Lateral load distributions on grouped piles from dynamic

pile-to-pile interaction factors

Der-Wen Chang
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Tamkang University
Tamsui, Taiwan 25137
E-mail: dwchang@mail.tku.edu.tw
Tel and Fax: +886 (2) 2623-4224

and
Bor-Shiun Lin
Former Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
Tamkang University
Tamsui, Taiwan 25137
Tel and Fax: +886 (2) 2623-4224

and
Shih-Hao Cheng
Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
Tamkang University
Tamsui, Taiwan 25137
Tel and Fax: +886 (2) 2623-4224

Lateral load distributions on grouped piles from dynamic

pile-to-pile interaction factors
ABSTRACT
The load distributions of the grouped piles under lateral loads acting from one side of the pile
cap could be approximately modeled using the elasticity equations with the assumptions that
the underground structure is rigid enough to sustain the loads, and only small deformations of
the soils are yielded. Variations of the soil-pile interactions along the depths are therefore
negligible for simplicity. This paper presents the analytical modeling using the dynamic
pile-to-pile interaction factors for 22 and 23 grouped piles. The results were found
comparative to the experimental and numerical results of other studies. Similar to others
finding, it was shown that the leading pile could carry more static loads than the trailing pile
does. For the piles in the perpendicular direction with the static load, the loads would
distribute symmetrically with the centerline whereas the middle pile always sustains the
smallest load. For steady-state loads with operating frequencies up to 30 Hz, the pile load
distributions would vary significantly with the frequencies. It is interesting to know that
designing the pile foundation needs to be cautioned for steady state vibrations as the problem
of machine foundation. However for transient loads or any harmonic loads acting upon
relatively higher frequencies, the pile loads could be regarded as uniformly distributed. It is
hoped that the numerical results of this paper could be helpful to the design practice of pile
foundation.

Key words: lateral load distributions, grouped piles, pile-to-pile interactions

INTRODUCTION
Many researchers have investigated the mechanism of lateral load distribution on the
piles in the past decades. It is known that the shadowing effect of the grouped piles (see
Figure 1) is rather important for the design of the laterally loaded pile foundation (Reese et al.
1974; Holloway et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1987, 1988, 2001; Ruesta and Townsend 1997;
McVay et al. 1995, 1998; Rollins et al. 1998, 2005; Zhang et al. 1999; Ng et al. 2001; Chae et
al. 2004 and Ilyas et al. 2004). The shadowing effect making the stress zone out of a pile and
the surrounding soils can produce a passive wedge along the pile. This wedge will interact
with others and then reduce the soils resistances. In consequence, the soils along the trailing
piles would be more significantly affected than those along the leading piles; individual pile
loads are thus different. To investigate this effect, scaled model test and centrifuge test are
often used to monitor these phenomena. Studying the 33 scaled model piles where the
pile-to-pile spacing was kept three times as wide as the pile diameter, Brown et al. (1988)
had pointed out that the distributions of the ultimate loads could be 45% for leading piles,
32% for middle piles and 23% for trailing piles. Considering the grouped pile effects, a
multiplying factor was then suggested to reduce the loads in the p-y curve analysis. On the
other hand, McVay et al. (1995) have conducted the centrifuge tests on 22 piles where the
pile-to-pile spacing was kept twice as wide as the pile diameter. It was reported that the total
load ratio of the leading piles is 60%, and that of the trailing piles is 40%. Their subsequent
studies (1998) further showed that the pile orientations and the pile-to-pile spacing would be
the main factors in affecting these distributions. Zhang et al. (1999) had confirmed their
observations using the 3D FEM analysis. Recently, Ng et al. (2001) have demonstrated that
the soils and the pile cap connection as well as the loading itself could also affect the lateral
load distributions for the pile foundations. In general, the variations of the pile loads on a
grouped pile foundation strongly depend on the interactions between the soils and the
3

structure.
Presuming that the relative deformations between the piles and the soils are small, the
system can thus preserve elasticity. The pile-to-pile interaction factor (Poulos, 1968, 1971)
was defined as the pile displacement ratio for the arbitrary two piles due the same load acting
on one of the piles. In this study, this factor is often referred in calculating the grouped pile
stiffness affected by the pile-to-pile interaction effects. Using the classical treatise by Morse
and Ingard (1968) on asymptotic cylindrical wave model and the interaction model first
proposed by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) for two horizontally loaded piles, Dobry and Gazetas
(1988) have suggested the simplified vertical and horizontal dynamic pile-to-pile interaction
factors for piles subjected to steady-state loads. Their formulas could be approximated as
follows,

[1]

S 2
S
iS
exp

v exp
r0
VS
VS

[2]

h ( , S ) h (0 0 , S ) cos 2 + h (90 0 , S ) sin 2

[3]

h (90 0 , S ) 0.75 v ( S )

[4]

S 2
S
iS
exp

h (0 , S ) exp
r0
VLa
VLa

where v and h are respectively the vertical and the horizontal pile-to-pile interaction factors,
S is the pile-to-pile spacing, r0 is the pile radius, is the operation frequency (rad/sec), is
material damping of the soil, and Vs is shear wave velocity of the soil, is the angle between
the line of loading and the line through two piles, VLa is the so called Lysmers analogue
wave velocity for soil (= 3.4 Vs /(1-), where is the Possions ratio of soil). It is a
fictitious

wave

velocity

to

approximate

the

apparent

phase

compression-extension waves in the same direction of the force.

velocity

for

the

It is important to know

that Eq. (1) was modeled based on in-plane SV-wave motions due the vertical force
4

excitations. Eq. (2) was modeled based on two types of waves with the assumed apparent
velocities emanating from an oscillating pile under horizontal loads. Assuming that the wave
traveling perpendicularly to the horizontal force is governed by out-off plane SH-wave, the
corresponding interaction factor could be approximated from the vertical one. Accordingly
Eq. (3) follows the suggestion of Gazetas (1991) with a multiplying factor of 0.75. Eq. (4)
was obtained presuming that the waves traveling in the direction of horizontal force were
mainly the compression-extension waves with an apparent phase velocity approximately
equal to the Lysmers analog velocity. With these equations, the static interaction factors can
be obtained by taking zero frequency, which yields:
[5]

v = (S/ro)-1/2

[6] h ( ,S) = (S/ro)-1/2 (cos2 +0.75 sin2)

Note that the above equations have been lately revised by Makris and Gazetas (1992)
and discussed in Mylonakis and Gazetas (1999). Essentially, the symbol S used in the
exponential terms is replaced by S-r0 in order to satisfy the interaction at a distance of the
pile radius. For real applications, using the above equations instead of their revised ones
would only result computing significance in the vicinity around the pile shaft. It is necessary
to point out that the impedance of a pile group should be strongly affecting by the
cap-pile-soil interactions. Ignoring the cap-pile-soil interactions and the soils inelasticity
shall produce conservative results. As the piles must interact through the soils, the actual pile
loads found at a distance from the source should be less than those predicted from this
approximation. It should be known that this simplification has some shortcomings especially
when relatively large pile foundations were encountered.
Static conditions of using these formulas with the modifications that incorporate the
stiffness and length of the pile elements into pile-to-pile interactions have been examined by
Randolph (2003) and are discussed in a recent text by Salgado (2006). Although the
5

stiffening of the piles in the soils is ignored in Eqs. (1)~(4) in this study, one must know that
the simplified equations could provide very accurate results for stiff piles in homogeneous
soil. The accuracy of the method was reported gradually deteriorates when dealing with
strongly inhomogeneous soil or piles of small slenderness (Mylonakis, 1995).
For simplicity of modeling and based on the assumptions that the pile-cap connection is
rigid and the cap-pile-soil interactions are negligible, the authors (2003) have used the above
equations to monitor the pile load distributions of vertical and horizontal loads acting at the
centre of the foundation. It was revealed the vertical load would distribute symmetrically at
the foundation. For the horizontal loading, load distributions would vary for piles in the
longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to the loads. Table 1 indicates respectively
the horizontal load distributions for 22 and 33 grouped piles with S/D=3 (where D is the
pile diameter). Further, Figure 2 illustrates the load distribution ratio spectra and the
corresponding time histories for piles at a 33 pile group with S/D =3. Fa, Fb, Fc and Fd
represent respectively for the load ratios at the center pile, the corner piles, the edge piles
perpendicular to the load direction, and the edge piles along the load direction. Note that the
time-dependent functions are obtained by conducting the Fourier Transforms on load
distribution ratio spectra. The load distribution ratios versus time could be used to depict
approximately the load distribution nature for the foundation applied with arbitrary transient
loadings. In Figure 2, it is clearly shown that the edge piles would sustain most of the static
load. Variations of the load distributions were only conceived as significant at frequencies
less than 30 Hz. It is necessary to point out that 10 Hz is usually the upper limit for realistic
predictions in such problem. For steady state loads at relatively higher frequencies and the
possible transient loading, the loads would uniformly distribute at the piles. The simple
elasticity modeling can be reasonably extended for the complex problems where the lateral
loads are acting from one side of the foundation. Also, the variations of the flexibilities
6

between the soils and the piles along the depths are ignored.

MODELLING AND DERIVATIONS

To approximate the load distributions for the lateral loads applied at one side of the
pile foundation, an equal-size mirror part of the actual pile foundation (see Figure 3
indicated with dash lines) is placed next to the actual foundation (solid lines) to yield an
enlarged pile foundation. Assuming that the enlarged foundation has a horizontal load P
applied on its centre, the dynamic pile to-pile interactions of these piles can be easily
computed using Eqs (1)~(4). According to the prescribed load symmetry, the counter-folded
load distributions for the piles at the mirror part of the foundation would be the same as
those at the actual one. This implies that the actual part and the mirror part of the enlarged
foundation would respectively carry half of the total load. By simply assuming that total load
distributions of the actual part of the enlarged foundation are similar to those of a single
foundation applied with 1/2 P load laterally, the load distribution ratios computed for the
actual part of the enlarged foundation could be doubled to approach the solutions for the later.
The equations required to compute the load distributions for the 22 and 23 grouped piles
are presented next. One may use the same procedures to compute the load distributions for
arbitrary pile foundation under the lateral loads. As mentioned previously, double the size of
the foundation does not necessarily double the foundations impedance. While more
complexities should involve in solving the load distributions, application of this simple
approximation requires further cautioned.
Assuming that the 22 pile foundations have the orientations as those shown in Figure
3, where F1 and F2 are respectively the loads at the trailing piles and the leading piles, u1 and
u2 are the corresponding displacements of the piles, N is the number of piles, KG is the
dynamic impedance of the pile foundation, Ksi is the dynamic impedance of a single pile, and
7

Ksi is the dynamic impedance of a single pile affected by pile-to-pile interactions, the
corresponding formulas are listed as follows,
[7]

K G = K si'
i =1

for the trailing piles:

[8]

K ' s1 =

u1 =

[9]

F1
u1

F1
1 + h ( 90 D , S ) + h ( 0 D , S ) + h ( 45 D , 2 S )
Ks
F
+ 2 h ( 0 D , S ) + h ( 45 D , 2 S ) + h ( 0 D , 2 S ) + h (tan
Ks

1 / 2,

5S )

for the leading piles:

[10]

K s' 2 =

F2
u2

u2 =

F1
h ( 0 D , S ) + h ( 45 D , 2 S ) + h ( 0 D , 2 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 2 , 5 S )
Ks
F
+ 2 1 + h ( 90 D , S ) + h ( 0 D , 3 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 3 , 10 S )
Ks

[11]

Since the pile cap deforms rigidly, one can infer that all the pile displacements are about
equal, where u1= u2. By equating Eqs. (9) and (11), the following equations could be
obtained.
[12] A1 F1 + A2 F2 = 0
where

A1 = 1 + h (90 D , S ) h (0 D ,2S ) h (tan 1 1 / 2, 5S )

A2 = h (0 D , S ) + h (45 D , 2 S ) + h (0 D ,2 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 2, 5S )
1 h (90 D , S ) h (0 D ,3S ) h (tan 1 1 / 3, 10 S )

For total load of 100%, F1 and F2 can be treated as the load distribution ratios and solved
from Eqs. (12) and (13).
[13]

4 F1 + 4 F 2 = 1

Similarly, the 23 pile foundations have the orientations as those shown in Figure 3,
where F1, F2 and F3 are the loads respectively at the trailing piles, the middle piles and the
8

leading piles. Corresponding equations are as follows,

[14]

F3
F1 ;
'
F
K ' s2 = 2 ; K s 3 =
u3
u1
u2

K ' s1 =

for the trailing piles:

F1
[1 + h (90, S ) + h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S )]
Ks

u1 =

[15]

F2
1
[ h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S ) + h (0,2 S ) + h (tan 1 , 5S )]
Ks
2

F3
1
1
[ h (0,2 S ) + h (tan 1 , 5S ) + h (0,3S ) + h (tan 1 , 10 S )]
Ks
2
3

for the middle piles:

u2 =

[16]

F1
1
[ h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S ) + h (0,2 S ) + h (tan 1 , 5S )]
Ks
2

F2
1
[1 + h (90, S ) + h (0,3S ) + h (tan 1 , 10 S )]
Ks
3

F3
1
[ h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S ) + h (0,4 S ) + h (tan 1 , 17 S )]
Ks
4

for the leading piles:

u3 =

[17]

F1
1
1
[ h (0,2 S ) + h (tan 1 , 5S ) + h (0,3S ) + h (tan 1 , 10 S )]
Ks
2
3
+

F2
1
[ h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S ) + h (0,4 S ) + h (tan 1 , 17 S )]
Ks
4

F3
1
[1 + h (90, S ) + h (0,5S ) + h (tan 1 , 26 S )]
Ks
5

Similar, since that u1 = u2; u2 = u3, the following equations are obtainable.
[18] A1 F1 + A2 F2 + A3 F3 = 0
whereA1 = 1 + h (90 , S ) h (0,2 S ) h (tan 1 1 / 2, 5 S )
A2 = h (0, S ) + h ( 45 , 2 S ) + h (0,2 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 2, 5 S )
1 h (90 , S ) h (0,3S ) h (tan 1 1 / 3, 10 S )
A3 = h (0, 2 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 2, 5 S ) + h (0,3S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 3, 10 S )
h (0, S ) h ( 45 , 2 S ) h (0,4 S ) h (tan 1 1 / 4, 17 S )

[19]

A4 F1 + A5 F2 + A6 F3 = 0
A4 = h (0, S ) + h (45, 2S ) h (0,3S ) h (tan 1 1 / 3, 10S )

A5 = 1 + h (90, S ) + h (0,3S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 3, 10 S )

h (0, S ) h ( 45, 2 S ) h (0,4 S ) h (tan 1 1 / 4, 17 S )

A6 = h (0, S ) + h (45, 2 S ) + h (0,4 S ) + h (tan 1 1 / 4, 17 S )

1 h (90, S ) h (0,5S ) h (tan 1 1 / 5, 26 S )

Again, for total load of 100%, the load distribution ratios F1, F2 and F3 for 23 piles can be
calculated using Eqs. (18), (19) and (20).
[20] 4 F1 + 4 F2 + 4 F3 = 1
For the normalized load distributions of the 32, 33 and 44 pile groups, similar derivations
can be found in Chang and Lin (2005).

NUMERICAL OBSERVATIONS
Based on numerical example of a 23 pile foundation where D=0.9m and S/D=3, and
the piles are locating in a soil layer where Vs=120 m/sec and =5%, the load distribution ratio
spectra and their time histories at the piles are obtained and plotted in Figure 4. It is found
that the loads would vary from pile to pile when the operation frequency is less than 30 Hz.
The static load ratios for the trailing, the middle, and the leading piles are approximately
25.6%, 28.8% and 45.6%. Again, the leading piles may carry the largest static loads, and the
trailing piles will have the smallest static loads. 3D variations of these load distribution ratios
are plotted for the pile group in Figure 5 for operating frequencies of 0, 5 and 30 Hz. Time
domain transformed values of these load ratios are about the same of all the piles. It implies
that for arbitrary transient loads, the load would distribute evenly on the piles. This
observation is found similar to those reported by Brown et al. (1987, 2001).
By defining Ks / Ks as the ratio of the pile impedances calculated with and without the
pile-to pile interactions, one can conveniently examine the frequency-dependent pile-to-pile
interaction effects on individual piles. Figure 6 depicts these ratio spectra for the above 23

10

piles. It is obvious to see that the trailing piles would be affected considerably by the
pile-to-pile interaction under the static load, while the leading piles would only have least
affection. However, at about 2.5 Hz, the pile foundation behaves oppositely. The impedance
ratio of the trailing piles would be amplified to 4.95, and that of leading piles becomes 2.7.
This figure shows clearly that the static load distributions of the pile foundation are
essentially important in design practice. Table 2 summaries the static load distributions for 2
2, 23, 32, 33 and 44 pile foundations where the material properties are kept the same,
and the ratio of the pile spacing to the pile diameter is varied at 3~6. It is plain to see that
when the spacing ratio increases, the loads of the leading piles will slightly decrease and
transfer to the trailing piles.

COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSIONS

The experimental results presented by Brown et al. (1988) on a full-scaled 33 pile
foundation are taken to compare with the solutions of this study. As it is shown in Figure 7,
the 12.8 m long steel pipe piles, having exterior diameter in 27.3 cm and thickness of the pipe
wall in 0.927 cm, are free to translate at the pile head. The pile-to-pile spacing is kept three
times as wide as the pile diameter. The ground surface to the depth of 2.8m consists of
medium dense sand (Dr = 50%) where the firm clayey soil lies underneath it. The averaged
unit weight of the soils is 1.57 T/m3. Youngs Modulus of the soils is calculated as 13.93 Mpa
from the SPT-N values of the site (Table 3 shows the calculation basis). Assuming that the
soil Poissons ratio is 0.3 and the material damping-ratio of soil is 5%, loading distribution
ratios and their 3D variations for these pile groups from the proposed analysis are computed
and plotted in Figures 8 and 9. Static load distributions on the leading piles are found to be
44%, and the ones on middle and trailing piles will be 35% and 21%, respectively. These
results are again found comparative to those reported by Brown et al. (1988) and the recent
11

discussions made by Ilyas et al. (2004) and Rollins et al. (2005). The pile loads in the
transverse direction will increase from the center to the edge.
The numerical results obtained by Chae et al. (2004) using the 3D FEM analysis on a
scaled model of a 22 pile foundation will be compared next. In their report, the 0.6 m long
steel pipe piles were installed in sands whereas the embedded pile length is 0.5 m. The
outside diameter of the pipe pile is 0.1m, and the thickness of pipe wall is 3 mm. The
Youngs modulus of the soil is 25.8 Mpa, and the Poissons ratio is 0.3. The pile spacing was
kept 2 and 4 times as wide as the pile diameter, and the piles were thought to be free to
translate. Their results are shown in Figure 10, and it is crucial to notice that the dash lines
with open triangles are corresponding to the leading piles where the pile-to-pile spacing is
kept twice as the pile diameter. The ultimate load ratio is about 64%. The dash lines with
open squares are corresponding to the leading piles where the pile-to-pile spacing is four
times as wide as the pile diameter, in which the ultimate load ratio approximates 56%. The
solid lines are corresponding to the fixed pile head condition, in which higher resultant loads
were expected.
In premising that the material damping-ratio of the soil is 5%, the calculated load
distribution ratio spectra of these piles can thus be obtained and shown in Figures 11 and 12.
The results, without exception, are congruent with the prior. Large pile-to-pile spacing will
reduce the influences of the pile interactions. Variations of the loads are rare at much higher
frequencies (>100 Hz) compared to those shown in Figures 4 and 8. This is because that the
load rate dependence is changed with the soil stiffness and the pile orientation. Moreover,
one would imagine that the discrepancies between the above comparisons were getting much
more obvious as the soil became softer. In that case, the complexities of the soil compliance
along the piles will become a more important influence to the load distributions.

12

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite that the soil compliance along the piles may affect the load distribution of a
lateral loaded pile foundation, the dynamic pile-to-pile interaction factor that follows the
elasticity theory for homogeneous medium is found capable to approximate the lateral load
distributions of the grouped piles. A mirror pile group approximation method is used to
model the load distributions for the grouped piles. Analytical equations to solve the load
distributions were presented and discussed for 22 and 23 grouped piles. By comparing the
results to the experimental and numerical observations from other researchers, this study
suggests that its predictions for the cases of 22 and 33 pile foundations would be quite apt.
However, ignoring the cap-pile-soil interactions would overestimate the load influences
through the soils. Looking at the results from the modeling, the load distributions on the piles
will depend on the orientation and spacing as well as diameter of the piles. In addition to that,
the load frequency and the soil stiffness could affect the load distributions too. Variation of
the load distribution is found apparent when the pile foundation is subject to steady state
loads up to 30 Hz, which is typically higher than the frequencies of design interest. The load
distribution ratios suggested in this paper should be applied with further caution because of
theses simplicities. Nevertheless it can be seen from this modeling, the leading piles would
preserve large loads whereas the trailing piles would sustain the least. In the direction
perpendicular to the load, the center pile would carry the least load. Engineers should
consider the load distributions in designing the pile foundations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This is partial work of the research funded through grants NSC92-2211-E-032-012 and NSC
93-2211-E-032-001. Sincere gratitude is expressed to National Science Council in Taiwan by
the authors.

13

REFERENCES
Bowles, J.E. 1982. Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd. McGraw-Hill Int. Book Co., New
York.
Brown, D.A., Morrison, C. and Reese, l.C. 1988. Laterally loaded behavior of pile group in
sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114. No.11: 1261-1276.
Brown, D.A., ONeill, M.W., McVay, M., El Naggar, M.H. and Chakraborty, S. 2001. Static
and dynamic lateral loading of pile groups. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
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. No.11:
1326-1343.
Chae, K.S., Ugai, K. and Wakai, A. 2004. Lateral resistance of short single and pile groups
located near slopes. International Journal of Geomechanics 4. No. 1: 93-103.
Chang, D.W. and Lin, B.S. 2003. Wave equation analyses on seismic responses of grouped
piles. Proceedings of The 12th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Singapore, August, pp. 581-586.
Chang, D.W. and Lin, B.S. 2005. Lateral load distributions of grouped piles utilizing
interaction factors. Technical Report NSC93-2211-E-032-001, Department of Civil
Engineering, Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taiwan. (in Chinese)
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. 1988. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of
floating pile groups. Geotechnique 38, No.4: 557-574.
Gazetas, G. 1991. Foundation vibrations, in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed. by
H.S. Fang, Van Norstrand Reinhold., pp. 553-593.
Holloway, D.M., Moriwaki, Y., Stevens, J.B. and Perez, J.Y. 1981. Response of a pile group
14

to combined axial and lateral loading. Proceedings of The 10th Int. Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.2, Boulimia Publishers, Stockholm, Sweden, pp.
731-734.
Ilyas, T., Leung C.F. and Budi S.S. 2004. Centrifuge model study of laterally loaded pile
groups in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 130.
No.3: 274-283.
Kaynia, A.M. and Kausel, E. 1982. Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups.
Res. Rep. No. R82-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
McVay, M., Casper, R. and Shang, T. 1995. Laterally response of three-row groups in loose
to dense sands at 3D and 5D pile spacing. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. 124.
No.10: 1016-1026.
McVay, M., Zhang, L.M., Molnit, T. and Lai, P. 1998 Centrifuge testing of large laterally
loaded pile groups in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE. 121. No.5: 436-441.
Morse, P.M. and Ingard, K.U. 1968. Theoretical Acoustics, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Makris, N. and Gazetas, G. 1992. Dynamic pile-to-pile interaction. Part II: Lateral and
seismic response. Earthquake Engrg. and struct. Dynamics, 36. No.2:145-162.
Mylonakis, G. 1995. Contributions to static and seismic analysis of piles and pile-supported
bridge piers. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.
Mylonakis, G. and Gazetas, G. 1999. Lateral vibration and internal forces of grouped piles in
layered soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 125. No.1:
16-25.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang L.M. and Dora C.N.N. 2001. Response of laterally loaded large-diameter
bored pile groups. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 127.
15

No.8: 658-669.
Poulos, H.G. 1968. Analysis of the settlement of pile groups. Geotechnique 18. No.4:
449-471.
Poulos, H.G. and Mattes, N.S. 1971. Settlement and load distribution analysis of pile groups.
Austral. Geomech. Journal. G1. No.1: 18-28.
Randolph, M.F. 2003. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. Geotechnique 53,
No.10: 847-875.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R. and Koop, F.D. 1974. Analysis of laterally loaded pile in sand.
Proceedings of The 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Richardson, Texas, US., pp.
479-483.
Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D. and Gerber T.M. 2005. Measured and computed lateral response of
a pile group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 131.
No.1: 103-114.
Rollins, K.M., Peterson K.T. and Weaver T.J. 1998. Lateral load behavior of full-scale pile
group in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 124. No.6:
468-478.
Ruesta, P.F. and Townsend, F.C. 1997. Evaluation of laterally loaded pile group. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 123. No.12: 1153-1174.
Salgado, R. 2006. The role of analysis in pile design, in Modern Trends in Geomechanics,
Spring Proc. in Physics, 106.
Zhang, L.M., McVay, M.C. and Lai, P. 1999. Numerical analysis of laterally loaded 33 to
73 pile groups in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.
125. No.11: 936-946

16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Load Distribution Ratios of 22 and 33 piles with Static Horizontal Load Applied
at Centre of Foundation (S/D=3)
Table 2 Lateral Load Distribution Ratios of Various Pile Groups (Vs= 120m/sec, D= 0.9m)
Table 3 Calculations for Averaged Youngs Modulus of the Soils

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- Shadowing Effects of Laterally Loaded Pile Foundation (from Rollin et al., 1998)
Figure 2- Figure 2 Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for
Centrally loaded 33 Piles (S/D = 3)
Figure 3- Actual Pile Group and Mirror Part in Solving Lateral Pile Load Distributions (a) 2
2 piles (b) 33 piles
Figure 4- Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for Laterally
Loaded 23 Piles (S/D = 3)
Figure 5- Load Distribution Ratios for 23 Pile Group at Various Load Rates (S/D = 3)
Figure 6- Ratio Spectra of Pile Impedances Calculated w/ and w/o Pile-to-Pile Interactions
on Laterally Loaded 23 Grouped Piles
Figure 7- Testing and Site Conditions and Load Displacement Results (from Brown et al.,
1988)
Figure 8- Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for Lateral
Loaded 33 Piles (S/D = 3)
Figure 9- Load Distribution Ratios for 33 pile group at Various Load Rates (S/D = 3)
Figure 10- Load Distributions versus Pile Displacements (after Chae et al., 2004)

17

Figure 11- Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for Laterally
Loaded 22 Piles (S/D = 2)
Figure 12- Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for Laterally
Loaded 22 Piles (S/D = 4)

18

Table 1

Load Distribution Ratios of 22 and 33 piles with Static Horizontal Load Applied
at Center of Foundation (S/D= 3)
22
Arbitrary
pile
25%

Orientation
location

22
trailing leading
3
4

S/D
5
6

3
4
S/D

trailing

18

40

60

42

58

43.6

56.4

44

56

33
middle

32
trailing
leading
center edge center edge
33
67
7
26 19 48
35.5
64.5
8.6 26.9 18.5 46
37.6
62.4
9.6 28 18.4 44
39
61
10 29 18 43

leading

trailing

trailing

23
middle

leading

26

28

46

26.6

30

42.4

27.4

30.6

42

29.6

30.4

40

middle back

44
middle front

leading

9.2 25.8 11.7 30.3 5.8 12.2 6.4 12.6 8.6 14.6 17
34.8

40.9

18.4

19.6

23.8

22.8

38.2

5.7 18.6 9.4 25.4 11.7 29.2 6.2 12.2 6.8 12.8 9.2 14.6 16.6 21.6
25.2

Edge pile
Edge pile
(transverse,c) (longitudinal, d)
10.6%
9.8%

center edge center edge center edge center edge center edge center edge center edge
21
34
45
17.6
18
22
42.4
4
17 9 25 12 33 5 12.6 5.6 12.4 7.6 14.4 17.8 24.6
18
19
23.2
39.8
23
35
42
24.3

Middle
Pile (b)
6.4 %

Lateral Load Distribution Ratios of Various Pile Groups (Vs= 120m/sec, D= 0.9m)

Table 2

orientation
location

33
Corner
Pile (a)
13.2%

6.2

19

34.6
9.6

40.2

19.2

20

24

36.8

25 11.6 28.6 6.8 12.4 7.0 13.0 9.6 14.4 16.2 20.6

19

Table 3

Calculations for Averaged Youngs Modulus of the Soils

Depth
(m)

Thickness
(m)

0.6
1.1
2.0
2.8
3.0
4.0
5.4
7.0
8.5
10.5

0.6
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.2
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.0

Soil
Type

Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
E avg = Ei

Corresponding Youngs
modulus (kN/m2 )
(Bowles, 1982)
5.0
10000.0
25.0
20000.0
55.0
35000.0
60.0
37500.0
10.0
8000.0
12.0
8640.0
15.0
9600.0
13.0
8960.0
5.0
6400.0
18.0
10560.0
2
Hi / Hi = 13927 kN/m
SPT-N

Leading Piles

Trailing Piles

Figure 1 Shadowing Effects of Laterally Loaded Pile Foundation

(from Rollin et al., 1998)

20

(a) Load Distribution Ratio Spectra

0.2

(b) Corresponding Time Histories

0.2

Fa

0.132

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

Fb

20

40

60

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.064

0.0

0.0

Fc

20

40

60

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1
0.11

0.0

0.0

Fd

20

40

60

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1
0.098

0.0

0.0
0

20

40

Frequency (Hz)

60

Time (sec)

Figure 2 Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for
Centrally loaded 33 Piles (S/D = 3)
21

(a)

0.5S

(b)

Figure 3 Actual Pile Group and Mirror Part in Solving Lateral Pile Load
Distributions (a) 22 piles (b) 33 piles

22

F1

(a) Load Distribution Ratio Spectra

(b) Corresponding Time Histories

0.3

0.20

0.2

0.15

0.128

0.1

0.10

F2

20

40

60

0.3

0.20

0.2

0.15

0.144

0.1

0.10
0

20

40

60

0.3

0.20

F3

0.227

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.10
0

20

40

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4

60

Time (sec)

Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for

Laterally Loaded 23 Piles (S/D = 3)

23

0.25
F1

0.227

F2
F3

Load Distribution Ratio

0.20
0.185

0.18
0.166

0.15

0.144
0.134

0.128

0.10

0.05

0.00

30

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5 Load Distribution Ratios for 23 pile group at Various Load Rates (S/D = 3)

24

Ratio
of Dynamic
Impedance
/Kss)/ Ks)
Normalized
Impedance
(Ks*(K

0.191

0
0

10

20

30

10

20

30

10

20

30

0.216

0
0
6

0.34

0
0
6

4.95

Trailing Piles

4.17

Middle Piles
Leading Piles

2.70

0
0

20

40

60

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6 Ratio Spectra of Pile Impedances Calculated w/ and w/o Pile-to-Pile Interactions
on Laterally Loaded 23 Grouped Piles
25

Brown et al. (1988)

leading middle back
45%
32%
23%

Figure 7 Testing and Site Conditions and Load Displacement Results (from Brown et al., 1988)

26

F1

(a) Load Distribution Ratio Spectra (b) Corresponding Time Histories

0.2

0.12

0.1

0.11

0.04

0.0

0.10
0

20

40

60

F2

0.2

0.12

0.1

0.11
0.0858

0.0

0.10

F3

20

40

60

0.2

0.12

0.1

0.11
0.089

0.0

0.10
0

20

40

60

0.2

0.12

F4

0.133

0.1

0.11

0.0

0.10
0

20

40

60

0.2

0.12

F5

0.116

0.1

0.11

0.0

0.10
0

20

40

60

0.2

0.12

F6

0.157

0.1

0.11

0.0

0.10
0

20

40

Frequency (Hz)

60

Time (sec)

Figure 8 Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Time Histories for Lateral Loaded 33 Piles (S/D = 3)
27

0.20
F1
F2
F3
0.158

Load Distribution Ratio

0.157

F4

0.15

F5
0.133

F6

0.134
0.122

0.116
0.11
0.103
0.098

0.10
0.089

0.088

0.085

0.05
0.04

0.00

30

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9 Load Distribution Ratios for 33 pile group at Various Load Rates (S/D = 3)

28

Load Distribution Ratio (Leading Pile)

0.90

0.80

0.70
0.64

0.60
0.56

0.50

0.40
0

A-H-2D

A-H-4D

A-H-2D-F

A-H-4D-F

10

Displacement (mm)
Figure 10 Load Distribution Ratios versus Pile Displacements (after Chae et al., 2004)

29

(b) Corresponding Time Histories

F1

(a) Load Distribution Ratio Spectra

0.4

0.30

0.2

0.25
0.18

0.0

0.20
0

150

300

0.4

0.30

F2

0.32

0.2

0.25

0.0

0.20
0

150

Frequency (Hz)

300

Time (sec)

Figure 11 Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories for
Laterally Loaded 22 Piles (S/D = 2)

30

(b) Corresponding Time Histories

F1

(a) Load Distribution Ratio Spectra

0.4

0.30

0.2

0.25
0.22

0.0

0.20
0

150

300

0.4

0.30

F2

0.28

0.2

0.25

0.0

0.20
0

150

Frequency (Hz)

300

Time (sec)

Figure12 Load Distribution Ratio Spectra and Corresponding Time Histories

for Laterally Loaded 22 Piles (S/D = 4)

31