UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI1LJBRARY

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS

OF LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILES AND PILE GROUPS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISON OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'/ IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
MAY 2003

By
Brian K.F. Chang

Thesis Committee:
Phillip Ooi, Chairperson
Horst Brandes
Peter Nicholson

ACKNOVVLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Phillip Ooi,

for his supervision and help in all aspects of this project. I also would like to
acknowledge Geolabs, Inc. for providing the computer software, GROUP, which
was used in this study.
I would also like to acknowledge Drs. Horst Brandes and Peter Nicholson
for reviewing this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Patricia, and son, Timothy, for giving
me their support, encouragement and patience throughout my study.

iii

ABSTRACT

Current methods for designing pile groups for lateral loading require a
computer program or extensive manual computations. This research presents a
spreadsheet- or calculator-amenable approach for estimating lateral deflections
and maximum moments in single piles and pile groups. The approach for single
piles is an extension of the characteristic load method, used for predicting
deflections and moments when the pile top is at the ground surface.

The

proposed method applies to embedded fixed-head piles, which represents most

practical situations. The resulting lateral deflections and moments are less due
to the increased embedment.

A simplified procedure to estimate group

deflections and moments was also developed. Termed the Group Amplification
Method (GAM), group amplification factors are introduced to amplify the single
pile deflection and bending moment to reflect group effects.

This approach

provides good agreement with other generally accepted analytical tools and with
values measured in load tests on groups of fixed-head piles.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement.

iii

Abstract.

iv

L~~~b~

~i

LISt 0 f F'Igures

...
VIII

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Analysis of Single Piles Under Lateral Load

2.1.1. Evans and Duncan's Procedure

2.1.2. Characteristic Load Method (CLM)

2.1.3. Brettmann and Duncan's Equations

2.1.4. LPILE Plus 3.0 for Windows

2.1.5. Modified Characteristic Load Method

2.2 Analysis of Pile Groups Under Lateral Load

11

2.2.1. The Concept of p-multipliers

11

2.2.2. Brown and Bollman's Method

16

2.2.3. Mokwa and Duncan's Group Equivalent Pile Procedure

18

2.2.4. GROUP 4.0 for Windows and FBPier

19

2.3 Limitations of the Procedures Described

20

Chapter 3: Development of Simplified Procedure for Analysis of Laterally Loaded

21

Single Piles and Pile Groups

v

3.1 Parametric Study for Single Piles in Cohesive Soils

3.1.1. Modified Characteristic Load for Single Piles in Cohesive Soils

21
24

3.1.2. Modified Characteristic Moment for Single Piles in Cohesive

Soils

28

3.1.3. Steps for the Modified Characteristic Load Method

30

3.2 Parametric Study for Pile Groups in Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils .. 32
3.2.1. Group Amplification Method

32

3.2.2. Steps for Simplified Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups

44

Chapter 4: Comparison of Predicted with Measured Values from Load Tests

.46

4.1 Case Study 1 - Pile Group in Cohesive Soils

46

4.2 Case Study 2 - Pile Group in Cohesive Soils

50

4.3 Case Study 3 - Pile Group in Cohesionless Soils

53

Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions

56

References

58

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. Parameters for Equations 2.1 and 2.2 (after Evans and Duncan, 1982)

2. Constants for equations by Brettmann and Duncan (1996)

3. Summary of p-multipliers from full scale load tests and centrifuge tests on pile
groups

13

4. Summary of pile types and properties used in this study

22

5. p-y parameters for piles in cohesive soils

23

6. p-multipliers for various pile spacings, pile locations, and soil types

36

7. Configuration, spacing, and sum of p-multipliers for pile groups analyzed

38

8. p-y parameters for piles in cohesionless soils

9. Parameters for group amplification factors

VB

.40
41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1. Dimensionless load-deflection curves for fixed head piles in sand with zero
embedment.

2. Dimensionless load-moment curves for fixed head piles in sand with zero
embedment.

3. Dimensionless load-deflection curves for fixed head piles in clay with zero
embedment.

4. Dimensionless load-moment curves for fixed head piles in clay with zero
embedment.

5. p-mUltiplier concept (Brown et aI., 1988)

12

6. p-multiplier as a function of pile spacing for leading and first trailing row (after
Mokwa and Duncan, 2001)
14
7. p-multiplier as a function of pile spacing for the second and third trailing rows
(after Mokwa and Duncan, 2001)
15
8. Brown and Bollman's (1993) method (after Hannigan et aI., 1997)

17

9. Dimensionless load-deflection LPILE Plus data points for piles in cohesive

soils with zero embedment
25
10. Dimensionless load-deflection LPILE Plus data points for piles embedded 2,
4, 6 and 10ft in cohesive soils
25
11. Modified dimensionless load-deflection LPILE Plus data points for piles
embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 ft in cohesive soils

27

12. Dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data points for piles in cohesive soils
with zero embedment
27
13. Dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data points for piles embedded 2, 4,
6 and 10ft in cohesive soils
29
14. Modified dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data points for piles
embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 ft in cohesive soils

viii

29

15. Comparison of load versus deflection using GEP and GROUP for a R5C5S3
group of 48-inch-diameter drilJed shafts with zero embedment in soft clay with
Su=0.5ksf
34
16. Comparison of load versus deflection using GEP and GROUP for R3C2S3
group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts embedded 4 feet in loose sand with III
=30
34
17. Comparison of load versus maximum moment using GEP and GROUP for a
R5C5S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts with zero embedment in soft
clay with Su=0.5ksf..
35
18. Comparison of load versus maximum moment using GEP and GROUP for a
R3C2S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts embedded 4 feet in loose
sand with III =30
35
19. Pile Configuration in a R3C2S4 pile group

39

20. Comparison of group deflections using GAM versus GEP for piles in cohesive
~~

............................................................................................................. ~

21. Comparison of group moment using GAM versus GEP for piles in cohesive
wi~

22. Comparison of group deflections using GAM versus GEP for piles in
cohesion less soils

43

23. Comparison of group moment using GAM versus GEP for piles in
cohesion less soils

43

24. Pile test layout for case study 1 (a) plan view, (b) and cross-section (Rollins
and Sparks, 2002)
48
25. Comparison of measured versus predicted deflections using GAM for case
study 1
48
26. Comparison of predicted versus measured bending moments for the Salt
Lake City load test

50

27. Pile test layout for case study 2 (Kim and Brungraber, 1976)

51

28. Comparison of measured versus predicted deflections using GAM for case
study 2
51
29. Comparison of predicted versus measured bending moment for Bucknell
University load test
ix

53

30. Pile test layout for case study 3 (Huang et aI., 2001)

55

31. Comparison of measured versus predicted deflections using GAM for case
study 3
55

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Most structures are subject to latera/loads as a result of wind, earthquake,

impact, waves and lateral earth pressure. If these structures are supported on
deep foundations, the foundations have to be designed for lateral loads.
Laterally loaded single piles and pile groups should be designed to be safe
against geotechnical failure, structural failure and excessive deflections.

In

general, geotechnical failure seldom governs the design for laterally loaded piles
that are long with respect to its diameter or width. Therefore, this study will focus
on the analyses of laterally loaded piles for deflections and structural failure.
This report describes the research on developing a simplified method to
analyze fixed-head single piles and pile groups subjected to lateral loads.

In

Chapter 2, a literature review of current state-of-the-art methods for lateral load

analyses of single piles and pile groups is presented.

A description of the

simplified procedures developed in this study to analyze a single and a group of

fixed head piles is presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, three full-scale lateral
load tests on groups of fixed-head piles are evaluated where the predicted
responses are compared with measured results.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Articles providing the current state-of-the-art for analyzing laterally loaded

piles and pile groups are summarized based on a literature review. Throughout
this section, the term "pile" includes both driven piles and drilled shafts.

2.1

Analysis of Single Piles Under Lateral Load

2.1.1 Evans and Duncan's Procedure

Evans and Duncan (1982) developed a simplified procedure to predict

non-linear behavior of laterally loaded single piles under static loading conditions.
In this approach, dimensionless load-deflection and load-moment curves were
developed for piles in cohesive and cohesionless soils.
available for free- and fixed-head piles.

Separate plots were

However, only fixed head piles are

considered since more often than not, piles are used in groups that are
connected via a cap. These dimensionless plots are shown in Figures 1 through
4, where P is the applied lateral load, M is the maximum moment induced in the
pile due to the lateral load, y is the groundline lateral deflection of the pile and D
is the pile width or diameter. Values of load, moment, and deflection are made
dimensionless by normalizing with a characteristic load, Pc, a characteristic

Evans and Duncan's range (1982)

Brettmann and Duncan's equation (1996)

0.014
0.012
j

0.01
" 0.008
a0.006

.........-......

c:

0.004
0.002

...,...., ~

,
o

-- ~

A-~
9
~

.;f/'

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

ylD
Figure 1. Dimensionless load-deflection curves
for fixed head piles in sand with zero embedment

Evans and Duncan's range (1982)--]

i
I

- - - -Brettmann and Duncan's equationJ.1~96)

0.014
0.012
0.01

-"

0.008
aa- 0.006

---------+------1

0.004
0.002
0
0

0,002

0.004

0.006

0.008

MIMe
Figure 2. Dimensionless load-moment curves
for fixed head piles in sand with zero embedment

0.01

Evans and Duncan's range (1982)

Brettmann and Duncan's equation (1996)
0.06

i
0.05

-,

-----

0.04
<J

a- 0.03

c:

002

~.

0.01

0.00

"'"

~-:-

.-

,
-I.

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

lo~~~eflectlon

curves
Figure 3. Dimensionless
for fixed head piles in clay with zero embedment

Evans and Duncan's range (1982)

- - - .Brettmann and Duncan's equation (1996)
0.06
0.05
0.04

a- 0.03
a0.02
0.01
0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

MIMe
Figure 4. Dimensionless load-moment curves
for fixed head piles in clay with zero embedment

0.025

moment, Me, and the pile width or diameter, 0, respectively.

Pc and Me are

expressed as follows:

(2.1 )

(2.2) .

where

o =pile width or diameter (L)

E =Young's modulus of the pile (FL-2 )
R1 = moment of inertia ratio (dimensionless)
I

RJ =I,

(2.3)

I = moment of inertia of the pile (L4)

I,

=moment of inertia of a solid circular cross section of diameter 0 (L4)

nO'
1=,
64

(2.4)

The remaining parameters for the equations are summarized in Table 1.

The behavior of the pile under lateral load is governed by the soil within the top
eight pile diameters. The moist and buoyant unit weights of the soil should be
used above and below the water table, respectively.

The Evans and Duncan

(1982) procedure only applies to piles where the top is at the ground surface.
5

Table 1. Parameters for Equations 2.1 and 2.2 (after Evans and Duncan, 1982)
Parameters

Sands

Clay

Pc

Mc

Pc

Mc

F= dimensionless
parameter related to
stress-strain behavior of
the soil

1 for plastic
clay

1 for plastic
clay

1.54 for
brittle clay

1.343 for
brittle clay

m= passive pressure
exponent

0.57

0.40

0.683

0.46

n= strain exponent

-0.22

-0.15

-0.22

-0.15

up= representative
passive pressure of soil
(FL-2)

up = 2CP4>yD tan2(45+~/2)

Up = Cpc Su

Cp~ = dimensionless
modifying factor to
account for threedimensional effect of the
passive wedge in front of
the pile = ~/1 0

Cpc = dimensionless
modifying factor to
account for threedimensional effect of the
passive wedge in front of
the pile and found to be
4.2 for cohesive soils in
their study

$=internal friction angle

of the soil (degrees)
y= unit weight of soil
E50= strain at which 50%
of the strength of the soil
is mobilized

E50= 0.002 for sands

E50 ranges from 0.004 to

0.020 for plastic clays

2.1.2 Characteristic load Method (ClM)

The characteristic load method (Duncan et aI., 1994) is a modification of

the Evans and Duncan procedure, where the equations for Pc and Me are
simplified as shown in Equations (2.5) through (2.8):

57

For sand

P = 1.57D2fER {Y'Dlj)'tan (45" + lj)/2)JO.

c
~
I
ER

(2.5)

For sand

M =1.33D3(ER {Y'Dlj)'tan (45' +lj)/2)jO.40

c
I
ER

(2.6)

For clay

For clay

P = 7.34D 2 (ER
c

{~jO.68
ER

M = 3.860 3(ER
c

(2.7)

{~j0.46
ER

(2.8)

The parameters have been defined in Section 2.1.1.

2.1.3 Brettmann and Duncan's Equations

Brettmann and Duncan (1996) developed exponential equations for the

dimensionless nonlinear relationships between load-displacement and loadmoment as shown in Figures 1 through 4. The equations are as follows:
7

(y/D) = a (PIP db

(MIMe)

(2.9)

=c (PIPO)d

(2.10)

where a, b, c and d are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Constants for Equations by Brettmann and Duncan (1996)
Constant

Fixed-Head Piles in Sand

Fixed-Head Piles in Clay

28.8

14.0

1.5

1.846

2.64

0.78

1.3

1.249

2.1.4 LPILE Plus 3.0 for Windows

LPILE Plus 3.0 for Windows (Reese and Wang, 1997) is commercial
software that can be used to analyze the behavior of a single pile under lateral
load.

The program uses a finite difference technique to estimate deflection,

shear, bending moment, and soil reaction varying with depth. Soil behavior is
modeled using a series of discrete non-linear springs. The stiffnesses of these
springs are characterized using p-y curves, which can be user-defined or
internally

generated

by

the

computer

program

following

published

recommendations for various types of soils. These p-y curves were developed
based on results of full-scale lateral load tests on piles in a variety of soils and
8

loading conditions. A wide variation of pile-head boundary conditions may be

selected in the program. The properties of the pile can also vary as a function of
depth.

The program also has the capability of considering the non-linear

behavior of concrete piles as a result of cracking.

2.1.5 Modified Characteristic Load Method

Wang (2000) extended the Evans and Duncan (1982) procedure to

estimate deflection and maximum bending moment of fixed head piles embedded
below ground surface. Wang's work applies to piles embedded in cohesionless
soils only.

Termed the Modified Characteristic Load Method (MCLM),

modification factors Cy and Cm that account for the effect of pile embedment are
introduced as shown in Equations (2.11) through (2.14).

(2.11 )
(2.12)

Me' = Me Cm
01]0.085 0-1.05

=
y

Z -( L').
1+
10D y

(2.13)

01]0.03 0-0.65

Z ( L').
C = 1+m
20 y
[

(2.14)

Wang also proposed modifying Brettmann and Duncan's equations as

follows:

(2.15)

(2.16)

where Pe ' = modified characteristic load

Me' = modified characteristic moment

Z

=embedment depth (l)

y = total unit weight of soil (Fl-3 )

y'

=effective unit weight of soil (Fl-3)

= buoyant unit weight for submerged soil

=moist unit weight if the ground water table is not within the top 8
pile diameters.

As part of this study. Wang's procedure has been expanded to include

laterally loaded single piles in cohesive soils.

10

2.2

Analysis of Pile Groups Under Lateral Load

Pile groups can be divided into two categories:

1.

widely spaced piles which interact only through the pile cap
connection. In these piles, the group response can be estimated by
summing the individual pile responses.

2.

closely spaced piles are defined as those in which the response of an

individual pile is influenced through the adjacent soil by the response
of other nearby piles.

This "shadowing" effect is commonly termed

pile-soii-pile interaction.

This study deals primarily with closely spaced piles, which involves the
majority of pile groups in practice.

2.2.1 The Concept of p-multipliers

For a group of closely-spaced piles, pile-soil-pile interaction can be taken

into account by introducing reduction factors to the soil reaction (p) portion of the
p-y curves for single piles as shown in Figure 5 (Brown et aI., 1988). These pmultipliers are typically less than or equal to one.

They have been

experimentally derived either from full-scale load tests or from tests in a

11

centrifuge. Reducing the p-value on the p-y curve results in a reduction of the
ultimate soil resistance leading to a "softening" of the group response. According
to Brown et al. (1988), p-multipliers are approximately constant with depth. The
magnitude of the p-multipliers varies with pile row position, pile spacing and soil
type. Piles in the leading row have the highest p-multipliers. Brown et al. (2001)
also indicated construction method (bored versus driven piles) has an influence
on p-multipliers, the case in point being the Chaiyi Taiwan load test. A summary
of p-multipliers obtained from the literature is provided in Table 3. Mokwa et al
(2001) plotted p-multipliers as a function of pile spacing and row locations in four
graphs (Figures 6 and 7).

.-I...r-----p u ' pm
p .pm

Figure 5. p-multiplier concept (Brown et ai., 1988)

12

Table 3. Summary of p-multipliers from full scale load tests and centrifuge tests on pile groups
location

Te"
Type

Brittany,
France

Full-scale

Houston, TX

Full-scale

Salt lake City,

UT
Salt lake City,

UT
Houston, TX

Size

PHe Type

Center-

to

of
Pile

Center

Groups

Spacing

Pile
Fixity
at Top

Soil
Type

Sh....

DefleCtjon

strength
Parameter

ulti lier
1st Row 2nd Row 3rd Row 4th Row 5th Row 6th Row 7th Row

Reference

(Inches)

3X2

Steel H-Pile (d=11.2",bf=10.6',) with

Side Plates welded to Fonn a Box
Section

3D

Free-head

Clay

Su -420 pSf

3X3

10.75" 00 Steel Pipe Pile with Wall

Thickness = 0.365" & Grout Fill

3D

Free-head

Clay

Su

Full-scale

3X3

12" 00 Steel Pipe Pile with

Concrete Fill

3D

Free-head

Clay

Full-scale

3X 3

12" 00 Steel Pipe PUe with

Concrete Fill

3D

Fixed-head

Clay

Full-scale

3x3

10.75" OD Steel Pipe Pile with Wall

Thickness = 0.365" & Grout Fill

3D

Free-head

Sand

1.5-m Drilled Shaft

3D

Su

1500 psf

1000 psf

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.2

0.7

0.0

0.5

2.0

0.7

0.5

0.0

1.0to2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Meimon et aI.,
1986
Brown et al.,
1967
Rollins et aI.,
1990
Sparks &
Rollins, 1997

Similar to Free-Head According to Rollins et al., 1998

0- 38"
1.0to 1.5

0.0

0.0

0.3

1.2

0.5

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.5

0.0

0.3

Dr> 90%

Brown et al.,
1988
Brown et al.,

2x3
Chaiyi, Taiwan

Fixed-head
Sand

Full-scale

3XO

O.8-m 00 Prestressed Concrete

Pile

3D

Fixed-head

'"
)

Stuart, FL

Full-scale

OXO

30"X30" Square Prestressed

Concrete Piles

3D

Free-head

Sand

0=32"

1.0to3.0

0.8

0.7

0.3

Centrifuge

3X3

16.9" 00 Pipe P'.e (42.7 fllong)

3D

Free-head

Sand

Dr =-33%

0.65

0.45

0.35

Centrifuge

3X3

16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (42.7 fllong)

5D

Free-head

Sand

Dr

= 33%

0.85

0.7

Centrifuge

3X3

16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (42.7 fllong)

3D

Free-head

Sand

Dr = 55%

0.8

0.0

0.3

Centrifuge

3X3

16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (42.7 ft long)

5D

Free-head

Sand

Dr= 55%

0.85

0.7

3X3

16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (45 ft long)

3D

Free-head

Sand

Dr=36&55%

0.8

0.0

0.3

Centrifuge
Centrifuge

3XO

16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (45 fl long)

3D

Free-head

Sand

Dr=36&55%

0.8

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.8

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.3

Cenlrifllge

3X5

16.9" DO Pipe Pile (45 ft long}

3D

Free-head

Centrifuge

3X6 16.9" 00 Pipe Pile (45 fllong)

3D

Free-head

Sand Dr= 36 &55%

0.8

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

Centrifuge

3X7 16.9" OD Pipe Pile (45 f1long)

3D

Free-head

Sand Dr=36&55%

0.8

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

row.

The second number refers to the number of rows of piles in the group.

Ruesta &
Townsend,
1997
McVayet at,
1995& Pinto
etal.,1997

McVayetal.,
1998

Sand Dr=36&55%

a The first number refers to the number of plies in each

2001

0=35"

.
0.3

crc pile spacing, S (diameter)

1 234 5 6 7 8
1.0 I'1TMl'l"1T1rrrn-ntr~'m;ol""""'l'l"1T1n"1'
Legend fOT PlOts a and b

0.8
E

l:>-

.~

l:>-

.~

0.6

0.4

..

.~
, 0.2
l:>-

Melmonetal.(t986)
full scale, silty clay
Morrison and Reese (19SB)
-full scale, mad. dense sand
Lieng (1989)
19 model, loose sand
arowhand Shie (1991)

McVay etal. (l995)

...
(a) Leading row.

0.0

Cox et at (1984)
centrifuge,soft clay
BroWn and Reese (1985)
fun scale, stiff clay

- finite element analyses

c!cpile spacing, S(diameter)

1.0

234

5
.

centrifuge. loose sand

o
II

0.8
.0.

0.6

v
-

McVay etal. (11'195)

oontrifug~. med. dense sand
Ruesta and Townsend (1997)
- full scale,loosilfine sand
McVayet al. (1998)
ool1lrif4ge. med. dense $and
Rollins etal. (1998)
full scale. clayey silt
desigl1lines

(b) Firstfraiflng row.

0.0

LLU.LWu.u.................u.u.I..I..I.L.L.U.Iu.u.LL1

S = pile spacingintha direction oflstera//oadlng

Figure 6. p-multiplier as a function of pile spacing for leading and first trailing row
(after Mokwa and Duncan. 2001)

14

cJc pile sp$oing,S (diameter)

1.0

12345678
1TT't"rm-,..,.,.,..,,..,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,'TTT"CI"T'I'TMTl"1,"

0.8

Legend for plots a .and b

J 0.6

Ii)

:.::::

0.4

...

0.2
(a) Seeomf trailing row.

o
II

etc pile spacing, S(diameter}

1.0

0.8
E

-l"i
.~

.S-

~,

234

ITTTTTMT1T1TlT1I'1TT'1.......rllITl"'ITTl'TTI1

v
-

Cox etaL (1984)

-centrifuge. soft clay
Brown and Reese>(1985)
" fuU scale, stiff clay
Morrison and Reese (1986)
- fUll scale, med. densesahd
McVay at a.l. (1995)
-centrifuge, [oosesand
McVayet at. (1995)

-centrifuge. mad.. dense sand

Ruesta andTClWnsend (1997)
- full scale,. loose fine sand
McVayet al. (1998)
- centrifuge, med. dense sand
RoUlnsl'lt al. (1998)
fullscale, clayey silt
design lines

0.6
0.4

0.2

Figure 7.

(b) 3rd and greater

trailing rows,
p-multiplier as a function of pile spacing for the second and third

trailing rows (after Mokwa and Duncan, 2001)

15

2.2.2 Brown and Bollman's Method

Brown and Bollman (1993) developed a procedure to analyze the behavior

of pile groups under lateral load by performing separate p-y analysis for each row
using appropriate values of p-multipliers for each row. The series of p-y analyses
is set up as follows for symmetric pile groups:

1.

Determine the p-multiplier for each row according to row position, pile
spacing, and soil type.

2.

Perform p-y analyses for one pile in each row using the appropriate pmultiplier for that row.

3.

Plot the lateral load versus deflection for the pile analyzed in each row (see
Figure 8). The lateral load per pile-deflection curve of the pile group can be
estimated by summing the lateral loads for the pile in each row at the same
lateral deflection and diViding this sum by the number of rows.

4.

The maximum bending moment in the most heavily loaded pile in the group
corresponds to the bending moment in the piles in the leading row.

16

Front Row

600
Load
Per Pile

Lateral Load
Per Pile, (kN)

400

3rd - 4th Rows

200
Estimated Pile
- - - - Group Deflection
a}

25

50

75

Pile Head Deflection (mm)

150
Front Row

Maximum
Bending Moment

100

2nd Row
3rd - 4th Rows

Per Pile, (kN-m)

50
Estimated Pile
_.....-- - Group Deflection
b}

25

50

75

Pile Head Deflection (mm)

Figure 8. Brown and Bollman's (1993) method (after Hannigan et aI., 1997)

17

2.2.3 Mokwa and Duncan Group Equivalent Pile Procedure

Mokwa and Duncan (2000) proposed analyzing a group as a single pile in

LPILE. The group equivalent pile is assigned the same structural properties as
the individual pile but the moment of inertia is set equal to the sum of the moment
of inertia of all the piles. The p-y curve is modified by using the sum of the pmultipliers for all the piles in the group. Then LPILE Plus is used to predict the
lateral group deflection. The bending moment of each pile is determined using
equation (2.17)

(2.17)

where
M; =

bending moment in pile i

Mgep = bending moment computed for the group equivalent pile

N=
Pm;

I; =
Pmc

number of piles in the group

= p-multiplier for pile i

moment of inertia of pile i

= a multiplier for corner piles = 1.0, 1.2 and 1.6 for spacings
20 and::: 10, respectively. (Franke, 1988)

18

3D, =

2.2.4 GROUP 4.0 for Windows and FBPier

Two state-of-the-art computer programs with the capability for analyzing

pile groups are reviewed in this section.

GROUP for Windows (Reese and

Wang, 1996) is a commercial program for analyzing groups of vertical or battered

piles. Moment, lateral loads or a combination of the two may be applied to the
group. Possible options of connectivity to the pile cap include fixed, pinned, or
elastically restrained. The program solves by iteration for the nonlinear response
of each pile under combined loading, and checks for compatibility of geometry
and equilibrium of forces between the applied external loads and the reactions of
each pile head. The load-deflection and load-moment relationships for each pile
in its individual coordinate system are computed by solving nonlinear differential
equations using p-y and t-z curves under lateral and axial loading, respectively.
For closely-spaced piles, the pile-soil-pile interaction can be taken into account
by introducing reduction factors for the p-y curves used for each single pile. The
program can compute the deflection, bending moment, shear, and soil resistance
as a function of depth for each pile.

FBPier (Bridge Software Institute, 2003) is a more sophisticated nonlinear, finite element analysis, soil-structure interaction program developed at the
University of Florida.

The program can be used to perform a complete

substructure design considering both the geotechnical and structural aspects.

The program can be used to analyze single piles, pile groups, pile bents,
19

retaining walls, and high mast lighting structures. Analysis capabilities include
combined axial, lateral, and rotation resistance of the piles, pile cap and pier.
The structural model includes both linear and non-linear (concrete cracking, steel
yielding) capabilities, as well as biaxial interaction diagrams for all sections. It
also allows the use of different pile types within a group.

2.3

Limitation of the Procedures Described

The Evans and Duncan procedure and the ClM cannot be used to predict
the lateral behavior of single piles embedded below the ground surface.

The

MClM can account for pile head embedment but to date, it has only been
developed for single piles in cohesionless soils.
developed for single piles in cohesive soils.

In this study, the MClM is

A new simple technique is also

developed to analyze the behavior of pile groups based on the concept of pmultipliers and using the GEP method. This procedure is simple enough that it
can be readily performed in a spreadsheet or using a calculator.

20

CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPMENT OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF
LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILES AND PILE GROUPS

3.1

Parametric Study for Single Piles in Cohesive Soils

LPILE Plus 3.0 for Windows was used to perform a parametric study on
the response of laterally loaded fixed-head piles in saturated cohesive soils with
different embedment depths.

The study included three hundred analyses

generating about 1,700 load cases. The main parameters considered include
pile type, pile size, undrained shear strength, and embedment depth. A range of
lateral loads was applied to the top of the piles to obtain load-deflection and loadmoment curves.

Analyses were conducted on both driven piles and drilled shafts. Driven
piles analyzed included steel pipe piles, steel H-piles, and precast prestressed
concrete piles. Detail properties of the piles used in the parametric study are
shown in Table 4. Pile diameters or widths analyzed were between 9.7 inches
and 48 inches. The flexural stiffness of the piles ranged from 3.31 x 10 6
to 9.38

10 8 kip-in 2 . When the pile extreme fiber stresses exceeded the

allowable values, the pile failed structurally. These load cases are not included
in the parametric study.

21

Table 4. Summary of pile types and properties used in this study

Pile Type

Pile Description

Pile Width or
Diameter
(inches)

Area

E"

(in')

(ksi)

(in

Steel H-pile

HP10x42

9.7

12.40

29000

210

Steel H-pile

HP12x74

12.13

21.80

29000

569

Steel H-pile

HP14x102

14.01

30.00

29000

1050

Steel Pipe Pile

10o/.-inch-diameter
Y..-inch-thick wall

10.75

8.25

29000

114

Steel Pipe Pile

12o/.-inch-diameter
318-inch-thick wall

12.75

14.60

29000

279

Steel Pipe Pile

14-inch-diameter
3/8-inch-thick wall

14

16.10

29000

373

Precast Prestressed
Concrete Pile

14-inch-square
f,"=5000psi

14

196.00

4300

3201

Precast Prestressed
Concrete Pile

14-inch-square
f,'=5000psi

16

256.00

4300

5461

Drilled Shaft

18-inch-diameter
f,'=4000psi

18

254.47

3600

5153

Drilled Shaft

24-inch-diameter
f,'=4000psi

24

452.39

3600

16286

Drilled Shaft

36-inch-diameter
f,'=4000psi

36

1017.88

3600

82448

Drilled Shaft

48-inch-diameter
f,'=4000psi

48

1809.56

3600

260576

a E
b

= Young's modulus of pile

I = moment of inertia of pile

e fe' = 28-day compressive strength of concrete

22

Four values of undrained shear strength (0.5, 1, 2 and 4 ksf) were assumed.
Matlock's (1970) soft clay model was used for cohesive soils with undrained
shear strengths of 0.5 and 1 ksf while Reese and Welch's (1975) stiff cohesive
soil model was used for undrained shear strengths of 1, 2 and 4 ksf.

p-y

parameters for the soils are summarized in Table 5. Both models were used to
analyze cohesive soils with an undrained shear strength of 1 ksf to observe any
differences between the two models. A comparison of the two models showed
no major differences when analyzing cohesive soils with an undrained shear
strength of 1 ksf
Table 5. p-y parameters for piles in cohesive soils
Soil model

Undrained shear strength

(ksf)

Soil modulus
(pci)

50

Soft clay

0.5

0.02

Soft clay

500

0.01

Stiff clay

500

0.007

Stiff clay

1000

0.005

Stiff clay

2000

0.004

The pile top was embedded at several depths below ground surface.
Embedment depths considered include 0, 2,4,6 and 10 feet.
23

3.1.1 Modified Characteristic load for Single Piles in Cohesive Soils

Initially, lPllE analyses were performed for piles with zero embedment to
confirm that the analyses yielded results that are consistent with Brettmann and
Duncan's (1994) equation. The results plotted in Figure 9 show good agreement.
The analyses were then extended to include piles with non-zero embedment and
the results are presented in Figure 10. Evans and Duncan's characteristic load
for the case of zero-embedment was used to normalize the lateral load. The
figure shows wide scatter, and the Evans and Duncan procedure tends to
overestimate deflection.

Thus, as embedment depth increases, the deflection

decreases under the same lateral load indicating that the increase in lateral earth
pressure significantly influences the lateral behavior of piles.

To make the ClM applicable to the cases with non-zero embedment

depth, the equation for the characteristic load must be modified so that the
calculated load-deflection points all fall on the Evans and Duncan trend line. An
embedment correction factor Cy was developed for the characteristic load (Pc) to
obtain a better match between the lPllE results and the Evans and Duncan
procedure. The correction factor is applied to the characteristic load as follows:

24

LPILE Plus data points -

'Bretlmann and Duncan's equation

0.10 r - - - - , - - , - - - - r - - , - - . . . . . . . . . , . - - , - - - , - - ,
0.00
0.08

--

~.~~

a:

~~;iJ~'--'=---;--1---'-f----+-------1

0.05

0.04
0.03

"_

,.D' . . . ~

..

{f

:+14'~-C,d"'~t~Qi_,_,.,F---+----+----+---+-----j

__.:lw~'

._- - ._--+---+--+---+----1----+----1

-~~~r

tif

0.02
0.01 r ' - - - t - - - t - - - + - - + - - - + - - - t - - - t - - - - I
0.00 - J - - - - j - - - t - - - + - - - - j - - - t - - - - j - - - - - I - - - - J
0.02

0.00

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.16

0.14

y/D
Figure 9. Dimensionless load-deflection LPILE Plus data points for
piles in cohesive soils with zero embedment

~. - LPILE Plus data points -

'Bretlmann and Duncan's equation

0.12
0.10
0.08

!l! l-

0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

y/D
Figure 10. Dimensionless load-deflection LPILE Plus data points for
piles embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 It in cohesive soils

25

0.16

(3.1 )

Z ~+0"5J
1000yD

( )(

C y = 1+0

(3.2)

where

Pc'

=modified characteristic load (F)

o = pile diameter or width (L)

Z = embedment depth of pile top below ground surface (L)
y

=effective unit weight of soil over top 80 (FL'3)

= buoyant unit weight for submerged soil
= moist unit weight for soils above the ground water table

Su = undrained shear strength (FL'2)

Cy equals one when the embedment depth is zero, is greater than 1.0 for
positive embedment and is not applicable for piles extended above ground.
When the modified characteristic load is used to normalize the lateral load, the
revised dimensionless load-defection points all fall within a narrow range close to
the Brettmann and Duncan curve as shown in Figure 11.

26

'Brettm~mn:;;~d Duncan's eq~~n]

LPILE Plus data points -

~'-"""""---'---,---r---r---,--~----,

0.08

+--+----f--+-----+-------i-._-",""--!"""';;;;;;:....-"'1"""==-----1
~ ~o

0.07
0.06
cL 005

c::

0.09

!==~==!:;~~~~-.~-;,------:-~-=--t==~~~~-=-=-=-1I--=--=--=--=j
+---t--~

0.04
----]----

0.03
002

---_._-

0.01
0.00 'iI---+---I----I-----!---j.---I------I--__I
0.04
0.12
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.16
ylD
Figure 11. Modified dimensionless load-<leflection LPILE Plus data
points for piles embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 It in cohesive soils

LPILE Plus data points -

_'Breltl11 ann and Duncan's equation

0.10 .,.----,----,----,.-----,-------,.--,--.........,--..,
0.09
0.08

:
+----+--i
+-_--+__-+-_ _+-_--+__ ..J,

,0

-"

-ii~'

f-

0.07 +---+----+--+----+--_-4'-+d;~=.
, .,"'"""'F--+------1
0.06

cL
i: 0.05

+----+--

-----+--_____j~~~C+-------jI----+------j

'."",';;"i2-j-"~---+---+----+-----l
+---+-----t---~-.,f-,"'~;,..,

0.04

~_

AiiIJfli~--+---+--+---+---+------I

0.03

~:~~ .~I---+--+---+--+---+--+----I

0.00 -I"---+---I---+---+----I--4----I--.....j

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0-035

MIMe
Figure 12. Dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data points for
piles in cohesive soils with zero embedment
27

004

3.1.2 Modified Characteristic Moment for Single Piles in Cohesive Soils

Using the LPILE results, dimensionless load-moment curves for zero

embedment are plotted in Figure 12.

The lateral load is normalized by the

characteristic load, Pe, while the maximum bending moment is normalized by the
characteristic moment, Me. The LPILE data points all fall within a narrow range
illustrating the reliability of the Evans and Duncan procedure.

Again, the

dimensionless load-moment points for non-zero embedment show poor

agreement as seen in Figure 13, where a large scatter can be observed.

A correction factor, Cm , was developed to modify the characteristic

moment, Me, for non-zero embedment depth as follows:

(3.3)

where Me' is the modified characteristic moment.

Z J(~02)
(1+
60D

(3.4)

28

LPILE Plus data points -

{)

'Breltmann_llnd Duncan's equation

0.12
0.10
0.08

00-

0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

MIMe
Figure 13. Dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data points for
piles embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 fl in cohesive soils

c;

'Breltmann and Duncan's equ~ti~ri]

LPILE Plus data points -

_ _-_--_----,

0.09

~----r-------c--_-

0.08

-1-----I---L--+----I----l----:-~~--___i

0.07

+----+---+i--+-----1--_l_--:o-~;t,,""';l-_l_------1

0.06 -l----+------+--+_--f-- A-,&j4'''~''---f---+------1

rL 0.05

a:

0.04 -1-----1--_"_
0.03

------1--+----+---+-----1

0.02
0.01
0.00

~--+--_+_-_+--+_-__I--_+--I__--J

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

MIMe'
Figure 14. Modified dimensionless load-moment LPILE Plus data
points for piles embedded 2, 4, 6 and 10 fl in cohesive soils
29

0.04

When the modified characteristic load, Pc' and modified characteristic

moment, Me', are used to normalize the load-moment points for the case of nonzero embedment, the scatter diminishes as shown in Figure 14.

3.1.3 Steps for the Modified Characteristic Load Method

Steps for analyzing the behavior of laterally loaded piles in cohesive soils
using the MCLM are:

1) Calculate the modified characteristic load using Equations (2.1), (3.1), and
(3.2).
2) For a given lateral load, P, calculate the dimensionless lateral load PIPe'.
3) Use Brettmann and Duncan's Equation (2.9) to estimate the dimensionless
deflection YID corresponding to the dimensionless load from Step 2.
4) Calculate the deflection by multiplying the estimated dimensionless deflection
from Step 3 with the pile width or diameter.
5) Calculate the modified characteristic moment using Equations (2.2), (3.3),
and (3.4).
6) Use Brettmann and Duncan's Equation (2.10) to estimate the dimensionless
moment MIMe' corresponding to the value of PIPe' from Step 2.
7) Multiply the dimensionless moment from

Step 6 with the modified

characteristic moment from the Step 5 to determine the maximum bending

30

moment M.

Since the pile head is fixed, the maximum bending moment

occurs at the top of the pile.

This method has the following limitations.

(1) The MCLM applies only to vertical piles.

(2) This study was performed assuming long piles only which are very common
in practice. This method is not applicable to short piles with low LID ratios.
(3) Cases where the pile failed structurally are not included in the parametric
study.
(4) This method cannot automatically account for nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete piles after cracking.

However, the engineer may

manually reduce the flexural rigidity of the pile to account for this non-linear
behavior.
(5) The maximum embedment depth involved in this study was 10 feet.
(6) Only static lateral loads were considered in this study.
(7) The method assumes uniform soil properties within the top 8 pile diameters.
For layered systems, the average properties within the top eight pile
diameters should be used.

31

3.2

Parametric Study for Pile Groups in Cohesive and Cohesionless Soils

3.2.1 Group Amplification Method

Groups of closely-spaced piles deflect more and are subject to higher

moments compared to single piles for the same load per pile. This is due to pilesoil-pile interaction. The objective of this part of the study was to develop group
amplification factors to amplify the single pile lateral deflection and maximum
moment to values appropriate for the pile group.

Termed as the Group

Amplification Method (GAM), the pertinent equations are as follows:

(3.5)
(3.6)

where
yg = lateral deflection of pile group (L)

Ys = lateral deflection of single pile (L)

Ay =deflection amplification factor (dimensionless)
Mg = maximum moment of a pile in pile group (F.L)
Ms = maximum moment of a single pile (F.L)
AM = moment amplification factor (dimensionless)
32

Amplification factors were developed by running numerous LPILE

analyses to obtain single pile deflections and moments, and by estimating group
deflections and moments using the group equivalent pile (GEP) procedure
(Mokwa and Duncan, 2000). The group amplification factors are then obtained
from the ratio of group response to single pile response. The parametric study
was performed for groups of fixed-head piles in cohesive and cohesionless soils
with different soil parameters, embedment depths, pile arrangements and lateral
load values.

The analyses for cohesive and cohesionless soils were studied

separately. When the pile extreme fiber stresses exceeded the allowable values,
the pile failed structurally. These load cases are not included in the parametric
study.

Before using the GEP procedure, the accuracy of the method was first
verified by comparing the results of the GEP analyses with those using GROUP.
More cases were analyzed showing good agreement overall but only two cases
are illustrated in Figures 15 and 16 for load versus deflection, and in Figures 17
and 18 for load versus maximum pile moment. They included a 5 x 5 pile group
in a soft cohesive soil and a 3 x 2 pile group in a loose cohesionless soil. In
general, the two procedures provide close agreement.

33

1_ GROUP 4.0 data points -e- Group-Equivaient Pile data points I

6,000
5,000 -1---4,000

\i
:g
al
.Q

,I

----

3,000

2,000

--

/1

1,000

!
.~

-'-',-

lateral deflection (inches)

Figure 15. Comparison of load versus deflection using GEP and
GROUP for a R5C5S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts with
zero embedment in soft clay with Su=0.5ksf

r=a::GROUP 4.0 data points

-e- GroupECluivalent Pile data points!

1,800 - r - - - - - r - - - . . , . . - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - ,
1,600

+----j----+----- -_.-

1,400

(j)
~

----+-----:;~_EI_::
~~-"'0>--_1
-

~---------

---=t===i~~~4~:::=~====~==~

1,200 +-----j--c1,000

-0

800

11

600

~
+-----\I--~---=~.;...-c-----

-------+-----+-----\

+-----+!--'---".:9-~+------+--

400+---/-200
_

o
o

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

lateral deflection (inches)

Figure 16 Comparison of load versus deflection using GEP and
GROUP for R3C2S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts
embedded 4 feet in loose sand with rIJ =30

34

1.2

Group Equivalent PiI~d~iapomtSJ

I-e-GROUP 4.0 data points

3500

I,

3000

"'

--::::----..-::::
;::;---

2500

~ 2000

-g

--- ----

1500
1000

.L? V-

500

..bP-

.Q

,
,

o
o

500

1500

1000

2000

2500

3000

3500

maximum moment (ft-kip)

Figure 17. Comparison of load versus maximum moment using GEP
and GROUP for a R5C5S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled shafts
with zero embedment in soft clay with S,=0.5ksf

I-e- GROUP 4.0 data points ---- Group Equivalent Pile data poi~iS]
3500 - , - - - - - - , - - - - - r - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - r - - - - ,
3000

+----+--- --1---+-------I---+------l

2500

. -_._.

........

2000

~ :::: +---+---+-~--+-~.......-Li-----:-=--4'~=-----j
~~

500 t----;;;;~7---1----
~

0+----+-----+----+---~--+--____1

1000

3000

2000

4000

5000

maximum moment (ft-kip)

Figure 18. Comparison of load versus maximum moment using
GEP and GROUP for a R3C2S3 group of 48-inch-diameter drilled
shafts embedded 4 feet in loose sand with r<l =30'

35

6000

The following pile spacings and embedment depths were used to develop
the group amplification factors:

1.

Pile spacing: 3, 4, 5 pile diameters (or pile widths)

2.

Embedment depth below ground surface: 0, 2,4,6 and 10 feet

p-multiplier values vary with pile spacing, row position with respect to the
direction of loading and soil type. In the GEP procedure, p-multipliers for all the
piles in a group are first determined and then added for use in the analyses. pmultiplier values that were used to develop the group amplification factors are
summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. p-multipliers for various pile spacings, pile locations and soil types

SID

p-multipliers for groups in cohesive

soils
(Rollinsetal.,1998)
Leading row

3
4
5

0.6
0.75
0.9

1st trailing
row
0.4

0.65
0.86

p-multipliers for groups in cohesionless soils

(Pinto et aI., 1997)

2nd and
Leading row
subsequent
trailing rows

0.4
0.65
0.86

0.8
0.9
1

1st trailing
2nd and
row
subsequent trailing
rows
0.4
0.3

0.625
0.85

0.5
0.7

The same set of pile and soil properties used in the study on single piles
was used in this portion of the study. The pile types used represent a wide range
of flexural rigidities.
36

A total of 260 GEP analyses were performed to generate 2,200 load cases
for groups in cohesive soils.

The pile configuration, pile spacing, and the

corresponding sum of the p-multipliers are summarized in Table 7.

Pile groups are labeled as follows: the first letter "R" indicates the number
of rows, the letter "C" denotes the number of "columns", and the letter "8"
represents the pile spacing in terms of the number of pile diameters. The layout
for pile group R3C284, which consists of 3 rows and 2 columns of piles spaced 4
diameters center-to-center, is shown in Figure 19.

A total of eleven group

configurations were analyzed. They include: R1C2, R1C5, R2C1, R2C2, R2C3,
R2C4, R3C2, R3C3, R4C4, R5C1 and, R5C5.

37

Table 7. Configuration, spacing, and sum of p-multipliers for pile groups

analyzed
Group
Designation

Number
of Rows

Number of
Columns

R1C2S3

2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4

R4C4S5
R5C1S3
R5C1S4
R5C1S5

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5

R5C5S3
R5C5S4

5
5

R5C5S5

R1C2S4
R1C2S5
R1C5S3
R1C5S4
R1C5S5
R2C1S3
R2C1S4
R2C1S5
R2C2S3
R2C2S4
R2C2S5
R2C3S3
R2C3S4
R2C3S5
R2C4S3
R2C4S4
R2C4S5
R3C2S3
R3C2S4
R3C2S5
R3C2S3
R3C2S4
R3C2S5
R3C3S3
R3C3S4
R3C3S5
R4C4S3
R4C4S4

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4

Dimensionless
Pile Spacing
(SID)
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4

1
1

5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4

1
5
5
5

5
3
4
5

38

LPm for
Cohesive Soils
1.2
1.5
1.8
3
3.75
4.5
1
1.4
1.76
2
2.8
3.52
3
4.2
5.28
4
5.6
7.04
2.8
4.1
5.24
2.8
4.1
5.24
4.2
6.15
7.86
7.2
10.8
13.92
2.2
3.35
4.34
11
16.75
21.7

LPm for
Cohesion less Soils
1.6
1.8
2
4
4.5
5
1.2
1.525
1.85
2.4
3.05
3.7
3.6
4.575
5.55
4.8
6.1
7.4
3
4.05
5.1
3
4.05
5.1
4.5
6.075
7.65
7.2
10.1
13
2.1
3.025
3.95
10.5
15.125
19.75

....1 - - 4 0 ----1~.
Column 1

Leading row

Column 2

t
40

First trailing row

D
40

Second trailing row

D
.....

Lateral Load

Figure 19. Pile Configuration in a R3C2S4 pile group

39

For the lateral load behavior of pile groups in cohesionless soils,

approximately 370 GEP analyses were performed to generate 2,880 load cases.
The same pile properties, configurations, embedment depths and pile spacings
for cohesive soils were used for cohesionless soils. Friction angles between 30
and 40 degrees were employed and, both sUbmerged and dry conditions were
examined. The p-y parameters for piles in cohesionless soils are summarized in
Table 8.

Table 8. p-y parameters for piles in cohesionless soils

SUbmerged/Dry

Relative Density

Submerged

Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Loose

Dry

Medium dense
Dense

Friction angle
(degrees)

Soil modulus
(pci)

Effective unit weight

(pel)

30
35
40
30
35
40

20
60
125
25
90
225

57
57
57
120
120
120

Based on the parametric analyses, the amplification factors A y and AM

have the following form:

(3.7)

M=a M1 [~JaM2(s)aM3
Ip
0
m

(3.8)

where
40

Ipm = sum of p-multipliers for all piles (dimensionless)

Npile = number of piles (dimensionless)
ay , aM1, aM2 and aM3

=dimensionless parameters for Equations 3.7 and 3.8

(Table 9)

Table 9. Parameters for group amplification factors

Soil Type
a.
aM1
aM2
aM3

Cohesionless Soils
0.717
0.567
1.2
0.352

Cohesive Soils
1.31
0.475

1.194
0.421

In Figures 20 through 23, the predicted values of deflection and moment

using the group amplification factor approach are compared with those from the
GEP procedure for pile groups in cohesive and cohesion less soils.

It can be

seen that the new approach provides estimates of the group response
reasonably well with biases of no more than 2% and coefficients of determination
all above 0.99.

41

3,----,------,---,--------,------0,------,

:? 2.5
;2;

(3Cl

t---(--{"-------"';='f-i-

<::

'iii

:>
<::

~
'"~

1.5

+------1----i---~

1+------1--

a.

:>

e
(!)

+--~

0.5

o
o

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Group Deflection using GEP (in)

Figure 20. Comparison of group deflections using GAM versus GEP
for piles in cohesive soils

4500 ,-----,--

---,--',--

=-b.. 4000 +---+---1-~

3500

.. -_. -------I---+--

~--+---hY-:;=~1~.0n:2>?2~7XJ--+----+--=k

3000 1-1---fR~2~='.':0~.9~9~83T-I-<t;;j
.5
2500 +----+---+---j----+-,....,
.::.--+---+------1
lJ)

(3

Cl

:>
<::

2000

~ 1500
o

;2;

e
a.

(!)

1000 t----+500 +----,:2iIIlIIIIII"""'--j------I----j---+---+---+------j

0-"'-----+---+---1----+--+----+---+--o
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
500
Group Moment using GEP (kip-tt)

Figure 21. Comparison of group moment using GAM versus GEP

for piles in cohesive soils

42

1.2 ,-------,-----,------------,------,-----,-----,

:;:

(!j
C>

+-------I----r-y

=0.9911x

0.8

R = 0.9938

+----t-~~~~--_+-----:c----:c-;;

<::

iii
:::l

o 0.6

<::

+----+----+---

~--\-------

-------

8 04 +------+--~
a.
:::l

02

+-----:::0

o ,....'-----+-

0_2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Group Deflection using GEP (in)

Figure 22_ Comparison of group deflections using GAM versus GEP
for piles in cohesionless soils

4000
3500

y =0_9978x
R2 =0_9982

:;:

(!j

3000

+----+-

2500

+---+--

C>

.~

:::l~

-""
m.9- 2000 +----+--Ee.

a.

:::l

+----+--+----;
1000 +---+---....=---1--+--+---+---+
1500

(9

500 .l-----;-..'"--+----j---+---+--t---+-----j

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Group Moment using GEP (kip-tt)

Figure 23. Comparison of group moment using GAM versus GEP
for piles in cohesionless soils

43

4000

3.2.2 Steps for Simplified Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups

Steps for analyzing the behavior of laterally loaded pile groups using the
group amplification factor approach are as follows:

1) Using the pile and soil properties for the group to be analyzed, estimate the
lateral deflection and maximum moment of the single pile following the steps
presented in Section 3.1.3. The lateral load that should be used for the single
pile analysis is the lateral load on the pile group divided by the number of
piles (N pi1e) in the group.
2) Estimate the p-multipliers for each row of piles based on the center-to-center
spacing and pile row.
3) Add the p-multipliers for all the piles together (LPm).
4) Calculate Ay and Am using Equations 3.7 and 3.8, respectively.
5) Calculate the group deflection (yg) and maximum pile moment (M g) using
Equations 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.

The limitations for the GAM include:

1.

The group amplification factors were developed for pile groups no larger
than 5 x 5.
44

2.

All the piles in each group must be identical.

3.

The piles must be uniformly spaced.

4.

This approach does not provide the load distribution among the piles in the
group nor the maximum moment of each pile with the exception of those in
the leading row.

5.

Torsional effects are not considered in this study.

45

CHAPTER 4

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WITH MEASURED VALUES FROM LOAD

TESTS

Several full-scale lateral load tests on fixed head pile groups have been
reported in the literature (Brown et aI., 2001; Huang et aI., 2001; Kim and
Brungraber, 1976; Mokwa and Duncan, 2000; Ng et aI., 2001; Rollins and
Sparks, 2002).

The results for three case studies are compared with values

predicted using the procedures developed in this study, namely the MCLM and
the GAM. In general, the lateral loads applied in these load tests are either cyclic
incremental or they are performed following a Statnamic load test. This may lead
to a densification of cohesionless soils and a softening of cohesive soils.
Nevertheless for the cyclic load tests, the deflections and moments from the first
cycle of each load increment should closely approximate those from a static
loading condition, and are therefore useful for validating the analytical tools
developed herein.

4.1 Case Study 1 - Pile Group in Cohesive Soils

Rollins and Sparks (2002) performed two series of lateral load tests on a
fixed-head pile group at the Salt Lake City International Airport in Utah.

Statnamic load test was performed to study the lateral response of the pile group
46

followed by a conventional static lateral load test. Loads for the static load test
were applied in the same direction as the Statnamic loads.

Nine piles, spaced three diameters apart center-to-center, were driven in a

3 x 3 arrangement. The piles were embedded in a 4-foot-thick and 9-foot-square
reinforced concrete pile cap.

The pile cap was supported on six inches of

compacted granular fiJI. One side of the pile cap was compacted with granUlar fiJI
extending to the top of the pile cap (Figure 24) to provide passive resistance.
The piles consisted of 30-foot-long, 12%-inch-OD, 0.375-inch-thick-wall, concrete
filled, closed-end steel pipe piles.

The flexural rigidity (El) of the pile was estimated as follows:

(4.1)

where Is and Ie are the moment of inertia of the steel pipe and concrete,
respectively, Ee (= 2960 ksi based on fe' = 2700 psi) and Es (= 29,000 ksi) are the
Young's modulus of the concrete and steel, respectively. The flexural rigidity of
the pile composite was estimated to be 1.11 x1 07 kip-in 2 .

47

Ill-

(0)

Ib)

SHFFrrPIL
BEACTlONWAU.

W36X16ll

~-

Figure 24. Pile test layout for case study 1 (a) plan view, (b) and cross-section (Rollins
and Sparks, 2002)

Measured - . - . Predicted

700

.-

Iii'
600
Q.

;g, 500

g:

400

go 300

---~

p-

~- II'
,

1-

-" --[::1Y

" 200
.J!1

a:

---~
.,,:"

_!_-

-c
--'

/Y

100

...

V"

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Group Deflection (inches)

Figure 25. Comparison of measured versus predicted
deflections using GAM for case study 1

48

3.0

Subsurface soils at the site consist predominantly of soft clay. The natural
ground water table was reported to be immediately below the granular fill.
Rollins and Sparks neglected the soil resistance of the top four pile diameters to
account for a gap generated between the pile and the soil as a result of the
Statnamic testing. Based on this, the clay over the top 12 pile diameters had an
average undrained shear strength of 0.53 ksf. The undrained shear strength was
estimated based on triaxial unconsolidated undrained tests, vane shear tests,
and pressuremeter tests.

For this load test, the lateral resistance of the fixed head pile group can be
taken as the sum of the pile group and cap resistance.

Rollins and Sparks

(2002) calculated the cap resistance and added it to the pile resistance at the
same deflection to obtain an overall load-deflection curve. They estimated the
pile group resistance at each value of deflection using GROUP. The pile group
resistance was also estimated using the methods developed in this study. The
predicted load-deflection curve compares quite favorably to the actual test results
as shown in Figure 25.

The calculated maximum bending moment did not

compare as favorably with the measured values for the piles in the leading row
as shown in Figure 26. This is probably due to rotation of the pile cap, which led
to a reduction in the maximum moment at the pile head. The estimated values of
moment are about 79 to 188 percent higher than the measured values.

49

Measured

--+- Predicted

-l

400
I

350

Ul

.9- 300

Ul

.~

250

0.200 '--

<:

-g

150

,....

..Q

100
50

o7
o

'"

'"'
V

i
,

~
-f

,,

~~

.-

.....4

........

i
,

50

...

-'"

..

---_.~

100
150
200
250
maximum moment (ft-kips)

300

350

Figure 26. Comparison of predicted versus

moment for the Salt Lake City

4.2 Case Study 2 - Pile Group in Cohesive Soils

Kim and Brungraber (1976) reported multiple series of full-scale lateral

load tests on three groups of 2 x 3 10BP42 steel H-piles at the Bucknell
University campus in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. A total of three load test series
(Series A, B and C) were conducted on three adjacent groups (I, II and III) of
piles. Load test Series B on Group II with a spacing of 3.7 pile widths on center
was used in this study (Figure 27). The piles were 9.7 inches wide, 40 feet long,
and were connected by a concrete pile cap. The moment of inertia of

50

PILE WITH SLOPE

INDICATOR TUBE

IeJ

\.

P-l

IeJ

IeJ

2 aD-TON JACKS

3.0

14

4100-TON JACKS

l
I

!'"

2.0
L

2.0 r-3.0

2.0

3.0

I-

Figure 27. Pile test layout for case study 2 (Kim and Brungraber, 1976)

Eo

Mea~ured -... Predicted

250 , - - - - - , - - 200+----+_

:52

1::>

150 + - - - - + _

.Q

~ 100

.l!l
j

+-----+__,.-::--- -he-=------+-----+---

~I
0.--

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Group deflection (in)

Figure 28. Comparison of measured versus predicted defiections
using GAM for case study 2

51

J
0.5

the pile was 224.2 in 4 . The pile cap was 4 feet thick, 10 feet long and 8 feet
wide.

Subsurface conditions over the top 8 shaft diameters consisted of silty

clay with an average undrained shear strength of 2.5 ksf, estimated based on
unconfined compression tests and standard penetration test data. The ground
water table was reported to be at a depth of 35 feet.

In this load test, the cap was at the ground surface with zero embedment.
As a result, the pile cap resistance is not considered significant and the lateral
resistance can be considered to be due primarily to the pile group. An axial load
of 72 kips per pile was applied. The lateral load-deflection curve for the group
was estimated using the procedures developed and is compared to measured
values in Figure 28. The measured load deflection curve compares reasonably
with the calculated curve. Note that the measured deflections increased by only
70 percent and measured moments increased by only 42 percent when the load
was doubled. This indicates inconsistency in the measurements, because these
quantities would increase by a factor of two or higher if the behavior was truly
nonlinear.

The lateral load-moment curve for the group was estimated using the
procedures developed and compared to average measured values of the piles in
the leading row.

Figure 29 showed that the estimated maximum bending

52

moments are nine percents below to 52 percent higher than the measured value
for the leading row of piles.

[ 0

35

Measured Moment...:..- Predicted Moment

..

i
i

30
"[ 25

(;; 15

0."

10

/'"
i

/'

o ./
o

-----

V-

./

.91 20 c-.5.

11

...... -0

!~
i
i

---

--

l.e'
!

20

40

60

80

maximum moment

100

120

140

160

(kip~fl)

Figure 29. Comparison of predicted versus measured bending

moment for Bucknell University load test

4.3 Case Study 3 - Pile Group in Cohesionless Soils

Huang et al. (2001) and Brown et al. (2001) reported a full-scale lateral
load test on a group of six bored piles reacting against a group of twelve precast
concrete piles for the proposed high-speed rail system project in Taipao
Township of Chaiyi County, Taiwan.

The bored piles had a diameter of 59

inches, were 114 feet long, spaced 3 diameters on center and were connected
53

by a pile cap. The flexural stiffness of the drilled shaft was 2.39 x 109 kip-in 2 .
The pile cap was 6.5 feet thick, 72 feet long and 49 feet wide.

Subsurface

conditions over the top 8 shaft diameters consisted of loose silty sand with an
average friction angle of 35 degrees (Brown et aI., 2001).

The ground water

table was reported to be at a depth of 3.3 feet. The p-multipliers for the first,
second and third rows are 0.5, 0.4 and 0.3, respectively (Brown et aI., 2001).

In this load test, the cap was at the ground surface with zero embedment
(Figure 30).

As a result, the pile cap resistance is not considered to be

significant and the lateral resistance can be considered to be due primarily to the
pile group. The lateral load-deflection curve for the group is estimated using the
procedures developed and is compared to measured values in Figure 31. It can
be seen that in general, there is good agreement between the estimated
deflections and the measured values. The estimated maximum bending moment
(8,850 kip-ft) was 23 percent lower than the measured value in the leading row
(11,551 kip-ttl. Only one value of bending moment was published corresponding
to a lateral load of 41 0 kips.

54

PC Piles

Figure 30. pile test layout for case study 3 (Huang et al., 2001)

E()
_.

3000

"'

2000

1500

a.

e!

"*
-'

1000
500

I,

2500

M~~sured ....... predicted]

.......

~~
I

-;;;w

#'i

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Group deflection (in)

Figure 31. Comparison of measured versus predicted deflections
using GAM for case study 3

55

1.40

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Modified Characteristic Load Method (MCLM) was developed for

estimating single pile head deflection and maximum bending moment for fixedhead piles embedded below ground surface in cohesive soils.

This simple

procedure requires pile diameter, pile elastic modulus, moment of inertia, pile
head embedment depth, undrained shear strength and soil unit weight as input
parameters.

The MCLM provides reliable values of pile deflections and

maximum moments when compared with LPILE Plus.

The Group Amplification Method (GAM) was developed to predict the

lateral behavior of fixed-head pile groups. This procedure was derived based on
the group equivalent pile method proposed by Mokwa and Duncan (2000). The
GAM can be used to amplify the single pile deflection and bending moment to
predict the pile group deflection and maximum moment.

The amplification

factors depend on the number of piles in the group, pile spacing and pmultipliers.

The p-multipliers depend on soil type, pile spacing, pile position

within the group relative to the direction of the applied force and construction
method.

56

The GAM in conjunction with the MCLM was used to predict the behavior
of three full-scale pile groups that were load tested. These predictions indicate
that the procedures provide estimates of group deflections and moments that are
accurate enough for most practical purposes or they provide results that err on
the side of conservatism.

57

REFERENCES

Bretlmann, T., and Duncan, J.M. (1996). "Computer Application of CLM Lateral
Load Analysis to Piles and Drilled Shafts." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 122(6) 496-498.

Bridge Software Institute, University of Florida, accessed 2003, http://bsiweb.ce.ufl.edu

Brown, DA, Reese, LC., and O'Neill, MW. (1987). "Cyclic Lateral Loading of a
Large Scale Pile Group." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
113(11),1326-1343.
Brown, DA, Morrison, C., and Reese, LC. (1988). "Lateral Load Behavior of
Pile Group in Sand." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
114(11),1261-1276.
Brown, DA, and Bollman, HT

(1993). "Pile-supported Bridge Foundations

Designed for Impact Loading." Appended document to the Proceedings of

Design of Highway Bridges for Extreme Events, Crystal City, Virginia, 265-

281.
Brown, DA, O'Neill, MW., Hoit, M., McVay, M., EI Naggar, M. H., Chakrabory,
S. (2001). "Static and Dynamic Lateral Loading of Pile Groups." NCHRP
Report 461, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

58

Duncan, J.M., Evans, L.T. Jr. and Ooi, P.S.K. (1994). "Lateral Load Analysis of
Single Piles and

Drilled Shafts." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, 120(6), 1018-1033.

Evans, L.T. Jr. and Duncan, J.M.
Loaded Piles."

(1982).

"Simplified Analysis of Laterally

Rep. No. UCB/GT/82-04,

University of California,

Berkeley, Calif.
Franke, E.

(1988).

"Group Action Between Vertical Piles under Horizontal

Loads." WF. Van Impe, ed. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
83-93.
Hannigan, P.J., Goble, G.G., Thendean, G., Likins, G.E. and Rausche, F.
(1997).

"Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations." FHWA

Publication No. FHWA-HI-97-013, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.

Huang, A., Hsueh, C., O'Neill, MW., Chern, S. and Chen, C. (2001). "Effects of
Construction on Laterally Loaded Pile Groups."

ASCE, Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(5), 385-397.

Kim, J.B., and Brungraber, R.J. (1976). "Full-Scale Lateral Load Tests of Pile
Groups." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 102(1), 87-105.
Matlock, H. (1970).
Clay."

"Correlations for Deign of Laterally-Loaded Piles in Soft

Paper No. OTC 1204, Proceedings, Second Annual Offshore

Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 1, 577-594.

59

McVay, M., Casper, R and Shang, T.!. (1995). "Lateral Response of Three Row
Groups in Loose to Dense Sands at 3D and 50 Spacings." ASCE,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 121 (5), 436-441.

McVay, M., Zhang, L., Molnit, T and Lai, P. (1998). "Centrifuge Testing of Large
Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Sands." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(10), 1016-1026.

Meimon, Y., Baguelin, F., and Jezequel, J.F. (1986). "Pile Group Behavior
under Long Time Lateral Monotonic and Cyclic Loading." Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, Editions

Technip, 285-302.
Mokwa, RL., and Duncan, J.M. (2000). "Investigation of the Resistance of Pile
Caps and Integral Abutments to Lateral Loading."

Research report

submitted to the Virginia Transportation Research Council, Report No.

VTRC OO-CR4, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mokwa, RL., and Duncan, J.M. (2001). "Laterally Loaded Pile Group Effects
and p-y Multipliers." ASCE Special Publication No. 113, Foundation and
Ground Improvement, 729-742.

Ng, C., Zhang, L., and Nip, D. (2001). "Response of Laterally Loaded LargeDiameter Bored Pile Groups."

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127, (8) 658-669.

60

Pinto, P., McVay, M., Hoit, M. and Lai, P. (1997). "Centrifuge Testing of Plumb
and Battered Pile Groups in Sand." TRB Rec. No. 1569. Transp. Res.
Board, Washington D.C., 8-16.

Reese, L.C., and Welch, R.C. (1975).

"Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in

Stiff Clay." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 101 (7),633-649.

Reese, L.C. and Wang, S-T.

(1996).

Group 4.0 for Windows, Analysis of a

Group of Piles Subjected to Axial and Lateral Loading.

Ensoft, Inc.,

Austin, Tex.
Reese, L.C., and Wang, S-T. (1997). LPILE PLUS 3.0 for Windows. Ensoft,
Inc., Austin, Tex.
Rollins, K.M., Peterson, K.T., and Weaver, T.J. (1998). "Lateral Load Behavior of
a Full-Scale Pile Group in Clay."

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(6),468-478.

Rollins, K.M., and Sparks, A.E. (2002). "Lateral Resistance of Full-Scale Pile
Cap with Gravel Backfill." ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(9) 711-723.

Ruesta, P.F., and Townsend, F.C. (1997). "Evaluation of Laterally Loaded Pile
Group at Roosevelt Bridge."

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(12), 1153-1161.

Sparks, A. and Rollins, K.M.

(1997).

"Passive Resistance and Lateral Load

Capacity of a Full-scale Fixed-head Pile Group in Clay." Civ. Engrg. Dept.

Res. Rep. CEG.97-04, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah.
61

Wang, S. (2000). "Simplified Analysis for Laterally Loaded Piles in Cohesionless

Soils." Repott submitted to the University of Hawaii in pattial fulfillment for

the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.

University of

Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI.

Zhang, X. (1999). "Comparison of Lateral Group Effects Between Bored and PC
Driven Pile Groups in Sand." M.S. thesis. University of Houston, Tex.

62