Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Evaluating the lateral subgrade reaction of soil using horizontal pile load
test results
Dina M. Ors, Ahmed M. Ebid ⇑, Hisham A. Mahdi
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University, Egypt

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

Article history: The aim of this research is to present a correlation between the measured coefficient of variation of lat-
Received 20 October 2021 eral subgrade reaction with depth (f) and both recommended values in codes and the elastic modulus of
Revised 26 January 2022 soil. In order to achieve that aim, four 3D FEM models were developed to simulate four full-scale, non-
Accepted 3 February 2022
working pile load tests constructed in different soil profile sites. The soil properties in the models (includ-
ing the elastic modulus) were calibrated using experimental measurements. Besides that, both experi-
mental and recommended values of (f) were estimated. Comparing these values showed that the
Keywords:
experimental values are about (6 to 12) times the recommended ones for granular soils and increase
Laterally loaded piles
Pile load test
to about 30 times for intact rock. Finally, a non-linear regression was used to develop the correlation for-
Lateral subgrade reaction mula. The results showed perfect logarithmic relation between (Es) & experimental values of (f).
Nonlinear FEM modeling Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Deep foundations have been widely used to support heavy
structures especially in challenging zones with surface layers of
weak soils. In most practical cases, piles are subjected to both ver-
tical and lateral loading induced from different cases of loading.
Due to the complicated behavior of piled foundation under lateral
loads especially in layered soil profiles, most design codes recom-
mended field loading tests on non-working piles in project location
to validate the pile design before construction, besides field loading
tests on working piles during construction.
Laterally loaded pile fail either by structural failure within pile
or by geotechnical failure in the surrounding soil mass, besides the
serviceability failure due to excessive lateral displacement. If the
structural capacity of the pile is larger than the geotechnical one,
the failure will occur in soil mass and controlled by its properties
and the pile is classified as short or rigid pile. On the other hand,
if the geotechnical capacity is larger than the structural one, the
failure will occur within the pile and controlled by its flexural
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmed.abdelkhaleq@fue.edu.eg (A.M. Ebid).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
capacity and the pile is classified as long or flexible pile. Most inter-
national design codes present closed form formulas to estimate the
ultimate lateral load for both types of piles in uniform soil profile.
They classified piles based on relative stiffness between pile and
surrounding soil mass using a term called ‘‘Elastic length of pile”.
Most famous used formulas are ‘‘Hetenyi, 1946” for flexible piles,
‘‘Duncan, 1995” for semi-rigid piles and ‘‘Barber, 1953” for rigid
piles [1].
2. Background
Walsh 2005 investigated the lateral load response of the single
pile in clay soil and compared this responses with the same pile
but in a group of fifteen piles acts as a group to resist the lateral
load. Then, the tested single pile was modeled using LPILE Plus
software and the group of piles was modeled using the GROUP
software to validate the finite element model against the experi-
mental results. Researchers validated the developed models
against experimentally tested piles concluding that the single pile
lateral resistance is larger than the average of the maximum load
carried by a single pile in the pile group. Also, the pile group in
sand resisted much higher loads than did the pile group in clay.
However, the used software models the laterally loaded piles as
line element and the soil as non-linear springs which neglect the
effect of concrete cracking and inaccuracy simulates the soil-pile
interaction [2].
Pender M. 2008, investigated the effect of the distribution of the
soil profile modulus of elasticity on the pile head lateral stiffness.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101734
2090-4479/Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi
Nomenclature
Abbreviations list:
c Cohesion strength of soil
D Pile diameter
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete
Es Elastic modulus of soil
Est Elastic modulus of steel
Ec I g Un-cracked flexural stiffness of pile
f The coefficient of variation of lateral subgrade reaction
with depth
f ctm Maximum tensile strength of concrete
f st Stress in reinforcing steel
fy Yield stress of reinforcing steel
H Horizontal load at pile head
Ie The effective moment of inertia of the pile
Ig The gross moment of inertia of the pile
The researcher calculated the pile initial lateral resistance three
times varying the distribution of the soil modulus through pile
depth as constant, linear and parabolic distribution. The results
proved that the modeling of soil with constant modulus requires
more advanced tests than the Standard Penetration Test and it
was recommended to use the work of Ashford et al 2001 who used
the shear wave velocity profile to get an improved indication of soil
geotechnical properties including the soil stiffness through the
profile. However, he used a closed form equations of beam on elas-
tic support which neglected the non-linear behavior of soil and the
crack effect of concrete [3].
Comodromos et al. 2009; developed a finite element model for a
group of piles in the aim to determination of their bearing capacity.
The researchers used FLAC-3D software to simulate the lateral load
response of the proposed group of piles. It was found that the
model is sensitive against the mesh size and the model overesti-
mates the bending stiffness of the simulated piles which recom-
mends the need for a 3D nonlinear detailed model allowing for
cracking to get the accurate response when compared with the
experimental results. Although the researchers developed a
sophisticated elasto-plastic 3D FEM model with nonlinear soil-
pile interface elements and considered the concrete cracking effect,
But they only compared the model results with the field test
results and didn’t present any comparisons with design code or
earlier studies, besides that their proposed model is too compli-
cated to be used in practice [4].
El Wakil and Nazir 2013, studied the behavior of laterally
loaded barrettes in sandy layer using 28 small scale experimental
tests. They investigated the effect of different parameters on the
lateral displacement of pile head such as the aspect ratio of bar-
rette section, the relative density of surrounding sand direction
and eccentricity of lateral load. The research indicated that both
relative density of sand and effective flexural stiffness of barrette
(presented by cross section and loading direction) are the main fac-
tors affected the lateral displacement. However, the measured
results were greatly affected by scale factor, hence, they recom-
mended a full scale experimental program [5].
Farag 2014, presented a probabilistic approach based on (3D FEM-
Monte Carlo Simulation) technique to assess the reliability of later-
ally loaded pile in bi-layered soil profile in liquefaction condition.
He considered both pile and soil layers parameters as inputs with
assumed statistical characteristics based on engineering judgment,
while the outputs were the drift and the bending moment in pile. It
was concluded that pile diameter is the most effective variable [6].
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734
L Pile length
M External moment at pile head
T Elastic length of pile
Dmax Maximum lateral displacement of pile
a Friction angle between soil and pile
ecr Cracking strain of concrete
et Tensile strain of concrete
est Strain of reinforcing steel
ey Yield strain of reinforcing steel
g Ratio between concrete strain and the concrete cracking
strain
mc Poison’s ratio of concrete
ms Poison’s ratio of soil
U Internal friction angle of soil
Ws Dilation angle of soil
On the other hand, Ebid 2015, presented a simplified approach
to consider cracking effect on the behavior of laterally loaded con-
crete piles, he carried out a parametric study using a simplified lin-
ear and nonlinear FEM model for laterally loaded piles, and he
suggested to use effective flexure stiffness (EsIe) of about 75% of
the gross stiffness (EsIg) to account for the effect of concrete crack-
ing. Although he considered a nonlinear behavior for concrete pile
to account for cracking effect, but the used linear springs to simu-
late soil mass which reduces the accuracy of his conclusions [1].
Aljanabi et al. 2020, tested a set of driven short piles under the
effect of the lateral load in clayey soil. The researchers investigated
the effect of various parameters such as the degree of saturation,
effective unit weight, pile diameter and the embedded length.
The researchers found that the piles lateral bearing capacity
increased with the increase of the pile diameter and more affected
by the pile embedded length. But the increase of the soil degree of
saturation decreases the pile lateral capacity. However, they
depended only on tiny scale laboratory tests without considering
the size effect on soil properties especially the angle of internal
friction [7].
Keawsawasvong et al. 2020, employed a 3D finite element
model taking the interface into consideration with no tension con-
dition to investigate the effect of various parameters on the lateral
response of the single pile in the undrained clay soil subjected to
combined horizontal loading and moment. These parameters
included the pile length and overburden stress factors. The model
was capable to predict that the lateral capacity of the modeled
piles and the overburden stress factor significantly affect the fail-
ure mechanism in case of undrained clay as the overburden pres-
sure increases; the elliptical rotated failure envelope expands its
size. However, the authors needed experimental tests to support
their conclusions which were based on the results of the finite ele-
ment model only [8].
Shirgir et al. 2021, presented an analytical model for a pile in
uniform and non-uniform soil profile under dynamic lateral loads.
For the uniform soil profile both of soil density and shear wave
velocity were constant with depth, on other hand, they had a para-
bolic distribution with depth in the non-uniform soil profile. The
developed analytical model was verified using two FEM models,
the first was simplified model where the soil was simulated as
spring-dashpot element, while the second one was a full 3D model
using solid elements for both soil mass and pile. The results of the
three models are close, however these results need to be verified
experimentally [9].
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi
Mahdi et al 2022, presented three (AI) models to predict both
maximum drift and bending moment in a free head flexible pile
embedded in multi-layered soil profile. The utilized (AI) techniques
were (ANN), (GP) and (EPR). Although (ANN) model showed the
most accurate predictions, but (EPR) was the most practical model.
The research indicated that the both flexural stiffness of pile and
lateral subgrade reaction of top layer govern the behavior of the
pile [10].
3. Objective
The previous literature review showed the need to more accu-
rate estimation for the lateral subgrade reaction of soil considering
the nonlinear behavior of the soil and the cracking effect of con-
crete using simple and practical formula. Hence, the aim of this
research is to study the behavior of laterally loaded piles in
multi-layered soil profile using 3D FEM models where the soil pro-
prieties are calibrated to match the experimental behavior of full
scale pile load tests. The actual values of coefficient of variation
of lateral subgrade reaction with depth (f) were extracted from
the field tests and correlated to the calibrated elastic modulus of
soil. Finally, the recommended values for (f) in design codes ware
evaluated in the light of the measured ones. Fig. 1 presents flow-
chart for the used methodology.
4. Reference experimental investigation
Four non-working board piles from Cairo Monorail Project in
Egypt were considered in this study. These tests were carried out
between July 2020 and January 2021. All of them have the same
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratio were constructed
at different locations where the soil profile varies. The piles were
designed considering the variation of soil profile as per Navfac
DM-7.02 [11] which is a well kwon design manual from naval facil-
ities engineering command, although it was issued in 1986 but it
still one of the main references in most international design codes
such as Uniform building Code (UBC), International Building Code
(IBC), American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and many others. It is recommended to design
Fig. 1. Flowchart for the used methodology.
3
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734
large diameter piles by drawing a virtual pile load-settlement
curve and determine the allowable load using the allowable settle-
ment. Each piles had a different embedded length that led to the
difference in the pile depth/diameter ratio (L/D). Table 1 summa-
rizes the piles geometry configurations and details of reinforce-
ment. All tested piles were cast using same concrete grade
(C28/35) corresponding to cube characteristic compressive
strength 35 MPa. The steel of grade (ST50/60) was used for rein-
forcement cages including both main and transverse reinforce-
ment. Steel bars diameters were 16 mm for stirrups and 32 mm
for main reinforcement. Tested piles were board through different
soil profiles with different pile depth that ranged from 16 m to
22 m. Borehole adjacent to each pile were investigated and shown
in Fig. 9-c, Fig. 10-c, Fig. 11-c & Fig. 12-c.
Incremental Lateral load was applied at each pile head till 200%
of the design working load that is equivalent to 170 tons. Load set-
up is shown in Fig. 2. The lateral displacement at the pile head and
in the same level of the applied lateral load was measured at all
load increments till the end of test. Fig. 9-b, Fig. 10-c, Fig. 11-c &
Fig. 12-c illustrate the measured load–displacement response of
all tested piles. The experimental behavior approved that the
design load was safe and economic regarding the pile diameter,
embedded length, and reinforcement in the proposed soil profiles.
5. Modeling strategy
ABAQUS software is general finite element program that can be
used in a wide range of analyses extend to a nonlinear complex
analysis type involving contact, plasticity, and large deformations
as in the models simulated through this study. This section shows
the sequence of the model construction to accurately simulate the
lateral response of the reinforced concrete piles and the geotechni-
cal behavior of the surrounding soil layers. The proposed rein-
forced concrete pile was modeled by half cylinder and the
surrounding soil mass was modeled as half cuboids. Fig. 3 shows
that the model was simulated as the positive X-Y axes in plane
and the negative Y-axis as the vertical direction. The modeled half
soil mass had dimensions of 15 m
25 m in plane and
(Lpile + 20D) for the width, length, and depth respectively. These
dimensions of the soil mass were chosen to eliminate the effect
of the minimal FEM dimensions when compared with the real
cases and to guarantee the pile stability against the model size
effects. Fine mesh size was used near in pile part and soil mass
zones surrounding the piles as shown in Fig. 3. Model setup steps
are listed in Table 2.
5.1. Material model
5.1.1. Soil mass
For the simulation of the soil mass was modeled as, built-in
first-order reduced integration 8-node brick element C3D8R was
used to represent the concrete in the finite element model [12].
The soil parameters used in the developed finite element model
are selected within the recommended ranges mentioned in the
Geotechnical Interpret Report for each borehole to fit the experi-
mental response. The soil elastic behavior was modeled as linear
elastic behavior in terms of elastic modulus (Es) and the Poisson’s
ratio (ts).
ABAQUS/CAE has a special built in Mohr-Coulomb plasticity
model that could be used for soil modeling. The classical Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion has a straight line in the meridional plane
and an irregular hexagonal section in the deviatoric plane [13] as
shown in Fig. 4. However, the ABAQUS provides his Mohr-
Coulomb model with completely smooth flow potential instead
of the classical hexagonal pyramid, the flow potential is a hyper-
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Table 1
Piles geometry and Reinforcement.

Pile Pile Length (L) Diameter (D) Aspect Ratio RFT

ID (m) (m)
L/D Longitudinal Transverse
6OC00 16.00 2.00 8.00 52 T 32 20 T 16 /m
NCC17 18.40 2.00 9.20
NCC19 18.65 2.00 9.33
NCC22 22.00 2.00 11.00

Fig. 2. Loading system layout.

Fig. 3. Details of the finite element model.

4
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Table 2
Model setup steps.

Element type Soil C3D8R See Section 3.1.1

Concrete C3D8R See Section 3.1.2
RFT T3D2 See Section 3.1.3
Material models Soil Mohr-columnb See Section 3.1.1
Concrete Drucker-Pruger See Section 3.1.2
RFT Perfect elastic–plastic See Section 3.1.3
Section assignment Soil Solid-homogeneous
Concrete Solid-homogeneous
RFT Truss
Assembly Assemble all parts as the actual pile test (embedded RFT in the pile bored See Fig. 3
in the soil mass)
Interaction Soil layers Tie constraint See Section 3.2.1
Pile-soil Interaction (Normal/Tangential) See Section 3.2.2
Concrete-RFT Embedded host See Section 3.2.3
Boundary conditions Symmetry Z-SYMM (U3 = UR1 = UR2 = 0)
Bottom Hinges (U1 = U2 = U3 = 0)
Loading steps Geostatic Model developed and validated by (Wang X. et al.,2021) is used for loading
Gravity load steps simulation:
Lateral Load 1-Deactivate the contact interaction (or set the friction coefficient to zero) at
the first step of the simulation and use the automatic method to run the
geostatic stress field procedure for each part of the model.
2-Activate the contact interaction (or restore the friction coefficient) at the
second step and run a static analysis (lateral loading on pile upper surface).

bola in the meridional plane, and it uses the smooth deviatoric sec-
tion proposed by Menétrey and Willam. Abaqus Mohr-Coulomb
model is shown in Fig. 5 [13].
The soil plasticity behavior was defined using the Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion in terms of the soil friction angle (U), dila-
tion angle (W) and cohesion (C). [13] Table 3 summarizes the final
geotechnical input values for each soil layer after calibration
against the experimental test results.
5.1.2. Concrete
For the simulation of the reinforced concrete piles, built-in first-
order reduced integration 8-node brick element C3D8R was used
to represent the concrete in the finite element model. The concrete
material model was defined as elastic behavior followed by the
plastic part as shown in Fig. 6. Elastic behavior of concrete was
modeled as linear and isotropic in terms of Elastic modulus (Ec)
and concrete Poisson’s ratio (mc) of 0.20. Elastic modulus of con-
crete could be estimated according to EN-1992 using Eq. (1) where
fcm is the cylinder characteristic concrete strength. In this research,
(Ec) values were selected between 30 and 35 GPa to fit the exper-
imental test results [14].
0:30
Ec ¼ 22ð0:1f cm Þ
The plastic portion of the concrete material model can be sim-
ulated in ABAQUS software using one of the three crack models
for conventional reinforced concrete elements which are; smeared
crack concrete model, brittle crack concrete model, and concrete
damaged plasticity (CDP) model. The concrete damaged plasticity
(CDP) model was selected to model the plastic behavior of concrete
in the present study as this technique is capable of representing
the complete inelastic behavior of concrete in both compression
and tension [15]. CDP model requires definition of the uniaxial ten-
sile and compressive behavior as well as a set of five parameters to
completely describe the plastic behavior of concrete. The plasticity
parameters are the flow potential eccentricity, the ratio of initial
biaxial compressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive
yield stress, and the dilation angle in degrees. These parameters
were set as the default values recommended by ABAQUS as 0.1,
1.16, 0.66, 0, and 30° respectively [13 16].
Eq. (2) represents the nonlinear uniaxial compressive behavior
of the unconfined concrete provided by the EN-1992. As the mod-
eled piles had the same compressive strength; the constants in Eq.
(2) were the same in all models as follows; concrete strain at peak
stress (ec1 ) equals to 2.15‰ and the equation constant (k) of 2.112.
kg  g2
rc ¼ f cm : ð2Þ
1 þ ðk  2Þg
ð1Þ
Where; g ¼ ec =ec1 , ec1 ðstrainatpeakstressÞ ¼ 0:7ðf cm Þ0:31 and
k ¼ 1:05Ecm :jec1 j=f cm

Fig. 4. Pyramidal surface in principal stress space and cross-section in the equi- Fig. 5. Menétrey and Willam flow potential in the deviatoric stress plane [13].
pressure plane [19].

5
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Table 3
Model Input Geotechnical Properties of Soil layers.

Pile ID Soil Layer Depth c Elastic Plastic Interface

(m) (t/m2)
Es t c U Ws a Coeff. of friction
(t/m2) (t/m2) (o) ( o) ( o) tan(a)
6OC00 Fill (Double sleeve) 1.75 1.7 1500 0.33 0 27 0 18 0.000
layer 1-Cemented Sand 12.5 2.2 40 000 0.20 5 38 4 25 0.473
layer 2-Weak Sandstone 10.0 2.0 200 000 0.20 60 38 4 25 0.473
layer 3-Cemented Sand 12.5 2.2 40 000 0.20 5 38 4 25 0.473
NCC17 Fill (Double sleeve) 3.0 1.7 1500 0.33 0 27 0 18 0.000
layer 1-Intact Limestone 3.0 2.4 3 000 000 0.15 50 35 4 25 0.431
layer 2-Hard Clay 3.0 2.2 20 000 0.25 30 30 2 20 0.364
layer 3-Dense Sand 8.0 2.0 7000 0.30 5 38 4 25 0.473
layer 4-Intact Limestone 21.0 2.4 2 000 000 0.15 50 20 0 13 0.237
NCC19 Fill (Double sleeve) 1.75 1.7 1500 0.33 0 27 0 18 0.000
layer 1-Silty Sand 11.3 2.0 30 000 0.20 15 35 4 23 0.431
layer 2-Cemented Sand 10.0 2.2 60 000 0.20 20 35 4 23 0.431
layer 3-Stiff Clay 15.0 2.1 5500 0.30 30 20 2 13 0.237
NCC22 Fill (Double sleeve) 1.75 1.7 1500 0.33 0 27 0 18 0.000
layer 1-Crushed Stone 9.0 2.2 100 000 0.20 10 35 4 23 0.431
layer 2-Hard Clay 6.5 2.2 20 000 0.25 30 20 2 13 0.237
layer 3-Crushed Stone 23.5 2.2 200 000 0.20 15 35 4 23 0.431

Fig. 7. Steel Stress-Strain Relations Interaction.

was defined assuming no hardening especially in case of mono-

Fig. 6. Uniaxial stress–strain curve of concrete (Xiao, Chen, Zhou, Leng, & Xia,
2017).
The tensile strength of the concrete f ctm was calculated as a
function of the concrete compressive strength, thus the tensile
strength of concrete in all models was 2.80 MPa according to EN-
1992. [14] The non-linear post-peak portion of the tensile behavior
of concrete was modeled according to the modified Wang and Hsu
formula shown in Eq. (3). The equation presents the softening of
concrete after the maximum tensile strength is reached; the power
(n) represents the rate of weakening that ranges from 0.50 to 1.50.
[16] Concrete cracking strain ecr was calculated as the ratio
between concrete tensile strength and the concrete elastic modu-
lus and equivalent to 0.09‰.

n
ecr
rt ¼ f ctm if et > ecr
et
5.1.3. Steel reinforcement
Reinforcement bars were modeled as discrete truss element in
space T3D2. Steel is a homogeneous isotropic material that can
be accurately defined as perfect elastic–plastic in both tension
and compression. [16 17] Steel used in all piles for both main rein-
forcement and stirrups is steel Grade (ST50/60). Steel elastic
behavior was modeled as linear isotropic with 210 GPa elastic
modulus and Poisson’s ratio (mst) of 0.30. The plastic behavior
tonic loading as in this study as shown in Fig. 7. Eqs. (4) and (5)
show the defined behavior of steel reinforcement in all models.
f st ¼ Est  est est 6 ey ð4Þ
f st ¼ f y est P ey ð5Þ
5.2. Interaction model
5.2.1. Interface between soil layers
The interaction between soil layers was considered as tie con-
straint with no relative displacements at the interface. Thus, the
slip between soil layers was ignored and considered to have the
same translational and rotational degrees of freedom during all
loading steps.
ð3Þ
5.2.2. Interface between soil and pile
Concrete pile and surrounding soil mass are not perfectly
bonded during all loading stages; so, the interaction at the inter-
face between soil and concrete pile along pile length and at bottom
surface was defined using the default constraint enforcement
method. Bearing between concrete elements and soil at the inter-
face was defined as the non-tension behavior by hard contact pres-
sure over-closure having finite sliding with the surface to surface
as the discretization method. The Penalty method with coefficient
of friction was chosen to simulate the tangential contact between
concrete elements [18].
6
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

The coefficient of friction between soil layers and concrete pile
was calculated according to the geotechnical properties of each soil
layer in terms of the soil angle of friction developed at soil-pile
interface (a) that is equivalent to two thirds the soil internal angle
of friction (U). The defined coefficient of friction in all modeled pile
in this study is calculated from Eq. (6) [19]. Table 3 summarizes the
coefficient of friction used between pile and each soil layer.
Coeff :offriction ¼ tanðaÞ
5.2.3. Interface between concrete and reinforcement bars
The reinforcement truss elements were embedded in host con-
tinuum solid elements as shown in Fig. 3. Embedding means that
the translational degrees of freedom at the nodes of the embedded
element are eliminated and become constrained to the corre-
sponding interpolated values in the host continuum element.
5.3. Boundary conditions
The model of the laterally loaded piles is set by using the com-
mon pattern for the finite element models in geotechnical engi-
neering as the transitional degrees of freedom (ux, uy, uz) were
all constrained for all the nodes at the bottom plane of the modeled
soil mass. Also, horizontal displacements were restrained for all
the vertical side planes. All rotational and transitional degrees of
freedom were permitted for the top plane as it was treated as
the free surface in the model where the load will be applied. Con-
sidering finite element model symmetry about X-Y plane; a sym-
metry boundary condition in ABAQUS (Z-SYMM) was used to
reduce the analysis time. This symmetry boundary condition
restrains the transitional degree of freedom (uz) and the rotational
degree of freedom (uRX, uRY).
increased gradually in each step increment till failure occurs in soil
or concrete pile which depends on the pile diameter and length as
well as the surrounding soil properties.
5.5. Validation of the finite element model
Based on the experimentally monitored lateral load–displace-
ð6Þ ment behavior, the developed finite element model is validated
in terms of load–displacement response, failure mode, expected
stresses and strains at failure. The load–displacement behavior of
both FEM and the experimentally monitored behavior are compa-
rable. As the lateral displacement corresponding to the maximum
applied load in the experimental tests was captured with error ran-
ged from (1.09 % to 9.75%) as shown in Table 4. The developed
modeling approach proved the design parameters and insured
the reliability of the developed FEM which has been successfully
utilized for assessing the safety and lateral capacity of pile.
To investigate the failure criteria of the proposed set of the rein-
forced concrete piles, the previously developed and validated finite
element model was submitted till failure. The FEM was capable to
capture the failure mode and the load/displacement at failure was
concluded. Modes of failure are presented in terms of maximum
stresses and strains carried by the concrete pile and the main rein-
forcement as well as the surrounding soil. All results at failure are
shown in Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the deformed shape of each ele-
ment at failure. All piles showed plastic strains that increased grad-
ually till the maximum tensile strength of concrete (280 MPa)
which is clear in all failure modes, then the stresses were released
Table 4
Comparison between experimental and the FEM.

Pile Lateral displacement at 200% %error

5.4. Loading protocol ID of working load
Experimental FEM DFEM Dexp:
Dexp: :100%
Usually, the first step in modeling is to define the geostatic step (mm) (mm)
that includes the initial stresses and gravity loads [12]. Fig. 8 shows 6OC00 5.20 5.10 1.96%
the results of the first step of the geostatic loading. Then the main NCC17 2.25 2.30 +2.22%
loading step was defined to apply the static lateral loading as a sur- NCC19 7.28 7.20 1.09%
NCC22 4.00 4.39 9.75 %
face traction shear pressure to the top pile surface. The load was

Fig. 8. Geostatic step results of the FEM model.

7
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Fig. 9. Pile 6OC00.

and transferred to the steel reinforcement which showed maxi- the maximum tensile strength of 50000 t/m2 at failure. As
mum strains at the zone of maximum curvature. Main reinforce- expected, the soil mass was affected by the lateral loading at the
ment yielded in tension as stresses in all modeled piled exceeded most upper layers only which experienced high stresses and

8
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Fig. 10. Pile NCC17.

strains as shown in Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12. The maximum principal soils and (9C) for cohesive soils, accordingly, the depth of soil lay-
stresses at failure were about 100 t/m2 for sand layers, 150 t/m2 for ers that showed plastic behavior was about 2.5 m in sand, 2.0 m in
crushed stone and 300 t/m2 for intact limestone. As per Barber, crushed stone and 1.0 m in intact limestone. These calculated
1953, the ultimate lateral soil capacity is (3 c h Kp) for granular depths matches the showed results in Figs. 9, 10, 11 and 12.

9
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Fig. 11. Pile NCC19.

6. Discussion lateral displacement and elastic length of a free head long pile
respectively.
Previous analysis shows that the four tested piles failed due to
2:4H:T 3 þ 1:55M:T 2
structural failure and accordingly, they are long or flexible piles. Dmax ¼ ð7Þ
Navfac DM-7.02 recommended Eq. (7), 8 to calculate the maximum Ec :Ig

10
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Fig. 12. Pile NCC22.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5 Ec :I g
(C28/35), the pile flexural stiffness (Ec :Ig ) is 2.4E + 6 (t.m2). The elastic
T¼ ð8Þ length of pile for each test could be calculated using Eq.7 using hori-
f
zontal load (H) of 170 ton, external moment (M) of (1.75 m
170
Where M, H, T, and f are the external moment, horizontal load, elas- ton) and hence the (f) values using Eq. (8) as shown in Table 5.
tic length of pile and the coefficient of variation of lateral subgrade Comparing the recommended values of (f) from Fig. 13 with the
reaction with depth respectively. For 2 m diameter pile with concrete experimental values as showed in Table 5 indicates that experi-

11
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

Table 5
Comparison between experimental and design (f) values.

Pile Exp. Dmax T f exp. f Navfac Es upper Description of upper layer

ID (mm) (m) (t/m3) (t/m3) (t/m2)
6OC00 5.20 2.80 14 000 1500 40 000 Dense Sand, N30 = 38
NCC17 2.25 2.05 67 500 2200* 3 000 000 Intact Limestone
NCC19 7.28 3.15 7 500 1350 30 000 Dense Sand, N30 = 35
NCC22 4.00 2.55 23 000 1900 100 000 Crushed Limestone
*
2200 t/m3 is the upper limit of (n) values for granular soils as per Navfac DM-7.02 [11].

effect of concrete, the yielding in reinforcement bars, the non-

tension, rough interface between pile and soil and finally the
nonlinear response of surrounding soil mass.
2. The results of the developed FEM models illustrated that the
behavior of long or flexible laterally loaded piles is controlled
by the properties of the upper soil layer down to a depth equals
to the elastic length of the pile (T). Below that depth, the soil
properties have minor effect of the pile behavior.
3. Comparing the measured and design values of the coefficient of
variation of lateral subgrade reaction with depth (f) showed
that measured values are about (6 to 12) times the recom-
mended values in design codes. Also, it indicated that measured
(f) values for intact rock are about 30 times the recommended
upper boundary of (f) for granular soils.
4. The developed correlation between the coefficient of variation
of lateral subgrade reaction with depth (f) and the correspond-
ing elastic modulus of soil showed a perfect logarithmic
relation.

8. Present study limitations and future research work

Fig. 13. Recommended values for (f) as per Navfac DM-7.02 [8].
This research focuses on the simulation of the lateral response
of the piles with aspect ratio (L/D) ranges from 9 to 11. Thus, fur-
ther studies should be conducted using validated methodology to
study the behavior of vertically loaded piles in multi-layered soil
profile with different aspect ratios.

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.

References

Fig. 14. Relation between Elastic modulus (Es) and experimental (f) value.
mental values are (6 to 12) times the design ones excluding test
NCC17 where the design value of (f) is considered as the upper
limit of granulate soil while the actual upper layer was intact Lime-
stone. Fig. 14 illustrates the relation between the selected Elastic
modulus of upper layer from FEM models and the corresponding
experimental (f) values. Eq. (9) presents the best fitting curve for
this relation.
fexp: ¼ 12750lnðEsÞ  123000
7. Conclusions
1. The developed nonlinear FEM models were successfully cap-
tured the behavior of the laterally loaded piles in multi-
layered soil profile. They were capable to simulate the cracking
[1] Ebid AM. ‘‘Simplified Approach to Consider Cracking Effect on the Behavior of
Laterally Loaded RC Piles. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol (IJIRSET) 2015;4
(10):9589–98.
[2] Walsh JM. Full-Scale Lateral Load Test of a 3x5 Pile Group in Sand. Provo,
Utah: Brigham Young University; 2005.
[3] Pender M. Effect of soil profile modulus distribution on pile head lateral
stiffness. In: 18th NZGS Geotechnical Symposium on Soil-Structure
Interaction., Ed. CY Chin, Auckland, 2008.
[4] Comodromos EM, Papadopoulou MC, Rentzeperis IK. Effect of Cracking on the
Response of Pile Test under Horizontal Loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2009:1275–84.
[5] El Wakil AZ, Nazir AK, Wakil El. Behavior of laterally loaded small scale
barrettes in sand. Ain Shams Eng J 2013;4(3):343–50.
[6] Farag R. Probabilistic pseudostatic analysis of pile in laterally spreading
ground: two layer soil profile. Ain Shams Eng J 2014;5(2):343–54.
[7] Aljanabi HA, Bazaz JB. Laboratory Study of Lateral Load Capacity and Behaviour
ð9Þ of Short Piles in clayey soil. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020;671
(1):012120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/671/1/012120.
[8] Ukritchon SKB. Failure Modes of Laterally Loaded Piles Under Combined
Horizontal Load and Moment Considering Overburden Stress Factors. Geotech
Geol Eng 2020:4253–67.
[9] Shirgir V, Ghanbari A, Massumi A, Shirgir Vahid. Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction
Effects in Alluvium with Non-constant Shear Modulus in Depth. Transp
Infrastructure Geotechnol 2021;8(2):254–78.
[10] Mahdi HA, Ebid AM, Onyelowe KC, Nwobia LI. Predicting the behaviour of
laterally loaded flexible free head pile in layered soil using different AI (EPR,

12
D.M. Ors, A.M. Ebid and H.A. Mahdi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13 (2022) 101734

ANN and GP) techniques. In: Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Ahmed M. Ebid Associated Professor, Future University,
Experiments and Design, 2022. Cairo, Egypt
[11] Structures, NAVFAC DM7-02 Foundations and Earth; Design Manula 7.02,
1986.
[12] Wang X-Y, Yuan Y-L, Hu C-M, Mei Y. Research on the Geostatic Stress Field
Procedure under complex Conditions. Adv Civ Eng 2021;2021:1–15.
[13] ABAQUS, ABAQUS analysis user’s manual, Version 6.10, Dassault Systèmes,
2020.
[14] Eurocode2, Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: general rules and rules for
buildings, Brussels, 2004.
[15] Xiao Y, Chen Z, Zhou J, Leng Y, Xia R. Concrete plastic-damage factor for finite
element analysis: Concept, simulation, and experiment. Adv. Mech. Eng.
2017:1–10.
[16] Fathi DM, Okail HO, Mahdi HA, Abdelrahman AA. Cyclic load behavior of
precast self-centering hammar head bridge piers. Housing Building Res. Center
J. (HBRC) 2020:113–41.
[17] Canakci H. Pile foundation design using Microsoft Excel. Comput. Appl. Eng. Hisham Arafat Professor, Future University, Cairo,
Educ. 2007;15(4):355–66. Egypt
[18] Ors DMF, Okail HO, Zaher AH. Modeling of shear deficient beams by the mixed
smeared/discrete cracking approach. Housing Building National Res. Center
(HBRC) J. 2016;12(2):123–36.
[19] Labuz JF, Zang A. Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
2012;45(6):975–9.

Dina M. Ors Assistant Professor, Future University,

Cairo, Egypt.

13