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

net/publication/267806807

Experimental Testing of a Full-Scale Pile Group Under Lateral Loading

Article

CITATIONS READS
4 682

7 authors, including:

Payman Tehrani Ertugrul Taciroglu

SC Solutions University of California, Los Angeles
17 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS 289 PUBLICATIONS 3,907 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jonathan Paul Stewart John W. Wallace

University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Los Angeles
347 PUBLICATIONS 13,607 CITATIONS 191 PUBLICATIONS 5,643 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Wallace on 09 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nonlinear Efficiency of Bored Pile Group
under Lateral Loading
Anne Lemnitzer, A.M.ASCE1; Payman Khalili-Tehrani, A.M.ASCE2; Eric R. Ahlberg, M.ASCE3;
Changsoon Rha4; Ertugrul Taciroglu, M.ASCE5; John W. Wallace, M.ASCE6; and
Jonathan P. Stewart, F.ASCE7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A 3 ⫻ 3 bored pile group consisting of nine cast-in-drilled-hole reinforced concrete shafts and a comparable single-shaft were
subjected to reversed cyclic, lateral head loading to investigate group interaction effects across a wide range of lateral displacements. The
piles had the same diameter of d = 0.61 m and similar soil conditions; however, various equipment constraints led to two differences: 共1兲
a fixed head 共zero rotation兲 boundary condition for the single pile versus minor pile cap rotation in the vertical plane for the group and
共2兲 shaft longitudinal reinforcement ratios of 1.8% for the single pile and 1% for the group piles. To enable comparisons between the test
results, a calibrated model of the single pile 共1.8% reinforcement兲 was developed and used to simulate the response of a single shaft with
1% reinforcement. Additional simulations of the pile group were performed to evaluate the effects of cap rotation on group response. By
comparing the simulated responses for common conditions, i.e., 1% reinforcing ratio and zero head rotation, group efficiencies were found
to range from unity at lateral displacements ⬍0.004⫻ d to 0.8 at small displacements ⬃0.01– 0.02⫻ d and up to 0.9 at failure 共displace-
ments ⬎0.04⫻ d兲. Hence, we find that group efficiency depends on the level of nonlinearity in the foundation system. The general group
efficiency, although not its displacement-dependence, is captured by p-multipliers in the literature for reinforced concrete, fixed-head
piles.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000383
CE Database subject headings: Pile groups; Piers; Lateral loads; Soil-structure interactions.
Author keywords: Pile groups; Piers; Pile lateral loads; Soil-structure interaction.

Introduction as piles兲 subjected to lateral loading; for example from earth-

Common foundation support systems for bridge structures consist
of large diameter drilled shafts or groups of relatively small-
diameter bored or driven piles. The emphasis of the present article
is on the behavior of groups of bored piles 共hereafter referred to
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
California State Univ. Fullerton, 800 N. College Blvd., Fullerton, CA
92831 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: alemnitz@gmx.de
2
Analyst, Advanced Technology and Research Group, Arup, 560 Mis-
sion St., Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105; formerly, Postdoctoral
Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles, 5731 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
3
Senior Engineer, Exponent, 320 Goddard, Suite 200, Irvine, CA
92618.
4
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Kookmin Univ., Seoul,
Korea.
5 the respective p-multipliers applied to each row in the group. The
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 5731 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA
90095.
6
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Los Angeles, 5731 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
7
Professor and Vice Chair, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 5731 Boelter Hall, Los Ange-
les, CA 90095.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 17, 2008; ap-
proved on April 26, 2010; published online on May 7, 2010. Discussion
period open until May 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 12, December 1,
2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/12-1673–1685/$25.00.
quakes, waves, or ship impact. The load-deflection behavior of
pile groups is commonly related to the calculated response of an
individual pile. The individual piles, in turn, are typically mod-
eled using a beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation approach. The
group effect is accommodated by reducing the soil reaction 共p兲
for a given level of displacement 共y兲 by a multiplier f m, which
accounts for stress shadowing effects in trailing piles 共Brown
et al. 1988兲.
Nonlinear head load-deflection curves computed with
p-multipliers are not scaled down relative to single-pile analysis
by the average value of f m for piles in the group. For example,
Rollins et al. 共2006a兲 show that a group analysis using 共f m兲avg
= 0.51 produces a head load-deflection curve scaled down 共in the
load-direction兲 by approximately 2/3 relative to the single pile
result with no multiplier 共f m = 1.0兲. Rather, a group load-deflection
curve is developed from a succession of single pile analyses with
result can be expressed from a load efficiency perspective as fol-
lows:
Pg共y 0兲 = ␩Ng Psp共y 0兲 共1兲
where Pg共y 0兲 = head lateral force applied to a pile group to reach a
lateral deflection at the pile cap of y 0; Psp共y 0兲 = corresponding
single-pile head load for pile deflection y 0; Ng = number of piles in
group; and ␩ = group efficiency factor. By this approach, the
group load is scaled down relative to what would be expected for
independent single piles by the efficiency factor ␩.
In this article, we document the results of two full-scale lateral
load tests, one involving a fixed-head single pile and the second

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1673

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.

 involving a 3 ⫻ 3 group of similar piles with moment connections
into a pile cap. All piles consist of 0.61 m nominal diameter
reinforced concrete drilled shafts. Our objective is to evaluate
group efficiency factors 共␩兲 based on the pair of tests and to
compare our results to predictions from p-multiplier formulations
in the literature. Group efficiency cannot be evaluated by direct
comparison of the test results because the single pile has more
reinforcement than the group piles 共for reasons explained subse-
quently兲 and different head rotation boundary conditions in the
two tests 共minor rotation of the pile cap occurred for the group
test but was controlled to zero for the single pile兲. Accordingly,
we combine the presentation of test results with analytical simu-
lations, which are calibrated to the available test data and then
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used to calculate pile or pile group responses for alternative con-
ditions. Specifically, simulations of the single pile are performed
to estimate response for a reduced reinforcing ratio, and simula-
tions of the pile group are performed to estimate response without
cap rotation. The calibrated single-pile model is utilized with
p-multipliers in the literature to evaluate their ability to represent
the measured group response.
Previous Work
There is a significant amount of previous work on p-multipliers
共f m兲 and much less work on group efficiency factors 共␩兲. To es-
tablish the originality and need for the present work, we describe
previous work related to these topics.
Finite element 共FE兲 simulations in which the soil and pile
materials are modeled as a continuum 关three-dimensional 共3D兲
elements兴 have provided valuable insight into the fundamental
mechanisms of pile-to-pile interaction for laterally loaded pile
groups 共Muqtadir and Desai 1986; Brown and Shie 1990; Kimura
et al. 1995; Wakai et al. 1999; Yang and Jeremic 2003;
Küçükarslan and Banerjee 2004兲. For example, Brown and Shie
共1990兲 showed that leading piles carry a larger fraction of pile
head loads than do trailing piles, which is manifested as reduced
soil reaction stresses along the trailing piles 共i.e., f m ⬍ 1.0兲. They
also showed a small effect of pile spacing within a row. Yang and
Jeremic studied the response of pile groups subjected to uniaxial
lateral loading and found p values to be nearly identical in lead
and trailing piles at small deflections 共⬍0.01d, where d
= diameter兲 and that the reaction softens in trailing piles as deflec-
tion increases. Hence, their results suggest a dependence of the
shadow effect on displacement level. They also noted moderate
variations side-to-side in a given row of piles 共larger moments
carried on side piles兲 and development of modest moments nor-
mal to the loading direction that are 6–8% of those in the loading
direction.
The p-multiplier approach enables relatively simple and famil-
iar models for the lateral behavior of single piles 关e.g., LPILE
共Ensoft, Inc. 2005兲兴 to be used in the analysis of much more
complex pile group systems. The p-multipliers are generally de-
rived from field 共Table 1兲 or centrifuge-based lateral load tests
共e.g., McVay et al. 1995, 1998兲. Table 1 lists attributes of previous
large-scale pile group experiments. In each case, both a single pile
and a group of identical piles were tested at the same site. The test
piles are predominantly steel pipes 共hollow or concrete-filled兲
with free-head boundary conditions. Only Rollins and Sparks
共2002兲 and Huang et al. 共2001兲 tested fixed-head pile groups.
Rollins and Sparks 共2002兲 found fixed-head p-multipliers to be
similar to those for free-head conditions. The study by Huang
et al. 共2001兲 on bored reinforced concrete fixed-head piles re-
1674 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
vealed higher p-multipliers than those reported elsewhere for
free-head conditions. The study also included tests on prestressed
concrete driven piles and investigated p-multipliers during instal-
lation and post construction. Only Ng et al. 共2001兲, Huang et al.
共2001兲, and Ruesta and Townsend 共1997兲 presented results for
reinforced or prestressed concrete pile groups.
As shown in Table 1, p-multipliers have been found to vary
principally with row location 共i.e., lead row, 2nd row, 3rd and
subsequent rows兲 and pile spacing S. Rollins et al. 共2006a兲 pro-
vided closed form expressions for p-multipliers that incorporate
these factors; for a pile spacing of 3d, the values are approxi-
mately 0.8 for leading piles, 0.6 for the 2nd row, and 0.4 for the
3rd and subsequent rows. Those f m values apply for lateral de-
flections of 0–9 cm. For the same pile spacing but fixed-head
conditions, Huang et al. 共2001兲 found f m values of 0.93, 0.7 and
0.74 for leading, middle and trailing rows, respectively. We note
that these f m values are displacement-independent, which is
somewhat in conflict with the displacement dependence found in
FE studies.
Relatively little information on group efficiency factors evalu-
ated for large scale pile groups is reported in the literature. Rollins
et al. 共2006b兲 noticed a trend of increasing interaction with in-
creasing lateral displacements 共i.e., reduction of group efficiency
factors兲 up to a point of stabilization of efficiencies at a certain
displacement. Kotthaus et al. 共1994兲, Schmidt 共1985兲, and others
observed a similar trend from pile lateral load tests performed in
a centrifuge. We have interpreted the results of 10 large scale field
tests from Table 1 to evaluate ␩ values 共Mokwa 1999 interpreted
pre-1999 centrifuge and field test data in a similar manner兲. Those
group efficiency factors are plotted in Fig. 1 as a function of
lateral displacements. Experiments involving clayey foundation
soils are shown in red, sandy foundation soils are shown in blue,
and intermediate silts and silt-clay composites are shown in
purple. The results of the present study are also shown, which are
discussed subsequently. Important trends to note from Fig. 1 in-
clude:
• Most data sets show significant variations of ␩ with lateral
displacement, suggesting that the f m values are also likely
displacement-dependent.
• Group efficiencies increase significantly with pile spacing, as
shown by the results of Rollins et al. 共2006b兲 for center-to-
center spacings of S = 3.3, 4.4, and 5.65⫻ d. As shown in Table
1, S = 3d for the other tests depicted in Fig. 1.
• There are different ␩-displacement trends for pile groups con-
structed in clayey vs. sandy soils. In clays, initially high group
efficiencies 共typically 0.75–1.0 for S = 3d兲 dip to a minimum
value of about 0.5–0.8 before gradually increasing with lateral
displacement. At the displacement rates used in most of the
tests, the clays would be expected to shear under nearly un-
drained conditions.
• Data for groups in sand do not show the ␩-displacement dip
that was observed for clays. In some cases efficiency is rela-
tively constant 共Brown et al. 1988兲, but cases of positive and
negative ␩-displacement slopes are also found.
Unique aspects of the present work relative to previous work
are: 共1兲 the use of reinforced concrete piles in lieu of steel pipe
piles, the distinction being important because of the much more
nonlinear moment-curvature response of the reinforced concrete
section; 共2兲 the testing of both specimens to the point of structural
failure; and 共3兲 the evaluation of group efficiency factors across a
wide range of displacements spanning elastic and inelastic behav-
ior. The results provide a valuable verification data set for
p-multipliers in the literature that are widely used in practice.
 Table 1. Overview of Previous Large-Scale Tests on Pile Groups
Max.
Pile Number Pile Pile Head group Group
Full-scale configuration of rows diameter spacing boundary displ. Deflection efficiency p-multipliers
tests reference Soil type 共col⫻ row兲 in group 共cm兲g Pile type 共c-c兲 condition Loading type 共cm兲 共diam.兲 factor 共lead, 2nd, 3rd rows兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Maimon et al. Silty clay 3⫻2 2 27⫻ 28 cm Steel H section 3d Hinged Static, 1.5 0.05 0.5–0.71 0.9, 0.5
共1986兲 one-way cyclic
Morrison and Clean medium 3⫻3 3 27.3 Steel pipe with 3d Free Two-way cyclic 4.2 0.1 0.58–0.9 0.8, 0.4, 0.3f
Reese 共1986兲 dense sand grout fill
Brown et al. Stiff clay 3⫻3 3 27.3 Steel pipe with 3d Free Two-way cyclic 6.1 0.22 0.68–0.8 0.7, 0.5, 0.4b
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1675

共1987兲 grout fill

Brown et al. Clean medium 3⫻3 3 27.3 Steel pipe with 3d Free Two-way cyclic 4.3 0.16 0.63–0.7 0.8, 0.4, 0.3
共1988兲 dense sand grout fill
Ruesta and Loose, fine sand 4⫻4 4 76, square Prestressed concrete 3d Free Static, 7.9 0.05–0.1 0.6–0.91 0.8, 0.7, 0.3, 0.3
Townsend 共1997兲 one-way cyclic
Rollins et al. Clay 3⫻3 3 30.5 Concrete-filled 3d Free Static, 6.0 0.20 0.59–0.8 0.6, 0.38, 0.43
共1998兲 steel pipes one-way cyclic
Huang et al. Sand 3⫻3 3 150 RC 3d Fixed Static, 3.0 0.02 0.92–1.02 0.93, 0.7, 0.74
共2001兲 one-way cyclic
Sand 4⫻4 4 80 Precast RC 3d Fixed 13.0 0.16 0.72–0.89 0.89, 0.61, 0.61, 0.66
a
Ng et al. 共2001兲 Various deposits 1⫻2 2 150 RC 6d Free Static, 12.5 0.08 —
one-way cyclic a
Various deposits 1⫻2 2 150 RC 3d Hinged 12.5 0.08 —
a
Various deposits triang. 2 150 RC 3d Hinged 3.9 0.026 —
Rollins and Sparks Silts and clays 3⫻3 3 32.4 Concrete-filled 3d Fixed Static, 6.0 0.19 — 0.6, 0.38, 0.43c
共2002兲 steel pipes one-way cyclic
e
Rollins et al. Sand 3⫻3 3 32.4 Concrete-filled 3.3d Free Static, 3.75 0.12 0.72–0.93 0.8, 0.4, 0.4
共2005兲 steel pipes one-way cyclic
Rollins et al. Stiff clay 3⫻3 3 32.4 Steel pipes 5.65d Free Static, 6.5 0.20 0.87–1.08 0.95, 0.88, 0.77
共2006a,b兲 two-way cyclic
Stiff clay 3⫻4 4 4.4d 4.0 0.12 0.75–1.0 0.9, 0.8, 0.69, 073
Stiff clay 3⫻5 5 3.3d 9.0 0.28 0.45–0.67 0.82, 0.61, 0.45, 0.45, 0.51
This study Clay with thin silty 3⫻3 3 61 RC 3d Fixed Static, 25 0.4 0.6–1.0d —
共2010兲 sand layers two-way cyclic
a
Comparison not possible; specimens have different soil and boundary conditions.
b
Adapted from Rollins et al. 共1998兲.
c
Group factors were not derived from experiment, but found to be in good agreement with Rollins et al. 共1998兲.
d
Group factors only available up to 8-cm displacement.
e
Load was applied at different heights for the single-pile and group specimen.
f
Adapted from Mokwa 共1999兲.
g
For noncircular cross section, the diameter parameter d is taken as the dimension of the cross section in the direction of loading.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Comprehensive comparison of group efficiency factors with previous full-scale tests
Test Overview
The single pile and the nine-pile group tests are part of a series of
five tests on bridge foundation components conducted between
1998 and 2006 共Janoyan et al. 2006; Stewart et al. 2007兲. The
entire test program included two flagpole piles 共0.61- and 1.8-m
shaft diameter兲, a single 0.61-m fixed-head pile, a pile group con-
sisting of nine 0.61-m diameter shafts, and an abutment backwall
system 共Lemnitzer et al. 2009兲. All tests were conducted at a
Caltrans-owned test site in Hawthorne, California. The layouts for
the two tests presented in this paper are shown in Fig. 2. The
specimens were subjected to quasi-static reversed cyclic displace-
ments to simulate earthquake loading. True dynamic loading was
not practical with the available actuators and data acquisition
equipment.
Test Setup
As shown in Fig. 2, the single pile consisted of a 0.61-m diameter
shaft extending 7.6 m below the ground. The pile was constructed
by drilling the shaft hole, placing reinforcement, and pouring con-
crete using a tremie technique. Ground water was not encountered
over the depth of the shaft and no soil caving occurred. Longitu-
dinal reinforcement extended over the full height of the pile 共no
splice兲 and consisted of eight #9 共29 mm兲 bars, providing a rein-
forcement ratio of ␳ = 1.8%. Transverse reinforcement was pro-
vided by a #5 共16 mm兲 spiral with 11.4 cm pitch. Reinforcement
extended 1.8 m above the ground into a concrete cap. Concrete
cylinder tests revealed compressive strengths of f ⬘c = 30.3 to 35.9
MPa. Tensile testing of reinforcement steel indicated a yield stress
f y = 483 MPa. The cap was installed with a 9-cm gap above the
ground surface to avoid base friction.
As shown in Fig. 2, the pile group consisted of nine drilled
shafts with diameter d = 0.61 m spaced at 1.8 m center-to-center
共3d兲 in a 3 ⫻ 3 configuration. The piles had the same depth as the
single pile 共7.6 m兲 and were connected by a cap at their heads.
Longitudinal reinforcement was reduced from that for the single
1676 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
pile to enable the available actuators to push the specimen to
structural failure. The reinforcement consisted of eight #7 共22
mm兲 bars over the full pile depth, providing ␳ = 1%, compared to
1.8% for the single pile. Transverse reinforcement consisted of a
#4 共13 mm兲 spiral at 10-cm pitch extending over the full pile
depth. The average concrete compressive strength from testing of
150 mm⫻ 300 mm cylinders was f ⬘c = 31.5 MPa. The cap was
constructed 18 cm above ground to avoid base friction. Fig. 3
shows photographs of the single pile and pile group prior to de-
structive testing.
Site Conditions
The Hawthorne test site consists of quaternary alluvial soils that
extend to great depth. Hollow stem auger borings and cone pen-
etration test 共CPT兲 soundings were performed to evaluate soil
stratigraphy across the site and at the specific locations of the test
piles. As shown in Fig. 4, those investigations reveal a soil profile
consisting of a surficial layer of uncontrolled fill with asphalt and
concrete debris generally 1.2 m thick. That layer was excavated at
the locations of the test piles, so that the effective ground surface
is the top of natural soils. Underlying the fill is a partially satu-
rated silty sandy clay with occasional thin sand seams that ex-
tends from approximately 1.2 to 7.3 m depth. Laboratory index
testing of the clay indicates fines contents of approximately 60%
and the Atterberg limits shown in Fig. 4共b兲, which classify the
material as a clay. CPT soundings reveal friction ratios for the
clay layers between 2.5 and 3.5%. Soil specimens retrieved from
Pitcher tube sampling were subjected to consolidation testing
共ASTM D2435兲, which provided the preconsolidation pressures
shown in Fig. 4. The clayey soils at the site are generally over-
consolidated within the depth range of interest 共OCR ⬇2–6兲. The
toe of the piles is in a silty, medium to fine-grained sand layer that
extends to approximately 9-m depth. The sand is, in turn, under-
lain by another clay layer.
Undrained shear strength is a critical parameter for the present
work and was estimated by both laboratory testing of specimens
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Test layout
carved from Pitcher tube samples and by correlations against the
results of in situ testing. Undrained shear strengths are used in
lieu of drained strengths because the clayey soils at the site have
high saturation levels 共S = 86– 100%兲 and the rate of loading is
sufficiently fast that pore pressure dissipation during testing is not
expected 共details in Wallace et al. 2001兲.
Laboratory unconsolidated-undrained 共UU兲 triaxial testing was
performed following the ASTM D2850 procedure. Specimens
were retrieved from Pitcher tube samples, placed under a confin-
ing pressure appropriate for the in situ stresses at the depths from
which the samples were retrieved without consolidation 共speci-
mens remained at their in situ water content兲, and sheared at a
constant strain rate of 0.23 mm/min. Test results indicated failure
strains of 0.6–1%. Shear strength was taken as half the peak
deviatoric stress with the results shown in Fig. 4共e兲. In situ tests
Fig. 3. 关共a兲 and 共b兲兴 Photographs of the single pile and pile group set
up in the field
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1677
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
used to infer undrained shear strengths include pressuremeter test-
ing 共PMT兲 and CPT soundings. Pressuremeter testing 共ASTM
D4719兲 was performed at the four depths indicated in Fig. 4共e兲;
the limit pressure method 共Menard 1975; Briaud 1986, 1992兲 was
used to estimate undrained shear strength from the peak PMT
expansion pressure. As shown in Fig. 4共e兲, there are discrepancies
between PMT- and UU estimates of undrained strengths at some
depth intervals, with UU values being lower. These discrepancies,
which are typical 共Amar et al. 1975; Baguelin et al. 1978兲, are
attributed to sample disturbance effects associated with UU test-
ing 共e.g., Ladd 1991兲.
Also shown in Fig. 4共e兲 are estimates of undrained strength
from correlations with CPT tip resistance 共qc兲 within clayey in-
tervals of the soil profile. The undrained strengths are estimated
using the following expression 共Schmertmann 1978兲:
Su = 共qc − ␴v兲/Nk 共2兲
where qc = CPT tip resistance; ␴v = vertical total stress calculated
using a measured moist mass density of ␳ = 1.9 g / cm3; and Nk
= empirical factor generally in the range of 10ⱕ Nk ⱕ 20 共Lunne
et al. 1997兲. The CPT-based estimates of shear strength in Fig.
4共e兲 utilize site-specific Nk = 12, which was selected giving pref-
erence to the PMT-based strength estimates.
Instrumentation
The single pile was internally instrumented to measure axial 共nor-
mal兲 strains and rotations induced by lateral loading. Installed
sensors included fiber-optic Fiber-Bragg gratings, direct current
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Site stratigraphy and soil conditions at the test site
LVDT displacement sensors, longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement strain gauges, and inclinometers. Sensors were concen-
trated within zones where inelastic behavior was anticipated.
Diagonal LVDTs were also used to allow calculation of shear
deformations 共Massone et al. 2006兲. Within the pile group, three
out of nine piles were instrumented 共shown in Fig. 2 as shaded
piles兲. All sensor data were recorded using a National Instruments
data acquisition system.
As indicated in Fig. 2, external instrumentation was used to
control the lateral displacements applied to the test piles and
record the applied lateral loads. For the single pile test, LVDT
sensors were attached at six locations on the back side of the cap
to measure lateral displacements and to control the movement of
the hydraulic actuators. The LVDT sensors were also used to
provide feedback on cap rotation so that it could be maintained at
zero.
As shown in Fig. 2, lateral displacements of the nine-pile
group were measured using horizontal LVDTs mounted at three
locations between the pile cap and an external rigid steel truss
reference frame. In addition, three vertical LVDTs were installed
between the external reference frame and the top surface of the
cap to measure rotation in the vertical plane 共i.e., rocking of the
pile cap兲. As indicated in Fig. 2, two LVDTs were placed at the
center of the cap and one LVDT was installed at a distance of 2.6
m from the center. The vertical LVDTs rested on smooth Styro-
foam plates installed on the cap to enable sliding as the cap dis-
placed horizontally.
Reaction Block and Control System
Loads were applied using hydraulic actuators placed between pile
caps and a reaction block. The concrete reaction block 共dimen-
sions in Fig. 2兲 is cast integrally with two 1.8-m diameter, 14.6-m
deep drilled shafts spaced 3.6 m apart 共center-to-center兲. The re-
action block was designed to provide a lateral capacity of 13.3
MN at approximately two-thirds of the calculated yield load. For
1678 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
the single pile, four actuators were used to apply load or displace-
ment, as well as to control against torsional and rocking motions
共both rotations controlled to zero兲. The actuators consisted of two
2-MN, 90-cm stroke actuators and two 4.5-MN, 25-cm stroke
actuators mounted between the pile cap and the reaction block.
The group test was performed using four 2-MN, 90-cm stroke
actuators. This system controlled torsional rotation to zero but did
not control cap rotation in the vertical plane 共rocking兲. Rocking
was not controlled because to do so would have quickly exceeded
the capacity of the actuators. The hydraulic actuators were con-
trolled by an MTS Flextest GT controller. Hydraulic pressure was
provided by a 4,500-L/h diesel pump. Stewart et al. 共2007兲 pro-
vide additional details on the design and operation of the control
system.
The test piles were subjected to reversed cyclic, increasing
lateral displacements. At the ends of cycles and at intermediate
displacement levels, displacements were held briefly to record
sensor readings. The single pile was cycled with increasing dis-
placement levels until the maximum stroke of the larger actuators
were reached at 10 cm of lateral displacement. We attempted to
follow a similar protocol for the pile group, but the capacity ex-
ceeded that of the actuators. For displacements larger than 2.5 cm,
the pile cap could be pushed, but could not be pulled because the
tensile capacity of the actuators was exceeded 共lower tensile ca-
pacity results from piston area being reduced by the internal rod兲.
As well, under pushing action, at the 2.5-cm displacement cycle,
the pump pressure was not set high enough and creep at essen-
tially constant load was observed at the last displacement incre-
ment. This problem was addressed by increasing the pump
pressure and adjusting the measured load-displacement relation
for these cycles to be consistent with prior and subsequent cycles.
The group was pushed monotonically to displacements of 3.3 and
4.1 cm, at which point the compressive capacity of the four 2-MN
actuators was reached. Additional actuators were installed to
reach higher displacements, although these actuators were not
 controlled with the MTS controller. Hence, they simply pushed
the pile group beyond 4.1 cm monotonically to failure, which
occurred at 20-cm displacement.
Lateral strength deterioration has been observed to be a func-
tion of load history for reinforced concrete elements such as col-
umns with lap splices 共Melek and Wallace 2004兲 and circular
reinforced concrete bridge columns 共El-Bahy et al. 1999兲. El-
Bahy et al. showed that strength deterioration did not occur for
small lateral drifts 共⬍2%, where drift is ratio of lateral displace-
ment to specimen height兲 but began to reduce load capacity at
drifts of 4 and 5.5%. At 7% drift, significant strength loss oc-
curred 共27% for three and 70% for five repetitive cycles兲 due to
spiral rupture, which in turn led to hoop failure. Analytical studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

also reveal that load history impacts the degree of lateral strength
degradation and that the magnitude of the reduction varies with
the magnitude of the applied lateral displacement 共Massone et al.
2006; Lignos and Krawinkler 2007; Haselton et al. 2008兲. Based
on a review of these studies, Applied Technology Council
共ATC兲-72 共2009兲 recommended that the lateral strength based on
monotonic loading be reduced by 50% in the postpeak loading
range, and by 30–10% between the yield point and the peak lat-
eral strength.
We reduce the lateral strength obtained for the “monotonic
push” by 15% to account for cyclic loading. This level of reduc-
tion is consistent with prior observations, and results in nearly
horizontal extension of the load-deformation relation.

Test Results and Simulations: Single Pile

Load Displacement Relationships Fig. 5. 共a兲 Load-displacement curve for single-pile test; 共b兲 head
moment versus lateral displacement for single-pile test
Fig. 5 shows the measured backbone curves of top load-deflection
and moment-deflection response of the single pile. The backbone
curves were defined from peaks of the first deflection cycles at a
given displacement level. The displacement amplitudes and num-
ber of cycles at each amplitude are given in Table 2. The initial Table 2. Displacement Levels and Number of Cycles for Single and
stiffness of the load deflection curve is approximately 84 MN/m. Group Specimens
As shown in Fig. 5, the response of the pile was similar in the two
Displacement Number of cycles
horizontal directions with a lateral capacity of 1,210 kN and mo- amplitude
ment capacity of 360– 400 kN· m. The moment capacity was 共cm兲 Single pile Pile group
reached at lower displacements 共approximately 3 cm兲 than the
lateral capacity 共5–8 cm兲. Measured rotations of the cap indicate 0.05 — 1
a mean⫾ one standard deviation of −0.026⫾ 0.074 rad, indicat- 0.10 — 1
ing that the zero rotation boundary condition was maintained dur- 0.16 3 3
ing testing. 0.24 — 1
0.32 3 1
0.48 — 1
Direct Analysis of p-y Curves from Internal
0.64 3 3
Instrumentation
0.95 3 2
Curvature profiles for the shaft are generated using axial strain 1.27 3 4
measurements as follows: 1.59 3 1
1.91 3 2
2.54 3 1
d2y
␾共z兲 = = 关␧1共z兲 − ␧2共z兲兴/⌬y 共3兲 3.43 — 1a
dz2 3.81 3 1a
4.25 — 1a
where ␧1 and ␧2 = axial strain measurements on opposite sides of 5.08 3 1a
the shaft at elevation z and ⌬y = horizontal separation distance 7.62 3 1a
between sensors. Axial strains are derived in this manner from the 10.16 3 1a
fiber-optic, rebar strain gauge, and LVDT data. Curvatures are 20.32 — 1a
a
also calculated from inclinometer slope readings as Monotonically loaded.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1679

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Curvature data versus depth for various head displacements
of the single, fixed head pile. Yield occurs at a curvature of 0.4
⫻ 10−4.
␾共z兲 = 关s共z1兲 − s共z2兲兴/共z1 − z2兲 共4兲
where s represents slope and z1 and z2 adjacent depths where
slopes are measured.
Example curvature profiles for displacement levels from 0.64–
3.8 cm are shown in Fig. 6. The profiles are smooth curve fits 共as
described below兲 to the data, except at 0.64 cm, where both the
data and fit are shown. Maximum curvatures in the pile shaft
occurred just below the pile cap and at depths of 1.2–2.4 m,
which correspond to approximately 2–4 shaft diameters. The mul-
tiple sensors provide redundant data 共multiple curvatures at com-
mon depth兲 with scatter that is likely influenced by concrete
cracking 共as illustrated in Fig. 6 by the 0.64 cm data兲. Such data
do not facilitate use of a point-to-point method for establishing a
continuous numerical fit to the curvature profile, such as the
weighted residuals method 共Brandenberg et al. 2010兲. Instead we
fit a piecewise polynomial function to the data in the form of a
linear combination of B-splines 共Lowther and Shene 2003;
Coutinho 2006兲. As described by Stewart et al. 共2007兲, we imple-
ment an optimization process in which the order of B-splines and
knot locations 共i.e., connection depths for polynomials兲 are se-
lected for each displacement level. An example fit to the data is
shown in Fig. 6. The curvature fit is double-integrated 共with pile
tip boundary conditions of zero slope and displacement, which
are consistent with measurements of zero strain and rotation at
these depths兲 to estimate a deflection 共y兲 profile. An analytical
moment-curvature relationship for the pile section 共Fig. 7兲 is used
to convert the curvature profile to a moment profile, which is then
double differentiated to obtain soil reaction 共p兲. This double-
differentiation process is sensitive to subtle changes in the mo-
ment profile 共influenced by data scatter兲 and the moment-
curvature relationship. Hence, the reaction profile is highly
uncertain, which in turn leads to uncertain p-y curves with non-
1680 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
Fig. 7. Moment curvature relationship for a 0.6-m diameter rein-
forced concrete pile with 1 and 1.8% reinforcements
physical features such as non-increasing stiffness with depth 共ex-
amples of these p-y fits are shown later in this paper for depths of
61 and 122 cm兲. Accordingly, we sought an alternative approach
that deals with the scatter in a more stable manner, which is
described in the following section.
Simulation of Single-Pile Response
Simulations of the single, fixed-head pile were performed with
multiple objectives in mind. One objective was to develop blind
共pretest兲 predictions. Analysis procedures used in those predic-
tions included FE modeling of the soil-pile system with 3D solid
elements, discrete element modeling using p-y springs, and strain
wedge modeling 共Rha 2006兲. The second objective, which is em-
phasized here, is to develop a calibrated model using the test data
and to apply that model for conditions not present during the test
to support the development of group efficiency factors. In particu-
lar, we sought to estimate the load-deflection relationship for a
single, fixed-head pile with 1% longitudinal reinforcing ratio as
present in the nine-pile group.
The moment-curvature relations in Fig. 7 show lower moment
capacity and initial stiffness for ␳ = 1% relative to 1.8%. To evalu-
ate the significance of this difference in structural behavior on
head load-displacement response, we utilize a discrete element
approach using nonlinear p-y springs to develop the calibrated
model. The program utilized is similar to LPILE, but is coded in
Matlab 共Taciroglu et al. 2006兲. Fig. 8 presents the measured head
load-deflection curve and the prediction using standard 关American
Petroleum Institute 共API兲 1993兴 p-y curves for stiff clay 共Reese
and Welch 1975兲 implemented with the strength profile in Fig. 4.
The American Petroleum Institute 共API兲 共1993兲 p-y model over-
predicts the initial stiffness and underpredicts the ultimate capac-
ity. Accordingly, an optimization was undertaken 共details in
Stewart et al. 2007兲 in which we: 共1兲 scaled up and down param-
eters in the reference p-y model that are unrelated to undrained
strength or soil density but which control capacity, initial stiff-
ness, and displacement at yield; 共2兲 performed simulations with
many combinations of scaling parameters, recording for each
simulation the predicted curvature profile and head load-
deflection; and 共3兲 selected the scaling parameters that optimize
the fit to measured curvature profiles and the head load-deflection.
Fig. 9 shows that the resulting modified p-y curves have a re-
duced initial modulus and higher capacity than API curves. The
depth-dependence of the p-y curves matches that in the API
model. Also shown in Fig. 9 are the aforementioned p-y curves
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison of load-deflection behavior for measured, fitted
results for a 1.8% shaft, and predicted response for a 1% shaft
obtained from direct interpretation of the instrumentation data,
which show a nonphysical decrease of stiffness with depth.
As expected, analysis of the shaft response using the modified
p-y curves and the moment-curvature relationship for ␳ = 1.8%
共from Fig. 7兲 produces an excellent match to the measured head
load-deflection response, as shown in Fig. 8. Also shown in Fig. 8
is the reduced load-deflection curve obtained with those same p-y
curves and the moment-curvature relationship for ␳ = 1%. The ini-
tial stiffness is not changed but the ultimate capacity is reduced
by approximately 10%. The load-deflection curve in Fig. 8 ob-
tained with the calibrated p-y model 共Matlab code兲 for ␳ = 1%
represents the single pile response used subsequently to evaluate
group efficiency per Eq. 共1兲.
Fig. 9. P-y curves for the single 0.6-m fixed head pile based on API
guidelines, fitting process, and inferred directly from in-shaft mea-
surements
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1681
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
Fig. 10. 共a兲 Load-displacement curves for the group; 共b兲 head mo-
ment versus lateral displacement for the pile group
Test Results and Simulations: Pile Group
Load-Displacement Relationship
Fig. 10 shows the measured cap load-deflection and moment-
deflection backbone curves for the pile group. As with the single
pile, we generally define the backbone curve using first-cycle
peaks of hysteretic loops. The displacement amplitudes and num-
ber of cycles at each amplitude are given in Table 2. In some
cases we encountered problems with the data acquisition system
during the first cycle, and in those cases second cycle data are
used to define backbone curve ordinates, as indicated in Fig. 10.
Reversed cyclic loading was performed up to 2.5-cm displace-
ment, where the load limits of the hydraulic system were reached.
The pile group was then pushed with additional hydraulic equip-
ment monotonically.
The initial tangent stiffness of the load-deflection curve is ap-
proximately 530 MN/m. The initial elastic response occurs at very
small displacements 共⬍0.64 cm兲 and discernable softening is
evident at 1.3–1.6 cm. The response of the pile group was similar
in the two horizontal directions over the limits of two-way cyclic
loading 共⫾2.5 cm兲, but peak resistance was only reached in the
west direction at a maximum lateral load of 10.2 MN at a lateral
displacement of 10.2 cm. The moment is computed as the sum of
the products of actuator forces and the vertical distances from the
base of the pile cap to the points of load application. Upon the
conclusion of testing and removal of all lateral loads, the cap had
 Fig. 11. 关共a兲 and 共b兲兴 Excavated pile group specimen and concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
spalling at pile shaft after test completion
a permanent displacement of 12 cm. The estimated cyclic re-
sponse for the group as described previously is shown in Fig.
10共a兲 as well.
Three of the piles in the group were instrumented in a manner
similar to that for the single pile. Unfortunately, sensor failures
rendered much of the data inadequate to define curvature profiles.
Hence, we are unable to evaluate p-y curves for those piles.
As shown in Fig. 11, post test excavations were performed to
investigate pile damage and map cracks. The reinforced concrete
piles had extensive cracks with widths up to 5 cm between ground
line and 0.9-m depth. At depths lower than 1.8 m, no cracks with
residual openings 共widths兲 were observed. Fig. 11共b兲 shows that
concrete spalling occurred on several piles, being severe in front
row piles but moderate in trailing rows. Fig. 11共b兲 also shows an
apparent compression fan near the pile-cap interface, with large-
and small-width diagonal cracks and concrete cover spalling. The
relatively large crack widths may have been influenced by the
amount of concrete cover 共6.3 cm兲, as larger cover has been
shown to result in larger crack widths 共Gergely and Lutz 1968兲.
Fig. 12 shows that pile cap rotation varied essentially linearly
with lateral displacement. Fig. 13 shows uplift of the cap during
lateral loading. The cap did not touch the soil due to rotation until
12.5-cm displacements were reached. Hence, cap base friction or
side resistance did not contribute to the measured lateral loads
and moments.
Fig. 12. Cap rotation versus lateral displacement
1682 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
Fig. 13. Vertical displacement of pile group versus lateral deforma-
tion
Simulation of Pile Group Response and Effect of
Rotation
The intent of the pile group simulations is to calibrate a model to
the test data and to use the model to evaluate the effects of cap
rotation. This enables group efficiency factors to be developed for
a common condition of zero cap rotation. Winkler-type modeling
of the pile-soil interaction is not appropriate for this case because
of the need to couple horizontal and vertical responses 共the rock-
ing is, in part, a vertical pile-soil interaction problem that cannot
be represented by horizontal Winkler springs兲. Instead, we used a
3D FE model created in ABAQUS 共Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen,
Inc. 1998兲. The simulations are performed with specified horizon-
tal and vertical cap displacements, the vertical displacements rep-
resenting the rotation history in Fig. 12 and pile elongation in
Fig. 13.
The concrete shaft in the FE model is represented using two
types of 3D solid elements 共for confined and unconfined concrete兲
and truss elements 共for reinforcement兲. The shaft cross section is
divided into 16 solid elements; the inner confined concrete is
modeled with eight 15-node quadratic triangular prisms 共C3D15
in ABAQUS element library兲 and the unconfined portion of the
section with eight 20-node quadratic bricks 共C3D20 in ABAQUS
element library兲. The longitudinal reinforcements 共eight #7 bars兲
are modeled using 3-node quadratic truss elements 共T3D3 in
ABAQUS element library兲. These elements are anchored at the
interface points of the C3D15’s and the C3D20’s and thus, share
the nodes with those elements. Two different sets of nodes were
defined at the interface between shafts and the soil which enabled
the modeling of the frictional contact for the shaft-soil interaction.
A friction coefficient of 0.45 was used in the ABAQUS small-
sliding contact model 共results are insensitive to variations in this
parameter兲. The soil domain is modeled with 8-node linear brick
elements 共C3D8兲. The total depth of soil mesh is 12 m, which
extends 4.5 m below the base of the shafts. Additional details on
the characteristics of the FE mesh are given in Stewart et al.
共2007兲.
The uniaxial compressive strength of concrete was assumed to
be 32.75 MPa, which is near the median of the test data. The
Hognestad 共1951兲 constitutive model was used for unconfined
concrete whereas the model of Saatcioglu and Razvi 共1992兲 was
used to account for the increased stress and deformation capaci-
ties of concrete enclosed within the spiral reinforcement. The
probable yield strength for #7 longitudinal bars is assumed to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. FEM studies of load-displacement relationships with and

Fig. 15. Comparison of various load-displacement curves for group
without cap rotation for top displacements up to 4.3 cm
specimen

520 MPa 共slightly higher than the specified nominal value of f y

= 410 MPa兲. Strain hardening is considered in the steel constitu-
tive relationship based on Filippou and Issa 共1983兲. The soil is
represented with a Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model with
elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. The required parameters are
Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters for shear strength and elastic
moduli. The shear strengths of the clay materials are given in Fig.
4. Estimates of Young’s modulus are available from consolida-
tion, pressuremeter, and shear wave velocity tests and vary widely
共48–380 MPa; Wallace et al. 2001兲. Parametric analyses were
performed to optimize the modulus to fit the measured field re-
sponse.
FE analyses were run first with the measured cap rotation
共shown in Figs. 12 and 13兲 applied simultaneously with cap lat-
eral displacement. This analysis was repeated using different val-
ues of soil Young’s modulus, and a value of 48 MPa provided the
best match between simulations and test results 共Fig. 14兲. A sec-
ond analysis without cap rotation produced the results shown in
Fig. 14 with the dashed line. As shown in Fig. 14, cap rotation at
the levels observed in the tests does not significantly affect the
group load-deflection response. Consequently all load displace-
ment relationships required to derive group efficiency factors are
provided by the calibrated p-y model.
As shown in Fig. 16, the group efficiency is unity at very small
displacements and falls to approximately 0.8 at 0.01d ⬍ y 0
⬍ 0.02d, after which it gradually rises towards 0.9 at y 0 ⬎ 0.04d.
Also shown for comparison is the group efficiency implied by the
use of the Rollins et al. 共2006a兲 p-multipliers and the Huang et al.
共2001兲 postconstruction p-multipliers for bored piles as described
in Previous Work. The group efficiencies implied by those
p-multipliers range from 0.69–0.74 and 0.85–0.87 for the Rollins
et al. and Huang et al. models, respectively. While neither set of
p-multipliers can track the observed displacement-dependence,
the Huang et al. model provides a good overall fit. The similarity
in pile-head boundary conditions between the Huang et al. study
and our study may contribute to this favorable fit. Moreover, Fig.
1 shows that the shape of our ␩-displacement curve is similar to
those from other field tests in clayey soils.

Evaluation of Group Efficiency and Validation of

p-Multipliers

We have shown that: 共1兲 the single-pile load-deflection relation-

ship requires correction for the effects of differing reinforcement
ratio relative to the group piles 共results given in Fig. 8兲 and 共2兲 the
group load-deflection response is practically unaffected by the
small rotations that occurred during the test. Fig. 15 summarizes
the load-deflection curves that are required to evaluate group ef-
ficiency following rearrangement of Eq. 共1兲:
Pg共y 0兲
␩= 共5兲
Ng Psp共y 0兲
For a given lateral displacement 共y 0兲, Pg is taken directly from the
measured group response; Ng = 9; and Psp = simulated single pile
response for ␳ = 1% shown in Fig. 15. The resulting group effi- Fig. 16. Experimental and simulated group efficiency factors versus
ciencies are shown in Fig. 16. lateral displacement

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1683

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.

 Conclusions and Recommendations
A single pile and a nine-pile group consisting of 0.61-m diameter
reinforced concrete shafts were subject to lateral cyclic loading
and ultimately to failure. All piles extended 7.6 m below ground
into overconsolidated silty clays. The piles were similar except
for longitudinal reinforcement ratios of ␳ = 1.8% in the single pile
and ␳ = 1% in group piles. Testing of the single pile was per-
formed with the top rotation controlled to zero whereas the pile
group cap was allowed to rotate. Lateral load capacities were
1,200 kN for the single pile at a lateral displacement of 0.08⫻ d
and 10.2 MN for the pile group at 0.17⫻ d.
Curvature and moment profiles were derived from internal in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strumentation in the single pile. The traditional approach of evalu-
ating p-y curves from those data by double differentiating
moment to p and double integrating curvature to y was found to
be impractical due to large sensitivity of p ordinates to curvature
data scatter and the nonlinear moment-curvature relationship of
the pile section. The API p-y curves were found to produce biased
estimates of the single pile response, but a procedure was devel-
oped to produce calibrated p-y curves in the API functional form
that accurately reproduced the observed load-deflection and cur-
vature. Those calibrated p-y curves were used to estimate the load
displacement response for a fixed-head single pile with ␳ = 1%,
which is compatible with the reinforcement used in the group
piles.
FE analyses of the pile group were conducted to investigate
the sensitivity of the load-displacement response to the presence
of cap rotation. Results revealed no significant differences in the
load-deflection response with and without rotation. Hence, the
group response 共with some rotation兲 can be compared to the ad-
justed 共for ␳ = 1%兲 single pile response to evaluate group effi-
ciency. Group efficiency factors were found to vary significantly
with displacement level, being nearly unity near zero displace-
ment 共⬍0.004⫻ d兲, 0.8 at middisplacements 共0.01– 0.02⫻ d兲, and
approaching 0.9 at larger displacements 共⬎0.04⫻ d兲. This depen-
dence of group efficiency on displacement level is not predicted
by simulations using existing, displacement-independent
p-multiplier models. However, the recommended p-multipliers
from Huang et al. 共2001兲 provide a good estimate of average
observed efficiency.
Acknowledgments
Support for this research was provided by the California Depart-
ment of Transportation under Research Contract No. 59A0247,
which is gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore we would like to
acknowledge the support and valuable assistance of Anoosh
Shamsabadi and Craig Whitten of Caltrans. George Cooke of GB
Cooke is recognized for his assistance with construction and con-
tract administration. Project research support also was provided
by the NEES@UCLA Equipment Site as an approved shared-use
project through funding from NEESinc and National Science
Foundation Award No. CMMI-0402490. Special thanks are to the
NEES@UCLA research staff: Robert Nigbor, Steve Kang, Steve
Keowen, and Alberto Salamanca for their technical support and
assistance during specimen preparation, testing and data analysis.
References
Amar, S., Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Le Mehaute, A. 共1975兲. “In
1684 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
situ shear resistance of clays.” Proc., Conf. on In-Situ Measurement of
Soil Properties, Specialty Conf. of the Geotech. Div., Vol. 1, 22–45,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
American Petroleum Institute 共API兲. 共1993兲. “Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms.” API
recommended practice RP-2A, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council 共ATC兲-72. 共2009兲. “90% draft report.”
具http://www. atcouncil.org典 共Oct. 2010兲.
ASTM. 共2003兲. Annual book of standards, Vol. 04.08, West Consho-
hocken, Pa.
Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. -F., and Shields, D. H. 共1978兲. The pressureme-
ter and foundation engineering, TransTech Publications, Clausthal-
Zellerfeld, Germany.
Brandenberg, S., Wilson, D. W., and Rashid, M. M. 共2010兲. “A weighted
residual numerical differentiation algorithm applied to experimental
bending.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136共6兲, 854–863.
Briaud, J. L. 共1986兲. “Pressuremeter and foundation design.” Proc., ASCE
Specialty Conf. on Use of In Situ Tests in Geotech. Eng., Blacksburg,
Va.
Briaud, J. L. 共1992兲. The pressuremeter, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands.
Brown, D.A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L.C. 共1988兲. “Lateral load behav-
ior of a pile group in sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 114共11兲, 1261–1276.
Brown, D.A., Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M.W. 共1987兲. “Behavior of a
large scale pile group subjected to cyclic lateral loading.” J. Geotech.
Engrg., 113共11兲, 1326–1343.
Brown, D. A., and Shie, C. -F. 共1990兲. “Three-dimensional finite element
model of laterally loaded piles.” Comput. Geotech., 10, 59–79.
Coutinho, A. 共2006兲. “Data reduction of horizontal load full-scale tests on
bored concrete piles and pile groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
132共6兲, 752–769.
El-Bahy, A., Kunnath, S. K., Stone, W. C., and Taylor, A. W. 共1999兲.
“Cumulative seismic damage of circular bridge columns: Benchmark
and low-cycle fatigue tests.” ACI Struct. J., 96共5兲, 633–642.
Ensoft, Inc. 共2005兲. “LPILE Plus v5.0. A program for the analysis of piles
and drilled shafts under lateral loads.” 具http://www.ensoftinc.com典.
Filippou, F. C., and Issa, A. 共1983兲. “Effects of bond deterioration on
hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints.” Rep. No. UCB/
EERC 83/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L.A. 共1968兲. “Maximum crack width in reinforced
concrete flexural members.” ACI SP20-06, Vol. 20, ACI, Farmington
Hills, Mich.
Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., Taylor Lange, S., and Deierlein, G. G.
共2008兲. “Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flex-
ural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings.”
PEER Rep. No. 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. 共1998兲. Abaqus version 6.7, Provi-
dence, R.I.
Hognestad, E. 共1951兲. “A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members.” Bulletin series no. 339, Univ. of Illi-
nois Engineering Experimental Station, Urbana, Ill.
Huang, A. B., Hsueh, C. K., O’Neill, M. W., Chern, S., and Chen, C.
共2001兲. “Effects of construction on laterally loaded pile groups.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共5兲, 385–397.
Janoyan, K. D., Wallace, J. W., and Stewart, J. P. 共2006兲. “Full-scale
cyclic lateral load test of reinforced concrete pier-column.” ACI
Struct. J., 103共2兲, 178–187.
Kimura, M., Adachi, T., Kamei, H., and Zhang, F. 共1995兲. “3-D finite
element analyses of the ultimate behavior of laterally loaded cast-in-
place concrete piles.” Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Numerical Models in
Geomechanics, NUMOG V, G. N. Pande and S. Pietruszcak, eds.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 589–594.
Kotthaus, M., Grundhoff, T., and Jessberger, H. L. 共1994兲. “Single piles
and pile rows subjected to static and dynamic lateral load.” Proc.,
Centrifuge 94, C. F. Leung et al., eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
 Netherlands, 497-5-2.
Küçükarslan, S., and Banerjee, P. 共2004兲. “Inelastic analysis of pile-soil
interaction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共11兲, 1152–1157.
Ladd, C. C. 共1991兲. “Stability evaluation during staged construction.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., 117共4兲, 540–615.
Lemnitzer, A., Ahlberg, E. R., Nigbor, R. L., Shamsabadi, A., Wallace, J.
W., and Stewart, J. P. 共2009兲. “Lateral performance of full-scale
bridge abutment wall with granular backfill.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 135共4兲, 506–514.
Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. 共2007兲. “A database in support of
modeling of component deterioration for collapse prediction of steel
frame structures.” Proc., Sessions of the 2007 Structures Congress:
Structural Eng. Research Frontiers, J. W. Wallace, ed., Long Beach,
Calif.
Lowther, J., and Shene, C.K. 共2003兲. “Teaching B-splines is not diffi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UCLA EMS SERIALS on 02/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cult!” Proc., Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education,
Reno, Nev.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P., and Powell, J. 共1997兲. Cone penetration testing
in geotechnical practice, Taylor and Francis, London.
Maimon, Y., Baguelin, F., and Jezequel, J. F. 共1986兲. “Pile group behavior
under long term lateral monotonic and cyclic loading.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Inst. Francais Du
Petrole, Nantes, France, 286–302.
Massone, L. M., Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W. 共2006兲. “Modeling
flexural/shear interaction in RC walls.” ACI-SP-236. Deformation ca-
pacity and shear strength of reinforced concrete members under cyclic
loadings. Paper 7, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 127–150.
McVay, M., Caspar, R., and Shang, T. 共1995兲. “Lateral response of three-
row groups in loose to dense sands at 3D and 5D pile spacing.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., 121共5兲, 436–441.
McVay, M., Zhang, L., Molnit, T., and Lai, P. 共1998兲. “Centrifuge testing
of large laterally loaded pile groups in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 124共10兲, 1016–1026.
Melek, M., and Wallace, J. W. 共2004兲. “Cyclic behavior of columns with
short lap splices.” ACI Struct. J., 101共6兲, 802–811.
Menard, L. 共1975兲. “The Menard pressuremeter: Interpretation and appli-
cation of the pressuremeter test results to foundations design.” Sols-
Soils, Vol. 26, Paris.
Mokwa, R. L. 共1999兲. “Investigation of the resistance of pile caps to
lateral loading.” Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
Univ., Blacksburg, Va.
Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. 共1986兲. “A lateral load test of a full-scale
pile group in sand.” Geotechnical Engineering Rep. No. GR86-1,
Geotech. Engrg. Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Muqtadir, A., and Desai, C. 共1986兲. “Three dimensional analysis of a
pile-group foundation.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 10,
41–58.
Ng, C. W. W., Zhang, L., and Nip, D. C. N. 共2001兲. “Response of laterally
loaded large-diameter bored pile groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2010 / 1685
View publication stats J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1673-1685.
Eng., 127共8兲, 658–669.
Reese, L. C., and Welch, R. C. 共1975兲. “Lateral loading of deep founda-
tions in stiff clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 101共7兲, 633–649.
Rha, C. 共2006兲. “Analytical studies of full-scale reinforced concrete shaft/
column subject to cyclic lateral loads.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles.
Rollins, K. M., Lane, D. J., and Gerber, T. M. 共2005兲. “Measured and
computed lateral response of a pile group in sand.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 131共1兲, 103–114.
Rollins, K. M., Olsen, R. J., Egbert, J. J., Jensen, D. H., Olsen, K. G., and
Garrett, B. H. 共2006a兲. “Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group
behavior: Analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共10兲, 1272–
1283.
Rollins, K. M., Olsen, R. J., Egbert, J. J., Jensen, D. H., Olsen, K. G., and
Garrett, B. H. 共2006b兲. “Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group
behavior: Load tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共10兲, 1262–
1271.
Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., and Weaver, T. J. 共1998兲. “Lateral load
behavior of full-scale pile group in clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 124共6兲, 468–478.
Rollins, K. M., and Sparks, A. 共2002兲. “Lateral resistance of full-scale
pile cap with gravel backfill.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共9兲,
711–723.
Ruesta, P. F., and Townsend, F. C. 共1997兲. “Evaluation of laterally loaded
pile group at Roosevelt Bridge.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
123共12兲, 1153–161.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. 共1992兲. “Strength and ductility of con-
fined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 118共6兲, 1590–1607.
Schmertmann, J. 共1978兲. “Guidelines for cone penetration test perfor-
mance and design.” Rep. No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, D.C., 145.
Schmidt, H. G. 共1985兲. “Horizontal load tests on files of large diameter
bored piles.” Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Eng., Vol. 3, San Francisco, Calif., 1569–1573.
Stewart, J. P., et al. 共2007兲. “Full scale cyclic large deflection testing of
foundation support systems for highway bridges. I: Drilled shaft foun-
dations.” Rep. No. UCLA SGEL-01, Univ. of California, Los Angeles.
Taciroglu, E., Rha, C., and Wallace, J. W. 共2006兲. “A robust macroele-
ment model for soil-pile interaction under cyclic loads.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132共10兲, 1304–1314.
Wakai, A., Gose, S., and Ugai, K. 共1999兲. “3-D elasto-plastic finite ele-
ment analysis of pile foundations subjected to lateral loading.” Soils
Found., 39共1兲, 97–111.
Wallace, J., Fox, P., Stewart, J., Janoyan, K., Qiu, T., and Lermitte, S.
共2001兲. “Cyclic large deflection testing of shaft bridges.” Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCLA 具http://
www.nees.ucla.edu/caltrans/publications/6ftshaft/index.html典.
Yang, Z., and Jeremic, B. 共2003兲. “Numerical study of group effects for
pile groups in sands.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 27,
1255–1276.