Computers and Geotechnics 12 (1991 ) 149-1 62

TECHNICAL NOTE

SOME NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS WITH A THREE DIMENSIONAL

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF A LATERALLY LOADED PILE

Dan A. Brown and Chine-Feng Shie

Department of Civil Engineering
Harbert Engineering Center
Auburn University, AL 36849-5337 U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the results of several numerical experiments performed with a three
dimensional finite element model of a laterally loaded pile. The experiments are used to investigate
the effect of several factors on the p-y curves derived from the model. The three dimensional finite
element model utilizes a plasticity model for soil with interface elements which allow gap
formation; the model has been described by Brown and Shie (I). P-y curves are widely used in
design because of the relative simplicity of the beam on elastic foundation approach and the ability
of design p-y curves to represent nonlinear soil behavior. However, it is recognized that this
procedure does not represent the soil as a continuum and that the relative importance of some
possibly significant factors may be obscured. The procedures used to develop p-y curves are
largely empirical.
P-y curves derived from the three dimensional finite element model are used in this study
to investigate the effect on the soil response of pilehead fixity, in-situ soil stresses, pile/soil
interface friction, and sloping ground. The results provide the type of information needed to
intelligently utilize the p-y method in the design process.

INTRODUCTION

A commonly used technique for design of piles for lateral loading utilizes the Winkler beam-
on-elastic foundation model with nonlinear springs (p-y curves) to model the soil response. The
p-y curves used in design are largely empirical, with procedures derived from field load tests.
While this approach certainly captures the important aspects of soil response which were present
in the experimental data base, uncertainty exists regarding the effect of variables which were not
149
Computers and GeotechnicsO266-352X/91/$03.50 © 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers
Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
 150

present in the experiments but which may affect design.

This paper describes the results of a series of three dimensional finite element analyses of
laterally loaded piles in soil which includes the provision for plastic yield as well as gapping and
slippage at the pile-soil interface. This model has been shown to capture the nonlinearity inherent
in the problem in terms of both geometry and material behavior; details relating to the basic
computational model and data reduction techniques are presented elsewhere (1). The three
dimensional nature of the problem and the high degree of nonlinearity which is present require an
enormous computational effort and is not proposed for routine design. Rather, the model is used
to perform parametric studies of relevant parameters so as to provide rational guidelines for design.
The numerical experiments described in this paper include investigations into the effect on
the soil response of pilehead fixity, in-situ soil stresses, pile/soil interface friction, and sloping
ground. Each of these considerations have been analyzed with respect to their effect upon the soil
p-y curves derived from the model for comparison with p-y curves obtained from the control case.

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONOF MODEL

The finite element model consists of 27 node brick elements arranged as shown in Figure
1. Two symmetric boundaries are used, one through the centerline of the pile and a second through
a point equidistant between piles in a row. The problem analyzed thus consists of an infinite row
of piles, with the spacing controlled by the width of the model in the x-direction. Studies on the
effect of pile spacing (2) appear to indicate that a model width suitable to represent a pile spacing
of 10 diameters center to center is a reasonable approximation of a single pile for large deformation
problems (which have significant soil nonlinear behavior).
The pile was modelled using linear elastic solid elements arranged to produce a circular
shape. A value of Young's modulus was selected to provide a bending stiffness equal to that of
a 10.75 inch (273mm) diameter pipe pile with 3/8 inch (9.5ram) wall thickness. The model pile
is 180 inches long, and is fixed against rotation at the base.
Although different types of constitutive models for soil have been used (1), for the work
reported in this paper the soil has been modelled using a simple elastic-plastic constitutive model
which provides a constant yield strength Von Mises envelope. This material model includes a
uniaxial yield strength (limit compressive stress, = 2SJ of 8psi (55kPa), a Young's modulus of
 151

Figure 1 View of the Three Dimensional Mesh with Pile Displaced Laterally

1600psi (ll000kPa), and Poisson's ratio of 0.45. This model is thought to provide a reasonable
representation of the nonlinear behavior of saturated clay during undrained static loading.
The pile/soil interface was modelled with 18 node interface elements which provide for no
forces transmitted across the interface upon separation and frictional behavior when the surfaces
are in contact. The friction coefficient is taken as equal to tan 23° in most instances (except those
cases in which pile/soil friction was intentionally varied). To more realistically model the interface
and to add numerical stability, an elastic stiffness is included which allows a limited amount of
shear deformation before slippage takes place.
Analyses were performed on the Cray X/MP24 supercomputer of the Alabama
Supercomputer Network. Typical runs to produce a pilehead deflection of 1.5 inches (38. lmm)
required on the order of 3 to 6 hours of CPU time.
Stresses in the pile were used to determine bending moment in the pile as a function of
depth. These bending moment data were used to derive load transfer curves, i.e. p-y curves which
are typically used for design of piles for lateral loading. These p-y curves represent nonlinear
springs for use with a beam on elastic foundation solution. Procedures used to derive p-y curves
are similar to that used with measured strains from physical experiments and are provided in
 152

reference (1).

THE EFFECT OF IN-SITU STRESSES ON SOIL RESPONSE

The relative contibution of soil unit weight on soil resistance was examined by performing
analyses with both weightless soil elements and with soil elements having a gravitational body
force. For the weighted soil elements, the in-situ horizontal stress in the ground was varied by
specifying different initial stress conditions so as to vary Ko (the ratio of horizontal to vertical
stress) from 0.5 to 1.5. A computational step in the analysis was provided with only gravitational
body forces applied to ensure that the horizontal stresses at the pile/soil interface were in
equilibrium; however, no significant changes from the initial stress conditions were observed during
this step in any of these runs.
Pilehead load-deformation plots, provided on Figure 2, indicate that the soil unit weight
represents a small but significant portion of
load resistance in the pile response. The I 1 ~ - "

pile response appears to be relatively 30.0

insensitive to the in-situ horizontal stress in
the ground. Maximum bending moments "~ 20.0
_9
°
in the pile in each of these cases were
nearly identical.
~0.0
Plots of load transfer (p-y) curves at
•- - - .07pci soil, K o = 1 . 5
selected depths are shown on Figure 3.
0.0
These data demonstrate a similar trend in 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
that the effect of Ko appears to be Displacement (.y), in.
negligable, but soil unit weight contributes
Figure 2 Load vs Displacement, Varying Soil
significantly to soil resistance. It is
Weight and ln-Situ Stress Conditions (lin. =2.54cm,
instructive to compare the results with lkip =4.45kN)
respect to soil weight to the typically used
design rules governing p-y curves in clay soil.
 153

500.0 1 I 500.0 I I
c

400.0 400.0

300.0 ~ 300.0

o 200.0 200.0 oil

* - ~ .07pci soil, Ko=0.5 -~- ~ .07pci soil, Ko=0.5
rY 100.0 .07pci soil, Ko=1.0 a: 100.0 *---* .07pci soil, Ko=l.0
o .07pci soil, Ko=1.5- o , ~ .07pcl soil, Ko=1.5-
03

0.0 , I , I J 0.0- I , I ,

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Displacement (y), in. Displacement (y), in.

a) Depth = 1.4(Dia.) b) Depth = 2.7(Dia.)

Hgure 3 P-Y Curves, Varying Soil Weight and ln-Situ Stress (lin. =2.54cm, lib. =4.45N)

A widely used design equation for estimating p-y curves in clay soil is that posed by
Mafloek (3), in which the maximum soil resistance, P,, is defined according to:
P. = N~cb
N¢ = 3 + (3'/c)x + (J/b)x
where:
c = soil undrained shear strength
3' = soil unit weight
x = depth below ground surface
b = pile diameter
J = empirical constant, usually taken as 0.5 for soft clays

With the values of c--4psi(27.6kPa) and b = 10.75in. (27.3cm), the relative contribution of
the unit weight term in this equation is calculated; the increase in soil resistance provided by this
term compared to a weightless soil is compared with that observed from the finite element analyses
in Table I.
 1 54

TABLE I Percent Increase in P. due to Soil Unit Weight

x/b FEM Results Matlpck Fan

0.4 5% 2%
1.4 7% 7%
2.7 10% 12%
4.4 14% 16%

While the actual percent increase in Pu would vary with soil shear strength, the FEM data
presented in Table I suggest that the contribution of soil unit weight in the existing Matlock criteria
are reasonably correct for soft clays.
The results of the FEM analyses also suggest that the in-situ state of stress in the soil is not
a major factor affectingp-y response, based on total stress analyses using undrained shear strengths.
However, the total stress analyses performed in this study do not consider the effect of the in-situ
state of stress on the mobilized shear strength. Most p-y criteria are based on strength data
obtained from conventional UU triaxial compression tests, and the actual undrained shear strength
would certainly be affected by the "stress path" in the soil and thus affected by the in-situ stress
conditions. If analyses are to be performed using total stress strength parameters, then one should
ideally perform undrained strength tests which reflect the in-situ stresses and loading conditions.

THE EFFECT OF PR.EHEAD FIXITY ON SOIL RESPONSE

The relative effect of pilehead fixity on the p-y curves derived from the model was
investigated by analyzing the laterally loaded pile in both the "pinned" condition in which the lateral
shear or displacement at the pilehead is specified with the pilehead free to rotate, and the "fixed"
condition in which the shear at the pilehead is specified with the pilehead nodes restrained in the
vertical direction. The latter ease provides the extreme of rotational restraint which could be
provided by a pilecap or rigid frame connected to the top of the pile. If, as is commonly assumed
for design, thep-y curves are not affected by pilehead restraint conditions, then p-y curves derived
from these two models for identical soils should be similar, even though the pile response differs.
 155

500.0 I i ' I 500.0 I I 1

%
,o
400.0 z~. 400.0
°

i 300.0 i 300.0
200.0 200,0
o
n," .-4 No Rotation at top ---. No Rotation et top
100.0 " 100,0

0.0 a I , l l
0.0- I , I ~ I ,

0.0 I .O 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Displacement (y), in. Displacement (y). in.

a) Depth = 1.4(Dia.) d) Depth = 2.7(Dia.)

Figure 4 P-F Curves, Varying Pilehead Restraint Conditions (lin. --2.54cm, llb. =4.45N)

Plots of load transfer (p-y) curves at several selected depths are shown on Figure 4. The
data presented on these plots appear to indicate that the p-y curves derived from these two models
suggest that the pay curves are not significantly affected by pilehead restraint conditions. The p-y
curves from the pile which is fixed against rotation are observed to have a slightly higher maximum
soil resistance (P~). However, p-y curves which are used for design are generally based upon data
extracted from load tests in which the pile was free to rotate at the top, and thus would be expected
to reflect the more conservative condition at the shallow depths.
Based upon these analyses, it appears that the conventional p-y curves used for design may
be used for design of piles which are restrained against rotation with only a small and probably
negligable penalty of conservatism with respect to soil resistance at very shallow depths.

THE EFFECT OF PILE/SOILFRICTIONON SOIL RESPONSE

The relative importance of interface elements which allow gap formation has been
demonstrated by Trochanis, et al (3) and Bhowmik and Long (4). In addition to gap formation on
the trailing side of the pile, slippage occurs around the pile when the pile/soil contact is modelled
 156

as a frictional interface. The soil resistance transferred to the pile is mobilized as a combination
of normal stress and frictional resistance (1) around the perimeter to the point at which separation
OCCURS.

The relative effect of the frictional

resistance at the pile/soil interface has been 30.0

f
examined by analyzing the lateral load response
.E
with varying friction coefficients at the 20.0
interface. Presented on Figure 5 is the lateral
load-deflection response for three cases: 1)
"full" friction, analyzed with an interface
friction angle of 23", 2) "half" friction, with an
(p
10.0 /~ full interface frlctlon-
half interface friction
zero interface friction
interface friction coefficient equal to half of 0.0 I i I i

that used in case I, or an interface friction 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

angle of 12", and 3) a frictionless interface. Displacement (y), in.

The results shown on Figure 5 appear

Figure5 Load vs Displacement, Varying
to indicate that the pile response is significantly
Interface Friction (lin. =2.54cm, lkip=4.45kN)
affected by the interface friction, but relatively
insensitive to the friction coefficient. This trend is also apparent in the p-y curves derived from
these models and shown on Figure 6. Note that the effect of interface friction on the soil resistance
mobilized is primarily an effect on the maximum soil resistance mobilized at a particular depth.
An examination of the stresses at the pile/soil interface appears to indicate that this reduction
in maximum soil resistance is probably proportional to the net horizontal resultant force due to
friction around the perimeter of the pile. Shown on Figure 7 are plots of normal stress and shear
stress at the centroids of the interface elements at a depth to diameter ratio (z/d) of 2.7. Data
plotted are for a lateral displacement at the pilehead of 0.45in.(I. 14era). Trends at other depths
were similar. Each point plotted represents the center of an interface element with the exception
of the point at 90*; the three elements on the trailing side of the pile were gapped open, and so the
normal stress was zero in the range of 90* to 180. from the load direction. Note that the total
normal stresses are similar for the three cases, with some tendency for increased normal stress in
the "off-line" direction with decreasing interface friction. The frictional resistance made up a much
smaller component of the load transfer and appears to account for the relative difference in the soil
 1 57

500.0 500.0 I

400.0 400.0

300.0 300.0

8 200.0 .6 200.0
"6 -~
o: 100.0 f .--,ha. i~te~face f~i~!?._ ~" 100.0
•~ ~ zero interface friction
u~ U9
I I i
0.0 - ' l , 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Displacement (y), in. Displacement (y). in.

a) Depth -- 1.4(Dia.) b) Depth = 2.7(Dia.)

Figure 6 P-¥ Curves, Varying Interface Friction Conditions (lin. =2.54cm, lib. =4.45N)

40 I I I I 40 | I I I " --I
J
•---- full friction t
"E30= H half friction "R3o •---- full friction I
.~ ,.--* zero friction d =---- half friction "~

~ 2o J

0 ' - 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Angle f r o m load direction, degree Angle f r o m load direction, degree

Figure 7 Interface Shear and Normal Stresses at Depth -- 2.7(Dia.) and at Pilehead
Displacement = 0.45in. (lpsi=6.9kPa, 1in. =2.54cm)

resistance observ~ in the p-y curves.

In summary, it is clear that an appropriate finite element model of the laterally loaded pile
problem must include provisions for slippage and gapping at the pile/soil interface, and frictional
 158

resistance at the pile/soil interface contributes a significant portion of the soil resistance which is
mobilized relative to a frictionless interface. The lateral load response of the pile is not particularly
sensitive to the friction coefficient used at the interface, so long as frictional behavior is provided.

THE EFFECT OF SLOPING GROUND ON SOIL RESPONSE

The three dimensional model was modified such that the soil surface had a continuous slope
downward in the direction of pile loading so as to model the problem of a laterally loaded pile on
a slope. The effect of the in-situ stresses in the soil on a slope was such that some lateral deflection
and bending in the pile was induced before any lateral load was applied; all of the discussion and
figures in this section are taken as relative to the position prior to lateral loading, and thus do not
include deflections caused by "gravity" due to the sloping soil.
The response of piles to lateral loading
on slopes of either 15° (approximately 3.75:1 30.0 ' I ' I ' ' !
slope) or 30* (approximately 1.75:1) have been
analyzed and compared to the response under
20.0
similar conditions with level ground.

laterally loaded piles on these two slopes,

along with the level ground response.
Shown
on Figure 8 are the load-deformation plots for

The
-~
"J
"O
~ 10.0
~-
~ound
|
reduction in load transfer at a given
0.0 I I I J
displacement due to the effect of the downslope 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
loading is most notable in the higher, more Displacement, in.
nonlinear range, with only a slight reduction in
Figure 8 Load vs Displacement for Piles on
stiffness at small displacements.
Sloping Ground (lin. =2.54cm, lkip=4.45kN)
As shown on Figure 9, peak bending
moments are somewhat larger for the downslope loadings at a given pilehead load with an increase
in maximum bending moment of about 8 percent for the 30° slope over that for level ground. Note
that the plotted values of bending moment are normalized by the pilebead shear to allow comparison
of moments at a similar pilehcad shear value.
 159

60,0 I I I I I ] l I

°c_
50,0

40,0
0
=- 30.0
I)
0.
20.0
C
Q

oE
"5
10.0
I I I I I I I I
0.0-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Depth, in.

Figure 9 Bending Moment vs Depth for Piles on Sloping Ground (lin. =2.54em)

500.0 I ' I
, ; 500.0 ' ' ' I
¢-
•---, Level Ground
15 Deg. - Y
4 ]
"%. 400.0
.a 30 Deg. - Y
°

"" 300.0 ®
300.0 -]I
U
=.-
0
200.0 200.0 vel Ground
ol
® "~ . ~ 15 Deg. - Y -:
OC
r~ 100.0 ~ 30 Deg. - Y _~
o 100.0
03

, I ~ I = I ~ 0.0 = I ~ I , I , I
O.O
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Displacement (y),in. Displacement (y),in.

a) Depth = 1.4(Dia.) b) Depth = 2.7(Dia.)

Figure 10 P-Y Curves, Piles in Sloping Ground (lin. =2.54em, lib. =4.45N)

Plots of load transfer (p-y) curves at several selected depths are shown on Figure 10. The
 160

data presented on these plots indicate that the effect of sloping ground on the p-y curves derived
from these models is most significant at shallow depths, and then only with respect to the maximum
soil resistance, Pu- Reductions in P, due to slope effects relative to the level ground case have been
calculated from these curves and are summarized in Table II.
Note that the trend in these data indicate that the effect of slope diminishes with depth below
the surface, the effect of sloping ground increases significantly with increasing slope, and the effect
on P, is typically less than 30% in most cases. These trends are somewhat different from those
predicted by Gabr and Borden (6,7) from a limit equilibrium analysis of P, based on a presumed
passive failure wedge. Although their procedure is limited to c-$ soils with ~b greater than the
slope angle, these authors suggest a much larger reduction in P, with the effects less significantly
diminished with depth. Direct comparison of this procedure for ~ = 0 soil is not possible.

TABLE II Approximate Percent Decrease in P. due to Sloping Ground Surface

x/b 1~° Slooe 30* Slooe

0.4 32% 50%
1.4 19% 35%
2.7 8% 21%
4.4 -3% 3%

SUMMARY

A series of numerical experiments have been performed using a three dimensional finite
element model to investigate the effect of several factors on the p-y curves derived from the model.
As a result of these studies, several conclusions may be drawn with respect to the p-y curves
typically used for design in clay soils:
* The relative magnitude of the effect of soil unit weight included in the Matlock criteria for
 161

the maximum soil resistance, P,, for soft clays appears to agree with the FEM results. The
effect of K. for total stress analyses in clay soils is relatively small.
* The rotational restraint at the pilehead had a small but noticeable effect upon the p-y curves
derived from the model, and the p-y criteria used in design do not have a means of
accounting for this effect. Because the criteria used for design were generally derived from
test piles which were free to rotate at the top during lateral loading, and because the p-y
curves derived from the restrained head condition were somewhat stronger, it can be
concluded that the design procedures using existing 9-y criteria are slightly conservative with
respect to this effect. The increase in soil resistance associated with pilehead restraint
appears sufficiently small to be ignored for design purposes, and neglecting this effect
appears to be conservative.
* It is important that a finite element model of laterally loaded piles include elements which
properly model the slippage and gapping at the pile/soil interface. A frictional interface
model appears to appropriately represent the pile/soil contact. The results of this research
indicate that the mobilized soil resistance is not particularly sensitive to the interface friction
angle, so long as some frictional resistance is included; a perfectly frictionless interface
resulted in a significant reduction in P,.
* Lateral loading of a pile on sloping ground in the downslope direction resulted in a
reduction in Pu, with not much effect on the stiffness of the p-y curves at small deflection.
In general, this reduction was on the order of 30% or less and diminished with increasing
depth. The effect of slope observed for C,=0 soils in this research was significantly less
than the effect predicted in the limit equilibrium model proposed by Gabr and Borden (6,7)
for c-C, soils with C, greater than the slope angle.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research described in this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science
Foundation, for which the authors arc most appreciative. In addition, the authors gratefully
acknowledge the support through computational resources which were provided by the Alabama
Supercomputer Network and the Auburn University Engineering Experiment Station.
 162

REFERENCES

1. Brown, D.A. and Shie, C.F., Three Dimensional Finite Element Model of Laterally Loaded
Piles. Comouters and Geotechnics, Voi. 10, No. 1, 1990, pp. 59-79.
2. Brown, D.A. and Shie, C.F., Numerical Experiments into Group Effects on the Response of
Piles to Lateral Loading. Comauters and Geotechnic$, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1990, pp. 2tl-230.
3. Maflock, H., Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Paper No. OTC
1204, Proceedings. Second Annual Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas, Vol.
1, 1970, pp. 577-594.
4. Troehanis, A.M., Bielak, J., and Christiano, P., Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Study of Piles
and Simplified Models. pl'oceedings. A~CE Gcgtechnical Engineering Congress, Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 27, Vol. I, 1991, pp. 356-366.
5. Bhowmik, S.K., and Long, J.H., An Analytical Investigation of the Behavior of Laterally
Loaded Piles. Proceedin2s. ASCE Get}technical Engineering Congress, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 27, Vol. II, 1991, pp. 1307-1318.
6. Gabr, M.A. and Borden, R.H., Lateral Analysis of Piers Constructed on Slopes. JOurnal of
Geoteehnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. GT12, Dec., 1990, pp. 1831-1850.
7. Borden, R.H. and Gabr, M.A., LTBASE: Computer Program for Laterally Loaded Pier
Analysis Including Base and Slope Effects. Report of Center for Transportation Engineering
Studies, N.C. State Univ., July, 1987, 215p.

Received 23 July 1991 ; revised version received 25 October 1991 "accepted 30 October
1991