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

net/publication/283557648

Strain wedge model analysis as a means of overcoming limitations of the

traditional p-y curve approach

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 470

3 authors, including:

G. Norris Sherif Elfass

University of Nevada, Reno University of Nevada, Reno
54 PUBLICATIONS 692 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Column Capital Test Program View project

Shallow Foundations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by G. Norris on 02 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ashour, Norris & Elfass 1

Improved p-y Curve Response Based on Strain Wedge Model Analysis

Mohamed Ashour1, Gary Norris2 and Sherif Elfass3

1
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept, WVU Tech, Montgomery, WV 25136, Phone: (304) 442-3913
Mohamed.ashour@mail.wvu.edu
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, Phone: (775) 784-6835,
norris@unr.edu
3
Research Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, Phone: (775)
784-6664 elfass@unr.edu

ABSTRACT

The traditional p-y curve approach of analyzing laterally loaded pile response based on empirical curves developed
from a few but well documented field tests has given the profession the confidence and desire to employ such beam-
on-elastic foundation (BEF) analysis in preference to available finite element and elastic continuum solutions. Such
longevity can be explained by the profession’s desire to have a method that is simple and straightforward to apply
and has been calibrated (albeit back-calculated) against full scale behavior over a reasonable range of response (i.e.
pile head deflection). To prolong the useful life of such analysis procedure requires the development of more and
more correction factors (so-called p-multipliers) to account for effects never envisioned in the original work.
However, there is another BEF approach that compliments the p-y curve methodology that will provide for
evaluation of such effects more logically. The strain wedge model (SWM) incorporates the nonlinear stress-strain
behavior of the layered soils in combination with the nonlinear behavior of pile material at larger load, the depth
dependent interaction of the developing passive wedge as it fans out and grows deeper with increasing load, the end
condition of a short or intermediate length member and the vertical side shear of a larger diameter shaft. Such
methodology relates the stress and lateral side shear in the soil to the line load p, the deflection pattern with depth to
the horizontal strain of the soil in the developing wedge , and consequently, the BEF subgrade modulus (Es = p/y) to
the Young’s modulus (E= ) of the soil. This paper reviews the status of the SW model.

INTRODUCTION

The problem of a laterally loaded pile is often solved as a beam on an elastic foundation (BEF) involving nonlinear
modeling of the soil-pile interaction response (p-y curve). See Fig. 1. Currently employed p-y curve models were
established/back-calculated based on the results of field tests in uniform soils such as the Mustang Island (Reese et
al. 1974), Sabine River (Matlock 1970) and Houston (Reese and Welch 1975) tests, and adjusted mathematically
using empirical parameters to extrapolate beyond the soil’s specific field test conditions. The traditional p-y curve
models developed by Matlock (1970) and Reese et al. (1974) are semi-empirical models in which soil response is
characterized as independent nonlinear springs (Winkler springs) at discrete locations. Therefore, the effect of a
change in soil type of one layer on the response (p-y curve) of another is not considered. In addition, the
formulations for these p-y curve models do not account for a change in pile properties such as pile bending stiffness,
pile cross-sectional shape, pile-head fixity and pile-head embedment below the ground surface. Soil-pile interaction
or p-y curve behavior is not unique but a function of both soil and pile properties. It would be prohibitively
expensive to systematically evaluate all such effects through additional field tests; hence it behooves us to consider
such influences based on available theoretical means (SW model formulation, Norris 1986 and Ashour et al. 1998)
that allows transformation of envisioned three-dimensional soil-pile interaction response to one-dimensional BEF
parameters.

EFFECT OF PILE BENDING STIFFNESS ON THE p-y CURVE

As Terzaghi (1955) and Vesic (1961) stated, the subgrade modulus, Es (and , therefore, the p-y curve), is not just a
soil but, rather, a soil-pile interaction (and, therefore, a pile property dependent) response (Figs. 1 and 2). Figure 3
shows the effect of the bending stiffness of a free-head pile on the behavior of the SW model predicted p-y curves in
the loose and dense sand at a given depth of 1.22 m below ground surface. As seen, pile stiffness has a significant
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 2

effect on the p-y response in the dense sand and a moderate effect on that in the loose sand. Traditional p-y’s do not
account for pile stiffness (EI) on the p-y curves; they are a function of soil properties and pile diameter only.

Pv
Mo
Po p
(Es)1

P P y

p (Es)2

y
4 ft 4 ft
p
K1 K2 (Es)3

y
p
(Es)4

y
p
(Es)5

Fig. 1 One-Dimensional Beam-on- Elastic Foundation (BEF) or Winkler Springs

Characterization

B
Footing q per unit area

Rigid Footing, Kr =  0.5q

Flexible Footing, Kr = 0
Kr = 
q
(1-2s) EP H3 Kr = 0
Kr =
6 (1-2 P) Es B3
CL

Fig. 2 Effect Flexural Rigidity (EI) of a Footing on the Variation of the Soil Reaction
(Terzaghi 1955)
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 3

400

Soil-Pile Reaction, p, kN/m

EI (Stiff) = 3.13E4 kN-m2
EI (Flexible)= 4.3E3 kN-m2
D= 0.3 m
300 Free-Head Pile

200 Dense Sand

100 Loose Sand

Stiff Pile
Flexible Pile
0
0 50 100 150
Pile Deflection, y, mm

Fig. 3 Effect of Bending Stiffness (EI) of the Pile on the p-y

Curve in Sand at 1.22 m Depth from SW Model Analysis

EFFECT OF PILE CROSS SECTION SHAPE ON THE p-y CURVE

The SW model considers the effect of the pile cross-sectional shape (Fig. 1) via shape factors (Briaud et al. 1984).
The SW model was used to assess the p-y curves at a 1.22-m depth in sand of two reinforced concrete piles which
are assumed to have the same bending stiffness. The first pile has a square cross-section of 0.305-m width, while
the second pile has a circular cross-section of 0.305-m diameter. The only difference between the two piles is their
cross-sectional shapes. As shown in Fig. 4, the square pile in loose and dense sand exhibits a soil-pile resistance
higher than that of the circular pile. Traditional p-y’s do not account for pile shape on the p-y curves; they are a
function of only the pile’s diameter.

300
Soil-Pile Reaction, p, kN / m

EI = 1.15E4 kN-m2
Dense Sand Pile width = 0.3 m
R/C Free-Head Piles
200

100 Loose Sand

Square Pile
Circular Pile
0
0 40 80 120
Pile Deflection, y, mm
Fig. 4 Effect of Pile Cross-Section Shape on the p-y Curve at 1.22 m Depth

EFFECT OF PILE-HEAD FIXITY ON THE p-y CURVE

The effect of pile-head conditions (free or fixed-head) is one of the significant factors that determines the depth of
the developing passive wedge and, therefore, the shape of the p-y curve as shown in Fig. 5 for the given soil. Note
that the fixed head p-y curve in sand (Fig. 5) reaches a greater ultimate p value than that of the free head p-y curve.
This is the result of the development of a larger passive wedge (due to a deeper zero deflection crossing) for the
fixed head case at the same value of soil strain. As shown in Fig. 6, Kim et al. (2003) have proven experimentally
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 4

the distinctive effect of the pile-head conditions on the associated p-y curve. The traditional p-y curves do not
consider this effect.

600
Free-Head Pile

Soil-Pile Reaction, p, kN / m
Fixed-Head Pile

p-y Curves at 1.22-m Depth

400
Dense Sand

200
Loose Sand

0
0 40 80 120
Pile Deflection, y, mm

Fig. 5 Effect of Pile-Head Fixity (Fixed/Free) from the SW Model

on the p-y Curve in Dense and Loose Sand at 1.22 m Depth

Fig. 6 Effect of Pile-Head Fixity (Fixed/Free) on the p-y Curve in Dense and
Medium Dense Sand from Experiment (Kim et al. 2003)

EFFECT OF SOIL ABOVE AND BELOW ON THE p-y CURVE

Changing the soil immediately above or below the soil in which the p-y curve is sought will affect the
nature of the p-y curve. Figure 7 shows the SW model predicted effect of doing just that. As seen by the
insert, changing the type of the lower layer of soil (from 1.83 m down) in Fig. 7 has some effect on the p-
y curve in loose sand (upper layer) at a depth of 1.22 m. The same is true for the p-y curves in a lower
layer where the soil of the overlying layer is changed (not shown here). Therefore, SW model p-y curves
derived from fundamental soil behavior reflect a relation to soils on either side (above and below) of that
in question (soil continuity), they are not independent Winker springs, as are traditional p-y curves that
are a function of only the soil layer in question. SW model p-y curves are not unique to one soil (or, as
mentioned above, independent of pile properties of EI, shape and head fixity).
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 5

160

Soil-Pile Reaction, p, kN / m
Uniform Loose Sand
1.83 m of Loose Sand above Soft Clay
1.83 m of Loose Sand above Stiff Clay
120

80 Po

1.83 m
Loose Sand

L Dif ferent Soil

40
D
p-y Curves 1.22 m Below Pile Head

0
0 20 40 60 80
Pile Deflection, y, mm

Fig. 7. Effect of Soil Continuity (Differing Layers) on the p-y Curve in Loose Sand at 1.22 m Depth

EFFECT OF PILE GROUP INTERACTIO ON THE p-y CURVE

The pile group analysis procedure commonly used today is the p-y multiplier technique (Brown et al. 1988). Such a
procedure is based on reducing the stiffness of the traditional (Matlock-Reese and others) p-y curve by using a
multiplier (fm < 1). Brown et al. 1988 presented the overlap among the adjacent passive wedges (Fig. 8) to explain
the reasoning behind the adoption of a multiplier (fm). The value of the p-y curve multiplier is assumed based on the
data collected from full-scale field tests on pile groups which are few in number (Brown et al. 1988). Consequently,
a full-scale field test is strongly recommended in order to determine the value of the multiplier (fm) appropriate for
the soil profile under consideration. Moreover, the suggested value of the multiplier (fm) is taken to be the same at
all depths and over the full range of deflection (and, therefore, all levels of loading). Such characterization is
pictured in Fig. 9.

As seen in Fig. 8, the overlap of the wedges among the

piles in a group varies with depth, even in the same
uniform soil, and will increase with the level of pile head
loading as the wedges grow deeper and fan out farther
(the concept behind the strain wedge model). Therefore,
the use of a single multiplier that is both constant with
depth and constant over the full range of load/deflection
would seem to involve significant compromise.

Figure 10 shows a comparison between the field data by

Morrison and Reese (1986) and the results obtained using
the SWM program. As seen in Fig. 10, the observed and
computed responses of an average pile in the tested pile
group are in good agreement. The good match of the
calculated and observed behavior of the single pile carries
over to the imagined average pile in the group.

Figure 10 shows the corresponding variation of the p-

multiplier 0.9 m below pile head for different piles in the Fig. 8. Pile Group Interaction in the SW Model and
group constructed using SW model results. Note that the as Suggested by Brown et al. (1988)
multiplier varies with both pile position (type) and level
of loading beyond 1 mm deflection. Compared to the single pile, a significant reduction in the p-y curves of the
various piles in the group can be observed. It should be noted that the value of the p-multiplier at a given pile head
load increases with increasing depth. Figure 10 suggests that the p-multipliers derived at working load levels vary
only moderately over reasonable levels of deflection. However, such working level values would significantly
underestimate soil-pile resistance (p) and foundation stiffness at low deflection levels (e.g. seismic). However, such
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 6

multipliers are more than just a function of pile position: they are a function of soil and pile properties, i.e. anything
that influences the depth and fan angle of the wedges.

a) b)

Fig. 9. Modification of the Traditional p-y Curve for Group Effect using a Multiplier (a) versus
Anticipated Difference in p-y Response (b)
100

A verage Load per Pile, P o, kN

ke
t ro
nS

le
s io up

Pi
mp
re s Gro

le
Co

ng
75

Si
200
Soil-Pile Reaction, p, kN/m

Tension Stroke
160
50
Single Pile

120 SW Model
25 Measured
p-y curve at 0.9 m below pile head (Compression Stroke)
80 (Tension Stroke)
Pile Type 3
0
40
Pile Type 4
0 20 40 60
Deflection at Load Point, Yo, mm.
0
0 25 50 75 Fig. 15. Lateral pile-head lateral load vs. deflection for an isolated pile and an average
Pile Type 1
Pile Deflection, y, mm pile inPile
a 3Type
x 33group in sand (after Morrison
Loading and Reese, 1986)
Direction
Pile Type 2 Pile Type 4
Developing Passive Soil Wedges
P-Multiplier = (pSingle/pPile in a group)

1 By Position
Individual Pile in the Leading Row
Average Leading Row
0.8 Leading Row

P-multiplier at 0.9 m below pile head SP 2

0.6
Trailing Row
Pile Type 3 (Outside Pile)
0.4
SP 2
0.2 Pile Type 4 (Inside Pile) Trailing Row

Pile in Question SP1

SP1
0
0 25 50 75
Pile Deflection, y, mm Fig. 7 Horizontal (lateral and frontal) interaction for a prticular
pile in a pile group at a given depth

Fig.10. Variation of p-Multiplier and p-y Curves Assessed Using the SW Model at 0.9 m Depth for
Piles in 3 x 3 Pile Group Tested in Sand by Morrison and Reese (1986)
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 7

EFFECT OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION ON THE p-y CURVE

Due to the shaking from an earthquake and the associated lateral load from the superstructure, excess pore water
pressure in the free- and near-field develops and reduces the strength of loose to medium dense sand around a pile.
In the SW model, the degradation in soil resistance and the induced excess pore water pressure in the free-field
(uxs,ff) is based on the procedures proposed by Seed et al. 1983. This requires input as to the magnitude of the
earthquake to be considered as well as the peak ground surface acceleration at the site. Accordingly, a reduced
vertical effective stress is evaluated along the pile length in potentially liquefiable layers. This is followed by the
assessment of the additional excess pore water pressure (uxs,nf) generated in the near-field soil region (the wedge)
induced by the lateral load from the superstructure. The variation in soil resistance (i.e. the undrained stress-strain-
strength behavior and stress path in susceptible layers) in this near-field zone is evaluated based on effective stress
analysis using drained triaxial test results for saturated sand as demonstrated by Norris et al. (1997). The undrained
behavior due to the inertial load from the superstructure is assessed based on effective stress (i.e. drained triaxial
test) stress-strain formulation (Ashour and Norris 1999) that is part of the SW model software (Ashour and Norris
2003). Thus, the procedure accounts for both uxs,ff and uxs,nf.

It should be noted that the aforementioned procedures incorporate the whole undrained stress-strain curve (at any
level of loading, Fig. 11) not just the residual strength of the sand. The SW model analysis characterizes the
reduction in subgrade modulus Es (of the p-y curve, Fig.1) and pile response due to the drop in sand strength and
Young=s modulus E as a result of developing liquefaction in associated sand layers. The full-scale load tests on the
post-liquefaction lateral response of piles that were performed at Treasure Island (Weaver et al. 2005 and Rollins et
al. 2005) addressed the severe limitations of provisional techniques used to correct traditional p-y curves for
liquefaction (Fig. 12). Figure 13 shows a comparison between the back-calculated p-y curves from the Treasure
Island test results (liquefied soil) and the predicted curves obtained using the SW model analysis (the 0.61-m-
diamter CISS pile). The excellent agreement between “measured” and SW model computed pile-head load response
(not shown), p-y curves (Fig. 13), and the moment, deflection and shear force distribution along the pile (not shown
here) demonstrates the validity and reliability of SW model analysis.

Stress-strain behavior of
Deviator Stress, d

partially liquefied sand

Soil-Pile Reaction, p

(ru) < 1 Upper Limit of Sr using soft clay p-y curve

Post-liquefaction (ru=1)
stress-strain behavior

Clay-type Lower Limit of Sr

stress-strain
Sr = d/2 API Procedure Treasure Island Result (UCSD)

Axial Strain, 
Pile Deflection, y

Fig. 11. Undrained Stress-Strain Behavior Fig. 12. Back-calculated or “Measured” p-y
of Completely and Partially Liquefied Curve in Fully Liquefied Soil
Soil Compared to Suggested Corrections
to Traditional p-y Curves
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 8

80 50
Measured Measured
Predicted (SW Model) 40 Predicted (SW Model)
60
p (kN/m)

p (kN/m)
p-y Curve at 0.2 m Below Ground 30
p-y Curve at 1.5 m Below Ground
40
20
20
10

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120
Pile Lateral Deflection, y (mm) Pile Lateral Deflection, y (mm)

50 50
Measured Measured
Predicted (SW Model) Predicted (SW Model)
40 40

p (kN/m)
p (kN/m)

30 30
p-y Curve at 3.0 m Below Ground
p-y Curve at 2.3 m Below Ground
20 20

10 10

0 0
0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 100
Pile Lateral Deflection, y (mm) Pile Lateral Deflection, y (mm)

Fig. 13. SW Model p-y Curves vs. Observed (Back-Calculated) Curves

from Treasure Island Test (0.61-m-CISS)

CONCLUSIONS

One-dimensional beam-on-elastic foundation (BEF) analysis for analyzing laterally loaded pile analysis is viewed
by the profession as a simple and straightforward approach that is backed up by back-calculated nonlinear p-y
curves from a few well-instrumented field tests for the basic soil types. It is unlikely that such an analysis technique
will be supplanted by three-dimensional elastic continuum or finite element approaches which have not been
calibrated against field test data. Furthermore, the input to BEF analysis requires only basic soil information.
However, to prolong the useful life of such an analysis procedure, requires the development of more and more
correction factors (so-called p-multipliers) to account for effects never envisioned in the original work. There are
currently correction factors for group interference and liquefaction effects, but there should be more to account for a
varying/changing pile bending stiffness with depth and load, head fixity (pinned or fixed), pile shape (round vs.
square), the effect of layers of soil above and below that in question, bottom shear and moment contributions of
short and intermediate pile lengths, and the contribution of vertical side shear to the lateral resistance of larger and
larger diameter members. Unfortunately the interaction of such correction factors that are derived on the basis of
only the variation of one complicating factor at a time will never be known.

There is another BEF approach that compliments the p-y curve methodology that will provide for evaluation of the
above mentioned effects. The Strain Wedge (SW) model provides the means for evaluating soil-pile interaction
based on such factors as pile size, shape, bending stiffness (an EI that varies with moment/curvature as a function of
depth and load level, including the development of a plastic hinge), pile head fixity and group interference effects in
addition to the nonlinear soil response of a layered system of soils (and hence, continuity). The effect of such
variables has been demonstrated herein. The resulting p-y curves are a product of, not the input to, the SW model.
The SW model approach incorporates a simplified three-dimensional analysis (Ashour et al. 1998, 2002 and 2004)
that is linked to the needed one-dimensional BEF parameters (notably the nonlinear variation in the subgrade
Ashour, Norris & Elfass 9

modulus) from which p-y curves can be evaluated. SW model results have been generated for
comparison/validation against more than 40 case studies reported in the literature, all yielding very pleasing
matches.

While the work presented herein demonstrates the need for (accompanied by the likely difficulty of) establishing
corrections to the traditional p-y curves for a number of heretofore neglected effects, there are others that should be
mentioned. The traditional p-y curves are for a long pile; what logical way would you account for bottom moment
and bottom shear for a short or intermediate length pile in traditional analysis? That has already been incorporated
in current SW model programming. Furthermore, traditional p-y curves are for piles and drilled shafts of smaller
diameter; how do you account for vertical side shear acting as an equivalent backwardly applied moment at each
depth as a larger diameter pile or shaft deflects/rotates under increasing pile head load? Such added resistance is not
accounted for in the traditional p-y curves, but is considered in the SW model.

Most importantly, p-y curves are not unique but depend upon a number of variables a function of both the soil and
pile. To continue using the current curves and apply empirically derived correction factors is a task that cannot be
satisfactorily mastered. Instead, once sufficient confidence develops for the SW model, it should become the well
used method of analysis. Best of all, it requires the same basic soil information that is needed for current/traditional
p-y curve evaluation and the public domain program is very easy to use.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The interest and financial support of Caltrans and WSDOT in the development of the Strain Wedge model are
gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Ashour, M. Post Liquefaction Response of Liquefied Soils. Proc. 37th Engineering Geology and
Geotechnical Engineering Symposium, Boise, Idaho, 2002, pp. 11-26.
2. Ashour, M., G. Norris and P. Pilling. Lateral Loading of a Pile in Layered Soil Using the Strain Wedge
Model. J. of Geotech. Engg, ASCE vol. 124 (4) 1998, pp. 303-315.
3. Ashour, M. and G. Norris. Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of Sands from Drained
Formulation. J. of Geotech. Engg, ASCE vol. 125 (8), 1999, pp. 649-658.
4. Ashour, M., G. Norris and P. Pilling. Strain Wedge Model Capability of Analyzing Behavior of Laterally
Loaded Isolated Piles, Drilled Shafts and Pile Groups. J of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, vol. 7 (4), 2002, pp.
245-253.
5. Ashour, M., and G. Norris. Lateral Load Pile Response in Liquefied Soil. J of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 129 (6), 2003, pp. 404-414.
6. Ashour, M., P. Pilling and G. Norris. Lateral Behavior of Pile Groups in Layered Soil. J of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 130 (6), 2004, pp. 580-592.
7. Briaud, J.L., T. Smith and B. Mayer. Laterally Loaded Piles and the Pressuremeter: Comparison of
Existing Methods. Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations, ASTM, STP 835, 1984, pp. 97-111.
8. Brown, D. A., C. Morrison and L.C. Reese. Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Group in Sand. J. of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol. 114 (11), 1988, pp. 1261-1276.
9. Kim, B.T., N.K. Kim and W.J. Lee. Experimental Load-Transfer Curves of Laterally Loaded Pile in Nak-
Dong River Sand.” J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 130 (4), 2003, pp.
416-425.
10. Matlock, H. Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Proc 2nd Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC 1204, 1970, pp. 577-607.
11. Morrison, C. and L.C. Reese. Lateral-Load Test of a Full-Scale Pile Group in Sand.
Report to US Department of Interior, Federal Highway Administration, and U. S. Army Engineer,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 1986.
12. Norris, G. Theoretically Based BEF Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis. Proc 3rd International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, 1986, pp. 361-386.
13. Norris, G., R. Siddharthan, Z. Zafir, and R. Madhu. Liquefaction and Residual Strength of Sands from
Drained Triaxial Tests. J. of Geotech. Engg, ASCE, vol. 123 (3), 1997, pp. 220-228.
 Ashour, Norris & Elfass 10

14. Reese, L.C., W.R. Cox and F.D. Koop. Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. Proc. 6th Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC 2080, 1974, pp. 473-483.
15. Reese, L.C., and R.C. Welch. Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in Stiff Clay.
J. of Geotech. Engg, ASCE, vol. 101 (7), 1975, pp. 633-649.
16. Rollins, K.M., T.M. Gerber, J.D. Lane and S. Ashford. Lateral Resistance of a Full-Scale Pile Group in
Liquefied Sand. J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE , vol. 131 (1), 2005, pp.
115-125.
17. Terzaghi, K. Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction. Geotechnique, vol. 5 (4), 1955, pp. 297-326.
18. Vesic, A. (1961) “Bending of Beams Resting on Isotropic Elastic Solid. J. Engineering Mechanics , ASCE,
vol. 87 (2), 1961, pp. 35-53.
19. Weaver, T. J., S. Ashford and K.M. Rollins Response of 0.6 m Cast-in-Steel-Shell Pile in Liquefied Soil
under Lateral Loading. J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE , vol. 131 (1), 2005,
pp. 94-102.

View publication stats