pansive soils again involves two main issues: the maximum axial movement of 3.
nt of 3.5mm at the soil surface and zero at a depth of 6m
force induced in the piles by the ground movements, and the
amount of pile head movement. In principle, the same approach
may be adopted for pile design as with negative friction.
However, there are at least three practical difficulties that
may arise:
1. the soil may be stiff and the ground movements may not be
sufficient to cause full mobilisation o f the ultimate shaft re­
sistance;
2. assessment of the ultimate shaft resistance of piles in expan­
sive soils is generally more difficult than in soft clays because
the expansive soils are often only partly saturated;
3. tensile forces are induced in the pile by swelling movements
and these forces may cause concrete piles to crack if not
properly reinforced.
As an aid to the assessment o f pile head movement in relation
to ground surface movement, Figure 5.19 shows theoretical
elastic solutions developed by Poulos (1989). These have been
found to give useful indications o f the movement of model piles
in laboratory tests (Challa and Poulos, 1991). Charts for the es­
timation of pile forces are given by Nelson and M iller, (1992).
The development o f any pile-soil slip w ill tend to reduce the in­
duced axial movement of the pile, compared to the purely elastic
case.
5.5.4 Piles subjected to lateral ground movements
The response of piles subjected to lateral ground movements
may be analysed by an extension of the techniques employed to
analyse the behaviour of piles subjected to lateral loads (e.g.,
Poulos and Davis, 1980; Maugeri and Motta, 1991). A key as­
pect of such analyses is the estimation of the 'free field' ground
movements, since these movements play a major role in deter­
mining the pile behaviour.
I f the distribution with depth of free-field movements can be
simplified, it is possible to develop useful design charts to enable
approximate assessment of the pile head deflection and the
maximum bending moment in the pile. Chen and Poulos (1997)
have presented two series o f such charts, one for a pile in a soil
subjected to a uniform movement with depth (to a depth zs below
the surface), and the other for a soil in which the horizontal
movement decreases linearly with depth, from a maximum at the
surface to zero at a depth zs. The first movement profile may be
relevant to piles in unstable soil slopes, while the linear profile
may be relevant for piles adjacent to embankment construction.
For the linear soil movement profile, Figures 5.20 and 5.21
present charts for pile head movement and maximum moment,
for a homogeneous (uniform) soil, and a "Gibson" soil whose
modulus increases linearly with depth. The pile head is unre­
strained.
As discussed by Chen and Poulos (1997), these solutions as­
sume that the soil remains elastic, and they therefore generally
give an upper bound estimate of the pile moment and deflection.
The extent of the possible over-estimation increases with in­
creasing lateral soil movements, due to the progressive departure
from elastic conditions that results from the development of
plastic flow of the soil past the pile.
As an example of the application o f both a theoretical com­
puter analysis and the design charts, the case reported by Kal-
teziotis et al. (1993) can be considered. Two rows of piles were
used to stabilise a sliding slope on which a semi-bridge structure
had been built. The soil conditions consisted mainly of lacustrine
deposits, with a thickness of more than one hundred metres,
overlying bedrock of Triasssic marl. Among the piles were three
steel pipe piles instrumented with strain gauges, aiming to study
the lateral reaction mechanism in a landslide; results were pre­
sented only for one of these. A ll the piles had a length of 12m
and the steel piles had an external diameter of 1.03m, a wall
thickness of 18mm and a flexural stiffness Eplp of 1540 M N .m2.
The centre-to-centre spacing o f the piles was 2.5m.
In the theoretical analysis reported by Chen and Poulos
(1997), a triangular soil movement profile, with a maximum
2573
below the surface, was adopted on the basis of the reported in­
clinometer data. Based on the results o f the pressuremeter tests
reported by the authors, the limiting soil pressure was taken to be
0.9 MPa and 3.2 MPa for the moving soil layer and the stable
soil layer, respectively, while the corresponding soil Young’s
modulus values were taken to be 15 MPa and 70 MPa.
The predicted results agreed reasonably well with those
measured, with reasonable agreement being observed between
the predicted and the measured distributions of bending moment
and deflection. The maximum bending moment was developed
at about 6.2m below the soil surface, which is very close to the
assumed sliding surface. The design charts were also used to es­
timate the maximum moment and deflection, and were found to
give results which were in good agreement with the measure­
ments also.
5.5.5 Specific applications
There are a number of important specific applications of the
analysis of piles subjected to lateral soil movements. Four of
these are listed below.
Piles in unstable slopes
There are two important aspects of piles in unstable slopes: first,
the effect on the piles of the ground movements (i.e., the induced
bending moments and deflections) and second, the effect, on the
slope, of the shear resistance provided by the piles, (i.e., the rein­
forcing effect of the piles.)
Lee et al. (1991) discuss how the effect of the slope on the
piles can be assessed and describe the various possible modes of
behaviour. In addition, the design charts presented by Chen and
Poulos (1997) provide a simple approach for preliminary as­
sessment. V iggiani (1981) and Poulos (1995, 2000a) discuss
means by which an assessment can be made of the stabilising ef­
fect of the piles on the slope.
Piles near an excavation
The ground movements caused by excavation may induce sub­
stantial bending moments in nearby piles, as well as axial down-
drag forces. Failure of existing piles may result (e.g., Poulos
1997a). Simplified design charts to enable approximate estimate
of pile deflection and bending moment have been presented by
Poulos and Chen (1996) for unsupported excavations, and Pou­
los and Chen (1997) for supported excavations. In the latter ref­
erence, factors are presented to take account of distance from the
excavation, the excavation depth, the pile stiffness, the soil
strength, and the stiffness and spacing of the struts supporting
the excavation.
Piles in and near embankments
The construction of road embankments and fills causes lateral
and vertical soil movement which can have an adverse effect on
the adjacent piles supporting structures, bridges or utilities. A
number of instrumented case studies have been reported (e.g.,
Heyman, 1965; Leussink and Wenz, 1969), and centrifuge stud­
ies have also been undertaken in recent years (e.g., Stewart et al.,
1994).
A number of methods o f design have been employed, several
of which are based on assumed pressure distributions and which
are unreliable, as discussed by Poulos (1996b). Stewart et al.
(1994) have developed a useful empirical approach, based on the
results of centrifuge tests, while some design charts have been
developed by Poulos (1994c), based on theoretical boundary
element analyses. More recently, Goh et al. (1997) have under­
taken analyses via an approach similar in principle to that de­
scribed by Poulos (1994c). They have derived the following use­
ful approximations for the maximum bending moment
induced in a pile by embankment loading:
M nvn = )-exp [P (q /su)]sud hj (5.39)