Methods of Calculating Lateral Resistance of Vertical Piles

A. Brinch Hansen's Method (1961): This method is based on earth pressur theory
Advantages
1. Applicable for c- soils
2. Applicable for layered system
Disadvantages
1. Applicable only for short piles
2. Requires trial-and-error solution to locate point of rotation
B. Broms' Method (1964a, b): This also is based on earth pressure theory, but
simplifying assumptions are made for distribution of ultimate so resistance along
the pile length.
Advantages
1. Applicable for short and long piles
2. Considers both purely cohesive and cohensionless soils
3. Considers both free-head and fixed-head piles that can be analyze separately
Disadvantages
1. It is not applicable to layered system
2. It does not consider c- soils

Methods of Calculating Acceptable Deflection at Working Load

A. Mod ulus of Subgrade Reaction Approach (Reese and Matlock, 1956): In this
method it is assumed that soil acts as a series of independen linearly elastic springs.
Advantages
1. It is relatively simple
2. It can incorporate factors such as nonlinearity, variation of subgrad reaction
with depth, and layered systems
3. It has been used in the practice for a long time
Disadvantages
1. It ignores continuity of the soil
2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is not a unique soil property but depend on the
foundation size and deflections.
B. Elastic Approach (Poulos, 1971a and b):
In this method, the soil is assumed as an ideal elastic continuum.
Advantages
1. It is based on a theoretically more realistic approach,
2. It can give solutions for varying modulus with depth and layere system.
Disadvantages

1. It is difficult to determine appropriate strains in a field problem and the corresponding

soil modulicorresponding soil moduli
2. It needs more field verification by applying theory to practical problems
Brinch Hansen's Method

Example
A 20-ft (6.0 m) long, 20-in. (500 mm)-diameter concrete pile is installed into sand that has = 30
and = 120lb/ft3 (1920 kg/m3 ). The modulu of elasticity of concrete is 5 x 105 kips/ft2 (24 x 106
kN/m 2 ). The pile is 15 ft (4.5 m) into the ground and 5 ft (1.5 m) above ground. The water table
is in the ground surface. Calculate the ultimate and the allowable lateral resistance using Brinch
Hansen's method.
Solution
SHORT RIGID PILE
A short rigid pile unrestrained at the top and having a length to width ratio of less than 10
to 12 (a) tends to rotate and passive resistance develops above the toe on the opposite face
to add to the resistance of the soil near the ground surface.
Eventually the rigid pile will fail by rotation when the passive resistance of the soil at the
head and toe are exceeded.
The short rigid pile restrained at the head by a cap or bracing will fail by translation in a
similar manner to an anchor block which fails to restrain the movement of a retaining wall
transmitted through a horizontal tied rod (Figure b).
LONG PILE
The passive resistance of the lower part of the pile is infinite, and thus rotation of the pile
cannot occur, the lower part remaining vertical while the upper part deforms to a shape
shown in Figure a.
Failure takes place when the pile fractures at the point of maximum bending moment, and
for the purpose of analysis a plastic hinge capable of transmitting shear is assumed to
develop at the point of fracture.
In the case of a long pile restrained at the head, high bending stresses develop at the point
of restraint, e.g. just beneath the pile cap, and the pile may fracture at this point (Figure b).
Brom's Method (1964b)
made certain simplifying assumptions regarding distribution of ultimate resistance with depth,
considered short rigid and long flexible piles separately, and also dealt with free-head and fixed
(restrained)-head cases separately.
Rotational and translational movements and corresponding ultimate soil resistances for
short piles under lateral loads
Figure 6.4. Deformation modes: (a) Free head, (b) fixedhead. Soil reactions and bending moment in
cohesioe soils: (c) Free head, (d) fixed-head. Soil reactions and bending moments in cohesionless soils: (e)
Free head, (f) fixed head. (After Broms, 1964a and b).
Figure 6.5 Rotational and translational movements and corresponding ultimate soil
resistances for long piles under lateral loads. Piles in cohesive soil: (a) Free-head, (b)
fixed-head (Ft). Piles in cohesionless soil: (c) Free-head, (d) fixed-head (Ft) (After Broms
1964a and b).

Example 6.2
A 10.75-inch (273 mm) outside diameter, 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) w thickness, 30 ft (9.1 m) long steel
pile (with free head) is driven into a mediu dense sand with standard penetration values ranging
between 20 to 28 blows/ft. = 30 and = 125lb/ft3. Calculate the ultimate failure lateral load at
the top of a free-head pile. Find the allowable lateral load and corresponding maximu bending
moment, assuming a factor of safety against the ultimate load as 2.5. Assume Young's modulus
for steel (E) = 29000 ksi (20 MN/m2), yield streng (fy) = 35 ksi (241 M Pa), and n = 30 kips/ft3.
Solution
short piles

Long Pile
Since we want to calculate allowable lateral load and corresponding maximum bending moment
Qall should be substituted in equation (6.20) and (6.21). The section is safe since the maximum
moment is less than the ultimate movement resistance of 37.1 kips-ft.