Case History Evaluation of Laterally Loaded Piles

J. B. Anderson1; F. C. Townsend2; and B. Grajales3

Abstract: This paper examines seven case histories of load tests on piles or drilled shafts under lateral load. Since the current design
software to estimate lateral load resistance of deep foundations requires p-y curves. The first approach used was correlative whereby soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parameters determined from in situ tests !standard penetration test "SPT# and cone penetration test "CPT#$ were used as input values for
standard p-y curves. In the second approach p-y curves were calculated directly from the stress deformation data measured in dilatometer
"DMT# and cone pressuremeter tests. The correlative evaluation revealed that, on the average, predictions based upon the SPT were
conservative for all loading levels, and using parameters from the CPT best predicted field behavior. Typically, predictions were conser-
vative, except at the maximum load. Since traditionally SPT and CPT correlation-based p-y curves are for ‘‘sands’’ or ‘‘clays,’’ this study
suggests that silts, silty sands, and clayey sands should use cohesive p-y curves. For the directly calculated curves, DMT derived p-y
curves predict well at low lateral loads, but at higher load levels the predictions become unconservative. p-y curves derived from
pressuremeter tests predicted well for both ‘‘sands’’ and ‘‘clays’’ where pore pressures are not anticipated.
DOI: 10.1061/"ASCE#1090-0241"2003#129:3"187#
CE Database keywords: Piles; Drilled shafts; Lateral loads; Load tests; Cone penetration; Case reports.

Introduction element method. In addition, FLPier allows for the nonlinear

structural analysis of concrete piles under mixed loading condi-
In present practice, laterally loaded piles are analyzed using beam tions. All programs require the input of pile and soil parameters at
theory to represent the pile, and uncoupled, nonlinear load trans- different depths, which must be determined by laboratory testing,
fer functions called ‘‘p-y curves’’ represent the soil. Historically, in situ testing, or empirical correlation. The experience of the
these curves were derived from full-scale lateral load tests, pri- engineer in determining these properties often determines the ac-
marily in Texas "McClelland and Focht 1958#. The method mod- curacy of analysis; or, more simply stated, ‘‘garbage in
els the soil as a set of nonlinear springs that are defined by a load !garbage out.’’ Thus, there exists a need for comparison of full-
transfer or p-y curve. The p-y curve represents the soil resistance scale lateral load tests versus computer predictions to evaluate the
at a particular depth and is defined in terms of soil resistance per parameters used to develop these p-y curves.
unit length versus deflection. The solution utilizes beam theory This paper compares predictions derived from standard pen-
with an axial load in addition to the horizontal soil springs. This etration test "SPT# and cone penetration test "CPT# correlations
solution utilizes Hentenyi’s beam-column theory that accounts for for the common soil input parameters "%, c, &, and ' 50), or spe-
the axial load "Hentenyi 1974, as referenced in Coduto 1994#. cific p-y curves derived directly from dilatometer "DMT# and
Due to the variables involved, the problem cannot be solved by pressuremeter test "PMT# measurements, with seven case histo-
static equilibrium and thus a fourth order differential equation for ries of laterally loaded single piles.
elastic deflection of a beam is generated.
Computer programs have been developed to aid the engineer
in lateral load analysis. Com624P "Reese and Wang 1993# and Literature Review
LPILE "Ensoft 1999# use the finite difference approach to model
structurally a single pile or shaft. A newer program, FloridaPier Each soil and pile will have its own unique set of p-y curves; thus
"FLPier# Florida Department of Transportation "FDOT, 1996#, it is not economically feasible to conduct full-scale tests on every
models an entire bridge pier system including the bridge struc- pile to determine the distinct p-y curves. Because of this, general
ture, the pile cap, and a single pile or pile group using the finite p-y curves have been constructed that can model both cohesive
and cohesionless soils. For cohesionless soils "sands#, the sub-
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of North Caro- grade modulus k, internal friction angle %, and soil’s unit weight
lina, Charlotte, 9701 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223-001. & are needed. For cohesive soils "clays#, the undrained shear
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Florida, Box 116580, strength s u , the unit weight, and the strain at 50% "in some mod-
Gainesville, FL 32611-6580. els also at 100%# of the failure load of an unconfined compression
3
Staff Engineer, URS, One North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 700, test, ' 50 (' 100), are needed. FLPier also allows user defined p-y
Tampa, FL 33609. curves if known.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2003. Separate discussions Table 1 summarizes the necessary input parameters used for
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
the ‘‘default’’ p-y models used in FLPier. Soil information typi-
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- cally is given in the form of SPT and sometimes CPT boring logs.
sible publication on September 19, 2000; approved on May 13, 2002. Unfortunately, the p-y models in Table 1 require soil parameters
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental such as friction angle, undrained shear strength, etc., that are not
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 3, March 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/ readily apparent from boring logs. Thus, an educated engineering
2003/3-187–196/$18.00. judgment must be made as to what SPT blow count corresponds

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003 / 187

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

 Table 1. Summary of Input Parameters
Soil type Soil stiffness Soil location Parameters Model $reference%
Sand Loose–dense Above and below groundwater table !, k, # O’Neill and Murchison $1983%
!, k, # Reese et al. $1974%
Clay Soft/medium stiff Above groundwater table s u , " 50 , " 100 O’Neill and Gazioglu $1984%
Below groundwater table s u , " 50 , # Matlock $1970%
Stiff Above groundwater table s u , " 50 , # Welch and Reese $1972%;
Reese and Welch $1975%
Below groundwater table s u , " 50 , #, k Reese et al. $1975%
Notes: !#friction angle; k#horizontal subgrade modulus; ##unit weight; S u #undrained shear strength; " 50#strain at 50% maximum deviator stress,
unconsolidated undrained $UU% test; " 100#strain at 100% maximum deviator stress, UU test.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to a friction angle of, say, 30°. Consequently, an engineer must which to develop a load-deformation curve. Robertson et al.
use various correlations to obtain these parameters, usually !, k $1985% suggested a method that used the results of a pushed-in
or C, " 50 , " 100, from in situ tests such as the SPT and CPT. pressuremeter to evaluate p-y curves of a driven displacement
# is typically assumed to be between 1.41!10"8 and pile. They multiplied the pressure component of the PMT curve
1.89!10"8 kN/mm3 . The remaining parameters are not so obvi- by an ) factor to obtain the correct p-y curve. The critical depth
ous. Although many correlations are available from the literature, was assumed to be four pile diameters.
those below were used for this study $Anderson et al. 1999% Robertson et al. $1985% reduced ) near the surface, assuming
that the response was affected by the reduced vertical stress. To
obtain the p-y curve, the pressuremeter curve was translated to
Standard and Cone Penetration Test Correlations for
the lift-off pressure that is equivalent to the initial lateral stress
p - y Input Parameters
around the pile. The stress was multiplied by the pile width and
The equation from Peck et al. $1974% using SPT N values was the strain component (*R/R) was multiplied by the pile half-
used to estimate !; i.e., !#53.881"27.6034!e "0.0147!N . The width. For small strain conditions (*R/R) was equal to
recommendation by Terzaghi $1955% was used to determine the (*V/2V).
modulus of subgrade reaction, k. The correlation by Robertson Since the installation of the pushed-in pressuremeter results in
and Campanella $1983% was used to estimate the friction angle ! an initial pressure on the probe, an unload/reload sequence is
values from the CPT tip resistances q c . Correlations have been often used. For this method, the portion of the corrected pres-
attempted for estimating s u from SPT values, even though it is suremeter curve from the beginning of reload through the maxi-
known that these correlations are not reliable. The most common mum volume was used to determine the p-y curves.
of these is from Terzaghi and Peck $1968%, which was developed
primarily using unconfined compression tests. From the results of
this correlation, s u can be approximated by s u / P a #0.06N where Case Histories
P a is the atmospheric pressure. The relationship for estimating
undrained shear strength from the cone tip resistance in clay is The premise of this paper is that a design engineer will only have
given by data from one type of in situ test to use in design. However, if an
engineer is forced to use one type of analysis, which test will give
q c "& v o
s u# the best, most accurate, prediction of lateral load behavior? Con-
N kk sequently, data from the four in situ tests were applied to five
where q c #cone tip resistance; & v o #total overburden stress; and different test sites. For each test case, a separate, independent
N kk #15, the cone bearing factor 'Electrical Power Research In- analysis was performed for each type of in situ data, resulting in
stitute $EPRI% 1990(. a total of seven separate analyses. The seven test cases are
Roosevelt Bridge, Stuart, Fla., Spring Villa Geotechnical Test
Site, Auburn, Ala., East Pascagoula River Bridge Test Program,
In Situ Test Derived p - y Curves (Dilatometer Pascagoula, Miss., Puerto Nuevo, San Juan, P.R. $two tests%, and
and Pressuremeter Tests) Ratt Island, Wilmington, N.C. $two tests%.
Robertson et al. $1989% suggested a method that adapts the early The soil parameters were obtained depending on the given soil
methods for estimating p-y curves using empirical strength pa- classification by each in situ test. The soil data, pile/drilled shaft
rameter correlations. The dilatometer test only produces 1 mm of geometry, and boundary conditions were input in FLPier. The top
lateral deformation. This means that there are no increments of lateral deflections calculated for each type of test were compared
pressure with which to develop a load-deformation curve. There- to each other and to measured top lateral deflections in order to
fore, the properties determined from the dilatometer indices are determine the best predictor of lateral load behavior. Table 2 $soil
used in conjunction with a cubic function to develop p-y curves. properties% and Table 3 $pile-shaft properties% present the soil and
These curves are constructed using limiting strength values $! pile properties, respectively. A brief site description follows.
and s u ) calculated using DMT data reduction procedures sug-
gested by Schmertmann $1982% and Marchetti $1980%, respec-
Roosevelt Bridge, Stuart, Florida
tively.
Unlike the dilatometer test, which produces 1 mm of lateral A submerged 4!4 free-head pile group of 760 mm prestressed
deformation, the pressuremeter test produces a large lateral defor- concrete piles was laterally loaded as part of a test program for
mation. Because of this, there are increments of pressure with the construction of a new bridge over the St. Lucie River by the

188 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

 Table 2. Summary of Soil Properties: Case Histories: !a" Roosevelt; !b" Auburna; !c" Pascagoula; !d" Puerto Nuevob; and !e" Wilmington.
!a" Soil type Elevation !m" SPT N 60 !blowcount" CPT q c !kPa" DMT E d !kPa" DMT # !deg"
Loose sand !2.0 to !6.0 7
!2.0 to !3.5 1,914 14,570 43
Silty sand !3.5 to !6.0 5,364 13,190 41
Dense sand !6.0 to !11.0 56
!6.0 to !7.5 31,920 55,520 46
!7.5 to !8.5 11,660
Medium sand !11.0 to !14.0 15

Dense sand !14.0 to !30.0 59

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

!b" Soil type Elevation !m" SPT N 60 !blowcount" CPT q c !kPa" CPT s u !kPa" DMT E d !kPa" DMT s u !deg"
Clay 0 to !2.0 26 16470 73
Clay 0 to !4.0 2494 163.8
Clay !2 to !6.5 13 11910 63
Clay !6.5 to !9.5 19 14650 51
Silty clay !4.0 to !8.0 4044 262.2
Clay !9.5 to !15.0 14
Clay-silt !8.0 to !12.0 5388 346.4
Clay-silt !12.0 to !15.0 4650 293.6

!c" SPT N 60
Soil type Elevation !m" !blowcount" CPT q c !kPa" CPT s u !kPa" CPT # !deg" DMT E d !kPa" DMT # !deg" DMT s u !kPa"
Clay !5.5 to !11.0 2 1,001.4 59.4
Sand !7.15 17,600 42
Clay !10.45 45
Clay !11.0 to !15.0 6 5,163.6 330.7 73,020 39
Clay !15.0 to !19.0 11 1,673.6 95.7 59
Gravel !19.0 to !22.0 78,136.5 45
Sand !22.0 to !23.0 19,455.6 41
Silty sand !23.0 to !25.0 7,663.6 33 70,320 40
Clay !24.3 63
Very dense sand !19.0 to !25.0 82 38,500 40
Very dense sand !25.8 82 38,500 40
Clay !28.3 82
Clay !30.4 119
Medium dense sand !25.0 to !32.5 11 2,928.4 30
Very dense sand !32.5 to !41.0 86

!d" Soil type Elevation !m" SPT N 60 !blowcount" DMT s u !kPa"

Soft clay 0.7 to !9.6 4
Soft clay !4.0
Soft clay !6.5 19
Stiff clay !9.6 to !12.8 10 40
Stiff clay !9.5
Stiff clay !10.7 46
Very stiff clay !12.8 to !18.3 23 91
Very stiff clay !15.0
Very stiff clay !18.3 to !21.0 21 170

!e" Soil type Elevation !m" SPT N 60 !blowcount" CPT q c !kPa" CPT # !kPa" CPT s u !deg" DMT E d !kPa" DMT s u !kPa" DMT # !deg"
Clay !1.8 to !2.8 2
Clay !2.8 to !7.3 10 400 23 2,880 12
Sand !7.3 to !8.8 19 3,600 30 330 11
Sand !8.8 to !15.5 28 15,200 41 27,700 35
Sand !15.5 to !37.5 48 44 47,000 35
a
Water table at 4.0 m.
b
Water table at 0.5 m.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003 / 189

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

 Table 3. Summary of Pile Properties: Case Histories
Case history Pile length !m" Embedment depth !m" Width !mm" Modulus E !GPa"
Roosevelt Bridge Bridge 16.4 14.5 760 30.4
Spring Villa Auburn, Ala. 12 11.7 915 27.2
Pascagoula, Miss. 31.5 26 2100 27.2
Puerto Nuevo, P.R. preexcavation 22.7 20.4 1219 200
Puerto Nuevo, P.R. postexcavation 22.7 14.7 1219 200
Wilmington, N.C. pipe pile 34 26.4 915 30.4
Wilmington, N.C. prestressed concrete pile 34 27.6 760 30.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Florida Department of Transportation. Test Pile 9 was one of the walls, separated by approximately 7.6 m, as part of a test program
piles from the group but singly loaded in the opposite direction for a cantilever wall system by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
from which the group was deflected !Ruesta and Townsend 1997". neers, Jacksonville District. One pile was driven to elevation
!13.1 m !short pile", and the other to elevation !19.7 m !long
pile". The ‘‘preexcavation’’ test was performed with the ground
Spring Villa Geotechnical Test Site, Auburn, Alabama
surface at elevation "0.7 m; subsequently a cofferdam was in-
Six 915 mm !36 in. diameter" drilled shafts were laterally loaded stalled and the soil excavated to elevation !5 m !‘‘postexcava-
as part of a static and Statnamic test program for an Alabama tion’’" to simulate planned dredging in front of the wall. These
DOT and FHWA project at Auburn University. Shaft 2 in the analyses are for the ‘‘long pile’’ in the pre- and postexcavation
southwest corner of the site was analyzed for this study !Brown conditions using the SPT, DMT, and PMT as no CPT was per-
and Vinson 1997; Anderson and Townsend 1999". formed.

East Pascagoula River Bridge, Pascagoula, Mississippi Wilmington, North Carolina

The test program consisted of a submerged group of two 2,100 The test program was funded by the North Carolina DOT and
mm !83 in. diameter" drilled shafts spaced at three diameters, National Cooperative Highway Research Program !NCHRP" for a
which reacted against a group of six prestressed concrete piles. new U.S. Route 17 bridge over the NE Cape Fear River. At Test
Both groups were embedded into a 2.4 m thick concrete cap and Area 2, a 915 mm !36 in." diameter concrete cylinder pile with a
subjected to static and Statnamic lateral loadings !Anderson and wall thickness of 152 mm and embedded length of 26.4 m was
Townsend 1999". For this analysis of the drilled shafts p-y mul- laterally loaded against a 762 mm !30 in." square prestressed con-
tipliers of 0.8 !leading" and 0.4 !trailing" were used !FDOT 1996; crete pile embedded 27.6 m.
Ruesta and Townsend 1997".

Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico Results and Discussion

The test program consisted of pushing apart two 1,219 mm !48 in. Comparisons between measured and predicted results presented
diameter" open ended steel pipe piles, with 19 mm !0.75 in." thick in Figs. 1– 6 reveal mixed success. All four in situ test methods

Fig. 1. Comparison between measured and predicted lateral deflections for Roosevelt Bridge

190 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and predicted lateral deflections for Auburn test site

!SPT, CPT, DMT, and PMT" predicted well for Roosevelt Bridge Measured deflection
!submerged sand" and Auburn !clays above the water table" !Figs. R value! "100%
Predicted deflection
3 and 4". Three of the four in situ methods predicted satisfactorily
at Pascagoula and Wilmington !both submerged clays", but only Table 4 summarizes the R values for the four in situ test methods.
the DMT was satisfactory at both sites. Only the SPT correlated A conservative R value ranges from 0 to 100%, while unconser-
predictions were acceptable at Puerto Nuevo !submerged clay". vative R values range from 100% to infinity.
No ‘‘Davisson’’ type capacity exists to evaluate ‘‘failure’’ for
piles under lateral load. Therefore, in order to evaluate the ‘‘good- Standard Penetration Test Predictions
ness’’ of predictions, the ‘‘measured load’’ versus ‘‘predicted’’ for
deformations at 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the applied lateral test Given the premise that most sites will always have SPT data,
load was compared using an R value defined as the ratio of the Table 4 reveals that the average SPT predictions were conserva-
two methods evaluated tive at low load levels (R values #77%); with ‘‘better’’ matches

Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and predicted lateral deflections for Pascagoula, Miss.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003 / 191

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Comparison between measured and predicted lateral deflections for Puerto Nuevo, P.R. "a# Preexcavation condition; "b# postexcavation
condition

(R values !95%) at higher loads "except for Wilmington#. Ac- Dilatometer Test Predictions
cordingly, conservative preliminary analyses for lateral loads via
p-y curves can be made using $ "Peck et al. 1974#, and Terza- The average DMT predictions were unconservative (R values
ghi’s k "1955#. Of these two parameters, the k value is the more ranging from 116 to 156%# for lateral loads greater than 50% of
critical. Silts, silty sands, and clayey sands should use cohesive the maximum. However, the data are unfavorably influenced by
p-y curves; with s u / P a !0.06N as an initial estimate. the poor predictions in the saturated clays at Puerto Nuevo. By
excluding these two predictions, the average R values decrease by
Cone Penetration Test Predictions approximately 20% and are deemed acceptable.
For low load levels "25% of ultimate# DMT derived p-y
On the average the CPT best predicted field behavior, and the R curves predict field behavior well, but at higher load levels the
values were slightly better that those for the SPT. The average predictions become unconservative "too stiff#. These observations
predictions were conservative (R values between 78 and 90%#, are as expected, in that the DMT’s flat shape introduces less soil
except at the maximum load (R value !110%). disturbance affecting the horizontal stress; the membrane only

192 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and predicted lateral deflections for Wilmington, N.C. !a" 762 mm prestressed concrete pile; !b" 915 mm
pipe pile

Table 4. Summary of R Values for Lateral Load Case Histories

Loading Level
Test Values 25% 50% 75% 100%
SPT R 77.15% 78.35% 82.56% 95.25%
Standard deviation 43.13% 21.01% 22.10% 39.37%
CPT R 78.23% 81.11% 90.48% 109.81%
Standard deviation 48.73% 19.21% 20.29% 19.38%
DMT R 92.67% 120.13% 139.76% 160.49%
Standard deviation 41.54% 44.48% 51.48% 52.46%
PMT R 108.05% 151.28% 177.79% 230.54%
Standard deviation 35.30% 73.50% 96.63% 178.31%

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003 / 193

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. R values for case histories: !a" standard penetration test; !b"cone penetration test; !c" dilatometer test; !d" pressuremeter test

deforms 1 mm and thus does not model softening at large defor- Conclusions
mations.
1. The average SPT correlation based predictions were conser-
Pressuremeter Test Predictions vative for all loading levels.
2. On the average the CPT best predicted field behavior. The
The average PMT predictions were the poorest, unconservative average predictions were conservative (R values between 78
!too stiff" predictions. Only two locations, submerged sands at and 90%", except at the maximum load (R value $110%).
Roosevelt and dry clays at Auburn, were successfully predicted 3. On the average, DMT derived p-y curves predict well at low
by the PMT. This provides credence to the # values that were lateral loads. Intuitively, this is expected as the DMT mem-
used !Robertson et al. 1985". However, the remaining poor pre- brane only deforms 1 mm into the soil.
dictions were in saturated clays, which suggests that the PMTs 4. PMT derived p-y curves predict well for both ‘‘sands’’ and
were affected by pore pressures. Accordingly, it is recommended ‘‘clays’’ where pore pressures are not anticipated. For clays
that PMTs under these conditions be performed slowly !Penu- below the water table, rate effects may cause unconservative
madu and Chameau 1997". !too stiff" predictions.

194 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. „Continued"

Acknowledgments of Engineers, Jacksonville, Fla., District !Puerto Nuevo, P.R.",

and Scott Hidden was the project engineer for North Carolina
This research was supported by the Florida Department of Trans- DOT, Raleigh, N.C. !Wilmington, N.C.".
portation !99700-7691-0101", with Mr. Peter Lai as Technical Co-
ordinator and a major contributor to the research effort. Professor
Dan Brown, Auburn University, has been involved with all the References
load tests and provided much of the data. Dr. P. J. Bullock and Dr.
Dave Crapps, Schmertmann & Crapps Inc., Gainesville, Fla., per- Anderson, J. B., Grajales, B., Townsend, F. C., and Brown, D. !1999".
formed the in situ tests at Pascagoula, Miss., and testing at Puerto ‘‘Validation of p-y curves from pressuremeter and dilatometer tests at
Nuevo, respectively. The following agencies graciously shared Auburn, Alabama.’’ Behavioral characteristics of residual soils, ASCE
the load test data, which provided the basis for this paper: FDOT Geotechnical Special Publication No. 92, B. Edelen, ed., New York,
!Roosevelt Bridge", Mississippi DOT !Pascagoula, Miss.", Ala- 77– 87.
bama DOT and Auburn University !Spring Villa, Ala."; Pauline Anderson, J. B., and Townsend, F. C. !1999". ‘‘Validation of p-y curves
Smith was the geotechnical project engineer for U.S. Army Corps from pressuremeter tests at Pascagoula Mississippi.’’ Proc., XI Pan-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003 / 195

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.

 American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. !1974". ‘‘Analysis of laterally
Foz do Iguassu, Brazil, August, 3 1643–1649. loaded piles in sand.’’ Proc., 5th Annual Offshore Technology Conf.,
Brown, D. A., and Vinson, J. !1997". ‘‘Comparison of strength and stiff- Paper No. OTC 2080, 473– 485.
ness parameters for a Piedmont residual soil.’’ Geotechnical Site Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. !1975". ‘‘Field testing and
Characterization—ISC’98, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay.’’ Proc., 7th Offshore
1229–1234. Technology Conf., Paper No. OTC 2312, 672– 690.
Coduto, D. !1994". Foundation design: Principles and practices, Reese, L. C., and Wang, S. !1993". ‘‘Com624P—Laterally loaded pile
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. analysis program for the microcomputer, version 2.0.’’ U.S. DOT Pub-
Electrical Power Research Institute !EPRI". !1990". Manual on estimating lication No. FHWA-SA-91-048, Washington, D.C.
soil properties for foundation design, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. Reese, L. C., and Welch, R. C. !1975". ‘‘Lateral loading of deep founda-
Ensoft, Inc. !1999". LPILE Plus 3 for Windows—A program for the tions in stiff clay.’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 101!7",
analysis of piles and drilled shafts under lateral loads, 633– 694.
#http://www.ensoft.com$. Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. !1983". ‘‘Interpretation of cone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Florida Department of Transportation. !1996". FloridaPier users manual,

penetration tests: Parts 1 and 2.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 20, 718 –745.
#http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/proglib.htm$.
Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., Brown, P. T., Grof, I., and Hughes,
Hentenyi, M. !1974". Beams on elastic foundation, Architectural Press,
J. M. !1985". ‘‘Design of axially and laterally loaded piles using in
Ann Arbor, Mich.
situ tests: A case history.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 22!4", 518 –527.
Marchetti, S. !1980". ‘‘In situ tests by flat dilatometer.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.
Robertson, P. K., Davis, M. P., and Campanella, R. G. !1989". ‘‘Design of
Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 106!GT3", 299–321.
laterally loaded driven piles using the flat dilatometer.’’ Geotech. Test.
Matlock, H. !1970". ‘‘Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
soft clay.’’ Proc., 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Vol. 1, J., 12!1", 30–38.
Paper No. OTC 1204, 577–594. Ruesta, P. F., and Townsend, F. C. !1997". ‘‘Evaluation of laterally loaded
McClelland, B., and Focht, J. A., Jr., !1958". ‘‘Soil modulus for laterally pile group at Roosevelt Bridge.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
loaded piles.’’ Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 123, 1049–1063. 123!12", 1153–1161.
O’Neill, M. W., and Gazioglu, S. M. !1984". ‘‘Evaluation of p-y relation- Schmertmann, J. H. !1982". ‘‘A method for determining the friction angle
ships in cohesive soils.’’ Proc., Analysis and Design of Pile Founda- in sands from the Marchetti dilatometer tests.’’ Proc., 2nd European
tions, ASCE Technical Council on Codes and Standards, ASCE Na- Symposium on Penetration Testing, 2, 853– 861.
tional Convention, J. Meyers, ed., New York, 192–213. Terzaghi, K. !1955". ‘‘Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.’’
O’Neill, M. W., and Murchison, J. M. !1983". ‘‘An evaluation of p-y Geotechnique, 5!4", 297–326.
relationships in sands.’’ Research Rep. No. GT-DF02-83, Dept. of Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. !1968". Soil mechanics in engineering
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Houston, Houston. practice, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. !1974". Foundation Welch, R. C., and Reese, L. C. !1972". ‘‘Lateral load behavior of drilled
engineering, Wiley, New York. shafts.’’ Research Rep. No. 3-5-65-99, conducted for Texas Highway
Penumadu, D., and Chameau, J-L. !1997". ‘‘Strain rate effects in model Department and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-
pressuremeter testing.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123!11", 1051– way Administration, Bureau of Public Roads, Center for Highway
1059. Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.

196 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003.129:187-196.