Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles
Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles
E s E s B 4
k h = 0.65
2
(1
E p I p
where
12
ES =
where
1 3
l
l
(1 - 3) - Deviator stress
(l / l) - Axial strain
Hu =
n h - approximately a constant,
z - Depth below ground surface.
Non-Linear Analysis:
For cohesionless soils an
empirical equation for kh was proposed by Mwindo
(1992) as follows:
k h = 0.052
(-0.48)
(1 + )y
2.5B
Lateral Deflection
Depending on the dimensionless length L< 2 or L>4,
two distinguished relations are given by Broms (1981)
as,
For L > 4:
18H1 + 1.33
L
y=
L2 n h
y=
2.4H
nh
(3/2)
0.51 BL3 k p
L+e
k p = tan 2 45 +
2
k h max
n h= k h / L
For L< 2:
(E I )
(2/5)
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The test piles were of cylindrical shape and were cast in
concrete to two different diameters 50 mm and 75 mm.
The length of the piles ranged from 600 mm to 900 mm.
Grade 20 concrete mix with maximum aggregate size of
6 mm was used in casting the piles. For 75 mm diameter
piles four reinforcement bars of 6 mm diameter were
used at a centre to centre spacing of 30 mm. Shear links
of 2 mm mild steel wire were provided at 100 mm
spacing. For 50 mm diameter piles one axial
reinforcement bar of 6 mm diameter was used. The
design criterion adopted is that the pile failure and soil
failure occur simultaneously during loading. Pile tips
were strengthened with steel shoes to prevent damage
during driving. Piles were cured in a water bath for 28
days.
The experimental apparatus consisted of a metal box of
dimension 3m x 1.8m x 1.5m; the sand deposition
apparatus, pile driving unit and the loading arrangement
are as shown in fig 1.
p p
nh
(E I )
1/5
p p
2.43Hn h 1.62Hen 2h
y=
+
(E P I P ) 2/5 (E P I P ) 3/5
Lateral Deflection
Experimental Load-deflection behaviour of each pile,
which is found to be non-linear, is plotted separately.
On the same plot, two theoretical predictions using the
method of Broms and Randolph are also plotted for
linear and non linear analysis separately. Figs 3 and 4
show the typical experimentally observed behaviour of a
model test pile with theoretical analysis for linear and
non linear cases respectively. Other model test piles also
show similar type of behaviour.
.
600
EXPERIMENTAL
BROMS
500
RANDOLPH
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
DEFLECTION / (mm)
800
EXPERIMENTAL
700
RANDOLPH
BROMS
600
LOAD /(N)
LOAD / (N)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
DEFLECTION / (mm)
50
60
Length
(mm)
Diam.
(mm)
Experimental
1
2
3
4
5
660
770
480
640
780
75
75
50
50
50
890
1380
320
511
810
779
1037
256
473
719
1.4
2Hu / r'KpBL^2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
THEORETICAL
0.2
LINEAR APPROXIMATION
0.0
0.75
0.80
L/(L+e)
0.85
0.90
CONCLUSIONS
The comparison of model pile behaviour with
predictions from theoretical analyses was useful in
identifying the shortcomings and strengths of the
analytical methods.
The analytical predictions by Broms method were found
to be conservative but poor; the best agreement in this
case was given in the linear analysis. Randolph method
fared much better than Broms method and gave best
predictions in the non-linear case. Overall predictions
were better at low load levels in all analyses and the
disagreement increased with load
The comparison of observed and predicted ultimate load
of the piles showed that Davis and Poulos method can
be used to obtain a conservative estimate of the failure
load for design purposes. The difference between the
predicted and observed failure load was not substantial
and may be partly due to the difficulties experienced in
estimating the failure load. The trend in experimental
and predicted results expressed in normalised form
indicated that better agreement is obtained when load
eccentricity is small.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study forms a part of an extensive undergraduate
project program carried out under the supervision of
Prof. H. N .Seneviratne. We hereby acknowledge the
contributions made by past undergraduates namely
Fernando, Kuruparan, Shenthan, Aravinthan, John
Emanuel and Muraleetharan in developing the
experimental apparatus and carrying out the
experiments.
REFERENCES
EXPERIMENTAL
0.4
0.95