Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Stiffness constants and interaction factors for vertical response of pile g)oups

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt

Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9
Received April 23, 1990
Accepted August 6 , 1990
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

Stiffness constants and flexibility coefficients of single piles and interaction factors are presented to facilitate the
analysis of pile groups subjected to static vertical loads. A continuous transition from friction to end-bearing piles
is accounted for. A new type of interaction factor, established from subgroups of five piles, is introduced for end-
bearing piles. This interaction factor allows for the stiffening effect of the piles occurring between the two reference
piles. This feature improves the accuracy of group analysis for end-bearing piles. Numerical results for axially loaded
single piles and pile groups are presented for a wide range of pile and soil parameters. The results are applicable to
both rigid and flexible caps.
Key words: piles, pile group, settlement, interaction

Pour faciliter l'analyse de groupes de pieux soumis a des charges statiques verticales, l'on prCseate les constantes
de rigidit6 et les coefficients de flexibiliti d'un pieu simple. Une transition continue de portance en friction vers une
portance en pointe des pieux est prise en compte. Un nouveau type de facteur d'interaction Ctabq. en partant de sous-
groupes de cinq pieux est introduit pour les pieux portant en pointe. Ce facteur d'interaction Gent compte de l'effet
d'augmentation de la rigidit6 des pieux qui se produit entre les deux pieux de rCfCrence. Cette caractbristique ameliore
la prCcision de l'analyse du groupe pour les pieux portant a la pointe. Des rCsultats numCriques pour les pieux simples
charges axialement et pour les groupes de pieux sont prCsentCs pour une plage Ctendue deparamktres de pieu et de
For personal use only.

sol. Les rCsultats sont applicables tant aux capuchons rigides que flexibles. La prCcision des donnCes publiCes est CvaluCe.
Mots elks : pieux, groupes de pieux, tassement, interaction.
[Traduit par la rkdaction]
Can. Geotech. J. 27, 813-822 (1990)

Introduction the data published may not be quite accurate, and the pile
Over the years, static response of pile foundations has interaction effects may be overestimated, particularly for
been investigated using a variety of empirical, analytical, end-bearing piles under vertical loads (El Sharnouby and
or numerical techniques. Static analyses of piles were for- Novak 1985). The latter inaccuracy may occur because the
mulated and made readily applicable by Poulos (1968, 1979), interaction factors being superimposed are calculated for any
Poulos and Davis (1980), Banerjee (1978), Butterfield and two piles in the group, ignoring the presence of the others
Douglas (1981), and also by El Sharnouby and Novak (1985, and thus disregarding the stiffening effect they have.
1986) and others. Although the amount of data is increasing, It is the purpose of this paper to alleviate some of these
much of it is limited by the choice of parameters. Moreover, limitations by providing a broad range of pile flexibility coef-
some of these data were obtained using a small number of ficients and a new type of interaction factor. The study is
elements yielding insufficient accuracy, particularly for long, limited to linear, elastic behaviour of single piles and pile
flexible piles. groups under vertical static loading. Horizontal flexibility
In groups of closely spaced piles, interaction between indi- coefficients and interaction factors are given elsewhere (e.g.,
vidual piles, known as pile-soil-pile interaction or group El Sharnouby and Novak 1986).
effect, occurs. The group effect increases group settlement, The analysis employed here is the same as that described
redistributes the loads on individual piles, and modifies in El Sharnouby and Novak (1985), but it is used to gener-
group flexibility and thus its stiffness. Analysis of pile groups ate new results and to evaluate the accuracy of published
can be conducted in two ways: either accurately, using a data.
computer-based direct analysis of the whole group, or Method of analysis
approximately, using superposition of interaction factors. The basic idea of the approach employed here is to view
The direct analysis is preferable because it is accurate within the whole pile or group with the soil as one composite con-
the validity of the assumptions made and provides more tinuum whose conditions of equilibrium are specified for
information, but the programmes are usually proprietary. a number of discrete points (nodes). The conditions of equi-
The advantages of the interaction-factor approach are that librium are expressed in terms of the stiffness method in
it is simple and the analysis can be conducted by means of which the structural stiffness of the pile is combined with
longhand calculation or very small computer programs. the stiffness of the soil medium.
The concept of interaction factors is very useful, partic- The key step in this solution is the determination of the
ularly for small groups, but its applicability may suffer from soil flexibility matrix. The nodal soil flexibility coefficients
a few drawbacks: the evaluation of large groups is tedious, can be generated by the application of uniform vertical shear
Printed in Canada / lmprime au Canada
814 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 27, 1990 , I \

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

Floating Piles

- --
/ / -

Present ( 50 Elements )
Poulos ( I0 Elements
Sal~nera( > 20 Elements )
For personal use only.

FIG. 1. Notation for pile group analysis and node numbering.

stresses distributed on the surface of each pile element. In

the authors' approach, the distributed shear stresses were
applied but then replaced by equivalent point loads FIG. 2. Dimensionless stiffness of single floating piles
judiciously chosen in such a way that they yield calculated by different authors for homogeneous soil and two stiff-
displacements at the reference point almost equal to those ness ratios.
produced by the distributed stresses. Simplifications of this
type have to be done carefully, as was shown by Rajapakse
and Shah (1989) in their dynamic analysis of single piles.
But when employed properly, the equivalent point loads can
give very satisfactory accuracy, as was found by El Sharnouby
and Novak (1985) and Hewitt (1988), and can make an effi- where A i and li are element's cross-sectional area and
cient analysis of large pile groups possible by cutting down length, respectively. The overall (global) structural-stiffness
substantially on computing time. matrix of the whole pile group [K,] is obtained by super-
The piles are assumed to be vertical and of constant cross imposing the individual element stiffness.
section. Each pile is divided into an equal number of The soil flexibility matrix, and thus the stiffness matrix,
elements. A total of 30 elements was found to yield suffi- is generated as described above, calculating the associated
cient accuracy in most cases, but for long piles (L/d > SO), displacements by means of the Mindlin (1936) solution
where L = pile length and d = pile diameter, 50 elements (details on this procedure can be found in El Sharnouby and
may be needed. Novak 1985.)
Soil nonhomogeneity, if present, is approximately
Continuum model for pile-soil-pile system accounted for by calculating the flexibility coefficient A,,
The pile-soil-pile system considered is shown with a Young's modulus equal to the average of the moduli
schematically in Fig. 1. The Young's moduli of the pile, sur- pertinent to stations i and j . The stiffness of the soil-pile
rounding soil, and bearing stratum are denoted by E,, E,, system, [ K ] ,is obtained by the superposition of the soil-
and Eb, respectively. For the analysis, each pile is divided and pile-stiffness matrices.
into m elements. Nodal points, for which pile displacements Then, the equilibrium condition, expressed for all nodes
are to be specified, are located on the axis of the piles. For of the soil-pile system, is written in the standard form, i.e.,
each pile, the first node is placed at the top of the pile, and
the last node is located at the bottom of the lowest element [21 ( P I = [Kl { v l
to accommodate the base reaction. in which {P}is the vector of vertical forces acting at the
The structural-stiffness matrix of the ith pile element has nodes, and { v } is the vector of nodal displacements. With
the standard form, e.g., node numbering starting from the top,

End Bearing Piles

18 - Floattng Piles
Ep/Es = 100
V = 0.5 16 - Homogeneous Soil
\ 9, /."/ (ZO Elefi*"' -
.\ /B\~"e'l .0


4 -
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

End-Bearing Piles
Ep /Es = 1000 FIG.4. Dimensionless pile stiffness versus pile-soil stiffness
V = 0.5 ratio for homogeneous soil.
For personal use only.

Present ( 50 Elements )
Salinero (>20 Elements)
25 50 75 100

FIG.3. Dimensionless stiffness of single end-bearing piles for

homogeneous soil. (a) Ep/Es= 100; ( b )Ep/Es= 1000.

PI { v ) = [ V Ivz v3 ... vnml T

where n and m specify the number of piles and elements,
respectively. For a pile group, the dimension of the system-
stiffness matrix is ( n x m) by ( n x m), and the number
of elements in both the load vector and the displacement
vector is ( n x m). The number of elements per pile con- FIG.5. Dimensionless pile stiffness versus pile-soil stiffness
sidered in this analysis is 50 for single piles and groups of ratio for parabolic soil profile.
two piles and 30 for larger groups.
The analysis was efficiently programmed using the flexi-
bility approach to reduce the computing time (Novak et al. pose of data presentation, the pile stiffness constant, K, is
1990), and an extensive parametric study was conducted. described as
The results are presented in the form of charts in the para-
graphs that follow.
Stiffness and flexibility coefficients of single piles where E, is Young's modulus of soil, r is the radius of a
The analysis outlined was used to calculate pile flexibility circular pile or equivalent radius of a noncircular pile, A,
coefficients and stiffness constants for a broad range of is pile cross sectional area, and K' is a dimensionless stiff-
parameters. ness constant depending on the ratios E,/E, and L/d. Con-
The following conditions were considered: soil is versely, the pile flexibility coefficient, F = 1/K, can be
homogeneous or its shear modulus diminishes upward expressed using a dimensionless flexibility coefficient, F' , as
according to a quadratic parabola or linearly; the piles are
floating or rest on a bearing stratum, allowing for a con-
tinuous transition from friction to end-bearing piles;
slenderness ratio, L/d, varies from 25 to 100, and pile- Using the dimensionless stiffness and flexibility, the results
stiffness ratio, E,/E,, varies from 100 to 10 000. The pile of the parametric study are presented in Figs. 2-8 (G, =
cross section is constant. soil shear modulus). The charts can be used for design pur-
Pile stiffness is calculated from [2] as the force needed poses and for the assessment of the accuracy of published
to produce a unit displacement at the pile head. For the pur- data.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14
For personal use only.
i. 817

\ ---
Present ( 5 0 Elements ) - - Floating Piles
\ Poulos ( 10 Elements ) 2. 0.6 - L/d = 25
0.4 -

0.2 -
\ L / d = I00 -
C -
O i S /d 1, 4 d/S
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

-u Floating Piles
0.6 - L/d = 50
0.4 -
a --- Poulos ( 10 Elements )

- Present ( 5 0 Elements ) 9
0.2 -
Ep/ES = 1000
For personal use only.

1 Floating Piles I Ep /Es = 100
0.6 -
Floating Piles


0.4 -

.= 0.2 -
FIG. 9. Comparison between interaction factors by Poulos u
(1968) and using the present formulation for floating piles. z

2 3 4 5 d/S
because the soil Young's modulus, E,, is specified at the
pile tip, and the uppermost part of the long pile is adjacent FIG. 10. Interaction factors versus pile spacing for different
to soil having a very small Young's modulus. pile-soil stiffness ratios; floating piles and homogeneous soil.
The magnitude of pile stiffness decreases significantly with
the changing of the soil profile from homogeneous to
parabolic to linear (Fig. 7). This indicates the importance
of determining the soil profile correctly and the need to Interaction factors
account for the reduction of the soil modulus towards The interaction factors, introduced by Poulos (1968) and
ground surface associated with the reduction in confining widely used in practice, are defined for two equally loaded
pressure. piles as the ratio
Figure 8 displays the vertical dimensionless flexibility for settlement of one pile owing to adjacent pile load
single piles in homogeneous soil for a wide range of the pile- [6] a =
soil stiffness ratio, Ep/E,, and slenderness ratio L/d plot- pile settlement under its own load
ted versus the stiffness of the underlying stratum ratio, For larger groups, these interaction factors are superim-
Eb/Es, where Eb is Young's modulus of the underlying posed to yield the total settlement. A large amount of infor-
stratum. These charts indicate a number of important mation is available on the interaction factors in the litera-
features. Pile-soil stiffness ratio is a major factor affecting ture, particularly in Poulos and Davis (1980). However,
pile flexibility (notice the logarithmic scale for the vertical some of the interaction factors are overestimated, particu-
and horizontal axes). The flexibility dramatically increases larly for end-bearing piles. There are two reasons for this:
with the decrease in Ep/E, for all pile slenderness ratios, first, they were calculated considering two piles of the group
L/d, and over the whole range of base stiffness from floating at a time, ignoring the stiffening effect of the other piles;
to end-bearing piles. Pile flexibility is almost independent second, the number of elements was limited to 10 per pile
of tip condition for long piles or very stiff soil (small in that analysis which may induce an error similar to that
Ep/Es) but depends very much on tip condition for short observed with single piles in Fig. 3. For these reasons, the
piles in weaker soil. Longer piles possess less flexibility for present method is employed to verify the accuracy of the
a moderately stiff base, but for a very rigid base, shorter standard interaction factors and introduce a set of alternative
piles are stiffer then longer piles. factors.
818 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 27, 1990 \

J / I ,

-tc End - Bearing Piles


5F 0.3 - Ep /E, = 1000 ---m m 0

L/d = 5 0 1 2 3
0.1 - -- - -+
-- --
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

FIG. 12. Comparison between the standard interaction factors

and interaction factors calculated with an intermediate pile.

The direct analysis was conducted using the approach

outlined. Groups of 9, 25, and 100 piles were considered,
all bearing on a stratum whose base-stiffness ratio, Eb/Es,
varied from 1 to 10.
For Eb/Esequal to one, the piles are floating and the
agreement between the two approac_hesis excellent, even for
1 2 3 4
FLOATllVG - - 5 6 7
8 9 1 0 1 1
FIG. 11. Normalized pile group stiffness calculated directly and
the large groups, indicating the validity of the interaction-
factors approach. ;.
As the base stiffness and the ratio Eb/Es increase,
approaching the end-bearing condition, the results of the
using interaction factors. two analyses diverge, with t h interaction-factor
~ approach
For personal use only.

consistently underestimating the actual group stiffness by

a substantial margin, i.e., by a factor of two or more for
Figures 9a and 9b show the calculated interaction factors the larger groups. The explanation for this is that for the
for floating piles plotted together with those of Poulos (1968) stiff base, the reinforcing effect of all the piles present
for two values of the slenderness ratio, L/d, and three values reduces the deflection of the pile for which the interaction
of the stiffness ratio, E,/E,, all plotted versus the spacing factor is evaluated, an effect not accounted for in the stan-
ratio, S/d, where S is the pile separation. Poulos' interac- dard calculation of the interaction factors. For floating piles,
tion factors are up to 25% greater than those from the pres- the axial stiffness is much less and so is the reinforcing effect
ent formulation for flexible piles, but the differences reduce of the group.
for stiffer piles. The difference appears to be due to the Thus the conclusion emerges that the interaction-factor
limited accuracy attainable with 10 elements. In the present approach provides sufficient accuracy for floating piles but
analysis 50 elements per pile were used. may substantially underestimate the stiffness for end-bearing
Figure 10 displays the interaction factors versus the spac- piles.
ing ratio for three slenderness ratios and three stiffness To further illustrate these points, Fig. 12 compares the
ratios, all for homogeneous soil. Such charts represent flex- interaction factors for end-bearing piles calculated in the
ibility coefficients normalized by deflections of the refer- traditional fashion, considering only two piles at a time with
ence pile, pertinent to a group -of two piles. Using these the interaction factors between the same two piles calculated
interaction factors, in addition to single pile flexibility coef- with the presence of an intermediate unloaded pile. Figure 12
ficients, a complete flexibility matrix for a larger pile group indicates that the standard interaction factors give con-
can be established, as will be shown later herein when sistenly higher values. The resulting error may accumulate
discussing group stiffness and flexibility in more detail. The in calculating the group settlement of end-bearing piles. This
effect of the soil profile on the interaction factors (actually observation is valid not only for completely end-bearing piles
normalized deflections) is not very strong because the deflec- but also for piles resting on any stiffer stratum, a case often
tions of both piles are influenced by the soil properties in found in practice. Thus, there is a need for a more reliable
a similar way @I Sharnouby and Novak 1985). Nevertheless, method of calculating group settlement.
interaction factors depending on the soil profile are available
It may be mentioned that the interaction-factor approach
in Randolph and Poulos (1982). would be mathematically accurate, and consistent with the
flexibility method of structural theory, if the single-pile prop-
Groups of end-bearing piles erties and the interaction factors were evaluated with all the
The accuracy of the interaction-factor approach can be piles in the group present. Although the computer programs
examined by comparing the pile group stiffness calculated based on the direct method of analyzing the pile group pro-
directly for the whole group with that evaluated by means vide the best results, they are usually large and are often
of interaction factors. Such a comparison is made in 'Fig. 11 proprietary and therefore unavailable to all designers. The
in which the group efficiency is the ratio of the actual group interaction-factor approach is easy to apply. To improve the
stiffness, KG, divided by the sum of stiffnesses of individ- accuracy of the latter approach, a new alternative type of
ual piles, nK, considered in isolation (n = number of piles). interaction factors is presented below.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 500 1000
I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 500 1000
FIG. 14. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
FIG. 13. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness ratio and stiffness of underlying s t ~ a t u mfor L / d = 25 and
ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L / d = 25 and S / d = 3.
S / d = 2.5. :.
stiff piles, whereas for flexible this variation is moderate
and levels off quickly. Thus, flexible end-bearing piles pro-
Interaction factors established from subgroup of five duce more interaction than stiff end-bearing piles, whereas
For personal use only.

piles flexible floating piles give less interaction than stiff piles.
To improve the analysis of pile groups resting on stiffer For long piles with L/d r 50, the variation of interaction
strata, the direct method was applied to a line subgroup of factors for flexible piles (Ep/Es = 100) with base stiffness
five piles to establish the interaction factors considering the is not plotted because it was found that for such piles the
presence of all these piles. The first pile of the group was interaction factors are independent of the tip condition.
loaded by a unit vertical load, and the other piles remained Therefore, interaction factors of floating piles shown in
unloaded. The flexibilities of all five piles were determined, Fig. 3 can be used for this particular situation.
and the flexibilities of the unloaded piles were normalized
by the flexibility of the loaded pile. These normalized flex- Group stiffness and flexibility
ibilities represent the new interaction factors. These factors The flexibility coefficients and interaction factors pre-
are still not quite accurate because it is impossible to pre- sented above can be used to evaluate the flexibility and stiff-
sent them for any group size and shape, but they at least ness of the whole group of piles. This can be done in a few
partly account for the stiffening effect of the other piles, . ways, depending on the type of pile cap and the accuracy
normally completely disregarded. required.
The interaction factors calculated in this way are defined First, the group flexibility matrix, [FG], may be
as usual by [6]. When evaluating the interaction factors, only assembled; its diagonal elements are equal to the flexibility
the displacements occurring in the vertical direction are coefficients of individual piles F;, and the off-diagonal
considered. elements are expressed using the interaction factors as
These new interaction factors were calculated for a broad where ij = 1, 2, 3,..., n, and n is the number of piles in
range of parameters. Examples of them are displayed in the group.
Figs. 13 and 14. These charts are for homogeneous soil and Then, for flexible caps or structures supported directly
a continuous transition from floating to end-bearing piles on individual piles, the group stiffness matrix [KG] =
represented by the base-stiffness ratio Eb/Es. In each chart,
[FG] can be combined with the stiffness matrix of the
four interaction factors are plotted for three pile-soil stiff- cap or the superstructure, and the analysis of the response
ness ratios; azlrepresents the interaction factor for a pile to external loads can proceed.
at a distance of one S from the reference loaded pile. The For rigid caps, the vertical stiffness of the group of equal
interaction factors a 3 ~ a41,
, and as, are related to the piles, KG, can be evaluated approximately as
distances of 2S, 3S, and 4S from the reference pile, respec- I n n \
tively. For very large distances, the magnitude of the interac-
tion factors diminishes, becoming less significant, and can
be established using extrapolation and published data.
For other pile lengths and spacings, the interaction fac- in which K = 1 / F is the stiffness of a single pile, ariis the
tors are given in Appendix A. The Poisson's ratio assumed interaction factor between the reference pile and the ith pile
was v = 0.50, but its magnitude has little effect. in the group, and a,, is unity. The reference pile should not
Figures 13, 14, and A1-A6 show that the variation of be at the extremity or right in the centre of the group. The
interaction factors with base stiffness is quite dramatic for underlying assumption in this evaluation is that the piles are
820 C A N . GEOTECH. J. VOL. 27, 1990

- E p / E s = 1000
_ L/d = 2 5
Y = 0.5 Y = 0.5
S/d = 2.5 S/d = 2.5


Direct Method
- N - Direct Method
---- New Interaction --- New Interaction -
Factors Factors
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

Standard Interaction Standard Interaction-

Factors Factors
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l i l t

5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000 5 10 50 100 500 1000


FIG. 15. Vertical stiffness of nine piles versus stiffness of F I G . 16. Vertical stiffness of 25 piles versus stiffness of
underlying stratum using standard interaction factors, new interac- underlying stratum using standard interaction factors, new interac-
tion factors, and direct analysis (L/d = 25; E,/E, = 1000; tion factors, and direct analysis (L/d = 25; E,/E, = 1000;
S/d = 2.5; v = 0.5; homogeneous soil). S/d = 2.5; v = 0.5; homogeneous soil).

equally loaded, which for a rigid cap is strictly true only for ones. For floating piles (Eb/Es = 1); the three approaches
a symmetrical group of four or a pile ring. give almost the same results, just'as in Fig. 11; as Eb/Es
A more rigorous formula for rigid caps can be derived increases, the approaches diverge, with the direct analysis
by imposing identical displacements on all pile heads and giving consistently the highest group efficiency. The dif-
using, again, the interaction factors to describe group flex- ference also increases with number of piles, as can be seen
ibility. This procedure gives the vertical stiffness as in Figs. 15 and 16.
For personal use only.

Figures 15 and 16 suggest that for end-bearing piles the

181 KG = K C C Eij superposition of the standard interaction factors may exag-
gerate the pile-soil-pile interaction effect by up to 50%. The
i i
new interaction factors reduce this difference.
in which Eijare the elements of the matrix
Such a reduction is an important one because there is a
191 [El = [aij]-' possibility that the interaction effects in reality may be
reduced by soil nonlinearity and the deficiency of the con-
The interaction matrix [au] lists the interaction factors tact between the pile and the soil. Indications of this can
between any two piles in the group, the diagonal elements be found in the nonlinear analysis of Trochanis et al. (1988),
aiiare equal to unity, and the matrix is symmetrical, with the experiments described in Janes and Novak (1989) and
dimensions n x n. The double sum indicates the summa- Novak and Janes (1989), and the dynamic solution due to
tion of all elements of the inverted interaction matrix, [El. Sheta and Novak (1982).
Details on this formulation can be found in a more general
form in Novak and Mitwally (1990). Summary and conclusions
For small groups whose caps are either rigid or completely
flexible, group stiffness and flexibility can be obtained by Stiffness constants and flexibility coefficients of single
writing the conditions of equilibrium at pile heads using the piles are presented together with interaction factors estab-
superposition of the interaction factors and applying the lished for groups of two and five piles to facilitate the anal-
boundary conditions (Poulos and Davis 1980). ysis of arbitrary pile groups exposed to static vertical loads.
These data are plotted in the form of dimensionless charts
It may be mentioned that the direct analysis described and
the computer program based on it (Novak et al. 1990) are for the following conditions: a continuous transition from
also suited for very large groups, stratified soils, layering friction piles to end-bearing piles; homogeneous, parabolic,
under the pile tip, and even for piles with different lengths, or linear soil profile; and a wide range of pile-soil stiffness
ratios and pile slenderness ratios.
materials, and diameters. In addition to group stiffness and
flexibility, loads on individual piles are also established. Comparison of the data presented suggests a number of
Example (i) Vertical stiffness of long, flexible piles is almost inde-
To illustrate the improvement in accuracy that the new pendent of their length and tip condition.
interaction factors can provide, two square groups of 9 and (ii) Pile stiffness decreases significantly with the chang-
25 identical piles with rigid caps and embedded in a ing of the soil profile from homogeneous to parabolic to
homogeneous deposit were analyzed. The group stiffness linear.
calculated is plotted versus under-layer stiffness in Figs. 15 (iii) The application of the standard interaction-factor
and 16. The pile-stiffness ratio = 1000, slenderness approach to large groups of end-bearing piles may substan-
ratio = 25, and spacing ratio S/d = 2.5. The group stiff- tially underestimate group stiffness and overestimate its
ness KG is plotted in a normalized form as the group effi- settlement.
ciency ratio = KG/nK. The group stiffnesses in Figs. 15 (iv) The new interaction factors established from a
and 16 were evaluated by direct analysis and using [7] with subgroup of five piles reduce the difference between the
the standard interaction factors due to Poulos and the new direct analysis and the interaction-factor approach.
, 82 1
' .. b,

( v ) The group flexibility matrix can be easily assembled . Conference on Numerical Methods in Offehore Piling, Univer-
and applied to groups with rigid or flexible caps. sity of Texas, Austin, TX, pp. 313-328.
(vi) Further research should include end-bearing piles in SANCHEZ-SALINERO, I. 1982. Static and dynamic stiffnesses of
nonhomogeneous soil, nonlinearity, soil interaction with the single piles. Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas
at Austin, Geotechnical Engineering Report GR82-31.
cap, and field experiments.
SHETA,M., and NOVAK,M. 1982. Vertical vibration of pile
groups. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
Acknowledgement sion, 108(GT4): 570-590.
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the TROCHANIS, A.M., BIELAK,J., and CHRISTIANO, P. 1988. A
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of three-dimensional nonlinear study of piles leading to the devel-
Canada, which made this project possible. opment of a simplified model. Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Technical Report of
Research, R-88-1976.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

BANERJEE, P.K. 1978. Analysis of axially and laterally loaded pile

groups. I n Developments in soil mechanics. Edited by Appendix A New interaction factors
C.R. Scott. Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 317-346. In Figs. A1-A6, the interaction factors calculated from
BLANEY,G.W., KAUSEL,E., and ROESSET,J.M. 1976. Dynamic a subgroup of five piles linearly arranged are presented for
stiffness of piles. Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Blacksburg, VA,
slenderness ratios L / d = 25 and 50, spacing ratios n x S ,
pp. 1001-1012. where S / d = 2.5, 3, 4, and 5, and stiffness ratios
BUTTERFIELD, R., and DOUGLAS,R.A. 1981. Flexibility coeffi- E J E , = 100, 1 000, and 10 000. The base-stiffness ratio E,/E,
cients for the design of piles and pile groups. Construction Indus- is variable, and the soil is homogeneous. For other data, interpola-
try Research and Information Association, 6 Storey's Gate, tion can be used.
London, United Kingdom, Technical Notes 108. >;

EL SHARNOUBY, B., and NOVAK,M. 1985. Static and low fre-

quency response of pile groups. Canadian Geotechnical Jour- L/d = 25 ;,
nal, 22: 79-94. S/d = 4 8

1986. Flexibility coefficients and interaction factors for pile -5 ---

EF /E, = 10000

group analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23: 441-450. - 0.4 E p / E s = 1000

For personal use only.

HEWITT,C.M. 1988. Cyclic response of offshore pile groups.

Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, The Uni-
versity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
JANES,M., and NOVAK,M. 1989. Pile group response to large
lateral loads. Proceedings, 42nd Canadian Geotechnical Con-
ference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 23-25, pp. 216-222.
MINDLIN, R.D. 1936. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-
infinite solid. Physics, 7: 195-202.
NOVAK,M. 1977. Vertical vibration of floating piles. ASCE Jour-
nal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 103(EM1): 153-168.
NOVAK,M., and EL SHARNOUBY, B. 1983. Stiffness constants of
single piles. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(7):
961-974. I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 l l t l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000
1985. Pile groups under static and dynamic loading. Pro- FLOATING Eb/Es END BEARING
ceedings, 1lth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and '

Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, vol. 3, pp. 1449-1454. FIG. A l . Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
NOVAK,M., and JANES,M. 1989. Dynamic and static response ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L/d = 25 and
of pile groups. Proceedings, 12th International Conference on S/d = 4.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
pp. 1175-1 178.
NOVAK,M., and MITWALLY, H. 1990. Random response of off-
shore towers with pile-soil-pile interaction. Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 112: 35-41.
GROUPSET a program to calculate the stiffness and settlement
of vertical piles and pile groups in layered media. Geotechnical
Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Science, The Uni-
versity of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Report No. GEOP
90-4, Oct.
POULOS,H.G. 1968. Analysis of the settlement of pile groups.
GCotechnique, 18: 449-471.
1979. Group factors for pile-deflection estimation. ASCE
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, lOS(GT12):
P o u ~ o s H.G.,
, and DAVIS,E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis
and design. John Wiley & Sons, New York. I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000
RAJAPAKSE, R.K.N.D., and SHAH,A.H. 1989. Impedance curves FLOATING Eb/Es END BEARING
for an elastic pile. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
8(3): 145-152. FIG. A2. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
RANDOLPH, M.F., and POULOS,H.G. 1982. Estimating the flex- ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L / d = 25 and
ibility of offshore pile groups. Proceedings, 2nd International S/d = 5.
822 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 27, 1990 ,>
, , I \
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/12/14

I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 FLOATING
I 5 10 50 100 b
5 0 0 1000
FLOATING €/I Es END BEARING FIG. AS. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
FIG. A3. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness ratio and stiffness of underlying strdum for L / d = 50 and
ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L / d = 50 and S/d = 4.
S/d = 2.5. :.
I I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ I I I I I IIII 1 1 l ( 1 1 1 ,
For personal use only.

I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I IIIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000

1 l 1 l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
FIG. A6. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
I 5 10 50 100 5 0 0 1000 ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L / d = 50 and
FIG. A4. Variation of interaction factors with pile-soil stiffness
ratio and stiffness of underlying stratum for L / d = 50 and
S/d = 3.