- 813 -

Response of Single Pile under Lateral

Loads in Cohesionless Soils

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
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
*Corresponding author

G. Rami Reddy
Professor of Homi Bhabha National Institute, Scientific Officer H, Reactor
Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085,
India; rssred@barc.gov.in
ABSTRACT
Single piles and pile groups shall be designed for lateral loads due to earth pressure, earthquake or
wave force and wind forces. This requires estimation of ultimate loads based on which safe working
loads will be assessed and also estimation of pile deflections to ensure that serviceability aspects are
accounted for in design. The failure mechanisms and behavior of pile foundations depends on
characteristic length (T) of the pile and the various failure mechanisms were discussed. In the present
study, lateral load behavior of single piles in cohesionless soils is attempted, for a range of subgrade
moduli representing various soil types viz., loose sand, medium sand and dense sand. Both dry and
submerged conditions are considered. The analysis is carried out considering free headed pile and
floating tip at the base. The influence of soil type, effect of pile length and pile radius on the pile
response is observed and the results are presented. Also deflection and moment coefficients are
evaluated for a typical pile for various soil types and their results are presented. The modulus of
subgrade reaction approach using finite difference technique is used and the same is coded into
MATLAB for the above analysis. The results are also validated with available benchmark problems in
literature.
KEYWORDS: Modulus of subgrade reaction, Cohesionless soils, Fixed head piles, Free
headed piles
INTRODUCTION
Piles are frequently subjected to lateral forces and moments viz., i) quay and harbor structures in
which horizontal forces are generated due to the impact of ships during berthing and wave action, ii)
offshore structures subjected to wind and wave action, iii) tall structures like chimneys, transmission
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 814

towers subjected to wind loads and iv) in structures situated in earthquake prone areas. In the design of
such pile foundations, not only the ultimate loads shall be worked out to arrive at the safe loads but also
the deflections need to be worked out to ensure that serviceable limits are satisfied. The Ultimate lateral
resistance of rigid piles based on earth pressure theory was developed by Hansen (1961) and is applicable
for short piles. 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. Madhav et al. (1971) have employed
an elasto-plastic model for obtaining the response of laterally loaded piles. Broms (1964a, b) method is
also based on earth pressure theory with simplifying assumption for distribution of ultimate soil resistance
along the pile length and this method is applicable for both short piles and long piles. This 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). Jamilokowski and Garassino
(1977) provided a state-of-the-art discussion on soil modulus and ultimate soil resistance for laterally
loaded piles. Randolph (1981) studied the problem of flexible piles under lateral loading and proposed
algebraic expressions for pile head displacement and rotation. Karthigeyan et al. (2006) had investigated
the influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles. Yang and Jeremic (2002) carried out a finite
element study on the behaviour of a single pile in elastic-plastic soils for single as well as double layer for
both sand and clays and generated p-y curves. Zamri et al. (2009) have carried out the lateral load
behavior under combined vertical and lateral loads considering variation of different water table at
different elevations. Zhu and Chang (2002) presented a practical approach for the estimation of t-z

curves
along bored piles by considering the nonlinear elastic properties

and modulus degradation characteristics
of the soil and proposed a method for

evaluating the modulus degradation curve from the results of a

pressuremeter test. Comodromos (2003) has reported the response of a 52m long and 1m diameter pile
under pure lateral loads installed at a bridge site in Greece.
Analyzing piles under seismic loading is much more complex and involves soil structure interaction
and shall account for kinematic and inertial interactions which are obtained by performing ground
response analysis. Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying soil was proposed by Liyanapathirana
and Poulos (2005a). However this approach is very complex and difficult to implement for pile designers.
A pseudo-static approach was proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005b) which can be more
frequently used by the designers. In the present study behavior of piles under lateral loading is carried out
for various soil types. The subgrade modulus suggested by Terzhagi (1955) was used as input for
analyzing the pile response. Both dry and submerged soil conditions are considered in the analysis. The
pile length and radius are varied and their influence on the pile response is presented.

FAILURE MECHANISMS
Collapse of a laterally loaded pile foundation occurs when a failure mechanism forms in each pile
within a pile group. 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 head
condition are shown in Fig.1a and Fig. 1b. 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.1c and Fig. 1d.

- 815 -



a. Free headed pile-Short rigid pile b. Fixed head pile-Short rigid pile


c. Free headed pile-long flexible pile d. Fixed head pile-long flexible pile
Figure 1: Typical failure modes in short rigid piles and long flexible piles

LOAD DEFLECTION PREDICTION FOR LATERALLY LOADED PILES
The pile head may move horizontally over an appreciable distance before rotation or failure of the
pile occurs, to such an extent that the movement of the structure supported by pile or pile group exceeds
tolerable limits. Thus even though working load is obtained by dividing the estimated ultimate pile load
by a suitable safety factor, it is still necessary to determine the deflection of the pile and ensure that the
permissible deflection is not exceeded. The following methods are extensively employed in estimating the
pile deflections under later loads:
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 816

i) Modulus of subgrade reaction approach (Reese and Matlock, 1956) in which continuous nature of
the soil medium is ignored and the pile reaction at a point is simply related to the deflection at that point.
ii) The elastic approach (Poulos, 1971a and b) which assumes the soil to be an ideal elastic
continuum.
Modulus of subgrade reaction is relatively simple and has been used in practice for a long time. This
method can incorporate factors such as nonlinearity, variation of subgrade reaction with depth and also
can account for various soil layers.

Modulus of subgrade reaction approach
In this method, 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 (also
known as the subgrade reaction method),

p
d
4

dx
4
+
h
= u

(1)
Solutions to the above equations may be obtained analytically or numerically. Analytical solutions are
available only for uniform kh along pile depth. For over consolidated clays usually this assumption is
valid. However kh is assumed to be linearly varying with depth in case of cohesionless soils and normally
consolidated clays and hence in the present problem linear variation is assumed. 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 (node 1) is
assumed to be free headed and pile tip (node n) as floating tip and their boundary conditions are also
described. By applying central difference method at any point i' (Poulos and Davis, 1980):
E
p
I
p

y
+2
-4y
+1
+6y

-4y
-1
+y
-2
(Ax)
4
+ k
I
y
I
= u (2)
By rearranging,
y
I+2
4y
I+1
+ a
I
y
I
4y
I-1
+y
I-2
= u (3)
where
a
I
= 6.u +
k

L
4
E

n
4
(4)
n= number of elements along the pile. x= segment length=L/n and k
i
is modulus of subgrade
reaction k
h
at i. Equation 3 may be used for points 2 to n to give n-1 equations. The remaining
unknown may be obtained by using appropriate boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions for free headed and floating piles with free tip are as given below:
At the top of pile (Node 1):
Sheai = E
p
I
p
u
3
y
ux
3
= B
- 817 -

Using FDM at Node 1: y
-2
+ 2 y
-1
2y
2
+ y
3
= u
and Noment = E
p
I
p
d
2
y
dx
2
= N
Using FDM at Node 1: y
-1
+2 y
1
+y
2
= u

At the pile tip ( Node n+1):
Sheai = E
p
I
p
u
3
y
ux
3
= u
Using FDM at node n+1: y
n-1
+ 2 y
n
2y
n+2
+ y
n+3
= u
and
Noment = E
p
I
p
u
2
y
ux
2
= u
Using FDM at node n+1:y
n
+ 2 y
n+1
+y
n+2
= u

The subscripts -1, -2, n+1 and n+2 refer to fictitious nodes above and below pile top and pile
tip respectively. The equilibrium equations V=0 and M=0 will result in the following additional
equations:
For load equilibrium R
I
n
I=1
= B and
taking moments about 1 : R
I
(n i)h
n
I=1
= N

The pressure distribution is generally assumed to be stepped, linear or parabolic [Bowles, 1968] and
the soil reactions are obtained once the soil deflections are evaluated. In the present problem stepped
distribution was assumed and it is also verified that the pile response is not much affected by considering
other distributions like linear and parabolic type.
With the above set of equations matrix equations in the form of KX = F are established. A computer
program is written using MATLAB to compute the deflections (Vector X). The reactions then are
obtained based on stepped distribution assumption as described above. Bending moments are obtained by
using the computed reactions and applied loading at different locations.

VALIDATION OF THE METHOD
The coded finite difference method (FDM) Program using MATLAB, is validated using available
solutions in the literature. To begin with a laterally loaded pile of length 30.5 m applied with a horizontal
load of 2638 kN at the top of the pile is analyzed for bending moments and deflections. The top of the pile
is considered as 2.51m above ground level. The subgrade modulus is assumed to vary linearly with depth
as, kh = 1904.75z kN/m2.The moment of inertia is considered as 0.02089 m4 and modulus of elasticity is
Vol.

taken as 2
variation
into MAT
be seen th
The p
Length of
behavior
various pi
be free he
Figu
15 [2010]
2.07x108 kN/
of deflections
TLAB. These
hat the results
pile response
f the pile is v
are captured.
ile length to r
eaded and pile
ure 2a: Valid
, Bund. H
/m2. The resu
s and bending
results are c
are in good a
is observed b
varied from 5
. Also the pi
radius ratios.
e tip is consid
dation of Pile
ults obtained w
g moments al
ompared with
agreement wi
EFFECT O
by varying th
.0 m to 15.0
ile radius is v
. The pile rad
dered as floati
e deflection
with this inpu
long the depth
h that of solu
th that of solu
OF PILE LE
he length of t
m so that bo
varied to stu
dius is varied
ing for the pre

obtained fro




ut are plotted
h of the pile b
ution given by
utions availab
ENGTH
the pile and c
oth short pile
udy the pile r
from 0.25m t
esent analysis
om present s
in Fig. 2a an
based on FDM
y Bowles (19
ble in literatur
considering d
behavior and
response for
to 1.0m.Pile h
s.
tudy with Bo
nd Fig. 2b sho
M technique c
968). Clearly
re.
different pile
d long flexibl
lateral loadin
head is assum

owles (1968

818
owing
coded
it can
radii.
le pile
ng for
med to
8)
- 819 -

Figure 2b: Validation of bending moment obtained from present study with Bowles (1968)

Youngs modulus of the pile material is considered as 2.74x107 kN/m2 in the present study which
corresponds to M30 grade concrete and pile radius is considered as 0.25 m. A horizontal load of 100.0 kN
is applied at the top of the pile. The pile top is assumed to be 1.0 m above ground level and hence an
equivalent moment of 100.0 kN.m is considered in the analysis. The subgrade reactions are considered as
per the inputs provided in Table 1. All the input parameters considered are presented in Fig. 2.1a.

Table 1: Range of subgrade moduli,
h
considered for the present study as per Terzaghi (1955)

h
(kN/m
3
)
Dry soil
Submerged soil
Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand Loose sand Medium sand Dense sand
2600.0 7700.0 20000.0 1500.0 5200.0 12500.0

Table 2.1a: Input data for the present study
Soil type Pile
radius
(r) -m
Young's
modulus of
pile(E
p
)
kN/m
2

Moment of
Inertia (I
p
)
m
4

Unit
subgrade
modulus
(
h
) kN/m
3

Characteristic
length (T)
T=(EI/
h
)
0.2

Pile length
(L) m
Depth
coeffi-cient
Z
max
= L/T
Dry 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.6010
3
2.004133 5.0 2.494844
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
7.7010
3
1.612958 5.0 3.099895
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.0010
3
1.332647 5.0 3.751931
Submerged 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.5010
3
2.23719 5.0 2.234947
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
5.2010
3
1.744699 5.0 2.865824
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.2510
4
1.463994 5.0 3.415315
Dry 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.6010
3
2.004133 10.0 4.989689
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
7.7010
3
1.612958 10.0 6.199789
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.0010
4
1.332647 10.0 7.503863
Submerged 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.5010
3
2.23719 10.0 4.469893
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
5.2010
3
1.744699 10.0 5.731648
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.2510
4
1.463994 10.0 6.830629
Dry 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.6010
3
2.004133 15.0 7.484533
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
7.7010
3
1.612958 15.0 9.299684
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
2.0010
4
1.332647 15.0 11.25579
Submerged 0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.5010
3
2.23719 15.0 6.70484
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
5.2010
3
1.744699 15.0 8.597472
0.25 2.7410
7
3.06810
-3
1.2510
4
1.463994 15.0 10.24594

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 820

The relative stiffness factors for these soil types [T = (EI/h)0.20] are 2.004 (loose sand, dry), 1.61
(medium sand, dry), 1.33 (dense sand, dry) and non-dimensional depth coefficient Zmax varies from 2.49,
3.09 and 3.75 for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand respectively. 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 anaysed and the results are presented in Fig.3a for pile deflections. It is observed the pile tends to
behave as rigid pile under loose sand showing rigid body rotation. However under medium and dense
sand condition the flexible type behavior was observed. Lateral pile load analysis based on subgrade
reaction approach by Reese and Matlock (1956) theory predicts short rigid pile behavior for Zmax <=2.0.
Thus the results are in agreement with Reese and Matlock (1956). Also it can be observed that when the
soil stiffness increases the pile deflections are reduced. The pile response is also evaluated considering
submerged soil condition and the pile deflections are also presented in Fig.3a. It was observed that the
pile undergoes higher deflections under submerged condition compared to dry state.
The variation of bending moment is also obtained for various soil types considering both dry and
submerged condition and the results are presented in Fig. 3b. It is again observed that the bending
moments, are also influenced by soil type. When the pile length is increased to 10.0m, it can be seen from
Table 2.1a that Z
max
varies from 5.0 to 7.5 and hence the piles no more behaves as rigid. The same is
observed from the analysis results and the pile deflections are presented in Fig.4a for various soil types
under both dry and submerged condition. Also it can be seen from this figure that the stiffness of the
surrounding soil has significant influence on the pile response. Fig.4b shows the bending moment
variation along depth of pile for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand under both dry as well as under
submerged condition.

Figure 3a: Pile deflection along depth (L = 5.0m; r = 0.25m)


-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
deflection-mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
Loose sand(dry); Loose sand(submerged)
Medium sand(dry); Medium sand(submerged)
Dense sand(dry); Dense sand(submerged)
L=5.0; r=0.25; fck=30.0;
H=100.0; M=100.0;
- 821 -



Figure 3b: Variation of bending moment along depth (L = 5.0m; r = 0.25m)


Figure 4a: Pile deflection along depth (L = 10.0m; r = 0.25m)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Moment-kNm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
Loose sand,Dry; Loose sand,submerged
Medium sand,dry; Medium sand,submerged
Dense sand,dry; Dense sand,submerged
L=5.0; r=0.25; fck=30.0;
H=100.0; M=100.0;
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
deflection-mm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
Loose Sand,dry; Loose Sand,submerged
Medium sand,dry; Medium Sand,submerged
Dense Sand,dry; Dense Sand,submerged
L=10.0; r=0.25; fck=30.0;
H=100.0; M=100.0;
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 822


Figure 4b: Variation of bending moment along depth (L = 10.0m; r = 0.25m)

The analysis is also performed for pile length of 15.0 m for both dry and submerged conditions and it
is observed that the pile response is not affected by increase in length anymore which is consistent with
Reese and Matlock (1956). Reese and Matlock (1956) theory also shows that the pile response is not
affected in the case of flexible piles where non-dimensional depth coefficient Zmax > 5.0.

INFLUENCE OF SOIL TYPE ON PILE RESPONSE

In the present study, response of single piles in cohesionless soils is evaluated for a given horizontal
load and moment. The subgrade modulus for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand based on Tezaghi
(1955) are considered both in dry condition as well as in submerged condition for the present analysis.
These are presented in Table 1.Youngs modulus is considered as 2.74x107 kN/m2 and the pile radius is
taken as 0.25m. The pile response is observed for various pile length to radius ratios and the results are
presented in Fig. 5. 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 58% under
submerged condition. The increase in medium sand and dense sand in submerged condition was about
30% and 27% 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 33%, 22% and 25% respectively for
loose sand, medium sand and dense sand.
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Moment-kNm
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
Loose Sand,dry; Loose Sand,submerged
Medium Sand,dry; Medoum Sand,submerged
Dense Sand,dry; Dense Sand,submerged
L=10.0; r=0.25; fck=30.0;
H=100.0; M=100.0;

The p
for short r
dry condi
loose sand
1.79 time
submerge
Also
higher len
observed
the fact t
beyond 10

Befor
the presen
considere
kN/m2.Co
was appli
By are ob
can be se
Am and B
(1956).Th
with the s

pile response
rigid pile resp
ition, where a
d compared t
es from the
ed condition fo
it can be see
ngth piles. Th
that pile resp
that, the dept
0.0 m length.
re generating
nt study wit
d as 15.0m
onsidering de
ed at the pile
btained and c
en from these
Bm are evalua
he results are
solutions from
Figure 5:
is observed u
ponse is incre
as in submer
to dense sand
dense state c
for loose sand
n that the de
his is due to
ponse is not af
th coefficient

DEFLECT
these coeffic
th the coeffic
m with pile
ense sand the
head to obtai
ompared with
e figures that
ated in the pre
presented in F
m the literature
Effect of so
under dry con
eased by abou
rged conditio
d. For flexibl
considering d
ds with respec
flections are
short rigid be
ffected by inc
t Zmax (= L
TION AND
cients validati
cients propos
radius as
non-dimensi
in these coeff
h Reese and
t good agreem
esent study an
Fig.6b. Again
e.
- 823 -
oil type on pi
ndition for 5m
ut 2.69 times
n the pile re
le piles the re
dry state and
ct to dense san
higher in cas
ehaviour of t
creasing the l
/T) exceeds
MOMENT

ion is perform
sed by Rees
0.25m.Young
ional factor Z
ficients. With
Matlock (195
ment in result
nd the results
n excellent m
ile head defl
m and 10m pi
in loose sand
sponse is am
esponse in lo
d the amplifi
nds.
se of 5 m pil
the pile result
ength of the p
5.0 and henc
COEFFICI
med from the
e and Matlo
gs modulus
Zmax works o
h this input the
56) solutions
ts was observ
again are com
matching was o
lection
ile lengths. It
d compared to
mplified by ab
oose sand is a
fication is ab
le length com
ting in pile ro
pile beyond 1
ce the pile b
ENTS
e analysis resu
ock (1956). T
s is conside
out to 11.25.
e deflection c
and are pres
ved. Also m
mpared with R
observed from

was observe
o dense sand
bout 3.57 tim
amplified by
out 1.97 tim
mpared to 10m
otations. Also
10m. This is d
ehaves as fle
ults obtained
The pile leng
ered as 2.74
Unit load/mo
coefficients A
sented in Fig.
moment coeffi
Reese and Ma
m the present
d that
under
mes in
about
mes in
m and
o it is
due to
exible
d from
gth is
4x107
oment
Ay and
.6a. It
cients
atlock
study
Vol.

Figur
Figu
The d
pile radii.
considerin
evaluated
is conside
15 [2010]
re 6a: Valid
ure 6b: Valid
deflection and
. The solution
ng dry state. U
which are ve
ered as 15.0 m
, Bund. H
dation of defl
dation of mo
d moment co
n is obtained
Using these c
ery useful for
m. The radius
flection coeff
oment coeffi
oefficients hav
for various s
coefficients pi
r the designer
s of the pile i
ficients A
y
an
cients A
m
an
ve been evalu
soil types viz
ile responses
rs. For genera
is varied from
nd B
y
with R
nd B
m
with R
uated for a ty
z., loose sand
i.e., deflectio
ating these co
m 0.25 m to 1
Reese and M
Reese and Ma
ypical pile le
d, medium san
on, and bendi
efficients, the
1.0 m. The Y
atlock (1956
atlock (1956
ength, for dif
nd and dense
ing moment c
e length of th
Youngs modu
824

6)

6)
fferent
e sand
can be
he pile
ulus is
- 825 -

considered as 2.74x107 kN/m2. Unit load/moment was applied at the pile head to obtain the deflection
coefficients Ay & By and moment coefficients Am & Bm. The input data considered in this analysis is
shown in Table 2.1b.

Table 2.1b: Input data for computing deflection and moment coefficients
Soil
type
Pile
radius
(r) m
Young's
modulus of
pile (E
p
)
kN/m
2

Moment of
Inertia (I
p
)
m
4

Unit subgrade
modulus(
h
)
kN/m
3

Characteristic
length (T)
T=(EI/
h
)
0.2

Pile
length(L)
m
Depth
coefficient
Z
max
= L/T
Dry
0.25 2.7410
7
3.0710
3
2.6010
3
2.00439 15 7.48356
0.25 2.7410
7
3.0710
3
7.7010
3
1.61317 15 9.29847
0.25 2.7410
7
3.0710
3
2.0010
4
1.33282 15 11.2543
Dry
0.50 2.7410
7
4.9110
2
2.6010
3
3.48957 15 4.29853
0.50 2.7410
7
4.9110
2
7.7010
3
2.80846 15 5.34101
0.50 2.7410
7
4.9110
2
2.0010
4
2.32039 15 6.46444
Dry
0.75 2.7410
7
2.4910
1
2.6010
3
4.82831 15 3.10668
0.75 2.7410
7
2.4910
1
7.7010
3
3.8859 15 3.86011
0.75 2.7410
7
2.4910
1
2.0010
4
3.21058 15 4.67205
Dry
1.00 2.7410
7
7.8510
1
2.6010
3
6.07476 15 2.46923
1.00 2.7410
7
7.8510
1
7.7010
3
4.88907 15 3.06807
1.00 2.7410
7
7.8510
1
2.0010
4
4.03941 15 3.71341


Fig.7a shows the deflection coefficients Ay for various soil types. Coefficients have been derived for
pile radii of 0.25m, 0.50m, 0.75m and 1.0m respectively. Fig 7b shows deflection coefficient By for
various pile radii. Again bending moment coefficients Am and Bm are generated for this pile geometry
and the results are presented in Fig. 7c and Fig. 7d respectively.
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 826


Figure 7a: Deflection coefficient (A
y
) for various soil types (L=15.0m, E=2.74x10
7
kN/m
2
)

Figure 7b: Deflection coefficient (B
y
) for various soil types (L=15.0m, E=2.74x10
7
kN/m
2
)
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0
5
10
15
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
deflection coefficient (Ay)
r=0.25; Loose sand
r=0.50; Loose sand
r=0.75; Loose sand
r=1.00; Loose sand
Medium sand
Dense sand
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
5
10
15
deflection coefficient(By)
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
r=0.25; Loose sand
r=0.50; Loose sand
r=0.75; Loose sand
r=1.00; Loose sand
Medium sand
Dense sand
- 827 -


Figure 7c: Moment coefficient (A
m
) for various soil types ( L=15.0m, E=2.74x10
7
kN/m
2
)

Figure 7d: Moment coefficient (B
m
) for various soil types (L=15.0m, E=2.74x10
7
kN/m
2
)

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
5
10
15
moment coefficient(Am)
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
r=0.25;Loose sand
r=0.50;Loose sand
r=0.75;Loose sand
r=1.00;Loose sand
Medium sand
Dense sand
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
5
10
15
moment coefficient(Bm)
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
o
p

x
-
(
m
)
r=0.25;Loose sand
r=0.50;Loose sand
r=0.75;Loose sand
r=1.00;Loose sand
Medium sand
Dense sand
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 828

Once the coefficients are known, the deflections and bending moments can be evaluate by using the
following expressions (Reese and Matlock, 1956).
yx =yA+yB =Ay (HT3/EPIP)+ By ( MT2/ EPIP)
Mx =MA+MB =Am HT+ Bm M
Where T =Characteristic length of pile=_
E
I

q
h
S

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).

CONCLUSIONS
The lateral load analysis results of single piles in cohesionless soils for range of soils is presented.
Both dry condition and submerged conditions are accounted. Deflection and bending moment coefficients
are evaluated for pile lengths for a typical pile for loose sand, medium sand and dense sand for various
pile radii. The effect of pile length, pile radius, type of soil under both dry and submerged condition, on
the deflections and bending moments was discussed. The study captures both the short pile and long pile
behaviour.
For short rigid piles, about 58% 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 27% respectively. However for flexible piles, the
pile deflections under submerged conditions are increased by 33%, 22% and 25% 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 2.69 times in loose sand compared to dense sand under dry condition,
where as in submerged condition the pile response is amplified by about 3.57 times in loose sand
compared to dense sand for short rigid piles. For flexible piles the response in loose sand is amplified by
about 1.79 times from the dense state considering dry state and the amplification is about 1.97 times in
submerged condition for loose sands with respect to dense sands.
REFERENCES
1. Bowles, J. E. (1968). Foundation Analysis and Design. 2
nd
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
2. Broms, B. (1964a). The Lateral Resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SM2), 27-63.
3. Broms, B. (1964b). The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SM3), 123-56.
- 829 -

4. Comodromos, E. M. (2003). Response prediction for horizontally loaded pile groups. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, 123-133.
5. Das, B.M. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering, 5
th
Edition, 2
nd
reprint.
6. Davisson, M.T., and Gill H.L. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil system, Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, ASCE, 89(3), pp 63-94.
7. Hansen, J.B. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces. Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin no.12, Copenhagen, pp. 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 (1946).
9. Jamiolkowski, M., and Garassino, A. (1977). Soil modulus for laterally loaded piles. Proc., 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, V(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 Mech. & Foundation Division, ASCE, 86, 63-91.
16. Poulos, H. G. (1971a). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles I- Single piles. Journal of Soil
Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731.
17. Poulos, H. G. (1971b). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles II- Pile groups. Journal of Soil
Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 733-751.
18. Poulos H.G and Davis E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
19. Randolph M.F. (1981). The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading, Geotechnique, 31(2),
247-259.
20. 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, pp.1-41.
21. Terzaghi, K. (1955) Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Gotechnique, 4: 297-326.
Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 830

22. Yang, Z., and Jeremic, B. (2002) Numerical analysis of pile behaviour under lateral loads in
layered elastic-plastic soils, Intl J Num Anal Meth Geomech, 26, 13851406.
23. Zamri, H.C., Jasim, M.A., Mohd, R.T., and Qassun S.M. (2009). Lateral behavior of single pile
in cohesionless soil subjected to both vertical and horizontal loads. European Journal of Scientific
Research, 29(2), 194-205.
24. Zhu, H., and Chang, M. F. (2002). Load transfer curves along bored piles considering modulus
degradation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(9), 764-
774.
2010 ejge