University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences -
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences
Papers: Part A

2015

Nonlinear response of lateral piles with compatible

cap stiffness and p-multiplier
Wei Dong Guo
University of Wollongong, wdguo@uow.edu.au

Publication Details
Guo, W. (2015). Nonlinear response of lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
141 (9), 06015002-1-06015002-11.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
research-pubs@uow.edu.au
Nonlinear response of lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-
multiplier
Abstract
Response of lateral pile groups is modeled using the more accurate (than any other numerical modeling) p − y
curves-based load transfer model. It is essentially underpinned by limiting force per unit length pmpu,
modulus of subgrade reaction pmk, and p-multiplier pm (to cater for pile-pile interaction, pm ¼ 1 for single
piles). With the model, new closed-form solutions are developed incorporating the cap-rotational stiffness kr.
The solutions are presented in nondimensional charts for free-head (kr ¼ 0) through fixed-head (kr > 10
times the pile bending stiffness). The study reveals that the existing pm (bearing no link to the stiffness kr) is
inconsistent with pm ¼ 0.25 for capped piles (at limiting state of elastic solutions). This casts doubt about the
accuracy of available solutions, and a compatible stiffness kr and pm is required. The compatible normalized
stiffness knr is equal to 0.275-0.333 (n ¼ 0.7) and 0.333-0.564 (n ¼ 1.7) for the associated pm at the design
level of (ground-level) bending moment specified in the JGJ code. Use of the solutions is elaborated for a
typical offshore pile group against measured response, which largely substantiates the deduced stiffness knr.
The coupled kr and pm revealed are fundamental to design of the capped piles using any methods. The new
solutions using the knr and pm values should be employed to conduct pertinent design.

Disciplines
Engineering | Science and Technology Studies

Publication Details
Guo, W. (2015). Nonlinear response of lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 141 (9), 06015002-1-06015002-11.

This journal article is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers/4488

1 Date revised: 10May, 2013; 21 Nov, 2014, March, 2015

2 Title: Nonlinear response of lateral piles with compatible cap

3 stiffness and p-multiplier

4 Wei Dong Guo, M. ASCE

5
6 Affiliation and address:
7 Associate Professor Wei Dong Guo
8 School of Civil, Mining & Environmental
9 Engineering
10 University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
11 Email: camsaweidguo@lycos.com; wdguo@uow.edu.au
12 Tel: (61-2) 4221 3036

13

14 Words: 5567
15 Number of tables: 1
16 Number of figures: 7
17
18 Key words: piles and pile groups, closed-form solutions, nonlinear response, lateral loading, soil-
19 structure interaction
20

___________________________________________________________________________________

i
21

22 ABSTRACT
23 Response of lateral pile groups is modelled using the more accurate p-y curves based load transfer

24 model (than any other numerical modelling). It is essentially underpinned by limiting force per

25 unit length pmpu, modulus of subgrade reaction pmk, and p-multiplier pm (to cater for pile-pile

26 interaction, pm= 1 for single piles). With the model, new closed-form solutions are developed

27 incorporating the cap-rotational stiffness kr. The solutions are presented in non-dimensional charts

28 for free-head (kr = 0) through fixed-head (kr > 10 times the pile bending stiffness). The study

29 reveals that

30  The existing pm (bearing no link to the stiffness kr) is inconsistent with ‘pm= 0.25’ for

31 capped piles (at limiting state of elastic solutions). This casts doubt about the accuracy of

32 available solutions; and a compatible stiffness kr and pm is required.

33  The compatible normalised stiffness knr is equal to 0.275 ~0.333 (n = 0.7) and 0.333~0.564

34 (n = 1.7) for the associated pm at the design level of (ground-level) bending moment

35 specified in the JGJ code.

36 Use of the solutions is elaborated for a typical offshore pile group against measured response,

37 which largely substantiates the deduced stiffness knr. The coupled kr and pm revealed are

38 fundamental to design of the capped piles using any methods. The new solutions using the knr and

39 pm values should be employed to conduct pertinent design.

40

41 Key words: nonlinear response, rotating cap, limiting force profiles, lateral loading, piles

42
___________________________________________________________________________________

ii
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

43 Introduction

44 Piles are customarily cast into a pile cap that restrains pile-head rotation (Mokwa and Duncan

45 2003; Ooi et al. 2004; Guo 2009), but allows horizontal translation during lateral loading.

46 However at a working load level, cap-rotation generally occurs (Mokwa and Duncan 2003; Ooi

47 et al. 2004), owing to relaxation of soil resistance underneath the pile-cap or around piles (Guo

48 2009), insufficent cap-restraint and possible cracking of the piles. The translation (displacement)

49 and rotation [see Fig. 1(a)] may be associated with ~4 times different resistance as noted for

50 rigid piles. This difference has to be properly considered to provide reliable design, especially,

51 for wind-turbine foundations and subjected to earthquake loading.

52 Lateral pile-soil interaction may be mimicked using a series of independent springs-

53 sliders distributed along the shaft and a membrane (to incorporate couple interaction among the

54 springs) (e.g. Fig. 1(b)). The slider is characterised by the profile of limiting force per unit length

55 (pu profile) to a (slip) depth xp, and the spring has a modulus of subgrade reaction k for the pile-

56 soil system. In the context of the interaction model, elastic-plastic closed-form solutions (Guo

57 2012) were developed for free-head rotation but for soil resistance (FreH piles), and capped-head

58 (no rotation, FixH piles), respectively. The FixH solutions are also used to predict group

59 response using a reduced limiting resistance pmpu and modulus pmk by incorporating the pile-pile

60 interaction factor pm (= p-multipliers ≤ 1.0) (Brown et al. 1998) [see Fig.1 (c) and (e)].

61 Fixed-head solutions using numerical finite element method, and finite difference

62 approach (Ooi et al. 2004) overestimate measured maximum bending moment and underestimate

63 measured deflection of capped piles (Duncan et al. 2005) at large; whereas free-head solutions

64 offer incorrect depth of maximum bending moment and overestimate the head-deflection. The

___________________________________________________________________________________
1
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

65 concept of p-multiplier is less rigorous but offers more reliable and efficient prediction of overall

66 pile response than finite element and finite difference methods (Guo 2009; Guo 2012).

67 Nevertheless, the ~ 4 times difference in resistance due to cap-rotational stiffness kr, must be

68 quantified to conform with the pm to gain reliable solutions, which is not available. To meet more

69 stringent design, new solutions underpinned by load transfer model are developed in this paper,

70 for piles with a cap stiffness kr. With the solutions, the impact of the stiffness kr is examined and

71 presented in non-dimensional charts. The stiffness kr and the pm are obtained for typical cases.

72 Overall Solutions for A Single Pile

73 Load Transfer Model

74 Fig. 1(b) shows under a pile-head load H, the pile-soil system is simulated using the uncoupled

75 (with Np = 0, plastic zone) and coupled (Np  0, elastic zone) load transfer models (Guo 2006).

76 The pile-head has a rotational stiffness kr, and a ground-level bending moment Mo of krg (g =

77 pile-head rotation angle in radian, at zero loading eccentricity of ep = 0). The pile-soil system

78 retains the salient features of free-head (kr = 0) and fixed-head piles (kr > 10EpIp, EpIp = flexural

79 stiffness of a pile), as recaptured in Appendix I. The net limiting force per unit length, pu [FL-1]

80 along the pile shaft [see Fig. 1(c)] is the sum of the passive soil resistance acting on the face of

81 the pile in the direction of soil movement, and sliding resistance on the side of the pile, less any

82 force due to active earth pressure on the rear face of the pile. The pu is described by (Guo 2006)

83 pu  AL ( x   o ) n (1)

84 s u N g d 1 n (cohesive soil), and AL   s' N g d 2  n (cohesionless soil)

AL  ~ (2)

85 where d is pile diameter [L]; x is depth below ground level [L]; o is an equivalent depth to

86 include the pu at ground-line level [L]; n is a power to the corrected depth of x+ o; ~
s u is an

___________________________________________________________________________________
2
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

87 average undrained shear strength su of the soil [FL-2] over the max xp anticipated; Ng is a gradient

88 correlated clay strength or sand density to the limiting pu;  s' is effective unit weight of the

89 overburden soil [FL-3] (i.e. dry weight above water table, and buoyant weight below). The

90 parameters o, Ng, and n were deduced against measured response of 70 free-head piles and ~30

91 capped piles in single or layered soil (Guo 2013a). It is noted that n = 0.5~0.7 (for a uniform

92 strength profile, e.g. clay), and 1.3~1.7 (for a linearly increasing strength profile. e.g. sand). The

93 pu along with a subgrade modulus k are sufficiently accurate to model pile response. The pu [≤

94 9.14~11.94sud clay (Randolph and Houlsby 1984)] from equation (1) is only effective to the max

95 xp. It may be estimated using angle of internal friction and cohesion of a subsoil by Hansen’s

96 solution (Hansen 1961; Guo 2013a).

97 The uncoupled and coupled load transfer models (Hetenyi 1946; Guo and Lee 2001)

98 allow the governing equations for the pile (see Fig. 1) to be obtained as

99 E p I p w IV ( x)   pu (Elastic zone, 0  x  xp) (3)

100 E p I p w IV ( z )  N p w" ( z )  kw( z )  0 (Plastic zone, xp  x  L, or 0 z  L- xp) (4)

101 where w(x) is the pile deflection at depth x; wIV (x) is 4th derivative of w(x) with respect to x; Ip

102 and Ep are moment of inertia and Young’s modulus of an equivalent solid cylindrical pile,

103 respectively. As with those for free-head and fixed-head piles (Guo 2006), response of the lateral

104 pile (see Fig. 1) is presented against the depth x (measured from ground level) in the upper

105 plastic zone, and a depth z (= x- xp, measured from the slip depth xp) in the lower elastic zones,

106 respectively, to generate compact expressions. The values of Np and k are calculated using the

107 average modulus Gs of the soil over the effective length Lc (see Appendix I).

___________________________________________________________________________________
3
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

108 Pile-head Rotational Stiffness kr

109 A laterally loaded pile group generally exhibts the cap-rotation owing to more compression in

110 piles located in front rows than back rows. The rotational stiffness of the pile-cap kr may be

111 taken as that of pile-head for a fully cast concrete cap with a sufficient rigidity. It may then be

112 calculated using axial stiffness and capacity of a single pile, with due account of the pile group

113 spacing (Mokwa and Duncan 2003). This treatment, however, is not valid to capped single piles

114 or pile groups with other head constraints. The rotational stiffness kr does affect the magnitude

115 of the pu (Guo 2009), which may be determined using Ng [see Eq. (2)]. A fictitious gradient

116 NgFreH* is deduced by matching a measured load-displacement relationship (indicated by an

117 asterisk * in the Ng) with free-head solutions; and a NgFixH* with fixed-head solutions. Elastic

118 theory for a laterally loaded rigid pile (Scott 1981; Guo 2012) provides wgFixH = HFixH/kFixHL, and

119 wgFreH = 4HFreH/kFreHL. Assuming that 4wgFixH = wgFreH and pmkFreH = kFixH leads to pmHFixH =

120 HFreH, which renders at limit state pmNgFixH* = NgFreH*. This, by no means, indicates a factor of pm

121 between fixed-head and free-head Ng, as the 4 times different displacements would not be

122 warranted between the piles. In fact the ratio becomes far greater than 4 once plastic deformation

123 is induced (Guo 2013b). The form of NgFixH*= pmNgFreH is adopted here to deduce Ng with a

124 stiffness kr.

125 Ground-level bending moment Mo may be measured for a lateral load H at a loading

126 eccentricity ep above ground level. Owing to semi-fixity, the Chinese JGJ design code (JGJ

127 1994) recommends a design bending moment Mo be 0.4 times the moment (denoted as MoFixH)

128 induced on a pile-head with translation only (FixH) pile; and the design pile-head deflection wg

129 be 1.25 times the wgFixH gained using the FixH solutions (JGJ 1994). The ratios will be used later

130 to determine the stiffness kr.

___________________________________________________________________________________
4
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

131 Elastic-plastic Solutions

132 Equations (3) and (4) were resolved using the technology for free-head piles (Guo 2006) by

133 enforcing the bending moment –Mo = E p I p w(0)  k r  g + Hep, and the shear force –Q(0) = H at

134 the pile-head level (x = 0). Note the g is of a negative value, and offers a counter moment

135 against Hep as expected. The elastic-plastic solutions developed are provided in Appendix I for

136 response profiles and head response, respectively. They involve the reciprocal of a characteristic

137 length  [= 4 k ( 4 E p I p ) ], the on-pile force per unit length p = pu at x  xp [see Fig. 1(c)], the

138 normalised ground-level resistance  o (= o), and the two coupled parameters αN and βN in

139 elastic zone (αN = βN = 1 for uncoupled springs with Np = 0). The response profiles are

140 dominated by the normalised depths x (= x) and z (= x - x p , x p = xp), respectively for plastic

141 and elastic zones, and involve normalised pile-head load H (= Hn+1/AL), ground-level

142 deflection wg (via wg = wgkn/AL) and rotation g (via  g = gkn-1/AL) for the normalised

143 stiffness knr [= kr3/k].

144 Simplified Expressions

145 The dimensionless expressions of H , wg , and  g (see Appendix I) largely reflect the

146 consequence of mobilization depth (via x p ) of the limiting force per unit length pu along a

147 laterally loaded pile. They may be simplified to the following form, given negligible on-pile

148 resistance at ground-line and the coupled interaction (thus o  0 and Np  0).

 4 x p3 ( x p  e p  1) (1  x p2  2 x p e p ) 
n   2x p2

xp  (n  1)(n  2)(n  3) (n  1)(n  2) 
149 g    (5)
2( x p  1) k nr  1  x p  e p 
2
x p (1  x p )  (1  2 x p )e p 
 2 x p n 1
 (1  x p )(1  x p  2e p )


___________________________________________________________________________________
5
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

0.5 x pn [(n  1)(n  2)  2 x p (2  n  x p )] k nr  g

150 H   (6)
( x p  1  e p )(n  1)(n  2) xp 1 ep

 2k nr x p (2 x p  3) 
wg   g x p   1
 3( x  e  1) 
 p p 
 
151 (7)
4 n
4x p 2 x p2  (2 x p  n  1)(n  2) ( x p  3e p ) x p2 n
   x pn
(n  1)(n  2)(n  3)(n  4) 3(1  x p  e p )(n  1)(n  2)

152 where knr = kr3/k = 4kr/(EpIp) = k r / g . The maximum bending moment is likely equal to the

153 ground-line moment Mo (with M o  H e p  k nr  g ) for semi-FixH piles. The solutions possess

154 similar features to FreH and FixH solutions (Guo and Lee 2001; Guo 2006) (see Appendix I),

155 but for the Ng and n (thus AL) values. The impact of the stiffness kr is significant, but there is no

156 simple way to estimate its value. The kr may be calculated from the upper structure behaviour as

157 suggested in some numerical program manuals, but this is often hard to be achieved. Assuming a

158 design ratio Mo/MoFixH= 0.4 (JGJ 1994), the kr is deduced here using Eqs. (5) and (6) for elastic

159 case, which is simplified as Eq. (8) for ep = 0.

 g k nr  g k nr 0.25( n 1) Mo
160  pm  FixH p m0.25( n 1) (8)
 g k nr
FixH
 g k nr
FixH
Mo

161 The FixH condition is enforced using a knrFixH (ie. knr for fully fixed-head) = 50,000, although ‘knr

162 > 50’ is sufficiently accurate. The knr values are determined for n = 0.7 and 1.7, which describe

163 most piles well in clay and sand, respectively. Using Eq. (8) (taking x p = 0.0001) and Mo/MoFixH

164 = 0.4, the knr at n = 0.7 was deduced as 0.275 ~ 0.333 with knr/pm = 0.275/0.2, 0.288/0.3,

165 0.298/0.4, 0.306/0.5, 0.313/0.6, 0.319/0.7, 0.324/0.8, 0.329/0.9, and 0.333/1.0, respectively; and

166 knr(at n = 1.7) = 0.333~0.564, or more specifically knr/pm = 0.564/0.2, 0.488/0.3, 0.443/0.4,

167 0.412/0.5, 0.389/0.6, 0.371/0.7, 0.356/0.8, 0.344/0.9, and 0.333/1.0, respectively. These values

___________________________________________________________________________________
6
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

168 may be used in initial design in light of the JGJ code. Note a knr = 0.5 for n = 0.7~1.7 is deduced

169 using Eq. (9) for elastic case, and wg/wgFixH = 1.25 (JGJ 1994), which is yet to be confirmed.

wg wg
170 FixH
 FixH
pm0.25n (9)
w g w g

171 Validation and Parametric Analysis

172 The newly established closed-form (CF) solutions reduce to those for free-head piles at knr = 0

173 (Guo 2006) and for fixed-head piles at knr > 50 (Guo 2009), which compare well with finite

174 element approach and experimental data. Thereby, the nonlinear response of capped piles was

175 examined for a rotational stiffness kr = (0~10)EpIp at the typical n = 0.7 and 1.7, respectively.

176 Given n = 0.7, normalised load ( H )-displacement ( wg ) curves at ground level are depicted in

177 Fig. 2(a), and displacement ( wg ) - bending moment ( M o ) curves in Fig. 2(b), respectively. The

178 same response concerning n = 1.7 is plotted in Fig. 3(a) and (b). The normalised displacement

179 ( wg ) versus rotational (  g ) response is presented in Fig. 4(a) and (b) for n = 0.7 and 1.7,

180 respectively. The profiles of non-dimensional displacement, slope, bending moment and shear

181 force, for example at x p = 1 are illustrated in Fig. 5(a) through (d) for n = 0.7; and in Fig. 6(a)

182 through (d) concerning n = 1.7. The impact of the rotational stiffness on the response is evident

183 in Figs. 2 through 6. This is elaborated next in an example.

184 A Pile in 10-pile Group in Clay (Matlock et al. 1980)

185 Matlock et al (1980) performed lateral loading tests on a single pile, two circular groups with 5-

186 pile and 10-pile, respectively in Harvey, Louisiana. The tests were conducted in a pit 2.4 m deep.

___________________________________________________________________________________
7
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

187 The site consists of a highly plastic gray-clay with an occasional thin layer of peat, sand or silt

188 within a depth of 2.4 m - 18 m. The plasticity index was 77~100 (at a depth 0~1.2 m below the

189 test pit) and 100~185 (1.2~2 m below), respectively, which allow the angle of the soil friction 

190 (drained case) to be estimated as 12 degree (BSI 1985), and a cohesion c as 1 kPa (Guo 2013a).

191 The 10-pile group is analysed herein. The tubular steel piles were installed in a circle [see

192 Fig. 7(a)] at a center-to-center spacing of 1.8 pile diameters. Each was 13.4 m in length, 168 mm

193 in outside diameter, 7.1 mm in wall thickness, and had a bending stiffness of 2.326 MN-m2. The

194 piles were driven 11.6 m into a uniform soft clay that had a undrained shear strength su of 20

195 kPa. Deflections of the group during the tests were enforced at two support levels (of 0.305 and

196 1.83 m) above ground-line to mimic FixH restraints. The measured Hav-wt and wt-Mo curves for a

197 pile in the group are plotted in Fig. 7(c) and (d), respectively. The measured bending moment

198 profiles are plotted in Fig. 7(e) for four typical values of ground-level deflection wg.

199 The response of a capped pile in the group was predicted using free-head and fixed-head

200 solutions (Guo 2012), n = 0.85, pm = 0.2 (for either solution), Gs = 13su (fixed-head solutions) or

201 33su (free-head solutions), and the respective, fictitious profile of limiting force per unit length

202 pu [Fig. 7(b)]. Note the correlation of GsFixH  0.39GsFreH is resulted from semi-fixed head

203 constraints and less interaction from the special (circle) layout of the group, otherwise GsFixH =

204 pmGsFreH. The curves of average load per pile (Hav) versus mudline deflection (wg) predicted are

205 plotted in Fig. 7(c), which agree remarkably well with the measured Hav-wt curve (thus wtwg).

206 The predicted Mo values using fixed-head solutions are much higher than the measured values

207 [see Fig. 7(d) and 7(e)] (Guo 2009), even after deducting the moment Havep caused by loading

208 eccentricity above ground level ep). The new solutions are next used to examine impact of

209 rotational stiffness kr on the modulus Gs, the limiting force per unit length pu, and the response of

___________________________________________________________________________________
8
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

210 a pile in the group. It is based on revised modulus Gs and pu using a partial factor αr (rather than

211 the pm) determined iteratively. The αr is initially taken as the ratio of Mo/MoFixH (JGJ 1994).

212 First, assuming a factor αr = 0.42, the modulus Gs was taken as GsFixH* + αr(GsFreH* -

213 GsFixH*). Given GsFixH* = 13su, GsFreH*= 33su, the Gs is estimated as 25su [= 13su + 0.42×(33-13)su,

214 or pm = 0.76 = Gs/GsFreH*]. This yields k= 1.59×103 kPa (= 3.18Gs, su= 20 kPa), and  = 0.643/m

215 {= [k/(4×2.326)]0.25}.

216 Second, the maximum pu profile was estimated using Hansen’s expression for free-head

217 piles with c = 1 kPa, and  = 12o, and is plotted in Fig. 7(b). As with the calculation of Gs, the AL

218 is estimated as 2.26ALFixH* using ALFixH* + αr(ALFreH* - ALFixH*), and ALFreH*= 4ALFixH*, or pm =

219 0.565 = AL/ALFreH*. Note this pm value should be the same as that for calculating the shear

220 modulus, but for the special group layout (Guo 2009). The AL is calculated as 5.22 kN/m1.85 (=

221 1200.1681-0.150.2) (Guo 2009), which was reduced to 5.142 kN/m1.85 to compensate the

222 impact from using ep = 0 against a real ep (> 0). With n = 0.85, and AL = 5.142 kN/m1.85, the pu

223 profile was obtained and is plotted in Fig. 7(b) as Guo LFP. It matches well with the Hansen

224 LFP. Both Guo LFP and Hansen LFP offer weaker or slightly stronger (above or below a depth

225 of 15d) resistance than the Bogard & Matlock’s pu does. This difference has limited impact on

226 the pile response (with a maximum xp of 22.14d).

227 Third, with AL, n, and k, the  is calculated, normalised load H , moment (thus  g with a

228 known e p ), and displacement wg are obtained for measured load H, ground-level bending

229 moment Mo at a typical displacement wg. The three measured values allow the three unknown

230 knr, AL (thus αr) and x p (via k) to be resolved iteratively using Eqs. (5), (6) and (7). The αr value

231 should be within an acceptable difference to the assumed value, otherwise, a new αr is

___________________________________________________________________________________
9
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

232 stipualated (resulting in new Gs, AL, and k), the three steps are repeated. The calculation can be

233 readily done using a professional mathmatical program (e.g. MathcadTM).

234 This iterative calculation is illustrated using the design chart for n = 0.7 (note n = 0.85 for

235 the current pile), which encompasses three steps: (1) a pair of measured load H and displacement

236 wg are normalised, respectively, using AL, n, and k gained for free-head piles (e.g. H = 1.56 at

237 wg = 10, see bold values in Table 1). (2) The pair H and wg allow kr/(EpIp) = 1.1 (or knr =

238 0.275) to be ascertained in Fig. 2(a), which gives a stiffness kr of 1.643 MNm (= 1.1EpIp). (3)

FixH* FreH* FixH*

239 The αr is estimated using H (measured) = H + αr( H -H ). For instance, at wg =

FixH* FreH*
240 10, H = 1.0 and H = 2.2 [see Fig. 2(a)], and H (measured) = 1.5, the αr is obtained as

241 0.42 from 1.5 = 1.0 + αr(2.2-1). The deduced values are knr = 0.275 and αr = 0.42 for the

242 measured H and wg . The calculation may be repeated for other measured pairs of H and wg ,

243 and similar knr and αr should be obtained (Guo 2013a).

244 With the pu (n = 0.85), the Gs and the knr (= 0.275) obtained, the pile response is readily

245 predicted. This is provided next for ep = 0 (zero loading eccentricity) for a ground-level

246 deflection wg of 9.4, 23.5, 47.3 and 83.1 mm (at which bending moment profiles are provided).

247 With wg = 9.4 mm, normalised slip depth x p is estimated as 0.863 (xp = 1.342 m). (1) The

248 gkn-1/AL is calculated using Eq. (5).

 g k0.15  0.8630.85  2  0.8632 [0.863  3  0.85] 

249    1  0.863   1.091 (10)
AL 1.863  2  0.275  1  2.85  3.85 

250 Likewise, the values of H1.85/AL = 0.686 and wgk0.85/AL =1.997 were obtained using Eqs. (6)

251 and (7), respectively, along with –Mo2.85/AL = 5.427. (2) With k = 1.59×103 kPa and AL= 5.142

252 kN/m1.85, the ground-level rotation angle g = - 3.3035×10-3, and H = 7.981 kN were obtained at

___________________________________________________________________________________
10
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

253 wg= 9.4 mm. (3) With expressions in Appendix I, F(1,0)= F(2,0)= 0, constants C5= 4.154×10-3

254 and C6= -1.574×10-3 were obtained respectively. The pile deflection at depth x (plastic zone) or z

255 (elastic zone) is calculated respectively as

5.142  x 4.85 1.33017 x 3  2.7135x 2

256 w( x)  [   (3.3035x  9.4)  10 3 ] (m) (11a)
E p I p 4.85  3.85  2.85  1.85 5.142

257 w( z )  e 0.643( x 1.342 ) {4.154 cos[0.643( x  1.342)]  1.574 sin[0.643( x  1.342)]}  10 3 (m) (11b)

258 The profile of bending moment M( x ) or M( z ) is obtained as

x 2  n AL
 M ( x)    Hx  k r  g
( n  2 )( n  1)
259 (12a)
5 .142 x 2.85
  7.98 x  1.645  10 3  ( 3.3035  10  3 )
1.85  2 .85

 M ( z )  2E p I p 2 e  z [C6 cos(z )  C5 sin(z )]

260 0.643( x  x p )
(12b)
 1.923103 e {C6 cos[0.643( x  x p )]  C5 sin[0.643( x  x p )]}

261 The calculated bending moment profile is plotted in Fig. 7(e) as a solid line.

262 As with wg = 9.4 mm, the normalised slip depth x p was estimated as 1.3484, 1.7823, and

263 2.1764 for wg= 23.5, 47.3 and 83.1 mm respectively. The H, g, C5 and C6 values (see Table 1)

264 were obtained; and the bending moment profiles are plotted in Fig. 7(e). The predicted moment

265 profiles agree well with the respective measured data but not the fixed–head predictions (via the

266 program GASLGROUP). Note the profile of shear force Q( x ) or Q( z ) (not shown herein) can

267 be predicted using the expressions in Appendix I.

268 Importantly, this capped pile has a moment ratio Mo/MoFixH of 0.371~0.442 (with 0.442,

269 0.396, 0.377 and 0.371 at wg = 9.4, 23.5, 47.3, and 83.1 mm, respectively, see Table 1). The

270 average (of 0.406) is rather close to 0.4 specified by the JGJ code, despite the special group

271 layout, cap configuration, and nonlinear response. This consistency is further echoed between

___________________________________________________________________________________
11
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

272 the deduced values of knr/pm = 0.275/0.565 ~ 0.76 (for Mo/MoFixH = 0.371~0.442) and the

273 theoretical values of 0.31/0.565 (for Mo/MoFixH = 0.4). The reliability of the current solutions and

274 the knr and pm values is thus vindicated.

275 Conclusions
276 Response of lateral pile groups is modelled using the more accurate p-y curves based load

277 transfer model (than any other numerical modelling). It is essentially underpinned by limiting

278 force per unit length pmpu, modulus of subgrade reaction pmk, and p-multiplier pm (to cater for

279 pile-pile interaction, pm= 1 for single piles). With the model, new closed-form solutions are

280 developed incorporating the cap-rotational stiffness kr. The solutions are presented in non-

281 dimensional charts for free-head (kr = 0) through fixed-head (kr > 10EpIp). The study reveals that

282  The existing pm (bearing no link to the stiffness kr) is inconsistent with ‘pm= 0.25’ for

283 capped piles (at limiting state of elastic solutions). This casts doubt about the accuracy of

284 available solutions; and a compatible stiffness kr and pm is required.

285  The compatible normalised stiffness knr is equal to 0.275 ~0.333 (n = 0.7) and

286 0.333~0.564 (n = 1.7) for the associated pm at the design level of (ground-level) bending

287 moment specified in the JGJ code.

288 Use of the solutions is elaborated for a typical offshore pile group against measured response,

289 which largely substantiates the deduced stiffness knr. The coupled kr and pm revealed are

290 fundamental to design of the capped piles using any methods. The new solutions using the kr and

291 pm values should be employed to conduct pertinent design.

292 NOTATION

293 The following symbols are used in the paper:

___________________________________________________________________________________
12
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

294 AL = coefficient for the LFP;

295 c = cohesion;
296 d = diameter of an equivalent solid cylinder pile;
297 Ep = Young’s modulus of an equivalent solid cylinder pile;
298 e, ep, = eccentricity (= ep), eccentricity of the location above the ground level for applying the
299 H(Hg);
300 EpIp = flexural stiffness of a lateral pile;
301 FreH = free head, allowing translation and rotation at head-level;
302 FixH = fixed-head, allowing translation but not rotation at head level;
303 G s , G* = average soil shear modulus over the critical length, Lc, and G* = (1+0.75s)Gs;
304 Ip = moment of inertia of an equivalent solid cylinder pile;
305 k = modulus of subgrade reaction;
306 Ki() = modified Bessel function of second kind of ith order (Appendix I);
307 L, Lc = embedded pile length, and critical length beyond which any increase in the embedment
308 would not affect the pile response;
309 LFP = the profile of net limiting force per unit pile length;
310 Mo, M( x ) = bending moment at the mudline level; the moment at the normalised depth x ;
311 Mo = Mo2+n/AL, normalised Mo;
312 n, = power for the LFP;
313 Ng, = gradient correlated soil strength to the pu, deduced from measured load-displacement of
314 a capped pile using current solutions;
315 NgFreH, NgFixH = gradient Ng deduced from measured load-displacement using the free- and fixed-
316 head piles, respectively;
317 Np = fictitious tension for the membrane tied together the springs around the pile shaft;
318 H = lateral load exerted on a single pile;
319 H = H1+n/AL, normalised pile-head load;
320 Hav, Hg = average load per pile in a group, and total load imposed on a group;
321 knr = kr3/k = 4kr/(EpIp) = k r / g , and k r = k r  g 2 n /AL;

322 kr = rotational stiffness of the pile cap;

323 pm = p-multipliers used to reduce stiffness, and limiting force for individual piles in a group;
324 pu = limiting force per unit length;
325 p( x ),Q( x ) = net force per unit length, and shear force at the normalised depth x ;

___________________________________________________________________________________
13
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

326 su( ~
su ) = undrained shear strength of soil (Average su over a maximum slip depth anticipated);
327 t = wall thickness of a pipe pile;
328 x, xp, x , x p = depth below ground level, slip depth from elastic to plastic state, x = x, x p =  xp;

329 w, w(x), w(z) = lateral deflection of a pile, w in the plastic, and w in elastic zone, respectively;
330 wg = wgkn/AL normalised mudline deflection;

331 wp = local limiting deflection beyond which the force mobilised on the depth is pu;
332 wt, wg = pile deflection at loading level, and the deflection at mudline;
333 w( x ), w( x ) = deflection and rotation at the normalised depth x ;
334 z, z = depth below the slip depth xp (i.e. z = x- xp), and z = z, respectively;
335 N, N = normalised stiffness factors;
336 o(  o ) = an equivalent depth to account for ground level limiting force with  o = o;

337 r = a partial factor to gain the AL and Gs using those for free-head and fixed-head piles;
338  = load transfer factor (Appendix I);
339  s' = effective unit weight of the overburden soil;
340  = angle of internal friction of soil;
341 g = rotation angle of pile at ground-level
342 g = gkn-1/AL, normalised mudline rotation;

343  = reciprocal of characteristic length;

344 s = Poisson's ratio of soil, taken as 0.25 for sand, otherwise 0.4;
345 Superscript ‘*’denotes parameters deduced by matching the same pile response using free-head
346 and fixed-head solutions; Subscript ‘g’ for ground level; ‘s’ soil.
347

348

___________________________________________________________________________________
14
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

349 References

350 Brown, D. A., C. Morrison and L. C. Reese (1998). "Lateral load behaviour of pile group in
351 sand." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
352 114, No.11: pp.1261-1276.
353 BSI (1985). Structural use of concrete. BS 8110, London, Parts 1–3.
354 Duncan, J. M., M. D. Robinette and R. L. Mokwa (2005). Analysis of laterally loaded pile
355 groups with partial pile head fixity. Advances in Deep Foundations, GAS 132, ASCE.
356 Guo, W. D. (2006). "On limiting force profile, slip depth and lateral pile response." Computers
357 and Geotechnics, Vol. 33, No.1: pp.47-67.
358 Guo, W. D. (2009). "Non-linear response of laterally loaded piles and pile groups." International
359 Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 33, No.7: pp.879-
360 914.
361 Guo, W. D. (2012). Theory and practice of pile foundations. Boca Raton, London, New York,
362 CRC press, Taylor & Francis Group.
363 Guo, W. D. (2013a). "Simple model for nonlinear resposne of 52 laterally loaded piles." Journal
364 of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 139, No.2:
365 pp.234-252.
366 Guo, W. D. (2013b). "Laterally loaded rigid piles with rotational constraints." Computers and
367 Geotechnics, Vol. 54, No.2: pp.72-83.
368 Guo, W. D. and F. H. Lee (2001). "Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles."
369 International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 25,
370 No.11: pp.1101-1129.
371 Hansen, B. J. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transveral forces.
372 Copenhagen, Denmark, The Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin No. 12.
373 Hetenyi, M. (1946). Beams on elastic foundations. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
374 JGJ (1994). (Chinese) Technical code for building pile foundations. JGJ 94-94, Beijing: 252.
375 Matlock, H., B. Wayne, A. E. Kelly and D. Board (1980). Field tests of the lateral load
376 behaviour of pile groups in soft clay. Paper No. OTC. 3871, Proceedings of 12th annual
377 offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, 671-686.
378 Mokwa, R. L. and J. M. Duncan (2003). "Rotational restraint of pile caps during lateral loading."
379 Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 129,
380 No.9: pp.829-837.
381 Ooi, P. S. K., B. K. F. Chang and S. Wang (2004). "Simplified lateral load analyses of fixed-
382 head piles and pile groups." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
383 Division, ASCE, Vol. 130, No.11: pp.1140-1151.
384 Randolph, M. F. and G. T. Houlsby (1984). "The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded
385 laterally in cohesive soil." Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No.4: pp.613-623.
386 Scott, R. F. (1981). Foundation analysis. N. J., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
387
388
389
___________________________________________________________________________________
15
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

390 APPENDIX I – Solutions for Semi-fixed head piles

391
392 This appendix provides load transfer approach and solutions for semi-fixed head piles.
393

394 Assumptions and features of load transfer approach

395  The springs are characterized by an idealised elastic-plastic p-y (w) curve [see Fig. 1(e)],
396 which constitute, respectively, the uncoupled (Np = 0) and coupled load transfer models
397 for the plastic and elastic zones that transfer at a ‘slip’ depth xp.
398  The k and Np for elastic zone are gained theoretically as (Guo and Lee 2001):

3Gs  K ( )  2
 
2  K1 ( ) 
399 k  2 1
   
 
  1  and N p   ro2 G s {[ K 1 ( ) K 0 ( ) ]2  1}
2  K 0 ( )  K 0 ( )   

400 where Ki() is modified Bessel function of second kind of ith order (i = 0, 1);
401   0.65(Ep / G* ) 0.5 (L / ro ) 0.04 (for long fixed-head piles with L > Lc + max. xp); G* =

402 (1+3s/4)Gs; ro = 0.5d, radius; Gs is an average over a depth of Lc + max. xp; and Lc =
403 1.05d(Ep/Gs)0.25. The expression for kr = 0 (Guo 2013a) may be used to gain the modulus
404 ratio of k/Gs for caps with rotational stiffness using an equivalent loading eccentricity e
405 (= ep+krg/H, g/H is calculated for an average load level H and using k for e = 0).

406  At the slip depth, xp, the pile deflection w(xp) equals the limiting wp (= pu/k, and p = pu
407 with x < xp, see Fig. 1(d)). Below the xp (x  xp), the deflection w(x) is less than wp; and
408 the resistance p (= kw(x) < pu at the depth) is linearly proportional to the k. The pu profile
409 (or LFP) is described by the parameters Ng, o, and n gained using average soil properties
410 over a maximum slip depth xp.

411  In plastic zone, interaction among the springs is negligible (i.e. Np = 0, Figure 1), as it
412 cannot be transferred in the plastic zone. The resistance per unit length, p is fully
413 mobilised to pu. The Np (in vertical direction), regardless of its value, does not involve in
414 the governing equation for plastic zone.

415  Pile-soil relative slip [e.g. value of w(x)-wp] can only be initiated from mudline, and it
416 can only move downwards.

___________________________________________________________________________________
16
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

417 Response profiles of a semi fixed-head pile

418 Response profiles in plastic zone ( x  x p ) are given by

4AL x2 x3 g
419 w( x )  { F (4, x )  F (4,0)  F (3,0) x  [k nr  g  He p  F (2,0)]  [ F (1,0)  H ] }  x  wg
k n
2 6 
4AL   x2 
420 w' (x)    F (3 , x )  F (3, 0 )  [ k   H e  F ( 2, 0 )] x  [ F (1, 0 )  H ]  g
k n 
nr g p
2 
A
421  M ( x )  E p I p w ( x )  2 Ln [  F ( 2, x )  F ( 2,0)  ( F (1,0)  H ) x  k nr  g  H e p ]

422  Q ( x )  E p I p w ( x ) 
AL
1 n
 F (1, x )  F (1,0)  H 
423 where k r = k r  g 2 n /AL = knr g ; F (m, x )  ( x   o ) n  m /( n  m)...( n  2)(n  1) (1  m  4);  o =

424 o; F (0, x )  ( x   o ) n ; and e p = ep . Note both g and g are used in the w( x ) expression.

425 Response profiles in elastic zone ( x  x p , or z  0 , z  z   ( x  x p ) ) are as follows:

426 w( z )  e  N z [C5 cos(  N z )  C6 sin(  N z )]

427 w' ( z )  eN z [( N C5  N C6 ) cos(N z )  (N C5   N C6 ) sin(N z )]
 M ( z )  E p I p w( z)
428
 E p I p 2 e N z {[( N2   N2 )C5  2 N  N C6 ]cos( N z )  [2 N  N C5  ( N2   N2 )C6 ]sin( N z )}
 Q( z )  E p I p w( z )  E p I p 3e  N z {[ N ( N2  3 N2 )C5   N (3 N2   N2 )C6 ] cos( N z )
429
 [(3 N2   N2 )  N C5   N ( N2  3 N2 )C6 ]sin( N z )}
430 where
2AL
431 C5  {(1 2 N2 )[F(2, x p )  F(2,0)  knrg  He p ]  N F(1, x p ) [ N  (1 2 N2 )x p ][F(1,0)  H]}
k n

2AL
432 C6  {N (2N2  3){F(2, xp )  F(2,0)  [F(1,0)  H ]xp  knrg  Hep}  (N2 1)[F(1, xp )  F(1,0)  H ]}
kNn

433  N  1 N p 4E p I p k ,  N  1  N p 4E p I p k

434 These expressions are independent of the head constraint, and are identical to those for free-head
435 piles.
436
437 H , wg and M o of a semi fixed-head pile

438 (a) Normalised pile-head load, H

___________________________________________________________________________________
17
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

F (2, x p )  F (2,0)   N [ F (1, x p )  F (1,0)]  0.5F (0, x p )  x p F (1,0) k nr  g

439 H 
 N  xp  ep  N  xp  ep
440 The H is deduced from the following relationship obtained for the depth, xp (z = 0):
441 wPIV   N wP'''  22 wP''  0

442 where w 'p' , w 'p'' , and w pIV are values of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th derivatives of w(x) with respect to depth z. Given

443 x p = 0, the minimum head load to initiate slip is obtained.

444 (b) Normalised ground-line deflection, wg

wg  4[ F (4, x p )  F (4,0)  x p F (3, x p )]  2(2 N2 1)[F (2, x p )  F (2,0)  k nr  g ]  (2k nr x p  1) x p g

445 1 3 
 2 N F (1, x p )  2F (2,0) x p2  2[ F (1,0)  H ][ x p  (2 N2 1) x p   N )]  2e p H [2 N2 1  x p2 ]
3

446 The wg is deduced from w(x).

447 (c) Normalised rotation at ground level,  g

4( x p   N  e p )[ F (3, x p )  F (3,0)]  2( x p2  2 N2  1  2 x p e p ) F (2, x p )

g 
2k nr ( x p2  2 N x p  2 N2  1)  x p   N  e p

448 2( x p2  2 N x p  2 N2  1) F (2,0)  2[ x p ( N x p  2 N2  1)  e p (2 N x p  2 N2  1)]F (1, x p )


2k nr ( x p2  3 N x p  2 N2  1)  x p   N  e p
[ x p2  2 N x p  1  2( N  x p )]F (0, x p )  2e p ( x p2  2 N x p  2 N2  1) F (1,0)

2k nr ( x p2  3 N x p  2 N2  1)  x p   N  e p

449 (d) Normalised ground-level bending moment

450  M o  He p  k nr  g

451 Finally it should be mentioned that the constants Cj are determined using the compatibility
452 conditions of Q( x ), M( x ), w( x ) , and w( x ) at the normalised slip depth, x p [ x = x p or z = 0].
453 Elastic solutions validated for Ng<2(kEpIp)0.5 is ensured by L > Lc + max. xp
454

___________________________________________________________________________________
18
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

455

456 Table 1 Key response and parameters for a pile in 10-pile group

wg xp H / wg H (kN) -g C5/-C6 -Mo/-MoFixH a Mo/MoFixH

(mm) (×10-3) (×10-3) (kNm)
9.4 0.863 0.686/1.997 7.981 3.3035 4.154/1.574 5.43/12.29 0.442
23.5 1.34836 1.132/4.992 13.179 6.938 6.069/4.259 11.40/28.81 0.396
47.3 1.78227 1.559/10.05 18.616 12.0 7.964/7.462 19.43/51.5 0.377
83.1 2.17641 2.082/17.65 24.23 17.9 9.118/10.975 29.40/79.10 0.371
a
457 Values of MoFixH is cited from Guo (2009).

458

___________________________________________________________________________________
19
 Lateral piles with rotating cap     Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

459 Figure Captions

460 Fig. 1. Schematic model for a laterally loaded capped pile: (a) A single pile, (b) schematic

461 model, (c) limiting force profile (LFP), (d) Pile deflection and wp profiles, and (e) p-y curves

462 for a single pile or a pile in a group.

463 Fig. 2. Nonlinear response of capped piles (n = 0.7): (a) load; (b) bending moment

464 Fig. 3. Nonlinear response of capped piles (n = 1.7): (a) load; (b) bending moment

465 Fig. 4. Nonlinear rotational slope of capped piles: (a) n = 0.7; (b) n = 1.7

466 Fig. 5. Non-dimensional profiles (n = 0.7): (a) displacement; (b) slope; (c) bending moment; and
467 (d) shear force

468 Fig. 6. Non-dimensional profiles (n = 1.7): (a) displacement; (b) slope; (c) bending moment; and
469 (d) shear force

470 Fig. 7. Predicted versus measured (Matlock et al. 1980) response of a pile in 10- pile group: (a)
471 pile group layout; (b) pu profile; (c) wg ~ Hav curves; (d) –Mo ~ wg curves; (e) moment profiles
472

___________________________________________________________________________________
20
Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

g -Mo = krg+Hep
Hep H ep
Pile: -Mo
Modulus, Ep Plastic
Length, L zone, xp Membrane, Np
Diameter, d L
Soil:
Modulus, Gs Elastic
Poisson’s ratio, s d
zone
pu
L > Lc + max. xp

x, z Spring, k
(a) (b)
pu w
p
xp wA
pu pu

pmpu
wp  pu / k k
1
wB pmpu

Cohesive pmk
Pile
soil
wp w

(c) (d) (e)

Fig.1. Schematic model for a laterally loaded capped pile: (a) a single pile; (b) schematic
model; (c) limiting force profile (LFP); (d) Pile deflection and wp profiles; and (e) p-y curves
for a single pile or a pile in a group.

___________________________________________________________________________________
1
Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

3.5
10 5

Normalised pile-head load, H /AL

kr/(EpIp) = 3.
1.5
1.7 1.0
3.0 0.7
0.5
Fixed-head 0.3
2.5
0.1
2.0 0

Free-head
1.5

1.0 n = 0.7
(0 =0, Np =0)
0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.7
Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL
(a)

3.5
10 5. 3.
kr/(EpIp) =
Normalised bending moment, Mo /AL

1.5
3.0
2.7

n = 0.7 1.0
(0 =0, Np = 0)
2.5 Fixed-head 0.7

0.5
2.0

1.5 0.3

1.0

0.1
0.5

Free-head 0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) 0.7
Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL

Fig. 2. Nonlinear response of capped piles (n = 0.7): (a) load; (b) bending moment

___________________________________________________________________________________
2
Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

4.0

Normalised pile-head load, H /AL

kr/(EpIp) = 10 5 3
1.5
1.0
2.7
3.5 0.7
0.5
3.0 Fixed-head 0.3

0.1
2.5
0
2.0
Free-head
1.5

1.0 n = 1.7
(0 =0, Np =0)

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.7
(a) Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL

4.0
kr/(EpIp) =
10 5 3
Normalised bending moment, Mo /AL

n = 1.7 1.5
3.5
3.7

(0 =0,Np = 0) 1.0

3.0 Fixed-head 0.7

2.5 0.5

2.0
0.3

1.5

1.0
0.1

0.5
Free-head 0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.7
(b) Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL

Fig. 3. Nonlinear response of capped piles (n = 1.7): (a) load; (b) bending moment

___________________________________________________________________________________
3
Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

-20

Normalised pile-head slope, g /AL

kr/(EpIp) = 0 0.1
-0.3 -18
n = 0.7 0.3
-16 (0 =0, Np =0)
0.5
-14 0.7
Free-head
-12
1.0
-10
1.5
-8

-6
3.
-4
5
-2 10
Fixed-head
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.7
Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL
(a)

-40
Normalised pile-head slope, g k/AL
0.7

-35 kr/(EpIp) =0
n = 1.7
0.1
(0 =0, Np =0)
-30 0.3
0.5
-25
0.7

-20 1.0
Free-head 1.5
-15

3
-10
5
-5 10
Fixed-head
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1.7
(b) Normalised ground-level displacement, wg k/AL

Fig. 4. Nonlinear rotational slope of capped piles: (a) n = 0.7; (b) n = 1.7

___________________________________________________________________________________
4
 Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

0.0 0.0
5
k r/(E pIp )=10 ,10,
0.5 3,1, 0.7, 0.3, 0 0.5
Free-head
kr/(EpIp)= 0,0.3,0.7,

Normalised depth, xp

Normalised depth, xp

1.0 1.0 1., 3,10, and 10

5

Free-head
1.5 1.5

2.0 x p =1 2.0
(n = 0.7) xp =1
2.5 2.5 (n = 0.7)

3.0 3.0

3.5 3.5

4.0 4.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 -3 -2 -1 0 1
0.7 -0.3
(a) Normalised pile displacement, w(z) k/A L (b) Normalised slope, (z) k/AL

0.0 0.0
Free-head
0.5 0.5
Free-head
Normalised depth, xp

Normalised depth, xp

1.0 1.0

k r/(E pIp ) = 0, 0.3,

1.5 1.5 5
0.7, 1, 3,10, and 10
2.0 5
2.0
k r/(E pIp )= 10 , 10, 3, 1, x p =1
2.5 0.7, 0.3, and 0 2.5 (n = 0.7)
x p =1
3.0 (n = 0.7) 3.0

3.5 3.5

4.0 4.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(c) Normalised shear force, Q(z) 1.7/A (d) Norm alised bending m om ent, M(z)  2.7/A
L L

Fig. 5. Non-dimensional profiles (n = 0.7): (a) displacement; (b) slope; (c) bending moment;
and (d) shear force

___________________________________________________________________________________
5
 Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

0.0
0.0
5
kr/(EpIp)=10 ,10, Free-head
0.5 0.5
3,1, 0.7, 0.3, 0
kr/(EpIp)= 0,0.3,0.7,
Normalised depth, xp

1.0

Normalised depth, xp

1.0 1, 3,10, and 10
5
Free-head
1.5 1.5

2.0 xp =1 2.0

(n = 1.7) xp =1
2.5 2.5 (n = 1.7)

3.0 3.0

3.5 3.5

4.0 4.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 -3 -2 -1 0 1
(a) Normalised pile dispalcement, w(z)0.7k/AL (b) -0.3
Normalised slope, (z) k/AL

0.0 0.0
Free-head
0.5 0.5

Free-head
Normalised depth, xp

Normalised depth, xp

1.0 1.0

1.5 1.5 kr/(EpIp) = 0, 0.3,

5
0.7, 1, 3,10, and 10
2.0 2.0
5
kr/(EpIp)= 10 , 10, 3, 1, xp =1
2.5 0.7, 0.3, and 0 2.5 (n = 1.7)
xp =1
3.0 (n = 1.7) 3.0

3.5 3.5

4.0 4.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.7
(c) Normalised shear force, Q(z) /AL (d) Normalised bending moment, M(z) /AL
2.7

Fig. 6. Non-dimensional profiles (n = 1.7): (a) displacement; (b) slope; (c) bending moment;
and (d) shear force

___________________________________________________________________________________
6
Lateral piles with compatible cap stiffness and p-multiplier  Wei Dong Guo (2014) 

0
Fictitious LFP

10 12.1d

Fictitious LFP 20.14d

20
1.8d
xp = 23.2d

x/d
30 under Hav= 24.8 kN Real LFP

(b) Ten-pile group

Hansen LFP
40 o
(c =1 kPa, =12 )
Bogard & Matlock
Guo LFP(FixH)
(a) Layout of the 10-pile 50
Guo LFP(FreH)
Guo LFP with kr
groups
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
pu/(sud)

30 120
(d) Mo- wt(wg) (Ten-pile group)
(ep = 0.305 & 1.83 m, ew = 0.305 m)
100
Average load per pile, Hav (kN)

GASLGROUP(FixH, kr > 50)

GASLGROUP(FreH, kr = 0)
20 80
Current CF with kr
wt(wg), (mm)

Measured
60

(c) H av - w t( w g)(Ten-pile group)

10 (e p =0.305 &1.83 m , e w = 0.305 m) 40
GASLGROUP(FreH, k r = 0)
GASLGROUP(FixH, k r >50) 20
Current CF with k r
Measured
0
0 0 10 20 30 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
w t(w g ), (mm) -Mo (kN-m)

(e) Moment profiles

2 for a pile in 10-pile group

(ep =0.305 & 1.83 m

Fig.7. Predicted versus measured
Depth, (m)

ew = 0.305 m)
4
(Matlock et al. 1980) response of a
GASLGROUP
(FixH, kr > 50) pile in 10- pile group: (a) pile
Curent CF with kr
group layout; (b) pu profile; (c) wg
Measured, wt(mm)
6
83.1 ~ Hav curves; (d) –Mo~wg curves;
47.3
23.5 (e) moment profiles
9.4
8
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Bending moment (kN-m)

___________________________________________________________________________________
7