HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Evaluation of ultimate behavior of actual large-scale pile

group foundation by in-situ lateral loading tests and
numerical analysis
Shuntaro Teramoto a,⇑,1, Tomonari Niimura b, Tomihiro Akutsu c, Makoto Kimura d
a
Setsunan University, Osaka 572-8508, Japan
b
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd, Japan
c
Obayashi Co., Ltd, Japan
d
Kyoto University Graduate School of Engineering, Japan

Received 27 January 2017; received in revised form 12 February 2018; accepted 28 March 2018
Available online 27 August 2018

Abstract

Structures resting on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) base must be completely stable during an earthquake in order to ensure a steady
gas supply. Thus, the stability of the foundations on which these large-scale structures rest is one of the most significant factors for real-
izing the safety and ease of maintenance in the event of an earthquake. Problems can potentially occur when the actual bearing capacity
of an in-service practical LNG tank foundation has not been verified, and when the operative design method for the pile-group effect is
inadequate, especially for large-scale pile groups. To date, no prediction method capable of appropriately simulating the mechanical
behavior of large-scale pile groups has been established. Therefore, in this study, in-situ lateral loading tests were conducted on a
real-life practical tank foundation upon the demolition of an LNG tank after 40 years of service. A 3D elasto-plastic finite element
method (FEM) analysis was also conducted. From the results, the bearing capacity and the failure level of the practical LNG tank foun-
dation were investigated and its soundness was confirmed. In addition, the behavior of a large-scale pile group foundation for load share
distribution was observed and compared with the operative design.
Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.

Keywords: LNG tank; Pile group; In-situ test; Lateral loading test; FEM; Pile group effect (IGC: E04)

1. Introduction
The Tohoku earthquake of March 11, 2011 provided an
opportunity to diversify energy sources and to address glo-
bal environmental problems. Natural gas discharges lower
amounts of CO2, NO2, and SO2 during combustion than
other fossil fuels. It is also said to be capable of providing
a huge amount of stable clean energy and, even though
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shuntaro.teramoto@civ.setsunan.ac.jp (S. Teramoto).
1
Former affiliation: Doctoral student, Kyoto University Graduate
School of Engineering, Japan.
recovery takes years longer than that for oil, natural gas
deposits can be found all over the world. Imported natural
gas arrives at LNG bases as
162 °C liquefied natural gas
(henceforth, LNG). The devolatilization of natural gas
compresses its volume to 1/600 of its original volume and
improves the efficiency of its transport. It is supplied
through pipelines after storage, re-evaporation, and odor-
ization. In earthquake-prone countries, like Japan, the
safety and maintenance of an LNG-receiving terminal are
critical when servicing an LNG base. The LNG tank is
an extremely important facility whose foundation is com-
posed of multiple piles to support the superstructure. The
superstructure must be capable of supporting the vertical
load of its weight during normal operations, as well as

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.03.011
0038-0806/Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
820 Unit horizontal subgrade S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837
pHU
reaction force
pHU =
tan-1kHE kHE =
0 Horizontal displacement
kHE : Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
pHU : Maximum unit horizontal subgrade reaction force (kN/m3)
kH : Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction during
earthquakes (kN/m2)
pU : Earth pressure strength during earthquakes (kN/m2)
Fig. 1. 2-D framework analysis design in Specification for Highway Bridges.
the lateral load and the bending moment caused by the
inertial forces of earthquakes.
Problems related to pile groups subjected to lateral load-
ing have been investigated by many researchers, and the
pile-group effect has been found to be a significant factor
in the design of pile foundations. From the 1960s to
1980s, an elastic theoretical analysis of the pile-group effect
(Poulos, 1964), small-scale model tests (Tamaki et al.,
1971), and an elastic numerical analysis using the theory
developed by Poulos (Randolph, 1981) were conducted.
In these studies, algebraic equations were suggested for
the pile-group effect which considered the spacing between
piles, the matrix of a pile group, the fixation of a pile head,
and the relative stiffness between a pile and the ground.
However, these equations were shown to have limitations
in terms of the elastic ranges they could cover. In the
1980s and 1990s, along with the development of mechani-
cal devices and measurement systems, centrifuge model
tests (Adachi et al., 1994; McVay et al., 1998) and real-
scale tests (O’Neil et al., 1985; Pedro et al., 1997) were
performed. In the real-scale tests, in-situ lateral loading
tests on a 9-pile group, including the ultimate behavior
(Kimura et al., 1994), and 3-D elastic perfectly-plastic
FEM analyses of the tests (Kimura et al., 1995) were
conducted, and the results became the basis for an evalua-
tion of the pile-group effect in the current design for Spec-
ification for Highway Bridges (Japan Road Association,
2012).
In recent years, large-scale seismic loading model tests
(Shirato et al., 2008) and non-linear seismic numerical
analyses (Zhang et al., 2002a) have been conducted to
investigate the dynamic mechanical behavior of pile
groups. To simulate the dynamic behavior of RC pile
groups, a new beam model (AFD model), capable of con-
sidering the axial-force dependency in the nonlinear
moment-curvature relation, was introduced. In the devel-
opment of rational foundation structures, jacket-type foun-
dations using batter piles (Zhang et al., 2002b) and steel
p p pU
k k kH
p: 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
H (m) k: 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 Loading
(1) (2) (3) (4) (100) direction
k : Correction factor of coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction at single pile
p : Correction factor of maximum unit horizontal subgrade reaction force at single pile
: Correction factor of coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction at group pile
k
p : Correction factor of maximum unit horizontal subgrade reaction force at group pile
pipe pile foundations, supporting integrated columns with
multiple steel pipe piles (Shinohara et al., 2013) have been
carefully studied. In addition, the mechanical behavior of
seismic reinforced foundations for pile groups in an
improved ground (Bao et al., 2013), as well as reinforced
existing foundations with steel pipe sheet piles (Isobe
et al., 2014) and additional piles (Teramoto et al., 2016)
have been examined. In terms of the pile-group effect con-
sidered in the current 2D framework analysis design in the
Specification for Highway Bridges, shown in Fig. 1, the
back piles are assumed to have half the maximum subgrade
reaction of the front-most pile (without considering the pile
number). From past studies, however, it is clear that the
number of piles increases the pile-group effect, and that
there is a risk of the miscalculation in large-scale pile
groups due to the evaluation method in the design stage.
Considering the fact that pile group foundations are usu-
ally built to be large for the sake of seismic reinforcement,
it is important that the actual pile-group effect be clarified.
Little progress has been made in the research on the lateral
behavior of the large-scale pile groups typically used as
foundations for LNG tanks. This is due to the difficulty
of conducting in-situ loading tests with large-scale practical
pile groups, and of finding agreement between the numer-
ical analysis results and the in-situ loading test results.
For these reasons, the actual bearing capacity of an in-
service practical LNG tank foundation has yet to be
determined.
The challenges of conducting research on pile-group
foundations are summarized as follows: (1) the actual bear-
ing capacity of an in-service practical LNG tank founda-
tion has not been determined, (2) the operative design
method for the pile-group effect is inadequate, especially
for large-scale pile groups, due to the difficulty of conduct-
ing in-situ loading tests, and (3) there is no predication
method capable of simulating the mechanical behavior of
large-scale pile groups that can sufficiently consider the
pile-group effect.
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837
The objectives of the present study are (1) to determine
and then verify the lateral behavior of an in-service practi-
cal LNG tank foundation, (2) to confirm the pile-group
effect of a large-scale pile group and to evaluate an opera-
tive design method, and (3) to develop and evaluate a pre-
diction method capable of simulating the mechanical
behavior of large-scale pile groups that gives appropriate
consideration to the pile-group effect. In-situ lateral load-
ing tests were conducted with a 7  9 pile group (m  n pile
group: arranged in n lines orthogonal to the loading direc-
tion, and m lines parallel to the loading direction), and with
a 3  1 pile group used as part of the practical tank foun-
dation. This was in accordance with the demolition of an
LNG tank after 40 years of service at Osaka Gas Senboku
LNG Receiving Terminal 1. An investigation of the lateral
bearing capacity of the LNG tank foundation was carried
out. It was possible to observe the behavior of the tank
from the yielding mode to the ultimate mode to the
destruction mode since the LNG tank foundation was
completely demolished after the tests. Simultaneously, a
simulation was also conducted by means of a 3D elasto-
plastic FEM analysis. In the analysis, the soil model for
the subloading tij model (Nakai et al., 2004) and the pile
model for the hybrid model (Zhang et al., 2000) were cap-
able of appropriately simulating the pile-group effect of
large-scale pile groups. However, the ordinary simplified
models that were used in the past, such as the 2D model,
the no volume beam alone model, and the contracted pile
group model, have been shown to be inadequate for simu-
lating the pile-group effect. The pile-group effect and the
mechanism of the large deformation of large-scale pile
groups are discussed considering both sets of results.
In this study, the ultimate bearing capacity of a practi-
cal foundation after its service is determined, the yield
load to the ultimate load, and the foundation deformation
(including the yielding of the pile head and the residual
deformation of the pulled-out piles) are observed, and
the lateral mechanical behavior of a large-scale pile group,
especially in terms of the pile-group effect, is clarified. A
comparison between the load share distribution of a prac-
tical pile group and the design in the Specification for
Highway Bridges validates the design method. Finally, a
simulation method which is applicable to large-scale pile
groups is developed. In this analysis, the model pile sim-
ulates the pile-group effect properly and the soil model
simulates the ground around the cyclically-loaded large-
scale pile group. With this method, the hard-to-predict
behavior of large-scale pile groups can also be simulated
before a loading test.
2. Outline of lateral loading tests on 7  9 pile group
foundation
2.1. Structure of demolished LNG tank
The demolished LNG tank used for the loading tests is
shown in Fig. 2, and a top view of the foundation is given
821
in Fig. 3. Photo 1 shows the externals of the specimen and
the reaction piles for loading. The tank is a double-walled
metal tank with a maximum capacity of 45,000 m3. The
foundation consists of a slab and 496 steel pipe piles.
Details of the piles are shown in Fig. 4. The slab is
48 m in diameter, 0.8 m in thickness, and is made of rein-
forced concrete. The piles are 23.5 m in length, 406.4 mm
in diameter, 12.7 mm in thickness in the upper part, and
9.5 mm in thickness in the lower part. There is a distance
of 0.8 m between the bottom of the slab and the ground
surface. The ground around the edge of the tank is
improved to an N-value of about 15 by means of sand
compaction piles.
Each pile is an open-toe type of end-supported pile and
the N-value of the bearing ground located at the pile tip is
around 50. The upper part of the pile is filled with rein-
forced concrete to a depth of 6 m. The upper part of the
pile, 0.8 m above the ground surface and 0.3 m under the
ground, is covered with protective concrete, is rectangular
in shape, and has a thickness of 150 mm.
2.2. Preparation of specimens
The positions of the 7  9 and the 3  1 pile group spec-
imens in the slab are shown in Fig. 3. The specimens were
loaded laterally using the right side of the slab as a reaction
pile, as shown in Photo 1. The specimens were prepared by
removing other parts of the slab, so that only the specimens
remained. However, the piles around the specimens
remained in the ground. The protective concrete over the
ground surface was removed so as to enable the direct mea-
surement of the pile shaft, while the concrete under the
ground was left intact.
2.3. Measurement
A contact-type displacement transducer was employed
to measure the pile and slab specimens by using the refer-
ence piles located in front of each specimen (Figs. 3 and
5). However, because these reference piles were likely to
be affected by the pile group displacement at loading, the
displacement of these piles was measured with the total sta-
tion set up a distance of 25 m from the specimen (orthogo-
nal to loading direction).
The shear strain and bending strain of the piles were
measured with the strain gauge, the inclination of the piles
was measured with the inclinometer, and the applied load
was measured as shown in Fig. 5. The pile-group effect in
the loading direction was investigated by measuring seven
piles in the center line, while those orthogonal to the load-
ing direction were investigated by measuring the five piles
in the front line. The strain, the inclination, and the
displacement of the part of the piles in the ground were
not measured due to the difficulty of measuring piles filled
with concrete. This point was complemented by a numeri-
cal analysis.
822 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

3×1pile group Reaction piles

Loading
6000 direction
7×9 pile group

14000 2000

Double-walled metal tank

Photo.1
45,000 [kL]
18000

Colu-
N
48 m
mnar
sec- value
tion 0 20 40

23.5 m
Bearing ground (N = 46)

single pile Fig. 3. Elevated view of LNG tank.

2×1pile group
3×1 pile group
2000 19@2000=38000 2000
750 2250 48000 2250 750
7×9 pile group
7×9 pile group Reaction piles
5,000 kN jack
(two series)
Loading plate
Base (H-steel)
Displacement gauge SDP-300D, Strain gauge
Displacement gauge CDP-100, Strain gauge
Fixed inclinometer 5,000 kN jack Reference pile Reaction piles

Fig. 2. Specimen and measurement arrangement. Photo 1. Externals of specimen and reaction piles.

2.4. Loading stages and determination of maximum load 3. FEM analysis conditions

The loading stages of the 7  9 and the 3  1 pile groups
are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The unidirectional
multiple-cycle, multiple-step loading method was selected
as the lateral loading test method. There were five cycles
and ten loading steps, amounting to a total loading time
of about 5 h, as the lateral load was applied with six
hydraulic jacks of 5000 kN, as seen in Fig. 3 and Photo
1. The outputs of the six jacks were controlled by an oil
pressure device which also simultaneously measured the
pressure.
In order to observe the ultimate behavior of the 7  9
pile group, it was necessary to predict the deformation
while determining the maximum load (capacity of the
jack). Firstly, the yield load per pile, 247 kN, was calcu-
lated by Y. L. Chang’s formula (fixed pile head condition).
A yield load of 15,561 kN (247 kN was multiplied by 63)
was assumed for the 7  9 pile group. Secondly, an analy-
sis using a 3-dimensional elasto-plastic FEM was con-
ducted before the tests on the 7  9 pile group. The
results were used to establish the maximum load in the
loading tests; it was set at 30,000 kN (with the six
5000 kN jacks).
3.1. FEM code and FEM mesh
The FEM code DBLEAVES (Ye et al., 2007) was used
for the FEM analysis. The analysis area and the FEM
mesh are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In this analysis, the
7  9 pile group and the piles remaining around them were
simulated precisely.
3.2. Modeling of pile foundation
As shown in Fig. 10, each pile was modeled by a hybrid
element with the same volume as the pile. This was neces-
sary to simulate the pile-group effect properly because the
pile-group effect is the interaction between one pile and
the other piles and depends on the pile spacing. The pile-
group effect can be simulated more precisely with a hybrid
element than with a beam element alone. The parameters
of the pile foundation were determined through the use
of the design values of the specimen according to the calcu-
lation flow shown in Fig. 10.
The piles around the specimens that remained in the
ground were also modeled to simulate the actual condi-
S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 823

Fig. 8. Analysis area and FEM mesh.

824 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

tions, as shown in Fig. 10. To investigate the influence of

the remaining piles, a comparison analysis was conducted
before the tests in which the remaining piles were removed.
Consequently, it was confirmed that the 7  9 pile group
without any remaining piles had a 10% larger displacement
than the 7  9 pile group with remaining piles.

3.3. Constitutive models of soils

Loading direction
The ground was modeled by the subloading tij model
(Nakai et al., 2004). This model is regarded as one of the
most useful elastoplastic models because it can consider
the intermediate principal stress by adapting the concept
of modified stress tij. A comparison of the tensors and sca-
lars related to the stress and strain increments (between the
ordinary concept and the tij concept) is shown in Table 1.
The influence of the stress-path dependency of the density Fig. 9. Details of FEM mesh around 7  9 pile group.
and/or the confining pressure on the deformation and
strength characteristics was considered.

Column element
(elastic model)
Beam element
Bending moment (kN*m)

(bilinear model) Mp
EI EI column EI beam

EA EA column EA beam
Fully plastic moment Mp = 416 (kN m)
(Design value of actual pile)
Beam element
EI beam EA beam Degradation factor of stiffness after fully plastic
tan tan = 1/10
Column element
(1/1000 for pile head)
EI column EA column

Actual pile Pile model in FEM Curvature (1/m)

Actual pile
Esp = 2.0×108[kN/m2]
Outer diameter

Steel pipe Asp = 0.0157[m2]

0.406 m

Isp = 3.04×10-4[m4] (EA)pile = Esp × Asp + Esc × Asc = 6.35 ×106[kN]

Esc = 2.82×107[kN/m2] (EI)pile = Esp × Isp + Esc × Isc = 8.98 ×104[kN*m2]
Concrete Asc = 0.114[m2]
Thickness 12.7 mm Isc = 1.03×10-3[m4]

0.1 ( EI ) pile 0.9 ( EI ) pile

Column element Beam element

( EI ) column 0.1 EI pile 8.98 103 ( EI ) beam 0.9 E pile 8.08 10 4 [kN * m 2 ]

Abeam Asp 0.0157 m 2

0.4 m

0 .4 4 3 4
I column 2.1 10 m EA
12 Pile heart Ebeam
pile
4.04 108 kN / m 2
Abeam
EI column
0.4 m Ecolumn 4.21 10 6 kN / m 2 EI beam 4
I column I beam 2.0 10 m4
Ebeam

Fig. 10. Modeling of pile and calculation flow of parameters.

 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 825

Table 1 Top view 800

600
Tensors and scalars related to stress and strain increment in ordinary
concept and tij concept.
Jack
Ordinary concept tij concept

4200
3000
Tensor normal to dij ðunittensorÞ aij
reference plane
Stress tensor rij tij ¼ rik akj
Mean stress p ¼ rij dij =3 tN ¼ tij aij

600
Deviatoric stress tensor sij ¼ rij
pdij t0ij ¼ tij
tN aij
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 7000
Elevated
Deviatric stress q ¼ ð3=2Þsij sij ts ¼ t0ij t0ij view 1200
1200
Footing
Jack
Stress ratio tensor gij ¼ sij =p xij ¼ t0ij =tN
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

1200
400
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Stress ratio g ¼ q=p ¼ ð3=2Þgij gij X ¼ ts =tN ¼ xij xij
dev ¼ deij dij deSMP ¼ deij aij

100
Strain increment

50
normal to reference
Beam
plane
Deviatoric strain deij ¼ deij
13 dev dij de0ij ¼ deij
dev SMP aij 800
increment tensor qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Strain increment ded ¼ 23 deij deij dcSMP ¼ de0ij de0ij Unit : mm
parallel to reference
plane Fig. 11. Outline of loading tests on 1  2 pile group prior to 7  9 tests.

Bending moment [×10 2 kN m]

2000 -16 -12 -8 -4 0
Test 0.0 [Test]
1500 FEM 500 kN
-1.0
Lateral load (kN)

1000 kN
-2.0 1500 kN
1000
Depth (m)

1900 kN
-3.0
[FEM]
500 500 kN
-4.0
1000 kN
0 -5.0 1500 kN
0 20 40 60 80 100
1900 kN
Lateral displacement of pile top (mm) -6.0

Fig. 12. Results of simulation analysis on 1  2 tests prior to 7  9 tests.

The main superiority of the subloading tij model in this
analysis is shown below. In simulating the cyclic lateral
loaded pile group, the soil around the piles must be modeled
such that it can consider the stress path during unloading
and reloading, and it is simulated by the subloading surface
concept (Hashiguchi, 1980). The specifics of this model
enable it to simulate not only clay soil behavior, but also
sand behavior without any distinction between normally
consolidated and overconsolidated soil. On the other hand,
the Cam-clay model cannot simulate sand behavior. And, in
general, to simulate laterally loaded piles, an interface ele-
ment is typically arranged between the piles and the soil
behind them to demonstrate the delamination behavior of
the pile surface. At this point, the model can simulate
delamination behavior without the interface element by
decreasing the deformation modulus of the soil according
to the decrease in confined pressure.
The input parameters of the soil, except for k and j, were
determined by the results of soil tests and standard penetra-
tion tests. Compression index k and swelling index j were
determined with the results of parallel 1  2 lateral loading
tests conducted near the LNG tank foundation (prior to the
7  9 tests). An outline of the 1  2 tests is shown in
Fig. 11, while the test and analysis results (load–displacement
and bending moment distributions) are shown in Fig. 12.
FEM parameters k and j were determined with sufficient
accuracy with the 1  2 tests, which were conducted before
the 7  9 tests. The calculation flows for all the input param-
eters of the soil are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 and Table 2. The
improved area given in Fig. 13 shows that the ground has been
improved (N = 15) by the sand compaction pile method dur-
ing the construction of the LNG tank. The area is distributed
around the circumference of the LNG tank (Figs. 8 and 13). In
the analysis of the 7  9 and 3  1 tests, the j determined by
the 1  2 tests was converted to consider the difference in the
N-value distribution according to the flow shown in Fig. 13.
3.4. Analysis procedure
Firstly, the initial stresses of the ground were generated
by a self-weight analysis under an elastic ground condition.
Secondly, the elastic ground was replaced by subloading tij
model soil and hybrid element piles. However, the initial
stresses remained. Finally, footing nodes were applied at
the actual loading positions and under the same condition
as that of the tests (Figs. 6 and 7).
826 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

250 m

B-1(5) Previous 1×2 test area N0, 0

Unimproved ground area N1, 1

Estimated ground surface strength Improved ground area N2, 2

Tank used for Strong Weak

this test series (N ,0Nm~, N8 are
0 1 average N-value of
2
m in ground surface
(
SCP ground improved area
150 m

(N = 15) N0 = N-value of B-1 = 5

A-4(5) N1 = average N-value of A-1~A-4 = 7.5

A-3(11)
N2 = 15
Previous loading test
of 1×2 pile group
2 1
3×1 1 0 , 2 0
3 3
Assumption
7×9
2×1 3(1 2 0 )(1 e0 ) p
E0
Single 48 m
E0 2800 N
1 ( 0, e0, p are taken the
A-1(9) A-2(5) Position of SPT N same value in all cases)
( ) : AVG N-value in surface 8 m area

N-value N-value N-value N-value N-value

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

AVG N-value = 9 AVG N-value = 5 AVG N-value = 11 AVG N-value = 5 AVG N-value = 5
5
Depth of max. bending
moment distribution in
FEM analysis Filling soil
8

10
Depth (m)

15

20

Depth of pile tip

25
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1

Fig. 13. Conversion method for j and SPT data.

 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 827

~ Parameters except and ~ ~ Parameters and ~

[Reference of past study] [Assumption]
a = 500 = 1.5 Filling layer ~ 8 m 8m~

[Assumption of ordinal value]

K0 a, , , , e0, Rf
Self weight

1
analysis

decide as to
[soil test, standard penetration test] past 2×1 test result are simulated
e0 N

6 sin
m (= p) Rf decide as right section
(3 sin ) degree

Input parameters of prediction analysis of 7×9 group pile

Fig. 14. Calculation flow of input soil parameters for prediction analysis of 7  9 pile.

Table 2
Input parameters of soil.
Depth of Soil classify- Failure N- Poisson’s Unit weight Coefficient of earth Void Compression Swelling index j
layer (m) cation stress ratio value ratio m c (kN/m3) pressure at rest K0 ratio index k
Unimproved Improved
RCS N e0
ground j1 ground j2
0.175 Filling soil 2.8 17 0.3 17.9 0.43 0.80 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
0.525 (Gravel) 2.8 17 0.3 17.9 0.43 0.80 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
0.875 2.8 17 0.3 17.9 0.43 0.80 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
1.225 2.3 13 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.95 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
1.65 2.3 13 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.95 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
2.2 Filling soil 2.5 6 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.77 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
2.85 (Silty-sand) 2.5 6 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.77 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
3.6 2.4 5 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.77 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
4.5 3.1 4 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.75 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
5.5 Filling soil 1.9 3 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.95 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
6.5 (Silty-fine 1.9 3 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.95 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
8 clay) 3.5 9 0.3 8.1 0.43 1.70 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004
10.5 Gravel 3.4 8 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.57 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004
14 Gravel sand 3.5 36 0.3 8.1 0.43 1.00 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004
18 Silty-clay 2.8 13 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.72 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004
22.5 Gravel 4.6 46 0.3 8.1 0.43 0.45 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004

4. Test and FEM analysis results
4.1. Load displacement results
The load displacement results for the 7  9 pile group at
the loading position (average displacement at both sides of
the slab surface) are presented in Fig. 15. Fig. 15 is shown
in Fig. 16 as the logarithmic axis for reading the yielding
point. The maximum load of the tests was 25,400 kN
and the displacement at the time was 240.5 mm
(=60%  d). The residual displacement after the tests was
158 mm. Compared to the design yield of 15,561 kN, cal-
culated with the Chang’s equation, the lateral stiffness in
the test results, given in Fig. 15, was actually seen to have
decreased. However, the ductile deformation progressed
and the load gradually increased without the occurrence
of brittle failure.
From a comparison of the results of the prediction
analysis before the tests and the test results, the analysis
was shown to have predicted the test results with high
accuracy until around 40 mm (=10%  d). However, there
was little decrement in the lateral stiffness in the analysis.
This is because the characteristic of the hybrid element
simulates the piles. At the pile head, as shown by the blue
circle in Fig. 17, the solid elements arranged in the hybrid
element have high stress due to the fixation of the pile
828 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

36000

Displacement revised by
32000 the reference pile

Jacks capacity 30,000 kN Cycle 6

28000 Continue Maximum load 25,408 kN
loading Displacement 240.5 mm
Cycle 5
121.0 mm +39 mm
24000
+19 mm Unload
Cycle 4
20000 65.7 mm
+10 mm
Load (kN)

16000
Cycle 3 Yield load of pile head
32.1 mm in design 15,561 kN
12000 (Y. L. Chang s formula)
+9 mm

Test
8000

4000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Lateral displacement at loading point mm

Fig. 15. Load displacement results of 7  9 tests, prediction analysis, and analysis after the tests.

head, and the solid elements share higher shear force.
Therefore, this increase in shear force in the solid ele-
ments results in a decrease in the plastic deformation of
the beam element.
The results indicate that the model for the pile head is
improved after the tests, as presented in Fig. 17. The plastic
deformation in the large deformation phase, shown by the
blue line in Fig. 15, was able to simulate the test results
more appropriately due to the improvement. However,
the deformation was still underestimated at the maximum
load in the analysis. The main reason is that the analysis
was not able to simulate the falling of the pile head from
the slab (shown in Photo 2) because the pile head and
the slab share the same nodes in the FEM analysis. If an
interface element is used to simulate the falling for the next
improvement, some tests have to be conducted to deter-
mine the parameters of the interface element; that issue
can be addressed in the future. On the other hand, given
the shape of the unloading and reloading cycles, FEM
was able to simulate the test results with high accuracy.
This is because the subloading tij model introduces a
subloading surface concept, which ordinary elasto-plastic
models cannot simulate.
The load displacement results for the 3  1 pile group
in the loading position are shown in Fig. 18. FEM sim-
ulates the initial stiffness of the test results as lower than
that of the 7  9 pile group. However, the accuracy was
higher at around 60 mm (=15%  d). These results indi-
cate the possibility that FEM underestimated the soil
parameter since the lateral stiffness depends more on
the ground stiffness than on the pile stiffness in the initial
phase.
4.2. Deformation mode of large-scale pile group
The deformation modes for the inclination of the piles
during the tests and FEM are shown in Fig. 19. The
pulled-out piles (front-most and back-most piles) after
the tests are shown in Photo 3.
Both the experimental results and those of the analysis
indicate that the front-most pile inclined more than the
back-most pile at an applied phase of 8000 kN kN, while
the inclination of the front-most pile increased exponen-
tially at an applied phase of 25,400 kN. As is to be expected
from the large inclination of the pile, the pile and the slab
did not cross orthogonally in the tests. This is because the
pile head and the slab surface both fail because of the large
deformation, as shown in Photo 2. The falling of the pile
head from the slab and the falling away of the slab skin
reduce the pile head connectivity.
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 829

Moreover, the analysis results indicate that the maxi- 30000

mum point of the bending moment of the front-most pile Test results After pile yielding
was shallower than that of the back-most pile. As shown 20000
in Photo 3, the pulled-out front pile actually deformed Pile yielding area
more than the back pile, and the maximum point of the 55 mm, 15000 kN
12000
bending moment was shallower again. Due to the failure
10000
of the front-most pile head, there was a distinct change in 9000
8000 After ground yielding

Load (kN)
the supporting structure of the pile group, and the position 7000 before pile yielding
of the maximum bending moment of the front-most pile 6000
was shallower, resulting in a dramatic incline in the 5000 8 mm, 6000 kN
front-most pile over the ground. 4000
The inclination of the slab is shown in Fig. 20. This incli-
3000
nation was calculated from the vertical displacement of the
slab surface, as measured by the contact-type displacement Initial stiffness
2000
transducer. The inclination of the slab increased with the
load increments. However, from around 16,000 kN, the
inclination was seen to decrease in the test results. This
decrement was attributed to the failure of the front-most 1000
pile head. However, FEM cannot simulate this decrement 1 10 100
Lateral displacement at loading point (mm)
in inclination, because the pile head of the FEM mesh is
modeled as a continuum and is not capable of simulating 30000
the pile head desorption shown in Photo 2. In addition, it FEM results After pile yielding
is also the reason why the displacement at the maximum 20000
load from the FEM analysis was still underestimated, as Pile yielding area
is shown in Fig. 15.
12000
55 mm, 14000 kN
10000
4.3. Difference in bending moment distribution between 9000
scales of pile group 8000
Load (kN)

7000
6000
The bending moment distributions of the 7  9 and the 5000 After ground yielding
3  1 pile groups at a displacement of 30 mm (7.5%  d) before pile yielding
4000
are presented in Fig. 21. Only the FEM analysis results
3000 7 mm, 4000 kN
are shown because no measurements were taken in the
ground. For comparison, Fig. 22 shows the results of past
in-situ lateral loading tests on a 3  3 pile group at a dis- 2000
placement of 7.5%  d (Kimura et al., 1994).
The value beside the maximum bending moment repre- Initial stiffness
sents the bending moment of each pile normalized by the 1000
front-most pile in the center line. 1 10 100
In all cases, the front-most pile had the largest bending Lateral displacement at loading point (mm)
moment and its position in the ground was the shallowest. Fig. 16. Load displacement results shown as common logarithmic axis.
A strict comparison of these cases is difficult due to the dif-
ference in test conditions. The bending moment distribu-
80 cm

tions for the 7  9 and the 3  1 pile groups were similar Slab (elastic) Slab (elastic)
to those of the past 3  3 tests.
From a comparison of the middle pile (pile 4 in the 7  9
Beam
90 cm

pile group case) and the back-most pile, the distributions Ground
surface
were nearly the same as those in the 3  1 pile group case.
However, the bending moment of the middle pile in the
Hybrid element

Hybrid element

7  9 pile group case was smaller. The maximum bending

moments of the middle pile and the back-most pile were
deeper in the 7  9 pile group case due to the larger pile-
group effect generated in the 7  9 pile group. Considering
that the depth of the ground has an influence on the lateral
bearing capacity, equal to 1/b (b: characteristic value Prediction analysis Analysis after the tests
of the pile), and that b is proportional to kH1/4(kH:
coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction), the kH of the Fig. 17. Improvement in modeling of pile.
830 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

1400 Falling out of the pile head

Loading direction from the slab
1200
Yield load of pile head
1000
in design 741 kN
(Y. L. Chang s formula)
Load (kN)

800

600 Falling away

of slab skin
400

200
Front-most pile
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Photo 2. Desorption of pile head and slab surface.
Lateral displacement (mm)

Fig. 18. Load displacement results of 3  1 tests and simulation.

Front Loading direction Back

Inclina
-tion
FEM 0.30° 0.27° 0.25° 0.24° 0.24° 0.25° 0.26°
Test 0.22° 0.16° 0.19°

-2.1 m 40 cm 40 cm
-2.5 m
-2.8 m -3.0 m -3.1 m -3.2 m -3.2 m

Pile head Pile head

Position of the maximum bending moment from FEM results
Front-most pile Back-most pile

Photo 3. Deformation of pulled-out piles after tests.

Front Loading direction Back
10000
Rotational angle of footing θ (μrad)

FEM 2.2° 1.8° 1.7° 1.5° 1.5° 1.5° 1.6° FEM

Test 4.1° 3.0° 3.0°
1000
Test

-1.4 m
-2.4 m
-2.9 m 100 Measured
Measured displacement
-3.4 m -3.6 m displacement
-3.8 m -3.9 m θ Loading

Position of the maximum bending moment from FEM results Front Back
10
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000
Load (kN)
Fig. 19. Pile deformation in ground (FEM) and inclination of piles (Test,
FEM). Fig. 20. Inclination of slab.

middle pile in the 7  9 pile group case is lower and has
deeper ground effects. This decrement in kH is the pile-
group effect.
4.4. Bending moment distribution according to loading
Fig. 23 shows the evolution of the bending moment dis-
tribution for the underground 7  9 pile group in the FEM
analysis. As was stated previously, the front-most pile had
the largest bending moment and the shallowest position.
From the initial phase to around 12,000 kN, the posi-
tion of the maximum bending moment becomes deeper
with incremental increases in the load for all piles. After
12,000 kN, the position was deeper in the back-most pile,
remained constant in the middle pile, and was shallower
in the front-most pile. This is because of a decrease in kH
(it becomes deeper) and the yielding of the pile head (it
become shallower). As with the back-most pile, if the pile
head did not yield, the position in the front-most pile was
deeper.
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 831

Bending moment (kN*m) Bending moment (kN*m)

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
2 2
1 Slab Slab
1
0 0
Ground surface Ground surface
-1 -1
Front-most
-2 center pile (1) -2
Middle Front-most pile
-3 center pile (4) -3
Middle pile
-4 1.13 Back-most -4
center pile (7) Back-most pile

Position (m)
Position (m)

1.00 1.00
-5 Front-most -5
outer pile (8) 0.89
-6
0.80
-6
0.63 Lateral load = 600 kN
-7 -7 (7.5%×d)
Lateral load (8) outer
-8 = 9,000 kN -8
(7.5%×d) Loading direction
-9 (7) (4) (1) center -9
-10 Loading
direction -10 Back-most Middle Front-most
-11 -11
pile pile pile
outer
back front
-12 -12
-13 -13
7×9 pile group 3×1 pile group

Fig. 21. Results of bending moment distribution in FEM analysis.

The influence of the yielding pile head in the front-most

Loading direction
pile, at 14,640 kN, became larger than the influence of the
decrease in kH. This influence of the yielding pile head is
that the position of the maximum bending moment was (3) (2) (1)

9m
9m

shallower, while the decrease in kH results in a deeper max-

imum bending moment. Therefore, the position of the
maximum bending moment of the front-most pile was
19.4 m 9m
shallower. Reaction piles 3×3 pile group
Subsequently, once the front-most pile head yields, the
Pile diameter : 1.2 m Lateral load : 12,000 kN
foundation leans forward. The more forward the pile, the Pile spacing : 2.5d (7×9 test is 5d) (7.5%×d)
deeper the position of the maximum bending moment. Bending moment (kN*m)
Therefore, it is understood that the influence of the decre- -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
ment in kH (the pile-group effect) and the influence of the 0
Ground surface
yielding of the pile head are nearly equal for the middle
pile. These variations in the depth of the maximum bending Sand gravel (filling)
moments and other factors are summarized in Fig. 24. 5 N-value = 5~10

4.5. Load share of large-scale pile group 10

Position (m)

The load share of each pile normalized by the front- 13

most pile is shown in Fig. 25. This shared load is calculated 15
from the shear force measured by the strain gauge attached
to the pile surface above the ground.
20
Diluvium

In all loading stages, the front-most pile shares the lar-

gest load, and at around the fourth pile, it shares the small-
Front-most pile (1)
est load. These results are the same as those seen in past
25 Middle pile (2)
model tests (Shibata et al., 1989). The load share of the
back-most piles decreases according to the increase in Back-most pile (3)
applied load; FEM can simulate this tendency in the evolu- 30
tion of the load share distribution.
The load share distribution of the framework analysis Fig. 22. Outline and bending moment distribution results of past in-situ
design in the Specification for Highway Bridges is shown lateral loading tests on 3  3 pile group (Kimura et al., 1994).
832 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

in Fig. 25. In the results for a load of 16,000 kN (assuming

4,000 kN
the ground reaches the maximum subgrade reaction), the
load share averages of the back piles ((2)–(7)) are 0.56 in 12,000 kN
(7) (4) (1)
the test and 0.48 in FEM. While the averages are approxi- 20,000 kN
mately equal, the subgrade reaction in the design is 25,400 kN
back front
overestimated in the center and underestimated in both
Bending moment (kN*m)
the second and the back-most piles.
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
These results indicate that the design is at risk of overes- 2
timating the maximum subgrade reaction in cases where Slab
the pile number increases to more than 7, as the number 0
Ground surface
of overestimated center piles does partly increase. -2
Moreover, the results indicate that the reduction rate for Procedure of depth of
the maximum subgrade reaction at the back piles (=0.5 -4 maximum bending moment

Position (m)

Fully-plastic moment
Fully-plastic moment
currently) must be properly determined when designing -6
each pile.

at 14,640 kN
at 21,840 kN
-8

4.6. Ground subsidence around 7  9 and 3  1 pile groups -10

-12
The ground behind the front-most and the back-most
piles after testing is shown in Photos 4 and 5, respectively; -14
the loading system at the maximum load is shown in Photo Front-most pile (1)
Bending moment (kN*m)
6. The crack generated at the backside of the front-most
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
pile presumably was caused by the separation of the rectan- 2
gular protective concrete of the pile and the ground. Slab
Behind the back-most pile, large ground subsidence was 0
generated, and this exacerbated the unstable condition of -2
the jacks. A subsidence of 200–350 mm was measured, indi-

Fully-plastic moment
cating a slide down of the ground between the back-most -4
Position (m)

pile and the remaining piles underground. The prediction

at 16,840 kN
-6
fully-plastic moment

analysis indicates that this subsidence would be around

170 mm. The quantity evaluated by FEM was smaller -8
Less than

due to the difficulty of simulating the slide down. However,

-10
this analysis is a useful prediction method for the ground
subsidence around a pile group. -12
To compare the scale of the pile group, an additional
-14
analysis of the 3  1 pile group (loaded at the same dis- Middle pile (4)
placement as the 7  9 pile group) was conducted. The Bending moment (kN*m)
results indicate that the ground subsidence of the 3  1 pile -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
group was 40 mm, which is smaller than the 170 mm subsi- 2
dence of the 7  9 pile group. Therefore, the larger subsi- Slab
0
dence of the 7  9 pile group can be assumed to be
specific to large-scale pile groups. -2

-4
Fully-plastic moment
Position (m)

4.7. Lateral deformation of ground

at 17,280 kN

-6
fully-plastic moment

The followability of the ground with adjacent piles, the -8

range of influence of the pile group, and the evolution of
Less than

-10
the ground deformation form are discussed in this section.
Distributions of the lateral displacement of the ground at -12
4000 kN and 25,400 kN are shown in Fig. 26. The displace-
ment was normalized by the average lateral displacement -14
Back-most pile (7)
of the pile at the ground surface.
According to the increase in loading, the inner ground Fig. 23. Evolution of bending moment distribution of 7  9 pile group in
of the pile group began to follow the pile group as a clod. FEM analysis.
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 833

In particular, the large ground deformation of the inner Bending moment (kN*m)
backside of the ground apparently affected the decrease -400 -200 0 -400 -200 0 -400 -200 0
0
in the load share, as shown in Fig. 25. Ground surface
From the representative contour line for the 10% dis- -2
placement, the range of influence of the 7  9 pile group
was wide in all directions, especially in the loading direc- [Main factor]-4
tion, compared with the 3  1 pile group. In the case of Influence of Influence of

Position (m)
the 7  9 pile group, the range increased for the vertical -6 the yielding the decrease
pile head in kH and
direction (from 13d to 15.5d) and for the loading direction -8 the yielding [Main factor]
(from 15d to 25d) according to the increase in load. How- [Main factor] pile head Influence of
Influence of are equal the decrease in kH
ever, the range decreased for the orthogonal to the loading -10 the decrease in kH
direction. This reduction can be attributed to the large [Main factor]
-12 Influence of
deformation of the pile group caused by the shear failure the decrease in kH
of the ground beside the pile group, and the decrease in
-14
the followability of the ground. Front-most pile (1) Middle pile (4) Back-most pile (7)
From the representative contour line of 40% near the
distribution of maximum bending moments, the contour Fig. 24. Evolution of depth of maximum bending moment.
has a symmetrical shape in the 4000 kN phase. However,
4,000 kN 8,000 kN 12,000 kN 16,000 kN
according to the increase in loading, the contour starts to
FEM
have a downward-sloping shape. This change is due to
the position of the maximum bending moment in the Test
front-most piles, which do not become deeper due to the 1
yielding of the pile head. Thus, the deformation of the pile
group affects the shallow forward ground around the front-
Load share of each pile normalized by front-most pile

most piles and the deep ground. 0.9

(1) (7)
According to the above results, the loading influence on
the ground around a pile group is expanded horizontally front back
0.8
and vertically by expanding the scale.

4.8. Investigation of stress distribution of soil around 7  9 0.7

pile group and deformation of piles
0.6
The increment distributions of tN (p of the common
elasto-plastic model, Table 1) at 4000 kN and the lateral
0.5
displacement distribution of the piles are shown in
Fig. 27. On the front side of the piles in the ground, an
increase is generated from a depth of
1.5 m in the 0.4 Design 0.5
forward-depth direction, while the increment is larger for Ave. of (2)~(7) Ave. of (2)~(7)
0.48
the front-most piles. On the back side of the piles in the 0.56
0.3
ground, a decrease is generated in the back-depth direction, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
while the decrement is larger at the back-most piles.
Our earlier results showed that the front-most piles are Front Back
supported by the forward ground, and the back-most piles
Fig. 25. Load share distribution of 7  9 pile group.
are supported by both the forward and the backside ground.
Additionally, from the deformation distributions of the
piles, the shallow part of the front-most pile deformed con-
siderably (arrow A) due to a large subgrade reaction from
the shallow front side of the pile, while the deep part of the
back-most pile deformed largely (arrow B) due to a large
subgrade reaction from the deep backside of the pile.

4.9. Influence of subgrade reaction on load share mechanism The front-most pile Crack

The cause of the above load share distribution and its

behavior are discussed here using the reaction force of
the piles. As shown in Fig. 28, the subgrade reaction is cal-
culated as rx (stress of the loading direction) at the front Photo 4. Crack behind front-most pile.
834 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

Reaction piles 7×9 pile group

Gap of jack and base

The back-
most pile

Settlement
160 cm 35 cm of base
20 cm

Position of
remaining piles
under ground

Photo 5. Subsidence behind back-most pile. Photo 6. Situation of loading system at maximum load.

Ground surface Ground surface

2.5 m = 6.3d 1.7 m = 4.3d

10 20 40 60 80 10 20 40 60 80 90
6 m = 15d 10 m = 25d
0
80 90
6.2 m = 15.5d
5.2 m = 13d

1 60 80 170 mm
2
Depth (m)

40 60 subsidence
3
4 20 40
5 10 20
6
7 10
8
4,000 kN (6.4 mm = 1.6%×d) 25,400 kN (6.4 mm = 42%×d)

Ground surface
6080 Loading direction
40
20 Lateral displacement of ground normalized by
1.6 m = 4d front back
10 lateral displacement of pile at ground surface (%)
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
= 7.3d
2.9 m

1
2 section
Depth (m)

3
4
5 2.4 m Position of the maximum bending moment
= 6d front back
6
7
8
200 kN (6.4 mm = 1.6%×d)

Fig. 26. Distribution of displacement of ground around 7  9 pile group (FEM).

and rear faces of the hybrid element. Subsequently, the tribution of initial stress rx0 and the stress at 16,000 kN, rx,
reaction force of the pile is calculated by the vertical inte- are shown in Fig. 30.
gration of the subgrade reaction (from the ground surface In this figure, the compression in front of the pile results
to the pile tip). in an increase in the reaction force, but the compression
The reaction forces at the front face and the rear face of behind the pile results in a decrease in the reaction force.
the pile are shown in Fig. 29(a), while the total of these From the results of the reaction force at the front face, the
reaction forces is shown in Fig. 29(b). Additionally, the dis- front-most pile receives the largest reaction force and the
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837 835

Deformation of pile (mm) tN increment (kPa) 4,000 kN

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -20 0 20
1
0 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
-1
A
-2 20
Depth (m)

-3 10 -2.85 m
-2.85 m B 10 10 5
5 5
-4 5 5
5 -5 -5

10 m
-5 5 5 -10
5 -5 -10
-6 Front-most pile
-7 -5 -5
Middle pile
-8
Back-most pile
-9 Remaining piles Front-most pile Middle pile Back-most pile
-10

Fig. 27. Relation between ground stress distribution around pile group and deformation of piles (FEM).

Loading direction Pile heart beam element that

has 9/10 EI of actual pile

Element for calculation of subgrade Element for calculation of subgrade

reaction at front face of pile reaction at rear face of pile

Column element solid element Not used for calculation due

that has 1/10 EI of actual pile to small shear force

Fig. 28. Elements using calculation of subgrade reaction.

back-most pile receives a negative reaction force. This is due
to the deformation of the ground in front of the pile shown in
Fig. 30. This negative reaction shows the decrement of the
initial stress and does not exceed the initial stress.
The results of the reaction force at the rear face indicate
that the posterior pile has a large reaction force. The reac-
tion force at the rear face does not become greater than
that at the front face. This is because the reaction force
at the rear face cannot exceed the initial stress. Therefore,
the reaction force at the rear face of the back-most pile is
almost equal to the reaction force at the front face of the
front-most pile in the initial phase. However, depending
on the loader, it can be relatively small.
This mechanism of the reaction forces explains the
almost symmetrical U-shape in the initial phase for the
load share ratio distribution shown in Fig. 25. However,
the shape changes as the load-share ratio of the back-
most piles decreases.
5. Conclusion
In-situ lateral loading tests on large-scale pile groups
and a 3D elasto-plastic FEM analysis of the tests were con-
ducted to investigate the bearing capacity of an in-service
practical LNG tank foundation and the mechanical behav-
ior of the pile groups.
In this study, the resisting forces of the in-service
practical foundation were checked for the first time with
a simulation method capable of assessing the behavior of
laterally loaded large-scale pile groups.
(1) By using predictions from the FEM analysis of the
soil tests, and lateral loading tests performed before
the soil tests, the load displacement results for 7  9
and 3  1 pile groups were predicted with accuracy,
including the shape of the unloading and reloading
cycles. This has helped render an appropriate deter-
mination of the test conditions. An analysis per-
formed after the tests that improved the pile
modeling was able to simulate the behavior of the
7  9 pile group, after yielding, to some extent.
(2) The foundation yield around the load was calculated
with Chang’s formula along with the increase in load
to the ultimate load of 25,400 kN. At the ultimate
load, the falling of the pile head from the slab and
the falling away of the slab skin were predominantly
observed at the front-most pile. However, brittle fail-
ure was not observed.
(3) The deformation of the piles in the FEM results was
found to correspond to the deformation of the
pulled-out piles after the tests. The difference between
each line was found to be close to that seen in past in-
situ lateral loading tests on a 3  3 pile group.
836 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837

4,000 kN 8,000 kN 12,000 kN 16,000 kN

Front Front Front Front
face face face face
Total Total Total Total
Rear Rear Rear Rear
face face face face
500 500

450 450

400 400
(1) (7) 350 (1) (7)
350
300
Reaction force of pile (kN)

Reaction force of pile (kN)

300
250 250
front back front back
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(a) Reaction force at front and rear face (b) Total of reaction force

Fig. 29. Evolution of reaction force of each pile.

Loading direction
x: Stress of loading direction at 16,000 kN x0 : Initial stress of loading direction

Stress of loading direction x kPa Stress of loading direction x kPa

200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 200 150 100 50 00 50 100 150 200

Stress decrease at rear face

(positive reaction force)
Stress increase
at front face
(positive reaction force)

Stress increase Stress decrease

Stress increase at rear face at front face Can t decrease
at front face (negative reaction force) (negative reaction force) under 0
20 m

20 m
(positive reaction force)

Stress decrease in total

(negative reaction force)

(a) Fro nt-mo st p ile (b) Back-mo st p ile

Fig. 30. Transition of ground stress distribution at front-most and back-most piles.

(4) The affected range of the ground (lateral and vertical (5) The maximum subgrade reaction of each pile for the
displacement) increased in all directions with the framework analysis design in the Specification for
7  9 pile group compared to the 3  1 pile group. Highway Bridges is different from the load share dis-
These results indicate the scale effect of the pile tribution of the 7  9 test and the FEM results; how-
group. ever, their averages are nearly equal. Therefore, the
 S. Teramoto et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 819–837
reduction rate of the maximum subgrade reaction at
the back piles (= 0.5 currently) must be properly
determined when designing each pile.
(6) According to the yield of the pile heads of the front-
most piles, the deformation of the ground around
these piles changed modes. Thus, a different tendency
was seen at the back-most piles.
(7) From the stress distribution results, the front-most
piles were supported by the forward ground, while
the back-most piles were supported by the forward
and backside ground. This variation caused a differ-
ence in the pile deformation at the pile positions.
(8) The back-most pile received the reaction force as a
decrement in stress due to the initial stress, since that
quantity had limitations. Therefore, according to the
increase in load, the total reaction force at the back-
most pile was small compared to that at the front-
most pile. This difference in reaction forces is why
the load-share ratio distribution had an almost sym-
metrical U-shape in the initial phase. However, the
shape changed as the load-share ratio of the back-
most piles decreased.
In the next study, the applicability of the above analysis
to large-scale pile groups will be shown under a one-
boundary condition in in-situ lateral loading tests. Chang-
ing the pile number by means of this analysis method, a
parametric analysis will be conducted and the influence
of the pile number on the pile-group effect will be investi-
gated quantitatively.
Subsequently, the mechanical behavior of large-scale
pile groups subjected to seismic loads will be investigated
with this method along with the pile number being applied
to the design of pile groups.
Acknowledgements
This was a collaborative research effort by Osaka Gas
Co., Ltd, Kyoto University, and Obayashi Co., Ltd. Sin-
cere thanks are given to T. Nishizaki of Osaka Gas Co.,
Ltd and A. Inoue of Obayashi Co., Ltd, for their valuable
suggestions. Thanks are also extended to the interested par-
ties for their support and encouragement.
References
Adachi, T., Kimura, M., Kobayashi, H., Morimoto, A., 1994.
Behavior of laterally loaded pile groups in dense sand. Proc.
Int. Conf. Centrifuge 94, 509–514.
Bao, X., Morikawa, Y., Kondo, Y., Nakamura, K., Zhang, F.,
2013. Shaking table test on reinforcement effect of partial
ground improvement for pile group foundation and its
numerical simulation. Soils Found. 52 (6), 1043–1061.
Hashiguchi, K., 1980. Constitutive equation of elastoplastic
materials with elasto-plastic transition. J. Appl. Mech., ASME
102 (2), 266–272.
837
Isobe, K., Kimura, M., Ohtsuka, S., 2014. Design approach to a
method for reinforcing existing caisson foundations using steel
pipe sheet piles. Soils and Foundations 54 (2), 141–154.
Japan Road Association, 2012. Specifications for Highway
Bridges, Part IV Substructures.
Kimura, M., Kosa, K., Morita, Y., 1994. Full scale failure tests
on lateral loading cast-in-place concrete piles. In: Proc. of the
5th Int. Conf. and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Founda-
tions, Bruges, 5.15.1–5.15.10.
Kimura, M., Adachi, T., Kamei, H., Zhang, F., 1995. 3-D finite
element analysis of the ultimate behavior of laterally loaded
cast-in-place concrete pile. In: Pande, Pietruszczak (Eds.),
Proc. of 5th Int. Symp. Numerical Models in Geomechanics,
pp. 589–594.
McVay, M., Zhang, L., Molnit, T., Lai, P., 1998. Centrifuge
testing of large laterally loaded pile groups in sands. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (10), 1016–1026.
Nakai, T., Hinokio, M., 2004. A simple elasto-plastic model for
normally and over consolidated soils with unified material
parameters. Soils Found. 44 (2), 53–70.
O’Neil, M.W., Dunnavant, T.W., 1985. An evaluation of the
behavior and analysis of laterally loaded pile groups. A Report
to the American Petroleum Institute, University of Houston-
University Park, Research Report No. UHCE 85-11.
Pedro, F., Frank, C., 1997. Evaluation of laterally loaded pile
group at Roosevelt bridge. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123
(12), 1153–1161.
Poulos, H.G., 1964. Behavior of laterally loaded piles. II – Pile
groups. Proc. of ASCE, vol. 90, no. EM3, pp. 223–254.
Randolph, M.F., 1981. The response of flexible piles to lateral
loading. Geotechnique 31 (2), 247–259.
Shibata, T., Yashima, A., Kimura, M., 1989. Model tests and
analyses of laterally loaded pile groups. Soils Found. 29 (1),
31–44.
Shinohara, M., Kanaji, H., Oniki, K., Kimura, M., 2013. A
proposal of a bridge column integrated by multiple steel pipes
with directly-connected piles and a seismic response analysis. J.
JSCE, C 69 (3), 312–325.
Shirato, M., Nonomura, Y., Fukui, J., Nakatani, S., 2008. Large-
scale shake table experiment and numerical simulation on the
nonlinear behavior of pile-groups subjected to large-scale
earthquakes. Soils Found. 48 (3), 375–396.
Tamaki, O., Mitsuhashi, K., Imai, T., 1971. Horizontal resistance
of a pile group subjected to lateral load. J. JSCE 192, 79–89.
Teramoto, S., Kimura, M., 2016. Investigation of pile group effect
subjected to influence of pile arrangement and pile stiffness.
Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2 (38), 1362–1367.
Ye, B., Ye, G.L., Zhang, F., Yashima, A., 2007. Experiment and
numerical simulation of repeated liquefaction-consolidation of
sand. Soils Found. 47 (3), 547–558.
Zhang, F., Kimura, M., Nakai, T., Hoshikawa, T., 2000.
Mechanical behavior of pile foundations subjected to cyclic
lateral loading up to the ultimate state. Soils Found. 40 (5), 1–
17.
Zhang, F., Kimura, M., 2002. Numerical prediction of the
dynamic behaviors of an RC pile group foundation. Soils
Found. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. 42 (3), 77–92.
Zhang, F., Yashima, A., Higuchi, M., Kimura, M., 2002. 3-D
analysis on dynamic behavior of jacket-type foundation with
inclined piles. In: Proc. of 1st Int. Workshop on New Frontiers
in Computational Geotechnics, Banff, pp. 123–128.