OT5206 Offshore Foundations

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

National University of Singapore

Piles:
Lateral Capacity and Lateral Response

Y K Chow
Design Considerations
1. Ultimate failure: (a) Soil failure
(b) Pile failure
2. Deflection at working loads

Failure mechanisms of single piles: Free head

pile
soil failure
failure

Short pile Long pile

Failure mechanisms of single piles: Fixed head

soil
failure pile
pile
failure
failure

Short pile
Intermediate
pile

Long pile
Ultimate Soil Resistance and Failure Mechanism: Clays

D
Piles in Clay (Broms, 1964a)
Free Head: Short Piles
The moment at any depth z
M = Hu (e + 1.5d + z) – 9.cu.d.z.z/2
dM
= Hu − 9 c u d z
dz
At z = f, M = Mmax,
dM
∴ = Hu − 9 c u d f = 0 f = location of maximum moment
dZ (position of zero shear)
Hu
f = …(1)
9 c ud Also L = 1.5d + f + g …(4)
Moments about location of maximum moment,
Mmax = Hu (e + 1.5 d + f) – 9 cu.d.f.f/2 Eqs (1) – (4) solve to give
= Hu (e + 1.5 d + 0.5 f) …(2)
Hu L e
Mmax from soil reaction below, = f  , 
d d
2
cu d
g 3g gg
Mmax = 9 c du − 9cu d = 2.25 d g2 c u
2 4 2 4 see Fig
…(3)
Free Head: Long Pile

From Eq (2),
Myield = Mmax = Hu (e + 1.5 d + 0.5 f) …..(5)
Substituting f from Eq (1) and simplifying,
Myield Hu  e 1 Hu 
3
=  1 . 5 + + 2 
.....(6)
cu d c u d2  d 18 c u d 
See Fig
Fig. Ultimate lateral resistance in clay: (a) short piles; (b) long piles (Broms,1964a)
Fixed Head: Short Pile

Hu = 9cud (L – 1.5d) …..(7)

Mmax = Hu (0.5L + 0.75d) …..(8)
Dimensionless form of Eq (7):

Hu L 
= 9  − 1 . 5  See Fig
c u d2  d 
Fixed Head: Intermediate Pile

Assumes that plastic hinge forms at the pile head

Fixed Head Pile: Long Pile
My
Taking moments about point O,
O My
2My = Hu (1.5d + f) – 9cu.d.f.f/2 ..(9)

At location of zero shear,

Hu = 9 cud f …(10)

Substituting Eq (10) into Eq (9),

Hu
My = (1.5 d + 0.5 f ) ...(11)
2
Dimensionless form of equation:

Myield Hu  Hu 
3
= 1.5 + 
2  see Fig
cu d 2 c u d2  18 c u d 
Piles in Sand (Broms, 1964b)
Free Head: Short Pile

Taking moments about the pile toe,

Hu (L + e) = 3γ’dLKp (L/2) (L/3)
= 0.5γ’dL3Kp 2
L 
0.5  
0.5 γ ' dL3 K p Hu  d
Hu = or = See Fig.
L+e K p γ ' d3 e
1+  
L 
Free Head: Long Pile

Maximum moment occurs at a

distance f below the ground
surface. Location of zero
shear,
Hu = 3γ’dKpf (f/2)

Hu
f = 0.82
K p d γ'
Maximum moment,
f2 f f
Mmax = H (e + f ) − 3γ ' dK p = Hu (e + f ) − Hu
23 3

 Hu 
Mmax = Hu (e + 0.67 f ) = Hu e + 0.54

 dK p γ ' 
Myield Hu  e Hu 
Dimensionless form: = + 0 .54  see Fig
K p γ ' d4 K p γ ' d3  d K p γ ' d3 

Fig. Ultimate lateral resistance of piles in sand: (a) short pile; (b) long pile (after Broms, 1964b)
Fixed Head Pile: Short Pile

Equilibrium equation,
Hu = 3γ’LdKp (L/2) = 1.5γ’L2dKp
2
Hu L 
Dimensionless form: = 1 . 5   see Fig
γ' d K p
3
 d

Max moment: Mmax = (1.5 γ ' L2 d K p )

2 2
L = Hu L Check if Mmax > Myield !
3 3
Fixed Head Pile: Intermediate Pile

Equilibrium of horizontal forces,

F = 1.5γ’dL2Kp – Hu
Taking moment about the pile head,
L 2L
Myield = F L − 3γ ' dL K p
2 3
Hence, Myield = 0.5γ’dL3Kp - HuL
Fixed Head Pile: Long Pile
Location of maximum moment is at a
distance f from the surface. This
corresponds to location of zero
O
shear, i.e.
f2
Hu = 3 γ ' dK p
2
Hu
or f = 0.82
dK p γ '

Taking moments about point O,

f2 f Hu
2 Myield = Hu f − 3 γ ' dK p = 0.67 Hu f = 0.54 Hu
23 dK p γ '
3
Hu 2
2 Myield = 0.54
(dK p γ')0.5
3
Myield  Hu  2
Dimensionless form: = 0.27  3  see Fig.
γ' d K p
4  γ' d K 
 p 
Limiting Lateral Resistance: Clays
The different soil failure mechanism at shallow depth and deep below
the soil surface gives rise to a wedge-type failure near the ground
surface to soil flow past the pile in a horizontal plane at greater depth.
Research is mainly attributed to :
• Broms (1964a)
• Matlock (1970)
• Murff & Hamilton (1993)
Lower bound solutions by Randolph & Houlsby (1984) for soil flow past
the pile show that the soil resistance varies between 9.14Dcu to
11.92Dcu between smooth and rough piles. They recommended a
design value of 10.5Dcu. For design, the value of 9Dcu recommended
by Broms (1964a) is widely used.
 Pu/Dcu

Murff & Hamilton

(1993)

Variation of ultimate lateral soil resistance with depth in clay

Limiting Lateral Resistance: Sand
Methods for estimating ultimate lateral resistance in sand are essentially empirical
in nature.

Pu
Usual to express this by an empirical factor: N=
D γ' z
• Broms (1964b) : N = 3 Kp
• Barton (1982) : N = Kp2
• Bogard and Matlock (1980); Reese, Cox and Koop (1974) – basis of API(2000)
method – slight variation from above

1 + sin φ'
where Kp =
1 − sin φ'
 Pu/D (kPa) Pu/D (kPa)

Variation of ultimate lateral soil resistance with depth in sand

Lateral Load-Deflection Response of Single Pile
The lateral deflection of a single pile should be within acceptable service limits.
The entire nonlinear lateral load-deflection response may then be used as input
into a structural computer program to provide the response of the offshore
platform.

The various methods used for estimating the lateral pile deflection can be
broadly classified into:
• Modulus of subgrade reaction method
• Elastic continuum method (using Mindlin’s solutions)
• Numerical methods – finite element method

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Method

This is the lateral equivalent of the load-transfer method (for axially loaded
pile). In this method, the pile is idealised as a beam and the soil is modelled as
a series of springs which may be elastic or nonlinear. For the treatment of
nonlinear soil springs numerical methods such as Finite Element method or
Finite Difference method may be used. In the offshore industry, this approach
of using the nonlinear soil springs (referred to as “p-y” curves) is referred to as
the “p-y” method. This method will be dealt with in more detail later.
Elastic Continuum Method
The elastic continuum approach is based on Mindlin(1936)’s solution for a point
force in an elastic half-space. This approach is popularised by Poulos (see
Poulos and Davis, 1980) who used an integral equation approach for the
solution of this problem.

In essence, the pile is treated as a beam and is divided into several segments,
each assumed to be subject to lateral distributed soil reactions acting on the
pile segments. The soil displacements are obtained by the integration of
Mindlin’s solution for the lateral distributed forces acting on the various pile
segments. Shear at the pile toe is ignored. The problem is solved by
considering the equilibrium of the pile-soil interaction forces and the
compatibility of pile and soil displacements.

This method is particularly well suited for homogeneous, linear elastic soil. Soil
nonhomogeneity and nonlinearity may be treated using some approximations.
Numerical Methods – Finite Element Method
The finite element method is a rigorous approach for the solution of the pile-soil
interaction problem. The problem may be treated as an axisymmetric problem
subject to non-axisymmetric loads. Variations in displacements, and hence
strains and stresses, tangentially are described by Fourier series (Smith and
Griffiths, 1982). Using this approach, it is only necessary to discretise the
problem in a radial plane (somewhat similar to a 2-D problem) but with 3
degrees of freedom at each node. Nonhomogeneity of the soil can be easily
treated and soil nonlinearity may be dealt with using an appropriate constitutive
soil model.

Linear Elastic Solutions

Randolph (1981) fitting mathematical expressions to finite element results for
laterally loaded single piles. These expressions allow the lateral response of
single piles to be determined easily – see the following slides.
Lateral pile response from fitting of finite element results:
linear elastic solutions
 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Method: p-y Method
Finite element method – Pile model
In this method, the pile is discretised into one-dimensional
beam elements (Smith and Griffiths, 1982). The element
stiffness matrix for the 1-D beam element is

12 6 12 6
−
 L3 L2 L3L2 
  where E = Young’s modulus of pile
 4 6 2
 − 2  I = section modulus of pile
L
k e = EI 
L L
L = pile segment length

 12 6
− 2
 L3
L
 
 4
symmetry L 

Soil model
The soil resistance is modelled using discrete uncoupled
springs attached to the element nodes. The soil springs p-y model
behaviour is described by nonlinear p-y curves
Solution technique for FEM
The numerical solution for this problem is well established in finite element
analysis and the “soil nonlinearity” is solved using the “initial stress” approach.
The method makes use of a constant stiffness matrix – the initial stiffness of the
soil. In an attempt to follow the nonlinear p-y curve, the excess force beyond pu
is redistributed back to the spring and solved iteratively. This approach is
efficient and is suitable for analysing the softening behaviour of the soil springs.
A computer program using this approach is available in Smith and Griffiths
(1982).
Lateral Bearing Capacity for Soft Clay [API (2000) Guidelines]
Soil failure at shallow depth is wedge-type failure, whereas at deeper depth soil
failure is by flow pass the pile. The lateral bearing capacity is generally given
by pu typically varies between 8cc to 12cc (typically 9cu) for the latter
mechanism.
c X
X = 0 to XR : pu = 3c u + γX + J u X > XR: pu = 9cu
D
where pu = ultimate lateral resistance; cu = undrained shear strength
D = pile diameter; γ = effective unit weight of soil
J = dimensionless empirical constant, values range from 0.25 to 0.5;
a value of 0.5 is appropriate for Gulf of Mexico clays and 0.25 for stiffer clays
X = depth below soil surface;
XR = depth below soil surface to transition zone for soil failure mode
For constant cu soil profile, the above 2 equations solved to give
6D
XR =
γD
+J
cu

Where the soil strength varies with depth, XR may be determined iteratively.
Load-Deflection (p-y) Curves for Soft Clay (cu < 96 kN/m2)
(API (2000) Guidelines)
Short-term static loading: Cyclic loading:
p/pu y/yc X>XR X<XR

0.00 0.0 p/pu y/yc p/pu y/yc

0.50 1.0
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0
0.72 3.0
0.50 1.0 0.50 1.0
1.00 8.0
1.00 ∞ 0.72 3.0 0.72 3.0

0.72 ∞ 0.72 X/XR 15.0

where 0.72 X/XR ∞
p = lateral soil resistance
y = lateral deflection
yc = 2.5 εc D
εc = strain at ½ the maximum deviator stress in a UU triaxial compression test
(typically between 0.5% to 1%, i.e. 0.005 to 0.01)
Basis of API (2000) Soft Clay Method
The method is based on the work of Matlock (1970) from analysis of the
behaviour of instrumented full-scale pipe piles at 2 soft clay sites and on a
limited series of model tests.

The characteristic shape of the p-y curves is defined by a power function fitted
to the shapes of the experimental p-y curves:
0.33
 y 
p = 0.5 pu  
 yc 
The limiting effects of cyclic loading are accounted for by limiting the ultimate
soil resistance to 0.72pu. The cyclic curve is intended to represent an
envelope to the p-y curves after cyclic degradation of the soil has stabilised.

The p-y curves for static loading and cyclic loading are shown in the following
slide.
Fig. P-y curves for soft clay (Matlock, 1970)
Lateral Bearing Capacity for Stiff Clay
Under static loading, the ultimate bearing capacity pu of stiff clay (cu >
96 kN/m2) would be similar to that of soft clay. But under cyclic loading,
rapid deterioration will occur and ultimate resistance will be reduced
and should be considered in cyclic design. However, API (2000) does
not have specific recommendation on this.

Load-Deflection (p-y) Curves for Stiff Clay

No specific guidelines in API (2000) but cautioned that for cyclic loads,
good judgment should reflect the rapid deterioration of load capacity at
large deflection for stiff clays.
P-y Curves for Stiff Clay
API (2000) does not give specific recommendation for p-y curves for stiff clay.
A method for constructing p-y curves for stiff clay was originally provided by
Reese et al. (1975). This is based on a series of lateral load tests on
instrumented pipe piles at a site consisting of heavily overconsolidated, jointed
clay. The p-y curves are given in the following figures.

The maximum resistance is defined by pc:

Static: pc = A [2cuD + σv’D + 2.83cuz] ≤ 11 A cu D

Cyclic: pc = B [2cuD + σv’D + 2.83cuz] ≤ 11 B cu D

Factors A and B represent empirical corrections to pu that was developed

analytically (see Fig)
The p-y curves are constructed using a series of line segments.
Initial slope of curve: Esi = k z
where Esi = initial subgrade modulus
k = parameter given in table below
(subscript s for static loading; c for cyclic loading)
z = depth

Average undrained shear strength 50 - 100 100 –200 200 - 400

(kN/m2)
ks (kN/m3) 135500 271000 542000

kc (kN/m3) 54200 108400 216800

Note that severe degradation occurs in both the static and cyclic curves.
This may be due to the nature of the heavily overconsolidated jointed clay
where the tests were conducted. This may not necessarily be
representative of other heavily overconsolidated clays.
Static Cyclic

Fig. P-y curves for stiff clay (Reese et al, 1975)

Ultimate resistance reduction factors for stiff clay method
Lateral Bearing Capacity for Sand (API (2000) Guidelines)
As in clays, the soil failure mechanism in sand varies from a wedge-type failure
at shallow depth to a flow past the pile failure mechanism at greater depth. The
ultimate lateral bearing capacity (pu) is the smaller of the following 2
expressions:
pus = (C1 z + C2 D) γ’ z
pud = C3 D γ’ z
where
pu = ultimate soil resistance (subscript s = shallow; d = deep)
γ’ = effective unit weight of soil
z = depth
Φ’ = angle of internal friction of sand
C1, C2, C3 = coefficients determined from Fig (function of Φ)
D = pile diameter
Basis of API Method for Sand: Lateral Bearing Capacity
This method for the calculation of the ultimate lateral soil resistance was
introduced by Bogard and Matlock (1980) which is a simplification of the
original method by Reese, Cox and Koop (1974)
Coefficients C1, C2, C3 as a function of Φ’ (API, 2000)
Load-Deflection (p-y) Curves for Sand (API (2000) Guidelines)
The load-deflection (p-y) curve is given by:
 k z  
p = A pu tanh   y 
 A pu  
where
A = factor to account for cyclic or static loading
condition.
A = 0.9 for cyclic loading
 z
A =  3 − 0.8  ≥ 0.9 for static loading
 D

pu = ultimate bearing capacity at depth z, lbs/in (kN/m)

k = initial modulus of subgrade reaction, lb/in3 (kN/m3).
Determine from figure as a function of internal
friction angle of sand, Φ’
y = lateral deflection, in (m)
z = depth, in (m)
Basis of API Method: p-y Curves for Sand
The method is based on the work of Murchison and O’Neill (1984) who used a
continuous hyperbolic tangent function to describe the p-y curves. Characteristic
dimensionless p-y curves for this method are shown in Fig below.

Characteristic p-y curves

Some comments on p-y curves
It is a standard practice in the design of laterally loaded offshore pile
foundations to use p-y curves. However, one should note the basis on which
these p-y curves are derived:
• the method of construction is based on a limited number of pile tests data
• test piles are small diameter
• relatively homogeneous soil conditions

General Comments
• The response of laterally loaded pile is heavily dependent on the soil
stiffness at the top few diameters of the pile.
• Scouring of the soil at the seabed will have a significant impact on the lateral
load-deflection response
• One of the effect of cyclic lateral loading is the possibility of a slot forming
between the pile and the surrounding soil. Although there is little published
data on this, if significant yielding of the soil takes place, e.g. when pile
deflection y exceeds yc, there is more likelihood of slot formation.
References
American Petroleum Institute, API RP2A (2000) “Recommended Practice for Planning
Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms”, 21st Edition.
Bogard, D and Matlock, H (1980) “Simplified calculation of p-y curves for laterally loaded
piles in sand”, Unpublished Report, The Earth Technology Corporation Inc, Houston,
Texas.
Broms, B (1964a) “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils”, Journal Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 90, SM2, pp 26-63
Broms, B (1964b) “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils”, Journal Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 90, SM3, pp 123-156.
Gazioglu, SM and O’Neil, MW (1984) “Evaluation of p-y relationships in cohesive soils” in
Analysis and design of Pile Foundations, Editor: Meyer, JR.
Matlock, H (1970) “Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clays”, Proc 2nd
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol 1, pp 577-588.
Meyer, JR (Editor) (1984) “Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations”, ASCE
Murchison, JM and O’Neil, MW (1984) “Evaluation of p-y relationships in cohesionless
soils” in Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, Editor: Meyer, JR
Reese, LC, Cox, WR and Koop, FD (1974) “Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand”,
Prof 6th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol 2
Reese, LC, Cox, WR and Koop, FD (1975) “Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded
piles in stiff clay”, Proc 7th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol 2, pp 671-
690.