Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

161

Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using nonlinear p-y method
Jzsef Simon
BME, Department of Structural Engineering, e-mail: j.simon.bme@gmail.com

Abstract
Present paper attempts to summarize the theory of the non-linear force-displacement behavior of pile foundations, and the different
non-linear t-z, q-z and p-y models suggested by various authors and design codes. The distant aim of the research is to investigate
the influence of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the seismic response of continuous girder bridges. As the first step, a numerical
model is built in OpenSEES FEM software based on the idea of Beam on Non-Linear Winkler Foundation method. An overview
and then a suggestion is made for the definition of the parameters needed for the t-z, q-z and p-y material models used in the
applied software, considering the Eurocode 7 regulations. Cyclic pushover analysis is carried out to assess the significance of the
different parameters of the soil on the cyclic behavior of pile foundations. The results are evaluated and compared.

Introduction
The seismic responses of a flexibly-supported structure fundamentally differ in several ways from those
calculated assuming foundation on rigid ground. Significant difference can be observed in the natural
periods, mode shapes etc. In the case of flexible supports, both radiation and internal, hysteretic damping are
included in the overall damping in addition to the damping associated with the superstructure. The influence
of the soil-structure interaction (SSI) is generally beneficial for most of the structural types, since the
reaction forces can be mitigated. However, as per Eurocode 8-5 [1] there are structures - such as bridge piers,
offshore caissons, silos, towers and chimneys etc. - on which the SSI effects might be detrimental.
Former practice usually neglected the effects of soil-structure interaction, and even in current design
methodology, the SSI at the foundations of the piers is commonly taken into account with simple integrate
linear springs. This way, non-linear behavior and energy dissipation cannot be modeled.
There are few papers and studies that deal with the significance of the SSI in the case of bridges (see [2-10]).
According to the conclusions and results of the papers and recent studies, SSI can be advantageous, but also
detrimental to the seismic behavior and responses of bridges in particular cases.
In present investigation, as the first step, theories of the non-linear pile behavior are overviewed, soil
parameters needed for the static and cyclic analyses are defined regarding the regulations of Eurocode 7. A
numerical model is built in OpenSEES FEM software [11] on the basis of Beam on Non-Linear Winkler
Foundation (BNLWF) method. Sensitivity analysis is carried out changing the main parameters of the soil,
then the results are compared and the influence of different parameters on the cyclic behavior is evaluated.

Static and cyclic behavior of pile foundations

Axial behavior - static
Pile foundations are designed to transmit the - mainly vertical - loads of a superstructure to the underlying
soil while preventing excessive structural deformations. This transmission of the compressive load which is
applied to the head of the pile is done by a combination of skin friction along the embedded length and end
bearing at the tip of the pile. If the pile is relatively short, only the end bearing effect is significant. For
relatively long piles in soil (if it is not a tip bearing pile on rock), the predominant load transfer is due to skin
friction. Without any mechanical provisions, axial tension load is assumed to be carried only by skin friction.
The force versus vertical displacement behavior is non-linear in both cases. The simplest approach is to
model this behavior with bi-linear characteristics (see Fig.1). The force-displacement relationship is linear
until the load-bearing capacity of the soil is fully mobilized and then yielding occurs, the force cannot be
increased further. The displacements belonging to this point differ from each other in the two cases.
According to Hungarian experiences, skin friction and tip bearing is fully mobilized at a displacement
around 1-2% and 10% of the pile diameter, respectively. This results a combined tri-linear axial forcedisplacement characteristic of one single pile.
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

162

Fig.1. Force-displacement relationship of (a): bi-linear skin friction, (b): and tip bearing, (c): tri-linear combined behavior.

There are numerous more sophisticated non-linear models proposed by various authors. In [12-16] and [20],
proposals for cohesionless soil for side friction and tip force-displacement models can be found. In this
investigation, the model suggested by Mosher [16] and the model of Vijayvergiya [13] is applied for skin
friction and tip bearing, respectively. Mosher used hyperbolic representation (see Fig.2a) of the t-z curve
utilizing the results of load tests of prismatic pipe piles driven in sand and the work of Coyle and Castello
[20].

Fig.2. Non-linear normalized t-z and q-z curves (a): for sand [13],[16]; (b): for clay [21].

The curve can be described by the following equation:

(1)
where
initial slope can be determined as a function of the angle of internal friction,
is the ultimate
side friction and is given as a function of relative depth (depth z below ground surface divided by the
diameter of the pile). Vijayvergiya proposed a relationship between tip force and tip displacement of the
following form:

(2)
where

is the ultimate tip displacement, and

is the ultimate tip resistance.

Suggested relationships for non-linear tip force-displacement and skin friction in cohesive soil can be found
in [12-13],[17-19],[21]. In this study, the model proposed by Reese and O'Neill [21] is used for both forcedisplacement behaviors. The curves shown in Fig.2b are developed by a study of the results of several fieldload tests of instrumented bored piles.
Axial behavior - cyclic
Studies have shown [22] that as long as the ratio of the cyclic component of axial load and the ultimate static
capacity remains below the predefined failure envelope, no significant degradation of the pile capacity or
force-displacement behavior is likely to occur. If this condition is not met, the monotonic static curves can be
used as backbones curves for cyclic analysis.
Lateral behavior - static
Although generally a pile foundation is designed primarily for axial loading, they also have to withstand
lateral loads that can come from variety of sources such as wind forces and earth pressures, earthquakes,
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

163

slope failure, and lateral spread induced by liquefaction. Because the laterally loaded pile is at least twodimensional, the ultimate lateral resistance of the soil is dependent not only on the soil shear strength but on
a geometric failure mechanism. At points near the ground surface an ultimate condition is produced by a
wedge type failure, while at lower positions (below the critical depth,
) failure is associated with plastic
flow of the soil around the pile as displacements increase.
For sand, different p-y relationships are proposed by various authors [23-24]. The model of Murchison and
O'Neill [24] is later introduced in the API regulations [25], and it is used in this investigation as well (see
Fig.3a). In their work, the following p-y formulation is suggested:
,

(3)

where
is the ultimate earth resistance;
is the loading factor,
for cyclic loading, and
is the pile diameter; is the coefficient of initial modulus of subgrade reaction of the
for static loading;
for
soil; is the depth below ground surface; and is a factor used to describe pile shape, its value is
circular piles.

Fig.3. Non-linear normalized p-y curves suggested (a): for sand [24]; (b): for clay [26].

In [26-29], p-y relationships for cohesive soils can be found. Here, the model proposed by Matlock [26] is
applied which describes the p-y relation by the following equation (see Fig.3b):

where
reached.

is the lateral displacement at the point where the half of the ultimate soil resistance,

(4)
is

Lateral behavior - cyclic

The backbone curve for cyclic behavior of cohesionless soil can be obtained by giving
Eq.3 (see Fig.3a).

the value of

in

In the case of cohesive soil, static and cyclic non-linear behavior is most severe at shallow depths, and
approaches linear response at greater depths. After a large number of cycles of loading and degradation of
resistance, the soil-pile system tends to stabilize (a condition known as "shakedown"). In Fig.3b,
is the
critical depth where soil wedge failure transforms to flow failure. In the case of cyclic backbone curves,
degradation is taken into account, it is higher near the ground surface and decreases linearly until
is
reached.

Numerical model in OpenSEES

The numerical model of the pile foundation is built in OpenSEES [11] FEM software (see Fig.4). A pile
foundation modul is written in TCL language, so the foundation system can be attached to any existing
model simply by defining the connection node number. The following parameters can be given: number of
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

164

pile rows; number of pile columns; pile length; pile diameter; pile distance in each direction; pile cap
geometry; material properties. Besides, the number of soil layers and also the soil parameters for each layer
are input data.
The piles are modeled with simple elastic beam elements. Note that if plastic deformations are expected in
the piles, the behavior can be modeled by using fiber sections with displacement or force based beam
elements. Rigid elements are applied to create the pile cap, the mass and the moment of inertia of the pile
cap is concentrated into the pile cap node.
The division of the piles, thus the number of nodes along the pile length is important, since the soil-structure
interaction is modeled with concentrated point connections. In the position of each pile node, a fixed node is
placed and then they are attached with zero-length elements with non-linear spring characteristics
representing the non-linear t-z, q-z and p-y pile-soil interactions.

Fig.4. Numerical model of the pile foundation system in OpenSEES [11].

In OpenSEES, special t-z, q-z, p-y (TzSimple1, QzSimple1, PySimple1) uniaxial material models are
predefined based on the work of Boulanger et al. [30]. The original model is developed to model p-y
relationship, but due to its versatile behavior, later it is extended for t-z and q-z interactions as well.
The non-linear p-y behavior is described by elastic (p-ye), plastic (p-yp), and gap (p-yg) spring components
placed in series. Radiation damping can be modeled placing a dashpot in parallel with the elastic component.
The gap component can be divided into a nonlinear closure spring (pc-yg) and a nonlinear drag spring (pd-yg)
in parallel (see Fig.5). The plastic spring has an initial range of rigid behavior between
,
where
ratio of
when plastic yielding first occurs in virgin loading. Beyond the rigid range, forcedeformation of the plastic spring is formulated as follows:
(5)
p0 = p at the start of the current plastic loading cycle; y0p = yp at the start of the current plastic loading cycle;
c = constant to control the tangent modulus at the start of plastic yielding; and n = exponent to control
sharpness of the p-yp curve.
The linear spring characteristic has the following form:

pult e
(6)
y ,
y50
where Ce = a constant that defines the normalized elastic stiffness. This model is capable of approximating
the p-y relationship for sand (see Eq.3) and clay (see Eq.4) recommended by API and Matlock, respectively,
by adjusting the c, n, Ce and Cr parameters as it is done in the case of PySimple1 material model in
OpenSEES.
p = Ce

T-z and q-z curves are described in OpenSEES with the same manner by replacing p with t or q, and y with z
in Eq.5 and Eq.6. Adjustments of the parameters are made to approximate the t-z (see Eq.1, Mosher [16])
and q-z curves (see Eq.2, Vijayvergiya [13]) for sand, t-z and q-z curves for clay (Reese and ONeill [21]).
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

165

Fig.5. Non-linear p-y material model suggested by Boulanger et al. [30].

Table 1 shows the input data needed for the TzSimple1, QzSimple1 and PySimple1 material models.
Methods for the definition of these parameters are presented in the next section.
t-z (TzSimple1)

Behavior
Model
approximated

Sand
Clay
tult

Ultimate side friction resistance

Parameters

z50
c

Disp. at which 50% of tult is mobilized in monotonic loading

Radiation damping

Behavior
Model
approximated

Parameters

Behavior
Model
approximated

Parameters

Mosher (1984)
Reese and ONeill (1987)

q-z (QzSimple1)
Sand
Clay
qult

Vijayvergiya (1977)
Reese and ONeill (1987)

z50
c
suction

Disp. at which 50% of qult is mobilized in monotonic loading

Radiation damping
Uplift resistance is equal to suction*qult

Ultimate tip resistance

p-y (PySimple1)
Sand
Clay
pult

API (1991)
Matlock (1970)
Ultimate soil resistance

y50

Disp. at which 50% of pult is mobilized in monotonic loading

c
Cd

Radiation damping
Sets the drag resist. within a fully-mobilized gap as Cd*pult

Table 1. Input parameters for material models TzSimple1, QzSimple1 and PySimple1 [11].

More details about the material model can be found in [30].

Parameter definition for non-linear SSI models

The parameters shown in Table 1 should be defined for each soil layer to adjust the material models
presented in Section 2. T-z and q-z parameters are calculated in accordance with Eurocode 7 [31] and the
suggestions by Szepeshzi [32], while the p-y parameters are defined based on the proposals of the applied
p-y models.
In the following sub-sections, only the definition of the ultimate resistance and the displacements at which
half of the ultimate resistance is mobilized is presented. The ultimate resistance values are given in force per
unit area, thus they should be multiplied by the corresponding area (e.g. the tip area; the area formed by the
pile width and node distance etc.) to obtain proper parameters given in force for the concentrated springs.
The effect of radiation damping is not studied here, but the definition of this parameter and its effect should
be investigated later.
The effect of uplift and drag resistance is observed in the study through sensitivity analysis of suction and Cd
parameters (see Table 1).
T-z parameters - clay
In [32], the following formula is suggested for the side resistance in clay:

where
is the technology factor ( for CFA and drilled piles);
drilled pile, respectively;
is 1000kPa for undimensioning; and
The

(7)
is
and
for battered and
is the undrained shear strength in kPa.

displacement is defined by the curves (see Fig.3) suggested by Reese and ONeill [21]:
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

166

(8)
where

is the ultimate displacement.

Q-z parameters clay

Tip resistance can be defined by the following equation [32]:
(9)
where
The

technology factor is

and

for battered, CFA and drilled piles.

displacement is the same as defined in Eq.8, only

differs in the case of tip resistance.

T-z parameters sand

Side resistance can be determined by the following form [32]:
(10)
is the ratio of the coefficient of real lateral earth pressure and the earth pressure at rest
where
(
for drilled piles);
is the effective inner friction angle of the soil;
is the
overconsolidation ratio;
is the effective vertical earth pressure;
is the ratio of the friction angle of the
pile side and the inner friction angle of the soil (
for cast-in-situ,
for precast concrete and
for
steel piles). Assuming

for

and

has the form of:

,

and its value is

The

for

(11)

displacement can be calculated considering the applied model proposed by Mosher [16] (see Eq.1):

.
(12)
The k subgrade modulus is given in graph form by API [25], curve fitting is carried out by the author to
obtain the following equations:
(13)
above the water table, and
(14)
under it. In Eq.13 and 14
is the relative density, which can be approximated if the inner friction angle of
the soil is known. Curve fitting is applied by the author to get the following formula:
,
where

(15)

inner friction angle is in radian.

Q-z parameters sand

The tip resistance can be computed by the following formula as per [32]:
(16)
where

is calculated based on the work of Berezantzev and Szepeshzi [32]:

(17)

and the modification factor for the earth pressure is:

(18)
where

is the pile diameter. The

technology factor is

for battered,

for CFA and

for drilled

Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

piles. The
The

167

effective inner friction angle is in radian in Eq. 17 and 18.

displacement can be expressed from Eq.2:

(19)

P-y parameters - clay

The proposals of Matlock [26] are used for the definition of ultimate resistance and the
displacement,
since his model is applied in the numerical model. The ultimate resistance is the minimum of the two
following values:

is the average effective unit weight;

where
for soft and
for medium clay.
The

(20)
(21)
parameter is

is the depth from the ground surface; and the

displacement is:

(22)
where
is the strain corresponding to a stress of
of the ultimate stress in a laboratory stress-strain
,
,
for soft, medium and stiff
curve. Without laboratory tests, this value can be taken as
clays.
P-y parameters sand
The ultimate soil resistance according to API [25] is the minimum of the following two values:
,
,

The

and
displacement is expressed from Eq.3:

(23)
(24)
(25)

(26)
where

subgrade modulus can be calculated from Eq.13 or 14.

Numerical example and sensitivity analysis

In present study, only one pile is analyzed in two different but homogenous soils: soft clay and dense sand.
The pile diameter is
, while the length is
. Cyclic analysis is carried out to assess the
significance of each parameter, thus sensitivity analysis is performed. The applied values and value ranges
deviation is assumed in the case of each parameter.
can be seen in Table 2,
Soft clay
c u [kPa]
Min
Mean
Max

42.5
50.0
57.5

[kN/m ]
15.7
18.5
21.3

Dense sand
50 [-]

[]

0.0085
0.0100
0.0115

25.50
30.00
34.50

[kN/m ]
17.43
20.50
23.58

Table 2. Soil parameters used for sensitivity analysis.

Axial behavior
First, the axial behavior is observed, displacement controlled cyclic pushover analysis is carried out to assess
the significance of the studied parameters. The vertical displacement of the top node of the pile as well as the
axial force is registered and shown in Fig.6a and Fig.6b, in case of the soft clay and the dense sand,
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

168

respectively. Here, only the effective shear strength and the inner friction angle are considered to have the
predefined deviation, since these parameters affect mostly the ultimate resistance values.
Beside of the above mentioned parameters, the effect of the uplifting tip resistance is also investigated.
Generally, the uplifting force is assumed to be borne by the skin friction, but some percent of the tip
resistance, which is maximized at around ten, can be taken into account.

Fig.6. Cyclic pile vertical displacement vs. axial force curves (a): for the soft clay; (b): for the dense

The cyclic curves are unsymmetrical due to the different load bearing behavior in tension (uplifting force)
and in compression. This phenomenon is less remarkable in the case of clay, especially with long piles, for
the tip resistance is relative lower compared to the side resistance, while a cohesionless soil bears the axial
loads primely at the pile tip, thus the tip resistance is dominant in compression.
The clay is less sensitive to the change of shear strength, while varying the inner friction angle of the sand
results highly different behavior, especially in compression.
The effect of suction is more severe in the case of cohesionless soil. In the case of clay with (solid line) or
without (dashed line) suction, the cyclic curves are nearly identical, while due to the higher tip to side
resistance ratio, the cohesionless soil bears tension at the tip with higher efficiency, the behavior in tension
more highly differs.

F
Fig.7. Cyclic pile lateral displacement vs. lateral force curves (a): for the soft clay; (b): for the dense sand.

Lateral behavior
The lateral behavior is investigated in the same manner as the axial one, with cyclic pushover analysis.
Beside of the change of shear strength or inner friction angle, the significance of the dragging force is also
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

169

observed. This force is a residual resistance that develops in the gapping behavior during cyclic loading. The
residual resistance is defined by the
factor that gives the ratio of the drag force and
.

Fig.7a and Fig.7b shows the pile head lateral displacement vs. the lateral cyclic curves (solid line ; dashed line ) which are symmetric without regard to the soil type. The behavior like
in the case of the axial behavior is more sensitive to the main parameters (e.g. ) if dense sand is studied.
The
parameter, thus the drag force has great influence on the final behavior. Higher
values result
smoother hysteretic behavior, therefore the energy dissipation is greater and the forces transferred to the
piers and the superstructure are mitigated.

Concluding remarks
In this paper, the theory of the non-linear force-displacement behavior of pile foundations is summarized.
Numerical model is built for the seismic analysis of pile foundations in OpenSEES FEM software using
Beam on Non-Linear Winkler Foundation approach. A suggestion is made for the definition of the
parameters needed for the t-z, q-z and p-y material models, taking into account the Eurocode 7 regulations.
The lateral cyclic behavior is symmetric without regard to the soil type. The cohesionless soil is concluded to
be more sensitive to its main input parameter, the inner friction angle. The adjustment of the drag force is
essential, since higher values lead to higher energy dissipation, thus smaller inner and reaction forces are
obtained, but it should be applied carefully and conservatively due to the same reasons.
Note that in present paper only few parameters are observed and only one pile is studied. The parameter
analysis should be extended to pile groups, layered soil and also other analysis types (e.g. non-linear timehistory analysis) to understand the cyclic behavior of the whole pile foundation system, and then the
influence of the SSI on the seismic response of continuous girder bridges can be assessed.

Acknowledgement
The work reported in the paper has been developed in the framework of the project Talent care and
cultivation in the scientific workshops of BME" project. This project is supported by the grant TMOP4.2.2.B-10/1--2010-0009.

References
[1] CEN: EN 1998-5:2004 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures
and geotechnical aspects, (2004)
[2] Spyrakos, C.C.: Assessment of SSI on the longitudinal seismic response of short span bridges, Engineering Structures, Vol.
12:(1), pp. 60-66, (1990)
[3] Zheng, J., Takeda, T.: Effects of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of PC cable-stayed bridge, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 14:(3), pp. 427-437, (1995)
[4] Saadeghvaziri, M.A., Yazdani-Motlagh, A.R, Rashidi, S.: Effects of soil-structure interaction on longitudinal seismic
response of MSSS bridges, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 231-242, (2000)
[5] Kappos, A.J., Manolis, G.D., Moschonas, I.F.: Seismic assessment and design of R/C bridges with irregular configuration,
including SSI effects, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, pp. 13371348, (2002)
[6] Spyrakos, C., Loannidis, G..: Seismic behavior of a post-tensioned integral bridge including soilstructure interaction
(SSI), Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 53-63, (2003)
[7] Tongaonkar, N.P., Jangid R.S.: Seismic response of isolated bridges with soilstructure interaction, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 287302, (2003)
[8] Jeremic, B., Kunnath, S., Xiong, F.: Influence of soilfoundationstructure interaction on seismic response of the I-880
viaduct, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 391402, (2004)
[9] Soneji, B.B., Jangid, R.S.: Influence of soilstructure interaction on the response of seismically isolated cable-stayed
bridge, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 245257, (2008)
[10] Dezi, F., Carbonari, S., Tombari, A., Leoni, G..: Soil-structure interaction in the seismic response of an isolated three span
motorway overcrossing founded on piles, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 41, pp. 151163, (2012)
Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method

Second Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

170

[11] McKenna, F., Feneves, G.L.: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific earthquake engineering research
center, version 2.3.2., (2012)
[12] Kraft, L.M., Ray, R.P., Kagawa, T.: Theoretical t-z curves, Journal Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings Paper
16653, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107(GT11), (1981)
[13] Vijayvergiya, V.N.: Load-movement characteristics of piles, Proceedings, Ports 77, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 2, pp. 269-286, (1977)
[14] Coyle, H.M., Salaiman, I.H.: Skin friction for steel piles in sand, Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings Paper 5590, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93(SM6), (1967)
[15] Briaud, J.L., Tucker, L.: Piles in sand: A method including residual stresses, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Proceedings Paper 19262, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 110(11), (1984)
[16] Mosher, R.L.: Load transfer criteria for numerical analysis of axially loaded piles in sand; Part 1: Load transfer criteria,
Technical Report K-84-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., (1984)
[17] Coyle, H.M., Reese, L.C.: Load transfer for axially loaded piles in clay, Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings Paper 4702, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93(SM6), (1966)
[18] Aschenbrenner, T.B., Olson, R.E.: Prediction of settlement of single piles in clay, Analysis and design of pile foundations,
American Society of Civil Engineers, J. R. Meyer, ed., (1984)
[19] Heydinger, A.G., ONeill, M.W.: Analysis of axial pile-soil interaction in clay, International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 10:(4), pp. 367-381, (1986)
[20] Coyle, H.M., Castello, R.R. New design correlations for piles in sand, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Proceedings Paper 16379, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107(GT7), (1981)
[21] Reese, L.C., ONeill, M.W.: Drilled shafts: construction procedures and design methods, Report FHWA-HI-88-042, US
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Implementation, McLean, Virginia, (1987)
[22] Poulos, H. G.: Cyclic axial pile response - alternative analyses, Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Geotechnical
Practice in Offshore Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, S. G. Wright, ed., pp. 403-21, (1983)
[23] Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., Koop, F.D.: Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand, Proceedings, Fifth Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 2080, Houston, TX., (1974)
[24] Murchison, J.M., O'Neill, M.W.: Evaluation of p-y relationships in cohesionless soils, Analysis and design of pile
foundations, American Society of Civil Engineers, J. R. Meyer, ed., 174-191, (1984)
[25] API: Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington D.C., (1991)
[26] Matlock, H.: Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay, Preprints, Second Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper No. 1204, Vol. 1, 577-588, (1970)
[27] Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., Koop, F.D.: Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay, Proceedings, Seventh
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. OTFC 2312. Houston, TX, (1975)
[28] Reese, L.C., Welch, R.C.: Lateral loading of deep foundations in stiff clay, Journal, Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineering 101(GT7), 633-649, (1975)
[29] ONeill, M.W., Gazioglu, S.M.: An evaluation of p-y relationships in clays, American Petroleum Institute, University of
Houston, (1984)
[30] Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C.J., Kutter, B.L., Wilson, D.W., Abghari, A.: Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments
and analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCS, 125(9):750-759, (1999)
[31] CEN: EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules, (2004)
[32] Szepeshzi R.: Pile design according to EC 7, PhD Theses (in Hungarian), University of Miskolc, (2011)

Simon, J.: Parameter identification for dynamic analysis of pile foundation using non-linear p-y method