20. LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS ant Etatic Stress Strain ‘on Numerical Models i io Bye, P. Me A Ties {281 Bye, Sands” Proceedings of the I mt Karim Habibagahi! and James A. Langer! Report No. . Uae sctos for Dynamic Response nL ol ia, Herkeley, Des. 1970 Sect," Report No. BERC 70-10, University of Cal Horizontal Subgrade Modulus of Granular Soils REFERENCE: Habibagahi, K. and Langer, J. Ax, “Horaontal Sbgrade Modulus of Deep Founda ind ©. D. Thompson, Es American Society for tng the horizontal subgrade the modulus from the propoted relationship are compared with those given by others. KEY WORDS: leteral fonds, ples, piers, castont, subgrade modulus, granular sols ‘With urban growth and congested building sites, the use of vertical carry large lateral loads has become more common as the presence of adja- cent structures precludes application of batter piles on sites that otherwise sistance of soil against buried structures, such as piles and conduits, one needs to have a knowledge of the horizontal subgrade modulus. There are several empirical and semiempirical relationships as well as charts and tables ety of field and laboratory techniques have been used to determine the hori-22. LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS zontal subgrade modulus, among which are standard penetration test [1-4],2 plate load test [/,6), consolidation test [7], unconfined ing upon t used to obtain the modulus. The accuracy of elabo- simplist methods of computing the modulus is by means of em semiempirical relationships, which relate the modulus to other known of eas- ily obtainable soil properties. ‘This paper reviews such relationships for granular soils and presents a sim- ple and yet @ reasonably conservative relationship to obtain the horizontal subgrade modulus of granular soils. Definitions and Units ‘Terms frequently used in literature dealing with the horizontal subgrade ‘modulus are the lateral subgrade modul variation of lateral subgrade reaction, and the soll spring constant. The units associated ulus of subgrade reacti tal soil modulus and is used herein for its as the ratio of the horizon- ycement produced by the ap- ny poi plication of the reaction at that =Fy a 2 Bhushan, K. and Askar, S., “Design of Solar Plant Helistat Foundation," inthis publica tion, pp. 140-156 HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR SOILS 23 ied horizontal force or reaction, and y is the resulting dis- pile according to Q=pB where B isthe pile width or diameter. The horizontal subgrade modulus thus ‘becomes Ky = Q/y = pB/y ® force per length squared. This relationship is often presented Ky = kB @ in which is the coefficient of hori length cubed. The coe! used in the soil mecha defined below. Existing Relationships and Charts horizontal subgr: ind semiempirical re ky = m(Z/B) ° where ny is the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction and is given by = 2Ay/1.35 for sands are given in Table 1 served that where A is a constant. From combining Eqs 2, Q= ney ©D4 LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS ‘TABLE 1—Values ofthe constant of horizontal ‘subgrade reaction My ef ‘Relative Density of Sand 4, degre Dry or moist sand my, Sabmerged sand my length (for equal to my ‘As can be seen, the lateral fence is 2 direct function of depth. Recent experiments and field ever, indicate that the vertical bearing capacity in granu! depth depending on the locati soil, Beyond this depth, there: depth flow the same general trend and not continue t iy as indicated by Eq 6, Further examination isplaceme ‘bearing capacity. The li lateral resistance may al increase with depth indefi Eq 6 reveals that for a given lateral force per unit of tens! ‘area. Alternately, Zuraboy and Bugayeva [12] subgrade reaction k tobe used fo for granular soils are presented i fgeate than those recommended by Terzaghi for depths of practical interest. ‘Work by Bowles [13] suggests using the following relationship k=A+BE o to predict distribution ofthe coefficient of horizontal or vertical subgrade re” A constants. Values to , but they can be deter- from the results of lat- ceral-pile load tests. HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR SOLS 25 "TABLE 2—Range of values ofthe coefficient of ‘horizontal subgrade reaction Soll Type Silty fine sand Medizm sand Dense sand and clay "Note: to convert Ref to RN/m?, 157.0. For vertical coefficient of subgrade reaction k,, Bowles [13] computes k, from the ultimate bearing capacity (qui) of a continuous footing as = Gul¥ For ultimate displacement of y = 25.4 mm (1 in.) ky = Wquy = 120N, + 12GNy + 6YBNy (ke) C= cohesion, ksf, q = surcharge = 9Z, ksf, y= unit weight, kef, and jors with respect to cohesion and surcharge, respectively For granular soils, C= O and ky = OBNy + 12yZN, (kof) ® From a comparison of Eqs 7 and 8 A = 6yBNy, B = 12yNy andn = 1 Using above A, B, and n val -y can be obtained for a deflection of 25.4 ‘Based on Francis [14] recommendations, ky can be obtained by multiplying k, by two to take account of side shear, thus ky = I2yBNy + 24yZN, (ke) o “The values of ky obtained by means of Eq 9 are then checked ag given in Table 3 for possible gross errors. The recommended valu« fine sand and medium sand in Table 3 are close to those of Zurabov and Bu-26 LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS ‘TABLE 3—Range of ralues ofthe coffcen subgrade reaction by for send and gravel (13), Sol Type z Fine sand 200 ‘Medium sand 130 ‘Medium dense coarse sand 1000 te 2000 Dense sandy gravel 1400 to 2500 “Note: to convert ket to KN/m, multiply by 157.09. gayeva [12]. Research by Bowles [J shape as well. He recommends using and B by correction factors for round the ground line at large lateral assumed equal to 25.4 mm 5] based on experience from past projects prepared a plot of ‘k asa function of shear strength parameters of soils. The ky values for granu s obtained from this plot are summarized in Table 4, These values are lower that those given by others in Tables 2 and 3. Johnson and Kavanagh [2] obtained values of the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction n, for granular soils above the water table using the bear- ing capacity criterion and assuming the horizontal and ver shallow depths to be equal. These values are summarized in Table 5. The ry of horizontal subgrade ng 10 Soletanche (15). TABLE 5 Values ofthe constant of the horizontal subgrade reaction Bown 8 10 1S 20 30 mkt 7 TD Note: to convert keto KN/m, multiply by 157.09 HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR SOILS 27 values are greater than those of Terzaghi (Table 1) except for loose sand wwhete they are about equal. For granular soils the Navy Design Manual [76] uses the following relation- ship to obtain the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction ky = (2/8 (a0) where f = coefficient of variation of lateral subgrade reaction, Z = depth, and B = width or diameter of loaded area. From a comparison of Eqs 5 and is observed that the coefficient of varia- tion of lateral subgrade reaction isthe same as the constant of horizontal sub- ‘grade reaction. Typical values of f are presented in Table 6. These values are very close to Terzaghi values except at high relative densities where they are lower. According to Menard [5] and test results on instrumented piles by Baguelin and Jazequel [17], the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction can be obtained from ky = 3.38 ,/B = 25 PYB ay where ky = coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, kN/m®, Em = pressuremeter modulus, kPa, Another method to estimate ky from pressuremeter data is to use the fol- owing equation given by Poulos [18] ky = 0.8E,/B «a2 ‘TABLE 6~Values ofthe constant of horizontal subprade reaction my ket [15 Relative Density of Parameter ‘Locte Medivm Dense Very Dene Blows/ttN 41010 101030 «301050 50+ 9, depres 30 4 2» 2 mat 2 4 » 108 “Note: to conver Ke to RN/m, multiply by 157.09.28 LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS ‘As can be seen, Eq 11 yields k, values about four times those of Eq 12. Schmertmann [9] recommends using Eq 11 for flexible piles and Eq 12 for [23] reviews several equations that can be used to estimate ky from values of stress-strain modulus E,. For practical range of interest he obtains ky = 0.8 to 1.3E,/B Various laboratory and field tests to obtain F, are summarized by Bowles 131. (ies al 20] performed field load tests on instrumented piles instar rated sand and obtained m values, which were 2.5 to 3.9 times greater than those recommended by Terzaghi for static and cyclic loadings, respectively. ‘Their recommended n, values for submerged sand are shown in Table 7. ‘Audibert et al [ upon results of an extensive laboratory testing itu test, presented the following relationship for buried dried sand ky = (A + By) (aa) where A= 0.145y,/9ZNy. B = 0.855/71 ‘Yq = ultimate displacement, and NN, = bearing capacity factor given by charts. Sogge [22] proposes the following simple relationship to obtain a range of ‘kg values for shallow piles = (2 to 30)2/Blkef) idth, and Z is depth. Robinson [4] shows that ky is practically independent of the pile width and, ‘based upon the results of field load tests on timber piles in cohesionless soils, presents the relationship between the constant of the horizontal subgrade re- TABLE 7—Recommanded values ofthe constant ofthe horizontal subgrade reaction my, Rf for submerged Relative Density Parameter Tooke Medium — Dense Recommended my, ket 35104216 “Rote: to conver ke to KN/, mulipiy by 157.09. HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR Sols 29 action ng and the standard penetration resistance. In computing ms, the dis- placements were measured at the ground surface. The computed m, was then plotted against the average blow count of the upper 3.05 m (10 ft). Robinson's results indicate that the horizontal subgrade modulus is not only a function of the relative density of the sand but also a function of the magnitude of the zaghi’s range of m for the same blow counts is 1257 to 2199 KN/m? (8 to 14 kkef) (Table 1). Robinson's values are 2 to 14 times greater than those given by those of Terzaghi. sported a series of seven field load tests on piers 0.61 fiameter in sand. Lateral loads of up to 880 KN (200 :nd measurements of groundline deflection versus load were made. Based on the results of the load tests, the following relationship between n, and the deflection was obtained Jog m = 0.82 + log N — 0.62 log (»/B) where N = blows per foot and 3B = ratio of pile deflection to pile width in percent, zontal subgrade higher modul on available dat st Terzaghi’s values present conditions ap- proaching large lateral displacements. For lateral displacements of less than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.), Terzaghi values appear to be quite conservative. ‘TAULE 8 Values ofthe constant ofthe horizontal ‘ubprade reaction by R19" 1, blows/tt Load, kip? 4 6 8 6 % OD 0 ae ed a 2 ed “Note: to convert ke wo KN, multiply by 157.09; to convert kip 0 KN multiply by 4.448,30 LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS. “The range of values of the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction rec ‘ommended by various authors are summarized in Fig. 1 for @ = 30°. In pre- paring this plot Eq 5 was used when necessary to obtain ky. Terzaghi values fare for dry or moist sand; Alizadeh and Davisson values and the Bhushan and ‘Askari line are for pile deflections of 12.7 mm (0.5 in.); Robinson values are for the lateral loads shown, Reese et al values correspond to the initial tangent jowles equation is based on a pile deflection of 25.4 mm (1.0 in.). Ata typic et tat fy can vary from a minimum of about 25.1 MN (160 kl maximum of 377 MN/m: (2400 kef), or a variation of 15 folds. Proposed Relationship The coefficient of horizont subgrade reaction is influenced by many fac- tive overburden pressure, , nature of applied load ‘the pile section. Load test ‘and Bhushan and Askari? hhave shown the importance of deflection, groundwater condition and the overburden pressure on the computed modulus value of granular soils. In particular they demonstrate that the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction is not a constant but decreases with increasing pile deflection. In Fig. 1, the FIG. 1—Comparisom of ky values from different sources. HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR SOLS 31 ‘ky values recommended by Terzaghi, Johnson and Kavanagh, and Sogge are satisfactory at high deflections, but they are quite conservative when used for small deflections. The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction ky increases with depth and decreases with deflection. Equation 5 can be used to obtain ky, at a given depth by selecting the proper m, value corresponding to the deflec- tion at that depth. In a similar manner, if deflections over a pile segment can reasonably be assumed constant, Eq S can be used to obtain ky for that seg- ment. Based on the bearing capacity concept as suggested by work of Bowles [/3], ‘and Audibert et al [27], a simple relationship to predict ky as a function of deflection and effective overburden stress & for a moist or dry granular soil is proposed as follows ky = ONY a4) in which N, is @ lateral bearing capacity factor dependent on deflection. For laterally loaded piles, itis suggested to obtain N, from the following relation- ship N, =A + VZ7B) as) in which A is a constant for any given deflection and ang! and B is pile width. Using available load test data, the are recommended. For @ = 30°, ternal friction, values for A for y = 2.54, 6.35, subgrade reactions is ky = diy + VZ7B) (16) A plot of variations of ky with depth is shown in Fig. 2 for y = 2.54, 6.35, 12.7, and 25.4 mm (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 in.). For y = 2.54 mm (0.1 in.); s are several times greater than cortesponding ones for y = 25.4 Itis also noted that the ky values for y = 12.7 mm (0.5 i not close to the average of those for y = 2. but are closer to those for y = 25.4 mm increase in deflection results in defleetion decreases with dept 10 S08 ‘ments and assign ky values corresponding to large deflections for the upper portions, ky values corresponding to low deflections for the lower pile seg- ‘ments, and ky values in between these limits for the mid segments.32 LATERALLY LOADED DEEP FOUNDATIONS COEFFICIENT OF HORIZONTAL SUBGRADE REAC ° S00, 8002001800, 4, +E (asd Fal RELATIVE OEPTH, 2/8 FIG. 2~Proposed chart for estimating hy jents of horizontal subgrade reaction obtained by means of Eq ‘general, lower than those reported by avail: From a comparison of Figs. 1 and 2, itis seen yproaching Terzaghi’s recommendations when. in excess of 25.4 mm (1.0 in.). ‘Summary and Conclusions ical and semiempirical relationships as well as tabl reaction From the available field load test factors that influence the coeffi magnitude of pile deflection, the effe tive density of the soil presented for predicting ky of dry rameters. Predicted values from this equation for ange of available field data. Much more field load test data are needed for HABIBAGAHI AND LANGER ON GRANULAR SOILS 33 a better understanding of the factors aet ors affecting the horizontal subgrade modulus and for refining and expanding the proposed relat ip a mi panting te proposed relationship to other Acknowledgments ‘The writers wish to thank Messrs. L. C. Reese and K. Bhushan for provid- ingle Pes." Procedings of the pp. TL-731,