ULTIMATE LATERAL RESISTANCE OF PILES 147 14K (Brineh Hansen, 1961) FIGURE 74 Lateral resistance factors Unrestrained or Free-Head Piles hanisms for unrestrained piles are shown “long” piles in Fig. 7.8, together with the Short” piles (termed rigid piles ¢ those in which the lateral sistance, while unresictined or freshead piles. For convenience, pls in Tolls willbe Posie elure m for “short” and PO same Capacity is dependent wholly on the soi yng piles ave those whose lateral capacity is primarily be cred ceils aa ei Ee crane a te pete oa depth from 2c, at the surface (cy = undrained shea 78. f defines the location of the maximum momentagnd Sere ay cs B10 12 cy at 2 depth of about three ee a et menting ‘hameters (al) below the surface, Broms (1964e) soggested anaes i? f simplified distribution of sil resistance as from the ground surface to a depth of 1.5d and value of Sey below this depth. This asumes also that ile TRovetnents wil be sufficient to generate this reaction in the eitical Zone, the location of which will depend on the falure mechanism. purely cohesive soils and in purely frictional considered separately PILES IN COHESIVE SOILS (Fig. 7.4), the ultimate soil rane et - nee ; 88 Goa setecien se reaction Banding moment factors at ground surface (Q) and at FIGURE 7.8 Failure mechanisms for piles in cohesive soll (Brom 1961). 1964 FIGURE 7.7 Lateral treat depth (>) (Brinch Hans148 ULTIMATE LATERAL RESISTANCE OF PILES Hy, Sa 9) Also, taking moments about the maximum moment location, Moos = Hy (e + LSd + 0.59) (7.102) also, Mmay = 2.2Sdg%y (7.105) Since £ = 1.Sd + + g, Eqs. (7.9) and (7.10) can be solved. for the ultimate lateral load, #,. The solution is plotted in Fig. 7.90 in terms of dimensionless parameters L/d and Hufewd?, and applies for short piles in which the yield moment My > Mmay, the inequality being checked by using Eqs. (7.9) and (7.104). = For long piles, Eq. (7.105) no longer holds, end fy is obtained from Eqs. (7.9) and (7.102) by setting Muay equal to the known value of yield moment, My. This Solution is plotted in Fig. 7.9% in terms of dimensionless Parameters Hy/cud? and My/eyd?. It should be noted that Bos 8 8 8 8 ae Later Resistance Hy/eyit + Uitimate Lateral Resistance Ho/eyé? 2060 105 ©) Wels Moment yee? FIGURE 7.9 Ultimate inter Piles; () lon ples (Brom, 19644). 308 600 resistance in cohesive soils: (a) short Broms's solution for short piles can easily be rec from the simple statical solution for uniform soil de in Section 7.2, by using an equivalent length of pil to L - 1.5d,and an equivalent eccentricity of loadin, toet Ls. Restrained or Fixed-Headed Piles Possible failure mechanisms for restrained piles are sh Fig, 7.10, together with the assumed distributions feaction and moments. The changeover points fror failure-mode to another depend again on the yield m of the pile. ILis assumed that moment-restraint equal (max) er bd ongetae soon ary sn 154 () kK Scud Monga Detlacton Sot Recction Bending orna: ae Myiatd Mya 50 pest | hece Reaction te Detaction Soi Bending Moment FIGURE 7.10 Restrained piles, in cohesive sol: (3) short (b) im ‘mediate; (long (after Broms, 1964e),moment in the pile just below the cap is available*. In Fig. 7.104, the following relationships hold for “short” piles Hy = Sed (L ~ 1.Sd) aay Hu (OSL + 0.78, Mace (7.12) Solutions in dimensionless terms are shown in Fig. 7.94, For “intermediate” piles (ie., first yield of pile ‘occurs at the head) in Fig. 7.105, Eq. (7.9) holds, and. taking moments about the surface, My = 2.25 cydg? ~ Scudf(l.Sd + 0.5f) (7.13) ‘This equation, together with the relationship L = 1.Sd + f + may be solved for Hy ick that the maximum positive moment, at depth f + 1.5d, is less than My; otherwise, the failure mechentSFT~for, algne” piles ‘Mustrated in Fig. 7.10c holds. For the latyéf mechanism, the following relationship applies: It is necessary to id + 0.5f en Dimensionless solutions are shown in Fig. 7.96 7.2.2.2 PILES IN COHESIONLESS SOILS The following assumptions are made in, the analysis by Broms (19645): 1, The active earth-pressure acting on the back of the pile is neglected. 2. The distribution of passive pressure along the front of the pile is equal to three times the Rankine passive pressure. 3. The shape of the pile section has no influence on the distribution of ultimate soil pressure or the ultimate'lateral, resistance 4. The full lateral resistance is mobilized at the movement considered. Thi B—=-che simplified assumption of an ultimate soil resist- ance, Pu, equal to three times the Rankine passive pressure P is based on limited empirical evidence from comparisons Y vetween predicted and observed ultimate loads made by Broms; these comparisons suggest that the assumed factors of 3 may in some cases be conservative, as the average ratio Y + iF only limited heud-estraint is available, solutions may be obtained by application of statis! considerations similar to those ‘eserived inthis and the previous section ULTIMATE LATERAL RESISTANCE OF PILES 149 of predicted to measured ultimate loads is about two thirds, The distribution of soil resistance is Pu = 30iKy 7.15) where | = effective vertical overburden pressure Kp = (1 +sin @)/(1 ~ sin 6°) 6 = angle of internal friction (effective stress) ‘The analysis resulting from the assumption of the above of 3 is much simpler than that which would follow Brinch Hansen's variable factor Ky (Fig. 7.6). Broms's approach is equivalent to assuming that Brinch Hansen's Kg = 3Ky for all depths. From Fig. 7.7, it can be seen that for values of likely to obtain in sands, 3Kp lies between Brinch Hansen’s surface and deep values of Ki: Unrestrained or Free-Head Piles Possible failure-modes, soil-esistance distributions, and bending-moment distributions for “long” and “short” piles are shown in Fig. 7.11 (for constant soil unit weight 7 along the pile). As:before, the pile will act as a “short” pile if the maximum moment is less than the yield moment of the section. In Fig. 7.11, the rotation is assumed ta,be about a point close to the tip, and the high pressures acting near this point are replaced by a single concentrated force at the tip. Taking moments about the toe, yaL*Ky etd (7.16) This relationship is plotted in Fig. 7.12a using the dimension- less parameters L/d and ly/Kprd?. The maximum moment, occurs at a distance f below the surface, where Hy = 5ydK pf ay) that is (7.18) If after use of Eq. (7.16), the calculated value of Hy results in Minax > My (Mmax from Eq. 7.18), then the pile180 ULTIMATE LATERAL RESISTANCE OF PILES © Detection oo Sot Raoction Soil Reaction Bending Moment Bending Moment FIGURE 7.11 Free-head piles in a cobesiontes sol: (a) short, (6) long (after Broms, 1964, will act as a “long” pile, and Hy may then be calculated from Eqs. (7.17) and (7.18), putting Mmmyy = My. The, solutions for Hy for “long” piles are plotted in Fig. 7.125, in terms of Hy/Kyrd and My/d* yKp, For short piles, comparisons reveal that Broms’s a. sumptions lead to higher values of ultimate load than the S simple analysis given in Section 7.2. For example, for L/d > 20 and e/ = 0, Broms’s solution gives a load 33% more than that derived from the simple statical analysis Restrained or Ficed-Head Piles The assumption of an available moment-resistance at the top cap of at least M, is again made. Possible failure 7 modes for “short,” “intermediate,” and “long” piles are * shown in Fig. 7.13, For a “short™ pile (Fig. 7.130), horizontal equilibrium gives Ay = LSuL7dKy on ‘This solution is plotted in dimensionless form in Fig. 7.12 ‘The maximum moment L 7.2 max = 3H UM 08 My than te ate mode in. 7136 seat Pr Fig 135 rhode (am) oat Taking moments about the top of the pile, and substituting for F from Eq. (7.21):200 160 20 20 40 1000 gy 100 Emeecment Length ULTIMATE LATERAL RESISTANCE OF PILES. 151 frag neoses IGURE 7.12 Unimate lateral resistance of ples in cohesionies soll: My = (0.5yd L°Kp) ~ Hu Hence, Hi, may be abtained. . “This equation only holdsif the maximum moment at depth f is less than My, the distance f being calculated from Eq, (7.17). For the situation shown in Fig. 7.13c, where the ‘maximum moment reaches M, at two locations, it is readily found that 2,) . aye + Ff) = 723) 705100070000 Yield Moment, Mga Ap¥ (2) short (2) long (aftr Broms, 19645). Dimensionless solutions from this equation are shown in Fig. 7.125, Comparisons have been made by Broms between maximum bending moments celculated from the above approach and values determined experimentally in a con- siderable number of tests reported in the literature. For cohesive soils, the ratio of calculated to observed moment ranged between 0.88 and 1.19, with an average value of 1,06, For cohesionless soils, this ratio ranged between 0.54 and 1.61, with an average value of 0.93. While good agreement was obtained, it was pointed out by Broms that the calculated maximum moment is not sensitive to small variations in the assumed soil-esistance distribution.Fidky Soil Réoftion Bending Moment Mea Penection So# Recction Banding, Moment © (Myiag) a te FIGURE 719 Resse pli coheoaas ot) shay medio 7.2.3 Plane Strain Solutions Solutions for a perfectly. cohesive weightless soil (1961) for plane-strain there can be no tension id free-head plate in a purely hhave been obtained by Davis conditions. If it is assumed that between the soil and plate and that » the soil pressure will act normally over the right-hand side over the left-hand side of a portion AB of the plate, and of BC, as shown in Fig. 7.14, FIGURE 7.14 Plasticity analysis for laterally onde Solutions for the failure of a strip footing ne edge are then utilized. At failure, the pressun 2c, while that on BC is given by the solution ¢ Width BC, distant 4B from a vertical edge Booker, 1973). Upper- and lower-bound solutio in this way are shown in Fig. 7.15, and for pr Poses, these upper and lower bounds coincide » slight distance apart. A similar approach can be in the case of a rough plate, by considering a ro uunder various inclinations of load (it is still aun no tension between soil and plate.) A lower-bou for the rough-plate case is also shown in Fig roughness of the plate only has an appreciable a limited range of moment and load combinations be emphasized that the solutions in Fig. 7.15 ‘weightless soil and will tend to be conservatiy having appreciable weight. Also, plane-strain com assumed with failure occucring in a vertical pla {"9st to failure in a horizontal plane in the analy 7.5. Model tests (Douglas, 1958) show satisfacto mation of the theory, Comparisons between the solutions in Fig. {hose obtained from Brom’ theory (Fig. 7.9) show ultimate lateral resistance calculated from plasticity Much Jess than that from Broms's theory -for for 2 and e/L = 0, the calculated ultim, ditfer by @ factor of 3. Ths difference arises larg the lower ultimatesoibesistances used in the approach (a value of 2c, for the portion AB and mum value of 5.14¢y for portion BC, gs against stlue (of cy), a8 4 consequence of the assum plane-strain conditions, The plasticity solutions in Fig. 7.15, while Conservative for normal proportions of pile, are te the case of shallowty-embedded sheet piling and