DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED

PILES USING SUBGRADE REACTION APPROACH

A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With Specialization in Geotechnical Engineering)

VISHNU S. KUMAR

a: c; , ............ .

ç$
c:;' Z / r. ROORK~~

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE -247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE. 2012
 CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work which being presented in this dissertation entitled
"DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES USING SUBGRADE
REACTION APPROACH" in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree
of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering, with specialization in "Geotechnical
Engineering", submitted to the Department of civil engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, is an authentic record of my own work carried out under the
guidance of Dr.V.A.Sawant, Assistant Professor and Dr. N.K.Samadhiya, Professor,
Department of civil engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee.

The matter embodied in this dissertation has not been submitted by me for the award
of any degree or diploma.

Place: Roorkee

Y~
Date: I (V~ h S.Kumar )
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. VISHNU S.KUMAR (En. No.-10521017), student of

M.Tech 11"d year (Geotechnical Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering, IIT

Roorkee, Roorkee, has worked for the preparation of this dissertation report under my
supervision and guidance and the above statement made by the candidate is true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dr. Vishwas A Sawant Dr. N K.Samadhiya

Assistant Professor, Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee,
Roorkee-247667 Roorkee-247667

ri
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to almighty GOD for showering mercy on me throughout the period of

this work. I have great pleasure in expressing my deep sense of gratitude to Dr.V.A.Sawant,
Assistant Professor and Dr.N.K.Samadhiya, professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee for their invaluable guidance and generous
help throughout the duration of work.

I would like to express my gratitude to all my friends who helped me in the

completion of this work.
I am greatly indebted to my father, mother and brother who have always been my
source of encouragement.

(VISHNU S.KUMAR)

O b a
'U
 ABSTRACT

Lateral vibration of piles is an important consideration in the design of piled structures

subject to dynamic excitations due to earthquake, wind, operation of machines and waves in
offshore environments. In the past two decades, various models have been used to take the
soil-pile interaction in the dynamic response analysis of pile foundations. Among those,
Winkler models are the simplest and numerically most efficient ones. In the present study, a
mathematical model was formulated to study the response of circular pile to laterally applied
dynamic loading. The analysis was carried out considering fixed headed pile having floating
tip at the base. The influence of soil type, pile length and pile diameter on the response of pile
was studied and the results were presented. The modulus of subgrade reaction approach was
used and numerical methods such as finite difference technique and Wilson's 0 method were
employed. The formulation was programmed in MATLAB for analysis.

Keywords: Lateral Vibration, Subgrade Reaction, Dynamic Loading.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

Candidate's Declaration i

Certificate ii

Acknowledgement iii

Abstract iv

Contents v

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1
1.2 Need of the Study 2
1.3 Objectives of the Investigation 2
1.4 Organization ofthe Report 3

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Response of Pile under Lateral Loads 4

2.1.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Approach 4
2.1.1.1 Modulus of subgrade reaction degradation
with strain 5
2.1.1.2 Prediction of p-y curve 11
2.1.1.3 Effect of recent load history on laterally
loaded piles in normally consolidated clays 13
2.1.2 Elastic Continuum Approach 14
2.2 Scope of Present Study 15

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Finite Difference Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles
 (Static Loading) 16
3.1.1 Convergence Criteria 20
3.1.2 Static Analysis 21
3.2 Time Stepping Methods for Dynamic Analysis 22
3.2.1 Central Difference Method 22
3.2.2 Newmark Method 23
3.2.2.1 Average acceleration method 24
3.2.2.2 Linear acceleration method 24
3.2.3 Wilson's 0 Method S 24
3.3 Formulation 26
3.3.1 Assumptions 26
3.3.2 Displacement Formulation for Laterally Loaded Pile 26
Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 31
4.1 Static Analysis 31
4.2 Dynamic Analysis 32
4.2.1 Time-History Analysis for Different Angular Frequencies 33
4.2.2 Variation of Deflection Response Curves under Different
Conditions of Damping 34
4.2.3 Effect of Soil Stiffness on Displacement Response 36
4.2.4 Displacement and Bending Moment Analyses along
the Depth of the Pile 37
4.2.5 Analysis for Cohesionless Soils 39
4.2.6 Displacement and Bending Moment Analyses along the
Depth of the Pile for Cohesionless Soils 40
4.2.7 Effect of Pile Diameter on the Lateral Response of Pile 41
4.2.6 Effect of Pile Length on the Lateral Response of Pile 43

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS 45
Scope of Future Work 46
REFERENCES 47
APPENDIX 50

0 0 0
vi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Description Page No.

2.1 Beam on elastic foundation 5

2.2 Soil reaction versus deflection 6
3.1 Pile discretisation scheme 16
4.1 Variation of lateral displacement along depth of the pile 31
4.2 Variation of bending moment along depth of pile 32
4.3 Deflection response curve of pile head for co = 1 Hz 33
4.4 Deflection response curve of pile head for co = 30 Hz 34
4.5 Amplitude-frequency response curve for damping = 5% 35
4.6 Amplitude-frequency response curves for different damping ratios 35
4.7 Variation of maximum amplitude of pile head displacement with
soil stiffness 37
4.8 Variation of lateral displacement along depth of the pile for w=10Hz in
cohesive soils 38
4.9 Variation of maximum bending moment along the depth of pile
for co=10Hz in cohesive soils 38
4.10 Variation of lateral displacement along depth of the pile for co=10Hz in
cohesionless soils 40
4.11 Variation of maximum bending moment along the depth of pile
for co=10Hz in cohesionless soils 40
4.12 Effect of diameter on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile
in clayey soils 41
4.13 Effect of diameter on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile
in cohesionless soils 42
4.14 Effect of pile length on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile
in clayey soils 43
4.15 Effect of pile length on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile
in cohesionless soils 44

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description Page No.

2.1 Range of khmax 12

3.1 Maximum values of displacements and bending moments obtained for
different discretisation schemes 20
3.2 Deflection and bending moment along depth of the pile 21
4.1 Soil modulus parameter, k for sands 36
4.2 Range of subgrade moduli, rlh 39

® ® 0

VU!
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Pile foundations are widely used in civil engineering constructions due to non-
availability of bearing capacity at the required depth or due to heavy super structure
Ioads. Such foundation systems are commonly used to transfer vertical (axial) forces,
arising primarily from weight of the super structure. Examples of structures where piles
are commonly used as foundations are tall buildings, bridges, offshore platforms,
defence structures, dams and lock structures, transmission towers, earth retaining
structures, wharfs and jetties. However, in all these structures, it is not only the axial
force that the piles carry; often the piles are subjected to lateral forces and moments. In
fact, there are some structures (e.g.,. oil production platforms,, earth retaining structures,
and wharfs) where the primary function of piles is to transfer lateral loads to the ground.
Wind gusts are the most common cause of lateral force that a pile has to support. The
other major cause of lateral force is seismic activity. The horizontal shaking of the
ground during earthquakes generates lateral forces that the piles have to withstand.. That
apart, depending on the type of structure a pile supports, there can be different causes of
lateral forces. For tall buildings and transmission towers, wind action is the primary
cause. For offshore oil production platforms, quays, harbours, wharfs and jetties, wave
action gives rise to lateral forces. In the case of bridge abutments and piers, horizontal
forces are caused due to traffic and wind movement. Dams and lock structures have to
withstand water pressures which transfer as horizontal forces on the supporting piles.
In the case of earth retaining structures, the primary role of piles is to resist lateral
forces caused due to the lateral pressures exerted by the soil mass behind the retaining
wall. Sometimes, piles are installed into slopes, where slow ground movements are
taking place, in order to arrest the movement. In such cases, the piles are subjected only
to lateral forces. Piles are used to support open excavations; here also, there is no axial
force and the only role of the piles is to resist lateral forces.

In the above examples, there are some cases where the external horizontal loads act at
the pile head (i.e., at the top section of the pile). Such loading is called active loading.
Common examples are lateral loads and moments transmitted to the pile from
superstructures like buildings, bridges and offshore platforms. Sometimes the applied
1
horizontal load acts in a distributed way over a part of the pile shaft; such a loading is
called passive loading. Examples of passive loading are loads acting on piles due to
movement of slopes or on piles supporting open excavations. There are cases where
external horizontal loads are minimal or absent; even then external moments often exist
because of load eccentricities caused by construction defects e.g., out-of-plumb
constructions. .

Since the consequences of failure can be catastrophic, it is imperative that the response
of piles to lateral loads be understood and appropriate analytical capabilities be
developed. It is very much important to carefully design the pile subjected to lateral
loading so that it can bear the bending moment induced by the imposed lateral load. The
design becomes more complex when the load is dynamic in nature.

1.2 NEED OF THE STUDY

In designing pile foundations capable of resisting lateral loads, a major problem for
engineers generally is not the ultimate lateral capacity of the piles, but the maximum
deflection and moment of the piles. The maximum deflection occurs usually at the top
of the pile, and this is related critically to the safety of the structure being supported.
The maximum moment in a pile and the depth at which it occurs depend on the stiffness
of the pile-soil system and the loading conditions. Pile overstress will occur if the
moment exceeds the allowable moment of the pile materials. Hence, the most important
job for geotechnical engineers is to accurately predict both the maximum deflection and
moment in the design stage.

It is not always feasible to use a test pile on field to get its dynamic response. So
software modelling and subsequent numeric analysis of the same is preferred. Many
numerical methods are available each of which has its own share of merits and
demerits. So it is vital for the researcher to choose the one best suitable for the
concerned area of study.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE INVESTIGATION

An attempt has been made to analyse the dynamic response of fixed head floating pile
in a homogeneous soil medium. The main objective of the research is to obtain a

2
rational method of analysis of laterally loaded piles that truly simulate the actual pile-
soil interaction and can be easily implemented in design. Pile geometry and soil
modulus are varied and the effect of change of these parameters on the response of the
laterally loaded piles is studied. Analysis is carried out for different damping conditions
also.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The report is explained in five chapters and one appendix.

Chapter 1 gives an introduction to the problem, the significance of dynamic analysis of

laterally loaded pile. Aims and objective of the investigation are also outlined.

Chapter 2 reviews the state of the art in subgrade reaction approach for pile analysis.
Scope of present study is also listed.

Chapter 3 explains the methodology used in the analysis. The numerical methods used
are also briefed.

Chapter 4 gives the obtained results of the static and dynamic analyses.

Chapter 5 discusses the findings of this study and the main conclusions are explained.
Along with that potential scope of future work on dynamic analysis of laterally loaded
piles are put forth.

3
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Numerous research works have so far been performed on the , problem of laterally
loaded piles. A preliminary survey of the literature available on this topic reveals that
the problem has been analysed in three ways. The first and most common is the beam
on elastic foundation approach (Matlock and Reese 1960, Broms 1964) where the pile
is assumed to be an elastic beam and the soil is represented by a series of springs. The
second approach considers the soil as an elastic continuum in which the pile is
embedded (Poulos 1971, Sun 1994). The third one uses the Finite Element Method to
solve the problem (Sogge 1981). The underlying objectives in all these studies were
mainly to obtain the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity and the lateral movement of
piles under working loads.

2.1 RESPONSE OF PILE UNDER LATERAL LOADS

The pile head may move horizontally over an appreciable distance before rotation or
failure of the pile occurs, to such an extent that the movement of the structure supported
by pile or pile group exceeds tolerable limits. Thus even though working load is
obtained by dividing the estimated ultimate pile load by a suitable safety factor, it is still
necessary to determine the deflection of the pile and ensure that the permissible
deflection is not exceeded. The objectives in all the above mentioned approaches were
mainly to obtain the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity and the lateral movement of
piles under working loads.

2.1.1 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Approach

The beams on elastic foundations approach, better known as the P-y method of analysis,
essentially assumes the pile as an Euler-Bernoulli beam embedded vertically in a bed of
linear elastic Winkler springs that support the beam (figure 2.1). In this approach, the
elastic soil response is represented through a single parameter called the modulus of
subgrade reaction that is related to the stiffness of the soil. The elastic constant of the
springs assumed in the model is related to the subgrade modulus. This method is also
known as subgrade reaction approach. A differential equation governing the beam
deflection for such a beam-foundation system was developed (which is a fourth order
linear differential equation) and analytical solutions for different types and positions of
loads and load distributions were obtained (Biot 1937, - Hetenyi 1946). The input

parameters required are the elastic modulus and geometry of the beam, the spring
constant of the foundation and the magnitude and distribution of the applied load. As a
result of the analysis, the beam deflection, bending moment and shear force along the
span of the beam can be determined.

'Ill

Foundation
Spring

Figure 2.1 Beam on elastic foundation (after Basu, 2006)

In the Winkler soil model, the pressure p and deflection y at a point are assumed to be
related through a modulus of subgrade reaction, which for horizontal Ioading, is
denoted as kh. Thus,
(2.1)
p = khY,
where kh.has the units of force/length3. If k.is the coefficient of horizontal subgrade
reaction as used by Terzaghi (1955), then
kh = ks b, (2.2)
where, b is the diameter of the pile.
For cohesion less soil, kh can be assumed to vary approximately linearly with depth
(Terzaghi 1955). Therefore

kh = nhx, (2.3)
where ran= constant of horizontal subgrade reaction
When the soil reaction p is plotted against deflection y, a typical plot as shown in figure
(2.2) is obtained.

5
 i
Defe lion y (L)

Figure 2.2 Soil Reaction versus deflection (after Prakash and Kumar, 1996)
The secant modulus shown by the dashed lines is the modulus of horizontal subgrade
reaction reaction (kh). Because the soil reaction-deflection plot is nonlinear, khis also a
nonlinear function of deflection or strain in soil around the pile.

In this concept of beams on elastic foundation, the fourth order linear differential
equation governing the deflection of pile is:

4
EI - +khy= 0, (2.4)

where,

EI = flexural rigidity of the pile

kh = Modulus of subgrade reaction

x = verticaI coordinate along the length of the pile

y = horizontal coordinate along the direction of the displacement of the pile (i.e. along
the direction of the applied horizontal load)

H= horizontal load acting per unit length of the pile.

The problem was solved analytically for different boundary conditions of the pile.

The beam-on-foundation concept was adapted by the researchers on laterally loaded

piles (Davisson 1970, Broms 1964, Matlock and Reese 1960, Reese and Matlock 1956)
because, in most cases, the piles behave as flexible beams against lateral loads and the
problem can be looked upon as a beam-on-foundation rotated by 90. However, the
problem of laterally loaded pile is more complex because soils in real field situations
behave nonlinearly, particularly near the top part of the pile. In other words, because of
the nonlinear nature of a typical soil stress-strain plot, the head deflection of piles, when
plotted against applied load, produce a nonlinear curve. The linear springs, as
hypothesized by Winkler could no longer be used for laterally loaded piles, and were
replaced by nonlinear springs (for which the value of the spring constant changes with
pile deflection).. As a result, the governing fourth order differential equation becomes
nonlinear and the fmite difference method was used to iteratively solve the equation.

Further modification of the beam-on-nonlinear-foundation approach led to the p-y

method (Matlock 1970, Reese et al., 1974, 1975, Reese and Welch 1975, Reese 1977).
In the p-y method, p stands for the soil pressure per unit pile length and y stands for pile
deflection (soil resistance p is the product of pile deflection and the nonlinear spring
constant). Instead of giving inputs for the nonlinear spring constant, p-y curves are
given as inputs to the analysis in the p-y method. Different p-y curves have been
developed over the years for different soil types, which give the magnitude of soil
pressure as a function of the pile deflection (Reese et al., 1974, 1975, Reese and Welch
1975, Matlock 1970). Most of the existing standard p y curves were developed based on
results of full-scale lateral load tests on a relatively small range of pile diameters and
theory was then extrapolated to use for other diameter sizes. Therefore, the degree of
accuracy in predicting the lateral responses for a wide range of pile diameters especially
for large pile diameters is still questionable. Furthermore, recent research by Carter
(1984) and Ling (1988) showed that the soil response actually appears to become stiffer
as the pile diameter increases and suggested that the initial modulus of subgrade
reaction, the initial stiffness of p-y curves, should increase linearly with the pile
diameter. This is in conflict with the commonly assumed Terzaghi model (Terzaghi,
1955), in which the modulus of subgrade reaction is considered to be independent of
pile diameter.

Barber (1953) provided the solutions to determine the deflections and rotation at the
ground surface using the convenient plots for cases of constant soil modulus of
subgrade reaction, as well as the linearly increasing soil modulus of subgrade reaction
with depth. Several functions of distribution of modulus of subgrade reaction with
depth (i.e., polynomial function and power function) have been considered by Matlock

7
and Reese (1960). Matlock and Reese give the solutions for a special case soil profile
where the modulus of subgrade reaction has some finite value at the ground surface and
continues to increase linearly with depth.

The values of modulus of subgrade reaction can be obtained using the in-situ testing,
such as the plate loading test. For practical purposes, Terzaghi (1955) recommended the
rough estimate values of coefficient of subgrade reaction for stiff clay and sand to be
used for analysing pile response using subgrade theory. He stated that the linear
relationship between the soil pressure and displacement was valid for values of the soil
pressure that were smaller than about one-half of the bearing stress.

Another method in estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction is the use of the
equation proposed by Vesic (1961). Vesic provided a relationship between the modulus
of subgrade reaction, K, used in the Winkler spring problem and the material properties
in the elastic continuum problem as:

K_ o.65Es ESD4 1/1z

(1_µs 2) )LEP IJ (2.5

where, Es = soil modulus of elasticity, µs = Poisson's ratio of the soil,

D = pile diameter,
Eplp = flexural rigidity ofthe pile.
Das and Sargand (1996) presented an analytical approach for the determination of the
response of a single circular cylindrical pile subjected to a lateral dynamic load. The
kinetic and the potential energies of the pile foundation system are minimized by
variational principle to obtain the governing field equations of the pile foundation
system along with the appropriate boundary conditions. A non-dimensional parameter y
associated with the characteristics of the pile, the foundation and the loading is used to
represent the elastic medium. This parameter y could be determined by using an
iterative procedure. The classical finite difference method is used to solve the governing
field equations of the pile foundation system. The validation ofthe proposed model was
demonstrated by applying to several published field pile load tests. Parametric studies
with regard to the frequency response ofthe pile head and the resonant frequency of the
pile foundation system were presented. With the aid of parametric studies it is stated
that:
i) When L/R is greater than 40, the resonant dimensionless frequency is the same
whether the pile tip is clamped or floating.
ii) When L/R is smaller than 40, L/R has a great influence on the resonant
dimensionless frequency. For a pile with clamped tip the resonant dimensionless
frequency decrease as L/R increases, the effect of L/R becoming more significant as
Ep/Es increases. The resonant dimensionless frequency also increases as Ep/Es
increases. For a pile floating tip, the resonant dimensionless frequency increases as L/R
increases, the effect of L/R becoming more significant as Ep/Es decreases. The resonant
dimensionless frequency also increases as Ep/Es decreases.
iii) Also, the resonant dimensionless frequency increases as soil Poisson's ratio v
increases whether the pile tip is clamped or floating.

Novak (1974) presented an analytical approach based on linear elasticity to obtain the
closed form formulae for pile stiffness and damping. He stated that dynamic stiffness
and geometric damping of piles depend on soil-pile interaction and are governed by the
following dimensionless parameters: ratio of specific mass of soil to specific mass of
pile, shear wave velocity in soil over longitudinal wave velocity in pile, slenderness
ratio, and the ratio of pile static load to Euler's buckling load. Both pile stiffness and
damping increase with increase in wave velocity ratio and horizontal excitation are very
sensitive to the pile length for a slenderness ratio less than 25 and practically
independent of the pile length for higher slenderness ratio.

An analysis was formulated by Naggar and Novak in 1994 based on a shaft model that
incorporates the factors such as variation of soil properties with depth, energy
dissipation through radiation, soil non-linearity, and relative movement at the soil-pile
interface. When a pile is subjected to high level loading, the soil around the pile may
exhibit strong non-linearity in the region close to pile; and a relative movement may
occur at the soil-pile interface. The soil outside this region behaves more or less
elastically. Therefore the soil around the pile is divided into two regions: the inner non-
linear field and the outer, elastic region. Interface elements are also added in the model
to account for the relative movement at the soil-pile interface. The modelling was based
on the concept of Winkler's springs. The displacement and velocity time histories as
well as pile capacities computed using the proposed model fared well in the comparison
with field-measured data.

Z
Very recently, response of single pile with free headed top and floating tip under lateral
loads in cohesion less soils is analysed by Phanikanth et al. (2010). However the similar
study for fixed head single pile is still scarce.

Considering kinematic and inertial interactions, seismic lateral response of piles in

liquefying soil was proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005a). A pseudo-static
approach was proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005b) which can be more
frequently used by the designers.

Abbas et.al., (2009) conducted the analysis of a laterally loaded single pile using a two-
dimensional approach. The pile structural and soil mass material are modelled by linear
elastic and Mohr-Coulomb models, respectively. The conclusion they derived from
their study is that the lateral pile displacement and lateral soil pressure were affected by
the time after loading and the intensity of loading applied. Also the maximum lateral
soil pressure occurs near the surface in case of low load intensity, but due to failure of
the surrounding soil at higher load, the larger values are obtained at greater depths.

Modulus of subgrade reaction is relatively simple and has been used in practice for a
long time. This method can incorporate factors such as nonlinearity, variation of
subgrade reaction with depth and also can account for various soil layers.

2.1.1.1 Modulus of subgrade reaction degradation with strain

Mwindo (1992) analysed twenty two lateral pile-load tests for piles of different
materials embedded in sands of different relative density and developed empirical

relations to relate soil modulus with strain. He related the normalized kh versus strain
khmax

plots to the pile type and the relative density of sands. and developed five empirical
relationships to represent the modulus degradation with strain. From the study of
normalized k'~ versus strain plots for all piles reported by Mwindo (1992), it was
khmax

found that for most of the cases, variations in these plots are not significant and all
curves degrade in the same fashion. So, the normalized modulus degradation plots

( kh versus strain) for all piles were re-plotted on a common axis from the data
khmax

developed by Mwindo. It was demonstrated that the normalized modulus curves

degrade as an exponential function of strain and are almost similar irrespective of the
density of sand and the pile material. The method of least squares was used to fit the

10
best curve, expressed by equation (2.6), which represents the unique relationship of
modulus degradation with strain for single piles under lateral load, embedded in sands.
0.052y-0.48

kh (2.6)
khmax

If the value of khlmaxis known, k h for any deflection can be computed at a lm depth
and then rjhcan be computed- using the following relationship:
(2.7)
kr~=h7hL,
where L =1 m.

2.1.1.2 Prediction of p y curves

Prakash and Kumar (1996) developed a step-by-step procedure for non-linear prediction
of the load-displacement relationship of single piles under lateral loads, in sands of
uniform properties with depth. A unique relationship for modulus degradation with
strain and a range of maximum value of horizontal subgrade reaction khmax at a strain
of 0.002 for sands is recommended. The step-by-step procedure developed to predict
the load-deflection curve for piles under lateral loads in sands using the subgrade
reaction method and considering soil nonlinearity is as follows:
a) Soil Profile
From the proper soil investigation, establish
I. The soil profile,
2. The ground-water table,
3. The relative density of soil.
b) Pile Material and Dimensions
Normally, pile material and dimensions are established from axial-compression loading
requirements, and its ability to resist imposed lateral loads and moments is then
checked. Determine
1. The size of the pile,
2. The depth to which the pile needs to be embedded,
3. The flexural rigidity (El) of the pile.
c) Selection of kh and calculation of lateral load, Qg

1. Assume a deflection yg at the pile head and calculate strain as y = y9

1.667B'
where, B = width or diameter of the pile.
2. Select the appropriate value of khmax based on the relative density of sand and
compute kiL from equation (2.6).

11
3. For sands and normally loaded clays, soil modulus increases linearly with depth.
Determine rlh from known value of kh using relation (2.7).
4. Compute relative stiffness factor, T as:
( Eli /s
7' = ~r1 ) (2.8)

Determine the L/T ratio. If the ratio is more than 5, consider the pile as a long pile.
5. Compute load Q y for the appropriate pile-head fixity condition for assumed
deflection, ya (Prakash and Sharma 1990).
3 2
• Free head piles: yg = Ay QEl + By MEI (2.9)
3
• Fixed head piles:yg = (Ay_ (3By) Q9 (2.10)
3
• Partially fixed head piles:yg = (Ay_pxBy) QS (2.11)
El

where, Q. = lateral load on the pile

Mg = moment on the pile head, if any

Ay and By= deflection coefficients for lateral loads and applied moments as reported by
Matlock and Reese (1960). Because deflection is always maximum at ground level,
A=2.435 and By=1.623 at Z =x/T=O can be used. Also, ?. = pile-head fixity factor,
which is equal to I for fixed-translating headed piles and less than 1 for partially fixed
head piles, depending on the fixity of the pile head; and (3 = non dimensional fixity
factor. This is equal to 0.93 for sands.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 for other assumed values of ygand plot the computed values of
lateral loads (Q9) versus deflections (yy ).
It is recommended that the load-deflection relationship be calculated, for deflections up
to a minimum of double the allowable deflections.

Table 2.1 Range of khmax (after Alizadeh and Davisson, 1970)

.Observed Recommended
Relative Density
khmax (kN/m3) khmax (kN/m3)
Dense 40,028 — 80,056 40,000 — 80,000
Medium 21,545 — 45,485 21,500-45,500
Loose 2,873-21,545 4,050 —10,800

12
2.1.1.3 Effect of recent load history on laterally loaded piles in normally consolidated
clays
In practice, it is generally assumed that the magnitude of the resultant behaviour of a
pile subjected to a change in the lateral loading direction is independent of previous
loading stages and therefore is the same as what is expected for a single stage of
loading. The influence of recent stress history on the constitutive relations of soil has
been investigated previously by many including Atkinson et al., (1990), Simpson
(1992), and Stallebrass and Taylor (1997). The concept of recent stress history can be
explained using models that contain multiple yield surfaces, as described by Simpson
(1992) using the brick model. It was observed (Atkinson et al., 1990, Simpson 1992)
that the initial soil stiffness is higher for a smaller angle between two stages of loading
with a maximum stiffness calculated when the soil is loaded, unloaded, and reloaded
along the same path (i.e., when this angle equals zero). It was also noted that with
increasing applied stress the stiffness reduces rapidly until it eventually becomes
independent of the previous stress path (Atkinson et al., 1990).

In addition, the methodology behind the current design methods assumes that the
direction of the resultant pile response does not have a large impact on the load carrying
capacity of the system. However, Levy et.al., (2007) demonstrates that changes in the
lateral loading direction alter the global stiffness response of the soil—pile interaction
problem, and this could potentially play a significant role when designing for
serviceability. The direction of previous loading direction influences the pile behaviour.
The location of the pile after unloading is not assumed to be the same as the initial
position, unlike for previous design methods. The displacements during reloading must
therefore be considered relative to this point and subsequently the final displacements
are different from those expected under monotonic conditions. As the angle between
initial and final loading approaches 90° the resultant displacement increases as the
component of remaining plastic displacement at right angles to final loading increases.
The global stiffness of the soil—pile system during reloading is higher for smaller angles
between initial and final displacement, with some stiffness's being higher than for
monotonic loading.

The recent load history can significantly influence the behaviour of a pile subjected to
lateral loading due to the existence of residual displacements from previous• loading
stages. The impact of previous loading on the pile head displacement depends on the

13
magnitude of the applied load relative to the pile capacity, the length of the pile, the pile
stiffness, and also the ratio between the loads during different stages of loading. For a
particular applied initial load the resultant displacement at the end of loading in the
second direction may decrease in magnitude for small loads before increasing until it
eventually approaches the values determined for monotonic loading. The greater the
pile flexibility the more influence the load history will have on the resultant behaviour
of the pile when less that 80% of the pile capacity is applied.

2.1.2 Elastic Continuum Approach

The elastic continuum approach idealizes the soil as homogeneous, elastic, isotropic
half space in which the pile is embedded. Essentially two methods of solution, one
based on Mindlin's problem of a single horizontal load acting within an elastic half
space (Poulos 1971) and the other based on the variational approach (Sun 1994) are
available. In the former, the pile was assumed to be a thin rectangular vertical strip of a
finite width and flexural rigidity. The elastic modulus of soil was assumed to be
constant in the analysis. The pile was divided into a number of elements and soil
displacements are evaluated at each element center from Mindlin equation for
horizontal displacement and integrating the result for each rectangular element. The pile
displacements were obtained as from the equation of flexure of a thin strip, expressed in
finite difference form. In the other approach, the calculus of variations was employed
based on the principle of virtual work to arrive at the equilibrium equation. In this case,
the elastic continuum model proposed by Vlasov and Leont'ev (1966) for soil was used.

Poulos (1982) extended the elastic continuum analysis for the deflection of pile in clay
subjected to cyclic lateral loading, which allowed for the reduction in soil modulus and
yield pressure with increasing cyclic strain. A number of theoretical solutions were
presented to illustrate the factors influencing the increase in deflection and bending
moment in the pile, with increasing cycles and cyclic load level.

14
2.2 SCOPE OF PRESENT STUDY

In the present analysis attempt has been made to study the response of single pile
subjected to time dependent lateral load acting on top of the pile. Analysis was carried
out for fixed head pile with its tip assumed floating.
A mathematical model was formulated to study the response of circular pile to laterally
applied dynamic loading. The formulation of the finite difference scheme is then
programmed in MATLAB and the analysis is extended to different values of pile
geometry, soil stiffness and damping. ., k4fSAL L/fit
, 'A

... ......

15
 CHAPTER III

3.1 FINITE DIFFERENCE ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES

(STATIC LOADING)

In subgrade reaction method, the pile is usually assumed to act as a thin strip whose
behaviour is governed by the beam equation which was originally proposed by Hetenyi
(1946).

Eld +kh Y=0 (3.1)

In the present study finite difference technique is employed for analysing the pile .
response. Solutions to the above equations may be obtained analytically or numerically.

U-RFA CE

Li • z

Figure 3.1 Pile discretisation scheme

16
Analytical solutions are available only for uniform kh along pile depth. For over
consolidated clays usually this assumption is valid. In the present analysis, the above
mentioned basic differential equation is written in finite difference form; for a typical
point i:

EI [Yi-2 -4'Yi--1 (Q i 4Yi+-i+Yi+z ~ + (kidy1) = 0 (3.2)

z)4
By rearranging,

Yi +z — 4Yi+l + a jy j — 4Yi-i + Yi-z = 0, (3.3)

k ; L4 d
where, ai = 6 +
1L4

n= number of elements along the pile

Az = segment length

ki = modulus of subgrade reaction kh at i

Equation (3.3) is applied to points 1 to n-1 to give n-1 equations. Four further equations
may be obtained from the boundary conditions at the top and tip of the pile. The pile top
(node 0'). is assumed to be fixed headed and pile tip (node `n') as floating tip and their
boundary conditions are as given below:

At the top of pile (Node `0'):

(a) Rotation = 0: EI dX = 0, i.e.;

Yi Y-1 = 0

Y-s = Yi (3.4)

3
(b) Shear = El dX3 = H, i.e,

_ HL3
—Y-2 + 2Y-1 — 2Yi + Y2 EIn3
Substituting. (3.4);

_ HO
Y-2 =Y2 EIn3
(3.5)

(~
For a floating pile with free tip, (a) moment = EI 2y = 0, i.e,

Yn-1 — 2yn + Yn+i = 0

'• Yn+s = 2Yn — Yn-i (3.6)

3
(b) shear = EIdX = 0, i.e,

— Yn-2 + — 2Yn+s + Yn+2 = 0

Substituting (3.6);

—Yn-2 + 2yn-1 — 2 ( 2Yn — Yn-i) + Yn+z = 0

'• Yn+z = Yn-2 — 4Yn-1 + 4yn (3.7)

Now, substituting equations (3.4) and (3.5) for node 0,

4
0
Y2 — EIn3 — 4y1 + 6 + EIri ~) Yo — 4Y1 + Y2 = 0

ka L4d HL3
— .8(3 )
C6+ EIn4/y~ sy1+2yz =

Similarly for node 1,

k1L¢d\
Yi -4yo+ 6+ EIn4/JY1-4Y2+Y3=0

.. —4yo + ( a)4Y1 — 4Y2 + Y3 = 0 (3.9)

7 + kEl
For node 2,

Yo `- 4Yi + (6 + ko L d) Y2 — 4)/3 + 3/4 = 0 (3.10)



Similarly for node n-1, after applying equation (3.6),

k_1 4d\
Yn-3 4Yn
+-2 (5+
EIn )Yn-1 —ZYn=O
(3.11)

For pile tip, i.e., at node n,

Yn=2 -4Yf-1+
6+ Eln4 Yn — `l'Yn-1+Yn 2= 0

after applying equations (3.6) and(3.7),

r k Lodl
2Yn-2 —
4'Yn-1 + `2 + EIn4 / Y. = 0 (3.12)

In matrix form,

a; -8 2 Yo

-4 a;+l -4 1 Yi

1 -4 a; -4 1

1 -4 ai -4 1

1 -4 a;-1 -2

2 -4 ai-4

(n+1)x(n+l)

HL3
EIn3

(n+l) xl

k1L 4d
where, ai = 6 + EIn4

19
 3.1.1 Convergence Criteria

The accuracy of the proposed finite difference method of analysis depends on the
scheme of discretisation adopted. As the pile length is discretised into more number
of elements more will be the accuracy of the results, till convergence is met with. So
trial and error method has been adopted to determine the point of convergence.

Analyses were carried out for the static loading case with the pile being divided
into: 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 number of elements.

Table 3.1 Maximum values of displacements and bending moments obtained for
different discretisation schemes

Maximum Maximum Bending

Number of Pile Elements
Displacement(mm) Moment(kNm)

20 4.3 17.43
25 4.9 23.79
30 5 26.56

35 5 26.71
40 5 26.79

It was found out that the response values of the pile with n=35 and n=40 did not
differ much with those obtained for n=30. So n=30 is assumed to be the point of
convergence.

Therefore, all the analyses were carried out with the pile being discretised into 30
elements.

20
3.1.2 Static Analysis

The static analysis was developed by considering a laterally loaded pile with the values
of the input parameters being arbitrarily taken.

Modulus of subgrade reaction, k = 20000 kN/m3

Length of the pile = 10m

Diameter of pile = 30cm

Modulus of elasticity of pile material = 3x107 kN/m2

Moment of inertia = 7rd4/64 =3.9 x10 m4

Number of elements, n =30

Horizontal load acting at the pile head = 100 kN

Solving this, variation of lateral displacements and bending moments along the depth of
the pile is obtained as follows:

Table 3.2 Deflection and bending moment along depth of the pile
Depth from Bending
Deflection(mm)
ground (m) moment m)
0
5.0 -26.56
1
3.8 0.42
2
1.9 8.42
3
0.6 7.55
4
0 4.34
5
-0.2 1.67
6
-0.2 0.23
7
-0.1 -0.25
8
0 -0.22
9
0 -0.05
10
0 -0.02

21
3.2 TIME STEPPING METHODS FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Numerical time-stepping methods for integration of differential equations are used to

find the analytical solution of the equation of motion for a single-degree-of-freedom
system, where the applied force F(t) or ground acceleration ü(t) varies arbitrarily with
time or if the system is nonlinear. The equation of motion used in the present analysis
is:

mu(t) + cit(t) + ku(t) = F(t),

where,
m = mass of the system

c = damping coefficient

k = stiffness of the system

F(t) = externally applied time dependant load

u = displacement component

Many numerical methods are available in literature for time-stepping analysis, two of
which are briefed here:

3.2.1 Central Difference Method

This method is based on a finite difference approximation of the time derivatives of

displacement (Clough and Penzien 1993). Taking constant time steps, At = At, the
central difference expressions for velocity and acceleration at time i are:

u r+at — ur-et
_ L L

ul 2At

..t = ui+f it -2ui +ut -4t

a Utz

Substituting these expressions in the equation of motion,

ut+ot -t
— 2u~t + uito uit +ot — uit-ot
m + c + kui = F(t)
At2 ZAt

In this equation, ul and ui-°t are assumed known, which leads to

22
 u~+or = F(t) — \
\Et 2 + 2At) k Yt2 ) u! ^ (At 2 . 2At)

or, ku~+°t = pL, where

m c
kot2 +
eat
and

P = Pi — (k Utz)l u t — (... 2c

The unknownthen
ut+fit
i
is given by
g~

ut+at = Pc
k
The displacement solution time step t+At is obtained by solving the equation.

Central Difference Method is an explicit method because the displacement solution at

time step t+At is determined from equilibrium condition at time t, without using the
equilibrium condition at time t+At. This method gives inaccurate results, if the time step
is not short enough. The specific requirement for stability is:

At <, where Tn is the smallest natural time period for the system. This may not be a

problem for a single degree of freedom system, because more than 71 or 3 steps are not
needed to adequately define one vibration cycle. However the size of time step would
be an issue for multiple degree of freedom systems where very short period modes of
vibration are essential to dynamic response of the system. Many a times, much shorter
time steps need to be chosen like in case of earthquake response analyses (typically At
= 0.01 to 0.02s).

3.2.2 Newmark-(3 Method

Newmark developed a family of time-stepping methods based on the following

equations:

ut+ot = icr + [(1 — y)At}iit + (yAt)iit+ot

ut+nt = u t + (At)ict + [(0.5 — g)(At)2 ]ut + [/'(At)2]ut+ot

The parameters (3 and y determine the variation of acceleration over a time step.

23
Usually, y = 0.5 and6 < fl < 4,

3.2.2.1 Average Acceleration Method

Variation of acceleration over a time step is constant. This condition corresponds to (3 =

0.25 and y=0.5.

uT = Z (ut+ot + fi t), where i is a time instant between t andt + At.

3.2.2.2 Linear Acceleration Method

= and y = 2 corresponds to the assumption of linear variation of acceleration over a

time step, which is referred to as Newmark's linear acceleration method.

iiT = iit + ut+nt — Ut z

At

Newmark's method is stable, if

At 1 1
Tn T[~2 J — 2 )

For average acceleration case, (y = 2 , (3 = 4) the stability condition is

At
Tn < 00, so that it is unconditionally stable.
Linear acceleration method is stable if,

At
T _< 0.551
n

For a single degree of freedom system, linear acceleration method gives the
better results while central difference the least accurate.

3.2.3 Wilson's 0 Method

Method developed by E.L.Wilson is a modification of the linear acceleration method

that makes it unconditionally stable (Clough and Penzien 1993). It is based on the
assumption that acceleration varies linearly over an extended time step St = BLit. The
accuracy and stability of the method depend on the value of parameter, 0, which is
24
always greater than 1. If 0 = 1, the method reverts to the linear acceleration one. For all
the values of 0 > 1.37, Wilson's 0 method is unconditionally stable. B = 1.42 gives
optimal accuracy.

=Sti +zt SiiL (3.13)

Stici+ s U1
ui
S— Z2 + 6
s 2 Siii (3.14)

where St, 5u1 , S ti and Szi, are the incremental responses of the loaded system.

Equation (3.13) is rewritten as:

Ste St e
Sui — Stu, -- 2 ii, =--Su,

slit = - . u j — 31i (3.15)

8u1 — St

Substituting equation (3.15) in (3.13);

St 6 6
Su;, = Stii, + Z (StZ Siti — St ui — 3iil )

3 St
Siui = Stii, + St 5ui — 3iti — 3 2 iii
3St .. .
Su = - Sui —3u1 — — u1 (3.16)

Equations (3.15) and (3.16) are substituted in the incremental equation of motion:

mSul + cStii + ki 8ui = Spi,

Where based on the assumption that the exciting force vector also varies linearly over
the extended time step,

Spi =
.. kiSui = SPi (3.17)

where,
_ 3 6
k` k i
+ BL1t c + (BOt) 2'n
6OAt
LX (—m + 3c) iii + (3m
) + 2 c
Spi = e( pi) +

25
Equation (3.17) is solved for 8ui , which when substituted in equations (3.15) and (3.16)
gives the incremental acceleration and velocity respectively. The incremental
acceleration over the normal time step is given by

3.3 FORMULATION

3.3.1 Assumptions

1. The laterally loaded pile is assumed to be of uniform cross section with constant
flexibility EI..
2. The effect of axial loading in the pile is ignored.
3. Passive pressure is assumed to act throughout the length of the pile.
4. Load is acting on top of the pile.
5. The deflections due to shearing stresses and transverse deflections of the pile are
small.
6. Yielding of soil is not considered.
7. The pile is perfectly connected to soil. There is no slippage or separation at the
interface of the pile and the surrounding soil.

3.3.2 Displacement Formulation For Laterally Loaded Pile

An attempt has been made to present a formulation for the response analysis of laterally
loaded piles subjected to harmonic loading. Formulation is based on finite difference
method and derivatives of displacement are derived according to Wilson's 0 method.

As per Wilson's 0 method,

out = 8t14 + Zt Ou, (3.18)

Sui = 0th, + t
S ii, + &2 Oil, (3.19)

Re arranging equation (3.19);

0t 2 8t 2
5ui — Stui — 2 iii =-- 5u,

811, = -S 8ui — - t ui — 3iil (3.20)

26


Substituting equation (3.20) in (3.18);

St 6 6
8ü1 = &Iz, + S7li — St iti — 3tf c)
Z (st2
'3 St
Siti = 6n7j+st Su j -3it j -3 2 iii

Sui = st Sui — 3u1 — --u1 (3.21)

Sii 1 6 6
uL+1= U 1 + L11 =1L1 + a _"ff,+e \St2 6ui- —Ui -311
)
3 6 6
= (1 — 6)
uL 6St uL + 9St2 Sui

= ( i — g) uL — BSt uL + B[St2 (ui+1 - u1 ) (3.22)

Lt
uL+1 = U + Aui = i + (It)1L + At SitL

uz +(it)uL + t (s- Sul—stuff-31i,)

icy + se ` + Z02 (s- 8u1 — 6ui — 3iiL St)

_= ( _ 3 St 35t 35u1
+ ( ----- )
i e2 ) uL u1 + 0 2 8t

.. (3.23)

The governing differential equation for the pile response is:

(~ 4u 52u au
EprpaZ4 +ku+p +ca
t =0
atZ
where,

Ep = Young's modulus of pile material

Ip = Moment of inertia of pile material
u =-pile deflection at a depth 'z' below ground level

k = Modulus of subgrade reaction

p = mass density of pile per unit length

c = damping in soil medium

27


F(t) = time dependent external load

Using finite difference formulation and substitution of equations (3.22) and (3.23);

E
— 4uL +At + 6ui +At — 4uf +At + ut+z t ) + ku1 +At
(1 ul t))
+p [ 3 ) u,t sSt ui t + BStz (uit+tlt —
+c [( Lt (u,t+ot — uit)} = 0 (3.24)
1 ze)s u + ( 1 — 3 ) ui t + e st
Using backward difference formulae:
,ut — .ut-at
•
t _ i f
ui -- st ,
.ut — 2 ,u t—at + ut-2at
Uit = i t i
8t 2

EI ( t+Lt t+At t+At t+1 tl ( 6EI 6p 3c l t+At

oz4 ui-2 — 4u1-1 — 4ui+1 ui+z ) + AZ4 + k + es 2 + erst) ui
) (ttf — 2uE -oZ + u t-to — 6 (u~ — uht — 6 Z ui
= F(t) — {( i 3 st st eat t

3 St ui — 2ui—At + ui-2at
—
c 1
29 B &2 + \1 9 2 l St e26t u`

_3 _3
6 6 6
RHS= F(t) — p[ ste
l\J estz estZ ui + {-2 Ste + estZ}uL-~t

L--
e2 )
+{ 1-e
stz t-2t,t
(
ui )] — c[{ u +1
e2st + est + st —2 1-
este
—
_ 3 3
)} uL-at + 2~t1
(1St Z (BSt ui-

1-3 12 3c
:.RHS=

2
P ( -? -6p +2C + C 12 + _ 1 B_
est2 est St t { Stz P
3
C 1-i}ut-2M
BSt L
 QZ4 — 4u t — 4u[+it + of+i t ) + Cr1z4 + k + BSt
2 + 9 2 8t)
(15 — 6)p (15 — 20 — 20 2 )

95t2 + c 20 21 t ~ u[

+1+
(2e-12)p (2e+e2-6)c p t—At
estz 62& I 4
_At 3-6)p
( (3-28)c t-2At
f 65t2 + 2e=6t I ul
(3.25)

Now, substituting St = 0L t; (Wilson's 0 method)

EI (u
t+at 4tct+et - 4ut+at + ut+nt ) + (6EI + k + 6p + 3c_' ut+et
Az
1-2 [1- 1+1 i+2 Az 93~t 2 e30t [

1 (15-8)p (15-2B—_B_)c f (20-12)p

= e3At ~~ of + 2 ul +
+ (2e + 82 — 6)clu~-ot +
3 A )P + ( 3-2e)c
1f( I ut-2At
[ ] (3.26)

Putting 0 = 1.42 (for optimal accuracy);

(ui±Zt — 4ui+ot — 4u t+it + ui+z t) + +ot

~z Cdz4 + k + d ~ + fit) ul

ui -zot (3.27)
— Co p + zotl uL — Cop + zot~ uL -at + GAtl)
Equation (3.27) is applied to pile nodal points 1 to n-1 to give n-1 equations same as
applied in case of static analysis. Four further equations may be obtained from the
boundary conditions at the top and tip of the pile. The pile top (node `0') is assumed to
be fixed headed and pile tip (node `n') as floating tip and their boundary conditions are
also same as in static analysis. The governing equation after the application of boundary
conditions in matrix form is as given:

29
 + 5p + 3c ut _ 3P + ut—Qt
[A] U' +ot - F(t.) 1/Az
Ate tat i dtz 2dt

(11+1) x (11+1) (n+1) x 1 (n+l)xl (n+1)X1

(11+1)x1 ~' P 2Gt—eat

2Itz

(11+1) x 1
where,

a"z
(-7-) -8 2

1+(- -4. 1
-4 )

aaz4
1 -4 -4 1
C EI )

A=(4)
aLz4
1 - -4 1
(—E7) -4
a
0 1 -4 (LEI) -1 -2

0 0 2 -4 ( 4 -4

(n+l) Y (n+1)

= 6HI + k +
M2 + ot, and n is the number of nodes.
The formulation is then programmed in MATLAB to obtain the analysis results.

30
 CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 STATIC ANALYSIS

Analysis was carried out for a single floating pile with fixed head. Various parameters
considered for static analysis are listed below:

Length of the pile = lOm

Diameter of pile = 30cm

Coefficient of subgrade reaction = 20000 kN/m3

Elastic modulus of pile = 3 x 107 kN/m2

Applied lateral load = 100 kN

Displacement and bending moment response of the pile are presented in figures. 4.1 and
4.2.

Displacement(mm)
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 . 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

bA

Q —8

Figure 4.1 Variation of lateral displacement along pile length

31
 Bending Moment(kNm)
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

,.d

10

Figure 4.3 Variation of bending moment along depth of pile

4.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Program was developed in MATLAB to obtain the deflection response curves of pile
head for varying values of angular frequency. Dynamic analysis was carried out for a
single floating pile with fixed head. Displacement and bending moment response of the
pile subjected to dynamic load of varying frequency were studied. Time marching
scheme is used for analysis with a time step of 0.02s.

1. Analysis was carried out for four different diameters of pile:

a) 0.3m
b) 0.4m
c) 0.6m
d) 0.8m
2. Different stiffness of soil considered were:
a) 5000 kN/m3
b) 10000 kN/m3
c) 20000 kN/m3
d) 30000 kN/m3
e) 40000 kN/m3
f) 50000 kN/m3
g) 60000 kN/m3
h) 70000 kN/m3

32
Other parameters considered were:

.Elastic modulus of pile = 3 x 107 kN/m2

Damping coefficient = 5%

Critical Damping coefficient = 60000 Ns/m

Magnitude of applied force = 100 kN

Dynamic loading considered is harmonic: F(t) = 100 sin(cot)

4.2.1 Time-History Analysis for Different Angular Frequencies

Figs. 4.3 and 4.4 show the time history analysis, one at a lower angular frequency, and
other at a higher value of angular frequency.

Figure 4.3 Deflection response curve of pile head for angular frequency, co = 1 Hz

33
Figure 4.4 Deflection response curve of pile head for angular frequency, w = 30 Rz

It can be seen that the effect of viscous damping is more in case of higher angular
frequency.

4.2.2 Variation Of Deflection Response Curves Under Different Conditions of

Damping

Damping dissipates energy, causing the amplitude of free vibration to decay with time,
and limiting the amplitude of vibration produced by a loading whose frequency
coincides with the natural frequency. Damping can be inherent or deliberately added,
mostly to limit the peak response. Out of the different categories of damping, viscous
damping is the one that influence structural dynamics the most, which exerts force
proportional to the velocity. Energy dissipated per cycle is proportional to frequency
and to the square of amplitude. Viscous damping is supplied by surrounding gas or
liquid or by viscous dampers added to the system.

The study was extended to different values of damping: 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. All
these curves were plotted on same axis to observe the effect of viscous damping in the
dynamic response of the pile.

34
 ,5.

L
71.5

~
►
0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency(Hz)

Figure 4.5 Amplitude-frequency response curve for damping = 5%

camping

Figure 4.6 Amplitude-frequency response curves for different damping ratios

35
It is observed that the maximum amplitude of vibration decreases with increase in
excitation frequency. The plot is drawn for 5% damping.

While comparison of variation of amplitude with frequency is made for different

damping percentages, it is observed that in higher damping conditions maximum
amplitude is lower. But for higher frequencies of excitation, there is no substantial
effect.

4.2.3 Effect of Soil Stiffness on Displacement Response

Response of pile in varying soil stiffness was studied. Stiffness values were increased
from 5000 kN/m3 to 70000 kN/m3.

Table 4.1 Soil Modulus parameter, k for sands (after Reese et.al., 1974)

Loose Medium Dense

Relative Density
(kN/m3) (kN/m3). (kN/m3)

Submerged sand 5400 16300 33900

Sand above water

6800 24400 61000
table

36
 --
Maximum amplitude values are noted down for each value of soil stiffness and the
graph plotted was as follows:

2.5

E 1.5

E
E 1
ce
0.5 ----

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Soil stiffness(kN/m3)

Figure 4.7 Variation of maximum amplitude of pile head displacement with soil
stiffness
It is clearly observed that the maximum amplitude goes on decreasing with the increase
in soil stiffness as expected. The rate of decrease of amplitude is higher for smaller
values of soil stiffness.

4.2.4 Displacement and Bending Moment Analyses along the Depth of the Pile

The load was applied only on top of the pile. It is worthy to study the response pattern
of Iower nodes to a time dependent load applied only on top. The variation of lateral
displacements and bending moments along the depth of the pile was obtained and are
presented in figures 4.8 and 4.9.

37
 Pile Displacement(mm)
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

.EEE
r.

10

Figure 4.8 Variation of lateral displacement along depth of the pile for ca=1OHz in
cohesive soils

Maximum moment(kN-m)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0

~p 3

b5

A 8

10

Figure 4.9 Variation of maximum bending moment along the depth of pile for
co=1OIHz in cohesive soils

C .,
4.2.5 Analysis for Cohesionless Soils

The analysis of pile behaviour using subgrade reaction approach requires knowledge of
the variation of kh along the pile. Several distributions of kh have been employed, the
most widely used being that developed by Palmer and Thompson (1948), which is of
the form

kh = kL(),

where,

kL = value of kh at the pile tip (z=L)

n = an empirical index equal to or greater than zero

The most common assumptions are that n = 0 for clay, that is, that the modulus is
constant with depth, and that n = I for granular soils, that is, that the modulus increases
linearly with depth. For cohesionless soils,

kh=f7hx,
where rjh= subgrade modulus

Table 4.2 Range of Subgrade Moduli, tl h (after Terzaghi, 1955)

11h(kN/m3 )

Dry Soil Submerged Soil

Loose Sand Medium Sand Dense Sand Loose Sand Medium Sand Dense Sand
2600 7700 20000 1500 5200 12500

Value of subgrade modulus adopted = 7700 (from table 4.2)

Based on this assumption, analyses were carried out for cohesionless soils also, with the
value of subgrade modulus of soil increasing linearly with depth.
4.2.6 Displacement and Bending Moment Analyses along the Depth of the Pile for
Cohesionless Soils

Pile Displacement(mm)
-0.5 0 0.5 1 L5 2 2.5

is

bD 5

ca

Cs.

Figure 4.10 Variation of lateral displacement along depth of the pile (w=10Hz) in
cohesionless soils
It can be seen that the displacements at shallow depths are slightly more than that of
clayey soils which is explained by the lower values of soil modulus at those depths for
granular soils. Even then, the displacement pattern is similar to that of clayey soils only.

• Maximum moment(kN-m)
—2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

i i

C
ti

10

Figure 4.11 Variation of maximum bending moment along the depth of pile
(w=10Hz) in cohesionless soils
It is found out that the pile in granular soil is subjected to higher bending moments at
shallow depths when compared to clayey soils.

4.2.7 Effect of Pile Diameter on the Lateral Response of Pile

a) Cohesive soils

Diameter of the pile is varied and its effect on the lateral response of pile is observed.
Analysis is carried out for four different pile diameters; 0.3m, 0.4m, 0.6m, and 0.8m.

Figure 4.12 Effect of diameter on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile in

clayey soils
As the diameter increases, the amplitude of displacement of the pile goes on decreasing.
This is due to the increased stiffness for a larger diameter pile, also as diameter
increases more soil gets mobilised and hence higher lateral resistance is achieved.

41
b) cohesionless soils

3.5

,^ 3

E
2.5
—0.3m
dia
2
—0.4m
dia

1.5 ------ —
dia
0.8m
~
~
1 dia

0.5

0 T
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency(Hz)

Figure 4.13 Effect of diameter on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile in

cohesionless soils
The effect of diameter is more evident at lower loading frequencies.

42


4.2.8 Effect of Pile Length on the Lateral Response of Pile

Variation of pile length is expected to have an effect on the lateral response of the pile.
Therefore analysis was made for different lengths of pile also. The three values
considered for pile length are: 3m, 5m and 7.5m.

Given below is the maximum displacement versus frequency plots drawn for these three
values of length.

a) Cohesive soils

2.3

, 2.1
E
E 1.9

E 1.7

y 1.5
—3m
= 1.3 —7.5m
V

1.1
E
0.9

0.7

0.5 - ~~
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Frequency(Hz)

Figure 4.14 Effect of pile length on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile in

cohesive soils
An increase in length of the pile results in an increase in fixity and hence the deflections
are bound to decrease.

43


b) Cohesionless soils

3.1

2.9

2.7
E
2.5

2.3
ca
2.1

1.9 —3m
= 1.7 —7.5m

•
a 1.5
E 1.3
se 1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Frequency(Hz)

Figure 4.15 Effect of pile length on amplitude-frequency response curves of pile in

cohesionless soils

Considerable change in displacement pattern was not observed for the change in length.
The 3m pile has slightly more amplitude at lower frequencies. In fact, the response
curves for 5m and 7.5m pile lengths did not show any variation. Also, after a particular
value of frequency the pile length was seen to effect no change in the displacement
response of the pile, irrespective of the type of the soil.
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions drawn from the study are:

1. The amplitude of first peak of vibration in the deflection response curve of the pile is
greater than that of subsequent peaks. Amplitude becomes more or less constant after
a few vibrations. This is explained by the existence of transient state and steady state
vibrations. The change is more evident for higher angular frequencies.
2. More the angular frequency of the external load; less is the amplitude of vibration.
This is because the direction of force is reversed in much shorter time when the
angular frequency is high, so that the particle has lesser time to attain peak.
3. The amplitude of vibration is seen to decrease with the increase in frequency of
applied load. But this decline is not continuous. After reaching a minimum it starts
increasing at a higher frequency. The response when observed for much higher
values of frequencies is seen to follow a periodic variation.
4. Amplitude of vibration is inversely proportional to the soil stiffness as expected. The
rate of decline is higher for smaller values of stiffness.
5. Dynamic response of piles depends on the excitation frequency and properties of
both soil and pile.
6. As the diameter of the pile increases, the maximum dynamic deflection decreases.
This is due to the higher stiffness of larger diameter pile. Also as diameter increases
more soil gets mobilised and hence higher lateral resistance is achieved. The change
is more evident for smaller values of excitation frequencies.
7. The effect of diameter on the lateral response of pile is more in granular soils.
8. Laterally loaded piles installed in granular soils are subjected to more lateral
displacement and bending moment at shallow depths as compared to those installed
in cohesive soils. This is due to the reduced soil stiffness at shallow depths in
granular soils.

45
SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

Due to time constraint some of the situations close to realistic modelling have been
neglected. They are:
1. Non-homogeneity of soil is not considered.
2. Load is assumed to be acting only at the top of the pile. But this assumption does
not hold good always as in case of earthquakes.
3. There will be some slippage or separation at the interface of the pile and the
surrounding soil which is not taken care of in this study.
4. Effect of axial loading on the lateral response of pile is not analysed.
All the missing points in the present study give potential scope of future work.

46
 REFERENCES

1. Abbas, J,M., Chik, Z,H., Taha, M,R., Shafiqu Q,S,M., (2009). "Analysis of
Time Dependant Laterally Loaded Pile Clay". EJGE Vol. 14, 1-10.

2. Alizadeh,M., and Davisson,M,T., (1970). "Lateral Load Test on Piles Arkansas

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

3. Barber, E,S. (1953)."Discussion to Paper by S. M. Gleser. " ASTM, STP 154,

94-101.
4. Basu, D., (2006). "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Layered Soil."
Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
5. Blaney, G,W., and O'Neill, M,W, (1986). "Measured Lateral Response of Mass
on Single Pile in Clay." J. Geotechnical.Engineering., ASCE, 114(11), 1326-
1342.
6. Broms, B, B. (1964a)."Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive soils." J. Soil
Mech. and Found.Div., ASCE,90, No. SM2, 27-63.
7. Carter, D,P., (1984). "A Non-Linear Soil Model for Predicting Lateral Pile
Response." Rep. No.,359, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ.of Auckland,
Auckland, Newzealand.
8. Cho, K,H., Clark, S,C., Keaney, B,D., and Borden, R,H., (2001). "Laterally
Loaded Drilled Shafts Embedded in Soft Rock." Transportation Research
Record 1772, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 3-11.
9. Chopra, A.K., "Dynamics of Structures", Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
10. Clough, R, W., and Penzine, J. (1995). "Dynamics of Structures", Computers
and Structures, Inc. University Ave, Berkley, USA.
11. Das, Y,C., and Sargand, S.M. (1999). "Forced Vibrations of Laterally Loaded
Piles. " International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 4975-4989.
12. El-Naggar, M, H.,and Novak, M. (1994). "Non-Linear Model for Dynamic
Axial Pile Response." J. Geotechnical Engineering., ASCE, 120 (2), 308-329.
13. Harikumar, A., Dodagoudar, G,R., and Quadri S,S., (2005). "Response Analysis
of Laterally Loaded Piles Using Non-Linear p y Curves". IGC-2005, 55-58.
14. Hetenyi, (1946). "Beams on Elastic Foundation". University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
15. Kumar, S., (1993). "Non-Linear Load-Deflection Prediction of Single Piles in
Sand, Using A Subgrade Reaction Approach." MS thesis, Univ. of Missouri.,
Rolla, Rolla,Mo.
16. Levy, H, N., Einav, I., and Randolph, M, F. (2007). "Effect of Recent Load
History on Laterally Loaded Piles in Normally Consolidated Clay."
International Journal of Geomechanics., ASCE, 7(4), 277-286.
17.Liang, R,Y., (2002). "Drilled Shaft Foundations for Noise Barrier Walls and
Slope Stabilization. " Final Rep. No. FHWA/OH-2002/038, Ohio Dept. of
Transportation, Ohio.
18. Ling, L, F. (1988). "Back Analysis of Lateral Load Tests on Piles." Report
No.460, Civil Engineering Department., Univ. of Auckland.
19. Liyanapathirana, D,S. and Poulos H.G. (2005a). "Seismic Lateral Response of
Piles in Liquefying Soil." J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 131, 1466-1479.
20. MATLAB (2004). "Programming, Version 7", The Math Works, Inc.
21. Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft
Clay. " Proc. 2"d Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Texas, 1, 577-594.
22. Matlock, H., and Reese, L,C, (1960). "Generalized Solutions for Laterally
Loaded Piles." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 86(5), 63-91.
23. Mwindo, J,M., (1992). "Strain Dependent Soil Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade
Reaction." Unpublished MS thesis, Univ. of Missouri., Rolla, Rolla,Mo.
24. Phanikanth, V, S., Choudhury, D., and Reddy, G, R. (2010). "Behaviour of
Fixed Head Single Pile in Cohesionless Soil under Lateral Loads. " EJGE Vol.
15, 1243-1262.
25. Poulos, H,G. (1971). "Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles-I.• Single Piles." J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div.., ASCE, 97(5), 771-731.
26. Prakash, S., and Kumar, S (1996). "Nonlinear Lateral Pile Deflection
Prediction in Sands". J. Geotechnical Engineering., ASCE, 122 (2), 130-138.
27. Prakash, S., and Sharma, H,D, (1990). "Analysis and Design of Pile
Foundations under Lateral Loads." Pile foundation in engineering practice.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York., 322-472.
28. Reese ,L,C., and Welch, R,C., (1975). "Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations
in Stiff Clay." J. Geotechnical Engineering., ASCE, 101(GT7), 633-649.

J
29. Reese, L,C., Cox, W,R., and Koop, W,D, (1974). "Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Sand." Proc., 6th OTC Paper No.2080, Offshore Technol.
Conf., Houston, Tex., 473-482.
30. Reese, L,C., and Matlock, H. (1956). "Non-Dimensional Solutions for Laterally
Loaded Piles with Soil Modulus assumed Proportional to Depth. " Proc. 8th
Texas Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engineering., Austin, Texas, 1-41.
31. Shen, W,Y., and Teh, C,I., (2004). "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soil
with Stiffness Increasing with Depth." J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE,130(8), 878-882.
32. Sogge, R,L. (1981). "Laterally Loaded Pile Design." J.
Geotechnical.Engineering., ASCE, 107(11), No.GT9, 1179-1199.
33. Sun, K., (1994a). "Laterally Loaded Piles in Elastic Media." J. Geotechnical
Engineering., ASCE, 120(8), 1324-1344.
34. Vesic, A,S. (1961). "Beam on Elastic Subgrade and the Winkler
Hypothesis. 'Proc.5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engineering., Paris, Vol.
1, 845-850.
35. Vlasov, V. Z., and Leont'ev, N,N. (1966). "Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic
Foundations." Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
36. Yang, K (2006). "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in Rock."
Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Univ. of Akron, Akron, Ohio.
37. Yang, K., and Liang, R., (2006). "Numerical Solution for Laterally Loaded
Piles in a Two-Layer Soil Profile". J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering., ASCE, 132(11), 1436-1441.
 APPENDIX. 1

Some of the programs developed in MATLAB for the analysis are given here:

1. Program for time-history analysis of pile

t=0;
dt=0.02;
dia=0.3;
I=(pi/64)*dia^4;
E=3* 10"7;
EI=(E)*(I);
dz=1/3;
k=2*10^4;
p=1.4;
c=0.05 *60000;
a=6 * EI/(dz^4)+k+2 * p/(dt^2)+c/dt;
u t=zeros(31,1);
u tminusdt=zeros(31,1);
u tminus2dt=zeros(31,1);
for i=1:1:1001;
t=(i-1)*dt;
load=[1/dz;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
f t=100*sin(10*t);
RHS=f t*(load)+(4.7*p/((dt)^2)+1.4*c/dt)*(u t)-
(3.2*p/((dt)^2)+0.4 *c/dt)* (utinusdt)
+(0.5*p/((dt)^2))*(u tminus2dt);
b=(EI/(dz^4))*[a/(EI/(dz^4))-820000000000000000000000000000
-4 1+a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000000000
1 -4a/(E1/(dz^4))-4 1 00000000000 000000000000000
01 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000.00 000000000000000
001-4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000.0000000000000000000
0001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000 000000000000000
00001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-410000000000000000000000
000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000 000000000000000
0000001 -4a/(EU(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000
00000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000 000000000000000
000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000 000000000000000
0000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00 000000000000000
00000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 10000000000000000
000000000001 -4a/(E1/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000
0000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 100000000000000
00000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000

50
000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4)) -4 1000000000000
0000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000
00000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000
000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000
0000000000000000001 -4a/(EIf(dz^4))-41 00000000
00000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000
000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000
0000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000
00000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000
000000000000000000000001 -4a1(EI/(dz^4))-41 000
0000000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00
00000000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0
000000000000000000000000001-4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41
0000000000000000000000000001 -4(a/(EI/dz^4))-1 -2
00000000000000000000000000002-4(a/(EI/dz^4))-4];
u tplusdt=inv(b)*RHS;
u(i,1)=u_tplusdt(1,1);
u tminus2dt=u tminusdt;
u tminusdt=u t;
u t=u tplusdt;
end;
disp(u);

2. Program for amplitude-frequency response of 0.3m diameter pile

t=0;
dt=0.02;
dia=0.3;
I=(pi/64)*dia^4;
E=3* 10^7;
EI=(E)* (I);
dz=1/3;
k=2*10^4;
p=1.4;
c=0.05 * 60000;
a=6 * EI/(dz^4)+k+2 * p/(dt^2)+c/dt;
u t=zeros(31,1);
u tminusdt=zeros(31,1);
u tminus2dt=zeros(31,1);
for x=1:1:160;
for i=1:1:1001;
t=(i-1)*dt;
load=[1/dz;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
f t=100*sin(x*t);
51
 RHS=f t*(load)+(4.7*p/((dt)^2)+1.4*c/dt)*(u t)-
(3.2*p/((dt)^2)+0.4*c/dt)*(u tminusdt)
+(0.5 *p/((dt)^2))*(u_tminus2dt);
b=(EI/(dz^4))*[a/(EI/(dz^4))-8200000000000000000000000000
00
-4 1+a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000000000
1 -4a/(E1J(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000000000
01 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000000000000
001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1 00000000000 000000000000 0
0001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000000
00001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000000000
000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000
000000 1-4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000
00000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000000
000000001 -4a/(E1/(dz^4))-4 1000000000000000000
0000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000 00000
00000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000
000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000
0000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000
00000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000
000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000
0000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4100000000000
00000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000
00000000.0000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1000000000
0000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000
00000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 10000000
000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1000000
0000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-4 100000
00000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000
000000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000
0000000000000000000000001 -4a/(E1/(dz^4))-41 00
0 0000000000000000000000001 -4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0
00 0 0 00000000000000000000001-.4a/(EI/(dz^4))-41
0000000000000000000000000001 -4(a/(EI/dz^4))-1 -2
000000 00000000000000000000002-4(a/(EI/dz^4))-4];
u tplusdt=inv(b)*RHS;
v(i,1)=u tplusdt(1,1);
u tminus2dt=u tminusdt;
u tminusdt=u t;
u t=u tplusdt;
end;
m=max(v);
s(x, 1)=m;
end;
52
disp(x);
disp(s);

3. Program for finding the variation of bending moment along the depth of the
pile in cohesionless soil

t=0;
dt=0.02;
dia=0.3;
I=(pi/64)* dia^4;
E=3 * 10^7;
EI=(E)*(I);
dz=1 /3;
g0:1/3:10;
k=[g*7700]';
p=1.4;
c=0.05 * 60000;
a=6 * EI/(dz^4)+k+2 * p/(dt^2)+c/dt;
u_t=zeros(31,1);
u tminusdt=zeros(31,1);
u tminus2dt=zeros(31,1);
for i=1:1:1001;
t=(i-1)*dt;
load=[1/dz;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0];
f t=100*sin(10*t);
RHS=ft* (1oad)+(4.7*p/((dt)^2)+1.4*c/dt) * (ut)
(3.2*p/((dt)^2)+0.4*c/dt)*(u tminusdt) +(0.5*p/((dt)^2))*(u tminus2dt);
b=(EI/(dz^4))*[a(1,1)/(EI/(dz^4)) -8 2 0 0 0 00000000000000000000
00000
-4 1+a(2,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000000000
1 -4a(3,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000 00000000000000000
01 -4a(4,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1 00000000 00000000000000000
001 -4a(5,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000000
0001 -4a(6,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000000
00001 -4a(7,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000000000
000001 -4a(8,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000000
000000 1 -4a(9,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000000000
00000001 -4a(10,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 10000000000000000000
000000001 -4a(I1,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000000
0000000001 -4a(12,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 100000000000000000

53
00000000001 -4a(13,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000000
000000000001 -4a(14,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000000000
00000000000.01 -4a(15,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000000
00000000000001 -4a(16,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000000
000000000000001 -4a(17,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1 000000000000
0000000000000001 -4a(18,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000000000
00000000000000001 -4a(19,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000000000
000000000000000001 -4a(20,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000000
000000000000000000 1 -4a(21,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 1 00000000
00000000000000000001 -4a(22,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-4 10000000
000000000000000000001 -4a(23,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 000000
0000000000000000000001 -4a(24,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00000 .
00000000000000000000001 -4a(25,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0000
000000000000000000000001 -4a(26,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41000
000000000000000000000000 1.-4a(27,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 00
00000000000000000000000001 -4a(28,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41 0
000000000000000000000000001 -4a(29,1)/(EI/(dz^4))-41
0000000000000000000000000001 -4(a(30,1)/(EI/dz^4))-1 -2
00000000000000000000000000002-4(a(31,1)/(EI/dz^4))-4];
u tplusdt=inv(b)*RHS;
for p=1:1:29;
u_n=u tplusdt(p,1);
u nplusdz=u tplusdt(p+1,1);
u nplus2dz=u tplusdt(p+2, 1);
m=((u n)-2*(u nplusdz)+(u_nplus2dz))/(dz)^2;
moment(p, l)=(EI) *m;
end;
for q=30:1:31;
u n=u tplusdt(q,1);
u nminusdz=u tplusdt(q-1,1);
u nminus2dz=u tplusdt(q-2,1);
m=((u n)-2*(u nminusdz)+(u_nminus2dz))/(dz)^2;
moment(q, l)=(EI) *m;
end;
moment 0(i,1)=moment(1,1);
moment_1(i,1)=moment(2,1);
moment 2(i,1)=moment(3,1);
moment_3(i, 1)=moment(4, 1);
54
moment_4(i,1)=moment(5,1);
moment_5(i, 1 )=moment(6, 1);
mo ment_6(i,1)=moment(7,1);
moment_7(i, 1)=moment(8, 1);
moment-8(i,1)=moment(9,1);
moment_9(i,1)=moment(10,1);
moment-1 O(i,1)=moment(11,1);
moment_11(i,1)=moment(12,1);
moment_I 2(i, 1)=moment( 13, 1);
moment 13 (i,1)=moment(14,1);
moment_14(i,1)=moment(15,1);
moment_15(i,1)=moment(16,1);
moment_16(i,1)=moment(17,1);
moment_17(i,1)=moment(18,1);
moment 18(i,1)=moment(19,1);
moment_19(i,1)=moment(20,1);
moment_20(i, 1 )=moment(2 1,1);
moment-21(1,1)=moment(22,1);
moment_22(i, l)=moment(23,1);
moment_23 (i, 1 )=moment(24, 1);
moment 24(1,1)=moment(25,1);
moment 25 (i, 1 )=moment(26,1);
moment 26(i,1)=moment(27,1);
moment_27(i,1)=moment(28,1);
moment 28(i,1)=moment(29,1);
moment_29(i, l)=moment(30,1);
moment_30(i,1)=moment(31,1);
max-moment_0=max(mo ment_0);
max moment_1=max(moment 1);
max moment 2=max(moment 2);
max moment 3=max(moment 3);
max moment 4=max(moment 4);
max_mo ment_5=max(mo ment_5 );
max_moment_6=max(moment 6);
m ax_mo me nt_7=max(m o m e nt_7 );
max_mo ment_8=max(moment_8);
max_moment_9=max(moment_9);
max-moment-10=max(moment 1 0);
max_moment_I 1 =max(moment_1 1);
max_moment_12=max(mo ment_12);
max_moment_ 13=max(mo ment_1 3 );
max_mo me nt_ 14=m ax(mo ment_ 14);
max_mo ment_ 15=max(mo ment_ 15);
max moment_16=max(moment_16);
55
max moment_17=max(moment_17);
max moment_I8=max(moment_I8);
max moment I 9=max(moment 19);
max moment 20=max(moment 20);
max moment 21=max(moment 21);
max moment 22=max(moment 22);
max moment 23=max(moment_23);
max moment 24=max(moment 24);
max moment 25=max(moment 25);
max moment 26=max(moment 26);
max moment 27=max(moment 27);
max moment 28=max(moment 28);
max moment 29=max(moment 29);
max moment_30=max(moment 30);
u tminus2dt=u tminusdt;
u tminusdt=u_t;
u t=u tplusdt;
end;
disp(max_moment_0);
disp(max_moment_1);
disp(max moment 2);
disp(max_moment_3);
disp(max_moment 4);
disp(max moment 5);
disp(max_moment 6);
disp(max_moment_7);
disp(max moment_8);
disp(max moment_9);
disp(max moment_10);
disp(max moment 11);
disp(max_moment_12);
disp(max_moment_13 );
disp(max moment 14);
disp(max_moment 15);
disp(max_m o ment_ 16);
disp(max_moment 17);
disp(max moment` _18);
disp(max moment 19);
disp(max_mo ment_20);
disp(max_moment 21);
disp(max_moment 22);
disp(max_moment 23);
disp(max_moment 24);
disp(max_moment 25);
56
 APPENDIX. 2
Trial and error adopted to find out the point of convergence

Analyses were carried out for the static loading case with the pile being divided
into: 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 members of elements to determine the point of
convergence. The results obtained are as shown below:

Figure A. Variation of displacement along depth of pile

Figure B. Variation of beading moment along depth

58