Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 2018;

Journal xyz 2017;40(1): 65–78


1 (2): 122–135

The First Decade (1964-1972)


Research Article Open Access
Research Article
Jasim M. Abbas*, Zamri Chik, Mohd Raihan Taha
Max Musterman, Paul Placeholder
Modelling and Assessment
What Is Soof a Single
Different Pile
About
Neuroenhancement?
Subjected to Lateral Load
Was ist so anders am Neuroenhancement?
Journal xyz 2017; 1 (2): 122–135
Pharmacological and Mental Self-transformation in Ethic
Comparison1 Introduction
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0009
received December 14, 2017; accepted March 23, 2018.
The First Decade (1964-1972) Pharmakologische und mentale Selbstveränderung im
Abstract: A three-dimensional finite element technique In the design of pile subjected to lateral load, the lateral
ethischen Vergleich
Research Article
was used to analyse single pile lateral response subjected displacement at working loads should be within the
to pure lateral load. The main objective of thishttps://doi.org/10.1515/xyz-2017-0010
study is permissible limit [18,20,22]. In addition, the second main
MaxtoMusterman, Paul Placeholder
assess the influence of the pile slendernessreceived ratio February
on key element
9, 2013; accepted inMarch
the 25,
design of laterally
2013; published onlineloaded piles is the
July 12, 2014

What Is So Different About


the lateral behaviour of single pile. The lateral single determination of ultimate lateral resistance that can
pile response in this assessment considered both
Abstract: In the concept of the aesthetic formation of knowledge and its as soon
lateral and besuccess-oriented
exerted by soilapplication,
against the pile [25], particularly
withoutthe
Neuroenhancement?
as possible insights and profits the
pile displacement and lateral soil resistance. Asreference a result, ultimate
to the arguments soildeveloped
pressurearound
which 1900.
occurred in the
The main middle of the
investigation also

Was ist so anders am Neuroenhancement?


modified p-y curves for lateral single pile response
improved when taking into account the influence
includes
version.
were pile.between the entry into force and the presentation in its current
the period
lateral
Their functionTheasperformance of piles
part of the literary when
portrayal and subjected to lateral
narrative technique.
load magnitudes, pile cross sectional shape and flexural loads is responsive to soil properties
Keywords: Function, transmission, investigation, principal, period in the upper part
Pharmacological
rigidity of the pile. andTheMental Self-transformation
finite element method includes inof Ethic
soil layer [6,7]. As the surface layers may be subject
Comparison
linear elastic, Mohr-Coulomb and 16-nodes interface
Dedicated to to
Paul disturbance, practically, traditional soil parameters
Placeholder
models to represent the pile behaviour,
Pharmakologische und mentale Selbstveränderung im soil performance should be adopted in the calculation of lateral pile
and interface element, respectively. It can be concluded displacement. In the case of piles under lateral loading,
ethischen Vergleich
that the lateral pile deformation and lateral soil resistance 1 Studiesthe and Investigations
failure criterion of short piles under lateral loads
because of the lateral load are always influenced by lateral when compared to those of long piles varies and unlike
https://doi.org/10.1515/xyz-2017-0010 The main investigation alsoprocedure
includes theisperiod between the entrystudying
into forcethe
and
load intensity and soil type as well as a pile slenderness the design suitable. Therefore,
received February 9, 2013; accepted March 25, 2013; published online July 12, 2014
ratio (L/D). The pile under an intermediate and the presentation
large effect in itsofcurrent version. Their
slenderness on the function as single
lateral part of the literarypile
isolated por-
trayal and narrative technique.
amount
Abstract: In theof concept
loading of(inthecase of cohesionless
aesthetic formation ofsoil) has response
knowledge and its asissoon important and still needs more assessment.
more resistance
as possible (low lateral displacement)
and success-oriented than the
application, insights pileprofits without
and From Figure the 1, t can be observed that the pile in case
embedded
reference to the on the cohesion
arguments developedsoil. around
In addition, it can
1900. *Max
The mainbe of short
investigation pile failure
also
Musterman: Institute of Marine criteria
Biology, Nationaland
Taiwanfree head
Ocean condition
University, failed
2 Pei-Ning
observed that the square-shaped pile is able to resist the
includes the period between the entry into force and the presentation in its current
Road Keelung by
20224, full pile
Taiwan rotation
(R.O.C), around
e-mail: the
email@mail.com point near to the pile base.
loadTheir
by about 30% Paul Placeholder: Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning
version. function asmore
part ofthan the circular
the literary pile. and
portrayal On narrative
the Whilst in case of fixed head, the pile maybe fully moved
technique.
Road Keelung 20224, Taiwan (R.O.C), e-mail: email@mail.com
other hand, pile in cohesionless soil was less affected by and, at the same time, with small rotation near to the
Keywords: Function, transmission, investigation, principal, period Mustermann and Placeholder, published by De Gruyter.
the change in EI compared with that in cohesive soil. pile base. On the other hand, the long pile failureThis
Open Access. © 2017 occurs
work is
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
near to the pile head by pile fracture and keeps the other
Dedicated to Paul Placeholder
Keywords: piles; lateral response; slenderness ratio; embedded length without failure. In the case of fixed
flexural rigidity; 3D FE analysis. head long pile, the failure occurred at the fracture point
as well as pile cap [6,7]. Real pile behaviour generally falls
1 Studies and Investigations somewhere between the free- and fixed-head conditions
because a small rotation of the pile head is expected, even
The main investigation also includes the period between the entrywhen the pile
into force and is connected to a cap [17].
the presentation in its current version. Their function as part of the literary Many researches
por- have also been performed to study
trayal and narrative technique. the response of laterally loaded piles in different types of
soil. A preliminary survey of the literatures available on
*Corresponding author: Jasim M. Abbas, Department of Civil this topic was given by [6,7,14], but little knowledge was
*Max Engineering, College of
Musterman: Institute ofEngineering, University
Marine Biology, of Taiwan
National Diyala, Ocean
Iraq, University,received
2 Pei-Ningregarding the influence of the pile slenderness
E-mail: jasimalshamary@yahoo.ccom
Road Keelung 20224, Taiwan (R.O.C), e-mail: email@mail.com ratio on the lateral pile response, in addition to the
Zamri Chik, Mohd
Paul Placeholder: Raihan
Institute Taha: Biology,
of Marine Department of Civil
National and Structural
Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning
Engineering,
Road Keelung 20224,Universiti
Taiwan Kebangsaan Malaysia
(R.O.C), e-mail: email@mail.com

2017; 1 (2): 122–135


Open Access.
Open Access. © 2017© 2018 Jasimand
Mustermann M. Placeholder,
Abbas et al.,published
publishedbyby
DeSciendo.
Gruyter. This workisis licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
This work
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. 4.0 License.

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


pile slenderness ratio on the lateral pile response, in addition to the influence of lateral load magnitudes,
cross
66  sectional shape
Jasim M. Abbasof the pile and flexural rigidity of the pile.
et al.

H H H H
e1 e1
e1
e1

Fracture
L L L L Fracture

Rotatio
n point

Free-head Fixed-head
Free-head Fixed-head

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1. Failure
1: Failure modes ofmodes of vertical
vertical pile pileload
under lateral under lateral
(Broms, load(a)(Broms,
1964a&b): short pile1964a&b): (a) and
under lateral load short pilepile
(b) long under
underlateral
lateral load.
load and (b) long pile under lateral load

influence of lateral load magnitudes, cross sectional problem to be solved. The finite element mesh used in the
shape of the pile and flexural rigidity of the pile. simulation of single pile analysis (shown in Fig. 2) consists
It is generally accepted that the finite element method is the major technique used in numerical
It is generally accepted that the finite element of 15-nodes wedge element (1,134), including (1,099) soil
analysis of geotechnical problems, particularly piles and soil consolidation. As reported by Poulos and
method is the major technique used in numerical element and (35) pile elements. The lateral load is applied
Davis (1980), the first attempt to study the lateral behaviour of piles includes a two-dimensional (2D) finite
analysis of geotechnical problems, particularly piles at the tip of the pile that is found on the ground surface
element model in the horizontal plane. Anagnostopoulos and Georgiadis (1992) attempted to explain the
and soil consolidation. As reported by [20], the first in the x-direction and at y-direction when axial loads are
lateral pile response through an experimental model supported by a 2D finite element analysis. Other
attempt to study the lateral behaviour of piles includes applied. Plain and 3D view for the finite element mesh
investigations have attempted to study the lateral response of pile under pure lateral load using the finite
a two-dimensional (2D) finite element model in the of single pile and surrounded the soil mass is given in
element approach (Muqtadir & Desai 1986, Trochanis 1991, Yang & Jeremic 2005, Johnson et. al. 2006,
horizontal plane. Anagnostopoulos and Georgiadis (1992) Figure 2. The outer boundaries of soil body of cubic shape
Kahyaoglu 2009 and Taha 2018). In addition, the influence the lateral pile response in 3D finite element
attempted to explain the lateral pile response through are extended to 10D on the sides and 5D at the bottom of
approach when the pile carried both axial and lateral loads was studied by Karthigeyan et al. (2006 & 2007)
an Abbas
and experimental modeland
et al. (2015 2017). by a 2D finite element pile base.
supported
analysis. Other investigations have attempted to study the Analyses were performed with several trail meshes
lateral response of pile under pure lateral load using
Therefore, in this study, the importance of conducting the with increasing mesh refinement
a fundamental studyuntil the displacement
is discussed. A
finite element approach [9,11,16,23,24]. In addition, the changes to very
fundamental study of the lateral pile response under pure lateral load was conducted by varying a minimal with more refinement. The aspect
influence parameter
simulation the lateral of piletheresponse in 3D (i.e.
pile material finitethe
element
geometric ratio of elementsofused
dimension the in thesuch
pile meshas is slenderness
small and closed to the
ratio,
approach when the pile carried both axial and lateral pile body near to the
D, flexural rigidity of the pile, EI) and soil properties (i.e. cohesionless soil and cohesive soil). pile top and base. All the nodes of the
loads was studied by [12,13] and [1,2]. lateral boundaries (right and bottom) are restrained from
Therefore,
Analysis in this study,
Methodology andthe importance of conducting moving in the normal direction to the respective surface.
Layout
a fundamental study is discussed. A fundamental study The finite element simulation includes the following
of theelement
Finite lateral pile response
analyses wereunder pure lateral
performed usingloadthe was
softwareconstitutive
PLAXIS 3D relationships
Foundation. for Inpile, surrounded
the finite elementsoil
conducted by varying a simulation parameter of the pile and interface element.
method, a continuum is divided into a number of (volume) elements. Each element consists of a number The finite element includes
of a
material
nodes. (i.e.node
Each the geometric
has a number dimension of the pile
of degrees such as that
of freedom linear elastic model
correspond to simulate
to discrete valuesstructural part of the
of the unknowns
inslenderness
the boundary value
ratio, problem
D, flexural to be ofsolved.
rigidity the pile,TheEI)finite
and element
problemmesh (e.g. used
pile), inMohr-Coulomb
the simulationmodel of single pile
to represent
analysis (shown(i.e.
soil properties in cohesionless
Fig. 2) consists of 15-nodes
soil and wedge element
cohesive soil). (1,134), including
the surrounded (1,099) interface
soil and 16-node soil element and to
elements
(35) pile elements. The lateral load is applied at the tip ofrepresent the pile that is foundelement.
an interface on the ground surface in models
These constitutive the
x-direction and at y-direction when axial loads are applied. Plain and 3D view
are illustrated as follows: for the finite element mesh
of2single
Analysis
pile andMethodology
surrounded the soiland mass Layout
is given in FigureStructural
2. The outer boundaries
Members Model: The of soil body
use of of cubic
the linear elastic
shape are extended to 10D on the sides and 5D at the bottom modelof pile base.
is quite common to model massive structures in the
Finite element analyses were performed using the software soil or bedrock layers that include piles and so on [5]. This
PLAXIS Analyses
3D Foundation.were In performed
the finite with
elementseveral
method,traila meshes
model with increasing
represents Hooke’smesh law ofrefinement untilelasticity
isotropic linear the
displacement changes to very minimal with more refinement. The aspect ratio of elements
continuum is divided into a number of (volume) elements. used for modeiling the stress–strain relationship of the used in the mesh
isEach
smallelement
and closed
consists to the
of a pile bodyofnear
number nodes. to Each
the pile
node top pile
and material.
base. All The the model
nodes of the lateral
involves boundaries
two elastic stiffness
(right
has aand bottom)
number are restrained
of degrees fromthat
of freedom moving in the normal
correspond direction namely,
to parameters, to the respective
the effective surface.
Young’s modulus, E’,
discrete values of the unknowns in the boundary value and the effective Poisson’s ratio, ν’.

2
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC
consist of eight pairs of nodes, compatible with the eight-noded quadrilateral side of a soil element. Along
the degenerated soil elements, interface elements are composed of six-node pairs, compatible with the
triangular side of the degenerated soil element. Each interface has a virtual thickness assigned to it, which
is an imaginary dimension used to obtain the stiffness properties
Modelling of the interface.
and Assessment ThePile
of a Single virtual thickness
Subjected is Load
to Lateral  67
defined as the virtual thickness factor multiplied by the average element size.

Soil mass Single pile Soil mass V


H
5D + (10D, 15D, 20D, 25D)

10D, 15D, 20D, and 25D


Single pile

5D
15-node
wedge element

z Soil under
pile base
20D x
20D
y
Figure 2 Three dimension of finite element mash for single pile and surrounded soil mass
Figure 2: Three dimension of finite element mash for single pile and surrounded soil mass,

Validation of numerical model


Soil Model: The surrounding soil is represented by and field tests are used to identify the soil profiles and soil
This section used to assess the accuracy of the finite element approach in analysing laterally loaded piles
Mohr–Coulomb’s model. This elasto-plastic model is properties that are well instrumented.
and to verify certain details of the finite element such as pile displacement. The comparative case includes
based onlateral
full-scale soil parameters
load tests that are known
reported in most
by Ismael The resultsThe
practical
(1998). case studyand
of laboratory deals
fieldwith
testslateral load
are used to in which the
situations.
identify Theprofiles
the soil modelandinvolves two main
soil properties that parameters, deflection response of bored piles in cemented sand was
are well instrumented.
namely, the cohesion intercept, c’, and the friction examined by field test on a single pile under lateral load
angle, f’.
TheIncase
addition three with
study, deals parametersnamely, Young’s
lateral load in which [10]. All piles
the deflection wereof0.3
response m inpiles
bored diameter and had a length of
in cemented
sand was examined
modulus, by field
E’; Poisson’s testν’;on
ratio, a single
and pile under
the dilatancy lateral 3load
angle, (Ismael,
or 5m. 1998).
The site All load
of this pilestest
werewas
0.3inmKuwait.
in The soil
ψ’ – are needed to calculate the complete stress-strain (σ, profile consists of a medium dense cemented silty sand
e) behaviour. The failure envelope as referred by [21] and layer to a depth of 3 m. This is underlain by a medium
[9] only depends on the principal stresses (σ1’, σ3’) and is dense to very dense silty sand with cemented 3 lumps to the
independent of the intermediate principle stress (σ2’). bottom of the borehole. The same load sequence as pile
Interface Elements Model: Interfaces are modeiled as tests was applied to the pile after completing the whole
16-node interface elements. Interface elements consist geotechnical model for lateral pile tests. The properties of
of eight pairs of nodes, compatible with the eight-noded soil in the both cases are listed in Table 1.
quadrilateral side of a soil element. Along the degenerated The comparison between the finite element results
soil elements, interface elements are composed of six- and field test data is shown in Figure 3. The numerical
node pairs, compatible with the triangular side of the simulation is reasonably accurate for the problem of
degenerated soil element. Each interface has a virtual laterally loaded piles and pile-soil interaction over a
thickness assigned to it, which is an imaginary dimension wide range of deformation for 3 and 5m long piles. The
used to obtain the stiffness properties of the interface. The pile with a length of 5m is highly resistance to the lateral
virtual thickness is defined as the virtual thickness factor load from the second pile length value. Comparable data
multiplied by the average element size. were obtained between the experimental results of the
three piles and the present simulation model. The results
obtained from the numerical simulation for a pile of 5 m
3 Validation of numerical model is relatively closed with the results obtained from the field
test. Whilst the result from the numerical simulation is not
This section used to assess the accuracy of the finite too closed in case of 3-m long pile, it may be due to non-
element approach in analysing laterally loaded piles and homogeneous soil around the pile in field.
to verify certain details of the finite element such as pile
displacement. The comparative case includes full-scale
lateral load tests reported by [10]. The results of laboratory

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


experimental results of the three piles and the present simulation model. The results ob
numerical simulation for a pile of 5 m is relatively closed with the results obtained fro
Whilst the result from the numerical simulation is not too closed in case of 3-m long pile,
68  Jasim M. Abbas et al.
non-homogeneous soil around the pile in field.
Table 1 Geotechnical properties of the soil layers
Table 1: Geotechnical properties of the soil layers. Saturated Young’s Poisson’s Cohesion
soil weight modulus ratio intercept
Saturated Young’s
(kN/m3) Poisson’s
(kPa) Cohesion Friction (kPa)
soil weight modulus ratio intercept angle
Medium dense cemented silty sand 18 1.3x104 0.3 20
(kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa)
layer
Medium dense cemented silty sand layer 18 1.3x104 0.3 20 35
Medium dense to very dense silty 19 1.3 x104 0.3 1
Medium dense to very dense silty sand
sand with
withcemented lumps
cemented lumps 19 1.3 x104 0.3 1 45
Pile Pile - -
2.0 x109 0.15 2.0 x109
- 0.15
- -

Table 2: Soil parameters for analysis of pile group.

Parameters Unit Cohesionless Cohesive


soil soil
Unit weight, γ’ kN/m3 20.0 18.0
Young’s modulus, E’ MPa 1.3 × 104 1.0 × 104
Poisson’s ratio, ν’ - 0.3 0.35
Cohesion intercept, c’ MPa 0.1 5.0
Angle of internal friction, ø’ - 30 25

4 Result and Discussion


The study includes the lateral pile response (i.e. lateral
pile displacement and lateral soil pressure) under pure
lateral load. Two types of soil were used (i.e. cohesionless
Figure 3 Comparison Figure 3:ofComparison
finite element resultsresults
of finite element with with
fieldfield
test data
test data of
of Ismael (19
and cohesive soils). Lateral load intensity H ranged (5-45)
Ismael (1998).
{γw D3}. Slenderness ratio, L/D, was 10, 15, 20 and 25. Pile
Result and Discussion
shape and soil type (cohesionless soil and cohesive soil)
are detailed in this section. The baseline soil parameters the base, respectively. Finally, for the long pile (L/D = 25),
The study includes the lateral pile response (i.e. lateral pile displacement and lateral soil
used for the analysis of laterally loaded pile group are the point of inflection (fracture point) is (7/10)L from the
illustrated in Table 2.
pure lateral load. Two types of soil were used (i.e. cohesionless and cohesive soils). Lateral
base. This is due to the slenderness of the pile that carry
3
ranged (5-45) {γw D }. Slenderness ratio, L/D, was 10, 15, 20 and 25. Pile shape and soil ty
the load along the pile length in the case of short piles,
soil and cohesive soil) are detailed in this section. The baseline soil parameters used for
but the upper part of pile carry applied load in the case
laterally loaded
4.1 Influence of lateral load intensities pile group are illustrated in Table 2.
of long piles. In the case of short pile, the pile body tends
to rotate around the inflection point and produce a small
The lateral pile deformation Table
and 2lateral
Soil parameters for analysis
soil resistance negative of pile group
deflection closed to the pile base. The negative
Parameters
because of the lateral load are always influenced by deflection occurred in the opposite Unit
direction of the Cohesionless
load.
the lateral load intensity and soil type as well as a pile The maximum negative deflection occurred exactly at the soil
3
Unit 4weight,
slenderness ratio (L/B). Figure presentsγ’ the effect of base of the pile. kN/m 20.0
Young’s modulus,
lateral load intensity and soil type on the deformation E’ MPa
In general, the lateral pile responded closely in cases 1.3 × 014
behaviour of pile along the Poisson’s ratio,forν’ four pile of both cohesionless and cohesive
pile length - soils when small 0.3
Cohesion
slenderness ratio under lateral load showintercept, c’ (a) amounts of loading were applied toMPa
circular pile: all cases of slenderness 0.1
the short pile (L/B = 10) gives a small amount of lateral ratio. As shown in the results, the pile under low and a
tip deflection for the same amount of loading than the large amount of loading (in the case of cohesionless soil)
piles that have the slenderness ratio more than 10; (b) the presented more resistance (low lateral displacement) than
deflection along the pile is always in the direction of load the pile embedded in the cohesion soil. This is possibly
(assumed negative). These values change to positive and due to high soil stiffness.
pass through zero, depending on the slenderness ratio. Lateral soil pressure (p) in soil resulting from the
For the short pile (L/D = 10), the point of inflection is 1/5 lateral loads is shown in Figure 4. It can be observed
from the base of the pile, whilst for the long pile (L/D = 15) that the pressure increased with depth. Higher values of
and (L/D = 20), the point position is (1/2)L and (3/5)L from pressure occurred in the position of L/D between 6 and 8

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load  69

when lateral loads of 250 and 450 kN were applied. Also at Pile deflection change depends on the pile load increment.
L/D = 2, which is the point of rotation, near the values of In the first stage of load, the pile response was uniform,
lateral soil pressure can be observed. As a conclusion from which means that the pile deflection improves linearly.
the results, the pile in cohesionless soil is less safe against But the square-shaped pile shows more resistance than
ultimate soil pressure failure and has less resistance a circular pile, because of the high contact surface area
against lateral pile displacement failure. The location between the pile and surrounding soil.
(zero lateral pressure) was also indicted [6,12,13] who The results (Fig. 7) show distribution of the soil
respectively studied only on pure lateral load (no vertical resistance along the pile depth under 450 kN load for two
load) and with the application of axial loads. Thus, the types of soil. As concluded from this and the previous
position of the maximum lateral soil pressure changes section, the soil resistance for different pile shapes
with vertical load intensity. does not significantly change at low load level. It can
The influence of the pile slenderness ratio on the be observed that the cross section of square-shaped
lateral pile tip displacement is assessed by fixed pile pile has high amount of lateral soil pressure than those
diameter and increase in the pile length (i.e. L = 10, 15, 20 observed from the circular pile. This happened possibly
and 25 m). During this study, the soil and pile parameters due to a large contact surface area of the square-shaped
were kept unchanged. The influence of the pile slenderness pile compared with the circular pile. This assumption is
ratio L/D on the lateral pile tip displacement is presented supported by [15].
in Figure 5. The study compared both types of soil under The maximum tip deflections of two shapes of pile are
three load intensities (i.e. 50, 250 and 450kN). At the detailed in Figure 8. In general, for the low values of load,
low load magnitude, very little changes were observed the lateral pile response was closed for the cross section of
in the lateral pile displacement with respect to the pile two shapes of pile and always near to the linear behaviour.
slenderness ratios for both cohesionless and cohesive Whilst, at higher loads, the piles behaved non-uniformly
soils. Whilst the displacement at the loads 250 and 450 kN resulting from the non-linear response of soil around the
increased to 20% and 35%, respectively. pile, and this is supported [9]. From these results, it was
The p-y curve predicted from finite element at two mainly observed that the square-shaped pile is able to
depths (z=0 and z=L/5D from ground surface) for both resist the load by about 30% more than the circular pile.
cohesionless and cohesive soils is shown in Figure 6. The The p–y curve predicted from finite element at
initial values of the computed p-y curves are insensitive two depth (z=0 and z=L/5D) for both cohesionless and
to the soil type and pile diameter. The result from this is cohesive soils is shown in Figure 9. The p–y curves were
closed to the assumption by Fan and Long (2005). From predicted for two shapes of the pile (i.e. square shaped
this figure, it can be observed that the behaviour of p–y and circular). From this figure, it can be observed that
curves was non-linear which results from the non-linear different behaviours of pile with different shapes translate
relationship of ultimate lateral soil pressure with respect to into different design values, if necessary, to design pile
pile slenderness ratio; this also supported the assumption under lateral load. Therefore, it can be concluded that
[25] and unsupported the assumption proposed [6,7], the pile is more sensitive to the pile shape as well as pile
which observed linear relation of the ultimate lateral soil slenderness ratio.
pressure with respect to pile slenderness ratio.

4.3 Influence of flexural rigidity (EI)


4.2 Influence of pile shape
In this study, the flexural rigidity (EI) change in three
One of the main advantages of the 3D finite element magnitudes was analysed; the values of EI were
simulation is the personification of the shape effect. The calculated by choosing various value of modulus of
previous investigations show that the response of pile to elasticity E and by keeping the magnitude of the moment
lateral load is moderately affected by the shape of cross of inertia I constant. The effect of the EI on the lateral pile
section [15]. Therefore, this study includes mainly the displacement, lateral soil pressure and corresponding
effect of pile shape on the lateral pile response on both p–y curve illustrated are discussed in this section. The
cohesionless and cohesive soils. pile slenderness ratios (L/D) are 10, 15, 20 and 25. The
The lateral pile displacement of two pile shapes is behaviours of lateral pile displacement with pile depth for
shown in Figure 7, which detailed the increase in lateral two types of soil are given in Figures 10 and 11. For lateral
deflection response with an increased amount of loading. load of 450 kN at the pile tip, the lateral pile displacement

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


70  Jasim M. Abbas et al.

Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil


H = 50 kN H = 250 kN H = 450 kN
10 10

8 8

Pile depth (L/D)


6 6

Pile depth (L/D)


4 4

2 2

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

15 15

12 12

9 9
Pile depth (L/D)

Pile depth (L/D)


6 6

3 3

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure (kN/m2)

20 20

16 16

12 12
Pile depth (L/D)

8 Pile depth (L/D)


8

4 4

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
2
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m )

25
25

20 20

15
Pile depth (L/D)

15
Pile depth (L/D)

10 10

5 5

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil Pressure ( kN/m2)

Figure 4 Influence of lateral load intensities on the lateral soil pressure distribution of pile embedded on
both cohesionless
Figure 4: Influence and cohesive
of lateral load intensities soils:
on the lateral(a) L pressure
soil (b) L=15m,
= 10m, distribution pile L
of (c) = 20 m and
embedded L = 25 m and cohesive
(d)cohesionless
on both
soils: (a) L = 10m, (b) L=15m, (c) L = 20 m and (d) L = 25 m.

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load  71

Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil


H = 50 kN CohesionlessH soil
= 250 kN Cohesive Hsoil
= 450 kN
H = 50 kN 0.04 H = 250 kN H = 450 kN

Lateral pile tip displacement


0.04
0.035

Lateral pile tip displacement


0.035
0.03
0.03
0.025

( δ /D)
0.025
0.02

( δ /D)
0.02
0.015
0.015
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0
10
0 15 20 25
10 15
Slenderness ration (L/D) 20 25
Figure 5 Predicted lateral tip displacement versus pile slenderness
Slenderness ration (L/D) ratio under the influence of lateral
Figure 5 Predicted lateral tip displacement versus
load pile slenderness ratio under the influence of lateral
intensities
load intensities
Figure 5: Predicted lateral tip displacement versus pile slenderness ratio under the influence of lateral load intensities.

Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil


200 Cohesionless soil 160 Cohesive soil
z=0 z=0
200 z =z 2D 160
=0 z =z 3D
=0
160
z = 2D 120 z = 3D
160
120 120
p (kN/m2 )

p ( kN/m )
2

120 80
p (kN/m2 )

p ( kN/m )
2

80 80
80
40
40
40
40
0 0
00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 00 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
y/D y/D
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
y/D
(a) (b) y/D

160 (a) 160 (b)


z=0 z=0
160 z =z 4D 160
=0 z =z 5D
=0
120 z = 4D 120
z = 5D
120 120
p ( kN/m2)

p ( kN/m2)

80 80
p ( kN/m2)

p ( kN/m2)

80 80
40 40
40 40
0 0
00 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 00 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
y/D y/D
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
y/D
(c) (d) y/D

(c)
Figure 6 p-y curves predicted under the effect of lateral load intensities and pile (d) slenderness ratio:
Figure 6: p-y
Figure 6 p-y
curves curves
predicted (a)predicted
underL the
= 10 under
effect
m, of Lthe
(b)lateral effect
load
= 15 of lateral
m,intensities
(c) L = 20 load
andmpileintensities
andslendernessandmpile
ratio:
(d) L = 25 (a) Lslenderness
= 10 m, (b) L ratio:
= 15 m, (c) L = 20 m
and (d) L = 25 m. (a) L = 10 m, (b) L = 15 m, (c) L = 20 m and (d) L = 25 m

for EI magnitudes of EI= 1.4 × 105 kN m2, EI = 1.4 × 106 more than 70% in the case of pile in cohesive soil. Thus
kN m2 and EI = 1.4 × 106 kN m2. It can be observed that the pile in cohesionless soil is safer regarding the change
an increase in lateral pile displacement occurred when in EI than that in cohesive soil.
there is a decrease in pile flexural rigidity EI. It can also be The distribution of lateral soil resistance with pile
observed that the pile with low amount of EI (e.g. 1.4 × 105 depth embedded on two types of soil is illustrated in
kN m2) behave as a most flexible element, whilst, the pile Figures 10 and 11. For the same lateral load condition,
with high amount of EI (e.g. 1.4 × 107 kN m2) tend to behave the pile with low value of EI (first case) deflects higher
as rigid element. The pile in cohesionless soil can also be and more critical than the pile having high amount of EI
seen as less affected by the change in EI compared with (second case). Therefore, the pile in the first case receives
that in cohesive soil. For example, increase in lateral pile more soil pressure than the pile in the second case.
displacement in cohesionless soil was around 30–50% The influence of the pile slenderness ratio L/D on
between lowest and highest EI, whilst the values were the lateral pile tip displacement is shown in Figure 12.
7
7

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


72  Jasim M. Abbas et al.

Circle pile shape Square pile shape


Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil
10 10

8 8

Pile depth (L/D)


6

Pile depth (L/D)


6

4
4

2
2

0
0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01
Lateral pile displacement ( δ
/D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

15 15

12 12
Pile depth (L/D)

9 9

Pile depth (L/D)


6 6

3 3

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

20 20

16 16
Pile depth (L/D)

12 12

Pile depth (L/D)

8 8

4 4

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

25
25

20 20
Pile depth (L/D)

15 15
Pile depth (L/D)

10 10

5 5

0 0
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

Figure 7 Influence of pile shape on the lateral soil pressure distribution of pile embedded on both
cohesionless
Figure 7: Influence and cohesive
of pile shape soils:
on the lateral soil(a) L = 10
pressure m, (b) L of
distribution = pile
15 m, (c) L = on
embedded 20both
m and (d) L =25and
cohesionless mcohesive soils:
(a) L = 10 m, (b) L = 15 m, (c) L = 20 m and (d) L =25 m.

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load  73

Circle pile shape Square pile shape


H = 50 kN H = 250 kN H = 450 kN
0.04

0.035 Circle pile shape Square pile shape


H = 50 kN H = 250 kN H = 450 kN

Pile tip displacement ( δ /D)


0.03
0.04
0.025
0.035
0.02

Pile tip displacement ( δ /D)


0.03
0.015
0.025
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.015
0
0.01
10 15 20 25
0.005 Slenderness ratio (L/D)

0 (a)
10 15 20 25
Slenderness ratio (L/D)
0.04
0.035 (a)
/D)

0.03
δ

0.04
Pile tip displacement (

0.035 0.025
/D)

0.03 0.02
δ Pile tip displacement (

0.025 0.015
0.02 0.01
0.015 0.005

0.01 0
0.005 10 15 20 25
Slenderness ratio (L/D)
0
(b) 20 25 10 15
Slenderness ratio (L/D)
Figure 8 Predicted lateral tip displacement versus pile slenderness ratio under the influence of lateral load
Figure 8: Predicted lateralintensities
tip displacement versus (b)
pile slenderness ratio under
and pile shape: (a) cohesionless soilthe influence
and of lateral
(b) cohesive load intensities and pile shape: (a)
soil
Figure 8 Predicted lateral tip displacement versus pile slenderness ratio under the influence of lateral load
cohesionless soil and (b) cohesive soil
intensities and pile shape: (a) cohesionless soil and (b) cohesive soil
Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil
z = 0 (circle shape)
Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil z = L/5D (circle shape)
z = z0 = 0 (square
(circle shape)shape) z = L/5D
z =(circle
L/5Dshape)
(square shape)
z = 0 (square shape)
160
200 160 z = L/5D (square shape)
160
200 160
160
120
120
160
120
120
2 )2)

120
kN/m

p ( kN/m )
2
pp ((kN/m

80
80
2 )2)

120
kN/m

p ( kN/m )
2
pp ((kN/m

80 80
80
80
40
40 40
40
40 40
00
0
00 00 0.005 0.010.01 0.015
0.02 0.02 0.025
0.03 0.03 0.04
0.035 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
00 0.005 0.01
0.01 0.02 y/D
0.015 y/D 0.025
0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
0.035
y/D
y/D 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 y/D
0.025 0.03 0.035
y/D
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
160 160
160 160

120 120
120 120
p ( kN/m2)

p ( kN/m2)
p ( kN/m2)

p ( kN/m2)

80 80
80 80

40 40 40 40

0 0 0
0
0 0 0.0050.0050.01 0.01
0.0150.015
0.02 0.02
0.025 0.025
0.03 0.03
0.035 0.035 0 0.005 0.01 0.02
0.015 0.025
0.02 0.025 0.035
0.03 0.035
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.03
y/D y/D y/D y/D

(c) (c) (d) (d)


Figure
Figure9 p–-y
9 p–-y
curves predicted
curves under
predicted the effect
under of pile
the effect of shape and pile
pile shape andslenderness ratio ofratio
pile slenderness pile of
embedded
pile embedded
Figure on both
9:on
p–y cohesionless
curves
both predictedand
cohesionless cohesive
under
andthe soils:
effect
cohesive ofsoils:
pile L/D
(a)shape
(a) = 10,pile
L/D
and =(b) L/D
(b)=L/D
15, =(c)
slenderness
10, L/D
ratio
15, = L/D
of(c) 20
pile and
embedded
= 20 L/D
(d)and = 25
on (d)
bothL/D
cohesionless
= 25 and
cohesive soils: (a) L/D = 10, (b) L/D = 15, (c) L/D = 20 and (d) L/D = 25.

10 10

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


74  Jasim M. Abbas et al.

EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2

10 10

8 8

Pile depth (L/D)


6 6

Pile depth (L/D)


4 4

2 2

0
0
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure (kN/m2 )

15 15

12 12

9 9

Pile depth (L/D)


Pile depth (L/D)

6 6

3 3

0 0
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

20 20

16 16
Pile depth (L/D)

12 12 Pile depth (L/D)

8 8

4 4

0 0
-0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

25 25

20 20
Pile depth (L/D)

15
Pile depth (L/D)

15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

Figure 10 Influence of pile stiffness, EI, on the lateral soil pressure for cohesionless soil, (a) L/D = 10,
Figure 10: Influence of pile stiffness, EI,(b)
on the
L/Dlateral
= 15,soil
(c)pressure
L/D = for
20cohesionless
and (d) L/Dsoil,
= 25(a) L/D = 10, (b) L/D = 15, (c) L/D = 20 and (d) L/D = 25.

12

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load  75

EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2

10 10

8
8

Pile depth (L/D)


6

Pile depth (L/D)


4
4

2
2

0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

15 15

12 12

9
Pile depth (L/D)

Pile depth (L/D)


6
6

3
3

0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0
-300 -200 -100 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

20 20

16 16

12 12
Pile depth (L/D)

Pile depth (L/D)

8 8

4 4

0
0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
-300 -200 -100 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

25 25

20 20
Pile depth (L/D)

15 15
Pile depth (L/D)

10 10

5 5

0 0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 -150 -100 -50 0
Lateral pile displacement ( δ /D) Lateral soil pressure ( kN/m2 )

Figure 11 Influence of pile stiffness, EI, on the lateral soil pressure for cohesive soil, (a) L/D = 10, (b)
L/D
Figure 11: Influence of pile stiffness, EI, on the=lateral soilL/D
15, (c) = 20 for
pressure and (d) L/D
cohesive = 25
soil, (a) L/D = 10, (b) L/D = 15, (c) L/D = 20 and (d) L/D = 25.

13

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


76  Jasim M. Abbas et al. Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil
EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2 EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m2

0.12
Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil

Pile tip displacement ( δ /D)


2 2
EI= 1.4
0.1x 105 kN m EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m2

0.08
0.12
Pile tip displacement ( δ /D)
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.06
0
0.04
10 15 20 25
0.02 Pile slenderness ratio (L/D)

0
Figure 12 Predicted lateral tip displacement versus pile slenderness ratio under influence of lateral load
10 15 20 25
intensities
Pile slenderness ratio (L/D)

Figure 12: Predicted


Figure lateral tip
12 Predicted displacement
lateral versus pileversus
tip displacement slenderness ratio under influence
pile slenderness of lateral
ratio under load intensities.
influence of lateral load
intensities

Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil


z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2) z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2)
z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2) z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2)
z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m2) z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m2)
Cohesionless soil Cohesive soil
300
500 z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2) z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 105 kN m2)
z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2) 250 z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 106 kN m2)
400
z = 0 (EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m ) 2
200
z = 2,3,4,5D (EI= 1.4 x 107 kN m2)
kN/m2 )

300
p ( kN/m )
2

300
500 150
200
p(

250
400 100
100 200
50
kN/m2 )

300
p ( kN/m )
2

0 150
0
200 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
p(

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12


y/D 100 y/D
100
(a) 50 (b)
0 300 160
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
250 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
y/D y/D
120
200
(a) (b)
p (kN/m )

p ( kN/m )
2

300150 160 80

250100
120 40
200 50
p (kN/m )

p ( kN/m )
2

150 0 80 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
y/D
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
100
y/D
40
50
(c) (d)
Figure
0 13 p–y curves predicted under the effect of pile stiffness,
0
EI, and pile slenderness ratio of pile
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Figure 13: p–y curves predicted under
y/D the effect of pile stiffness, EI, and pile slenderness ratio of pile embedded on both cohesionless and
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
y/D
cohesive soils.
(c) (d)
Figure 13 p–y curves predicted under the effect of pile stiffness, EI, and pile slenderness ratio of pile 14

14

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


Modelling and Assessment of a Single Pile Subjected to Lateral Load  77

The study made comparison of both types of soil under References


three amounts of EI. High lateral tip displacement can
be observed in the case of low EI of the pile in cohesive [1] Abbas Al-Shamary, J.M., Chik, Z. & Taha, M.R. 2018. Modeling
soil. This was possibly due to the surrounded soil the lateral response of pile groups in cohesionless and
cohesive soils. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 9(1),
failure occurred. In addition, it can be observed that low
1-17.
increment in lateral pile displacement appeared in case of [2] Abbas, J.M., Chik, Z. & Taha, M.R. 2017. Lateral Pile Response
cohesionless soil. Subjected to Different Combination of Loadings. Journal of
The p–y curve predicted from finite element at two Engineering Science and Technology Review 10 (6), 195- 202
depths (z = 0 and z = L/5D) for both cohesionless and [3] Abbas, J.M., Chik, Z. & Taha, M.R. 2015. Influence of axial
load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and
cohesive soils is shown in Figure 13. From this figure, it
cohesive soil. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng, 9(2): 176–193.
can seem that different behaviour of pile with different EI [4] Anagnostopoulos, C. and M. Georgiadis, 1993. Interaction
values translates into different design values, if necessary, of axial and lateral pile responses. J. Geotech. Eng. Division,
to design pile under lateral load. Therefore, it can be 119(4): 793–798.
concluded that the pile is sensitive to the EI values as well [5] Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Broere, W. (2004) “PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION
as a pile slenderness ratio. - version 1” Netherlands.
[6] Broms B. B. 1964a . Lateral resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils
. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
90(2): 27-63.

5 Conclusion [7] Broms B. B. 1964b . Lateral resistance of Piles in Cohesionless


Soils . Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 90(3): 123-156.
The lateral pile deformation and lateral soil resistance [8] Davisson, M.T. and Gill, H.L. 1963. Laterally loaded piles in
because of the lateral load is always influenced by the layered soil system. Journal of Soil Mechanics Foundation
lateral load intensity and soil type as well as a pile Division. ASCE, 89(3): 63-94.
[9] Johnson, K., Lemcke, P., Karunasena, W., Sivakugan, N. 2006.
slenderness ratio (L/D). For the pile of L/D = 10, the point
Modelling the load – deformation response of deep foundation
of inflection is 1/5 from the base of the pile, whilst the pile under oblique load. Environment Modelling and Software, 21:
with a slenderness ration of L/D = 15 and L/D = 20, the 1375-1380.
point position is 1/2 and 3/5 from the base, respectively. [10] Ismael, N. F. (1998) “Lateral loading tests on bored piles
Finally, for the pile of L/D = 25, the point of inflection in cemented sands”. Proceedings of the 3rd International
(fracture point) is 7/10 from the base. The pile under Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger
Piles, Ghent, Belgium pp.137-144.
an intermediate and large amount of loading (in case
[11] Kahyaoglu, M. R., Imancli, G., Ozturk A. U., and Kayalar, A.
of cohesionless soil) has more resistance (low lateral S. 2009. Computational 3D finite element analyses of model
displacement) than that embedded on the cohesion soil. passive piles. Computational Materials Science. (In press)
The pressure increased with depth. Higher values of [12] Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna, V. V. G. S. T. , and Rajagopal K.
pressure were occurred in the position of L/D between 6 2006 . Influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles
in sand . Computer and Geotechnics, 33: 121-131.
and 8 when lateral loads of 250 and 450 kN were applied.
[13] Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna, V. V. G. S. T. , and Rajagopal
Non-linear relationship between ultimate lateral soil K. 2007. Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Vertical Load
pressure and the pile slenderness ratio was observed for on the Lateral Response of Piles . Journal of Geotechnical and
different load magnitude and soil type. Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(5): 512-521.
The square-shaped pile has more resistance compared [14] Matlock, H. and Reese, L.C. 1960. Generalized solution
with a circular pile. The square-shaped pile is able to resist for laterally loaded piles. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 86, (SM5): 63- 91.
the load by about 30% more than the circular pile. The
[15] Mroueh, H. and Shahrour, I. 2009. Numerical analysis of
cross section of square-shaped pile has high amount of the response of battered piles to inclined pullout loads.
lateral soil pressure compared with those observed from International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
the circular pile. Therefore, the p–y design curve is more Geomechanics. 33 (10): 1277 – 1288.
sensitive to the pile shape as well as a pile slenderness [16] Muqtadir, A., and Desai, C. S. 1986. Three-dimensional analysis
of a pile-group foundation. International Journal of Numerical
ration. A pile in cohesionless soil was less affected by
and Analytical Methods Geomechanics 10: 41–58.
the change in EI compared with that in cohesive soil. The [17] Ooi, P. S.K, Chang, B. K.F. and Wang, S. 2004. Simplified
different p–y behaviour of pile with different EI values Lateral Load Analyses of Fixed-Head Piles and Pile Groups.
mean different design values, if necessary, to design pile Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
under lateral load. Therefore, the pile is sensitive to the EI 130(11): 1140–1151.
values as well as pile slenderness ration.

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC


78  Jasim M. Abbas et al.

[18] Patra, N. R. and Pise, P. J. 2001. Ultimate Lateral Resistance


of Pile Groups in Sand, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(6): 481-487.
[19] Pise, P. J. 1982. laterally loaded piles in a two-layer soil system.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 108(9): 1177-1181.
[20] Poulos H. G., and Davis E. H. 1980 . Pile Foundation Analysis
and Design . John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[21] Potts, D. M., and Zdravkovic, L. 1999. Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: theory. Thomas Telford. Heron Quay,
London.
[22] Reese, L.C. & W.F. Van Impe 2011. Single Piles and Pile Groups
Under Lateral Loading, 2nd Edition. London: Taylor & Francis
Group.
[23] Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J. and Christiano, P. 1991. Three-
dimensional nonlinear study of piles. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 117(3): 429.447.
[24] Yang Z. and Jeremic B. 2002 . Numerical Analysis of Pile
Behavior under Lateral Loads in Layered Elastic-Plastic Soils .
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, Vol 26, 1385–1406.
[25] Zhang, L., F. Silva and R. Grismala, 2005. Ultimate lateral
resistance to pile in cohesionless soils. J. Geotech. Geoenvir.
Eng. ASCE., 131(1): 78-83

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 13.10.19 08:46 UTC