HKIE TRANSACTIONS, 2016

VOL. 23, NO. 2, 107–117

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2016.1168713

TECHNICAL NOTE

Analysis of piled foundations with piles rigidly jointed to pile caps under
coupled support stiffness
C W Lawa and Y M Chengb
a Housing Department, the HKSAR Government, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; b Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A discussion is presented on analyses of piled foundations with the pile caps simulated as beam Received 24 September 2015
or slab structures supported on piles simulated as elastic springs carrying support stiffnesses Accepted 16 March 2016
with various degrees of freedom. In this paper, the shortcoming of applying only settlement, KEYWORDS
translational and rotational stiffnesses to the elastic springs for piles rigidly jointed to the pile Coupled support stiffness;
cap in an integrated analysis of the lateral shears and out-of-plane loads for a piled foundation fixed head moments;
are explained. These shortcomings lie in the failure of this approach to account for the effects on horizontal subgrade reaction
the out-of-plane actions in the pile cap and the subsequent axial loads on the piles due to lateral theory
translations, which can create moments at the pile heads. However, with the insertion of “cou-
pled support stiffnesses” which relates the pile head translations to moments into the stiffness
matrix of the pile cap, accurate analytical results can be obtained. As most commercial software
does not allow for the input of such stiffnesses, the paper also discusses an approach that can
arrive at the close analytical results and yet remain on the conservative side of estimation.

Introduction such structural configurations are worthwhile. Some

findings of this nature are presented in this paper.
Piled foundations are often analysed by simulating the
pile cap structures as plate or beam elements wherein
the piles are taken as elastic supports to the pile caps.
Study of a simple frame structure
Analyses conducted by simulating the full lengths of
the piles in mathematical models are comparatively An examination of the structural behaviour of a plane
rare due to the inherent modelling complexities. In frame is chosen as the starting point. Consider the
order to simplify the problem, analyses of out-of-plane simple plane frame in Figure 1 in which a beam b is
loads comprising vertical loads, moments in the verti- supported by columns c1 and c2, where the symbols E,
cal planes and in-plane loads comprising lateral shears A and I carry the usual meaning of the Young’s modu-
are often undertaken separately. These two processes lus, the cross-sectional area and second moment of the
can be mutually exclusive if the piles are assumed to be area, respectively of the beams and the columns.
“pinned” to the underside of the pile caps. Under the The stiffness matrix of the beam is given by Equation
assumption of pinned connections, the lateral shears (1) below, with the order of lateral translation, vertical
will not affect the distributions of the out-of-plane loads translation and rotation in the corresponding displace-
in the cap and therefore, no redistributions of axial ment matrix:
loads and moments on the piles will occur. However,
⎡ A E Ab Eb ⎤
the problem becomes more complicated if the piles are b b
0 0 − 0 0
rigidly jointed to the cap because the lateral shears will ⎢ Lb Lb ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥
create out-of-plane moments at the pile cap connec- ⎢ 0 0 − ⎥
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2 Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
tions, inducing elastic shears in the cap which will in ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6Eb Ib 4Eb Ib 6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib ⎥
turn affect the vertical load distribution on the support- ⎢ 0 0 − ⎥
⎢ Lb 2 Lb Lb 2 Lb ⎥
Kb = ⎢
⎢ Ab Eb
⎥.
⎥
ing piles. As it is often a design criterion to restrict the ⎢− Ab Eb
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎥
lateral deflections of a piled foundation to a certain limit ⎢ Lb L ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥
by employing rigid connections between the piles and ⎢ 0 − − 0 − ⎥
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2 Lb 3 Lb ⎥
2
the cap (an effective means of enhancing the overall ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 6EI 2EI 6EI 4Eb Ib ⎦
lateral stiffness of the piled foundation), explorations 0 0 − 2
Lb 2 Lb Lb Lb
of simple means of performing accurate analyses on (1)

CONTACT C W Law lawlawcw@yahoo.com.hk

© 2016 The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

108 C. W. LAW AND Y. M. CHENG

produce unit horizontal displacement under the

condition of no joint rotation;
(ii) Ac Ec /Lc = KZ is the vertical translational stiff-
ness, taken as the vertical load required to produce
unit vertical displacement;
(iii) 4Ec Ic /Lc = Kθ is the rotational stiffness, taken as
the moment required to produce unit rotation
under the condition of no joint translation; and
(iv) 6Ec Ic /Lc 2 = KXM is the moment produced by
Figure 1. A plane frame structure under the lateral load.
unit translation under the condition of no
joint rotation, or the lateral shear produced by
The stiffness matrix of the whole plane frame unit rotation under the condition of no joint
is assembled using the standard stiffness method. translation.
As the end supports of the columns are fixed, the
degrees of freedom of these nodes can be removed It should be noted that even the far end sup-
from the analysis and the assembled matrix for the port of the columns are of different conditions other
structural analysis of the beam can be reduced to than fixed; KX , KZ , Kθ and KXM can be modi-
Equation (2) as follows: fied so that Equation (2) can remain with a total
of six degrees of freedom for the two beam ends.
For example, if the far ends of the columns are
⎡ 12E I Ab Eb 6Ec1 Ic1
c1 c1
+ 0 pinned, then KX , Kθ and KXM will be 3Ec Ic /Lc 3 ,
⎢ Lc1 3 Lb Lc1 2
⎢
⎢
3Ec Ic /Lc and 3Ec Ic /Lc 2 , respectively while KZ remains
⎢ Ac1 Ec1 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib
⎢ 0 + unchanged.
⎢ Lc1 Lb 3 Lb 2
⎢ The stiffnesses KX , KZ and Kθ on the diagonal of
⎢
⎢ 6Ec Ic 6Eb Ib 4Ec1 Ic1 4Eb Ib
⎢ the beam stiffness matrix can be assigned to the beam
⎢ +
⎢ Lc1 2 Lb 2 Lc1 Lb
⎢ stiffness as independent discrete values in almost all
Kbs = ⎢
⎢ Ab Eb
⎢ − 0 0 commercial software if the mathematical model is com-
⎢ Lb
⎢ prised of the beam alone. However, with only these
⎢
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib
⎢ − − three stiffnesses, the simulated structure (Figure 2) dif-
⎢ 0
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2
⎢ fers from the frame structure of Figure 1 as it does not
⎢
⎢ 6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib take into consideration the interactions between lat-
⎣ 0
Lb 2 Lb
eral translation and rotation. This interaction has to
be taken care of by KXM , the “coupled support stiff-
Ab Eb ⎤
− 0 0 ness”, which combines lateral translation and rotation.
Lb ⎥ Currently, it is rare for commercial software to allow
⎥
⎥
12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥ the direct input of KXM into the stiffness matrix, even
0 − ⎥
Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥
⎥ though implementing this functionality would not be
⎥
6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib ⎥
0 − ⎥
⎥
difficult. Given that the solution cannot be achieved
Lb 2 Lb ⎥
⎥. without KXM , as most commercial software does not
⎥
12Ec2 Ic2 Ab Eb 6Ec2 Ic2 ⎥ allow for its input, it is necessary to investigate meth-
+ 0 ⎥
Lc2 3 Lb Lc2 2 ⎥
⎥ ods of overcoming this restriction by attaining a more
⎥
Ac2 Ec2 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥ accurate solution without using KXM .
0 + − ⎥
Lc2 Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥
⎥
⎥ Generally, the support stiffnesses KX , KZ and Kθ
6Ec2 Ic2 6Eb Ib 4Ec2 Ic2 4Eb Ib ⎦ are not restricted to supporting prismatic columns;
− +
Lc2 2 Lb 2 Lc2 Lb
they can simulate any restraints, including piles embed-
(2)
ded in soil. Equation (3) below gives a more general

Comparing Equations (1) and (2), it may be consid-

ered that the stiffness matrix of the beam has been mod-
ified in Equation (2). The “foreign” entries relating to c1
and c2 in Equation (2) refer to the support stiffnesses at
the beam ends provided by the columns. A closer exam-
ination of these entries reveals the following, dropping
the suffixes 1 and 2 for conciseness:

(i) 12Ec Ic /Lc 3 = KX is the horizontal translational Figure 2. Beam under end translational and rotational sup-
stiffness, taken as the horizontal force required to ports.
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 109

presentation of the stiffness matrix of the beam shown the vertical plane. The phenomenon is obvious by tak-
in Figure 2: ing a closer look at Equation (3), which shows that the
lateral translation is totally uncoupled from the verti-
⎡
12Ec1 Ic1 cal translation and rotation in the matrix. So, if a lateral
+ KX1 0 0
⎢ Lc1 3 shear is applied at one end of the beam, the beam only
⎢
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib undergoes horizontal translation with reaction forces in
⎢
⎢ 0 + KY1
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2 the lateral support springs; there are no joint rotations
⎢
⎢ 6Eb Ib 4Eb Ib or reactions as moments provided by the “spring coils”.
⎢
⎢ 0 + Kθ1
⎢ Lb 2 Lb Vice versa, vertical loads or moments in the vertical
Kbs1 =⎢
⎢
⎢ A b Eb plane acting on the beam do not produce any trans-
⎢ − 0 0
⎢ Lb lations of the beam, even though these loads are not
⎢
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib acting symmetrically.
⎢ − −
⎢ 0
Consider Example 1, in which a capping beam of
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2
⎢
⎣ 6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib section 2.5 m × 2.5 m is supported by two large diam-
0
Lb 2 Lb eter bored piles of length Lp = 40 m and diameter D =
⎤ 2 m, at a spacing of s = 10 m apart (Figure 3). The piles
A b Eb
− 0 0 ⎥ are connected to the capping beam by rigid joints. The
Lb ⎥
⎥ structure is to be analysed by simulating the capping
12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥
0 − ⎥ beam as a beam structure supported by the piles as
Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥
⎥
6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib ⎥ elastic springs.
⎥
0 − ⎥ Terzaghi’s [1] horizontal subgrade reaction theory is
Lb 2 Lb ⎥
⎥.
A b Eb ⎥ used to determine the lateral and rotation support stiff-
⎥
+ KX2 0 0 ⎥ nesses of the beam provided by the piles. The Young’s
Lb ⎥
⎥ modulus of the capping beam and the piles is taken
12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥
+ KY2 − ⎥
0
Lb 3 Lb 2
⎥
⎥ as E = 26, 400 MN/m2 . The piles are buried in soil
⎥ with the constant horizontal subgrade reaction nh =
6Eb Ib 4Eb Ib ⎦
0 − + Kθ2 4400 kN/m3 . The pile cut-off levels are Df = 4 m below
Lb 2 Lb
(3) the ground. The stiffnesses (Table 1) are determined
using Table HM-3 in the handbook of the Hong Kong
Without the coupling stiffness KXM , the problem of Institution of Engineers,[2] under the assumption of
applying Equation (3) to Figure 2 is revealed by the rigid joint connections between the piles and the pile
phenomenon of independent structural behaviours in cap. In Table 1, the symbols Fδ and Fθ are coefficients
lateral and vertical translation coupled with rotation in for determining the various pile support stiffnesses in
accordance with the horizontal subgrade reaction the-
ory using the expressions listed in the table. Note that
2.5 m
a common local trade practice for the determination
of these support stiffnesses is to find these coefficients
in the design charts in [3–5], though these charts are
restricted to the piles with cut-offs at the ground levels.
10 m
Alternatively, the stiffnesses can be determined
through analysing a strut member by simulating the
pile with a series of elastic point spring supports deter-
mined by the horizontal subgrade reaction theory along
its length using the stiffness method. In this case, the
vertical translational stiffness is simply taken as KZ =
2.5 m AE/L = 2, 073, 451 kN/m. If just these three stiffnesses
are combined to form the stiffness matrix for the cap
in Equation (3), under a lateral load of S = 5000 kN
Figure 3. Structural layout for Examples 1 and 2. at the left end of the cap, the lateral deflections of the

Table 1. Summary of the horizontal translational stiffness and rotational stiffness in Example 1.
Horizontal translational
stiffness KX Rotational stiffness Kθ
 Coefficient Stiffness Coefficient Stiffness
Ep Ip
T= 5
Lp /T Df /Lp Fδ Ep Ip /Fδ T 3 Fθ Ep Ip /Fθ T
nh
5.428 m 7.369 0.1 0.5647 229,579 kN/m 0.6025 6,339,989 kNm
110 C. W. LAW AND Y. M. CHENG

left and right supports are 10.96 mm and 10.81 mm, the displacement coefficient defined and determined in
respectively. The small difference is due to the elastic Table 1. The value for Mp can also be taken from [2]. In
shortening of the pile cap, which is also reflected in this example, Mp = 0.7214 by interpolation from Table
the difference in horizontal reactions of the supports HM-3 (b) in [2]. So,
at 2517.27 kN and 2482.73 kN, respectively. As antic-
ipated, the vertical reactions and moments at the two KXM = (0.7214 × 26, 400, 000 × 0.7854)/(0.5647
supports are all zero and the cap only carries an axial × 5.4282 )
load. This cannot be correct, however, as moments will
be created by the lateral deflections at the pile heads = 898, 997 kN.
which act on the cap and subsequently create vertical As both Mp and Fδ are affected by L/T and as T
shears in the cap – and these shears need to be balanced is related to the constant of the horizontal subgrade
by axial loads in the piles. Thus, the analysis has omitted reaction nh , it follows that KXM is also affected by nh .
these out-of-plane actions. With the inclusion of the coupled support stiffness
Given the above, the coupled support stiffness KXM KXM in the reanalysis, the internal forces of the pile cap
has to be appended to form the stiffness matrix as now also comprise the vertical shears and moments.
Equation (4) below, based on Equation (2): The results of Example 2 are summarised in Table 2 and
compared with the results of Example 1.
⎡
12Ec1 Ic1 From Table 2, it can readily be seen that there is an
⎢ Lc1 3 + KX1 0 KXM1
increase in the lateral deflection when KXM is inserted
⎢
⎢ due to the addition of moments and shears in the pile
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib
⎢ 0 + KY1
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2 cap. The smaller deflection in Example 1 is due to the
⎢
⎢ over-estimation of the lateral stiffness of the piled foun-
⎢ 6Eb Ib 4Eb Ib
⎢ KXM1 + Kθ1
⎢ dation under the assumption of rigid restraint against
⎢ Lb 2 Lb
Kbs2 =⎢
⎢ the joint rotation of the piles at their heads, while the
⎢ A b Eb
⎢ − 0 0 exact analysis in Example 2 allows for some joint rota-
⎢ Lb
⎢
⎢ tions. Thus, there is an overall under-design when KXM
⎢ 12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib is neglected.
⎢ 0 − −
⎢ Lb 3 Lb 2
⎢ However, if the software used cannot provide entry
⎢
⎣ 6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib of the KXM values for exact analysis, the designer
0
Lb 2 Lb may perform “adjustments” by adding moments on
⎤
A b Eb the pile heads which are achieved by assuming that
− 0 0 ⎥
Lb ⎥ the piles are undergoing the calculated lateral deflec-
⎥
12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥ tion with the head restrained from rotation. These
0 − ⎥
Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥ “fixed head moments” can simply be determined
⎥
⎥ by KXM × the calculated lateral deflections, which
6Eb Ib 2Eb Ib ⎥
− ⎥
0
Lb 2 Lb
⎥
⎥
are 898, 997 × 0.01096 = 9853 kNm and 898, 997 ×
⎥. 0.01081 = 9718 kNm, resulting in a pile axial load
⎥
A b Eb ⎥
+ KX2 0 KXM2 ⎥ of ±(9853 + 9718)/10 = ±1957 kN in Example 1.
Lb ⎥
⎥ Although the lateral deflections are still smaller, there
⎥
12Eb Ib 6Eb Ib ⎥ is an over-estimation of the pile head moments and
0 + KY2 − ⎥
Lb 3 Lb 2 ⎥
⎥ subsequently the pile axial loads in this case, as the
⎥
6Eb Ib 4Eb Ib ⎦ joint rotations at the pile cap junctions which serve to
KXM2 − + Kθ2
Lb 2 Lb redistribute the moments are not allowed.
(4) Similar checking is carried out for the relatively
more flexible piles of 305 × 305 × 223 H-piles with
For Example 2, the piled foundation in Figure 3 is the lateral shear reduced to 1000 kN in Examples 3
reanalysed using Equation (4). It can be proven that and 4. The results are summarised in Table 3, show-
KXM as the moment induced on the pile head under the ing similar trends as those in Examples 1 and 2. As
unit lateral deflection but restrained from rotation can the piles are closer to complete the restraint to rota-
be determined by the following equation: tion at the pile heads, smaller differences are obtained.
Mp Ep Ip Table 2. Comparison of the reactions of Examples 1 and 2.
KXM = , (5)
Fδ T 2 Example 1 Example 2
Average lateral deflection (mm) 10.96/10.81 12.30/12.15
where Mp is the moment coefficient by which the Left end moment (kNm) 0 8876
pile head moment can be determined by multiplying Right end moment (kNm) 0 8777
Left and right pile axial load (kN) 0 ±1765
Mp × S × T (where T is defined in Table 1) and Fδ is
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 111

Table 3. Comparison of the reactions of Examples 3 and 4.

Example 3 Example 4
Average lateral deflection (mm) 10.84/10.81 11.02/10.99
Left end moment (kNm) 0 544.69
Right end moment (kNm) 0 543.15
Left and right pile axial load (kN) 0 ±108.78

Adjusting the pile axial loads in a similar way to

that of Example 3 by applying fixed head moments
of KXM × the calculated deflections to the cap gives
the pile axial loads of ±(552.836 + 551.293)/10 = Figure 4. Plate element for the finite element formulation.
±110.41 kN, which is quite close to the exact value of
±108.78 kN in Example 4.
Preliminarily, it can be concluded that inaccuracies
in analysis occur if KXM cannot be directly input into shear deformation is not taken into account. The for-
mulations of these elements were discussed in Coates
the stiffness matrix for the analysis of piled founda-
et al.,[6] in which the authors formed their stiffness
tions with rigid joints between the piles and the cap.
matrices algebraically. These are chosen for the ease
However, by reanalysing under reappending fixed head
of formulation and presentation in the study; although
moments on the cap, close values that err on the con-
more advanced elements can be used, e.g. the shear
servative side can be achieved for design purposes.
deformable plate bending elements developed in Law
A counter-check on the accuracy of Example 4 is car-
& Cheng [7] and Law et al.,[8] the algebraic expres-
ried out by building a plane frame simulating the piles,
sions of these elements are deemed too complex to be
the cap beam and the soil springs. Each pile is finely
presented here.
divided into 40 segments. The lateral deflections at the
Consider a rectangular plate element of length 2a,
two ends of the pile cap are 11.03 mm and 11.00 mm,
width 2b and thickness t with its nodes numbered 1,
which are very close to those in Example 4. The cap
2, 3 and 4 (Figure 4). The Young’s modulus and Pois-
beam end moments are 531.25 kNm and 529.76 kNm,
son’s ratio of the material of the plate are E and μ,
which gives a difference of around 2.5% from the values
respectively.
in Example 4. This small difference can be accounted
Under separate formulations, the stiffness matrix for
for by the difference in the determination of the lateral
the in-plane action is as follows:
soil spring stiffnesses. Example 4 adopts the horizon-
tal subgrade reaction theory based on the continuous
spring supports, while that in the plane frame analysis
is based on the discrete point springs. Et KM11 KM12
KM = , (6)
(1 − μ ) KM21
2
KM22
Further exploration by plate structure
A more in-depth exploration is now conducted via an
examination of the plate structure, which is carried out where
by simulating the cap structure as an assembly of the
finite element plates. Being a three-dimensional struc-
ture, rectangular elements built up by an in-plane struc- ⎡
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) 1+μ
ture (membrane) with in-plane translations in the two ⎢
⎢ 6ab 8
global x- and y-directions and a plate bending struc- ⎢
⎢
⎢ 1+μ 2a2 + b2 (1 − μ)
ture comprising linear out-of-plane translations and ⎢
⎢ 8 6ab
⎢
two out-of-plane rotations about the global directions KM11 =⎢
⎢ −4b2 + a2 (1 − μ)
⎢ 1+μ
were chosen, making up an element commonly termed ⎢
⎢ 12ab 8
⎢
the “shell” element. The structure therefore comprises ⎢
⎢ −1 + 3μ a2 − b2 (1 − μ)
⎣
5 degrees of freedom for each joint. For the sake of sim- 8 6ab
plicity, the in-plane rotation is not taken into account ⎤
−4b2 + a2 (1 − μ) −1 + 3μ
in the study. ⎥
12ab 8 ⎥
The finite “shell” element formulated for this study is ⎥
1+μ a2 − b2 (1 − μ) ⎥
⎥
therefore a combination of the in-plane actions based ⎥
⎥
8 6ab
on the bilinear displacement functions, while that for ⎥,
⎥
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) −1 − μ ⎥
the out-of-plane is based on the Kirchhoff plate with a ⎥
⎥
6ab 8 ⎥
displacement function for linear out-of-plane displace- ⎥
−1 − μ 2a + b (1 − μ) ⎦
2 2
ment up to the third order, though the out-of-plane 8 6ab
112 C. W. LAW AND Y. M. CHENG

1 − 3μ −7 + 2μ a b −1 − 4μ a −1 + μ b ⎤
+ 3 − 3 + 2 − 2
⎢ 6ab 8 10ab 2b a 10a 2b 10b a ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −1 + 3μ −4a2 + b2 (1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ −1 − 4μ a 2a 4b(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ + 2 − 0 ⎥
⎢ 8 12ab 10a 2b 3b 15a ⎥
KM12 =⎢ ⎥
⎢ −2b2 − a2 (1 − μ) −1 − μ ⎥
⎢ 1−μ b 2b a(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ + 2 0 − ⎥
⎢ 12ab 8 10b a 3a 15b ⎥
⎣ ⎥,
1 + 3μ −2a2 + b2 (1 − μ) ⎥
7 − 2μ a b 1 + 4μ a 1 + 4μ b ⎥
8 6ab + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 ⎥
⎤ 10ab b a 10a b 10b a ⎥⎥
−4b2 − 2a2 (1 − μ) −1 − 3μ ⎥
1 + 4μ a 4a 4b(1 − μ) ⎥
12ab 8 ⎥ + 2 + μ ⎥
⎥ 10a b 3b 15a ⎥
−1 − μ −2a2 + b2 (1 − μ) ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎥ 1 + 4μ b 4b 4a(1 − μ)
8 6ab ⎥ + 2 μ +
⎥, 10b a 3a 15b
b2 − a2 (1 − μ) −1 + 3μ ⎥
⎥
⎥
6ab 8 ⎥ KB12
⎦
1 − 3μ −4a2 + b2 (1 − μ) ⎡ 7 + 2μ b a 1−μ a 1 + 4μ b
8 12ab + 3 − 3 + 2 − 2
⎢ 10ab 2a b 10a b 10b 2a
⎢
KM21 = KM12 T and ⎢ −1 + μ a b(1 − μ)
⎢ 2a
⎢ − 2 − 0
⎡ ⎢ 10a b 3b 15a
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) −1 − μ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
6ab 8 ⎢ 1 + 4μ b 2b 4a(1 − μ)
⎢ ⎢ − 2 0 −
⎢ −1 − μ 2a2 + b2 (1 − μ) ⎢ 10b 2a 3a 15b
⎢ =⎢
⎢ ⎢
⎢ 8 6ab ⎢ 7 − 2μ b a −1 + μ a −1 + μ b
KM22 =⎢ ⎢ − 3 − 3 + 2 + 2
⎢ −4b2 + a2 (1 − μ) −1 + 3μ ⎢ 10ab 2a 2b 10a 2b 10b 2a
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
⎢ 12ab 8 ⎢ 1−μ a a b(1 − μ)
⎣ ⎢ − 2 + 0
1 − 3μ a2 − b2 (1 − μ) ⎢ 10a 2b 3b 15a
⎢
8 6ab ⎣
⎤ 1−μ b b a(1 − μ)
−4b2 + a2 (1 − μ) 1 − 3μ − 2 0 +
10b 2a 3a 15b
⎥
12ab 8 ⎥ 7 − 2μ b a −1 + μ a 1−μ b ⎤
−1 + 3μ a2 − b2 (1 − μ) ⎥⎥ − 3 − 3 + 2 − 2
⎥ 10ab 2a 2b 10a 2b 10b 2a ⎥
8 6ab ⎥ ⎥
⎥. 1−μ a a b(1 − μ) ⎥
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) 1+μ ⎥ ⎥
⎥ − 2 + 0 ⎥
⎥ 10a 2b 3b 15a ⎥
6ab 8 ⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
1+μ 2a2 + b2 (1 − μ) −1 + μ b b a(1 − μ) ⎥
+ 2 0 + ⎥
8 6ab 10b a 3a 15b ⎥ ⎥,
⎥
−7 + 2μ b a 1−μ a −1 − 4μ b ⎥
+ 3 − 3 + 2 + 2⎥
10ab 2a b 10a b 10b 2a ⎥
⎥
⎥
−1 + μ a 2a b(1 − μ) ⎥
− 2 − 0 ⎥
10a b 3b 15a ⎥
For the out-of-plane bending action, the stiffness ⎥
⎦
matrix is as follows: −1 − 4μ b 2b 4a(1 − μ)
− 2 0 −
10b 2a 3a 15b

KB21 = KB12 T and

⎡ ⎤ KB22
Et 3 ⎢KB11 KB12 ⎥
⎡ 7 − 2μ a b −1 − 4μ a −1 − 4μ b
KB = ⎣ ⎦, (7) + 3 + 3 − 2 − 2
12(1 − μ )
2
KB21 KB22 ⎢ 10ab b a 10a b 10b a
⎢
⎢ −1 − 4μ a 4b(1 − μ)
⎢ 4a
⎢ − 2 + μ
⎢ 10a b 3b 15a
⎢
⎢
⎢ −1 − 4μ b 4b 4a(1 − μ)
⎢ − 2 μ +
⎢ 10b a 3a 15b
where ⎢
=⎢
⎢ −7 + 2μ a b 1 + 4μ a 1−μ b
⎢ + 3 − 3 − 2 + 2
⎢ 10ab 2b a 10a 2b 10b a
⎢
⎢
⎢ 1 + 4μ a 2a 4b(1 − μ)
⎢ − 2 − 0
⎢ 10a 2b 3b 15a
⎢
⎣
−1 + μ b 2b a(1 − μ)
− 2 0 −
KB11 10b a 3a 15b
⎡ −7 + 2μ a b 1 + 4μ a −1 + μ b ⎤
7 − 2μ a b 1 + 4μ a −1 − 4μ b + 3 − 3 − 2 − 2
⎢ 10ab + b3 + a3 10a
+ 2
b 10b
− 2
a
10ab 2b a 10a 2b 10b a ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 + 4μ a 2a 4b(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ 1 + 4μ a 4a 4b(1 − μ) − 2 − 0 ⎥
⎢ + 2 + −μ 10a 2b 3b 15a ⎥
⎢ 10a b 3b 15a ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −1 − 4μ b 4a(1 − μ) 1−μ b 2b a(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ 4b + 2 0 − ⎥
⎢ − 2 −μ + a 15b ⎥
⎢ 10b a 3a 15b 10b 3a ⎥.
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ −7 + 2μ a b −1 − 4μ a 1−μ b 7 − 2μ a b −1 − 4μ a 1 + 4μ b ⎥
⎢ + 3 + 3 − 2 + 2 ⎥
⎢ + 3 − 3 + 2 + 2
⎢ 10ab 2b a 10a 2b 10b a 10ab b a 10a b 10b a ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −1 − 4μ a 2a 4b(1 − μ) −1 − 4μ a 4a 4b(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢ + 2 − − 2 + −μ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 10a 2b 3b 15a 10a b 3b 15a ⎥
⎢ ⎦
⎢ −1 + μ b 2b a(1 − μ) 1 + 4μ b 4b 4a(1 − μ)
⎣ − 2 0 − + 2 0 +
10b a 3a 15b 10b a 3a 15b
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 113

If the displacement components of a node in the 0 0

displacement matrix are in the order of x, y, z,
KYMx
θx and θy, then the assemblage of the stiffness of the 0
 
matrix of the final “shell” element combining KM and 7 − 2μ a b 1 + 4μ a
Db + 3 + 3 + KZ Db + 2
KB that can perform both in-plane and out-of-plane 10ab b a 10a b
 
deformation should follow the same order. The assem- 1 + 4μ a 4a 4b(1 − μ)
Db + 2 Db + + Kθ X
bled matrix for the rectangular element should then 10a b 3b 15a

be a 20 × 20 matrix. Putting Db = Et 3 /12(1 − μ2 ) and −1 − 4μ b t2
Db − 2 −μ Db
Dm = Et/(1 − μ2 ), the assembled matrix is listed in 10b a 12
Equation (8) below, but with only the first 5 × 5 node · ·
entries as an illustration:
· ·
⎤
K KXMy ··
⎥
⎡ ⎥
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) 1+μ ⎥
Dm Dm 0 0 · ·⎥
⎥
⎢ 6ab 8 ⎥
⎢  ⎥
⎢
⎢ 1+μ 2a2 + b2 (1 − μ) −1 − 4μ b ⎥
⎢
⎢
Dm Dm 0 Db − 2 · ·⎥
⎥
⎢ 8 6ab 10b a ⎥
⎢  ⎥
⎢ 7 − 2μ a b ⎥
⎢ 0 0 Db + 3 + 3 t 2 ⎥
⎢ 10ab b a −μ Db · ·⎥ .
⎢  ⎥
=⎢
⎢ 1 + 4μ a 12 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 Db + 2  ⎥
⎢ 10a b 4b 4a(1 − μ) ⎥
⎢
⎢ −1 − 4μ b
 Db + + Kθ Y · ·⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 0 Db − 2 3a 15b ⎥
⎢ 10b a ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ · · · · · ·⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
· · · · ··
⎤
0 0 ·· (9)
⎥
⎥
0 0 · ·⎥
⎥
  ⎥ ⎥
1 + 4μ a −1 − 4μ b
Db + 2 Db − 2 · ·⎥ ⎥ As the coupling support stiffness KXM applies in
10a b 10b a ⎥
4a 4b(1 − μ)

t 2
⎥
⎥ both the x- and y-directions, KXMy and KYMx relate
Db + −μ Db · ·⎥
⎥.
3b 15a 12 ⎥ respectively to how translation in the x-direction affects
 ⎥
t2
−μ Db Db
4b
+
4a(1 − μ) ⎥
· ·⎥ moments about the y-direction and how translation in
12 3a 15b ⎥
⎥
⎥ the y-direction affect moments about the x-direction.
· · · ·⎥
⎥
⎦ Using the elements formulated in Equation (8), a
· · ·· pile cap structure of 15 m length, 10 m width and 2.5 m
(8) thickness supported on six numbers of 305 × 305 × 223
piles (Figure 5) is now analysed as Example 5. The piles
It can be easily noted from Equation (8) that the in- are buried in soil with a constant horizontal subgrade
plane and out-of-plane actions are again independent of reaction nh = 4400 kN/m3 , as with Examples 3 and 4.
each other unless there are some “couplings” between The pile cap is taken as an assemblage of 10 × 10 = 100
them by inserting values into the appropriate locations equal plate elements in the analysis. In Example 5, the
common to both the in-plane and out-of-plane actions, support stiffnesses by the piles are added at the appro-
which are currently all zero. priate nodes instead of the first node (Equation (9)), but
If the first node is a support, similar to that of a the KXM values are not inserted into the stiffness matrix
beam, by inserting the KXM values, the stiffness matrix in order to study the set-up without the “coupling”
is modified as follows: effect of the KXM values.
A uniformly-distributed lateral load of 500 kN/m in
K the x-direction is applied at the left edge of the cap.
⎡ The lateral deflection at the centre of the left edge is
2b2 + a2 (1 − μ) 1+μ
⎢ Dm + KX Dm 18.09 mm. As anticipated, the out-of-plane displace-
⎢ 6ab 8
⎢ ments and forces including the axial loads in the piles
⎢ 1+μ 2a + b (1 − μ)
2 2
⎢ Dm Dm + KY
⎢ 8 6ab are all zero. Now, in Example 6, it is shown that if the
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢ 0 0 KXM values are inserted and another analysis is carried
=⎢
⎢ out, the deflection at the same point increases slightly
⎢ 0 KYMx
⎢
⎢
⎢
to 18.39 mm with full sets of pile reactions comprising
⎢ KXMy 0
⎢ the vertical forces, horizontal forces and moments. The
⎢
⎢ · · increase in the lateral deflection is similar to Examples
⎣
· · 3 and 4 for a capping beam.
114 C. W. LAW AND Y. M. CHENG

2.5 m

40 m

1500 mm 6000 mm 6000 mm 1500 mm

2000 mm

3000 mm

3000 mm

2000 mm

Figure 5. Structural layout for Example 5.

The next step is to study the improvement in Exam- Table 4. Comparison of the results in Examples 5 and 6.
ple 5 and compare it with Example 6 by applying the Example 5
pile fixed head moments onto the cap. As before, the Before
fixed head moments are determined by KXMy and KYMx adding After adding
multiplied by the lateral deflections. Under this anal- moment at moment at
Pile no. the pile head the pile head Example 6
ysis, the rotational restraint Kθ by the piles on the
Axial load (kN) P1 0.00 −230.033 −226.598
cap structure have to be set to zero, otherwise, the P2 0.00 0.011 0.011
applied pile fixed head moments will be reduced due P3 0.00 230.021 226.587
to the moment redistribution between the piles and Moment about Y (kNm) P1 0.00 921.379 907.350
the cap. In this second analysis, the pile axial loads P2 0.00 919.879 906.714
P3 0.00 919.065 905.045
are induced. Table 4 summarises the deflections, axial
Lateral deflection (mm) 18.09 18.09 18.390
loads and moments determined in Example 5. Only
piles P1 to P3 are listed as forces and the moments
on P4 to P6 are identical to those on P1 to P3 due to
symmetry.
The results are similar to those of Examples 3 to The piles were changed to 2 m-diameter large-
4, again with the results of Example 5 on the con- diameter bored piles and the analysis for Examples 5
servative side in terms of the structural loads of the and 6 was repeated in Examples 7 and 8, respectively
piles, although the deflection is slightly smaller. Thus, (Table 5).
it can be concluded that if the software cannot carry The result in the percentage differences are greater
out analysis using the KXMy and KYMx values, adjust- compared to Examples 5 and 6, and similar to the results
ment can be carried out by applying the fixed head of Examples 1 to 4. The same reasoning applies as steel
moments onto the model for determining the pile axial H-piles carrying smaller stiffnesses compared to the
loads and the internal forces of the pile cap for the large-diameter bored piles will exhibit behaviour closer
design. to that of the “fixed head” when analysed accurately.
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 115

Table 5. Comparison of the results in Examples 7 and 8. Spacing of the piles

Example 7
If the pile spacing is reduced, leading to an overall
Before decrease in the lateral stiffness of the piled foundation,
adding After adding
moment at moment at the error between the approach with the KXM values
Pile no. the pile head the pile head Example 8 and the approach without the KXM values becomes
Axial load (kN) P1 0.00 −817.036 −750.306 greater, as the latter can only measure the overall stiff-
P2 0.00 2.247 1.842
P3 0.00 814.788 748.464
ness of the piled foundation by assuming that the
pile heads are completely restrained from rotation. For
Moment about Y (kNm) P1 0.00 3285.964 2956.550
P2 0.00 3259.632 3094.880 example, if the pile spacing in Example 6 is decreased
P3 0.00 3245.348 2932.180 from 6 m to 2 m, the lateral deflection increases from
Lateral deflection (mm) 3.67 3.67 4.040 18.4 mm to 20.4 mm. The pile head moments remain
unchanged in Example 5 while those of Example 6
decrease, so Example 5 produces more conservative
Comparison with the analysis of the
results.
out-of-plane loads
For Examples 9 and 10, the structural models in Exam-
Axial stiffness of the piles
ples 5 and 6, respectively are analysed with a vertical
load of 10,000 kN applied at the centre of the right In the foregoing analysis, the axial stiffness of the piles is
edge of the cap in Figure 5. The model with KXMy and taken as AE/L, which is a widely-used local trade prac-
KYMx (Example 10) produces a sidesway of 3.9 mm to tice. But strictly speaking, the term only measures the
the right while that without KXMy and KYMx (Exam- elastic shortening of the pile under the assumption of
ple 9) cannot produce any sidesway, which is obviously a rigidly propped end without any soil restraint along
not reasonable. The forces in the piles are also listed in its length. Significant errors may result if the soil fric-
Table 6 for comparison. tion is significant and the pile end is allowed to settle,
The distribution of pile reactions in the form of axial as in the case of driven piles resting on soil. A theo-
loads and moments are different. However, as the differ- retical account has been provided by Randolph [9] and
ences in axial loads are small and Example 9 produces Poulos & Davis [10], but these involve pile–soil–pile
greater moments, the approach without KXMy and KYMx interactions, which are very complicated to analyse. As
but with adjustment by reapplying moments on the pile it is not the main theme of discussion in this paper, the
heads is again more conservative in the bearing capacity simple approach based on AE/L is adopted for the ease
design of the pile. of analysis.

Table 6. Comparison of the results in Examples 9 and 10.

Example 9 Example 10
Pile axial Moment about Moment about Pile axial Moment about Moment about
Pile no. load (kN) X (kNm) Y (kNm) load (kN) X (kNm) Y (kNm)
P1 −1329.43 0.81 −353.10 −1377.79 9.86 −159.74
P2 1595.83 2.18 −369.74 1595.83 2.04 −176.18
P3 4733.61 6.27 −398.91 4781.97 −11.90 −205.52

the

the the

the

Figure 6. Illustrating the small differences in the sagging moments of the pile cap by the exact lateral load analysis and by the
reinsertion of the pile fixed head moments.
116 C. W. LAW AND Y. M. CHENG
Effect of KXM on the design of the pile cap
When using a software that can perform both lateral
and vertical load analyses but which does not allow the
input of KXM , there is obviously an under-estimation
of the moments at the pile supports due to the lateral
shears if the piles are designed to be rigidly jointed
to the pile cap. However, with the reinsertion of the
pile head moments by assuming completely restrained
heads as described in the foregoing, the pile head
moments and subsequently the moments in the pile cap
over the pile supports become slightly over-estimated,
leading to a conservative design in these locations. As
the over-estimation is not too significant as per the
comparisons between Examples 5 and 6 and Examples
7 and 8, the design of a pile cap based on the reinser-
tion of the pile head moments is generally acceptable,
given that the moments at the pile supports are over-
estimated and that any under-estimation of the span
moments will be small (Figure 6).
Concluding remarks
In summary, the following can be concluded:
(1) By appropriate use of the coupled support stiffness
KXM in the stiffness matrix of the pile cap, the piled
foundation can be analysed for the lateral shear
and the out-of-plane load simultaneously, without
the need to model the full lengths of the piles in
the mathematical model. Though computing time
and capacity are generally not a problem nowa-
days, this approach serves to save a lot of time and
effort in modelling and inputs, as compared with
incorporating the full lengths of the piles.
(2) As most software does not allow the KXM val-
ues to be input, adjustments by applying the fixed
head moments due to the lateral shears back to
the mathematical model under the removal of the
moment restraints can be carried out to determine
the pile forces while erring on the conservative
side. With greater pile moments, the internal forces
in the pile cap are also over-estimated, leading to a
more conservative design in the pile cap.
(3) As recommended in the foregoing, the rotational
restraint Kθ has to be set to zero in the second-
round analysis for adjustment by the pile head
moments if the software does not allow KXM to
be input. This may therefore cause a problem in
producing the structural design of the pile caps, as
the results have to be quoted from two different
mathematical models. The usual load combina-
tions and enveloping of the design forces in the
software cannot be used. However, this problem
can be solved by the removal of all pile support
stiffnesses from the model, then the pile reactions
from the two models are applied to the support
nodes and the structure is reanalysed with the load
combinations and enveloping specified as usual.
But there should be one fixed support on the new
model for mathematical stability. The reactions of
the fixed support should be zero as the inputs of
the pile reactions should balance the applied loads
and therefore do not affect the analytical results.
(4) The lateral deflections are however greater in the
exact approach using the KXM values than the
approach without the KXM values, as the latter has
to assume the pile heads without rotation. The dif-
ference depends on the comparative rigidity of the
piles and the pile cap; a stiffer pile cap leads to
smaller differences.
(5) Smaller pile spacing also leads to greater errors in
the approach without the KXM values as it fails to
measure the decrease in the overall lateral stiffness
of the piled foundation under reduced pile spacing.
(6) The consideration of the coupling effect of the sup-
port stiffness is important for the structural design
of tall buildings in Hong Kong, which are often
subjected to very heavy wind shears. Such effects
are found to be not negligible, so designers should
either properly insert the coupled support stiff-
nesses if the software allows, or uses the approach
discussed in this paper to determine the extra axial
loads on the piles.
(7) The difference in the design moments on the pile
caps between an exact analysis using KXM and an
analysis using reinsertion of the fixed pile head
moments is small. Therefore, the latter can be used
to achieve a safe design when the former is not
viable due to software constraints.
Notes on contributors
Ir C W Law, B.Sc., M.Sc., MIStructE, MHKIE,
MICE, received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees
from The University of Hong Kong in 1978
and 1995, respectively. He obtained his profes-
sional qualifications in 1982. He is currently
serving as a Senior Structural Engineer in the
Housing Department of the HKSAR Govern-
ment. Before he joined the Housing Depart-
ment, he also worked as a Senior Engineer with
Hyder Consultants. Throughout his career, he
has been engaged in the design and administration of various projects
involving tall buildings, deep basements, transfer structures and stud-
ies of various aspects of theories and methods in reinforced concrete
structures analysis and design including the finite element method, con-
crete shrinkage and creep, ductility and foundation engineering etc. He
has published 20 papers in HKIE Transactions and other international
journals.
Ir Dr Y M Cheng received his B.Sc., M.Phil.
and Ph.D. degrees from The University of
Hong Kong in 1981, 1990 and 1992, respec-
tively. He has worked on the design and con-
struction of the MTR Corporation Ltd’s Island
Line Project, the Eastern Harbour Cross-
ing Project and the Island Eastern Corridor
Project as well as worked as the consultant,
contractor and client before joining The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. Currently, his
areas of research interest include slope stability, pile foundation, the finite
element and distinct element methods, and the plate analysis on pile cap
and transfer plate.
 HKIE TRANSACTIONS 117

References [6] Coates RC, Coutie MG, Kong FK. Structural analy-
sis. 2nd ed. Hong Kong: ELBS; 1980. p. 444–447, p.
[1] Terzaghi K. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reac-
452–458.
tions. Géotechnique. 1955;5:297–326.
[7] Law CW, Cheng YM. Improved thick plate analysis and
[2] The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. An explana-
design. HKIE Trans. 2006;13(2):49–58.
tory handbook to the code of practices for foundations
[8] Law CW, Cheng YM, Yang Y. Problems with some com-
2004. Hong Kong; 2015. p. M4–M7.
mon plate bending elements and the development of
[3] Tomlinson MJ. Piled design and construction practice.
a pseudo-higher order plate bending element. HKIE
4th ed. London: Spon Press; 1994.
Trans. 2012;19(1):12–22.
[4] Civil Engineering and Development Department. GEO
[9] Randolph MF. A Theoretical Study of the Performance
Publication 1/2006 Foundation design and construc-
of Piles. A dissertation submitted for the degree of
tion. Hong Kong: The HKSAR Government. 2006;
Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge.
127–128.
1977.
[5] Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering
[10] Poulos HG, Davis EH. Pile foundation analysis and
command Washington. Design Manual NAVFAC DM-
design. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1980. p. 74–84.
7. 1971.