Measurement 153 (2020) 107365

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

A new real-time monitoring technique in calculation of the p-y curve of

single thin steel piles considering the influence of driven energy and
using strain gauge sensors
Hossein Moayedi a,b, Ramli Nazir c, Mesut Gör d, Khairul Anuar Kassim c, Loke Kok Foong e,⇑
a
Department for Management of Science and Technology Development, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
c
Centre of Tropical Geoengineering (Geotropik), School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Division of Geotechnical Engineering, Firat University, Turkey
e
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the modelling of a single thin steel pile to simulate the relationship between soil
Received 26 July 2019 pressure reaction (p) and lateral deflection (y). The presented simulation helps to produce a more reliable
Received in revised form 9 November 2019 p-y curve graph using skin-based strain sensors. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to evaluate
Accepted 3 December 2019
the p-y curve obtained from physical modelling in order to calculate the subgrade reaction modulus (Ks)
Available online 10 December 2019
and maximum bending moment in both loose and dense soil conditions using differentiation and integra-
tion methods. In this regard, extensive instrumentation and unique data acquisition system was used
Keywords:
around the single thin steel pile, where the results provided the most reliable graph of the moment
Strain gauge sensors
Pile monitoring
(M) versus depth (z) from the soil surface. In addition, the effect of pile driving energy with respect to
Driven energy the different relative densities of soil is obtained. The results indicated that as the density of sand
Thin piles increases, the subgrade modulus and maximum bending moment of the pile increases. The increases
Lateral loading in passive soil pressure could cause significant decreases in pile lateral deflection. Furthermore, the p-
y behaviour of the single thin pile is hardly affected by the installation of derivation energy.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The pile-soil interaction is important in civil engineering design

Due to stress-dependent, nonlinear, anisotropic and heteroge-
neous nature of the soil, it has very complex mechanical behaviour
[1–4]. Therefore, in most engineering design projects, instead of
modelling the subsoil (e.g., with all its complexity) the subgrade
soil is replaced by a simpler system called a subgrade reaction
model [5,6]. In this regard, several researchers proposed models
in order to simulate subgrade modulus of loose and dense sand.
Several researchers proposed models that assume a linear relation-
ship between vertical settlement (y) and the associated soil force
reaction (p) at any given point. This is given by the coefficient of
subgrade reaction, Ks (Eq. (1)).
P
Ks ¼
y
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan
University, Da Nang 550000, Viet Nam (L. Kok Foong).
E-mail addresses: hossein.moayedi@tdtu.edu.vn (H. Moayedi), lokekokfoong@
duytan.edu.vn (L. Kok Foong).
(e.g., designing deep foundations) and most structural health mon-
itoring subjects [7–11]. The top part of the pile is the critical por-
tion that need to be assessed during the structural life time of
the piles. This is because higher displacement and the maximum
bending moment occur at the top of the pile [12–15]. For this rea-
son, it is imperative to study the maximum bending moment fur-
ther in pile design. The maximum bending moment is the most
important design criterion; even more important than lateral dis-
placement. However, both of these factors are important in several
cases. Fig. 1 shows the schematic of a laterally-loaded pile response
(i.e., the horizontal load applied at the top of the pile). It shows that
the top layer is the critical part especially with regard to the
motion because sometimes the soil does not have full contact with
ð1Þ the pile in this region.
According to various studies, several factors need to be consid-
ered in lateral design response such as (i) load transfer approach,
(ii) soil-pile interaction and (iii) non-linear p-y curves (e.g., Khari
et al. [16], Suryasentana and Lehane [17], Kim et al. [13] and Guo
and Lehane [18–21]. The non-linear p-y curve includes the lateral

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107365
0263-2241/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365
Fig. 1. Schematic of a Laterally Loaded Pile Response and data acquisition system.
forces and the lateral deflection. Higher lateral resistance enables
the width of the pile to be decreased. In a centrifuge test study
on lateral pile response and p-y curves presented by Barton et al.
[22], the stiffness of the p-y curves varies as the square root of
depth rather than linearly, and the ultimate resistance is underes-
timated near the pile head and overestimated at depth by the API
curves. The test used is the cyclic lateral load test on model pipe
piles driven into inundated and saturated sand. Khari et al. [16]
investigated on development of p-y curves of laterally loaded in
piles in cohesionless soil and found that the soil reaction for vari-
ous relative density (from 30% to 75%) increases in range from 40
to 90% for smooth pile at small displacement and 90% at a large
displacement.
Naggar et al. [23] developed a simple 2D analysis to correctly
model the pile response (e.g., lateral pile deflection to the applied
horizontal load on pile cap) to dynamic loads. Energy dissipation
and wave propagation were also calculated for, along with discon-
tinuity conditions at the soil-pile interface [23]. Simpson and
Brown [6] stated that the criteria used to develop p-y curves
should result from in situ testing and/or laboratory data. Mirza
[24] evaluated the behaviour of a pile group in uniform and layered
soil (sand and/or clay). This study was performed based on the
model approach called strain wedge that was proposed to analyse
the response of a long (e.g., also considered as flexible pile) under
lateral stresses [24]. On the other hand, Dewaikar and Patil [25]
used a simple method for the construction of hyperbolic p-y curves
for a soft clay. The hyperbolic p-y curve was proposed for static
loading conditions. Large magnitude lateral loads such as wind
and ocean waves were considered. Dash et al. [26] stated that in
the Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) model, the soil
is represented by a set of independent springs, situated at discrete
locations along the pile. Generally, the lateral soil spring refers to a
p-y spring. The shape, strength and stiffness parameter affect the
response of the pile subjected to lateral seismic loading according
to Dash et al. [26]. Kim et al. [27] used the p-y curves for major
parameters relating to the flexibility of the pile (pile diameter, pile
length, pile bending stiffness and modulus of subgrade reaction) in
numerical analysis. Different bending moments and lateral dis-
placements resulted in flexible piles and rigid piles [27]. Further-
more, Rovithis et al. [28] used back-calculated p-y loops
constructed from sample data on pile bending moments to evalu-
ate the seismic soil-pile interaction. Fundamental properties of p-y
loops are used to derive distributed springs and dashpots [28].
McGann et al. [29] presented the evaluation of the response of
the soil-pile system to lateral spreading in two alternative lateral
load cases using FE modules. These modules were used to present
a kinematic analysis of a single pile embedded in the laterally
spreading layered soil profile. Bouzid et al. [30] used the principles
of mobilized strength design (MSD) to construct a p-y curve. Two
of the coefficients used were Nc (for stress) and Mc (for strain).
The p-y curve represented the discrete non-linear springs which
characterize the soil-pile interaction at various depths.
Several studies, such as Kaloop and Li [32], Moschas and Stiros
[33], Vazquez et al. [34], and Guzman-Acevedo et al. [35], stated
that the structural health monitoring refers to the process of char-
acterization strategy for engineering structures and implementing
a damage detection. Here the damage is defined as geometric prop-
erties of a structural system and/or any changes to the material,
including changes to the boundary conditions. These concerns will
adversely influence the system’s performance [36]. Real-time mon-
itoring of Infrastructure plays a vital role in public safety in regards
to both post extreme event scenarios and most importantly long-
term damage accumulation. There are few studies, such as Choi
et al. [37], Zhang [38], Moayedi and Armaghani [39] and Moayedi
et al. [1], that covered the assessment of soil-pile interaction
parameters, based on the laboratory experimental results, includ-
ing the vertical or lateral load-settlement behaviours of the bored
piles. The previous solutions are hard to use for non-trained per-
sonnel. Besides, potential hybrid mathematical solutions requires
large amount of laboratory works to be done before to be used in
such a complex engineering problem [57–61]. This is because of
assigning various non-critical parameters and conditions through
laboratory modeling as well as complicated equations obtained
from the various procedure. Most previous studies focused on a
particular soil type such as clay (e.g., Prasad and Rao [40], Geor-
giadis et al. [41], Das and Suman [42], Wang and Liu [43]) or sand
(e.g., Bouzid [44], Lee et al. [45], Khari et al. [46], Qin and Guo [15],
Reddy and Ayothiraman [47] and Park et al. [48]) which have not
 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365
discussed about using different values of the driving energy. The
solutions that are provided in most of these studies did not provide
a simple design formula for use in resolving the geotechnical and
geomechanically practical problems. It is appealed that the exist-
ing models do not show uniform and reliable outputs under differ-
ent project conditions and this issue cause uncertainty in the
prediction of the lateral bearing capacity of the bored pile. In brief,
the currently available solutions do not offer a simple formula and/
or required features such as forecasting the stress-strain behaviour
of laterally loaded bored piles. The authors are therefore motivated
to propose new modelling for the problem. In this regard, physical
modelling was conducted to produce the p-y curve of a single pile
under the cyclic loading. Hence, the main objectives of this current
study were to find a reliable and simple computation model to esti-
mate the modulus of subgrade reaction and also to assess the max-
imum bending moment on loose and dense sand using the p-y
curve.
2. Materials and methods
A schematic view of the laboratory measuring equipment and
steps that were taken in the geotechnical laboratory are shown
in Fig. 2. The samples of soil used for the experimental program
is tabulated in Table 1. A total of 12 steps were followed to record
the data for the linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) and
static tests. Note that the LVDTs were only used to measure the
deflection at the ground surface (e.g., at the top of the pile). How-
ever, the strain gages (see Fig. 3) were used to collect the lateral
deformation of the whole embedded pile’s length. The strain values
observed at each strain gauge station were immediately converted
to moments by multiplying the strain by the appropriate calibra-
Fig. 2. Summary of sensors and data collection systems, (a) LVDT to record horizontal displacement in pile’s head, (b) strain gauge sensors, (c) 32 channels data logger.
3
Table 1
Samples of soil used for the experimental program.
Soil density The density of sand (DR) The height of Sample
conditions (cm)
A 75% (Dense Sand) 65
B 30% (Loose Sand) 65
C 30% dense + 75% loose 15; 50
(Combined Sand)
tion constant. The result obtained from the lateral deflection of
the pile at the top (i.e. using LVDTs) was then used to compare with
the deflection calculated by second integration of the observed
moment curves.
There are numerous studies on the scale effects on pile founda-
tion behavior [49–51]. Regarding the scale effect during the exper-
iment works, we scaled down the real problem of the pile
foundation based on limitations that we had in the geotechnical
laboratory. One important issue that should be taken into account
for lateral or axial vertical loading was the ratio between the pile
diameter and tank diameter. The maximum ratio we found was
12 pile diameter for horizontal loading and a 5 pile size for ver-
tical loading. In our example of pile horizontal loading, we
employed a size larger than 12 of the pile diameter to avoid
any side effects on the testing piles. One more restriction was the
ratio between the pile diameter and gran size as it should be prop-
erly selected, avoiding the scale effect. In this regard also we have
selected the uniform gran size distribution which was smaller than
0.1 of the pile diameter as suggested in several other studies
[52,53].
The arrangement of the strain gauges is shown in Fig. 3. As sta-
ted, these strain gauges were placed along the pile’s length. The
4 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365

Fig. 3. Arrangement of strain gauge sensors (a) Schematic view (b) Actual photograph of sensors installation.

main idea of considering several strain gauges along the pile was to
take a lateral deflection of the piles along the embedded pile and
use it through the back-calculation process. The arrangement of
the strain gauge on single pile was 2, 6, 10, 15, 20, 26 and 35 cm
from the ground surface for the G1–G8 strain gauges, respectively
(Fig. 3). Note that the used pile through the experimental program
had 5 cm free length which means, for each unit of a strain gauge,
the calculated distance was taken 5.0 cm from the bottom of the
pile cap.
Two values of the height from the bottom of the hammer to the
top of the pile cap were used in the free-fall method, i.e., 25 cm and
50 cm. The difference in the height of the free fall produced differ-
ent values of driving energy, i.e., 2 J and 4 J respectively. The value
of the driving energy was calculated using Eq. (2), and Table 2
shows the test number set for each sample with each value of driv-
ing energy.
Ea ¼ 9:81ðWhÞðHf Þ ð2Þ
Wh is the weight of the hammer (kg), and Hf is the height of free
fall (m)
The mobile pluviator developed by Khari et al. [54] was used to
fill the box with sand (Fig. 4a). Same technique is used by Khari

Table 2
Sample details and the driving energy used.

Soil density conditions A (dense) B (loose) C (combined)

Test number 1 2 3 4 5 6
The value of driving energy (Joule) 2 4 2 4 2 4

Fig. 4. laboratory equipment used in this study, (a) The mobile pluviator used to fill the test box (b) experimental set up for single pile driving.
 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365 5

et al. [31]. By using this apparatus, the density of the sand was 90
accurately determined, and a good soil configuration obtained.
80
Three different relative soil densities were used, i.e., 75%, 30%

Horizontal applied load (N)

and combined (75% and 30%). Two of the sets of soil samples had 70
to be prepared before running the test. This is because samples 60
A, B and C were tested twice, using different values of the driving
energy, (i.e., 2 J and 4 J). Therefore, the total number of soil samples 50
prepared was six. Before the test was conducted, the steel U chan- 40
nel was connected to the box at the mid-point of its length using
the G-clip. This U channel was used to support the driving pile 30
stand and two LVDT units during the testing process. Before start- 20
ing the process of driving the pile into the soil sample, the driving
10
pile stand was connected to the U channel. Subsequently, a ham-
mer with a weight of 825 g was used to drive the pile into the soil 0
samples using the free-fall method (Fig. 4b). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
During testing, the driving pole process was stopped when the Loading step
height between the pile cap and the surface of the sand was 5 cm.
Fig. 7. The loads used in the experiments (for each test).
The driving pole process was conducted carefully to ensure that
the pole was in a vertical position (at 90° to the sand surface).
The test will produce inaccurate results for a pole that is not in a
vertical position, and the data could not then be used for further 90
analysis. Therefore, in such a case, the pole and the sand sample 80
must be removed, the sample preparation repeated and the test

Applied horizontal load (N)

70
re-done. After the pole achieved the pile cap level, the driven pile
stand was removed, and two LVDTs were connected at the U chan- 60
nel using magnetic clips. All LVDTs were positioned touching the 50
pile cap, as shown in Fig. 5. This is because the LVDTs were used
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lateral deflection of pile's head (cm)
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

Fig. 8. Graph of load (N) against lateral deflection (mm) for six tests.

to measure the horizontal deflection at the pile cap. After the LVDT
setup is completed, a second apparatus must be set up for the sta-
tic test. For the static test, a stand with a pulley was placed beside
Fig. 5. Two LVDT sensors on pile setup.
the sample with the completed driving pile setup and LVDT. Then,

Fig. 6. Applied load in the static test setup; (a) setting the load direction, (b) the static load for a particular stage.
6 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365

a rope was tied to the middle of the pile cap, placed on the pulley
and connected to a load holder (Fig. 6).
After preparing all apparatus, i.e., after placing the strain gauge
at the pile, driving the pile vertically, placing the LVDT at the pile
cap and setting up the static test without applying any loads, all
the strain wires (7 wires) and all the LVDT wires (2 wires) were
connected to the data logger. After the wires were connected, the
coefficient of strain, coefficient of LVDT and gauge factor were
input to the employed data logger, as follows:
To conduct the test, various values of the applied horizontal
load must first be applied to the test apparatus in the so-called sta-
tic condition. The various lateral loads were applied to the pile at
the surface of the ground through a pulley arrangement. Fig. 7 pre-
sents the horizontal loads applied as dead weights, which were
gradually increased during the static test.
2.1. p-y curve and horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction (kh)

The coefficient of strain gauge 0.93 Two types of outputs were produced in the experimental study,
Coefficient of LVDT 0.005 i.e., two items of data from the LVDT in mm and seven items of data
Gauge factor 2.13 ± 1% from the strain gauge in le. These results were used to obtain the

Lateral deflecon of pile (cm) Lateral deflecon of pile (cm) Lateral deflecon of pile (cm)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0 0 0

5 5 5

10 10
10

15 15
15
Depth (cm)

Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)

20 20
20
25
25 25
30
30 30
35
35
35
40
40 H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N
40 H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N
H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N
H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N
H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N
H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N H = 78.48 N H = 78.48 N
H = 78.48 N
(a) (b) (c)

Lateral deflecon of pile (cm) Lateral deflecon of pile (cm) Lateral deflecon of pile (cm)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0 0 0
5 5 5

10 10 10

15 15 15
Depth (cm)

Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)

20 20 20

25 25 25

30 30
30
35 35
35
40 40
40
H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N
H = 4.905 N H = 9.81 N
H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N
H = 14.715 N H = 19.62 N
H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N
H = 29.43 N H = 39.24 N
H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N
H = 49.05 N H = 58.86 N
H = 78.48 N H = 78.48 N
H = 78.48 N
(d) (e) (f)
Fig. 9. Lateral deflection of pile versus depth after 9 cycles of loading in: (a) Test 1, (b) Test 2, (c) Test 3, (d) Test 4, (e) Test 5 and (f) Test 6.
 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365
graph of soil reaction and pile deflection (p-y curve). The p-y curve
was used to determine the spring constant or modulus of subgrade
reaction. The value of the spring constant was used in the numerical
analysis for pile deflection. The model was developed using several
different specifications. These experiments were carried out to ana-
lyze the relationship between soil reaction, p, and pile deflection, y.
The data from the experiments were further used to develop the
graph of the p-y curve for each test. For this purpose, there were
three types of instrumentation sets used for each experiment: (i)
strain gauges, (ii) LVDTs and (iii) static weights.
3. Results
For the first analysis, the graph of load (N) against lateral deflec-
tion (mm) is provided. To produce this graph, all loads were con-
verted into units of Newtons (N) and also the average value of the
LVDT was calculated (e.g., using the coefficient of LVDT = 0.005) to
find the lateral deflection values. Fig. 8 shows the graph of load
(N) against lateral deflection for six tests obtained from the installed
LVDTs. In addition, Fig. 9(a–f) illustrates the results of the lateral
deflection of the thin wall pile used versus depth in test number
1–6 (also see Table 2), respectively. From Fig. 8 it can be seen that
the tests number 3 and 4 (i.e., pile embedded in loose sand) pre-
sented the highest lateral deflection for a particular horizontal force.
On the other hand, it can be said that the lowest applied horizontal
stresses are obtained when (i) the pile derived with low driving
energy (Fig. 9a, c, e) and (ii) the ground covered with the loose sand
(Fig. 9c, d). The lateral bearing capacity of the driven pile in dense
sand (Fig. 9a, b) was found to be up to 2.2 times higher than when
it is embedded in the loose sand (Fig. 9c–f). Note that, the results
using the p-y curved developed in other studies may be different
from the results obtained in this study. For instance, according to
Khari et al. [54], the soil-pile reaction for various relative densities
(from 30% to 75%) was increased by 40–95% for a smooth pile at
small displacements and by 90% at large displacements. This could
be due to the roughness of the pile that has been stated in their stud-
ies. Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the lateral deflection of the pile
Lateral deflecon of pile (cm)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0 78.48 N. Fig. 10.b shows the graph of the lateral load (N) against
5 moment. The highest maximum bending moment is 1124.9 Ncm
10
15
Depth (cm)
20
25
30
35
40
Test 1 Test 2
Test 4 Test 5
Fig. 10. A comparison of lateral deflection of pile versus depth for an applied
horizontal force of 78.5 N for 6 test models.
7
versus depth for an applied horizontal force of 78.5 N for each exper-
iment. The highest lateral deflection is found for test #6. As stated
earlier, test #6 is the combined soil (75% and 30% relative density)
with 2 J driving energy. On the other hand, test #2 recorded the low-
est lateral deflection. Test #2 is the loose sand (30% relative density)
with 4 J driving energy (Fig. 9b).
4. Discussion
4.1. Moment analysis
For the second analysis, the moment value must first be
obtained. To obtain the moment value, all the strain values must
be multiplied by their own gauge coefficient. The strain value is
the output of the experiment. It is different for each load, and each
load produces seven strain values. Eq. (3) was used to calculate the
first moment,
Mn ¼ kn:Gn ð3Þ
where Mn is the moment value for each gauge (N.m), kn is each
gauge coefficient (refer to Table 3) and Gn is the value of strain
for each gauge.
After calculating all the moments for each gauge for the various
loads of each sample, the graph of moment M (N.cm) against depth
from the soil surface z (cm) is produced to obtain the best fitting of
the s-curve for the moment. Furthermore, the new value of the
gauge coefficient for a particular depth from the soil surface, z
(cm), was produced from the best fitting of the s-curve moment.
The new values of z are 2.0, 7.6, 13.2, 18.8, 24.4, 30.0, 35.6, 41.2,
46.8, 52.4 and 58.0 cm. Finally, the value of the moment based
on the depth from the best-fitting curve was calculated.
Fig. 11(a, b) shows the effect of relative density on the maxi-
mum bending moment. The graph shows the lateral load against
the maximum bending moment for two different driving energies.
These two graphs represent the two different driving energies of 2 J
and 4 J respectively. Fig. 10.a presents the graph of lateral load (N)
against the maximum bending moment (Ncm) for driving energy
of 2 J. The highest maximum bending moment occurs for the com-
bined relative density (75% and 30%) soil. The highest maximum
1.0 1.2 bending moment is 1224.9 Ncm, and the highest lateral load is
the maximum bending moment (Ncm) for driving energy of 4 J.
The loose sand (Dr 30%) recorded the highest maximum bending
at lateral load 78.48 N. From a combination of these three graphs;
it is observed that the pile deflection is lower in dense sand and
higher in loose sand.
Fig. 12a and b show the graphs for the lateral load against the
deflection at the ground surface. These two graphs also represent
different driving energies, as the graph shown in Fig. 12a shows
the lateral load against deflection at ground surface for driving
energy of 2 J, whereas Fig. 12b shows the graph for driving energy
of 4 J. The highest deflection occurs for a pile in loose sand. As
expected, the highest lateral load results in the largest pile deflec-
tion in loose sand. The value for the deflection for the driving pile
energy of 2 J was 0.3786 (Fig. 12a). Less deflection occurs at the pile
in dense sand. The deflection at the ground surface is shown for
dense sand, loose sand and combined (Dr 75% and Dr 30%) The
highest deflection recorded in dense sand was 2.2 cm, which was
much lower than that recorded in loose sand (Fig. 12b).
Test 3
4.2. Development of the p-y curve
Test 6
The development of the p-y curve depends on the soil reaction
and the deflection of the pile. According to Juirnarongrit and Ash-
8 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365

Table 3
Gauge coefficient.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
k 1.1374 1.1397 1.0851 1.1572 1.1198 0.9490 0.9958

Fig. 11. Graph of lateral load (N) against maximum bending moment (N.cm) for driving energy: (a) 2 J, (b) 4.

2
ford [55], p-y curves for soils are classified into two different types, d M ð zÞ
i.e., curves for cohesive soil and curves for cohesionless soil. For p¼ ð4Þ
dz2
this study, cohesionless soil (sand) was used to develop the p-y
curve. The p-value is the soil reaction (kN/m), and the ‘y’ value is ZZ
the deflection of the pile. The graph of soil reaction against the M ðzÞdz
y¼ ð5Þ
deflection was plotted as shown in Fig. 12. The values of the soil EI
reaction p (kN/m), and the deflection, y (m) were calculated using
Eqs. (4) and (5) and, respectively, where EI = 91,000 Nmm2
 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365
Fig. 12. Graph of lateral load (N) against deflection (mm) at the ground surface for driving energy: (a) 2 J, (b) 4 J.
Fig. 13a illustrates the p-y curve for the pile where the driving
energy used is 2 J. There were three tests for the soil reaction
against deflection. The relative densities of the soil samples used
were 75%, 30% and combined (75% and 30%). For the graph of soil
reaction against deflection, the pile in the dense sand shows less
deflection compared with the other two samples. However, the pile
in the loose sand records the highest deflection. Fig. 13b shows the
soil reaction against the deflection for 4 J driving pile energy. The
highest deflection occurs for the pile in loose sand, i.e., 0.27 mm
at 0.35 kN/m. The sand with a relative density of 75% shows the
least deflection although the soil reaction is higher than test #4
(Dr 30%) and test 6 (Dr 75% and Dr 30%).
There were six tests conducted for three different relative den-
sities of sand, i.e., 75% (dense sand), 30% (loose sand) and 30% plus
75% (combined). These three samples were tested using two values
of the driving energy, i.e., 2 J and 4 J. Two items of data from the
LVDTs were analyzed to determine the displacement of the pile
cap under load. From the results, the graph of load (N) against lat-
eral deflection (mm) was plotted. The highest lateral deflection
was 15.25 mm with 0.078 kN load. For the strain gauges, the data
9
were continuously recorded using a data logger. The data logger
gave the results for the strain values. The moment was calculated
by multiplying the gauge coefficient with the strain value. The
result from the strain test shows that higher deflection occurred
in loose sand and lower deflection occurred at the pile in dense
sand. According to Ranjan and Rao [56], the percentage of relative
density for dense soil is between 65% and 85%. For the dense, or
high relative density, granular soil, the shear strength found to
be high. Besides, the obtained laboratory data can be a basis for
many mathematical-based solutions [62–67].
5. Conclusion
The p-y curve was developed from the experimental work, and
the results were generated by the data logger. The data logger
produced two items of LVDT data and seven items of data from
the strain gauge. The experiments were only conducted on one
type of soil. This was due to the fact that a limited number of soil
types were similar to the actual condition of the soils at the site.
Two different driving energies were used (2 J and 4 J); each driv-
10 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365

Fig. 13. The p-y curve for different relative densities of soil with (a) 2 J and (b) 4 J driving pile energy.

ing energy was used for three samples with different relative
densities. The following conclusions are obtained from the cur-
rent study.
 The subgrade modulus and maximum bending moment of loose
and dense sand were obtained using the p-y curve.
 The highest deflection of 0.27 mm occurs for the pile in loose
sand.
 The sand with relative density 75% shows the least deflection
although the contact pressure (p) is higher than for the test with
Dr 30% and/or test #6 with relative densities of 75% and 30%
combined.
 The p-y curve can be determined by using differentiation and
integration methods. The p-y behaviours of the pile were hardly
influenced by the installation of derivation energy.
 The highest deflection occurred at the pile in the loose sand
although the least deflection was in the dense sand. From the
p-y curve, the average value for the subgrade reaction was
found to be 12,823 kN/m3.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was performed in the geotechnical laboratory of
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). We like to thank Dr. Mahdy
Khari for his immense help during the experimental program.
References
[1] J. Fan, D. Jiang, W. Liu, F. Wu, J. Chen, J. Daemen, Discontinuous fatigue of salt
rock with low-stress intervals, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 115 (2019) 77–86,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.01.013.
[2] Z. Zhang, D. Jiang, W. Liu, J. Chen, E. Li, J. Fan, K. Xie, Study on the mechanism of
roof collapse and leakage of horizontal cavern in thinly bedded salt rocks,
Environ. Earth Sci. 78 (2019) 292, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8292-2.
 H. Moayedi et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107365
[3] A. Marto, N. Latifi, M. Janbaz, M. Kholghifard, M. Khari, P. Alimohammadi, A.D.
Banadaki, Foundation size effect on modulus of subgrade reaction on sandy
soils, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. (EJGE) 17 (2012) 2523–2530.
[4] P. Alimohammadi, M. Khari, K.A. Kassim, A. Adnan, A.D. Banadaki, N. Latifi, The
influence of plasticity index on the dynamic soil behavior, Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng. 18 (2013) 613–622.
[5] I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz, Simulating pile load-settlement behavior from CPT data
using intelligent computing, Open Eng. 1 (2011) 295–305.
[6] M. Simpson, D.A. Brown, Development of PY curves for piedmont, Residual
Soils (2003).
[7] V. Raman, M. Drissi-Habti, P. Limje, A. Khadour, Finer SHM-coverage of inter-
plies and bondings in smart composite by dual sinusoidal placed distributed
optical fiber sensors, Sensors 19 (2019).
[8] K.H. Teng, P. Kot, M. Muradov, A. Shaw, K. Hashim, M. Gkantou, A. Al-
Shamma’a, Embedded smart antenna for non-destructive testing and
evaluation (NDT&E) of moisture content and deterioration in concrete,
Sensors 19 (2019).
[9] B.S. Vien, W.K. Chiu, M. Russ, M. Fitzgerald, A quantitative approach for the
bone-implant osseointegration assessment based on ultrasonic elastic guided
waves, Sensors 19 (2019).
[10] B. Xie, J. Li, X. Zhao, Research on damage detection of a 3D steel frame model
using smartphones, Sensors 19 (2019).
[11] X. Zhu, M. Cao, W. Ostachowicz, W. Xu, Damage identification in bridges by
processing dynamic responses to moving loads: features and evaluation,
Sensors 19 (2019).
[12] D.S. Liyanapathirana, S.D. Ekanayake, Application of EPS geofoam in
attenuating ground vibrations during vibratory pile driving, Geotext.
Geomembr. 44 (2016) 59–69.
[13] G. Kim, D. Kyung, D. Park, J. Lee, CPT-based p-y analysis for mono-piles in sands
under static and cyclic loading conditions, Geomech. Eng. 9 (2015) 313–328.
[14] L. Tang, X. Ling, Response of a RC pile group in liquefiable soil: a shake-table
investigation, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 67 (2014) 301–315.
[15] H.Y. Qin, W.D. Guo, Nonlinear response of laterally loaded rigid piles in sand,
Geomech. Eng. 7 (2014) 679–703.
[16] M. Khari, A.K. Kassim, A. Adnan, Development of p-y curves of laterally loaded
piles in cohesionless soil, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 8.
[17] S.K. Suryasentana, B.M. Lehane, Numerical derivation of CPT-based p-y curves
for piles in sand, Geotechnique 64 (2014) 186–194.
[18] F. Guo, B.M. Lehane, Lateral response of piles in weak calcareous sandstone,
Can. Geotech. J. 53 (2016) 1424–1434.
[19] A. Bassil, X. Wang, X. Chapeleau, E. Niederleithinger, O. Abraham, D. Leduc,
Distributed fiber optics sensing and coda wave interferometry techniques for
damage monitoring in concrete structures, Sensors 19 (2019).
[20] K. Itakura, I. Kamakura, F. Hosoi, Three-dimensional monitoring of plant
structural parameters and chlorophyll distribution, Sensors 19 (2019).
[21] Z. Li, J. He, D. Liu, N. Liu, Z. Long, J. Teng, Influence of uniaxial stress on the
shear-wave spectrum propagating in steel members, Sensors 19 (2019).
[22] Y.O. Barton, W.D.L. Finn, R.H.G. Parry, I. Towhata, Lateral pile response and py
curves from centrifuge tests, Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore
Technology Conference, 1983.
[23] M. Naggar, Hesham El, K. Bentley, Dynamic analysis for laterally loaded piles
and dynamic p-y curves, Can. Geotech. J. 37 (2000) 1166–1183.
[24] K. Mirza, Seismic Structural Health Monitoring of Bridges, University of British
Columbia, 2006.
[25] D.M. Dewaikar, P.A. Patil, Analysis of a laterally loaded pile in cohesion-less
soil under static and cyclic loading, Indian Geotech. J 36 (2006).
[26] S.R. Dash, S. Bhattacharya, A. Blakeborough, M. Hyodo, PY curve to model
lateral response of pile foundations in liquefied soils, (2008) 04-01.
[27] Y. Kim, S. Jeong, J. Won, Effect of lateral rigidity of offshore piles using proposed
py curves in marine clay, Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 27 (2009) 53–77.
[28] E. Rovithis, E. Kirtas, K. Pitilakis, Experimental py loops for estimating seismic
soil-pile interaction, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 7 (2009) 719–736.
[29] C.R. McGann, P. Arduino, P. Mackenzie, Applicability of conventional py
relations to the analysis of piles in laterally spreading soil, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (2010) 557–567.
[30] D.J. Bouzid, S. Bhattacharya, S.R. Dash, Winkler Springs (py curves) for pile
design from stress-strain of soils: FE assessment of scaling coefficients using
the Mobilized Strength Design concept, Geomech. Eng. 5 (2013) 379–399.
[31] M. Khari, K.A. Kassim, P. Alimohammadi, Response of Single and Grouped Pile
Subjected to Lateral Load in Cohesionless Soil, Applied Mechanics and
Materials, Trans Tech Publ, 2015, pp. 1397–1401.
[32] M.R. Kaloop, H. Li, Sensitivity and analysis GPS signals based bridge damage
using GPS observations and wavelet transform, Measurement 44 (2011) 927–
937.
[33] F. Moschas, S. Stiros, Measurement of the dynamic displacements and of the
modal frequencies of a short-span pedestrian bridge using GPS and an
accelerometer, Eng. Struct. 33 (2011) 10–17.
[34] G.E. Vazquez, B.J.R. Gaxiola-Camacho, R. Bennett, G.M. Guzman-Acevedo, I.E.
Gaxiola-Camacho, Structural evaluation of dynamic and semi-static
displacements of the Juarez Bridge using GPS technology, Measurement 110
(2017) 146–153.
[35] G.M. Guzman-Acevedo, G.E. Vazquez-Becerra, J.R. Millan-Almaraz, H.E.
Rodriguez-Lozoya, A. Reyes-Salazar, J.R. Gaxiola-Camacho, C.A. Martinez-
11
Felix, GPS, accelerometer, and smartphone fused smart sensor for SHM on
real-scale bridges, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019 (2019).
[36] J.R. Gaxiola-Camacho, J.A. Quintana-Rodríguez, G.E. Vazquez-Becerra, F.J.
Carrion-Viramontes, J.R. Vazquez-Ontiveros, F.J. Lopez-Varelas, Structural
Health Monitoring of Bridges in Mexico–Case Studies.
[37] H.Y. Choi, S.R. Lee, H.I. Park, D.H. Kim, Evaluation of lateral load capacity of
bored piles in weathered granite soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (2013)
1477–1489.
[38] L. Zhang, Nonlinear analysis of laterally loaded rigid piles in cohesionless soil,
Comput. Geotech. 36 (2009) 718–724.
[39] H. Moayedi, D.J. Armaghani, Optimizing an ANN model with ICA for estimating
bearing capacity of driven pile in cohesionless soil, Eng. Comput. (2017) 1–10.
[40] Y. Prasad, S.N. Rao, Lateral capacity of helical piles in clays, J. Geotech. Eng.-
ASCE 122 (1996) 938–941.
[41] K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis, C. Anagnostopoulos, Lateral bearing capacity of
rigid piles near clay slopes, Soils Found. 53 (2013) 144–154.
[42] S.K. Das, S. Suman, Prediction of lateral load capacity of pile in clay using
multivariate adaptive regression spline and functional network, Arab. J. Sci.
Eng. 40 (2015) 1565–1578.
[43] T. Wang, W. Liu, Development of cyclic py curves for laterally loaded pile
based on T-bar penetration tests in clay, Can. Geotech. J. (2016).
[44] D.A. Bouzid, Finite element analysis of a piled footing under horizontal loading,
Geomech. Eng. 3 (2011) 29–43.
[45] J. Lee, M. Prezzi, R. Salgado, Experimental investigation of the combined load
response of model piles driven in sand, Geotech. Test. J. 34 (2011) 653–667.
[46] M. Khari, A.K. Kassim, A. Adnan, An experimental study on pile spacing effects
under lateral loading in sand, ScientificWorld J. 2013 (2013) 8.
[47] K.M. Reddy, R. Ayothiraman, Experimental studies on behavior of single pile
under combined uplift and lateral loading, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141
(2015) 10.
[48] D. Park, D. Park, J. Lee, Analyzing load response and load sharing behavior of
piled rafts installed with driven piles in sands, Comput. Geotech. 78 (2016)
62–71.
[49] B.M. Lehane, C. Gaudin, J.A. Schneider, Scale effects on tension capacity for
rough piles buried in dense sand, Geotechnique 55 (2005) 709–719.
[50] G.G. Meyerhof, Scale effects of ultimate pile capacity, J. Geotech. Eng. 109
(1983) 797–806.
[51] M. Gui, M. Bolton, Geometry and scale effects in CPT and pile design, Geotech.
Charact. 2 (1998) 1063–1068.
[52] P. Foray, Scale and boundary effects on calibration chamber pile tests,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Calibration Chamber
Testing/ISOCCTl, Potsdam, New York, 1991, pp. 147-160
[53] Z. Yang, R.J. Jardine, B. Zhu, P. Foray, C.d.H.C. Tsuha, Sand grain crushing and
interface shearing during displacement pile installation in sand, Geotechnique,
60 (2010) 469
[54] M. Khari, K.A. Kassim, A. Adnan, Sand samples’ preparation using mobile
pluviator, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39 (2014) 6825–6834.
[55] T. Juirnarongrit, S.A. Ashford, Effect of pile diameter on the modulus of sub-
grade reaction, SSRP, 22, 2001.
[56] G. Ranjan, A.S.R. Rao, Basic and applied soil mechanics, New Age International,
2007.
[57] W. Qiao, K. Huang, M. Azimi, S. Han, A novel hybrid prediction model for
hourly gas consumption in supply side based on improved whale
optimization algorithm and relevance vector machine, IEEE Access 7 (2019)
88218–88230.
[58] W. Qiao, W. Tian, Y. Tian, Q. Yang, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, The forecasting of PM2.5
using a hybrid model based on wavelet transform and an improved deep
learning algorithm, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 142814–142825.
[59] W. Qiao, Z. Yang, Forecast the electricity price of U.S. using a wavelet
transform-based hybrid model, Energy (2019) 116704.
[60] W. Qiao, Z. Yang, Solving large-scale function optimization problem by using a
new metaheuristic algorithm based on quantum dolphin swarm algorithm,
IEEE Access 7 (2019) 138972–138989.
[61] J. Chen, D. Lu, W. Liu, J. Fan, D. Jiang, L. Yi, Y. Kang, Stability study and
optimization design of small-spacing two-well (SSTW) salt caverns for natural
gas storages, J. Energy Storage 27 (2020) 101131.
[62] W. Qiao, H. Lu, G. Zhou, M. Azimi, Q. Yang, W. Tian, A hybrid algorithm for
carbon dioxide emissions forecasting based on improved lion swarm
optimizer, J. Cleaner Prod. 244 (2020) 118612.
[63] W. Qiao, Z. Yang, An improved dolphin swarm algorithm based on kernel fuzzy
C-means in the application of solving the optimal problems of large-scale
function, IEEE Access (2020).
[64] W. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Fan, D. Jiang, D. Jjk, Y. Li, Physical simulation of
construction and control of two butted-well horizontal cavern energy storage
using large molded rock salt specimens, Energy 185 (2019) 682–694.
[65] W. Qiao, Z. Yang, Z. Kang, Z. Pan, Short-term natural gas consumption
prediction based on Volterra adaptive filter and improved whale optimization
algorithm, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 87 (2020) 103323.
[66] W. Qiao, Z. Yang, Modified dolphin swarm algorithm based on chaotic maps
for solving high-dimensional function optimization problems, IEEE Access 7
(2019) 110472–110486.
[67] W. Gao, J.L.G. Guirao, B. Basavanagoud, J. Wu, Partial multi-dividing ontology
learning algorithm, Inf. Sci. 467 (2018) 35–58.