Literature Review 12

2.4 Pile Group Efficiency

The individual pile in a pile group will not be as efficient as a single pile due to pile group
effect. In other words, the intensity of pile group effect is directly related to the efficiency of
pile group which can be quantified by a factor known as pile group efficiency factor (Kouby
et. al. 2016). Generally, group efficiency factor can be defined as the ratio of average
capacity of a single pile in the group, to the capacity of a single comparable pile which can
be expressed as:

𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔
ηg = (equation 2.6)
𝑛𝑛 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠

where ηg = Pile group efficiency factor

n = Number of piles in the group
Qg = Ultimate load capacity of pile group [kN]
Qs = Ultimate load capacity of an individual pile [kN]

For floating pile groups in cohesive soils, the efficiency factor is proportional to the spacing
between the piles and become unity at considerably large spacings. On the other hand, in
practice, the efficiency factor of end-bearing pile groups (i.e. in dense sand or gravel) is
normally considered as unity regardless of the pile spacing, although theoretically the
efficiency of pile group could be larger than unity when the piles are spaced closely to each
other. Therefore, for pile groups that derive their capacity from both pile base and shaft
resistance, Chellis (cited in Poulos & Davis 1980) suggested that the pile group effect should
only be considered at the shaft component of the pile group. According to Sayed and Bakeer
(1992), unlike pile groups in clay, the group efficiencies in sand are often greater than unity
when the piles are sufficiently close to each other. This results in limited studies have been
done on the efficiencies of pile groups in sand as it is not as necessary as that in clay.

2.4.1 Empirical Formulae

There are various empirical formulae developed to relate pile spacing and pile group
geometry to the efficiency factor of pile groups. However, these empirical formulae are
mostly derived based on the planar geometry of the pile group regardless of the properties
of soil in contact with the pile group. For pile groups in clays, the most acceptable efficiency
formulae are as follow (Sayed & Bakeer 1992; Pham 2016; Poulos & Davis 1980):
Literature Review 13

(i) Converse-Labarre Formula (cited in Sayed & Bakeer 1992):

(𝑛𝑛−1)𝑚𝑚+(𝑚𝑚−1)𝑛𝑛
ηg = 1 – ξ [ ] (equation 2.7)
90𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
where m = number of rows in a pile group
n = number of columns in a pile group
ξ = tan-1 (D/s), in degrees
D = pile diameter [m]
s = pile spacing [m]

(ii) Los Angeles Group Action formula (cited in Pham 2016):

𝐷𝐷
ηg = 1 – [m (n – 1) + n (m – 1) + √2 (m – 1) (n – 1)] (equation 2.8)
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
where D = pile diameter [m]
s = pile spacing [m]
m = number of rows in a pile group
n = number of columns in a pile group

(iii) Iyer formula (cited in Pham 2016):

𝑠𝑠
ηg = 1 – (equation 2.9)
8𝐷𝐷
where s = pile spacing [m]
D = pile diameter [m]

(iv) Feld’s rule (cited in Pham 2016):

Pile spacings are not taken into account in Feld’s rule. It works by reducing the load capacity
of each pile in the pile group by 1/16 for each adjacent pile. This technique can be explained
with the aid of Figure 7 and Table 1 where a 3×3 pile group is used as illustration. In Figure
7, centre pile, edge piles and corner piles are represented by A, B and C respectively. The
determination of pile group ultimate capacity is tabulated in Table 1.
Literature Review 14

Figure 7: Feld's method for estimating capacity of pile group (Pham 2016)

Table 1: Feld's method for estimating capacity of pile group (Pham 2016)
No.
Pile No. of Adjacent Piles Reduction Factor
of Ultimate Capacity (Qu)
Type (Nad) per Pile (1 – Nad/16)
Piles
A 1 8 1–
8
= 0.5 1 (0.5) Qu = 0.5Qu
16
B 4 5 1–
5
= 0.6875 4 (0.6875) Qu = 2.75 Qu
16
C 4 3 1–
3
= 0.8125 4 (0.8125) Qu = 3.25 Qu
16
Qg = 6.5 Qu

𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔 6.5 𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢

⸫ ηg = = = 72.2%
∑ 𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢 9 𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢

(v) Poulos & Davis Method (Poulos & Davis 1980):

Figure 8 illustrates an example of the relationship between the number of piles and ultimate
load capacity of pile groups developed from the Poulos & Davis method. This figure presents
the transition between isolated single pile failure mode and block failure mode with
increasing pile numbers. From this relationship, it is noticeable that pile groups at such
spacing are more likely to fail as a block rather than individually. Besides, when the number
of piles exceed a certain amount, the increment in load capacity becomes lesser due to
overwhelming of pile group effect (Poulos & Davis 1980). However, the graph is only
applicable for perfect square pile groups such as 2×2, 3×3, 4×4 and so on.
Literature Review 15

Figure 8: Relationship between pile numbers and ultimate load capacity of group
(Poulos & Davis 1980)

Based on the reviewed empirical formulae above, the salient parameters used in the formulae
derivation are identified and tabulated in Table 2. Among the empirical formulae, the
Converse-Labarre formula and Los Angeles Group Action formula consider the pile spacing,
pile diameter and pile group geometry in the formula derivation. On the other hand, Iyer’s
formula and Feld’s rule are over-simplified and expected to be relatively inaccurate. The
Poulos and Davis method is an empirical relationship that relates purely the number of piles
to the ultimate group load. However, it can only be applied on perfect square pile group
configuration. Nevertheless, the soil properties are not considered in any of the empirical
formulae.

Table 2: Derivation of Empirical Formulae

Los Angeles
Converse-
Group Iyer’s
Properties Labarre Feld’s Rule
Action Formula
Formula
Formula
Pile Spacing √ √ √ X
Pile Diameter √ √ √ X
Pile Rows/Columns √ √ X √
Soil Properties X X X X