CHAPTER 13 Analysis and Design of Single Piles 617

embedded into the rock, we call that a rock socket. Rock ockets can
be installed using modern drilling rigs that have ^he power to drill into
rock. In design, we are interested in determining both the shaft and the
Soil layer
base capacity of the rock socket if the rock socket is short (typically less
than twice its djnmeter). For longer rock sockets, the entire load will be
carried by shaft resistance, and determination of the base capacity will
become less important. Whatever base capacity may be present would be
left in this case as an extra margin of
safety-
Equipment exists also to install full-length piles into rock. The piles
installed in rock are typically micropiles, with diameters in the range of
100-300 mm (4-12 in.). Micropiles develop virtually all their load
capacity from shaft resistance on account of their small diameter and
large length.

Figure 13-29
Estimation of Base Resistance Bearing capacity analysis of rock
mechanism assumed to consist of
The same somewhat simplistic analysis done for footings on rock in
B.
Chapter 10 can be used for finding the limit unit base capacity qbL of
rock sockets. Figure 13-29 shows the rock socket, the mechanism
(consisting of failure wedges A and B) and the relevant quantities.
Repeating Eq. (10.59) here for convenience:
where m, s - Hoek-Brown strength parameters (refer to Chapter 4), qu =
unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock, and q() = surcharge
at the level of the base of the rock socket.

9bL ~ <?o + (13.94)

AASHTO (1989) has an empirical procedure for determining an ultimate unit bearing capacity
qhull that takes into account both the unconfined compressive strength of the rock and its rock mass
quality:

<?b.uh = tfmA 03-95)

Whe
re Nm is an empirical factor that depends on rock type, jointing, and weathering.
The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CGS 1985) has another etnPirical procedure for
estimating qbub.

<?b.uit — 3tfspquD (13.96)

 where

618 The Engineering of Foundations

3+-
*sp =
B
1S (13.97)
10, l + 300-
V5

+ 0.4 — < 3.4 B (13.98)

B = pile diameter LRS = rock socket length s — discontinuity spacing g =
discontinuity aperture
The limits of applicability of this procedure are

0.05 < £2

and
0 < - < 0.02
s
Yet another method for calculating <yb uh was proposed by Zhang and Einstein (1998), which
we write below in nondimensional form:

— = Cm/^- (13.99)
PA V PA
where

{ 9.5 for RMR = 40

15 for RMR = 65 (13.100)

21 for RMR = 100

and RMR is the rock mass rating, discussed in Chapter 7.

Estimation off Shaft Resistance

There are two methods to calculate the limit unit shaft resistance qsL of piles 'n rock. The first method
is based on the concept that qsL is some fraction of * e unconfined compressive strength qu that the
rock would have if it were intact ( is, had no discontinuities). The better the rock quality is and the
larger the qa of intact rock is, the larger qsL will be. However, no matter how good the rock is. shaft
resistance cannot develop if the quality of the pile material is not at least good. No interface can have
more strength than the weakest of the two materi separates. So the calculated value of qs[ can be no
higher than the shear strong the concrete, grout, or cement paste used to build the rock socket or
microp
r -.aim
of 5% °f lhe characteristic (compressive) strength of the pile material has vaJ found to be a
conservative estimate of the maximum interface shear strength ^ween the
** jjyS js expressed mathematically as
and Design of Single Piles
4si. = min( 5CW<?U. 0.05/.')
619
pileCHAPTER 13 Analysis
material and the rock.

(13.101)

where is the coefficient of weakness given in Table 7-4 as a function of discontinuity spacing.
qu is the unconfmed compressive strength of the intact rock, and/.' is the characteristic
(nominal) strength of the concrete, cement paste, or grout used to construct the micropile or rock
socket. The coefficient of weakness does not account for degree of weathering, so Eq. (13.101) applies
strictly only to unweath- ered or slightly weathered rock. Smaller values of qsL must be assumed in
case of a more severe weathering condition.
A second method assumes a nonlinear relationship between <ys, and the unconfined
compressive strength qu (Zhang and Einstein 1998):

*?sL .i„ —, 0.05—) P A

— = mini C. PA/ (13.102)
PA
where Cs = 1.25 (for a “smooth” interface) to 2.5 (for a rough interface) and pA = reference stress =
100 kPa = 0.1 MPa; we have added the limit of 5% of the characteristic strength of the pile material
to the original equation.

Estimation of Structural Capacity

Another particularity of piles in rock is the fact that the cross-sectional strength of the pile itself may
control the design, a condition that is infrequent in soils. Either the pile can be designed as a short
column following ACI-318, or, for simplicity, a factor of safety of 2 can be applied to the cross-
sectional strength calculated from the characteristic compressive strengths of the concrete (or grout
or cement paste) and reinforcing steel.
The axial load applied on the pile must not exceed the structural capacity Q0 of the pile.
According to reinforced concrete design guidelines by the American Concrete Institute, the
maximum axial load the pile can take (limiting concrete compressive strength to 85% of the
unconfined compressive strength) is given by
Qo = 0.85/'(Af — ASI) + f y (A s l )
•nd the contribution of a rock socket to the total capacity of a drilled shaft with a 500-mm /Wt)eler installed
through 8 m of a clayey soil. The rock in which the pile is socketed, escribed in Examples 7-4 and 10-18, is

EXAMPLE 13-8
a slightly weathered basalt with 5-10 horizontal o*P) fissures per meter with typical RQD values in the 25-
50% range, and unconfined ®°®Pressive strength (for the intact rock) of 80 MPa. Concrete with/' = 20
MPa is used, two lengths for the rock socket: (a) 500 mm and (b) 1000 mm.
 The Engineering of Foundations
■ Solution
In Example 10-18, we determined the Hoek-Brown strength criterion parameters m and be 1.395 and
0.00293, respectively, for this rock.
We can use Eq. (13.94) to estimate the base capacity of the rock socket. To determ' the surcharge qa
at the base of the rock socket, which appears in Eq. (13.94), we assume a conservative unit weight of 16
kN/m1 for the overlying clay soil and 28 kN/ny' f0 the basalt. Our surcharge is then

kN kN
q0 = 8 m X 16 — + 0.5 m X 28 — = 142 kPa m m
for the 500-mm-long socket and
kN kN
qu = 8 m X 16 —- + 1 m x 28 —- = 156 kPa m m
for the 1000-mm-long socket.
We may now calculate the unit base resistance of the two rock sockets:
In this equation, the following term appears twice:
I <7o
m— + s = /\l 1.395 + 0.00293
<7o + = 0.074
+s
<7
<7bL = <?o + <7u o + s +80,000
\ in- +5
\ in —
for the 500-mm-long socket and V <7U

\l m — + j = , /1.395 ■ 156
V V 80,000 + 0.00293 = 0.075
for the 1000-mm-long socket.
We can now write:

, 142 + 80,000 X 0.074

<?bL = 142 + 80,000 0.074 + -v /1.395 ----------------- -- --------- + 0.00293
80,000

qbL = 32,430 kPa for the 500-mm-

long socket and

/ 156 + 80,000 X 0.075 „^

<7bu = 156 + 80,000 0.075 + ,/ 1.395 ------------ —— ------------- + 0.00293
V 80,000

qbl. = 32,722 kPa for the 1000-

mm-long socket.

1
er the limitations of the cross section of the pile to calculate the allowable load: then Hhme the pile
length required to cany the allowable load.
■ Solution
pQp
H>18 HCr0PileS' We cons'der only shaft resistance when estimating design capacity. We do and thC3USe *33Se
P '‘y °f the micropile is typically small, given its small diameter base muc*1 smaller settlement required for
ca ac

shaft resistance mobilization compared with distance. We estimate shaft resistance using Eq. (13.101):

<?sl. —
 CHAPTER 13 Analysis and Design of Single Piles 621
shaft resistance may be determined by using Eq. (13.101). Focusing on the rock first:

4 sL — 2CW9U

coefficient of weakness c. may be found in Table 7-4. For our case, with 5-10 joints/m . A on cm) we
f
i cw = 0.06
n
d shaft resistance of our rock socket is
\ 0.06 X 80 MPa = 2400 kPa
t
he coefficient of weakness to be
(every

The

However, qfL cannot exceed 5% of the compressive strength of the concrete, 0.05/ c'. This MII ensure the
transfer of load from the drilled shaft to the surrounding rock. In this case, the pile material strength
controls, so
= 0.05/c' = 0.05 X 20 MPa = 1000 kPa

For the 500-mm rock socket,

&>L = j(0.5): X 32’430 = 6368 kN

&L = 7T(0.500 m) X 0.500 m X 1000 kPa = 785 kN 0L = 6368 +

785 = 7153 kN For the 1000-mm rock socket.

CbL = ^(0.5): X 32,722 = 6425 kN

<2sL = 7T(0.500 m) X 1.000 m X 1000 kPa = 1571 kN CL = 6425 +

1571 = 7996 kN

EXAMPLE 13-9
622 The Enginee'ing of Foundations
where the coefficient of weakness cw may be found from Table 7-4. For our case with joints per meter
S
(every 10-20 cm), we find the coefficient of weakness to be ''0
cw = 0.06
As a result, the shaft resistance of our micropile results equal to qa. = s0.06 X 80
MPa = 2400 kPa
s,re
However, this value exceeds the upper limit of 5% of the compressive cement paste. ngth of ^
The upper limit on is
= 0.05/; = 0.05 X 27 MPa = 1350 kPa
The shaft capacity per unit length of our micropile is then
kN
Q<L 1350 x 0.2007r = 848 — m
We must also consider the structural capacity of the micropile cross section. For this we will
consider the cement paste strength in combination with reinforcement consisting of four steel bars with 20-
mm diameter. From ACI reinforcing steel specifications we know that
/y = 420 MPa
According to ACI reinforced concrete design guidelines, the maximum axial load (limiting concrete
compressive strength to 85% of the unconfined compressive strength) is given by
Go = 0.85/c'(Ag - AJ + /V(AJ
The gross area Ag of our micropile cross section is

Ag = j(0.200m)2 = 0.0314 m2

For reinforcement, we will use four 20-mm rebars, with steel area equal to As, = 4 X

j(0.020 m)2 = 0.001257 m2

The cross-sectional load capacity can now be calculated from the compressive strength of the cement paste
of 27 MPa and the yield strength of the steel of approximately 420 MPa- This value is
0c = 0.85/c'(Ag - AJ + /y(Aj
= 0.85 X 27(0.0314 - 0.001257) + 420(0.001257) = 1220 kN Using a factor of safety of

Call ~
1220 kN
= 610 kN

that
2, this sets the maximum allowable axial load at
To minimize the cost of our micropiles, we would like to select a micropile Icngj ^ ^ develops as much
capacity as the structural capacity of the micropile allows. We .|e jS factor of safety of 3. The required
resistance, with a factor of safety of 3, of the rm
0rcq = 3 x 610 kN = 1830 kN
 And the required minimum length of our 1830
micropile
m is 2.2 m
kN

CHAPTER 13 Analysis and Design of Single Piles 623

U is desirable, for safety reasons, to use minimum lengths for the micropiles. A safe minimum
length would be 3 m, so that we would in this case simply specify a 3-m-long micropile.

13.9 Laterally Loaded Piles*

The Design Problem
The problem of a laterally loaded pile can be represented as shown in Fig. 13-30(a) for the
case of the pile base embedded in a strong layer and Fig. 13-30(b) for a pile installed in soil
without a clear firm layer within reach. At its head, the pile is subjected to loading that
includes a lateral load and may also include an axial load and an applied moment. For
small deflections, the effects of the two loads and moments can be considered to be
independent, but for larger deflections (often of interest in practical problems), they truly
aren't. While some methods of analysis and software will account for structural
dependence (mainly the dependence of lateral deflection on the presence of an axial load
because of the moment the axial load starts having with respect to a given pile cross section
as it displaces laterally), the dependence of the compressive resistance of soil on any
vertical shearing caused by the vertical load and, in turn, the dependence of the shearing
resistance of the soil on the compressive action caused by the lateral load are not well
studied and will be largely ignored in all that follows.
The design goal, as always, is to prevent achievement of limit states. Q Q
Ultimate limit states may be of two types: large deflections that lead
either to structural damage of the supported structure or slippage of the a,—^
pile with respect to the soil (slippage may be of the upper part of the pile /VrASN\
with respect to the soil in case of pile breakage). A serviceability limit
state for a laterally loaded pile corresponds to a lateral deflection that is
sufficiently large to cause nonstructural damage to the superstructure.
There are not as much data on tolerable lateral displacements as
there are for vertical displacements. One of the exceptions is the work
of Bozozuk (1978) for bridges, in which sig- tificant structural damage
(b)
to bridges and “rough-ride” c°nditions were matched to the foundation
movements and Plotted as shown in Fig. 2-19 (page 51). One of the main Figure 13-30
tasks the design engineer is to establish the value of the tolerable I Vertical pile subjected to axial (vertical),
flection to use in design. For bridges. Fig. 2-19 can be used transverse (horizontal), and moment
loadings: (a) “fixed" base and (b) free base.
624 The Engineering of Foundations
as reference. For buildings and other structures, it is more difficult to make th' assessment,
and the structural engineer should be engaged in this decision as m u as possible. Tolerable
lateral deflection is typically in the 5- to 50-mm range "

Pile Lateral Load Response

As discussed earlier, piles are better suited than shallow foundations to support large
lateral loads imposed by. for example, traffic, collisions, wind, earthquakes and earth
pressures. This superior lateral capacity results from their embedment into the ground and
from the soil resistances that can thus be mobilized. Soil resistance p is mobilized in the
direction opposite to that of the lateral deflection y.2 There are two types of resistance:
compressive resistance and shear resistance If we picture the soil mass as composed of an
infinite number of horizontal layers (crossed by the pile) of infinitesimal thickness d z .
compressive resistance follows from the reaction of these horizontal layers of soil to being
compressed as the pile pushes against them. Shear resistance follows from the fact that the
lateral deflection of the pile varies with depth, imposing shearing between the
infinitesimally
thin soil layers (that is, causing a relative horizontal motion
between two adjacent horizontal layers), which
is also resisted by the soil. These resistances are
transferred to the pile through two mecha-
nisms: (1) side resistance due to friction and
adhesion between the soil and the pile and (2)
normal stresses between the soil and the pile
(see Fig. 13-31).
As in the case of axially loaded piles, load
is transferred down the pile (and, naturally,
from the pile to the soil) as the load at the pile
head (and thus the deflection) is increased.
Considering a given pile cross section, the soil
next to it yields after some level of deflection is
reached and can take no additional load [this is
shown in Fig. 13- 31(d) as the attainment of the
limit resis- tantc pj; this means that additional
load must be transferred down the pile, where
the resistance of soil can be mobilized, the load
is increased up to a sufficient y large value
Figure 13-31 (which we will call the ultimate lateral load),
Representation of the shear force H and lateral resistance p
an ultimate limit state ass0^' ated with pile
corresponding to a given pile cross section: (a) soil-pile interface
instability will eventually
side resistance (friction + adhesion), (b) soil-pile interface
compressive (normal stress) resistance, (c) unit lateral pile resistance
p reflecting both the compressive and shear resistance of the soil, and
(d) p as a function of lateral displacement y.

2 This notation for the lateral deflection is unfortunate, particularly because of the possible con^° with a
Cartesian coordinate y, but also because y is not used to denote displacement anywhere in mechanics
literature. We have decided to retain it because of its common use in practice.
 CHAPTER 13 Analysis and Design of Single Piles 625
reached. The pile response to the applied lateral load depends on the
following factors: (1) pile length, (2) pile bending stiffness £ l , (3) soil
stiffness, and (4) degree of fixity of the head and base of the pile. The
pile bending stiffness is the product of the pile Young’s modulus £ p
and the moment of inertia /p.
A long pile is a pile that is sufficiently embedded in the soil for its
base to be essentially motionless and experience no moment, shear
force, rotation, or deflection. How long the pile has to be depends on
soil and pile properties. For example, if the soil is very stiff, the pile
embedment does not need to be very large for the pile to be “long.” (a)
The embedment of a short pile, in contrast, is insufficient to prevent
pile base motion and, as a result, pile deformation is negligible
compared with movement of the whole pile as a rigid body.
Accordingly, a short pile fails as a rigid body in either rotation [Fig.
13-32(a)] or translation [Fig. 13-32(b)] depending on the boundary
conditions. Single piles are loaded under free-head conditions, so the
head of the pile will rotate freely, while piles connected to a pile cap
are subjected to conditions that can typically be approximated as
fixed-head conditions, so the pile head will not rotate with respect to
the pile cap, moving instead with it (and predominantly in horizontal
translation) under the action of a lateral load. (b)
Figure 13-32
A long, flexible pile will not move as a rigid body when subjected
Failure modes for short piles: (a) rotation
to an increasing lateral load; rather, it will deform until one or more
for free-head boundary conditions and (b)
plastic hinges finally form at one or two cross sections for which the
translation for fixed-head boundary
bending moments exceed the cross-sectional plastic moment. Free-
conditions.
headed long piles will form one plastic hinge [Fig. 13-33(a)], while
fixedheaded piles will typically form a hinge at the connection with the
pile cap and another at the depth corresponding to the maximum
bending moment on the pile [Fig. 13-
33(b)]. The ultimate load is the load
corresponding to either outcome. This

I
Free head Fixed head
load should not be confused with a limit
Qt
load; the term limit load is reserved for a
load leading to unrestrained, unbounded
movement of a foundation. The ultimate Fracture ' Fractures
load in this Case is associated with
structural failure °f the pile and/or cap
due to excessive Movement of the pile,
which is then followed by very large
deflections. Furthermore, before this
ultimate load is reached, it is very possible
(a) (b)
that pile

Figure 13-33
Failure modes for long piles: (a) formation of one plastic hinge for the
free-head boundary condition and (b) formation of two plastic hinges for
the fixed-head boundary condition.
 626 The Engineering of Foundations

Figure 13-34 Deflected axis of pile

Modeling the soil-pile system for load-deflection
analysis of laterally loaded piles: (a) pile in a soil
continuum; (b) model using Winkler springs;
(c) deflected pile shape when nonlinear springs
described by p -y curves are used to model the
soil

movement will cause

damage to the (a) (b) (c)
superstructure, which
would be associated with its own ultimate limit state and hence its own ultimate load.
For applied loads that are smaller than the ultimate load, the pile head will deflect
either as a result of pile deformation (in the case of long piles) or rigid body motion (in the
case of short piles). It is usually more important for us to be able to estimate lateral
displacements than to calculate ultimate loads, as serviceability limit states are more
commonly critical. This can be done in one of two ways: (1) by treating the soil mass
around the pile as a continuum [Fig. 13-34(a)] or (2) by substituting springs located at
discrete points along the pile for the soil [Fig. 13-34(b)]. This second approach, when
nonlinear springs are used, is generally known as the p -y method, because each spring is
represented by a specific p -y curve, as shown in Fig. 13-34(c). The p -y method is common
in current practice.
Before we introduce the methods of analysis used for predicting the deflections of
laterally loaded piles, it is worthwhile exploring what the deflected shape of the pile and the
shapes of the shear force and bending moment diagrams along the pile axis are like for
various conditions.
Figure 13-35 shows, qualitatively, the deflected shape, bending moments, and shear
forces for moderately long piles with the following combinations ot boundary conditions:
(a) fixed head and base, (b) free head and fixed base, (c) fixed head and free base, and (d)
free head and base. The figure shows also a consistent sign convention for the pile
deflection y , the bending moment M, and shear force H. What is of note here is that, for
all boundary conditions and a sufficiently laTg e load, the pile is deformed along practically
its entire length. Another important point is that the bending moment changes sign (which
happens when the disto pile shape has an inflection point) for the fixed head-fixed base
boundary co tions. All the curves shown do exhibit some pile deformation all the way down
the base or to points near the pile base. We can contrast that with what we o in Fig. 13-36
for long piles. In that case, the pile deflected shape and the ben . _ moment and shear force
along its axis are insensitive to the pile base b°un^ condition. This is shown in the figure for
both fixed- and free-head conditions^ using symbols for fixed base and a line for free base.
We can see that the
u
ming the same rock as that of Examples 7-4 and 10-18, find the allowable capacity of a jhtcropile with diameter equal to
200 mm (8 in.). Cement paste with/.' = 27 MPa is used.