Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
3D FE-Informed Laboratory Soil Testing for the Design of
Offshore Wind Turbine Monopiles
Xiaoyang Cheng 1, *, Andrea Diambra 1 , Erdin Ibraim 1 , Haoyuan Liu 2 and Federico Pisanò 3

1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK;

[email protected] (A.D.); [email protected] (E.I.)
2 Department of Offshore Energy, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), 0806 Oslo, Norway;
[email protected]
3 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1,
2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Based on advanced 3D finite element modelling, this paper analyses the stress paths
experienced by soil elements in the vicinity of a monopile foundation for offshore wind turbines
subjected to cyclic loading with the aim of informing soil laboratory testing in support of monopile
foundation design. It is shown that the soil elements in front of the laterally loaded monopile are
subjected to complex stress variations, which gradually evolve towards steady stress cycles as the
cyclic lateral pile loading proceeds. The amplitude, direction and average value of such steady stress
cycles are dependent on the depth and radial distance from the pile of the soil element, but it also
invariably involves the cyclic rotation of principal stress axes. Complementary laboratory testing
using the hollow-cylinder torsional apparatus was carried out on granular soil samples imposing
cyclic stress paths (with up to about 3 × 104 cycles) which resemble those determined after 3D




finite element analysis. The importance of considering the cyclic rotation of principal stress axes

 when investigating the response of soil elements under stress conditions mimicking those around a
Citation: Cheng, X.; Diambra, A.; monopile foundation subjected to cyclic lateral loading is emphasised.
Ibraim, E.; Liu, H.; Pisanò, F. 3D
FE-Informed Laboratory Soil Testing Keywords: finite element analysis; soil; monopile; offshore; wind turbines; laboratory testing
for the Design of Offshore Wind
Turbine Monopiles. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2021, 9, 101. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jmse9010101 1. Introduction
Renewable offshore wind energy has been playing a crucial role in meeting the in-
Received: 19 December 2020
creasing demand for green energy and reducing the global carbon footprint. In 2019,
Accepted: 14 January 2021
Europe installed a record of 3.6 GW of new offshore wind capacity, mostly located in the
Published: 19 January 2021
North Sea [1]. To date, with offshore wind turbines being installed mostly in shallow
coastal waters, monopile foundation has been typically the preferred foundation option [1].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
However, with the progressive increase of wind turbine capacity and the progressive re-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
search for additional and stronger wind resources in deeper water, the size of the monopile
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
foundation has been progressively increasing in the last decade. It is currently conceivable
to install monopiles with diameter in excess of 10 metres.
The increase in monopile foundation size is associated with an increased overall cost
of the material as well as with the requirement of specialised vessels and installation equip-
ment able to deal with the larger monopile sizes and weights. However, cost savings are
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of wind farm developments if compared
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to other onshore energy resources. Therefore, engineers are not only facing the challenges
This article is an open access article
of designing larger foundation under stricter and harsher environmental conditions, but
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
they are also continuously asked to increase the cost-effectiveness of their design.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
The recently proposed PISA (PIle Soil Analysis) design methodology (i.e., [2,3]) and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ its immediate uptake by the geotechnical offshore industry is the most obvious example
4.0/). of the design optimisation process within the geotechnical offshore discipline. The PISA

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010101 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 2 of 15

design methodology emphasises the importance of using advanced 3D finite element (FE)
procedures to derive accurate soil reaction curves. These can then be implemented in a 1D
finite element idealised monopile system, which becomes cost- and time-effective when
analysing a large number of loading and limit state scenarios for individual wind turbines.
Nevertheless, the accuracy of the 3D FE prediction is of paramount importance and it is
well known that the choice of appropriate soil constitutive models and their calibration can
severely affect the outcome of numerical FE analyses.
The current laboratory practice, to determine and calibrate constitutive soil parameters
for the design of offshore wind monopile foundations, typically relies on cyclic triaxial
and simple shear tests. Following the simplified analysis of the stress states discussed in
Randolph and Houlsby [4], Fan and Long [5], Won et al. [6] and Ahmed and Hawlader [7], it
can be assumed that cyclic triaxial conditions mimic the loading condition of a soil element
in front of the laterally loaded pile while cyclic simple shear tests simulate the cyclic
tangential shearing experienced by elements on the side of the pile. However, the stress
state of soil surrounding a laterally loaded pile is more complex and rotation of principal
stress axes within the soil around the pile invariably occur (i.e., [8]). Results from soil
laboratory testing performed by Wichtmann et al. [9], Tong et al. [10] and Mandolini
et al. [11] among others, have shown that the rotation of principal stress axes affects the
overall soil response and the generation of plastic accumulated strains.
This paper shows how an advanced 3D finite element model can be used to investigate
the stress paths induced by cyclic storm loading in different soil elements in front of a
laterally loaded pile. The performed 3D finite element model employs the latest develop-
ments in cyclic soil constitutive modelling proposed by Liu et al. [12], which can accurately
predict the expected soil response under a large number of loading cycles using the concept
of hardening memory surface [13]. Informed by the cyclic stress paths extracted from
the 3D FE analysis, complementary laboratory tests on granular soil samples have been
conducted using the University of Bristol’s hollow-cylinder torsional apparatus. It is shown
that advanced laboratory tests, able to impose the cyclic rotation of principal stress axes,
can provide a more representative characterisation of the mechanical response for elements
located in front of cyclic laterally loaded monopile foundations.

2. 3D Finite Element Investigation

2.1. Numerical Modelling
The 3D FE model used in this study is representative of typical industry practice for
an 8 MW-capacity wind turbine supported by a steel hollow monopile foundation driven
in medium-dense/dense sand (relative density Dr = 50%). The dimensions of the monopile
foundation follow those used by Kementzetzidis [14] and they are illustrated in Figure 1,
featuring a monopile diameter (D) of 8.0 m, an embedded monopile length (L) of 27 m and
a wall thickness (t) of 0.062 m. The FE model was set in the Opensees software [15], taking
advantage of the geometrical symmetry of the problem as shown in Figure 1. The overall
dimensions of the soil domain were 70 m × 35 m × 47 m to minimise the effect of the
boundary conditions on the stress distribution in the soil nearby the monopile. The soil
domain was represented with 12,024 eight-node hexahedral SSPbricks elements [16], which
are effective against shear/volumetric locking issues in FE calculations. The same type of
elements were adopted to simulate the underground section of the pile, which is modelled
as a 3D hollow cylinder, featuring linear-elastic response represented by a Young’s modulus,
E = 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio, ν = 0.30. The aboveground part of the pile was modelled
as an elastic beam by using 20 Timoshenko beam elements. The soil-pile interface was
simulated according to Griffiths [17] by inserting a thin layer of solid elements, with a
thickness equal to 4% of the monopile diameter along the shaft, 8% of the pile diameter
under the tip. The elastic shear modulus and critical stress ratio were set to two or three
and three or four times lower than those of the surrounding soil. The base of the model
was fixed against movement in any direction. The lateral surfaces were restrained in the
directions perpendicular to it. The ground surface was free to displace.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 3 of 15

Figure 1. Finite element model for monopile and investigated soil elements.

The soil behaviour was modelled using the enhanced version of the SANISAND04
(Simple ANIsotropic SAND) model [18] proposed by Liu et al. [12], named SANISAND-
MS after the inclusion of an additional memory surface to capture the cyclic ratcheting
behaviour of the soil under long-term cyclic loading. The adopted values of the constitu-
tive parameters were aligned with those proposed by Dafalias et al. [18] for the original
SANISAND04 parameters and by Liu et al. [12] for the memory surface related parameters
in quartz sands, as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Values of parameters used in the memory surface constitutive model [12,18].

Parameter Description Value Parameter Description Value

Dimensionless
Hardening
G0 shear 125 h0 7.05
parameter
modulus
Poisson’s Hardening
v 0.3 ch 0.968
ratio parameter
Void ratio
Critical stress
M 1.25 nb dependence 1.1
ratio
parameter
Compression ‘Intrinsic’
c to extension 0.712 A0 dilatancy 0.704
strength ratio parameter
Reference Void ratio
e0 critical void 0.934 nd dependence 3.5
λ ratio μ parameter
Critical state
Ratcheting
λc line shape 0.02 µ0 200
parameter
parameter
Memory
Critical state
surface
ξ line shape 0.7 ζ 0.0005
shrinkage
parameter
parameter
Yield locus Dilatancy
m opening 0.01 β memory 1
parameter parameter

The numerical analysis was carried out in three main stages: (1) the application of
the geostatic pressure, (2) pile installation simulated as “wished in place”, whose effect
was not considered in this study (experimental and numerical assessments of the effect of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 4 of 15

installation on monopile response can be found in the very recent studies by Fan et al. [19],
Heins et al. [20] and Staubach et al. [21]), and (3) the application of the lateral cyclic loading
at pile head located at a height, e, of 20 m above ground level. The cyclic lateral loading
stage considered 80 one-way cycles with a total load amplitude of 10 MN (H in Figure
1) at the pile head applied in the form of a of sinusoidal load history. This corresponds
to an applied maximum moment Mmax equal to 40% of the monotonic lateral moment
causing rotation of pile head equal to 0.5◦ , in line with the typical storm loading conditions
as imposed in the experimental programme by Leblanc et al. [22].
The stress conditions induced by the cyclic lateral loading were inspected for five soil
elements E1 to E5, as shown in Figure 1. Their horizontal distance and depth normalised by
the pile diameter and length, respectively with respect to the origin of a cartesian reference
system located at the centre of the pile and at the ground level, are also given in Figure 1.
The adopted convention for the normal and shear stress components for each soil element
follows the adopted cartesian reference system as also reported in Figure 1. It should be
noted that in this simplified case, the soil was considered to be drained, with a dry unit
weight γdry = 15.6 kN/m3 . Therefore, the stresses were all effective in this paper.

2.2. 3D FE Simulation Results

2.2.1. General Features of Cyclic Pile Response
The overall response of the monopile foundation is reported in Figure 2. The lateral
force versus pile head displacement and the applied moment versus pile head rotation
are reported in Figure 2a,c, respectively. The pile head displacements and rotation versus
number of applied cycles are shown in Figure 2b,d, respectively. These plots show the
capability of the FE model to predict the trends of progressive accumulation of displace-
ment and rotation as observed in model pile tests [22,23]. Larger accumulations of rotation
and displacements were observed at the early cyclic stages, followed by a progressive
stiffening of the pile repose and a decrease in the rate of displacement and rotation ac-
cumulation. This response could be predicted owing to the capabilities of the employed
constitutive model, which has proved to satisfactorily capture the ratcheting behaviour
and the progressive soil stiffening under cyclic loading [12,24,25].

Figure 2. (a) Lateral load versus pile head displacement; (b) pile head displacement versus no. of
cycles; (c) moment versus pile head rotation; (d) pile head rotation versus no. of cycles.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 5 of 15

2.2.2. Stress Paths for the Investigated Soil Elements

The application of the cyclic lateral load may cause, for a given soil element, the vari-
ation of all six stress components. However, the inspection of the stress components
variation for the investigated elements revealed that the two components of the shear stress
(τxy and τyz ) outside the x-z plane remained constant with a value close to zero for the
applied cyclic loading, as shown in Figure 3 for the element E1. This observation is quite
advantageous in the context of soil element laboratory testing in which the simultaneous
control of the six stress components is unachievable by the current laboratory element test-
ing capabilities. The hollow-cylinder torsional apparatus (HCTA) is the only experimental
equipment permitting the simultaneous control of up to four stress components (but only
one shear stress component). Therefore, considering the observed stress variation in
Figure 3 and the practical limitation of testing practice, the analysis of the stress compo-
nents for the selected soil elements is limited to those components in the x-z plane which is
parallel to the direction of lateral loading (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Variation of stress components during applied cyclic loading for element E1.

Lateral load

σσz
αασ σ
ττzx σσ1
ττxz
σσx
σσ3

Note:σ σyσ, σ2 is the out of plane stress

Figure 4. Considered stress components in the analysis.

ττ σσ− −σσ
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 6 of 15

The stress path from the FE analysis for the investigated soil element E1 is reported
in Figure 5 in the τxz /p versus (σx − σz )/2/p stress plane, where p is the mean isotropic
stress, a conventional representation plane for hollow-cylinder torsional testing results [26].
For reference, Figure 5 also reports the Matsuoka–Nakai [27] peak failure envelope for the
sand material for an assumed friction angle ϕ of 42◦ , which was the maximum mobilised
friction angle observed in the FE simulations. The applicability of the Matsuoka–Nakai
criterion for the material tested and the loading conditions was demonstrated by Mandolini
et al. [28]. The initial stress for the element E1 lies on the negative side of the (σx –σz )/2/p
as a result of the vertical stress being higher than the horizontal. Application of the cyclic
lateral pile loading induces an inclined stress path, which progressively moves towards
the positive side of the (σx − σz )/2/p as the cyclic loading proceeds but it also seems to
evolute with a decreasing rate. The stress path corresponding to the last loading cycle is
also singled out in Figure 5 and it is characterised by an inclination βc on the assumed
stress plane. Such a stress path produces a rotation of principal stress axes (ασ in Figure 4).
Itαshould
σ
be noted that, since a stress path imposed in a triaxial test would be represented
by a horizontal stress path lying on the (σx − σz )/2/p, σ −such
σ conditions would not be
simulated by triaxial tests.

Figure 5. Stress path for element E1.

Figure 6 summarises the stress paths from FE analysis for all the investigated elements.
Figure 6a reports the variation of the stress paths on elements E1, E2 and E3 located at the
same depth (z/L = 0.15) but with different horizontal radial distances from the pile (x/D =
0.65, 1.0 and 1.35, respectively). The three elements start from a very similar normalised
stress state but reach different final asymptotic stress cycles. As expected, the influence of
the applied cyclic loading decreased with increasing distance from the pile, resulting in a
lower amplitude of the cycle but also in a more limited transition towards the positive side
of the (σx − σz )/2/p. σ
The−σ β with
slope of each of the final cyclic stress loops βc also decreased
distance. Shear stresses in the soil were induced by the shear interface traction between
the pile and the soil and this effect dissipated with increasing distance from the pile.
Figure 6b reports the variation of the stress paths for elements E1, E4 and E5 located at the
same horizontal distance from the pile (x/D = 0.65) but at different depths (z/L = 0.15, 0.5
and 0.85, respectively). Both the amplitude of the cyclic stress loops and the inclination βc
of the stress βpaths were affected by the depth of the considered elements. Elements E1 and
E4 were located above the pile rotation point and were characterised by βc less than 90◦ .
β
β
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 7 of 15

Element E5 lay below the pile rotation point and it was characterised by an inclination βc
of the final stress loop larger than 90◦ .

1 1

0.8 Failure envelope 0.8 Failure envelope

=42° =42°
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.2 -0.2 Element E1
Element E1
Element E2 Element E4
-0.4 -0.4
Element E3 Element E5
-0.6 Initial state -0.6 Initial state

-0.8 -0.8

-1 -1
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Stress path in the normalised shear stress deviatoric stress plane in terms of
Figure 6. Stress path in the normalised shear stress deviatoric stress plane in terms of (a) distance
from the pile shaft; (b) depth.
β
The inclination βc versus numberβ of cycles for varying distances and depths are
β 7a,b, respectively. The βc for all elements approached constant state as
illustrated in Figure β
β
the cyclic loading proceeds. The relationship between the inclination βc of the final stress
β
cycles and the location of the inspected soil element is reported in Figure 7c for varying
distances and in Figure 7d for varying depths. The depth of the soil element had a more
pronounced effect on stress path if compared with the distance from the pile.

β β
Figure 7. (a) Inclination βc versus no. of cycles for varying
β distances; (b) inclination βc versus no. of
β
cycles for varying depths; (c) relationship between inclination βc of last stress cycle and distances;
(d) relationship between inclination βc of last stress cycle and depths.
β β
β
β
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 8 of 15

3. Investigation through Element Testing

3.1. Hollow Cylinder Testing and Stress Notation
The aim of this section was to apply, in laboratory element testing, the stress paths
which mimic those determined using the FE analysis and to assess the impact on the
observed soil behaviour. For this assessment, the stress paths determined through the FE
were simulated in the HCTA, which possesses four degrees of freedom. As highlighted in
Section 2, a clear outcome from the FE analysis was the occurrence of simultaneous variation
of both normal and shear stresses within the inspected elements. Therefore, this exper-
imental assessment focused on investigating the effect of applying such complex stress
paths to a soil element.
In order to facilitate the comparison between the stress paths determined in FE and
those applied in the HCTA, the stress notation presented in Figure 8 was adopted in these
experiments. A 90◦ rotation between the reference stress system of the FE and the HCTA
was applied as shown in Figure 8: the stress σx aligned with the lateral pile load (horizontal)
in FE became the axial stress in a HCTA sample, as shown in Figure 8, while the vertical
stress σz in the FE model became the circumferential stress in the HCTA sample.

3D FE pile model HCTA testing

Lateral load σx
σx τxz
τxz
σz
σz τzx
90° σy
τzx
τxz
σx α
σ1 σ

ασ Pi Po
σ3 σ2
ro ri
Pi: Inner pressure
Po: Outer pressure
ri: Inner radius
Note: σy is the out of plane stress ro: Outer radius

Figure 8. Simplified relationship between reference stress system in the finite element (FE) model
and in hollow-cylinder torsional apparatus (HCTA).

In HCTA testing, the capability of controlling independently four stress components

came at the expense of variation of the stresses within the sample and average stress
quantities needed to be used. In this research, the equations for the calculation of the
average stresses (radial stress σy and circumferential stress σz ) follow Hight et al. [29].
Corrections due to the membrane’s resistances to the applied axial, radial and shear stress
were accounted for using the method suggested by Tatsuoka et al. [30]. However, as the
volume changes due to membrane penetration were found to be negligible, no correction
was applied.
For the following analysis of the experimental data, the stress state of soil elements is
also represented in terms of the mean stress, p, and the generalised deviatoric component
of stress, q defined in Equations (1) and (2):

σx + σz + σy σ + σ2 + σ3
p= = 1 , (1)
3 3
s
(σz − σx )2 + (σx − σy )2 + (σy − σz )2
q= + 3τxz 2 , (2)
2
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 9 of 15

where σ1 , σ2 , and σ3 are the major, intermediate and minor principal stresses, respectively.
The angle between the major principal stress direction and the vertical x-axes in the HCTA,
ασ , is defined as:  
1 2τxz
ασ = tan−1 , (3)
2 σx − σz
Volumetric and deviatoric strain components are also defined in the usual way:

εv = ε x + εy + εz, (4)
√ r
2
2
2 3
εq = ε x − ε y + ε y − ε z + (ε z − ε x )2 + γ2xz , (5)
3 2

3.2. Material and Specimen Preparation

The experimental testing was conducted at the University of Bristol on Hostun RF
(S28) sand, widely characterised in previous studies (i.e., Escribano et al. [31]; Mandolini
et al. [11]). This sand is a standard European material for laboratory testing with a
high siliceous content (SiO2 ) of 98%, angular to subangular grains [32], mean grain size,
D50 = 0.38 mm, coefficient of uniformity, Cu = D60 /D10 = 1.9 and coefficient of gradation
Cg = (D30 )2 /(D10 D60 ) = 0.97. Its maximum and minimum void ratios are emax = 1.00, emin
= 0.62, respectively, while its specific gravity is Gs = 2.65.
The dimensions of hollow cylinder-shaped samples (Figure 8) were: outside radius
(ro ) of 50 mm, inner radius (ri ) of 30 mm and height (H) of 200 mm. The HCTA samples
were fabricated by dry deposition through the use of a funnel ensuring zero height fall.
Following the sand deposition, the sample mould was subjected to a vertically dominated
vibration imposed by a shaker under a frequency of about 50 Hz and acceleration of 2 g,
under a constant light soil surcharge of 2.8 kPa provided by a vertically guided hollow
circular top cap. Once the target density was achieved, the sample was sealed and subjected
to a 20 kPa vacuum pressure prior to the removal of the mould. The sample was then
transferred inside the HCTA and saturated using CO2 together with de-aired water and
back pressure up to 300 kPa applied. Values of B (Skempton coefficient) [33] of at least
0.97 were systematically measured. Further details of the sample fabrication procedure can
be found in Mandolini [28].

3.3. Testing Programme

Three hollow-cylinder torsional tests were carried out, as schematically shown in
Figure 9, while the applied stress conditions and initial void ratio prior to isotropic consoli-
dation (e0 ) are given in Table 2. Considering the observed progressive evolution towards
an asymptotic stress state for all inspected elements, these tests tried to simulate the final
asymptotic stress cycles, characterised by an inclination βc with respect of this horizontal
stress axes.
All the HCTA samples were firstly isotropically consolidated under the confining
stress of 50 kPa (Point A in Figure 9) and then anisotropic stress conditions were reached by
applying an additional deviatoric axial stress of 50 kPa (Point B in Figure 9) to simulate the
intercept of the observed stress paths with the (σx − σz )/2/p. From point B, the samples
were subjected to about 30,000 stress cycles at different inclination βc with a loading
frequency of 0.1 Hz. In order to be able to directly compare the results of the three tests,
the cyclic amplitude was chosen such that the larger mobilised friction angle during
cyclic loading was similar for all tests. A maximum mobilised friction angle ϕm = 28◦
(which is about 75% of the ultimate friction angle for this material), determined using the
Matsuoka-Nakai multiaxial failure criterion, was targeted.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 10 of 15

Test No. 1 0.6

Test No. 2
Test No. 3 0.5 =28°
Anisotropic
consolidation C3
0.4

ασc = 22.5°
0.3 C2

0.2 ασc = 15°

0.1

A B C1
0
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

Figure 9. Schematic representation of stress paths imposed in the HCTA tests.

Table 2. List and details of performed hollow-cylinder torsional tests.

Test Stress ∆σx No.

e0 ∆τxz (kPa) ϕm (◦ ) ασc (◦ ) β c (◦ )
No. Path (kPa) Cycles
σ −σ
1 ABC1 0.83 35 0 0 β 0 30,000
2 ABC2 0.80 21 20.5 28 15 63 30,000
3 ABC3 0.798 7 28.5 22.5 83 26,700

φ
Test 1 considered only the application of normal stress cycles ∆σx = 35 kPa (Point
C1 in Figure 9). Conversely, Test 2 simulated the additional effect of torsional stress
cycles: the sample was subjected to the same cyclic normal stressΔσ amplitude ∆σx = 21
kPa and an additional cyclic shear stress amplitude ∆τxz = 20.5 kPa (Point C2 in Figure
9), both simultaneously applied. This imposed a cyclic rotation of principalΔσ stress axes,
ασc , varying between 0◦ and 15◦ , and it corresponded
Δτ to an inclination of the stress path
βc = 63◦ , which is consistent with the cyclic loading directions observed by the FE analysis.
ασ
The maximum rotation of principal stress axes imposed during this cyclic test is indicated
β
by ασc in Figure 9. It should be noted that the rotation of principal stress direction ασc is
half of the angle formed by the stress path with the horizontal axes.
ασ
Test 3 also simulated the additional effect of torsional stress cycles by imposing
ασ
∆σx = 7 kPa and ∆τxz = 28.5 kPa (Point C3 in Figure 9) to achieve a maximum rotation
of the principal axes ασc of 22.5◦ . This corresponded to an inclination of the stress path
Δσ
βc = 83◦ , as shown in Figure 9.
Δτ
3.4. ExperimentalαResults
σ β
The observed deviatoric stress (q) versus deviatoric strain (εq ) for all the three tests
is reported in Figure 10. The three tests follow the same stress path from point A to B,
which represents the transition from the initial isotropic stress to the precyclic anisotropic
stress condition. From point B, the stress paths applied in the three ε tests become different.
The application of inclined stress paths in the τxz /p versus (σx − σz )/2/p results in a
slightly larger maximum applied deviatoric stress despite the same maximum mobilised
friction angle. It is also clear that the application of stress paths involving reorientation of
τ
the principal stress axes induce a larger development σ − strain,
of plastic σ both in the first and
the following cycles. As expected, the plastic deformations accumulated in the first cycle
are much larger than those in the consecutive cycles. As the cyclic loading progresses, a
gradual sand stiffening occurs in combination with reduced plastic dissipation. The soil
response seems to progressively transition from ratcheting to shakedown. Figure 11 reports
the trend of accumulated deviatoric strain versus number of cycles for the three tests. While
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 11 of 15

φ three tests were similar, a remarkable change in the

the mobilised friction angles ϕm in all
φ
amount of accumulated deviatoric strain can be observed among the tests.

ασ ασ ασ
Figure 10. Deviatoric stress versus deviatoric strain trends for (a) Test 1, ασc = 0◦ ; (b) Test 2, ασc =
ασ ασ ασ
15◦ ; and (c) Test 3, ασc = 22.5◦ .

ε
Figure 11. Evolution of deviatoricγstrain versus number of cycles for the three tests.

The analysis of the accumulation of the main strain components, axial strain (εεx ) and
torsional strain (γγxz ), during the application of the cycles is presented in Figure 12. For all
tests and both strain types, the accumulation was nonlinear with a more pronounced
accumulation rate at the start of the cyclic loading and approaching
ε
a steady rate at large
number of cycles.
Figure 12a shows that the amount of permanent axial deformations increases with the
applied rotation of principal stress axes despite the lower amplitude of the axial stress loop.
The amplitude of recoverable variation of εx within ε a single cycle appears to diminish
with the decrease of the applied cyclic axial stress amplitude. However, the progressive
accumulation of permanent axial deformations had an opposite trend, and it increased
with higher cyclic torsional stress amplitudes. This suggests that there was an important
coupling between cyclic torsional stresses and accumulated axial strains which should be
considered when modelling pile–soil interaction problems, as it may affect the evolution
of the strain field around the pile and, in turn, its displacement and rotation. Conversely,
the axial stress does not seem to have influenced the accumulation of torsional strains
(Figure 12b). This coupling is expected to be related to the shear stress–dilatancy relation-
ship, which links shearing to plastic volumetric (and thus axial) deformation and should
be properly captured during the application of long-term cyclic loading.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 12 of 15

Figure 12. Strain accumulation curves in terms of (a) axial strain and (b) torsional strain with varying
cyclic directions.
τ σ −σ
Figure 13 reports the trends of accumulated torsional shearτ versus axial σstrains,
− σ show-
ing that the application of inclined stress paths in the τxz /p versus (σx − σz )/2/p resulted
in inclined trends of accumulation in a similar strain plane. The strain paths for individual
cycles demonstrate that the application of torsional stress resulted in negligible elastic
(recoverable) variations of axial strains but important development of plastic deformation.

αε
αε

Figure 13. Relationship between torsional strain and axial strain for all three tests.

Figure 14 analyses the relationship between the direction of the accumulated plastic
strain ααεacc
ε and the orientation of principal stress axis for the three tests. The orientation of
direction of the accumulated plastic strain ααεaccε is defined as:
 
1 −1 2γxz
αεacc = tan , (6)
2 ε x −ε z
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 13 of 15

Figure 14. Relationship between orientation of accumulated strain and imposed cyclic reorientation
of principal stress axes.

The results show that larger inclinations of accumulated plastic strains were obtained
with larger imposed rotation of principal stress axes during cyclic loading. The maximum
orientation of plastic strain accumulation was obtained for the first cycle and gradually
decreased during the following cycle as ratcheting occurs. It also appears that an asymptotic
state was targeted as shakedown conditions were approached.
Overall, these experimental results highlight the importance of considering the re-
orientation of principal stress axes on the magnitude and direction of strain accumulation.
In the context of analysis of cyclic laterally loaded piles, it appears that this feature should
be accurately captured by constitutive if reliable predictions of pile performance and pile–
soil interaction have to be achieved. In constitutive modelling, improved simulations
under the challenging conditions of rotation of principal stress axes may be obtained
using the anisotropic critical state theory which was introduced in SANISAND for mono-
tonic loading in the multiaxial stress space [34]. Indeed, appropriate laboratory testing
accounting for reorientation of principal stress axes will be also necessary to calibrate such
material response.

4. Conclusions
This study employed advanced 3D finite element modelling of a monopile in sand
subjected to cyclic lateral loading to investigate the stress paths experienced by surrounding
soil elements in order to inform an element laboratory testing program and assess which
laboratory procedures closely align with field situations. The 3D finite element model
employed the latest developments in cyclic soil constitutive modelling and considered the
application of 80 lateral loading cycles. The assessment of the stress paths was limited to
soil elements in front of the laterally loaded piles. The FE reveals that a conventional triaxial
test was not appropriate to simulate the response of a soil element located in front of the
pile. Informed by the 3D finite element model, the laboratory element testing program was
carried out using the HCTA, imposing stress paths starting from an initial anisotropic stress
state and inducing different reorientations of the principal stress axes. The conclusions of
this numerical and experimental work can be summarised as follows:
• The 3D finite element analysis has shown that soil elements in front of the pile undergo
complex stress paths involving the cyclic variation of four stress components (three
normal stress and one shear stress). The variation of the four stress components is
compatible with capability of laboratory testing using the HCTA.
• Analysis of the stress paths in the torsional versus deviatoric stress plane (typically
used for HCTA testing) has revealed a quite complex evolution of the stress paths
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 14 of 15

to reach an asymptotic final cyclic stress condition. The amplitude, location and
inclination of the asymptotic stress conditions depends on the location (distance and
depth) of the inspected element with respect to the pile.
• The stress path experienced by soil elements in front of cyclic laterally loaded pile may
be simulated through cyclic HCTA tests employing stress conditions starting from
an initial anisotropic purely deviatoric state and featuring stress cycles characterised
by simultaneous variation of axial and torsional stress. This would result in a cyclic
reorientation of principal stress axes.
• Comparison of HCTA tests imposing different amounts of cyclic rotation of principal
stress axes (including the case of no rotation, typically of conventional triaxial testing)
has revealed an important influence of this rotation on the magnitude and direction of
accumulated plastic strains.
• In the context of analysis of cyclic laterally loaded piles, it appears that the accurate
prediction of magnitude and direction of accumulated plastic strains is necessary
to achieve a reliable estimate of the pile–soil interaction mechanism and pile perfor-
mances. This will require both a constitutive model able to capture such features as
well as its calibration with appropriate laboratory soil testing to account for the effect
of rotation of the principal stress axes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.D. and E.I.; formal analysis, X.C. and A.D.; investiga-
tion, X.C.; resources, A.D. and E.I.; writing—original draft preparation, X.C.; writing—review and
editing, X.C., A.D., E.I., F.P. and H.L.; supervision, A.D. and E.I. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the first Author
from China Scholarship Council (CSC) and University of Bristol.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ramírez, L.; Fraile, D.; Brindley, G. Offshore Wind in Europe: Key Trends and Statistics 2019; WindEurope: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
2. Burd, H.J.; Taborda, D.M.; Zdravković, L.; Abadie, C.N.; Byrne, B.W.; Houlsby, G.T.; Gavin, K.G.; Igoe, D.J.; Jardine, R.J.; Martin,
C.M.; et al. PISA design model for monopiles for offshore wind turbines: Application to a marine sand. Géotechnique 2020,
70, 1048–1066. [CrossRef]
3. Byrne, B.W.; Houlsby, G.T.; Burd, H.J.; Gavin, K.G.; Igoe, D.J.; Jardine, R.J.; Martin, C.M.; McAdam, R.A.; Potts, D.M.; Taborda,
D.M.; et al. PISA design model for monopiles for offshore wind turbines: Application to a stiff glacial clay till. Géotechnique 2020,
70, 1030–1047. [CrossRef]
4. Randolph, M.F.; Houlsby, G.T. The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Geotechnique 1984,
34, 613–623. [CrossRef]
5. Fan, C.-C.; Long, J.H. Assessment of existing methods for predicting soil response of laterally loaded piles in sand. Comput.
Geotech. 2005, 32, 274–289. [CrossRef]
6. Won, J.Y.; Suroor, H.; Jang, S.; Seo, H. Strain ε50 and stiffness ratio (E50/Su) for Gulf of Mexico clays. In Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics, III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2015), Oslo, Norway, 10–12
June 2015; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 1121–1126.
7. Ahmed, S.S.; Hawlader, B. Numerical analysis of large-diameter monopiles in dense sand supporting offshore wind turbines.
Int. J. Geomech. 2016, 16, 04016018. [CrossRef]
8. Andersen, K.H.; Puech, A.A.; Jardine, R.J. Cyclic resistant geotechnical design and parameter selection for offshore engineering
and other applications. In Design for Cyclic Loading: Piles and Other Foundations, Proceedings of the TC-209 Workshop, Paris, France, 4
September 2013; Presses des Ponts: Paris, France, 2013; pp. 9–44.
9. Wichtmann, T.; Niemunis, A.; Triantafyllidis, T. On the influence of the polarization and the shape of the strain loop on strain
accumulation in sand under high-cyclic loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 27, 14–28. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 101 15 of 15

10. Tong, Z.X.; Zhang, J.M.; Yu, Y.L.; Zhang, G. Drained deformation 635 behavior of anisotropic sands during cyclic rotation of
principal stress axes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 136, 1509–1518. [CrossRef]
11. Mandolini, A.; Diambra, A.; Ibraim, E. Stiffness of granular soils under long-term multiaxial cyclic loading. Géotechnique 2020,
1–17. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, H.Y.; Abell, J.A.; Diambra, A.; Pisanò, F. Modelling the cyclic ratcheting of sands through memory-enhanced bounding
surface plasticity. Géotechnique 2019, 69, 783–800. [CrossRef]
13. Corti, R.; Diambra, A.; Wood, D.M.; Escribano, D.E.; Nash, D.F. Memory surface hardening model for granular soils under
repeated loading conditions. J. Eng. Mech. 2016, 142, 04016102. [CrossRef]
14. Kementzetzidis, E.; Corciulo, S.; Versteijlen, W.G.; Pisanò, F. Geotechnical aspects of offshore wind turbine dynamics from 3D
non-linear soil-structure simulations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 120, 181–199. [CrossRef]
15. Mckenna, F.T. Object-Oriented Finite Element Programming: Frameworks For Analysis, Algorithms And Parallel Computing.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1997.
16. McGann, C.R.; Arduino, P.; Mackenzie-Helnwein, P. A stabilized single-point finite element formulation for three-dimensional
dynamic analysis of saturated soils. Comput. Geotech. 2015, 66, 126–141. [CrossRef]
17. Griffiths, D.V. Numerical modeling of interfaces using conventional finite elements. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, Japan, 1–5 April 1985; pp. 837–844.
18. Dafalias, Y.F.; Manzari, M.T. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. J. Eng. Mech. 2004, 130, 622–634.
[CrossRef]
19. Fan, S.; Bienen, B.; Randolph, M.F. Centrifuge study on effect of installation method on lateral response of monopiles in sand. Int.
J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2019, 1–13. [CrossRef]
20. Heins, E.; Bienen, B.; Randolph, M.F.; Grabe, J. Effect of installation method on static and dynamic load test response for piles in
sand. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2020, 20, 1–23. [CrossRef]
21. Staubach, P.; Machaček, J.; Moscoso, M.C.; Wichtmann, T. Impact of the installation on the long-term cyclic behaviour of piles in
sand: A numerical study. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 138, 106223. [CrossRef]
22. LeBlanc, C.; Houlsby, G.T.; Byrne, B.W. Response of stiff piles in sand to long-term cyclic lateral loading. Géotechnique 2010,
60, 79–90. [CrossRef]
23. Roesen, H.R.; Ibsen, L.B.; Andersen, L.V. Experimental testing of monopiles in sand subjected to one-way long-term cyclic lateral
loading. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France, 2–6
September 2013; pp. 2391–2394.
24. Liu, H.Y.; Diambra, A.; Abell, J.A.; Pisanò, F. Memory-Enhanced plasticity modeling of sand behavior under undrained cyclic
loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020122. [CrossRef]
25. Corti, R.; Gourvenec, S.M.; Randolph, M.F.; Diambra, A. Application of a memory surface model to predict whole-life settlements
of a sliding foundation. Comput. Geotech. 2017, 88, 152–163. [CrossRef]
26. Ishihara, K.; Towhata, I. Sand response to cyclic rotation of principal stress directions as induced by wave loads. Soils Found. 1983,
23, 11–26. [CrossRef]
27. Matsuoka, H.; Nakai, T. Stress-Deformation and strength characteristics of soil under three different principal stresses. Proc. JSCE
1974, 59–70. [CrossRef]
28. Mandolini, A.; Diambra, A.; Ibraim, E. Strength anisotropy of fibre-reinforced sands under multiaxial loading. Géotechnique 2019,
69, 203–216. [CrossRef]
29. Hight, D.W.; Gens, A.; Symes, M.J. The development of a new hollow cylinder apparatus for investigating the effects of principal
stress rotation in soils. Géotechnique 1983, 33, 355–383. [CrossRef]
30. Tatsuoka, F.; Sonoda, S.; Hara, K.; Fukushima, S.; Pradhan, T.B. Failure and deformation of sand in torsional shear. Soils Found.
1986, 26, 79–97. [CrossRef]
31. Escribano, D.E.; Nash, D.F.; Diambra, A. Local and global volumetric strain comparison in sand specimens subjected to drained
cyclic and monotonic triaxial compression loading. Geotech. Test. J. 2018, 42, 1006–1030. [CrossRef]
32. Ibraim, E.; Diambra, A.; Russell, A.R.; Wood, D.M. Assessment of laboratory sample preparation for fibre reinforced sands.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2012, 34, 69–79. [CrossRef]
33. Skempton, A.W. The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. Géotechnique 1954, 4, 143–147. [CrossRef]
34. Petalas, A.L.; Dafalias, Y.F.; Papadimitriou, A.G. SANISAND-F: Sand constitutive model with evolving fabric anisotropy. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 2020, 188, 12–31. [CrossRef]