Int J Civ Eng
DOI 10.1007/s40999-016-0072-8
RESEARCH PAPER
Nonlinear Analysis of Single Laterally Loaded Piles in Clays Using
Modified Strain Wedge Model
Ling-Yu Xu1 • Fei Cai2 • Guo-Xin Wang3 • Guo-Xing Chen1
Received: 30 June 2016 / Revised: 22 September 2016 / Accepted: 26 September 2016
Ó Iran University of Science and Technology 2016
Abstract This paper proposes a modified strain wedge
(MSW) model for nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded
single piles in clays. The MSW model is used to calculate
the soil resistance under increasing pile deflection. The
stress–strain behavior of clays in the MSW, which is nee-
ded to calculate the soil resistance, is described in terms of
both hyperbolic and bilinear stress–strain relationships.
The subgrade reaction modulus of soil below the MSW is
assumed to equal the conventional subgrade reaction
modulus and to remain constant under the lateral loading of
the pile. The applicability of the proposed model was
verified by eight case histories. The results indicate that (1)
the predicted results are consistent with the measurements
for all eight full-scale tested piles; (2) the bilinear stress–
strain relationship is not recommended for clays because
the clays usually have a large e50 and, thus, they exhibit a
linear behavior in the MSW during loading; (3) the pre-
dicted pile response is less sensitive to the effective friction
& Fei Cai
feicai@gunma-u.ac.jp
Ling-Yu Xu
lyxu@njtech.edu.cn
Guo-Xin Wang
gxwang@dlut.edu.cn
Guo-Xing Chen
gxchen@njtech.edu.cn
1
College of Transportation Science and Engineering, Nanjing
Tech University, No. 200, Zhongshan North Rd,
Nanjing 210009, China
2
Department of Environmental Engineering Science, Gunma
University, 1-5-1 Tenjincho, Kiryu 376-8515, Japan
3
Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of
Technology, No. 2, Linggong Rd, Dalian 116024, China
angle than to the undrained shear strength; and (4) the
proposed MSW model applies to normally consolidated
clays and to overconsolidated clays until they reach their
peak strength.
Keywords Strain wedge  p–y method  Nonlinear
stress–strain relationship  Overconsolidated clays 
Pile–soil interaction
1 Introduction
Piles are frequently subjected to lateral loads resulting from
winds, landslides, and seismic events [1–3]. Over the years,
a number of approaches have been proposed to characterize
the behavior of laterally loaded piles. Among these meth-
ods, the p–y method is most commonly used. The ultimate
passive wedge model [1] is often used to calculate the
ultimate soil resistance of the p–y curve. This type of
model was modified to calculate the ultimate soil resistance
of the hyperbolic p–y curve for clays [4, 5]. However, it is
interesting to note that X-ray CT [6] and particle image
velocimetry method [7] observed a passive wedge different
from that of Reese et al. [1] for sands In addition, tradi-
tional p–y curves do not account for certain properties such
as the pile bending stiffness, cross-sectional shape, head
restraint, and installation method [8, 9].
The strain wedge model developed by Norris can
overcome a few of the limitations of the p–y method [10].
The strain wedge model is based on mobilization of the
passive wedge in front of the pile and is used to calculate
the soil reaction from the soil strain in the three-dimen-
sional passive wedge. The calculation relates the one-di-
mensional beam on a nonlinear elastic foundation analysis
(BNEF analysis) to the three-dimensional soil–pile
123

interaction response. Ashour et al. extended Norris’ model
using a so-called multisublayer technique to deal with a
single pile or pile group in layered soils [8, 11]. Xu et al.
[12] proposed a modified strain wedge model to charac-
terize the behavior of laterally loaded piles in sand using
both the bilinear and hyperbolic stress–strain relationships
to describe the behavior of sand in the strain wedge.
However, the current strain wedge model cannot be applied
to overconsolidated clays. In this study, a modified strain
wedge model (MSM) proposed by Xu et al. [12] is
extended for both normally consolidated (NC) and over
consolidated (OC) clays.
In the undrained triaxial compression test, the NC clays
generally exhibit strain-hardening behavior, whereas the
OC clays generally exhibit strain-softening behavior after
yield [13, 14]. In addition, some sensitive clays, although
normally consolidated, can also exhibit strain-softening
behavior after yield. However, the maximum bending
moments and deflections of piles rather than the ultimate
lateral resistance of the soil often govern the design. This
focus is present because the final yield of soils may be
reached at a relatively large strain [15] and can, conse-
quently, induce very large deflections. Such large deflec-
tions may not be tolerated by the structures [16]. Thus, the
effect of strain softening of clays is insignificant in design
and, consequently, is not considered in this paper.
The novelty of the present work is to extend the appli-
cation of the conventional strain wedge model [8, 12] to
OC clays by modifying an effective stress analysis to cal-
culate the excess pore water pressure in OC clays in the
strain wedge. The stress–strain behavior of clays in the
MSW, which is necessary to calculate the soil resistance, is
characterized based on both hyperbolic and bilinear stress–
strain relationships. The height of the MSW is determined
using modified Newton–Raphson iterative process. This
paper focuses on flexible piles in which the pile deflection
below the MSW is small. Thus, the subgrade reaction
modulus of soil below the MSW is assumed to equal the
conventional subgrade reaction modulus and to remain
constant with lateral loading of the pile. In addition, the
size effect of the pile diameter or width on the subgrade
reaction modulus below the MSW is taken into consider-
ation. A finite-element program, SWPILE, was developed
for the BNEF analysis. Eight case histories were used to
verify the applicability of the proposed method. Finally, a
discussion is presented regarding the convergence of the
proposed MSW model, the difference between the results
using the hyperbolic and bilinear stress–strain relation-
ships, the maximum stress level in OC clays, and the effect
of the fan angle, effective friction angle of clays, and
undrained shear strength of clays on the pile response.
123
Int J Civ Eng
2 Proposed Method
2.1 General Description of the Modified Strain
Wedge Model
The purpose of the modified strain wedge (MSW) model is
to calculate the appropriate subgrade reaction modulus Es
in the following differential equation for a single pile under
a lateral load:
 4 
d y
EI þ Es ð xÞy ¼ 0 ð1Þ
dx4
where EI is the flexural stiffness of the pile, y is the lateral
deflection of the pile, and Es(x) is the subgrade reaction
modulus at a depth of x. In this study, piles are modeled as
Euler–Bernoulli beam elements using the finite-element
method.
The subgrade reaction modulus Es is defined as follows:
p
Es ¼ ð2Þ
y
where p is the soil resistance, which is calculated using the
proposed MSW model, and y is the pile deflection obtained
from BNEF analysis in this study.
The MSW has a basic configuration similar to that of the
strain wedge proposed by Ashour et al. [8] for layered
soils. However, in this study, the front surface of the pro-
posed MSW is assumed to be continuous, as shown in
Fig. 1. Figure 1a shows the MSW in front of the pile,
which is characterized by a base angle bm of single layer or
base angles of multiple layers, a fan angle gu0 m , and a
wedge height. Here, u0 m is the mobilized effective friction
angle; g is a coefficient. The coefficient g affects the fan
angle of the MSW, as shown in Fig. 1 and, thus, affects the
soil resistance at the front face of MSW. Kim et al. [5]
calculated the ultimate soil resistance using different fan
angles for clays in a failure wedge, and found that the
predicted ultimate soil resistance agrees well with that
measured in clays if the ultimate fan angle equals 0.2u0 .
Thus, a fan angle of 0.2 u0 m was adopted in this study, and
the calculations indicate that this value was appropriate in
all cases.
In Fig. 1a, Drh is the horizontal stress change on the
front surface of the MSW, and s is the shear stress along
the sides of the pile. In layered soils, each layer is assumed
to behave as a uniform soil and has its own properties. In
the finite-element analysis, each soil layer is divided into
sublayers, and the number of sublayers in the MSW is the
same as that of the beam elements, as shown in Fig. 2a.
The base angle bm and its complement Hm at any depth
are given by the equation:
Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 1 Modified strain wedge

(MSW) consisting of multiple
layers

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Soil-pile interactions in a cross section in the direction of lateral loading: a sublayers in the modified strain wedge and b an array of
discrete nonlinear and linear springs

/0 m;i The width of the continuous front surface of the MSW,

bm;i ¼ 45 þ ð3Þ
2 BC, is given by the equation:
 0 
/0 m;i Bi Ci ¼ D þ 2Ei Fi tan gum;i ð5Þ
Hm;i ¼ 45  ð4Þ
2
where the subscript i denotes the number of a sublayer. Even where D is the pile diameter or width, and EF is the hor-
in a given soil layer, different sublayers can have different izontal distance between the pile and the front surface of
mobilized effective friction angles /0 m and, thus, different the MSW, as shown in Fig. 1. EF at the top of the ith
base angles bm because of the different stress levels. sublayer is given by the equation:

123

X
i However, a consolidated drained shear strength should be
Ei Fi ¼ Lj tan bm;j ð6Þ
j¼nPW
where nPW is total number of sublayers in the MSW, L is
the thickness of the sublayers, and bm varies for different
sublayers. Note that the number of a sublayer, i.e., the
index i, increases with depth, as shown in Fig. 2a. The
index i will be omitted in the equations below for
simplification.
An array of discrete nonlinear and linear springs repre-
senting the soil in and below the MSW, respectively, was
used to represent the soil–pile interactions, as shown in
Fig. 2b.
2.2 Soil Resistance at the Front Face of the Modified
Strain Wedge
For a horizontal slice of the wedge at a depth of x (see
Fig. 1b), the soil resistance p (force per unit length of the
pile) is obtained based on the principle of force equilibrium
[8], as follows:
p ¼ Drh BCS1 þ 2sDS2 ð7Þ
where Drh is the horizontal stress change on the front
surface of the MSW, D is the pile diameter or wideness, s
is the shear stress on the sides of the pile, and S1 and S2
equal 0.75 and 0.5, respectively, for a circular pile section,
whereas both values equal 1.0 for a square pile [17].
The calculation of the horizontal stress change Drh and
the horizontal strain e will be discussed later. The shear
stress s is defined by the following equation [8]:
s ¼ SLt sult ð8Þ
sult ¼ asu ð9Þ
where SLt is the stress level of shear along the sides of the
pile, sult is the ultimate shear stress along the pile sides, su
is the undrained shear strength of the clay soils, and a is an
adhesion factor. In this study, a is assigned a value of 1 for
NC clays and 0.5 for OC clays, following the practice of
De Ruiter and Beringen [18], and SLt is assumed to be
double the stress level, SL, of the soil in the MSW, but not
more than 1.
SLt ¼ 2SL  1 ð10Þ
The stress level SL in the MSW is defined as follows:
Drh
SL ¼ ð11Þ
Drhf
where Drhf is the horizontal stress change at failure.
In this study, the MSW is proposed for pile subjected to
short-term and static loading. Thus, undrained shear
strength, given by Eq. 12, should be used for clays.
123
Int J Civ Eng
used for sands [12] because sands have relatively larger
permeability than clays.
Drhf ¼ 2su ð12Þ
The ultimate soil resistance in clays, as suggested by
Gowda [19], is given as:
pult ¼ Dð10S1 su þ 2S2 su Þ ð13Þ
which was also used by Ashour et al. [8] and Kim et al. [5].
To obtain an accurate mobilized effective friction angle,
which is necessary to calculate BC and, thus, the soil
resistance p (see Eqs. 5 and 7), Ashour et al. [8] proposed a
method of effective stress analysis for calculating the
excess pore water pressure (EPWP) in NC clays. In this
study, this method of effective stress analysis is extended to
OC clays.
The following equation for calculating the EPWP in
clays is from Skempton [20]:
Du ¼ ADrh ð14Þ
where Du is the EPWP in clays. A is Skempton’s pore
pressure coefficient and is defined as a function of the
stress level SL:
 
A ¼ A0 þ SL Af  A0 ð15Þ
where A0 is the initial value of A, and Af is the ultimate
value of A at failure. Skempton [20] demonstrated that
A = 1/3 in isotropic elastic materials. Thus, the represen-
tative A0 value of 1/3 is used for both NC and OC clays in
this study. The value of Af is given by the equation [21]
!
1 1 1
Af ¼ 1þ  0  0 ð16Þ
2 su rv0 sin u
where r0 v0 is the effective vertical stress, and u0 is the
effective friction angle of the soil. Note that the effective
friction angle is the drained peak angle. The effective
friction angle u0 can be estimated using Eqs. (17) and (18)
for NC and OC clays, respectively, if it was not measured
directly due to time and cost constraints [22]:
0
u ¼ 43  10 log Ip ð :Þ : for NC clays ð17Þ
( 0
u ¼ 45  14 log Ip ð :Þ : 4\Ip \50
0 : for OC clays
u ¼ 26  3 log Ip ð :Þ : 50  Ip \150
ð18Þ
where Ip is the index of plasticity and log is a base-10
logarithm.
After calculating the EPWP using Eqs. (14) through
(18), the effective horizontal stress (r0 v0 ? Drh - Du) and
the confining stress (r0 v0 - Du) are determined for both
NC and OC clays, as shown in Fig. 3a and b, respectively.
Int J Civ Eng

equation representing the hyperbolic stress–strain rela-

tionship is
e
r1  r3 ¼ ð23Þ
a þ be
where e is the axial strain in a triaxial test, and r1 and r3
are the major and minor principal stresses, respectively.
According to Norris [10], the stress state before lateral
loading of piles can be assumed isotropic in the strain
wedge due to pile installation. The lateral loading of piles
results in horizontal stress changes in the direction of pile
(a) movement; however, the vertical stress in the strain wedge
is mainly induced by the self-weight of soil and is nearly
unchanged with the lateral loading of piles. Thus, Eq. (23)
can be rewritten as:
e
Drh ¼ ð24Þ
a þ be
where the constants a and b are determined as follows:
1
a¼ ð25Þ
E0
1 Rf
b¼ ¼ ð26Þ
(b) ðr1  r3 Þult ðr1  r3 Þf

Fig. 3 Relationship between effective stress and total stress condi-
tions: a NC clays and b OC clays
The mobilized effective friction angle u0 m of NC clays is
calculated using the equation
0 Drh =2
sin um ¼
r0 v0  Du þ Drh =2
The mobilized effective friction angle u0 m of OC clays can
be determined using the equation
0 Drh =2
sin um ¼ 0 0 ð20Þ
cm cot u0m þ rv0  Du þ Drh =2
c0 m ¼ SLc0
where c0 m is the mobilized effective cohesion and is defined
as the stress level SL multiplied by the effective cohesion
c0 . The effective cohesion is related to the undrained shear
strength su of OC clays, as suggested by Sorensen and
Okkels [22], as follows:
0 be estimated based on the range of values of su corre-
c ¼ 0:1su  30 kPa
2.3 Soil Stress–Strain Relationship
The hyperbolic stress–strain relationship developed by
Duncan and Chang [23] is used to describe the Drh - e
relationship, as shown in Fig. 2a. As a comparison, the
bilinear stress–strain relationship is also adopted. The
In the above two equations, E0 is the initial elastic modulus
of the soil, (r1 - r3)ult is the asymptotic value of the
deviatoric stress, (r1 - r3)f is the deviatoric stress at
failure, and Rf is the failure ratio, which is in the range of
0.75*1 and is assigned a value of 0.9 in this study. Xu
et al. [12] reported that the predicted results are insensitive
ð19Þ to Rf in this range.
The initial elastic modulus E0 is obtained using the
equation
2E50
E0 ¼ ð27Þ
2  Rf
where E50 is the secant modulus of elasticity at 50 % of
ð21Þ (r1 - r3)f. E50 is used as the elastic modulus for the
bilinear stress–strain relationship, as shown in Fig. 2a, and
is given in the following equation for clays:
su
E50 ¼ ð28Þ
e50
where e50 is the axial strain at 50 % of (r1 - r3)f. e50 can
ð22Þ
sponding to NC clays and OC clays [24], as shown in
Fig. 4.
2.4 Relation Between the Horizontal Strain
and the Pile Deflection
In this study, the pile deflection at each sublayer in the
strain wedge can be written as:

123

Fig. 4 Relationship between e50 and undrained shear strength su [24]
y ¼ ðh  xÞd ð29Þ
where h is the height of the strain wedge, x is the depth
from the ground level to the middle of each sublayer under
consideration, and d is the deflection pattern, as shown in
Fig. 2. The deflection pattern d is related with the soil
strain e in the strain wedge, as discussed in detail by Norris
[10].
e Eqs. (27) and (28); t is Poisson’s ratio of the soil; and Dref
d¼ ð30Þ
Ws
where the parameter Ws varies with Poisson’s ratio of soils
t and the mobilized effective friction angle u0 m [8]:
2 The proposed procedure has been incorporated in the
Ws ¼ ð31Þ
ð1 þ tÞ sin 2Hm
The Ws value varies in a small range due to material
properties of clays. Because Poisson’s ratio is 0.5 under
undrained condition, and Hm varies between 45° (for
um = 0° at e = 0) and 30° (for um = 30° at failure), the
value of the parameter Ws is between 1.33*1.54 for clays
[8]. Xu et al. [12] found that the predicted results were
insensitive to Ws. Consequently, Ws is taken as a constant
equal to the average value of 1.44 for all clays.
The pile deflection at the ground level ySW0 (x = 0) is
given as:
e
ySW0 ¼ hd ¼ h ð32Þ
Ws
2.5 Height of the Modified Strain Wedge
The strain wedge height, h, is calculated based on an iterative
process, as suggested by Xu et al. [12]. First, the initial strain
wedge height, h0, and the initial horizontal strain, e0, are
specified at first trial to calculate the subgrade reaction mod-
ulus, Es, for the FEM analysis of the pile under an incremental
123
Int J Civ Eng
lateral load, DPn, and an incremental moment, DMn, for the
nth load step. Then, the new strain wedge height, h1, and the
new horizontal strain, e1, are given as follows [12]:
8 8 Rx
e1 > 2 0 y dx
>
< ySW0 ¼ h1 ¼ yFEM0 >
< h1 ¼ 0 FEM
WZ s x0 yFEM0
1 ) ð33Þ
>
: h1 ySW0 ¼ yFEM dx >
> y FEM0 Ws
2 : e 1 ¼
0 h1
where yFEM is the pile deflection between the ground line
and the point of first-zero deflection, and yFEM0 is the pile
deflection at the ground level. x0 is the location of first-zero
deflection point as shown by point C in Fig. 2a.
2.6 Subgrade Reaction Modulus Below the Modified
Strain Wedge
To account for the size effect of the pile diameter or width
on the subgrade reaction modulus, Carter [25] and Ling
[26] suggested that the modulus of the subgrade reaction is
linearly proportional to the pile diameter or width, as
expressed by the following equation:
D E0
Es ¼ ð34Þ
Dref ð1  t2 Þ
where E0 is the initial elastic modulus, calculated using
is a reference size set to a value of 1 m.
2.7 Flow Chart of the Proposed Procedure
SWPILE program for analysis of laterally loaded single
piles in clays, in which the modified Newton–Raphson
method using an initial stiffness K0 is used to solve the
nonlinear system [27]. The flow chart of the program is
shown in Fig. 5, in which Dfn is the incremental load vector
of the external force vector fnþ1 in the load step n, yknþ1 is
the total incremental vector of the lateral response of the
k
pile after the kth iteration of the load step n, fnþ1 is the
k
internal force vector, Wn?1 is the residual force vector, and
ef is the relative residual error, which is defined as the norm
of the residual force vector Wkn?1 divided by that of the
external force vector fnþ1 . The iterative loading by step
n stops when the relative residual error is less than 1 %.
Details of the modified Newton–Raphson method are pre-
sented by Zienkiewicz and Taylor [27].
3 Verification Based on Case Histories
The validity of the proposed method is verified by com-
paring the results from the present approach with those
from full-scale pile tests and those from earlier research.
Int J Civ Eng

pile, with an outside diameter of 1.016 m and a wall

thickness of 16 mm, was driven to a penetration of 25.6 m
below the ground surface. The soil profile and properties at
test site are determined from five boreholes and conven-
tional sampling near the piles. The ground water level is at
the ground surface.
Figure 6 shows the predicted and measured deflections
and moments along the pile under a lateral load of 200 and
600 kN. The predicted results are close to those using the
p–y curve proposed by Kim et al. [5] and are in better
agreement with the measurements compared to the results
using existing p–y curves proposed by Matlock [30]. The
comparisons generally suggest that the proposed method is
capable of giving reasonably well distributions of deflec-
tions and moments for laterally loaded pile in clays.

3.2 Case of Gill [28]

Fig. 5 Flow chart for analysis of a single laterally loaded pile in clay
The pile and soil properties are shown in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively. All the case histories involve static or short-
term loading and are, therefore, assumed to involve
undrained conditions.
3.1 Case of Kim et al. [5]
Kim et al. [5] conducted a series of lateral load tests on
full-scale steel-pipe piles and drilled shafts. The LTP-1
Gill [28] reported the results of eight lateral load tests that
were performed on free-head pipe piles with diameters
ranging from 0.115 to 0.405 m. Tests on piles P1, P2, P3,
and P4 were performed in a dry area where the ground
water was at a depth of 2.3 m, and tests on the other four
piles, i.e., P5, P6, P7, and P8 were performed in an adjacent
saturated area where water was allowed to pond for a
number of days prior to driving and testing. Piles P3 and P7
are not modeled in present study because they behaved as
rigid piles.
Figure 7 shows the predicted and the measured load–
deflection curves for the various piles in both dry and
saturated areas. The predicted deflections generally agree
well with the measured results. The predicted deflections
using the p–y method, as reported by Meyer [31], are also
shown in Fig. 7. The results indicate that the proposed
method is able to model the response of the piles much
better than the p–y method.
3.3 Case of Rollins et al. [29]
A static lateral load test was performed on a full-scale steel-
pipe pile that was 0.305 m in diameter, 9.5 mm in wall
thickness, and 9.1 m in length [29]. The soil profile along the

Table 1 Pile properties used in the SWPILE program

Case histories Pile type Diameter (m) Embedded length (m) Flexural rigidity (kNm2) Distancea (m)

Kim et al. [5] Steel pipe (LTP-1) 1.016 25.6 1260,000 1.0
Gill [28] Steel pipe (P1, P5) 0.115 5.54 623 0.509
Steel pipe (P2, P6) 0.22 6.22 5460 0.509
Steel pipe (P4, P8) 0.405 8.13 48,400 0.509
Rollins et al. [29] Steel pipe 0.305 7.62 24,856 0.4
a
Distance from line of loading to the ground surface

123
 Int J Civ Eng

Table 2 Soil properties used in the SWPILE program and maximum stress levels
Case histories No. of Layer thickness Soil type Total unit weight su (kN/m2) e50 u0 SLMAX
layers (m) (kN/m3) (°)

Kim et al. [5] 1 6.3 NC 17.5 20*108a, b

0.02a 28c 0.46
a, b a c
2 10.2 NC 17.5 108*170 0.01 28
3 5.5 NC 17.8 170*200a, b
0.005d 28c
4 4.6 Residual 17.8 – – 34c
soil
Gill–dry [28] 1 1 NC 18.1 20*80e, b
0.015d 30f 0.75 (P1); 0.67 (P2);
2 1.3 NC 18.1 80*21 e, b
0.015 d
30f 0.40 (P4)
3 # NCa 17.7 21e 0.015d 30f
e, b d
Gill–saturated 1 1 NC 17.7 0*50 0.02 30f 0.64 (P5); 0.58 (P6);
[28] 2 1.3 NC 17.7 50*30e, b
0.02d 30f 0.39 (P8)
3 # NC 17.7 21e 0.02d 30f
g d
Rollins et al. 1 0.8 OC 19.8 100 0.005 28c 0.93
[29] 2 2.3 OC 19.8 50 g
0.007 d
28c
3 1.5 Dense 19.8 – – 38.6h
sand
4 3.2 OC 19.8 50g 0.007d 28c
#
Pile tip located in this layer
a
su, e50 and u0 determined from laboratory tests reported by Kim et al. [5]
b
su varies linearly from the top to the bottom of the layer
c
Assumed in this study
d
e50 determined from Fig. 4 based on su
e
su slightly modified from average vane resistance reported by Ling [26]
f
u0 determined using Eq. (17) based on a value of Ip of 29 reported by Ling [26]
g
Determined from field and laboratory investigations reported by Rollins et al. [29]
h
Determined by Xu et al. [12] based on standard penetration test reported by Rollins et al. [29]

Fig. 6 Comparison of the predicted and measured a deflections and b bending moments along the pile under a lateral load of 200 and 600 kN in
the case of Kim et al. [5]

123
Int J Civ Eng
Fig. 7 Comparison of the predicted and measured load–deflection curves for piles in the a dry area and b saturated area in the case of Gill [28]
length of the pile consisted of various clay and sand-silt soils.
The water table was near the natural ground surface during
the testing. Consolidation testing indicated that the soils
were overconsolidated to a depth of approximately 10 m.
Figure 8 shows the predicted and measured load–deflec-
tion curves for the tested pile. The predicted deflections agree
well with the measurements and with those predicted by
Rollins et al. [29] using the p–y method. This indicates that the
MSW model can be applied to OC clays as well as to NC clays.
4 Discussion
4.1 Convergence of the Proposed Modified Strain
Wedge Model
Figure 9 shows relative residual force ef and errors of the
strain wedge height dh as well as the ground line deflection
Fig. 8 Comparison of the predicted and measured load–deflection
curves in the case of Rollins et al. [29]
dy for the pile under a lateral load of 180 kN in the case of
Rollins et al. [29]. It is found that the strain wedge height
and the ground line deflection converge at the same time
when the relative residual force is lower than the tolerance
1 %. Thus, the convergence criteria used in the proposed
modified strain wedge model are appropriate.
4.2 Comparison of the Results Using Hyperbolic
and Bilinear Stress–Strain Relationships
Figure 10 shows the predicted load–deflection curves
using the hyperbolic and bilinear stress–strain relation-
ships for piles P1, P2 and P4 in the case of Gill [28]. For
piles P1 and P2, the difference between the predicted
deflections using these two stress–strain relationships is
insignificant. However, for pile P4, the predicted deflec-
tion that results from using the bilinear stress–strain
Fig. 9 Relative residual force and errors of strain wedge height and
ground line deflection vs. iterations for the pile under a lateral load of
P0 = 180 kN in the case of Rollins et al. [29]
123

relationship is much larger than that resulting from the
use of the hyperbolic stress–strain relationship. This is
because the initial elastic modulus (E50) of the bilinear
relationship is smaller than the secant modulus of the
hyperbolic relationship when the horizontal strain is less
than e50. The calculations indicate that the soil using the
bilinear relationship behaves linearly until the test load
reaches the maximum. This behavior is due to the large
value of e50 for clays in the case of Gill [28]. Thus, the
use of the bilinear stress–strain relationship is not rec-
ommended for clays.
4.3 Effect of Fan Angle on the Pile Response
Figure 11 shows the predicted deflections with various fan
angles gu0 m (g = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0) in the case of Rollins
et al. [29]. With the increase in the fan angle, the width of
the front surface of the wedge BC (see Eq. 5) increases
and, consequently, the soil resistance increases (see Eq. 7).
As a result, the predicted deflections generally decrease
with the increase in the fan angle. The calculations indicate
that a value of 0.2 for the coefficient g was appropriate for
all piles.
4.4 Effect of u0 and su on the Pile Response
The effects of u0 and su are studied by varying their values
(u0 = 20°, 25°, and 30°; su = 50, 75, and 100 kPa) for
layers 1–2 in the case of Rollins et al. [29], as shown in
Table 2. Figure 12, as expected, shows that the predicted
pile response is less sensitive to the effective friction angle
than to the undrained shear strength because the coefficient
g is quite small.
Fig. 10 The predicted load–deflection curves using the hyperbolic
and bilinear stress–strain relationships for piles P1, P2 and P4 in the
case of Gill [28]
123
Int J Civ Eng
Fig. 11 The predicted deflections with various fan angles gu0 m
(g = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0) in the case of Rollins et al. [29]
4.5 Maximum Stress Level in OC Clays
Strain softening of OC clays is not considered in this study;
thus, the predicted results are reliable for piles in OC clays
before such clays reach their peak strength. The OC clays
in this study did not reach their peak strength under the
maximum lateral loading of the test. The maximum stress
level SLMAX of the various layers in the case histories is
listed in Table 2.
5 Conclusions
A modified strain wedge (MSW) model is developed for
single laterally loaded piles in clays in this study. The
MSW model is used to calculate the soil resistance under
increasing pile deflections. The stress–strain behavior of
clays in the MSW, which is necessary to calculate the soil
resistance, is described using both hyperbolic and bilinear
stress–strain relationships. The height of the MSW is
determined using modified Newton–Raphson iterative
process. The subgrade reaction modulus of the soil below
the MSW is assumed to equal the conventional subgrade
reaction modulus and to remain constant with the lateral
loading of the pile. In addition, the size effect of the pile
diameter or width on the subgrade reaction modulus below
the MSW is taken into consideration. Finally, a discussion
is presented regarding the convergence of the proposed
MSW model, the difference between the results using the
hyperbolic and bilinear stress–strain relationships, the
maximum stress level in OC clays, and the effect of the fan
angle, effective friction angle of clays, and undrained shear
strength of clays on the pile response. Based on the analysis
Int J Civ Eng
Fig. 12 Effect of a effective friction angle u0 and b undrained shear strength su on load–deflection curves in the case of Rollins et al. [29]
of eight case histories, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The predicted results are consistent with the measure-
ments for all eight full-scale tested piles.
2. The bilinear stress–strain relationship is not recom-
mended for clays because the clays usually have a
large e50 and, thus, they exhibit a linear behavior in the
MSW during loading.
3. The predicted pile response is less sensitive to the
effective friction angle than to the undrained shear
strength.
4. Strain softening is not considered in this study; thus,
the proposed method applies to piles in both normally
consolidated and overconsolidated clays until the latter
reach their peak strength.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Natural
Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (Grant No.
BK20150958), the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos. 51508271, 51121005), and Postdoctoral Science Foun-
dation of both Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. 1501067B) and
China (Grant No. 2015M581782), which are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1. Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD (1975) Field testing and analysis
of laterally loaded piles on stiff clay, Proceedings of Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 2312, 671–690
2. Sharafi H, Sojoudi Y (2016) Experimental and numerical study of
pile-stabilized slopes under surface load conditions. Int J Civil
Eng 14(4):221–232. doi:10.1007/s40999-016-0017-2
3. Oyejobi DO, Jameel M, Sulong NR (2016) Nonlinear response of
tension leg platform subjected to wave, current and wind forces.
Int J Civil Eng. doi:10.1007/s40999-016-0030-5
4. Sato H, Ohya T, Matsushima M (2001) Study on the behavior of
full-scaled single piles with rotation-fixed head under large lateral
deformation. Proc Jpn Soc Civil Eng 714:95–109 (in Japanese)
5. Kim Y, Jeong S, Lee S (2011) Wedge failure analysis of soil
resistance on laterally loaded piles in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 137(7):678–694
6. Otani J, Pham KD, Sano J (2006) Investigation of failure patterns
in sand due to laterally loaded pile using X-ray CT. Soils Found
46(4):529–535
7. Hajialilue-Bonab M, Sojoudi Y, Puppala AJ (2011) Study of
strain wedge parameters for laterally loaded piles. Int J Geomech
13(2):143–152
8. Ashour M, Norris G, Pilling P (1998) Lateral loading of a pile in
layered soil using the strain wedge model. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 124(4):303–315
9. Hokmabadi AS, Fakher A, Fatahi B (2012) Full scale lateral
behaviour of monopiles in granular marine soils. Mar Struct
29(1):198–210
10. Norris GM (1986) Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile
analysis, Proceedings of third international conference on
numerical methods in offshore piling, Paris. France. 361–386
11. Ashour M, Pilling P, Norris G (2004) Lateral behavior of pile
groups in layered soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130(6):580–592
12. Xu LY, Cai F, Wang GX, Ugai K (2013) Nonlinear analysis of
laterally loaded single piles in sand using modified strain wedge
model. Comput Geotech 51:60–71
13. Robert DH, William DK (1981) An introduction to geotechnical
engineering. Printice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
14. Das BM (2010) Principles of geotechnical engineering, 7th edn.
Cengage Learning, Boston
15. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engi-
neering practice, 3rd edn. John Wiley & SONS INC, Hoboken
16. Nip DCN, Ng CWW (2005) Back-analysis of laterally loaded
bored piles. Proc ICE Geotech Eng 158(2):63–73
17. Briaud JL, Smith T, Meyer B (1984) Laterally loaded piles and
the pressuremeter: comparison of existing methods. Laterally
loaded deep foundations: analysis and performance. ASTM Int
835:97–111
18. De Kuiter J, Beringen FL (1979) Pile foundations for large north
Sea structures. Marine Georesour Geotechnol 3:267–314
123

19. Gowda P (1991) Laterally loaded pile analysis for layered soil
based on the strain wedge model, MS thesis, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada
20. Skempton AW (1954) The pore-pressure coefficients A and B.
Geotechnique 4:143–147
21. Wu TH (1976) Soil mechanics. Allyn and Bacon, Boston
22. Sorensen KK, Okkels N (2013) Correlation between drained
shear strength and plasticity index of undisturbed overconsoli-
dated clays. Proceedings of 18th international conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris. pp. 423–428
23. Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(5):1629–1653
24. Evans LT, Duncan GM (1982) Simplified analysis of laterally
loaded piles, Report No. UCB/GT/82-04, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, California
25. Carter DP (1984) A non-linear soil model for predicting lateral
pile response, Report No. 359, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Auckland, New Zealand
123
Int J Civ Eng
26. Ling LF (1988) Back analysis of lateral load tests on piles. Rep.
No. 460, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auck-
land, New Zealand
27. Zienkiewicz OZ, Taylor RL (2005) The finite element method for
solid and structural mechanics. Butterworth–Heinemann,
Amsterdam
28. Gill HL (1968) Soil behavior around laterally loaded piles, Naval
civil engineering laboratory, Report R-571. Port Hueneme,
California
29. Rollins KM, Peterson KT, Weaver TJ (1998) Lateral load
behavior of full-scale pile group in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 124(6):468–478
30. Matlock H (1970) Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles
in clay. Proceedings of second annual offshore technology con-
ference, Paper No. OTC 1204, 577–594
31. Meyer BJ (1979) Analysis of single piles under lateral loading.
University of Texas, Austin