PILE GROUP ANALYSIS: A STUDY OF TWO METHODS

By Harry G. Poulos, 1 M. ASCE and Mark F. Randolph 2

ABSTRACT: A brief outline is given of the basis of analysis used in two com-
puter programs, PIGLET and DEFPIG, for analysis of pile group response. A
comparison of the capabilities of each program is presented and then a para-
metric study is made of a six-pile group to illustrate the similarities and differ-
ences between the two programs. Two series of field tests on groups of piles
are then analysed by DEFPIG and PIGLET, and it is shown that the predictions
from each are consistent and in generally good agreement with the field data.
The comparisons suggest that each program may be used with confidence for
practical problems, particularly in conjunction with single pile load test data.

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of the performance of piled foundations has become possible

with the development of numerical, approaches such as the finite ele-
ment method and forms of integral equation analysis. Currently, com-
puter programs are available, with which general pile groups m a y be
analyzed in order to give estimates of the deflections a n d load distri-
butions among the piles in the group for particular load cases. Such pro-
grams have led to a much better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the factors which
affect the performance of a piled foundations. In theory, by varying in-
dividual parameters such as the pile spacing or angle of rake of battered
piles, it is possible to obtain an optimum arrangement for the pile group.
In order to achieve this, however, the computer programs m u s t be suf-
ficiently compact a n d inexpensive (in computer usage) to allow para-
metric studies to be undertaken. It is also important to ensure uniformity
between the various analyses if any confidence is to be p u t in the results.
Computer programs for the analysis of pile groups (2,6,9,12) vary in
the type of approach used and in the sophistication of treatment of dif-
ferent aspects of group behavior. The effects of pile rake, local yielding
of the soil, and interaction between piles are all important if the true
behavior of a pile group is to be represented. However, in any one pro-
gram, simplifications and idealizations of one or more of these aspects
must be introduced if the program is to remain practically viable.
The two programs considered in the present study—DEFPIG (9) and
PIGLET (12)—are based on radically different approaches. The former
^rof. of Civ. Engrg., School of Civ. and Mining Engrg., Univ. of Sydney,
Sydney, N.S.W., Australia, 2006.
2
Asst. Lect. in Engrg., Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Note.—Discussion open until August 1, 1983. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on May 19, 1981. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 3, March, 1983. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9410/83/0003-0355/101.00. Proc. No. 17784.

355
uses integral equation analysis to calculate the response of a single pile
to axial and lateral loading, and also to calculate interaction factors (in
the sense of Poulos (7)) between pairs of adjacent piles. The latter pro-
gram uses solutions in the form of algebraic expressions giving the re-
sponse of a single pile to axial, lateral, and torsional loading. These
expressions, appropriately modified to allow for interaction between piles,
have been developed from finite element studies of a pile embedded in
elastic soil. Both programs subsequently employ a form of frame analysis
in order to calculate the overall behavior of the pile group in terms of
the responses of the individual piles.
This paper gives a brief outline of the two methods of analysis, and
presents a parametric study of a simple 3 x 2 pile group, showing the
deflection and load influence factors predicted by the two programs for
various angles of rake of the corner piles in the group. The two pro-
grams are then used to analyze two series of field tests on groups of
piles (for one of which predictions are also available from the program
PGROUP (2)). It is hoped by this means to demonstrate the extent to
which widely different approaches to pile group analysis may yet yield
similar results. By implication this allows greater confidence to be put
in each program than might otherwise be warranted.

OUTLINE OF TWO PROGRAMS

The approach to the analysis of pile groups adopted by DEFPIG and

by PIGLET has been described in previous publications (9,12). In this
section, a brief summary of the main features will be given.
Basis of Analysis for DEFPIG.—The program DEFPIG is based on
simplified boundary element analyses for the axial and lateral response
of single piles in an elastic soil mass and for the interaction between two
piles. This interaction is expressed in terms of interaction factors, which
represent the relative increase in deflection (or rotation) of a pile due to
another pile. These interaction factors are primarily dependent on pile
geometry, pile stiffness, pile spacing, and the subsoil modulus distri-
bution. The main steps in the analysis are:

1. The interaction factors for axial and lateral deflections and rotation
are computed for a range of pile spacings, or alternatively, may be input
as data if appropriate values are available.
2. For the specified group configuration, the program determines the
spacings between all piles and interpolates the interaction factor data to
evaluate the axial and lateral interaction factors for all piles. For battered
piles, in order to simplify the computations, the interaction factors are
taken to be those for vertical piles at a spacing corresponding to the
distance between the piles at a depth of one-third of the pile length
below the surface (9).
3. For the average loads and moment in the piles, the axial move-
ment, lateral movement, and rotation of a single pile are either input as
data (if known or previously computed) or computed by the program.
In the latter case, allowance can be made for nonlinear pile response by
specifying limiting values of pile-soil stress (axial and lateral) at the var-
ious elements along the pile.
356
 4. The following equation relating pile movements and pile loads is
then assembled:
[A]{P} = {5} (1)
in which {P} = vector of pile loads and moments; {8} = vector of pile
head deflections and rotations; and [A] = flexibility matrix of the group.
For a group of n piles, {P} and {8} are of order 3w while [A] is 3n x 3n.
The elements of [A] depend on the axial and lateral interaction factors,
the single pile responses, and the pile batter angles, and are detailed in
Poulos (9).
5. The equilibrium equations and pile-head boundary conditions are
incorporated into Eq. 1 and the resulting equation then solved. When
the group vertical load, horizontal load, and moment are specified, the
solution gives n vertical loads, n horizontal loads, n pile-head moments,
and the mean vertical deflection, horizontal deflection, and rotation of
the pile cap.

A number of simplifying assumptions are necessary if battered piles

are considered (9) and even then, only batter in the direction of the hor-
izontal loading can be considered. No consideration is given to torsional
loads on the group. If nonlinearity of pile response is allowed, then an
iterative solution is required, with Steps 3-5 being repeated until a com-
patible set of pile loads and pile deflections is obtained. The program
also checks to determine whether any of the computed axial pile loads
exceeds the ultimate value. If so, the group equations are reassembled
and re-solved, with the equation for axial displacement compatibility of
any failed pile being replaced by the condition that the axial load equals
the ultimate value. Nonhomogeneous soil profiles can be analyzed, us-
ing the approximations described by Poulos (10).
If required, the distribution of axial load, stress and deflection and/
or lateral load, moment and deflection can be calculated for specified
piles within the group. This calculation is only approximate, but incor-
porates the effects of pile-soil-pile interaction of the behavior of individ-
ual piles.
Basis of Analysis for PIGLET.—The program PIGLET is based on
algebraic expressions giving the response of single piles to axial, lateral,
and torsional loading, appropriately modified to allow for interaction
between the piles. Randolph (12) describes the analytical background of
the program and gives details of the data input required, together with
a listing of the FORTRAN program. To illustrate the approach, the
expressions for the response of single piles to the three different forms
of loading are subsequently given.
Approximate analytical solutions for the axial and torsional response
of single piles have been presented by Randolph and Wroth (15) and by
Randolph (16). These solutions are based on the assumption that the
load transfer down the pile shaft may be treated separately from that
at the pile base. By idealizing the soil as an elastic continuum, with Pois-
son's ratio v and a shear modulus G which varies linearly with depth
z according to

G = G0 + mz (2)
357
the following approximate solutions for the axial and torsional response
may be obtained.
Axial Response.—For an applied load V, the axial movement v of a pile
of length I, radius r0 and Young's modulus Ep (assuming the pile is solid)
is given by

"4 | 2ir / tanh (pi)~

V |_1 - v ' £ P r0 pi) J
(3)
Gfov 1 4 I tanh (pi)
TTX (1 - v) r0 pi
in which G, = G0 + ml; p = (G0 + 1/2 ml)/Gj = G/Gt; k = Ep/G,; t, = In
(2.5 p (1 - v) l/r0); and p./ = (2/£X)l/2 Z/r0).
Torsional Response.—For an applied torque T, the angle of twist, §, of
a pile of shear modulus, GP, (assuming the pile is solid) is given by

16 Z tanh (t\l)
h 4ir p
.3 r0 yl . (4)
G/o4> t | 32 G, / tanhW)
3irpG r0 r\l
in which t)l = (8G;/Gp)1/2 Z/r0. The similarity of the aforementioned two
expressions is perhaps misleading since, for most practical cases, the
quantity r\l is much greater than the corresponding quantity pi, and is
such that tanh (iqZ) = 1. This allows Eq. 4 to be simplified. It has been
shown by Randolph (13) that, for piles which are of a length / such that,

1
>P (5)
r0 \GJ
simplification of Eq. 4 allows the torsional response to be expressed as

T G_
4.44 (6)
G/fo
in which Ge is an effective shear modulus for the soil, defined by
Ge = G0 + mle (7)

and W S (8)
rn \G.
As before, G is the average shear modulus over the effective length le
of the pile.
To evaluate the response of piles to lateral loading, Randolph (14) has
fitted the results of a parametric study using finite element analysis, by
simple algebraic expressions giving the ground level deflection h and
rotation 8, due to applied lateral load H and moment M. These expres-
sions are,

358
 KG,.
h = 0.27 H + 0.3 M (9)
?fic

0.3 H + 0.8(pc)1/2M (10)

PcGc
in which Gc = (G0 + mlc/2)(l + 3v/4); and pc = (G0 + mZc/4)/(G0 +
mljl).
The quantity Zc is the critical length of the pile. For piles which are
longer than lc, the actual length of the pile no longer affects the perfor-
mance under lateral load (thus the pile only deforms appreciably for
depths less than z = lc). The critical length may be estimated from

I = 2rr (11)

Eqs. 3, 4, or 6 and 9 and 10 form the basis of the program PIGLET.

Since the expressions refer to the response of single piles, they must be

TABLE 1.—Capabilities and Limitations of DEFPIG and PIGLET

Feature DEFPIG PIGLET
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Soil Heterogeneity General Idealized as G = G0

Soil Nonlinearity Elastic-plastic; specified Linear elastic

yield stresses at pile-
soil interface
Piles Geometry All identical (cylindri- All of same length
cal) for axial, flat (idealized as
strip for lateral cylindrical)
loading
Piles End-bearing Yes Yes
Piles Raking In direction of horizon- In any direction
tal loading
Piles Free-standing section By specifying soft soil
Treating as free
layer cantilever above
ground level
Pile cap Cap fixity Can specify no rotation Free to rotate (rigid
(rigid cap) cap)
Pile cap Pile fixity (1) fixed-head (1) fixed-head
(2) pinned (2) fixed to cap
Pile cap Cap contact with soil Yes (optional) No
Loading Vertical Yes Yes
Loading Horizontal One direction Two perpendicular
directions
Loading Torsional No Yes
Loading Specified Yes No
displacements

359
 TABLE 2.—Program Statistics for DEFPIG and PIGLET
Feature DEFPIG PIGLET
(1) (2) (3)
Lines of code (excluding com-
ment lines) -2,200 -750
Number of segments 10 11
Storage of r variables (for piles) ~24«2 ~18M 2
CPU run time for 3 X 2 group (1) Full analysis: 15 min 24 sec 2.7 sec
(2) With interaction factors and
single pile responses input:
7.7 sec

modified to allow for the effect of interaction between neighboring piles.

The manner in which this is done is described by Randolph (12), and
involves the use of interaction factors determined from the results of
finite element analysis and expressed in terms of simplified expressions.
These interaction factors generally agree reasonably with those in Ref. 7.
Battered piles are treated by assuming that the axial and lateral re-
sponses (as opposed to vertical and horizontal) are unaffected by the
angle of rake. This result has been demonstrated analytically by Evan-
gelista and Viggiani (3) for angles of rake up to about one in two. For
interaction between battered piles, the conservative assumption has
been adopted that the interaction factors are unaffected and are the val-
ues corresponding to the pile spacing at the soil surface, with axial de-
formation of pile / causing axial deformation of pile ;' and similarly for
lateral deformation.
It should be noted that the separate analyses for axial, lateral, and
torsional responses allow different soil modulus values to be specified
for each response, if it is considered appropriate. In practice, Poulos (8)
has shown that it is reasonable to adopt the same values of soil modulus
for axial and torsional response for piles in clay. However, it is often
prudent to reduce the modulus values when considering the lateral re-
sponse of the piles, to allow for the effects of high strains in the soil
close to the pile, Poulos (11).
Summary of Capabilities of DEFPIG and PIGLET.—In order to de-
velop programs for pile group analysis which are reasonably compact,
it is necessary to preclude certain options or features of pile groups
which could, in theory, by analyzed. The current capabilities and limi-
tations of the two programs are summarized in Table 1. Two essential
differences between the programs stand out:

1. DEFPIG allows for much more general soil conditions. A general

profile of soil modulus values may be input and, likewise, general pro-
files of yield stress (shear stress for axial loading and normal stress for
lateral loading) at the pile-soil interface.
2. PIGLET uses a single analysis to calculate the response of a pile
group to horizontal loading in any direction (also calculating the re-
sponse to torsional loading). This allows piles which rake in any direc-
tion to be specified.
360
 It is difficult to specify precisely the computer resources needed by
each program. However, some idea of the comparative sizes may be
obtained from Table 2. It may be seen that DEFPIG is substantially larger
than PIGLET and this greater size is reflected in the running time on
the Prime 400 computer used for the comparisons described in this
paper.
For the 3 x 2 pile group analyses in the following section, the CPU
time for PIGLET was 2.7 sec while that for DEFPIG was 15 min 24 sec
for the first problem (during which interaction factors and single pile
response coefficients were calculated). For subsequent problems, for the
same pile properties, DEFPIG running time was reduced to 7.7 sec by
inputting interaction factors and single pile response coefficients directly.

COMPARISONS FOR TYPICAL PILE GROUP

In this section a typical 3 x 2 pile group will be analyzed using the

two programs. The deflections and load distributions computed by the
two programs will be compared for various angles of rake of the corner
piles in the group. Before proceeding to the pile group, however, it is
of interest to compare the computed response of single piles and also
the interaction factors calculated by the different approaches.
Single Pile Response and Interaction Factors.—The deflections of a
pile or pile group under vertical load, V, horizontal load, H, and mo-
ment, M, may be written
V H M
V= kv+ hli +
17d I7d IJ^M (12fl)

V H M
Esa hsd Esd
V r _H_ _M_
®~Esd2hv+Esd2lm +
Esd3lm (12C)

For symmetric groups the deflection influence factors IvH, IVM, hv,

TABLE 3.—Interaction Factors for Piles

Interaction PIGLET DEFPIG

factor s/d = 3 s/d = 6 s/d = 12 s/d = 3 s/d = 6 s/d = 12
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
a* 0.437 0.296 0.165 0.400 0.253 0.134
<*pH (3 = 0° 0.391 0.200 0.100 0.300 0.170 0.084
<*pH p = 90° 0.200 0.100 0.050 0.171 0.084 0.039
<*9H (3 = 0° 0.153 0.040 0.010 0.143 0.058 0.019
<*pM P= 90° 0.040 0.010 0.003 0.063 0.019 0.006
°-6M p = o° 0.060 0.008 0.001 0.055 0.018 0.006
a
eM p = 90° 0.008 0.001 0.000 0.022 0.006 0.001
Note: l/d = 2.5, K = 103, vs = 0.5.

361
 jf/d=25
s/d = 3
~d
Ep/E5 = 10 3
v.=0-5
(a)

|-s + s-J
1 "" •' 1
J
2 3 -----
f _ 4 5 6a-. ,-.-
y
(b)

*1 *2 3*'_

y
(c)

FIG. 1.—Pile Group Analyzed: (a) Elevation; (ft) Single Rake Plan; and (c) Double
Rake Plan

and 1^ will be zero. From the reciprocal theorem, Im and IhM will be
equal. For a typical pile with l/d = 25, K = Ep/Es = 103 and vs = 0.5, the
values of IvV, Im, and Im calculated by DEFPIG and by PIGLET are in
reasonably good agreement, the largest difference being for Im where
the value calculated by PIGLET is some 15% smaller than that calculated
by DEFPIG.
Corresponding interaction factors (following the notation of Poulos
(7)), for pairs of piles at different spacings are tabulated in Table 3. There
is a tendency for the factors calculated by PIGLET to be higher than
those calculated by DEFPIG, particularly at close spacings, but the agree-
ment is generally reasonably good, and the calculated stiffnesses for a
group of piles should agree to within about 20%.
Performance of 3 x 2 Pile Group.—The pile group chosen for the par-
ametric study is shown in Fig. 1. Analyses were performed using
DEFPIG and PIGLET for the case where the corner piles were battered
in the x-z plane at angles (4) of 0°, 7.5°, and 15° (see Fig. lb). Analyses
were also performed using PIGLET where the piles were battered in two
directions as shown in Fig. lc. These latter analyses were undertaken
in order to investigate the effect of the assumption that it is sufficient
to consider a single plane of horizontal loading and batter at any one
time (an assumption adopted in the program PGROUP as well as in
DEFPIG).
Figure 2 shows the deflection influence factors (as defined by Eqs. 12)
362
 006 012

004

0-02

75

0004

0 0 0 2 -5

IhM,
IeH 0
\
7

-0002

PIGLET
— DEFPIG
PIGLET - Double rake

FIG. 2.—Variation of Group Deflection Influence Factors with Angle of Rake i|/

calculated by the two programs. It may be seen that there is excellent

agreement between the two sets of results, not only in the trend as the
angle of rake \\i is varied, but also in the absolute values of the influence
factors. The largest discrepancy between the two sets of results is about
18%. The effect of piles raking in the y-z plane as well as the x-z plane
is small, the most noticeable effect being a tendency to rotate more un-
der horizontal load.
It is of interest to compare the calculated loads in the individual piles
in addition to the deflection of the group. This is most easily achieved
by means of load influence factors, where the axial (A), lateral (L), and
moment (B) loads at the head of the ith pile may be written as:
,C„,
At=VCaV + HCaH + M- (13a)

L = VC„ + HCm + M-¥ (13b)

B: = VChvd + HCh„d + MC,bM (13c)

The coefficients CaV, CaH, etc. for piles 3 and 6 are shown in Fig. 3.
Good agreement exists between the two programs with the exception of
the coefficients Qv and Cw, where the values calculated by PIGLET are
approximately twice those calculated by DEFPIG.
The effect of double rake on the loads in individual piles was also
investigated, and it was found that the coefficients in the axial direction
and in the x-z plane were scarcely altered (the largest change being
363
 02 "U ~ ^ g * ^ _ . —-•
Ukl

CQv CaH

01 0-1

I
0 75 15 0
>l>°

7-5 15 0
<l>° PIGLET
DEFPIG

FIG. 3.—Variation of Load Influence Factors with i|/

~8%). However, the rake in the y-z plane introduced additional lateral
loads and moments; for example, the total moment on pile 6 due to a
unit vertical load on the group increased from 0.084d to (0.0702 +
0.1142)1'2 d = 0.134rf, an increase of 60%. Thus, some care is evidently
needed when idealizing a general pile group as one where piles only
rake in a single plane.

COMPARISONS WITH FIELD MEASUREMENTS

In order to assess the ability of both DEFPIG and PIGLET to predict

pile group behavior in practical situations, two published case histories
have been analyzed. The second of these has also been analyzed by
Banerjee (1) using the program PGROUP, and this enables further com-
parisons to be made with the analysis methods described herein.
Tests of Matlock, et al. (5).—Matlock, et al. (5) carried out six series
of tests on 6-in. (15-cm) diam pipe piles. Static and cyclic tests were
performed on five- and ten-pile circular groups and on a single pile (see
Fig. 4). Deflections were enforced at two elevations by a special loading
device to simulate pile-head restraints typical of offshore structures.
Measurements were made of the total load and deflection of the groups,
and the shear and bending moments in the individual piles. The center-
to-center spacings were 3.4 pile diameters for the five-pile group and 1.8
diameters in the ten-pile group. The original soil profile consisted of
364
 0- d = 6 6in
'
Single Pile

5 Pile Group 10 Pile Group

deflected
pile shape

456 in

Loading Arrangement Typical Deflected Pile

Shape

FIG. 4.—Lateral Load Tests on Piles

about 8 ft (2.4 m) of organic clay overlying a relatively deep layer of very

soft clay with silt and sand lenses. The undrained shear strength in the
soft clay, as determined from in-situ vane tests, ranged between 1 psi
and 3 psi (7 kPa to 20 kPa). To avoid the organic soil, the soil around
the piles was excavated and the "mudline" established at 8 ft below the
ground surface.
In analyzing the behavior of the pile group using programs PIGLET
and DEFPIG, the soil was assumed to have a constant modulus with
depth, and only the static load tests were considered. The following
procedure was employed:

1. Single pile elastic solutions from both PIGLET and DEFPIG for the
pile deflection at the lower support were obtained taking into account
the rotational restraint of the loading system. From plots of soil modulus
vs. deflection per unit load, the appropriate soil modulus was deter-
mined from the static single pile test data for five different load levels,
ranging from 1-5 tons. Table 4 gives these modulus values so deter-
mined, and shows very close agreement between the values from the
DEFPIG and PIGLET analyses. These modulus values range between
365
TABLE 4.—Backfigured Soil Modulus Values from Single Pile Test, from Ref. 5
Backfigured Soil Modulus, Es, in
Kips Per Square Inch
Load level, in kips DEFPIG PIGLET
(1) (2) (3)
1 0.68 0.72
2 0.55 0.59
3 0.46 0.49
4 0.35 0.39
5 0.28 0.30
Note: 1 kip = 4.54 kN; 1 kip/sq in. = 6.9 MPa.

about 150 c„ -350 cu (cu = undrained shear strength) and such values are
consistent with previous experience (1,8).
2. The behavior of the five- and ten-pile groups at each of the above
load levels (i.e. for the same load per pile in the group) was determined
from the programs, using the appropriate backfigured soil modulus. The
loading support system was assumed to apply the same relative restraint
to the group piles (between the free-head and fixed-head cases) as to
the single piles.

The results of the analyses for each group are compared with the
measured behavior in Fig. 5, in which the group deflection ratio Rp is
defined as the ratio of the group lateral deflection to the single pile lat-
eral deflection at the same load per pile. Figure 5 shows that the DEFPIG
predictions of group deflection ratio are lower than those from PIGLET.
This difference arises primarily because of the difference in the lateral
interaction factors computed by each program (see Table 3). The theo-
retical value of Rp increases with increasing load level because of the
decrease in soil modulus and the consequent increase in relative stiffness
of the pile. The value of Rp from the tests also increases with increasing
load level, and is generally bounded by the computed values.

Load per Pile (kips) Load per Pile (kips)

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

o Measured
Computed by DEFPIG
Computed by PIGLET

(a) (b)

FIG. 5.—Comparisons between Measured and Computer Group Deflection Ratios:

(a) Five-Pile Group; (b) Ten-Pile Group

366
 -100 "200
Bending Moment at Lower Bending Moment at Lower
Support (kip in) Support (kip in)
(a) (b)

Measured
Computed by DEFPIG
Computed by PIGLET

0 -100 -200
Bendiing Moment at Lower
Support (kip in)
(c)

FIG. 6.—Comparisons between Computed and Measured Moments: (a) Single

Pile; (b) Five Pile; and (c) Ten Pile

o Measured (Matlock et al,1980)

Calculated by DEFPIG Nonlinear Analysis

0 10 10 2-0 10 20
Lower Support Lower Support Lower Support
Deflection (in) Deflection (in) Deflection (in)
(a) W (c)

FIG. 7.—Comparisons between Measured and Calculated Load-Deflection Re-

sponse: (a) Single Pile; (b) Five Pile; and (c) Ten Pile

For the single pile, five-pile group and ten-pile group, Fig. 6 compares
the measured bending moments at the lower support with those cal-
culated from DEFPIG and PIGLET, making the aforementioned as-
sumption regarding the restraint provided by the support system. Both
programs give almost identical results for the single pile and are in very
good agreement with the measured values. For the five- and ten-pile
groups, the DEFPIG values are again in good agreement with the mea-

367
 TABLE 5.—iackfigured Values of Nh = d EJdz, from Ref. 4
Program Nh, in pounds per cubic inch
(1) (2)
DEFPIG 81
PIGLET 46
PGROUP 40
Note: 1 lb/in.3 = 271.5 kPa/m.

surements, but the PIGLET values underestimate the moments as the

program assumes that the single pile head moments apply to a pile
group. The measurements indicate reasonably uniform distribution of
moment with the pile groups, the maximum difference being of the or-
der of 10%. The maximum differences given by DEFPIG are similarly
small, but about half of this value. The measured variation in pile head
shear among the piles in the group is also not great, although again the
distribution given by DEFPIG is more uniform than that measured.
In order to examine the applicability of the nonlinear analysis facility
in DEFPIG, the groups tests by Matlock, et al. were further analyzed
using the following procedure:

1. The theoretical single pile response was fitted to the measured re-
sponse by adjusting the values and distributions of soil Young's mod-
ulus Es and pile-soil yield pressure Py until satisfactory agreement was
obtained. As shown in Fig. 7a, a good overall fit was obtained by using
a constant value of Es = 0.55 kips/sq in. (3,790 kPa) and a Py distribution
which varied from 0.5 lb/sq in. (65 kPa) at the surface to 25 lb/sq in.

TABLE 6.—Comparison Between Measured and

Schematic Lateral Deflection for 5t/Pile
Diagram Load, in Inches
Test
Plan Elevation PGROUP PIGLET DEFPIG result
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1
2
D 0.27
0.226
0.27 0.27 0.27
ITTTTl 0.245 0.261 0.197
3 una 0.164 0.167 0.158 0.143
rrrji
4 m /flTr 0.176 0.160 0.146 0.116

5 E3 7t? 0.148 0.141 0,138 0.130

6 ma W 0.143 0.160 0.145 0.076

7 rrm 0.146 0.218 0.235 0.071

8 0.103 0.105 0.080 0.038
9 am 0.160 0.145 0.098

"Range only quoted by Feagin.

368
(172 kPa) at a depth of 45 in. (1.15 m) and remained constant thereafter.
2. Using the previously mentioned parameters, a fixed-head analysis
of the single pile was carried out in order to determine the ratio of the
fixed-head deflection to that for the restraint imposed by the experi-
mental setup. This ratio was found to decrease with load level, from
0.84 at a load of 1 kip (4.5 kN) to about 0.54 at a load level of 5 kips
(22.7 kN).
3. The five and ten pile groups were analyzed using the aforemen-
tioned values of Es and Py, assuming fixed-head conditions at the pile
head.
4. The group deflections thus computed were multiplied by the ratios
determined in Step 2 in order to obtain the final theoretical values.

The theoretical load-deflection curves thus determined are compared

with the measured curves in Fig. 7. The agreement is remarkably good
overall, and indicates that the nonlinear DEFPIG analysis can give good
predictions of group response, provided that appropriate modulus and
yield pressure data (preferably determined from a pile load test) can be
input into the program.
Tests of Feagin (4).—A series of full-scale lateral load tests on groups
of vertical and battered timber piles was reported by Feagin (4). The
piles were driven into fine to coarse sand and had the heads fixed into
concrete blocks 5 ft (1.52 m) thick. The effects of number of piles, pile
geometry, and pile batter on lateral stiffness were investigated.
Theoretical calculations were carried out for these tests using both
DEFPIG and PIGLET. In each case, the soil modulus was assumed to
vary linearly with depth, and an appropriate value of the rate of increase

Theoretical Group Behavior, from Ref. 4

Lateral Load (t/Pile) Lateral Deflection for Vertical
for 0.25 Inch Deflection Load of 20t/Pile, in Inches
Test Test
PGROUP PIGLET DEFPIG result PGROUP PIGLET DEFPIG result
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
5.3 4.9 5.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7.3 7.2 7.9 7.0 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -(0.04'
to 0.07)
6.8 7.5 8.5 7.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.05 -(0.04'
to 0.07)
8.1 8.5 8.7 7.3 -0.07 -0.07 -0.06 -(0.04 a
to 0.07)
8.4 7.5 8.1 9.0 -0.11 -0.11 -0.09 -(0.04'
to 0.07)
8.2 5.5 5.6 9.0 -0.27 -0.29 -0.33 -0.21
11.7 11.4 12.8 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7.5 8.1 11.0 0.11 0.11 -(0.04"
to 0.07)

369
of modulus with depth Nh was determined by fitting the theoretical de-
flection for an eight-pile group with vertical piles to the measured de-
flection. The values of Nh thus obtained are shown in Table 5, together
with the value obtained by Banerjee (1) who also analyzed these tests
using the program PGROUP which employs a boundary element anal-
ysis. It will be observed that there is a considerable difference in the
backfigured values of Nn, reflecting the differences in the elastic solu-
tions from the three programs for a nonhomogeneous soil mass. The
value of Nh from DEFPIG is about twice the value given by PGROUP
since the analysis employed by DEFPIG produces a "softer" lateral re-
sponse for a given modulus than the other two analyses.
The computed response of the groups from the three different anal-
yses is shown in Table 6, together with the measured response. Both
the PIGLET and DEFPIG solutions assume a rigid connection between
piles and cap, but allow for the possibility of cap rotation. Two sets of
results are given: (1) The horizontal deflection for a horizontal load of
5 tons per pile; and (2) the load per pile for a horizontal deflection of
0.25 inches (6.5 mm). As the three analyses used here are purely elastic,
the second set of results can be obtained directly from the first if the
same soil modulus is used for each.
Table 6 indicates that, for the case of a load of 5 tons/pile, the three
theories generally give quite similar results but all tend to over-predict
the group deflection. This is due largely to the fact that the real load-
deflection response of the groups is nonlinear and the soil modulus has
been obtained by fitting to the group with the softest response (i.e. the
largest deflection). If the lateral load for a group deflection of 0.25 in.
(6.3 mm) is considered, the agreement between measurement and the-
ory is better. Certainly, it can be seen that, with the exception of Test
7, the theoretical analyses are consistent with the field measurements,
indicating the beneficial effects of pile batter on lateral stiffness of the
group. It is not clear why the predictions of stiffness from DEFPIG and
PIGLET for Test 7 are so much smaller than either the PGROUP pre-
diction or the measured value, although it could be partly due to the
effect of pile batter on the interaction factors, which is not properly ac-
counted for in either PIGLET or DEFPIG. This effect may be more sig-
nificant when all the piles are battered in the same direction.
The predicted lateral deflections due to a vertical load of 20 tons (181.6
kN) per pile are in good agreement with the measurements and the val-
ues predicted by PGROUP.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the different analytical approaches on which the programs

PIGLET and DEFPIG are based, the pile group response predicted by
each program is generally reasonably consistent. The programs give sim-
ilar values of group settlement and deflection ratios and their variations
with batter angle. The load and moment distributions within a group
are also in reasonable agreement, although with some components, PIG-
LET predicts higher loads and moments than DEFPIG. PIGLET has the
facility to consider double-raked piles, but it is found that the settlement
and deflection ratios are not significantly influenced as compared with
370
piles raked only in the direction of the lateral loading; however, larger
bending m o m e n t s may be induced in individual piles because of the
double raking.
The agreement between measured and theoretical performance is gen-
erally good for the two field cases considered, a n d indicates that both
PIGLET and DEFPIG can provide a useful link between the static de-
flections of a single pile and a pile group, and form a useful basis for
the design of pile groups using single pile test data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this paper forms part of a research project into
the behavior of offshore foundations being carried out at the University
of Sydney. The project is supported by a grant from the Australian Re-
search Grants Committee. The second writer was a visiting lecturer in
the School of Civil Engineering, the University of Sydney, and received
support from the Post-Graduate Civil Engineering Foundation of the
University of Sydney.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Banerjee, P. K., "Analysis of Axially and Laterally Loaded Pile Groups,"

Developments in Soil Mechanics, C. R. Scott, ed., Applied Science, London,
England, 1978.
2. Banerjee, P. K., and Driscoll, R. M. C , "Three-Dimensional Analysis of
Raked Groups," Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 61, 1976, pp.
653-671.
3. Evangelista, A., and Viggiani, C , "Accuracy of Numerical Solutions for Lat-
erally Loaded Piles in Elastic Half-Space," Proceedings, Second International
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Blacksburg, Va.,
ASCE, Vol. 3, 1976, pp. 1367-1370.
4. Feagin, L. B., "Lateral Load Tests on Groups of Battered and Vertical Piles,"
Symposium on Lateral Load Tests on Piles, American Society for Testing and
Materials, STP No. 154, 1953, pp. 12-29.
5. Matlock, H., Ingram, W. B., Kelley, A. E., and Bogard, D., "Field Tests on
the Lateral-Load Behavior of Pile Groups in Soft Clay," Proceedings, Twelth
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex., OTC Paper 3871, 1980, pp.
163-174.
6. O'Neill, M. W„ Ghazzaly, O. I., and Ha, H. B., "Analysis of Three-Dimen-
sional Pile Groups with Nonlinear Soil Response and Pile-Soil-Pile Interac-
tion," Proceedings, Nineth Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex.,
OTC Paper 2838, 1977, pp. 245-256.
7. Poulos, H. G., "Behavior of Laterally-Loaded Piles-II—Pile Groups," Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM5, 1971,
pp. 733-751.
8. Poulos, H. G., "Torsional Response of Piles," Journal of the Geotechnical En-
gineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT10, Oct., 1975, pp. 1019-1035.
9. Poulos, H. G., "An Approach for the Analysis of Offshore Pile Groups,"
Proceedings, Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Institution
of Civil Engineers, London, England, 1979, pp. 119-126.
10. Poulos, H. G., "Settlement of Single Piles in Non-Homogeneous Soil," Jour-
nal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT5, May,
1979, pp. 627-641.
11. Poulos, H. G., "Comparisons Between Theoretical and Observed Behavior
of Pile Foundations," Proceedings, Third Austrailian-New Zealand Confer-
ence on Geomechanics, Wellington, New Zealand, Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 95-104.
371
12. Randolph, M. F., "PIGLET: A Computer Program for the Analysis and De-
sign of Pile Groups Under General Loading Conditions," Soil Report TR91,
CUED/D, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 1980.
13. Randolph, M. F., "Analysis of the Behavior of PHes Subjected to Torsion,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT8,
Aug., 1981, pp. 1095-1111.
14. Randolph, M. F., "The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading," Geo-
techniaue, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1981, pp. 247-259.
15. Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P., "Analysis of Deformation of Vertically
Loaded Piles," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
No. GT12, Dec, 1978, pp. 1465-1488.

372