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

net/publication/245293860

Permanent Strains of Piles in Sand due to Cyclic Lateral Loads

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · September 1999

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(798)

CITATIONS READS

93 645

2 authors, including:

San-Shyan S. Lin
National Taiwan Ocean University
62 PUBLICATIONS   440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by San-Shyan S. Lin on 25 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PERMANENT STRAINS OF PILES IN SAND DUE TO CYCLIC
LATERAL LOADS
By San-Shyan Lin,1 Member, ASCE, and Jen-Cheng Liao2

ABSTRACT: The strain superposition concept, proposed for ballast study, is applied here to evaluate strain
accumulation for laterally loaded piles in sand. It is shown that the soil properties, types of pile installation,
cyclic loading types, pile embedded length, and pile/soil relative stiffness ratio are important factors that influence
the pile behavior under mixed lateral loads. These factors are quantified by means of a degradation factor, t,
which is derived from the results of 20 full-scale pile load tests and then verified using 6 additional full-scale
pile load tests.

INTRODUCTION lateral loads are applied at the head of the pile. The frequency
The model of a beam on a Winkler-type foundation is often of load application is assumed to be low enough that only
used for analysis of piles subjected to lateral loads. The linear effects of repeated loads are important; i.e., the effects of in-
soil-reaction modulus or nonlinear p-y curves are generally ertia can be neglected. Both long and short piles are considered
used to simulate soil response (Matlock et al. 1962). If the pile in the model. The flexural rigidity of the pile is assumed to
is embedded in sand, a coefficient of soil reaction multiplied remain constant.
by the embedded length of the pile below the ground surface During one two-way cycle lateral load, Long and Vanneste
is used to model the increase in the soil-reaction modulus. (1994) described the behavior of the pile for four phases. Dur-
However, in addition to static lateral loading, wind, waves, ing the first quarter-cycle, the magnitude of lateral load varies
earth pressures, and water pressures may place cyclic lateral from a value of zero to a maximum horizontal load. Long and
loads on pile-supported structures, as described by Long et al. Vanneste (1994) assumed that the resistance to pile deflection
(1994). A number of researchers, such as Prakash (1962), is provided by the soil along the loading side of the pile while
Broms (1964), Davisson and Salley (1968), Alizadeh and Da- the soil along the opposite side of the pile maintains contact
visson (1970), and Davisson (1970), have suggested a reduc- by flowing with the pile. When the load decreases to zero
tion of the value of the static coefficient of soil reaction to during the second quarter-cycle, the soil pressure along the
take into account the effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles. opposite direction decreases to an active state. The cohesion-
Degraded static p-y curves were proposed by Reese et al. less soil was also assumed to flow and prevent a gap, to ensure
(1974), based on some full-scale cyclic pile load test results. contact with pile surface. Similar assumptions to maintain con-
Cyclic p-y curves obtained by reducing the static soil resis- tact between soil and pile surface were also made for the third
tance were constructed by Little and Briaud (1988), based on and fourth quarter-cycles. To maintain contact at all times is
in situ pressuremeter test results. A more detailed and system- also assumed in this study. This assumption may not reflect
atic study on the effects of cyclic lateral loads on piles in sand actual pile/soil conditions due to a cyclic loading, especially
was conducted by Long and Vanneste (1994) using a linearly for a two-way loading. However, the simplifications are
increasing soil-reaction modulus and degradation of the static needed to keep the model tractable.
p-y curve. The parameters of the two methods were derived
from the results of 34 full-scale tests. Effect of Number of Lateral Load Cycles on Cyclic
Although many useful methods have been proposed to es- Strain
timate the effect of cyclic lateral loads on piles in sand, a
method that considers the effects of cyclic variable-amplitude For the case of a pile in cohesionless soil under a dynamic
lateral loads has not been available. The purpose of this study lateral load, Kagawa and Kraft (1980) showed that more than
is to apply a strain superposition procedure for predicting the 70% of the pile displacement is concentrated in the soil mass
pile-permanent horizontal displacement due to variable-ampli- within a two-pile radius distance. Hence, the lateral strain, ε,
tude cyclic loading. The parameters of the proposed model can of the dynamically laterally loaded pile can be approximated
be obtained from the available experimental results found in as
the references presented in Table 1. Pile types and materials,
methods of installation, soil density, and cyclic load charac- y
teristics are all included in the table. Load-controlled tests ε= (1)
2.5D
were conducted for all the reference data.
in which y = lateral displacement; and D = pile diameter. If
MODEL FOR DETERMINING CYCLIC, VARIABLE- the concentrated displacement distance is available after each
AMPLITUDE LATERAL-LOADING EFFECTS load cycle, the variation of the lateral strain due to different
Assumptions load amplitudes can be taken into account.
A cyclic strain ratio, RS, is defined as the ratio of the strain
The model is based on several assumptions. The pile is as-
after the Nth load cycle, εN, to the strain of the first load cycle,
sumed to have linear elastic response. It is assumed that cyclic
ε1. The relation between the cyclic strain ratio and the loading
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Harb. and River Engrg., Taiwan Ocean Univ., cycles, N, is shown in Fig. 1, in which RH is the cyclic load
Keelung, Taiwan 20224, R.O.C. ratio used to quantify the character of the cyclic load. The
2
Grad. Student, Dept. of Harb. and River Engrg., Taiwan Ocean Univ., cyclic load ratio is defined as
Keelung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2000. To extend the closing Hmin
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager RH = (2)
of Journals. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for Hmax
review and possible publication on May 4, 1998. This technical note is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer- where Hmin and Hmax = minimum and maximum amplitudes
ing, Vol. 125, No. 9, September, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/99/ (respectively) of the lateral load. Based on this definition, a
0009-0798–0802/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Technical Note No. 18273. pile lateral load cycled from 0 to Hmax (cyclic load ratio RH =
798 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

Downloaded 12 May 2010 to 140.121.185.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 TABLE 1. Summary of Results of Cyclic Lateral Load Tests
Maximum Maximum
Maximum lateral lateral dis- Cyclic
Diameter Length Method of Relative number load placement load
Test Pile type (cm) (m) installation density of cycles (kN) (cm) ratio Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
1 Timber 30.5 11.5 Driven Loose 24 89.0 11.90 0 Alizadeh (1969) (1A)
2 Timber 31.0 11.5 Driven Loose 24 89.0 10.75 0 Alizadeh (1969) (1B)
3 H-Pile 14.5 12.2 Driven Loose 100 90.4 1.17 0 Alizadeh and Davisson (1970) (6)
4 Concrete 51.0 15.9 Sonic Vib Loose 100 136.4 0.61 0 Alizadeh and Davisson (1970) (11A)
5 Drilled shaft 61.0 5.5 Drilled Medium 10, 15 445.0 1.47 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) (4)
6 Drilled shaft 91.5 5.5 Drilled Medium 10, 15 445.0 0.83 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) (5)
7 Drilled shaft 91.5 5.5 Drilled Medium 15 445.0 0.81 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) (6)
8 Drilled shaft 122.0 5.5 Drilled Medium 15 445.0 0.36 0 Bhushan et al. (1981) (7)
9 Drilled shaft 122.0 6.2 Backfilled Loose 100 445.0 0.50 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) (1N)
10 Drilled shaft 143.0 11.5 Backfilled Loose 80 445.0 0.72 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) (2N)
11 Drilled shaft 122.0 5.0 Drilled Medium 100 445.0 0.31 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) (1S)
12 Drilled shaft 143.0 12.3 Drilled Medium 80 445.0 0.67 0 Davisson and Salley (1968) (2S)
13 Drilled shaft 122.0 15.5 Vibrated Dense 40 500.0 14.27 0 Long and Reese (1984) (west)
with casing
14 Drilled shaft 122.0 15.5 Vibrated Dense 40 500.0 17.48 0 Long and Reese (1984) (east)
with casing
15 Pipe pile 27.5 13.4 Backfilled and Medium 100 89.0 2.35 ⫺1 Brown et al. (1988)
compacted
16 Pipe pile 61.0 21.0 Driven Dense 100 244.8 3.05 ⫺0.25 Reese et al. (1974)
17 Timber 29.0 11.3 Driven Loose 5 29.4 2.94 0 Robinson (1979) (6)
18 Timber 30.5 15.2 Driven Dense 4 29.4 0.31 0 Robinson (1979) (8)
19 Timber 27.9 5.2 Driven Loose 4 29.4 0.72 0 Robinson (1979) (9)
20 Timber 33.0 10.7 Driven Dense 23 58.8 2.31 0.1 Stevens et al. (1979)

FIG. 2. Effect of Depth Coefficient on Degradation Param-

FIG. 1. Effect of Number of Cycles on Cyclic Strain Ratio eter, t

冑
0) is called a one-way loading. Similarly, a pile lateral load 5
cycled with equal load magnitude in both directions (RH = ⫺1) T=
EI
(4)
is called a two-way loading. The relationship between RS and nh
N, as shown in Fig. 1, can also be expressed as (Long and
Vanneste 1994)
where E = modulus of elasticity; I = moment of inertia of pile;
εN and nh = coefficient of soil reaction. According to Matlock and
RS = = 1 ⫹ t ln(N ) (3) Reese (1962), the depth at L/T = 5 is a fixed point for a lat-
ε1
erally loaded pile. Hence, if the depth coefficient, L/T, is
where t is a degradation parameter, which is a function of the greater than 5, t becomes a fixed value. The variation of t with
soil properties, pile installation, cyclic loading types, pile-em- L/T for cases with other pile installation methods and different
bedded length, and pile/soil relative stiffness ratio. soil properties is listed in Table 2, based on the available data
For drilled piles in medium dense sand under one-way cy- given in the references listed in Table 1.
clic loading (Fig. 2), the degradation parameter t appears to As described by Long and Vanneste (1994), the degradation
be a linear relationship of L/T, in which L is the pile length parameter t, for a cyclically, laterally loaded pile, also depends
and T is the pile/soil relative stiffness ratio: on the characteristics of the load direction, installation proce-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 799

Downloaded 12 May 2010 to 140.121.185.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
TABLE 2. Relation between Degradation Parameter, t, and tion, since both cases are for long piles, L/T = 5 is used. The
Depth Coefficient, L /T slope of the cyclic strain ratio versus the number of cycles
Number of (Fig. 1) for the RH = 0.5 case can be obtained by interpolation,
Case Method of installation t versus L/T pile tests assuming that the slopes decrease linearly from the RH = 0
(1) (2) (3) (4) case to the RH = 0.1 case. Hence, Rs = 1.31 is obtained from
(a) Driven (R H = 0, loose) t = 0.042L/T 5 Fig. 1 at cycle number 100. From (3), we have t = (Rs ⫺ 1)/
(b) Driven (R H = 0, dense) t = 0.032L/T 1 (ln 100) = 0.068. In addition, using (5), we have t = 0.032(L/
(c) Drilled (R H = 0, medium) t = 0.045L/T 6 T )(␤)(ε)(␸) = 0.032(5)(1)(1)(␸). Hence, ␸ is equal to 0.43, as
(d) Backfilled (R H = 0, loose) t = 0.076L/T 2 shown in Table 5.
(e) Sonic vibrated (R H = 0, loose) t = 0.035L/T 1
(f ) Vibrated (R H = 0, dense) t = 0.010L/T 2
(g) Driven (R H = 0, dense) t = 0.011L/T 1 Strain Superposition for Cyclic Variable-Amplitude
(h) Driven (R H = 0, dense) t = 0.004L/T 1 Loads
(i) Backfilled and compacted t = 0.003L/T 1
(R H = ⫺1, medium) Based on a damage relationship, the cumulative strains due
to the mixing of different amplitude loads have been studied
by Stewart (1986) for permanent strain accumulation of bal-
dure, and soil density. The parameter t can, therefore, be cal- last. That method is applied here to evaluate a similar problem,
culated as that of strain accumulation for laterally loaded piles. The basic
procedure for application for the superposition method, taken
L from Stewart (1986), is described in detail in the following.
t = 0.032 ⫻␤⫻␰⫻␸ (5)
T Suppose that after Na cycles at load level a, the amount of
developed permanent strain, which is the maximum strain un-
where ␤, ␰, and ␸ = factors based on soil density, installation der load, is εNa. An equivalent number of cycles, N * b , can be
method, and cyclic load ratio, respectively. The base case (i.e., calculated such that the permanent strain after N * b cycles is
␤ = ␰ = ␸ = 1) is defined for a driven pile in dense sand with equal to the strain that has already developed after Na cycles
RH = 0, thus t = 0.032. Comparing cases (a) and (b) in Table at load level a. As shown in Fig. 3, the strain accumulation in
2, a soil density factor of 1.3 is obtained and is shown in Table the piles can be obtained using the following procedure:
3. Again comparing cases (a) and (d), a backfilled installation Assume that ε1a and ε1b are the strains of the first load cycle
method factor of 1.8 can be obtained, as shown in Table 4. with load levels a and b, respectively. For load a, the perma-
Similarly, factors for other soil densities, installation methods, nent strains after Na cycles can be obtained as (Stewart 1986)
and cyclic load ratios, given in Tables 3–5, can be obtained
by following the same procedure. εNa = ε1a[1 ⫹ ta ln(Na)] (6)
In Table 5, the cyclic load ratio parameter, ␸, for the RH =
0.5 case is based on estimation. Since the only RH = 0.1 case Similarly, the permanent strains due to load b after Nb cycles
is for a driven pile in dense sand, the RH = 0 case of Robinson are
(1979) is selected to reduce the effects of soil type and in-
stallation method parameters, ␤ and ␰, respectively. In addi- εNb = ε1b[1 ⫹ tb ln(Nb)] (7)
With (6), the permanent strain εNb, after N *b cycles of load
TABLE 3. Effect of Soil Density level b, is equal to εNa. Substituting N *
b into (7), we have

Soil type parameter ␤ Number of

Soil type (1–20 test pile results of Table 1) pile tests εNa = ε1a[1 ⫹ ta ln(Na)] (8)
(1) (2) (3)
εNb = ε1b[1 ⫹ tb ln(N *)]
b (9)
Loose 1.300 8
Medium 1.125 7 Since εNa = εNb, we have
Dense 1.000 5
ε1a[1 ⫹ ta ln(Na)] = ε1b[1 ⫹ tb ln(N *)]
b (10)
TABLE 4. Effect of Pile Installation Method therefore, N *
b can be obtained as

Installation method parameter ␰ Number of

Installation method (1–20 test pile results of Table 1) pile tests
(1) (2) (3)
N*
b = exp 冉冉1
tb
ε1a
ε1b
(1 ⫹ ta ⫻ ln(Na)) ⫺ 1 冊冊 (11)

Driven 1.00 8
Drilled 1.23 6
Backfilled 1.80 2
Sonic vibrated 0.80 1
Vibrated 0.30 2
Backfilled and com-
pacted 1.00 1

TABLE 5. Effect of Cyclic Load Ratio

Cyclic load method parameter ␸ Number of
Cyclic load ratio (1–20 test pile results of Table 1) pile tests
(1) (2) (3)
RH = 0 1.000 17
RH = 0.5 0.430 —
RH = 0.1 0.340 1
RH = ⫺0.25 0.125 1
RH = ⫺1 0.090 1 FIG. 3. Method Used in Pile Permanent Displacement Calcu-
lations for Mixed Loads (Stewart 1986)

800 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

Downloaded 12 May 2010 to 140.121.185.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 For a pile subjected to different loading cycles with varying
amplitude or loading level, the permanent strain can be ob-
tained as
εN(a⫹b) = ε1b[1 ⫹ tb ⫻ ln(N *
b ⫹ Nb)] (12)
Although the method shown in Fig. 3 is designed for the
case with two loads, the second of which is greater than the
first, the procedure can be repeated for other successive load
levels and can be used to return to any lower load level.
COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Using the pile test results 1–20 shown in Table 1, we were
able to develop values of the degradation parameter t as a
function of L/T, ␤, ␰, and ␸, which is used to estimate the
lateral strains. We were also able to compare the estimation FIG. 4. Permanent Lateral Displacement versus Number of
results with the results obtained by Little and Briaud (1988) Cycles of Test Pile 21
(Table 6).
The solution for pile 21 will be presented first, to demon-
strate the method. Pile 21, installed using the drilling method
in medium dense sand, was tested with four different load
levels by Little and Briaud (1988). Ten cycles were applied
for each load level. The first and fourth load levels were sub-
jected to one-way loading with a magnitude of 244.75 kN and
356 kN, respectively. However, the second and the third stages
were subjected to a cyclic load ratio RH = 0.5, with a magni-
tude of 244.75 kN and 356 kN, respectively. The permanent
displacement after one cycle of the first load level, y1a, was
0.67 cm. Calculation of the permanent displacement for each
load level is explained in the following:
The first load level a: Based on Tables 4–6, ␤, ␰, and ␸ are
equal to 1.125, 1.23, and 1.0, respectively. Since L/T = 5, ta =
0.2214 can be obtained from (5). Substituting y1a = 0.67 cm
into (1), we have ε1a = 2.93 ⫻ 10⫺3. Hence, the permanent FIG. 5. Permanent Lateral Displacement versus Number of
strain after each cycle of the first load level may be calculated Cycles of Test Pile 23
from (6). When N = 10, we have ε10a = 4.42 ⫻ 10⫺3. Substi-
tuting ε10a into (1), we have y10a = 1.01 cm.
The second load level b: The strain after the first cycle of TABLE 7. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Permanent
Displacements of Piles 21–26 (End of First Load Level)
this load level may be obtained by using N = 11 for the first
load level. Hence, we have ε1b = 4.5 ⫻ 10⫺3 from (6). ␸ is Permanent Displacement (cm)
equal to 0.43 for RH = 0.5 from Table 6. The other parameters Pile Predicted Predicted
are the same as for the first load level. Hence, tb = 0.095 is numbers Measured (piles 1–20 in Table 1) (Long et al. 1994)
obtained from (5). Using (11), we have N b* = 0.95. Again, (1) (2) (3) (4)
using (12) and (1), we have y10b = 1.26 cm. Following a similar
21 0.978 1.010 0.910
procedure, the displacements after each cycle for the third and 22 0.777 0.790 0.707
fourth load levels can also be obtained. As shown in Fig. 4, 23 0.723 0.740 0.660
the predicted and measured results are in good agreement for 24 0.462 0.498 0.440
the first three stages; but there are some differences for the 25 0.305 0.320 0.286
fourth stage. The increase of the soil density after a number 26 0.221 0.226 0.203
of cycles of loading, which is not taken into account in the
study, may be one of the reasons for differences. However,
under mixed loading conditions, the superposition method can Similar results were also obtained for pile 23 (Fig. 5), which
be used with reasonable accuracy. The jump in displacement was subjected to similar loading levels and magnitudes, except
at cycle 20 is because of increased loads. In addition, the re- that the pile was installed using the driving method. In addi-
sults predicted using the method of Long et al. (1994) for the tion, the predicted and measured displacements for piles 21–
first load level are also shown in the figure for comparison. 26 after 10 cycles for the first load level are listed in Table 7.

TABLE 6. Results of Cyclic Lateral Load Tests Obtained by Little and Briaud (1988)
Maximum
Maximum Maximum lateral dis- Cyclic
Diameter Length Method of Relative number of lateral load placement load
Test Pile type (cm) (m) installation density cycles (kN) (cm) ratio Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
21 Drilled shaft 91.5 29.6 Drilled Medium 20 356.0 2.37 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (1)
22 Pipe pile 61.0 36.6 Driven Medium 20 267.0 1.62 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (2)
23 Concrete pile 51.0 29.9 Driven Medium 20 213.6 1.99 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (3)
24 Drilled shaft 106.5 39.0 Drilled Medium 20 356.0 0.66 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (4)
25 Drilled shaft 106.5 39.0 Drilled Medium 20 222.5 0.77 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (5)
26 Drilled shaft 106.5 39.0 Drilled Medium 20 356.0 0.46 0, 0.5 Little and Briaud (1988) (6)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999 / 801

Downloaded 12 May 2010 to 140.121.185.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Little, R. L., and Briaud, J. L. (1988). ‘‘Full scale cyclic lateral load tests
on six single pile in sand.’’ Misc. Paper GL-88-27, Geotechnical Div.,
A simple method for estimating the permanent displacement Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
Long, J. H., and Reese, L. C. (1984). ‘‘Testing and analysis of two off-
due to variable-amplitude, cyclic lateral loads on piles in sand shore piles subjected to lateral loads.’’ Lateral loaded deep foundation:
has been presented. The parameters of the model have been Analysis and performance, ASTM STP 835, J. A. Langer, E. Mosely,
determined based on 20 available full-scale test results. The and C. Thompson, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 214–228.
most important parameters influencing the pile behavior under Long, J. H., and Vanneste, G. (1994). ‘‘Effects of cyclic lateral loads on
mixed lateral loads are the cyclic loading type, types of pile piles in sand.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(1), 225–244.
installation, soil properties, pile-embedded length, and pile/soil Matlock, H., and Reese, L. C. (1962). ‘‘Generalized solutions for laterally
loaded pile.’’ Trans., ASCE, 127, 1220–1247.
relative stiffness ratio. For variable-amplitude loading, a su- Prakash, S. (1962). ‘‘Behavior of pile groups subjected to lateral loads,’’
perposition method has been used. The predicted permanent PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
displacements are in general agreement with those measured Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). ‘‘Analysis of laterally
in six additional pile tests. The increase of the soil density loaded piles in sand.’’ Paper No. 2080, 6th Annu. Offshore Technol.
when the number of loading cycles increased could be one of Conf., 2, OTC, Houston, Texas, 225–244.
the contributing factors that caused the differences. Robinson, K. E. (1979). ‘‘Horizontal subgrade reaction estimated from
lateral load test on timber piles.’’ Behavior of deep foundation, ASTM
The soil density, installation method, and cyclic loading fac- STP 670, R. Lungren, ed., ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 520–536.
tors presented in Tables 3–5 are calculated from a statistically Stewart, H. E. (1986). ‘‘Permanent strains from cyclic variable-amplitude
insignificant amount of data. Only the factors for drilled piles loadings.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 112(6), 646–661.
in medium dense sand are verified. The reader should be aware Stevens, J. B., Holloway, M. D., Moriwaki, Y., and Demsky, E. C. (1979).
of the assumptions employed and the limited data cited when ‘‘Pile group response to axial and lateral loading.’’ Proceedings of
interpreting results obtained with the present method and when Symposium on Deep Foundations, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York, 396–419.
considering its application to actual field conditions. In addi-
tion, the available load test results were, in general, for 50 APPENDIX II. NOTATION
cycles or less; caution should be exercised when predicting the
effects of cyclic loadings with more than 50 load cycles. The The following symbols are used in this paper:
proposed method is an empirical approach, and further efforts
D = pile diameter;
are required. These efforts should include more results to ver-
E = modulus of elasticity of pile;
ify or modify the recommendations presented herein and
Hmin = minimum amplitudes of lateral load;
should be based on additional data. Hmax = maximum amplitudes of lateral load;
I = moment of inertia;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES L = pile length;
N = number of cycles;
Alizadeh, M. (1969). ‘‘Lateral load tests on instrumented timber piles.’’ Na = number of cycles under load level a;
Performance of deep foundations, ASTM STP 444, ASTM, West Con- Nb = number of cycles under load level b;
shohocken, Pa., 379–394. N b* = equivalent number of cycles;
Alizadeh, M., and Davisson, M. T. (1970). ‘‘Lateral load test on piles— P = soil resistance;
Arkansas River project.’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, RH = cyclic load ratio;
96(5), 1583–1604. RS = cyclic strain ratio;
Bhushan, K., Lee, L. J., and Grime, D. G. (1981). ‘‘Lateral load tests on
t = degradation parameter;
drilled piers in sands.’’ Drilled Piers and Caissons, Proc., Geotech.
Engrg. Div. at ASCE Nat. Conv., St. Louis, American Society of Civil ta = degradation parameter under load level a;
Engineers, New York, 114–131. tb = degradation parameter under load level b;
Broms, B. (1964). ‘‘Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.’’ J. T = relative stiffness factor;
Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., ASCE, 90(3), 123–156. y = lateral pile head displacement;
Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. (1988). ‘‘Lateral load be- ε = permanent lateral strain;
havior of pile group in sand.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., 114(11), 1261–1277. ε1 = permanent strain of first load cycle;
Davisson, M. T. (1970). ‘‘Lateral load capacity of piles.’’ Highway Res. ε1a = permanent strain of first load cycle at load level a;
Rec. No. 333, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 104– ε1b = permanent strain of first load cycle at load level b;
112.
εN = permanent strain of Nth load cycle;
Davisson, M. T., and Salley, J. R. (1968). ‘‘Lateral load tests on drilled
piers.’’ ASTM Symp. on Deep Found., ASTM, West Conshohocken, εNa = permanent strain of Nth load cycle at load level a;
Pa., 68–83. εNb = permanent strain of Nth load cycle at load level b;
Kagawa, T., and Kraft, L. M. (1980). ‘‘Lateral load-deflection relation- ␤ = parameter of soil properties;
ships of piles subjected to dynamic loadings.’’ Soils and Found., 20(4), ␰ = parameter of types of pile installation; and
19–34. ␸ = parameter of cyclic loading types.

802 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1999

View publication stats Downloaded 12 May 2010 to 140.121.185.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org