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

net/publication/301580119

Winkler load-transfer analysis for laterally loaded piles

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 2016

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0394

CITATIONS READS
5 1,022

3 authors, including:

Chenrong Zhang Jian Yu

Tongji University National University of Singapore
20 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chenrong Zhang on 27 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1110

ARTICLE
Winkler load-transfer analysis for laterally loaded piles
Chenrong Zhang, Jian Yu, and Maosong Huang

Abstract: The Winkler modulus for a vertical beam buried in elastic soil is reassessed for the problem of a horizontal loaded pile
in the framework of linear elasticity. By matching the integral solution in elastic continuum and the expression with the elastic
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

Winkler modulus, the subgrade modulus of an infinitely long pile embedded into elastic space is obtained first. Then the
influence of embedment depth and pile rigidity on the subgrade modulus is evaluated by virtue of Mindlin’s and Kelvin’s
solutions, which gives the variation of the Winkler spring stiffness along the pile length. Comparison of the results by the
present method for single piles in homogeneous and nonhomogeneous soils has shown good agreement with those obtained
from the more rigorous elastic continuum solutions and boundary element method, which also revealed the disadvantage of the
conventional Winkler expression in evaluating the displacement of the pile. Finally, the present method is used to analyze the
pile–soil–pile interaction of a pile group, which also shows good agreement with the finite element method and the elastic
continuum method, and proves the feasibility of extending the active subgrade modulus into the realm of the horizontal loaded
pile group.

Key words: Winkler model, laterally loaded pile, Kelvin’s solution, Mindlin’s solution, pile and pile group.

Résumé : On réévalue le module de Winkler pour une poutre verticale enfouie dans un sol élastique relativement au problème
d’un pieu sollicité horizontalement dans le contexte de l’élasticité linéaire. En jumelant la solution intégrale dans le continuum
élastique et l’expression du module d’élasticité Winkler, on obtient d’abord le module du sol de fondation d’un pieu infiniment
long enfoui dans l’espace élastique. Ensuite, on évalue l’effet de la profondeur d’enfouissement et de la rigidité du pieu sur le
For personal use only.

module du sol de fondation dans le cadre de la solution de Mindlin et de la solution de Kelvin, ce qui donne la variation de la
rigidité élastique de Winkler sur la longueur du pieu. Il y a une bonne concordance entre les résultats obtenus au moyen de la
présente méthode pour les pieux uniques en sols homogène et non homogène et ceux obtenus par les solutions plus rigoureuses
du continuum élastique et la méthode des éléments finis de frontière, ce qui a aussi révélé le désavantage de l’expression
classique Winkler pour l’évaluation du déplacement du pieu. Finalement, on utilise la présente méthode afin d’analyser
l’interaction pieu–sol–pieu du groupe de pieux; cette méthode montre également une bonne concordance avec la méthode des
éléments finis et la méthode du continuum élastique et prouve la faisabilité du module du sol de fondation actif s’étendant au
domaine du groupe de pieux sollicités horizontalement. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : modèle Winkler, pieu sollicité latéralement, solution de Kelvin, solution de Mindlin, pieu et groupe de pieux.

Introduction
In the design of laterally loaded piles, engineers consider not
only the lateral bearing capacity at failure, but also the deflection
and moment of a pile under working load (Hsiung 2003; Hirai
2012; Hajialilue-Bonab et al. 2013). Sometimes, from the point of
view of controlling deformation and serviceability requirements,
the deflection and bending moment along the shaft are of greater
importance in that the overdeformation and overstress make the
moment exceed the allowable moment of the pile materials and
induce additional deformation for superstructures.
The working-load behavior of a laterally loaded pile has been
the subject of active research for many years, and extensive theo-
retical approaches have been proposed for analysis of the load–
deformation (p–y) of piles subjected to lateral loads, such as the
subgrade reaction method (using the classical Winkler model),
p–y method, and continuum analysis (Xu et al. 2013). In contin-
uum analysis, the soil is treated as a three-dimensional (3D) con-
tinuum and numerical techniques such as boundary element
methods, integral equations or finite element methods are used
to give numerical solutions for the laterally loaded pile (Banerjee
and Davis 1978; Poulos and Davis 1980; Randolph 1981; Zhang and
Small 2000; Kitiyodom and Matsumoto 2003; Hirai 2012). The
other two retain the conceptual model of treating the pile as a
flexible beam and soil restraint surrounding the pile as a series of
horizontal linear springs in the Winkler model or nonlinear dis-
crete springs in the p–y curve model (Baguelin et al. 1977; Bransby
1999; Kim and Jeong 2011). Compared to the complex mathematics
involved in the numerical calculation of the continuum analysis,
the model of a beam on foundation is more acceptable for engi-
neers due to its simplicity while maintaining accuracy and preci-
sion in the predictions of the responses of a laterally loaded pile.
Because the experimentally determined p–y curves have been de-
veloped primarily from an empirical fitting to relevant measure-
ments, which cannot account for the conditions of low-strain
stiffness of the soil (Mylonakis 2001; Georgiadis et al. 1992), the
subgrade reaction method, in the framework of linear elasticity,
is discussed in this paper. For engineering applications, an analyt-
ical expression of the subgrade reaction modulus is preferable, as
it can give explicit solutions of the responses of a laterally loaded

Received 15 August 2015. Accepted 25 January 2016.

C. Zhang and J. Yu. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China; Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and
Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
M. Huang.* Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Corresponding author: Maosong Huang (email: mshuang@tongji.edu.cn).
*Present address: Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.

Can. Geotech. J. 53: 1110–1124 (2016) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0394 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 27 January 2016.
 Zhang et al.
pile at low load levels. In addition, it relates a hyperbolic p–y curve
defined by the initial modulus and the ultimate soil resistance
(Gabr et al. 1994).
In developing the Winkler model of soil reaction for interaction
between a pile and soil for laterally loaded piles, Baguelin et al.
(1977) investigated the lateral reaction mechanism of piles to pro-
vide the explicit Winkler modulus expression in an elastic me-
dium. Biot (1937) and Vesic (1961) estimated the vertical spring
coefficient of a horizontal Winkler foundation by comparison
with the elastic continuum solution, which is extended into piles
by a rotation of 90o. Rajashree and Sitharam (2001) took twice the
value of Vesic’s expression to simply consider the actual soil re-
sistance around the circumference of the pile. Sun (1994) and Guo
and Lee (2001) proposed a two-parameter model to develop the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16
expression of modulus of the subgrade reaction with a load-
transfer factor derived from an assumed stress field around the
pile. Hirai (2012) obtained a double integral expression for the
modulus of the subgrade reaction represented by the displace-
ment influence factor related to Mindlin’s (1936) solution (hereaf-
ter referred to as “Mindlin’s solution”). Although a significant
amount of research has been developed for the Winkler model
and various expressions have been given, Vesic’s (1961) explicit
expression is still much more popular, due to its simplicity and
the inclusion of the properties of beam and soil.
In this paper, the rational of rotating the horizontal beam
foundation (Biot 1937; Vesic 1961) 90° to analyze a laterally loaded
pile is reassessed and a revised analytical expression of the
Winkler modulus is derived based on an improved fitting criterion
being able to give consistent results for all reactions for the
For personal use only.
Winkler and elastic continuum models. Then the feasibility of the
expression is proved by comparison with solutions by the rigor-
ous elastic method in homogeneous soil and the boundary ele-
ment method in nonhomogeneous soil. In addition, it is also
extended into the analysis of pile groups, which also shows good
agreement among the present method, finite element method,
and rigorous elastic continuum solutions. The disadvantage of the
conventional Vesic’s expression in predicting the lateral deflec-
tion of the single pile and pile–soil–pile interaction of pile group is
pointed out as well.
Basic equation
In the simple theory of the bending of beams, the governing
equation for a pile subjected to lateral loads in soil having sub-
grade reaction modulus k is
(1) EpIP
d4u(z)
dz4
⫹ ku(z) ⫽ 0
where EpIP is the bending stiffness of the pile (Ep and IP are the
elastic modulus and moment of intertia of the pile, respectively),
u is the deflection of the pile, and z is the penetration depth of the
pile. In finite difference matrix form, the solution of the equation
gives the deflection along the pile for given pile head loads and
boundary conditions. Then the soil pressure, shear force, bending
moment at all depths, and the load–displacement curve at the pile
head can be obtained.
In the analysis of a pile group, due to the pile–soil–pile interac-
tion, the response of a single pile is affected by the neighboring
piles in the group and the additional deflection is written as
d4u(z)
(2) EpIP ⫹ k[u(z) ⫺ us(s, z)] ⫽ 0
dz4
where us is the additional soil displacement induced by the nearby
loaded pile and u(z) – us(s, z) is the relative displacement between
1111
the pile and soil (where s is the distance between piles). The solu-
tion can also be obtained by the finite difference method. The
pile–soil–pile interaction effects by adapting the Winkler modu-
lus for active lateral pile loading were questioned by Bransby
(1996) in that for a pile group, piles are passively loaded by lateral
soil movements induced by a neighboring pile and a passive load-
transfer relationship should be used to evaluate the passive sub-
grade reaction modulus. When the pile is pushed into soil, the pile
is actively loaded; when the pile is subjected to lateral soil dis-
placement, it is passively loaded. The Winkler modulus is in fact
different for the two cases: there are different input conditions
and soil responses around the pile, which can be referred to as
active Winkler modulus and passive Winkler modulus. A similar
mechanism for the problem of a horizontal beam in the case of a
pipeline under tunnel excavation that induces soil displacement
is discussed by Klar et al. (2005) and Yu et al. (2013). One of the
objectives of this paper is to examine the validity of the conven-
tional application of the derived active Winkler subgrade modu-
lus for the analysis of pile groups.
Winkler modulus for laterally loaded piles
The analysis model by Biot (1937) and Vesic (1961) of a horizontal
beam resting on an elastic foundation (the surface and an elastic
half-space) is shown in Fig. 1a and the corresponding Winkler
expression is extended into the application of a laterally loaded
pile with a rotation of 90° (Fig. 1b). The circular pile with radius b
is simplified as a thin rectangular vertical strip with width of 2b.
As different boundary conditions and local soil pressures exist for
the two cases, the theoretical basis for the above extension into
the horizontal loaded pile is questionable. For example, using
Vesic’s expression inherently admits that the Winkler modulus
of the pile is independent of depth and only half of the soil
resistance around the pile works. This explains why Rajashree
and Sitharam (2001) advised taking twice the value of Vesic’s
expression to consider the actual soil resistance. To discuss the
problem, an alternative expression for the Winkler subgrade
modulus of a vertical pile is provided in the following section, in
which the model of an infinitely long pile in an infinitely elastic
space (see Fig. 1c) is studied first, and then modified by Mindlin’s
and Kelvin’s solutions for the case of a finite pile in a half-space.
The basic Winkler solution of an infinite pile loaded by a horizon-
tal concentrated force P at z = 0 is now considered. The closed-form
deflection and bending moment of the pile is shown as follows:
(3)
再 uEpIP
M
Pb3
Pb
⫽
⫽
4␸
e
1 ⫺␸(z/b)
8␸3
e
共
1 ⫺␸(z/b)
共
z
z
cos␸ ⫹ sin␸
b
cos␸ ⫺ sin␸
b
z
b
z
b
兲
兲
冑
kb4
where P is the load, ␸ ⫽ 4 is a relative stiffness ratio of soil
4EpIP
to pile, k is the constant of the subgrade reaction modulus, and M
is the bending moment. The expression about bending moment is
given by Biot (1937).
Bending of an infinite pile on an elastic continuum
foundation
Based on the elastic solutions of the double sine-wave loading
and single sine-wave loading inside a 3D infinite elastic medium,
the basic deflection of an infinite pile subjected to sinusoidal
loading in the elastic space is obtained first. Then the deflection of
the infinite pile due to any loading can be calculated by the super-
position principle and the Fourier integral of the above pile de-
flection under sinusoidal load. The detailed derivation procedure
is shown in Appendix A, and here the ultimate expression of the
Published by NRC Research Press
 1112 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Fig. 1. Analysis model for the pile: (a) elastic foundation beam; (b) pile in elastic half-space; (c) infinitely long pile. H, horizontal load on a pile
head; L, pile length; M, bending moment; P, load.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

normalized deflection and bending moment of the infinite pile Table 1. Ratio of beam–soil rigid-
due to a lateral concentrated load at the origin is given as ity corresponding to the first zero.
b/c z0 /b ␸
共 兲
共兲冕
1
∞ bz
uEpIP cos ␥ 0.001 286.7 0.0028
1 c 3 ␥ cb
⫽ d␥
共 兲
3 ␲ b b 0.005 81.90 0.0028
Pb
0 ␥ ⫹ ⌿ ␥
3
0.01 47.40 0.017
For personal use only.

c
(4)
共 兲
0.05 13.30 0.059

冕
∞ bz
␥ cos ␥ 0.1 7.570 0.11
M 1c cb
⫽ d␥ 0.5 2.020 0.39
Pb ␲b
0 ␥ ⫹ ⌿
3
共 兲
b
c
␥ 1
1.5
1.110
0.776
0.71
1.01
2 0.600 1.31
where c is the characteristic length; ␥ is the integration variable; the 2.5 0.488 1.61

冋 册
1 3.0 0.413 1.90
8共1 ⫺ ␯兲2 Esb4 3
expression of relative stiffness ratio b/c is ,
C共1 ⫺ ␯ 兲共3 ⫺ 4␯兲 EpIP
2

where ␯ is Poisson’s ratio and Es is the Young’s modulus; ⌿ is a

numerically calculated function; and C is a coefficient varying from 1 ␲
(5) ␸⫽
for uniform pressure distribution over the width 2b (the case here) to z0
1.1 for uniform deflection. 4
b
Values of the coefficient of subgrade modulus For different values of b/c, the calculated z0/b from the elastic
Subgrade modulus in the infinite depth continuum solution and the corresponding values of ␸ in the
The key problem is to know what value of the subgrade modu- Winkler foundation are presented in Table 1.
lus k must be chosen to obtain the same responses of the infinite According to Table 1, a relationship between ␸ and b/c is fitted by
pile by the subgrade reaction method as that by the exact elastic an asymptotic formula as follows
continuum method. Comparing eq. (4) with eq. (3), the two expres-
sions differ quite fundamentally by the function of ␸ in eq. (3) and
共 bc兲
0.813
(6) ␸ ⫽ 0.741
b/c in eq. (4). Biot (1937) used a value of ␸ as a function of b/c to
obtain the approximate maximum bending moment by the two
methods for the response of an infinite horizontal beam on an An example of the calculated responses of an infinitely long pile
elastic half-space. However, the corresponding expression of de- under a concentrated load for the case of b/c = 0.05 is shown in
flection is not evaluated. To overcome this problem and make a Fig. 2, which indicates that the distribution of bending moment
whole evaluation, the distribution of bending moment as well as along the pile in the elastic solutions (eq. (4)) is consistent with the
other influences on the pile (such as deflections, shearing force, modified spring model, while some deviations exist in the dis-
and pile–soil pressure), the coincidence of the point of first zero of placement curves especially at the depth of z = 0, and when com-
the bending moment curve is required. A similar principle is pared with the displacement curve under Biot’s principal, the
utilized by Vesic (1961) and Yu et al. (2013) in the analysis of curve obtained by the modulus in this paper gives a more rational
the Winkler modulus for the horizontal beam. If the value of the prediction of the pile deflection.
abscissa of the point is equal in the two equations, the subgrade Substituting the expression of ␸ and b/c into eq. (6), the follow-
reaction method will give sufficiently correct calculation of the ing relation is obtained:
responses of the pile, as it relates not only to the bending moment

冋 册冑
along the pile, but also the inflexion of the deflection curve. In 13
8(1 ⫺ ␯)2 EsD4
eq. (3), the parameter ␸ can be related to the abscissa of the first (7) k∞ ⫽ 0.96Es
12 12

zero, z0, as C(3 ⫺ 4␯)(1 ⫺ ␯2) EpIp

Published by NRC Research Press

 Zhang et al. 1113

Fig. 2. Comparison of the responses of an infinitely long pile. Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of (a) an infinitely long pile and a finite
L
pile in (b) elastic space and (c) elastic half-space. khs , depth-dependent
subgrade modulus in elastic half-space; p, distribution of the lateral
L
force per unit length; ỹhs , horizontal displacement in elastic half-space.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

where D = 2b. Taking C = 1.10 and considering the value of Fig. 4. Error in moment and deflection for an infinite pile and a

冋 册
1
8共1 ⫺ ␯兲2 12
finite pile.
that is insensitive to Poisson’s ratio ␯ (it
For personal use only.

C共3 ⫺ 4␯兲共1 ⫺ ␯2兲

approximates 1.08 for 0.2 ≤ ␯ ≤ 0.5), the modulus of the subgrade
reaction model at infinite depth is expressed as

(8) k∞ ⫽ 7.5
(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Es
3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 ⫺ ␯2
冑12
EsD4
EpIp

Comparing with Vesic’s expression of kv ⫽ 0.65

EsD4
Es
1 ⫺ ␯2 EpIp
冑
,12

the ratio k∞/kv changes from 3.36 to 2.88 for different values of ␯,
which proves that Poulos’s recommendation (in Poulos and Davis
1980) of using the Winkler modulus obtained from the horizontal
beam on the surface of an elastic half-space is not suitable for the
analysis of a vertical pile and will overestimate the responses of
horizontal loaded piles.
Depth-dependent subgrade modulus
The above deduction of k∞ is applicable to the case of the infi-
nitely long pile buried in an infinitely elastic soil, and k∞ depends
only on the material properties of the pile and soil, not on the
location and boundary conditions. That is to say, it is constant
along the pile length (Fig. 3a). For practical interest, studies are
presented in the following section to consider the influence of
depth and the relative pile–soil flexibility on the modulus of a
finite pile buried in an elastic half-space.
The relative pile–soil flexibility factor KR (= EpIp/EsL4) is consid-
ered first. For the pile with length L and buried in elastic space
(Fig. 3b), the modulus k∞L varies with depth and also changes with
load location. As an approximation, k∞L is assumed constant as k∞
along the pile length, which will introduce some error in the
solution. Obviously, the error is smallest for the case with load at
the mid-depth of the finite pile. The finite pile responses at the
midpoint with rigorous elastic calculations for different KR and
L/D are compared with the results of an infinite pile in Fig. 4,
where u∞,E (0) and m∞,E (0) are the displacement and moment at the
load point of an infinite pile, respectively, and can be calculated by
L L
the elastic solution (eq. (4)). u∞,EC 共L/2兲 and m∞,EC 共L/2兲 are the displace-
ment and moment of a finite pile with load at the mid-depth, respec-
tively. The error in Fig. 4 is defined as 关u∞,ECL
共L/2兲 ⫺ u∞,E共0兲兴/u∞,E共0兲
L L
or 关m∞,EC共L/2兲 ⫺ m∞,E共0兲兴/m∞,E共0兲. The elastic calculations of u∞,EC 共L/2兲
L
and m∞,EC 共L/2兲 obey Poulos and Davis’s (1980) elastic continuum
method except the soil displacement is integrated by Kelvin’s
(1848) formula instead of Mindlin’s (1936) formula, in which the
pile is treated as a strip with width 2b and the horizontal load is
applied in the middle of pile. Kelvin’s formula is explained here as
the horizontal displacement caused by a horizontal concentrated
force within the interior of an infinitely elastic homogeneous
mass and Mindlin’s solution is used in an elastic half-space.
Figure 4 shows that the error rises with increase of the relative
stiffness, and cannot be negligible for KR > 10−2, consistent with
the statement of Poulos and Davis’s (1980) that the pile can be
treated as rigid when KR > 10−2. Considering the derivation of k∞, it
can be said that k∞ approximates k∞L when KR < 10−2.
For a relatively rigid pile, because the modulus is independent
of KR, the case of KR = 10−2 is employed; Fig. 4 shows that the
EpIp
deviations begin at KR = 10−2. KR can be rewritten as ⫽
EsL4
4
EpIp D4 E sD D4
⫽ 0.01. Substituting ⫽ 100 4 into eq. (8), the
4 4
EsD L E I
p p L
modulus for the rigid pile (KR ≥ 10−2) is expressed as k∞L ⫽

Published by NRC Research Press

 1114 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

7.5
共1 ⫺ ␯兲2 Es 12
3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 ⫺ ␯ 2 冑
D4
100 4 . This implies that the subgrade modulus
L
Fig. 5. Error in moment and displacement with modified k∞L.

of the rigid pile in infinite space depends only on the soil elastic
parameter and the dimension parameters of the pile, which is also
supported by Baguelin et al. (1977). The reliability of the modified
expression for the pile with L/D = 10 and 100 is checked in Fig. 5,
L L
where u∞,W 共L/2兲 and m∞,W 共L/2兲 are the displacement and moment of
a finite pile, respectively, by Winkler analysis with a modified k∞L.
L L L
The error in Fig. 5 is defined as 关u∞,W 共L/2兲 ⫺ u∞,EC 共L/2兲兴/关u∞,EC 共L/2兲兴
L L L
or 关m∞,W 共L/2兲 ⫺ m∞,EC 共L/2兲兴 / 关m∞,EC 共L/2兲兴. The amount of errors in
bending moment and deflection are limited within 10% for KR in
the range of 10−5 to 10, which provides sufficient accuracy for
practical applications.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

The above analysis means that the mean modulus k∞L for the case
of load at half of the pile is close to the actual modulus at the
midpoint k̃∞L共L/2兲. It is subsequently modified to consider the vari-
ation of modulus along the pile length for the finite pile in the
elastic half-space (Fig. 3c). The modulus in this situation (Fig. 3c) is
defined as khs L
共h兲, where subscript hs means half-space, superscript R1 ⫽ 兹r2 ⫹ 共h ⫺ z兲2; R2 ⫽ 兹r2 ⫹ 共h ⫹ z兲2; r ⫽ D|sin␪|; x ⫽
L means pile length, and h is the depth coordinate of the pile. khs L
共h兲 D sin2␪; h is the depth coordinate of the point where the pile
L
can be approximately obtained by modifying k∞ as follows: displacement is evaluated; z is the depth coordinate of the point
where the lateral stress is applied.
L
k̃hs (h) L The modulus of the subgrade reaction can then be written as
(9) L
khs (h) ⫽ k∞ ⫽ ␩(h)k∞L
共兲
L L
k̃∞
2
(11) L
k̃hs (h) ⫽
p
L
ỹhs (h)
where ␩ is the depth modified factor.
The ratio ␩共h兲 ⫽ k̃hs
L
共h兲/k̃∞L
L
共兲
For personal use only.

is represented by the displacement As such, the subgrade reaction modulus at the midpoint of the
2
function related to Mindlin’s and Kelvin’s solutions, and can be pile in the length direction inside an infinite elastic space (Fig. 6a)
obtained from an approach proposed by Hirai (2012). Assuming is estimated by integration of Kelvin’s solution over the pile sec-
the distribution of the lateral force per unit length, p, between the
tion and pile length. The modulus is represented as
pile and the soil is constant (Fig. 3) and the average soil pressure pc
along the pile section is defined as pc = p/D (see Fig. 6c), the
pressure at angle 2␪ is |cos2␪|pc/2 compression on one side and (12) k̃∞L 共2L 兲 ⫽ ỹ pL
|cos2␪|pc/2 tension on the other side over the actual section (cir-
cular) of the pile, where 2␪ is the angle related to the pile section
共2兲 L
∞

as shown in Fig. 6c. By making reference to equations given by

L
Hirai (2012), the actual horizontal displacement ỹhs 共h兲 at a depth h where the horizontal displacement at the midpoint of the pile in
of the soil (an elastic half-space) that is adjacent to the pile sub- the length direction is given as
jected to the lateral force p can be approximately represented by

共2L兲 ⫽ D 冕 冕 冉 冊
the displacement at the red point or purple point as shown in L/2 ␲/2
(1 ⫹ ␯) 3 ⫺ 4␯ x2 pc
Fig. 6b. Because, due to the symmetry, both the red and purple ỹ∞L ⫹ 3 |cos2␪ | d␪ dz
0 8␲(1 ⫺ ␯) R R Es

冕 冕
⫺L/2
points have the same horizontal displacement, taking the red (13) L/2 ␲/2
L p
point as an example, ỹhs 共h兲 may be evaluated by double integra- ⫽D
c
IpK |cos2␪ | d␪ dz
tion of Mindlin’s (1936) equation over the actual circular section of ⫺L/2 0 Es
the pile and over the pile length, which is expressed as

冕冕
where the influence factor by Kelvin’s solution, IpK, can be written
再 冉 冊
0 ␲/2
L (1 ⫹ ␯) 3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 x2 共1 ⫹ ␯兲 3 ⫺ 4␯ x2
(10) ỹhs (h) ⫽D ⫹ ⫹ 3 as IpK ⫽ ⫹ 3 ; R ⫽ 兹r2 ⫹ z2.
8␲(1 ⫺ ␯) R1 R2 R1
L 0 8␲共1 ⫺ ␯兲 R R
⫹
(3 ⫺ 4␯)x2
3
R2
2zh 3x2
⫹ 3 1⫺ 2 ⫹
R2 R2
冉
4(1 ⫺ ␯)(1 ⫺ 2␯)
R2 ⫹ z ⫹ h 冊 For practical applications, the subgrade reaction modulus of a
finite pile in elastic semi-infinite space is

× 1⫺ 冋 x2
R2(R2 ⫹ z ⫹ h) 册冎 pc
Es 冕冕
|cos2␪ | d␪ dz ⫽ D
0

L
␲/2

0
IpM
pc
Es
|cos2␪ | d␪ dz (14) L
khs (h) ⫽ ␩(h)k∞L

where IpM is the influence factor for horizontal displacement due to where ␩ is a coefficient represented in the following form:

冕 冕
a horizontal point load and given by Mindlin’s solution in the
L/2 ␲/2

共兲
following form: L
ỹ∞L |cos2␪ | IpK /Es d␪ dz

再
2 ⫺L/2 0

冕冕
(1 ⫹ ␯) 3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 x2 (3 ⫺ 4␯)x2 ␩(h) ⫽ L ⫽ 0 ␲/2
IpM ⫽ ⫹ ⫹ 3 ⫹ ỹhs(h)
8␲(1 ⫺ ␯) R1 R2 R1 R32 |cos2␪ | IpM /Es d␪ dz

冉 冊 冋 册冎
L ⫺0
2zh 3x2 4(1 ⫺ ␯)(1 ⫺ 2␯) x2
⫹ 1⫺ 2 ⫹ 1⫺
R23
R2 R2 ⫹ z ⫹ h R (R
2 2 ⫹ z ⫹ h)
and

Published by NRC Research Press

 Zhang et al. 1115

Fig. 6. Average displacement around the circumference of the pile in different depths: (a) infinitely elastic space; (b) elastic half-space; (c) plan
view. [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16
For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Distribution of modified modulus along the stiff pile shaft.

再 冑 modulus decreases with depth in the upper region where the

(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Es EsD4
7.5 12 KR ⬍ 10⫺2 two-dimensional and 3D soil deformation around the pile could
3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 ⫺ ␯2 EpIp
k∞L ⫽ be interconnected. From a practical point of view, they presented

7.5
(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Es
冑
3 ⫺ 4␯ 1 ⫺ ␯2
12
100
D4 K ≥ 10⫺2
L4
R
the ranges of the mean modulus with different pile head condi-
tions (free, fixed) and load characteristics (load or moment) for the
stiff pile in two cases. For case 1, L/D = 12 and in the incompressible
The effects of nonhomogeneous soils are considered by the av- soils (␯ = 0.5), the modulus range is 0.98⬃1.75Es. For case 2, L/D =
eraging technique for the soil elastic parameters used in the inte- 24, and in the compressible soils (v = 0.33), the modulus range is
gration, details of which can be found in Poulos and Davis (1980) 0.77⬃1.24Es. The two cases are shown in Fig. 7 and are compared
and Kitiyodom and Matsumoto (2003), who took advantage of the with the proposed modulus, Hirai’s (2012) work, and Vesic’s expres-
averaging technique to approximate the interaction between the sion. Results relating to Hirai’s (2012) work are calculated by eq. (A14)
soil and pile with Mindlin’s solution and showed satisfactory results. in Appendix A. The proposed modulus shows a remarkable increase
By examining the mechanism of the lateral reaction of piles in at the pile head and bottom, similar to Hirai (2012) except that the
elastic media, Baguelin et al (1977) pointed out that the subgrade former approaches the average value of Baguelin’s range and the

Published by NRC Research Press

 1116 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Fig. 8. Displacement and modified modulus profiles along the pile Fig. 9. Displacement influence factor for a free-head pile under
under lateral load: (a) effect of relative pile–soil flexibility factor; lateral load.
(b) effect of pile length; (c) Vesic’s and proposed modulus profiles.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

Fig. 10. Displacement influence factor for a free-head pile under

moments.
For personal use only.

latter approximates the lower one. In addition, Vesic’s expression is

much lower than the other three moduli shown in Fig. 7.

Verification by comparison with previous research

In the following sections, the rationality of the subgrade reaction
method with the improved elastic Winkler modulus is examined by
comparing present solutions with those from the rigorous elastic
continuum solution and the conventional Winkler approach ex-
pressed by Vesic (1961), for the cases of a single pile buried in homo-
geneous and nonhomogeneous soil layers. In addition, the proposed
Winkler modulus is also validated to be feasible in the realm of
pile–soil–pile interaction and pile groups analysis.

Laterally loaded pile in homogeneous soils

Figure 8 shows results calculated by the proposed method com-
pared with results from the rigorous elastic continuum method
by Poulos and Davis (1980) and the simplified subgrade reaction
method with Vesic’s modulus, of a horizontal loaded pile embed-
ded in an elastic homogeneous soil. Comparisons are made in
terms of the elastic displacement influence factor IyH = yEsL/H for

Published by NRC Research Press

 Zhang et al. 1117

Fig. 11. Moment profiles for a free-head pile under lateral loads.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

Fig. 12. Moment profiles for a free-head pile under moments. Fig. 13. Moment profiles for a fixed-head pile under lateral load.
For personal use only.

displacement (y) caused by horizontal load H at the pile head. The Fig. 14. Displacement influence factors for a free-head pile under
boundary condition of the pile is assumed to be free at the pile lateral loads.
head and the Poisson’s ratio of the soil is set as 0.5. The effects of
KR on IyH are shown in Fig. 8a, for a rigid pile with KR = 10 and a
flexible pile with KR = 10−5, having the same L/D of 25. The effects
of L/D on IyH are shown in Fig. 8b, for a long pile with L/D = 100 and
a short pile with L/D = 10, having the same KR of 10−3. Figure 8c
gives the distribution of the subgrade reaction modulus along the
pile by the proposed expression and the Vesic’s expression for
four cases having different KR and L/D. It can be seen from Figs. 8a
and 8b that, compared to the results based on the Vesic’s formula,
the displacement solution by the modified modulus expression
proposed in this paper makes the Winkler analysis lie much closer to
the rigorous elastic continuum solution and greatly improves the
calculated pile displacement, especially at the pile head — a crucial
controlling factor under serviceability conditions. Figure 8c shows
that regardless of the different values of KR and L/D, Vesic’s modulus
is always much lower than the proposed modulus.
The variation of displacement influence factor at pile head,
Iy(0)H, as a function of KR for four L/D ratios is plotted in Fig. 9 for
the pile with horizontal load H. Results by Poulos and Davis (1980)
and the present method remain close over the entire range of KR
values, whereas the Vesic expression always gives overestimated
predictions, and exhibits an increase of IyH with increasing KR for
KR > 10−2 — an obviously erroneous trend for a relatively rigid pile,

Published by NRC Research Press

 1118 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Fig. 15. Displacement influence factors for a free-head pile under Fig. 17. Relationship between lateral stiffness and ␮ for a free-head pile.
applied moments.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

Fig. 18. Relationship between lateral stiffness and ␮ for a fixed-

head pile.
Fig. 16. Displacement influence factors for a fixed-head pile under
lateral loads.
For personal use only.

Fig. 19. Layered soil problems analyzed.

given the fact that the effect of KR on the pile deflection is minor
for relatively rigid piles with KR > 10−2. A similar conclusion can be
derived for a pile applied with a moment at the pile head, the
results of which are plotted in Fig. 10, in terms of the elastic
displacement influence factor Iy(0)M = y(0)EsL2/M for the displace-
ment caused by the moment at the pile head. Although good
agreements between the present method and elastic continuum
method exist in Figs. 9 and 10, one point needs to be noted. For the
case of KR = 10−5 ⬃ 10−4 and L/D = 10, the elastic modulus of the pile
is smaller than that of the soil, which makes the assumption of a
beam on elastic foundation untenable, and neither the present
method nor Poulos’s method satisfy the true behavior of the pile.
However, for the pile of practical interest, the present Winkler
modulus improves the Vesic’s expression and gives a more accu- modulus with depth, based on the fundamental solution for point
rate estimation of the pile responses under horizontal loads. loads acting at the interface of a two-layer elastic half-space. The
nonhomogeneity of the semi-infinite soil is indexed by a ratio
Laterally loaded pile in nonhomogeneous soils ␮ = E(0)/E(L), relating to the elastic modulus of the soil at the pile head
In Banerjee and Davies (1978), an approximate elastic analysis, and pile tip. Here the investigation is made for homogeneous soils
with a boundary element algorithm, was made of working load (␮ = 1.0), the moderately nonhomogeneous soils (␮ = 0.5) and the
responses of single piles embedded in a soil of linearly increasing highly nonhomogeneous soils (␮ = 0). The Poisson’s ratio of soil is

Published by NRC Research Press

 Zhang et al.
Fig. 20. Relationship between interaction factor and pile spacing ratio.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16
For personal use only.
Fig. 21. Relationship between RyH and s/D.
set as 0.5. Except where specifically indicated otherwise, the ratio
of pile length to diameter, L/D, is set as 20. Results of Banerjee and
Davies’s (1978) analysis of the horizontal loaded pile in three dif-
ferent soil layers by the boundary element method are compared
with results from the Winkler model analysis with the proposed
Winkler modulus and that by Vesic (1961).
Figures 11–13 illustrate the distribution of the bending moments
along the pile for three different pile head conditions, with KR = 10−1
1119
Fig. 22. Configuration of pile group.
corresponding to a very stiff pile and KR = 10−4 corresponding to a
flexible pile in practice. It is noted that the responses of the horizon-
tal loaded pile exhibit a high sensitivity to the nonhomogeneity of
the soil, ␮, and the pile flexibility, KR. For the piles with three differ-
ent head conditions (free-head pile under lateral loads in Fig. 11,
free-head pile under moments in Fig. 12, fixed-head pile under lateral
loads in Fig. 13), the overall bending moment along the pile increases
as the nonhomogeneity index of the soil decreases, the trend of
which becomes more rapid for the more highly nonhomogeneous
soil. In Fig. 11, the difference of the moment profiles between the
cases ␮ = 1 and 0.5 is much smaller than that between the cases ␮ = 0.5
and 0. The bending moments along the pile decay more rapidly
for the flexible pile than for the stiff pile. In Figs. 11 and 12, the
bending moment decreases to 0 at approximately half of the pile length
for the case KR = 10−4 and at pile tip for the case KR = 10−1. Comparisons of
the moment profiles from Figs. 11–13 indicate that the three methods
Published by NRC Research Press
 1120
Fig. 23. Horizontal load distribution in a fixed-head pile group.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16
show good agreement, each of which could provide an adequate solu-
tion for practical applications, except for the case of a free-head pile
subjected to horizontal loads with KR = 10−4 and ␮ = 0 in Fig. 11, where the
moment by Vesic’s expression is much higher.
In contrast, the conclusion about the displacement of the pile is
For personal use only.
totally different. Figures 14–16 exhibit the displacement influence
factors Iy(0)H, Iy(0)M, and Iy(0)H as a function of KR for the three cases.
The influence factor decreases with increasing values of KR and non-
homogeneity index, ␮, the trends of which slow down as the param-
eter values increase. The analysis by Vesic’s expression greatly
overestimates displacement at the pile head, and it gives a false pre-
diction for the stiff pile with KR > 10−2, while the remaining two
methods provide reasonable consistency with each other. Banerjee
and Davies (1978) stated that the ratio L/D has little effect on the
results and the curves in Figs. 11–16, calculated with L/D = 20, are
applicable for L/D between 20 and 60. But by comparison with the
present method, it is found that for the fixed pile under lateral loads
(Fig. 16), only for the case of L/D = 60, the two results provide good
agreement.
Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the effect of increasing nonhomoge-
neity index, ␮, and pile rigidity factor, KR, on the lateral stiffness
(H/y(0)Es(L)D) of a pile for the free and fixed pile head, respectively.
According to the analysis of the displacement factor, Vesic’s
method gives a much lower lateral stiffness for the pile and the
comparison of the results by Banerjee and Davies (1978) and by the
modified Winkler modulus provides general similarity, with re-
spect to the lateral stiffness of the pile, which decreases with the
decreased nonhomogeneity index.
From the above analysis, it is possible to indicate that, com-
pared to the complicated boundary method, Vesic’s method could
give an adequate accurate bending moment for the single pile
embedded in nonhomogeneous soil in most cases, but it shows a
poor prediction for the displacement of the pile. With the averag-
ing technique to consider the effects of soil layers, the simplified
method with the improved Winkler modulus, as a powerful tool,
is capable of calculating the responses of a horizontal loaded pile
in nonhomogeneous soil, in spite of the approximate nature of
deriving the formula of the modulus.
Pile–soil–pile interaction between two piles
The previous section concentrates mainly on the problem of a
single pile. In this section, the modified modulus will be em-
ployed for the interaction factor between two piles in layered
soils, as shown in Fig. 19, and the problem has been analyzed by
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016
Kitiyodom and Matsumoto (2003) using the computer program
PRAB and finite element methods. In fact, the pile subjected to the
influence of a neighboring pile should be analyzed with the con-
cept of a passive pile, where a passive Winkler modulus is utilized.
As an approximate simplified method, whether the proposed ac-
tive Winkler modulus can be applied for the problem of pile–soil–
pile interaction and pile groups will be checked. The additional
free soil displacement imposed on the pile induced by the other
nearby pile is expressed as us(s, z) in eq. (4), which is obtained by
Mindlin’s solution. The influence of pile spacing, s, between two
piles on the interaction factor for five different soil layer condi-
tions is exhibited in Fig. 20, where the interaction factor is defined
as the ratio of the additional lateral displacement caused by an
adjacent pile to the lateral displacement of pile under its own load
(Kitiyodom and Matsumoto 2003). There are good agreements
among the results between the proposed method and the finite
element method, while the curve by Vesic’s expression is much
lower and underestimates the interaction relationship between
two piles under the horizontal load, which proves that the modi-
fied Winkler modulus substantially gives a better prediction of
the lateral pile–soil–pile interaction and can be extended for the
analysis of a pile group.
Pile group analysis
In Poulos and Davis (1980), the problems of different pile groups
with fixed heads and situated in homogeneous soil were analyzed
by the rigorous elastic continuum method. The Poisson’s ratio of
the soil is set at 0.5 throughout. The ratio of pile length to diam-
eter L/D is 25, and the pile rigidity factor is chosen as 10−5. Here,
the analyses of three pile groups — 2 × 2, 3 × 3, and 4 × 4 —
subjected to lateral loads are conducted using the proposed
method and Vesic’s method, and the results are compared with
that of Poulos and Davis (1980). Figure 21 shows the variation of
the group reduction factor, RyH, with pile spacing ratio s/D for the
three pile groups, where RyH is defined as the ratio of the group
displacement to the displacement of the single pile under the
same horizontal load. Figure 22 illustrates the schematic configu-
ration of the 4 × 4 pile group and Fig. 23 exhibits the example
distribution of horizontal load H/Hav within the 4 × 4 pile group, in
which Hav is the average load on a single pile in the pile group. It
can be seen that the results by the present method with improved
subgrade modulus are much closer to those in Poulos and Davis
(1980) than Vesic’s method, in which the subgrade modulus is
unchanged along the pile. The present method well predicts the
Published by NRC Research Press
 Zhang et al.
behavior of the single pile of a pile group at different locations,
while the results by Vesic’s expression gives an unsatisfactory
trend especially for piles 2 and 3, where the horizontal load dis-
tribution H/Hav is nearly a horizontal line, with the implication
that the responses of the side pile in the pile group can be thought
of as an isolated pile, unaffected by the pile–soil–pile interaction
and even the spacing ratio s/D is very small. Although neither of
the two methods from the spring model analysis is capable of
giving an exact solution to such problems, compared to the re-
sults by the elastic continuum methods, there is a confidence for
the applicability of the proposed subgrade modulus in the elastic
problem of a pile group subjected to horizontal loads.
Conclusions
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16
Unlike conventional implementations of rotating a horizontal
beam 90°, the Winkler subgrade reaction modulus based on the
model of a vertical beam buried in elastic homogeneous and non-
homegeneous soils is developed for the application to laterally
loaded piles. By making the abscissa of the first zero of the nor-
malized bending moment similar in the Winkler solution and
rigorous elastic solution, a vertical infinitely long beam buried in
elastic space and under the action of a concentrated force is stud-
ied first. Then the influence of pile depth and pile rigidity on the
subgrade modulus is estimated based on Mindlin’s and Kelvin’s
solutions. The applicability of the modified subgrade modulus in
calculating the expression for single piles in homogeneous and
nonhomogeneous soils is verified by comparison with results
from the elastic continuum solution, boundary element method,
and finite element method, which is also extended to the problem
For personal use only.
of pile groups to validate the rationality in the passive pile–soil–
pile interaction. It is proved that the suggested modulus based on
the spring model gives a reasonable prediction of the responses of
horizontal loaded piles, while the conventional Vesic’s formula
provides an overestimated approximation of pile behavior.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National
Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (Grant No.
2013CB036304) and the National Natural Science Funds of
China (Grant No.51378392).
References
Baguelin, F., Frank, R., and Saïd, Y.H. 1977. Theoretical study of lateral reaction mech-
anism of piles. Geotechnique, 27(3): 405–434. doi:10.1680/geot.1977.27.3.405.
Banerjee, P.K., and Davies, T.G. 1978. The behaviour of axially and laterally
loaded single piles embedded in non-homogeneous soil. Géotechnique,
28(3): 309–326. doi:10.1680/geot.1978.28.3.309.
Biot, M.A. 1937. Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic foundation. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, ASME, 59: A1–A7.
Bransby, M. 1999. Selection of p-y curves for the design of single laterally loaded
piles. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geome-
chanics,23(15):1909–1926.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(19991225)23:15<1909::AID-
NAG26>3.0.CO;2-L.
Bransby, M. 1996. Difference between load-transfer relationships for laterally
loaded pile groups: active p–y or passive p–␦. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 122(12): 1015–1018. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:12(1015).
Gabr, M.A., Lunne, T., and Powell, J.J. 1994. P–y analysis of laterally loaded piles
in clay using DMT. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(5): 816–837.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:5(816).
Georgiadis, M., Anagnostopoulos, C., and Saflekou, S. 1992. Cyclic lateral loading
of piles in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 23(1): 47–60.
Guo, W.D., and Lee, F.H. 2001. Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechan-
ics, 25: 1109–1129. doi:10.1002/nag.169.
Hajialilue-Bonab, M., Sojoudi, Y., and Puppala, A.J. 2013. Study of strain wedge
parameters for laterally loaded piles. International Journal of Geomechanics,
ASCE, 13(2): 143–152. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000186.
Hirai, H. 2012. A Winkler model approach for vertically and laterally loaded piles
in nonhomogeneous soil. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 36(17): 1869–1897. doi:10.1002/nag.1078.
Hsiung, Y. 2003. Theoretical elastic-plastic solution for laterally loaded piles.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(5): 475–
480. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:6(475).
1121
Kelvin, L. 1848. Note on the integration of the equations of equilibrium of an
elastic solid. Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal, 3: 87–89.
Kim, Y., and Jeong, S. 2011. Analysis of soil resistance on laterally loaded piles
based on 3D soil–pile interaction. Computers and Geotechnics, 38(2): 248–
257. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.12.001.
Kitiyodom, P., and Matsumoto, T. 2003. A simplified analysis method for piled
raft foundations in non-homogeneous soils. International Journal for Numer-
ical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 27(2): 85–109. doi:10.1002/nag.264.
Klar, A., Vorster, T.E.B., Soga, K., and Mair, R.J. 2005. Soil-pipe interaction due to
tunneling: comparison between Winkler and elastic continuum solutions.
Géotechnique, 55(6): 461–466. doi:10.1680/geot.2005.55.6.461.
Mindlin, R.D. 1936. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid.
Physics, 7: 195–202. doi:10.1063/1.1745385.
Mylonakis, G. 2001. Winkler modulus for axially loaded piles. Géotechnique,
51(5): 455–461. doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.5.455.
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and design. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rajashree, S., and Sitharam, T. 2001. Nonlinear finite-element modeling of batter
piles under lateral load. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 127(7): 604–612. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:7(604).
Randolph, M.F. 1981. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Géotech-
nique, 31(2): 247–259. doi:10.1680/geot.1981.31.2.247.
Sun, K. 1994. Laterally loaded piles in elastic media. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 120(8): 1324–1344. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1994)120:8(1324).
Vesic, A.B. 1961. Bending of beam resting on isotropic elastic solid. Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 87(2): 35–53.
Xu, L.Y., Cai, F., Wang, G., and Ugai, K. 2013. Nonlinear analysis of laterally
loaded single piles in sand using modified strain wedge model. Computers
and Geotechnics, 51: 60–71. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.01.003.
Yu, J., Zhang, C., and Huang, M. 2013. Soil-pipe interaction due to tunneling:
assessment of Winkler modulus for underground pipelines. Computers and
Geotechnics, 50: 17–28. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.12.005.
Zhang, H.H., and Small, J.C. 2000. Analysis of capped pile groups subjected to
horizontal and vertical loads. Computers and Geotechnics, 26(1): 1–21. doi:10.
1016/S0266-352X(99)00029-4.
Appendix A
Double sine-wave loading inside an elastic space
Disregarding the presence of the vertical pile, the effect of a
double sine-wave loading q = q0 cos(␭z) cos(␻y) (see Fig. A1) acting
inside a 3D infinite elastic continuum is studied first. The z-axis is
taken downward and the x–y plane coincides with the horizontal
surface. The displacement components ux, uy, and uz (corresponding
to the x-, y-, and z-axis directions, respectively) of a point inside the
foundation satisfy the Lame equation:
再
1 ⭸e
⌬2ux ⫹ ⫽0
1 ⫺ 2␯ ⭸x
2 1 ⭸e
(A1) ⌬ uy ⫹ ⫽0
1 ⫺ 2␯ ⭸y
1 ⭸e
⌬2uz ⫹ ⫽0
1 ⫺ 2␯ ⭸z
⭸ux ⭸uy ⭸uz 2 ⭸2 ⭸2 ⭸2
where e ⫽ ⫹ ⫹ , ⌬ ⫽ 2 ⫹ 2 ⫹ 2 , and ␯ is Poisson’s
⭸x ⭸y ⭸z ⭸x ⭸y ⭸z
ratio of the foundation.
The solutions need to satisfy the following conditions: (i) doubly
sinusoidal in z and y; (ii) zero stresses for x ¡ +∞ or x ¡ –∞, and
(iii) discontinuous normal stresses and continuous shear stresses
at x = 0. With condition (i), the solution is written as
再
ux ⫽ f(x) cos(␭z) cos(␻y)
(A2) uy ⫽ h(x) cos(␭z) sin(␻y)
uz ⫽ g(x) sin(␭z) cos(␻y)
where f(x), h(x), and g(x) are the undetermined functions.
Substituting eq. (A2) into eq. (A1), the relationships among f(x),
h(x), and g(x) are obtained, with the general solution of g(x) as
共c1 ⫹ c2x兲 exp共⫺x兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2兲, where c1 and c2 are constants. For an
elastic boundary value problem, the load usually acts on the
boundary of the elastic mass, in which the above g(x) is satisfied.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1122 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Fig. A1. Double sinusoidal loading in an infinite elastic space.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

For an infinite elastic mass, as no boundary exists and the sine-
wave loading acts inside the elastic space, the elastic mass has to
be divided into two parts by the loading plane (x = 0). The divided
two elastic masses with a boundary of x = 0 need to satisfy differ-
ent general solutions and the same stress requirements in condi-
For personal use only.
Sine-wave loading inside an elastic space
To investigate the resultant load between the pile and soil, with
reference to Fig. A2 and Biot (1937)’s work, the deflections of the
soil produced by a simple sine-wave loading located in a strip of
width 2b are obtained. The load is expressed as

tion (ii). As the above general solution g(x) is only for the elastic
domain x ≥ 0, it is modified for the whole domain and the rela-
tionship among f(x), h(x), and g(x) is modified as
(A5) q(y, z) ⫽ q0(y) cos(␭z), q0(y) ⫽ 再q0
0 ⫺b ≤ y ≤ b
y ⬍ ⫺b, y ⬎ b

g⫽ 再(c1 ⫹ c2x) exp(⫺x兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2)

(c3 ⫹ c4x) exp(x兹␭ ⫹ ␻ )
2 2
x≥0
x≤0
In terms of Biot (1937), the discontinuous function q0(y) can be
represented as the superposition of an infinite number of sine
loads by the equation
(A3) ␻
h⫽ g
␭

冕
∞
2 ⫺ 2␯  3 ⫺ 2␯  q0
f⫽ g ⫺ g d␻
␭(␭2 ⫹ ␻2) ␭ (A6) q0(y) ⫽ [sin␻(y ⫹ b) ⫺ sin␻(y ⫺ b)]
␲ ␻
0

where c1–c4 are constants to be determined from condition (iii).

The odd function g(x) means that c1 and c3 are opposite and c2 = c4. Applying eq. (A5) to each of the sine waves under the integral
The continuous shear stresses on the boundary of x = 0 are equiv- sign in eq. (A6), the lateral displacement at the loaded surface
alent to the condition of the shear strain
⭸ux⫹
⭸y
⫹
⭸uy⫹
⭸x x⫽0ⱍ and
(x = 0) due to q(y, z) can be obtained

ⱍ ⱍ ⱍ 冕兹
⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺ ⫺
⭸ux ⭸uz ⭸ux ⭸uy ⭸ux ⭸uz ∞

关sin␣共 ⫹ 1兲
⫹ equal to ⫹ and ⫹ , respec- q0b (1 ⫹ ␯)(3 ⫺ 4␯) 1 y
⭸y ⭸x x⫽0 ⭸y ⭸x x⫽0 ⭸y ⭸x x⫽0 (A7) u(0, y, z) ⫽
tively, which makes c1 = c3. Then c1 = c3 = 0. By discontinuous 4␲ Es(1 ⫺ ␯) b
␣ ⫹␤ 2 2
normal stress condition ␴x⫺|x⫽0 ⫺ ␴x⫹|x⫽0 = q0 cos(␭z) cos(␻y),
0

⫺ sin␣共 ⫺ 1兲兴 cos共␤ 兲

q0␭共1 ⫹ ␯兲 y d␣ z
c2 ⫽ c4 ⫽ can be obtained. The displacement b ␣ b
4Es共1 ⫺ ␯兲兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2
components are expressed as
where ␣ = ␻b and ␤ = ␭b. Because the sine-wave loading acts inside
a 3D infinite elastic continuum, the displacement expressed by
q0(1 ⫹ ␯)
ux ⫽ (3 ⫺ 4␯ ⫹ |x| 兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2) eq. (A7) is different from the corresponding solution by Biot (1937).
4Es(1 ⫺ ␯)兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2 For the uniform pressure load as shown in eq. (A5), the corre-
sponding deflection of the foundation is given by curve I in
× exp(⫺|x| 兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2) cos(␭z) cos(␻y) Fig. A3. Here, following Biot (1937), average deflection us along the
(A4) q0␻(1 ⫹ ␯)x 1 冕b
uy ⫽ exp(⫺|x| 兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2) cos(␭z) sin(␻y) width 2b is defined as us ⫽ u共0, y, z兲 dy. Considering a pres-
4Es(1 ⫺ ␯)兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2 2b ⫺b
sure load composed of the previous uniform pressure, q0, and two
q0␭(1 ⫹ ␯)x rectangular loadings 0.9q0 at the edges of the width (b/5), deflec-
uz ⫽ exp(⫺|x| 兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2) sin(␭z) cos(␻y)
tion curve II is obtained as shown in Fig. A3. Comparing the shape
4Es(1 ⫺ ␯)兹␭2 ⫹ ␻2
of curve II with curve I, it is evident that increasing the resultant
load Q r (integration of the pressure load between width 2b) by 18%
The double sine-wave solution is deduced for obtaining a solu- and the average deflection us by 29% gives a nearly constant de-
tion from the sine-wave loading in the next section. flection of the foundation over the width 2b for curve II. The ratio

Published by NRC Research Press

 Zhang et al. 1123

Fig. A2. Illustration of sine-wave loading. Fig. A4. Mechanical schematic diagram: (a) external force imposing
on pile shaft; (b) soil reaction force imposing on pile shaft;
(c) contact force imposing on soil; (d) deformation compatibility
between pile and soil.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

Lateral deflection of an infinite pile subjected to a

concentrated force
Sine-wave loading on a pile
In this section, the lateral deflection of an infinite pile subjected
For personal use only.

to a concentrated force is derived, also with the same deriva-

Fig. A3. Difference between real deflection and average deflection.
u0, average deflection in the pile width for the uniform pressure load.
tion procedure as Biot (1937). Consider an infinitely long pile
embedded in an elastic continuum under a sine-wave loading
p = p0 cos(␭z) (where p0 is the amplitude of the sine-wave loading)
as shown in Fig. A4a. The reaction force acting inversely on the
pile due to external loading is Q r = –Q 0 cos(␭z) (where Q 0 is the
amplitude of the external loading). The sine-wave deflection of
the pile, u, according to the beam theory, is given by

d4u
(A9) EpIP ⫽ p ⫹ Qr
dx4

The contact force Q c = Q 0 cos(␭z) in the soil is supposed to be

induced by a sine-wave deflection of the soil foundation, us, which
is determined by eq. (A9). The deformation compatibility require-
ment demands us be equal to the deflection of the pile.
By relating contact force Q c to reaction force Q r in eq. (A8), an
external force p = p0 cos(␭z) produces a sine-wave deflection of the
pile shown in Fig. A4, expressed as

of us/Q r shows a relative variation of 10% 共 130

118
⫺ 1 ⫽ 0.10兲 from the
case of uniform pressure load to the case of uniform deflection. Then
1
p cos(␭z)
␭EpIP 0
(A10) u⫽
1 8(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Esb
us C 1 ⫺ v2 3 ⫺ 4␯ ␭3 ⫹ 2 3 ⫺ 4␯ E I
⌿(b␭)
(A8) ⫽ C(1 ⫺ ␯ ) p P
Qr b␭⌿(b␭) Es 8(1 ⫺ ␯)2

冉 冊
Compared to the analogue expression in Biot (1937), the smaller
␲ 冕∞ ␤ sin2 ␣ d␣ ⫺1 deflection in eq. (A10) means that with increased depth, the inter-
where ⌿共␤兲 ⫽ , and C is a coefficient varying
2 0
兹␣2 ⫹ ␤2 ␣
2
action between the soil and pile is enhanced.
from 1 for uniform pressure distribution over the width 2b to 1.1 The development of the infinitely long pile under a concen-
for uniform deflection. The value of C is consistent with that of trated load is derived as below, where the soil is treated as an
Biot (1937). In Biot’s work, two additional rectangular loadings elastic continuum.
q0/8 are required at the edges of the width (b/4), for the case of a
horizontal beam buried in the surface of an elastic half-space, Concentrated force on a pile
which is different from the case here. Another difference is that, as Referring to eq. (A10), the deflection of a pile due to any loading
C 1 ⫺ ␯2 can be calculated using the superposition principle and the Fou-
the ratio of us/Q r is sensitive to buried depth, it is rier integral. An arbitrary loading p(z) may be represented as a
b␭⌿共b␭兲 Es
in Biot (1937), double the value in the current study for ␯ = 0.5. sum of sine loads by the equation

Published by NRC Research Press

 1124 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

冕 冕 冋 册
∞ ⫹∞ 1

(A11) p(z) ⫽
1
d␭ p(␨) cos␭(z ⫺ ␨) d␨ 共1 ⫺ ␯2兲共3 ⫺ 4␯兲 EpIP 3
␲ Putting c ⫽ C and ␥ = ␭c, the normalized
0 ⫺∞ 8共1 ⫺ ␯兲2 Esb
deflection and corresponding bending moment can be expressed as
where ␨ is the integration variable.
共 兲
共兲冕
1 bz
Applying eq. (A9) to each of the sine waves under the integral
uEpIP cos ␥
∞
1 c ␥ 3cb
sign in eq. (A11), the total deflection of the pile due to the load p(z) ⫽ d␥
can be written as
(A14)
Pb3 ␲ b
0 ␥3 ⫹ ⌿ b ␥
c 共 兲
1
冕
∞ ␥ cos
bz
␥ 共 兲
(A12) u(z) ⫽
1
␲ 冕 冕
0
∞
d␭
⫹∞

⫺∞
␭ ⫹
3 1
␭EpIP
8(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Esb
⌿(b␭)
M
Pb
⫽
1c
␲b 0 3
␥ ⫹⌿ ␥
cb
b
c
d␥
共 兲
2 3 ⫺ 4␯ E I
C(1 ⫺ ␯ ) p P
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Tongji University on 10/20/16

× p(␨) cos␭(z ⫺ ␨) d␨ in which the expression of relative stiffness ratio b/c is

冋 册
1
8共1 ⫺ ␯兲2 Esb4 3
For the particular concentrated load P ⫽ 冕 ␧
⫺␧ p共␨兲 d␨, the deflec- . As a different expression of b/c is em-
tion of the pile is C共1 ⫺ ␯2兲共3 ⫺ 4␯兲 EpIP
ployed in Biot (1937) and in this paper, the former reflects the
P soil – horizontal beam interaction just below the ground surface,

冕
cos(␭z) while in this paper it relates to the relative stiffness of the vertical
1
∞
␭EpIP
(A13) u(z) ⫽ d␭ pile and soil at infinite depth, implying that besides the elastic
␲ 0 1 8(1 ⫺ ␯)2 Esb
␭3 ⫹ ⌿(b␭) modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the soil, the buried depth is also a
2 3 ⫺ 4␯ E I
C(1 ⫺ ␯ ) p P critical parameter to determine the pile–soil interaction.
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press

View publication stats