Article

A Numerical Investigation to Determine the p–y Curves of

Laterally Loaded Piles
Kexin Yin 1,*, Lianghui Li 2,* and Eugenia Di Filippo 1,3

1 Institut de Recherche en Génie Civil et Mécanique (GeM), Ecole Centrale de Nantes, UMR 6183 CNRS, 1 Rue
de la Noë, CEDEX 3, 44321 Nantes, France; eugenia-difilippo@libero.it
2 School of Energy and Mining Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing

100083, China
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti 93-06125

Perugia, Italy
* Correspondence: kexin.yin.research@gmail.com (K.Y.); lilianghui@cumt.cn (L.L.)

Abstract: This paper focuses on a numerical approach to finding the p–y curves for laterally loaded
piles. The Drucker–Prager plastic model is employed and implemented within a finite element
MATLAB code. The pre- and post-processing code for Gmsh and related numerical tools are es-
tablished as well. The p–y curve results from this new approach have been validated and compared
to the typical design equations of API (American Petroleum Institute) and Matlock. The validation
reveals that the code leads to lower p–y curves than the API and Matlock equations when the hor-
izontal displacement is less than 0.35 times the diameter of the pile (B). A sensitivity analysis of the
Citation: Yin, K.; Li, L.; Di Filippo, E. number of elements and the interface thickness is presented. The results indicate that the obtained
A Numerical Investigation to
p–y curves are independent of the two factors. Finally, the influence of clay content on the p–y
Determine the p–y Curves of
behavior is investigated by the implemented MATLAB code. When y < 0.15B, the same lateral
Laterally Loaded Piles.
capacity values are resulted at clay contents of 27.5% and 55%, and they are higher than the ones
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783.
for 0% clay content. The p–y curves show a decreasing trend with increasing clay content after y >
https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212783
0.15B.
Academic Editors: Ioannis K.
Argyros and Clemente Cesarano Keywords: laterally loaded pile; p–y curve; soil-pile interface; Drucker–Prager model

Received: 10 August 2021

Accepted: 29 October 2021
Published: 2 November 2021 1. Introduction
Pile foundation is one of the most commonly used foundation types in complicated
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
site conditions. Piles in port engineering, offshore oil platforms, and wind turbines are
tral with regard to jurisdictional
highly subjected to lateral loads. At the engineering scale, one of the main aspects that we
claims in published maps and insti-
want to focus on is the response of piles when they are subjected to lateral loading. This
tutional affiliations.
problem can be typically investigated by tracing the so-called p–y curves, which repre-
sent the relationship between the lateral displacement (y) and the lateral force (p) for a
generic transversal section of the pile. The p–y approach has been widely employed to
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
design laterally loaded piles [1-6]. The development of computer technology has made it
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. possible to study complicated engineering problems by using numerical methods [4-11].
This article is an open access article It is more flexible and less time consuming to analyze the p–y characteristics by using the
distributed under the terms and finite element method than the full-scale in-situ tests.
conditions of the Creative Commons This paper aims to construct p–y curves that take into account the properties of the
Attribution (CC BY) license interface between the soil and the concrete pile as characterized via the experimental
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses campaign of interface direct shear test in the laboratory. To do this, the Drucker–Prager
/by/4.0/). constitutive model is adopted to describe irreversible (plastic) strains occurring at the
interface between the surrounding soil and the concrete pile. The Drucker–Prager con-
stitutive law is then implemented into a two-dimensional finite element (FE) code within
a MATLAB environment that was initially developed by Bonnet and Frangi [12] and

Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212783 www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 2 of 13

Bonnet et al. [13]. A 2-D problem describing the effect of a transversal displacement ap-
plied to a pile section has been simulated. The resultant transversal force acting on the
pile is found to be a function of the applied displacement. The obtained p–y curves are
validated and compared with those in the literature relative to different design methods.
A sensitivity analysis with respect to the number of elements and the thickness of the
interface is also presented to check whether they affect the p–y results. Finally, since there
is a lack of literature on the p–y response of piles in clay-rich soils, the p–y curves of a
concrete pile in soil with different percentages of clay are provided to see the effect of the
varying amounts of clay present in the soil.

2. p–y method and code development

2.1. p–y method

When a pile is subjected to horizontal loading, the lateral bearing capacity can be
expressed as [14-16]:
pu = N p su B , (1)
where pu is the lateral bearing capacity, N p is the lateral bearing capacity factor, su is
the undrained shear strength of the soil, and B is the pile diameter. The soil shear strength
su depends on soil properties, and N p is related to the failure mechanism of the soil–pile
interface. Equation (1) can be used to normalize the p–y curves in the next section.
The concept of the p–y curve was firstly proposed by McClelland and Focht [17], and
developed by others [18]. The p–y model, also known as the non-linear Winkler spring
model, is commonly used in the design of piles under lateral loading because of its sim-
plicity and low computational cost [5,6,19,20]. In the p–y model, the pile is simplified as a
beam while the soil–pile interface is treated as a set of 1-D, non-linear springs [2,19-22].
As mentioned above, p is the resistance force of the soil per unit of pile length, and y is the
local pile deflection caused by the horizontal loading [14,20,23]. Since the p–y concept
was introduced, several p–y curves were proposed based on different influence factors by
previous researchers. For example, the Matlock p–y curve, API p–y curve, Jeanjean p–y
curve, and Zhang p–y curve [14,16,24,25]. Three typical p–y curves are presented in the
following.
Matlock [16] proposed a p–y curve for a pile located in soft clay as a power rela-
tionship between the lateral resistance and the normalized lateral displacement:
0.33
 y
p = 0.5 pu   (2)
 yc  ,
yc can be computed by:
yc = 2.5ε 50 B , (3)
where ε 50 is the axial strain corresponding to the 50% maximum principal stress dif-
ference in an undrained compression test and B is the diameter of the pile.
Jeanjean et al. [14] proposed a p–y curve function of the initial shear modulus Gmax
and the undrained shear strength of the soil su :
 G  y 0.5 
p = pu tanh  max    . (4)
100 su  B  
The p–y method is also adopted by the American Petroleum Institute (i.e., API) for a
lateral loading pile design. According to API [25], the API p–y relationship is given as:
 kHy 
p = Fpu tanh   , (5)
 Fpu 
where k is the initial modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m3), H is the depth (m), and
F is a factor to account for cyclic or monotonic static loading conditions It can be evalu-
ated by:
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 3 of 13

F = 0.9 for cyclic loading;

 H
F=  3.0 − 0.8  ≥ 0.9 for monotonic loading.
 B
In what follows, a finite element-based p–y curve deduction is presented, capable of
accounting for the plastic behavior of the soil and of the soil–concrete interface. The re-
sults will be compared with the curves from the typical equations.

2.2. Drucker–Prager model

The Drucker–Prager (DP) model [26] for the soil is implemented using the following
MATLAB code, which performs the numerical simulation for calculating the p–y curves.
The DP yield criterion is defined as [27]:
2
f= q − ( A − Bp1 )= 0 , (6)
3
where p1 is the mean normal stress, σ 1 is the major principal stress, σ 2 is the princi-
pal stress, and σ 3 is the minor principal stress. A and B are related to the cohesion c and
friction angle φ in the Mohr–Coulomb (MC) criterion; q is the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress [27]:
1 
(σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + (σ 1 − σ 3 )  .
2 2 2
q= 3 J 2= (7)
2 
As the Drucker–Prager model is represented in the stress plane by a cone with a
circular cross section, it is possible to relate it to the Mohr–Coulomb model considering
the section of the MC pyramid to be inscribed or circumscribed to the DP cone. If the
circle of the DP cone passes through the tensile corners of the MC yield surface (the MC
criterion is inscribed):
2 6c cos ϕ 2 6 sin ϕ
=A = ,B , (8)
3 + sin ϕ 3 + sin ϕ
the cohesion (c) and the friction angle (φ) can be obtained by direct shear tests
[28-34]. If the circle of the DP cone passes through the compression corners of the MC
yield surface (MC criterion is circumscribed):
2 6c cos ϕ 2 6 sin ϕ
=A = ,B . (9)
3 − sin ϕ 3 − sin ϕ
Furthermore, we can assume a plastic potential function of the form [27]:
2
=g q + bp1 , (10)
3
where b is the constant plastic dilatancy parameter. Using a return-mapping algo-
rithm in the stress invariant space, the discrete plastic multiplier is given as:
2 3q tr − ( A − Bp1tr )
∆λ = , (11)
2 µ + KBb
where K and µ are the elastic bulk and shear moduli, respectively.

2.3. MATLAB code

The MATLAB FE code was originally developed by Bonnet and Frangi [12]. Further
improvements have been implemented in GeM (École Centrale de Nantes). The Drucker–
Prager constitutive model has been implemented within the MATLAB FE code that con-
siders the non-associate and associate flow rule. Although the code started from the rel-
atively simple DP model, more complicated constitutive laws can be developed based on
this primary work. The pre- and post-processing phases are performed with the freely
available code Gmsh [35]. The link between the MATLAB FE code and the pre- and
post-processing code for Gmsh, and several specific numerical tools, has been established
as well.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 4 of 13

3. 2-D p–y curve modeling

3.1. Geometry, mesh, and boundary conditions
A 2-D circular geometry of the finite element model is presented in Figure 1. Due to
the symmetry, only half of the domain is considered; the geometry consists of the soil, the
pile, and the soil–pile interface. The pile is a rigid disc with diameter B = 1 m. The soil
boundary at the bottom is made up with two parts in the horizontal direction, each part
having a width W = 11.5B (11.5 m) from the pile surface point; therefore, the radius (the
center of the circle is the pile center) of the largest half circle is H = 12B = 12 m, see Figure
1. The size of the circular domain is chosen to be large enough to avoid parasitic effects of
the lateral boundaries. The outer boundary of the soil is fixed both in the x and y direc-
tions (Figure 1), while the bottom is fixed only in the vertical direction (i.e., y-axis in
Figure 1). A horizontal displacement is applied to the pile section in the x direction in
Figure 1.

Rigid Boundary

Figure 1. The circular geometry and boundary conditions.

The interface thickness in the geometry can be referred to as the typical experimental
value, e.g., 5 ~ 14d50. In previous modeling studies [36,37], it was set as 0.2 of the pile
diameter B. In the following, a sensitivity analysis with respect to the interface thickness
is provided, which ranges from 5 mm (which considers 20d50 the of Fontainebleau sand)
to 5 cm. Constant-strain, three-node triangle elements (T3) are used in the mesh, while
the mesh is refined near the interface (see Figure 2).
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 5 of 13

Figure 2. Example of the mesh with T3 elements: (a) the whole domain and (b) a zoom near the
soil–pile interface zone.

3.2. Initial stress state

This starting numerical study works on a monophasic continuum, so it does not
consider the presence of water, and this is the reason why effective stress is not intro-
duced in the following work. Obviously as there is no water considered, the earth pres-
sure can be expressed by total stresses rather than effective ones. The initial stress is
generated with the K 0 condition according to the following relationship (Figure 3):
σ=
v σ=zz γz
(12)
σ=
n σ=xx σ=yy K 0σ=
zz K 0γ z
in which γ is the unit weight of the soil, z is the depth from the pile section to the
ground surface (Figure 3), and K 0 is the earth pressure coefficient. For the p–y modeling, a
depth of 10 m and K 0 = 0.5 are considered; the initial stress-state parameters are summa-
rized in Table 1.
𝒛 = 10 m

𝜸 = 20 kN/m3

𝝈𝒗 = 𝝈𝒛𝒛
𝝈𝒏 = 𝝈𝒙𝒙 = 𝝈𝒚𝒚

Figure 3. Initial stress state.

Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 6 of 13

Table 1. Initial stress-state parameters.

γ (kN/m3) z (m) K0 (-) σzz (kPa) σxx (kPa)

20 10 0.5 200 100

3.3. Validation
To validate the calculation of the p–y curves, interface test results of soil consisting of
55% clay and concrete plate are selected as input parameters and the corresponding p–y
curves are traced and compared with different design methods (API and Matlock).
A total of 11,390 T3 elements are used, and the interface width is equal to 5 mm. The
properties of the interface, the soil, and the pile are given in Table 2. The concrete pile is
considered a rigid material with a Young’s modulus of 33 GPa (Table 2). The pile is
loaded by stepwise loading (horizontal displacement) with increments of 0.002 m in the
MATLAB code. The lateral capacity (p) of the pile is calculated by integrating the normal
and tangential stresses along the circumference of the pile (or of the soil–pile interface).

Table 2. Parameters for validation that come from soil with 55% clay content.

- Young’s modulus E (kPa) Poisson’s ratio υ (-) Cohesion c (kPa) Friction angle φ (°)
Interface 6000 0.3 3.31 19.33
Soil 6000 0.3 10 21.81
Pile 33×106 0.2 - -

The results are presented in terms of normalized p–y curves (Figure 4) using the
shear strength of the soil and the pile diameter (see also [20] and [37]). More specifically,
in this study, the soil is isotropic normally consolidated and the interface behavior is
characterized by a direct shear test in drained condition, hence the critical drained inter-
face shear strength ( sd ) of the interface and the pile diameter B are used to normalize p so
as to obtain the lateral bearing capacity factor p ( sd B ) , i.e., the Np in Equation (1). The
horizontal displacement is normalized by the pile diameter B.
The p–y curves calculated by the MATLAB code with DP model on the circular
geometry are compared to the ones computed from the API and Matlock equations in
Figure 4. The p–y curves from the DP model are lower than the API curve when the hor-
izontal displacement is less than 0.35B (Figure 4). This indicates that at this horizontal
displacement range (y < 0.35B) a smaller reaction force is mobilized by the DP model than
the API model. The curve from the DP model is higher than that from the API when
horizontal displacement is larger than 0.35B. From 0 to 0.4B, the MATLAB curve presents
a similar shape to the Matlock curve, but with lower normalized p (Figure 4). The two
curves become closer with increasing horizontal displacement. At y = 0.4B, the normal-
ized p from the DP model in the MATLAB code stays between the API and Matlock
values. The normalized p calculated from the MATLAB code is 8.58, which is 0.5 higher
than the one of API (8.08) and 0.4 lower than the one from the Matlock empirical calcu-
lation (8.98), see Figure 4. As the horizontal displacement goes up to 0.45B, the result of
the MATLAB code is equal to, then gradually becomes higher than that of Matlock. Fi-
nally, at 0.6B, the normalized lateral capacity of the MATLAB code is 10.57, which is
104.6% of that of Matlock (10.28).
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 7 of 13

Figure 4. p–y curves from the MATLAB code and the design methods.

In the MATLAB code, p is calculated by integrating the normal and tangential

stresses along the circumference of the pile or the soil–pile interface. The two results are
compared in Figure 5, which reveals that the p–y curves are the same before 0.4B and
have a small difference (1.38 ~ 2.23%) at 0.4 ~ 0.6B.

Figure 5. p–y curves integrating the stresses along the pile and the soil–pile interface.

Even if the p–y curve obtained from the MATLAB code presents a shape which is not
identical to those from the API and Matlock empirical equations, the normalized hori-
zontal reaction force does not exceed the empirical values when y < 0.35B, then it is
characterized with smaller difference to the Matlock curve up until y/B = 0.6. Further-
more, the validation procedure reveals that in engineering design, the DP model leads to
lower p–y curves than the API and Matlock equations at y < 0.35B (Figure 4). However, at
horizontal displacement larger than 0.35B, the MATLAB code generates lateral reaction
force that is close to that of the Matlock formulation. The integrated results from the pile
and soil–pile interface are the same. Both confirm that the p–y curves from the MATLAB
code are reliable and consistent with the Matlock design method.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 8 of 13

4. Sensitivity analysis
4.1. Number of elements
In order to check the spatial discretization, the influence of the number of elements
is studied hereafter. The circular geometry with a 5 mm interface thickness is used for the
FE number sensitivity analysis. More specifically 3600, 6300, and 11,000 T3 elements are
considered. The input parameters of the simulations are listed in Table 2.
The normalized p–y curves are similar when the number of elements is 3600, 6300,
and 11,000, see Figure 6. At 0.4B horizontal displacement, the normalized p values rank
as 8.71, 8.69, and 8.58 for the three element numbers studied (3600, 6300, and 11,000). The
p–y curves are fitted and presented in Table 3, indicating that no significant difference
exists for the three element numbers. From a coarse mesh with 3600 elements to a dense
mesh with 11,000 elements, the final normalized p (at 40% of y/B) decreases by a small
percentage of 1.57%. Considering the necessary computational time, the element number
for the p–y modeling can be chosen as 6000 ~ 10,000, to insure both effective calculation
and enough elements on the interface zone.

Figure 6. Influence of the number of elements.

Table 3. Fitting formulations of the p–y curves for different numbers of elements.

Element number (-) Fitting formulation R2

2
p  y  y
3600 −0.0058   + 0.4337  
= 0.9524
sd B B
  B
2
p  y  y
6300 −0.0058   + 0.4335  
= 0.9520
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
11,000 −0.0058   + 0.4280  
= 0.9510
sd B B B

4.2. Interface thickness

To check the influence of the interface thickness on the numerical results, the fol-
lowing different interface-thickness values are considered: 5 mm, 7 mm, 1 cm, 2.5 cm, 5
cm, and 10 cm. The input parameters of the simulations are listed in Table 2.
Figure 7 presents the effect of interface thickness on the soil reaction curves. All the
p–y curves are independent of the interface thickness at the horizontal displacement
considered 0 ~ 0.4B (Figure 7). From 5 mm to 10 cm interface width, the resulting nor-
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 9 of 13

malized p–y curves have a close shape and almost the same value of the lateral bearing
capacity factor at y = 0.4B: 8.58, 8.69, 8.55, 8.75, 8.81, and 8.67. The difference between the
final normalized p of the six curves from the MATLAB code is 0.02 ~ 0.26. These values
are higher than the one calculated by the API method (8.08) and lower than the one cal-
culated by the Matlock equation (8.98), as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Influence of the interface thickness.

The obtained p–y curves are therefore independent of the interface thickness, from
thickness ranges from 5 mm to 10 cm. This is also confirmed by the fitting formulations of
the p–y curves as presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Fitting formulations of the p–y curves for different interface thickness.

Interface thickness Fitting formulation R2

2
p  y  y
5 mm −0.0058   + 0.4280  
= 0.9510
sd B B
  B
2
p  y  y
7 mm −0.0058   + 0.4338  
= 0.9525
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
1 cm −0.0056   + 0.4227  
= 0.9508
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
2.5 cm −0.0059   + 0.4393  
= 0.9360
sd B B
  B
2
p  y  y
5 cm −0.0057   + 0.4335  
= 0.9528
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
10 cm −0.0058   + 0.4316  
= 0.9481
sd B B B

In the following, a circular mesh with 6000 T3 elements and an interface thickness of
5 mm is considered. This thickness also corresponds to the experimental laboratory re-
sults.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 10 of 13

5. Effect of clay fraction on p–y curves

The adhesion and friction angles from the interface direct shear results are used as
input parameters for the p–y modeling to investigate how the clay fraction affects the
curves. The influence of the clay content on the p–y behavior of pile with lateral loading is
presented and discussed below.

sd

Table 5. Parameters of the interface.

Young’s modulus E
Clay fraction (%) Poisson’s ratio υ (-) Cohesion c (kPa) Friction angle δ (°)
(kPa)
0 8000 0.3 0 26.40
27.5 7500 0.3 2.22 22.91
55 6000 0.3 3.31 19.33

Table 6. Parameters of the soil.

Young’s modulus E
Clay fraction (%) Poisson’s ratio υ (-) Cohesion c (kPa) Friction angle φ (°)
(kPa)
0 8000 0.3 0 34.11
27.5 7500 0.3 2.22 25
55 6000 0.3 10 21.81

The effect of clay content in the soil on the p–y curves is illustrated in Figure 8 and
the reformulated functions are provided in Table 7. The curves show non-linearity
shapes due to the non-linearity characteristics of the soil–pile interface. The overall
shapes of the p–y curves in Figure 8 do not exhibit a strong asymptotic behavior in the
horizontal displacement range considered (0 ~ 40 cm), which agrees with the results
calculated using the Mohr–Coulomb model in [2] and [36]. When y < 0.15B, the same
lateral capacity values are resulted at clay contents of 27.5% and 55%, and they are higher
than the curve of the sand (Figure 8), but the differences are not significant. At the 0.15B,
the p is about 5.22 for the three clay contents presented. To conclude, clay content has
nearly no effect on the p–y results when y is smaller than 0.15B.

p ( sd B )
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 11 of 13

Figure 8. p–y curves as a function of clay content.

Table 7. Fitting formulations of the p–y curves at different clay contents.

Clay content (%) Fitting formulation R2

2
p  y  y
0 −0.0042   + 0.4109  
= 0.9839
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
27.5 −0.0053   + 0.4249  
= 0.9668
sd B B B
2
p  y  y
55 −0.0058   + 0.4280  
= 0.9510
sd B B
  B

6. Conclusions
This paper focuses on a numerical approach to finding the p–y curves for laterally
loaded piles. The Drucker–Prager plastic model has been employed and the approach has
been validated and compared to the API and Matlock design equations. A sensitivity
analysis in terms of the number of elements and interface thickness has been presented.
Finally, the influence of the clay content on the p–y behavior is presented and discussed.
The main conclusions of this paper are summarized as follows:
1. The p–y results agree with the empirical results of Matlock. The validation reveals
that the DP model leads to lower p–y curves with respect to those from Matlock and
API when the horizontal displacement is less than 0.35B.
2. The number of elements has no important effect on the p–y curves. Considering the
necessary computational time, the p–y modeling with the MATLAB code is effective
when 6000 ~ 10,000 elements are adopted for the spatial discretization.
3. The p–y curves are independent of interface thicknesses from 5 mm to 10 cm.
4. Clay content influences the p–y curve results. When y < 0.15B, the same lateral ca-
pacity values are resulted at clay contents of 27.5% and 55%, and they are higher
than the curve of the sand. The normalized p–y curves show a decreasing trend with
increasing clay content after y > 0.15B.
The primary results in this paper shed light on the relationship between p–y curves
and interface parameters. However, the FE modeling of p–y curves in this study is per-
formed by an implemented code using only the DP model, and the input parameters
concern just three clay contents. Therefore, further numerical studies should involve
more advanced constitutive laws, water, 3-D conditions, and the possibility to have gaps
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 12 of 13

between the pile and the soil. A new function relating the lateral capacity and the hori-
zontal displacement, as well as the clay content, should be proposed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, data curation, writing–original draft

preparation, K.Y.; formal analysis, K.Y.; writing–review and editing, K.Y., L.L., and E.D.F. All au-
thors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: Thanks for the editors’ work and reviewers’ comments.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, Y.; Andersen, K.H.; Jeanjean, P. Cyclic py curves in clays for offshore structures. In Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 6–9 May 2019.
2. Wolf, T.K.; Rasmussen, K.L.; Hansen, M.; Ibsen, L.; Roesen, H. Assessment of Py Curves from Numerical Methods for a Non-Slender
Monopile in Cohesionless Soil; Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.
3. Dash, S.; Rouholamin, M.; Lombardi, D.; Bhattacharya, S. A practical method for construction of py curves for liquefiable soils.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 97, 478–481.
4. Liu, X.; Cai, G.; Liu, L.; Liu, S.; Duan, W.; Puppala, A.J. Improved py curve models for large diameter and super-long
cast-in-place piles using piezocone penetration test data. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 130, 103911.
5. Yang, Z.; Jeremić, B. Numerical analysis of pile behaviour under lateral loads in layered elastic-plastic soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 2002, 26, 1385–1406.
6. Yang, Z.; Jeremić, B. Study of soil layering effects on lateral loading behavior of piles. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2005,
131, 762–770.
7. Wang, S.-F.; Tang, Y.; Wang, S.-Y. Influence of brittleness and confining stress on rock cuttability based on rock indentation
tests. J. Cent. South Univ. 2021, 28, 2786–2800.
8. Yu, Q.; Yin, K.; Ma, J.; Shimada, H. Vertical Shaft Support Improvement Studies by Strata Grouting at Aquifer Zone. Adv. Civ.
Eng. 2018, 2018, 5365987.
9. Wang, J.; Yang, S.; Wei, W.; Zhang, J.; Song, Z. Drawing mechanisms for top coal in longwall top coal caving (LTCC): A
review of two decades of literature. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2021, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-021-00453-1.
10. Mikkelsen, A.T.; Nielsen, S.D.; Østergaard, M.U. Finite Element Modelling of p-y curves for Monopiles in Liquefied Soil. In
Proceedings of the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 16–21 June 2019.
11. Wang, S.-F.; Yu, T.; Li, X.-B.; Kun, D. Analyses and predictions of rock cuttabilities under different confining stresses and rock
properties based on rock indentation tests by conical pick. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2021, 31, 1766–1783.
12. Bonnet, M.; Frangi, A. Analyse des structures mécaniques par la méthode des éléments finis. In Notes de Cours, Ecole
Polytechnique; 2005.
13. Bonnet, M.; Frangi, A.; Rey, C. The Finite Element Method in Solid Mechanics; McGraw Hill Education: New York, NY, USA,
2014; p. 365..
14. Jeanjean, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zakeri, A.; Andersen, K.; Gilbert, R.; Senanayake, A. A framework for monotonic py curves in clays. In
Proceedings of the Offshore Site Investigation Geotechnics 8th International Conference Proceeding, London, UK, 12–14
September 2017; pp. 108–141.
15. Martin, C.; Randolph, M. Upper-bound analysis of lateral pile capacity in cohesive soil. Géotechnique 2006, 56, 141–145.
16. Matlock, H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology in Civil
Engineering’s Hall of Fame Papers from the Early Years, Houston, TX, USA, 1 April 1970, pp. 77–94.
17. McClelland, B.; Focht, J. Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1956, 82, 1081-1.
18. Yang, M.; Ge, B.; Li, W.; Zhu, B. Dimension effect on py model used for design of laterally loaded piles. Procedia Eng. 2016, 143,
598–606.
19. Nogami, T.; Otani, J.; Konagai, K.; Chen, H.-L. Nonlinear soil-pile interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. J. Geotech. Eng.
1992, 118, 89–106.
20. Ahayan, S. A constitutive Model for natural Clays: From Laboratory Testing to Modelling of Offshore Monopiles. École centrale de
Nantes; Université de Liège, Faculté des Sciences: Liège, Belgium, 2019.
21. Sјrensen, S.P.H.; Brјdbцk, K.T.; Mјller, M.; Augustesen, A.H. Review of Laterally Loaded Mono-Piles Employed as the Foundation for
Offshore Wind Turbines; Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2012.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 2783 13 of 13

22. Ahayan, S.; Cerfontaine, B.; Collin, F.; Kotronis, P. Behaviour of laterally loaded pile. In Proceedings of the 9th European
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, NUMGE 2018, Porto, Portugal, 25–27 June 2018; pp. 1511–
1518.
23. Suryasentana, S.K.; Lehane, B.M. Numerical derivation of CPT-based p-y curves for piles in sand. Géotechnique 2014, 64, 186–
194.
24. Zhang, Y.; Andersen, K.H. Scaling of lateral pile py response in clay from laboratory stress-strain curves. Mar. Struct. 2017, 53,
124–135.
25. API. American petroleum institute recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms-working stress design. In API RP2A-WSD; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
26. Drucker, D.C.; Prager, W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q. Appl. Math. 1952, 10, 157–165.
27. Borja, R.I. Plasticity: Modeling & Computation; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
28. Yin, K.; Liu, J.; Lin, J.; Vasilescu, A.-R.; Othmani, K.; Di Filippo, E. Interface Direct Shear Tests on JEZ-1 Mars Regolith
Simulant. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7052.
29. Vasilescu, A.-R. Design and Execution of Energy Piles: Validation by In-Situ and Laboratory Experiments. Ph.D. Theis, École
Centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France, 2019.
30. Dafalla, M.A. Effects of clay and moisture content on direct shear tests for clay-sand mixtures. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2013, 2013,
562726.
31. Maghsoodi, S. Thermo-Mechanical Behavior of Soil-Structure Interface under Monotonic and Cyclic Loads in the Context of
Energy Geostructures. Ph.D. Theis, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France, 2020.
32. Maghsoodi, S.; Cuisinier, O.; Masrouri, F. Effect of Temperature on the Cyclic Behavior of Clay-Structure Interface. J. Geotech.
Geoenvironmental Eng. 2020, 146, 04020103.
33. Konkol, J.; Mikina, K. Some Aspects of Shear Behavior of Soft Soil–Concrete Interfaces and Its Consequences in Pile Shaft
Friction Modeling. Materials 2021, 14, 2578.
34. Yin, K.; Liu, J.; Vasilescu, A.-R.; Di Filippo, E.; Othmani, K. A Procedure to Prepare Sand–Clay Mixture Samples for Soil–
Structure Interface Direct Shear Tests. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5337.
35. Geuzaine, C.; Remacle, J.F. Gmsh: A 3-D finite element mesh generator with built-in pre-and post-processing facilities. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 2009, 79, 1309–1331.
36. Østergaard, M.U.; Knudsen, B.S.; Ibsen, L.B. P-y curves for bucket foundations in sand using finite element modeling. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Internationl symposium on Frontiers in offshore Geotechnics, Oslo, Norway, 10–12 June 2015; pp. 343–
348.
37. Vethanayagam, V.; Ibsen, L.B. Determination of py Curves for Bucket Foundations in Silt and Sand Using Finite Element Modelling;
Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2017.