Estimation of the Linear Spring Constant for a Laterally

Loaded Monopile Embedded in Nonlinear Soil

Shivani Rani1 and Amit Prashant2

Abstract: In the case of large-diameter monopiles, pile deflection against lateral loads must be predicted accurately to determine the direct
influence on the superstructure. One-dimensional (1D) linear models of the pile-soil system, which are simple to analyze, are more commonly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

used in practice than the sophisticated three-dimensional (3D) simulations. This study proposes an equivalent lateral strain concept to incor-
porate soil nonlinearity into an equivalent linear analysis of the pile-soil system. The spring constant is obtained by iterating over soil stiffness at
different strain levels and finding equivalent lateral strain from updated pile deflection at each iteration. It requires the maximum shear modulus
and modulus reduction curve for different layers of the soil profile. Correlation between the equivalent lateral strain and pile deflection has been
developed by comparing results from 1D and 3D simulations of long piles. The existing correlations between the lateral spring constant and
Young’s modulus of soil are too approximate to help in quantifying nonlinearity of soil accurately in this comparative study. Therefore, a more
accurate relationship between spring constant and Young’s modulus of soil for long piles has been proposed by incorporating relative stiffness of
soil and pile. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000441. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Soil-structure interaction; Spring constant; Strain; Pile; Nonlinear.

Introduction
A large-diameter pile (monopile) is often provided as a foundation
under structures such as bridges, flyovers, etc. It generally involves less
construction time and cost in comparison with a pile group. The design
of a long monopile has relatively stricter limits on top deflection and
inclination of pile to check against misalignment with the superstruc-
ture. A pile load test in the field can provide a good estimate of pile
deflection. However, such tests can only be performed in a limited
number during a project because of the associated huge cost and time,
besides requiring skilled personnel to handle them. In addition to these
tests, pile response is generally estimated through one-dimensional (1D)
or three-dimensional (3D) simulation of the soil-pile system (SPS) or by
using simplified models (Matlock and Reese 1962; Broms 1964a, b;
Poulos 1971; Maheshwari et al. 2005; Basu and Salgado 2007).
Although 3D simulation of a SPS is expected to simulate reality
well, it is more complex and time-consuming in comparison with
1D models (Desai and Appel 1976; Randolph 1981; Trochanis et al.
1991; Yang and Jeremic 2005). Addressing soil nonlinearity and
interface effects in 3D models can further add to the complexity of
simulations (Kim and Jeong 2011; Mardfekri et al. 2013). As
a result, a 1D model has been more popular in practice. For the 1D
model, a subgrade reaction approach (Winkler 1867) has been
commonly used, in which soil is replaced by a series of unconnected
springs. Nonlinear p-y curves (Matlock 1970; Reese et al. 1974,
1975) are also sometimes used to define the lateral reaction of soil
along the depth. However, finding representative p-y curves from the
available site data can often be difficult. The objective of this study is
to develop a simpler alternative approach of 1D simulation by
performing an equivalent linear analysis of SPS.
In this study, 3D models of a monopile system with linear and
nonlinear soils were created so that their responses could be used as
references to develop a procedure of 1D equivalent linear analysis.
For the 1D linear model, the spring constant ks could be calculated
using one of its correlations with the Young’s modulus of soil, Esoil , as
suggested in the literature (Terzaghi 1955; Muskhelishvili 1963;
Poulos 1971; Matlock 1970; Scott 1980), based on experimental find-
ings. While developing a correlation between nonlinear 3D analysis
and equivalent linear analysis, it was necessary to first predict well the
linear analysis part using a more precise relationship between ks and
Esoil than the existing ones, with due consideration to key factors
involved in this relationship. Hence, a parametric study was performed
to develop a more precise relationship between ks and Esoil .
A procedure for equivalent linear analysis is proposed in this
study along with a new correlation between ks and Esoil . Using the
proposed method, one can simulate a field problem, provided that
the value of Esoil in different layers along the depth of soil can be
obtained. Although Esoil is a generic property of soil, it is often
correlated with field tests such as the standard penetration test
(SPT) and the cone penetration test (CPT) or calculated though
geophysical methods.

Description of 1D and 3D Models

1
Formerly, M.Tech. Student, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhi-
nagar, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad 382424, India. E-mail: shivani.rani@
iitgn.ac.in
2
Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad 382424, India (corresponding author). E-mail:
ap@iitgn.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 15, 2013; approved
on July 28, 2014; published online on August 29, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 29, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/04014090(13)/$25.00.
A monopile of 2.4-m diameter (D) and 31.5-m length (L) and
having 29.58-GPa Young’s modulus (Epile ) was considered in this
study. A pile length of 30 m was embedded into the ground, with
1.5 m above the ground surface. In the analysis, both homogenous
and heterogeneous soil profiles were considered. The considered
heterogeneous soil profile was from one of the sites in Ahmedabad,
India, where the monopile is expected to be constructed. The site was
reported to have sandy soil up to 13-m depth with the SPT value
varying from 13 to 30, which was overlaying alternate layers of

© ASCE 04014090-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Multilayer soil profile considered for prediction of maximum
shear modulus with SPT value
sand and clay, as shown in Fig. 1. The SPT blow count in the bottom
layers was observed to exceed 50 for the first 150-mm penetration,
which is considered as refusal. Thus, the SPT value for these layers
is taken as 100.
Details of Pile-Soil Models
Winkler’s model (1867) was utilized for 1D modeling, in which the
monopile was represented through a beam-column element and the
surrounding soil was replaced by a series of unconnected linear
springs. The behavior of both soil and pile was assumed to be elastic.
Roller support was provided at the bottom of the pile, and the lateral
load (P) was applied at 0.5 m above the ground surface. Although
there was a small amount of resistance available at the base of the
bored pile, its contribution toward the pile’s lateral load capacity
was not taken into account because of the effects of improper base
contact with the soil in such a construction. One can account for a
fraction of base resistance in the analysis by providing an additional
spring at the pile base. Both soil and pile elements were permitted to
deform only in the plane containing the direction of the applied load
and depth of pile. Sliding or separation at the soil-pile interface was
not considered in the analysis. Mesh size sensitivity was analyzed by
providing soil springs at different intervals along the depth of the
pile, i.e., at intervals of 3, 2, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1 m. Overall, 10%
variation was observed in the predicted values of pile deflection
among the considered cases. Because the models with intervals of
0.25 and 0.1 m showed almost no difference in response, the springs
were provided at 0.25-m intervals along the depth of the pile in the
final model, as shown in Fig. 2.
In the 3D model, the soil and pile were assumed to have linear-
elastic isotropic material. Eight-noded standard brick elements with
trilinear isoparametric formulation, which requires only three
degrees of freedom to define, were used in this study. The size of the
soil elements was kept fine at the soil-pile interface and increased in
the radial direction away from the pile. The size of the elements
along the depth of the pile was kept constant. Because the results
were expected to be symmetric for a plane passing through the center
line of the pile and load vector, only half of the pile-soil system on
© ASCE 04014090-2
Int. J. Geomech.
Fig. 2. 1D linear model of pile with springs spaced at 0.25-m interval
one side of the plane of symmetry was simulated, as shown in Fig. 3.
Half of the lateral load was applied to the pile at 0.5 m above the
ground surface. Pile and soil nodes along the plane of symmetry of
the SPS were allowed to move in the direction of load application
and along the depth of the pile, but they were restricted against out-
of-plane deformation. The nodes at the periphery and the bottom of
the soil domain were given fixed boundary condition. Similar to the
1D model, sliding and separation at the soil-pile interface were not
considered, i.e., the nodes of the soil and pile elements at the in-
terface had perfect bonding. To analyze the effect of domain size,
a number of analyses were carried out by extending the side soil
domain up to 3D, 5D, 7D, 11D, 13D, and 15D from the center of pile,
where D is the diameter of the pile. Pile deflection decreased with an
increase in soil domain size, and the results predicted from the 13D
and 15D soil domains were approximately the same. Hence, the 15D
size of the soil domain was considered for the analysis. Analyses
were also performed with the soil domain extending up to 2D, 4D,
and 6D below the pile, which showed negligible variation in the
predicted deflection. Mesh-size sensitivity analysis showed con-
vergence for the mesh size of 0:2 3 0:2 3 0:5 m with an increase of
size in the radial direction.
For nonlinear 3D analyses, the soil domain was simulated using
a pressure-independent multiyield material model (Yang et al.
2008). The model parameters were density, Poisson’s ratio, shear
modulus, and shear strain, whose values for different layers are given
in Table 1. The values for density, thickness of soil, and soil type
were taken from the site investigation report. The maximum shear
strain and Poisson’s ratio were assumed to be 10% (0.1) and 0.3,
respectively. The maximum shear modulus of each layer was cal-
culated using its correction with SPT data suggested by Kramer
(1996) for sandy strata and Ohsaki and Iwasaki (1973) for clayey
strata.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. 3D finite-element model of the considered monopile embedded in a multilayer soil profile

Table 1. Parameters Considered for 3D Nonlinear Model Having Multi- model with Esoil 5 65,000 kN=m2 are shown in Fig. 5. Similarly, the
layer Soil Profile along Depth of Pile maximum bending moment predicted from the 3D simulation
Soil density, Maximum shear modulus, showed about 10–15% with respect to Randolph’s (1981) solution,
Depth (m) Soil type r (kg=cm3 ) Gr (kPa) which is reasonable considering all the approximations involved in
such analyses. Basu and Salgado’s (2007) analytical elastic solution
0–6 Medium sand 1.75 74,475
for a multilayer soil system was used to further verify the linear-
6–13 Medium sand 1.8 167,725
elastic 3D model. Basu and Salgado (2007) provided an example for
13–17 Dense clay 1.85 308,223
a pile with D 5 0:25 m, L 5 20 m, and Epile 5 25 GPa. The analysis
17–21 Dense sand 1.85 356,459
was performed for three types of soil profiles having different Esoil
21–28 Dense clay 1.85 361,136
(Table 2). The pile was subjected to a lateral load of P 5 1,000 kN at
28–32 Dense sand 1.85 356,459
the ground surface. The predicted pile deflections at the ground
32–39 Dense clay 1.85 361,136
surface from the two solutions have also been listed in Table 2, which
Note: Poisson’s ratio ðnÞ 5 0:3; maximum shear strain, g max ð%Þ 5 10. indicates a reasonable match between the corresponding results.
After verification of the 3D linear-elastic model, it was assumed that
the model would work for other similar geometries of the problems
Verification of Models considered in this study, including the nonlinear case.
In the current study, the 1D linear model was verified using Hetényi’s
(1946) closed-form solution for a homogenous soil profile with Deflection of Pile Embedded in Nonlinear Soil
constant modulus along the depth of the pile. Ground-level deflec-
tion was calculated for the monopile with D 5 2:4 m, L 5 30 m, and Deflection of a pile depends upon the diameter (D), length (L),
Epile 5 29:58 GPa, which was embedded in a homogenous soil Young’s modulus of pile (Epile ), Young’s modulus of soil (Esoil ),
profile and subjected to lateral load P of 2,000 kN at the ground Poisson’s ratio of pile and soil (npile and nsoil ), and lateral load (P)
surface. The analysis was performed for five different values of soil applied to the pile (Matlock and Reese 1962). The best-known method
Young’s modulus (Esoil ) covering a wide range of soil, i.e., soft/loose for estimating pile capacity is performing a full-scale test in the field.
to stiff/dense. The predicted pile deflection at the ground surface The results predicted through such field tests are expected to be
from the 1D linear model is compared with the solution from representative of the SPS response, provided that all the measurements
Hetényi’s (1946) theory in Fig. 4(a), which shows a good match. are taken without ambiguity and the test is carried out with due care.
Similarly, the 3D model was verified by comparing the results with Such field tests involve enormous cost and pertinent skills. As a result,
Randolph’s (1981) solution for a pile embedded in homogenous soil. field tests are performed in a limited number and most of the SPSs
As shown in Fig. 4(b), the predicted values of pile deflection at the at different locations in a project are analyzed through simulations.
ground level from both the solutions match well. Although 3D simulations are close to field conditions, they require high
The bending moments and shear forces predicted from the 1D computational effort and time. Hence, 1D simulation is more common
linear model were compared with Hetényi’s (1946) solution, and in design practice due to its simple procedure and time efficiency.
were also found to match closely. As an example, the results for the Because soil is a nonlinear material and its Young’s modulus reduces

© ASCE 04014090-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Predicted ground-level lateral deflection of pile for homogenous soil profile (a) Hetényi’s (1946) theory and 1D linear model; (b) Randolph’s
(1981) solution and 3D linear model

Fig. 5. Shear force and bending moment along the depth of the pile using Hetényi’s (1946) theory and 1D linear models

with an increase in strain level, nonlinear p-y curves are often used
to define the response of soil springs in the 1D model. Several
researchers such as Matlock (1970), Reese et al. (1974, 1975), and
Reese and Welch (1975) have suggested that mathematical ex-
pressions for the shape of p-y curves be based on the results of
experiments performed in the field. Recently, Guo (2006, 2013)
proposed design charts for laterally loaded piles based on the es-
timation of p-y curves through elastic-plastic formulation in active
and passive modes. These nonlinear p-y curves can be used for
simulations in a project after building confidence in the nature of
those curves by verifying them on the site with due consideration to
heterogeneity of soil strata. Alternatively, one can envisage using
a 1D linear-elastic model of SPS by incrementally modifying the soil
properties with strain level. Such an equivalent linear model will be
easier to simulate and analyze than using p-y curves.
Many investigators, such as Seed and Idriss (1970), Imazu and
Fukutake (1986), and Zhang et al. (2005), have suggested modulus
reduction curves for different soil types. These curves were gen-
erated by performing dynamic laboratory tests such as the cyclic
triaxial test, bender element test, resonant column test, etc. These can
be used for static analysis as well, assuming that the so-called
backbone curve from the dynamic testing results will coincide
with the static stress-strain curve. Fig. 6 shows a representative
modulus reduction curve suggested by Imazu and Fukutake (1986)
for different types of soils. Using this curve, the modulus reduction
factor can be obtained at different strain levels. One can also estimate
the modulus reduction by performing triaxial or simple-shear tests
on representative soil samples, but in this case the data may not be
reliable at small strains (below 0.05% shear strain) due to mea-
surement constraints.

© ASCE 04014090-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 2. Ground-Level Deflection of Pile Estimated from 3D Linear Model and Basu and Salgado’s (2007) Theory
Deflection at ground surface (mm)
Model number Soil profile Soil layer thickness (m) Shear modulus of soil (MPa) Basu and Salgado (2007) 3D model
1 Homogenous soil 0–40 10 26 26.63
2 Multilayer soil (Case I) 0–1 10 22 21.9
1–4 20
4–9 40
9–40 80
3 Multilayer soil (Case II) 0–1 10 19.5 21.2
1–9 40
9–40 80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Existing Correlations for Calculation of Spring Constant from

Young’s Modulus of Soil
Coefficient of horizontal
Serial number Reference subgrade reaction
1 Terzaghi (1955) 0:74 Esoil =Da
2 Broms (1964b) ð0:48e0:90Þ Esoil =D
3 Muskhelishvili (1963) 2Esoil =D
4 Matlock (1970) 1:8 Esoil =D
5 Poulos (1971) 0:82 Esoil =D
6 Scott (1980) Esoil =D
a
Esoil is the secant Young’s modulus of soil for a strain of approximately 1%.

to Esoil . In this analysis, the pile was subjected to P 5 2,000 kN,

Fig. 6. Simplified modulus reduction curve depending on the type of
soil
The spring constant ks can be estimated from Esoil using one of
the correlations listed in Table 3. The SPS model was considered
to estimate pile deflection at different soil shear modulus values
using all of these correlations. The results are shown in Fig. 7,
which indicates a variation of approximately 250% (1.45–3.78 mm)
in the calculated pile deflection at the ground surface. This vari-
ation was not unexpected because the recommended correlations
had that variation as well. The results of the 3D simulations have also
been plotted in the same Fig. 7, which indicates that Muskhelishvili’s
(1963) recommendation provides a relatively better comparison
with the 3D simulation. It is uncertain, though, how this recom-
mendation will respond to various other scenarios. Further, the
comparison of the 1D and 3D responses to incorporate the nonlinear
response into the equivalent linear model requires a more accurate
estimate of the linear response first. Hence, the relevant parametric
study has been performed and discussed in the following section.
Linear Spring Constant for 1D Model
The 1D model will be considered efficient if its response matches
well with that from the 3D model for a given relationship of
ks 5 fsc 3 Esoil . Pile deflection depends on the pile’s diameter,
embedded length, and relative stiffness with the soil, along with its
lateral load P (Matlock and Reese 1962). Hence, fsc can be a
function of some or all of these parameters. This is discussed in
light of the results from the 1D and 3D simulations.
Effect of Young’s Modulus of Soil (Esoil ) on Spring
Constant Factor
Pile deflection at the ground surface from both the 1D and 3D linear-
elastic models are shown in Fig. 8, in which ks is taken to be equal
and Esoil was varied from 13,000 to 520,000 kN=m2 , covering its
expected range of values in the field. The deviation between the
predicted deflections from the 1D and 3D models was minimized by
iterating the value of the spring constant factor ( fsc ). This factor was
found to be a function of the Young’s modulus of soil instead of
being a constant, as shown in Fig. 9. This data can be approximated
using the power function
fsc ¼ 0:424 Es0:136 (1)
It is interesting to note in Fig. 8 that Muskhelishvili’s (1963) rec-
ommendation of fsc 5 2:0 is nearly the average of the variation range
of fsc predicted through the present analysis.
Effect of Poisson’s Ratio (n) on Spring Constant Factor
To study the impact of Poisson’s ratio (n) on fsc , the SPS was an-
alyzed for five different values of n, i.e., 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and
0.45, by keeping the other parameters of pile and soil constant.
These cases were analyzed at two different values of Esoil , i.e., 65,000
(medium-dense soil) and 520,000 kN=m2 (very stiff soil). The lateral
load P 5 2,000 kN acted at 0.5 m above the ground surface. The
value of fsc was obtained by iterating its value to match results
from the 1D and 3D models. The variation of fsc with the n value is
shown in Fig. 10(a), which shows only 5% overall variation for each
case of the Esoil value. The results also indicate that Muskhelishvili’s
(1963) ks works relatively well at low Esoil (65,000 kN=m2 ), but not for
stiffer soils.
Effect of Young’s Modulus of Pile (Epile ) on Spring
Constant Factor
The effect of Epile was also studied by considering the same two
values of Esoil , i.e., 65,000 and 520,000 kN=m2 . Poisson’s ratio (n)
was taken as 0.3 for both soil and pile. The deflection of the pile for
the load P 5 2,000 kN was calculated at three different values of

© ASCE 04014090-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparison study of pile lateral deflection estimated using existing correlations of spring constant and Young’s modulus of soil

Epile , i.e., 25, 29.58, and 35 GPa. The observed variation in fsc with
Epile is presented in Fig. 10(b), which shows that Epile alone has no
significant impact on fsc .

Effect of Lateral Load Intensity (P ) on Spring

Constant Factor
The effect of lateral load intensity on fsc was studied by changing the
value of P in multiple steps between 500 and 5,000 kN. The values of
Epile , Esoil , and n were taken as 29.58 GPa, 65,000 kN=m2 , and 0.3,
respectively. The estimated pile deflection at the ground surface
increased linearly with load intensity in both the 1D and 3D models;
however, there was no impact of load intensity on fsc , as shown in
Fig. 10(c). This was expected because the materials were elastic and
there was no geometric nonlinearity involved in the analyzed Fig. 8. Predicted lateral deflection of pile at ground level through 1D
system. and 3D linear models

 0:15
Spring Constant Factor for Multilayer Soil System Esoil
fsc ¼ 5 (2)
Epile
A multilayer soil system, as discussed previously during the de-
scription of the model, was also analyzed in this study. Maximum
shear modulus of soil for each layer was calculated using SPT cor- Matlock (1970) and Muskhelishvili (1963) proposed constant values
relations suggested by Kramer (1996) and Ohsaki and Iwasaki of fsc as 1.8 and 2.0, respectively, as shown in Fig. 12. Because
(1973). Spring constant values were estimated using the factor Muskhelishvili’s (1963) recommendation is close to the average of
suggested in Eq. (1), and Epile and npile were taken as 29.58 GPa the fsc predicted from the current analysis, it can be conveniently
and 0.3, respectively. The predicted deflection of the pile at the used to estimate pile deflection with some approximation. For a more
ground surface is presented in Fig. 11, which shows that the results accurate estimate of pile deflection, the soil spring constant (ks ) can
from the 1D analysis were approximately 15% higher than those be computed by using the following proposed relationship:
from the 3D model analysis at all load intensities. Hence, it is evident  0:15
Esoil
that the variability of soil strata under consideration can have some ks ¼ fsc  Es ¼ 5  Esoil (3)
influence on the value of fsc . Epile

Proposed Spring Constant Factor for 1D Linear Model

The parametric study presented in the previous section concludes
that it was only Esoil that had a major influence on the value of fsc for
the 1D linear model. The fsc values from all the cases analyzed in this
study have been put into one graph and plotted against the relative
stiffness of the soil and pile (Esoil =Epile ), as shown in Fig. 12. The
Epile did not have significant influence on fsc , but it is used here to
make the Esoil term nondimensional. The predicted values of fsc fall
in a narrow band and the following power function can be used to
approximate its value:
Proposed Method of 1D Equivalent Linear Analysis
Considering Nonlinear Soils
Fig. 13 shows the predicted pile deflection from the 3D nonlinear
and 1D linear models described previously. The results matched
well only at small loads. With the increasing lateral load intensity,
the pile deflection from the 3D nonlinear model increased at
a higher rate than that from the 1D model, which is as expected.
In this analysis, the lateral loads ranged from 500 to 5,000 kN.

© ASCE 04014090-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Spring constant factor estimation from existing correlations and present study
The value of ks for the 1D linear model was estimated using the
proposed relationship in Eq. (3), and Epile and n were taken as
29.58 GPa and 0.3, respectively.
To perform the 1D equivalent linear analysis, one can use a rep-
resentative modulus reduction curve to estimate the soil modulus at
different strain magnitudes, as discussed previously. The de-
formation pattern around the pile has significant variation of strain in
the radial direction as well as along the depth, as shown by
Hajialilue-Bonab et al. (2013) through imaging of deformations
around a scaled-down model of the pile. Therefore, estimating the
representative lateral strain in the soil that can be used to correlate
with a reduction in spring stiffness is not an easy task. A concept of
equivalent lateral strain (ELS) is proposed as a simple way of in-
corporating it into the design.
ELS in Soil
The magnitude of strain varies from point to point in the soil as the
pile deforms at some lateral load. A representative value of spring
constant can be calculated only if the average value of the reduced
modulus at a depth can be estimated with due consideration to strain
variation in the radial and vertical directions. Hence, an average
value of lateral strain in a particular soil layer needs to be de-
termined, which is referred to as ELS. The ELS will be a function of
pile deflection that can be normalized by pile diameter (D).
Because strain varies in both vertical and radial directions, one
can divide the soil profile into multiple thin layers and define ELS for
each of those layers. This can make the procedure of estimating ELS
a little complex, as explained later in Example 2. For design sim-
plification, a solitary value of ELS can be considered to characterize
the soil deformation up to a certain depth that is generally expected
to have significant strain magnitudes and hence major nonlinear
deformations. The lateral load response of the pile is mainly con-
trolled by the spring constant taken for the soil at a shallow depth (up
to 3De4D), as reported by Zhang et al. (2013) through a comparative
study. Below a depth of approximately 4D to 7D in the case of long
monopiles (here D is diameter or width of pile), the strains are
© ASCE 04014090-7
Int. J. Geomech.
generally expected to be small enough that the maximum Esoil can
be conveniently used to represent the soil stiffness. For convenience
of design, one can assume this depth of significant strains to be up to
approximately 5D from the ground surface. Hence, ELS will rep-
resent an average value of strain magnitudes in the soil layers up to
a depth of 5D from the ground surface at a particular load. After
a depth of 5D from the ground level, the strains were assumed to be
small enough to ignore nonlinearity effects, and the maximum Esoil
was used to estimate ks . The ELS (g) for a 5D depth of soil was then
correlated with the pile deflection at ground level yg normalized by
pile diameter D
yg
g ¼ aels (4)
D
Here, aels is referred to as the equivalent lateral strain coefficient.
Imazu and Fukutake’s (1986) modulus reduction curves (Fig. 6)
were used to calculate the reduced value of the soil modulus at
different strain levels, which were again used to define the multiyield
material model for the 3D simulation. In the 1D model, initial values
of the soil’s secant modulus were first used to obtain spring constants
using Eq. (3). These values were then iterated to match the predicted
pile deflection with the response from the 3D nonlinear model. From
the modulus reduction curve, the strain corresponding to the final
secant modulus was then assumed to represent ELS. These values of
ELS and pile deflection at the ground level were put in Eq. (4) to
calculate aels and have been plotted in Fig. 14 for all the cases
analyzed in this study. Each model analysis at each load contributed
one point in this plot. These cases include combinations of different
n (0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45), Epile (25, 29.58, and 35 GPa), and
magnitude of loads P (2,000, 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 kN). Fig. 14
also includes the results of aels for the models with multilayer soil
profiles used in linear analysis, but this time it was simulated with
nonlinear soil, and it shows a small amount of scatter in the estimated
values of aels for the considered values of soil and pile properties. For
all practical purposes, these values can be reasonably approximated
as a constant aels 5 0:3. Hence, Eq. (4) can be modified to
Int. J. Geomech.
 y 
g
g ¼ 0:3 (5)
D
A few points had aels values much larger than 0.3, which corre-
sponded to homogeneous soil with high Young’s modulus
(2,000,000 kN=m2 ) at small deformations. Deviation for soils with
such a high stiffness has been ignored while making the recom-
mendation in Eq. (5).

Procedure of 1D Equivalent Linear Analysis using the

Proposed Method
The procedure of calculating pile deflection and the corresponding
ELS at different lateral loads in the proposed method is given in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

following steps:
1. Select a modulus reduction curve to be used in the analysis
and identify the corresponding threshold strain, i.e., the
strain up to which the soil modulus remains constant
(modulus reduction factor 5 1) and reduces thereafter.
2. Estimate the spring constant (ks ) for each soil layer by
substituting the corresponding Esoil in Eq. (3). Use maximum
Esoil in the first iteration.
3. Calculate the pile deflection for the model using ks values from
Step 2.
4. Determine the ELS value g for the top 5D depth of soil by
substituting the predicted pile deflection at the ground surface yg
from Step 3 into Eq. (5), i.e., g 5 0:3ðyg =DÞ. If the computed
strain is less than the threshold strain value, then there is no need
to perform further analysis. If not, proceed to Step 5.
5. Estimate reduced soil modulus Esoil for the strain value g from
Step 4 by using the modulus reduction curve.
6. Repeat Steps 2–5 until the value of ELS converges within
a certain tolerance limit.
The predicted pile response after convergence of equivalent
lateral strain can be used for the design purpose.

Example Simulations

Example 1: Single ELS Value Representing Soil

Deformations up to 5D Depth

Fig. 10. Spring constant factor at different values of (a) Poisson’s ratio; This example assumes ELS to represent an average strain of up to
(b) Young’s modulus of pile; (c) lateral loads (Esoil 5 65,000 kN=m2 ) a depth of 5D below the ground surface. The soil below a depth of
5D is assumed to have relatively small strains that allow using

Fig. 11. Predicted lateral deflection of pile at ground level through 3D and 1D linear models at different lateral loads assuming a multilayer soil profile

© ASCE 04014090-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Spring constant factor as a function of relative stiffness (Esoil =Epile ) for pile subjected to lateral load

Fig. 13. Estimated lateral deflection of pile at ground surface at various lateral loads through 3D nonlinear model and 1D linear model

maximum Esoil to compute spring constants. This design simplifi-
cation is not necessary, but it makes the design process easier.
The multilayer soil-pile model illustrated previously was con-
sidered as an example for estimating deflection along the depth of
the pile using the proposed method. Recommendations by Kramer
(1996) and Ohsaki and Iwasaki (1973) were used to estimate the
maximum shear modulus of soil in the sand and clay layers, re-
spectively. The modulus reduction curve was assumed according to
Imazu and Fukutake’s (1986) recommendations (Fig. 6). The pile
was subjected to a 2,000 kN lateral load at a height of 0.5 m above
the ground surface.
In the first iteration, the magnitude of ELS, modulus reduction
factor, and tolerance limit for ELS convergence were taken as 10206 ,
1, and 62% of the strain level, respectively. Deflection of the pile
was calculated for the ks value estimated from maximum Esoil using
Eq. (3). Deflection at the ground surface was 2.13 mm in this it-
eration. The ELS value was estimated as 0.000266 using Eq. (5),
g 5 0:3ðyg =DÞ. Because ELS was greater than the threshold value of
the lateral strain, the next iteration had to be performed by con-
sidering lower values of ks corresponding to the reduced modulus of
soil. Using the curves from Fig. 6, the modulus reduction factor
obtained was 0.630 for an ELS value of 0.000266. With the new
values of ks , the ground-level deflection was predicted as 2.964 mm,
for which ELS in the soil was estimated as 0.00037. Because the
change in ELS value was still more than the tolerance limit, further
iterations were performed to reach convergence of ELS. After five
such iterations, the value of ELS converged with the deflection at
ground level and the value of ELS in the soil were 3.29 mm and
0.000412 (0.0412%), respectively. The deflected shape of the pile
for all the iterations has been plotted in Fig. 15. All the ELS values
and other key information are summarized in Table 4.
Bending moment and shear force values were also estimated
along the depth of the pile because these are important design
parameters. The maximum bending moment was found to be at
4.5 m below the ground surface and its magnitude was approxi-
mately 15% higher than that from the 3D nonlinear simulations, as

© ASCE 04014090-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Strain coefficient of a pile subjected to lateral load considering the variation of soil and pile properties
shown in Fig. 16. Hence, the 1D model prediction is slightly con-
servative for the design. The point load was applied at an external
node at 0.5 m above the ground surface. Its lateral distribution within
the pile of 3D simulation had influence up to a depth of 1 m below the
ground surface, which was not expected to feature in the 1D sim-
ulation. The shear forces below a depth of 1 m matched well for both
of the simulations.
Example 2: ELS Defined in Multiple Layers to Represent
Strain Variation along Depth
In this example, the entire soil profile was divided into a number of
thin layers with 2-m thickness and then ELS was defined for each
layer independently. This model would represent a generalized re-
sponse of the pile-soil system subjected to lateral loads. The soil
profile and pile were kept the same as in Example 1 to compare the
results from the two approaches. Because the definition of ELS has
changed in this example, from it representing 5D depth to individual
thin layers, it is expected that the ELS coefficient (aels ) may change
as well. First, to compare the results with Example 1, the same aels of
0.3 was considered in the analysis. Iterations for ELS convergence
were performed for pile deflection at the ground level using the same
procedure as in Example 1. The final pile deflection at the ground
surface after iterations was found to be 3.10 mm, which was slightly
less than the 3D results (3:38 mm) as well as the result from
Example 1 (3:29 mm). This does not mean that the variable strain
consideration is erroneous. Considering the expected change in aels
due to redefined ELS, the value of aels was increased to 0.35 and then
to 0.40 for two more cases, and the pile deflection was predicted for
each case by following the same procedure as explained previously.
The calculated deflection of the pile at the ground level and ELS in
soil layers are listed in Table 5. It was found that an aels value of
0.4 predicted the deflection approximately the same as the deflection
from the 3D simulation. By analyzing a number of cases for different
soil and pile properties with variable strain considerations, a strain
coefficient of approximately 0.4 may be used one day to perform
1D linear analysis. In that case, there could be a choice to use either
the modified model with equivalent lateral strain in multiple layers of
the pile or the earlier model having a single ELS coefficient for the
top 5D of the pile length.
The model with variable strain consideration might be able to
produce more accurate predictions than the earlier model, depending
on the pile and soil properties and geometry. However, the error
© ASCE 04014090-10
Int. J. Geomech.
introduced in predictions by the approximations in the earlier model
is not expected to be significant enough to worry about it in design
practice. This statement makes further sense when one considers the
expected errors in predictions due to the uncertainties associated
with soil and pile properties. Hence, it is recommended to use the
proposed method with equivalent strain considering a depth of 5D
and a strain coefficient of 0.3 because it is relatively simple and easy
to implement.
Strengths and Limitations of Proposed Methods
Using this study, 3D soil-pile model behavior can be analyzed ap-
proximately by simulating a 1D linear model for long piles. Hence,
the involved complexity, computation effort, and the time needed in
developing 3D models can be avoided. One can reasonably predict
deflection of a pile subjected to lateral load by calculating the mod-
ulus of soil estimated using SPT/CPT correlations or geophysical
methods and by adopting a suitable modulus reduction curve from
the literature. This can be of great use when there is a lack of high-
quality field data.
In this study, the models were validated using theoretical so-
lutions available in the literature. It will be interesting to compare the
3D simulation results with pile-load test data at low deformations,
where the expected response is linear elastic. Experiments at large
enough loads, which induce significant nonlinearity in the soil, will
bring out the effect of common construction practices on the de-
formation pattern. This is important because the construction-related
issues may have some impact on the response of the pile-soil system
to future loads. The effect of the soil-pile interface, water table, and
inclination of soil layers were not considered in this study to reduce
the complexity of the problem. Pile shape and construction method
may also influence the results to some extent. The proposed method
is limited to long piles with large diameters, and it may not directly
apply to pile groups.
Ideally, the predicted response from the proposed model should
match the response of a full-scale field test. However, there are
uncertainties associated with Young’s modulus of soil and mod-
ulus reduction curves of different layers of soil strata, which are
mostly determined using empirical correlations (Seed and Idriss
1970; Imazu and Fukutake 1986; Zhang et al. 2005). It will be useful
to calibrate these two properties by comparing the predictions with the
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Lateral displacement along the depth of pile at different iterations performed in the analysis of Example 1

Table 4. Equivalent Lateral Strain and Other Parameters at Different Iterations Performed in Analysis of Example 1
Iteration number Considered strain Strain factor Displacement at ground surface Calculated lateral strain
1 0.000001 1 0.00213 0.00027
2 0.00027 0.63 0.00296 0.00037
3 0.00037 0.564 0.00321 0.0004
4 0.0004 0.547 0.00328 0.00041
5 0.00041 0.543 0.00329 0.00041

Table 5. Pile Deflection at Ground Surface in Example 2 Considering Variation of Equivalent Lateral Strain in Soil along the Depth of Pile
Lateral strain in layer
Equivalent lateral Deflection at ground
strain equation level (m)a 1 2 3 4 5 6
b
0:40y=D 0.0033866 0.00057 0.00033 0.00016 0.0000564 0.00000146 0.0000164
0:35y=D 0.0032441b 0.00048 0.00028 0.00014 0.0000448 0.00000020 0.0000143
0:30y=D 0.0031025b 0.00039 0.00023 0.00011 0.0000347 0.00000130 0.0000122
a
Lateral load 5 2,000 kN.
b
3D deflection 5 0:003326 m.

© ASCE 04014090-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Lateral deflection, bending moment, and shear force of laterally loaded pile embedded in multilayer soil system (Example 1)
field test response. The same model then can be used to predict pile
response at other similar locations in the same project.
Conclusion
Three types of models—1D linear, 3D linear, and 3D nonlinear—
were developed using OpenSees 2.3.2 to simulate long monopiles
embedded in the soil. A parametric study was performed by com-
paring the results from 3D and 1D linear models, which considered
variation of the Young’s modulus of soil, Poisson’s ratio of soil,
Young’s modulus of the pile, and the applied lateral loads. The ratio
of the spring constant and Young’s modulus of soil was significantly
influenced by the stiffness of the soil. Influence of other parameters
such as the Poisson’s ratio of soil, stiffness of the pile, and lateral
load were relatively insignificant. Based on these observations,
a new equation has been proposed to compute the spring constant
factor from the relative stiffness of the soil and pile (Esoil =Epile ). To
consider soil nonlinearity in 1D equivalent linear analysis, a concept
of ELS has been introduced as an average strain value representing
deformation pattern around the pile. The ELS is proposed to have
a correlation with normalized pile deflection through a constant
strain coefficient. In a simplified method, ELS was considered as
a single value for soil up to a depth of 5D below the ground surface.
This ELS was then used to compute reduced stiffness of soil springs
based on the lower modulus of soil at higher strains. For this def-
inition of ELS, the associated strain coefficient was found to be
approximately 0.3 based on the results from a number of simulations.
Finally, an iterative procedure of 1D equivalent linear analysis is
proposed to estimate lateral load response of the large diameter long
piles embedded in nonlinear soils.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Raj Mashruwala for en-
couraging this research through partial financial support besides
© ASCE 04014090-12
Int. J. Geomech.
the support from IIT Gandhinagar. The authors are also thankful
to MEGA, Gujarat for providing inspiration to conduct this study.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
aels 5 equivalent lateral strain coefficient;
D 5 diameter of pile;
Epile 5 Young’s modulus of pile;
Esoil 5 Young’s modulus of soil;
fsc 5 spring constant factor;
ks 5 lateral spring constant of soil;
L 5 length of pile;
P 5 lateral load applied on pile;
yg 5 ground deflection of pile;
g 5 expected equivalent lateral strain in soil;
gmax 5 maximum shear strain; and
n 5 Poisson’s ratio.
References
Basu, D., and Salgado, R. (2007). “Elastic analysis of laterally loaded pile
in multi-layered soil.” Geomech. Geoeng., 2(3), 183–196.
Broms, B. B. (1964a). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 90(3), 123–158.
Broms, B. B. (1964b). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.” J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., 90(2), 27–64.
Desai, C. S., and Appel, G. C. (1976). “3D analysis of laterally loaded
structures.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Vol. 1, ASCE, Reston, VA, 405–418.
Guo, W. D. (2006). “On limiting force profile, slip depth and response of
lateral piles.” Comput. Geotech., 33(1), 47–67.
Guo, W. D. (2013). “Pu -based solutions for slope stabilizing piles.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000201, 292–310.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Hajialilue-Bonab, M., Sojoudi, Y., and Puppala, A. J. (2013). “Study of
strain wedge parameters for laterally loaded piles.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000186, 143–152.
Hetényi, M. (1946). Beams on elastic foundation, University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Imazu, M., and Fukutake, K. (1986). “Dynamic shear modulus and damp-
ing ratio of gravel materials.” Proc., 21st Japan National Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Society of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 509–512.
Kim, Y., and Jeong, S. (2011). “Analysis of soil resistance on laterally
loaded piles based on 3D soil–pile interaction.” Comput. Geotech.,
38(2), 248–257.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Maheshwari, B. K., Truman, K. Z., Gould, P. L., and El Naggar, M. H.
(2005). “Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of single piles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
using finite element model: Effects of plasticity of soil.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:1(35), 35–44.
Mardfekri, M., Gardoni, P., and Roesset, J. M. (2013). “Modeling laterally
loaded single piles accounting for nonlinear soil-pile interactions.” J.
Eng., 2013, 243179.
Matlock, H. (1970). “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
soft clay.” Proc., 2nd Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 1, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 577–594.
Matlock, H. M., and Reese, L. C. (1962). “Generalized solutions for laterally
loaded piles.” Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 127(1), 1220–1247.
Muskhelishvili, N. I. (1963). Some basic problems of the mathematical
theory of elasticity: Fundamental equations, plane theory of elasticity,
torsion, and bending. Trans. J. R. M. Radok, P. Noordhoff, Groningen,
Netherlands.
Ohsaki, Y., and Iwasaki, R. (1973). “On dynamic shear moduli and Pois-
son’s ratios of soil deposits.” Soils Found., 13(4), 61–73.
OpenSees 2.3.2 [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Poulos, H. G. (1971). “Behavior of laterally loaded piles: I—Single piles.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97(5), 711–731.
© ASCE 04014090-13
Int. J. Geomech.
Randolph, M. F. (1981). “The response of flexible piles to lateral loading.”
Géotechnique, 31(2), 247–259.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). “Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand.” Proc., 6th Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 2,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 473–483.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1975). “Field testing and analysis
of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay.” Proc., Offshore Technology Conf.,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
Reese, L. C., and Welch, R. C. (1975). “Lateral loading of deep foundations
in stiff clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 101(7), 633–649.
Scott, R. F. (1980). “Analysis of centrifuge pile tests; Simulation of pile-
driving.” Rep. through September 30, 1979 Research Program for
American Petroleum Institute OSAPR Project 13, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1970). “Soil moduli and damping factors for
dynamic response analysis.” Rep. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Terzaghi, K. (1955). “Evaluation of subgrade reaction.” Géotechnique, 5(4),
279–326.
Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J., and Christiano, P. (1991). “Three-dimensional
nonlinear study of piles.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1991)117:3(429), 429–447.
Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre von der Elasticitaet und Festigkeit, Dominicus,
Prague.
Yang, Z., and Jeremic, B. (2005). “Study of soil layering effects on lateral
loading behavior of piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:6(762), 762–770.
Yang, Z., Lu, J., and Elgamal, A. (2008). OpenSees soil models and solid-
fluid fully coupled elements: User’s manual, Version 1.0, Univ. of
California at San Diego, San Diego.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalized shear
modulus and material damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453), 453–464.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., and Zou, X. (2013). “Behavior of laterally loaded piles
in multilayered soils.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000319, 06014017.
Int. J. Geomech.