Guo Lee Lateral Paper

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/29464709
Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles
Article in International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · September 2001
DOI: 10.1002/nag.169 · Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
125 3,491
2 authors:
Wei Dong Guo Fook-Hou Lee

University of Wollongong National University of Singapore
117 PUBLICATIONS 1,557 CITATIONS 180 PUBLICATIONS 4,161 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Dong Guo on 02 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2001; 25:1101}1129 (DOI: 10.1002/nag.169)
Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles
Wei Dong Guo * and F. H. Lee

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Wellington Rd. Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia
Department of Civil Engineering, The National University of Singapore, Singapore
SUMMARY
A two-parameter model has been proposed previously for predicting the response of laterally loaded single
piles in homogenous soil. A disadvantage of the model is that at high Poisson's ratio, unreliable results may
be obtained. In this paper, a new load transfer approach is developed to simulate the response of laterally
loaded single piles embedded in a homogeneous medium, by introducing a rational stress "eld. The
approach can overcome the inherent disadvantage of the two-parameter model, although developed in
a similar way. Generalized solutions for a single pile and the surrounding soil under various pile-head and
base conditions were established and presented in compact forms. With the solutions, a load transfer factor,
correlating the displacements of the pile and the soil, was estimated and expressed as a simple equation.
Expressions were developed for the modulus of subgrade reaction for a Winkler model as a unique function
of the load transfer factor. Simple expressions were developed for estimating critical pile length, maximum
bending moment, and the depth at which the maximum moment occurs. All the newly established solutions
and/or expressions, using the load transfer factor, o!er satisfactory predictions in comparison with the
available, more rigorous numerical approaches. The current solutions are applicable to various boundary
conditions, and any pile}soil relative sti!ness. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: piles; closed-form solutions; lateral loading; soil}structure interaction
1. INTRODUCTION
Prediction of pile and pile group response under lateral loading so far has been limited to using
numerical approaches [1}4]. These approaches are more rigorous, but their practical applica-
tions are often limited to small pile groups [5]. Approaches using an empirical load transfer
model [6,7], and a two-parameter [8] model have been proposed but are generally con"ned to
single pile analysis.
The empirical load transfer model is an uncoupled model that treats the soil along the shaft and
at the base as independent elastic springs. The elastic springs are generally represented by
* Correspondence to: W. D. Guo, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Wellington Rd. Clayton,
VIC 3168, Australia.
Contract/grant sponsor: Australian Research Council Fellowship
Contract/grant sponsor: National Science and Technology Board
Received 5 March 1999

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 8 March 2001
1102 WEI DONG GUO AND F. H. LEE
modulus of subgrade reaction (i.e. using the classical Winkler model) [6] or the p}y load transfer
curve [7]. Several researchers (e.g. References [9}11]) estimated this modulus through "tting with
relevant rigorous solutions. The problem is that the "tting to di!erent variables (e.g. de#ection or
moment) generally leads to di!erent inferred values of modulus [10]. The p}y curve is derived
from an empirical "tting to relevant measurements [7]. Thus the approach using this model is
termed herein as &empirical load transfer approach'. As in the analysis of vertically loaded piles,
the subgrade modulus is a!ected by the soil response in radial direction [5,10,12}17]. To
accommodate this e!ect, uncoupled expressions relating the pile displacement, y(z), to a radial
attenuation function for soil displacement, (r) (refer to Equation (1(a)) shown later) are generally
assumed for displacements in the radial (u) and circumferential (v) directions, which are then
implicitly linked (coupled) through a "tting factor, . The factor, is generally estimated using
a variational approach for the pile}soil system. The approach also leads to expressions as the sole
variable of for the two parameters [8,10], namely modulus of subgrade reaction, k (for the
Winkler springs), and "ctitious tension, N (for a stretched membrane used to tie together the
springs). Thus the model derived from the approach is normally referred to as a two-parameter
(or Vlasov's foundation) model. The challenge of this modelling lies in the estimation of the "tting
factor, [8,18}21], which in turn depends on the uncoupled expressions for the (u, v) displace-
ments.
In using the variational approach, a potential energy for a pile}soil system is "rst determined in
terms of the stress components in the pile and the soil, which, in turn, may be derived from the
uncoupled expressions of the (u, v) displacements using elastic theory [22]. Furthermore, the
derived stress "eld may be simpli"ed by ignoring higher order stress components, similar to those
for vertical and torsional piles [12,23]. To distinguish the cases using di!erent derived stresses, in
this paper the &two-parameter model' refers only to the former case; while the case using the
simpli"ed stress "eld is referred to as &load transfer model', as the simpli"cation normally leads to
a pile}soil interaction model similar to that for the empirical load transfer model mentioned
above (although some researchers still refer the latter as two-parameter model [21]). The "tting
factor is termed accordingly as the load transfer factor.
The goal, of using assumed displacement (or displacement and stress) expressions, is to estimate
the "tting (load transfer) factor. The sacri"ce of using an approximate stress "eld often leads to
exact closed-form solutions for piles, which generally compare well with more rigorous numerical
approaches, e.g. for vertical loading piles [5,16,17]. In contrast, complicated expressions for piles
may result from using assumed displacement expressions only (e.g. those adopted in the two-
parameter model) [20,22]. Particularly, as demonstrated later, for a laterally loaded pile, the
results from the two-parameter model [8,21] are unstable and unreasonable at a high Poisson's
ratio, e.g. *0.3.

Hetenyi [6] "rst provided solutions for a free-end beam of in"nite and "nite length, using the
subgrade modulus for the Winkler springs and considering the external axial force. Sun [8]
provided solutions for "xed- and free-head piles for various base conditions by using the
two-parameter model. The essential di!erence between these solutions for piles and beams is the
boundary conditions, and the determination of the two parameters, k and N. However, Sun's [8]
solutions were not expressed in compact forms as those given by Hetenyi [6].
In this paper, the inherent disadvantage of the two-parameter model is discussed "rst. Then
a theoretical load transfer model for laterally loaded piles is proposed by introducing a new stress
"eld. The stress "eld is then veri"ed by the available results for a rigid disc [11]. With the
new stress "eld, the value of the load transfer factor linking the pile displacement and soil
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2001; 25:1101}1129
LOAD TRANSFER APPROACH 1103
displacement is generated using the variational approach, which is then expressed in a simple
statistical formula. Compact, explicit expressions are derived for predicting response of a single
pile. Simple explicit expressions are developed for estimating critical pile length, maximum
bending moment, and the depth at which it occurs. All the solutions are expressed as functions of
the modulus of subgrade reaction, and the "ctitious tension, which in turn are Bessel functions of
the load transfer factor. With the load transfer factor, the current solutions, and relevant available
closed-form solutions compare well with various numerical approaches [2}4].
In brief, the main features of this approach are:
(1) It shows that the e!ect of Poisson's ratio on pile response may be accounted for through the
shear modulus.
(2) It shows that less important stress components may be ignored, in order to generate the
load transfer factor.
(3) It illustrates that the modulus of subgrade reaction and the "ctitious tension are the energy
parameters due to the stress variations in radial direction, and vertical direction, respec-
tively.
(4) It demonstrates that critical pile length depends on loading characteristics (lateral concen-
trated load, or moment) and pile-head, and/or base conditions.
The current approach has also been extended to explore pile}pile interaction, and is shown to be
in excellent comparison with a relevant numerical approach [3]. This part of work is not
discussed in this paper, due to space limitations.
2. OVERALL PILE RESPONSE
2.1. Nonaxisymmetric displacement and stress xeld

As depicted in Figure 1(a), the problem addressed herein is the response of a circular pile
subjected to horizontal loading of load P and moment M at the pile-head level, which is

represented (Figure 1(b)) by the displacement, y, the bending moment, M, and the shear force, Q.
The pile is of length, ¸ and radius, r and is embedded in an elastic medium. The medium is

assumed to be linear, homogeneous and has isotropic properties. The displacement and stress
"elds in the soil around the pile are described by a cylindrical coordinate system r, and z as
depicted in Figure 2(a).
The displacement "eld around the laterally loaded pile is nonaxisymmetric, and normally
dominated by radial u, and circumferential displacement v; while the vertical displacement, w is
negligible. Thus, the "eld may be expressed in Fourier series [8,24]

u" y (z) (r) cos n, v"! y (z) (r) sin n, w"0 (1a)
L L L L
L L
where y (z) is the nth component of the pile body displacement at depth, z and in the direction of
L
the nth loading component; (r) the nth component of the attenuation function of soil dis-
L
placement at a radial distance, r from the pile axis; and angle between the line joining the center
of the pile cross-section to the point of interest and the direction of the nth loading component.
Using elastic theory [25] and Equation (1a), the stresses in the soil surrounding the pile,
Figure 1. Schematic of pile}soil system: (a) single pile; (b) pile element analysis.
Figure 2. Stress and displacement "eld adopted in the load transfer analysis: (a) cylindrical coordinate
system with displacements and stresses; (b) vertical loading; (c) torsional loading; (d) lateral loading.
may be expressed as (Appendix A):

d d
"( #2G ) y L cos n, " " y L cos n
P L dr F X L dr
L L
d dy dy
"!G y L sin n, "!G L sin n, "G L cos n (2a)
PF L dr FX dz L XP dz L
L L L
where is the Lame's constant; G the shear modulus of the soil. In this paper, an equivalent

concentrated load, P and moment, M at the pile head will be considered, thus, only the n"1

term of the series in Equations (1a) and (2a) exist, while the other terms vanish [8,24]. Therefore,
the displacement and stress "elds are identical to those adopted previously [8]. In the case
where the applied load and/or moment components are in di!erent directions &', other terms
(e.g. n"2, 3) may be adopted. The relevant solution for each term (n) may be obtained by the
procedure detailed in this paper for n"1. The solution for each n may be superimposed to yield
the "nal results, e.g. Equation (1a) for the displacements [24].
Normally the displacement and the derived stress "eld may be used directly to establish
solutions (e.g. for laterally loaded piles by Sun [8], and beams by Vallabhan and Das [19,20]).
Furthermore, some less important stress components may be ignored (e.g. for beams by Nogami
and O'Neill [21]). Particularly, under lateral loading, the e!ect of Poisson's ratio on pile response
is generally minor [1,8], and may be represented well by using the modulus, G* [3], where G*"
(1#3 /4)G ). Thus, the stress "eld may be simpli"ed by taking Poisson's ratio as zero, which is

equivalent to a zero value of the Lame's constant, .

Following the above arguments, the displacement and new stress "elds used in this paper are:
u"y(z) (r) cos , v"!y(z) (r) sin , w"0 (1b)
d
"2G y cos , " "0
P dr F X
d dy dy
"!G y sin , "!G sin , "G cos (2b)
PF dr FX dz XP dz
The new, simpli"ed stress "eld is exact at "0, and should gradually diverge from the exact by

Equation (2a), with a maximum di!erence probably occurring at "0.5. Therefore, comparison

with other rigorous numerical results will be focused on the case of "0.5. The stresses of ,
XP
and are proposed to cater for the possible shear in the vertical direction (Figure 2(b))
FX
[5,12,14}17], and in the circumferential direction (Figure 2(c)) [13,23] around the pile. As
FP
mentioned previously, using the simpli"ed stresses shown in Figure 2(d), the current analysis is
later referred to as the &load transfer approach (or model)'.
2.2. Solutions for laterally loaded piles

To obtain coupled solutions, between the pile and the soil, for the problem shown in Figure 1(a),
the variational approach is adopted, using the displacement "eld from Equation (1b) and the
stress "eld from Equation (2b). The variation of potential energy, ; of the pile}soil system may
be expressed as

* dy dy dy dy
;"E I dz#r G dz# r dr d dz (3)
dz dz dz dz GH GH
*
where E , I are the Young's modulus and moment of inertia of an equivalent solid cylinder pile,

respectively; r the radius of an equivalent solid cylinder pile; and the stress (from Equation
GH GH
(2b)) and strain (as shown in Appendix Equation (A1)) components in the surrounding soil of the
pile, respectively. The virtual work, =, done by the load, P and the moment, M due to a small

displacement, y, and rotation, (dy/dz), may be expressed as
="Py #M (dy/dz) (4)
X X
where P and M are the concentrated load and moment, respectively, exerted at the pile-head

level. Equilibrium of the pile}soil system leads to
;#="0 (5)
For the expansion of Equation (5), the following energy parameters are introduced:

1 L 1 L
;" (#2(1# ) ) r dr d, ; " 2(1# ) ( # ) r d dr (6a)
I 2E P PF , 2E PX XF

1 L 1 L
; " (#2(1# ) ) r dz d, ; " 2(1# ) ( # ) r d dz (7a)
K 2E P PF L 2E PX XF

where E is the Young's modulus of the soil; ; the energy for unit pile movement (y"1) per unit
I
pile length; ; the energy for unit pile rotation (dy/dz"1) per unit pile length; ; the energy for
, K
unit radial rotation (d /dr"1) per unit radial length, and ; the energy for unit radial variation
L
( "1) per unit radial length. ; and ; re#ect the potential energy due to the stress variations in
I K
radial direction. ; and ; re#ect the potential energy due to the stress variations in vertical
, L
direction.
Using Equation (2b), the expressions for the energy parameters may be rewritten as

3 d
; " G r dr, ; "G r (r) dr (6b)
I 2 dr ,
P P

3 dy
; " G r y dz, ; "G rdz (7b)
K 2 L dz
P
In the expansion of Equation (5), the parameter k and N are adopted such that
k"2; , N"2; (8)
I ,
; , ; could have been de"ned as twice those from Equation (6a), so that k and N equal the new
I ,
; and ; , respectively. However, that de"nition would be inconsistent with the classical elastic
I ,
theory [25]. Thus, Equation (6a) was adopted in this paper. Using these potential energy
parameters, Equation (5) has been expanded, and given in Appendix A. Thus, the following
relevant governing equations and boundary conditions are obtained.
(1) In Equation (5), collecting the coe$cients of for r )r(R. The governing equation for

the radial attenuation function, (r) is obtained as

d d
r #r ! r "0 (9)
dr dr r

where is the load transfer factor, which is given by
"r (; /; (10)
L K
As rPR, (R)P0, and at r"r , (r ) "1, Equation (9) may be resolved and expressed as

modi"ed Bessel functions of the second kind of order zero, K () [26]:

(r)"K (r/r )/K () (11)

For a two-dimensional case (e.g. a rigid disc), ; may be taken as zero, so that "0 from
L
Equation (10), and (r) reduces to a logarithmic function as derived from Equation (9). Therefore,
the current solutions are consistent with those for the two-dimensional case [11].
(2) Using Equations (11) and (6b), Equation (8) may be simpli"ed as

3G K () K () K ()
k" 2 ! !1 , N"rG !1 (12)
2 K () K () K ()

(3) In Equation (5), collecting the coe$cients of y for 0)z(¸, the governing equation for the
pile displacement, y(z) is derived as
dy dy
(EI) !N #ky"0 (13)
dz dz
where y(z) is measured in the direction of the applied loading P, and/or M . Therefore, Equation

(13) appears the same as that given previously for straight bars under simultaneous axial and
transverse loading [6,10]. As shown previously [6,10], k is the modulus of subgrade reaction for
the Winkler springs; and N is the "ctitious tension of a stretched membrane used to tie together
the springs. The relationship, between these two interpretations and the energy parameters given
by Equation (8), will be discussed later.
The solution of Equation (13) is presented herein only for the case of N(2(kE I , which is of

practical interest [10, 27]. The pile body displacement, y(z) at depth, z may be written as

P (kN M (kN
y(z)" H(z)# B(z) # I(z)# C(z) (14)
EI EI EI EI

where H(z), and I(z) are functions used to re#ect pile-head boundary conditions, whilst B(z), and
C(z) re#ect pile-base conditions. For the head (with subscript &o') and base (with &B') boundary
conditions described in the Figure 3, these functions and the factor are provided in the
Appendix A, as functions of the parameter a and b:
a" k
4E I

#
N
4E I

and b" k
4E I

!
N
4E I

(15)
Equation (14) is a generalized expression for the deformation of a single pile. The derivatives of
y(z) o!er the expressions for predicting the pro"le of pile rotation, bending moment and shear
Figure 3. Schematic of pile- head and -base conditions. (a) FeHCP (free-head, clamped pile); (b) FxHCP
("xed-head, clamped pile); (c) FeHFP (free-head, #oating pile); (d) FxHFP ("xed-head, #oating pile).
force. However, due to space limitation, relevant expressions are provided only for the pile head
as shown in Appendix A.
(4) Collecting the coe$cients of y for ¸)z(R, at r"0, it follows the governing equation
for determining the shear force at the base of a #oating pile,
dy
!N #ky"0 (16)
dz
Since zPR, yP0, Equation (16) may be readily solved, and the shear force induced, at the pile
base level, Q may be expressed as
Q "!(kN y(¸) (17)
This shear force is generally rather small, and may be ignored by simply taking the value of
(kN as zero in the estimation of H(z), I(z), B(z), C(z) and , although the real values (generally
not zero) of the k and N are still adopted in the estimation of the parameter a and b. This case will
be referred to as &FP (excluding base)', for which, the governing equation and boundary
conditions for the pile due to the load, P only reduce to those for a free-end beam of "nite
length with a concentrated load at one end [6]. Thus, by setting B(z)"0, and M "0, Equation

(14) reduces to the solution for the beam given by Hetenyi [6]. The di!erence is that Equation (14)
is a coupled analysis, since the modulus of subgrade reaction is derived from the load transfer
factor.
2.3. Evaluation of modixed bessel functions

The radial attenuation function is expressed in the form of the modi"ed Bessel functions of the
second kind, K () and K (). These functions may be numerically estimated by the following

equations [26]:

Q 1 Q 1
K ()"! ln #0.5772 # ! ln #0.5772
2 2 (s!) r 2
Q Q

1 Q\ 1 1 Q 1
K ()" # #s ln #0.5772! (18)
2 (s!) 2 2 r
Q Q
When the factor is less than 1.0, the "rst three terms in Equation (18) normally give su$cient
accuracy. For large value of the , however, more terms are needed.
2.4. Critical pile length

Equation (14) and its derivatives may generally be used to predict the response of single piles. The
prediction may be simpli"ed in some cases, because there exists a critical length, ¸ , beyond which

pile-head response and maximum bending moment remain essentially at constant values. Various
formulas were proposed for estimating the critical pile length, in terms of either modulus of
subgrade reaction [6], k or the modi"ed soil modulus [3], G*. As shown later, the modulus, k may
be as high as 10G , thus the critical length, ¸ may be as low as

¸ +2.1r ((1#0.75 ) E /G*) (19)

In Equation (19), setting ¸"¸ allows a critical pile}soil sti!ness, (E /G*) to be obtained as

E 0.05 ¸
+ (20)
G* (1#0.75 ) r

In this paper, except where speci"ed, when ¸(¸ , or (E /G*)'(E /G*) , the piles are referred

to as &short piles', otherwise as &long piles'. It may be shown that (1) the critical pile length for
lateral loading is generally the shortest, in comparison with other types of loading [23,28]. (2)
&Short piles', as de"ned herein, are not necessarily equivalent to &rigid piles', as stubby,
rock-socketed piles are [29].
2.5. Load transfer factor

The coupled response of the pile (e.g. the displacement, y(z)) and the soil around it (e.g. the radial
attenuation function, (r)) is achieved through the load transfer factor, . Therefore, a detailed
exploration of has been undertaken. Equation (10) shows that the factor is proportional to the
square root of the ratio of the energy parameters due to the stress variations in vertical direction,
; over that in radial direction, ; .
L K
Equation (10) may be rewritten as
r 2 * (dy/dz) dz#(k/N y(¸)

!"0 (21)
3 * y dz#(N/4k y(¸)

Since y(z), k, and the N are all dependent of , Equation (21) is non-linear, and has to be solved
numerically. Generally for long piles, the terms including y(¸) may be ignored. In this situation,
is a simple function of the rotation, dy/dz and the lateral displacement, y(z) of the pile over the
whole length.
Table I. Parameters for estimating load transfer factor, .
Long pilesR Short pilesR
Items k k k k k k

FeHCP (P)S 1.0 !0.25 0 1.9 0 !1.0
FeHFP (P) 1.0 !0.25 0 2.14 0 !1.0
FeHCP (M ) 2.0 !0.25 0 2.38 !0.04 !0.84

FeHFP (M ) 2.0 !0.25 0 3.8 0 !1.0

FxHCP (P) 0.65 !0.25 !0.04 1.5 !0.01 !0.96
FxHFP (P) 0.65 !0.25 !0.04 0.76 0.06 !1.24
R If E /G*)(E /G*) , the piles are referred to as long piles, otherwise as short piles. In the cases of FeHCP(M ), and

FxHFP(P), the critical sti!ness, (E /G*) , should be replaced by 4(E /G*) .

S Note that the abbreviations used in this paper are: FeH"free-head; CP(P) or CP(M )"clamped piles due to

a horizontal load, P or moment, M , respectively; FP(P) or FP(M )"#oating piles due to a horizontal load, P or

moment, M , respectively; FxH""xed-head.

2.5.1. Empirical expression. Using Equation (21), values of are estimated using a purpose
written program operating in Mathcad2+, and are summarized statistically and expressed in the
following form:

E I ¸ I
"k (22)
G* r

where k , k and k are the coe$cients given in Table I. From the table, it may be noted that: for

long piles, the value of predominantly depends on the pile}soil relative sti!ness, E /G*

(Figure 4), loading characteristics (P or M ), and the pile-head and base conditions, but is nearly

independent of the pile slenderness ratio. On the other hand, for short piles, the value of is nearly
independent of pile}soil relative sti!ness, and &approximately' inversely proportional to the pile
slenderness ratio (¸/r ). In Equation (22), the e!ect of soil Poisson's ratio is represented through

the modulus G*. As illustrated in Figure 4, this representation is su$ciently accurate, and
compares well with values directly estimated from Equation (21). Moreover, the di!erence
between the current estimated and that given for the two-parameter model [8] at "0.5 is

negligible. In Figure 4(b), the pile}soil relative sti!ness has also been given as K ("E I /(E ¸),

with E the Young's modulus of soil.

The values of k , k and k in Table I were determined from Equation (14) for cases wherein

the pile is subjected either to lateral load P or moment M . In cases where the pile is subjected

to a load and moment simultaneously, may be estimated by using Equation (21) directly
together with the displacement y(z) estimated by Equation (14) under the combined loading.
This di!ers from the conventional approach, wherein, the displacement "elds due to the load
P and moment M are estimated individually using di!erent values of , and then super-

imposed to yield the displacement under combined loading. However, this superposition
implies that two di!erent are adopted in a single equation, e.g. Equation (14). Theoretically,
there should not be any di!erence in the predicted response of the pile between using the unique
and using the two di!erent , if the current approach is exact, and the superposition principle is
valid.
Figure 4. Determination of load transfer factor (Clamped pile, free head): (a) e!ect of soil Poisson's ratio;
(b) e!ect of ¸/r , "0.30, Kr"E I /(E ¸).

The value of for combined loading should lie in between the value of for the load P and that
for the moment M . Thus, the maximum di!erence in the response of the pile and the soil may be

readily assessed using the two extreme values of , and the rationale of applying two
di!erent values of to piles subjected to the combined loading may be examined. As shown in
Figure 5(b), the maximum di!erence in the moduli of subgrade reaction, k for the P and the M is

generally less than 40 per cent (particularly for rigid piles). Thus, on average, the di!erence of the
two k from a unique k is likely to be within 20 per cent. A 20 per cent di!erence in the k will, in
turn, give rise to a much smaller di!erence in the predicted pile response. Therefore, the
superposition using the two di!erent (thus k) may be roughly adopted for designing piles under
the combined loading. This is in contrast with the current practice of using a single k for the
combined loading.
2.6. Modulus of subgrade reaction and xctitious tension

The current solutions (e.g. Equation (14)) are essentially represented through the two parameters
k and N. The parameter k generally represents the energy parameter, ; , due to the stress
I
variations in radial direction, and re#ecting the coupling e!ect of the independent springs around
the pile shaft through the parameter . When y in Equation (2b) is a constant (e.g. in the case for
the two-dimensional disc), , reduce to zero. The factor becomes zero from Equation (10).
XP FX
Using Equation (9), (hence k) becomes independent of variations in vertical directions. The
parameter k becomes a ratio of an induced intensity of the local, uncoupled distributed reaction
per unit area of the pile, p, over the pile de#ection, y (Figure 1(b)) (i.e. the modulus of subgrade
reaction.)
The "ctitious tension, N is the energy parameter due to the stress variations in vertical
direction (Equation (8)). The parameter N can be a pair of equilibrating external forces acting in
the centre of gravity of the end cross-sections of the pile [6]; or be the ratio of the modulus of
subgrade reaction, k, over a &shear sti!ness' of the pile [27,30]. As a constant along a pile length,
the parameter N is not the real tensile force in the pile. In the case of laterally loading, tensile force
can be induced as noted previously for soil nails [31]. However, the value of the force (e.g. in
a steel bar of a reinforced beam) is a multiplier of the pile rotation, and is dependent of the
distance from the neutral axis [27]. The parameter N also causes the shear force, Q , at a pile
base. However, as the parameter k, and N are all dependent on the pile length and/or the pile}soil
sti!ness, there does not exist a constant value of &shear sti!ness' for piles of di!erent properties as
also noted previously [27,30].
The parameter k and N are all functions of the stresses, thus depend on the loading properties,
the pile slenderness ratio, and the pile}soil relative sti!ness. Using Equation (12), the parameter
N and k have been estimated and illustrated in Figure 5(a), and 5(b), due to either the moment
(M ) or the lateral load (P). For a typical slenderness ratio, the "gure shows that, as the pile}soil

relative sti!ness increases, the "ctitious tension increases (Figure 5(a)); while the &modulus of
subgrade reaction' reduces (Figure 5(b)). Also the critical sti!ness for the moment loading is
higher than that for the other cases. For short piles, the parameter k and N are approximately
independent of the pile}soil relative sti!ness, since the total energy of ;, the displacement, y, and
the rotation, dy/dz, are all independent of the sti!ness, but dependent on the slenderness ratio.
For shorter piles, the factor (thus the ratio of k/G ) is higher than that for long piles.

3. VALIDATION
The current approach is essentially di!erent from the two-parameter model [8] in that the new
stress "eld is introduced, and the e!ect of Poisson's ratio is accounted for by the shear modulus,
G*. The approach will be mainly validated by checking the response in the loading direction
("0), except where speci"ed. Particularly, the response of piles will be presented in terms of the
following dimensionless groups: [3] G*r /P ( "pile-head deformation); and M /P¸

(M "the maximum bending moment within a pile).

Firstly, the assumed stresses of Equation (2b) are checked against the results (at the directions
of "0 and /2) for a speci"c case of a rigid disc, obtained using "nite element analysis and
a simpli"ed (intact model) solution [11]. As shown in Figure 6 for "0, the stresses ( , and )
P PF
deduced from Equation (2b) agree in trend with the results for the two-dimensional &rigid disc'
Figure 5. Fictitious tension and the modulus of subgrade reaction for various pile}soil relative sti!nesses
(¸/r "50, "0.5): (a) Fictitious tension, N; (b) modulus of subgrade reaction, k.

[11]. The radial stress ( ) is consistently slightly lower than that for the &rigid disc', probably
P
because the latter does not include the alleviating (coupled) e!ect of stresses due to the interaction
from neighbouring springs. The circumferential stress ( ) is zero, which also matches well with
F
the average stress ( "0.33) in radial direction derived from &rigid disc' solution [11]. However,

the two-parameter model, using the actual & ' signi"cantly overestimates the circumferential

stress as shown in Figure 6 for "0.33.

Secondly, the e!ect of Poisson's ratio, on the pile response is investigated using Equa-

tion (14). As may be seen from Figure 7, the currently predicted head-displacement and moment
(1) at "0, are identical to those from the two-parameter model [8], and are slightly lower than

those predicted by the "nite element method [3]; (2) at "0.5, compare well with those from

boundary element approach [1]. However, the two-parameter model [8] diverges from other
approaches when '0.3. The good prediction of the pile response claimed previously [8] for the

case of "0.5 may have resulted from using an implicit, unjusti"ed assumption of "0.

Further comparisons with relevant solutions, particularly for rigid piles, are presented in the
subsequent parametric study shown later.
Thirdly, pile}pile interaction was predicted using expressions derived from Equation (11). The
prediction compares well with the FEM results (at various directions of ) [3]. Due to space
limitation, the interaction is not discussed.
In summary, the current solutions o!er a better simulation of the response of a single
pile}soil system than the two-parameter model, particularly at a Poisson's ratio higher
than 0.3.
Figure 6. Soil response due to variation of Poisson's ratio at z"0 (For FeHCP(P),
E /G*"44737 ( "0), 47695 (0.33). For the rigid disc, using the intact model: P"10 kN,

r "0.22 cm, maximum in#uence radius: R"20r ).

4. PARAMETRIC STUDY
4.1. Short and long piles

The pile-head deformation and the maximum bending moment may be estimated for various pile
slenderness ratio, ¸/r , using the current approach (i.e. Equation (14) and its second derivatives),

as demonstrated in Figure 8. This allows a critical length, ¸ to be directly, albeit approximately,

Figure 7. Comparison of pile response due to Poisson's ratio (¸/r "50).

determined from the "gure for each pile}soil relative sti!ness ratio. The critical lengths deter-
mined from Figure 8 compare well with those estimated by Equation (19), as indicated in
Figure 9, albeit generally slightly lower than those obtained from the "nite element analysis [3].
The slight di!erence may mainly be attributed to the fact that the critical sti!ness, (E /G*) is

dependent on the loading properties (vertical [26], torsional [13], etc.) and the pile-head and/or
base conditions, as is the case for the loading transfer factor (Table I). In particular, critical
sti!ness, (E /G*) increases to 4 times that from Equation (20) in the case of (1) free-head clamped

piles due to the moment loading, FeHCP(M ) or "xed-head #oating piles due to the lateral

loading, FxHFP(P), as shown in Table I for load transfer factor; (2) addressing the moment, as
noted in Figure 11(b), or rotation in Figure 13. Therefore, with Equation (19), the critical pile
length may be increased correspondingly by about 41 per cent. This increased critical pile length,
represented by 1.41* Equation (19), is illustrated in Figure 9 as the upper limit of the e!ective pile
length.
Equations (19) and (20) were derived from &k"10G '. The actual values of k may vary from

G to 10G . However, overall, the critical length may well fall in those estimated by Equation (19)

Figure 8. Response of single, free-head, clamped base, pile (FeHCP(P)) by current prediction and FEM [3]:
(a) pile-head deformation; (b) maximum bending moment.
and 1.4* Equation (19). As demonstrated later, the &short piles' de"ned previously, are not
equivalent to &rigid piles', except for free-head, #oating piles.
4.2. Maximum bending moment and the critical depth

Simple expressions for the maximum bending moment, M and the depth, z at which the
K
M occurs are developed using Equation (14) and relevant available solutions.

4.2.1. Free-head piles. For free-head piles of "nite length, the expressions for the depth, z and
K
the moment, M are complicated. Therefore, only the numeric values of the depth, z and the
K
moment, M have been obtained using Equation (14), and are presented in Figures 9 and 10(b),

respectively. As noted previously [3], the critical length, ¸ is about 3}4 times the depth, z .
K
Figure 9. Depth of maximum bending moment and critical pile length.
Ignoring pile-end conditions when E /G*((E /G*) , the z and the M may be estimated
K
using the available solutions for a semi-in"nite long beam [6] and/or an in"nite long beam [10],
with suitable load transfer factor. Therefore, the depth, z and the moment, M may be derived
K
as [6]

1 b
z " arctan (E /G*((E /G*) ) (23)
K b a
!P(a#b
M " e\?XK (E /G*((E /G*) ) (24a)
(3a!b)
On the other hand, with the two-parameter model for an in"nitely long beam loaded by a vertical
load P, the M may be approximated by [10]

M "!P/(4a) (E /G*((E /G*) ) (24b)

As indicated in Figures 9 and 10(b), using Equation (15), (1) Equations (23) and (24a) o!er
consistent results with the current predictions; and (2) Equation (24b) compares well
with the FEM results [3] for #exible piles, but is slightly higher than the current
prediction.
For #oating (rigid) piles, the moment may be simply estimated by [10]
M "!4P¸/27 (E /G*'(E /G*) ) (25)

For clamped (rigid) piles, the moment may be simply taken as PL (i.e. M +PL). In comparison

with these results for rigid piles, Figure 10(b) further shows that free-head, short, #oating piles
(FeHFP(P)) can be taken as &rigid' piles. The value of !M /P¸ gradually decreases from

Figure 10. Single (free-head) pile response due to variation in pile}soil relative sti!ness: (a) pile-head
deformation; (b) maximum bending moment.
about 0.13, for #exible piles [3] to 0.148¸/¸ , for rigid piles. However, only of very high sti!ness,

short, clamped piles (FeHCP(P)) can be treated as rigid piles.
4.2.2. Fixed-head piles. For "xed-head piles, the moment, M occurs at ground level with

z "0. Using Equation (14), the expressions for M may be simpli"ed as Equations (26), and
K
(27) for clamped (FxHCP(P)), and #oating (FxHFP(P)) piles, respectively.

!P a sin(b¸)#bsh(a¸)
M " (Clamped piles) (26)
ab a sin(2b¸)#bsh(2a¸)
Figure 11. Single ("xed-head) pile response due to variation in pile}soil relative sti!ness: (a) pile-head
deformation; (b) maximum bending moment.
!P
M " (a#b) [a(3b!a) sin (b¸)#b(3a!b)sh (a¸)]

(Floating piles) (27)
P (kN
! ab(a#b)[bsh(2a¸)#a sin(2b¸)
EI

where is provided in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 11(b), using Equation (12) for the
parameter k and N, (1) the M by Equations (26), and (27) compare well with the available "nite

element results for long piles [3]; (2) The di!erence between Equation (26) and (27) is negligible,
though it becomes slightly obvious for rigid piles; (3) the M may be approximately taken as

0.1PL for short and rigid piles; and "nally, (4) the value of !M /P¸ gradually decreases from

about 0.01, for #exible piles [3] to 0.1¸/¸ , for rigid piles.

4.3. Ewect of various head and base conditions
The response of short piles may be a!ected by the pile-head and base conditions, which are
illustrated below by focusing on the maximum bending moment, M , and the pile-head

displacement, .
For free-head, clamped piles (FeHCP(P)), the response of the piles has been illustrated as
functions of the pile slenderness ratio in Figure 8(a) and 8(b), and the pile}soil relative sti!ness in
Figure 10(a) and 10(b). From the "gures, the following main points are observed: (1) At a low pile
slenderness ratio, ¸/r , (and/or a high sti!ness, E /G*), the normalized pile head deformation is

negligible; while the moment M is approximately equal to PL. The di!erent gradients, shown

in Figure 8(b), of the initial linear part are due to the fact that the &¸ ' is di!erent for each sti!ness.

(2) At an intermediate pile slenderness ratio or sti!ness, with the increases in the pile length (or
decrease in the logarithmic value of the sti!ness), the normalized pile head deformation increases
almost linearly; while the normalized maximum bending moment, M /(P¸ ) increases slowly,

until a peak is reached. (3) After the peak, the normalized deformation still increases; while the
slow increase in the M is o!set by the faster increase in the critical length, ¸ , thus, the ratio of

M /(P¸ ) tends to decrease with the increase in pile length (or decrease in the logarithmic value

of the sti!ness). Finally, (4) when the pile slenderness ratio is higher than that estimated by
Equation (19) (or the pile}soil sti!ness is lower than the critical sti!ness estimated by Equa-
tion (20)), both the normalized pile head deformation and the normalized maximum bending
moment may be approximated by relevant simple expressions, e.g. Equation (24a) and (24b) for
the moment, M .

For free-head, #oating short piles (FeHFP(P)), the normalized pile head deformation, should
be a constant with k¸/P"4 derived for rigid piles [10]. The constant shown in Figure 10(a) as
&Rigid (FP) pile' is slightly higher than those from other approaches, which implies that the
accuracy of relevant numerical approaches, and the current approach on rigid piles would not be
better than indicated in the "gure. And this &inaccuracy' is re#ected through the factor k, since in
contrast, independent of the k, the maximum bending moment is well estimated by Equation (25).
For "xed-head piles, comparison between Figure 10(a) and (11a) shows: (1) The normalized pile
head deformation for "xed head (FxHCP(P), Figure 11(a)), (a) is about 1/2}2/3 (lower value for
higher sti!ness) that for free head (FeHCP(P), Figure 10(a)), given long, clamped piles; (b) is about
1/4 that for free head (FeHFP(P)), given short, #oating piles. The deformation for the "xed head
(FxHFP(P)), rigid piles is achieved by assuming a constant rotation, which as shown by &Rigid
(FP) pile' in Figure 11(a) compares well with other approaches. (2) Irrespective of the base
conditions, the maximum bending moment for "xed head increases approximately linearly with
the slenderness ratio (or the sti!ness, (E /G*) ), and may be taken as 0.1PL, given short and

rigid piles (e.g. E /G**10, given ¸/r "50). And "nally, (3) the maximum moment for rigid

piles may be a!ected by up to 10 times due to various head and base conditions (e.g. from 0.1PL
(FxHCP) to PL (FeHCP), and from 0.148PL(FeHFP) to PL (FeHCP)).
4.4. Moment induced pile response

When the pile head is subjected to only the moment, M , the normalized pile-head displacement

may also be predicted using Equation (14). As illustrated in Figure 12, the predicted (normalized)
Figure 12. Single (free-head) pile response due to moment loading.
displacement compares well with those from numerical approaches [1,3] for long piles, but it is
markedly lower than that for short rigid piles, derived from the limiting displacement, of
!6M /(k¸) [10]. Particularly, using the load transfer factor, Hetenyi's solution [6] for semi-

in"nite long piles also provide good estimation. The marked di!erence for rigid piles implies that
the simpli"ed stress "eld, Equation (2b), and the displacements "elds, Equation (1b), may be less
accurate in this case. It is worth to be stressed that the maximum bending moment, M (1)

would always occur at z"0, when subjected to only the moment, with a magnitude of M ; and

(2) may have to be obtained by Equation (14) when under the combined load, P and the moment,
M , since moment, M , would occur at a di!erent depth, due to the load, P.

4.5. Rotation of pile head

The rotation of the pile head, due to either the lateral load, P, or the moment, M , at the pile

head level has been estimated individually using Equation (14). As presented in Figure 13, the
normalized rotation compares well with the FEM results by Randolph [3], as long as the relative
sti!ness, E /G*, is lower than the critical sti!ness, 4(E /G*) . Otherwise, the normalized rotation

are slightly lower, or higher than those derived from the limiting rotations, of !6P/(k¸) or

12M /(k¸), respectively, for rigid, #oating piles due to the lateral load, P, or the moment, M .

5. CONCLUSIONS
A new load transfer approach has been developed to predict response of lateral piles in
a homogenous, elastic medium. Generalized, explicit closed-form expressions for the piles and the
surrounding soil have been developed as functions of the newly established load transfer factor .
Particularly simple expressions have been developed for #exible piles, and (in some cases) rigid
piles, and criteria for classifying #exible piles are provided. All the expressions compare well with
Figure 13. Pile-head (free-head) rotation due to lateral loading.
more rigorous numerical approaches, and may be used for general design of piles in homogeneous
soil. In particular, the generalized expression for the piles (1) well re#ect the e!ect of the pile-
head and base conditions; (2) avoid the unreasonable predictions at high Poisson's ratio, using
the conventional two-parameter model; and (3) are applicable to any pile}soil relative
sti!ness.
The current approach is a coupled approach, represented by the two parameters: modulus of
subgrade reaction, k, and the "ctitious tension, N, and linking the response of the pile and the soil
around it by the factor . The approach can be reduced physically to the available uncoupled
approach for beam using the Winkler model, and/or a two-dimensional rigid disc. A simpli"ed
expression is provided for the factor under various pile- head and base conditions.
The provided factor was intended for applying either the lateral load or the moment,
individually. Using the factor for combined loading means that di!erent factor k (and also N) for
the P and M will be adopted, which is di!erent from the current practice of using a single factor

k for the loading. This new adoption is equivalent to use superposition for displacements derived
from the load and moment, individually. Such treatment may be checked once more rigorous
numerical results become available.
Analysis indicates that for long #exible piles, the available solutions for a beam (e.g. Hetenyi's
solutions) compare well with more rigorous numerical approaches, if the parameters k and N are
estimated using the current load transfer factor.
Short piles of su$ciently high sti!ness, or of free head, #oating base, may be treated as &rigid
piles'. For rigid piles, the maximum bending moment for the free-head case can be 10 times that
for the "xed-head case.
The current approach was developed for a concentrated lateral load and moment. For
complicated loading, the loading may be decomposed into a number of components, thus
allowing the approach to be used directly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported here is currently sponsored by Australian Research Council Fellowship, and was partly
sponsored by the National Science and Technology Board, Singapore. The "rst author wishes to acknow-
ledge Associate Professor F. H. Lee for his support of this project and reviewing this paper. The reviewers'
comments are gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX A
A.1. Strain xeld and the energy

The strain "eld may be determined from elastic theory [25], using Equation (1a). Therefore, it
follows:
u u 1 v
" , " # "0, "0
P r F r r X
1 u v v v v 1 w v u w u
" # ! " , " # " , " # " (A1)
PF r r r r FX z r z PX z r z
where is the radial strain within the surrounding soil; the circumferential strain within the
P F
surrounding soil; the vertical strain within the surrounding soil. the shear strain within the
X PF
r} plane; the shear strain within the }z plane; the shear strain within the r}z plane. With
FX PX
the displacement "eld given by Equation (1a), using Hook's law (i.e. constitutive relations) and
Equation (A1), Equation (2a) can be derived. Similarly Equation (2b) can be derived from
Equation (1b).
With the stress components, Equation (2b) and the above-mentioned Equation (A1), the energy
within the soil around the pile (excluding the soil column below the pile of radius r , and

extending from depth ¸ to in"nite) may be expressed, respectively, as

d dy
r dr d dz"G 1.5 y # r dr dz (A2)
GH GH dr dz

dy
r dr d dz" ; y#; dz (A3)
GH GH I , dz

d
r dr d dz" ; #; dr (A4)
GH GH K dr L
P
A.2. Governing equations

In terms of y and , the "rst two items of Equation (3) may be expanded into

* dy dy dy dy dy * * dy
EI dz"(EI) ! y # y dz (A5)
dz dz dz dz dz dz

dy dy dy dy
r G dz"rG y ! y dz (A6)
dz dz dz dz
* * *
With Equation (A2), the last items of Equation (3) may be expanded, in terms of y and , into

d
r dr d dz"k yy dz# 2;
GH GH K dr
P

d d dy dy
! 2; #r !2 ; dr#N y ! y dz (A7)
K dr dr L dz dz
P
From Equation (5), (1) Collecting the coe$cients for y at z"0, it follows,
dy dy
(EI) !N !P"0 (At z"0, free head) (A8)
dz dz
(2) Collecting the coe$cients for (dy/dz) at z"0, it follows,
dy
(EI) #M "0 (At z"0, free head) (A9)
dz
(3) Collecting the coe$cients for y at z"¸, it follows,
dy dy
(EI) !N !(kN y"0 (At z"¸, #oating base) (A10)
dz dz
The term of (kN y(¸) is the shear force, Q , at the base level as given in Equation (17).
(4) Collecting the coe$cients for (dy/dz) at z"¸, it follows,
dy
"0 (At z"¸, #oating base) (A11)
dz
For a "xed-head and/or clamped-base pile, the rotation at the pile head and/or base is set to zero.
Also the clamped base required a zero value of the displacement. Thus, it follows
dy
"0 (z"0, "xed head) (A12)
dz
dy
y"0 and "0 (z"¸, clamped base) (A13)
dz
A.3. A typical solution for Equation (13)

In the case of N(2(kE I , Equation (13) may be solved as

y(z)"(C cos(bz)#C sin(bz)) e?X#(C cos(bz)#C sin(bz)) e\?X (A14)

where a, b were given previously. The coe$cient C (i"1, 4) may be estimated with the boundary
G
conditions of Equations (A8)}(A13). In particular, for long piles, the coe$cient, C and C should

be taken as zero. The pile body displacement function y(z) from Equation (A14) may be rewritten
as Equation (14), with the sub-functions, H(z), I(z), B(z), and C(z) given by the following
expressions for various boundary conditions. To ignore the base shear force for a #oating-base
pile, only the value of (kN should be taken as zero, although individual values of k and N are not
equal zero.
(i) For free-head, clamped-base piles (FeHCP), B(z)"C(z)"0, while H(z), and I(z) are given
by
H(z)"bsh(az)[2abch(a¸) cos(bz)#(a!b) sh(a¸) sin(bz)]
!a sin(bz)[2abch(az) cos(b¸)#(a!b) sh(az) sin(b¸)]
I(z)"b(a#b) sh(az) [!bsh(a¸) cos(bz)#ach(a¸) sin(bz)]
#a(a#b) sin(bz)[bsh(az) cos(b¸)!ach(az) sin(b¸)]
"(a#b) W X
(a!b)(a sin(b¸)#bsh(a¸))#2ab(ch(a¸)#cos(b¸))
where z"¸!z. At the pile-head level (z"0), it follows that H(0)"0, and
H(0)"ab[bsh(2a¸)!a sin(2b¸))]
H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸)]
I(0)"ab(a#b) [a sin(2b¸)#bsh(2a¸)]
At the pile-base level (z"¸), it follows that H(¸)"I(¸)"0, and H(¸)"I(¸)"0.

(ii) For "xed-head, clamped-base piles (FxHCP), I(z)"B(z)"C(z)"0, while H(z) and are
given by
H(z)"sh(az)[abch(a¸) sin(bz)#bsh(a¸) cos(bz)]
!sin(bz) [absh(az) cos(b¸)#a ch(az) sin(b¸)]
"ab(a#b) [a sin(2b¸)#bsh(2a¸)]
At the pile-head and base level, it follows that H(0)"0, H(¸)"H(¸)"0, and
H(0)"bsh(a¸)!a sin(b¸)
H(0)"!(a#b) (bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸))
(iii) For free-head, #oating-base piles (FeHFP), it follows:
H(z)"(a#b) W X
a(a!3b) sin(b¸) C (z)#b(3a!b) sh(a¸)C (z)
F F
where C (z)"(a!b) sh(az) sin(b(¸!z))#2abch(az) cos(b(¸!z)).
F
B(z)"2absh(al)[(a!b) ch(az) sin(bz)#2absh(az) cos(bz)]
!2ab sin(b¸)[(a!b) sh(az) cos(bz)!2abch(az) sin(bz)]
I(z)"a(a#b) (a!3b) sin (b¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]
#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]
C(z)"2ab(a#b) sh(a¸) [!bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]
#2ab(a#b) cos(b¸) [bsh(az) cos(bz)!ach(az) sin(bz)]
"(a#b) Wb(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)X
(kN
# ab(a#b) [a(a!3b) sin(2b¸)#b(3a!b)sh(2a¸)]
(EI)

In particular, at the pile-head level, it follows that H(0)"B(0)"0, and
H(0)"ab(a#b) W
b(3a!b) sh(2a¸)#a(a!3b) sin(2b¸)X
H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)]
B(0)"C(0)"!ab(a#b) [bsh(2a¸)#a sin(2b¸)]
I(0)"ab(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(2a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(2b¸)]
C(0)"4ab(a#b) [sh(a¸)!cos(b¸)]
(iv) For "xed-head, #oating-base piles (FxHFP), I(z)"C(z)"0, while H(z), B(z) and are
given by
H(z)"a(a#b) (3b!a) cos (b¸) W X

ach(az) cos(bz)!bsh(az) sin(bz)
#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [ach(az) sin(bz)#bsh(az) cos(bz)]
#a(a#b) [ach(az) cos(bz)!bsh(az) sin(bz)]
B(z)"2absh(al) [bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]
!2ab cos(b¸) [bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]
"ab(a#b) [b(3a!b)sh(2a¸)#a(3b!a) sin(2b¸)]
(kN
#4ab(a#b) [sh(a¸)#cos(b¸)]
(EI)

At the pile-head level, it follows that H(0)"B(0)"0, and
H(0)"(a#b) [4ab!a(3b!a) sin (bl)#b(3a!b)sh(al)]
H(0)"!(a#b) [a(3b!a) sin(bl)#b(3a!b)sh(al)]
B(0)"ab[bsh(2al)!a sin(2bl)]
B(0)"!ab(a#b)[bsh(2al)#a sin(2bl)]
All the expressions presented have been veri"ed by using Maple2+, and Mathcad2+. For
#oating-base piles, some errors were found in the previous solutions [8]. The solution for the case
of N*2(kE I may be obtained in a similar way. However, it is not presented herein, because of

its little relevance to practical design.
APPENDIX B: NOTATION
a, b parameters for estimating pile response

B(z) sub-functions re#ecting base e!ect, due to lateral load
C(z) sub-function, re#ecting base e!ect, due to moment
E Young's modulus of an equivalent solid cylinder pile

G soil shear modulus at depth z

G* soil shear modulus, G*"(1#0.75 )G

H(z) sub-function, due to lateral load
I(z) sub-function, due to moment
I moment of inertia of an equivalent solid cylinder pile

k modulus of subgrade reaction for Winkler model
k parameters for estimating load transfer factor, i"1, 3
G
K pile}soil relative sti!ness

K () modi"ed Bessel function of second kind of ith order
G
¸ embedded pile length
¸ critical pile length

M moment induced on a pile element (Figure 2(b))
M moment induced at pile-base level;
M moment applied on pile-head

M maximum bending moment within a pile
K
N "ctitious tension used to tie together the Winkler springs
P horizontal load applied on pile head
Q shear force induced on a pile cross-section
Q shear force induced on a pile-base level
r radial distance from pile axis
r radius of an equivalent solid cylinder pile

s pile centre to centre spacing
; energy parameter for &y"1' per unit pile length
I
; energy parameter for &d /dr"1' per unit radial length
K
; energy parameter for &dy/dz"1' per unit pile length

,
; energy parameter for & "1' per unit radial length
L
u radial displacement
v circumferential displacement
w vertical displacement
y pile displacement at the base level
y(z) pile body displacement at depth z, or simply written as y
z depth
z depth where maximum bending moment occurs
K
load transfer factor
factor used for displacement prediction
strain components within the surrounding soil
GH
angle between the interesting point and the loading direction
pile-head rotation angle

pile rotation angle at base level
Lame's parameter

(r) attenuation of soil displacement at r from the pile axis
Poisson's ratio of soil

( ) stress and strain components within the surrounding soil
GH GH
radial stress within the surrounding soil
P
circumferential stress within the surrounding soil
F
vertical stress within the surrounding soil
X
radial strain within the surrounding soil
P
circumferential strain within the surrounding soil
F
vertical strain within the surrounding soil
X
shear strain within the r} plane
PF
shear strain within the }z plane
FX
shear strain within the r}z plane
PX
REFERENCES
1. Poulos HG. Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: II-pile groups. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Division 1971; 97(5):733}751.
2. Banerjee PK, Davies TG. The behavior of axially and laterally loaded single piles embedded in non-homogeneous
soils. Geotechnique 1978; 28(3):309}326.
3. Randolph MF. The response of #exible piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique 1981; 31(2):247}259.
4. Chow YK. Axial and lateral response of pile groups embedded in non-homogenous soils. International Journal of
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1987; 11:621}638.
5. Guo WD. Analytical and numerical solutions for pile foundations. Ph.D Thesis, The University of Western Australia,
1997.
6. Hetenyi M. Beams on Elastic Foundations. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 1946.
7. Matlock H, Reese LC. Generalized solutions for laterally loaded piles. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division 1960; 86(5):63}91.
8. Sun K. Laterally loaded piles in elastic media. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 1994;
120(8):1324}1344.
9. Vesic AS. Beams on elastic subgrade and Winkler's hypothesis. Proceedings of the 5th ICSMFE, vol. 1 1961;
1:845}850.
10. Scott RF. Foundation analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, 1981.
11. Baguelin F, Frank R, Said YH. Theoretical study of lateral reaction mechanism of piles. Geotechnique 1977;
27(3):405}434.
12. Randolph MF, Wroth CP. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division ASCE 1978; 104(12):1465}1488.
13. Guo WD, Randolph MF. Torsional piles in non-homogeneous media. Computers and Geotechnics 1996;
19(4):265}287.
14. Guo WD, Randolph MF. Vertically loaded piles in non-homogeneous media. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1997; 21(8):507}532.
15. Guo WD, Randolph MF. Rationality of load transfer approach for pile analysis. Computers and Geotechnics 1998;
23(1}2):85}112.
16. Guo WD, Randolph MF. An e$cient approach for settlement prediction of pile groups. Geotechnique 1999;
49(2):161}179.
17. Guo WD. Visco-elastic load transfer models for axially loaded piles. International Journal for Numericals and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2000; 24(2):135}163.
18. Jones R, Xenophontos J. The Vlasov foundation model. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences Division 1977;
19(6):317}323.
19. Vallabhan CVG, Das YC. Parametric study of beams on elastic foundations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
1988; 114(12):2072}2082.
20. Vallabhan CVG, Das YC. Modi"ed Vlasov model for beams on elastic foundations. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division ASCE 1991; 117(6):956}966.
21. Nogami T, O'Neill O. Beam on generalized two-parameter foundation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1985;
111(5):664}679.
22. Vallabhan CVG, Mustafa G. A new model for the analysis of settlement of drilled shaft. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1996; 20(3):143}152.
23. Randolph MF. Piles subjected to torsion. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE 1981; 107(8):1095}1111.
24. Cook RD. Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis. Wiley: New York, 1995; 161}164.
25. Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. ¹heory of Elasticity. McGraw-Hill International Editions: New York, 1970; 341}342.
26. McLachlan NW. Bessel Functions for Engineers. Oxford University Press: New York, 1955.
27. Yin J-H. Comparative modeling study of reinforced beam on elastic foundation. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE 2000; 126(3):265}271.
28. Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF, Elson WK. Piling engineering (2nd Edition). Surrey University Press:
Glasgow, Halst Press: New York, 1992.
29. Carter JP, Kulhawy FH. Analysis of laterally loaded shafts in rock. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division
ASCE 1992; 118(6):839}855.
30. Cowper GR. The shear coe$cients in Timoshenko's beam theory. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1966; 33:335}340.
31. Pedley MJ, Jewell RA, Milligan GWE. A large scale experimental study of soil-reinforced interaction*Part I. Ground
Engineering 1990; July/August:45}48.
View publication stats

Guo Lee Lateral Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Guo Lee Lateral Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guo Lee Lateral Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles

Wei Dong Guo Fook-Hou Lee

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Load transfer approach for laterally loaded piles

Wei Dong Guo * and F. H. Lee

KEY WORDS: piles; closed-form solutions; lateral loading; soil}structure interaction

Received 5 March 1999

2. OVERALL PILE RESPONSE

2.1. Nonaxisymmetric displacement and stress xeld

may be expressed as (Appendix A):

2.2. Solutions for laterally loaded piles

where is the load transfer factor, which is given by

Q "!(kN y(¸) (17)

2.3. Evaluation of modixed bessel functions

2.4. Critical pile length

2.5. Load transfer factor

r 2 * (dy/dz) dz#(k/N y(¸)

Table I. Parameters for estimating load transfer factor, .

Long pilesR Short pilesR

2.6. Modulus of subgrade reaction and xctitious tension

4.1. Short and long piles

Figure 7. Comparison of pile response due to Poisson's ratio (¸/r "50).

4.2. Maximum bending moment and the critical depth

Figure 9. Depth of maximum bending moment and critical pile length.

M "!4P¸/27 (E /G*'(E /G*) ) (25)

4.4. Moment induced pile response

Figure 12. Single (free-head) pile response due to moment loading.

4.5. Rotation of pile head

Figure 13. Pile-head (free-head) rotation due to lateral loading.

A.1. Strain xeld and the energy

A.2. Governing equations

(2) Collecting the coe$cients for (dy/dz) at z"0, it follows,

(3) Collecting the coe$cients for y at z"¸, it follows,

A.3. A typical solution for Equation (13)

!a sin(bz)[2abch(az) cos(b¸)#(a!b) sh(az) sin(b¸)]

I(z)"b(a#b) sh(az) [!bsh(a¸) cos(bz)#ach(a¸) sin(bz)]

#a(a#b) sin(bz)[bsh(az) cos(b¸)!ach(az) sin(b¸)]

H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸)]

At the pile-base level (z"¸), it follows that H(¸)"I(¸)"0, and H(¸)"I(¸)"0.

!sin(bz) [absh(az) cos(b¸)#a ch(az) sin(b¸)]

H(0)"!(a#b) (bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸))

(iii) For free-head, #oating-base piles (FeHFP), it follows:

!2ab sin(b¸)[(a!b) sh(az) cos(bz)!2abch(az) sin(bz)]

I(z)"a(a#b) (a!3b) sin (b¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]

#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]

C(z)"2ab(a#b) sh(a¸) [!bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]

#2ab(a#b) cos(b¸) [bsh(az) cos(bz)!ach(az) sin(bz)]

"(a#b) Wb(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)X

In particular, at the pile-head level, it follows that H(0)"B(0)"0, and

H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)]

B(0)"C(0)"!ab(a#b) [bsh(2a¸)#a sin(2b¸)]

I(0)"ab(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(2a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(2b¸)]

H(z)"a(a#b) (3b!a) cos (b¸) W X

#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [ach(az) sin(bz)#bsh(az) cos(bz)]

#a(a#b) [ach(az) cos(bz)!bsh(az) sin(bz)]

B(z)"2absh(al) [bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]

Wei Dong Guo * and F. H. Lee

r 2 * (dy/dz) dz#(k/N y(¸)

M "!4P¸/27 (E /G'(E /G) ) (25)

(2) Collecting the coe$cients for (dy/dz) at z"0, it follows,

(3) Collecting the coe$cients for y at z"¸, it follows,

!a sin(bz)[2abch(az) cos(b¸)#(a!b) sh(az) sin(b¸)]

I(z)"b(a#b) sh(az) [!bsh(a¸) cos(bz)#ach(a¸) sin(bz)]

#a(a#b) sin(bz)[bsh(az) cos(b¸)!ach(az) sin(b¸)]

H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸)]

At the pile-base level (z"¸), it follows that H(¸)"I(¸)"0, and H(¸)"I(¸)"0.

!sin(bz) [absh(az) cos(b¸)#a ch(az) sin(b¸)]

H(0)"!(a#b) (bsh(a¸)#a sin(b¸))

!2ab sin(b¸)[(a!b) sh(az) cos(bz)!2abch(az) sin(bz)]

I(z)"a(a#b) (a!3b) sin (b¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]

#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [!bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]

C(z)"2ab(a#b) sh(a¸) [!bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]

#2ab(a#b) cos(b¸) [bsh(az) cos(bz)!ach(az) sin(bz)]

"(a#b) Wb(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)X

In particular, at the pile-head level, it follows that H(0)"B(0)"0, and

H(0)"I(0)"!(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(b¸)]

B(0)"C(0)"!ab(a#b) [bsh(2a¸)#a sin(2b¸)]

I(0)"ab(a#b) [b(3a!b) sh(2a¸)!a(a!3b) sin(2b¸)]

H(z)"a(a#b) (3b!a) cos (b¸) W X

#b(a#b) (3a!b)sh(a¸) [ach(az) sin(bz)#bsh(az) cos(bz)]

#a(a#b) [ach(az) cos(bz)!bsh(az) sin(bz)]

B(z)"2absh(al) [bch(az) cos(bz)#ash(az) sin(bz)]

!2ab cos(b¸) [bsh(az) cos(bz)#ach(az) sin(bz)]

"ab(a#b) [b(3a!b)sh(2a¸)#a(3b!a) sin(2b¸)]

At the pile-head level, it follows that H(0)"B(0)"0, and

H(0)"(a#b) [4ab!a(3b!a) sin (bl)#b(3a!b)sh(al)]

H(0)"!(a#b) [a(3b!a) sin(bl)#b(3a!b)sh(al)]