Effects of Axial Load on the Location of a Combined Null Point in

Energy Piles

Arash Saeidi Rashk Olia1, Dunja Perić2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 1701C Platt St., Manhattan, KS
66506-5000; E-mail: saeidi@ksu.edu
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University, 1701C Platt St., Manhattan, KS,
66506-5000; E-mail: peric@ksu.edu

ABSTRACT

Soil structure interaction in energy piles has not yet been understood comprehensively. One of the
important underlying issues is the location of a zero-displacement point, known as the null point.
This study investigates how the location of a combined null point in fully floating energy piles is
affected by relative magnitudes of thermal and mechanical loads. Analytical solutions are used to
address four different loading scenarios including compressive and tensile loads, and heating and
cooling. It was found that the location of the combined null point coincides with the location of
the maximum magnitude of the axial stress induced by thermo-mechanical load. Furthermore,
while a thermal null point is always present in fully floating energy piles, the combined null point
is absent in the case of a small magnitude of thermal load as compared to the mechanical load.
With increase in the relative magnitude of thermal load as compared to the mechanical load the
combined null point emerges at different locations for different load combinations. In all cases it
subsequently moves towards the mid-length of the pile with increase in the relative magnitude of
thermal load.

INTRODUCTION

Energy piles are multifunctional deep foundations. They transfer superstructure loads to the ground
while simultaneously enabling exchange of thermal energy between the superstructure and shallow
subsurface. Consequently, energy piles are sustainable foundations that use a low enthalpy
geothermal energy for a supplemental space heating and cooling, thus improving the energy
efficiency of buildings while decreasing the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The
great potential for environmental and economic benefits stems from utilization of geothermal
energy as a source of renewable energy, thus resulting in a worldwide popularity of geothermal
piles (Ghasemi-fare and Basu 2016).
Due to restraints imposed by the surrounding soil, temperature change of an energy pile
induces displacement, strain and stress in the pile (Bourne-Webb et al.2009, Amatya et al. 2012,
Bourne-Webb et al. 2013, Perić et al. 2020). Tendency of a heated energy pile to expand and a
cooled pile to contract is the main cause of induced thermal stresses. Furthermore, the soil that
surrounds piles induces compressive stress in a heated energy pile and tensile stress in a cooled

-1-
energy pile. Consequently, prediction of thermally and mechanically induced displacements,
strains and stresses is vitally important for design of energy piles. Finite element models and
analytical solutions showed that the combined null point emerges in semi floating energy pile tip,
while the combined null point in perfectly end bearing pile is always at the pile tip, regardless of
the load combination. (Saeidi Rashk Olia and Perić 2021 a & b)
This study focuses on evaluation of effects of relative magnitude of mechanical load with
respect to thermal load on the location of a combined null point, which is a location of zero
displacement. It is because semi floating and fully floating piles expand at both ends when heated
and vice versa when cooled that there is no displacement at all at a certain location that is known
as a null point. For example, in nearly fully floating piles the thermal null point is located at the
mid-length of the pile.

ANALYTICAL MODEL

Analytical solutions for thermo-mechanical soil structure interaction in a single energy pile were
presented by Cossel (2019), Iodice et al. (2020), and Perić, et. al. (2020). They all assumed that
the soil pile interface remains in elastic regime while pile obeys a thermo-elastic constitutive law.
These assumptions were confirmed by Laloui et al. (2006), Knellwolf et al. (2011) and Perić, et.
al. (2017). Cossel (2019) provided the solutions for axial displacement, strain and stress in a semi-
floating energy pile embedded in a single soil layer that is underlain by a bedrock or another soil
layer. The pile tip is flush with the bottom of the relevant soil layer. The solutions for displacement
(u), strain (ε) and stress (σ) in a semi-floating energy pile subjected to a thermo-mechanical load
in the absence of head restrain are given by Eqs. 1, 2 and 3.
𝛼Δ𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝑥0 )] 𝐹[𝐸𝜓𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝜓𝑥)+𝑘𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝑥)]
𝑢(𝑥) = + (1)
𝜓𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝐿−𝑥0 )] 𝐴𝐸𝜓[𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)+𝑘𝑏 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ⁡(𝜓𝐿)]

𝛼Δ𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝑥0 )] 𝐹[𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝑥)+𝑘 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝜓𝑥)]

𝜀(𝑥) = + 𝐴𝐸[𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)+𝑘𝑏 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ⁡(𝜓𝐿)] (2)
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝐿−𝑥0 )] 𝑏

𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝑥 )] 𝐹[𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝑥)+𝑘 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝜓𝑥)]

𝜎(𝑥) = 𝐸𝛼Δ𝑇 {𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝐿−𝑥0)] − 1} + 𝐴[𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)+𝑘𝑏𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ⁡(𝜓𝐿)] (3)
0 𝑏

where positive x coordinate is directed upward and it originates at the pile tip. Cossel (2019)
also provided the solution for the location of a thermal null point (x0). It is given by Eq. 4.

1 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝜓𝐿)−1
𝑥0 = 𝜓 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ−1 [ 𝑘 ] (4)
𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)+ 𝑏
𝐸𝜓

The elastic modulus and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the pile are denoted by E
and α respectively, while ΔT is a temperature difference of the pile relative to the surrounding soil.
ΔT is positive in case of heating, and negative in case of cooling. Mechanical load in the form of
axial force F is positive in case of a tensile force and negative in case of a compressive force. The

-2-
parameter ψ contains the pile geometry and relative stiffness of the soil with respect to the pile. It
is given by
𝑝 𝑘𝑠 (5)
𝜓2 = ( ) ( )
𝐴 𝐸

where p and A are the perimeter and the cross-sectional area of the energy pile respectively. The
length of the pile is denoted by L. The stiffness of the continuous shear spring attached along the
pile shaft is denoted by ks, and the stiffness of the normal spring attached at the pile tip is denoted
by kb.
In the special case of a nearly ideally fully floating energy pile whereby the restraint at the
pile tip is arbitrary small, the thermal null point is located arbitrarily close to the mid-length of the
pile. It is noted that ideally fully floating pile would be infinitely long. Nevertheless, a nearly fully
floating pile has a finite length and its response is arbitrarily close to that of an ideally fully floating
pile. Specifically, the stiffness of the spring attached to the tip (kb) of a nearly fully floating pile
can be determined by selecting a desired ratio of mechanically induced axial stresses at the pile tip
and pile head. Therefore, substituting x0=L/2, and kb=0 in Eqs. 1 to 3 the following equations are
obtained for a nearly fully floating pile.
𝛼Δ𝑇𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝐿/2)] 𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝜓𝑥)
𝑢(𝑥) = + 𝐴𝐸𝜓𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿) (6)
𝜓𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝜓(𝐿/2)
𝛼Δ𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝐿/2)] 𝐹𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝑥)
𝜀(𝑥) = + 𝐴𝐸𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿) (7)
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝜓(𝐿/2)
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ[𝜓(𝑥−𝐿/2)] 𝐹𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝑥)
𝜎(𝑥) = 𝐸𝛼Δ𝑇 { − 1} + 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿) (8)
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝜓(𝐿/2)

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
In order to conduct thermo-mechanical analysis, a homogenous soil layer, representing the soil
layer denoted by A1 by Laloui et al. (2006) is selected. This is one of the four layers that are
present within the layered soil profile below Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne,
Switzerland. In the present study, the soil layer A1 surrounds the energy pile along its entire depth.
The parameters of the analytical model used in this study are listed in Table. 1 based on Laloui et
al. 2006 and Knellwolf et al. (2011).

Table 1. Parameters of the analytical model

Parameters Values

Shear spring stiffness, ks (MPa/m) 16.7

Energy pile length, L (m) 26
Energy pile diameter, D (m) 1
Coefficient of thermal expansion, α (1/°C) 1 × 10-5
Elastic Modulus, E (GPa) 29.2

-3-
PREDICTIONS OF THE ANALYTICAL MODEL

Four different loading scenarios are considered herein. They can be described as
• Case (i): F < 0 (compression) and ΔT < 0 (cooling)
• Case (ii): F < 0 (compression) and ΔT > 0 (heating)
• Case (iii): F > 0 (tension) and ΔT < 0 (cooling)
• Case (iv): F > 0 (tension) and ΔT >0 (heating)
In case of loading scenarios (ii) and (iii), in which ΔT and F have different signs, thermal
and mechanical loads induce stresses having the same sign. Specifically, in the case of loading
scenario (ii) both, mechanical and thermal stresses compressive while for loading scenario (iii)
both, mechanical and thermal are tensile. On the contrary, in case of loading scenarios (i) and (iv)
thermally and mechanically induced stresses have different signs.
First, load scenarios (i) and (ii) corresponding to the compressive load are considered. In
accordance with Knellwolf et al. (2011) an axial compressive force having magnitude 1 MN is
applied to the pile head, thus representing a load from the four-storey building. Furthermore, to
represent a two-storey building a compressive force having magnitude of 0.5 MN is also applied.
Perić et al. (2020) defined the equivalent thermal load ΔTeq, thus enabling a direct
conversion between thermal and mechanical loads. It is given by
𝐹
Δ𝑇𝑒𝑞 = ± 𝐴𝐸𝛼 (9)

where A is the cross sectional area of the pile, and plus sign applies to load scenarios (i) and (iv)
while minus sign applies to the scenarios (ii) and (iii). For a mechanical load of magnitude |𝐹|, the
corresponding magnitude of equivalent thermal load is |𝛥𝑇𝑒𝑞 |. Eq. 9 is based on the fact that both,
mechanical and equivalent thermal load produce displacement and strain of equal magnitude
throughout the entire length of an end bearing pile. Thus, for the mechanical load F = -1 MN and
F= -0.5 MN Eq. 9 results in the magnitude of the equivalent thermal loads being equal to 4.36 °C
and 2.18 °C respectively. Consequently, for the selected thermal load of ±10 °C the magnitude of
actual thermal load is 2.29 times larger than that of the equivalent thermal load whereby the actual
mechanical load is -1 MN. In the case that mechanical load is -0.5 MN the magnitude of the
equivalent thermal load is 4.58 times larger than that of the equivalent thermal load.
Figures 1 and 2 show thermal, mechanical and combined responses of the fully floating
energy pile subjected to load scenario (i) and compressive axial forces of 0.5 MN and 1 MN
respectively. Figures. 1-a and 2-a show that the thermal null point in both cases is located at the
mid-length of the pile as a result of absence of head ant tip restraints in the fully floating energy
pile as well as of constant shear spring stiffness throughout the pile length. Nevertheless, the
application of the additional mechanical compressive load shifts the initial null point, thus resulting
in the combined null point being located lower than the thermal null point. This downward
relocation is due to the opposite directions of thermal and mechanical displacements in the bottom
part of the pile.

-4-
 u(mm) ε(μϵ) σ(MPa)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -200 -100 0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0 0 0

therm

-10 mech -10 -10

Depth(m)
Depth(m)

Depth(m)
comb
therm
therm
-20 -20 -20
mech
mech
comb
-30 comb -30 -30

a b c
Figure 1. a) Displacement, (b) strain, and (c) stress in a fully floating energy pile subjected
to loading scenario (i) (F = -0.5 MN, and ΔT=-10 ͦC)
Nevertheless, both, thermal and mechanical loads, induce compressive strains.
Furthermore, thermally induced displacement, strain and stress are dominant for the most part
because magnitude of the thermal load is significantly larger than that of the mechanical load. It is
noted that cooling generates tensile stress in the energy pile while compressive mechanical load
induces compressive stress. It is because cooling is dominant as compared to the compressive force
that the combined stress is tensile along certain length of the pile (Figures 1c and 2c). The smaller
the compressive load the larger the tensile stress and tension zone. Furthermore, the smaller the
compressive load the smaller change in the location of a combined null point as compared to the
thermal null point.
u(mm) ε(μϵ) σ(MPa)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -200 -100 0 -1.5-1-0.5 0 0.5 1
0 0 0
therm

mech -10
Depth(m)
-10 -10
Depth(m)

Depth(m)

comb
therm therm
-20 -20 -20
mech mech

comb comb
-30 -30 -30

a b c
Figure 2. a) Displacement, (b) strain, and (c) stress in a fully floating energy pile subjected
to loading scenario (i) (F = -1MN and ΔT= -10 ͦC)

-5-
 Responses of the fully floating energy pile subjected to load scenario (ii) whereby the
magnitudes of compressive mechanical load are 0.5 MN and 1 MN respectively are depicted in
Figures 3 and 4. Heating induces upward displacement in the upper part of the energy pile and
downward displacement in its lower part, the thermal null point is located at the mid-depth of the
pile. The combined null point in case of heating and compression is located in the upper half of
the pile, and it moves further up for the larger magnitude of mechanical load. Heating induces
tensile strain, while mechanical strain is compressive as depicted in Figures 3b and 4b. Based on
displacement and strain responses thermal load is clearly dominant in the combined response. In
the case of load scenario (ii) thermally and mechanically induced stresses are both compressive,
and they add up in case of a combined load. Thermally induced stress is dominant in the combined
response in the lower portion of the pile because thermal stress exceeds the mechanical stress in
this region.

u(mm) ε(μϵ) σ(MPa)

-2 -1 0 1 2 -50 0 50 100150 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
0 0 0

-10 -10 therm -10

Depth(m)
Depth(m)
Depth(m)

mech
therm
-20 -20 comb -20
therm
mech
mech
comb
-30 -30 -30
comb

a b c
Figure 3. a) Displacement, (b) strain, and (c) stress in a fully floating energy pile subjected
to loading scenario (ii) (F = -0.5 MN and ΔT=+10 ͦC)
Using Eq. 10 the actual thermal load (ΔT) can be expressed in terms of the equivalent
thermal load as follows
Δ𝑇 = 𝜂Δ𝑇𝑒𝑞 (10)

It is noted that the coefficient η is always positive. The larger the values of η the more dominant
the thermal load is compared to the mechanical load. Figure 5a depicts changes in the location of
a combined null point due to increase in η for loading scenario (i). For η=1 the combined
displacement is directed downward throughout the entire length of the pile, and a combined null
point is non-existent. This results in a lack of tensile stress. With increase in η thermal response
gradually becomes increasingly more dominant. This results in emergence of the combined null
point near the pile tip and its gradual movement towards the mid-length of the pile.

-6-
 u(mm) ε(μϵ) σ(MPa)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -50 50 150 250 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
0 0 0

-10 -10 -10

Depth(m)

Depth(m)
Depth(m)

therm
-20 -20 therm therm -20
mech
mech mech
comb
-30 -30 -30
comb comb

a b c
Figure 4. a) Displacement, (b) strain, and (c) stress in a fully floating energy pile subjected
to loading scenario (ii) (F = -1 MN and ΔT=+10 C)

At the same time, tension zone emerges and it extends upward from the pile tip. As the
tension zone becomes longer the magnitude of tensile stress increases. Figures 5 and 6 point out
that the location of a combined null point corresponds to the location of the maximum magnitude
of the combined stress, which in turn requires perhaps the most important consideration in design
of energy piles.
Figure 6a demonstrates development of the combined null point for load scenario (ii) and
different η values. In this case the entire pile moves upward, and the combined null point does not
exist for η <⁡ 2.14. As magnitude of thermal load increases compared to the magnitude of
mechanical load the combined null point starts to emerge and gradually move downward towards
the mid-length of the pile. As expected, the location of a combined null point coincides with the
location of the maximum magnitude of the combined stress (Figure 6b). A larger η value indicates
a larger dominance of thermal response in the combined response and thus the larger magnitude
of a combined compressive stress.
The location of a combined null point (𝑥̅0 ) can be obtained by combining Eqs. 6, 9 and
10. The solution for load scenarios (i) and (iv) is given by
1 𝜓𝐿 1
𝑥̅0 = 𝜓 tanh−1 [𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ ( 2 ) − 𝜂𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)] (11)

with limitation
1
𝜂> 𝜓𝐿 (12)
𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)(tanh⁡( ))
2

The solution for loading scenarios (ii) and (iii) is given by

1 𝜓𝐿 1
𝑥̅0 = 𝜓 tanh−1 [𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ ( 2 ) + 𝜂𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)] (13)

-7-
with limitation
1
𝜂> 𝜓𝐿 (14)
𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝜓𝐿)(1−tanh⁡( ))
2

u(mm) σ(Mpa)
-2 -1 0 1 2 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0 26 0 26
η=1 η=1
-5 η=2 21 -5 η=2 21
η=3 η=3
Depth(m)

-10 16 -10 16

Depth(m)
η=4

x(m)
η=4

x(m)
-15 η=5 11 -15 η=5 11

-20 6 -20 6

-25 1 -25 1

-30 -4 -30 -4
(a) (b)
Figure 5. a) Displacement, and (b) stress, in a fully floating energy pile subjected to loading
scenario (i) (F = -0.5 MN) and different magnitude of thermal loads

u(mm) σ(Mpa)
-2 -1 0 1 -1 0 1
0 26 0 26
η=1
-5 η=2 21 -5 η=1 21
η=3 η=2
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

-10 16 -10 η=3 16

η=4
x(m)

-15 η=5 11 -15

η=4
11 x(m)
η=5
-20 6 -20 6

-25 1 -25 1

-30 -4 -30 -4
(a) (b)
Figure 6. a) displacement, and (b) stress, in a floating energy pile subjected to loading
scenario (ii) (F = -0.5 MN) and different magnitude of thermal loads

Emergence and progression of the combined null point based on Eqs. 11 and 13 is depicted
in Figure 7. For load scenarios (i) and (iv), where thermal and mechanical loads have the same
sign, the combined null point emerges at the pile tip and gradually moves upward towards the mid-

-8-
depth of the pile with increasing magnitude of thermal load. Whereas, for load scenarios (ii) and
(iii) whereby thermal and mechanical loads have opposite signs, the combined null point emerges
at the pile head and gradually moves toward the mid-length of the pile with increasing magnitude
of thermal load. In both cases the rate of change of the location of a combined null point is faster
at lower values of η. It is also noted that the curve depicting load scenarios (i) and (iv) is not the
mirror image of the curve depicting load scenarios (ii) and (iii). Specifically, for load scenarios (i)
and (iv) the combined null point emerges at a smaller thermal load than for load scenarios (i) and
(iii).

25
Combined null point, 𝑥 ̅0

20

15 load scenarios (i) and (iv)

load scenarios (ii) and (iii)
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
ƞ

Figure 7. Location of a combined null point for fully floating energy pile and different
magnitudes of thermal load

CONCLUSION

Analytical solutions were implemented to evaluate the response of a fully floating energy pile
subjected to different combinations of thermal and mechanical loads. It was found that location of
the combined thermal point coincides with the location of the maximum magnitude of thermo-
mechanical stress, which is vitally important for design. Mechanical load is typically
approximately constant while thermal load changes significantly during the operation of energy
piles. Thus, the range of locations of maximum stress magnitude that depends on the operational
temperature range can be easily obtained. Furthermore, it is shown that the thermal null point is
always located arbitrarily close to the mid-depth of the nearly ideally fully floating energy pile.
Nevertheless, the location of a combined null point depends on the magnitude and sign of thermal
load as compared to the mechanical load. In case that magnitude of thermal load is small the
combined null point is absent. With increasing magnitude of thermal load as compared to
mechanical load the combined thermal point starts to emerge and it gradually moves towards the
mid-length of the pile. For load combinations where the signs of thermal and mechanical loads are
different the combined null point emerges at the pile head and moves downward. For load
combinations where the signs of thermal and mechanical loads are the same the combined null

-9-
point emerges at the pile tip and moves upward. Furthermore, in the latter case the tension zone
forms along the portion of the pile length for sufficiently large magnitudes of thermal load.

REFERENCES

Amatya, B., Soga K., Bourne-Webb, P. J., Amis, T., and Laloui, L. (2012). “Thermo-mechanical behavior
of energy piles”, Géotechnique 62(6) 503-509.
Bourne-Webb, P. J., Amatya, B., Soga, K., Amis, T., Davidson, C., and Payne, P. (2009). “Energy pile test
at Lambeth College, London: Geotechnical and thermodynamic aspects of pile response to heat
cycles.” Géotechnique 59 (3): 237–248.
Bourne-Webb, P. J., Amatya B., and Soga, K. (2013). “A framework for understanding energy pile
behaviour.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 166 (2): 170–177.
Brandl, H. (2006). “Energy foundations and other energy ground structures.” Géotechnique. 56 (2): 81–
122.
Cossel, A. (2019). “Analytical solutions for thermo-mechanical soil structure interaction in energy piles”
M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kansas State University.
Ghasemi-Fare, O., and Basu P., (2016). “Predictive assessment of heat exchange performance of
geothermal piles.” Renewable Energy, 86, 1178-1196.
Iodice, C., Di Laora, R., and Mandolini, A. (2020). “Analytical Solutions for Ultimate Limit
State Design of Thermal Piles.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 146(5), 04020016.
Knellwolf, C., Peron, H., and Laloui., L. (2011). “Geotechnical analysis of heat exchanger piles.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (12): 890–902.
Laloui, L., Moreni, M., Fromentin, A., Pahud, D. and Steinmann, G., 1999. “Heat exchanger pile: Effect of
the thermal solicitations on its mechanical properties.” Bull. d’Hydrogéologie 17 (1): 331–340.
Laloui, L., Moreni, M. and Vulliet, L. (2003). “Comportement d’un pieu bifonction, fondation et
échangeur de chaleur.” Can. Geotech. J. 40 (2): 388–402.
Laloui, L., Nuth, M., and Vulliet, L. (2006). “Experimental and numerical investigations of the behaviour
of a heat exchanger pile.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 30 (8): 763–781.
Saeidi Rashk Olia, A., and Perić, D. (2021). “Cross validation of analytical solutions against the
computational model predictions of the response of end bearing energy pile” 2nd Int. Conf.
on Energy Geotech. (In press)
Saeidi Rashk Olia, A., and Perić, D. (2021). “Cross validation of analytical solutions against the
computational model predictions of the response of semi floating energy pile” 2nd Int. Conf.
on Energy Geotech. (In press)
Perić, D., Tran, T. V., and Miletić, M. (2017). “Effects of soil anisotropy on a soil structure interaction in
a heat exchanger pile.” Comput. Geotech. 86 (Jun): 193–202.
Perić, D., Cossel, A. E., and Sarna, S. A. (2020). “Analytical Solutions for Thermomechanical Soil
Structure Interaction in End-Bearing Energy Piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 146(7), 04020047.

-10-