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

net/publication/323659297

Analysis of laterally loaded group of piles located on sloping ground

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · March 2018

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1448521

CITATION READS

1 442

3 authors:

Deendayal Rathod Kasinathan Muthukkumaran

National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli
16 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sitharam G Thallak
Indian Institute of Science
366 PUBLICATIONS   3,649 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Municipal Solid Waste View project

Rock engg View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deendayal Rathod on 03 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Analysis of laterally loaded group of piles located

on sloping ground

R. Deendayal, K. Muthukkumaran & T. G. Sitharam

To cite this article: R. Deendayal, K. Muthukkumaran & T. G. Sitharam (2018): Analysis of laterally
loaded group of piles located on sloping ground, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1448521

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1448521

Published online: 08 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1448521

RESEARCH PAPER

Analysis of laterally loaded group of piles located on sloping ground

R. Deendayala, K. Muthukkumarana and T. G. Sitharamb 
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, a finite element numerical analysis was carried out to study the behaviour of group of piles Received 1 December 2017
located on sloping ground using finite element analysis software PLAXIS 3D. A pile of 0.305 m diameter Accepted 28 February 2018
and 9.1 m length was arranged in 3 × 3 group pattern with spacing equal to three times the pile diameter
KEYWORDS
(3D) and was modelled by PLAXIS 3D. The group of piles was embedded into a soil profile consisting of soft Clayey soils; sloping ground;
to medium-stiff clay and silts underlain by sand. A parametric study was carried out to study the behaviour lateral loads; pile groups;
of group of piles located on sloping ground surface (1V:5H and 1V:3H slopes) and subjected to lateral loads. finite element analysis
The effect of slopes on pile capacity, the behaviour of lateral deflections and bending moment profile of
front, middle and back rows of group of piles were studied.

Introduction
Piles are commonly employed in the field to support various
structures like high rise buildings, transmission towers, earth
retaining walls and offshore structures. These structures are sub-
jected to large amount of lateral loads due to wind force, wave
force, traffic movement, water pressure and earthquake. When
these structures are supported on deep foundations, the foun-
dations have to be designed for lateral loads. Laterally loaded
piles should be safe against geotechnical failure, structural failure
and excessive deflections. In general, geotechnical failure is
reached only at very large displacements. Therefore, what we
concerns about is mainly the prediction of deflections and max-
imum bending moments in long piles. Most of the engineers are
also interested in determining the deflection and bending
moment in the deep foundation. In such cases, studying the
interaction between the soil and the pile material due to lateral
load is essential. It is observed that the lateral loads are in the
order of 10–15% of the vertical loads in case of onshore struc-
tures and 25–30% in case of coastal and offshore structures. And
the dolphins are usually constructed in ports for the safe berthing
and mooring of vessels. In some of the weak marine soil deposits
characterised by low shear strength and high compressibility, the
dolphins are generally supported either on pile groups or on
caissons and these are subjected to significant amounts of lateral
loads. The lateral loads are mainly due to the mooring pull of the
berthing vessel and also due to wind and wave action. The gov-
erning criterion in designing pile foundations to resist lateral
loads in most cases is the maximum deflection and moment of
the piles rather than its ultimate capacity. The maximum deflec-
tion at the pile head and the distribution of the bending moment
along the pile are important information for the successful design
of pile foundations that support lateral loads. An early research
on single pile shows that the ultimate capacity of pile was esti-
mated assuming the deformations would be acceptable if an
adequate factor of safety against ultimate failure was used to
determine the allowable load capacity. The work of Matlock and
Reese (1960) can be considered as one of the first attempts to
understand laterally loaded pile behaviour. They gave a general-
ised solution in non-dimensional form for the laterally loaded
pile for both elastic and rigid behaviour assuming the soil mod-
ulus to vary linearly with depth. Broms (1964a, 1964b) developed
solutions for the ultimate lateral resistance of a pile assuming the
distribution of lateral soil pressure and considering the statics of
the problem. Singh and Verma (1973) conducted large-scale
model tests in sand under controlled density. Lateral load tests
were conducted on single pile and pile groups. From the results,
it was observed that the load-deflection curves are non-linear
and are flatter at higher load levels showing loss of soil resistance.
Reese, Cox, and Koop (1974) conducted full-scale lateral load
tests on pipe pile having 24 inch diameter installed in sandy soil
and analysed the test results. Two types of loading were employed,
static and cyclic loading. Based on the test results and theoretical
studies, a method was presented for predicting the family of p–y
curves using properties of sand and pile dimensions. Reese and
Welch (1975) conducted full-scale lateral load tests on a drilled
shaft driven into stiff clay. The foundation was instrumented so
that bending moment could be measured at various depths. A
series of lateral loads, both short-term static and cyclic, were
applied to the foundation and families of bending moment
curves, along with the boundary conditions at the ground line
were obtained. These data were analysed and sets of curves were

CONTACT  R. Deendayal  deendayal@nitt.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   R. DEENDAYAL ET AL.
developed showing soil resistance p as a function of deflection
y for various depths. Kim and Brungraber (1976) carried out
full-scale testing on twenty steel piles driven in cohesive soil, six
piles in each of three groups and two isolated single piles (one
vertical and one batter). The results indicated that an increase in
spacing between the piles increases the resistance to lateral loads.
Pise (1983) presented a simplified finite element analysis in con-
junction with Yegain and Wright approach to study the behav-
iour of pile groups under lateral loads. The pile was treated as
shear beam and the soil media was assumed to be linear elastic.
The results of analysis were used to estimate lateral group effi-
ciency and extent of stress influence around the pile. Brown,
Morrison, and Reese (1988) conducted tests on large‐scale group
of steel pipe piles and an isolated single pile subjected to two‐way
cyclic lateral loading. The tests were conducted in a submerged
firm to dense sand that was placed and compacted around the
piles. The response of the piles in the group was also compared
with the response of the isolated single pile. The loss of efficiency
of the piles in the group was attributed principally to ‘shadowing’.
The piles in the leading row supported a large proportion of the
group load and behaved similarly to the isolated single pile. And
two‐way cyclic loading had little effect on the distribution of load
to the piles in the group, but tended to densify the sand around
both the single pile and the group piles. Gabr, Lunne, and Powell
(1994) carried out field tests at site located at Haga near Oslo,
Norway; in soil profile consists of lean medium marine clay
deposit. The test pile, 4.15 m long and 0.153 m in diameter, was
instrumented with six earth-pressure cells, six pore-pressure cells
and eight strain-gages. Data from dilatometer tests (DMT) were
used in the development of a model for the construction of static
p–y curves in clay deposits. A procedure to account for the influ-
ence of close‐ended pile installation on the soil properties around
the pile was developed. Narasimha Rao, Ramakrishna, and Raju
(1996) conducted lateral load tests on instrumented model pile
groups embedded in a marine clayey bed (liquid limit = 82% and
plastic limit = 32%). The spacing between piles, number of piles
in a group and arrangement of pile group with respect to the
direction of lateral loading have been varied and the behaviour
of group piles were studied. Rajashree and Sundaravadivelu
(1996) reported analysis of laterally loaded pile in soft clay, ide-
alising the pile as beam element and the soil by non-linear ine-
lastic spring element, modelled with elasto-plastic sub-elements.
An iterative procedure was adopted to perform a non-linear
finite element analysis and the effect of static lateral load on
load–deflection behaviour was studied. Narasimha Rao,
Ramakrishna, and Raju (1996) carried out tests on model groups
of piles to support dolphin-type structures. Static load tests were
conducted on instrumented model pile groups embedded in a
marine clayey bed. The spacing between piles, number of piles
in a group and arrangement of pile group with respect to the
direction of lateral loading was varied. The results indicated that
the capacity of pile group not only depends on the spacing
between the piles, but also on the arrangement of piles in the
group. Prakash and Kumar (1996) conducted 14 full-scale lateral
pile load tests and developed a method to predict the load–
deflection relationship for single pile embedded in sand by con-
sidering soil non-linearity using subgrade reaction. This was the
first systematic study to develop lateral load–deflection curves
using modulus degradation with strain. Based on this method,
the computed load deflections have been compared with the
observed ones and with those based on p–y analysis. Ruesta and
Townsend (1997) conducted static lateral load tests on an iso-
lated single pile and a large-scale test group of 16 pre-stressed
concrete piles spaced at three diameters with a fixed-headed
condition. Standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration
tests (CPT), DMT and PMT in situ tests were used to establish
the soil profile and p–y curves. Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver
(1998) performed static lateral load test on a full-scale pile group
to determine the resulting soil–pile interaction effects. The 3 × 3
pile group at three-diameter spacing was driven into a profile
consisting of soft to medium-stiff clays and silts underlain by
sand. The piles were instrumented with inclinometers and strain
gages. The load carried by each pile was measured. The results
indicated that the trailing rows carried less than the leading row,
and middle row piles carried the lowest loads. It was also found
that the maximum moments in the group piles were 50–100%
higher than in the single pile. Kumar, Alizadeh, and Lalvani
(2000) presented results of full-scale, field lateral load tests on
four instrumented single piles installed in sand. The test results
showed that the piles can adequately resists the lateral loads.
Lateral load response of piles was predicted using a computer
program LPILE Plus which uses p–y curve method for the anal-
ysis of piles. Ng, Zhang, and Ho (2001) studied the influence of
laterally loaded sleeved piles and pile groups of slope stability.
The stability of the slope was evaluated using the strength reduc-
tion technique. The evolution of slope failure was examined and
the factors of safety for both initiation of instability and global
failure of the slope were identified from the numerical analyses.
It was found that the sleeving technique was capable of reducing
the stresses in the shallow depths of the slope in front of the piles
significantly, thus improving the local stability of the slope, but
offers limited benefit with respect to global stability. Rajashree
and Sitharam (2001) developed a finite-element model in which
the non-linear soil behaviour was represented by a hyperbolic
relation for static load condition and modified hyperbolic rela-
tion, which includes both degradation and gap for a cyclic load
condition. The importance of the degradation factor and its
influence on the soil resistance–displacement (p–y) curve, num-
ber of cycles of loading and cyclic load response were high-
lighted. Huang et al. (2001) carried out a full-scale lateral load
tests on a group of bored and a group of driven precast piles as
part of a research project for the proposed high-speed rail system
in Taiwan. Standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration
tests (CPT) and Marchetti Dilatometer tests (DMT) were per-
formed before the pile installation. The CPT and DMT were also
conducted after pile installation. Numerical analyses of the lat-
erally loaded piles were conducted using p–y curves derived from
pre-construction and post-construction DMT and by applying
the concept of p multipliers. Rollins and Sparks (2002) per-
formed a static lateral load test on a full-scale pile group driven
in saturated low-plasticity silts and clays. Average lateral deflec-
tion versus depth curves, average bending moment versus depth
curves for each row in pile group was obtained. Chae, Ugai, and
Wakai (2004) presents the results of several numerical studies
performed with a three-dimensional finite-element method
(FEM) of model tests and a prototype test of a laterally loaded
short pile and pier foundation located near slopes, respectively.
Initially, the results of model tests of single piles and pile groups

subjected to lateral loading, in homogeneous sand with 30°
slopes and horizontal ground were analysed by the three dimen-
sional (3D) finite-element (FE) analyses. Furthermore, field tests
of a prototype pier foundation subjected to lateral loading on a
30° slope was reported. Ilyas et al. (2004) conducted a series of
centrifuge model tests to examine the behaviour of laterally
loaded pile groups of 2, 2 × 2, 2 × 3, 3 × 3 and 4 × 4 piles with a
centre-to-centre spacing of three or five times the pile width in
normally consolidated and over consolidated kaolin clay. It was
established that the pile group efficiency reduces significantly
with increasing number of piles in a group due shadowing effect.
And also, it was found that the front piles experience larger load
and bending moment than that of the trailing piles. Rollins
(2005) performed lateral load tests on a full-scale pile group to
evaluate pile–soil–pile interaction effects. The 3 × 3 pile group
at 3.3 pile diameter spacing was driven opened ended into a
profile consisting of loose to medium dense sand underlain by
clay. Results indicated that group effects significantly reduce the
lateral resistance for all rows relative to single pile behaviour.
And lateral resistance was found to be a function of row location
with the leading row piles carrying the largest load and the trail-
ing rows carrying significantly less load as has been observed in
previous full-scale tests. Boominathan and Ayothiraman (2007)
carried out the static and dynamic lateral load tests on model
aluminium single piles embedded in soft clay to study their
bending behaviour. The results indicated that the maximum
dynamic bending moment of pile in soft clay was about 1.5 times
higher than the maximum static bending momentMuthukku-
maran, Sundaravadivelu, and Gandhi (2008) conducted the lab-
oratory model tests in cohesionless soil to study the effect of
slope on p–y curves under surcharge load. The long flexible alu-
minium model pile was installed at the crest of different slopes
(1V:1.5H, 1V:1.75 and 1V:2H) and with three different relative
densities (30, 45 and 75%). The effect of slopes and relative den-
sities on bending moment, lateral soil resistance and lateral
deflection were studied. Chandrasekaran, Boominathan, and
Dodagoudar (2010) carried out the static lateral load tests on
aluminium model pile groups embedded in soft clay. The effects
of pile spacing, number of piles, embedment length and config-
uration on pile–group interaction were investigated. Georgiadis
and Georgiadis (2010) carried out three-dimensional finite ele-
ment analyses to study the behaviour of piles in cohesive soils
in sloping ground under undrained lateral loading conditions.
Piles of different diameter and length in sloping were considered.
From the analysis, analytical formulations were derived for the
ultimate load per unit length and the initial stiffness of hyper-
bolic p–y curves. Chore, Ingle, and Sawant (2012) presented the
analysis of two groups of piles subjected to lateral loads incor-
porating the non-linear behaviour of soil. The finite element
method was adopted for carrying out the parametric study of
the pile groups. The response of the pile groups was found to be
significantly affected by the parameters such as the spacing
between the piles, the number of piles in a group and the orien-
tation of the lateral load. Georgiadis, Georgiadis, and
Anagnostopoulos (2013) derived analytical equations to deter-
mine the undrained lateral bearing capacity of rigid piles in
cohesive soil. Piles in level ground and piles placed at a distance
from the crest of a slope were examined, taking account of the
effect of the adhesion at the pile–soil interface. Sawant and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3
Shukla (2013) presented a 3D finite element analysis to investi-
gate the effect of edge distance from the slope crest of a laterally
loaded pile embedded in cohesive soil of sloping ground for
different slope angles and pile lengthsMuthukkumaran (2014)
conducted the laboratory model tests to study the effect of slope
and loading direction on laterally loaded piles in cohesionless
soil. From the experimental investigation, it was observed that
if the pile is placed 15 times the pile diameter away from the
slope crest within the embankment, the influence of slope in the
lateral-load capacity was almost negligible under both forward
and reverse lateral load. Zhang, Zhao, and Zou (2015) set up four
hypothetical cases related to laterally loaded piles in uniform
and layered soil systems to discuss the response of the laterally
loaded pile in layered soils. The comparison results indicate that
the pile behaviour was controlled by the subgrade soil stiffness
at shallow depth (up to 3–4 times the pile diameter). Deendayal
et al. (2016) carried out a static lateral-load test on a single alu-
minium model pile embedded in soft clay (consistency index,
Ic = 0.42) on a sloping ground. A series of laboratory model tests
had been carried out on the instrumented aluminium pile with
outer diameter of 25.46  mm on a sloping ground of varying
slopes (1V:1H, 1V:1.5H, 1V:2H, 1V:3H and 1V:5H) and with
varying embedment length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) of 20, 25 and
30. From the experimental results, the lateral load-carrying
capacity of the pile, load–deflection response of the pile at pile
head, effect of slopes and embedment length on pile capacity
and bending-moment profile along the pile shaft were studied.
The experimental results have been compared with those
obtained from finite element analysis PLAXIS 3D and found to
be in good agreement. Deendayal et al. (2017) carried out a series
of laboratory 1-g model test on a single instrumented model pile
embedded in soft clay (Consistency index Ic = 0.42) with different
slopes (1V:1H, 1V:2H, 1V:3H and 1V:5H) and embedment length
to diameter ratio (L/D = 20, 25 and 30). From the experimental
results, new non-dimensional p–y curves (where p is the static
soil reaction and y is the pile deflection) due to lateral static
loading were developed. Also, the effects of slope angles on pro-
posed p–y curves were studied.
Most of the studies discussed in the literature have been
directed towards the response of a single pile or group of piles
subjected to lateral loads in the horizontal ground surface with-
out paying much attention to the piles located on the sloping
ground surface. There is very limited information available on the
group of piles located on slopes. In order to address the issue, the
present work has been carried out. Full-scale field tests are not
easy to perform because of the associated high cost, technical dif-
ficulties and uncertainties. These limitations justify using some
numerical simulations to study the pile groups. In this study, a
field test performed by Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver (1998) on
a 3 × 3 group of pile was used for the numerical study. A 3 × 3
group of pile with spacing equal to three times the pile diam-
eter was modelled using PLAXIS 3D, a finite element analysis.
The numerical model was validated and a parametric study was
conducted. The group of piles were placed on a crest of slopes
(1V:5H and 1V:3H) to study their behaviour due to lateral loads.
The effect of slopes on pile capacity and the behaviour of lateral
deflection and bending moments along the length of group piles
for different rows were studied. This study is useful to berthing
structure and all other offshore-structures where sloping angles
4   R. DEENDAYAL ET AL.
are in the range of 1V:5H to 1V:3H. Generally, the sloping angles
are observed to be 15–20°.
Finite element analysis of group of piles
Full-scale field tests are not easy to perform because of the asso-
ciated high cost, technical difficulties and uncertainties. These
limitations justify using some numerical simulations to study
the pile groups. In this study, afield test performed by Rollins,
Peterson, and Weaver (1998) on a 3 × 3 group of pile was used
for numerical study. A 3 × 3 group of pile with spacing equal
to three times the pile diameter was modelled using PLAXIS
3D. First, the numerical model was validated and secondly, a
parametric study was conducted by placing the group of piles
on a crest of slopes (1V:5H and 1V:3H) to study their behaviour
due to lateral loads. The effect of slopes on pile capacity and the
behaviour of lateral deflection and bending moments along the
length of group piles for different rows were studied in detail.
Material properties and dimensions
A 3  ×  3 pile group of steel pipe piles (Rollins, Peterson, and
Weaver 1998) having length 9.1 m with 0.305 m inner diameter
and 9.5 mm wall thickness filled with concrete of compressive
strength of 20.7 Mpa was used for the analysis. A 3  ×  3 pile
groups with spacing three times the pile diameter (3D) was
driven into a soil profile consisting of soft to medium-stiff clays
and silts underlain by sand as shown in Figure 1 and a parametric
study was performed to evaluate the effect slopes on pile group
by changing the ground surface from horizontal to 1V:5H and
1V:3H slopes. The group of piles were located on the crest of
1V:5H and 1V:3H slopes as shown in Figure 2 and subjected to
static lateral loads using a concrete pile cap of size 2.4 × 2.4 m
and thickness of 0.3 m. The effect of slopes on pile capacity and
Figure 1. Soil profile used for the analysis (Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver 1998).
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of group of piles located on 1V:5H and 1V:3H slopes.
the behaviour of bending moments and lateral deflections along
the depth of piles were studied. In addition, the shadow and
edge effects (Figure 3) on the group of piles due to lateral loads
was also analysed. When a group of piles are subjected to lateral
loads, each pile pushes the soil behind it creating a shear zone in
the soil. The unit weight of concrete (γc) and steel (γs) were taken
as 24 and 78.5 kN/m3, respectively. And the Young’s modulus
of concrete (Ec) and steel (Es) were taken as 17.5 and 200 GPa,
respectively. Also, the Poisson’s ratios of concrete (µc) and steel
(µs) were assumed to be 0.15 and 0.3, respectively. Table 1 shows
the complete material properties and dimensions of piles used for
this study. The soil profile (Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver 1998)
used for present analysis at various depths is shown in Figure
1. The gravel fill shown in Figure 1 was excavated down to the
top of the natural ground surface. The water table was located at
the natural ground surface. The values of saturated unit weight
(γsat),Young’s modulus (E), friction angle (ϕ), undrain cohesion
(Cu), earth pressure coefficient at rest (K0), Poisson’s ratio (µ),
Dilatancy angle (ψ) and strength reduction facto (Rinter) of differ-
ent soil layers used for the present analysis is shown in Table 2.
An embedded pile consists of beam elements with special inter-
face elements providing the interaction between the beam and
the surrounding soil. The beam element is considered as linear
elastic and its behaviour is defined using elastic stiffness prop-
erties. The behaviour of interfaces for the modelling of soil–pile
interaction is treated with elastic-plastic model and the strength
properties of interfaces are linked with the strength properties
of a soil using a strength reduction factor (Rinter). The assumed
interface strength reduction factor (Rinter) for different soils are
shown in Table 2. The dilatancy angle (ψ) is specified in degrees.
Apart from heavily overconsolidated layers, clay soils tend to
show little dilatancy (ψ). For the present analysis, the dilatancy
angles (ψ) were taken zero for all the soil layers.
Three-dimensional numerical modelling of group of piles
The finite element modelling and analysis has been carried out
using a software package, PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION, a finite
element code for soil and rock analyses. PLAXIS has four differ-
ent models, namely, Mohr–Coulomb model (MC), Hardening-
Soil model (HS), Soft-Soil model (SS) and Soft–Soil–Creep
model (SSC) to model different kinds of soil behaviour. In the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of group of piles showing the shadowing effects, edge effects and gap behind the piles (Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver 1998).

Table 1. Material properties and dimensions of group of piles used for the FE anal- and evaluation of results. A geometry model is a composition
ysis.
of boreholes and horizontal work planes (x-z planes). The work
Properties Values planes were used to define geometry lines and structures. The
Pile inner diameter (D) 0.305 m boreholes were used to define the local soil stratigraphy and
Wall thickness 9.5 mm ground surface level. Multiple boreholes were placed in the
Pile length (L) 9.1 m
Compressive strength of concrete 20.7 Mpa geometry to define a non-horizontal soil stratigraphy or an
Unit weight of concrete (γc) 24 kN/m3 inclined ground surface. PLAXIS 3D automatically interpolates
Unit weight of steel (γs) 78.5 kN/m3 layer and ground surface positions in between the boreholes.
Young’s modulus of concrete (Ec) 17.5 Gpa
Young’s modulus of steel (Es) 200 Gpa Soil layers and ground surface may be non-horizontal using
Poisson’s ratios of concrete (µc) 0.15 several boreholes at different locations. During the definition
Poisson’s ratios of steel (µs) 0.3 of boreholes, data-sets of model parameters for the various soil
Size of pile cap 2.4 × 2.4 m
Thickness of pile cap 0.3 m layers were created and assigned to the borehole. In addition,
data-sets of model parameters for structural behaviour were
also created and assigned to the structural objects in the work
Table 2. Soil parameters and strength reduction factor used for the FE analysis. planes. When the full geometry model has been defined and
(γsat) Cu all geometry components have their initial properties, the finite
kN/ (E) kN/ element mesh was generated. From the geometry model, a 2D
Soil type m3 Mpa (φ) [°] m2 K0 (μ) (ψ) [°] R(inter)
mesh was generated first. This 2D mesh was optimised by global
Low plas- 20 15 35 75 0.44 0.3 0 0.75
ticity silt and local refinement, after which an extension into the third
(ML) dimension (the y-direction) was made. PLAXIS automatically
Low plas- 18 15 20 20 0.65 0.2 0 0.8 generates this 3D mesh, taking into account the information
ticity clay
(CL) from the work planes and the boreholes. For modelling a group
Poorly 16.5 28 32 0.1 0.47 0.3 0 0.7 of piles, the overall dimensions of the model boundaries was
graded taken as 10 times the width of pile cap and a height equal to the
sand
(SP) pile length of pile (L) plus a further 0.23 L below the pile-toe.
Fat clay 20 45 20 150 0.65 0.3 0 0.8 These dimensions were considered adequate to eliminate the
(CH)
Medium 16 35 35 15 0.42 0.25 0 0.7 influence of boundary effects on performance of the piles. The
sand outer boundary of the mesh was fixed against displacements. The
(SM) complete analysis was performed for free-head conditions. A
convergence study was carried out for different sizes of mesh like
present study, the complete analysis was carried out using the very coarse, coarse, medium, fine and very fine. From the con-
Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model (an elastic-perfectly plastic vergence study it was observed that the medium mesh size shows
model). First of all the Mohr–Coulomb analysis is quick and very good agreement with the experimental values (Rollins,
simple and secondly, as the procedure tends to reduce the errors. Peterson, and Weaver 1998) and hence the medium size mesh
This simple model is based on soil parameters that are known has been taken for the entire analysis. Figure 4 shows the discre-
in most practical situations. The elastic-plastic Mohr–Coulomb tization of finite element mesh (medium size) of group of piles
model involves five input parameters, i.e. Young’s modulus (E), located on crest of 1V:3H ground slope and subjected to lateral
Poisson’s ratio (µ), friction angle (ϕ), cohesion (c) and Dilatancy loads. The complete analysis of laterally loaded piles was con-
angle(ψ). The procedure to perform an analysis with PLAXIS 3D ducted under undrained conditions. Interfaces were modelled
Foundation includes the creation of a geometry model, material with 16-node interface elements. Interface elements consist of
properties, mesh generation, defining and executing calculation eight pairs of nodes, compatible with the 8-noded quadrilateral
6   R. DEENDAYAL ET AL.

120

100

Avg. load per pile(kN)

80

60
Front Row

40 Middle Row
Back Row
20

0
0 50 100 150
Avg. pile headdeflection (mm)

Figure 4. Plaxis 3D generated mesh for 1V:3H slope. Figure 6.  Average loads versus pile head deflection curves of front, middle and
back rows of a group of piles placed on a horizontal surface.

side of a soil element. Along degenerated soil elements, interface

elements were composed of six node pairs, compatible with the 120
triangular side of the degenerated soil element.
100

Avg. load per pile(kN)

Results and discussion 80

Validation of numerical model 60

Front Row
The numerical model was validated by measured field full-scale
40 Middle Row
test results (Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver 1998). Figure 5 shows
Back Row
the average load (group load divided by the number of piles) 20
versus pile head deflection comparison graphs of measured and
computed results of front, middle and back rows of a group of 0
piles. From this graph, it is observed that the computed results 0 50 100 150
(by PLAXIS 3D) agree well with measured (Rollins, Peterson, Avg. pile headdeflection (mm)
and Weaver 1998) results.
Figure 7.  Average loads versus pile head deflection curves of front, middle and
back rows of a group of piles placed on 1V:5H slope.
Lateral load versus pile head deflection curves
Figures 6–8 show the average load versus deflection (at pile head) 120
curves of front, middle and back rows of a group piles placed on a
horizontal ground surface, 1V:5H and 1V:3H slopes, respectively. 100

From these figures, it is observed that when the ground sur-

Avg. load per pile (kN)

80
face changes from horizontal to slopes, the lateral load capacity
and the behaviour of front, middle and back rows of a group of
60
piles changes significantly. When a group of piles are placed on
Front Row
40
Middle Row

20 Back Row

0
0 50 100 150 200
Avg. pile head deflection (mm)

Figure 8.  Average loads versus pile head deflection curves of front, middle and
back rows of a group of piles placed on 1V:3H slope.

horizontal ground surface, front row piles carries the greatest

Figure 5. Average load versus pile head deflection of front, middle and back rows
of a group of piles (Comparison between measured and computed results).
load whereas middle row piles carry the lowest load. And the
back row piles carries loads somewhat higher than the middle
row piles but significantly less than the front row piles. When
a closely spaced pile groups move laterally, the failure zone for
individual piles overlap as shown in Figure 3. This overlap in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   7

shear zones weakens the soil and results in less lateral resistance Bending Moment (kN-m)
per pile. The tendency for a pile in a trailing row to exhibit less -50 0 50 100 150
lateral resistance because of the pile in front of it is commonly 1
referred to as ‘shadowing’ (Rollins, Peterson, and Weaver 1998). 0

Depth below ground surface (m)

This shadowing effect becomes less significant as the spacing -1
between piles increases and is relatively unimportant for spacing -2
greater than about six pile diameters centre to centre based on -3
model tests. When a group of piles are placed on a crest of slopes -4
of 1V:5H or 1V: 3H as shown in Figure 2, front row carries less -5
35.6kN (Computed)
loads as compared to middle and back rows for both slopes. This -6 48.9 kN (Computed)
is due to absence of passive resistance in front of piles. The back -7 66.7 kN (Computed)
rows carries the greatest loads for both 1V:5H or 1V:3H slopes. -8 84.4kN (Computed)
It is observed that the maximum deflection at pile head for an -9 97.9kN (Computed)
average load of 84.4 kN in the front and middle rows are 1.74 and -10
1.57 times more than the back row, respectively, for 1V:5H slope.
And in the case of 1V:3H slope, the maximum deflection at pile Figure 10. Average bending moments versus depth curves of middle row of a pile
group placed on 1V:3H ground slope.
head for an average load of 84.4 kN in the front and middle rows
are 2 and 1.52 times more than the back row, respectively. So,
from these graphs it is clear that when ground surface changes Bending Moment (kN-m)
from horizontal to 1V:5H or 1V:3H slopes, the maximum pile
-50 0 50 100 150
head deflection of front row is more compare to back and middle
1
row for the same applied load.
0
-1

Depth below ground surface (m)

Bending moments versus depth curves -2
Figures 9–11 show typical average bending moment versus depth -3
curves of front, middle and back rows of a pile group placed -4
on1V:3H ground slope. It is observed that when pile group -5 35.6 kN (Computed)
placed on 1V:3H or 1V:5H ground slope, the maximum bending 48.9 kN (Computed)
-6
moments in the back row is more compare to the middle and 66.7 kN (Computed)
-7
front rows for the same applied loads From these figures, it is 84.4 kN (Computed)
observed that the maximum bending moment in back row is 11.1 -8
97.9 kN (Computed)
and 33.7% more than middle and front rows, respectively, for -9
an average load of 97.9 kN for 1V:3H slope. This may be due to -10
reduction in passive resistance infront of pile. It is also observed
that the maximum moments occur almost at a depth of 9.2D, Figure 11. Average bending moments versus depth curves of back row of a pile
7D and 6D (D = Diameter of pile) below the ground surface for group placed on 1V:3H ground slope.
the front, middle and back rows, respectively. For 1V:5H slope,
it is observed that the maximum bending moment in back row is for an average load of 97.9kN. It is also observed that the max-
13.8 and 33.33% more than middle and front rows, respectively, imum moments occur almost at a depth of 9.2D, 6.2D and 6D
(D = Diameter of pile) below the ground surface for the front,
middle and back rows, respectively.
Bending Moment (kN-m)
-50 0 50 100 150
1
Lateral deflections versus depth curves
0 Figures 12–14 show typical average lateral deflection versus
Depth below ground surface (m)

-1 depth curves for front, middle and back rows of a group of piles
-2 placed on 1V:3H slope, respectively. From these figures, it is
-3 observed that the behaviour of front, middle and back rows of a
-4 group of piles changes significantly when ground surface changes
-5 from horizontal to slopes. It is observed that when a group of
-6
35.6 kN (Computed) piles are placed on 1V:3H or 1V:3H slopes, the deflections along
48.9 kN (Computed)
-7
the depth of piles in front row are more compare to middle and
66.7 kN (Computed)
-8
back rows for the same applied loads. The deflection in back row
84.4 kN (Computed)
97.9 kN (Computed)
observed to be least. This is due to absence of passive resistance
-9
infront of piles. It is also observed that the deflection in each pile
-10
approaches minimum between 4 and 5 m (13–16D) below the
Figure 9.  Average bending moments versus depth curves of front row of a pile ground surface for front rows, whereas for middle and back rows,
group placed on 1V:3H ground slope. the minimum deflection observed to be at 2 to 3 m (6.5–9.8D)
8   R. DEENDAYAL ET AL.

Deflection (mm) Conclusions

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
The results obtained from the FE analysis carried out on group
2.00
of piles are presented and discussed. From the study following
Depth below ground surface (m)

conclusions are drawn.

0.00
• When a group of piles are placed on a crest of slopes, the
-2.00 front row carries lesser loads as compare to middle and
back rows for both 1V:5H or 1V: 3H slopes. This is due
-4.00 35.6 kN (Computed) to absence of passive resistance infront of piles. The back
48.9 kN (Computed) rows carries the greatest loads for both 1V:5H or 1V:3H
-6.00 slopes.
66.7 kN (Computed)
• It is observed that the maximum deflection at pile head for
-8.00 84.4 kN (Computed) an average load of 84.4 kN in the front and middle rows
97.9 kN (Computed) are 1.74 and 1.57 times more than the back row, respec-
-10.00 tively, for 1V:5H slope. In the case of 1V:3H slope, the
maximum deflection at pile head for an average load of
Figure 12. Average lateral deflections versus depth curves for front row of a group
of piles placed on 1V:3H slope.
84.4 kN in the front and middle rows are 2 and 1.52 times
more than the back row, respectively.
• When a group of piles are placed on 1V:5H ground slope,
Deflection (mm) the maximum bending moments in the back row is more
compare to the middle and front rows for the same applied
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
2.00
loads. It is observed that the maximum bending moment
in back row is 13.8 and 33.33% more than middle and
Depth below ground surface (m)

0.00 front rows, respectively, for an average load of 97.9 kN.

It is also observed that the maximum moments occur
-2.00 almost at a depth of 9.2D, 6.2D and 6D (D = Diameter of
pile) below the ground surface for the front, middle and
-4.00 back rows, respectively.
35.6 kN (Computed)
• When a group of piles are placed on 1V:3H ground slope,
48.9 kN (Computed)
-6.00 the maximum bending moments in back row is 11.1 and
66.7 kN (Computed)
33.7% more than middle and front rows, respectively, for
84.4 kN (Computed)
-8.00 an average load of 97.9 kN. And the maximum moments
97.9 kN (Computed)
occurs almost at a depth of 9.2D, 7D and 6D (D = Diameter
-10.00 of pile) below the ground surface for the front, middle and
back rows, respectively.
Figure 13.  Average lateral deflections versus depth curves for middle row of a
group of piles placed on 1V:3H slope. • The majority of the lateral displacement observed to
be occurred within the cohesive surface layer. It is also
observed that the deflections in each pile approaches min-
Deflection (mm)
imum between 4 and 5  m (13–16D) below the ground
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
surface for front rows, whereas for middle and back rows,
2.00
Depth below ground surface (m)

the minimum deflection is observed to be at 2 to 3 m (6.5–

0.00 9.8D) below the soil surface.

-2.00

-4.00
List of symbols
35.6 kN (Computed)
-6.00 D  Diameter of the pile
48.9 kN (Computed)
Ec  Young’s modulus of concrete
-8.00 66.7 kN (Computed)
Es  Young’s modulus of steel
84.4 kN (Computed)
-10.00 E  Young’s modulus of soil
97.9 kN (Computed)
G  Specific gravity of soil
Figure 14. Average lateral deflections versus depth curves for back row of a group
L  length of pile
of piles placed on 1V:3H slope. μc  Poison’s ratio of concrete
μs  Poison’s ratio of steel
below the soil surface. When group of piles are placed on 1V:5H, μ  Poison’s ratio of soil
the similar kind of behaviour is observed. Therefore, the majority (γs)  Unit weight of steel
of the lateral displacement is observed to be within the cohesive (γsat)  Unit weight of soil
surface layer. (γc)  Unit weight of concrete

(ϕ) [°]  Friction angle
(ψ) [°]  Dilatancy angle
R(inter)  Strength Reduction Factor
K0  Earth pressure coefficient at rest
ML  Low plasticity silt
CL  Low plasticity clay
SP  Poorly graded sand
CH  Fat clay
SM  Medium sand
Contributors
DR conceived and designed the study, wrote the article in whole,
collected analyzed the data and revised the article. MK collected
and analyzed the data. STG collected and analyzed the data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
T. G. Sitharam   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1626-2067
References
Huang, An-Bin, Chao-Kuang Hsueh, Michael W. O’Neill, S. Chern, and C.
Chen. 2001. “Effects of Construction on Laterally Loaded Pile Groups.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127
(5): 385–397.
Boominathan, A., and R. Ayothiraman. 2007. “An Experimental Study on
Static and Dynamic Bending Behavior of Piles in Soft Clay.” Geotechnical
Geological Engineering 25: 177–189.
Broms, B. B. 1964a. “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils.” Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE 90 (2):
27–64.
Broms, B. B. 1964b. “Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils.”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE
90 (3): 123–158.
Brown, D. A., C. Morrison, and L. C. Reese. 1988. “Lateral Load Behavior
of Pile Group in Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 114 (11):
1261–1276.
Chae, K. S., K. Ugai, and A. Wakai. 2004. “Lateral Resistance of Short Single
Piles and Pile Groups Located Near Slopes.” International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE 4 (2): 93–103.
Chandrasekaran, S. S., A. Boominathan, and G. R. Dodagoudar. 2010.
“Group Interaction Effects on Laterally Loaded Piles in Clay.” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 136 (4): 573–
582.
Chore, H. S., R. K. Ingle, and V. A. Sawant. 2012. “Parametric Study of
Laterally Loaded Pile Groups using Simplified Finite Element Models.”
Coupled Systems Mechanics 1 (1): 1–7.
Deendayal R., K. Muthukkumaran and T. G. Sitharam. 2016.“Response
of laterally loaded pile in soft clay on sloping ground.” International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 10 (1): 10–22.
Deendayal R., K. Muthukkumaran and T. G. Sitharam. 2017.“Development
of Non-dimension p–y Curves for Laterally Loaded Piles in Sloping
Ground.” Indian Geotechnical Journal 47 (1): 47–56.
Gabr, M., T. Lunne, and J. Powell. 1994. “P-y Analysis of Laterally Loaded
Piles in Clay Using DMT.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
120 (5): 816–837.
View publication stats
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9
Georgiadis, K., and M. Georgiadis. 2010. “Undrained Lateral Pile Response
in Sloping Ground.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 136 (11): 1489–1500.
Georgiadis, K., M. Georgiadis, and C. Anagnostopoulos. 2013. “Lateral
Bearing Capacity of Rigid Piles near Clay Slopes.” Soils and Foundations
53 (1): 144–154.
Ilyas, T., C. F. Leung, Y. K. Chow, and S. S. Budi. 2004. “Centrifuge Model
Study of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (3): 274–283.
Kim, J. B., and R. J. Brungraber. 1976. “Full-scale Lateral Load Tests of Pile
Groups.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 102 (1):
87–105.
Kumar, S., M. Alizadeh, and L. Lalvani. 2000. “Lateral Load - Deflection
Response of Single Piles in Sand.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 5: 2000–2334.
Matlock, H., and L. C. Reese. 1960. “Generalized Solutions for Laterally
Loaded Piles.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Division, ASCE 86 (5): 63–94.
Muthukkumaran, K., R. Sundaravadivelu, and S. R. Gandhi. 2008. “Effect
of Slope on p-y Curves due to Surcharge Load.” Soils and Foundations
48 (3): 353–361.
Muthukkumaran, K. 2014. “Effect of Slope and Loading Direction on
Laterally Loaded Piles in Cohesionless Soil.” International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE 14 (1): 1–7.
Narasimha Rao, S., V. G. S. T. Ramakrishna, and G. B. Raju. 1996. “Behavior
of Pile-Supported Dolphins in Marine Clay under Lateral Loading.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122 (8): 607–612.
Ng, C. W. W., L. M. Zhang, and K. K. S. Ho. 2001. “Influence of Laterally
Loaded Sleeved Piles and Pile Groups on Slope Stability.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 38 (3): 553–566.
Pise, P. J. 1983. “Lateral Load-Deflection Behavior of Pile Groups.” Indian
Geotechnical Journal, India 13: 37–51.
Prakash, S., and S. Kumar. 1996. “Nonlinear Lateral Pile Deflection
Prediction in Sands.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122 (2): 130–
138.
Rajashree, S., and T. G. Sitharam. 2001. “Nonlinear Finite-Element
Modeling of Batter Piles under Lateral Load.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127(7): 604–612.
Rajashree, S. S., and R. Sundaravadivelu. 1996. “Degradation Model for
One-Way Cyclic Lateral Load on Piles in Soft Clay.” Computers and
Geotechnics 19 (4): 289–300.
Reese, L. C., and R. C. Welch. 1975. “Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations
in Stiff Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 3:
633–649.
Reese, L. C., W. R. Cox, and F. P. Koop. 1974. “Analysis of Laterally Loaded
Piles in Sand.” In Proceeding, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC2080,
472–483. Houston, TX.
Rollins, K. M., K. T. Peterson, and T. J. Weaver 1998. “Lateral Load
Behavior of Full-Scale Pile Group in Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 124 (6): 468–478.
Rollins, K. M., and A. Sparks. 2002. “Lateral Resistance of Full-Scale Pile
Cap with Gravel Backfill.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 128 (9): 711–723.
Rollins, K. 2005. “Lateral Resistance of a Full-Scale Pile Group in Liquefied
Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
131 (1): 115–125.
Ruesta, P., and F. Townsend. 1997. “Evaluation of Laterally Loaded Pile
Group at Roosevelt Bridge.” Journal of Geotechnical Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 123 (12): 1153–1161.
Sawant, V. A., and S. K. Shukla. 2013. “Effect of Edge Distance from the
Slope Crest on the Response of a Laterally Loaded Pile in Sloping
Ground.” Geotechnical and Geology Engineering 32 (1): 197–204.
Singh, A., and R. K. Verma. 1973. “Lateral Resistance of a Field Model of
Pile Group in Sand and its Comparison with Laboratory Model.” Indian
Geotechnical Journal 3: 113–117.
Zhang, L., M. Zhao, and X. Zou. 2015. “Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles
in Multilayered Soils.” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE 15
(2): 06014017.