th

The 12 International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

An Analytical Approach to Lateral Capacity of Rigid Pile in Layered

Soil Using Kinematics and Hyperbolic Model

V. Padmavathi, M. R. Madhav, E. Saibaba Reddy

Geotechnical Engineering, J. N. T. U. College of Engineering, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Keywords: Layered, Kinematics, Hyperbolic, Lateral, Pile

ABSTRACT: In this paper, an approach based on kinematics and non-linear subgrade (hyperbolic) response
has been developed to study the load-displacement response of a single rigid free-head pile in layered sands.
The analysis carried out in non-dimensional terms, allows general qualitative conclusions to be drawn from the
results. A soil system consisting of any number of layers may be analysed with this technique, but results for only
a two layer system are presented in this paper.

1 Introduction
The lateral load capacity of a pile is important for the design of the superstructures. The ultimate lateral capacity
of a rigid pile depends on the ultimate resistance offered by the surrounding soil, the pile flexibility, pile head and
tip conditions, etc. Several methods are currently available for the prediction of the ultimate lateral capacity of
single pile in cohesionless soils. (Matlock and Reese, 1960, Broms, 1964, Reese et al., 1974, Poulos and Davis,
1980, Meyerhof et al., 1981, Meyerhof and Sastry, 1985, Prakash and Kumar, 1996, Prasad and Chari, 1999,
Patra and Pise, 2001, Shen and Teh, 2004, Zhang et al., 2005, Padmavathi et al., 2007). Except for the last, all
the above studies consider only the fully plastic state of the soil with no consideration of the kinematics of pile
movement. Therefore, the predictions based on most of these methods result not only in different ultimate
capacities, but also differ from the actual values, because the ultimate capacity of a laterally loaded pile is
dependent on the kinematics and the non-linear response of the soil.

Information about the lateral behaviour of piles in layered soil profiles is very limited. Poulos (1985) gave
dimensionless solutions for ultimate lateral capacity of a pile in two layered cohesive soil profile. Davisson & Gill
(1963), Lee and Karunaratne (1987), Reese et al. (1981), Georgiadis (1983), Lam and Law (1996), Yang et al.
(2005) presented work on laterally loaded piles in layered soils.

The prediction of the ultimate lateral load capacity of a single rigid free-head pile in a two layer cohesionless soil
system based on kinematics and non-linear subgrade reaction is presented in this paper. The analysis can easily
be extended to multi-layered systems. The analysis quantifies the effect of stiffening of the surficial or upper soil
deposit has, in reducing lateral deflections of a laterally loaded pile.

2 Statement of the Problem

A rigid pile of embedded length, L, and diameter, d, is acted upon (Fig. 1(a)) by a lateral force, H, at an
eccentricity, e, creating a moment, M (= H.e) at ground level. The pile is embedded in a two layered soil system.
The depths of upper and lower layers are L1 and L2 respectively. Modulus of subgrade reactions, ks1 and ks2, unit
weight of the soils, γ1 and γ2, angle of internal friction of the soils, φ1 and φ2 are respectively the properties of the
two layers.

The pile is unrestrained and rotates through an angle, θ, about a point ‘O’ at depth, z0, from the ground surface.
For rigid pile failure, two situations may arise, the point of rotation may lie (i) in the lower layer, i.e. z0 > L1 (Fig.
1(b)) or (ii) in the upper layer, i.e. z0 < L1 (Fig. 1(c)). In both the cases the displacements vary linearly with the
depth. The lateral response of the soil on to the pile is represented by a non-linear Winkler type response with

3086
 ρ
H ρ
e θ
GL
GL GL
θ
L1 ks1, γ1, φ1 L1 L1
Upper Layer z0 z0
z O z

ks2, γ2, φ2 O
L2 Lower Layer

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Problem Definition and Kinematics (a) Definition Sketch ; (b) z0 > L1 (c) z0 < L1

modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, and ultimate lateral soil pressure, qmax. The lateral stress, q, is related (Fig. 2)
to the lateral displacement by the hyperbolic relation

q = ks ρz /(1+ ks ρz / qmax) (1)

where ρz = (z0 –z) tanθ is the displacement of the pile at depth, z, from ground surface. Both the moduli of
subgrade reactions, ks1 and ks2, (Fig. 3a) and the ultimate lateral soil pressures, qmax1 and qmax2 (Fig. 3b) for the
upper and lower layers respectively are assumed to increase linearly with depth, z, and the variations are given in
Eqs. (2) through (5)

k s1 = αk1.z/L (2)

qmax1 = αq1.z/L (3)

ks2 = αk2.z/L (4)
qmax2 = αq2.z/L (5)

where αk1 & αk2 are the rates of increase respectively of the modulus of subgrade reaction, and αq1 & αq2 - the
rates of increase respectively of the maximum lateral soil pressure with depth, z, for layers 1 and 2.

ks qmax
Lateral Stress, q

αk αq
z z
ks qmax

Lateral Displacement, ρ (a) (b)

Figure 3. variation of parameters with depth, z
Figure 2. Non-Linear Hyperbolic Response (a) subgrade modulus, ks (b) Ultimate Lateral
of the Soil Resistance, qmax

3087
3 Formulation

3.1 Case 1
When the point of rotation lies (Fig. 1(b)) in the lower layer (z0 > L1), for equilibrium, the applied lateral force, H, is
equated to the total lateral response from the soil on to the pile as
+ -
H=Q +Q (6)
z0
+ -
where Q and Q are the total soil responses above and below the point of rotation and equal to ∫ qt d.dz and
0
L
∫ qb d.dz respectively, where qt and qb are the lateral stresses above and below the point of rotation respectively.
z0
L1 z0 L
k s1 ρ z d k s2 ρ z d k s2 ρ z d
H = ∫ k ρ
dz + ∫ k s2 ρ z
dz − ∫ k ρ
dz (7)
0 1 + s1 z L1 1 + z0
1 + s2 z
q max1 q max2 q max2
where ρz = (z0 − z)tanθ and ρz = (z − z0 )tanθ are displacements above and below the point of rotation at depth z.
Substituting Eqs. (2) through (5) in Eq. (7), one obtains

L1 z0 L
( α k1 z/L) ρ z d ( α k2 z/L) ρ z d ( α k2 z/L) ρ z d
H = ∫ ( α k1 z/L) ρ z
dz + ∫ ( α k2 z/L) ρ z
dz − ∫ ( α k2 z/L) ρ z
dz (8)
0 1+ L1 1+ z0 1+
α q1 z/L α q2 z/L α q2 z/L

Substituting ρz = (z0 − z)tanθ and ρz = (z − z0 )tanθ in equation (8) and normalizing

H Lr
z ( z 0 − z )tan θ z0 α z ( z 0 − z )tan θ 1 α z ( z − z 0 )tan θ (9)
H* = = ∫ d z + ∫ kr d z − ∫ kr dz
0 1 + μ 1 ( z 0 − z )tan θ L r 1 + μ 2 ( z 0 − z )tan θ z 0 1 + μ 2 ( z − z 0 )tan θ
2
α k1 dL

where z = z/L - the normalized depth, , z 0 = z 0 /L - normalized depth of point of rotation, Lr = L1/L – normalised
thickness of upper layer and normalized load,

H* = H α k1dL2 (10)

The parameters μ and μ2, are defined as

μ1 = k s1L qmax1 = αk1L αq1 (11)

μ 2 = k s2L q max2 = α k2 L α q2 (12)

And
αkr = αk2/ αk1 (13)

Taking moments about the point of application of the load, the normalized form of the moment relation becomes

2 2 2
M He Lr
z (z0 − z)tanθ z 0 α z ( z − z)tanθ
0
1 α z ( z − z )tanθ
0
(14)
M* = = = −∫ dz + ∫ kr dz + ∫ kr dz
0 1 + μ1( z0 − z)tanθ L r 1 + μ2 ( z0 − z)tanθ z 0 1 + μ2 ( z − z0 )tanθ
3 3
αk1dL αk1dL

3.2 Case 2
For, the point of rotation lying in the upper layer (case 2), z0 < L1, as shown in Fig. 1(c), the force equilibrium
equation is

z0
k s1 ρ z d Lr
k s1 ρ z d L k s2 ρ z d (15)
H = ∫ dz − ∫ dz − ∫ dz
k ρ k ρ k ρ
0
1 + s1 z z0
1 + s1 z
Lr
1 + s2 z
q max1 q max1 q max2

Substituting Eqs. (2) through (5) in Eq. (15) and normalizing

3088
 H z0 z( z 0 − z )tanθ Lr
z( z − z 0 )tanθ 1 α z( z − z 0 )tanθ
H* = = ∫ dz − ∫ dz − ∫ kr dz (16)
0 1 + μ1 ( z 0 − z )tanθ z 0 1 + μ 1 ( z − z 0 )tanθ L r 1 + μ 2 ( z − z 0 )tanθ
2
α k1dL

The normalized parameters are the same as for case 1. The normalised moment equilibrium equation is

2 2 2
1 α z ( z − z 0 )tan θ
M He z0
z ( z 0 − z )tan θ Lr
z ( z − z 0 )tan θ (17)
M* = = =−∫ dz + ∫ d z + ∫ kr dz
0 1 + μ 1 ( z 0 − z )tan θ z 0 1 + μ 1 ( z − z 0 )tan θ L r 1 + μ 2 ( z − z 0 )tan θ
3 3
α k1 dL α k1 dL

Ideally, the depth of rotation, z0, and the rotation, θ, are to be estimated for given lateral force, H, and moment, M.
But, it would be an iterative process and very tedious. Alternately, for given values of μ1, μ2, αkr and θ, z 0 and
H* can be obtained by solving Eqs. (9) and (14) for case 1 and Eq. (16) and (17) for case 2. Knowing z 0 and θ,
the normalized deflection at ground level, ρ* = z0 tanθ , is calculated corresponding to the normalized applied load,
H* .

4 Estimation of μ values
The parameter, αk1 is nh1 (L/d) and nh1 of Reese and Matlock (1956) obtained from the slope of the experimental
load-displacement curve of a rigid pile solely in layer 1, as nh1 = 18H(1+1.33.e/L)/ρL2. The maximum lateral
2
pressure of the upper soil, qmax1= αq1 .z/L is 0.8K p1 γ 1 z (Zhang et al., 2005). The parameter, μ, is then evaluated
as given in Eq. (11) with the evaluated values of αk1 and αq1. A similar procedure is applied for a pile solely in the
lower layer. In absence of experimental load-displacement curves, nh values for different types of soils given in
Table.1 are utilised.

TABLE 1: Values of nh (MN/m3) for Sand (after Terzaghi. 1955)

Relative Density Loose Medium Dense

nh dry or moist sand 2.1 6.3 16.8
nh submerged sand 0.9 4.2 10.2

5 Results
The variations of normalized load, H*, with normalized displacement at ground level, ρ*, are evaluated based

-0.09 -0.06 -0.03 q 0 0.03 0.06

0
0.008
Lr=0

0.
*

0.
H

z/L

0.004 0.

0.
0.7 0.7
0.8
0.85
1 0. 0.8

0 0.85
0 0.04 0.08 0.
1
ρ∗
* Figure 5. Variations of Normalised pressures along
Figure 4. Normalized Load, H vs Normalized
*
Displacement, ρ at Ground Level for μ1 = 50, μ2 the length of the pile, for μ1 = 50, μ2 = 50 and
= 50 and αkr = 5 – Effect of Lr αkr = 5 - Effect of Lr.

on the proposed model for μ1 and μ2 values ranging from 0 to 5,000, αkr varying from 0.02 to 50, Lr from 0 to 1

3089
and e/L from 0 to 4. The normalized load, H* versus normalized displacement at ground level, ρ*, curves are
shown in the Fig. 4 for μ1 = 50, μ2 = 50, αkr = 5, θ=0 to 0.1 and for different normalized depths of the upper layer,
Lr. For αkr = 5, the lower layer is 5 times denser than the upper layer. If only the upper layer is present along the
whole pile length (Lr = 1 or pile is surrounded by loose soil only), the load carrying capacity of the pile is minimum.
If only dense layer is present, i.e., Lr=0, the load carrying capacity of the pile is maximum. The response curves
lie within these two bounds for 0<Lr<1.0. However the response curves nearly coincide for Lr = 0.8, 0.85 and 0.9.
This is because the point of rotation where the mobilization of soil pressure is low, lies close to boundary of the
upper and the lower layers Hence no significant differences in the normalized load versus displacement curves
are observed for Lr = 0.8, 0.85 and 0.9. The same concept is illustrated in Fig. 5 in terms of variations of lateral
soil pressures, q* = αk1.L varying with depth. If the point of rotation, z0, is close to the interface of the two layers,
the influence of lower layer reduces.

For μ1 = 50, μ2 = 50 and αkr = 0.2, the variation of normalized load with normalized displacement and Lr is shown
in Fig. 6. Stiffness ratio of the soils is 0.2, which implies that the upper layer is 5 times denser than the lower
layer. Therefore, the normalized load increases with increasing thickness of the upper layer. The point of rotation
falls in the range of normalised depths of 0.6 to 0.75, for the parameters considered which is close to the
boundary of the two layers (0.5 and 0.7). For Lr > 0.7, the thickness of denser layer depth is significantly large and
the normalized load increases, considerably.

0.0016

Lr =1

0.9

0.8
0.7
0.5
0.0008
H*

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.03 0.06
ρ*
Figure 6. Normalized Load, H vs Normalized Displacement, ρ* at Ground Level for
*

μ1 = 50, μ2 = 50 and αkr = 0.2 – Effect of Lr

6 Estimation of Ultimate Lateral Capacity

The normalized ultimate lateral load, Hu* is obtained from the slope of the plot between the ratio ρ*/H* and ρ*
(hyperbolic plot). The ultimate lateral capacity of the pile is

H u = H u* α k1 dL 2 (18)

3090
The variations of the ratio (Hud/ Hus), of the ultimate capacity of the pile in a two layered soil, Hud, to that in a

50.00 αkr =1
1.00

αkr =50
Hud/ Hus

Hud/Hus
0.5
25.00
0.50 0.1
25 0.2
0.04

0.02
10
5
0.2 0.1
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.00
Lr 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
L
Figure 7. Effect of Lr on Ultimate Lateral Load for Figure 8. Effect of Lr on rUltimate Lateral Load for
μ1=200, μ2=200 and αkr =50 to 0.1 μ1=200, μ2=200 and αkr =1 to 0.02

single (upper) layer, Hus, with length ratio, Lr, are shown in Fig. 7 for μ1=200, μ2=200 and 50<αkr<0.1. For
stiffness ratio, αkr, ranging between 50 and 5, that is for loose sand underlain by dense sand, the ultimate lateral
load reduces significantly for Lr increasing from 0.6 to 1. In other words, the depth of lower layer is not significant
even though it is highly dense. The variation of the ultimate lateral load with the relative thickness of the upper
layer for 0.02<αkr<1, is shown in Fig. 8. For this range of αkr, the upper dense sand is underlain by loose sand.
Based on these curve, one can assess the effect of thickness of the upper layer in reducing the displacements at
ground level. For stiffness ratio αkr = 0.5 to 0.2, densification of the upper layer from 0.2 to 0.5 increases the
lateral load capacity of the pile remarkably.

7 Comparison of Lateral Capacity with Measured Test Data

The modulus of subgrade reaction for granular materials is known to increase linearly with depth (Reese and
Matlock, 1956). Based on above theory, the parameters for the upper layer are related by Eq. 19

ks1 = n h1z / d = α k1z / L (19)

where nh1 is coefficient of modulus of subgrade reaction of the upper layer. The slope of the experimental load-
2
displacement curve is utilized to estimate the value of nh1, as nh1 = 18H(1+1.33.e/L)/ρL (Barber, 1953), thereby
αk1. The maximum lateral pressure of the upper soil, qmax1, is taken as 0 . 8 K p 1γ 1 z which is equal to αq1 .z/L
2

(Zhang et al., 2005). The parameter, μ1, is then evaluated as given in Eq. (11) with the evaluated values of αk1
and αq1. The parameters for the lower layer were estimated in a similar manner.

3091
Meyerhof et al. (1981) conducted model tests on piles in two layered sands. The dense and loose sands consist
3 3
of the following properties γ=15.2kN/m & φ′ = 50° and γ= 14kN/m & φ′ = 35° respectively. The length of the pile,
L, is 200 mm, diameter of the pile, B, is 12.5 mm, no load eccentricity, I.e., e=0, and Lr=0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 for
the case dense sand overlies loose sand. In addition tests were conducted for Lr= 0.5 and 0.75 for loose sand
overlying dense sand.

0.06 0.06
Lateral Load, kN

0.03

Lateral Load, kN
0.03

exp
exp Proposed
Proposed
0
0 0 10 20
0 9 18
Displacement at GL, mm Displacement at GL, mm

Fig. 9 Comparison of Test Data with Proposed Fig. 10 Comparison of Test Data with Proposed
Technique for Homogeneous Dense Soil Technique for Lr = 0.25 and upper Layer is Loose

The values of αk1 and αq1 were calculated from the experimental data taken from Meyerhof et al. (1981). The
predicted and the measured load vs. displacement curves are compared for homogeneous layers of loose and
dense sands. Some difference in the predicted response of the pile was observed when compared with the
measured values. The model tests have been carried out in the small tanks. The normal stresses in the model
ground are very small while the angle of shearing resistance of φ=50° is measured at relatively large stresses of
50 to 200 kPa. The φ values obtained from conventional shear tests are not applicable for the determination of
response of the pile as the friction angle at low stress levels would be larger than the one measured at higher
stress levels. Bolton (1986), and Fannin et al. (2005) predict shear strength of cohesionless soils at low stress
levels.

Based on Fannin et al. (2005) the φ value of dense soil is revised to 55° and of loose soil to 46°. The load
deflection curves drawn with the new φ values compare well with the experimental values (Figs. 9 and 10) for Lr=
0 (homogenous dense soil) and 0.25. The response curves for Lr=0.5, upper layer is denser than the lower one
and Lr=0 (homogenous loose soil) shown in Figs. 11 and 12 compare well with the corresponding measured
values.

0.04 0.015
Lateral Load, kN

Lateral Load, kN

0.02 0.0075

exp.
exp
Proposed
Proposed

0 0
0 10 20 0 9 18
Displacement at GL, mm
Displacement at GL, mm

Fig. 11 Comparison of Test Data with Proposed Fig. 12

Technique for Lr = 0.5 and Top Layer is Dense

3092
8 Conclusions
a) A method based on modulus of subgrade reaction approach is proposed to predict the load
displacement response of laterally loaded free head rigid pile in two layered cohesionless soils
considering the nonlinear hyperbolic soil response and kinematics.

b) Present theory predicts ultimate load as well as load - displacement responses of the piles at working
loads.

c) Sensitivity analysis suggests that the ultimate lateral load does not vary with Lr, if the point of rotation is
close to the boundary of the two layers.

d) The measured values from the experiment data are well comparable with the proposed theoretical
values.

9 References

Barber, E. S. (1953). “Discussion to Paper by S. M. Gleser. ASTM, STP 154, pp. 96-99.

Broms, B.B. (1964). “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils”, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol.90, No.3, pp.123-
156.

Davisson, M. T. and Gill, H. L. (1963). “Laterally Loaded Piles in a Layered Soil System”, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol.
89, No. SM3, pp. 63-94.

Georgiadis, M. (1983) . “Development of p-y Curves for Layered Soils’, Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, ASCE,
Reston, Va., pp. 536-545.
nd
Kondner, R.L. and Zelasko, J.S. (1963). “A Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Formulation for Sands”, Proc. 2 Pan Am. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Eng. (Brazil), Vol. 1, pp. 289-324.

Lam, I. P. and Law, H. K. (1996). “Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction analytical Considerations by Empirical p-y methods”,
th
Proc., 4 Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop, California Dept. of Transportation, Engineering Service Center,
Sacramento, Calif.

Lee, S. L. and Karunaratne, G. P. (1987). “Laterally Loaded Piles in Layered Soil”, Soils and Found., Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 1-10.

Matlock, H. and Reese, L.C. (1960). “Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles”. J. Soil Mech.& Found. Div., ASCE,
Vol.86, No.5, pp.63-91.

Meyerhof, G.G., Mathur, S.K., and Valsangkar, A.J. (1981). “Lateral Resistance and Deflection of Rigid Wall and Piles in
Layered Soils”. Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 18, pp. 159-170.

Meyerhof, G.G., and Sastry, V.V.R.N. (1985). “Bearing Capacity of Rigid Piles under Eccentric and Inclined Loads”. Can.
Geotech. J., vol. 22, pp. 267-276.

Padmavathi, V., Saibaba Reddy, E. and Madhav, M. R. (2007). “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Rigid Piles in Sands based on
Kinematics and Non-linear Sub-grade Response”, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.190-209.

Patra, N.R. and Pise, P.J. (2001). “Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Pile Groups in Sand”, J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engg., ASCE, Vol.127, No.6, pp. 481-487.

Poulos, H. G. (1985). “Ultimate Lateral Pile Capacity in Two-Layer Soil”, J. of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 25-37

Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). “Pile foundation analysis and design”, Wiley, New York.

Prakash, S. and Kumar, S. (1996). “Nonlinear Lateral Pile Deflection Prediction in Sands”. J. Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol.122, No.2, pp.130-138.

Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Chari, T.R. (1999). “Lateral Capacity of Model Rigid Piles in Cohesionless Soils”. Soils and Found.,
Vol.39, No.2, pp.21-29.

Reese, L.C., and Matlock, H. (1956). “Non-Dimensional Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus Assumed
Proportional to Depth”, Proc. 8th Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Spec. Pub. 29, Bureau
of Eng. Res., University of Texas, Austin.
th
Reese, L. C., Allen, J. D. and Hargrove, J. Q. (1981). “Laterally loaded piles in layered soils”, Proc. 10 Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, A. A. Baljema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 819-822.
th
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R. and Koop, W.D. (1974). “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand”, Proc. 6 OTC Paper No. 2080,
Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Tex., pp.473-482.

3093
Shen, W.Y. and Teh, C.I. (2004). “Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soil with Stiffness Increasing with Depth”, J.
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engg., ASCE, Vol.130, No.8, pp.878-882.

Yang, Z. and Jeremic, B. (2005). “Study of Soil Layering Effects on Lateral Loading Behaviour of Piles”, J. Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engg., ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 6, pp. 762-770.

Zhang, L., Silva, F. and Grismala, R. (2005). “Ultimate Lateral Resistance to Piles in Cohesionless Soils”. J. Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, Vol.131, No.1, pp.78-83.

3094