Geotechnical Testing Journal Journal

Copy of e-mail Notification

Geotechnical Testing Journal Published by ASTM

Dear Author,

YOUR PAGE PROOF IS AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT; please refer to this URL address
http://115.111.50.156/jw/AuthorProofLogin.aspx?pwd=126cf6025f93&CA=AT

Login: your e-mail address

Password: 126cf6025f93

The site contains 1 file. You will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader software to read these files. This is free
software and is available for user downloading at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.

This file contains:

Adobe Acrobat Users - NOTES tool sheet

A copy of your page proofs for your article

Please read the page proofs carefully and:

1) indicate changes or corrections using e-annotation;

2) answer all queries;
3) proofread any tables and equations carefully;
4) check that any special characters have translated correctly.

Special Notes:

Your Login and Password are valid for a limited time. Your prompt attention to and return of page proofs will help
expedite publication of your work. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you have any questions regarding your article, please contact me. PLEASE ALWAYS INCLUDE YOUR
ARTICLE NO. (013204) WITH ALL CORRESPONDENCE.

This e-proof is to be used only for the purpose of returning corrections to the publisher.

Sincerely,

Denise Stanley, Journal Production Manager

E-mail: Denise.Stanley@cenveo.com
 R e p r i n t s O r d e r F or m
For reprints of articles and/or papers from ASTM Journals,
Special Technical Publications (STPs) and Standardization News.

Note: Authors receive a 25% discount

Ship To:
Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Organization: _____________________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
City: _________________________________________________State: _________________ Zip: _________
Country: _____________________________________________

Bill To:
Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Organization: _____________________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________________
City: __________________________________________________State: ________________ Zip: _________
Country: ______________________________________________

Date: Phone: email: Fax:

Paper Title: ______________________________________________________________________________

Publication: ______________________________________________________________________________
(Title, month, and volume number; or STP number)

Page length of article: _______________________ Number of copies: (50 copies minimum) _____________________

Cover: (check one)

o Reprinted article, no cover

o Reprinted article and cover with typeset title of article and author’s name

Complete Quote request and Return to:

1. service@astm.org
Questions about your order? 2. Fax: 610/832-9555
Call Customer Relations at 610/832-9585, 3. Mail to:
weekdays 8:30am–4:30pm ET Customer Relations
ASTM International Customer Service
100 Barr Harbor Drive
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
Reprints Price Scale*
Color Reprints
Copies
Pages 100 200 500 1000 2000

2 $1,102 $1,323 $1,543 $1,764 $1,984

3-4 $2,116 $2,221 $2,326 $2,425 $2,824
5-8 $2,168 $2,278 $2,394 $2,499 $3,024
9-12 $3,307 $3,470 $3,638 $3,801 $4,126

Black & White Reprints

Copies 50 100 200 300 500 100 0 2000
Pages
1-4 $152 $168 $184 $199 $226 $310 $472
5-8 $226 $257 $278 $299 $352 $499 $709
9-12 $257 $289 $336 $357 $425 $577 $787
13-16 $294 $325 $394 $430 $520 $751 $1,118
17-20 $336 $394 $472 $514 $635 $887 $1,307
21-24 $373 $446 $535 $583 $724 $1,003 $1,475
25-28 $404 $478 $583 $646 $808 $1,165 $1,795
29-32 $441 $499 $651 $724 $913 $1,323 $2,058

Cover (optional) $115 $136 $157 $178 $220 $373 $598

* Prices are subject to change without notice.

ASTM International Customer Relations department will finalize your reprint quote including
freight charges. ASTM International will contact you with the quote price.
 AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Journal: Geotech. Test. J. Please provide your responses and any corrections by

annotating this PDF and uploading it to ASTM’s eProof

website as detailed in the Welcome email.

Article Number: 013204

Dear Author,
Below are the queries associated with your article; please answer all of these queries before sending the proof back to Cenveo.
Author please indicate the correct color processing option from the list below:
1. Author, please confirm Figure number(s) that should appear as color in print. Please know that any associated mandatory fees
will apply for figures printed in color.
2. Author, please confirm Figure number(s) that should appear as color online only, there will be no fees applied.
3. Author, your paper currently does not include any color figures for online or print. If color is needed please indicate which
figures it should be applied to and whether it is color in print or online.

Location in Query / Remark: click on the Q link to navigate

article to the appropriate spot in the proof. There, insert your comments as a PDF annotation.
AQ1 Please spell out the acronym LVDT on first use here: “The top 20 cm of the model pile was used to install LVDTs”. Should this be
linear variable differential transformers?
AQ2 Please note, Meyerhof (1995) is not in the reference list. Please add.
AQ3 Please provide the title of the section to which you are referring here: “As described in the previous section, it is clearly observed that
the effects of DR and 0 h on Hu are higher”
AQ4 Please provide the title of the section to which you are referring, here: “As discussed in the previous section, the existing methods
currently used in practice appear to give reasonable”
AQ5 Please provide the location, dates, sponsoring organization, publisher, and publisher’s location for the proceeding in Chin (1970).
AQ6 Please provide the publisher’s location, the page range, and the editors’ names for the publication in Davisson (1972)
AQ7 Please provide the date range, the sponsoring organization, and the publisher’s name and location if applicable, for the Franke (1989)
reference.
AQ8 Please provide the publisher’s name and city within California for the GAI Consultant Inc. (1982) reference.
AQ9 Please provide the date range, the sponsoring organization, and the publisher’s name and location for the proceedings in Petrasovits
and Award (1972).
AQ10 Please provide the date range, the sponsoring organization, and the publisher’s name and location for the proceedings in Reese et al.
(1974).
AQ11 Please provide DOI Refs. Brinch-Hansen, J. (1961), Broms, B. B (1964), Duncan, J. M., (1994), Jaky, J., (1944), Kondner, R. L.,
(1963), Matlock, H. S. (1960), Prakash, S. (1960), and Rojas-Gonzalez (1991).

Thank you for your assistance.

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4

Paper ID GTJ103756
Available online at: www.astm.org

1 Junhwan Lee,1 Kyuho Paik,2 Daehong Kim,3 and Donggyu Park4

Estimation of Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity of

Piles in Sands Using Calibration Chamber Tests

2 ABSTRACT: Current practice for the estimation of the ultimate lateral load capacity of piles is typically based on the vertical effective stress
3 r0 v, while the effect of the lateral effective stress r0 h is not specifically considered. In the present study, calibration chamber lateral pile load tests
4 are conducted to investigate the load response and ultimate lateral load capacity Hu of laterally loaded piles under various soil and stress condi-
5 tions. In order to determine Hu from load-deflection curves, different criteria are explored and analyzed. From the test results, it is shown that Hu
6 increases significantly with increasing r0 h for a given r0 v. It is also found that lateral deflection of pile at ultimate state tends to increase as the rela-
7 tive density and lateral stress increase. On the basis of the test results, the lateral stress correction factor reflecting the effect of the lateral effective
8 stress r0 h on Hu is proposed. From the test results, it is seen that the proposed procedure using the lateral stress correction factor produces more re-
9 alistic estimation of Hu. Case examples are selected from the literature and used to compare results measured and predicted using the proposed
10 approach.
KEYWORDS: piles, horizontal load, earth pressure, failure, load test, model test, sand

11 Introduction ous methods proposed for the estimation of Hu (Brinch-Hansen 35

1961, Broms 1964, Petrasovits and Award 1972, Reese et al. 36
12 The lateral load capacity of piles is an important design factor for 1974, Prasad and Chari 1999, Zhang et al. 2005, Schmertmann 37
13 various structures such as bridges, tall buildings, and transmission 2006). Majority of these methods were developed based on exper- 38
14 tower structures. For single pole transmission tower structures; for imental test results, defining a certain expression of pu as a func- 39
15 example, lateral loads and overturning moments control the tion of the vertical effective stress r0 v and internal friction angle 40
16 design, as self-weights of the structures are relatively small and /0 of soil with an assumed distribution of the lateral soil resistance 41
17 wind and cable loads are predominant load components. In the in a simplified form. As different pu equations and depth profiles 42
18 current practice of single pole transmission tower structures, of the lateral soil resistance have been assumed, the predicted lat- 43
19 drilled shafts or directly embedded pile foundations with or with- eral pile load capacities are also different depending on the 44
20 out backfills are often adopted. For such cases, the foundations are method adopted. 45
21 typically designed as a rigid short pile (GAI Consultant Inc. 1982, Laterally loaded piles produce complex behavior due to the 46
22 Rojas-Gonzalez et al. 1991), where the estimation of the lateral non-linear distribution of the lateral earth pressure, three dimen- 47
23 load capacity is a key design process. sional characteristics of lateral movement, and in situ soil and 48
24 The lateral load capacity of piles can be viewed in two differ- stress conditions (Fleming et al. 1992). While some of these com- 49
25 ent aspects: the allowable load capacity Hall associated with the ponents were considered in existing methods (Brinch-Hansen 50
26 serviceability limit state of structures; and the ultimate load 1961, Prasad and Chari 1999, Zhang et al. 2005), no specific 51
27 capacity Hu associated with failure of soil or a pile itself. The esti- attention has been given to the effect of the stress state in detail. In 52
28 mation of Hall requires displacement analysis such as the p-y or most cases pu is calculated from the in situ vertical effective stress 53
29 subgrade reaction analyses (Matlock and Reese 1960, Duncan (r0 v), assuming a fully mobilized passive state. The in situ stress 54
30 et al. 1994, Prakash and Kumar 1996). The estimation of Hu is; state, however, can vary depending on soil and pile installation 55
31 on\ the other hand, mainly related to the strengths of soil and pile. conditions. For example, when soils are highly overconsolidated 56
32 For estimating Hu of rigid piles in sands, the ultimate lateral or experience considerable changes of mechanical state during 57
33 soil resistance pu and lateral soil pressure distribution along the pile installation, the effect of the stress state, in particular of the 58
34 pile embedded depth should be identified. There have been vari- lateral stress, on pu could be significant. 59
In this study, calibration chamber lateral load tests using a 60

Manuscript received January 6, 2011; ; accepted for publication March 13,

model pile are conducted to investigate the load response and the 61

2012; published online xx xxxx. ultimate lateral load capacity of laterally loaded piles in sands. 62
1
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Eng., Yonsei Univ., 50 Various soil conditions with different relative densities and stress 63
Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, South Korea (Corresponding states are adopted in the tests. On the basis of the test results, the 64
author), e-mail: junlee@yonsei.ac.kr effect of the stress state on Hu is investigated and a correction fac- 65
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., Kwandong Univ., South Korea
3
Senior Researcher, Korea Electric Power Corporation, South Korea
tor is proposed for more realistic estimation of Hu. Comparison 66
4
Ph.D. student, School of Civil and Environmental Eng., Yonsei Univ., between existing and proposed methods is presented as well using 67
South Korea results from case examples in the literature. 68

Copyright V
C 2012 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:14 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

69 Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity of Piles According to the earth pressure theory, the lateral stress at fully 102
mobilized passive state is equal to Kp times vertical effective 103

70 Methods for Estimation of Ultimate Lateral Pile stress. For laterally loaded piles, however, the magnitude of the 104

71 Load Capacity ultimate lateral soil resistance pu is much greater than the Ran- 105
kine’s passive stress due to the three-dimensional characteristics 106
72 For estimating the ultimate lateral load capacity Hu of laterally of the lateral soil resistance (Fleming et al. 1992). The ultimate lat- 107
73 loaded rigid piles, it is necessary to identify the ultimate lateral eral soil resistance pu at fully mobilized passive state in Broms’s 108
74 soil resistance pu and distribution of the lateral soil resistance method is given as follows 109
75 along the pile. pu is typically defined at a fully mobilized passive
pu ¼ 3  K p  r0v (2)
76 state as a function of in situ vertical effective stress r0 v and inter-
77 nal friction angle /0 of soil. The distribution of the lateral soil re- where: 110
78 sistance represents the depth profile of the passive lateral pressure Kp ¼ Rankine’s passive earth pressure ratio ¼ tan2 (45þ/0 =2); 111
79 acting on pile surface exerted by surrounding soils. Examples of /0 ¼ internal friction angle of soil; and 112
80 these profiles are shown in Fig. 1, proposed by Brinch-Hansen r0 v ¼ vertical effective stress. 113
81 (1961), Broms (1964), Petrasovits and Award (1972), and Prasad The equations of pu for the methods by Brinch-Hansen (1961), 114
82 and Chari (1999), respectively. In fact, when a pile moves laterally Petrasovits and Award (1972), and Prasad and Chari (1999) are 115
83 upon loading, both active and passive stresses act on the pile sur- also given in Table 1. From Eq 2 and the depth profile of the lat- 116
84 face in an opposite direction (i.e., rear and front sides of the pile). eral soil resistance given in Fig. 1(b), Hu for Broms’s method can 117
85 However, as the active stress is much smaller than the passive be obtained as follows 118
86 stress, the contribution of the active stress to overall lateral resist-
Kp  r0v;b  L2  B
87 ance is not in general taken into account. Hu ¼ (3)
88 Broms’s method (Broms 1964) may be one of the most popular 2ðe þ LÞ
89 methods in practice for estimating Hu. In Broms’s method, it is where: 119
90 assumed that a lateral concentrated load acts at pile base and r0 v,b ¼ vertical effective stress at pile base; 120
91 therefore the pile rotates according to the pile base. The lateral L ¼ pile embedded length; 121
92 soil resistance pu is then assumed to be fully mobilized along the B ¼ pile diameter; and 122
93 entire pile embedded depth, showing a linearly increasing pu with e ¼ vertical eccentricity of lateral load from the soil surface. 123
94 depth [Fig. 1(b)]. This assumption is in general unconservative.
95 Other methods by Brinch-Hansen (1961), Petrasovits and Award
96 (1972), and Prasad and Chari (1999), on the other hand, consider Lateral Load-Deflection Criteria 124

97 the point of pile rotation at a certain depth as shown in Figs. 1(a), For axially loaded piles, load-settlement criteria to define the ulti- 125
98 1(c), and 1(d). According to Prasad and Chari (1999), for exam- mate load capacity have been relatively well established in various 126
99 ple, the depth to the pile rotation point (dr) can be calculated from ways (Chin 1970, Davisson 1972, Franke 1989, Lee and Salgado 127
100 pile embedded length (L) and vertical load eccentricity (e) as 1999). For laterally loaded piles; on the other hand, limited infor- 128
101 follows mation is available for unique, mechanically meaningful load- 129

dr ¼ ½ð0:567L þ 2:7eÞ deflection criteria. Instead, various criteria, which are mainly 130
related to specific structure types and design consideration, have 131
þ ð5:307L2 þ 7:29e2 þ 10:541eLÞ0:5 =2:1996 (1) been presented (Meyerhof et al. 1981, Fleming et al. 1992, El 132
Naggar and Wei 1999, Hu et al. 2006). 133
The difficulty in defining Hu can be attributed in part to the 134
range of supporting soil layer against lateral load that is extended 135
to entire or significant portion of the pile embedded depth. Within 136
this supporting layer, the lateral deflection and soil pressure vary 137
with depth, and, differently from axially loaded piles, individual 138
deflection and stress component at a certain depth continuously 139
affect overall load responses. According to Fleming et al. (1992), 140
if a pile is of a cylindrical shape, a lateral deflection equal to 10 % 141
of the pile diameter corresponds to the ultimate state. Regarding 142
the structure type, Hu et al. (2006) adopted a lateral deflection 143
equal to 30 cm or pile rotation angle equal to 15 for traffic sign 144
structures, following the specification given by local department 145
of transportation. El Naggar and Wei (1999), on the other hand, 146
estimated values of Hu based on 6.25 mm deflection criterion. 147
More generalized load-deflection criteria acceptable for later- 148
ally loaded piles can be found from Meyerhof et al. (1981), GAI 149
FIG. 1—Distributions of lateral soil pressure at ultimate state by (a) Brinch-
Hansen (1961); (b) Broms (1964); (c) Petrasovits and Award (1972); and (d) Consultant Inc. (1982), and Haldar et al. (1997, 2000). In general, 150
Prasad and Chari (1999). laterally loaded piles show non-linear load-deflection curves, 151

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:14 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

LEE ET AL. ON ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY 3

TABLE 1—Equations of pu for different pile design methods.

Method Brinch-Hansen (1961) Broms (1964) Petrasovits and Award (1972) Prasad and Chari (1999)
0
Equation pu ¼ Kqr0 v pu ¼ 3Kpr0 v pu ¼ (3.7Kp  Ka) r0 v pu ¼ 10(1.3tan/ þ0.3)r0 v
2 2
of pu Kq ¼ Brinch-Hansen Kp¼tan (45 þ /0 =2) Kp ¼ tan (45 þ /0 =2) /0 ¼ internal friction
lateral soil pressure Ka¼tan2(45  /0 =2) angle
coefficient
r0 v ¼ vertical effective r0 v ¼ vertical effective r0 v ¼ vertical effective r0 v ¼ vertical effective
stress stress stress stress

152 which become gradually linear with increasing load. According to and 86 %. These correspond to the unit weights (c0 ) equal to 14.84 194
153 Meyerhof et al. (1981), Hu from load-deflection curves can be kN=m3 and 15.74 kN=m3, respectively. Test soil used in the cali- 195
154 defined as a load from which the load-deflection curve becomes bration chamber tests was Jumunjin sand, clean silica sand with 196
155 approximately linear. This will be further shown from measured properties given in Table 2. 197
156 load-deflection curves obtained in this study. GAI Consultant Inc. The model pile used in calibration chamber tests was a closed- 198
157 (1982) and Haldar et al. (1997), on the other hand, specified Hu at ended pile, made of steel with a diameter and height equal to 6 cm 199
158 a load corresponding to a pile rotation angle equal to 2 . This pile and 90 cm, respectively. This indicates that the ratio between pile 200
159 rotation angle can be directly measured from the pile head, as diameter (B) and distance to chamber (D) is equal to D=B ¼ 6.5. 201
160 indicated as a in Fig. 1. In the present study, the load-deflection
161 criteria by Meyerhof et al. (1981) and Haldar et al. (1997) were
162 selected and used to compare and determine Hu for the calibration
163 chamber test results.

164 Calibration Chamber Lateral Load Tests

165 Calibration Chamber Specimen and Model Pile
166 In order to investigate the load response and Hu of laterally loaded
167 piles in sands, calibration chamber load tests using a rigid model
168 pile were conducted. The calibration chamber used in this study
169 was made of steel and had a diameter and height equal to 77.5 cm
170 and 125 cm, respectively. Inside the chamber, two rubber mem-
171 branes were attached on bottom and lateral sides. Through these
172 membranes, compressed air pressures were supplied for achieving
173 a desired stress state of the calibration chamber specimen. As the
174 vertical and lateral stresses were controlled independently by the
175 lateral and bottom membranes, a stress state at any desired lateral
176 stress ratio K0 (¼ r0 h=r0 v) could be obtained, assuming that the
177 occurrence of strains at lateral boundary is small and the stress
178 state was close to the geostatic condition. Because the specimens
179 were formed at dry conditions, all the stresses within the speci-
180 mens were effective stresses. Details of the calibration chamber
181 and lateral loading device are shown in Fig. 2
182 The calibration chamber specimens were prepared by the rain-
183 ing method using a sand diffuser. The sand diffuser consisted of a
184 sand container and two screen sieves [see Fig. 2(a)]. In Fig. 2(a),
185 the sands surrounding the pile represent falling sand particles by
186 the pluviation, while the sand layer below the pile corresponds to
187 a sand layer formed by the pluviation. Compared with the com-
188 paction method, the raining method may be more effective to
189 achieve a homogeneous soil condition, as the soil forms by natural
190 gravity-process of particles. The relative density DR of the speci-
191 men was controlled by fall height and hole size of the sand dif-
192 fuser, which were predetermined at a desired DR through several FIG. 2—Description of calibration chamber test: (a) details of calibration
193 preliminary tests. Values of DR adopted in the tests were 55 % chamber; and (b) lateral loading device.

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:14 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 2—Basic properties of test sand.

/0

Gsa eminb emaxb c0 minc (kN=m3) c0 maxc (kN=m3) DR ¼ 55% DR ¼ 86% D50d (mm) Cce Cu f
2.63 0.596 0.948 13.23 16.15 35 37.3 0.48 0.97 1.24
a
Gs ¼ specific gravity.
b
emin and emax ¼ minimum and maximum void ratios.
c 0
c min and c0 min ¼ minimum and maximum unit weights.
d
D50 ¼ mean particle size.
e
Cc ¼ coefficient of curvature.
f
Cu ¼ coefficient of uniformity.

202 While D=B ¼ 6.5 may raise some boundary effect problems, it in this study can be regarded reasonably rigid in comparison to 225
203 can be supposed that the effect is likely minor, considering that the soil conditions. 226
204 the stress influence zone below a footing, as a 90 -rotated configu-
205 ration of pile, is around 5 times the footing width. When the pile
206 was installed in the calibration chamber specimens, the actual em- Test Setup 227

207 bedded depth was 70 cm. The top 20 cm of the model pile was The formation of the calibration chamber specimens and installa- 228
AQ1 208 used to install LVDTs and lateral loading devices [see Fig. 2(b)]. tion of the model pile were done as follows: First, using the sand 229
209 Two LVDTs were installed at heights of 10 cm (i.e., the point of diffuser, sands were rained into the chamber at predetermined fall 230
210 the load application) and 20 cm above the top of the specimen. height corresponding to a target DR value until a sub-layer of 10 231
211 These were used to measure lateral deflections and pile rotation cm thickness is formed. This process was repeated 6 times (i.e., 6 232
212 angles upon loading. The model pile was instrumented with 18 sub-layers) at the same fall height to form a homogeneous bottom 233
213 strain gauges on the front and rear sides of the pile. More details foundation soil. The model pile was then placed and fixed tempo- 234
214 of the model pile used in the calibration chamber tests are shown rarily on the center of bottom foundation soil. In order to maintain 235
215 in Fig. 3. the same fall height of the sand diffuser, the screen sieves were 236
216 To evaluate the rigidity of the model pile, the relative rigidity replaced with the ones that had holes at the center with the same 237
AQ2 217 ratio proposed by Meyerhof (1995) was adopted given as follows: diameter as that of the pile. After placing the model pile and 238
E p Ip replacing the sieves, the sand raining was continued up to the top 239
Kr ¼ (4) of the calibration chamber. As this process does not involve the 240
Es L4
driving process of the pile, the procedure adopted herein simulates 241
218 where Kr ¼ relative rigidity ratio; Ep ¼ elastic modulus of pile;
pile and soil conditions that correspond to those for non- 242
219 Ip ¼ second order cross-sectional moment of pile; Es ¼ elastic
displacement piles (i.e., bored piles or drilled shafts). 243
220 modulus of soil; and L ¼ pile embedded depth. According to
Once the installation of the model pile and the formation of the 244
221 Meyerhof (1995), a pile can be regarded rigid if Kr is greater than
specimen were finished, the chamber was sealed by placing the 245
222 0.01. The highest and lowest values of Kr obtained for the model
top platen on the top of the calibration chamber. Air pressures 246
223 pile with the soil conditions considered in the tests were 0.0662
equal to assumed r0 v and r0 h were then applied into the lateral and 247
224 and 0.0195. Therefore, it can be said that the model pile adopted
bottom membranes. In order to achieve fully equilibrated and ho- 248
mogeneous stress states, the vertical and lateral stresses were 249
maintained for 17 h before the load test. Because the vertical stress 250
was applied through the bottom membrane of the chamber speci- 251
men, the vertical stress at the top of the soil specimen was lower 252
than the vertical stress applied to the bottom of the specimen by 253
the self-weight of the soil specimen, showing a trapezoidal distri- 254
bution of r=v with depth. In this study; therefore, an additional 255
vertical confining pressure of 13 kPa beside the desired vertical 256
stress at the mid-depth of the test piles was applied, considering 257
the decrease of vertical stress at the top of the specimen due to 258
self-weight of the specimen. This produced the average vertical 259

TABLE 3—Soil and stress conditions for calibration chamber tests.

DR (%) 55 86

K0 0.4 0.27 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.0

r0 v and r0 h (kPa) r0 v r0 h r0 v r0 h r0 v r0 h r0 v r0 h r0 v r0 h r0 v r0 h
100 40 150 40 100 40 57 40 100 70 100 100
FIG. 3—Model pile used in calibration chamber tests.

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:15 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

LEE ET AL. ON ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY 5

characterizing the effect of the stress state on load responses and 270
ultimate load capacity. 271
The lateral loading device was installed on the top platen of the 272
calibration chamber. The vertical eccentricity of the load (i.e., dis- 273
tance between the load application point and the top of the soil 274
specimen) was 10 cm. The lateral loading device consisted of the 275
hydraulic jack and load cell of 50 kN capacity. Because the load 276
application point was hinged, the bending moment at this location 277
was zero. Load increment was 2 kN initially, and was reduced as 278
the lateral deflection increased. For data acquisition, a 24-channel 279
data logger was used. Load tests were continued until the maxi- 280
mum deflections of the pile equal to approximately 2.5 cm–3 cm 281
were reached. The 2.5 cm–3 cm lateral deflections correspond to 282
42 %–50 % of the pile diameter (i.e., relative deflection 283
h=B ¼ 0.42–0.50). 284

Test Results 285

Load Responses 286

Figure 4 shows lateral load-deflection curves obtained from the 287

calibration chamber tests at different DR and stress states. Figure 288
4(a) shows load-deflection curves with different r0 v values of 57 289
kPa, 100 kPa, and 150 kPa at r0 h ¼ 40 kPa and DR ¼ 86 %. K0 290
values corresponding to these stress states in Fig. 4(a) are 0.7, 0.4, 291
and 0.27, respectively. Figure 4(b), on the other hand, shows 292
load-deflection curves with different r0 h values of 40 kPa, 70 kPa, 293
and 100 kPa (i.e., K0 ¼ 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0, respectively) at 294
r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and DR ¼ 86 %. Load-deflection curves at different 295
DR values of 55 % and 86 % were also plotted and compared in 296
Fig. 4(c). Dotted lines in each figure indicate loads and deflections 297
at the ultimate state, which will be discussed later. 298
From Fig. 4, it is seen that all the state soil variables of r0 v, r0 h, 299
and DR considered in this study affect the load response and Hu of 300
laterally loaded piles. When Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) are com- 301
pared, it is seen that the effects of r0 h and DR are relatively higher 302
than that of r0 v. The significant effect of DR was somewhat 303
expected as DR is key component for stiffness and strength of 304
sands. The noticeable effect of r0 h was unexpected in comparison 305
with what have been postulated by most of the existing methods. 306
As reviewed previously, most of the currently available design 307
methods for laterally loaded piles estimate the ultimate lateral load 308
capacity as a function of r0 v and /0 without explicit consideration 309
of the effect of r0 h. Results obtained in this study, however, indi- 310
FIG. 4—Lateral load-deflection curves with different (a) r0 v; (b) r0 h; and (c)
DR. cate that the effect of r0 h on load responses of laterally loaded 311
piles cannot be ignored, and should be properly reflected in the 312
260 confining stress throughout the pile embedded depth equal to design process. 313
261 approximately the originally desired vertical confining stress. Figure 5 shows the distributions of bending moment with 314
262 Soil and stress conditions adopted in the calibration chamber depth for the cases of K0 ¼ 0.27 (r0 v and r0 h ¼ 150 kPa and 40 315
263 tests are shown in Table 3. Five stress states at K0 ¼ 0.27, 0.4, 0.7, kPa), 0.4 (r0 v and r0 h ¼ 100 kPa and 40 kPa), and 1.0 (r0 v and 316
264 and 1.0 for DR ¼ 86 % were adopted. One additional test was con- r0 h ¼ 100 kPa and 100 kPa). As can be seen in Fig. 5, all of the 317
265 ducted using the stress state of r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and r0 h ¼ 40 kPa at bending moment distributions represent similar profiles regardless 318
266 DR ¼ 55 % for investigating the effect of DR on the lateral load of the stress state of the specimen. The maximum bending 319
267 response. The initial lateral stress ratios of K0 ¼ 1.0 and 0.27 may moment occurred at around 18 cm below the soil surface. This 320
268 be unrealistic, compared to typical stress states that are observed depth of the maximum bending moment corresponds to 3.0 times 321
269 in the field. These were, however, adopted in the tests for fully the pile diameter and 0.25 times the pile embedded depth. From 322

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:15 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 5—Distribution of bending moment for laterally loaded piles at stress states of (a) r0 v ¼ 150 kPa and r0 h ¼ 40 kPa; (b) r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and r0 h ¼ 40 kPa; and
(c) r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and r0 h ¼ 100 kPa.

323 Fig. 5, it is also indicated that the pile rotation angle measured at lated from applied load (H) times vertical load eccentricity (e). 340
324 the pile head may be an average angle due to possible occurrence Values of Hu with the 2 criterion by Haldar et al. (1997) are 341
325 of pile curvature upon lateral loading. However, the bending shown in the figure, as indicated by the dashed lines, while those 342
326 moment profiles shown in Fig. 5 represent the typical shape for with Meyerhof et al. (1981) were shown in Fig. 4. The values of 343
327 rigid piles that involve no structural failure of pile material with Hu, obtained from Figs. 4 and 7 using the criteria of Meyerhof 344
328 zero bending moment at the pile base. et al. (1981) and Haldar et al. (1997), were then compared as plot- 345
329 The depth to the pile rotation point (dr) and its variation with ted in Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 8, it is noticed that the values of Hu 346
330 deflection for different soil conditions were measured and plotted independently obtained from the two different criteria are nearly 347
331 in Fig. 6. It is seen that dr gradually increases, implying that the identical. While no difference of Hu values from the two different 348
332 pile rotation point becomes deeper as lateral deflection increases. criteria was observed for the calibration chamber test results, the 349
333 After the lateral deflection of 25 mm, the values of dr were meas- 2 criterion seems more straightforward and objective to define 350
334 ured in the 41 cm to 52 cm range depending on the soil condition. the ultimate lateral pile load capacity in the practical point of 351
335 These values of dr are smaller than the calculated value of dr equal view. 352
336 to 53 mm using Eq 1 of Prasad and Chari’s (1999) method. On the basis of the values of Hu obtained from the calibration 353
chamber tests, the variation of Hu according to different state soil 354
variables of DR, r0 v, and r0 h was obtained and plotted in Fig. 9. 355
337 Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity Figure 9(a) shows Hu with DR at r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and r0 v ¼ 40 kPa 356
(i.e., K0 ¼ 0.4), while Figs. 9(b) and 9(c) show those with r0 v and 357
338 Figure 7 shows applied moment versus pile rotation angle at dif-
r0 h at DR ¼ 86 %, respectively. As described in the previous sec- 358
339 ferent r0 v, r0 h, and DR. Values of the applied moment were calcu-
tion, it is clearly observed that the effects of DR and r0 h on Hu are 359 AQ3
higher than that of r0 v. 360
The results in Fig. 9 reveal two important findings: Hu is sub- 361
stantially affected by r0 h at a degree higher than conventionally 362
assumed; and K0 is in essence the key factor that plays a signifi- 363
cant role in magnitudes of Hu. This result compares well with the 364
effect of r0 h on various in situ measurements such as those from 365
dilatometer, pressure meter, and cone penetration tests (Houlsby 366
and Hitchman 1988, Finno 1993, and Thevanayagam et al. 1994). 367
For a given r0 v or a given depth, the lateral stress state can vary, 368
depending on both soil condition and pile installation. Regarding 369
the soil condition, overconsolidated (OC) states are a typical 370
example that would produce higher r0 h and thus K0. Regarding 371
the pile installation, pile types should be considered. Driven piles 372
in general cause significant increases of r0 h in surrounding soils 373
due to the driving process. The installation of non-displacement 374
FIG. 6—Variation of pile rotation point with deflection. piles such as bored piles or drilled shafts; on the other hand, are 375

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:15 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

LEE ET AL. ON ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY 7

FIG. 8—Comparison of Hu values from criteria of Meyerhof et al. (1981) and

Haldar et al. (1997).

divided by Hu). From Fig. 10, it is seen that the relative deflection 384
hu=B at the ultimate state tends to increase as DR and K0 increase. 385
For DR ¼ 86 %, the values of hu=B are mostly in the 25 %–30 % 386
range, while the case of K0 ¼ 0.27 with r0 v ¼ 150 kPa and 387
r0 h ¼ 40 kPa shows hu=B  20 %. It is also observed that, for 388
r0 v ¼ 100 kPa and r0 h ¼ 40 kPa, hu=B with DR ¼ 55 % is around 389
18 %, which is smaller than 26 % with DR ¼ 86 %. While the sim- 390
ilar effect of DR on hu was observed from Prasad and Chari 391
(1999), Fig. 10 indicates that K0 is another factor that affects hu. 392
On the basis of the results in Fig. 10, it can be summarized that 393
soils with higher DR and K0 result in larger hu, representing more 394
ductile load responses of laterally loaded piles. Deflections associ- 395
ated with the ultimate state are not in general an issue for conven- 396
tional pile design. The results in Fig. 10, however, implies that, if 397
soils are of loose states with low K0 values, the ultimate state can 398
be reached at relatively small deflections and hence comparison 399
with the allowable deflection may also be necessary. 400

Lateral Stress Correction Factor 401

Measured and Predicted Ultimate Lateral Load 402

Capacities 403

In order to compare measured and predicted Hu values, the meth- 404

FIG. 7—Relationships between applied moment and pile rotation angle with ods by Broms (1964) and Prasad and Chari (1999) were adopted 405
different (a) r0 v; (b) r0 h; and (c) DR. and used for the comparison. Broms’s method was selected pri- 406
marily due to its popularity in practice. The method by Prasad and 407
0 Chari (1999) was; on the other hand, adopted as it was developed
376 likely to result in stress release with decrease of r h near a bore- 408
377 hole, unless lateral strains are completely constrained. Quantifica- relatively recently and is known as representing realistic distribu- 409
378 tion of the lateral stress effect discussed above will be further tion of the lateral soil pressure (Kasch et al. 1977, Zhang et al. 410
379 presented. 2005, Schmertmann 2006). For the method of Prasad and Chari 411
(1999) with pu in Table 1 and the lateral soil resistance distribu- 412
tion of Fig. 1(d), Hu is given as follows 413
380 Lateral Deflections at Ultimate State 0
Hu ¼ 3Rs ½10ð1:3 tan / þ0:3Þ   r0v;r  B  ð2:7dr  1:7LÞ (5)
381 Figure 10 shows normalized load-deflection curves in terms of the
382 relative deflection h=B (i.e., lateral deflection divided by pile di- where: 414
383 ameter) and the normalized load H=Hu (i.e., applied lateral load Rs ¼ reduction factor; 415

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:15 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 9—Variation of Hu values with (a) DR; (b) r0 v; and (c) r0 h.

416 /0 ¼ internal friction angle of soil; dicted Hu values in Fig. 11(b) are all constant because r0 h is not 439
417 dr ¼ depth to pile rotation point given by Eq 1; involved in Broms’s and Prasad and Chari’s methods. However, 440
418 r0 v,r ¼ vertical effective stress at depth equal to dr; measured Hu values are observed to vary significantly with r0 h. 441
419 B ¼ pile diameter; and The ratios of predicted to measured Hu values (i.e., Hu,p=Hu,m) 442
420 L ¼ pile embedded depth. were calculated and plotted in Fig. 12. As shown in Fig. 12, the 443
421 In Eq 5, Rs is given as 0.8, as proposed by Prasad and Chari prediction produced overestimated Hu values at lower K0 while 444
422 (1999), to reflect the non-uniform distribution of the lateral soil vice versa at higher K0. It is interesting to note that the predicted 445
423 pressure along pile perimeter.
424 Figure 11 shows measured and predicted Hu values for calibra-
425 tion chamber test results at different stress states with DR ¼ 86 %.
426 While Broms’s (1964) method is known as underestimating Hu
427 (Poulos and Davis 1980, Fleming et al. 1992), Fig. 11 shows no
428 significant difference of Hu between Broms’s and Prasad and Cha-
429 ri’s (1999) methods. This is because lower values of pu given by
430 Eq 2 in Broms’s method, which is responsible for the underesti-
431 mation of Hu, is compensated by the full mobilization of pu
432 throughout the entire pile embedded depth with the triangular
433 shape of lateral soil resistance distribution. Figure 11(a) shows
434 measured and predicted Hu values as a function of r0 v at r0 h ¼ 40
435 kPa. As shown in Fig. 11(a), both measured and predicted Hu val-
436 ues increase with increasing r0 v. However, significant difference
437 is observed between measured and predicted Hu values. Values of
438 Hu with r0 h at r0 v ¼ 100 kPa were plotted in Fig. 11(b). The pre-

FIG. 10—Normalized load-deflection curves in terms of relative deflection FIG. 11—Measured and predicted Hu values for stress states with different (a)
h=B and normalized lateral load H=Hu. r0 v; and (b) r0 h.

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:15 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

LEE ET AL. ON ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY 9

Lateral Stress Correction Factor 452

One of the important conclusions obtained from the results of cali- 453
bration chamber tests is that r0 h affects substantially Hu and needs 454
to be properly considered in design. As discussed in the previous 455
section, the existing methods currently used in practice appear to 456 AQ4
give reasonable estimates of Hu for NC sands for which Jaky’s 457
(1944) K0 ¼ 1  sin/ equation is approximately valid. For other 458
ranges of K0 values, however, the prediction could be misleading. 459
In order to reflect the effect of lateral stress, the following lateral 460
stress correction factor bL is proposed based on the test results 461
obtained in this study 462
 R
K0
bL ¼ (6)
1  sin /0
FIG. 12—Ratios of predicted to measured Hu values for different stress states.
where: 463
K0 ¼ lateral stress ratio ¼ r0 h=r0 v; 464
/0 ¼ internal friction angle of soil; and 465
446 and measured Hu values match well for the case of r0 v ¼ 100 kPa
R ¼ exponential constant. 466
447 and r0 h ¼ 40 kPa, corresponding to K0 ¼ 0.4. This may indicate
From the comparison with measured test results, the value of R 467
448 that the methods of Broms (1964) and Prasad and Chari (1999)
in Eq 6 was found to be 0.6. While other values of R between 0.6 468
449 (likely other existing methods as well) are effective for normally
and 0.8 also gave reasonable matches, R ¼ 0.6 was proposed for 469
450 consolidated (NC) soils for which K0 is typically in the 0.4–0.5
conservatism. Equation 6 was obtained empirically from the test 470
451 range.
results considering the following aspects: (1) for NC sands where 471
K0 can be closely approximated by 1  sin/, the lateral stress 472
effect is negligible with bL  1; (2) the lateral stress effect 473
becomes more pronounced with increasing K0; and (3) the lateral 474
stress effect is likely to vary non-linearly with K0. For overconso- 475
lidated (OC) soils where K0 is likely greater than 1  sin/, bL is 476
greater than 1 and thus the calculation will produce larger Hu than 477
for NC conditions. 478
If Eq 6 is included in conventional prediction methods, Hu cor- 479
rected for the lateral stress effect is given by 480

Hu ¼ bL  Hu;org (7)

where: 481
Hu,org ¼ ultimate lateral load capacity from original existing 482
methods. 483
Equation 7 produces the same results as those from original 484
methods, if sands are of NC states and K0 can be closely approxi- 485
mated by Jaky’s equation. If K0 values are different from those of 486
NC soils due to past stress history, local field condition, and pile 487
installation process, the modified Hu equation using Eq 7 is pro- 488
posed for more realistic estimation of Hu. 489
Figure 13 shows the values of Hu measured and predicted 490
using Eq 7 for stress states with different r0 v and r0 h. As can be 491
seen in Fig. 13, a good agreement is observed between meas- 492
ured and predicted Hu values for both methods, indicating that 493
the effects of r0 v and r0 h on Hu are properly reflected. However, 494
it should be noticed that bL of Eq 6 was obtained from the test 495
results with the constrained top boundary condition, which may 496
be different from unconfined surface conditions in the field, and 497
could result in unconservative estimation of Hu. It should also 498
be noted that the stress profiles achieved within the calibration 499
chamber specimens differ from those in field where the triangu- 500

FIG. 13—Values of Hu measured and predicted using lateral stress correction

lar type of profile with zero stress at the top surface is 501

factor for stress states with different (a) r0 v; and (b) r0 h. observed. 502

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:16 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

503 Comparison with Case Example

504 In order to check the validity of the proposed method for the esti-
505 mation of Hu, case examples were selected from the literature and
506 used for the comparison. In most lateral pile load tests found in
507 the literature, the preparation of soil specimens were targeted on
508 simulating naturally formed soil deposits under NC stress states.
509 There have been few cases where detailed variation of stress states
510 was considered at different K0 values. An example of such cases
511 was found from calibration chamber tests conducted by El Naggar
512 and Wei (1999). In their calibration chamber tests, the confining
513 stress of the calibration chamber specimen was controlled by the
514 lateral stress through the side membrane, while fixed (or con-
515 strained) boundary conditions were applied at top and bottom
516 boundaries of the chamber. While tapered piles were also used in
517 their tests, the results obtained for the cylindrical pile were
518 adopted in this study.
519 The model pile used in the calibration chamber tests has a di-
520 ameter equal to 16.8 cm and the pile embedded length was 120
521 cm. Test soil was a coarse grained sand with c0 ¼ 16.25 kN=m3
522 (DR ¼ 18.4%) and /0 ¼ 32 (El Naggar and Wei 1999). Six differ-
523 ent lateral confining stresses (i.e., r0 hc) of 0 kPa, 20 kPa, 40 kPa,
524 60 kPa, 80 kPa, and 100 kPa were adopted in the tests. As the top
525 and bottom plates of the chamber were fixed during application of
526 r0 hc, the values of K0 for each confining stress state were then
527 0.47, 0.69, 1.07, 1.26, 1.40, and 1.50, respectively.
528 Lateral load tests by El Naggar and Wei (1999) were con-
529 ducted up to lateral deflections equal to 9 mm to 11 mm, corre-
530 sponding to h=B of 5 % to 7 %. According to the results from this
531 study and the literature (Prasad and Chari 1999), hu=B at ultimate
532 state was found to be typically greater than about 20 %, depending FIG. 15—Comparison of Hu measured and predicted using lateral stress cor-
rection factor with methods of (a) Broms (1964); and (b) Prasad and Chari
533 on soil and stress conditions. Consequently, the values of Hu for
(1999).
534 the calibration chamber tests by El Naggar and Wei (1999) were
535 estimated from load-deflection curves extrapolated to h=B ¼ 20 %
536 (i.e., h ¼ 34 mm) using the hyperbolic relationship by Kondner of Hu. Alternatively, values of Hu were estimated as those corre- 542
537 (1963). A similar extrapolation procedure for laterally loaded piles sponding to h=B ¼ 20 % for all the cases. The values of Hu esti- 543
538 was adopted by Haldar et al. (2000). These extrapolated load- mated from extrapolated load-deflection (H-d) curves were 4.3 544
539 deflection curves are shown in Fig. 14. Note that, because the kN, 8.1 kN, 11.8 kN, 16.8 kN, 24.3 kN, and 32.1 kN for r0 hc 545
540 curves were hyperbolically extrapolated, neither Meyerhof et al.’s equal to 0 kPa, 20 kPa, 40 kPa, 60 kPa, 80 kPa, and 100 kPa, 546
541 (1981) nor the 2 criterion could be applied for the determination respectively. 547
Figure 15 shows values of Hu obtained from the test results of 548
El Naggar and Wei (1999) and predicted using the methods of 549
Broms (1964) [Fig. 15(a)] and Prasad and Chari (1999) [Fig. 550
15(b)]. In Fig. 15, “proposed” and “original” represent methods 551
with and without the lateral stress correction procedure, respec- 552
tively. From Fig. 15, it is observed that the original methods of 553
Broms (1964) and Prasad and Chari (1999) without the lateral 554
stress correction procedure tend to underestimate Hu with increas- 555
ing K0. For the proposed approach using the lateral stress correc- 556
tion procedure, while slightly overestimated Hu values are 557
observed, overall match appears to be reasonably satisfactory for 558
all of the stress states considered in the tests. Although the values 559
of Hu estimated from the hyperbolic extrapolation may represent 560
another uncertainty, the results in Fig. 15 suggest that the pro- 561
posed correction procedure for the lateral stress is necessary for 562
more realistic estimation of the ultimate lateral load capacity of 563
FIG. 14—Measured and extrapolated load-deflection curves. piles in sands. 564

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:16 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

LEE ET AL. ON ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY 11

565 Summary and Conclusion El Naggar, M. H. and Wei, J. Q., 1999, “Responses of Tapered 618
Piles Subjected to Lateral Loading,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 36, 619
566 In the present study, calibration chamber lateral load tests were pp. 52–71. 620
567 conducted for investigating the load response and ultimate lateral Finno, R. J., “Analytical Interpretation of Dilatometer Penetration 621
568 load capacity of laterally loaded piles under different stress states. Through Saturated Cohesive Soils,” Geotechnique, Vol. 43, 622
569 A set of vertical and lateral stresses at different K0 values were No 2, 1993, pp. 241–254. 623
570 adopted in the calibration chamber tests. In order to determine Hu Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., and Elson, 624

571 from load-deflection curves, different criteria were explored and W. K., 1992, Piling Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New 625

572 compared. From the measured load-deflection curves, it was York. 626
Franke, E., 1989, “Co-Report to Discussion, Session B, on Large 627
573 found that values of Hu from the criterion by Meyerhof et al.
Diameter Piles,” 12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 628 AQ7
574 (1981) agree well with those obtained from the 2 criterion pro-
GAI Consultant Inc., 1982, “Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier 629
575 posed by Haldar et al. (1997). Research, Vol. 2, Research Documentation,” GAI Report EL- 630
576 From the test results, it was observed that all of the state soil 2197, Research project 1280–1, CA. 631 AQ8
577 variables of r0 v, r0 h, and DR affect load response and Hu of later- Haldar, A., Chari, T. R., and Prasad, Y. V. S. N., 1997, 632
578 ally loaded piles. The effect of r0 h was, however, higher than that “Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Directly Embed- 633
579 of r0 v. While most existing methods consider r0 v as a predominant ded Steel Pole Foundation,” Research Report CEA 384T971, 634
580 stress component for the prediction of Hu, the test results showed Canadian Electricity Association, Montreal, QC. 635
581 that Hu increases significantly with increasing r0 h (i.e., K0). It was Haldar, A., Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Chari, T. R., 2000, “Full- 636

582 also found that the relative deflection hu=B at ultimate state tends Scale Field Tests on Directly Embedded Steel Pole 637

583 to increase as DR and K0 increase. Foundations,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 37, pp. 414–437, 2000. 638
Houlsby, G. T. and Hitchman, R., 1988, “Calibration Chamber 639
584 In order to take into account the effect of the lateral stress on
Tests of a Cone Penetrometer in Sand,” Geotechnique, 640
585 Hu, the lateral stress correction factor was proposed in terms of
Vol. 38, No 1, pp. 39–44. 641
586 the lateral stress ratio K0 and internal friction angle /0 of soil. Hu, Z. H., McVay, M., Bloomquist, D., Herrera, R., and Lai, P., 642
587 From the calibration chamber test results, it was seen that the pro- 2006, “Influence of Torque on Lateral Capacity of Drilled 643
588 posed procedure using the lateral stress correction factor reflects Shafts in Sands,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 132, 644
589 properly the effect of both r0 v and r0 h, producing more realistic No. 4, pp. 456–464. 645
590 estimation of Hu. However, it should also be noted that the stress Jaky, J., 1944, “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest,” J. Soc. 646
591 profiles assumed in the calibration chamber tests differ from those Hung. Archit. Eng., Vol. 7, pp. 355–358. 647
592 in natural soil deposits and unconservative results may be pro- Kasch, V., Coyle, H., Bartoskewitz, R., and Sarver, W., 1977, 648

593 duced. Nonetheless, comparison using case examples from the lit- “Lateral Load Tests of Drilled Shafts in Clay,” Research 649

594 erature showed that the proposed approach produces more Report No. 211–1, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M 650
University, College Station, TX. 651
595 realistic estimation of Hu for various stress states.
Kondner, R. L., 1963, “Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohe- 652
sive Soil,” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 189, No. SM 1, 653

596 Acknowledgments pp. 115–143. 654

Lee, J. and Salgado, R., 1999, “Determination of Pile Base Resist- 655
597 This research was supported by a research grant from Korea Elec- ance in Sands,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 125, 656
598 tronic Power Corporation (KEPCO). This work was also sup- No. 8, pp. 673–683. 657
599 ported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Matlock, H. S. and Reese, L. C., 1960, “Generalized Solutions for 658

600 Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Laterally Loaded Piles,” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 659

601 government (MEST) (No. 2011-0030845). 86, No. SM 5, pp. 63–91. 660
Meyerhof, G. G., Mathur, S. K., and Valsangkar, A. J., 1981, 661
“Lateral Response and Deflection of Rigid Wall and Piles in 662

602 References Layered Soils,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 18, pp. 159–170. 663
Petrasovits, G. and Award, A., 1972, “Ultimate Lateral Resist- 664
603 Brinch-Hansen, J., 1961, “The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles ance of a Rigid Pile in Cohesionless Soil,” Proceedings of 665
604 Against Transversal Forces,” Dan. Geotech. Inst. Bull., 5th European Conference on SMFE, Vol. 3, Madrid, pp. 666
Q11 605 No. 12, pp. 5–9. 407–412. 667 AQ9
606 Broms, B. B., 1964, “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless Poulus, H. G. and Davis, E. H., 1980, Pile Foundation Analysis 668
607 soils,” J. Soil. Mech. and Found. Div., Vol. 90, No. 3, and Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York. 669
608 pp. 123–158. Prakash, S. and Kumar, S., 1996, “Nonlinear Lateral Pile Deflec- 670
609 Chin, F. V., 1970, “Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles not tion Prediction in Sands,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 671
610 Carried to Failure,” Proceedings of 2nd Southeast Asian Con- 122, No 2, pp. 130–138. 672
AQ5 611 ference on Soil Engineering, pp. 81–90. Prasad, Y. V. S. N. and Chari, T. R., 1999, “Lateral Capacity of 673
612 Davisson, M. T., 1972, “High Capacity Piles,” Proceedings, Lec- Model Rigid Piles in Cohesionless Soils, Soils Found., Vol. 674
613 ture Series, Innovation in Foundation Construction, Vol. 52, 39, No 2, pp. 21–29. 675
AQ6 614 ASCE, Illinois Section. Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D., 1974, “Analysis of 676
615 Duncan, J. M., Evans, L. T., Jr., and Ooi, P. S. K., 1994, “Lateral Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand,” Proceedings of 6th Off- 677
616 Load Analysis of Single Piles and Drilled Shafts,” J. Geotech. shore Technology Conference, Vol. 2, Houston, TX, pp. 678
617 Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 120, No. 6, pp. 1018–1031. 473–483. 679 AQ10

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:16 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004

 J_ID: GTJ DOI: 10.1520/GTJ103756 Date: 18-April-12 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 13

PROOF COPY [GTJ103756] 013204

12 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

680 Rojas-Gonzalez, L. F., DiGioia, Jr., A. M., Longo, V. J., 1991, “A Thevanayagam, G., Chameau, J., and Altschaeffl, A. G., 1994, 686
681 New Design Approach for Direct Embedment Foundations,” “Some Aspects of Pressuremeter Test Interpretation in Clays,” 687
682 IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 22–28. Geotechnique, Vol. 44, No 2, pp. 319–334. 688
683 Schmertmann, J. H., 2006, “Discussion of Ultimate Lateral Resist- Zhang, L., Silva, R., and Grismala, R., 2005, “Ultimate Lateral 689
684 ance to Piles in Cohesionless Soils,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Resistance to Piles in Cohesionless Soils,” J. Geotech. Geoen- 690
685 Eng., Vol. 132, No. 8, pp. 1108–1109. viron. Eng., Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 78–83. 691

ID: veeraragavanb Time: 20:16 I Path: S:/3B2/GTJ#/Vol00000/120004/APPFile/AT-GTJ#120004