Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
DOI 10.1007/s10706-006-9110-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Single piles under horizontal loads in sand: determination
of P–Y curves from the prebored pressuremeter test
Ali Bouafia
Received: 11 June 2005 / Accepted: 20 September 2006 / Published online: 27 October 2006

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006
Abstract Lateral load-deflection behaviour of
single piles is often analysed in practice on the
basis of methods of load-transfer P–Y curves.
The paper is aimed at presenting the results of
the interpretation of five full-scale horizontal
loading tests of single instrumented piles in two
sandy soils, in order to define the parameters of
P–Y curves, namely the initial lateral reaction
modulus and the lateral soil resistance, in correla-
tion with the pressuremeter test parameters. P–Y
curve parameters were found varying as a power of
lateral pile/soil stiffness, on the basis of which
hyperbolic P–Y curves in sand were proposed. The
predictive capabilities of the proposed P–Y curves
were assessed by predicting the soil/pile response
in full-scale tests as well as in centrifuge tests and a
very good agreement was found between the
computed deflections and bending moments, and
the measured ones. Small-sized database of full-
scale pile loading tests in sand was built and a
comparative study of some commonly used P–Y
curve methods was undertaken. Moreover, it was
shown that the load-deflection curves of these test
piles may be normalised in a practical form for an
approximate evaluation of pile deflection in a
preliminary stage of pile design. At last, a
A. Bouafia (&)
Department of civil engineering, University of Blida,
P.O. Box 270, R. P Blida 09000, Algeria
e-mail: bouafia1@yahoo.fr
parametric study undertaken on the basis of the
proposed P–Y curves showed the significant influ-
ence of the lateral pile/soil stiffness on the non-
linear load-deflection response.
Keywords Lateral loading test Æ Lateral reaction
modulus Æ P–Y curves Æ Pressuremeter test Æ Sand Æ
Single pile
List of symbols and units
B diameter or frontal width of the pile (m)
D embedded length of the pile (m)
De effective pile length (m)
E elastic soil modulus (MPa)
e excentricity of lateral load (m)
Ec characteristic soil modulus (MPa)
Em first load pressuremeter modulus (MPa)
Er reload pressuremeter modulus (MPa)
Eti initial lateral reaction modulus (MPa)
EpIp flexural pile stiffness (MN m2)
F tangential lateral reaction (kN/m)
Fl limit tangential lateral reaction or
tangential lateral resistance (kN/m)
Gr pressuremeter shear modulus (Gr = Er/
[2(1 + m)]) (MPa)
H lateral load applied on the pile top (kN)
Id density index (%)
K pile/soil compressibility
Kr lateral pile/soil stiffness
L tangential dimension of the pile section
(parallel to H) (m)
123
284 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

L0 transfer length or elastic length (m) foundations were besides horizontally loaded,
M bending moment at a given depth (kN m) inclined piles, often difficult to achieve were to
M0 bending moment applied to the pile top be added. Due to the progress done in the
(kN m) knowledge of piles foundation behaviour, it is
NH rate of increase of Eti with depth in nowadays recognised that vertical piles can sus-
Gibson’s soil (MPa/m) tain horizontal loads. Earth pressures on a bridge
Nspt N value of the SPT (blow counts/30 cm) abutment piles, lateral displacement of soft clayey
P lateral soil reaction at a given depth layer underlying an access embankment to a
(kN/m) motorway and wind pressures on slender struc-
Pu lateral soil resistance or limit lateral tures built on piles are usual examples of hori-
reaction (kN/m) zontal loading of piles. Behaviour of piles under
pf pressuremeter creep pressure (kPa) horizontal loads is a complex soil/pile interaction
pl limit pressuremeter pressure (kPa) problem because of the tridimensional nature of
p* net limit pressuremeter pressure (kPa) the phenomenon and its dependence on a multi-
P
le net equivalent limit pressuremeter tude of key parameters. This fertile domain of
pressure (kPa) research was investigated since more than a half
p0 at-rest lateral earth pressure (kPa) century.
Q frontal lateral reaction (kN/m) Geotechnical literature contains a wealth of
qc cone penetration resistance (MPa) methods of analysis mainly based on elasticity,
qs limit skin friction along the pile shaft finite/boundary elements or on subgrade reaction
(kPa) theory. However, It should be emphasised that
R least-squares regression coefficient (%) the theoretical approaches offer simplistic
R0 initial radius of pressuremeter borehole schemes of soil/pile response and therefore do
(m) not take into consideration many pile/soil inter-
DR increase in PMT borehole radius (mm) action parameters such as the pile installation, the
Sf , S t shape factors soil/pile interface roughness and the soil com-
Y lateral displacement or deflection at a pressibility. Furthermore, some particular aspects
given depth (mm) of the problem of laterally loaded piles such as
Y0 pile deflection at ground level (mm) the proximity of a slope, the group effects, and
Yref. reference deflection or threshold of lateral piles undergoing lateral soil movement are diffi-
soil resistance Pu(mm) cult to be analysed by theoretical methods.
z depth with respect to the ground level (m) Experimental research may then be considered
zc critical depth (m) as the most adapted way to investigate such a
k rate of linear increase of Em with depth in problem. The last four decades were marked by a
Gibson’s soil (MPa/m) considerable progress in the understanding of the
l rate of linear increase of P
l with depth in response of a pile to bending forces by means of
Gibson’s soil (kPa/m) several experimental studies in full-scale as well
g lateral resistance factor as in centrifuge.
m Poisson’s ratio Prior to the development of numerical meth-
w ratio Eti to Em ods in geotechnical engineering, piles were usu-
n ratio Pu to P
L B ally designed by evaluating the deflections under
working loads on the basis of small displacement
methods such as the elasticity. Subgrade reaction
theory was also used for the linear analysis of pile
deflection by modelling the pile as a beam on
1 Introduction elastic foundations. These approaches were
adapted for simple pile/soil configuration and do
Pile foundations were initially designed in order not account for the soil properties heterogeneity
to transmit vertical loads to the soil. When these and the non-linear lateral response of the pile/soil

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301 285

system. Moreover, foundations of some structures Kr. Based on these relationships, hyperbolic
working under severe lateral loading conditions functions were proposed to describe P–Y curves.
are designed on the basis of limit equilibrium Validation process was undertaken by comput-
methods. These latter ones are based on approx- ing the tests piles used to derive such a method as
imate mechanisms of soil resistance derived from well as other test piles in sandy soils. Comparative
the lateral earth pressures theory (Bouafia 1990, study showed the good prediction capability of
1998; Bouafia et al. 1991). the proposed soil/pile stiffness dependant P–Y
It is nowadays recognised that the design curve methods compared to the current
methods based on P–Y curves are the most approaches based on the PMT test.
reliable to the analysis of the behaviour of
laterally loaded single piles with possibility of
taking account of the non-homogeneity of soil
2 Brief review of the methods of construction
properties as well as of the material non linearity
of P–Y curves
in lateral pile/soil response. Soil/pile interface is
modelled by infinity of non-linear springs in
To the knowledge of the author, the first study on
which the soil reaction P at a given depth is
the basis of P–Y curves was due to Reese and
undertaken by the spring for a lateral pile
Matlock (1977) by introducing the concept of the
displacement Y.
lateral reaction modulus previously defined by
Full-scale tests on instrumented piles are often
Winkler (1867). The first generation of P–Y
used to investigate the soil/pile response in the
curves was bilinear describing an elastic plastic
light of load-transfer theory. P–Y curves are
behaviour at the pile/soil interface.
derived from bending moment profiles measured
The in-situ tests such as the PMT become
by strain gauges along the pile. However, a few
usual tools for pile foundations analysis and
full-scale tests on instrumented piles in sand
design. The PMT test provides an experimental
were reported in the literature with successful
stress–strain curve describing the borehole
derivation of P–Y curves from double differen-
response under radial loads. Some similitude
tiation and integration of the bending moment
exists between the expansion of the PMT beor-
profile. The main difficulty in deriving these
ehole and the mobilisation of the frontal lateral
curves is due to the high sensitivity of the lateral
reaction of the soil around a pile (Ménard et al.
soil reaction P to the experimental conditions as
1969).
well as to the method of fitting and differenti-
Geotechnical literature contains a diversity of
ation of bending moments (Bouafia and Garnier
methods for deriving P–Y curves from PMT
1991).
parameters, namely the PMT deformation mod-
This paper is aimed at presenting the results of
ulus Em and the limit PMT pressure pl. For
an extensive analysis of full-scale horizontal piles
brevity, only the commonly used methods will be
loading tests in quite homogeneous sandy soils.
presented hereafter.
Test piles were well instrumented, and P–Y
curves were derived from the interpretation of
bending moment distribution along the experi- 2.1 Method of Ménard et al. (1969)
mental pile. The experimental results presented
herein are part of an important research pro- This method was initially suggested by Ménard
gramme carried out by the LCPC (Laboratoire et al. (1969), and then improved by Gambin
Central des Ponts & Chaussées, France) during (1979). As illustrated in Fig. 1, the curve 1 is tri-
more than three decades. linear shaped. The first portion has a slope equal
It was shown the existence of fundamental to the initial lateral reaction modulus Eti, the
relationships between the P and Y curves param- second one has a slope equal to the Eti/2 and the
eters namely the lateral soil modulus and the third one corresponds to the lateral soil resistance
lateral soil resistance, the parameters of pressure- taken equal to net limit pressure multiplied by the
meter test (PMT) and the lateral pile/soil stiffness diameter (or the frontal width) B.

123
286
Pu=Pl .B.ξ(Kr)
*
Pl .B
P (kN/m)
* Eti /2
Pf .B
Eti=Em.ψ (Kr)
Eti
ref. ref.
Y3 Y2
Fig. 1 Schematisation of some typical P–Y curves
Lateral reaction modulus Eti was evaluated by
Menard et al. (1969) on the basis of the formula
of settlement of strip foundation, by considering
the pile as a infinitely long rigid foundation whose
settlement is horizontal and equal to the pile
deflection Y. Modulus Eti was derived as a
function of Em, B and a as follows:
Eti 18
¼ for B  B0 ¼ 0:60 m
Em 4ð2:65Þa þ 3a
Eti 18B
¼ for
Em 4B0 ð2:65 BB Þa þ 3Ba
0 (MELT 1993)
a is a rheological factor called ‘‘coefficient of soil
structure’’ depending on the nature of the soil and
its compressibility. It is equal to 1/3 for loose and
medium dense sands and 1/2 for very dense sands.
For small diameter piles (B £ 0.60 m) ratio Eti/
Em ranges between 2.24 and 2.75.
Pressuremeter parameters defining the P–Y
curves above a critical depth zc, should be
reduced to take into consideration a reduction
in soil resistance due to soil heave and a probable
reduction in soil confinement (Baguelin et al.
1978; Briaud 1986). According to Ménard (1971),
the critical depth zc is equal to 4 diameters in
granular soils and to 2 diameters in cohesive soils
(Frank and Jézéquel 1989).
It should be emphasised that the model of
lateral reaction proposed by Ménard (1971) is
limited to a rigid pile section and therefore
neglects the effects of the pile flexural rigidity.
Moreover, analogy assumed by Ménard (1971)
between the pile and an infinitely long beam leads
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
*
to neglect the effect of the slenderness ratio D/B
3 of the pile, D being the embedded length of the
1 pile.
Evidences from full-scale lateral loading tests
showed that in the same site the response of piles
characterised by different pile/soil stiffnesses Kr
2
could not be characterised by a unique lateral
1: Ménard at al reaction modulus (Bouafia 1990, 1997, 2002a).
2: Fascicule-62 Tests on instrumented pile models in centrifuge
3: Proposed P-Y
showed rather a variation of the modulus Eti as a
ref.
Y1 Y (mm) power of Kr (Bouafia 2002b).
Many investigators have confirmed from the
analysis of full-scale pile loading tests that this
method is rather pessimistic in predicting small
deflections behaviour (Frank 1984; Briaud 1986;
Baguelin and Jézéquel 1972; Baguelin et al. 1990)
and optimistic in the domain of large deflections
(Baguelin et al. 1990; Bouafia and Bouguerra
1995, 1996).
According to this method, for a small diameter
pile (B < 0.60 m) the deflection noted Yref. in
Fig. 1, beyond which the lateral reaction reaches
the soil resistance ranges between 5 and 10% of
ð1Þ
the diameter whatever the pile/soil stiffness.
B[B0 ð2Þ 2.2 Method of the French code Fascicule-62
The previous method was integrated in the French
geotechnical code with reduction of the lateral soil
resistance to the net creep pressure pf* multiplied
by B, as illustrated by curve 2 in Fig. 1. This
adaptation was dictated by the necessity to obtain
conservative prediction of the pile response at
large deflections (Baguelin et al. 1978).
For non-circular pile section, in addition to the
lateral reaction defined by curve 2 in Fig. 1,
tangential lateral reaction F is mobilised along the
tangential sides. Lateral tangential F–Y curve is
defined as a bilinear curve. The first linear portion
has a slope equal to that of P–Y curve and the
second one is horizontal and represents the
tangential lateral resistance Fl given by
Fl ¼ 2qs ðL  BÞ ð3Þ
qs is the limit skin friction equal to that mobilised
under vertical loads and L is the tangential
dimension of the pile section. The overall P–Y
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
curve is the superposition of the two lateral
reaction curves.
2.3 Method of Dunand (1981)
This method is based on a bi-linear P–Y curve as
illustrated by curve 2 in Fig. 1. Lateral reaction
modulus was correlated to Em on the basis of an
elastic method whereas the limit lateral reaction
is equal to plB. The concept of critical depth is
introduced as in the previous methods. According
to the author, this method is recommended to the
design of drilled piers supporting transmission
line structures.
2.4 Method of Briaud et al. (1985)
The total lateral reaction P to the deflection Y at
a given depth is the sum of the frontal reaction Q
and the tangential reaction F. As a result, the P–Y
is the addition of the Q–Y curve and the F–Y
curve. Carayannacon et al. (1979) showed by
finite element analysis that the contribution of
the tangential reaction increases with slenderness
of the pile section.
The main assumption in this method is that
radial displacements of a PMT borehole and the
pile deflections are homothetic. Q–Y is directly
built from the expansion curve of the PMT test as
follows:
Q ¼ Sf p
B ð4Þ
BDR
Y¼ ð5Þ
2R0
The shape factor Sf is equal to 1 for square
piles and to p/4 for circular section. R0 and DR are
respectively the initial PMT borehole radius and
the increase in borehole radius under the net
pressure p*.
F–Y curves have a bilinear shape composed of
an initial portion with a slope equal to 2Gr, Gr
being the PMT shear modulus, and a horizontal
asymptote equal to the limit frontal reaction Fl as
follows:
F l ¼ St qs B ð6Þ
287
The shape factor St is equal to 2 for square piles
and to 1 for circular pile section. Limit skin
friction qs slightly differs from the one mobilised
along the pile shaft under vertical loads and then
may be evaluated with usual bearing capacity
formulae (Smith 1987).
According to the authors, the assessment of
this method with respect to the experimental
evidence of 27 pile loading tests carried out in a
variety of piles and soils showed a good predictive
capability of pile deflections (Briaud 1986).
2.5 Method of Baguelin et al. (1978)
In this method, based on the self-boring pres-
suremeter test (SBPMT), the total P–Y curve is
constructed point by point from the experimental
PMT expansion curve as follows:
F ¼ g p
B ð7Þ
BDV
Y¼ ð8Þ
4V0
V0 and DV are respectively the initial PMT
borehole volume and the increase in borehole
volume under the net pressure p* g is called
lateral resistance factor taking into account the
surface effect and varies form 0.33 to 3 (Baguelin
1982).
2.6 Method of Robertson et al. (1984)
P–Y curve is constructed for a bored pile from a
prebored PMT or a self-boring PMT, and for a
driven pile from a pushed-in PMT test. Formulae
5 and 7 should be used with factor g equal for
sandy soils to 0 at surface and increasing linearly
with depth to 1.5 at the critical depth and below.
The critical depth was estimated to 4 diameters
(Robertson et al. 1985).
Atukoralla and Byrne (1984) analysed by finite
element modelling the lateral displacements of a
rigid disk within an elastic plastic material as well
as those due the cylindrical cavity expansion
within the same material. It was shown that the
ratio of lateral pressures surrounding the disk to
those around the PMT cavity varies between 1.4
and 1.7 with an average value of 1.50, which is in
123
288
accordance with the factor g of this method.
However, results of this study do not account for
the tridimensional response of the pile under
lateral loads.
As summarised in Table 1, the ratio of lateral
soil resistance Pu to PlB proposed by the methods
mentioned above ranges in a wide margin betw-
een 0.3 and 3, which shows some uncertainty in
predicting the soil resistance. As an alternative,
the Experimental analysis of instrumented test
piles will be used in the next section to evaluate
the lateral soil resistance.
3 Presentation of full-scale tests in sand
3.1 Sites and geotechnical conditions
The first site, noted S1, is located in Châtenay-sur-
Seine, 70 km south east of Paris (France). A big
pit whose volume is 424 m3 was previously dug to
a depth of 3.20 m in a chalky soil. It was
waterproofed by plastic sheets, and then filled in
by Fontainebleau sand into two medium dense
layers. The underlying layer is 1.40 m thick with a
density index Id = 37% whereas the upper layer
has a thickness of 1.80 m and Id = 57%. Fon-
tainebleau sand is poorly graded sand. In-situ
tests, notably PMT (Ménard pre-bored pressure-
meter test), CPT (static cone resistance test) and
DPT (dynamic penetration test) were carried out
and typical profiles are shown in Fig. 2.
The second site, noted S2, is located in Le-Rheu,
5 km south west of Rennes (France). The soil is
composed of reddish poorly graded clean sand of
marine origin from the Pliocene era. Ground
water table was found at 10 m of depth. The sand
above water table has average water content of
Table 1 Comparison of theoretical ratios Pu/plB
Method Pu/plB Remarks
Ménard et al. (1969) 1.00
Fascicule-62 0.50 Usual correlation
pf  pl/2
Dunand (1981) 1.00
Briaud et al. (1982) 0.83 Bored pile in sand
Baguelin et al. (1977) 0.3–3.0
Robertson et al. (1984, 1985) 1.50 Beyond 4B
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
8% corresponding to a saturation degree of 31%.
It was possible to recover some samples with a
150 mm diameter auger sampler up to 4.0 m of
depth. The density index Id measured according
to ASTM standard is 66%. Profiles of PMT, CPT
and DPT tests are illustrated in Fig. 3.
3.2 Test piles
Test piles are steel pipes instrumented by strain
gauges distributed by pairs along two diametri-
cally opposite axes. Table 2 summarises the
main geometrical and mechanical characteristics
of the piles. Three tubes, noted T5, T10 and T15
were tested in site S1 and two piles P1 and P2
tested in site S2. The slenderness ratio (embed-
ded length D/diameter B) varies between 5.5
and 15.3.
Piles in site S1 are externally instrumented by
seven pairs of strain gauges irregularly distributed
along two diametrically opposite axes and pro-
tected by an adhesive papers of aluminium.
Figure 4 illustrates a general view of piles in site
S1 with the scheme of loading device. Each pile in
this site was connected at its tip by a 90 jacking
cone in order to facilitate the jacking process into
soil. As shown in Fig. 4, the cone has same
diameter as that of the pile. Each pile was jacked
by means of a hydraulic jack in contact with a
reaction beam (Canepa et al. 1987).
Piles P1 and P2 in site S2 are instrumented by
20 and 22 pairs of strain gauges, respectively.
These latter are externally placed along the pile
P1 and protected by steel valley for each axis. For
pile P2, they are internally stuck along two axes
along the pile. For both the piles strain gauges are
regularly spaced of 25 cm and the first one
corresponds to the ground surface. Each pile
was placed into a borehole previously made by a
helical drilling engine 6 m high. Some irregularity
in diameter of borehole within 5 cm was noticed.
It was likely due to a default of verticality of
drilling axis (Jézéquel 1988). Each pile in site S1
was filled in with bentonite-cement grout. The
diameter of pile was directly measured at surface
as well as estimated from the volumes of steel and
bentonite-cement. Uniaxial compression tests of
bentonite samples have given a Young’s modulus
of 3,500 MPa at 28 days.
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
Fig. 2 Typical profiles of
in-situ tests in site S1
3.3 Other experimental devices
Horizontal load was applied at 1 m and 0.07 m
above the ground surface in sites S2 and S1
respectively. It was given by a hydraulic jack in
contact with a concrete block of reaction and
measured by a high precision electric load cell.
Top deflections were measured in site S1 by
two pairs of LVDT located above the axis of
lateral loading of pile. In site S2, measurement
was made by an LVDT located at load level as
well as manually by a distance-meter (invar wire)
with a precision of 1/10 mm.
Rotation was measured by an inclinometer
located at piles top in site S1, whereas it was
measured along the piles in site S2 by means of
electro-levels BRE with a precision of 1/100 mRad.
One pipe access was fixed at the central axis of pile
P1 and two ones were internally fixed at two
diametrically opposite axes into pile P2. Each pipe
access allows the installation of an inclinometer or
the electro-levels BRE every 50 cm depth.
289
Figure 5 shows the experimental configuration
for piles P1 and P2.
4 Programme of tests
Each pile was subjected to a series of static
horizontal loads at pile head. Each load incre-
ment was maintained 15 min in site S1 and 2 h in
site S2. Some troubles in the hydraulic jack
performance in site S2 led to carry out a series
of three loading-unloading sequences for pile P2
and 2 ones for pile P1. Response of strain gauges
above or at ground surface were used to check to
actual load applied to the pile.
5 Analysis of P–Y curves
5.1 Methodology
Measurement of the axial deformation by strain
gauges along the pile allows the determination of
123
290 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

Fig. 3 Typical profiles of

in-situ tests in site S2

bending moments curve for a given load at pile were used to fit the bending moment distribution.
top. Two successive integrations of this curve lead The fitting function was chosen according to the
to easily determine lateral displacement Y along criterion of static equilibrium of the test pile under
the pile. Moreover, two successive differentia- lateral reaction profile P(z) and the loads on the
tions of this curve allow the determination of pile top within a given tolerance (Bouafia and
horizontal soil reaction P and then to define P–Y
curve at any depth.
Since the soil reaction geometrically represents
the curvature of bending moment distribution, it is
therefore very sensitive to any fluctuation of
bending moment at a given depth and strongly
depends on the choice of the fitting curve of
bending moment (Bouafia 1990; King 1994).
Quintic spline functions or polynomial functions

Table 2 Characteristics of test piles

Site Pile B (m) D/B EpIp(kN m2)

S1 T5 0.050 14.2 59.74

T10 0.100 15.3 868.9
T15 0.150 15.3 4,331.6
S2 P1 0.500 10.0 56,370
P2 0.900 5.50 743,600
Fig. 4 General view of test pile in site S1

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
Fig. 5 General view of piles P1 and P2 in site S2
Garnier 1991). This criterion was subsequently
adopted in other studies in LCPC (Mezazigh 1995;
Remaud 1999).
5.2 Interpretation of results
Figure 6 illustrates an example of P–Y curves
obtained according to this methodology. It can be
seen that P–Y curves at different depths are non-
linear shaped with an increase in soil stiffness
with depth. It is to be noticed that deflections and
soil reaction change in sign at almost the same
depth, say 10 diameters, which is in accordance
with Winkler’s hypothesis regarding the soil
reaction modulus (Bouafia 1998). Furthermore,
it can be seen that beyond a deflection of about
3% of B, limit lateral reaction is reached with
exhibition avec asymptotic values in the P–Y
curves along the pile.
The procedure of construction of P–Y curves
was validated by back-computation of all the test
piles. P–Y curves were introduced in the P–Y
curve based computer program single pile under
lateral loads (SPULL) developed in the university
of Blida. As shown in Fig. 7, computed deflec-
tions were found in very good agreement with the
experimental results. It is possible to accurately
describe the lateral load-deflection of the test
piles by means of these experimental P–Y curves.
5.3 Lateral reaction modulus
Hyperbolic formulation is often used to describe
the elastic plastic constitutive laws of soils (Dun-
can and Chang 1970) as well as the P–Y curves
291
(Reese 1971; Garassino 1976; Georgiadis et al.
1992). Experimental P–Y curves were fitted by
the following hyperbolic function:
Y
P¼ 1
ð9Þ
Eti þ PYu
Least squares regression coefficient was found
greater than 95% for curves corresponding to
depths above the zero displacement depth.
Beyond this depth values of Eti seem to be
inaccurate, since P and Y become small and the
ratio P/Y has no significance regarding the
uncertainties due to experiments as well as to
the procedure of interpretation of bending
moment curves.
For all the piles, the modulus Eti varies
linearly with depth. This fact is in accordance
with the distribution of soil modulus in homo-
geneous granular soils called Gibson’s soils.
Figure 8 shows a typical profile, which may be
described by
Eti ¼ N H Z ð10Þ
5.4 Influence of lateral pile/soil stiffness
on P–Y curves
It has been already stated that the influence of
lateral pile/soil stiffness on the P–Y curves was
not accounted for by the current methods. Most
of these methods simply correlate the parameters
of P–Y curves to those measured in PMT test.
Lateral pile/stiffness may be defined as follows:
123
292 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

Fig. 6 Typical P–Y Pile P1 site Le-Rheu B=0.5 m D/B=10 Ep.Ip=56.37 MN.m
2

curves for pile P1

200
Z/B= 0.5
150 = 1.0
= 1.5
100
= 2.0
50 = 2.5

Lateral reaction P (kN/m)

= 3.0
0 = 3.5
= 4.0
-50
= 4.5
-100 = 5.0
= 5.5
-150 = 6.0
-200 = 6.5
= 7.0
-250 = 7.5
= 8.0
-300
= 8.5
-350 = 9.0
= 9.5
-400 = 10.
-450
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Deflection Y (mm)

E p Ip was studied for all the P–Y curves constructed. It

Kr ¼ ð11Þ
Ec D4 wad found that the average values of w vary as a
power of Kr as illustrated in Fig. 9. It is to be
where Ec is a characteristic soil modulus
noticed that pile P2 whose slenderness ratio D/B
evaluated as an average value of PMT modulus
is equal to 5.5 should be considered rather as a
along the pile
pier. The proposed correlation is valid only for
long pile with D/B greater than 10 and may be
ZD computed as follows:
1
Ec ¼ Em dz ð12Þ
D
0 Eti ðzÞ ¼ Em ðzÞw ¼ Em ðzÞ  0:28  Kr0:55 ð14Þ
The ratio
Within the interval 10–3 – 10–2 of pile/soil
stiffness studied, ratio w ranges between 3 and 9,
Eti
w¼ ð13Þ whereas Ménard et al. (1969) recommended 2.75.
Em
According to Eq. 11, lateral reaction modulus

Fig. 7 Comparison of
40
computed and measured Pile T15 measured
deflections in site S1 35 computed from
P-Y curves
Lateral load (kN)

30

25
Pile T10
20

15

10
Pile T5
5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Top deflection (mm)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301 293

pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pu ¼ 3P
L B Kr ð16Þ

Accordingly, lateral soil resistance around a rigid

pile is greater that around a flexible pile. Accord-
ing to Eq. 12, Pu increases with the square root of
the stiffness EpIp and decreases with the embed-
ded length. For the test piles, n ranges between
0.1 and 0.3, which is less than the recommended
values of Table 1.
In case of a solid circular pile, Eqs. 14 and 16
lead to the following simplified formulae

Eti 5 1
 ðD=BÞ2 pffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
Em 4 K
pffiffiffiffi
Pu 2 K
¼ ð18Þ
p
L B 3 ðD=BÞ2

where K = Ep/Ec is the pile/soil compressibility.

Fig. 8 Typical lateral reaction modulus profile
approximately decreases with the square root of
the flexural pile stiffness and decreases with the
embedded length. Such dependence was not taken
account by the method of Ménard et al. (1969)
and Fascicule-62.
Moreover, limit lateral reaction Pu was corre-
lated to the net limit pressure by defining the ratio
Pu
n¼
p
l B
Figure 10 shows that for all the test piles with D/B
‡ 10, n increases as a power of Kr:
These formulae show the important influence of
the slenderness ratio D/B on the parameters of
P–Y curve.
Curve 3 in Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed
hyperbolic P–Y curve. The reference displace-
ment Yref. corresponds to the intercept of the
initial linear portion with a slope equal to Eti, and
the horizontal asymptote corresponding to the
lateral resistance PuYref. is therefore defined as
the threshold of large lateral deflections of the
pile section and of full mobilisation of the lateral
ð15Þ soil resistance according to the elastic plastic
scheme of P–Y curve. Based on Eqs. 14 and 16,
ratio yref./B is simply expressed by the following
function of Kr and PMT characteristics

D/B >=10 D/B >=10

D/B=5.5 D/B=5.5
10
1
ψ

b * b
Eti/Em=a.(Kr) 0,1 Pu/(PL.B)=a.(Kr)
a=0.28
b=-0.55 a=3.0
R=94 % b=0.50
R=94%
1 0,01
0,01 0,1 1E-3 0,01 0,1 1
Kr Kr

Fig. 9 Variation of the ratio Eti/Em with lateral pile/soil Fig. 10 Variation of the ratio Pu/P
L B with lateral pile/soil
stiffness Kr stiffness Kr

123
294 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

Y ref: p
Eti ¼ N H zn ð21Þ

 11Kr L
B Em
ref.
It is to be noticed from Eq. 9 that Y corre-
sponds to half the limit lateral reaction in the
hyperpoblic formulation and to all the limit
lateral reaction in the elastic plastic formulation.
Equation 19 provides a simple and useful tool to
estimate the threshold of large lateral load-
deflection behaviour. Figure 11 drawn for typical
values of Em/p*L of sandy soils gives for a flexible
pile characterised by Kr equal to 10–3 a reference
deflection of 0.22, 2.2 and 22 % of B in loose sand,
medium dense sand and very dense sand respec-
tively.
Hyperbolic P–Y curves proposed on the basis
of the interpretation of full-scale instrumented
piles in sandy soils provides a simple approach to
construct P–Y curves taking into consideration
some physical parameters of pile/soil interaction.
Lateral reaction modulus and lateral soil resis-
tance are defined as function of PMT character-
istics and the pile/soil stiffness according to Eq. 14
and 16.
The embedded length D is a key factor in
lateral response of piles. The effective embedded
length De is the relevant length of pile mobilised
in load-deflection behaviour and beyond which,
pile sections are at rest. It is usually expressed in
the function of the elastic length (or transfer
length) L0.
Length L0 of a pile embedded in a soil charac-
terised by a lateral reaction modulus increasing as a
linear function of depth
Eti ¼ b þ NH z
or as a power function of depth
ð19Þ
is given by (Matlock and Reese 1960)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðnþ4Þ Ep Ip
L0 ¼ ð22Þ
NH
The effective length De is equal to 5L0 for
n ‡ 1 and to 3L0 for n = 0. A pile is classified as a
long one if D is greater than De and as a rigid one if
D is less than 2L0 for n ‡ 1 and to L0/2 for n = 0.
Lateral pile/soil stiffness should be evaluated in
Eq. 11 by introducing the minimum of the effec-
tive length and the total embedded length. In case
of a long pile, simultaneous use of Eqs. 11 and 22
necessitates an iterative process.
6 Validation of the proposed P–Y curve
The proposed P–Y curves method was assessed
by predicting the lateral response of full-scale as
well as in centrifuge test piles in sandy soils.
Tables 3 and 4 summarise the main geotechnical
and physical characteristics of soil/pile configura-
tions used in this regard. Piles are identified as
mentioned in the references.
The Lock & Dam 26 site is composed of
alluvial deposits (poorly graded sand) 3 m thick
and overlying glacial deposits (medium to coarse
sand with gravel) 17 m thick. The bedrock is a
hard limestone from the Mississipian age. Lateral
load tests were performed on two identical -
HP-14 · 73 piles socketed in the limestone
bedrock, jacked apart, and the lateral displace-
ð20Þ ment of each pile were measured.
The Longjuemau site is located near Paris and
composed of tertiary silty fine sand, rather

Table 3 Characteristics of soil/pile in full-scale tests

Site Pile D/B EpIp(MN m2) Installation Ec (MPa) Kr D/L0 Reference
–3
Lock & Dam-26 3–12 57.3 61.00 Driven 20.6 1.9 · 10 16.2 (Briaud et al. 1989)
Lock & Dam-26 3–13 57.3 61.00 Driven 20.6 1.9 · 10–3 16.2 (Briaud et al. 1989)
Longjumeau TG 10.0 7.31 Driven 6.65 3.3 · 10–2 2.44 (Gambin 1979)
Longjumeau TD 10.0 7.31 Driven 5.33 4.1 · 10–2 2.50 (Gambin 1979)
Roosevelt bridge 16 18.4 958.50 Driven 61.3 1.1 · 10–2 6.80 (Townsend 1997)
Lock & Dam-26 T3 44.5 61.70 Driven 15.6 2.3 · 10–3 12.3 (O’Neill 1983)
Arkansas River 2 39.7 700.50 Driven 10.6 2.8 · 10–3 7.30 (Meyer 1979)
Arkansas River 16 39.7 688.80 Driven 10.6 2.8 · 10–3 7.30 (Meyer 1979)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301 295

Table 4 Characteristics of prototype soil/piles in centrifuge

Soil Pile D/B EpIp (MN m2) Installation Ec (MPa) Kr D/L0 Reference

Fontainebleau – 16.7 473.60 Driven 34.1 3.0 · 10–3 7.33 (Remaud 1999)
Le-Rheu ENSM-1 15.6 44.70 Bored 7.60 9.4 · 10–3 3.80 (Bouafia 1987)
Le-Rheu ENSM-2 15.6 44.70 Bored 10.3 6.9 · 10–3 4.16 (Bouafia 1987)
Le-Rheu P1–2 10.0 56.60 Bored 3.60 2.5 · 10–2 2.15 (Bouafia 1990)
Le-Rheu P1–4 10.0 56.60 Bored 11.6 7.8 · 10–3 4.20 (Bouafia 1990)
Le-Rheu P1–t 10.0 56.60 Bored 18.7 4.8 · 10–3 4.30 (Bouafia 1990)

uniformly graded. Piles TG and TD are installed
and loaded as in the above site.
The Roosevelt bridge site is composed of loose
layer of sand thick of 4 m, overlying a thick layer
of very dense partially cemented sand. The site
with submerged by water up to 2 m above the
ground level. Square prestressed concrete pile
was driven and tested up to cracking under a load
of 200 kN and concrete failure occurred under a
load of 320 kN.
Pile T3 was tested in lock & Dam site 7 years
prior to tests on piles 3–12 and 3–13, PMT data
were not available. Prediction of the pile T3 was
made with the PMT data of piles 3–12 and 3–13.
In the Arkansas site, the soil is a saturated SP/
SM sand and only the SPT test was carried out.
PMT data were estimated by usual correlation
with the SPT.
It should be emphasised that the reliability of
the predictions of piles T3 in Lock & Dam and
piles 2 and 16 in Arkansas site will decrease
because of the scatter in the estimation of the
PMT data for pile T3 or in the correlation with the
SPT test for piles 2 and 16. In this regard,
predictions of these piles will interpreted sepa-
rately.
For each pile, lateral pile/soil stiffness was
evaluated and hyperbolic P–Y curves according
to the Eqs. 14 and 16 were defined. In most of
cases, piles were sufficiently long to be considered
of predictions are encouraging seeing the multi-
tude of approximations made during the process
of definition of this method.
Lateral response of test pile T3 in Lock & dam
26 and piles 2 and 16 in the Arkansas River was
predicted. As illustrated by Fig. 13, the ratio
Ypred.
0 /Ymeas.
0 was found fluctuating around 1.33
within an interval 094–2.80 and a coefficient of
variation of 36%.
Sandy materials of sites S1 and S2 were used in
the LCPC centrifuge to study the lateral behaviour
of centrifuged models in sand within the scope of an
important programme of research undertaken by
the LCPC since two decades. Reduction scales of
piles were 1/40 and 1/18 for models in Fontaine-
bleau and Le-Rheu sands respectively. Character-
istics summarised in Table 4 correspond to the
prototype ones. Sandy mass was characterised by
cone penetration tests (CPT) carried out by min-
iature cone during the centrifugation. CPT tests in
centrifuge were used to estimate the PMT data by
adopting the same correlation CPT/PMT found
in-situ. This assumption leads to a rough estimation
25
1 : Loose sand Em/PL*=5
1
2 : Medium dense sand Em/PL*=10
20
3 : Very dense sand Em/PL*=20
Yref./B (%)

15

as restrained at their tips. SPULL programme was 2

used to predict the load-deflection curve of each 10

pile. As shown in Fig. 12, very good agreement

3
between predicted and measured deflections, with 5

remarkable fluctuation of the 35 points of com-

parison around the ratio predicted to measured 0
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10
deflection of 1.11. Moreover, Ypred.
0 /Ymeas.
0 Varied
Kr
between 0.81 and 1.84 with a mean value of 1.22
and a coefficient of variation of 21%. The results Fig. 11 Variation of reference displacement with Kr

123
296 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

Fig. 12 Comparison of 50
predicted and measured Full-scale pile loading tests
deflections (PMT data 45
available)
(PMT data available)
40
Y0pred./Y0meas.=1,11

Y0/B predicted %
35

30 (R2=94%)

25

20
Lock & Dam, Pile 3-12
15 Lock & Dam, Pile 3-13
Roosevelt bridge, Pile 16
10
Longjumeau, Pile TG
5 Longjumeau, Pile TD
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Y0/B measured %

of the PMT data of sand in centrifuge and then to
an approximate prediction of the piles behaviour.
As shown in Fig. 14, good prediction is to be
noticed for small deflections up to 10% of B.
The ratio Ypred.
0 /Ymeas.
0 of the 27 points of
comparison varied within the interval 0.56–2.40
with a mean value of 1.43 and a coefficient of
variation of 30%.
7 Comparative study
The predictive capability of the proposed method
is to be compared with that of the current
methods of construction of P–Y curves. Due to
the non-availability of the PMT expansion curves,
the comparison was limited to the method of
Fascicule-62. For all the piles where the PMT
data was available, P–Y curves illustrated by
curve 2 in Fig. 1 were defined and input in
SPULL. Figure 15 summarises the comparison
between predicted and measured deflections. It
can be seen that the ratio Ypred.
0 /Ymeas.
0 of the 53
points of comparison fluctuates around 0.81
within a margin of 0.31–3.30 and a coefficient of
variation of 40%. The proposed method slightly
overpredicted the pile deflections whereas the
method of Fascicule-62 underpredicted them.

Fig. 13 Comparison of 100

predicted and measured Full-scale pile loading tests
90
deflections (PMT data
(PMT data estimated)
estimated) 80
Y0 predicted (mm)

70 Y0pred./Y0meas.=1,33
60
(R2=94%)
50

40

30

20 Lock & Dam, 1978 Pile T-3

Arknsas river, 1970 Pile 2
10
Arkansas river, 1970 Pile 16
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Y0 measured (mm)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301 297

Fig. 14 Comparison of 50
predicted and measured
45
deflections (centrifuge
tests) 40

Y0/B predicted %
35

30

25
Centrifuge tests
20
Fontainebleau sand, 1999
15 Le-Rheu sand, 1987 (test 1) Pile ENSM-1
Le-Rheu sand, 1987 (test 2) Pile ENSM-2
10
Le-Rheu sand, 1988 (test 2) Pile P1-2
5 Le-Rheu sand, 1988 (test 4) Pile P1-4
Le-Rheu sand, 1991 (test t) Pile P1-t
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Y0/B measured %

8 Normalised load-deflection curves ZDe

Test piles in Lock & Dam 26 and Roosevelt
bridge were added to those in sites S1 and S2 to
build a small database of nine lateral loading tests
in four sandy sites. As shown in Fig. 16, load-
deflection curves were normalised by dividing the
lateral load by an equivalent net limit pressure P
le
and the frontal area De · B, and by dividing the
deflection Y0 at ground level by the diameter or
the width B.
Net equivalent limit pressure is an average net
value along the effective length De of the pile,
evaluated as follows:
1
p
Le ¼ p
L dz ð23Þ
De
0
P
Le is to be computed along the total embedded
length D if it is shorter than the effective length.
Normalised curves were located in a rather
narrow band, which allowed fitting all the exper-
imental data by unique fitting curve. In a
preliminary stage of pile design, tabulated values
of this function in Table 5 provides a simple
approach to estimate the pile deflections under
working loads.

Fig. 15 Comparison of 100

predicted and measured Full-Scale Pile Loading tests
90
deflections (Fascicule-62) Method: Fascicule -62
80
Y0 predicted (mm)

70 Y0pred,/Y0meas,=0,81
60 Lock &Dam Pile3-12
R2=84% Lock &Dam Pile3-13
50 Roosevelt bridge Pile 16
Longjumeau Pile TG
40
Longjumeau Pile TD
30 Chatenay Pile T5
Chatenay Pile T10
20 Chatenay Pile T15
Le-Rheu Pile P1
10
Le Rheu Pile P2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Y0 measured (mm)

123
298 Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301

Le Rheu Pile P1 As shown in Figs. 17 and 18, load-deflection

Le Rheu Pile P2
1 Chatenay Pile T5 curves in both the two soils are very sensitive to
Chatenay Pile T10
Chatenay Pile T15 Kr, particularly in the domain of large deflections.
Lock & Dam Pile 3-12
Lock & Dam Pile 3-13
This result shows that the lateral pile capacity
Lock & Dam Pile Pile T3 should be analysed in relation with the pile/soil
H/(P*le.D.B)

0,1 Roosevelt Bridge Pile 16

0,01
2
R =93%
1E-3
1E-4 1E-3 0,01
Y0/B
Fig. 16 Normalised load-deflection curves
9 Parametric study of piles in Gibson’s soils
The influence of the lateral pile/soil stiffness on
the non-linear behaviour of piles embedded in a
soil characterised by linear profiles of PMT
characteristics was investigated.
Dimensional analysis according to Bucking-
ham’s theorem of the following general equation
f ðY 0 ; H; M0 ; Ep I p ; B; D; k; lÞ ¼ 0
led to the following dimensionless equation:
gðH=ðp
Le BDe Þ; Y 0 =B; Kr ; k=lÞ ¼ 0
where M0 is the bending moment applied at the
ground level and taken equal to 0 in this study.
k and l are respectively the rate of linear
increase of Em and P
L with depth. The ratio k/l is
equal to Em/P
L .
Two extreme cases of pile/soil stiffness were
studied: rigid pile characterised by Kr equal to
1.15 and a flexible pile characterised by Kr equal
to 0.002. the piles were embedded in two extreme
types of soils: loose sand and very dense sand with
Em/pL* equal to 5 and 20 respectively. Hyperbolic
P–Y curves were defined by Eqs. 14 and 16 and
introduced in SPULL.
stiffness, contrarily to the current methods of
estimation of the lateral pile capacity which
simply neglect this important factor by necessity
of simplification of the analysis.
0,1 1 10 Conclusions
The lateral response of single piles in sand was
investigated on the basis of interpretation of full-
scale lateral loading tests of single instrumented
piles in quite homogeneous sandy soils, in order
to define the parameters of P–Y curves, namely
the lateral reaction modulus and the lateral
soil resistance, in correlation with the PMT
parameters.
After a brief description of some current
methods of construction of P–Y curves, experi-
mental P–Y curves of the test piles were derived
and the corresponding parameters were found
ð24Þ varying as a power of lateral pile/soil stiffness, on
the basis of which hyperbolic P–Y curves in sand
were proposed. The predictive capabilities of the
proposed P–Y curves were assessed by predicting
ð25Þ
the soil/pile response in full-scale tests as well as
in centrifuge tests and a very good agreement was
found between the computed deflections and the
measured ones.
Simple linear relationship was proposed
between the reference deflection, which is the
threshold of large deflections, and the PMT
characteristics and the pile/soil stiffness.
Small sized database of full-scale pile loading
tests in sand was built. It was shown the load-
deflection curves of these test piles may be
normalised in a practical form for a rough
estimation of the pile deflection under working
loads in a preliminary stage of pile design.

Table 5 Tabulated values of the normalised load-deflection curve

Y0/B 10–4 10–3 5 · 10–3 10–2 5 · 10–2 10–1 2 · 10–1
H/(P
L BDe) 2 · 10–3 7.06 · 10–3 1.70 · 10–2 2.50 · 10–2 6.0 · 10–2 8.8 · 10–2 12.8 · 10–2

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301 299

0,18 engineering, University of British Coulombia, July

0,16 Loose sand (Em/Pl = 5) 1984, pp 34
Rigid pile Baguelin F (1982) Règles de calcul des fondations à partir
0,14
Flexible pile Kr=1.15 de l’essai au pressiomètre autoforeur (in French). In:
H/(P*le.B.De)

0,12 Proceedings of the symposium La pressiométrie et ses

0,10 applications en mer, Paris, 19–20 April 1982, pp 359–
371, editions LCPC-IFP
0,08
Baguelin F, Jézéquel JF (1972) Etude expérimentale du
0,06 -3 comportement des pieux chargés latéralement (in
Kr=2x10
0,04 French), Annales de l’ITBTP No. 297, 1972, pp 155–200
Baguelin F, Frank R, Said Y (1977) Theoretical study of
0,02
lateral reaction mechanism of piles. Geotechnique,
0,00 vol. 27, No. 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Baguelin F, Jézéquel J-F, Shields D-H (1978) The
Yo/B (%) pressuremeter and foundation engineering. Series on
rock and soil mechanics, vol. 2, No. 4, 1st edn, Trans
Fig. 17 Normalised load-deflection curves in loose Tech Publications, Germany, p 615
Gibson’s soil Baguelin F, Frank R, Jézéquel JF (1990) The Ménard
pressuremeter test and the behaviour of laterally
0,18 loaded piles in sand. In: Proceedings of ISP3 the 3rd
0,16 Very dense sand (Em/Pl = 20) international symposium on pressuremeters. Oxford
Rigid pile University, 2–6 April 1990, pp 381–391
0,14 Flexible pile
Kr=1.15 Beikae M, Pyke R (1984) A new solution for the
H/(P*le.B.De)

0,12 resistance of single piles to lateral loads. In: Laterally

0,10
0,08
0,06
Kr=2x10
0,04
0,02
0,00
0 10 20
Yo/B (%)
Fig. 18 Normalised load-deflection curves in very dense
Gibson’s soil
At last, a parametric study of the influence of
lateral pile/soil stiffness on the non linear response
of piles embedded in Gibson’s soils was under-
taken on the basis of the proposed P–Y curves. It
was shown the significant influence of the lateral
pile/soil stiffness on the load-deflection curves
particularly in the domain of large deflections.
Acknowledgments The study reported herein is supported
by the Algerian ministry of higher education and research
MESRS within the scope of the project COPIFOR
(COmportement des PIeux FORés) under the code J0901/
04/02/2000.
References
Atukorala U, Byrne PM (1984) Prediction of P-Y curves
from pressuremeter tests and finite element analyses.
Soil mechanics series no. 66, Department of civil
loaded deep foundations—analysis and performance,
ASTM Special Technical Publications No. 835, 1984,
pp 21–34
-3 Bouafia A (1987) Modélisation en centrifugeuse-Pieux
isolés sous charges horizontales (in French). DEA
thesis, University of Nantes, France, pp 67
Bouafia A (1990) Modélisation des pieux chargés latéral-
ement en centrifugeuse. Doctorate thesis, University
30 40
of Nantes, France, pp 267
Bouafia A, Garnier J (1991) Experimental study of P-Y
curves for piles in sand. In: Proceedings of the
international conference CENTRIFUGE’91, Boul-
der, Colorado, 13–14 Juin 1991, pp 261–268, A A
Balkema, Amsterdam
Bouafia A, Garnier J, Levacher D (1991) Comportement
d’un pieu isolé chargé latéralement dans le sable (in
French). In: Proceedings of the international sympo-
sium deep foundations, Mars 1991, Paris, pp 129–136,
Presses de l’ENPC
Bouafia A, Bouguerra A (1995) Modélisation en centri-
fugeuse du comportement d’un pieu flexible chargé
horizontalement à proximité d’une pente (in French).
Can Geotech J 32:324–335
Bouafia A, Bouguerra A (1996) Effet de la proximité du
talus sur un pieu court et rigide chargé horizontale-
ment (in French). Fr Geotech J RFG No 75, 2e
trimestre 1996, pp 47–56
Bouafia A (1997) Etude en centrifugeuse du comporte-
ment d’un pieu chargé horizontalement (in French).
In: Proceedings of the 14th ICSMFE, 6–12 September,
A.A. Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 771–776
Bouafia A (1998) Experimental analysis of large lateral
displacements of piles in centrifuge. In: Proceedings
of the 4th international conference on case histories in
geotechnical engineering. St-Louis, Missouri, 8–15
March 1998, Paper no. 1.12

123
300
Bouafia A (2002a) Analysis of lateral reaction modulus for
piles in sand from CPT test. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium PARAM’02, Paris, 2–3 Sep-
tember 2002, Presses de l’ENPC
Bouafia A (2002b) Response of a flexible pile under lateral
loads in dense sand in centrifuge. In: Canadian
Geotechnical Society (ed) Proceedings of ICPMG’02
international conference on physical modelling in
geotechnics, St-John’s, Newfoundland, Canada July
10–12 2002c
Bowles JE (1997) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn.
Mc Graw-Hill, New York
Briaud JL (1986) Pressuremeter and foundation design. In:
Clemence SP (ed) Proceedings of IN-SITU’86 use of
in-situ tests in geotechnical engineering, Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 6, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg,
pp 74–115
Briaud JL, Smith TD, Meyer B (1982) Calcul des pieux
chargés latéralement à l’aide des résultats press-
iométriques (in French). In: Proceedings of the
international symposium PMT and its marine appli-
cations, Paris, 19–20 April 1982, editions LCPC-IFP,
pp 389–406
Briaud JL, Smith TD, Tucker LM (1985) A pressuremeter
method for laterally loaded piles. In: Proceedings of
the international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, San Francisco 1985, vol 3, pp
1353–1356
Briaud JL, Moore BH, Mitchell GB (1989) Analysis of pile
load tests at Lock and Dam 26. In: FH Kulhaway (ed)
Proceedings of the congress foundation engineer-
ing—current principles and practices, Evanston, June
25–29, 1989, Evanston, Illinois, vol 2, ASCE, pp 925–942
Canépa Y, Depresle D, Leipp J, Smirr JL (1987) Essais de
sollicitations horizontales de tubes de différents
diamètres fichés dans une fosse de sable de Fontaine-
bleau (in French). Testing report to the LREP, Code
F.A.E.R 1.15.06.6, file 8670, 32 p
Carayannacon-Trézos, Baguelin F, Frank R (1979) Réac-
tion latérale des pieux: effets de forme et effets
tridimensionnels (in French)’’. Bulletin des LPC No.
104, Nov/Dec 1979
Douglas DJ, Davis EH (1964) The movements of buried
footings due to moment and horizontal load and the
movement of anchor plates. Geotechnique, vol 14
Dunand M (1981) Etude expérimentale du comportement
des fondations soumises au renversement (in French).
Doctorate thesis, University of Grenoble IMG
Duncan JM, Chung-Chang (1970) Nonlinear analysis of
stress and strain in soils. In: Proceedings of the ASCE.
J Soil Mech Found Div 96:1629–1654
Frank R (1984) Etudes théoriques des fondations profon-
des et d’essais en place par autoforage dans les LPC et
résultats pratiques (in French). Research report to the
LCPC, No. 128
Frank R, Jézéquel JF (1989) La résistance latérale des
pieux (in French), LCPC’s days on Soil Mechanics,
Saint-Brieuc, 20–22 June 1989, 36 p
Gambin M (1979) Calculation of foundations subjected to
horizontal forces using pressuremeter data. Sols-Soils
No. 30/31 1979, pp 17–59
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
Garassino A (1976) Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles.
In: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Vienna,
1976
Georgiadis M, Anagnastopoulos C, Saflekou S (1992)
Centrifugal testing of laterally loaded piles. Can
Geotech J 259:208–216
Jézéquel JF (1988) Résistance latérale des pieux Le-Rheu-
Prévision du comportement des pieux (in French).
Prelimnary testing report, code F.A.E.R 1.05.01.7,
LRPC de St-Brieuc, January 1988, 43 p
King GJW (1994) The interpretation of data from tests on
laterally loaded piles. In: Proceedings of the interna-
tional conference CENTRIFUGE’94 on physical
modelling in centrifuge, 31 August–2 September,
Singapore, pp 515–520
MELT (Ministère de l’équipement, du logement et du
transport) (1993) Règles techniques de conception te
de calcul des fondations des ouvrages de génie civil,
Fascicule-62, titre-5 (in French), Paris, 182 p
Ménard L, Gambin M, Bourdon G (1969) Méthode
générale de calcul d’un rideau ou pieu sollicité
horizontalement en fonction des résultats press-
iométriques (in French), Sols/Soils vol 1, No. 20/23,
1969, pp 16–28
Ménard L (1971) Le tassement des fondations et les
techniques pressiométriques- Bilan après 10 de résul-
tats expérimentaux (in French), Annales de l’ITBTP,
décembre 1971
Meyer BJ, Reese LC (1979) Analysis of single piles under
lateral loading. Research report 244–1, Project 3-5-78-
244, Centre for transportation research, The Univer-
sity of Texas, 157 p
Mezazigh S (1995) Etude expérimentale de pieux chargés
latéralement: Proximité d’un talus et effet de groupe
(in French). Doctorate thesis, University of Nantes,
France, 272 p
Olham D (1983) Lateral loads tests on piles. MSCE thesis,
University of Manchester
O’Neill MW, Murchisson JM (1983) An evaluation of P-Y
relationships in sands, Report to the American
Petroleum Institute (PRAC 82–41–1), May 1983,
research report No. GT-DF02–83, 122 p
Poulos HG (1971) Behaviour of laterally loaded piles:
I-Single piles, In: Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, vol 97, No. Sm5, May
1971, pp 711–731
Poulos HG, Carter JP, Small JC (2001) Foundations and
retaining structures-Research and practice. Report to
the 15th international conference on soil mechanics
and geotechnical engineering, 27–31 August 2001,
Istanbul, vol 4, pp 2527–2606
Reese LC (1971) The analysis of piles under lateral
loading. In: Proceedings of the symposium interac-
tion structure-foundation, University of Birmingham,
1971
Reese L, Matlock H (1977) Non-dimensional solutions for
laterally loaded piles with soil modulus assumed
proportional to depth. In: Proceedings of the 8th
Texas conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Engineering, Austin, September 1956
Geotech Geol Eng (2007) 25:283–301
Remaud D (1999) Pieux sous charges latérales-Etude
expérimentale de l’effet du groupe (in Franch).
Doctorate thesis, University of Nantes, France, 303 p
Robertson PK, Hughes JMO, Campanella RG (1984)
Design of laterally loaded displacement piles using a
driven pressuremeter. In: Laterally loaded deep
foundations—analysis and performance, ASTM Spe-
cial Technical Publications No. 835, 1984, pp 229–238
Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Brown PT (1985) Design
of axially and laterally loaded piles using in-situ tests:
a case history. Can Geotech J 22:518–527
301
Townsend F, Mc Vay (1997) Prediction and evaluation of a
laterally loaded pile group at Roosevelt bridge.
Report submitted to Florida department of transpor-
tation, No. WPI 0510663, March 1997, 381 p
Smith TD (1987) Friction mobilisation F-Y curves for
laterally loaded piles from the pressuremeter. In:
Proceedings of the international symposium on pre-
dictions and performance in geotechnical engineering,
Calgary, Canada, 17–19 June 1987, A. A. Balkema,
Amsterdam, pp 89–95
123