.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY

President: Prof. Kwet Yew Yonl(
Secretary-General: Prof. lknneB T. &rRado
Editor of Geotechnical
Engineering Journal: Dr. Noppadol Phienwej
SEAGS &C"tarial at Asian Institute of TeclulOiogy, K".. 42 Paholyothin Highway, K/0og l.JIan&. PalhUINhani 12120, 7hailand
do A.I.T., P.O. Box 4. Klong Luang. Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. Tel: 66-2-524-5501 .Fax: 66-2-524-5509 .E-mail: noppadol@aitaclh
---
Q Inlemel: hllp:llwww.ail.ac.lh/~e-~ag!;
30 September 2005
Dr. T.G. Sitharam
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore- 560012
l11dia
Subject: Paper GEl 77 entitled "Behaviour of Batter Piles in Soft Clay: A Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis"
Dear Dr. T.G. Sitha$,
On the review of you\" subject manuscript submitted to the journal, we now receive
the assessment of the two reviewers ( as enclosed). Both of them, which are not so favorable,
are not unanimous in the recommendations. In such a case, normally we will seek a third
opinion. However, the review process on your manuscript has already been so delayed, the
editor then made evaluation of the manuscript and conclude that it can be published as a
teclmical note after a major revision and shortening.
If you wish to have it published in the journal, kindly revise your paper in accordance
with the review comments. Also, please submit a separate point to point responses to the
review comments.
In your revision, kindly follow the standard fonnat of the Geotechnical Engineering
Journal. Please submit 3 copies of the revised paper including the electronic file in a diskette
using the Microsoft Word fonnat:
Thank you very much.
Phienwej
).
.
.\f~.:ii'
AS&Usor. No.1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
An official journal of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society {SEAGS)
ASSESSOR'S CHECKLIST
Paper No. -_1L_- .Submission Date :~ __~~m~L4Q.Q~
Title: BeI18viour of BaIter Pi~~i~.~C~L~N~li!)~~F_i.r]i~~_~~~~~_~~I~i3
Author(s):~~~~o.-9..al:'d T. Go Sltharam
YES NO
~
~
Is the 6t1bject 0' the artide within the scope of the journal?
I~ thIs a new aJd original oor1IriOUtion?
-Does the pa~ contain technical &m>fS?
Are the Interpfetation~ sound and Justified by the data?
~ Are the prese~Of1. orgClf1ilstion and length ~tisfactory?
-Are the ConckJsions clear and substantiated by lt1e OO1tent of the paper?
Does the Title ~rately reflect the con1~t Of U".e pape(7
-Are the Ab8tl'8ct and Keyword~ iniormati\'e?
-Is the quaity of the English satisfactory?
-;:1- Are the References adequate and are they all necessary?
--' Ar8 U1e ilustrO!lion~ and Table$ ne(;e$Sary and of 6(;ceptable qu"b'ty?
-Do abbrevja,tioRS, f1:Irmulae, units conjirm with ttle a{A;eptable standard7
-m the units and symbols In lt1e .bustratioosJTables complrtible with those in the text'?
General As~e-ssment
Excellent Fair
V
Poor Good
Ortgin!llty
T~n~1 Quality
Clarity of Pr9S&f1\Btion
Imponance In Field
~
:=2
~
Overall Grading of paper
-Excellent
-Fair
Good
Z Poor
Re(;ommendatlons
00
Assessor ..No~ 2
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
An official journal of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society (SEAGS)
ASSESSOR'S CHECKLIST
LE~.bI!,,1_~.I:Y..2.QQ.4.
Submission Date
7.7 Paper No.
~!J1-9-Y-L9. ul_Qf__~~~~~iles in Soft ~Y~-~fl!i'l~~IQ!e
Title:
5.5. Raja~~dT.G. 5itharam-
Author(s)
-
YES
/
NO
')(
,(
x
)(
x
Is the subject of the article within the scope of the journal?
Is this a new and original contribution?
Does the paper contain technical errors?
Are the interpretatioLls sound and justified by the data?
=--
Are the presentation. organization and length satisfactory?
Are the Conclusions ~Ie?~d ~~ate~_by the content of the paper?
Does the Title accurately reflect the content of the paper?
Are the Abstract and Keywords informative?
Is the quality of the English satisfactory?
Are the References adequate and are they all necessary?
Are the illustrations and Tables necessary and of acceptable quality?
--
Do abbreviations. formulae, units confirm with the acceptable standard?
Are the units and symbols in the il1ustradonsrrables compatible with those in the text?
General Assessment
Poor
Good
I<
Fair Excellent
'X Originality
Technical Quality
Clarity of Presentation
Importance in Field
><.
Overall Grading of paper
Good
Poor
-Exceller:ll
-:L Fair
Recommendations
Accept after minor.revision
Resubmit as a 7echnical Not
Accept with its present form
Reconsider after major revisiol
Unacceptable for publication
Please use additional sheets for addition comments and suggestions.
The research used the finite element model with hyperbolic relationship for soil response to
investigate the capacity of negative battered pile, vertical pile and positive battered pile. The authors
compared the results of a vertical pile using the finite element code developed themselves with
those results using a code, SPASM. Two laboratory model experiments were also used for
comparison. The literature review is infonnative and sufficient. The organization of the paper is
good. The research met4odology/procedures for the study are in reasonable sequences. However, it
seems to the reviewer that the authors only display very limited results arid just to demonstrate that
the lateral capacity of a negative batter pile is greater than that of vertical pile and positive batter
pile, which is already acknowledged in the relatively old literatures. The reviewer suggests that
more technical iIifonnation should be added for the paper to be reconsidered.
Additional comments:
1. Page 4, kx=nhxm is not clearly described.
2. For the first line on page 8, make sure the statement is for Eq.[6], it is in different section where
Eq.[6] is listed.
3. The soil reaction at ground level is not zero in Figure 2 for the positive pile, which is inconsistent
with the statement on page 8.
4. In the article, it should clearly state that are the stiffness of sub-element suitable for both the
positive and negative batter piles or not. Also, explained or show that how do the batter angles
(no matter positive or negative) come into the modeling system.
5. Table I shows very close results, however, the values of ground line deflections are relativley
small.
6. Is the aluminum pile with 9.5mrn-diameter a pipe pile?
7. Not just to prove it, the authors should explain why the lateral capacity of a negative batter pile is
greater than that of a vertical pile and a positive b~tter pile in the discussion section.
8. Should the limiting force in Figure 3(b) be denoted as lower case q to distinguish from the
combined ones in Figure 3(a). ~
9. It .seems that something missing in Figure 5, and all the variables in the stiffness are not
explained, such as G, F, U, etc.
10. In Figure 6, it is incomplete for the "IF (Spring force < limiting force)" judgment.
II. In Figure 12, the title of y-axis should be tuined 180 degree.
12. In Figure 13, the title of y-a."(is should be turned 180 degree.
Suggestions:
I. Quality of the illustrations should be improved.
2. It is suggested that a subroutine or detailed procedtIres for the convergence criteria can be added
in the article or appendix for readers to follow.
3. If there are some test results offull-scale batter piles, a comparison is \yorthwhile.
4. A series of parametric studies is strongly suggested by varying battering angles from -35 to 30
degree with 5-degree increment. Full-scale pile lengths should be considered.
C1)
.
BEHA VIOUR OF BATrER PILES IN SOFf CLAY: A NONLINEAR FINITE
ELEMENT ANAL YSIS
Rajashree, S.S.I and T. G. Sitharam 2
Research Associate' and Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore- 560012, INDIA.
Phone: +91-80-3602261 /+91-80- 2932919, Fax: 91- 80- 3600404
email: sitharam@civil.iisc.emet.in
ABSTRACT
Batter piles are used extensively in combination with vertical piles for onshore, offshore and
coastal structures to resist large horizontal loads due to wind, waves and berthing or mooring
forces respectively. In order to understand the pile-soil response of batter pile a scientific
understanding of the interaction phenomena that occurs in the pile-soil system becomes
essential. The pile soil system in soft clay under static load condition is modeled using a
finite element model where the nonlinear soil behavior is represented through a ~yperbolic
relation. Though the batter piles are subjected to loads in the horizontal direction, the soil
resistance which is dependent on the load acting along the axis of the pile and its effect is
incorporated in the pile-soil system by considering the ~-~ ~~!:t:1e!1tand geometric stiffness
matrix. In the finite element model, the pile is idealized as beam elements and the soil as
elasto-plastic sub-element springs. The nonlinear behavior of soil along the depth of pile is
modelled by an assemblage of ~g-plastic sub-elements, where stiffness and limiting force
represents each sub-eleme:nt. A nonlinear static analysis is performed using the developed
numerical model and the effect of batter angle on deflection and bending is clearly depicted
with respect to ultimate pile capacity .The present numerical model represents the lateral
response of the batter pile-soil system more realistically and the results are in good agreement
with the_~ished laboratory test results. The significance of the angle of batter, length of
pile and moment at pile head on the lateral deflection of the pile is clearly depicted wit~
~ect to the pile capacity in batter pile.
Kev Words: batter pile, soft clays, sub-elements. soil response, pile capacity
r.e
INTRODUCTION
Batter piles are used extensively to support foundations of bridge abutments, offshore
platforms, berthing structures and other water front structures subjected to horizontal loads.
If the horizontallo&d due to wave pressure and ship impact per pile exceeds the value suitable
for vertical pile, batter piles are adopted. Therefore a combination of vertical and batter pile is
best suitable for such structures. Batter piles are considered to be more effective in resisting
horizontal loads since a part of lateral load is converted into axial load and resulting bending
moments are less. Depending on the direction of loading batter piles are classified as positive
batter and negative batter. If the lateral load acts on the pile in the direction of batter, it is
called "in batter" or "negative batter" pile and opposite to the direction of batter it is called
an "out batter" or "positive batter". The degree of batter is the angle made by the pile with
the vertical may go up to 30. The behaviour of positive and negative batter pile when
compared to vertical pile is the main aim of the current study.
During the last few decades, extensive work has been undertaken by several researchers both
through experiments and numerical analyses on lateral response of a vertical pile. The
various approaches available in the solution of such problems are subgrade reaction
approach, p-y approach, elastic continuum method, nondimensional method, finite difference
method and finite element method.
The subgrade reaction approach is widely used due to its simplicity and various factors such
as nonlinearity, variation of soil stiffness and layering of soil profile. Reese and Matlock
(1956) have adopted a ~_inc-re:~i!lzm-QdulUS-OLsubgr.ad~~J;1i9J!.YIi!!l d~t~
~.~d solution for laterally loaded piles for moments, shear, deflection and soil reaction
in non-dimensional form which takes into account so~-and nonlinearity~ The p-y
2
(.11
approach is the most commonly adopted method as it can account for factors such as
nonlinearity and soil layering. Matlock (1970) has reported procedure to construct p-y curves
in clay for static and cyclic lateral load based on field tests conducted at Lake Austin and
Sabine clay. The --is more satisfactory as it takes into account the
continuity of the soil by approximating the realistic behavior of soil by incorporating soil
layering and varying soil modulus. Extensive use of elastic continuum analysis can be seen
.n the works of Douglas and Davis (1964), Spiller and Stoll (1964), Bannerjee and Davies
(1978) and Poulos (1971 and 1972). Nondimensional metho~ described by Mattock and
~~ ~-~
Reese (1960) consist of generalised solutions, incorporating the variation of soil modulus.
The finite difference method is used to solve complex problems which handle large
differential equations, whereas the finite element method is a versatile tool giving abetter
understanding of the pile behavior if the soil is modelled in a proper manner . !\ few of the
related research works are presented in this paper. A dynamic analysis program (SPASM,
Seismic Pile Analysis with Support Motion) was developed by Matlock and Foo (1978) using
finite difference technique, to study later,!1 pile-soil behavior due to wave load, earthquake,
ground motion and mudslide effects.
However, all these studies are concerned with vertical pile only but the behavior of batter
piles under lateral load was reported since 1950. Hrennikoff(1950) was one of the few who
attempted to predict displacements of the foundation system ~e groups) formulating
equations based on e.9!!!_librium conditions. The computation of loads and moments on piles
were performed in terms of piles constants and geometry of pile system.
:--- -
The omission of the
~is~d not aJ~~~!!lt in a conservati~~igl thus presenting a 2-0 analysis
of pile group containing batter piles accounting for the soil resistance. However the e!fect of
batter on lateral load resistance of soil cQ!!ld not be properly accounted f().r in 2-D analysjs of
l?ile group_~ the same was not evaluated qualitatively.
3
Tschebotarioff (1953) analysed the model test results in sand conducted by Matsuo (1938)
and Teported that the slip surfaces in the case of positive.. batter piJe_~~ec_t concave
downward and in negative batter pile ~ect concave upward (Fig. I). F eagin ( 1953 )
~--=---
conducted tests on groups containing batter and vertical timber piles with fixed heads in
sandy soil. Lateral loads were applied to both vertical and batter piles and the results
indicated that a combination of vertical and batter piles were more resistant tq .fateralload. A
pile system containing group of negative batter piles offer~ore resistant than group of
~- !-- ~
positive batter piles and t~tJ~ vallQ_forJ~adS!Q!!!QiMti9n wjtby.erti~II_~ad_also.
Murthy (1964) carried out model tests on batter pile and pile bents, embedded in dry sand for
various batter angles (15, 30, 45). The results of the lateral load tests indicate that the
resistance to lateral load increases as the batter angle varies from +45 to-::1..so. However the
second observation made by Feagin (1953) was 9b.'!-~gto be not generally true. Prakash
and Subramanyan (1965) performed model tests IJsing batter piles and pile bents embedded in
sand under lateral loads, to investigate its. behavior and found that th~ lateral resistance of a
pile with n~~ was gr_e_~le_rt~Q-1l1_at of vertical pile and positive batter pil~
Analysis of lateral load tests carried out on batter piles for the Arkansas river project, was
performed by A!izadeh and Oavison ( !970) using the coefficients of Reese and Mat!ock
1956) and concluded that for batter piles a nonlinear variation in subgrade modulus like
~x=nh Xm is a more reasonable approximation. Poulos and Madhav (1971) analysed a batter
pile subjected to axial load, normal load and moments and expressions were developed for
vertical and horizontal displacements that re~~~~~
~~
Earth pressure wedges were used for positive and negative
batters by Meyerhof and Ranjan (1973) to analyse batter piles under lateral load in
4
cohesion less soil and study the lateral pile capacity. The experimental results were compared
with the theory and found to be in good agreement.
Lateral load tests were also carried out on model batter pile in clays by Ranjan et al. (1980)
for both single vertical and batter piles and pile groups. The authors reported that a single
negative batter (in-batter) pile was more resistant and an out-batter pile was less resistant in
comparison with vertical pile. A pile bent consisting of one vertical pile and another batter
pile either positively or negatively batter was more resistant to lat~~~~e~ti~~_jn
comparison with a similar pile group of two vert_~!I.piles.Lu (1981) based on experimental
results found a satisfactorycr:iterion for determining design pile loads for laterally loaded
'
bored piles. The.~.mental results showed that th~_soil reaction at g!~u~n~J~~t~~
for a positive batter (out-batter) pile and maximum for a negative batter pile indicatin~
thereby that negative batter piles would gain .more support from soil. It was concluded that
the maximum bending moment in positive batter piles would control the pile design.
Recently Veeresh ( 1996) has conducted model tests on batter piles subjected to cyclic lateral
load. In his work, a model pile was tested for cyclic lateral load and the effect of pile-soil
interaction factors due to subsequent cycles of loading on the structure was observed. In the
case of vertical and batter piles t~~~h_Of~oil d~~~~~a gap is fQr~ed peQipd~
~, in negative batter pile slippage of soil ~ccurs into the gap thus improving the
resistance of soil and closing the gap formed.
The literature review indicates that the analysis of pile-soil interaction problem by finite
element method has received limited attention, pa~~ularly in batter piles.. For vertical piles a
number of finite element works has been reported in literature. (Bowles, 1974, Desai and
Kuppusamy, 1980, Randolph, 1981, Chow, 1987, Kooijman and Verrujit, 1989, Kooijman
and Vermeer, 1988, Brown and Shie, 1990, Trochanis et at., 1991, Rajashree and
5
CfJ
Sundaravadivelu, 1996 and Rajashree, 1997). In this paper, an attempt has been made to
study the response of batter piles !~ ~ by finite element method based on ~
approach with a hyperbolic model to represent the nonlinear soil response. To get confidence
.-~-- -~--~
in the developed model it is first validated with experimental results on v~~!-P~
subjected to lateral loads. The nonlinear ~ analysis program developed for batter pile is
validated with E~blis~~~e.l test results.
NONLINEAR BEHA VIOR OF SOIL
In most of the numerical studies, the nonlinear behavior of soil is represented by p-y curves
showing a parab.olic variation. These curves are developed using the design procedures given
by Mattock [ 1970] which is based on experiments perfonned in clays at Lake Austin and
Sabine, Texas. However, recent researchers (Georgiadis et al., 1992) have reported that the
hyperb?lic function which is widely used in stress-strain problems (Kondner, 1963), fits
remarkably well with the experimental results for laterally loaded piles in soft clay and the p-
y relationship is as given below.
y p -
-.
[I]
1 y
-+-
k; p"
where the initial stiffness of the soil,: kj is obtained from Vesic's (1961) equation:
.3~
Vm-
~
k,
=
[2]
where,
ES -Modulus of deformation of soil
E -Young's modulus ofpile
-moment of inertia of the pile section
6
00
-Poisson's ratio of soil u
D -pile diameter
The deflection (y) is limited to 20% of the pile diameter as described by Broms (1964).
The ultimate resistance of soil ( p u ) = N pC u D
Where, C u is the undrained shear strength of clay, D is the pile diameter and N p is the
bearing capacity factor which increases with depth below soil surface (ZLand varies fro~3
at ground level (Z = 0) to 9 at Z = Z R ' according to Eq. [3] :
(3+~+~
) Cu D
N =
p
ForZ ~ ZR
[3]
where
y -effective unit weight of soil
J -dimensionless empirical constant (0.25 to 0.50)
N =9
p
For Z ? ZR
[4]
where Z R is the depth below the soil surface to the depth of reduced resistance zone given by
Eq. [5] which is obtained by equating Eqs. [3] and [4].
6D
ZR=~
Cu .
[5]
7
ce
6 (
l' Cf
'L~
Eq. [6] Is valid only if the undrained shear strength and unit weight of soil are constant along
,
~/
the depth.
The correlation given for ultimate soil resistance stated in Eqs. (3) and (4) is valid_o_~!.y for
f, t
vertical piles which lead to the study of the soil reaction on batter piles. However, Lu (1981-l !-1 (,5
has proposed the soil reaction at ground level t <e~for positive batter pile_~nd maximum J l:.~
~ I-I
for negative batter pile indicating th~ that nega~iv.e batter piles would gain- mo~:_~~I?of!
from soil based on model test results. Hence, soil reaction for batter piles proposed by Lu
( 1981) has been adopted in this paper . A schematic view of the variation of ultimate
resistance of soil reaction along the depth of the pile is presented in Fig. 2. In this paper,
hyperbolic model is used to represent the soil resistance-displacement (p-y) curve which
predicts the lateral response of the pile more realistically. The details of the p-y curve,
modelling using elasto-plastic sub-elements to calculate stiffness and geometric nonlinearity
is covered in the subsequent sections.
MODELING OF THE p-y CURVE
The nonlinear inelastic soil support (p-y) curve is modelled using elasto-plastic sub-elements
as proposed by Matlock and Foo [1978]. The p-y curve is approximated using several elastic
Each sub-element (as shown perfectl'j plastic elements in parallel denoted"as sub-elements.
in Fig. 3) is represented by its spring stiffness (Si) and limiting resistance (QJ at a particular
deflection cy j). The resistance at any deflection is ~~al to--the-sum of the limiting soil
~ of the sub-elements, as given in Eq. [7]. Fig.3a is a nonlinear elastic curve
,
comprising of 5 elasto-plastic sub-elements as shown in Fig. 3b each having a stiffness (8),
limiting force CQ) and displacement CY). In this section, as an example five elasto-plastic
sub-elements have been considered. At a particular deflection cy I) of the first sub-element
8
00
(see Pig. 3b) all the sub-elements are in the elastic stage, hence the initial slope of the
nonlinear elastic curve is (SI+S2+S3+S4+SS).
Similarly, for a deflection (V 5) only the fifth
sub-element having a force (Q5) and stiffness (85) is in the elastic stage and the rest of the
sub-elements are in the plastic stage (see Fig. 3b) thus the slope is only Ss. Based on the
above stated sub-element concept the following equations have been charted out.
5)
5
L Sm (i =
m=1
i-I
Qi = L. Sm y m + Vi
m=I .
,2.
[6]
On solving Eq. [6] simultaneously, the stiffness of each sub-element is obtained as:
4~
x~
~
Y5-Y4
If [7]
S5
=
~
V4 -V)
S4
-ss
=
[8]
QJ -Q2
YJ -Y2
S3 -85 -84
=
[9]
~
Y2 -Yl
S2
-85 -84 -83
=
[10]
SI
~ -82 -SJ -84 -85
Yl
=
[II]
( ~'..vl!-,
-.) -.lc
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
fjy
cbt!~ ~L_I(?-
A computer code is developed for the lateral load analysis of vertical and batter pile by
idealizing the pile by beam elements and the soil by number of elasto-plastic spring elements
at each beam node (Fig. 4). The batter pile offers a higher resistance to lateral loading. A
portion of the horizontal component acts as an axial load on the pile.
The horizontal load
9
00
same the geometric nonlinearity of the pile is incorporated by considering the geometric
stiffness matrix in addition to the e~es~!!latrix of !he beam el.e~~nt (Fig.5) as well
---~--
as the secondary moments (known as the ~
A nonlinear static analysis is performed considering the ~d adopting
~
~~~-R) metho~to implement an i!1S~I!!-~!1~:iteOOiy~-proc~dure.
The stiffness of the beam element and the spring elements are calculated using the given
formulation. A-.!-J:.ach_~~leng the pile ~ t~~~~of th~oil is lJl~delled frolJ1
macro to micro l~vel,N~ elasto-plastic sub-elem~~ts are assumed each having stiffness
.:J~
A linear static analysis is performed for the first incremental load and
and a limiting force.
the spring force obtained are compared .with the limiting soil resistance of the respective
The c~~~!~ adopted_f9~~-_R-Jnethod ~that, if t~e_~~ng f~rce-
springs.
ob~d at the end of the linear analxsis is greater than the limiting soil resistance then the
stiffness of the element is ass~~~~~ro and the nodal force equal to the limiting soil
resistance is applied. in ~~tio~i <!~~ec~io~, otherwise, the iterative procedure
is complete. The procedure causes a change in the nodal stiffness and the force vector in the
The iteration is continued till all the spring elements mobilised for active
next iteration.
The procedure is repeated for all the load
springs are within the limiting soil resistance.
)~
,
increments and the resultant deflections, bending moments and spring forces are obtained. A
typical flow chart of the incremental-iterative procedure to perform a nonlinear static analysis
~
~
l~
shown in Fig. 6.
~~
v ALmATION OF THE COMPUTER CODE
In this section, a field pile studied by Matlock and Foo (1978) using the p-y model given by
Matlock: (1970) and adopting a finite difference method program (SPASM, Seismic Pile
Analysis and Support Motion) has been considered for the validation of the program
10
ce
developed in this work. A nonlinear static analysis is performed on the field pile of diameter
1.219 m and length 73.2 m embedded in clay for a depth of61m subjected to three different
magnitudes of lateral load 334kN, SOOkN and 669kN at eccentricity of 12.1m (Matlock and
Foo, 1978) using the developed computer code. The lateral deflections obtained in this
analysis compared with the results from SPASM code are as presented in Table The
results presented show a fairly good comparison.
(l,
~ Comparison of lateral deflection at ground line with SPASM Table
IX
ViO
Jateralload Ground line deflection (mm) I'
(kN)
Present analysis SPASM lOr
c---
(Finite Element Method) (Finite difference method)
334 0.0817 0.0815
0.1461) 0.1464 500
0.2268 0.2260 669
RESUL TS AND DISCUSSIONS
Nonlinear static analysis is performed on both vertical and batter pile and the resulting lateral
deflections obtained for the corresponding loads are compared with the available
experimental resuJ~. The lateral soil response obtained from the numerical study is validated
with the model test results ofRao et al., (1992). A mild steel pile of25.4 mm diameter and
3.2 mm wall thickness embedded in sof! marine clay deposit (liquid limit = 82%, plastic
limit=32%, liquidity index=O.32, undrained shear strength, Cu
= 7.5 kPa, modulus of
s~b~~~ r~_a~~l :4.74 kPa and unit weight of soil, y =17;2 kN/m3) was tested by Rao et
CtJ
al (1992) for a p!!~le!lgth of 1500mm and applying a static lateral load at an eccentricity of
DSJOmm,
A nonlinear static analysis is performed on this model pile using finite element
method as described earlier, where a hyperbolic model is adopted to represent the lateral soil
The comparison of results is presented in Fig. 7 showing the validity of the
response.
hyperbolic model used with the experimental results.
",;\!
A model aluminium pile of diameter 9.5 mm, wall thickness 1 mm and length 360 mm
embedded in soft clay (~L=54%, PL= 25%, Ic
= 0.48, Wn = 40%, y = 18kN/m3, Cu = 15.2kPa,
E
= 600 kPa) and tested by Ranjan et al. (1980) is considered for performing a nonlinear
static analysis on both vertical and batter piles using nonlinear static analysis program.
A
lateral load of 24.5N is applied at the pile head at zero eccentricity in equal load increments
and the static analysis is performed for vertical pile and batter pile of batter angle ~O degrees
and the results are compared with model test results. Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the
present analysis results for vertical pile with model test results. The plotted curve shows a
good comparison with experimental results. o-le'
Figs 9 and 10 show the comparison of load-deflection curve for both positive and negative
batter pile (batter angle =30 degrees) with model test results of Ranjan et al. ( 1980) thus
showing the validity of the developed finite element code. In Fig. 9 the lateral deflection for
--
ppsitiv~ batter pile is more than vertical pile, thus the ultimate static capacity corresponding
to 20~oof diameter for positive batter pile is less than vertical pile. Whereas in Fig. 10 the
lateral deflection for negative batter pile is less than vertical pile, showing the increase in
ultimate static capacity for negative batter pile than vertical pile. A comparison of the results
of lateral load deflection for vertical pile and batter pile (positive and negative) is presented
in Fig.
12
c~
The va.riation of lateral deflection and bending moment along the length of pile are plotted in
Figs.12 and 13 respectively. In Fig. 12 the deflection for the piles considered for the study is
maximum at the ground line and varies nonlinearly along the length of pile. Whereas, in Fig.
13 the bending moment is zero at the ground line, increases to a maximum and then reduces
gradually. The depth, at which the bending moment is maximum, is different for vertical pile
~~.( r
and batter piles (positive and negative).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The static lateral responses of vertical and batter piles are studied based on a nonlinear Finite
<1 ~Iement code using hyperbolic model for soil and considering the geometric nonlinearity of
the pil~. The numerical model presented in the study predicts a realistic behavior of a vertical
pile and batter pile on comparison with the experimental results of Rao et al.,1992 and
Ranjan et al. ( 1980) respectively. The following conclusions are drawn from the study:
lhe developed computer code has been validated for the results presented by .
Matlock and Foo ( 1978)
The inclusion of hyperbolic model for the soil and geometric nonlinearity for .
the pile (considering the g~~metric stiffness matrix and secondary moments due
to ~~_lo~oming on the f;)osit~ve and negative batter pile) helps in pre~enting
a realistic behavior of the pile-soil system thus showing the validity of the
numerical model ~!t~e~perimental results.
Present analysi~ negative batter pile offers more resistance than +
vertical pile whereas positive batter pile offers less resistance than vertical pile.
'hese results are in-conformity with experjmentaLr~
The variations of deflection and bending moment diagrams presented along the .
length of pile show a sim~r tre~d for batte~ (positive and negative) and
13
vertical pile. However, the depth at which bending moment is maximum is
~
more for positive batter pile and less for negative ba~er pile com~~red to a
vertical pile.
REFERENCES
Alizadeh, M. and Davison, M.T. (1970) Lateral load test on piles -Arkansas River Project.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 96, 1583-1603.
Banerjee, P.K. and Davies, T.G. (1978) The behavior of axially and laterally loaded single
piles embedded in nonhomogenous soils, Geotechnique, 28(3), 309-326.
Bowles, J.E. (1974) Analytical and computer methods in foundation engf., Mc Graw-Hill
Book Company.
Brown, D.A. and C.F. Shie (1990) Three-dimensional finite element model of laterally
loaded piles, Computers and Geotechnics,.10, 59-79.
Chow, Y.K. (1987) Iterative analysis of pile-soil interaction under lateral loading using
infinite and finite elements, Computers and Geotechnics, 15, 189-220.
Desai. C.S and Kuppusamy, T. (1980) Application of numerical procedure for laterally
loaded structures, Institute of Civil Engineers, Numerical Methods in Offshore Pil~ing, 93-
99. .t
Douglas, D.J. and Davis, E.H. (1964) The movement of buried footings due to moment and
horizontal load and the movement of anchor plates, Computers and Geotechnics, 14, 115-
132.
Feagin, L.B. (1953) The lateral load tests on group of batter and vertical piles. Special
Technical Publication No.154, ASTM, 12-30.
Georgiadis, M., Anagnostopoulos, C. and Saflekon, S. ( 1992) .Cyclic lateral loading of piles
in Soft clay, Geotechnical Engg., 23,47-60. .
Hrennikoff, A. (1950) Analysis of foundations with batter piles. Transactions, ASCE,
351-374.
15,
Kondner , R.L. ( 1963) Hyperbolic stres.s-strain response: cohesive soils, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 89,115-143.
Kooijman, A.P. and Vermeer, P.A. (1988) Elasto-plastic analysis of laterally loaded piles,
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 2, 1033-1042.
Kooijman, A.P., and Verrujit, A.
Geotechnique, 39, 39-46.
(1989) Laterally loaded piles in layered elastic medium,
14
Ct'
Lu, S.S. (' 1981) Design load of bored pile laterally loaded, Xth International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, Rotterdam, 767-770.
Matlock, H. (1970) Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles. 2nd Offshore Technology
Conference, Texas, 577-593.
Matlock, H. And Reese, L.C. (1960) Generalised solutions for laterally loaded piles, Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 86(SM5), 63-91.
Matlock, H., and Foo, S.H.C. (1978) Simulation of lateral pile behavior under earthquake
motion, A report to Chevron Oil Field Research Company, La Habra, California, The
university of Texas at Austin, Department of Civil Engineering, 74 pages.
Meyerhqf, 0.0 and Ranjan, a. (1973) The bearing capacity of rigid piles under inclined
loads in sand II: Batter piles, Canadian GeotechnicalJournal, 10,71-85.
Murthy, V .N.S. (1964) Behavior of batter piles embedded in sand subjected to lateral loads,
Proc. Symposium on bearing capacity ofpiles, CBRI, Roorkee, India, 142-153.
Poulos (1971) Behavior of Laterally loaded piles: I-Single Piles, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 97(SM5), 733-752.
Poulos (1972) Load-settlement prediction for piles and piers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 98(SM9), 879-897.
Poulos, H.G. and Madhav, M.R. (1971) Analysis of movement of batter piles. Research
report No. R173, University of Sydney, 1-18.
Prakash, S. and Subramanyam, G. (1965) Behavior of batter piles under lateral loads. Journal
of Indian National Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4, 177-196.
Rajashree S.S. (1997) Nonlinear cyclic analysis of laterally loaded pile in clay, PhD Thesis,
IIT Madras, India.
Rajashree S.S. and Sundaravadivelu, R. (1996) Degradation model for one-way cyclic lateral
load on piles in soft clay, Computers and Geotechnics, 19, 289-300.
Randolph, M.F.
31(2),247-25~.
(1981)
The response of flexible piles to lateral loading, Geotechnique,
Ranjan, G., Ramasamy, G. and Tyagi, R.P. (1980) Lateral response of batter piles and pile
bents in clay, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 10, No.2, 135-142.
Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956) Non-dimensional solutions for laterally loaded piles with
soil modulus assumed proportional to depth, Proc. 8th Texas Conference in Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engg. Special pub. 29.
Spillers, W.R. and Stoll, R.D. (1964) Lateral response of piles, Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 90 (SMq), 1-9.
Trochanis, A.M, Bielak, J. and Christiano, P. (1991) Three-dimensional nonlinear study of
piles, Journal ofGeotechnical Engg., ASCE, 117,429-447.
15
~
Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1953) The resistance to lateral loading of single piles and pile groups.
ASTM special publication No.154, 38-48.
Veeresh, C. (1996) Behavior of batter piles in marine clays, PhD Thesis, lIT Madras, India.
Vesic, A.B. (1961) Bending beam resting on isotropic elastic solid, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 102(EM2), 249-264.
List of Fieures
Fig.
Failure surface in positive and negative batter pile (Tschebotarioff, 1953).
Variation ofultimate resistance of soil along the depth ofpile for various
types of batter pile
Fig.3
Modelling of the nonlinear elastic curve using number of elasto-plastic
sub-elements.
Fig.4
Discretisation of the pile-soil system.
Stiffness matrix of the beam element (Elastic and Geometric)
Flow chart for nonlinear static analysis using incremental-iterative procedure.
Fig.6
Fig.7
Comparison of lateralload-deflection curve for vertical pile with
experimental results ofRao et al. (1992)
Comparison of lateralload-deflec!ion curve for vertical pile with
Experimental results of Ranjan et al. (1.980)
Fig.8
Fig. 9 Comparison of lateralload-deflection curve for positive batter pile (batter
angle= 300) with experimental results of Ranjan et al. (1980)
Fig. 10 Comparison oflateralload-deflection curve for negative batter pile (batter
.angle= 300) with experimental results of Ranjan et al. (1980)
Fig.
Comparison oflateralload-deflection curve for vertical and batter piles
(positive and negative, batter angle= 300) from present analysis.
Fig. 12 Variation of lateral deflection along the depth of pile for vertical and
and batter pile (positive and negative).
Fig. 13 Variation of bending moment along the depth ofpile for vertical and
batter pile (positive and negative).
16
CtI
! Qs
A- -~
':::tq4
'-"
Q)O"1
( S 5
s4+
~
i
S 4 + ~5
a) (5
d SI :>4
>ispjacement (Y)
,
.
(b)
Qs
~
~
.
Y-
~
~
.
Q
~
~
Subelements at
Node 1
DISCRETISATION--OF- PilE- SOll- SYSTEM
4-
~
~
NO~
NCR = INCR + 1
~
YES
~
200
150
.
., z
'-"'
""0
0
0
O
~
0)
4-'
O
~
100
*
50
* * * * * Expt. (Roo et 01. (1992)
.Present method (FEM)
0
O 1 2 3
Lateral deflection (mm)
Comparison of I.ateral load-deflection
with model test results
7
FL(}uJLe.
['2
40
-
z
"0
ro
0
ro
'-
0)
-
ro
-l
20
0
a
2
1
Lateral deflection (mm)
8.
r:- L O Lt-,,<?
(11
40
z
-
"'0
ro
o
ro
'-
Q)
-
ro
-.J
20
*
III~I
0
0.0 0.4 0.8
Lateral deflection (mm)
1.2
FZOLA.'.'c 10
..
40
-
z
.x:
-
-0
ro
.Q.
ro
Lo
0)
-
ro
-.J
/
/ /
/
20
/
/
/ / ' ,
, ..
/ ..
, 1 , .
0
0 1 2
Lateral deflection (mm)
3
~.~~(:? II
~
Lateral deflection (rnrn)
i
g.
Jg
g-
'S.
-
~
---
9
~a~Q
12
Ell
Bending moment (kN-m)
i
~
0
~
!fi"
~
('J
s
"-'
FL~ ,... e , 3