Lecture 4

Axial Pile Deflections

Dr. Taeseo Ku

1
Brief Review – Lecture 3

2
 Total Stress Analysis (α-Method) vs.
Effective Stress Analysis (β-Method)
Brief Overview

Note: The names ‘alpha’

and ‘beta’ are applied to
the evaluation of side
resistance only.

Undrained Drained

3
 Conceptual Load Transfer

Tip resistance = 0
(not mobilized)

4
 Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
Qc Qsn Qc

0.7Ls Qsn Soft soil

Ls
(consolidating)

Neutral plane

Qsp
Stiff soil (non-
consolidating)

Qb Qsp Qb
5
 Axial Pile Deflection

 Elastic settlement of single piles

-Chart Solutions
-Load Transfer
-Closed-form solutions
 Settlement of pile groups
 Case study & sample questions

6
AXIAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT PREDICTION
OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS
 The evaluation of the load-displacement response of driven piles and
drilled shafts subjected to axial compression loading is important in
foundation design. The relative proportions of load carried by the shaft and
base at working loads are also desired. Consequently, elastic continuum
theory is utilized to describe the load-transfer distribution and axial load-
displacement response at the top of the foundation.
 The procedures have been developed using boundary element
formulations (Poulos and Davis, 1980), finite elements (Poulos, 1989;
Randolph, 1989) and approximate closed-form solutions by Randolph and
Wroth (1978, 1979).
 The generalized method characterizes the soil stiffness by an equivalent
elastic modulus (Es) and Poisson's ratio (νs).
 The soil modulus may be taken either uniform with depth (constant Es) or a
Gibson-profile (linearly increasing Es with depth). 7
AXIAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT PREDICTION
OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Definitions of Soil Moduli for Deep Foundations in Elastic Continua 8

Floating vs End-Bearing Pile

9
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
 The elastic continuum solution for the vertical displacement (wt or ρ) at
the top of a pile foundation subjected to axial compression loading is
expressed by (Poulos & Davis 1980):

where Pt = applied axial load at the top of the shaft, EsL = soil modulus at
the foundation base, d = foundation diameter, and Iρ = influence factor.
 The values of Iρ for a homogeneous soil (i.e., constant Es = EsL with depth)
are given by Poulos (1972) and Poulos & Davis (1968, 1980) in chart form
according to:

Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb
10
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb
Io = settlement influence factor for an incompressible pile in a semi-infinite soil mass
with ν = 0.5;
RK = correction factor for pile compressibility;
Rh = correction factor for finite depth to rigid incompressible layer beneath pile tip;
Rν = correction factor for Poisson effect;
Rb = correction factor for relative stiffness of tip bearing stratum.

Values of these correction factors are given in the following figures in terms of the pile
slenderness ratio (L/d, or D/B) and pile stiffness factor (K = RAEp/Es),
RA = pile area ratio = Ap/(πd2/4), note that RA = 1 for a solid pile.
Ap is the area of the pile section
Ep = pile modulus
Es = soil modulus

Default values are given such that a choice of one of the following cases must be made:
(1) floating pile (Rb= 1), or (2) end-bearing pile (Rh = 1) with pile resting on a stiffer
stratum.
11
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

dB = dia. of base

12
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

13
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

14
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

15
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

16
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Iρ = Io∙RK∙Rh∙Rν∙Rb

The value of Io distinguishes between straight shaft piles (db/d = 1) and piles
with underreamed bases, commonly referred to as belled piers (db/d > 1).

For a floating pile, the depth correction factor (Rh) is for a special case
where supporting medium is of finite thickness, and thus depends upon the
depth (h) to a rigid boundary (i.e. rock), expressed as a dimensionless ratio
of either (h/L), or alternate (L/h).

For an end bearing pile, the base modulus correction (Rb) depends upon the
pile-soil stiffness (K), slenderness ratio (L/d), and the relative stiffness of the
bearing stratum (Eb) to soil modulus along the pile shaft (EsL = Es).

17
 Single Pile Axial Deflection
Assumption (Chart Solutions, Poulos and Davis 1980):
1) Rigid pile in infinite half-space
2) Homogeneous (Es constant with depth)
3) Undrained, ν = 0.5

For Influence Factors for Gibson-type soil, Please refer to the

following reference:
Poulos, H.G., "Settlement of single piles in nonhomogeneous
soils", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 105, No. GT5,
May 1979, 627-641.

18
 Cross-sectional Issues

For an H-pile, an equivalent diameter (d = 2r0) is taken by considering the rectangle:

πr02 = b∙w. The pile stiffness is adjusted accordingly: Ep = (EA)p/ πr02 where (EA)p is
the cross-sectional rigidity of the actual pile (Fleming, et al. 1992).
19
 Load Transfer
 The proportion of load transferred to the pile tip (βLT = Pb/Pt) is also
obtained from elastic continuum theory and given by chart solutions for
uniform Es from Poulos and Davis (1980):

βLT = βo∙CK∙Cb∙Cν

Pb = load transferred to pile tip/base.

Pt = applied load to pile top/head/butt.
βo = proportion of load to tip for incompressible pile (ν = 0.5).
CK = modification factor for pile compressibility.
Cb = modification for stiffness of bearing stratum
(Note: Cb = 1 for floating pile).
Cν = modification factor for Poisson ratio effect.

20
 Load Transfer
βLT = βo∙CK∙Cb∙Cν (After Poulos & Davis, 1980)

21
 Load Transfer
βLT = βo∙CK∙Cb∙Cν (After Poulos & Davis, 1980)

22
 Load Transfer
βLT = βo∙CK∙Cb∙Cν (After Poulos & Davis, 1980)

23
 Assumed Variation of Soil Shear Modulus

Fleming et al. 2009

24
 Closed Form Solution For Iρ
General Compressible Pile Solution
• Alternatively, an approximate closed-form for the influence
factor (Iρ) has been derived (Randolph and Wroth, 1978, 1979;
Poulos, 1989):

The solution given above is quite general and can accommodate soil
models with constant Es (homogeneous soils) or soils having a linearly-
varying Es with depth (Gibson-type soils). The pile can be either a floating
type pile (EsL = Eb) or end-bearing type where the pile base rests on a
stiffer stratum (Eb > EsL).
25
 Closed Form Solution For Iρ
General Compressible Pile Solution
• νs = Poisson's ratio of soil.
• d = pile diameter.
• L = pile length.
• η = eta factor (usually η = 1, or 0 = db/d for belled piers, with db = diameter of base).
- Alternatively, this factor can be used to account for a finite layer thickness beneath the
pile tip, such as IG from the shallow foundation displacement influence factors.
• ξ = EsL/Eb = xi factor (Note: ξ = 1 for floating pile).
• ρE = Esm/EsL = rho factor (ρE = 1 for uniform soil; ρE = 0.5 for simple Gibson soil).
- Note in shallow foundations, Es = Eso +kE∙z, so that ρE = 1 - [2Eso/(kE∙L)+2]-1
• λ = 2(1+νs)Ep/EsL = Ep/GsL =lamda factor.
• ς = ln{[0.25 + (2.5ρ(1- νs) - 0.25)ξ] (2L/d)} = zeta factor.
• μL = 2(2/ ς λ)0.5(L/d) = mu factor.
• Ep = pile modulus (concrete including percentage of reinforcing steel).
• EsL = soil modulus value along pile shaft at level of foundation base (pile tip).
• Esm = soil modulus value at mid-depth of pile shaft.
• Eb = soil modulus below foundation base (Note: Eb = EsL for floating pile).
26
 Closed Form Solution – Load Transfer
General Compressible Pile Solution
For the approximate elastic continuum solution of Randolph & Wroth
(1978), the distribution of axial load transfer with depth is also closed
form. The ratio of the displacement at the foundation head (wt) to the
foundation base (wb) is given simply by:

wt/wb = cosh(μL)

The displacement at the foundation base (wb) may also be expressed

in terms of the magnitude of load at the base (Pb):

wb = Pb(1-νs)(1+νs)η/(Ebd)

27
 Closed Form Solution – Load Transfer
General Compressible Pile Solution
The expression for fraction of the total load transferred to the pile base is
given by Randolph (1994):

Note that the above equation has same denominator as Iρ equation.

The equation gives values comparable to boundary element solutions
(Poulos and Davis, 1980), however, the chart solutions only apply to
homogeneous Es cases. The methodology permits evaluations of the
total axial load-displacement response, as well as separate components
of shaft and end-bearing. In this case, elastic displacements apply until
full side resistance capacity is achieved. Further increases in total
capacity are attributed to additional mobilization of end-bearing
resistance until the total capacity is reached.
28
Closed Form Solution – Load Transfer
General Compressible Pile Solution

Fleming et al. 2009

Proportion of load taken by pile base.

29
 Courtesy of Prof. Paul Mayne
Georgia Institute of Technology 30
(slide 31 – 37)
 31
Prof. Paul Mayne
 Ps

Pb

32
Prof. Paul Mayne
 Pb

33
Prof. Paul Mayne
 Summary

Pb

34
Prof. Paul Mayne
 Pt =

35
Prof. Paul Mayne
 36
Prof. Paul Mayne
 37
Prof. Paul Mayne
 Case Study – Axial Pile Deflections
Drilled shaft case study – Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia
A drilled shaft with d = 3 feet and L = 65 feet was constructed in Piedmont residual sandy silts that
grade into decomposed schist for the Fairfax Hospital in Fairfax County, Virginia. Flat plate
dilatometer tests indicated an elastic E=35 MPa (mean of 64 tests), assuming a homogenous
profile of modulus. Based on correlations with DMT and SPT (Mayne and Frost, TRR 1279, 1988),
the estimated modulus of the decomposed rock beneath the pile base was Eb=102 MPa. The
concrete shaft can be assumed to have an equivalent modulus of approx. 27.5 GPa. These
conditions give a pile slenderness ratio, L/d = 65/3 =21.7 and pile stiffness factor, KF = Ep/Es = 764.

Apply Q = 2MN, Use Poulos & Davis Chart solution

38
 Case Study – Axial Pile Deflections
Drilled shaft case study – Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia

39
Case Study – Linear Elastic Axial Pile Response
Drilled shaft case study – Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia

40
Case Study – Linear Elastic Axial Pile Response
Drilled shaft case study – Fairfax Hospital, Northern Virginia

41
Case Study – Linear Elastic Axial Pile Response
Texas Highway Drilled Shaft

42
 Sample Question

A square prestressed concrete pile is driven into a deep deposit

of firm fine-coarse sand (SP-SW) with groundwater located 1.2
m deep. The pile side is 0.34 m and the embedded length after
driving is 24.5 m. Flat dilatometer tests indicate a homogeneous
soil with Es = 445 bars to depths of at least 33 m. If the pile is
analyzed using the rigid pile solution (Randolph Model), what
vertical force is required in order for the pile top to deflect 14
mm? At that load level, what are the percentages of load
transferred in side shear and end bearing?

43
 Sample Question
1.2m
Es (bar) = 445

L = 24.5 m

0.34×0.34m2 (square)

44
 Load-Settlement Ratio
Closed-Form Elastic Pile Solutions
VERY LONG PILES: when L/ro > 3 (Ep/GsL)0.5 then load vanishes before length of
pile reached. Then, for this case, tanh(μL) approaches 1 and the axial load-
displacement relationship is:

L = pile length, ro = pile radius, rb = radius of pile base (i.e., for belled shafts), η = rb/ro;
Ep = pile modulus, GsL = soil shear modulus along side at z = L;
ρE = GsM/GsL = Gibson parameter;
GsM = soil shear modulus at mid-shaft;
λ = Ep/GsL = soil-pile stiffness ratio,
ξ = GsL/Gsb; Gsb = soil stiffness below pile tip/toe/base;
ζ = ln(rm/ro) = measure of soil zone affected by pile influence;
rm = L{0.25 + ξ [2.5 ρE(1-ν) – 0.25]} = “magic radius”

For long piles, the ratio of load to displacement is independent of the pile length.
The soil shear modulus GsL must then be interpreted as that value along the active
zone, corresponding to the depth z = 3 ro (Ep/GsL)0.5 45
END BEARING vs FRICTION PILE
SETTLEMENTS

46
Case Study – Long Pile at Sandpoint, Idaho
A steel pipe pile with d = 404 mm was driven closed-ended to an embedded
length L = 45.8 m into soft glacial lake sediments in northwest Idaho.
Seismic piezocone sounding:

47
Case Study – Long Pile at Sandpoint, Idaho
The shear wave velocity data can be used to determine a profile of the initial
small-strain shear modulus with depth

48
Case Study – Long Pile at Sandpoint, Idaho

Plunging failure

No increase of shaft
resistance?

49
Case Study – Long Pile at Sandpoint, Idaho

50
Case Study – Long Pile at Sandpoint, Idaho

51
 Methods of Pile Group Settlement Analysis
(Poulos 2011)
It is now well recognized that the settlement of a pile group can differ significantly
from that of a single pile at the same average load level. There are a number of
approaches commonly adopted for the estimation of the settlement of pile groups:
− Methods which employ the concept of interaction factors and the principle of
superposition (e.g. Poulos and Davis, 1980);
− Methods which involve the modification of a single pile load-settlement curve, to
take account of group interaction effects;
− The settlement ratio method, in which the settlement of a single pile at the
average load level is multiplied by a group settlement ratio Rs, which reflects the
effects of group interaction;
− The equivalent raft method, in which the pile group is represented by an
equivalent raft acting at some characteristic depth along the piles;
− Numerical methods such as the finite element method and the finite difference
method (such as FLAC). While earlier work employed two-dimensional analyses, it
is now less uncommon for full three-dimensional analyses to be employed (e.g.,
Katzenbach et al., 1998).
52
 Pile Group Interaction

For floating piles, the interaction factor (αs) between piles is given as a
function of the center-to-center spacing distance between piles (s), the
“magic radius” (rm), and influence zone size given by ζ = ln(rm/ro). Thus, per
Fleming et al. (1992):

53
 Pile Group Interaction
 Piles in groups are normally installed with spacing (s) to
diameter (d) ratios of between 3 < s/d < 10. Closer than this may
result in damage during driving, or disruption or movement of
already-placed pilings. Spacing greater than 10 diameters results
in large pile caps that are expensive and impractical.

 The settlement interaction effects are accommodated by:

ρG/ρ1 = 1 + αF
where ρG = group displacement, ρ1 = single pile displacement, and
αF = group interaction factor:
αF = α12 + α13 + α14 + .......

 The alpha interaction factors depend upon the s/d ratio

between piles and pile stiffness factor (K), as given by Poulos &
Davis (1980). 54
 Pile Group
Interaction

Interaction factor approach -

Poulos & Davis (1980),
Section 6.2.2.

55
 Pile Group
Interaction

Interaction factor approach –

effect of various parameters:
O’Neill 1983

56
 Pile Group Interaction
Interaction factor

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 2

α=
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 1 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
s
α depends on:
• L/d
• K = Ep/Es
• s/d L
• Distribution of Es
• Pile tip conditions

d
Pile 1 Pile 2 57
 Pile Group Interaction (Poulos 2011)
One of the common means of analyzing pile group behaviour is via the interaction
factor method described by Poulos and Davis (1980). In this method, the settlement
wi of a pile i within a group of n piles is given as follows:

where Pav = average load on a pile within the group; S1 = settlement of a single pile under unit
load (i.e., the pile flexibility); αij = interaction factor for pile i due to any other pile (j) within
the group, corresponding to the spacing sij between piles i and j.
Eq. 1 can be written for each pile in the group, thus giving a total of n equations,
which together with the equilibrium equation, can be solved for two simple cases:
1. Known load on each pile, in which case the settlement of each pile can be
computed directly. In this case, there will usually be differential settlements among
the piles in the group.
2. A rigid (non-rotating) pile cap, in which case all piles settle equally. In this case,
there will be a uniform settlement but a non-uniform distribution of load in the
piles. 58
Interaction Factors -Characteristics
α
• Decreases as s/d increases
• Decreases as K decreases
• Decreases as L/D decreases
• Less for end bearing than friction piles
• Less for non-homogeneous than homogeneous
profiles
• Increases as νs increases
• Increases if base enlarged
• Decreases if soil between piles is stiffer
59
 Interaction Factors - Issues
• Generally, will tend to overestimate interaction within a
relatively large group, due to effects of:
 Greater stiffness of soil between piles

 α decreases more rapidly with spacing than theory suggests

 The intervening piles within the group tend to reduce interaction

• Should check group settlement with simpler approach

• Should make allowances for stiffer soil & more rapid decay
of α
60
 Settlement Ratio Method
▪ Settlement Ratio RS
RS = Average group settlement / Settlement of
single pile at same average load
n > RS > 1

▪ Settlement efficiency factor RG

RG = Stiffness of pile group / Sum of individual
stiffnesses of all piles in group
1/n < RG < 1.0 (RS = 1/RG)

61
 Settlement Ratio Method
SG = RS·Pav·S1
RS from:
• Tabulated values (Poulos, 1979)
• Randolph’s approximation
▫ RS ~ nw
▫ Values of w from theoretical analysis
▫ As first approximations:
w ~ 0.5 for floating groups in clay
w ~ 0.33 for floating groups in sand
62
Theoretical Solutions for Exponent w

63
 Stacked Pile Segments (Layered Soils)
For a rigid pile in a three-layer soil profile, the following components are
evaluated:

64
Randolph-Wroth Solution
65
 References – Analysis & Prediction
• Banerjee, P.K. and Davies, T.G. (1978), "The behavior of axially and laterally loaded single piles embedded in non-
homogeneous soils", Geotechnique 28 (3), 309-326.
• Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F. and Elson, W.K (1992). Piling Engineering, Second Edition,
Blackie/Halsted Press, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 122-128.
• Gardner, W.S. (1987), "Design of drilled shafts in the Atlantic Piedmont", Foundations and Excavations in Decomposed
Rock of the Piedmont Province (GSP 9), ASCE, New York, 1-15.
• Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1968), "The settlement behavior of single axially-loaded incompressible piles and piers",
Geotechnique 18 (3), 351-371.
• Poulos, H.G. (1972), "Load-settlement prediction for piles and piers", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 98 (SM9), 879-897.
• Poulos, H.G. (1979), "Settlement of single piles in non-homogeneous soils", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division 105 (GT5), 627-641.
• Poulos, H.G. (1989), "Pile Behavior: Theory and Application", 29th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 3,
September, pp. 363-416.
• Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 397 p. (now
published by University of Sydney Press, Australia).
• Randolph, M.F. (1989), PIGLET: Analysis and Design of Pile Groups, Internal Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 35 p.
• Randolph, M.F. (1994), "Solution for axially loaded pile in elastic soil", fax communication to P.W. Mayne from
University of Western Australia (April 13), 4 pgs.
• Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978), "Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles", Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT12, Dec., pp. 1465-1488.
• Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1979), "A Simple Approach to Pile Design and the Evaluation of Pile Tests", Behavior
of Deep Foundations, STP 670, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 484-499.
66
 References – Pile Group
• Banerjee, P.K. and Davies, T.G. (1977), "Analysis of Pile Groups Embedded in Gibson Soil",
Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, Tokyo, 381-386.
• Fleming, W.G.K., Welman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., and Elson, W.K. (1992). Piling Engineering.
Second Edition, Blackie/Halsted Press/John Wiley & Sons, London/New York.
• O’Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., and Audibert, J.M.E. (1982), "Installation of Pile Group in
Overconsolidated Clay", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 108
(GT11), 1369-1386.
• O’Neill, M.W. (1983), "Group Action in Offshore Piles", Geotechnical Practice in Offshore
Engineering, ASCE Conference, Univ. of Texas, Austin, 25-64.
• Poulos, H.G. (1971), "Behavior of Laterally-Loaded Piles II: Pile Groups", Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 97 (SM5), 733-751.
• Poulos, H.G. and Mattes, N.S. (1971), "Settlement and Load Distribution Analysis of Pile
Groups", Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol. G1, No. 1, 18-28.
• Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley & Sons,
New York (Reprinted 1990 by University of Sydney, Australia).
• Poulos, H.G. (1989), "Pile Behavior: Theory and Application", 29th Rankine Lecture,
Geotechnique, Vol. 39 (3), 365- 415.
• Poulos, H.G. (1988), "Modified Calculation of Pile Group Settlement Interaction", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 114 (6), 697-706. 67
Computer Programs Available for Analysis of Deep Foundations
DEFPIG - Analysis of piles and pile groups in an elastic medium based on boundary element formulations.
Poulos, H.G. (1978). University of Sydney, Dept. of Civil Engineering, NSW 2006, Sydney, Australia, 77 p.
PIGLET - Analysis of piles & pile groups in an elastic medium based on finite element and approximate
analytical solutions. Randolph, M.F. (1994). Univ. of Western Australia - Geomechanics, Nedlands 6009,
Australia, 26 p.
COM624 - Laterally-loaded piles and shafts based on p-y method. Reese, L.C. (1977). Laterally-loaded piles:
program documentation", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 103 (GT4), ASCE, 287-305.
LTBASE - Laterally-loaded piers using p-y method. Borden, R.H. and Gabr, M.A. (1987), Laterally-Loaded Pier
Analysis Including Base & Slope Effects. Research Project HPR 86-5, NC State Univ., Raleigh, 48 p.
MFAD - Moment Foundation Analysis and Design for drilled shafts using p-y approach. EPRI Report EL-6420,
Prepared by GAI Consultants, Pittsburgh for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
CUFAD - Compression-Uplift Foundation Analysis and Design. EPRI Report EL-6420, Vol. 16, and Report No.
EL-6583-CCML, Prepared by Cornell University for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
LPILE - Laterally-loaded flexible piles using p-y approach. ENSOFT, Inc., P.O. Box 180348, Austin, TX 78717.
APILE1 and APILE2 - Ultimate capacity of driven piles and load-displacement curves for piles using t-z
approach. ENSOFT Inc., Box 180348, Austin, TX 78717.
UNIPILE - (for windows). Analysis of axial pile capacity and driveability based on dynamics. Unisoft Ltd., 735
Ludgate Court, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 8K8.
CEMSOLVE and CEMSET - Analysis of axial pile capacity for separate base & side components and
consideration of time effects. Cementation Piling & Foundations Ltd., Maple Cross House, UK.
CAPWAP and GRLWEAP - dynamic analysis of axial pile capacity and pile driveability. Pile Dynamics, Inc.,
Cleveland, OH 44128.
Florida-Pier Program (LPGSTAN) - nonlinear finite element program for integrated bridge structure/piles
under axial & lateral loading; pile groups, for FHWA and FL DOT. Public domain. Download from Univ. FL
website. 68
 WEBSITES
There is a selection of software for beam on elastic foundations, sheet piles, axial
piles, & lateral piles available for free from Delft University (and slope stability):
http://dutcgeo.ct.tudelft.nl/software/software_e.htm

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has free downloadable software

including SPILE (vertical pile capacity) and CBEAR (bearing capacity of shallow
foundations), COM624 (lateral pile spring model) at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/geosoft.htm

An extensive listing of over 1431 geotechnical programs is given at the

Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Sofware Directory:
http://www.ggsd.com/

Several downloadable programs and links to geotech software sites given by the
Geotech Virtual Library (GVL) that is tied with the Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering:
http://geotech.civen.okstate.edu/wwwvl/soft-gvl.htm
69
Additional References

70