Paper 15

Basu, D., Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. (2009). Géotechnique 59, No. 2, 127–140 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.
00011
A continuum-based model for analysis of laterally loaded piles in

layered soils
D. BA S U * , R . S A L G A D O † a n d M . P R E Z Z I †
An analysis is developed to calculate the response of Dans la présente communication, on conçoit une analyse
laterally loaded piles in multilayered elastic media. The permettant de calculer la réaction de pieux à charge latérale
displacement fields in the analysis are taken to be the dans des milieux élastiques multicouches. Les champs de
products of independent functions that vary in the verti- déplacement dans cette analyse sont censés être les produits
cal, radial and circumferential directions. The governing de fonctions indépendantes variant dans les sens vertical,
differential equations for the pile deflections in different radial et circonférentiel. Les équations différentielles déter-
soil layers are obtained using the principle of minimum minantes pour les flèches des pieux dans différentes couches
potential energy. Solutions for pile deflection are obtained de terrain s’obtiennent en appliquant le principe de l’éner-
analytically, whereas those for soil displacements are gie potentielle minimale. Les solutions s’obtiennent de dif-
obtained using the one-dimensional finite difference férentes façons : de façon analytique pour la flèche des
method. The input parameters needed for the analysis pieux, et avec une méthode des différences finies unidimen-
are the pile geometry, the soil profile, and the elastic sionnelles pour les déplacements du sol. Les paramètres
constants of the soil and pile. The method produces d’entrée nécessaires pour l’analyse sont la géométrie des
results with accuracy comparable with that of a three- pieux, le profil du terrain, et les constantes élastiques du sol
dimensional finite element analysis but requires much less et des pieux. Cette méthode permet d’obtenir des résultats
computation time. The analysis can be extended to dont la précision est comparable à celle des analyses tridi-
account for soil non-linearity. mensionnelles aux éléments finis, mais qui nécessite des
temps de calcul beaucoup plus courts. En outre, il est
possible de renforcer cette analyse pour tenir compte de la
KEYWORDS: elasticity; piles; theoretical analysis non linéarité du terrain.
INTRODUCTION et al., 1989; Verruijt & Kooijman, 1989; Trochanis et al., 1991;
Piles subjected to lateral forces and moments at the head are Bransby, 1999; Ng & Zhang, 2001; Klar & Frydman, 2002).
analysed in practice with the p–y method (Reese & Cox, The 3D FE or FD method can capture the most important
1969; Matlock, 1970; Reese et al., 1974, 1975; Reese & Van features of the complex pile–soil interaction, but three-dimen-
Impe, 2001). In the p–y method the pile is assumed to behave sional analyses are computationally expensive for routine prac-
as an Euler–Bernoulli beam with the soil modelled as a series tice. The BE method accounts for the pile–soil interaction by
of discretely spaced springs, each connected to one of the pile discretising the pile into small strips and modelling the inter-
segments into which the pile is discretised. The springs model action between these strips with the soil continuum through
the soil response to loading through p–y curves ( p is the unit numerical integration of Mindlin’s solution (Mindlin, 1936) for
resistance per unit pile length offered by the springs, and y is a point force within a continuum.
the pile deflection), which are developed empirically by Considering the soil surrounding the pile as a continuum,
adjusting the curves until they match actual load–displace- Sun (1994), Zhang et al. (2000) and Guo & Lee (2001)
ment results (Cox et al., 1974; Briaud et al., 1984; Yan & developed closed-form solutions based on linear elasticity
Byrne, 1992; Brown et al., 1994; Gabr et al., 1994; Briaud, that can be used to obtain lateral pile deflection with depth.
1997; Wu et al., 1998; Bransby, 1999; Ashour & Norris, Their analyses capture the three-dimensional aspects of the
2000). However, the p–y method often fails to predict pile interaction of the pile–soil system and produce results
response (Anderson et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2004), for it is quickly, which is advantageous in practice. However, these
not capable of capturing the complex three-dimensional inter- authors made an assumption that the variation of displace-
action between the pile and the soil. ments within the soil mass depends on the same displacement
The continuum approach is conceptually more appealing; function for both the radial and the circumferential directions.
however, in order to model the soil as a continuum, the use of This leads to a soil response that is stiffer than it is in reality.
numerical techniques such as the three-dimensional (3D) finite Most continuum analyses of laterally loaded piles do not
element (FE) method, finite elements with Fourier analysis, the consider soil layering. Soil heterogeneity with depth has been
boundary element (BE) method or the finite difference (FD) approximately taken into account in the BE and FE analyses by
method is often required (Poulos, 1971a, 1971b; Banerjee & assuming (typically) a linear variation of soil modulus with
Davis, 1978; Randolph, 1981; Budhu & Davies, 1988; Brown depth (Poulos, 1973; Randolph, 1981; Budhu & Davies, 1988).
The BE analysis has also been used to analyse two-layer
systems (Banerjee & Davies, 1978; Pise, 1982). However, BE
Manuscript received 18 February 2007; revised manuscript accepted analysis of laterally loaded piles is strictly not applicable to
24 September 2008. Published online ahead of print 3 December layered systems, because Mindlin’s solution used in BE analy-
2008. sis is valid only for homogeneous continuums. Verruijt &
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 August 2009, for further
details see p. ii.
Kooijman (1989) solved a layered elastic system by discretis-
* Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University ing the soil layers using FE and the pile by FD methods.
of Connecticut, Storrs, USA In this paper, an advanced continuum-based method of
† School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, analysis of laterally loaded piles is proposed by assuming
USA. the soil displacement field to have a shape that is consistent
127
128 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
with the drop in displacement expected as distance from the The soil medium is assumed to be an elastic and isotropic
pile increases, and with the fact that the displacement is continuum, homogeneous within each layer, with Lame’s
expected to depend on the direction of the load with respect constants ºs and Gs . There is no slippage or separation
to the point considered in the soil. The analysis considers a between the pile and the surrounding soil, or between the
pile embedded in a multilayered elastic soil (continuum), soil layers. The pile behaves as an Euler–Bernoulli beam
and rigorously takes into account the three-dimensional with a constant flexural rigidity Ep Ip .
pile–soil interaction. The governing differential equations
for the pile and soil displacements are developed using
variational principles. Closed-form solutions are obtained for Potential energy
pile deflection, and soil displacements are obtained using the The total potential energy of the pile–soil system, includ-
one-dimensional (1D) FD method. Pile response obtained ing both the internal and external potential energies, is given
using this method compares favourably with 3D FE analysis, by
although the computation effort required by this method is ð Lp 2 2 ð 1 ð 2 ð 1
small. Because soil displacements and strains can be calcu- 1 d w 1
lated alongside pile deflection using this method, the analysis — ¼ Ep I p dz þ pq pq rdrdŁdz
2 0 dz 2 0 0 rp 2
forms the basis for future analysis that can model the inter-
action of piles in a group, and can account for soil non- ð 1 ð 2 ð rp
1
linearity by relating the progressive degradation of soil þ pq pq rdrdŁdz
Lp 0 0 2
stiffness to induced soil strains.

dw

Fa w þ M a
z¼0 dz z¼0
ANALYSIS (1)
Problem definition
We consider a pile with a circular cross-section of radius where w is the lateral pile deflection, and pq and pq are the
rp and length Lp embedded in a soil deposit that has n layers stress and strain tensors (see Fig. 2) in the soil (summation is
(Fig. 1). Each layer extends to infinity in all radial direc- implied by the repetition of the indices p and q in the product
tions, and the bottom (nth) layer extends to infinity in the of corresponding stress and strain components). The first
downward direction. The vertical depth to the base of any integral represents the internal potential energy of the pile.
intermediate layer i is Hi , which implies that the thickness The second and third integrals represent the internal potential
of the ith layer is Hi Hi1 with H0 ¼ 0 and Hn ¼ 1. The
pile head is at the ground surface, and the base is embedded r0
in the nth layer. The pile is subjected to a horizontal force Fa θ
Fa and a moment Ma at the pile head such that Fa and Ma
are orthogonal vectors. In the analysis, we choose a cylind- ur
rical (r–Ł–z) coordinate system with its origin coinciding uθ
uz
with the centre of the pile head and the positive z-axis
(coinciding with the pile axis) pointing downwards. The goal
of the analysis is to obtain pile deflection as a function of
depth caused by the action of Fa and/or Ma at the pile head.
z
Ma (a)
Pile
r0 r0
Fa
θ
r
2rp
σzz
Ma Fa r0
τθz
¥ ¥ θ
Layer 1 H1
H2 τrz
Layer 2
Hi⫺1
Hi
…
σrr
Hn⫺2 τθr
Lp τrθ
Hn⫺1
Layer i τzθ τzr
σθθ
…
Layer n ⫺ 1
Layer n Pile
z z
¥ (b)
Fig. 1. Laterally loaded pile in layered elastic medium Fig. 2. (a) Displacements and (b) stresses within soil mass
ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS 129
energy of the continuum (note that the third integral repre- The strains in equation (3) are related to stresses using the
sents the energy of the column of soil with radius rp starting elastic stress–strain relationships, which allow expression of
at the pile base and extending to infinity downward, while the the soil potential energy density 12 pq pq in terms of the
second integral represents the energy of the soil surrounding displacement functions w(z), r (r) and Ł (r), and the soil
both the pile and this column of soil). The remaining two elastic constants ºs and Gs (see Appendix 1). Substituting
terms represent the external potential energy. this expression for the potential energy density into equation
(1), we obtain
"
ð Lp 2 2 ð ð 2
Soil displacement 1 d w 1 1 2 d r
We assume the following displacement fields (Fig. 2) in — ¼ Ep I p dzþ ð ºs þ2G s Þw
2 0 dz 2 2 0 rp dr
the soil:
u r ¼ wð zÞ r ð rÞ cos Ł d r ð r Ł Þ ð Þ2
(2a) þ2ºs w 2 þ ðºs þ3Gs Þw 2 r 2 Ł
dr r r
uŁ ¼ wð zÞŁ ð rÞ sin Ł (2b) 2 2
uz ¼ 0 (2c) 2 dŁ 2 ð r Ł Þ dŁ dw
þ Gs w þ2Gs w þ Gs 2r
dr r dr dz
where w(z) is a displacement function (with a dimension of 2 # ð 2
length), varying with depth z, representing the deflection of dw 2 1 dw
the pile axis; r (r) and Ł (r) are dimensionless displace- þ Gs Ł rdrdzþ rp Gs
2
dz
dz 2 Lp dz
ment functions varying with the radial coordinate r; and Ł is
the angle measured clockwise from a vertical reference dw

Fa w þ M a (4)
section (r ¼ r0 ) that contains the applied force vector Fa. dz z¼0
z¼0
Equation (2c) is based on the assumption that the vertical
displacement of the pile caused by the lateral load and Principle of minimum potential energy
moment applied at the pile head is negligible. A system in equilibrium exists with its potential energy at
The functions r (r) and Ł (r) describe how the displace- a minimum. Hence minimising the potential energy of the
ments within the soil mass (due to pile deflection) decrease pile–soil system (i.e. setting the first variation of the poten-
with increasing radial distance from the pile axis. We set tial energy — equal to 0) produces the equilibrium equa-
r (r) ¼ 1 and Ł (r) ¼ 1 at r ¼ rp (this ensures compat- tions. We apply — ¼ 0 to obtain an equation of the form
ibility at the pile/soil interface) and r (r) ¼ 0 and Ł (r) ¼ (see Appendix 1)
0 at r ¼ 1 (this ensures that displacements in the soil
decrease with increasing radial distance from the pile). Thus dw
— ¼ Að wÞw þ Bð wÞ
r and Ł vary between 1 at the pile/soil interface and 0 at dz (5)
infinite radial distance from the pile.
þ C ð r Þ r þ DðŁ ÞŁ ¼ 0
Since the variations w(z), (dw/dz), r (r) and Ł (r) of
Stress–strain–displacement relationships the functions w(z) (and its derivative), r (r) and Ł (r) are
The strain–displacement relationship, considering equation independent, the terms associated with each of these varia-
(2), leads to tions must individually be equal to zero (i.e. A(w)w ¼ 0,
2 3
@u r B(w)(dw/dz) ¼ 0, C( r ) r ¼ 0 and D(Ł )Ł ¼ 0) in
6 7 order to satisfy the condition — ¼ 0. The resulting equa-
6 @r 7
6 7 tions produce the optimal functions wopt (z), r,opt (r) and
2 3 6 u r 1 @uŁ 7
rr 6 7 Ł,opt (r) that describe the equilibrium configuration of the
6 r r @Ł 7 pile–soil system.
6 7
6 ŁŁ 7 6 6 7
6 7 6 @u z 7 While considering the terms of the variation of the
6 7 6 7
6 zz 7 6 @z 7 potential energy related to w, we do so for the following
6 7¼6 7
6 ª 7 6 1 @u r @uŁ uŁ 7 7
sub-domains: 0 < z < H1 , H1 < z < H2 , . . ., Hn1 < z <
6 rŁ 7 6 þ 7 Lp , and Lp < z , 1. Accordingly, w is forced to satisfy
6 7 6
4 ª rz 5 6 r @Ł @r r 7 7 equilibrium within each of these sub-domains, and hence
6 7 over the entire domain. For r and Ł the domain over
ªŁz 6 @u z @u r 7
6 7 which the potential energy and its variation are calculated is
6 @ r @z 7
6 7 rp < r , 1.
4 1 @u z @uŁ 5

2 r @Ł @z 3 (3)
d r ð rÞ Soil displacement profiles
w ð z Þ cos Ł
6
6 dr 7
7 We first consider the variation of r (r). Referring back to
6
6
7
7 the equation — ¼ 0, represented by equation (5), we first
6 r ð r Þ Ł ð r Þ 7 collect all the terms associated with r and collectively set
6 w ð zÞ cos Ł 7
6 r 7 them equal to zero to obtain
6 7
6
6 0 7
7 ð1
d2 r d r d
6
¼6
7
7 ms1 r 2 þ þ ð ms2 þ ms3 Þ Ł
6 wð zÞ ð r Þ Ł ð r Þ d Ł ð r Þ 7 dr dr dr
6
r
þ sin Ł 7
rp
6 r dr 7
6 7
6
6 dw ð z Þ 7
7 þ ms4 r ms4 Ł þ ns r r r dr (6)
6 r ð rÞ cos Ł 7 r r
6 dz 7 1
6 7 d r
4 5
dwð zÞ
Ł ð rÞ sin Ł þ ms1 r þ ms3 r ms3 Ł r ¼ 0
dz dr rp
n ð Hi

where X d4 w i d2 w i
Ep I p 4 2t i 2 þ k i w i w i dz
ð1 ð i¼1 H i1
dz dz
X
nþ1 Hi
ms1 ¼ ðºs þ 2Gs Þ w 2 dz ¼ ðºsi þ 2Gsi Þ w2i dz
0 H i1 ð1
i¼1 d2 w nþ1
(7) þ 2t nþ1 þ k n w nþ1 w nþ1 dz
Lp dz 2
ð1 X
nþ1 ð Hi
ms2 ¼ Gs w 2 dz ¼ Gsi w2i dz (8)
d3 w1 dw1
0 i¼1 H i1
þ Ep I p 2t F w
ð1 ð Hi dz 3 1
dz
a 1
X
nþ1 z¼0
ms3 ¼ ºs w 2 dz ¼ ºsi w2i dz (9)
0 H i1
i¼1
d2 w1 dw1
ð1 ð Hi Ep I p Ma
X dz z¼0
nþ1
dz 2
ms4 ¼ ðºs þ 3Gs Þ w 2 dz ¼ ðºsi þ 3Gsi Þ w2i dz
0 H i1
i¼1 "
(10) d3 w1 dw1
þ Ep I p 2t w
ð 1 2 X
nþ1 ð H i 2 dz 3 1
dz
1
dw dw i z¼ H1
n s ¼ Gs dz ¼ Gsi dz (11)
0 dz H dz #
i¼1 i1
d3 w2 dw2
þ Ep I p 2t2
w2
The subscript i in the above equations refers to the ith layer dz 3 dz z¼ H1
of the multilayered continuum (Fig. 1); w i represents the
" (14)
function w(z) in the ith layer with w i j z¼ H i ¼ w iþ1 j z¼ H i . Note
that the nth (bottom) layer is split into two parts, with the d2 w1 dw1
þ Ep I p
part below the pile denoted by the subscript n+1; therefore, dz 2 dz z¼ H1
in the analysis, Hn ¼ Lp and Hnþ1 ! 1.
The last term on the left-hand side of equation (6) is a #
multiple of the subtraction of the value of r at r ¼ rp d2 w2 dw2
Ep I p þ ... :
from the value of r at r ¼ 1, and is therefore identically dz 2 dz z¼ H1
zero for the boundary conditions of our problem ( r ¼ 0 at
r ¼ 1 and r ¼ 1 at r ¼ rp ) because a known (or "
prescribed) r implies that its variation r ¼ 0. After this d3 w n dw n

term is made equal to zero, what is left is an equation of þ Ep I p 3
2t n w n
dz dz z¼ Lp
form C( r ) r ¼ 0. The function r (r) has a non-zero
variation (i.e. r 6¼ 0) for rp , r , 1 because r is not #

known a priori in this interval, so C( r ) ¼ 0, which means dw nþ1
the integrand in equation (6) must be set to zero, leading to 2t nþ1 w nþ1
dz z¼ Lp
the differential equation
" # 2
d2 r 1 d r ª1 2 ª2 2 ª23 dŁ ª1 d2 w n dw n
þ þ ¼ Ł þ Ep I p
dr 2 r dr r rp r
r dr r dz 2 dz z¼ Lp
(12)
dw nþ1
þ 2t nþ1 w nþ1 ¼0
where the ªs are dimensionless constants given by ª21 ¼ dz z¼1
ms4 =ms1 , (ª2 =rp )2 ¼ ns =ms1 and ª23 ¼ (ms2 þ ms3 )=ms1 .
When solved, equation (12) yields r,opt . where
We now consider the variation of Ł (r). We collect the 8 "ð #
1

terms containing Ł in the equation — ¼ 0 (equation (5)) >
>
and, proceeding similarly as for r , we get the following
>
> Gsi r þ Ł rdr ;
2 2
i ¼ 1, 2, . . ., n
< 2 rp
governing differential equation for Ł : ti ¼ "ð
1
#
>
>
" # 2 >
> G
: 2 sn r 2
r þ 2
Ł rdr þ r 2
p ; i¼ nþ1
d2 Ł 1 dŁ ª4 2 ª5 2 ª26 d r ª4 p
þ þ Ł ¼ r
dr 2 r dr r rp r dr r (15)
" ð1 2 ð1 2
(13) d r dŁ
k i ¼ ðºsi þ 2Gsi Þ r dr þ Gsi r dr
dr dr
with the following boundary conditions: Ł ¼ 0 at r ¼ 1 rp rp
and Ł ¼ 1 at r ¼ rp, where ª24 ¼ ms4 =ms2 , (ª5 =rp )2 ¼ ð1

d
ns =ms2 , and ª26 ¼ (ms2 þ ms3 )=ms2 . þ 2ºsi ð r Ł Þ r dr
rp dr
ð1
d
þ 2Gsi ð r Ł Þ Ł dr
Pile displacement rp dr
Finally, we consider the variation of the function w and its #
derivative. We again refer back to the equation — ¼ 0, ð1
1
collect all the terms associated with w and (dw/dz) and þ ðºsi þ 3Gsi Þ ð r Ł Þ dr
2
(16)
equate their sum to zero, to obtain rp r
We first consider the domain below the pile, that is, d3 w~i d w~i d3 w~iþ1 d w~iþ1
Lp < z , 1. The terms associated with w and (dw/dz) in 3
2 ~t i ¼ 2 ~t iþ1 (22c)
d~z d~z d~z3 d~
z
equation (14) for Lp < z , 1 are equated to zero. Since
d 2 w~i d 2 w~iþ1
the variation of w(z) with depth is not known a priori within ¼ (22d)
the interior of the domain Lp , z , 1, w nþ1 6¼ 0, and so d z~2 d z~2
the integrand in the integral between z ¼ Lp and z ¼ 1
must be equal to zero in order to satisfy equation (14). This At the pile base (z ¼ Lp or z~ ¼ 1), the boundary conditions
results in the differential equation are
d2 w nþ1 w~ n ¼ constant (23a)
2t nþ1 k n w nþ1 ¼ 0 (17)
dz 2 or
The displacement in the soil must vanish for z equal to
d3 w~ n d w~ n d w~ nþ1
infinity. We use this as our boundary condition: 2 ~t n ¼ 2 ~t nþ1 (23b)
d~z3 d~z d~z
w nþ1 ¼ 0 (at z ¼ 1) (18) and
The above equation implies that w nþ1 ¼ 0 at z ¼ 1, d w~ n
making the term associated with w at z ¼ 1 equal to zero ¼ constant (23c)
d~z
(which is of course required to satisfy equation (14)).
The solution of equation (17) satisfying boundary condi- or
tion (18) is
d2 w~ n
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼0 (23d)
w nþ1 ¼ w n j z¼ Lp e ð k n =2 t nþ1 Þð z Lp Þ (19) d~z2
Equation (23b) is further simplified and expressed solely
We now consider the function w for the domains 0 < z < in terms of w~ n by differentiating w nþ1 in equation (19) with
H1 , H1 < z < H2 , . . ., Hn1 < z < Lp . The terms containing respect to z, normalising the expression, and then substitut-
w and (dw/dz) in equation (14) are equated to zero for ing it back into equation (23b) to yield
each domain. Considering the integrals associated with each qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
d3 w~ n d w~
individual layer (or each domain Hi1 , z , Hi ), the 2 ~t n n 2 k~n ~t nþ1 w~ n ¼ 0 (23b9)
integrand for each of these integrals must equal zero, d~z3 d~z
because w i 6¼ 0 (as the function w i (z) within the domains The dimensionless terms in the above equations are
is not known a priori). This gives us the differential equation defined as ~t i ¼ t i L2p =Ep I p , k~i ¼ k i L4p =Ep I p , F~a ¼ Fa L2p =
for the ith layer, which, expressed in terms of normalised Ep I p , M~ a ¼ M a Lp =Ep I p and H ~ i ¼ H i =Lp .
depth z~ ¼ z=Lp and displacement w~ ¼ w=Lp , is given by The governing differential equation for the pile (equation
(20)) resembles that of an Euler–Bernoulli beam resting on
d4 w~i d2 w~i an elastic foundation (the soil mass). The parameter k i (with
2 ~t i 2 þ k~i w~i ¼ 0 (20)
d~
z 4 d~
z dimensions of FL2 , where F ¼ force and L ¼ length) is
The terms associated with the boundaries (i.e. z ¼ Hi ) of related to the modulus of subgrade reaction (or to the
each domain in equation (14) must also each be equal to ‘spring constant’ proposed by Winkler, 1867) and determines
zero. For each boundary, there are two terms: one multi- the portion of the soil resistance due to compressive stresses
plying w i and another multiplying (dw i /dz). Setting each in the elastic medium (Fig. 3). On the other hand, the
separately equal to zero yields the boundary conditions for
the differential equations represented by equation (20). These Ground
surface
terms can be seen to be a product of an expression and the Shear resistance between
variation of the displacement or of its derivative. If the soil ‘columns’ owing to
differential lateral
displacement or its derivative is specified at the boundary, Pile movement (accounted for
then its variation is equal to zero; otherwise, the expression (undeformed by ti)
multiplying the variation of the displacement or of its configuration)
¥
derivative is equal to zero. The boundary conditions at the
Pile (deformed
pile head (z ¼ z~ ¼ 0) are configuration)
…….
Infinite soil
w~1 ¼ constant (21a) B ‘columns’ of
infinitesimal
or thickness
providing
…….
A
d3 w~1 d w~1 resistance to pile
2 ~t1 F~a ¼ 0 (21b) movement
z3
d~ d~z
and
Soil ‘columns’ get
d w~1 compressed (or
¼ constant (21c)
d~z extended) owing to pile
movement from, say,
or point A to point B
(accounted for by ki)
d2 w~1 ~a ¼ 0
M (21d) Shear resistances between
z2
d~
soil ‘columns’ below the
At the interface between any two layers (z ¼ Hi or z~ ¼ H~ i ), pile produce pile base shear
(occurs only if pile base
w~i ¼ w~iþ1 (22a) deflects laterally)
d w~i d w~iþ1 Fig. 3. Illustration of the two sources of soil resistance: soil
¼ (22b)
d~z d~
z compression and shear
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
parameter t i (with dimension of F) determines the fraction u ð H~ i
uX n ~t nþ1 2
of the soil resistance due to the shear stresses that develop u
u ðºsi þ 3Gsi Þ w~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ 3Gs n Þ
2
~ n j~z¼1
w
between soil layers of infinitesimal thickness displaced dif- u i¼1 H~ i1 2 k~ n
ª4 ¼ u u sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ferentially in the lateral direction (Vlasov & Leont’ev, 1966). ð H~ i
The boundary conditions (equations (22a)–(22d)) at the u X n ~t nþ1 2
t Gsi w 2
~ i d~z þ Gs n w~ n j~z¼1
interface of any two layers (~ ~
z ¼ H i ) ensure the continuity of ~ i1
H 2 k~ n
i¼1
pile deflection, slope of the deflection curve (¼ dw i /dz),
bending moment (¼ Ep I p (d2 w i =dz 2 )) and shear force (27)
3 3 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
(¼ Ep I p (d w i =dz ) 2t i (dw i =dz)) (the shear force has con- u ð H~ i 2
u X n
tributions from both pile flexure and soil deformation). At u dw ~i k~ n 2
z ¼ 0) the shear force equals the applied force u G d~z þ Gs n w~ j
the pile head (~ u 1 i¼1 si H~ i1 d~z 8 ~t nþ1 n ~z¼1
(equation (21b)), and either the slope of the pile deflection u
ª5 ¼ u 2 s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (28)
uł X n ð H~ i
curve is a known constant (equation (21c)) (this boundary t 2
~t nþ1 2
condition is generally used with the value of slope taken Gsi w~ i d~z þ Gs n ~ n j~z¼1
w
i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n
equal to zero when fixed-head conditions are used to idealise
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the case of a pile that is part of a group of piles joined at u ð H~ i
uX n ~t nþ1 2
the head by a cap) or the pile bending moment is equal to u
the applied moment (equation (21d)) (free-head case). Equa- u ðºsi þ Gsi Þ ~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ Gs n Þ
w 2
~ n j~z¼1
w
u i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n
tion (21a) must be used in the analysis instead of equation ª6 ¼ u u sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u X n ð H~ i
(21b) to estimate the magnitude of an applied force required t 2
~t nþ1 2
to produce a given (known) head deflection. Similarly, if, for Gsi w~ i d~z þ Gs n ~ n j~z¼1
w
i¼1 H~ i1 2 k~ n
both the free- and fixed-head cases, it becomes necessary to
estimate the magnitude of an applied moment that produces (29)
a given (known) slope at the head, equation (21c) must be
used. where ł ¼ Lp /rp. These expressions can be directly used in
At the pile base (~ z ¼ 1), either the pile deflection is set the computations.
(equation (23a)) (used for the ideal fixed-base case, for
which the deflection is taken equal to zero, which may be
used with satisfactory results if the pile is socketed into a ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR PILE DEFLECTION
very firm layer, like hard rock) or the shear force at a The general solution of equation (20) is given by
section infinitesimally above the pile base is equal to that
infinitesimally below (equation (23b9)) (free-base case). The z) ¼ C (i)
w~i (~ (i)
1 1 þ C 2 2 þ C 3 3 þ C 4 4
(i) (i)
(30)
other boundary condition active at the pile base is that either
the slope is a constant (equation (23c)) (assumed to be zero where C (i) (i) (i) (i)
1 , C 2 , C 3 and C 4 are integration constants (for the
for the fixed-base case) or the pile bending moment is zero ith layer), and 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 are individual solutions
(equation (23d)) (free-base case). (functions of z~) of the differential equation. The functions 1 ,
2 , 3 and 4 are standard trigonometric or hyperbolic func-
tions that arise in the solution of the linear ordinary differential
Expressions for the ªs in terms of dimensionless deflections equations (Table 1). The integration constants for each layer
The ªs appearing in equations (12) and (13) are expressed can be determined using the boundary conditions. The bound-
in terms of the dimensionless pile deflection and slope as ary conditions given in equations (21)–(23) lead to a system
follows: of linear algebraic equations (see Appendix 2) of the form
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ½¨½C ¼ ½F (31)
u ð H~ i
uX n ~t nþ1 2
u where [¨]4 n34 n is a matrix containing the functions 1 , 2 ,
u ðºsi þ 3Gsi Þ w~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ 3Gs n Þ
2
~ n j~z¼1
w
u i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n 3 and 4 calculated at the boundaries of the soil layers,
u
ª1 ¼ u sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [C]4 n31 is the vector of unknown integration constants of all
uX n ð H~ i
t ðºsi þ 2Gsi Þ ~t nþ1 2 the layers, and [F]4 n31 is the right-hand side vector contain-
w~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ 2Gs n Þ
2
~ n j~z¼1
w
i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n ing the applied forces and/or displacements (the subscript 4n
denotes the number of equations, which is four times the
(24) number of soil layers). Simultaneous solution of the system
ª2 ¼ of equations represented by equation (31) produces the values
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of the integration constants C (i) (i) (i) (i)
1 , C 2 , C 3 and C 4 , which,
u sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u X n ð H~ i 2 when substituted in equation (30), produce the particular
u dw ~i k~ n 2 solution of pile deflection (i.e. the pile deflection profile) for
u Gsi d~z þ Gs n w~ j
u1 ~ i1
H d~z 8~t nþ1 n ~z¼1 a given set of boundary conditions and applied loads. The
u i¼1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uł2 n ð H~ i slope of the deflected pile axis, and the bending moment and
u X ~t nþ1 2
t ðºsi þ 2Gsi Þ ~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ 2Gs n Þ
w 2
w~ n j~z¼1 shear force in the pile, can be obtained as a function of depth
i¼1 ~
H i1 2 k~ n by successively differentiating equation (30) and using the
values of the integration constants.
(25)
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u ð H~ i
u X n ~t nþ1 2
u FINITE DIFFERENCE SOLUTION FOR SOIL
u ðºsi þ Gsi Þ w~ 2i d~z þ ðºs n þ Gs n Þ ~ n j~z¼1
w
u i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n DISPLACEMENTS
u
ª3 ¼ u sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð H~ i The differential equations (12) and (13) for r and Ł are
uX n ~t nþ1 2 solved using the FD method. The equations are interdepen-
t ðºsi þ 2Gsi Þ w~ i d~z þ ðºs n þ 2Gs n Þ
2
~ n j~z¼1
w
i¼1 ~ i1
H 2 k~ n dent and must, as a result, be solved simultaneously. Using
the central-difference scheme, equations (12) and (13) can
(26) be respectively written as
rjþ1 2 rj þ rj1 1 rjþ1 rj1
a(a2 3b2 )3 b(b2 3a2 )1

þ
˜r 2 rj 2˜r
" 2 # jþ1 j1 2
ª1 2 ª2 ª2 Ł ª1
z sin b~
rj ¼ 3 Ł
z
Łj
(a2 b2 )4
a3 þ b1
þ
þ 2ab2
cosh b~z
rj rp rj 2˜r rj
b 4
b3 3
b3
4
sinh a~
2
(32)
Łjþ1 2Łj þ Łj1 1 Łjþ1 Łj1
þ
˜r 2 rj 2˜r
" 2 # 2
ª4 2 ª5 ª2 jþ1 rj1 ª4
þ Łj ¼ 6 r rj
rj rp rj 2˜r rj
a(a2 3b2 )4 b(b2 3a2 )2
(33)
z sin b~
z
(a2 b2 )3
a4 þ b2
þ 2ab1
where j represents the jth node, which is at a radial distance

sinh b~z
b 3
b3 4
r j from the pile axis; and ˜r is the distance between

b4
3
cosh a~
Individual solutions of equation (20)
consecutive nodes (discretisation length). The total number

of discretised nodes m should be sufficiently large that the
infinite domain in the radial direction can be adequately
modelled (Fig. 4). The discretisation length ˜r should be
sufficiently small to maintain a satisfactory level of accu-
racy.
a(a2 3b2 )1 þ b(b2 3a2 )3
r
rj
Pile
∆r ∆r ∆r ∆r
z cos b~
z
(a2 b2 )2
a1 b3
3 … j⫹1 …
2ab4
Node number
cosh a~
j
z
1 2 m⫺1 m
a2 2
a3 1
a1
2
cosh a~
Fig. 4. Finite difference discretisation for ö r and ö Ł

a(a2 3b2 )2 þ b(b2 3a2 )4
Input Lp, rp, Ep, n, Hi, λsi, Gsi, Fa, Ma
⬃ ⬃ ⬃
Normalise input parameters: calculate Fa, Ma, Hi, ψ
z cos b~
z
(a2 b2 )1
a2 b4
2ab3
sinh a~
z
a2 1
a3 2
a2
1
sinh a~
Table 1. Functions in equation (30) for piles crossing multiple soil layers
Choose initial guess for γ1 (⫽ γ old old old

1 ), γ 2 (⫽ γ 2 ), ..., γ6 (⫽ γ 6 )
Calculate φr and φθ
Calculate ki and ti
derivatives
Functions
and their
90
90
⬃
9
0
9
0

⬃ dw i
Calculate w i,
dz⬃
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
~t þ ( ~t 2 k~) ~t ( ~t 2 k~)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k~ ~t)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Calculate γ1 (⫽ γ new new new

1 ), γ 2 (⫽ γ 2 ), ..., γ 6 (⫽ γ 6 )
pffiffiffi
b
Constants a and b
Input
2(
Prime (9) indicates differentiation.
γ old new
1 ⫽ γ1 ,
1
No Check if
γ old
2 ⫽ γ2 ,
new
|γ old new
1/2/.../6 ⫺ γ 1/2/.../6| ⬍ 0·001
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
....,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k~ þ ~t)
γ old new
6 ⫽ γ6
pffiffiffi
Yes
a
2(
⬃
1
⬃ dw i
Store w i, as the final values
dz⬃
magnitudes
of k~ and ~t
Relative
End
k~ . ~t 2
k~ , ~t 2
Fig. 5. Solution flow chart

Equation (32), along with the boundary conditions
(1)
r ¼ 1 (at r ¼ rp ) and r ¼ 0 (at r ¼ 1), is applied to
( m)
the discretised nodes, yielding the equation

2 3
1 0 0 0 2 (1) 3 2 1 3
r
60 K 2,2r K 2,3r 0 07 76 (2) 7 6 F 2 r 7
6 6 7
60
07 76
r 7 6 7
6 K 3,2r K 3,3r K 3,4r 0
76 (3) 7 6 F3 r 7
6 6 (4) 7 6 r 7
r 6
60
6 0 K 4,3r K 4,4r K 4,5r 0 07 76 r 7 6 F4 7 7
6 7
6.
6 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
7 6 .. 7 6 6 .. 7 7
6 . . . . . 6 7
. 76 . 7 ¼ 6 . 7
60 7 6 Fr 7 (34)
6 0 K j, rj1 K j, rj K j, rjþ1 0 6 ( j) 7
0 76 r 7 6 j 7
6. 6 . 7
6. .. .. .. .. .. .. 776 ... 7 7 6 . 7
6. . . . . . . 76 7 6
6 .r 7
7
6 r r 766 ( m2) 7
60 0 K m2, K m2, K m2,
r
0 76 r 6 F 7
6 m3
r
m2
r
m1 74 ( m1) 75 6
m2 7
4 Fr 5
40 0 K m1, K m1, 0 5 r m1
0 ... 0
m2
0
m1
1 (rm) 0
2
The non-zero elements of the left-hand side matrix ª26 rjþ1 rj1 ª4
FjŁ ¼ rj
[K r ] m3 m in the above equation are given by rj 2˜r rj (43)
1 1 ð j ¼ 3, 4, . . . , m 2Þ
K j, rj1 ¼ (35)
˜r 2 2r j ˜r 2
" 1 1 ª26 (3)
r 1 ª4
2 #
F2 Ł ¼ þ (2) (44)
2 ª1 2 ª2 ˜r 2 2r2 ˜r r2 2˜r r2 r
K j, rj ¼ 2 þ (36)
˜r rj rp
ª2 rm2 ª4 2 m1
Ł
F m1 ¼ 6 r (45)
1 1 r m1 2˜r r m1
K j, rjþ1 ¼ þ (37)
˜r 2 2r j ˜r
in which the subscript j is valid for nodes 2 to m 1, with
r
Since the right-hand side vectors fF r g m31 and
the exception that K 2,1r ¼ 0 and K m1, m ¼ 0 (as is evident fF Ł g m31 contain the unknowns Ł and r , iterations are
from equation (34)). necessary to obtain their values. An initial estimate of rj is
The elements of the right-hand side vector fF r g m31 in made and given as input to fF Ł g, and Łj is determined by
equation (34) are given by solving equation (41). The Łj values are then given as input
jþ1 j1 2 to fF r g to obtain rj from equation (34). The newly
ª2 Ł ª1 obtained values of rj are again used to obtain new values
Fj r ¼ 3 Ł Łj (38)
rj 2˜r rj of Łj , and the iterations areP continued
until convergence
is
reached. The criteria m1 mj¼1 rj previous rj current < 106
P
where j represents nodes 3 through m2. The elements and m1 mj¼1 Łj previous Łj current < 106 are used (a strin-
corresponding to node 2 and m1 are given by: gent value of 106 is used because this iterative solution
(3) 2 scheme is central to another set of iterations described next)
1 1 ª2 1 ª1 to ensure that accurate values of r and Ł are obtained.
F2 r ¼ 2 þ þ 3 Ł (2)
Ł (39)
˜r 2r2 ˜r r2 2˜r r2

r ª2 Łm2 ª1 2 m1
F m1 ¼ 3 Ł (40)
r m1 2˜r r m1
SOLUTION ALGORITHM
In order to obtain pile deflections by solving equation
Using equation (33) and the boundary conditions that (20), the soil parameters k i and t i must be known. However,
(1) ( m)
Ł ¼ 1 (at r ¼ rp ) and Ł ¼ 0 (at r ¼ 1), a matrix these soil parameters depend on r and Ł , which are not
equation (similar to equation (34)) for Ł can also be known a priori. Hence an iterative algorithm (separate from
formed for the discretised nodes: the iterations between r and Ł described in the previous
½ K Ł fŁ g ¼ f F Ł g (41) section) is necessary to solve the problem. First, initial
guesses for ª1 to ª6 are made, and for these assumed values
r and Ł are determined using the iterative technique
The number and positioning of the non-zero elements of described in the previous section. Using the calculated
[K Ł ] m3 m in equation (41) are exactly the same as that of values of r and Ł , k i and t i are calculated by numerical
[K r ] m3 m of equation (34). The expressions of the off- integrations (with ˜r of Fig. 4 as the step length). Using the
diagonal elements of [K Ł ] m3 m and [K r ] m3 m are also the values of k i and t i , the pile deflection is calculated. From
same (i.e. K p,q
r ¼ K Ł for p 6¼ q). The diagonal elements of
p,q the calculated values of pile deflection and slope of the
Ł
[K ] m3 m for j ¼ 2 to m 1 are given by deformed pile, ª1 to ª6 are obtained. The new values of ª1
" 2 # to ª6 are then used to recalculate r and Ł , and so on. The
r 2 ª4 2 ª5 entire process is repeated until convergence on each of
K j, j ¼ 2 þ (42)
˜r rj rp the ªs is attained. The tolerance limit prescribed on
the ªs between the pth and ( p+1)th iteration is
The structure of fF Ł g m31 in equation (41) is also similar jª(1=2=...=6
pþ1)
ª(1=2=...=6
p)
j , 0:001. The details of the solution

to fF r g m31 of equation (34) with F 1 Ł ¼ 1 and F mŁ ¼ 0. steps are given in the form of a flow chart in Fig. 5. We
Ł
The remaining elements of fF g m31 are given by chose an initial guess of ‘one’ for all the ªs, but any other
choice would produce results with the same level of accu- Poisson’s ratio of soil is greater than 0.3. This artificially
racy at approximately the same computation time. stiff pile response is not observed in our analysis. To
illustrate this point, we present below two examples compar-
ing the results of our analysis, the analysis based on the
BENEFITS OF THE PRESENT ANALYSIS displacement assumption of Sun (1994), and 3D FE analysis.
This analysis is an improvement over the analysis of Sun We consider as an illustration of use of the analysis a
(1994) for laterally loaded piles in homogeneous soil on at 15 m long drilled shaft, with a diameter of 0.6 m and pile
least two accounts: (a) our assumption of the displacement modulus Ep ¼ 24 3 106 kN/m2 , embedded in a four-layer
field is more general and more realistic than that assumed soil deposit with H1 ¼ 2.0 m, H2 ¼ 5.0 m, and H3 ¼ 8.3 m;
by Sun (1994), who chose r (r) ¼ Ł (r) ¼ (r) for both Es1 ¼ 20 MPa, Es2 ¼ 35 MPa, Es3 ¼ 50 MPa and Es4 ¼
the displacements u r and uŁ (equation (2)); and (b) we 80 MPa; s1 ¼ 0.35, s2 ¼ 0.25, s3 ¼ 0.2 and s4 ¼ 0.15
obtained solutions for a multilayered soil, whereas the solu- (Es i and s i are the soil Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
tion of Sun (1994) is valid only for a single soil layer. for the ith layer; Es i and s i are related to ºs i and Gs i by
The need for an improved form for the displacement field ºsi ¼ Esi si =(1 þ si )(1 2si ) and Gsi ¼ Esi =2(1 þ si )). A
(equation (2)) arises from the fact that the displacement horizontal force Fa ¼ 300 kN acts on the pile. The pile head
assumption of Sun (1994) produces zero displacement in the and base are free to deflect and rotate. Fig. 7 shows the pile
soil mass perpendicular to the direction of the applied force deflection profile obtained using our analysis, the analysis
Fa (Fig. 6). Consequently, the resultant displacement vector based on the displacement assumption of Sun (1994), and a
u ¼ e r u r þ eŁ uŁ (e r and eŁ are the unit basis vectors in the 3D finite element analysis (FEA). The pile response obtained
radial and tangential directions respectively) at any point from our analysis closely matches that of the 3D FEA (a
within the soil mass is forced to be parallel to the applied difference of 9.6% in the head deflection was observed
force Fa. Thus the displacement field in the soil mass between our analysis and the FEA); the analysis of Sun
(which, in general, has a component perpendicular to the (1994) produces a stiffer pile response.
direction of Fa ) is artificially constrained, the normal strain Next, we consider a large-diameter drilled shaft, 40 m
in the circumferential direction ŁŁ (equation (3)) becomes long, with a diameter of 1.7 m and Ep ¼ 25 3 106 kPa,
zero, and the pile response is stiffer than what it is in reality. embedded in a four-layer soil profile with H1 ¼ 1.5 m, H2 ¼
In fact, Guo & Lee (2001) found that the Sun (1994) 3.5 m, and H3 ¼ 8.5 m; Es1 ¼ 20 MPa, Es2 ¼ 25 MPa,
analysis produces unreliable pile response, particularly if the Es3 ¼ 40 MPa and Es4 ¼ 80 MPa; s1 ¼ 0.35, s2 ¼ 0.3, s3
¼ 0.25 and s4 ¼ 0.2. A 3000 kN force acts at the pile head,
Displacement which is free to deflect and rotate. Fig. 8 shows the pile
vectors deflection profiles, as obtained from our analysis, the analy-
sis based on the displacement assumption of Sun (1994),
and 3D FEA. As before, our results match those of the FEA
Ma
more closely than the results based on the Sun (1994)
assumption; the difference in the head deflection obtained
Fa
from our analysis and FEA is 6.6%.
The 3D FE analyses were performed using ABAQUS. The
θ
domain for these analyses can be visualised as a cylinder of
soil mass containing the pile at its centre as a concentric
cylinder. The top (horizontal) surface of the soil cylinder
was flush with the pile head, and the bottom (horizontal)
Pile
surface was located at a finite distance below the pile base
r0, x ux (thus the soil mass below the pile base participating in the
uθ
pile–soil interaction was incorporated in the analysis). The
θ uy ur horizontal force Fa (acting at the pile head) was applied as a
y r uniformly distributed shear stress (i.e. force per unit pile
(a) cross-section area) acting on the pile-head surface (the
Pile deflection: mm
Displacement
⫺2 0 2 4 6 8 10
vectors 0
Ma 2·5
Fa
5·0
θ
Depth, z: m
7·5
Pile ux 10·0
r0, x
uθ
θ uy ur Present analysis
12·5
y r Sun (1994)
Finite element analysis
(b)
15·0
Fig. 6. Displacement field in soil: (a) according to Sun (1994)
assumption; (b) according to assumption made in this paper Fig. 7. Deflection profile of a 15 m long pile
Pile deflection: mm
⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25 pile load test performed by McClelland & Focht (1958). The
0 length (Lp ) and radius (rp ) of the pile are 23 m and 0.305 m,
and the pile was embedded in a normally consolidated clay.
The pile was acted upon by a lateral force Fa ¼ 300 kN and
a negative moment Ma ¼ 265 kNm at the head. Randolph
10
(1981) back-calculated the pile modulus Ep as 68.42 3
106 kN/m2 from the reported pile flexural rigidity. Randolph
(1981) further suggested, based on back-calculation of test
results to match his FEA (coupled with Fourier series), that
Depth, z: m
the soil shear modulus profile for this soil deposit can be
20 represented as Gs ¼ 0.8z 3 103 kN/m3 with s ¼ 0.3. We
divided the soil profile into four layers and calculated the
shear modulus at the middle of each layer, which were
considered the representative values for each layer (Table 2).
30 Present analysis
Using these values of soil modulus, we calculated the pile
deflection profile using both our analysis and that based on
Sun (1994)
the assumption of Sun (1994). Fig. 9 shows the pile
Finite element analysis
responses. Also plotted are the measured pile response and
that obtained by Randolph (1981). Our analysis produces a
40 pile deflection profile that closely matches the measured
profile.
Fig. 8. Deflection profile of a 40 m long drilled shaft
We now investigate how an explicit incorporation of soil
layering can be useful in obtaining proper pile response. For
distributed shear stress multiplied by the pile cross-section that purpose, we studied the response of two piles – a short
area produced Fa ). The vertical plane passing through the stubby pile with Lp ¼ 10 m, rp ¼ 0.5 m and Ep ¼ 25 3
pile axis parallel to Fa is a plane of symmetry (the plane 106 kN/m2 and a long slender pile with Lp ¼ 20 m, rp ¼
contains the Fa vector) and divides the cylindrical domain 0.25 m and Ep ¼ 25 3 106 kN/m2 – for various soil profiles.
into two equal and symmetrical halves. Only one such half Both piles are subjected to a horizontal force Fa ¼ 1000 kN,
was used as the analysis domain. Different boundary condi- and both are assumed to be free at the head and base.
tions were prescribed at different boundaries of the FE For the short pile (Lp ¼ 10 m), we consider the following
domain: all components of displacements were assumed to cases:
be zero along the bottom (horizontal) surface and along the
outer, curved (vertical) surface of the soil domain; on the (a) a homogeneous soil layer with Gs ¼ 25 MPa
(vertical) boundary surface created by the plane of symme- (b) a two-layer system with H1 ¼ 2 m, Gs1 ¼ 25 MPa and
try, the displacement perpendicular to the boundary was Gs2 ¼ 50 MPa
assumed to be zero. A perfect contact (with no slippage or
separation) between the pile and the surrounding soil was Table 2. Soil properties at the pile load test site of McClelland
assumed. The radial distances of the outer curved (vertical) & Focht (1958)
boundary of the soil domain from the pile axis were taken
as 20 m and 25 m for the 15 m and 40 m piles respectively; Depth: m Extent of soil layers: m Shear modulus, Gs : MPa
the corresponding vertical distances from the pile base to
2. 0 0 to 4.0 1.6
the bottom (horizontal) boundary of the soil domain were 6. 0 4.0 to 8.0 4.8
5 m and 20 m. Twenty-noded brick elements were used to 10.0 8.0 to 12.0 8.0
represent both the pile and the soil for both the problems. 17.5 12.0 to great depth 14.0
The element size in the pile and at the pile/soil interface
was approximately 0.1 m for both the examples, and was
increased gradually with increasing radial distance from the Pile deflection: mm
pile axis to 2.0 m (for the 15 m pile) and 3.8 m (for the ⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0
40 m pile) at the outer curved boundary of the soil domain.
The number of degrees of freedom used for the 15 m pile
was 56 653, and that used for the 40 m pile was 90 564. The
optimal domains and meshes described above were obtained 5
by ensuring that there were no boundary effects and by
performing convergence checks.
The CPU run times of the 3D FE analyses (run in a 16-
core x86 server containing eight 2.6 MHz dual-core Opteron 10
Depth, z: m
8218 processors with 32 GB RAM) were 9 min (for the

15 m pile) and 14 min (for the 40 m pile), while the CPU
run time for our analysis (performed with a Fortran code run 15
in an Intel Centrino Duo 2.0 GHz processor with 2 GB
RAM) was 9.75 s for both the examples. Considering the Measured
fact that construction of the geometry (domain) and optimal Present analysis
meshing for a FEA requires considerable time, our analysis 20 Sun (1994)
is much more efficient than FEA because, in addition to Randolph (1981)
being faster, the input to our analysis (the dimensions and
elastic properties of pile, and the thickness and elastic
25
constants of soil layers) is accomplished through a simple
text file. Fig. 9. Deflection profile for the pile load test of McClelland &
Finally, we consider the field example of a laterally loaded Focht (1958)
Pile deflection: mm
(c) a two-layer system with H1 ¼ 2 m, Gs1 ¼ 25 MPa and
⫺2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Gs2 ¼ 100 MPa 0
(d ) a two-layer system with H1 ¼ 2 m, Gs1 ¼ 50 MPa and
Gs2 ¼ 25 MPa. H1/Lp ⫽ 0·2
The Poisson’s ratio was kept constant at 0.25 for all the 2
cases and for all the layers. Figs 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c) show
the pile deflection, bending moment and shear force profiles.
Next, we consider the long pile (Lp ¼ 20 m) and obtain 4
Depth, z: m
the pile response for the following cases:
(a) a homogeneous soil layer with Gs ¼ 10 MPa
(b) a four-layer system with H1 ¼ 1 m, H2 ¼ 3 m, H3 ¼ 6 (1) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 1·0
5 m, Gs1 ¼ 10 MPa, Gs2 ¼ 20 MPa, Gs3 ¼ 40 MPa and
Gs4 ¼ 80 MPa (2) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 2·0
(c) a four-layer system with H1 ¼ 1 m, H2 ¼ 3 m, H3 ¼
(3) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 4·0
5 m, Gs1 ¼ 10 MPa, Gs2 ¼ 40 MPa, Gs3 ¼ 40 MPa and 8
Gs4 ¼ 80 MPa (4) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 0·5
The Poisson’s ratio was again assumed to be 0.25 for all the
cases and for all the layers. Figs 11(a) and 11(b) show the 10
pile deflection and bending moment profiles for the above (a)
cases respectively.
The effect of soil layering on lateral pile response is Bending moment: kN m
evident from Figs 10 and 11. The modulus and thickness of ⫺200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
different soil layers (particularly those near the pile head)
have a definite effect on lateral pile response. The examples
show that proper characterisation of soil deposits and expli- H1/Lp ⫽ 0·2
cit accounting for the different layers are necessary for 2
accurate prediction of pile response and optimal design of
laterally loaded piles. Using our analysis, the three-dimen-
sional interaction between pile and soil can be explicitly
4
accounted for with full consideration of soil layering. The
Depth, z: m
assumptions made in the estimation of soil displacements

(that the displacements can be represented as products of
separable variables, and that the vertical displacement is 6
zero), albeit reasonable, do not strictly represent the exact (1) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 1·0
displacement field for a pile in an ideal elastic soil: conse-
quently, the pile response obtained from this analysis will (2) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 2·0
deviate, even if slightly, from the actual pile response in 8
(3) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 4·0
elastic soil. Notwithstanding the limitations of these assump-
tions, pile response comparable with those obtained from (4) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 0·5
FEA can be produced at much less time and cost. 10
In addition to pile deflection, the analysis produces the
(b)
soil displacement field surrounding a pile (using equation
(2)). Thus, if additional piles are present in the neighbour-
Shear force: kN
hood of a loaded pile, the effect of the loaded pile on the
⫺400 0 400 800 1200
neighbouring piles can be determined by modifying the 0
analysis. Such an analysis can be further extended to devel-
op a method of analysis of pile groups. H1/Lp ⫽ 0·2
The analysis described in this paper is valid for linear
2
elastic soils. As a result, its use is restricted to those
problems for which an equivalent elastic soil modulus can
be obtained from field sites. Given that the analysis matches
carefully performed FEA rather well, it can be used as a 4
Depth, z: m
benchmark in future studies. Additionally, the analysis serves

as the basis for more elaborate analysis that can take into
account soil non-linearity, because the degradation of soil
stiffness resulting from progressive yield due to loading of 6
(1) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 1·0
the pile can be obtained from the soil strain field surround-
ing the pile (equation (3)), which is available as a result of (2) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 2·0
this analysis (in general, modulus degradation of soil de- 8
pends on the strains induced and on the shear strength of (3) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 4·0
soil).
(4) Gs2/Gs1 ⫽ 0·5
10
CONCLUSIONS (c)
An advanced method of analysis for a single, circular pile
embedded in a multilayered elastic medium and subjected to Fig. 10. Effect of layering in a two-layer soil: (a) pile deflection,
a horizontal force and a moment at the head was presented. (b) bending moment and (c) shear force of a 10 m long pile
Pile deflection: mm
⫺10 0 10 20 30
determine the rate at which the displacements in the soil
0 medium decay with increasing radial distance from the pile
axis. These parameters are not known a priori and must be
determined iteratively. Hence an iterative scheme was devel-
4 oped and coded to obtain solutions for a variety of boundary
conditions and soil profiles. Notwithstanding the iterations
on the ªs, the solutions are obtained in seconds.
8
Illustrations of use of the analysis for layered soils show
Depth, z: m
that soil layering has a definite impact on pile response.

Hence proper site characterisation and explicit accounting
for the different layers are necessary to predict lateral pile
12
response accurately. The present analysis has the capability
to produce pile response with full consideration of soil
H1/Lp ⫽ 0·05 layering. The analysis can be further extended to account for
16 H1/H2 ⫽ 0·33
soil non-linearity, and to analyse pile groups.
H1/H3 ⫽ 0·20
20
(1) Gs1 ⫽ Gs2 ⫽ Gs3 ⫽ Gs4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

(2) Gs1 ⫽ 0·5Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4 This material is based in part upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0556347.
(3) Gs1 ⫽ 0·25Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4 Tanusree Chakraborty assisted in the finite element analyses,
(a) for which we are grateful.
Bending moment: kN m
⫺200 0 200 400 600
0
APPENDIX 1
The potential energy density of the soil can be expressed in terms
4 of the displacement functions and elastic constants as
" 2
1 1 d r
8 pq pq ¼ ðºs þ 2Gs Þw 2 cos2 Ł
Depth, z: m
2 2 dr
d r ð r Ł Þ
þ 2ºs w 2 cos2 Ł
12 dr r
ð r Ł Þ2 ð Þ2
H1/Lp ⫽ 0·05 þ ðºs þ Gs Þw 2 2
cos2 Ł þ Gs w 2 r 2 Ł
r r
16 H1/H2 ⫽ 0·33 2
H1/H3 ⫽ 0·20 dŁ ð Ł Þ dŁ 2
þ Gs w 2 sin2 Ł þ 2Gs w 2 r sin Ł
dr r dr
20 2 2 #
dw dw
þ Gs r cos Ł þ Gs
2 2
Ł sin Ł
2 2
(46)
(1) Gs1 ⫽ Gs2 ⫽ Gs3 ⫽ Gs4 dz dz
(2) Gs1 ⫽ 0·5Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4
(3) Gs1 ⫽ 0·25Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4

Substituting equation (46) in equation (1) and performing integra-
(b) tions with respect to Ł produces equation (4). Applying the principle
of minimum potential energy to equation (4) results in
Fig. 11. Effect of layering in a four-layer soil: (a) pile deflection
and (b) bending moment of a 20 m long pile (ð
Lp
ð1ð1 2
d2 w d2 w d r
Ep I p dz: þ ð º s þ 2Gs Þw w
0 dz 2 dz 2 0 rp dr
The differential equations governing pile deflection and soil
displacements were derived using energy principles. The r d r d
þ 2ºs ww 2ºs ww Ł r
equation of pile deflection was solved analytically, and the r dr r dr
one-dimensional FD method was used to solve the soil 2r 2Ł
displacement equations. The solution is fast, and produces þ ðºs þ 3Gs Þww þ ðº s þ 3G s Þww
r2 r2
results comparable with 3D FEA. Using this method, pile 2
deflection, slope of the deflection curve, bending moment r Ł dŁ d
2 ºs þ 3Gs
ð Þww þ Gs ww þ 2Gs ww r Ł
and shear force for the entire length of the pile can be r2 dr r dr
obtained if the following are known: the pile radius and
d dw dw 2 dw dw 2
length, the thicknesses of the soil layers, the Young’s mod- 2Gs ww Ł Ł þ Gs r þ Gs Ł rdrdz
ulus of the pile material, the elastic constants of the soil in r dr dz dz dz dz
the various layers, and the magnitudes of the applied force ð1 )
dw dw dw
and moment. þ r p
2
Gs
dzFa w þ M a
The solution depends on a set of parameters ª1 to ª6 that Lp dz dz z¼0 dz z¼0
( ð ð "
1 1
d r d r 1 d d r d r
þ ðºs þ 2Gs Þw 2 þ ºs w 2 r r þ ºs w 2 r ºs w 2 Ł þ ðºs þ 3Gs Þw 2 2r r
0 rp dr dr r dr r dr r dr r
2 # ) ( ð ð "
1 d dw 1 1
1 d
ðºs þ 3Gs Þw 2 r 2Ł þ Gs w 2 r Ł þ Gs r r rdrdz þ ºs w 2 Ł r þ ðºs þ 3Gs Þw 2 2Ł Ł
r r dr dz 0 rp r dr r
2 # )
2 r 2 dŁ dŁ 2 r dŁ 21 dŁ 2 Ł dŁ dw
ºs þ 3Gs
ð Þw þ Gs w þ Gs w Gs w Ł Gs w þ Gs Ł Ł rdrdz ¼ 0
r2 Ł dr dr r dr r dr r dr dz
(47)
Simplifying further, and considering a layered system (Fig. 1), we get
(ð ð H2 ð Lp
H1
d4 w 1 d2 w1 d4 w2 d2 w 2 d4 w n d2 w n
Ep I p 4 2t1 2 þ k 1 w1 w1 dz þ Ep I p 4 2t2 2 þ k 2 w2 w2 dz þ ... : þ Ep I p 4 2t n 2 þ k n w n w n dz
0 dz dz H1 dz dz H n1 dz dz
ð1
d2 w nþ1 d3 w 1 dw1 2
þ 2t nþ1 þ k w w dz þ E I 2t F w Ep I p d w1 M a dw1
dz 2 n nþ1 nþ1 p p
dz 3 1
dz
a 1 dz 2 dz
Lp z¼0 z¼0
" # " #
3
d w1 dw1 3
d w2 dw2 d w1 dw1
2
d w2 dw2
2
þ Ep I p 3 2t1
w1 þ Ep I p 3 2t2
w2 þ Ep I p 2 Ep I p 2
dz dz z¼ H1 dz dz z¼ H1 dz dz z¼ H1 dz dz z¼ H1
" # )
d3 w n dw n dw nþ1 d2 w n dw n dw nþ1
þ ... : þ Ep I p 3 2t n
w n 2t nþ1 w nþ1 þ Ep I p 2 þ 2t nþ1
w nþ1
dz dz z¼ Lp dz z¼ Lp dz dz
z¼ Lp dz z¼1
(ð 1 1 1 )
1
d2 r d r d d r
þ ms1 r þ þ ð ms3 þ ms2 Þ Ł þ ms4 r ms4 Ł þ ns r r r dr þ ms1 r r þ ms3 r r ms3 Ł r

rp dr 2 dr dr r r dr rp rp rp
(ð 1 1 1 )
1
d2 Ł dŁ d d
þ ms2 r þ ð ms2 þ ms3 Þ r þ ms4 Ł ms4 r þ ns rŁ Ł dr þ ms2 r Ł Ł þ ms2 r Ł ms2 Ł Ł ¼0
rp dr 2 dr dr r r dr rp rp rp
(48)
APPENDIX 2
The expanded form of the matrix [¨] in equation (31) is given by
2 3
½¨(Head)
z~¼0
½0234 ½0234
6 7
6 ½¨(1) (2)
½¨ z~¼ H~ 1 ½0434 ½0434 7
6 z~¼ H~1 7
6 ½ (2)
½¨ z~¼ H~ (3)
½¨ z~¼ H~ ½0434 ½0434 7
6 0 434 7
6 2 2 7
½¨4 n34 n ¼ 6
6
..
. ½ 0
..
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
7
7 (49)
6 434 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . ½0 7
6 434 7
6 ½0 ½0434
( n1)
½0434 ½¨ z~¼ H~ ½¨ z~¼ H~ n1 7
( n)
4 434 n1
5
½0234 ½0234 ½0234 ½¨(Base)
z~¼1
where [¨](i) ~
~ l (i ¼ 1, 2, . . . n) is a 4 3 4 matrix valid for the ith soil layer. It contains the parameter t i , the functions
z~¼ H
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and
their derivatives (Table 1) calculated at the layer interface z~ ¼ H ~ l (l ¼ i1 or l ¼ i). In its expanded form, [¨](i)
~ l can be expressed as
z~¼ H
2 3
1 2 3 4
6
6 91 92 93 94 7
7
½¨(i) ~l¼ 4 5 (50)
z~¼ H 10 20 30 40
1 2 t i -
~ 1 1 2 t i 2- 1 2 t i 3- 1 2 t i 4- z~¼ H~ l
~ ~ ~
The matrix [¨](Head)

z~¼0 has a dimension of 2 3 4 and is expressed in its expanded form as:
8
>
> 1 2 ~t1 1- 2 2 ~t1 -2 3 2 ~t1 -3 4 2 ~t1 4-
< ; fixed-head condition
91 92 93 94
½¨(Head)
z~¼0 ¼
z~¼0 (51)
>
> 1 2 ~t1 -
1 2 2 ~t1 2- 3 2 ~t1 3- 4 2 ~t1 -
4
: ; free-head condition
10 20 30 40 z~¼0
in which the functions 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and their derivatives are calculated at z~ ¼ 0 (pile head). The 2 3 4 matrix [¨](Base)
z~¼1 is given by
8
> 1 2 3 4
>
> ; fixed-base condition
>
> 91 92 93 94 z~¼1
>
>" qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
<
1- 2 ~t n 91 2 k~n ~t nþ1 1 2- 2 ~t n 92 2 k~n ~t nþ1 2
½¨(Base)
z~¼1 ¼ (52)
> 10 20 #
>
> q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
>
> -3 2~t n 93 2 k~n ~t nþ1 3 - t n 94 2 k~n ~t nþ1 4
4 2~ ; free-base condition
>
:
30 40 z~¼1
in which the functions 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and their derivatives are calculated at z~ ¼ 1 (pile base). The matrices [0]234 and [0]434 have
respectively two rows and four columns and four rows and four columns, and contain ‘0’ as all the elements.
The vector [C] (with a dimension of 4n) in equation (31) is given Nak-Dong river sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE
by: 130, No. 4, 416–425.
h Klar, A. & Frydman, S. (2002). Three-dimensional analysis of
½C ¼ C (1)
1 C (1)
2 C (1)
3 C (1)
4 C (2)
1 C (2)
2 C (2)
3 C (2)
4 lateral pile response using two-dimensional explicit numerical
T scheme. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 128, No. 9, 775–
C (1n) C (2n) C (3n) C (4n) 784.
Matlock, H. (1970). Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles
(53)
in soft clay. Proc. 2nd Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, TX 1,
The superscript T implies the transpose of a matrix. 577–594.
The right-hand side vector of equation (31) is given by McClelland, B. & Focht, J. A. Jr (1958). Soil modulus for laterally
loaded piles. Trans. ASCE 123, 1049–1063.
½F4 n31 ¼ F~a F2 0 0 T (54) Mindlin, R. D. (1936). Force at a point in the interior of a semi-
infinite solid. Physics 7, May, 195–202.
~ a for the free-
with F2 ¼ 0 for the fixed-head condition and F2 ¼ M Ng, C. W. W. & Zhang, L. M. (2001). Three-dimensional analysis
head condition. of performance of laterally loaded sleeved piles in sloping
ground. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 127, No. 6, 499–
509.
Pise, P. J. (1982). Laterally loaded piles in a two-layer soil system.
REFERENCES J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 108, No. GT9, 1177–1181.
Anderson, J. B., Townsend, F. C. & Grajales, B. (2003). Case Poulos, H. G. (1971a). Behavior of laterally loaded piles: I – single
history evaluation of laterally loaded piles. J. Geotech. Geoen- piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 97, No. SM5, 711–731.
viron. Engng ASCE 129, No. 3, 187–196. Poulos, H. G. (1971b). Behavior of laterally loaded piles: III –
Ashour, M. & Norris, G. (2000). Modeling lateral soil–pile re- socketed piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 98, No. SM4,
sponse based on soil–pile interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 341–360.
Engng ASCE 126, No. 5, 420–428. Poulos, H. G. (1973). Load–deflection prediction for laterally
Banerjee, P. K. & Davies, T. G. (1978). The behaviour of axially loaded piles. Aust. Geomech. J. G3, No. 1, 1–8.
and laterally loaded single piles embedded in nonhomogeneous Randolph, M. F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral
soils. Géotechnique 28, No. 3, 309–326. loading. Géotechnique 31, No. 2, 247–259.
Bransby, M. F. (1999). Selection of p–y curves for the design of Reese, L. C. & Cox, W. R. (1969). Soil behavior from analysis of
single laterally loaded piles. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods tests of uninstrumented piles under lateral loading. In Perform-
Geomech. 23, No. 15, 1909–1926. ance of deep foundations, ASTM STP 444, pp. 160–176.
Briaud, J.-L. (1997). Sallop: simple approach for lateral loads on Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 123, No. 10, 958– Reese, L. C. & Van Impe, W. F. (2001). Single piles and pile
964. groups under lateral loading. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Briaud, J.-L., Smith, T. & Meyer, B. (1984). Laterally loaded piles Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. & Koop, F. D. (1974). Analysis of
and the pressuremeter: comparison of existing methods. In laterally loaded piles in sand. Proc. 6th Offshore Technol. Conf.,
Laterally loaded deep foundations (eds J. A. Langer, E. T. Houston, TX 2, 473–483.
Mosley and C. C. Thompson), ASTM STP 835, pp. 97–111. Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. & Koop, F. D. (1975). Field testing and
Philadelphia, PA: ASTM. analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. Proc. 7th Offshore
Brown, D. A., Shie, C. & Kumar, M. (1989). P–y curves for Technol. Conf., Houston, TX 2, 671–690.
laterally loaded piles derived from three-dimensional finite ele- Sun, K. (1994). Laterally loaded piles in elastic media. J. Geotech.
ment model. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in Engng ASCE 120, No. 8, 1324–1344.
Geomechanics (NUMOG III), Niagara Falls, 683–690. Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J. & Christiano, P. (1991). Three-dimen-
Brown, D. A., Hidden, S. A. & Zhang, S. (1994). Determination of sional nonlinear study of piles. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 117,
p–y curves using inclinometer data. Geotech. Test. J. 17, No. 2, No. 3, 429–447.
150–158. Verruijt, A. & Kooijman, A. P. (1989). Laterally loaded piles in a
Budhu, M. & Davies, T. G. (1988). Analysis of laterally loaded layered elastic medium. Géotechnique 39, No. 1, 39–46.
piles in soft clays. J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 114, No. 1, Vlasov, V. Z. & Leont’ev, N. N. (1966). Beams, plates and shells on
21–39. elastic foundations. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific
Cox, W. R., Reese, L. C. & Grubbs, B. R. (1974). Field testing of Translations.
laterally loaded piles in sand. Proc. 6th Offshore Technol. Conf., Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre von der Elasticitaet und Festigkeit.
Houston, TX 2, 459–472. Prague: Dominicus.
Gabr, M. A., Lunne, T. & Powell, J. J. (1994). P–y analysis of Wu, D., Broms, B. B. & Choa, V. (1998). Design of laterally loaded
laterally loaded piles in clay using DMT. J. Geotech. Engng piles in cohesive soils using p–y curves. Soils Found. 38, No. 2,
ASCE 120, No. 5, 816–837. 17–26.
Guo, W. D. & Lee, F. H. (2001). Load transfer approach for Yan, L. & Byrne, P. M. (1992). Lateral pile response to monotonic
laterally loaded piles. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. pile head loading. Can. Geotech. J. 29, 955–970.
25, No. 11, 1101–1129. Zhang, L., Ernst, H. & Einstein, H. H. (2000). Nonlinear analysis
Kim, B. T., Kim, N.-K., Lee, W. J. & Kim, Y. S. (2004). of laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Experimental load-transfer curves of laterally loaded piles in Engng ASCE 126, No. 11, 955–968.

Paper 15

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Paper 15

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Basu, D., Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. (2009). Géotechnique 59, No. 2, 127–140 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.

A continuum-based model for analysis of laterally loaded piles in

and Ł ¼ 1 at r ¼ rp, where ª24 ¼ ms4 =ms2 , (ª5 =rp )2 ¼ ð1

a(a2 3b2 )3 b(b2 3a2 )1

where j represents the jth node, which is at a radial distance

r j from the pile axis; and ˜r is the distance between

consecutive nodes (discretisation length). The total number

Fig. 4. Finite difference discretisation for ö r and ö Ł

Input Lp, rp, Ep, n, Hi, λsi, Gsi, Fa, Ma

Choose initial guess for γ1 (⫽ γ old old old

Calculate γ1 (⫽ γ new new new

Prime (9) indicates differentiation.

Fig. 5. Solution flow chart

the discretised nodes, yielding the equation

8218 processors with 32 GB RAM) were 9 min (for the

assumptions made in the estimation of soil displacements

benchmark in future studies. Additionally, the analysis serves

that soil layering has a definite impact on pile response.

(1) Gs1 ⫽ Gs2 ⫽ Gs3 ⫽ Gs4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

(2) Gs1 ⫽ 0·5Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4

(3) Gs1 ⫽ 0·25Gs2 ⫽ 0·25Gs3 ⫽ 0·125Gs4

The matrix [¨](Head)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi