Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0456-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Numerical Analysis of Pile–Soil–Pile Interaction in Pile
Groups with Batter Piles
Hasan Ghasemzadeh . Mohsen Tarzaban . Mohammad Mahdi Hajitaheriha
Received: 6 July 2016 / Accepted: 10 January 2018
Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Battered piles are usually used to counter-
act lateral forces in a pile group. As there is little
spacing between piles, they are affected by one
another, and there is interaction between them. In this
study, pile–soil–pile interaction in a group of battered
piles was numerically simulated using finite element
analysis. Double and frictional pile groups under static
lateral and axial loadings were analyzed separately.
The effects of batter angle, slenderness ratio, spacing
between piles, pile–soil stiffness ratio, and soil
plasticity on interaction factors were computed and
presented in curves.
Keywords Pile–soil–pile interaction  Battered pile
group  Axial and lateral loading  Numerical analysis
M. M. Hajitaheriha (&)
Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International
University, Qazvin, Iran
e-mail: mahdi_hajitaheri@yahoo.com
H. Ghasemzadeh  M. Tarzaban
Civil Engineering Department, K.N. Toosi University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: ghasemzadeh@kntu.ac.ir
M. Tarzaban
e-mail: M.Tarzaban@sina.kntu.ac.ir
1 Introduction
Pile group foundations play an important role in
geotechnical engineering. Pile foundation is required
when the soil bearing capacity is not sufficient for the
structure to withstand. This is due to the soil condition
or the order of bottom layers, type of loads on
foundations, conditions at site and operational condi-
tions.Studies show that battered piles in a pile group
improve group behavior in lateral loading conditions.
Singh and Arora (1978) were conducted on batter pile
groups under lateral load with batter pile inclined at
different inclination of angels. Results indicated that
negative batter pile individually as well as in a pile
group showed less amount of deflection and group
efficiency was greater than sum of individual piles
efficiency. Pile group behavior can be determined
through interaction factors. Pile–soil–pile interaction
factor is the ratio of displacement of unloaded pile
(receiver pile) due to loading of adjacent piles to
displacement of loaded pile (source pile). Some
research obtained interaction factors analytically.
Randolph and Wroth (1978) were presented a method
of analysis was presented which permits the displace-
ment of a pile group under vertical load to be
calculated with reasonable accuracy, without the
expense of a full rigorous analysis. The method was
based on the superposition of individual pile displace-
ment fields. Three field loading tests on pile groups are
studied and it was shown that the settlements at
working loads may be predicted with good accuracy
123

using soil parameters back analyzed from the results of
single piles load tested on each particular site. Poulos
and Davis (1980) determined interaction factors for
two vertical piles under axial and lateral loading.
Mylanokis and Gestass (1998) considered the effect of
a second pile and its interaction with soil, and
proposed an equation for static interaction factor of
two piles. Alibeikloo (2010) also conducted an
analytical study using Winkler model on static inter-
action factor of pile–soil–pile under axial and lateral
loading for batter and vertical piles, and presented
calculated interaction factor in matrix as described in
Ghasemzadeh and Alibeiklo (2010). Alibeikloo
(2010) conducted an analytical study using Winkler
model on static interaction factor of pile–soil–pile
under axial and lateral loading for batter and vertical
piles, and presented calculated interaction factor in
matrix as described in Ghasemzadeh and Alibeiklo
(2010). Ghasemzadeh and Alibeikloo (2011) consid-
ered the presence of a second pile in their calculation
of pile–soil–pile dynamic interaction factor in a group
of battered piles under harmonic axial and lateral
oscillations. Liang et.al (2012) revisited the influences
of axial load on the lateral response of single pile with
integral equation method. The bending moment and
displacement distribution along the pile were subse-
quently obtained. The results of parametric analysis
indicate that the influences of axial load on the lateral
response of single piles could be significant, and in
general, the bending moment and horizontal displace-
ment distributions along the pile increase considerably
with the increase of axial load. Rajashree and Sitharam
(2001) developed a finite-element model in which
static and cyclic load analyses were performed adopt-
ing an incremental-iterative procedure where the pile
was idealized as beam elements and the soil as
elastoplastic spring elements. Kitodam and Matso-
moto (2002) proposed a simple model for analysis of
pile groups with battered pile, using modified hybrid
software. In every pile group, soil is modeled as one
vertical and two horizontal springs, perpendicular to
on another. A group of 6 piles, including 2 vertical and
4 inclined piles, is modeled at different angles.
According to this study, batter pile has improved the
efficiency of pile group in lateral loading. Maheshwari
and Truman (2005) prepared a 3D model using finite
element technique to assess soil plasticity and stiffness
effects, and also the effect of soil separation from pile
on a single pile and a pile group. Pile was modeled
123
Geotech Geol Eng
with linear elasticity, and soil was modeled as HISS
model. Maheshwari et al.’s numerical analysis showed
that effect of soil separation from pile was greater with
elastic soil than with plastic soil. The problem of soil–
pile-foundation superstructure interaction was exam-
ined, and a simple rational procedure to analyse the
response of a structure supported on pile groups is
presented by Makris et al. (1996). Zou et al. (2011)
investigated soil-structure interaction (SSI) and pile–
soil-structure interaction (PSSI) on vibration control
effect. Assumed the ground as an isotropic elastic half
space and soil around the foundation as a horizontal
and rotational spring-dashpot system SSI model for
building with rigid shallow foundation is established.
The results showed that the influence of SSI and PSSI
mainly depend on characteristics of the upper soil
layer, hence, the SSI influence on building with rigid
foundation is more obvious than that of PSSI on
buildings with pile foundation. In this article, interac-
tion factors are presented in an interaction matrix
containing 4 interaction factors: axial–axial (ann),
lateral–lateral (ann), lateral–axial (aan), and axial–
lateral (ana). Many analytical studies have been
conducted on pile interaction in a group of piles such
as Tahghighi and Konagai (2007), Makris and Gazetas
(1992) and Gazetas et al. (1991). The present study
aims to provide a set numerical analysis to obtain
interaction factors described in Alibeikloo (2010). In
this study, interaction factors will be presented for
different batter pile angles (w), distance to pile
diameter ratio (S/D), pile to soil stiffness ratio (Ep/
Es), and pile slenderness ratio (L/D) factors.
2 Statement of Problem
The displacement of a batter pile in a pile group with
two piles can be defined as follows Ghasemzadeh and
Alibeikloo (2011):
In the system of two batter piles, it is assumed that
the displacement of each pile (receiver pile) consists of
two parts; displacement due to its loading and
displacement due to loading on the other pile (source
pile):
Wj ¼ Wjj þ A Wii ð1Þ
where Wj is the vector of total displacement of the
receiver pile j, Wjj is the vector of the displacement of
Geotech Geol Eng
receiver pile due to its loading, Wii is the vector of
displacement of the source pile i due to its loading and,
A is static interaction tensor of second order:
 
aaa ana
A¼ ð2Þ
aan ann
where aaa is the axial–axial interaction factor, ann is
the lateral–lateral interaction factor, ana is the lateral–
axial interaction factor, and aan is the axial–lateral
interaction factor. In this study, interaction factors of
battered and frictional pile groups under static axial
and lateral loading are examined numerically. Each
pile group includes two fully embedded in soil circular
concrete pile of 50 cm diameter. The effect of the
batter angle was investigated for 4 different angles: 0°,
10°, 20°, and 30°, and the effect of slenderness on pile
group was assessed for 4 slenderness ratios of: 10, 20,
30 and 40. The effects of three pile to soil stiffness
ratios of: 100, 1000, and 10,000 were also investi-
gated. To assess the effect of pile distance, parametric
studies were conducted for four distance to diameter
ratios of: 3, 4, 6, and 9.
Fig. 1 Mesh of elements
used for analysis of batter
pile group (half area was
simulated)
3 Numerical Simulation
The above pile group set is simulated in 3D in
ABAQUS-6.11 finite element software. To perform
finite element analysis, the media should be appropri-
ately meshed Fig. 1. For all models, elements close to
pile group are very small, and become larger with
increasing distance from pile group. The modeling of
pile and soil was carried out in a three-dimensional
model with using a solid Continuum element. These
types of elements are considered the standard volume
elements in ABAQUS, and they can be used to models
with several layers of different materials. The element
used for this research is first order. In most parts of the
model, the Eight-node brick element (C3D8) is used
but in the boundary condition of pile and soil, for
better modeling, the wedge element (C3D6) is used.
The bottom of the model is bounded in all three
directionsbed rock. Rolling supports for sides of
model are assumed in X and Y directions. Given
symmetry of the area, only half area was simulated to
save analysis time.
In this study, pile–soil contact area is modeled in
two ways:
In the first part of this study, simulated soil and pile
have elastic properties, and complete contact is
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

assumed between soil and pile to eliminate slippage
and separation effects. This modeling is the same
assumptions made by Ghasemzadeh and Alibeikloo
(2011) and Alibeikloo (2010).
In the second part, contact elements are used to
simulate soil and pile interface for understanding of
pile–soil contact behavior. Furthermore, the effect of
soil plasticity on interaction factors is investigated
using Moher Coulomb model.
Tangential and normal behavior between common
areas are considered to apply contact area elements in
ABAQUS program. In tangential behavior, which
obeys Coulomb’s friction law, in fact, the soil–pile
friction angle is considered equal with the soil angle
friction (tan(d) = tan(/) = 0.3). In perpendicular
contact, penalty formulation and hard contact are
used. Mechanical contacts between two bodies are
possible in two ways: surface to surface, and surface to
node (which has greater accuracy). The soil is clayey
sand in drained state. Properties of soil and pile are
shown in Table 1.
According to analysis of sensitivity of interaction
factor on a two-pile group with batter angle of 30° and
length to diameter ratio of 10, dimensions of soil
around pile group should extend to at least 7 times pile
length from center of soil area. It should be noted that
load is applied to piles in the form of stress.
4 Soil–Pile Simulation with Complete Contact
Between Them
In this section, first, displacement of single batter pile
under axial and lateral loadings is calculated. Two
vertical piles at different distances are simulated, and
their axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction factors
are calculated. Simulated soil and pile have elastic
properties, and slippage at contact area is prevented by
assuming complete contact between soil and pile.
To ensure validity of modeling process, numerical
results from loading of single batter pile are compared
to results from Eqs. (3) and (4).
PIa
qa ¼ ð3Þ
ES D
QIn
qn ¼ ð4Þ
ES L
where qa and qn are axial and lateral displacement
respectively, and Q and P are axial and lateral loadings
respectively, Es is modulus of elasticity of soil, D and
L are diameter and length of pile respectively, and Ia
and In are axial and lateral factors associated with soil
and pile whose calculation is shown by Poulos and
Davis (1980). Soil and pile properties used in this
validation are presented in Table 2. As shown in
Fig. 2, the results of the displacement of a single batter

Table 1 Properties of soil and pile for modeling

Materials ts E (kPa) q (kg/m3)

Pile and soil adhere to each other and soil is in a elastic mode
Soil 0.5 21 9 103 1750
Pile 0.3 21 9 106 2500
Materials ts E (kPa) q (kg/m3) u (degree) c (kPa)

Pile and soil slide to each other and soil is in elastic–plastic state
Soil 0.35 21 9 103 1750 17 34
Pile 0.3 21 9 106 2500 – –

Table 2 Soil and pile properties used in validation

Type of loading ES (kPa) EP (kPa) St L (m) D (m) W (degree)

Axial loading 21 9 103 21 9 106 0.5 25 1 30

Lateral loading 90 9 103 22 9 106 0.48 8 0.36 30

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 a Axial load–

displacement curve used in
validation, b lateral load–
displacement curve used in
validation

pile under the influence of axial and lateral loading
were close to the results of the Poulos relations and the
analytical results reported by Alibeikloo (2010). The
proximity of the results indicates the verification of the
modeling process.
4.1 Parametric Analysis Results
Many factors affect pile–soil–pile interaction factors,
including: pile group batter angle, relative spacing of
piles, slenderness ratio, relative stiffness of pile
(concrete) and soil. In this study, the effects of the 4
above factors are investigated. First, interaction factor
results group pile are compared to those obtained for

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 3 Axial–axial and

lateral–lateral interaction
factors for vertical pile
compared to those of Poulos
and Davis (1980), and
Alibeikloo (2010). (v = 0.5,
Ep/Es = 1000, L/D = 25)

vertical pile by Alibeikloo (2010) and Poulos and results show a good match with those in above
Davis (1980). According to Fig. 3a, b, numerical references, indicating validity of modeling process.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction factors
decrease with increasing spacing to diameter ratio.
4.2 Effect of Inclined Batter Angles
axial settlement of the source pile, not only causes the
soil around the pile to settle in the direction of the load,
but also it leads the soil to displacement in the
perpendicular direction of the load. This factor also
happens due to lateral loading, so that the lateral
loading on the source pile not only creates a perpen-
dicular lateral displacement to the source pile in the
surrounding soil, but also it causes the soil around the
pile to settle in the direction of the pile axis. This is
evident in Figs. 4 and 5.

Fig. 4 Induction of lateral variations (perpendicular to the source pile) and the axial displacement (along the source pile) to the receiver
pile by the axial loading on the source pile

Fig. 5 Induction of the axial displacement (along the source pile) and the lateral displacement (perpendicular to the source pile) to the
receiver pile by the lateral loading on the source pile

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Changes in the ratio of lateral displacement to the axial settlement of the soil that isaround the pile, in terms of the ratioof the
distance to the radius of the pile, under the axial loading of the pile for different values w L=D ¼ 25; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000

Fig. 7 Changes of the lateral displacement ratio to the axial loading of the pile for different values w at the distance
settlement of the soil around the pile in terms of the distance to 0  rs0  7r0 : L=D ¼ 25; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000
the radius of the pile that is under the influence of the axial

123
Geotech Geol Eng
By modeling several piles with diameters, inclina-
tion angels and different lengths according to Figs. 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11. It can be considered that the lateral
displacement of the soil around the source pile which
is under the axial load, can be as a function of the axial
Fig. 8 Different inclination angles based on changes the axial
settlement in the ratio of the lateral displacement of the soil
around the pile in terms of the distance to the pile’s radius that is
Fig. 9 Changes of the lateral displacement ratio to the axial
settlement of the soil around the pile in terms of the distance to
the radius of the pile that is under the influence of the axial
settlement of the soil around the pile. These function in
can be seen Eqs. 5 and 6 illustrates the axial settlement
of the surrounding soil of the source pile as a function
of the lateral displacement of the surrounding source
pile that is under the lateral loading effect. The
under
 the influence of lateral loading
 for different values
w L=D ¼ 25; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000
loading of the pile for different values w at the distance
0  rs0  7r0 : L=D ¼ 25; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 10 Changes of the lateral displacement ratio to the axial settlement of the soil around the pile in terms of the distance to the radius

of the pile that is under the influence of the axial loading of the pile for different values L=D; D w ¼ 300 ; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000

the axial settlement in the ratio of the lateral

displacement of the soil around the pile in terms of
the distance to the pile’s radius that is under the
influence of lateral loading.
All figures increase to a distance of radios about 7
and then become constant. Figure 7 changes the
function uan and Fig. 9 shows the function changes
una to a ratio of distance to radius 7. In these two
figures, the numerical results obtained are compared
with the results of the hypothesized function. In
Figs. 10 and 11 you can see the function changes uan
for two slenderness ratios and two different pile
diameters.
8  
s
Uan < 0:1  ð1 þ 0:5 sinð4:5wÞÞ ln ; r0  s  7r0
uan ðs; wÞ ¼ r0
Fig. 11 Changes of the lateral displacement ratio to the axial Wa :
uan ð7r0 ; wÞ  0:2 þ 0:1 sinð4:5wÞ s  7r0
settlement of the soil around the pile in terms of the distance to
the radius of the pile that is under the influence of the axial ð5Þ
loading  of the pile for different values 8  
L=D; D w ¼ 300 ; #s ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000 < s
Uan 0:05  ð1 þ 6wÞ ln ; r0  s  7r0
uan ðs; wÞ ¼ r0
Wa :
proposed relations is obtained from the loading of a uan ð7r0 ; wÞ  0:09 þ 0:54w s  7r0
negative source pile can be used for soil surface. ð6Þ
Figure 6 changes in the ratio of lateral displacement
to the axial settlement of the soil that is around the pile, In the above relations, s the radial distance from the
in terms of the ratio of the distance to the radius of the center of the source pile and the right side of the source
pile, under the axial loading of the pile, and Fig. 8 pile, r0 , the radius of the pile, w, the angle of
shows different inclination angles based on changes inclination of the pile in radians, Un , the lateral

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 12 Variations in axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction

 factor of batter pile according to spacing/diameter ratio for different
inclination angles. w Ep =Es ¼ 1000; ms ¼ 0:5; L=D ¼ 25

displacement on the surface of the soil around the pile
under the the lateral load, Wna , the axial displacement
on the surface of the soil around the pile that is under
the lateral load, Wa , axial displacement on the soil
surface around the pile under the influence of axial
load,Uan , axial displacement on the soil surface around
the pile axial load, uan is the convert function of axial
displacement of the soil to the lateral displacement of
the same point of the soil around the source pile, due to
the axial load on the source pile, una , the convert
function of the lateral displacement of the soil to the
axial displacement of the same point of the soil around
the source pile, due to the lateral loading on the spile
source.
Figure 12 show variations in axial–axial and
lateral–lateral interaction factors with

123

spacing/diameter ratio for different batter angles.
According to Fig. 12, axial–axial interaction factor
reduces with increasing batter angle, and also with
increasing spacing/diameter ratio. Also Fig. 12 shows
that lateral–lateral interaction factor first increases
with increasing inclination angle to 10°, but decreases
with any further increase in batter angle. Thus, there is
a good match in results between numerical method and
analytical method of Alibeikloo (2010).
Figure 13 is shown the variation of the axial–lateral
interaction factor according to the ratio of the distance
to the diameter of piles for the various angles of the
pile group. It is observed that increasing the angle of
the pile group inclination, the interaction factor of the
axial–lateral interaction factor increases. It is also
clear that with increasing the spacing to diameter ratio
of the piles, the axial–lateral interaction factor
decreases.
The variation of the lateral–axial interaction factor
in terms of the ratio of the distance to the diameter of
 13 The variation of the axial–lateral
Fig.  interaction factor in terms of the spacing to diameter ratio of the piles for different values
w L=D ¼ 25; ms ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000
123
Geotech Geol Eng
the pile for the various angles of the group pile is
shown in Fig. 14.
As can be shown, the lateral–axial interaction factor
increases with the increase in the inclination angle,
and also, with increasing the ratio of the distance to the
diameter of the pile, the factor also decreases.
4.3 Effect of Pile Slenderness Ratio
Slenderness ratio has been increased from 10 to 40 by
increasing pile length from 5 to 20 m. Figure 15a, b
show variations in axial–axial and lateral–lateral
interaction factors of batter pile according to spac-
ing/diameter ratio for different values of slenderness.
The increase in slenderness ratio only slightly
increases interaction factor, which can be assumed
negligible. Also, interaction factor decreases with
increasing spacing/diameter ratio.
In Fig. 16, the variation of interaction factor of the
axial–lateral batter pile according to the ratio of the
distance to the diameter of the piles is plotted for
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 14 The variation of the lateral–axial interaction
 factor in terms of the ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for different
values w L=D ¼ 25; ms ¼ 0:5; Ep =Es ¼ 1000
different values of the slenderness ratio of the pile. As
it can be seen, the increase in the slenderness ratio for
numbers greater than 30 does not have much effect on
the interaction factors, but the trend is that the axial–
lateral interaction factor increases with increasing
slenderness ratio. Also, with increasing the ratio of the
distance to the diameter of the pile, the interaction
factor decrease.
In Fig. 17, the variation of the lateral–axial inter-
action factor of the piles is plotted according to the
ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for
different values of the slenderness ratio of the piles. It
is clear that, the increase in the slenderness ratio leads
to an insignificant decrease in the lateral–axial
interaction.
In the Fig. 18, the variations of the lateral–lateral
interaction factor that is under the moment applied to
the pile head are plotted in terms of the ratio of the
distance to the diameter of the piles for different
values of the slenderness ratio of the piles. The
interaction factor increased by increasing slenderness
ratio (L/D) but the amount of interaction factor and
also its increasing are negligible.
4.4 Effect of Relative Pile–Soil Stiffness
Three relative stiffness values: 100 (hard soil), 1000
(medium soil), 10,000 (soft soil) are considered.
Variations in axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction
factors according to pile spacing/diameter ratio are
shown in Fig. 19a, b respectively. Both interaction
factors increase with increasing relative pile–soil
stiffness, but decrease with increasing spacing/diam-
eter ratio. The increase in the relative stiffness of the
pile occurs by reducing the stiffness of the soil.
Reducing the modulus of elasticity under the same
stress conditions increases displacement. Increasing
the source pile displacement, due to the constant
Poisson’s ratio, increases the displacement of the
receiver pile.
The variation of the axial–lateral interaction factors
in Fig. 20 is plotted in terms of the ratio of the distance
to the diameter of the piles.
123

Fig. 15 Variations in axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction factors of batter pile according to spacing/diameter ratio for different
values of L/D. ðw1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 ; ms ¼ 0:5; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ
As shown in this figure, with increasing the stiffness
ratio of the pile to the soil, the interaction factor
increases, as well as the increase in the ratio of the
distance to the diameter of the pile, the interaction
factor decreases.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
The lateral–axial interaction factor variations in
Fig. 21 were plotted in terms of the ratio of the
distance to the diameter of the piles. Figure 21 shows
that with increasing relative stiffness of the pile and
the soil, the factor of lateral–axial interaction
decreases, and in fact, unlike the other three factors
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 16 The variation of the axial–lateral interaction factor in terms of the ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for different
values L=D ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; ms ¼ 0:5; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

Fig. 17 The variation of the lateral–axial interaction factor in terms of the ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for different
values L=D ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; ms ¼ 0:5; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

123

Fig. 18 The variation of the lateral–lateral interaction factors that is under the moment applied to the pile head, in terms of the ratio of
the distance to the diameter of the piles for different values L=DðEP =ES ¼ 1000; ms ¼ 0:5; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ
of interaction, this factor decreases with increasing
stiffness of the pile and soil.
4.5 Stress Around Pile
In this section, a pile with L/D = 25 and EP/
ES = 1000 and ms = 0.5 is loaded in a vertical state
and once again in a batter state with a 30 degree angle.
Also, it can be seen from the Figs. 22 and 23, the
results of the shear stress on the soil around the source
pile and around the receiving pile along of the length
of the piles, as well as the interaction factor of axial–
axial along the pile by using the stress results. As
shown in Figs. 22 and 23, the stress around the source
pile and the receiver pile is reduced in throughout of
the piles, and as shown in Fig. 24, the interaction
factor increases during the length of the pile.
5 Comparison of Interaction Factors
Figure 25 shows the variations of each of the four
interaction factors with the change in the inclination
angle of the pile. The axial–axial and lateral–lateral-
interaction factors are in the downward trend and
variations of the lateral–axial and axial–lateral
123
Geotech Geol Eng
interaction factor are in upward trend. Also, the
lateral–axial and axial–lateral interaction factors are
neglected in the vertical pile. The effective of the
lateral–axial interaction factor is less in comparison
with other three factors.
6 Simulation of Soil and Pile with Frictional
Contact
Given contact elements, slippage is allowed between
pile and soil. Soil is modeled according to Coulomb’s
plasticity model. To validate contact elements, first, a
single vertical pile of 25 m length and 1 m diameter
under axial and lateral loadings is simulated
(Table 1b), and results are compared to Poulos and
Davis (1980) and Alibeikloo (2010). Once validity is
assured, interaction factors are calculated.
Figure 26 presents numerical model results and
results obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2), as well as
Alibaiglio result. The difference in large loadings is
due to the assumption of elasticity for soil displace-
ment in the above equations, and thus results are not
reliable in large displacement plastic with behavior of
soil. Given above figures and explanations, conclusion
can be drawn that there is a good match between
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 19 Variations in axial–axial and lateral–lateral interaction factors of batter pile according to spacing/diameter ratio for different
values of EP =ES ðw1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 ; ms ¼ 0:5; L=D ¼ 25Þ
results obtained and those from equations and analysis
as Alibaiglio discussed in elastic region.
6.1 Effect of Inclined Batter Angles for Axial
Loading
The axial–axial and lateral–axial interaction factors
vary according to the ratio of the distance to the
diameter of the piles for the different angles of the pile
group. Figures 27 and 28 compare two cases of sticky
and friction contact surfaces to each other. By
increasing the inclined angle of the pile group in each
case of the mentioned contact surfaces, the axial–axial
interaction factor and the lateral–lateral interaction
factor increase. As the ratio of distance to the diameter
of the pile increases, the axial–axial and lateral axial
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 20 The axial–lateral interaction factor varies according to the ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for different values.
EP =ES ðL=D ¼ 25; ms ¼ 0:5; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

Fig. 21 The lateral–axial interaction factor varies according to the ratio of the distance to the diameter of the piles for different values.
EP =ES ðL=D ¼ 25; ms ¼ 0:5; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 22 Shear stress around the source pile along the length of the pile for different values wðS=D ¼ 3; ms ¼ 0:5; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ

Fig. 23 Shear stress around the receiver pile along the length of the pile for different values wðS=D ¼ 3; ms ¼ 0:5; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 24 The axial–axial

interaction factor along the
length of the pile for
different values wðS=D ¼
3; ms ¼ 0:5; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ
a = shear stress of source
pile/shear stress of receive
pile

Fig. 25 Comparison
between interaction factor
and inclined angle of pile

interaction factors decrease. It is seen that a decrease
of 10–30% of the interaction factors in the friction
contact surface than sticky contact surface. In the
friction contact surface mode, taking into account the
contact surface element between the pile and the soil,
allow the slip between the pile and the soil, and in fact
the pile and the soil are allowed to move toward each
other, while in the sticky contact surface The slip
between the pile and the soil is not allowed, and the
pile and soil move with its contact surface completely.
It leads to increases the interaction between the soil
and the pile and increases the interaction factors.
6.2 Effect of Pile Slenderness Ratio for Axial
Loading
In Figs. 29 and 30, the variations of the axial–axial and
axial–lateral interaction factors of batter pile are
plotted according to the axial load increase to the
 
elastic range load np ¼ PPe for different values of the
slenderness ratio of the pile and in the friction contact
surface mode.
Initially with increasing load, the interaction factors
are constant, which indicates that the soil has not yet

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 26 a Load-axial
displacement curve, b load-
lateral displacement curve

entered the plastic state, but with gradual increase of
the load and the passage of soil from the elastic state,
the interaction factors decrease with the downward
trend until the failure of the soil is completed. In
addition, it is obvious that in a sticky contact surface,
given that only the elasticity of the soil is used,
therefore, with increasing load, no change in the
interaction factors is created and it is not necessary to
draw them with increasing load.
6.3 Effect of Inclined Batter Angles for Lateral
Loading
The lateral- lateral and lateral–axial interaction factors
vary according to the ratio of the distance to the

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 27 The variation of the axial–axial interaction factor in terms of the spacing to diameter ratio of the piles for different values w in
two cases of sticky and friction contact surfaces ðL=D ¼ 25; vs ¼ 0:35; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ

Fig. 28 The variation of the axial–lateral interaction factor in terms of the spacing to diameter ratio of the piles for different values w in
two cases of sticky and friction contact surfaces ðL=D ¼ 25; vs ¼ 0:35; EP =ES ¼ 1000Þ

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 29 The variation of the axial–axial interaction factor in terms of increasing axial load ratio to load of elastic range for different
values L=D in friction contact surface mode. ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; vs ¼ 0:35; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

Fig. 30 The variation of the axial–lateral interaction factor in terms of increasing axial load ratio to load of elastic range for different
values L=D in friction contact surface mode. ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; vs ¼ 0:35; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 31 The variation of the lateral–lateral interaction factor in terms of the spacing to diameter ratio of the piles for different values w
in two cases of sticky and friction contact surfaces ðL=D ¼ 25; vs ¼ 0:35; Ep =Es ¼ 1000Þ

Fig. 32 The variation of the lateral–axial interaction factor in terms of the spacing to diameter ratio of the piles for different values w in
two cases of sticky and friction contact surfaces ðL=D ¼ 25; vs ¼ 0:35; Ep =Es ¼ 1000Þ

diameter of the piles for the different angles of the pile
group. Figures 31 and 32 compare two cases of sticky
and friction contact surfaces to each other.
As seen in Fig. 31, the lateral–lateral interaction
factor increases with an increase in the inclination
angle of the pile group to an angle of about 10 degree,
and then with increasing the inclination angle of the
pile group then the lateral–lateral interaction
decreases. Also, it is evident that the increase in the

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 33 The variation of the lateral -lateral interaction factor in
terms of increasing axial load ratio to load of elastic range for
different values L=D in friction contact surface mode in two
ratio of the distance to the diameter of the pile
decreases the lateral–lateral interaction factor.
Considering the contact surface element, or indeed
the same frictional contact surface, has a very small
impact on the lateral–lateral interaction factor than the
sticky surface mode. These interaction factors are
close to each other in both cases.
6.4 Effect of Pile Slenderness Ratio for Lateral
Loading
In Figs. 33 and 34, the variation of the lateral–lateral
and lateral–axial interaction factors of the batter pile is
plotted in terms of the ratio of the increase of the
 
lateral load to the load of the elastic range nq ¼ QQe
for different values of the slenderness ratio of the piles
and in the friction contact surface. These figures plot-
ted with regard to the effect of creating a separation
between the soil and the pile. At first, with increasing
loading, the interaction factors are constant, which
indicates that the soil has not yet entered the plastic
state, but with gradual increase of the load and the
passage of soil from the elastic state, the interaction
factors decrease with the downward trend until the
failure of the soil is completed. With regarding the
cases without separation and with separation.
ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; vs ¼ 0:35; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ
effect of separation between the pile and the soil, two
different trends are observed. In low loads, so long as
the soil is still in an elastic state, there is no separation
between the pile and the soil, and the interaction
factors are the same in a state where the separation
effect is not. With gradual increase of the load, soil
deformed into a plastic state. The interaction factors
by separating between the pile and the soil leads to a
decrease more than the absence of separation. By
considering that the negative piles are loaded and
given that the separation is created behind of these
pile, so it is expected that the separation between the
pile and the soil will not significantly affect the
interaction factors.
In the first part of this paper, the pile and soil
modeled elastically and completely contact to each
other. In this case, due to the elasticity of the soil, the
amount of force applied to the source pile has no effect
on the interaction factor, and the interaction factor
remains completely constant with increasing force It is
related to the ratio of the transfer of the settlement
from the source pile to the receiver’s pile that it is
constant according to the relation r = Ee. In the
second part, the elasto-plastic soil is modeled and
there is a possibility of slipping and separating
between the pile and the soil. In this section, according
123

Fig. 34 The variation of the lateral -axial interaction factor in
terms of increasing axial load ratio to load of elastic range for
different values L=D in friction contact surface mode in two
to the figures, the interaction factor is constant until the
time of reaching the soil to the plastic state, and after
that the interaction factor decreases.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, first, the matrix of static interaction
factors is defined for a batter pile. According to this
matrix, when a batter pile is placed under axial load
and lateral load, four types of interaction factors are
defined, which include: axial–axial interaction factor
(aaa ), axial–lateral (aan ), lateral–lateral (ann ) and
lateral–axial (ana ). In this study, variations in interac-
tion factor of battered pile group, including two
frictional batter piles under static axial and lateral
loadings were separately investigated. Four piles
group with batter angles 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30° were
studied using finite element method in ABAQUS-6.11
software. In parametric studies, effects of pile
123
Geotech Geol Eng
cases without separation and with separation.
ðEP =ES ¼ 1000; vs ¼ 0:35; w1 ¼ w2 ¼ 30 Þ
slenderness ratio, spacing/diameter, and soil–pile
stiffness ratio, slippage between soil and pile, and
soil plasticity were examined. We attempt to study the
interaction factors mentioned in available analytical
references by presenting a numerical method. Also,
considering the limitations of the analytical method,
these references only investigate the interaction fac-
tors in the soil elastic state, but this paper elasto-plastic
of soil state is also considered. Meanwhile, in the
analytical method, Ghasemzadeh and Alibeikloo
(2011), for determining the interaction factors of the
batter pile, they applied the hypotheses which are used
for the vertical piles, so by numerical methods, we
show the shortcomings of these assumptions and
provide relationships for use in analytic methods.
Results obtained showed:
1. Generally, the axial–axial and lateral–lateral-side
interaction factors of the piles are reduced with
increasing inclination angle, and the lateral–axial
Geotech Geol Eng
and lateral axial–lateral interaction factors of the
piles increase with increasing inclination angle.
2. Increasing the ratio of the distance to the diameter
of the piles decreases the interaction factors.
3. Increasing the relative stifness of the pile and soil
reduces the lateral–axial interaction factor and
increases the other three interaction factors.
4. Increasing the slenderness ratio in axial loading
mode increases the interaction factors and in the
lateral loading, the increase in the slenderness
ratio reduces the lateral–axial interaction factor
and does not significantly affect the lateral–lateral
interaction factor.
5. Interaction factors in the friction contact surface
state demonstrates a decrease between 10 and
30% relative to the slippy contact surface. Also, in
lateral loading, the interaction slippy contact in
terms of separating between the pile and the soil
decreases in comparison with the non-separable
state. This decreasing trend will increase as the
soil enters in the range of plastic state.
References
Alibeikloo M (2010) Modeling of pile groups in offshore plat-
forms. M.Sc. dissertation, Civil Engineering Department,
K.N. Toosi University of Technology
Gazetas G, Fan K, Kaynia AM, Kausel E (1991) Dynamic
interaction factor for floating pile groups. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 117(10):1531–1548. ISSN (print): 0733-9410 |
ISSN (online): 1944-8368
Ghasemzadeh H, Alibeikloo M (2011) Pile–soil–pile interaction
in pile groups with batter piles under dynamic loads. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 31:1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2011.04.005
Kitodam P, Mastumoto T (2002) A simplified analysis method
for piled raft and foundation with batter piles. J Geotech
Eng Bangk Thail 23(1):47–60
Lee CY (1993) Settlement of pile group- practical approach.
J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 119(9):1449–1461. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1449)
Liang FY, Chen HB, Chen SL (2012) Influences of axial load on
the lateral response of single pile with integral equation
method. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 36(16):1831
Lihua Z, Leiqing F, Kai H, Liyuan W (2011) Vibration control
of soil-structure system and pile–soil-structure system.
KSCE J Civ Enq 16(5):794–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12205-012-1358-2
Maheshwari BK, Truman K (2005) 3D finite element nonlinear
dynamic analysis for soil–pile-structure interaction. In:
13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Van-
couver, Canada, Paper No. 1570
Makris N, Gazetas G (1992) Dynamic pile–soil–pile interaction.
Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
21(2):145–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210204
Makris N, Gazetas G, Delis E (1996) Dynamic soil–pile–foun-
dation–structure interaction: records and prediction.
Géotechnique 46(1):33–50. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
1996.46.1.33
Mylanokis G, Gazetas G (1998) Settlement and additional
internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil. Geotech-
nique 48(1):55–72. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.
1.55
Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and
design. Willy, New York
Rajashree SS, Sitharam TG (2001) Nonlinear finite element
modeling of batter piles under lateral load. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127:604612. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)10900241(2001)127:7(604))
Randolph MF, Worth CP (1978) Analysis of deformation of
vertically loaded piles. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
104(12):1465–1488
Singh T, Arora VK (1978) Influence of pile inclination on batter
pile groups subjected to lateral loading in sand. In: Pro-
ceedings of 29th research world international conference,
Las Vegas, USA, 16th–17th March 2017, ISBN: 978-93-
86291-88-2
Tahghighi H, Konagai K (2007) Numerical analysis of nonlinear
soil–pile group interaction under lateral loads. J Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 27:463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.
2006.09.005
123