PILE GROUPS

Group “efficiency”
Group capacity not always = (pile capacities)
RATIO of group to pile capacity = EFFICIENCY
Group Capacity Qag F
 
Sum individual Piles N Qs  Q p 
where: η = group efficiency factor
Qag = net allowable capacity of pile group
F = factor of safety
N = number of piles in group
Qp = net end bearing capacity of single pile
Qs =skin friction capacity of single pile
Converse-Labarre formula

 m  1n  n  1m 
  1  
 90mn 
  tan 1 ( D S )

Sayed and Bakeer (1992)

η‘ = geometric efficiency parameter,

Eg '
 1  (1   k )
 Q s
which can be computed using an
equation similar to Converse-Labarre

 Q  Q 
s p
giving values generally in the range of
0.6 to 2.5
K = group interaction factor (also to be
estimated); ranges from 0.4 to about
9.0
 Individual vs Block Failure Mode

S D

Individual Failure Mode Block Failure Mode

Typical pile-
group patterns:
(a) for isolated
pile caps; (b) for
foundation
walls.
 Group characteristics

• Common C-C spacing: 2.5 to 3.0 diameters

- close spacings in loose sand are efficient
- close spacings in clay are inefficient
- “Block Action” may determine Group capacity
• Converse-Labarre formula for group efficiency
usually do not give accurate result.
• From O’Neill (1983):
• in loose cohesionless soils, η > 1 and is highest at S/D
= 2. Increases with N.
• in dense cohesionless soils at normal spacings
• (2 < S/D < 4), η is slightly greater than 1 if the pile is
driven.
• in cohesive soils, η < 1. Cap in contact w/ ground
increases efficiency but large settlement is required.
 Block Action

4x4 pile group, dia. D, Block base, (3s + D)2,

spacing, s perimeter, 4(3s + D)L
 Design Guidelines
• Use engineering judgment - no good recipes
• Block failure not likely unless S/D<2
• In most cohesive soil, if S/D>2, eventual η ≅ 1.0 but
early values range from 0.4 to 0.8.
• In cohesionless soils, design for η between 1.0 and
1.25 if driven piling w/o predrilling. If predrilling or
jetting used, efficiency may drop below 1.0.
 Negative skin friction
• Occurs when
upper soils
consolidate,
perhaps due to
weight of fill.
 Methods to reduce downdrag

• Coat piles w/ bitumen (reducing adhesion)

• Use a large diameter predrill hole, reducing
lateral earth pressure (K)
• Use a pile tip larger than diameter of pile,
reducing K
• Preload site with fill prior to driving piling
 Calculations
• Adhesion rather than cohesion for sides
• Base resistance – is L/D  5?
• For design, adopt the smaller of Group Capacity and (pile
capacities)

NOTE: unlikely to need except for close

piles in saturated clays, s < 4d
 Worked Example

• Calculate the bearing capacity and group

efficiency of pile foundation installed in
uniform clay of bulk unit weight, g of 20kN/m 3
and undrained shear strength of Cu of
50kN/m2. The foundation consists of 25 piles
each 18 m long ,0.4 m in diameter and weight
60 kN. The weight of the pile cap is 600 kN and
founded 1 m below the ground level. The
adhesion factor a for the soil/pile interface has
a value of 0.8
 
                                                                    

                                               
SOLUTION
Example:
Compute the efficiency of the group of friction piles shown in the Fig. by
the Converse-Labarre equation recommendation. Take D = 400 mm and
spacing s = 1000 mm (both ways) and all cohesionless material in the pile
embedment zone.

Solutions
m  5, n  3
  tan 1 ( D S )  tan 1 400 1000  21.8
 m  1n  n  1m 
  1  
 90mn 
 5  13  3  15 
 1   21.8
 90 X 5 X 3 
 0.64
 Settlements

Are usually small:

• Slip should be included
• Pile elastic compression can dominate
• Refer: Poulos for settlement calculations

Caution: Block action of groups may stress far deeper

than any pile in the group
– greater settlements!
 Settlements of Blocks

Stress
bowls

Compressible soil layer

DESIGN OF PILE GROUP
 Laterally Loaded Deep Fnds

• Laterally loaded vertical piles

– Deep foundations must also commonly support
lateral loads in addition to axial loads.
– Sources include:
• Wind loads
• Impacts of waves & ships on marine structures
• Lateral pressure of earth or water on walls
• Cable forces on electrical transmission towers
 From Karl Terzaghi, 1943

• “The problems of soil mechanics may be

divided into two principal groups – the
stability problems and the elasticity
problems.”
• Ultimate lateral load capacity is a stability
problem, load-deformation analysis is similar
to an elasticity problem.
 Ultimate Lateral Load
• Dependent on the diameter and length of the
shaft, the strength of the soil, and other
factors.
• Use Broms method (1964, 1965)
• Divide world into:
– cohesive & cohesionless
– free & fixed head
– 0, 1, or 2 plastic hinges
Cohesive Soil Diagrams
Cohesionless Soil
Diagrams
Summary Instructions for Laterally Loaded Piles
by B. Broms
 Load-Deformation Method

• Due to the large lateral deflection required to

mobilize full lateral capacity, typical design requires a
load-deformation analysis to determine the lateral
load that corresponds to a certain allowable
deflection.
• Considers both the flexural stiffness of the
foundation and the lateral resistance from the soil.
• Main difficulty is accurate modeling of soil
resistance.
 p-y Method
• Can handle:
– any nonlinear load-deflection curve
– variations of the load-deflection curve w/ depth
– variations of the foundation stiffness (EI) w/ depth
– elastic-plastic flexural behavior of the foundation
– any defined head constraint
• Calibrated from full-scale load tests
• Reese (1984, 1986) are good references.
• Requires computer program
 COM624P

• COM624P -- Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis Program for the

Microcomputer, Version 2.0. Publication No. FHWASA-91-
048.
• Computer program C0M624P has been developed for
analyzing stresses and deflection of piles or drilled shafts
under lateral loads. The technology on which the program is
based is the widely used p-y curve method. The program
solves the equations giving pile deflection, rotation, bending
moment, and shear by using iterative procedures because of
the nonlinear response of the soil.
 p-y Method: Chart solutions

• Evans & Duncan (1982) developed chart solutions

from p-y computer runs.
• Advantages:
– no computer required
– can be used to check computer output
– can get load vs max moment and deflection directly
 Sign convention and units for COM624P

The user can specify SI units as kN

and m or any other F and L units for
that matter but consistent.
 Preparation of inputs
1. Decide which units are used for force and length.
2. Decide into up what increment the pile to be divided (300 max allowed.
3. Decide whether p-y curve will be input or generated internally. For input, pick the
depth for each curve.
4. If p-y is to be generated internally, divide the soil profile into from one to nine
layers; decide which of the following p-y criteria will be used for each layer.
5. Select the length of the pile, Ep; the x-coordinate at the
ground surface (x = 0 @ pile top).
6. Divide the pile into from 1 to 10 segments with uniform
cross sections. For each segment, tabulate the x-coordinates
of the top of the segment, the dia of the segment, Ip and Ap.
7. If there distributed lateral loads on the pile specify their
locations.
8. Tabulate upto 10 points on a plot of effective unit weight of
soil vesus depth.
9. Tabulate upto 10 points on a plot of c,  and 50 vs x.
(skip step 8 & 9, if no p-y generated internally).
10. Determine the loads to be applied on the top of the pile.
 Selecting boundary conditions at the pile head

• 4 case are implemented into the program:

– Pile head is free to rotate (KBC = 1).
– Pile head is fixed against rotation (KBC = 2)
– Pile head is restrained against rotation (KBC = 3)
– Pile head deflection is restrained against lateral movement
(KBC = 4).
 Pile head is free to rotate (KBC = 1)

• The lateral load (Pt), the bending moment (Mt)

and the axial force (Px) at the top of the pile
are known.
• No rotational restrain is provided by the super
structure – rotation depends on flexural
rigidity of the pile.
• E.g. pile used to support overhead sign.
 Pile head is fixed against rotation (KBC = 2)
• Pile head is frequently embedded into a
monolithic reinforced-concrete cap.
• For such a case, the pile-head connection is
defined as completely fixed and the rotation
of the pile head within the monolithic
concrete cap is assumed to be 0 (mostly, St =
0, if any should be given in radians).
• Inputs in this case: Pt, St,Px.
 Pile head is restrained against rotation (KBC = 3)

• Connection of pile head with the supper

structure as steel frame may not always be
perfectly rigid.
• If the magnitude of the restraint can be
estimated and expressed as a function Mt/St,
the elastic restrained condition can be
selected.
• Inputs in this case: Pt, Mt/St, Px.
 Pile head deflection is restrained against lateral movement
(KBC = 4)

• If the pile head deflection (yt), Mt and Px are

given, the used can use case 4 B.C.
• The deflection of the pile head can be
restrained in either direction. The reaction
force at the pile head (restrained point) will be
one of the outputs of the program.
• This B.C. can be applied to piles which support
a bridge abutment that has 0 or very small
allowable movement.
 Group Effects
• Complexities arise:
– load distribution amongst piles in group
– differences between group effect and single pile
• O’Neill (1983) has identified an important characteristic: pile-
soil-pile interaction (PSPI).
• Larger interaction in closely spaced piles.
• Lateral deflection of pile group is greater than single isolated
pile subjected to proportional share of load.