Purdue University

Purdue e-Pubs
Lyles School of Civil Engineering Faculty
Lyles School of Civil Engineering
Publications

1-1-2009

A Continuum-Based Model for Analysis of

Laterally Loaded Piles in Layered Soils
D Basu
University of Connecticut - Storrs

Rodrigo Salgado
Purdue University, rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu

Monica Prezzi
Purdue University, mprezzi@purdue.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/civeng

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons

Basu, D; Salgado, Rodrigo; and Prezzi, Monica, "A Continuum-Based Model for Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Layered Soils"
(2009). Lyles School of Civil Engineering Faculty Publications. Paper 3.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/civeng/3

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for
additional information.
Basu, D., Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. (2009). Geotechnique 59, No. 2, 127140 [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
laterally loaded piles in multilayered elastic media. The
displacement fields in the analysis are taken to be the
products of independent functions that vary in the verti-
cal, radial and circumferential directions. The governing
differential equations for the pile deflections in different
soil layers are obtained using the principle of minimum
potential energy. Solutions for pile deflection are obtained
analytically, whereas those for soil displacements are
obtained using the one-dimensional finite difference
method. The input parameters needed for the analysis
are the pile geometry, the soil profile, and the elastic
constants of the soil and pile. The method produces
results with accuracy comparable with that of a three-
dimensional finite element analysis but requires much less
computation time. The analysis can be extended to
account for soil non-linearity.
KEYWORDS: elasticity; piles; theoretical analysis
INTRODUCTION
Piles subjected to lateral forces and moments at the head are
analysed in practice with the py method (Reese & Cox,
1969; Matlock, 1970; Reese et al., 1974, 1975; Reese & Van
Impe, 2001). In the py method the pile is assumed to behave
as an EulerBernoulli beam with the soil modelled as a series
of discretely spaced springs, each connected to one of the pile
segments into which the pile is discretised. The springs model
the soil response to loading through py curves ( p is the unit
resistance per unit pile length offered by the springs, and y is
the pile deflection), which are developed empirically by
adjusting the curves until they match actual loaddisplace-
ment results (Cox et al., 1974; Briaud et al., 1984; Yan &
Byrne, 1992; Brown et al., 1994; Gabr et al., 1994; Briaud,
1997; Wu et al., 1998; Bransby, 1999; Ashour & Norris,
2000). However, the py method often fails to predict pile
response (Anderson et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2004), for it is
not capable of capturing the complex three-dimensional inter-
action between the pile and the soil.
The continuum approach is conceptually more appealing;
however, in order to model the soil as a continuum, the use of
numerical techniques such as the three-dimensional (3D) finite
element (FE) method, finite elements with Fourier analysis, the
boundary element (BE) method or the finite difference (FD)
method is often required (Poulos, 1971a, 1971b; Banerjee &
Davis, 1978; Randolph, 1981; Budhu & Davies, 1988; Brown
Manuscript received 18 February 2007; revised manuscript accepted
24 September 2008. Published online ahead of print 3 December
2008.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 August 2009, for further
details see p. ii.
* Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Connecticut, Storrs, USA
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
USA.
127
Dans la presente communication, on concoit une analyse
permettant de calculer la reaction de pieux a charge laterale
dans des milieux elastiques multicouches. Les champs de
deplacement dans cette analyse sont censes etre les produits
de fonctions independantes variant dans les sens vertical,
radial et circonferentiel. Les equations differentielles deter-
minantes pour les fleches des pieux dans differentes couches
de terrain sobtiennent en appliquant le principe de lener-
gie potentielle minimale. Les solutions sobtiennent de dif-
ferentes facons : de facon analytique pour la fleche des
pieux, et avec une methode des differences finies unidimen-
sionnelles pour les deplacements du sol. Les parametres
dentree necessaires pour lanalyse sont la geometrie des
pieux, le profil du terrain, et les constantes elastiques du sol
et des pieux. Cette methode permet dobtenir des resultats
dont la precision est comparable a celle des analyses tridi-
mensionnelles aux elements finis, mais qui necessite des
temps de calcul beaucoup plus courts. En outre, il est
possible de renforcer cette analyse pour tenir compte de la
non linearite du terrain.
et al., 1989; Verruijt & Kooijman, 1989; Trochanis et al., 1991;
Bransby, 1999; Ng & Zhang, 2001; Klar & Frydman, 2002).
The 3D FE or FD method can capture the most important
features of the complex pilesoil interaction, but three-dimen-
sional analyses are computationally expensive for routine prac-
tice. The BE method accounts for the pilesoil interaction by
discretising the pile into small strips and modelling the inter-
action between these strips with the soil continuum through
numerical integration of Mindlins solution (Mindlin, 1936) for
a point force within a continuum.
Considering the soil surrounding the pile as a continuum,
Sun (1994), Zhang et al. (2000) and Guo & Lee (2001)
developed closed-form solutions based on linear elasticity
that can be used to obtain lateral pile deflection with depth.
Their analyses capture the three-dimensional aspects of the
interaction of the pilesoil system and produce results
quickly, which is advantageous in practice. However, these
authors made an assumption that the variation of displace-
ments within the soil mass depends on the same displacement
function for both the radial and the circumferential directions.
This leads to a soil response that is stiffer than it is in reality.
Most continuum analyses of laterally loaded piles do not
consider soil layering. Soil heterogeneity with depth has been
approximately taken into account in the BE and FE analyses by
assuming (typically) a linear variation of soil modulus with
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
analysis of laterally loaded piles is strictly not applicable to
layered systems, because Mindlins solution used in BE analy-
sis is valid only for homogeneous continuums. Verruijt &
Kooijman (1989) solved a layered elastic system by discretis-
ing the soil layers using FE and the pile by FD methods.
In this paper, an advanced continuum-based method of
analysis of laterally loaded piles is proposed by assuming
the soil displacement field to have a shape that is consistent
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 Lames
expected to depend on the direction of the load with respect constants s 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 EulerBernoulli beam
and rigorously takes into account the three-dimensional with a constant flexural rigidity Ep Ip .
pilesoil 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 pilesoil 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 Lp
2 2 1 2
1
small. Because soil displacements and strains can be calcu- 1 d w 1
lated alongside pile deflection using this method, the analysis Ep I p dz  pq  pq rdrddz
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- 1 2
rp
1
linearity by relating the progressive degradation of soil  pq  pq rdrddz
Lp 0 0 2
stiffness to induced soil strains.
 
 dw 


Fa w M a 
z0 dz z0
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
Hi
1 with H0 0 and Hn 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
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 (rz) coordinate system with its origin coinciding u
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

r
2rp
zz
Ma Fa r0
z

Layer 1 H1
H2 rz
Layer 2
Hi1
Hi

rr
Hn2 r
Lp r
Hn1
Layer i z zr

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 stressstrain 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  (r), and the soil
both the pile and this column of soil). The remaining two elastic constants s and Gs (see Appendix 1). Substituting
terms represent the external potential energy. this expression for the potential energy density into equation
(1), we obtain
"
Lp
2 2
2
Soil displacement 1 d w
1 1 2 d r
We assume the following displacement fields (Fig. 2) in Ep I p dz s 2G s w
2 0 dz 2 2 0 rp dr
the soil:
u r w z r r cos d r  r
 
 2
(2a) 2s w 2 s 3Gs w 2 r 2
dr r r
u
w z r sin (2b)
2
2
uz 0 (2c) 2 d 2  r
 d dw
Gs w 2Gs w Gs 2r
dr r dr dz
where w(z) is a displacement function (with a dimension of
2 #
2
length), varying with depth z, representing the deflection of dw
2 1 dw
the pile axis;  r (r) and  (r) are dimensionless displace- Gs  rdrdz rp Gs
2
dz
dz 2 Lp dz
ment functions varying with the radial coordinate r; and is  
the angle measured clockwise from a vertical reference  dw 


Fa w M a  (4)
section (r r0 ) that contains the applied force vector Fa. dz z0
z0
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  (r) describe how the displace- a minimum. Hence minimising the potential energy of the
ments within the soil mass (due to pile deflection) decrease pilesoil 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) 1 and  (r) 1 at r rp (this ensures compat- tions. We apply  0 to obtain an equation of the form
ibility at the pile/soil interface) and  r (r) 0 and  (r) (see Appendix 1)
0 at r 1 (this ensures that displacements in the soil 

decrease with increasing radial distance from the pile). Thus dw
 A ww B w
 r and  vary between 1 at the pile/soil interface and 0 at dz (5)
infinite radial distance from the pile.  
C  r  r D  0
Since the variations w(z), (dw/dz),  r (r) and  (r) of
Stressstraindisplacement relationships the functions w(z) (and its derivative),  r (r) and  (r) are
The straindisplacement 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 0,
2 3
@u r B(w)(dw/dz) 0, C( r ) r 0 and D( ) 0) in
6
7 order to satisfy the condition  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 @u 7
 rr 6

7 ,opt (r) that describe the equilibrium configuration of the
6 r r @ 7 pilesoil system.
6 7
6  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 76 7
6 7 6 1 @u r @u u 7 7
sub-domains: 0 < z < H1 , H1 < z < H2 , . . ., Hn
1 < z <
6 r 7 6

7 Lp , and Lp < z , 1. Accordingly, w is forced to satisfy
6 7 6
4 rz 5 6 r @ @r r 7 7 equilibrium within each of these sub-domains, and hence
6 7 over the entire domain. For  r and  the domain over
z 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 @u 5



2 r @ @z 3 (3)
d r r Soil displacement profiles

w z cos
6
6 dr 7
7 We first consider the variation of  r (r). Referring back to
6
6
7
7 the equation  0, represented by equation (5), we first
6  r r
 r 7 collect all the terms associated with  r and collectively set
6
w z cos 7
6 r 7 them equal to zero to obtain
6 7
6
6 0 7
7 1

  d2  r d r d
6
6 

7
7
ms1 r 2 ms2 ms3
6 w z r r d r 7 dr dr dr
6
r
sin 7
rp
6 r dr 7 
6 7  
6
6 dw z 7
7 ms4 r
ms4 ns r r  r dr (6)
6
 r r cos 7 r r
6 dz 7
 1
6 7 d r 
4 5
dw z
 r sin ms1 r ms3  r
ms3   r  0
dz dr rp
130 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
n Hi


where X d4 w i d2 w i
Ep I p 4
2t i 2 k i w i w i dz
1 i1 H i
1
dz dz
X
n1 Hi
ms1 s 2Gs w 2 dz si 2Gsi w2i dz
0 H i
1 1

i1 d2 w n1
(7)
2t n1 k n w n1 w n1 dz
Lp dz 2
1 X
n1 Hi
ms2 Gs w 2 dz Gsi w2i dz (8)
 
d3 w1 dw1 
0 i1 H i
1
Ep I p
2t
F w 
1 Hi dz 3 1
dz
a 1 
X
n1 z0
ms3 s w 2 dz si w2i dz (9)
0 H i
1


i1
d2 w1 dw1 
1 Hi
Ep I p
Ma 
X dz  z0
n1
dz 2
ms4 s 3Gs w 2 dz si 3Gsi w2i dz
0 H i
1
i1 "
 
(10) d3 w1 dw1 

Ep I p
2t w 
1
2 X
n1 H i
2 dz 3 1
dz
1 
dw dw i z H1
n s Gs dz Gsi dz (11)
0 dz H dz #
i1 i
1
 
d3 w2 dw2 
Ep I p
2t2 
w2 
The subscript i in the above equations refers to the ith layer dz 3 dz z H1
of the multilayered continuum (Fig. 1); w i represents the
" (14)
function w(z) in the ith layer with w i j z H i w i1 j z H i . Note

that the nth (bottom) layer is split into two parts, with the d2 w1 dw1 
Ep I p 
part below the pile denoted by the subscript n+1; therefore, dz 2 dz  z H1
in the analysis, Hn Lp and Hn1 ! 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 rp d2 w2 dw2 

Ep I p  ... :
from the value of  r at r 1, and is therefore identically dz 2 dz  z H1
zero for the boundary conditions of our problem ( r 0 at
r 1 and  r 1 at r rp ) because a known (or "
 
prescribed)  r implies that its variation  r 0. After this d3 w n dw n 

term is made equal to zero, what is left is an equation of
Ep I p 3

2t n w n
dz dz z Lp
form C( r ) r 0. The function  r (r) has a non-zero
variation (i.e.  r 6 0) for rp , r , 1 because  r is not #

known a priori in this interval, so C( r ) 0, which means dw n1 
the integrand in equation (6) must be set to zero, leading to
2t n1 w n1 
dz z Lp
the differential equation
"

 #
2

d2  r 1 d r 1 2 2 2 23 d 1 d2 w n dw n 


 Ep I p 
dr 2 r dr r rp r
r dr r dz 2 dz  z Lp
(12) 
dw n1 
2t n1 w n1  0
where the s are dimensionless constants given by 21 dz z1
ms4 =ms1 , (2 =rp )2 ns =ms1 and 23 (ms2 ms3 )=ms1 .
When solved, equation (12) yields  r,opt . where
We now consider the variation of  (r). We collect the 8 " #
1

terms containing  in the equation  0 (equation (5)) >
>

and, proceeding similarly as for  r , we get the following
>
> Gsi  r  rdr ;
2 2
i 1, 2, . . ., n
< 2 rp
governing differential equation for  : ti "
1

#
>
>

"

 #
2 >
> G
: 2 sn r  2
r 2
rdr r 2
p ; i n1
d2  1 d 4 2 5 2 26 d r 4 p



r
dr 2 r dr r rp r dr r (15)
" 1
2 1
2
(13) d r d
k i
si 2Gsi r dr Gsi r dr
dr dr
with the following boundary conditions:  0 at r 1 rp rp

and  1 at r rp, where 24 ms4 =ms2 , (5 =rp )2 1

d
ns =ms2 , and 26 (ms2 ms3 )=ms2 . 2si  r
 r dr
rp dr
1
d
2Gsi  r
 dr
Pile displacement rp dr
Finally, we consider the variation of the function w and its #
derivative. We again refer back to the equation  0, 1
1
collect all the terms associated with w and (dw/dz) and si 3Gsi  r
 dr
2
(16)
equate their sum to zero, to obtain rp r
 ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS 131
We first consider the domain below the pile, that is, d3 w~i d w~i d3 w~i1 d w~i1
Lp < z , 1. The terms associated with w and (dw/dz) in 3

2 ~t i
2 ~t i1 (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~i1
the variation of w(z) with depth is not known a priori within (22d)
the interior of the domain Lp , z , 1, w n1 6 0, and so d z~2 d z~2
the integrand in the integral between z Lp and z 1
must be equal to zero in order to satisfy equation (14). This At the pile base (z Lp or z~ 1), the boundary conditions
results in the differential equation are
d2 w n1 w~ n constant (23a)
2t n1
k n w n1 0 (17)
dz 2 or
The displacement in the soil must vanish for z equal to
d3 w~ n d w~ n d w~ n1
infinity. We use this as our boundary condition:
2 ~t n
2 ~t n1 (23b)
d~z3 d~z d~z
w n1 0 (at z 1) (18) and
The above equation implies that w n1 0 at z 1, d w~ n
making the term associated with w at z 1 equal to zero 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
p 0 (23d)
w n1 w n j z Lp e
k n =2 t n1 z
Lp (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 n1 in equation (19) with
H1 , H1 < z < H2 , . . ., Hn
1 < 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 q
d3 w~ n d w~
individual layer (or each domain Hi
1 , z , Hi ), the
2 ~t n n
2 k~n ~t n1 w~ n 0 (23b9)
integrand for each of these integrals must equal zero, d~z3 d~z
because w i 6 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 t i L2p =Ep I p , k~i k i L4p =Ep I p , F~a Fa L2p =
for the ith layer, which, expressed in terms of normalised Ep I p , M~ a M a Lp =Ep I p and H ~ i H i =Lp .
depth z~ z=Lp and displacement w~ w=Lp , is given by The governing differential equation for the pile (equation
(20)) resembles that of an EulerBernoulli beam resting on
d4 w~i d2 w~i an elastic foundation (the soil mass). The parameter k i (with

2 ~t i 2 k~i w~i 0 (20)
d~
z 4 d~
z dimensions of FL
2 , where F force and L length) is
The terms associated with the boundaries (i.e. z 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 z~ 0) are configuration)
.

Infinite soil
w~1 constant (21a) B columns of
infinitesimal
or thickness
providing
.

A
d3 w~1 d w~1 resistance to pile

2 ~t1
F~a 0 (21b) movement
z3
d~ d~z
and
Soil columns get
d w~1 compressed (or
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 0

M (21d) Shear resistances between
z2
d~
soil columns below the
At the interface between any two layers (z Hi or z~ H~ i ), pile produce pile base shear
(occurs only if pile base
w~i w~i1 (22a) deflects laterally)

d w~i d w~i1 Fig. 3. Illustration of the two sources of soil resistance: soil
(22b)
d~z d~
z compression and shear
132 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
v
s
parameter t i (with dimension of F) determines the fraction u H~ i
uX n ~t n1 2
of the soil resistance due to the shear stresses that develop u
u si 3Gsi w~ i d~z s n 3Gs n
2
~ n j~z1
w
between soil layers of infinitesimal thickness displaced dif- u i1 H~ i
1 2 k~ n
4 u u s
ferentially in the lateral direction (Vlasov & Leontev, 1966). H~ i
The boundary conditions (equations (22a)(22d)) at the u X n ~t n1 2
t Gsi w 2
~ i d~z Gs n w~ n j~z1
interface of any two layers (~ ~
z H i ) ensure the continuity of ~ i
1
H 2 k~ n
i1
pile deflection, slope of the deflection curve ( dw i /dz),
bending moment ( Ep I p (d2 w i =dz 2 )) and shear force (27)
3 3 v
s
( Ep I p (d w i =dz )
2t i (dw i =dz)) (the shear force has con- u H~ i
2
u X n
tributions from both pile flexure and soil deformation). At u dw ~i k~ n 2
z 0) the shear force equals the applied force u G d~z Gs n w~ j
the pile head (~ u 1 i1 si H~ i
1 d~z 8 ~t n1 n ~z1
(equation (21b)), and either the slope of the pile deflection u
5 u 2 s (28)
u X n H~ i
curve is a known constant (equation (21c)) (this boundary t 2
~t n1 2
condition is generally used with the value of slope taken Gsi w~ i d~z Gs n ~ n j~z1
w
i1 ~ i
1
H 2 k~ n
equal to zero when fixed-head conditions are used to idealise
v
s
the case of a pile that is part of a group of piles joined at u H~ i
uX n ~t n1 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 si Gsi ~ i d~z s n Gs n
w 2
~ n j~z1
w
u i1 ~ i
1
H 2 k~ n
tion (21a) must be used in the analysis instead of equation 6 u u s
u X n H~ i
(21b) to estimate the magnitude of an applied force required t 2
~t n1 2
to produce a given (known) head deflection. Similarly, if, for Gsi w~ i d~z Gs n ~ n j~z1
w
i1 H~ i
1 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 Lp /rp. These expressions can be directly used in
At the pile base (~ z 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) C (i)
w~i (~ (i)
1
1 C 2
2 C 3
3 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 s in terms of dimensionless deflections equations (Table 1). The integration constants for each layer
The s 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
v
s C F (31)
u H~ i
uX n ~t n1 2
u where []4 n34 n is a matrix containing the functions
1 ,
2 ,
u si 3Gsi w~ i d~z s n 3Gs n
2
~ n j~z1
w
u i1 ~ i
1
H 2 k~ n
3 and
4 calculated at the boundaries of the soil layers,
u
1 u s [C]4 n31 is the vector of unknown integration constants of all
uX n H~ i
t si 2Gsi ~t n1 2 the layers, and [F]4 n31 is the right-hand side vector contain-
w~ i d~z s n 2Gs n
2
~ n j~z1
w
i1 ~ i
1
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
2 of equations represented by equation (31) produces the values
v of the integration constants C (i) (i) (i) (i)
1 , C 2 , C 3 and C 4 , which,
u s
u X n 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 Gs n w~ j
u1 ~ i
1
H d~z 8~t n1 n ~z1 a given set of boundary conditions and applied loads. The
u i1
s
u2 n H~ i slope of the deflected pile axis, and the bending moment and
u X ~t n1 2
t si 2Gsi ~ i d~z s n 2Gs n
w 2
w~ n j~z1 shear force in the pile, can be obtained as a function of depth
i1 ~
H i
1 2 k~ n by successively differentiating equation (30) and using the
values of the integration constants.
(25)
v
s
u H~ i
u X n ~t n1 2
u FINITE DIFFERENCE SOLUTION FOR SOIL
u si Gsi w~ 2i d~z s n Gs n ~ n j~z1
w
u i1 ~ i
1
H 2 k~ n DISPLACEMENTS
u
3 u s
H~ i The differential equations (12) and (13) for  r and  are
uX n ~t n1 2 solved using the FD method. The equations are interdepen-
t si 2Gsi w~ i d~z s n 2Gs n
2
~ n j~z1
w
i1 ~ i
1
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
 ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS 133
 rj1
2 rj  rj
1 1  rj1
 rj
1

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

r 2 rj 2r
"

2 # j1 j
1
2
1 2 2 2 
 1

z sin b~
 rj 3

z
j

(a2
b2 )
4
a
3 b
1

2ab
2

cosh b~z
rj rp rj 2r rj

b
4
b3
3
b
3

4

sinh a~

2
(32)
j1
2j j
1 1 j1
j
1

r 2 rj 2r
"

2 #
2
4 2 5 2  j1
 rj
1 4

j
6 r
 rj
rj rp rj 2r rj
a(a2
3b2 )
4
b(b2
3a2 )
2

(33)
z sin b~
z

(a2
b2 )
3
a
4 b
2

2ab
1

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

b
4

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 b(b2
3a2 )
3

r
rj
Pile
r r r r
z cos b~
z

(a2
b2 )
2
a
1
b
3

3 j1

2ab
4

Node number
cosh a~

j
z

1 2 m1 m
a2
2
a3
1
a
1

2

cosh a~

Fig. 4. Finite difference discretisation for r and

a(a2
3b2 )
2 b(b2
3a2 )
4

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

Normalise input parameters: calculate Fa, Ma, Hi,
z cos b~
z

(a2
b2 )
1
a
2
b
4

2ab
3

sinh a~
z

a2
1
a3
2
a
2

1

sinh a~
Table 1. Functions in equation (30) for piles crossing multiple soil layers

Choose initial guess for 1 ( old old old

1 ), 2 ( 2 ), ..., 6 ( 6 )

Calculate r and

Calculate ki and ti
derivatives
Functions
and their

90

90

9

0

9

0

dw i
Calculate w i,
dz
q
~t ( ~t 2
k~) ~t
( ~t 2
k~)
q r
k~
~t)
q

Calculate 1 ( new new new

1 ), 2 ( 2 ), ..., 6 ( 6 )
p
b
Constants a and b

Input
2(

 Prime (9) indicates differentiation.

old new
1 1 ,
1

No Check if
old
2 2 ,
new
| old new
1/2/.../6 1/2/.../6| 0001
r

....,
q
k~ ~t)

old new
6 6
p

Yes
a

2(

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

134 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
Equation (32), along with the boundary conditions
(1)
r 1 (at r rp ) and  r 0 (at r 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 6 . 7
60    7 6 Fr 7 (34)
6   0 K j, rj
1 K j, rj K j, rj1 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 ( m
2) 7
60   0 K m
2, K m
2, K m
2,
r
0 76  r 6 F 7
6 m
3
r
m
2
r
m
1 74 ( m
1) 75 6
m
2 7
4 Fr 5
40   0 K m
1, K m
1, 0 5 r m
1
0  ... 0
m
2
0
m
1
1 (rm) 0

2
The non-zero elements of the left-hand side matrix  26  rj1
 rj
1 4
Fj

 rj
[K  r ] m3 m in the above equation are given by rj 2r rj (43)
 1 1 j 3, 4, . . . , m
2
K j, rj
1
(35)
r 2 2r j r
2
"
 1 1 26 (3)
r
1 4

2 # 
F2


(2) (44)
 2 1 2 2 r 2 2r2 r r2 2r r2 r
K j, rj
2
(36)
r rj rp

 2
 rm
2 4 2 m
1

F m
1
6
r (45)
 1 1 r m
1 2r r m
1
K j, rj1 (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 0 and K m
1, m 0 (as is evident fF  g m31 contain the unknowns  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  g, and j is determined by
equation (34) are given by solving equation (41). The j values are then given as input
j1 j
1
2 to fF  r g to obtain  rj from equation (34). The newly
 2 
 1 obtained values of  rj are again used to obtain new values
Fj r 3
j (38)
rj 2r rj of j , and the iterations areP continued
 until convergence
 is
reached. The criteria m1 mj1  rj previous
 rj current  < 10
6
P  
where j represents nodes 3 through m
2. The elements and m1 mj1 j previous
j current  < 10
6 are used (a strin-
corresponding to node 2 and m
1 are given by: gent value of 10
6 is used because this iterative solution
(3)
2 scheme is central to another set of iterations described next)
 1 1 2 
1 1 to ensure that accurate values of  r and  are obtained.
F2 r
2 3
(2)
(39)
r 2r2 r r2 2r r2


r 2
m
2 1 2 m
1
F m
1 3
 (40)
r m
1 2r r m
1
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)
1 (at r rp ) and  0 (at r 1), a matrix these soil parameters depend on  r and  , which are not
equation (similar to equation (34)) for  can also be known a priori. Hence an iterative algorithm (separate from
formed for the discretised nodes: the iterations between  r and  described in the previous
K  f g f F  g (41) section) is necessary to solve the problem. First, initial
guesses for 1 to 6 are made, and for these assumed values
 r and  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  ] m3 m in equation (41) are exactly the same as that of values of  r and  , 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  ] 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 K  for p 6 q). The diagonal elements of
p,q the calculated values of pile deflection and slope of the

[K ] m3 m for j 2 to m
1 are given by deformed pile, 1 to 6 are obtained. The new values of 1
"

2 # to 6 are then used to recalculate  r and  , and so on. The
r 2 4 2 5 entire process is repeated until convergence on each of
K j, j
2
(42)
r rj rp the s is attained. The tolerance limit prescribed on
the s between the pth and ( p+1)th iteration is
The structure of fF  g m31 in equation (41) is also similar j(1=2=...=6
p1)

(1=2=...=6
p)
j , 0:001. The details of the solution

to fF  r g m31 of equation (34) with F 1 1 and F m 0. steps are given in the form of a flow chart in Fig. 5. We

The remaining elements of fF g m31 are given by chose an initial guess of one for all the s, but any other
 ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS
choice would produce results with the same level of accu-
racy at approximately the same computation time.
BENEFITS OF THE PRESENT ANALYSIS
This analysis is an improvement over the analysis of Sun
(1994) for laterally loaded piles in homogeneous soil on at
least two accounts: (a) our assumption of the displacement
field is more general and more realistic than that assumed
by Sun (1994), who chose  r (r)  (r) (r) for both
the displacements u r and u (equation (2)); and (b) we
obtained solutions for a multilayered soil, whereas the solu-
tion of Sun (1994) is valid only for a single soil layer.
The need for an improved form for the displacement field
(equation (2)) arises from the fact that the displacement
assumption of Sun (1994) produces zero displacement in the
soil mass perpendicular to the direction of the applied force
Fa (Fig. 6). Consequently, the resultant displacement vector
u e r u r e u (e r and e are the unit basis vectors in the 3D finite element analysis (FEA). The pile response obtained
radial and tangential directions respectively) at any point
within the soil mass is forced to be parallel to the applied
force Fa. Thus the displacement field in the soil mass
(which, in general, has a component perpendicular to the
direction of Fa ) is artificially constrained, the normal strain
in the circumferential direction  (equation (3)) becomes
zero, and the pile response is stiffer than what it is in reality.
In fact, Guo & Lee (2001) found that the Sun (1994)
analysis produces unreliable pile response, particularly if the
Displacement
vectors
Ma
Fa
Pile
r0, x ux
u
uy ur
y r
(a)
Displacement
vectors
Ma
Fa
Pile ux
r0, x
u
uy ur
y r
(b)
Fig. 6. Displacement field in soil: (a) according to Sun (1994)
assumption; (b) according to assumption made in this paper
135
Poissons ratio of soil is greater than 0.3. This artificially
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
displacement assumption of Sun (1994), and 3D FE analysis.
We consider as an illustration of use of the analysis a
15 m long drilled shaft, with a diameter of 0.6 m and pile
modulus Ep 24 3 106 kN/m2 , embedded in a four-layer
soil deposit with H1 2.0 m, H2 5.0 m, and H3 8.3 m;
Es1 20 MPa, Es2 35 MPa, Es3 50 MPa and Es4
80 MPa; s1 0.35, s2 0.25, s3 0.2 and s4 0.15
(Es i and s i are the soil Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
for the ith layer; Es i and s i are related to s i and Gs i by
si Esi si =(1 si )(1
2si ) and Gsi Esi =2(1 si )). A
horizontal force Fa 300 kN acts on the pile. The pile head
and base are free to deflect and rotate. Fig. 7 shows the pile
deflection profile obtained using our analysis, the analysis
based on the displacement assumption of Sun (1994), and a
from our analysis closely matches that of the 3D FEA (a
difference of 9.6% in the head deflection was observed
between our analysis and the FEA); the analysis of Sun
(1994) produces a stiffer pile response.
Next, we consider a large-diameter drilled shaft, 40 m
long, with a diameter of 1.7 m and Ep 25 3 106 kPa,
embedded in a four-layer soil profile with H1 1.5 m, H2
3.5 m, and H3 8.5 m; Es1 20 MPa, Es2 25 MPa,
Es3 40 MPa and Es4 80 MPa; s1 0.35, s2 0.3, s3
0.25 and s4 0.2. A 3000 kN force acts at the pile head,
which is free to deflect and rotate. Fig. 8 shows the pile
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
more closely than the results based on the Sun (1994)
assumption; the difference in the head deflection obtained
from our analysis and FEA is 6.6%.
The 3D FE analyses were performed using ABAQUS. The
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)
surface was located at a finite distance below the pile base
(thus the soil mass below the pile base participating in the
pilesoil interaction was incorporated in the analysis). The
horizontal force Fa (acting at the pile head) was applied as a
uniformly distributed shear stress (i.e. force per unit pile
cross-section area) acting on the pile-head surface (the
Pile deflection: mm
2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0
25
50
Depth, z: m
75
100
Present analysis
125
Sun (1994)
Finite element analysis
150
Fig. 7. Deflection profile of a 15 m long pile
136 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
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 300 kN and
a negative moment Ma
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 0.8z 3 103 kN/m3 with s 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 10 m, rp 0.5 m and Ep 25 3
pile axis parallel to Fa is a plane of symmetry (the plane 106 kN/m2 and a long slender pile with Lp 20 m, rp
contains the Fa vector) and divides the cylindrical domain 0.25 m and Ep 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 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 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 25 MPa
(vertical) boundary surface created by the plane of symme- (b) a two-layer system with H1 2 m, Gs1 25 MPa and
try, the displacement perpendicular to the boundary was Gs2 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)
 ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS 137
Pile deflection: mm
(c) a two-layer system with H1 2 m, Gs1 25 MPa and
2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Gs2 100 MPa 0
(d ) a two-layer system with H1 2 m, Gs1 50 MPa and
Gs2 25 MPa. H1/Lp 02

The Poissons 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 20 m) and obtain 4

Depth, z: m
the pile response for the following cases:
(a) a homogeneous soil layer with Gs 10 MPa
(b) a four-layer system with H1 1 m, H2 3 m, H3 6 (1) Gs2/Gs1 10
5 m, Gs1 10 MPa, Gs2 20 MPa, Gs3 40 MPa and
Gs4 80 MPa (2) Gs2/Gs1 20
(c) a four-layer system with H1 1 m, H2 3 m, H3
(3) Gs2/Gs1 40
5 m, Gs1 10 MPa, Gs2 40 MPa, Gs3 40 MPa and 8
Gs4 80 MPa (4) Gs2/Gs1 05
The Poissons 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 02
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 10
displacement field for a pile in an ideal elastic soil: conse-
quently, the pile response obtained from this analysis will (2) Gs2/Gs1 20
deviate, even if slightly, from the actual pile response in 8
(3) Gs2/Gs1 40
elastic soil. Notwithstanding the limitations of these assump-
tions, pile response comparable with those obtained from (4) Gs2/Gs1 05
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 02
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 10
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 20
this analysis (in general, modulus degradation of soil de- 8
pends on the strains induced and on the shear strength of (3) Gs2/Gs1 40
soil).
(4) Gs2/Gs1 05

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
138 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
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 s, 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 005 layering. The analysis can be further extended to account for
16 H1/H2 033
soil non-linearity, and to analyse pile groups.
H1/H3 020

20

(1) Gs1 Gs2 Gs3 Gs4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

(2) Gs1 05Gs2 025Gs3 0125Gs4 This material is based in part upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0556347.
(3) Gs1 025Gs2 025Gs3 0125Gs4 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 s 2Gs w 2 cos2
Depth, z: m

2 2 dr
d r  r

2s w 2 cos2
12 dr r
 r
 2 
 2
H1/Lp 005 s Gs w 2 2
cos2 Gs w 2 r 2
r r
16 H1/H2 033
2
H1/H3 020 d 
 d 2
Gs w 2 sin2 2Gs w 2 r sin
dr r dr
20
2
2 #
dw dw
Gs  r cos Gs
2 2
 sin
2 2
(46)
(1) Gs1 Gs2 Gs3 Gs4 dz dz

(2) Gs1 05Gs2 025Gs3 0125Gs4

(3) Gs1 025Gs2 025Gs3 0125Gs4

Substituting equation (46) in equation (1) and performing integra-
(b) tions with respect to 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 (
Lp

 11
2
d2 w d2 w d r
Ep I p  dz:
s 2Gs w 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
2s ww
2s ww 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 2
displacement equations. The solution is fast, and produces s 3Gs ww s 3G s ww
r2 r2
results comparable with 3D FEA. Using this method, pile
2
deflection, slope of the deflection curve, bending moment  r  d  d

2 s 3Gs
ww Gs ww 2Gs ww r
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 Youngs mod-
2Gs ww Gs   r Gs   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 1
 
 )
dw dw  dw 
and moment.
r p
2
Gs  
dz
Fa w M a 
The solution depends on a set of parameters 1 to 6 that Lp dz dz z0 dz  z0
 ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED PILES IN LAYERED SOILS 139
( "




1 1
d r d r 1 d  d r  d r 

s 2Gs w 2  s w 2  r r s w 2 r 
s w 2  s 3Gs w 2 2r  r
0 rp dr dr r dr r dr r dr r

2 # ) ( "
 1 d dw 1 1
1 d 

s 3Gs w 2  r 2 Gs w 2  r Gs  r  r rdrdz

s w 2  r s 3Gs w 2 2 
r r dr dz 0 rp r dr r




2 # )
2 r 2 d d 2 r d 21 d 2  d dw

s 3Gs
w  Gs w  Gs w 
Gs w 
Gs w  Gs   rdrdz 0
r2 dr dr r dr r dr r dr dz
(47)
Simplifying further, and considering a layered system (Fig. 1), we get
(
 H2
 Lp

H1
d4 w 1 d2 w1 d4 w2 d2 w 2 d4 w n d2 w n
Ep I p 4
2t1 2 k 1 w1 w1 dz Ep I p 4
2t2 2 k 2 w2 w2 dz ... : Ep I p 4
2t n 2 k n w n w n dz
0 dz dz H1 dz dz H n
1 dz dz
1

 


d2 w n1 d3 w 1 dw1  2 

2t n1 k w w dz E I
2t
F w 
Ep I p d w1
M a  dw1 
dz 2 n n1 n1 p p
dz 3 1
dz
a 1  dz 2 dz 
Lp z0 z0
"
 
  # "

 #
3
d w1 dw1  3
d w2 dw2  d w1 dw1 
2
d w2 dw2 
2

Ep I p 3
2t1 
w1  Ep I p 3
2t2 
w2  Ep I p 2 
Ep I p 2 
dz dz z H1 dz dz z H1 dz dz  z H1 dz dz  z H1
"
   #
  )
d3 w n dw n  dw n1  d2 w n dw n  dw n1 
... :
Ep I p 3
2t n 
w n 
2t n1 w n1  Ep I p 2  2t n1 
w n1 
dz dz z Lp dz z Lp dz dz 
z Lp dz z1
( 
  1 1 1 )
1
d2  r d r d   d r   

ms1 r ms3 ms2 ms4 r
ms4 ns r r  r dr ms1 r  r  ms3  r  r 
ms3   r 
 
rp dr 2 dr dr r r dr rp rp rp
( 
  1 1 1 )
1
d2  d d   d   

ms2 r
ms2 ms3 r ms4
ms4 r ns r  dr ms2 r   ms2  r  
ms2    0
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
(Head)
z~0
0234   0234
6 7
6 (1) (2)

 z~ H~ 1 0434   0434 7
6 z~ H~1 7
6  (2)
 z~ H~ (3)
 z~ H~ 0434 0434 7
6 0 434
   7
6 2 2 7
4 n34 n 6
6
..
. 0
..
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
7
7 (49)
6 434 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . 0  7
6 434 7
6 0 0434 
( n
1)
0434  z~ H~
 z~ H~ n
1 7
( n)
4 434 n
1
5
0234 0234   0234 (Base)
z~1

where [](i) ~
~ l (i 1, 2, . . . n) is a 4 3 4 matrix valid for the ith soil layer. It contains the parameter t i , the functions
z~ H

1 ,
2 ,
3 ,
4 and
their derivatives (Table 1) calculated at the layer interface z~ H ~ l (l i
1 or l i). In its expanded form, [](i)
~ l can be expressed as
z~ H
2 3

1
2
3
4
6
6
91
92
93
94 7
7
(i) ~l 4 5 (50)
z~ 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~ H~ l
~ ~ ~

The matrix [](Head)

z~0 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
(Head)
z~0
  z~0 (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~0

in which the functions
1 ,
2 ,
3 ,
4 and their derivatives are calculated at z~ 0 (pile head). The 2 3 4 matrix [](Base)
z~1 is given by
8 
>
1
2
3
4
>
> ; fixed-base condition
>
>
91
92
93
94 z~1
>
>" q q
>
<

1-
2 ~t n
91
2 k~n ~t n1
1
2-
2 ~t n
92
2 k~n ~t n1
2
(Base)
z~1 (52)
>
10
20 #
>
> q q
>
>
>
>
-3
2~t n
93
2 k~n ~t n1
3
- t n
94
2 k~n ~t n1
4
4
2~ ; free-base condition
>
:

30
40 z~1

in which the functions
1 ,
2 ,
3 ,
4 and their derivatives are calculated at z~ 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.
140 BASU, SALGADO AND PREZZI
The vector [C] (with a dimension of 4n) in equation (31) is given
by:
h Klar, A. & Frydman, S. (2002). Three-dimensional analysis of
C C (1)
1 C (1)
2 C (1)
3 C (1)
4 C (2)
1 C (2)
2 C (2)
3 C (2)
4 
T scheme. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 128, No. 9, 775
 C (1n) C (2n) C (3n) C (4n)
(53)
The superscript T implies the transpose of a matrix.
The right-hand side vector of equation (31) is given by
 loaded piles. Trans. ASCE 123, 10491063.
F4 n31 F~a F2 0       0 T (54)
~ a for the free-
with F2 0 for the fixed-head condition and F2 M
head condition.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. B., Townsend, F. C. & Grajales, B. (2003). Case
history evaluation of laterally loaded piles. J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Engng ASCE 129, No. 3, 187196.
Ashour, M. & Norris, G. (2000). Modeling lateral soilpile re-
sponse based on soilpile interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng ASCE 126, No. 5, 420428.
Banerjee, P. K. & Davies, T. G. (1978). The behaviour of axially
and laterally loaded single piles embedded in nonhomogeneous
soils. Geotechnique 28, No. 3, 309326.
Bransby, M. F. (1999). Selection of py curves for the design of
single laterally loaded piles. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 23, No. 15, 19091926.
Briaud, J.-L. (1997). Sallop: simple approach for lateral loads on
piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 123, No. 10, 958
964.
Briaud, J.-L., Smith, T. & Meyer, B. (1984). Laterally loaded piles
and the pressuremeter: comparison of existing methods. In
Laterally loaded deep foundations (eds J. A. Langer, E. T.
Mosley and C. C. Thompson), ASTM STP 835, pp. 97111.
Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
Brown, D. A., Shie, C. & Kumar, M. (1989). Py curves for
laterally loaded piles derived from three-dimensional finite ele-
ment model. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in
Geomechanics (NUMOG III), Niagara Falls, 683690.
Brown, D. A., Hidden, S. A. & Zhang, S. (1994). Determination of
py curves using inclinometer data. Geotech. Test. J. 17, No. 2,
150158.
Budhu, M. & Davies, T. G. (1988). Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in soft clays. J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 114, No. 1,
2139.
Cox, W. R., Reese, L. C. & Grubbs, B. R. (1974). Field testing of
laterally loaded piles in sand. Proc. 6th Offshore Technol. Conf.,
Houston, TX 2, 459472.
Gabr, M. A., Lunne, T. & Powell, J. J. (1994). Py analysis of
laterally loaded piles in clay using DMT. J. Geotech. Engng
ASCE 120, No. 5, 816837.
Guo, W. D. & Lee, F. H. (2001). Load transfer approach for
laterally loaded piles. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
25, No. 11, 11011129.
Kim, B. T., Kim, N.-K., Lee, W. J. & Kim, Y. S. (2004).
Experimental load-transfer curves of laterally loaded piles in
Nak-Dong river sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE
130, No. 4, 416425.
lateral pile response using two-dimensional explicit numerical
784.
Matlock, H. (1970). Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles
in soft clay. Proc. 2nd Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, TX 1,
577594.
McClelland, B. & Focht, J. A. Jr (1958). Soil modulus for laterally
Mindlin, R. D. (1936). Force at a point in the interior of a semi-
infinite solid. Physics 7, May, 195202.
Ng, C. W. W. & Zhang, L. M. (2001). Three-dimensional analysis
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.
J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 108, No. GT9, 11771181.
Poulos, H. G. (1971a). Behavior of laterally loaded piles: I single
piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 97, No. SM5, 711731.
Poulos, H. G. (1971b). Behavior of laterally loaded piles: III
socketed piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 98, No. SM4,
341360.
Poulos, H. G. (1973). Loaddeflection prediction for laterally
loaded piles. Aust. Geomech. J. G3, No. 1, 18.
Randolph, M. F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral
loading. Geotechnique 31, No. 2, 247259.
Reese, L. C. & Cox, W. R. (1969). Soil behavior from analysis of
tests of uninstrumented piles under lateral loading. In Perform-
ance of deep foundations, ASTM STP 444, pp. 160176.
Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
Reese, L. C. & Van Impe, W. F. (2001). Single piles and pile
groups under lateral loading. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. & Koop, F. D. (1974). Analysis of
laterally loaded piles in sand. Proc. 6th Offshore Technol. Conf.,
Houston, TX 2, 473483.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. & Koop, F. D. (1975). Field testing and
analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. Proc. 7th Offshore
Technol. Conf., Houston, TX 2, 671690.
Sun, K. (1994). Laterally loaded piles in elastic media. J. Geotech.
Engng ASCE 120, No. 8, 13241344.
Trochanis, A. M., Bielak, J. & Christiano, P. (1991). Three-dimen-
sional nonlinear study of piles. J. Geotech. Engng ASCE 117,
No. 3, 429447.
Verruijt, A. & Kooijman, A. P. (1989). Laterally loaded piles in a
layered elastic medium. Geotechnique 39, No. 1, 3946.
Vlasov, V. Z. & Leontev, N. N. (1966). Beams, plates and shells on
elastic foundations. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific
Translations.
Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre von der Elasticitaet und Festigkeit.
Prague: Dominicus.
Wu, D., Broms, B. B. & Choa, V. (1998). Design of laterally loaded
piles in cohesive soils using py curves. Soils Found. 38, No. 2,
1726.
Yan, L. & Byrne, P. M. (1992). Lateral pile response to monotonic
pile head loading. Can. Geotech. J. 29, 955970.
Zhang, L., Ernst, H. & Einstein, H. H. (2000). Nonlinear analysis
of laterally loaded rock-socketed shafts. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng ASCE 126, No. 11, 955968.