Soils and Foundations 2013;53(1):144–154

The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Lateral bearing capacity of rigid piles near clay slopes

K. Georgiadisn, M. Georgiadis, C. Anagnostopoulos
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
Received 7 May 2012; received in revised form 31 July 2012; accepted 1 September 2012
Available online 4 February 2013

Abstract

Analytical equations were derived to determine the undrained lateral bearing capacity of rigid piles in cohesive soil. Piles in level
ground and piles placed at a distance from the crest of a slope were examined, taking account of the effect of the adhesion at the pile–soil
interface. The derived analytical solutions were used to develop charts relating the lateral pile capacity to the pile length/diameter ratio,
the pile–soil adhesion, the distance of the point of load application from the ground to the pile diameter ratio, the inclination of the
slope and the distance of the pile from the crest of the slope to the pile diameter ratio. They were also used to derive a reduction factor
which, when multiplied by the lateral bearing capacity for level ground, gives the bearing capacity of the same pile near a slope.
In addition, a critical non-dimensional distance between the pile and the crest of the slope, at which the bearing capacity approaches that
for a level ground, was determined. The bearing capacity charts obtained for level ground were compared to the classic Broms’ charts
and to others derived using several different lateral earth pressure distributions along the pile. Comparisons were also made between the
results of the proposed method for piles near slopes and those obtained from charts based on upper bound calculations. Finally, the
proposed new method was validated through a comparison with the results of a large number of pile load tests, in which a remarkable
agreement was observed between the analytical results and the measurements.
& 2013 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Piles; Lateral loads; Bearing capacity; Clay; Soil–pile interactions; Slopes

1. Introduction primarily governed by the lateral soil failure instead of the

Short rigid piles or drilled shafts are often used to
transfer horizontal loads to the ground from structures
such as highway signs, traffic signals, sound barriers,
transmission towers, wind turbines, etc., placed near the
edge of a slope. In contrast to conventional long flexible
piles, the design of these low length/diameter (L/D) piles is
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 30 2310 994 227;
fax: þ30 2310 995 619.
E-mail address: kgeorg@civil.auth.gr (K. Georgiadis).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
yielding of the pile material.
The method most commonly used, at least in the
preliminary stage, to determine the ultimate lateral load
Hu that can be applied at the head of a short rigid pile
in level cohesive soil, is the method by Broms (1964). This
method was developed using static analyses and assuming
a simplified distribution of the limit soil reaction along the
pile length. Results were presented in the form of Hu/cuD2
versus L/D graphs, which directly give the ultimate lateral
load for piles in clay of undrained shear strength cu.
Similar methods to determine Hu for short piles in a level
ground have been proposed by Hansen (1961) and
Meyerhof et al. (1981), considering a foundation material
having both friction and cohesion and assuming different
distributions of soil reaction along the pile.

0038-0806 & 2013 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.12.010
 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154 145

Solutions for the lateral bearing capacity of rigid piles in
level cohesive soil can also be obtained using pile statics
and the ultimate lateral soil reaction per unit length (pu)
distributions with depth adopted in the various p–y curve
equations commonly used in lateral pile analyses. In such
analyses, the ultimate lateral soil reaction per unit pile
length is determined as
pu ¼ N p c u D
where Np is a bearing capacity factor which varies with the
depth to diameter ratio (z/D).
Several Np versus z/D relationships obtained experimen-
tally, analytically or numerically (Stevens and Audibert,
1980; Murff and Hamilton, 1993; Matlock, 1970; Reese
and Welch, 1975; Bhushan et al., 1979; Reese et al., 1975;
Broms, 1964; Hansen, 1961; Jeanjean, 2009; Georgiadis
and Georgiadis, 2010) are presented in Fig. 1, demonstrat-
ing a remarkable scatter. As pointed out by Georgiadis
and Georgiadis (2010), among the various causes contri-
buting to this scatter, the dependence of pu on the pile–soil
adhesion is very significant. Based on the results of 3D
finite element analyses and comparisons to pile load test
results, they proposed the following Np versus z/D relation-
ship which takes into account the pile–soil adhesion:
 
Np ¼ Npu  Npu Npo elðz=DÞ ð2Þ
where l is a non-dimensional factor equal to l¼ 0.55 0.15a,
a is the adhesion factor which is defined as the adhesion to
undrained shear strength ratio and ranges from 0 (smooth
pile) to 1 (rough pile), Npo is the bearing capacity factor at the
Np
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
2
4
6
Eq. 2 (α = 1)
z/ D
ground surface equal to Npo ¼ 2þ 1.5a and Npu is the ultimate
lateral bearing capacity factor for deep failure, derived using
the following lower bound plasticity analytical relationship
by Randolph and Houlsby (1984):
 
D D
Npu ¼ p þ 2D þ 2cosD þ 4 cos þ sin ð3Þ
2 2
ð1Þ where D ¼ sin1 a.
Information concerning the behaviour of rigid piles near
the crest of a slope is rather limited. The results of
experimental and numerical analyses of rigid piles, placed
at locations of various distances from the crest of a sand
slope (Chae et al., 2004), have shown that the lateral
bearing capacity is reduced even at distances greater than
four pile diameters from the crest. Similarly, the results of
centrifuge pile tests in sand, presented by Mezazigh and
Levacher (1998), have shown that the pile behaviour is
affected by the slope even at a distance of eight pile
diameters from the crest. The lateral bearing capacity
of a rigid pile near the crest of a clay slope has been
investigated by Stewart (1999). Based on an upper bound
plasticity analysis, which assumed weightless soil and zero
adhesion at the pile–soil interface, he provided graphs of
the reduction factors on Hu versus the distance from the
crest for free-head piles. According to these graphs, the
effect of the slope diminishes at a distance not exceeding
four pile diameters.
To study the effect of the distance between the pile and
the crest of a clay slope, on the lateral pile behaviour,
Georgiadis and Georgiadis (2012) performed a detailed 3D
finite element study which led to the modification of
Eq. (2). The resulting variation in Np with z/D is shown
16 in Fig. 2. As seen in this figure, bearing capacity factor Np
is equal to the bearing capacity factor for horizontal
ground, given by Eq. (2), up to critical depth zc. Below
this critical depth, Np is determined from the following
equation:
 
Np ¼ Npu  Npu Npc elay ðzzc Þ=D ð4Þ
where ay is a factor depending on the inclination of the
slope (y).
sinyð1 þ sinyÞ
ay ¼ 1 ð5Þ
2

8 Eq. 2 (α = 0.5)
Eq. 2 (α = 0)
where zc is the critical depth which depends on the distance
Broms between the pile and the crest of the slope (b).
10 Broms simpified  
Hansen zc =D ¼ 8:510 log10 8b=D ð6Þ
Stevens & Audibert
Murff & Hamilton (α = 1)
Npc is the bearing capacity factor at the critical depth,
12
Murff & Hamilton (α = 0) obtained from Eq. (2) for z ¼ zc. Typical diagrams obtained
Matlock (J = 0.25) through the above equations are presented in Fig. 3,
Reese & Welch (J = 0.5) demonstrating the effect of y and b/D on the Np versus
14
Bhushan et al (J = 2)
Reese et al
z/D relationship. It is noted that finite element analyses
Jeanjean have shown that unless the slope is close to failure, with a
16
safety factor well below those used in the slope design, the
Fig. 1. Variation in lateral bearing capacity factor with depth for level pile lateral earth pressure can be accurately approximated
ground. by the above equations.
146 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154

This paper presents analytical derivations of the lateral
bearing capacity Hu of piles in level ground and piles
placed at a distance b from the crest of a clay slope and
loaded towards the slope, based on the lateral earth
resistance distributions with depth determined through
Eqs. (1) to (6). These solutions are subsequently used to
obtain charts for Hu/cuD2 versus L/D for various adhesion
factors a, slope inclinations y and normalized pile distances
from the crest of the slope b/D. Finally, the proposed
method is validated through comparisons with field test
results.

Np
Npo Npc Npu
2. Piles in level ground

zc /D The lateral earth pressure diagram, shown in Fig. 4, has

been obtained based on Eq. (2). For free-head piles, the
horizontal force equilibrium and the bending moment
equilibrium provide the two unknown quantities, i.e., the
depth of rotation zo and lateral bearing capacity Hu.
The two equilibrium equations are
pile in slope (b = D/2) Z zo Z L
Hu ¼ pu dz  pu dz ð7Þ
0 zo
z/D

pile near slope (b > D/2)

Z L Z zo
eHu ¼ zpu dz zpu dz ð8Þ
zo 0
pile in level ground (b = ∞)
The solutions for these two simultaneous equations give
 2    
a1 zo =D þ a2 zo =D þ a3 elðzo =DÞ þ a4 zo =D elðzo =DÞ þ a5 ¼ 0
ð9Þ

where
    
a1 ¼ Npu ; a2 ¼ Npu e=D ; a3 ¼ 2 Npu Npo 1=l þ e=D ;
Fig. 2. Schematic variation in bearing capacity factor with depth for  
sloping ground. a4 ¼ 2 Npu Npo =l

Np
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
Npu = 11.94

b/D = 0.5 b/D = ∞

4

b/D = 1.5 b/D = 4.5

z/D

6
b/D = 2.5 b/D = 5.5

8
b/D = 3.5 b/D = 6.5

10
Equation 2
Equation 4
12

Fig. 3. Typical effect of b/D, y and a on Np: (a) a¼1, y¼451 and (b) a ¼ 0.3, b/D ¼ 1.5.
 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154 147

Hu Hu 60
Eq. 10 (α = 0, 0.5, 1)
e
pu = NpcuD Broms
(Np from Eq. 2) Stewart
50
zo Meyerhof
H1
L Hansen
• α=1
Jeanjean
H2 α = 0.5
40 Matlock/Bhushan et al/
Reese and Welch zr / D =2.5
D α=0

Hu/cuD2
zr / D = 5
Fig. 4. Lateral earth pressure for piles in level ground.
30
zr / D =10

and zr / D =15
  20
L2 eL
a5 ¼ Npu 2
þ 2
2D D
   
Npu Npo e 1 L 1 e lL=D 10
 þ þ þ þ e
l D l D l D
The zo/D ratio, determined from Eq. (9), is introduced
0
into the lateral force equilibrium equation (Eq. 7) to obtain 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
the non-dimensional lateral bearing capacity, Hu/cuD2. L/D
 
Hu zo L Npu Npo  lzo =D lL=D
Fig. 5. Lateral bearing capacity of piles in level ground for e/D¼0.
2
¼ N pu 2  þ 2e e þ1
cu D D D l
ð10Þ
The maximum bending moment, which corresponds to 16

ultimate lateral bearing capacity Hu, can be easily com- Eq. 10 (α = 0, 0.5, 1)
α=1
Broms
puted using statics. It develops at depth zm at which the 14
Stewart α = 0.5
shear force, derived for the known Hu, is zero. At this Meyerhof
zr / D =2.5
depth, 12
Hansen
α=0
   2  Jeanjean
D zm Npu D zm Npo Matlock/Bhushan et al/ zr / D = 5
max M ¼ eþ zm þ Hu cu D þ 10
Reese and Welch
l 2 l
zr / D =10
Hu/cu D2

ð11Þ
8 zr / D =15

6
3. Comparison to other solutions
4
Eq. (10) was used to derive the non-dimensional charts
for Hu/cuD2 versus L/D, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, for e/D=0
2
and 16, respectively, and pile–soil adhesion factors of a=0,
0.5 and 1. These are compared in the same figures to the
Hu/cuD2 versus L/D relationships obtained using the lateral 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
earth pressure distributions considered by Broms (1964),
L/D
Hansen (1961), Matlock (1970), Reese and Welch (1975),
Bhushan et al. (1979), Stewart (1999) and Jeanjean (2009), Fig. 6. Lateral bearing capacity of piles in level ground for e/D¼16.
as well as the relationship obtained using the empirical
equation by Meyerhof et al. (1981). increases, Broms’ method is in good agreement with
Broms (1964) assumed that lateral earth pressure pu Eq. (10) for smooth piles (a ¼ 0). Lower Hu values are also
increases linearly, from 2cuD at the ground surface to 9cuD calculated using the methods by Hansen (1961) and
at z/D ¼ 3, and remains constant below that depth. Meyerhof et al. (1981).
To develop his Hu/cuD2 versus L/D graphs, this distribu- Based on test results, Matlock (1970), Reese and Welch
tion was further simplified to pu ¼ 0 from the ground (1975) and Bhushan et al. (1979) proposed that the lateral
surface to z/D ¼ 1.5 and pu ¼ 9cuD below z/D ¼ 1.5 earth pressure increases from 3cuD at the ground surface
(Fig. 1). As seen in Figs. 5 and 6, this simplification leads to 9cuD at critical depth zr and remains constant below
to a general underestimation of the calculated ultimate that depth (Fig. 1). The value of zr depends on the pile
lateral loads compared to Eq. (10). This underestimation is diameter, the soil properties and an empirical factor J,
particularly evident for low L/D ratios, while as L/D which ranges from 0.25 to 2.0 (Matlock suggests values of
148 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154

Z L Z zo Z zc
0.25 and 0.5, Reese and Welch suggest 0.5 and Bhushan
et al. suggest 2), and is given by the following equation: eHu ¼ zpu dz zpu dz zpu dz ð14Þ
zo zc 0
6D The solutions for these simultaneous equations give
zr ¼ ð12Þ
gD=cu þ J  2    
a1 zo =D þ a2 zo =D þ a3 elðzo =DÞ þ a4 zo =D elðzo =DÞ
Figs. 5 and 6 show the Hu/cuD2 versus L/D relationships  
obtained for zr/D ratios of 2.5, 5, 10 and 15 with the low þ a5 elay ðzo =DÞ þ a6 zo =D elay ðzo =DÞ þ a7 ¼ 0 ð15Þ
value corresponding to the Bhushan et al. recommenda- where
tions and the high value to those of Matlock, respectively.     
As seen, the curves obtained using the low values of a1 ¼ Npu ; a2 ¼ 2Npu e=D ; a3 ¼ Npu Npo 1=lþ e=D =l;
zr/D=2.5 and 5 are in good agreement with Eq. (10), with  
  Npu Npc 1 e lay ðzc =DÞ
a ¼ 0, while higher zr values yield lower ultimate loads. a4 ¼ Npu Npo =l; a5 ¼ þ e ;
lay lay D
The Hu/cuD2 versus L/D graphs for fixed-head and Npu Npc lay ðzc =DÞ
free-head piles presented by Stewart (1999) were based a6 ¼ e ;
lay
on the variation in lateral earth pressure with depth,  2   
L Le Npu Npo 1 e
derived through an upper bound solution for perfectly a7 ¼ Npu þ  þ
smooth piles (Murff and Hamilton, 1993). As can be seen 2D2 D2 l l D
 
in Figs. 5 and 6, the graphs are in excellent agreement with Npu Npo L 1 e -lðL=DÞ
 þ þ e
the values obtained using Eq. (10) for a ¼ 0. l D l D
 
More recently, Jeanjean (2009) proposed the Np versus Npu Npc zc 1 e
 þ þ
z/D relationship, shown in Fig. 1, based on the results lay D lay D
 
of centrifuge tests on a laterally loaded conductor. The Npu Npo zc 1 e lðzc =DÞ
relationship produces considerably larger lateral earth þ þ þ e
l D l D
pressure. As expected, Figs. 5 and 6 demonstrate that this
relationship results in large Hu/cuD2 values. The horizontal force equilibrium equation (Eq. 13), for
the zo/D value derived from Eq. (15), yields non-dimensional
lateral bearing capacity Hu/cuD2.
4. Piles near slopes Hu  2
 
2
¼ c1 zo =D þ c2 þ c3 zo =D el ðzo =DÞ
cu D
Eqs. (1) to (6) were used to develop the lateral earth
 
pressure diagram, which is schematically shown in Fig. 7(a), þ c4 þ c5 zo =D elay ðzo =DÞ þ c6 ð16Þ
for piles placed at a distance b from the crest of a slope. where
The horizontal force and bending moment equilibrium     
provide unknown quantities zo and Hu. The two equili- c1 ¼ Npu D=e ; c2 ¼  Npu Npo D=e =l2 ;
  
brium equations are c3 ¼  Npu Npo D=e =l;
Z zc Z zo Z L Npu Npc  
c4 ¼  2 2
D=e elay ðzc =DÞ ;
Hu ¼ pu dz þ pu dz  pu dz ð13Þ l ay
0 zc zo
Npu Npc  
c5 ¼  D=e elay ðzc =DÞ ;
b
" lay   
D Npu L 2 Npu Npo Npu Npo L
Hu Hu c6 ¼ þ þ l þ 1 elðL=DÞ
e
pu = NpcuD e 2 D l2 l2 D
H11 (Np from Eq. 2)
zc #
zo H12 (Np from Eq. 6) Npu Npo  zc
lðzc =DÞ Npu Npc zc Npu Npc
L  l þ 1 e þ þ
•
H2 l2 D lay D l2 a2y
D

D θ As mentioned above, there is no slope effect on the

lateral bearing capacity of the pile when the depth of
rotation zo, derived from Eq. (15), is less than critical
b depth zc. Therefore, Eqs. (15) and (16) are applied for
Hu Hu
zo 4 zc, while for zo r zc, the computation of zo and Hu is
e
pu = NpcuD performed though Eqs. (9) and (10).
(Np from Eq. 2) zc
zo H1 Figs. 8 and 9 present Hu/cuD2 versus L/D graphs derived
L
•
H2 (Np from Eq. 6)
through Eq. (16) for rigid free-head piles with a ¼ 0 and
D
a¼ 1, respectively, placed in level ground (b/D ¼ N), at the
D θ crest (b/D ¼ 0.5) of a 1:1 slope and at a distance of
b/D ¼ 2 from the same slope. Three normalized heights of
Fig. 7. Lateral earth pressure for piles near sloping ground. load application are considered, namely, e/D ¼ 0, 4 and 16.
 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154 149

40 Similar graphs are presented in Fig. 10 for a smooth pile

b/D = ∞
placed near a slope with an inclination of 1:2.
b/D = 2
b/D = 0.5 It is noted that a similar procedure can be followed to
30
e/D = 0 derive the lateral bearing capacity of a pile loaded in the
opposite direction (Fig. 7(b)). For very short piles placed
some distance from the crest of a slope, this inward loading
Hu/cu D2

e/D = 4 can yield lower Hu as the lateral earth pressure is reduced

20
in the lower part of the pile, while it remains unaffected by
the slope in the upper part.

e/D = 16
10 5. Bearing capacity reduction factor

The effect of the slope on the lateral bearing capacity of

a rigid pile can be expressed through a reduction factor
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (rH) defined as the ratio of the bearing capacity of a pile
L/D near a slope to that of the same pile in level ground,
namely, rH ¼ Hu/Huo. The variations in rH with L/D, for
Fig. 8. Lateral bearing capacity of smooth piles (a¼ 0) near 1:1 slope.
smooth (a ¼ 0) and rough (a ¼ 1) piles located near a 1:1
slope, are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for e/D=0 and
50
e/D=16, respectively. Similar graphs are presented in
b/D = ∞
b/D = 2
Fig. 13 for piles placed near a slope with an inclination
b/D = 0.5 of 1:2 for e/D ¼ 0. Figs. 11 to 13 illustrate some significant
40
e/D = 0 features regarding the bearing capacity reduction. It is
demonstrated that reduction factor rH is affected by the
30
slope inclination, the pile distance from the slope (b/D), the
Hu/cu D2

e/D = 4 length to diameter ratio (L/D), the normalised height of

load application (e/D) and the pile–soil adhesion factor (a). As
20 seen in the figures, the reduction in bearing capacity for piles
at the crest of a slope can reach about 40% for 1:1 slopes and
e/D = 16 20% for 1:2 slopes when a=0. This reduction is a little lower
10 for rough piles (a=1), namely, in the order of 30% and 15%,
respectively.
As seen in Figs. 11 to 13, reduction factor rH for piles
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
placed close to the crest of a slope (small b/D) increases
L/D
with an increase in L/D, while for piles placed far from the
crest (large b/D), rH decreases with an increase in L/D. This
Fig. 9. Lateral bearing capacity of rough piles (a¼ 1) near 1:1 slope. behaviour can be explained through Fig. 2, which shows

1.0
40 b/D = 4
b/D = ∞
b/D = 2
b/D = 0.5 e/D = 0
0.9
30 b/D = 2

rH 0.8
Hu/cu D2

e/D = 4
b/D = 1
20

b/D = 0.5

0.7
e/D = 16
10
α=0
α=1
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 L/D
L/D
Fig. 11. Bearing capacity reduction factor for piles near 1:1 slope
Fig. 10. Lateral bearing capacity of smooth piles (a¼ 0) near 1:2 slope. (e/D ¼0).
150 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154

1.0 The reduction factors obtained with the proposed

b/D = 4
method, for smooth piles (a¼ 0) near 1:1 and 1:2 slopes,
are compared in Figs. 14 and 15 to those derived by
0.9 b/D = 2
Stewart (1999) through upper bound plasticity calculations
for smooth piles in weightless soil. As seen in these figures,
the proposed method gives a greater reduction in bearing
b/D = 1 capacity for both slope inclinations and for all b/D and
rH 0.8 L/D ratios. It is also seen that, according to the proposed
b/D = 0.5 method, the lateral bearing capacity of a pile is reduced
even at a distance ratio of b/D ¼ 4, while according to
Stewart’s reduction factors, the pile’s bearing capacity is
0.7
unaffected by the slope at that distance. It is noted that the
α=0
observed behaviour is in agreement with the results of the
α=1
field lateral pile load tests reported by Nimityongskul and
0.6 Ashford (2010), according to which the effect of the slope
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
on the lateral pile response disappears at some distance
L/D between b/D ¼ 4 and b/D ¼ 8.
Fig. 12. Bearing capacity reduction factor for piles near 1:1 slope
1.0
(e/D¼16).
b/D = 4

1.0
b/D = 4 0.9 b/D = 2

b/D = 2

b/D = 1
0.9 b/D = 0.5 b/D = 1
rH 0.8

b/D = 0.5

rH 0.8
0.7

proposed
Stewart (1999)
0.7
0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
α=0 L/D
α=1
0.6 Fig. 14. Comparison of reduction factors for smooth piles near 1:1 slope
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(e/D¼ 0).
L/D

Fig. 13. Bearing capacity reduction factor for piles near 1:2 slope 1.0
b/D = 4
(e/ D¼ 0).
b/D = 2

the variation in bearing capacity factor Np along the pile. b/D = 1

0.9
For piles at the crest of the slope, Np increases with depth b/D = 0.5
and progressively approaches the values for horizontal
ground. As a result, the value of rH increases with an
increase in L/D. On the other hand, for piles far from the rH 0.8
crest, the increase in critical depth zc, i.e., the depth above
which the lateral earth pressure is equal to that for
horizontal ground, with the increase in b/D, results in a
0.7
reduction in rH with an increase in L/D.
A comparison of Figs. 11 and 12 reveals that reduction
proposed
factor rH increases with an increase in the e/D ratio, i.e., an Stewart (1999)
increase in the moment applied at the pile head. The 0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
increased applied moment causes a reduction in rotation
L/D
depth zo (Fig. 7(a)), and therefore, a larger pile section is
left below zo, where the lateral earth pressure for horizon- Fig. 15. Comparison of reduction factors for smooth piles near 1:2 slope
tal ground is applied. (e/D¼ 0).
 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154
6. Critical distance from slope
The effect of b/D on the lateral bearing capacity Hu of a
free-head pile near a 1:1 slope is illustrated in Fig. 16 for
different values of adhesion factor a. As seen, the distance
at which bearing capacity Hu, derived by Eq. (16), becomes
equal to the bearing capacity Huo of the same pile in a level
ground, derived by Eq. (10), is significantly affected by
L/D. As expected, longer piles are affected by the slope at a
much greater distance from the crest than shorter ones.
It is also seen that, although significant to lateral bearing
capacity Hu, the effect of adhesion on the maximum
distance at which the pile is affected by the slope is rather
limited. Rough piles (a¼ 1) are affected by the slope up
to slightly greater distances from the crest than smooth
piles (a¼ 0).
The effect of L/D, slope inclination, adhesion factor a
and the e/D ratio on a critical distance bc between the pile
and the slope, at which Hu becomes equal to 99% of Huo,
is shown in Fig. 17. As seen in this figure, bc/D is primarily
affected by the L/D ratio and secondarily by e/D, a and the
slope inclination. Critical distance ratio bc/D increases with
L/D and can reach a value of 4 to 6 for large L/D values,
starting from a value of about 2 for very short piles
(L/D ¼ 2). It is also seen that bc/D increases with an
increase in slope inclination from 1:2 to 1:1 and an increase
in pile–soil adhesion from a ¼ 0 to a¼ 1. On the other
hand, an increase in e/D, from 0 to 16, results in a decrease
in bc/D.
7. Comparison to field test results
In order to validate the proposed method, the results
of 25 lateral load field tests on short piles (drilled shafts),
reported by McDonald (1999), Bhushan et al. (1979),
40
α=1
α = 0.5
α=0 L/D = 10
30
L/D = 8
Hu/cu D2
20
L/D = 6
10 L/D = 4
L/D = 2
0 equation, vary from 0.26 to 1. The second calculated
0 2 4 6
b/D
Fig. 16. Effect of distance from crest on lateral bearing capacity for 1:1
slope (e/D¼ 0).
151
6
1:1,e/D = 0
1:1,e/D = 16
1:1,e/D = 0
1:1,e/D = 16
5
1:2,e/D = 0
1:2,e/D = 16
1:2,e/D = 0
1:2,e/D = 16
4
bc /D
3
2
α=1
α=0
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
L/D
Fig. 17. Effect of inclination, adhesion, L/D and e/D on critical distance.
Nusairat et al. (2004), Bierschwale et al. (1981) and
Puppala et al. (2011), are compared to the lateral bearing
capacities computed with Eq. (10) for piles in level ground
and Eq. (16) for piles in slopes. As seen in Table 1, the field
tests were performed on short piles (drilled shafts) with
diameters ranging from 0.3 to 1.22 m, L/D ratios from 2 to
10 and e/D ratios from 0.05 to 4, in cohesive soil with levels
of undrained shear strength ranging from 28 to 480 kPa.
From the total number of 25 tests, 17 tests were conducted
in level ground with horizontal loading, 6 in level ground
with oblique loading at 16.11 to the ground level and the
remaining 2 at the edge of slopes with inclinations of 201
and 551 and horizontal loading. It is noted that in order to
obtain ultimate field bearing capacity Hum, given in
Table 1, McDonald (1999) extrapolated the measured
load-displacement curves to failure using the method by
Chin (1970), in which the last part of the curve is
approximated by a hyperbola. The same method was
adopted in this paper to obtain the field bearing capacity
Hum of Bhushan et al. (1979), Nusairat et al. (2004) and
Bierschwale et al. (1981) tests of Table 1, while Puppala
et al. (2011) test piles were loaded to failure, and therefore,
no extrapolation was required.
For comparison, three lateral pile capacities were calculated
for each test. The first was computed with proposed Eqs. (10)
and (16) for adhesion factor a obtained using the following
equation proposed by Kulhawy (1991) for drilled shafts:
26
a ¼ 0:21 þ r 1 ðcu in kPaÞ ð17Þ
cu
For the range in undrained shear strength of the field
tests in Table 1, the values of a, calculated with the above
8
bearing capacity was also obtained with Eqs. (10) and
(16), but assuming smooth pile behaviour with a=0. It is
noted that the computed bearing capacities for the tests
reported by Puppala et al. (2011), in which the load was
 152
Table 1
Comparison to pile test results.

D (m) L (m) e (m) y (1) cu (kPa) Hum (kN) Huc (kN) Huc (kN) (a¼ 0) Huc (kN) (Broms) Reference

1.22 4.58 0.23 0 263.5 3631 3161 2839 1533 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 4.58 0.23 0 263.5 3004 3161 2839 1533 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 3.81 0.23 0 227.5 2094 2109 1882 783 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 3.81 0.23 0 227.5 2373 2109 1882 783 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 4.73 0.23 0 227.5 2657 2861 2567 1435 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 4.73 0.23 0 227.5 3156 2841 2567 1435 Bhushan et al. (1979)
0.61 2.71 0.23 0 227.5 989 839 752 471 Bhushan et al. (1979)
0.61 4.73 0.23 0 227.5 1891 1792 1611 1366 Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 5.18 0.23 20 220 2180 2835 2518 – Bhushan et al. (1979)
1.22 6.71 0.23 55 479 5347 5361 4677 – Bhushan et al. (1979)

K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154

0.45 1.48 1.50 0 60 45 39 32.5 15 McDonald (1999)
0.45 0.93 1.05 0 60 16 19.5 16 2.1 McDonald (1999)
0.45 1.40 1.50 0 60 33 35 29 12.5 McDonald (1999)
0.45 1.0 1.05 0 60 20 22.6 18.5 3.4 McDonald (1999)
0.76 4.78 1.32 0 81 601 606 523 416 Nusairat et al. (2004)
0.76 2.65 3.05 0 153 316 268 236 119 Nusairat et al. (2004)
0.76 2.56 3.08 0 152 311 247 218 105 Nusairat et al. (2004)
0.91 6.1 0.79 0 100 1165 1362 1183 953 Bierschwale et al. (1981)
0.91 4.57 0.79 0 100 741 886 768 536 Bierschwale et al. (1981)
0.305 1.83 0.05 0 36 67 59 47 36 Puppala et al. (2011)
0.305 3.05 0.05 0 32 82.5 102 81.5 73 Puppala et al. (2011)
0.61 1.83 0.05 0 36 88.5 94 73.5 28.5 Puppala et al. (2011)
0.61 3.05 0.05 0 32 182 168 133 92.5 Puppala et al. (2011)
0.61 4.27 0.05 0 28 185 227 182.8 150 Puppala et al. (2011)
0.915 1.83 0.05 0 36 124 125 94.5 9.5 Puppala et al. (2011)
 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154
25
20
FIELD TEST Hum /cuD2
15
10
5
for α = 0.21 + 26/cu[kPa]
for α = 0
Broms' method
0 and 1:2 slopes, respectively. The reduction is somewhat
0 5 10 15 20
COMPUTED Huc /cuD2
Fig. 18. Comparison of computed and measured bearing capacities in pile
load tests.
inclined, were obtained through Eq. (16) considering
horizontal ground and horizontal loading. Finally, the
third bearing capacity in Table 1 was calculated with the
classic Broms’ method.
A comparison is made between the computed bearing
capacities and those derived from the field tests in
non-dimensional terms (Hu/cuD2) in Fig. 18. As seen, the
agreement between the field test pile capacities and those
computed with the proposed new method is remarkable.
It is also observed that the assumption of smooth piles,
with a¼ 0, instead of a¼ 0.26 to 1, yields slightly con-
servative results. More conservative bearing capacities are
obtained with Broms’ method, especially for low L/D (and
therefore, Hu/cuD2) values.
8. Conclusions
A method for the analytical computation of the ultimate
bearing capacity of free-head piles in level ground and near
the crest of clay slopes was developed. The derived
equations consider the effect of pile–soil adhesion on the
lateral earth pressure along the pile and the bearing
capacity reduction caused by the pile proximity to the
slope. The method was used to develop Hu/cuD2 versus
L/D charts.
For piles in level ground, the lateral bearing capacity
increased significantly with an increase in adhesion factor a.
The bearing capacities computed with the new method for
different values of a fall well within the range of values
obtained using the lateral load distributions adopted by
several other researchers. For smooth piles (a ¼ 0), the new
method is in good agreement with Broms’ method (except
for low L/D values) and the bearing capacities calculated
153
using the Bhushan et al lateral load distribution, and in
excellent agreement with Stewart’s approach which is based
on the analytical upper bound solution of Murff and
Hamilton.
The bearing capacity charts derived with the proposed
method for piles near slopes demonstrate that the lateral
bearing capacity is significantly affected by the non-
dimensional distance (b/D) of the pile from the crest of
the slope. Similar to piles in level ground, the bearing
capacity is also affected by the non-dimensional load
eccentricity (e/D), adhesion factor a and the L/D ratio.
The effect of the slope was investigated through the
introduction of a bearing capacity reduction factor, rH,
defined as the ratio of the lateral bearing capacity of a pile
near a slope to that of the same pile in level ground. It was
found that the bearing capacity reduction for smooth piles
at the crest of a slope can reach 40 and 20 percent for 1:1
25
lower for rough piles, especially for low L/D values.
The study also showed that the non-dimensional critical
distance of the pile from the crest (bc/D), at which the
bearing capacity becomes equal to that of piles in level
ground, depends on the slope inclination, the L/D and e/D
ratios and pile–soil adhesion factor a. As seen in Fig. 17,
the maximum value for bc/D is found for longer piles and
ranges between 4 (for 1:2 slope) and 6 (for 1:1 slope).
The proposed method was validated through a compar-
ison to 25 full-scale pile load test results. It was shown that
the ultimate lateral loads calculated using the new method
were in excellent agreement with the experimental results
for piles in both level and sloping ground. It is noted that
the proposed method for piles near clay slopes is valid for
undrained conditions, provided that the slope height is
such that the slope is not close to stability failure due to its
self-weight.
References
Bhushan, K., Haley, S.C., Fong, P.T., 1979. Lateral load tests on drilled
piers in stiff clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 105
(8), 969–985 ASCE.
Bierschwale, M.W., Coyle, H.M., Bartoskewitz, R.E., 1981. Lateral load
test on drilled shafts founded in clay. Drilled piers and caissons, Proc.
of a Session at the ASCE National Convention, St. Louis, Missouri,
pp. 98–112.
Broms, B.B., 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 90 (2), 27–63 ASCE.
Chae, K.S., Ugai, K., Wakai, A., 2004. Lateral resistance of short single
piles and pile groups located near slopes. International Journal of
Geomechanics 4 (2), 93–103 ASCE.
Chin, F.K., 1970. Estimation of the ultimate load on piles not carried to
failure. In: Proceedings of the second Southeast Asia Conference on
Soil Engineering, 81–90.
Georgiadis, K., Georgiadis, M., 2010. Undrained lateral pile response in
sloping ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 136 (11), 1489–1500 ASCE.
Georgiadis, K., Georgiadis, M., 2012. Development of p–y curves for
undrained response of piles near slopes. Computers and Geotechnics
40, 53–61.
154 K. Georgiadis et al. / Soils and Foundations 53 (2013) 144–154
Hansen, B.J., 1961. The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal
forces. The Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin 12, 5–16.
Jeanjean, P., 2009. Re-Assessment of P–Y curves for soft clays from
centrifuge testing and finite element modeling. Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 20158, 1–23.
Kulhawy, F.H., 1991. Drilled shaft foundations. In: Fang, H.Y. (Ed.),
Foundation Engineering Handbook. Chapman and Hall, New York,
pp. 537–552.
Matlock, H., 1970. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay. In: Proceedings of the Second Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, OTC 1204, 577–594.
McDonald, P., 1999. Laterelly loaded pile capacity re-visited. In:
Proceedings of the Eighth Australia-New Zealand Conference on
Geomechanics, Hobart, vol. 1, 421–427.
Meyerhof, G.G., Mathur, S.K., Valsangkar, A.J., 1981. Lateral resistance
and deflection of rigid walls and piles in layered soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 18 (1), 159–170.
Mezazigh, S., Levacher, D., 1998. Laterally loaded piles in sand: slope effect
on p–y reaction curves. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35 (3), 433–441.
Murff, J.D., Hamilton, J.M., 1993. P-Ultimate for undrained analysis of
laterally loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (1),
91–107 ASCE.
Nimityongskul, N., Ashford, S., 2010. Effect of soil slope on lateral
capacity of piles in cohesive soils. In: Proceedings Ninth US National
and Tenth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tor-
onto, Paper no. 366.
Nusairat, J., Liang, R.Y., Engel, R., Hanneman, D., Abu-Hajleh, N.,
Yang, K., 2004. Drilled Shaft Design for Sound Barrier Walls, Signs
and Signals, Colorado Department of Transportation, Report no.
CDOT-DTD-R-2004-8.
Puppala, A.J., Wejrungsikul, T., Williammee, R.S., Witherspoon, T.,
Hoyos, L. 2011. Design of Inclined Loaded Drilled Shafts in High-
Plasticity Clay Environment. Technical Report FHWA/TX - 11/0–
6146 - 1, Univ. of Texas at Arlington/ Texas Dept. of Transportation.
Randolph, M.F., Houlsby, G.T., 1984. The limiting pressure on a circular
pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Geotechnique 34 (4), 613–623.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R., Koop, F.D., 1975. Field testing and analysis of
laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. In: Proceedings of the Seventh
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 2312, pp. 671–690.
Reese, L.C., Welch, R.C., 1975. Lateral loading of deep foundations in
stiff clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 101 (7),
633–649 ASCE.
Stevens, J.B., Audibert, J.M.E., 1980. Re-examination of p–y curve
formulation, Proceedings of Eleventh Offshore Technology Confer-
ence, Houston, OTC 3402, pp. 397–403.
Stewart, D.P., 1999. Reduction of undrained lateral pile capacity in clay
due to an adjacent slope. Australian Geomechanics 34 (4), 17–23.