See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271973015

Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-014-0082-5

CITATIONS READS

12 4,500

3 authors, including:

Mahmoud Ghazavi Arash Alimardani Lavasan

Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology Ruhr-Universität Bochum
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,179 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   567 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy Piles View project

An Objective Systems Approach to Assess the Face Stability and Surface Settlement due to Mechanized Tunneling in Soft Ground View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Ghazavi on 22 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(7):2051-2063 Geotechnical Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-0082-5 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group
Mahmoud Ghazavi*, Pedram Ravanshenas**, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan***
Received February 13, 2012/Revised March 16, 2013/Accepted December 9, 2013/Published Online August 20, 2014

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Vertical and inclined piles in a group may be used where large lateral loads are present. The effects of the presence of the receiver
pile and batter angle on pile-soil-pile interaction has not yet been fully recognized. In the present study, a two pile group is considered
to determine such interaction. For this purpose, a simple method in closed form solution is used to characterize the inclined and
vertical isolated prismatic piles. The behavior of the soil and the pile are assumed to be elastic. The free field movement of the ground
in the vicinity of the loaded pile (source pile) is determined and used to find its influence on the other pile located closely (receiver
pile). Numerical analyses were also performed using FLAC3D to verify the data obtained from the developed analytical solution. The
results gained from the developed analytical solution indicate that the presence of the neighboring pile is important, resulting in a
lesser ground movement at the source pile head. Parametric studies have been carried out to determine the influence of contributing
parameters such as pile-pile distance, group geometry, length of piles, and inclined angles.
Keywords: pile-soil-pile interaction, elasticity theory, inclined pile, static loading, analytical method, numerical method, FLAC3D
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction degree of batter is the angle between the pile axes with the
vertical direction and may become up to 30o. If the lateral load
When a soft or loose soil extends to a considerable depth, piles acts on the pile in the direction of batter, it is called an in-batter
are generally used to transmit vertical and lateral loads to the or negative batter pile. If the lateral load acts in the direction
surrounding soil. Piles are used as foundations for tall chimneys, opposite to that of the batter, it is called an out-batter or positive
television towers, high rise buildings, high retaining walls, batter pile. Fig. 2 shows the two types of batter piles.
offshore structures, etc. and are normally subjected to high lateral Although there are two types of batter piles, the wide
loads. In these situations, piles should control both vertical and application of negative batter piles in offshore structures is due to
lateral movements. high resistance offered by negative batter piles to static and
Vertical piles are used in foundations to carry vertical loads and cyclic lateral loads. The behavior of batter piles to such loads is a
small lateral loads. When the horizontal load per pile exceeds the typical example of soil-structure interaction problems and is one
value suitable for vertical piles, batter piles are used in combi- of the main problems encountered in analysis and design of pile
nation with vertical piles. Pile foundations are used extensively in foundations. The complexity of the problem necessitates a scien-
offshore and coastal structures such as jacket-type structures,
berthing structures, and mooring dolphins. Batter piles are com-
monly used to support offshore structures, bridges and towers.
These types of structures are usually subjected to overturning
moment due to wind, waves and ship impact. The forces on these
structures are axial loads due to self-weight of superstructure;
stockpiled materials and traffic from trucks, cranes, etc.; impact
loads from ships; and wave loads that are cyclic in nature. There
are different magnitudes of loads on various parts of the structures.
The use of batter piles along with vertical piles in the pile-soil
system increases the overall efficiency. Fig. 1 shows a pile group
consisting of batter and vertical piles.
Batter piles are also called inclined piles or raker piles. The Fig. 1. Applicable of Batter Pile in Bridge

*Professor, Civil Engineering Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (E-mail: ghazavi_ma@kntu.ac.ir)
**Ph.D. Candidate, Civil Engineering Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (Correspnding Author, E-mail: p_ravanshenas@
dena.kntu.ac.ir)
***Ph.D., Civil Engineering Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (E-mail: a_alimardani@yahoo.com)

− 2051 −
 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan
Fig. 2. Two Types of Batter Piles
tific understanding of the interaction which occurs in the pile-soil
system under static and cyclic lateral loads.
Extensive theoretical and experimental investigation has been
conducted on single vertical piles subjected to lateral or vertical
loads. Generalized solutions for laterally loaded vertical piles are
given by Matlock and Reese (1960). Also the effect of vertical
loads in addition to lateral loads has been evaluated by Davisson
(1960) in terms of non-dimensional parameters.
During the last few decades, several researchers have studied
the behavior of batter piles using both laboratory tests and
theoretical studies. Tschebotarioff (1953) performed model test
results on sand and reported that the slip surfaces in the case
of positive batter deflects upward and in negative batter
deflects downward. However, Murthy (1964) and Prakash
and Subramanyam (1965) performed model tests on batter piles
in sand under a lateral load and reported that lateral resistance of
a negative batter pile is higher than the positive batter pile.
Analytical study on batter piles subjected to a lateral load was
completed by Alizadeh and Davisson (1970) using a nonlinear
variation of the subgrade reaction modulus suggested by Reese
and Matlock (1956). Poulos and Madhav (1971) developed
various theoretical expressions for batter piles subjected to static
loads, which revealed that the displacements were virtually
independent of the batter angle. Meyerhof and Ranjan (1973)
used earth-pressure wedge theories to study the lateral pile
capacity of positive and negative batter piles in cohesionless soil.
However, the work on batter piles is limited as compared to
vertical piles. Three series of tests on single ‘in’ and ‘out’ batter
piles subjected to lateral loads have been reported by Matsuo
(1939). The tests were run at three scales. The small and medium
scale tests were conducted using timber piles embedded in sand
in the laboratory under controlled density conditions. Loos and
Breth (1949) reported a few model tests in dry sand on vertical
and batter piles. Model tests were performed on piles to determine
the effect of the batter on pile load capacity (Tschebotarioff,
1953; Yoshimi, 1964; Awad and Petrasovits, 1968). The effect of
batter on deflections has been investigated by Kubo (1965) and
Awad and Petrasovits (1968) from tests on model piles in sand.
Laboratory tests were also carried out on single and group
batter piles. Ranjan et al. (1980) inferred from observations that
negative batter piles offer more resistance than positive batter
piles, and a group of one vertical pile and one batter pile (positive
or negative) has more resistance to lateral deflection compared to
a similar pile group consisting two vertical piles. However, Lu
(1981) conducted experiments on laterally loaded piles and
− 2052 −
observed a satisfactory criterion for determining design pile
loads. They inferred observations because the soil reaction at
ground level is zero for a positive batter pile and maximum for a
negative batter pile, indicating that the upper layer soil support in
a negative batter is enormous. More recently, Veeresh (1996)
conducted model tests on batter piles subjected to a cyclic lateral
load. In his work, a model pile was tested under a cyclic lateral
load and the effect of pile-soil interaction factors due to
subsequent cycles of loading on the structure was observed. In
the case of vertical and positive batter piles, the strength of soil
degrades and a gap is formed behind the pile; whereas, for
negative batter piles, slippage occurs into the gap, thus improving
the resistance of soil and closing the gap formed.
Little research work has been reported on numerical studies of
battered piles. Theoretical and laboratory tests are also rare.
Hanna and Afram (1986) conducted experimental investigation
to evaluate the pullout capacity for single vertical and batter
piles. Two piles with different sizes were used in this experiment.
Their analysis was according to Meyerhof theory (1973). This
investigation showed a good agreement with Meyerhof theory. It
was found that pull-out capacity of batter piles decreases slightly
when the pile inclination is increased.
Hanna and Nguyen (1986) present an experimental investigation
on the ultimate shaft resistance of batter piles. The mode1 piles
were pushed in medium dense sand deposits at different inclina-
tion up to 30o with respect to the vertical and tested under axial
compression loads. From the experimental results, it was found
that the total shaft resistance decreases with increasing the pile
inclination. They related the reason of this reduction to the reduction
of the average mobilized angle of friction between the pile shrift
and sand taking into account the vertical earth pressure distribution.
The earlier sections dealt with the behavior of long vertical
piles. Research work has been done on this problem for a long
time (Murthy, 1965).
Using instrumented model batter pile installed in sand, Murthy
(1965) developed relationships between vertical and batter piles.
The batter angles varied within 0 to ±45o range. In these relation-
ships, Murthy (1965) introduced important factors as pile material
modulus of elasticity, EP, second moment of area, IP, pile length,
L, pile diameter, d, free head of pile, e, soil internal friction angle,
φ, soil density, ρ, and batter angle. These relationships offered the
same results as given by typical experiments performed by
Alizadeh and Davisson (1970).
Full-scale field tests on single vertical and batter piles, and also
groups of piles have been made from time to time by many
investigators in the past. The field test values have been used
mostly to check the theories formulated for the behavior of
vertical piles only. Murthy and Subba Rao (1995) used field and
laboratory data and developed a new approach for solving the
laterally loaded pile problem. Reliable experimental data on
batter piles are rather scarce compared to those for vertical piles.
Though Kubo (1965) used instrumented model piles to study the
deflection behavior of batter piles. In general, investigation in
this field is quite limited. The work of Awad and Petrasovits
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group
(1968) was based on non-instrumented piles and as such does not
throw much light on the behavior of batter piles.
Murthy (1965) conducted a comprehensive series of model
tests on instrumented piles embedded in dry sand. Also Meyerhof
(1973) showed that the pullout capacity for batter piles in sand
increases due to an increase of the inclination angle of the pile
with respect to the vertical, while Awad and Ayoub (1976) showed
that the pullout capacity of these piles decreases due to an increase
of the angle inclination. Hanna and Nguyen (1986) confirmed
this observation for the shaft resistance of single piles subjected
to compression loading. The experimental results reported by
Afram (1984) showed no significant change in the pullout
capacity of batter piles due to an increase of the pile inclination.
At static working loads, the displacement of a pile increases if
this pile is located within the deformation field of a neighbouring
pile. As a result, the overall displacement uG of the group of piles
is greater than the individual displacement uS which each pile
would experience were it remained alone to carry the average
load. The static group efficiency uS/uG is thus always below
unity, and it tends to decline when the distance between piles is
shortened or when the number of piles in the group increases.
Rational analyses of pile group displacements were pioneered
by Poulos (1968, 1971), who introduced the concept of
‘interaction factors’ and showed that pile group effects can be
assessed by superimposing the effects of only two piles.
Interaction factors for each degree of freedom of the pile head
have been obtained by recourse to integral equation-based
methods (Poulos and Mattes, 1971; Butterfield and Banerjee,
1971; Poulos and Davis, 1980) and finite element formulations
(Naylor and Hooper, 1975; Ottaviani, 1975).
The static stiffness of a group of vertical piles in any mode can
not be computed by simply adding the stiffness of individual piles,
(since each pile is affected not only by its own load, but also by the
load and deflection of its neighbouring piles). Similarly, the
response of a pile group may differ substantially from the response
of each individual pile taken alone and because additional
deformations transmitted from the adjacent piles.
The tendency for a pile in a trailing row to exhibit less lateral
resistance because of interference with the failure surface of the
pile in front of it is commonly referred to as ‘shadowing’. This
shadowing or group interaction effect is thought to become less
significant as the spacing between piles increases and there is
less overlap between adjacent failure planes. Significant research
work has been developed using numerical and analytical
methods to compute the static response of pile groups accounting
for pile-to-pile interaction.
The first pile induces displacements on the soil and the soil
induces displacement on the second pile and the presence of the
‘receiver’ load-free pile usually reduces the above displacement.
If the receiver pile does not obey exactly the displacement
induced by the surrounding soil, the springs reactions would be
proportional to the relative displacement US(r, z)-U21(r, z) where
US(r, z) is the receiver pile displacement produced by loading the
source pile.
Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014
The interaction factors for pile group consisting of batter piles
under various loads have not been fully investigated. The
interaction factor for vertical piles with the presence of a receiver
pile has been investigated using analytical solutions for static
vertical load in layered soil (Ghazavi and Ghadimi, 2007) and
analytical solutions for static and dynamic lateral load in soil
(Ghazavi and Ravanshenas, 2008a, 2008b) and 2-D FE method
for pile-soil-pile interaction under static horizontal loading
(Ghazavi and Ravanshenas, 2009).
This paper develops a simple method for calculation of the
vertical and horizontal static pile-soil-pile interaction considering
the receiver pile presence. The method removes the shortcoming
of existing methods that basically ignores the presence of the
receiver pile.
2. Objectives and Scope of Work
In this paper, a simple analytical solution to the problem of static
pile-soil-pile interaction in uniform soil for batter piles is de-
veloped and parametric results for the influence of a source pile on
the receiver pile for floating piles are presented. In this work, the
piles are assumed to be made of linear elastic material. The soil
medium is also assumed to be uniform and linearly elastic and to
occupy a half space, which has elastic parameters ES and nS. In
addition, an investigation on the applicability of Poulos’ super-
position scheme for the evaluation of static pile group effects is
presented. The developed method calculates the vertical and
horizontal static pile-soil-pile interaction for soil considering the
flexibility of the receiver pile and underscores the shortcomings of
existing methods that ignore the presence of the receiver pile.
3. Displacement of Single Pile
Figure 3 shows a two pile group one of which is batter and
inclined at an angle θ1 with respect to the normal axis. The
external force, P acts at the source pile head with angle of
inclination θp with the normal axes.
For determination of response of the source pile, force P is
decomposed into two components: normal component, PV and
lateral component, PH (Fig. 4).
The values of the two components are given by:
ζ = θP + θ 1 (1)
Fig. 3. Source and Receiver Batter Piles
− 2053 −
 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan

approximate method is proposed that involves modelling the soil

as shown in Fig. 6.
For a single loaded laterally pile-soil system, the solution
involves a fourth-order differential equation denoted by Eq. (8).
4
d U11 ( z )
EP ⋅ IP -------------------
4
- + KS ⋅ U11 ( z ) = 0 (8)
dz
Fig. 4. Source Batter Pile under Force P Solving Eq. (8) leads to:
λ⋅z λ⋅ z
U11( z ) = A11 ⋅ e ⋅ cos ( λz ) + B11 ⋅ e ⋅ sin ( λz )
–λ ⋅ z –λ ⋅ z
+ C11 ⋅ e ⋅ cos ( λz ) + D11 ⋅ e ⋅ sin ( λz ) (9)
where,
1/4
( KS )
λ = -----------------------
- (10)
( 4 ⋅ EP ⋅ IP )
where the KS value is given by (Kagawa and Kraft, 1980):
E P /E S –0.7976
Fig. 5. Direction and Notion of Angle and Force KS = δ ⋅ ES , δ ( Free-Head Piles) = 5.246 × ( log ) (11)
where EP is pile elasticity modulus, IP is the second moment of
Ph = Psinζ (2) inertia of the pile, r0 is pile radius, d is pile diameter, L is pile
Pv = Pcosζ (3) length, Es is elasticity modulus of soil, G is shear modulus of soil,
and n is the soil Poisson’s ratio.
The direction and notion of angles and forces are shown in By applying the boundary relations at top and toe of the pile,
Fig. 5. coefficients in Eq. (9) are calculated. These are the shear force and
Two force components may be written in terms of lateral bending moment of top pile equal to Q, and 0 respectively. In
stiffness Kh and vertical stiffness Kv as: addition, the deflection and rotation at the toe of a long pile are zero.
Ph = Kh × u = Psinζ (4)
3.2 Evaluation of Vertical Pile Displacement
Pv = Kv × w = Pcosζ (5)
For a single pile-soil system loaded vertically as shown in Fig.
The load distribution along the batter pile length under axial 7, the solution involves solving a second-order differential equation
and horizontal load is assumed to be similar to that for a vertical as (Randolph and Wroth, 1978):
pile. This assumption is acceptable for practical inclination 2
d W 11 ( z )
angles, normally less than 30o (Poulos and Davis, 1980). The EP AP --------------------
2
– K S W 11 ( z ) = 0 (12)
lateral movement u and vertical movement w are given by dz
Eq. (6) and (7) and shown in Fig. 6(a): 2πG
Ks = ---------------------- (13)
ln ( 2rm /d )
u = ( P/Kh ) × sinζ (6)
The solution of Eq. (12) is given by Randolph and Wroth
w = ( P/Kv ) × cosζ (7)
(1978) as:
µ⋅z –µ ⋅ z
3.1 Evaluation of Pile Horizontal Displacement W 11 ( z ) = A11 e + B11 e (14)
The lateral response of a single pile subjected to horizontal
where,
loading or deformation due to the surrounding soil may be
calculated using a beam-on-Winkler-foundation formulation. For 1
2- ⋅ ---
µ = ----- -, ζ = ln( rm/r0 ), rm = 2.5L ( 1 – ν ), λ = Ep /G (15)
a two pile group, with only one pile loaded laterally, a general ζλ r0

Fig. 6. Schematic Illustration of Lateral Deflection of Single Pile Fig. 7. Schematic Illustration of Vertical Deflection of Single Pile

− 2054 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group

W11(z) is the reference pile settlement at depth z and A11 and B11
are constants. By applying the appropriate boundary conditions
(i.e., product Kb × W11(z = L) = P(z = L) at the pile toe and the
vertical force at the top of pile is P0), A11 and B11 are computed.
Character Pb represents the force transmitted by the pile tip, Kb is
the soil stiffness at the pile toe, and Ab is the pile toe section area.
Kb is given by:
4Gr
K b = ------------0 (16)
1–v
Fig. 8. Four Steps for Determination of Interaction Factor for Two
4. Pile-soil-pile Interaction Batter Pile

The pile-soil-pile interaction may be determined using the

following definition:
additional head displacement of second pile caused by first pile
α=
head displacement of first pile considered individually
(17)
In the proposed method, four steps are used to determine the
interaction factor between two batter piles as shown in Fig. 8 and
will be described subsequently.
4.1 Transfer of Response of Source Batter Pile to Ground
Response [(u, w) to (ut, wt)]
After calculation of movement on the normal axis and longi-
tudinal axis of the source batter pile, these values must be pro-
jected to horizontal and vertical directions for determination of
movement direction in the free field (Fig. 8b). The horizontal
displacement, ut, and vertical displacement, wt, are obtained from:
+cosθ1 –sinθ1 u = ut
(18)
+sinθ1 +cosθ1 w wt
The resultant direction of free-field horizontal and vertical
movement is δ movement direction (tan γ) that inclined at an
angle γ to the normal axes is illustrated in Fig. 8(b).
receiver pile. Thus, the displacement field around the source pile
is evaluated in order to calculate the displacement of the receiver
pile. This displacement field can be evaluated considering the
attenuation of the ground displacement from the location of the
source pile to the location of the receiver pile located at distance
s from the source pile, as shown in Fig. 8(c).
4.2.1 Horizontal Movement [(ut) to (ut' )]
The extension of solutions for lateral response of a single pile
to deal with groups of closely spaced pile is possible by the use
of interaction factor. It is started by calculating the displacement
field around a single loaded (‘source’) pile. The approximation
yields a variation of lateral soil displacement US with distance s
from the pile and thereby to an ‘attenuation function’ expressed as
from finite element analyses of laterally loaded piles. Randolph
(1981) has shown that the pattern of lateral movement at the soil
surface around a laterally loaded pile can be related directly to
value of the αρf suggested by Poulos (1971). The attenuation
function to be expressed approximately in the form of:
US ( S, z ) 1 + υ × ----- 1-⎞ 1/7
- = 0.5 × ⎛ -------------------
α h = ψH ( S, ω ) = -------------------
US ( r0, z ) ⎝ 1 + 3υ/4 64⎠
E 1/7 S –1
× ( 1 + cos ω ) × ⎛ -----P-⎞ × ⎛ ----⎞
2

2 2 ⎝ ES ⎠ ⎝ D⎠
δ = ut + wt (19)
US ( S, z )
u - = 0.28 × ( 1 + cos 2 ω )
≈ α h = ψH ( S, ω ) = -------------------
tanγ = -----t (20) US ( r0, z )
wt
E 1/7 S –1
The lateral stiffness Kh and vertical stiffness Kv are not equal. × ⎛ -----P-⎞ × ⎛ ----⎞ (23)
⎝ ES ⎠ ⎝ D⎠
In other words, the resultant direction of free-field movement
tanγ is not equal to resultant direction of forces tan ω. The center-to-center spacing between two piles is S and the
angle between the line joining the pile centers and the loading
tan ( θp + θ1 )/tanφ – tanθ1
- ⇒γ≠ω
tanγ = ----------------------------------------------------------------- (21) direction is designated herein as the departure angle ω (Fig. 9).
1 + tan ( θp + θ1 )/tanφ × tanθ1
The values of a parametric study on the attenuation function are
if K h = Kv ⇒ tanφ = 1 ⇒ γ = ω shown in Fig. 10. All ψH(S, ω) values decrease with increasing the
pile spacing and are greater for ω = 0o than for ω = 90o.
where:
tanφ = K h /Kv (22) 4.2.2 Vertical Movement [(wt) to (wt' )]
The load-free pile (receiver) located at distance S from the
4.2 Attenuation of Ground Displacement Away from source pile follows exactly the free field soil displacement
Source Pile [(ut, wt) to (ut' , wt' )] described in the interaction factor. To determine the interaction
The displacement of the ground affects the response of the factor between two piles, the displacement field around a single

Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014 − 2055 −

 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan

pile (source) pile may be calculated (Mylonakis and Gazetas, u′

tanγ′ = -----t′ (29)
1998). The plain strain approximate yields a logarithmic variation wt
of vertical soil displacement w′t with radial distance S from the
Also the relationship between directions of movement δ, tanγ,
pile and thereby to an attenuation function expressed as:
and movement δ', and tanγ ', is:
r m = 2.5L ( 1 – ν ) u′ α h ut α h ut
tanγ′ = -----t′ = ---------- = ----- × ----- (30)
r m /D = 2.5 × L/D × ( 1 – ν ) (24) wt α v wt α v wt
US ( S, z ) ln( rm/S ) ln( 1/( S/D ) ) + ln( rm/D ) or:
α v = ψV ( S ) = ------------------
- = ----------------------- = -----------------------------------------------------
U S ( r0, z ) ln ( 2rm /D ) ln( 2) + ln ( rm/D )
γ = γ′ + α (31)
(25)
where α can be obtained from:
where r0, D are radius and diameter of the pile respectively and ν
α
is the soil Poisson’s ratio. tanγ × ⎛ 1 – tan -----h⎞
⎝ α v⎠
It is noted that parameters ah and av defined in Eqs. (23) and tanα = ----------------------------------------- (32)
αh 2
(25) are used in the absence of the receiver batter pile for 1 + tan -----tan γ
αv
determination of interaction between two piles.
The values of a parametric study on the attenuation function are Based on Eq. (32) and that αv and αh are not equal, it is
shown in Fig. 11. All ψV(S) values decrease with an increase in the conclude that γ′ ≠ γ .
pile spacing and are greater for rm /D = 20 than for rm /D = 40.
4.3 Ground Displacement along Local Axes of Receiver
4.2.3 Resultant Ground Movement Batter Pile [(ut', wt' ) to (u ', w')]
The horizontal and vertical ground displacements at a distance In Fig. 12, following calculating free-field horizontal and
S from the source pile are given by: vertical movements, these values must be projected to the
normal and lateral axes of the receiver batter pile.
u′t = α h ut (26) Horizontal displacement u' and vertical displacement w' are
w ′t = α v wt (27) obtained with:

The resultant direction of horizontal and vertical free-field +cosθ2 –sinθ2 u′t = u′ (33)
movement at distance S from the source pile and the departure +sinθ2 +cosθ2 w ′t w′
angle ω is δ' direction that is inclined at an angle γ' related to
normal axes of earth is illustrated in Fig. 8.
2 2
δ′ = u′t + w′t (28)

Fig. 9. Illustration of Two Pile Groups with Spacing S and Depar-

ture Angle ω Fig. 11. Variation of Attenuation Function with S/D and rm/D

Fig. 10. Variation of Attenuation Function of Horizontal Movement with S/D and Ep/Es

− 2056 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group

α u′u α u′w u = u′ or ( 1 ) ( 2 ) u = u′ (40)

α w′u α w′w w w′ (3) (4) w w′
In Eq. (40), (1), (2), (3), and (4) represent αu'u, αu'w, αw'u and
αw'w respectively.
The various components of interaction factor in the matrix
form represented by Eq. (40) (for example αu'u is portion
displacement u' of displacement u) vary with departure angle ω,
Fig. 12. Receiver Batter Pile the modulus ratio EP/ES, distance ratio S/D, slenderness ratio L/
D, soil Poisson’s ratio ν, and batter angles of the source pile and
Another kind of interaction factor may be expressed as: receiver pile θ1 and θ2.
a) In the horizontal axes of two batter pile:
4.4 Static Interaction (PSPI) for Receiver Pile
αα h = u′/u (34) Consider now a second (‘receiver’) pile located at r = S from
b) In the vertical axes of two batter pile: the first (‘source’) pile, as shown in Fig. 13. The soil
displacement due to the first loaded pile affects the second pile.
αα v = w ′/w (35) The first pile induced displacements on the soil and in parallel,
Also in the resultant direction is defined as: the soil induces displacement to the second pile and the presence
′
of the ‘receiver’ pile modifies (usually reduced) the above
α t = δ /δ (36) displacement. If the receiver pile does not obey exactly the
2 2 2 2 2 2
displacement induced by the surrounding soil, the springs
u′t + w ′t α h × ut + α v × wt reactions would be proportional to the relative displacement
α t = ---------------------
- = ----------------------------------------
- (37)
2 2 2 2
ut + w t ut + wt US(r, z)-U21(r, z) where US(r, z) is the receiver pile displacement
produced by loading the source pile. Therefore, the differential
Combining Eqs. (18), (26) and (27) and regarding 1 to 3, the equation of the receiver pile will be concluded using (Ghazavi
free-field horizontal and vertical movements of the receiver and Ravanshenas, 2008a):
batter pile are given by: 4
d U21 ( S, z )
EP ⋅ IP ------------------------
4
- + KS ⋅ ( U21 ( S, z ) – Us ( S, z ) ) = 0 (41)
+α h cosθ1 –α h sinθ1 u = u′t (38)
dz
+α v sinθ1 +α v cosθ1 w w ′t Substituting US(S, z) from Eq. (23) gives:
4
By determination of the normal and lateral movements of the d U21 ( S, z )
EP ⋅ IP ------------------------
4
- + KS ⋅ U21 ( S, z ) = KS ⋅ ψH ( S, ω ) ⋅ U11 ( z ) (42)
source batter pile and after calculations of the normal and lateral dz
movements of the receiver batter pile, the following equations After lengthy calculations, we arrive at:
are determined:
U21( S, z ) = ψH ( S, ω ) ⋅ ( UP + UG ) (43)
+cosθ2 –sinθ2 +α h cosθ 1 –α h sinθ 1 u = u′ UP ( z ) = λ ⋅ z (A 11 ⋅ e
λ⋅z
⋅ cos ( λz ) + B11 ⋅ e
λ⋅z
⋅ sin ( λz )
–λ ⋅ z –λ ⋅ z
+sinθ2 +cosθ2 +α v sinθ1 +α v cosθ1 w w′ + C11 ⋅ e ⋅ cos ( λz ) + D11 ⋅ e ⋅ sin ( λz )) (44)
λ⋅z λ⋅z
′ UG ( z ) = ( A′21 ⋅ e ⋅ cos ( λz ) + B′21 ⋅ e ⋅ sin ( λz )
or [I ][ II ] u = u (39) –λ ⋅ z –λ ⋅ z
′ ′
w w′ +C ⋅e 21 ⋅ cos ( λz ) + D ⋅ e 21 ⋅ sin ( λz )) (45)

In Eq. (39), matrix [I] represents the influence of batter angle where coefficient of UG(z) are new integration constants
of the receiver batter pile and matrix [II] shows either the determined from the boundary conditions of the receiver pile
influence of the batter angle of the source pile or the influence of (i.e. zero force and rotation atop the receiver pile). This is the
the presence and absence of the receiver batter pile. For two response of the ‘receiver’ pile. It is useful to express the pile-to-
batter piles with equal inclined angles, ie (θ1 = θ2 = θ), we have: pile interaction through the static interaction factor with the
presence of the receiver pile. For z = 0, we may have:
α h + α v⎞
–⎛ --------------- U21 ( z = 0 ) ⎛ 3⎞
2 2
+α h cos θ – α v sin θ - sinθ2 α H = ----------------------- = --- ⋅ ψ ( S, ω )
⎝ 2 ⎠ u = u′ (46)
U11 ( z = 0 ) ⎝ 4⎠ H
α h + α v⎞ w w′
+ ⎛ ---------------
2 2
- sin2θ +α v cos θ – α h cos θ The result of Eq. (23) in the case where the interaction factor is
⎝ 2 ⎠
not considered is merely αh = ψH(S, ω). If the interaction factor is
or considered, then we have αH = 0.75 × ψH(S, ω) (Ghazavi and

Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014 − 2057 −

 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan

form represented by Eq. (40) varying with departure angle (ω),

batter angles of the source and the receiver pile (θ1, θ2), soil
Poisson’s ratio (ν), the modulus ratio (EP/ES), distance ratio (S/
D), slenderness ratio (L/D) are shown in Fig. 15 where either
presence or absence of the receiver batter pile is considered.

5. Numerical Analysis Procedure and Verification

Fig. 13. Schematic Illustration of Deflection of Lateral Interaction of In this section, a number of numerical analyses were
‘Receiver’ Pile with ‘Source’ Pile conducted to investigate the displacement field in a soil due to
loading a single flexible batter pile. Thereafter, another pile was
Ravanshenas, 2008a). installed at close spacing and the displacement developed in the
Due to loading and displacement of the source pile, the adjacent soil and second pile was determined using numerical analyses.
soil is transformed and affects the second load-free pile (receiver The finite difference program FLAC3D was considered for the
pile). The receiver pile does not fully follow the soil displacement numerical simulation. To ensure the reliability of numerical
due to its stiffness and interaction with the adjacent soil. modeling, a verification analysis was conducted on an
The settlement of the receiver pile due to vertical loading of experimental study performed by Sastry et al. (1995). In this
the reference pile is given by (Mylanokis and Gazetas, 1998): study, laboratory tests were carried out in a square rigid tank with
2 0.48 m × 0.48 m in plane and 0.8 m depth. The piles were made
d W 21 ( S, z )
2
- – KS ( W 21 ( S, z ) – W S ( S, z ) ) = 0
EP AP ------------------------- (47) of aluminum with length of 64 cm. The pile was considered to be
dz installed in a tilted position making an angle equal to 15o with the
The solution of this equation is: vertical direction. The load was applied horizontally to the pile
head.
W 21 ( S, z ) = ψV ( S ) ⋅ ( W P + W G ) (48)
In the numerical simulation, the distributions of grid points are
µ⋅z –µ ⋅ z
W P ( z ) = µ ⋅ z ( A11 e + B11 e ) (49) assumed to be uniform in all directions. Moreover, all exterior
µ⋅z –µ ⋅ z faces of model are constrained in the normal direction but free
W G ( z ) = ( A21 e + B21 e ) (50)
displacement in tangential directions is allowed. The experimental
where A21 and B21 are new constants that are calculated with set up is shown in Fig. 16.
existing boundary conditions of the receiver pile (i.e. zero force
at pile head and the force-displacement relation at the receiver 5.1 Properties of Soil
pile tip). Sastry et al. (1995) used a granular cohesionless soil which
The vertical interaction factor is determined from: was filling in the test tank by sand pouring technique. Dry
Toyora sand used in the tests was uniformly graded having an
W 21 ( z = 0 )
α V = -----------------------
- (51) effective size of 0.12 mm and uniformity coefficient of 1.67. The
W 11 ( z = 0 )
friction angle and cohesion of the sand were φ = 31o and c =
For a long pile, 0 kPa, respectively. The behavior of soil is assumed to be elastic
with bulk and shear modulus equal to K = 5.4 MPa and G =
α V = ⎛ ---⎞ ⋅ ψV ( S )
1
(52) 2.5 MPa, respectively. The unit weight of soil is 16 kN/m3. To
⎝ 2⎠
investigate the variation of stress in soil due to its weight, an
For group of vertical piles loaded vertically, this reduction for a initial geostatic stress analysis was performed in each numerical
long pile sometimes accounts for about 50% (Mylonakis and modeling before the pile installation.
Gazetas 1998).
The various components of interaction factor in the matrix 5.2 Pile Properties
To simulate the behavior of a pile in FLAC3D, the inbuilt pile
structural element was used. Pile structural elements are formed
by a number of nodes with 6 degrees of freedom per each node.
These elements offer combined skin friction and end-bearing
capacity for numerically modeled piles. The mechanical parameters
of a pile are characterized as A, P, Iy, Iz, J, E and ν which
represent the cross-section area, perimeter, second moment of
inertia with respect to planar radial axes y and z, polar moment
of inertia, elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio, respectively.
Fig. 14. Schematic Illustration of Deflection of Vertical Interaction The interaction between soil and pile nodes is numerically
of ‘Receiver’ Pile with ‘Source’ Pile simulated by the use of interface element. Piles interact with the

− 2058 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group
Fig. 15. Variation of Components of Interaction Factor Matrix with ω, EP/ES, S/D, L/D, ν and θ1 & θ2: (a) For Absence of Receiver Batter Pile,
(b) For Presence of Receiver Batter Pile
soil grid via shear and normal coupling springs. The coupling
springs are nonlinear, spring-slider connectors that transfer
forces and motion between the pile and the grid at the pile nodes.
The shear behavior of the soil-interface system is naturally
cohesive and frictional. The limit of shear stress transferred from
the pile to the soil is controlled by the magnitudes of cohesion
and friction of the interface as well as confining pressure acting
on the pile’s skin at each depth. On the other hand, the normal
coupling springs can simulate the effect of the host medium
squeezing around the pile.
In the study performed by Sastry et al. (1995), the pile is
assumed to be a hollow cylinder aluminum pipe having outer
and inner diameters equal to 16 mm and 14 mm, respectively.
The elastic modulus of pile is reported to be about EP = 6.3E4
MPa. As mentioned before, the pile is placed with an angle equal
to 15o with the vertical direction and the load was applied
horizontally to the pile head. In the numerical modeling, the
dimensions of the pile are precisely considered to be identical
Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014
with the experimental study and the pile length divided to 8
segments. The mechanical parameters of the pile considered in
the present numerical analyses are given in Table 1.
The plan of piles used in numerical analysis is shown in Fig.
17.
Figure 18 show the geometry of soil medium and two batter
piles for simulating the soil-pile system.
Figure 19 compares results obtained from the present
numerical data with those obtained from a test carried out by
Sastry et al. (1995) and also data obtained from an analytical
method presented by Murthy (1965). As seen, these results are
relatively well in accordance, demonstrating the capability of
numerical simulation of battered piles. Thus FLAC may be used
confidently for further analyses.
6. Parametric Studies
The ratio of vertical and horizontal displacements of the soil
− 2059 −
 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan

Fig. 15. Continued

Fig. 17. Plan of Batter Piles in Present Numerical Analysis

Fig. 16. Experimental Set Up (Sastry et al., 1995)

Table 1. Mechanical Properties of Pile in Numerical Analyses

P A Iy Iz J E
ν
(m2) (m2) (m4) (m4) (m4) (kN/m2)
62.83E-3 47.12E-6 1.331E-9 1.331E-9 2.662E-9 6.3×106 0.3

with variation of S/D and departure angle of w is shown in Fig.

20 for the presence of the receiver pile. In the absence of the
receiver pile, the displacement of the receiver pile to that of the Fig. 18. Soil and Piles Model in Present Numerical Method (FLAC
source pile in the numerical model with vertical and horizontal 3D)

− 2060 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group
Fig. 19. Comparison between Results Obtained from Numerical
Data (Present Study) with Those from Tests (Sastry et al.,
1995) and Analytical Solution (Murthy, 1965))
Fig. 20. Comparison between Interaction Factor (I.F) Determined
from Present Static Analytical Method and Present Numer-
ical Method for Vertical and Horizontal Displacements of
Batter Piles (in the Absence of Receiver Batter Pile) (Soil
and Pile Properties is Reported in Table 1) (ω = 0, 45, 90,
ν = 0.3, EP/ES = 10000, L/D = 40, θ1 = θ2 =15, S/D = 3-8)
interaction factor I.F, in Eqs. (23) and (25), are illustrated in
Fig. 20. As seen, with increasing distance ratio S/D and departure
angle w, the interaction factor decreases. The numerical results
are also shown to further demonstrate the capability of the
developed analytical solution.
Following the above verification for the single batter pile in
which no presence of the receiver pile was assumed, the receiver
pile is now present at varying distance ratios and departure
angles, and the interaction factor is computed. In these cases, the
receiver free-loaded pile is present. The interaction factor with a
Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014
Fig. 21. Comparison between Interaction Factor (I.F) Determined
from Present Static Analytical Method and Present Numer-
ical Method for Vertical and Horizontal Displacements of
Batter Piles (in the Presence of Receiver Batter Pile) (Soil
and Pile Properties is Reported in Table 1) (ω = 0, 45, 90,
ν = 0.3, EP/ES = 10000, L/D = 40, θ1 = θ2 = 15, S/D = 3-8)
receiver pile presence is less than that with the receiver pile
absence.
With calculation of the horizontal and vertical displacements
in the soil at the position of the receiver pile ( u′t and w ′t ), with
products horizontal and vertical displacements in the soil at the
position of the source batter pile (ut and wt) to interaction factors
with absence of the receiver batter pile (αh and αv), normal and
axial displacement of the receiver batter pile are calculated ( u′
and w′ ). The ratio of the horizontal to vertical displacements of
the batter piles (receiver to source) or interaction factor (I.F) with
the presence of the receiver batter pile and variable S/D and
departure angle ω (0, 45, 90) in two cases (static analytical
method), was defined by Ghazavi and Ravanshenas (2008a), and
the present numerical method are shown in Fig. 21.
In Fig. 22, a comparison between the variations of interaction
factor (I.F) determined from the numerical and analytical
analysis for the presence and absence of the batter pile is made.
As seen, the presence of the receiver batter pile can reduce the
interaction factor compared with the case where the receiver pile
is assumed to be absent.
As seen from the above analyses, the interaction factor for
cases where the receiver pile is present or absent, decreases with
− 2061 −
 Mahmoud Ghazavi, Pedram Ravanshenas, and Arash Alimardani Lavasan
Fig. 22. Comparison between Interaction Factor (I.F), in Cases of
Horizontal and Vertical Displacement, Determined from
Present Analytical and Present Numerical Method in the
Presence and Absence of Batter Piles (Soil and Pile Prop-
erties is Reported in Table 1) (ω = 0, 45, 90, ν = 0.3, EP/
ES = 10000, L/D = 40, θ1 = θ2 = 15, S/D = 3-8)
increasing the distance between the two piles. In horizontal
displacement of the ground, with increasing the distance ratio
and departure angle, the interaction factor decreases. In addition,
with the presence of the receiver batter pile, both analytical and
numerical solutions show a reduction for interaction factors
compared with cases in which the receiver batter pile is absent.
This reduction sometimes accounts for about 75%. For vertical
displacement departure angle, the I.F does not change but with
increasing distance ratio, the interaction factor is reduced. Also
with the receiver batter pile presence, both analytical and
numerical solutions give a reduced interaction factor of almost
50%.
7. Conclusions
The behavior of a two grouped batter piles subjected to an
inclined external force has been analyzed mathematically in this
− 2062 −
paper. In these pile groups, the interaction factor varies with
varying pile properties, pile geometries, pile-pile distance, pile
slenderness ratio, soil properties, and batter angles of the source
and receiver piles (θ1 & θ2). The developed analytical solution
has been verified using numerical simulation, which in turn, has
been validated by experimental data. The effect of the absence or
presence of the receiver pile in the group has also been
investigated using the developed analytical solution. The general
findings in this research may be outlined as:
• For a given batter angle and load orientation, with increasing
the pile spacing, the interaction between two batter piles
decreases.
• The interaction of pile-soil-pile decreases by increasing the
departure angle.
• With increasing batter angle with respect to the vertical
direction, the interaction decreases.
• With increasing Ep/Es, the values of αu'w and αw'u (see Eq.
(40)) markedly vary compared with components αu'u and aw'w.
However, with increasing L/D, components αu'u and αw'w
vary significantly compared with αu'w and αw'u.
References
Alizadeh, M. and Davisson, M. T. (1970). “Lateral load test on piles-
Arkansas river Project.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp. 1583-1604.
Afram, A. (1984). Pull out capacity of pile foundation, MSc Thesis,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Awad, A. and Ayoub, A. (1976). “Ultimate uplift capacity of vertical
and inclined piles in cohensionless soil.” Proceedings of the 5th
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Budapest, Hungary, Vol. 1, pp. 221-227.
Awad, A. and Petrasovits, G. (1968). “Considerations on the bearing
capacity of vertical and batter piles subjected to forces in different
directions.” Proc. 3rd Budapest Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Budapest, pp. 487-497.
Butterfield, R. and Banerjee, P. K. (1971). “The elastic analysis of
compressible piles and pile groups.” Geotechnique, Vol. 21. No. 1,
pp. 43-60.
Ghazavi, M. and Ghadimi, M. (2006). “A new approach for pile-soil-pile
interaction under static vertical loading.” International Conference
on Coasts, Ports and Marine Structures, Tehran.
Ghazavi, M., Khazaie, S., and Ravanshenas, P. A. (2009) “Numerical
modeling for pile-soil-pile interaction under satic horizontal loading.”
International Conference on Deep Foundations-CPRF and Energy
Piles, Frankfurt.
Ghazavi, M. and Ravanshenas, P. (2008a) “Pile-soil-pile interaction
under horizontal loading: A simple approach.” Proceddings of the
12th International Conference of International Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Goa, India,
pp. 3399-3407.
Ghazavi, M. and Ravanshenas, P. (2008b) “Pile-soil-pile interaction
under horizontal harmonic vibrations: A simple approach.” Proceed-
ings of 8th International Conference on the Application of Stress
Wave Theory to Pile, Lisbon, pp. 341-351.
Hanna, A. M. and Afram, A. (1986). “Pullout capacity of single batter
piles in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.
387-392.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Analytical and Numerical Solution for Interaction between Batter Pile Group

Hanna, A. M. and Nguyen, T. Q. (1986). “Ultimate skin friction of single depth.” Proceedings of the 8th Texas Conference on Soil Mech. and
batter piles in sand.” Proceeding of the International Conference on Foundation Engineering, Special Publcation 19 of Bureau of
Deep Foundations, Beijing, pp. 100-108. Engineering Research University of Texas at Austin. Austin, Tex.
Kagawa, T. and Kraft, L. M. Jr. (1980) “Seismic p-y responses of Sastry, V. V. R. N., Koumoto, T., Manoppo, F. J., and Sumampouw, J. E.
flexible piles.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. R. (1995). “Bearing capacity and deflection of laterally loaded
106, No. GT8, pp. 899-918. flexible piles.” Bulletin No. 79. Faculty of Agriculture, Saga 840,
Kubo, J. (1965). “Experimental study of the behaviour of laterally Japan, pp. 77-85.
loaded piles.” Proceeding 6th International Conference Soil Mechanic Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1953). “The resistance to lateral loading of single
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 275-279. piles and pile groups.” Special Publish, No.154, ASTM, West
Loos, W. and Breth, H. (1949). “Modellversuche uber biege beanspruch- Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 38-48.
ungen von pfahlen and spunwenden.” Der Bauingeniur, Vol. 28. Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1958). Soil mechanics foundation and earth
Lu, S. S. (1981). “Design load of bored pile laterally loaded.” Proceedings structures, McGraw Hill, New York.
of the l0th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Veeresh, C. (1996). Behaviour of batter piles in marine clays, PhD
Foundation Engineering, Balkema. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India.
2, pp. 767-770. Yoshimi, Y. (1964). “Piles in cohesionless soil subject to oblique pull.”
Matsuo, H. (1939). Tests on the lateral resistance of piles (in Japanese), Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Report No. 46, Research Institute of Civil Engineering. Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 11-24.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1973). “The uplift capacity of foundations under
oblique loads.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. Apendix.
64-70.
Meyerhof, G. G. and Ranjan, G. (1973). “The bearing capacity of rigid
For vertical piles-vertical loading case and vertical pile-lateral
piles under inclined loads in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 10, pp. 71-85.
loading case, with especially (θ1 & θ2 = 0), the summary values
Murthy, V. N. S. (1964). “Behaviour of battered piles embedded in sand of parameters used are shown in Figs. 23 and 24, respectively.
subjected to lateral loads.” Proceedings of Symposium on Bearing
Capacity of Piles, CBRI, Roorkee, India, pp. 142-153.
Murthy, V. N. S. (1965). Behaviour of battered piles embedded in sand
subjected to lateral loads, PhD Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India.
Mylonakis, G. and Gazetas, G. (1998). “Settlement and additional
internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil.” Geotechnique, Vol.
48, No. 1, pp. 55-72.
Naylor, D. J. and Hooper, J. A. (1975). “An effective stress finite
element analysis to predict the short and long-term behavior of a pile
raft foundation on London clay.” Proceedings of Conference on
Settlement of Structure, Cambridge, England. pp. 394-402.
Ottaviani, M. (1975). “Three-dimensional finite element analysis of
vertically loaded pile groups.” Geotechnique, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.
159-174.
Poulos, H. G. (1968). “Analysis of the settlement of pile groups.”
Geotechnique, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 449-471.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and Fig. 23. Values of Parameters for Vertical Pile-vertical Loading
design, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Poulos, H. G. and Madhav, M. R. (1971). Analysis of movernent of
battered piles, Research Report, No. RJ73, University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia, pp. 1-18.
Poulos, H. G. and Mattes, N. S. (1971). “Settlement and load distribution
analysis of pile groups.” Australia Geomechanic Journal, Vol. G1,
pp. 18-28.
Prakash, S. and Subramanyam, G. (1965). “Behaviour of battered piles
under lateral loads.” Journal Indian National Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 4, pp.
177-196.
Randolph, M. F. (1981). “The response of flexible piles to lateral
loading.” Geotechnique, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Ranjan, G., Ramasamy, G., and Tyagi, R. P. (1980). “Lateral response of
batter piles and pile bents in clay.” Indian Geotechnical Journal,
New Delhi, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 135-142.
Reese, L. C. and Matlock, H. (1956). “Non-dimensional solutions for
laterally loaded piles with soil modulus assumed proportional to Fig. 24. Values of Parameters for Vertical Pile-lateral Loading

Vol. 18, No. 7 / November 2014 − 2063 −

View publication stats