MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCINTIFIC

RESEARCH

SIRTE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENG

Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand

Graduation Project in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of B.SC. in Civil Engineering
Prepared By:
Nawara Mohammed Hadea Omer Mousa Ahmad Mohammed

Salah Addin Dayhome Mohamed Salah Addin Saleh Algdafi Saad

Supervised By
Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Nasr
Mr. Musbah Hasan
Sirte University
Academic year
2013-2014

1
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Superstructures are supported by piles foundation so that it had to origin

in prehistoric time. These foundations may be subjected to significant horizontal
loads such as dynamic and static loadings. Two criteria shall be controlled to
satisfy of functioning such structures: (1) their deflection which must be within
the permissible limit and. (2) safety of pile against ultimate failure.
Many a times, the type and design of a structure becomes a paramount
importance in further enhancing the safety of the public and community.
Commonly selected as a cost effective option for the support of raised structures
and highway infrastructure, piles are often subjected to considerable lateral forces
such as wind loads in hurricane prone areas, earthquake loads in areas of seismic
activity, and wave loads in offshore environments. Designing laterally loaded
piles thus requires the load-deformation analysis of the lateral resistance from the
soil.
1.2. Objective and scope of research

Piles under lateral loads are a very important problem for the civil
engineers. The lateral load capacity of piles is an important design consideration
for the construction of deep foundations. The lateral pile load capacity can be
viewed from two different aspects, namely, the allowable lateral load capacity,
associated with superstructures, and the ultimate lateral capacity, as associated

2
with the failure of the surrounding soil or the pile itself. Therefore, the objective
of this paper were:

1. To find the lateral carrying capacity of single pile in sandy soil.

2. To find the effect of diameter of the pile on lateral load capacity.
3. To find the effect of length of the pile on lateral load capacity.
4. To find the effect of pile surface roughness on lateral load capacity.
5. Studying the effect of vertical load on the behavior of laterally loaded piles.
6. Studying the effect of sand relative density on the behavior of laterally loaded
piles.
1.3. Organization of the research

Thesis consists of five chapters are as following:

CHAPTER 1: An introduction to the research.

CHAPTER 2: Literature review of the previous studies including some

definition about the different approaches used in the behavior laterally loaded of
pile on sand

CHAPTER 3: Contains the test procedures for each part and the test strategy as
well as testing programs.

CHAPTER 4: Contains the results and analysis of the different experimental

works of the behavior laterally loaded of pile on sand, including the relationships
between them in addition to discussion of these results.

CHAPTER 5: Includes the main conclusions and recommendations based on the

obtained experimental results and observations.

3
4
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Single piles and pile groups are designed for lateral loads due to impact of
ship, wave action, and wind and earth quake forces. So, it is important to know
the lateral load resistance capacity of pile foundation. This requires estimation of
ultimate loads based on which safe working loads will be assessed and also
estimation of pile deflections to ensure that serviceability aspects are accounted
in the design. Several methods are available for predicting the ultimate lateral
resistance to piles in cohesionless soils. However, these methods often produce
significantly different ultimate resistance values. This makes it difficult for
practicing engineers to effectively select the appropriate method when designing
laterally loaded piles in cohesion less soils.

In this chapter, lateral load behavior of single piles in cohesionless soils was
studied as presented in The literature review, for different L/D ratio by changing
the diameter and length of The pile. The analysis was carried out considering free
and fixed headed piles. The influence of soil type, effect of pile length and pile
diameter on the pile response was observed and the results obtained were
compared with the Broms method. Also deflection and moments were studied
for a typical pile for various L/D ratio and their results were presented.

2.2 Laterally loaded pile behavior

5
 Piles are structural members that are made of steel, concrete or timber.
They are used to build deep foundations and which cost more than shallow
foundations. Despite the cost, the use of pile often is necessary to ensure structural
safety. Sometime piles are subjected to lateral load, for example piles used in
quay and harbor structure. The sources of lateral load on harbor structure are
impact of ship and wave action and offshore structures are also subjected to wind
and wave. High rise building, tower are subjected to lateral load due to wind and
earth quake forces. So, it is important to know the lateral load resistance capacity
of pile foundation.

Several methods are available for predicting the ultimate lateral resistance
to piles in cohesionless soils. However, these methods often produce significantly
different ultimate resistance values. This makes it difficult for practicing
engineers to effectively select the appropriate method when designing laterally
loaded piles in cohesionless soils. The Ultimate lateral resistance of rigid piles
based on earth pressure theory was developed by Hansen (1961) and is applicable
for short piles. Matlock and Reese (1960) presented a generalized iterative
solution method for rigid and flexible laterally loaded piles embedded in soils
with two forms of varying modulus with depth.

Davisson and Gill (1963) investigated the case of a laterally loaded pile
embedded in a layered soil system with a constant modulus of subgrade reaction
in each layer. Madhav et al. (1971) have employed an elasto-plastic model for
obtaining the response of laterally loaded piles. Broms (1964 a and b) method is
also based on earth pressure theory with simplifying assumption for distribution
of ultimate soil resistance along the pile length and this method is applicable for

6
both short piles and long piles. This method for computing ground surface
deflections of rigid and flexible fixed and free head piles was based on a modulus
of subgrade reaction using values suggested by Terzaghi (1955). Jamilokowski
and Garassino (1977) provided a state-of-the-art discussion on soil modulus and
ultimate soil resistance for laterally loaded piles. Randolph (1981) studied the
problem of flexible piles under lateral loading and proposed algebraic expressions
for pile head displacement and rotation. Karthigeyan et al. (2006) had
investigated the influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles. Yang
and Jeremic (2002) carried out a finite element study on the behavior of a single
pile in elastic-plastic soils for single as well as double layer for both sand and
clays and generated p-y curves. Zamri et al. (2009) have carried out the lateral
load behavior under combined vertical and lateral loads considering variation of
different water table at different elevations. Zhu and Chang (2002) presented a
practical approach for the estimation of t-z curves along bored piles by
considering the nonlinear elastic properties and modulus degradation
characteristics of the soil and proposed a method for evaluating the modulus
degradation curve from the results of a pressure meter test.

Comodromos (2003) has reported the response of a 52 m long and 1 m

diameter pile under pure lateral loads installed at a bridge site in Greece.
Analyzing piles under seismic loading is much more complex and involves soil
structure interaction and shall account for kinematic and inertial interactions
which are obtained by performing ground response analysis. Seismic lateral
response of piles in liquefying soil was proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos
(2005a). However, this approach is very complex and difficult to implement for
pile designers. A static approach was proposed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos

7
(2005b) which can be more frequently used by the designers The behavior of piles
under lateral loading is carried out for various soil types. The subgrade modulus
suggested by Terzhagi (1955) was used as input for analyzing the pile response.

Both dry and submerged soil conditions are considered in the analysis.
The pile length and radius are varied and their influence on the pile response
ispresented.

Short piles or pier foundations that have a large diameter are widely used
to support structures such as transmission towers, advertisement and information
posts, overhead catenary systems carrying electrical power in railway networks
and water towers. These structures have to withstand significant lateral loads and
overturning moments, but relatively small vertical forces, which a consequence
are often neglected. The behavior of piles subjected to lateral loads is governed
by the interaction between the pile and the soil, and it is a non-linear three-
dimensional soil structure interaction problem. The soils stress-strain behavior,
including shear strength, stiffness and volume change characteristics and soil-pile
interface, plays an important role in the response of piles subjected to lateral loads
Fan, C.C. and Long, J.H. (2005). For that reason, in pile foundations the load-
transfer mechanism is so complex and not fully understood yet Johnson et al.
(2006).

In recent years, experimental model studies including the 1g model and

centrifugal model tests were made on model short rigid piles in homogeneous soil
conditions [Shen, C.K., Bang, S., Desalvatore, M. and Poran,C.J. (1988), . Nazir,
R. (1994)]. However, the majority of the existing design methods related to
laterally loaded short rigid piles [( Broms,1964; Meyerhof et al .1981)], except

8
the methods proposed by Brinch Hansen(1961),and Meyerhof et al(1981),are
valid only for homogeneous soil conditions. There are numerous studies in the
literature concerned with the application of the finite-element method for piles
subjected to lateral loads [Muqtadir, and Desai,(1986); Brown,and
Shie,(1990)].Most of the studies mentioned have been performed on long flexible
piles in homogeneous soil conditions. On the other hand, most of the soil deposits
are a layered system and in reality piles are often embedded in layered soils. There
are a few studies in the literature based on numerical analyses related to flexible
piles subjected to lateral loads in layered soils [Yang and Jeremic,(2005);
Yang,and Liang,(2006); and Avaei, et al. (2008) ]. Also, there is limited
information in the literature that attempted to explore the behavior of short rigid
piles subjected to lateral loading in layered soil deposits and to investigate the
factors affecting the lateral load capacity of short rigid piles in layered soils. The
behavior of a short rigid pile subjected to a lateral loading in a two-layer sand soil
profile of different densities and thickness is investigated. For this purpose, a
series of model test studies was carried out on model piles founded in
homogeneous loose, homogeneous dense and two-layered sand conditions. The
model tests were analyzed by a three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element
method. Initially, in the numerical studies, a parametric study was performed in
order to explore the effect of some parameters, such as the elasticity modulus,
dilatancy and interface behavior of the sand.

2.2.1 Effect of Diameter of the Pile on Lateral Load Capacity

9
 According to Murugan et al. (2011), to study the effect of diameter on
lateral load capacity, 8 m length of piles of different diameters such as 0.20 m,
0.25 m, 0.30 m, 0.35 m, 0.40 m, 0.45 m, and 0.50 m were considered. The results
showed that lateral load capacity increases with increasing diameter of the pile.
This was due to the increase in surface area. Also the pile stiffness, EI, increases
with increase in moment of inertia ( I ) which depends on the diameter of pile.
But there was no much variation in axial load capacity. The lateral load capacity
of pile Obtained from IS 2911 Part1 was significantly less when compared with
Brom is method.

2.2.2 Effect of length of the pile on lateral load Capacity

According to Murugan et al. (2011), to study the effect of length of the pile
on lateral load capacity, 0.50 m diameter piles of different lengths such as 8 m,
8.9 m, 10 m, 11.4 m, 13.3 m, 16 m, and 20 m were considered. The results
indicated that the axial load capacity increases with increasing length of the pile.
This was due to that the friction was mobilized on increased embedment of pile.
But there was no much variation in moment and lateral load capacity. The lateral
load capacity of pile obtained from IS 2911 Part 1 was significantly less when
compared with Broms method. After the determination of the parametric values,
model test studies were analyzed under the experimental ultimate lateral load
capacities for each of the soil conditions considered to evaluate the failure regions
developed around the pile and the distribution of the lateral effective stresses
along the pile embedded depth.

2.2.3 Effect of Density of Sand on Lateral Load Capacity

10
 According to Murugan et al. (2011) ,in order to study the effect of density
of soil on lateral load capacity of pile, tests were conducted on sand of different
densities 1.8 gm/cm3 (i.e., relative density Dr = 77%) and 1.6 gm/cm3 (i.e. Dr=
17%). Here different model piles were used. Aluminium and mild steel model
piles of length 20 cm and diameter 1 cm were used. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the
effect of density on lateral load capacity of MS and Al piles. The results are shown
in Table (2.1). From the results, it can be seen that lateral load capacity increases
with increase in the density of sand. For Dr = 77%, the lateral load capacity of
the pile is 10 times more than Dr= 17%. This is due to the fact that shear strength
of sand increases as it become denser.

Figure. (2.1): Load displacement curves for mild steel pile of

L = 20 cm, d = 1cm.

11
Fig. ( 2.2): Load displacement curves for Aluminium pile of

L = 20 cm, d = 1 cm.

Table (2.1): Lateral load capacity of piles at different density

Ultimate lateral
Pile Density(gm/cm3)
load(kg)

1.8 12.0
Steel
1.6 1.2

1.8 11.2
AL
1.6 0.8

12
2.2.4 Effect of Pile Material on Lateral Load Capacity

According to Murugan et al. (2011), in order to study the influence of

material of pile on The lateral load capacity, tests were conducted on aluminum
and mild steel piles. The model piles used for the test are 1 cm diameter and 20
cm length. The test was conducted at two different densities of 1.8 gm/cm3 and
1.6 gm/cm3. The results are shown in Table (2.1) Comparing the Fig. 2.1 and Fig.
2.2, it is observed that the lateral load capacity of mild steel pile is more than
aluminum pile. Therefore, it is evident that the increase in lateral load capacity in
case of steel pile is due to the increase in the weight and stiffness (EI) of the pile.
The modulus of elasticity is more for steel when compared to aluminum.

2.2.5 Effect of Roughness of Pile on Lateral Load Capacity

According to Murugan et al. (2011),to study the effect of roughness of the

pile on lateral load capacity, model piles pasted with sand paper (rough piles) of
length 20cm was tested at density of 1.8 gm/cm3. Fig. 2.3, and Fig. 2.4 show the
effect of roughness of the pile on lateral load capacity. The results are shown in
Table 2.2. It is observed that lateral load capacity increased when the roughness
of the model piles are increased. It is mainly due to the surface friction. Skin
friction is increased when sand paper pasted piles were used, due to the presence
of sand. About 30 % increase is seen in case of rough piles.

13
Fig. (2.3): Load displacement curves for MS pile of

L = 20 cm, d = 1 cm.

14
 Fig. (2.4): Load displacement curves for Aluminum pile of

L = 20 cm, d = 1cm

Table 2.2: Lateral load capacity of piles of different roughness.

Ultimate lateral
L (cm) Pile Type of pile
load

Smooth 9.8
20 Steel
Rough 12.5

Smooth 9.0
20 AL
Rough 10.0

2.3 Failure Mechanisms

Collapse of a laterally loaded pile foundation occurs when a failure

mechanism forms in each pile within a pile group. The pile behavior is dependent
on the characteristic length (T) of the pile.

T= 5√𝐸𝑝 𝐼𝑝 /𝜂ℎ .

Where:
EP = elastic modulus of the pile material.

15
IP = moment of inertia of the pile cross section.

Ƞh = Coefficient of the subgrade reaction modulus.

When the length of the pile exceeds 5T, the pile is considered a long pile
and when the pile length is < 2T, the pile is considered a short rigid pile (Das,
2004). Failure of a short rigid pile occurs when the lateral resistance of the soil
has been exceeded. The failure mechanisms of short rigid pile for free headed and
fixed head condition are shown in Fig. (2.5) and Fig. (2.6)

In case of long flexible pile, the failure is associated when the moment at
one or more points exceeds the moment of resistance and the failure takes place
by formation of one or two plastic hinges along the pile length. The failure modes
for long flexible pile are given in Fig. (2.7).

Fig. (2.5): Free headed pile-Short rigid

16
Fig. (2.6): Fixed head pile-Short rigid pile

17
 Fig. (2.7): Free headed pile-long flexible pile

2.4 Lateral Soil Pressure

The review of existing methods for predicting the ultimate lateral resistance
to pile in cohesionless soil was detailed by Zhang (2005). The upper part of pile
is the most critical part of pile in case of laterally loaded pile (Poulos & Davis,
1980) because of its greater deflection and its ability to carry higher lateral loads
than the lower parts. The short pile assumption assume that the point of lateral
behavior of single pile in cohesionless soil subjected to both vertical and
horizontal loads rotation is near to the base of pile which means that soil failure
criteria will take place without fracture that occurs in the case of long pile.

According to Zhang et al. (2005) the lateral soil resistance distributes

uniformly between two pile sides in the opposite part of lateral load as shown in
Fig. (2.8). The lateral soil distribution within the pile width was assessed three
elevations as shown in Fig. (2.9). The first elevation was close to pile tip (and/or
to soil surface). The other two elevations are 0.2D and 0.4D from the top of pile
to show the distribution of lateral soil pressure with depth.

18
Fig. (2.8): Distribution of earth pressure subjected to lateral load (after Zhang,
2005).

Depth

Fig. (2.9): The elevations where the lateral earth pressures are evaluated.

19
3.1 Introduction
From a practical point of view, laboratory load tests on model piles are
most cost -effective than full –scale pile load tests. A series of model piles tests,
therefore, were performed in this study to investigate the behavior of piles
subjected to lateral load. This chapter discusses the test conditions and
experimental procedures followed in the model pile testing program.

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

3.2.1 Loading frame and test tank
A series of laboratory model tests was conducted in a test tank made of
mild steel with inside dimensions of 800 mm long × 300 mm wide × 600 mm
height as shown Fig. (3.1). The tank dimensions were chosen to ensure that the
failure wedge around the models did not extend up to the walls. The longer front
side of the tank was provided with removable glass plate of 10 mm thickness not
only because of its relatively high deformation modulus and its low friction co-
efficiency but also to allow the soil to be seen during the preparation process. The
vertical edges of the tank were strengthened by using steel angles at the middle
and the top of the sides.
The inner faces of the tank were graduated at 10 mm intervals to facilitate
an accurate preparation of the sand bed in layers. Balachandran (1996) stated that
the peak friction angle between sand and treated surfaces decreased by about 65%

20
than the case of untreated surfaces. Therefore, the test tank was polished smoothly
to minimize any possible friction between the sides and the soil. The lateral loads
were applied to the model pile in increments by using a 2.0 mm diameter high
tension steel wire connected to the pile cap using an eye bolt. The other side of
the wire ran over smooth adjustable pulley and supported a load plate form. In
order to record the correct lateral deflection of the pile for each load increment
applied, sensitive dial gauges of the least measurement of 0.01 mm were used as
shown in Fig. (3.2).
The dial gauges were mounted on rigid steel angles fixed at the upper edges
of the tank.

21
 Loading
L=80 cm b=30 cm
frame

Smooth
pulley

h=60 cm

Steel angles

Fig. (3.1): Test tank used in the experiments.

22
 Fig. (3.2): Dial gauge used in the experiments.

3.2.2 Soil preparation and characterization

The experiments were carried out on dry, commercially available sand is
shown in Fig. (3.3). The grain size distribution is shown in Fig. (3.4). The sand
used had round grains which held to minimize friction between the soil and the
walls of the tank and its properties are given in Table (3.1). The sand was
described as poorly graded sand (SP-SM) according to the Unified Soil
Classification System. The sand was placed to achieve two relative densities,

23
medium dense sand (Dr =`58%) and a dense state (Dr = 78%). The experiments
were conducted at two unit weights 16.7 and 18.9 kN/m3 for medium dense and
dense conditions, respectively.

Fig. (3.3): Sandy soil used in all tests.

24
 sieve analysis
100
90
80
70
60
50 sieve analysis
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Fig. (3.4): Grain size distribution curve.

Table (3.1): Physical properties of sand used in the model tests.

25
 Physical Properties Quantity

Grain size
Gravel (>4.75mm) 0.0
C. Sand (4.75 – 0.42mm) 38.43
F. Sand (0.42 – 0.075mm) 53.92
Fines (<0.075mm) 7.65
Effective particle size, D10 (mm) 0.088
Average particle size, D50 (mm) 0.30
Uniformity coefficient, Cu = D60/D10 4.77
Coefficient of curvature, Cc = D302 /(D10*D60) 0.608
Soil classification SP-SM
Specific gravity, Gs = WO/WO+( WB –WA) 2.624
Maximum dry unit weight, γd max (KN/m3) = Wcompact/V 18.9
Minimum dry unit weight, γd min (KN/m3) = Wloose/V 16.7
Optimum moisture content, (%) 0

Where:
Wo = Weight of beaker + sand
WA = Weight of beaker + Water
WB = Weight of beaker + sand + Water

26
3.2.3 Model piles and pile cap
In this study, the model piles were made of smooth steel pipes and rough
steel pipes as shown in Figure (3.5). The model piles outer diameter, inner
diameter, and length were shown in Table (3.2).

Table (3.2): Dimensions of tested piles.

Embedded Outer diameter, ( cm ) Inner diameter,( cm)

Length, ( cm)

2 1.7

3.2 2.8
20

4 3.2

2 1.7

3.2 2.8
30

4 3.2

2 1.7

40 3.2 2.8

4 3.2

27
 Pile cap Pile cap
Hook
Hook

L=30cm
L=30cm L=40cm
c L=50cm
L=40cm
L=50cm c c
c
c
c

D=3.2cm

28
 a) Rough piles b) Smooth piles
Fig. (3.5): piles used in the experimental study.
The pile rigidity was also related to the dimensionless embedment length (ηL P)
for short and long piles (Broms, 1964b). The coefficient η is calculated from
the equation:
nh
 =5 EP I P (1)

Where EP = modulus of elasticity of the pile material (21×107 kN/m2); IP

= moment of inertia of the pile cross section ( Ip=0.375x10-8 m4 for pile with D =
2cm, Ip= 2.129x10-8 m4 for pile with D =3.2cm, and Ip=7.419x10-8m4 for pile
with D =4cm, nh = constant of subgrade reaction at pile tip. According to Terzaghi
(1955), the ranges of values for the coefficient nh appearing in Eq. 1 are 2.47
and 19.8 MN/m3 for loose and dense sand, respectively. The dimensionless
embedment length (ηLP) has to be less than 2 to be considered as a short rigid pile
and greater than 4 for behavior as a long elastic pile (Broms 1964b; Chari and
Meyerhof 1983). The estimated value of ηLP indicated that the model piles used
in the experimental study satisfied the criterion for a short rigid piles and
intermediate piles. Table ( 3.3) shows the relative flexibility of the model piles
Table (3.3). Relative flexibility of model piles

Dr nh Douter Dinner η Lp
Soil type Pile flexibility
(%) MN/m3 (m) (m) (m
-1)
(m)

0.4 Short pile

0.04 0.032 2.75 0.3 Short pile
Med. dense 58 2.47 0.2 Short pile
0.4 Short pile
0.032 3.535
0.028 0.3 Short pile

29
 0.2 Short pile
0.4 Intermediate pile
0.02 0.017 5.004 0.3 Short pile
0.2 Short pile

0.4 Intermediate pile

0.04 0.032 4.176 0.3 Intermediate pile

0.2 Short pile

0.4 Intermediate pile

Dense 78 19.8
0.032 0.028 5.36 0.3 Short pile
0.2 Short pile
0.4 Short pile
0.02 0.017 7.58 0.3 Short pile
0.2 Short pile

Lateral loads were applied to the pile head through a flexible cap to
represent free-head tests on piles. To achieve this, the cap was designed to be thin
as shown Fig (3.6), of 2.0 mm of thick steel sheets. One edge of the cap was bent
up to allow horizontal dial gauges to be mounted. At the other side of the cap, a
hook was welded exactly at the center of this side.

30
 Pile cap

Hook

Pile

Fig. (3.6): The pile cap used in tests.

3.2.4 Preparation of experimental setup

At the beginning, put the soil in the tank and leveling of the sand surface.
The sand was plased in the test tank in layers of 10 cm thickness each layer was
compacted well to attain the required density. On reaching the level of pile base,
the pile was placed on position and was held vertical using special clamp. The
pile installation method used in this study was adopted to simulate non-
displacement piles. This method represents no-displacement in the soil around
the pile during installation to maintain the sand relative density at limited values
during the experimental tests.
It may be considered figuratively as bored or auger piles which cause low
displacement in the soil around the pile during installation.

31
 Finally, dial gauge were placed on bent edge of the pile cap and corrected at zero
lateral displacement. Then the lateral load was applied incrementally until
reaching failure. The lateral load was applied to the pile cap through a pulley
arrangement with flexible wire attached to the pile cap. The other end was
attached to the loading pan.
A lateral load was applied at approximately the soil surface. For each load
increment, the lateral displacements of the dial gauge were recorded as shown in
Fig. (3.7). and the reading was taken for plotting the load-displacement curves.
Furthermore, each load increment was maintained constant until the pile lateral
deflection had stabilized.

Loading
Dial gauge
Frame
Steel wire
Hook

Pile
Pulley

Steel
angles
Sand

Weights Steel
angles

32
 Fig. (3.7): Lateral load on model pile.

The loads were applied by dead weight (slotted weights) over the loading
pan. Load increment was continued until the pile undergoes failure (i.e. when the
pile gets pulled out from the sand) or until the dial gauge shows maximum
deflection. Load-displacement graphs were plotted. From this curves, the ultimate
lateral load is calculated.

33
 CHAPTER 4
INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, typical diagrams of variation of lateral displacement with
lateral load were drawn for all the testing conditions. The load-displacement
curves are, in general, similar and nonlinear. The lateral load versus lateral
displacement diagrams were drawn to study the effect of pile diameter, pile
length, density of sand, roughness of pile, and effect of vertical load on the lateral
load capacity of pile.
Ultimate lateral load capacity was obtained as the load corresponding to
the point of intersection of the tangents of upper and lower portion of the curve,
the load at which the curve exhibits a peak or maintains continuous displacement
in load displacement graph (Som and Das, 2003)
4.2 Interpretation and Discussion of Results
Pile head lateral load and lateral displacement (P–Y) curves from the
results of the experimental model regular pile tests are presented. In the
discussion of the effect of the different parameters, the ultimate lateral load (H u)
for different cases has been estimated from (P–Y) curves. Different assumptions
concerning the ultimate lateral load capacity have been used by different
researchers.
The assumptions made by researchers were generally based on the
excessive lateral displacement of the pile head or the rotation of the pile (Hu et al,
2006). On the other hand, some researchers defined the lateral load capacity of

34
the pile from the load–displacement curve as the point where the curve becomes
linear or substantially linear (Prasad and Chari 1999; Dickin and Laman 2003).
In the present study and according to Peng et al. 2010 and Erdal and Mustafa
2011, the lateral load corresponding to the lateral displacement equal to 10% of
the pile diameter , 15% of pile diameter , 20% of pile diameter, and tangent
method were defined as the ultimate lateral load capacity, Hu.
4.3 Test Results
A series of 30 tests were performed on piles embedded in sand to investigate
the influences of sand density and different pile configurations on the ultimate
lateral pile resistance. Results of all tests are tabulated in Tables (4.1), (4.2), (4.3),
and (4.4). In Table (4.1), results of series of tests conducted on smooth pile
embedded in medium dense sand are presented. Ultimate lateral loads were
calculated by using different methods as presented in table. Table (4.2) presented
the results of smooth pile embedded in dense sand. Furthermore, Table (4.3) and
Table (4.4) presented the results of rough pile embedded in medium dense and
dense sand, respectively. As shown in Fig. (4.1), the pile under lateral load was
shown with all variables and symbols.

Fig. (4.1): Pile under lateral load

35
 Table (4.1): Results of smooth pile embedded in medium dense sand

Hu at 10% Hu at 15% Hu at 20% Hu by using

L D pile pile pile tangent
e/L L/D
( cm ) (cm) diameter, diameter, diameter, method,
(N) (N) (N) (N)

20 0.5 10 3 4.7 6 11

30 2 0.33 15 11.8 14 17 26

40 0.25 20 17 23 28 55.8

20 0.5 6.25 14.3 17 19.7 12.8

30 3.2 0.33 9.375 38 43 46 38

40 0.25 12.5 54 68 81.8 60.5

20 0.5 5 16 18.5 21.1 18.2

4
40 0.25 10 98 114 126 72

36
 Table (4.2): Results of smooth pile embedded in dense sand

Hu at Hu at 15% Hu at 20% Hu by using

L D 10% pile pile pile tangent
e/L L/D
(cm ) ( cm ) diameter, diameter, diameter, method,
(N) (N) (N) (N)

20 0.5 10 16 20 23.7 36

30 2 0.33 15 72 85 97 141

40 0.25 20 170 219 250 253

20 0.5 6.25 29 37 43 38

30 3.2 0.33 9.375 180 215 241 240

40 0.25 12.5 330 430 495 275

20 0.5 5 46 56 64 70

30 4 0.33 7.5 250 295 327 240

40 0.25 10 500 599 660 390

37
 Table (4.3): Results of rough pile embedded in medium dense sand

Hu by
Hu at 10% Hu at 15% Hu at 20%
using
L D pile pile pile
e/L L/D tangent
(cm) ( cm ) diameter, diameter, diameter,
method,
(N) (N) (N)
(N)

20 0.5 10 9.2 11.8 14.2 11.4

30 2 0.33 15 21 27 32.4 26

40 0.25 20 37 47 54 47

20 3.2 0.5 6.25 16.3 21 24 16.2

20 0.5 5 29 37 44 25

30 4 0.33 7.5 45 59 71 50

40 0.25 10 98 124 148 92

38
 Table (4.4): Results of rough pile embedded in dense sand

Hu at 10% Hu at 15% Hu at 20% Hu by using

L D pile pile pile tangent
e/L L/D
(cm) (cm) diameter, diameter, diameter, method,
(N) (N) (N) (N)

20 0.5 10 31 40.5 49 41

30 2 0.33 15 117 154 188 151

40 0.25 20 188 242 288 254

40 3.2 0.25 12.5 360 440 510 285

20 0.5 5 83 100 110 78

4
30 0.33 7.5 265 320 360 240

39
4.4 Effect of Sand Density on the Lateral Load Capacity
In order to study the effect of density of the sand on the lateral load
capacity of piles, tests were conducted on sand of different densities 18.9 KN/m3
(i.e. relative density Dr = 78%) and 16.7 KN/m3 (i.e. Dr = 58%). Steel model piles
of different lengths 20, 30 and 40 cm and with diameter 2 cm are used. Figures
(4.2) to (4.7) show the effect of density on the lateral load capacity of steel piles.
From the figure it is seen that the load-deflection curves were nonlinear and a
similar trend was observed in medium dense and dense conditions. It is clear that
the ultimate lateral load increased with the increase in sand relative density. The
rate of increase in ultimate lateral load depends on pile length and pile surface
roughness. It is also clear that, a higher relative density of sand will provide
a stiffer resistance for piles subjected to lateral loading. This is owing to the
increasing of shear strength of sand as it becomes denser. In other words, pile
behavior subjected to lateral loads depends on the interaction between
the surrounding soil and pile material. Furthermore, the effect of sand density was
more pronounced in case of rough piles.

40
 60
Smooth pile
Med. Dense
50
Dense
Lateral load ( N )

40

30 D = 2 cm
L = 20 cm
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement ( mm )

Fig. (4.2): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different sand

densities for smooth pile L = 20 cm, D = 2 cm.

60
Rough pile Med. Dense
50 Dense
Lateral load ( N )

40 D = 2 cm
L = 20 cm
30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement ( mm)

Fig. (4.3): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different sand

densities for rough pile L = 20 cm, D = 2 cm.

41
 250
Smooth pile Med. Dense
Lateral load ( N )
200 Dense

150
D = 2 cm
L = 30 cm

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement ( mm )

Fig. (4.4): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different sand

densities for smooth pile L = 30 cm, D = 2 cm.

250
Rough pile
Med. Dense
Dense
200

D = 2 cm
150 L = 30 cm
lateral load ( N)

100

50

0
0 5 10
Displacement ( mm)

Fig. (4.5): Variation of lateral load- displacement curves at different sand

densities for rough pile L = 30 cm, D = 2 cm.

42
 450
Smooth pile
400 Med. Dense

350 Dense

300 D = 2 cm
lateral load (N)

250 L = 40 cm

200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

Fig. (4.6): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different sand densities
for smooth pile L = 40 cm, D = 2 cm.

400
Rough pile
350 Med. Dense
Dense
300
D = 2 cm
250
lateral load (N)

L = 40 cm
200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement (mm)

Fig. (4.7): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different sand densities
for rough pile L = 40 cm, D = 2 cm.

43
4.5 Effect of Pile Length on Laterally Loaded Piles
To study the effect of pile length on the lateral load capacity, model piles
of lengths 20 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm were tested. Figures (4.8) to (4.11) show the
effect of pile length on lateral load capacity. The pile diameter in this series of
tests was constant at 2 cm. From the results, it can be seen that the lateral load
capacity increases with increase in the pile length. It is clear that the pile length
has a great effect on the ultimate lateral capacity. When the pile length was 40
cm, the gain in the ultimate lateral capacity was more significant, especially, at
dense sand.

Figure (4.12) shows the effect of the pile length on the ultimate lateral load
for cases of smooth and rough piles. It is clear from Fig. (4.12) that the ultimate
bearing capacity affected by the pile length. At the same time, the sand density
and pile surface roughness have a great effect on H u with the pile length. It was
evident that rough pile embedded in dense sand has a great ultimate lateral load
with increasing the pile length. It is clear that smooth pile in dense sand has
ultimate lateral load greater than rough pile in medium dense sand.

44
 400 L = 20 cm
Smooth pile L = 30 cm
350
Dense sand
Lateral load ( N)
300 L = 40 cm

250 D = 2 cm
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement ( mm)

Fig. (4.8): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different length for
smooth pile embedded in dense sand, D = 2 cm.

400 L = 20 cm
Rough pile
350 Dense sand L = 30 cm
300 L = 40 cm
Lateral load ( N )

250
D = 2 cm
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm)

Fig. (4.9): Variation of lateral load -displacement curves at different length for
rough pile embedded in dense sand, D = 2 cm.

45
 120
L = 20 cm
Smooth pile
100 Med. Dense sand L = 30 cm
Lateral load ( N)

L = 40 cm
80
D = 2 cm
60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement ( mm)

Fig. (4.10): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different length for
smooth pile embedded in Med. Dense sand, D= 2 cm.

100 Rough pile L = 20 cm

90 Med. Dense sand L = 30 cm
80 L = 40 cm
70
Lateral load ( N)

60
D = 2 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Fig. (4.11): Variation of lateral load -displacement curves at different length for
rough pile embedded in medium dense sand D = 2 cm.

46
 200 Smooth & Med. Dense
180 Smooth & Dense

Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

160 Rough & Med. Dense
Rough & Dense
140
120 Hu =10%D
D =2 cm
100
80
60
40
20
0
20 30 40
L, (cm)

Fig. (4.12): The relationship between pile length and ultimate lateral load,
D = 2 cm, Hu = 10%D.

4.6 Effect of L/D on the Laterally Loaded Piles

To study the effect of L/D on the lateral load capacity, model piles of
different diameters such as 2 cm, 3.2 cm, and 4 cm with different length 20
cm,30cm and 40cm were tested. Figure (4.13) and Figure (4.14), show that L/D
ratio has a great effect on the lateral load capacity.
From the results, it can be seen that lateral load capacity decreases with
the increase in L/D of the pile. This can be attributed to when the L/D ratio
increase, at constant pile length, the pile behavior was changed from long to short
pile. Therefore, the ultimate lateral load decreased with the increase of L/D.

47
 It is clear also that the ultimate lateral load for piles embedded in dense
sand was increased significantly than that in piles embedded in medium dense
sand.

90
Smooth & Med. Dense
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

80
Smooth & Dense
70
Rough & Med. Dense
60
Rough & Dense
50
40
Hu =10%D
30 L =20 cm
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
L/D

Fig. (4.13): Variation of ultimate lateral load with L/D curves at

L = 20 cm and Hu = 10% D.
300
Smooth & Med. Dense
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

250 Smooth & Dense

Rough & Med. Dense
200
Rough & Dense
150
Hu = 10%D
100 L = 30 cm

50

0
0 5 10 15 20
L/D

Fig. (4.14): Variation of ultimate lateral load with L/D curves at

L = 30 cm and Hu = 10% D.

48
4.7 Effect of Pile Diameter on the Laterally Loaded Piles
To study the effect of pile diameter on the lateral load capacity, model piles
with different diameters such as 2 cm, 3.2 cm, and 4 cm were tested. Figure (4.15)
to Figure (4.18) show the effect of diameter of the pile on lateral load capacity.
From the results of the above Figures, it can be seen that lateral load capacity
increases with the increase in diameter of the pile. This can be attributed to the
pile stiffness, EI. When the pile diameter increased, the moment of inertia I also
increased.
Therefore, the ultimate lateral load of the pile increased with increase in the
pile diameter. But this increase is less, when compared with the increase in the
ultimate lateral load capacity of pile with the increase in embedment
length.Figure (4.19) show the effect of pile diameter on the ultimate lateral load
for cases of smooth and rough piles. It is clear from Fig. (4.19) that the ultimate
lateral pile capacity affected by the pile diameter. At the same time, the sand
density and pile surface roughness have a great effect on Hu with the pile
diameter. It was evident that rough pile embedded in dense sand has a great
ultimate lateral load with increasing the pile diameter. It is clear that smooth pile
embedded in dense sand has ultimate lateral load greater than that rough pile
embedded in medium dense sand.

49
 100
D = 2 cm
Smooth pile
D = 3.2 cm
80 Med. dense sand
D = 4 cm
Lateral load ( N )

60 L = 20 cm

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement ( mm)

Fig. (4.15): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different diameters

for smooth pile in medium dense sand.

60
Rough pile D = 2 cm
50 Med. dense sand
D = 3.2 cm
D = 4 cm
Lateral load ( N )

40

30 L = 20 cm

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement ( mm )

Fig. (4.16): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different diameters

for rough pile in medium dense sand.

50
 100 D = 2 cm
90 Smooth pile D = 3.2 cm
80
Dense sand
D = 4 cm
70
Lateral load ( N )

60 L = 20 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement ( mm )

Fig. (4.17): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different diameters for smooth
pile in dense sand.

140 D = 2 cm
Rough pile D = 3.2 cm
120 Dense sand D = 4 cm

100 L = 20 cm
Lateral load ( N )

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10
Displacement ( mm )

Fig. (4.18): Variation of lateral load - displacement curves at different diameters for rough
pile in dense sand.

51
 90
Smooth & Med. Dense
80 Smooth & Dense
70 Rough & Med. Dense
Ultimate lateral load Hu (kg)

60 Rough & Dense

50 Hu =10% D
L = 20 cm
40

30

20

10

0
2 3.2 4
D (cm)

Fig. (4.19): Relationship between pile diameter and ultimate lateral load,
L = 20 cm, Hu = 10% D.
4.8 Effect of Surface roughness of Pile on Lateral Loaded Piles
To study the effect of surface roughness of the pile on lateral load capacity,
model piles (rough piles and smooth piles) of length 20cm, 30 cm and 40 cm were
tested. The pile diameter was constant at 2 cm. Figures (4.20) and (4.21) show
the relationship between ultimate lateral load and pile surface roughness.
It is observed that lateral load capacity increased when the roughness of
the model piles is increased. It is mainly due to the increase of surface friction.
Skin friction is increased when sand pasted on the pile surface. When the
roughness of the model piles is increased., the lateral load capacity increased by

52
about 38.46% for pile with 30 cm length and 2.0 cm diameter. The above
percentage was calculated from the equation:
(117-72)/117 ×100 = 38.46%
.When the sand pasted on the pile surface, the angle of friction between the pile
surface and the surrounding soil was increased significantly. Therefore, the
ultimate lateral load was increased with the increase in pile surface roughness. It
is clear also from Fig. (4.20) that the effect of the pile surface roughness was more
effective in case of medium dense sand.

40
L = 20 cm
L = 30 cm
L = 40 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

30
D = 2 cm
HU = 10% D
Med. dense sand
20

10

0
smooth rough

Fig. (4.20): Variation of ultimate lateral load with pile surface roughness for
medium dense sand.

53
 200 L = 20 cm
L = 30 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )
L = 40 cm
150
D = 2 cm
HU = 10% D
100 Dense sand

50

0
smooth rough

Fig. (4.21): Variation of ultimate lateral load with pile surface roughness for
dense sand.

4.9 Effect of the method used in Ultimate Lateral Load

Calculations
From the literature review related to lateral loaded piles, different methods
were used in the calculation of the ultimate lateral load. In this study, the effect
of method of calculation on Hu was studied. Ultimate lateral loads were calculated
at lateral deflection equal to 10%, 15%, and 20% of the pile diameter.
Furthermore, tangent method was also used. Figures (4.22), (4.23), and (4.24),
show the comparison between these methods at different pile diameters. It is clear
from the above mentioned figure that, at any pile diameter, the ultimate lateral
load calculated at lateral deflection of 20% of pile diameter was more than that
calculated at lateral deflection of 10% and 15% of pile diameter. But, the ultimate
lateral load calculated by using tangent method varied according to pile diameter
and pile length. At pile diameter = 2 cm, ultimate lateral load calculated from

54
tangent method was greater than the other methods. On the contrary, at pile
diameter equal to 4 cm, the ultimate lateral load calculated from tangent method
was decreased significantly.
300 L = 20 cm
Smooth pile
L = 30 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

250 Dense sand L = 40 cm

200
D = 2 cm

150

100

50

0
10% D 15% D 20% D Tangent

Fig. (4.22): Variation of ultimate lateral load with method of calculation the ultimate
lateral load.

600 L = 20 cm
Smooth pile
L = 30 cm
500 Dense sand
L = 40 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

D = 3.2 cm
400

300

200

100

0
10% D 15% D 20% D Tangent

Fig. (4.23): Variation of ultimate lateral load with method of calculation the ultimate
lateral load.

55
 700 Smooth pile L = 20 cm
L = 30 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )
600 Dense sand
L = 40 cm
500 D = 4 cm
400

300

200

100

0
10% D 15% D 20% D Tangent

Fig. (4.24): Variation of ultimate lateral load with method of calculation the
ultimate lateral load.
4.10 Effect of Lateral Load Eccentricity (e/L) on the Lateral Load
Capacity
To study the effect of e/L on the lateral load capacity, model piles with
different diameters such as 2 cm, 3.2 cm, and 4 cm with different length 20cm,
30cm and 40cm were tested. Figure (4.25), (4.26), and (4.27) show the variation
of ultimate lateral load with e/L. It is clear from the above mentioned figures that
when the load eccentricity e/L increased, the ultimate lateral load, H u, decreased.
The variations of ultimate lateral load with load eccentricity e/L were more
pronounced at pile diameter equal 4 cm. At small pile diameter (D = 2 cm), the
variation of ultimate lateral load with e/L has no significant effect. This can be
attributed to the increase in load eccentricity will increase the lateral deflection
which decrease the ultimate lateral load.

56
 120
D = 2 cm
smooth pile
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N ) 100 D = 3.2 cm
Med. Dense sand
D = 4 cm
80
Hu = 10% D
60

40

20

0
0.2 0.4 0.6
e/L

Fig. (4.25): Variation of ultimate lateral load with e/L at

Hu = 10% D.

120
Smooth pile D = 2 cm
100 Med. Dense sand D = 3.2 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

D = 4 cm
80
Hu = 15% D
60

40

20

0
0.2 0.4 0.6
e/L

Fig. (4.26): Variation of ultimate lateral load with e/L at

Hu = 15% D.

57
 140
smooth pile D = 2 cm
120 Med. Dense sand D = 3.2 cm
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

D = 4 cm
100

80 Hu = 20% D

60

40

20

0
0.2 0.4 0.6
e/L

Fig.(4.27): Variation of ultimate lateral load with e/L at

Hu = 20% D.
4.11 Relationship between Coefficient of Horizontal Subgrade
Reaction and Deflection of Piles
According to Matlock and Reese (1960), the subgrade reaction approach
treats a laterally loaded pile as a beam on an elastic foundation. When a long
pile is loaded laterally at the ground surface, the deflection in the free-head pile
at the ground surface (yg) can be determined by the Eq. (1)
yg = 2.435Hg (T3/ E p I p ) 3 (1)

T= 5 E p I p / nh (2)

Where Hg is the lateral load at ground surface. Based on the lateral load–
displacement curves and ( E p I p ) of the pile, the relative stiffness factor, T, can be

calculated from Eq. (1). Hence, the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction
( nh ) can be calculated from Eq. (2). Subsequent plastic deformation of soil was

58
noted in all experimental tests. Therefore, the values of lateral deflections used in
Eq. (1) were obtained at very low deflections to imitate the elastic behavior of
soil. Figure (4.28) and figure (4.29) show nh versus deflection in the free head
case for pile with D=2cm.
It is clear that the coefficient of horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction
decreases with the deflection increase. From this observation, the design values
of nh should be compatible with the anticipated deflections. At low head
deflections (yg ≤ 5% pile diameter), the dependency of the coefficient nh on the
deflection is most pronounced. But for high deflections (plastic deformation soil),
the values of nh are relatively insensitive to deflection. It has been argued that
plasticity of the soil near the ground surface is the primary cause of this
phenomenon (Davisson and Salley, 1970). It is clear from the above figures that
for short piles (L = 20 cm), no variation in nh with lateral deflection. On the
contrary, for long pile (L = 40 cm), a significant variation in nh with lateral
deflection was noted.

59
 700
Smooth pile L= 20 cm
600 Med. Dense sand L = 30 cm
500 L= 40 cm
nh( KN/m3)

400 D = 2 cm

300

200

100

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lateral deflection,yg ( mm )

Fig. (4.28): nh – deflection relationship for smooth pile embedded in medium dense sand.

5
L = 20 cm
Smooth pile
4 Dense sand L = 30 cm
L = 40 cm
nh*104 ( KN/m3)

3
D = 2 cm

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lateral deflection,yg ( mm )

Fig. (4.29): nh – deflection relationship for smooth pile embedded in dense sand.

60
4.12 Effect of Vertical Load on the Lateral Behavior of Piles

To study the effect of vertical load on lateral load capacity, model pile with
diameter 2 cm and length equal to 20 cm was tested. Figures (4.30), (4.31), and
(4.32) show the variation of lateral load with the presence of vertical load. It is
clear from Fig. (4.30) that the vertical load has a great effect on the behavior of
laterally loaded piles. Figure (4.31) shows that the ultimate lateral load increase
with the increase in vertical load. At small vertical load values, the ultimate lateral
load increased with small value. But, by increasing the vertical load, the ultimate
lateral load increased significantly. Figure (4.31) shows the effect of vertical load
in case of loose sand. It is clear that, the vertical load has a great effect on the
lateral behavior of pile in case of loose sand.
It is noted that, at 10% pile diameter (2 mm), the ultimate lateral load was
12 N at the effect of vertical load equal to 20 N. By increasing the vertical load
to 40 N, the ultimate lateral load increased to 27 N. Therefore, the ultimate lateral
load increased by about 125% when the vertical load increased from 20 N to 40
N.as shown in the equation

(27-12) /12×100 = 125%

61
 50
Rough pile v = 20 N
Dense sand v = 40 N
40
v = 60 N
Lateral load ( N )

30 D = 2 cm
L = 20 cm
20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement ( mm )

Fig.(4.30): Variation of lateral load-displacement curves for rough pile.

5
Rough pile Hu = 10% D
Ultimate lateral load Hu ( N )

4.5 Dense sand Hu = 15% D

Hu = 20% D
4
D = 2 cm
3.5 L = 20 cm

2.5

2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vertical load V ( N )

Fig.(4.31): Variation of ultimate lateral load with Vertical load curves for
rough pile.

62
 50 Rough pile
Med. Dense sand V = 20 N
40 V = 40 N
Lateral load ( N )

D = 2 cm
30 L = 20 cm

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement ( mm )

Fig.(4.32): Variation of lateral load-displacement curves for rough pile.

63
 CHAPTAR 5
CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction
The lateral load capacity of piles is an important design consideration for
the construction of deep foundations. If a pile is sufficiently stiff and strong,
compared to the surrounding soil, it is called “rigid” or a “short” pile, and the
ultimate lateral load Hu is governed by the strength of the surrounding soil. In the
present project, the lateral load responses and the load capacities of piles
embedded in sand were investigated experimentally. The lateral load versus the
lateral displacement diagrams were drawn to study the effect of pile length, pile
diameter, sand density, roughness of pile surface, pile load eccentricity, and the
effect of vertical load on the lateral load capacity was also studied. The ultimate
lateral loads were obtained by using different methods to compare the results.

5.2 Conclusions
From the obtained data the following conclusions were obtained:
1. The effect of pile length was studied and it was concluded that the lateral load
capacity increases with increase in the length of the pile.
2. The effect of pile diameter was studied and it was concluded that the lateral
load capacity increases with the increase in diameter of the pile for same pile
length.
3. It is clear that smooth pile in dense sand has ultimate lateral load greater than
rough pile in medium dense sand.

64
4. Lateral load capacity decreases with the increase in L/D ratio of the pile.
5. It was evident that rough pile embedded in dense sand has a great ultimate
lateral load with increasing the pile diameter.

6. The lateral load capacity increased when the roughness of the model piles is
increased, Due to the roughness of on the pile surface.
7. It is clear that the coefficient of horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction
decreases with the deflection increase. At low head deflections (y g ≤ 5% pile
diameter), the dependency of the coefficient nh on the deflection is most
pronounced. It is clear from the results for short piles (L = 20 cm), no variation
in nh with lateral deflection. On the contrary, for long pile (L = 40 cm), a
significant variation in nh with lateral deflection was noted.
8. The ultimate lateral load increased with the increase in sand relative density.
The rate of increase in ultimate lateral load depends on pile length and pile surface
roughness. Furthermore, the effect of sand density was more pronounced in case
of rough piles.

65
 List of Reference

1. Avaei, A., Ghotbi, A.R. and Aryafar, M. (2008). Investigation of pile-soil

interaction subjected to lateral loads in layered soils. American Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1 (1), 76-81.

2. Bowles, J. E. (1968). Foundation Analysis and Design. 2nd Edition,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

3. Broms, B. (1964a). The Lateral Resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal

of the Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SM2), 27-63.

4. Broms, B. (1964b). The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of

the Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SM3), 123-56.

5. Brown, D.A. and Shie, C.F. (1990). Three-dimensional finite element model
of laterally loaded piles. Computers and Geotechnics, 10, 59-79.

6. Balachandran, S.B. (1996). Modeling of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls.

Ph.D.
thesis, University of Cambridge.

7. Brinch-Hansen, J. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against

transversal forces. Geoteknisk Institut (The Danish Geotechnical Institute),
Bulletin No. 12, 5-9.

8. Comodromos, E. M. (2003). Response prediction for horizontally loaded pile

groups. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Society, 123-133.

66
9. Chae, K.S., Ugai, K. and Wakai, A. (2004). Lateral resistance of short single
piles and pile groups Located near slopes. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 4(2), 93-103.

10. Chari, T.R., and Meyerhof, G.G. (1983). Ultimate capacity of rigid single
piles under inclined loads in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 849–
854. doi:
10.1139/t83-091.
11. Das, B.M. (2004). “Principles of Foundation Engineering”, 5th Edition, 2nd
reprint.

12. Davisson, M.T., and Gill H.L. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in a layered soil
system, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, ASCE,
89(3), pp 63-94.

13. Dickin, E.A. and Nazir, R. (1999). Moment-carrying capacity of short pile
foundations in cohesionless soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 125 (1), 1–10.

14. Dickin, E.A. and Laman, M. (2003). Moment Response of short rectangular
piers in sand. Computers and Structures, 81, 2717-2729.

15. Erdal, U., and Mustafa, L. (2011). Lateral resistance of a short rigid pile in
a twolayer Cohesionless soil. Acta Geotechnical Slovenica, 2: 19–43.

16. Fan, C.C. and Long, J.H. (2005). Assessment of existing methods for
predicting soil response of laterally loaded piles in sand. Computers and
Geotechnics, 32, 274-289.

67
17. Johnson, K., Lemcke, P., Karunasena, W. and Sivakugan, N. (2006).
Modelling the load deformation response of deep foundations under oblique
loading. Environmental Modelling and Sofware, 21, 1375-1380.

18. Hansen, J.B. (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal
forces. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin no.12, Copenhagen, pp. 5-9.

19. Hetenyi M. (1946). Beams on Elastic Foundation; Theory with Applications

in the Fields of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan
press, Ann Arbor (1946).

20. Hu, Z., McVay, M., Bloom Quist, D., Herrera, R. and Lai, P. (2006).
Influence of torque on lateral capacity of drilled shafts in sands. Journal of
Geotechnical And Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132 (4), 456-464.

21. Jamiolkowski, M., and Garassino, A. (1977). Soil modulus for laterally
loaded piles. Proc., 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, 87–92.

22. Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna V.V.G.S.T., and Rajagopal, K.

(2006).Influence of vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand.
Computers and Geotechnics, V (33), 121-131.

23. Karthigeyan, S., Ramakrishna, V.V.G.S.T. and Rajagopal, K. (2007).

Numerical investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lateral response of
piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133
(5), 512-521.

68
24. King, G.J.W. and Laman, M. (1995). Conventional and centrifuge model
studies of the moment carrying capacity of short pier foundation in clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 32, 976-988.

25. Laman, M. (1995). The moment carrying capacity of short pier foundations
in clay. Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool, U.K.

26. Lee, S.W., Pickles, A.R. and Henderson, T.O. (2006). Numerical modeling
of laterally loaded Short pile. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering -
Schweiger (ed.). Taylor & Francis Group, London.

27. Liyanapathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G. (2005a). Seismic lateral response
of piles in liquefying soil, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental.
Engineering, ASCE, 131, 1466–1479.

28. Liyanapathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G. (2005b). Pseudo-static approach for
seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131, 1480–1487.

29. Madhav, M. R., Rao, N.S.V.K., and Madhavan, K. (1971). Laterally loaded
piles in elasto-plastic soil. Soils and Foundations, 11(2), 1-15.

30. MATLAB (2004). Programming, version 7, The Math Works, Inc.

31. Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C., (1960). Generalized solutions for laterally
loaded piles. Journal of Soil Mech. & Foundation Division, ASCE, 86, 63-91.

32. Martin, G.R. and Chen, C.Y. (2005). Response of piles due to lateral slope
movement. Computers and Structures, 83, 588-598.

69
33. Meyerhof, G.G., Mathur, S.K. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1981). Lateral
resistance and deflection of rigid walls and piles in layered soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 18, 159-170.

34. Murugan M., Natarajan C., and Muthukkumaran K.., (2011). Behavior
of Laterally Loaded Piles in Cohesionless Soils. International Journal of Earth
Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL.
35. Muqtadir, A. and Desai, C.S. (1986). Three dimensional analysis of a pile-
group foundation. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 10, 41-58.

36. Nazir, R. (1994). The moment-carrying capacity of short piles in sand. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Liverpool, U.K.

37. Peng, J., Rouainia, M., and Clarke, B. (2010). Finite element analysis of
laterally loaded fin piles. Computer & Structures, 88(21–22):1239–1247.
doi:10.1016/j. compstruc.2010.07.002.

38. Poulos, H. G. (1971a). Behavior of laterally loaded piles I- Single piles.

Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 711-731.

39. Poulos, H. G. (1971b). Behaviour of laterally loaded piles II- Pile groups.
Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 733-751.

40. Poulos H.G and Davis E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.

70
41. Prasad, Y.V.S.N., and Chari, T.R. (1999). Lateral capacity of model rigid
piles in Cohesionless soils. Soils and Foundations, 39(2): 21–29.
doi:10.3208/sandf.39. 2_21. Ramakrishna.

42. Randolph M.F. (1981). The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading,
Geotechnique, 31(2), 247-259.

43. Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956). Non-dimensional solutions for

laterally-loaded piles with soil modulus assumed proportional to depth.
Proceedings of the 8th Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Austin, Texas, pp.1-41.

44. Shen, C.K., Bang, S., Desalvatore, M. and Poran,C.J. (1988). Laterally
Loaded Cast-in-Drilled- Hole Piles. Transportation Research Record, 1191, 155-
165.

45. Terzaghi, K. (1955). Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.

Géotechnique, 4: 297-326.Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H 830.

46. Trochanis, A.M., Bielak, J. and Christiano, P. (1991). Three-dimensional

nonlinear study of piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117 (3),
429–447.

47. Wakai, A., Gose, S. and Ugai, K. (1999). 3-D Elasto-plastic finite element
analyses of pile foundations subjected to lateral loading. Soils and Foundations,
39(1), 97-111.

71
48. Yang, Z., and Jeremic, B. (2002). Numerical analysis of pile behavior under
lateral loads in layered elastic-plastic soils, Intl J Num Anal Meth Geomech, 26,
1385–1406.

49. Yang, Z. and Jeremic, B. (2003). Numerical study of group effects for pile
groups in sands. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 27, 1255-1276.

50. Yang, Z. and Jeremic, B. (2005). Study of soil layering effects on lateral
loading behavior of piles, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

51. Yang, K. and Liang, R. (2006). Numerical solution for laterally loaded piles
in a two-layer soil profile, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132 (11), 1436-1143.

52. Zamri, H.C., Jasim, M.A., Mohd, R.T., and Qassun S.M. (2009). Lateral
behavior of single pilein cohesion less soil subjected to both vertical and
horizontal loads. European Journal of Scientific Research, 29(2), 194-205.

53. Zhu, H., and Chang, M. F. (2002). Load transfer curves along bored piles
considering modulus degradation. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(9), 764-774.

54. Zhang, L., Silva, F. and Grismala, R. (2005). Ultimate lateral resistance to
piles in cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 131 (1), 78-83.

72