1293

Load tests on full-scale bored pile groups

Guoliang Dai, Rodrigo Salgado, Weiming Gong, and Yanbei Zhang

Abstract: The interactions between closely spaced piles in a pile group are complex. Very limited experimental data are
available on the loading of full-scale bored pile groups. This paper reports the results of axial static load tests of both full-
scale instrumented pile groups and single piles. The load tests aimed to ascertain the influence of number, length, and
spacing of the piles on pile group load response. Experiments varied in the number of piles in the group, pile spacing, type
of pile groups, and pile length. All piles had a diameter of 400 mm. Two-, four-, and nine-pile groups with pile lengths of
20 and 24 m were tested. As the isolated piles and some piles in the pile groups were instrumented, the load transfer and
load–settlement curves of both piles in isolation and individual instrumented piles in the groups were obtained. The
interaction coefficient for each pile in the group was back-calculated from the measured data. The interaction coefficients
are shown to be dependent on pile proximity, as usually assumed in elastic analyses, but also on settlement and on the size
of the group.
Key words: pile groups, load transfer, settlement ratio, interaction coefficient.
Résumé : Les interactions entre des pieux placés à proximité les uns des autres dans un groupe de pieux sont complexes.
Très peu de données expérimentales sont disponibles sur les chargements de groupes de pieux foncés, à l’échelle réelle.
Cet article présente les résultats d’essais de chargement statique axial sur des groupes de pieux et des pieux individuels
instrumentés à l’échelle réelle. Les essais de chargement visaient à confirmer l’influence du nombre, de la longueur et de
l’espacement des pieux sur le comportement de groupes de pieux. Les essais ont permis de varier le nombre de pieux dans
un groupe, l’espacement entre les pieux, le type de groupe de pieux et la longueur des pieux. Tous les pieux avaient un
diamètre de 400 mm. Des groupes de deux pieux, de quatre pieux et de neuf pieux, avec une longueur de 20 m et de 24 m
respectivement, ont été testés. Puisque les pieux individuels et quelques pieux à l’intérieur des groupes ont été
instrumentés, les courbes de transfert de charge et de tassement total ont été obtenues autant pour les pieux isolés que pour
les pieux individuels faisant partie d’un groupe. Le coefficient d’interaction pour chaque pieu dans le groupe a été rétro-
calculé à partir des données mesurées. On a démontré que les coefficients d’interaction dépendent de la proximité des
pieux, tel que normalement supposé dans les analyses élastiques, mais aussi du tassement et de la taille du groupe.
Mots-clés : groupe de pieux, transfert de charge, ratio de tassement, coefficient d’interaction.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction (length to pile diameter) greater than 100) and an associated

need for more refined designs. In pursuing more refined de-
Infrastructure construction in China has proceeded at a fast signs, one of the areas where real data from instrumented
pace. Many large-span bridges have been built across the structures is most lacking is pile groups.
Yangtze River, across the Yellow River, and even across the Settlement analyses of pile groups (e.g., Poulos 1968;
ocean. Examples include the Jiangyin Yangtze River Bridge, Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Randolph and Wroth 1979;
Runyang Yangtze River Bridge, Sutong Yangtze River Poulos and Randolph 1983; Poulos 1989; Chow and Teh 1991;
Bridge, Hangzhou Bay Sea Bridge, and Donghai Sea Bridge. Lee 1993a, 1993b; Mandolini and Viggiani 1997; Mylonakis
As an illustration of this type of foundation in engineering and Gazetas 1998; Randolph 2003; Leung et al. 2010) are
practice, the two main-span foundations of the Sutong Yangtze based on a variety of approaches, which include boundary-
River Bridge consist of 131 117 m long piles with diameters in element methods, the hybrid load transfer approach, and the
the 2.8 –2.5 m range with pile caps having plan dimensions of finite element method. Despite some theoretical advances in
50 m by 48 m and thickness varying between 5 and 13 m. the analyses and prediction of pile group behavior in the last
These bridges all have large spans and consequently require few decades, analyses are still based largely on simplifications
piles with large load capacity in pile-based foundation solu- of the problem and of the constitutive behavior of the soil.
tions. This in turn leads to the use of a large number of piles Consequently, static load tests on groups remain the most
with large diameters and long lengths (sometimes referred to reliable means of assessing pile group response under design
as “super long” piles, which might be generally thought of as loads. Some model and field pile group vertical load tests have
piles with lengths greater than 100 m or slenderness ratio been performed (Whitaker 1957; Hanna 1963; Barden and
Received 8 November 2011. Accepted 31 July 2012. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 8 November 2012.
G. Dai and W. Gong. School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2 Sipailou, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210096, China.
R. Salgado and Y. Zhang. School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Corresponding author: Guoliang Dai (e-mail: daigl@seu.edu.cn).

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 1293–1308 (2012) doi:10.1139/t2012-087 Published by NRC Research Press
Dai et al. 1301

Table 5. Top and base loads for single piles and individual instrumented piles in the nine-pile groups at three different load levels.

Load ⫽ 9360 kN Load ⫽ 7200 kN Load ⫽ 5760 kN

Base load Top load Ratio Base load Top load Ratio Base load Top load Ratio
Pile No. (kN) (kN) (%) (kN) (kN) (%) (kN) (kN) (%)
QZ9-1 (corner) 22 979 2.25 15 832 1.80 0 660 0.00
QZ9-4 (edge) 40 943 4.24 7 748 0.94 0 630 0.00
QZ9-5 (center) 86 1060 8.11 15 740 2.03 3 580 0.52
QZ9L-1 (corner) 27 1060 2.55 11 832 1.32 0 681 0.00
QZ9L-4 (edge) 50 1123 4.45 17 748 2.27 8 605 1.32
QZ9L-5 (center) 59 896 6.58 28 677 4.14 8 548 1.46

Fig. 10. Pile head and base loads versus pile group load for the
The relative density, DR (%), of the sand is calculated nine-pile groups: (a) L ⫽ 20 m; (b) L ⫽ 24 m.
through the correlation with CPT test results proposed by
Salgado and Prezzi (2007) (a) 1200
QZ9-1: top

Pile top or base load (kN)

1000 QZ9-1: base
[9] DR ⫽ QZ9-4: top

共 兲 σh

共兲
qc 800 QZ9-4: base
ln ⫺ 0.4947 ⫺ 0.1041φc ⫺ 0.841 ln QZ9-5: top
pA pA 600 QZ9-5: base

0.064 ⫺ 0.0002φc ⫺ 0.0047 ln

σh

pA 共兲 400

200

σh

where qc is the tip resistance from CPT test results and is the 0
lateral earth pressure.      
The top soil layer from 0 to 10 m has a qc value of roughly Pile group load (kN)
2 MPa in a material that is a mix of sand, clay, and silt and
could be treated either as a loose sand layer or a stiff clay layer.
The lower and upper bound values of limit shaft resistances (b) 1400
QZ9L-1: top
corresponding to the clay layers can be obtained by setting φc – 1200 QZ9L-1: base
Pile top or base load (kN)

φr,min ⫽ 0 and 12° and taking OCR ⫽ 1 to obtain a conservative 1000

lower bound. K0 for the sand layer was assumed equal to 0.5. The
calculated lower bounds of the limit shaft resistances for the 20
and 24 m long piles are1290 and 1440 kN, respectively, when the
mixed soil in the top 10 m is treated as a clay. The calculated
upper bound of the limit shaft resistances for the 20 and 24 m
long piles are 2000 and 2340 kN, respectively, when the mixed
soil in the upper 10 m is treated as a sand.
It can be seen from these comparisons that the conservative
lower bound estimates are of the order of but slightly less than the
mobilized shaft resistance and that upper bound estimates exceed
it, which is consistent with indications that the shaft resistance
measured in the tests may have approached but was not fully
mobilized by its limit value at the time the load test was stopped.
The implication of these considerations is that, for slender piles
with little to no base resistance, superstructure ultimate limit
states can be reached without full mobilization of shaft resistance.
Tables 3 and 4 show that the limit unit shaft resistances of
QZ2-1 and QZ2L-1 are very close to those of DZ1 and DZL1,
respectively, which indicates that the pile interaction in the two-
pile groups is relatively small. The limit unit shaft resistances at
comparable locations down the pile for QZ4-1 and QZ4-4 are
similar in the last loading step, but their values are less than that
of the corresponding single piles. The group effect intensifies for
QZ9 and QZ9L, leading to lower unit shaft resistances.
The pile head loads were measured using load cells. The
pile base resistance of each of the instrumented piles was taken
QZ9L-4: top
QZ9L-4: base
800 QZ9L-5: top
QZ9L-5: base
600
400
200
0
      
Pile group load (kN)
as the axial force measured at the last instrumented section,
located 1m from the pile base. The pile head and base loads are
shown in Table 5 and Fig. 10 for the nine-pile groups and for
the single piles under different load levels.
From Table 5 and Fig. 10 for QZ9 and QZ9L, it can be seen
that the corner piles have the largest pile load, followed by the
side and then central piles, as expected. This confirms intuition
based on elasticity solutions that if the pile cap is flexible and
the loads on every pile are as a result the same, the center pile
would be expected to settle the most, showing that it has the
lowest stiffness. When imposing the same settlement on all piles,
we would therefore expect the center pile to carry the smallest

Published by NRC Research Press

1302 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Table 6. Values of Q/Qav in group QZ9.

Total load on Average load Measured load Measured load Measured load
pile group, per pile, for QZ9-1, for QZ9-4, for QZ9-5,
Q (kN) Qav ⫽ Q/9 Q1 (kN) Q1/Qav Q4 (kN) Q4/Qav Q5 (kN) Q5/Qav
1440 160 154 0.96 169 1.06 120 0.75
2160 240 260 1.08 249 1.04 206 0.86
2880 320 340 1.06 303 0.95 287 0.90
3600 400 430 1.08 390 0.98 354 0.89
4320 480 500 1.04 470 0.98 430 0.90
5040 560 580 1.04 538 0.96 474 0.85
5760 640 660 1.03 630 0.98 580 0.91
6480 720 766 1.06 710 0.99 637 0.89
7200 800 832 1.04 748 0.94 740 0.93
7920 880 900 1.02 870 0.99 820 0.93
8640 960 998 1.04 935 0.97 900 0.94
9360 1040 979 0.94 943 0.91 1060 1.02

Table 7. Values of Q/Qav in group QZ9L.

Total load on Average load Measured load Measured load Measured load
pile group, per pile, for QZ9L-1, for QZ9L-4, for QZ9L-5,
Q (kN) Qav ⫽ Q/9 Q1 (kN) Q1/Qav Q4 (kN) Q4/Qav Q5 (kN) Q5/Qav
1440 160 185 1.15 142 0.89 114 0.71
2160 240 260 1.08 249 1.04 176 0.73
2880 320 305 0.95 351 1.10 260 0.81
3600 400 430 1.08 450 1.13 311 0.78
4320 480 535 1.11 452 0.94 376 0.78
5040 560 602 1.08 538 0.96 445 0.80
5760 640 681 1.06 605 0.95 548 0.86
6480 720 766 1.06 691 0.96 585 0.81
7200 800 832 1.04 748 0.94 677 0.85
7920 880 900 1.02 921 1.05 759 0.86
8640 960 998 1.04 935 0.97 812 0.85
9360 1040 1060 1.02 1123 1.08 896 0.86

load, as indeed observed. This order reverses when the base load
is considered instead (although base loads are small, so compar-
isons must be made cautiously). The experimental results seem to
capture an aspect of pile group response that is not often com-
mented on. The base of the pile located towards the center of the
group is more constrained because of the surrounding piles,
which may lead to a greater base resistance.
Because of symmetry, the head and base loads for piles in
two-pile and square four-pile groups are expected to be the
same. As seen earlier, that is not the case for the piles in the
nine-pile groups. The ratio of the individual pile load to
the average individual load in the group, Qi/Qav, is tabulated in
Tables 6 and 7. The key for the identification of the individual
piles in each group is shown in Fig. 1. The load on the outer
piles of each group is observed to be greater than the average
load Qav. The same result is illustrated in Fig. 11.
For QZ9, the ratio of pile head load of QZ9-1 (the corner
pile) to an average of the pile head load during the loading
process fluctuates between 0.94 and 1.08. The ratio of QZ9-4
(the side pile) is in the range from 0.91 to 1.06, and the ratio
of QZ9-5 (the center pile) is between 0.75 and 1.02. For
QZ9L, the corner, edge, and central pile ratios fluctuate be-
tween 1.02 and 1.15, 0.89 and 1.13, and 0.71 and 0.86,
respectively. What emerges clearly from these numbers is the
lower load at the center.
Figure 12 shows individual pile load versus group settle-
ment curves for QZ9 and QZ9L. For comparison, the load–
settlement curves of DZ1 and DZ1L are also shown in Fig. 12.
For small group loads, for which linear elastic solutions would
be most applicable, a random load distribution is obtained,
with no definite pattern. When Q10% is approached, there is a
redistribution of the load, and the position of the pile within
the group begins to influence the load it carries. Generally, at the
same settlement, the load on an individual pile within the group
is always less than the load for the corresponding single pile.
Implied interaction coefficients
Elasticity-based solutions
Considerable work has been done on the calculation of the
settlement of pile groups. Most proposed methods are based on
linear elastic solutions. A realistic solution to the settlement

Published by NRC Research Press

Dai et al. 1303

Fig. 11. Ratio of the individual pile load to the average individual Fig. 12. Individual pile load versus group settlement relationship
load, Qi/Qav, for the two nine-pile groups: (a) L ⫽ 20 m; (b) L ⫽ 24 m. for the two nine-pile groups: (a) L ⫽ 20 m; (b) L ⫽ 24 m.

(a) 1.40 (a) Q (kN)

1.20     

1.00

0.80 
Qi/Qav

QZ9-1
0.60 QZ9-4 
QZ9-5
0.40

w (mm)
 '=
0.20
 4=
0.00
4=
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 
4=
Qav (kN)


(b) 1.40 

1.20
(b) Q (kN)
1.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000

0.80 0
Qi/Qav

0.60 QZ9L-1 10
QZ9L-4
0.40 QZ9L-5 20
0.20
w (mm)

30 DZ1L
0.00
40 QZ9L-1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Qav (kN) QZ9L-4
50
QZ9L-5
60

70
calculation of the pile group still evades the profession, as it
requires modeling of the installation of the piles (in the right
sequence) and then their loading using an analysis that accu-
rately captures soil element behavior, strain localization, and The interaction coefficients are usually calculated by using
large displacements. concepts from elasticity theory. For example, according to
The analytical approach with the best chance of eventually Randolph (2003)
becoming a general design method accounting for pile group
effect is based on quantification of interaction between piles. ln(rm /spij)
This interaction is expressed through the concept of the coef- [11] αij ⫽ Λ(λL, ) ⱖ0
ficient of interaction, ␣ij, which is equal to the ratio of the ln(2rm /B)
settlement of pile i to the settlement of pile j when pile j is
loaded. Using this concept, the settlement of any pile i in the where
group with a rigid cap is expressed through (Salgado 2008)
Qb 4Gbrs 1
n [12] ⫽ ⫽
1 ⫺ ν λEpAp
兺
Qj wbEpApλ
[10] wi ⫽ αij
j⫽1
Ktj

冪
k
[13] λ⫽
EpAp
where wi is the settlement of pile i, ␣ij is the influence factor

兵 其
between i and j, Qj is the load acting on pile j, and Ktj is the
关 兴
G GL
stiffness of pile j (in the sense of how much load is required to [14] rm ⫽ 0.25 ⫹ 2.5(1 ⫺ ν) ⫺ 0.25 L
have unit pile head settlement). GL Gb
Straight application of this equation would lead to dif-
ferent settlements for different piles in the group. Salgado where Λ ⫽ Λ(␭L, ⍀) is the factor containing the pile-
(2008) shows how group settlement can be calculated for the reinforcing effect, given in Mylonakis and Gazetas (1998); rm
case of a rigid cap, when every pile settles by the same is the “magical” radius proposed by Fleming et al. (1992) at
amount. which the settlement w of the ground surface becomes zero;

Published by NRC Research Press

1304 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

spij is the spacing between the pair of piles considered (pile i n

兺α K
Qj Q
and pile j); Qb is the pile base load; wb is the settlement; Ep is [16] w1 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij ⫽ (1 ⫹ 2α12 ⫹ α14)
the Young’s modulus of the pile; Ap is the sectional area of the j⫽1 tj Kt
pile; Gb is the shear modulus at the pile base and within the
bearing layer, following the notation by Randolph and Wroth where ␣11 ⫽ 1, and ␣12 ⫽ ␣13 and ␣14 need to be determined.
(1978); rs is the radius of pile (⫽ B/2); v is the Poisson’s ratio The additional equation that is needed comes from eq. [11],
of the soil; k is the Winkler constant (also called a modulus of which allows us to express the ratio of the two interaction
subgrade reaction); G is the average shear modulus of soil over factors as
the length of the pile; GL is the shear modulus at the pile shaft α12 ln(rm /sp12)
with the bearing layer. [17] ⫽
This approach offers a useful framework for analysis, but α14 ln(rm /sp14)
the reliance of the expressions on elastic parameters makes it
difficult to use them in practice. The interaction coefficients The CPT data indicates that the soil above and below 17 m
should, in reality, change with settlements. Based on the is the same, which means the shear moduli GL for the bottom
results of the load tests, the individual values of the interaction layer and Gb for the base layer are the same, with their ratio
coefficients of each pile in the group can be back-calculated then equal to 1. The ratio of the average shear modulus
because the total load applied on the group and the load on one calculated over the entire length of the pile to the shear
pile of each type (i.e., corner, side or center) are recorded. modulus at the level of the base of the pile is approximately
Assuming that all piles located symmetrically in the group 1.5 by using the correlation of shear modulus versus qc of Lee
carry the same load, with some adjustment to make sure that et al. (2009) for sandy–silty material and Mayne and Rix
the individual loads add up to the total load on the group, we (1993) for clay. The Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.45, as the
can obtain as many equations for the interaction coefficients load test was done under essentially undrained conditions as
as there are pile types. Depending on the pile group geom- far as the clay is concerned. This leads to rm ⫽ 2.06L, or
etry, there will be as many equations as there are unknown 41.2 and 49.4 m, respectively, for the 20 m long and 24 m long
coefficients. In cases where there are not enough equations, piles. The spacing in the group with 20 m long piles is sp ⫽
it is possible to use eq. [11] to generate supplementary 2.5B; it is 3B in the 24 m long piles. For the pile group with
equations. 20 m long piles
As the load was not measured on top of every pile in the
group, but only in one pile of each type of pile (as per α12 ln兵41.2/ [(2.5)(0.4)]其
[18] ⫽ ⫽ 1.10
the symmetries in the group), we first assume piles to carry the α14 ln兵41.2/ [(2.5兹2)(0.4)]其
same load as the load measured for the pile of a given sym-
metry, then add up the loads. There will be a difference with and the system of equations for the four-pile group
respect to the load measured for the entire group, which is then becomes
allocated to the piles proportionally.
[19] α12 ⫺ 1.10α14 ⫽ 0
Calculation of influence coefficients
Ktwg
Formulation for a two-pile group [20] 1 ⫹ 2α12 ⫹ α14 ⫽
Q
For the two-pile group, we have a single unknown and also
only one equation. So the settlement of the group will be It turns out that substitution of rm ⫽ 49.4 m for the group
with 24 m long piles yields the same value of ␣12/␣14 (1.10),
n so the equations are the same as for the group with 20 m long
兺α K
Qj Q
[15] wg ⫽ w1 ⫽ w2 ⫽ ij ⫽ (1 ⫹ α12) piles.
j⫽1 tj Kt
Formulation for a nine-pile group
Formulation for a four-pile group In the case of the nine-pile groups, there are three types of piles,
In the four-pile group, there is only one pile type because of which we will call a, b, and c. Piles 1, 3, 7, and 9 in Fig. 1 are of type
the symmetries present, so there is only one equation, but there a. Piles 2, 4, 6, and 8 are of type b. Pile 5 is of type c. As the
are two unknowns because a pile interacts differently with the coefficient of interaction for any two piles depends on the dis-
pile next to it than with the pile in the opposite corner. So we tance between the two piles, there are a number of equalities to
can write eq. [10] once for the group settlement explore

[21] α12 ⫽ α23 ⫽ α45 ⫽ α56 ⫽ α78 ⫽ α89 ⫽ α14 ⫽ α47 ⫽ α25 ⫽ α58 ⫽ α36 ⫽ α69 ⫽ α1
α12 ⫽ α23 ⫽ α45 ⫽ α56 ⫽ α78 ⫽ α89 ⫽ α14 ⫽ α47 ⫽ α25 ⫽ α58 ⫽ α36 ⫽ α69 ⫽ α1
α15 ⫽ α24 ⫽ α26 ⫽ α35 ⫽ α48 ⫽ α57 ⫽ α59 ⫽ α68 ⫽ α2
α17 ⫽ α28 ⫽ α39 ⫽ α13 ⫽ α46 ⫽ α79 ⫽ α3
α18 ⫽ α27 ⫽ α29 ⫽ α38 ⫽ α16 ⫽ α34 ⫽ α49 ⫽ α67 ⫽ α4
α19 ⫽ α37 ⫽ α5

Published by NRC Research Press

Dai et al. 1305

Now we write eq. [10] three times, once for each of the three pile
types (a, b, and c), keeping in mind that the settlement of each is
equal to the settlement wg of the pile group. Any three piles, one of
each type, will suffice. We take piles 1, 4, and 5. For pile 1
n
than comparable coefficients (at the same spacing) for the
nine-pile group. The presence of additional piles around in-
teracting piles likely interferes with load or settlement trans-
mission between the interacting piles. Although the results
cannot be used at this time to propose any relationship for

兺α K
Qj interaction coefficients, they do show clearly (i) the depen-
[22] w1 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij dence of these factors on settlement (which means that factors
j⫽1 tj
derived from elasticity theory must be used with proper judg-
⫽ Qa /Kta ⫹ 2α1Qb /Ktb ⫹ α2Qc /Ktc ment) and (ii) the dependence of these factors on the size of
⫹ 2α3Qa /Kta ⫹ 2α4Qb /Ktb ⫹ α5Qa /Kta the group (because of interference of additional piles on how
piles interact). Research on clarifying and quantifying these
where Kta, Ktb, and Ktc are the pile head stiffness of the single effects is needed.
pile of type a, b, and c with the same length as the piles in the
group. Likewise, for piles 4 and 5 Summary and conclusions
n A field pile load testing program was carried out on isolated
兺
Qj
[23] w4 ⫽ wg ⫽ αij bored piles and bored pile groups installed in a soil profile with
j⫽1
Ktj mixed layers of clay and silt in Nanjing, China. The program
⫽ Qb/Ktb ⫹ 2α1Qa/Kta ⫹ α1Qc/Ktc included two single instrumented piles and six types of pile
⫹ 2α2Qb/Ktb ⫹ α3Qb/Ktb ⫹ 2α4Qa/Kta groups with two, four, and nine piles with different pile
lengths and pile spacing. Based on the analysis of the field test
n results, the following conclusions can be reached:
兺α K
Qj
[24] w5 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij ⫽ Qc /Ktc ⫹ 4α1Qb /Ktb
j⫽1 tj 1. Using the conventional definition of ultimate load as the
⫹ 4α2Qa /Kta load causing a settlement of 10% of the pile diameter, the
two single piles DZ1 (L/B ⫽ 50) and DZ1L (L/B ⫽ 60)
mobilized essentially only shaft resistance, with loads
In this case, we have five unknowns and three equations. measured at the strain gauge level closest to the pile base
Using eq. [11], we can write four additional equations that can accounting for only 2.2% of the total load for the 20 m long
be used for the ratios of interaction coefficients. pile and 4% of the total load for the 24 m long pile.
2. The general response of an individual pile in the two-pile
α1 α2 α3 α4 groups was observed to be very close to that of the corre-
[25] ⫽ 1.10, ⫽ 1.12, ⫽ 1.04, ⫽ 1.09 sponding single pile. This is evidenced, for example, by
α2 α3 α4 α5 the values of limit unit shaft resistance of piles in the
two-pile group being approximately the same as those for
In Appendix A, we discuss how to obtain the interaction the corresponding single pile. This means that interaction
coefficients using these equations by linear optimization. between piles in the two-pile groups was relatively small.
This was not observed in the 4-and 9-pile groups, in which
Resulting influence coefficients substantial interaction and group effect was observed.
Each load–settlement data point from the load test can be
3. In general, values of Rs of both the four- and nine-pile
used to calculate one influence coefficient. The influence co-
efficient can then be expressed in terms of settlement for the groups tended to increase with settlement. The single pile
different pile groups, as shown in Fig. 13. In general, with the settlement was observed to be generally smaller than
increase of group settlement, the interaction coefficient in- the corresponding pile group settlement at the same aver-
creases, with an inflection point for small settlements (marking age load per pile when the load was relatively large.
the transition from minimal interaction for small settlements to 4. For the four- and nine-pile groups, group effect was more
a higher level of interaction) and later a tendency of stabili- pronounced for QZ4 than for QZ4L and about the same for
zation at large settlements, which is consistent with more QZ9L and QZ9, showing that the impact of the pile spac-
intense localization of shear strain around the piles at large ing is greater than that of the pile length on group load.
settlements, leading to a reduction in the interaction for incre- 5. Based on the analysis of the load distribution between the
mental settlement. The results for the two-pile groups QZ2 are group piles in the nine-pile groups, the load at the top of
inconsistent with the other results, with the interaction coef- the corner piles was observed to be the largest, followed by
ficient being practically zero. This may be because of spatial side piles and then center piles. However, the load differences
variability of the soil or other variability in the pile installation were not large, particularly for side versus corner piles.
or pile cap. For the four-pile groups, the pile spacing has a 6. Based on the results of the load tests, the individual values
larger effect on interaction than pile length, which is to be of the interaction coefficients of each pile in the group were
expected. The interaction coefficient in group QZ4 with sp ⫽ back-calculated. The interaction coefficient was seen to be
2.5B and L ⫽ 20 m is on average larger than that of group a function of settlement and the size of the group. With the
QZ4L with sp ⫽ 3.0B and L ⫽ 24 m. For the nine-pile group, increase of group settlement, the interaction coefficient
the interaction coefficients are distributed proportionally to was observed to increase.
pile center-to-center spacing. As shown in Fig. 13, the inter- 7. A method of determining interaction coefficients from pile
action coefficients for the piles in the four-pile group are larger group load test results was proposed.

Published by NRC Research Press

Dai et al. 1307

Barden, L., and Monckton, M.F. 1970. Tests on model pile groups in
soft and stiff clay. Géotechnique, 20(1): 94 –96. doi:10.1680/
geot.1970.20.1.94.
Briaud, J.L., Tucker, L.M., and Ng, E. 1989. Axial loaded 5 pile
group and single pile in sand. In Proceedings of the 12th Interna-
tional Conference on SMFE, Tokyo. Vol. 1, pp. 381–386.
Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P.K. 1971. The elastic analysis of
compressible piles and pile groups. Géotechnique, 21(1): 43– 60.
doi:10.1680/geot.1971.21.1.43.
Chow, Y.K., and Teh, C.I. 1991. Pile – cap – pile – group interaction in
nonhomogeneous soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(11):
1655–1668. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:11(1655).
Cooke, R.W., Price, G., and Tarr, K. 1980. Jacked piles in London
clay: interaction and group behavior under working conditions.
Géotechnique, 30(2): 97–136. doi:10.1680/geot.1980.30.2.97.
Fang, P. 2003. Study on the engineering properties of super-long
piles. Ph.D. thesis, Zhe Jiang University. [In Chinese.]
Fei, H. 2000. Research of super-long hole bored pile in loess
subsoil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 22(5): 576 –580.
[In Chinese.]
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., et al. 1992. Piling
Engineering. Surrey University Press, Surrey.
Hanna, T.H. 1963. Model studies of foundation groups in sand.
Géotechnique, 13(4): 334 –351. doi:10.1680/geot.1963.13.4.334.
Ismael, N.F. 2001. Axial load tests on bored piles and pile groups
in cemented sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 127(9): 766 –773. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:9(766).
Lee, C.Y. 1993a. Settlement of pile groups—practical approach.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(9): 1449 –1461. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1449).
Lee, C.Y. 1993b. Pile group settlement analysis by hybrid layer
approach. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(6): 984 –997.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:6(984).
Lee, J., Kyung, D., Kim, B., and Prezzi, M. 2009. Estimation of the
small-strain stiffness of clean and silty sands using stress-strain curves and
CPT resistances. Soils and Foundations, 49(4), 545–556.
Leung, Y.F., Soga, K., Lehane, B.M., and Klar, A. 2010. Role of
Géotechnique, 53(10): 847– 875. doi:10.1680/geot.2003.53.
10.847.
Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of vertical defor-
mation of vertically loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 104(12): 1465–1488.
Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1979. An analysis of the vertical
deformation of pile groups. Géotechnique, 29(4): 423– 439. doi:
10.1680/geot.1979.29.4.423.
Salgado, R. 2008. The engineering of foundations. McGraw-Hill.
Salgado, R., and Prezzi, M. 2007. Computation of cavity expansion
pressure and penetration resistance in sands. International Journal
of Geomechanics, 7(4): 251–265. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-
3641(2007)7:4(251).
Salgado, R., Prezzi, M., and Tehrani, F.S. 2011. Soil property-based
methods for design of nondisplacement piles. 2011 Pan-Am CGS
Geotechnical Conference. [Accepted.]
Wei, H. 1996. Study on the mechanical properties of super-long pile.
Journal of Electric Power Survey, 2: 1– 6. [In Chinese.]
Whitaker, T. 1957. Experiments with model piles in groups. Géo-
technique, 7(4): 147–167. doi:10.1680/geot.1957.7.4.147.
Xie, T., Yuan, W., and Yao, Y. 2003. Model test study on effect of
vertical bearing capacity for large-scale pile group. Journal of
Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 20(5):
61– 64. [In Chinese.]
Yetginer, A.G., White, D.J., and Bolton, M.D. 2006. Field measure-
ments of the stiffness of jacked piles and pile groups. Géotech-
nique, 56(5): 349 –354. doi:10.1680/geot.2006.56.5.349.
Yu, Y. 2002. test study on the super-long bored pile in soft ground.
Industrial Construction, 32(11): 33–35. [In Chinese.]
Appendix A. Determination of interaction
coefficients for a nine-pile group
As seen earlier from eqs. [22] to [25], repeated here as eqs.
[A1] to [A4], respectively, the available equations for a nine-pile
group are
n

兺α K
Qj
linear elasticity in pile group analysis and load test interpretation. [A1] w1 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(12): j⫽1 tj
1686 –1694. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000392. ⫽ Qa /Kta ⫹ 2α1Qb /Ktb ⫹ α2Qc /Ktc
Loukidis, D., and Salgado, R. 2008. Analysis of shaft resistance of ⫹ 2α3Qa /Kta ⫹ 2α4Qb /Ktb ⫹ α5Qa /Kta
non-displacement piles in sand. Géotechnique, 58(4): 283–296.
doi:10.1680/geot.2008.58.4.283. n

兺α K
Qj
Mandolini, A., and Viggiani, C. 1997. Settlement of piled foundations. [A2] w4 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij
Géotechnique, 47(4): 791–816. doi:10.1680/geot.1997.47.4.791. j⫽1 tj
Mayne, P.W., and Rix, G.J. 1993. Gmax-qc relation for clays. ⫽ Qb /Ktb ⫹ 2α1Qa /Kta ⫹ α1Qc /Ktc
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(1) 54 – 60. ⫹ 2α2Qb /Ktb ⫹ 2α3Qb /Ktb ⫹ α4Qa /Kta
Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G. 1998. Settlement and additional
internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil. Géotechnique, n

兺α K
Qj
48(1): 55–72. doi:10.1680/geot.1998.48.1.55. [A3] w5 ⫽ wg ⫽ ij
Poulos, H.G. 1968. Analysis of the settlement of pile groups. Géo- j⫽1 tj
technique, 18(4): 449 – 471. ⫽ Qc /Ktc ⫹ 4α1Qb /Ktb ⫹ 4α2Qa /Kta
Poulos, H.G. 1989. Pile behave—theory and application. Géotech-
nique, 39(3): 365– 415. doi:10.1680/geot.1989.39.3.365. α1 α2 α3 α4
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and [A4] ⫽ 1.10, ⫽ 1.12, ⫽ 1.04, ⫽ 1.09
α2 α3 α4 α5
design. Wiley, New York.
Poulos, H.G., and Randolph, M.F. 1983. Pile group analysis: a study
of two methods. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(3): where these ratios of interaction coefficients are specific to
355–372. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(355). the pile group geometry and conditions considered in this
Randolph, M.F. 2003. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. paper.

Published by NRC Research Press

1308
The residual form of eqs. [A1] to [A3] can be expressed as
n 1. START with an assumed very small initial value of ␣5, and then
兺α K
Qj
[A5] r(αij)i ⫽ wg ⫺ ij
j⫽1 tj
This residual r(␣ij)i, which is a function of the interaction
coefficients, is the difference between the measured and cal-
culated pile top settlement for pile type i. The coefficient of
interaction vector is defined as ␣ ⫽ {␣1, ␣2, ␣3, ␣4, ␣5}. A
possible objective function is the sum of the settlement differ-
ences, represented by the Frobenius norm 㛳r㛳2 of the residual
vector r ⫽ {r1, r2, r3, r4, r5}. The optimization problem can
now be expressed as finding the minimum of 㛳r㛳2.
The solution to this optimization problem is obtained by
finding the optimal interaction coefficients ␣optimum at which
the minimum residual 㛳r㛳2,min is obtained. We can obtain the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
optimal values of the interaction coefficients using the Sim-
plex method. The algorithm for this is summarized as follows;
calculate ␣1 to ␣4 through the constraint eq. [A4].
2. LOOP with the constraint that ⱍαiⱍ ⬍ 1 for i ⫽ 1, 2,. . .,5.
3. INCREMENT ␣5 by a small amount to obtain its current
value ␣5,current and calculate new values ␣1,current to
␣4,current of the other interaction coefficients through the
constraint eq. [A4].
4. COMPUTE the Frobenius norm of residual 㛳r㛳2,current for
current values ␣current of the interaction coefficients.
5. IF 㛳r㛳2,current ⬍ 㛳r㛳2,min. this means the current interaction
coefficient vector is a better solution, so update the solu-
tion by setting 㛳r㛳2,min ⫽ 㛳r㛳2,current , and ␣optimum ⫽ ␣current.
6. ENDLOOP.
7. END with optimal interaction coefficient vector ␣optimum
and 㛳r㛳2,min.
Published by NRC Research Press