004s7949186 s3.00 + 0.

00
Pcrpmon Joumda Ltd.

DISCRETE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT

OF PILE GROUPS

Y. K. CHOW
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore

(Receiwd 20 January 1986)

Abstract-Two discrete clement models are described for the analysis of settlement of vertical pile groups.
In both models, the pilesare represented by discrete elements with an axial model of deformation, and
the soil b&&our for the individual pilesis representedby load-transfer curves. The essential difference
between the models is the manner in which pilbsoil-pile interaction is represented. The first model treats
the soil as independent horizontal layers which permit interaction between piles to take place within the
same layer only. Thus ignoring the continuity of tbe soil medium. The second utiliaca Mindlin’s solution
which determines interaction effects in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-space, but an approximate
procedure is used to account for soil inhomogeneity. Comparisons of both approaches with a rigorous
integral equation method for pile groups in a homogeneous. isotropic elastic soil .indicate t&t the second
method generally gives good agreementwhile the fust method tends to underestimateinteraction,
especially for shorter piles. For pile groups in nonhomogeneous soils, where rigorous theoretical solutions
are geaelally not available, parametric studies comparing the two discrete element models solutions are
presented. The studies performed using both methods on the nonlinear khaviour of an instrumented pile
group compare favourably with the field measurements.

INTRODUCTION by Chow [7j in which the pile-soil-pile interaction

Theoretical methods for the analysis of settlement
of pile groups include: (a) integral equation method
(Poulos [l]; Butterfield and Banejee [2]; Bane& and
Davies [3]), (b) finite element method (Ottaviani [4]),
(c) “hybrid” approach (Ha [q; O’Neill et al. [4];
Chow [TJ), (d) Winkler model (Nogami and Chen
[8]; Nogami and Paulson [9]) and (e) approximate
analytical method (Randolph and Wroth [lo]).
The integral equation and finite element methods
are well established procedures. The integral equation
method was originally used for the analysis of pile
groups in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-
space. This approach was subsequently extended to
handle soil inhomogeneity and nonlinearity. Three-
dimensional finite elements are generally not cost-
effective in routine pile group design even with
existing improved pre- and post-processing software
and enhanced processing capabilities in the present
generation of computers.
The “hybrid” approach originally proposed by
Ha [5j and O’Neill et al. [6] models the single piles
using the load-transfer method while pi&oil-pile
interaction is based on Mindlin’s solution [1 1] for a
point load within a homogeneous, isotropic elastic
half-space. The load-transfer curves are modified for
group effects by “stretching” the curves with a multi-
plier involving the displacements of the pile nodes
and additional induced displacements at the nodes
due to the soil reactions at the other nodes. However,
the detitioq of this multiplier is somewhat arbitrary
(Ha [Sj), and the convergence of the method has not
generally been demonstrated. A refinement of the
solution procedure for this method was presented
157
problem was considered directly. The accuracy of this
refined approach was verified by comparison with
the integral equation method. Soil inhomogeneity
and nonlinearity were dealt with in an approximate
manner.
Nogami and Chen [S] described a Winkler model
for the approximate elastic analysis of settlement of
pile groups in stratified soil using a matrix transfer
approach. The use of a series of design charts in this
approach can be quite cumbersome. Nogami and
Paulson [9] extended this approach to model soil
nonlinearity.
Randolph and Wroth (lo] proposed an approxi-
mate analytical method for pile groups in soil with
uniform stiffness or with stiffness increasing linearly
with depth. The solution procedure is rigorous for
rigid piles, but for compressible piles, semi-empirical
equations relating the shaft settlement to the settle-
ment of the pile head and pile base have been
introduced to enable the group settlement to be
computed. This approach is restricted to linear elastic
soil behaviour and load-transfer behaviour of the pile
group cannot be studied.
In this paper, an extension of the approach
described by Randolph and Wroth [lo] ia presented.
Rigid and compressible piles are dealt with in a
consistent manner, and arbitrary soil stratification
and soil nonlinearity can be included in the method.
The piles are modelled using discrete elements with
an axial mode of deformation, and the soil is treated
as independent horizontal layers. This discrete ele-
ment model is compared with the “hybrid” approach
described by Chow [7j in which the piles are modelled
in a similar manner but pile-soil-pile interaction
158 Y.
is based on Mindlin’s solution for a point load in
a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-space. The
essential difference between the two discrete element
models is the manner in which interaction effects ate
determined. The first model assumes that interaction
between piles takes place within each soil layer only.
Thus soil stratification can be dealt with, but the
continuity of the soil medium is ignored. On the other
hand, the second model [q maintains the continuity
of the soil through the use of Mindlin’s solution, but
handles the soil inhomogeneity in an approximate
manner. In problems where rigorous solutions are
not available (for example, in layered soil profiles),
parametric studies comparing the solutions from
these two models would be of interest.
FORMULATION OF DISCRETE ELEMENT MODELS
Single piles
The basic unit in the pile group-the single pile
model is the same in both discrete element models.
The individual .piles are modelled using discrete
elements while the soil behaviour is represented by
load-transfer curves. The equilibrium equation is
given by
-E,A$+kw
=o (1)
in which: Ep = Young’s modulus of pile material;
A = cross-sectional area of pile; w = axial deform-
ation; z = depth coordinate; and k = modulus of
subgrade reaction. Discrete element matrices for the
pile and the soil may be formulated from eqn (1)
using the Galerkin approach (see for example,
Smith [12]). For practical purposes, the soil stiffness
may be “lumped” at the pile nodes.
In a previous paper, this author (Chow [A) has
discussed the relative merits of available load-transfer
curves, particularly those used in the offshore indus-
try. Following on from previous work, the load-
transfer curves used in the present paper are based on
the formulation described by Kraft et al. [19, and
they are briefly summarized.
The deformation of the soil at the pile shaft, w, may
be approximated by the following expression
w, = 7 In(r, /ro) (2)
in which: t ,, = shear stress at the pilosoil interface;
r, = pile radius; G = shear modulus of soil; and r, =
some empirical distance at which the shear stress in
the soil becomes negligible. For a pile embedded in
a half-space in which the soil stiffness is uniform or
increases linearly with depth, Randolph and Wroth
[ 141 suggest
r, = 2.5 r/I (1 - v) (3)
K. CHOW
in which: I = embedded length of pile; v = soil Pois-
son’s ratio; and p = inhomogeneity factor = G,,?/Gi
(i.e. ratio of soil shear modulus at pile mid-depth to
that at the pile base). Assuming a constant shear
stress in a pile segment of length L associated with a
particular node, the following expression may be
written for the settlement of the shaft node due to a
shaft load, P, acting at the node:
(4)
The soil stiffness may be obtained from the above eqn
(4).
The nonlinear load-transfer curve is constructed
assuming a hyperbolic variation in the mobilized
shear stress (Kraft er al. [13]). The incremental soil
displacement at the pile shaft may be shown to bc
given by the following expression (Chow [q)
*,=f$~n(!!)+ B(rm-rO)
] (5)
ro-8
i (rm-B)(ro--B)
in which: AP, = incremental shaft load acting at the
node; G, = initial soil shear modulus; /I = r,r,R,/s,;
T,= available shear strength at pile shaft; and R,=
hyperbolic curve fitting constant. It may be noted
that eqn (5) reduces to eqn (4) when to = 0.
At the base of the pile, the elastic load-defonna-
tion relationship is assumed to be given by
(6)
in which: wb = settlement of pile base; and Pb = base
load. The incremental form of the load-deformation
relationship may be approximated by (Chow [7])
Awb- iG;”;;,y (7)
in which: Awb = incremental pile base settlement;
APb = incremental pile base load; R, = hyperbolic
curve fitting constant for the pile base; and
P,= ultimate base load.
It is reiterated here that, should site-specific load-
transfer curves become available, they should be
used.
Pile groups: pile-soil-pile inreracrion
Figure la shows a discrete element model based on
an extension of the work of Randolph and Wroth
[lo]. The soil consists of independent horizontal
layers which can have different properties. The soil
reaction generated at node n due to the loading of the
pile induces additional settlements at the nodes of
adjacent piles only in the same soil layer, k. Thus, the
continuity of the soil medium is discounted. Hence,
this model shall be designated as a layer model. A
 Discrete element analysis of pile group settlement IS9

group giving the following matrix equation:

1wt1= El{W (11)

_____
i-4___---
___--- in which: {wt} = shaft displacement vector for layer
k; [Fs] = flexibility matrix of order NP x NP for

______
____--
k n ______
_____ --__--Gk layer k; and {P,} = shaft load vector for layer k. The
b b flexibility matrix may be inverted to give the stiffness
______ ___--_ me----

L-k
matrix for the soil in the layer k, i.e. [KfJ = [Ff]-‘.
____

bl. -me mm_-- ___--

1 Cl
s the soil stratification can be handled with an appro-
(al Layer Model (bl Contiiwm Model
Fig. I. Discrete element models of pile groups.
restriction of the discrete element model is that the
piles must be embedded to the same depth.
The discrete element model based on a “hybrid”
approach (Chow [7l) is depicted in Fig. 1b. The soil
reaction generated at node n due to the loading of the
pile induces additional settlements at all nodes of the
adjacent piles. Since the continuity of the soil medium
is maintained, this model shall be designated as a
continuum model.
Layer model. Based on an extension of the single
pile solution, Randolph and Wrath [lo] showed that
the settlement of the soil at a radius r due to the
loading on a single pile may be approximated by the
following expression
This procedure is repeated for each soil layer along
the pile shaft i.e. fork = 1.2,. .., NL. In this manner,
priate substitution of a relevant G in eqn (9) for the
influence coefficients.
The influence of the pile base on the surrounding
piles may be approximated by the Boussinesq’s
solution (see Timoshenko and Goodier [ 151)
(12)
in which wb(r) = soil settlement at a distance r due to
the base load, Pb. It was demonstrated by Randolph
and Wroth[lO] that for the distance of interest
(r > Zr,,), the influence of a point load and that of a
rigid punch is indistinguishable. Thus the overall
settlement of the base of pile i due to loading on itself
and on neighbouring piles is given by
wbi=j~,hijpbj (13)
.

in which & denotes the displacement influence

for r, Q r < r,,,. For values of r exceeding r,, the
resulting soil displacement is assumed to be negli-
gible. Assuming the shear stress remains constant
within the pile segment of length L, the soil settle-
ment is given by
w,(r)=
Equation (9) is applicable to each of the NL layers
along the pile shaft (see Fig. la). For any pile i in a
group of NP piles, the overall settlement of the soil
at the pile shaft of a particular pile within a soil layer,
k due to loading on itself and on neighbouring piles
is given by
coefficient at the pile base. For i = j, f& may be
obtained from eqn (6) and for i #j, from eqn (12).
Equation (13) may be written for each of the NP piles
in the group, giving the following matrix equation
{w*I = [~bl{PbJ (14)
in which: {wb} = base displacement vector; [FJ =
flexibility matrix of order NP x NP for pile base; and
{Pb} = base load vector. The flexibility matrix in eqn
(14) may be inverted to give the stiffness matrix for
the soil at the pile base, i.e. [I&] = [FJ’.
The stiffness matrices of the soil layers and that of
the soil at the pile base are assembled together with
the pile discrete element matrices to yield the total
stiffness matrix, [a of the pile group system, from
which the load-displacement relationship may be
written as

(10)
/-I
in which f$ = the displacement influence coefficient
at the pile shaft denoting the settlement of the shaft
at pile i due lo a unit load a1 pile j, within the layer
k, and it may be obtained from eqn (9) with an
appropriate value of r for the pile spacing. Equation
(10) may be written for each of the NP piles in the
{PI = [WwI (I%
in which {P} = external applied load vector.
With the formulation described above, the stiffness
matrix [K] is symmetrical and banded with a semi-
bandwidth of NP if the nodes are numbered accord-
ing to Fig. la. This feature may be taken advantage
of to reduce storage requirements in the computer.

C.&S %il--K
160 Y. K. CHOW

This approach for the layer model is formulated in a NN x NN consisting of displacement influence co-
manner which can cater for generally layered soil efficients; and {is} = soil reaction load vector. The
profiles, through the use of a suitable value of r, in main diagonal elements of the flexibility matrix corre-
eqn (9). In soil where the shear modulus is uniform spond to the displacement influence coefficients for
or increases linearly with depth, r,,, may be obtained the single piles, and under linear elastic conditions
from qn (3). Randolph and Wroth [16] have sug- they may be obtained from qns (4) and (6) for the
gested a suitable expression for r, for piles bearing on pile shaft and the pile base respectively, but for the
a stiffer stratum. However, for a generally layered nonlinear case, qns (5) and (7) may be used and the
soil, r, would need to be obtained from a more problem needs to be solved incrementally. The off-
rigorous numerical method of analysis such as the diagonal or interaction terms are determined based
finite element method. on Mindlin’s solution [I I]. It should be noted that
The extension of the above linear elastic approach the off-diagonal terms associated with nodal points
to include nonlinear soil response needs some within the same pile are zero because of the inherent
elaboration. The general concept will follow closely assumption in the load-transfer method for modelling
the ideas presented in an earlier paper (Chow [A), and soil behaviour in the single pile. Following the earlier
the problem needs to be solved incrementally. Non- work, the continuously distributed stresses at the pile
linearity at the pile+soil interface is generally confined shaft are replaced by quivalent nodal point loads.
to a narrow zone of soil adjacent to the pile shaft. An advantage of using the point load solutions is that
Hence, interaction effects will remain essentially the flexibility matrix is symmetrical for general pile
elastic. Thus, nonlinear behaviour of the group is groups, thus reducing storage requirements in the
dominated by the nonlinear response of the individ- computer. The soil stiffness matrix in the group is
ual piles, and the relevant influence coefficients in the obtained by inverting the flexibility matrix in qn (16)
main diagonals (i.e. fu) of the soil flexibility matrices i.e. [x,] = [F,]-i. This matrix is assembled with the
in qns (11) and (14) may be obtained from qns (5) pile stiffness matrices to give the load-displacement
and (7) respectively at the appropriate load levels. relationship for the pile group system. Thus, in this
The off-diagonal terms remain unchanged until the continuum model the computer storage requirement
ultimate capacities at the nodes are reached, after is much greater than that of the layer model in
which the appropriate terms are set to zero. The which the stiffness matrix of the pile group system
detailed procedure is similar to that described by is banded. The corresponding solution time of the
Chow [7’J continuum model is also longer.
Conrinuwn model. Pile-soil-pile interaction in the The essential features of these two discrete element
continuum model is based on Mindlin’s solution [1 1] models are summarized in Table 1.
for a vertical point load in a homogeneous, isotropic
elastic half-space. Soil inhomogeneity is handled COMPAIUSONS OF DISCRETE ELEMENT MODELS
using an approximate averaging procedure. A de-
tailed description of the approach has been presented Theoretically rigorous solutions are only available
by Chow [I. Hence, a brief account is summarized for pile groups in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic
here. The relationship between the soil settlement at half-space (Poulos [ 11; Butterfield and Banerjee [2);
the pile nodes and the loads acting at the nodes may Poulos and Davis [17]). In soil where the shear
be represented by the following matrix equation: modulus is proportional to depth, only approximate
solutions are available (Banerjee and Davies [3];
{WI = El{P> (16) Banerjee [18]; Poulos [19]). However, in a generally
layered soil, such published solutions are not readily
in which: {w} = soil displacement vector for the NN available. In this section, the discrete element model
nodes in the group; [F,] = flexibility matrix of order solutions are compared with available published

Table 1. Essential features of discrete element models

Feature Layer model Continuum model
Pile model Discrete elements Discrete elements
Soil model in Load-transfer curves Load-transfer curves
single piles
Pile-soil-pile Interaction takes place Interaction effects
interaction within same soil layer experienced in whole soil
only medium
Soil profile Layered soil but Approximate for layered
continuity of soil medium soil but continuity of
is ignored soil medium is preserved
Stiffness matrix Symmetrical and banded Symmetrical and generally
of pile group (semi-bandwidth = NP) fully populated
 Discrete elementanalysisof pile group settlement 161

0.6
(I
0.5
s
- 04

! ._ t b
0.1 t *--_
O.?
0.6 - k.200
s
8 0.5 -
5
e 04 -
.s

2
P ::.

0.1 -
I 1
0 lo 20 Jo 90 500 0 20 30 40

PilO spacings, me spacinps/r,

Fig. 2. Comparisonof interactionfactors for rigid piles in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-spa=
(v = 0.5).

solutions. In problems where rigorous or approxi-
mate solutions are not available, a comparison of the
computed solutions using these two discrete element
models is presented.
Homogeneous isotropic elastic hal/zrpoce
The accuracy of the layer model and the con-
tinuum model is compared with the more rigorous
integral equation method (Poulos and Davis [ 17))for
pile groups in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-
space. It is noted that verification of the continuum
model was previously presented by this author
(Chow [7]).
The dimensionless parameters of interests here
are 1, l/r,,, s/r,, and v, in which: A = EJG = stiffness
ratio; l/r0 = slenderness ratio; and s/r,, = normalized
spacing of piles in the group, centre to centre.
The degree of interaction between two equally
loaded, identical piles may be expressed as an inter-
action factor, a, defined as the ratio of the additional
settlement induced in the single pile due to load on
an adjacent pile, to the settlement of the single pile
under its own load. Figures 2, 3 and 4 compare the
interaction factors determined using the three meth-
ods for rigid and compressible piles with different
slenderness ratio, I/ro. For the shorter piles (l/r0 = 20

@nthuum modal

PI@ scacings, PilO ¶Qocings/r,

Fig. 3. Comparison of interaction factors for compressiblepiles in a homogeneous, isotropic ela.SiC

half-space (v = 0.5).
162 Y. K. CHOW

0.7
L -20
$0 06-
05. +o
lo

rntspra eqwtlon n-etrmd [17J

A ~oyerrnodet
0 Contuwmmo(lec

o 0.6 -

0 0 xl 30 40 500 IO m 30 40 50

Rle soocing s/r, Pile spacing s/r,

Fig. 4. Comparison of interaction factors for compressible piles in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic
half-space (A = 300; v = 0.5).

and SO),the layeimodel generally underestimates the Mindlin’s solution is strictly valid for a half-space,
interaction factors. When the piles are rigid, the layer but it may be modified to account for the existence
model solutions improve with an increase in the pile of a rigid stratum at some depth by employing
slenderness ratio. It may be noted that the layer Steinbrenner’s approximation (see for example
model solutions for the rigid piles are identical to the Poulos and Davis (171). However, this was not done
analytical solutions given by Randolph and Wroth since this procedure would destroy the symmetry of
[lo]. However, for compressible piles where the the soil flexibility matrix in eqn (16). While it can be
analytical solutions are approximate similar solutions argued that a hard layer can be expected at some
are not available for comparison. The continuum depth beneath the soil surface, the choice of H/l = 2
model generally agrees well with the integral equation is quite arbitrary. In practice, maximum bore hole
method except for long, very compressible piles penetrations in a site investigation for pile founda-
(e.g. 1 = 300; I/r, = 100 and 200) when both discrete tions seldom reach such depth for economic reasons.
element models do not give good accuracy. For these
cases, the problem lies with the inadequacy of the
expression for rm given by eqn (3) for long, very
compressible, single piles (Chow [20]). This point was
also noted by Randolph and Wroth [14] who attrib-
uted this to the instability of their method. For these
cases, a suitable modification of the influence distance
r,,, is necessary, and this may be determined from an
integral equation analysis (Mattes and Poulos [21]).
With the adjusted value of r,,,, the solutions from the
continuum model are in good agreement with the 0071
integral equation analysis (Fig. 5). However, for these 06 1

cases, the layer model solutions are not satisfactory ; 0.5 -

and the applicability of the model under these condi-
2 04-
tions may need further examination. For the majority
of practical problems, the use of r, given by the .5
B 03-

expression in eqn (3) will probably be adequate, 5 0.2-

unless the piles are long and very compressible. S
01 -

Soil with sheor modulus proportional to depth I

0 0 20 30 40 !

Approximate solutions have been presented by Pile spacing s/r,

Banerjee (181 and Poulos [19] for pile groups in a

Fig. 5. Improved interaction factors for long, very com-
finite layer with layer thickness H = 21. A suitable pressible piles in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-space
adjustment of r,,, in eqn (3) is necessary for this case. (A = 300).
 Discrete element analysis of pile group settlement 163

Fig. 9. Pile group in a two-layer soil medium.

6 I6 240 6 I6 24
Pile spaciq s/r0 Rte viq s/r0 The layer and continuum models are compared
Fig. 6. Comparison of interaction factors in soil with for similar problems, but for a half-space. Figures 7
stitkss proportional to depth (H/I = 2; v = 0.3; p = 0.5). and 8 show that, for these problems, the continuum
model gives consistently higher interaction factors.
For example, in offshore practice, a recommended The agreement improves with piles having a larger
bore hole penetration is the anticipated pile pcnetra- slenderness ratio.
tion plus one and a half times the diameter of the pile Two-layer soil medium
group (George[22]). Thus in general, the half-space
solution is conservative. .. The problem of a pile group in a two-layer soil
The layer model is compared with the integral medium is depicted in Fig. 9. A suitable value of the
equation analyses of Banejee [ 181and Poulos [I91 in influence distance r,,, for the problems examined in
Fig. 6 for H/f = 2; v = 0.3 with r,,, = 21~(1 - v). The this section was found to be given by eqn (3) with
degree of accuracy of the solutions is comparable. p = 1 to give an accuracy that is comparable to the
rigid single pile solutions (for f/r0 = SO; v = 0.5)
reported by Poulos and Davis[17]. In the cases of
G,/G, ratios examined, the continuum model gener-
ally gives higher interaction factors, except in some
cases, where the stiffness ratio of the layers G,/G2 is
large and the layer model can give higher values. For
example, Figs 10 and 11 show a comparison of the
interaction factors for stiffness ratio of the layers,
G,/G, = 0.2 and 5 respectively. It may be noted
that, in some cases, the two discrete element model
solutions agree very closely. Compressible piles with
stiffness ratio E,/G, = 1500 were also studied. The
general trend of the results is similar to that of the
rigid piles.

0 6 16 24 0 6 I6 24
Rle spacing s/r, Ale Spacing s/r,

Fig. 7. Comparison of interaction factors in a half-space

with soil stiffness proportional to depth (EJG,= 26ooo;
v = 0.3; p = 0.5).

0 6 16 240
Pile spociq s/r, Pita spacing s/r,
Fig. 8. Comparison of interaction factors in a half-space
with soil stiffness proportional to depth (E,/G,=260, Fig. 10. Comparison of interaction factors for rigid piles in
v = 0.3; p = 0.5). a two-layer soil medium (I/r, = 50; G, /G2 = 0.2; v = 0.5).
164 Y. K. CHOW

overconsohdated clays. All piles had an external

radius of 137 mm with a wall thickness of 9.3 mm.
The piles were driven to a penetration depth of
13.1 m. Nine of the piles formed a group arranged in
a 3 x 3 configuration with a inter-tooter spacing
s = 6r0. The nine-group piles were connected to a
rigid reinforced concrete block, thus enforcing a
condition of equal displacements of the piles in the
group. There was a clearance of 0.9 m between the
pile cap and the ground surface. Each of the two
~maining piles was located about 3.7m from the
center of the group, and on opposite sides. A descrip-
I ’
tion of the soil profile and the soil properties at the
0’ 6 16 240
I

6
. I

16
, L

24 test site was reported by O’NeiI1 er of. [24].

me spot* Sk* Rle sp0dt-qshe
Fig. I 1. Comparison of interaction factors for rigid piles in
a two-layer soil medium (f/r0 = So, G, /G, = 5; v = 0.5).
Threblayer soil medium
For the three cases shown in Fig. 12, a suitable
value of r,,, which achieves comparable results with
finite element solutions reported by Poulos[23] for
piles with 11~ = 50 was found to be given by eqn (3)
with p = G,,/G,, in which G,, = average value of
shear modulus along the pile shaft, and G, = soil
shear modulus at pile base. The continuum model
gives higher interaction factors for cases 1 and 3,
while the layer model solutions are higher for case 2
in which the stiffness of the soil decreases with depth
(see Fig. 13).
COMPARISON WITH FIELD TEST OF
O’NEILL er ul.{24l
()‘NeiIl et al. [24] reported the installation and
testing of 11 closed-ended steel pipe piles in stiff
This test was previousiy analyzed by this author [7]
using the continuum model, In this section, some
further results from the ~ntinuum model are re-
ported, and compared to those from the layer model.
The soil properties used in the analysis were similar
to those reported in the earlier paper. The soil shear
modulus varies from G = 47.9 MN/m’ at the surface
increasing linearly to G = 151 MN[m’ at the pile
base. The unit shaft capacity used was 16.3 kN/m* at
the surface increasing linearly to 81.3 kN/m* at the
pile base, and the ultimate end bearing capacity was
2.15 MN/m2. The test was assumed to take place
under undrained ~nditions. Thus the Poisson’s ratio
of the soil was taken to be 0.5. The hyperbolic curve
fitting constants used in the load transfer curves
expressed in eqns (5) and (7) were taken to be 0.9.
Chow [A showed that with the above soil param-
eters, the computed load-settlement behaviour of the
single pile is in good agr~ment with the measured
field results. Figure 14 shows a comparison between
the measured and computed results for the nine-pile
group, five-pile and four-pile subgroups. In general,

casr2
groups in a three-layer soil

Pile spodq c/r0 PI* apaeiqse0 m@ywrdno*

Fig. 13. Comparison of interaction factors for piles in a three-layer soil medium (E,/G = 2600; We = 50;
v = 0.3).
 Discrete elementanalysisof pile group settlement 165

- fiti maarvmnt[2ll
------- continuumm&l
f
s
9 l2 ol A hlrr-1

Fig. 14. Load-settlement behaviour of pile groups.

both the discrete element model results compare strictly applicable, but the actual trend is well
favourably with the measured values. The layer reflected in the nonlinear solutions. Of course, in this
model shows a stiffer response! than the continuum case, the degree of accuracy would to a large extent
model which is more evident in the nine-pile group.
This is in accordance with the lower degree of W IkN) LwdtkN) l&od IkN)
0 Kx)2cO303 0 lmmxxJ 0 100200300
interaction estimated by the layer model observed
in the previous section of this paper. Tables 2 and 3
show the load distribution in the nine-pile group at
a working load of 2.58 MN and at a load of 5.66 MN
which is close to failure. Under linear elastic soil
conditions, the load distribution predicted by the
layer mode1 shows a more even distribution com-
pared to the continuum model. Even at a working
load level of 2.58 MN, the mild nonlinearity in the
computed solutions has an important influence on the
load distribution, and improves on the agreement
_____ canthum -
between the computed and measured values. Closer -FM musuremmt w

to the failure load of the pile group, the measured A Loyal-mdel

load distribution amongst the piles is fairly even. At Fig. IS. Axial load distribution along piles in nine-pile
this load level, the linear elastic solutions are not group at a working group load of 2.58 MN.

Table 2. Comparison of load distribution to individual piles Table 3. Comparison of load distribution to individual piles
in nine-pile group at a workingload of 2.58MN in nine-pile group near failure at a load of 5.66 MN
Averagepile loads (kN) Average pile loads (kN)
Comer age Center Comer Edge Center
p&s piles pile piles pik pile
(Piles It) (Piles 27) (Pile 3t) (pile, It) (piles 3) cpile 3)
Measured [24] 294 285 261 MasuraJ [24] 635 608 696
Layer model 291 282 261 Layer model 630 627 636
(nonlinear) (nonlinear)
Continuum model 295 284 269 Continuum model 631 629 626
(nonlinear) (nonlinear)
Layer model 301 283 241 Layer made1 660 621 542
(linear) oincar)
Continuum model 315 274 229 Continuum model 690 600 502
(linear) (linaar)
t See Fig. 14. t See Fig. 14.
166
Lwd IkN) LoodlkNl
Lmd(kN)
14L L L
Comer
piles Edpepiles Center plte
- F&d measurement k4] -----Cmtmuum
A@YlTlOdel
Fig. 16. Axial load distribution along piles in nine-pile
group at a group load nearing failure of 5.66 MN.
depend on the agreement between the assumed
ultimate pile capacities and the actual values in the
field. The axial load distributions along the piles
corresponding to these two load levels are presented
in Figs 15 and 16, showing a fair agreement between
the computed and measured values.
CONCLUSIONS
Two discrete element models have been described
for the analysis of axially loaded, vertical pile groups.
For pile groups in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic
half-space, the continuum model solutions agree
closely with analyses from a rigorous integral equa-
tion approach but the layer model tends to under-
estimate interaction except for piles with large
slenderness ratios. Parametric studies carried out on
pile groups in nonhomogeneous soils indicate that the
continuum model generally estimates higher inter-
action factors, except in some instances. In particular,
when the lower soil stratum has a lower stiffness, the
layer model can result in a greater degree of inter-
action between piles. The nonlinear behaviour of an
instrumented pile group in the field was studied, and
the computed results using both the discrete element
models compare favourably with the measured
values, with the layer model giving a slightly stiffer
response.
REFERENCES
1. H. G. Poulos, Analysis of the settlement of pile groups.
Georechnioue 18. 449-471 (1968).
2. R. ButterkId and P. K. Bane&e, The elastic analysis
of compressible piles and pile groups. GCofechnique 21,
43-60 (1971).
3. P. K. Banerjee and T. G. Davies, Analysis of some
reported case histories of laterally loaded pile groups.
Y. K. CHOW
Proc. Num. Merhs in Offshore Piling, ICE. London,
83-90 (1980).
M. Ottaviani, Three dimensional finite element analysis
of vertically loaded pile groups. G/o/echnique 25,
159-174 (1975).
B. Ha, Analysis of generally loaded nonlinear three-
dimensional pile groups considering group effects. Ph.D
dissertation, University of Houston (1976).
M. W. O’Neill, 0. 1. Ghazzaly and H. B. ‘Ha, Analysis
of three-dimensional pile groups with nonlinear soil
response and pile-soil-pile interaction. Proc. 9rh oflkhore
Technology Con/. 2, 245-256 (1977).
7. Y. K. Chow, Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups.
Inr. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 10, 59-72
model (1986).
8. T. Nogami and H. L. Chen, Simplified approach for
axial pile group response analysis. J. Georech. Engng
Div., Proc. ASCE 110, 1239-1255 (1984).
9. T. Nogami and S. K. Paulson, Winkler soil model for
axial response analysis of pile groups. Symp. on Analysis
and Design of Pile Founaizrions. AXE. California.
287-309 (1984).
IO. M. F. Randolph and C. P. Wrath, An analysis of
vertical deformation of pile groups. Gdotechnique 29,
tl 423439 (1979).
R. D. Mindlin, Force at a point in the interior of a
semi-infinite solid. Physics 7, 195-202 (1936).
12. I. M. Smith, Programming rhe Finite Elemenr Method,
with Application IO Geomechanics. Wiley, London
(1982).
13. L. M. Kraft, R. P. Ray and T. Kagawa, Theoretical
r-z curves. J. Geotech. Engng Div., Prac. ASCE 107,
1543-1561 (1981).
14. M. F. Randolph and C. P. Worth, Analysis of defor-
mation of vertically loaded piles. J. Georech. Engng Div.,
Proc. AXE 104, 1465-1488 (1978).
15. S. P. Timoshenko and J. N. Goodier, Theory o/
Elasticity, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1970).
16. M. F. Randolph and C. P. Worth, A simple approach
to pile design and the analysis of pile tests. Proc. ASTM
Symp. Behaviour of Deep Foundotians, Boston (1978).
17. H. G. Poulos and E. H. Davis, Pile Foundation Analysis
and Design. Wiley, New York (1980).
18. P. K. Banerjee, Analysis of axially and laterally loaded
pile groups. In Developments in Soil Mechanics (Edited
by C. R. Scott). Applied Science Publishers, U.K.
(1978).
19. H. G. Poulos, Group factors for pile-deflection estima-
tion. J. Georech. Engng Div., Proc. ASCE 105, l489-
1509 (1979).
20. Y. K. Chow, Analysis of axially loaded piles in layered
soil. J. Instn Engrs Malaysia 35, 56-63 (1984).
21. N. S. Mattes and H. G. Poulos, Settlement of single
compressible piles. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. ASCE 95,
189-207 (1969).
22. P. J. George, Notes on she investigation with respect
to the design of offshore structures. In Ofihore Soil
Mechanics (Edited by P. J. George and D. M. Wood),
pp. 101-l 16. Cambridge University (1976).
23. H. G. Poulos, Settlement of single piles in non-
homogenous soil. J. Geotech. Engng Div., hoc. ASCE
105,627-641 (1979).
24. M. W. O’Neill, R. A. Hawkins and L. J. Mahar, Load
transfer mechanisms in piles and pile groups. 1. Georech.
Engng Div., Proc. ASCE 108, 1605-1623 (1982).