A THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT STUDY TO OBTAIN

P-Y CURVES FOR SAND

Liangcai He
1
(Student Member, ASCE), Zhaohui Yang
2
(Member, ASCE), Jinchi LU
3
, and
Ahmed Elgamal
4
(Member, ASCE)

ABSTRACT
For pile foundations subjected to lateral loads, a realistic design approach and analysis method should
account for the response of both the soil and the pile. Current design practice and pile-soil interaction
analysis usually use a series of springs to model the lateral behavior of soil-pile interaction. In this method,
the force (p) deformation (y) function, widely known as p-y curve, of the spring characterizes the
pile-soil interaction mechanism. For sand, p-y curves are independent of loading conditions with an initial
slope assumed to vary linearly with depth. This paper presents a framework using 3D FEM nonlinear
analysis to obtain p-y curves for sand. A linear analysis was first conducted on laterally loaded piles using
three-dimensional finite element method (3D FEM). A nonlinear 3D FEM was then carried out to model a
full-scale field lateral pile test. Different meshes were examined to obtain a reliable 3D FEM procedure for
pile-soil interaction. This procedure is then used to study p-y curves for sand under other conditions. It is
found that at greater depth, p-y curves show somewhat dependence on loading conditions. Near ground
surface, p-y curves show no apparent loading conditions dependence. In addition, the initial slope of the
p-y curves is about the same for different depths, different from commonly used ones
Keywords: Laterally Loaded Piles, p-y curves, Sand.
INTRODUCTION
The response of a laterally loaded pile is critical relevance to foundation engineering under
demanding structural, soil and loading conditions. The most commonly used approach to design

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093,
USA. Email: lhe@ucsd.edu
2
Assistant Research Scientist, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
CA 92093, USA. Email: zhyang@ucsd.edu
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093,
USA. Email: jinlu@ucsd.edu
4
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Email: elgamal@ucsd.edu






2
and analyze such piles is the p-y method based on the Winkler beam on elastic foundation model.
In this approach the pile is modeled with a beam and the interaction between pile and soil is
modeled by a series of uncoupled nonlinear springs. The force-deformation relationship of these
nonlinear springs is widely known as p-y curve. Existing p-y curves were empirically back
calculated from full-scale field lateral load tests under specific conditions due to various
difficulties. For instance, the tests were often carried out in site-specific soil conditions and on
free-head piles with relatively small pile diameter. These p-y curves back calculated from specific
conditions were then extrapolated to use for other conditions. Such an application may not be
appropriate and it is preferable to use p-y curves derived from conditions the same as what the
pile is expected to experience.

3D FEM can model the soil as a continuum as well as the 3D nature of the problem. This
method is quite versatile to simulate piles under a variety of conditions. This paper presents a
framework for studying p-y curves at various conditions using 3D FEM method. The 3D FEM
simulation was conducted using a computer program CYCLIC developed at the University of
California, San Diego.

A linear 3D FEM study on laterally loaded piles was first conducted as routine checks.
Displacement profile and moment distribution of the pile from the linear 3D FEM were
compared with a rigorous continuum mechanics solution to investigate the level of spatial
resolution and domain size of the ground surrounding the pile that is required in order to
satisfactorily represent the involved soil-structure interaction mechanisms.

Nonlinear 3D FEM analyses on the full-scale field test conducted at the Mustung Island (Cox
et al. 1974; Reese and Impe 2001) were then carried out to study the pile response in real site
conditions. P-y curves based on the nonlinear 3D FEM study were subsequently presented.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Finite element mesh
Taking advantage of symmetry, only half of the domain was meshed for the 3D FEM study. A
number of meshes were employed for linear study. FIG. 1 shows one of the meshes that used in
both linear and nonlinear studies. FIG. 2 shows another mesh of smaller domain size also used in
both linear and nonlinear study. Table 1 lists the parameters of the two meshes.

Eight-node solid elements were used to model the soil and beam elements were used to model
the floating pile. Rigid beam elements with rigidity 1000 times larger than the pile rigidity were
used to connect the pile and the soil in order to model the pile size. No special pile-soil interface
elements were implemented since this is not required in the linear elastic cases and the employed
soil constitutive model itself plays this role in the nonlinear soil case. The boundary conditions
imposed on the mesh are:

The nodes at the bottom of the mesh are fixed against displacement in all directions.






3
The nodes on the plane of symmetry cannot displace normally to that plane.
The nodes on the periphery of the mesh are fixed against displacement in both horizontal
directions; yet remain free to move vertically.




FIG. 1. 3D FEM mesh used in both linear and nonlinear study.
Employed mesh


Pile head close-up






4

FIG. 2. A mesh with a smaller domain size used in 3D FEM nonlinear analysis.
Table 1 Parameters of the two meshes
Bottom
boundary
from pile tip
Periphery
boundary
from pile
Number
of solid
elements
Number of
beam elements
for pile
Number of rigid
beam elements
for pile size
Mesh in FIG. 1 10 100 3472 25 234
Mesh in FIG. 2 10 25 1764 18 171
Soil Constitutive Model
In linear study, the soil was modeled by elastic isotropic material. The material is
characterized by two elastic constants, Youngs modulus E and Poissons ratio .

In nonlinear study, a constitutive model able to reproduce salient sand response characteristics
including shear-induced nonlinearity and dilatancy (Parra 1996; Yang 2000; Elgamal et al. 2003)
was employed. This soil constitutive model (Parra 1996; Yang and Elgamal 2002; Elgamal et al.
2003; Yang et al. 2003) was based on the original multi-surface-plasticity theory for frictional
cohesionless soils (Prevost 1985). In this soil model, a number of similar conical yield surfaces
with different tangent shear moduli are employed to represent shear stress-strain nonlinearity and






5
the confinement dependence of shear stiffness and shear strength (FIG. 3).




FIG. 3. Conical yield surfaces for granular soils in principal stress space and
deviatoric plane (Prevost 1985; Lacy 1986; Parra et al. 1996; Yang 2000).
The constitutive equation is written in incremental form as follows (Prevost 1985):
) ( :
p
E & & & =
(1)
where & is the rate of effective Cauchy stress tensor, & the rate of deformation tensor,
p
&
the plastic rate of deformation tensor, and E the isotropic fourth-order tensor of elastic
coefficients. The rate of plastic deformation tensor is defined by:
p
& = P L , where P is a
symmetric second-order tensor defining the direction of plastic deformation in stress space, L the
plastic loading function, and the symbol denotes the McCauley's brackets (i.e.,
L =max(L, 0)). The loading function L is defined as: L = Q: & / H
where H
is the plastic
modulus, and Q a unit symmetric second-order tensor defining yield-surface normal at the stress
point (i.e., Q= f f / ), where f is yield function.

The yield function f selected has the following form (Elgamal et al. 2003):
0 ) ( ) ) ( ( ) ) ( (
2
3
2
0
2
0 0
= + + + = p p M p p p p f s s : (2)
in the domain of 0 p . The yield surfaces in principal stress space and deviatoric plane are
shown in Fig. 1. In eq. 2, s p = is the deviatoric stress tensor, p the mean effective
stress,
0
p a small positive constant (1.0 kPa in this paper) such that the yield surface size
remains finite at 0 = p for numerical convenience (FIG. 3), a second-order kinematic






6
deviatoric tensor defining the surface coordinates, and M dictates the surface size. In the context
of multi-surface plasticity, a number of similar surfaces with a common apex form the hardening
zone (FIG. 3). Each surface is associated with a constant plastic modulus. Conventionally, the
low-strain (elastic) moduli and plastic moduli are postulated to increase in proportion to the
square root of p (Prevost 1985).

A purely deviatoric kinematic hardening rule (Prevost 1985) is employed in order to generate
hysteretic response under cyclic shear loading. This kinematic rule dictates that all yield surfaces
may translate in stress space within the failure envelope (Hill 1950).

The flow rule is chosen so that the deviatoric component of flow P = Q (associative flow
rule in the deviatoric plane), and the volumetric component P
defines the desired amount of
dilation or contraction in accordance with experimental observations. During shear loading, the
soil contractive/dilative (dilatancy) behavior is handled by a non-associative flow rule (Elgamal
et al. 2003) so as to achieve appropriate interaction between shear and volumetric response. In
particular, nonassociativity is restricted to the volumetric component of the plastic flow tensor
(outer normal to the plastic potential surface in stress-space). Therefore, depending on the
relative location of the stress state (FIG. 3) with respect to the phase transformation (PT) surface
(Ishihara et al. 1975), distinct contractive/dilative behaviors are reproduced by specifying
appropriate expressions for the nonassociativity (Elgamal et al. 2003). Consequently, P

defines the degree of non-associativity of the flow rule and is given by (Parra 1996):

P
1 ) / (
1 ) / (
2
2
+

=




The employed model has been extensively calibrated for clean Nevada Sand at
r
D

40%
(Elgamal et al. 2002). The calibration phase included results of monotonic and cyclic laboratory
tests, as well as data from level-ground and mildly inclined infinite-slope dynamic
centrifuge-model simulations.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Linear 3D FEM Analysis
Abedzadeh and Pak (2004) presented a benchmark solution of laterally loaded piles. This
solution is a rigorous mathematical formulation for a flexible tubular elastic pile of finite length
embedded in a semi-infinite homogenous elastic soil medium under lateral loading in the
framework of three-dimensional elastostatics and the classical Bernoulli-Euler beam theory. A
series of 3D FEM analyses were conducted with various domain sizes for the case of a pure
pile-head horizontal load H using the following pile and soil properties:

Homogenous elastic soil: Youngs modulus E
s
= 50 MPa, Poisson ratio
s
= 0.4, and thus
shear modulus G
s
= 17.857 Mpa






7
Elastic circular solid pile: E
e
= 32 GPa, pile radius r = 0.6 m, pile length L = 25 m.

3D FEM analysis results are very close to Abedzadeh and Pak (2004) as compared in figures 4
and 5. Specifically, FIG. 4 compares the displacement and moment when the bottom boundary is
5, 10 and 25 times pile diameter from the pile tip while keeping the periphery boundary 100
times pile diameter from the pile. Both displacement and moment distributions show that lateral
pile response is insensitive to the bottom boundary distance from the pile tip employed in the 3D
FEM analysis. A bottom boundary of 10 times pile diameter from the pile tip may be appropriate
for both linear and nonlinear 3D FEM laterally loaded pile analysis. FIG. 5 compares the
displacement and moment when the periphery boundary is 10, 25, 50, and 100 times pile
diameter from the pile while keeping the bottom boundary 10 times pile diameter from the pile
tip. It shows that lateral pile displacement is sensitive to the periphery boundary distance from
the pile. A periphery boundary of 100 times pile diameter from the pile may be required for linear
3D FEM laterally loaded pile analysis. For nonlinear cases, a closer boundary may be used.
Moment distribution is however insensitive to the periphery boundary distance in this cases.

The moments in all cases (figures 4 and 5) are noticed to be smaller than Abedzadeh and Pak
(2004). This is due to the fact that beam element in FEM assumes a cubic displacement variation
which corresponds to zero distributed load. So, it should be of no big surprise that the bending
moments are off if computed without some analytical adaptation (Pak 2004, personal
communication).

A mesh with periphery boundary 100 pile diameters away and bottom boundary 10 pile
diameters away is then used to conduct a 3D FEM study on lateral piles with diameters ranging
from 0.15 m to 3.0 m (Youngs Modulus 20 GPa). The pile is embedded in a homogenous elastic
soil with Youngs Modulus 20 MPa and Poissons ratio 0.4999. A lateral load of 400 kN is
applied at 5.5 m above ground line. Pile displacements at ground line and critical moment from
the 3D FEM study are compared with the widely referred solutions of Davies and Budhu (1986)
in FIG. 6. The displacements and moments from the 3D FEM study on free head and fixed head
piles agree excellently with Davies and Budhu (1986).

The excellent agreement with Abedzadeh and Pak (2004) and Davies and Budhu (1986)
shown in above linear analysis ensures that the finite element procedure adopted is reliable. It
brings insights into the soil domain size and meshing for nonlinear 3D FEM analysis.






8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4
Normalized Moment
M/(H0*r)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

z
/
r
100d 5d
100d 10d
100d 25d
Abedzadeh and
Pak (2004)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12
Normalized Displacement
u/(H0/(r*Gs))
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h

z
/
r
100d 5d
100d 10d
100d 25d
Abedzadeh and
Pak (2004)

FIG. 4. Comparisons between the 3D FEM study and Abedzadeh and Pak (2004) (In
FEM fixed bottom boundary is 5, 10, and 25 times pile diameters from pile tip and
periphery boundary is 100 times pile diameter from pile).






9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12
Normalized Displacement
u/(H0(Gs*r))
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

z
/
r
10d
25d
50d
100d
Abedzadeh and
Pak (2004)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.20 0.20 0.60 1.00 1.40
Normalized Moment
M/(H0*r)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

z
/
r
10d
25d
50d
100d
Abedzadeh and
Pak (2004)

FIG. 5. Comparison between the 3D FEM study and Abedzadeh and Pak (2004) (In
FEM fixed bottom boundary is 25 times pile diameters from pile tip and periphery
boundary is 10, 25, 50 and 100 times pile diameter from pile).








10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4
Pile Diameter (m)
P
i
l
e

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

G
r
o
u
n
d

L
i
n
e

(
m
m
)
Free-head by Davies and Budhu (1986)
Free-head by 3D FEM
Fixed-head by Davies and Budhu (1986)
Fixed-head by 3D FEM
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 1 2 3 4
Pile Diameter (m)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

M
o
m
e
n
t

i
n

F
r
e
e
-
H
e
a
d

P
i
l
e

o
r

M
o
m
e
n
t

i
n

F
i
x
e
d

P
i
l
e
-
H
e
a
d
(
k
N
*
m
)
Free-head by Davies and Budhu (1986)
Free-Head by 3D FEM
Fixed-head by Davies and Budhu (1986)
Fixed-head by 3D FEM

FIG. 6. 3D FEM results compared with Davies and Budhu (1986).
Nonlinear 3D FEM Analysis
An effort to model a full-scale field lateral-load pile test was attempted in this study. The test
modeled herein was conducted at Mustung Island near Corpus Christ, Texas (Cox et al. 1974;
Reese and Impe 2001). The pile was a steel-pipe pile with a 0.61m outside diameter and a
0.095m wall thickness. It was driven open-ended into the ground leading to an embedded length
of 21m. The mechanical properties of the pile were: moment of inertial I
p
= 8.084510
-4
m
4
;
bending stiffness E
p
I
p
= 163,000 kN-m
2
; yield moment = 640 kN-m; and ultimate moment M
ult
=
828 kN-m. The soil at the site was uniformly graded, fine sand with a friction angle of 39 degrees.
The submerged unit weight was 10.4 kN/m
3
. The water table was maintained at 0.15 m or so
above the ground line throughout the tests. Lateral load was applied at 0.305 m above the ground
line (Cox et al. 1974; Reese and Impe 2001).

In the 3D FEM modeling, the pile was modeled as a linear elastic beam with above
mechanical properties. Lateral load at increment of 1 kN was applied at 0.305 m above the
ground line. The final lateral load was 280 kN, below which the pile behaved linear (Cox et al.
1974; Reese and Impe 2001). Table 2 lists the soil constitutive parameters in addition to above
soil properties used in the nonlinear modeling of the soil.






11
Table 2 Soil Constitutive Parameters for Mustung Island Lateral Pile Test Analysis
Parameter Value
Number of yield surfaces 18
Submerged unit weight 10.4 kN/m
3

Reference mean pressure p
0
90,000 kPa
Reference shear modulus G
0
80 kPa
Poissons ratio 0.42
Pressure dependence coefficient n
p
0.5
Friction angle 39
Phase transformation angle
PT
16
Residual strength pressure a 2 kPa
Contraction parameter c
1
0.07
Contraction parameter c
2
0.03
Dilation parameter d
1
0.5
Dilation parameter d
2
1.0

FIG. 7 shows the deformed mesh 2 at lateral load 200 kN exaggerated 25 times. Soil heave in
front of the pile and settlement behind the pile are observed, which is consistent with field
observation. It is also noted that the soil very close to the pile, about 3 pile diameters in lateral
direction and 5 pile diameters in depth, has significant deformation.

FIG. 8 shows the comparisons of experimental and computed values of maximum moment
and ground line deflection. FIG. 9 shows the comparisons of experimental and computed moment
distribution along the pile at lateral load 210 kN. Good agreement between experimental and
computed response is observed. FIG. 8 shows that mesh 1 is somewhat softer than the mesh 2 as
expected, since mesh 1 has a larger lateral domain size and also has more beam elements size for
the pile. FIG. 10 shows the lateral pile response computed using meshes 1 and 2, where the soil
pressure is determined by differentiating the shear forces with respect to depth. Figures 8-10
show that the difference in results using mesh 1 and 2 is insignificant. Mesh 2 was used afterward
to study p-y curves in order to save computing cost.







12

FIG. 7. Deformed mesh 2 at lateral load 200 kN.







13

FIG. 8. Comparison of experimental and computed maximum moment and ground
line deflection.

FIG. 9. Comparison of experimental and computed moments along the pile at
lateral load 210 kN.






14

(a) Mesh 1


(b) Mesh 2
FIG. 10. Computed response at lateral load 20, 60, 100, 140, 180, 220, and 260 kN.






15
P-y curve from Nonlinear 3D FEM Analysis
As mentioned earlier, p-y curve is the force-deformation relationship of the springs
representing soil-pile interaction. In this relationship, p is lateral soil pressure per unit pile length
and y is pile displacement. The lateral soil pressure p can be determined by differentiating the
shear forces obtained from 3D FEM with respect to depth. The associated pile displacement can
be directly obtained from 3D FEM. As a matter of fact, p and y obtained from 3D FEM nonlinear
analysis have been shown in FIG. 10 for the Mustung Island lateral load test. The corresponding
p-y curves are easily obtained (FIG. 11 denoted as L1).

Using the same 3D FEM procedure, another set of p-y curves is also obtained for the case
where the lateral load is applied right at ground line. This set of p-y curves is denoted as L2 in
FIG. 11.

FIG. 11 shows that at greater depth, p-y curves show somewhat dependence on loading
conditions. The p-y curves are softer when lateral load was applied above ground line than
applied at ground line, while commonly used p-y curves do not distinguish loading conditions
(e.g, Reese and Impe 2001). Near ground surface, p-y curves show no apparent difference from
loading conditions, in agreement with traditional p-y curves. FIG. 11 also shows that the initial
slope of the p-y curves is about the same for different depths, different from commonly used ones
(e.g, Reese and Impe 2001). The p-y curve yields at smaller pile displacement near ground
surface. In the two cases, L1 and L2, the p-y curves above half pile diameter depth yielded
completely. From half to two pile diameter depth, the p-y curves yielded first and displayed
dilatance when associated displacement reached 0.015 m. The p-y curves at greater depth did not
fully yield at studied load levels.






16

FIG. 11. p-y curves derived from 3D FEM analysis.
CONCLUTIONS
This study used 3D FEM to laterally loaded piles. A framework is presented using 3D FEM
nonlinear analysis to obtain p-y curves for sand. The following conclusions can be drawn:

1. 3D FEM linear elastic lateral pile analysis is sensitive to lateral domain size; a
boundary 100 times pile diameter from the pile is needed. The bottom boundary is not
critical; 10 times pile diameter from the pile tip is appropriate.
2. When conduction 3D FEM nonlinear analysis, the domain size can be smaller than
linear case; a boundary 25 times pile diameter from the pile is appropriate.
3. At greater depth, p-y curves show somewhat dependence on loading conditions. Near
ground surface, p-y curves show no apparent loading conditions dependence.
4. 3D FEM nonlinear analysis shows that the initial slope of the p-y curves is about the
same for different depths, different from commonly used ones (e.g, Reese and Impe
2001).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center,
under the National Science Foundation Award Number EEC-9701568.






17
REFERENCES
Abedzadeh, F., and Pak, R. Y. S. (2004). "Continuum Mechanics of Lateral soil-pile interaction."
ASCE J Engrg Mech.
Cox, W. R., Reese, L. C., and Grubbs, B. R. (1974). "Field testing of laterally loaded piles in
sand." Proc. 6th Offshore Technology Conference, Paper 2079, Houston, Texas, 459-472.
Davies, T. G., and Budhu, M. (1986). " Non-linear analysis of laterally loaded piles in heavily
overconsolidated clays." Geotechnique, 36(4), 527-538.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., and Parra, E. (2002). "Computational Modeling of Cyclic Mobility and
Post-Liquefaction Site Response." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(4),
259-271.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Parra, E., and Ragheb, A. (2003). "Modeling of Cyclic Mobility in
Saturated Cohesionless Soils." Int. J. Plasticity, 19(6), 883-905.
Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University Press, London.
Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F., and Yasuda, S. (1975). "Undrained Deformation and Liquefaction of
Sand under Cyclic Stresses." Soils and Foundations, 15(1), 29-44.
Lacy, S. (1986). "Numerical Procedures for Nonlinear Transient Analysis of Two-phase Soil
System," Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, NJ.
Parra, E. (1996). "Numerical Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Ground Deformation
Including Cyclic Mobility and Dilation Response in Soil Systems," Ph.D. Thesis,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Parra, E., Adalier, K., Elgamal, A.-W., Zeghal, M., and Ragheb, A. "Analyses and Modeling of
Site Liquefaction Using Centrifuge Tests." Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
Pak, R. Y. S. (2004). personal communication).
Prevost, J. H. (1985). "A Simple Plasticity Theory for Frictional Cohesionless Soils." Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), 9-17.
Reese, L. C., and Impe, W. F. V. (2001). Single piles and pile groups under lateral loading, A. A.
Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, USA.
Yang, Z. (2000). "Numerical Modeling of Earthquake Site Response Including Dilation and
Liquefaction," Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Yang, Z., and Elgamal, A. (2002). "Influence of Permeability on Liquefaction-Induced Shear
Deformation." J. Engineering Mechanics, 128(7), 720-729.
Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E. (2003). "A Computational Model for Cyclic Mobility and
Associated Shear Deformation." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
129(12), 1119-1127.