Lateral Behavior of Pile Groups in Layered Soils

M. Ashour1; P. Pilling2; and G. Norris, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Assessment of the response of a laterally loaded pile group based on soil–pile interaction is presented in this paper. The
behavior of a pile group in uniform and layered soil 共sand and/or clay兲 is evaluated based on the strain wedge model approach that was
developed to analyze the response of a long flexible pile under lateral loading. Accordingly, the pile’s response is characterized in terms
of three-dimensional soil–pile interaction which is then transformed into its one-dimensional beam on elastic foundation equivalent and
the associated parameter 共modulus of subgrade reaction E s ) variation along pile length. The interaction among the piles in a group is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

determined based on the geometry and interaction of the mobilized passive wedges of soil in front of the piles in association with the pile
spacing. The overlap of shear zones among the piles in the group varies along the length of the pile and changes from one soil layer to
another in the soil profile. Also, the interaction among the piles grows with the increase in lateral loading, and the increasing depth and
fan angles of the developing wedges. The value of E s so determined accounts for the additional strains 共i.e., stresses兲 in the adjacent soil
due to pile interaction within the group. Based on the approach presented, the p – y curve for different piles in the pile group can be
determined. The reduction in the resistance of the individual piles in the group compared to the isolated pile is governed by soil and pile
properties, level of loading, and pile spacing.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2004兲130:6共580兲
CE Database subject headings: Pile groups; Layered soils; Soil–pile interaction; Lateral loads; Sand; Clays.

Introduction
The pile group analysis procedure commonly used today is the
p – y multiplier technique 共Brown et al. 1988兲. Such a procedure
is based on reducing the stiffness of the traditional 共Matlock–
Reese and others兲 p – y curve by using a multiplier ( f m ⬍1), as
seen in Fig. 1共a兲. Brown et al. 共1988兲 presented the overlap
among the adjacent passive wedges 关Fig. 1共b兲兴 to explain the
reasoning behind the adoption of a multiplier ( f m ). The value of
the p – y curve multiplier is assumed based on the data collected
from full-scale field tests on pile groups which are few in number
共Brown et al. 1988兲. Consequently, a full-scale field test is
strongly recommended in order to determine the value of the
multiplier ( f m ) appropriate for the soil profile under consider-
ation. Moreover, the suggested value of the multiplier ( f m ) is
taken to be constant for each soil layer at all levels of loading.
In essence, the use of an f m multiplier is somewhat similar to
the traditional approach given in NAVFAC 共1982兲 in which the
modulus of subgrade reaction E s is reduced by a factor (R m )
taken as a function of pile spacing (R m ⫽1 at 8 diameter pile
spacing varying linearly to 0.25 at 3 diameters兲. The difference is
that f m has been found to vary with pile row 共leading, second,
1
Research Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: ashourm@unr.edu
2
Executive Vice President, Black Eagle Consulting Inc., 1345 Capital
Blvd., Suite A, Reno, NV 89502-7140.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV
89557.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on February 15, 2001; approved on November 11, 2003.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 6, June 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2004/6-580–592/$18.00.
third, and higher兲, and is taken to be constant with lateral pile
displacement y. By contrast, Davisson 共1970兲 suggested that R m
should be taken constant with pile head load such that displace-
ment y increases. In any case, neither f m , nor R m reflects any
change with load or displacement level, soil layering, pile stiff-
ness, pile position 共e.g., leading corner versus leading interior
pile, etc.兲, differences in spacing both parallel and normal to the
direction of load, and pile head fixity.
As seen in Fig. 1共b兲, the interaction among the piles in a group
varies with depth, even in the same uniform soil, and increases
with level of loading as the wedges grow deeper and fan out
farther 共the concept behind the strain wedge model兲. Therefore,
the use of a single multiplier that is both constant with depth and
constant over the full range of load/deflection would seem to
involve significant compromise.
Based on full-scale experiments in submerged sand, Ochoa
and O’Neill 共1989兲 presented pile group interaction factors to
determine the displacement and distribution of loads among the
piles in a group. The technique exhibits good agreement with the
analytical elastic approach developed by Randolph and Poulos
共1982兲. More field tests are needed to extend the capability and to
reduce the limitations of this technique.
The pile group analysis presented herein is based on the con-
cepts and assumptions of the strain wedge 共SW兲 model analysis
for an isolated pile presented by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲 and Ash-
our and Norris 共2000兲. The SW model approach, developed to
compute the response of a long flexible pile under lateral loading,
is extended in this paper to analyze the behavior of a pile group in
uniform or layered soil. Several field and experimental tests re-
ported in the literature are used to calibrate and demonstrate the
validity of the approach.
Strain Wedge Model Characterization for Single Pile
As presented by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲, the assessment of single
pile response to lateral loading using the SW model correlates

580 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Concept of p multiplier in pile group as suggested by Brown
et al. 共1988兲
Fig. 2. Characterization and equilibrium of strain wedge model
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 581
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
traditional one-dimensional beam on an elastic foundation 共BEF兲
response to envisioned three-dimensional soil–pile interaction. In
particular, the Young’s modulus of the soil 共E兲 is related to the
corresponding horizontal subgrade modulus (E s ); the deflection
pattern of the pile 共y versus depth x兲 is related to the strain 共␧兲 that
exists in the developing passive wedge in front of the pile; and the
BEF line load 共p兲 for a given deflection is related to the horizontal
stress change (⌬␴ h ) acting along the face of the developing pas-
sive wedge. The three-dimensional characterization of the later-
ally loaded pile in the SW model analysis 关Fig. 2共a兲兴 provides an
opportunity to study the interaction among the piles in a pile
group in a realistic fashion 共Pilling 1997兲. The influence of the
neighboring piles on an individual pile in the group will be a
function of soil and pile properties, pile spacing, and the level of
loading. These parameters are employed together in the SW
model analysis to reflect the pile–soil–pile interaction on pile
group behavior. It should be noted that the idea of the mobilized
passive soil wedge is developed based on the slip plane directions
during the friction angle 共␸兲 mobilization of a pile in sand 共Rowe
1956兲 and the observed displacement field around a laterally
loaded pile as seen in model tests 共Hughes et al. 1978兲.
The SW model makes the analysis simpler because forces
(F 1 ) on the opposite faces cancel, but the real zone of stress is
like the dashed outline shown in Fig. 2共b兲 which includes side
shear influence 共␶兲 on the shape of the strained zone. However,
the ␶ perpendicular to the face of the pile is still considered in the
SW model analysis. As seen in Figs. 2共b and c兲, the horizontal
equilibrium in the SW wedge model is based on the concepts of
the conventional triaxial test that includes cap and base end

Fig. 3. Mobilized passive wedge as seen in plane view at soil surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
restraint/friction. The soil at the face of the passive wedge is
represented by a soil sample in the conventional triaxial test
where ¯␴ v 0 共i.e., K⫽1) and the horizontal stress change, ⌬␴ h ,
共from pile loading兲 are the confining and deviatoric stresses in the
triaxial test, respectively.
Mobilized Soil Passive Wedge in Strain Wedge Model
Analysis for Single Pile
The SW model can handle the problem of an isolated pile in
different types of soil. The multisublayer technique 关Fig. 2共c兲兴
developed by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲 is based upon dividing the
soil profile and the loaded pile into sublayers and segments of
constant thickness, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2共c兲 关and later
in Fig. 4共a兲兴. Each sublayer of soil is considered to behave as a
uniform soil and have its own properties according to the sublayer
location and soil type. The effects of the soil and pile properties
are associated with the soil reaction along the pile by the Young’s
modulus of the soil, the stress level in the soil, the pile deflection,
and the BEF modulus of subgrade reaction between the pile seg-
ment and each soil sublayer.
The governing equations of the mobilized passive wedge
shape 共see Fig. 3兲 are applied within each 1 or 2 ft sublayer i 共of
a given soil layer i兲 and can be written as follows:
共 ␸m兲i
共 ␤ m 兲 i ⫽45⫹ (1)
2 shown in Fig. 2共b兲. The stress–strain relationship is defined based
Fig. 4. Soil–pile interaction developed between strain wedge model and beam on elastic foundation
582 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
共 BC 兲 i ⫽D⫹ 共 h⫺x i 兲 2 共 tan ␤ m 兲 i 共 tan ␸ m 兲 i (2)
where h symbolizes the entire mobilized depth of the passive
wedge in front of the pile 共related to the current depth of ‘‘zero
crossing,’’ i.e., y⫽0, of the pile兲; x i represents the depth from the
top of the passive wedge to the middle of the sublayer 共i兲 under
consideration; and ␸ m ⫽mobilized angle of internal friction that
also represents the fanning angle of the passive wedge and is
governed by stress level in the soil 共SL兲 共i.e., horizontal stress
change, ⌬␴ h , versus its limiting value, ⌬␴ hf). For saturated clay
under undrained loading, ␸ m ⫽mobilized effective stress friction
angle as discussed in Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲. The equations
above are applied at the middle of each sublayer. The mobilized
depth h of the deflected portion of the pile is controlled by the
stability analysis of the pile under the conditions of soil–pile
interaction.
To account for the interaction between the soil and the pile, the
deflected part of the pile is considered to respond as a continuous
beam loaded with different short segments of uniform load and
supported by nonlinear elastic supports along soil sublayers, as
shown in Fig. 4. At the same time, the point of zero deflection 关 X 0
in Fig. 4共a兲 and, hence h兴 for a pile in a particular layered soil
varies according to the applied load and level of strain in the soil.
As shown in Fig. 2, the geometry of the passive wedge de-
pends on the properties and the number of soil types in the soil
profile, and the equilibrium between the soil layers and the loaded
pile. An iterative process is performed to satisfy the equilibrium
between the mobilized geometry of the passive wedge of the lay-
ered soil and the deflected pattern of the pile for any level of
loading.
Stress – Strain Changes in Strain Wedge Model
The SW model provides a means for distinguishing layers of dif-
ferent soil types as well as sublayers within each layer where
conditions (␧ 50 , SL, ␸ m ) vary even though the soil is uniform.
The horizontal strain 共␧兲 in the soil in the passive wedge in front
of the pile is the predominant parameter in the SW model. Con-
sequently, the horizontal stress change (⌬␴ h ) is constant across
the face width BC of the passive wedge at a particular depth, as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Stress level and mobilized friction angle (␸ m ) in strain wedge model

on the results of the isotropically consolidated drained 共sand兲 or
undrained 共clay兲 triaxial test 共Ashour et al. 1998a,b兲. These prop-
erties are summarized as follows:
1. The major principle stress change (⌬␴ h ) in the wedge is in
the direction of pile movement, and it is equivalent to the
deviatoric stress change in the triaxial test as shown in Fig. 5
共assuming that the horizontal direction in the field is taken as
the axial direction in the triaxial test兲.
2. The horizontal stress change (⌬␴ h ) in the direction of pile
movement at depth x is related to the current level of hori-
zontal strain 共␧兲 and the associated Young’s modulus in the
soil as are the deviatoric stress and the axial strain to the
secant Young’s modulus (E⫽⌬␴ h /␧) in the triaxial test.
3. Both the vertical strain (␧ v ) and the horizontal strain perpen-
dicular to pile movement (␧ ph) are equal and are given as
␧ v ⫽␧ ph⫽⫺␯␧
where ␯⫽Poisson’s ratio of the soil that is equal to 0.5 with clay,
and varies with SL in the case of sand 共Ashour et al. 1998a,b兲.
The corresponding stress level 共SL兲 and mobilized friction
angle (␸ m ) in sand 关Fig. 5共a兲兴 are given as
⌬␴ h tan2 共 45⫹␸ m /2兲 ⫺1
requires the involvement of an effective stress analysis 共i.e., the
excess pore water pressure ⌬u), which is presented in Ashour
et al. 共1998a,b兲 关Fig. 5共b兲兴.
The relationships above clearly show that the passive wedge
response and configuration change with the change in ␸ m or SL in
the soil. Such behavior provides the flexibility for the SW model
to analyze the mobilized interaction among the piles in a pile
group as seen later.
A stress–strain relationship 关Eqs. 共5兲兴 is employed in SW
model analysis for both sand and clay 共Ashour et al. 1998a,b;
Ashour and Norris 1999兲. It reflects the nonlinear variation in SL
with axial strain 共␧兲 for the condition of constant confining pres-
sure in each soil sublayer 共i兲. The SL less than 80% is obtained by
iteration from
␭ i␧
SLi e 共 3.707SLi 兲 ⫽ SLi ⭐80% (5a)
共 ␧ 50兲 i
where ␭⫽3.19 at ␧⭐␧ 50% and ␭⫽2.14 at ␧⫽␧ 80% . The fitting
parameter ␭ is taken to vary in a linear manner from 3.19 at 50%
stress level, to 2.14 at 80% stress level. ␧ 50 symbolizes the soil
strain at 50% stress level. Above 80% stress level, the following
relationship is used:

冋 册
SL⫽ ⫽ (3a)
⌬␴ hf tan2 共 45⫹␸/2兲 ⫺1 100␧
SLi ⫽exp ln 0.2⫹ SLi ⭓0.80 (5b)
共 m␧⫹q 兲
where the horizontal stress change at failure (⌬␴ hf) 共or the de-
viatoric stress at failure in the triaxial test兲 is where m⫽59.0 and q⫽95.4␧ 50⫽required values of the fitting pa-

冋 冉 冊 册
␸ rameters. The three stages mentioned above 关Eqs. 共5兲兴 are devel-
⌬␴ hf⫽␴
¯ v 0 tan2 45⫹ ⫺1 (3b) oped based on experimental results 共Norris 1977兲. The Young’s
2 modulus of soil in both the shear loading phase of the triaxial test
In clay and the strain wedge model is
⌬␴ h 共 ⌬␴ h 兲 i SLi 共 ⌬␴ hf兲 i
SL⫽ ⌬␴ hf⫽2S u (4) E i⫽ ⫽ (6)
⌬␴ hf ␧ ␧
where S u represents the undrained shear strength which may vary where SL and ␸ m are evaluated at any value of soil strain 共␧兲
with depth. Determination of the values of SL and ␸ m in clay based on Eqs. 共3兲–共5兲.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 583

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592

 Soil – Pile Interaction in Strain Wedge Model
The SW model relies on calculating the instantaneous variation,
with depth, in the subgrade modulus E s , which reflects the soil–
pile interaction at any level of pile loading or soil strain. E s also
represents the secant slope at any point on the p – y curve, i.e.
p
E s⫽ (7)
y
Note that p⫽force per unit length of the pile, or the BEF soil–pile
reaction; and y symbolizes the pile deflection at that soil depth. In
the SW model, E s is related to the soil’s Young’s modulus E by
two linking parameters A and ⌿ s . It should be mentioned here
that the SW model establishes its own E s from the Young’s modu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lus of the strained soil, and therefore one can assess the p – y
curve using the SW model analysis considered over a range in
pile head loading. Therefore, E s should first be calculated using
the SW model analysis to identify p for the iteratively determined
variation in y 共with depth x兲.
Corresponding to a horizontal slice i 共a soil sublayer兲 of the
passive wedge at depth x 共see Fig. 2兲, horizontal equilibrium
yields the following relationship:
p i ⫽ 共 ⌬␴ h 兲 i BC i S 1 ⫹2␶ i DS 2 (8)
where S 1 and S 2 ⫽shape factors equal to 0.75 and 0.5, respec-
tively, for a circular pile cross section, and are both equal to 1.0
for a square pile 共Briaud et al. 1984兲. Alternatively, one can write
the above equation as follows:
p i /D BC i S 1 2␶ i S 2
A i⫽ ⫽ ⫹ (9)
共 ⌬␴ h 兲 i D 共 ⌬␴ h 兲 i
where A symbolizes the ratio between the equivalent pile face
stress p/D, and deviatoric stress ⌬␴ h , in the soil; and
␶⫽mobilized shear stress along the pile sides in the SW model
关see Fig. 2共b兲兴 and is defined according to the soil type 共sand or
clay兲 共Ashour et al. 1998a,b兲. By combining the equations of the
passive wedge geometry and the stress level with the above rela- Fig. 6. 共a兲 Mobilized passive wedges and associated pile group
tionship, one finds that interaction and 共b兲 front overlap among soil sublayers in two
adjacent passive wedges 共Section M-M兲
p i ⫽A i D 共 ⌬␴ h 兲 i ⫽A i DE i ␧ (10)
Here the parameter A at depth x⫽function of pile and wedge in front of the pile in addition to the pile spacing. A fundamental
dimensions, applied stresses, and soil properties. E s for a soil concept of the SW model is that the size and shape 共geometry兲 of
sublayer i is given as the passive wedge of soil change in a mobilized fashion as a
pi A i D␧E i function of both soil and pile properties 关Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲兴.
共 E s 兲i⫽ ⫽ (11) The assumed overlap of shear zones among the piles in a
y i ␦ i 共 h⫺x i 兲
group varies along the length of the pile as shown in Fig. 6. Also,
where ␦⫽linearized deflection angle which is equal to ␥/2 where the interaction among the piles grows with the increase in lateral
␥⫽shear strain in the developing wedge. Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲 load. E s , which is determined based on the SW model approach,
show that will account for the additional strains 共i.e., stresses兲 in the adja-
␧ 共 1⫹␯ 兲 sin 2⌰ m cent soil due to pile interaction within the group 共Fig. 7兲. Thus E s
␦⫽ 共i.e., the secant slope of the p – y curve兲 of an individual pile in a
2
(12) group will be reduced in a mobilized fashion according to pile
␸m and soil properties, pile spacing and position, the level of loading,
⌰ m ⫽␤ m ⫺␸ m ⫽45⫺ and depth x. No single reduction factor ( f m or R m ) for the p – y
2
curve 共commonly assumed to be a constant value with depth and
where ␯⫽Poisson’s ratio that can vary for sand from 0.1 at a very level of loading兲 is needed or advised.
small strain to 0.5 or larger 共due to dilatancy兲 at failure, and is The multisublayer technique developed by Ashour et al.
assumed to be 0.5 共undrained behavior兲 for clay. 共1998a,b兲 provides a means to determine the interference among
the envisioned passive wedges of piles in a group and the addi-
Characterization of Pile Group Interaction tional stress/strain induced in the soil in each soil sublayer in
these wedges. As seen in Figs. 6共a and b兲, the soil passive wedge
The interaction among the piles in a group is determined based on in front of a pile in the group overlaps horizontally with those of
the envisioned geometry of the developing passive wedge of soil adjacent piles by an amount that varies with depth. The overlap of

584 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Horizontal 共lateral and frontal兲 interaction for particular pile
in pile group at given depth
the wedges of neighboring piles at depth x in different sublayers
over the depth of the interaction is characterized as shown in Fig.
7. This provides a great deal of flexibility in the calculation of the
growth in stress 共and therefore strain兲 in the overlap zones which
increases with the growth of the passive wedges. The main ob-
jective in the calculation of the area of overlap among the piles is
to determine the increase in soil strain within the passive wedge
of the pile in question.
According to classification of the piles in a group shown in
Fig. 7, the load carried by inner piles is less than the load carried
by the outer piles in a given row. Such behavior was observed in
a number of field tests 共Morrison and Reese 1986; Ruesta and
Townsend 1997; Rollins et al. 2004兲.
As described in the flow chart shown in Fig. 8, a value of
horizontal soil strain 共␧兲 is assumed for the soil profile within the
developing passive wedge. The response of a single pile 共similar
to the piles in the group兲 in the same soil profile is determined at
this value of soil strain. The shape and the dimensions of the
mobilized passive wedge are assessed 共i.e., ␸ m , ␤ m , h, and BC
in Fig. 2兲 as illustrated by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲. This will in-
clude the values of stress level in each soil sublayer i (SLi ),
Young’s modulus (E i ), and the corresponding subgrade modulus
(E s ) i .
Wedges will overlap and interfere with neighboring ones, as
seen in Figs. 6 and 7. At a given depth 共see Fig. 7兲 zones of
overlap will exhibit larger values of soil strains and stresses as
compared to the isolated pile. The increase in average soil strain
attributable to the passive wedge of a given pile will depend upon
the number and area of interfering wedges overlying the wedge of
the pile in question 关Fig. 9共a兲兴. The overlap of a uniform stress
change (⌬␴ h ) is considered at the face of the passive wedge of
the pile in question 关Fig. 9共b兲兴. Such overlap depends on the
position of the pile in the group. The type of pile 共by position兲 is
based on the location of the pile by row 共leading/trailing row兲 and
the location of the pile in its row 共side/interior pile兲 as seen in Fig.
7. It should be noted that the procedure presented herein has the
capability of assessing the capacity of three different pile rows
共leading, middle, and trailing rows兲. Therefore, six types of piles
by position 共instead of four types as seen in Fig. 7兲 should be
analyzed. However, at low and medium levels of pile head de-
flection, no significant differences are observed between the lat-
eral resistance of the middle and trailing rows. 关Based on full-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 585
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
scale pile group loading tests, Peterson and Rollins 共1996兲
suggested the same value of the p multiplier for all trailing rows.兴
The average value of deviatoric stress accumulated at the face
of the passive wedge at a particular soil sublayer 共i兲 共sand or clay兲
is
共 ⌬␴ h 兲 g ⫽SLg ⌬␴ hf (13)
Similar to the p-multiplier technique, the average stress level in a
soil layer (SLg ) due to passive wedge interference is evaluated
based on the following empirical relationship that provides good
agreement with field test results. However, the values of SLg vary
with depth and level of loading
共 SLg 兲 i ⫽SLi 共 1⫹⌺R j 兲 1.5⭐1 (14)
where j⫽number of neighboring passive wedges in soil layer i
that overlap the wedge of the pile in question; R⫽ratio between
the length of the overlapped portion of the face of the passive
wedge and the total length of the face of the passive wedge (BC);
and R j 共which is less than 1兲 is determined from all the neighbor-
ing piles 共sides and front piles兲 of the pile in question 共Fig. 7兲. SLi
on the right side of Eq. 共14兲 is equal to (SL) i of the single pile to
get (SLg ) i 兵i.e., (␧ g ) i 其 caused by the passive wedge interference
via the iterative process 共steps 8 and 9 in Fig. 8兲 until ⌺R j 共i.e.,
SLg ) converges. As a result, the passive wedge of the pile in
question would reach its final geometry for this particular step of
loading. In the first trial, it should be noted that the computed
BC, ␧ g , SLg , and ⌺R j from step 8 are equal to those obtained in
steps 5, 6, and 7.
The angles and dimensions of the passive wedge (␸ m , ␤ m ,
and BC) obtained from Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 will be modified for
group effect according to the calculated value of SLg and ␧ g 共Fig.
10兲. SLg is used to evaluate the associated soil strain ␧ g based on
Eqs. 共5兲 for each soil sublayer in the passive wedge of each pile in
the group. ␧ g is ⭓␧ of the single pile 共no wedge overlap兲. ␧ g will
vary from one soil sublayer to another according to the amount of
overlap among wedges. The flowchart presented in Fig. 8 illus-
trates the sequence of the SW model analysis for the piles in a
pile group.
For instance, based on Eq. 共3a兲 and for a pile in the group, ␸ m
in a soil sublayer i that is associated with the current SLg is
obtained from the following equation:
冉 冊
共 ⌬␴ h 兲 g tan2 共 45⫹ 共 ␸ m 兲 i /2兲 ⫺1
共 SLg 兲 i ⫽ ⫽ (15)
⌬␴ hf i tan2 共 45⫹␸ i /2兲 ⫺1
where (⌬␴ h ) g ⫽current horizontal stress change 共due to pile–
head lateral load and pile group interaction兲; and
⌬␴ hf⫽unchanged value of the deviatoric stress at failure for the
full friction angle ␸ 关Eq. 共3b兲兴. The mobilized friction angle ␸ m
calculated in Eq. 共15兲 reflects the stresses in the soil 共sand or clay兲
around the pile in question at depth x for the corresponding pile
head 共group兲 deflection with consideration of the stresses from
neighboring piles 共Fig. 7兲. Consequently, the geometry of the pas-
sive wedge is modified according to the current state of soil stress
and strain 共Fig. 10兲.
Evaluation of Soil Young’s Modulus, E g
The change in the soil Young’s modulus and, therefore, the
change in modulus of subgrade reaction in each sublayer due to
group interaction is assessed. Once the modified variation of the
modulus of subgrade reaction along the individual pile is calcu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Flow chart for solution procedure of pile group response using strain wedge model analysis

lated, the pile is analyzed as an equivalent isolated pile 共consid-
ering all piles in the group have the same pile head deflection兲.
Based on the modified value of soil strain assessed at depth x 共for
the wedge of the pile of interest兲 at the current level of loading,
the value of Young’s modulus (E g ) i , of the soil sublayer i is
obtained, i.e.
共 SLg 兲 i 共 ⌬␴ hf兲 i
共 E g 兲i⫽
共 ␧g兲i
where E g calculated using Eq. 共16兲 results from the original strain
in the passive wedge 共␧兲 as an isolated pile and the additional soil
strain 共⌬␧兲 which develops due to overlap zones between the pile
in question and its neighboring piles 共Fig. 11兲. According to the
amount of interaction among the piles in the group, the value of
E g should be less or equal to the associated modulus 共E兲 for the
isolated pile.
Evaluation of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, E sg
(16) Based on the concepts of the SW model, Eq. 共11兲 can be rewritten
for the modulus of subgrade reaction for an individual pile in a
group (E sg) for a soil sublayer i as
p i 共 A g 兲 iD 共 ␧ g 兲 i共 E g 兲 i
共 E sg兲 i ⫽ ⫽ (17)
yi ␦ i 共 h⫺x i 兲

586 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Changes in soil Young’s modulus due to pile interaction in

pile group

tan共 ␸ s 兲 i ⫽2 tan共 ␸ m 兲 i ⬎tan ␸ i sand (19a)

␶ i ⫽ 共 SLt 兲 i 共 ␶ ult兲 i clay (19b)
where ␸ s ⫽mobilized side shear angle; SLt ⫽stress level of shear
along the pile sides; and ␶ ult⫽ultimate shear resistance 共Coyle-
Fig. 9. 共a兲 Overlapping ratios among piles in pile group and 共b兲 Reese 1966; Ashour et al. 1998a,b兲. Therefore
stress overlapping among piles in pile group
冋
共 A g 兲 i ⫽S 1 1⫹
共 h⫺x i 兲 2 共 tan ␤ m tan ␸ m 兲 i
D 册
冋 册
where
¯␴ v 0 tan ␸ s
⫹2S 2 sand (20a)
p i /D BC i S 1 2␶ i S 2 共 ⌬␴ h 兲 g
共 A g 兲i⫽ ⫽ ⫹ (18) i
关共 ⌬␴ h 兲 g 兴 i 关共 ⌬␴ h 兲 g 兴 i
冋 册 冋 册
D
共 h⫺x i 兲 2 共 tan ␤ m tan ¯
␸m兲i SL t
where x⫽depth of a soil sublayer i below the pile head; 共 A g 兲 i ⫽S 1 1⫹ ⫹S 2 clay
D SL g
␦⫽linearized deflection angle of the deflection pattern as pre- i
sented by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲; A g ⫽parameter that governs the (20b)
growth of the passive wedge of the pile in the group and flow Compared to the case of a single pile, the developing passive
around failure similar to parameter A 关Eq. 共9兲兴 for an isolated pile; wedge of a pile in a group will be larger than or equal to that of
and ␶⫽mobilized shear stress along the pile sides in the SW the single pile 共depending on the amount of pile interaction兲.
model 共see Fig. 10兲 and is defined according to the soil type 共sand However, the criteria presented by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲 and
or clay兲. Ashour and Norris 共2000兲 continue to govern the development of
flow around failure; and variation of the BEF soil–pile reaction
␶ i ⫽ 共 ¯␴ v 0 兲 i tan共 ␸ s 兲 i
共p兲 and lateral deflection 共y兲 in the single pile analysis continue to
where be employed in the pile group analysis.
As presented by Ashour et al. 共1998a,b兲, the pile head deflec-
tion Y 0 for a single pile, or (Y 0 ) g for a pile in a group, can be
assessed in the SW model analysis using a simplified technique.
By using the multisublayer technique, the deflection 共y兲 of the
individual pile in the group pile can be calculated starting with the
base of the mobilized passive wedge and moving upward along
the pile, accumulating the deflection values at each sublayer as
given in the following relationships:
共 Y 0 兲 g ⫽⌺y i i⫽1 to n
where
Fig. 10. Stress and geometry change 共due to stress level in soil and
gg兲 in slice of individual wedge in pile group at depth x
y i ⫽H i ␦ i ⫽H i 冉 冊 ␧g
⌿s i
(21)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 587

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592

 Fig. 12. Change in p – y curve due to pile interaction
where the ⌿ s value changes according to the soil type 共sand or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
clay兲 共Ashour et al. 1998a,b兲; H i indicates the thickness of sub-
layer i; and n symbolizes the current number of sublayers in the
mobilized passive wedge. The pile head deflection, Y 0 or (Y 0 ) g ,
from the SW model analysis is compared to that calculated from
the beam on elastic foundation analysis based on the given profile
of E s 共single pile兲 or E sg 共pile in group兲 until the targeted conver-
gence is achieved 共Fig. 8兲.
It should be expected that the resulting E sg of a pile in a group
is equal to or softer than the E s of an isolated pile at the same
depth 共Fig. 12兲. The value of E sg will vary with the level of
loading and the growth of the soil stress in the developing passive
wedge. Thus, there is no constant variation or specific pattern for
changes in E sg of the individual piles in the pile group. Based on
the determined values of E sg , the approach presented has the
capability of assessing the p – y curve for any pile in the group, as
shown in Fig. 15 in the case study section.
E sg for a pile in a group should reflect the mutual resistance
between the soil and the pile. However, a portion of the pile
deformation (y i ) results from the additional stresses in the soil
共and, therefore, additional strains ⌬␧兲 which result from the effect
of the neighboring piles 共Figs. 6 and 7兲. Therefore, under a par-
ticular lateral load, the pile in the group will yield deflections
more than those of the single pile. The additional deflection at any
pile segment due to ⌬␧ i derives solely from the presence of
neighboring piles, not the pile in question. The soil–pile reaction
共p兲 is affected by the changes in stress and strain in the soil, and
the varying geometry of the passive wedge.
Having reduced values of the E s along individual piles in the
group, each pile is then analyzed as an equivalent isolated pile by
BEF analysis. The piles in a group, at a particular step of loading,
must experience equal deflections at the pile cap. For each pile in
the group, the interaction among the piles and the changes in the
E s profile to develop E sg 共i.e., geometry and dimensions of the
passive wedge and the internal stresses兲 will continue in an itera-
tive process until the pile in question provides a pile–head deflec-
tion equal to that of the group. As a reference, the group deflec-
tion is linked to the pile–head deflection (Y 0 ) of the isolated pile
at the original soil strain 共␧兲. This technique provides great flex-
ibility to analyze each pile in the group independently in order to
develop equal pile–head deflections 共group deflection兲 which are
the shared factor among the piles in the group. The solution pro-
cedure of the SW model for pile group analysis is presented in
detail in Fig. 8.
Case Studies
The technique presented is employed and implemented by the
available SWM computer programs 共SWM5.0 and SWM6.0 with
588 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
Fig. 13. Lateral deflection of single pile, average pile in 3⫻3 pile
group, and average pile by row in layered clay 关after Rollins et al.
共1998兲兴
soil liquefaction兲 for isolated piles and pile groups. Such a pro-
gram allows the assessment of the lateral response 共deflection,
moment, and shear force distribution兲 of an isolated pile and a
group pile including the p – y curve along the length of the iso-
lated pile and the individual piles in the pile group. The results
presented in the next case studies are obtained from the SWM
computer program.
Full-Scale Load Test on Pile Group in Layered Clay
A static lateral load test was performed on a full scale 3⫻3 pile
group having a three-diameter center-to-center spacing 共Rollins
et al. 1998兲. The driven pipe piles were 0.305 m inside diameter,
9.5 mm wall thickness, and 9.1 m in length. The soil profile along
the length of the pile consisted of different types of clay and
sandy silt soils as described by Rollins et al. 共1998兲.
Fig. 13 shows the agreement between the measured and
SWM5.0 program computed response for the single pile and av-
erage pile in the group 共pile group response is nine times the
average load at the same deflection兲. The p multiplier was used by
Rollins et al. 共1998兲 to differentiate between the average response
of different piles by row. Accordingly, f m values were varied
arbitrarily to obtain the best match between the traditionally as-
sessed p – y curve and averaged observed behavior. The assessed
response using the SW model analysis, averaged by pile row,
shows reasonable agreement with the reported behavior as seen in
Fig. 13. The deviation between computed and observed behavior
in the 10– 40 mm range for the isolated pile carries over to that of
the average pile in the group and row. The SW model response
was obtained based on the given pile and soil properties, and pile
group layout 共Rollins et al. 1998兲; no adjustment was made to
obtain better fit.
Full-Scale Load Test on Pile Group in Sand
A full-scale lateral load test on a 3⫻3 pile group in sand overly-
ing overconsolidated clay was conducted at the University of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Lateral response of single pile and average pile in 3⫻3 pile
group in sand 关after Morrison and Reese 共1986兲兴
Houston, Texas 共Morrison and Reese 1986兲. The results obtained
from this load test were used to develop values of f m for use in
the p-multiplier approach for laterally loaded pile groups in sand
共Brown et al. 1988兲. This pile group of three diameter pile spac-
ing was embedded in approximately 3 m of a dense to very dense
uniform sand overlying an overconsolidated clay. The piles con-
sisted of steel pipe with an outside diameter of 0.275 m, a wall
thickness of 9.3 mm, a 13 m embedded length, and a bending
Fig. 15. Variation of p-multiplier and p – y curves using strain wedge model at 0.9 m depth for piles in 3⫻3 pile group tested in sand by Morrison
and Reese 共1986兲
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 589
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
stiffness (EI) of 1.9⫻104 kN m2 . The soil properties, including
the buoyant unit weight and the angle of internal friction sug-
gested by Morrison and Reese 共1986兲, were used in the SW model
analysis.
Fig. 14 shows a comparison between the field data and the
results obtained using the SWM program. As seen in Fig. 14, the
observed and computed responses of an average pile in the tested
pile group are in good agreement. The good match of the calcu-
lated and observed behavior of the single pile carries over to the
average pile in the group.
Fig. 15 shows the corresponding variation of the p multiplier
0.9 m below pile head for different piles in the group obtained
using the SW model results. Note that the multiplier varies with
both pile position 共type兲 and level of loading 共deflection兲 beyond
1 mm deflection. Compared to the single pile, a significant reduc-
tion in the p – y curves of the individual piles in the group can be
observed. It should also be noted that the p multiplier and the
p – y curves change 共increase兲 with depth. Fig. 15 suggests that
the p multipliers derived at working load levels 共1兲 only vary
slightly over reasonable levels of deflection and 共2兲 would under-
estimate the foundation stiffness at low deflection levels.
Full-Scale Load Test on Pile Group in Layered Clay
A full scale 3⫻3 pile group was driven in layered overconsoli-
dated clay 共Brown and Reese 1985兲. The pile group tested had a
3 diameter pile spacing and was laterally loaded 0.3 m above
ground surface. The nine pipe piles tested had the same properties
as the piles used in the preceding case study. The soil properties
(␧ 50 , the soil unit weight, and the undrained shear strength of the
clay兲 evaluated by Brown and Reese were employed in the SW
model analysis.
As shown in Fig. 16, the SW model provides good agreement
with observed behavior for both the single and average pile in the
group for pile–head load versus deflection and pile–head load
versus maximum bending moment. It should be noted that this
case represents a layered clay profile which exhibits different lev-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Lateral response of single pile and average pile in 3⫻3 pile
group in clay 关after Brown and Reese 共1985兲兴
Fig. 17. Full scale load test of bored single pile and pile group in sand and clay soil 关Chaiyi test, after Brown et al. 共2001兲兴
590 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
els of wedge interference in each soil layer that then changes with
the level of loading.
Full-Scale Load Test on Bored Pile Group in Layered
Sand and Clay Soil
A bored pile group 关Fig. 17共b兲兴 consisting of six 1.5 m diameter
reinforced concrete piles was installed to a depth 34 m below
ground surface in the town of Chaiyi in the west central coastal
plain of Taiwan 关Fig. 17共a兲兴 共Brown et al. 2001兲. The piles in the
group exhibited fixed head conditions because of a 2 m thick pile
cap 共there was no soil against the side of the pile cap兲. The pile
group was loaded horizontally in the direction shown 关Fig. 17共b兲兴.
As reported by Brown et al. 共2001兲, relatively poor comparisons
with the measured results were obtained using the traditional p – y
curves for sand 共Reese et al. 1974兲 and clay 共Matlock 1970兲 with
the program FLPIER 共McVay et al. 1996兲. The traditional p – y
curves were modified to a very large extent in the upper 12 m 关see
the modified p – y curves by Brown et al. 共2001兲兴 in order to
obtain good agreement with the measured data for both the iso-
lated and the pile group.
Using the original soil properties given by Brown et al. 共2001兲
shown in Fig. 17共a兲, the SW model provides assessed response in
good agreement with the measured response of the single free
head pile and the fixed head group pile 关Fig. 17共c兲兴. A nonlinear
model for pile material behavior 共reinforced concrete兲 incorpo-
rated in the SW model analysis 共Ashour et al. 2001兲 was em-
ployed in this analysis. It should be noted that none of the given
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. 3⫻3 pile group model in medium loose sand 关after McVay
et al. 共1995兲兴
共original兲 soil and pile properties was modified for the SW model
analysis.
As presented by Brown et al. 共2001兲 and shown in Fig. 17共c兲,
FLPIER 共McVay et al. 1996兲 provides excellent agreement with
the measured response by using deduced 共adjusted兲 p multipliers
and 共site specific兲 modified p – y curves. The nonlinear modeling
of pile material played an important role in the results obtained by
FLPIER and the SWM analyses. Significant recommendations and
comments were made by Brown et al. 共2001兲 on the p multiplier
and the traditional p – y curves.
Model-Scale Load Test on Pile Group in Loose
and Medium Dense Sand
A series of load tests were performed using centrifuge tests on a
model isolated pile, and on a model 3⫻3 pile group with piles
spaced at 3 pile diameters and, separately, at 5 pile diameters
within the group, embedded in a poorly graded loose (Dr
⫽33%) and medium dense sand (Dr⫽55%) 共McVay et al.
1995兲. The prototype piles simulated using the centrifuge at 45g
acceleration consist of 0.43 m diameter steel pipe piles of overall
length of 13.3 m. The pile prototype bending stiffness, EI, is 72.1
MN m2. The point of lateral load application to the pile groups is
approximately 1.68 m above finished grade, while the point of
lateral load application to the isolated pile is approximately 2.2 m
above finished grade. Although a pile cap is associated with the
pile group tests, McVay et al. 共1995兲 reported that the group tests
simulated free-headed piles.
Very good agreement between measured and SW model cal-
culated results is shown in Figs. 18 and 19. Only slight differ-
ences are observed between the measured and computed capacity
of the pile rows 共leading, middle, and trailing rows兲 in the group.
As mentioned earlier, at low and medium levels of pile head
deflection, no significant differences are observed between the
lateral resistance of the middle and trailing rows.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004 / 591
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592
Fig. 19. 3⫻3 pile group model in medium dense sand 关after McVay
et al. 共1995兲兴
Summary
As presented in this paper, the SW model has the capability of
assessing the response of a laterally loaded pile group. The SW
model characterizes the interaction among the piles in the group
based on the envisioned three-dimensional interaction of the as-
sociated developing passive wedges, in order to then calculate the
associated variation in BEF modulus of subgrade reaction for
each pile in the group. Thereafter, each pile in the group is ana-
lyzed individually by BEF analysis procedure. This approach al-
lows the calculation of the amount of interaction among the piles
in the group according to soil and pile properties, and the level of
loading. The lateral response of the individual piles in a pile
group 共deflection, moment, and shear force兲 including the p – y
curve is then assessed. The approach presented shows the capa-
bility of analyzing the behavior of a pile group in layered and
uniform soil 共sand and/or clay兲. Several comparison studies have
been conducted; some of them are presented here to demonstrate
the capability of the technique. No reduction factor or a multiplier
is needed in this procedure.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A, A g ⫽ parameters of passive wedge expansion 共single
pile and group兲;
BC ⫽ width of the passive wedge face;
D ⫽ pile width or diameter;
E,E g ⫽ Young’s modulus 共single pile and pile in
group兲;
E s ,E sg ⫽ modulus of subgrade reaction 共single pile
and pile in group兲;
f m ⫽ P multiplier for p – y curve of pile in group;
H i ⫽ thickness of soil sublayer;
h, h g ⫽ depth of passive wedge of soil 共single pile
and pile in group兲;
 i ⫽ number of soil sublayer; and the pressuremeter: comparison of existing methods.’’ Laterally
p ⫽ soil–pile reaction or soil resistance; loaded deep foundations, ASTM, Reston, Va., STP 835, 97–111.
R ⫽ overlapping ratio of passive wedges; Brown, D. A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. 共1988兲. ‘‘Lateral load
Su ⫽ undrained shear strength of clay; behavior of pile group in sand.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 114共11兲, 1261–
S 1 ,S 2 ⫽ pile shape factors; 1276.
Brown, D. A., O’Neill, M. W., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H., and
SL,SLg ⫽ horizontal stress level in soil 共single pile
Chakraborty, S. 共2001兲. Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile
and pile in group兲; groups, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National
SLt ⫽ shear stress level in soil; Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
SP1,SP2 ⫽ pile spacings normal and parallel to loading Brown, D. A., and Reese, L. C. 共1985兲. ‘‘Behavior of a large-scale pile
direction; group subjected to cyclic lateral loading.’’ U.S. Department of Inte-
X0 ⫽ depth of zero deflection point on pile from rior, Reston, Va.; Dept. of Research, Federal Highway Administration,
top of wedge; Washington, D.C.; U.S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Sta-
Y 0 ,(Y 0 ) g ⫽ pile–head deflection for single pile and pile tion, Vicksburg, Miss.
in group; Coyle, H. M., and Reese, L. C. 共1966兲. ‘‘Load transfer for axially loaded
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kuwait University on 08/30/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

y ⫽ pile deflection at depth x; piles in clay.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 92共2兲, 1–2.
⌬u ⫽ pore water pressure; Davisson, M. T. 共1970兲. ‘‘Lateral load capacity of piles.’’ Highway Re-
⌬␴ h ,(⌬␴ h ) g ⫽ horizontal stress change in passive wedge in search Record No. 333, 104 –112.
front of single pile and pile in group; Hughes, J. M. O., Goldsmith, P. R., and Fendall, H. D. W. 共1978兲. ‘‘The
behavior of piles to lateral loads.’’ Rep. No. 178, Civil Engineering,
⌬␴ hf ⫽ horizontal stress change at failure 共deviatoric
Dept., Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
stress at failure兲; Matlock, H. 共1970兲. ‘‘Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
␦ ⫽ linearized deflection angle of pile; soft clay.’’ Proc., 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
␧ 50 ⫽ horizontal strain in soil at 50% stress level; OTC 1204, 577– 607.
␧,␧ g ⫽ horizontal strain in passive soil wedge McVay, M., Casper, R., and Shang, Te-I. 共1995兲. ‘‘Lateral response of
共single pile and pile in group兲; three-row groups in loose and dense sands at 3D and 5D pile spac-
⌰ m ,B m ⫽ passive wedge angles; ing.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 121共5兲, 436 – 441.
␭,m,q ⫽ fitting parameters of modified hyperbolic McVay, M., Hays, C., and Hoit, M. 共1996兲. User’s manual for Florida
relationship; pier, Version 5.1, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Fla.
␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio; Morrison, C., and Reese, L. C. 共1986兲. ‘‘Lateral-load test of a full-scale
¯␴ v 0 ⫽ vertical effective stress; pile group in sand.’’ U.S. Department of Interior, Reston, Va.; Dept. of
␶ ⫽ shear strength in soil; Research, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.; U.S.
␶ ult ⫽ ultimate shear strength; Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
¯␸ NAVFAC. 共1982兲. Foundations and earth retaining structures design
⫽ effective 共fully mobilized兲 angle of internal
manual, Dept. of Navy, DM 7.2, Alexandria, Va.
friction in clay 共CD test兲; Norris, G. M. 共1977兲. ‘‘The drained shear strength of uniform quartz sand
␸ ⫽ effective 共fully mobilized兲 angle of internal as related to particle size and natural variation in particle shape and
friction in sand; surface roughness.’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
␸m ⫽ mobilized friction angle in soil; Ochoa, M., and O’Neill, M. W. 共1989兲. ‘‘Lateral pile interaction factors in
␸s ⫽ friction angle between sand and pile sides; submerged sand.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 115共3兲, 359–378.
and Peterson, K., and Rollins, K. M. 共1996兲. ‘‘Static and dynamic lateral load
⌿s ⫽ strain wedge model deflection parameter. testing of a full-scale pile group in clay.’’ Research Rep. No. CEG.06-
02, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah.
Pilling, P. A. 共1997兲. ‘‘The response of a group of flexible piles and the
References associated pile cap to lateral loading as characterized by the strain
wedge model.’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, Nev.
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. M. 共1999兲. ‘‘Liquefaction and undrained re- Randolph, M. F., and Poulos, H. G. 共1982兲. ‘‘Estimating the flexibility of
sponse evaluation of sands from drained formulation.’’ J. Geotech. offshore pile groups.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in
Geoenviron. Eng., 125共8兲, 649– 658. Offshore Piling, Institution of Civil Engineers/The Univ. of Texas at
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. 共2000兲. ‘‘Modeling lateral soil–pile response Austin, Austin, Tex., 313–328.
based on soil–pile interaction.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共5兲, Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. 共1974兲. ‘‘Analysis of laterally
420– 428. loaded piles in sand.’’ Proc., 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conf.,
Ashour, M., Norris, G., and Pilling, P. 共1998b兲. ‘‘Lateral loading of a pile Houston, OTC 2080, 473– 483.
in layered soil using the strain wedge model.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenvi- Rollins, K. M., Lane, J. D., and Gerber, T. M. 共2004兲. ‘‘Measured and
ron. Eng., 124共4兲, 303–315. computed lateral response of a pile group in sand.’’ J. Geotech.
Ashour, M., Norris, G. M., and Shamsabadi, A. 共2001兲. ‘‘Effect of the Geoenviron. Eng., in press.
non-linear behavior of pile material on the response of laterally loaded Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., and Weaver, T. J. 共1998兲. ‘‘Lateral load
piles.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical behavior of full scale pile group in clay.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, Paper 6.10. Eng., 124共6兲, 468 – 478.
Ashour, M., Pilling, P., and Norris, G. M. 共1998a兲. ‘‘Updated documen- Rowe, P. W. 共1956兲. ‘‘The single pile subject to horizontal force.’’ Geo-
tation of the strain wedge model program for analyzing laterally technique, 6.
loaded piles and pile groups.’’ Proc., 33rd Engineering Geology and Ruesta, P. F., and Townsend, F. C. 共1997兲. ‘‘Evaluation of laterally loaded
Geotechnical Engineering Symp., Reno, Nev., 177–178. pile group at Roosevelt Bridge.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
Briaud, J. L., Smith, T., and Mayer, B. 共1984兲. ‘‘Laterally loaded piles 123共12兲, 1153–1161.

592 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(6): 580-592