head rotation of 2° (GAI consultants, 1982),

as discussed in Chapter 3. The cyclic load magnitudes of 0.2 and 0.5Hu were considered

to reflect realistic loading conditions of fatigue limit state and serviceability limit state

loading, respectively. Cyclic load magnitude of 0.8Hu and above were considered cyclic

loading near the ultimate pile capacity. All the cyclic load test was conducted under

one-way constant amplitude up to N=1000 cycles.

5.7 Test Results

5.7.1 Characteristics cyclic loads

Different mass combinations of m1 and m2 were selected to provide the desired

cyclic loading as shown in Table 5-1 below. Theoretical loading calculated from

Equation 5-8 was compared with the cyclic load measured from the load cell. Figure 5-

4 shows the variation of the experimental and theoretical cyclic loading with time.

123
Loading up to the initial 30s are shown for comparison. The theoretical and

experimental cyclic load for each load magnitude agreed fairly well error ranging from

0.6% to 15.1%.

Table 5-1 Summary of the cyclic load cases

Hmax Hmax %
Pile b m1 (kg) m2 (kg)
(Expt.) (Theori.) Error
0.2 0.6 0.5 0.167 0.158 5.1
0.3 1.0 0.8 0.287 0.264 8.7
MP 0.5 1.5 1.25 0.423 0.396 6.8
0.8 2.5 2.0 0.584 0.660 11.5
1.0 3.0 2.5 0.749 0.792 5.4
0.2 0.8 0.7 0.213 0.211 0.95
0.3 1.2 1.0 0.365 0.317 15.1
FP-2 0.5 2.0 1.5 0.545 0.528 3.2
0.8 3.0 2.5 0.802 0.792 1.3
1.0 3.6 3.0 1.000 0.950 5.3
0.2 1.0 0.8 0.347 0.304 14.4
0.3 1.5 1.25 0.50 0.45 11.1
FP-3 0.5 2.5 2.0 0.656 0.660 0.6
0.8 4.0 3.3 0.985 1.056 6.7
1.0 4.8 3.9 1.224 1.267 2.1
0.2 1.1 0.9 0.50 0.316 14.4
0.3 1.6 1.3 0.504 0.480 5.0
FP-4 0.5 3.0 2.5 0.727 0.792 8.2
0.8 4.5 3.8 1.158 1.214 4.6
1.0 5.5 4.5 1.457 1.478 1.4

124
 1.5 1.5

Normalized cyclic loading, H/(DL )

Normalized cyclic loading, H/(DL )

Experimental( =0.2)

2
b
Experimenatl ( =0.2)
MP Theortical ( =0.2) b
b
FP-2 Theoritical (b =0.2)
Experimental ( =0.3)
b

1 Experimental ( =0.3)
Theoritical ( =0.3)
b 1 b

Experimental( =0.5) Theoritical ( =0.3)

b b

Theoritical( =0.5) Experimental ( =0.5)

b b

Experimantal( =0.8) Theoritical ( =0.5)

b b

0.5 Theoritical( =0.8) Experimental ( =0.8)

b 0.5 b

Experimental( =1.0) Theoritical ( =0.8)

b b

Theoritical ( =1.0) Experimental ( =1.0)

b b
Theoritical (b =1.0)

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)
1.5 1.5

Normalized cyclic loading, H/(DL )

Normalized cyclic loading, H/(DL )

2
2

FP-3 Experimental ( =0.2)

b
FP-4 Experimental( =0.2)
b
Theoritical ( =0.2) Theoritical ( =0.2)
b
b
Experimental (b =0.3) Experimental ( =0.3)
1 Theoritical ( =0.3) 1 b

b Theoritical ( =0.3)
b
Experimental ( =0.5) Experimental ( =0.5)
b
b
Theoritical ( =0.5) Theoritical ( =0.5)
b
b
Experimental ( =0.8) Experimental ( =0.8)
b
0.5 Theoritical ( =0.8) 0.5 b

b Theoritical ( =0.8)
b
Experimental ( =1.0) Experimental ( =1.0)
b
b
Theoritical ( =1.0) Theoritical ( =1.0)
b
b

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 5-4 Comparison of theoretical and experimental cyclic loads

5.7.2 Lateral cyclic load- rotation curves

The static and cyclic lateral load pile head rotation obtained for monopile and

the finned piles are shown in Figures 5-5 through 5-8, respectively. All the tests were

conducted under same relative density and same cyclic load ratio of c =0. On a typical

cyclic load-rotation curve the first load cycle followed the static curve to seat the

selected load magnitude ratio, as expected. Hence, the first cycle pile secant stiffness

was significantly lower than the subsequent ones with increasing number of cycles. The

secant stiffness did not change appreciably with number of cycles of loading, but the

accumulated pile head rotation increased with the number of cycles of loading, N and

the cyclic load magnitude b.

125
Figure 5-5 Cyclic lateral load -rotation curves for MP

126
Figure 5-6 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-2

127
Figure 5-7 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-3

128
Figure 5-8 Cyclic lateral load-rotation curves for FP-4

129
5.7.3 Accumulated pile head rotation

Figure 5-9 shows the accumulated piled head rotation with the number of

cycles. The accumulated rotation increases rapidly for initial 100 cycles, after which the

rates of increase diminish for all cases. For a given cyclic load magnitude b, the

accumulated pile head rotation decreased with the number of fins. Monopile showed

larger accumulated rotation than finned piles implying that the fins affect reduction of

accumulated pile rotation.

The efficiency of finned piles in reducing the accumulated pile head rotation

under cyclic loading can be better understood by plotting the rate of change in rotation

with change in number of cycles, d/dN as shown in Figure 5-10. The rate of change

of pile head rotation d/dN reduced significantly within the first 100 cycles after which

it stabilized to a constant rate. Comparing the monopile behavior with the finned ones,

it is observed clearly that finned piles showed lower rate of change than monopile or

the first 100 cycles.

The pile head rotation was fitted using a power function as suggested by several

authors (Long and Vennester, 1994; Peralta and Achimus, 2010) and as given by

Equation 5-5. These power functions are annotated on the figures in Figure 5-9. The

value of the power coefficient,  was found to range between 0.07 and 0.23. In a

similar analysis, Rosen et al., (2012) reported values of  ranging from 0.11 to 0.18 on

1 g scale test under one-way cyclic loading of monopiles. Nicolai and Ibsen, (2014)

concluded values of  depended on the relative density of sand hence should not be

considered as a constant.
130
  = 0.079539 N 0.16929
 = 0.34736 N0.081217  =   0.13729

0.080576
 = 0.52414 N  = 0.12564 N 0.077885
 = 1.3498 N0.07307 4  = 0.30386 N 0.1044
4 0.10986
y = 1.7632 N  = 0.95136 N 0.081007
3.5 b=0.2 3.5  = 1.9412 N 0.076832
b=0.3 3
3 b=0.2

Pile head rotation, 

Pile head rotation, 

(a) MP b=0.5
b=0.3
2.5 b=0.8 2.5
(b) FP-2 b=0.5
b=1.0 2
2 b=0.8
b=1.0
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N

 = 0.024902 N 0.23487
 = 0.033762 N 0.095172
 = 0.089663 N 0.11586
 = 0.063183 N 0.14661
 = 0.3401 N 0.083216
 = 0.30405 N 0.074332
 = 0.89662 N 0.09916
4 4  = 1.0087 N 0.089251
 = 1.8387 N 0.077414
 = 1.8886 N 0.059687
3.5 3.5
3 b=0.2 3
Pile head rotation, 

Pile head rotation, 

2.5 b=0.3
2.5
(c) FP-3 b=0.5 (d) FP-4 b=0.2
2 b=0.8 2 b=0.3

1.5 b=1.0 b=0.5

1.5
b=0.8
1 1 b=1.0

0.5 0.5
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N

Figure 5-9 Variation of pile head rotation with number of cycles fitted using power
function

131
 0.2 0.2

Evolution of pile head rotation, d/dN

Evolution of pile head rotation, d/dN
(b) FP-2
(a) MP
0.15 b=0.2
0.15
b=0.3
b=0.2
b=0.5
b=0.3
0.1 0.1 b=0.8
b=0.5
b=1.0
b=0.8
0.05 b=1.0 0.05

0 0

-0.05 -0.05
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N
0.2 0.2

Evolution of pile head rotation, d/dN

Evolution of pile head rotation, d/dN

(c) FP-3
(d) FP-4
0.15 0.15
b=0.2 b=0.2
0.1 b=0.3 0.1 b=0.3
b=0.5 b=0.5
b=0.8 b=0.8
0.05 0.05
b=1.0 b=1.0

0 0

-0.05 -0.05
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles, N Number of cycle, N

Figure 5-10 Evolution of pile head rotation with number of cycles

5.7.4 Estimation of pile head rotation at fatigue limit state

Fatigue limit state corresponds to the design life time of an offshore pile and it

is usually taken as 20-25 years. During this time the pile is expected to experience up

to 107 loading cycles. Offshore piles design guidelines such as API standards and DNV

code have strict limitation on the allowable pile head rotation during the life of a wind

turbine foundation. The rotation of the pile at fatigue limit state was estimated using

the pile head rotation reached at 1000 cycles of loading. The accumulated pile head

rotation was fitted logarithm functions as shown in Figure 5-11 to linearize the relation

132
between rotation and number of cycles. These equations were then used to estimate

the accumulated rotation at N=107 cycles for each cyclic load magnitude.

Figure 5-12 shows the estimated accumulated pile head rotation at N=107 cycles

for different cyclic magnitudes for the four pile types. The allowable values of

accumulated pile head rotations for monopiles at fatigue limit state according to API

(1993) and DNV (2013) codes are superimposed on the figures (15-12a and 5-12b),

where API demands a maximum rotation of the pile head of 0.5° and DVN code

specifies 0.25°.

Comparing the experimental data with the two criteria as shown in Figure 5-12,

it’s clear that the finned piles display lower accumulated pile head rotation than

monopiles at the same cyclic magnitude. Based on API standards that sets the

maximum pile head rotation at 0.5°, corresponding cyclic load magnitudes that

produced this rotation were found to be 0.22, 0.30, 0.36 and 0.39 for MP, FP-2, FP-3

and MP-4 respectively. This implies that FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 can take 36%, 63% and

77% more cyclic lateral load than MP at a pile head rotation of 0.5° at fatigue limit

state.

Considering the DNV codes that limit the accumulated pile head rotation to

0.25°, the corresponding cyclic load magnitudes that produced rotation of 0.25° were

0.09, 0.14, 0.18 and 0.25 for MP, FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 respectively. These numbers

correspond in increase in cyclic load capacity of 55%, 100% and 177% for FP-2, FP-3

and FP-4 respectively.

133
  = 0.061946 + 0.035113log( N)
 = 0.060209 + 0.060891log( N)  = 0.12019 + 0.030891log( N)
 = 0.33663 + 0.08664log( N)  = 0.2791 + 0.11112log( N)
 = 0.50746 + 0.12985log( N)  = 0.90549 + 0.24676log( N)
 = 1.3114 + 0.32719log( N)  = 1.8727 + 0.45989log( N)
10
 = 1.6071 + 0.48991log( N)

Pile head rotation, 

Pile head rotation, 

b=0.2
b=0.2
b=0.3 0.1
0.1 b=0.3
b=0.5
b=0.5
(a) MP b=0.8
(b) FP-2 b=0.8
b=1.0
b=1.0
0.01 0.01
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N
 = 0.0316 + 0.010801log( N)
 = 0.015165 + 0.03229log( N)
 = 0.054529 + 0.036892log( N)
 = 0.080308 + 0.038177log( N)
 = 0.29735 + 0.067156log( N)
 = 0.32751 + 0.088423log( N)
 = 0.95758 + 0.29215log( N)
 = 0.82305 + 0.31065log( N)
 = 1.8429 + 0.33005log( N)
 = 1.7624 + 0.44661log( N)

1 1
Pile head rotation, 

Pile head rotation, 

b=0.2
b=0.3
b=0.2 b=0.5
0.1 0.1
b=0.3 b=0.8
b=0.5 b=1.0
b=0.8
b=1.0
0.01 0.01
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N

Figure 5-11 Accumulated pile head rotation fitted using logarithmic

function

134
 7

6 MP

Pile head rotation,  (degrees )

FP-2
5 FP-3
FP-4
4
(a) API criteria 0.5° pile
head rotation
3
FP-3
2 MP FP-2
b=0.36
b=0.22 b=0.30

1
API FP-4
b=0.39
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Cyclic load magnitude, 
b
7

6 MP
Pile head rotation,  (degrees )

FP-2
5 FP-3
FP-4
4
(b) DNV criteria 0.25°
pile head rotation
3
FP-3
2 MP
FP-2
b=0.18
b=0.14
b=0.09
1
FP-4
DNV b=0.25
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Cyclic load magnitude, 
b

Figure 5-12 Estimated pile head rotation at fatigue limit state

135
5.7.5 Pile-soil stiffness

The pile equivalent stiffness ratio was used to investigate further the change in

soil-pile stiffness, as defined in Figure 5-1. The equivalent rotational stiffness is defined

as the slope from the origin of the load-rotation curve to the peak load point of each

cycle. Figure 5-13 shows the equivalent rotation stiffness for the piles determined at

different cyclic load magnitudes. It can be seen that the equivalent stiffness decreases

with the load magnitude and the number of cycles. Finned piles showed lower

equivalent stiffness than monopile. The decrease in equivalent rotational stiffness can

be correlated with the accumulation of pile head rotation. The equivalent stiffness of

finned piles decreased faster than that of monopile implying that finned piles showed

lower accumulated pile head rotation, or smaller . The rate of decrease was sensitive

to cyclic load magnitude.

Normalized equivalent rotational stiffness variations with number of cycles of

loading are shown in Figure 5-14. The normalization is done by dividing the stiffness

of the finned piles with that of the monopile at a given cycle, N for a given cyclic load

magnitude. The normalized rotational stiffness increased with the number of fins, but

decreased with the cyclic load magnitude. FP-4 showed equivalent rotational stiffness

as high as 6 times that of monopile at b=0.2, and as low has 2.5 times for b=1.0. The

equivalent stiffness for FP-3 was about 3.8 times of MP for b=0.2 and, 2.2 times for

b=1.0. FP-2 had equivalent rotational stiffness multiplier ranging from about 1.8 for

b=0.2 to 1.7 for b=1.0 with respect to that of MP. These results highlight clearly the

136
benefits of using finned piles in reducing the accumulation of pile head rotation due to

cyclic loading.

12 12

10 10
b=0.2 MP MP
Rotation stiffness, H/

b=0.3

Rotation stiffness, H/

FP-2 FP-2
8 FP-3 8 FP-3
FP-4 FP-4

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N
12 12

10 b=0.5
MP 10 b=0.8
FP-2 MP
Rotation stifness, H/

Rotation stiffness, H/

FP-3 FP-2
8 FP-4 8 FP-3
FP-4
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles , N Number of cycles, N
12

10 b=1.0
Rotation stiffness, H/

MP
8 FP-2
FP-3
FP-4
6

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N

Figure 5-13 Comparison of rotation stiffness at different cyclic magnitudes.

137
 8 8

Normalized equivalent rotation stiffness

Normalized equivalent rotation stiffness
7 7 FP-2
FP-3
6 6 FP-4
FP-2
b=0.3
5 b=0.2 FP-3 5
FP-4
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N
8 8
Normalized equivalent rotation stiffness

Normalized equivalent rotation stiffness

7 7
b=0.5 FP-2 b=0.8
6 FP-3
6 FP-2
FP-4
FP-3
5 5 FP-4

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N Number of cycles, N
8
Normalized equivalent rotation stiffness

6 FP-2
b=1.0 FP-3
5 FP-4

1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Number of cycles, N

Figure 5-14 Comparison of equivalent rotation stiffness at different cyclic magnitudes

138
 According to Leblanc et al., (2010), Peng et al., (2011) and Qin and Guo, (2014)

long-term cyclic loading can change the properties of soil around a pile, which can then

affect the dynamic response (i.e. system frequency) of the foundation structure. In all

the tests conducted in this study, increase in pile-soil stiffness was observed as the

number of fins increased, but the finned piles showed significantly lower change in

stiffness than monopiles with cyclic loading. Therefore, finned piles may offer less

variability in the overall system response with long-term cyclic loading.

5.8 Conclusion

The 1g study was aimed at determining the response of finned piles under cyclic

loading. The following conclusions could be drawn:

(i) The accumulated rotation increases rapidly for initial 100 cycles of loading after

which the increment becomes smaller with the number of cycles, N. For a given

cyclic load magnitude b, the accumulated pile head rotation decreased with the

number of fins. Monopile had significantly larger accumulated rotation than

finned piles at the same b.

(ii) At extrapolated fatigues limit state (N=107) that sets maximum pile head rotation

at 0.5° based on API standards, the corresponding cyclic load magnitudes that

produced this rotation were found to be 0.22, 0.30, 0.36 and 0.39 for MP, FP-2,

FP-3 and MP-4 respectively. This finding implies that FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 can

take 36%, 63% and 77% larger in magnitude the cyclic lateral load than MP.

Considering the DNV codes that limit the accumulated pile head rotation to

139
 0.25°, the cyclic load capacity increase was predicted at 55%, 100% and 177% for

FP-2, FP-3 and FP-4 respectively compared to MP.

(iii) Finned piles showed equivalent rotational stiffness that depended on the number

of fins and the cyclic load magnitude. The equivalent stiffness of FP-4 for

example, was as high as 6 times that of monopile. Those piles that started with

high stiffness showed the least degradation of stiffness with cycles of loading.

Similar results for all finned piles showed the benefit of using finned piles to

reduce the potential changes in the system response that can come about with

sustained cycles of loading.

5.9 References

1. API (1993): Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing

fixed offshore platform: Working stress design, RP2A-WSD. 20th edition.

2. Bienen, B., Duhrkop, J., Grabe, J., Randolph, M.F., and White, D. (2012):

Response of piles with wings to monotonic and cyclic lateral loading in sand.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(3): 364–375.

3. GAI Consultant Inc., 1982, “Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Vol. 2,

Research Documentation,” GAI Report EL-2197, Research project 1280–1, EPRI,

Monrocville, PA.

4. Garnier, J. (2013) : Advances in lateral cyclic pile design: Contribution of the

SOLCYP project. Proceedings, TC 209 Workshop, 18th ICSMGE, Paris,

France.

140
5. Klinkvort, R.T. Leth, C. T. and Hededal, O. (2010): Centrifuge modelling of a

laterally cyclic loaded pile. In the 7th International Conference on Physical Modelling in

Geotechnics.

6. LeBlanc C., Houlsby G.T. and Byrne B.W. (2010): Response of stiff piles in

sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading. Géotechnique 60 (2): 79-90.

7. Long, J. H. and Vanneste, G. (1994): Effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles in

sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(1): 225–244.

8. Malhotra, S. (2009): Design and construction considerations for offshore wind

turbine foundations in North America. Civil Engineering Practice,

Spring/Summer: 7-42.

9. Murphy, G., Doherty, P., Cadogan, D. and Gavin, K. (2016): Field experiments

on instrumented winged monopiles. ICE Proceedings of Geotechnical Engineering,

169: 227-239

10. Nicolai, G. and Ibsen , L.B. (2014): Small-Scale Testing of Cyclic Laterally

Loaded Monopiles in Dense Saturated Sand. In the Procedding of The Twenty-fourth

International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea.

11. Peng, J., Clarke, B.G. and Rouainia, M. (2011): Increasing resistance of piles

subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 137 (10): 977-982.

12. Peralta, P. and Achmus, M, (2010): An Experimental Investigation of Piles in

Sand Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loads. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference

on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. Zurich, Switzerland: 985–990.

141
13. Roesen, H. R., Ibsen, L. B. and Andersen, L. V. (2012): Small-Scale Testing Rig

for Long-Term Cyclically Loaded Monopiles in Cohesionless Soil, Proceedings of

the 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Copenhagen :435-442

14. Qin, H., and W. Guo. (2014): Response of static and cyclic laterally loaded rigid

piles in sand. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 34 (2):138–53.

142
 CHAPTER 6

6 NUMERICAL STUDY ON THE LATERAL

RESPONSE OF MONOPILE AND FINNED
PILES
6.1 Introduction

Compared to different pile foundations like monopile, tripod or tapered

foundations for offshore wind farms, finned piles appear to offer the best option to

increase lateral static and cyclic resistance of these structures as suggested in Chapters

3, 4 and 5.

Optimization of fin dimensions is necessary in order achieve both economic as

well as structural advantage over monopile in terms of increasing lateral capacity and

minimize pile lateral deflection or rotation. Finite element computer codes such as

LPILE™, PLAXIS™ and ABAQUS™ have been used successfully in the study of

laterally loaded finned piles (Peng, 2005; Peng et al., 2010; Babu and Viswanadham,

2018). Some of the earlier studies, focusing on the geometric shape of the fins, mainly

triangular and rectangular shaped fins of same surface area, reported that rectangular

fins were more effective in resisting lateral loads compared to triangular shape fins

(Duhrkop and Grabe 2007; Nasr, 2013). Three-dimensional numerical analysis of

laterally loaded finned piles was presented by Peng et al. (2010). Correlating the lateral

resistance versus displacement of the pile head with fins situated close to the pile head,

143
the numerical analysis showed that increasing the fin length had significant effect on

increasing the lateral capacity of pile. The optimum fin efficiency was obtained when

the fin length equaled half the pile length. Other numerical modeling focusing on the

optimum number and positioning of the fins concluded that when fins were placed at

the top of the pile immediately below the ground surface and in the middle of the pile,

they produced grater resistance to lateral load than when they were placed at the

bottom of the pile (Babu and Viswanadham, 2018).

In this study the lateral response of piles embedded in sand was investigated

numerically by varying fin length, width and position of the fins by way finite element

analysis using PLAXIS 3D (Ben™tley Inc., 2018). PLAXIS 3D™ provided a versatile

tool that is capable of modelling soil continuity, soil nonlinearity and soil-pile interface

behavior (Nasr, 2013). The numerical study was aimed to verify the experimental work

as well as examine the outcome of various configurations of fins that have not been

modelled experimentally. The performance of the finned piles was studied numerically

to determine their optimum dimensions.

6.2 Materials and method

6.2.1 Model piles

The numerical model was first built based on laboratory model test model and

validated by the lab experimental results. Relationship developed by Wood and Crewe

(2002) was followed to select the dimension of the model piles.

144
 Em I m 1
= 5 (6-1)
EpI p n

The dimensions of model finned piles were approximately 1/100 in scale with

reference to current offshore monopile foundations in UK and in other European

countries (Peng, 2004). The physical model parameters used in lab experiments is

summarized in the Table 6-1 below. The same parameters listed in Table 6-1 were used

in the numerical analysis in here.

6.2.2 Soil modelling

Sand with similar properties as the one used in the experimental study presented

in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 were used in the numerical analysis. The sand was assumed to

be linear elastic perfectly plastic material. A non-associated Mohr-Coulomb

constitutive model was assumed to govern the soil behavior, because of its simplicity,

reasonable number of model parameters, and reasonable accuracy in modeling the

behavior of laterally loaded piles (Peng, 2010; Nasr, 2013).

Table 6-1 Properties of model pile used in the analysis

Property Model pile Prototype Pile

Diameter, Dp 40 mm 4m
Inner Diameter, Di 38 mm 3.8 m
Embedded length, Lp 360 mm 36 m
Thickness, t 1 mm 10 cm
Load eccentricity, e 160 mm 16 m
Young’s modulus, E 200 GPa 200 GPa
Moment of Inertia, I 2.33x10-12 m4 2.33 m4
Density,  78 kN/m2 78 kN/m2

145
 Mohr-Coulomb model has a fixed yield surface which is not affected by plastic

straining. The analysis of laterally loaded piles is conducted under drained conditions

to simulate the model scaled piles. The elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model involves

five basic input parameters: elastic modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio ( ), internal friction

angle (), cohesion (c) and dilatancy angle (). The parameters used for the Mohr-

Coulomb model is summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Properties of soil used in the Mohr-Coulomb soil model

Name Symbol Sand Unit

General
Parameter model - Mohr-Coulomb -
Drainage Type - Drained -
Soil total unit weight unsat 16 kN/m3
Soil saturated unit weight sat 19 kN/m3
Initial void ratio e0 0.5 -
Parameters
Effective Young’s modulus E 40 kN/m2
Effective Poisson’s ratio  0.33 -
Cohesion c 0 kN/m2
Friction angle  35 °
Dilatancy angle  0 °
Increase in your modulus per
Einc 2000 kN/m2/m
unit depth
Reference depth zref 0 m
Interfaces
Interface strength type - Manual -
Strength reduction factor Rinter 0.65 -
Initial
K0 determined - Auto -

146
 In order to account for the variation in soil properties with depth, Young’s

modulus was assumed to increase linearly as follows according to Peng (2010):

 ( z − zref
E ( z ) = E0 + Einc ) (6-2)

Where, 𝐸0′ is the Young’s modulus at the reference soil depth, zref and Einc is the

increase of Young’s modulus per unit of depth. When Mohr-Coulomb model is used

to describe soil behavior, the Young’s modulus implies the soil’s compression modulus

(i.e., constrained modulus). All the parameters were determined by appropriate lab tests

except the 𝐸0′ and Einc values. These two parameters were determined by fitting

numerical model to the physical data of monopile from lab experiments. The values

that gave close match were adopted for the subsequent analysis.

6.2.3 Interface element between soil and pile

Modelling the interaction between the sand and the pile required creating an

interface element along the circumference of the pile. A decreased value of shear

modulus was assigned to the interface element when a slip mode occurred. The

decrease of strength for the interface element is represented by a strength reduction

factor (Rinter) in the PLAXIS material input. The strength reduction factor of the

interface (Rinter) along the pile was set to 0.65 which is typical of sand steel interfaces.

This factor relates the interface properties to the strength properties of a soil layer as

follows:

 tan i = Rinter tan  


ci = Rinter c (6-3)
 = 0 if R  1 otherwise  = 
 i inter i

147
Where,𝜑𝑖 ,𝑐𝑖 ,𝜓𝑖 are the friction angle, cohesion and dilatancy angle of the interface

respectively.

6.2.4 Meshing

Rectangular soil boundary with the same dimension as the laboratory soil box

(1.0m x 0.7 m x 0.7m) was used to model piles in series 2 and 3 (see Table 6-3 below).

However, in series 1, due to the larger sizes of fins to be analyzed, the soil boundary

was increased three times (3m x 2.1 m x 2.1 m) the laboratory model to minimize the

boundary effects. The soil boundary was fixed against movements in all directions,

whereas the ‘ground surface’ was free to move in all directions. The vertical boundaries

were fixed against movement in the orthogonal directions. The geometry of a three-

dimensional soil model and the embedded pile in soil is shown in Figure 6-1. The pile

is set in the middle of the soil. The coarseness factor for soil mesh and pile are set at

1.0 and 0.5, respectively. The mesh used 10-node elements, automatically generated by

the software. The entire model consisted of 11000 elements and 18000 nodes.

6.2.5 Construction of model and loading sequence

Finite element calculations were divided into several sequential calculation phases.

Each calculation phase corresponded to a loading or a construction stage. These phases

are described as following:

a) Initial phase

This phase entails building the soil geometry. In the initial phase, the pile, interface

and lateral loads are not present. The corresponding pile geometry is deactivated in

148
the initial phase. The K0 procedure, a special calculation method available in

PLAXIS is used to define the initial stresses for the model, which considers the

loading history of the soil.

(a)

(b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 6-1 Finite element mesh of the soil and model piles

149
b) Phase 1

This phase is set to simulate the pile installation in the soil. In the lab, when the

piles were driven into the soil, soil plug is formed inside the hollow pipe. The height

of the soil plug was set at 12 cm lower than the ground surface to simulate this

condition.

c) Phase 2

This phase is the loading phase. The displacement is initially set to zero. The

loading phase is activated, and the initial load value set to 0.01kN.

d) Phase 3

This phase involved increasing systematically the lateral load on the pile head.

The load increment in each phase was 0.01kN, similar to the laboratory experiment

where the loading was added in increments of 0.01 kN and the pile head

displacement measured for at each load increment.

6.3 Numerical analysis series

6.3.1 Test series

Three test series were analyzed as shown in Table 6-3. These test simulation

series are summarized below.

• Series 1: Involved varying the length and width of the fin. In this series, two

test configurations were adopted. The first configuration entailed varying the

width of the fin with the fin length extending the entire pile length. The

second configuration involved constant width of the fin while varying the

150
length of the fin along the pile. These tests were conducted to optimize the fin

dimensions. The simulations used FP-2 piles (two-finned piles) fins oriented

perpendicular to the loading direction.

Table 6-3 Numerical analysis cases

151
 • Series 2: This series involved using the optimum fin dimensions obtained

from series 1 above. The number of fins and the loading direction was the

same as Series 1 above However, fin position along the pile length was varied.

• Series 3: Using the optimum fin dimensions obtained from Series 1 above,

the number of fins and loading directions with respect to fin orientation were

varied in series 3. The simulations were carried for piles with two, three and

four fins.

In all the test series above, the embedded pile length was kept constant at Lp=9Dp.

6.3.2 Specific objectives of the study

The main objective of the numerical work was to validate the experimental findings

and study behavior of finned piles that could not me modeled experimentally. The

specific objectives were:

i. Study the effect of fin length and width in improving the lateral capacity of a

pile and to determining the optimum fin dimensions.

ii. Determine the best positioning of the fins along the pile length that will most

enhance the pile’s lateral capacity.

iii. Determine the effect of number of fins and direction of loading with respect to

fin orientation on the efficiency of finned piles.

6.4 Tests Results

6.4.1 Boundary Effects

152
 Figure 6-2 shows the distribution of horizontal stresses during loading of FP-2.

The stress distribution was generated for a normalized lateral loading of 1.68, which

was larger than the experimental normalized ultimate lateral loading for MP, FP-2, FP-

3 and FP4 at 0.75, 0.99, 1.30 and 1.43, respectively, as shown in Figure 4-3 in Chapter

4. Maximum stress value of 15.4kN/m2 was concentrated around the vicinity of the

pile. At the edge of the soil boundary the stress distribution was at around 1.0kN/m2

which was about 6% of the stress on the pile. The stress distribution shows that the

assumed strain wedge did not extend to the soil boundary hence little or no interference

are expected from the soil boundary.

Figure 6-2 Horizontal stress distribution on laterally loaded finned piles

153
6.4.2 Validation of the FEM model

Validation of the FEM model was done by comparing the experimental and the

numerical results. Figure 6-3 compares the load vs pile head deflection obtained from

experimental and numerical models for MP and FP-2 with Wf/Dp=1 and Lf/Lp=4.5.

As observed, the load-deflection curves were in close agreement implying that the

model selected is suitable to predict soil pile interaction with some degree of accuracy.

6.4.3 Optimum fin width

Normalized fin length Lf/Lp was kept constant while varying the normalized fin

width Wf/Dp. In the initial analysis, the fin length extended the entire depth of pile

embedment (Lf/Lp = 9). Fin widths were varied at Wf/Dp = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1.0,

2.0 and 5.0. Two finned pile was used in the analysis with the loading direction

perpendicular to the orientation. The load was applied at the top of the pile at a load

eccentricity of e=0.4 Dp.

The pile lateral rotation efficiency versus normalized pile width for various

loadings is show in Figure 6-4. The lateral rotation efficiency is defined as the decrease

in lateral pile head rotation for a particular load for a finned pile in comparison to a

monopile (MP) equation 6-4 below.

𝜃𝑀𝑃− 𝜃𝐹𝑃
𝜂𝜃 = (6.4)
𝜃𝑀𝑃

Where MP and FP are the rotation of monopile and finned pile respectively.

154
 1.4

Normalized lateral load., H/(L D)

1.2

2
1

0.8

0.6

0.4 MP- Experimental

MP-Plaxis 3D
FP-2- Experimental
0.2 FP-2-Plaxis 3D

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized pile head displacement, y/D
p

Figure 6-3 Comparison of the experimental and

numerical test results on MP and FP-2.

The results clearly indicate that the rotation efficiency increases with increase in

fin width, Wf/Dp. As shown in Figure 6-4, there is a sudden increase in rotation

efficiency from Wf/Dp = 0 (Monopile) to Wf/Dp = 0.1. This shows that fins have a

significant effect on increasing the lateral capacity and reducing the lateral pile head

deflection. It is evident in Figure 6-4 that there is a significant increase in rotation

efficiency up to Wf/Dp = 1.0. Increasing the fin width beyond Wf/Dp = 1.0 resulted in

an increase rotation efficiency at a reduced rate. This can be attributed to the fact that

piles with fins width Wf/Dp > 1.0 had portion of the fin outside the range of influence

zone of pile horizontal resistance, as was also suggested by others (Stewart, 1999;

Ashour, 2002; Otani et al., 2006). Using reconstructed 3D images from X-ray CT scan,

Otani et al. (2006) concluded that the failure pattern of sand around of the laterally

155
loaded piles was almost like an inverted cone. The depth of the failure surface decreased

along the pile length. Stewart (1999) concluded that the failure zone extended to about

three times the pile diameter. Normalized pile width larger than Wf/Dp > 1.0 yielded

no significance increase in lateral pile resistance since most of the fin was outside the

influence zone of the inverted cone. Based on these previous observations and the

current findings in this study the normalized width Wf/Dp = 1.0 is suggested to be the

optimum fin width.

Figure 6-5 shows the variation of the load efficiency with normalized pile width

at 0.5° and 2° pile heads rotations. The pile head rotation at 0.5° is considered the

limiting pile head rotation value per API, (1993) guidelines while 2° is taken as pile head

rotation corresponding to the ultimate load as defined and practiced by GAI

Consultants (1982).

1
Less significant change of rotation with fin width

Pile head rotation efficiency, 

0.8

0.6
H=0.14
H=0.28
0.4 H=0.42
Limiting value

H=0.56
H=0.70
0.2 H=0.84
H=0.98
H=1.12
K=1.26
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normalized fin width, W /D
f p

Figure 6-4 Numerical modeling results of variation of

rotation efficiency with normalized fin width

156
 2
180% increase in capacity

1.5

H
Load efficiency, 
120% increase in capacity
110% increase in capacity
1

85% increase in capacity

Limiting value
0.5
o
0.5 Pile head rotation
o
2 pile head rotation
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normalized width, W /D
f p

Figure 6-5 Numerical modeling results of the variation of

load efficiency with normalized fin width

Defining the limiting Wf/Dp = 1.0, FP-2 showed 85% and 110% increase in lateral load

capacities in comparison to those of the monopile at the 0.5˚ and 2° pile head rotations,

respectively, as depicted in Figure 6-5. At 0.5° rotation, normalized fin width Wf/Dp

> 1.0 yielded no significant increase in lateral load capacity of the pile. The increase in

lateral load efficiency at Wf/Dp =5.0 was only 25% more than that at Wf/Dp = 1.0.

Even though a marked increase in lateral load capacity for normalized fin width Wf/Dp

> 1.0 was observed at 2° pile head rotation, the increase in capacity was not

proportional to the increase in fin width.

157
6.4.4 Optimum fin length

The fin length was varied at the limiting normalized width of Wf/Dp =1.0 to determine

its optimum value. Normalized fin length ranged from Lf/Lp = 0 to 1.0 (Lf/Dp =0, 1,

2, 4, 6, 8 and 9). Figure 6-6 shows the variation of lateral rotation efficiency with the

normalized fin length. As expected, all finned piles showed an increase in efficiency

due to the higher stiffer response of the finned structure compared to monopile. The

rotation efficiency increased with increasing fin length. The lateral load efficiency

increased rapidly from Lf/Lp = 0 to Lf/Lp =0.45 as shown in Figure 6-7. The load

efficiency at 0.5° and 2° pile head rotations were similar for normalized Lf/Lp <0.22.

For Lf/Lp = 0.45 the lateral load efficiency increases ranged between 65%-85% while

for Lf/Lp > 0.45, the additional increase in load efficiency ranged between 20 % to

35%. Based on this finding Lf/Lp = 0.45 is suggested as the limiting fin length.

1
Significant change of Less significant change of
rotation with fin length rotation with fin length


0.8
Pile head rotation efficiency, 

0.6 H=0.14
H=0.28
H=0.42
H=0.56
H=0.70
0.4 H=0.84
H=0.98
H=1.12
Limiting value

H=1.26
0.2 H=1.40
H=1.54
H=1.68
H=1.82
H=1.96
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Normalized fin length L /L
f p

Figure 6-6 Numerical modeling results of the variation

of lateral rotation efficiency with normalized fin length

158
 1.2
120 % increase in capacity

1 85% increase in capacity

85% increase in capacity

H
Load efficiency, 
0.8

0.6 65% increase in capacity

0.4

Limiting value
0.2 0.5 o Pile head rotation
2 o Pile head rotation
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Normalized fin length, L /L
f p

Figure 6-7 Numerical modeling results of the variation of

load efficiency with normalized fin length

6.4.5 Effect of fin area on pile load efficiency

The length, width and effective area of pile are key factors in resisting the lateral

load on a pile. The effective area to resist the lateral load is the area perpendicular to

the loading direction. The effective area for a monopile can be considered as the

embedded pile length multiplied by the pile diameter while for a two-finned pile the

effective area is the monopile area plus the area of the two fins. The area of each fin is

the width of the fin multiplied by the length of the fin.

From test simulation series 1 and 2 on two-finned piles, the following three

configurations were derived: (i) Lf/Lp =1 and Wf /Dp < 1, (ii) Lf/Lp < 1 and Wf /Dp =

1 and (iii) Lf/Lp = 1 and Wf /Dp > 1. The variation of fin efficiency with increase in

pile effective area is shown in Figure 6-8. Clearly, the efficiency increased with

increasing effective bearing area.

159
 For configuration where Lf/Lp = 1 and Wf /DLp > 1, the effect of the fin was

less significant in increasing the lateral pile capacity. However, for fin configurations

where Lf/Lp =1 with Wf /Lp < 1 and Lf/Lp < 1 with Wf /Lp = 1, the area of the fin had

significant effect on the capacity. Two different configurations with almost same

effective area produced nearly same lateral resistance. For fin width, Wf /Dp > 1, the

effect of fins in improving the lateral resistance of pile was less significant due to much

of the fin area falling outside the influence zone of the inverted cone in front of the

pile. Between the values of limiting fin length (Lf/Lp = 0.45 and Wf /Dp = 1) and the

extended fin length (Lf/Lp =1 and Wf /Dp = 1), the load efficiency increased from 67%

to 85% while the increase in effective bearing area was 90% and 200% respectively. In

this latter observation, even with doubling of the effective bearing area, the increase in

load efficiency was only 17%. These results implied that increase in fin length beyond

Lf/Lp = 0.45 produces little additional gain to the pile resistance.

1.2

1
H
Lateral load efficiency, 

Lf/Lp=1.0, Wf/Dp=1
0.8 Effect of fin length beyond the
limiting fin length
Lf/Lp=0.45, Wf/Dp=1
0.6

0.4
W /D =1 , L /L =varied
f p f p
Wf/Dp=varied , L f/Lp=1
0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Percentage increase in pile bearing area
Figure 6-8 Numerical modeling results of the effect of fin area on the
lateral load efficiency

160
6.4.6 Optimum fin positioning

Figure 6-9 shows the lateral load versus pile head rotation curves for finned

piles with fins at the top, the middle and the bottom of the FP-2 piles. The FP-2 pile

with normalized fin width, Wf/Dp =1.0 and normalized fin length, Lf/Lp =0.45 was

used in the analysis. The pile with fin at the top exhibited the largest lateral resistance

whereas the one with fin at the bottom showed the smallest resistance.

Fin placed at the top of the piles carried more load due to maximum

mobilization of passive resistance compared to middle and bottom pile, as shown in

Figure 6-9. The load efficiencies of the pile with fin at the bottom, middle and top were

30%, 58% and 65% respectively. Furthermore, fins placed at the bottom of the pile

would not be a viable option in practice owing to drivability constraints. Irrespective

of the fin position, finned piles carried more load than monopile at 0.5° pile head

rotation.

2.5
Normalized lateral load, H/(L D)
2

1.5

1
MP
FP-2 (Bottom fin)
0.5 FP-2 (Middle fin)
FP-2 (Top fin)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Pile head rotation (degrees)

Figure 6-9 Numerical modeling results of the effect

of fin position on the lateral pile response

161
6.4.7 Effect of fin orientation

Due to varying direction of potential lateral loads on wind farm piles from

waves or wind, it was suggested to use multiple fin piles with more than two fins, as

per experimental results presented earlier in Chapter 3.4.1. In order to simulate the

effect of directional load, numerical analysis was performed only on three- and four-

finned piles as recommended earlier. The normalized length and width of the fins were

selected as Lf/Lp = 0.45 and Wf/DLp = 1 in these simulations.

Figures 6-10 and 6-11 show the variation of normalized lateral load with

normalized lateral deflection obtained from the numerical simulations Superimposed

onto graphs in these figures are the results from the experimental simulations. The

results show clearly that the experimental and numerical behaviors are in close

agreement.

2.5
Normalized lateral load, H/(L D)

2
2

1.5
o
FP-3-0 Experimental
1 o
FP-3-180 Plaxis 3D
o
FP-3-180 Plaxis 3D

0.5

FP-3-0° FP-3-180°
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normalized pile head displacement, y/D
p

Figure 6-10 Numerical results of the effect of loading

direction for FP-3

162
 2.5

Normalized lateral load, H/(L D)

2

2
1.5 o
FP-4-0 -Experiment
o
FP-4-0 -Plaxis 3D
o
FP-4-15 -Plaxis 3D
1 o
FP-4-30 -Plaxis 3D
o
FP-4-45 -Plaxis 3D
0.5

FP-4-0° FP-4-15° FP-4-30° FP-4-45°

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normalized pile head displacement, y/D
p

Figure 6-11 Numerical results of the effect of loading

direction for FP-4

The four-finned pile showed slightly higher lateral capacity than the three-

finned pile due to increased pile stiffness. However, loading direction had little or no

effect on lateral load capacity of either the three- or the four-fined piles.

6.5 Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter the behavior of laterally loaded finned piles was compared to that

of a monopile using a numerical analysis software package, Plaxis 3D. The numerical

simulation results were used to validate experimental measurements and study various

cases of pile configurations that could not be modeled experimentally. The cases

included varying the length and width of the fin, position of the fin and loading

direction on finned piles. The numerical analysis showed that:

163
 i. The Mohr-Coulomb soil model and the selection of soil parameters as

suggested by Peng et al., (2010) provided an adequate soil model for the test soil

used and to compare the lateral load and lateral displacement of the mono and

finned piles. The results obtained from the numerical models were consistent

with the experimental results.

ii. With the length of fin kept constant with respect to the pile embedment depth,

the lateral resistance of finned piles increased with increasing fin width. The

limiting fin width was found to be Wf /Dp =1. The results showed that fins with

widths larger than Wf /Dp =1 had less effect on further improving the lateral

capacity of a pile.

iii. With the width of fin kept constant at Wf /DLp =1, the lateral resistance of

finned piles increased with increasing fin length. The limiting fin length was

found to be Lf /Lp =0.45.

iv. Fins when placed directly below the ground surface provided more resistance

than those placed at the middle of the pile or near the pile tip.

v. The change in direction of loading had no significant effect on the lateral

resistance of three- and four-finned piles.

6.6 References

1. API (1993): Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing

fixed offshore platform: Working stress design, RP2A-WSD. 20th edition.

164
2. Ashour M., Norris, G. and Pilling, P. (2002): Strain wedge model capability of

analyzing behavior of lateral loaded isolated piles, drilled shafts, and pile groups.

Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 7:45–54.

3. Babu, K.V. and Viswanadham, B.V.S (2018): Numerical Investigations on

Lateral Load Response of Fin Piles. Numerical Analysis of Nonlinear Coupled

Problems, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: 317-329.

4. Bentlley Inc. (2018). PLAXIS 3D foundation user manual.

5. GAI Consultant Inc., 1982, “Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Vol. 2,

Research Documentation,” GAI Report EL-2197, Research project 1280–1, EPRI,

Monrocville, PA.

6. Duhrkop, J. and Grabe, J. (2007): Laterally loaded piles with bulge. In Proceedings

of the 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.

7. Nasr, A. M. A. (2013): Experimental and theoretical studies of laterally loaded

finned piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51: 381-393

8. Otani, J., Dang, P.K. and Sano, J. (2006): Investigation of failure patterns in

sand due to laterally loaded pile using X-ray CT. Soils and Foundations, 46 (10):

529-535.

9. Peng, J., Rouainia, M. and Clarke, B. (2010): Finite element analysis of laterally

loaded fin piles. Computer and Structures, 88: 21–22.

10. Peng, J. (2005): Behavior of finned piles in sand under lateral loading: PhD

Thesis, University of New Castle Upon Tyne

165
11. Stewart, D.P. 1999. Reduction of undrained lateral pile capacity in clay due to

an adjacent slope. Australian Geomechanics Journal, December: 17–23.

12. Wood, D.M. and Crewe, A. (2002): Shaking table testing of geotechnical models.

International Journal of Physical Model in Geotechics: 1-13.

166
 CHAPTER 7

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Summary and Conclusion

In this thesis, experimental and numerical investigations were carried out to

evaluate the capacity and performance of an innovative foundation system for offshore

wind turbine. The hybrid system is composed of a steel pile with fins welded on its

side. The performance of the foundation system was gauged against that of monopile,

commonly used in offshore foundation structures. The study involved conduction

static and cyclic lateral tests on scaled model piles and numerical simulation of the static

tests. The results from the study are presented in four major research chapters: Chapter

3, 4, 5 and 6. Summary of the findings, the new knowledge and paradigms explored,

and the conclusion derived are outlines below.

In the first part of the study, the main purpose of conducting a comparative

static load simulations on monopiles and finned piles in laboratory scale was: to

determine the effect of added fins on (i) improving the lateral load capacity of the piles,

(ii) reducing the required length of a pile for a required capacity, (iii) the effect of the

directional loading (i.e., wind, waves) with respect to fin orientation on the lateral pile

response, (iv) the areal extend of the shear zone in front of pile during lateral loading.

The experimental simulations revealed that, the lateral load efficiency of the finned

piles varied greatly from 15%-98% depending on the number of fins and their

167
orientations to the direction of loading. In addition, it was found that fins could reduce

the deflection of piles by over 65% in comparison to monopile and reduce the required

length of piles up to 40% which implies cost benefits and the potentially minimized

refusal during pile driving. Lastly, the strain wedge (i.e. shear zone) extended ranging

up to a distance of 8.0Dp -8.5Dp measured from center of pile.

In the next phase, soil pile interaction was studied from model tests of

monopiles and finned piles instrumented with strain gauges and earth pressure gauges.

LVDTs attached to the pile near the pile head and just above the soil surface were used

to measure displacement lateral displacement or pile head rotation. Bending moments

were derived from strain gauge measurements while p-y curves were developed from

pressure and displacement data during lateral loading. The p-y curves derived from a

combination pressure data and LVDTs measurement compared well with theoretical

p-y curves derived from a method proposed by Zhang (2009).

In the third phase of the work, cyclic lateral response of finned piles was studied,

for which there is little research and finding available in literature. To objective of

conducting 1g cyclic lateral loading on model finned piles was to understand the effect

of fins in improving the cycling lateral response of the piles, reducing the accumulated

pile head rotation during, and improving soil-pile stiffness. Finally, a modified method

was applied to predict long-term response of finned piles (i.e. Number of cycles of

loading, N = 107) predicted from the shorter term cyclic load test (N=103). The

accumulated pile head rotation increased rapidly for the initial 100 cycles of loading

after which the rate of increase became smaller for all piles. The finned piles had

168
marked decrease in the accumulated pile head rotation than the monopile at the same

number of cycles of loading and magnitude of loading ratios.

The behavior of laterally loaded finned piles was compared to that of a

monopile using the FEM software Plaxis 3D. Numerical model was used to study

various cases that could not be modeled experimentally. The cases included varying the

dimensions and positioning of the fin, and the loading direction with respect to fin

orientation. The lateral resistance of finned piles increased with increase in effective

area of the fin, resulting in optimal dimensions of Wf /Dp = 1 and Lf /Lp = 4.5.

7.2 Areas of future research

The research presented in this dissertation has shed the essential light on

understanding the behavior of and modeling the response of single finned pile

foundation for offshore wind turbine structures through detailed experimental and

numerical simulations. A comprehensive study was conducted and the objectives stated

in Chapter 1 have been accomplished.

The following suggestions are provided for future research to further develop

the cyclic modelling of finned piles for solid design and standardization

recommendations on wind turbine pile foundations systems using finned piles:

(1) This study focuses on the wind turbine foundations constructed in

homogeneous soil, the theoretical and experimental work are mainly conducted

on uniform sand soil layer. However, the soil properties in the field often show

significant vertical inhomogeneity. More research should be further extended to

169
 heterogeneous soil body conditions. Although experimental data were verified

in here through numerical analysis, other soil types (i.e., soft clays and silts)

described by more suitable soil models can improve the applicability of the

systematic analysis presented here.

(2) For example, in this study, Mohr-Coulomb model was used to describe the sand

behavior based on recommendations from prior research, and because of the

ease to obtain the required parameters for the model. Even though analysis

showed that Mohr-Coulomb model actually could be used to estimate the pile

response with some degree of accuracy, other models such as hardening soil

with small strain (HSS) model was should be tried to accurately predict the

behavior of laterally loaded piles.

(3) The numerical analysis of the cyclic load behavior cyclic load was beyond the

scope of this dissertation study. For future work, it is important to develop

model that can be used to estimate the cyclic response of the finned piles up to

107 cycles of loading to better assess the long-term capacity and behavior of the

finned piles under cyclic loading.

7.3 Limitation of research

1) Both static lateral and cyclic lateral loading were conducted in dry sand. Its

anticipated that similar results will be obtained under saturated sand due to

dissipation of pore water pressure quickly in sand.

170
2) Under centrifuge test, the stress level will be different that of 1 g test.

verification of the test results is necessary to ascertain the efficiency of fin under

N g condition in centrifuge.

171
 VITA

Kepha Abongo was born on December 27, 1979 in Tagabi Estate in Kericho

County, Rift Valley Province of Kenya. He studied his primary education in Jamji

Primary School (Kericho) and Get Primary School (Ranen) and Secondary in Kanga

High School (Rongo). He received his Bachelor Degree of Civil Engineering at Jomo

Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (Kenya) in 2004 and Master of

Engineering from Kyoto University (Japan) in 2008. He has worked as Teaching in

Jomo Kenya University and Research Assistant Student in Kyoto University. He has

also taught courses in Soil Mechanics in Jomo Kenyatta University. He started research

on this doctoral dissertation at Lehigh University in August 2012.

172