L A T E R A L L O A D A N A L Y S I S O F G R O U P S O F P I L E S AND

DRILLED SHAFTS
By Phillip S. K. Ooi, 1 and J. Michael Duncan 2

ABSTRACT: Current procedures for designing groups of piles for lateral loading
require the use of a computer or extensive manual computations. This paper pre-
sents a simple method (the group amplificationprocedure) for estimatingpile group
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deflections and maximum bending moments based on the theories of Poulos, and
Focht and Koch. The method is applicable to groups of drilled shafts as well as
groups of piles. Group lateral deflections and the maximum bending moment in
the most severely loaded pile in the group are estimated by multiplying the values
for singlepiles by amplificationfactors (whichhave valueslarger than unity). Lateral
deflections and maximum bending moments calculated using the group amplifi-
cation procedure have been found to be in good agreement with values measured
in field load tests.

INTRODUCTION

Laterally loaded pile groups should be designed to be safe against struc-

tural failure of the piles, excessive deflection, and ultimate failure of the
soil around the piles. Such large displacements are required to mobilize the
ultimate capacity of the soil that soil failure does not control the design in
most cases. Of principal interest usually are the lateral deflection of the
group and the maximum bending moment in the most heavily loaded pile
in the group. The group amplification procedure ( G A P ) described in the
following sections provides a simple procedure for estimating these quan-
tities easily.

BEHAVIOR AND ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED GROUPS OF

DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Pile groups can be divided into two categories (O'Neill 1983): (1) Groups
of widely spaced piles; and (2) groups of closely spaced piles. The first
category consists of piles that are spaced far enough apart so that the de-
flection of one pile in the group does not affect the other piles, and that
the piles interact only through the pile cap. Groups of widely spaced piles
can be analyzed by distributing the lateral loads equally among all piles in
the group, and considering the behavior of any one pile in isolation. In
groups of closely spaced piles, the response of one pile affects the nearby
piles by causing deflection of the soil between them.
The lateral load behavior of a single steel HP10 x 42 pile and the lateral
load behavibr of a group of nine closely spaced HP10 x 42 piles are shown
in Fig. 1. The piles in the group are arranged in a 3 x 3 configuration, are

tGeotech. Engr., GEI Consultants, Inc., 1021 Main St., Winchester, MA 01890-
1943.
2Univ. Distinguished Prof., Civ. Engrg., 104 Patton Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacks-
burg, VA 24061.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. Separate discussions should be
submitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
January 11, 1993. This paper is part of the Journal of Geoteehnical Engineering, Vol.
120, No. 6, June, 1994. @ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/94/0006-1034/$2.00 + $.25 per
page. Paper No. 5425.
1034

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 (a) (d)
(e) Deflccdon Moment
y (ram) M (kN-m)
pt=44.5~[ Pt = 40~5. LN 00.0 10 2.,0 3;0 1 -20r.~O( 20 40 60
i ~r , P
...... n H II II
Oay S~elHPIOx4g I1II - @ ~ - ~ Single Pile
Su=72kPa D=246mm II II 2 /~ Single Pile I . ',---- Pile Group
~p=8.74x ~o7ram411II
=2x108~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-ggg
(b) i S i S i
Depth (m) Depth (m)

H H H
For single pile, Yt= l.g ram, Mmax = 37.7 kN-m
H H H
For pile group, Yt = 3.3 ram, Mmax= 45.8 kN-m
H H H
S=3D

FIG. 1. Response of Single H-Pile and Group of H-Piles Subjected to Lateral Loads
at Ground Line: (a) Single Pile, Pile Group and Loads; (b) Plan View of Single Pile
and Group; (c) Deflections; (d) Moments

uniformly spaced at 3 times the pile width, are embedded in a stiff pile cap,
and are driven into a medium stiff clay with an undrained shear strength of
72 kPa (1,500 psf). Calculated deflections and maximum bending moments
of the single pile and the pile group, when subjected to a lateral load of
44.5 kN (10 kips) per pile, are shown in Fig. 1. The behavior shown for the
single pile was calculated using the characteristic load method (Duncan et al.
1994), and the behavior of the group was analyzed using the Focht and
Koch (1973) procedure.
The deflection at the top of the single pile is 1.7 mm (0.07 in.), and the
maximum bending moment is 37.7 kN. m (334 kip-in.). The deflection at
the top of the pile group is 3.4 mm (0.13 in.), and the maximum bending
moment is 45.8 kN-m (405 kip-in.). Thus, in this case, the deflection of the
group is twice the deflection of the single pire, and the maximum bending
moment is about 20% higher, at the same load per pile.
The deflection of any pile in a group causes movement of the surrounding
soil and piles, thus leading to larger deflection for the pile group than for
single piles subjected to the same load per pile. This behavioral mechanism
is termed "pile-soil-pile interaction." The maximum bending moment in the
group is larger than that for the single pile, because the soil allows the group
to deflect more for the same load per pile, and the soil thus behaves as if
it is softer. Reliable methods of analyzing pile group behavior should account
for pile-soil-pile interaction.
Factors other than pile-soil-pile interaction also influence the behavior of
pile groups under lateral loading (Brown and Reese 1985).

Effects of Pile Cap

A pile cap that remains in contact with the ground provides additional
lateral restraint to the group. However, settlement or scour of the soil
around the piles may reduce or eliminate the cap-soil contact and thereby
reduce the lateral restraint provided by the cap. For this reason, the resis-
tance of the cap to lateral loads is usually neglected.
1035

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 Pile caps are usually stiff in bending and provide very effective restraint
to rotation at the tops of the piles. Because a single fixed head pile deflects
only about one-fourth as much as a free head pile subjected to the same
load, the rotational restraint due to the pile cap is an extremely important
factor in the behavior of pile groups.

Effects of Installation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The method of installing deep foundations, whether by driving or drilling,

will affect the behavior of the surrounding soil and the stresses within it.
Present methods of lateral load analysis of deep foundations do not involve
adjustments to account for installation effects, because rational assessment
of installation effects would require a better understanding of the detailed
effects of installation.

METHODS OF ESTIMATING BEHAVIOR OF GROUPS OF PILES AND

DRILLED SHAFTS UNDER LATERAL LOADS
Methods of accounting for pile-soil-pile interaction in the behavior of pile
groups include the following: (Dunnavant and O'NeiU 1986; Davisson 1970)
(1) Continuum methods; (2) the Winkler interaction model; (3) the modified
unit load transfer method; (4) the empirical stiffness distribution model; (5)
the group reduction factor method; and (6) the hybrid model.

Continuum Methods
Continuum methods include the approach of Poulos (1971), which uses
Mindlin's three-dimensional elasticity equations to solve for stresses and
displacements due to horizontal point loads applied in an elastic half space:
Poulos' (1971) method assumes that the soil is elastic, and it accounts for
the influence of one pile on other piles in the group through the use of
influence factors based on linear elastic theory. The principal disadvantage
of the method is that it is difficult to determine the most suitable value for
the elastic modulus of the soil between the piles.
Other continuum methods include the boundary element method (Ba-
nerjee and Davies 1980) and the finite-element method. Three-dimensional
finite-element analyses, of the type described by Shibata et al. (1988), is
potentially a promising method for analyzing laterally loaded pile groups,
because the method can incorporate nonlinear soil behavior, and because
it can account for the stiffnesses of the soil and the piles separately and
accurately, even if the piles are battered. The principal disadvantage of the
method is its complexity.

Winkler Interaction Model

Nogami and Paulson (1985) and Hariharan and Kumarasamy (1982) use
a network of springs to represent the piles in the group and the soil between
them. The method allows pile-soil-pile interaction only in the horizontal
direction.

Modified Unit Load Transfer Method

Bogard and Matlock (1983) presented the modified unit transfer load
method, which involves the development of p-y curves for a group of piles
considered as a single pile. The modified single pile, whose diameter is equal
to the width of the pile group, consists of the piles in the group and the soil
in between the piles. Bogard and Matlock (1983) used this procedure on a
1036

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 circular group of piles in soft clay, assuming that the lateral resistance was
equally distributed among all the piles in the group. This method is less
suitable for non-circular groups of piles.

Empirical Stiffness Model

Dunnavant and O'Neill (1986) presented the empirical stiffness model,
which appears to be the most reliable method for estimating the load dis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tribution among piles in a group, because it can account for "shadowing."

Shadowing is the effect whereby leading piles are more heavily loaded than
trailing or shadowed piles. According to Dunnavant and O'Neill (1986), the
method relies on proper selection of the soil elastic modulus.

Group Reduction Factor Method

The group reduction factor method is based on model tests of pile groups
in sands (Prakash 1962). From these tests Davisson (1970) deduced that
there are no pile-soil-pile interaction effects if the piles are spaced more
than eight diameters apart in the direction of loading. For pile groups with
a spacing of three diameters, Davisson recommended that the modulus of
subgrade reaction be reduced to 25% of its value to account for pile-soil-
pile interaction. The lateral load behavior of the pile group would then be
estimated by analyzing the lateral load behavior of a single pile using the
reduced modulus. For pile groups with spacings between three and eight
diameters, the reduction factor for the subgrade modulus can be obtained
by linear interpolation.

Hybrid Model
The hybrid model Focht and Koch (1973) combines Poulos' (1971) elastic
continuum model and nonlinear p-y analysis. The procedure is based on
the concept that the deflection of a group of piles consists of two compo-
nents: a component due to nonlinear soil behavior occurring close to the
individual piles, and a component due to pile-soil-pile interaction through
the less highly stressed soil further from the piles.
Focht and Koch (1973) recommended that the component of deflection
due to nonlinear soil behavior near an individual pile can be analyzed using
nonlinear p-y analysis. It can also be analyzed using the characteristic load
method (Duncan et al. 1994). The component of deflection due to pile-soil-
pile interaction can be estimated using Poulos' (1971) elastic interaction
coefficients. By using either the p-y method or the characteristic load method,
together with the Focht and Koch (1973) procedure, different values of
stiffnesses can be used to represent the highly stressed soil near the piles
and the less highly stressed soil further from the piles.
Dunnavant and O'Neill (1986) analyzed lateral load tests on pile groups
using the procedures described previously. They found that the empirical
stiffness model predicted the load distribution among piles in pile groups
most accurately. However, they recommended that the hybrid model orig-
inally proposed by Focht and Koch (1973) be used to estimate deflections
and bending moments in pile groups. Modifications of the hybrid model
have been developed by O'Neill et al. (1977), O'Neill and Tsai (1984), and
Horsnell et al. (1990). However, the group amplification procedure is based
on the original Focht and Koch (1973) procedure.
1037

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 CONCEPT OF DEFLECTION AND MOMENT AMPLIFICATION
A group of piles deflects more than a single pile subjected to the same
lateral load per pile. This is because each pile in a group causes deflection
of the surrounding soil, thereby causing added deflections of the other piles.
Because the deflections are larger, the bending moments in the piles are
also larger. It is useful to define a group deflection amplification factor,
which, when multiplied by the deflection of a single pile yields the group
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deflection, i.e.
yg = CyYs (1)
in which yg = group deflection (L); Cy = deflection amplification factor
(dimensionless); and Ys = single pile deflection under the same load (L).
The value of Cy is always greater than or equal to 1.0. It accounts for
pile-soil-pile interaction effects in groups of piles and drilled shafts. A similar
amplification factor can also be derived, which, when multiplied by the
maximum single pile moment, yields the maximum bending moment in a
pile within a pile group, i.e.
Mg = CraMs (2)
in which M s = maximum moment in a pile in the group (F. L); Cm =
moment amplification factor (dimensionless); and Ms = maximum moment
in a single pile under the same load (F-L).

GROUP AMPLIFICATION PROCEDURE

The group amplification procedure (Ooi 1991) was derived from the re-
sults of numerous analyses of pile groups using the characteristic load method
(Duncan et al. 1994) and the Focht and Koch (1973) procedure. A computer
program (PGROUPD) was developed to calculate single pile deflection and
maximum moment using the characteristic load method, and group deflec-
tion and maximum moment using Focht and Koch's (1973) procedure. This
made possible parametric studies on a large number of pile groups with
different numbers of piles, pile spacings, pile sizes, pile stiffnesses, soil
strengths, and soil stiffnesses.
An important step in the Focht and Koch (1973) procedure is estimating
a value of effective soil modulus. Reese et al. (1984) showed that the results
of the Focht and Koch procedure are sensitive to the value of soil modulus
used in the calculations. Focht and Koch (1973) recommended that the soil
modulus should be greater than or equal to "the secant modulus corre-
sponding to a stress of 50% of the strength, and probably can be equal to
the initial tangent modulus obtained from most laboratory strength tests."
In performing the parametric study to develop the group amplification pro-
cedure, the soil modulus was estimated using the characteristic load method
by using the initial slopes of the curves that relate dimensionless load to
dimensionless deflection.
The parametric studies yielded the following expression for Cy:
A + Npile
Cy = 0.5 (3)

in which Cy = deflection amplification factor (dimensionless); A = 16 for

1038

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 clay (dimensionless), 9 for sand (dimensionless); Npile = number of piles
in group; B = 5.5 for clay (dimensionless), 3.0 for sand (dimensionless); S
= average spacing of piles (L); D = diameter of single pile (L); Ps = Pg/
Npile = average lateral load per pile (F); Pg = total lateral load on the
group of piles (F); C = 3 for clay (dimensionless), 16 for sand (dimen-
sionless); PN = SuD z for clay (F), Kp'~D3 for sand (F); ~/ = average total
unit weight of sand over the top eight D (ElL 3); gp = passive earth pressure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

coefficient = tan2(45 + +/2) (dimensionless); + = average angle of internal

friction of sand within the upper eight D (degrees); and Su = average
undrained shear strength of clay within the upper eight D (F/L2).
When (3) is used in combination with the characteristic load method,
only the soil strength parameters are needed to characterize the soil be-
havior. The soil modulus values implicit in the method are related to the
soil strength parameters, (+ for sands and Su for clays).
If the lateral displacement estimated for a group of piles is greater than
the maximum tolerable value, the diameter of the piles, the number of piles,
and/or the pile spacing must be adjusted until the deflection is less than or
equal to the tolerable value. Eq. (3) provides a convenient means for eval-
uating the effects of changes in these parameters, and simplifies what can
be a lengthy process of repeated trials.
Brown et al. (1987, 1988) found that the maximum bending moment in
a group of free-head piles occurs in the leading, or front row of piles.
Methods based on the theory of elasticity, including the Focht and Koch
(1973) procedure, predict that the largest loads are carried by the corner
piles. It seems likely that the location and magnitude of the maximum
moment depend on many factors, including the magnitude of the load and
whether it is static or cyclic, and cannot be evaluated precisely using any
simple procedure.
A procedure that provides a reasonable approximation of the maximum
bending moment in the leading row of a group of piles has been developed
by modifying the theory described in Focht and Koch (1973). The increase
in moment due to group interaction was studied for a large number of cases
by this procedure: The group deflection was estimated using the theory of
Focht and Koch. Then the soil was "softened" (by reducing the value of S,
for clays or + for sands) until the calculated single pile deflection matched
the lateral deflection calculated for the group. The maximum moment was
then evaluated using the softened soil properties. The moment calculated
in this way is consistent with the larger deflection of the group, and is
believed to be a reasonable estimate of the maximum moment in the most
heavily loaded pile in the group.
This procedure was incorporated in the computer program PGROUPD.
Through a parametric study similar to the one described previously, a mo-
ment amplification factor was evaluated which can be used to estimate the
maximum bending moment in the most severely loaded pile in a pile group,
using the following expression:
CM = (Cy) n (4)
in which CM = moment amplification factor (dimensionless); n = (Ps/
150PN) + 0.25 for clay (dimensionless); and n = (Pfl3OOPN) + 0.30 for
sand (dimensionless).
The maximum bending moment in a group of piles or drilled shafts can
be estimated quickly using (2) and (4), since the effects of pile-soil-pile
1039

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 interaction and the related softening of the soil are accounted for without
the necessity of lengthy repeated trials.

Limitations of Group Amplification Procedure

The group amplification procedure has the following limitations:

1. The procedure was developed for uniformly spaced piles and drilled
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shafts. It can be used for rectangular (but not circular) groups with non-
uniform spacing if the average pile or drilled shaft spacing is used in the
calculations.
2. The procedure was developed for vertical groups of deep foundations.
It does not apply to battered piles or battered shafts.
3. The parametric studies described before were performed for cases
which the piles and drilled shafts were connected by caps that provided
rotational restraint at the top. As shown subsequently by analysis of groups
of free-head piles, the expressions for defelection and moment amplification
factors given above can be applied to other conditions of fixity at the tops
of the piles, provided the single pile deflection and moment are calculated
using nonlinear analysis with the appropriate boundary conditions at the
top.
4. The distribution of loads among piles in a group cannot be predicted
using the group amplification procedure. However, the maximum bending
moment in any pile in the group can be estimated using the procedure.
5. The group amplification procedure gives the same values of deflection
and moment for groups with the same number of piles, regardless of the
arrangement of the piles in the groups. On the other hand, load tests (Feagin
1953) and theoretical procedures (e.g. Focht and Koch 1973) indicate that
a rectangular group loaded along its length will deflect less than one loaded
across its width. This is because the extra piles along the length of the group
and the soil in between provide additional resistance to lateral loads. How-
ever, the difference is not large unless the number of piles along the length
is significantly greater than the number along the width of the group.
6. Like the characteristic load method (Duncan et al. 1994), the group
amplification procedure is applicable only to piles and drilled shafts that
are long and embedded in a uniform soil. If the soil or pile properties vary
with depth, the average properties within the upper eight diameters of a
single pile should be used. Although the depth for averaging soil properties
should ideally be dependent on the relative stiffness between the pile and
the soil, it has been found that averaging the soil properties over 8 D provides
reasonable values, even though pile groups tend to mobilize soil resistance
to a greater depth than single piles.

COMPARISON OF GROUP AMPLIFICATION PROCEDURE WITH

FOCHT AND KOCH PROCEDURE
The group amplification factors for deflection and moment were derived
from Focht and Koch (1973) procedure, and it would therefore be expected
that the two types of analyses would agree closely when used to analyze the
same conditions. However, some approximations were made to obtain sim-
ple expressions for Cy and CM. As a result, there are some differences in
the results calculated using the two methods. Comparisons of the two meth-
1040

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 ods show the degree of approximation involved in the group amplification
procedure.
A comparison of results obtained using the Focht and Koch (1973) pro-
cedure and the group amplification procedure is shown in Table 1 for groups
of steel H-piles. Results of analyses of steel HP10 x 42 piles, similar to the
ones shown in Fig. 1, are summarized in Table 1. One group has 4 piles, a
second has 9 piles, and the third has 25 piles. The piles are spaced three
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pile widths apart. Results are shown for piles driven into clay and for piles
driven into submerged sand subjected to 44.5 kN (10 kips) and 89 kN (20
kips) per pile. A similar comparison for groups of 356 mm (14 in.) square
prestressed concrete piles is shown in Table 2.
The results in Tables 1 and 2 show that the group amplification procedure,
when used together with the characteristic load method for single piles,
approximates the results of the Focht and Koch procedure quite closely
(within about 30%) for pile groups in clay and sand.

COMPARISONS WITH FIELD MEASUREMENTS

Carefully performed and well-instrumented full-scale field tests provide

the best means of verifying analytical procedures. Lateral load tests on pile
groups have been reported by Feagin (1937, 1953), Evans (1953), O'Hal-
ioran (1953), Gleser (1953), Beatty (1970), Kim and Brungraber (1976),
Jamiolkowski (1976), Manoliu et al. (1977), Matlock et al. (1980), Holloway
et al. (1981), Schmidt (1981), Meimon et al. (1986), and Brown et al. (1987,
1988).
Only Kim and Brungraber's (1976) experiment was carried out on groups
of fixed-head piles. Both experiments conducted by Brown et al. (1987,
1988), were performed using a moment-free loading frame, through which
the lateral load on the pile group was applied 0.305 m (1 ft) above the
ground line.

Comparison with Kim and Brungraber's (1976) Load Tests

Kim and Brungraber (1976) performed three series of lateral load tests
on pile groups on the Bucknell University campus. Two of the pile groups,
! and II, contained vertical piles spaced 1.22 m (4 ft) and 0.91 m (3 ft) apart
center-to-center, respectively. The top 0.305 m (12 in.) of the piles were
embedded in reinforced concrete caps. The pile caps were all in contact
with the ground during testing.
Each group contained six piles in a 3 x 2 arrangement. The piles were
10BP42 steel H-piles [D = 246 mm (9.7 in.), E, = 2 x 105 MPa (29,000
ksi), Ie = 9.33 x 10 -5 m 4 (224.2 in.4). The piles penetrated a 2.13 m (7
ft) thick layer of silty clay, 1.83 m (6 ft) of sandy clay loam, 3.35 m (11 ft)
of clay loam and about 4.88 m (16 ft) of limestone gravel. The piles met
refusal at the top of a layer of limestone at about 12.2 m (40 ft) depth.
The properties of the soil within the top eight pile widths 2.0 m (6.5 ft)
are the most important in determining the response to lateral loads. Standard
penetration test (SPT) blow counts in the upper 2.0 m (6.5 ft) were all
greater than or equal to 30, indicating that the undrained strength of the
silty clay would be in the range of 100 kPa (2,000 psf) to 300 kPa (6,000
psf). Unconfined compression strengths averaged only 100 kPa (2,000 psf),
which would correspond to a value of S, equal to 50 kPa (1,000 psf). Because
unconfined compression tests frequently result in values of S, that are un-
reasonably low, and because the SPT blow counts afford only a very rough
1041

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 1. Comparison of Results of Focht and Koch and Group Amplification Procedures for Analyses of Groups of Steel HP10 x 42
Piles
LORD = 44.5 kN (10 kips) PER PILE LOAD = 89.0 kN (20 kips) PER PILE
yg mm (in.) Me kN.m (kip-in.) yg mm (in.) MgkN-m (kip-in.)
Number Focht Group Focht Group Focht Group Focht Group
of piles and amplification and amplification and amplification and amplification
in group Koch procedure Koch procedure Koch procedure Koch procedure
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(a) Piles Embedded in Clay with Su = 72 kPa (1,500 psf)
4 2.3 2.3 42 42 7.6 6.9 96 93
(0.09) (0.o9) (370) (375) (0.30) (O.27) (850) (824)
PO 9 3.4 3.0 46 45 9.9 8.6 105 101
(0.13) (0.12) (405) (402) (0.39) (0.34) (927) (898)
25 5.1 4.8 53 53 14.5 14.0 121 123
(0.20) (0.19) (468) (471) (0.57) (0.55) (1,073) (1,087)
(b) Piles Embedded in Sand with 4) = 35 ~

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

4 7.1 7.1 60 63 18.3 17.0 141 147
(0.28) (0.28) (533) (560) (0.72) (0.67) (1,250) (1,305)
9 11.2 9.9 71 73 26.9 23.6 167 178
(0.44) (0.39) (631) (647) (1,06) (0.93) (1,476) (1,579)
25 20.3 18.8 91 97 46.7 44.5 214 259
(0.80) (0.74) (803) (857) (1.84) (1.75) (1,894) (2,290)
Note: S = 3D.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 2. Comparison of Results of Focht and Koch and Group Amplification Procedures for Analyses of Groups of Prestressed Concrete
Piles
LOAD = 44.5 kN (10 kips) PER PILE LOAD = 89.0 kN (20 kips) PER PILE
yg mm (in.) Mg kN- m (kip-in.) yg mm (in.) Mg kN. m (kip-in.)
Number Focht Group Focht Group Focht Group Focht Group
of piles and amplification and amplification and amplification and amplification
in group Koch procedure Koch procedure Koch procedure Koch procedure
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(a) Piles Embedded in Clay with Su = 72 kPa (1,500 psf)
4 2.0 2.3 43 45 6.1 6.6 95 99
(0.08) (0.09) (381) (401) (0.24) (0.26) (843) (875)
9 2.5 2.8 47 48 7.6 8.4 103 106
(0.10) (0.11) (413). (427) (0.30) (0.33) (908) (939)
25 4.1 4.8 53 55 10.9 13.7 116 124
(0.16) (0.19) (466) (491) (0.43) (0.54) (1,024) (1,097)
(b) Piles Embedded in Sand with ~ = 35~

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

4 5.8 7.1 601 65 14.5 17.5 136 148
(0.23) (0.28) (537) (577) (0.57) (0.69) (1,206) (1,314)
9 9.1 9.9 70 73 21.1 24.61 158 169
(0.36) (0.39) (623) (646) (0.83) (0.95) (1,398) (1,494)
25 15.7 19.1 87 91 35.3 45.7 197 217
(0.62) (0.75) (768) (806) (1.39) (1.80) (1,739) (1,921)
Note: S = 3D.
 measure of clay strength, it was decided that a value of S, of 120 kPa (2,500
psf) was the best estimate possible based on the available information. The
analyses were performed using this value of S,.
The deflection and m a x i m u m bending m o m e n t s in a single fixed-head
10BP42 pile in clay with S, = 120 kPa (2,500 psf) were estimated using the
characteristic load method ( D u n c a n et al. 1994). These values of deflection
and m o m e n t were multiplied by values of Cy and CMtO obtain the values
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of deflection and m o m e n t that are compared with the measured values in

Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3. Comparison of Deflections Calculated Using Group Amplification Pro-

cedure with Values Measured in Tests at Bucknell University (Kim and Brungraber
1976)
Group I Group II
Pile Spacing S Pile Spacing S
-5 -3.7
Pile Width D Pile Width D
Method (mm) ] (in.) (ram) ] (in.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Load = 74 kN (16.7 kips) per Pile
Measurement series B 3.0 0.12 5.8 0.23
Measurement series C 2.3 0.09 7.1 0.28
Measurement average 2.8 0.11 6.4 0.25
Group amplification procedure 3.0 0.12 3.3 0.13
(b) Load = 148 kN (33.3 kips) per Pile
Measurement series B 5.3 0.21 9.4 0.37
Measurement series C 3.8 0.15 9.1 0.36
Measurement average 4.6 0.18 9.4 0.37
Group amplification procedure 8.9 0.35 9.4 0.37

TABLE 4. Comparison of Moments Calculated Using Group Amplification Pro-

cedure with Values Measured in Tests at Bucknell University (Kim and Brungraber
1976)
Group I Group II
Pile Spacing S Pile Spacing S
-5 - - 3.7
Pile Width D Pile Width D
Method (mm) (in.) (mm) (in.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Load = 74 kN (16.7 kips) per Pile
Measurement series B 54 479 106 936
Measurement series C 52 457 56 497
Measurement average 53 468 81 717
Group amplification procedure 65 573 66 587
(b) Load = 148 kN (33.3 kips) per Pile
Measurement series B 84 742 166 1,470
Measurement series C 80 707 76 672
Measurement average 82 725 121 1,071
Group amplification procedure 147 1,299 150 1,328

1044

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 There is considerable scatter and some inconsistency in the measured
results. Note that the measured deflections increased by only 70% and the
measured moments increased by only 50% when the load was doubled. This
indicates inconsistency in the measurements, because these quantities would
increase by a factor of two if the behavior was linear, and by a factor of
more than two as a result of nonlinear behavior. However, these are the
only available load test results for fixed-head piles, and therefore merit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluation.
The agreement between the measured and calculated behavior is reason-
able for the group I tests with 74 kN (16.7 kips) per pile. For loads of 148
kN (33.3 kips) per pile, however, the calculated moments exceed the mea-
sured values by about 80%. For the group II tests the calculated deflections
and moments are smaller than the measured values for loads of 74 kN (16.7
kips) per pile. The agreement is better for loads of 148 kN (33.3 kips) per
pile.

Comparison with Brown et al. (1987) Load Tests

Brown et al. (1987) conducted lateral 10ad tests on a group of nine steel-
pipe piles on the University of Houston campus. Lateral load tests on a
single instrumented pipe pile were also conducted, so that a comparison
between group response and single pile response could be made. The prop-
erties of the foundation soil [Beaumont clay with an average S, = 70 kPa
(10 psi) in the top eight diameters] and the properties of the pile have been
described in detail by Brown et al. (1987).
The loads were applied 0.305 m (1 ft) above the mudline, with the aid
of a loading frame that provided moment-free connections to the piles. In
order to study the load tests of Brown et al. (1987), the deflection and
maximum bending moment in a single free-head pile were estimated using
the characteristic load method (Duncan et al. 1994). These values of de-
flection and moment were multiplied by C. and CM to obtain the values
9 Y

that are compared with the measured values in Figs. 2 and 3.

At loads of 22.2 kN (5 kips) and 44.5 kN (10 kips) per pile, the calculated
values of deflection and maximum moment are in excellent agreement with
the measured values. At loads of 67 kN (15 kips) per pile, the group de-
flection was underestimated by about 25%, and the group maximum mo-
ment was underestimated by about 15%.

Comparison with Brown et ai. (1988) Load Tests

After the lateral load tests described precedingly had been performed,
Brown et al. (1988) conducted further tests on the same pile group after
replacing the Beaumont clay with sand. The natural clay was excavated,
and a sand backfill was compacted around the piles9 The sand was saturated
and the site was kept flooded until the end of the test program. The sand
had an average friction angle of 42 ~ and extended to a depth of about 10
pile diameters. The response of the pile group to lateral loading was there-
fore governed by the strength and stiffness of the sand.
The soil, pile, and loading conditions of these tests have been described
by Brown et al. (1988). As before, the deflection and maximum bending
moments for a single free-head pile were estimated using the characteristic
load method, and were multiplied by values of Cy and CM to estimate the
deflections and moments for the group9 A comparison of the calculated and
measured deflections are shown in Fig. 4, and the calculated and measured
moments are shown in Fig. 5.
1045

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 90
80
70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6O
50 /
AS
id I

30
- - - Single Pile - Calculated
20 ] // A Single Pile - Measured
10 7/ Group - Calculated
/ 9 Group - Measured
i I I I I I I !

0 10 20 30 40
Deflection (mm)
FIG. 2. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Deflections for Group of Steel
Pipe Piles in Beaumont Clay [Measured Values from Brown et al. (1987)]

90
8O

7o

~ 5O
4o

N 30
4 ~ "'" Single pile- Calculated
20 ,,tsi
,~" A
n .qin~rl~
Single Pil~
Pile --Measured
M~nq]lre~d
J Group - Calculated
10 9 Group - Measured
I I l I I I l I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m)
FIG. 3. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Maximum Moments for Group
of Steel Pipe Piles in Beaumont Clay [Measured Values from Brown et al. (1987)]

1046

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 ~_.
0

7080 ,,,""
A ," 9
A 9

"~
9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mr 5060 ,, ,", ' " / .

"-~
30 - - - Single Pile - Calculated
20 / J 6 Single Pile - Measured
Group - Calculated
10 9 G r o u p - Measured
I I I I I

0 20 40 60
Deflection (mm)
FIG. 4. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Deflections for Group of Steel
Pipe Piles in Sand [Measured Values from Brown et al. (1988)]

90 ~- ,
80
7o

50 ,,,,'"
~" 4030 ,,'"",'~
20 i" 9 - - Single Pile - Calculated
/ j ' / A Single Pile - Measured
10 ~ Group - Calculated
9 Group - Measured
| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m)
FIG. 5. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Maximum Moments for Group
of Steel Pipe Piles in Sand [Measured Values from Brown et al. (1988)]

1047

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 Based on the comparisons shown in these figures, the following obser-
vations can be made: (1) The calculated values of group deflection are about
twice as large as the measured values; (2) the calculated values of maximum
moment in the piles in the group are about 70% larger than the measured
values. Note that the measured maximum moments are the same for the
single pile and the piles in the group, indicating no effect on moments even
though the group deflected more than the single pile at the same load per
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pile; and (3) in this load test, the group amplification procedure tends to
be conservative. A possible explanation is that, because the loads were
applied in several increments, and were cycled at each increment, the sand
around the piles may have become denser as the test progressed. This could
have resulted in lower group deflections and moments when the loads were
increased.

CONCLUSIONS
The group amplification procedure affords a simple means for estimating
the increased deflections and maximum moments in laterally loaded piles
and drilled shafts caused by group interaction effects. Group deflections
and maximum moments are estimated by amplifying values of deflection
and maximum moment for a single pile or drilled shaft. The amplification
factors depend on the properties of the soil within the upper eight pile
diameters, the average load on each pile, the pile spacing, and the number
of piles in the group. The single pile values of deflection and moment that
are amplified using the method can be estimated by means of any applicable
procedure, including the characteristic load method (Duncan et al. 1994),
p-y analyses, or field measurements on a single pile.
The group amplification procedure has been compared with the Focht
and Koch (1973) method~of analysis, and with the resul'ts of field load tests
on laterally loaded pile groups. The results of the comparisons indicate that
the procedure provides estimates of group deflections and moments that
are likely to be as accurate as other, more complex means of analysis, and
sufficiently accurate for most practical purposes.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Banerjee, K., and Davies, T.G. (1980). "Analysis of some reported case histories
of laterally loaded pile groups." Proc., Conf. on Numer. Meth. in Offshore Piling,
Inst. of Civil Engineers, London, England, 101-108.
Beatty, C. I. (1970). "Lateral test on pile groups." Foundation Facts, VI(1), 18-21.
Bogard, D., and Matlock, H. (1983). "Procedures for analysis of laterally loaded
pile groups in soft clay." Proc., Conf. on Geotech. Practice in Offshore Engrg.,
ASCE, New York, N.Y., 499-535.
Brown, D. A., and Reese, L.C. (1985). "Behavior of a large-scale pile group sub-
jected to cyclic lateral loading," Geotech. Engrg. Rep. GR85-12, Brown, Geotech.
Engrg. Center, Bureau of Engineering Research, Austin, Tex.
Brown, D. A., Reese, L. C., and O'Neill, M. W. (1987). "Cyclic lateral loading of
a large scale pile group." ]. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(11), 1326-1343.
Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. (1988). "Lateral load behavior of
pile group in sand." J. Geotech. Engrg., 114(11), 1261-1276.
Davisson, M. T. (1970). "Lateral load capacity of piles," Hwy. Res. Rec. No. 333.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
104-112.
Duncan, J. M., Evans, L. T. Jr., and Ooi, P. S. K. (1994). "Lateral load analysis
of single piles and drilled shafts." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(6), 1018-1033.
Dunnavant, T. W., and O'Neill, M. W. (1986). "Evaluation of design-oriented
1048

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 methods for analysis of vertical pile groups subjected to lateral loads." Proc., 3rd
Int. Conf. on Numer. Meth. in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, Editions Technip.,
Paris, France, 303-316.
Evans, L. T. (1953). "Bearing piles subjected to horizontal loads." Proc., Symp. on
Lateral Load Tests on Piles, STP 154, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 30-35.
Feagin, L. B. (1937). "Lateral pile-loading tests." Trans., ASCE, 63(8), 236-254.
Feagin, L B. (1953). "Lateral load tests on groups of battered and vertical piles."
Proc., Symp. on Lateral Load Tests on Piles, STP 154, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12-20.
Focht, J. A., and Koch, K. J. (1973). "Rational analysis of the lateral performance
of offshore pile groups." Proc., 5th Offshore Tech. Conf., 2, Offshore Technology
Conference, Dallas, Tex., 701-708.
Gleser, S. M. (1953). "Lateral load tests on vertical fixed-head and free-head piles."
Proc., Symp. on Lateral Load Tests on Piles, STP 154, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.,
75-93.
Hariharan, M., and Kumarasamy, K. (1982). "Analysis of pile groups subjected to
lateral loads." Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Behavior of Offshore Struct., 2, Hemisphere
Publishing Corp., Washington, D.C., 383-390,
Holloway, D. M., Moriwaki, Y., Finno, R. J., and Green, R. K. (198l). "Lateral
load response of a pile group in sand." Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Numer. Meth. in
Offshore Piling, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, England, 441-456.
Horsnell, M. R., Aldridge, T. R., and Erhrich, C. (1990). "Lateral group behavior
of piles in offshore soil conditions." Proc., 22nd Offshore Tech. Conf., 417-424.
Jamiolkowski, M, (1976). "Behavior of laterally loaded pile groups." Proc., 6th Eur.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Int. Society for Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., London, England, 2, 165-169.
Kim, J. B., and Brungraber, R. J. (1976). "Full-scale lateral load tests of pile groups."
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 102(1), 87-105.
Manoliu, I., Botea, E., and Constantinescu, A. (1977). "Behavior of pile foundations
submitted to lateral loads." Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
1, Japan Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,
637-640.
Matlock, H., Ingram, W. B., Kelley, A. E., and Bogard, D. (1980). "Field tests of
the lateral load behavior of pile groups in soft clay." Proc., 12th Offshore Technol.
Conf., Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, Tex., 163-174.
Meimon, Y., Baguelin, F., and Jezequel, J. F. (1986). "Pile group behavior under
long time lateral monotonic and cyclic loading." Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Offshore Piling, Editions Technip, Paris, France, 285-302.
Nogami, T., and Paulson, S. K. (1985). Transfer matrix approach for nonlinear pile
group response analysis." Int, J. Numer. and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
(9), 289-316.
O'Halloran, J. (1953). "The lateral load capacity of timber pile groups." Proc.,
Syrup. on Lateral Load Tests on Piles, STP 154, ASTM, 52-57.
O'Neill, M. W. (1983). "Group action in offshore piles." Proc., Conf. Geotech.
Practice in Offshore Engrg., University of Texas at Austin, Tex., 25-64.
O'Neill, M. W., Ghazzaly, O. I., and Ha, H. B. (1977). "Analysis of three-dimen-
sional pile groups with non-linear soil response and pile-soil-pile interaction."
Proc., 9th Offshore TechnoL Conf., Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas,
Tex., 245-256.
O'Neill, M. W., and Tsai, C. N. (1984). "An investigation of soil nonlinearity and
pile-soil pile interaction in pile group analysis," Research Rep. No. UHUC 84-9,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Ooi, P. S. K. (1991). "Design methods for deep foundations," PhD dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.
Poulos, H. G. (1971). "Behavior of laterally loaded piles: II--pile groups." J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, (97)5,733-751.
Prakash, S. (1962). "Behavior of pile groups subjected to lateral loads," PhD thesis,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Reese, L. C., Wright, S. G., and Aurora, R. P. (1984). "Analysis of a pile group
1049

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.

 under lateral loading." Proc., Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations: Analysis and
Performance, STP 835, J. A. Langer, E. T. Mosley, and C. D. Thompson, eds.,
ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 56-71.
Schmidt, H. G. (1981). "Grouo action of laterally loaded bored piles." Proc., lOth
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a~d Found. Engrg., A, A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 2, 833-837.
Shibata, T., Yashima, A., Kimura M., and Fukada, H. (1988). "Analysis of laterally
loaded piles by quasi-three dimensional finite element method." Proc., 6th Int.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Seattle University on 09/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Conf. on Numer. Meth. in Geomech., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-

lands, 2, 1051-1058.

1050

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1994.120:1034-1050.