See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308085519

Accuracy of Interpretation Methods for Deriving p–y Curves From Model Pile
Tests in Layered Soils

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · July 2017

DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150484

CITATIONS READS

14 1,056

6 authors, including:

Bingxiang Yuan Rui Chen

School of Civil and Transportation Engineering Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School
49 PUBLICATIONS   1,158 CITATIONS    101 PUBLICATIONS   1,199 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gang Deng
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research
65 PUBLICATIONS   248 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil reinforcement with randomly distributed discrete fibers View project

Macro-Micro Analysis of Breakage Behavior for Rockfill Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bingxiang Yuan on 16 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of
Testing and Evaluation
B. Yuan,1 R. Chen,2 G. Deng,3 T. Peng,4 Q. Luo,1 and X. Yang1

DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150484

Accuracy of Interpretation
Methods for Deriving p–y Curves
From Model Pile Tests in Layered
Soils
VOL. 45 / NO. 4 / JULY 2017
 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

doi:10.1520/JTE20150484 / Vol. 45 / No. 4 / July 2017 / available online at www.astm.org

B. Yuan,1 R. Chen,2 G. Deng,3 T. Peng,4 Q. Luo,1 and X. Yang1

Accuracy of Interpretation Methods for

Deriving p–y Curves From Model Pile
Tests in Layered Soils

Reference
Yuan, B., Chen, R., Deng, G., Peng, T., Luo, Q., and Yang, X., “Accuracy of Interpretation Methods for
Deriving p–y Curves From Model Pile Tests in Layered Soils,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 45,
No. 4, 2017, pp. 1238–1246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/JTE20150484. ISSN 0090-3973

ABSTRACT
Manuscript received March 12, 2015; Because of its simplicity and reasonable accuracy, the p–y-curve method is widely used for
accepted for publication June 20, 2016;
published online September 7, 2016. analyzing laterally loaded piles. The effectiveness of existing approaches for deriving p–y
1
curves is case dependent; thus, a systematic assessment of these interpretation methods is
School of Civil and Transportation
Engineering, Guangdong Univ. of necessary. This study compared p–y curves derived using four data interpretation methods.
Technology, Guangzhou 510006, Instead of experiments, the numerical simulation program LPILE was used to produce
China
hypothetical moment data for positions along a short pile in layered soil. The deduced p–y
2
Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Inst. curves were compared with the “true” p–y curves used for numerical simulations to evaluate
of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
the accuracy of the interpretation methods. The comparison demonstrated that the cubic
(Corresponding author), e-mail:
chenrui1005@hotmail.com spline method and difference method were the best among the four considered methods for
3 deriving p–y curves. However, the difference method generated a large resistance at the soil
State Key Laboratory of Simulation and
Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, surface. Because of this error, the cubic spline method is the preferred method for deriving
China Inst. of Water Resources and the response of a laterally loaded pile in layered soil. The results of this study will be useful
Hydropower Research, Beijing 100048,
China for obtaining more accurate p–y curves from experimental data and for more effective
4
planning of future experiments.
China Resources (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd,
Shenzhen 518055, China
Keywords
laterally loaded piles, interpretation methods, p–y curves, data-processing methods, soil resistance

Introduction
Laterally loaded piles are used in many situations to resist loads from earth pressures, wind, waves,
earthquakes, and other sources [1,2]. The behavior of piles subjected to lateral loads is governed
by non-linear, three-dimensional soil–pile interactions [3–5]. Thus, one of the most important

Copyright V
C 2016 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1238

considerations in analyzing a pile foundation is the prediction
of the lateral pile response [6,7], and various methods for this
purpose have been proposed over the past few decades [8,9].
Among the existing methods, the p–y method is one of the
most widely used techniques for analyzing laterally loaded piles
because of its simplicity and reasonable accuracy [10]. More-
over, soil–pile interactions can be quantitatively investigated
based on p–y relationships (i.e., p–y curves) [11]. Zhu et al. [12]
established new p-y curves using a coefficient of subgrade reac-
tion that is correlated with the local pile displacement. Lin et al.
[13] conducted an instrumented experiment to accurately mea-
sure the detailed soil–pile interaction pressures on the circum-
ference of a pile at a specific depth and along the length of the
pile in relation to lateral displacements along the pile length.
Khodair and Abdel-Mohti [14] quantitatively analyzed the
effects of crucial design parameters on the bending moment
and lateral displacements induced along the depth of a pile
using the finite difference software LPILE.
The lateral resistance and pile deflection at a given depth
can be measured or calculated to obtain a series of p–y curves at
different depths along a pile [15]. In a model pile experiment,
an instrumented model pile is typically subjected to lateral loads
[16]. Thus, the bending moments are generally calculated from
data measured using strain gauges attached along the model
pile. Other variables, including shear forces, displacement, and
soil resistance, can be derived from the bending moment distri-
bution based on elastic beam theory [17]. Mathematically, the
lateral displacement of a pile y with soil resistance p can be
interpreted by means of the double integration and differentia-
tion of the bending moment distribution function in accordance
with the following two equations:
ðð
MðzÞ
y¼ dz (1)
EI
d2 MðzÞ
p¼ (2)
dz
where:
E ¼ the Young’s modulus of the model pile,
I ¼ the moment of inertia of the cross-sectional area of the
pile,
EI ¼ the flexural rigidity of the pile,
z ¼ the distance below the soil surface, and
M(z) ¼ the moment distribution function.
However, only the bending moments at certain locations
are known from the strain gauge readings. Thus, a data-
processing method, namely, a curve-fitting technique, must be
applied to obtain the necessary soil resistances and deflections
along the pile length [18]. For the deflections, simple numerical
integration is sufficient because any slight measurement errors
in the bending moment data are smoothed during the integra-
tion process, making the integration very stable. However, for
YUAN ET AL. ON METHODS FOR DERIVING P–Y CURVES 1239
the lateral resistances, any slight errors or deviations in the
bending moment data are magnified by the double differentia-
tion, thereby resulting in inaccurate calculations of soil resis-
tance [19]. Mathematically, the procedure for deriving the soil
resistances is more complicated than that for deducing the
deflections.
Because of the possible measurement or interpretation
errors mentioned above, obtaining reasonable and sufficiently
accurate soil resistances is the most challenging aspect of deter-
mining the p-y relationships when analyzing a laterally loaded
pile. Therefore, various researchers have proposed different
data-processing methods and techniques to improve the accu-
racy of the interpreted soil resistances and thus to eliminate or
minimize interpretation errors in the double differentiation pro-
cess. The most commonly used methods include the polynomial
interpolation method (PIM) [20], the moving cubic polynomial
(MCP) curve-fitting method, the cubic spline method (CSM),
and the difference method (DM).
Matlock and Ripperger [21] suggested using a series of low-
order polynomials over several contiguous data points, and this
method was successfully applied by Dunnavant and O’Neill
[22] and Brown et al. [23]. Abu-Farsakh et al. [24] applied a
high-order polynomial curve-fitting method for each load incre-
ment to fit the measured rotation profiles and used the fitted
rotation curves to determine the bending moment, shear force,
and soil reaction profiles based on specific mathematical deriva-
tions. Although this method results in a continuous function for
the lateral resistance, many data points are required to reduce
errors. Matlock and Ripperger [21] and Dunnavant [25] used
the MCP method to fit discrete moment data to reduce the
errors of the PIM. With regard to the CSM, Scott [26] used
cubic splines to fit each pair of moment data and then doubly
differentiated the splines to obtain the soil resistance. However,
this method did not reduce the double differentiation error.
Furthermore, the double differentiation of cubic spline func-
tions or polynomial functions introduces high-frequency noise
in certain cases [27]. Wilson [28] proposed a weighted residual
method for dynamic centrifuge tests and adopted the PIM,
the MCP method, and the CSM to analyze the soil resistance.
Wilson demonstrated that the weighted residual method out-
performed the other three methods in obtaining the soil resis-
tance. However, other researchers have obtained the opposite
result. Specifically, the weighted residual method does not yield
more accurate results than the other methods when the density
of the strain gauges along the pile is too high. In addition to
curve-fitting methods, numerical techniques such as central
finite-difference formulations have been employed to obtain the
lateral resistance. However, these methods for deriving p–y
curves from moment measurements have not been systemati-
cally compared and evaluated with respect to their accuracy or
errors, except in a few studies, such as that of Yang [29]. Yang
and Liang [30] demonstrated that the errors in the deduced p–y
1240 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
curves are primarily caused by inaccuracies in the moment
profiles determined from strain gauge readings. Slight errors
associated with the strain gauge readings may be significantly
magnified by the double differentiation. However, in previous
studies, experimental data from lateral load tests have been used
to evaluate different interpretation methods. This means that
measurement errors from experimental data remain a concern;
therefore, a quantitative assessment of the accuracy of the vari-
ous interpretation methods is impossible because of the lack of
“true” or “accurate” p–y curves. Another limitation of previous
studies is that the most of the experimental data were obtained
for a homogeneous soil layer, which is not a common situation
in practice. Therefore, the interpretation methods developed by
previous researchers may not be effective when applied to
layered soils. The effectiveness of these approaches is case
dependent.
This study presents four interpretation methods for a later-
ally loaded pile with a rectangular cross section embedded in a
layered soil medium. In this study, a laterally loaded pile was
simulated using the lateral pile analysis program LPILE to pro-
duce a hypothetical moment distribution along the pile. Subse-
quently, the four common data-processing methods mentioned
above were applied to derive the soil resistance and pile deflec-
tion based on bending moment data acquired at discrete loca-
tions along the pile. The results of the different interpretation
methods were compared with the p–y curves used as the input
parameters in LPILE. This approach enables the determination
of the most suitable interpretation method and the improve-
ment of the accuracy of p–y curve determinations based on
moment measurements from load tests. The results of this study
will be useful for obtaining more accurate p–y curves from
experimental data acquired in layered soils and for the more
effective planning of future experiments.
Numerical Simulations Using LPILE
In experiments on laterally loaded piles, instrumented model
piles equipped with several sets of strain gauges are typically
subjected to lateral loads. To construct a series of p–y curves, it
TABLE 1 Summary of the material properties used in LPILE.
Type p–y Curve Criteria Layer Depth (m)
Pile
Soil Soft clay Matlock 0.3
4.3
Sand Reese 4.3
8.3
Stiff clay Reese 8.3
12.3
Note: L is the length of the pile, D is the diameter of the pile, Su is the undrained shear strength, / is the friction angle, c0 is the effective unit weight, e50 is the
strain at 50 % of the maximum principle stress, and Ks is the coefficient of the initial slope of the p–y curves.
is necessary to apply curve-fitting techniques or numerical
differentiation methods to the discrete bending moment data
collected in such experiments. Deriving p-y curves from strain
gauge readings typically involves three steps: fitting the moment
versus depth profile based on the strain gauge readings, deriving
the deflection versus depth profile using a double integration
technique based on Eq 1, and deriving the soil resistance versus
depth profile via double differentiation in accordance with Eq 2.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate solely the accuracy of
the interpretation methods rather than that of the experiment
itself. A numerical simulation is a convenient method of pro-
ducing hypothetical bending moment data along a pile as an
alternative to obtaining these data from experiments. Therefore,
in this study, the popular lateral pile analysis program LPILE
Plus v5.0 [31] was used to simulate a pile subjected to lateral
loads and to generate a hypothetical data distribution, including
the moment, deflection, and soil resistance along the depth of
the pile.
LPILE Plus v5.0 uses the finite-difference method, in which
a pile is represented as a beam with a lateral stiffness that
depends on the modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia of
the pile [32]. The program allows the user to input the soil and
pile properties as well as an experimental p-y curve data. To
obtain a data-processing method that is reasonable for a wide
range of soil conditions, three different layers were employed,
namely, from the top down, layers of soft clay, sand, and stiff
clay. To ensure the broad applicability of this research, an elastic
pile was considered in the simulation because of the applicabil-
ity of this scenario to laboratory tests. The pile properties and
the soil parameters for each layer are summarized in Table 1.
The step size for the finite-difference calculations was set to
0.033 m to minimize numerical errors. A schematic representa-
tion of the pile subjected to a lateral load test is shown in Fig. 1.
The lateral loads were applied at a height of 0.3 m above the soil
surface.
The moment versus depth profiles obtained as output from
LPILE are shown in Fig. 2. Six lateral loads were applied,
increasing from 100 kN to 600 kN, and the corresponding p–y
curves were plotted using the four investigated interpolation
L (m) D (mm) E (MPa) c0 (kN/m3) / ( ) Su (kPa) e50 Ks (kN/m3)
12.3 500 4000
18.5 25 0.02
18.9 36 24,430
17.8 80 0.005 271,447

FIG. 1 Schematic diagram of the pile model and the locations selected for
data collection.
methods. LPILE generated a large number of moment data
points along the entire pile. However, in a model test, moment
data points are obtained from the readings of strain gauges
placed at only a few discrete locations. Therefore, only a few
data points should be selected from the moment profiles at each
depth corresponding to an instrumented location in a lateral
load test. A procedure for determining the optimal spacing of
the discrete locations for the collection of bending moment data
and the number of data points to be used for curve fitting was
developed. In a model test, the spacing of the strain gauges is
important for determining the moment profiles and for deriving
accurate p–y curves. Previous research has suggested a suitable
procedure for determining the optimal strain gauge spacing for
a particular lateral load test [29]. In this study, the spacing of
YUAN ET AL. ON METHODS FOR DERIVING P–Y CURVES 1241
FIG. 2 Discrete moment data for positions along the pile under various
applied loads.
the moment data collection locations used to determine the soil
resistance was set to 1 m. Therefore, 11 locations for the collec-
tion of bending moment data were selected along the pile. These
locations are indicated in Fig. 1. The discrete bending moment
data points collected along the pile under various applied loads
are shown in Fig. 2. Using these data points, various data-
processing methods were applied to calculate the response of
the laterally loaded pile based on the moment distribution.
Data-Processing Methodology
METHOD FOR DERIVING THE DEFLECTION
The lateral displacement with respect to the depth at each lateral
load can be determined from the moment distribution function
using Eq 1. In this study, the polynomial technique was used to
fit the discrete moment data points along the entire pile because
the integration results were found to be insensitive to the inter-
polation function. A seventh-order polynomial function, with
the form given in Eq 3, was used to perform the integration. The
order of the polynomial typically depends on the number of data
points available. For this study, a preliminary trial was conducted
to compare the effectiveness of functions of various orders. The
least-squares method was used to determine the constants.
MðxÞ ¼ C1 þ C2 x þ C3 x2 þ    þ C8 x7 (3)
After the moment distribution functions were obtained,
double integration was applied to obtain the deflection. The
double integration yields two unknown integration constants
for the deflection distribution function. Therefore, two bound-
ary conditions are required to determine these two integration
constants. In previous studies, four boundary combinations
1242 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
FIG. 3 Computed depth versus lateral displacement profiles of the pile.
have typically been used to calculate these constants: the
combination (y0, ytip ¼ 0) for a long pile, the combination (y0,
yfixity ¼ 0) for a short pile, the combination (y0, h0), and the
combination (ytip, htip ¼ 0). Here, y0 and h0 are the measured
deflection and slope, respectively, at the soil surface. Similarly,
ytip is the deflection at the tip of the pile, and yfixity is the deflec-
tion at a fixity point. For short piles, yfixity is not readily available
and can be reasonably replaced with h0. The boundary combi-
nation (y0, h0) has been found to yield the best results for short
piles [26]. Thus, this combination was adopted in this study to
solve for the integration constants. The calculated lateral dis-
placements, which were subsequently used to construct the
series of p-y curves, are shown in Fig. 3. Additionally, compari-
sons were performed to verify that the deduced deflections were
similar to the data obtained with LPILE, providing further
evidence that the deflection is not strongly affected by the data-
processing method.
METHOD FOR DERIVING THE SOIL RESISTANCE
The calculation of the soil resistance is more complicated than
the calculation of the deflection because of the complexity of
doubly differentiating the moment data, in accordance with
Eq 2. Unlike the double integration process, any slight errors
may become significantly magnified through double differentia-
tion, thus resulting in inaccurate soil-resistance values. A
detailed analysis of these errors was presented by Matlock and
Ripperger [33]. In this study, four data-processing methods
were used to derive the soil resistance, and the calculated results
were compared with the output data from LPILE.
Calculating the Soil Resistance Using Polynomial
Interpolation
The global PIM is the most commonly used technique for fitting
discrete data, and many researchers have used this method to fit
moment profiles. Mathematically, the general expression for a
polynomial of undefined order is as given in Eq 4:
MðxÞ ¼ C1 þ C2 x þ C3 x2 þ    þ Cm xm1 (4)
The least-squares method is used to solve for the unknown
coefficients in the polynomial function. Additionally, it is neces-
sary to determine the order of the polynomial function.
Although higher-order polynomial functions generally provide
a better fit to the moment data, they result in functions that
oscillate between the known data points when doubly differenti-
ated to determine the soil reaction curve. By contrast, if the
order of the function is too low, it does not provide a good fit to
the discrete moment data and, thus, does not reliably predict
the displacement or the soil resistance.
The order of the polynomial typically depends on the num-
ber of data points available, and the PIM is appropriate for a rel-
atively large number of data points. In this study, a preliminary
trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of functions of
various orders. A seventh-order polynomial was selected to fit
the discrete moment data while incorporating the boundary
conditions. The soil resistance was then obtained by doubly dif-
ferentiating the moment distribution function. Fig. 4 presents
soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated using the PIM.
The calculated results are less accurate than the hypothetical
data from LPILE, particularly at the soil surface and the tip of
the pile. The PIM typically overestimates the soil resistance at
the soil surface in the case of relatively large loads. Furthermore,
if cohesionless soil were to be used in a load test, then the soil
resistance would be zero at the ground surface. However, the
soil resistance calculated using the PIM is not zero at the soil
surface. Therefore, the PIM does not provide accurate results in
this case.
FIG. 4 Comparison of the soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated
using the PIM.

Calculating the Soil Resistance Using the Moving
Cubic Polynomial Method
The MCP method, also called the piecewise polynomial curve
method, was proposed by Matlock and Ripperger [33]. Unlike
the global PIM, the MCP method is a local curve-fitting tech-
nique, which avoids the need to capture the global trend of the
scattered data. In this procedure, a cubic polynomial curve is
defined for the first five data points, and double differentiation
is then performed on this curve to obtain a linear function. The
middle data point of the five is used to obtain the soil resistance.
Then, the process is repeated by shifting one node up or down
to form the next cubic polynomial. The detailed procedure for
this method was presented by Matlock and Ripperger [21]. A
comparison of the soil resistances calculated using the MCP
method with the output soil resistances from LPILE are pre-
sented in Fig. 5. The two datasets agree well, and the calculated
data points nearly lie on the output curves from LPILE. The
comparison reveals that the MCP method generally yields more
accurate results than does the PIM.
Calculating the Soil Resistance Using the Cubic
Spline Method
Scott [26] noted that it is necessary to smooth strain gauge data
before fitting them to derive the soil resistance. For this purpose,
a cubic spline is constructed from piecewise third-order polyno-
mials at every two discrete strain gauge data points, as mathe-
matically expressed below:
8 Pi ¼ the calculated soil resistance at node i.
< s1 ðxÞ; x 2 ½x1 ; x2 
sðxÞ ¼ si ðxÞ; x 2 ½xi ; xiþ1 
:
sn ðxÞ; x 2 ½xn1 ; xn 
where:
s1 ðxÞ ¼ a third-order polynomial function, and
½xi ; xiþ1  ¼ one subinterval.
FIG. 5 Comparison of the soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated
using the MCP method.
YUAN ET AL. ON METHODS FOR DERIVING P–Y CURVES 1243
A cubic spline is the simplest interpolation of discrete strain
gauge data that can be differentiated twice. Moreover, a natural
cubic spline has a continuous piecewise linear second derivative.
The discrete moment data points must be fitted with a cubic
spline before the double differentiation is performed. Fig. 6
shows the soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated using
the CSM, which show reasonably good agreement with the out-
put curves from LPILE for various loads. The comparison indi-
cates that the CSM yields the best results among the processing
methods considered thus far. Furthermore, the results also
imply that the CSM results in a better degree of curve fitting
than do the previous models.
Calculating the Soil Resistance Using the
Difference Method
The last method considered in this study is the DM. For this
analysis, the central difference method was used to calculate the
soil resistance. The soil resistance Pi at node i was calculated
using the known moment Mi and the interval h between two
adjacent nodes. The central difference formulation is as follows:
Miþ1  2Mi þ Mi1
Pi ¼ (6)
h2
where:
Mi ¼ the known moment at node i,
h ¼ the interval between two adjacent nodes, and
To use this method to determine the soil resistances at the
(5)
soil surface and the pile tip, two artificial data points must be
added at the top and bottom of the pile. These two artificial
nodes are assigned moment values in accordance with the
following equation:
FIG. 6 Comparison of the soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated
using the CSM.
1244 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

Mi1  Miþ1 methods display poor fits and rather case-dependent perfor-
Vi ¼ (7)
2h mance. For z ¼ 1, all considered methods, except the PIM, gen-
erate similar results, and the curve fitting appears accurate. By
where:
contrast, the PIM significantly overestimates the soil resistance.
Vi ¼ the known shear force.
For the remaining two cases at greater depths, most of the
Two artificial nodes were obtained using the above equa-
points closely match the “true” soil response for both the CSM
tion. Then, the central difference formulation was applied to
and the DM.
obtain the soil resistance. Fig. 7 presents the soil resistance ver-
Two criteria [34] were used to determine the accuracy of
sus depth profiles calculated using the DM as well as the output
the four data-processing methods considered here. The first
soil resistances from LPILE for comparison.
criterion is the degree of curve matching, where a smaller
As shown in Fig. 7, the soil-resistance values calculated
difference between the calculated curve and the “true” p–y curve
using the DM agree well with the output data points from
indicates better data processing. The figures above confirm the
LPILE. Although the soil-resistance values at the soil surface
degree to which each method successfully reproduces the p–y
calculated using the DM are rather large, lying outside the
curves. As described previously, the CSM and DM yield the
border of Fig. 7, the accuracy of these points is not relevant.
most accurate p–y curves and are, thus, recommended for deriv-
Therefore, the soil-resistance values at the surface are not
ing the soil resistance.
included in Fig. 7. Similar to the CSM, the DM yields reasonable
The second criterion is the normalized sum of the square
results. However, a limitation of the finite DM is that it requires
errors (SSEnorm) between the calculated soil resistances and the
equally spaced nodes along the pile. Additionally, this approach
soil resistances obtained from LPILE. SSEnorm, which is defined
requires small intervals to reduce the error. Closer spacing of
in Eq 8, was used to quantitatively assess the four data-
the nodes would yield a more fine-grained interpretation of the
processing methods. A smaller value of SSEnorm indicates a
soil resistance along the pile.
more accurate result.

COMPARISON OF THE P–Y CURVES N ~

X 2
Pi  Pi
Based on the calculations described above, the corresponding SSEnorm ¼ (8)
i¼1
Pi
y(x) and p(x) pairs were plotted against each other to construct
a set of p–y curves for various depths. Fig. 8 presents the p–y where:
curves at various depths calculated using the different data- Pi ¼ a true soil-resistance value,
processing methods. For comparison, the p-y curves for a given ~ ¼ the corresponding calculated soil resistance, and
P
depth that were used as input in LPILE are also provided in N ¼ the total number of data points available.
Fig. 8 to illustrate the “true” response of the laterally loaded pile. The data collected at the 13 selected locations along the pile
The CSM and DM are shown to yield the best results were used to calculate the SSEnorm values at lateral loads of 200
among the four processing methods, whereas the other two and 500 kN, as shown in Fig. 9. The evaluation results presented

FIG. 7 Comparison of the soil resistance versus depth profiles calculated FIG. 8 Comparison of the p–y curves at various depths: (a) z ¼ 1 m, (b)
using the DM. (Note: the soil resistances at the soil surface are not z ¼ 6 m, and (c) z ¼ 9 m.
shown here.)

FIG. 9 Calculated SSEnorm values.
in Fig. 9 indicate that the DM yields the smallest SSEnorm
overall, followed by the CSM. However, the soil resistance at the
surface calculated using the DM is extremely large. When calcu-
lating SSEnorm for the DM, the lateral resistance at the soil sur-
face was not considered because of this significant error pattern.
At a load of 200 kN, the soil is relatively soft and the error ratio
of the calculated soil resistance divided by the true soil resis-
tance is larger for the DM than for the CSM. At an increased
load of 500 kN, the compacted soil is relatively dense and the
error ratio is smaller. Meanwhile, the CSM provides accurate
results along the entire pile depth, which indicates that the CSM
can also reasonably predict the lateral response.
Conclusions
This study investigated various interpretation methods for
deriving p–y curves from moment measurements in layered
soils. The results provide a useful reference for test planning to
obtain more accurate p–y curves from experimental data, partic-
ularly in layered soils. The following conclusions can be drawn
based on the presented observations:
1. The PIM tends to yield unreasonable soil resistance versus
depth curves in layered soils. This method is typically lim-
ited in application because the bending moment function
must satisfy several physical constraints, including con-
straints on the applied moment, shear, and soil reaction
at the surface of the soil. The calculated results are less
accurate than those of other methods compared with the
hypothetical data from LPILE, particularly at the soil sur-
face and the tip of the pile. Additionally, when the PIM is
used, one must consider the appropriate order for the
polynomial, which depends on the number of available
data points. This method is reliable only when a large
number of data points are available.
YUAN ET AL. ON METHODS FOR DERIVING P–Y CURVES 1245
2. The MCP method is a local curve-fitting technique, which
avoids the need to capture the global trend of scattered
data. The results, which are obtained by fitting discrete
moment data and then doubly differentiating those dis-
crete moment data to obtain the soil resistance, exhibit
reasonable agreement with LPILE. However, this method
yields smaller errors than does the PIM at the cost of
being more complicated because of its local curve fitting.
This method can be used when high accuracy is not
required for the calculated data at the soil surface and the
tip of the pile.
3. In the DM, the soil resistance is calculated using the
known moments and the interval between two adjacent
nodes. For this process to be used to determine the soil
resistances at the soil surface and pile tip, two artificial
data points must be added at the top and bottom of the
pile. The soil resistances calculated using the DM closely
approximate the “true” soil response, and the DM yields
the smallest SSEnorm value overall. However, the soil resis-
tance calculated at the surface is very large. This method
can be used when the soil resistance at the soil surface is
not required.
4. In the CSM, piecewise third-order polynomials are con-
structed at every two discrete strain gauge data points.
The CSM results in the smallest difference between the
calculated curves and the “true” p–y curves; furthermore,
it yields the second smallest SSEnorm. Based on the
described evaluation, the CSM is considered to be the
most effective method for deriving p–y curves in layered
soils.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51308164,
No. 51379221, and No. 51304057), by the Ministry of Science
and Technology in China under the National Basic Research
Program (No. 2013CB036402), and by the Guangdong Natural
Science Foundation (No. 2016A030310345). The editorial assis-
tance provided by Professor Galen Leonhardy of Black Hawk
College is also greatly appreciated. Finally, the authors acknowl-
edge the anonymous reviewers who helped us in improving the
technical content of the manuscript.
References
[1] Nasr, A. M. A., “Experimental and Theoretical Studies of
Laterally Loaded Finned Piles in Sand,” Can. Geotech. J.,
Vol. 51, No. 4, 2014, pp. 381–393.
[2] Liu, J., Yuan, B., Mai, V., and Dimaano, R., “Optical Mea-
surement of Sand Deformation Around a Laterally Loaded
Pile,” J. Test. Eval., Vol. 39, No. 5, 2011, pp. 754–759.
[3] Fan, C. C. and Long, J. H., “Assessment of Existing
Methods for Predicting Soil Response of Laterally Loaded
Piles in Sand,” Comput. Geotech., Vol. 32, No. 4, 2005,
pp. 274–289.
1246 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
[4] Yuan, B., Liu, J., Chen, W., and Xia, K., “Development of a
Robust Stereo-PIV System for 3-D Soil Deformation Meas-
urement,” J. Test. Eval., Vol. 40, No. 2, 2012, pp. 256–264.
[5] Yuan, B., Chen, W., Jiang, T., Wang, Y., and Chen, K.,
“Stereo Particle Image Velocimetry Measurement of 3D
Soil Deformation Around a Laterally Loaded Pile in Sand,”
J. Central South Univ., Vol. 20, No. 3, 2013, pp. 791–798.
[6] Georgiadis, M., Anagnostopoulos, C., and Saflekou, S.,
“Centrifugal Testing of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand,”
Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 29, No. 2, 1992, pp. 208–216.
[7] Chiou, J. S., Tai, W. L., Chen, C. H., and Chen, C. H.,
“Lateral Hysteretic Behavior of an Aluminum Model Pile
in Saturated Loose Sand,” J. Chinese Inst. Eng., Vol. 37,
No. 3, 2014, pp. 313–324.
[8] Xu, L. Y., Cai, F., Wanga, G. X., and Ugai, K., “Nonlinear
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Single Piles in Sand Using
Modified Strain Wedge Model,” Comput. Geotech., Vol. 51,
No. 6, 2013, pp. 60–71.
[9] Yuan, B., Chen, R., Teng, J., Peng, T., and Feng, Z.,
“Investigation on 3D Ground Deformation and Response
of Active and Passive Piles in a Loose Sand,” Environ.
Earth Sci., Vol. 73, No. 11, 2015, pp. 7641–7649.
[10] Suryasentana, S. K. and Lehane, B. M., “Numerical Deriva-
tion of CPT-Based p-y Curves for Piles in Sand,” Geotech-
nique, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2014, pp. 186–194.
[11] Su, D., “Resistance of Short, Stiff Piles to Multidirectional
Lateral Loadings,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 35, No. 2, 2012,
pp. 313–329.
[12] Zhu, B., Sun, Y., Chen, R., Guo, W., and Yang, Y.,
“Experimental and Analytical Models of Laterally Loaded
Rigid Monopiles with Hardening p–y Curves,” J. Waterway,
Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., Vol. 141, No. 6, 2015, pp. 1–11.
[13] Lin, H., Ni, L., Suleiman, M., and Raich, A., “Interaction
Between Laterally Loaded Pile and Surrounding Soil,”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 141, No. 4, 2015,
pp. 1–11.
[14] Khodair, Y. and Abdel-Mohti, A., “Numerical Analysis of
Pile–Soil Interaction Under Axial and Lateral Loads,” Int.
J. Concrete Struct. Mater., Vol. 8, No. 3, 2014, pp. 239–249.
[15] Ashour, M. and Ardalan, H., “p-y Curve and Lateral
Response of Piles in Fully Liquefied Sands,” Can. Geotech.
J., Vol. 49, No. 6, 2012, pp. 633–650.
[16] Masoud, H.-B., Habin, A.-S., and Yones, S., “Soil Deforma-
tion Pattern Around Laterally Loaded Piles,” Int. J. Phys.
Model. Geotech., Vol. 11, No. 3, 2011, pp. 116–125.
[17] Yuan, B., Chen, R., Teng, J., Wang, Y., and Chen, W., “A
Hydraulic Gradient Similitude Testing System for Studying
the Responses of a Laterally Loaded Pile and Soil
Deformation,” Environ. Earth Sci., Vol. 75, 2016, pp. 1–7.
[18] Dou, H. and Byrne, P. M., “Dynamic Response of Single
Piles and Soil Pile Interaction,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 33,
No. 1, 1996, pp. 80–96.
[19] Ting, J. M., “Full-Scale Cyclic Dynamic Lateral Pile
Responses,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 113, No. 1, 1987, pp. 30–45.
Copyright by ASTM International (all rights reserved), pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
View publication stats
[20] Reese, L. C. and Welch, R. C., “Lateral Loading of Deep
Foundations in Stiff Clay,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol. 101,
No. 7, 1975, pp. 633–649.
[21] Matlock, H. and Ripperger, E., “Procedures and
Instrumentation for Tests on a Laterally Loaded Pile,” Pro-
ceedings of the Eighth Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Bureau of Engineering
Research, University of Texas, Austin, September 14–15,
1956, Special Publ. No. 29, 1956.
[22] Dunnavant, T. W. and O’Neill, M. W., “Experimental p-y
Model for Submerged, Stiff Clay,” J. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 115, No. 1, 1989, pp. 95–114.
[23] Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C., “Lateral Load
Behavior of Pile Group in Sand,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 114,
No. 11, 1988, pp. 1261–1276.
[24] Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., Yu, X., Pathak, B., Alshibli, K., and
Zhang, Z., “Field Testing and Analyses of a Batter Pile
Group Foundation Under Lateral Loading,” Transport.
Res. Rec., No. 2212, 2011, pp. 42–55.
[25] Dunnavant, T. W., “Experimental and Analytical Investi-
gation of the Behavior of Single Piles in Overconsolidated
Clay Subjected to Cyclic Lateral Loads,” Ph.D. thesis,
University of Houston, Houston, TX, 1986.
[26] Scott, R., “Analysis of Centrifuge Pile Tests: Simulation of
Pile Driving,” OSAPR Project, Vol. 13, American Petro-
leum Institute, Washington, DC, 1980.
[27] Su, D., “Centrifuge Investigation on Responses of Sand
Deposit and Sand-Pile System Under Multi-Directional
Earthquake Loading,” The Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, Hong Kong, 2005.
[28] Wilson, D. W., “Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction in
Liquefying Sand and Soft Clay,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
California, Davis, CA, 1998.
[29] Yang, K., “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in
Rock,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Akron, Akron, OH,
2006.
[30] Yang, K. and Liang, R., “Methods for Deriving p-y Curves
from Instrumented Lateral Load Tests,” Geotech. Test. J.,
Vol. 30, No. 1, 2007, pp. 31–38.
[31] Reese, L., Wang, S., Isenhower, W., and Arrellaga, J.,
“Computer Program LPILE Plus Version 5.0 Technical
Manual,” Ensoft, Austin, TX, 2004.
[32] Rollins, K. M., Lane, J. D., and Gerber, T. M., “Measured
and Computed Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Sand,”
ASCE Geotech. Geoenviron. J., Vol. 131, No. 1, 2005,
pp. 103–114.
[33] Matlock, H. and Ripperger, E., “Measurement of Soil
Pressure on a Laterally Loaded Pile,” Proceedings for Amer-
ican Society for Testing Materials, Vol. 58, 1958, pp.
1245–1259.
[34] Guan, G. S., Rahardjo, H., and Choon, L. E., “Shear
Strength Equations for Unsaturated Soil Under Drying
and Wetting,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 136,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 594–606.