LATERAL LOADING OF A PILE IN LAYERED SOIL

USING THE STRAIN WEDGE MODEL

By M. Ashour,t Member, ASCE, G. Norris,:Z Member, ASCE, and P. Pilling3

ABSTRACT: Beam on elastic foundation theory provides an efficient solution for the problem of a laterally
loaded pile. The accuracy of such a solution depends upon the characterization of the interaction between the
pile and the surrounding soil. A particularly good representation of the soil-pile interaction yields a more realistic
solution. While traditional nonlinear "p-y" characterization provides reasonable assessment for a wide range of
loaded piles, it has been found that the p-y curve (or the modulus of subgrade reaction) depends on pile properties
(width, shape, bending stiffness, and pile-head conditions) as well as soil properties. The strain wedge model
allows the assessment of the nonlinear p-y curve response of a laterally loaded pile based on the envisioned
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

relationship between the three-dimensional response of a flexible pile in the soil to its one-dimensional beam
on elastic foundation parameters. In addition, the strain wedge model employs stress-strain-strength behavior of
the soil as established from the triaxial test and the effective stress condition to evaluate the mobilized soil
behavior.

INTRODUCTION correlation between the SW model response and BEF char-

The strain wedge (SW) model is an approach that has been
developed to predict the response of a flexible pile under lat-
eral loading (Norris 1986). The main concept associated with
the SW model is that traditional one-dimensional beam on
elastic foundation (BEF) pile response parameters can be char-
acterized in terms of three-dimensional soil-pile interaction be-
havior. The strain wedge model was initially established to
analyze a free-head pile embedded in one type of uniform soil
(sand or clay). However, the SW model has been improved
and modified through additional research to accommodate a
laterally loaded pile embedded in multiple soil layers (sand
and clay). The strain wedge model has been further modified
to include the effect of pile head conditions on soil-pile be-
havior. The main objective behind the development of the SW
model is to solve the BEF problem of a laterally loaded pile
based on the envisioned soil-pile interaction and its depen-
dence on both soil and pile properties.
The problem of a laterally loaded pile in layered soil has
been solved by Reese (1977) as a BEF based on modeling the
soil response by p-y curves. However, as mentioned by Reese
(1983), the p-y curve employed does not account for soil con-
tinuity and pile properties such as pile stiffness, pile cross-
section shape, and pile head conditions. Such is the subject
matter of this paper.
THEORETICAL BASIS OF STRAIN WEDGE MODEL
CHARACTERIZATION
The SW model parameters are related to an envisioned
three-dimensional passive wedge of soil developing in front
of the pile. The basic purpose of the SW model is to relate
stress-strain-strength behavior of the soil in the wedge to one-
dimensional BEF parameters. The SW model is, therefore,
able to provide a theoretical link between the more complex
three-dimensional soil-pile interaction and the simpler
one-dimensional BEF characterization. The previously noted
'Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Nevada,
Reno, NV 89557.
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
'Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Nevada,
Reno, NY.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1998. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on June 16, 1997. This paper is part of the }ounuzl
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmenf41 Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4,
April, 1998. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/98/0004-0303-0315/$4.00 +
$.50 per page. Paper No. 16004.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/303
acterization reflects the following interdependence:
the horizontal soil strain (E) in the developing passive
wedge in the front of the pile to the deflection pattern (y
versus depth, x) of the pile
• the horizontal soil stress change (dO'h) in the developing
passive wedge to the soil-pile reaction (p) associated with
BEF
• the nonlinear variation in the Young's modulus (E =
dO'hlE) of the soil to the nonlinear variation in the mod-
ulus of soil subgrade reaction (E, = ply) associated with
BEF characterization
These analytical relations reflect soil-pile interaction re-
sponse characterized by the SW model that will be illustrated
later in this paper. The reason for linking the SW model to
BEF analysis is to allow the appropriate selection of BEF pa-
rameters to solve the following fourth-order ordinary differ-
ential equation:
4y
d 4x )
El ( d + E,(x) =0 (I)
The closed form solution of (1) has been obtained by Matlock
and Reese (1961) for the case of uniform soil. To appreciate
the SW model's enhancement of BEF analysis, one should first
consider the governing analytical formulations related to the
passive wedge in front of the pile, the soil's stress-strain re-
lationship, and the related soil-pile interaction.
SOIL PASSIVE WEDGE CONFIGURATION IN
UNIFORM SOIL
The SW model represents the mobilized passive wedge in
front of the pile, which is characterized by base angles, em
and 13m; the current passive wedge depth h; and the spread of
the wedge fan angle, 'Pm (the mobilized friction angle). The
horizontal stress change at the passive wedge face, dO'h' and
the side shear, T, act as shown in Fig. 1. One of the main
assumptions associated with the SW model is that the deflec-
tion pattern of the pile is taken to be linear over the controlling
depth of the soil near the pile top, resulting in a linearized
deflection angle, 8, as seen in Fig. 2. The relationship between
the actual (closed form solution) and linearized deflection pat-
terns has been established by Norris (1986). This assumption
allows uniform horizontal and vertical soil strains to be as-
sessed (as seen later in Fig. 6). Changes in the shape and depth
of the passive wedge, along with changes in the state of load-

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 where x denotes the depth below the top of the studied passive
wedge, and D symbolizes the width of the pile cross-section
(see Fig. 1). It should be noted that the SW model is based
upon an effective stress analysis of both sand and clay soils.
As a result, the mobilized fanning angle, 'Pm, is not zero in
clay soil as assumed by Reese (1958, 1983).

STRAIN WEDGE MODEL IN LAYERED SOIL

The SW model can handle the problem of multiple soil lay-
ers of different types. The approach employed, which is called
the multisublayer technique, based upon dividing the soil pro-
file and the loaded pile into sublayers and segments of constant
thickness, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. Each sublayer of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

soil is considered to behave as a uniform soil and have its own

properties according to the sub1ayer location and soil type. In
addition, the multisublayer technique depends on the deflec-
tion pattern of the embedded pile being continuous regardless
of the variation of soil types. However, the depth, h, of the
Pile Width (D) deflected portion of the pile is controlled by the stability anal-
ysis of the pile under the conditions of soil-pile interaction.
SUCE Of WEDGE AT DEPTH x The effects of the soil and pile properties are associated with
FIG. 1. Basic Strain Wedge In Uniform 5011 the soil reaction along the pile by the Young's modulus of the
soil, the stress level in the soil, the pile deflection, and the
Yo (LINEAR APPROXIt.tATION) modulus of subgrade reaction between the pile segment and
-r--~----------";"
Y Yo each soil sublayer. To account for the interaction between the
soil and the pile, the deflected part of the pile is considered to
x respond as a continuous beam loaded with different short seg-
DEfLECTION PATTERN ments of uniform load and supported by nonlinear elastic sup-
ports along soil sublayers, as shown in Fig. 4. At the same
h time, the point of zero deflection [Xo in Fig. 4(a)] for a pile
in a particular layered soil varies according to the applied load
and the soil strain level.
The SW model in layered soil provides a means for distin-
guishing layers of different soil types as well as sublayers
within each layer where conditions (£50' SL, <Pm) vary even
STRAIN WEDGE though the soil and its properties ('Y, e or Dr> 'P, etc.) remain
(SIDE VIEW) the same. As shown in Fig. 5, there may be different soil layers
and a transition in wedge shape from one layer to the next,
with all components of the compound wedge having in com-
mon the same depth h. In fact, there may be a continuous
change over a given sublayer; but the values of stress level
(SL) and mobilized friction angle ('Pm) at the middle of each
sublayer of height, Hi, are treated as the values for the entire
sublayer.
As shown in Fig. 5, the geometry of the compound passive
wedge depends on the properties and number of soil types in
the soil profile, and the global equilibrium between the soil
layers and the loaded pile. An iterative process is performed
FIG. 2. Deflection Pattern of Laterally Loaded Long Pile and to satisfy the equilibrium between the mobilized geometry of
Associated Strain Wedge the passive wedge of the layered soil and the deflected pattern
of the pile for any level of loading.
ing and pile deflection, occur with change in the uniform strain Yo
in the developing passive wedge. The configuration of the
SUBLAYER
wedge at any instant of load and, therefore, mobilized friction x
angle, <pm, and wedge depth, h, is given by the following equa- SUBLAYER 2
tion: SUBLAYER 3

(2)
h PASSIVE WEDGE

or its complement

Q.
Pm
= 45 + 'Pm
2 (3)
PATTERN
The width, BC, of the wedge face at any depth is
FIG. 3. Linearized Deflection Pattern of Pile Embedded in 5011
BC = D + (h - x)2 tan ~m tan 'Pm (4) Using Multlsublayer Strain Wedge Model

304/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 Pm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I I I
I I I
(a) (b) (C)
FIG. 4. Soli-Pile Interaction in Multlsublayer Technique: (a) Pile Deflection Pattern; (b) Soli Reaction Distribution along Pile; (c) Soll-
Pile Modeling

Contact Surface
Between 5011 I and II

III
SOIL
TYPE d3
III

The Geometry of Sublayer

FIG. 5. Proposed Geometry of Compound Passive Wedge

Though the shape of the wedge in any soil layer depends

upon the properties of that layer and, therefore, satisfies the (0 ..)., = 45 - (<p..);
2 (5)
nature of a Winkler foundation of independent "soil" springs
in BEF analysis, realize that there is forced interdependence «(3..); = 45 + (<P;)j (6)
given that all components of the compound wedge have the
same depth (h) in common. Therefore, the mobilized depth (h) (BC); = D + (h - xi)2(tan (3.. Wan <P..); (7)
of the compound wedge at any time is a function of the various
soils (and their stress levels), the bending stiffness (EI), and where h = the entire depth of the compound passive wedge in
the head fixity conditions (fixed, free, or other) of the pile. In front of the pile; and X; = depth from the top of the pile or
fact, the developing depth of the compound wedge can be compound passive wedge to the middle of the sublayer under
thought of as a retaining wall of changing height, h. Therefore, consideration. The equations above are applied at the middle
the resultant "soil" reaction, p, from any soil layer is really a of each sublayer.
"soil-pile" reaction that depends upon the neighboring soil
layers and the pile properties as they, in turn, influence the SOIL STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP
current depth, h. In other words, the p-y response of a given The horizontal strain (E) in the soil in the passive wedge in
soil layer is not unique. The governing equations of the mo- front of the pile is the predominant parameter in the SW
bilized passive wedge shape are applied within each one- or model; hence, the name "strain wedge." Consequently, the
two-foot sublayer i (of a given soil layer I) and can be written horizontal stress change (a<J'h) is constant across the width of
as follows: the rectangle BCLM (of face with Be of the passive wedge),
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/305

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 eh~n8m
v'
eIIv hr,.:-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--,,_
v' JU'I -7U
veh v /'
'1/2
h
1/2
1max /2 =1:-1:11 = 1:(1+ II)
2 2

w
(8) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)
FIG. 6. (a) Distortion of the Wedge; (b) Associated Mohr Circle of Strain; (c) Relationship between Pile Deflection and Wedge Distor-
tion

-
In
In
e
( I')
Uhf t.
SL- Aah • lanZ (45+ 9'm/2)-1
(45+ 9'/2)-1

ad

Stress
£
Triaxial Test at 0'3

FIG. 7. Relationship between Horizontal Stress Change, Stress Level, and Mobilized Friction Angle

as shown in Fig. 1. The stress-strain relationship is defined It can be demonstrated from a Mohr's circle of soil strain,
based on the results of the isotropically consolidated drained as shown in Fig. 6, that shear strain, 'Y, is defined as
(sand) or undrained (clay) triaxial test. These properties are
summarized as follows: 2:2 =.!.2 (E - E )sin 20
" m
=.!.2 E(I + v)sin 20
m
(8)

• The major principle stress change (;lah) in the wedge is The corresponding stress level (SL) in sand (see Fig. 7) is
in the direction of pile movement, and it is equivalent to 2
the deviatoric stress change in the triaxial test as shown SL = ;lO'h = tan (45 + <Pm) - I
(9)
in Fig. 2 (assuming that the horizontal direction in the ;lO'h/ tan 2 (45 + <p) - I
field is taken as the axial direction in the triaxial test). where the horizontal stress change at failure (or the deviatoric
• The vertical stress change (;la v) and the perpendicular stress at failure in the triaxial test) is
horizontal stress change (;laph) equal zero, corresponding
to the standard triaxial compression test where deviatoric (10)
stress if increased while confining pressure remains con-
stant.
• The initial horizontal effective stress is taken as aho = In clay
Ka"o = a"o where K = 1 due to pile installation effects. ;lO'h
Therefore, the isotropic confining pressure in the triaxial SL = - ; !l0'/if = 2Su (II)
!lO'h/
test is taken as the vertical effective stress (a va) at the
associated depth. where Su = undrained shear strength, which may vary with
• The horizontal stress change in the direction of pile move- depth. Determination of the values of SL and <Pm in clay re-
ment is related to the current level of horizontal strain (E) quires the involvement of an effective stress analysis, which
and the associated Young's modulus in the soil as are the is presented later in this paper.
deviatoric stress and the axial strain to the secant Young's The relationships above show clearly that the passive wedge
modulus (E = ;laiE) in the triaxial test. response and configuration change with the change of the mo-
• Both the vertical strain (E v) and the horizontal strain per- bilized friction angle (<Pm) or stress level (SL) in the soil. Such
pendicular to pile movement (Eph ) are equal and are given behavior provides the flexibility and the accuracy for the strain
as E" = Eph = -vE where v is the Poisson's ratio of the wedge model to accommodate both small and large strain
soil. cases.
306/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 STR£SS LEVEL (SL) .,....r-T"~:-:- ... ..;.P.;;:IL£~DEf'L£CTION

<4
3
1.0 2
1
0.1 I
I I I
I stat. III I
I
ISta,. II I II:
I
h

-I I I
SOIL STRAIN (I:)
'I I I
til I I THE DEPTH IN SOIL
~~---::~---:C:.&:f~-S11WN (£x)
£50 £lIO
(8) T
SL= AUh .. tan 2 (-4S+ !m/2)-1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AUhf tan2 (-4S+ 'P /2)-1

PARAWETER A

3.1...- - -.....
I
Stat. I I
____ l. ~--

2.1
:"'111
I 1 st.... UI
I I
I---~':_"-~=__---
0.5 0.1
(b)
FIG. 8. Developed Stress-Straln Relationship In Soli: (a) De-
veloped Hyperbolic Stress-5train Relationship in Soli; (b) Varl·
ation of Fitting Parameter A versus Stress Level (SL)
A power function stress-strain relationship is employed in
SW model analysis for both sand and clay soils. It reflects the
nonlinear variation in stress level (SL) with axial strain (£) for
the condition of constant confining pressure. To be applicable
over the entire range of soil strain, it takes on a fonn that
varies in stages, as shown in Fig. 8. The advantage of this
technique is that it allows the three stages of horizontal stress,
described in the next section, to occur simultaneously in dif-
ferent sublayers within the passive wedge.
Horizontal Stress Level (SL)
Stage I (£ :5 £50%)
The relationship between stress level and strain at each sub-
layer (i) in the first stage is assessed using the following equa-
tion:
~-~L-~-I..-.L,L----=I-_-'-
(it".), (it"')2 (it".) ~ (it".)4
a
FIG. 9. Nonlinear Variation of Stress Level along Depth of Soil
STRESS LEVEL at Constant Strain E
(SL)
where m = 59.0 and q = 95.4E50 are the required values of the
fitting parameters.
The three stages mentioned above are developed based on
experimental results (Norris 1977). In addition, the continuity
of the stress-strain relationship is maintained along the SL-E
curve at the merging points between the mentioned stages.
As shown in Fig. 9, if E50 of the soil is constant with depth
(x), then, for a given horizontal strain (E), SL from (12) or (13)
will be constant with x. On the other hand, since strength, AU/if'
varies with depth [e.g., see (10) and (11)], Auh(=SL AUIif) will
vary in a like fashion. However, Eso is affected by confining
pressure (avo) in sand, as is Su in clay. Therefore, SL for a
given E will vary somewhat with depth.
The Young's modulus of the soil from both the shear load-
ing phase of the triaxial test and the strain wedge model is
_ (AUh)j _ SL;(Auhj)j
E;- - (14)
E E
It can be seen from the previous equations that stress level,
strain, and Young's modulus at each sublayer (i) depend on
each other, which results in the need for an iterative solution
solution technique to satisfy the equilibrium between the three
(12)
variables.

where 3.707 and A (A = 3.19) represent the fitting parameters

SHEAR STRESS ALONG PILE SIDES (SL r)
of the modified hyperbolic relationship, and £50 symbolizes the
soil strain at 50 percent stress level. Shear stress ('T) along the pile sides in the SW model (see
Fig. 1) is defined according to the soil type (sand or clay).
Stage II (E50% :5 E :5 EsO%)
In the second stage of the stress-strain relationship, (12) is Pile Side Shear in Sand
still applicable. However, the value of the fitting parameter A
is taken to vary in a linear manner from 3.19 at the 50 percent In the case of sand, the shear stress along the pile sides
stress level to 2.14 at the 80 percent stress level, as shown in depends on the effective stress (avo) at the depth in question
Fig. 8 and the mobilized angle of friction between the sand and the
pile ('P,). The mobilized side shear depends on the stress level
Stage III (E 2: EsO%) and is given by the following equation:
This stage represents the final loading zone, which extends T{ = (a vo){ tan('P,);; where tan('P,); = 2 tan('Pm)/ (15)
from 80% to 100% stress level. The following equation is used
to assess the stress-strain relationship in this range: In (15), note that mobilized side shear angle, tan 'P.. is taken
to develop at twice the rate of the mobilized friction angle (tan
SL; = exp [In 0.2 +
(me
100e
+ q;)
]; SL; 2: 0.80 (13) 'Pm) in the mobilized wedge. Of course, 'P, is limited to the
fully developed friction angle ('P) of the soil.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/307

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 Pile Side Shear Stress in Clay
The shear stress along the pile sides in clay depends on the - 1.0 .....------~--
clay's undrained shear strength. The stress level of shear along
the pile sides (SL,) differs from that in the wedge in front of
i
the pile. The side shear stress level is a function of the shear
movement, equal to the pile deflection (y) at depth x from the
ground surface. This implies a connection between the stress
level (SL) in the wedge and the pile side shear stress level
(SL,). Using the Coyle-Reese (1966) "t-z" shear stress transfer
curves (Fig. I0), values for SL, can be determined. The shear
stress transfer curves represent the relationship between the
shear stress level experienced by a one-foot diameter pile em-
bedded in clay with a peak undrained strength, Su, and side PILE DISPLACEMENT. Y
resistance, TUIl (equal to , times the adhesional strength rxSu ),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for shear movement, y. The shear stress load transfer curves

of Coyle-Reese can be normalized by dividing curve A (0 < -r-......----w--r---,,~ ,.....-+--+-1-+.,......- PILE DISPLACEMENT. y
x < 3 m) by , = 0.53, curve B (3 < x < 6 m) by , = 0.85, and
curve C (x > 6 m) by , = 1.0. These three values of normal-
ization (0.53, 0.85, 1.0) represent the peaks of the curves A,
B, and C, respectively, in Fig. lO(a). Fig. lO(b) shows the
H
resultant normalized curves. Knowing pile deflection (y), one
can assess the value of the mobilized pile side shear stress (T)
as
(16)
where
THE DEPTH IN SOIL
(17)
FIG. 11. Nonlinear Variation of Shear Stress Level (SL,) along
and rx = adhesion value after Tomlinson (1957). Depth of Soil at Constant Strain £
The normalized shear stress load transfer curves can be rep-
resented by the following equations. For the normalized curves From the discussion above, it is obvious that SL, varies non-
A (x < 3 m) and B (3 < x < 6 m): linearly with the pile deflection, y, at a given soil depth, x.
SL, = l2.9yD - 40.5lD 2 (18) Also, SL, changes nonlinearly with soil depth for a given value
of soil strain (see Fig. II). These concepts are employed in
For the normalized curve C (x > 6 m) each sublayer of clay.
SL, = 32.3yD - 255lD 2 (19)
SOIL PROPERTY CHARACTERIZATION IN STRAIN
where y in cm and D in m. WEDGE MODEL
One of the main advantages of the SW model approach is
1.0 the simplicity of the required soil properties necessary to an-
alyze the problem of a laterally loaded pile. The properties
0.85 required represent the basic and the most common properties
of soil, such as the effective unit weight and the angle of
~---0.53 internal friction or undrained strength.
The soil profile is divided into one or two foot sublayers,
and each sublayer is treated as an independent entity with its
own properties. In this fashion, the variation in soil properties
or response (such as £50 and 'Pm in the case of sand, or Su and
'Pm in the case of clay) at each sublayer of soil can be explored.
(a) Pile Dieplacement. y Inch It is obvious that soil properties should not be averaged at the
midheight of the passive wedge in front of the pile for a uni-
form soil profile (as in the earlier work of Norris 1986), or
1.0 averaged for all sublayers of a single uniform soil layer of a
multiple layer soil profile.

Properties Employed for Sand Soil

l-J"
II
rl • Effective unit weight (total above water table, buoyant
below), 'Y
• Void ratio, e, or relative density, Dr
• Angle of internal friction, 'P
0.075 0.178 • Soil strain at 50% stress level, £50
(b) Pile DI.placement. y Inch
FIG. 10. Employed Side Shear Stress-Displacement Curve in Whereas standard subsurface exploration techniques and avail-
Clay: (a) Coyle-Reese Shear Stress Transfer Curve (t-z curve); able correlations may be used to evaluate or estimate 'Y, e or
(b) Normal/zed t-z Curves Dr> and 'P, some guidance may be required to assess E50'
308/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 ~o
(I)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

L.O
Void Ratio, e
FIG. 12. Relationship between EIIO' University Coefficient (Cu) and Void Ratio (e) (Norris 1986)
5Or---_._----,.---_._--,,---........- - , , - - -........--..--....,.---
a IC£NNEY (11511
o o ILlEIUIUYNolO SIoIGNS u,eOI
A • UDD £1 AL. U.771
•
- -1/;- - - - --- -- - --

-
~
10 20 ----------,.;---
Average (Bjearrum & Simons 1960)
I~
1;; 10 1% Standard Deviation (U.S. Navy 1971)
\9-
O'-_...L._---'L-_........_......I_ _..L.._.-L_ _......_...L._ _I.-_...J
o 40 50 10 70 10
Plasticity Index, PI
FIG. 13. Relationship between Plasticity Index (PI) and ip (Design 1996)

The £so represents the axial strain (£1) at a stress level equal
to 50 percent in the £I-SL relationship that would result from
a standard drained (CD) triaxial test. The confining (consoli-
dation) pressure for such tests should reflect the effective over-
burden pressure (0-"0) at the depth (x) of interest. The £so
changes from one sand to another and also changes with den-
sity state. To obtain £so for a particular sand, one can use the
group of curves shown in Fig. 12 (Norris 1986), which show
a variation based upon the uniformity coefficient, Cu , and void
ratio, e. These curves have been assessed from sand samples
tested with "frictionless" ends in CD tests at a confining pres-
sure equal to 42.5 kPa (Norris 1977). Because the confining
pressure changes with soil depth, £so, as obtained from Fig.
12, should be modified to match the existing pressure as fol-
lows:
(20)
(21)
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/309
Properties Employed for Normally Consolidated Clay
• Effective unit weight 'Y
• Plasticity index, PI
• Effective angle of friction, ip
• Undrained shear strength, Su
• Soil strain at 50% stress level, £so
Plasticity index, PI, and undrained shear strength, Su, are con-
sidered the governing properties because the effective angle of
internal friction, ip, can be estimated from the PI based on Fig.
13. The £so from an undrained triaxial test (UU at depth x or
CU with 0'3 = 0-"0) can be estimated based on Su, as indicated
in Fig. 14.
An effective stress (ES) analysis is employed with clay soil
as well as with sand soil. The reason behind using the ES
analysis with clay, which includes the development of excess
porewater pressure with undrained loading, is to define the
three-dimensional strain wedge geometry based upon the more
appropriate effective stress friction angle, ip. The relationship
between the normally consolidated clay undrained shear
strength, Su, and 0- w is taken as

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 Su = 0.330'00 (22) Therefore, using the previous relationships, the Skempton
equation can be rewritten for any sublayer (i) as follows:
assuming that Su is the equivalent standard triaxial test
strength. The effective stress analysis relies upon the evalua- (fj,u); = (Au);SL.{fj,(Thf); = (A,,);SL;2(S.); (27)
tion of the developing excess porewater pressure based upon
Skempton's equation (1954), i.e. The initial value of parameter Au is 0.333 and occurs at very
small strain for elastic soil response. In addition, the value of
fj,u = B[fj,(T3 + Au (fj,(Tl - fj,(T3)] (23) parameter A<if that occurs at failure at any sublayer (i) is given
by the following relationship:
where B equals I for saturated soil. Accordingly
fj,u = fj,(T3 + Au(fj,(T1 - fj,(T3) (24)
(28)
Note that~(T3 = 0 both in the shear phase of the triaxial test
and in the strain wedge. Therefore, the mobilized excess
porewater pressure is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

after Wu (1966), as indicated in Fig. 15.

(25) In (28), qi symbolizes the effective stress angle of internal
friction; and, based on (22), Su/avo equals 0.33. However, Au
where ~(T 1 represents the deviatoric stress change in the tri- is taken to change with stress level in a linear fashion as
axial test and ~(Th in the field, i.e.
(Au); = 0.333 + SL;[(A uf); - 0.333] (29)
(26)
By evaluating the value of Au, one can effectively calculate
10000 the excess porewater pressure, and then can determine the
value of the effective horizontal stress, (0'''0 + ~(Th - ~u),
and the effective confining pressure, (avo - ~u) at each sub-
5 " layer, as shown in Fig. 15. Note that the mobilized effective

'~~
"
3
\ "\.
stress friction angle, qio," can be obtained from the following
2
\
relationship:
!geof

E 1000
ues
tan2 (45 + (<Pm);)
2
= (0'''0 ~ fj,(Th - fj,u\
«Too - fj,u);
(30)

....... The targeted values of (qim); and SL; in a clay sublayer and at

---
5 ..........
a particular level of strain (£) can be obtained by using an
3
2
- iterative solution that includes (11)-(13) and (27)-(30).
(At! j:!rR=ie 1980) SOIL-PILE INTERACTION IN STRAIN WEDGE MODEL
100
0.00 0.01 0.02 The strain wedge model relies on calculating the modulus
l:'l) of subgrade reaction, E.. which reflects the soil-pile interaction
at any level during pile loading or soil strain. E., also represents
FIG. 14. Relationship between £50 and Undrained Shear the secant slope at any point on the p-y curve, i.e.
Strength, Su (Evans and Ducan 1982)

Lab total .t,..•• - E.

E,- (31)
(or fI.ld total
atm. mlnu. atatle
Undrained .xe...
porewahlr p,..•• u,.. EffaotlYli .t,.... y
pro-wat.r p,....ur.) Note that p = force per unit length of the pile or the BEF soil-
pile reaction, and y = pile deflection at that soil depth. In the
SW model, E, is related to the soil's Young's modulus, E, by
Au two linking parameters, A and '1',. It should be mentioned here
that the SW model establishes its own E, from the Young's

D = modulus of the strained soil, and therefore, one can assess the
p-y curve using the strain wedge model analysis. Therefore,
E, should first be calculated using the strain wedge model anal-
ysis to identify the p and y values.
Corresponding to the horizontal slice (a soil sublayer) of the
passive wedge at depth x (see Fig. I), the horizontal equilib-
rium of horizontal and shear stresses is expressed as
p; = (fj,(Th),BC;SI + 2T;DS2 (32)
where SI and S2 equal 0.75 and 0.5, respectively, for a circular
pile cross section, and 1.0 for a square pile (Briaud et al.
~ 1984). Alternatively, one can write the above equation as fol-
lows:
; t-_ _~...:;..-::o.-::~_,.._:::::-- SL~Su;;...
p;lD BC;Sl 2T,S2
A·=--=--+-- (33)

FIG. 15. Relationship between Effective Stress and Total

Stress Conditions
-" ..-w. S1IlDS ( IT)
'(fj,(Th), D (fj,(Th),

where A = ratio between the equivalent pile face stress, p/D,

and the horizontal stress change, ~(Th' in the soil. (In essence,
it is the multiplier that, when taken times the horizontal stress
310 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING I APRIL 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 change, gives the equivalent face stress.) From a different per- Yo
spective, it represents a normalized width (that includes side
shear and shape effects) that, when multiplied by Aah yields SUBLAYER
P/D. By combining the equations of the passive wedge ge-
ometry and the stress level with the above relationship, one
finds that
(h - xi )2(tan 13m tan<Pm);) 2S2 (cr.o Wan <Ps), J
Ai = St ( I + + (A) (34)
D l.J.ah i
in sand, and
- x i )2(tan 13m tan IPm);) +
Ai =S, ( I + (h D
S2(SL')i
SLi
(35)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in clay. Here the parameter A is a function of pile and wedge

dimensions, applied stresses, and soil properties. However,
given that Aah = EE in (33)
(36)

The second linking parameter, '1'" relates the soil strain in the
SW model to the linearized pile deflection angle, 8. Referring
to the normalized pile deflection shape shown in Figs. 2 and 6

(37) FIG. 16. Assembling of Pile Head Deflection Using Multlsub-

layer Technique

Y.. = 'Ymax sin 20m (38) Pi AiDeEi Ai D'I'.e

22 (Es)i =Y; = 8(h - Xi)
(43)
(h - Xi) ,

and
It should be mentioned that the SW model develops its own
'YO'. . =e - Eo = (l + v)e (39)
set of non-unique p-y curves which are function of both soil
2 2 2 and pile properties, and are affected by soil continuity (lay-
ering). The non-uniqueness of the p-y curve will be discussed
where 'Y denotes the shear strain in the developing passive in a separate paper.
wedge. Using (38) and (39), (37) can be rewritten as
e(l + v)sin 20 m PILE HEAD DEFLECTION
CT = 2 (40)
As mentioned previously, the deflection pattern of the pile
Based on (40) the relationship between e and 8 can expressed in the SW model is continuous and linear. Based on this con-
as cept, pile deflection can be assessed using a simplified tech-
nique which provides an estimation for the linearized pile de-
'l's =-CTe (41) flection, especially Yo at the pile head. By using the multi-
sublayer technique, the deflection of the pile can be calculated
starting with the base of the mobilized passive wedge and
or
moving upward along the pile, accumulating the deflection
2 values at each sublayer as shown in the following relationships
(42) and Fig. 16:
'l's = (l + v)sin 20m

The parameter '1',. varies with the Poisson's ratio of the soil
and the soil's mobilized angle of internal friction ('Pm) and the
mobilized passive wedge angle (em)'
Poisson's ratio for sand can vary from 0.1 at a very small
strain to 0.5 or larger (due to dilatancy) at failure, whereas the
base angle, en" can vary between 45° (for 'Pm 0 at e = 0)
and 25° (for, say, <Pm = 40° at failure), respectively. For this
range in variation for v and 'Pm, the parameter 'l's for sand
varies between 1.81 and 1.74, with an average value of 1.77.
In clay soil, Poisson's ratio is assumed to be 0.5 (undrained
behavior) and the value of the passive wedge base angle, em,
can vary between 45° (for IPm = 0 at e = 0) and 32.5° (for, say,
\f>m = 25° at failure). Therefore, the value of the parameter 'l's
will vary from 1.47 to 1.33, with an average value of 1.4.
It is clear from the equations above that employing the mul-
tisublayer technique greatly influences the values of soil-pile
interaction as characterized by the parameter, Ai' which is af-
fected by the changing effective stress and soil strength from
one sublayer to another. The final form of the modulus of
subgrade reaction can be expressed as
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/311
(44)
where the 'l's value changes according to the soil type (sand
or clay), and
=
Yo = 2: Yi i =I to n (45)
Hi indicates the thickness of sublayer i; and n symbolizes the
current number of sublayers in the mobilized passive wedge.
The main point of interest is the pile head deflection, which
is a function of not only the soil strain but also of the depth
of the compound passive wedge that varies with soil and pile
properties and the level of soil strain.
ULTIMATE RESISTANCE CRITERIA IN STRAIN
WEDGE MODEL
The mobilized passive wedge in front of a laterally loaded
pile is limited by certain constraint criteria in the SW model

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 analysis. Those criteria differ from one soil to another and are
applied to each sublayer. Ultimate resistance criteria govern
the shape and the loading capacity of the wedge in any sub-
layer in SW model analysis. The progressive development of
the ultimate resistance with depth is difficult to implement
without employing the multisublayer technique.
Ultimate Resistance Criterion of Sand Soil
The mobilization of the passive wedge in sand soil depends
on the horizontal stress level, SL, and the pile side shear re-
sistance, T. The side shear stress is a function of the mobilized
side shear friction angle, 'P.. as mentioned previously, and
reaches its ultimate value ('Ps = 'P) earlier than the mobilized
friction angle, 'Pm, in the wedge (i.e., SL, ;::: SL). This causes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a decrease in the rate of growth of sand resistance and the
fanning of the passive wedge, as characterized by the second
terms in (32) and (34), respectively.
Once the stress level in a sublayer of the wedge reaches
unity (SL; = I), the stress change and wedge fan angle in that
sublayer cease to grow. However, the width BC of the face of
the wedge can continue to increase as long as E [and, therefore,
h in (7)] increases. Consequently, "soil" resistance, p, will
continue to grow more slowly until a condition of initial soil
failure (SL; = I) develops in that sublayer. At this instance, p
= [Jult where [Jul' in sand, given as
(46)
[Jult is a temporary ultimate condition, i.e., the fanning angle
of the sublayer is fixed and equal to 'P;, but the depth of the
passive wedge and, hence, BC will continue to grow. The for-
mulation above reflects that the near-surface "failure" wedge
does not stop growing when all such sublayers reach their
ultimate resistance at SL = I, because the value of h at this
time is not limited. Additional load applied at the pile head
will merely cause the point at zero deflection and, therefore,
h to move down the pile. More soil at full str~th (SL = 1)
will be mobilized to the deepening wedge as BC and, there-
fore, [Jult increase until either flow around failure or a plastic
hinge occurs.
Recognize that flow around failure occurs in any sublayer
when it is easier for the sand at that depth to flow around the
pile in a local bearing capacity failure than for additional sand
to be brought to failure and added to the already developed
wedge. However, the value at which flow failure occurs [A; =
(A ult );, ([Jult)1 = (Aulif)lAult)P] in sand is so large that it is not
discussed here. Alternatively, a plastic hinge can develop in
the pile when the pile material reaches its ultimate resistance
at a time when SL; $ I and A; < (A ul ,);. In this case, h becomes
fixed, and Be and [JI will be limited when SL; becomes equal
to 1.
Ultimate Resistance Criterion of Clay Soil
The situation in clay soil differs from that in sand and is
given by Gowda (1991) as a function of the undrained strength
(Su); of the clay sublayer:
(47)
Consequently
(PUIt),
_ ~ _ (PUll>; _ + 48
(A ull ), - (11IJ'h/), - D2(Su); - 5S, S2 ( )
A ult indicates the limited development of the sublayer wedge
geometry for eventual development of flow around failure (SL;
= 1) and, consequently, the maximum fanning angle in that
sublayer becomes fixed, possibly at a value 'Pm $ 'P. If a plastic
312/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315
hinge develops in the pile at SL; less than 1, then h will be
limited, but Be; and p; will continue to grow until A; is equal
to A ult or p; is equal to (PUI;);-
STABILITY ANALYSIS IN STRAIN WEDGE MODEL
The objective of the SW model is to establish the soil re-
sponse as well as model the soil-pile interaction through the
modulus of subgrade reaction, Es • The shape and the dimen-
sions of the passive wedge in front of the pile basically depend
on two types of stability, which are the local stability of the
soil sublayer and the global stability of the pile and the passive
wedge. However, the global stability of the passive wedge de-
pends, in turn, on the local stability of the soil sublayers.
Local Stability of Soil Sublayer in Strain Wedge Model
The local stability analysis in the strain wedge model sat-
isfies equilibrium and compatibility among the pile segment
deflection, soil strain, and soil resistance for the soil sublayer
under consideration. Such analysis allows the correct devel-
opment of the actual horizontal stress change, AUh, pile side
shear stress, T, and soil-pile reaction, p, associated with that
soil sublayer (see Fig. 1). It is obvious that the key parameters
of local stability analysis are soil strain, soil properties, and
pile properties. The strain wedge model is therefore able to
successfully manage the local stability of each soil sublayer,
as previously mentioned in this paper.
Global Stability in Strain Wedge Model
The global stability, as analyzed by the strain wedge model,
satisfies the general compatibility among soil reaction, pile de-
formations, and pile stiffness along the entire depth of the
developing passive wedge in front of the pile. Therefore, the
depth of the passive wedge depends on the global equilibrium
between the loaded pile and the developed passive wedge.
This requires a solution for (1).
The global stability is an iterative beam on elastic founda-
tion (BEF) problem that determines the correct dimensions of
the passive wedge, the corresponding straining actions (de-
flection, slope, moment, and shear) in the pile, and the external
loads on the pile. Satisfying global stability conditions is the
purpose of linking the three-dimensional strain wedge model
to the BEF approach. The major parameters in the pile global
stability problem are pile stiffness, EI, and the modulus of
subgrade reaction profile, E.. as determined from local stability
in the strain wedge analysis. Because these parameters are de-
termined for the applied soil strain, the stability problem is no
longer a soil interaction problem but a one-dimensional BEF
problem. Any available numerical technique, such as the finite
element or the finite difference method, can be employed to
solve the global stability problem. The modeled problem,
shown in Fig. 4(c), is a BEF and can be solved to identify the
depth, XO' of zero pile deflection.
APPROACH VERIFICATION
Based on the SW model concepts presented in this paper, a
computer program (SWSG) has been developed to solve the
problem of a laterally loaded isolated pile and a pile group in
layered soil (Ashour et al. 1996). Pile group behavior based
on SW model concepts will be presented in a subsequent pa-
per. Any verification of the methodology and algorithms em-
ployed should incorporate comparisons to field and laboratory
tests for single piles and pile groups. The results presented
below demonstrate the capability of the SW model approach
and SWSG program in solving problems of laterally loaded
piles relative to different soil and pile properties. It should be
noted that pile and soil properties employed with the SW
 model analyses for the following field tests are the same prop- 20
erties mentioned in the references below. a
:.s2
o

Mustang Island FuJI-Scale Load Test on Pile in t

Submerged Dense Sand (Reese et al. 1974; Cox et al.
1974)
Fig. 17 presents a comparison of field results versus SW
! 1a ~-+---=J,oWL--+---t---t-+--t---t
model results and results obtained using the computer program
COM624 (Reese 1977). Note that it is from this specific field
)
test that the COM624 p-y curves for sand were derived and,
therefore, a good correspondence between COM624 and mea-
sured results is to be expected. The SW model results in Fig.
a ..... -10...--11...-............ . . . & - _......._

17(a) are in excellent agreement at lower pile-head deflections o 1 234

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(lower strain levels) and within 5% at higher levels of deflec- (a) Ground Deflection, Yo, in.
tion (higher strain levels). The SW model predicted maximum
moment of Fig. 17(b) is in excellent agreement with measured 30 .-----.--...,.--.,..-..,..-....,....-.,
results throughout.

Pyramid Building at Memphis, Tennessee, Full-Scale

Load Test on Pile in Layered Clay Soil (Reuss et al. 20 .----1---+-~~-+---t---I
1992)
A lateral load test was performed on a full-scale pile in
downtown Memphis. To improve the lateral capacity of the 10
piles associated with this building, 1.8 meters of soft soil
around the piles was removed and replaced with stiff com-
pacted clay. Since the improved soil profile consisted of dif-
ferent types of soil, the corresponding test represents a layered 0 ....- " - - - - 1 -.......- .......- ......- ....
field case study. The soil properties of the fill soils and the
second stratum (the natural clay soil) were modified by Reuss a 1 2 3
et al. (1992) to force good agreement between the results as-
(b) Ground Deflection, Yo, in.
FIG. 18. Measured and Predicted Response of Loaded Pile In
80 Improved and Original Solis at Pyramid Building, Memphis, Ten-
~ nessee, Test
./!~
60
~ '" sessed with COM624 (Reese 1977) and the field results [see

40
,,; ~
Fig. 18(a)]. The measured values of the undrained shear
strength of the first and second strata were increased by 40%
;. ~~
and 20%, respectively, to achieve such agreement. The mea-

,-'"
• SIrainV edge 00dcI sured soil properties were employed with the SW model to
20 0 analyze the response of the pile in the improved soil profile.
--< ~ Fig. 18(a) shows good agreement between the measured values
and the SW model predicted pile-head response in the im-
a proved soil profile. Fig. 18(b) shows the pile-head response
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 predicted by COM624 and SW model analysis for the same
(a) Ground Deflection, Yo, in. pile in the original soil profile (natural clay at its measured
undrained strength).
80
Sabine River FuJI-Scale Load Tests on Pile in Soft
60 .? Clay (Matlock 1970)
/
40

/
, JJ'
"..
The benefit of the Sabine River tests derives from having
load tests on piles of both free- and fixed-head conditions.
Note that the results of the free-head test were performed to
establish the p-y curve criteria for piles in soft clay (Matlock
1970). As seen in Fig. 19(a), the predicted free-head SW
20 •o Strain
model results are in good agreement with the observed results
<::XJMl ~
~
..' - at the Sabine River site. At higher levels of deflection, the
o i/
results calculated using the SW model fall approximately 5-
10% below those measured in the field. By comparison, the
024 6 SW model predicted and the observed fixed-head pile response
(b) Maximum MOment, kips-in· 103 at Sabine River are in excellent agreement, as shown in Fig.
19(b). SW model results were established for two cases, i.e.,
FIG. 17. Measured and Predicted Response of Laterally the clay with a single average Su and, separately, for a varying
Loaded Pile in Sand at Mustang Island Test Suo
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/313

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 40 Cox, W. R, Reese, L. C., and Grubbs, B. R. (1974). "Field testing of
laterally loaded piles in sand." Proc., Sixth Annual Offshore Techno/.
~
Conf, OTC, Houston, Texas. 459-472.
~ Coyle, H. M.• and Reese, L. C. (1966). "Load transfer for axially loaded
30
..JI ~ piles in clay." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div.• ASCE. 92(2), 1-26.
"Design of Sheet Pile Walls." (1996). Technical engineering and design
.G ~ guides as adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers. ASCE, New
20 York, N.Y.
", ~ il Evans, Jr., L. T., and Duncan, G. M. (1982). "Simplified analysis of
laterally loaded piles." Rep. No. UCB/GT/82-04, Univ. of California,
10 L • SW Model Berkeley, Calif.
I 1°
• n
sino Mddified
wl_es)
Gowda, P. (1991). "Laterally loaded pile analysis for layered soil based
on the strain wedge model," MS thesis, University of Nevada, Reno,

o IT' "I Nev.

Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 soft clay." Proc., Second Annual Offshore Technol. Conf, OTC. Hous-
ton, Texas, 577-607.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Ground Deflection, Yo, in Matlock, H., and Reese. L. C. (1961). "Generalized solution for laterally
loaded piles." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 86(5), 673-694.
40 Norris, G. M. (1977). "The drained shear strength of uniform quartz sand
B. as related to particle size and natural variation in particle shape and
:.sa surface roughness," PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley,

£ 30
;-
... Calif.
Norris, G. M. (1986). "Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile
analysis." Proc., Third Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore
~ rw

! 20
.V P
.... - l,..e- I-e-"
1;- ....
Piling, Editions Technip, Paris. France, 361-386.
Reese, L. C. (1958). "Discussion of 'Soil modulus for laterally loaded
piles,' by Bramlette McClelland and John A. Focht, Jr." Trans., ASCE,

I /~ ASCE, 123. 1071.

,
Ori Pna So Reese, L. C. (1977). "Laterally loaded piles: program documentation."
10
~ ~'J' •• SW
~l
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 103(4), 287-305.
Reese, L. C. (1983). "Behavior of piles and pile groups under lateral
i5: IUJl ., IWl, load." Rep. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
o Highway Administration, Office of Research, Development, and Tech-
o 1 234 5 nology, Washington, D.C.
(b) Ground Deflection, Yo, in Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). "Analysis of laterally
loaded piles in sand." Proc., Sixth Annual Offshore Technol. Conf,
FIG. 19. Measured and Strain Wedge Results of Loaded Pile at OTC, Houston, Texas, 473-483.
Sabine River Test Reese, L. C., and Sullivan, W. R. (1980). "Documentation of computer
program COM624, parts I and II: analysis of stresses and deflections
for laterally loaded piles including generation of p-y curves." Geotech.
CONCLUSIONS Engrg. Ctr., Bureau of Engrg. Res., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Reuss, R, Wang, S. T., Reese, L. C. (1992). "Tests of piles under lateral
The SW model approach presented here provides an effec- loading at the Pyramid Building, Memphis, Tennessee." Geotech.
tive method for solving the problem of a laterally loaded pile News, Vancouver, Canada, 10(4), 44-49.
in layered soil. This approach assesses its own nonlinear var- Skempton, A. W. (1954). "The pore pressure coefficients A and B." Geo-
iation in modulus of subgrade reaction or p-y curves. This technique, London, England, 4(4), 148.
paper indicates that p-y curves are not unique and change ac- Tomlinson, M. J. (1957). "The Adhesion of Piles Driven in Clay Soils."
cording to any variation in soil and pile properties. Therefore, Proc.• Fourth Int. Conf on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Vol. II,
Butterworth Scientific Pub., London. England, 66-71.
those programs which employ unique p-y curves (such as Wu, T. H. (1966). Soil Mechanics, Allyn and Bacon Inc., Boston, Mass.
COM624 and LPILEl) do not provide realistic solutions for
varying soil pile conditions.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
Compared to other approaches, which have been developed
empirically based upon a limited number of field tests, the SW The following symbols are used in this paper:
approach depends on well known or accepted principles of soil
mechanics (the stress-strain-strength relationship) and an ef- A, AUII= parameters of passive wedge expansion;
fective stress soil analysis. Moreover, the required parameters Au = mobilized A value in clay;
to solve the problem of the laterally loaded pile are a function ~ = ultimate A value at failure in clay;
of the basic soil properties that are typically available to the Be = width of passive wedge face;
designer. D = pile width or diameter;
Dr = sand relative density;
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS E = Young's modulus;
EI = pile stiffness;
This research was sponsored by the California Department of Trans- E s = modulus of subgrade reaction;
portation (CALTRANS). The authors would like to thank Dr. Abbas e = sand void ratio;
Abghari, Mr. Ken Jackura. Mr. Thomas Shantz, and Mr. Angel Perez-
Cobo for their interest and encouragement.
HI = thickness of soil sublayer;
h depth of passive wedge of soil;
= number of soil sublayer;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES p = soil-pile reaction or soil resistance;
Ashour. M., Pilling, P., Norris, G., and Perez, H. (1996). "Development
PUll = ultimate soil-pile reaction;
of strain wedge model program for pile group interference and pile cap
SIo S, = pile shape factors;
contribution effects." CCEER Rep. No. 96-4, Civil Engrg. Dept., Uni- Su = undrained shear strength of clay;
versity of Nevada, Reno, Nev. SL = horizontal stress level in soil;
Briaud, J. L., Smith. T., and Mayer. B. (1984). "Laterally loaded piles SL, shear stress level in soil;
and the pressuremeter: comparison of existing methods." Laterally Xo = depth of zero deflection point on pile from top of
loaded deep foundations. ASTM. West Conshohocken, Pa., 97-111. wedge;
314/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315

 Yo = pile-head deflection; A, m, q = fitting parameters of modified hyperbolic relationship;
pile deflection at depth x; v = Poisson's ratio;
linearized pile-head deflection; (tho = horizontal effective stress of soil;
soil shear strain; (t vo = vertical effective stress;
effective unit weight of soil; T = shear strength in soil;
horizontal stress change in passive wedge in front of Tult = ultimate shear strength;
pile; "1', = SW model deflection parameter;
horizontal stress change at failure (deviatoric stress at \P = effective (fully mobilized) angle of internal friction in
failure); sand;
8 linearized deflection angle of pile; iP = effective (fully mobilized) angle of internal friction in
£ horizontal strain in soil; clay (CD test);
£50 horizontal strain in soil at 50 percent stress level; \Pm = mobilized friction angle in soil; and
8 m, 8 m = passive wedge angles; \P, = friction angle between sand and pile sides.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universite De Sherbrooke on 08/31/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/315

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(4): 303-315