Chapter6 PDF

R. L.
Mokwa CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 6
LATERAL LOAD TESTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Lateral load tests were conducted at the field test facility from early June through
October, 1998. Thirty-one tests were performed on three groups of piles with embedded
caps, two single piles, and a buried concrete bulkhead. The tests were conducted at
locations A through D, identified in Figure 3.1.
The NE and NW piles were loaded against each other at location A. Tests
conducted at this location are described in Table 6.1. The SE cap and the bulkhead were
loaded against each other at location B. Tests conducted at this location are described in
Table 6.2.
The north pile was tested in the direction of its strong axis using the NE cap as a
counter reaction (location C). Tests conducted at this location are described in Table 6.3.
The south pile was tested in its strong axis direction by loading it against the north pile
(location D), which was embedded in concrete to increase its resistance. Tests on the
south pile are described in Table 6.4.
6.2 LOAD TESTS
In all the tests, compressive loads were applied through the vertical centroidal
axis of the foundations. Tests were performed using incremental, cyclic, and sustained
loading procedures, as described below.
The incremental procedure is historically the most recognized approach for

performing lateral load tests on piles and drilled shafts. The procedure used in this study
consisted of applying loads of increasing magnitude in 10 to 20 kip increments. A one-
137
R. L. Mokwa CHAPTER 6
minute-long pause was maintained between increments, at constant load. A typical

distribution of data points obtained during the incremental procedure is shown in Figure
6.1(a). For easier viewing, intermediate points were filtered, and only the data at the end
of each one-minute pause was plotted, as shown in Figure 6.1(b). A line or smooth curve
was fit through the end points to facilitate comparisons among the various tests.
The cyclic procedure consisted of applying and releasing a large number of

unidirectional loads. The time to complete one load cycle varied from approximately 40
seconds to 2 minutes. The loading and unloading frequency was controlled by the
capacity of the hydraulic pump and the extended length of the ram plunger. After every
24 cycles the loading frequency was decreased. During the 25th cycle, loads were applied
in 10 to 20 kip increments with a one-minute-long pause between increments. Readings
were obtained during this cycle using same incremental procedure described in the
previous paragraph.
Sustained loads were applied by incrementally increasing the load up to a

predetermined level, and maintaining this level at a constant value over a 3 to 4 hour
period.
The following two subsections describe the deformations and rotations that were
observed during testing. Subsequent sections describe the results and their significance
in more detail.
6.2.1 Deformations
Examples of load versus deflection results for the south pile, SE cap, and
bulkhead are shown in Figure 6.2. These plots cover the typical range of load and
deflection values that were measured during the tests. Applied loads ranged from 0 to
140 kips, and maximum deflections ranged from 0.1 to almost 3 inches. For instance, the
south pile deflected about 2.9 inches in loose sand, at a load of 45 kips (Figure 6.2a).
While the SE pile cap in contact with natural soil deflected about 0.1 inches, at a load of
138
140 kips (Figure 6.2b). The bulkhead deflected approximately 1.6 inches at a load of 137
kips in natural soil and 90 kips in compacted gravel,as shown in Figure 6.2(c).
Pile cap deflections were relatively small, often less than 0.2 inches at the
maximum load of 140 kips (the capacity of the loading system). This corresponds to a
lateral load per pile of 35 kips, which exceeds typical design loads for HP 10 x 42 piles
by a factor of three to four. These results are significant considering that many
foundations are designed for maximum deflections of 0.5 to 1 inch, with no consideration
of the resistance provided by the cap. This type of design approach is clearly over-
conservative if cap resistance is ignored when the overall lateral resistance of the pile
group is computed.
6.2.2 Rotations
Rotations at the tops of single piles depend on the magnitude of the applied load
and the pile-head restraining condition. The maximum slope measured at the groundline
during load testing was slightly less than 3 degrees for the north pile in dense sand. This
occurred at a 45 kip load and a deflection of approximately 3.5 inches; a situation
generally considered unsuitable in most practical applications.
Terms used to describe rotations of pile caps are defined in Figure 6.3 as follows:
θ = the angle of tilt in the direction of load (rotation

about the horizontal axis), and
τ = the angle of twist or torsion of the cap about a

vertical axis.
Rotations about a horizontal axis are primarily controlled by the stiffness of the
cap, the stiffness of the pile-to-cap connection, and, for piles in groups, the axial capacity
of the piles. Twisting of the cap may be caused by eccentricities in the applied load or
non-heterogeneous conditions in the soil or backfill.
139
The angles of rotation (θ and τ) measured during each test, are shown in Table 6.5
for the three caps and the bulkhead. The maximum value of τ for the pile caps was 0.07
degrees, indicating that twisting or torsion of the pile caps was negligible in all of the
tests. The angle of tilt, θ, was also small. The SE pile cap, with soil removed from the
cap sides and front, experienced the largest amount of tilt (θ = 0.21 degrees). In
comparison, θ was negligible (less than 0.001 degrees) for the NE cap embedded in
natural soil.
The bulkhead experienced greater rotations because it was loaded to failure and
was not supported on piles. The rotations of the bulkhead ranged from 0.07 degrees, for
natural soil, to approximately 0.5 degrees for gravel backfill.
6.3 SINGLE PILE RESISTANCE
This section describes the results of lateral load tests performed on the north pile
(described in Table 6.3) and the south pile (described in Table 6.4). The load versus
deflection curves shown in this dissertation are based on pile deflections at the ground-
line (or ground surface), as shown in Figure 6.4.
6.3.1 Effect of Pile-Head Load Connection
Tests were performed on the north pile to evaluate the effect of two different
connections on load-deflection behavior in various soils. The connections are identified
as:
1) a pinned connection, which consisted of a unidirectional clevis that permitted

rotation about the horizontal axis, as shown in Figure 6.5, and
2) a rigid strut connection, which consisted of a steel strut bolted rigidly to the
pile, as shown in Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.7 shows the load versus deflection and load versus slope responses of the
north pile, for both types of pile-head connectors, tested in natural soil and dense sand.
140
The pinned head tests were performed immediately after the rigid strut tests. As shown
in the figure, the deflection and slope response curves are very similar for both
connection devices. The slight concave upward shape in the early portion of clevis pin
curve is believed to be caused by the testing sequence. The zone of soil immediately in
front of the pile was preloaded or “hardened” during the initial rigid strut test. The
similarity in response between the two connection devices is attributed to the following
factors.
1) The clevis did not function as a true pin connection. It is believed that some
resistance to rotation was developed because of tight clearances around the
clevis pin and the steel plates that were used for the clevis tongue and yoke.
2) The rigid strut and clevis pin provided greater rotational restraint than the load
cell because the load cell was free to rotate. Consequently, the rotational
stiffness of the load cell controlled the level of rotational restraint that was
provided in the loading system.
The difference in performance between the two connectors with regards to pile
deflection and slope is negligible. For this reason, the remaining tests described in this
chapter were performed using the rigid strut connection. This type of connection
provides greater rotational restraint than a free-head connection, but less rotational
restraint than a pure fixed-head connection. Although the strut was rigidly attached to the
pile, bending at other more flexible locations in the loading train (primarily at the load
cell) precluded a pure fixed-headed pile boundary condition. Consequently, the pile-head
boundary conditions for theses tests were only partially restrained.
Partially restrained boundary conditions are typically analyzed by measuring,

computing, or estimating the rotational restraint, which was defined by Matlock and
Reese (1961) as the moment divided by the rotation. The degree of rotational restraint
involved in these tests is discussed in Section 6.3.3.
141
6.3.2 Effect of Soil Type and Density
The two single piles, identified as the north pile and south pile, were loaded in the
direction of their strong axis at test locations C and D (Figure 3.1). The piles were
initially tested in their as-driven condition, embedded in natural soil. As shown in Figure
6.8(a), the load-deflection curves for the two piles embedded in natural soil are nearly
identical. This indicates quite uniform soil conditions at the site and good repeatability of
testing procedures.
After testing the piles in their as-driven condition, the natural soil was excavated
from around the piles and replaced with New Castle sand. The excavation and
replacement extended to a depth of 7 feet at the north pile and 5.7 feet at the south pile.
Tests were performed with the sand backfill in a loose condition, Dr @ 10 %, and a dense
condition, Dr @ 60 %.
As shown in Figures 6.8(b) and 6.8(c), pile deflections increased noticeably when
the natural soil was replaced by sand. At a deflection of ½-inch, the resistance of the
north pile decreased by approximately 65% when the top 7 feet of natural soil was
replaced by dense sand. The resistance of the pile in 7 feet of loose sand was reduced by
approximately 80%.
At the same deflection (½-inch), the resistance of the south pile decreased by 60%
when the top 5.7 feet of natural soil was replaced by dense sand. The resistance of the
pile in 5.7 feet of loose sand was reduced by approximately 75 %.
In summary, lateral load resistance increases with soil stiffness and density, as
would be expected. An accurate evaluation of soil shear strength and stiffness, within the
top 10 pile diameters, is necessary to analyze laterally loaded pile foundations reliably.
142
6.3.3 Effect of Pile-Head Rotational Restraint
The single piles were tested using rotationally restrained pile-head boundary
conditions. Matlock and Reese (1961) quantified this type of boundary condition as the
moment at the pile head divided by the rotation (M/θ). This type of connection provides
greater rotational restraint than a free-head connection, but less rotational restraint than a
fixed-head connection. In this dissertation, the term kmθ is used to represent the rotational
stiffness, M/θ.
The effects of pile head restraint were examined using the following three
approaches, which are described in more detail in the following paragraphs.
1) the single pile response was compared to the measured

response of a group pile restrained against rotation at
the top by a concrete cap,
2) upper and lower bound response curves were

calculated using free- and fixed-head boundary
conditions, and
3) the value of rotational restraint, kmθ was determined

through trial and error.
Approach 1. The measured response of the north pile was

compared to the average response of a pile from the NE group, as shown
in Figure 6.9(a). The NE group was constrained by a 36-inch-deep cap,
which provided a highly restrained pile-head boundary condition. As
would be expected, the NE group pile provides a stiffer response because
it represents a boundary condition approaching complete restraint. (The
NE group pile response curve represents the condition in which soil was
removed from around the cap.)
143
Approach 2. The computer program LPILE Plus3.0 (1997) was used to generate
load deflection curves using free- and fixed-head boundary conditions. p-y curves were
developed using the cubic parabola formulation with Brinch Hansen’s (1961) ultimate
theory for soils containing both friction and cohesion. Soil parameters were estimated
from field and laboratory tests.
As shown in Figure 6.9(b), the calculated response curves establish upper and
lower bounds of possible behavior. The calculated fixed-head response is stiffer than the
measured response of the NE group pile, which is reasonable considering a pure fixed-
head condition is rarely achieved in the field. The fixed-head response curve was
calculated assuming 100 % group efficiency, and thus represents a true upper bound. The
calculated response would be closer to the measured results if reductions for group
efficiencies were incorporated into the calculations.
Approach 3. In this approach, the pile-head boundary condition was assumed to

be partially restrained, and represented by kmθ. The magnitude of rotational restraint
(kmθ) at the pile-head was determined through a trail and error process. The value of kmθ
was varied until the calculated load-deflection results matched the observed results. A
value of kmθ = 2500 ft-kips/rad was found to provide the best match between calculated
and observed load-deflection responses. The calculated response curve for this vale of
kmθ is shown in Figure 6.10.
In summary, pile head rotational restraint significantly affects the performance of

a laterally loaded pile. Three approaches were described that can be used for evaluating
this effect, they are:
1. Perform field load tests using the same rotational

restraint as planned for the production piles.
2. Calculate lower and upper bound limits using free and

fixed head boundary conditions. Estimate a response
144
between these limits using experience and engineering

judgement
3. Calculate response curves using a partially restrained

boundary condition by back calculating, measuring, or
estimating the rotational restraint, kmθ.
6.3.4 Effect of Cyclic Loading
The two single piles were subjected to 150 cycles of monotonic loading to
evaluate the effects of cyclic load on pile performance. Tests results for the north and
south piles, embedded in natural soil, are shown in Figure 6.11. Results for the south pile
embedded in dense sand are shown in Figure 6.12. The figures show the pile response
every 25 cycles of load.
As shown in Figure 6.11, pile deflections in natural soil increased during the first
75 cycles, then gradually leveled off with no further change in deflection. An 80 %
increase in deflection occurred as a result of cyclic loading. The maximum deflection
reached at the end of loading was approximately 1.4 inches.
The south pile performance in dense sand was somewhat different, exhibiting a
continual increase in deflections with load cycles, as shown in Figure 6.12(b). One
hundred fifty cycles of load application resulted in a 60 % increase in deflection, at a 50
kip lateral load. The maximum deflection at the end of loading was almost 4 inches.
Increased deflections caused by cyclic loads are generally attributed to 1) gapping

and subsequent scour of soil from around the pile or 2) cyclic soil degradation caused by
the buildup of excess pore pressures from cyclically applied shear stresses (Brown and
Reese 1985).
The first phenomenon does not apply to either of the soil conditions at this site
because the water table was more than 12 feet below the ground surface.
145
The second phenomenon, cyclic soil degradation, occurs during undrained

loading and includes a reduction of soil modulus and undrained shear strength (Poulos
1982). The natural fine-grained soils at the site may have experienced some degradation
of strength caused by excess pore pressures. However, the low frequency cyclic loads
used in these tests would not cause excess pore pressure development in the sand backfill.
In general, the cyclic behavior of a pile in sandy soil is usually similar to its static
behavior. However, the results shown in Figures 6.11 and 6.12 indicate that cyclic
loading significantly affected the single piles in both natural soil and dense sand backfill.
These tests were performed at relatively large loads, resulting in deflections ranging from
10 % to almost 40 % of the pile diameter. These large loads and deflections may have
exacerbated cyclic effects by stressing the soil and piles to conditions approaching their
ultimate or yield strengths. Reese (1997) reported similar observations concerning load
tests performed in stiff clay at a site near Manor, Texas.
In conclusion, the cyclic response observed in these tests overestimates the effects
of cyclic load on the behavior of piles that are loaded at typical working stress levels.
Detailed additional studies would be necessary to separate and quantify the different
mechanisms that occur during cyclic loading.
6.4 PILE CAP RESISTANCE
The results described in this section were obtained from lateral load tests
performed on the NE and NW pile caps (described in Table 6.1) and the SE pile cap
(described in Table 6.2).
6.4.1 Resistance With and Without Cap Embedment
In the first series of tests, the pile groups were tested with the caps embedded in
relatively undisturbed natural soil. The results from these tests are shown in Figure 6.13.
Although loads as large as 140 kips were applied (35 kips per pile), the deflections were
146
small, less than 0.1 inches for the NE and NW caps, and approximately 0.13 inches for
the SE cap.
As shown in Figures 6.13(a) and (b), the 18-inch-deep NW cap deflected less than
the 36-inch-deep NE cap during the initial load tests in natural ground. This seemingly
incongruous behavior is attributed to construction disturbances of the soil along the sides
and front of the NE cap. During construction, soil was removed at three locations around
the NE cap to provide room for embedding anchor rods, which were used in subsequent
load tests at locations C and D (Figure 3.1). The excavations were backfilled with
imported sandy soil before performing the load tests. In contrast, three sides of the 18-
inch-deep NW cap were in full contact with undisturbed soil, which is stiffer than the
sand backfill that was used in the trenches around the NE pile cap.
Subsequent tests were performed on the pile groups after soil was removed from
the sides and front of the caps, as shown in Figure 6.14. By comparing the load-
deflection responses from these tests with the initial tests in undisturbed ground, the
contribution of cap resistance can readily be ascertained. As shown in Figure 6.13, the
load-deflection curves clearly show that removing soil from the sides and front of the
caps resulted in larger deflections at the same loads. Lateral deflections increased by
approximately 150 % for the 36-inch-deep NE cap at 140-kip load, 400 % for the 18-
inch-deep NW cap at 140-kip load, and 500 % for the 36-inch-deep SE cap at 90-kip
load.
The percentage of overall lateral resistance provided by the pile caps are as
follows:
• NE cap – 40 %, at 0.09 in deflection,
• NW cap – 50 %, at 0.05 in deflection, and
• SE cap – 50 %, at 0.125 in deflection
147
Results from these tests support the following conclusions:
1. The horizontal deflections of the pile caps are small

considering the magnitude of the maximum lateral
loads (approximately 35 kips per pile). This exceeds
design loads that are often used for HP 10 x 42 piles by
a factor of 3 to 4.
2. The fact that the18-inch-deep cap deflected less than the

36-inch-deep cap is a result of trench construction
disturbance along the sides and front of the 36-inch-
deep cap. This indicates the important effect of cap
resistance in the behavior of pile groups, and the
significance of the strength and stiffness of soil around
the caps in determining the magnitude of cap resistance.
3. Removing soil from the sides and front of the caps

increased deflections by 150 to 500 %, further
indicating the importance of the cap and the
surrounding soil in resisting lateral loads.
4. Forty to fifty percent of the overall lateral load

resistance was provided by the pile caps. This indicates
that approximately ½ the lateral resistance of a pile
group foundation can be developed in the soil around
the pile cap.
6.4.2 Resistance From Sides and Front of Caps
Figure 6.15 shows load deflection responses for the NE, NW, and SE pile caps for
the following three conditions:
148
1. cap in full contact with soil,
2. soil removed from the sides of the cap, and
3. soil removed from the sides and front of the cap.
The tests indicate that pile cap resistance is comprised of two elements: 1) shear
resistance developed in soil along the sides of the cap and 2) passive resistance developed
by soil in front of the cap. The contributions from these two components are shown in
Table 6.6 for the three pile caps. The percent contributions shown in this table were
determined at deflections of 0.09 in for the NE cap, 0.05 in for the NW cap, and 0.06 in
for the SE cap.
At these small deflections, the side shear component for the NE and NW caps
appear to be greater than the passive resistance developed in front of the cap. It is
expected that at larger deflections, a greater percentage of passive resistance will be
mobilized in front of the cap. Research by Clough and Duncan (1971) indicate that
passive pressures are not fully mobilized until wall movements approach 2 o 4 % of the
wall height. The comparisons provided in Table 6.6 are for deflections less than 0.25 %
of the cap height. The resistance developed along the sides of the cap is not expected to
change significantly with increased load. Consequently, the percent contribution from
soil along the cap sides will decrease as deflections increase, and the passive pressure
component will comprise a larger and more significant share of the overall resistance.
The response of the SE cap with soil removed from the cap sides (Figure 6.15c) is
not representative because of disturbances that occurred during construction. A 2.5-foot-
wide trench was excavated on the north side of the cap to make room for installing dowel
anchor rods. The excavation was backfilled with sand prior to testing. These activities
reduced the overall lateral capacity of the SE cap. Consequently, the contribution from
the cap sides is most likely 1.5 to 2 times the value of 11 % shown in Table 6.6.
149
6.4.3 Effect of Repetitive Load Applications
Five load cycles were performed with the caps embedded in natural soil to
examine the effect of repetitive load applications on the load-deflection response curves.
Results from the first and fifth cycles are shown in Figure 6.16 for the NE and NW pile
caps. The plots represent the load-deflection response after removing permanent set by
resetting the deflection to zero, at the beginning of each load cycle. The same
incremental load procedure was used in these tests, and the time lag between cycles (1 to
6 days) was representative of the time period between the different incremental tests. As
shown in Figure 6.16, there is no discernable difference in behavior between the first and
fifth cycles.
Therefore, it appears that the application of a small number of repetitive loads has
no significant effect on the load-deflection behavior of the pile caps, particularly at the
small deflections measured during this study.
6.4.4 Effect of Pile Cap Depth
The effect of cap depth or thickness on the lateral behavior of pile caps was
examined by performing tests on two caps having the same plan dimensions (5 ft by 5 ft)
and pile lengths (19 ft), but different depths. The piles were embedded more than 12
inches into the caps, which were heavily reinforced in both top and bottom faces.
Cracking of concrete around the pile heads was not a factor because of the large amount
of reinforcing steel, and the small deflections and rotations during testing. Load-
deflection response curves for the NE 36-inch-deep and the NW 18-inch-deep pile caps
are shown in Figure 6.17.
The response curves for the caps embedded in natural soil are shown in Figure
6.17(a). As previously described, the test on the NE cap in natural soil is not
representative because of temporary trenches that were excavated at three locations
around the cap during construction.
150
The results shown in Figure 6.17(b) were obtained from tests performed after soil
was removed from around the caps. In this condition, the caps are isolated from the
surrounding soil and, consequently, the lateral behavior is controlled by the resistance
developed in the underlying piles. The two foundations behaved nearly identically in
these tests, further indicating the presence of relatively homogeneous soil conditions
around the piles. These results indicate that cap thickness has little to no effect on the
lateral behavior of a pile group, if the cap is not embedded. A similar conclusion could
be inferred for pile caps backfilled with very loose uncompacted soil.
The results of tests performed on the two caps backfilled with compacted crusher
run gravel are shown in Figure 6.17(c). In this case, the 18-inch-deep NW cap deflected
20 % more than the 36-inch deep NE cap, at a lateral load of approximately 140 kips.
This indicates that cap thickness influences the lateral response of a pile group. The
magnitude of this effect depends on the shear strength and density of soil around the cap,
the size of the cap, and the rotational restraint provided at the connection between the
piles and cap.
In summary, a thicker pile cap is expected to deflect less than a thinner cap. As
deflections increase, so will the disparity in performance between two caps of different
size. This is because resistance developed by passive pressure in front of the caps will
become increasingly significant at larger movements.
6.4.5 Effect of Pile Length
The effect of pile length on the lateral behavior of pile groups was examined by
performing comparable tests on two caps having the same dimensions (5 ft by 5 ft by 3 ft
deep), but different lengths of piles. Load-deflection responses for the NE cap with 19-
foot-long piles and the SE cap with 10-foot-long piles are shown in Figure 6.18 for the
following three conditions.
1. Pile caps embedded in natural soil, Figure 6.18(a):

The resistance provided by the SE group (10-ft-long piles)
151
was 14 % less than the resistance provided by the NE group

(19-ft-long piles), at 0.1 inches of deflection.
2. Pile caps with no passive or side resistance, Figure

6.18(b): The resistance provided by the SE group (10-ft-
long piles) was 35 % less than the resistance provided by
the NE group (19-ft-long piles), at 0.2 inches of deflection.
3. Pile caps backfilled with compacted gravel, Figure

6.18(c): The resistance provided by the SE group (10-ft-
long piles) was 33 % less than the resistance provided by
the NE group (19-ft-long piles), at 0.1 inches of deflection.
Pile group rotational stiffness, and, consequently, the lateral load behavior is
affected by the vertical or axial capacity of piles in the group. The piles in the NE group
were 19-feet-long, while the piles in the SE group were only 10-feet-long. As discussed
in Chapter 7, rotational stiffness is primarily a function of pile side resistance. The
longer piles in the NE group were able to develop larger side resistance forces than the
shorter piles in the SE group. Consequently, the SE pile cap had a greater tendency to
rotate as its leading piles were forced deeper into the ground and its trailing piles moved
vertically upward. Larger cap deflections occurred as a result of these increased
rotations. This explains the large difference in the load-deflection responses shown in
Figure 6.18(b), when soil was removed from around the caps. As shown in Table 6.5, the
SE cap rotated approximately 3 times as much as the NE cap during these tests.
6.4.6 Effect of Backfill Type and Density
Lateral load tests were performed on the NE, NW and SE caps to examine the
effects of backfill type and density on pile cap lateral behavior. Response curves for tests
in natural soil and gravel backfill are shown in Figure 6.19(a) for the NE cap, Figure
6.19b) for the NW cap, and Figure 6.19(c) for the SE cap. In each case, caps embedded
152
in the stiff overconsolidated natural soils exhibited stiffer responses (smaller deflections)
than caps backfilled with compacted gravel.
Tests were performed on the SE cap using four different backfill conditions, to
further study the effect of soil strength on lateral load response. Direct comparisons are
shown in Figure 6.20 for the following conditions:
1. Figure 6.20(a) – natural soil versus dense sand,
2. Figure 6.20(b) – dense sand versus loose sand,
3. Figure 6.20(c) – dense gravel versus dense sand, and
4. Figure 6.20(d) – loose sand versus no soil.
The most obvious trend in these comparisons is the direct relationship between
backfill strength and lateral load behavior. Smaller deflections were observed in the
stiffer, stronger soils, and deflections noticeably increased as soil strength and stiffness
decreased. The stiffest, strongest soils are the natural undisturbed soils (smallest
measured deflections) followed in decreasing order by dense gravel, dense sand, loose
sand, and no soil (largest measured deflections).
These results further support the significance of cap resistance in the overall
lateral behavior of pile groups. Not only does the cap provide a significant share of the
resistance, but the magnitude of this resistance depends on the strength and stiffness of
soil around the cap.
The NE and NW pile groups were subjected to a large number of unidirectional

loads to evaluate the effects of cyclic loading on the lateral resistance of caps backfilled
with dense gravel. The load-deflection response at every 25 load cycles, and the
deflection versus number of load cycles, is shown in Figure 6.21 for the NE and NW
153
caps. The effect of cyclic loading was small and appeared to level off after
approximately 20 cycles. For instance, the NE cap deflections increased by 0.02 inches
during the first 20 cycles and did not increase further over the following 130 cycles. The
total increase in deflection for the NW cap was 0.035 inches, and 70 % of this occurred
during the first 20 cycles.
Figure 6.22 shows the cyclic response of the SE cap embedded in natural soil.
One hundred twenty unidirectional loads were applied during the test. The deflection
versus load response for every 20 cycles of load is shown in Figure 6.22(a), and the
deflection versus number of load cycles, is shown in Figure 6.22(b). As for the NE and
NW caps, the effect of cyclic loading leveled off after approximately 20 cycles. The total
increase in deflection was 0.034 in, and 80 % of this occurred during the first 20 cycles.
6.4.8 Ground Surface Movements
Vertical deflections of the backfill surface, in front of the NE cap, were monitored
during the cyclic tests. Linear potentiometers were spaced 1 to 4 feet in front of the cap,
as shown in Figure 6.23. Vertical deflections during the first load cycle (at 120 kip load
and at zero load) are shown in Figure 6.23(a). Similar information is shown in Figure
6.23(b) for the 150th load cycle.
The vertical deflections were all in an upward direction, and the maximum values
at peak load were observed in the potentiometers located one foot from the cap face. The
vertical deflections were small, approximately 50 % of the horizontal cap deflections.
The maximum permanent vertical deformation (the residual deflection after the 120 kip
load was decreased to zero) was upward and occurred 2 feet in front of the cap.
Because the measured vertical deflections are very small, it is difficult to draw
any firm conclusions from the results. The most significant observation is the upward
movement of the backfill surface. This is caused by a combination of factors including
dilatant behavior in the dense gravel backfill and the initial development of a passive soil
wedge. As cap movements increase, the passive soil wedge will have a tendency to move
154
upward, as the cap rotates downward. The amount of this movement is controlled by the
cap displacement and the interface friction between the front face of the cap and the
backfill soil.
6.4.9 Effect of Sustained Loading
The effect of sustained lateral loads on pile cap performance was investigated for
two soil conditions:
1. NE and NW caps backfilled with gravel (Figure 6.24)
2. SE cap embedded in natural ground (Figure 6.25).
Loads were incrementally increased to 135 kips and then held constant. As
shown in Figures 6.24 and 6.25, there were no significant changes in horizontal
deflections during sustained application of load. These results are comparable to the
long-term performance of vertically loaded footings founded in dense granular soils or in
overconsolidated low-plasticity fine-grained soils (same types of soil used in this study).
6.5 PASSIVE LOAD RESISTANCE WITHOUT PILES

Lateral load tests were performed on the bulkhead, which was located at the west
end of test trench B (Figure 3.1), to provide a means of experimentally studying passive
pressure resistance without the influence of piles.
6.5.1 Effect of Backfill Type on Passive Load Resistance
The bulkhead was initially loaded against undisturbed natural ground. The load-
deflection response curve for this test is shown in Figure 6.26. Loads were applied in 15
kip increments, up to a load of about 137 kips. Maintaining this load was difficult
because the deflections did not stabilize over time, as shown in Figure 6.27. The
resistance dropped off dramatically after about 90 minutes of loading, indicating failure
within the soil mass. Cracks were observed extending outward from the lead corners of
155
the bulkhead, in a direction roughly parallel to the direction of loading. The cracks
ranged in width from hairline to ¼-inch. The most visible crack was 45 inches long.
After completing the first series of tests, the natural soil was excavated from the
front side of the bulkhead and replaced with compacted gravel backfill. The excavation
extended to the bottom of the bulkhead, 3.5 feet, and extended outward in front of the
bulkhead 7.5 feet. The bulkhead was then incrementally loaded to failure. As shown in
Figure 6.26, failure occurred at a load of 90 kips and a deflection of approximately 1.6
inches.
In summary, the passive resistance of the bulkhead backfilled with dense gravel
was 35 % less than the resistance obtained by the bulkhead embedded in natural soil.
Figure 6.28 shows the response of the bulkhead backfilled with crusher run gravel
and monotonically loaded 120 times at a 70 kip load. The deflection versus load
response for every 20 cycles of load is shown in Figure 6.28(a) and the deflection versus
number of load cycles, is shown in Figure 6.28(b) for every 20 cycles of 70 kip load. The
effect of cyclic loading appeared to level off after approximately 20 cycles. The total
increase in deflection was 0.33 in, and 70 % of this occurred during the first 20 cycles.
As shown in Figure 6.28(b), the deflections decreased after 120 cycles of load, at
the maximum applied load of 100 kips. This is attributed to the soil preloading or
“hardening”, which occurred during the application of 120 cycles of 70 kip load.
Vertical deflections of the backfill surface, on the front side of the bulkhead, were
monitored during the cyclic tests. Linear potentiometers were spaced from 1 to 4.5 feet
in front of the bulkhead, as shown in Figure 6.29(c). Vertical deflections during the first
load cycle (at 70 kip load and zero load) are shown in Figure 6.29(a). Figure 6.29(b)
shows similar deflection distributions for the 120th load cycle. The vertical deflections
156
were upward, and the maximum values at peak load were measured in the potentiometers
located 4.5 feet from the front face of the bulkhead.
The vertical deflections were relatively large, approximately 60 % of the

horizontal cap deflections. The maximum permanent vertical deformation (the measured
deflection after the load was decreased to zero) was 0.47 inches, and occurred 4.5 feet
from the cap face.
The backfill surface moved upward, similar to the pile cap tests, except the
bulkhead displacements were considerably greater. A noticeable bulge developed on the
surface of the backfill, extending 7.5 feet in front of the bulkhead, and parallel to the
bulkhead face. Surface cracks extended from the front corners of the bulkhead out to the
bulge. Based on the surface crack pattern and location of bulging soil, it appears that the
failure surface intersected the ground surface approximately 7.5 feet in front of the
bulkhead. The bulkhead and the passive failure wedge appeared to move in a lateral and
upward direction, as the load was increased.
6.6 SUMMARY
A field test facility was developed to perform full-scale lateral load tests on single
piles, pile groups, and pile caps embedded in natural soil and backfilled with granular
soil. The facility was designed specifically for this project to evaluate the lateral
resistance provided by pile caps. A total of thirty-one tests were performed using
incremental, cyclic, and sustained loading procedures.
Results from the testing program clearly support the research hypothesis that pile
caps provide significant resistance to lateral load. The pile caps that were tested in this
study provided approximately ½ of the overall lateral resistance of the pile group
foundations.
157
The lateral resistance provided by a pile group/pile cap foundation depends on

many interacting factors, which were isolated during this study to evaluate their
significance. In order of importance, these are:
1. Stiffness and density of soil in front of the cap. The passive resistance that
can be developed in front of a pile cap is directly related to the backfill
strength. As shown in Figure 6.20, the lateral resistance increases as the
stiffness and density of soil around the cap increases.
2. Depth of cap embedment. Increasing cap thickness or depth will result in

smaller lateral deflections, as shown in Figure 6.17.
3. Rotational restraint at the pile head. The rotational restraint available at the
pile head can most often be described as a partially restrained condition. As
shown in Figure 6.9(b), this condition results in response that falls between
that of a fixed-head and free-head boundary condition. Response curves can
be calculated using partially restrained boundary conditions by calculating,
measuring, or estimating the rotational restraint, kmθ, as shown in Figure 6.10.
4. Pile group axial capacity. Lateral behavior of a pile group is directly related
to the vertical or axial capacity of the piles. As shown by the results in Figure
6.18, pile groups comprised of longer piles (greater axial capacity) have
significantly greater lateral resistance than groups with shorter piles. The
rotation of the cap and the passive resistance developed in front of the cap are
both affected by the axial capacity of the piles.
5. Stiffness and density of soil around the piles. Lateral load resistance
increases as the stiffness and density of soil around the piles increase, as
shown in Figure 6.8. The soil within the top 10 pile diameters has the greatest
effect on lateral pile response.
158
6. Cyclic and sustained loads. For the conditions tested in this study, the
effects from cyclically applied loads and long-term sustained loads were
minor, or secondary, in comparison to the other factors described above. In
other situations, such as high groundwater or soft compressible soils, the
effect of cyclic loading or long term sustained loading could be more
significant.
In conclusion, the load tests performed in this study clearly indicate that pile caps
provide considerable resistance to lateral loads. The lateral resistance of a pile group is
largely a function of the passive resistance developed by the cap and the rotational
restraint of the pile-cap system. The passive resistance of the cap is controlled by the
stiffness and density of the backfill soil and the interface friction angle. The rotational
restraint is a function of the pile-to-cap connection and the axial capacity of the piles.
159
Table 6.1. Summary of lateral load tests conducted at setup location A - NE pile cap versus NW pile cap.
Test Test date Foundation conditions Type of test Ground- Instrumentation comments
No. water
(ft)
Evaluated instrumentation response over an 8
Both caps in full contact Baseline (no loads)
1 6/8/98 11.7 hour period.
with natural ground
Both caps in full contact Incrementally loaded to 134 6 Celesco and 6 Longfellow transducers (some
2 6/12/98 11.7
with natural ground kips sticking noted in Longfellow’s)
Both caps in full contact Cyclically loaded to 132.5 6 Celesco and 6 Longfellow transducers
3 6/12/98 11.7
with natural ground kips (10 cycles)
Both caps in full contact Performed 10 load cycles to 6 Celesco and 6 Longfellow transducers
4 6/12/98 11.7
with natural ground 100 kips
Both caps in full contact Incrementally loaded to 136 6 metal Celescos only, 3 per cap
5 6/18/98 12.1
with natural ground kips
Both caps in full contact Cyclically loaded to 137 kips 6 metal Celescos only, 3 per cap
6 6/18/98 12.1
with natural ground (4 cycles)
Soil removed from the sides Incrementally loaded to 137 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap
7 7/2/98 13.1
of both caps kips
Soil removed from the sides Cyclically loaded to 137 kips 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap
8 7/2/98 13.1
of both caps (4 cycles)
160
Table 6.1. Concluded.
No. water
(ft)
Soil removed from sides Incrementally loaded to 136 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap
9 7/9/98 13.4
and front of both caps kips
Soil removed from sides Cyclically loaded to 137 kips 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap
10 7/9/98 13.4
and front of both caps (4 cycles)
Sides and front of both caps Incrementally loaded to 136 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap, and 4
11 7/20/98 backfilled with crusher run kips 14.1 Longfellows on NE cap backfill
aggregate
Sides and front of both caps Performed 150 load cycles 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap, and 4
12 7/20/98 backfilled with crusher run from 0 to 120 kips 14.1 Longfellows on NE cap backfill
aggregate
Sides and front of both caps Sustained load test at 135 12 Celesco transducers, 6 per cap, and 4
13 7/24/98 backfilled with crusher run kips for 190 min 14.4 Longfellows on NE cap backfill
aggregate
161
Table 6.2. Summary of lateral load tests conducted at setup location B - SE pile cap versus bulkhead.
Test Test Foundation conditions Type of test Ground- Instrumentation comments

No. date water
(ft)
Pile cap and bulkhead in full Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, abutment
14 8/1/98 14.7
contact with natural ground to 135 kips failed at 135 kip sustained load (84 min)
Soil removed from sides of cap, Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
15 8/26/98 bulkhead backfilled with crusher to 90 kips 14.8 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
run aggregate
Soil removed from sides and Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
16 8/29/98 front of cap, bulkhead backfilled to 95 kips 15.0 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
with crusher run aggregate
Cap backfilled with
Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
uncompacted New Castle sand,
17 8/31/98 to 100 kips 15.0 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
bulkhead b/f with crusher run
aggregate
Cap backfilled with compacted Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
18 8/31/98 New Castle sand, bulkhead b/f to 100 kips 15.0 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
Cap backfilled with compacted Incrementally loaded 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
19 9/3/98 crusher run agg., bulkhead b/f to 100 kips 15.3 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
Cap backfilled with compacted Performed 150 cycles 6 Celescos on cap, 4 on abutment, and 4
20 9/3/98 crusher run agg., bulkhead b/f from 0 to 60 kips 15.3 Longfellow transducers on abutment backfill
162
Table 6.3. Summary of lateral load tests conducted on the individual north pile.
Test Test Foundation conditions Type of test Ground- Instrumentation comments

No. date water
(ft)
North pile with rigid strut Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
21 9/21/98 connection in natural soil 50 kips 15.8 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
G.S.
North pile with clevis pin Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
22 9/21/98 connection in natural soil 50 kips 15.8 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
G.S.
North pile with clevis pin Performed 150 cycles 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
23 9/21/98 connection in natural soil from 0 to 50 kips 15.8 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
G.S.
24 9/30/98 connection, top 7’ of pile 20 kips 16.0 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
embedded in loose sand G.S.
embedded in compacted sand G.S.
North pile with clevis pin Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
embedded in compacted sand G.S.
163
R. L. Mokw CHAPTER 6
Table 6.4. Summary of lateral load tests conducted on the individual south pile.
No. water
(ft)
South pile with rigid strut connection Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
27 10/7/98 in natural soil 74 kips 16.1 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
G.S.
South pile with rigid strut connection Performed 150 cycles 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
28 10/7/98 in natural soil from 0 to 50 kips 16.1 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
G.S.
South pile with rigid strut connection, Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
29 10/9/98 top 5.7’ of pile embedded in loose 45 kips 15.9 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
sand G.S.
South pile with rigid strut connection, Incrementally loaded to 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
30 10/9/98 top 5.7’ of pile embedded in 50 kips 15.9 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
compacted sand G.S.
South pile with rigid strut connection, Performed 150 cycles 3 Celescos mounted along pile C.L.
31 10/9/98 top 5.7’ of pile embedded in from 0 to 50 kips 15.9 and 3 mounted on tell-tale attached at
compacted sand G.S.
164
Table 6.5. Measured angular rotations.
Foundation Soil condition Load Tilt in the direction Torsional

around cap (kips) of load θ (deg) rotation
τ (deg)
NE cap natural soil 136 0.001 0.001
NE cap gravel backfill 136 0.044 0.002
NE cap no soil 136 0.072 0.003
NW cap natural soil 136 0.069 0.001
NW cap gravel backfill 136 0.044 0.002
NW cap no soil 136 0.083 0.003
SE cap natural soil 92 0.026 0.003
SE cap gravel backfill 92 0.019 0.002
SE cap dense sand 92 0.070 0.000
SE cap loose sand 92 0.106 0.000
SE cap no soil 92 0.209 0.016
Bulkhead natural soil 92 0.192 0.073
Bulkhead gravel backfill 92 0.56 0.21
165
Table 6.6. Distribution of pile cap lateral resistance in natural soil.
Test Contribution Contribution Contribution Deflection

location from sides from front from pile (in)
of cap of cap group
(%) (%) (%)
NE cap 24 16 60 0.09
NW cap 37 13 50 0.05
SE cap 11 39 50 0.06
166
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
125
100
Total Load (kips)
75
load increment
50
25
0
(a) Raw data from pile cap load test.
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
125
Data points obtained at the end
100 of each one minute load period.
Total Load (kips)
75
50
25
0
(b) Filtered data.
Figure 6.1. Typical load-deflection curve for SE pile cap

backfilled with compacted gravel.
167
Deflection (in)
0 1 2 3
Load (kips) 150
100
natural soil
loose sand
50 backfill
0
(a) South pile measured response.
0 1 2 3
150
natural soil
Load (kips)
100
loose sand backfill
50
0
(b) SE pile cap measured response.
0 1 2 3
150
natural soil
dense sand
Load (kips)
100 (5.7 ft deep)

compacted gravel
backfill
50
0
(c) Bulkhead measured response.
Figure 6.2. Typical results from lateral load tests

performed at the field test facility.
168
lateral
load θ
θ = angle of tilt in the

direction of load
(rotation about
the horizontal axis)
(a) Cross-section of laterally loaded pile cap

(exaggerated behavior).
lateral
load
τ = angle of twist
(torsional
rotation angle)
(b) Plan view of laterally loaded pile cap

(exaggerated behavior).
Figure 6.3. Description of pile cap rotation angles.
169
HP 10x42 pile
axis of
loading
deflection at
ground surface
axis of loading
pile-head deflections
1.5 ft referenced to
ground surface
ground
surface
HP 10x42 pile
Figure 6.4. Single pile load testing arrangement.
170
HP10 x 42 pile HP10 x 42
axis of
loading
clevis pin
profi le vi ew
axis of
loading
plan view
Figure 6.5. Pinned connection - clevis yoke and tongue.
171
HP10 x 42
axis of
loading
steel strut
profi le vi ew
Figure 6.6. Rigid strut connection.
172
Deflection (in) Pile Slope, θ (radians)
0 1 2 3 4 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
60 60
rigid rigid
strut strut
50 50
40 40
Load (kips)
Load (kips)
30 clevis 30 clevis
pin pin
20 20
10 10
0 0
(a) Pile deflection in (b) Pile slope in natural
natural soil. soil.
0 1 2 3 4 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

60 60
50 50
rigid
40 strut 40
Load (kips)
Load (kips)
rigid
strut
30 30
clevis
20 pin 20
clevis
10 10 pin
0 0
(c) Pile deflection in (d) Pile slope in compacted
compacted sand. sand.
Legend for plots a through d.
rigid strut connection
clevis pin connection
Figure 6.7. Comparison of load connectors used

at the north pile.
173
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
80
south pile
60
Load (kips)
north pile
40
20
natural soil - south pile
0
(a) Response of single piles embedded in natural soil.
80
60
Load (kips)
natural soil dense sand

(7 ft deep)
40
20 loose sand
(7 ft deep)
0
(b) North pile response for different soil types.
80
natural soil
60 dense sand
Load (kips)
(5.7 ft deep)
40 loose sand
(5.7 ft deep)
20
0
(c) South pile response for different soil types.
Figure 6.8. Effect of soil type and density on load deflection

response of single piles.
174
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
60
north pile
40 NE group
Load (kips)
pile*
20 natural
*NEsoil - south
group pile
pile response determined by
dividing the total load by the number of
piles (4) for the condition of soil removed
from the front and sides of the cap.
natural soil - north pile
0
(a) Measured response curves.
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
60
calculated measured calculated

fixed-head response free-head
40
Load (kips)
20 Note: Measured curves shown as solid lines.

Calculated curves shown as dashed lines.
LPILE was used to calculate the load-deflection

curves with user-input p-y curves developed
using Brinch Hansen's c, φ formulation.
(b) Comparison of measured and calculated response curves.
Figure 6.9. Effect of pile-head rotational restraint.
175
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
60
north pile
measured calculated for
response kmθ = 2500 ft-kips/rad
40
NE group
pile
Load (kips)
20
Note: Measured curves shown as solid lines.

Calculated curve shown as dashed line.
LPILE was used to calculate the load-deflection

curves with user-input p-y curves developed
using Brinch Hansen's c, φ formulation.
Figure 6.10. Response curve based on back calculated

kmθ value for pile in natural soil.
176
Deflection (in) Load Cycle
0 1 2 3 4 1 10 100 1000
80 4
Horizontal deflection (in)

60 cycle 1 cycle 150 3
Load (kips)
40 2
20 1
0 0
(a) North pile in natural soil. (b) North pile response during
a 50 kip cyclic load.
0 1 2 3 4 1 10 100 1000
80 4
cycle 1
cycle 150
60 3
Load (kips)
40 2
20 1
0 0
(c) South pile in natural soil. (d) South pile response during
Figure 6.11. Effect of cyclic loading on single piles

embedded in natural soil.
177
0 1 2 3 4 1 10 100 1000
80 4
cycle 150

60 3
cycle 1
Load (kips)
40 2
20 1
0 0
(a) South pile in dense sand. (b) South pile response during
Figure 6.12. Effect of cyclic loading on south pile backfilled

with 5.7 feet of compacted sand.
178
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200
cap in full contact

Total Load (kips)
with undisturbed
150
ground soil removed from
sides and front
40 % of cap
100
50
0
(a) NE 36-in-deep pile cap with 19-ft-long piles.
200
cap in full contact
with undisturbed
Total Load (kips)
150 ground
soil removed from
sides and front
of cap
100 50 %
50
0
(b) NW 18-in-deep pile cap with 19-ft-long piles.
200
cap in full contact
with undisturbed
Total Load (kips)
150 ground
soil removed from
50 % sides and front
100 of cap
50
0
(c) SE 36-in-deep pile cap with 10-ft-long piles.
Figure 6.13. Load deflection response with and without

pile cap embedment in natural soil.
179
(a) Photograph of soil excavation around pile cap.
loading trench
2 ft wide, 3 ft deep
3' 3'
NE pile
cap
excavated area
depth = 3.25 ft
12.5'
1 in = 4 ft
scale
13'
(b) Plan view of excavation around NE pile cap.
Figure 6.14. NE pile cap with soil excavated from sides and front.
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200
natural
cap in soil soil removed from
Total Load (kips)
150 full contact sides of cap

very dense soil removed from
24% sides and front
gravel backfillof cap
100
50
0
(a) NE 36-in-deep pile cap.
cap with 19-ft-long piles.
200
cap in NE
soil36 in cap from
removed
Total Load (kips)
150 full contact sides of cap

19-ft-long piles soil removed from
sides and front
37% of cap
100
50 SE 36-in-cap
10-ft-long piles
0
(b) NW 18-in-deep pile cap with 19-ft-long piles.
200
NE 36 in cap
cap in19-ft-long piles
Total Load (kips)
150 full contact

11%
soil removed from soil removed from
100 sides ofSE
cap
36 in cap sides and front
10-ft-long piles
50
0
(c) SE 36-in-deep pile cap with 10-ft-long piles.
Figure 6.15. Effect of pile cap side resistance.
181
Deflection (in)
0.00 0.05 0.10
150
cycle 1
Total Load (kips)
100
cycle 5
50
Permanent set prior to cycle 5 = 0.045 inches.
0
(a.) NE 36-in-deep cap in contact with natural soil.
Deflection (in)
0.00 0.05 0.10
150
cycle 5 cycle 1
Total Load (kips)
100
50
Permanent set prior to cycle 5 = 0.03 inches.
0
(b.) NW 18-in-deep cap in contact with natural soil.
Note: Load cycle 5 was applied six days after cycle 1. Cycle 5
was initiated at an assumed net deflection of zero. Permanent
set prior to cycle 5 is noted in the plots.
Figure 6.16. Effect of repetitive loading on pile cap deflections.
182
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200
NW cap
Total Load (kips)
150 18-in-deep
NE cap
36-in-deep
100
50
0
(a) Pile caps embedded in natural soil.
200
Total Load (kips)
150
NW cap
18-in-deep
100
NE cap
50 36-in-deep
0
(b) Side and front resistance removed from pile caps.
200
Total Load (kips)
150 NE cap
36-in-deep NW cap
18-in-deep
100
50
0
(c) Pile caps backfilled with very dense gravel.
Figure 6.17. Effect of pile cap depth on load-deflection

response.
183
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200
NE 36 in cap
Total Load (kips)
150 19-ft-long piles SE 36 in cap

10-ft-long piles
100
50
0
(a) Pile caps embedded in natural soil.
200
Total Load (kips)
150 NE 36 in cap
19-ft-long piles
100
SE 36-in-cap
10-ft-long piles
50
(b) Side and front resistance removed from pile caps.

200
Total Load (kips)
150 NE 36 in cap
19-ft-long piles
100 SE 36 in cap
10-ft-long piles
50
0
(c) Pile caps backfilled with compacted gravel.
Figure 6.18. Effect of pile length on load-deflection response.
184
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200
Total Load (kips)
150
natural soil gravel backfill
100
50
0
(a) NE 36-in-deep pile cap, 19-ft-long piles.
200
Total Load (kips)
150 natural soil gravel backfill
100
50
0
(b) NW 18-in-deep cap, 19-ft-long piles.
200
Total Load (kips)
150
natural soil
100 gravel backfill
50
0
(c) SE 10-in-deep cap, 10-ft-long piles.
Figure 6.19. Comparison between natural soil and

compacted gravel backfill.
185
Deflection (in) Deflection (in)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200 200
natural soil
150 150
Total Load (kips)
natural
soil
compacted
sand
100 compacted 100 loose
sand sand
50 50
0 0
(a) Natural soil vs. compacted sand. (b) Compacted sand vs. loose sand.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200 200
150 150
Total Load (kips)
compacted loose
gravel sand
100 compacted 100
sand
soil removed
50 50 frome sides
and front of cap
0 0
(c) Compacted gravel vs. dense sand. (d) Loose sand vs. no backfill.
Figure 6.20. Effect of backfill type and density

on load-deflection response of SE pile group.
186
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 1 10 100 1000
150 0.20
cycle 1
cycle 150
Horizontal Deflection (in)

0.15
Total Load (kips)
100
0.10
50
0.05
0 0.00
(a) NE 36-in-deep cap. (b) NE cap response at 120 kip
cyclic load.
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 1 10 100 1000

150 0.20
cycle 1 cycle
150
0.15
Total Load (kips)
100
0.10
50
0.05
0 0.00
(c) NW 18-in-deep cap. (d) NW cap response at 120 kip
cyclic load.
Figure 6.21. Cyclic response of NE and NW caps backfilled

with compacted gravel.
187
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 1 10 100 1000
150 0.20

0.15
Total Load (kips)
100 cycle 1
cycle
120
0.10
50
0.05
0 0.00
(a) SE 36-in-deep cap. (b) SE cap response at 70 kip
cyclic load.
Figure 6.22. Cyclic response of SE cap backfilled

with compacted crusher run gravel.
188
Horizontal distance from leading edge of cap (ft).
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical Deflection* (in) 0.06
cycle 1
0.04 137 kips
0.02
zero load
after cycle 1
0.00
(a) Vertical movement caused by first load cycle.
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.06
Vertical Deflection* (in)
cycle 150
137 kips
0.04
zero load
after 150 cycles
0.02
*Positive deflection indicates
upward movement.
0.00
(b) Vertical backfill movement after 150 load cycles.
lateral
load linear potentiometers
1 2 3 4 horizontal distance from

NENE
pilepile
capcap
leading edge of cap (ft)
(c) Plan view of setup for measuring backfill surface deflection.
Figure 6.23. Vertical deflection of gravel backfill surface in

front of NE 36-in-deep pile cap.
189
Elapsed Time (minutes)
0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.20
load increasing load constant

0.15 135 kips
0.10
0.05
0.00
(a) NE pile cap response at a sustained load of 135 kips.
0.1 1 10 100 1000

0.20
load increasing load constant
135 kips
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
(b) NW pile cap response at a sustained load of 135 kips.
Figure 6.24. Effect of sustained load on NE and NW

pile caps backfilled with compacted gravel.
190
0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.20
load increasing load constant unload
135 kips
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure 6.25. Effect of sustained load on SE cap

191
Deflection (in)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
150
bulkhead embedded in
125 undisturbed soil
100
Total Load (kips)
bulkhead backfilled
with compacted
75 crusher run gravel
50
25
Figure 6.26. Passive resistance of embedded bulkhead

in undisturbed soil and compacted gravel.
192
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Horizontal Deflection (in) 3
load increasing unload
unable to maintain
constant load at
137 kips (failure condition)
1
Figure 6.27. Effect of sustained load on bulkhead

193
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1 10 100 1000
150 1.5

cycle
120
Total Load (kips)
cycle 1
100 1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
(a) Embedded bulkhead. (b) Bulkhead response at 70 kip

cyclic load.
Figure 6.28. Cyclic response of bulkhead backfilled

with dense crusher run gravel.
194
Horizontal distance from leading edge of bulkhead (ft).
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.6
0.4
cycle 1
70 kips
0.2
zero load
after cycle 1
0.0
(a) Vertical movement caused by first load cycle.
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.6
0.4
cycle 120
70 kips
0.2
zero load *Positive deflection indicates
after 120 cycles upward movement.
0.0
(b) Vertical backfill movement after 120 load cycles.
lateral
load linear potentiometers
1 2 3 4.5 horizontal distance from

bulkhead leading edge of cap (ft)
(c) Plan view of setup for measuring backfill surface deflection.
Figure 6.29. Vertical deflection of gravel backfill surface in

front of embedded bulkhead.
195

Chapter6 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter6 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter6 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R. L.

LATERAL LOAD TESTS

6.2 LOAD TESTS

The incremental procedure is historically the most recognized approach for

minute-long pause was maintained between increments, at constant load. A typical

The cyclic procedure consisted of applying and releasing a large number of

Sustained loads were applied by incrementally increasing the load up to a

θ = the angle of tilt in the direction of load (rotation

τ = the angle of twist or torsion of the cap about a

6.3 SINGLE PILE RESISTANCE

6.3.1 Effect of Pile-Head Load Connection

1) a pinned connection, which consisted of a unidirectional clevis that permitted

Partially restrained boundary conditions are typically analyzed by measuring,

6.3.2 Effect of Soil Type and Density

6.3.3 Effect of Pile-Head Rotational Restraint

1) the single pile response was compared to the measured

2) upper and lower bound response curves were

3) the value of rotational restraint, kmθ was determined

Approach 1. The measured response of the north pile was

Approach 3. In this approach, the pile-head boundary condition was assumed to

In summary, pile head rotational restraint significantly affects the performance of

1. Perform field load tests using the same rotational

2. Calculate lower and upper bound limits using free and

between these limits using experience and engineering

3. Calculate response curves using a partially restrained

6.3.4 Effect of Cyclic Loading

Increased deflections caused by cyclic loads are generally attributed to 1) gapping

The second phenomenon, cyclic soil degradation, occurs during undrained

6.4 PILE CAP RESISTANCE

6.4.1 Resistance With and Without Cap Embedment

• NE cap – 40 %, at 0.09 in deflection,

• NW cap – 50 %, at 0.05 in deflection, and

• SE cap – 50 %, at 0.125 in deflection

Results from these tests support the following conclusions:

1. The horizontal deflections of the pile caps are small

2. The fact that the18-inch-deep cap deflected less than the

3. Removing soil from the sides and front of the caps

4. Forty to fifty percent of the overall lateral load

6.4.2 Resistance From Sides and Front of Caps

1. cap in full contact with soil,

2. soil removed from the sides of the cap, and

3. soil removed from the sides and front of the cap.

6.4.3 Effect of Repetitive Load Applications

6.4.4 Effect of Pile Cap Depth

6.4.5 Effect of Pile Length

1. Pile caps embedded in natural soil, Figure 6.18(a):

was 14 % less than the resistance provided by the NE group

2. Pile caps with no passive or side resistance, Figure

3. Pile caps backfilled with compacted gravel, Figure

6.4.6 Effect of Backfill Type and Density

1. Figure 6.20(a) – natural soil versus dense sand,

2. Figure 6.20(b) – dense sand versus loose sand,

3. Figure 6.20(c) – dense gravel versus dense sand, and

4. Figure 6.20(d) – loose sand versus no soil.

6.4.7 Effect of Cyclic Loading

The NE and NW pile groups were subjected to a large number of unidirectional

6.4.8 Ground Surface Movements

6.4.9 Effect of Sustained Loading

1. NE and NW caps backfilled with gravel (Figure 6.24)