a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 July 2010
Received in revised form 8 October 2010
Accepted 10 December 2010
Available online 7 January 2011
Keywords:
Lateral load transfer method
py curve
Three-dimensional nite element analysis
Soil continuity
Soil resistance
Soilpile interaction
a b s t r a c t
The load distribution and deection of large diameter piles are investigated by lateral load transfer
method (py curve). Special attention is given to the soil continuity and soil resistance using threedimensional nite element analysis. A framework for determining a py curve is calculated based on
the surrounding soil stress. The appropriate parametric studies needed for verifying the py characteristic
are presented in this paper. Through comparisons with results of eld load tests, the three-dimensional
numerical methodology in the present study is in good agreement with the general trend observed by
in situ measurements and thus, represents a realistic soilpile interaction for laterally loaded piles in clay
than that of existing py method. It can be said that a rigorous numerical analysis can overcome the limitations of existing py methods to some extent by considering the effect of realistic three-dimensional
combination of pilesoil forces.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In South Korea, a number of large projects involving land reclamation for an international airport, high-speed railway and harbor
construction are being undertaken in both urban and coastal settings. Drilled shafts are used in these projects as a viable replacement for driven piles for two applications: deepwater offshore
foundations and foundations in urban areas where there are noise
and vibration issues associated with pile driving. Recently, the
large diameter pile and drilled shaft (1.0 m greater in diameter)
have been used as foundations for a long span bridge and a highrise building subjected to high winds and the need to resist large
lateral loads. Though axial loading is a major consideration in
designing such structures, large lateral loads necessitate the use
of large diameter piles.
Lateral force-resistance in a large diameter pile is complex and
derived from three-dimensional processes [6]. These processes include: (1) passive lateral soil resistance along the leading face of
the pile, and (2) shearing along the toe of the shaft and around
the shaft perimeter. In addition, axial forces can affect the lateral
behavior. A thorough analysis of such a force system requires
sophisticated three-dimensional numerical methods.
Much work has been done on a laterally loaded pile by many
researchers. Several empirical and numerical methods have been
proposed for analyzing the load-deformation behavior of piles subjected to a lateral load. However, the lateral load-transfer curve
method, often referred to as the py curve method, has been the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2807; fax: +82 2 364 5300.
E-mail address: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.12.001
249
mesh is xed against displacements. The pile and soil are modeled
with nite elements, which allow for rigorous treatment of soil
structure interaction. Here, the analysis of a laterally loaded pile
in clay is conducted under undrained conditions.
2.2. Material parameters and interface modeling
The pile is considered as linear-elastic material at all times,
while for the surrounding soil layer the MohrCoulomb non-associated ow rule is adopted. The interface element modeled by the
bilinear MohrCoulomb model is employed to simulate the pile
soil interface. The interface element is treated as a zone of virtual
thickness. It behaves as an element with the same material properties as the adjacent soil elements before slip occur. A decreased value of shear modulus is assigned to the interface element when a
slip mode occurs in the interface element. The decrease of strength
for the interface element is represented by a strength reduction
factor Rinter in PLAXIS. The interface properties are calculated from
following equation:
where cinter and /inter are the cohesion and friction angle of the
interface, and csoil and /soil are the cohesion and friction angle of
the soil mass.
In numerical analysis, the initial equilibrium state is of great
importance. The specied initial stress distributions should match
with a calculation based on the self-weight of the material. After
the initial step, the applied loading was simulated by the application of a lateral load at the top of the pile. The modeling of the pile
installation process is rather complicated, so that pile is assumed
Applied Load
Pile
Siltyclay
Residual soil
Weathered rock
0.7L
Soft rock
11D
Fig. 1. Typical 3D model for FE analysis: (a) 3D view; (b) plan view.
250
The soil resistance for a pile subjected to lateral loads is computed directly by integrating the stresses in the soil elements
around the circumference of the pile. Fan and Long [8] have reported that using soil element around the pile is an effective way
to predict the lateral soil resistance (p). Based on this concept,
the stresses in the soil elements at the Gauss points closest to
the pile are taken as the soil stresses between the pile and soil. A
cross-section of a pilesoil system with a lateral load applied in
the x-direction is shown in Fig. 2. The closest Gauss points to the
pile in the soil elements are on the dashed circumference. The soil
resistance per unit length along the pile is the x-component of the
total stress acting on the dashed circumference. The x-component
stresses at a point in a soil element can be represented by a traction vector, Tx, as follows:
where nx, ny, and nz are the components of the unit normal along the
x-, y-, and z-direction at the gauss point, respectively. The component ny is zero because the unit normal is along horizontal plane.
To calculate the total soil resistance px per unit length along the pile,
the soil resistance is integrated over the dashed circumference, and
px is expressed as:
px
T x dL
G(xg, yg)
z
z
x
y
Pile
Interface
Stress Point
Fig. 2. Cross-section of a pilesoil system in the horizontal-direction.
251
cu (kPa)
N value
0
10
20
30
40
50
40
Wn (%)
20
30
Liquidity Index, LI
40
50
-2
-1
20
30
W 107
W 108
W 117
E 36
E 39
Wn
LL
PL
40
Fig. 3. Results from eld and laboratory test.
INCLNOMETER
PROBE
INCLNOMETER
TUBE
STRAIN
GAUGE
Upper
Marine Clay
Lower
Marine Clay
10 spaces at 2.0m=20.0m
Depth (m)
10
6.3 m
16.5 m
Silty Clay
STRAIN GAUGE
Upper
Marine Clay
13.7 m
Lower
Marine Clay
18.2 m
Silty Clay
20.5 m
22.0 m
Residual Soil
24.0 m
26.6 m
Residual Soil
Weathered Rock
30.0 m
Steel pile
1.0m
Weathered Rock
37.5 m
Soft Rock
44.3 m
Drilled Shaft
2.4m
Fig. 4. Test pile and soil stratigraphy: (a) steel pile; (b) drilled shaft.
252
Table 1
Material parameters used for this study (Incheon Bridge site).
Type
Model
Pile
Steel pile
Drilled shaft
Upper clay
Lower clay
Silty clay
Residual soil
Weathered rock
Soft rock
Soil
Rock
a
Elastic
M.C.
py curve
ONeill, Matlock
Reese py curve
Elastic
csat (kN/m3)
cua (kPa)
ls
E (MPa)
e50
Rinter
78.0
25.0
17.5
17.5
17.8
18.0
20.2
20.5
34
1530
3050
70
0.20
0.20
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.25
0.25
200,000
36,400
315
1525
27
35
110
200
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.50
0.50
0.65
0.70
Note: M.C. is MohrCoulomb model. cu is linear increment as shown in Fig. 4. Dilatancy angle (w) used 0.01 value in clay soil.
50
100
150
12
16
5
200
5
-5
0
Depth (m)
-10
Depth (m)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-15
Lateral Load
425kN, 765kN
-35
-20
Lateral Load
200kN, 600kN
Measured
3D FEM
Existing (O'Neill)
Existing (Matlock)
-25
-45
-30
1000
2000
3000
Measured
3D FEM
Existing (Reese)
Existing (Matlock)
-40
2000
4000
6000
4000
0
-5
-10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-15
-30
-20
-35
Lateral Load
200kN, 600kN
-25
-30
Measured
3D FEM
Existing (O'Neill)
Existing (Matlock)
-40
Lateral Load
425kN, 765kN
Measured
3D FEM
Existing (Reese)
Existing (Matlock)
-45
253
in Fig. 4. The lateral load was applied at a point 0.5 m above the
ground surface. The steel piles (LTP-1, LTP-2 and LTP-3) had an outer diameter of 1.016 m and a wall thickness of 16 mm. Each pile
was driven (using an oil pressure hammer) such that 1.0 m of the
pile remained above the ground surface. The nal depth of the driven piles was recorded as 25.6 m. The drilled shafts (LTP-4, LTP-5,
LTP-6) had a 2.4 m diameter, 45.0 m embedment length, and was
9.1 m above the ground surface. Excavation was performed by
the reverse circulation drilling (RCD) method. The reinforcing cage
consisted of 34 D41 longitudinal bars (41 mm) with a D19 (19 mm)
transverse spiral at an 11 cm pitch for the pile length. Normalweight ready-mix concrete was used to construct the shaft-column, with a target compressive strength of 30 MPa. For the lateral
load test, the load was increased substantially up and down for
60 min at each load level. This procedure was repeated until the
anticipated design load was reached and a total of seven load
increments were applied.
d M
where p is net soil resistance per unit length of a pile; M is the bending moment at depth z. The lateral pile displacement (y) along the
200
120
80
40
60
40
20
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
(a) 2D depth
(a) 2D depth
0.01
100
200
Measured
Pred. 3D FEM
Pred. O'Neill
Pred. Matlock
120
80
60
40
40
20
0.02
Measured
Pred. 3D FEM
Pred. Reese
Pred. O'Neill
80
160
Measured
Pred. 3D FEM
Pred. Reese
Pred. O'Neill
80
100
Measured
Pred. 3D FEM
Pred. O'Neill
Pred. Matlock
160
dz
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.002
0.004
(b) 4D depth
(b) 4D depth
0.006
254
Table 2
Summary of material properties (parametric studies).
Type
Model
L (m)
D (m)
Ip (m4)
E (MPa)
Pile
Elastic
M.C.
Elastic
25
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.049
0.785
3.976
2600
26,000
260,000
315
8000
Clay
Rock
ls
csat (kN/m3)
cu (kPa)
W ()
0.2
23
0.49
0.25
17.5
20.2
1525
0.01
Lateral Load
1.0m
1.0m
Clay
6.0m
7.0m
Clay or Rock
Clay
1.0m
2.0m
23.0m
24.0m
Clay or Rock
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
3.0m
255
4. Parametric study
the Broms criterion is applied to the piles in clay. The value of pile
characteristic (b) can be assessed from the following equation:
s
4 K av e
b
4Ep Ip
F.E.M.: Depth=2.0m
F.E.M.: Depth=4.0m
500
Rigid Pile,
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Rigid Pile,
400
300
200
100
4
0
25000
F.E.M.: Depth=2.0m
F.E.M.: Depth=4.0m
160
20000
25000
15000
10000
5000
120
80
Depth : 2.0m
6
Ep : 2.65E kPa
7
Ep : 2.65E kPa
8
Ep : 2.65E kPa
40
Depth: 4.0m
6
Ep : 2.65E kPa
7
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Ep : 2.65E kPa
Ep : 2.65E kPa
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
400
256
300
200
100
Embedded in clay
Embedded in rock
D=1.0m
D=2.0m
D=3.0m
D=1.0m
D=3.0m
D=3.0m
0
As mentioned above, the interface between pile and soil was
modeled by a surface based interface technique in the PLAXIS 3D
Foundation software. The strength reduction factor (Rinter) of the
interface is the main controlling parameter of the soilpile
interface. The relationship between initial modulus of subgrade
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
12000
8000
4000
300
200
100
Embedded in clay
Embedded in rock
D=1.0m
D=2.0m
D=3.0m
D=1.0m
D=3.0m
D=3.0m
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.5
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the grant (10CCTI-A052531-03000000) from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime of Korean government through the Core Research Institute.
257
References
[1] Ashford Scott A, Teerawut Juirnarongrit. Evaluation of pile diameter effect on
initial modulus of subgrade reaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(3):
23442.
[2] Ashour M, Norris G. Modelling lateral soilpile response based on soilpile
interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2000;126(5):4208.
[3] Briaud JL. SALLOP: simple approach for lateral loads on piles. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1997;123(10):95864.
[4] Broms B. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesiveness soils. J Soil Mech Found Div,
ASCE 1964;90(4):2763.
[5] Carter DP. A nonlinear soil model for predicting lateral pile response. Rep. No.
359, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand; 1984.
[6] Chen Y, Kulhawy F. Case history evaluation of the behavior of drilled shafts
under axial and lateral loading. EPRI TR-104601s, Cornell University, Ithaca;
1994.
[7] Chik Z, Abbas J, Taha M, Shaqu QSM. Lateral behavior of single pile in
cohesionless soil subjected to both vertical and horizontal loads. Eur J Sci Res
2009;29(2):194205.
[8] Fan CC, Long JH. Assessment of existing methods for predicting soil response of
laterally loaded piles in sand. Comput Geotech 2005;32:27489.
[9] Guo WD. Subgrade modulus for laterally loaded piles. In: Proceedings of the
eighth international conference on civil and structural engineering computing,
Vienna, Austria; 2001.
[10] Jeong SS, Kim YH, Kim JH, Shin SH. Cyclic lateral load tests of offshore large
diameter piles of Incheon Bridge in marine clay. In: Proceedings of the 17th
ISOPE conference, Lisbon, Portugal; 2007. p. 135361.
[11] Jeremic B, Yang Z. Numerical analysis of pile behavior under lateral loads in
layered elasticplastic soils. Int J for Num Anal Methods n Geomech
2002;26:1385406.
[12] Kim YH, Jeong SS, Won JO. Effect of lateral rigidity of offshore piles using
proposed py curves in marine clay. J Marine Georesour Geotechnol
2009;27(1):5377.
[13] Lam I. Diameter effects on py curves. Deep marine foundations, a perspective
on the design and construction of deep marine foundations 2009:2742.
[14] Liang R, Shatnawi ES, Nusairat J. Hyperbolic py criterion for cohesive soils.
Jordan J Civil Eng 2007;1(1):3858.
[15] Matlock H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in clay. Paper No.
OTC 1204. In: Proceedings of second annual offshore technology conference,
Houston, TX, vol. 1; 1970. p. 57794.
[16] ONeill MW, Gazioglu SM. Evaluation of py relationships in cohesive soils.
Proc Anal Design Pile Found, ASCE Geotech Eng Div 1984:192213.
[17] PLAXIS 3D Foundation. PLAXIS 3D foundation user manual, version 2.0.
Brinkgreve, R.B., Swolfs, W.M., PLAXIS Inc.; 2008.
[18] Randolph MF. The response of exible piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique
1981;31(2):24759.
[19] Reese LC, Welch RC. Lateral loading of deep foundations in stiff clay. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1975;101(7):63349.
[20] Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD. Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded piles
in stiff clay. In: Proceedings, offshore technology conference, Houston, TX,
Paper No. 2312; 1975. p. 67190.
[21] Shatnawi ES. Development of py criterion for anisotropic rock and cohesive
intermediate geomaterials. PhD thesis, University of Akron, Ohio; 2008.
[22] Taha MR, Abbas JM, Shaqu QSM, Chik ZH. The performance of laterally loaded
single pile embedded in cohesionless soil with different water level elevation. J
Appl Sci 2009;9:90916.
[23] Terzaghi K. Evaluation of coefcients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique
1955;5:297326.
[24] USACE. Engineering and design settlement analysis. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Manual; 1990. p. 1110-1-1904.
[25] Vesic AS. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solids. J Eng Mech Div,
ASCE 1961;87(2):3553.
[26] Wallace JW, Fox PJ, Stewart JP. Cyclic large deection testing of shaft bridges,
part II: analytical studies. Rep. No. 59A0183, California Dept. of Transportation,
CA; 2002.
[27] Yang K, Liang R. Lateral response of large diameter drilled shafts in clay. In:
Proc 30th annual conference on deep foundations, Deep Foundation Institute;
2005. p. 11526.