Analysis of Laterally Loaded

Drilled Shafts and Piles Using

LPILE

Shin-Tower Wang, Ph.D., P.E.

Ensoft, Inc./Lymon C. Reese & Associates
Austin, Texas

April 3, 2009
Outlines
Introduction
Basic theory of the p-y curve method
Numerical solution for soil-structure interaction
Characteristic Shape of p-y Curves
Available p-y Curve Criteria
Common Input Values
Special consideration for large-diameter piers
Effect of nonlinear EI on deflection
Special features in LPILE
Piles are used in a variety of ways to
support super-structures
 Drilled Shafts with Lateral Load
Q

M
P

Ultimate earth pressure

(strength fully mobilized)

Ultimate earth pressure

(strength fully mobilized)
Actual earth pressure

Actual earth pressure

Methods of Solution
Linearly elastic solution (Poulos and Davis, 1980)
emphasizes the condition of continuity although the soil
cannot be characterized as a linearly elastic material.
Limit-equilibrium solution (Broms, 1965)
finds the ultimate lateral load at failure, but soil-structure
interaction at lesser loads is not addressed.
The p-y method with beam-column model (McClelland,
Matlock, Reese, 1958-1975)
has been developed extensively to take into account the
soil-structure interaction and nonlinear resistance of soils.
3-D Finite-Element method
Soil Failure Patterns
Wedge
Failure

Plane-Strain
Failure
Nonlinear Model for Lateral Soil
Resistance
 Differential Equation
4 2
d y d y
EI 4 Px 2 E py y W 0
dx dx
EI = pile stiffness
y = pile deflection
x = distance along pile
Px = axial load on pile and
Epy = slope of secant to p-y curve at point on pile
W = distributed lateral loading
 Illustration of
Numerical Solution Procedure

V
y y Epy
Epy

p x
p-y Curves Developed From
Static-Load Tests on
24-in. Diameter Pile.
 Characteristic Shape of p-y Curves

c.
a. Initial Linear-elastic
b. section
b. Transition from linear
to nonlinear section
c. Yield section into limit
a. state or plasticity
failure
p-y Curve Criteria
Soft Clay (Matlock, 1970)
Stiff Clay
(1). with free water (Reese et al., 1975)
(2). Without free water (Reese & Welch, 1975)
Sand (Reese model & API Model)
Liquefied Sand (Rollins et al., 2005)
c- Soil (Evans and Duncan*, 1982)
Strong Rock (Reese & Nyman, 1978)
Weak Rock (Reese, 1997)

(* Concept only, not the full model)

Common Input Values
Effective Unit Weight
Shear Strength
Cohesion, c
Friction Angle,
Soil Stiffness, 50
Initial Stiffness of p-y Curve, k
Rock Properties, RQD, qu, etc.
Soft Clay

Static Loading Cyclic Loading

Stiff Clay with Free Water

Static Loading Cyclic Loading

 Stiff Clay without Free Water

Static Loading Cyclic Loading

Sand (Reese Criteria)

Static & Cyclic

Coefficients
Liquefied Sand (Rollins et al.)
Rollins model is limited to relative densities
Between 45 and 55 percent

Pile diameter = 324 mm

Cemented c- Soil
p

m
pm

k pk ym u Pult=Pu( ) + Pu ( c )
yk pu
yu
ks

y
b/60 3b/80

Use of this p-y curve is not recommended

without a load test to establish k
Vuggy Limestone
p
Perform proof test if
deflection is in this range

pu = b su

Es = 100su
Assume brittle fracture if
deflection is in this range

Es = 2000su NOT TO SCALE

y
0.0004b 0.0024b
 Weak Rock
Required rock properties
p Uniaxial Compressive

Kir Strength, su
pur (from lab tests)
RQD (from field investigation

records)
A Rock Mass Modulus

(interpreted)
k
rm (from lab tests or

y
estimated)
Effective Unit Weight (from
ya
lab tests)
 Soil Layering Effects

Georgiadis Method for Equivalent Depth (1983)

Georgiadis Method for Equivalent Depth (1983)
Pile-Head Conditions:
Shear and Moment
Qt

Mt
Pt
Distance to Ground Surface
Layer 1

Layer 2 Pile Length

Layer 3

Note: Origin of Coordinate System for Pile and

Soil Layers is Located at the Pile Head
Pile-Head Conditions:
Displacement and Slope
Qt
t

yt
Distance to Ground Surface
Layer 1

Layer 2 Pile Length

Layer 3

Note: Origin of Coordinate System for Pile and

Soil Layers is Located at the Pile Head
 Effect of Side Friction and Tip
Resistance on Large-Diameter Piers
Contact friction (maybe small)
M
Fs

B 0.2
H Tip rotation bearing, Fb
(need large mobilization)
Fb
Contact friction, Fs

0.05B
Tip rotation bearing, Fb
 Size Effect

1. For linear elastic portion of the p-y

curves the size effect is not
significant on initial k values.
2. For ultimate soil resistance Pu is a
function of the pile diameter.
3. Most correlation coefficients in
current p-y criteria were derived
based on pile diameter of 2 ft to 4 ft.
 Using service load to check deflection criteria
Using factored load to check bending moment and shear
Uncrack/Crack EIs
 Effect of Nonlinear EI
on Deflection

Comparison of pile-head
deflections computed for
same load using elastic and
nonlinear EI values.
It is possible to under-predict
pile-head deflections if only
elastic EI values are used.
Top Deflection vs. Length
Top Deflection vs. Embedment Depth
0.05

0.045

0.04

0.035
Top Deflection, m

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
7 8 9 10 11 12
Embedment Depth, meters
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2004 by Ensoft, Inc.
Pile Subjected to Lateral Spreading
due to Liquefaction of Soils
 Slope Stabilized by Drilled
Shafts

Fs is derived
from p-y
curves
Adjust the Passive Earth Pressure
Not Over The Bending Capacity
Slope-Stability Analysis with Resistance
from vertical piles
Main Window for LRFD

Load Combos
Unfactored Loads
Factored Loads
Unfactored Load Definitions
Load Factors, Resistance
Factors, and Combinations
Load Summary Report (1)
Load Summary Report (3)
Concrete Properties
 Reinforcing Bar Properties

Bar bundling
options

Warning message
for cage spacing
and percent steel
 Recent Publications by Others
Using LPILE
Rollins, K.M., Peterson, K.T., and Weaver, T.J.,Lateral Load
Behavior of Full-Scale Pile Group in Clay, J. Geotech. & GeoEnviro.
Eng. ASCE Vol 124, No.6, June, 1988.
Anderson, J.B., Townsend, F.C., and Grajales, B.,Case History

Evaluation of Laterally Loaded Piles, J. Geotech. & GeoEnvir. Eng.

ASCE Vol 129, No.3, March, 2003.
Davidson, W.A, McCabe, R.J., and Soydemir, C.,Below Bostons new

Bridge, Civil Engineering, Dec. 1998.

Thank You