Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2018, Article ID 5493579, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5493579

Research Article
Numerical Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles Affected by
Bedrock Depth

Younggyun Choi,1 Janghwan Kim ,2 and Heejung Youn 3

1
Yooshin Engineering Corporation, 8, Yeoksam-ro 4-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06252, Republic of Korea
2
Civil Design Team, Daelim Industrial Corp., Ltd., Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Hongik University, Seoul 04066, Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to Heejung Youn; [email protected]

Received 30 April 2018; Accepted 27 August 2018; Published 26 September 2018

Academic Editor: Yinshan Tang

Copyright © 2018 Younggyun Choi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

This study investigates the lateral behavior of pile foundations socketed into bedrocks using 3D finite difference analysis. The
lateral load-displacement curve, pile deflection, and bending moment distribution were obtained for different bedrock depths
between 3 and 20 m. It was discovered that bedrocks that have a depth of 7 m (7D) or less influence the lateral behavior of the pile.
The p-y curves were collected at depths of 2.0–4.5 m, and the effect of the bedrock on the curves was evaluated. It was observed that
the p-y curves were significantly affected by the material properties of the bedrock if the rock is located in close proximity (within
3D), but the effect is diminished if the p-y curves were 3.5 m (3.5D) or farther from the bedrock.

1. Introduction et al. [4], stiff clay without free water by Reese and Welch [5],
and submerged sand by Reese et al. [6]. The p-y curves for
The subgrade reaction method was developed by the sand developed by Reese et al. [6] were modified into
Winkler assumption [1], where the soil resistance per unit a simpler equation that yielded better estimation by
length, p, is assumed to be proportional to the pile deflection, Murchison and O’Neill [7]. The curve of Murchison and
y, at a certain point. The linear relationship between p and y O’Neill was later adopted by the American Petroleum In-
does not represent the nonlinear characteristics of the soil. stitute [8] for the design of offshore platforms.
To address this phenomenon, the nonlinear p-y method was There are limited analytical researches available for
introduced by McClelland and Focht [2]. Since the in- evaluating the lateral response of piles socketed into rocks.
troduction of this method, the p-y curves are typically used Carter and Kulhawy [9] investigated the lateral behavior of
to indicate the nonlinear springs representing lateral soil drilled shafts (flexible and rigid type) socketed into rocks
resistance and deflection along the pile. In conventional using finite element methods. Closed-form equations were
designs, the soil supporting the pile can be replaced with a set proposed considering factors such as loading conditions,
of nonlinear springs, and the pile is assumed to behave as material properties, and rock mass stiffness. Zhang et al. [10]
a beam supported by nonlinear springs. The p-y method is proposed a nonlinear continuum method to predict the
widely accepted for evaluating the lateral behavior of piles lateral response of drilled shafts, in which the ultimate re-
due to its simplicity. Numerous researchers have proposed sistance of a rock mass was calculated based on the
different p-y curves with considerations for soil types, Hoek–Brown failure criterion. To et al. [11] believed the p-y
loading type (static or cyclic), and water conditions (satu- curves are inappropriate for estimating the behavior of
rated or unsaturated soil). In the early stages of p-y curve jointed rock masses as the curves consider soil as a con-
development, the p-y curve for submerged soft clay was tinuum. Thus, they proposed a discontinuum model based
developed by Matlock [3], stiff clay with free water by Reese on rock mass with two or three joint sets. Recently, the
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

elastoplastic continuum method was proposed considering in rocks [35, 36]. p-y curves for weakly cemented soils to well
the variation in the flexural rigidity of drilled shafts in cemented soils were proposed by Guo [36]. Full lateral load
multilayers of soil and rock masses [12]. tests were performed on drilled shafts in weak calcareous
Numerical simulations have been performed extensively sandstones, and centrifuge model tests were performed for
to account for anisotropic and discontinuous characteristics preinstalled piles in very weakly cemented sands. Parsons
of rock medium [13–18]. The three-dimensional distinct et al. [37] introduced a case history of full-scale cyclic lateral
element method was adopted using 3DEC to simulate the load tests on two drilled shafts rock-socketed in limestone.
jointed rock mass under lateral loading, and p-y curves were The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of
proposed for mudstone [13–15]. It was discovered that the bedrock depth on the lateral behavior of piles socketed into
number of joints significantly affects the lateral response of bedrocks. Due to the significant difference in material
piles in rock masses. Liang and Shatnawi [16] performed stiffness and strength between soils and bedrocks, the soil-
a series of finite element analyses, presented charts for the pile interaction near the boundary between the soil and rock
initial modulus of subgrade reaction for transversely iso- is very complex to understand. Conventional p-y curves of
tropic rock media, and recommended using five elastic soils can be created from the material properties of the soils,
constants for estimating the initial modulus of subgrade not from the nearby bedrocks. However, the p-y curves of
reactions. Comparisons were made on the lateral behavior of soils are likely to be considerably affected by the material
drilled shafts in the rock medium for isotropic properties properties of the rock if the rock is located in close prox-
following the Hoek–Brown criterion and for transverse imity, implying that the p-y curves obtained near the bed-
isotropic rock properties [17]. Shantnawi [19] expanded the rock would cause the overestimation of the ultimate soil
p-y criteria considering the anisotropic behavior as well as resistance and the modulus of the subgrade reaction, which
discontinuous joint sets in rock masses. is misleading. The three-dimensional finite difference
The p-y curves for rocks are very difficult to obtain and method was adopted to derive the p-y curves of soils
validate through experiments because the full-scale tests on overlying rocks, while the variations in the ultimate soil
rocks are costly and because it is difficult for the rock to fail resistance and the initial modulus of the subgrade reaction at
within the available capacity of the loading system. Indeed, varying distances from the rock were obtained.
the number of full-scale tests on drilled shafts in rocks was
very limited [20, 21]. The complete form of p-y curves for 2. Numerical Modeling
weak rocks had not been available until that reported by
Reese [22]. He proposed p-y curves based on the results of Figure 1 illustrates the numerical model along with the
the two load tests on coral limestone conducted by Nyman stratigraphy, pile dimension, socket depth into bedrock,
[21]. Reese [22] commented that the proposed p-y curves in locations where the p-y curves were collected, variable for
weak rock should be used with caution due to the limited the parametric study, 3D model in FLAC3D, and boundary
number of test results. Gabr et al. [23] proposed hyperbolic conditions. As shown in Figure 1(a), the pile is socketed 3 m
p-y curves for weak rocks based on their field test results on into bedrock that is underlain by sand with a thickness of H.
small-diameter drilled shafts. The curves require two pa- The pile head at the ground level was laterally pushed over,
rameters: ultimate resistance and initial modulus of the and the p-y curves were collected every 0.5 m from 2.0 to
subgrade reaction. However, their curve was criticized as 4.5 m from the ground surface. The distance from the lo-
basing their estimation of the initial modulus of subgrade cations of the p-y curves to the bedrock (Xpy) varied with
reaction in the study of Vesic [24] that is inappropriate for varying thicknesses of the sand layer (H). For example, when
piles socketed into rocks [25]. Numerous other researches H is 5 m, the distances, Xpy, are 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and
indicate the inappropriateness of conventional p-y curves for 3.0 m. For the same thickness, H, the p-y curves of sand at an
different types of rock medium [26–28]. p-y curves for the identical depth would differ due to the influence of varying
Ohio shale was proposed using the results of field lateral load bedrock depths.
test on drilled shafts with a diameter of 1.8 m socketed into The simulated pile was 1 m in diameter and 20 mm in
shale [29]. According to the test results, the p-y curves of thickness and embedded 3 m into the bedrock layer. The
weak rocks [22] were found to underestimate the pile de- length of the simulated pile varied from 6 to 23 m, and the
flection. The same research group developed p-y curves for pile was created as a so-called “wish-in place” pile. The side
rock and intermediate geomaterials using in situ pressure boundary was located 10 m from the center of the pile and
meter tests [30] and p-y curves for transverse isotropic rock fixed in the x and y directions against translation. In ad-
[31, 32]. Cho et al. [26] conducted six field tests on drilled dition, the bottom boundary was 7 m below the pile tip and
shafts, proposed p-y curves for soft weathered rock, and fixed in three directions against translation. The pile head
concluded that the Reese p-y curves [22] overestimate the was laterally pushed over with a velocity of 10−6 mm per step
resistance. Conversely, the stiff clay model [5] un- up to 500 mm in the lateral direction. The applied lateral
derestimates the resistance for the same pile deflection. displacement was far greater than 38 mm that is considered
Liang et al. [33, 34] recommended hyperbolic p-y curves for the serviceability limit in lateral [38]. This is because the
rock masses using numerical simulations, where the curve 38 mm displacement did not induce sufficient pile deflection
was validated through two full-scale load tests on drilled to generate the p-y curves. The lateral displacement, lateral
shafts with a diameter of 1.3 m. Recently, centrifuge model load, and moment profiles were obtained and used to cal-
tests were employed to simulate large-diameter drilled shafts culate the soil resistance per unit length, p, through the
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

Lateral load
Pile
Locations of p-y curves
(2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, and 4.5 m
Soil from ground surface)

H: depth to bedrock
Bedrock

Xpy
Xpy: distance from
bedrock to p-y
curves
Soil
z
y x
Bedrock

3m
(a) Rock socketed
20 m

1m
10 m

y t: 20 mm

x
(b) (c)

FIGURE 1: Numerical model of rock socketed pile: (a) FLAC3D model, (b) plan view with boundary conditions, and (c) elevation view.

double integration of the bending moment profile and the Table 1: Material properties used in the FLAC3D.
pile deflection, y, by taking the second derivative of the c′ Su E
moment profile. Model ϕ (°) υ
(kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa)
Table 1 shows the material input parameters used in the Pile Elastic 68 n/a n/a 210,000 0.300
numerical study. The sand and bedrock were modeled using M–C
the Mohr–Coulomb model, but the model for the bedrock Sand 9 35.9 0 42 0.300
model
was reduced to the Tresca model because the internal friction M–C
angle was set to zero. The friction angle of the sand was 35.9° Bedrock 16 0 27.6 22,300 0.287
model
while the elastic modulus was 42.0 MPa. A cohesion of
27.6 MPa was assigned to the bedrock with zero friction
angle. The elastic modulus of sand was assumed to be
constant along the depth for simplification. This may reduce were used. The shear and normal stiffnesses of the interface
the lateral displacement of the pile near the ground surface. element were set to ten times the equivalent stiffness of the
The pile was assumed to have linear elastic behavior with an surrounding soil as recommended in the FLAC3D manual
elastic modulus of 210 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. Be- [39].
cause the pile was modeled as a solid instead of tabular pile, In numerical simulations, the numerical results should
the elastic modulus of the pile was back-calculated by not be affected by the mesh size, boundary condition, or
matching the flexural rigidity (EI). The input value for the interface element of the pile-soil interaction. The load-
elastic modulus was 31.64 GPa, resulting in an identical displacement curves at the pile head were collected to
flexural rigidity of 1,550 MN·m4. evaluate the effect of these factors. Figure 2 illustrates the
The slip and separate only model was adopted to sim- effect of mesh size on the numerical results. The lateral load-
ulate the pile-soil interaction; the interface element of the displacement curves were obtained for different mesh sizes:
model was characterized by the Coulomb friction model in 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, 2.00, and 4.00 m. More lateral load was
the shear direction and by tensile strength in the normal required to displace the pile head for larger mesh sizes, and
direction. In the Coulomb friction model, the shear re- the required load drastically dropped as the mesh size de-
sistance linearly increases up to the maximum side shear creased. Figure 2(b) shows the variation in the lateral load
with increasing shear displacement, and after the maximum for a 38 mm pile displacement, indicating that the effect of
shear, the shear resistance remains constant against further mesh size appears to be negligible when the mesh size is less
displacement. For the Coulomb input parameters, the than 0.25 m. Therefore, a mesh size of 0.25 m was used in the
friction angle and the cohesion of the surrounding materials numerical models.
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

6000 6000
s: mesh size
5000 5000

4000 4000
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4 3 2 1 0
Displacement at pile head (cm) Mesh size (m)
s = 4.00 m s = 0.50 m
s = 2.00 m s = 0.25 m
s = 1.00 m s = 0.10 m
(a) (b)

Figure 2: Effect of mesh size on (a) the load-displacement curves at pile head and (b) the required lateral load for a lateral displacement of
38 mm.

The boundary should be located sufficiently far from the 1000

pile so that the stress transferred from the laterally loaded pile
to the soil should not reach the boundary. Figure 3 shows the 800
load-displacement curves for four cases used to evaluate the
effect of boundary conditions on the numerical results. The
Lateral load (kN)

boundaries were located 5 to 20 m away from the center of the 600

pile in the x direction. The boundary in the x direction plays
a key role because the pile was displaced in the x direction. It 400
was found that the lateral load-displacement curve did not
significantly differ when the boundary was placed 10 m or
farther in the x direction. Thus, the boundaries were created at 200
10 times the pile diameter (10D) away from the center of the
pile in both the x and y directions.
0
The stiffness of the interface element (Ei) simulating the 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
pile-soil interaction was determined by the stiffness of the Displacement at pile head (cm)
surrounding soils (Es). Figure 4 illustrates the effect of the x = 10D, y = 10D x = 20D, y = 5D
stiffness of the interface element on the lateral response of x = 20D, y = 10D x = 5D, y = 10D
the pile. The stiffness was varied from 1 to 20 times that of
the surrounding soils, and the obtained load-displacement Figure 3: Effect of boundary condition on the load-displacement
curve.
curves indicate that the stiffness of the interface
element does not affect the numerical results if the stiffness
cause material failure. The assumption was made because the
was set to 5 times the stiffness of the surrounding soil or
study focuses on the soil response, not on the material
higher. Thus, the value of 10 times the stiffness of the
failure. The effect of the bedrock gradually fades away and
surrounding soil recommended in the FLAC3D manual
appears to be nonexistent when the bedrock depth is 10 m or
was used [39].
greater.
The same observation was made in the pile deflection
3. Results and Discussions and bending moment profiles, as shown in Figure 6. The pile
deflection was strongly confined by the surrounding bedrock
A total of six numerical simulations were conducted with at depths of 7 m or shallower, but no meaningful difference
varying bedrock depths of 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 m. Figure 5 was noticed at greater depths. The maximum bending
presents the lateral load-displacement curves for the six moment occurred near the bedrock when it was at a shallow
simulations, showing that a bedrock depth of 3 m results in depth, but the bending moment profiles for bedrock depths
dramatic increase in the lateral capacity of the pile. It should of 10 m or greater appeared to be identical. From the de-
be noted that the pile was assumed to be linear elastic with flection and bending moment profiles, it could be concluded
no failure, but in reality, the calculated lateral capacity could that the bedrock had no effect at depths of 10 m or greater.
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

1000 Lateral deflection (cm)

0 1 2 3 4
0
800

5
Lateral load (kN)

600

Depth from seabed (m)

10
400

15
200

20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement at pile head (cm)
25
Ei = 1Es Ei = 10Es
H = 3m H = 10 m
Ei = 5Es Ei = 15Es
H = 5m H = 15 m
Figure 4: Effect of stiffness of the interface element on the lateral H = 7m H = 20 m
load-displacement curves. (a)
Bending moment (kN m)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
6000

5000 5
Depth from seabed (m)

4000
Lateral load (kN)

10

3000
15
2000

20
1000

0 25
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement at pile head (cm) H = 3m H = 10m
H = 5m H = 15m
H = 3m H = 10 m H = 7m H = 20m
H = 5m H = 15 m
H = 7m H = 20 m (b)

Figure 5: Effect of bedrock depth on the lateral load-displacement Figure 6: Effect of bedrock depth on the (a) pile deflection and (b)
curve at the pile head. bending moment profiles.

Figure 7 shows the variation in the required lateral load

and the maximum bending moment when the pile head was soil resistance per unit length, p, was calculated differently.
displaced by 38 mm. The lateral load was about 4,800 kN for Figure 8 shows the stresses at the pile-soil interface. The
a bedrock depth of 3 m, dropping to about 820 kN at a depth x-directional (horizontal) component of the normal stress
of 10 m, and then remaining constant at greater depths. The (σ x,i) and shear stress (τ x,i) at interface node i was calculated
maximum bending moment was also greatest for a bedrock using Equation (1), and the lateral soil resistance, p, was
depth of 3 m, drastically declined to a depth of 10 m, and calculated by summing all pi at the desired elevation. The
remained constant at depths below 10 m. detailed process for calculating the p-y curves can be found
The lateral soil resistance per unit length, p, can be in previous researches [40, 41]
calculated by dividing the sum of the lateral forces applied to σ i cos θ + τ i sin θ􏼁Ai
the entire interface nodes per unit length along the pile, pi � , (1)
Li
while the lateral displacement, y, can be obtained from the
nodal displacements. The available FISH language in where pi is the lateral soil resistance at the interface node i, σ i
FLAC3D was used to calculate the p-y curves, but the lateral is the normal stress at the interface node i, τ i is the shear
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

6000 6000

Maximum bending moment (kN m)

5000 5000

4000 4000
Lateral load (kN)

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Bedrock depth (m) Bedrock depth (m)
(a) (b)

Figure 7: Effect of bedrock depth on (a) the required lateral load and (b) the maximum bending moment for a pile head displacement of
38 mm.

y finding implies that the p-y curves obtained near the bedrock
(as close as 3D (3.0 m)) do not properly represent the soil
response. In fact, the obtained curves in such area over-
Interface node i predict the stiffness (i.e., modulus of the subgrade reaction)
of the p-y curves compared to those not affected by the
σi bedrock. The stiffer behavior of the soil near the bedrock is
likely due to the higher strength and stiffness of the bed-
Lateral load rock; the elastic modulus of the bedrock is 500 times that of
the soil or higher. The contribution of the bedrock stiffness
θ τi becomes greater as the obtained p-y curves gets closer to the
x bedrock. The soil resistance did not reach the ultimate value
for those p-y curves (Figures 9(e) and 9(f )), but it is likely to
Pile Soil increase near the bedrock. Figure 9 also indicates that the p-
y curves obtained at bedrock depths of 10 m or greater can
be assumed to have the similar lateral pile response re-
Figure 8: Normal stress and shear stress at the interface node. gardless of the presence of the bedrock. This finding is
consistent with the facts that can be inferred from
Figures 5–7.
stress at the interface node i, Ai is the representative area of
the interface node i, and Li is the pile length between two
neighboring interface nodes along the pile.
4. Conclusions
Figure 9 shows the p-y curves for sandy soil at six ele- In this study, the effect of bedrock depth on the lateral
vations from the ground surface: 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and behavior of piles was investigated using 3D finite difference
4.5 m. The relatively shallow depths ranging from 2.0 to analysis. The variations in pile deflection profiles as well as
4.5 m were selected because the soil response near the bending moment distributions for various bedrock depths
ground surface is the most important factor affecting the were discussed. The ultimate soil resistance and stiffness in
lateral behavior of piles. At depths of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 m, the obtained p-y curves were compared for various bedrock
the p-y curves at the same elevation agree well with each depths. The following conclusions can be drawn:
other irrespective of the bedrock depth (H). In other words,
the lateral soil response at a bedrock depth of 5 m is not (1) The effect of the bedrock gradually diminished with
different from that at a bedrock depth of 20 m. Conversely, increasing bedrock depth and eventually dis-
as the location of the p-y curves gets closer to the bedrock, appeared at bedrock depths of 10 m (10D) or greater.
the p-y curves at the similar depths become significantly A lateral load of 821 kN was required to displace the
different. The p-y curves at a depth of 4.0 m displayed much pile head by 38 mm for piles not affected by the
stiffer moduli of subgrade reaction when the bedrock depths bedrock, while a load of 4,803 kN was required at
were 5.0 and 7.0 m (i.e., 1.0 and 3.0 m to bedrock) than those a bedrock depth of 3 m (3D).
of other depths (i.e., distance to bedrock greater than 6.0 m). (2) The maximum bending moment occurred near the
Similar behavior was observed at a depth of 4.5 m. This bedrock appearance for a bedrock depth of 7 m (7D)
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

450 600
400
500
350
Soil resistance, p (kN/m)

Soil resistance, p (kN/m)

300 400
250
300
200
150 200
100
100
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacemet, y (cm) Displacemet, y (cm)
H = 5m H = 15 m H = 5m H = 15 m
H = 7m H = 20 m H = 7m H = 20 m
H = 10 m H = 10 m
(a) (b)
800 900

700 800
700
Soil resistance, p (kN/m)
Soil resistance, p (kN/m)

600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacemet, y (cm) Displacemet, y (cm)
H = 5m H = 15 m H = 5m H = 15 m
H = 7m H = 20 m H = 7m H = 20 m
H = 10 m H = 10 m
(c) (d)
1000 1200

1000
800
Soil resistance, p (kN/m)
Soil resistance, p (kN/m)

800
600
600
400
400

200
200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacemet, y (cm) Displacemet, y (cm)
H = 5m H = 15 m H = 5m H = 15 m
H = 7m H = 20 m H = 7m H = 20 m
H = 10m H = 10 m
(e) (f )

Figure 9: p-y curves of sands at depths of (a) 2.0 m, (b) 2.5 m, (c) 3.0 m, (d) 3.5 m, (e) 4.0 m, and (f ) 4.5 m with different bedrock depths.
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

or less but occurred at a depth of about 4.5 m (4.5D) [9] J. P. Carter and F. H. Kulhawy, “Analysis of laterally loaded
for greater bedrock depths. In the simulations, shafts in rock,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 118,
bedrock depths of 10 m (10D) or greater showed no. 6, pp. 839–855, 1992.
similar pile deflection and bending moment profiles [10] L. Zhang, H. Ernst, and H. H. Einstein, “Nonlinear analysis of
along the pile, indicating that the effect of bedrock laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts,” Journal of Geotechnical
depth becomes negligible at greater depths. and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 126, no. 11,
pp. 955–968, 2000.
(3) It was found that the p-y curves near the bedrock [11] A. C. To, H. Ernst, and H. H. Einstein, “Lateral load capacity of
were strongly influenced by the material properties drilled shafts in jointed rock,” Journal of Geotechnical and
of the bedrock; there were significant increases in the Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 129, no. 8, pp. 711–726,
ultimate soil resistance per unit length and in the 2003.
stiffness (modulus of subgrade reaction). In other [12] J.-J. Chen, F.-Y. Zeng, J.-H. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Analysis of
words, the p-y curves obtained near the bedrock laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts considering the non-
(within 3D) do not properly represent the soil re- linear behavior of both the soil/rock mass and the shaft,”
sponse, and the modulus of the subgrade reaction Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
and the ultimate soil resistance may be vol. 143, no. 3, article 06016025, 2016.
overestimated. [13] W. Chong, A. Haque, P. Ranjith, and A. Shahinuzzaman,
“Numerical modelling of laboratory behaviour of single lat-
erally loaded piles socketed into jointed rocks,” in Proceedings
Data Availability of 9th International Conference of Analysis of Discontinuous
The numerical simulation data used to support the findings Deformation, pp. 413–420, Nanyang Technological Univer-
of this study are included within the article. sity, Singapore, 2009.
[14] W. Chong, A. Haque, P. Ranjith, and A. Shahinuzzaman,
“Effect of joints on p–y behaviour of laterally loaded piles
Conflicts of Interest socketed into mudstone,” International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 372–379, 2011.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[15] W. Chong, A. Haque, P. Ranjith, and A. Shahinuzzaman,
“3DEC modelling of p-y behaviour of laterally loaded
Acknowledgments piles in jointed rock,” in Proceedings of 12th ISRM Congress,
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
This work was partially supported by the National Research
neering, Beijing, China, 2011.
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Sci- [16] R. Y. Liang and E. S. Shatnawi, “Estimating subgrade reaction
ence, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2016R1C1B2013478) modulus for transversely isotropic rock medium,” Journal of
and by 2018 Hongik University Research Fund. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 136,
no. 8, pp. 1077–1085, 2009.
References [17] K. Yang, E. Shatnawi, and R. Y. Liang, “Characterizing lateral
soil-structure interaction of drilled shaft in rock,” in In-
[1] E. Winkler, Die lehre von der elastizität und festigkeit (The strumentation, Testing, and Modeling of Soil and Rock
Theory of Elasticity and Stiffness), Dominicus, Prague, Czech
Behavior, pp. 225–232, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Republic, 1867.
Reston, VI, USA, 2011.
[2] B. McClelland and J. A. Focht, “Soil modulus for laterally
[18] J.-J. Chen, J.-H. Wang, X. Ke, and D.-S. Jeng, “Behavior of large-
loaded piles,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil
diameter rock-socketed piles under lateral loads,” International
Engineers, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 1049–1063, 1958.
Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011.
[3] H. Matlock, “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles
[19] E. S. Shatnawi, Development of p-y criterion for anisotropic
in soft clay,” Offshore Technology in Civil Engineering’s Hall of
rock and cohesive intermediate geomaterials, Ph.D. thesis,
Fame Papers from the Early Years, vol. 1, pp. 577–594, 1970.
[4] L. C. Reese, W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop, “Field testing and University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA, 2008.
analysis of laterally loaded piles om stiff clay,” in Proceedings [20] J. Frantzen and F. W. Stratton, p-y Curve Data for Laterally
of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, May Loaded Piles in Shale and Sandstone, Kansas Department of
1976. Transportation, Topeka, KS, USA, 1987.
[5] L. C. Reese and R. C. Welch, “Lateral loading of deep [21] K. J. Nyman, Field load tests of instrumented drilled shafts in
foundations in stiff clay,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo- coral limestone, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
environmental Engineering, vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 633–649, 1975. Austin, TX, USA, 1980.
[6] L. C. Reese, W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop, “Analysis of laterally [22] L. C. Reese, “Analysis of laterally loaded piles in weak rock,”
loaded piles in sand,” in Proceedings of Offshore Technology in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering,
Civil Engineering: Hall of Fame Papers from the Early Years, vol. 123, no. 11, pp. 1010–1017, 1997.
pp. 473–483, Houston, TX, USA, November 1974. [23] M. A. Gabr, R. H. Borden, K. H. Cho, S. C. Clark, and
[7] J. M. Murchison and M. W. O’Neill, “Evaluation of p-y re- J. B. Nixon, p-y Curves for Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts
lationships in cohesionless soils,” in Analysis and Design of Embedded in Weathered Rock, North Carolina Department of
Pile Foundations, pp. 174–191, ASCE, Reston, VI, USA, 1984. Transportation, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2002.
[8] API RP-2A, “Recommended practice for planning, designing [24] A. B. Vesic, “Beams on elastic subgrade and the Winkler’s
and constructing fixed offshore platforms-LRFD,” in API RP- hypothesis,” in Proceedings of 5th International Conference on
2A-LRFD, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 845–
USA, 1993. 850, Paris, July 1961.
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

[25] K. Yang, Analysis of laterally loaded drilled shafts in rock, Ph.

D. thesis, University of Akron, Arkon, OH, USA, 2006.
[26] K. H. Cho, M. A. Gabr, S. Clark, and R. H. Borden, “Field p-y
curves in weathered rock,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 753–764, 2007.
[27] K. Cho, S. Clark, B. Keaney, M. Gabr, and R. Borden, “Lat-
erally loaded drilled shafts embedded in soft rock,” Trans-
portation Research Record, no. 1772, pp. 3–11, 2001.
[28] T. T. Vu, “Laterally loaded rock-socketed drilled shafts,” M.S.
thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA, 2006.
[29] K. Yang, R. Liang, and S. Liu, “Analysis and test of rock-
socketed drilled shafts under lateral loads,” in Proceedings of
Alaska Rocks 2005, The 40th US Symposium on Rock Me-
chanics (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics Association,
Anchorage, AK, USA, June 2005.
[30] K. Yang, R. Y. Liang, and J. Nusairat, “p-y curves for rock and
intermediate geomaterials using pressuremeter tests,” in Art
of Foundation Engineering Practice, pp. 717–732, ASCE, West
Palm Beach, FL, USA, 2010.
[31] A. A. Sharo, Pressuremeter applications in laterally loaded
drilled shaft socketed into transversely isotropic rock, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Akron, Arkon, OH, USA, 2009.
[32] R. Y. Liang and A. Sharo, “Numerical investigation of the
pressuremeter results affected by anisotropy of geomaterials,”
in GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design,
pp. 1090–1099, ASCE, Reston, VI, USA, 2010.
[33] R. Liang, K. Yang, and J. Nusairat, “p-y criterion for rock
mass,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 26–36, 2009.
[34] R. Liang, K. Yang, and J. Nusairat, “Closure to “p-y criterion
for rock mass”,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 274-275, 2009.
[35] H. Xing, Z. Zhang, M. Meng, Y. Luo, and G. Ye, “Centrifuge
tests of superlarge-diameter rock-socketed piles and their
bearing characteristics,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 19,
no. 6, article 04014010, 2014.
[36] F. Guo, Lateral response of single piles in cemented sand and
weak rock, Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil, Environmental and
Mining Engineering, University of Western Australia, Perth,
Australia, 2015.
[37] R. Parsons, M. Pierson, I. Willems, J. Han, and J. Brennan,
“Lateral resistance of short rock sockets in weak rock: case
history,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2212, pp. 34–41,
2011.
[38] AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
[39] Itasca, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions,
Version 4.0, vol. 438, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,
MN, USA, 2009.
[40] S. Kanagasabai, Three dimensional numerical modelling of
rows of discrete piles used to stabilise large landslides, Ph.D.
thesis, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment,
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 2010.
[41] S.-H. Lee, S.-R. Kim, J.-H. Lee, and M.-K. Chung, “Evaluation
of p-y curves of piles in soft deposits by 3-dimensional nu-
merical analysis,” Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society,
vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 47–57, 2011.
 Copyright © 2018 Younggyun Choi et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest
Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms
of the License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/