Guo, W. D. & Randolph, M. F. (1999). GeÂotechnique 49, No.
2, 161±179
An ef®cient approach for settlement prediction of pile groups
W. D. G U O  a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H 
The paper presents exact closed form solutions
for estimating the settlement of single and group
piles in non-homogeneous soil, using a load
transfer approach derived from elastic conti-
nuum theory. The effects of load transfer factor
have been explored in detail to account for the
effect of a ®nite depth of compressible soil and
non-homogeneity of soil pro®les. Interaction fac-
tors between pairs of piles, and overall settle-
ment ratios for pile groups of various
geometries, are evaluated from the solutions and
are shown to be consistent with those obtained
from a full boundary element approach. The
solutions are in the form of Bessel functions.
However, to facilitate evaluation, a simple pro-
gram called GASGROUP has been developed.
The program can be readily used to predict the
settlement of large pile groups. The analysis is
quick and ef®cient, and can be run in a perso-
nal computer even for a group of 700 piles. The
program is used to predict the single and group
pile responses for a number of actual pile
groups. The predictions are shown to agree well
with the measured data.
KEYWORDS: numerical modelling and analysis;
piles; settlement; soil±structure interaction; stiffness.
INTRODUCTION
Various numerical approaches have been proposed
for analysing the settlement of pile groups. Gener-
ally, the approaches are based on either (a) a direct
and complete analysis of the whole pile group, or
(b) the superposition principle through using inter-
action factors.
Direct analysis is generally achieved through a
boundary element approach, for example Butter®eld
& Banerjee (1971) and Butter®eld & Douglas
(1981). The analysis is relatively accurate and rigor-
ous, but requires a long computation time and a large
amount of computer storage space. Therefore, so far,
Manuscript received 14 April 1997; revised manuscript
accepted 8 July 1998.
Discussion on this paper closes 2 July 1999; for further
details see p. ii.
 University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
161
Cet expose preÂsente des solutions exactes de
formes fermeÂes pour eÂvaluer le tassement de
piles seules at groupeÂes dans un sol non homo-
geÁne, en utilisant une meÂthode de transfert de
charge deÂriveÂe de la theÂorie du continuum eÂlas-
tique. Nous avons eÂtudie en deÂtail les effets du
facteur transfert de charge pour expliquer l'ef-
fet d'une profondeur ®nie dans un sol compres-
sible et la non-homogeÂneÂite des pro®ls de sol. A Á
partir de ces solutions, nous eÂvaluons les fac-
teurs d'interaction entre des paires de piles et
les taux de tassement d'ensemble pour des
groupes de piles de geÂomeÂtries diverses et nous
montrons qu'ils correspondent aÁ ceux obtenus
en utilisant la meÂthode de'eÂleÂments marginale.
Les solutions sont exprimeÂes sous forme de fonc-
tions Bessel. Toutefois, pour faciliter l'eÂvalua-
tion, nous avons deÂveloppe un programme
simple, appele GASGROUP. Ce programme
peut eÃtre utilise facilement pour preÂdire le tasse-
ment de grands groupes de piles. L'analyse est
rapide et ef®cace; le programme peut eÃtre ex-
ploite sur un ordinateur personnel, meÃme pour
un groupe de 700 piles. Il est utilise pour
preÂdire la reÂponse d'une pile seule et d'un
groupe de piles, pour un certain nombre de
groupes de piles reÂels. Nous montrons que les
preÂdictions correspondent bien aux donneÂes me-
sureÂe.
only relatively small groups, for example 8 3 8, have
been analysed. The approach is therefore limited for
practical analysis of large piled groups.
Using interaction factors (e.g. Poulos & Davies,
1980), analysis based on the superposition principle
is generally more ef®cient and straightforward.
However, at present, a numerical technique such as
the boundary element method (BEM) is usually
adopted for direct analysis of two equally loaded
piles, so as to obtain the interaction factors.
Randolph & Wroth (1979) suggested a simple way
to estimate the interaction factors. However, in
their approach, the shaft and base components were
considered separately; thus, an iterative procedure
is needed for compressible pile groups. Based on
simple solutions by Randolph & Wroth (1978), Lee
(1993) gave an approximate equation for direct
evaluation of the interaction factors for both rigid
and compressible pile groups.
162 GUO AND RANDOLPH
Mandolini & Viggiani (1997) proposed a numer-
ical approach for estimating the settlement of large
piled groups. They also used BEM analysis to
obtain the value of the pile±pile interaction factors,
from which the superposition principle was then
utilized to estimate the settlement of each pile in a
group, assuming either a rigid or fully ¯exible pile
cap.
For a pile group in a ®nite layer, the pile±pile
interaction should reduce signi®cantly due to the
reduction of the shaft load transfer factors (Guo,
1997). However, none of the closed form solutions
available can account for the reduction.
This paper presents:
(a) an extension of the exact closed form solutions
for the response of single piles (Guo &
Randolph, 1997) to piles within a group, with
the soil stiffness increasing with some power
of depth (Booker et al., 1985);
(b) a closed form expression for the interaction
factor for two identical piles;
(c) a numerical program, GASGROUP, for analys-
ing large piled groups, using the superposition
principle, with interaction factors being given
by the closed form expression;
(d) a number of case studies.
The expression of interaction factors based on the
load transfer approach is veri®ed extensively by
the results from more rigorous numerical analyses
provided by Poulos & Davis (1980), Cheung et al.
(1988), Chow (1987), Chin et al. (1990) and Lee
(1993). Pile group stiffness obtained by the GAS-
GROUP program is compared with that obtained
from the more rigorous numerical approach by
Butter®eld & Banerjee (1971), and Poulos (1989)
for groups in an in®nite layer, and by Butter®eld &
Douglas (1981) for pile groups embedded in ®nite
layers of different thickness.
ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE PILE IN A GROUP
Closed form solutions for a pile in a non-homo-
geneous soil have been generated previously (Guo,
1997; Guo & Randolph, 1997) for the case where
the elastic shear modulus of the soil varies with
depth according to
G ˆ Ag z n (1)
where n is the power of the depth variation (re-
ferred to as the shaft non-homogeneity factor) and
Ag determines the magnitude of the shear modulus.
The solutions are based on the load transfer ap-
proach, with the interaction between pile and soil
being simulated by a series of independent springs
distributed along the pile shaft and at the base.
The shaft displacement, w, is related to the local
shaft stress, ô0 , and shear modulus, G, by
(Randolph & Wroth, 1978)
ô0 r0
wˆ æ (2)
G
where r0 is the radius of the pile. æ is a shaft load
transfer factor, which is mainly affected by the
combination of pile slenderness ratio L=r0 (L is
the pile length), the soil non-homogeneity factor n,
and the soil Poisson's ratio ís . The factor æ may be
approximated by (Randolph & Wroth, 1978)
æ ˆ ln(rm =r0 ) (3)
where rm may be estimated by (Guo & Randolph,
1997)
1 ÿ ís
rm ˆ A L ‡ Br0 (4)
1‡n
The parameters A and B have been estimated
through ®tting equation (3) to the values of æ
obtained by the approach of matching pile head
stiffness for a single pile using the numerical
FLAC analysis (Guo, 1997). The expressions for A
and B are detailed in the Appendix.
The base settlement can be estimated through
the solution for a rigid punch acting on an elastic
half-space, as suggested by Randolph & Wroth
(1978):
Pb (1 ÿ ís )ù
wb ˆ (5)
4r0 Gb
where Pb is the mobilized base load, Gb is the
shear modulus just below the base of the pile, G L
is the shear modulus just above the base level of
the pile, îb ˆ G L =Gb , and ù is the pile base shape
and depth factor which has been assessed in detail
previously by Guo (1997), and is given in the
Appendix.
In order to allow for the presence of neighbour-
ing piles, the load transfer factor for a pair of piles
is (Randolph & Wroth, 1979)
æ2 ˆ ln(rmg =r0 ) ‡ ln(rmg =s) (6)
where s is the pile spacing, and rmg is the radius
of the `group', which is given by
rmg ˆ rm ‡ ág rg (7)
where rg is about one-third to one-half of the pile
spacing (Randolph & Wroth, 1979; Lee, 1991).
More generally, rg may be estimated by rg ˆ
(0:3 ‡ 0:2n)s, with the s being taken as the lesser
of s and rm . The parameter ág is adopted to
account for the effect of a ®nite layer. The pre-
sence of a ®nite layer can generally lead to a
reduction in the value of the group radius; this
reduction should follow a similar pattern to that
for the parameter A. Therefore, ág may be given
by
ág ˆ 1 ÿ exp(1 ÿ H=L) (8)
where H is the depth to the underlying rigid layer.
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS
The base load transfer factor may be expressed
as
ù2 ˆ ù(1 ‡ 2r0 =sð)
Generally, in the present analysis, the factor rm
has been estimated using equation (23) for the
value of the parameter A and taking B as 5, while
the base factor ù is estimated by equation (25).
The analysis based on these values is termed `Guo
& Randolph'. Previously, for a pile in an in®nite
layer, the values of A and ù have been proposed
as 2´5 (with B ˆ 0) and 1 respectively (Randolph
& Wroth, 1978). Analyses using these simple
values for A and ù, in the present closed form
solutions, are given later as well for H=L ˆ 1,
and the results are referred to as `Guo & Randolph
(A ˆ 2:5)'. Comparison of these two different ap-
proaches for estimating the load transfer coef®-
cients, but using the solutions of Guo & Randolph
(1997) for single piles and the equations presented
below for pile groups, is included to demonstrate
the generally small effect of these parameters on
the computed pile response.
The solutions for a single pile can be readily
extended to a pile in a group, through replacement
of the load transfer factors, æ and ù, for a single
pile with the factors, æ2 and ù2 for a pile in a two-
pile group. Therefore, the ratio of load, P, and
settlement, w, for each pile at any depth z may be
expressed as (Guo, 1997; Guo & Randolph, 1997)
  r 
P(z) p ë
ˆ 2ð Cv2 (z) (10)
G L w(z)r0 2 æ2
where the subscript `2' refers to a pile in the
group, ë is the relative stiffness ratio between pile
Young's modulus, Ep , and the soil shear modulus
at just above the base level, G L , and the function
Cv2 (z) is given by
 
C1 (z) ‡ ÷v2 C2 (z) z n=2
Cv2 (z) ˆ (11)
C3 (z) ‡ ÷v2 C4 (z) L
The individual functions, C j , are given in terms of
modi®ed Bessel functions of fractional order:
C1 (z) ˆ ÿK mÿ1 I mÿ1 ( y2 ) ‡ K mÿ1 ( y2 )I mÿ1
C2 (z) ˆ K m I mÿ1 ( y2 ) ‡ K mÿ1 ( y2 )I m
C3 (z) ˆ K mÿ1 I m ( y2 ) ‡ K m ( y2 )I mÿ1
C4 (z) ˆ ÿK m I m ( y2 ) ‡ K m ( y2 )I m
where I m ( y2 ), I mÿ1 ( y2 ), K mÿ1 ( y2 ) and K m ( y2 ) are
the modi®ed Bessel functions with argument y2
(see below), and I m, I mÿ1 , K mÿ1 and K m (without
arguments) are the values taken by the functions
when z ˆ L. The order of the Bessel functions is
m ˆ 1=(2 ‡ n), and the variable y2 is given by
163
r  1=2 m
L 2 z
y2 ˆ 2m (13)
r0 ëæ2 L
(9)
The ratio ÷v2 is given by
p r
2 2 æ2
÷v2 ˆ (14)
ð(1 ÿ ís )ù2 îb ë
Note that the surface value of Cv2 must be taken
as a limit, as z approaches zero.
Values of the Bessel functions can be computed
directly using software such as MathcadTM, or
computed from algorithms published in Press et al.
(1996).
INTERACTION FACTOR
The in¯uence of the displacement ®eld of a
neighbouring identical pile may be represented by
interaction factors as described by Poulos (1968).
The factor may be expressed as
Pt =(G L r0 wt )
á12 ˆ ÿ1 (15)
[Pt =(G L r0 wt )]2
where Pt and wt ˆ pile head load and settlement,
respectively, Pt =(G L r0 wt ) ˆ pile head stiffness of a
single pile and á12 ˆ the conventional interaction
factor, which can be expressed explicitly from
equations (10) and (11) as
p
á12 ˆ Cv =Cv2 (æ2 =æ) ÿ 1 (16)
where Cv2 and Cv are the limiting values of the
function Cv2 (z) in equation (11) as z approaches
zero, with values of æ2 and ù2, and æ and ù,
respectively.
For piles in an in®nite layer, the interaction
factors predicted by equation (16) are shown in
Figs 1 and 2 for homogeneous (n ˆ 0) and Gibson
(n ˆ 1) soil respectively at a few typical slender-
ness ratios, together with previously published re-
sults. Generally, the agreement is very good, except
for very slender piles with L=r0 . 100 and n ˆ 0
(not shown). However, such cases are of limited
interest, since pile±soil slip will generally occur in
the upper region of slender piles, even at working
loads. The corresponding elastic region of the pile
would probably still fall within the range of a
`short' pile.
For piles in a ®nite layer, the interaction factors
predicted by equation (16) are shown in Figs 3 and
(12) 4 for homogeneous (n ˆ 0) and Gibson (n ˆ 1)
soils, respectively. Generally, the effect of the ®nite
layer ( H=L) is well re¯ected, in comparison with
other more rigorous numerical approaches, for ex-
ample the boundary element approach (BE) by
Poulos (1979), the boundary integral approach (BI)
by Banerjee (1978), and discrete layer analysis by
Lee (1991).
164 GUO AND RANDOLPH

0.8 0.8
νs 5 0.5 νs 5 0.5
n50 n50 Cheung et al.
0.6 Cheung et al. 0.6 Poulos & Davis
Poulos & Davis
Chin et al.
Chin et al.
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
0.4 Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) 0.4
α

α
3000
3000

0.2 λ 5 300 0.2

λ 5 300

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
s /r0 s /r0
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Effect of pile spacing and pile±soil stiffness ratios on interaction factors in homogeneous soil:
(a) L=r0 ˆ 20; (b) L=r0 ˆ 50

0.8 0.8
BEM (Lee, 1993) BEM (Lee, 1993)
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
0.6 Guo & Randolph 0.6 Guo & Randolph

λ 5 30000 λ 5 30000
0.4 0.4 3000
α

3000
300
0.2 300 0.2

νs 5 0.5, n 5 1 νs 5 0.5, n 5 1
0 0
0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05
2 4 6 8 r0 /s 2 4 6 8 r /s
0
s /r0 s /r0
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Effect of pile spacing and pile±soil relative stiffness on interaction factors in Gibson soil:
z(a) L=r0 ˆ 50; (b) L=r0 ˆ 100

PILE GROUP ANALYSIS

1
GASGROUP program
Poulos (1968) The settlement of any pile in a group can be
0.8 Chow (1987) predicted using the superposition principle together
Guo & Randolph with appropriate interaction factors. For a symme-
trical group, the settlement w i of any pile i in the
0.6
L /r0 5 50 group can be written as
H/L 5 2.5 νs 5 0.499
α

ng
X
0.4 n50 λ5∞ w i ˆ w1 P j á ij (17)
jˆ1

0.2
where w1 is the settlement of a single pile under
unit head load, á ij is the interaction factor between
0 pile i and pile j (for i ˆ j, á ij ˆ 1) estimated from
0 10 20 30 40 50
s/r0
equation (16), and ng is the total number of piles
in the group. The total load applied to the pile
Fig. 3. Effect of pile spacing on interaction factors in group is the sum of the individual pile loads, P j .
homogeneous soil ( H=L ˆ 2´5, n ˆ 0) For a perfectly ¯exible pile cap, each pile load
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS 165
0.6 0.3

νs 5 0.3 νs 5 0.3
0.4 λ 5 26000 0.2 λ 5 260
α

α
0.2 0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
s /r0 s /r0
(a) (b)

0.6 0.3

νs 5 0.3 νs 5 0.3
λ 5 26000 λ 5 260
0.4 0.2
α

0.2 0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
s /r0 s /r0
(c) (d)

BE (Poulos, 1979) BI (Banerjee, 1978)

Lee (1991) Guo & Randolph

Fig. 4. Effect of pile spacing and pile±soil stiffness ratios on inter-

action factors in Gibson soil (H=L ˆ 2, n ˆ 1): (a) L=r0 ˆ 40;
(b) L=r0 ˆ 40; (c) L/r0 ˆ 80; (d) L=r0 ˆ 80

will be identical and so the settlement can be
readily predicted with equation (17). For a rigid
pile cap, with a prescribed uniform settlement of
all the piles in a group, the loads may be deduced
by inverting equation (17). This procedure for
solving equation (17) has been designed in a
program called GASGROUP.
In the present analysis, estimation of the settle-
ment of a single pile under unit head load, and the
interaction factors are based on closed form solu-
tions. Therefore, the calculation is relatively quick
and straightforward; for example, for a 700 piled
group, the calculation only takes about 5 min with
a personal computer. All the present solutions
referred to later are from the GASGROUP pro-
gram, assuming a rigid cap.
Veri®cation of the GASGROUP program
A number of non-dimensional quantities have
been introduced by previous researchers to describe
the response of pile groups. These are:
(a) pile head stiffness, which was de®ned as (i)
Pt =(G L r0 wt ) (Randolph & Wroth, 1979), (ii)
Pt =(G L dwt ) (Butter®eld & Banerjee,
p 1971),
and (iii) more recently as K p =( [ng ]sGL ),
where Kp ˆ Pt =wt (Randolph, 1994);
(b) settlement ratio, Rs , which was de®ned as the
ratio of the average group settlement to the
settlement of a single pile carrying the same
average load (Poulos, 1968);
(c) the settlement in¯uence factor, I G , which was
de®ned as (Poulos, 1989)
166 GUO AND RANDOLPH

I G ˆ wG dEL =PG
where PG is the load exerted on the pile group,
EL is soil Young's modulus at the pile tip level,
and wG is the settlement of the pile group.
These non-dimensional factors are used in the
following comparisons.
Small pile groups in an in®nite layer. For pile
groups embedded in a homogeneous soil pro®le, the
present solution was compared with that obtained
using the boundary integral approach (BI) by
Butter®eld & Banerjee (1971) and is presented in:
(a) Fig. 5 for the pile head stiffness of three
symmetrical pile groups at different pile±soil
relative stiffnesses; and
(b) Fig. 6 for the sharing of load among the piles
in a 3 3 3 symmetrical pile group.
(18) For pile groups embedded in a Gibson soil, the
present solution is compared with that obtained
using the boundary element approach of Lee
(1993), as illustrated in Fig. 7, which gives the
sharing of load within a 3 3 3 pile group.
Available values of settlement in¯uence factor,
I G , for larger pile groups in a Gibson soil, were
used to substantiate the present solution, as shown
in Fig. 8.
All the above comparisons show that for pile
groups in an in®nite layer, the closed form ap-
proach as used in the GASGROUP program is
capable of predicting a very similar response of
different pile groups to those obtained previously
by various numerical approaches.
Small pile groups in a ®nite layer. The most
comprehensive, rigorous analysis of pile groups in a

L /r0
0 20 40 60 80 100 L /r0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
BI (Butterfield & Banerjee, 1971) 0
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) 20
20
Pt /(GLr0wt)

Pt /(GLr0wt)

40
40 4-pile group 4-pile group
60 3-pile group
3-pile group
2-pile group
60 2-pile group
80 BI (Butterfield & Banerjee, 1971)
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
80 100
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Comparison of pile head stiffness for three different pile groups in homogeneous soil: (a) ë ˆ 6000,
s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5; (b) ë ˆ 1, s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5

L /r0 L /r0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
210 210
Pile 3
0
0 Pile 3
10
Pt /(GLr0wt)

Pt /(GLr0wt)

Pile 2 10
20 Pile 2
20
30 Pile 1
BI (Butterfield & Banerjee, 1971) Pile 1
40 30 BI (Butterfield & Banerjee, 1971)
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
50 Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
40
(a)
1 2 1
s
2 3 2
s
1 2 1
s s
(b)

Fig. 6. Comparison of pile head stiffness in homogeneous soil (3 3 3 pile group): (a) ë ˆ 1, s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5; (b)
ë ˆ 6000, s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS 167
L /r0 L /r0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
210 210

Pile 3
0 0
Pile 3

Pt /(GLr0wt)
Pt /(GLr0wt)

Pile 2 Pile 2
10 10

Pile 1
Pile 1
20 20 BEM (Lee, 1993)
BEM (Lee, 1993)
Guo & Randolph Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)
30 30
1 2 1
s
2 3 2
s
1 2 1
(a) s s
(b)

Fig. 7. Comparison of pile head stiffness in Gibson soil (3 3 3 pile group): (a) ë ˆ 6000, s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5; (b)
ë ˆ 1, s=r0 ˆ 5, ís ˆ 0´5

0.12 sented here are restricted to the following cases: (a)

Modified CF approach (Lee, 1993)
Fig. 9 for 3 3 3 piles groups; (b) Fig. 10 for 8 3 8
Randolph approach (Poulos, 1989) pile groups; (c) Fig. 11 for 8 3 2 pile groups.
0.09 Poulos (1989) The comparison shows the following:
Guo & Randolph
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) (a) Generally, the present solution is consistent
with results from the PGROUP analysis.
0.06 (b) As expected, for piles in an in®nite layer, the
IG

presented analysis yields a higher pile head

L /r0 5 80, s/r0 5 6
νs 5 0.5, λ 5 3000
0.03
0 results of `Guo & Randolph' and those from
1 6 11 16 21
(No. of piles)1/2
Fig. 8. Comparison between solutions for group settle-
ment factors for piles in Gibson soil
®nite layer is probably that provided by Butter®eld
& Douglas (1981). Using the PGROUP program
(Banerjee & Driscoll, cited in Randolph, 1994),
Butter®eld & Douglas (1981) obtained ¯exibility
factors (the inverse of stiffness factors) for pile
groups in homogeneous, ®nite ( H=L ˆ 1:5 and 3´0)
and in®nite layers, with the pile cap being treated as
rigid and at ground level, but with no contact
between the pile cap and the soil. p
The normalized stiffness, K p =( [ng ]sGL ), ob-
tained from the present solution is compared with
those obtained by Butter®eld & Douglas (1981) for
groups in homogeneous soil layers with various
values of H=L (ˆ 1:5, 3´0 and `in®nite') at pile
centre±centre spacings of s=d ˆ 2:5 and 5. A full
comparison for symmetrical pile groups is presented
in the thesis by Guo (1997), and the results pre-
stiffness than the PGROUP analysis. However,
the present closed form solutions using `A ˆ
2:5 and ù ˆ 1', represented by `Guo &
Randolph (A ˆ 2:5)', seem to give reasonable
results. Generally, the difference between the
26
PGROUP analysis is less than 20%, with a
maximum discrepancy occurring approxi-
mately at a pile group of equivalent diameter
about rm (for example, see Fig. 10 for groups
of s=d ˆ 5, in a soil of H=L ˆ in®nite, in
which the maximum difference occurs at a pile
slenderness ratio (L=d) of about 30, where the
equivalent diameter of the pile group is about
40d, while the value of rm is 43d).
(c) For a large group of piles, for example 8 3 8
(Fig. 10), differences between the present
solution and the PGROUP analysis become
obvious. However, as stated by Butter®eld &
Douglas (1981), the PGROUP analysis for these
cases was found to be unreliable. The results
from PGROUP analysis are largely independent
of pile slenderness ratio, which does not seem
to be realistic, while, comparatively, the current
prediction gives a reasonable trend.
Large pile groups in an in®nite layer. For large
pile groups, previous solutions are available only
168 GUO AND RANDOLPH

20 20

λ 5 10000 16 λ 5 10000
16
3000 3000

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

.
.
12 1000 12 1000

300
8 300 8

4 s/d 5 2.5 4 s/d 5 2.5

H/L 5 infinite H/L 5 3.
0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

20 12
λ 5 10000 λ 5 10000
10
3000
15 3000
1000
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
8
.

.
1000
10 300 6
300
4
5
s/d 5 2.5 s/d 5 5
H/L 5 1.5 2 H/L 5 infinite
0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

12 12
λ 5 10000
λ 5 10000
10 3000
3000 1000
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

8 1000 8
.
.

6 300
300
4 4
s/d 5 5
2 s/d 5 5
H/L 5 1.5
H/L 5 3
0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)

Guo & Randolph

Butterfield & Douglas (1981)

Fig. 9. Comparison between present solutions and the numerical result of Butter®eld &
Douglas (1981) (3 3 3 pile group)

for groups embedded in a homogeneous in®nite ë ˆ 1000, and ís ˆ 0:5, which were obtained from
layer. For square groups of piles embedded in such the following computer codes:
a layer, Fig. 12 shows a comparison of the
normalized stiffness for the case of L=d ˆ 25, (a) the analysis by Fleming et al. (1992), based on
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS 169
12 12

λ 5 10000
10 λ 5 10000 10
3000
3000
1000
8 8
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
1000
.

.
300
6 300 6

4 4

s/d 5 2.5
2 s/d 5 2.5 2 H/L 5 3.0
H/L 5 infinite

0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

8 10
λ 5 10000

3000 λ 5 10000
8 3000
6
1000
1000
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

6
.

300
4
300
4

s/d 5 5
2 H/L 5 3
s/d 5 5 2
H/L 5 infinite

0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)

Guo & Randolph

Butterfield & Douglas (1981)

Fig. 10. Comparison between present solutions and the numerical result of Butter®eld
& Douglas (1981) (8 ˆ 18 pile group)

the PIGLET program (Randolph, 1987); (c) the more rigorous numerical results of
(b) the interaction factor approach derived from Butter®eld & Douglas (1981), based on the
analysis using the DEFPIG program (Poulos & full BEM analysis incorporated in the
Davis, 1980); PGROUP program.
170 GUO AND RANDOLPH

16 16
λ 5 10000
λ 5 10000
3000
12 3000 12 1000
1000

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

.
.

300
8 300 8

s/d 5 2.5 s/d 5 2.5

4 4
H/L 5 infinite H/L 5 3.0

0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

20 12
λ 5 10000
λ 5 10000
3000 10
16 3000
1000
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
8
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

.
.

12
1000
300 6
300
8
4
s/d 5 2.5
H/L 5 1.5 s/d 5 5
4 2 H/L 5 infinite

0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

12 14
λ 5 10000 λ 5 10000
3000
10 12
3000
10 1000
1000
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)

8
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
.

8
6 300
300
6
4
4
s/d 5 5 s/d 5 5
2 H/L 5 3 2 H/L 5 1.5

0 0
15 25 35 45 15 25 35 45
L /d L /d

Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5)

Guo & Randolph

Butterfield & Douglas (1981)

Fig. 11. Comparison between present solutions and the numerical result of Butter®eld &
Douglas (1981) (8 3 2 pile group)
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS 171
14

12

10

(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
. 8

2 Limiting stiffness

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Square root of number of piles in group

Fleming et al. (1992) Butterfield & Douglas (1981)

Poulos & Davis (1980) Mandolini & Viggiani (1997)
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) Guo & Randolph

(a)

12

10

8 Limiting stiffness
(Kp /(sGLng0 5)
.

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Square root of number of piles in group

Fleming et al. (1992) Butterfield & Douglas (1981)

Poulos & Davis (1980) Mandolini & Viggiani (1997)
Guo & Randolph (A 5 2.5) Guo & Randolph

(b)

Fig. 12. Comparison of different pile group analysis procedures (L=d ˆ 25):
(a) ë ˆ 1000, ís ˆ 0´5, n ˆ 0, s=d ˆ 2´5; (b) ë ˆ 1000, ís ˆ 0´5, n ˆ 0,
s=d ˆ 5´0

The results of Mandolini & Viggiani (1997) are
also shown for comparison.
The average of the ®rst two approaches ap-
pears to offer reasonably accurate solutions
(Randolph, 1994). The present solution is quite
consistent with this average trend for close pile
spacing (s=d ˆ 2:5) as illustrated in Fig. 12(a),
and approaches a limiting normalized stiffness of
4´5, corresponding to that of a shallow founda-
tion. However, for a large pile centre-to-centre
space (s=d ˆ 5), the normalized stiffness obtained
by the present GASGROUP analysis as shown in
Fig. 12(b) tends to decrease and becomes lower
than that for a shallow foundation. Probably, as
noted by Cooke (1986), at a large pile centre-to-
centre space (e.g. greater than 4d), the pile group
performs in a different way from a densely
spaced pile group.
172
APPLICATIONS
Settlements of a number of actual pile groups
have been analysed using the present GASGROUP
program. These cases are:
(a) full-scale pile tests by Cooke (1974);
(b) a tank supported by 55 piles, embedded in silt
and very silty clay (Thorburn et al., 1983);
(c) a 19-storey building supported by a group of
132 piles, embedded in sandy layer (Koerner &
Partos, 1974);
(d) a block of 40 cylindrical silos supported by a
large group of 697 piles, embedded in a layer
of interbedded sands and stiff clays (Goosens
& Van Impe, 1991);
(e) a ®ve-storey building supported by a group of
20 piles, embedded in a layer of stiff clays
underlain by a medium to dense sand
(Yamashita et al., 1993).
Input parameters for each analysis include: (i) soil
shear modulus distribution down the pile, Poisson's
ratio, and the H=L ratio; (ii) the dimensions and
Young's modulus of the pile; and (iii) the number
of piles in the foundation and pile centre±centre
spacing. In the prediction of Rs , there is no prac-
tical dif®culty in using the exact centre±centre
spacing for each pair of piles. However, for con-
venience, equivalent average pile spacing has been
assessed in all the following predictions except for
that based on Yamashita et al. (1993). First, irregu-
lar plans of large groups are converted to equiva-
lent rectangular plans. Second, a mean area per
pile is obtained, with the total plan area of a pile
group being divided by the number of piles in the
group. Finally, taking the mean area as a square,
the average pile `spacing' is thus the length of the
side of the square.
The soil shear modulus may be back-calculated
by matching the measured elastic pile head stiff-
0.4
Interaction factor α
0.2
Measured
Guo & Randolph
0
0 4
Fig. 13. Comparison of the measured interaction factors (Cooke et
al., 1979) with the closed form predictions
GUO AND RANDOLPH
ness of a single pile with that obtained from the
closed form solution of equation (10), in which the
factors æ2 and ù2 are replaced with æ and ù,
respectively (Guo, 1997; Guo & Randolph, 1997).
The elastic pile head stiffness may generally be
determined by load tests on single piles. The shear
modulus pro®le, and hence n, may be chosen to
follow the pro®le of either SPT (for sand) or CPT
(for clay). Using the back calculated shear modulus
and the chosen n value, the value of Ag in equa-
tion (1) is readily assessed. Comparisons are
included to show the sensitivity of different combi-
nations of Ag and n.
Full-scale tests (Cooke, 1974)
Cooke (1974) reported the results of full-scale
tests on vertically loaded single piles, and a row of
three piles spaced at s ˆ 6r0 , embedded in London
clay at Hendon. The tubular steel piles, of external
radius 84 mm and wall thickness of 6´4 mm, were
jacked to a depth of 4´5 m. The equivalent Young's
modulus of the piles is Ep ˆ 30:8 GPa.
The load distributions in the piles as well as the
vertical displacements at different levels below the
ground surface were measured. From the test re-
sults of the central pile of the row of three piles,
which was loaded before the installation of the two
¯anking piles, the pile head stiffness, Pt =wt is
127 800 kN/m. Also from Cooke et al. (1979), the
shear modulus may be simulated by equation (1)
:
with n ˆ 0:85, Ag ˆ 12:48 MPa mÿ0 85 , which
leads to a pile±soil relative stiffness factor, ë, of
687´1. Other relevant parameters have been esti-
mated as presented in Fig. 13.
With these parameters, the predicted pile±pile
interaction factors agree well with the measured
values reported by Cooke et al. (1979, 1980) (Fig.
13). This can be attributed to the more accurate
n 5 0.85 A 5 1.66
λ 5 687.1 νs 5 0.5
rm for group piles
8 12 16 20 24
s /r0
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS
selection of the A value of 1´66 for H=L ˆ 2, as
back-calculated by FLAC analysis (Guo, 1997).
This A value gives an excellent estimation of the
maximum radius of in¯uence of the pile±shaft
shear. The corresponding theoretical predictions of
displacement are consistent with those measured,
as shown in Fig. 14 for the single pile, and in Figs
15(a) and 15(b) for pile groups of equal pile load
and rigid pile cap, respectively. The predicted pile
head load±displacement relations are illustrated in
Figs 16(a) and 16(b) for equal pile load and rigid
pile cap, respectively.
Molasses tank (Thorburn et al., 1983)
The molasses tank described by Thorburn et al.
(1983) was 12´5 m in diameter, and was supported
by 55 precast concrete piles, each 0´25 m square,
and 27 m long (effective length), laid out on a
triangular grid at a spacing of 2´0 m. The strength
pro®le of the subsoil may be written as
su (kPa) ˆ 6 ‡ 1:8z (m) (19)
and the shear modulus was estimated as
G (MPa) ˆ 1:5 ‡ 0:45z (m)
From the single pile test, the measured elastic
stiffness of Pt =wt was 88 MN/m. The Young's
modulus of the pile was measured as 26 GPa.
Therefore, with an assumed value of n ˆ 1, the
back-calculated shear modulus was G (MPa) ˆ
0:504z (m).
By the GASGROUP analysis, taking the group
as a 7 3 8 rectangular array, the estimated settle-
ment ratio, Rs , was 5´844. Alternatively, taking the
group as a 5 3 11 rectangular array, the estimated
settlement ratio, Rs , was 5´743. At the average load
0 5
0
0.05
Displacement: mm
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Fig. 14. Comparison of the measured vertical displacement
(Cooke, 1974) around a loaded pile with that from the closed
form prediction
173
per pile of 440 kN, the predicted elastic displace-
ment of the single pile was 5 mm. Therefore, the
predicted settlement of the pile group, sg , was in
the range 28´7±29´2 mm. This compares well with
the measured settlements in the range 29±30 mm.
The sensitivity of the settlement prediction to the
soil pro®le adopted is illustrated in Table 1.
Nineteen-storey reinforced concrete building
(Koerner & Partos, 1974)
The 19-storey building described by Koerner &
Partos (1974) was founded on 132 permanently
cased driven piles, covering an approximately rec-
tangular area, about 24 m by 34 m. The piles were
cased, diameter 0´41 m and length 7´6 m, with an
expanded base of 0´76 m. Dividing the total area
by 132 piles results in a mean area of 6´18 m2 per
pile, and a pile `spacing' of 2´48 m.
The SPT varies approximately with depth by a
power of n ˆ 0:5. From the single pile loading test
results, a secant stiffness of Pt =wt ˆ 262:5 kN=mm
was obtained, for the given working load of
1´05 MN. The shear modulus variation may be
(20) approximated by
:
G (MPa) ˆ 12:19z 0 5 (21)
The Young's modulus of the pile was measured as
30 GPa. With these parameters, taking the group as
an 11 3 12 rectangular array and H=L ˆ 2:2, the
GASGROUP analysis gave a value of the settle-
ment ratio, Rs , of 19´1. The single pile settlement
was computed to be 4´0 mm for the average load
of 1´05 MN. Thus the average group settlement
was computed to be 63´5 mm. The measured va-
lues ranged from a maximum of 80 mm near the
centre, to 37 mm near the corners of the building,
r /r0
10 15 20 25
Single pile:
Total load 5 40 kN
A 5 1.66, H/L 5 2 0.45 m
Ag 5 12.48 MPa/m0.85 2.4 m
νs 5 0.5, n 5 0.85 4.34 m
CF
174 GUO AND RANDOLPH

Distance from the centre: m

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0
43.7 kN per pile
A 5 1.66, H /L 5 2, n 5 0.85
0.1
A g 5 12.48 MPa/m0.85
νs 5 0.5
0.2
Displacement: mm

0.3 Banerjee & Davies (1977)

Expt, Depth 5 0.6 m

0.4 Expt, Depth 5 2.3 m

CF Predicted (0.6 m)
0.5 CF Predicted (2.3 m)

0.6
(a)

Distance from the centre: m

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
Total load 5 94.1 kN
A 5 1.66, H /L 5 2, n 5 0.85
A g 5 12.48 MPa/m0.85
νs 5 0.5
Displacement: mm

0.1

Banerjee & Davies (1977)

0.2 Expt, Depth 5 0.6 m
Expt, Depth 5 2.3 m
CF Predicted (0.6 m)
CF Predicted (2.3 m)

0.3
(b)

Fig. 15. Comparison with ®eld test results by Cooke (1974): (a) equal
pile load; (b) rigid cap

with an average of about 64 mm. The predicted
settlement is therefore close to the average meas-
ured value. The sensitivity of the settlement predic-
tion to the soil pro®les is illustrated in Table 2.
Ghent Grain Terminal (Goosens & Van Impe,
1991)
A block of 40 cylindrical reinforced concrete
grain silo cells was erected in Ghent, covering a
rectangular area 34 m by 84 m, within a new term-
inal for storage and transit (Goosens & Van Impe,
1991). Each of the cells is 52 m high and 8 m in
diameter. The silos were built on a 1´2 m thick
slab, which in turn rested on a total of 697 driven
cast in situ reinforced concrete piles. The piles are
13´4 m in length, 0´52 m in shaft diameter, and
incorporated an expanded base, which was esti-
mated to be 0´8 m in diameter. The average work-
ing load for each pile was about 1´3 MN.
The average shear modulus near the centre of the
site may be regarded as uniform with depth, with a
value of 28´6 MPa (Poulos, 1993). The Young's
modulus of the pile was assumed to be 30 GPa. The
average area per pile was estimated to be 4´1 m2 ,
giving a `pile spacing' of 2´02 m. Using the
GASGROUP analysis, with H=L ˆ 2:5, the settle-
ment ratio, Rs , was estimated to be 59´15. At the
average working load of 1´3 MN, the single pile
displacement was estimated to be 3´15 mm. There-
fore, the predicted settlement of the pile group was
186´3 mm. At completion of the building, the
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS 175
50

40

Individual pile load: kN

30

20

10

0
0 0.1 0 .2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Settlement: mm

Pile C Pile B Pile A

By CF A By CF C

(a)

50

40
Individual pile load: kN

30

20

10

0
0 0 .1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Settlement: mm

Pile C Pile B Pile A

By CF A By CF C

(b)

Fig. 16. Measured (Cooke et al., 1979, 1980) and predicted load±
settlement behaviour of pile groups: (a) equal pile load, (b) rigid
pile cap

Table 1. Settlement predictions for different soil pro®les for molasses tank
Pt
n Ag : MPa=m n G L : MPa Rs  sg : mm Rs  sg {: mm
G L wt r0
0 4´6405 4´6405 134´49 9´9186 49´6 9´478 47´4
0´5 1´6056 8´3429 74´81 7´045 35´3 6´818 34´1
1´0 0´504 13´611 45´85 5´844 29´2 5´743 28´7
 Using rectangular array of 7 3 8; { using rectangular array of 5 3 11.
176 GUO AND RANDOLPH

Table 2. Settlement predictions for different soil pro®les for reinforced concrete building
n Ag : MPa=m n G L : MPa Pt =(G L wt r0 ) Rs sg : mm
25:264 25:264 50:68 13:81 55:2
0
19:487y 19:487 52:569 14:25 71:3
12:193 33:615 38:09 15:886 63:5
0´5
9:25 25:50 40:172 16:68 83:4
5:484 41:682 30:721 19:1 76:4
1´0
4:104 31:191 32:843 20:271 101:4
 The numerator is for a scant stiffness of 262´5 MN/m for a single pile; { the denominator for a scant stiffness of
210´0 MN/m.

measured settlement was 185´0 mm. The predicted
settlement is quite consistent with the measured
value.
Five-storey building (Yamashita et al., 1993)
A piled raft foundation has been adopted in
Japan for a ®ve-storey building with plan area
measuring 24 m by 23 m. Twenty piles were uti-
lized to reduce the potential settlement (Yamashita
et al., 1993). The piles were 16 m in length and
0´7 and 0´8 m in diameter, with pile centre-to-
centre spacing of 6´3±8´6 times the pile diameter.
The total working load was 47´5 MN.
The shear modulus pro®le adopted by Yamashita
et al. (1993) may reasonably be approximated by
: This paper is aimed at establishing a simple,
G (MPa) ˆ 10:03z 0 8
The Young's modulus of the pile was assumed to
be 9´8 GPa. With the actual pile locations and a
H=L ratio of 2´7, the GASGROUP analysis yielded
a settlement ratio, Rs , of 2´516. At the average
working load of 2´4 MN, the single pile showed
about 5´0 mm displacement. Therefore, the pre-
dicted settlement of the pile group was 12´6 mm.
At completion of the building, the measured settle-
ments were in the range 10±20 mm, with an
average of about 14 mm. The predicted settlement
is quite consistent with the measured value. The
sensitivity of the settlement prediction to the soil
pro®les is shown in Table 3.
General comments from the case study
Generally speaking, using an assumed pile
Young's modulus, the corresponding soil modulus
may be back-calculated, in terms of single pile test
results. The parameters from the single pile analy-
sis may then be used directly to predict the settle-
ment of the pile group. In the case of using an
enlarged pile base, a secant stiffness from single
pile test results may be used. Where an inclined
underlain rigid layer exists, since the H=L ratio
varies across the pile group, different values of
H=L may be used to assess the possible displace-
ment range of the foundation. The sensitivity of
settlement prediction to the shear modulus pro®le
does not seem to be particularly signi®cant. Using
an average value of n for a soil pro®le, the
predicted settlement compares well with the meas-
ured data.
CONCLUSIONS
(22) ef®cient approach for predicting the settlement of
large pile groups. A closed form expression for
estimating pile±pile interaction factors was estab-
lished, which was then used to predict the behaviour
of large pile groups embedded in non-homogeneous,
®nite-layer media. The current solutions have been
compared extensively with the previous numerical
analyses. A number of actual pile groups have been
analysed. The main conclusions from this research
are as follows:
(a) The new closed form expression for interaction
factors, using the modi®ed load transfer
factors, gives very good agreement with those
obtained by more rigorous numerical analyses.
(b) The current approach for estimating pile group
stiffness yields very good agreement with those
obtained by rigorous numerical analysis for a
range of different layer thickness ratio, H=L.
(c) The current program, GASGROUP, gives reas-
onable prediction in comparison with both
rigorous numerical analyses and measured

Table 3. Settlement predictions for different soil pro®les for ®ve-storey building
n Ag : MPa=m n G L : MPa Pt =(G L wt r0 ) Rs sg : mm
0 37´316 37´316 33´85 3´143 15´7
0´8 10´03 92´21 13´699 2´516 12´6
1´0 7´095 113´52 11´127 2´491 12´5
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS
data. The program is very quick and ef®cient,
and can be readily run on a personal computer.
Therefore, it may be used for practical eng-
ineering design.
(d) Some guidelines for estimating the settlement
of pile groups have been provided, using the
GASGROUP program for a variety of different
subsoil pro®les.
APPENDIX: LOAD TRANSFER FACTORS
This appendix shows the empirical equations for esti-
mating load transfer factors for a single pile in a soil of
a shear modulus described by a power of depth. These
equations were obtained previously through ®tting equa-
tion (3) to the values of æ obtained by the approach of
matching pile head stiffness for a single pile using the
numerical FLAC analysis (Guo, 1997).
In equation (4), the parameter A may be estimated with
the following equation:
   
Ah 1 0:4 ÿ ís 2 :4)
Aˆ ‡ ‡ C ë (í s ÿ 0
Aoh 1 ‡ n n ‡ 0:4 1 ÿ 0:3n
(23)
where Cë ˆ 0, 0´5 and 1´0 for ë ˆ 300, 1000 and 10 000;
it may be ignored, since its effect on the estimation of A is
generally minor except for short piles. Aoh is Ah at a ratio
of H=L ˆ 4. Ah is given by the following equation:
Ah ˆ 0:124 exp(2:23 pg )(1 ÿ exp(1 ÿ H=L)
‡ 1:01 exp(0:107n) (24)
where rg ˆ 1=(1 ‡ n). The parameter B was found to be
about unity (Guo, 1997) through matching the pile head
stiffness from numerical FLAC analysis. However, the pile
head stiffness obtained by the FLAC analysis are generally
higher than those obtained by other numerical approaches,
particularly for short piles with slenderness ratios (L=r0 )
less than 20, and piles in an in®nite layer. Therefore,
considering the previous suggestion (Randolph, 1994), the
value of B may still be taken as 5.
Load distribution prediction is sensitive to the base load
transfer factor. Thus, a more accurate equation for esti-
mating the base factor has been provided here as
ùh ùí
ùˆ ùo (25)
ùoh ùoí
where ùh and ùí are the parameters that re¯ect the effect
of H=L and soil Poisson's ratio; ùoí is ùí at ís ˆ 0:4, and
ùoh is ùh at H=L ˆ 4.
The inverse of the factor ù re¯ects the base stiffness
(Pb (1 ÿ ís )=(4Gb r0 wb )). Therefore, all the equations will be
written in the form 1=ù to be consistent with that for pile head
stiffness. The following conclusions have been reached:
(a) The ratio 1=ù generally increases slightly with the
pile slenderness ratio, when the ratio L=r0 is higher
than 20. As the non-homogeneity factor, n, increases
from 0 to 1, the factor 1=ù increases by about 0´15.
Therefore, it can be approximated by
1=ù0 ˆ 0:67 ÿ 0:0029L=r0 ‡ 0:15n (L=r0 , 20)
1=ù0 ˆ 0:6 ‡ 0:0006L=r0 ‡ 0:15n (L=r0 > 20)
(26)
177
(b) As Poisson's ratio increases, 1=ù decreases slightly.
However, once ís exceeds 0´4, it increases. Thereby
1=ùí ˆ 1=ù0 ‡ 0:3(0:4 ÿ ís ) (ís < 0:4)
1=ùí ˆ 1=ù0 ‡ 1:2(ís ÿ 0:4)) (ís . 0:4) (27)
(c) The 1=ù calibrated is sensitive to the grid used for
the case of different values of H=L, as described
previously. Following careful exploration, it may be
concluded that 1=ù can be predicted by the follow-
ing equation:
: :
1=ùh ˆ (0:1483n ‡ 0:6081)ág 0 1008 nÿ0 2406 (28)
(d) An increase in the pile±soil relative stiffness can
lead to a slight increase in the value of 1=ù,
particularly at high pile±soil relative slenderness
ratios. However, it is generally suf®ciently accurate
to ignore the effect of pile±soil relative stiffness.
For piles in an in®nite layer ( H=L > 4), the proposed
equations lead to lower values of A and higher values of ù
than the values of A ˆ 2:5 and ù ˆ 1:0 previously
suggested (Randolph & Wroth, 1979; Guo & Randolph,
1996). This is due to the following:
(a) A reduction in the value of ù can induce an increase
in the value of A. For instance, given L=r0 ˆ 10,
using the back calculated value of ù ˆ 1:366, the
value of A is found to be 1´8 (ís ˆ 0:5, ë ˆ 1000,
H=L > 4). In contrast, if we assume ù ˆ 1, then the
value of A is found to be 2´5.
(b) The pile head stiffness from FLAC analysis is
generally higher than that obtained from other
approaches (Guo, 1997).
As shown by equation (25), the base factor, 1=ù is
generally less than unity, and decreases signi®cantly from
1´0 to 0´6 as the H=L ratio increases from 1´2 to 4
(in®nite). Therefore, if we use an assumed value of ù ˆ 1
together with the A value given by equation (23), the pile
head stiffness will be gradually overestimated, as the H=L
ratio approaches in®nity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ®rst author was supported by an Australian
Overseas Postgraduate Research Scholarship and
by scholarships from the University of Western
Australia. This ®nancial assistance is gratefully
acknowledged.
NOTATION
A a coef®cient for estimating shaft load transfer
factor
Ag constant for soil shear modulus distribution
Ah a coef®cient for estimating A, accounting for
the effect of H=L
Aoh the value of Ah at a ratio of H=L ˆ 4
B a coef®cient for estimating shaft load transfer
factor
Cv (z) a function for assessing pile stiffness at a
depth of z, under vertical loading
Cv0 limiting value of the function, Cv (z) as z
approaches zero
178 GUO AND RANDOLPH

Cv2 limiting value of the function, Cv2 (z) as z ÷v a ratio of shaft and base stiffness factors for
approaches zero vertical loading
Cë a coef®cient for estimating A, accounting for ÷v2 a ratio of shaft and base stiffness factors for a
the effect of ë pile in a group of two piles
d(r0 ) diameter (radius) of a pile ù a pile base shape and depth factor
Ep Young's modulus of an equivalent solid ù2 base load transfer factor for two piles
cylinder pile
EL Young's modulus of soil at pile base level
G elastic shear modulus REFERENCES
Gb shear modulus at just beneath pile base level Banerjee, R. (1978). Analysis of axially and laterally
GL shaft soil shear modulus at just above pile loaded pile groups. In Developments in soil mechanics
base level (ed. C. R. Scott). London: Applied Science Publishers.
H depth to the underlying rigid layer Banerjee, P. K. & Davies, T. G. (1977). Analysis of pile
IG settlement in¯uence factor for pile groups groups embedded in Gibson soil. Proc. 9th Int. Conf.
subjected to vertical loading Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Tokyo 1, 381±386.
I m , I mÿ1 modi®ed Bessel functions of the ®rst kind of Booker, J. R., Balaam, N. & Davis, E. H. (1985). The
non-integer order, m and m ÿ 1 respectively behaviour of an elastic non-homogeneous half-space,
Km modi®ed Bessel functions of the second kind Parts I & II. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
of non-integer order, m 9, No. 4, 353±367, 369±381.
K mÿ1 modi®ed Bessel functions of the second kind Butter®eld, R. & Banerjee, P. K. (1971). The elastic
of non-integer order, m ÿ 1 analysis of compressible piles and pile groups. GeÂo-
Kp pile head stiffness de®ned as Pt =wt technique 21, No. 1, 43±60.
L embedded pile length Butter®eld, R. & Douglas, R. A. (1981). Flexibility coef-
m 1=(2 ‡ n) ®cients for the design of piles and pile groups, CIRIA
n power of the shear modulus distribution, non- Technical Note 108. London: CIRIA.
homogeneity factor Cheung, Y. K., Tham, L. G. & Guo, D. J. (1988). Analy-
ng total number of piles in a group sis of pile group by in®nite layer method. GeÂotech-
Pb load of pile base nique 38, No. 3, 415±431.
P(z) axial force of pile body at a depth of z Chin, J. T., Chow, Y. K. & Poulos, H. G. (1990). Num-
Pj load on pile j, which is in a group of ng erical analysis of axially loaded vertical piles and pile
PG load exerted on a pile group groups. Computers Geotechnics 9, No. 4, 273±290.
Pt load acting on pile head Chow, Y. K. (1987). Axial and lateral response of pile
Rs settlement ratio for pile groups groups embedded in nonhomogeneous soils. Int. J.
rg half-width of the pile groups Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 11, 621±638.
r0 pile radius Cooke, R. W. (1974). The settlement of friction pile
rm radius of zone of shaft shear in¯uence foundations. Proceedings of the Conference on Tall
s pile centre±centre spacing Buildings, Kuala Lumpur, 3, 7±19.
sg settlement of pile group Cooke, R. W. (1986). Pile raft foundations on stiff clays
su undrained shear strength of soil ± a contribution to design philosophy. GeÂotechnique
w local shaft deformation 36, No. 2, 169±203.
w(z) deformation of pile body at a depth of z Cooke, R. W., Price, G. & Tarr, K. (1979). Jacked piles
w1 settlement of a single pile under unit head in London clay: a study of load transfer and settle-
load ment under working conditions. GeÂotechnique 29,
wb settlement of pile base No. 4, 461±468.
wG settlement of a pile group Cooke, R. W., Price, G. & Tarr, K. (1980). Jacked piles
wi settlement of any pile i in a group in London clay: interaction and group behaviour under
wt pile head settlement working conditions. GeÂotechnique 30, No. 2, 97±136.
z depth Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. & Elson,
á12 pile±pile interaction factor W. K. (1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edn. Glasgow:
ág modi®cation factor accounting for the effect Surrey University Press. New York: Halst Press.
of H=L Goosens, D. & Van Impe, W. F. (1991). Long term
á ij interaction factor between pile i and pile j settlements of a pile group foundation in sand, over-
æ shaft load transfer factor lying a clayey layer. Proc. 10th ECSMFE, Florence 1,
æ2 shaft load transfer factor for two piles 425±428.
ë relative stiffness ratio between pile Young's Guo, W. D. (1997). Analytical and numerical analyses for
modulus and the soil shear modulus at just pile foundations. PhD thesis, University of Western
above the base level, Ep =G L Australia.
íp Poisson's ratio of a pile Guo, W. D & Randolph, M. F. (1996). Settlement of pile
ís Poisson's ratio of soil groups in non-homogeneous soil. Proc. 7th ANZ Conf.
îb pile base shear modulus non-homogeneous Geomech. 1, 631±636.
factor, G L =Gb Guo, W. D. & Randolph, M. F. (1997). Vertically loaded
rg ratio of the average soil shear modulus over piles in non-homogeneous media. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
the pile embedded depth to the modulus at Methods Geomech. 21, 507±532.
depth L Itasca (1992). FLAC ± users' manual. Minneapolis: Itas-
ô0 shear stress on pile±soil interface ca Consulting Group.
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION OF PILE GROUPS
Koerner, R. M. & Partos, A. (1974). Settlement of build-
ing on pile foundation in sand. J. Geotech. Engng
Div., ASCE 100, No. 3, 265±278.
Lee, C. Y. (1991). Axial response analysis of axially
loaded piles and pile groups. Computers Geotech. 11,
No. 4, 295±313.
Lee, C. Y. (1993). Settlement of pile group ± practical
approach. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 119, No. 9,
1449±1461.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. (1997). Settlement of piled
foundations. GeÂotechnique 47, 791±816.
Poulos, H. G. (1968). Analysis of the settlement of pile
groups. GeÂotechnique 18, No. 4, 449±471.
Poulos, H. G. (1979). Group factors for pile-de¯ection
estimation. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 105,
No. 12, 1489±1509.
Poulos, H. G. (1989). Pile behaviour ± theory and appli-
cation. Rankine Lecture. GeÂotechnique 39, No. 3,
365±415.
Poulos, H. G. (1993). Settlement prediction for bored pile
groups. Proceedings of the 2nd International Geotech-
nical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles, Ghent, 103±117.
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation
analysis and design. Chichester: Wiley.
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. &
179
Flannery, B. P. (1996). Numerical recipes in FOR-
TRAN 77 and FORTRAN 90, the art of scienti®c
computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, pp. 239±243.
Randolph, M. F. (1987). PIGLET, a computer program for
the analysis and design of pile groups. Report Geo
87036. Nedlands: Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Western Australia.
Randolph, M. F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups
and piled rafts. XIII ICSMFE, New Delhi 5, 61±82.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). Analysis of
deformation of vertically loaded Piles. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 104, No. 12, 1465±1488.
Randolph, M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1979). An analysis of
the vertical deformation of pile groups. GeÂotechnique
29, No. 4, 423±439.
Thorburn, S., Laird, C. & Randolph, M. F. (1983). Stor-
age tanks founded on soft soils reinforced with driven
piles. Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Ad-
vances in Piling and Ground Treatment, ICE, London,
157±164.
Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M. & Yamada, T. (1993). Settle-
ment behaviour of a ®ve-storey building on a piled
raft foundation. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored
and Auger Piles, Ghent, 351±356.