Influence of active earth pressure and side shear resistance on ultimate

horizontal pile capacity

Awad-allah, M. F.
Ph.D. Candidate, JSPS fellow, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan

Yasufuku, N.
Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan

Omine, K.
Associate Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan

Keywords: Horizontal pile load, earth pressure, side shear resistance, statistical criteria, Log Normal
distribution
ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the effect of the active earth pressure and side shear resistance on the
lateral pile capacity in sand soils. A simple proposed method, which considers into account the effect of both
of net frontal earth pressure and side shear resistance, is introduced. Besides, this paper introduces a
comparison study between the most widely used methods for predicting the ultimate lateral resistance and the
proposed technique. Three well known methods were used in this study, including: Prasad and Chari (1999),
Verruijt (1995), and Broms (1964).
Accuracy and predictability of the proposed method was first used to calculate the ultimate lateral resistance of
model test piles, using 20 case histories conducted by the authors and collected from the literature. The
calculated values using the derived expressions agree well with those obtained from the laboratory tests with
average error of -13.10% while other methods gave significantly higher average errors. Moreover, a statistical
analysis study has been performed using four statistical criteria, namely: (1) the best-fit line with the
corresponding coefficient of correlation, r, (2) the 20% accuracy level derived from Log Normal distribution,
(3) the arithmetic mean () and coefficient of variation (COV), and (4) the cumulative probability.
Consequently, accuracy and predictability of the proposed method can be checked versus other methods used in
this study. The results indicate that this proposed scheme, gives satisfactory results.
lateral earth pressure that can be exerted by the soil
against the pile.
1 INTRODUCTION
Most of theoretical solutions for laterally loaded
piles involve the concept of modulus of subgrade
In reality, numerous methods have been published in
reaction which is based primarily on Winklers
the literature for predicting the ultimate lateral
assumption. Within this framework, Reese (1977)
resistance of piles in cohesionless soils (Brinch
proposed the well-known py method. In this
Hansen, 1961; Broms, 1964; Reese et al. 1974;
framework, an approximate analytical solution for
Poulos and Davis, 1980; Verruijt, 1995, etc.), and
the problem of laterally loaded piles in a
generally most of them depend on just passive earth
homogeneous cohesionless soil is introduced, by
pressure in calculation of ultimate lateral pile
assuming a perfect plastic response of soil domain
capacity. Basically, the main difference between
and by solving the differential equation of this
those methods is the assumed distribution pattern of
problem analytically.
lateral earth pressure in front of pile during loading;
Furthermore, a comparison study is carried out
thus, each method gives different value for ultimate
between the proposed method and the most widely
horizontal load. However, these methods have
used method for determining the ultimate lateral pile
neglected the effect of both of active earth pressure
capacity. Because the proposed technique considers
and side shear resistance on the lateral pile
the ultimate resistance of the soil (not of the pile), it
resistance which considerably play a key role in the
is applicable to both flexible and rigid piles. To
development of lateral pile capacity in cohesionless
evaluate the accuracy of the proposed method, it is
soils. A key element in the design of horizontally
first used to calculate the ultimate lateral resistance
loaded piles is the determination of the ultimate
of experimental model pile tests (using 20 case
studies). Four lateral pile load tests were conducted

by the authors as part of experimental work, and the

remaining ones were compiled from the literature.
The database covers a wide spectrum of variation in
soil formations, stress history, pile lengths and
diameters. The calculated values, using the proposed
method, agree well with those obtained from
laboratory tests.
2

METHODS FOR PREDICTING ULTIMATE

LATERAL RESISTANCE

Three methods have been adopted in this paper to

perform the comparison study, namely Prasad and
Chari 1999, Verruijt 1995, and Broms 1964.
Broms (1964) suggested the expression given by
Eq. 1 for calculating the ultimate lateral resistance of
pile in sandy soils. In fact, the simplified assumption
that ultimate frontal soil resistance equal to three
times of the value (Kp) is based on empirical
evidence from comparisons between predicted and
observed ultimate loads made by Broms (Polous and
Davis, 1980).
(1)
pu 3K pzB
where: Kp= tan2 (45 +/2) = passive earth pressure
coefficient; = internal friction angle of soil; z =
depth below ground level; B = pile diameter; and =
unit weight of soil.
Verruijt (1995) assumes that, pu, is proportional
to the net of passive minus active earth pressure
coefficients, i.e.,
(2)
pu ( K p Ka )zB
Prasad and Chari (1999) proposed Eq. 3 for
predicting ultimate soil resistance for laterally
loaded pile in cohesionless soil. In this method, the
effects of side shear resistance along with frontal
passive earth pressure resistance have considered. It
is assumed that the value of pu is proportional to the
square of the passive earth pressure coefficient. This
approach is based on earlier work conducted by
Briaud and Smith (1983), Smith (1987) and Prasad
and Chari (1999).
2
pu (K p K tan )zB
(3)

where: = shape factor to account for the

non-uniform distribution of earth pressure in front of
the pile; = shape factor to account for the
non-uniform distribution of lateral shear drag; K=
lateral earth pressure coefficient (ratio of horizontal
to vertical effective stress); and = interface friction
angle between the pile and the soil (a function of soil
type and density). According to Briaud and Smith
(1983), and can be taken equal to 0.8 and 1,
respectively.

SOIL RESPONSE AND EARTH PRESURE

DISTRIBUTION

Verruijt (1999) showed that the lateral displacement

in the elastic range (y) is very small (almost equal
zero), therefore soil response can be assumed to be a
perfect plastic, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Accordingly,
as soon as there is a lateral deflection, the response
is then either at its maximum or its minimum value.
Thus the total response (f) can be given by the
following formula:
f ( K p Ka ) Bz 2cB( K p Ka )
(4)
where: Ka= active earth pressure coefficient (1/Kp);
v = effective overburden pressure; and c = cohesion
of soil (equal zero for sandy soil).
As a result, it is a fairly realistic assumption for
the response of the soil to a lateral displacement to
consider its behavior as elasto-plastic. In this
approach, it is assumed that the distribution of the
soil reaction is as shown in Fig. 2. The basic idea is
that the pile is deflected towards the right side by the
applied horizontal force, except the lower part,
where a deflection towards the left side occurs. Thus,
passive earth pressure is created in front side of pile,
while active earth pressure is created behind side of
pile shaft.

Figure 1. Perfectly plastic soil response.

Figure 2. Distribution of frontal ultimate soil force against pile

shaft.

PROPOSED APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING

OF ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE CAPACITY

Most of the widely used methods to predict the

ultimate lateral capacity of pile ignore the effect of
both of active earth pressure and side shear
resistance. However, recent published works (Briaud
and Smith, 1983; Smith, 1987; and Zhang et al.,
2005) have shown that the soil resistance to the
lateral movement of the pile can be expressed in two
components: (1) the net frontal normal reaction, qmax,
and (2) the side friction reaction, max, as shown in
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 depicts the proposed distribution of front
and rear lateral earth pressure distribution that can
be used to estimate the ultimate earth pressure, qmax,
as given in Eq. 5. This equation takes into account
the effect of active and passive earth pressure and
applies the concept of Broms (1964).
qmax 3( K p Ka )z
(5)
Prasad and Chari (1999) proposed that, max, can
be computed the same as the ultimate vertical shear
resistance of piles estimated with the following
equation from API (1991):
max Kz tan
(6)
Consequently, ultimate lateral resistance that can
be exerted by the soil against the pile, pu, can be
expressed as given in Eq. 7.
pu (qmax max ) B
(7)

under axial load, and it can be used for both freeand fixed-head single piles. The differential equation
of laterally loaded piles is given by the following
equation:
d4y
EI
pu
(8)
dz 4
Then, by substituting of Eqs. 5, 6, and 7 into Eq.
8, it can be written in the following form:
d4y
EI 4 [ ( K p Ka )3 K tan ]Bz
(9)
dz
The general solution of the above forth order
differential equation is obtained by using MATLAB,
yields:
p z5
C
C
y u
1 z3 2 z 2 C3 z C4
120 EI
6
2
(10)
The boundary conditions of the problem are (see
Fig. 2):
d3y
z 0 V EI
H u
dz3
(11)
z 0 M EI

d2y
(12)
H u e
dz 2
d2y
(13)
z D M EI
0
dz 2
where: EI = Bending (flexural) stiffness of pile; M =
bending moment in pile; y = lateral deflection of the
pile; and C1, C2, C3, and C4 are four unknown
constants of integration that can be calculated from
the boundary conditions of the problem.
It follows from the third boundary condition (Eq.
13) that:
pu D 2
(14)
Hu
e
6(1 )
D
It is noticeable that Eq. 16 gives the value of
ultimate lateral pile capacity (Hu) as function of
ultimate lateral soil resistance pu, eccentricity of pile
e, and embedded length of pile to point of rotation D.
According to Prasad and Chari (1999) D, can be
calculated using the following formula:
0.567 L 2.7e

1
D
*
2
2
(15)
5.307 L 7.29e 10.541eL 2.1996
Therefore, the main concern of this paper is to
estimate ultimate lateral pile capacity, Hu, using all
approaches that assume different distribution
patterns for earth pressure around the pile shaft.
Practically, when those widely used methods as
well as the proposed technique (i.e., Eqs. 1, 2, 3, and
7) are substituted into Eq. (14) to predict ultimate
lateral pile capacity, Hu, there are a tangible
difference between the values of ultimate lateral
loads. Hence, a comparison study is carried out to
evaluate the accuracy of each method, compared to

Figure 3. Proposed distribution of front and rear earth pressure

and side shear resistance around pile subjected to lateral load
(After Smith, 1987).

Most of theoretical solutions for laterally loaded

piles involve the concept of modulus of subgrade
reaction which is based primarily on Winklers
assumption. Within this framework, Reese (1977)
proposed the well-known py method. This
approach is based on the differential equation (Eq. 8)
for solving the problem of the laterally loaded pile

the measured ultimate loads which are obtained from

experimental work.
5

ANALYSIS
OF
RESULTS
COMPARISON STUDY

AND

Table 1 summarizes the case studies utilized in this

comparison study which have been performed in
laboratory work by the authors and collected from
the work of many researchers. The case histories
were selected on condition that the ultimate
horizontal load is measured at maximum lateral
displacement within the range of 15% to 20% of pile
diameter at pile head so that comparison criterion
was unified.
The expressions developed in the preceding
sections [Eqs. (1), (2), (3), and (7)] were used to
predict the ultimate lateral load capacity of piles in
cohesionless soil. Those expressions were applied
into Eq. 16 so that different values for predicted
ultimate lateral load, (Hu)p, can be estimated. Then,
those values were compared to the corresponding
measured ones obtained from model test piles (20
case studies).
5.1.

Percentage of average error

Table 2 represents the results of ultimate horizontal

load and ultimate soil resistance in conjunction with
the percentage of error obtained from each method.
It can be seen that the proposed method yields the

lowest average error percent equal to -13.10%

compared to those values resulted from other
methods. The negative sign indicates that this
method is under-predicting the values of ultimate
lateral pile capacities, which means that it is a
conservative design method. This can be attributed
to the effect of active earth pressure in estimation of
net earth pressure 3(Kp-Ka) which is created at the
maximum lateral movement of the pile head. Prasad
and Chari (1999) gave average error of -21.61%.
On the other hand, the highest percentages of
average errors were -80.51% and -38.31 calculated
by the methods of Verruijt (1995) and Broms (1964),
respectively, which basically neglected the effect of
side shear resistance between pile shaft and soil
medium during pile movement.
5.2.

Statistical analysis

Assessment of accuracy and predictability of the

methods used to estimate ultimate lateral pile
capacity is based mainly on a statistical analysis.
The ratio between predicted and measured ultimate
pile capacity [(Hu)p/(Hu)m] is a key variable in this
analysis. An evaluation scheme using four criteria
was considered in order to rank the methods:
Equation of best fit line of predicted versus
measured pile capacity, with corresponding
coefficient of correlation, r, denoted to as (R1).
20% accuracy obtained from log normal
distribution of (Hu)p/(Hu)m, denoted to as (R2).

Table 1. List of case studies of laboratory tests used in comparison study.

Pile data
Soil properties
Case study
no.
L (m)
D (m)
e (m)
(KN/m3)
()
B (m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

0.4445
0.4445
0.4445
0.4445
0.2
0.2
0.991
0.73
0.9
0.95
0.612
0.612
0.612
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.15
0.15

0.318
0.318
0.318
0.318
0.158
0.158
0.769
0.551
0.672
0.750
0.461
0.461
0.461
0.553
0.474
0.316
0.222
0.222
0.107
0.107

0.1016
0.1016
0.0762
0.0508
0.0125
0.0125
0.075
0.073
0.102
0.074
0.102
0.102
0.102
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015

0.3175
0.3175
0.3175
0.3175
0
0
0.075
0.17
0.28
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0
0
0
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11

15.7
17.6
17.6
17.6
15.2
14
15
14.6
14.6
13.6
16.5
17.3
18.3
14.93
14.93
14.93
15.65
14.45
15.65
14.45

31
45
45
45
50
35
46
40
40
35
35
41
45.5
37.9
37.9
37.9
41
39
41
39

Reference

Adams and Radhakrishna (1973)

Meyerhof et al. (1981)

Chari and Meyerhof (1983)
Joo (1985)
Meyerhof and Sastry (1985)
Prasad and Chari (1999)

Rahman et al. (2009)

Authors

Table 2. Results of comparison between predicted and measured lateral load capacity piles.
Prasad and Chari
Proposed method
(1999)
Case
Ultimate
Error
Ultimate
Ultimate
study
measured
Ultimate
Ultimate
(%)
lateral
lateral
no.
load (kN)
predicted
predicted
pressure
pressure
load (kN)
load (kN)
(kN/m2)
(kN/m2)
1
0.15
11.19
0.094
-37.1
12.90
0.109
2
0.54
24.73
0.475
-12.0
48.97
0.413
3
0.41
18.55
0.356
-13.1
36.73
0.310
4
0.34
12.36
0.238
-30.1
24.48
0.206
5
0.04
3.42
0.023
-42.9
8.68
0.036
6
0.01
1.49
0.010
-10.0
1.95
0.008
7
2.05
16.38
2.492
21.6
34.00
3.057
8
0.76
11.50
0.828
9.0
18.30
0.708
9
1.40
16.07
1.654
18.2
25.58
1.357
10
1.30
8.54
1.285
-1.1
11.24
1.054
11
0.62
14.29
0.716
15.5
18.80
0.503
12
1.04
19.99
1.002
-3.6
33.16
0.887
13
1.79
26.48
1.328
-25.8
53.68
1.435
14
0.28
2.91
0.238
-13.5
4.26
0.217
15
0.26
2.91
0.175
-31.5
4.26
0.159
16
0.14
2.91
0.078
-44.5
4.26
0.071
17
0.025
2.66
0.029
16.8
4.41
0.024
18
0.021
2.23
0.024
16.5
3.41
0.019
19
0.012
2.66
0.006
-52.1
4.41
0.004
20
0.0083
2.23
0.005
-41.9
3.41
0.003
Average error (%)
-13.10
Where: (Hu)p = Ultimate predicted load
(Hu)m = Ultimate measured load
Error % = 100* [(Hu)p-(Hu)m]/ (Hu)m

Verruijt (1995)
Error
(%)

-27.5
-23.6
-24.5
-39.3
-9.8
-26.2
49.1
-6.9
-3.1
-18.9
-18.9
-14.7
-19.8
-21.1
-37.5
-49.4
-2.9
-10.7
-65.3
-61.3
-21.61

Ultimate
lateral
pressure
(kN/m2)
4.47
10.10
7.58
5.05
1.41
0.60
6.70
4.67
6.52
3.44
5.75
8.12
10.83
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.08
0.90
1.08
0.90

Ultimate
predicted
load (kN)
0.038
0.085
0.064
0.043
0.006
0.002
0.602
0.180
0.346
0.322
0.154
0.217
0.289
0.060
0.044
0.020
0.006
0.005
0.001
0.001

Broms (1964)
Error
(%)

-74.9
-84.2
-84.4
-87.5
-85.4
-77.4
-70.6
-76.3
-75.3
-75.2
-75.2
-79.1
-83.8
-78.2
-82.7
-86.0
-76.2
-76.3
-91.5
-89.7
-80.51

Ultimate
lateral
pressure
(kN/m2)
14.94
31.23
23.42
15.62
4.30
1.94
20.65
14.69
20.53
11.13
18.62
25.46
33.42
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.39
2.86
3.39
2.86

Ultimate
predicted
load (kN)
0.126
0.263
0.197
0.132
0.018
0.008
1.857
0.568
1.089
1.044
0.498
0.681
0.893
0.191
0.140
0.062
0.019
0.016
0.003
0.003

Error
(%)

-16.0
-51.2
-51.8
-61.3
-55.4
-26.9
-9.4
-25.2
-22.2
-19.7
-19.7
-34.5
-50.1
-30.7
-45.1
-55.5
-25.4
-25.1
-73.4
-67.5
-38.31

 Arithmetic mean and coefficient of variation for

(Hu)p/(Hu)m, denoted to as (R3).
Determination of the values of (Hu)p/(Hu)m at 50
and 90% cumulative probability, denoted to as
(R4).
An overall rank index, RI, is defined as the sum
of ranking values obtained from the four criteria
(RI=R1+R2+R3+R4). The lower the ranking index is,
the better the performance of the method, i.e. in
accuracy and predictability (Titi and Abu-Farasakh,
1999).
5.2.1. Best fit line criterion (R1)
Linear best fit using regression analysis was
calculated for each method together with the
corresponding coefficient of correlation, r, which
was used to test the strength of best fit equation.
Practically, the method which yields closer value of
best fit equation and (r) to (1) is considered the most
predictable method.
Fig.4 shows best fit line analysis for the measured
versus the predicted ultimate loads (trend line of
data), and Table 3 gives best fit equation together
with the associated coefficient of correlation, r, for
each method. It is obvious that the proposed method
gave trend line that almost coincides with the
inclined line of 45o, and it has best fit equation of
(Hu)p = 1.06 (Hu)m with r = 0.97. This indicates that
this method has an excellent predictability and high
correlation strength; consequently, it can be used
with high reliability and confidence.
On the other hand, Verruijt (1995) and Broms
(1964) methods gave farther best fit equations,
which were not asymptotic to (1) and their trend
lines also were apart from the line of 45o. This
denotes that these methods are greatly
underpredicating the values of ultimate horizontal
capacity than those obtained from laboratory tests,
especially the method of Verruijt (1995) which
produced best fit equation of (Hu)p = 0.24 (Hu)m with
value of r = 0.96. Even though Verruijt (1995) gave
excellent value of r, it was ranked in the last order
because of its best fit equation was quite low, as
shown in Table 3.
5.2.2. Accuracy level of 20% criterion (R2)
The 20% accuracy level denotes that the predicted
lateral pile capacity (Hu)p lies within the range
between 0.8 and 1.2 the measured capacity (Hu)m.
The Log Normal distribution is acceptable to
represent the ratio of (Hu)p/(Hu)m, however, it is not
systematic around the mean, which means that the
Log Normal distribution does not give an equal
weight of underprediction or over-prediction. In
order to use Log Normal distribution, the mean ln,
standard deviation sln, and Log Normal distribution

density function f(x), are calculated for the natural

logarithm of [(Hu)p/(Hu)m], as given in the following
equations:
ln

(H u ) p
1 n
ln

n i 1
(H u ) m

ln ( H
n

s ln

i 1

(H u ) p
)m

n 1
u

ln

(16)
2

1 ln( x)
1
ln
f ( x)
exp
s ln
xs ln 2
2

(17)
(18)

Figure 4. Correlation between measured and predicted ultimate

load for each method.
Table 3. Best fit calculations for assessment of ultimate lateral
load.
Ranking
Method
Best fit equation
r
(R1)
Proposed method
(Hu)p = 1.06 (Hu)m 0.97
1
Prasad and Chari
(Hu)p = 1.12 (Hu)m 0.94
2
(1999)
Broms (1964)
(Hu)p = 0.76 (Hu)m 0.96
3
Verruijt (1995)
(Hu)p = 0.24 (Hu)m 0.96
4

At a certain accuracy level (i.e., 20% accuracy),

the higher the probability value is better the
accuracy of the method. Fig. 5 shows a Log Normal
distributions for the methods with the range of 20%
accuracy level (dashed zone), and the 20% accuracy
curves are illustrated in Fig. 6. Table 4 shows the
results of analysis and the ranking of all methods. It
is obvious that, at 20% accuracy the proposed
method has the highest probability of accuracy that
equals 55% (R3=1), therefore, it is ranked in the first
order. However, the method of Verruijt (1995)
comes in the last order with a probability of
accuracy of 0% (R3=4). This is because the entire
calculated values are completely outside the range of

20% accuracy, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (dashed area).

The methods of Prasad and Chari (1999) and Broms
(1964) are ranked in the second and third order,
respectively.
Table 4. Results of 20% accuracy range of prediction of
ultimate bearing capacity.
Probability at 20%
Ranking
Method
accuracy range (%)
(R2)
Proposed method
55.00
1
Prasad and Chari
45.00
2
(1999)
Broms (1964)
20.00
3
Verruijt (1995)
0.00
4

calculating parameter defined as, COV, which is

equal to standard deviation, s, divided by . The
most accurate method gives = 1, and COV = 0,
respectively. This case is ideal, however, in reality
the method is better when is nearly (1), and COV
is asymptotic to zero (Neely, 1991).
Table 5 summaries the results of the statistical
parameters (, s, and COV) for each method used in
this comparison study. It can be seen that the most
precise method is the proposed one which considers
both of side shear and frontal net earth pressure
resistance between pile shaft and soil medium.
Nevertheless the entire methods gave COV values
that are not asymptotic zero, the proposed method is
still highly reliable than other ones, since its mean
value (=0.87) is almost asymptotic to (1) as well as
its COV value is close to zero.
Table 5. Statistical parameters for assessment of ultimate
lateral load.
Method

s
COV Ranking (R3)
Proposed method
0.87 0.24 0.278
1
Prasad and Chari
0.78 0.24 0.309
2
(1999)
Broms (1964)
0.62 0.19 0.305
3
Verruijt (1995)
0.06 0.19 0.297
4

Figure 5. Log normal distribution of the ratio (Hu)p/(Hu)m for

the all methods used in the analysis.

Figure 6. Accuracy level versus probability of occurrence.

5.2.3. Statistical Parameters Criterion (R3)

The precision for each method can be evaluated by
measuring of the scatter of results around the mean
value, , for the ratio [(Hu)p/(Hu)m], and by

5.2.4. Cumulative probability criterion (R4)

The cumulative probability concept is utilized to
help in quantifying the accuracy of the investigated
methods to predict the ultimate lateral capacity of
piles. The method having P50 value closer to (1)
along with lower (P90-P50) range, is considered the
best (Titi and Abu-Farasakh, 1999).
The procedures of this criterion are: sort the ratio
(Hu)p/(Hu)m for each method in an ascending order.
The smallest value is given i = 1 and the largest is
given number i = n, where n is the number of case
studies considered in the analysis. The cumulative
probability value CPi, for each value of (Hu)p/(Hu)m
is given as:
i
CPi
(19)
n 1
Then the relation between cumulative probability,
CPi, and the values of [(Hu)p/(Hu)m] is plotted,
subsequently, the value of [(Qu)p/(Qu)m] at 50 and
90 % cumulative probability is obtained (P50 and
P90).
Figs. 7 to 10 illustrate the cumulative probability
curves for the all methods with the corresponding
values of P50 and P90. Table 6 summaries the results
and ranking of each method. It is clear that, the
proposed method is ranked as number 1, because it
gives P50 value that approaches to 1 and at the same
time gives the lowest value of (P90-P50).

Figure 7. Cumulative probability analysis using the proposed

method.

Figure 8. Cumulative probability analysis using Prasad and

Chari (1999) method.

Figure 10. Cumulative probability analysis using Verruijt

(1995). method
Table 6. Results of cumulative probability results of all
methods.
Ranking
Method
P50
P90
P90P50
(R4)
Proposed method 0.875
1.18
0.305
1
Prasad and Chari
0.795 1.185
0.390
3
(1999)
Broms (1964)
0.67
0.84
0.170
2
Verruijt (1995)
0.215 0.278
0.063
4

5.2.5. Overall ranking index (RI)

Table 7 represents the final ranking score for each
method. The proposed method for prediction of
ultimate lateral capacity came in the first order with
the most little ranking index (RI=4). The method of
Broms (1964) had the second order ranking index
(RI=9). On the other hand, methods of Prasad and
Chari (1999) and Verruijt (1995) came in the third
and fourth order with ranking indexes of (RI=11)
and (RI=16), respectively.
Table 7. Final ranking of the methods used in the study.
RI =
Ranking
Method
R2 R1 R3 R4 R1+R2
index
+R3+R
Proposed
1
1
1
1
4
1
method
Prasad and
2
2
2
3
9
2
Chari (1999)

Figure 9. Cumulative probability analysis using Broms (1964)

method.

Broms (1964)

11

Verruijt (1995)

16

As a result, it can be seen that an obvious

improvement has been achieved in accuracy and
predictability because of using the proposed method,
compared with other widely used methods for
calculating the ultimate lateral capacity of piles in
sandy soil. As a result, it can be seen that an obvious
improvement has been achieved in accuracy and
predictability owing to using the proposed technique,
compared with other widely used methods for

calculating the ultimate lateral capacity of piles in

sandy soil.
6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This paper establishes an evaluation scheme to

assess the accuracy and predictability of the most
widely used methods for estimating the ultimate
lateral pile capacity in sandy soils. A proposed
method was evaluated against the most
internationally known techniques, namely: Broms
(1964), Verruijt (1995), and Prasad and Chari (1999).
An extensive statistical analysis was carried out
using the results of laboratory tests for model piles
(20 case studies). The statistical analysis has been
implemented using four statistical criteria. The
following outcomes can be drawn from this study:
1) Active earth pressure and side shear resistance,
which are ignored in most of the design
methods, have a significant part in
determination of lateral pile capacity.
2) Even though active earth pressure caused a
reduction in the predicted ultimate lateral
capacity, it gave the minimal average error
percentage among the other methods of design.
3) The proposed method yields remarkably
satisfactory results since its accuracy and
predictability have been estimated against
well-known design methods. Therefore, it can
be used with high reliance for design purpose.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. I., and Radhakrishna, H. S. (1973): The lateral
capacity of deep augured footings, Proc., 8th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Moscow, 18.
American Petroleum Institute (API). (1991): Recommended
practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed
offshore platforms, API recommended practice 2A (RP2A),
19th ed., Washington, D.C.
Briaud, J.-L., and Smith, T. D. (1983): Using the pressuremeter
curve to design laterally loaded piles, Proc., 15th Offshore
Technology Conf., Houston, Paper 4501, 495502.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1961): The ultimate resistance of rigid piles
against transversal forces, Bulletin No. 12, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 59.
Broms, B. B. (1964): Lateral resistance piles on cohesionless
soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, (SM3), 123156.
Chari, T. R., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1983): Ultimate capacity of
single piles under inclined loads in sand, Can. Geotech. J.,
20, 849854.
Joo, J. S. (1985): Behavior of large scale rigid model piles
under inclined loads in sand, Ms Engineering thesis,
Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St. Johns,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Meyerhof, G. G., Mathur, S. K., and Valsangkar, A. J. (1981):
Lateral resistance and deflection of rigid wall and piles in
layered soils, Can. Geotech. J., 18, 159170.

Meyerhof, G. G., and Sastry, V. V. R. N. (1985): Bearing

capacity of rigid piles under eccentric and inclined loads,
Can. Geotech. J., 22, 267276.
Nelly, W. J. (1991): Bearing capacity of auger-cast piles in
sand, ASCE Journal, 117(2), 331-345.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980): Pile foundation
analysis and design, Wiley, New York.
Prasad, Y. V. S. N., and Chari, T. R. (1999): Lateral capacity
of model rigid piles in cohesionless soils, Soils Found.,
39(2), 2129.
Rahman, Md. M., Karim Md. R., Baki, A.L., and Paul, D.K.
(2008): Ultimate lateral load resistance of laterally loaded
pile, Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp. on Deep Found. on Bored
And Auger Pileso, Ghent, Belgium, 155-159.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974): Analysis of
laterally loaded piles in sand, Proc., 6th Offshore
Technology Conf., Vol. 2, Houston, 473483.
Reese, L. C. (1977): Lateral loaded pile: program
documentation, Int. Geotch. Eng. Div., ASCE, 103(GT4),
287-305.
Smith, T. D. (1987): Pile horizontal modulus values, J. of
Geotech. Eng., 113(9), 10401044.
Titi, H., and Abu-Frasakh, Y. (1999): Evaluation of bearing
capacity of piles from cone penetration test data, Louisiana
Transportation Research Center, November.
Verruijt, A. (1995): Computational Geomechanics - Theory
and Applications, Ch (8), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Papendrecht, Digital edition, 2010.
Zhang, L., Silva, F., Grismala, R. (2005): Ultimate lateral
resistance to piles in cohesionless soils, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131 (1),
78-83.