long

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

long

© All Rights Reserved

- Friction capacity of soil
- Steel Design Project Civ 428 (O.B1)
- Pile Cap Design
- FEMA 356 Foundation Modeling
- FDOT_844
- TensarTech Plateau
- Foundation
- UB-axialforcebending-S275-EC3(UKNA)-UK-1_26_2018
- When Foundation Repair Piers Become Crucial
- Engineering
- Talk on MS 131-2004 Precast Concrete Piles
- Pile Cap Study
- Part417 Continuous Flight Auger Piles
- Bidge Deck Analysis
- Deep Foundation - Wikipedia
- Pile foundation+.pdf
- Timesaving-TorsionDesign-IA
- Bending Moment Formula
- QCS 2007 0401
- designofgasholde00pill.pdf

You are on page 1of 20

ON PILES IN S A N D

ABSTRACT: The effect of repetitive lateral loads on deflections of two drilled piers

in Tampa Bay were significantly greater than predicted by a p-y procedure com-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

monly used in practice. Reasons for the discrepancy between predicted and mea-

sured deflections are discussed. Two methods for predicting the effect of repetitive

lateral loads are developed using results of 34 cyclic lateral load tests to quantify

model parameters important to the behavior of piles subjected to repetitive lateral

loading. The two methods model cycliclateral load behavior of a pile by degrading

soil resistance as a function of number of cycles of load, method of pile installation,

soil density, and character of cyclic load. The two methods differ in the compu-

tational effort required to make the prediction. The first method is most suitable

for hand calculation and rule-of-thumb estimation and is based upon a beam-on-

an-elastic foundation model with a soil reaction modulus, Kh, increasing propor-

tionally with depth. The second method modifies nonlinear static p-y curves to

derive a cyclicp-y curve. The two methods provide a simple means for estimating

effects of cyclic lateral load.

INTRODUCTION

The effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles in sand are important to quantify

due to the occurrence of cyclic lateral loads in nature. W i n d , waves, earth

pressures, and water pressures, m a y subject cyclic lateral loads to pile sup-

ported structures. Methods c o m m o n l y used for predicting the response of

piles to cyclic lateral loads were evaluated for two piers in T a m p a Bay,

Florida, and found to predict poorly the behavior due to cyclic loading.

Using information from these tests and additional case histories, p a r a m e t e r s

that influence the behavior of piles subjected to cyclic lateral loads are

identified, and two methods for predicting load deflection behavior are

proposed.

On September 12, 1982, static and repetitive lateral load tests were con-

ducted on two offshore piers in T a m p a Bay adjacent to the Sunshine Skyway

Bridge. Predictions of the behavior of the piers were m a d e using a m e t h o d

proposed by Reese and his coworkers (Reese et al. 1974). This m e t h o d was

selected because it is based u p o n results of full-scale lateral load tests on

piles in sand and the m e t h o d provides reasonable agreement with results

from other uninstrumented load tests ( M e y e r and R e e s e 1979).

The two piers at T a m p a Bay experienced deflections due to cyclic loading

greater than predicted using a p-y m e t h o d outlined by Reese, et al. (1974).

Illustrated in Figs. 1 (a) and l ( b ) are m e a s u r e d and predicted load-deflection

(H-g) relationships for the first cycle of loading and for 50 cycles of loading.

Several possible explanations for differences between predicted and mea-

sured deflection were investigated. H o w e v e r , differences in construction,

soil properties, and loading characteristics for the tests conducted at T a m p a

61801.

2Engr., lngelmunster, Belgium.

Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,

a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript

for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March 5, 1990.

This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 1,

January, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9410/94/0001-0225/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper

No. 27047.

225

Lateral Deflection of Shaft, m m

0 50 100 150 200

500 u I i i i i

400

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 Measured ~ / _ qN~

300

Z 200

Note: Delta ploffed for

100 1, 2. 5. 10, 2 0 ,

to ad 40 cyclH

o n I J J I a n n n I I I I , I

..J 0-

to

k- 500

iD

.4.- West S h a f t /,, ~ 9

0 -- ~,,.d) I //

._1 400

300

200

100 ~ P I 1. z. s, lo. =o,

[ o.d ,0 oyo,.. ,,,

0

0 50 1 O0 150 200

FIG. 1. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Response for Two Laterally Loaded

Piers at Tampa Bay, Fla.

Bay and Mustang Island (Reese et aL 1974) are too numerous to be quan-

tified with results from only these two sites; therefore, results of 34 repetitive

lateral load tests in sand were investigated. Two simple methods are pro-

posed herein to allow prediction of effects of cyclic lateral load on piles.

The two methods include effects due to the characteristics of cyclic load,

the number of cycles, the installation method, and soil density. The two

methods provide a means to estimate effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles

in sand.

B E H A V I O R O F PILES L O A D E D R E P E T I T I V E L Y

The behavior of a vertical pile subjected to repetitive lateral loads depends

upon characteristics of the lateral load, geometrical and structural properties

of the pile, the properties of the soil in which the pile is embedded, and

the change in soil properties as the pile is loaded repetitively.

A simplified soil-pile model is used to illustrate the behavior of a soil and

226

pile to the application of a cyclic, lateral load at the head of a pile, In this

model, the pile is assumed to be elastic, infinitely long, vertical, and embed-

ded in a cohesionless soil. A two-way lateral load applied at the head of

the pile varies sinusoidally with time at a frequency low enough that only

effects of repeated load are important (the effects of inertia are minimal)

and any excess porewater pressures generated in the soil are dissipated

quickly. Furthermore, the cohesionless soil is assumed to exhibit no signif-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

icant cohesion or creep. The behavior of the pile is described for four phases

during one cycle of load. The effect of each quarter-cycle of load is described

and the influence of further cycles is mentioned.

During the first quarter-cycle, the magnitude of lateral load varies from

a value of zero to a maximum horizontal load Hmax in a direction to the

right. The head of the pile rotates and translates to the right in response to

the applied load. Resistance to pile deflection is provided by the soil along

the right side of the pile while the soil along the left side of the pile maintains

contact by flowing with the pile. The soil surrounding the pile may change

in volume depending on its initial density and state of stress (Chang and

Whitman 1988).

During the second quarter-cycle, the lateral load decreases from a value

of Hmaxto zero, and the head of the pile deflects toward its original position.

As the pile translates to the left, the soil resistance along the left side of

the pile increases while the soil resistance on the right side decreases. If the

soil pressure along the right side decreases to an active state, the cohesionless

soil will flow and prevent a gap, thus ensuring contact with the pile surface.

As with the first quarter-cycle of load, the cohesionless soil may change

volume depending on its density and change in state of stress.

The direction of the lateral load, Hmax, and the corresponding deflection

of the pile head are reversed for the third quarter-cycle. The magnitude of

horizontal load changes from zero to -H~ax causing the pile to deflect to

the left. The pile may resist significant lateral loads before reaching the

original location of the pile head because of the presence of cohesionless

sand that flowed with the back of the pile during the first quarter-cycle of

load. As the load approaches - H m a the pile deflects to the left while the

soil maintains contact along the right side of the pile preventing any gap

between the pile and soil.

The response of pile and soil during the fourth quarter-cycle is similar,

but opposite in direction, to the response described during the second quarter-

cycle. Depending on the density of the soil and the stress state in the soil,

volume changes in the soil may occur.

Effect of further cycles on the maximum horizontal deflection of the pile

and on bending moments within the pile depend upon changes in mechanical

properties (strength, modulus) and the accumulation of permanent strains

in the soil.

Characteristics of the load can influence significantly the behavior of piles

subjected to cyclic lateral loads. If cyclic pile displacement is primarily in

one direction, then effects of cumulative deformations are more pro-

nounced. For example, one-way cyclic loading (load varies from 0 to Hma x

to 0 with no reversal of load direction) will induce more permanent strains

and greater cumulative deformations than piles subjected to two-way cyclic

loads (load varies from/-/max to - H m a x to Hma x to - H m a x ) .

Structural details of the pile may also play a role in the behavior of a pile

when subjected to cyclic lateral loads. As the pile is loaded, moments gen-

erated within the pile cause the pile to bend and mobilize tension and

227

compression within the pile cross section. Steel cross sections usually remain

elastic for magnitudes of maximum bending moment anticipated in design;

therefore, the flexural stiffness of the steel cross section remains unchanged

for all magnitudes and cycles of load. However, the flexural stiffness of

reinforced concrete sections decrease with increasing moment and load cycles

due to progressive cracking of the cross section (Little and Briaud 1988).

Changes in flexural stiffness are most pronounced for reinforced pile cross

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sections that are neither post- nor pretensioned because tensile stresses are

greatest and crack formation is more prevalent. Since the deflection of a

pile is influenced by changes in flexural stiffness, the influence of these

changes on pile performance should be a design consideration. Often, effects

of degradation in flexural stiffness are insignificant because only a small

portion of the pile experiences large bending moments. Therefore, only a

small portion of the pile experiences significant degradation in flexural stiff-

ness (Long and Reese 1982; Kramer and Heavey 1988), and the deflection

of the pile at working loads is affected minimally.

Attempts by others have been made to quantify the effect of cyclic lateral

loads on pile behavior by modeling the soil-pile system with a beam-on-an-

elastic-foundation (BOEF) analysis. A summary of previous attempts pro-

vides a perspective on parameters considered to be important and methods

employed for modeling effects of cyclic loading.

Reese and Matloek (1956) and Vesic (1977) suggest that solutions using

a linear, elastic soil response with a soil reaction modulus, Kh, increasing

proportionally with depth provides a reasonable model for determining the

lateral behavior of piles in sands. The coefficient of soil reaction, nh, is used

to identify the increase in soil reaction modulus, Kh, with depth as shown

here:

Kh = nh'Z ................................................. (1)

where z = depth below the ground surface.

Effects of cyclic loads are modeled by reducing the static value of n h.

Summarizing results from Prakash (1961), Davisson and Salley (1970), and

Alizadeh and Davisson (1970), and Davisson (1970) suggests reducing nh

to 30% of the static value if the load is cycled 50 times or more.

Broms (1964) suggests that deterioration of n h depends on density of the

cohesionless soil and recommends that for 40 cycles of load, the value of

nh should be reduced to one-fourth and one-half the original value of r/h

for low and high relative densities, respectively. Broms cautions that these

recommendations are based upon limited data.

Reese et al. (1974) used results of static and cyclic load tests on instru-

mented, full-scale piles to develop a semi-empirical, nonlinear p-y (soil

resistance-pile deflection) approach. Procedures developed to predict cyclic

p-y relationships are based upon degraded staticp-y curves, with degradation

factors determined empirically from results of the instrumented load tests.

The cyclic p-y curves proposed by Reese et al. (1974) were developed to

represent the resistance provided by the soil at a large number of cycles of

load. Therefore, recommendations for cyclic p-y curves are independent of

the number of cycles.

O'Neill and Murchison (1983) used a number of case histories of static

and some cyclic load tests to evaluate current procedures and develop im-

proved procedures for generating p-y curves. Although the main emphasis

228

was for static lateral loading, cyclic p - y curves are generated by reducing

the static soil resistance, p, for a given deflection, y. Like the method

proposed by Reese et al. (1974), the cyclic p - y curves are independent of

the number of cycles.

Little and Briaud (1988) model the deterioration of the soil reaction

modulus, Kh, due to cyclic loading as

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where KhN = Kh at the Nth cycle of load, Khl = the value of the soil

reaction modulus for the first cycle of load, and a = a degradation param-

eter.

Little and Briaud use results from static pressuremeter tests to obtain

static, nonlinear p - y relationships. Cyclic p - y curves are constructed by

reducing the static soil resistance according to (3)

PN = pl"N -a 9 .............................................. (3)

where P N ~" the cyclic soil resistance for N cycles of load, pl -- the value

ofp for the first cycle of load, and a = a degradation parameter determined

from the results of cyclic pressurerneter tests. Little and Briaud found rea-

sonable agreement between values of a from full-scale tests on piles sub-

jected to one-way loading and from cyclic pressuremeter tests. Two advan-

tages of Little and Briaud's method are the ability to model the effect of

number of cycles, and the ability to determine parameters from in situ test

results.

Theoretical studies using a more sophisticated approach for modeling soil

behavior have been conducted by Swane and Poulos (1982), and Matlock

et al. (1978). These authors model each p - y curve for the complete load

history for every load cycle and solve for the response using a discrete

element model for the BOEF problem. While the two approaches are fun-

damental, the parameters required for analysis are usually unavailable for

typical soil exploration and site characterization studies.

Turner et al. (1987) collected results of 23 case histories on piles and

drilled shafts subjected to cyclic lateral loads. They suggest the cyclic be-

havior of piles is influenced by the tendency of the soil to dilate or contract

during cyclic loading.

The uncertainty associated with the aforementioned methods for pre-

dicting effects of cyclic lateral load remains unquantified as do the major

factors that affect cyclic behavior. Results of several full-scale load tests

were investigated to determine the effect of cyclic lateral loads on piles in

sand, and to assess uncertainties associated with the prediction method

proposed.

Results from 34 full-scale, cyclic lateral load tests in sand are used to

illustrate and quantify the influence of important parameters on pile be-

havior. Details of the cyclic lateral load tests are presented in Table 1. The

collection includes a wide range of soil density, pile type and material,

construction technique, and cyclic load characteristics. Load tests were con-

ducted by applying a specific load repetitively to the pile head, and reporting

the increase in deflection of the pile with number of cycles of load. Only

the load test by Morrison (1986) was conducted by controlling displacements

and recording the degradation of lateral load with cycles.

229

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Width Maximum Cyclic load

Pile diameter Method of number of ratio

Test type (ram) installation cycles (nmin/nmax) Reference

(1) (2) (3) (5) (7) (8) (9)

Timber pile 305 Driven 24 0 Alizadeh (1968) 1A

Timber pile 310 Driven 24 0 Alizadeh (1968) 1B

/-/-pile 145 Driven 100 0 Alizadeh and Davisson (1970)

6

Concrete pile 510 Sonic Vib 100 0 Alizadeh and Davisson (1970)

I1A

5 Drilled shaft 610 Drilled 10 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) 4

6 Drilled shaft 915 Drilled 10, 15 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) 5

7 Drilled shaft 915 Drilled 15 0 Bhushan et ai. (1981) 6

O 8 Drilled shaft 1,220 Drilled 15 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) 7

9 Drilled shaft 1,220 Backfilled 100 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) IN

10 Drilled shaft 1,430 Backfilled 80 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) 2N

11 Drilled shaft 1,220 Drilled 100 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) IS

12 Drilled shaft 1,430 Drilled 80 0 Davisson and Salley 1968) 2S

13 Specially fabricated 405 BackfiUed and com- 500 0 Heller (1964)

wide flange beam pacted

14 Specially fabricated 405 Backfilled and com- 500 0 Heller (1964)

wide flange beam I pacted

15 Specially fabricated I 405 Backfilled and com- 500 0 Heller (1964)

wide flange beam I pacted

16 Drilled shaft I 915 Drilled 21 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 1

17 Pipe pile I 610 Driven 21 0,0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 2

18 Concrete pile I 510 Driven 21 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 3

19 Drilled shaft 1,065 Drilled 21 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 4

20 Drilled shaft 1,065 Drilled 21 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 5

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

21 Drilled shaft 1,065 39.0 Drilled Loose 21 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) 6

22 Drilled shaft with 1,220 15.5 Vibrated Dense 40, 125 0 Long and Reese (1984) East

casing

23 Drilled shaft with 1,220 15.5 Vibrated Dense 40, 125 0 Long and Reese (1984) West

casing

24 H-pile 355 17.1 Driven Dense 25 0 Meyer and Reese (1979)

Bailley 1

25 /-/-pile 355 17.1 Driven Dense 25 0 Meyer and Reese (1979)

Bailley 2

26 Pipe pile 275 13.4 Backfilled and com- Mediu 100 -1.0 Morrison (1986)

pacted

27 /-/-pile 355 15.9 Driven Dense 23 - 1.0 O'Neill and Murchison (1983),

T3

28 Pipe pile 610 21.0 Driven Dense tOO - 0.25 Reese et at. (1974)

29 Timber pile 290 11.3 Driven Loose 5 0 Robinson (1979) 6

30 Timber pile 305 15.2 Driven Dense 5 0 Robinson (1979) 8

31 Timber pile 305 5.2 Driven Loose 5 0 Robinson (1979) 9

32 Timber pile 330 10.7 Driven Dense 23 0.1 Stevens et al. (1979)

33 /-/-pile 355 20.4 Driven MediuJ 25 0 Tucker and Briaud (1988) 1

H-pile 355 20.4 Driven Mediu__..~ 25 0 Tucker and Briaud (1988) 2

The response of a pile to cyclic lateral load depends on the change in

stiffness of the soil and pile with applied cycles of load. Changes in soil and

pile stiffness are influenced by the magnitude of load, the character of load

(one- versus two-way loading), the initial stiffness of the pile and soil, and

the change in stiffness of the pile and soil with number of cycles. The soil

is assumed to be insensitive to creep, and the pile material is assumed to

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

remain elastic.

Davisson (1970), Broms (1964), and Vesic (1977) have suggested that the

lateral response of a pile could be modeled simply as a BOEF with a linearly

increasing soil reaction modulus, nh. Furthermore, they suggested the effect

of cyclic loading could be modeled by reducing the static value of nh. The

model suggested by Davisson, Broms, and Vesic is simple and used often

for preliminary assessment of lateral load behavior. Therefore, the effect

of cyclic lateral loads for all 34 load tests was investigated using a BOEF

approach and a soil reaction nh. Parameters for this soil-structure interaction

model are the flexural stiffness of the pile (El), the length of the pile, L,

the coefficient of soil reaction (nh), and the magnitude of load (or moment).

The pile properties and the magnitude of maximum lateral load are assumed

to remain unchanged during cyclic loading; therefore, the increase in pile

deflection is affected only by a change in coefficient of soil reaction, nh.

The effects of cyclic lateral loads are studied by back-calculating values

of nh from measured load-deflection data, and comparing nh for the first

cycle of load with nh for subsequent cycles in terms of the ratio, Rn (Rn =

HhN/nhl). The parameter R. is selected because most cyclic lateral load tests

present only load-deflection data, deflection data are usually more reliable

than moment data for load tests conducted in which both moment and

deflection are measured, values of n h are more sensitive to changes in de-

flection than moment, and results of both instrumented and uninstrumented

pile tests can be compared with a common parameter (nh).

Cyclic lateral loads applied to the head of a pile result in deformations

that may increase with every cycle. The increase in pile-head deformation

with continued cyclic loading may be modeled by reducing the coefficient

of soil reaction, nh. The effect of cyclic loading on the reduction of nh is

shown in Fig. 2 by plotting Rn versus the number of cycles, N, on a log-log

scale. A straight line relationship is expressed as

~hl

where - t = the slope of the straight line. The magnitude of t represents a

relative effect of cyclic loading on the deterioration of nh.

Results from full-scale tests have shown that one-way cyclic loading may

continue to influence peak deflections up to 500 cycles (HeUer 1964); how-

ever, the quantity of available data is limited. Most of the load-test data

summarized are for 50 cycles or less (Table 1). The effect of cyclic loading

is greatest for the first cycle of loading, with the effect of subsequent cycles

diminishing as cycling continues.

232

2 , i

c

1 L

r ~ A t = 0.02 -

RH = - 1

d

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 RH = -0.25

e~

0.5

"-I RH = 0.5

m

-I0

0

Legend

9 D a ~ * y t = 0.33 1 RH = 0 . 0

0

0.2 V Long and Reese (1984)

(3

(.3

9 Little and griaud (1988) 1

r] Reese, et, al. (1974)

9 klorrison (1986)

A O'Neill and Mui'chlson (1983)

0.1 i ~ i i i i iJ j ..... I

2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Number of C y c l e s , N

A cyclic load ratio, R~/, is used to quantify the character of cyclic load

and is defined as

,% -

/min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

//max

where Hmin = the magnitude of minimum lateral load, and Hm,x = the

magnitude of maximum lateral load. A pile cycled from 0 (Hmi,) to Hma,

(one-way loading) is calculated to have a cyclic load ratio, Rn = 0. A pile

cycled with equal load magnitude in both directions (two-way loading) has

a ratio, Ru = - 1 , and a pile loaded statically would have a value of

R , = 1. Most cyclic lateral load tests reported in the literature and con-

ducted in practice use RH = 0 (one-way cyclic loading); however, some

notable lateral load tests have also been conducted using R/~ -- - 1 [two-

way cyclic loading (Morrison 1986)], R, = - 0 . 2 5 (Reese et al. 1974) and

Ru = 0.5 (Little and BriaNd 1988). The soil modulus ratio, R,,, versus

number of cycles is shown in Fig. 2 for different magnitudes of the cyclic

load ratio, RH. The corresponding degradation parameter, t, represents the

slope of a straight line fit and can be calculated as:

log(R,u)

t = log(N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

where Rnu = the value of R, at N cycles of load. Larger values of t cor-

respond to a greater effect of cyclic loading. Values of t shown in Fig. 2 are

0.03, 0.08, 0.27, and 0.13 for RH of - 1 , -0.25, 0, and 0.5, respectively.

Results of these full-scale tests show that one-way cyclic loading results in

greater degradation than two-way loading, and that intermediate cyclic load

ratios result in degradations between one- and two-way loading. Although

no comprehensive full-scale field tests have been conducted to confirm or

quantify the effect of RH specifically, results of model-scale pile tests suggest

233

one-way cyclic loading results in larger deflections than two-way cyclic load-

ing (Parry and Sanglamer 1977; Barton 1982). Thus, the degradation pa-

rameter, t, is assumed to be greater for one-way loading and less for two-

way loading. Finally, the degradation parameter, t, is 0 for R , = 1 since

this loading condition corresponds to a static load.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

magnitude of deflection on the deterioration of soil modulus with number

of cycles, t. In Fig. 3 are shown values of t back-calculated from results of

each cyclic load test versus normalized deflection, ~/D (pile head deflection/

pile head diameter) for piles which had no previous significant cyclic loads

(virgin cycling). The effect of cyclic lateral loads on t appears to be relatively

unaffected by the magnitude of normalized deflection. Fig. 4 shows t values

for piles subjected previously to cyclic loads, at a lower magnitude of load.

The values of t exhibit considerable scatter. The value of t for virgin cycling

0.600

:, I

C

a) 0.400

E

P

o

O.

C

.o 0.200 ',, j : p ..........

"o

E .... ....... i , ,...i,i,,',, ",~' ........ ; . ....... ......~ ' o ; " " .i.................

ol

r-I

0.000

0.0002 0.001 0.01 0.1 0,2

Normalized Deflection, 8/D

l Nizodeh and Dc~luon (:1970) 46 Zl Meyer ond Roen (1979) #I

Nizod.ahand .Dgvfaeon(1970) 811A 9 Meyerand Rees.e(1979) #2

~izaoeh (1958) 1A 9 Nob'leon(1988)

Allzodeh (1968) 1B . 0 O'Nenland Murchiegn

Bhuehon,at el. (1981) #4 Rpaee. at 91. (1974).

Bhu=hon,et ale (1981) J5 =,1[evens,~ ~I. (1979)

Bhushon, et al. (1981) J6 .~- luckar one urlaud (1988) #I

Bhuehan,at ol. (1981} J7 Tucker and Brlo~d (1988) #2

DovLelonand Solley(1"96B)#IN <> Robinson(1979) #6

uavisson and Salley(1968) #2N 9 Robinson(1979) #8

uavlssonand Salley(1968) #1S ~> Robinson(1979) 49

uavia=onand Salley(1968) #25

i Heller (1964-) #I

#2

Hailer {1964-~43

Little and Bnoud (19B8) #1

Little and Bdoud (1988) #2

Uttle end Bdoud (1988) #3

Uttle end Brloud (1988) #4.

Little end Brloud (1988) r

Little and Bdoud.(1988) #6

Long and Reeee(1984.~-Eost

Long and Reese(1984) -West

Cycling

234

,4-/

0.600 9 . .i , t i

I

L ..................................... PRE-CYCLED I

E

P 0.400 ........ ............ i--~.i-.i..i 9 ................. ......... ~...... 9 ........... ....... ..---...-.i.! ...........

0

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Q.

r ! i!!i 9 ioi ~ ........

0

~4-,-

0

"10

P 0.200

......... ........ j . . : ! ! :.............

01

rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O.O00

0.0002 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.2

Normalized Deflection, 4/D

Allzodeh end Day[seen (1970) 811A 9 Meyer and Reeee (lg79) 82

Nizadeh (1968) 1A 9 Mondeon (1986)

Alizndeh (1968) 1B O O'Neill end Murchilan

Bhulhan, et el. (1981) 84 "<P Reeee, et ol. (lg74).

Bhushan, et eL (1981) 85 Stwens, etal. (197.9)

Bhushan, et el. (1981) 86 Tur and Briaud (1988) 81

Bhushon~et el. (1981) 87 Tucker and Briaud (1988) 82

Davisian and Solley (1968) 81N ~> Robineon (1979) #6

~r Davis=on and Solley (1968) 82N 9 Robinson (1979) 88

&L Dovissonand Solley (1988) 81S ~> Robinson (1979) 89

Davieeon end Salley (1968) 42S

~ Hener (1964) 81

Hailer (19w 82

Heller (196~) 83

Little and Bnoud (19B8) 01

Little and Brloud (1988) 02

~ Little end Briaud (1988) 83

Little and Briaud (1988) Q4

Little and Brioud (1988) #5

Little end Brloud [1988) # 6

Long and Reel= (1984~ -East

Long and Reese (1984) -West

Piles

ranges between 0.52 and 0.00 with an average near 0.22. The values of t

for precycled piles are smaller with a range between 0.0 and 0.35 and an

average of 0.18.

load tests and use the same parameters for determining the effect of cyclic

loading. The two methods differ in the computational effort required to

solve the soil-structure interaction problem to obtain deflection. The first

method is based upon a closed-form solution for a B O E F with a linearly

increasing soil reaction modulus (LISM) that varies proportionally with

depth. The LISM method is simple to apply and uses parameters obtained

directly from the results of the cyclic lateral load tests.

The second method is based upon the degradation of static p-y (DSPY)

235

curves. A p-y curve for static loading is modified to a cyclic p-y curve by

reducing the static soil resistance, p, while increasing the static displacement,

y. The DSPY method can accommodate nonlinear p-y curves and different

procedures for generating static p-y curves; however, the solution for the

soil-structure interaction equations requires the use of a computer.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The LISM method employs a BOEF analysis. The soil reaction modulus

is assumed to increase linearly with depth according to (1). Hetenyi (1946)

developed solutions for deflection of the pile head in the form of infinite

series, but the solution can be simplified by calculating separately the con-

tribution to deflection by lateral load, H, and bending moment, M, as

A .H B.M

ON -- it?10.4.~0.6 "~- l t 2 / 0 . 6 . . 0 . 4 .................................. (7)

JL~t S ~ hN ~t~Jt r ~ hN

where gN = the lateral deflection at the Nth cycle of load, E1 = the flexural

rigidity (product of pile modulus and the moment of inertia), nhN the =

mined from the length of the pile, L, and the relative stiffness ([EI/nhn] ~

according to beam-on-elastic-foundation theory (Hetenyi 1946). All the var-

iables are taken as known except the coefficient of subgrade reaction for

cyclic loading, nhN, which is calculated as

where nhl = the coefficient of subgrade reaction for the first cycle of load.

All 34 load tests were evaluated to determine appropriate values of t.

Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the effect of load, installation, and soil density for

piles subjected to cyclic loads for the first time (virgin cycling), and for piles

previously subjected to cyclic loads at a lower level of load, respectively.

Frequency histograms are superimposed on the figure when necessary. The

effect of load ratio is shown in Figs. 5(a) and 6(a). Figs. 5(b) and 6(b)

illustrate the effect of pile installation for virgin cycling and for precycled

piles. Figs. 5(c) and 6(c) show effects of soil density. Figs. 5(b), 5(c), 6(a),

and 6(c) use only results from tests conducted with a cyclic load ratio greater

than zero. Based upon trends in Figs. 5(a)-5(c), and 6(a)-6(c), the follow-

ing observations are made.

Piles installed by driving or by vibration exhibit the least effect of cyclic

loading (smallest values of t), while drilled shafts and shafts backfilled with-

out compaction exhibit the greatest effect of cyclic loading and the greatest

variation in t. Installation methods listed in order of increasing average t

values are as follows: vibrated, backfilled and compacted, driven, sonic

vibrated, drilled, and backfilled. Foundations in dense soil exhibit less effect

of cyclic loading than foundations in loose soil.

The average value of t is smaller than values of t for virgin cyclic loading,

and t values are much less sensitive to differences in soil density and in-

stallation procedure.

236

L.

I I

) CtfcIlc Load l 9

fects ~"25 0025

f--.

g~ f

.~ 0.2

If'

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

,~ 0.1

~00 *t ~ 1 7 6 I I I

-1.0 -0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0

Cyclic Load Ratio, R H

0.6 , , , ,

~E I Ib) Installation

0.sj " 0"2, E,,.ots

e 0, i--.--

9~ o.o-- , , , , ; ;

9"=- -- .- o

g o ~

L.

i

9 0.6--

T T------~c ) So|I De nsity'l

E 0.5 ~ - - o ~ s -" [ Effects I

no 0.4

0.3 - ~ ~

.T. 0.2

0.1

0.0

FIG. 5. Value of Degradation Parameter, t, for Virgin Cycling as Affected by: (a)

Cyclic Load Ratio; (b) Installation; and (c) Soil Density

The cyclic load ratio appears to affect the cyclic behavior most signifi-

cantly. The least effect of cyclic loading is seen for RH = --1 (two-way

loading) while the greatest effect of cyclic loading is seen when R , = 0

(one-way loading).

A specific value of t for a cyclically laterally loaded pile depends on

characteristics of the cyclic load ratio, RH, the installation method, the soil

density, and if the pile has been precycled. The value of the degradation

parameter, t, that includes effects of load direction, installation procedure,

and soil density can be calculated as

237

~a

0.6

iE 0.5

a) Cyclic L o a d ]

Effects J-

'

o~0 o~o

'

o~o

o

0.4

o.

0.3

o

0.2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o

"o

o 0.1

o~

J

o 0.0 i

0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

Cyclic Load Ratio, R H

0.6,

@ ' ' ' ]b) Installation J

E 0.5 Effects 1

0.4 0 ",0 o ", ,0

c 0.3

o

=o

"o

0.2

P 0.1

o~

@ 0.0

o

o "~o J~

=o

C

o

0.6 1 1 1-[c) Soll Denslt

0.5 ...... ~ ......................... - t ~ Effects

o

o 3o o 3o

0.4 .......... .:~ .............. -~- ................

o.

0.5

i

..........................................

c

o

"o

P 0.1~ _T2-

0.0

._~

FIG. 6. Value of Degradation Parameter, t, for Precycled Piles as Affected by: (a)

Cyclic Load Ratio; (b) Installation; and (c) Soil Density

where FL, F~, and Fo, are factors based upon details of the cyclic load ratio,

pile installation, and soil density, respectively. Suggested values for FL, Fz,

and Fo, based on results of the 34 load tests, are given in Tables 2-4. Values

for FL in Table 2 reflect the effect of cyclic load with the greatest value for

R , = 0 and 0.5, decreasing nonlinearly to 0.2 for R , = - 1 , and to 0.0

for Rn = 1 (static load). Linear interpolation can be used to determine FL

at load ratios between specified points. The effect of cyclic load ratio appears

to be the most important factor.

A value of 0.24 for t can be calculated using (9) for a drilled shaft (F~ =

1.3) subjected to one-way cyclic loading (FL = 1.0) in loose soil (Fo =

1.1). For comparison, recommendations by Davisson (1970) suggest t equals

238

TABLE 2. Effect of Cyclic Load Ratio on Parameter Fr

Load ratio RH FL

(1) (2)

- 1.0 (two-way loading) 0.2

- 0.25 0.4

0.0 (one-way loading) 1.0

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 1.0

1.0 (static loading) 0.0

Method of installation FI

(1) (2)

Driven 1.0

Vibrated 0.9

Backfilled 1.4

Backfilled and compacted 1.0

Drilled 1.3

Precycled (regardless of installation) 1.0

Soil density F,~

(1) (2)

Loose (contractive) 1.1

Medium 1.0

Dense 0.8

Precycled (regardless of density) 1.0

0.31, while Broms recommends 0.38 and 0.19 for loose and dense soils,

respectively.

The uncertainty for estimating t was determined by comparing the values

of t measured from the 34 lateral load tests with values of t predicted using

(9). Fifty percent of the measured values of t exceeded values of t predicted

using (9). If the predicted value of t is multiplied by 1.4, only 16% of the

measured values exceed those predicted. Similarly, if the predicted value

of t is multiplied by 2, a mere 3% of the measured t values exceed the

predicted value.

The LISM method provides a simple procedure for predicting the effect

of cyclic lateral loading; however, the method is restricted to analyses that

employ a linearly increasing soil reaction modulus. Additionally, the LISM

method cannot explicitly account for effects of nonlinear soil response,

layered soil, and many fundamental parameters (soil unit weight, soil strength,

and so forth) that affect lateral load response. Because p-y methods can

include effects of nonlinearity, soil layering, and other soil properties, rec-

ommendations for using results from the 34 load tests with nonlinear p-y

curve analyses are provided next.

The use of nonlinear p-y curves to represent the static soil resistance

provided by piles is a common approach for analyzing the response of

239

laterally loaded piles. Recommendations for developing p - y curves for both

static and cyclic loading have been given by (Reese et al. 1974; Briaud 1988;

O'Neill and Murchison 1983). The DSPY method presented herein modifies

a static p - y curve to a p - y curve for cyclic loading.

The DSPY approach is similar to the LISM approach; namely, the static

soil reaction modulus is reduced to account for effects of cyclic loading

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

according to (10)

KhN = K h , ' N - ' . ........................................... (10)

are nonlinear, additional recommendations for the reduction in soil resis-

tance, p, must be provided, otherwise, any combination of decrease in p

and increase in y could be used to satisfy (10).

Little and Briaud (1988) suggest constructing the nonlinear cyclic p - y

curve by maintaining deflection, y , constant for both static and cyclic p - y

curves while reducing the soil resistance, Per = Pl" N-t. Thus, the reduction

in soil reaction modulus prescribed in (10) is satisfied. Values of t were

back-calculated for the 34 case histories using nonlinear, p - y curves modified

by reducing soil resistance. Values of t for the Little and Briaud method

were significantly lower in magnitude than values of t backcalculated using

the LISM method.

Requirements for reducing the cyclic soil reaction modulus according to

(10) can also be satisfied by modifying the soil deflection according to the

relationship, YN = Yl" N ~. This approach gives the cyclic p - y curve a larger

deflection, y, while maintaining the same soil resistance, p, for both static

and cyclic load. Values of t back-calculated for the 34 load tests using this

method were much greater than t values back-calculated using the LISM

method.

The aforementioned methods for modifying nonlinear p - y curves should

yield t values different from those obtained with the LISM method, because

the load is held constant during a cyclic lateral load test while the pile head

progressively increases in deformation. Thus, the decrease in soil reaction

modulus is caused by both a reduction in the soil resistance, p, and an

increase in pile deflection, y.

The DSPY method specifies a change in both soil resistance and deflection

by including a term, et, into (10) as shown here:

YN = Yl "N~'t ............................................... (12)

where PN = the soil resistance for N cycles of load and p~ = the soil

resistance for the first cycle of load.

The factor, o~, controls the relative contribution of soil resistance and

deflection to decrease the soil reaction modulus. The value of eLvaries from

0 (to produce a change in p only) to 1 (to produce a change in y only). For

et values between 0 and 1, both p and y are changed. A value of 0.6 for

can be derived by using the same B O E F analysis used for the LISM method,

where 5 = the groundline deflection of a pile subjected to a lateral load,

H , at the ground surface. From (7), the ratio of groundline deflection of a

pile for the first cycle of load, 5~, and the deflection at N cycles of load,

8N, is shown here

240

A'H

EIO.a.nOi6 -

/ "(nhN~ ................................. (13a)

~N A "H \nhx/

EiO.4..0.6

t~hN

continuing

( o6

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

\nhu/

YN = YI" \ n h N /

and t values back-calculated with the LISM method is observed when a =

0.6. Theoretically, the value of a varies with depth, however, numerical

investigations using e~varying with depth provided no better agreement with

the LISM method than with a constant value of 0.6. The DSPY method

can be applied to nonlinear p - y curves to account for effects of cyclic lateral

loading by modifying the soil resistance, p, and soil deflection, y, according

to

PN = Pl "N-O'4t ............................................. (14)

YN = Yl "NO'6t 9 ............................................. (15)

4 and the formula provided in (9).

LIMITATIONS

The method proposed is an empirical approach intended to provide the

designer with a simple and expedient means to estimate effects of cyclic

lateral load on piles in sand. Because the methods are empirical, efforts

should continue to include more results to verify or modify the recommen-

dations herein. Approaches based on more fundamental soil properties are

needed.

The proposed method may overpredict the effect of cyclic load for piles

subjected to cyclic load when the load ratio is less than 0. While the deg-

radation using (9) is predicted to be minimal, the stiffness at the pile head

may actually increase due to soil densification in the proximity of the pile.

Results of this study are believed to be valid for long piles in sand sub-

jected to 50-100 cycles of nondynamic lateral loads. Although one test

showed continued effects of cyclic load at 500 cycles, the majority of load

tests were for 50 cycles or less. Caution should be exercised when predicting

effects of cyclic loading beyond 50 cycles of load. Finally, the flexural rigidity

of the pile is assumed to remain constant.

CONCLUSIONS

Two simple methods for determining the effect of cyclic lateral loads on

piles in sand are presented. The two methods use parameters derived from

241

the results of 34 full-scale, cyclic, lateral load tests to determine the effects

of cyclic loading. The LISM method employs a closed-form solution using

a B O E F analysis with a linearly increasing soil reaction modulus degraded

from a static modulus. The DSPY method deteriorates the resistance pro-

vided by a given static p-y curve to account for the effects of cyclic lateral

load. The DSPY procedure can be applied to nonlinear static p-y curves;

therefore, current procedures for predicting the static p-y curves can still

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be employed, while the DSPY method can be applied to estimate the effect

of cyclic loads.

The most important p a r a m e t e r found to govern the behavior of piles

during cyclic loading are the characteristics of the cyclic load. Other factors

include the method of installation and the soil density.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by a research initiation grant from the University

of Illinois and by a fellowship from Shell Oil C o m p a n y Foundation. Their

financial support is gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Alizadeh, M. (1969). "Lateral load tests on instrumented timber piles." Performance

of deep foundations, ASTM STP 444, American Society for Testing and Materials,

379-394.

Alizadeh, M., and Davisson, M. T. (1970). "Lateral load test on piles--Arkansas

River project." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., 96(5), 1583-1604.

Barton, Y. O. (1982). "Laterally loaded model piles in sand, centrifuge tests and

finite element analyses," PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

Bhushan, K., Lee, L. J., and Grime, D. B. (1981). "Lateral load tests on drilled

piers in sands." Drilled piers and caissons, Proc. Geotech. Engrg. Div. at ASCE

Nat. Convention, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 28.

Broms, B. (1964). "Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils." J. Soil Mech.

and Found. Engrg., ASCE, 90(3), 123-156.

Chang, C. S., and Whitman, R. V. (1988). "Drained permanent deformation of

sand due to cyclic loading." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 114(10), 1164-1180.

Davisson, M. T. (1970). "Lateral load capacity of piles." Highway Res. Record, 333,

104-112.

Davisson, M. T., and Salley, J. R. (1968). "Lateral load tests on drilled piers."

ASTM Symp. on Deep Foundations, San Francisco, June 24.

Davisson, M. T., and Salley, J. R. (1970). "Model study of laterally loaded piles."

J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., ASCE, 96(5), 1605-1627.

HeUer, L. W. (1965). "Lateral thrust on piles." Technical Report R283, U.S. Civ.

Engrg. Lab., Port Hueneme, Calif., June 15.

Hetenyi, M. (1946). Beams on elastic foundations. University of Michigan Press,

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Kramer, S. L., and Heavey, E. J. (1988). "Lateral load analysis of nonlinear piles."

J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 114(9), 1045-1049.

Little, R. L., and Briaud, J-L. (1988). "Full scale cyclic lateral load tests on six single

piles in sand." Miscellaneous Paper GL-88-27, Geoteehnical Div., Texas A&M

Univ., College Station, Tex.

Lock and dam No. 4, Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

(1964). U.S. Army Engineer District, Little Rock, Corps of Engineers.

Long, J. H., and Reese, L. C. (1982). "Prediction of lateral load behavior for

reinforced concrete pile." letter report to L. Johnson, WES, Mar.

Long, J. H., and Reese, L. C. (1984). "Testing and analysis of two offshore piles

subjected to lateral loads." Laterally loaded deep foundations: analysis and per-

formance, ASTM STP 835, J. A. Langer, E. Mosely, and C. Thompson, eds.,

American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 214-228.

242

Matlock, H. (1974). "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay."

Second Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Paper No. 1204, Houston, Texas,

May, 577-594.

Matlock, H., Foo, S. H. C., and Bryant, L. M. (1978). "Simulation of lateral pile

behavior under earthquake motion." Proc. ASCE Specialty Conf. on Earthquake

Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, June, 600-619.

Meyer, B., and Reese, L. C. (1979). "Analysis of single piles under lateral loading."

Research Report 244-1, Ctr. for Transp. Res., Dec.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Morrison, C. S. (1986). "A lateral load test of a full-scale pile group in sand," PhD

thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Tex.

O'Neill, M. W., and Murchison, J. M. (1983). "An evaluation of p-y relationships

in sands." Research Report No. GT-DF02-83, University of Houston, Houston,

Tex., May.

Parry, R. H. G., and Sanglamer, A. (1977). "Lateral load tests on single model piles

with radiographic observations." Cambridge University Interim Report, CUED~C,

Soils TR 36.

Poulos, H. G. (1982). "Single pile response to cyclic lateral load." J. Geotech. Engrg.,

ASCE, 108(3), 355-375.

Prakash, S. (1962). "Behavior of pile groups subjected to lateral loads," thesis,

University of Illinois, Urbana, II1.

Reese, L. C. (1984). "Handbook on design of piles and drilled shafts under lateral

load." FHWA-1P-84-11, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Federal Highway Administration,

July.

Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). "Analysis of laterally loaded

piles in sand." Paper No. 2080, Sixth Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Vol. 2, Hous-

ton, Texas, May.

Reese, L. C., and Matlock, H. (1956). "Non-dimensional solutions for laterally

loaded piles with soil modulus assumed proportional to depth." 8th Texas Conf.

on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Sep. 14.

Robinson, K. E. (1979). "Horizontal subgrade reaction estimated from lateral load

tests on timber piles." Behavior of deep foundations, ASTM STP 670, Raymond

Lungren, ed., American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 520-

536.

Sanglamer, A. (1979). "Model study of laterally loaded single piles." Proc. Seventh

European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Brighton, England, Sep.,

Vol. 2, 115-120.

Stevens, J. B., Holloway, M. D., Moriwaki, Y,, and Demsky, E. C. (1979). "Pile

group response to axial and lateral loading." Proc. Symp. Sponsored by Geotech.

Engrg. Div., ASCE, Oct. 25.

Swane, I. C., and Poulos, H. G. (1982). "A theoretical study of the cyclic shakedown

of laterally loaded piles." Research Report No. R415, School of Civ. and Mining

Engrg., Univ. of Sydney, July.

Tucker, L. M., and Briaud, J. L. (1988). Analysis of the pile load test program at

the lock and dam 26 replacement project. U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis,

Mo., June.

Turner, J. P., Kulhawy, F. H., and Charlie, W. A. (1987). "Review of load tests

on deep foundations subjected to repeated loading." Report EL-5375, Electrical

Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., Aug.

Vesic, A. (1977). "Design of pile foundations." National cooperative highway re-

search program synthesis of highway practice, Report No. 42, Transportation Re-

search Board, Washington, D,C.

a = degradation parameter for method by Little and Briaud;

243

n deflection constant for BOEF analysis;

D= diameter of pile (L);

E/= bending stiffness of pile, modulus times moment of inertia (FL2);

H= lateral load applied to top of pile (F);

//min = minimum horizontal load during cyclic loading (F);

/max z maximum horizontal load during cyclic loading (F);

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 07/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

KhN = soil reaction modulus at N cycles of load ( F / L 2 ) ;

Kha = soil reaction modulus for first cycle of load ( F / L 2 ) ;

L = length of pile (L);

M = bending moment in pile (FL);

N= number of cycles of load;

nh = coefficient of soil reaction (F/L3);

nhN coefficient of soil reaction at N cycles of load (F/L3);

nhl = coefficient of soil reaction for first cycle of load (F/L3);

p = resistance provided by soil ( F / L ) ;

P~v = soil resistance N cycles of load ( F / L ) ;

Pl = soil resistance for first cycle of load ( F / L ) ;

R14 = cyclic load ratio, ratio of minimum to maximum horizontal load

(=nminlHmax);

Rn = cyclic modulus ratio, ratio of cyclic to static nh;

RnN = value of Rn at N cycles;

Rnl = value of Rn on first cycle of load;

t = degradation parameter for elastic soil modulus, nh;

y = pile deflection corresponding to specific soil resistance at specific

depth (L);

Yl = pile deflection corresponding to specific soil resistance at specific

depth for first cycle of load (L);

YN = pile deflection corresponding to specific soil resistance at specific

depth for N cycles of load (L);

Ot = degradation parameter for soil resistance, p;

= lateral deflection at top of the pile (L); and

~3N = on Nth cycle of load (L).

244

- Friction capacity of soilUploaded bykushaljp
- Steel Design Project Civ 428 (O.B1)Uploaded byOliver Brown
- Pile Cap DesignUploaded byrutgers_v
- FEMA 356 Foundation ModelingUploaded bydasg91
- FDOT_844Uploaded byAnonymous QygYrwL
- TensarTech PlateauUploaded byMilan Popovic
- FoundationUploaded byBarnabás Kiss
- UB-axialforcebending-S275-EC3(UKNA)-UK-1_26_2018Uploaded byArzath Sajeer
- When Foundation Repair Piers Become CrucialUploaded byWilson924Millers
- EngineeringUploaded byleelapeq
- Talk on MS 131-2004 Precast Concrete PilesUploaded byGnabBang
- Pile Cap StudyUploaded byAnil
- Part417 Continuous Flight Auger PilesUploaded byNaga Rjk
- Bidge Deck AnalysisUploaded byAshish Karki
- Deep Foundation - WikipediaUploaded byABHAY SHRIVASTAVA
- Pile foundation+.pdfUploaded bymoonna
- Timesaving-TorsionDesign-IAUploaded byeltorro-t
- Bending Moment FormulaUploaded bydb8301
- QCS 2007 0401Uploaded byRotsapNayrb
- designofgasholde00pill.pdfUploaded byAndaru Mahayekti
- Hayward-Baker-Power-Energy-Brochure.pdfUploaded bysamudra.gs83
- 26-04-2016 dcrUploaded byFaheem Mushtaq
- Schletter Pvmax3 Data SheetUploaded bysfdfazel
- Negative Skin Friction - SantamarinaUploaded byadvan153
- Chapter 6B.ppt [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded bysmwassy
- Pile Cap ConfigurationsUploaded byG. M. Bayazid
- Morichal 2 Week Look Ahead PMUploaded byCarlos Negrin
- documentUploaded bysaxlamag
- 2015-16_Autumn_5486_12240375Uploaded byVivek Sharma
- Be Denis 2005Uploaded bymendez529

- Financial MArkets Module 1 NCFMUploaded byChetan Sharma
- KDC SSC PRE-002Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- 1 AnswerKey Overseer CivilUploaded byhj_civil081206
- KDC SSC PRE-003Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- KDC SSC PRE-002Uploaded byKumar Vivek
- New Doc 2018-01-18Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- International Conference Brochure 2Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- IRS 1997-Concrete-Bridge Code.pdfUploaded byJoe Ps
- Resilient ModulusUploaded byThulasirajan Krishnan
- Employment News 28 October - 03 NovemberUploaded byhj_civil081206
- Formwork Safe Practices Checklist During Design and ConstructionUploaded byhj_civil081206
- NITJ Conference EGRWSE-2018_1705073873Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- GE- s_005.pdfUploaded byhj_civil081206
- Competition Success Review August 2017Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- Draft Well PileUploaded byhj_civil081206
- GermanUploaded byhj_civil081206
- study of ground water quality.pdfUploaded byhj_civil081206
- How to Take a Soil SampleUploaded byhj_civil081206
- 14 How to Sample GroundwaterUploaded byhj_civil081206
- Union Performance Railways Status Work Report 48 2015 Chap 3 (1)Uploaded byhj_civil081206
- NDT CatalogueUploaded byhj_civil081206
- FREYSSINET Prestress ManualUploaded byras_deep
- IRC-18-2000_1Uploaded bysanku_cid
- Apply ASRB-NET use full for Research Aspirants Its equal to CSIR-NET you can Join as a JRF/SRF.Uploaded byAnonymous NuKaugu
- NET SyllabusUploaded byhj_civil081206

- Sample of Geotechnical ReportUploaded byyassina
- Pile Foundation#1.pdfUploaded byAuLia Putri Siregar
- 11 Composite Breakwater Design.pdfUploaded byAnonymous U353mI1
- Embedded Walls Finished)Uploaded byTun Sheikh Hambalee
- Pier ColumnUploaded byMRMAKBAR
- H2O Pipe Sheet Piling June2010Uploaded bynatalia6565
- estrucutra de la rueda de la fortunaUploaded byivanmayen
- Foundation Engineering I PPT ALL.pdfUploaded byTekle Germariam
- JustinBurgoon2007Uploaded byRicardo Gómez
- Pondasi Pipe Bridge 9m Dalam 4,5 m (1)Uploaded byDewAngga Yudistira
- list eng.xlsxUploaded bytonny
- Geotech..pdfUploaded byAnonymous ilWXWxg
- Tunnel and Shaft SolutionsUploaded byMohamed H. Jiffry
- BRIAUD Introduction to Soil ModuliUploaded byhmap80
- A8557Uploaded byNauman Ali
- Soil Pile CapacityUploaded bymayuresh
- VTIE ProductUploaded bySiti Salwani binti Ab Rahim
- Ground-Improvement-Techniques.pdfUploaded bymm
- Recent Advances in Pile Foundation - BCM SeminarUploaded byapi-19915731
- Cross Hole Sonic Logging and Low Strain Integrity Test_ by GRLUploaded byNazmul
- IStructE Chartered Membership Examination 2008Uploaded byshamimzubery
- Suction Pile SpecUploaded byriaz16shaik
- Slope Design Guidelines From JKRUploaded byHoo Yen How
- Icc Model Codes IbcUploaded byDavid Ezequiel Bethancourt
- Underground StructuresUploaded bythauwui86
- Solseal - Pile Cap Sealer DatasheetUploaded byTr
- Red Wing Bridge Project - Bridge Concept ReportUploaded byZhi_Ming_Cheah_8136
- An Overview of Soil MechanicsUploaded byUsman Abdullahi
- Barge ApplicationsUploaded byLe Nguyen Vu
- Foundation Design and Construction Hk - Lecture SlidesUploaded byScott Downs