Sådhanå (2024)49:186  Indian Academy of Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-024-02531-x
Sadhana(0123456789().,-volV)FT3](012345
6789().,-volV)

Static and dynamic performance of single batter piles embedded

in slope
SHANKAR KUMAR1, DANISH SHAFI NAJAR1, RAJIB SARKAR1,* and
LOHITKUMAR NAINEGALI2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT(ISM) Dhanbad, Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, NITK Surathkal, Mangalore 575025, Karnataka, India
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

MS received 10 December 2023; revised 16 March 2024; accepted 22 March 2024

Abstract. The performance of pile foundations embedded in the sloping ground has received the least
attention. Further, considering piles with batter angles, the investigation is even more limited. In this study, 3D
non-linear finite element analyses were conducted to investigate the lateral load-carrying behaviour of vertical
and batter (with angles -5, ?5, -10 and ?10) pile foundations embedded in slope. Firstly, static analyses
were performed, and the behaviour of the batter piles was compared with the vertical piles, considering the piles
are embedded in a 30 slope of height 5.0 m with medium-stiff clay. It was observed that the capacity of piles
reduces when they are installed on sloping ground. Negative batter piles were found to be more effective than
the vertical piles in the slope. Next, the performances of the piles were investigated for dynamic lateral loading.
It was inferred that the negative batter piles provide better resistance under lateral loading than the vertical and
positive batter piles in sloping ground under dynamic loading as well.

Keywords. Batter pile; slope; FE investigation; dynamic performance.

1. Introduction Chae et al [4] analysed a single pile behaviour and a

group of piles embedded near a 30 slope. They employed
The foundation of a structure is a critical component as it (3D) elastoplastic finite element analyses (FEA) to assess
provides support and stability to the entire structural sys- the performance of the pile foundation. The investigation
tem. A foundation is designed to transfer the structural load revealed a reduction of the lateral capacity of piles when
(vertical and lateral) to the underlying soil or rock, which situated near slopes. Additionally, it was determined that
must be strong and stable enough to bear the load trans- the lateral resistance of piles diminishes when the pile is
ferred by the structure. Pile foundations are a common form positioned close to the crest of the slope. Sawant and
of deep foundation and are the oldest technique used for Shukla [5] accomplished a parametric investigation to
construction on weak or soft soil stratum [1]. Pile founda- assess the effect of ground slope and its consequences on
tions may be extensively applied in tower block buildings, the performance of piles. They performed 3D finite element
bridges, offshore structures, wind turbines, etc. Pile foun- analyses with the aim of formulating dimensionless equa-
dations must be designed for both vertical and lateral tions to evaluate the behaviour of a pile situated at the top
loading, which may arise due to wind, wave, traffic of a slope. Sawant and Shukla [6] also extended the
movement, water pressure, earthquakes and the lateral mathematical formulation to examine how the distance
movement of the soil [2]. The lateral load-carrying beha- from the edge affects the pile’s response. Moreover,
viour of pile foundations is well- established in the litera- Muthukkumaran et al [7] explored the impact of the slopes
ture considering level ground conditions [3]. However, this and the direction of loading on laterally loaded piles in
is not the case when the pile is embedded in sloping ground. sandy soils through a series of laboratory model tests. The
Laterally, the load-carrying behaviour of the pile founda- lateral load capacity decreases when piles are situated on
tion embedded in the slope is expected to be majorly dif- sloping ground compared to piles on horizontal ground,
ferent due to the difference in the soil reaction from the regardless of the loading direction. Deendayal et al [8]
sloping ground. However, this aspect is not thoroughly conducted a parametric investigation into the laterally
addressed in the literature. loaded carrying behaviour of the piles group situated on a
sloping ground surface and concluded that the maximum
bending moment in the back row was found to be greater
*For correspondence
186 Page 2 of 10 Sådhanå (2024)49:186

than in the middle and front rows of the pile group. Elahi conducted an analytical investigation on the batter pile and
et al [9] conducted research on the seismic behaviour of a subjected them to lateral load by using Reese and Mat-
cluster of piles situated on an inclined ground surface using lock’s [23] non-linear variation of subgrade modulus.
the pseudo-static approach. They presented a simple Several equations were developed for the performance of
methodology and compared the results with shaking batter piles under static loads, indicating that the dis-
table investigations. This study confirmed that for slopes placements are largely unaffected by the batter angles [24].
with angles between 15 and 35, for earthquakes with The investigation into the lateral pile capacity at varying
dominant frequencies in the range of 2-5 Hertz, and the batter angles (positive and negative batter angles) in sandy
shear wave velocity for the soils between 200 m/s and 600 soils employed earth pressure wedge theories [25]. Mey-
m/s, free field soil movements considering one-dimensional erhof and Ranjan [26] found that a configuration involving
ground response analysis will suffice. Yan et al [10] pre- a single vertical pile and a battered pile (either negative or
sented the seismic behaviour and dynamic deformation of a positive) forming the pile bents exhibited higher lateral
cluster of piles situated on a slope having an inclined weak resistance to lateral deflection and the comparison of the
intercalated layer. They examined the performance using similar arrangement with two vertical piles. Lu’s [27]
real earthquake time histories and synthetic waves charac- experiments involving laterally loaded piles established a
terised by varying peak ground accelerations (PGA). guideline for determining the design loads for the pile. The
A batter pile-supported structure can be built on level findings indicated that the soil reaction at the ground level
ground or a slope to resist the lateral load, as a batter pile is zero for a positively inclined batter pile and reaches its
foundation has a larger lateral load-carrying capacity. In maximum for a negatively inclined batter pile. This sug-
many instances, a combination of vertical and batter piles gests significant support from the upper soil layer in the
has performed quite well in resisting lateral loads acting on case of negatively inclined batter piles. Veeresh [28] con-
a structure, as there is increased lateral stiffness in the case ducted a model test on the battered pile under cyclic lateral
of the battered pile in comparison to the vertical pile. As a loads, noting that in the case of a vertical pile and positive
result, inclined piles are considered advantageous for battered pile, the soil’s strengths decrease, creating a gap
structures, especially in situations involving significant backside the pile. Conversely, for a negatively battered pile,
lateral loads, such as in ports, harbours, bridges, wharves, soil slippage occurs in the gaps, enhancing soil resistance.
landing piers, etc. These inclined piles are categorised into Rajashree and Sitharam [29] investigated batter pile beha-
positive batter piles (with upward deflection of slip sur- viour through non-linear finite element analysis under
faces) and negative batter piles (with downward deflection cyclic loading. Rajeswari and Sarkar [30] explored the
of slip surfaces) based on the behaviour of the slip surface behaviour of batter pile groups in liquefiable soil deposits
[11]. Prakash and Subramanyam [12], Ranjan et al [13], using three-dimensional numerical modelling. Das and
and other researchers illustrated that negatively inclined Maheswari [31] carried out an investigation on the seismic
batter piles exhibited superior performance in resisting response of hill buildings located in the centre of the slopes
lateral loads and possessed greater lateral resistance com- through two-dimensional finite element analyses. It was
pared to vertical piles. Conversely, positively inclined observed that the slope’s effect on the buildings’ seismic
batter piles demonstrated lower lateral resistance. However, behaviour increases with the increase in the peak ground
various codes, including AFPS [14] and Eurocode EC acceleration and slope angle. The study also inferred
8/Part 5 [15], advise against using batter piles in earth- greater amplification of ground motion near the crest of the
quake-prone areas. Also, certain researchers [16–18] have slope. Assimaki and Kausel [32] investigated the relative
emphasised the detrimental consequences of batter piles for contribution of topographic amplification and kinematic
earthquake loading. Besides this, certain case studies like soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the surface and embed-
the 1964 Alaska earthquake and the Loma Prieta earth- ded structures located along the crest of a single-faced
quake in 1989 have expressed the poor performances of slope. Considering the literature in the domain, the key
batter piles during earthquakes. However, in more or less points of the current investigation can be outlined as
recent studies, the usefulness of batter piles in earthquake- follows:
prone regions has been investigated.
• Non-linear three-dimensional finite element investiga-
Researchers have studied the characteristics and beha-
tion of the single pile to different batter angles in level
viour of batter piles in recent decades by applying labora-
ground and in slope
tory experiments and theoretical research. Tschebotarioff
• Comparative behaviour of piles in the level ground and
[19] conducted tests on the cohesionless soil model, and it
in the sloping grounds for static as well as dynamic
was found that the slip surface gets deflected upward in the
loading
cases of positive batter piles while the slip gets deflected
• The performance of batter piles in the sloping ground
downward in the cases of negative batter piles. Further,
is considered dynamic loading compared to the vertical
model tests were conducted by Murthy [20] and Prakash
pile.
and Subramanyam [21] on batter piles in sandy soils and
subjected to lateral loads. Alizadeh and Davisson [22]
Sådhanå (2024)49:186 Page 3 of 10 186

2. Numerical modelling of the soil-pile system three-dimensional finite element investigations. In sum-
mary, the following four systems are considered for
2.1 Soil-pile systems considered investigation:

In this study, the static and dynamic performance of a • System-I: vertical pile in level ground
single pile of square cross-section embedded in a slope is • System-II: batter pile in level ground
investigated considering the vertical and batter piles. For • System-III: vertical pile in slope
comparison purposes, analyses are performed for the case • System-IV: batter pile in slope
of level ground as well. Medium stiff clay is considered for
the whole investigation. Schematics of the soil-pile systems
are demonstrated in figure 1. Figure 1a presents the sche- 2.2 Details of numerical modelling of soil-pile
matic of the vertical piles in level ground condition. The
systems
length of the pile (L) is set at 10 meters, and the diameter of
the pile (D) is 0.5 meters. The pile is treated as a floating Three-dimensional non-linear finite element (FE) investi-
pile, and its tip is positioned 3.0 meters above the bedrock gations are carried out in this study, employing only half of
level (Lt). The lateral boundary of the soil domain is taken the actual models to decrease computational effort and take
to be 21.66 meters (Hb). Using the same outline, figure 1b advantage of symmetry. The dimension in the transverse
demonstrates the schematic of a pile with batter angle (b) in direction of the model was considered to be 6.0 m, con-
a flat ground scenario. Similarly, figure 1c displays the sidering the half model. The commercial software package
schematic of the vertical pile on a slope. The slope angle ABAQUS (6.14) [33] is adopted for this purpose. Piles are
(a) was considered to be 30 with the slope height (H) 5.0 presumed to be a linear elastic material, and for modelling
m, and the pile is considered to be embedded in the middle piles, eight-noded brick elements in which three transla-
of the slope. Further, the schematic of the same with the tional DOFs at every node with reduced integration
battered pile embedded in the slope is illustrated in fig- (C3D8R) are adopted. Considering the elastoplastic Mohr-
ure 1d. The domain size of the models was considered to be Coulomb constitutive model, the soil material is modelled
2.5 times the width of the slope. This was decided through with the eight-nodded brick element (C3D8). A penalty-
trial investigations with different domain sizes and con- type interface between the soil and the pile in contact was
sidering the computational efficiency of the models for used to model the interaction between the soil and the pile.

Figure 1. Schematics of soil-pile systems taken in the study: (a) System-I: Vertical piles within the ground level; (b) System-II: Batter
pile in the level ground; (c) System-III: Vertical pile in slope; (d) System-IV: Batter pile in slope.
186 Page 4 of 10 Sådhanå (2024)49:186

The non-linear behaviour of soil-pile contact simulated 2.3 Material properties

employing the contact pair. In this, the outer face of the pile
has been considered to be the master surface, while the soil The properties of the material of the soils and piles are
surface in contact with the pile is considered to be the slave. adopted following Bentley and El Naggar [35]. Table 1
With a friction coefficient of 0.7, the tangential movement presents the material properties of the soil, and those for the
between the pile and the surrounding soils is maintained. pile are presented in table 2.
The bottom boundaries of all the models are considered to
be fixed in all directions. Displacement against normal to
the symmetrical plane is locked, but all symmetrical faces 3. Validation study of numerical model
can move freely on the plane’s surface. A mesh conver-
gence study was carried out to finalise the mesh sizes of the For the validation of the present numerical modelling
models. The maximal element size is adopted to be less approach, one vertical pile subjugated to the laterally loa-
than one-fifth to one-eighth of the shortest wavelength (k) ded is considered and compared with results reported by
to ensure accuracy [34]. The maximum element size was Bentley and El Naggar [35]. The pile and soil interaction is
derived considering the frequency of loading 2 Hz. Further, simulated using a penalty-type interface, where a friction
a mesh convergence study was undertaken for the four coefficient of 0.7 is maintained in the tangent direction. The
systems to arrive at the most computationally efficient finite contact behaviour is described as hard contact, following
element models. The finer mesh size was considered near normal contract principles. The result of pile head dis-
the piles, and a global mesh size of 0.2 m was adopted. placement obtained in the present study for different lateral
Figure 2 presents the final FE meshes of the systems con- loads are then compared with the results reported by
sidered in the study. Bentley and El Naggar [35] and are shown in figure 3.
Further, the results reported by Trochanis et al [36] are also

Figure 2. Finite element mesh of the soil-pile systems took in the study: (a) System-I: vertical pile in the level ground; (b) System-II:
batter pile in the level ground; (c) System-III: vertical pile in slope; (d) System-IV: batter pile in slope.
Sådhanå (2024)49:186 Page 5 of 10 186

Table 1. Properties of material of the soil considered in the surface; if the slip surface deflects upward, they are termed
study. positive batter piles and negative batter piles if the slip
surface deflects downward [20]. In this investigation, pos-
Parameter Value itive batter piles of batter angle (b) ?5 and ?10 and the
Cohesion, c (kPa) 34 negative battered piles of batter angles -5 and -10 were
Friction angle, u () 16.5 considered for investigation. The comparison of perfor-
Dilation angle, w () 16.5 mances of the battered pile to that of the vertical pile.
Unit weight, cs (kN/m3) 12.0
Elastic modulus, Es (kPa) 29104
Poisson ratio, ms 0.45 4.1 Performance of batter piles in level ground
under static loading
In the first phase of the study, the performance of batter
piles in terms of horizontal load vs deflection is compared
Table 2. Properties of material of the pile. with that of vertical piles considering level ground condi-
tions. Horizontal loads are applied with the pile head, and
Parameter Value
lateral deflections are measured. In figure 4, the responses
3
Unit weight, cp (kN/m ) 23.0 of the piles with various batter angles under the static
Elastic modulus, Ep (kPa) 29107 horizontal load are compared. The observation from the
Poisson ratio, mp 0.30 figure reveals that the pile head deflections are lower for
negatively battered piles compared to vertical piles,
whereas positively battered piles exhibit higher lateral
deflections under the same horizontal loads. This again
emphasizes that negatively battered piles offer greater lat-
200
eral resistance than vertical piles, while positively battered
180
piles have lower resistance under static horizontal loading.
160
This finding aligns with the suggestions of Subramanyam
140 and Prakash [12] and Ranjan et al [13], who also indicated
Horizontal Load (kN)

120 that negative battered piles exhibit higher lateral resistance

100 compared to vertical piles, while positive batter piles
80 demonstrate lower resistance.
Present study
60
Bentley and El Naggar (2000)
40
20
Trochanis et al. (1988) 4.2 Performance of batter piles in slope
0 under static loading
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Horizontal Displacement (cm) It may be noted that the considered slope is a highly
stable slope. The factor of safety (FOS) of the slope is 4.56,
Figure 3. Compare the lateral pile head deflections found in the considering the geometry and material properties under
present study with Bentley and El Naggar [35] and Trochanis et al
[36].

compared in the same figure for the identical soil-pile 250

system. The comparability indicates that the result found in
the present study is in agreement with the literature. 200
Horizontal Load (kN)

150
Vertical Pile
4. Results and discussions Positive Batter (+5°)
100 Negative Batter (-5°)
Positive Batter (+10°)
Depending on the direction of the loading, batter piles may Negative Batter (-10°)
be categorised as positive or negative battered piles. A 50

batter pile is termed a negative battered pile if the direction

0
of inclination of the pile is opposite to the loading. On the 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
other hand, if the direction of inclination of the pile is the Horizontal Displacement (cm)
same as the loading, then it is termed a positive batter pile.
Batter piles may also be classified on the basis of the slip Figure 4. Comparison of static horizontal load vs. deflection of
piles with different batter angles in level ground.
186 Page 6 of 10 Sådhanå (2024)49:186
250
horizontal component of the gravity load acting along with
200 the horizontal load. For the 250 kN of lateral load, the
percentage increase of more than 50% of pile head dis-
Horizontal Load (kN)

150 placement is recorded for piles embedded in slope with

Vertical Pile
Positive Batter (+5°)
different batter angles in comparison to the piles embedded
100 Negative Batter (-5°) in level ground. Therefore, adequate design of the pile is
Postitive Batter (+10°)
recommended for slope even under static loading.
Negative Batter (-10°)

50
Figure 7 presents the deformation profiles of the piles
with different batter angles for the lateral load of 250 kN.
The deformation profiles for the level and sloping ground
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 are presented. The vertical pile on a slope exhibits signifi-
Horizontal Displacement (cm) cant deformation of approximately 28.2 mm, which is
almost 17% more than the deformation in a pile negatively
Figure 5. Comparison of static horizontal load vs deflection of
piles to different batter angles in sloping ground.
inclined at 10 and approximately 11% less than a battered
pile inclined at positive 10. While the pile on level ground
exhibits the same trend, deformation under the same load in
a vertical pile on level ground is 6% greater than in a
35 negative batter pile at 10 and 10% less than in a positive
batter pile at 10. Interestingly, piles in the sloping ground
30 show a rigid movement of approximately 4.0 mm
Max. Pile Head Displacement (mm)

throughout the length of the piles. This may be due to the

25
downward component of gravity loading combined with the
20 lateral load in the same direction in the case of sloping
ground. It may be inferred that laterally, load-carrying pile
15 capability reduces whenever the piles are situated on
10
sloping ground. The reduction may be up to 50% for a slope
with a 30 angle.
Level Ground
5
Sloping Ground
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 4.3 Performance of piles under dynamic loading
Batter Angle ( )
This section investigates the performance of batter piles
Figure 6. Comparison of maximum pile head displacements under dynamic loading. Initially, modal analyses are carried
towards lateral load 250 kN for piles with different batter angles out, and the effect of sloping ground on the overall modal
embedded in the level ground and the sloping ground. frequencies of the soil-pile system is reported. Following
that, a comparison of the performance of the battered pile
static conditions. The stability analysis was carried out with respect to the vertical pile under dynamic loading is
using the continuum analysis software FLAC2D [37]. Fig- presented, and the effect of loading frequency is also pre-
ure 5 shows the horizontal displacement response of piles to sented. A cyclic laterally loaded with an amplitude of 250
the different batter angles embedded in the slope under kN was enforced at the pile head with different frequencies
static horizontal loading at the pile head. The trend of the for 20 cycles of loading. Piles with different batter angles,
result is similar to that of level ground conditions. How- as mentioned earlier, are considered.
ever, the piles on the slope experience greater deformation
due to the influence of gravity acting in the direction of
lateral load. Figure 6 compares the maximum pile head 4.4 Modal analysis of the soil-pile system
displacements of piles with distinct batter angles embedded
in level ground and slope, respectively, for lateral loads of The comparison of the first five modal frequencies of the
250 kN. Comparison shows that the effects of batter angle soil-pile systems to vertical piles embedded in the flat
are similar in the event of level ground and slope with ground and the sloping ground is presented in table 3.
higher magnitude in the case of slope. Piles with negative Observation has been made that the natural frequencies of
batter angles perform better in comparison to the vertical the soil-pile system reduce when the pile is embedded in
and positively inclined piles, indicating higher lateral the sloping ground for all the five modes presented here.
resistance, whereas positive batter piles indicate lesser lat- This reduction of natural frequencies of the soil-pile system
eral resistance to the vertical piles. Further, when the piles in the slope is bound to significantly affect the dynamic or
are embedded in the slope, the horizontal displacement is seismic performance of the piles embedded in the slope.
observed to increase significantly. This may be due to the This may also be the main reason for the difference in the
Sådhanå (2024)49:186 Page 7 of 10 186

(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3
Depth along Pile (m)

Depth along Pile (m)

Vertical Pile
4 4 Positive Batter (+5°)
Negative Batter (-5°)
5 5 Positive Batter (+10°)
Negative Batter (-10°)
6 6

7 7
Vertical Pile
8 Positive Batter (+5°) 8
Negative Batter (-5°)
9 Positive Batter (+10°) 9
Negative Batter (-10°)
10 10

Figure 7. Deformation profiles of piles with different batter angles embedded in (a) Level ground and (b) Sloping ground.

Table 3. Modal frequencies of vertical pile-soil system in level 18

ground and slope. Sloping Ground
Pile Head Displacement (mm)

12 Level Ground
Level ground Sloping ground
Natural frequency (f) (Hz) (Hz) 6
st
1 Modal frequency, f1 3.11 2.12
2nd Modal frequency, 4.72 2.67 0
f2
3rd Modal frequency, f3 4.97 3.16 -6
4th Modal frequency, f4 5.03 3.47
5th Modal frequency, f5 5.10 4.04
-12
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
performance of piles in level ground and sloping ground
under dynamic/cyclic loading. Figure 8. Comparison of pile head displacements for vertical
piles in level ground and sloping ground for f = 2.0 Hz.

4.5 Dynamic performance of piles in slope the piles in level ground. Moreover, the displacement pat-
st
Considering the 1 natural frequencies of the soil-pile tern of the vertical pile in the level ground is symmetric,
system, analyses are carried out with frequencies changing whereas the pattern for sloping ground is not symmetric
from 0.5 Hz to 4.0 Hz with a sinusoidal lateral load of about the rest position of the pile. This pattern of dis-
amplitude 250 kN. Rayleigh damping was considered for placement was observed for other frequencies as well. The
the damping characteristics of materials. For the present deformation profiles along the pile length are compared in
analyses, a 7.5% damping ratio is considered for the soil figure 9 for vertical piles embedded in sloping ground. It
materials, whereas a 5% damping ratio was considered for may be observed that the frequency of loading had a sig-
the concrete pile. Rayleigh damping was provided in the nificant effect on the overall performance of the pile
forms of stiffness-proportional damping and mass-propor- foundation. The deformation value is very nominal for
tional damping. Figure 8 presents the typical dynamic pile dynamic loading with lesser frequencies. With the increase
head displacement of the vertical pile in level ground and in the frequency of loading, the dynamic deformation
sloping ground for the cyclic loading with a frequency of 2 increases. As expected, it is noted that tuning the loading
Hz. The absolute values of dynamic pile head displacement frequency with the fundamental frequencies of the soil pile
for piles on the slope are found to be reasonably higher than system tends to increase the vulnerability of the piles
186 Page 8 of 10 Sådhanå (2024)49:186

Max. Pile Head Displacement (mm) static case, it was observed that the piles with negative
-5 0 5 10 15 batter angles have lesser dynamic deformation throughout
0 the length of the piles. Further, a positive batter pile indi-
1
cates more deformation than the corresponding vertical
pile. It was observed that the lateral deformation of the
2 negative batter piles at 10 is 70% less than the lateral
deformation in the vertical pile. This highlights that the
3
Depth along Pile (m)

negative piles possess higher lateral load capacity even in

4 dynamic loading conditions embedded in sloping ground.
Figure 12 shows the variation of maximum deformation
5 under dynamic loading for different batter angles. The
6
comparative assessment indicates the possible advantage of
f = 0.5 Hz negative batter piles in sloping ground under dynamic
f = 1.0 Hz
7
f= 1.5 Hz loading conditions.
f = 2.0 Hz Figure 13 shows the variation in pile head settlement
8 f = 2.5 Hz with different batter angles for piles on slopes. It can be
f = 3.0 Hz
9 f = 4.0 Hz
evident from the comparison to the negative batter angles
of the pile increases, the pile head settlement also increases.
10 For instance, pile head settlement for a -10  battered pile is
6% more than that of a vertical pile. Considering this
Figure 9. Variation of maximum lateral deformation profiles for aspect, the negative batter piles foundation has been sup-
different frequencies of dynamic loading for the vertical piles in posed to perform satisfactorily in the sloping ground under
slope. static and dynamic loading conditions.

against dynamic deformation. Further, figure 10 gives the

variation of maximum dynamic pile head displacements to
the frequency of dynamic loading. The maximum pile head
displacements may be observed to increase with an increase
in loading frequency and attain a peak at a frequency of 2.5 Pile Head Displacement (mm)
Hz. -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0

4.6 Dynamic performance of batter piles 1

in sloping ground
2
This section reports the performance of single batter piles
in the sloping ground. Like the earlier case, piles were
3
subjected to dynamic lateral loading with a loading fre-
quency of 1.5 Hz. Figure 11 shows piles’ maximum lateral
Depth along Pile (m)

4
deformation profiles with different batter angles. Like the Negative Batter (-10°)

Negative Batter (-5°)

5
Vertical Pile
12
Positive Batter (+5°)
Max. Pile Head Disp. (mm)

6
10 Positive Batter (+10°)

8 7

6
8
4

2 9

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11. Variation of maximum lateral deformation profiles
Figure 10. Variation of maximum dynamic pile head displace- for piles in slope with different batter angles for a frequency of 1.5
ment with frequency for the vertical piles in slope. Hz.
Sådhanå (2024)49:186 Page 9 of 10 186

12 loads are applied, resulting in reduced soil resistance

and, in turn, a decrease in the pile’s ability to support
10
Max Displacement(cm)

lateral loads.
8 • Similarly, when exposed to dynamic loading, it was
observed that the maximum displacement of negative
6 batter piles located on sloping terrain is 10 to 15% less
4
than that of vertical piles. This implies that batter piles
present better performance under lateral dynamic
2 loads. Moreover, the lateral capacity of negative batter
piles increases with a higher batter angle.
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
• Further, it was observed that the peak lateral displace-
Batter Angle ( ) ment and pile head settlement increase with the
increase in frequency for a range of frequencies
Figure 12. Variation of maximum dynamic piles head displace- considered in the study.
ments for piles with different batter angles in slope.
When the ground surface alters from level ground to a
sloping surface, the behaviour of single piles changes sig-
0 nificantly. Under the same magnitude of lateral load, the
Negative Batter (-10°)
-1 Negative Batter (-5°) peak displacement of different batter piles was found to be
Vertical Pile 48–55% greater than the pile on level ground. This suggests
Pile Head Settlement (mm)

-2
Positive Batter (+5°)
-3 Positive Batter (+10°") a notable decrease in the laterally load-carrying capacity of
the piles incorporated into the slope.
-4

-5

-6

-7 Data availability statement

-8
All the data can be made available from the corresponding
-9
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 author by request.
Time (s)
Declaration
Figure 13. Variation of dynamic pile head settlement for piles
with different batter angles in slope. Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of
interest.

5. Summary and conclusions

References
This study presents a 3D finite element investigation for the
performance of pile foundations embedded in level ground [1] Pulikanti S and Ramancharla P K 2013 SSI analysis of
and sloping ground. The piles are considered to be batter framed structures supported on pile foundations: A revie-
piles to different battered angles. The performance of the w. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, International
batter piles under static conditions as well as dynamic Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, Gachibowli,
loading conditions is compared with that of the vertical pile India
foundation. The suitability of batter piles over vertical piles [2] Kavitha P E, Beena K S and Narayanan K P 2016 A review
on soil–structure interaction analysis of laterally loaded
has been established. The major conclusions of the present
piles. Innov. Infrastruct. Sol. 1: 1–15
study are summarised below. [3] Khati B S and Sawant V A 2021 Experimental study of the
• The study indicates that both the vertical pile and the laterally loaded pile group in square arrangement near
battered pile embedded in the sloping ground have sloping ground. Int. J. Geomech. 21(2): 04020257
lesser lateral load-carrying capacity than their coun- [4] Chae K S, Ugai K and Wakai A 2004 Lateral resistance of
short single piles and pile groups located near slopes. Int.
terparts embedded in level ground.
J. Geomech. 4(2): 93–103
• It was observed that negative batter piles provide [5] Sawant V A and Shukla S K 2012 Three-dimensional finite
higher lateral resistance than vertical and positive element analysis of laterally loaded piles in sloping ground.
batter piles. This increased resistance in negative batter Indian Geotech. J. 42: 278–286
piles is attributed to the downward movement of slip [6] Sawant V A and Shukla S K 2014 Effect of edge distance
surfaces. As a result, soil resistance increases. On the from the slope crest on the response of a laterally loaded pile
other hand, slip surfaces move upward when the lateral in sloping ground. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 32: 197–204
186 Page 10 of 10 Sådhanå (2024)49:186

[7] Muthukkumaran K 2014 Effect of slope and loading [23] Alizadeh M and Davisson M T 1970 Lateral load tests on
direction on laterally loaded piles in cohesionless soil. Int. piles-Arkansas River project. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.
J. Geomech. 14(1): 1–7 96(5): 1583–1604
[8] Deendayal R, Muthukkumaran K and Sitharam T G 2020 [24] Reese L C 1965 Non-dimensional solution for laterally
Analysis of a laterally loaded group of piles located on loaded piles with soil modulus assumed proportional to
sloping ground. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 14(5): 580–588 depth. In: Proc. 8th Texas Conf. SMFE. The Univ. of Texas
[9] Elahi H, Poulos H G, Hajimollaali H and Elahi A 2018 [25] Poulos H G and Madhav M R 1971 Analysis of the
Pseudostatic seismic response analysis of a pile group in a movements of battered piles (No. R&d Rpt). University of
soil slope. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36: 855–874 Sydney, School of Civil Engineering
[10] Yan K, He J, Cheng Q, Fan G, Wang Z and Zhang J 2020 A [26] Meyerhof G G and Ranjan G 1973 The bearing capacity of
centrifugal experimental investigation on the seismic rigid piles under inclined loads in sand II: Batter piles. Can.
response of group-pile foundation in a slope with an inclined Geotech. J. 10(1): 71–85
weak intercalated layer. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 130: 105961 [27] Lu S S 1981 The design load of bored pile laterally loaded.
[11] Tschebotarioff G P 1953 The resistance to lateral loading of In: Proceedings of the l0th international conference on soil
single piles and pile groups. Spec. Publ. No. 154, ASTM, mechanics and foundation engineering, Balkema. Rotterdam
pp.38-48, West Conshohocken, Pa (Vol. 2, pp. 767-770)
[12] Prakash S and Subramanyam G 1965 The behaviour of [28] Veeresh C 1996 The behaviour of batter piles in marine
battered piles under lateral loads. Indian J. Soil Mech. clays. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India (PhD
Found. Eng. 4(2): 177–196 thesis)
[13] Ranjan G, Ramasamy G and Tyagi R P 1980 Lateral [29] Rajashree S S and Sitharam T G 2001 Nonlinear finite-
response of batter piles and pile bents in clay. Indian element modelling of batter piles under lateral load. J.
Geotech. J. 10(2): 135–142 Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127(7): 604–612
[14] AFPS-90 1990 Recommendations for the redaction of rules [30] Rajeswari J S and Sarkar R 2021 Seismic behaviour of batter
relative to the structures and installations built in regions pile groups embedded in liquefiable soil. Earthq. Eng. Eng.
prone to earthquakes. French Association of Earthquake Vib. 20: 583–604
Engineering, Paris, France [31] Das S and Maheshwari B K 2024 Influence of slope
[15] E N 1998-5 Eurocode 8 2000 Structures in seismic regions. topography on soil-structure interaction during earthquakes.
Part 5. Foundations, retaining structures, and geotechnical Acta Geotech.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02186-8
aspects [32] Assimaki D and Kausel E 2007 Modified topographic
[16] Komatsu A, Yoshito M and Takahiro S 2004 August. Study amplification factors for a single-faced slope due to
on the seismic bearing capacity of grouped piles with kinematic soil-structure interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
battered piles. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Eng. 133(11): 1414–1431
Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Paper (No. 3294) [33] ABAQUS 6.14 [Computer software]. Simulia, Providence
[17] Poulos H G 2006 Raked piles- Virtues and drawbacks. J. [34] Kramer S L 1996 Geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132(6): 795–803 Pearson Education India
[18] Medina C, Padrón L A, Aznárez J J and Maeso O 2015 [35] Bentley K J and Naggar M H E 2000 Numerical analysis of
Influence of pile inclination angle on the dynamic properties the kinematic response of single piles. Can. Geotech. J.
and seismic response of piled structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. 37(6): 1368–1382
Eng. 69: 196–206 [36] Trochanis A M 1988 A three-dimensional nonlinear study of
[19] Sarkar R, Roy N and Serawat A 2017 A three-dimensional piles leading to the development of a simplified model.
comparative study of seismic behaviour of vertical and batter Carnegie Mellon University
pile groups. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36(2): 763–781 [37] Itasca. 2023 FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua.
[20] Tschebotarioff G P 1953 The resistance to lateral loading of Version 8.1. Itasca Consulting Group Inc
single piles and pile groups. Spec. Publ. No. 154, ASTM,
pp.38-48, West Conshohocken
[21] Murthy V N S 1964 The behaviour of battered piles Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
embedded in sand subjected to lateral loads. In: Proc. of holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement
Symp. on Bearing Capacity of Piles, Roorkee, India (pp. with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of
142-153) the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed
[22] Prakash S and Subramanyam G 1965 The behaviour of by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
battered piles under lateral loads. Indian J. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng 4(2): 177–196