Employment of the P-Multiplier in Pile-Group Analysis

Mohamed Ashour, M.ASCE1; and Hamed Ardalan2

Abstract: This paper discusses the variation of the P-multiplier (Pm ) used with the p-y curve to assess the response of a pile group under
lateral loads, which is a crucial topic for the design of bridge pile foundations. Pm is influenced by the site geotechnical conditions (i.e., soil
profile, type and properties), pile front and side spacings, and pile-group deflection. The presented study shows the needs to incorporate these
factors with the recommended sets of Pm to avoid any compromise or uncertainty when Pm is treated as a single (unique) value based only on
pile spacings. The current study addresses these influential elements using the strain wedge (SW) model technique, suggested Pm values, and
data collected from full-scale pile-group load tests. The experimental results show that Pm is not unique and must be assessed based on the site
geotechnical conditions along with the pile-row front and side spacings. Because the employed Pm values must be a function of these in-
fluential factors, additional full- and model-scale load tests with different pile spacings and soil types might be required. The paper also
emphasizes that using other techniques, such as the SW model, in addition to the P-multiplier could increase the confidence in the predicted
pile-group lateral response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000196. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Pile foundations; Pile groups; Lateral loads; Strain; Deflection.
Author keywords: Pile foundation; Pile group; Lateral load; P-multiplier; Strain wedge model.

Introduction
The design of a pile group under lateral loads is a very common
problem in foundation engineering. The most common method is
the use of the P-multiplier (Pm ) with the p-y curves, as employed in
a number of computer programs. There are other applicable meth-
ods, such as the group reduction factor method (Davison 1970) that
is based on pile-group tests in sand and recommends a linear re-
duction factor for the modulus of subgrade reaction [varies from
25% for the three-diameter (3D) pile spacing to 100% for the
8D pile spacing]. Ooi and Duncan (1994) developed a simplified
group amplification procedure for the design of groups of piles and
drilled shafts based on the theories of Poulos (1971) and Focht and
Koch (1973). The amplifications factors are multiplied by the sin-
gle pile values of deflection and maximum moment. Comparisons
with different methods used for pile-group analysis are presented
by Ooi and Duncan (1994).
The pioneering work of Brown et al. (1998) established the ap-
proach of the P-multiplier and its employment in the analysis of
pile groups as a constant reduction factor to reduce the p-value (soil
resistance, F=L) of the isolated pile p-y curve (Fig. 1). The values of
Pm are obtained from full-scale load tests of pile groups with
(mostly) three-pile diameter spacings in both directions and depend
on associated site geotechnical conditions. Pm values obtained from
full-scale load tests are empirically determined through a number of
trials to match the calculated pile-group deflection with the mea-
sured deflection. As a result, Pm is expected to change for the same
1 of Pm (close to 1), where overlapped stresses are very small at that
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35806 (corresponding author). E-mail:
ashour@eng.uah.edu
2
Graduate Student, Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35806.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 14, 2010; approved on
November 6, 2010; published online on August 15, 2011. Discussion per-
iod open until February 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 16, No. 5, September 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2011/5-612–
623/$25.00.
pile group if installed at different sites (i.e., different types or layer
thicknesses of the near-surface soils). This explains the significant
variations in the Pm values recommended by different researchers
and agencies (Fig. 2). At present, the use of the Pm technique in
pile-group design (with no data from a full-scale load test) relies
only on the ratio of the pile-row spacing in the loading direction
to the pile diameter (SL =D). However, the suggested P-multipliers
could be affected by ignoring the influence of (1) pile spacing in the
same row (ST ), which is normal to the loading direction; (2) soil
type; (3) soil layer thickness and properties (soil profile); (4) level
of lateral loading; and (5) pile arrangements. For the same type of
soil, the Pm values estimated based on the traditional p-y curves
could be substantially different from those obtained from site-
specific p-y curves.
In addition to the experimental data presented by Hughes et al.
(1978) for the horizontal stress distribution in the soil around lat-
erally loaded piles, Fig. 3 shows the distinctive variation of the hori-
zontal stress in the soil zone around the pile group based on the
finite-element analysis (Rao et al. 1998). The stress zone expands
horizontally as a function of pile arrangements and decreases with
depth (Fig. 3). The leading work by Brown et al. (1988) established
the concept of interaction among closely spaced piles in a pile
group (i.e., group action) based on the horizontal shear zone over-
lap among the neighboring passive soil wedges in the group.
The horizontal passive soil wedge overlap decreases with depth,
and the larger the pile-group deflection, the deeper and wider the
zone of stress overlapping. Furthermore, the horizontal overlap of
stresses among the piles at a certain depth starts with a large value
particular depth, and then decreases with the increase of group de-
flection to some extent. As observed in a number of pile-group tests
(Ilyas et al. 2004; Brown and Reese 1985; Rollins et al. 2005), the
pile-group interaction is very limited at the early stage of lateral
loading (small deflection) (i.e., overlapping stresses in the sur-
rounding soil are very small), and the individual piles in the group
respond similar to a single pile. Increasing the pile spacing from
3D to 5D would extend the stage of pile-group deflection with
Pavg: ¼ Psingle before the development of the group action and

612 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Stress Zone @ 10D Below
Stress Zone @ G.L.
G.L.

D 3D
2D

2D
3D
7D
@ G.L.
10D S 2D

Stress Zone @ G.L.

Stress Zone @ 10D Below

G.L.
4D
3D

D S

3D

4D

6D 1.5D

8D 2D
Fig. 1. Current practice of P-multiplier (Pm ) in pile-group analysis:
(a) concept of the P-multiplier applied to a pile in a group, as suggested
by Brown et al. (1988); (b) piles in a group subjected to the P-multiplier Fig. 3. Stress zones in soil at different depths around rigid piles in-line
and side-by-side in pile groups (Rao et al. 1998, ASCE)

the degradation of Pm values (Ilyas et al. 2004). Once pile interac-
tion and stress overlapping with front and side piles occurs, Pm de-
velops and varies rapidly, especially in close-spaced pile groups.
However, the pile interaction could develop with the back rows ear-
lier and faster than the front row, which is realistic and agrees with
the test results presented by Rollins et al. (2005).
Because the actual depth of the zone of interaction among the
piles in a group (i.e., soil stress overlap) is unknown and increases
1.2
1
0.8
P-multiplier
with the progress of lateral loads, current practice applies Pm as a
single value along the whole length of the pile (Fig. 1). Conse-
quently, the value of the Pm suggested for the same pile group based
on pile spacings may change in response to the change of the
pile length to obtain a good agreement with the measured data
(Rao et al. 1998).
Currently, Pm is utilized as a function of pile-row spacing in
the loading direction, SL [AASHTO 2007; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) 1993]. An interpolation between suggested
Pm values should be conducted to determine Pm for other pile spac-
ings, as is the case in AASHTO (2007), which provides Pm for only
3D and 5D pile-row spacings. Such suggestion may not apply to
one-row pile-group analysis loaded in the longitudinal direction
(side by side) where no pile-row spacings exist. Moreover, the
Pm value recommended for the side-by-side pile group must be ad-
justed when the one-row pile group is loaded in-line (Fig. 4). As
observed in experimental results, Gandhi and Selvam (1997) ad-

dressed the difference in pile-group lateral response that resulted

0.6
Loading Direction
from changing the direction of lateral loads on the pile group from
longitudinal to transverse, which requires different values of Pm .
Leading Row
SL Rollins et al. (2003, 2005) presented two sets of Pm based on
0.4 Trailing Row
full-scale load tests in clay and sand soils, respectively. The data
SL
ST ST
Trailing Row
shown in Fig. 2 reflect the effect of the soil type (in the dominant
Reese et al. (1996) near-surface soil layers) on the Pm values utilized with the same pile
0.2 AASHTO (2007)
Rollins et al. (2003), Clay AASHTO (2000) group and the need to perform full-scale load tests at the site in
Rollins et al. (2005), Sand
US Army (1993) question to assess the appropriate Pm values for that particular site.
WSDOT (2000)
0
The topic of this study coincides with the Brown et al. (1988) em-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 phasis on the need to establish a methodology for predicting the
Pile Spacing / Pile Diameter (SL/D) variation of Pm with soil properties, pile stiffness and spacing,
and depth. This indicates the need for more full- and model-scale
Fig. 2. P-multiplier versus pile spacing for a front row of pile group
load test data to consider these factors in the suggested values of
from different sources
Pm . The full- and model-scale load tests conducted by Rollins,

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 613

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 The SW model calculates the ever-changing geometry of the
mobilized passive wedge of soil in front of the pile [Figs. 5(a)
and 5(d)] that varies according to the associated level of loading
and becomes deeper and wider (i.e., a larger fanning angle) with
Po increasing lateral loads and deflections. Compared with the elastic
theory [Fig. 5(c)], the stress distribution at a specific depth extends
Longitudinal Loading horizontally in a uniform fashion along the face of the mobilized
(Side-by-Side)
passive soil wedge. Therefore, no pile interaction is considered in
the SW model at a certain depth (i.e., Pm at that depth ¼ 1) before
Po the stresses in the surrounding soil, caused by neighboring piles,
start to overlap [Figs. 5(b) and 5(c)]. Such a pile interaction mecha-
nism is consistent with the results obtained from a number for
Transverse Loading pile-group tests (Ilyas et al. 2004; Brown and Reese 1985; Rollins
(In-line) et al. 2005) that exhibit no pile-group interaction at low levels of
loading. (i.e., small deflections). This characterization allows the
Fig. 4. Pile-group arrangement evaluation of the interaction among the neighboring piles in the
pile group at different depths and under increasing pile-head deflec-
Brown, McVay and their coworkers have significant contributions tion with no need for multipliers. In addition to the Pm technique,
to the improvement of the suggested Pm values. the SW model analysis can be used as an alternative method
The strain wedge (SW) model (Ashour et al. 2004) implements (AASHTO 2007) for the analysis of pile group to reduce the design
the interaction mechanism in the pile group. As shown in Fig. 5, the level of uncertainty.
passive soil wedges in front of the piles in the SW model develop as The interaction among the piles in a group decreases with depth
a function of the soil properties and the stress level in soil (i.e., pile [Fig. 5(d)], thus generating lower values of Pm near the ground sur-
deflection). This allows the assessment of the overlapping passive face (or pile head) and greater values at deeper points. Conse-
soil wedges of adjacent piles and the calculation of the additional quently, the values of Pm increase with depth in the same soil
stress-strain induced by pile interactions (Fig. 5). and become more complex in layered soils.

F1
C
φ
Soil element considered τ τ

∆σh
m
φm
∆σh

as if in a conventional
τ triaxial test
p Pile p
φm Pile
Real stressed zone

p Pile No shear stress because

these are principal stresses

Side shear (τ) that

influences the oval τ
∆σh

shape of the stressed zone φm φm

B p Pile
F1 Plane taken to simplify
analysis (i.e. F1’s cancel)
(a)

(b)

Pile Pile

Overlap of stresses based on elastic theory

(d) (c)

Fig. 5. Characterization of the pile-group interaction and shear stress zones in the SW model analysis: (a) isolated pile; (b) pile initial interference and
soil wedge overlap; (c) three-dimensional passive soil wedge overlaps in a pile group in uniform soil; (d) uniform stress overlap in the SW model

614 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Strain Wedge Model with Pile Group σd E Eg
The main concept associated with the SW model is that traditional
one-dimensional beam on elastic foundation (BEF) pile response

(∆σh)g
parameters can be characterized in terms of three-dimensional ∆σhf SL=1
soil-pile interaction behavior. The SW model is based on the

∆σh
stress-strain and strength behavior of the soil as assessed in the tri-
axial test [Fig. 5(a)] and soil effective stress analysis (Norris 1986; ε εg ε
Ashour et al. 1998). The geometry and the size of the passive
soil wedge vary according to the stress-strain level in the soil in Triaxial Test at σ3 (= σvo)
front of the pile and the level of lateral load at the pile head
[Figs. 5(b) and 5(d)]. The major principal stress-strain (Δσh
ε)
curve of the soil is determined at any depth (i.e., the ever-changing ϕm

Shear Stress
Young’s modulus, E ¼ SLΔσhf =ε). Based on the shape of the pas- ϕ (Pile in Group)
sive soil wedge and the pile properties (shape, stiffness, and head-
fixity), the modulus of subgrade reaction (E s ) (i.e., p-y curve) is ϕm
evaluated to create a full profile of E s values along the pile length (Isolated Pile)
at that particular step of lateral loading (Ashour and Norris 2000):

Δσh tan2 ð45 þ φm =2Þ
1 Horizontal Stress

SL ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Δσhf tan2 ð45 þ φ=2Þ
1 σvo
∆σh

   Kσvo
(∆σh)g
φ
Δσhf ¼ σ tan 45 þ
2
1 ðsandÞ ð2Þ

=

vo
2 σ3

Δσhf ¼ 2su ðclayÞ ð3Þ Fig. 6. Variation in soil stress-strain and Young’s modulus as result of
wedge overlap in a pile group
where SL = deviatoric stress level in soil; φ = full effective friction
angle; φm = mobilized effective friction angle; Su = undrained shear
strength; Δσhf = horizontal (deviatoric) stress change at failure; and deflects more under the same lateral load and the soil wedge gets
σ

vo = vertical effective stress. deeper. Figs. 5–7 describe the mechanism of the group action as it
As seen in Figs. 5(b) and 5(c), the piles (i.e., passive soil develops among neighboring piles and the associated reduction in
wedges) in the pile group interact horizontally in an amount that soil resistance. The induced εg and Eg (Fig. 6) are determined as
varies with depth. Therefore, the varying overlap of the wedges follows:
of neighboring piles in different sublayers over the depth of the
interference [Fig. 5(d)] and the associated increase in soil stress- ðεg Þi ¼ εi þ Δεi ð6Þ
strain can be determined as a function of the amount of overlap.
As pile lateral load increases, the wedges grow deeper and fan ðSLg Þi ðΔσhf Þi
ðE g Þi ¼ ð7Þ
out horizontally, thus causing a further change in overlap and group ðεg Þi
interference. The current average value of horizontal stress change
ðΔσh Þg and the associated stress level and strain (SLg and εg ) ac- The angles and dimensions of each passive wedge sublayer (φm ,
cumulated at the face of the passive wedge due to overlapping in a β m , and BC) are modified for the group effect according to the cal-
particular soil sublayer i (sand or clay) [Fig. 5(c)] are determined as culated value of SLg and εg . The new ðE s Þg of soil sublayer, i, is
follows: expressed as
ðΔσh Þg ¼ SLg Δσhf ð4Þ ðAg Þi Dðεg Þi ðE g Þi
½ðE s Þg i ¼ ð8Þ
δ i ðh
xi Þ
X
ðSLg Þi ¼ SLi ð1 þ Rj Þ1:5 ≤ 1 ð5Þ Over the depth of interference (stress overlapping) among the piles
and as shown in Fig. 7, ðEs Þg of the pile in question will be less than
where j = number of neighboring passive wedges in soil layer that
overlap the wedge of the pile in question; and R (less than 1) = ratio
between the length of the overlapped portion of the face of the pas-
p
sive wedge and the total length of the face of the passive wedge Isolated Pile
(BC) and derives from all neighboring piles on both sides and
in front of the pile in question [Fig. 5(b)]. SLg and εg in each soil Es Pile in a Group
sublayer due to passive wedge overlapping are determined for each
pile in the group. Here εg is ≥ ε of the isolated pile and is deter-
mined based on the stress-strain relationship (Δσh versus ε). Com-
pared to the isolated pile, Fig. 6 explains the increase of SL and ε to (Es)g
SLg and εg in each soil sublayer as a result of soil wedge overlap.
The increase of stress-strain in soil is accompanied by an increase
in φm (i.e., larger fanning angle of the wedge) and a reduction in E y
and E s of the soil sublayer at that depth (Figs. 6 and 7). Because of
Fig. 7. Reduction in E s of an isolated pile due to group action
the soil wedge overlapping and the loss in soil resistance, the pile

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 615

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
E s of the isolated pile. The new profile of ðE s Þg will be used to
analyze the pile as a BEF (Fig. 8). The parameter Ag of sublayer
i at depth x is a function of the pile and passive soil wedge geometry
(including the wedge depth, h), the shear stress (τ ) at the pile side–
soil interface, and the deviatoric stress change, ðΔσh Þg :
BC i S1 2τ i S2
ðAg Þi ¼ þ ð9Þ
D ½ðΔσh Þg i
where S1 and S2 = 0.75 and 0.5, respectively, for a circular pile
cross section, and equal 1.0 each for a square pile (Briaud et al.
1984). δ represents the soil shear strain (i.e., angle of deformation)
in soil sublayer i (δ ¼ γ=2) as derived from Mohr’s circle of strains
(Ashour et al. 1998). ν = Poisson’s ratio of soil:
ðεg Þi ð1 þ νÞ sin 2Θm
δi ¼ where Θm ¼ 45
φm =2
2
Detailed information on the derivation of these parameters is
provided by Ashour et al. (1998, 2004). The SW model analysis
can provide the varying values of Pm as an output, but no Pm is
needed to predict the pile-group response in the SW model ana-
lysis. The actual mobilized passive soil wedge in the uniform
soil develops progressively in a log-spiral pattern, which is trea-
ted in the SW model as an incremental/progressive planar
wedge (Rankin’s theory). The previous equations are applied
with each soil sublayer i to obtain the horizontal mobilized geom-
etry of the passive wedge [Fig. 5(a)] based on the current SLg and εg
in that sublayer. Therefore, a passive wedge with a nonplanar face
(broken lines) will develop. As presented by Ashour et al. (1998),
the existence of layered soils in the near-surface zone, which is a
common case, results in the development of a compound passive
wedge (i.e., a number of soil wedges).
The SW model classifies the piles in group into four types based
on pile position in the pile group (Fig. 9). As observed in several
pile-load tests, the lateral loads carried by side piles in the SW
model always exceed those carried by the inside piles. Because
the first and second trailing (back) rows in the pile group respond
in a similar or very close fashion, as observed in a number of pile-
load tests, the SW model analysis considers only one trailing (back)
row in addition to the leading row, although the model does have
Lateral Load (Ps) Lateral Load (Pg)
(Es)1 [(Es)g]1
(Es)2 [(Es)g]2
(Es)i
[(Es)g]i
(Es)i+1 [(Es)g]i+1
(Es)n [(Es)g]n
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Modulus of subgrade reaction profiles for an isolated pile and
individual pile in a pile group: (a) isolated pile; (b) individual pile in a
group
616 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011
Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Loading Direction
Type 3 Type 4 Type 3
Leading Row
SL Type 1
Type 1 Type 2
Trailing Row
SL Type 1 Type 2 Type 1
Trailing Row
ST ST
Fig. 9. Pile types in the SW model analysis based on pile positions in
the group
ð10Þ
the capability of considering two trailing pile rows, as seen in Fig. 5.
This reduces the calculation time.
Rollins et al. (2005) conducted a comparison study of measured
and SW-model-calculated pile response for full-scale load tests at
Treasure Island, California, (medium dense sand) considering the
pile locations in the pile group. A 3 × 3 pile group of 0.324-m
diameter steel pipe piles with pile wall thickness of 9.5 mm were
tested under lateral loads. The tested piles, with a maintained bend-
ing stiffness (EI) of approximately 28.6 (MN · m2 ), were driven
open-ended to a depth of 11.5 m below the excavated ground sur-
face. The comparison was performed based on the positions of the
piles in the pile group as described in the SW model analysis. As
shown in Fig. 10, Rollins et al. (2005) obtained a very good agree-
ment using the SW model analysis based on the soil properties
given in Table 1.
Effect of Soil Type on P m
The values of Pm obtained by several researchers and agencies from
full- and model-scale load tests strongly indicate the significant in-
fluence of the soil type on the values of Pm . Table 2 displays differ-
ent values of Pm for a 3 × 3 free-head pile group with 3D pile
spacings in both directions, which is installed into different types
of clay and sandy soils. Table 2 also shows the effect of the site
geotechnical conditions on the recommended Pm values through
different Pm values obtained from the same soil (clay or sand)
but based on clay stiffness or sand density. Ignoring the effect
of soil type and properties on the employed Pm could lead to a com-
promise that may result in unsafe or conservative design. Such a
significant factor influences the interaction among the piles in a
group (group action).
Fig. 11 exhibits the calculated values of Pm of the front (leading)
and back (trailing) pile rows of a 3 × 3 pile group. Here, the 3 × 3
pile group of 0.324-m diameter (D) piles and EI of the pile ¼
28:6 MN · m2 is installed at 3D center-to-center pile spacings in
the longitudinal and transverse directions. The pile group in ques-
tion is assumed to be embedded into four different soil profiles:
(1) soft to medium clay (Su ¼ 24–72 kPa); (2) medium-stiff clay
(Su ¼ 72–144 kPa); (3) loose sand of a 30° friction angle; and
(4) dense sand of a 40° friction angle. As shown in Fig. 11, the
Pm determined at 1.8 m depth varies with the pile deflection at
the same depth. Compared with the case of loose sand, 2 cm of
pile deflection at 1.8 m in dense sand will be accompanied by a
deeper zone of pile interaction (stress zone overlap) and larger
pile-head load. The mobilized effective friction angle (i.e., SL)
in the sand soil significantly contributes to the pile-side interference
 80 80

Measured Pile Type 1 Measured Pile Type 2

Computed Pile Type 1 -SWM Computed Pile Type 2 -SWM
60 60

Avg. Load (kN)

Avg. Load (kN)

40 40

20 20

Load Load

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

80 80
Measured Pile Type 3 Measured Pile Type 4
Computed Pile Type 3 -SWM Computed Pile Type 4 -SWM

60 60

Avg. Load (kN)

Avg. Load (kN)

40 40

20 20
Load Load

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 10. Lateral response of piles (by pile location) in a pile group using the SW model at the Treasure Island, California, test (Rollins et al. 2005,
ASCE)

Table 1. Soil Properties Employed in the Analysis of Treasure Island Test (mostly closely spaced pile groups of 3D), one might argue that
(Data from Rollins et al. 2005) the pile row side spacing effect is implicitly considered (embedded)
in the Pm values obtained from those tests. Nevertheless, changing
Soil layer Soil Unit weight, ε50 Φ
thickness (m) type
γ ðkN=m3 Þ (%) (degree) 
Su ðkN=mÞ2 the pile row side spacing would affect the overlap shear zone and
the induced stresses, as shown in Figs. 5(b) and 5(c).
0.5 Sand 19.5, 10 0.4 38 — Cox et al. (1984) presented the effect of the pile row side spac-
2.5 Sand 10.3 0.4 38 — ing on the group efficiency as monitored in a number of pile-group
1 Sand 10.3 0.5 36 — load tests to indicate the link between Pm and the pile side spacing.
2 Sand 10.3 0.8 33 — However, no Pm was developed to achieve the observed and sug-
1.5 Sand 10.3 0.7 34 — gested group efficiencies. The results presented by Cox et al. (1984)
1.75 Clay 9.5 1.0 0 20 prove the influence of the pile side spacing on the utilized Pm to
1 Sand 10.3 0.8 33 — satisfy the obtained group efficiency (Ge ).
1.7 Clay 9.5 1.0 0 20 The influence of the pile transverse spacing on group efficiency
and the value of Pm varies from one soil to another. The effect of the
pile transverse spacing on the group action and the Pm is almost
(Fig. 5), unlike in clay soil that is highly influenced by the pile front limited to 3D in soft clay and slightly expands with stiffer clay.
interference because of the smaller effective friction angle. Accord- The front interference among piles (in-line loading) influences
ing to the previous discussion on the decrease of the overlap shear the group efficiency more than the pile-side interference in clay
zone with depth, Pm in the same soil increases with depth to reach soils; this agrees with the experimental findings reported by
1.0 at the point where the wedge overlap diminishes. Cox et al. (1984) in soft clay. A similar pattern occurs with loose
and dense sands, for which the pile-side interference becomes more
Effect of Pile Row Side (Transverse, S T ) Spacing
influential in denser sands.
on P m
Table 3 shows the increase in the pile-group displacement stiff-
Very limited research has investigated the effect of the pile row side ness (K d ) in dense and loose sands. The 3 × 3 pile group maintains
spacing on group action. With most of full-scale pile-group load a constant pile-front spacing of 3D along with a pile side spacing
tests conducted on equal longitudinal and transverse spacings that varies from 2D to 6D. The piles and sands used in the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 617

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. Pm Values Assessed by Different Research from Full- and Model-Scale Pile-Group Load Tests
Pm
Test type Pile group Soil type 1st row 2nd row 3rd row Reference
Full scale 3×3 Soft clay (Su ¼ 20 kPa) 0.65 0.50 0.48 Ilyas et al. (2004)
Full scale 2×2 Soft clay (Su ¼ 20 kPa) 0.9 0.5 — Meimon et al. (1986)
Full scale 3×3 Med. stiff clay (Su ¼ 48 kPa) 0.6 0.4 0.4 Rollins et al. (1998)
Full scale 3×3 Stiff clay (Su ¼ 72 kPa), for deflections 30 and 51 mm, respectively 0.7 0.6 0.5 Brown et al. (1988)
Centrifuge 3×3 Loose sand (Dr ¼ 33%) 0.65 0.45 0.35 McVay et al. (1995)
Centrifuge 3×3 Med. dense sand (Dr ¼ 55%) 0.8 0.45 0.3 McVay et al. (1995)
Full scale 3×3 Med. dense sand (Dr ¼ 50%) 0.8 0.45 0.3 Rollins et al. (2005)
Full scale 3×3 Dense sand (Dr ¼ 90%) 0.8 0.4 0.3 Brown et al. (1988)
Full scale 4×4 Silty sand and cemented sand 0.8 0.7 0.3 Ruesta and Townsend (1997)

y/D y/D
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1 1
Longitudinal spacing = 3D Longitudinal spacing = 3D
Transverse spacing = 3D Transverse spacing = 3D
0.8 0.8
P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.8 m

P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.8 m

Lead Row Back Row
0.6 0.6

Loose Sand
0.4 0.4

Dense Sand
0.2 0.2 Loose Sand
Dense Sand
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Pile Deflection, y, cm Pile Deflection, y, cm

y/D y/D
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1 1
Longitudinal spacing = 3D Longitudinal spacing = 3D
Transverse spacing = 3D Transverse spacing = 3D
0.8
P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.8 m

P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.8 m

0.8
0.6

0.4
0.6

0.2
Lead Row Back Row
0.4 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Pile Deflection, y, cm Pile Deflection, y, cm

Fig. 11. Variation of Pm with soil type (sand and clay) in a 3 × 3 pile group at 1.8 m depth

Table 3. Pile-Group Displacement Stiffness (K d ) at 2.54 mm (0.1 in.) comparison presented in Table 3 have the same properties as those
Deflection used in the previous section. As presented in Table 3, the changes in
K d (kN=mm) for different pile side spacings the pile-group side spacing resulted in a significant increase of the
Soil type 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D pile-group displacement stiffness (K d ) up to 34% and 20% in dense
and loose sand, respectively.
Dense sand ðφ ¼ 40°Þ 103 114 128 135 138
Fig. 12 shows the effect of the pile row side spacing on the Pm
Loose sand ðφ ¼ 30°Þ 55 62 64 65 66
determined at 1.5 m below the ground surface (pile head) in loose

618 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 y/D y/D
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
1 1
φ = 40o φ = 40o
Longitudinal spacing = 3D Longitudinal spacing = 3D

P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.5 m

0.8

P-multiplier, P m, at 1.5 m
0.8
Lead Row Back Row
Load 0.6 Load
0.6 Transverse (Side) Spacing
3D Transverse (Side) Spacing
4D 0.4 3D
5D 4D
5D
0.4
0.2

0.2 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile Deflection, y, cm Pile Deflection, y, cm

y/D y/D
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
1 1
φ = 30o φ = 30o
Longitudinal spacing = 3D Longitudinal spacing = 3D
0.8

P-multiplier, P m, at 1.5 m
P-multiplier, Pm, at 1.5 m

0.8
Lead Row Back Row
Load 0.6 Load
Transverse (Side)Spacing
3D Transverse (Side)Spacing
4D 0.4 3D
5D 4D
0.6 5D

0.2

0.4 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pile Deflection, y, cm Pile Deflection, y, cm

Fig. 12. Effect of pile row side (transverse) spacing on Pm at 1.5 m depth

and medium-dense sands. The pile front spacing employed in lateral load (i.e., deflection) on the pile group is associated with
Fig. 12 remains constant at 3D center-to-center. As presented in the development of interaction among adjacent piles and the deg-
Fig. 12, Pm increases considerably in response to the increase of radation in Pm values. Once the horizontal stress in the overlap
the pile side spacing, especially with the leading pile row. In reality, shear zone of soil at that depth reaches its ultimate value (at larger
the pile spacing, level of deflection, and local geotechnical condi- deflection), the Pm sustains a constant value (flat curve). The values
tions govern the depth of interference among adjacent piles (i.e., the of Pm presented in Table 2 were back-calculated over a certain
horizontal shear zone of overlap). As seen in Fig. 12, a number of range of pile-group deflection, as indicated in related references.
the Pm curves maintained a constant value of 1.0 at small pile de- The constant value of Pm that is applied along the pile is not esti-
flection as an indication of no pile interference (soil sublayer over- mated based on the pile-group response (i.e., pile rows) at the early
lapping) at that depth and up to that level of pile deflection. stage of loading (small group deflection) when the group efficiency
Increasing the pile deflection is accompanied by a decrease in is close to 100% or when the group action starts to develop and
Pm as a result of soil wedge overlap at that depth. The deeper
degrades over a short range of deflection, especially with the
the soil sublayer in the dominant near-surface soil, the larger the
closely spaced pile groups, as seen in the results presented by
pile-head deflection before soil sublayer overlapping occurs.
Rollins et al. (1998, 2005). Also, the pile bending stiffness could
influence the rate of pile interactions and how Pm develops. Such an
P m Variation with the Pile-Group Level of Loading effect, which is not discussed in this paper, was addressed by
The level of interaction among adjacent piles in a group varies with Brown et al. (1988) and is considered in the SW model analysis.
the level of lateral loading. Such a behavior occurs during full-scale The shape of the passive wedge of soil [Fig. 5(a)] varies accord-
load tests when the individual piles in the group act as isolated piles ing to the associated level of loading and becomes deeper and wider
at lower levels of loads (especially with larger pile spacings) fol- (larger fanning angle) with the increase of lateral load and deflec-
lowed by a softer response (i.e., group action effect) with the in- tion. This characterization allows the evaluation of the interaction
crease of lateral loads. Fig. 12 of Pm at 1.5 m depth versus pile among neighboring piles in the pile group at different depths and
deflection exhibits no pile interaction (Pm ¼ 1) at that depth up under increasing pile-group deflection in the near-surface lay-
to a particular value of pile deflection. However, increasing the ered soils.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 619

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 4. Variation of Group Efficiency (Ge ) with Clay Type
Soft clay (Su ¼ 20 kPa)
Longitudinal loading Transverse loading
Pile ratio (L=D) Pg (kN) Ge Pg (kN)
10 16.7 0.98 11.1
20 26.8 0.94 18.2
30 44.1 0.97 32.8
Note: Pile-group lateral resistance is calculated at 25.4 mm (1.0 in.) cap deflection.
Effect of Pile Arrangement in the Group and Lateral
Load Direction
The laterally loaded pile-group analysis is a soil-pile interaction
problem that is governed by the soil and pile properties. Hence,
the direction of lateral load (i.e., the arrangement of piles) should
affect the response of the individual piles in the group. Such an
effect can be clearly observed with a one-row pile/shaft group
loaded first in the longitudinal direction (side-by-side) and then
in the transverse direction (in-line) (Fig. 4). Rao et al. (1996,
1998) experimentally showed the effect of pile arrangement on
pile-group resistance that proved the need for different values of
Pm according the pile arrangement in the group. This pattern of
pile-group behavior agrees with the results shown in Table 4 using
a 3 × 1 pile group of steel pipe piles (D ¼ 0:324 m and
EI ¼ 28:6 MN · m2 ) embedded in different types of soil. Currently,
there is no clear guidance on how to assume Pm for a one-row pile
group. With the pile-group interference mechanism described in
Fig. 5, the front and side interference among the piles in one-
row pile group can be determined. Reese et al. (2006) discussed
the group efficiency (reduction factor) for longitudinal and trans-
verse loading (side-by-side and line-by-line). However, no Pm was
developed to achieve the observed and suggested group efficien-
cies. The results presented by Reese et al. (2006) proves the sig-
nificant effect of the transverse (side) pile spacing on the utilized
Pm to satisfy the obtained group efficiency (Ge ). Table 4 presents
the variation in the group efficiency (i.e., employed Pm ) of the same
pile group installed in different soils. The group efficiency also
changes with the pile length and the Pm employed along the whole
pile (as implemented in current practice) and may change with
L=D. Table 4 shows the diversity of the calculated group efficiency
(i.e., Pm ) in the same soil that accompanies the variation of the pile
side spacing. Cox et al. (1984) presented experimentally group ef-
ficiency for longitudinal loading larger than that of the transverse
loading with pile spacings that range from 1:5D to 4D in soft clay.
Rao et al. (1998) presented different pile-group behavior in soft
clay and underlined the effect of pile length (L=D of short and long
piles) on group efficiency (i.e., Pm ). Despite the limited changes in
the group efficiency as a result of the pile length (L=D) variation, Ge
in Table 4 for the pile group under transverse (in-line) loading is
significantly less than the longitudinal loading in both types of clay.
Therefore, Pm in the same soil should account for the pile-group
arrangement.
Effect of Site Geotechnical Conditions
A number of case studies are presented to exhibit the capability of
the technique to assess the pile-group response with and without
Pm . Pm values employed in pile-group analysis using other com-
puter programs were obtained through a number of trials (runs with
different Pm values) to reach a reasonable agreement with measured
results. This is consistent with the need to conduct a full-scale
620 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011
Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Medium-stiff clay (Su ¼ 48 kPa)
Longitudinal loading Transverse loading
Ge Pg (kN) Ge Pg (kN) Ge
0.68 45.1 0.86 31.5 0.62
0.63 81.0 0.88 64.2 0.68
0.73 96.8 0.94 56.1 0.68
pile-group load test to assess appropriate Pm values at the site in
question. The SW model results presented in this study were ob-
tained from the computer program SWM6.2 (Ashour and Norris
2007). The current SW model deals with a rectangular matrix
for pile arrangement (no staggered distribution) with free- or
fixed-head pile conditions. The failure to achieve the appropriate
stability convergence with any of the four pile types in the SW
model leads to the drop of that load increment and moving to
the next one.
Chaiyi, Taiwan, Pile-Group Load Test in Sand/Clay
Layered Soil
The Chaiyi full-scale load test (Brown et al. 2001) was conducted
on 3 × 2 fixed-head bored piles, which had piles 1.5 m in diameter,
34.9 m in length, and 3D pile spacing center-to-center in both di-
rections. The bored pile initial bending stiffness (EI) was
6:8 GN · m2 . Because of the degradation in the pile’s EI value
as a result of concrete cracking, the nonlinear material modeling
of reinforced concrete adopted in the SW model analysis is utilized
(Ashour et al. 2001). The base of the 2-m-thick pile cap is located at
the ground surface. To obtain a good match with the measured pile-
group deflection (Fig. 13), Brown et al. (2001) suggested Pm values
of 0.5, 0.4, and 0.3 with the first (lead), second, and third pile rows,
respectively, with adjusted p-y curves. Table 5 presents the soil
properties used in both SW model and presented by Brown et al.
(2001). AASHTO (2007) provides general P-multipliers of 0.7,
0.5, and 0.35 for the same sequence and distribution of pile rows.
Therefore, the pile-group response calculated according to the Pm
values recommended by AASHTO will come out stiffer than the
measured results if the same adjusted p-y curves are used. Using
the traditional p-y curves would require a different set of Pm to
match the measured response.
Houston Pile-Group Load Test in Sand
Brown et al. (1988) conducted a full-scale lateral load test on a free-
head 3 × 3 pile group. The 3D center-to-center pile group was em-
bedded in approximately 3 m of dense to very dense uniform sand
overlying overconsolidated clay. The piles consisted of steel pipe
with an outside diameter of 0.275 m, a wall thickness of 9.3 mm,
a 13-m embedded length, and a bending stiffness (EI) of 1:9×
104 kN · m2 . The same soil properties suggested by Morrison
and Reese (1986) are used in the SW model analysis to obtain
the pile-group response presented in Fig. 14. Brown et al. (1988)
used Pm values of 0.8, 0.4, and 0.3 with the first (lead), second, and
third pile rows, respectively, as shown in Fig. 14. AASHTO rec-
ommends different P-multipliers of 0.7, 0.5, and 0.35 for the same
pile group based on the pile-row front spacing. Fig. 15 displays the
variation of Pm with pile deflection at a depth of 0.9 m below the
pile head for the leading and back rows, as determined from the SW
model. Pm decreases with increasing deflection at that depth until it
approximately levels.
 12000
4.5 m
3 x2 Pile Group

Pile Group Lateral Load, kN

8000

Fixed head
4000
Measured (Brown et al. 2001)
SW Model (No P-multipliers)
Loading Direction Suggeted from the Test
(a) (Pm = 0.5, 0.4, 0.3)
0
0 10 20 30 40
Group Deflection, Yg, mm
(b)

Fig. 13. Measured and computed pile-group response of the Chaiyi, Taiwan, load test: (a) six 1.5-m-diameter bored pile group (fixed head); (b) lateral
response of bored single pile and pile group

Table 5. Soil Properties Employed in the SW Model Analysis for the Chaiyi, Taiwan, Test (Data from Brown et al. 2001)
Soil layer thickness (m) Soil type Unit weight,
γ ðkN=m3 Þ ε50 (%)a φ (degree) Su ðkN=m2 Þa
3 Fine sandy silt (SM) 19 0.5 35 —
5 Silty fine medium dense (SM) 9.2 0.5 35 —
4 Silty clay (CL) 9.2 0.7 — 60
5 Silty fine sand (SM) 9.4 0.5 34 —
8 Clayey silt with medium dense sandy silt (ML=CL) 9.2 0.5 34 —
7 Silty clay with silty fine sand (CL) and (SM=CL) 9.2 0.5 — 115
11 Silty clay with silty fine sand (SM=CL) 9.2 0.5 — 121
a
The SW model uses ε50 for sands (Ashour et al. 1998).

100 1
Trailing Row
Average Load per Pile, Pave,kN

Leading Row
0.8
75
P-multiplier

0.6
P-multiplier at 0.9 m below pile head
50
0.4
Measured (Compression Stroke)
25 Measured (Tension Stroke)
SW Model
0.2
Pm = 0.8, 0.4, 0.3
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 25 50 75
Group Deflection, Yg , mm. Pile Deflection, y, mm

Fig. 14. Measured and computed pile-group response of the Houston Fig. 15. Variation of Pm at 0.9 m depth as calculated from the SW
load test model (Houston test)

Hong Kong Load Test in Sandy and Silty Sand Soils interpretation provided by Ooi et al. (2004) that addressed the
Ng et al. (2001) conducted a full-scale 2 × 1 shaft group load test in pile-cap rotation and the increase of the pile-cap-joint slope with
Hong Kong. The two 1.5-m diameter drilled reinforced concrete increasing loads (i.e., shaft deviation from fixed-head conditions).
shafts were installed at 6D center-to-center shaft spacing. The Based on blow counts of the standard penetration test (SPT-N) val-
21-m long drilled shafts were embedded in a 2-m-thick cap with ues, Ng et al. (2001) estimated a friction angle of 39° and effective
plan dimensions of 2:5 × 11:5 m and a base located at the ground unit weight of 11 kN=m3 .
surface. Such a cap thickness and shaft head embedment in the cap Fig. 16 depicts the shaft group analyzed using the SW model
cannot provide adequate restraint against the pile-head rotation to with (1) a constant EI ¼ 4 GN · m2 for the shaft’s cracked section
maintain full pile-head fixity, therefore, the group could be ana- (linear analysis) and (2) nonlinear analysis (Ashour et al. 2001) us-
lyzed as a free-head shaft group. This is in agreement with the ing degrading EI from the moment-curvature relationship. The

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 621

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 6000 layer. However, one test is not enough to support such behavior,
and additional full-scale load tests are needed.
Fig. 17 shows the response of the pile groups spaced at 3:7D and
Group Lateral Load, kN
5D in both directions using the SW model analysis and recom-
4000 mended Pm values. The Pm values estimated by using the Rollins
et al. (1998) recommendations provided reasonable agreement with
the measured pile-group response (0.71, 0.58, 0.58 and 0.9, 0.86,
0.86 for the 3:7D and 5D pile spacings, respectively) at larger de-
2000 flections. Considering the Huang et al. (2001) suggestion to ac-
count for the effect of pile installation, Ooi et al. (2004) used a
Measured (Ng et al. 2001) second set of Pm values 20% less than those recommended by
SW Model (Linear analysis)
SW Model (Non-linear analysis) Rollins et al. (1998). Unlike the first set of Pm that provided better
predictions at larger pile-head deflections, the second set of Pm
0
0 20 40 60 80 gave better results at lesser deflections. The adjustment of the
Group Deflection, Y g, mm p-y curves used in the group analysis apparently had a significant
impact on the results of the computations and the obtained instal-
Fig. 16. Measured and computed pile-group load-deflection curves of lation effect ratio (Huang et al. 2001)
the Hong Kong load test

Summary and Conclusions

1000
As shown by experimental and analytical data, Pm values can
vary widely with site geotechnical conditions, geometry of the pile
800 group, and loading scenario. The pile-group arrangement (in-line or
Group Lateral Load, kN

side-by-side), including the pile front and side spacings, has a

600
400
Measured (Kim and Brungraber 1976)
5D Spacing
3.7D Spacing
Pm = 0.9, 0.86, 0.86 (5D Spacing)
200
Pm = 0.71, 0.58, 0.58 (3.7D Spacing)
SW Model (5D Spacing)
SW Model (3.7D Spacing)
0
0 4 8 12
Group Deflection, Y g, mm
Fig. 17. Measured and computed pile-group load-deflection curves for
the Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, load tests
value of ε50 used in the SW model analysis is 0.0035. The value
of ε50 can be derived from drained triaxial test chart provided by
Norris (1986) and Ashour et al. (1998), or from the SWM6.2 de-
fault (internally calculated). The Pm suggested for both shafts is 1.0.
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Load Test in Clay Soil
Kim and Brungraber (1976) reported three full-scale lateral load
tests. Two tests were conducted on 3 × 2 pile groups of six
10BP42 steel H-piles. The piles in Groups I and II were spaced
equally in both direction at 3:7D and 5D center-to-center, respec-
tively. The fixed-head H-piles were 246 mm wide, 12.2 m long, and
had a 0.305 m pile-head embedment into a 1.22-m-thick pile cap
with a base at the ground surface. Average undrained shear strength
(Su ) of 96 kPa and ε50 of 0.005 were used in the analysis for the
hard silt clay at the test site (Ooi et al. 2004). The inadequate pile-
head embedment in the cap did not maintain the desired pile-head
fixity, and the pile-cap connection responded closer to free-head
conditions with increasing deflections. In fact, the effect of the
pile-head conditions on the pile group agrees with the SW model
results that demonstrate the pile-group response with free-head
piles as stiffer than those with fixed-head piles in clay. This prob-
ably resulted from the larger interaction among fixed-head piles
that could expedite the failure of surrounding clay in the upper soil
significant effect on the interaction of adjacent piles in the pile
group. Varying clay stiffness and sand density (i.e., soil type
and properties) could affect the Pm values and must be consi-
dered in the assessment of Pm . In addition, Pm is not constant along
the pile and varies with the group deflection according to the
pile spacings. The Pm values estimated based on the traditional
p-y curves could be substantially different from those assessed
based on site-specific p-y curves. The variation of the Pm
values has an impact on the calculated pile foundation stiffness
and pile-group efficiency, which degrades with increasing loads/
16 deflections. The mobilized three-dimensional modeling of soil-pile
interaction allows the characterization of the interference among
the piles in the group and the assessment of the associated
stresses/strains in soil and modulus of subgrade reaction with no
need for reduction factors. Therefore, the use of different tech-
niques for the analysis of a pile group could reduce the design level
of uncertainty.
References
AASHTO. (2000). Bridge design specifications, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2007). LRFD bridge design specifications, Section C.10.7.2.4,
Washington, DC.
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. (2000). “Modeling lateral soil-pile res-
ponse based on soil-pile interaction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
126(5), 420–428.
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. M. (2007). “Strain wedge model computer
program for piles and large diameter shafts with LRFD pro-
cedure.” Rep. Contract No. P498-07-803, Nevada DOT, Carson
City, NV.
Ashour, M., Norris, G. M., and Pilling, P. (1998). “Lateral loading of a pile
in layered soil using the strain wedge model.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 124(4), 303–315.
Ashour, M., Norris, G. M., and Shamsabadi, A. (2001). “Effect of the non-
linear behavior of pile material on the response of laterally loaded
piles.” 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri Univ. of Science and
Technology, Rolla, MO.
Ashour, M., Pilling, P., and Norris, G. M. (2004). “Lateral behavior of
pile group in layered soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(6),
580–592.

622 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011

Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Briaud, J. L., Smith, T., and Mayer, B. (1984). “Laterally loaded piles
and the pressuremeter: Comparison of existing methods.” Laterally
loaded deep foundations: Analysis and performance, ASTM, West
Conshohoken, PA, 97–111.
Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. (1988). “Lateral load behav-
ior of pile group in sand.” J. Geotech. Eng., 114(11), 1261–1276.
Brown, D. A., O’Neill, M. W., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H., and
Chakraborty, S. (2001). “Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile
groups.” Rep. 461, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Washington, DC.
Brown, D. A., and Reese, L. C. (1985). “Behavior of a large-scale
pile group subjected to cyclic lateral loading.” U.S. Dept. of Interior
and Federal Highway Administration, Reston, VA, and Washington,
DC.
Cox, W. R., Reese, L. C., and Crubbs, B. S. (1984). “Lateral load tests of
25.4 mm diameter piles in very soft clay in side-by-side and in-line
groups.” Laterally loaded deep foundations: Analysis and performance,
ASTM, West Conshohoken, PA, 122–139.
Davison, M. T. (1970). “Lateral load capacity of piles.” Transportation
Research Record 333, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 104–112.
Focht, J. A., and Koch, K. J. (1973). “Rational analysis of the lateral per-
formance of offshore pile groups.” Proc., 5th Offshore Technology
Conf., Vol. 2, Richardson, TX, 701–708.
Gandhi, S. R., and Selvam, G. J. (1997). “Group effect on driven
piles under lateral load.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(8),
702–709.
Huang, A. B., Hsueh, C. K., O’Neill, M. W., Chern, S., and Chen, C.
(2001). “Effects of construction on laterally loaded pile groups.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(5), 385–397.
Hughes, J. M. O., Goldsmith, P. R., and Fendall, H. D. W. (1978). “The
behavior of piles to lateral loads.” Rep. No. 178, Civil Engineering
Dept., Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Illyas, T., Leung, C. F., Chow, Y. K., and Budi, S. S. (2004). “Centrifuge
model study of laterally loaded pile groups in clay.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 130(3), 274–283.
Kim, J. B., and Brungraber, R. J. (1976). “Full-scale lateral load tests of pile
groups.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 102(1), 87–105.
McVay, M., Casper, R., and Shang, T. I. (1995). “Lateral response of
three-row groups in loose to dense sands at 3D and 5D pile spacing.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 121(5), 436–441.
Meimon, Y., Baguelin, F., and Jezequel, J. F. (1986). “Pile group behavior
under long term lateral monotonic and cyclic loading.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Institute Francais Du
Petrole, Nantes, France, 286–302.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2011 / 623
Downloaded 15 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.27. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. (1986). “Lateral-load test of a full-scale pile
group in sand.” U.S. Dept. of Interior and Federal Highway
Administration, Reston, VA, and Washington, DC.
Ng, C. W. W., Zhang, L., and Nip, D. C. N. (2001). “Response of laboratory
loaded large-diameter bored pile groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 127(8), 658–669.
Norris, G. M. (1986). “Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile analy-
sis.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling,
Institute Francais Du Petrole, Nantes, France, 361–386.
Ooi, P. S. K., Chang, B. K. F., and Wang, S. (2004). “Simplified lateral
analyses of fixed head piles and pile groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 130(11), 1140–1151.
Ooi, P. S. K., and Duncan, J. M. (1994). “Lateral load analysis of groups
of piles and drilled shafts.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 120(6),
1034–1050.
Poulos, H. G. (1971). “Behavior of laterally loaded piles: II—Pile groups.”
J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97(5), 733–751.
Rao, S. N., Ramakrishna, V. G., and Raju, G. B. (1996). “Behavior of pile-
supported dolphins in marine clay under lateral loading.” J. Geotech.
Eng., 122(8), 607–612.
Rao, S. N., Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T., and Rao, M. B. (1998). “Influence
of rigidity on laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 124(6), 542–549.
Reese, L. C., Isenhower, W. M., and Wang, S. T. (2006). Shallow and deep
foundations, Wiley, New York, 441–536.
Reese, L. C., Wang, S. T., Arrellaga, J. A., and Hendrix, J. (1996). “A pro-
gram for the analysis of a group of piles subjected to axial and lateral
loading.” GROUP Version 4.0, ENSOFT, Inc., Austin, TX.
Rollins, K. M., Johnson, S. R., Petersen, K. T., and Weaver, T. J. (2003).
“Static and dynamic lateral load behavior of pile groups based on
full-scale testing.” 3rd Int. Conf. on Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Int. Society for Offshore and Polar Engineering, Cupertino, CA, 8.
Rollins, K. M., Lane, J. D., and Gerber, T. M. (2005). “Measured and com-
puted lateral response of a pile group in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 131(1), 103–114.
Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., and Weaver, T. J. (1998). “Lateral load
behavior of full-scale pile group in clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 124(6), 468–478.
Ruesta, P. F., and Townsend, F. C. (1997). “Evaluation of laterally loaded
pile group at Roosevelt bridge.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(12),
1153–1161.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1993). “Design of pile founda-
tions.” Technical engineering and design guides No. 1, Washington,
DC.