Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
o
, and the stiffness is given by
G
2
w
P
k
s
=
(4)
Equation (3) may be combined with equation (1) to give the overall load settlement ratio for a rigid
pile of
( )
o t o
t
r
L 2
1
4
w r G
P
=
l
(5)
where = r
b
/r
o
is the ratio of underream, = G
L
/G
b
is the ratio of end-bearing, and the subscript t
denotes conditions at the top of the pile.
Development of the full solution, which takes account of compression of the pile is given in detail
by Randolph and Wroth (1978a). Effectively, equation (3) is taken to act at each point down the
length of the pile, just as in a linear load transfer analysis. The final expression for the load
settlement ratio is
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
4
( )
( )
( )
( )
o
o
t o
t
r
L
L
L tanh
1
4
1
r
L
L
L tanh 2
1
4
w r G
P
=
l
(6)
where, summarising the various dimensionless parameters:
= r
b
/r
o
(ratio of underream for underreamed piles)
= G
L
/G
b
(ratio of end-bearing for end-bearing piles)
= G /G
L
(variation of soil modulus with depth)
= E
p
/G
L
(pile-soil stiffness ratio)
= ln(r
m
/r
o
) (measure of radius of influence of pile)
L = 2 / (L/r
o
) (measure of pile compressibility).
It should be noted that E
p
is the Young's modulus of a solid pile with equivalent cross-sectional
rigidity to the actual pile. Thus E
p
= (EA)
p
/(r
o
2
), where (EA)
p
is the actual cross-sectional rigidity
of the pile. A suitable expression for the maximum radius of influence, r
m
, is
r
m
= {0.25 + [2.5(1 - ) - 0.25]}L (7)
Figure 3 shows the variation of the load settlement ratio with slenderness ratio L/r
o
for = = 1,
= 0.3. It has been found that these values are in reasonably good agreement with those computed
using charts from Poulos and Davis (1980), in spite of the simplifying assumptions adopted in the
analytical solution given above, and making allowance for the possible scope for error when using
the various multiplicative factors taken from the charts in Poulos and Davis. For long compressible
piles, the results from Poulos and Davis, which are based on boundary element analysis, give higher
values of pile stiffness than obtained using equation (6). The higher values may be partly due to
relatively coarse discretisation of the very long piles, leading to numerical inaccuracies.
From Figure 3, it may be seen that there are combinations of slenderness ratio, L/r
o
, and stiffness
ratio, , beyond which the load settlement ratio becomes independent of the pile length. It can be
shown that insignificant load is transmitted to the pile base for such long piles. This limiting
behaviour is the converse of a stiff rigid pile, and corresponds to the case where the pile starts
behaving as if it were infinitely long, with no load reaching the lower region.
The two limits may be quantified. Piles may be taken as essentially rigid where L/r
o
is less than
0.5(E
p
/G
L
)
0.5
. Equation (6) then reduces to equation (5). At the other extreme, for piles where L/r
o
is greater than about 3(E
p
/G
L
)
0.5
, tanh(L) approaches unity and equation (6) reduces approximately
(exactly for = 1) to
= / 2
w r G
P
t o L
t
(8)
As expected, the load settlement ratio is now independent of the length of the pile (since no load
reaches the lower end). The modulus G
L
should be interpreted as the soil shear modulus at the
bottom of the active part of the pile, that is, at a depth that corresponds to z/r
o
= 3(E
p
/G
L
)
05
, rather
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
5
than at z = L.
An alternative form of equation (6) for homogeneous soils has been presented by Mylonakis &
Gazetas (1998), with the pile head stiffness, K = P
t
/w
t
expressed as
( )
( )
( ) L tanh 1
L tanh
EA K
p
+
+
=
(9)
The parameters and L represent non-dimensional base stiffness and slenderness ratio for the
pile, expressed as
( ) ( )
L
EA
k
L and
EA w
P
p p b
b
=
= (10)
where P
b
and w
b
are respectively the load and displacement at the pile base and (EA)
p
is the cross-
sectional rigidity of the pile.
3.2 Extension of solution to pile groups
For pile groups, the stiffness of each pile is reduced because of interaction effects. Mylonakis &
Gazetas (1998) have demonstrated that the interaction factor, , (as defined by Poulos, 1968) must
reflect not only the (assumed) logarithmic decay in displacements, but also the reinforcing effect of
the neighbouring pile. This leads to a reduction in the pile head displacement below that calculated
from a logarithmic decay. For piles of the same length and diameter, the interaction factor for a
given spacing, s, may then be expressed as the product of two terms representing the logarithmic
decay and a diffraction factor, (Mylonakis & Gazetas, 1998), giving:
( )
( )
|
|
\
|
=
o m
m
r / r n
s / r n
l
l
(11)
where the diffraction factor, , is a function of and L, according to
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) L 2 cosh 4 L 2 sinh 2 L 2 sinh 2
1 L 2 cosh 2 L 2 L 2 sinh L 2 sinh L 2
2
2
+ +
+ + +
= (12)
Randolph (2003) has also extended this to deal with piles of different diameters.
The analysis presented by Mylonakis & Gazetas (1998) is for piles of identical embedded length.
However, the general approach may also be used for piles of different length, provided interaction
is first calculated for the effect on the shorter pile of loading the longer pile. The reverse
interaction, where the shorter pile is loaded and causes displacement of the longer pile, may then be
evaluated using the reciprocal theorem, to ensure a symmetric stiffness matrix. This extension for
piles of different embedded lengths is only approximate, and results for groups where the pile
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
6
lengths differ by more than a factor of about 4 should be viewed with circumspection.
The above approach has been used to evaluate the stiffness of square groups of piles, from 2 x 2 up
to 30 x 30, for L/d = 25, E
p
/G
L
= 1000, = 0.75 and = 0.3. The results are shown in Figure 4(a)
where the pile group stiffness, K
g
(ratio of total applied load to average settlement) has been
normalized by G
L
B, where B is the width of the pile group. Plotting the normalized stiffness
against the normalized width, B/L, leads to an envelope of curves that tends to the stiffness of a
surface raft as B/L becomes large. The stiffness envelope may also be matched closely by using an
equivalent pier approximation of the pile group (Poulos & Davis, 1980; Randolph, 1994),
demonstrating the robustness of calculations of pile group stiffness even with quite approximate
models (Figure 4(b)).
4 RESPONSE OF PILES TO TORSIONAL LOADING
The next type of loading to be considered is that of torsion about the pile axis. An analytical
solution for the torsional response of piles has been presented by Randolph (1981b). Development
of the solution follows the same lines as for the case of axially loaded piles, with the load transfer
down the pile shaft being considered separately from that at the pile base.
At the pile base, the torque, T, may be related to the angle of twist, , using the established solution
for the torsion of a rigid punch:
T
b
G
b
r
b
3
b
=
16
3
(13)
Down the pile shaft, it may be shown that the angle of twist is related to the interfacial shear stress,
o
, by (Randolph, 1981b)
=
o
2G
(14)
For rigid piles, the above two equations may be combined to give an overall torsional stiffness of
o
3
t
3
o L
t
r
L
4
3
16
r G
T
+
(15)
where the parameters are as defined previously for axial loading.
In practice, few piles will behave as rigid piles under torsional loading. Usually, deformations
induced by torsion reduce to negligible magnitude at some level down the pile shaft. The situation
is then similar to that for most laterally loaded piles, with the pile length no longer affecting the
performance of the pile. For piles of intermediate length, the torsional stiffness may be written
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
7
( )
( )
o p
L
3
o
3
t
3
o L
t
r
L
L
L tanh
G
G
3
32
1
r
L
L
L tanh
4
3
16
r G
T
(16)
where G
p
is the shear modulus of a solid pile of the same torsional rigidity as the actual pile. The
remaining parameters are the same as in equation (6), except that the quantity L is now given by
L = ( )
o p L
r / L G / G 8 . The similarity of the above expression with that for axially loaded piles
(equation (6)) is evident.
The torsional stiffness T
t
/(G
L
r
o
3
t
) for homogeneous soil conditions is plotted against the stiffness
ratio G
p
/G for various pile slenderness ratios, L/r
o
in Figure 5. The transition from flexible
behaviour (where the pile length does not effect the stiffness), for L/r
o
(G
p
/G)
0.5
, to rigid
behaviour for L/r
o
0.125(G
p
/G)
0.5
, may be clearly seen. The limiting form of equation (16) for
long piles is
L p
t
3
o L
t
G / G 2
r G
T
=
(17)
where G
L
is interpreted as the shear modulus at a depth of z = r
o
(G
p
/ G
L
)
0.5
.
In applying these solutions to the torsional response of piles within a group, two results noted by
Poulos (1975) are of benefit. Firstly, he showed from a series of model tests, that values of shear
modulus for the soil, deduced from axial load tests, gave good predictions of the response of a pile
under torsional loading. Thus, in choosing soil properties as input to PIGLET, the same shear
modulus profile may be adopted for both axial and torsional response of the pile group.
The second observation made by Poulos (1975) was that there was no evidence of an interaction
effect between neighbouring piles under torsional loading. This finding conforms with what might
be anticipated intuitively, and enables the torsional response of piles within a group to be estimated
directly from the equations given above, with no additional factors to allow for effects of
interaction.
5 RESPONSE OF PILES TO LATERAL LOADING
5.1 Deformation of single laterally loaded piles
The analysis of laterally loaded piles is much more complex than that for axially or torsionally
loaded piles. Even for soil idealised as an elastic continuum, no simple closed form solution is
forthcoming. The solution which has been adopted in the program is one developed by Randolph
(1981a) by curve fitting the results of finite element analyses of laterally loaded piles embedded in
elastic soil. It was found that, for piles which behave flexibly under lateral load, simple power
law relationships could be developed giving the lateral deflection, u, and the rotation, , of the pile
at the soil surface, in terms of the pile stiffness and the soil properties. The relationships are similar
in form to those arising from considering the soil as a Winkler material characterised by a
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
8
coefficient of subgrade reaction (e.g. Reese and Matlock, 1956; Matlock and Reese, 1960). As in
the latter type of analysis, the concept of a critical length of pile is used, this depth being the depth
to which the pile deforms appreciably. The term flexible is taken to refer to piles where the load
deformation characteristics would not be altered by increasing the length of the pile. Thus piles that
are longer than their critical length behave as flexible piles. The large majority of piles used in
practice fall into this category.
Since the solution is, by its nature, approximate, a further simplification has been introduced
concerning the soil properties - the shear modulus, G, and Poisson's ratio, . Randolph (1977)
showed that the effect of Poisson's ratio could be allowed for to sufficient accuracy by considering a
single elastic property given by
G
*
= G(1 + 3/4) (18)
The solution detailed below is in terms of the single parameter G
*
rather than the true elastic
parameters G and .
The critical length of the pile is determined as
( )
7 / 2
c p o c
G / E r 2 L =
(19)
where E
p
is the equivalent Young's modulus of the pile, given by
E
p
= (EI)
p
/(r
o
4
/4) (20)
(EI)
p
being the flexural rigidity of the pile. The quantity G
c
in equation (19) is the value of G
*
at a
depth of half the critical pile length. For a soil idealised as an elastic material, with a stiffness
varying linearly with depth as
G = G
o
+ mz (21)
the parameter G
c
is given by
G
c
= G
o
*
+ 0.5m
*
L
c
= (1 + 3/4)(G
o
+ 0.5mL
c
) (22)
The evaluation of the critical length from equations (19) and (22) requires some iteration except in
the extreme cases of a homogeneous soil (where G
c
= G
o
*
) or a soil where the modulus is
proportional to depth (G
o
*
= 0, then L
c
= 2r
o
(E
p
/m
*
r
o
)
2/9
).
For piles which are longer than their critical length, the lateral deflection, u, and rotation, , at the
soil surface may be evaluated as
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
9
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) (
(
=
(
(
=
3
c
c
2
c
c c
7 / 1
c p
2
c
c c c
7 / 1
c p
2 / L
M
80 . 0
2 / L
H
30 . 0
G
G / E
2 / L
M
30 . 0
2 / L
H
27 . 0
G
G / E
u
(23)
where H and M are, respectively, the lateral load and bending moment acting at the soil surface.
The factor
c
gives the degree of homogeneity for the soil in a similar manner to the factor in the
analysis of axially loaded piles. It is conveniently defined as the ratio of the value of G
*
at a depth
of L
c
/4 to the value of G
*
at a depth of L
c
/2 (see Figure 6). Thus
c
c
* *
o
c
* *
o
c
* *
o
c
G
4 / L m G
2 / L m G
4 / L m G +
=
+
+
= (24)
It should be noted that
c
varies from unity for a homogeneous soil down to 0.5 for a soil where the
stiffness is proportional to depth. In equations (23), the product
c
G
c
is merely the value of G
*
at a
depth of L
c
/4. Thus for piles of a given critical length (i.e. stiffness ratio, E
p
/G
c
), the deformation
under given loading conditions is inversely proportional to the soil stiffness at a depth of one
quarter of the active, or critical, length of pile.
Comparison of results calculated from equations (23) with existing solutions obtained by boundary
element analyses shows good agreement over a wide range of pile-soil stiffness ratios. Detailed
results from such comparisons have been reported by Randolph (1981a).
5.2 Interaction between laterally loaded piles
The complexity of the displacement field around a laterally loaded pile precludes a similar
treatment of the interaction between laterally loaded piles as was possible for axially loaded piles.
However, for piles that are loaded laterally with the pile head restrained against rotation (so-called
fixed head or socketed piles), Randolph (1981a) has shown that the interaction factors,
f
, may be
estimated to sufficient accuracy from the expression
f
= 0. 6
c
E
p
/ G
c ( )
1/ 7
1+ cos
2
( )
r
o
s
(25)
where s is the spacing between the axes of the piles and is the angle which the direction of
loading makes to a line passing through the pile axes (see Figure 7).
The same form of expression may be used for interaction of deflection between two free head piles
subjected to force loading (zero moment at the soil surface). In that case, it is found that the
coefficient 0.6 in equation (25) should be replaced by 0.4 to give a reasonable fit to factors
computed by Poulos program DEFPIG (Poulos, 1980). In addition, at very close spacings, the 1/s
variation of can lead to unrealistically high interaction factors. In order to avoid this, and to allow
to tend to unity as s tends to zero, the hyperbolic variation of is replaced by a parabolic variation
wherever is calculated to be greater than 1/3. To summarise, the interaction facto
uH
, giving the
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
10
increase in deflection for free head piles subjected to lateral load H, is calculated from
= 0. 4
c
E
p
/ G
c ( )
1/7
1 + cos
2
( )
r
o
s
(26)
where
uH
= for 0.333
and
uH
=1
2
27
for > 0.333
Randolph (1981a) has compared values of
uH
calculated from these expressions with values
obtained from Poulos' program DEFPIG.
The other interaction factors,
uM
(deflection due to moment loading),
H
(rotation due to force
loading) and
= (28)
while for lateral loading,
( )
4 / r
EI
E
4
o
p
p
= (29)
In order to allow for the possibility of a change in pile cross-section at ground level, different values
of Youngs modulus may be specified for the free-standing lengths of pile. For torsional loading,
the torsional rigidity of the pile is obtained from the bending rigidity, taking Poissons ratio for the
pile material as 0.3.
For non-circular piles, it is important that the diameter of the idealised pile is chosen realistically. It
is suggested that the cross-sectional area of the idealised pile should be chosen so as to equal the
gross (enclosed) area of the actual pile. For H section piles, the gross area should be taken as that
of the encompassing rectangle.
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
16
For lateral loading, there is a choice between whether the piles are to be assumed fixed into the pile
cap or pinned to the pile cap (zero moment at pile cap level).
Note that, as described in Section 5.1, the kernel solution for lateral loading in PIGLET is
only applicable to piles that are longer than (at least 80 % of) their critical length. A warning
message will appear at the top of the output spreadsheets if that condition is violated.
Soil Parameters
The value of Poissons ratio for the soil is assumed the same for all types of loading - axial, lateral
or torsional. Different profiles of shear modulus may be specified for axial and for lateral loading
(the profile for torsional loading is assumed the same as for axial loading). As discussed in
Section 2, the shear modulus profile is assumed to increase linearly with depth. The user specifies
the value at the ground surface (which must be non-negative) and the gradient with depth (also
non-negative). In addition, for vertical loading a sudden increase in modulus at the base of the pile
(for end-bearing piles) may be input. If this value is set to less than the value that would be
calculated from the linear variation of shear modulus, then the program corrects it to that value
(thus the program does not permit any decrease in the value of shear modulus at the pile base).
For irregular soil profiles, it is important that the linear variation of soil modulus with depth is
chosen so as to reflect the true average shear modulus over the depth of penetration of the piles, and
also the trend of variation of soil modulus with depth. Since piles deflect under lateral loading only
in the upper ten diameters or so, it is possible to specify different values of soil modulus for lateral
loading than for axial (and torsional) loading.
In many instances, piles are installed so that they finish at some depth above a significantly stiffer
stratum of soil. While such piles are not strictly 'end-bearing' piles, the stiffer stratum of soil will
reduce the overall settlement of the group. For a stratum with shear modulus G
h
, at a depth h
(greater than the pile length L) it is recommended that the value of shear modulus below the pile
bases, G
b
, is chosen by means of the expression (Lee, 1991)
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
=
=
L z
L / h 1
h
L z
h b
G
e 1
G
G
1
G
1
G
1
(30)
For values of h greater than 4L, the presence of the stiffer stratum of soil may be ignored.
For situations where no values of shear modulus are available for the soil, values of G must be
chosen by inspection of the available soil data. For cohesive soil, it is common practice to correlate
shear modulus with the shear strength s
u
. At working load levels, the axial deformation of piles
may be estimated reasonably well by taking shear modulus values in the range
200 G/s
u
400
Under lateral loading, the high strains which occur in the soil close to the pile give rise to lower
secant modulus. It is suggested that G should be chosen in the range
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
17
100 G/s
u
200
for the lateral load deformation behaviour of the pile group.
For non-cohesive soil, or where the only data available are results of standard penetration tests, it is
suggested that the simple (but conservative) guideline of G = N MPa be adopted (see Randolph,
1981b). A less conservative correlation has been proposed by Wroth et al (1979), who suggest
G/p
a
40N
0.77
(28)
where p
a
is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa). In general, the variation of shear modulus with depth
in sand (below the water table) may be expressed as G = mz, with m in the range 1 MPa/m (loose
virgin sand) up to 5 MPa/m (dense sand).
In soft rocks, the effects of pile installation must be allowed for. While the in situ modulus of soft
rocks such as chalk can be extremely high, installation of bored or driven piles tends to break up the
block structure of the rock. The relevant shear modulus is then that associated with large strains
(see Wakeling, 1970; Randolph and Wroth, 1978b).
Further guidance on the choice of shear modulus may be found in Wroth et al (1979). For pile
groups under predominantly vertical load, Mandolini and Viggiani (1999)
Load Cases
Up to 20 separate load cases may be specified for each analysis. Loading may be specified
explicitly (as forces and moments) or may be given as imposed deformations of the pile cap. The
pile cap is assumed rigid accept for the case of vertical loading only, when arbitrary loads or
deflections may be specified at the head of each pile.
The user is asked to specify a switch, for each load case, which identifies the loading type. For
vertical loading only (Scope = 1), the switch values are:
Loading type 1: loads applied to a rigid pile cap
Loading type 2: deflections imposed on rigid pile cap
Loading type 3: loads applied to individual piles (fully flexible pile cap)
Loading type 4: deflections imposed on individual piles (fully flexible pile cap).
For the case of a fully flexible pile cap (loading types 3 and 4), the individual pile loads or
deflections are specified for the corresponding load case in the Pile Group data block (see later).
For laterally loaded pile groups (Scope = 2 or 3), the corresponding switch values are:
Loading type 1: loads applied to a rigid pile cap
Loading type 2: deflections imposed on rigid pile cap
Loading type 3: vertical, horizontal and torsional loads applied to the rigid pile cap, but with zero
rotation of the cap permitted (so-called fixed-head condition); the fixing
moments to ensure zero rotation are calculated by the program.
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
18
These switches may be set to 1, -2 or 3 respectively, to indicate a non-linear analysis, with
limiting axial loads specified for each such load case in the Pile Group data block (see later).
Where a rigid pile cap is specified (or assumed for problems involving horizontal loading), the total
loads (or deflections) acting on the pile cap are specified, with all loads assumed to act at pile cap
level (z = 0), through the origin (x = y = 0). Horizontal loads are taken as positive in the direction
of the positive x and y axes, and moments are taken as positive in the sense of rotating the x axis
towards the z axis (for loading in the x:z plane) and rotating the y axis towards the z axis (for
loading in the y:z plane). This sign convention differs from the usual right-handed axis rule, as
indicated in Figure 13.
Pile Group Geometry
For each pile, values of shaft diameter, base diameter, embedded length and (x, y) co-ordinates
must be input. In addition, where lateral loading is involved, angles of rake must be specified in
radians, either in the x:z plane (where loading is restricted to one plane only), or in both x:z and y:z
planes.
The program assumes a right-handed set of coordinate axes (x, y, z), with the z axis pointing
vertically downwards. Angles of rake should be input in radians measured from the z axis, positive
values indicating a pile lying between the x and z (or y and z) axes. Figure 12 shows this sign
convention. The maximum angle of rake that is permitted is 1 radian.
Profiles of Bending Moment and Lateral Deflection
For analyses that involve lateral loading, profiles of bending moments and lateral deflection relative
to the immediately surrounding soil may be output for specified piles. A switch is specified for
each pile as to whether (a) no profiles (switch zero or blank), (b) profiles of bending moment only
(switch = 1), or (c) profiles of bending moment and lateral deflection (switch = 2), are required.
For three-dimensional loading, separate choices are given for the x:z plane and the y:z plane.
It should be emphasised that, since the free field soil deflections (due to interaction between piles)
are not included in the relative lateral deflection profile, the deflection output for the pile head will
not correspond with the total lateral deflection for the pile head (except for analyses with only one
pile in the group).
Pile Group Loads (Deflections) or Limiting Loads
For vertical loading through a fully flexible pile cap (Scope = 1, Loading Type = 2 or 4), the loads
or deflections applied to each pile are specified for the corresponding load case to the right of the
pile group geometry. For problems involving lateral loading (Scope = 2 or 3), and negative loading
types, the limiting axial loads for each pile are specified for the corresponding load case to the right
of the pile group geometry.
10 PROGRAM OUTPUT
Output from the program is provided on three separate worksheets, Outputparameters,
Loadcases and Summary. The first of these provides a brief summary of the problem to be
analysed and then key solutions parameters for the different deformation modes, followed by:
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
19
(1) Response of pile group to unit deformations of the pile cap, giving loads and moments at the
head of each pile, in local coordinates.
(2) Overall stiffness and flexibility matrices for the group.
The second output sheet (Loadcases) then gives the response of the pile group to the different load
cases specified by the user. This section includes loads and resulting deformations of the pile cap,
loads and moments at the head of each pile, and (optionally) profiles of bending moment and lateral
deflection down specified piles.
Finally, where more than a single load case is analysed, summary tables are included on the third
output worksheet (Summary), where the loads and deflections at the head of each pile are
summarised for each load case.
The sign convention for lateral loads and moments for each pile follows that for specifying the
applied loads, with lateral load being taken as positive in the direction of the positive x and y axes,
and moments taken as positive in the sense of rotating the x axis towards the z axis (for loading in
the x:z plane) and rotating the y axis towards the z axis (for loading in the y:z plane).
11 REFERENCES
1. Baguelin F., Bustamante M., Frank R. and Jezequel J.F. (1975). La capacite portante des
pieux. Annales de l'Institut Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Suppl. 330, Serie
SF116, pp 1-22.
2. Banerjee P.K. and Davies T.G. (1978). The behaviour of axially and laterally loaded piles
embedded in non-homogeneous soils. Gotechnique, 28(3), 309-326.
3. Banerjee P.K., Driscoll R.M.C. and Davies T. (1978). Program For The Analysis Of Pile
Groups Of Any Geometry Subjected To Horizontal And Vertical Loads And Moments,
Pgroup, (3.0). HECB/B/7, Department of Transport, HECB, London.
4. Butterfield R. and Douglas R.A. (1981). Flexibility coefficients for the design of piles and
pile groups. CIRIA Technical Note 108.
5. Cooke R.W. (1974). Settlement of friction pile foundations. Proc. Conf. on Tall Buildings,
Kuala Lumpur, 7-19.
6. Davisson M.T. and Salley J.R. (1970). Model study of laterally loaded piles. J. of Soil Mech.
and Found. Engg Div., ASCE, 96(SM5).
7. Fleming W.G.K., Weltman A.J., Randolph M.F. and Elson W.K. (1985). Piling Engineering.
Surrey University Press, Glasgow.
8. Frank R. (1974). Etude Theorique Du Comportement Des Pieux Sous Charge Verticale;
Introduction De La Dilatance. Dr-Eng. Thesis, University Paris VI (Pierre et Marie Curie
University).
9. Lee C.Y. (1991). Discrete layer analysis of axially loaded piles and pile groups. Computers
and Geotechnics, 11, 295-313.
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
20
10. Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1997). Settlement of piled foundations. Gotechnique, 47(4),
791-816.
11. Matlock H. and Reese L.C. (1960). Generalised solutions for laterally loaded piles. J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Engng Div., ASCE, 86(SM5).
12. Mylonakis, G. & Gazetas, G. (1998). Settlement and additional internal forces of grouped
piles in layered soil. Gotechnique, 48(1), 55-72.
13. O'Neill M.W., Ghazzaly O.I. and Ha H.B. (1977). Analysis of three-dimensional pile groups
with non-linear soil response and pile-soil pile interaction. Proc. 9
th
Offshore Technology
Conf., 2, 245-256.
14. Poulos H.G. (1971). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles, I - Single piles, II - Pile groups. J.
Soil Mech and Found. Engng Div., ASCE, 97(SM5).
15. Poulos H.G. (1973). Load-deflection prediction for laterally loaded piles. Australian
Geomechanics Journal, 3(1).
16. Poulos H.G. (1975). Torsional response of piles. J. Geot. Engng Div., ASCE, 101(GT10).
17. Poulos H.G. (1979). An approach for the analysis of offshore pile groups. Proc. Conf. on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, ICE, London, 119-126.
18. Poulos H.G. (1979). Settlement of single piles in non-homogeneous soil. J. Geot. Engng Div.,
ASCE, 105(GT5).
19. Poulos H.G. (1980). Users' Guide To Program DEFPIG - Deformation Analysis Of Pile
Groups. School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.
20. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
21. Poulos H.G. and Randolph M.F. (1983). Pile group analysis: a study of two methods. J. of
Geot. Eng., ASCE, 109(3), 355-372.
22. Randolph M.F. (1977). A Theoretical Study Of The Performance Of Piles. PhD Thesis,
University of Cambridge.
23. Randolph M.F. (1981). Analysis of the behaviour of piles subjected to torsion. J. of Geot.
Engng Div., ASCE, 107(GT8), 1095-1111.
24. Randolph M.F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Gotechnique, 31(2),
247-259.
25. Randolph, M.F. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation design: 43
rd
Rankine
Lecture, Gotechnique, 53 (in press).
26. Randolph M.F. and Wroth C.P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. J.
of the Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(GT12), 1465-1488.
27. Randolph M.F. and Wroth C.P. (1978). A simple approach to pile design and the analysis of
pile tests. Proc. Symp. on Behaviour of Deep Foundations, ASTM STP 470, 484-499.
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
21
28. Randolph M.F. and Wroth C.P. (1979). An analysis of the vertical deformation of pile groups.
Gotechnique, 29(4), 423-439.
29. Reese L.C. and Matlock H. (1956). Non-dimensional solutions for laterally loaded piles.
Proc. 8
th
Texas Conf. on Soil Mech.
30. Wakeling T.R.M. (1970). A comparison of the results of standard site investigation methods
against the results of a detailed geotechnical investigation in Middle Chalk at Mundford,
Norfolk. Proc. Conf. on In Situ Investigations in Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical
Society, London.
31. Wroth C.P., Randolph M.F., Houlsby G.T. and Fahey M. (1979). A review of the engineering
properties of soils with particular reference to the shear modulus. Cambridge University
Engineering Department Research Report, CUED/D - Soils TR 75.
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
22
FIGURE TITLES
Figure 1 Assumed variation of soil shear modulus with depth
Figure 2 Uncoupling of effects due to pile shaft and base
Figure 3 Load settlement ratios for compressible piles
Figure 4 Comparison of pile group and equivalent pier stiffnesses
Figure 5 Torsional stiffness factor for piles in homogeneous soil
Figure 6 Notation for analysis of laterally loaded piles
Figure 7 Plan view of two piles subjected to lateral loading
Figure 8 Choice of modes for interaction between pairs of non-parallel piles
Figure 9 Allowance for free-standing length of piles
Figure 10 Model pile test arrangement (Davisson and Salley, 1970)
Figure 11 Flow chart for PIGLET
Figure 12 Sign convention for pile rake
Figure 13 Sign convention for loading
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
23
Shear modulus, G
Depth, z
G
L
G
avg
= G
L L
Solid cylindrical pile
Radius: r
o
Equivalent modulus, E
p
L b
G G
Shear modulus, G
Depth, z
G
L
G
avg
= G
L L
Solid cylindrical pile
Radius: r
o
Equivalent modulus, E
p
L
Solid cylindrical pile
Radius: r
o
Equivalent modulus, E
p
L b
G G
Figure 1 Assumed variation of soil shear modulus with depth
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
24
Figure 2 Uncoupling of effects due to pile shaft and base
B
L
A B
A' B'
P
t
P
t
= P
s
+ P
b
A
P
b
P
s
Shaft response
Base response
B
L
A B
L
A B
A' B'
P
t
P
t
= P
s
+ P
b
A
P
b
P
s
Shaft response
Base response
A
P
b
P
s
Shaft response
Base response
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 10 100 1000
Pile slenderness ratio, L/r
o
= 10
30
100
300
3000
1000
t o L
t
w r G
P
(a) = 0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 10 100 1000
Pile slenderness ratio, L/r
o
= 10
30
100
300
3000
1000
t o L
t
w r G
P
(b) = 0.75
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 10 100 1000
Pile slenderness ratio, L/r
o
= 10
30
100
300
3000
1000
t o L
t
w r G
P
(c) = 1
Figure 3 Load settlement ratios for axially loaded piles
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
26
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L
Group
stiffness
K
g
/G
L
B
L/d = 25
E
p
/G
L
= 1000
= 0.75
= 0.3
s/d = 2
s/d = 3
s/d = 5
s/d = 10
Raft stiffness
(a) Normalised stiffness of pile groups
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.1 1 10
Normalised width of pile group, B/L
Group
stiffness
K
g
/G
L
B
Equivalent pier
(same area and
length as pile group)
Stiffness of
incompressible pier
80 % of stiffness of
incompressible pier
(b) Comparison of equivalent pier stiffness
Figure 4 Comparison of pile group and equivalent pier stiffnesses
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
27
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1E+06
= G
p
/G
t
3
o
t
Gr
T
L/r
o
= 200
1
00
5
0
25
10
Figure 5 Torsional stiffness factors for piles in homogeneous soil
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
28
Figure 6 Notation for analysis of laterally loaded pile
L
c Solid cylindrical pile
Radius: r
o
Equivalent modulus, E
p
Modified shear
modulus, G
*
Depth, z
G
c
G
z = L /4
=
c
G
c
L
c
/2
c
G
*
= G(1 + 3/4)
7 / 2
c
p
o
c
G
E
r 2
L
|
|
\
|
=
L
c Solid cylindrical pile
Radius: r
o
Equivalent modulus, E
p
Modified shear
modulus, G
*
Depth, z
G
c
G
z = L /4
=
c
G
c
L
c
/2
c
G
*
= G(1 + 3/4)
Modified shear
modulus, G
*
Depth, z
G
c
G
z = L /4
=
c
G
c
L
c
/2
c
G
*
= G(1 + 3/4)
7 / 2
c
p
o
c
G
E
r 2
L
|
|
\
|
=
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
29
Figure 7 Plan view of two piles subjected to lateral loading
s
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
30
(a) Interactive displacements of Pile B parallel to Pile A
Figure 8 Choice of modes for interaction between pairs of non-parallel piles
Pile A
Pile B
(a) Interactive displacements of Pile B axial and lateral
Pile A
Pile B
w
A
u
A
w
A
u
A
w
A
u
A
w
A
u
A
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
31
Figure 9 Allowance for free-standing length of piles
Pile cap
Piles
Level of
bearing strata
Depth of free-standing
section of piles
Penetration of piles into
bearing strata
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
32
Figure 10 Model pile test arrangement (Davisson and Salley, 1970)
3
1
fine, dry sand
0.222 kN
0.138 kN
piles 0.533 m
long
76 mm
127 mm
Plan View
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
33
Figure 11 Flow chart for PIGLET
VSTIF
Axial load-deformation
response of pile group
HSTIF
Lateral load-deformation
response (x:z plane)
HSTIF
Lateral load-deformation
response (y:z plane)
TSTIF
Torsional load-deformation
response of pile group
FORMGS
Form terms in overall group
stiffness matrix
GENLD
Flexibility and stiffness of
group; response to load cases
VERTLD
Flexibility and stiffness of
group, response to load cases
(vertical loading only)
INDATA
Read (new) data
NSCOPE
NSCOPE
Modify data?
Start
Stop
1
2, 3
2
3
No
Yes
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
34
x
y
y
z
z
x
Plan view
Elevation - x:z plane
Elevation - y:z plane
Negative
rake
Negative
rake
Positive
rake
Positive
rake
Figure 12 Sign convention for pile rake
MAY 2007 PIGLET MANUAL (Version 5.1) M.F. RANDOLPH
35
x
y
z
P
x
P
y
P
z
M
y
M
z
M
x
x
y
z
P
x
P
y
P
z
M
x to z
T
x to y
M
y to z
(a) Conventional right-hand notation (b) PIGLET notation
Figure 13 Sign convention for loading
Note: M
x to z
= -M
y