INFLUENCE OF SURFACE REPLACEMENT LAYER ON BEHAVIOR OF

LATERALLY LOADED LARGE BORED PILES IN SOFT CLAY: PILE LOAD TESTS
AND NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
Mamdouh M. Hamza, Suez Canal University & Hamza Associates, Egypt, hamza@hamza.org
Marawan M. Shahien, Tanta University & Hamza Associates, Egypt mshahien@hamza.org
Hayel M. El-Naggar, Housing and Building National Research Centre, Egypt, hayelelnaggar@gmail.com
Mohamed Sobhi, Tanta University, Egypt, masli2010@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of two lateral load tests on large bored pile in soft clay deposit in a major
site in northern Egypt. The tests are carried out on 0.8 m diameter pile. One of the tests is carried out on
the pile where the clay starts from the ground surface. The other test is carried out on a pile after sur-face
improvement by replacing the top 1.50 m of the clay deposit by compacted granular soil. The results of
the tests show the influence of the surface replacement layer on the lateral load versus lateral displace-
ment relationships of the loaded pile. The results of the two tests are used to calibrate a 3D Finite Ele-
ment Analysis model for the pile. The model is used to investigate the influence of the thickness and
lateral extent of the surface replacement layer on the behavior of laterally loaded large bored piles.

KEYWORDS: Large bored piles, lateral pile load test, surface replacement layer, and Finite element
analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Lateral loads for piles are produced by seismic events, wind, wave action, ship impact, traffic, and land
slide forces. The lateral resistance of a pile is controlled by the stiffness and the strength of the material of
the pile and the soil surrounding the upper portion of the pile. In most situations, the soil surrounding the
upper portion of the pile is weak to sustain the design lateral loads. Thus there is a need to increase the
lateral resistance of the pile or groups of piles. Such an increase may be achieved by either increase
number of piles or increase pile diameter. Alternatively, an economic way to increase the lateral
resistance is to improve the soil surrounding the upper portion of the pile (Rollins and Brown, 2011; Faro
et al., 2015).
Ground improvement has the ability to increase the lateral resistance of the pile by increasing the passive
resistance of the soil surrounding the upper portion of the pile. The ground improvement techniques have
the potential for being more cost-effective and reducing construction time. In spite of this fact, such
techniques are rarely implemented in practice. Further, there are relatively few tests or records available
in the literature to guide engineers in evaluating the actual effectiveness of this approach. In addition,
there is no standard or methodology to aid engineers in designing increase of lateral resistance with
surface ground improvement. There are specific improvement methods for each soil type, whether it is
loose cohesion-less soil or soft cohesive soil and these methods are provided by Michell (1981), Tershai
and juran (2000), ASCE (1997), and Rollins and Brown (2011). Furthermore, there are number of case
histories that add a new hole in the sight, such as the cases provided by Brown et al. (1987, 1988),
Mokwa and Duncan (2001), Rollins et al. (2005), Rollins and Cole (2006), Cole and Rollins (2006),
Rollins, Snyder et al. (2010) , Rollins, Gerber, and Kwon (2010), Rollins and Nasr (2010), and Gerber et
al. (2010).
This paper describes two tests on trial piles with the same dimension (diameter and length). The first test
(case 1) is carried out on a pile that is surrounded by natural ground of soft to firm clay, whereas the
second test (case 2) is conducted on a pile that is surrounded with the same soil except for 1.5 m thick
replacement layer. The results of the two pile load tests are used to calibrate a 3 D finite element model.
The calibrated model is then used to carry out parametric analysis studying two major variables; thickness
of surface replacement layer and the lateral extent of the replaced layer.

SOIL CONDITIONS AT TEST SITE

A comprehensive site investigation program was conducted in the site. The program included drilling
boreholes down to depths of about 60m below ground surface, piezocone penetration test, and field vane
tests. Laboratory testing is carried out on Shelby tube undisturbed samples including unconsolidated
undrained and consolidated undrained triaxial tests. Fig. (1) shows the geotechnical profile encountered in
the site. It consists of a fill layer that is 0.5 m in thickness. The fill is underlain by 24.0 m of soft to firm
clay (upper clay). Poorly graded sand layer with silt (upper sand) underlies the upper clay. The upper sand
layer is 1.5 m in thickness. The upper sand layer is followed by 11.50 m of very stiff clay (middle caly).
The middle clay is underlain by 5.50 m of very dense silty clayey sand (lower sand). A stiff to very stiff
clay layer underlies the lower sand and continued to end of boring. The ground water table is noticed at
about 1.0 m below ground surface. Geotechnical parameters of soil formations are shown in Fig. (1).

TESTED PILES PROPERTIES

Two lateral load tests are carried out on two trial piles. The two piles are reinforced concrete bored piles.
The two piles are identical in both diameter and length. The embedded length of the piles is 38m. Both
piles are embedded in the natural soil profile described above and shown in Fig. (1). The top 1.5 m of the
soil profile is improved by replacement with compacted sand layer around the second pile as shown in
Fig. (1). Table (1) presents the geometrical and design information of the two piles.

Table 1. Geometric and design information of the tested piles (Lateral Loads)
Design Test Load
Test No. Shape Diameter (mm) Length (m) % (T.L / D.L)
Load (kN) (kN)
Pile 1 800 mm 40.0 m 85 170 200
Pile 2 800 mm 40.0 m 150 225 150

LATERAL LOAD TESTS

The loading jack obtains reaction from a stiff steel girder that is 10 m in length. The girder distributes the
jack reaction load on 9 concrete blocks. The blocks are resting on the natural soil. The blocks are
constrained by a vertical cut of natural soil with height equal to block size of 1.0m. The blocks gain
additional weight by 8 blocks seating on top of the lower blocks.
One dial gauge is used for measuring the lateral displacement of the pile. The dial gauge is mounted on
the pile on the axe of the hydraulic jack. The dial gauge is supported on a reference beam. The dial gauge
used to measure lateral displacement at 150 mm above the ground surface. Load cell is used for load
measurement. The pressure in the hydraulic jack is increased when drop in pressure occurs. The load is
kept constant during loading time within accuracy +/- 2 %. The testing procedure, load and unload
sequence and duration of readings are in accordance with ASTM D 3966.
 Case 2 Case 1 Soil profile and Strength
20D Parameters
P P 00.0
0.5 m Fill
1.5 m

Bored Pile [Diameter = 800 mm, Length= 40.00 m]

16x16 m Upper Clay
Soft to firm Clay
Compacted
=17.00 kN/m3 , c u=30 kPa
sand

L= 38.0 m L= 38.0 m Upper Sand

24.0
Poorly graded sand with silt
27.0 =18.00 kN/m3 , =36

Middle Clay
Stiff to very stiff clay
=18.50 kN/m3 , c u=150 kPa

37.0
Lower Sand
Very dense silty clayey sand
=18.00 kN/m3 , =36
46.6

lower Clay
Very stiff clay
3
=18.50 kN/m , c u=250 kPa

60.0

Fig. 1. Geometrical profile and properties of the site of the tested piles

FIELD TEST RESULTS

The relationship between lateral load and lateral displacement during loading and unloading of the two
tests (test 1 and test 2) are shown in Fig. (2). For test 1, the maximum horizontal displacement at
maximum lateral load (170 kN) is 21.55 mm. Upon unloading, the horizontal displacement reduced to
6.72 mm, i.e the pile recovered horizontal displacement of 14.83 mm. During loading of test 2, the lateral
displacement at maximum lateral load (225 kN) is 8.46 mm. The recovered displacement during
unloading is 6.48 mm reducing the lateral displacement to 1.98 mm. The observed performance during
testing indicates no concrete failure occurred in the pile with considered elastic response under the range
of loads in the tests.

Fig. 2. Load versus horizontal displacement for the two tested piles
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS VERIFICATION
Three dimensional finite element models are built for the two tests. The 3 D meshes of the two models are
shown in Fig. (3). Table (2) shows summary of geotechnical parameters used in the analysis presented in
this paper.

(a) (b) Replacement

Sand Layer

Upper Clay Upper Clay

Upper Sand Upper Sand

Middle Clay Middle Clay
Lower Sand Lower Sand

Fig. 3. Three dimensional mesh for pile in (a) natural soil profile and (b) the same soil profile with
surface replacement of 1.5 m thick sand layer

Table 2. Geometrical parameters used in the analysis.

Depth Effective
Unit Drained Undrained Undrained
Below Stress Shear
Layer Weight Deformation Shear Deformation
Ground Strength
Modulus Strength, cu Modulus
Surface c=0,
3
m kN/m Degree kPa kPa kPa
Upper Clay 24.5 17.0 - - 30 9000
Upper Sand 27.0 18.0 36 30000 - -
Middle Clay 37.0 18.5 - - 150 45000
Lower Sand 46.6 18.0 36 40000 - -
Lower Clay 60.0 (EOB) 18.5 - - 250 60000
Replacement
Top layer 19.0 38 50000 - -
Sand Layer

The observed load versus displacement relationship in each case is compared to results of the Finite
Element Analysis. The main objective of the comparisons is to calibrate the built numerical model with
the parameters in Table (2). Such calibration would allow for further use of the model for carrying out
parametric analysis as shown in the following sections. The comparisons of results or calibration are
shown in Fig. (4). The comparisons in Fig. (4) it appears excellent agreement between the results of
analysis and the observed behavior.
Fig.4: Comparison between the field data and 3D Finite Element Analysis results for the load
versus displacement curves for case 1 (without replacement) and case 2 (with 1.5 m
replacement)

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS

The 3D Finite Element Model of case 2 with soil replacement is utilized to carry out parametric analysis.
Table (3) shows the variables and range of values considered for each variable of the parametric analysis.

Table 3. Variables Considered in Parametric Study.

Range of Normalized Range of
Variable Symbol Units
Values Symbol Values
Thickness of surface replacement layer Z m 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, Z/D 0.0, 0.625,
1.5 & 2.5 1.25, 1.875
& 3.125
Horizontal extent of replacement layer X m 0.0, 4.0, 8.0 & X/D 0.0, 5.0, 10.0
around the pile 16.0 & 20.0

Two series of computer runs are carried out. In the first series, the value of X is varied in the range shown
in Table (3) while keeping the value of Z constant at 1.5 m corresponding to Z/D of 1.875. During the
second series, the value of Z is varied in the range shown in Table (3) while keeping the value of X
constant at 16.0 m corresponding to X/D of 20.0.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS

The results in terms of horizontal load versus lateral displacement relationships for the first and second
series are shown in Figs. (5) and (6), respectively. The results in Figs. (5) and (6) are presented in terms of
relationships between secant stiffness K versus normalized displacement in Figs (7) and (8) for the first
and second series, respectively. The secant stiffness K is defined as horizontal load divided by lateral
displacement. The normalized displacement (/D) is defined as the lateral displacement divided by pile
diameter. Shown also on Fig. (8) are the results of the measured data during the pile load tests.
Fig. 5: Load versus Displacement curves for 1.5 Fig. 6: Load versus Displacement curves for
m thick surface replacement with different different thicknesses of surface replacement
values of horizontal extents around the pile (Z/D) with horizontal extents X/D of 20 around
(First Series). the pile (Second Series).

180.00
D Measured Z=0 m
160.00
Z Measured Z=1.5m

140.00 Z=0.0 m

Z=0.50 m
120.00
Z=1.00 m
K (kN/mm)

Z=1.50 m
100.00
Z=2.50 m
80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
/D %

Fig. 7: Secant stiffness versus normalized
displacement curves for 1.5 m thick surface
replacement with different values of horizontal
extents around the pile (First Series).
Fig. 8: Secant stiffness versus normalized
displacement curves for different thicknesses
of surface replacement (Z/D) with horizontal
extents X/D of 20 around the pile (Second
Series).

Furthermore, the results in terms of deflection, shear force, moment and soil reaction along the shaft
depth for the second series only are shown in Figs. (9) due to the limited spacing. The results in Figs (9)
correspond to horizontal load of 170 kN.

The following four parameters are introduced fro sake of comparisons:

K is stiffness that is defined as H/, where H is the horizontal load and is the horizontal displacement.
Vmax/H is the ratio of maximum shear force along the pile length to horizontal load H.
Mmax/HD is the ratio of maximum bending moment along the pile shaft to HD, where D is pile diameter.
Rmax/H is the ratio of maximum reaction along the pile shaft to horizontal load H.

The four parameters are plotted versus X/D for the first series in Fig. (10) while the same four parameters
are plotted versus Z/D for the second series in Fig. 11.
Fig. 9: Deflection, shear force, moment and soil reaction along pile depth for different
thicknesses of surface replacement (Z/D) with horizontal extents X/D of 20 around the
pile (Second Series). The data correspond to horizontal load of 170 kN.
Fig. 10: Parameters K, Mmax/HD, Vmax/H and Rmax/H versus various values of X/D for
First Series Horizontal Load H =170 kN.

Fig. 11: Parameters K, Mmax/HD, Vmax/H and Rmax/H versus various values of Z/D for
Second Series Horizontal Load H =170 kN.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Considering the results in Figs (2) and (4), it is clear that the overall behavior of pile is improved by the
presence of sand replacement layer of 1.5 m in thickness. For instance at certain displacement equal to
1% of the pile diameter (8mm), the corresponding load in the case of natural soil (case 1) is 106 kN while
the load in the case of surface improvement (case 2) is 225 kN. The load increased about 112%.

Considering the results in Figs. (5) and (7), in general the lateral behavior of pile improves with the
increase in the lateral extent of surface replacement. This can be explained by the fact as the lateral extent
of surface replacement increases, the space allows for better development of passive resistance in the
surface layer. It should be noted that the improvement in the lateral behavior in the range if 10D to 20D is
not as significant as in the range of 5D to 10D. This is due to the fact that for depth of improvement of
about 2D (Z=1.5 m), only distance of 10D is required to fully develop the passive resistance in the soil
surrounding the pile. Any further increase in lateral extents in the surface replacement layer does not
significantly contribute to any additional passive resistance. It is consistent with the observation made by
Rollins and Brown (2011).

Considering the results in Figs. (6) and (8), in general the lateral behavior of pile improves with the
increase in thickness of surface replacement. This is due to the increase in passive resistance with the
increase in thickness of surface replacement layer. It should be noted that the improvement in lateral
behavior of the pile increases with the increase in thickness of surface replacement layer until reaches
certain thickness (in this case 1.50m) and the increasing in the behavior decreases with the increase in
thickness of surface replacement layer.

Considering the different parameters along the shaft of the piles in Figs (10) and (11), in general, the
presence of surface replacement layer acts as surface constrains to the head of the pile limiting the surface
displacement, increasing the maximum bending moment.

As passive resistance (soil reaction) increases at or near the top of the pile either due to increase in lateral
extent or thickness of surface layer, the location of the maximum shear moves from the pile head to mid
depth of the pile.

For the data and analysis presented in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The use of surface replacement compacted sand can significantly improves the performance of
laterally loaded piles.
The increase in lateral behavior of pile is a function of the combined effects of the lateral extent
of surface replacement and depth of the thickness of surface replacement layer, as well as the
ratio between the shear strength of the surface layer and that of natural soils.

REFERENCES
ASCE (1997), Ground Improvement, Reinforcement and Treatment: A Twenty Year Update and Vision
for the 21st Century, ASCE Geo-Institute Conference, July 1997 (Geotechnical Special Publication No.
69).
Brown, D. A., Reese, L. C., and ONeill, M. W. (1987), Behavior of a Large Scale Pile Group Subjected
to Cyclic Lateral Loading, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(11): 13261343.
Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. (1988), Lateral Load Behavior of a Pile Group in Sand,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(11): 12611276.
Cole, R.T and Rollins, K.M. (2006), Passive Earth Pressure Mobilization During Cyclic Loading,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(9): 11541164.
Duncan, J. M. and Mokwa, R. L. (2001), Passive Earth Pressures: Theories and Tests, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127(3): 248257.
Faro, V., Consoli, N., Schnaid, F., Thom, A., and da Silva Lopes, L. (2015). "Field Tests on Laterally
Loaded Rigid Piles in Cement Treated Soils." J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0001296, 06015003.
Gerber, T. M., Rollins, K. M., Cummins, C. R., and Pruett, J. M. (2010), Dynamic Passive Earth Pressure
on Abutments and Pile Caps. Final report prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Research
Division Lead Agency for Pooled-Fund Study. Unpublished raw data.
Mokwa, R. L. and Duncan J. M. (2001). Experimental Evaluation of Lateral-Load Resistance of Pile
Caps, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127(2): 185192.
Rollins, K. M., Snyder, J. L., and Broderick, R. D. (2005), Static and Dynamic Lateral Response of a 15
Pile Group, Proceedings, 16th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotech. Engineering, Millpress,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 4: 20352040.
Rollins, K. M. and Cole, R. T. (2006), Cyclic Lateral Load Behavior of a Pile Cap and Backll, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 132(9): 11431153.
Rollins, K. M., Olsen, R. J., Egbert, J. J., Jensen, D. H., Olsen, K. G., and Garrett, B. H. (2006), Pile
Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior: Load Tests, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE 132(10): 12621271
Rollins, K. M., Gerber, T. M., and Ku Hyun Kwon (2010), Increased Lateral Abutment Resistance from
Gravel Backfills of Limited Width, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
136(1): 230238.
Rollins, K. M., Snyder, J. L., and Walsh, J. M. (2010), Increased Lateral Resistance of Pile Group in
Clay Using Compacted Fill, Proceedings, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling and
Design, (Geotechnical Special Publication No. 199) ASCE 16021611.
Rollins, K. M. and Nasr, M. (2010), Numerical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Limited Width Gravel
Backlls in Increasing Lateral Passive Resistance. Dynamic Passive Earth Pressure on Abutments and
Pile Caps. Final report prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Research Division Lead Agency
for Pooled-Fund Study.