1.3.

Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations for Lateral Loads

Pile foundations can be subjected to lateral loads and moments in addition to

the axial loads. The pile head fixity conditions have a significant influence

on its capacity and performance under lateral loading conditions. Two pile

head fixity conditions may occur in practice. Figures 1.28a and 1.28b show

some cases where the piles have a free head condition while Fig. 1.28c

shows piles with fixed head condition. The extent to which a pile head

could be considered as free head or fixed head condition depends on the

relative stiffness of the pile and pile cap and the type of connections

specified.

The allowable (design) lateral load is determined from the consideration of

two criteria:

1. the ultimate (failure) lateral load (Ultimate Limit State); and

2. an acceptable (tolerance) lateral deflection (Serviceability Limit State).

These criteria are considered in the following sections. The ultimate lateral

capacity is considered first, followed by the performance of single piles and

pile groups under lateral loading conditions.

Fig. 1.28 Different pile head fixity conditions
1.3.1 Ultimate lateral Capacity

The ultimate lateral resistance of laterally loaded piles is unlikely to be the

controlling factor for design unless large deflection can be tolerated (e.g.

anchor piles for offshore structures). Methods for calculating ultimate

lateral resistance generally consider the static equilibrium of the pile or

group at the point of failure.

1.3.1.1 Lateral capacity of single piles

The prediction of the ultimate lateral capacity of a single pile requires

consideration of two cases:

a) failure due to yielding of the soil along the whole length of the pile

(short- pile failure); and

b) failure due to yielding of the pile itself at the point of maximum moment

(long-pile failure).

The loads acting on the pile subjected to lateral loading are, in general, the

horizontal force (at a distance e above the soil surface), H, the bending

moment, M, and the soil pressure along the pile shaft, pu. Thus, for a pile

with free head conditions, embedded length L and diameter d as shown in

Fig. 1.29, the ultimate lateral resistance may be estimated considering its

equilibrium in the lateral direction.

Fig. 1.29 Equilibrium of unrestrained (free head) laterally loaded pile
The ultimate load Hu and moment Mu may be approximately written in the

form
zr L
Hu = ∫ pu d dz − ∫ pu d dz
0 zr
1.49

zr L
M u = Hue = ∫ p d z dz − ∫ p d z dz
0
u
zr
u 1.50

If the ultimate soil pressure pu is uniform along the entire length of the pile

(i.e. pu = p0 = pL) then Eqs. 1.49 and 1.50 give

1 ⎛ Hu ⎞
zr = ⎜⎜ + L ⎟⎟ 1.51
2 ⎝ pu d ⎠

Mu Hue 1⎛ 2H u H u2 ⎞
= = ⎜ 1 − − ⎟ 1.52
pu dL2 pu dL2 4 ⎜⎝ pu dL pu dL ⎟⎠

or

2
Hu ⎛ 2e ⎞ ⎛ 2e ⎞
= ⎜ 1 + ⎟ + 1 − ⎜1 + ⎟ 1.53
pu dL ⎝ L⎠ ⎝ L⎠

Failure may occur due to failure of either the soil or the pile, thus the

ultimate lateral resistance is the lesser of

i) the horizontal load required to cause failure of the soil along the

whole length of the pile (short pile behaviour).

ii) The horizontal load required to produce a maximum moment equal to

the yield moment of the pile section (long pile behaviour).

Broms (1964a, b) suggests that, for piles in a uniform clay (overconsoildated

clay), the value of pu can be taken as a constant:

pu = 9cu 1.54

For piles in sand, Broms suggested that pu be taken as:

′
p u = 3K p σ v 1.55

where Kp = Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient (= tan 2 (45° + φ / 2) ).

For a homogeneous sand deposit, pu will therefore vary linearly with depth.

Short pile in cohesive soil- free head: Broms (1964a) developed a solution

similar to that already described, however, the assumptions regarding the

soil pressure distributions at failure are different (refer to Fig. 1.30).

Fig. 1.30 Deflection, soil reaction and bending moment distribution for a

short free-headed pile in cohesive soil

Broms assumed that the pile rotates about the midpoint of g, and the

maximum moment occurs at point M, which is f+1.5d from the ground

surface (see Fig. 1.30). Thus, at failure the two unknowns P = Hu and f may

be determined from horizontal and moment equilibrium, i.e.

∑F x = 0 = P − 9c u d f 1.56

Which yields

P
f = 1.57
9cu d

Taking moments about M for forces acting above M, the maximum bending

moment is obtained as

f f
M max = P(e + 1.5d + f ) − 9cu d f = P(e + 1.5d + ) 1.58
2 2

Considering the moments of forces acting below M, Mmax is obtained as

g 3g g g 9 9c d
M max = 9cu d ( − ) = c u d g 2 = u ( L − 1 .5 d − f ) 2 1.59
2 4 2 4 4 4

Hence, from Eqs. 1.58 and 1.59

f 9c d
P ( e + 1 .5 d + ) = u ( L − 1 .5 d − f ) 2 1.60
2 4

Assuming that Mmax < Myield (the maximum moment resistance of the pile

itself), Eqs. 1.57 and 1.60 can then be solved for f and P.
Short pile in cohesive soil- fixed head: It is assumed that there is no

rotation in this case, thus the soil reactions and bending moment

distributions will be as shown in Fig. 1.31. In this case, the ultimate

capacity is calculated as

P = 9cu d ( L − 1.5d ) 1.61

Provided that Mmax = P(0.5L+0.75d) < Myield.

Fig. 1.31 Deflection, soil reaction and bending moment distribution for a

short fixed-headed pile in cohesive soil

Long pile in cohesive soil- free head: Fig. 1.32 shows the assumed

distribution of the soil reactions and bending moments for this case. If the

pile is sufficiently long, the maximum moment resistance of the pile Myield

will be reached prior to full mobilzation of the soils shear resistance. Thus

failure occurs when the maximum bending moment given by Eq. 1.57 is

equal to Myield, i.e.

f
M max = P(e + 1.5d + ) = M yield 1.62
2

Fig. 1.32 Deflection, soil reaction and bending moment distribution for a

long free-headed pile in cohesive soil

Long pile in cohesive soil- fixed head: Fig. 1.33 shows the distribution of

soil reaction and bending moments assumed. In this case, a plastic hinge

forms at the location of maximum +ve and –ve moment resulting in the pile

collapse prior to full moilization of the soil shear resistance. Hence

+ ve
M max = P(1.5d + 0.5 f ) + M max
_ ve
1.63

+ ve − ve
M max = M max = M yield 1.64

Solving Eqs. 1.63 and 1.64, the ultimate lateral resistance is then obtained as

M yield
P= 1.65
(1.5d + 0.5 f )

Fig. 1.33 Soil reaction and bending moment diagram for fixed head long pile
Lateral capacity of piles in cohesionless soil

The soil reactions at failure are given by Eq. 1.55. The ultimate lateral

resistance is developed from similar considerations to those discussed for

cohesive soils, and plotted in Fig. 1.34.

Fig. 1.34 Lateral resistance of piles in sand a) short piles b) long piles
1.3.1.2 Ultimate capacity of pile groups

The ultimate lateral load for pile groups should be taken as the lesser of

1) the sum of the ultimate lateral loads of the piles in the group

2) the ultimate lateral load of an equivalent block representing the group.

In determining the latter value, limited experience suggests that for a group

in clay, a zone of zero reaction of about 1.5d (i.e. Le = L-1.5d), and the width

is the projected width of the group in the direction of loading.

The provision of raking piles increases the ultimate lateral resistance of a

pile group. The raking of the outer piles of the group generally has the

major influence on group behaviour. The calculation of the capacity of

raking piles will be given later.

In most design situations, the lateral capacity of piles would be adequate for

the strength consideration, however, the lateral deflection could pose a

design problem and requires careful consideration. Therefore, many

engineers tend to establish the ultimate capacity of the pile foundation using

deflection criterion (i.e. the ultimate load is taken as the load corresponding

to a given displacement tolerance).

1.3.2 Lateral Deflection of Single Piles and Pile Groups

In most situations, the design of piles to resist lateral loads is based on

acceptable lateral deflection rather than the ultimate lateral capacity. The

two generally used approaches of calculating lateral deflection are:

1. Subgrade reaction approach (Reese and Matlock, 1956, Matlock and

Reese, 1960); and

2. Elastic continuum approach (Poulos, 1971a and b).

The behaviour of laterally loaded piles is highly nonlinear and linear

solutions can be expected to give only an approximate prediction of

deflection and rotation at the pile head. Therefore, nonlinear solutions are

called for. The widely used p-y analysis developed by Reese et al. (1974) is

an example of nonlinear analysis.

1.3.2.1 Lateral deflection of single piles

There are numerous analyses available for the prediction of lateral pile

response. However, only the solutions based on the theory of elasticity will

be discussed here, starting with linear solutions followed by modifications to

account for the nonlinear response.

Linear Elastic Solutions

Linear theories may be adequate for the approximate analysis (for

preliminary design purposes) of lateral response of piles. The ground-line

deflection, yg, and rotation, θ, and bending moments, Mmax = maximum

moment and Mf = fixing moment at pile head, of a fully-embedded single

vertical pile can be given by the following equations:

y g = Hf yH + Mf yM free head
1.66
= Hf yF fixed head

θ = HfθH + MfθM 1.67

M max (+ve) = HdI MH 1.68

M f = − HdI MF 1.69

where H and M are the horizontal force and bending moment applied at the

head of a pile of length L and diameter or width d. Pender (1996) has

collected solutions (Table 1.14) for flexible piles that apply for three

idealized distribution of soil Young’s modulus with depth. Poulos and Hull

(1989) developed more accurate solutions for the cases of uniform and

linearly increasing soil modulus (Table 1.15).

Table 1.14 Approximate solutions for lateral response of long piles (after

Pender, 1996)

Factor Es = constant Es =mz Es = EsL(z/L)0.5

K Ep/Es Ep/md Ep/EsL

La/d 0.5K0.36 1.3K0.222 In between

fyH 1.3K-0.18/Esd 3.2K-0.33/md2 2.14K-0.29/EsLd2

fyM = fθH 2.2K-0.45/Esd2 5.0K-0.556/md3 3.43K-0.53/EsLd2

fθM 9.2K-0.73/Esd3 13.6K-0.778/md4 12.16K-0.77/EsLd3

fyF fyH-(fθH2/fθM) 1.33K-0.333/md2 FyH-(fθH2/fθM)

IMH αKb αKb ( ≤ 8 ) --

α 0.12+0.24f+0.1f2 0.6f --

b Exp(-1.3-0.34f) 0.17f0.3 --

f M/dH M/dH --

LMmax 0.4La 0.41La --

IMF 0.24K0.27 0.37K0.222 --

Table 1.15 Solutions for elastic response of piles (Poulos and Hull, 1989)

Factor Es = constant Es = mz

K Ep/Es Ep/md

Lc/d 2.09K0.25 1.81K0.20

Le Lc if L≥Lc, L if L<Lc/3 Lc if L≥Lc, L if L<Lc/3

X Log10(Le/d) Log10(Le/d)

fyH (L≥Lc) (1.65+3.40x)/EsLe (13.10+11.09x)/mLc2

(L<Lc/3) (0.976+2.196x)/EsL (3.18+9.70)/mL2

fyM=fθH (L≥Lc) (5.52+9.08x)/EsLc2 (34.63+11.09x)/mLc3

(L<Lc/3) (0.70+3.23x)/EsL2 (2.41+12.71x)/mL3

fθM (L≥Lc) (64.98+37.95x)/EsLc3 (156.1+37.14x)/mLc4

(L<Lc/3) (1.09+6.29x)/EsL3 ((1.84+18.65x)/mL3

fyF (L≥Lc) (1.336+1.64x)/EsLc (5.67+4.14log10x)/mLc2

(L<Lc/3) (0.54+0.55x)/EsL (0.77+1.081x)/mL2

IMF (L≥Lc) Le(0.098+0.042x)/d Le(0.23+0.44log10x)/d

(L<Lc/3) L(0.55-0.014x)/d L(0.76-0.35x)/d

Nonlinear solutions

Proper estimation of the performance of piles under lateral loading

conditions requires the consideration of the nonlinear behaviour of the soil in

the close vicinity of the pile. Poulos and Davis (1980) and Budhu and Davis

(1986, 1987) developed nonlinear solutions by modifying the elastic

solutions by yield factors. These factors depend on applied load level,

relative pile flexibility and the distribution of soil stiffness. For piles

subjected to a lateral load, the groundline deflection, yg, and rotation, θ, may

be expressed as follows:

y g = ( y g ) el / Fu 1.70

θ = θ el / Fθ 1.71

where (yg)el = deflection from elastic theory, θel = rotation from elastic

theory, and Fu and Fθ = yield deflection and rotation factors. Poulos and

Davis (1980) present values of Fu and Fθ for soils with both a uniform soil

modulus and a linearly increasing modulus with depth. Davis and Budhu

(1986, 1987) also give simplified expressions for these factors. Figures 1.35

and 1.36 present the yield factors Fy and Fθ, respectively. In Figs. 1.35 and

1.36, KR = EpIp/EsL4, Hu = P + the ultimate lateral capacity of the pile and Fρ

= Fy. It should be noted that the pile length used in Figs. 1.35 and 1.36 is the

effective length (Le) which incorporates the relative pile flexibility via the
critical length. Poulos and Hull (1989) present solutions for fixed head piles

in typical stiff clay and soft clay profiles. The pile head deflection is given

by Eq. 1.70 while the pile head fixing moment is modified using a yield

factor, FM, and the fixing moment considering soil nonlinearity is given by:

M F = M FE / F M 1.72

Fig. 1.35 Yield displacement factor for pile in uniform soil

Fig. 1.36 Yield rotation factor for pile in uniform soil
1.3.2.2 Lateral deflection of pile groups

Poulos and Davis (1980) presented an analysis for the lateral response of

pile groups. This analysis is based on the superposition approach which

involves lateral interaction factors. Randolph (1981) presents approximate

relationships for the various interaction factors involved. The group

deflection is evaluated as a ratio from the single pile deflection. Assuming

that the axial and lateral responses of the pile group are uncoupled, the

lateral deflection of the pile caps, yc, can be evaluated using the interaction

approach as follows:

y c = ( y g ) ave R y 1.73

where (yg)ave = horizontal deflection of a single pile at the average load level

of a pile in the group. The group deflection ratio can be approximated by

i =n
R y = ∑α i 1.74
i =1

where αi interaction factor between a reference pile and pile No. i and n =

number of piles in the group. The interaction factor α depends on pile and

soil characteristics, spacing between the two piles, and the load direction

with respect to the line connecting the two piles. For any pile other than the

reference pile (where α = 1), the following equation can be used to give an

approximate value of α:
 0.14
⎛ 2.5E p ⎞ d
α = 0.6 ρ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1 + cos 2 β ) 1.75
⎝ Es ⎠ S

where S = centre-to-centre spacing between piles, β = the angle between the

direction of loading and the line connecting the pile centres, and ρ = a factor

relating the change in Es along the pile shaft, = 1 for uniform soil and = 0.25

if Es increases linearly with depth. When evaluating ρ and Es, they should

be weighted toward the top 5 to 6 pile diameters, where most of the lateral

reaction is taking place in the soil.

1.3.2.3 Assessment of parameters

In predicting the lateral load-deflection behaviour of piles using a nonlinear

analysis based on the elastic theory, the magnitude and distribution of Es are

required as well as the magnitude and distribution of the yield pressure, py.

The assessment of the yield pressure was discussed before, and hence only

Es will be discussed here.

The results of in-situ plate load tests carried out at various depths could

provide practically accurate estimation of Es, however, such tests are not

done in routine investigations. The use of pressuremeters provides an

excellent alternative to provide reliable values for Es, especially self-boring

pressuremeter.
The most reliable means to determine Es is to carry out a lateral pile load test

and to back-calculate the modulus by fitting the observations to the theory

(see Poulos and Davis, 1980).

In the absence of in-situ test information of lateral pile load test data, it is

necessary to estimate Es on the basis of previous experience via empirical

correlations. Caution must, however, be exercised in employing such

correlations to ensure compatibility between the theory used to derive the

correlation and the model used to calculate the pile response. Tables 1.16

and 1.17 summarize some of the available correlations for clays and sands,

respectively.

Table 1.16 Empirical correlations for Es in clays (for laterally loaded piles)

Relationship Theory Reference Notes

Es=(300-600)cu Nonlinear Jamilokowski & Initial tangent for

subgrade reaction Gararassino driven piles in

(1977) soft clay

Es=(180-450)cu Nonlinear Poulos (1973) Tangent modulus

boundary from model tests

element on jacked piles

Es=(280-400)cu Nonlinear Kishida and Tangent modulus

subgrade reaction Nakai (1977)

Table 1.17 Empirical correlations for Es in sand (for laterally loaded piles)

Relationship Theory Reference Remarks

Nh=0.19DR1.16 Nonlinear Jamiolkowski & Tangent value for

(MPa/m) subgrade reaction Garassino (1977) driven piles

Nh= 5.4 loose Nonlinear Reese et al. Tangent values

=15.3 medium subgrade reaction (1974) for driven piles

= 34.0 dense in submerged

(MPa/m) sands

Nh = 8 – 19 Linear boundary Banerjee (1978) Secant value

(MPa/m) element

Es = 1.6N MPa Nonlinear Kishida and Tangent value

subgrade reaction Nakai (1977)

Notes:

• Nh = rate of modulus increase (i.e. Es(z) = Nhz)

• N = SPT value

• Secant Es values should be used for linear elastic analyses to give

reasonable approximate prediction of the pile deflection at the working

load level

• Secant Es values could be taken as 0.6 to 0.7 tangent values