758

ARTICLE
Group reduction factors for analysis of laterally loaded pile
groups
M. Sajjad Fayyazi, Mahdi Taiebat, and W.D. Liam Finn
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

Abstract: The lateral response of piles embedded in soil is typically analyzed using the beam on nonlinear Winkler springs
approach, in which soil–pile interaction is modeled by nonlinear p–y curves (where p is soil resistance and y is horizontal
displacement). In this approach, one of the most common methods of accounting for interaction effects in pile groups is to
modify the single pile p–y curves using a p-multiplier for each row of piles in the group, with higher values for leading row and
lower values for trailing rows. The leading and trailing rows interchange during seismic loading; therefore, sometimes an
average p-multiplier is used for all piles in the group. This average p-multiplier is called the group reduction factor. Group
reduction factors have been established from experimental data from static loading tests on small pile groups, mostly 3 ×
3 groups with free pile head conditions and center-to-center pile spacings of about 3 pile diameters. In this paper, continuum
simulations are used to study the group reduction factors in 3 × 3 to 6 × 6 square pile groups subjected to static loading. The study
includes the effects of various parameters, including pile spacing, pile head condition, and the friction angle of soil, on the group
reduction factors. Calculated group reduction factors from this study compare well with available group test data, that is,
typically small pile groups. However, the study shows that design guidelines such as the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-751 overestimate the group
reduction factors, hence the lateral resistance, in larger pile groups and larger spacings, especially for fixed pile head conditions.

Key words: pile group, p–y method, group reduction factor, soil–pile interaction, continuum model.
For personal use only.

Résumé : La réponse latérale de pieux enfouis dans un sol est généralement analysée à l’aide de l’approche non linéaire d’une
poutre sur des ressorts de Winkler, dans laquelle l’interaction pieu–sol est modélisée par des courbes p–y non linéaires. Dans
cette approche, une des méthodes les plus courantes pour considérer les effets d’interaction dans les groupes de pieux est de
modifier les courbes p–y pour un pieu unique avec un multiplicateur-p pour chaque rangée de pieux dans le groupe, en assignant
des valeurs plus élevées pour la rangée principale et des valeurs plus faibles pour les rangées suivantes. La rangée principale et
les autres rangées s’échangent durant des sollicitations sismiques; alors parfois un multiplicateur-p moyen est utilisé pour tous
les pieux dans un même groupe. Ce multiplicateur-p moyen est appelé le facteur de réduction du groupe. Des facteurs de
réduction du groupe ont été établi à partir de données expérimentales provenant d’essais en chargement statique sur des petits
groupes de pieux, principalement des groupes 3 × 3 dont la tête des pieux est libre et l’espacement du centre au centre des pieux
est d’environ 3 fois le diamètre des pieux. Dans cet article, des simulations continues sont utilisées pour étudier les facteurs de
réduction du groupe dans des groupes 3 × 3 à 6 × 6 soumis à des sollicitations statiques. L’étude inclut les effets de plusieurs
paramètres, incluant l’espace entre les pieux, la condition de la tête du pieu, et l’angle de friction du sol, sur les facteurs de
réduction du groupe. Les facteurs de réduction du groupe calculés dans cette étude se comparent bien avec les données
disponibles sur les essais de groupe, généralement réalisés sur des petits groupes de pieux. Cependant, l’étude démontre que les
critères de conception comme American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) et Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA) P-751 surestiment les facteurs de réduction du groupe, et conséquemment la résistance
latérale, dans les grands groupes de pieux et dont l’espacement est grand, particulièrement dans des conditions où la tête des
pieux est fixe. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : groupe de pieux, méthode p–y, facteur de réduction du groupe, interaction sol–pieu, modèle continu.

Introduction overlap as the lateral load increases. More overlapping occurs if

The lateral response of piles is typically analyzed using the
beam on nonlinear Winkler springs model. The nonlinear springs
are based on the p–y curves (where p is soil resistance and y is
horizontal displacement) recommended by the American Petro-
leum Institute (API 2007). When piles act in a group, soil–pile
interaction reduces the lateral resistance of the individual piles so
that the group will generally exhibit less lateral capacity than the
sum of the lateral capacities of the individual piles. In the pile
group, each pile pushes against the soil in front of it, creating a
shear zone in the soil. These shear zones begin to enlarge and
the piles are closely spaced to each other. In this context, the term
“edge effect” is used to describe the effect of overlapping zones of
influence between piles in the same row. The term “shadowing
effect” is used to describe the effect of overlapping zones of influ-
ence between piles in different rows (Larkela 2008).
One of the most common methods of accounting for the group
effects in the Winkler approach is to modify the single pile p–y
curves using a p-multiplier, as suggested by Brown et al. (1988). In this
approach, the soil resistance, p, is reduced by multiplying by a con-
stant factor, Pm, as shown in Fig. 1. Defining p-multipliers in pile

Received 31 May 2013. Accepted 5 March 2014.

M.S. Fayyazi, M. Taiebat, and W.D.L. Finn. Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Corresponding author: Mahdi Taiebat (e-mail: mtaiebat@civil.ubc.ca).

Can. Geotech. J. 51: 758–769 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0202 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 13 March 2014.
 Fayyazi et al.
Fig. 1. Definition of p-multiplier (Pm). ps, horizontal resistance of
soil for single pile.
p
s
Horizontal Resistance, p
Pm × ps
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18
Single pile
A pile in the
pile group
Horizontal Displacement, y
group design relies on the row spacing in the loading direction. The
p-multiplier for a leading row is higher than the p-multiplier for a
trailing row because of the shadowing effect. In an alternative ap-
proach, rather than defining p-multipliers row by row, an average
p-multiplier for all piles in the group is used which gives the same
pile cap load–deflection curve (Brown et al. 2001). This average
p-multiplier is called the group reduction factor. Use of a group re-
duction factor is convenient for seismic and cyclic loading because
the direction of loading changes repeatedly and often unpredictably
during the loading event, and each load reversal converts a leading
row, with high p-multiplier, to a trailing row, with low p-multiplier,
For personal use only.
instantaneously.
Group reduction factors can be obtained using experimental
studies such as full-scale load tests. It is, however, very difficult
and expensive to perform a full-scale test on a pile group. The
capacity of the loading equipment also limits the size of the pile
group that can be tested. Therefore, full-scale tests are usually
carried out on small pile groups with close spacings. Centrifuge
tests are a useful alternative to full-scale tests and can be used to
study the group reduction factors (e.g., McVay et al. 1995, 1998). A
list of previous full-scale and centrifuge experimental studies for
calculation of group reduction factors is compiled and summa-
rized in Table 1. Most of the pile group experiments were per-
formed on 3 × 3 free-head pile groups with the center-to-center
spacing of three pile diameters (D) and pile head deflections of up
to 5 cm. Because p-multipliers were typically derived from free-
head pile group tests, there are some uncertainties regarding
their applicability for fixed-head conditions that are more rou-
tinely encountered in engineering practice where a pile cap is
used (Rollins and Sparks 2002). The literature review also shows
the lack of a comprehensive study on the group reduction factor
for larger pile groups, various pile spacing, pile head conditions,
and soil properties. The limitations in the available experimental
database justify using three-dimensional numerical simulations
to study the effects of these different parameters on the group
reduction factor.
To systematically study the group reduction factors in various
pile group problems, a numerically driven benchmark database is
established using a continuum modeling approach to simulate
the response of pile groups. The capability of the numerical model
in predicting the pile group behavior is first evaluated by three-
dimensional continuum modeling of a full-scale field test on an
actual pile group, and comparing the numerical results with the
measured values. Then the continuum model is used to generate
benchmark data to study the effects of various key parameters on
the group reduction factor in pile groups. Calculated group reduc-
tion factors from this numerically produced database are com-
pared with the available experimental data and with the group
reduction factors recommended for use in practice by AASHTO
(2012), FEMA (2012) P-751, and Reese and van Impe (2010).
759
Fig. 2. Plan view of full-scale pile group test by Christensen (2006).
Model validation
The continuum model of the pile group, built in in FLAC3D
(Itasca 2009), is validated in this section by simulating a specific
pile group problem and comparing the results of a pushover anal-
ysis to the corresponding data available from a field test.
Christensen (2006) performed full-scale tests on a single pile
and a pile group to develop p-multipliers for use in p–y models of
pile groups. The test group consisted of a 3 × 3 pile group. The soil
profile was multilayered soil and was characterized by the friction
angle and undrained shear strength of soil. The steel tube pile had
an outer diameter of D = 0.324 m and a thickness (t) of 0.0095 m.
The piles were spaced at a distance of 5.65D (1.83 m) center to
center in the direction of loading, as shown in Fig. 2. The pile
spacing perpendicular to the loading direction was 3.29D (1.07 m)
center to center. Embedded length of the piles was 12.8 m and the
water table located at the depth of 2.1 m. The test represented free
pile head conditions. The pile heads were horizontally pushed to
prescribed pile head deflections by a jacking system placed 0.48 m
above the ground level.
Christensen (2006) simulated the single pile test with the API
p–y model and calibrated the p–y curves by adjusting the input soil
parameters until the computed response matched the measured
response for the single pile. Then he simulated the load test on
different rows of piles in the pile group in the computer program
GROUP (Reese et al. 1996) using these p–y curves reduced by a
p-multiplier for each row of the pile group. Christensen (2006)
obtained the p-multiplier for each row of the pile group from
the test data. The data showed that the leading row had the
highest p-multiplier and the trailing rows had lesser values.
The p-multiplier was reported as 1.0 for the leading row, 0.7
for the second row, and 0.65 for the third row. When the
p-multipliers from the load tests were employed in the p–y model of
the pile group, the response matched the full-scale test very well. As
was explained in the “Introduction”, an alternative to using different
row-specific p-multipliers is using an overall group reduction factor
for the entire pile group. The group reduction factor, i.e., the average
of p-multipliers, would be 0.78 for this test.
To validate the capability of the continuum model of the pile
groups in the present study for capturing different aspects of pile
group response, the continuum model is first used for analyzing
the full-scale test on the actual pile group studied by Christensen
(2006). Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model in FLAC3D (Itasca 2009)
is adopted for the continuum analyses. The model parameters are
listed in Table 2. The soil layering, including the soil unit weight,
the friction angle for sandy layers, and undrained shear strength
Published by NRC Research Press
 760
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

Table 1. Group reduction factors from previous experimental studies.

Reported p-multiplier for row
Pile Pile Pile head Group reduction
Reference Soil type ␾ (°) Test type configuration type D (cm) S/D condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 factor
Brown et al. (1987)* Stiff clay — Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 27.3 3 Free 0.7 0.6 0.5 — — — — 0.6a
Stiff clay — Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 27.3 3 Free 0.7 0.5 0.4 — — — — 0.53b
Brown et al. (1988)* Medium dense sand 38.5 Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 27.3 3 Free 0.8 0.4 0.3 — — — — 0.5
Morrison and Reese (1988) Medium dense sand 38.5 Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 27.3 3 Free 0.8 0.4 0.3 — — — — 0.5
McVay et al. (1995)* Medium loose sand 30c Centrifuge 3×3 Steel pipe 43 5 Free 1 0.85 0.7 — — — — 0.85
Medium dense sand 33c Centrifuge 3×3 Steel pipe 43 5 Free 1 0.85 0.7 — — — — 0.85
Medium loose sand 30c Centrifuge 3×3 Steel pipe 43 3 Free 0.65 0.45 0.35 — — — — 0.48
Medium dense sand 33c Centrifuge 3×3 Steel pipe 43 3 Free 0.8 0.4 0.3 — — — — 0.5
Ruesta and Townsend (1997)* Loose sand 32 Full scale 4×4 Square concrete 76 3 Free 0.8 0.7d 0.3 0.3 — — — 0.52 (0.45)d
McVay et al. (1998) Sand 30, 33e Centrifuge 3×3 Square steel 42.9 3 Fixed 0.8 0.4 0.3 — — — — 0.5
Sand 30, 33e Centrifuge 3×4 Square steel 42.9 3 Fixed 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 — — — 0.45
Sand 30, 33e Centrifuge 3×5 Square steel 42.9 3 Fixed 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 — — 0.4
For personal use only.

Sand 30, 33e Centrifuge 3×6 Square steel 42.9 3 Fixed 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 — 0.37
Sand 30, 33e Centrifuge 3×7 Square steel 42.9 3 Fixed 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.34
Rollins et al. (1998)* Clay and silt — Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 40 3f Free 0.6 0.38 0.43 — — — — 0.47f
Huang et al. (2001) Silty clay — Full scale 2×3 RC 150 3 Fixed 0.93 0.7 0.74 — — — — 0.79g
Silty clay — Full scale 3×4 Precast RC 80 3 Fixed 0.89 0.61 0.61 0.66 — — — 0.69
Rollins and Sparks (2002) Silt and clay — Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 32.4 3 Fixed 0.6 0.38 0.43 — — — — 0.47h
Snyder (2004) Soft clay — Full scale 3×5 Steel pipe 32.4 3.92 Free 1 0.81 0.59 0.71 0.59 — — 0.74
Walsh (2005) Sand 40 Full scale 3×5 Steel pipe 32.4 3.92 Free 1 0.5 0.35 0.3 0.4 — — 0.51
Rollins et al. (2005) Sand 38 Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 32.4 3.3 Free 0.8 0.4 0.4 — — — — 0.53
Christensen (2006) Sand 38 Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 32.4 5.65i Free 1 0.7 0.65 — — — — 0.78
Rollins et al. (2006) Stiff clay — Full scale 3×5 Steel pipe 61 3i Free 0.82 0.61 0.45 — — — — 0.62
Stiff clay — Full scale 3×3 Steel pipe 32.4 5.65i Free 0.95 0.88 0.77 — — — — 0.87
Stiff clay — Full scale 3×4 Steel pipe 32.4 4.4i Free 0.9 0.8 0.69 0.73 — — — 0.78
Stiff clay — Full scale 3×5 Steel pipe 32.4 3.3i Free 0.82 0.61 0.45 0.45 0.51 — — 0.57
Note: ␾, friction angle; S, center-to-center spacing between piles; D, pile diameter; RC, reinforced concrete.
*These tests are the basis for AASHTO (2012) suggested p-multipliers.
aThese values are reported in Brown and Shie (1991) for 3 cm deflection of the test performed by Brown et al. (1987).

bThese values are reported in Brown and Shie (1991) for 5 cm deflection of the test performed by Brown et al. (1987).

cFriction angle is not reported; therefore, it is obtained using the API (2007) relationship between relative density and friction angle.

dIt was noted that the second-row response reported in this test was not very sensitive to the p-multiplier assigned and a value of 0.4 was acceptable (McVay et al. 1998).

eTests were performed on both medium dense and medium loose sand. The reported results were the same for all cases (McVay et al. 1998). Friction angle is not reported therefore it is obtained using the API (2007)
Published by NRC Research Press

relationship between relative density and friction angle.

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014

fReported in Rollins et al. (2006): spacing 2.82D; p-multipliers: 0.6, 0.4, 0.4.

gApplied displacement was very small compared with pile diameter (0.02D).

hp-multipliers were not derived from experiment. Suggestions of Rollins et al. (1998) were used and good agreement reported.

iSpacing normal to the direction of loading was 3.3D.

 Fayyazi et al. 761

Table 2. Properties of soil profile in continuum model of Christensen (2006) pile group test.
Unit weight Shear modulus Poisson’s Friction Dilation Undrained shear
Depth (m) (kN/m3) (kN/m2) ratio angle (°) angle (°) strength (kN/m2)
0.0–2.1 16.7 29 600 0.3 40 0 0
2.1–2.4 16.8 15 800 0.3 40 0 0
2.4–2.7 19.1 7000 0.3 0 0 41
2.7–3.7 19.1 7000 0.3 0 0 50
3.7–4.6 19.1 8100 0.3 0 0 40
4.6–6.3 18.1 17 800 0.3 38 0 0
6.3–8.0 19.1 6500 0.3 0 0 57
8.0–12.8 16.7 22 600 0.3 33 0 0
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

Fig. 3. Finite difference model of 3 × 3 pile group.

For personal use only.

for the clayey layers are the same as those used by Christensen
(2006) in his p–y model. The average Young’s modulus for each
layer of soil is derived from available cone penetration test (CPT)
results using the equation Es = 7qc (Bowles 1996), where Es and qc
are Young’s modulus and cone penetration resistance of soil, re-
spectively. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 is assumed for all soil layers. The
sand layers are modeled using the nonassociative flow rule by
adopting a dilation angle of 0° for the Mohr–Coulomb model.
According to Brown et al. (1988), the response of piles subjected to
lateral loadings is dominated by the soil layers down to depth of
about 10 pile diameters. In the field tests of Christensen (2006), the
pile diameter was 0.324 m; therefore, the top 3 m of the soil
profile, i.e., mainly sand, is expected to govern the lateral re-
sponse of the piles, and deeper layers of the soil profile are not
expected to have significant effect on the response.
There are several ways to simulate the soil–pile system in a
continuum model, and they all have advantages and disadvan-
tages. In the present study, piles are modeled using structural
beam elements. The volume of each pile is accounted for in the
numerical model, as it can be important especially for closely
spaced piles in a pile group. To this end, the soil zones in the
region occupied by a pile are removed from the model, and the
pile nodes at each elevation are connected to the soil grids with
eight rigid beam elements as shown in Fig. 3. These rigid beams
are used to enforce deflection compatibility between the pile and
the soil nodes (Rahmani et al. 2014). The connections between
these rigid beams and the pile nodes are pinned. For a more
realistic analysis of soil–pile interaction under severe demands,
instead of using such connections at the interface of soil and
structure, one would need to simulate the possible slippage and
gapping mechanisms by using advanced interface elements.
Appropriate mesh size and model dimensions are selected on
the basis of sensitivity analyses. To ensure that the stress zone
around the pile group is not affected by the boundaries, sensitiv-
ity analyses were carried out for the size of the model. The related
sensitivity analysis results (not presented here) suggested that the
fixed displacement boundary conditions should be placed at dis-
tances of 5D and 10D from the exterior piles in the direction of
loading and perpendicular to the direction of loading, respec-
tively (see Fig. 3). All piles are fixed at the base of the model.
Figure 4a shows the measured and computed total group load at
different pile head deflections. There is a good agreement be-
tween measured and computed results for this range of deflec-
tions. Profiles of bending moments for the middle pile of the
group at the pile head deflections of 0.006 and 0.051 m are de-
picted in Fig. 4b. This comparison shows that the simple Mohr–
Coulomb model is capable of capturing most of the response
characteristics of the pile group under static loading. Therefore,
this model appears to be reliable to use for exploring the effects of
different parameters on the pile group reduction factor within
the selected range of deflections.
Group reduction factor calculation
The group reduction factor is a uniform factor applied to all
p–y curves in the group to yield the same pile head deflection as
measured in a test or calculated from a continuum model. The
process for obtaining the group reduction factor at a prescribed
pile head deflection is depicted in Fig. 5. This method follows the
procedure described by Rollins et al. (2006), except that they used
data from a field test rather than data from analysis, as in this
study. The load–deflection curve for the pile group in Fig. 5a is
computed using the continuum model. The load corresponding

Published by NRC Research Press

 762
Fig. 4. Comparison of measured and computed (a) total group
load – deflection curves and (b, c) bending moment profiles for
middle piles of rows 2 and 3 at different pile head deflections for
full-scale pile group test by Christensen (2006).
(a)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18
(b)
Δ
Δ curves and bending moment profiles for both models with fric-
Δ Following the method presented in the previous section, and
For personal use only.
· center-to-center spacing between piles and D is the pile diameter),
(c)
Δ
Δ group. For fixed-head pile groups, the group reduction factors
Δ
·
to a prescribed deflection of this model is then applied to the
p–y model in Fig. 5b, and the deflection under this load is calcu-
lated using the computer program GROUP (Reese et al. 2010). Since
the required group reduction factor to be used in the GROUP
program is initially unknown, a starting value of 0.5 was assumed
in the p–y model. The analysis for the p–y model is then repeated
using different values of the group reduction factor until the
pile head deflection from the p–y model matches the pile head
deflection from the continuum model analysis satisfactorily
(difference <10%).
The goal of this study was to evaluate the group reduction fac-
tors and, in particular, to compare the results against those rec-
ommended in different design guidelines such as AASHTO (2012),
FEMA (2012) P-751, and Reese and van Impe (2010). These recom-
mendations are based on various experimental studies, most of
which are listed in Table 1. The lower range for pile head deflec-
tion in these tests is about 3 cm, and the upper range is about
5 cm. Based on these observations, it was decided to obtain the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014
group reduction factors for the pile head deflections of 3, 4, and
5 cm to cover the similar range in the corresponding experimen-
tal studies that are the basis for the design guidelines. The calcu-
lated group reduction factors in this range of pile head deflections
do not appear to have a significant range of variations; therefore,
the average of these group reduction factors for each pile group is
reported in this study.
Parametric analyses
One of the key issues for calculating group reduction factors is
having equivalent soil parameters in the continuum and p–y models.
These properties are determined using free-head single pile sim-
ulation in the continuum and p–y models. Dimensions of this
single pile are depicted in Fig. 6. The continuum model is character-
ized by the same friction angle ␾ used to develop the p–y curves, a
dilation angle of 0°, a Poisson’s ratio ␯ of 0.3, and an initial uni-
form shear modulus G in depth. Load–deflection curves (up to a
deflection of ⌬ = 5 cm) and associated bending moment profiles at
different pile head deflections are computed in both p–y and con-
tinuum models, and the results are compared. The shear modulus
of the soil in the continuum model is changed iteratively until the
load–deflection curves and the bending moment profiles from the
two models agree within 10% (Fig. 7). The matched load–deflection
tion angle of 35° for soil are shown in Fig. 8. The equivalent soil
parameters for uniform soil profiles with friction angles of 30°,
35°, and 40° are calculated and listed in Table 3.
using the equivalent soil parameters listed in Table 3, a compre-
hensive parametric study has been done for calculation of group
reduction factors in square pile groups with different numbers of
piles (3 × 3 to 6 × 6), different S/D ratios (3–6) (where S is the
different soil friction angles (30°–40°), and different pile head
conditions (free and fixed), as listed in Table 4. The calculated
group reduction factors from this parametric study are shown in
Fig. 9. Results range from a minimum of 0.29, for a 6 × 6 free-head
pile group, to a maximum of about 0.9, for a 3 × 3 free-head pile
change from 0.26 for a 6 × 6 pile group to 0.67 for a 3 × 3 pile group.
There is an almost linear relationship between the group reduc-
tion factor of the free-head pile groups and the S/D ratio.
According to Fig. 9, group reduction factors decrease with in-
creasing the number of piles in the pile group and with increasing
the friction angle of the soil. The group reduction factor increases
with the spacing, which means the group effect decreases. Fixed-
head group reduction factors are close to free-head factors at
S/D = 3, but the difference between fixed-head and free-head group
reduction factors increases in larger S/D ratios. Fixed-head group
reduction factors are lower than free-head factors. This means
that group effects in fixed pile head groups are more pronounced
than in free-head pile groups.
Although Fig. 9 covers a wide range of pile groups in terms of
properties of the soil profile, number of piles, pile spacings, and
pile head conditions, one could still consider some other possible
scenarios. Limited additional sensitivity analysis is done and
briefly presented later in the text to cover other factors such as
distribution of the soil shear modulus in depth, larger pile spac-
ings in the group, and larger number of piles in the group.
The assumption of uniform G in depth of the soil profile was
done for the simplicity in the analyses. However, it is important to
also look at the effect of using a more realistic variable G on the
group reduction factors, and to compare the results with those
from the uniform G assumption. To this end, a parabolic distribu-
tion of shear modulus with depth is assumed based on the expres-
sion G = G0(p/pat)0.5, which is similar to what is suggested by
Richart et al. (1970). Here, p and pat represent the mean effective
Published by NRC Research Press
 Fayyazi et al. 763

ˉ m, group reduction factor.

Fig. 5. Methodology for calculating group reduction factor using (a) continuum and (b) p–y models. P

(a) (b)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

Fig. 6. Dimensions of single pile used for obtaining equivalent soil Fig. 8. Comparison of (a) load–deflection curves and (b) bending
properties. moment profiles at different pile head deflections for single pile in
soil with ␾ ⫽ 35° computed by p–y model and continuum model
(with uniform G).

(a)
For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Methodology for obtaining equivalent soil parameters in p–y

and continuum models.

(b)

Δ Δ
Δ

stress and the atmospheric pressure, respectively, and G0 is a pa-

rameter to be found. For the case of ␾ ⫽ 35°, the same procedure
described in Fig. 7 is followed to come up with the representative
profile of G in the continuum model, with the difference that the
iteration process described in Fig. 7 is now carried out on the value
of G0, leading to a value of G0 = 65 833 kN/m2. For easy comparison, Table 3. Equivalent soil parameters for different
the resulting uniform and parabolic distributions of G are pre- friction angles of soil.
sented in terms of the equivalent profiles of shear wave velocities
in Fig. 10. The performance of the p–y model and the continuum Friction Shear modulus Poisson’s
model with the parabolic distribution of G are compared in Fig. 11 angle (°) (kN/m2) ratio
(similar to what was done for the case of uniform G in Fig. 8). 30 16 154 0.3
Group reduction factors are then calculated for 3 × 3 pile groups, 35 21 154 0.3
with different spacings and pile head conditions, in the soil pro- 40 26 923 0.3
file with ␾ ⫽ 35° and parabolic distribution of G in depth. The

Published by NRC Research Press

 764 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014

Table 4. Simulated pile groups in this study.

Pile head fixity
Pile Friction
arrangement angle (°) S/D = 3 S/D = 4 S/D = 5 S/D = 6
3×3 30 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
35 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
40 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
4×4 30 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
35 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
40 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
5×5 30 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

35 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed

40 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
6×6 30 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
35 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed
40 Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed Free; fixed

Fig. 9. Calculated group reduction factors for different pile group settings: (a) 3 × 3; (b) 4 × 4; (c) 5 × 5; (d) 6 × 6 pile groups.

φ
°

(a) (b)
For personal use only.

(c) (d)

results are compared with the case of uniform G. Figure 12 shows
that using parabolic distribution of G does not considerably affect
the resulting group reduction factors. This additional sensitivity
analysis strengthens the validity of the findings of this study be-
yond the limited case of uniform G.
To further study the effect of pile spacings on the group reduc-
tion factors, in addition to the results already presented in Fig. 9
for various pile spacing scenarios of 3D–6D, limited additional
analyses are conducted that cover the group factors for both free-
head and fixed-head 3 × 3 pile groups with spacings of 8D and 10D.
The results are presented in Fig. 13 for the case of soil profile with
␾ ⫽ 35° and uniform G. The trend of results shows that the group
reduction factor increases with increasing the center-to-center
pile spacing. This figure also shows that the group reduction fac-
tor for the free-head condition almost reaches 1 for pile spacing of
about 10D.
Comparison of group reduction factors for 3 × 3 to 6 × 6 pile
groups shows that the group reduction factor decreases with in-
creasing the number of piles. To investigate group factor variation
of larger groups, a 10 × 10 pile group with different spacings and

Published by NRC Research Press

 Fayyazi et al. 765

Fig. 10. Corresponding profiles of Vs with uniform or parabolic Fig. 12. Calculated group reduction factors for 3 × 3 pile groups
distributions of shear modulus G in depth (for ␾ ⫽ 35°). using soil profiles with ␾ ⫽ 35°, and with uniform or parabolic
distributions of G in depth.
0
Uniform G 1
Parabolic G
2 3 × 3 pile groups

0.8

4 0.5
Depth (m)

Vs = (G/ρ)

Group factor
ρ = 1670 kg/ m3 0.6
6

0.4
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

8
Free head − Uniform G
0.2 Free head − Parabolic G
10 Fixed head − Uniform G
0 100 200 300 400 Fixed head − Parabolic G
Vs (m/s) 0
2 3 4 5 6 7
S/D
Fig. 11. Comparison of (a) load–deflection curves and (b) bending
moment profiles at different pile head deflections for single pile in Fig. 13. Calculated group reduction factors for 3 × 3 pile groups
soil with ␾ ⫽ 35° computed by p–y model and continuum model with S/D values ranging from 3 to 10 (␾ ⫽ 35° and uniform G).
with parabolic distribution of G.
1
(a) 3 × 3 pile groups

0.8

Group factor
0.6
For personal use only.

0.4

0.2
Free head
Fixed head
0
2 4 6 8 10
S/D

Fig. 14. Calculated group reduction factors for 10 × 10 pile groups

(␾ ⫽ 35° and uniform G).
(b)
1
10 × 10 pile groups
Δ
Δ 0.8
Δ
Group factor

0.6

Δ 0.4

0.2
Free head
Fixed head
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
S/D

pile head conditions is also studied in a soil profile with ␾ ⫽ 35°
and uniform G, and the analysis results are presented in Fig. 14.
Comparing Figs. 9c and 14 shows that the group reduction factors
for 10 × 10 pile groups are lower than those for 6 × 6 pile groups. To
study large pile groups, Law and Lam (2001) represented an infi-
nite repeating pile pattern by using a simplifying approach of
finite element analysis coupled with a periodic boundary condi-
tion. Using this modeling approach, Dodds and Martin (2007) con-
ducted an analytical work and suggested group reduction factors
ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 for large pile groups with the spacing of 3D
in sand and clays; this is close to the findings of the present study
for the spacing of 3D as shown in Fig. 14.
Comparison with previous experimental data and
design guidelines
Experimental data
The calculated group reduction factors of Fig. 9 are compared
with experimental data on pile groups listed in Table 1. Figure 15
shows the comparison between the calculated group reduction
factors in this study and the available experimental data for free-
head pile groups in sand. The comparison for 3 × 3 free-head pile

Published by NRC Research Press

 766
Fig. 15. Comparison between calculated group reduction factors and previous experimental works for free-head pile groups in sand: (a) 3 × 3;
(b) 4 × 4; (c) 5 × 5; (d) 6 × 6 pile groups.
(a)
Morrison and Reese(1988)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18
°
φ
°
φ
°
φ
(c)
For personal use only.
groups is shown in Fig. 15a, where there are six data points for
3 × 3 pile groups, with three of them at S/D = 3. Reported friction
angles of soil for the full-scale pile group tests by Morrison
and Reese (1988), Brown et al. (1988), Rollins et al. (2005), and
Christensen (2006) are all about 38°. The friction angles of soil for
the centrifuge pile group tests by McVay et al. (1995) are reported
as 30° and 33°, and based on their tests, group reduction factors
were the same for both soils. Figure 15a shows a good agreement
between experimental data and calculated group reduction fac-
tors for 3 × 3 free-head pile groups with different friction angles
and pile spacings. Figure 15b shows experimental data from
Ruesta and Townsend (1997) for full-scale 4 × 4 pile groups. The
reported friction angle of soil for this experiment is 32°. Initially,
they reported a group reduction factor of 0.52, but a year later a
revised group reduction factor of 0.45 was reported (McVay et al.
1998) for this experiment. Figure 15c shows the computed group
reduction factors for 5 × 5 free-head pile group in soils with dif-
ferent friction angles. There is no test data available for 5 × 5 pile
groups, but Walsh (2005) studied a full-scale 3 × 5 pile group (five
rows) with S/D of about 4 in a site with the friction angle of 40°.
The group reduction factor for his test was 0.51. The computed
group reduction factor for a 5 × 5 free-head pile group with spac-
ing of 4D and friction angle of 40° in this study is 0.43. The higher
value of the group reduction factor for the 3 × 5 pile group of
Walsh (2005) compared with that of the 5 × 5 pile group in this
study (both having five rows in the direction of loading) can be
attributed to the fewer piles in the former group, resulting in
smaller overall interaction between the piles. The results for the
6 × 6 pile groups are shown in Fig. 15d; unfortunately, there are no
test data available for comparison of group reduction factors for
6 × 6 free-head pile groups.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014
(b)
(d)
Figure 16 shows the comparison between the calculated group
reduction factors in this study and the available experimental
data for fixed-head pile groups. McVay et al. (1998) conducted
centrifuge tests on fixed-head pile groups with different numbers
of piles to obtain p-multipliers. The number of piles in their cen-
trifuge tests changed from 3 × 3 to 3 × 7 (3–7 rows of piles in the
direction of loading), with S/D = 3 for all of the tests. They per-
formed the test on the pile groups in soils with friction angles of
30° and 33°. According to their tests, the group reduction factors
in each set of pile groups were the same for both friction angles.
Experimental data and calculated group reduction factors for the
3 × 3 fixed-head pile groups are shown in Fig. 16a. This figure
shows that for the 3 × 3 pile groups the calculated group reduction
factors at S/D = 3 are close to the corresponding data from McVay
et al. (1998), but as the number of piles increases in Figs. 16b–16d,
the group reduction factors from the McVay et al. (1998) tests
become higher than the computed values. Given that McVay et al.
(1998) performed their tests on 3 × 4, 3 × 5, and 3 × 6 pile groups,
these pile groups experience less edge effect than the 4 × 4, 5 × 5,
and 6 × 6 pile groups of this study, respectively. Therefore, it is
again expected that the former pile groups will have higher group
reduction factors.
Design guidelines and recommendations
AASHTO (2012) — Table 5 shows the p-multipliers recommended
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) in 2012. These values are averaged from the
studies listed in the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
manual (Hannigan et al. 2006), which are included in Table 1. The
AASHTO recommendations for choosing p-multipliers are based
on data from free-head pile group tests. All of these tests were
Published by NRC Research Press
 Fayyazi et al. 767

Fig. 16. Comparison between calculated group reduction factors and previous experimental works for fixed-head pile groups in sand:
(a) 3 × 3; (b) 4 × 4; (c) 5 × 5; (d) 6 × 6 pile groups.

(a) (b)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18

°
φ
°
φ
× ×
°
φ

(c) (d)
For personal use only.

× ×

Table 5. p-multipliers suggested in AASHTO (2012).
p-multiplier
Pile spacing
in the direction Row 3 and
of loading Row 1 Row 2 higher
3D 0.8 0.4 0.3
5D 1 0.85 0.7
performed on 3 × 3 pile groups except for the test by Ruesta and
Townsend (1997), which was a full-scale test on a 4 × 4 pile group.
In the previous section, the group reduction factors from the tests
performed in sand in the AASHTO database were compared with
the calculated group reduction factors in this study, and they all
matched well. There is no consideration in the recommendations of
AASHTO regarding the effects of soil parameters or the pile head
conditions. AASHTO reports p-multipliers only for pile groups with
S/D of 3 and 5, and suggests interpolation to establish p-multipliers
for other pile spacing values when S/D is between these values. It has
no specific recommendations for S/D > 5. To obtain group reduction
factors using AASHTO recommendations, the related p-multipliers
for different rows of each pile group in Table 5 are averaged.
FEMA (2012) P-751 — Equations recommended for calculation of
p-multipliers by Rollins et al. (2006) are used in FEMA (2012) P-751.
These equations are based on experimental results from three
full-scale tests. The tests were conducted on a 3 × 3 pile group with
S/D = 5.65, a 3 × 4 pile group with S/D = 4.4, and a 3 × 5 pile group
with S/D = 3.3. All pile groups were installed in stiff clay, and the
pile head condition was free in all three tests.
Reese and van Impe (2010) — These authors proposed three equa-
tions for calculation of p-multipliers to account for the effects of
piles that are side-by-side, in-line, or skewed (neither in-line nor
side-by-side) with respect to the applied load. These equations are
obtained using experimental data from pile groups with just one
row (edge effect) or one column (shadowing effect) of piles. If a
pile group contains more than two piles, the effects of piles on
each other must be considered. These equations are also imple-
mented in the GROUP program (Reese et al. 2010) to be used as the
default value for the p-multipliers.
Figure 17 compares the calculated group reduction factors in
this study with the values recommended by AASHTO (2012), FEMA
(2012) P-751, and Reese and van Impe (2010). The calculated values
at S/D = 3 are close to the ones recommended by AASHTO, espe-
cially for 3 × 3 and 4 × 4 pile groups. However, with increasing the
spacing and the number of piles, the difference between the cal-
culated group reduction factors in this study and the group reduc-
tion factors recommended by AASHTO increases. This might be
attributed to the fact that AASHTO uses data from multiple exper-
iments to obtain the p-multipliers for S/D = 3, whereas it uses data
from only one experiment for S/D = 5. Also, most of the tests in the
AASHTO database are on 3 × 3 pile groups. There is no test with
the fixed-head condition in the AASHTO database. Therefore, the
group reduction factors based on recommendations of AASHTO
are close to free-head results in this study. For example, the cal-
culated group reduction factors for 3 × 3 pile groups with S/D = 5 in
soil with a friction angle of 30° are 0.80 for free-head condition
and 0.59 for fixed-head condition, while the AASHTO recom-
mended factor is 0.85, which is close to the calculated free-head
group factor. For 6 × 6 with the same soil and spacing, a group

Published by NRC Research Press

 768
Fig. 17. Comparison between calculated group reduction factors in this study, AASHTO (2012), FEMA (2012) P-751, and Reese and van Impe
(2010) recommendations: (a) 3 × 3; (b) 4 × 4; (c) 5 × 5; (d) 6 × 6 pile groups.
φ
°
(a)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18
(c)
For personal use only.
factor of about 0.48 is calculated for the fixed-head condition
whereas 0.79 is recommended by AASHTO.
Figure 17a shows that recommendations of FEMA (2012) P-751
and Reese and van Impe (2010) for 3 × 3 pile groups with S/D = 3 are
close to the results of this study. However, with increasing the pile
spacing, these equations recommended in FEMA (2012) P-751 and
Reese and van Impe (2010) result in higher group reduction fac-
tors, especially in comparison with the calculated fixed-head
group reduction factors. Figures 17b–17d show that with increas-
ing the number of piles or with changing the pile head condition,
the group factors recommended by these three available design
guidelines are considerably higher than the results of this study.
Rollins et al. (2006) also showed that the recommendations of
Reese and van Impe (2010) overestimate the lateral resistance for
closely spaced pile groups.
Summary and conclusions
Group reduction factor is a concept that is typically used in
spring models of pile groups to account for the group effects
in soil–pile interaction analysis. Recommendations are available
in several design guidelines for the value of group reduction fac-
tors. These guidelines are derived from several available experi-
ments that are mainly conducted on small pile groups, with
limited ranges of spacings, and pile head fixity conditions. The
present study is focused on evaluating the effects of number of
piles, pile spacings, pile head conditions, and properties of the soil
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014
(b)
(d)
profile on the group reduction factors for square pile groups. To
this end, the continuum model of a specific pile group is validated
by comparing the numerical results of the pushover analysis to
the corresponding data available from a field test. The validated
continuum model is used to generate an extensive numerically
driven benchmark database for the group reduction factors of
various pile groups. The reliability of the numerical results was
further validated by comparing the calculated group reduction
factors with the available experimentally derived factors.
The calculated group factors in the generated benchmark data-
base show the following trends. For a given pile spacing, the group
reduction factor decreases with increasing number of the piles in
the pile group, and also with the increase of friction angle of soil.
The group reduction factor increases with the increase of the
S/D ratios. The calculated fixed-head group reduction factors ap-
pear to be generally smaller than the free-head group reduction
factors. The study suggests that the pile head condition should be
taken into account in determination of the group reduction
factor.
The calculated group reduction factors in this study are com-
pared with the recommendations of AASHTO (2012), FEMA (2012)
P-751, and Reese and van Impe (2010). The recommendations of
AASHTO are based on the results of different experiments per-
formed on 3 × 3 and 4 × 4 pile groups with free-head conditions.
The pile spacing for most of those experiments was 3D. Therefore,
the calculated factors for 3 × 3 and 4 × 4 pile groups with spacings
Published by NRC Research Press
 Fayyazi et al.
of about 3D in the present study are close to the recommendations
of AASHTO as expected. However, the group reduction factors
recommended by AASHTO for pile groups larger than 4 × 4 with
pile spacings larger than 3D appear to be higher than the calcu-
lated values from the simulations in this study. In particular, the
difference between the calculated factors for fixed-head pile
groups and the recommendations of AASHTO is considerable. The
recommendations of AASHTO overestimate the group reduction
factors, hence the lateral resistance, which in turn leads to under-
estimation of deflections at the pile heads under a certain demand
from the superstructure. The recommended values for the group
reduction factors in FEMA (2012) P-751 and Reese and van Impe
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by GOLDER ASSOCIATES on 10/02/18
(2010) are even higher than those in AASHTO (2012). In general,
this study shows that the recommendations of the three design
guidelines discussed in the preceding section overestimate the
lateral resistance for larger pile groups and especially for pile
groups with fixed-head conditions. A possible explanation is that
the group reduction factors in these design guidelines are essen-
tially driven from experiments on 3 × 3 pile groups with free-head
conditions.
Acknowledgements
Support to conduct this study is provided by the Natural Sci-
ences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and
the Office of Graduate Studies at The University of British Columbia.
References
AASHTO. 2012. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 6th ed. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Wash-
For personal use only.
ington, D.C.
API. 2007. Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing
fixed offshore platforms. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD. 21st ed. Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Educa-
tion.
Brown, D., and Shie, C.-F. 1991. Modification of p-y curves to account for group
effects on laterally loaded piles. In ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 27.
Geotechnical Engineering Congress. ASCE. Vol. 1, pp. 479–490.
Brown, D.A., Reese, L.C., and O’Neill, M. 1987. Cyclic lateral loading of a large-
scale pile group. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(11): 1326–1343.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:11(1326).
Brown, D.A., Morrison, C., and Reese, L.C. 1988. Lateral load behavior of pile
group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114(11): 1261–1276. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:11(1261).
Brown, D.A., ONeill, M.W., Hoit, M., McVay, M., El-Naggar, M.H., and
Chakraborty, S. 2001. Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile groups. Tech-
nical Report NCHRP Report No.461. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Washington, D.C.
Christensen, D.S. 2006. Full scale static lateral load test of a 9 pile group in sand.
Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University.
Dodds, A.M., and Martin, G.R. 2007. Modeling pile behavior in large pile groups
under lateral loading. Technical Report MCEER-07-0004. The Multidisci-
plinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Buffalo, N.Y.
FEMA. 2012. Foundation analysis and design. FEMA P-751. In NEHRP recom-
mended provisions: design examples. Federal Emergency Management
769
Agency. National Institute of Building Sciences, Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, D.C., chapter 5.
Hannigan, P., Goble, G., Likins, G., and Rausche, F. 2006. Design and construc-
tion of driven pile foundations. Number FHWA-NHI-05-042. In Reference
manual. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C.
Huang, A., Hsueh, C., O’Neill, M.W., Chern, S., and Chen, C. 2001. Effects of
construction on laterally loaded pile groups. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(5): 385–397. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:5(385).
Itasca. 2009. FLAC: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions. Ver-
sion 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Larkela, A. 2008. Modeling of a pile group under static lateral loading. Master’s
thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
Law, H.K., and Lam, I.P. 2001. Application of periodic boundary for large pile
group. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10):
889–892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(889).
McVay, M., Casper, R., and Shang, T. 1995. Lateral response of three-row groups
in loose to dense sands at 3D and 5D pile spacing. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 121(5): 436–441. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:5(436).
McVay, M., Zhang, L., Molnit, T., and Lai, P. 1998. Centrifuge testing of large
laterally loaded pile groups in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, 124(10): 1016–1026. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1998)124:10(1016).
Morrison, C., and Reese, L.C. 1988. Lateral-load test of a full-scale pile group in
sand. Technical report. Geotechnical engineering report CR86-1. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Rahmani, A., Taiebat, M., and Finn, W.D.L. 2014. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
meloland road overpass using three-dimensional continuum modeling ap-
proach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 57: 121–132. doi:10.1016/
j.soildyn.2013.11.004.
Reese, L.C., and van Impe, W.F. 2010. Single piles and pile groups under lateral
loading. 2nd ed. CRC Press.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Arrellaga, J.A., and Hendrix, J. 1996. Computer program
GROUP for Windows. Version 4.0. User’s manual. Ensoft Inc., Austin, Tex.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Arrellaga, J.A., Hendrix, J., and Vasquez, L. 2010. Com-
puter program GROUP. Version 8.0. A program for analysis of group of piles
subjected to vertical and lateral loading. User’s manual. Ensoft Inc., Austin,
Texas.
Richart, F.E., Jr., Hall, J.R., Jr., and Woods, R.D. 1970. Vibrations of soils and
foundations (Prentice-Hall International Series in Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Rollins, K.M., and Sparks, A. 2002. Lateral resistance of full-scale pile cap with
gravel backfill. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
128(9): 711–723. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:9(711).
Rollins, K.M., Peterson, K.T., and Weaver, T.J. 1998. Lateral load behavior of
full-scale pile group in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124(6): 468–478. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:6(468).
Rollins, K.M., Lane, J.D., and Gerber, T.M. 2005. Measured and computed lateral
response of a pile group in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 131(1): 103–114. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:
1(103).
Rollins, K.M., Olsen, K.G., Jensen, D.H., Garrett, B.H., Olsen, R.J., and Egbert, J.J.
2006. Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(10): 1272–1283. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:10(1272).
Ruesta, P., and Townsend, F. 1997. Evaluation of laterally loaded pile group at
Roosevelt Bridge. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 123(12): 1153–1161. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:12(1153).
Snyder, J.L. 2004. Full-scale lateral load tests of a 3 × 5 pile group in soft clays and
silts. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University.
Walsh, J.M. 2005. Full-scale lateral load tests of a 3 × 5 pile group in sand. Master’s
thesis, Brigham Young University.
Published by NRC Research Press