Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20
Behaviour of Fixed Head Single Pile in Cohesionless Soil under Lateral Loads V. S. Phanikanth

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.

Laterally loaded piles; Fixed head pile; Flexural response; Characteristic

length; Deflection coefficient; Moment coefficient.

KEYWORDS:

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 Terzaghi’s (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

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:

where

+ =0

Ep = Young’s 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

(1)

Palmer and Thompson (1948) employed the following form to express the modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction:

where

k x = k h (x/L) n

kh = value of kx at x=L (tip of pile)

n= a coefficient equal to or greater than zero.

(2)

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 un- drained conditions. For the value of n=1, the variation of kh with depth is expressed by the following relationship:

k h = ηh x

where η h is the constant modulus of subgrade reaction.

(3)

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 (= ηh 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’):

Shear = E I

d y

dx = H

Using Finite Difference Method at point 1: −y + 2 y − 2y + y = HL /(E I n )

and Rotation =dy/dx=0

Using Finite Difference Method at point 1:

−y + 2 y + y = 0

At the pile tip (at point ‘n+1’):

Shear = E I

d y

dx = 0

Using Finite Difference Method at point n+1:

−y + 2 y − 2y + y = 0

and

Moment = E I

d y

dx = 0

Using Finite Difference Method at point n+1:

−y + 2 y + y = 0

The equilibrium equations ΣV=0 and ΣM=0 will results in the following additional equations:

For load equilibrium

R

Taking moments about ‘1’ :

= H

and

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

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 Terzaghi’s (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 Terzaghi’s (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)

T=

for this case is given by

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.

H H
H
H
modes for long flexible pile are given in Fig. 2. H H Plastic hinge ( a

Plastic hinge

(a) Free headed pile

(b) Fixed headed pile

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

- 1247 -

H Plastic hinge
H
Plastic hinge

(a) Free headed pile

H Plastic hinge
H
Plastic hinge

(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.

accuracy may be achieved by assuming p-y curve to be linear. (i) (ii) Lateral deflection (y)

(i)

may be achieved by assuming p-y curve to be linear. (i) (ii) Lateral deflection (y) P

(ii)

Lateral deflection (y)

P
P

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

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M 1249

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1249

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M 1249 Figure 3b: Pressure versus deflection ( p-y ) relationship VERIFICATION

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 (ηh) = 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 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 Reese and Matlock (1956)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
6
Reese and Matlock (1956)
present study
8
10
L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
12
T=2.0043; k h =2600.0;
H=100.0 kN; M=-186.40 kNm
14
16
Distance from top x-(m)

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

Moment(kN-m)

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 0 2 Reese and Matlock (1956) present
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
0
2
Reese and Matlock (1956)
present study
4
6
8
L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; k h =2600.0;
H=100.0 kN; M=-186.40 kNm
10
12
14
16
Distance from top x-(m)

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 ratio’s. 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

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1251

The following input parameters are considered in the present analysis:

Length of the pile= 5.0m; Young’s modulus of the pile material = 2.74x107 kN/m 2 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 (ηh):

Loose sand =2600.0 kN/m 3 Medium sand=7700.0 kN/m 3 Dense sand=20000.0 kN/m 3

The constant subgrade moduli in submerged state for different soil types (ηh):

Loose sand =1500.0 kN/m 3 Medium sand=5200.0 kN/m 3 Dense sand=12500.0 kN/m 3

The relative stiffness factors [T = (EI/ηh)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 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 L=5.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07 kN/sq. m; H=100.0 kN 3 Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m 3.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
L=5.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07
kN/sq. m; H=100.0 kN
3
Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
3.5
Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m
Kh=20000 kN/cu. m
4
Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=5200.0 kN/cu. m
4.5
Kh=15200 kN/cu. m
5
-5
0
5
10
15
20
distance from top x-(m)

deflection-mm

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

0 0.5 1 Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m 1.5 Kh=20000 kN/cu. m Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m 2
0
0.5
1
Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m
1.5
Kh=20000 kN/cu. m
Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m
2
Kh=5200.0 kN/cu. m
Kh=15200 kN/cu. m
2.5
3
L=5.0m;r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07kN/sq.m;H=100.0 kN
3.5
4
4.5
5
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
distance from top x-(m)

Moment-kNm

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

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 1 2 3 Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m 4 Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m Kh=20000 kN/cu. m 5 Kh=1500.0
0
1
2
3
Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
4
Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m
Kh=20000 kN/cu. m
5
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=2.74e07kN/sq.m;
H=100.0 kN;
8
9
10
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
distance from top x-(m)

deflection-mm

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

- 1253 -

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

al.(2010)

 

Pile

Young's modulus of pile 'E' (kN/m 2 )

Moment of

Unit subgrade modulus η h

Relative Stiffness factor

Pile

Depth coefficient Z max = L/T

Soil

radius -

Inertia I

length-

condition

r (m)

4 )

(m

(kN/m 3 )

T: T=(EI/η h ) 0.2

L (m)

 

0.25

2.74E+07

3.068E-03

2.60E+03

2.004133

5.0

2.494844

Dry

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

Submerged

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

Dry

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

Submerged

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

Dry

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

Submerged

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

Dry

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

Submerged

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

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1255

0 1 2 Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m 3 Kh=20000 kN/cu. m Kh=15200 kN/cu. m
0
1
2
Kh=2600.0 kN/cu.m
Kh=7700.0 kN/cu. m
3
Kh=20000 kN/cu. m
Kh=15200 kN/cu. m
4
Kh=5200.0 kN/cu. m
Kh=1500.0 kN/cu.m
5
6
L=10.0m;r=0.25m;E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m;
H=100.0 kN;
7
8
9
10
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
distance from top x-(m)

Moment-kNm

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 young’s 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 ratio’s 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 modulus×1.0e03 kN/m 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 L=5.0 6 L=10.0 8 10 r=0.25;
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
4
L=5.0
6
L=10.0
8
10
r=0.25; E=2.74e07;
12
H=100.0;
14
16
18
20
Pile head deflection(mm)

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.Young’s 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 1257

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. M

1257

Deflection Coefficient(C y ) -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 1 2
Deflection Coefficient(C y )
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
1
2
present study
3
4
L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
5
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
6
T=2.0043; ks=2600.0
kN/m 3 ;
7
8
Depth Coefficient Z=(x/T)

Figure 8a: Validation of Deflection Coefficient (C y ) with Reese and Matlock (1956)

Deflection Coefficient(C m ) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 1 present study 2 3 L=15.0m;
Deflection Coefficient(C m )
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0
1
present study
2
3
L=15.0m; r=0.25m;
E=2.74e07 kN/sq.m
T=2.0043; ks=2600.0
kN/m 3 ;
4
5
6
7
8
Depth Coefficient
Z=(x/T)

Figure 8b: Validation of Moment Coefficient (C m ) 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 Young’s 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)]

 

Pile

Young's modulus of pile 'E' (kN/m 2 )

Moment of

Unit subgrade modulus η h

Relative Stiffness factor

Pile

Depth coefficient Z max = L/T

Soil

radius -

Inertia I

length-

condition

r (m)

4 )

(m

(kN/m 3 )

T: T=(EI/η h ) 0.2

L (m)

 

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

Dry

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

Dry

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

Dry

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.00E+04

3.21058

15

4.67205

   

1 2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.60E+03

6.07476

15

2.46923

 

1 2.74E+07

7.85E-01

7.70E+03

4.88907

15

3.06807

Dry

 

1 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

Dry

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

Dry

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

Dry

0.75

2.74E+07

2.49E-01

2.00E+04

3.21058

20

6.2294

 

1

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

2.60E+03

6.07476

20

3.29231

1

2.74E+07

7.85E-01

7.70E+03

4.88907

20

4.09076

Dry

1

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

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 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
0
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
L=15.0;
r=1.0;Kh=20000.0
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
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
distance from top x-(m)

deflection Coefficient (Cy)

Figure 9a: Deflection Coefficients (C y )

- 1259 -

0 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 L=15.0;
0
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
L=15.0;
E=2.74e07;
10
r=0.75;Kh=7700.0
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
0
0.2
0.4
distance from top x-(m)

Moment Coefficient (Cm)

Figure 9b: Moment Coefficients (C m )

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

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, 87–92.

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, 1466–1479.

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,

1480–1487.

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 of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731.

- 1261 -

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. Géotechnique, (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.

piles in Cohesion-less soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(1):78-83. © 2010 ejge

© 2010 ejge