Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL NOTE
Introduction
Theories
Under a lateral load pile deflects in the direction of load application and
the soil in front of the pile offers resistance to this movement. The key for
computation of ultimate lateral capacity is the estimation of soil pressure
distribution along the length and across the width of the pile and the deflection
profile under the applied lateral load. There are guidelines suggested to arrive at
the ultimate lateral capacity. Here, an attempt is made to estimate the ultimate
lateral capacity, knowing the deflected profile and distribution of various forces
acting on the pile. The ultimate lateral load is estimated from the consideration
of static equilibrium of the pile.
The analyses are usually based on simplified theoretical assumptions of
soil pressure distribution along the pile length. In most of the analyses (Hansen,
1961; Matlock, 1970; Reese et al., 1975), the variation in soil reaction with depth
is assumed to vary from 2cuD at ground level to 8 cuD to 12cuD at a depth of 3D
beyond which, it remains constant. Broms (1964a) proposed an earth pressure
diagram in which, the soil resistance from the ground level to a depth of 1.5D is
ignored and beyond this depth, a uniform pressure of 9.0cuD is considered. As
pointed out by Smith (1987), the earth pressure distribution across the pile width
is not uniform, as shown in Figure 1.
**
503
Fig. 1 Distribution of Earth Pressure and Lateral Side Shear Around the Pile
(after Smith, 1987)
(1a)
(1b)
(2a)
(2b)
For aluminium and mild steel piles, the average values of is given by
= 0.715 - 0.0191 cu for cu < 27kPa
(2c)
504
(2d)
Smith (1983) reported that, the shape factor for lateral shear drag could
be taken as
= 0.79 for circular piles and
(3a)
(3b)
When a lateral load acts on a rigid pile, it can be assumed that, pile
rotates about point O at a depth L as shown in Figure 2. Broms (1964a)
suggested that, point of rotation of rigid short piles occurred between 0.70 to
0.75 times the embedded lengths; where the larger value coincides with
the largest lateral loadings. Another possible way to verify this is the finite
element method. Varghese (2004) studied the behavior of a single rigid pile
in cohesive soils using finite element method. In his analysis he developed
a program code in which, pile was modeled as a three-dimensional linear-elastic
material and soil was modeled as an elastic-perfectly-plastic material obeying
Von Mises yield condition. In addition, soil was assumed incapable of sustaining
any tensile stresses.
D
Pu
CuD
9CuD
1.5D
1.5D
L
L
Pile subjected
to lateral load
9CuD
Distribution of frontal
soil resistance
CuD
Distribution of lateral
shear drag
505
(4)
( cu D )( L 1.5 D )[ L L + 12 ( L 1.5 D )]
( cu D )( L L ) 12 ( L L )
The only unknown parameter in the above equation is Pu. Substituting
L=0.75L and simplifying,
Pu =
(9cuD + cu D )
L+e
[(1.125)(
L
2
D )(1L.2 D ) L
32
(5)
where,
cu = un-drained soil shear strength
D = pile diameter
e = load eccentricity
L = pile embedment length
= soil-pile adhesion factor as per Eqs. 2-a to 2-d
= shape factor for lateral shear drag as per Eqs.3-a and 3-b
= shape factor to account for the non-uniform distribution of the soil
resistance in front of the pile, as per Eqs. 1-a and 1-b.
Pu
1.2
=
2
g + 0.88
cu DL
where,
Pu = ultimate lateral capacity
cu = un-drained soil shear strength
D = pile diameter
(6)
506
Pu = 2.44(0.32 ) L cu DL
e
(7)
where,
Pu = ultimate lateral capacity
cu = un-drained soil shear strength
D = pile diameter
L = pile embedment length and
e = load eccentricity
6.35
13.0
750.0
18.0
13.5
18.4
25.4
21.5
13.5
12.5
10
190
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
4500.0
260.0
139.7
L
(mm)
0.0
100.0
150.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
25.40
e
(mm)
24.0
7.2
7.2
5.5
10.0
5.5
10.0
95.8
24.0
38.8
Cu
(kPa)
0.2566
0.5775
0.5775
0.6099
0.5240
0.6099
0.5240
0.4
0.2566
0.2
(deg)
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
(deg)
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
128.0N
52.5 N
72.5 N
75.0 N
114.0 N
50.0 N
116.5N
454.3kN
225.0N
69.5N
Observed
capacity, Pub
136.2N
58.67 N
74.91 N
82.76 N
118.54 N
51.40 N
116.57 N
499.76 KN
206.0N
74.70N
Proposed
method
174.38N
53.14 N
83.21 N
83.38 N
126.62 N
53.13 N
137.70 N
678.98kN
251.27N
90.49N
155.45kN
57.68 N
80.76 N
96.10 N
126.57 N
51.07 N
123.82 N
881.79kN
221.23N
77.79N
1.275
1.02
1.135
1.609
Rao et al.
(1993)
Rao et al.
(1993)
Rao et al.
(1995)
Rao et al.
(1996)
Meyerhof and
Yalcin (1984)
48.67 N
127.75
KN
100.0 N
84.57 N
111.39 N
1.079
1.61
Rao et al.
(1993)
44.95 N
108.97 N
1.30
1.654
Rao et al.
(1993)
Briaud et al.
(1983)
1.434
Meyerhof
(1981)
197.9N
595.2kN
1.4654
L/ R
Druery and
Ferguson
(1969)
Reference
of the test data
114.9N
Narasimha
Rao et al.
(1995)
Note: R is the stiffness factor (IS 2911 Part I, Sec.3). For short rigid piles, L/R is less than two. All the piles are free-headed.
D
(mm)
S. No.
508
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
509
500
400
300
200
500
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
1
(Pum Pup )2
n i
(8)
where,
n = number of pile loading test data collected to test the performance of
each method
Pum = measured ultimate load capacity value of laboratory and field test
results reported in the literature
Pup = predicted ultimate load capacity value by selected method
Root mean square deviations of Methods A, B, C and D are 28.4, 43.14,
102.63 and 37.64 respectively, from which it can be judged that, proposed
method predicts the ultimate load capacity more reliably.
2 Method
Chi square is used most frequently to test the statistical significance of
reported results. Maximum and minimum numbers of data points that can be
tested using chi-square method are 99 and 2. Here chi-square is computed
using the following expression.
510
2 =
(P
um
Pup )
(9)
Pup
i =1
where,
n = number of pile loading test data collected to test the performance of
each method
Pum = measured ultimate load capacity value of laboratory and field test
results reported in the literature
Pup = predicted ultimate load capacity value by selected method.
Chi-squares obtained from Methods A, B, C and D are 160.43, 274.66,
750.31 and 267.57 respectively. The value of 2 with a degree of freedom as (n1) =68 is 90, which is smaller than the values obtained from all the four
methods. It is seen that, results of all the methods are significantly varying from
2
the test data. As value of Method A is noticeably smaller than other methods,
it can be concluded that, the proposed method is performing better than the
other methods.
F=
X1 X 2
n1 + n 2
n1 + n 2
2
1
(10)
2
2
where,
511
from the population having same variance. If the calculated value of F is greater
than the table value, then the F-ratio is considered significant.
Method
1
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
Mean
1.069
1.129
1.166
1.063
Standard deviation
0.126
0.172
0.175
0.225
In the present analysis, table F-value is 1.53, which is smaller than Fvalues of Methods A and B and Methods A and C. Since, the calculated values
of F are greater than the table value of F at 5% level of significance, the F of
ratios (Pup / Pum) is considered significant and null hypothesis is rejected. By
observing the mean values of Pup / Pum calculated by Methods A, B and C it can
be concluded that, ultimate lateral capacity predicted by the proposed method
gives values safer than Broms and Budhu and Davies methods.
Now considering Methods A and D, since F-value is smaller than table Fvalue, null hypothesis is accepted (there is no difference between means of the
ratios (Pup / Pum) obtained from the methods). By observing the standard
deviations of Methods A and D, it can be concluded that the proposed method
gives values safer than Rao and Rao method.
The accuracy of a method is nothing but its ability to predict the
measured ultimate load. By observing, the results of all these statistical analysis
it can be concluded that, the proposed method gives values that are safer than
the other methods considered in this investigation.
Conclusions
Based on the statistical analysis, the proposed method shows a better
agreement with the field and model tests data vis--vis other methods. The
location of point of rotation is considered on the basis of finite element analysis
and non-uniform distribution of lateral shear drag as well as pile soil adhesion
effect are incorporated in the proposed method which is simple to operate.
References
Briaud, J.L., Smith, T.P. and Meyer, B.(1983a): Pressuremeter Gives
Elementary Model for Laterally Loaded Piles. International Symposium on Insitu Testing, Paris, Vol..2, PP. 217-221
Briaud, J.L., Smith, T.P. and Meyer, B. (1983b): Laterally Loaded Piles and
Pressuremeter: Comparison of Existing Method. Laterally loaded deep
foundations, ASTM, STP835, PP. 97-111
512