Soils and Foundations 2016;56(3):473–484

HOSTED BY The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Simplified non-linear approaches for response of a single pile and pile

groups considering progressive deformation of pile–soil system
Qian-qing Zhanga,b,n, Shan-wei Liua, Shi-min Zhangc, Jian Zhanga, Kang Wanga
a
Research Center of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China
b
State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China
Received 15 May 2015; received in revised form 25 December 2015; accepted 27 February 2016
Available online 6 May 2016

Abstract

This work presents a simplified approach for the nonlinear analysis of the load–displacement response of a single pile and pile groups embedded
in multilayered soils. A hyperbolic model is used to capture the relationship between the skin friction and the pile–soil relative displacement
developing along the pile–soil interface. The shaft displacement is assumed to be composed of the pile–soil relative displacement developing at the
disturbed soil around the pile shaft and the elastic vertical soil displacement developing in the soil mass. The relationship between the shaft
displacement and the skin friction is then presented. Moreover, a hyperbolic model is also used to capture the relationship between end resistance
and pile end displacement. Considering the interactive effect among piles, hyperbolic models of an individual pile in pile groups are proposed. As to
the analysis of the response of a single pile and pile groups, considering the progressive deformation of the pile–soil system, a highly effective
iterative computer program is developed using the proposed hyperbolic models. Comparisons of the load–settlement responses demonstrate that the
proposed method is generally in good agreement with the field-observed behavior and the calculated results derived from other approaches.
& 2016 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Single pile; Pile groups; Skin friction; End resistance; Hyperbolic model; Pile–soil relative displacement; Progressive deformation

1. Introduction
A number of theoretical methods have been used for the
analysis of a single pile and pile groups. Many of these various
numerical methods fall into the following four main categories.
(1) The theoretical load–transfer curve method (Kraft et al., 1981;
Liu et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2010; Zhang and Zhang, 2012; Lee
et al., 2013) adopts the load transfer function to describe the
n
Corresponding author at: Research Center of Geotechnical and Structural
Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
E-mail addresses: zjuzqq@163.com (Q.-q. Zhang),
519149072@qq.com (S.-w. Liu), zhangsm@zucc.edu.cn (S.-m. Zhang),
471324300@qq.com (J. Zhang), 540179145@qq.com (K. Wang).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
relationship between the unit skin friction and the pile–soil
relative displacement along the pile–soil interface and the
relationship between the pile end resistance and the pile end
displacement. The theoretical load–transfer curve method is
simplified and can be easily used in the analysis of single piles
embedded in multilayered soils. However, the theoretical load–
transfer curve method cannot consider soil continuity and cannot
be directly used in analyzing the response of pile groups. (2) The
shear displacement method (Randolph and Wroth, 1979; Lee,
1991; Guo and Randolph, 1999) considers the resulting displace-
ment of the soil induced by the shaft shear stress as a logarithmic
relationship of the radial distance away from the pile shaft. The
interactive effects among piles can be considered by using the
principle of superposition. However, the interaction between two

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.013
0038-0806/& 2016 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
474 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484
soil layers cannot be considered in the shear displacement
method. (3) The elastic theory method (Xu and Poulos, 2000;
Wang and Yang, 2006) has an excellent theoretical basis and can
consider soil continuity. However, the elastic theory method can
only consider the influence of the elastic modulus and Poisson's
ratio on the pile response; it cannot account for the nonlinear soil
behavior or the stratification of soils. (4) The numerical analysis
method, including the finite element method (Comodromos et al.,
2009; Said et al., 2009), the boundary element method (Ai and
Han, 2009), the discrete element method (Chow, 1986; Lee,
1991), and the infinite layer method (Cheung et al., 1988), is
considered to be one of the most powerful approaches for
analyzing the behavior of a single pile and pile groups. With
the numerical analysis method, the nonlinear soil behavior and
the complete history of the pile construction procedure can be
simulated. However, it is not commonly used in practice because
of its high computational requirements and the difficultly of
determining the soil parameters.
In practical applications, the load–transfer approach is an
efficient method for analyzing a single pile response, and it can
be used to consider the nonlinear soil behavior. In the
theoretical load–transfer curve method, the load–transfer func-
tions are required to describe the relationship between the
mobilized unit skin friction and the pile–soil relative displace-
ment and the relationship between pile end resistance and pile
end displacement. For practical purposes, various forms of
load–transfer functions, such as the elastoplastic model, the
bilinear model, the trilinear model, the exponential function
model, the parabolic model, the softening model, and the
hyperbolic model are proposed. To account for the non-
linearity in the stress–displacement response of soil, a hyper-
bolic model is commonly used to capture the relationship
between the unit skin friction and the pile–soil relative
displacement developing along the pile–soil interface and the
load–displacement relationship developing at the pile end.
However, the conventional load–transfer approach is rather
difficult to extend to the analysis of pile groups. The
interactive effects among piles should be considered when
the load–transfer approach is used to analyze the response of
pile groups. Poulos (1968) first introduced the interaction
factor defined as the additional displacement at the top of a pile
due to a loaded adjacent pile divided by the settlement of the
pile under its own load to analyze the response of pile groups.
The concept of the interaction factor is successfully employed
in simplified analytical methods to predict the response of pile
groups. However, the conventional interaction factor will
overestimate the interactive effects among piles. In reality,
the presence of the ‘receiver’ pile (in the words of Mylonakis
and Gazetas (1998)) usually reduces the displacement of the
loaded (‘source’) pile. To account for the reinforcing effects
among piles, Mylonakis and Gazetas (1998), Liang et al.
(2005, 2014), and Yang et al. (2011) developed analytical
formulations to determine the modified interaction factors. The
modified interaction factors can be used to establish suitable
methods for analyzing the response of pile groups.
Field tests show that the skin friction is gradually mobilized
from the pile head to the pile tip, and that deformation of the
pile–soil system gradually develops. The results of field tests
also show that a hyperbolic model can be used to better
describe the shear characteristics of the pile–soil interface. In
previous papers (Zhang et al., 2010; Zhang and Zhang, 2012),
a hyperbolic model was used to analyze the behavior between
the unit skin friction and the pile displacement developing
along the pile–soil interface, and a bilinear hardening model
was used to simulate the load–settlement response developing
at the pile base. As to the response of pile groups, the
interaction factor was introduced. The interaction between
two piles was assumed to be composed of two aspects: one
was the interaction between pile shafts, and the other was the
interaction between pile bases. Comparing to the previous
works, there are many great improvements in the present
method. In the present paper, the shaft displacement is
assumed to be composed of the pile–soil relative displacement
developing in the disturbed soil around the pile and the elastic
vertical soil displacement developing in the soil mass. More-
over, to extend the conventional load–transfer approach to
analyze the response of pile groups, new kinds of hyperbolic
models of an individual pile in pile groups were established to
consider the reinforcing effect of adjacent load-free piles and
the interactive effects among piles. Based on the proposed
models, a highly effective iterative computer program is
developed to analyze the nonlinear response of a single pile
and pile groups embedded in multilayered soils.
2. Nonlinear transfer function for a single pile
The results of field tests on instrumented piles are adopted
(Zhang et al., 2014) to verify the reliability of the hyperbolic
model of skin friction, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 contains 808
points and presents the observed relationship between the unit
skin friction at a given depth and the pile–soil relative
displacement with the unit skin friction at a given depth, τsz,
normalized by the limiting unit shaft resistance, τsu, and the
measured pile–soil relative deformation at a given depth, Ssz,
normalized by the measured pile–soil relative displacement at
the ultimate skin friction, Ssu.
Fig. 1 suggests that a hyperbolic model can be used to
approximately simulate the relationship between τsz/τsu and Ssz/
Ssu irrespective of soil type, stratigraphy, or loading procedure,
and has a high accuracy (R2 ¼ 0.8376). In this paper, a simple
hyperbolic nonlinear model may be conveniently adopted to
describe the relationship between the unit skin friction and the
relative displacement discontinuity between the disturbed soil
zone and the pile shaft surface.
The relationship between the unit skin friction and the pile–
soil relative displacement can be simulated using a hyperbolic
model (see Fig. 1). The following is obtained (after Lee and
Xiao (2001)):
Ssz
τsz ¼ ð1Þ
aþ bSsz
where a and b are empirical coefficients, Ssz is the relative
displacement along the pile–soil interface at a given depth z,
and τsz is the unit skin friction at a given depth z.
 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484 475

The limiting unit skin friction, τsu, is commonly determined

based on a formula using soil parameters derived from both
laboratory and in situ tests. The effective stress method is
employed to predict the value of τsu. As suggested by Yang
et al. (2006), the following equation can be used to calculate
the value of τsu:

 

K δ 0
τsu ¼ K 0 tan φ sv ð4Þ
K0 φ

where s0v is the effective overburden pressure at the given

depth under consideration, δ is the friction angle of the pile–
soil interface and is commonly related to the effective angle of
the shearing resistance of the surrounding soil, φ, K is the
lateral earth pressure coefficient, and K0 is the in situ earth
pressure coefficient, whose value is approximately estimated
by Jaky's equation K0 ¼ 1  sinφ. The suggested values for the
Fig. 1. Observed and theoretical relationship between τsz/τsu and Ssz/Ssu for
lateral earth pressure coefficient, K, and the friction angle of
instrumented piles (Zhang et al., 2014).
the pile–soil interface, δ, are summarized by the first author
(Zhang et al., 2014) in another paper.
Following the suggestion of Randolph and Wroth (1979), Therefore, the value for b can be calculated in the following
the elastic vertical soil displacement developing in the soil form:
mass induced by the skin friction can be computed using the
1 Rsf R
elastic solution. The value of a can be taken as the reciprocal b¼ ¼ ¼   sfh  i ð5Þ
of the spring stiffness of the soils around the pile shaft and can τsf τsu K 0 KK0 tan φ φδ s0v
be written as

 A well-documented case history on the interaction between
r0 rm
a¼ ln ð2Þ two identical piles was described by Caputo and Viggiani
Gs r0 (1984). Their pile-loading tests show that the load–displace-
ment relationships for the loaded piles are highly nonlinear,
where r0 is the pile radius and Gs is the shear modulus of the
P
ns whereas those for the adjacent load-free piles are essentially
Gsi hi linearly elastic. The research findings of Lee and Xiao (2001)
soils around the pile. In multilayered soils, Gs ¼ i ¼ 1L , hi is also show that the non-linear response only develops near the
the thickness of soil layer i, L is the pile length, ns is the pile side and the displacement of soil away from the pile shaft
number of soils, and rm is the radial distance from the pile remains essentially elastic.
center to a point where the shaft shear stress caused by the pile The total shaft displacement at a given depth below the
can be disregarded. For a pile embedded in homogeneous ground surface, Sz, consists of the nonlinear displacement of
soils, the value for rm can be computed as rm ¼ 2.5L(1  υs), as the disturbed soil around the pile shaft and the purely elastic
suggested by Randolph and Wroth (1979), whereas following displacement of the soil away from the pile shaft. As described
the suggestion by Lee (1993) for a pile embedded in multi- by Lee and Xiao (2001), the total shaft displacement at a given
layered soils, the 0 value for1 rm can be calculated as depth z, Sz, can be computed as
Pns Pns
Gsi hi υsi hi
B C Sz ¼ Ssz þ ΔSsz ð6Þ
r m ¼ 2:5L i ¼G1sm L @1 i ¼ 1L A. Gsm is the maximum shear
where ΔSsz is the purely elastic displacement of the soil away
modulus in the soil layers and υsi is Poisson's ratio of soil layer from the pile shaft.
i around the pile shaft. The relative displacement along the pile–soil interface at a
The reciprocal of coefficient b can be taken as the unit skin given depth z, Ssz, can be calculated from Eq. (1), namely,
friction at an infinite value of the pile–soil relative displace- aτsz
ment. This asymptote skin friction, τsf, is slightly greater than Ssz ¼ ð7Þ
1 bτsz
the maximum possible value of the pile–soil interface, τsu. It is
convenient to express τsf in terms of τsu by means of the As suggested by Randolph and Wroth (1979), the elastic
hyperbolic curve fitting constant, Rsf, as in the following displacement of the soil away from the pile shaft, ΔSsz, is only
(Zhang et al., 2010): related to the skin friction, and can be computed by


τsu ¼ Rsf τsf ð3Þ r0 rm
ΔSsz ¼ ln τsz ¼ cτsz ð8Þ
Gs r0
where a value for Rsf in the range of 0.80–0.95 can be adopted  
for the hyperbolic model of the skin friction. where c ¼ Gr0s ln rrm0 .
476 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484
Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (6), the value for Sz
can be written as follows:
aτsz
Sz ¼ þ cτsz
1  bτsz
The unit skin friction at a given depth z, τsz can be derived
from Eq. (9) as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðaþ c þ bSz Þ þ ða þ c þ bSz Þ2  4bcSz
τsz ¼ ð10aÞ
2bc
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðaþ c þ bSz Þ  ða þ c þ bSz Þ2  4bcSz
τsz ¼
2bc
When the value of Sz is adopted as zero, the value of τsz
should be taken as zero. Note that when the value of Sz is
adopted as zero in Eq. (10b), the value of τsz is equal to zero.
However, from Eq. (10a), it can be concluded that the value of
τsz is (aþ c)/bc when the value of Sz is adopted as zero. For
practical purposes, therefore, Eq. (10b) should be used to
compute the unit skin friction at a given depth z, τsz.
The results of load tests on instrumented piles were used to
assess the reliability of the hyperbolic model of end resistance
(Zhang et al., 2014), as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 contains 108
data points and presents the observed relationship between the
unit end resistance and the pile base displacement with the unit
end resistance, τb, normalized by the ultimate unit end
resistance, τbu, and the measured pile end deformation, Sb,
normalized by the measured pile base displacement at the
ultimate end resistance, Sbu.
Fig. 2 suggests that a hyperbolic model can be used to
describe the relationship between τb/τbu and Sb/Sbu irrespective
of soil type, stratigraphy, or loading procedure, and has a high
accuracy (R2 ¼ 0.8121). A hyperbolic model can be used to
describe the relationship between the unit end resistance and
the pile base displacement.
Fig. 2. Observed and theoretical relationship between τb/τbu and Sb/Sbu for
instrumented piles (Zhang et al., 2014).
This hyperbolic relationship can be described by the
following equation (see Fig. 2):
Sb
ð9Þ τb ¼ ð11Þ
A þ BSb
where A and B are empirical coefficients, Sb is the pile end
displacement, and τb is the unit end resistance.
As suggested by Randolph and Wroth (1979), the value for
A can be computed by
πr 0 ð1 υb Þ
A¼ ð12Þ
4Gb
where Gb is the shear modulus of the soil below the pile base
and υb is Poisson's ratio of the soil below the pile base.
ð10bÞ
The reciprocal of coefficient B can be taken as the unit end
resistance at an infinite value of the pile end displacement.
This asymptote end resistance, τbf, is slightly greater than the
maximum possible value of the unit end résistance, τbu. It is
convenient to express τbf in terms of τbu by means of the
hyperbolic curve fitting constant, Rbf, as in the following
equation (Zhang et al., 2014):
τbu ¼ Rbf τbf ð13Þ
where a value in the range of 0.80–0.95 can be adopted for Rsf
for the hyperbolic model of the end resistance.
Following the limit equilibrium theory of end resistance and
considering the compressibility of the soil at the pile end
proposed by Janbu (1976), a compaction zone at the pile end
will form due to the pile base load and will gradually expand
into the soil around the pile under a large pile base load. The
zone of plastic deformation is formed as the curve plotted in
Fig. 3.
A compaction zone
Fig. 3. Failure model of soil at pile base: failure model proposed by Janbu
(1976).
 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484 477

Based on the hole expansion theory, the ultimate end ja i) can be written as
resistance, τbu, can be calculated in the following form, as X

n
τszj r 0 rm
suggested by Janbu (1976): ΔW szij ¼ ln ð20Þ
j ¼ 1;j a i
G s r ij
0
τbu ¼ cc N c þ snb N q ð14Þ
The unit skin friction of pile j, τszji, induced by the spread of
where cc is the cohesion of the soil supporting the pile, Nc and the shaft shear stress of pile i, τszi, can be expressed by
Nq are the bearing capacity factors reflecting the influence of τszi r 0
the cohesion of the soil, cc, the angle of shearing resistance of τszji ¼ ð21Þ
r ij
the soil at the pile end ϕ, and each pressure applied on the pile
side near the pile end, and can be calculated with Eqs. (15) and For pile j, τszji can be taken as a negative skin friction which
0
(16), respectively. snb is the average effective pressure applied pulls pile j down, whereas pile j generates a counter force with
on the pile side near the pile end, and it can be calculated using the same value but opposite direction, namely, τ0 szij, which
Eq. (17). may reduce the elastic displacement of the soil around pile i.
The elastic displacement of the soil around pile i, ΔS0 szij,
N c ¼ ðN q  1Þcot φ ð15Þ
induced by the shaft shear stress, τ0 szij, can then be calculated
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi by
tan φ
N q ¼ ð tan φ þ 1 þ tan 2 φÞ2 e2ψ ð16Þ

0 τszj r 20 rm
ΔSszij ¼ ln ð22Þ
Gs r ij r ij
0 1 þ 2K 0 0
snb ¼ svb ð17Þ
3 Following the above assumption that the unit skin friction,
0 τszj, (τszj ¼ τszi, j¼ 1 to n), is assumed to be the same at a given
where s vb is the effective pressure at the pile end and ψ is the
depth for all piles in the group, the elastic displacement of the
angle in radians for the failure surface at the pile base (see Fig. 3),
soil surrounding pile i, ΔW0 szij, induced by the shaft shear
which varies from 601 for soft clay to approximately 1051 for
stress, τ0 szij (j¼ 1 to n, and ja i), can be written by
dense sandy soils.
X

The value for B can be computed by the following equation: 0
n
τszj r 20 rm
ΔW szij ¼ ln ð23Þ
1 Rbf Rbf j ¼ 1;j a i
G s r ij r ij
B¼ ¼ ¼ ð18Þ
τbf τbu 0
cc N c þ snb N q Considering the interactive effects of the piles, the elastic
displacement of the soil around individual pile i, ΔSszi, is
composed of three parts: (1) the displacement induced by its
3. Nonlinear transfer function for pile groups own loading, ΔSszij, (2) the displacement induced by the
neighboring loaded piles, ΔWszij, and (3) the deformation
A hyperbolic model, generally used in the analysis of the caused by the reinforcing effect of the adjacent load-free piles,
behavior of single piles, is extended to analyze the response of ΔW'szij, which may reduce the elastic displacement of the soil
pile groups by accounting for the interaction between indivi- around individual pile i, and can be calculated by


dual piles. In this work, the interactive effects between the pile 0 τszi r 0 rm
shaft and the pile base are assumed to be uncoupled; and ΔSszi ¼ ΔSszii þ ΔW szij  ΔW szij ¼ ln
Gs r0
therefore, interactions between the shaft and the base are X
 X

n
τszj r 0 rm n
τszj r 20 rm
considered separately for individual piles in pile groups. This þ ln  ln
simplified consideration is consistent with the hybrid-layer j ¼ 1;j a i
Gs r ij Gr
j ¼ 1;j a i s ij
r ij
approach as proposed by Lee (1993) and the method given by ð24Þ
Lee and Xiao (2001).
Based on the formulation presented by Randolph and Wroth In pile groups, τszi ¼ τszj ¼ τsz is assumed. The value for ΔSszi
(1979) and considering the interactive effect of two piles, pile i presented in Eq. (24) can be re-written as
"

#
and pile j, the elastic displacement of the soil away from the Xn
r0 rm X n
r 20 rm
shaft of pile i, ΔSszij, induced by the unit skin friction of pile j, ΔSszi ¼ ln  ln τsz ¼ cτsz
G
j¼1 s
r ij Gr
j ¼ 1;j a i s ij
r ij
τsj, can be calculated by

 ð25Þ
τszj r 0 rm P   P  
ΔSszij ¼ ln ð19Þ n n
r20
Gs r ij where c ¼ Gs ln rij 
r0 rm rm
Gs rij ln r ij , when i¼ j,
rij ¼ r0. j ¼ 1 j ¼ 1;j a i
where rij is the center-to-center spacing between pile i and pile The total shaft displacement of individual pile i in an n-pile
j. group, Szi, can be computed by
Considering the interactive effects in a group of n piles, the
elastic displacement of the soil surrounding pile i, ΔWszij, aτsz
Szi ¼ þ cτsz ð26Þ
induced by the unit skin friction of pile j, τszj (j¼ 1 to n, and 1 bτsz
478 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484

d=0.274 m

3.7 m
1.9 m

0.822 m 0.822 m

1.9 m
2.7 m
0.822 m
2.7 m
A 2×2 pile group

L=13.1 m

A 3×3 pile group A single pile

Fig. 5. Layout of pile groups.

At some distance from the pile base, the loading will appear
as a point load. The displacement at the base of pile i, induced
by the unit end resistance of pile j, ΔSbij, can be computed by
τbi ð1  υb Þ
ΔSbij ¼ ð29Þ
2πr ij Gb

For a group of np piles, the interactive effects of the

displacement induced on the base of pile i can be established
by the principle of superposition. Thus, the displacement at the
base of pile i, ΔWbij, induced by the load developing at the
base of other (n  1) piles can be computed by
Fig. 4. Computational flow chart for response of single pile or pile groups ð1  υb Þ X
n
τbj
considering progressive deformation of pile–soil system. ΔSbij ¼ ð30Þ
2πGb j ¼ 1;j a i r ij

The unit skin friction of individual pile i in an n-pile group, Substituting Eqs. (11) and (30) into Eq. (28), the pile end
τszi, can be calculated by displacement of individual pile i in an n-pile group, Sbi, can be
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi calculated by
ða þ c þ bSzi Þ ða þ c þ bSzi Þ2  4bcSzi
τszi ¼ ð27Þ Aτbi ð1  υb Þ X
n
τbj
2bc Sbi ¼ þ ð31Þ
1 Bτbi 2πGb j ¼ 1;j a i r ij
Considering the interactive effects among piles, the pile end
displacement of individual pile i in an n-pile group, Sbi, can be In pile groups, τbi ¼ τbj ¼ τb is assumed. The value for τbi
calculated by presented in Eq. (31) can be calculated by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sbi ¼ Sbii þ ΔSbij ð28Þ A þ C þ BSbi  A þ C þ BSbi  4BCSbi
2

τbi ¼ ð32Þ
where Sbii is the displacement at the base of pile i induced by 2BC
P 1  υb
n
its own loading τbi, and ΔSbij is the displacement at the base of where C ¼ 2πGb rij .
pile i induced by the unit end resistance of pile j, τbj. j ¼ 1;j a i
 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484 479

9.679E7 4.080E 4 4.307E 4

Rbf ¼0.95
4. Algorithm for response of a single pile or pile groups
considering progressive deformation of pile–soil system

Based on the proposed hyperbolic models, an algorithm for

Rbf ¼ 0.90
A (m/kPa) B (1/kPa)
the response of a single pile or pile groups embedded in
multilayered soils can be analyzed with the following
procedure:

(1) Assume that a single pile is divided into n segments from

the pile head to the pile end.
(2) Assume a small pile end settlement, Sbn.
(kPa)

4.354E2 2206
τbu

(3) Calculate the mobilized pile base load, Pbn, using the
assumed pile base displacement, Sbn, and Eq. (11) (for a
3.458E2
2.868E2
2.450E2
2.139E2
1.897E2
1.705E2
1.548E2
1.417E2
1.307E2
1.213E2
1.131E2
1.057E2
Rsf ¼ 0.95

single pile) or Eq. (32) (for an individual pile in pile

groups).
(4) Assume a vertical movement, Scn, at the middle height of
4.125E2
3.276E2
2.717E2
2.321E2
2.026E2
1.797E2
1.615E2
1.467E2
1.343E2
1.239E2
1.149E2
1.072E2
1.001E2 pile segment n (for the first trial, assume Scn ¼ Sbn). Based
Rsf ¼0.90

on the load transfer function given in Eq. (10b) (for a

single pile) or Eq. (27) (for an individual pile in pile
groups), the unit skin friction of pile segment n, τsn, can be
9.572E6 9.572E 6 3.896E 2
3.094E 2
2.566E 2
2.192E 2
1.914E 2
1.698E 2
1.525E 2
1.385E 2
1.268E 2
1.170E 2
1.085E 2
1.012E 2
9.456E 3
Rsf ¼ 0.85
C (m/kPa) b (1/kPa)

obtained using the assumed value for Scn.

(5) Calculate the load at the top of pile segment n, Ptn, as
Ptn ¼ Pbn þ πdLn τsn ð33Þ
where d is the pile diameter and Ln is the length of pile
segment n.
(6) Assume a linear variation in load for pile segment n, and
a (m/kPa)

calculate the elastic deformation at the midpoint of pile

segment n, Scmn, by


Ptn þ Pbn 0:5Ln
21.82
27.47
33.12
38.77
44.42
50.07
55.72
61.37
67.02
72.66
78.31
83.96
89.89
(kPa)

Scmn ¼ þ Pbn ð34Þ

τsu

2 2E p Ap
where Ep is the pile elastic modulus and Ap is the cross-
sectional area of the pile.
Length of each pile

(7) Write the updated midpoint displacement of pile segment

n, S0 cmn, as
segment (m)

S0cmn ¼ Sbn þ Scmn ð35Þ

1.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Values of parameters used in analysis of Case One (for single pile).

Pile diameter Elastic modulus of pile Poisson’s ratio

of soil

0.35
(GPa)

210
0.274
(m)
Pile length
Table 1

Fig. 6. Measured and calculated load–settlement curves at pile head of

13.1
(m)

single pile.
480 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484

8.639E6 1.103E 5 1.191E 5

(8) Compare the updated midpoint displacement S0 cmn with

Center
the assumed value for Scmn from step (4). If the computed

pile
displacement S0 cmn does not agree with Scmn within a
specified tolerance, e.g., 1  10  6 m, use S0 cmn as the new
Edge pile value for Scmn. Repeat steps (4) to (8) until the value for
(Scmn  S0 cmn) is within the assumed tolerance.
3  3 pile group

(9) Calculate the load and the displacement at the top of pile
segment n, Ptn and Stn, respectively, using the following
Corner

forms:
pile

Stn ¼ Sbn þ S0cmn ð36Þ

4.720E6
2  2 pile
C (1/kN)

Ptn ¼ Pbn þ πdLn τ0sn ð37Þ

group

0
where τ sn is derived from Eq. (27) and an updated
midpoint displacement, S0 cmn.
(10) Repeat steps (4) to (10) from pile segment n to pile
(Rbf ¼ 0.90)

9.679E 7 4.080E4

segment 1 until the load–settlement relationship devel-

A (m/kPa) B (1/kPa)

oping at the pile head is obtained.

(11) Repeat the procedure from steps (2) to (10) using
different values for Sbn until a series of load–displace-
ment values are obtained.

The computational flow chart for the response of a single

pile or pile groups, considering the progressive deformation of
(kPa)

4.619E 5 4.781E 5 5.059E5 2206

τbu

the pile–soil, is shown in Fig. 4. Note that the present method

is proposed to analyze the response of a pile under centered-
vertical loading; it is not suitable for the analysis of the
Center

response of a pile in an eccentric loading condition or the

pile

combined loading condition of a vertical load and a

Edge pile

horizontal load.
The proposed algorithm is economical and efficient, and
3  3 pile group

suitable for analyzing the response of a single pile or pile

groups using different forms of load–transfer functions.
Corner
pile

5. Case studies on response of a single pile and pile groups

2.473E5

Two case histories reported in literature were performed on

c (m/kPa)

2  2 pile

piles and are used here to check the reliability of the previously
group

proposed method for the analysis of the load–settlement

Values of parameters used in analysis of Case One (for pile group).

(Rsf ¼0.90)
b (1/kPa)

9.572E 6 0.0412
0.0328
0.0272
0.0232
0.0203
0.0180
0.0162
0.0147
0.0134
0.0124
0.0115
0.0107
0.0100
a (m/kPa)

21.82
27.47
33.12
38.77
44.42
50.07
55.72
61.37
67.02
72.66
78.31
83.96
89.89
(kPa)
τsu
Length of each pile
segment (m)
Table 2

Fig. 7. Calculated load–settlement curves at pile head of each individual pile

1.1

in 3  3 pile group.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484 481

response of a single pile and pile groups. a rigid cap, the settlements of the piles at different locations
should be identical. Based on the proposed algorithm, the
5.1. Case One response of different individual piles in pile groups can be
calculated using the value of 0.90 for Rsf and Rbf, as shown in
The first case history analyzed, regarding the loading test, was Fig. 7. For the pile groups, the values for the parameters used
reported by O’Neill et al. (1982) on a closed-ended steel pipe pile in the analysis of Case One are shown in Table 2.
in stiff overconsolidated clay. The pile had an external radius of Fig. 7 shows that due to the interactive effects among
137 mm and a wall thickness of 9.3 mm, and was driven to a individual piles, the largest, the second largest, and the
penetration of 13.1 m. Nine of the piles were installed in a 3  3 smallest pile loads are observed in the corner, the edge, and
configuration with a center-to-center spacing of 3d, while each of the center piles, respectively. The largest, the second largest,
the two remaining piles were located some 3.7 m from the center and the smallest pile settlements are supposed to be presented
of the group on opposite sides of the group. The nine-pile group in the corner, the edge, and the center piles, respectively.
was connected to a rigid reinforced concrete block. The two single However, the individual piles installed at different locations
piles and the nine-pile group were loaded to failure after the final should deform at the same pace because of the restriction
nine-pile test. Four of the piles were installed in a 2  2 effect of the rigid cap installed in the pile groups. This will
configuration and connected to a rigid reinforced concrete block lead to different loads being applied on the individual piles in
with a center-to-center spacing of 3d. The layout of the pile groups a group.
is shown in Fig. 5. At the same pile head displacement, the loads of different
According to the soil properties evaluated by a back analysis individual piles in pile groups can be obtained from Fig. 7, and
(Castelli and Maugeri, 2002), the soil compression modulus the total head load applied on the pile groups can then be
back calculated from the test results was taken as 195 MPa, the computed, as shown in Fig. 8.
ultimate end bearing capacity was 130 kN, and the elastic
modulus for the steel pipe pile was adopted as 210 GPa. A
linearly increasing undrained shear strength profile was con-
sidered. The unit skin friction was assumed to be 19 kPa at the
surface increasing linearly to 93 kPa at the pile base. In the
analysis of the pile response, the single pile was divided into
13 segments with each pile segment being 1 m in length,
except for the pile end segment whose length was assumed to
be 1.1 m. In practice, the ultimate unit skin friction of each pile
segment can be adopted as an average value of the limiting
shaft resistance of a recommended soil depth. Poisson's ratio of
the soil is adopted as 0.35. Values for Rsf of 0.85, 0.90, and
0.95 were adopted for the whole deposit, whereas values for
Rbf of 0.90 and 0.95 were assumed for the soil below the pile
toe. For a single pile, the values for the parameters used in the
analysis of Case One are shown in Table 1.
Based on the proposed algorithm, the response of a single
pile can be calculated. Comparisons of the measured load–
settlement curve of a single pile given by O’Neill et al. (1982),
the computed response derived from the present method, and
the approach presented by Castelli and Maugeri (2002) are
shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 shows that during the entire load, the load–displace-
ment curve at the pile head plotted from the present approach
is more consistent with the measured results given by O’Neill
et al. (1982) and the calculated values presented by Castelli
and Maugeri (2002). It can also be concluded that the pile head
displacement estimated from the present approach increases
with an increasing hyperbolic curve fitting constant of the skin
friction and end resistance, Rsf and Rbf, at the same loading
level. However, the influence of Rbf on the single pile response
is too small to be of practical significance.
Considering the interactive effects among piles, the skin
friction and the end resistance of each individual pile in the
2  2 pile groups and the 3  3 pile groups can be computed Fig. 8. Measured and calculated load–settlement curves at pile head of
using the proposed algorithm. For the pile groups connected to pile group.
482 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484

1.096E4 1.400E 4 1.510E 4

Fig. 8 compares the measured load-average settlement beha-

Center
vior of the nine-pile group and the four-pile subgroup with the

pile
computed values. A very good agreement between the measured
values given by O’Neill et al. (1982), the computed results

Edge pile
suggested by Castelli and Maugeri (2002), and the calculated
results estimated from the present approach using the value of
0.90 for Rsf and Rbf is generally observed. The reliability of the

C (1/kN)
proposed method for the analysis of the load–settlement response

Corner
of pile groups can be verified by Case One.

pile
(Rbf ¼ 0.90)

4.245E 4 4.566E 4 5.023E4 353.9 1.472E5 2.543E 3

A (m/kPa) B (1/kPa)
5.2. Case Two

A loading test on the 3  3 pile groups embedded in

multilayered soils was presented by Koizumi and Ito (1967).
Nine piles were placed at a spacing of 3 times pile diameter
and connected to a rigid cap in contact with the soil. The piles
were tubular steel pipes, 300 mm in diameter, with a wall

(kPa)
τbu
thickness of 3.2 mm. The pile length was 5.5 m, and the elastic
modulus of the steel piles was adopted as 200 GPa. The
subsoil was composed of two soil layers, with the sandy silt

Center
pile
extending to a depth of 1.7 m and the silty clay below the
depth of 1.7 m. The layout of the pile group and the subsoil

Edge pile
model are shown in Fig. 9.
Based on the back-analysis of the single pile behavior
deduced from the loading tests, Cairo and Conte (2006)

c (m/kPa)
presented that the values of the elastic moduli of the sandy

Corner
silt and the silty clay were about 12.8 MPa and 15.6 MPa,

pile
respectively. The back-analyzed value for the ultimate bearing
capacity of the soil at the pile base was adopted as 20 kN, as
(Rsf ¼ 0.90)
b (1/kPa)

suggested by Cairo and Conte (2006). To get a better

0.036
0.036
comparison to the previous method, the ultimate bearing
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
capacity of the soil at the pile base was herein adopted as a
1.417E4
1.417E4
1.163E4
1.163E4
1.163E4
1.163E4
unified value of 20 kN. The value of τsu, deduced from
a (m/kPa)

3d 3d
(kPa)
τsu

25
25
30
30
30
30

3d
ratio of soil pile segment (m)

3d
Length of each
Values of parameters used in analysis of Case Two (for pile group).

0.7

0.8
1

1
1
1

Sandy silt 1.7 m

Elastic modulus Poisson’s

0.35

3.8 m
of pile (GPa)

Silty clay
200
diameter
Pile

(m)

0.3
Table 3

length

Fig. 9. Loading tests presented by Koizumi and Ito (1967): layout of pile
Pile

(m)

5.5

groups and subsoil model.

 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484
Fig. 10. Calculated load–settlement curves at pile head of each individual pile
in 3  3 pile group.
Fig. 11. Measured and calculated load–settlement curves at pile head of 3  3
pile groups.
laboratory and in situ tests, increased from about 25 kPa at the
pile head to 40 kPa at the depth of 3.5 m, and decreased from
40 kPa to 25 kPa at the pile tip. Therefore, in this calculation,
an average value of 25 kPa is adopted for the τsf of the sandy
silt, whereas an average value of 30 kPa is taken for the τsu of
the silty clay extending to a depth of 5.5 m. Poisson's ratio of
the two-layer subsoil is assumed to be 0.35. The value of 0.90
is adopted for Rsf for the whole deposit, whereas the value of
0.90 is assumed for Rbf. For a single pile, the values for the
parameters used in the analysis of Case Two are shown in
Table 3.
Based on the proposed algorithm, the response of the
different individual piles in pile groups can be calculated as
shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10 shows that at the same pile head displacement, the
largest, the second largest, and the smallest pile loads are observed
in the corner, the edge, and the center piles, respectively.
At the same pile head displacement, the loads of the
different individual piles in pile groups can be obtained from
Fig. 10, and the total head load acting on the pile group can
then be computed, as shown in Fig. 11.
483
The measured results of the pile groups given by Koizumi
and Ito (1967) are compared in Fig. 11 with that theoretically
predicted using the present method and the computed values
derived from Cairo and Conte (2006).
Fig. 11 shows that there is a great discrepancy between the
computed results proposed by Cairo and Conte (2006) and the
calculated values derived from the present method, especially
at high load levels. It can also be concluded that there is a large
difference between the computed results proposed by Cairo
and Conte (2006) and the measured results given by Koizumi
and Ito (1967) during the entire load. However, the load–
settlement relationship at the pile head plotted from the present
method is generally consistent with the measured results given
by Koizumi and Ito (1967) at large loading levels. In the early
stages, the present method may underestimate the bearing
capacity of pile groups. This may be due to the fact that the
loads shared by the rigid pile cap are not taken into account,
and the interaction between the pile cap and the soil is not
considered. This simplification may overestimate the pile
settlement a little, and is acceptable for practical purposes.
When the present method is used to analyze the response of
pile groups connected to a rigid cap in contact with the soil, the
load–settlement relationship may be a little underestimated in
the early stages. However, this will not restrict the applicability
of the present method, because the settlement of pile groups is
small at low loading levels.
6. Conclusions
In this work, the reliability of the hyperbolic model of skin
friction and end resistance has been demonstrated with the
results of load tests on instrumented piles. This work presented
a simplified approach for the nonlinear analysis of the load–
displacement response of a single pile and pile groups
embedded in multilayered soils. A hyperbolic model was used
to capture the relationship between skin friction and pile–soil
relative displacement developing along the pile–soil interface.
The shaft displacement was assumed to have been composed
of the pile–soil relative displacement developing in the
disturbed soil around the pile shaft and the elastic vertical soil
displacement developing in the soil mass. The relationship
between shaft displacement and skin friction was then pre-
sented. Moreover, a hyperbolic model was used to capture the
relationship between end resistance and pile end displacement.
Considering the interactive effects among piles, hyperbolic
models of an individual pile in pile groups were proposed. As
to the analysis of the response of a single pile and pile groups,
considering the progressive deformation of the pile–soil
system, a highly effective iterative computer program was
developed using the proposed hyperbolic models. Compari-
sons of the load–settlement responses demonstrated that the
proposed method is generally in good agreement with the field-
observed behavior and the calculated results derived from
other approaches.
Note that for the pile groups connected to a rigid cap in
contact with the soil, the loads shared by the rigid pile cap
were not taken into account, and the interaction between the
484 Q.-q. Zhang et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 473–484
pile cap and the soil was not considered. When the present
method is used to analyze the response of pile groups
connected to a rigid cap in contact with the soil, the load–
settlement relationship may be a little underestimated in the
early stages. However, this will not restrict the applicability of
the present method, because the settlement of pile groups is
small at low loading levels.
Acknowledgments
This work was gratefully supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51408338), the State Key
Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engi-
neering, China University of Mining & Technology
(SKLGDUEK1507), the Shandong Provincial Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. ZR2014EEQ009), and the China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation Special Funded Project (No.
2014T70641). Great appreciation is also extended to the
editorial board and the reviewers of this paper.
References
Ai, Z.Y., Han, J., 2009. Boundary element analysis of axially loaded piles
embedded in a multi-layered soil. Comput. Geotech. 36 (3), 427–434.
Cairo, R., Conte, E., 2006. Settlement analysis of pile groups in layered soils.
Can. Geotech. J. 43 (8), 788–801.
Caputo, V., Viggiani, C., 1984. Pile foundation analysis: a simple approach to
nonlinearity effects. Riv. Ital. Geotec. 18 (2), 32–51.
Castelli, F., Maugeri, M., 2002. Simplified nonlinear analysis for settlement
prediction of pile groups. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (1), 76–84.
Cheung, Y.K., Tham, L.G., Guo, D.J., 1988. Analysis of pile group by infinite
layer method. Geotechnique 38 (3), 415–431.
Chow, Y.K., 1986. Discrete element analysis of settlement of pile groups.
Comput. Struct. 24 (1), 157–166.
Comodromos, E.M., Papadopoulou, M.C., Rentzeperis, I.K., 2009. Pile
foundation analysis and design using experimental data and 3-D numerical
analysis. Comput. Geotech. 36 (5), 819–836.
Guo, W.D., Randolph, M.F., 1999. An efficient approach for settlement
prediction of pile groups. Geotechnique 49 (2), 161–179.
Janbu, N., 1976. Static bearing capacity of friction piles. In: Proceedings of the
6th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
vol. 1, pp. 479–482.
Koizumi, Y., Ito, K., 1967. Field tests with regard to pile driving and bearing
capacity of piled foundations. Soils Found. 7 (3), 30–53.
Kraft, L.M., Ray, R.P., Kagawa, T., 1981. Theoretical t–z curves. J. Geotech.
Eng. Div. 107 (11), 1543–1561.
Lee, C.Y., 1991. Discrete layer analysis of axially loaded piles and pile groups.
Comput. Geotech. 11 (4), 295–313.
Lee, C.Y., 1993. Settlement of pile group – practical approach. J. Geotech.
Eng. 119 (9), 1449–1461.
Lee, J., You, K., Jeong, S., Kim, J., 2013. Proposed point bearing load transfer
function in jointed rock-socketed drilled shafts. Soils Found. 53 (4),
596–606.
Lee, K.M., Xiao, Z.R., 2001. A simplified method for nonlinear analysis of
single piles in multilayered soils. Can. Geotech. J. 38 (5), 1063–1080.
Liang, F.Y., Chen, L.Z., Li, J.P., 2005. Analysis of piles reinforced effects on
interaction coefficients of piles. Rock Soil Mech. 26 (11),
1757–1760 (in Chinese).
Liang, F.Y., Song, Z., Guo, W.D., 2014. Group interaction on vertically loaded
piles in saturated poroelastic soil. Comput. Geotech. 56 (1), 1–10.
Liu, J., Xiao, H.B., Tang, J., Li, Q.S., 2004. Analysis of load-transfer of single
pile in layered soil. Comput. Geotech. 31 (2), 127–135.
Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., 1998. Settlement and additional internal forces of
grouped piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 48 (1), 55–72.
O’Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A., Mahar, L.J., 1982. Load transfer mechanisms
in piles and pile groups. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 108 (GT12), 1605–1623.
Poulos, H.G., 1968. Analysis of the settlement of pile groups. Geotechnique 18
(4), 449–471.
Randolph, M.F., Wroth, C.P., 1979. An analysis of the vertical deformation of
pile groups. Geotechnique 29 (4), 423–439.
Said, I., De, G.V., Frank, R., 2009. Axisymmetric finite element analysis of
pile loading tests. Comput. Geotech. 36 (1–2), 6–19.
Wang, W., Yang, M., 2006. An improved elastic analysis method of pile
foundation under vertical loading. Rock Soil Mech. 27 (8),
1403–1406 (in Chinese).
Xu, K.J., Poulos, H.G., 2000. General elastic analysis of piles and pile groups.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 24 (15), 1109–1138.
Yang, J., Tham, L.G., Lee, P.K.K., Chan, S.T., Yu, F., 2006. Behavior of
jacked and driven piles in sandy soil. Geotechnique 56 (4), 245–259.
Yang, M.H., Zhang, X.W., Zhao, M.H., 2011. A simplified approach for
settlement calculation of pile groups considering pile-to-pile interaction in
layered soils. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. (Engl. Ed.) 18 (6), 2131–2136.
Zhang, Q.Q., Zhang, Z.M., 2012. Simplified calculation approach for settle-
ment of single pile and pile groups. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 26 (6), 750–758.
Zhang, Q.Q., Li, S.C., Liang, F.Y., Yang, M., Zhang, Q., 2014. Simplified
method for settlement prediction of single pile and pile group using a
hyperbolic model. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 12 (2), 179–192.
Zhang, Q.Q., Zhang, Z.M., He, J.Y., 2010. A simplified approach for
settlement analysis of single pile and pile groups considering interaction
between identical piles in multilayered soils. Comput. Geotech. 37 (7–8),
969–976.