Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile

Foundations Considering Stiffness Degradation

Nivya Basheer1, Khalid Abdel-Rahman2, Johannes Albiker2,

Tanusree Chakraborty1(&), and Martin Achmus2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016, India
[email protected], [email protected]
2
Institute for Geotechnical Engineering (IGtH), Leibniz University of
Hannover, Appelstraße 9A, 30167 Hannover, Germany
{khalid,albiker,achmus}@igth.uni-hannover.de

Abstract. There are a number of offshore wind farms where the monopile is
socketed into rock layers. Since it is socketed into rock, it may behave different
from monopile embedded in soil. A numerical modelling of rock socketed
monopile is done using finite element (FE) software Abaqus. A stiffness
degradation method (SDM) is applied to FE model in order to predict the
behaviour under cyclic loading conditions. Parametric studies are carried out by
varying rock socketed depth (d), length of monopile below seabed (L), intensity
of horizontal loading (H) and subsoil conditions to evaluate the long-term
permanent deformation of offshore rock socketed monopile foundations. Sui-
table permanent deformation factors are proposed for offshore rock socketed
monopiles for the first time in the literature. It is observed from the results that
the deformation behaviour of the monopile changes from stiff to flexible with
increase in rock socketing and in turn the pile head deflection going down. From
the bending moment diagram, flexible and stiff behaviour of monopile can be
identified and is an indicator of curvature of the deflection line of pile.

Keywords: Cyclic loading
Rock socketed monopiles
Stiffness degradation

method
Numerical modelling
Lateral deformation

1 Introduction

Monopiles are one of the common foundation options for offshore wind turbines. Often
the sea bed is made up of bed rock and rock socketing becomes necessary for installing
the monopiles. In many places, the monopiles are being successfully socketed into rock
for different wind farms, e.g., situated on the East coast of England in Northumberland,
Blyth offshore wind project installed monopiles of diameter 3.5 m into bedrock of
sandstone. At North Hoyle wind farm, installation of monopile (4.0 m diameter at
seabed) consists of driving through upper layers of sand and clay, and drilling and

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

W.-C. Cheng et al. (eds.), Tunneling in Soft Ground, Ground Conditioning
and Modification Techniques, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95783-8_15
 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 175

driving through rock layer of sandstone and mudstone. In Bockstigen wind farm in
Sweden monopiles were socketed into rock (www.offshorecenter.dk, www.
subacoustech.com, www.technology.stfc.ac.uk).
Germanische Lloyd (GL) rules and regulations give the design procedure for
foundations of offshore wind energy converters in Germany (Achmus 2010). In this
regulation the p-y method defined by API code is recommended in order to estimate the
behaviour of piles under horizontal loading. But the use of p-y curves in estimating the
behaviour of monopiles may be misleading because of the fact that these curves are
formulated based on field testing of piles with number of cycles less than 200 and
applicable for piles with diameters up to 2 m.
Many studies have been conducted in the past in order to understand the behaviour
of laterally loaded and axially loaded monopiles (Achmus et al. 2008, 2009; Albiker
and Achmus 2012; Achmus and Albiker 2014; Arshi and Stone 2011; Kellezi and
Hansen 2003; Little and Briaud 1988; Schmoor and Achmus 2013) and some design
guide lines are also available in the literature (Achmus et al. 2008; Schmoor and
Achmus 2013; Thieken et al. 2014). But the rock-monopile interaction under cyclic
loading is less discussed. Arshi and Stone (2011) conducted a series of small scale
single gravity tests to investigate the performance of a monopile, combined monopile
and bearing plate foundation where the pile is socketed into a weak rock. In the model
studies, the weak rock layer is modelled using a weak sand and gypsum mix. The
results of the study provide an insight into the effect of the various foundation elements
(i.e. pile, plate and rock socket) and their contribution to the overall performance of the
foundation system. Wang et al. (2007) discusses the behaviour of large-diameter
rock-socketed CFST (concrete-filled steel tube) piles under lateral loads based on field
tests and numerical analysis. The horizontal capacity and deformation of large-diameter
rock-socketed piles are analyzed from the measured displacements and internal forces
of piles. The interactive behaviour of pile-rock and the influence of backfilled sand on
horizontal capacity are also discussed. Using the Finite Element Method (FEM) con-
sidering the properties of the pile-soil interface, the test results are simulated numeri-
cally. This result show that stress concentration effect in the region near the bottom of
the steel tube should be considered in the design, because the socketed part of piles
bears most of the lateral load.
From the literature review, it may be concluded that the offshore monopile foun-
dations are mainly subjected to wave and wind loading and these loads are cyclic in
nature. One of most important aspects of designing a monopile foundation is the
deformation under cyclic horizontal loading and accumulation of permanent defor-
mation with increasing number of cycles. In this paper, the deformation behaviour of
rock socketed monopile foundation under cyclic loading is studied by numerical
modelling of the pile-soil system using the FEM software Abaqus and by applying the
stiffness degradation method (SDM) with increasing number of load cycles. Permanent
deformation of the piles under cyclic loading is investigated for different rock socketing
depths, different pile lengths and horizontal load magnitudes. A deformation accu-
mulation parameter is proposed further.
176 N. Basheer et al.

2 Stiffness Degradation Method

This method was developed at the Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, Leibniz
University of Hannover, Germany (Achmus et al. 2009). In a cyclic triaxial test, the
degraded stiffness of soil after N cycles (Es,N) can be expressed in terms of stiffness
modulus after first cycle (Es,1) using the equation,

ES;N
¼ N b1 X
b2
ð1Þ
Es;1

Here b1 and b2 are soil parameters and X is the cyclic stress ratio defined by
r1;cyclic
X¼ ð2Þ
r1;f

where r1,cyclic is the maximum principal stress in a cycle and r1,f is the maximum
principal stress at failure subjected to static loading. From cyclic triaxial test results
documented in the literature, typical regression parameters b1 and b2 were found for
dense sand to be b1 = 0.12, b2 = 0.50 and for medium dense sand b1 = 0.15,
b2 = 0.50. Detailed numerical implementation of the SDM in the finite element code
Abaqus (Abaqus documentation version 6.11-3) is discussed in Achmus et al. (2008).

3 Numerical Modelling

The model considered in the present work consists of a monopile of diameter 7.5 m
and wall thickness of 9 cm. For simplicity the hollow cylindrical steel monopile
(modulus of elasticity E = 210 GPa and Poisson’s ratio m = 0.2) is replaced by a solid
cylindrical pile with same diameter such that bending stiffness of both piles remains the
same. The monopile is installed into a layered soil with upper sand and lower rock layer
as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The sand is considered elasto-plastic with Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion. The stiffness modulus of the soil varies with depth according to the
following equation,
 k
rm
Es ¼ jrat ð3Þ
rat

Here Es is the oedometric stiffness modulus which varies with stress condition, rm
is the current mean principal stress in the considered soil element and rat= 100 kN/m2
is a reference (atmospheric) stress. The parameter j determines the soil stiffness at the
reference stress state and the parameter k rules the stress dependency of the soil
stiffness. The material parameters used to model different materials are listed in Table 1
(Das 2013; Jaeger et al. 2008; Achmus et al. 2009). At the contact of the pile soil
interface, interface friction coefficient tan d = 2/3 tan(/) is considered. At pile-rock
interface, tan d = tan(/) is taken. In the contact normal direction, hard contact is
 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 177

V = 10 MN
H

h = 20 m

Sand
L

Rock d
D

Fig. 1. Schematic sketch showing the subsoil conditions

Pile H Cyclic Horizontal Load

Sand

Rock
Cylindrical outer
boundary U1 =U2= 0
U3, UR1, UR2 and
UR3 ≠0

Vertical cross section of pile,

sand and rock sections
U2 = 0
Bottom Boundary
U1, U3, UR1, UR2 and UR3 ≠ 0
U1 = U2 = U3 = 0
UR1, UR2 and UR3 = 0

Fig. 2. Finite element model using Abaqus/CAE

considered at the pile-rock interface and soft contact is considered at the pile-soil
interface with assumed interface stiffness taken same as the soil stiffness.
The vertical load (V) acting on the monopile is assumed as 10 MN which is the
weight of the super structure. The variable horizontal load (H) is acting at a height
(20 m) above the seabed level. Three different horizontal load magnitudes are assumed-
10, 15 and 30 MN. Due to symmetry conditions, only the half of the pile-soil-model is
considered. The diameter of the numerical model considered for analysis is sixteen
178 N. Basheer et al.

Table 1. Properties of materials

Soil type Submerged Stiffness Friction Dilatancy Cohesion Poisson’s
unit weight parameters angle angle (kN/m2) ratio
(kN/m3)
c′s j k /′ w c m
Dense 11 700 0.55 37.5° 7.5 0.1 0.25
sand
Hard 14 E = 70 GPa – – – 0.2
rock
Soft rock 12 E = 1.0 25° 0 50 0.33
GPa
Medium 11 550 0.6 35° 5° 0.1 0.25
dense
sand

times the pile diameter. The bottom boundary of the model is extended to 20 m below
the base of the monopile. The steps involved in modelling using stiffness degradation
method are shown in the Table 2.

Table 2. Steps taken to obtain the deformation behaviour of monopiles

Step Input Model and loading system Output
1 Material, geometry of Finite element model rmean
pile soil system Geostatic step
(considering only the soil
system)
2 Material, geometry of Finite element model with Soil Stiffness after 10,
pile soil system SDM 100, 1000, 10,000 cycles
Varying stiffness Vertical loading (V) and
modulus of soil with horizontal loading (H)
depth
3 Material, geometry of Finite element model Accumulated
pile soil system displacement after N
Degradation in secant Vertical loading (V) and cycle
modulus after N cycles horizontal loading (H)

4 Parametric Studies

A parametric study is conducted to estimate the effect of embedded length of the pile
below seabed (L), rock socketed depth (d), horizontal load intensity (H) and the subsoil
conditions on deformation behaviour of monopile foundation under long term cyclic
loading. Table 3 lists different loading conditions and pile geometries considered in this
study. The depths of rock socket is decided based on different literature (Choy et al.
2004; Srinivasamurthy and Pujar 2009; Liu et al. 2011). Three different subsoil con-
ditions are simulated (i) two layered soil with upper layer dense sand and lower layer
 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 179

hard rock (case I), (ii) two layered soil with upper layer dense sand and lower layer soft
rock (case II), three layered soil with upper layer medium dense sand, middle layer
dense sand lower layer soft rock (case III). Hard rock is considered elastic (E = 70
GPa, m = 0.2) and soft rock elasto-plastic with Mohr-Coulomb criteria (E = 1 GPa,
m = 0.33, c = 50 kN/m2 and /′ = 25°) (Table 1).

Table 3. Model conditions in parameter study

Loading condition
V (MN) 10
H (MN) 10, 15, 30
Pile geometry
D (m) 7.5
d (m) 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
L (m) 30, 40
H (m) 20
tp (m) 0.09
h/L 0.5, 0.67

5 Results and Discussions

5.1 Effect of Increase in Rock Socketing Depth
Figure 3 shows the lateral deflection of the pile with depth below seabed for different
rock socketing depths (d)—2, 4 and 10 m and for different number of loading cycles
(N)—1, 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000. From this Figure, it can be seen that with increased
rock socketing of the pile, the deflection line of the pile reduces. Moreover, with
increased rock socketing, the effect of loading cycle on the deflection response reduces.
This is caused by the fact that the pile with zero socketing in the rock behaves like a
stiff pile and with increased rock socketing, the behaviour gradually changes from stiff
to flexible.
When a stiff pile is subjected to cyclic loading, the degradation of stiffness modulus
of the surrounding soil after N number of cycles (EN) occurs throughout the whole
embedded length of the pile, while in case of a flexible pile the soil mobilization and
degradation occur only in the upper layers, because in the rock socket, the pile is
scarcely deformed, as it is noticed from the deflection lines shown in Fig. 4. This issue
leads to a higher overall soil degradation and thus a higher cyclic deformation accu-
mulation of a stiff pile compared to a flexible pile (Albiker and Achmus 2012). Based
on the previous results, the deflection lines after different numbers of cycles for piles lie
closer to each other with increased rock socketing, which means that deformation
accumulation is decreasing as presented in Fig. 3.
180 N. Basheer et al.

0 0
Depth below seabed (m)

Depth below seabed (m)

5

10 10

15 d=2m 15 d=4m
N=1 N=1
20 N = 10 20 N = 10
N = 100 N = 100
25 N = 1000 25 N = 1000
N = 10000 N = 10000
30 30
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25
Lateral deflection of monopile (cm) Lateral deflection of monopile (cm)

0
Depth below seabed (m)

10

15 d = 10 m
N=1
20 N = 10
N = 100
25 N = 1000
N = 10000
30
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Lateral deflection of monopile (cm)

Fig. 3. Stiff to flexible behaviour with increase in rock socketing depth (monopile socketed into
hard rock)

Flexible Pile N=1 N=1

N = 10000

σ10000 ≠ σ1
N = 10000
E10000 ≠ E1
Stiff Pile

σ10000 ≠ σ1
E10000 ≠ E1 σ10000 ≈ σ1
E10000 ≈ E1

Flexible Pile
Static loading Cyclic loading

Fig. 4. Behaviour of piles when subjected to horizontal cyclic loading

 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 181

5.2 Flexible Behaviour of a Monopile at Low Load Levels

Figure 5 presents the lateral deflection of monopiles at different magnitudes of lateral
load. From the numerical analysis, it can be seen that at lower load levels (15 MN), the
pile behaves more flexible which is in line with the observations made in Achmus and
Albiker (2014). When the horizontal loading is relatively high (30 MN) with respect to
the ultimate horizontal pile capacity, the soil is nearly in the failure state, which in turn
leads to an apparently increased pile-soil system stiffness (stiffer behaviour) and
therewith to a higher cyclic deformation accumulation as seen in Fig. 5.

0 0

5 5

Depth below seabed (m)

Depth below seabed (m)

10 10

15 15
d=4m d=4m
20 H = 30 MN 20 H = 15 MN
N=1 N=1
25 N = 100 25 N = 100
N = 10000 N = 10000
30 30
-20 0 20 40 60 80 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Lateral deflection of monopile (cm) Lateral deflection of monopile (cm)

Fig. 5. Stiff and flexible behaviour of monopile socketed in soft rock at different load levels

5.3 Optimum Rock Socketed Depth

Figure 6 presents the normalized pile lateral deflection ysN =ys1 where ysN is pile
deflection after N number of cycles and ys1 is the deflection after 1st cycle. From the
Fig. 6, it can be seen that the accumulation of deformation at the pile surface decreases
with increased rock socketing depth. In the case of a monopile of total length (L) of
30 m with different rock socketed lengths, it is found that above a certain depth of rock
socketing, the accumulation of pile deformation is not changing or remains almost
constant.
The rock socketing depth above which increase of socketing does not cause much
change in accumulation of deflection of the monopile at the surface is taken as opti-
mum depth of rock socketing. In case of a monopile of length 30 m, the optimum depth
is found to be approximately 5 m, that means for a ratio between rock socketed length
and total embedment length of d/L = 1/6, whereby this ratio might depend on the
loading level.

5.4 Effect of Rock Properties on the Deformation Behaviour

Figure 7 shows lateral deflection of pile for different numbers of loading cycles and
socketed in soft and hard rock. From the numerical results, it can be seen that a
monopile socketed in hard rock behaves more flexible than that socketed in weak rock,
182 N. Basheer et al.

(i) 4.5 (ii) 2.5

H = 30 MN H = 15 MN
4.0
ys10 / ys1 ys10 / ys1
3.5 ys100 / ys1 ys100 / ys1
2.0
ys1000 / ys1 ys1000 / ys1

ysN / ys1
ysN / ys1

3.0
ys10000 / ys1 ys10000 / ys1
2.5

2.0 1.5

1.5

1.0 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Rock socketed depth (m) Rock socketed depth (m)

Fig. 6. Variation of accumulation rate of deformation with rock socketing depth for a monopile
subjected to a cyclic lateral load (H) of (i) 30 MN (ii) 15 MN

(i) 0 (ii) 0
Depth below seabed (m)

5
Depth below seabed (m)

10 10

15 15

20 Hard Rock 20 Soft Rock

N=1 N=1
25 N = 100 25 N = 100
N = 10000 N = 10000
30 30
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Lateral deflection of monopile (cm) Lateral deflection of monopile (cm)

Fig. 7. Monopile of L = 30 m, d = 10 m socketed in (i) hard rock (ii) soft rock subjected to
H = 30 MN

and the accumulation of head deformation for monopiles in weak rock is large com-
pared to the other case (about 4 times larger for 4 m rock socketed piles and 6 times
larger for 10 m rock socketed pile). In analogy to the statement given above when
different load levels were analysed, also here it can be concluded that a higher stiffness
of the rock leads to a reduced pile-soil system stiffness (flexible behaviour) and
therewith to a reduced cyclic deformation accumulation. Figure 8 presents the nor-
malized pile lateral deflection ysN =ys1 for different rock socketing depths in soft and
hard rock after increasing number of cycles. As the rock socketed depth increases, the
rate of accumulation under cyclic loading reduces.

5.5 Evaluation of the Accumulation of Pile Head Deflection as a Function

of Number of Cycles by Means of an Empirical Equation
There are several empirical equations to estimate the head deflection of a pile after
N cycles such as the equation given by Little and Briaud (1988).
 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 183

(i) (ii)
2.4 Hard Rock 2.4 Soft Rock
d=0m d=0m
2.2 2.2
d=4m d=4m
2.0 d=8m 2.0 d=8m
ysN / ys1

ysN / ys1
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
Number of cycles N Number of cycles N

Fig. 8. Accumulation of deformation of monopile of L = 30 m socketed in (i) hard rock and

(ii) soft rock subjected to H = 15 MN

yN ¼ y1 N m ð4Þ

Here yN and y1 are the pile head deflection after N number of cycles and 1st cycle
respectively. The empirical parameter m in Eq. 4 is evaluated herein using the results
(deflection at seabed level after N cycles) obtained from numerical analysis using a
regression analysis. Figure 9 presents the variation in m for different rock socketed
depths. From the Fig. 9, it can be seen that the value of m depends on length of
monopile below seabed level (L), rock socketed depth (d), intensity of lateral loading
(H) and subsoil conditions. The m increases with load intensity and decreases with
increase of rock socketing and with increase of the pile length.

(i) (ii)
0.16 L = 30 m L = 40 m
0.14 H = 10 MN 0.08 H = 10 MN
H = 15 MN H = 15 MN
0.12 H = 30 MN H = 30 MN
0.10
0.06
m

0.08
m

0.06
0.04 0.04

0.02
0.00 0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Rock socketed depth (m) Rock socketed depth (m)

Fig. 9. Variation of degradation parameter m for monopile of (i) L = 30 m (ii) L = 40 m for

case I
184 N. Basheer et al.

5.6 Bending Moment

Figures 10 and 11 represent the bending moment diagram for a monopile socketed in
hard rock. The value of the maximum moment increases with increase in rock sock-
eting. This is due to the change of pile behaviour from stiff to flexible with increased
socketing into rock layer. And, due to the higher moment developing in the monopile,
it has a tendency to fail in flexure even if the lateral deflection occurring is smaller
compared to that of a monopile with very small rock socketed depth.

10

20
Depth (m)

N = 1, d = 0 m
30 N = 10000, d = 0 m
N = 1, d = 10 m
N = 10000, d = 10 m
40

50

60
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Bending Moment (MNm)

Fig. 10. Moment distribution for a monopile (L = 40 m) subjected to H = 30 MN and lever

arm = 20 m

10

20
Depth (m)

N = 1, d = 0 m
N = 10000, d = 0 m
30 N = 1, d = 10 m
N = 10000, d = 10 m

40

50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Bending Moment (MNm)

Fig. 11. Moment distribution for a monopile (L = 30 m) subjected to H = 10 MN and lever

arm = 20 m
 Analysis of Offshore Rock Socketed Monopile … 185

6 Conclusions

The behaviour of laterally loaded piles for varying geometry, soil conditions, lateral
loading and rock socketing depths is analysed and studied numerically. From the
results it can be concluded that the behaviour of the monopile changes from stiff to
flexible with increase in rock socketed depth and that in turn the deformation accu-
mulation of the pile at the surface is going down. The other observation is that
accumulation rate of deflections follow the same trend. As the depth of the pile below
seabed level increases, rock socketing depth has no significant effect on the accumu-
lation of deformation at low load levels. For the evaluated cases, it is also concluded
that a ratio between rock socketed length d and total pile embedment length L of
approximately d/L = 1/6 might be seen as an orientation for sufficient cyclic stability.
From the bending moment diagram, flexible and stiff behaviour of monopile can be
identified and is an indicator of curvature of the deflection line of pile.

Acknowledgements. This work has been carried out with scholarship funded by DAAD for Ms.
Navy Basheer for a period of six months. This work is a result of collaboration between Institute
for Geotechnical Engineering, LUH, Germany and Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi,
India.

References
Abaqus/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.11-3: Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation,
Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 2014
Achmus, M.: Design of axially and laterally loaded piles for the support of offshore wind energy
converters. In: Indian Geotechnical Conference—2010, GEOtrendz, IGS Mumbai Chapter &
IIT Bombay, 16–18 Dec 2010
Achmus, M., Kuo, Y.-S., Abdel-Rahman, K.: Behaviour of monopile foundations under cyclic
lateral load. Comput. Geotech. 36(5), 725–735 (2009)
Achmus, M., Abdel-Rahman, K., Kuo, Y.-S.: Design of monopile foundations for offshore wind
energy plants. In: Proceedings of the 11th Baltic Geotechnical conference of Geotechnics in
Maritime Engineering, 15–18 Sept 2008, Gdansk, Poland
Achmus, M., Albiker, J.: Prediction of accumulated deformations of cyclic laterally loaded piles
in sand. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE), Delft, The Netherlands, 2014
Albiker, J., Achmus, M.: Cyclic performance of horizontally loaded piles in layered subsoil. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, Rostock, Germany, May 31st–
June 2nd, 2012
Arshi, H.S., Stone, K.J.L.: An investigation of a rock socketed pile with an integral bearing plate
founded over weak rock. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference of Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, 12–15 Sept 2011, Athens, Greece, 2011
Choy, K.K., Pang, T.C.P., Li, W.W., Tse, S.H.V., Lam, S.C., Kung, W.C.F., Lau, C.W.J.,
Pappin, J.W., Ng, H.K., Lee, W.H., Wong, N.K.P., Lee, K.K.P., Cheng, M.L.: Code of
Practice for Foundations. Technical Report. Buildings Department, Mongkok, Kowloon,
Hong Kong (2004)
http://www.offshorecenter.dk/log/bibliotek/Blyth%20Wind%20Farm.pdf as seen 24th June 2017
http://www.subacoustech.com/wp-content/uploads/544R0503.pdf as seen 24th June 2017
186 N. Basheer et al.

http://www.technology.stfc.ac.uk/OWEN/workshop_3/ws3_final.pdf as seen 24th June 2017

Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., Zimmerman, R.: Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 4th Edition,
(2008) ISBN: 978-0-632-05759-7, 488 pages. April 2007, Wiley-Blackwell
Kellezi, L., Hansen, P.B.: Static and dynamic analysis of offshore monopile windmill foundation.
In: Proceedings of the BGA International Conference on Foundations: Innovation,
observation, design and practice, 2–5 Sept 2003, Dundee, UK
Little, R.L., Briaud, J.L.: Full Scale Cyclic Lateral Load Tests on Six Single Piles in Sand.
Miscellaneous paper GL-88-27. Texas: Geotechnical Division, Texas A&M University
(1988)
Liu, X., Zhang, D., Su, Y.: A method for computing embedded depth in rock of the laterally
loaded rock-socketed piles. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, 2011
Schmoor, K.A., Achmus, M.: On the validation of reliability and partial safety factors for axially
loaded piles in dense sand. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk (4th ISGSR), 4–6 December 2013, Hong Kong, 2013
Srinivasamurthy, B.R., Pujar, K.L.: Socketing of bored piles in rock. In: Proceedings of the
Indian Geotechnical Conference (IGC) 2009, Guntur, India, 2009
Thieken, K., Achmus, M., Schmoor, K.: On the ultimate limit state design proof for laterally
loaded piles. Geotechnik 37(1), 19–31 (2014)
Wang, J.-H., Chen, J.-J., Li, Y.-L., Fan, W.: The behavior of large diameter rock-socketed piles
under lateral loads. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, 1–6 July 2007, Lisbon, Portugal