See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256461702

Reinforcement Requirements in Bored Piles Based on Finite Element Analysis

Conference Paper · October 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 1,843

2 authors, including:

Mohammed Yousif Fattah

University of Technology, Iraq
262 PUBLICATIONS   503 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic response of plates on elastic foundation under eccentric impact load View project

Piled Raft Foundation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Yousif Fattah on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Reinforcement Requirements in Bored Piles Based on Finite Element Analysis

Mohammed Yousif Fattah and Firas Ahmed Salman

myf_1968@yahoo.com firas_alobaydi@yahoo.com
Department of Building and Construction
University of Technology
Baghdad - Iraq

ABSTRACT: A beam-on-elastic foundation model is used to analyze a laterally loaded pile in order to investigate its
necessity for reinforcement. This model is performed using the finite element method as a numerical tool for the analysis.
The pile is discretized into a number of elements while the soil is represented by a number of springs. The stiffness of
these springs is considered to be variable with depth. The analysis results are compared with closed form solutions given
by Broms (1965). Two types of soils are used in the analysis; sand and clay. They are assumed dry and homogeneous. It
is concluded that bored piles embedded in sand must be provided with reinforcing bars extending to a depth of not less
than 0.4 times the pile length, while the reinforcement required for bored piles placed in clay depends mainly on the
strength of the soil.

KEY WORDS: bored piles, finite element, reinforcements

INTRODUCTION FINITE-ELEMENT SOLUTION OF LATERALLY

The main causes of tensile stresses in a pile section are the
lateral loads and/or bending moments. The reinforcement
should be provided for all concrete sections subjected to
tensile stresses.
Deep foundations may be subjected to lateral loads as well
as axial loads. Lateral loads often come from wind forces
on the structure or inertia forces from traffic or
earthquakes. The lateral resistance of adjacent soil and
bending moment resistance of the foundation shaft
determines lateral load resistance of deep foundations. The
ultimate lateral resistance Tu often develops at lateral
displacements much greater than can be allowed by the
structure. An allowable lateral load Ta should be
determined to be sure that the foundation would be safe
with respect to failure.
The problem of a pile subjected to lateral loading is one of
a class of problems concerned with the interaction of soils
and structures. The solution of such problems usually
involves the use of iterative techniques because the soil
response is a non-linear function of the deflection of the
structure, (Reese and Desai, 1977).
Brom’s equations given in Table 1 can give good results
for many situations. Thus, these equations are
recommended for an initial estimate of ultimate lateral
load Tu . Ultimate lateral loads can be readily determined
for complicated soil conditions using a computer program
based on beam-column theory and given p-y curves
(Reese, Cooley, and Radhakkrishnan 1984). A p-y curve is
the relationship between the soil resistance per shaft length
(kips/inch) and the deflection (inches) for a given lateral
load T.
LOADED PILES
The finite-element solution is a suitable method to solve
complicated foundations such as a laterally loaded pile.
One can use the same procedure for the beam-on-elastic
foundation described by Bowles, (1996).
The three fundamental equations in the finite element
method of analysis are:
P = A.F (1)
e = A T .X (2)
F = S .e (3)
where
P: The external nodal forces,
e: The internal member deformation,
F: The internal member forces, and
X: The external nodal displacements.
The internal member forces can be obtained which are
necessary for design.
EVALUATION OF THE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE
REACTION
The subgrade reaction approach, in which the continuous
nature of the soil medium is ignored and the pile reaction
at a point is directly related to the deflection at that point,
is adopted in this study. The soil is modeled as an elastic
Winkler foundation model having horizontal modulus of
subgrade reaction. This modulus can be constant or
variable with depth. In general, the variation of subgrade
reactions along the embedded length of the pile is taken
from Eq. (4)

202
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Table 1. Brom’s Equations for Ultimate Lateral Load

(Broms 1964a, Broms 1964b and Broms 1965).
Pile Equations Diagram
a- Free head pile in cohesive soil

Tu = 18C u Bs 
(
 e 2 + 1.5 B se + eL + 0.5 L2 + 1.125 B s2 ) 1
2 

− (e + 0.75 Bs + 0.5 L )
Short

L ≤ Lc 1

 My 
2
9
Lc = 1.5 Bs + + 
C u Bs  2.25C u B s 
 
1
2M y  2

Tu = 9C u Bs  (e + 1.5 B s ) + − − 
2
  e 1 . 5 Bs
 u s
Long 9 C B

L ≥ Lc
′
where for circular section: M y = 1.3 f c Z

b- Free head pile in cohesionless soil

γBs K p L − 2 M a
3
Tus =
Short 2(e + L )
L ≤ Lc 2Tul 2( M a + Tul e )
L3c − Lc − =0
γBs K p γBs K p

Long M y − Ma
Tul =
L ≥ Lc e + 23 f

K S = AS + B S Z n (4) CLOSED FORM SOLUTION FOR LATERALLY

where:
As is a constant for either horizontal or vertical
members,
Bs is a coefficient for depth, and
n is an exponent to give K s the best fit.
THE COMPUTER PROGRAM
If the pile is not designed for buckling, then the main
causes of tensile stresses in a pile section are the lateral
loads and/or bending moments, i.e., the reinforcement
should be provided for all sections that are subjected to
tensile stresses. For this reason, a computer program
named (PLRN) is modified from that given in (Bowles,
1988) to check the depth through which the reinforcement
will only be required to cover the tension zone of the pile.
The (PLRN) program is coded in Fortran-77 language and
based on Winkler foundation model where the pile is
treated as beam elements and the uniaxial soil resistance is
represented by independent springs.
LOADED PILES
Computation of lateral deflection for different shaft
penetrations may be made to determine the depth of
penetration at which additional penetration will not
significantly decrease the groundline deflection. This
depth will be approximately 4 βl for a soil in which the
soil stiffness increases linearly with depth
1
5
EpIp 
βl =   (5)
 k 
where:
E p = elastic modulus of shaft or pile, ksf
I p = moment of inertia of shaft, ft4
k = constant r elating elastic soil modulus with depth,
E s = kz kips/ft3.
Shafts that carry insignificant axial loads such as those
supporting overhead signs can be placed at this minimum
depth if their lateral load capacity is acceptable.

203
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
Broms’ method uses the concept of a horizontal coefficient
of subgrade reaction and considers short pile failure by
flow of soil around the pile and failure of long piles by
forming a plastic hinge in the pile. Refer to Broms
(1964a), Broms (1964b), Broms (1965), and Reese (1986)
for estimating Tu from charts.
Cohesive soil to depth 1.5Bs is considered to have
negligible resistance because a wedge of soil to depth
1.5Bs is assumed to move up and down when the pile is
deflected.
Iteration is required to determine the ultimate lateral
capacity of long piles Tul in cohesionless soil, Table 1.
Distance f , Table (1-b) may first be estimated and Tul
calculated; then, f is calculated and Tul recalculated as
necessary. Tul is independent of length L in long piles.
The method of solution using load transfer p-y curves is
also based on the concept of a coefficient of horizontal
subgrade reaction. A fourth-order differential equation is
solved using finite differences and load transfer p-y
curves.
An estimate of allowable lateral load Ta is best
accomplished from results of lateral load-deflection (p-y)
analysis using given p-y cuves and a computer program.
The specified maximum allowable lateral deflection
should be used to estimate Ta .
Calculating lateral groundline deflection yo using
equations proposed by Broms (1964a) and Reese (1986)
may make a rough estimate of allowable lateral load Ta ,
ya
Ta = Tu (6)
yo
where y a is a specified allowable lateral deflection and
Tu is estimated from equations in Table 1.
PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR COMPARISON
In this section, a parametric study is carried out using the
closed form solution and the finite element method. In
Figures 1 to 4, the effect of the undrained cohesion on the
lateral deflection is presented. It can be observed that for
all values of the undrained cohesion, the closed form
solution gives values of lateral deflection greater than the
finite element method. It is also concluded that the pile
length has very little effect on the lateral deflection in the
closed form solution, while the lateral deflection increases
with the increase in pile length through the finite element
analysis.
Figures 5 to 7 show that the lateral deflection increases
when the pile diameter increases. In these figures, the
closed form solution also gives greater values for lateral
204
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
deflection than the finite element method. The lateral
deflection increases with the increase in pile diameter.
In Figures 8 to 10, the required length calculated by the
closed form solution and the finite element method are
compared. In the former method, the minimum length of
penetration of the pile is calculated while in the finite
element method, the maximum length to which
reinforcement must be extended is calculated. The results
points are fitted using the graphing fitting techniques, and
the following relations are obtained.
Let Lmax = maximum length of reinforcement.
Lmin = minimum length of penetration.
1) Cohesion=60 kPa:
Lmax. = -0.8 + 9.5 B
Lmin . = 2.607 + 9.464 B
2) Cohesion=80 kPa:
Lmax. = 2.2 + 6.5 B
Lmin . = 3.893 + 8.036 B
3) Cohesion=100 kPa:
Lmax. = -0.833 + 7.5 B
Lmin . = 3.571 + 7.85 B
From the above relations, it can be concluded that the
maximum length of reinforcement in a pile is in the order
of (70 to 78)% of the minimum length of penetration
required for the pile.
Figures 11 and 12 show the effect of undrained cohesion
of the soil on the lateral deflection in the pile as predicted
by the finite element method and the closed form solution,
respectively. In the former method, the lateral deflection
increases slightly with cohesion until reaching (cu = 90
kPa) at which a sudden increase in lateral deflection is
noted. In the closed form solution, the trend is opposite;
the lateral deflection decreases with cohesion until
reaching (cu = 90 kPa). Above this value, the behavior is
similar to that predicted by the finite element method.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The basic parameters that are used in the finite element
parametric analysis are as follows: -
1) For pile:
M = 0.1 ∗ B ∗ Qa kN.m
H = 0.1 ∗ Qa kN
where Qa is the allowable axial load.
L = 25.0 m
B = 1.0 m
2) For soil:
The soil is assumed homogeneous with no water table
and its properties are as follows:
γ = 15 kN/m3
φ = 30° for sand
= 5° for clay
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
cu = 0 for sand
= 80 kPa for clay
The effect of different parameters on the stress
distribution and, hence, on the extent of reinforcement
below the ground surface are presented below.
Effect of Soil Type
Figure 13 represents a relationship between the minimum
stress within the pile sections under the general working
load and the depth ratio for bored piles embedded in both
sand and clay. The curve increases in compression side, in
case of sand, until it reaches its maximum value, then it
starts to decrease to reach a maximum tensile stress, and
again it starts to increase until reaching a constant
compression value. In clay, the pile will no longer be
subjected to tensile stress and, therefore, it will act as a
compression member. The variation in the stress
distribution along the pile shaft is due to the change in the
distribution of bending moment along the shaft and the
decrease in the allowable load wi th depth, according to the
following equation, (Teng, 1979):
Q a M.r
f = − ≥ 0.0 (7)
A I
where:
f = pile tensile stress on the extreme fiber,
Qa = applied axial load,
A = pile cross-sectional area,
M = bending moment from pile analysis,
r = distance of extreme fiber from neutral axis, and
I = moment of inertia of the pile.
D= pile diameter.
For bored pile in sand, the maximum tensile stress located
at a depth of about 5D and it will equal to zero at a depth
of approximately 6.5D.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
Bored Pile in Sand
1) Effect of moment loading:
Figure 14 shows the effect of moment loading on the stress
distribution along the pile shaft for the case of bored pile
embedded in sand. A family of similar curves shows that;
as the applied moment increases, the tensile stress will
increase at the pile top and decreases or vanishes as it goes
down. It is seen that the zero tensile stress occurs at a
depth of about 6.5D.
2) Effect of lateral loading:
Figure 15 shows the effect of lateral loads on the stress
distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in
sand. The stress decreases as the applied lateral load
increases until reaching the maximum value of the tensile
stress, then it begins to increase to reach a constant value
205
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
in the compression side. The constant value in the stress
distribution curves is the same for all values of the applied
lateral loads. The maximum tensile stress, for all curves, is
located at about 4D. The depth where the tensile stress
equals to zero will increase as the lateral load increase.
3) Effect of pile length:
Figure 16 represents the effect of pile length on the stress
distribution along the shaft of bored pile in sand. As the
pile length increases, the stress will increase too in both
compression and tension sides, but it will not affect the
depth of zero tensile stress nor the location of its
maximum value. The maximum tensile stress appears at
approximately 5D and it will be equal to zero at about 6D.
4) Effect of pile diameter:
Figure 17 shows the effect of pile diameter on the stress
distribution along the shaft of bored pile in sand. The
increase in pile diameter; increases in pile stiffness, will
decrease the value of the stress concentration along the
shaft. The minimum stress will occur at a depth ranging
between 4D to 5D for a pile diameter of 2.0 m to 0.8 m,
respectively. The depth of zero tensile stress decreases as
the pile diameter increases, but generally it does not
exceed 7D.
5) Effect of angle of internal friction:
Figure 18 shows the effect of angle of internal friction on
the stress distribution for bored pile embedded in sand.
The angle of internal friction has a significant effect on the
stress distribution. As it increases in value; increasing soil
stiffness, the bending moment will decrease and the tensile
stress will not appear, according to Eq. (7). In general, for
minimum value of the angle, 25°, the zero tensile stress
will appear at about 8D with maximum tensile stress
located at about 5D.
6) Effect of soil unit weight:
Figure 19 shows the effect of soil unit weight on the stress
distribution along the bored pile in sand. The behavior is
somewhat similar to the previous figures, increasing in
compression side, decreasing to reach a maximum tensile
stress; then increasing again to reach a constant
compression value. The soil unit weight has little effect on
the stress distribution, at least in the upper part. The
maximum tensile stress located at approximately 5D,
where it reaches a zero value at about 5.5D to 6.5D
diameters.
Bored Piles in Clay
1) Effect of moment loading:
Figure 20 shows the effect of moment loading on the stress
distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in clay.
Similar to Figure 14, the tensile stress will appear only in
the top of the pile shaft, due to the applied moment, and it
will increase in depth and value as the applied moment
increases. The zero tensile stress will reach a maximum
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
depth at about 2.5D, which corresponds to the maximum
applied moment.
2) Effect of lateral loading:
Figure 21 represents the effect of lateral loading on the
stress distribution along the bored pile in clay. The tensile
stress will increase as the applied lateral load increases
and, therefore, the depth of zero tensile stress will increase
too, similar to Figure 15. In general, the maximum tensile
stress will be at approximately 4D to 6D for a lateral load
of (30) to (10) percent of the applied load, respectively.
The zero tensile stress will be at about 11.5D for a lateral
load of 30% of the applied load.
3) Effect of pile length:
Figure 22 shows the effect of bored pile length on the
stress distribution if it is embedded in clay. It is obvious
that if the pile increases in length, the compression stresses
will increase and, therefore, the pile will not be subjected
to any tensile stress.
4) Effect of pile diameter:
Figure 23 shows the effect of pile diameter on the stress
distribution along the bored pile in clay. The minimum
stress will decrease in value as the pile increases in
diameter and it will reach the maximum tensile stress at
diameters of (1.8m) and (2.0m) with a depth of about 6D.
This may be related to the high lateral load applied at the
pile top. These two diameters will have a depth of
approximately 7D for the zero tensile stress.
5) Effect of soil cohesion:
Figure 24 shows the effect of soil cohesion on the stress
distribution along the shaft of bored pile embedded in clay.
The cohesion has a significant effect on the variation of
the stress curves. The stress increases as the soil cohesion
increases, due to increase in soil stiffness. For soft soil
(low cohesion, c = 20 kPa), the pile will be subjected to a
tensile stress at about 6D for maximum, and 12D for the
zero tensile stress.
For bored piles embedded in sand, the depths of zero
tensile stress will not exceed 9.5D, Table 2, which
corresponds to the maximum applied lateral load. The
depth of zero moment, in which the pile is completely
under compression, will appear at about 14D, Table 3.
For bored piles in clay, Table 2 shows that the pile will not
be subjected to tensile stresses below a depth of 12D. This
large value appears in soft soil. From Table 3, the depth of
zero moment will also occur in soft soil and this will be at
a depth of 16D.
Table 4 shows that, for bored piles, the depth of zero
tensile stress in clay is greater than that in sand and it is
generally not exceeding one-half the pile length, except for
(2.0m) pile diameter embedded in clay which equals to
(0.56) from pile length.
From the above, it is seen that; the depth of the necessary
reinforcing bars in case of bored piles embedded in clay is
206
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
more or less equal to that recommended by (Bowles,
1996), and this will be reduced for other cases.
Table 5 shows that, for bored piles, the depth of zero
moment in soft soils (sand or clay) is greater than that of
medium or stiff soils. This depth will not be less than one-
half the pile length.
CONCLUSIONS
For cast in situ bored piles, the design codes do not
recommend a specific depth for the reinforcement bars that
should be provided to resist the tensile stresses. The
problem is left to the designer. Based on the results
obtained using the finite element method, the following
conclusions can be made:
1) Piles embedded in sand must be provided with
reinforcement bars extending to a depth of not less
than (0.4) times the pile length.
2) The reinforcement required for bored piles in clay
depends mainly on the shear strength of the soil. In
stiff clay, the length of reinforcement may be reduced
to the top quarter only to provide anchorage with the
pile cap. In soft clays, this length may be extended to
cover more than one-half the pile length.
3) A comparison between the finite element analysis
carried out in this paper and the closed form solution
of Broms (1965) showed that the former method gives
smaller values of lateral deflection for all values of
undrained cohesion.
4) For piles in clay, the maximum length of
reinforcement bars required ranges between (70 to 78)
% of the minimum length of penetration required for
the pile as calculated by the closed form solution.
REFERENCES
Bowles, J. E., (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4 th
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bowles, J. E., (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 th
edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Broms, B. T., (1964a). The Lateral Resistance of Piles in
Cohesive Soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 90, No. SM2, p.p. 27-63.
Broms, B. T., (1964b). The Lateral Resistance of Piles in
Cohesionless Soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 90, No. SM3, p.p. 123-156.
Broms, B. T., (1965). Design of Laterally Loaded Piles,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. SM3,
p.p. 79-99.
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Reese, L. C. (1986). Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups

under Lateral Load, Publication No. FHWA-RD-85-106. Table 2. h/B for zero tensile stress.
Available from US Department of Transportation, Federal Parameters Sand Clay
Highway Administration, Office of Implementation, Moment loading, M 6.5 2.5
McLean, VA 22101. Lateral load, H 9.5 11.5
Reese, L. C., Cooley, L. A. and Radhakrishnan, N. (1984). Pile length, L 6 –
Laterally Loaded Piles and Computer Program Pile diameter, B 7 7
COM624G, Technical Report K-84-2. Available from Angle of friction, φ 8 –
Research Library, US Army Engineer Waterways Soil density, γ 6.5 –
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Soil cohesion, Cu – 12
Reese, L. C. and Desai, C. S., (1977). Laterally Loaded
Piles, Chapter 9 in “Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Table 3. h/B for zero moment.
Engineering”, edited by C. S. Desai and J. T. Christian, Parameters Sand Clay
McGraw-Hill Book Company. Moment loading, M 13 11
Teng, W. C., (1979). Foundation Design, Prentice-Hall of Lateral load, H 12 12
India. Pile length, L 12 15
Pile diameter, B 14 15
Angle of friction, φ 14 –
NOTES Soil density, γ 12 –
Soil cohesion, Cu – 16
ft = 0.3048 m
kip = 4.4482219 kN
ksf = 47.88 kN/m2 Table 4. h/L for zero tensile stress
kips/ft3 = 157.08746 kN/m3 (Based on L=25m).
Parameters Sand Clay
Moment loading, M 0.260 0.100
Lateral load, H 0.380 0.460
Pile diameter, B 0.224 0.560
Angle of friction, φ 0.320 –
Soil density, γ 0.260 –
Soil cohesion, Cu – 0.480

Table 5. h/L for zero moment

(Based on L=25m).
Parameters Sand Clay
Moment loading, M 0.520 0.440
Lateral load, H 0.480 0.480
Pile diameter, B 0.448 0.480
Angle of friction, φ 0.560 –
Soil density, γ 0.480 –
Soil cohesion, Cu – 0.640

207
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

40 45 35
Closed form solution Closed form solution Closed form solution
35 40
Finite elemente solution Finite element solution 30 Finite element solution

Lateral deflaction (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

35
30
25
30
25
25 20
20
20 15
15
15
10
10
10
5 5 5

0 0 0
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
Pile length (m) Pile length (m) Pile length (m)

Fig. 1. Effect of pile length on Fig. 2. Effect of pile length on Fig. 3. Effect of pile length on
lateral deflection, lateral deflection, lateral deflection,
(cu=40 kN/m2). (cu=60 kN/m2). (cu=80 kN/m2).

35 45 45
Closed form solution Closed form solution Closed form solution
40 40
30 Finite element solution Finite element solution Finite element solution
Lateral deflection (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

35 35
25
30 30
20 25 25

15 20 20

15 15
10
10 10
5
5 5

0 0 0
10 15 20 25 30 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pile length (m) Pile diameter (m) Pile diameter (m)
Fig. 4. Effect of pile length on Fig. 5. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 6. Effect of pile diameter on
lateral deflection, lateral deflection, lateral deflection,
(cu=100 kN/m2). (cu=60 kN/m2). (cu=80 kN/m2).

40 24 24
Closed form solution M in. Length of Pe ne tration N im . Le ngth of Pe netration

22 M ax. L ength of Rienforcem ent 22 Max . Le ngth of Rie nforc eme nt

Finite element solution
Lateral deflection (mm)

30 20 20
Required length (m)

Required length (m)

18 18

20 16 16

14 14

10 12 12

10 10

0 8 8
0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Pile diameter (m) Pile diameter (m) Pile length (m)

Fig. 7. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 8. Required length of penetra- Fig. 9. Required length of penetra-
lateral deflection, (cu=100 tion of the pile and reinforc- tion of the pile and reinforce-
kN/m2). ment, (cu=60 kN/m2). ment, (cu=80 kN/m2).

208
 International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

22 11 42
Min. Le ngth of Pe netration D=0.8 m D=0.8 m
40
Max. L ength of Rienforce ment 10 D=1.2 m
20 D=1.2 m
38

Lateral deflection (mm)

Lateral deflection (mm)

D=1.6 m D=1.6 m
Required length (m)

18 9 36
D=2.0 m
D=2.0 m 34
16 8
32
30
14 7
28
12 6 26
24
10 5
22
8 4 20
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 50 60 70 80 90 100 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pile diameter (m) Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)
Fig. 10. Required length of penetra- Fig. 11. Effect of cohesion of soil Fig. 12. Effect of cohesion of soil
tion of the pile and reinfor- on the lateral deflection of on the lateral deflection of
cement, (cu=100 kN/m2). the pile predicted by the the pile predicted by the
finite element method. closed form solution.

Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8
0 0 0

5 5 5
Depth ratio (h/H)

Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10 10 10

M=0.10*B*Qa H=0.10*Qa
15 15 15
M=0.15*B*Qa H=0.15*Qa

M=0.20*B*Qa H=0.20*Qa
20 20 20
Sand M=0.25*B*Qa H=0.25*Qa

Clay M=0.30*B*Qa H=0.30*Qa

25 25 25

Fig. 13. Stress distribution of bored Fig. 14. Effect of moment loading Fig. 15. Effect of lateral loading
piles embedded in sand and on the stress distribution on the stress distribution
clay. along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,
(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand).

Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)

-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
0 0 0
5
5
10 5
Depth ratio (h/B)

15
Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10
20 10
15 D=0.8 m
25
L=10.0 m D=1.0 m
30 15
L=20.0 m 20 D=1.2 m Phi=25.0 deg.
35
L=30.0 m D=1.6 m Phi=30.0 deg.
40 25 20
L=40.0 m D=1.8 m Phi=35.0 deg.
45
L=50.0 m D=2.0 m Phi=40.0 deg.
30
50 25

Fig. 16. Effect of pile length on Fig. 17. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 18. Effect of friction angle on
the stress distribution the stress distribution the stress distribution
along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,
(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in sand).

209
 International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Stress (M Pa) S tress (M Pa) S tress (MP a)

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
0 0 0

5 5 5

Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10 10 10

γ = 15 kN/m3
15
γ = 16 kN/m3 15
M=0 .10*B*Qa
15 H= 0.10*Qa

γ = 17 kN/m3 M=0 .15*B*Qa

H= 0.15*Qa

20 γ = 18 kN/m3 20 M=0 .20*B*Qa 20

H= 0.20*Qa

γ = 19 kN/m3 M=0 .25*B*Qa

H= 0.25*Qa

γ = 20 kN/m3 M=0 .30*B*Qa

H= 0.30*Qa
25 25 25

Fig. 19. Effect of unit weight of soil Fig. 20. Effect of moment loading Fig. 21. Effect of lateral loading
on the stress distribution on the stress distribution on the stress distribution
along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,
(Bored pile in sand). (Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay).

Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 Stress0(MPa) 1 2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0 0 0
5
5
10 5
Depth ratio (h/B)

15 Depth ratio (h/B)

Depth ratio (h/B)

10
20 10
25 15 D=0.8 m

L=10.0 m D=1.0 m coh=20 kPa

30 15
L=20.0 m 20 D=1.2 m coh=60 kPa
35
L=30.0 m D=1.6 m coh=100 kPa
40 25 20
L=40.0 m D=1.8 m coh=140 kPa
45
L=50.0 m D=2.0 m coh=180 kPa
30
50 25
Fig. 22. Effect of pile length on Fig. 23. Effect of pile diameter on Fig. 24. Effect of soil cohesion on
the stress distribution the stress distribution the stress distribution
along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft, along the pile shaft,
(Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay). (Bored pile in clay).

210

View publication stats