OTC-26942-MS

Monotonic and Cyclic p-y Curves for Clay Based on Soil Performance

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Observed in Laboratory Element Tests
Youhu Zhang, Knut H Andersen, Rasmus T. Klinkvort, Hans Petter Jostad, Nallathamby Sivasithamparam,
Noel P. Boylan, and Thomas Langford, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 May 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a numerical framework for monotonic and cyclic p-y curves for piles in clay, based
on soil performance observed in laboratory element tests. A framework of constructing monotonic p-y
curves from the stress-strain response measured in direct simple shear (DSS) tests is firstly introduced.
The framework is developed from a parametric finite element study. An extension of the framework for
analysing cyclic loading is then described, with the use of the cyclic accumulation procedure established
at NGI in the last few decades. Finite element analyses are performed for a pile element subjected to
various cyclic load parcels in order to validate the extension, using a soil model that follows the cyclic
contour diagrams. The procedure to apply the proposed framework for calculating the overall pile
response under monotonic and cyclic loading within a conventional beam-column type analysis is then
described.
The proposed framework offers a rational approach for the p-y response of a pile element under
monotonic and cyclic loading, with the possibility to consider the site specific pile-soil interface
roughness, soil properties as well as the cyclic loading conditions. Finally, an example case using a
program (NGI-PILE) that implements the proposed procedure is presented and validated against finite
element analysis.
The currently proposed framework has potential applications for design of a range of offshore
structures, including offshore well conductors, anchor piles and pile foundations supporting jacket
structures.

Introduction
Current industry practice for design of laterally loaded piles, such as the API recommended method for
clay (American Petroleum Institute, 2014), is based on a limited database of field tests on relative small
diameter piles performed in mid 1950s. Using the results of these field tests, empirical monotonic and
cyclic p-y curves have been developed based on back analysis of the experimental results. Figure 1
illustrates the construction of the monotonic and the cyclic p-y curves (Matlock, 1970) as well as the so
called ‘modified Matlock’ cyclic p-y curve (Bhattacharya, et al., 2006) which was originally proposed for
stiff clays in the North Sea.
2 OTC-26942-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Figure 1—Illustration of the empirical p-y curves

In the normalised format, the shape of the monotonic Matlock p-y curve is defined by a cubic power
law equation:
(1)

where p and pu are the mobilised and the limiting lateral bearing pressures respectively, y is the lateral pile
deflection, and yc is the pile deflection at half spring mobilisation (i.e. p/pu⫽0.5). The spring stiffness is
dictated by yc, whose value is linked to the stress-strain characteristics measured in undrained compres-
sion tests of the soil.
For the Matlock (1970) cyclic p-y curve, the threshold for cyclic effects is 72% of the limiting
monotonic capacity (i.e. 0.72pu). For cyclic mobilisation less than the threshold, the same monotonic
curve is followed. At normalised depths (X, ratio of soil depth over pile diameter) greater than the
transition depth (Xr), at which normalised depth the soil failure mechanism transitions from a conical
wedge to a flow around mechanism, the peak lateral bearing pressure for cyclic loading is simply limited
to 0.72pu. For depths shallower than the transition depth, a softening curve is introduced that degrades the
strength from 0.72pu at 3yc to a residual value at large deflection (15yc), which is linearly related to X/Xr.
The value of Xr is a function of the normalised soil weight relative to its undrained shear strength.
The ‘modified Matlock’ cyclic p-y curve is mainly relevant at normalised depths less than Xr.
Compared to the original Matlock cyclic p-y curve, the threshold value is reduced from 0.72pu to 0.5pu,
as illustrated in Figure 1.
Despite the wide spread application of the empirical p-y curves described above in design practice,
their limitations are clear. These models are developed from pile field tests in specific soil conditions
under specific loading conditions tested. The applicability of these models to other soil and loading
conditions therefore needs to be verified. As discussed in Zhang and Andersen (2016), the cubic power
law format of the Matlock monotonic p-y curve is perhaps appropriate for the lightly over-consolidated
Sabine River clay in which the tests were performed, but may become inappropriate for other soil
conditions; for example, heavily over-consolidated clay, where a different power law exponent is needed
to fit the soil response. Furthermore, the Matlock model implies assumption of a fully smooth soil-pile
OTC-26942-MS 3

interface, regardless of the actual soil conditions, pile surface, installation aspects or axial mobilization.
For the cyclic p-y response, the empirical models do not allow the possibility to account for site specific
soil response under cyclic loading, nor the make-up of the cyclic loading. In this sense, it is rather arbitrary
to apply the Matlock/modified Matlock cyclic p-y curves for designing cyclically loaded piles. In practice,
one may also question whether the empirical cyclic p-y curves should be used along the entire pile length
or just a certain section of the pile.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
The above discussions highlight the need for design methods that are capable of explicitly accounting
for site specific soil performance and cyclic loading conditions. One such method that has considered this
to some degree is the method presented by Erbrich et al. (2010). This method utilizes the stress-strain
response measured in laboratory tests, and multiple runs of a finite element model to generate a family
of p-y curves for a particular soil, under both monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. A set of rules and
algorithms are then followed to analyze the pile response in a cycle by cycle manner.
This paper presents a new framework for constructing monotonic and cyclic p-y curves and a procedure
to analyze pile response under cyclic loading. In principal, the currently proposed approach shares many
similarities to Erbrich et al.’s approach in that both are based on observed soil performance in cyclic soil
element tests. The current approach however presents several advances that: a). the user can vary the
pile-soil interface condition easily; b). there is no need to perform extensive suites of finite element
analyses for each case; c). cyclic loading history is analyzed in a parcel by parcel manner, therefore being
more efficient; d). cyclic effects are dealt with by a well established cyclic accumulation procedure
(Andersen, 2015) that has been applied extensively for other purposes, and d) the method captures the
variation of the equivalent number of cycles (Neq) along the length of the pile, thus allowing for a truer
representation of the effects of cyclic loading
In the following section, the framework for the construction of monotonic p-y curve from soil
stress-strain response is first introduced. This framework is then extended for cyclic p-y curves, using a
cyclic accumulation procedure of the form described by Andersen (2015). This extension is verified by
finite element analyses performed using a soil model that follows the cyclic contour diagrams. In those
analyses, the cyclic accumulation is performed at each integration point of the finite element soil domain.
To utilize the framework in practice, a numerical procedure using conventional beam-column analysis of
the overall pile response is then described. An example application of the procedure is presented and
results are validated by comparison to a finite element analysis.
Monotonic p-y curves
Zhang and Andersen (2016) present a framework to construct site specific monotonic p-y curves based on
the stress-strain response measured in direct simple shear (DSS) tests for pile foundations in clay. The
framework draws on the observations seen in analytical and numerical analyses that the shape of p-y
curves for a pile element that mobilises soil in a flow around mechanism bears strong similarity to the
stress-strain response of the soil (Bransby, 1999, Klar and Osman, 2008). Based on a parametric study
over a large range of soil stress-strain responses and pile-soil interface roughnesses, Zhang and Andersen
(2016) propose that the monotonic p-y response of a pile element can be constructed by scaling the
stress-strain response measured in DSS tests. The reason for the choice of DSS behaviour is that for a flow
around mechanism, it is the shear strength and stress-strain behaviour in the DSS mode that dictates the
p-y response. The framework is schematically illustrated in Figure 2. Ignoring the scaling coefficient on
the ⬙elastic⬙ component, which is typically small compared to the total displacement, only one scaling
coefficient (␰) is needed, which is found to be in a linear relation with interface roughness by
(2)

where ␣ is the interface roughness, which defines the ratio of maximum attainable interface shear stress
to the undrained shear strength (su) of the soil adjacent to the pile.
4 OTC-26942-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Figure 2—Schematic illustration of the framework for constructing monotonic p-y curve from stress-strain curve

The limiting lateral bearing pressure pu is calculated by

(3)

(4)

Note that the variation of the bearing capacity factor (Np) is based on approximation of the theoretical
values presented by Randolph and Houlsby (1984) for a plane strain flow around mechanism. It should
be further pointed out that ‘su’ in this paper specifically refers to the strength measured in DSS tests.
The inclusion of the roughness into the p-y model allows for site specific assessment of interface
roughness based on soil conditions, pile surface, installation aspects and set-up effects as well as axial
mobilisation.
Extension to generate cyclic p-y curves
NGI procedures for design of offshore GBS foundations under cyclic loading
In the ocean environment, loads on offshore structures are typically cyclic in nature and foundations of
these structures therefore have to be designed to resist cyclic environmental loading. In geotechnical
design of GBS foundations, the concept of equivalent number of cycles, Neq, which relates the cyclic load
history in a design storm event into a certain equivalent number of cycles of the load cycle with maximum
loading magnitude, may be calculated. With Neq known, cyclic shear strength and stress-strain responses
are established for this specific Neq from the cyclic stress-strain contour diagrams derived from cyclic soil
element tests (Andersen, 2015). The bearing capacity and deformation of the foundation is then verified
for the maximum load amplitude. For this purpose, instead of following the specific load history in the
time domain, a design storm is typically sorted into load parcels of similar average and cyclic magnitudes
in an ascending order. By doing this, it is assumed that the maximum storm load occurs at the end of the
storm. This perhaps overestimates the cyclic effects in some cases, but is considered conservative from
the foundation capacity perspective. In order to evaluate Neq, an accumulation procedure is needed to run
through the load parcels. In practice, permanent pore pressure (typical for sand) or cyclic shear strain
(typical for clay) is often used as a ⬙memory⬙ of the cyclic effects. Full descriptions of the cyclic
accumulation procedures and their application in the design of GBS foundations can be found in Andersen
(2015) with the latest updates to the procedures.
Extension to pile design
The concept of an equivalent number of cycles Neq and the framework for monotonic p-y curves are
combined and extended for the cyclic p-y response of piles. On a single pile element level, it is postulated
OTC-26942-MS 5

that the cyclic effects of lateral loading of a pile element under pressure pcy for N number of cycles is
analogous to the shearing of a DSS soil element under stress ␶cy for N number of cycles if pcy/pu ⫽ ␶cy/su,
as illustrated in Figure 3. This assumption is intuitively based on the observation that the monotonic p-y
response can be accurately scaled from the static stress-strain response measured in a DSS test.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Figure 3—Analogy between loading of a pile element and shearing of a DSS soil element

Since the cyclic loading of the pile element is assumed to be equivalent to shearing of a DSS soil
element, a single equivalent number of cycles Neq can therefore be evaluated by the same accumulation
procedure applicable for a DSS test. In brief terms, the accumulation procedure keeps track of the
accumulated cyclic shear strain during the load history, and calculates the equivalent number of cycles that
would produce the same accumulated cyclic shear strain were the soil sheared at the current stress level
based on contour plots of the cyclic shear stress, cyclic shear strain and number of cycles (mid plot of
Figure 4). More details can be found in Andersen (2015).

Figure 4 —Schematic illustration of the process from cyclic DSS tests to p-y curve corresponding to Neq

Note that the single Neq evaluated for the pile element can be viewed as a representative value over the
horizontal slice of soil domain that contributes to the pile element response. On a soil element level, one
can reasonably expect that the soil surrounding the pile will see the greatest cyclic effects, and such effects
6 OTC-26942-MS

reduce with radial distance from the pile. However, as will be demonstrated below, a single representative
Neq is practically sufficient and robust.
For a pile element, if the previous loading history is equivalent to Neq number of cycles corresponding
to the current mobilisation level, the soil stress-strain response corresponding to Neq, which can be
established from a cyclic soil testing programme, can therefore be scaled to derive the p-y curve for
evaluation of the pile response under the current load level. This process is schematically illustrated in

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Figure 4. Firstly, several cyclic DSS tests at different cyclic shear stress amplitudes are performed. The
development of cyclic shear strain (␥cy) with the number of cycles of each test can then be plotted in the
form of a contour diagram. Each test probes a horizontal path in the contour diagram. For a known Neq,
the stress-strain response can therefore be obtained by drawing a vertical cross-section corresponding to
that Neq, assuming Neq remains constant if the load history scales up. The intersection points of the vertical
cross-section with the contour lines can then be plotted in the normalised stress-strain plane, which can
be further scaled to form the normalised p-y curve.
Note that in this illustration, the DSS tests all have symmetric two way cyclic loading (i.e. zero average
shear stress component). Similar tests series can also be performed with a certain average amplitude,
which can be used to draw the contour diagram for that specific level of average shear stress. Several test
series with different levels of average shear stresses can be drawn to form a three dimensional contour
space. This 3D contour space would be needed to evaluate pile responses with non-zero average cyclic
loading condition. The current paper is however limited to the case of symmetric two way cyclic loading.
Verification of the cyclic framework by finite element numerical tests
The extension to cyclic p-y response on a single pile element level described above is verified by finite
element analyses (FEA). In the numerical tests, a horizontal slice of a slender pile is analysed in Plaxis
3D (Plaxis, 2013). The slice is 1 m in thickness, representing a 1 m pile segment of a long pile. Vertical
movement on the top and bottom boundaries of the model is constrained, therefore enforcing a plane strain
condition. This boundary condition is relevant for the part of a pile where flow around mechanism is
governing.
Figure 5 shows the finite element model. Due to symmetry, only a half-pile segment is modelled. The
extents of boundaries are shown in the figure. The lateral force is applied as a distributed pressure on the
vertical symmetry face of the rigid pile.

Figure 5—Illustration of the finite element model

The finite element mesh has been benchmarked against the theoretical solutions for the limiting bearing
pressure of a circular cylinder with a plane strain flow around mechanism presented by Randolph and
Houlsby (1984). For a rough pile-soil interface, the Plaxis 3D model calculates a limiting bearing pressure
OTC-26942-MS 7

of 12.52su, as compared to the theoretical value of 11.94su. This represents a numerical error of 4.9% for
the mesh used in this case.
A user defined soil model, UnDrained Cyclic Accumulation Model (UDCAM), which is developed
specifically for modelling undrained cyclic soil response, is used in the numerical tests. The model uses
the stress-strain contour diagrams established from cyclic soil element tests as input and keeps track of the
stress history (therefore Neq) at each integration point in the soil domain. A detailed description of the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
model is available in Jostad et al. (2014). In this study, the cyclic contour diagrams for normally
consolidated (i.e. OCR⫽1) Drammen clay are used, which are readily available (Andersen, 2004).
The su (DSS strength) of the soil is 8.3 kPa. The pile diameter is 84⬙ (2.14m). Five parcels of cyclic
lateral loads are applied to the pile element in sequence. Table 1 presents the cyclic load parcels analysed
in the numerical tests. Note that the average load component in the tests is aways kept zero. Two analyses,
with either fully rough or fully smooth pile-soil interfaces, were performed.

Table 1—Load history analyzed in numerical tests

Parcel No. pcy/pu No. of cycles Neq at start* Neq at end*

1 0.458 14 1 14
2 0.498 7 7 14
3 0.531 4 8.1 12.1
4 0.571 2 7.1 9.1
5 0.598 1 6.3 7.3

*Equivalent number of cycles calculated by the accumulation procedure

The results of a numerical test (with fully rough pile-soil interface) are presented in Figure 6. In each
subplot, the pile element displacements calculated by the finite element model at the beginning and at the
end of a load parcel are represented by the solid and hollow dots respectively. Two p-y curves, constructed
by scaling the stress-strain curves corresponding to the Neq values evaluated at the beginning and the end
of the load parcel respectively, are shown for comparison. Overall, the numerical test demonstrates good
match between the finite element analysis and simplified p-y procedure. A similarly good match is also
obtained from the numerical test with fully smooth pile-soil interface.
8 OTC-26942-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022

Figure 6 —Results of verification numerical test (fully rough pile-soil interface) and comparison with the proposed cyclic p-y springs

As discussed above, a distribution of Neq is expected in the slice of soil domain surrounding the pile
element and indeed this is observed in the FEA. However, the numerical tests demonstrate that a single
representative Neq gives sufficiently accurate predictions. The possible explanation is that at relatively low
mobilisation, the soil stress-strain response is not particularly sensitive to the number of cycles, which can
be seen by the almost flat strain contour lines at low cyclic shear stress levels in the middle plot of Figure
4. At high mobilisation levels, the pile response is more dominated by soil within the flow around
mechanism, for which, the calculated Neq captures the cyclic effects adequately.
OTC-26942-MS 9

It should be noted that the p-y framework described above is developed based on a flow around
mechanism. In analysis of a complete pile response, modification to the peak resistance of the p-y curves
is recommended to reflect the correct response in the shallower part where a wedge failure mechanism
governs. Such modification, can be performed according to theoretical studies, for example, Murff and
Hamilton (1993) and Yu et al. (2015). In certain cases, particularly long piles where the effect of the
wedge mechanism can be small, the shape of the p-y curve and its evolution due to cyclic effects in the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
shallow part can still be based on the currently proposed approach. However, for certain piles, where the
response is dominated by the wedge mechanism, such as monopiles for offshore wind turbines, further
investigation is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the current approach.
Procedure for analysis of an entire pile

Conventionally, a single Neq is often assumed for the entire soil domain within the failure capacity
mechanism of a GBS foundation and this is shown to be sufficiently accurate (Andersen, et al., 1989,
Jostad and Andresen, 2009). However, for a pile foundation, it may not be appropriate to assume a
uniform Neq along the pile length. This is because the soil in the upper part will naturally have greater
mobilisation than the soil in the lower part under lateral pile head loading. Under cyclic loading condition,
the soil in the upper part would therefore experience more effects due to cyclic loading. Associated with
this, load re-distribution may occur due to non-uniform cyclic effects along the pile length. A distribution
of Neq along the pile is therefore needed for the realistic analysis of the pile.
In the previous section, a procedure to establish the cyclic p-y curve for a single pile element is
postulated and verified. However, to analyse an entire pile, a strategy is needed to keep track of the
loading history and evaluate Neq for each of the pile elements (p-y springs) over the length of the pile. This
is schematically illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7—Schematic illustration of general procedure to analyze an entire pile response

To analyse a loading sequence with multiple cyclic load parcels, the following calculation scheme is
proposed:
10 OTC-26942-MS

Load Parcel 1
● Establish initial p-y curves with [Neq]⫽ [Neq_1, Neq_2, Neq_3, ···, Neq_n] ⫽1, where ‘[]’ implies a
vector of n elements;
● Perform (1st) pile equilibrium iteration under the pile head load amplitude of Parcel 1 using a
beam-column analysis program;
● Update [Neq], [Neq] ⫽ ⌬N1, where ⌬N1 is the number of cycles of the Parcel 1;

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
● Construct updated p-y curves for updated [Neq];
● Perform (2nd) pile equilibrium iteration and calculate the spring mobilisations along the entire pile
[p/pu].

Load Parcel 2
● Establish updated spring mobilisation [p/pu]new under the pile head load amplitude of Parcel 2,
using the last updated p-y springs (as was used for 2nd equilibrium iteration in the previous parcel)
● Perform cyclic accumulation procedure for each p-y spring, assuming the pile elements were
cyclically loaded under [p/pu]old for [Neq]old number of cycles, where [p/pu]old and [Neq]old are
spring mobilisation and the Neq profile established in the 2nd equilibrium iteration of the previous
parcel. This provides an updated [Neq] profile.
● Construct updated p-y curves based on updated [Neq]
● Perform (1st) pile equilibrium iteration under pile head load magnitude of the Parcel 2
● Update [Neq], [Neq] ⫽ [Neq] ⫹ ⌬N2, where ⌬N2 is the number of cycles of the Parcel 2;
● Construct updated p-y curves based on updated [Neq]
● Perform (2nd) pile equilibrium iteration and calculate the spring mobilisations along the entire pile
[p/pu]
The process followed for Parcel 2 is repeated until all load parcels are analysed.

Example calculation case and validation with FEA

To demonstrate the application of the calculation procedure described above, an example calculation case
is presented. A computer program, NGI-PILE, which implements the proposed methodology, is developed
in Matlab and used for the current example. The pile considered is an 84⬙ (2.14m) diameter steel hollow
pile, with 60 mm in wall thickness. The pile is penetrated 40 m into a clay, with linearly increasing
undrained shear strength with depth. The DSS strength can be described by: su ⫽ 3.4 ⫹ 1.6z, where z is
the soil depth. The cyclic soil properties are assumed to be represented by normally consolidated
(OCR⫽1) Drammen clay. Symmetric two way cyclic lateral load is applied at two pile diameters (4.3 m)
above the mudline. Three load parcels are simulated, as summarised in Table 2. A fully rough soil-pile
interface is assumed. To verify the predictions, an independent 3D FEA of the case was performed. The soil
response is represented by the UDCAM model. All input parameters, including soil properties, pile geometry
and loading conditions remain identical between the FEA and the beam-column analysis. The predicted pile
responses at the end of each load parcel are compared between the two analyses in Figure 8.

Table 2—Load history analyzed in the numerical test

Parcel No. Load, kN No. of cycles

1 2000 20
2 3000 10
3 4000 5
OTC-26942-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
Figure 8 —Comparison of pile responses predicted by finite element analysis (FEA) and NGI-PILE

It can be seen that a good match is demonstrated between the FEA and the cyclic p-y program. The
FEA seems to generally give somewhat stiffer response, particularly at lower amplitude cycles. For
practical design purposes, the accuracy of the cyclic p-y program is sufficient. The figure also presents the
Neq at the end of Parcel 3 calculated by the cyclic p-y program. As expected, a significant variation is seen
along the length of the pile.
Concluding remarks and outlook
This paper presents a framework for constructing monotonic and cyclic p-y curves in clay and a
calculation procedure for analysing pile response under cyclic pile head lateral loads. The methodology
presented here represents a rational approach to account for cyclic loading in pile design based on soil
responses measured directly in laboratory tests, which is traditionally (and perhaps typically) dealt with
12 OTC-26942-MS

in a highly empirical manner. It also offers the possibility to account for site specific pile-soil interface,
soil response as well as cyclic loading conditions. The method has potential application to the design of
a wide range of offshore structures, including well conductors, jacket piles, and anchor piles.
The current paper is limited to symmetric two way cyclic loading and the authors are working on the
procedure to analyse one way cyclic loading (with non-zero average load component), which will be
presented in future publications. Nevertheless, the general philosophy shall still be valid for both loading

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/16OTC/3-16OTC/D031S035R005/1351977/otc-26942-ms.pdf/1 by Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee user on 17 May 2022
conditions.

References
American Petroleum Institute (2014). ⬙Planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms-working stress
design, API recommended practice 2A-WSD.⬙
Andersen, K. H., R., D., Lauritzsen, R., Heien, D., Hårvik, L., and Amundsen, T. (1989). ⬙Model tests on gravity platforms.
II: Interpretation.⬙ Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(11), 1550 –1568.
Andersen, K. H. (2004). ⬙Cyclic clay data for foundation design of structures subjected to wave loading.⬙ Invited General
Lecture. Proc., International Conf. on Cyclic Behaviour of Soils and Liquefaction Phenomena, CBS04, Triantafyllidis
(Ed). A.A. Balkema Publishers, Proc. p. 371–387.
Andersen, K. H. (2015). ⬙Cyclic soil parameters for offshore foundation design.⬙ The 3rd McClelland Lecture. Frontiers
in Offshore Geotechnics III, ISFOG’2015, Meyer (Ed). Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7.
Proc. p. 5–82. Revised version in: http://www.issmge.org/en/technical-committees/applications/154-offshore-geotech-
nics and click on ⬙additional information.
Bhattacharya, S., Carrington, T. M., and Aldridge, T. R. (2006). ⬙Design of FPSO piles against storm loading.⬙ Offshore
Technology Conference Houston, Texas, OTC 17861.
Bransby, M. F. (1999). ⬙Selection of p-y cruves for the design of single laterally loaded piles.⬙ International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechnics, 23, 1909 –1926.
Erbrich, C. T., O’Neill, M. P., Clancy, P., and Randolph, M. F. (2010). ⬙Axial and lateral pile design in carbonate soils.⬙
Proc., 2nd International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG II), 125–154.
Jostad, H. P., and Andresen, L. (2009). ⬙A FE procedure for calculation of displacements and capacity of foundations
subjected to cyclic loading.⬙ Proc., COMGEO I, Cote d’Azur, France.
Jostad, H. P., Grimstad, G., Andersen, K. H., Saue, M., Shin, Y., and You, D. (2014). ⬙A FE procedure for foundation
design of offshore structures—applied to study a potential OWT monopile foundation in the Korean Western Sea.⬙
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 45(4), 63–72.
Klar, A., and Osman, A. S. (2008). ⬙Predicting undrained displacement of piles under lateral loading.⬙ Proc., Second BGA
International Conference on Foundations, ICOF2008, IHS BRE Press.
Matlock, H. (1970). ⬙Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay.⬙ Offshore Technology Conference-
Houston, Texas, OTC 1204.
Murff, J. D., and Hamilton, J. M. (1993). ⬙P-ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles.⬙ Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(1), 91–107.
Plaxis (2013). Plaxis 3D reference manual 2013
Randolph, M. F., and Houlsby, G. T. (1984). ⬙The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil.⬙
Geotechnique, 34(4), 613–623.
Yu, J., Huang, M., and Zhang, C. (2015). ⬙Three-dimensional upper-bound analysis for ultimate bearing capacity of
laterally loaded rigid pile in undrained clay.⬙ Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52, dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0390.
Zhang, Y., and Andersen, K. H. (2016). ⬙p-y springs in clay: linked back to soil stress-strain response.⬙ Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, under review.