Bda 1

BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN
LAYERED SOIL
by
Mohammad Shazzath Hossain
A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka, in partial fulfillment of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (Geotechnical)
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
2014
The thesis titled "BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN
LAYERED SOIL" Submitted by Mohammad Shazzath Hossain, Roll No.
100704250(P), Session 2007, has been accepted as satisfactory in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
(Geotechnical) on September 16, 2014.
BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen Chairman

Professor (Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka - 1000.
Dr. A.M.M. Taufiqul Anwar Member

Professor and Head (Ex-officio)
BUET, Dhaka - 1000.
Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam Member

Associate Professor
BUET, Dhaka-1000
BA- 3580 Col. Md Wahidul Islam, psc Member

Deputy Commandant (External)
Quadirabad Cantonment
Natore
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted to his supervisor Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen, Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET), for his inspiration, encouragement, continuous guidance,
patience, generosity and important suggestions throughout the various stages of this
research. It could not have been completed without his kind guidance, dedication and
close supervision during the study. Having vast working experiences, knowledge on
most recent analysis methods’ and finite element software, Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen
has greatly helped to make the study very easy and smoothly.
The author also expresses his profound gratitude to Dr. A.M.M Taufiqul Anwar,
Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, for his valuable
corrections and suggestions during preparation of proposal and writing of this thesis.
The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive criticisms and valuable

suggestions made by Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam. The author also gratefully
acknowledges the valuable suggestions and corrections made by Col. Md Wahidul
Islam. Thanks to the Kuril Flyover Project Authority for their kind cooperation and
excellent support regarding the pile lateral load test and giving important documents
related to the sub soil of the project site.
The author gratefully acknowledges to his wife for great patience, continuous support
and encouragement to complete the study.
iii
ABSTRACT
Piles are relatively long, slender members that transmit foundation loads through soil strata
of low bearing capacity to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing capacity. High
rise structures supported by piles need analysis for lateral loading due to earthquake
and wind. Piles are frequently subjected to lateral forces and moments, for example,
in quay and harbor structures, where horizontal forces are caused by the impact of
ships during berthing and wave action; in offshore structures subjected to wind and
wave action and in transmission-tower foundations, where high wind forces may act.
Pile lateral capacity can be analyzed using conventional statical approach. The linear
spring model may be adopted in case where soil strains are small. Under extreme pile
loading condition it is important to make use of a non-linear soil spring model
referred to as ‘p-y’ curve. Considerable effort has been put into the refinement of p-y
curve formulations on the basis of measurement of the behavior of laterally loaded
piles.
Frequently the pile is embedded in layered soil which consists soft clay layer over
stiff clay. Some authors proposed dimensionless solutions for ultimate lateral capacity
of piles in layered soils. It is noted that there are limited literature reporting on pile
behavior under lateral loading in layered soil.
In this study pile lateral capacity for free headed and fixed headed condition are
presented. Piles embedded in homogeneous soil and layered soils are analyzed and the
results are discussed. Soil is defined series of non linear spring having different spring
constant for different soil shear strength. Piles are embedded in soil having different
soil shear strength in different layers. Layered soils like soft clay layer over stiff soil
of different thickness are analyzed. Piles are long pile of diameter 500 mm, 600 mm,
750 mm and 1000 mm.
From the analysis of piles embedded in homogeneous soil it is seen that as the soil
shear strength, diameter and allowable head deflection increases, corresponding
lateral capacity increases. For a soft layer over laying a stiff layer, larger diameter
piles are more effective than smaller diameter piles.
iv
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
NOTATION xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Background of the study 2
1.3 Objectives of the study 3
1.4 Methodology 3
1.5 Organization of the thesis 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 General 5
2.2 Structures subjected to lateral loads 6
2.3 Load transfer mechanisms and failure modes of laterally 7
loaded piles
2.4 Analysis methods 15
2.4.1 Broms method 15
2.4.2 Beam-on-elastic foundation approach 22
2.4.3 Beam-on-winkler foundation 23
2.4.4 Elastic continuum approach 24
2.5 Mechanics concerning response of soil to lateral loading 25
2.5.1 General 25
2.5.2 Modulus of subgrade reaction 26
2.5.3 Subgrade modulus related to piles under lateral 29
loading
2.5.4 Theoretical solution by skempton for subgrade 30
modulus of soil
2.5.5 Empirical equations for estimating ks 32
2.5.6 Concept of p-y curves 33
v
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF LATERALLY 39
LOADED PILES
3.1 Introduction 39
3.2 Methodology of analysis 39
3.3 Steps for analysis of piles embedded in soil 42
3.4 Allowable lateral load for piles embedded in homogeneous 44
soil
3.5 Allowable lateral load for piles embedded in homogeneous 46
Soil neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear strength
3.6 Graphical form of piles in homogeneous soil 48
3.7 Results of piles embedded in layered soil 58
3.8 Graphical form of piles in layered soil 77
3.9 Lateral capacity of piles using Broms method 89
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION 90
4.1 General 90
4.2 Pile embedded homogeneous soil 90
4.2.1 Free headed piles 90
4.2.2 Fixed headed piles 98
4.2.3 Comparisons between free headed & fixed headed 105
piles
4.2.4 Free headed piles neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear 107
strength
4.2.5 Fixed headed piles neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear 111
strength
4.3 Piles embedded in layered soil 117
4.3.1 Free headed and fixed headed piles 117
4.3.2 Comparison between pile lateral capacity for free 119
head and fixed head condition
4.3.3 Comparison between pile maximum moment for 121
free head and fixed head condition
4.3.4 Comparison between pile lateral capacity for free 123
head and fixed head condition for stiff soil of
70 kpa lying below soft soil
vi
4.3.5 Comparison between pile maximum moment for 126
free head and fixed head condition
4.3.6 Comparison between pile capacity of stiff soil of 126
50 kpa and 70 kpa below soft soil
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY: LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST 127
OF KURIL FLYOVER PROJECT AT DHAKA
5.1 Introduction 127
5.2 Over view of the project 127
5.3 Location of the pile lateral load test area 128
5.4 Test equipment and instruments 133
5.4.1 Test equipment for load application 133
5.4.2 Test equipment for measurement 133
5.5 Test procedures 136
5.6 Computer analysis using soil spring 138
5.7 Comments 140
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 141
6.1 General 141
6.2 Conclusion 141
6.3 Recommendations for future study 142
REFERENCES 143
APPENDIX A: GRAPHS FOR FREE HEADED AND FIXED 146
HEADED PILE CAPACITY AND MOMENT
vii
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1: Load Transfer Mechanism of Axially Loaded Piles

Fig. 2.2: Transfer Mechanism of Laterally Loaded Piles
Fig. 2.3: Load transfer mechanism for vertically loaded pile group
Fig. 2.4: Illustration of overlapping zones creating additional load on piles
within a group
Fig. 2.5: Kinematics of Rigid Piles
Fig. 2.6: Kinematics of Flexible Piles
Fig. 2.7: Kinematics of a vertically loaded pile group
Fig. 2.8: Kinematics of a laterally loaded pile group
Fig. 2.9: Broms Earth Pressures for Cohesive Soils
Fig. 2.10: Broms Pressure, Shear, Moment Diagrams for Cohesive Soils
Fig. 2.11: Broms Pressure, Shear, Moment Diagrams for Cohesionless Soils
Fig. 2.12: Ultimate lateral resistance of short pile in cohesive soil
Fig. 2.13: Ultimate lateral resistance of long pile in cohesive soil
Fig. 2.14: Charts for calculation of lateral deflection at ground surface of
horizontally loaded pile in cohesive soil (after Broms 1964)
Fig. 2.15: Lateral Loading Near Surface Passive Wedge Geometry and Soil-
Pile Forces(after Reese, 1958)
Fig. 2.16: Description of experiment leading to definition of subgrade modulus.
Fig. 2.17: Implementation of Winkler Spring Concept for Laterally Loaded Pile
Problem
Fig. 2.18: Definition of p-y Concept with a) Pile at Rest; b) Pile after Load
Applied(after Dunnavant, 1986)
Fig. 2.19: Typical Family of p-y Curves Response to Lateral Loading (after
Dunnavant, 1986)
Fig. 2.20: Figure 2.20: Deflections, slopes, bending moments, shearing forces,
and soil reactions for elastic conditions (after Reese and Matlock).
Fig. 2.21: Characteristic Shape of p-y Curve for Soft Clay ( Static Loading )
(after Matlock, 1970)
Fig. 3.1: Location of spring (a) Considering full depth of soil effective
(b) Neglecting top 1.5 m soil
Fig. 3.2: Load vs deflection graph showing spring constant & pult
Fig. 3.3: Pile Capacity vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection
viii
Fig. 3.6: Pile Moment vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.26a: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 6
mm deflection
Fig. 3.26b: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 12
mm deflection
Fig. 3.26c: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 25
mm deflection
Fig. 3.26d: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 6
mm deflection
Fig. 3.26e: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 12
mm deflection
ix
Fig. 3.26f: Pile Max Moment Location vs Soil Undrained Shear Strength for 25
mm deflection
Fig. 3.27: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.30: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38a: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38b: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38c: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38d: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38e: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38f: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38g: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38h: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38i: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38j: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38k: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection
Fig. 3.38l: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection
x
Fig. 4.1: Pile Embedded in Homogeneous soil
Fig. 4.2: Deflected Shape of Pile
Fig. 4.3: Soil Reaction Diagram
Fig. 4.4: Pile Bending Moment Diagram
Fig. 4.5: Pile lateral capacities with its head Deflection for 10 kpa soil shear
strength
strength
strength
strength
Fig. 4.9: Pile Embedded in Homogeneous soil
Fig. 4.10: Deflected Shape of Pile
Fig. 4.11: Soil Reaction Diagram
Fig. 4.12: Pile Bending Moment Diagram
strength
strength
strength
strength
Fig. 5.1: Perspective view of Kuril Fly Over
Fig. 5.2: Location of lateral load test
Fig. 5.3: Location of soil test bore hole
Fig. 5.4: Bore Log of 19
xi
Fig. 5.7: Excavated & piles are open for test setup
Fig. 5.8: Setup systems for testing the piles
Fig. 5.9: Hydraulic jack setup for application of lateral load on piles
Fig. 5.10: Dial gauge reading are recorded
Fig. 5.11: Instrument set-up for applying lateral load to the pile
Fig. 5.12: Load vs Deflection graph (load test and computer analysis)
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Summary of Procedure in Developing p-y Curves for clay soil
(Matlock, 1970)
Table 3.1: Pile analysis data for homogeneous soil
Table 3.2: Values of spring constant & pult of different Clay soil.
Table 3.3: Allowable horizontal loads on pile for free head condition
Table 3.4: Allowable horizontal load on pile for fixed head condition
Table 3.5: Allowable horizontal load on pile for free head condition neglecting
top 1.5 m soil
Table 3.6: Allowable horizontal load on pile for fixed head condition neglecting
top 1.5 m soil
Table 3.7: Values of spring constant & pult for analysis of different layer of soil.
Table 3.8: Allowable horizontal load on pile for free head condition
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
xiii
top 1.5 m soil
top 1.5 m soil
Table 4.1: Lateral capacity of 1 m diameter long pile embedded in soils of
different shear strength with different head deflections.
Table 4.2: Lateral capacity of different diameter of long pile embedded in soils
having Shear strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
Table 4.3: Lateral capacity and maximum moment of long pile embedded in
soils of different shear Strength with different head deflections.
Table 4.4: Lateral capacity and maximum moment of different diameter of long
pile embedded in soils of shear Strength 10 kpa with different head
deflections.
of shear Strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
soils of different shear strength with different head deflections.
deflections.
Table 4.9: Relationship between lateral capacities of free headed and fixed
headed piles of diameter 1 m.
Table 4.10: Relationship between lateral capacities of free headed and fixed
headed piles of different diameter.
Table 4.11: Relationship between maximum moments of free headed and fixed
xiv
soils of different shear Strength with different head deflections.
deflections.
Table 4.15a: Relationship of lateral load capacity and maximum moment of free
headed plies considering full depth and neglecting head 1.5 m of soil.
soils of different shear strength with different head deflections.
deflections.
Table 4.19a: Lateral load capacity and maximum moment of fixed headed plies
for considering full depth and neglecting head 1.5 m of soil.
Table 4.19b: Location of pile maximum moment from head of pile for considering
full depth.
Table 4.19c: Location of pile maximum moment from head of pile for neglecting
head 1.5 m of soil.
Table 4.20: Pile lateral load with thickness of soft soil for free head condition (6
mm top deflection). (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil,
cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.21: Pile lateral load with thickness of soft soil for fixed head condition
(top 6 mm deflection). (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil,
cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.22: Pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil for free head condition
head deflection 6 mm (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil, cu = 50
kpa)
xv
Table 4.23: Pile maximum moment (Negative moment) with respect to depth of
soft soil for fixed head condition. (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil,
cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.24: Pile lateral load with depth of soft soil for free head condition (6 mm
top deflection). (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil, cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.25: Pile lateral load with depth of soft soil for fixed head condition (6
mm head deflection). (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil,
cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.26: Pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil for free head
condition, 6 mm head deflection. (soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil,
cu = 50 kpa)
Table 4.27: Pile maximum moment (Negative moment) with depth of soft soil
for fixed head condition & 6 mm head deflection. (soft soil, cu = 10
kpa and stiff soil, cu = 50 kpa)
Table 5.1: Load and deflection from lateral pile load test
Table 5.2: Spring value and ultimate soil resistance for computer analysis
Table 5.3: Load and deflection results from computer analysis
xvi
NOTATION
b = Width
cu = Undrain Cohesion
D = Pile diameter
Ep = Modulus of elasticity of the pile
Es = Young’s modulus of the solid
EpIp = Flexural rigidity of the pile
H = Lateral load of pile
Ip = Moment of inertia of the pile
Iρ = Influence coefficient
kh = Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
Kp = Rankine coefficient of passive earth pressure
ks = Coefficient of subgrade reaction
N = Standard Penetration Resistance Value
Nc Nq Nγ= Bearing capacity factor
p = Soil reaction per unit length of the pile
pu = Ultimate soil resistance
q = Foundation pressure
qa = Allowable foundation pressure
qf = Failure stress
qu = Ultimate foundation pressure
sm = Mean settlement of foundation

y = Soil deflection
y50 = Soil displacement at one-half of ultimate soil resistance
z = Depth
σ' = Effective vertical stress at depth
γ = Unit weight of soil (use buoyant weight below water)
φ = Angle of internal friction of soil
μs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
µ = Poisson’s ratio of the solid
ϵ = Strain of soil
ϵ50 = Strain at one half the ultimate soil resistance
γ' = Effective Soil Unit Weight for Soil under Water
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Piles are relatively long, slender members that transmit foundation loads through soil strata
of low bearing capacity to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing capacity. They
are used when for economic, constructional or soil condition considerations it is desirable
to transmit loads to strata beyond the practical reach of shallow foundations. Piles are also
used to anchor structures against uplift forces and to assist structures in resisting lateral and
overturning forces.
After selecting materials for the pile foundation to make sure of durability, the
designer begins with the components of loading on the single pile or the pile group.
With the axial load, lateral load, and overturning moment, the engineer must ensure
that the single pile, or the pile group, is safe against collapse and does not exceed
movements set by serviceability. High rise structures supported by piles need analysis
for lateral loading due to earthquake and wind.
Piles are frequently subjected to lateral forces and moments, for example, in quay and
harbor structures, where horizontal forces are caused by the impact of ships during
berthing and wave action; in offshore structures subjected to wind and wave action
and in transmission-tower foundations, where high wind forces may act.
Design for lateral loading typically controls the diameter of drilled shafts for highway
bridges, high rise buildings and may also control the embedded length for some types
of structures such as retaining walls, noise walls, and sign or light standard
foundations. Thus, an evaluation of lateral loading is required during planning and
preliminary design. A more complete analysis of lateral loading conditions is required
for final design including structural design;
An adequate factor of safety against ultimate resistance and an acceptable deflection

at service load criteria must be satisfied in the design of such pile foundations.
1
The behavior of laterally loaded deep foundations depends on stiffness of the pile and
soil, mobilization of resistance in the surrounding soil, boundary conditions (fixity at
ends of deep foundation elements), and duration and frequency of loading.
For analyzing the pile behavior the diameter of the pile as well as its material &
stiffness property is very important including the surrounding soil in which the pile is
embedded to take the design lateral load coming from the superstructure from wind or
earth quake forces.
In practical the soil is not homogeneous over the depth. It contains various soil layers
like soft soil over stiff soil or loose soil over hard soil or soft to stiff soil in increasing
depth. In this condition the evaluation of the behavior of the pile response of different
soil layer is very important to design the foundation and the superstructure.
1.2 Background of the Study
Frequently pile is embedded in layered soil which may consist soft clay lying over
stiff clay. Information about the lateral behavior of piles in layered soil profiles is
very limited. Poulos gave dimensionless solutions for ultimate lateral capacity of a
pile in two layered cohesive soil profile. Davisson & Gill, Reese, Rollins presented
work on laterally loaded piles in layered soils. It is noted that there are limited
literature reporting on pile behavior under lateral loading in layered soil.
To determine the lateral pile capacity the full scale lateral pile load test may be
conducted in the field or it can be evaluated from the various methods proposed by
various authors.
Conventional statically approach was proposed by Brinch Hansen and Broms. The
ultimate laterally resistance of free headed rigid piles based essentially on earth-
pressure theory has been given by Brinch Hansen who also considered the variation of
soil resistance with a depth along the pile. The theory developed by Broms is
essentially the same as Brinch Hansens theory except that simplification are made to
the ultimate soil-resistance and distribution along the pile and consideration given to
fixed-head and free head piles.
2
The subgrade-reaction model of soil behavior, which was originally proposed by
Winkler in 1867, characterizes the soil as a series of unconnected linear-elastic
springs, so that deformation occurs only where loading exists. The subgrade-reaction
approach has been widely employed in foundation practice because it provides a
relative simple means of analysis and enables factors such as nonlinearity, variation of
soil stiffness with depth, and layering of the soil profile to be taken into account
readily.
The linear spring model may be adopted in case where soil strains are small. Under
extreme pile loading condition it is important to make use of a non-linear soil spring
model referred as ‘p-y’ curve by Matlock and Reese. Considerable effort has been put
into the refinement of p-y curve formulations on the basis of measurement of the
behavior of laterally loaded piles. As a result such formulations are widely accepted
as being reliable and they are quoted in documents such as the American Petroleum
Institute Code.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Objectives of the study of laterally loaded piles embedded in layered soil are as
follows:
I. To develop load displacement relationship of laterally loaded piles
embedded in layered soil.
II. To calculate the bending moment and shear force of laterally loaded piles
embedded in layered soil.
III. To compare field load test results with analytical findings.
IV. To prepare charts and figures for analysis and design of laterally loaded pile
embedded in layered and homogeneous soil.
1.4 Methodology
To develop load displacement relationship for laterally loaded piles embedded in

layered and homogeneous soil analytically, methodologies which are taken are as
follows:
I. Modeling the pile as a beam supported by discrete springs to represent
the soil resistance and analyzing FEM software package (SAP).
II. Determining the displacement, bending moment and shear force of free
3
headed and fixed headed piles of different diameter and length subjected
to lateral load considering the springs as linear and non-linear.
III. Comparing the analytical results with field load test results.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is arranged into six chapters and one appendix. In Chapter One,
background and objectives of the research is described. Chapter Two contains the
literature review where history, use and researches on evaluation of the pile lateral
capacity as well as the Winkler method and the concept of p-y curves of soil are
presented. It also contains the evaluation of modulus of subgrade reaction of various
type of soil.
Chapter Three contains detail analysis and results of laterally loaded pile embedded in
homogeneous and layered soil using FEM software package (SAP). It also contains
required charts & graphs. Chapter Four contains discussion on the results which are
listed at chapter three. Piles embedded in layered and homogeneous soil are discussed
separately. Chapter Five contains a case study of pile lateral test performed at Kuril
Fly over project, at Khilkhet, Dhaka. Chapter Six contains conclusion and
recommendations for future research.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
The report documents the development of analysis of laterally loaded piles in uniform
soil as well as in the layered soil profile. The Pressure - Displacement (p - y) approach
has been widely used to design piles subjected to lateral loading. Based on the
Winkler foundation theory, the method models the lateral soil structure interaction
with empirically derived nonlinear spring. The advancement of computer technology
has made it possible to study this problem using more rigorous Finite Element
Method (FEM). In this study the layering effect of the soil has been incorporated. In
practical the soil exists with various layer of soil like clay with sand, sand with silt,
clay, sand, clay layer or various pattern. Analysis of this type of soil profile is really
very important as well as complicated compared with the uniform soil profile.
Overall, Pile foundations are frequently used to support various structures built on
sand/clay soils, where shallow foundations would undergo excessive settlements or
bearing capacity failure. These piles are used to support vertical loads, lateral loads
and combinations of vertical and lateral loads. The methods of analysis commonly
used in predicting the behavior of piles under pure axial loads could be categorized
into: (i) subgrade reaction method (Coyle and Reese 1966, Kraft et al.1981; Zhu and
Chang 2002 ) (ii) elastic continuum approaches (Poulos 1968; Xu and Poulos2000 ),
and (iii) finite element methods (Desai 1974; Trochanis et al. 1991; Wang and Sitar
2004). Similarly, the methods to study the behavior of piles and pile groups under
pure lateral loads could be categorized into; (i) limit state method (Broms 1964); (ii)
subgrade reaction method (Matlock and Reese 1960); (iii) elastic continuum approach
(Poulos 1971; Banerjee and Davis 1978); (iv) p-y method (Reese et al. 1974) and (v)
finite element methods (Muqtadir and Desai 1986; Brown and Shie 1991; Trochanis
et al. 1991; Kimura et al. 1995; Yang and Jeremic 2002 and 2005). ( K.Rajagopal and
S.Karthigeyan, 2008).
The behavior of piles under lateral loads on homogeneous clay soil and soil layered
system of soft clay lying above a stiff clay soil are studied here and draw, compared
5
pressure – displacement (p-y) curves, bending moment, shear force, lateral pressure
and displacement of the pile head along the depth of pile.
This study, provides a general overview of laterally loaded piles. Explain why lateral
loads act on piles and how piles interact with the surrounding ground as a result of
those lateral loads. Present the available methods of analysis of laterally loaded piles,
discuss where improvements are necessary and point out scope of this work.
Here some analysis using FEM software for various type of soil in respect of depth,
diameter of the pile, various type of combination of soil profile and finding out the
behavior of the pile with the bending moment, deflection & soil response are given.
2.2 Structures subjected to lateral loads
Piles are relatively long, slender members that transmit foundation loads through soil
strata of low bearing capacity to deeper soil or rock strata having a high bearing
capacity. They are used when for economic, constructional or soil condition
considerations it is desirable to transmit loads to strata beyond the practical reach of
shallow foundations. Piles are also used to anchor structures against uplift forces and
to assist structures in resisting lateral and overturning forces.
After selecting materials for the pile foundation to make sure of durability, the
designer begins with the components of loading on the single pile or the group. With
the axial load, lateral load, and overturning moment, the engineer must ensure that the
single pile, or the critical pile in the group, is safe against collapse and does not
exceed movements set by serviceability. High rise structures whose foundations are
supported by piles need analysis of lateral loading effect for earthquake, wind or
similar type natural disasters.
Piles are frequently subjected to lateral forces and moments: for example, in quay and
harbor structures, where horizontal forces are caused by the impact of ships during
berthing and wave action; in offshore structures subjected to wind and wave action; in
pile supported structures; in lock structures; in transmission-tower foundations, where
high wind forces may act; and in structures constructed in earthquake areas.
6
In the above examples, there are some cases in which the external horizontal loads act
at the pile head (i.e., at the top section of the pile). Such loading is called active
loading (Fleming et al. 1992, Reese and Van Impe 2001). Common examples are
lateral loads (and moments) transmitted to the pile from superstructures like buildings,
bridges and offshore platforms. Sometimes the applied horizontal load acts in a
distributed way over a part of the pile shaft; such a loading is called passive loading.
Examples of passive loading are loads acting on piles due to movement of slopes or
on piles supporting open excavations. There are cases in which external horizontal
loads are minimal or absent; even then external moments often exist because of load
eccentricities caused by construction defects, e.g., out-of-plumb constructions. Thus,
piles in most cases are subjected to lateral loads. Consequently, proper analysis of
laterally loaded piles is very important to the geotechnical and civil engineering
profession.
In the design of pile foundations against lateral loading, two criteria must be satisfied:
1. The pile must have an adequate factor of safety against the maximum lateral
loading that might be applied to it, and
2. The deflection that occurs due to a working load must be in an acceptable
range that superstructure can withstand (Poulos and Davis,1980).
2.3 Load Transfer Mechanisms and Failure Modes of Laterally Loaded Piles
A proper understanding of the load transfer mechanisms for piles is necessary for
analysis and design. Piles transfer axial and lateral loads through different
mechanisms. In the case of axial (vertical) loads, piles may be looked upon as axially
loaded columns; they transfer loads to the ground by shaft friction and base resistance
(Figure 2-1) (Salgado 2008). As a pile is loaded axially, it slightly settles and the
surrounding soil mass offers resistance to the downward movement. Because soil is a
frictional material, frictional forces develop at the interface of the pile shaft and the
surrounding soil that oppose the downward pile movement. The frictional forces
acting all along the pile shaft partly resist the applied axial load and are referred to as
shaft resistance, shaft friction or skin friction. A part of the axial load is transferred to
the ground through the bottom of the pile (commonly referred to as the pile base). As
a pile tries to move down, the soil mass below the pile base offers compressive
7
resistance to the movement. This mechanism is called base resistance or end-bearing
resistance. The total resistance (shaft friction plus end-bearing resistance) keeps a pile
in equilibrium with the applied load. Piles that transfer most of the axial load through
the base are called end-bearing piles, while those that transfer most of the load
through shaft friction are called friction piles. For end-bearing piles, it is necessary to
have the pile base inserted into a strong layer of soil (e.g., dense sand, stiff clay or
rock). Typically, engineers would prefer to design end-bearing piles because the base
resistance is more reliable than shaft friction. However, if no such strong layer is
available at a site, then engineers have to rely only on shaft friction; in such a case the
pile is called a floating pile.
Applied Axial force
Ground Surface
Pile Shaft Resistance
Base Resistance
Figure 2.1: Load Transfer Mechanism of Axially Loaded Piles
In the case of lateral loads, piles behave as transversely loaded beams. They transfer
lateral load to the surrounding soil mass by using the lateral resistance of soil (Figure
2.2).When a pile is loaded laterally, a part or whole of the pile tries to shift
horizontally in the direction of the applied load, causing bending, rotation or
translation of the pile (Fleming et al.1992, Salgado 2008). The pile presses against the
soil in front of it (i.e., the soil mass lying in the direction of the applied load),
generating compressive and shear stresses and strains in the soil that offers resistance
to the pile movement. This is the primary mechanism of load transfer for lateral loads.
The total soil resistance acting over the entire pile shaft balances the external
8
horizontal forces. The soil resistance also allows satisfaction of moment equilibrium
of the pile.
Figure 2.2: Load Transfer Mechanism of Laterally Loaded Piles
Often, the load acting on a superstructure is larger than the capacity of a single pile.
When that happenes, piles are grouped under each column to resist the total force
acting at the column base. The piles in a group no longer behave as isolated units but
interact with each other and resist the external load in an integrated manner.
Consequently, the response of a single pile differs from that of a pile placed within a
pile group (Prakash and Sharma 1990, McVay 1998., Ilyas et al. 2004, Bogard and
Matlock 1983, Ashour et al. 2004). Each pile in a group, whether loaded axially or
laterally, generates a displacement field of its own around itself. The displacement
field of each pile interferes and overlaps with those of the adjacent piles; this results
in the interaction between piles. Similarly to single piles, pile groups have two
resistance mechanisms against vertical loads: friction along the sides and base
resistance.
However, compared with the behavior of an isolated pile, the response of a pile within
a group differs due to the interaction of the adjacent piles. The difference in response
is more pronounced for pile groups that resist vertical loads primarily by side friction
(Figure 2.3). Additional forces are induced along the pile shafts due to the settlement
9
of adjacent piles. Thus, the piles resist not only the vertical column load but also the
interaction forces along the pile shafts. For end bearing piles, however, a larger
fraction of the applied load is supported by the compressive resistance of the ground
below the pile base because of which the interaction along the pile shafts is minimal.
Consequently, the response of each pile within a group is closer to that of a single
isolated pile.
Figure 2.3: Load transfer mechanism for vertically loaded pile group
Interaction between piles occurs in the case of laterally loaded pile groups as well. In
a laterally loaded pile group, each pile pushes the soil in front of it (i.e., in the
direction of the applied force). Movement of the piles placed in the first (leading) row
in the direction of the applied force is resisted by the soil in front of it. In contrast, the
piles in the rows behind the first row (i.e., the piles in the trailing rows) push on the
soil which in turn pushed on the piles in the rows in front of them (Figure 2-4). The
resistive forces acting on the trailing-row piles are in general less than the resistive
forces acting on the leading row (Prakash and Sharma 1990,Salgado 2008, Ilyas et al.
2004, Ashour et al. 2004).
10
Figure 2.4: Illustration of overlapping zones creating additional load on piles
within a group
The kinematics of axially loaded piles is simple: the pile moves vertically downward
under the acting load and, if the resistive forces (i.e., shaft and base resistances)
exceed the limit values, then the pile suffers excessive vertical deflection (plunging)
leading to collapse. The kinematics and failure mechanisms of laterally loaded piles
are more complex and vary depending on the type of pile.
Since laterally loaded piles are transversely loaded, the pile may rotate, bend or
translate (Fleming et al. 1992, Salgado 2008). As the pile moves in the direction of the
applied force, a gap may also open up between the back of the pile and the soil over
the top few meters. If the pile is short and stubby, it will not bend much but will rotate
or even translate (Figure 2-5). Such piles are called rigid piles. If the pile is long and
slender, then it bends because of the applied load (Figure 2-6). These piles are called
flexible piles. In most practical situations, piles are long enough to behave as flexible
piles. For flexible piles, the laterally loaded pile problem is one of soil-structure
interaction; i.e., the lateral deflection of the pile depends on the soil resistance, and the
resistance of the soil, in turn, depends on the pile deflection.
11
Figure 2.5: Kinematics of Rigid Piles
Figure 2.6: Kinematics of Flexible Piles
The kinematics of a vertically loaded pile group is similar to that of an axially loaded
pile. A vertically loaded pile group moves down under the applied load. However, the
difference in the response of a pile in a group and a similarly loaded isolated pile is
that the pile in a group undergoes more settlement due to the additional downward
forces acting on it due to the interaction of the adjacent piles (Figure 2-7) (Fleming
and Randolph 1985, Salgado 2008).
12
Figure 2.7: Kinematics of a vertically loaded pile group
The kinematics of a laterally loaded pile group is such that the piles in a group may
have vertical movement in addition to lateral movement, rotation and bending. If, due
to the externally applied force and moment, the pile cap rotates, then the piles in the
rows in front of the pile-cap center undergo downward movement while those behind
undergo uplift (Figure 2-8) (Fleming and Randolph 1985, Salgado 2008). However, if
the rotation of the pile cap is not large, then the piles can be assumed to move only in
the horizontal direction.
Failure is a term that engineers define for their convenience. For a structure or a
foundation there is some preset criteria that has to be satisfy for their structural
stability and equilibrium. If one or more of those criteria are not satisfied, then the
structure or the foundation can be said that it has failed. In general, two classes of
criteria: (1) ultimate limit states and (2) serviceability limit states (Salgado
2008).Ultimate limit states are associated with dangerous outcomes, such as partial or
total collapse of a structure. Serviceability limit states are used as measures to
maintain the serviceability of a structure. In general, serviceability limit states refer to
tolerable settlements or deflections. For design, all the possible ultimate and
serviceability limit states associated with a particular structural or foundation element
are identified and then it is designed so that all the limit states are satisfied.
13
Figure 2.8: Kinematics of a laterally loaded pile group
One ultimate limit state for laterally loaded piles is reached if the resistive stresses in
the soil attain the limit (yield) value over a substantial portion of the pile length so
that plastic flow occurs within the soil mass resulting in large lateral deflections,
translation or rotation of the pile (e.g., inflexible piles, with possible yield or breakage
of the pile at one or more cross sections). This ultimate limit state may lead to
collapse of the superstructure. For flexible piles, the mechanism consists of a plastic
wedge of soil that forms in front of the pile, leading to excessive lateral deflection and
bending. If the bending moment is excessive, plastic hinges may form, leading
possibly to collapse. Much before this pile-centered ultimate limit state is reached,
other ultimate limit states or serviceability limit states may occur as the pile head
deflection exceeds the tolerable head deflection. Hence, it is the restriction of the
horizontal pile deflection that determines the limits of pile performance and designs in
most cases. In fact, in most cases, piles are first designed against ultimate limit states
corresponding to axial loads (i.e., against the limit vertical load carrying capacity) and
then checked against serviceability limit states corresponding to axial and lateral loads
(i.e., against vertical and lateral deflections).
In the case of laterally loaded pile groups, a serviceability limit state restricting the
lateral deflection would govern the design in most cases. However, checks against
ultimate limit states resulting from the yielding of soil in front of pile rows (as well as
the limit states due to formation of plastic hinges in the piles) may also be required.
14
Additionally, checks might be necessary against the limit states arising due to the
rotation of the pile cap and the associated vertical movement of the piles.
2.4 Analysis Methods
Having assessed the statics, kinematics and the possible failure modes of laterally
loaded piles, the methods available for analyzing them so that safe designs can be
produced are discussed here. Piles with active loading are discussed here. Most of the
analyses available in the literature are developed for active loading, although most of
the methods can be extended to passive loading as well. Research on analysis of
laterally loaded piles started more than five decades ago. As a consequence of such
sustained research, a number of analysis methods that can be used for design (an
account of the salient analysis methods available can be obtained from Poulos and
Davis 1980, Scott 1981, Fleming et al. 1992, Reese and Van Impe 2001, Reese et al.
2006). Broadly, the methods of analysis can be classified into following approaches:
2.4.1 Broms Method (1964a and 1964b)
The Broms method is an approximate approach which is subject to significant

limitations relative to the more sophisticated p-y models that are recommended and
available using computer software. The Broms method is a simplified limit
equilibrium solution that is suitable for simple analyses of relatively short, stiff piles
subject to lateral shear and overturning moments. The moment distribution along the
length of pile cannot be analyzed from Broms method. Examples of structures which
might be analyzed using the Broms method include sign or sound wall foundations in
uniform or relatively simple soil profiles.
In order to perform an analysis using this method, a simple soil passive pressure
diagram is assumed and a limit equilibrium solution can be obtained through
derivation of equations of static equilibrium of shear and moment in the shaft.
Although the original paper proposed a method for analysis of piles with full moment
connection to a cap which is “fixed” against rotation, it is recommended that the use
of the method is limited to these simple applications in which shear and overturning
are applied at the top of a shaft which is free to rotate. The method is most suited to
analysis of strength limit states. Analysis of deformations (serviceability) in the
original papers was based on a simplified subgrade reaction model for an elastic pile
15
that is not considered to be very reliable. For analysis of geotechnical strength limit
state of a pile using the Broms method, a resistance factor of 0.4 is recommended.
This recommendation is provided based on the judgment of the authors,
considering the fact that:
 the method uses a bearing capacity type analysis based on a limit

equilibrium solution, similar to a bearing capacity analysis of a shallow
foundation
 the method is recommended only for non-critical structures such as
signs, light poles, or sound walls, and not for bridges or retaining walls
 the geotechnical information at specific foundation locations in the
aforementioned type of applications is often sparse, based on crude sampling
from borings at widely spaced locations
 the current AASHTO code does not provide guidance for the
evaluation of geotechnical strength of piles using the Broms method.
Broms Method for Cohesive Soils
The maximum soil resistance per unit length of shaft in cohesive soils is taken as 9
times the cohesion (undrained shear strength) times the shaft diameter, with an
exclusion zone in the top 1.5 shaft diameters as illustrated on Figure 2.9.
In order to achieve horizontal force and moment equilibrium, the portion of the earth
pressure in the upper portion of the shaft will oppose the applied shear force, and the
portion of the earth pressure at the base of the diagram will act as shown in
order to restrain the shaft toe. The resulting earth pressure, shear, and moment
diagrams would be as shown on Figure 2.10.
16
Figure 2-9: Broms Earth Pressures for Cohesive Soils
Figure 2-10: Broms Pressure, Shear, Moment Diagrams for Cohesive Soils
The point of zero shear, and thus the point of maximum moment, occurs at a depth, f,
below the top of the uppermost earth pressure diagram as shown on Figure 2-10. In
order to satisfy horizontal force equilibrium about that point, the earth pressures
below the point of zero shear must sum to zero, and therefore the earth pressures on
each side of the shaft over the region labeled “g” must be equally divided on each
side of the shaft. The crossover pressures result in the triangular shape of the shear
diagram over this region with the peak at g/2 as shown. Note that this simplified
diagram inherently assumes that the shaft rotates about the point at g/2 where the
earth pressures cross the shaft axis, and that the full earth pressure is mobilized
immediately above and below this point even though the displacement must be
extremely small near the point of rotation. In order to satisfy moment equilibrium, the
17
resultant moment due to the earth pressures acting on the region g below the point of
zero shear must equal the maximum moment, which is the moment due to the forces
and earth pressures above the point of zero shear.
From the diagrams shown on Figure 2-10, the following equations are obtained:
Pt = 9suBbf 2-1
Therefore:
f = Pt/9suBb 2-2
Maximum moment:
Mmax = Mt + Pt (f + 1.5Bb) – (9suBbf2/2) 2-3
Determine g from Mmax:
Mmax = 4.5suBbg2/2 2-4
Therefore:
g = [2 Mmax / 4.5suBb]1/2 2-5
and the minimum length of the shaft is then:
L ≥ 1.5Bb + f + g 2-6
Broms Method for Cohesionless Soils
The maximum soil resistance per unit length of shaft in cohesionless soils is assumed
to be three times the Rankine passive earth pressure times the shaft diameter. Thus, at
a depth, z, below the ground surface the soil resistance per unit length of shaft, pz, can
be obtained as follows:
pz = 3Bbσ' Kp 2-7
Kp = tan2(45+φ/2) 2-8
Where,
σ' = Effective vertical stress at depth z, = γz
γ = Unit weight of soil
Kp = Rankine coefficient of passive earth pressure
φ = Angle of internal friction of soil
18
The earth pressure diagram used for design is illustrated on Figure 2.11. The passive
earth pressure should actually cross the vertical axis at the point of rotation, and the
pressures below the point of rotation should act in the same direction as the load.
However, as a simplification, the pressure diagram is taken as shown and the portion
on the left hand side is replaced by a concentrated force at the bottom of the shaft
(in a manner similar to the simplified earth support method used for walls). With
uniform soil of weight γ, the vertical stress σ’ at the base of the shaft at depth L will
be γL and the passive earth pressure at the base of the triangular pressure diagram will
be 3BbγLKp.
Requirements of overall moment equilibrium are applied in order to determine the

minimum length of the shaft, Lmin, to satisfy geotechnical strength requirements.
At the base of the shaft:
Figure 2.11: Broms Pressure, Shear, Moment Diagrams for Cohesionless Soils
ΣMb = 0 = Mt + PtLmin - 3BbγLminKp(Lmin/2)(Lmin/3) 2-9
The solution of the cubic Equation 2-9 provides Lmin.

The point of zero shear, and thus the point of maximum moment, occurs at a depth, f,
at which point the passive pressure is 3Bbγf Kp, so:
Pt = 3Bbγf Kp (f2/2) = 1.5Bbγ (f2) Kp 2-10
f = [Pt/ (1.5Bbγ Kp)]½ 2-11
Maximum moment:
Mmax = ΣMf = Mt + Pt (f) – (½Bbγf/3 Kp) 2-12

19
Figure 2.12 and 2.13 are provided by Broms for graphical estimate of pile ultimate
lateral load capacity for cohesive soil of short rigid pile and long flexible pile
respectively.
Figure 2.14 provides the lateral deflection calculation both short and long pile
embedded in cohesive soil
Figure 2.12: Ultimate lateral resistance of short pile in cohesive soil
20
Figure 2.13: Ultimate lateral resistance of long pile in cohesive soil
Figure 2.14: Charts for calculation of lateral deflection at ground

surface of horizontally loaded pile in cohesive soil (after Broms 1964)
21
2.4.2 Beam-on-Elastic Foundation
Hetenyi (1946) originally presented beam-on-elastic-foundation solutions (also

known as the subgrade reaction method) in the form of the governing fourth-order
differential equation:

= 2-13

with p = -Esy and where E and I are the pile modulus of elasticity and moment of
inertia, y is the pile deflection, x is the depth below the soil surface, Es is the modulus
of subgrade reaction, and p is the reaction of soil on the pile. As is the case with the
elastic continuum method, analytical solutions are not available for arbitrary
distributions of soil or pile stiffness. This method has mainly been applied to static
lateral pile loading problems, and is therefore used for the determination of pile head
stiffness analyses.
Matlock and Reese (1960) presented a generalized iterative solution method for rigid
and flexible laterally loaded piles embedded in soils with two forms of varying
modulus with depth. Davisson and Gill (1963) investigated the case of a laterally
loaded pile embedded in a layered soil system with a constant (but different) modulus
of subgrade reaction in each layer. They concluded that the near surface modulus was
the controlling factor for the pile response, and that soil investigations and
characterization should be focused in this zone. In classic companion papers, Broms
(1964a, b) described a method for analyzing lateral pile response in cohesive and
cohesionless soils. His method for computing ground surface deflections of rigid and
flexible fixed and free head piles was based on a modulus of subgrade reaction using
values suggested by Terzaghi (1955). For undrained loading, he designated that a
constant subgrade modulus be used with a value of 9su for the ultimate lateral soil
resistance. For drained loading cases, a subgrade modulus linearly increasing with
depth was specified and a Rankine earth pressure-based method was used for
computing an ultimate resistance assumed equal to 3KpDp γ'h.
Jamilokowski and Garassino (1977) provided a state-of-the-art discussion on soil

modulus and ultimate soil resistance for laterally loaded piles. Randolph and Houlsby
(1984) used classical plasticity theory to derive lower and upper bound values of the
22
limiting pressure on an undrained laterally loaded pile that ranged from approximately
9 to 12 su as a function of pile roughness. Hansbro (1995) revisited Brom’s
computation of drained ultimate lateral resistance, and based on results of centrifuge
tests conducted by Barton (1982) suggested that a drained ultimate lateral resistance
of Kp2Dpγ'h is more appropriate for cohesionless soils. Kulhawy and Chen (1995)
applied Brom’s concepts to drilled shafts, recognizing the components of resistance to
lateral loading unique to drilled shafts, and noted the importance of conducting
appropriate laboratory tests for laterally loaded pile and drilled shaft analysis.
2.4.3 Beam-on-Winkler Foundation
By accepting Winkler’s foundation assumption (1876) that each layer of soil responds
independently to adjacent layers, a beam and discrete spring system may be adopted
to model pile lateral loading. Although this assumption ignores the shear transfer
between layers of soil, it has proven to be a popular and effective method for static
and dynamic lateral pile response analyses. In this method, the soil-pile contact is
discretized to a number of points where combinations of springs and dashpots
represent the soil-pile stiffness and damping at each particular layer. These soil-pile
springs may be linear elastic or nonlinear; p-y curves typically used to model
nonlinear soil-pile stiffness have been empirically derived from field tests, and have
the advantage of implicitly including pile installation effects on the surrounding soil,
unlike other methods. In advanced applications, capabilities for soil-pile gapping,
cyclic degradation, and rate dependency are also provided. A singular disadvantage of
a beam-on-Winkler-foundation model is the two-dimensional simplification of the
soil-pile contact, which ignores the radial and three dimensional components of
interaction. For dynamic loadings, “free-field” soil acceleration time histories are
usually computed in a separate site response analysis, double integrated to
displacement time histories, and then externally applied to the soil-pile springs. The
multi-step uncoupled approach has the disadvantage of potentially introducing
numerical errors in the integration step, and artificially separates the overall soil-pile
system response. Recently, investigators have begun to develop fully-coupled
analyses wherein both soil and soil-pile superstructure response can be simultaneously
evaluated (Lok, 1999). McClelland and Focht (1958) can be said to be the originators
of the p-y method of laterally loaded pile analysis. They proposed a procedure for
23
correlating triaxial stress strain data to a pile load-deflection curve at discrete depths,
and estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction at each layer. Of particular interest is
the ensuing discussion provided by Peck, Matlock, and others to their paper, wherein
Reese first presented his concept of a near surface wedge (Figure 2.15) and deep
plasticity flow failure models, with an ultimate undrained resistance of 12 su.
Figure 2.15: Lateral Loading Near Surface Passive Wedge Geometry and Soil-Pile
Forces (after Reese, 1958)
2.4.4 Elastic Continuum Approach
The elastic continuum analytical method is based on Mindlin’s (1936) closed form
solution for the application of point loads to a semi-infinite mass. The accuracy of
these solutions is directly related to the evaluation of the Young’s modulus and the
other elastic parameters of the soil. This approach is limited in the sense that
nonlinear soil-pile behavior is difficult to incorporate (the equivalent linear method is
available), and it is more appropriately applied for small strain, steady state vibration
problems. In addition, layered soil profiles cannot be accommodated, and only
solutions for constant, linearly increasing, and parabolically increasing soil modulus
with depth have been derived. True continuum models do have the advantage of
intrinsically modeling the effects of radiation damping, whereas discrete models must
artificially simulate this energy dissipation mode.
24
Tajimi (1966) was the first to describe a dynamic soil-pile interaction solution based
on elastic continuum theory. He used a linear Kelvin-Voigt visco-elastic stratum to
model the soil and ignored the vertical components of response. His basic method has
been modified and extended by Tazoh et al. (1988) and other researchers to include
superstructure inertial effects. Poulos has been a major progenitor of elastic solutions
for soil and rock mechanics, and has worked extensively on all aspects of pile
foundation response to axial and lateral loads. In Poulos (1971a, b) he first published
elastic continuum solutions for laterally loaded single piles and groups under static
loading. Poulos and Davis (1980) presented a comprehensive set of analysis and
design methods for pile foundations based on elastic continuum theory.
Poulos (1982) described a procedure for degradation of soil pile resistance under
cyclic lateral loading and compared it to several case studies. In a different approach,
Swane and Poulos (1984) proposed a subgrade reaction method that provided for
progressive soil-pile gapping with bilinear elasto-plastic springs and friction slider
blocks. In the 29th Rankine Lecture, Poulos (1989) presented a compendium of his
work on axial pile loading.
2.5 Mechanics concerning response of soil to lateral loading
2.5.1 General
The mechanics concerning response of piles to lateral loading embedded in soil is to

establish a relationship between the soil stiffness and the stiffness of the pile materials
itself.
The Winkler method, or sometimes known as the subgrade reaction method, currently
appears to be the most widely used in a design of laterally loaded piles. The method
was first introduced by Winkler (1867) to analyze the response of beams on an elastic
subgrade by characterizing the soil as a series of independent linearly-elastic soil
springs. Since then, this concept has been extensively employed for the laterally
loaded pile problem. One of the great advantages of this method over the elastic
continuum method is that the idea is easy to program in the finite difference or finite
element methods and that the soil nonlinearity and multiple soil layers can be easily
25
taken into account. The concept can be easily implemented in dynamic analysis. In
addition, the computational cost is significantly less than the finite element method.
However, the obvious disadvantage of this method is the lack of continuity; real soil
is at least to some extent continuous.
2.5.2 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Foundation-ground interaction has been one of the challenging problems in

geotechnical engineering since late nineteenth century. Because of the complexity of
soil behavior, subgrade in soil-foundation interaction problems is replaced by a much
simpler system called subgrade model. One of the most common and simple models
in this context is Winkler hypothesis. Winkler idealization represents the soil medium
as a system of identical but mutually independent, closely spaced, discrete and
linearly elastic springs and ratio between contact pressure, P, at any given point and
settlement, y, produced by it at that point, is given by the coefficient of subgrade
reaction, ks (Dutta and Roy 2002).
At first, this concept was introduced to use in analysis of rigid plates, but during the
following decades the theory was expanded to include the computation of stresses in
flexible foundations (Terzaghi 1955). In the area of soil-foundation interaction, lots of
investigators have utilized this model, such as Biot (1937), Terzaghi (1955), Vesic
(1961), Horvath (1989), Daloglu and Vallabhan (2000) and so on. Since 1920, the
theory of subgrade reaction has also been used for computing stresses in piles and
sheet piles, which are acted on by horizontal forces above the ground surface. In this
case, the ratio between contact pressure and displacement of pile referred to as the
coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh (Terzaghi 1955). However, the methods
to calculate the modulus of subgrade reaction of soil for the analysis of piles lateral
capacity calculations the term of subgrade reaction indicates the pressure, P, per unit
area of the surface of the contact between a loaded beam or slab and the subgrade on
which it rests and on to which it transfers the loads. The coefficient of subgrade
reaction, k, is the ratio between the soil pressure, P, at any given point of the surface
of contact and the displacement, y, produced by the load application at that point:
26

= 2.14

To implement this concept for a laterally loaded pile, the above equation (2.14) has
been modified frequently (e.g. Reese and Matlock, 1956; and Davisson and Gill,
1963) as

= 2.15

where k is the modulus of subgrade reaction (F/L2) and p is the soil reaction per unit
length of the pile (F/L). It should be noted that the dimensions of each variable are
given in parentheses.
With the subgrade reaction concept, the lateral pile response can be obtained by
solving the forth order differential equation as:

+ = 0 2.16

where Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the pile, Ip is the moment of inertia of the pile,
and z is depth.
Solutions of Eq. (2.16) can be obtained either analytically or numerically.
Analytical solutions are only available in the case of constant modulus of subgrade
reaction with depth. For other subgrade reaction distribution, the solutions are
conveniently solved by using the finite difference method.
Hetenyi (1946) provided solutions for a variety of infinite beams on an elastic

Winkler subgrade by solving analytically the governing equations. The solutions can
be applied to analyze the response of a laterally loaded pile with a constant subgrade
reaction. Barber (1953) provided the solutions to determine the deflections and
rotation at the ground surface using the convenient plots for cases of constant soil
modulus of subgrade reaction, as well as the linearly increasing soil modulus of
subgrade reaction with depth. Several functions of distribution of modulus of
27
subgrade reaction with depth (i.e., polynomial function and power function) have
been considered by Matlock and Reese (1960). Matlock and Reese give the solutions
for a special case soil profile where the modulus of subgrade reaction has some finite
value at the ground surface and continues to increase linearly with depth.
Davisson and Gill (1963) extended the subgrade reaction theory to analyze the
behavior of laterally loaded piles in a two-layer soil system for both free and fixed
head conditions and provided the results in non-dimensional forms.
The values of modulus of subgrade reaction can be obtained using the in-situ testing,
such as the plate loading test. For practical purposes, Terzaghi (1955) recommended
the rough estimate values of coefficient of subgrade reaction for stiff clay and sand
to be used for analyzing pile response using subgrade theory. He stated that the linear
relationship between the soil pressure and displacement was valid for values of the
soil pressure that were smaller than about one-half of the bearing stress.
Another method in estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction is the use of the
equation proposed by Vesic (1961). Vesic provided a relationship between the
modulus of subgrade reaction, k, used in the Winkler spring problem and the material
properties in the elastic continuum problem as
/
.
=
) 2.17
(
Where,
Es = soil modulus of elasticity,
μs = Poisson’s ratio of the soil,
D = pile diameter, and
EpIp = flexural rigidity of the pile.
By knowing the soil modulus of elasticity from the laboratory or field testing, as well
as the pile property, the modulus of subgrade reaction can be estimated.
28
2.5.3 Subgrade modulus related to piles under lateral loading
The concept to the subgrade modulus has been presented in technical literature from
early days and values have been tabulated in textbooks and other documents.
Engineers performing analyses of piles under lateral loading, prior to developments
reported herein, sometimes relied on tabulated values of the subgrade modulus in
getting the soil resistance. Numerical values of the subgrade modulus are certainly
related to values of Es and to Epy in some ways; therefore, an explanation of the term
subgrade modulus by way of a simple experiment is desirable.
Figure 2.16a shows a plan view of the plate with m and n indicating the lengths of the
sides. If a concentrated vertical load is applied to the plate at the central point, the
resulting settlement is shown by Section A-A in Figure 2.16b, along with an assumed
uniform distributed load. If increasingly larger loads are applied, a unit load-
settlement curve is subsequently developed, as shown by the typical curve in Figure
2.16c. The figure indicates that the magnitude of the unit load reached a point where
settlement continued without any increase in load.
Several lines are drawn in Figure 2.16c from the origin of the curve to points on the
curve. The slopes of these lines with units of F/L are defined as the subgrade
modulus, and are a measure of the stiffness of the soil under the particular loading.
As shown, the maximum value is for a line drawn through the initial portion of the
curve, with the other lines giving lower values.
If a plate with dimensions larger or smaller than given by m and n is employed in the
same soil, one could expect a different result. Further, the stiffness of the plate itself
can affect the results, because the plate would deform in a horizontal plane, depending
on the method of loading. Also, soils with a friction angle will exhibit an increased
stiffness with depth. As can be understood, except in some special cases, values of
such type of subgrade moduli are of limited value in the solution of a problem of
soil-structure interaction but are only useful in merely differentiating the stiffness of
various soils (and rocks) such as soft clay, stiff clay, loose sand, dense sand, sound
limestone, or weathered limestone.
29
Figure 2.16: Description of experiment loading to definition of subgrade modulus.
More recent in situ testing research revealed the possibility to estimate for example
the lateral subgrade modulus from Menard pressuremeter tests (Y. Ikeda et al. 1998,
Imai T. 1970) and from Marchetti dilatometer tests.
From the work of Baldi et al. (1986) and Robertson et al. (1989), one could in this
respect at least for displacement piles, go out from flat dilatometer tests (DMT) in
order to estimate directly the Epy at a given depth from the dilatometer modulus EDMT
= 34.7 (P1 — P0); P1 & Po are DMT readings (Fig.2.8d). In our proposal, we would
implement a simplified relation for the case of lateral loading of displacement piles:
Epy (at the DMT testing depth) = F. EDMT 2.18
with: F = 2 for N.C. sands; F = 5 for O.C. dense sands; F = 10 for N.C. clays.
2.5.4 Theoretical solution by Skempton for subgrade modulus of soil
Skempton (1951) wrote that ‘simple theoretical considerations’ were employed to

develop a prediction for load-settlement curves. Even a limited solution, for saturated
clays, is useful to reflect the practical application of theory. The theory has some
relevance to p-y curves because the resistance to the deflection of a loaded area is
common to both a horizontal plate and a pile under lateral loading.
30
As noted earlier, the mean settlement of a foundation, sm of width b on the surface of a
semi-infinite solid, based on the theory of elasticity is given by Equation 2.19

= 2.19

Where, q = foundation pressure; = influence coefficient; υ= Poisson’s ratio of the

solid; and Es = Young’s modulus of the solid.
In Equation 2.19, Poisson’s ratio can assumed to be 1/2 for saturated clays if there is
no change in water content. For a rigid circular footing on the ground surface Ip can
be taken as π/4 and the failure stress qf be taken as equal 6.8cu, where cu is the
undrained shear strength. Making the substitutions indicated and setting Sm = Sm1 for
the particular case

= 2.20

Skempton noted that the influence value Ir decreases with depth below the surface but
the bearing capacity factor increases; therefore, as a first approximation Equation 2.20
is valid for any depth.
In an undrained compression test, the axial strain is given by the following equation.
∆
= = 2.21

where E = Young’s modulus at the stress (σ1-σ3) level.
For saturated clays with no water content change, Equation 2.21 may be rewritten as
follows.
( )
= 2.22
( )

Where, (σ1- σ3)f = failure stress.
Equations 2.21 and 2.22 show that, for the same ratio of applied stress to ultimate
stress, the strain in the footing test (or pile under lateral loading) is related to the strain
in the laboratory compression test by the following equation.
31

= 2 2.23

Skempton’s arguments based on the theory of elasticity and also on the actual
behavior of full-scale foundations led to the following conclusion:
Thus, to a degree of approximation (20%) comparable with the accuracy of the
assumptions, it may be taken that Equation 2.23 applies to a circular or square
footing.
As may be seen in the analyses shown above, Skempton allowed the Young’s
modulus of the soil, Es to be nonlinear and to assume values from Esmax to much lower
values when the soil was at failure. The assumption of a nonlinear value of Es is
remarkable because of varying state of stress of elements below the footing.
Skempton pointed out that the value of Ir for a footing with a length to width ratio of
10 was reported by Terzaghi (1943) and Timoshenko (1934) to be 1.26. If the bearing
capacity factor is taken as 5.3cu, Equation 2.23 can be written as follows.

= 2.5 2.24

Skempton stated that the failure stress for a footing reaches a maximum value of 9cu.
A curve of resistance as a function of deflection could be obtained for a long strip
footing, then, by taking points from a laboratory stress-strain curve and using
Equation 2.24 to obtain deflection and 4.5∆ to obtain soil resistance.
2.5.5 Empirical Equations for Estimating ks
Bowles (1997) suggested an equation for estimating ks using the allowable bearing
pressure qa which is shown in Eq. 2.25 as follows:
= , × × × + , × 2.25
Where, , = 1.3 to 1.7 and , = 2 to 4.4 for rounded pile

SF = safety factor used to obtain qa (usually 3 for clay; 2 for cohesionless soil)
Nq = Bearing capacity factor
n = 0.4 to 0.6 so ks does not increase too much with depth
C = 12 for Fps unit
32
2.0, = ≤ 0.457
.
Cm = 1.0 + ≥ 1.5, = > 0.457
,
1.25, = > 1200
If qa = qu (unconfined compression test) and omit the Nq term in Eq. 2.25
the value of ks in Fps units for a pile of unknown B is
ks = Cm x 12 x SF x qu = 2 x 3 x 12 x qu = 72 qu
Davisson and Robinson (1965) suggested a value of ks 10525 su, KN/m3
Using the standard penetration test data [see Yoshida and Yoshinaka (1972)]
to obtain
Es = 650N kPa 2.26
From this value ks can be found from the equation proposed by Pyke and
Beikae (1983):
.
= 2.27

2.5.6 Concept of p-y Curves
All of the solutions based on subgrade reaction theory mentioned in the previous
sections are valid only for a case of linear soil properties. In reality, the relationship
between soil pressure per unit pile length p and deflection y is nonlinear. Taking the
nonlinearity of soil into account, the linear soil springs are replaced with a series of
nonlinear soil springs, which represent the soil resistance-deflection curve so called,
“p-y” curve. The p-y curves of the soil have been developed based on the back
analysis of the full scale lateral pile load test. This concept was first developed by
McClelland and Focht (1958).
The concept of a p-y curve can be defined graphically as shown in Figure 2.18. It was
assumed that the pile was perfectly straight prior to driving and there was no bending
of the pile during driving. The soil pressure acting against the pile prior to loading can
be reasonably assumed to be uniform (Figure 2.18a). The resultant pressure for this
33
condition is zero. If the pile is loaded with a given lateral deflection as shown in
Figure 2.18b, a net soil reaction will be obtained by the integration of the soil
pressures around the pile giving the unbalanced force per unit length of the pile. This
process can be repeated in concept for a series of deflections resulting in a series of
forces per unit length of pile which may combine to form a p-y curve. In a similar
manner, the sets of p-y curves along the pile as shown in Figure 2.19 can be obtained.
If such a set of curves can be predicted, the yield pile deflection, pile rotation, bending
moment, shear, and soil reaction for any load capable of being sustained by the pile
can be obtained by solving the beam equation.
The series of p-y curves greatly depends upon the soil type. The p-y curves can be
obtained experimentally by conducting the full scale testing of instrumented piles in
the type of soil deposit interested. Figure 2.19 presents the methodology in developing
the p-y curves. The bending moment diagram along the pile can generally be
computed by the product of pile curvatures, which are computed from the measured
strain along the pile, with the known pile stiffness. Double differentiation of the
bending moment diagram produces the soil reaction curve. The deflection along the
pile can be obtained by double integration of the curvature diagram. Therefore, the
soil reaction versus the deflection of the pile, p-y curve, at a given depth can be
obtained.
Though the Winkler method neglects soil continuity, a disadvantage to a considerable

extent, it has been overcome through calibrating p-y curves to full-scale test results.
However, many factors which influence the behavior of laterally loaded piles have
been lumped into the characteristic shape of the p-y curves and difficult to separate
due to the limit number of the full-scale testing. Some of the parameters which may
have a significant effect on the pile response have not been investigated
systematically such as the pile diameter effect, the effect of soil gapping, and the
validity of using these p-y curves for a rigid pile case. Further research on these issues
needs to be investigated in order to improve the existing p-y curves for the wider
range of application.
Several researchers have proposed methods to construct p-y curves for various soil
types based upon back-computation from full-scale test results. The following
paragraphs presents the brief description of each p-y curves currently available in the
34
industry. Most of these p-y curves have been incorporated in the commercial
programs in analyzing behavior of laterally loaded pile, such as COM624P (Wang
and Reese, 1993), LPILE (Reese et al., 2000), and FLPIER (University of Florida,
1996). of Constant Soil Modulus (after Poulos, 1971)
Figure 2.17: Implementation of Winkler Spring Concept for Laterally Loaded Pile
Problem
Figure 2.18: Definition of p-y Concept with a) Pile at Rest; b) Pile after Load
Applied (after Dunnavant, 1986)
35
Figure 2.19: Typical Family of p-y Curves Response to Lateral Loading (after
Dunnavant, 1986)
Figure 2.20: Deflections, slopes, bending moments, shearing forces, and soil reactions
for elastic conditions (after Reese and Matlock).
36
Figure 2.21: Characteristic Shape of p-y Curve for Soft Clay (after Matlock, 1970)
In Matlock (1970) method the p-y curve is initially parabolic in shape and after pu
point it becomes parallel to the deflection axis. Federal Highway Authority (US
department of transportation) proposed in their document (FHWA-IP-84-11, JULY
1984) that the initial portion of p-y curve may be used straight line (constant ks) whose
results are almost same as proposed p-y method of Matlock.
2.5.7 p-y curves for clay soil
Matlock (1970) conducted full-scale lateral load tests on a 0.3 m diameter

instrumented steel pipe pile embedded in soft clay deposit at Lake Austin, Texas.
The methodology to develop the p-y curves was proposed based on the back
computed p-y curves from the test results. Figure 2.21a presents the characteristic
shape of the soft clay p-y curves for static loading case which can be represented by
using cubic parabola relationship as:
2.28
where: pu = ultimate soil resistance which is related to the undrained shear strength of
the soil as well as a function of depth, and y50 = the soil displacement at one-half of
ultimate soil resistance.
37
A summary of procedure in developing the soft clay p-y curves is given in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 Summary of Procedure in Developing p-y curves for clay soil
(Matlock, 1970)
38
CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter detail analysis and results of piles embedded in homogeneous &
layered soil are presented. The analysis procedure and results has been shown in table
& various graphical forms. Various diameters of piles of length 23 m have been
analyzed in various soil types having soft to stiff clay of various top deflections. From
the structural strength & serviceability point of view BNBC & other building code
permits maximum 25 mm pile top deflection due to lateral load.
3.2 METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS
The analysis has been done using the p-y methods of soil & the Finite Element
Software SAP. Soil has defined series of soil spring which gives lateral support of pile
embedded in soil during the lateral load applied on the pile top. The spring values
evaluated from Robinson’s (1978) modulus of subgrade reaction equation presented
in chapter 2.
 Selection of pile diameter and length

In this analysis 500 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm & 1 m diameter pile of length of
23 m have considered.
 Soil type
Cohesive soil of undrained shear strength 10 kpa, 25 kpa, 50 kpa & 70 kpa are
taken. Pile diameter and soil type are shown in table 3.1.
 Pile head deflection

In this analysis maximum lateral load capacity & bending moment are
analyzed for 6 mm, 12 mm & 25 mm top deflection.
 Determination of spring constant for pile model

The first step is to determine whether the pile will behave as a short rigid unit
or as an infinitely long flexible member. This is done by calculating the
stiffness factor T for the particular combination of pile and soil. The stiffness
factors are governed by the stiffness (EI value) of the pile and the
39
compressibility of the soil. The latter is expressed in terms of a ‘soil modulus’,
which is not constant for any soil type but depends on the width of the pile B
and the depth of the particular loaded area of soil being considered. For most
normally consolidated clays and for granular soils the soil modulus is assumed
to increase linearly with depth, for which

stiffness factor, T = (in units of length) Reese (3.1)

Values of nh are as follows:

Soft normally-consolidated clays: 350 to 700 kN/m3
Having calculated the stiffness factor T, the criteria for behaviour as a short
rigid pile or as a long elastic pile are related to the embedded length L as
follows:
Short Rigid Pile (free head) L ≤ 2T
Elastic Long Pile (free head) L ≥ 4T
Considering 500 mm & 1 m diameter pile of length 23 m and soft soil of

cu = 10 kpa
for 500 mm diameter pile
E = 20x106 kN/m2

stiffness factor, T = I = 3.26 x 10-3 m4

nh = 500 kN/m3
∗ .
T= = 2.64 m

L = 4 * 2.64 = 10.6 m < 23 m, so pile is long pile.
1 m diameter pile
E = 20x106 kN/m2

stiffness factor, T = I = 52.21 x 10-3 m4
nh = 500 kN/m3
20 x 106 ∗ 52.21 x 10−3
T= = 4.61 m
500
L = 4 * 4.61 = 18.5 m < 23 m, so pile is long pile.
40
Table 3.1 Pile analysis data for homogeneous soil
Pile Diameter (mm) Soil Shear Strength (kpa) Length of Pile (m)
500 10,25,50,70 23
600 10,25,50,70 23
750 10,25,50,70 23
1000 10,25,50,70 23
It is assumed that the soil is homogeneous & isotropic in full depth & the water table
at the ground level. Two types of mode may be analyzed for lateral loads are
1. Considering full depth of soil is effective (Fig 3.1 a)
2. Neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength (Fig 3.1 b) (Broms 1964)
300 mm
Ground Level P
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Pile
Pile
300 mm
23 m
23 m
(a) (b)
Figure 3.1: Location of spring (a) Considering full depth of soil effective, (b)
Neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength
41
3.3 STEPS FOR ANALYSIS OF PILES EMBEDDED IN SOIL
Step 1: Determination of spring constant
Spring constant, k = 67 * Cu* 2 * b = 67 * 0.2 * 2 * 20/12 = 60.8 kN/m.
(Davisson & Robinson, 1965)

p
ult
Load, p
Spring constant, k
Deflection, y
Figure 3.2: Load vs deflection graph showing spring constant & pult
Step 2: Determination of pult
pult = 11* cu * b = 11 * 0.2 * 20/12 = 16.3 kN (Matlock & Reese, 1956)

it is the maximum value of pult , the initial some spring pult values are calculated as per
the soil passive resistance, after that this value is dominating.
According to Broms method, the initial some spring can withstand only 3 times the
soil passive resistance. In this example it is 2 instead of 3 because some writers
suggested that this value should not exceed 2 (AASHTO Design Manual for Drilled
Shaft).
For 0.5 m pile
Passive resistance of soil = (1/2 * kp * * h2 + 2 * c * )
(Rankine’s theory)
For first spring the value will be = (1/2*1* 0.06 * 12 + 0.4)*2*20/12 = 4.9 kN
2nd spring value will be = 7.5 kN
3rd spring value will be = 9.9 kN
4th spring value will be = 12.9 kN
5th spring value will be = 16.9 kN which is larger than 16.3 kN (maximum value of
pult) so the value of pult of 5th and so on springs are taken = 16.3 kN.
42
The values of spring constant, pult for computer analysis are shown in table 3.2
Table 3.2 Values of spring constant & pult of different Clay soils.
Value 500 mm dia pile 600 mm dia pile 750 mm dia pile 1000 mm dia pile
Depth Spring Spring Spring Spring
cu (m) Constant pult Constant pult Constant pult Constant pult
(kpa) kN/m (kN) kN/m (kN) kN/m (kN) kN/m (kN)
10 0.3 61 4 79 9 95 9 122 9
0.6 131 9 158 13 190 13 245 13
0.9 131 13 158 18 190 18 245 18
1.2 131 18 158 22 190 22 245 27
23.0 131 18 158 22 190 22 245 31
25 0.3 152 9 177 18 201 18 316 18
0.6 305 18 354 31 403 31 631 31
0.9 305 31 354 40 403 40 631 49
1.2 305 40 354 49 403 49 631 67
1.5 305 40 354 49 403 58 631 80
1.8 305 40 354 49 403 58 631 107
2.1 305 40 354 49 403 58 631 133
23.0 305 40 354 49 403 58 631 160
50 0.3 316 9 347 18 381 18 617 18
0.6 359 18 694 31 762 31 1235 36
0.9 359 31 694 40 762 40 1235 53
1.2 359 40 694 49 762 49 1235 62
1.5 359 49 694 80 762 67 1235 80
1.8 359 67 694 93 762 80 1235 107
2.1 359 80 694 93 762 93 1235 133
2.4 359 80 694 93 762 120 1235 160
23.0 359 80 694 18 762 120 1235 160
70 0.3 454 18 533 31 617 18 911 18
0.6 909 31 1066 40 1235 31 1822 36
0.9 909 40 1066 49 1235 40 1822 53
1.2 909 49 1066 67 1235 49 1822 62
1.5 909 67 1066 80 1235 67 1822 80
1.8 909 80 1066 93 1235 89 1822 107
2.1 909 93 1066 107 1235 120 1822 133
2.4 909 120 1066 120 1235 160 1822 160
2.7 909 120 1066 133 1235 182 1822 187
3.0 909 120 1066 147 1235 182 1822 205
23.0 909 120 1066 147 1235 182 1822 222
From computer analysis the results are shown in th article 3.4
43
3.4 Allowable lateral load for piles embedded in homogeneous soil
Allowable loads for long pile, maximum moment and its location from head of the
pile for free head conditions are shown in table 3.3.
Ground Level P
Pile
Clay Soil
Cu= 10 kpa
25 kpa
50 kpa
23 m
70 kpa
Table 3.3: Allowable horizontal loads on pile for free head condition
6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

Pile cu P Mmax L (m) P Mmax L (m) P Mmax L (m)
(kpa) (kN) (kN/m) Location (kN) (kN/m) Location (kN) (kN/m) Location
of max of max of max
moment moment moment
from top from top from top
of pile of pile of pile
0.5 10 40 38 2.4 71 76 2.4 116 151 2.4
24 80 63 1.8 133 121 1.8 214 234 2.1
48 107 83 1.5 169 161 1.5 267 324 1.8
72 151 103 1.5 222 193 1.5 325 359 1.8
0.6 10 62 67 2.7 111 124 2.7 169 238 2.7
24 111 95 2.1 205 193 2.1 311 367 2.4
48 165 132 1.8 254 250 1.8 387 483 2.1
72 196 163 1.8 267 295 1.8 400 506 2.1
0.75 10 80 103 3.0 147 214 3.0 231 396 3.4
24 156 161 2.4 280 331 2.4 445 666 2.7
48 231 231 2.1 356 435 2.1 534 816 2.4
72 267 272 2.1 400 505 2.1 623 986 2.4
1.0 10 142 227 4.0 249 449 4.0 378 836 4.3
24 267 354 3.0 467 666 3.0 756 1340 3.4
48 378 476 2.7 601 909 2.7 956 1768 3.0
72 445 571 2.4 667 1034 2.4 1023 1931 2.7
44
Allowable loads for long pile, maximum moment and its location from the top of the
pile for fixed head condition are shown in table 3.4.
Ground Level P
Pile
Clay Soil
Cu= 10 kpa
25 kpa
50 kpa
23 m
70 kpa
6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mmdeflection

Pile cu P Mmax (kN/m) L P Mmax (kN/m) L P Mmax (kN/m) L
(kpa) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 10 76 -113 23 5 142 -226 48 5 222 -423 102 5
25 156 -186 39 4 276 -362 78 4 423 -662 163 4
50 222 -249 53 3 356 -456 106 3 534 -779 204 3
70 311 -318 71 3 445 -518 124 3 689 -945 258 3
0.6 10 111 -185 38 5 222 -381 79 5 311 -646 156 6
25 222 -295 61 4 414 -590 132 4 601 -1020 245 4
50 329 -399 84 4 534 -748 169 4 801 -1295 326 4
70 400 -481 106 3 601 -831 201 3 890 -1444 400 4
0.75 10 156 -313 65 6 298 -630 131 6 445 -1119 265 7
25 311 -496 102 5 556 -966 204 5 845 -1768 428 5
50 467 -691 147 4 756 -1274 291 4 1157 -2258 578 5
70 556 -804 178 4 890 -1472 360 4 1423 -2720 748 4
1.0 10 289 -715 150 8 512 -1360 286 8 712 -2244 537 8
25 534 -1074 223 6 934 -2020 426 6 1601 -3838 843 6
50 756 -1387 286 5 1290 -2656 592 5 2224 -4736 1178 6
70 934 -1673 367 5 1512 -3087 734 5 2446 -5127 1360 5
45
3.5 Allowable lateral load for piles embedded in homogeneous soil neglecting
head 1.5 m soil shear strength
pile for free head condition are shown in table 3.5
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Pile
Clay Soil
Cu= 10 kpa
25 kpa
50 kpa
23 m
70 kpa
neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength

Pile cu P Mmax L P Mmax L (m) P Mmax L
(kpa) (kN) (kN/m) (m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (m)
0.5 10 13 33 3 31 67 3 53 122 3
25 25 48 2 49 97 2 89 192 3
50 33 61 2 58 116 2 98 212 2
70 45 79 2 80 152 2 125 258 2
0.6 10 25 54 3 49 109 3 89 204 3
25 40 82 3 76 154 3 142 307 3
50 53 102 2 98 196 2 165 365 3
70 62 116 2 111 226 2 187 426 2
0.75 10 40 95 4 76 184 4 133 354 4
25 62 136 3 125 272 3 222 539 3
50 89 182 3 160 354 3 276 694 3
70 107 218 3 178 400 3 289 734 3
1.0 10 76 204 4 156 394 4 267 816 4
25 133 320 3 236 594 3 400 1102 4
50 178 408 3 311 782 3 512 1360 3
70 209 476 3 343 870 3 578 1681 3
46
pile for fixed head condition are shown in table 3.6.
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Pile
Clay Soil
Cu= 10 kpa
25 kpa
23 m
50 kpa
70 kpa
Table 3.6: Allowable horizontal load on pile for fixed head condition neglecting top
1.5 m soil shear strength

Pile cu P Mmax L P Mmax (kN/m) L P Mmax (kN/m) L
(kpa) (kN) (kN/m) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 10 45 -101 25 5 80 -185 48 5 142 -354 95 5
25 76 -146 38 4 133 -268 75 4 231 -494 147 4
50 98 -178 53 3 169 -326 102 3 276 -577 196 4
70 125 -208 64 3 209 -370 124 3 334 -658 231 3
0.6 10 67 -163 38 6 133 -326 78 6 222 -598 161 6
25 116 -242 61 4 222 -476 122 4 378 -872 245 5
50 160 -306 83 4 276 -564 163 4 445 -993 313 4
70 187 -340 101 3 298 -598 188 3 489 -1088 374 4
0.75 10 102 -283 65 6 200 -569 133 6 334 -1043 268 7
25 178 -422 102 5 334 -816 204 5 578 -1550 422 6
50 254 -544 143 4 432 -1006 286 4 703 -1768 544 5
70 289 -607 170 4 489 -1125 347 4 801 -2018 680 4
1.0 10 200 -646 144 8 356 -1197 272 8 556 -2069 524 8
25 334 -918 211 6 623 -1795 435 6 1068 -3293 843 6
50 467 -1185 294 6 801 -2190 585 6 1379 -4134 1210 6
70 556 -1374 367 5 912 -2421 707 5 1468 -4314 1360 5
47
3.6 GRAPHICAL FORM OF PILES IN HOMOHENEOUS SOIL
Allowable Lateral Capacity for Free Headed Piles
Pile Capacity vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection

Pile Capacity (kN) 600
0.5 m Dia Pile
400 0.6 m Dia Pile

0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
200
0
0 20 40 60 80
Soil Shear Strength (kpa)
Figure 3.3: Pile Capacity vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection

800
Pile Capacity (kN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

600
0.6 m Dia Pile
400
0.75 m Dia Pile
200
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

1200
Pile Capacity (kN)
1000 0.5 m Dia Pile

800
0.6 m Dia Pile
600
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
200 1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80
48
Maximum Moment for Free Headed Piles
Pile Maximum Moment vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection
Pile Maximum Moment (kN-m)

800
0.5 m Dia Pile
600
0.6 m Dia Pile
400
0.75 m Dia Pile
200
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.6: Pile Maximum Moment vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection

800
0.5 m Dia Pile

600
0.6 m Dia Pile
400
0.75 m Dia Pile
200
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

1200
1000 0.5 m Dia Pile
800
0.6 m Dia Pile
600
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
200 1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80
49
Allowable Lateral Load for Fixed Head Condition

1200
Pile Capacity (kN)

0.5 m Dia Pile
800
0.6 m Dia Pile
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80

1600
Pile Capacity (kN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

1200
0.6 m Dia Pile
800
0.75 m Dia Pile
400
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

2400
Pile Capacity (kN)
2000 0.5 m Dia Pile

1600
0.6 m Dia Pile
1200
800 0.75 m Dia Pile
400 1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80

50
Maximum Moment of Pile for Fixed Head Condition

0
0 20 40 60 800.5 m Dia Pile
-800
0.6 m Dia Pile
-1600 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

-2400

0
0 20 40 60 800.5 m Dia Pile
-800
-1600 0.6 m Dia Pile
-2400
0.75 m Dia Pile
-3200
1.0 m Dia Pile
-4000

0
-800 0 20 40 60 800.5 m Dia Pile
-1600
-3200
0.75 m Dia Pile
-4000
-5600
51
Allowable Lateral Load of Pile for Neglecting Top 1.5 m Soil Shear Strength (Free
Head Condition)

300
Pile Capacity (kN) 0.5 m Dia Pile

200
0.6 m Dia Pile
100 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80

400
Pile Capacity (kN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

300
0.6 m Dia Pile
200
0.75 m Dia Pile
100
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

700
Pile Capacity (kN)
600 0.5 m Dia Pile

500
400 0.6 m Dia Pile
300
0.75 m Dia Pile
200
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
52
Maximum Moment of Pile for Neglecting Top 1.5 m Soil Shear Strength

600
0.5 m Dia Pile

400
0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80

1000
800 0.5 m Dia Pile
600 0.6 m Dia Pile
400 0.75 m Dia Pile

200
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

2000
1800
1600 0.5 m Dia Pile
1400
1200 0.6 m Dia Pile
1000
800 0.75 m Dia Pile
600
400
200 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
53
Allowable Lateral Load of Pile for Neglecting Top 1.5 m Soil Shear Strength (Fixed
Head Condition)

600
Pile Capacity (kN) 0.5 m Dia Pile

400
0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

0
0 20 40 60 80

1400
Pile Capacity (kN)
1200 0.5 m Dia Pile

1000
800 0.6 m Dia Pile
600
0.75 m Dia Pile
400
200 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80

1600
1400
0.5 m Dia Pile
Pile Capacity (kN)
1200
1000 0.6 m Dia Pile
800
600 0.75 m Dia Pile
400
200 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
54
Maximum Moment of Pile for Neglecting Top 1.5 m Soil Shear Strength

0
0 20 40 60 80
-400 0.5 m Dia Pile
-800 0.6 m Dia Pile
-1200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile

-1600

0
-400 0 20 40 60 80
-800 0.5 m Dia Pile
-1200
0.6 m Dia Pile
-1600
-2000 0.75 m Dia Pile
-2400
1.0 m Dia Pile
-2800

0
-400
-800 0 20 40 60 80
-1600
-2000
-2800
-3200
-3600 0.75 m Dia Pile
-4000
-4400
55
Pile Maximum Moment Location from Head of Pile (Free Head Condition)
Location of Maximum Moment vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm deflection
50
Location of Maximum
40 0.5 m Dia Pile
30 0.6 m Dia Pile

Moment(m)
20 0.75 m Dia Pile
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26a: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm
deflection

Location of Maximum Moment(m)
50
40 0.5 m Dia Pile
30 0.6 m Dia Pile
20
0.75 m Dia Pile
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26b: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 12 mm
deflection

50
40 0.5 m Dia Pile
30 0.6 m Dia Pile
20
0.75 m Dia Pile
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26c: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 25 mm
deflection
56
Pile Maximum Moment Location from Head of Pile Neglecting top 1.5 m Soil Shear
Strength (Free Head Condition)
50
Location of Maximum 40 0.5 m Dia Pile
30 0.6 m Dia Pile

20 0.75 m Dia Pile
Moment(m)
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26d: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 6 mm
deflection

50
40 0.5 m Dia Pile
30 0.6 m Dia Pile
20
0.75 m Dia Pile
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26e: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 12 mm
deflection
50
40 0.5 m Dia Pile

Location of Maximum
30 0.6 m Dia Pile
20
0.75 m Dia Pile
Moment(m)
10
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 3.26f: Pile Maximum Moment Location vs Soil Shear Strength for 25 mm
deflection
57
3.7 RESULTS OF PILES EMBEDED IN LAYERED SOIL
Soil layering effect on pile lateral loading has been discussed with two types soil. One
soft soil laying over a stiff soil has been analyzed in the same procedure discussed
previously for homogeneous soil. Top soft soil of shear strength 10 kpa of different
depth of 3 m to 12.1 m, laying over 50 kpa stiff soil.
Table 3.7: Values of spring constant & pult for analysis of different layer of soil.
500 mm dia 600 mm dia 1000 mm dia
750 mm dia pile
pile pile pile
spring spring spring spring
Depth cu pult pult pult pult
constant constant constant constant
m kpa (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
0.3 10 61 4 73 9 93 9 122 9
0.6 10 122 9 147 18 184 18 245 18
0.9 10 122 18 147 22 184 22 245 27
1.2 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
1.5 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
1.8 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
2.1 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
2.4 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
2.7 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
3.0 10 122 18 147 22 184 27 245 31
6.1 50 365 45 438 53 547 58 730 89
6.4 50 607 67 728 85 911 89 1216 133
6.7 50 607 80 728 98 911 111 1216 160
7.0 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
7.3 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
7.6 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
7.9 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
8.2 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
8.5 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
23.0 50 607 85 728 98 911 120 1216 160
58
Allowable lateral load, maximum moment and maximum moment location from head
of pile for piles embedded in a layered soil having top 3 m soft clay ( cu = 10 kpa )
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) for free head condition. Results are shown in
table 3.8
Ground Level P
3m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
20 m
6 mm Deflection. 12 mm Deflection. 25 mm Deflection.

Pile L
P(kN) Mmax L (m) P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax L (m)
(m) (m)
0.5 42 142 3 76 289 3 125 583 3
0.6 58 200 3 111 405 3 169 778 3
0.75 93 498 3 182 1023 3 311 2046 3
1.0 182 1183 4 334 2313 4 578 4604 4
59
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) for fixed head condition. Results are shown in
table 3.9
Ground Level P
3m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
20 m

Pile P Mmax L P Mmax L P Mmax L
(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 93 -485 147 4 174 -930 285 4 285 -1739 583 4
0.6 116 -627 129 5 222 -1250 258 5 334 -2282 543 5
0.75 222 -1503 427 6 423 -2985 890 6 712 -5524 1708 6
1.0 445 -3558 947 6 845 -6992 1868 6 1512 -13976 4003 6
60
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength for free
head condition. Results are shown in table 3.10
Ground Level P
1.5 m
3m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
20 m
Table 3.10: Allowable horizontal load on pile for free head condition neglecting top
1.5 m soil

Pile L
(m) (m)
0.5 16 107 3 31 218 3 58 440 3
0.6 29 218 3 58 436 3 107 863 4
0.75 45 374 4 89 756 4 156 1441 4
1.0 98 979 5 160 1935 5 334 3719 5
61
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength for fixed
Ground Level P
1.5 m
3m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
20 m
top 1.5 m soil

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 49 -360 116 5 89 -676 222 5 156 -1250 445 5
0.6 76 -605 200 5 151 -1214 405 5 267 -2295 823 5
0.75 120 -1099 365 6 240 -2228 756 6 445 -4404 1584 6
1.0 267 -2771 867 6 480 -5560 1779 6 934 -10435 3469 6
62
table 3.12
Ground Level P
Soft Clay
6m
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
17 m

Pile L
P (kN) Mmax L (m) P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax L (m)
(m) (m)
0.5 42 129 3 76 267 3 125 560 3
0.6 58 205 3 111 405 3 169 778 3
0.75 80 343 3 151 689 3 245 1406 3
1.0 142 770 4 258 1521 4 400 2918 4
63
table 3.13
Ground Level P
Soft Clay
6m
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
17 m

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 80 -383 85 5 151 -778 169 5 222 -1370 356 5
0.6 120 -658 156 6 222 -1259 303 6 320 -2193 623 6
0.75 165 -1112 311 6 311 -2197 623 6 480 -3977 1268 6
1.0 311 -2615 778 7 578 -5129 1539 7 890 -9247 3114 7
64
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) neglecting to 1.5 m soil shear strength for free
head condition. Results are shown in table 3.14.
Ground Level P
1.5 m
6m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
17 m
top 1.5 m soil

Pile L
(m) (m)
0.5 16 107 6 31 218 3 56 418 3
0.6 25 178 3 49 356 3 89 676 3
0.75 45 356 4 85 712 4 142 1232 4
1.0 80 712 4 160 1477 4 231 2825 4
65
lying over a stiff clay ( cu = 50 kpa ) neglecting to 1.5 m soil shear strength for fixed
Ground Level P
1.5 m
6m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
17 m
top 1.5 m soil

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 45 -320 80 5 85 -632 165 5 147 -1183 334 5
0.6 67 -534 133 5 133 -1059 262 5 231 -2051 569 5
0.75 107 -974 249 7 205 -1899 498 7 356 -3674 1103 7
1.0 205 -2193 636 8 387 -4270 1272 8 667 -8256 2802 8
66
of pile for piles embedded in a layered soil having top 9.1 m soft clay ( cu = 10 kpa )
table 3.16
Ground Level P
9m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
14 m

Pile L
(m) (m)
0.5 42 133 2 71 245 2 116 494 2
0.6 58 200 3 111 409 3 178 783 3
0.75 80 338 3 151 689 3 245 1401 3
1.0 142 743 4 258 1477 4 400 2882 4
67
table 3.17
Ground Level P
Soft Clay
9m
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
14 m

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 80 -383 80 5 151 -778 165 5 222 -1370 338 5
0.6 116 -627 133 5 222 -1245 267 5 356 -2357 560 5
0.75 156 -1076 231 6 303 -2073 445 6 445 -3612 890 6
1.0 289 -2340 534 8 534 -4599 1068 8 756 -7829 2180 8
68
Ground Level P
1.5 m
9m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
14 m
top 1.5 m soil

Pile L
(m) (m)
0.5 16 107 3 31 214 3 53 396 3
0.6 27 191 3 53 387 3 98 756 3
0.75 40 320 4 80 636 4 142 1232 4
1.0 80 712 4 156 1423 4 267 2691 4
69
Ground Level P
1.5 m
9m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
Pile
14 m
top 1.5 m soil

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 45 -325 80 5 80 -601 156 5 147 -1188 329 5
0.6 71 -565 133 5 133 -1059 258 5 245 -2113 565 5
0.75 107 -961 227 6 200 -1837 445 6 334 -3381 890 6
1.0 200 -2104 489 8 378 -4114 979 8 578 -6983 1837 8
70
table 3.20
Ground Level P
12 m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Pile
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
11 m

Pile L L
P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax L (m)
(m) (m) (m)
0.5 40 125 2 71 245 2 116 489 2
0.6 58 200 3 111 405 3 178 783 3
0.75 80 338 3 151 689 3 231 1272 3
1.0 142 743 4 258 1477 4 391 2771 4
71
table 3.21
Ground Level P
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
12 m
Pile
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
11 m

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 80 -383 80 5 147 -752 156 5 218 -1334 316 5
0.6 111 -627 133 5 222 -1245 262 5 356 -2366 556 5
0.75 160 -1045 222 6 298 -2046 445 6 445 -3607 867 6
1.0 280 -2224 476 8 512 -4319 925 8 756 -7864 1984 8
72
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Soft Clay
12 m
Cu = 10 kpa
Pile
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
11 m
top 1.5 m soil

Pile L L
P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax L (m)
(m) (m) (m)
0.5 16 107 3 31 214 3 53 396 3
0.6 25 178 3 49 356 3 89 672 3
0.75 40 316 4 76 596 4 142 1232 4
1.0 80 712 4 151 1379 4 267 2691 4
73
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Soft Clay
12 m
Cu = 10 kpa
Pile
Stiff Clay
Cu = 50 kpa
11 m
top 1.5 m soil

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 45 -325 80 5 85 -636 160 5 142 -1143 311 5
0.6 67 -534 125 5 133 -1068 254 5 231 -1975 512 5
0.75 111 -1005 236 6 200 -1842 436 6 334 -3381 890 6
1.0 200 -2100 480 8 378 -4097 961 8 601 -7384 1957 8
74
table 3.24
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 70 kpa
Pile
21 m

Pile L L
P(kN) Mmax L (m) P(kN) Mmax P(kN) Mmax
(m) (m) (m)
0.5 53 200 3 98 400 3 178 801 3
0.6 80 329 3 156 654 3 267 1290 3
0.75 125 578 3 222 1201 3 423 2357 3
1.0 222 1245 4 423 2446 4 756 4893 4
75
table 3.25
Ground Level P
1.5 m
Soft Clay
Cu = 10 kpa
Stiff Clay
Cu = 70 kpa
Pile
21 m

(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
0.5 133 -632 156 4 245 -1201 298 4 423 -2224 592 4
0.6 200 -1050 245 5 378 -2002 489 5 667 -4003 1023 5
0.75 311 -1868 427 6 578 -3558 823 6 1023 -6983 1708 6
1.0 534 -3852 845 6 1023 -7562 1690 6 1868 -13344 3514 6
76
3.8 GRAPHICAL FORM OF PILES IN LAYERED SOIL
Pile Capacity vs Thickness of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

400
soft soil
cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
300 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
200
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.6 m Dia Pile
100 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Thickness of Soft Soil (m)
Figure 3.27: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

700
soft soil
600 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
500 stiff soil

400 cu = 50 kpa
300 0.5 m Dia Pile

0.6 m Dia Pile
200
0.75 m Dia Pile
100
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1100
1000 soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN)
900 cu = 10 kpa
800 stiff soil
700
cu = 50 kpa
600
500 0.5 m Dia Pile
400 0.6 m Dia Pile
300
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

77
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil for free head condition
Pile Maximum Moment vs Thickness of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

600
Pile Maximum Moment (KN-m)

soft soil
cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
400
cu = 50 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
200 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.30: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

1000
soft soil
800 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
600 cu = 50 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
400
0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2000
1800 soft soil

1600 cu = 10 kpa
1400 stiff soil
1200 cu = 50 kpa
1000
0.5 m Dia Pile
800
600 0.6 m Dia Pile
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
200 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

78
Allowable lateral load of pile embedded in layered soil for fixed head condition

1000
soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN) cu = 10 kpa
750 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
500
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.6 m Dia Pile
250 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1500
soft soil
1250 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
stiff soil
1000
cu = 50 kpa
750
0.5 m Dia Pile
500 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
250
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2500
2250 soft soil
2000 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
1750 stiff soil

1500 cu = 50 kpa
1250
0.5 m Dia Pile
1000
750 0.6 m Dia Pile
500 0.75 m Dia Pile
250 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

79
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil for fixed head condition

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-500 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
-1000
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-2000

0
soft14soil
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
cu = 10 kpa
-1000 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
-1500
0.5 m Dia Pile
-2000
0.6 m Dia Pile
-2500 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-3000

0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-1000 cu = 10 kpa
-1500
stiff soil
-2000
-2500 cu = 50 kpa
-3000
0.5 m Dia Pile
-3500
-4500 0.75 m Dia Pile
-5000
1.0 m Dia Pile
-5500

80
Allowable lateral load of pile embedded in layered soil for free head condition

500
Pile Capacity (KN) soft soil
400 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
300 cu = 70 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
200
0.6 m Dia Pile
100 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38a: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

800
soft soil
700
cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
600 stiff soil

500 cu = 70 kpa
400
0.5 m Dia Pile
300
0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38b: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection

1200
1100 soft soil
1000
Pile Capacity (KN)
cu = 10 kpa
900
800 stiff soil
700 cu = 70 kpa
600
500 0.5 m Dia Pile
400 0.6 m Dia Pile
300 0.75 m Dia Pile
200
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38c: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection

81
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil for free head condition

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
cu = 10 kpa
-250 stiff soil
cu = 70 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
-500
0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-750
Figure 3.38d: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-250 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
-500 cu = 70 kpa
-750 0.5 m Dia Pile
0.6 m Dia Pile
-1000 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-1250
Figure 3.38e: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection

0
-250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-500 cu = 10 kpa
-750 stiff soil
-1000 cu = 70 kpa
-1500
0.6 m Dia Pile
-1750
0.75 m Dia Pile
-2000
1.0 m Dia Pile
-2250
Figure 3.38f: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection

82
Allowable lateral load of pile embedded in layered soil for fixed head condition

1000
soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN) cu = 10 kpa
750 stiff soil
cu = 70 kpa
500
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.6 m Dia Pile
250 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38g: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

1750
soft soil
1500 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
1250 stiff soil

1000 cu = 70 kpa
750 0.5 m Dia Pile

0.6 m Dia Pile
500
0.75 m Dia Pile
250
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38h: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection

2500
2250 soft soil
2000 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
1750 stiff soil

1500
cu = 70 kpa
1250
0.5 m Dia Pile
1000
750 0.6 m Dia Pile
500 0.75 m Dia Pile
250 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3.38i: Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection

83
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil for fixed head condition

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-500 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
cu = 70 kpa
-1000
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-2000
Figure 3.38j: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 6 mm deflection

0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
cu = 10 kpa
-1000 stiff soil
-1500 cu = 70 kpa
-3000 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-3500
Figure 3.38k: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 12 mm deflection

0
-500 soft14soil
-1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-1500 cu = 10 kpa
-2000 stiff soil
-2500 cu = 70 kpa
-3000
-4000
-5000 0.75 m Dia Pile
-6000
Figure 3.38l: Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil for 25 mm deflection

84
Allowable lateral load of pile embedded in layered soil neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear
strength for free head condition

150
soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN)
cu = 10 kpa
100 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
50 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

200
soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN)
cu = 10 kpa
150
stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
100
0.5 m Dia Pile
0.6 m Dia Pile
50 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

350
soft soil
300 cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity (KN)
250 stiff soil

200
cu = 50 kpa
150 0.5 m Dia Pile

0.6 m Dia Pile
100
0.75 m Dia Pile
50
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

85
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear
strength for free head condition

Pile Maximum Moment (KN-m) 400
soft soil
300 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
200
0.5 m Dia Pile
100 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

700
600 soft soil
cu = 10 kpa
500
stiff soil
400 cu = 50 kpa
300 0.5 m Dia Pile
200 0.6 m Dia Pile
100 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


1300
1200 soft soil
1100
1000 cu = 10 kpa
900 stiff soil
800
700 cu = 50 kpa
600
500 0.5 m Dia Pile
400 0.6 m Dia Pile
300
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

86
Allowable lateral load of pile embedded in layered soil neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear
strength for fixed head condition

300
Pile Capacity (KN) soft soil
cu = 10 kpa
200 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
0.5 m Dia Pile
100 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

600
soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN)
500 cu = 10 kpa
400 stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
300
0.5 m Dia Pile
200 0.6 m Dia Pile
100 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1000
900 soft soil
Pile Capacity (KN)
800 cu = 10 kpa
700 stiff soil
600 cu = 50 kpa
500
0.5 m Dia Pile
400
300 0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
100 1.0 m Dia Pile
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

87
Maximum moment of pile embedded in layered soil neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear
strength for fixed head condition

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-250 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
cu = 50 kpa
-500
0.5 m Dia Pile
-750 0.6 m Dia Pile
0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
-1000


0
-250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-500 cu = 10 kpa
stiff soil
-750
cu = 50 kpa
-1000
0.75 m Dia Pile
-1750
1.0 m Dia Pile
-2000

0
-250
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 soft14soil
-750 cu = 10 kpa
-1000
-1250 stiff soil
-1500 cu = 50 kpa
-1750
-2000
-2500
-3000 0.75 m Dia Pile
-3250
-3750

88
3.9 LATERAL CAPACITY OF PILES USING BROMS METHOD
Broms method provides solution for both short and long pile installed in cohesive and
cohesionless soil respectively. Brom considered pile fixed or free to rotate at the head.
Lateral deflection at the working load has been calculated using concept of subgrade
reaction.
For cohesive soil,

β=

EI = Stiffness of pile section
k = Coefficient of Soil horizontal subgrade reaction
d = Diameter of pile.
When, β L ≤ 2.5 Pile is considered as short rigid pile

β L ≥ 2.5 Pile is considered as long flexible pile
Homogeneous soil of undrain shear strength cu = 10 kpa, has used by the help of
charts suggested by Brom of figures 2.14 given in chapter 2.
Concrete pile having diameter of 500 mm and length 23 m. Pile length is checked
whether it is short rigid pile or long flexible pile.
. ∗.
β= = = 0.08 m
∗ × ∗. ×
β L = 1.95 ≥ 2.5, so the pile is long flexible pile.

From figure 2.17

./∗.∗ ∗

= 10 => pt = = = 36 KN

So for 12 mm and 25 mm deflection, pt = 71 KN and 142 KN.
89
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
4.1 General
Piles embedded in homogeneous soil of different soil shear strength having different
pile diameter and head deflection are analyzed. Piles embedded in layered soil like
soft soil lying over stiff soil are analyzed.
4.2 Piles embedded in homogeneous soil
In this article the analysis & results of piles embedded in homogeneous soil are
discussed. All the piles having total length of 23 m (long pile). Diameter of the piles
considered 500 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm and 1 m. The soils shear strength considered
10 kpa, 25 kpa, 50 kpa and 70 kpa. The cohesive soil considered very soft having
shear strength of 10 kpa and 25 kpa and stiff soil of shear strength 50 kpa and 70 kpa.
The discussion is done on the basis of analysis & results which are presented in
chapter 3.
The analysis has been done using the p-y methods of soil and the Finite Element
Software SAP. The surrounding soil is defined series of spring which gives lateral
support to the pile. Springs are defined 1ft centre to centre to the pile and lateral load
applied on the head of pile. The spring values evaluated from Robinson’s (1978)
modulus of subgrade reaction equation.
4.2.1 Free headed piles
Free headed piles are free to rotate and may translate in the direction of application of
load at their head. A reinforced concrete pile of 1 m diameter embedded in soft
(cu = 10 kpa) cohesive soil with 267 kN horizontal load is shown in figure 4.1. In
figure 4.2, 4.3 and 4. 4 deflected shapes of pile, soil reactions and bending moment
diagrams are shown respectively.
Figure 4.2 shows pile deflection diagram with respect to pile length. It is seen from
the figure that pile maximum deflection occurs at the pile head. From figure 4.2 it can
observed that maximum deflection occurs at head of pile in the direction of
90
application of load. At some depth below pile deflection is opposite to the application
of load occurs, this results are well agreed with the diagram proposed by Broms.
Figure 4.3 soil reaction diagrams with respect to pile length are shown. It is seen from
the figure that soil reaction reaches maximum value at the below of pile head. At
depth about 1.5 m below pile head (ground level) the soil reaction is maximum. This
is because in this area soil passive resistance is fully mobilized due to large deflection.
Below 1.5 m the passive resistance of soil is not fully mobilized. It is partially
mobilized due to small deflection of the pile.
Figure 4.4 pile bending moment diagram with respect to pile length is shown. It is
seen from the figure that maximum moment occurs at some depth below from pile
head which is around 4.5 m from pile head. At greater depth the moment diagram is
slightly negative.
91
Typical Diagrams for 1 m pile embedded in homogeneous soil of shear strength 10
kpa of depth 23 m. Free headed piles are shown.
H=267 kN
R.C.C Pile
Pile Diameter = 1 m
Soil
Depth of pile (ft)

c =10 kpa
23 m
23 m
Deflection
Figure: 4.1: Pile Embedded in Homogeneous soil Figure: 4. 2: Deflected shape of pile
Depth of pile
Depth of pile
Soil Reaction Bending Moment

Figure: 4.3: Soil Reaction Diagram Figure: 4. 4: Pile Bending Moment Diagram
92
Relationship between pile capacity and soil shear strength
In figure 3.3 to 3.5 pile lateral capacities with soil shear strength are shown for
different diameter and pile head deflections. It can be observed from figure 3.3, 3.4
and 3.5 for a given head deflection the capacity of lateral loaded pile increases with
the increase of soil shear strength. But the increase is not linear. The rate of increase
of lateral capacity decrease with the increase of shear strength of the soil. In table 4.1
pile lateral load capacity for 1 m diameter pile embedded in different soil shear
strength of different head deflections are shown.
Table 4.1: Lateral capacity of 1 m diameter long pile embedded in soils of different
shear strength with different head deflections.
cu H (Lateral load) kN H (Lateral load) kN H (Lateral load) kN

kpa
For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm deflection
10 133 249 356
30 303 489 801
50 387 601 979
From table 4.1 it can be observed that the lateral capacity of pile increases with the
increases of allowable pile head deflection. If the allowable deflection of pile head
increases 4 times (6 mm to 25 mm) the lateral capacity of pile increases 2.5 times
(387 kN to 979 kN) for pile embedded in a soil having shear strength cu = 50 kpa.
However the increase is not linear. This is because for smaller deflections soil passive
resistance does not reach the ultimate capacity so it gives larger resistance to the pile
resulting larger lateral capacity of the pile. For large deflections large portion of soil
passive resistance reaches the ultimate value which gives comparatively less
resistance to the pile resulting less lateral capacity of the pile.
It is also seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times (9.5 kpa to 50 kpa) the
pile lateral capacity increases 3 times (133 kN to 387 kN).
93
Relationship of pile lateral capacity with its diameter
It can be observed from figure 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 for a given head deflection the
capacity of lateral load of pile increases with the increase of pile diameter. But the
increase is not linear. In table 4.2 pile lateral load capacity for 50 kpa shear strength of
different pile diameter with different head deflections are shown.
Table 4.2: Lateral capacity of different diameter of long pile embedded in soils having
shear strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
Diameter H (Lateral load) kN H (Lateral load) kN H (Lateral load) kN

of pile (m) For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm
deflection
0.5 40 71 116
0.6 62 111 169
0.75 80 147 231
1.0 142 249 378
From Table 4.2 it is observed that as the diameter of pile increases the capacity of pile
lateral load is also increases. Considering 6 mm deflection, diameter (Cross sectional
area) increase 4 times (0.5 m to 1 m) corresponding pile lateral capacity increases
around 3.5 times (40 kN to 142 kN).
Relationship between pile head deflection and diameter with maximum moment
and soil shear strength
Pile lateral capacity and maximum moment vary with the increase of soil shear
strength, pile diameter as well as pile head deflection. From analysis of chapter 3 the
results are shown in figures 3.3 to 3.8 for free headed piles are discussed here.
In table 4.3 pile lateral load capacity and maximum moment for 1 m diameter with its
soil shear strength of different head deflections are shown.
94
Allowable pile lateral capacity for a given pile head deflection for free headed piles
embedded in a soil of shear strength cu = 10 kpa
Pile Capacity vs Pile head deflection

400
Pile Capacity (KN)
300 0.5 m Dia Pile

0.6 m Dia Pile
200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pile head deflection (mm)
Figure 4.5: Pile lateral capacities with Pile head Deflection for 10 kpa soil shear
strength

800
700
Pile Capacity (KN)
600 0.5 m Dia Pile

500 0.6 m Dia Pile
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
300 1.0 m Dia Pile
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
strength
95

1100
1000
900
Pile Capacity (KN)
800 0.5 m Dia Pile

700 0.6 m Dia Pile
600
500 0.75 m Dia Pile
400 1.0 m Dia Pile
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
strength

1100
1000
900
Pile Capacity (KN)
800 0.5 m Dia Pile

700 0.6 m Dia Pile
600
500 0.75 m Dia Pile
400 1.0 m Dia Pile
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
strength
96
Table 4.3: Lateral capacity and maximum moment of long pile embedded in soils of
different shear Strength with different head deflections for 1.0 m diameter pile.
cu (kpa) 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
10 142 227 249 449 378 836
30 303 381 489 700 801 1387
50 378 476 601 925 956 1768
From table 4.3 it is observed that pile moment increases as the soil strength increase.
It is seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times (9.5 kpa to 50 kpa) the
corresponding pile lateral capacity increases 2.65 times (142 kN to 378 kN) and
moment increases 2.0 times (224 kN/m to 476 kN/m).
As pile head deflection increases 4.0 times (6 mm to 25 mm) corresponding pile
lateral capacity increases 2.65 times where as the moment increases 3.68 times (227
kN/m to 836 kN/m). In table 4.4 pile lateral load capacity and moment for 10 kpa
shear strength of different pile diameter with different head deflections are shown.
Table 4.4: Lateral capacity and maximum moment of different diameter of long pile
embedded in soils of shear Strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
Pile diameter 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

(m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
0.5 40 38 71 76 116 151
0.6 62 67 111 124 169 238
0.75 80 103 147 214 231 396
1.0 142 227 249 449 378 836
lateral load also increases. Considering 6 mm deflection, diameter (cross sectional
area) increase 4 times (0.5 m to 1 m) corresponding pile lateral capacity increases
around 3.5 times (40 kN to 142 kN) where as the moment increases 6 times (38 kN/m
to 227 kN/m).
97
4.2.2 Fixed Headed piles
Fixed headed piles are free to translation but rotation is restrained at their head.
In figure 4.9 a pile of 1 m diameter embedded in homogeneous soil of shear strength
cu = 10 kpa is shown for analysis of lateral loading. In figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 soil
reactions, deflected shape of pile and corresponding bending moment diagrams are
shown respectively.
Figure 4.10 soil reaction diagrams with respect to pile length are shown. It is seen
from the figure that soil reaction reaches maximum value at the below of pile head,
this is because the head soil passive resistance is quite lower than the soil of greater
depth. Figure 4.11 pile head deflection diagram with respect to pile length is shown. It
is seen from the figure that pile maximum deflection occurs at the head.
Figure 4.12 pile bending moment diagram with respect to pile length is shown. It is
seen from the figure that maximum negative moment occurs at the head of the pile
and maximum positive moment occurs at some depth below from pile head which is
around 8 m below from pile head.
Typical Diagrams of fixed headed pile of 1 m diameter embedded in homogeneous

soil of shear strength 10 kpa and depth 23 m are shown here.
98
H = 556 kN
R.C.C Pile
Pile Diameter = 1 m
Soil
c =10 kpa
Depth of pile
23 m
23 m
Deflection
Figure: 4.9: Pile Embedded in Homogeneous soil Depth of pile Figure: 4.10: Deflected Shape of Pile
Depth of pile
Soil Reaction Bending Moment
Figure: 4.11: Soil Reaction Diagram Figure: 4.12: Pile Bending Moment Diagram
99
Results of pile which are rotationally restrained at their head are discussed here with
the help of figures 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11. Pile lateral capacity with soil undrained shear
strength for different head deflections of 6 mm, 12 mm and 25 mm are shown in the
figures. In all cases the pile length is 23 m and diameter of piles are 0.5 m, 0.6 m,
0.75 m and 1 m respectively. The results are plotted to evaluate the pile lateral
capacity during various soil shear strength of different diameter and different head
deflections. As the head deflection increases the pile lateral capacity increases. For
smaller diameter of piles the increase rate is linear up to 25 kpa of soil strength and
after that it becomes constant. For larger diameter of piles like 1 m the increases rate
is linear up to 50 kpa of soil shear strength after that it become constant. The
relationships are also shown in graphical form in figure 4.13 to 4.16.
Relationship between pile capacity with soil shear strength
For given diameter of pile for a given head deflection the lateral load capacity
increases as the soil shear strength increase. But the increase is not linear. The rates of
increase of horizontal capacity decrease with the increase of shear strength of the soil.

kpa
For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm
deflection
10 289 512 689
30 623 1068 1744
50 756 1299 2002
From table 4.5 it can be observed that the lateral capacity of pile increases with the
increases of allowable pile head deflection. However the increase is not linear. It is
also seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times the corresponding pile lateral
capacity increases 2.6 times.
If the allowable deflection of pile head increases the lateral capacity of pile also
increases for the given soil shear strength. The lateral capacity of a given pile
decreases with the decrease of soil shear strength.
100
It can be observed from figure 3.9 to 3.10 that for a given head deflection the capacity
of lateral load of pile increases with the increase of pile diameter. But the increase is
not linear. The results are shown in table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Lateral capacity of different diameter of long pile embedded in soils of

of pile (m) For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm For 25 mm
deflection deflection
0.5 67 156 200
0.6 111 214 289
0.75 156 267 423
1.0 280 512 712
lateral load also increases. For 500 mm diameter pile of 6 mm deflection capacity is
67 kN whereas for 1 m diameter pile capacity is 180 kN. This is around 4.2 times
greater. It is also seen that as the pile head deflection increases the pile lateral load
capacity also increases.
Pile lateral capacity and maximum moment vary with the increase of soil shear
strength, pile diameter as well as pile head deflection. From analysis of chapter 3 the
results are shown in figures 3.9 to 3.14. Fixed headed piles are discussed here. The
results are shown in table 4.7 and 4.8.
101
cu 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

(kpa) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
10 289 163 -715 512 313 -1360 689 571 -2244
30 623 231 -1115 1068 453 -2040 1744 884 -4080
50 756 286 -1387 1299 592 -2656 2002 1178 -4736
pile embedded in soils of shear strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
Pile 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

diameter H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
(m)
0.5 67 53 -249 156 106 -456 200 204 -779
0.6 111 84 -399 214 169 -748 289 326 -1295
0.75 156 147 -691 267 291 -1274 423 578 -2258
1.0 280 286 -1387 512 592 -2656 712 1178 -4736
From table 4.7 and 4.7 it is observed that pile moment increases as the soil strength,
pile head deflection and pile diameter increase. The increase is not linear. But the rate
of increase decreases as the soil strength increases.
It is also seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times pile lateral load capacity
increases 3 times, moment increases 2 times. As the pile head deflection increases the
pile lateral capacity increases 2.5 times, moment increases 3.5 times.
On the other hand as the pile diameter increases, the pile lateral load capacity
increases 3.5 times whereas its moment increases 6 times. It also seen that as the pile
head deflection increases pile lateral load capacity increases 2.5 times, moment
increases 3.5 times.
102
Allowable pile lateral capacity for a given pile head deflection for fixed headed piles

800
600
Pile Capacity (KN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

0.6 m Dia Pile
400 0.75 m Dia Pile
1.0 m Dia Pile
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.13: Pile lateral capacities with pile head deflection for 10 kpa soil shear
strength

1800
1600
1400
Pile Capacity (KN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

1200
0.6 m Dia Pile
1000
0.75 m Dia Pile
800
600 1.0 m Dia Pile
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 4.14 Pile lateral capacities with pile head deflection for 20 kpa soil shear
strength
103

2200
2000
1800
Pile Capacity (KN)
1600 0.5 m Dia Pile
1400 0.6 m Dia Pile
1200
1000 0.75 m Dia Pile
800 1.0 m Dia Pile
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
strength

2400
2200
2000
1800
Pile Capacity (KN)
0.5 m Dia Pile

1600
1400 0.6 m Dia Pile
1200 0.75 m Dia Pile
1000
800 1.0 m Dia Pile
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
strength
104
4.2.3 Comparisons between free headed and fixed headed piles
From the results of pile analysis of homogeneous soil it is seen from the figures of 3.1
to 3.14 as the soil shear strength increases the lateral pile capacity also increases both
in the cases of free and fixed headed conditions but the increase is more in fixed head
condition than free headed. The capacity also increases as the pile diameter increases
as well as the deflection increases.
Relationship between free headed and fixed headed pile capacity with respect to
its soil shear strength and pile head deflections
Results for free headed and fixed headed piles embedded in homogeneous soil which
are shown in chapter 3 are discussed here. Free headed piles are free to rotate whereas
fixed headed piles are restrained at their head for rotate. Fixed headed piles are fixed
at their head to restrain the rotations.
In table 4.9 pile lateral load capacity of 1 m diameter pile with shear strength of
different head deflections are shown.
Table 4.9: Relationship between lateral capacities of free headed and fixed headed
piles of diameter 1 m.

kpa
H (kN) H (kN) H (kN)
Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed
10 133 289 249 512 356 689
30 303 623 489 1068 801 1566
50 387 756 601 1299 979 2002
From table 4.9 it is seen that the pile lateral capacity is greater in fixed headed piles
from free headed piles. For 6 mm deflection of 50 kpa soil shear strength pile capacity
is 387 kN for free headed condition whereas it is 756 kN for fixed headed condition
which is almost 2 times.
As the pile head deflection increases 6 mm to 25 mm for 50 kpa soil shear strength
for free headed piles the increase is 387 kN to 979 kN and for fixed headed condition
it is 756 kN to 2001 kN. The increase is around 2.5 times. So for free headed and
105
fixed headed piles, as the pile head deflection increases the pile lateral capacity
increase is almost same.
Table 4.10: Relationship between lateral capacities of free headed and fixed headed
piles of different diameter.

(m) H (kN) H (kN) H (kN)
Free Fixed Free Fixed Free Fixed
0.5 40 67 76 156 111 200
0.6 58 111 107 214 178 289
0.75 80 156 142 267 222 423
1.0 147 280 254 512 356 712
From table 4.10 it is seen that for 500 mm pile of 6 mm deflection pile lateral capacity
is 40 kN for free head condition whereas for fixed headed piles it is 67 kN on the
other hand for 1 m pile it is 147 kN and 280 kN respectively. So the increase is
around 2.0 times. For the increase of pile head deflection from 6 mm to 25 mm pile
lateral load increases 180 kN to 712 kN for fixed headed condition whereas it is
147 kN to 356 kN for free headed condition respectively. So the increase is almost 2.5
times for both the cases.
Relationship of free headed and fixed headed piles with respect to maximum
moment
Results for free headed and fixed headed piles embedded in homogeneous soil which
are shown in chapter 3 are discussed here in respect of their moment. Free headed
piles have only positive moments whereas fixed headed piles have positive as well as
negative moment at their head.
106
Table 4.11: Relationship between maximum moments of free headed and fixed
cu Deflection 6 mm Deflection 12 mm
Free Headed Fixed Headed Free Headed Fixed Headed
(kpa)
H +M H +M -M H +M H +M -M
(kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m) (kN/m)
10 133 224 289 163 -715 249 449 512 313 -1360
30 303 381 623 231 -1115 489 700 1068 453 -2040
50 387 476 756 286 -1387 601 925 1299 592 -2656
From table 4.11 it is seen that pile maximum moment for free headed condition the
negative moment is higher with same head deflection and the positive moment are
less than free headed piles. The maximum negative moment for fixed headed
condition it occurs at the connection point of pile and pile cap where as for free
headed pile the maximum positive moment occurs below from application of load.
For 6 mm deflection of 50 kpa soil shear strength for free headed condition its
moment is 476 kN/m whereas for fixed headed condition it is 286 and -1387 kN/m.
The moment is almost 3.0 times higher in the case of fixed headed condition because
its lateral capacity is also very high which are 387 kN and 756 kN respectively. It is
also noted that pile lateral capacity increases 2.0 times whereas moment increases
around 3.0 times.
4.2.4 Free headed piles neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear strength
In some cases head 1.5 m of soil neglected for the analysis of pile lateral load due to
the scouring effect, excavation for pile cap construction, tension cracks developed in
clay soil or new construction adjacent to the structure. Broms method for lateral
loaded pile analysis is done neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear strength. In these
connection head 5 feet neglected analysis and its results are discussed here.
Results of piles having diameter 500 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm and 1 m embedded in
uniform soil with soil shear strength of 10 kpa, 25 kpa. 50 kpa and 70 kpa for head
deflection 6 mm, 12 mm and 25 mm which are shown in figure 3.15 to 3.26
respectively. In all conditions pile length was 23 m long pile.
107
Relationship between pile capacity and soil shear strength
It can be observed from figure 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17 for 1 m diameter of pile for a given
head deflection (6 mm) the capacity of lateral load of pile increases with the soil
strength. But the increase is not linear. The rates of increase of horizontal capacity
decrease with the increase of shear strength of the soil.

kpa
For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm For 25 mm deflection
deflection
10 76 156 267
30 142 254 423
50 178 311 512
From table 4.12 it can be also observed that the lateral capacity of pile increases with
the increases of allowable pile head deflection. However the increase is not linear. It
is also seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times the corresponding pile
lateral capacity increases 2.35 times.
As deflection increases 4 times (6 mm to 25 mm) corresponding lateral capacity for

10 kpa soil shear strength increases 3.5 times (76 kN to 267 kN).
Comparing these results with the results which are shown in table 4.1 of considering
full depth soil shear strength the values are 76 kN and 133 kN for 6 mm deflection of
10 kpa soil shear strength and 178 kN and 387 kN for 50 kpa soil shear strength. It is
seen that if head 1.5 m soil shear strength is neglected then the pile capacity becomes
half of full depth soil shear strength.
It can be observed from figure 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17 for a given head deflection the
capacity of lateral load of pile increases with the increase of pile diameter. But the
increase is not linear. The results are shown in table 4.13.
108

of pile (m) For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm deflection
0.5 13 31 53
0.6 25 49 89
0.75 40 76 133
1.0 76 156 267
From Table 4.13 it is observed that as the diameter of pile increases the capacity of
pile lateral load also increases. For 500 mm diameter pile of 6 mm deflection capacity
is 13 kN whereas for 1 m diameter pile capacity is 76 kN. This is around 5.66 times
greater. It is also seen that as the pile head deflection increases the pile lateral load
capacity also increases.
full depth soil shear strength the values are 40 kN and 13 kN for 6 mm deflection for
500 mm diameter pile and 142 kN and 76 kN for for 1 m diameter pile respectively. It
is seen that if head 1.5 m soil shear strength is neglected then the pile capacity
decreases.
From figure 3.15 to 3.20 the pile lateral capacity and maximum moment are shown
for different soil shear strength, pile diameter. The results are shown in table 4.14.
cu (kpa) 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
10 76 204 156 401 267 816
30 142 340 254 639 423 1115
50 178 408 311 796 512 1360
109
From table 4.14 it is observed that pile moment increases as the soil strength, pile
head deflections increase. It is also seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5
times pile lateral load capacity increases 3 times (76 kN to 178 kN) whereas pile
moment increases 2 times (204 kN/m to 408 kN/m). As the pile head deflection
increases 4 times (6 mm to 25 mm) pile lateral capacity increases 3.5 times (76 kN to
267 kN) whereas the moment increases 3.5 times 408 kN/m to 1360 kN/m).
embedded in soils of shear Strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.
Pile 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

diameter H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
0.5 13 33 31 67 53 122
0.6 25 54 49 109 89 204
0.75 40 95 76 184 133 354
1.0 76 204 156 394 267 816
From table 4.15 it is observed that pile moment increases as the pile diameter
increases. It is seen that as the pile diameter increases 4 times (0.5 m to 1 m) pile
lateral capacity increases 5.5 times (13 kN to 76 kN) whereas the moment increases
6.6 times (122 kN/m to 816 kN/m).
Comparing these results with the results which are shown in table 4.3 and 4.4
considering full depth soil shear strength the values are shown in the table 4.15a.
Considering free headed piles both the cases of 1 m diameter piles.
In table 4.15a pile lateral capacity and moment for 1 m diameter pile with soil shear
strength of different pile head deflection for considering full depth soil shear strength
and neglecting head 1.5 m soil strength are shown.
110
Table 4.15a: Relationship of lateral load capacity and maximum moment of free
headed plies considering full depth and neglecting head 1.5 m of soil.

(kpa) H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m
0.2 30 17 165 150 56 34 330 295 80 60 605 600
0.6 68 32 280 250 110 57 515 480 180 90 1020 850
1.0 87 40 350 300 135 70 680 580 220 115 1300 1000
From this table it can be seen that pile lateral capacity is almost half if neglecting pile
head 1.5 m soil strength but the moment remains almost same.
4.2.5 Fixed headed piles neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear strength
Piles that are fixed at their head neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear strength are
discussed here. Results of piles analysis having diameter 500 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm
and 1 m embedded in uniform soil with soil shear strength of 10 kpa, 25 kpa. 50 kpa
and 70 kpa for head deflection 6 mm, 12 mm and 25 mm which shown are in figure
3.21 to 3.26 respectively. In all conditions pile length was 23 m.
Relationship of pile lateral capacity with soil shear strength
For given diameter of pile for a given head deflection (6 mm) the lateral load capacity
increases as the soil shear strength increases. But the increase is not linear. The rate of
increase of horizontal capacity decreases with the increase of shear strength of the
soil.
In table 4.16 pile lateral load capacity for 1 m diameter with its soil shear strength of
different head deflections are shown.
111

kpa For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm deflection
10 200 289 556
30 378 667 1134
50 467 778 1401
From table 4.16 it can be found that as the soil shear strength increases pile lateral
load capacity also increases. As the soil shear strength increases 5 times the
corresponding pile lateral capacity increases 2.35 times. It can be also observed that
the lateral capacity of pile increases with the increases of allowable pile head
deflection. As deflection increases 4 times (6 mm to 12 mm) corresponding lateral
capacity for 10 kpa soil shear strength increases 2.75 times (200 kN to 556 kN).
full depth soil shear strength the values are 76 kN and 44 kN for 6 mm deflection for
500 mm diameter pile and 289 kN and 200 kN for 1 m diameter pile respectively. It is
seen that if head 1.5 m soil shear strength is neglected then the pile capacity becomes
1.5 times less than the capacity of considering full depth soil shear strength.
It can be observed from figure 3.21, 3.22 and 3.23 for a given head deflection (6 mm)
the capacity of lateral load of pile increases with the increase of pile diameter. But the
increase is not linear. The results are elaborately shown in table 4.17.
In table 4.17 pile lateral load capacity for 10 kpa shear strength of different pile
diameter with different head deflections are shown.
112

of pile (m) For 6 mm deflection For 12 mm deflection For 25 mm deflection
0.5 45 67 133
0.6 67 111 222
0.75 98 156 334
1.0 200 334 556
From Table 4.17 it is observed that as the diameter of pile increases the capacity of
pile lateral load also increases. For 500 mm diameter pile of 6 mm deflection capacity
is 44 kN whereas for 1 m diameter pile capacity is 200 kN. This is around 4.5 times
greater.
Relationship between pile head deflection and diameter with moment and soil
shear strength
From figure 3.21 to 3.26 the pile lateral capacity and maximum moment are shown
for different soil shear strength, pile diameter. The results are shown in table 4.18.
Su 6 mm deflection 12 mm deflection 25 mm deflection

(kpa) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
10 200 144 -646 289 272 -1197 556 524 -2069
30 378 224 -938 667 462 -1836 1134 884 -3332
50 467 294 -1185 778 585 -2190 1401 1210 -4134
It is seen that as the soil shear strength increases 5 times pile lateral load capacity
increases 2.33 times (200 kN to 467 kN) whereas pile moment increases 2 times (144
kN/m to 294 kN). As the pile head deflection increases 4 times (6 mm to 25 mm) pile
lateral capacity increases 3.0 times (200 kN to 556 kN) where as the moment
increases 3.2 times (-646 kN/m to -2069 kN/m).
113
embedded in soils of shear strength 10 kpa with different head deflections.

(m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m) H(kN) M(kN/m)
0.5 45 25 -101 67 48 -185 133 95 -354
0.6 67 38 -163 111 78 -326 222 161 -598
0.75 98 65 -283 156 133 -569 334 268 -1043
1.0 200 144 -646 356 272 -1197 556 524 -2069
It is seen that as the pile diameter increases 4 times pile lateral load capacity increases
4 times (44 kN to 200 kN) whereas pile moment increases 5.5 times (24 kN/m to 144
kN/m). Comparing these results with the results which are shown in table 4.7 and 4.8
of considering full depth soil shear strength. The values are shown in the table 4.19a.
Considering fixed headed piles both the cases of 1 m diameter piles. In table 4.19a
pile lateral capacity and moment for 1 m diameter pile with soil shear strength of
different pile head deflection for considering full depth soil shear strength and
neglecting head 1.5 m soil strength are shown.
Table 4.19a: Lateral load capacity and maximum moment of fixed headed plies for
considering full depth and neglecting head 1.5 m of soil.

(kpa) H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m H0 H1.5 m M0 M1.5 m
10 65 45 -526 -475 115 65 -1000 -880 155 125 -1650 -1521
30 140 85 -820 -690 240 150 -1500 -1350 392 255 -3000 -2450
50 170 105 -1020 -871 292 175 -1953 -1610 450 315 -3482 -3040
From table 4.19a it can be seen that pile lateral capacity is almost 1.5 times (289 kN
to 200 kN) less than considering full depth soil strength for neglecting head 1.5 m soil
strength but the moment is almost same for lower head deflections (-715 kN/m to
-646 kN/m). As the soil shear strength increases 5 times moment increases almost 2
times (-646 kN/m to -1185 kN/m).
114
Relationship between location of pile maximum moment with soil shear strength,
head deflection and diameter
In table 4.19b pile maximum moment location from pile head are shown with respect
to pile diameter and soil undrained shear strength for considering full depth of soil
shear strength.
Table 4.19b: Location of pile maximum moment from head of pile for considering
full depth.
Pile Undrain Shear Strength (kpa)

diameter (m) 10 24 48 72
0.5 383 287 239 239
0.6 431 335 287 287
0.75 479 383 335 335
1.0 622 479 431 383
From table 4.19b it is seen that as the soil shear strength increase 7.5 times (9.5 kpa to
70 kpa) location of maximum moment point decreases 1.6 times (2.4 m to 1.5 m).
It is also seen that as the pile diameter increases 4 times (0.5 m to 1 m) location of
maximum moment point increases 1.6 times (2.4 m to 4 m).
In table 4.19c pile maximum moment location from pile head are shown with respect
to pile diameter and soil undrained shear strength for neglecting head 1.5 m soil shear
strength.
115
Table 4.19c: Location of pile maximum moment from head of pile for neglecting head
1.5 m of soil.
Pile Undrain Shear Strength (kpa)

diameter (m) 10 24 48 72
0.5 479 383 335 335
0.6 527 431 383 383
0.75 575 479 431 431
1.0 670 527 479 479
From table 4.19c it is seen that as the soil shear strength increases 7.5 times (9.5 kpa
to 70 kpa) location of maximum moment point decreases 1.4 times (3 m to 2.1 m).
It is also seen that as the pile diameter increases 4 times (0.5 m to 1 m) location of
maximum moment point increases 1.4 times (3 m to 4.2 m).
Comparing table 4.19b and 4.19c it is found that as the head 1.5 m soil is neglected
the pile maximum moment location decreases as soil shear strength increases and
location increases as pile diameter increases.
116
4.3 PILES EMBEDDED IN LAYERED SOIL
Piles embedded in layered soil are discussed here. Pile foundations are designed in
soft soil that shallow foundation may not take the load of a structure. There might be
possibility of a stiff soil layer below the soft layer. The effect of the stiff layer to the
lateral load carrying capacity of a pile is discussed here. The different shear strength
in different layer of soil thickness are discussed with the help of results of article 3.6
of chapter 3. The pile which are analyzed having total length of 23 m and the upper
soft soil layer shear strength is 10 kpa and lower stiff layer having shear strength47.8
kpa and 70 kpa. The soft soil layer thicknesses are 1.5, 3, 6, 9 and 12 m. Diameters of
piles are 500 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm and 1 m.
4.3.1 Free headed and fixed headed piles
In figures 3.27 to 3.38 pile capacities with depth of soft soil for different head
deflections are shown. The head deflection varies from 6 mm to 25 mm. The layer of
soft soil is taken from the ground level. The layer thicknesses of soft soil are 1.5, 3, 6,
9 and 12 m. The soft soil consists of shear strength 10 kpa. The stiff soil layer below
soft layer having shear strength 50 kpa. Figure 3.38a to 3.38l are for layer of stiff soil
of shear strength 70 kpa. Figure 3.39 to 3.50 presents pile lateral capacity and
maximum moment for pile of neglecting top 1.5 m soil shear strength. Figure 3.51 to
3.52 for 500 mm diameter pile lateral capacity for both free and fixed head conditions.
Figure 3.53 to 3.54 for 1 m diameter pile lateral capacity for both free and fixed head
conditions. Figure 3.55 to 3.60 for pile lateral capacity with pile diameter are shown
for both free and fixed head conditions.
Relationship between pile lateral capacity and thickness of soft soil (cu = 10 kpa )
laying over a stiff soil (cu = 50 kpa )
Pile lateral capacity varies with the thickness of top soft soil layer and the shear
strength of stiff soil layer beneath the soft soil. For layered soil top soil shear strength
taken very soft clay of shear strength 10 kpa and below stiff soil having shear strength
50 kpa. Analysis was performed for various thicknesses of soft and stiff soil layers
and of different diameter of pile. As the layer thickness of soft soil increases the pile
lateral capacity changes which is shown in table 4.20.
117
Table 4.20: Pile lateral load with thickness of soft soil for free head condition (6 mm
top deflection).(soft soil, cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil, cu = 50 kpa)
Thickness of soft layer (m) 0 2 3 6 9 12

Pile lateral capacity(kN) 98 67 45 45 45 45
0.5 m dia pile
pile lateral capacity(kN) 378 245 182 147 142 142
1.0 m dia pile
From table 4.20 it is seen that as the layer thickness of soft soil increases, pile lateral
load capacity decreases. From table 4.20 for 500 mm diameter pile if the soft soil
layer thickness goes to 1.5 m to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile
lateral capacity is 44 kN then 67 kN. If the stiff soil exists at 3 m or greater than 3 m
of soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant (44 kN). For 1 m diameter
pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then
the lateral capacity of pile remains constant (142 kN). So the presence of stiff soil
below 6 m top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible .
Presence of stiff layer below soft layer after 1.5 m will reduce the pile lateral capacity
1.5 times (378 kN to 245 kN for 1 m diameter pile).
Figure 3.33 to 3.35 are for fixed headed pile lateral capacity for different pile head
deflections are plotted with respect to thickness of top soft soil. The results are shown
in table 4.21.
Table 4.21: Pile lateral load with thickness of soft soil for fixed head condition (top 6
mm deflection). (soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 50 kpa)

0.5 m dia pile
1.0 m dia pile
From table 4.21 it is seen that as the layer thickness of soft soil increases, pile lateral
load capacity decreases. From table 4.21 for 500 mm diameter pile if the soft soil
118
layer thickness goes to 1.5 m to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile
lateral capacity is 89 kN then 125 kN. If the stiff soil exists at 6 m or greater than 3 m
of soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant (80 kN). For 1 m diameter
pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at 6 m or greater than 9.1 m of soft soil
then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant (289 kN). So the presence of stiff
soil below 9 m top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible.
Presence of stiff layer below soft layer after 1.5 m will reduce the pile lateral capacity
1.25 times (756 kN to 600 kN) for 1 m diameter pile.
4.3.2 Comparison between pile lateral capacity for free head and fixed head
condition
From table 4.20 and 4.21 it is seen that fixed head pile lateral capacities are higher
than the free headed piles embedded in layered soil. If the piles are fixed at their top
then the stiff soil layer contributes more over the free headed piles. For 1 m diameter
pile if the stiff soil exists 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then its lateral capacity
remains constant whereas for fixed headed piles it is after 9 m of soft soil above stiff
soil.
Relationship between pile maximum moment and depth of soft soil
In figure 3.30 to 3.32 pile maximum moments with depth of soft soil has been plotted
of different diameter and different head deflections for free head conditions.
Considering full depth of stiff soil having shear strength 50 kpa and top 1.5 m, 3 m, 6
m, 9 m, 12 m of soft soil having shear strength of 10 kpa. The results are shown in
table 4.22.
119
Table 4.22: Pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil for free head condition and
top deflection 6 mm. (soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 50 kpa)
Thickness of 0.0 1.5 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2

soft layer (m) H M H M H M H M H M H M
Pile lateral 98 267 67 200 45 120 45 111 45 111 45 111
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for
0.5 m dia pile
Pile lateral 378 1557 245 1290 182 1068 147 778 142 756 142 756
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 1
m dia pile
From table 4.22 for 500 mm diameter pile if the soft soil layer thickness goes to 1.5 m
to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile lateral capacity decreases 1.5 times
(67 kN to 44 kN) and its maximum moment decreases 1.67 times (61 kN/m to 37
kN/m). If the stiff soil exists at 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral
capacity of pile remains constant (44 kN) and pile maximum moment also remains
constant 34 kN/m. For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at
6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant
(142 kN) and its maximum moment is 231 kN/m. So the presence of stiff soil below 9
m top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff
layer below soft layer after 1.5 m will reduce the pile lateral capacity 1.34 times (245
kN to 182 kN) and maximum moment 1.2 times ( 394 kN/m to 326 kN/m) for 1 m
diameter pile. Presence of stiff layer below a soft layer shows that the rate of decrease
of moment is lower than the rate of lateral capacity of pile.
In figure 3.36 to 3.38 pile maximum moments with depth of soft soil has been plotted
table 4.23.
120
Table 4.23: Pile maximum moment (Negative Moment) with respect to depth of soft
soil for fixed head condition.(soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 50 kpa)
Thickness of 0.0 1.5 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2

Pile lateral 222 890 125 512 89 445 80 423 80 423 80 423
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 0.5
m dia pile
Pile lateral 756 4537 601 4003 445 3558 311 2669 289 2357 289 2224
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 1 m
dia pile
(125 kN to 89 kN) and its maximum moment decreases 1.15 times (156 kN/m to 136
constant 129 kN/m. For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at
6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant
(289 kN) and maximum moment is 680 kN/m. So the presence of stiff soil below 9 m
top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff
layer below soft layer after 1.5 m will reduces the pile lateral capacity 1.35 times (600
kN to 445 kN) and maximum moment 1.12 times (1224 kN/m to 1088 kN/m) for 1 m
4.3.3 Comparison between pile maximum moment for free head and fixed head
condition
From table 4.22 and 4.23 it is seen that pile maximum moment is 3.0 times (1387
kN/m to 476 kN/m) for fixed head condition over free head condition where lateral
capacity increases 2 times (378 kN to 756 kN). If the stiff soil exists below 1.5 m of
121
soft soil then the maximum moment for free head condition decreases 1.2 times (476
kN/m to 394 kN/m) whereas for fixed head condition it is 1.13 times (1387 kN/m to
1224 kN/m). So it is seen that in fixed head condition pile maximum moment does not
decrease as much as free headed condition as the depth of stiff layer below soft layer
increases.
Relationship between pile lateral capacity and thickness of soft soil (cu = 10 kpa )
laying over a stiff soil (cu = 70 kpa )
In figure 3.38a to 3.38c pile capacity with depth of soft soil has been plotted of
different diameter and different head deflections for free head conditions. Considering
full depth of stiff soil having shear strength 70 kpa and top 1.5 m, 3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m
of soft soil having shear strength of 10 kpa. The results are shown in table 4.24.
Table 4.24: Pile lateral load with depth of soft soil for free head condition (6 mm top
deflection). (soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 70 kpa)

0.5 m dia pile
1.0 m dia pile
to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile lateral capacity is 40 kN than 53
kN. If the stiff soil exists at 3 m or greater than 3 m of soil then the lateral capacity of
pile remains constant (31 kN). For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil
exists at 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains
constant (111 kN). So the presence of stiff soil below 6 m top soft soil the benefit to
lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff layer below soft layer after
1.5 m will reduce the pile lateral capacity 2.0 times (445 kN to 222 kN) for 1 m
diameter pile.
In figure 3.38d to 3.38f pile capacity with depth of soft soil has been plotted of
different diameter and different head deflections for fixed head conditions.
122
table 4.25.
Table 4.25: Pile lateral load with depth of soft soil for fixed head condition (6 mm top
deflection). (soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 70 kpa)

0.5 m dia pile
1.0 m dia pile
to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile lateral capacity is 89 kN then 133
kN. If the stiff soil exists at 3 m or greater than 3 m of soil then the lateral capacity of
pile remains constant (71 kN). For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil
exists at 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains
constant (267 kN). So the presence of stiff soil below 6 m top soft soil the benefit to
lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff layer below soft layer after
1.5 m will reduce the pile lateral capacity 2.0 times (934 kN to 534 kN) for 1 m
diameter pile.
4.3.4 Comparison between pile lateral capacity for free head and fixed head
condition for stiff soil of 70 kpa laying below soft soil
From table 4.24 and 4.25 it is seen that for 500 mm diameter pile lateral capacity is
2.0 times (289 kN to 156 kN) for fixed head condition over free head condition. As
the depth of soft soil is 1.5 m then the lateral capacity for free head condition for 1 m
pile decreases 2.0 times (445 kN to 222 kN) whereas for fixed head condition it is
1.75 times (934 kN to 534 kN).
Relationship between pile maximum moment and depth of soft soil for stiff soil
of shear strength 70 kpa
In figure 3.38g to 3.38i pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil has been
plotted of different diameter and different head deflections for free head conditions.
123
table 4.26.
Table 4.26: Pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil for free head condition &
6 mm head deflection. (soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu = 70 kpa)
Thickness of 0.0 1.5 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2

Pile lateral 156 356 53 200 40 138 36 111 31 102 31 102
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for
500 mm dia
pile
Pile lateral 445 1868 222 1245 156 979 133 712 111 667 111 667
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 1
m dia pile
to 3 m (stiff layer at 3 m from 1.5 m level) the pile lateral capacity decreases 1.33
times (53 kN to 40 kN) and its maximum moment decreases 1.45 times (200 kN/m to
138 kN/m). If the stiff soil exists at 6 m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral
constant 31 kN/m. For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at 6
m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant
(111 kN) and maximum moment is 204 kN/m. So the presence of stiff soil below 9 m
top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff
124
In figure 3.38j to 3.38l pile maximum moment with depth of soft soil has been plotted
table 4.27.
Table 4.27: Pile maximum moment (Negative Moment) with depth of soft soil for
fixed head condition & 6 mm head deflection.(soft soil cu = 10 kpa and stiff soil cu =
70 kpa)
Thickness of 0.0 1.5 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2

Pile lateral 289 979 133 632 89 445 76 356 71 334 71 334
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 0.5
m dia pile
Pile lateral 934 5560 534 3852 400 3260 311 2602 267 2535 267 2535
capacity(kN)
and moment
(kN/m) for 1 m
dia pile
(30 kip to 20 kip) and its maximum moment decreases 1.42 times (193 kN/m to 136
constant 102 kN/m. For 1 m diameter pile of same condition if the stiff soil exists at 6
m or greater than 6 m of soft soil then the lateral capacity of pile remains constant
(267 kN/m) and maximum moment is 775 kN/m. So the presence of stiff soil below 9
m top soft soil the benefit to lateral capacity of stiff soil is negligible. Presence of stiff
125
4.3.5 Comparison between pile maximum moment for free head and fixed head
condition
From table 4.26 and 4.27 it is seen that pile maximum moment is 3.0 times (1700
kN/m to 571 kN/m) for fixed head condition over free head condition where lateral
capacity increases 2 times (934 kN to 445 kN). As the depth of soft soil is 1.5 m then
the maximum moment for free head condition decreases 1.5 times (571 kN/m to 381
kN/m) where as for fixed head condition it is 1.44 times (1700 kN/m to 1178 kN/m).
4.3.6 Comparison between pile capacity of stiff soil of 50 kpa and 70 kpa below
soft soil.(ration 1.0/0.2 = 5 and 1.5/0.2 = 7.5)
For free head condition of 1.5 m soft soil and 50 kpa stiff soil the rate of decrease of
pile lateral capacity is 1.5 times (378 kN to 245 kN) whereas for 70 kpa stiff soil it is
2.0 times (445 kN to 222 kN). Maximum moment is 1.2 times (476 kN/m to 394
kN/m) whereas for 70 kpa stiff soil it is 1.5 times (571 kN/m to 381 kN/m).
For fixed head condition of 1.5 m soft soil and 50 kpa stiff soil the rate of decrease of
pile lateral capacity is 1.25 times (934 kN to 756 kN) whereas for 70 kpa stiff soil it is
1.75 times (934 kN to 534 kN). Maximum moment is 1.13 times (1387 kN/m to 1224
kN/m) whereas for 70 kpa stiff soil it is 1.44 times (1700 kN/m to 1178 kN/m).
It is also seen that as the diameter increases pile lateral capacity increases 3.86 times
(98 kN to 378 kN) whereas pile moment increases 6 times (82 kN/m to 476 kN/m).
It is also seen that as the soil shear strength is higher in below soft soil then the pile
lateral capacity increases. For lower diameter pile i.e. 500 mm diameter pile the
capacity decreases 3 times (156 kN to 53 kN) for 1.5 m soft soil whereas for larger
diameter pile i.e. 1 m diameter pile the capacity decreases 2 times (445 kN to 222
kN). For taking the benefit of stiff soil lateral capacity below the soft soil larger
diameter pile will be more appropriate rather than lower diameter pile.
126
CHAPTER 5
CASE STUDY: LATERAL PILE LOAD TEST OF KURIL FLYOVER
PROJECT AT DHAKA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter a pile lateral load test performed at Kuril fly over project under direct
supervision of Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen (Professor BUET) is presented. In this test
two 1m dia pile (reaction pile) of length 40m has been used to apply incremental
lateral load & corresponding deflection have been recorded.
5.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT
The project is located at Kuril intersection in the city. The length of the project is 3.1-
kilometre with 6.7-9.2 metre width. There are four loops, while the height of the
flyover is 14.5 metre. There is single level unidirectional traffic movement and there
is 20 traffic directions. The project is completed in April 2012.
The piers are founded on piles having diameter of 1m of length of around 40m from
existing ground level. The 1m diameter piles are designed for around 200 ton service
loads. Most of piers are founded on 4 pile groups.
Figure 5.1: Perspective view of Kuril Fly Over
127
5.3 LOCATION OF THE PILE LATERAL LOAD TEST AREA
The location where the pile load test has been performed is shown in figure 5.2 &
corresponding soil test bore-log are also shown here.
Location
of Pile
Lateral
Load test
Figure 5.2: Location of lateral load test
128
Location of Pile
Lateral Load test
Figure 5.3: Location of soil test bore hole
From this picture it is found that for lateral load test data the bore hole number of 9,
31 & 32 will be best fit and the bore log are shown below.
129
Light brownish grey very
soft CLAY, little fine sand,
rarely grit, light-plastic (CH)
9.00
9.00
Figure 5.4: Bore Log of 19
130
9.00
9.00
131
9.00
9.00
132
5.4 Test Equipment and Instruments
The test equipment and instruments consist mainly of the load application
arrangement and the movement measuring instruments. These are presented
separately.
5.4.1 Test Equipment for load Application:
A typical load application and measurement system consists of hydraulic cylinder,

hydraulic jacks, pressure gauge, bearing plate. The lateral load applied by hydraulic
cylinder is measured by a calibrated pressure gauge. The complete jacking system
including the hydraulic cylinder, valves, pump and pressure gauges should be
calibrated as a single unit.
5.4.2 Test Equipment for measurement:
Reference Beam: The reference beams to which the dial gauges are attached should
be rigid and stable. A light lattice girder with high stiffness in the vertical direction is
recommended. This is better than heavy steel sections of lower rigidity. To minimize
disturbance to the reference beams, the supports should be firmly embedded in the
ground away from the influence of the loading system. All reference beams are
independently supported with supports firmly embedded in the ground at a clear
distance of 3 m from the test pile.
Dial Gauges: Dial gauges have 75 mm travel with 0.25 mm precision. 50 x 50 mm

Glass square is installed perpendicular to the direction of gage-stem travel. All dial
gauges; scale and reference point are clearly marked with a reference number to assist
in recording data accurately. Gauges attached to the test pile are mounted to prevent
movement relative during the test.
Wire, Mirror and Scale System: This consists of mounting a mirror and a scale on
the top center of the test pile. A wire is then stretched perpendicular to the line of load
application and passing over the face of the scale. The sale should have 0.25 mm
sensitivity. The mirror and the scale move with the pile and the wire is stationary. The
difference of the final and the initial reading on the scale gives pile movement.
133
Some pictures of the test setup at the Kuril fly-over project are shown below.
Figure 5.7: Excavated & piles are open for test setup
Figure 5.8: Setup systems for testing the piles
134
Figure 5.9: Hydraulic jack setup for application of lateral load on piles
Figure 5.10: Dial gauge reading are recorded
135
5.5 Test Procedures
1. Two free head piles simultaneously pushed apart by applying self-balancing

compressive lateral load
2. Figure 1 show the general arrangement for this test.
E.G.L
Supporting Frame
Load Cell
Hydraulic Jack
Dial Guage
TEST PILE
1m 1m
3m
Figure 5.11: Instrument set-up for applying lateral load to the pile
3. The test area within a radius of 3 m from the test pile shall be excavated. Before
applying the test load, any annular space around the upper portion of the test piles
should be filled with sand or other suitable material and the same material and back
filling methods should be used for all production piles. Lateral test load shall be
applied at approximately pile cut off elevation.
136
4. Maximum test load= 135 KN (15 ton) (150 percent of design load 10 ton).
5. Apply the total load in 10 steps to 150 percent of design load (e.g., 25 percent, 50
percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, 125 percent, 150 percent). The 25 percent and 50
percent of design load increments are applied for 10 min each and the 75 percent load
increment is maintained for 15 min. Other load increments are maintained for 20 min
each.
6. After maintaining 150 percent design load for 60 min. unload the pile in steps of 50
percent of the design load (e.g., to 150 percent, 100 percent, 50 percent and 0 percent,
maintaining each load decrement for 10 min). So the loading and unloading sequence
of the test shall be according with the following table, unless the maximum tip
deflection becomes 10 mm earlier, in which the loading shall not increase any further.
7. The lateral movement of the test pile will be measured to accuracy 0.01 mm using
dial gauges and wire, mirror and scale system. The deflection of two piles shall be
measured separately against independent references. Result of both piles shall be
compiled and submitted. This will constitute the result of a single test.
8. No additional load in excess of the loading specified above is necessary.
137
Table 5.1 Shows load and corresponding deflection values which are obtain from the
lateral load test
Table 5.1: Load and deflection from lateral pile load test
Load Deflection
(KN) (mm)
0 0
13 0.19
27 0.29
40 0.5
53 0.67
67 0.8
80 0.97
91 1.14
96 1.23
101 1.33
107 1.43
133 1.95
107 1.94
80 1.93
53 1.82
27 1.39
0 0.39
From the table 5.1 it can be found that at 133 KN load the deflection is around 1.95
mm which is very small as per BNBC of allowable deflection may be up to 25mm.
5.6 Computer analysis using soil spring

Using the Finite Element Software Package “SAP” we can generate a model of the
same pile with the soil spring values giving all the boundary conditions and after
analyzing we get the results as below.
From chapter 3 the calculation of the soil spring values, pult and passive resistance can
be done from the soil test report data which are shown in figure 5.5.
Table 5.2 Shows soil spring values and pult for corresponding soil layer.
138
Table 5.2: Spring value and ultimate soil resistance for computer analysis
Depth m Spring No Spring values, Soil pult

kN/m (kN)
15 1st 151 18
16 2nd 303 53
17 3rd 506 76
18 4th 506 93
19 5th 506 111
20 6th 506 129
21 7th 506 151
22 8th 506 174
23 9th 506 209
24 to 75 10th and above 506 245
From this data, using the computer analysis by SAP the following results are found
which are shown in table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Load and deflection results from computer analysis
Load Deflection
(KN) (mm)
0 0
13 0.21
27 0.42
40 0.63
54 0.84
67 1.04
81 1.25
95 1.46
108 1.67
122 1.88
135 2.1
Using the values found from lateral load test results shown in table 5.1 and from
computer analysis results shown in table 5.3 the following graph has been plotted.
139
Figure 5.12 shows the load vs Pile head deflection diagram for both load test results
and computer analysis results.
Load vs Pile head deflection

160
140
120
100
Load (KN)
80 Load Teat
60
40 Computer Analysis
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 5.12 Load vs Pile head Deflection graph (load test and computer analysis)
5.7 Comments
It can be observed that the pile load test results are well agreed with the results
obtained from computer analysis using soil spring values. Spring constant are taken
from Davisson & Robinson’s (1965) equation.
140
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
1 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General
Piles are frequently subjected to lateral forces acting on its head. An adequate factor
of safety against ultimate resistance and an acceptable deflection at service load
criteria must be satisfied in the design of such pile foundations. Frequently the pile is
embedded in layered soil which consist soft clay over stiff clay. In this paper piles
having different diameter embedded completely in homogeneous soil and in layered
soil are analyzed using Winkler spring model. In this model soil has defined series of
non linear elastic spring so that deformation occurs only where loading exists.
In layered soil, two layer of soil having different thickness of upper soft soil and stiff
soil lying below the soft soil are analyzed. Piles are long pile of diameter 500 mm,
600 mm, 750 mm and 1000 mm.
6.2 Conclusion
In this study behavior of piles embedded in homogeneous soil of different soil shear
strength having different pile diameter and head deflection are analyzed. Piles
embedded in layered soil with soft soil over lying stiff soil are analyzed.
From this study following conclusions are drawn:
i. For piles embedded in homogeneous soil for a given pile head deflection the
lateral capacity increases as the soil shear strength increases. If the pile
diameter increases the lateral capacity also increases. Lateral capacity also
increases if the allowable pile head deflection increases.
ii. For larger diameter piles the lateral capacity increases more rapidly than
smaller diameter piles.
iii. When top 1.5 m soil shear strength is neglected then the lateral capacity of pile
becomes half for a given pile head deflection compared with taking full depth
soil.
iv. In layered soil if the top soft soil thickness increases then the pile lateral
capacity decreases for a given pile head deflection. For a given thickness of
soft layer laying above a stiff layer the effect of lateral capacity is higher in
larger diameter pile than the small diameter pile.
141
vi. If there is a stiff soil below a soft soil, large diameter pile have greater
advantages for lateral loads.
6.3 Recommendations for Future Study
From the present study, the recommendations for future study may be summarized as
follows:
i. In some cases clay soil may exist below sandy soil or sandy soil below clay
soil. In this case the analysis can be done to find out the behavior of pile to
lateral loads. Pile lateral load behavior in multi layered soil may be study.
ii. Different soil shear strength can be taken to evaluate the lateral behavior of
piles embedded in the soil.
iii. Clay soil has taken in the study, for sandy soil the analysis should be done to
evaluate lateral behavior of pile.
iv. In p-y curve the initial curve is taken straight line to simplify the analysis. To
account real behavior of pile embedded in soil the initial parabolic curve to
estimate the spring value may be done.
v. In this study single pile has analyzed for lateral loading, in practical case there
is seldom use of single pile in foundation of a structure. They are usually
remains in a group. Lateral behavior of group piles in lateral loading may be
study for practical purposes
vi. In this study, piles are analyzed for static loading only. Further study can be
done using cyclic conditions.
142
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute, (1984). Recommended Practice for Planning,

Designing, and Constructing fixed offshore Platforms, Code RP2A (15th), Dallas,
Texas
Anderson, Townsend. (2002) “A Laterally Loaded Pile Database”. Deep

Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Design,
Construction, and Performance pp. 262-273
Anderson, J.B., Townsend, F.B., and Grajales, B. (2003). “Case History Evaluation
of Laterally Loaded Piles,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Ashour, M., Norris, G., and Pilling, P. (1998). “Lateral Loading of a Pile in Layered
Soil Using the Strain Wedge Model,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 303-315.
Banerjee, P. K., & Davies, T. G. (1978). The Behavior of Axially and Laterally
Loaded Single Piles Embedded in Non-Homogeneous Soils. Geot., vol.28, no. 3;
309-326
Bowles (1997). “Foundation Analysis and Design 5th Edition” MacGraw-Hill

Companies
Brown, D. (2007). “Rapid Lateral Load Testing of Deep Foundations.” Journal of the
Deep FoundationsInstitute, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 54- 62.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transverse
forces, Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin No. 12, p. 5-9.
Broms,B.B (1964). Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive

Soil.J.S.M.F.D.,ASCE,vol.90, SM2:27-63
143
Broms, B.B (1964). Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soil. J.S.M.F.D.,
ASCE, vol.90, SM2: 123-156
Davisson, M. T. & Gill, H. L. Laterally Loaded piles in Layered Soil System.

J.S.M.F.D., ASCE, vol.89, SM3: 63-94 (1963).
Matlock, Reese, (1960). Generalized Solutions for laterally Loaded Piles,

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.86, No SM5,
Proc.Paper 2626, pp.63-91
Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlation for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay,"
in Proceedings, Second Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, Texas, pp. 577 -
594.
Poulos, H. G. (1975). Lateral Load-Deflection Prediction for Pile Groups. Jnl. Geot.
Eng. Div., ASCE, vol.101, no. GT1:19-34
Reese, L. C., Cox, W, R., and Koop, F. D. (1975). "Field Testing and Analysis of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Stiff Clay," in Proceedings, Seventh Offshore Technology
Conference, Vol. 2, Dallas, Texas, pp. 672-690.
Reese, L.C. & Van Impe, W.F. (2001), Single Piles & Groups under Lateral Loading,
A.A.Balkema, UK.
Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., and Weaver, T. J. (1998). Lateral load behavior
of full-scale pile group in clay, J. of Geotech. and Geoenviron. Engrg., ASCE,
124(6), 468–478
Rollins, K., Bowles, S., Brown, D., Ashford, S, (2007). Lateral load testing of large
drilled shafts after blast-induced liquefaction. Procs. 4th Intl. Conf. on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engrg., Springer, Paper 1141
144
Smith, T.D., Slyh, R. (1986) "Side Friction Mobilization Rates for Laterally
Loaded Piles from the Pressuremeter, “ Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium, The Pressuremeter and its Marine Application”,
Texas A&M, May ASTM STP 950, pp. 478-491
Tomlinson, M.J. (1994). “Pile Design and Construction Practices”, Fourth Edition,
Taylor & Francis.
Welch, R. C., and Reese, L. C. (1972). "Laterally Loaded Behavior of Drilled

Shafts," Research Report No. 89-10, Center for Highway Research, The University
of Texas at Austin, May.
145
Appendix A:
GRAPHS FOR FREE HEADED AND FIXED HEADED PILE CAPACITY

AND MOMENT
146
0.5 m Pile Capacity vs Thickness of Soft Soil (Free & Fixed Head Conditions)
0.5 m diameter Pile Capacity vs Thickness of soft soil

300
6 mm deflection
Pile Capacity (KN)
(Free Head)
200 6 mm deflection
(Fixed)
12 mm deflection
(Free Head)
100 12 mm deflection
(Fixed)
25 mm deflection
(Free Head)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure A.1: 0.5 m Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil (Free Head & Fixed Head)
0.5 m Pile Maximum Moment vs Thickness of Soft Soil (Free & Fixed Head
Conditions)
0.5 m diameter Pile Maximum Moment vs Thickness of soft soil

300
Pile Moment (KN-m)
200 6 mm deflection
(Free Head)
100 6 mm deflection
0 (Fixed)
12 mm deflection
-100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ( Free Head)
-200 12 mm deflection
(Fixed)
-400 (Free Head)
-500
-600
Figure A.2: 0.5 m Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil (Free Head & Fixed Head)
147
1.0 m Diameter Pile Capacity vs Depth of Soft Soil (Free & Fixed Head Conditions)
1.0 m diameter Pile Capacity vs Thickness of soft soil

1000
6 mm deflection
Pile Capacity (KN)
(Free Head)
6 mm deflection
(Fixed)
(Free Head)
12 mm deflection
(Fixed)
25 mm deflection
(Free Head)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure A.3: 1.0 m Pile Capacity vs Depth of soft soil (Free Head & Fixed Head)
1.0 m Pile Moment vs Depth of Soft Soil (Free & Fixed Head Conditions)
1.0 m diameter Pile Maximum Moment vs Thickness of soft soil

1500
Pile Moment (KN-m)
500
0 (Free Head)
0 5 10 15 (Fixed)
-1000
-2000 (Free Head)
-3000 (Fixed)
-3500
-4000
Figure A.4: 1.0 m Pile Moment vs Depth of soft soil (Free Head & Fixed Head)
148
Pile Capacity vs Diameter of Pile for Free head Condition
Pile Capacity vs Pile Diameter for 6 mm deflection

600
Pile Capacity (KN)

400 Cu = 10 kpa
Cu = 25 kpa
Cu = 50 kpa
200 Cu = 70 kpa
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)
Figure A.5: Pile Capacity vs Pile Diameter for 6 mm deflection

800
Pile Capacity (KN)
600
Cu = 10 kpa
400 Cu = 25 kpa
Cu = 50 kpa
Cu = 70 kpa
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)

1200
1000
Pile Capacity (KN)
800 Cu = 10 kpa
Cu = 25 kpa
600 Cu = 50 kpa
400 Cu = 70 kpa
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)

149
Fixed Head Condition

1200
Pile Capacity (KN)
800 Cu = 10 kpa
Cu = 25 kpa
Cu = 50 kpa
400 Cu = 70 kpa
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)

1600
Pile Capacity (KN)
1200 Cu = 10 kpa
Cu = 25 kpa
800 Cu = 50 kpa
Cu = 70 kpa
400
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)

2400
2000
Pile Capacity (KN)
1600 Cu = 10 kpa
Cu = 25 kpa
1200
Cu = 50 kpa
800 Cu = 70 kpa
400
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pile Diameter (m)
150

Bda 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bda 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN

Mohammad Shazzath Hossain

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,

Dhaka, in partial fulfillment of the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (Geotechnical)

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Syed Fakhrul Ameen Chairman

Dr. A.M.M. Taufiqul Anwar Member

Dr. Md. Jahangir Alam Member

BA- 3580 Col. Md Wahidul Islam, psc Member

The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive criticisms and valuable

Fig. 2.1: Load Transfer Mechanism of Axially Loaded Piles

qa = Allowable foundation pressure

qu = Ultimate foundation pressure

sm = Mean settlement of foundation

µ = Poisson’s ratio of the solid

An adequate factor of safety against ultimate resistance and an acceptable deflection

1.2 Background of the Study

1.3 Objectives of the Study

To develop load displacement relationship for laterally loaded piles embedded in

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

2.2 Structures subjected to lateral loads

Applied Axial force

Pile Shaft Resistance

Figure 2.1: Load Transfer Mechanism of Axially Loaded Piles

Figure 2.2: Load Transfer Mechanism of Laterally Loaded Piles

Figure 2.6: Kinematics of Flexible Piles

2.4 Analysis Methods

2.4.1 Broms Method (1964a and 1964b)

The Broms method is an approximate approach which is subject to significant

 the method uses a bearing capacity type analysis based on a limit

Broms Method for Cohesive Soils

Mmax = Mt + Pt (f + 1.5Bb) – (9suBbf2/2) 2-3

Determine g from Mmax:

Mmax = 4.5suBbg2/2 2-4

g = [2 Mmax / 4.5suBb]1/2 2-5

and the minimum length of the shaft is then:

Broms Method for Cohesionless Soils

Requirements of overall moment equilibrium are applied in order to determine the

ΣMb = 0 = Mt + PtLmin - 3BbγLminKp(Lmin/2)(Lmin/3) 2-9

The solution of the cubic Equation 2-9 provides Lmin.

Pt = 3Bbγf Kp (f2/2) = 1.5Bbγ (f2) Kp 2-10

f = [Pt/ (1.5Bbγ Kp)]½ 2-11

Mmax = ΣMf = Mt + Pt (f) – (½Bbγf/3 Kp) 2-12

Figure 2.12: Ultimate lateral resistance of short pile in cohesive soil

Figure 2.14: Charts for calculation of lateral deflection at ground

Hetenyi (1946) originally presented beam-on-elastic-foundation solutions (also

Jamilokowski and Garassino (1977) provided a state-of-the-art discussion on soil

2.4.3 Beam-on-Winkler Foundation

2.4.4 Elastic Continuum Approach

2.5 Mechanics concerning response of soil to lateral loading

The mechanics concerning response of piles to lateral loading embedded in soil is to

2.5.2 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Foundation-ground interaction has been one of the challenging problems in

Solutions of Eq. (2.16) can be obtained either analytically or numerically.

Hetenyi (1946) provided solutions for a variety of infinite beams on an elastic

Epy (at the DMT testing depth) = F. EDMT 2.18

2.5.4 Theoretical solution by Skempton for subgrade modulus of soil

Skempton (1951) wrote that ‘simple theoretical considerations’ were employed to

Where, q = foundation pressure; = influence coefficient; υ= Poisson’s ratio of the

where E = Young’s modulus at the stress (σ1-σ3) level.