5.4 Lateral response o f piles
U niform and profiles in which the water table is not at the
5.4.1 Introduction
The lateral response of piles can be an important consideration in
the design of foundations subjected to horizontal forces and
overturning moments, for examples, marine and offshore struc­
tures, retaining structures and tall buildings subjected to wind
and seismic loadings. As with vertical loading, consideration
must be given in design to both the ultimate lateral resistance of
piles and the lateral deflections under the design serviceability
loadings. It is not common for the ultimate lateral resistance to
be the governing factor in design unless the piles or piers are
relatively short or have a low flexural strength. Nevertheless, it
is important to consider the ultimate lateral capacity and the ul­
timate lateral resistance of the soil, since the latter is an impor­
tant component of a non-linear analysis of lateral response.
This Section w ill address some of the important issues in re­
lation to the estimation of lateral response of piles and pile
groups. The ultimate lateral capacity of piles and groups w ill be
reviewed, and then methods of estimating the lateral deflections
of piles and groups w ill be outlined. As with axial loading, a
number of the issues which may be of concern to practitioners
w ill be discussed.
5.4.2 Ultimate lateral capacity o f piles
The calculation of the ultimate lateral capacity of piles usually
involves the consideration of the statics of a pile under lateral
loading. This requires specification of the distribution of ultimate
lateral pile-soil pressure with depth, the structural strength of the
pile in bending, and the postulated failure mode of the pile-soil
system. The conditions usually examined are:
- Failure of the soil supporting the pile (termed “short-pile fa il­
ure by Broms (1964a, 1964b)
- Structural failure of the pile itse lf (termed “long-pile failure
by Broms).
In addition, the two pile head conditions usually considered
are a free (unrestrained) head and a fixed head (restrained
against rotation).
The classical work in this area has been published by Broms
(1964a, 1964b), and this work continues to be the cornerstone of
many practical assessments today. M eyerhof (1995b) has pro­
vided a summary o f an alternative approach to the estimation of
ultimate lateral capacity, that incorporates the effects of load ec­
centricity and inclination.
Assessment o f Broms’ Theory
Kulhawy and Chen (1993) have carried out an assessment of the
applicability of Broms’ method, based on comparisons with the
results of a number of laboratory and field tests on bored piles.
For both undrained and drained lateral load capacities, Broms’
method tended to underestimate the ultimate lateral load by
about 15 - 20%. They concluded that, while Broms’ method
was conservative overall, it provided as good an approach as any
other method, and could give good results if empirical adjust­
ments were made to the values computed from the theory. It
should be re-stated that Broms himself acknowledged that his as­
sumed ultimate lateral pressure distributions were conservative.
Despite the apparent success of Broms' method, it must be
recognized that it has a number of practical limitations, among
which are the following:
1. It assumes that the soil layer is homogeneous with depth;
2. It considers only a pure sand (frictional soil), or a clay under
undrained conditions having a constant strength with depth;
3. It considers only a single pile, and not a group of piles di­
rectly.
Because of these limitations, the practitioner must exercise
considerable judgement in applying Broms’ theory, and indeed,
the theory cannot strictly be applied directly to the following
problems:
1. Layered soil profiles
2. Profiles containing both sand and clay layers
2568
3.
surface or below the pile tip
4. Groups of piles.
Layered and non-homogeneous soils
Some extensions to Broms’ theory have been made in an attempt
to overcome some o f the above limitations. For example, Poulos
(1985) has developed a general solution for piles in a two-layer
cohesive soil. This solution involves the solution of a quadratic
equation of the form:
aH *+ bH *+ c = 0 (5.25)
where H ' = H/pydL, py = ultimate lateral pile-soil pressure, L =
pile length, d = pile diameter or width. The coefficients a, b and
c depend on the relative thickness of the two layers, the relative
strength of the layers, the eccentricity of loading, and the char­
acteristics of the pile. Figure 5.14 shows some typical results de­
rived from Poulos’ analysis. The ratio o f the lateral capacity for
the two-layer soil to that for a homogeneous layer is plotted
against the relative thickness o f the upper layer, for both the
short pile and long pile failure modes. This figure highlights that
the near-surface layer has a very important effect on the ultimate
lateral capacity.
For multi-layered soil profiles, closed-form solutions and de­
sign charts are not feasible, and a simple computer-based analy­
sis is required. Such an analysis is based on the simple principles
of statics used by Broms and others, and requires the estimation
of the ultimate lateral pile-soil pressures.
Estimation o f ultimate lateral pile-soil pressures
Following the work of Broms (1964a, 1964b), it has been com­
mon for the ultimate lateral pressure, py, to be estimated as fol­
lows:
- For clays,
Py = N c.su (5.26)
where Nc = a lateral capacity factor; su = undrained shear
strength.
Various solutions have been developed for Nc, but in general,
it is found to increase from 2 at the ground surface to about 9 to
12 at a depth o f 3 to 4 diameters, then remaining constant for
greater depths. In many practical applications, a value of 9 is
adopted (as for the undrained end bearing capacity of piles in
clay).
- For sands,
Py = N ,p , (5.27)
where Ns = a multiplying factor; pp = Rankine passive pressure.
N, is usually within the range 3 to 5, with 3 being a common
design value.
A number o f alternative approaches are available, and Kul­
hawy and Chen (1993) have compared three of the available
distributions. They have concluded that Broms’ approach ap­
pears to be very conservative at depth, but that conversely, the
approach of Reese et al. (1974) appears to be quite bold.
Effects o f inclined loading
Meyerhof (1995b) has given detailed consideration to the effects
of inclined loading on a pile, and has developed practical proce­
dures for combining axial and lateral capacities in such cases. A
simple alternative approach has been suggested by Cho and Kul­
hawy (1995), who have obtained correction factors based on the
results of undrained load tests on bored piles (drilled shafts) in
clay, to modify the axial and lateral pile capacities. The notation
adopted by these authors is illustrated in Figure 5.15, and the
following expressions were developed for the vertical and hori­
zontal components of the inclined failure load:
1. For inclined uplift,
Vertical component: P0 = Q1„( l- 'F / 9 0 ) + W, (5.28a)