You are on page 1of 20

Behaviour of Fixed Head Single Pile in

Cohesionless Soil under Lateral Loads

V. S. Phanikanth
Ph.D. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India and Scientific Officer F, Architecture and
Civil Engineering Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085,
India; e-mail: vphanikanth@yahoo.com,vphanikanth@gmail.com

Deepankar Choudhury
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India; dc@civil.iitb.ac.in

G. Rami Reddy
Professor of Homi Bhabha National Institute, Scientific Officer H, Reactor
Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085,
India

ABSTRACT
Pile foundations are often subjected to lateral loads due to earth pressure, earthquake loading, wave
force and wind forces etc. The pile design shall ensure estimation of ultimate pile load carrying
capacity and allowable pile deflection and thus both strength and serviceability aspects are considered.
In the present study, lateral load behavior of single pile in cohesionless soils is attempted for various
soil types viz., loose sand, medium sand and dense sand. The subgrade modulus of each soil type is
assumed based on approximate values available in the literature. The pile soil behavior is observed for
both dry and submerged conditions. The analysis is carried out considering fixed head pile and floating
tip at the base. Parametric studies have been carried out to evaluate the influence of pile and soil
properties on the flexural response of piles. The significance of soil type in altering the pile deflection
and flexural response is discussed. Also deflection and moment coefficients are evaluated for a typical
pile length for various soil types. Various methods available in pile-soil interaction analysis are
discussed. A computer program is developed using MATLAB by considering modulus of subgrade
reaction approach. Finite difference technique is chosen for the above analysis. The output of computer
program is validated with the available benchmark solutions in literature.

KEYWORDS: Laterally loaded piles; Fixed head pile; Flexural response; Characteristic
length; Deflection coefficient; Moment coefficient.

INTRODUCTION
Pile foundations are widely used in civil engineering constructions due to non-availability of bearing
capacity at the required depth and/or due to heavy super structure loads. Such foundation systems are
- 1243 -

required to be designed for lateral loading in addition to the vertical loads. Some of the examples which
require lateral load analysis of pile foundations are: (a) High rise buildings and tall chimneys subjected to
wind and/or earthquake loads, (b) quay and harbor structures subjected to horizontal forces due to the
impact of ships during berthing and wave action, (c) offshore structures with wind and wave loads etc.
Both the ultimate load and deflection are required to compute for design of single pile to maintain safety
and serviceability conditions intact. For short piles, based on earth pressure theory, Hansen (1961) had
developed the method to estimate the ultimate lateral resistance of rigid piles. Zhang et al. (2005)
proposed a simplified method for calculating the ultimate resistance exerted by the cohesionless soils
against laterally loaded piles. Using two forms of varying modulus with depth, Matlock and Reese (1960)
had given a generalized iterative solution for rigid and flexible piles subjected to lateral loads. For layered
soil system, using different constant moduli of subgrade reaction, Davisson and Gill (1963) studied the
case of a laterally loaded pile. Generalized solutions for laterally loaded pile in elasto-plastic soil have
been proposed by Reddy and Valsangkar (1970). An elasto-platic model was used by Madhav et al.
(1971) for obtaining the response of laterally loaded piles. Using earth pressure theory, Broms (1964a, b)
proposed the solutions for pile deflections for both short and long piles. Broms (1964a, b) method for
computing ground surface deflections of rigid and flexible, with fixed and free head piles was based on
Terzaghis (1955) modulus of subgrade reaction approach. A state-of-the-art discussion on soil modulus
and ultimate soil resistance for laterally loaded piles were given by Jamilokowski and Garassino (1977).
Algebraic expressions for pile head displacement and rotation for flexible piles subjected to lateral loads
was given by Randolph (1981). Influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand was
investigated by Karthigeyan et al. (2006). Very recently, response of single pile with free headed top and
floating tip under lateral loads in cohesionless soils is analyzed by Phanikanth et al. (2010). However the
similar study for fixed head single pile is still scarce.
Considering kinematic and inertial interactions, seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying soil was
proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005a). A pseudo-static approach was proposed by
Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005b) which can be more frequently used by the designers. Tabesh and
Poulos (2007), developed design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay based on range of
earthquakes recorded in northern America and Australia. In the present study, behavior of fixed head piles
with floating tip considering various soil types under lateral loading is attempted. Subgrade modulus
suggested by Terzhagi (1955) is used for the present analysis. Varied length and radius of pile in both dry
and submerged soils are considered to obtain the response of single fixed head pile in the present analysis.

RESPONSE OF FIXED HEAD PILE UNDER LATERAL LOADS


In the design of pile foundations, it is usually necessary to evaluate the pile deflections, in addition to
estimating the ultimate pile load capacities to satisfy the serviceability aspects. Permissible deflection of
pile must not be exceeded by the actual deflection of pile even though the working load estimated using
factor of safety to the ultimate load is well below the permissible limit. The following methods are most
widely accepted methods, in estimating the pile deflections under lateral loads:
i) Continuous nature of soil medium is ignored while using the concept of modulus of subgrade
reaction (Reese and Matlock, 1956) and the pile reaction at a point is related to the deflection at that
point.
ii) Soil is idealized as an elastic medium using the elastic approach (Poulos, 1971a and b).
Because of its simplicity, the modulus of subgrade reaction approach is widely used. This method can
also consider the additional factors like nonlinearity, variation of subgrade reaction with depth and can
account for various soil layers.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1245

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION APPROACH


This approach treats the laterally loaded pile as a beam on elastic foundation. It is assumed that the
beam is supported by a Winkler (1867) soil model according to which the elastic continuum is replaced
by a series of infinitely closed independent and elastic soil springs. The pile is usually assumed to act as a
thin strip whose behavior is governed by the beam equation which was originally proposed by Hetenyi
(1946) for beam-on-elastic-foundation and is as given below:

+ = 0

(1)

where
Ep = Youngs modulus of pile material
Ip = Moment of Inertia of Pile material
kh= Modulus of subgrade reaction
y = pile deflection at a depth x below GL
Palmer and Thompson (1948) employed the following form to express the modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction:
kx = kh (x/L)n

(2)

where
kh = value of kx at x=L (tip of pile)
n= a coefficient equal to or greater than zero.
The most commonly used value of n for sand and normally consolidated clays is zero. According to
Davisson and Prakash (1963), a more appropriate value of n be 1.5 for sands, 0.15 for clays under undrained conditions. For the value of n=1, the variation of kh with depth is expressed by the following
relationship:
kh = hx

(3)

where h is the constant modulus of subgrade reaction.


Solutions to the above equations may be obtained analytically or numerically. Analytical solutions are
available only for uniform kh along pile depth. The scope of the present study is for cohesion-less soils
and hence Eq.(3) is applicable. For linear variation of kh (= h x) with depth numerical solutions like
finite difference method are usually employed. In the present study Finite difference technique is
employed for analyzing the pile response. The pile top is assumed to be fixed head and pile tip as floating
tip and their boundary conditions are also described.

- 1245 -

Using the central difference method at point i as given by Poulos and Davis (1980) and applying
boundary conditions for fixed head and floating tip single pile, one can get,
At the top of pile (at point 1):
d y
=H
dx

Shear = E I
Using Finite Difference Method at point 1: y

+2y

2y + y = HL /(E I n )

and Rotation =dy/dx=0


Using Finite Difference Method at point 1: y

+2y +y = 0

At the pile tip (at point n+1):


Shear = E I
Using Finite Difference Method at point n+1: y

d y
=0
dx
+ 2 y 2y

+y

=0

and
Moment = E I

d y
=0
dx

Using Finite Difference Method at point n+1: y + 2 y

+y

=0

The equilibrium equations V=0 and M=0 will results in the following additional equations:
For load equilibrium

R = H and

Taking moments about 1 :

R (n i)h = M

This approach is similar to that used by Phanikanth et al. (2010) for free head piles but with different
boundary conditions.
The solution requires the pressure distribution to be assumed and generally assumed and accepted
pressure distributions are stepped function, linear or parabolic variations. Based on the pressure
distribution the soil deflections and subsequently the soil reactions are evaluated (Bowles, 1968). Stepped
distribution was assumed in the present study.
Matrix equations may be developed using the above set of equations available at each node and with
the boundary conditions described. A computer program is developed using MATLAB to compute the
deflections, shear forces, bending moments and soil reactions.

STIFFNESS FACTOR AND SUBGRADE MODULUS


The short rigid, long flexible or semi rigid behavior of the piles is evaluated by stiffness factors R and
T (also known as Characteristic length). These factors depend on the flexural rigidity EI of the pile and

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1247

subgrade modulus. The subgrade modulus depends on the type of soil, width of pile, and depth of
influence of area and is related to Terzaghis (1955) modulus of subgrade reaction. For stiff over
consolidated clay the stiffness factor is given by,

R=
Where k=k1/1.5 and k1 is Terzaghis (1955) subgrade modulus in kN/m3.
For soft normally consolidated clays and for granular soils, the soil modulus is assumed to increase
linearly with depth. The stiffness factor (Characteristic length) for this case is given by

T=
The pile behavior is dependent on the Characteristic length T of the pile. When the length of the pile
exceeds 5T, the pile is considered as long pile and when the pile length is < 2T, the pile is considered as
short rigid pile (Das, 2004). Failure of a short rigid pile occurs when the lateral resistance of the soil has
been exceeded. The failure mechanisms of short rigid pile for free headed and fixed headed condition are
shown in Fig.1. In case of long flexible pile, the failure is associated when the moment at one or more
points exceeds the moment of resistance and the failure takes place by formation of one or two plastic
hinges along the pile length. The failure modes for long flexible pile are given in Fig. 2.

(a)

Free headed pile

Plastic hinge

(b) Fixed headed pile

Figure 1: Typical failure modes for rigid pile [Phanikanth et al. (2010)]

- 1247 -

Plastic hinge

Plastic hinge

(a) Free headed pile

(b) Fixed headed pile

Figure 2: Typical failure modes for flexible pile [Phanikanth et al. (2010)]

SOIL REACTION
For a vertical pile at a depth x below the ground surface the pressure exerted by the soil on the pile
before and after the lateral movement of the pile is shown in Fig. 3a. It may be seen that the net force
exerted by the soil per unit length of the pile is zero before pile deflects. When the pile deflects the
pressure diagram on the pile is again shown in Fig. 3a.It may be seen that the net force exerted by the soil
per unit length of the pile is p. At any given depth x, soil reaction p will depend on the lateral
deflection y. A typical p-y relationship is shown in Fig. 3b. The p-y curve is usually nonlinear.
However, reasonably good accuracy may be achieved by assuming p-y curve to be linear.

(i)

(ii)
Lateral deflection (y)

Figure 3a: Soil pressure distribution (i) before and (ii) after pile deflection

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1249

Figure 3b: Pressure versus deflection (p-y) relationship

VERIFICATION OF RESULTS
The finite difference method (FDM) Program developed using MATLAB, is validated using available
solutions in the literature. The computer program is validated with Reese and Matlock (1956) with the
following input:

Length of the pile=15 m;


Horizontal load =100 kN; (Applied at the top of pile)
Constant modulus of subgrade (h) = 2600.0 kN/m3;
Radius of the pile =0.25m;
Modulus of elasticity of pile material=2.74x107 kN/m2;
Grade of concrete=M30;

The above input is considered for pile soil analysis and bending moments and deflections are
evaluated considering fixed head and floating tip. The pile cap is assumed to be at the ground level.
Results obtained are plotted in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b showing variation of deflections, and bending moments
in the pile, along the soil depth based on FDM technique. These results are compared with that of solution
given by Reese and Matlock (1956) which are also shown in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b. Clearly it can be seen
that the results are in excellent agreement with that of solutions available in literature.

- 1249 -

defelction(mm)
-2

10

Distance from top x-(m)

2
4
Reese and Matlock (1956)
6

present study

L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; kh=2600.0;
H=100.0 kN; M=-186.40 kNm

10
12
14
16

Figure 4a: Pile deflections along soil depth -Present study vs. Reese and Matlock (1956)
Moment(kN-m)
-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

50

100

Reese and Matlock (1956)


present study

L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; kh =2600.0;
H=100.0 kN; M=-186.40 kNm

Distance from top x-(m)

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

Figure 4b: Pile bending moments along soil depth -Present study vs. Reese and Matlock (1956)

INFLUENCE OF PILE LENGTH ON THE FLEXURAL


RESPONSE
A Parametric study is carried out by varying the pile length and the pile response is obtained for
various pile lengths. Length of the pile is varied from 5.0 m to 20.0 m such that, the short pile behavior
and also long flexible pile behavior. Also the pile radius is varied to study the pile response for lateral
loading for various pile length to radius ratios. The pile radius is varied from 0.25m to 1.0m.Pile head is
assumed to be fixed and pile tip is considered as floating for the present analysis.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1251

The following input parameters are considered in the present analysis:


Length of the pile= 5.0m;
Youngs modulus of the pile material = 2.74x107 kN/m2
Pile radius= 0.25 m
Horizontal load = 100.0 kN and is applied at the top of the pile.
The constant subgrade moduli in dry state for different soil types (h):
Loose sand =2600.0 kN/m3
Medium sand=7700.0 kN/m3
Dense sand=20000.0 kN/m3
The constant subgrade moduli in submerged state for different soil types (h):
Loose sand =1500.0 kN/m3
Medium sand=5200.0 kN/m3
Dense sand=12500.0 kN/m3
The relative stiffness factors [T = (EI/h)0.20] (dry state):
Loose sand =2.004
Medium sand=1.61
Dense sand=1.33
Non-dimensional depth coefficient Zmax (dry state):
Loose sand=2.49
Medium sand=3.09
Dense sand=3.75
The pile cap is assumed to be at the ground level. When the pile length is considered as 5.0 m, the
response for a range of soil types viz., loose sand, medium sand, and dense sand is analyzed and the
results are presented in Fig.5a for pile deflections. For non dimensional depth coefficient Zmax <=2 the
pile behaviour is short rigid. In the present problem Zmax considering loose sand is about 2.49 and hence
semi rigid behavior is observed as can be seen Fig. 5a. However under medium and dense sand condition
the flexible type behavior was observed and also here it can be seen that Zmax exceeds 2.0. Also it is
observed that pile deflections in loose sand are higher compared to medium sand and dense sand.
The variation of bending moment is also obtained and is presented in Fig. 5b. It is also observed that
the bending moments, are influenced by soil type and pile bending moments in loose sand is higher
compared to that of medium and dense sand, as can be seen in Fig. 5b.

- 1251 -

0.5

distance from top x-(m)

1.5

L=5.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07
k N/sq. m; H=100.0 k N

2.5

3
Kh=2600.0 k N/cu.m
3.5

Kh=7700.0 k N/cu. m
Kh=20000 k N/cu. m

Kh=1500.0 k N/cu.m
Kh=5200.0 k N/cu. m

4.5

Kh=15200 k N/cu. m

5
-5

10

15

20

deflection-mm

Figure 5a: Pile deflection along depth (L = 5.0m)

0.5

1.5

Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m

distance from top x-(m)

Kh=20000 kN/cu. m
2

Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=5200.0 kN/cu. m

2.5

Kh=15200 kN/cu. m

3
L=5.0m;r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07k N/sq.m;H=100.0 k N
3.5

4.5

5
-250

-200

-150

-100
Moment-kNm

-50

50

Figure 5b: Variation of bending moment along depth (L = 5.0m)


The pile response is also evaluated considering submerged soil condition. The pile deflections under
submerged conditions are also presented in Fig.5a. Also bending moments, are presented in Fig.5b. It was

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1253

observed that the pile undergoes higher deflections under submerged condition compared to dry state and
also semi rigid behaviour of the pile in case of loose sand was observed.
When the pile length is increased to 10.0m, it can be seen from Table 1a that Zmax varies from 5.0 to
7.5 and hence it is reasonable to predict flexible pile behaviour. The same is observed from the analysis
results and the pile deflections are presented in Fig.6a. Also it can be seen from this figure that the
stiffness of the surrounding soil has significant influence on the pile response.
Fig.6b shows the bending moment variation along depth of pile. The analysis is performed for
submerged condition and the pile deflections are again presented in Fig.6a. The bending moment
variation along the depth of the pile under submerged condition is presented in Fig.6b.
The analysis is also performed for pile length of 15.0 m and 20.0 m considering both dry and
submerged conditions and it is observed that the pile response is not affected by the increase in length any
more and is also consistent with Reese and Matlock (1956) theory which also says that the pile response
is not affected in the case of flexible piles where non-dimensional depth coefficient Zmax > 5.0.
0

distance from top x-(m)

3
Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
4

Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m
Kh=20000 kN/cu. m

Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=5200.0 kN/cu. m

6
Kh=15200 kN/cu. m
7
L=10.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07k N/sq.m;
H=100.0 k N;

10
-2

6
deflection-mm

10

12

Figure 6a: Pile deflection along depth (L = 10.0m)

- 1253 -

14

Table 1a: Input data considered for the present study as was reported by Phanikanth et

al.(2010)

Soil
condition
Dry

Submerged

Dry

Submerged

Dry

Submerged

Dry

Submerged

Pile
radius r (m)

Young's
modulus of
pile 'E'
(kN/m2)

Moment of
Inertia I
(m4)

Unit
subgrade
modulus h
(kN/m3)

Relative
Stiffness factor
T: T=(EI/h)0.2

Pile
lengthL (m)

Depth
coefficient
Zmax= L/T

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.60E+03

2.004133

5.0

2.494844

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

7.70E+03

1.612958

5.0

3.099895

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.00E+04

1.332647

5.0

3.751931

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.50E+03

2.23719

5.0

2.234947

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

5.20E+03

1.744699

5.0

2.865824

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.25E+04

1.463994

5.0

3.415315

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.60E+03

2.004133

10.0

4.989689

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

7.70E+03

1.612958

10.0

6.199789

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.00E+04

1.332647

10.0

7.503863

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.50E+03

2.23719

10.0

4.469893

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

5.20E+03

1.744699

10.0

5.731648

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.25E+04

1.463994

10.0

6.830629

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.60E+03

2.004133

15.0

7.484533

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

7.70E+03

1.612958

15.0

9.299684

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.00E+04

1.332647

15.0

11.25579

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.50E+03

2.23719

15.0

6.70484

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

5.20E+03

1.744699

15.0

8.597472

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.25E+04

1.463994

15.0

10.24594

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.60E+03

2.004133

20.0

9.979378

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

7.70E+03

1.612958

20.0

12.39958

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.00E+04

1.332647

20.0

15.00773

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.50E+03

2.23719

20.0

8.939786

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

5.20E+03

1.744699

20.0

11.4633

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

1.25E+04

1.463994

20.0

13.66126

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1255

Kh=2600.0 k N/cu.m
Kh=7700.0 k N/cu. m

distance from top x-(m)

Kh=20000 k N/cu. m
Kh=15200 k N/cu. m

Kh=5200.0 k N/cu. m
Kh=1500.0 k N/cu.m

6
L=10.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07 k N/sq.m;
H=100.0 k N;
7

10
-250

-200

-150

-100
-50
Moment-kNm

50

100

Figure 6b: Variation of bending moment along depth (L = 10.0m)

EFFECT OF SOIL TYPE ON THE PILE RESPONSE


The response of single piles in cohesionless soils is evaluated for a given horizontal load and moment.
The constant subgrade modulus for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand based on Terzaghi (1955)
are considered both in dry condition as well as in submerged condition for the present analysis. The
youngs modulus is considered as 2.74x107 kN/m2 and the pile radius is taken as 0.25m. The pile head
deflection is observed by varying the subgrade modulus, for various pile length to radius ratios and the
results are presented in Fig. 7. Clearly it can be seen that the deflections are reduced as the soil stiffness
increases. It was observed that in case of 5.0m pile under loose sand the deflection is increased by about
49% under submerged condition with respect to the dry state. The increase in medium sand and dense
sand in submerged condition was about 30% and 33% respectively for the same pile length. However
when the pile length is considered as 10.0m, the pile deflections under submerged conditions are
increased by 37%, 25% and 29% respectively for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand.
The pile response is observed under dry condition for 5m and 10m pile lengths. It was observed that
for short rigid pile (L=5m), response is increased by about 3.87 times in loose sand compared to dense
sand under dry condition, where as in submerged condition the pile response is amplified by about 4.36
times in loose sand compared to dense sand. For flexible piles (L=10.0m) the response in loose sand is
amplified by about 3.13 times from the dense state considering dry state and the amplification is about
3.33 times in submerged condition for loose sands with respect to dense sands.
Also it can be seen that the deflections are higher in case of 5 m pile length compared to 10m and
higher length piles. This is due to short rigid behaviour of the pile resulting in pile rotations. Also it is
- 1255 -

observed that pile response is not affected by increasing the length of the pile beyond 10m. This is due to
the fact that, the depth coefficient Zmax (= L/T) exceeds 5.0 and hence the pile behaves as flexible
beyond 10.0 m length.
Subgrade modulus1.0e03 kN/m3

Pile head deflection(mm)

0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

10

15

20

25

L=5.0
L=10.0

r=0.25; E=2.74e07;
H=100.0;

Figure 7: Effect of soil type on pile head deflection


Deflection and Moment Coefficients
Before generating these coefficients validation is performed from the analysis results obtained from
the present study with the coefficients proposed by Reese and Matlock (1956). The pile length is
considered as 15.0m with pile radius as 0.25m.Youngs modulus is considered as 2.74x107
kN/m2.Considering loose sand the non-dimensional factor Zmax works out to 7.85. With this input the
deflection coefficients Cy are obtained and compared with Reese and Matlock (1956) solutions and is
presented in Fig.8a.It can be seen from these figures that good agreement in results was observed. Also
moment coefficients are evaluated in the present study and the results again are compared with Reese and
Matlock (1956).The results are presented in Fig.8b. Again excellent matching was observed from the
present study with the solutions from the literature.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M


-0.2

1257
Deflection
)
y0.8
0.2
0.4Coefficient(C
0.6

1.2

Depth Coefficient Z=(x/T)

1
2

present study

3
4

L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; ks=2600.0
kN/m3;

5
6
7
8

Figure 8a: Validation of Deflection Coefficient (Cy) with Reese and Matlock (1956)
-1

Deflection Coefficient(Cm)
-0.5

0.5

0
1
present study

L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; ks=2600.0
kN/m3;

Depth Coefficient
Z=(x/T)

3
4
5
6
7
8

Figure 8b: Validation of Moment Coefficient (Cm) with Reese and Matlock (1956)
The deflection and moment coefficients have been generated for the chosen pile length and
considering various soil types. Using these coefficients pile responses i.e., deflection, and bending
moment can be evaluated which are very useful for the designers. The coefficients generated are
applicable for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand with the constant subgrade modulus presented in
Table 1 under dry condition. For generating these coefficients, the length of the pile is considered as 15.0
m. The radius of the pile is varied from 0.25 m to 1.0 m. The Youngs modulus is considered as 2.74x107
kN/m2.The input data considered is also shown in Table 1b.

- 1257 -

Table 1b: Input data for computing deflection and moment coefficients [Phanikanth et al.(2010)]

Soil
condition

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Pile
radius r (m)

Young's
modulus of
pile 'E'
(kN/m2)

Moment of
Inertia I
(m4)

Unit
subgrade
modulus h
(kN/m3)

Relative
Stiffness factor
T: T=(EI/h)0.2

Pile
lengthL (m)

Depth
coefficient
Zmax= L/T

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

2.60E+03

2.00439

15

7.48356

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

7.70E+03

1.61317

15

9.29847

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

2.00E+04

1.33282

15

11.2543

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

2.60E+03

3.48957

15

4.29853

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

7.70E+03

2.80846

15

5.34101

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

2.00E+04

2.32039

15

6.46444

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.60E+03

4.82831

15

3.10668

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

7.70E+03

3.8859

15

3.86011

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.00E+04

3.21058

15

4.67205

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.60E+03

6.07476

15

2.46923

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

7.70E+03

4.88907

15

3.06807

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.00E+04

4.03941

15

3.71341

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

2.60E+03

2.00439

20

9.97808

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

7.70E+03

1.61317

20

12.398

0.25

2.74E+07

3.07E-03

2.00E+04

1.33282

20

15.0058

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

2.60E+03

3.48957

20

5.73137

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

7.70E+03

2.80846

20

7.12134

0.5

2.74E+07

4.91E-02

2.00E+04

2.32039

20

8.61925

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.60E+03

4.82831

20

4.14223

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

7.70E+03

3.8859

20

5.14681

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.00E+04

3.21058

20

6.2294

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.60E+03

6.07476

20

3.29231

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

7.70E+03

4.88907

20

4.09076

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.00E+04

4.03941

20

4.95122

Fig. 9a shows the deflection coefficients Cy for loose sand for a pile length of 15.0m.Coefficients
have been derived for pile radii of 0.25m, 0.50m, 0.75m and 1.0m respectively. Fig 9b shows moment
coefficient Cm for various pile radii. For medium sand and considering a pile length of 15.0m, the
deflection coefficients Cy and moment coefficients Cm are again evaluated and are also presented in Fig.
9a and Fig. 9b respectively. Also the coefficients for dense sands are evaluated and are again presented in
Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b respectively for deflections and bending moments. Once the coefficients are known,
the deflections and bending moments can be evaluated by using the following expressions (Reese and
Matlock, 1956):
yx =yA+yB =Ay (HT3/EPIP)+ By ( MT2/ EPIP)

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1259
Mx =MA+MB =Am HT+ Bm M

where T =Characteristic length of pile=

E I

When L>= 5T, the pile is considered as a long pile. For L<=2T, the pile is considered to be short rigid
pile (Das, 2004).
0

distance from top x-(m)

5
r=0.25,Kh=2600.0
r=0.50;Kh=2600.0
r=0.75;Kh=2600.0
r=1.0;Kh=2600.0
r=0.25;Kh=7700.0
r=0.50;Kh=7700.0

10

r=0.75;Kh=7700.0
r=1.0;Kh=7700.0
r=1.0;Kh=20000.0

L=15.0;
E=2.74e07;

r=0.75;Kh=20000.0
r=0.50;Kh=20000.0
r=0.25;Kh=20000.0

15
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4
0.6
deflection Coefficient (Cy)

0.8

Figure 9a: Deflection Coefficients (Cy)

- 1259 -

1.2

1.4

distance from top x-(m)

r=0.25;Kh=2600.0
r=0.50;Kh=2600.0
r=0.75;Kh=2600.0
r=1.0;Kh=2600.0
r=0.25;Kh=7700.0
r=0.50;Kh=7700.0

10

r=0.75;Kh=7700.0

L=15.0;
E=2.74e07;

r=1.0;Kh=7700.0
r=0.25;Kh=20000.0
r=0.50;Kh=20000.0
r=0.75;Kh=20000.0
r=1.0;Kh=20000.0
15
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4
-0.2
Moment Coefficient (Cm)

0.2

0.4

Figure 9b: Moment Coefficients (Cm)

CONCLUSIONS
The behaviour of single pile in cohesionless soils under lateral loads considering fixed head and
floating tip type piles are presented. Parametric studies have been carried out to evaluate the influence of
pile and soil properties on the flexural response of piles. Pile responses under dry and submerged
conditions are studied. The present study also takes into account the short pile and long pile behaviour.
Deflection and bending moment coefficients are evaluated for a chosen pile length. Solutions are obtained
for pile response with various cohesionless soils.
The parametric study carried out shows that for short rigid piles, about 49% increase in deflections
was observed for loose sands from dry state to submerged condition. The increase in deflections for
medium sand and dense sand in submerged condition with respect to dry state are about 30% and 33%
respectively. However for flexible piles, the pile deflections under submerged conditions are increased by
37%, 25% and 29% respectively for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand from that of dry soil
condition. It was also observed that the pile response is increased by about 3.87 times in loose sand
compared to dense sand under dry condition, where as in submerged condition the pile response is
amplified by about 4.36 times in loose sand compared to dense sand for short rigid piles. For flexible
piles the response in loose sand is amplified by about 3.13 times from the dense state considering dry
state and the amplification is about 3.33 times in submerged condition for loose sands with respect to
dense sands.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1261

REFERENCES
1. Bowles, J.E. (1968). Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
2. Broms, B. (1964a).The Lateral Resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SM2), 27-63.
3. Broms, B. (1964b).The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils Journal of Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Division,ASCE, 90 (SM3), 123-56.
4. Das, B.M. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 5th Edition, 2nd reprint, Nelson
Engineering.
5. Davisson, M.T. and Gill, H.L. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil system. Journal of
Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 89(3), pp 63-94.
6. Davisson, M.T. and Prakash, S. (1963). A review of soil pile behavior. Highway Research
Record, No. 39, 25-48.
7. Hansen, J.B. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces. Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin no.12, Copenhagen, 5-9.
8. Hetenyi, M. (1946). Beams on Elastic Foundation; Theory with Applications in the Fields of
Civil and Mechanical Engineering. The University of Michigan press, Ann Arbor.
9. Jamilokowski, M. and Garassino, A. (1977). Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles. Proceedings
of 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 8792.
10. Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna V.V.G.S.T., and Rajagopal, K. (2006). Influence of vertical load
on the lateral response of piles in sand. Computers and Geotechnics, (33), 121-131.
11. Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Poulos H.G. (2005a). Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying
soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131, 14661479.
12. Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Poulos H.G. (2005b). Pseudo-static approach for seismic analysis of
piles in liquefying soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131,
14801487.
13. Madhav, M.R., Rao, N.S.V.K., and Madhavan, K. (1971). Laterally loaded piles in elasto-plastic
soil. Soils and Foundations, 11(2), 1-15.
14. MATLAB (2004), Programming, version 7, The Math Works, Inc.
15. Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C. (1960). Generalized solutions for laterally loaded piles. Journal of
Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division, ASCE, 86, 63-91.
16. Palmer, L.A. and Thompson, J.B. (1948). The earth pressure and deflection along the embedded
lengths of piles subjected to lateral thrusts. Proceedings of 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, 5, 156-161.
17. Phanikanth, V.S., Choudhury, D. and Reddy G.R. (2010). Response of single pile under lateral
loads in cohesionless soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15(10)-H, 813-830.
18. Poulos, H. G. (1971a). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles I- single piles. Journal
Mechanics & Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731.

- 1261 -

of Soil

19. Poulos, H. G. (1971b). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles II- pile groups. Journal of Soil
Mechanics & Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 733-751.
20. Poulos, H.G and Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
21. Randolph, M.F. (1981). The response of flexible files to lateral loading. Geotechnique, 31(2),
247-259.
22. Reddy, A.S. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1970). Generalized solutions for laterally loaded pile in elasto
plastic soil. Soils and Foundations, X(3), 67-80.
23. Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956). Non-dimensional solutions for laterally-loaded piles with
soil modulus assumed proportional to depth. Proceedings of the 8th Texas Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Austin, Texas, 1-41.
24. Tabesh A. and Poulos H.G. (2007). Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay.
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, 160(GE2), 85-96.
25. Terzaghi, K. (1955). Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Gotechnique, (4), 297-326.
26. Winkler, E. (1867). "Die Lehre von der Elastizitat und Festigkeit," Dominicus, Prague.
27. Zhang L., Silva F., and Grismala R. (2005). Ultimate lateral resistance to piles in Cohesion-less
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(1):78-83.

2010 ejge