Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Form DOT F 1700.7: L Evelopment
Form DOT F 1700.7: L Evelopment
1. Repoct Noo
FHWA/TX-79/38+244-l
4.
5.
Author1s)
Report Date
December 1979
--------------~~--------------------------------~
12. Sponsoring
Agency Nome and Address
Interim
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
The behavior of laterally loaded piles was investigated using the finite
difference computer program COM623. A thorough search of the literature was
undertaken to find the results of lateral load tests performed in clay and sand.
The results of these analyses indicate thatmost of the p-y criteria, where p is the
lateral resistance against the pile in force per unit of length and y is pile
deflection, are satisfactory in predicting pile behavior. A modification of the
p-y criteria of Reese and Welch (1975) was suggested, based on the results of Some
of the analyses presented in this report.
182
22. Price
ii
PREFACE
This report presents comparisons between results from analytical
procedures and results from experiments for a number of cases where deep
foundations were subjected to lateral loading.
Appreciation is
also expressed to Dr. Stephen J. Wright, who made many helpful suggestions
during the preparation of the manuscript, and to Mrs. Cathy Collins and
Mrs. Kay Lee, who both assisted in the preparation and typing of this
manuscript.
Barry J. Meyer
Lymon C. Reese
December 1979
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
ABSTRACT
The behavior of laterally loaded piles was investigated using the
finite difference computer program COM623.
literature was undertaken to find the results of lateral load tests performed
in clay and sand.
p-y criteria, where p is the lateral resistance against the pile in force per
unit of length and y is pile deflection, are satisfactory in predicting pile
behavior.
KEY WORDS:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
SUMMARY
This study is concerned with evaluating the presently available p-y
criteria, where p is the lateral resistance against the pile in force per
unit of length and y is pile deflection, for analyzing the behavior of piles
under lateral loading.
were analyzed, and the results of tests on piles in sand were analyzed.
From this study it was found that:
(1)
(2)
The Reese and Welch (1974) p-y criteria for dry, stiff clays
were modified based on the results of this report. The currently used exponent in their parabolic equation was too small,
which leads to unconservative deflections at small loads, and
conservative deflections at large loads. An exponent of 0.4
was recommended.
(3)
vii
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
The infor-
ix
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .
iii
ABSTRACT
SUMMARY.
vii
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
ix
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1.
xv
INTRODUCTION
12
Introduction . . . . . . . .
.....
Method for Predicting p-y Curves in Cohesive Soils
Soft Submerged Clay . . . . . .
Stiff Clay Above the Water Table
Stiff Clay Below the Water Table
Unified Criteria . . . . . .
Methods for Predicting p-y Curves in Cohesionless Soils
CHAPTER 3.
1
2
6
19
20
20
23
26
32
36
PARAMETRIC STUDY
Introduction
Variation in Soil Properties
StiffA Criteria
StiffB Criteria . . . . .
Sand Criteria
Variation in Pile Properties
xi
45
47
47
51
53
57
xii
CHAPTER 4.
Introduction
Soil Properties
Pile Properties
Analysis of Test Results
Bagnolet
Bay Mud
Hudson River
Japanese
Lewisburg
Ontario
Plancoet
Savanah River
Southern California Edison
St. Gabriel . . . . .
Evaluation of p-y Criteria
SoftB and Unified Criteria
Stiff A Criteria . . . . . .
StiffB and Unified Criteria
CHAPTER 5.
63
63
64
66
66
71
75
79
82
85
89
91
94
95
99
99
101
104
Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Method of Obtaining Soil Properties
Analysis of Test Results
Arkansas River
Apapa .
Bailly
Florida
Hydraulic Fill
Mason and Bishop
University of Texas
Evaluation of p-y Criteria
107
107
ll5
ll5
127
127
131
134
138
138
141
CHAPTER 6.
147
CHAPTER 7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
153
REFERENCES
155
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1
29
3.1
46
3.2
46
4.1
65
4.2
65
5.1
112
112
6.1
148
6.2
150
5.2
..
...
xiii
..
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Distribution of ultimate soil resistance for
cohesive soils suggested by Broms . .
1.2
1.3
1.4
10
1.5
11
1.6
13
1.7
15
1.8
15
2.1
24
1.1
2.2
25
2.3
28
2.4
31
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
33
..
35
39
40
.
. . .
41
48
xvi
Figure
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
Page
48
49
49
50
50
3.15
3.16
3.17
52
52
54
3.14
54
55
55
56
56
58
58
59
59
3.19
60
4.1
68
3.18
xvii
Figure
4.2
Page
Comparison between measured and computed results for
test piles Bl and B4 at Bagnolet . .
69
70
4.4
72
4.5
73
..........
74
76
4.3
4.6
77
4.9
78
4.10
80
81
4.12
83
4.13
84
4.14
86
4.15
87
4.16
88
xviii
Figure
4.17
4.18
Page
Information for analysis of test at Plancoet . .
Comparison between measured and computed results
for test at Plancoet . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
93
93
96
96
97
97
4.25
98
4.26
98
100
102
105
106
109
111
5.3
113
5.4
114
116
117
118
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.6
5.7
90
xix
Figure
Page
Test setup and pile properties for test piles 5
and 14 at Arkansas River .
120
120
121
121
122
122
124
125
126
5.17
128
5.18
129
5.19
130
5.20
132
5.21
133
5.22
135
136
137
139
140
142
143
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
xx
Figure
5.29
Page
Comparison between measured and computed deflections
for tests using criteria for sand
. . . . . .
144
NOTATIONS
unit weight
strain at 50% of the maximum stress difference, determined
from a UU triaxial compression test
o
A
A
A
c
s
AO
B
x
D
r
relative density
Young's modulus
E
sc
E .
f '
increment length
moment of inertia
c
s
Sl
SS
I
I
g
s
~i
xxii
k
K
k
K
length of pile
number of cycles
-orblow count from penetration test
N
-p
p
Pc
Pel
Pc2
Pcd
Pct
Pm
PR
Pu
(pu)
(pu)
=EI=flexural stiffness
-orratio of soil resistance to ultimate soil resistance
xxiii
Yk
Ym
Yp
Ys
Yu
YSO
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
prob~
lem of a laterally loaded pile, where the problem can be generally defined as
computing pile deflection and bending moment as a function of depth below the
ground surface.
of subgrade reaction and on simplifying assumptions, such as assuming a variation of the sub grade modulus with depth and that the soil is linearly elastic
a
b
(Winkler, 1887; Hetenyi, 1946; Terzaghi, 1955; Broms, 1964 ; Broms, 1964 ).
These simplifying assumptions reduce the difficulty in obtaining a solution to
the problem, but errors of an unknown magnitude are introduced into the solution.
cularly for the foundations for overhead signs, is a critical method with regard to safety and economy.
half~space
He
compared solutions using his model and the Winkler model and found that deflections computed using the Winkler model were greater than deflections
computed using his model based on the theory of elasticity.
Vesic ~ (1961)
elasticity and showed that there is a small difference between solutions using the two methods for the case of an elastic material.
is that the theory of subgrade reaction employing the Winkler assumption can
be extended to the general case of a nonlinear soil with a variable sub grade
modulus, but Poulos' method can only be used for materials which are linearly
elastic.
While solutions with the theory of elasticity may be more correct for the
case of a linearly elastic soil, most soils behave nonlinearly.
Due to the
Young's modulus; thus, his method leads to uncertain results in making design
computations.
METHOD OF BROMS
Broms assumed that for cohesive soil the subgrade modulus was constant
with depth.
Broms used his method to analyze the results of load tests for piles
in clay.
a value of 0.33 means that Broms' method underestimated the actual deflection
by a factor of 3.0.
The method was useful in the period when it was conceived, but
To
compute the collapse load, Broms assumed that the ultimate soil resistance,
p , would be fully mobilized to the depth of the plastic hinge, and that it
u
The
method worked well for the small number of cases he analyzed, but more work
is needed to prove the validity of Broms' approach.
b
horizontal subgrade modulus increased linearly with depth and that the soil
was linearly elastic in the working load range.
Reese and
Matlock presented nondimensiona1 curves which can be used to obtain deflections, moments, and shears at any point along the length of a laterally loaded
pile.
The curves presented by Reese and Matlock can be used to solve the
e~
~
1.5 b
Depth to
Maximum
Moment
-l../y
Shear=O
Fig. 1.1.
of a linearly varying soil modulus is useful in practice, but that the value
of Es will decrease substantially as the lateral load is increased.
No
3byxK
(1.1)
where
unit height,
K
K
collapse load and the maximum bending moment were greater than 1.0.
Broms'
fo~
most design
vary in an arbitrary manner with depth; thus, the soil modulus can vary
in an arbitrary manner with depth and with pile deflection.
The digital
The
earth pressures which act against the pile prior to loading are assumed to
be uniform, Fig. 1.3b.
Fig. 1.2.
ex
G~D
S~FACE
,v>wl
:I
:1
XI
"",. . J
(a)
--1-"
f-t+-
''lot''
~
~---
PI
~"'-
Y,
-----l -
(C)
Fig. 1.3.
LOADING
In a similar
A possible
simply, the soil modulus, has the units of force per length squared, which is
the force per unit length of the pile per unit of movement of the pile into
the soil.
EI
~
dx
~
dx
E Y
s
(1. 2)
where
Young's modulus,
moment of inertia,
axial load,
lateral deflection,
The soil modulus will vary with deflection and depth, as shown in Fig. 1.4;
therefore, iterative techniques must be employed to obtain a correct solution.
1. 2.
lO
.. v
x = XI
x = x2
----f-Tt---- Y
x = X3
---~~-----
x=~
tx
Fig. 1.4.
11
~----------------------~--Y
E : - PlY
S
Fig. 1.5.
12
The variability
with both depth and pile deflection makes it impratica1 to solve the
Laterally loaded pile problem using either a closed form solution or a power
series solution.
The finite difference method of analysis is very useful in solving
the problem of a laterally loaded pile.
difference equations when the soil modulus varies with both depth and
lateral deflection.
pile stiffness with depth can also be taken into consideration (Parker and
Cox, 1969).
A finite difference model is developed by dividing a pile of finite
length into a number of elements of length, h, as shown in Fig. 1.6.
The
-2P h
x
+ E
2
h4) + Y 1(-2R -2R
+ P h ) + Y
m+
m
m+l
x
m+2
(1. 3)
where
R
increment length.
Because two nodal points are needed on either side of the node about which
Eq. 1.3 is being written, four imaginary nodes, two at the top and two at
13
. 1.6.
14
The other two boundary conditions are that the shear and moment
are zero at the bottom of the pile.
Setting up the problem using the finite difference approach results
in a number of simultaneous equations which have to be solved.
GIeser
the boundary conditions are used to solve for the deflections Yt' Yt+l and
Yt+2'
These deflections can then be used to work back down the pile and
solve for the deflections, slopes, moments, shears, and soil reactions for
all points along the pile.
GIeser was partially restricted in his method by the number of
equations which had to be solved.
solve the problem of a laterally loaded pile using the GIeser method.
The
15
r---- I t+ 2
I
I
I
I
1---- ....I
+2
I
I
+1
h[
I
I
I
I
0
I
1------1
I
I
I
I
1. 7.
-I
I
I
I
t - 1
t-2
L___ J
I
I
t+1
-2
Imaginary nodes
at bottom of pile.
Fig. 1.8.
Imaginary nodes
at top of pile.
16
(1)
A set of E
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
These p-y
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
sand, Reese
et al.
et al.
(1975),
et a1.
(1975),
(1974).
Soil resistance-
deflection curves can also be input into the computer program COM623, if
the user so desires.
p-y curves, solutions obtained using COM622 and COM623 are identical.
One of the problems with using a computer program such as COM622
or COM623 is that care must be taken to insure that the correct solution
is being generated by the computer.
approximation depends on the values of h which are used to model the pile
and the magnitude of the closure tolerance.
The
If p-y curves
17
are being input into the computer program, the curves should be input at
close spacing near the ground surface.
tolerance, and the spacing of the p-y curves may vary without having a
large affect on the computed solution.
To insure that an unaccounted for error has not occurred, an independent method of solution should be employed (Reese and Allen, 1977).
A non-
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
CHAPTER 2.
INTRODUCTION
To obtain a complete solution to the laterally loaded pile problem,
criteria for formulating p-y curves for a particular soil profile must be
obtained.
Criteria
are usually separated into the two basic categories, those for cohesive
soils and those for cohesionless soils.
effective strength parameters are used and it is assumed that the soilpile system deforms under drained conditions.
The first p-y criteria were established by McClelland and Focht
(1956).
pipe pile which was tested in the Gulf of Mexico (Parrack, 1952).
McClelland and Focht attempted to establish a direct relationship between
the experimental p-y curves and the stress-strain properties of the clay.
The data available to McClelland and Focht did not allow the development
of a complete family of experimental p-y curves, and the criteria they
proposed have been superceded.
The p-y criteria presented by Matlock, 1970; Reese and Welch, 1975; Reese
et aI, 1975; and Sullivan, 1977; all consider the effects of both short-term
static and cyclic loading.
19
20
Methods which have been suggested to obtain p-y curves for piles
in cohesion1ess soils are Kubo, 1967; Gill and Demars, 1970; Parker and
Reese, 1970; and Reese
et a1., 1974.
dete~mine
et a1.
(1974).
for piles in a cohesion1ess soil which takes the effect of cyclic loading
into
consideratio~
Chapter 5
et a1.
of tests on fully instrumented, flexible, pipe piles subjected to shortterm static loading and to cyclic loading.
both sites and the criteria were mainly developed to design offshore
piles.
The criteria for obtaining p-y curves for static loading consist
mainly of two parts.
The second is
21
The
(2.1)
Ncb
p x
where
N
p
pile width.
The value of N has been found to be a function of depth below the ground
p
surface (Matlock, 1970; Reese and Welch, 1975; Reese et al., 1975; Thompson,
1977).
(J
AO+~+J~
where
x
J
empirical coefficient.
(2.2)
22
The
A value of 0.25
was obtained for J from the Lake Austin tests, but Matlock recommends the
use of the 0.5 value in design.
At depth, a limiting value of ultimate soil resistance is reached
corresponding to a plane-strain condition.
ground surface.
with a uniform
6b
(2.3)
presented in this study, the weighted average values of c and y were used
in Eq. 2.3.
To define the shape of the p-y curve, a mathematical expression
is selected which fits the experimental p-y curves.
equation
1/3
0.5 (-.L)
yso
where
(2.4)
23
and
strain at 50% of the maximum stress difference, determined from a UU triaxial compression test.
A nondimensional p-y curve for static loading is shown in
2.la.
The effects of cyclic loading are to decrease the ultimate soil resistance to 0.72p
than 3ySO at depths less than x ' A cyclic p-y curve using the Matlock (1970)
r
p-y criteria is shown in
2.lb. The shape of the cyclic p-y curve is
based on the results of the field tests at Sabine and on laboratory model tests.
Stiff Clay Above the Water Table
Reese and Welch (1975) proposed criteria for predicting the behavior of
flexible piles in stiff clays above the water table.
performed with a drilled shaft, but the criteria are applicable to most deep
foundations.
with depth are nearly the same, except for the manner in which the un-
Matlock defined c
as c ' which is the average undrained shear strength from the ground surface
a
to the depth where p is being calculated. Another difference between the two
u
Reese and
Welch suggest the following equation for stiff clays above the water table:
0.5 (~)
YSO
1/4
(2.5)
. 2.2a.
accounting for the effects of cyclic loading using the Reese and Welch
criteria is different than that proposed by Matlock.
that for clay above the water table repeated load applications do not
affect the ultimate soil resistance but do increase the deflection at
24
(0)
1.0
P
Pu
0.5
(b)
1.0
For
X~Xr
0.72
0.5
O.72 X
~-L
____
______________________________
XR
15
Fig. 2.1.
~~
(b) cyclic
25
(a)
1.0
p
Pu
- -
- - - -
- -
----------------
_I
0.5
Pu =0.5
(y)4
Y50
16
(b)
1.0
Vc=V s + YSO
'c' log
16
Fig. 2.2.
26
which p
occurs.
Yc
Ys + Y50 Clog N
Ys
static deflection,
, is computed us
the equation
(2.6)
where
9.6R
number of cycles,
and
Water Table
Reese et al. (1975) performed tests on fully instrumented
embedded in a submerged, heavily overconsolidated clay deposit. The
purpose of the tests was to develop criteria which could be used to predict
the behavior of piles under short-term static and cyclic loading.
The variation of the ultimate soil resistance with depth is based on
the wedge-type-failure theory and the flow-around failure theory, which
were both presented by Reese (1958).
2c b + y'bx + 2.83c x
(2.7)
llcb
(2.8)
and
=
27
where
Pcl
Pc2
Poor agreement was obtained when these theoretical ultimate soil resistances
were compared to the ultimate soil resistances from the experiments.
It
(2.9)
(2.10)
where
A
A
The values of A and A which were determined are shown in Fig. 2.3.
s
The
construction of the p-y curves for the static case involves the use of
four functions.
Es~.
k x
s
(2.11)
28
Fig. 2.3.
29
where
k
Values of k
2.1.
TABLE 2.1
k
k
s
c
(static) Ib/in.
(cyclic) Ib/in.
O.S-l
1-2
2-4
SOO
1000
2000
200
400
800
3
3
o.Sp
(~ )
o.S
(2.12)
yso
where
The parabolic portion of the curve goes through the origin, but the actual
p-y curve starts at the intersection of the straight line, defined with the
slope E ., and the parabola, defined by Eq. 2.12.
Sl
to the deflection A y 0 where A is obtained from Fig. 2.3 for the nons 5
s
dimensional depth x/b. At this point, the parabola is modified by an
30
offset
0.55p
y- A y
s 50
c ( As Y50 )
1.25
(2.13)
-0.0625
(2.14)
ss
Y50
The straight line defined by Eq. 2.14 continues to the deflection l8A Y50'
s
where the soil resistance remains constant for increasing deflections. A
p-y curve for static loading is shown in Fig. 2.4a.
The effects of cyclic loading are to reduce the ultimate soil
resistance and to reduce the deflection at which this ultimate resistance
occurs.
ESl.
k x
c
(2.15)
where
k
Values for k
A
1
cPc
- (
Y-0.45 Y )2.5
P
0.45 y
p
(2.16)
31
2.5
5Yp
c (1-IY-0.4
O.45Y
p: A P.
""t
c:
l )
~Atc
0..
LIJ
U
(b)
;:!
VI
VI
LIJ
a:
CYCLIC
...J
.45Yp
I.BYp
O.SYp
DEFLECTION. Y in
OFFSET' .055
Pc ( Y-
A. Y:\O )12S
A. V50
0.5P
(a)
.S
!!
0..-
..;
(.)
...c
'"
iii
'"....
lHTERfCllCti OF
INITIAL STRAIGHT LNE
AND FIRST PARAIlOUC
PORTIONS
lit
STATIC
k.
X-Q
DEFLECTION. Y. in
Fig. 2.4.
32
where
At this
point the p-y curve assumes a straight line with a slope defined by the
equation
-0.085p
E
sc
(2.17)
Unified Criteria
Sullivan (1977) proposed criteria which could be used for all
submerged clays, irrespective of the shear strength of the clay.
Sullivan
used the results from the tests in soft clay at Sabine and the tests in
stiff clay at Manor to establish the Unified criteria.
Sullivan generalized
is plotted in
et a1.
Sullivan's
The equations
proposed by Sullivan describing the variation of the ultimate soil resistance with depth are
(2 + -:- + .83~)cab
a
for 0
<
<
3b
(2.18)
33
10
- - - - Reese7 et a 1.,(1975)
- - - - Sullivan (977)
10
15~--------------~------~~
Fig. 2.5.
34
(3
+ . Sb) cb
for 3b
9cb
<
<:
12B
(2.19)
(2.20)
The transition depths are for a clay with a constant shear strength.
If
made with the results of both the Sabine tests and the Manor tests.
Simple
In the Matlock
criteria, the slope of the p-y curve approaches infinity as the deflection
approaches zero.
where
(2.22)
kx
(2.23)
Based on the results of the Sabine and Manor tests, Sullivan suggests
35
(0 )
--------------PR
P =1 for
1.0
x> 12 b
0.5
~- ~U =O.5(-~-SO-)y
P
-B..=F+(I-F)-L- forx~12b
Pu
12b
x=o
20
10
30
Y/y
50
(b)
1.0
L=0.5(Y
P
Pu
Pu
o.S
YSO
)Y3
10
20
Y/y
) for
x::s12b
30
50
Fig. 2.6. Characteristic shape of the p-y curves for clay, Unified
criteria (Sullivan, 1977). (a) static loading. (b) cyclic
loading.
16
(2.24)
for x
(2.25)
or
>
12b
Values of F, which were determined for the Sabine and Manor sites, are
1.0 and 0.5, respectively.
et a1.
in his criteria.
The reduction in p
II
was reduced to
at a depth of 12b.
The
procedures were developed from the results of tests at Mustang Island on 24in. diameter, flexible piles embedded in a deposit of submerged, dense,
fine sand (Cox, et a1., 1974).
37
K x tan cp sin 8
o
tan 8
+ tan (8 _ CP) (b + x tan 8 tan a)
(2.26)
where
K
cp
45 + cp/2
cp/2
tan
(45 - cp/2).
The ultimate soil resistance at some distance below the ground surface was
derived theoretically and is given by the following euqation:
(2.27)
When the measured soil properties were used in Eqs. 2.26 and 2.27, it
was found that the calculated ultimate resistance was much smaller than
the experimental ultimate soil resistance.
use an empirical adjustment factor to bring the two quantities into agreement:
Ap
(2.28)
38
where
Pc
empirical adjustment.
The value of A depends on depth and whether the pile is subjected to shortterm, static or to cyclic loads.
is used and in
2.7.
et al.
1974).
Below
this depth, it can only be assumed that the theoretical ultimate soil
resistance is correct.
The construction of p-y curves for both static and cyclic loading
involves the use of a number of functions.
They are Pk
The value of
is given by
Bp
(2.29)
where
B
b/60
(2.30)
39
A
0
1.0
2.0
VAC (CYCLIC)
\
1.0
,
,
~
I
2.0
I
I
I
3.0
4.0
b > 5.0,
5.0
A=0.88
6D~--------------~------------~--------------~
Fig. 2.7.
40
x = l<.4
x;
X3
X=X
2
P
u
X =X I
Yu
,I
Ym
I
I
I
I
b/60
3b/BO
I
I
I
I
XsO
Fig. 2.8.
41
B
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
x
b
3.0-
4.0
5.0
Bs =0.5
6.0L-----'-L---...J---------'---------
Fig. 2.9.
42
3b/80
The p-y curves were assumed to vary in a parabolic form between Pk' Yk and
Pm' Y '
m
lin
Cy
(2.32)
- Pm
- Ym
u
u
(2.33)
Pm
(2.34)
mYm
Pm
(2.35)
lin
Ym
(~)
kx
n-1
(2.36)
ESl.Y
where
E.
Sl
kx
(2.37)
43
Values of k will be given in Chapter 5 for submerged sands and sands above
the water table as a function of relative density.
In some instances, k is
so small that the initial straight-line portion of the p-y curve does not
intersect the parabolic portion of the p-y curve at the deflection Yk.
In
this case, the initial straight line should simply be extended until it
intersects the p-y curve, and the p-y curve remains unchanged for
deflections greater than the deflection at which the intersection occurs.
Therefore, the initial straight line defined by E . should always be the
s~
Beyond a
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
CHAPTER 3.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The behavior of a laterally loaded pile is a complex function of a
number of parameters.
were varied to determine the effect that these variations had on the
computed pile behavior.
The
soi~
The initial
parameters which were selected for each set of criteria are shown in Table
3.1.
The initial pile parameters which were used in all of the analyses are
c, ESO' y,
In most cases, a
(3.1)
However, a small percentage change was used in cases where the results were
sensitive to changes in the parameter, and a larger percentage change was
used in cases where the results were relatively insensitive to changes.
45
46
TABLE 3.1.
Soil Properties
c
50
S tiffA
S tiffB
2
(lb/ft )
2500
2500
(%)
0.5
0.5
39
4>
Y
K
k
k
Sand
3
(lb/ft )
120
60*
0.4
s
c
66*
3
(lb/in. )
1000
130
3
(lb/in. )
400
130
TABLE 3.2.
EI
L
(in.)
2
(lb-in. )
(ft)
30
5xl0
50
10
47
analyses are much less than the effect that c had in the previous analyses.
The changes in maximum moment due to a change in EsO are very small.
The
EsO is frequently not reported, and a value must be selected based on the
shear strength of the clay.
The results of the analyses for a +
-50% change in yare shown in
Fig. 3.3.
From these results, it is evident that y does not have to be known with any
degree of accuracy to analyze the behavior of piles using the Stiff A
criteria.
The results of the analyses using the cyclic Stiff A criteria for 100
cycles of loading are presented in Figs. 3.4 and 3.5.
Comparing the 0%
curves in Figs. 3.1 and 3.4, it is seen that cyclic loading causes a 40%
increase in lateral deflection, but only causes an 11% increase in the
maximum moment.
analysis using the cyclic Stiff A criteria is similar to the results obtained
using the static Stiff A criteria.
48
: 120
'1:1
0
.-
80
40
1.0
2.0
1.5
Latera I Deflection (in.)
+
Comparison between results for -50% variation in c using
4
6
8 0
6
Maxi mum Moment (in.-I b x 10 )
Fig. 3.1.
0.5
'0
0
0
...J
..-
80
40
o~----~----~----------~
80
0.5
1.0
1.5
Lateral D.flection (in.l
2.0
49
160
and T50%~
: '120
-"'"
'a
0
0
...J
o~
O
/0
-50%
10
...
40
...J
o~--~----~----~----~
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (in-Ib x 10 )
Fig. 3.3.
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
Lateral Deflection (in.)
using
+50%
~ 120
-""'"
a
0
...J
80
...
40
...J
OL-----------~----~----~
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxl0 )
Fig. 3.4.
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Latera I Def lect ion (in.)
+
Comparison between results for -50% variation in c using
Stiff A criteria for cyclic loading.
50
160
-..
-
-50%
: . 120
0%
+50%
"0
.3
80
'-
-I
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (in-Ib x 10 )
3.5.
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Latera I Deflection (in.'
160
-..
0%
"0
0
0
-I
-50%
__---50 %
-
'-
40
-I
OL-----~----~----~--~
4
6
80
6
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxI0 ,
Fig. 3.6.
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Latera I Oef lection (in.)
51
StiffB Criteria
The results of the analyses using the static StiffB criteria are
plotted in Figs. 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8.
and 3.1, it is observed that the results obtained using the static StiffB
criteria and the Static Stiff A criteria are similar, but the ultimate lateral
load capacity is larger when the Stiff A criteria are used.
The results of
the analyses for a sO% variation in c using the static StiffB criteria are
shown in Fig. 3.6.
sensitive to variations in c.
increases the pile capacity initially, but at larger loads the pile capacity
is reduced.
soil resistance will exhibit the type of behavior shown in Fig. 3.7.
The results of the analyses for a +
-75% variation in k
Fig. 3.8.
are shown in
s
In this case, a ~7s% change was used because the results of the
Therefore, an over-
52
160
:. 120
..:
'0
0
0
...J
.-...
80
40
...J
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (in.-Ib x 10 ,
Fig. 3.7.
us 2.0
1.0
Lateral Deflection (in.)
0.5
t60
~12"O
..:
'0
0
...J
.-...
80
40
...J
OL-----~----~--------~
2
4
6
10
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxIO')
Fig. 3.8.
1.5
1.0
2.0
Latera 1 Oef lection (in.)
0.5
53
The results of the analyses using the cyclic StiffB criteria are
plotted in Figs. 3.9 and 3.10.
obtained using the cyclic and static criteria is the large reduction in pile
capacity for the case of cyclic loading.
3.6 and 3.9, the ultimate lateral load, using cyclic criteria, is approximately 50% less than the ultimate lateral load, using static criteria.
Sand Criteria
The results of the analyses using the static sand criteria are shown
in Figs. 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14.
The lateral
effect on the maximum moment, but a larger effect on the lateral deflection.
The effect of variations in yare less than the effect of variations in .
Because y is generally known within ~10%, the analysis would be only moderately sensitive to normal variations in y.
The results of the analyses for a ~50% variation in K are shown in
o
Fig. 3.13.
As shown, almost
o.
54
160
: . 120
'a
0
0
..J
10
+50 %
0%
...
-
0
-50 %
40
..J
OL-----~----~----~--~
8 0
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
Lateral Deflection (in.)
Maximum Moment (in.-Ib It
Fig. 3.9. Comparison hetween results for +
-50% variation in c using
4
10 6 )
'a
o 80
..J
o...
'; 40
..J
OL---~----~----~----~
4
6
8 0
6
Maltimum Moment (in.-I bit 10 )
Fig. 3.10.
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Latera' Def 'ection tin.)
55
+25%
100
~ 75
.:
'0
0
0
50
...J
0
CP
0
25
...J
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (jn.-Ib 110 )
Fig.
3.11.
100
l it
0.
+25/0
0%
-25/0
75
-25%
.:
'0
0
0
...J
1.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
Lot era I Def lection (i n.)
50
CP
0
25
...J
0
0
4
6
8 0
6
MOlimum Moment On.-Ib x 10 )
Fig. 3.12.
1.5
0.5
1.0
Latera I Def lection (in.)
2.0
56
100
en
Q.
75
"
0
...J
50
25
...J
0
0
4
6
8 0
6
Maximum Moment (i n.-I b x 10 )
Fig. 3.13.
-.,.
Q.
75
-50%.0 %
and +50%
"
0
0
...J
0% and +50%
50
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
Lateral Deflection (in.)
-50%
25
..J
OL---------~--------~--------~--------~
8 0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Latera I Def lection (in.)
2.0
57
and static loading indicates that cyclic loading does not have a very large
effect on the pile behavior.
and
y on the pile behavior for cyclic loading are similar to that obtained for
static loading.
The
results of the analyses are plotted in Figs. 3.17 and 3.18 for variations
in EI and in Fig. 3.19 for variations in L.
Two separate cases were used to determine what effect variations in
EI had on the pile behavior.
points of zero deflection along its elastic shape when the member is
loaded to the maximum lateral load.
embedment was short enough so that there was only one point of zero
deflection.
but the sign of the slope along its deflected shape must remain the same.
The results of the analyses for a ~50% variation in EI for the
flexible pile are shown in Fig. 3.17.
EI are to increase the maximum moment and to decrease the lateral deflection.
The maximum moment is not very sensitive to variations in EI, but the
58
100
~ 75
"0
0
0
50
...J
0
'-
u
0
25
...J
a
a
4
2
6
8
6
Max.imum Moment (in.~lb xl0 )
Fig. 3.15.
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.5
Lateral Deflection (in.)
100
+25 %
0%
- 25 %
-.,.
a.. 75
0%
"0
0
0
...J
-25 %
50
'-
25
...J
8 0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Latera I Def lection (in.)
2.0
59
160
~ 120
.3It
"a
.J
.-...
a
.J
8 0
0.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
Lateral Deflection (in.)
160
~ 120
"a
.J
..
80
and +50 %
a...
40
.J
o~----~----~----~----~
2
4
6
80
6
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxI0 )
Fig. 3.18.
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Latera 1 Def lection (in.)
60
5
P, :: 100 kips
-c
.2 3
( ,)
CD
CD
Q; 2
second point of
zero deflection
.J
P :: 60 kips
second point of
zero deflection
o ~I
________
~I--------~I--------~I--------~I------~I
14
16
Depth of Embedment (ft)
10
12
18
20
Fig. 3.19.
61
in Fig. 3.18.
The
Fig. 3.19, has been investigated for lateral loads of 50 and 100 kips.
As
shown, increasing L past the second point of zero deflection had no effect
on the lateral deflection.
embedment is needed for the pile to behave as a flexible member using the
static StiffA criteria.
the second point of zero deflection has a large effect on the lateral
deflection.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
CHAPTER 4.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyzes the results of well-documented, lateral load tests
for piles in clay.
analyses was not presented, and the required information was obtained using
methods discussed in the following section.
As a part of Project 244, a load test on drilled shafts was performed
in San Antonio.
c,
SO
' y,
Incorrect assessment of
ESO will also produce errors in the analysis, but the errors associated with
variations in ESO are much smaller than the errors associated with variations
in c.
variations in
The undrained shear strength, c, was reported for all of the load tests
which were analyzed.
the un-
Because the UU test was used to develop the criteria, this test
low, and both the CU test and the in-situ vane shear tests yield strengths which
are too high. The errors associated with using these other tests could not be
63
64
determined.
The correlation between c and 50' which were used in the analyses,
Sullivan (1977)
The values
prope~ties
concrete member was used, the properties of concrete and the placement of
steel were not reported with sufficient accuracy to warrant the use of a
sophisticated method to obtain EI.
the following equations (ACI 318-71) were used to obtain values of EI that
65
TABLE 4.1.
S50
2
(lb/ft )
(7Q)
500
500 - 1000
1000 - 2000
0.7
2000 - 4000
0.5
4000 - 8000
0.4
250 -
TABLE 4.2.
s50
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF
FOR CIAY
(lb/ft2)
3
(lb/in )
500
30
500 - 1000
100
1000 - 2000
300
2000 - 4000
1000
4000 - 8000
3000
250 -
66
Ell
EI2
E I
c g
I
s
(4.1)
2.5
or
+ Es I s
(4.2)
where
E
s
~ (kips/in~),
Ferguson (1973) states that the results obtained by using either of these
equations is conservative.
Therefore,
for reported tests on long piles, an L which was less than that reported
was sometimes used in the analyses.
The
67
bulkhead caissons, shown in Fig. 4.1, were formed by welding two sheet pile
sections together to form a single member.
The
pile heads were free to rotate, but the vertical eccentricity, e, was
different.
jacking system.
The test setup and pile properties are shown in Fig. 4.1.
computed maximum moments are in good agreement for test pile B1 and in
fair agreement for test pile B4.
The measured
deflections and the computed deflections are in fair agreement for both
test piles.
The measured and computed results for test pile BS are compared in
Fig. 4.3.
The measured
loads was less for test pile BS than for test piles B1 and B4 even though
the applied moment was smaller.
that the p-y criteria and the finite difference method of analysis were
capable of predicting the behavior of a flexible pile and rigid pile.
68
Test Pile
Number
(in.)
BI
17
B4
L(ft)
B5
EI
e
L
( Ib-inch 2 ) ( ft ) ( ft )
3.3
16.7
17
8.88 X 10 9
8.88 X 109
2.9
13.6
17
8.88 X 109
2.3
8.7
SECTION A-A
Bulkhead Caillon
Soli Properll ..
Wn
(%)
20lS0
O.OOlS
114
13
31.5
2100
O.OOlS
114
29
2700
O.OOlS
114
IlS.4
Fig. 4.1.
C
(ib/ ft2 )
Deplh
(t t)
50
3
( in. lin. ) (lb/ft )
20 1
20
/:).
,/ .I~
'/.,~
,/
~.I/
_en
L'.I'
/
15
-en
--g
,/
'/6.
t-"
'-
t/
.-J
,/"
,;:/0
.3 1 0 ; / 6
o
/'J"'[).
i
:;:
h'
~
-a
15
Q.
l 9'
Q.
~/~
/."~~
"
Measured
081
.-J
10
f//:).
If
/;'
1/
/:).84
.L;I
//
Computed
I IT
/'
tp.
---- 61
II
---84
OV
12
0.2
0.4
0.6
Fig. 4.2. Comparison between measured and computed results for test piles Bl and B4 at Bagnolet.
0\
'-0
....,
o
20
20
I
15
en
c.
.lIf:
"C
C1
.3
10
.,
D
....J
/
1
I
1
10
en
,/"
g 10
//
....J
CD
- - - Computed
Measured
,,"0
-,.. ,..-
all
"C
,I'
....J
I
I
I
I
1
1
00
/"
.lIf:
15
C.
-------o
?
I
4
8
12
Maximum Moment (in.-Ib X 10 5 )
Fig. 4.3.
00
0.2
0.4
0.6
Comparison between measured and computed results for test pile B5 at Bagnolet.
0.8
71
Bay Mud
Gill (1968) reported the results of eight lateral load tests performed
on free-head pipe piles.
an area where the ground water table was at its natural depth of 7.5 ft, and
the other four tests on piles F1, F2, F3, and F4 were performed in an adjacent
area where water was allowed to pond for a number of days prior to driving and
testing.
For each series of tests, the same type of pile was used, but the
The liquid limit, LL, and plastic limit, PL, of the clay was 71% and 29%,
respectively.
vane shear test which was rotated at such a rate that failure occurred in 5
seconds.
The vane strength profile for both the dry and flooded sites are
values from unconfined compression testing were smaller and more erratic than
those from the in-situ vane tests.
The measured and computed deflections for test piles D1, D2, D3, and D4
which were tested at the dry site are compared in Fig. 4.6.
made using the Stiff A criteria.
Computations were
left-hand figure and results for piles D3 and D4 are shown in the right-hand
figure.
measured deflections for piles D3 and D4 are much larger than the computed deflections.
The errors in the computed deflections are very large and are
opposite meaning.
*Errors were computed using the following equation:
er ror = ....:(,--m_e_a_s_u_r_e_d_-_c,-o:....m:-,PLu=-t=-e.:;,.d--<-) x 100%
computed
72
1.67 ft
7.5ft
I----X_ _ G.W.T.
for
dry test
PILE PROPERTIES
Test Pile
Number
(ft )
b
(in. )
EI
(lb.- in.2 )
01, FI
4.75
2.17 X 108
18.2
02, F2
8.62
20.4
D3,F3
12.75
2.17 X 109
7.46 X 109
D4,F4
16.00
1.69 X 1010
L
(ft )
16.7
26.7
Soil Properties
Dry Test SI te
Fig. 4.4.
Depth
(ft)
E50
(%)
(lb/ft 3 )
0-7.5
0.7
115
7.5 -20
0.7
50
11.0
50
200
73
c ( Ib/ ft )
1000
2000
3000
+-
.J:.
+Q,
Q)
10
Fig. 4.5.
'-l
10;Or
--
7.5
t it
0.
-'"
/6
- 2,sl /'6
'"
0
0
...J
6.
15
4)
;'
/'()
'"
(/
0.4
6.
6.
/
6.
6.
Measured
003
6.04
5 '/ 6.0
Computed
,.. , . . /
10
---- 01
-'-02
...
/ ,/
001
6.02
Com~uted
...J
Measured
5.0
20
0.8
1.2
I
0
----03
-'-04
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Fig. 4.6.
(b)
Comparison bet~een measured and computed deflections for tests at dry bay
mud site.
(a) test piles Dl and D2.
(b) test piles D3 and D4.
75
The measured and computed deflections for test piles Fl and F2, which
were tested at the flooded site, are compared in Fig. 4.7.
The
computations were made with the SoftB and with the Unified criteria.
Results
for pile Fl are shown in the left-hand figure and the results for pile F2
in the right-hand figure.
For the two test piles, the measured deflections exceed the
computed deflections from both the SoftB criteria and the Unified criteria.
A maximum error of 53% was obtained between the measured and computed
deflections for test pile F3 using the SoftB criteria and a maximum error
of 36% was obtained using the Unified criteria.
obtained between measured and computed deflections for test pile F4.
Hudson River
Peck and Davisson (1962) reported the results of a short-term static
lateral load test performed on a 14BP89 pile, shown in Fig. 4.9a.
pile was driven into the Hudson River 54 ft below the mud line.
The
The
lateral loads were applied 8 ft above the water level with a moment arm at
the mud line of 32.5 ft.
of load application, and a Wilson Slope Indicator was used to measure the
pile slope as a function of depth.
The soil below the river bottom was composed of a gray organic
silt, known as Hudson River silt.
Values
of c were reported from the results of the U tests and in-situ vane
shear tests.
The results from the vane tests were used in the analyses of
......
0'1
","
",,/'"
,/
l it
0.
..3IC
"C
",/
o 2
...J
///"
...
o
cu
//
...J
".'"
"."
,,"
~
/.-~
/'"
,/~
,//
I/>
I'
OLr------~--------L-------~
0.4
0.8
1.2
//
;"
/<'/
2
/,
/'"
/'
// ,../6
11//'0
'" ~'~
/'
/'"
./'
,,,."
,,"
Measured
Com~uted
I.
OL.------~------~------~------~
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Fig. 4.7.
(b)
Comparison between measured and computed deflections at flooded bay mud site.
(a) test pile Fl. (b) test pile F2.
10.0 r
--"'"
7.5
0
0
5.0
en
a.
"C
..J
;/,/
20
//0
15
//
/
//
// 0
//0
/10
10
o Measured
- lit1/
i
0
....
..J
2.5
- - - Unified p-y
/'
I,
ComRuted
/.1
l
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
Fig. 4.8.
(b)
Comparison between measured and computed deflections at flooded bay mud site.
(a) test pile F3. (b) test pile F4.
-....,J
-....,J
-...j
ex>
Pt
1I I
32.5 tt
(j)
~
.u .....
c Ublft2)
Iwater Level
I inA
100
200
300
400
---C
c:
.10
.J
'"
:::J
::IE
):
54 ttl
~ 20
.r::.
a.
rI
30
Pile Properties
Soi 1 Properties
EI=I.I x 10101b-in 2
Depth=0-40 tt
b= 14 in.
E'50= 24
Y = 30 Ib/ft3
k = 30 Ib/in.3
Fig. 4.9.
79
The
computations were made using the SoftB criteria and the Unified criteria.
As shown in Fig. 4.l0a, results using the SoftB criteria agree favorably with
the measured deflections at low load levels, but begin to diverge from
the measured deflections at larger loads.
results that are slightly conservative for all but the largest applied
load of 3 kips.
The deflected shape of the pile, shown in Fig. 4.l0b, was obtained
by integrating the slope versus depth curve.
obtained from integration is slightly larger than the measured pile top
deflection for the 1.5 kip load and is practically the same as the measured
pile top deflection for the 3 kip load.
shapes, using both sets of p-y criteria, compare favorably, but better
agreement was obtained using the Unified criteria.
Japanese Test
The results of short-term static lateral load tests on free-head
pipe piles were reported by the Japanese Committee of Research for Piles
Subjected to Earthquake (1965).
shown in Fig. 4.11, was installed by vertically jacking the closed-end pile
into place with a winching system.
The soil at the site was a soft, medium to highly plastic, silty
clay.
strength for the deposit, shown in Fig. 4.11, was obtained from U tests.
The strains at failure were generally less than 5%, and brittle fracturing
was the mode of failure for the soil samples.
Fig. 4.10.
Comparison between measured and computed results for test at Hudson River.
(a) pile top deflection. (b) deflected shape.
81
Ground Surface
and G.W.T
Pile Properties
17 ft.
Soi I Properties
Depth
(ft)
Fig. 4.11.
E50
31
31
65
65
570
17
900
82
4.l2b.
The computations were made using the SoftB criteria and the Unified
criteria.
moments using the SoftB criteria agree well, but the results from use of
the Unified criteria are slightly conservative.
strengths were very erratic and difficult to interpret. Near the ground
2
surface, values for c of 200, 1100, and 2600 lb/ft were reported. The
blow count from an SPT near the ground surface was in excess of 30 blows/ft.
Based on the reported blow counts, a shear strength of approximately 2500
2
lb/ft would be selected if the correlation suggested by Schmertmann (1975)
was used.
Also, the moisture content was at or below the plastic limit for
the upper material, which indicates that the material was heavily overconsolidated.
25 and 33.3 kips, and were cycled twice at a load level of 16.67 kips.
The
~
0/
4r
a.
~"o
~ 2l
Q)
o....J
~'
~
/://
1/
~
0
3
~
2
/
I~
/1
/7
III
l-
Measured
03rd cycle
~Ist cycle
----.50ftB p-y
---Unified p-y
r
4
12
8
4
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxI0 )
Fig. 4.12.
/{)'
w3i
0.1
0.2
0.3
Ground Line Deflection (in.)
(Xl
00
P x =72 kip
... ',
..
CUb/tt2}
" . ~ /I '
Pt - - -
': .?
'
00
--.I:
41 ft
1000
2000
10
Q.
20
--'---~
Pile Properties
Fig. 4.13.
Soil Properties
ESO= 0.5/0
Y=IlS tb/ft 3
3000
----,
85
The measured maximum moment for the third cycle of loading was 960
in.-kips, which occurred at a depth of 45 in.
computed maximum moment, which occurred at a depth of 48 in, was 490 in.-kips.
This is an extremely large difference in maximum moments, considering that
the computed deflections were only unconservative by 15% and that both
computed and measured maximum moments occurred at approximately the same
depth.
measured deflections for low loads, but for a lateral load of 33.3 kips
the computed deflection is 33% larger than the measured deflection.
Ontario
Ismael and Klyrn (1977) reported the results of short-term static
lateral load tests performed on two 5-ft-diameter, cast-in-place, drilled
shafts.
ft, and the other shaft, designated 17, was belled with a length of 17
ft.
The test setup and pile properties are shown in Fig. 4.15.
The soil profile at the test site consisted of a 6 ft desiccated
Classification system.
for the top 6 ft, which indicates that the material was heavily overconsolidated.
There was some scatter in the reported U, UU, and CU shear strengths.
The shear strength profile, shown in Fig. 4.15, is the best estimate of
the in-situ shear strength based on the reported values.
Because the
clay was stiff and submerged, the StiffB and Unified criteria were used to
perform the analyses.
Sullivan for soil similar to the soil at Manor were used in the analyses.
The measured and computed deflections for test pile 38 are compared
in Fig. 4.l6a.
86
40
30
en
a.
.Jt:
"0
0
....J
20
Measured
C1)
o 1st
....J
10
cycle
62nd cycle
- - - - - Computed
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 4.14.
1.0
Pt
Test Pi Ie
t... 38
Test Pi Ie
f... 17 i
Pt
c
500
--
38 ft
1000
1500
2000
---,
10 I-
L=c-r
.r:.
Q.
cu
Soi I Properties
Pile Properties
E I =9.3 x I 0 I I I b - i n. 2
b= 60 in.
(I b/ft 2 )
201-
30'-
Depth E50
(tt)
Y
k
3
(0/0) (I blft ) (I blin.3 )
0-6
6-40
Fig. 4.15.
60
50
800
300
00
-....J
ex>
ex>
160r
.-.
_
y~
'"
-------f"', . . ---0
~-
/~ / '
80
/~
.3o
-'
" 40
lY
o/,
~/
/"~
f'
~ ...
/'/'
/"
0"//
0/
/"
0 Measured
Cam~uled
I
'1
Unified p-y
O'L-----~------~------~----~
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.9
Fig. 4.16.
(b)
1.2
89
measured deflections and the deflections computed using the Unified criteria
up to a lateral load of 76 kips.
deflections diverge.
StiffB criteria are similar to the results obtained using the Unified
criteria; however, the StiffB criteria yield results that are conservative
for the full range of loading.
shear forces could have developed along the bottom of the bell, and could
have influenced the real behavior of the test foundation.
The magnitude of
these moments and forces are unknown, and the finite difference analysis
assumes that they are zero at the base of the pile.
Plancoet
The results of a short-term static lateral load test performed on a
free-head, rigid caisson at Plancoet, France, was reported by Baguelin, et al.,
(1971). The test pile was fabricated from four sheet pile sections, and the
base of the pile was sealed with a steel plate. The test pile was installed
by pushing the member vertically into the earth until 17 ft of the pile was
below the existing ground surface.
\0
Pt
..
Ground Surface
4 ft
400
c (I blft 2)
600
E 50 (%)
800
1000
G.W.T.
-.-..
17 ft
-5
lU
.J::.
a.
CD
10
Pile Properties
EI =2.65 x lOll Ib-in:2
b = 37 in.
p,--o=:f37
Soi I Properties
Depth
(ttl
in.
2.6-12
12-17
Materia 1
type
Silt
Fine sand
Ie
Ublft 3)
50
50
(Ib/in~)
35
Section A-A
Fig. 4.17.
100
80
2
i
91
in c and
performing the test, the upper 2.6 ft of desiccated crust was partially
removed around the test pile.
The
computations were made using the SoftB criteria and Unified criteria for the
upper silt layer and the sand criteria for the fine sand layer.
As shown,
the measured and computed maximum moments are in good agreement for both
sets of criteria.
deflections obtained using the Unified criteria do not agree well with
the measured deflections, and are conservative by as much as 35%.
Savannah River
Alperstein and Leifer (1976) reported the results of short-term
static lateral load tests performed near the Savannah River near Augusta,
Georgia.
The test piles were Class B timber piles with a 9 in. tip
will be discussed.
An
The measured and computed deflections for test piles 2 and 5 are
compared in Fig. 4.20.
\D
N
30,
\I)
.$V
"../
/"
(' " ,
",,,,,,,
/,.
Co
30
J/
./
20
."
0
0
....J
j 11
/'
....
;~
;/'"
o / ",
20
/,/
L"
O/~
o Measured
//
10 01.
Computed
- - - - Soft B p-y
- - - Unified p-y
V
0
",""""
,,/
2
3
Maximum Moment (in.-lbxI0 6 )
Fig. 4.18.
1.0
2.0
3.0
Ground Line Deflection (i n.)
20
0.0 ft
Ground Su rfa c e
Pt-L
15
I I)
a.
,:JiI(.
"'0
0
0
37 ft I
-'
10
'-
Q)
--Measured
---- Compu te d
-'
,
.,-'\rr-
-L-J
Pile Properties
E lave= 2.4 x 109 Ib-in.2
b= 13 in.
Soil Properties
Depth:: 0- 14 ft
c = 1200lblft 2
E SO =0.7/0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Y= 120 Ib/ft 3
Fig. 4.19.
Fig. 4.20.
VJ
94
curve is larger than the initial slope for both test piles.
The difference
in initial slopes could be due to either the initial slope of the p-y
curve being too large, or possible whipping of the timber pile during
driving which would enlarge the hole.
As stated previously, a reasonable butt diameter of 13 in. was
selected to perform the analysis.
Chapter 3 which proves that EI has a fairly large effect on the lateral
deflection.
Southern California Edison
Bhushan, et al., (1978) reported the
resul~s
The tests
were performed on twelve shafts at five sites, but only the results of
three tests perfo'rmed at sites A and B will be discussed.
were straight sided and reinforced with 3% steel.
was small enough and EI was large enough so that the piers behaved as
rigid members.
plasticity.
or below the plastic limit, indicating the soil was heavily overconsolidated.
The undrained shear strengths and ESO values were obtained from U
and UU tests on intact samples.
In
the following analyses, the average c and ESO values reported by the authors
for each test site were used.
95
c~iteria
The measured and computed deflections for test pile 2 are compared in
Fig. 4.22.
agreement.
For lateral loads less than 140 kips, the computed deflection is
too small, and for larger lateral loads,the computed deflections are very
conservative.
To
obtain better agreement between the measured and computed results, the
static Stiff A criteria would have to be modified.
The measured and computed deflections for test piles 6 and 8 are
compared in Fig. 4.24.
in poor agreement.
two test piles at site B that was obtained for test pile 2 at site A.
The
initial portion of the computed load-deflection curve is too stiff, and the
computed ultimate lateral capacity is too small.
Based on these test results the shape of the p-y curve needs to be
modified.
curve
~nd
is too small.
deflections.
St. Gabriel
A short-term static lateral load test was performed on a free-head,
10 in., concrete-filled, pipe pile near St. Gabriel, Louisiana (Capazzoli,
1968).
The
The
natural moisture content of the clay varied from 35 to 46% in the upper
10 ft of soil.
'-D
(J\
Dial Gage
0.75 ft
Pt
400
Ground Surface
I~I
o
-en 300
a.
15 ft
"C
0
o 200
...J
....0
p-'"
IV
--
...... ----
---
...J
.".,..
100
Pile Properties
10
OMeasured
----computed
EI =8.2 x 1011Ib-in.2
b=48 in.
Soil Properties
Depth = 0-15 ft
c = 5500 Ib/ft 2
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
E50= 0.94/0
Y = 130 Ib/ft 3
Fig. 4.21.
Fig. 4.22.
.75 ft
400
,Ground Surface
7Ct
In
C.
300
.3C
15.5 ft
l~
0
~
200r
- IOJ
~
QJ
Pile Properties
Test Pile
Number
EI
(lb-i n.2 )
b
( in.)
8.2 x lOll
5.2 x 10 10
48
6.
'0
24
p
/
""
,...- ~-------
6.
,. ~
__ -----
6.
-...-------
Measu red
---06
6.8
Computed
---- 6
---8
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Soil Properties
Depth: 0- 16 ft
c: 4750 Ib/ft 2
E50: 0.72 %
130lb/ft3
Y:
Fig. 4.23.
Fig. 4.24.
\0
-...J
\0
CXl
I ft
20
15
.a:
"0
0
0
...J
/"....~'~
0.
115 ft
"...."",,"-
II)
,.,""
//
10
.,
..
//
/.:~'
CP
...J
Pi Ie Properties
EI =3.8 x 109 Ib-in.2
b= 10 in.
Soi I Properties
Depth =0-15ft
c =600 I b/ft 2
E50 = 1/0
=110 Ib/ft 2
5
o~
o Measured
Computed
---
orL-____________ _______________
~
0.5
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Fig. 4.25.
Fig. 4.26.
99
in Fig. 4.26.
The computations were made using the SoftB criteria and the
Unified criteria.
(2)
Hudson River,
(3)
Japan,
(4)
Plancoet, and
(5)
St. Gabriel.
Figure 4.27 plots the computed deflections from the results of the
analyses performed on piles at the above five sites versus the measured
deflections.
which were unconservative were obtained using the SoftB criteria at the
flooded bay mud test site, but two points were unconservative using the
Unified criteria at the same site.
The computed deflections obtained using the SoftB criteria were
always less than the computed deflections obtained using the Unified
criteria.
The differences between the static SoftB criteria and the static
Unified criteria are that different values for N at the ground surface are
p
and that c
Using the different definitions for c will have some affect on the
100
2.0
.~(b
"
1.6
--c
c:
1.2
Q)
...
r,.,0
~t:f
Q)
..
(b'
~~
( .)
Q)
"0
~o
0.8
:t
II)
0
Q)
:e
SoftB p-y
.. Unified p-y
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Fig. 4.27.
101
computed results, but the use of the different values for N at the ground
p
for the cases presented in this report, but two important aspects of the
lateral load behavior of piles have not been dealt with.
behavior under cyclic loading has not been discussed since no cyclic load
test results could be found in the literature, except the one performed by
Matlock in developing the criteria.
The
largest diameter pile analyzed in this report was the 37 in. rigid
pile at Plancoet.
These pile sizes are much larger than the 12.75 in.
expensive to test piles which are as large as offshore piles, such tests
would be most beneficial in either reinforcing or modifying the presently
used criteria.
Stiff A Criteria
The Stiff A criteria were used at the following test sites:
(1)
Bagnolet,
(2)
(3)
Lewisburg,
(4)
(5)
The measured versus computed deflections from the results of the analyses
performed on piles and piers at the above five sites are plotted in Fig.
4.28.
The majority
of the data points from Bagnolet, Lewisburg, and Savannah River were within
the 25% confidence limits.
ment between the computed and measured results at the dry bay mud test
102
1.5
"
~fJ
C;
,,~
"fJ
o~
~v
1.2
....,
c:
c: 0.9
0
Q)
0\0
Q)
"
Q)
':;,
.....
1.6
0.6
1.1)
Q)
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Fig. 4.28.
1.5
103
site is apparently due to the use of shear strengths which were too large.
The high rate at which the vane was rotated could have affected c, but
no other cases could be found in the literature to verify this point.
Therefore, the use of vane tests to obtain shear strengths of stiff,
desiccated clays is questionable.
The results of the analyses performed on the Southern California
Edison drilled shafts were very conservative at the larger lateral loads.
For the three tests, the computed ultimate lateral capacity was approximately
1/2 of the measured lateral capacity.
reasons for this discrepancy.
Bhusha~
not correct.
to sample, and it is possible that the average shear strength is too low
becau3e of sampling disturbance.
were double the shear strengths at the site where the Stiff A criteria
were developed.
loads are unconservative, the exponent must be increased if better agreement is to be obtained between measured and computed results.
Increasing
the exponent will also stiffen the p-y curve at larger deflections, which
will thus decrease the deflections at large lateral loads.
The reported
cases for tests in stiff soils above the water table were reanalyzed using
different values for the exponent, and the final value which was selected
was 0.4.
104
(4.3)
and the StiffB criteria were the only ones used to analyze the tests at the
Ontario Hydro site.
results of the analyses of piles performed at the above site are plotted in
Fig. 4.30.
105
1.5
1.2
~ 0.9
Q)
Q)
~ 0.6
'::J
U)
o
Q)
::e
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Fig. 4.29.
106
1.0
0.8
.JI.t:lJ
",-'
l:>
"""':
c
c
0
t:lJ'
~~
(,)0
0.6
~~
Q)
Q)
'0
Q)
'-
0.4
::::J
en
0
Q)
Stiff B p-y
A Unified p-y
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Fig. 4.30.
CHAPTER 5.
INTRODUCTION
The criteria suggested by
Rees~
This
analyzed, and the best estimate of the in-situ soil properties was made.
There is no implication that the soil properties selected are the
"exact" soil properties, but they are the best estimate in view of
the limited information that was presented in each case.
The
then relate D
to
<p
and k.
related to the void ratio for a particular soil, and then y could be
calculated.
107
108
et al., 1974).
The
O. 5
N
(-20-----:"(....::1 + 2p) )
(5.1)
2
for p < 1.5 kip/ft
and
N
D
O 5
(5.2)
where
-p
2
effective overburden pressure (kip/ft ).
Because the pressures around the top portion of a laterally loaded pile
are not large, the effect of confining pressure was not considered.
The correlation that was used to relate D
Schmertman (1975).
D
to
was given by
The
109
46
c:
oeo
42
~e\\
'-
LL
\)\0<'''
~(\~
c:
'-
Q)
~<.o
38
<. /foe"
CpO
c:
Q)
0\
c:
<t
Genera I Ra nge
of Values
34
30~------~------~--------~------~--------
20
40
60
80
100
Fig. 5.1.
110
upper curve is for angular, well-graded materials and the lower curve is for
the rounded, poorly-graded materials. Most of the sands that were described
in connection with the load tests that were studied were classified as SP in
the Unified Soil Classification System, which would place them closer to the
lower curve in Fig. 5.1.
Touma (1972) recommended the determination of D and
r
of Gibbs and Holtz (1957) and he further obtained a correlation between the
N-value from the Standard Penetration Test and the N-value from the penetrometer test of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
State of Texas.
correlations to be developed if one has N-values from the SDHPT test (PEN test).
The constant of subgrade reaction is necessary to establish the initial
portion of the p-y curve.
fications of loose, medium, and dense, have been reported by Reese (1975) and
are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, for sands below the water table and for sands
above the water table, respectively.
The two
Depending on the gradation of the sand and the particle size, a rough
correlation between
of 50%.
In instances
where a large amount of soil was excavated, a value of 1.0 was used for K
o
In the following sections, the results of analyses of the results of a
number of lateral load tests will be discussed.
soil properties were reported, these values were simply used directly in the
111
100
- -
200
+......
......
+-
......
......
en
m 80.2m 160
en
- 0
+-
c:
+:::::J
40
c:
Numbers on Curves
Ind icate Effective
Overburden Pressure
60
g 120
m -m
0
'-
Q,)
+-
....
40 Q; 80
Q,)
Q,)
....
....0
+-
+-
c:
Q,)
Q,)
c:
Q,)
200.. 40
to..
t::r
0..
c
en
en
Q,)
0..
20
40
60
80
100
Dr C%)
Relative Very
Density Loose
cp
Loose
Medium
Dense
28 0
Fig. 5.2.
Very
Dense
112
TABLE 5.1.
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF
Relative Density
Recommended
TABLE 5.2.
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF
Relative Density
Recommended
Loose
Medium
Dense
20
60
125
Loose
25
Medium
Dense
90
225
113
Very
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very
Loose
Dense
Dense
300 ~~~~------~~~~~-----4--------~~~~
250
Sand Above
I
200
the Water
Table
r f)
"-
.a
150
Sand Below
I
100
the Wa ter
Table
50
20
40
60
80
Dr %
Fig. 5.3.
100
114
44~----------~~--~--------------------------~
c:
40
LL
0
c:
L..
Q)
36
c:
Q)
CI'
c:
<t
32
28L---------------------------~--~~------~
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Void Ratio
Fig. 5.4.
1.0
115
analysis.
~,
k, and y.
were the same for all of the test piles at this site, but a number of analyses
were performed due to differences in pile stiffness, pile batter, and loading
conditions.
The test piles which were analyzed are designated test piles 2,
Boring LD4-204
The
the sand criteria, the computed results for both test piles are the same.
The
deflections are in poor agreement for test pile 2, but compare favorably for
test pile 16.
on the maximum moment, but had a considerable effect on the lateral deflection.
Test piles 5 and 14 were 16 in. square, prestressed,concrete piles
116
Bottom of
Depth
( ft )
G.WT
Blow Count
( blow 1ft)
. '.
Exeavati7
7/,@'
-..loL...----t. .~: ,; . 1 - - - - -
. ~~:- ..
. '. : : -14
'
10
-:SP,
'::, :-:'
, , -. ..
35
':.~... :: ': - 25
~
20 -',
. r
<.:. -23
Soi I Properties
Depth
( ft )
cp
0-3 38
3- 20 38
(lb/ft 3 )
115
63
k
(Ib/in~ )
K0
160
90
1.0
1.0
40--.~~
Fig. 5,5.
117
e
Bottom of Excavation
PILE PROPERTIES
Test Pile
Number
2
16
EI
tlb-in~)
24.4 x 10 10
24 x 10 10
e
(ttl
0.1
0.0
53ft
Fig. 5.6.
118
50
/
/
40
/
/
30
./
1:::./ /
/
~/
20
./
Measured
0
~/
10
1:::. 16
Computed
II)
Q.
~
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
"00
...J
0
'-
Q)
50
'"
...J
/
/
40
/
/
/
/
/
30
/
/
./
/
20
Measured
10
---- Computed
'I
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
Fig. 5.7.
119
The analysis
is conservative for the driven pile, test pile 5, and slightly unconservative for the jetted pile, test pile 14.
The
was not reported, and the load was assumed to be applied at the ground line.
The test setup and pile properties are shown in Fig. 5.10.
The measured and computed deflections for test pile 6 are compared
in Fig. 5.11.
The
initial slope of the load-deflection curve does not agree with the experiment
3
and could be brought into better agreement by using a k of 200 1b/in in
the analysis.
Only one deflection was reported for cyclic loading.
This data
point is plotted in Fig. 5.11, along with the complete deflection curve
that was computed for cyclic loading.
t-'
OLr------~
0.1
______
______
0.2
______
0.3
0.4
____
0.5
Fig. 5.8.
Fig. 5.9.
Pt
Bottom of
Excavation
0.0 ft
25
6~
~
,
"'~??
/,;/
20
f/
./
//
?'"
/
,'/'/
vV'/' /
I/
t'i/
;1/
1/
fI'I
40 ft
a.
.:.:
15
'1~
'I
"
0
....
Q.)
Measured
'I
0
0
...J
10
...J
- - Static
Cyclic
Computed
Static
- - - Cyclic
5
PILE PROPERTIES
Section Type: 14 BP73
EI :: 21.5 X 10 10 Ib - in~
b
14 in.
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
Fig. 5.11.
I-'
I-'
.....
N
N
Bottom of Excavation
20
15
en
Q.
39 ft
'0
10
-1
0
~
IT
/";'"
G)
Measured
-1
51-
/""r
- - - - - -- Computed
Pile Properties
EIAve:= 3.2 x 109 1b -in 2
b= 14 in.
o~r--------~----------~--------~---------L--------~
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
5.12.
Fig. 5.13.
123
but test pile 12 was installed on a 3 on 1 batter and test pile 13A was
installed vertically.
Fig. 5.14.
The sand criteria were developed from the results of tests on vertical
piles.
To account for the batter of test pile 12, a curve, shown in Fig.
p-y curve was affected by both the direction and angle of the batter.
For
This
The measured and computed results for test piles 12 and 13A are
compared in Fig. 5.16.
and computed maximum moments are approximately 20% for test pile 12 and
approximately 50% for test pile 13A.
The
curve for test pile 13A is too small, and an increase of k would yield
better results.
For all of the Arkansas River tests which were analyzed, the
initial slope of the computed load-deflection curve is too small.
The
of 65%.
Overconsolidation
could be a possible reason for the large difference between the recommended
value of k and that required for agreement with the experimental results.
Overconso1idating the sand would increase the in-situ lateral stresses,
which would thus increase the initial soil modulus.
of k suggested by Reese
et a1.
124
P,1 _....-........0.5 ft
---.......--1-
8 0 tt
- - _o_m of Excavation
__
-----~7~~~------~--
v
45 ft
P He Prope rt ies
12
EI
2
llb-tn. )
2,48xIO'O
'3A
2.79X'O'O
Test Pile
Number
Fig. 5.14.
Batter
(V:H)
3: ,
none
Test setup and pile properties for test pile. 12 and 13A.
2.0
\:
c
c
I I)
1.5
Pt
'"
Q)
-9
II)
Q)
a::
0
CJ)
Q)
1.0
c
E
:::>
0
0.5
a::
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Fig. 5.15.
N
VI
126
30
20
- - - Meosu red
10
- - - - Computed
OL----~----~----~----~----~
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
Fig. 5.16.
U7
Apapa
Short-term static lateral load tests were performed on Raymond
steptapered piles near Apapa, Nigeria (Colemen, 1968; Coleman and Hancock,
1972).
Test piles 1 and 2 were tested under the same conditions; there-
vertically, and the steel shells were then filled with reinforced concrete.
The test setup and pile properties are shown in Fig. 5.17.
The soil at the site consisted of a 5 ft thick layer of hydraulically
placed sand overlying a layer of soft organic clay.
mainly control the pile behavior, but the clay layer will also have some
influence.
laboratory triaxial tests, and c for the soft organic clay was obtained
from in-situ vane tests.
agrees fairly well with the measured curves before this load, but the
curves diverge at larger loads.
Bailly
Lateral load tests were performed on two 14BP89 piles at the site
of a proposed nuclear power plant (Bergstrom, 1974).
driven vertically, and the lateral loads were applied 1.5 ft above the
ground surface to the free-head piles.
tons, and
The soil properties and boring log are shown in Fig. 5.19.
The measured and computed deflections for test piles TP7 and TP8 are
128
.~":'.'.p.~',,:
P,
~A::..~: .:,i.:'
",0
2ft
to ..
f ....
"t.
2 ft
G. W. T.
PILE PROPERTIES
105 ft
Soil
Depth
cp
Soil Type
(1t)
41
41
0-3
3-5
Sand Fill
5-20
Sand Fill
Fig. 5.17.
Depth
( ft)
b
(in)
EI 2
( Ib- in )
0-8
8-20
20-40
17.4
16.4
15.4
7.8 X 10 9
7.0 X 10 9
6.5 X 10 9
Properties
k
Y3
2
3
(lb/ft ) (lb/ft ) (lb/in. )
Ko
E50
(in./ln.)
120
68
225
130
.4
.4
'00
30
60
.02
129
20
0
./
9/
16
./
".
./
./
/6
6
- 12
"C
0
~/
...J
/'
/'
/'
".
".'"
"
"
"
/6
Measured
01
olf
Q)
.- 8
...J
4
I
62
- - - Computed
0'6
/l
!J
0.2
Fig. 5.18.
0.4
0.6
Deflection (in.)
0.8
1.0
>--'
....,
Concrete
Caps
G rou nd Surface
',-'-,
I' .. :1
I'
Depth
1.5 ft
( ft.)
Boring B6
Blow Count
(blow 1ft.)
.l ::
10
--
'
' '.",
24
<D
SP.
~ 19
I()
I- 24
20 G.W.T.I',
TI
25
b =14 in.
Depth
(ft)
0-56
Fig. 5.19.
38
Soi I Properties
Pile Properties
E I = 9.78 x 10 9 1b - i n.2
1;1
.':',
30
"
37
Y
(I b/ft 3 )
k
Ub/in 3 )
115
110
Ko
0.4
131
Because the pile and soil properties fo"r both piles were
the same, only one computer run was made for the static loading and one
for the cyclic loading.
sand p-y criteria were developed from the results of a pile test in
submerged sand, but the criteria apparently work equally well for the
cyclic loading of a pile in sand above the water table.
Florida
A short-term static lateral load test was performed by the Florida
Power and Light Co. (Davis, 1977).
An
ellipically shaped utility pole was embedded in the upper portion of the
steel tube to a depth of 4 ft below the ground surface.
The utility
pole was rigidly attached to the inside of the steel tube with gusset
plates, and the annular space between the utility pole and tube was
filled with concrete.
r-'
W
N
40r
01::.
./
-- 31
en
a.
/'
.lI:
'U
0
0
...J
0
~
cu
...J
#.~
20~
IJ
"
"
Sialic Loodin9
;'
I::.
///
TP7
TPS
- - - - - Computed
~yclic
,
1/
TP7
TPS
---
///
////
l1U""
/'
Loodin9 .
Computed
II
0
0.4
O.S
1.2
1.6
2.0
Fig. 5.20.
133
Ll
, 'vft
51 ft
,,
,,
,
I
Ground Surface
14ft
,_ _ _ _ ..1
.---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
Pile Properties
Depth
( ft )
26 ft
0-4
---L._ _
4-26
EI
(i n.) (I b - i n.2 )
56 1.77 x 10 12
56 8.8x10 II
Blow Count
(blows/ft.)
GWT' .....
\ .
20
25
"
\
15
13
"SP
.. ~ '. ..'
.. 10
.,
10
..
Soil Properties
".
. ,."
18
14
21
Depth
(f t )
0-2
38
115
2-13 38
13-26
60
60
2500
160 0.4
100 0.4
1000
-0.005
17
30
Fig. 5.21.
134
be utilized.
Hydraulic Fill
Gill (1969) reported the results of four lateral load tests performed
on free-headed statically loaded pipe piles.
stiffnesses
could account for the extremely high blow count of 58 blows/ft at a depth
of 2 ft, shown in Fig. 5.23.
No information con-
cerning the SPT resistance of the material was given below 4.5 ft, and it was
assumed that the relative density was constant below this depth.
As shown in Fig. 5.24a, the computed deflections are approximately
twice as large as the measured deflections for test pile P9.
results were obtained for test pile P10.
Similar
test piles Pll and P12, shown in Fig. 5.24b, are in much better agreement
with the measured deflections.
135
60
/"
/
/
/
/
9/
50
/
/
/
/
/
/
40
1
II)
Q.
1J
1
01
..lI:
I
"0
0
-.J
1
0
1
30
0 Measu red
I
I
----
r:;I
(l)
Com puted
-.J
o /
20
o /
/
o /
/
10
/
/
/
/
0
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
Fig. 5.22.
136
Borino
Depth
(ft)
:'. ::.(:,
"
... .......
..,
\.
:"
.1"
58
(.
"'..
.: .',.
I.S7 ft
,,'
,,1'
G.W.T.
Ground
Line
Blow Count
(blows/ft)
IS
Pile Width
. .... :
...
. .
,
Uniform Medium
Sand
~.
. ,SP "
" ..,
........'.' '
, . ....
". ;' ..
::
10
Lenoth
(ft)
'.
,,"
"
"
..
."
.:
,4, ~ .. "
,
.."," .~ .:
h,
15
......
..'
t
to
..
'
.:
"
IT
....
Pile Properties
Soil Properties
Depth
cp
0-2
41
125
275
0.4
2-4.5
40
115
175
0.4
4.5-32
38
SO
110
0.4
(lb/f t 3)
(Ib/in~)
Ko
L
( ft )
18
8,S2
2.17 X 10 8
2.17 X 10 9
24
12.75
146X 10 9
30
b
(i n.)
P9
4.75
PIO
PII
PI2
Fig. 5.23.
E1
Test Pile
Number
IS.OO
( lb. - in 2 )
I.S9X 10
10
30
137
16
,/'"
/'
,/'
12
/'
Measured
P9
I).
Pia
Computed
------ P9
_ . - Pia
---
I I')
a.
..lI::
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
(a) Ground line Def lee tion (i n.)
-c
o
.J
1)./
20
0/
'-
OJ
4-
.J
t/
16
/
12
./
8
/
.1). /
i
.~
/
p/
/
/0
JrlO
o'/ /
o /
/
/
./'
Measured
o PII
PI2
Coml::luted
------- PI!
-'-PI2
I).
./
I
a
(b)
Fig. 5.24.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
138
The test
was loaded
then densifying the sand around the guyed pile until 40 ft of the pile
was embedded in the fill.
, an oscillator
was strapped to the pile top and the pile was vibrated.
Fig. 5.26.
Deflections and earth pressures along the pile were measured for
lateral loads of 10 and 18.5 kips.
surveyor's level was mounted directly above the test pile to a fixed reference beam and used to obtain the lateral deflections by monitor
the
overestimate the
measured deflection by 80% for a load of 10 kips, and by 15% for a load
18.5
same sand deposit, but only the results of test pile 3-L will be discussed.
139
Top of Embankment
t 0.0 ft
PILE PROPERTIES
8
2
EI : 2.3 X 10 Ib-in.
b: 16 in.
40 ft
Soil
Depth
cp
Y
k
TI
Fig. 5.25.
K.
Properti ..
:
0- 40 ft
= 38
98 Ib/ ft 3
200Ib/in.3
= 0.4
,....
o
+:--
Deflection (in.)
-0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
-600
-400
-200
200
--
--
'::::..._---"
P = 18.5
t
10.c
c::a..
.;I'
---
Fig. 5.26.
,\
I
/
_/
15
(0)
.......
(b)
Comparison between measured and computed results for test by Mason and Bishop.
~l
Test pile 3-L was fully instrumented to measure bending strains along its
entire length.
The pertinent pile properties and test set-up are shown in Fig.
5.27.
The test pile was placed vertically in the test pit prior to placing
the sand.
a uniform density.
around the test piles during placement of the sand, yielding an average
3
dry density of 100 lb/ft . A number of direct shear tests and triaxial
tests on saturated samples were performed, yielding average values for
the average value of 44 from the triaxial tests was more representative
of the actual in-situ angle of internal friction.
The measured and computed results for test pile 3-L are shown in
Fig. 5.28.
The
At low load
levels, the error was much less, which indicates that the correct value for
k was used in the analysis.
The results of this analysis are very instructive in showing the
flexibility of the sand p-y criteria.
24 in. pipe pile, but the analysis worked very well in predicting the
behavior of a 2-in.-diameter pile.
As shown,
L42
Woter Surfoce
Pi Ie Properties
EI=5.55 xl0 6
Ib-in.2
b = 2 in.
8ft
Soi I Properties
Depth
cp
Fig. 5.27.
Ko
(ft.)
0-8
44
62
130
0.4
143
500
a.-
,/
,/
400
,/
9/
,/
,/
,/
300
,/
9'
,/
/'
/'
,/
200
jJ
Measu red
---- Computed
/
/
100
/
.)
P
/
1
~
0
0
0
~
-l
10
Q)
0",
-l
400
o/' ./
./
./
./
./
,/
,/
300
0/
/
/
/
200
9/
/
Measured
---- Computed
100
Fig. 5.28.
0.15
0.75
144
1.5
1.2
.....,
0.9
"t:J
0.6
"
~O
c:
c:
~fh
fh"~c,
CJO
~~
....
1.5
Q)
Q)
Q)
'::J
en
0
Q)
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Fig. 5.29.
145
deflections.
were within the 25% confidence limits, and 66% of the computed deflections
were conservative.
to
The recommended values for k were too low for the Arkansas River
tests but were adequate for the other tests which were analyzed.
The
possible reason for the inaccurate assessment of k for the Arkansas River
test has been discussed previously.
this parameter will only cause small errors and that selecting an overly
large value for k will lead to smaller errors than if the selected value
for k were too small.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
CHAPTER 6.
PARAMETER STUDY
The results of the parameter study indicated that the pile head def1ection was more sensitive to variations in soil and pile properties than was
the maximum bending moment.
Therefore, in the
design of the foundations for structures for supporting overhead signs, careful attention should be given to the nature and magnitude of the cyclic
loading.
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the parameter
study:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
M7
148
TABLE 6.1
Test
Soil Criteria
Employed in
Analysis
Bagnolet, Bl
StiffA
Good
Excellent*
Bagnolet, B4
StiffA
Fair-unconservative
Fair**
Bagnolet, B5
StiffA
Fair
Good
Bay Mud, Dl
StiffA
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, D2
StiffA
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, D3
StiffA
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, D4
StiffA
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, Fl
SoftB
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, Fl
Unified
Fair-unconservative
Bay Mud, F2
SoftB
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, F2
Unified
Excellent
Bay Mud, F3
SoftB
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, F3
Unified
Fair-unconservative
Bay Mud, F4
SoftB
Poor-unconservative
Bay Mud, F4
Unified
Poor-unconservative
Hudson River
SoftB
Excellent
Hudson River
Unified
Good
Japan
SoftB
Good
Excellent
Japan
Unified
Good
Good
Lewisburg
StiffA
Poor
Ontario, 38
StiffB
Fair-conservative
Ontario, 38
Unified
Poor-conservative
Ontario, 17
StiffB
Poor-conservative
Ontario, 17
Unified
Fair-conservative
Plancoet
SoftB
Fair-conservative
Good
Plancoet
Unified
Poor-conservative
Excellent
(continued)
149
TABLE 6.1.
(Continued)
Deflection
Savannah, 2
StiffA
Fair-unconservative
Savannah, 5
StiffA
Fair-conservative
Southern Calif.
Edison, 2
S tiffA
Poor-conservative
Southern Calif.
Edison, 6
S tiffA
Poor-conservative
Southern Calif.
Edison, 8
S tiffA
Poor-conservative
S t. Gabriel
SoftB
Poor-conservative
st. Gabriel
Unified
Poor-conservative
Test
Maximum
Bend ing
Moment
~';The
**In cases where the relationship between measured and computed results was
not clearly conservative or unconservative, only the words fair or poor was
used.
Comparisons
150
Deflection
Test
Maximum Bending
Moment
Arkansas River, 2
Poor-conservative
Fair-conservative
Arkansas River, 16
Fair-conservative
Fair-conservative
Arkansas River, 5
Fair-conservative
Arkansas River, 14
Excellent
Arkansas River, 6
Excellent
Arkansas River, 8
Good
Arkansas River, 12
Good
Poor-conservative
Fair-conservative
Poor-conservative
Apapa, 1
Fair
Apapa, 2
Fair-conservative
Bailly, TP7
Excellent
Bailly, TP8
Excellent
Florida
Good
Hydraulic Fill, P9
Poor-conservative
Poor-conservative
Fair-conservative
Good
Poor-conservative
Model Tests
Good
Excellent
*The same terminology describing the degree of agreement between measured and
computed results which was used in the preceding section was used here.
151
could be suggested.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The method of analysis of laterally loaded piles presented in this
report is versatile and offers the best method available at the present
time.
ments will involve the development of soil criteria (p-y curves) that more
faithfully reflect the actual behavior of the soil around the pile.
The
methods that are available and employed in the analyses described in this
report can be used with fair to good accuracy in predicting groundline
deflections and with good to excellent accuracy in predicting bending
moment.
With regard to the design of foundations for overhead signs, the
bending moment is of most importance because the foundation will collapse
if its capability of sustaining bending moment is deficient.
The method
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
CHAPTER 7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
153
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"#$%!&'()!*)&+',)%!'-!$-.)-.$/-'++0!1+'-2!&'()!$-!.#)!/*$($-'+3!
44!5"6!7$1*'*0!8$($.$9'.$/-!")':!
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bazarra, A., "Use of the Standard Penetration Test for Estimating Settlements of Shallow Foundations in Sand," Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Illinois, Civil Engineering, 1967, 379 pp.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a
Broms , B. B., "Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils," Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol 89, No. SM2, March 1964, pp 27-63.
b
Broms , B. B., "Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils,"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 89, No. SM3, May 1964, pp 123-157.
10.
11.
155
156
12.
13.
14.
15.
Gill, H. L., "Soil Behavior Around Laterally Loaded Piles," Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Report R-571, Port Hueneme, California,
April 1968.
16.
17.
18.
Gill, H. L., and K. R. Demars, 'TIisplacement of Laterally Loaded Structures in Nonlinearly Respons ive Soil," Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Report R-670, Port Hueneme, California, April 1970.
19.
20.
21.
Kerise1, J. L., 'Vertical and Horizontal Bearing Capacity of Deep Foundations in Clay," Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke
University, April 1965, pp 45-51.
22.
23.
Kubo, M., "Lateral Resistance of Single Free-Head Batter Piles and Single
Fixed-Head Vertical Piles," Monthly Reports of Transportation,
Technical Research Institute, Vol 12, No.2, 1967 (in Japanese).
24.
157
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Parker, Frazier, Jr., and William R. Cox, "A Method of Analysis of Pile
Supported Foundations Considering Nonlinear Soil Behavior," Research
Report No. 117-1, Center for Highway Research, The University of
Texas at Austin, June 1969.
30.
Parker, Fraz ier, Jr., and Lymon C. Reese, "Experimental and Analytical
Studies of Behavior of Single Piles in Sand Under Lateral and Axial
Loading," Research Report No. 117-2, Center for Highway Research,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, November 1970.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Reese, Lymon C., and Junius D. Allen, Drilled Shaft Design and Construction Manual, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Vol 2, 1977.
=-.;;.o..=:.=;;;..:;;.;:;;.;;:.;:.:.......:::.::.:;;w.::.=';;;;';;;;';;;;':;:.Iiil.