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

net/publication/257099766

Development of p–y curves for undrained response of piles near slopes

Article  in  Computers and Geotechnics · March 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.09.005

CITATIONS READS

24 311

2 authors:

Konstantinos Georgiadis Michael Georgiadis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
33 PUBLICATIONS   315 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   550 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Laterally loaded piles in clay View project

Undrained bearing capacity of footings on slopes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Konstantinos Georgiadis on 24 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Development of p–y curves for undrained response of piles near slopes

Konstantinos Georgiadis ⇑, Michael Georgiadis
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 541 24, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The response of laterally loaded piles placed near the crest of clay slopes is analysed. Three-dimensional
Received 3 June 2011 finite element analyses are presented for piles of different geometries, installed at several distances from
Received in revised form 9 September 2011 slopes of various inclinations. The results of these analyses are used to establish the pattern of lateral load
Accepted 23 September 2011
distribution along the pile length in relation to slope inclination and pile to slope distance. Subsequently,
Available online 4 November 2011
p–y curves are developed for the case of undrained lateral loading of piles near the crest of clay slopes, a
case for which no such curves exist so far. The proposed p–y curves are implemented into a commercial
Keywords:
subgrade reaction computer code and used to perform a series of parametric numerical analyses. The
Piles
Lateral loads
results of these analyses show that the predicted response of piles near slopes with the proposed p–y
Clays curves is in good agreement with the response observed in some pile tests reported in the literature.
Finite element method Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Numerical analysis
Lateral pressure
Soil–pile interactions
Slopes

1. Introduction test results for piles near a clay/silt slope, which show that the ef-
fect of the slope is significantly reduced at a distance of 4 pile
Piles are often used for the foundation of several types of struc- diameters and fully disappears at 8 pile diameters.
tures such as bridges, transmission towers or large traffic signs, Although p–y curves for piles in sloping ground or at the crest of
constructed at or near the edge of slopes. These piles are usually slopes are included in most subgrade reaction computer programs
analysed with the subgrade reaction method in which the pile is such as LPILE [18], no such curves are available for piles at a dis-
considered as an elastic beam supported by a series of non-linear tance from the crest of a slope. Typical p–y curves used by LPILE
horizontal springs. The non-linear stiffness of each spring, defined [18] for piles in level ground and at the crest of clay slopes of sev-
as ‘‘p–y curve’’, depends on several factors such as soil type, shear eral inclinations h are shown in Fig. 1, demonstrating the reduction
strength, deformation characteristics, spring depth, pile diameter, in spring response due to ground inclination. For the case of piles in
slope inclination and proximity of the pile to the crest of the slope. sand, Mezazigh and Levacher [11] proposed modification of the p–
Although several criteria have been proposed for developing p–y y curves for horizontal ground through the application of a reduc-
curves for clayey, granular and layered soils in horizontal ground tion factor (p-multiplier) on p (load per unit length). The value of
(e.g. [1–9]), there is very limited information available for piles this factor is constant over the whole length of the pile and de-
near slopes and especially for piles near clay slopes. pends on slope inclination and the distance between the pile and
The effect of the distance between a pile and the crest of a sandy the crest of the slope. For piles at the crest of 2:3 and 1:2 slopes,
slope has been investigated by several researchers through centri- the reduction factor is 0.33 and 0.47, respectively. The factor in-
fuge tests [10,11], finite element analyses [12,13], small scale mod- creases linearly with the distance between the pile and the crest
el tests [13,14] and full scale tests [15]. Unfortunately, the available of the slope and becomes equal to one at a distance of 8–10 diam-
information for piles near clay slopes is more limited. Poulos [16] eters. No recommendations have so far been proposed for piles
presented some small scale model tests for laterally loaded piles near clay slopes.
near a vertical cut in clay and numerical analyses for piles near clay The effect of ground inclination and pile–soil adhesion on the
slopes, which indicated that the effect of the cut/slope on pile lateral behaviour of piles at the crest of clay slopes has been inves-
behaviour diminishes at distances greater than 4–5 pile diameters. tigated through numerical analyses by Georgiadis and Georgiadis
More recently, Nimityongskul and Ashford [17] reported full scale [19], leading to the proposal of new p–y curves for piles in sloping
clay ground. These curves adopt the following hyperbolic equation,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 994 227; fax: +30 2310 995 619. previously used by several researchers [20–23], to define the shape
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Georgiadis). of the p–y curves for undrained loading conditions:

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.09.005
54 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61

Nomenclature

b distance of pile from crest of slope p lateral load per unit pile length
cu undrained shear strength pu ultimate lateral load per unit pile length
D pile diameter Q shear force
Ep modulus of elasticity of pile rH load reduction factor
Eu undrained modulus of elasticity y lateral pile displacement
E50 modulus of elasticity at 50% of failure stress yo pile head lateral displacement
Ho lateral pile load z depth below ground surface
Ip moment of inertia of pile section zc critical depth
Ki initial stiffness of p–y curve a adhesion factor
Kio initial stiffness of p–y curve for level ground ah slope inclination influence factor
Kih initial stiffness of p–y curve for slope angle h c bulk unit weight
L pile length h slope angle
M bending moment k non-dimensional factor
Np lateral bearing capacity factor l initial stiffness reduction factor
Npo lateral bearing capacity factor at ground surface m Poisson’s ratio
Npu ultimate lateral bearing capacity factor mu undrained Poisson’s ratio

y from 0.55 for a = 0 (perfectly smooth pile) to 0.4 for a = 1 (perfectly

p¼ ð1Þ
1 y rough pile) [19]:
þ
K i pu
k ¼ 0:55  0:15a ð4Þ
where Ki is the initial slope of the p–y curve and pu is the ultimate
load which for undrained conditions is given by the equation: Npo is the bearing capacity factor at ground surface [19]:

pu ¼ Np cu D ð2Þ Npo ¼ 2 þ 1:5a ð5Þ

D is the pile diameter, cu is the undrained shear strength of the and Npu is the ultimate bearing capacity factor given by the two-
soil and Np the lateral bearing capacity factor. This lateral bearing dimensional lower bound plasticity solution proposed by Randolph
capacity factor Np increases with depth in the upper part of the pile and Houlsby [25]:
from an initial value Npo at ground surface (corresponding to a  
D D
wedge type failure mechanism) to a maximum value Npu (corre- Npu ¼ p þ 2D þ 2 cos D þ 4 cos þ sin ð6Þ
sponding to a two-dimensional flow around mechanism) and re- 2 2
mains constant in the lower part of the pile. Both Npo and Npu where D = arcsin(a). For a smooth pile–soil interface (a = 0) the
depend on pile–soil adhesion at the interface [24–26]. As proposed above equation gives Npu = 9.14 while for a fully rough interface
by Georgiadis and Georgiadis [19], the value of Np for horizontal (a = 1) Npu = 11.94.
ground surface can be approximated by the following relationship:
Np
Np ¼ Npu  ðNpu  Npo Þekðz=DÞ ð3Þ
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
where k is a non-dimensional factor which varies with the pile–soil
adhesion factor a (defined as the ratio of the interface shear
strength over the undrained shear strength of the soil, a = sf/su)
2

160
θ = 0° 4

140

θ = 15° 6
120
Eq. 3 (α = 1)
Eq. 3 (α = 0)
z/D

100 θ = 30°
8 Stevens & Audibert
p (kN/m)

Stevens & Audibert, pile tests

80 θ = 45° Murff & Hamilton ( α = 1)
10 Murff & Hamilton ( α = 0)
60 Matlock (J = 0.25)
Reese & Welch (J = 0.5)

40 12 Bhushan et al (J = 2)
Reese et al
D=1m Broms
20 cu = 50 kPa Brown & Shie, α = 0, δ = 0
14
Brown & Shie, α = 0, δ ≠ 0
0 Georgiadis FEA ( α = 1)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Georgiadis FEA ( α = 0.3)
y (m) 16

Fig. 1. Typical p–y curves at ground surface (LPILE). Fig. 2. Variation of Np with z/D for level ground.
 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61 55

Fig. 2 presents Eq. (3) for a = 0 and a = 1 together with experi- crest) to 6.5. Effective pile–soil separation was allowed by assign-
mental, analytical and numerical Np–(z/D) relationships presented ing zero tensile strength to a thin 10 cm zone around the pile
by several researchers. and to the interface elements. The analysis procedure included
The initial stiffness Ki of the p–y curves depends on the defor- three steps. First the initial stresses were generated through grav-
mation characteristics of the soil and on the pile diameter and flex- ity loading, then the pile was wished-in-place by changing the
ural stiffness. It can be calculated from the following expression properties of the relevant soil elements from soil to pile, and finally
[19]: a horizontal load was applied at the pile head. Pile installation ef-
!1=12 fects were not taken account of in the analyses.
E50 D4 The results of the analyses performed were used to obtain p–y
K i ¼ 3E50 ð7Þ curves, at various depths. This was achieved by curve-fitting the
Ep I p
obtained shear force (Q) versus depth (z) diagrams at various pile
where E50 is the secant Young’s modulus at 50% of the failure stress, head loads and calculating the first derivatives at selected points.
determined from unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression A computer program which determines the most appropriate
tests, and EpIp is the pile flexural stiffness. equation for a given set of data and provides the first derivatives
Based on the results of an extensive series of finite element at selected points was used for this purpose. The obtained load
analyses, modifications of the above equations for Np and Ki were per unit length (p) versus depth (z) relationships were combined
modified by [19] to consider the effect of ground inclination and with the lateral displacement (y) versus depth (z) diagrams at
pile–soil adhesion for piles in a slope or at the crest of a slope. the same pile head loads, to derive the load–displacement (p–y)
The present paper presents an extension of the above study to curves at selected depths.
piles which are located at some distance from the crest of a slope. Typical pile head load–displacement curves are shown in Fig. 4
Based on the results of finite element analyses, new equations are for L = 20 m and D = 1 m at distances b = 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5
proposed for the determination of p–y curves which take into ac- and 6.5 m from the crest of a 45° slope. It is noted that as seen in
count the distance between the pile and the crest of the slope in Fig. 4, in order to derive p–y curves and their ultimate load pu at
addition to the slope inclination and the pile–soil adhesion. The large depths below ground surface, the analyses were continued
proposed curves were introduced into the computer code LPILE to unrealistically large pile head lateral displacements. As ex-
[18] as input p–y curves and used to perform a parametric study pected, it is clearly illustrated that the ultimate horizontal load in-
on the lateral response of piles at various distances from a slope. creases with increase of the distance b between the pile and the
slope. It can also be seen that the effect of the slope on lateral pile
behaviour reduces with the increase of b and becomes insignificant
2. Numerical analyses at approximately b = 5.5 m. In fact, although pile behaviour at
b = 6.5 m is slightly more rigid than for b = 5.5 m the ultimate load
The geometry of the problem analysed is illustrated in Fig. 3, for both analyses is the same indicating that the horizontal ground
which shows a pile of length L and diameter D placed at a distance surface ultimate load has been reached. This point is better illus-
b from the crest of a slope. Numerical analyses of lateral pile load- trated in Fig. 5 which shows the contours of incremental displace-
ing were performed with the finite element program Plaxis 3D ments at failure for b = 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 m. As shown in this
Foundation V2.2 [27] in which various pile to slope distances and figure the failure mechanisms for b = 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 m cross the
slope angles were considered. 15-node wedge elements were used slope crest boundary and extend into the slope, while the failure
for both the soil and the pile and 8-node quadrilateral interface mechanism for b = 5.5 m remains within the horizontal part of
elements were used for the pile–soil interface. Details of the finite the ground. The same behaviour was also observed for slope angles
element mesh density and boundary positions are presented in of 30° and 60°, as well as in the case of the D = 0.5 m piles. This
Georgiadis and Georgiadis [19]. finding is in good agreement with the model test results of Poulos
The soil was modelled as a linear elastic – perfectly plastic Tres- [16] and the full scale test results of Nimityongskul and Ashford
ca material with undrained shear strength cu, undrained Young’s [17], which as mentioned in the introduction indicated that the
modulus Eu, Poisson’s ratio mu = 0.49 and bulk unit weight
c = 18 kN/m3. The pile was assumed linear elastic with a Young’s
modulus of Ep = 2.9  107 kPa and Poisson’s ratio of v = 0.1. Three 4500
different values of the adhesion factor (interface shear strength/
4000
undrained shear strength) were considered for the interface b = 6.5m
5.5m
a = 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0. Analyses were performed for piles of D = 0.5 3.5m 4.5m
3500 2.5m
and 1 m diameter and L = 12 and 20 m length in undrained clay
1.5m
with cu = 50 and 100 kPa and Eu = 10 and 20 MPa. Three slope incli-
3000 b = 0.5m
nations were considered h = 30°, 45° and 60° and various norma-
lised pile to slope distances b/D ranging from 0.5 (pile at slope
Ho (kN)

2500

b 2000

1500

L z 1000

500
θ CLAY

D 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
yo (m)

Fig. 3. Problem definition. Fig. 4. Typical pile head load–lateral displacement curves for h = 45° and a = 0.3.
56 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61

% of max incr. displ.

100
93.75
87.5
81.25
75.0
68.75
62.5
56.25
50.0
Slope crest 43.75
37.5
31.25
b = 5.5m 25.0

b = 4.5m 18.75
12.5
b = 3.5m
6.25
b = 2.5m 0

Fig. 5. Incremental displacements for h = 45° and a = 0.3.

effect of the slope on pile response diminishes at a normalised dis- reached at the top of the pile and is associated with the develop-
tance b/D greater than 4–5 [16] and greater than a value between 4 ment of a shallow and narrow failure mechanism which extends
and 8 [17]. Another observation that can be made in Fig. 4, which is only to the horizontal part of the ground surface. As a consequence
also in agreement with the experimental findings of the above the ultimate soil reaction at the top part of the pile is not affected
researchers, is the minor effect of the pile to slope distance on by the presence of the slope. As the pile-head load increases, the
the initial stiffness of the pile head load–displacement relationship. failure mechanism becomes deeper and wider, and at the critical
depth zc, which depends on b/D and is defined by Eq. (8), may reach
the crest of the slope. Beyond this point the failure mechanism ex-
3. Development of p–y curves tends to the inclined part of the ground surface and consequently
the ultimate lateral soil reaction pu below the critical depth zc is
Application of Eq. (1) in the derivation of the p–y curve at some lower than that calculated for a pile in horizontal ground.
depth requires determination of the ultimate lateral load per unit
length pu and the initial stiffness Ki.
The ultimate lateral loads per unit length pu of the p–y curves
derived through the numerical analyses described in the previous Np
section, were introduced into Eq. (2) to determine the variation 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
of the bearing capacity factor Np with depth and distance of the pile 0
Npu = 10.22

from the crest of the slope. Some typical results are presented in
Figs. 6–10 which show the variation of Np with z/D and b/D for
slope inclinations h = 30° and 45° and adhesion factors a = 0.3,
0.6 and 1. On the same figures is also shown the variation of Np 2
with z/D for the case of horizontal ground. b/D = ∞
b/D = 0.5
Based on these results, the idealised variation of the bearing
capacity factor Np with depth z/D, presented in Fig. 11 was derived.
b/D = 1.5
The Np–z curve at a normalised distance b/D is bound by the curves 4
for a pile at the crest of a slope (b/D = 0.5) and a pile in horizontal
b/D = 2.5 b/D = 4.5
ground (b/D = 1). Both bounding curves start from an initial value
Npo at ground surface, which is different for the two cases and tend
b/D = 3.5
z /D

towards a common ultimate value Npu which corresponds to lateral 6

soil flow (Eq. (6)) as the normalised depth increases. The finite ele- b/D = 5.5
ment results presented in Figs. 6–10 indicated that even at small
normalised distances of the pile from the crest of the slope, the
bearing capacity factor at ground surface, Npo, was the same as that level ground Eq. 3
8 Equation 9
corresponding to horizontal ground, defined by Eq. (3). As a result, b/D = 6.5
the proposed Np–z/D curves for piles at a distance from a slope FEA (b/D = 0.5)
coincide with that for horizontal ground surface up to a certain FEA (b/D = 1.5)
depth zc. This depth increases non-linearly with b/D and can be cal- FEA (b/D = 2.5)
10 FEA (b/D = 3.5)
culated from the following empirical equation:
FEA (b/D = 4.5)
zc =D ¼ 8:5  10log10 ð8  b=DÞ ð8Þ FEA (b/D = 5.5)
FEA (b/D = ∞)
To explain this feature, the development of lateral soil reactions 12
p along a pile placed near the crest of a slope, with increasing pile-
head load, is considered. The ultimate soil reaction pu is first Fig. 6. Variation of Np with z/D and b/D for h = 45° and a = 0.3.
 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61 57

Np Np
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 0

Npu = 11.09

Npu = 10.22
b/D = 0.5
2 2
b/D = 1.5
b/D = 0.5 b/D = ∞ b/D = ∞

b/D = 1.5 b/D = 2.5

4 4
b/D = 2.5 b/D = 4.5 b/D = 3.5 b/D = 4.5

b/D = 3.5 b/D = 5.5

z/D

z /D
6 6
b/D = 5.5

level ground Eq. 3 level ground Eq. 3 b/D = 6.5

8 8
Equation 9 Equation 9
FEA (b/D = 0.5) b/D = 6.5
FEA (b/D = 0.5)
FEA (b/D = 1.5) FEA (b/D = 1.5)
FEA (b/D = 2.5) FEA (b/D = 2.5)
10 FEA (b/D = 3.5) 10 FEA (b/D = 3.5)
FEA (b/D = 4.5) FEA (b/D = 4.5)
FEA (b/D = 5.5) FEA (b/D = 5.5)
FEA (b/D = ∞) FEA (b/D = ∞)
12 12

Fig. 7. Variation of Np with z/D and b/D for h = 45° and a = 0.6. Fig. 9. Variation of Np with z/D and b/D for h = 30° and a = 0.3.

Np Np
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 0

Npu = 11.94
Npu = 11.94

b/D = 0.5
2 2

b/D = 0.5 b/D = 1.5 b/D = ∞

b/D = ∞

b/D = 1.5 b/D = 2.5

4 4
b/D = 2.5 b/D = 4.5
b/D = 3.5 b/D = 4.5

b/D = 3.5
z /D
z /D

6 6
b/D = 5.5
b/D = 5.5

level ground Eq. 3 level ground Eq. 3

8 8
Equation 9 Equation 9
FEA (b/D = 0.5) b/D = 6.5 FEA (b/D = 0.5) b/D = 6.5
FEA (b/D = 1.5) FEA (b/D = 1.5)
FEA (b/D = 2.5) FEA (b/D = 2.5)
10 10 FEA (b/D = 3.5)
FEA (b/D = 3.5)
FEA (b/D = 4.5) FEA (b/D = 4.5)
FEA (b/D = 5.5) FEA (b/D = 5.5)
FEA (b/D = ∞) FEA (b/D = ∞)
12 12

Fig. 8. Variation of Np with z/D and b/D for h = 45° and a = 1. Fig. 10. Variation of Np with z/D and b/D for h = 30° and a = 1.

For normalised depths z/D greater than zc/D, the following Np ¼ Npu  ðNpu  Npc Þekah ðzzc Þ=D ð9Þ
equation was found to approximate with remarkable accuracy
the bearing capacity factors obtained from the finite element sin hð1 þ sin hÞ
where ah ¼ 1  ð10Þ
analyses: 2
58 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61

and Npc the bearing capacity factor at the critical depth zc, which can where Kih and Kio are the initial stiffnesses of the p–y curves for piles
be calculated by substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (3). The above equation in sloping ground and in horizontal ground, respectively. Eq. (11)
is compared with the Np values derived from the finite element re- gives a linear increase of the initial stiffness with depth for the
sults in Figs. 6–10. It can be seen that Eq. (9) produces a set of sim-
ilar curves for given adhesion (a) and inclination (h) values, which
are in excellent agreement with the Np–z/D results derived from Np
the FEA. The values of Np increase with increasing b/D ratio and 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
are bound by the horizontal ground surface curve. The effect of 0

Npu = 10.22
slope inclination is illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13 for b/D = 1.5 and
2.5, respectively. As seen, the slope inclination has no effect on
the critical depth zc above which the presence of the slope does
not influence the ultimate loads pu. As expected, below the critical 2
depth, the bearing capacity factor reduces significantly with
θ = 60° θ = 0°
increasing slope inclination.
According to Eq. (8) the critical depth becomes negative when
b/D < 0.92, resulting in an initial bearing capacity factor Npo at 4
the ground surface (z = 0) lower than that given by Eq. (5) for hor-
θ = 45°
izontal ground surface. Therefore for 0.5 6 b/D < 0.92 the Np–z/D
curve does not coincide at any point with the horizontal ground
surface curve, lies between the two bounding curves of Fig. 11,

z /D
6
and tends towards the ultimate value Npu as depth increases. It is θ = 30°
noted that for piles at the crest of a slope (b/D = 0.5) the above
equations provide a better fit for steep slopes (h > 40°), than those
proposed by Georgiadis and Georgiadis [19]. The main difference is
8
in the value of the inclination factor ah, given by Eq. (10) instead of
ah = 1/(1 + tan h) proposed in [19]. For common slope inclinations
level ground Eq. 3
both equations give very similar results.
Equation 9
As mentioned in the previous section both numerical and
10 FEA (θ = 0°)
experimental results have shown that the influence of the slope
FEA (θ = 30°)
has only minor effect on the initial stiffness of the load–displace-
ment curve. To account for the slope effect, Georgiadis and Georgi- FEA (θ = 45°)
adis [19], based on the results of finite element analyses, FEA (θ = 60°)
introduced the following reduction factor on the initial stiffness 12
Ki of the p–y curves for piles in sloping ground or at the crest of Fig. 12. Variation of Np with z/D and h for b/D = 1.5 and a = 0.3.
a slope (b/D = 0.5):
K ih z
l¼ ¼ cos h þ ð1  cos hÞ 6 1 ð11Þ
K io 6D Np
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 Npu = 10.22

Np
Npo Npc Npu

2
zc /D
θ = 0°
θ = 60°

θ = 45°

pile in slope (b = D/2)

z /D

6
θ = 30°
z /D

pile near slope (b > D/2)

8
pile in level ground (b = ∞)
level ground Eq. 3
Equation 9
10 FEA (θ = 0°)
FEA (θ = 30°)
FEA (θ = 45°)
FEA (θ = 60°)
12

Fig. 11. Schematic variation of bearing capacity factor with depth. Fig. 13. Variation of Np with z/D and h for b/D = 2.5 and a = 0.3.
 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61 59

Kiocosθ

z1
b K io
K iθ

6D-z1

D
θ

Fig. 14. Effect of h and b on initial p–y stiffness Kih.

top 6D of the pile. The horizontal ground surface initial stiffness Kio 1.2
lower bound
is reached at z = 6D and this value remains constant for z P 6D.
API (1984)
In order to take account of the distance of the pile from the crest DIN 4014 (1990)
of the slope, the idealisation illustrated in Fig. 14 is considered SAA (1978)
1.0
which provides a smooth transition from a pile at the crest of a Kulhawy (1991)
slope to a pile in horizontal ground. Based on this idealisation Tomlinson (L /D = 10)
Tomlinson (L /D > 40)
the reduction factor can be calculated from Eq. (11) by replacing
0.8
depth (z) with the virtual depth (z + z1) where:
z1 ¼ ðb  D=2Þ tan h ð12Þ
α

Therefore Eq. (11) becomes: 0.6

   
Ki 1  cos h z b
l¼ ¼ cos h þ þ  0:5 tan h 6 1 ð13Þ
K io 6D D D 0.4
Taking into account the findings of the numerical and experi-
mental results mentioned in the previous section that the distance
between pile and slope has minor effect on the initial lateral pile 0.2
stiffness, the above idealisation is considered adequate for the
determination of the reduction factor.
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
4. Parametric application
cu (kPa)
The p–y curves obtained with the proposed new approach were
Fig. 15. Adhesion factor versus cu relationships for piles and drilled shafts.
introduced into the finite difference beam on non-linear springs
computer code LPILE [18] to study the effect of several parameters
on lateral pile response. Two 0.6 m diameter piles of 6 m and 12 m
length, situated at various distances from the crest of a 45° clay
slope were analysed. An undrained shear strength cu = 50 kPa and
1400
an elasticity modulus at 50% of the ultimate stress E50 = 10 MPa b/D = 0.5
were considered for the soil and a Young’s modulus of b/D = 1 L = 12m
1200 b/D = 2
Ep = 2.9  107 kPa for the pile (reinforced concrete). Additionally,
b/D = 4
in order to study the effect of pile flexural stiffness, two extreme b/D = 5
values of Ep equal to 2.9  106 kPa (0.1Ep) and 2.9  108 kPa 1000 b/D = 6
(10Ep) were examined. b/D = ∞
Following the methodology of Georgiadis and Georgiadis [19],
Ho (kN)

800
the adhesion factor a can be conservatively estimated from the un-
drained shear strength using the tri-linear lower bound of the most L = 6m
600
commonly used cu–a relationships [28–32] shown in Fig. 15. For
cu = 50 kPa the adhesion factor calculated in this way is a = 0.73.
According to Eqs. (4)–(6), the bearing capacity parameters for this 400
adhesion factor are Npu = 11.41, Npo = 3.1 and k = 0.44. The initial
stiffness of the p–y curve for horizontal ground is computed from 200
Eq. (7), equal to Ki = 19.85 MPa.
The effect of the normalised pile to slope distance b/D on lateral
0
pile response is illustrated in Figs. 16 and 17 which present the lat- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
eral load versus pile head displacement and versus maximum yo (mm)
bending moment, respectively. As seen in Fig. 16, the pile head dis-
placement reduces non-linearly with the increase of the pile to Fig. 16. Effect of b/D on pile head displacement (h = 45°).
60 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61

1200 1.00
b/D = 0.5
b/D = 1 L = 12m
b/D = 2
yo /D = 0.1
1000 0.95
b/D = 4
b/D = 5
b/D = 6 0.90
800 b/D = ∞
Ho (kN)

rH
0.85
600
L = 6m
0.80 yo /D = 1
400

0.75
L = 12m
200 L = 6m
0.70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
b/D

maxM (kN.m) Fig. 19. Effect of pile length on the rH–b/D relationship.

Fig. 17. Effect of b/D on maximum bending moment (h = 45°).

The influence of pile flexural stiffness on the pile to slope dis-
tance effect on pile head displacement is shown in Fig. 18, where
a load reduction factor rH is plotted against the normalised dis-
1.00
tance b/D, at a pile head displacement yo = 0.5D. The factor rH is de-
fined as the ratio of the load applied to a pile near sloping ground
0.95 to the load required to be applied to the same pile in level ground
in order to produce the same pile head displacement. It can be seen
0.90 that the pile flexural stiffness has only small effect on the rH–b/D
relationship and that the pile response is not affected by the slope
when the distance is greater than 6 pile diameters. A tenfold in-
rH

0.85 crease in pile stiffness results in very small increase of the effect
of pile to slope distance on rH. Fig. 19 shows the effect of pile length
0.80 and pile head displacement on the reduction factor rH. As expected,
the effect of the distance between the pile and the slope on pile
EI / 10 head displacement is greater for short piles when they are close
0.75
EI to the crest. This effect disappears at a distance of about 6 pile
EI * 10 diameters for both pile lengths.
0.70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
b/D 5. Conclusions

Fig. 18. Effect of flexural stiffness on the rH–b/D relationship (yo/D = 0.5 and The undrained lateral behaviour of piles placed close to slopes
L = 12 m).
was investigated using three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Both the slope inclination and the distance between the pile and
slope distance and is practically unaffected by the slope beyond a the crest of the slope were considered. It was found that below a
normalised distance b/D of 5–6. Considering the L = 12 m pile at critical depth which increases with the increase of the pile to slope
b/D = 5 and an indicative lateral load Ho = 1000 kN, the pile head distance, the presence of the slope affects the distributed ultimate
displacement is only 3% greater than the displacement of the same lateral pile load pu. Above this depth the ultimate load is the same
pile in horizontal ground. Similar are the comparisons for other as for piles in horizontal ground. Below this depth the ultimate
values of Ho. As seen in Fig. 17 the differences between maximum load is lower than that for horizontal ground surface and is affected
bending moments are even smaller. The same lateral load of by both the slope angle and the distance between the pile and the
1000 kN applied to the b/D = 5 pile results in a maximum bending crest. The effect of the slope diminishes at large depths and the
moment of only 0.5% greater than that of the same pile in level ultimate load tends towards the limiting value which corresponds
ground. Similar behaviour is observed in Figs. 16 and 17 for the to the two-dimensional flow-around mechanism. This behaviour
L = 6 m pile. It is also seen in Figs. 16 and 17 that pile response demonstrates clearly that the application of a single reduction fac-
at low load levels is significantly less affected by the slope than tor (p-multiplier) on the p axis of the p–y curves for horizontal
at high load levels. For example, the increase in pile displacement ground over the entire pile length would not approximate correctly
for a L = 12 m pile at the crest of a 45° slope, compared to that of the undrained lateral behaviour of piles near clay slopes.
the same pile in horizontal ground, is 29% for Ho = 100 kN and The results of the finite element analyses were used to develop
133% for Ho = 1000 kN. This behaviour was also observed in some p–y curves for piles near clay slopes. For this purpose, equations
full scale tests performed on piles near clay/silt slopes by Nimit- were derived for the distributed ultimate lateral pile load and the
yongskul and Ashford [17]. As mentioned in the introduction, initial stiffness of the p–y curves. The new p–y curves were intro-
according to these tests, the effect of the slope on the load–dis- duced into a beam on non-linear springs computer code and a
placement relationship diminishes at a distance between 4D and parametric study was conducted. The results of this study with
8D, while the distance between pile and slope crest has minor ef- the proposed p–y curves show that the effect of a 45° slope on
fect on the initial lateral pile stiffness. the lateral response of piles with L/D = 10–20, diminishes at a pile
 K. Georgiadis, M. Georgiadis / Computers and Geotechnics 40 (2012) 53–61 61

distance from the slope of about 6 pile diameters, which is essen- [14] El Sawwaf M. Lateral resistance of single pile located near geosynthetic
reinforced slope. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2006;132(10):1336–45.
tially independent of pile flexural stiffness. They also show that the
[15] Mirzoyan AD, Rollins KM. Full scale tests to evaluate lateral pile resistance at
effect of the pile to slope distance on the initial stiffness of the pile the edge of a slope. In: Proceedings 32nd annual conference on deep
load–displacement relationship is rather limited pointing out one foundations, DFI, Colorado Springs; 2007 [article no. 1539].
more of the shortcomings of the p-multiplier approach in addition [16] Poulos HG. Behaviour of laterally loaded piles near a cut or slope. Australian
Geomech J 1976;6(1):6–12.
to the main problem of uniform pu reduction. [17] Nimityongskul N, Ashford S. Effect of soil slope on lateral capacity of piles in
cohesive soils. In: Proceedings 9th US national and 10th canadian conference on
References earthquake engineering, Toronto; 2010 [paper no. 366].
[18] Reese LC, Wang ST, Isenhower WM, Arrellaga JA. LPILE plus – version 5. A
program for the analysis of piles and drilled shafts under lateral loads,
[1] Matlock H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In: ENSOFT; 2004.
Proceedings of the 2nd offshore technology conference. Houston; 1970. p.
[19] Georgiadis K, Georgiadis M. Undrained lateral pile response in sloping ground.
577–94 [OTC 1204]. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2010;136(11):1489–500.
[2] Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD. Analyses of laterally loaded piles in sand. In: [20] Georgiadis M, Anagnostopoulos C, Saflekou S. Interaction of laterally loaded
Proceedings of the 6th offshore technology conference. Houston; 1974. p. 473– piles. In: Proceedings Fondations Profondes. Ponts et Chaussees, Paris; 1991. p.
85 [OTC 2080]. 177–84.
[3] Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD. Field testing and analysis of laterally loaded piles
[21] Rajashree SS, Sitharam TG. Nonlinear finite element modeling of batter piles
in stiff clay. In: Proceedings of the 7th offshore technology conference. under lateral load. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2001;127(7):604–12.
Houston; 1975. p. 671–90 [OTC 2312]. [22] Kim BT, Kim NK, Lee WJ, Kim YS. Experimental load-transfer curves of laterally
[4] Reese LC, Welch RC. Lateral loading of deep foundations in stiff clay. J Geotech loaded piles in Nak-Dong river sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
Eng Div, ASCE 1975;101(7):633–49. 2004;130(4):416–25.
[5] Georgiadis M, Butterfield R. Laterally loaded pile behaviour. J Geotech Eng Div,
[23] Liang R, Yang K, Nusairat J. p–y criteria for rock mass. J Geotech Geoenviron
ASCE 1982;108(1):155–65. Eng, ASCE 2009;135(1):26–36.
[6] Georgiadis M. Development of p–y curves for layered soils. In: Proceedings [24] Murff JD, Hamilton JM. P-Ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded
geotechnical practice in offshore engineering, ASCE specialty conference. piles. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1993;119(1):91–107.
Austin; 1983. p. 536–45. [25] Randolph MF, Houlsby GT. The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded
[7] O’Neil MW, Gazioglu SM (University of Houston, Texas). An evaluation of p–y
laterally in cohesive soil. Geotechnique 1984;34(4):613–23.
relationships in clays. Report. American Petroleum Institute; 1984. PRAC 82- [26] Martin CM, Randolph MF. Upper-bound analysis of lateral pile capacity in
41-2.
cohesive soil. Geotechnique 2006;56(2):141–5.
[8] Gabr MA, Lunne T, Powell JJ. p–y analysis of laterally loaded piles in clay using [27] Brinkgreve RBJ, Swolfs WM. Plaxis 3D foundation version 2 user’s manual.
DMT. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1994;120(5):816–37. Plaxis BV, Netherlands; 2007.
[9] Fan CC, Long JH. Assessment of existing methods for predicting soil response of [28] American petroleum institute. Recommended practice for planning, designing
laterally loaded piles in sand. Comput Geotech 2005;32(4):274–89. and constructing fixed offshore platforms. API RP-2A. 15th ed. Washington DC;
[10] Bouafia A, Bouguerra A. Modelisation en centrifugeuse du comportement d’un
1984.
pieu flexible charge horizontalement a proximite d’un talus. Can Geotech J [29] DIN 4014. Bored cast-in-place piles: formation, design and bearing capacity.
1995;32(2):324–35. Deutsche Norm. Berlin; 1990.
[11] Mezazigh S, Levacher D. Laterally loaded piles in sand: slope effect on p–y [30] SAA piling code. Rules for the design and installation of piling. AS 2159-1978,
reaction curves. Can Geotech J 1998;35(3):433–41. standards association of Australia, Sydney; 1978.
[12] Chen CY, Martin GR. Effect of embankment slope on lateral response of piles.
[31] Kulhawy FH. Drilled shaft foundations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation
In: Proceedings 2nd international FLAC conference. Lyon, France; 2001. p. 47– engineering handbook. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
54.
[32] Tomlinson MJ. Pile design and construction practice. 4th ed. London: E&FN
[13] Chae KS, Ugai K, Wakai A. Lateral resistance of short single piles and pile SPON; 1994.
groups located near slopes. Int J Geomech, ASCE 2004;4(2):93–103.

View publication stats