Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2015, 9(2): 176–193

DOI 10.1007/s11709-015-0289-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response

in cohesionless and cohesive soil
Jasim M. ABBASAa,* , Zamri CHIKb, Mohd Raihan TAHAb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Diyala University, Diyala, Baqhuba 32001, Iraq
b
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi Selangor 43600 UKM, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: jasimalshamary@uodiyala.edu.iq

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

ABSTRACT The lateral response of single and group of piles under simultaneous vertical and lateral loads has been
analyzed using a 3D finite element approach. The response in this assessment considered lateral pile displacement and
lateral soil resistance and corresponding p-y curve. As a result, modified p-y curves for lateral single pile response were
improved with respect to the influence of increasing axial load intensities. The improved plots can be used for lateral
loaded pile design and to produce the group action design p-multiplier curves and equations. The effect of load
combination on the lateral pile group response was performed on three pile group configurations (i.e., 2
1, 2
2 and 3
2)
with four pile spacings (i.e., s = 2D, 4D, 6D and 8D). As a result, design curves were developed and applied on the actual
case studies and similar expected cases for assessment of pile group behavior using improved p-multiplier. A design
equation was derived from predicted design curves to be used in the evaluation of the lateral pile group action taking into
account the effect of axial load intensities. It was found that the group interaction effect led to reduced lateral resistance for
the pile in the group relative to that for the single pile in case of pure lateral load. While, in case of simultaneous combined
loads, large axial load intensities (i.e., more than 6H, where H is lateral load values) will have an increase in p-multiplier
by approximately 100% and will consequently contribute to greater group piles capacities.

KEYWORDS piles, pile group, spacing, configuration, combined load

1 Introduction
According to current day practice, piles are independently
analyzed first for the vertical load to determine their
bearing capacity and settlement and then for the lateral
load to determine the flexural behavior [1,2]. This
approach is valid only for small lateral loads, however,
in case of pile groups, the lateral loads are significantly
high and the order of 10%–20% of the vertical loads. In
such cases, studying the interaction effects due to
combined vertical and lateral loads is essential. Thus, a
more systematic analysis is essential [1–3]. In general, the
pile group should not be only design or analyze to support
vertical loads or lateral loads separately but always a
simultaneous combination of the vertical and lateral loads.
Piles are always constructed within a group and the
Article history: Received Oct. 14, 2014; Accepted Jan. 2, 2015
position of pile within the group directly affects the pile
performance especially its lateral behavior. The piles in
trailing (back rows) are thought to exhibit less lateral
resistance because of interference with the failure surface
of the row of piles in front of them. This group interaction
effect is expected to become less significant as the spacing
between piles increases because there is less overlap
between adjacent failure planes [4]. One method which
was presented by many researchers (e.g., [5–9]) account-
ing for the group reduction effects is to reduce the modulus
or the soil resistance, p, from a single pile p-y curve using a
constant reduction factor or p-multiplier (fm) which was
proposed initially by Brown et al. [10]. Although this
simple approach has provided relatively good estimates of
measured pile group behavior [10,11], p-multipliers are
extremely restricted in their application. The values of the
p-multiplier always depend only on the magnitude of
lateral load.
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil
Many investigators have studied assessments of the
behavior of laterally loaded pile group using finite element
method. Normally, the finite element method simulates the
soil as a continuum. Pile displacements and stresses are
evaluated by solving the classic beam bending equation
using one of the standard numerical methods such as the
models used by Kishida & Nakai [12], and Iyer & Sam
[13]. Randolph [14] developed simple algebraic equation
of interaction factors, based on results from finite element
analysis, to account for the added displacements from the
influence loads of neighboring piles. Muqtadir and Desai
[15] used a three-dimensional (3D) finite element approach
to evaluate the pile group behavior embedded in sandy
soil. A 3D analysis was performed using von Mises surface
was reported by Brown and Shie [16]. Trochanis et al. [17]
studied a two-pile system subjected to lateral load using
commercial program (ABAQUS), in 3D conditions.
Another 3D finite element analysis for evaluating the
lateral pile group response when Kimura et al. [18]
reported carrying pure lateral loading. In addition, using a
finite element package, GPILE-3D. In addition, other
researchers used computational methods for soils perfor-
mance (i.e., [19–21]). Finalluy, Kahyaoglu et al. [22] used
PLAXIS 3D Foundation to investigate the behavior of
laterally loaded pile and pile group.
As previously mentioned, all lateral response on pile
groups were studied by non-simultaneous actions of both
axial and lateral loads. Thus, this study aim to assess the
influence of simultaneous load combinations on the lateral
pile group action using 3D finite element approach in
PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION software [23]. Two types of
soil (a cohesionless and a cohesive soil) were used for
comparison. The study includes three pile group config-
urations with four pile spacing. The main intention of this
paper is to obtain improved p-y design curves taking into
account the influence of pile spacing on the lateral pile
response within group for different group configurations
subjected to different loading combinations. In addition, a
cohesionless and a cohesive soil were used to establish
design curves that show p-multiplier values as a function of
pile spacing. Finally, a design equation was derived to
compute the value of p-multiplier as a function of both pile
spacing and pile diameter.
2 Constitutive relationships
In this study, the elastic model used for modeling the pile
structural material, while the elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb
model used for the soils. In addition, a thin layer interface
element used to model the interface zone between the soil
and the pile material.
2.1 Structural members’ model
The use of the linear elastic model is quite common to
177
model massive structures in the soil or bedrock layers that
include piles etc. [23] This model represents Hooke’s law
of isotropic linear elasticity used for modeling the stress-
strain relationship of the pile material. The model involves
two elastic stiffness parameters, namely the effective
Young’s modulus, E', and the effective Poisson's ratio, ν'.
2.2 Soil model
The surrounding soil represented by Mohr-Coulomb’s
model. This elasto-plastic model based on soil parameters
that known in most practical situations. The model
involves two main parameters, namely the cohesion
intercept, c' and the friction angle, f# . In addition, three
parameters namely Young’s modulus, E', Poisson’s ratio,
ν', and the dilatancy angle, ψ' are needed to calculate the
complete stress-strain (σ, ε) behavior. The failure envelope
as referred by Potts & Zdravkovic [24] and Johnson et al.
[25] only depend on the principal stresses (
í í
1 ,
3 ), and is
independent of the intermediate principle stress (
í 2 ).
2.3 Interface elements model
Interfaces are modeled as 16-node interface elements.
Interface elements consist of eight pairs of nodes,
compatible with the 8-noded quadrilateral side of a soil
element. Along degenerated soil elements, interface
elements are composed of six node pairs, compatible
with the triangular side of the degenerated soil element.
Each interface has a virtual thickness assigned to it which
is an imaginary dimension used to obtain the stiffness
properties of the interface. The virtual thickness is defined
as the virtual thickness factor times the average element
size.
3 Analysis methodology and layout
The analysis consists of modeling of single pile and pile
cap using linear-elastic model with 15-node wedge
elements. The cross-section of the pile is circle with a
diameter of 1.0 m and length of 15 m. The baseline soil
parameters used for the analysis of laterally loaded pile
group are illustrated in Table 1. Two types of soil are used
in the analysis.
Finite element analyses were performed using the
software PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION [23]. In the finite
element method a continuum is divided into a number of
(volume) elements. Each element consists of a number of
nodes. Each node has a number of degrees of freedom that
correspond to discrete values of the unknowns in the
boundary value problem to be solved.
Analyses were performed with several trial meshes with
increasing mesh refinement until the displacement changes
very minimal with more refinement. The aspect ratio of
elements used in the mesh is small close to the pile body,
178 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Table 1 Soil parameters for analysis of pile group

parameter unit cohesionless soil cohesive soil
unit weight, γ' kN/m3 20.0 18.0
4
Young’s modulus, E' MPa 1.3
10 1.0
104
Poisson’s ratio, ν' – 0.3 0.35
cohesion intercept, c' – 0 5.0
angle of internal friction, ø' – 30 25

near to the pile cap and piles bases. All the nodes of the
lateral boundaries (right and bottom of Fig. 1) are
restrained from moving in the normal direction to the
respective surface. The predicted results from the three-
dimensional finite element simulation are compared with
that from analyses involving a single isolated pile in the
same typical condition.
The outer boundaries of soil body of cubic shape are
extended 10D on the sides and 5D to the bottom of pile
group. The 3D view of the finite element mesh of the pile
groups and the surrounding soil mass are shown in Fig. 1.
The outer dimensions of pile cap depend on the pile group
arrangement. The pile cap extends of 0.5 m beyond the
outside face of exterior piles. The finite element simulation
includes the following constitutive relationships for pile,
surrounding soil and interface element.
4 Results and discussion
This study deals with the effect of vertical load intensities
on the lateral behavior of pile. The vertical load (V) applied

Fig. 1 Three-dimensional view of the finite element mesh of the single pile and (2,4 and 6-piles) pile groups and surrounding soil mass
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil
started from zero (no vertical load) to 10 times the lateral
load (H) and was increased in five stages (i.e., V = 2H, 4H,
6H, 8H and 10H). Lateral load magnitudes are 50, 250 and
450 kN. The slenderness ratio L/D = 15 is used throughout
this study. The influence of these mentioned factors are
summarized in the following sections.
4.1 Analysis of pile group 2
1
In general, in case of low axial loads (V = 2H and 4H) the
single isolated pile under the action of simultaneous axial
and lateral loads in both cohesionless and cohesive soils
suffered less deflection (indicate high resistance) than the
pile within group due to group action. While in case of
high axial loads (more than 6H) the lateral pile displace-
ment of the single isolated pile is greater than those
obtained from the pile within group. This is possibly due to
influence level of axial load intensities. This increase can
be directly attributed to the increase in confining stress
with increasing axial loads at different depths caused by
the action of vertical load on the pile [1,2]. In addition, it
seems that the front pile (leading piles) within the group for
a given row resist more load than the middle (2nd trailing
piles) and back piles (trailing piles) in the row as shown in
Fig. 2. This is possibly due to group action effect in which
the group action is less influence on the leader row
compared with other rows, this was also observed by
Brown et al. [10], and Rollins et al. [8]. It can be observed
that for the same magnitude of axial load, group interaction
was made a regular change in lateral pile displacement and
irregular in lateral soil pressure.
In the case of pile spacing effects, for all axial load
intensities, the pile spacing below 6D give highest lateral
pile displacement than the pile with wide pile spacing (i.e.,
s = 8D), This is because of the pile-to-pile action led to
reduced lateral resistance for the piles in the group when
reduce pile spacing [8]. From the results, the values of the
lateral pile displacement and lateral soil pressure observed
are closed with those obtained from the analysis of single
isolated pile when the pile spacing is large (i.e., s = 8D) and
vise versa which was also observed by Brown et al. [10],
and Rollins et al. [4,8].
The influence of axial load intensities on the ultimate
lateral soil resistance along the depth for both cohesionless
and cohesive soils with four different pile spacing is shown
in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the magnitudes of axial load
largely effect the lateral soil resistance. This effect can be
directly attributed to the change in confining stresses with
increasing vertical load at different depth caused by the
action of axial load on the pile [1,2]. Also it can be noticed
that the ultimate soil resistance of laterally loaded piles
decreases significantly with increase in pile spacing
[4,8,10,11].
Unequivocally, the p-y method remains an important
technique for analysis and design of the laterally loaded
179
piles and pile group. This method can used to evaluate the
lateral pile response within the group when only the details
of single isolated pile response are available. The
traditional p-y methods to predict pile group response
was improved by Brown et al. [10] from a single isolated
pile p-y curve. The influence of axial load intensities on the
group interaction and the predicted p-y curve for four pile
spacing on both cohesionless and cohesive soils is
illustrated in Fig. 4. The predicted p-y curves are evaluated
at depth of 3 m because the maximum ultimate lateral soil
pressure occurs at this depth. It can be observed that
significant high variance of the observed p-y curve for the
case of closed pile group (i.e., s = 2D). This is possibly due
to influence of pile group interaction and axial load level
which increases lateral pile displacement and at the same
time reducing the lateral soil pressure. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the level of axial load changes in the
predicted p-y relation. This change directly affects the
design curve of laterally loaded single piles and pile
groups. In addition, it can also be seen that the pile within
leading row has values of the lateral pile displacement and
lateral soil pressure very close with the results obtained
from single isolated pile. This is possibly due to reduction
in the group action on the leading row unlike the piles
within other rows (i.e., trailing row). This observation was
also reported by Brown et al. [10] and Rollins et al.
[4,8,11].
4.2 Analysis of pile group 2
2
The behavior of the 2
2 pile group is close to the behavior
of previous group analyzed (i.e., 2
1). This was also
supported by Patra & Pise [6]. This is due to the same
number of pile in the direction parallel with load direction.
The lateral pile displacement changed and redistribution on
the lateral soil resistance was observed when increasing the
axial load level and effected by the group interaction
condition. In general, the lateral pile displacement within
group (for all pile spacing) due to the influence of axial
load level was less than the results observed from the
single pile when the axial load less than 4H. These results
were greater than the results obtained from assessment of
single isolated pile for the axial load more than 6H. This is
possibly due to increase in soil strength when high
magnitude of axial load is applied as shown in Fig. 5.
The difference in ultimate soil resistance for different
combinations of axial and lateral load and with varied pile
spacing is illustrated in Fig. 6. This can be compared with
the results obtained by Brown et al. [10] and Rollins et al.
[4,8,11] for pure laterally loaded pile group. It can be
observed that the low intensity of axial load (less than 4H)
give similar results between those predicted by this study
and those obtained from published cases. On the other
hand for high magnitude of axial load (greater than 6H) it
can be observed different results and the behavior become
180 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Fig. 2 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral pile displacement with depth for 2
1 pile groups. (a)
Cohesionless soil; (b) cohesive soil
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil 181

Fig. 3 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral soil pressure with depth for 2
1 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless
soil; (b) cohesive soil
182 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Fig. 4 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the predicted of p-y curve for 2
1 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless soil;
(b) cohesive soil

non-uniform. This is possibly due to redistribution of the
front soil resistance when the levels of axial loads are
increased.
The influence of axial load intensities on the predicted p-
y curve for four pile spacing on both cohesionless and
cohesive soils is illustrated in Fig. 7. It can be concluded
that similar values are obtained for p-y curve predicted for
2
2 pile group and results obtained from group 2
1. In
addition it can be observed that low axial load intensity
(less than 4H) give close results with that obtained from
pure lateral load analysis. While when axial load are
increased (more than 4H), larger differences in the
behavior are noted and the predicted p-y curve was greater
than those obtained from pure lateral load analysis.
4.3 Analysis of pile group 3
2
The distribution of load between rows of the pile group is
one of the issues for analysis and design the pile groups
with such configuration. The location of the pile within
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil 183

Fig. 5 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral pile displacement with depth for 2
2 pile groups.
(a) Cohesionless soil; (b) cohesive soil
184 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Fig. 6 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral soil pressure with depth for 2
2 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless
soil; (b) cohesive soil
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil 185

Fig. 7 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the predicted of p-y curve for 2
2 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless soil;
(b) cohesive soil

group is very important when assessing the behavior of
piles within group. In general, leading pile is most efficient
because it resisted most loads in comparison with the
single pile and the trailing piles. The 2nd trailing piles
resist the least due to group interaction [4,8,10,11].
The lateral pile displacement and lateral soil resistance
have close values for both first and second trailing row
which also observed by Zhang et al. [5] and Rollins et al.
[4,8]. It can be seen that the values observed for the first
trailing row is significantly greater than the values observed
for the second trailing row and similarly obtained by Brown
et al. [10]. This is possibly due to the group interaction
which has more effect on the intermediate rows as shown in
Fig. 8. For the different axial and lateral load combinations,
higher changes in the lateral pile displacement with depth
are observed due to increased in the axial load level. This
change is always less for the pile in first and second row
compared with those obtained from trial row.
On the other hand, the axial load intensities made a
redistributed in lateral soil pressure with depth for pile with
group compared with that of single isolated pile as
illustrated in Fig. 9. This is possibly due to the influence
of load combinations influenced on the front soil pressure
distribution. No conclusion available regarding this issue
186 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Fig. 8 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral pile displacement with depth for 3
2 pile groups.
(a) Cohesionless soil; (b) cohesive soil
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil 187

Fig. 9 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the lateral soil pressure with depth for 3
2 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless
soil; (b) cohesive soil
188 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

and only available investigation was done by [1,2] for the
single isolated pile which not closed with present study.
Finally, the predicted p-y relationship for pile group
under the influence of axial load intensities and with four
different pile spacing is shown in Fig. 10. It can be
observed that low axial load intensity (less than 4H)
produce close results with that obtained from pure lateral
load analysis for first, second trailing and leading row.
When axial load (greater than 4H) increases, the behavior
changes significantly and the predicted p-y curved is
greater than those obtained from pure lateral load analysis.
5 Prediction of the pile-to-pile modulus
multiplier and proposed equation for analysis
of pile groups
As reported by Rollins et al. [8,11], one method of
accounting for the shadowing or group action effects is to
reduce the modulus or the soil resistance, p for the pure
laterally loaded pile group. This module is named p-
multiplier (fm) which usually derived from a single isolated
pile and pile within group p-y curve which earlier proposed
by Brown et al. [10]. Although this simple approach has

Fig. 10 Influence of pile spacing and axial load intensities on the predicted of p-y curve for 3
2 pile groups. (a) Cohesionless soil;
(b) cohesive soil
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil
provided relatively good estimates of measured pile group
behavior [10,11], p-multipliers are extremely restricted in
their application. The pile-soil-pile interaction is illustrated
in Fig. 11. The previous researches obtained the pile-to-
pile modulus multiplier only for pure lateral load. No
reports are available for the influence of axial load
intensities to the p-multiplier. Therefore, this section
provides the development of the fm with respect to pile
spacing for both pure lateral loaded pile groups as well as
pile groups subjected to combination of axial and lateral
loads. The development is predicted in two types of soil
(cohesionless and cohesive soil). The improvement
includes:
1) Proposed design curve show p-multiplier values as a
function of pile spacing.
2) Proposed design equation to compute the amount of
p-multiplier (fm) as a function of both pile spacing (c-c) and
pile diameter (D).
Fig. 11 Illustration of reduction in lateral pile resistance due to
pile-pile interface [7,11]
5.1 Proposed design curve
The pile-to-pile modulus multiplier (fm or p-multipliers)
was evaluated by dividing the ultimate soil pressure of pile
within group by the values obtained from single isolated
pile at the given depth [8,10]. Predicted p-y curve for pile
within group can be obtained by multiplying the values of
lateral soil pressure p by the value of fm while keeping
lateral pile displacement constant. The result of the
predicted p-multipliers represent both cases of purely
lateral loaded pile groups as well as pile groups carrying
combination of axial and lateral loads are illustrated in
Fig. 12.
In general, it can be observed that the values of fm of
leading pile is always greater that those measured for first
and second trailing pile which was also observed
previously by Brown et al. [10] and Rollins et al. [4].
Therefore the piles in the leading row carry load similar to
that carried by single isolated pile. This is due to the less
effect of group action on the leading pile compared with
189
other piles. The piles in first and second trailing row also
carry similar magnitudes of loads. It can be seen that for
pile spacings between 2D to 5D the values of fm are small.
This means the large group action effect occur in this case
of small pile spacing compared with the pile group of wide
pile spacing (i.e., s is more than 5D). This indicate that the
pile within the group for the case of wide spacing pile
group can be designed according to the results obtained
from single isolated pile.
The main finding from this comparison is the values of
fm obtained from the pile groups in cohesionless soil are
larger than the fm magnitudes obtained from pile groups in
cohesive soil. This is possibly due to the increase in lateral
pile group capacity resulted from the action of axial load.
Other studies on this are unavailable for comparison.
Similar reports are available only for the case of single
isolated pile [1,2]. Therefore, when compared to the
phenomenon of the increasing in lateral pile capacities
when applied axial load, it can be found that Karthigeyan
et al. [1,2] also observed that for piles in cohesionless soil,
the vertical loads (when simultaneously applied with
lateral loads) decreases the lateral deflection thus increas-
ing the lateral load capacity of the piles. In addition, in
cohesive soils, this study found that the axial loads
decrease the lateral pile capacity.
Other important issue observed from this assessment is
the improvement in the lateral capacity of pile within group
compared with similar single isolated pile capacity.
Available reports for pure laterally loaded pile group
predicted the pile within group carry lower loads than the
single isolated pile. Therefore, the values of fm always is
less than one [8,10]. However, in this study it can be
observed that the values of fm are greater than one
especially in the case of high axial load intensities (i.e.,
more than 8H). This is possibly due to decrease in lateral
group action when applying high axial load. The lateral
group action is small decrease in case of 2
1 and 2
2 pile
groups and largely decreased in case of 3
2 pile groups.
Therefore, it can concluded that the large size pile groups
will be more resistive to the lateral load when taken into
account the effect of simultaneous axial loads.
5.2 Proposed design equation
An equation have also been developed according to the
design p-multiplier curves to compute the amount of p-
multiplier (fm) as a function of both pile spacing (c-c) and
pile diameter (D) under the effect of the simultaneous
combination of axial and lateral loads. The equation may
applied for both cohesionless and cohesive soils, given in
the form of:
fm ¼ A lnðs=DÞ þ B, (1)
where A and B are constant which can directly obtained
from Table 2.
190 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193

Fig. 12 Predicted p-multiplier for pile group subjected to simultaneous axial and lateral loads (groups 2
1, 2
2 and 3
2).
(a) Cohesionless soil; (b) cohesive soil

This table is limited for three pile group configuration
(i.e., 2
1, 2
2 and 3
2) and four pile spacing (i.e., s =
2D, 4D, 6D and 8D). The values of the constants are
calculated for five axial load magnitudes (i.e., V = 2H, 4H,
6H, 8H and 10H). The values of these constants for both
soil types can extrapolate to other pile group configura-
tions. The design method used only in one layered soil and
no cap influenced
5.3 Example calculation of the pile group
The total lateral load resistance of one pile group’s
configuration (i.e., 2
2) is to be determining according
to the assumed single pile response reported by Karthi-
geyan et al. [2] for both cohesionless and cohesive soils.
This group has spacing of 3.53D center to center in the
direction of lateral load. This value of pile spacing also
used by Rollins et al. [4]. For this example, the piles are
1.2 m and 10.0 m diameter and length, respectively. The
predicted fm magnitudes for this specific example calcu-
lated using Eq. (1) and the results are shown below.
1) Cohesionless soil:
Trailing row, spacing,
fmðv¼0Þ ¼ 0:2075 lnð3:53Þ þ 0:2575 ¼ 0:52
fmðv¼0:2VÞ ¼ 0:1618 lnð3:53Þ þ 0:2084 ¼ 0:41
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil 191

Table 2 Values of A and B constants for both cohesionless and cohesive soil (simultaneous combination of axially and Laterally loaded pile groups)
axial load intensities group configuration
2
1 2
2 3
2
trialing row leading trialing leading trialing 2nd trialing row leading
row row row row row
cohesionless soil
V = 2H A 0.2248 0.1145 0.1618 0.1346 0.1200 0.0983 0.0641
B 0.1969 0.5872 0.2084 0.4948 0.1746 0.3386 0.5171
V = 4H A 0.1369 0.1136 0.1726 0.1903 0.1379 0.1096 0.1100
B 0.4041 0.6811 0.2608 0.4729 0.1877 0.3627 0.4890
V = 6H A 0.1190 0.1318 0.2032 0.2580 0.2430 0.1209 0.1153
B 0.7955 0.9564 0.6679 1.0639 0.4003 0.6977 0.9210
V = 8H A 0.2583 0.3488 0.1485 0.1501 0.1794 0.1408 0.2271
B 0.9408 1.1482 1.1242 1.4318 0.7182 1.1706 1.5022
V = 10H A 0.3851 0.3421 0.2793 0.2864 0.3332 0.3812 0.3244
B 0.8622 1.2591 1.2722 1.4516 1.0653 1.5030 1.7725
cohesive soil
V = 2H A 0.2420 0.2073 0.2639 0.2189 0.1858 0.1206 0.0994
B 0.1072 0.2746 0.0375 0.2955 0.0644 0.2333 0.4704
V = 4H A 0.3576 0.2060 0.2786 0.2482 0.1991 0.0706 0.1087
B 0.0246 0.4191 0.0764 0.3279 0.0759 0.3679 0.4863
V = 6H A 0.5598 0.4859 0.3169 0.4207 0.2952 0.3577 0.2953
B 0.2499 0.2631 0.3155 0.3331 0.2454 0.3580 0.7058
V = 8H A 0.5767 0.6371 0.3869 0.4325 0.3786 0.2348 0.2807
B 0.2802 0.2682 0.4551 0.4872 0.1933 0.7032 0.7739
V = 10H A 0.5565 0.6240 0.3987 0.4926 0.3567 0.2633 0.2779
B 0.4015 0.4055 0.4951 0.4916 0.4002 0.7223 0.8153

fmðv¼0:4VÞ ¼ 0:1726 lnð3:53Þ þ 0:2608 ¼ 0:48 2) Cohesive soil:

Trailing row, spacing,
fmðv¼0:6VÞ ¼ 0:2032lnð3:53Þ þ 0:6679 ¼ 0:92 fmðv¼0Þ ¼ 0:1973 lnð3:53Þ þ 0:1852 ¼ 0:42

fmðv¼0:8V Þ ¼ 0:1485lnð3:53Þ þ 1:1242 ¼ 1:30 fmðv¼0:2VÞ ¼ 0:2639lnð3:53Þ þ 0:0375 ¼ 0:37

Leading row, spacing, fmðv¼0:4VÞ ¼ 0:2786lnð3:53Þ þ 0:0764 ¼ 0:43

fmðv¼0Þ ¼ 0:1867lnð3:53Þ þ 0:4018 ¼ 0:64
fmðv¼0:6VÞ ¼ 0:3169lnð3:53Þ þ 0:3155 ¼ 0:72
fmðv¼0:2VÞ ¼ 0:1346lnð3:53Þ þ 0:4948 ¼ 0:67
fmðv¼0:8VÞ ¼ 0:3869lnð3:53Þ þ 0:4551 ¼ 0:94
fmðv¼0:4VÞ ¼ 0:1903lnð3:53Þ þ 0:4729 ¼ 0:71
Leading row, spacing,

fmðv¼0:6VÞ ¼ 0:2580lnð3:53Þ þ 1:0639 ¼ 1:39 fmðv¼0Þ ¼ 0:2292lnð3:53Þ þ 0:2890 ¼ 0:58

fmðv¼0:8VÞ ¼ 0:1501lnð3:53Þ þ 1:4318 ¼ 1:62 fmðv¼0:2VÞ ¼ 0:2189lnð3:53Þ þ 0:2955 ¼ 0:57

192 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2015, 9(2): 176–193
fmðv¼0:4VÞ ¼ 0:2482lnð3:53Þ þ 0:3279 ¼ 0:64
fmðv¼0:6VÞ ¼ 0:4207lnð3:53Þ þ 0:3331 ¼ 1:86
fmðv¼0:8VÞ ¼ 0:4325lnð3:53Þ þ 0:4872 ¼ 1:03
The computed load vs. deflection for single isolated pile
with fm values in case of cohesionless and cohesive soil
and both load conditions (i.e., pile group subjected to pure
lateral loads and combination of axial and lateral loads) are
shown in Fig. 13.
6 Summary and evaluation of the results
From related literatures of studies related to pile groups
embedded in cohesionless and cohesive soil, the analysis
of pile groups are either subject to pure axial load or pure
lateral load. These previous studies did not include any
findings regarding simultaneous combination of loading
influence on the pile group action. In fact, the axial load
intensity largely changes the lateral pile and pile group
response as reported by Karthigeyan et al. [1,2] for single
isolated pile. This change is neglected when analysis and
design the piles and pile groups and also underestimates
the foundation stiffness. Therefore, this study includes this
effect of simultaneous load combinations on the lateral pile
response within group. This research has made it possible
to quantify many important aspects of pile and pile group
behavior under combination of axial and lateral loads.
To satisfy the objective of this study, three-dimensional
finite element approach was used to analyze this
geotechnical problem. The geotechnical system included
Fig. 13 Load-deflection curves obtained from the example of pile with predicted computed from improved p-multiplier equation. (a)
Cohesionless soil; (b) cohesive soil
linear elastic, Mohr-Coulomb and 16-nodes interface
elements constitutive models. Three pile group was used
(i.e., 2
1, 2
2 and 3
2) with four varying pile spacings
(i.e., 2 = 2D, 4D, 6D and 8D). Cohesionless and cohesive
soils were used in this study for comparison. Laterally
applied loads were 50, 250 and 450 kN. In addition forces
of 2H, 4H, 6H, 8H and 10H represent the axial loads
The analysis of the pile groups included lateral pile
displacement and lateral soil resistance with pile depth as
well as the corresponding p-y curves. On the first and
second trailing rows as well as the leading row. The lateral
pile displacement changes and the lateral soil pressure
redistributed when the level of axial load was increases.
This was also observed by Karthigeyan et al. [1,2] for
single isolated pile. The p-y curves obtained from this
study take into account the influence of axial and lateral
loads combination. Previous studies only depended on the
pure lateral loads. The resultant p-y design curves can be
used to produce the design parameters for laterally loaded
pile design. In addition these curves can be used to create
p-multiplier design curves. These curves can be used to
predict the lateral behavior of pile within group when only
the results of single isolated piles are available. The
predicted p-multiplier design curves was used to developed
design equation to compute the amount of p-multiplier (fm)
as a function of both pile spacing (c-c) and pile diameter
(D) under the effect of combined axial and lateral load.
This paper also provides a table containing the values of
the design equation constants (i.e., A and B). This design
equation was applied on the similar example that the
problem parameters were assumed according to Rollins et.
al. [4] and Karthigeyan et al. [2] reports. This calculation
example show step by step application of this equation.
This equation can used in order to produce design
 Jasim M. ABBASA et al. Influence of axial load on the lateral pile groups response in cohesionless and cohesive soil
parameters for the pile within group from the results of
single isolated pile.
7 Conclusions
The magnitudes of axial load have large effect on the
lateral pile displacement and soil resistance. The lateral
pile displacement significantly increased and lateral soil
pressure significantly redistributed when the magnitudes of
axial applied load are increased. The magnitude of axial
load subsequently changes the predicted p-y relation and
this change directly effect the design curve of laterally
loaded piles and pile groups. High different on the p-y
curve was observed in case of closed pile group (i.e., s is
less than 4D). The pile within leading row has close values
with that of single isolated pile. The behavior of the 2
2
pile group is close but not the same with the behavior of
2
1 pile group. In the case of 3
2 group, the lateral pile
displacement and lateral soil resistance are similar to both
first and second trialing row. The magnitude of axial load
also significantly effect on the predicted fm. The values of
fm can also be greater than one especially in case of high
axial load intensities. The lateral group action is small in
case of 2
1 and 2
2 pile groups and largely decreased in
case of 3
2 pile groups.
References
1. Karthigeyan S, Ramakrishna V V G S T, Rajagopal K. Influence of
vertical load on the lateral response of piles in sand. Computers and
Geotechnics, 2006, 33(2): 121–131
2. Karthigeyan S, Ramakrishna V V G S T, Rajagopal K. Numerical
investigation of the effect of vertical load on the lateral response of
piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
2007, 133(5): 512–521
3. Poulos H G, Davis E H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980
4. Rollins K M, Olsen K G, Jensen D H, Garrett B H, Olsen R J, Egbert
J J. Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: Analysis.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2006,
132(10): 1272–1283
5. Zhang L, Mc Vay M, Lai P. Numerical analysis of laterally loaded
3
3 to 7
3 pile groups in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1999, 125(11): 936–946
6. Patra N R, Pise P J. Ultimate lateral resistance of pile groups in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001,
127(6): 481–487
7. Ashour M, Pilling P, Norris G. Lateral behavior of pile groups in
layered soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 2004, 130(6): 580–592
8. Rollins K M, Lane J D, Gerber T M. Measured and Computed
lateral response of a pile group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
193
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2005, 131(1): 103–114
9. Chandrasekaran S S, Boominathan A, Dodagoudar G R. Group
interaction effects on laterally loaded piles in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2009,
10. Brown D A, Morrison C, Reese L C. Laterally load behavior of pile
group in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
1988, 114(11): 1261–1276
11. Rollins K M, Peterson K T, Weaver T J. Lateral load behavior of
full-scale pile group in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124(6): 468–478
12. Kishida H, Nakai S. Large deflection of a single pile under
horizontal load. In: Proceedings of the IX International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Tokyo, Japan,
1977, 87–92
13. Iyer P K, Sam C. 3-D elastic analysis of three-pile caps. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 1991, 117(12): 2862–2883.
14. Randolph M F. The response of flexible piles to lateral load.
Geotechnique, 1981, 31(2): 247–259
15. Muqtadir A, Desai C S. Three-dimensional analysis of a pile-group
foundation. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 1986, 10(1): 41–58
16. Brown D A, Shie C F. Modification of p-y curves to account for
group effects on laterally loaded piles. In: Proceedings of the
Geotechnical Engineering Congress. Boulder, Colorado, Jane, 10–
12, 1991, 1: 749–490
17. Trochanis A M, Bielak J,Christiano P. Three-dimensional nonlinear
study of piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(3):
429–447
18. Kimura M, Adachi T, Kamei H, Zhang F. 3-D finite element
analyses of the ultimate behavior of laterally loaded cast-in-place
concrete piles. 5th International Symposium on Numerical Models
in Geomechanics. 1995, 589–594
19. Rabczuk T, Areias P M A. A new approach for modelling slip lines
in geological materials with cohesive models. International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering, 2006, 30
(11): 1159–1172
20. Zhu H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Ma G. High rock slope stability analysis
using the enriched meshless Shepard and least squares method.
International Journal of Computational Methods, 2011, 8(02): 209–
228
21. Li E, Zhuang X, Zheng W, Cai Y. The effect of graph generation on
the slope stability analysis based on the graph theory. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2014, 6(4): 380–
386
22. Kahyaoglu M R, Imancli G, Ozturk A U, Kayalar A S.
Computational 3D finite element analyses of model passive piles.
Computational Materials Science, 2009
23. Brinkgreve R B J, Broere W. PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION- version
1. Netherlands, 2004
24. Potts D M, Zdravkovic L. Finite element analysis in geotechnical
engineering: Theory. Thomas Telford. Heron Quay, London, 1999
25. Johnson K, Lemcke P, Karunasena W, Sivakugan N. Modelling the
load – deformation response of deep foundation under oblique load.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 2006, 21(9): 1375–1380