H. G.

Poulos1

Abstract
This paper reviews the evolution of settlement analysis for pile groups, and the
transition from research to practice over the past 30 to 40 years. The gradual
incorporation of important aspects of reality is reviewed and it is shown that recent
research has enabled complex practical problems to now be examined in a systematic,
albeit approximate, manner. The significance of various parameters is reviewed and
suggestions are given regarding appropriate methods of preliminary and detailed
analysis, and of methods whereby the key geotechnical parameters may be assessed.
The pitfalls of inappropriate application of theoretical research to practice are
illustrated by examples.
Introduction
Many methods exist for estimating the settlement of pile foundations, ranging from
empirical methods, through simple hand calculation methods, to sophisticated
numerical finite element and finite difference analyses. This paper will attempt to
trace the development of rational methods of estimating pile group settlements, and
will focus on an approach which considers pile-soil interaction in a proper manner,
although it may involve approximations in relation to the modeling of the soil.
Attention will be concentrated on the relationship between the settlement of a group
and that of a single pile. Brief consideration will also be given to the settlement of
piled raft foundations, and to the applicability of simpler methods of analysis. The
importance of appropriate estimation of geotechnical parameters will be emphasized,
and finally, it will be demonstrated that misleading results can arise from imprudent
application of group settlement analysis. In this way, an attempt will be made to
narrow some of the gaps that have developed between research and practice.

Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences, 8/12 Mars Rd., Lane Cove West, NSW 2066,
Australia. Ph.: +612 9911 1000; Fax: +612 9911 1001; email:
harry_poulos@coffey.com.au

Methods of Pile Group Settlement Analysis

It is now well recognized that the settlement of a pile group can differ significantly
from that of a single pile at the same average load level. There are a number of
approaches commonly adopted for the estimation of the settlement of pile groups:
Methods which employ the concept of interaction factors and the principle of
superposition (e.g. Poulos and Davis, 1980);
Methods which involve the modification of a single pile load-settlement curve, to
take account of group interaction effects;
The settlement ratio method, in which the settlement of a single pile at the average
load level is multiplied by a group settlement ratio Rs, which reflects the effects of
group interaction;
The equivalent raft method, in which the pile group is represented by an equivalent
raft acting at some characteristic depth along the piles;
The equivalent pier method, in which the pile group is represented by a pier
containing the piles and the soil between them. The pier is treated as a single pile
of equivalent stiffness in order to compute the average settlement of the group.
Numerical methods such as the finite element method and the finite difference
method (such as FLAC). While earlier work employed two-dimensional analyses,
it is now less uncommon for full three-dimensional analyses to be employed (e.g.,
Katzenbach et al., 1998).
In the following section, the interaction factor method of analysis will be
described briefly, and then some developments will be discussed with respect to the
earlier application of the interaction factor method.
The Interaction Factor Method For Pile Groups
One of the common means of analyzing pile group behaviour is via the interaction
factor method described by Poulos and Davis (1980). In this method, referring to
Figure 1, the settlement wi of a pile i within a group of n piles is given as follows:
n
w = (P S )
i j = l av 1 ij

(1)

where Pav = average load on a pile within the group; S1 = settlement of a single pile
under unit load (i.e., the pile flexibility); ij = interaction factor for pile i due to any
other pile (j) within the group, corresponding to the spacing sij between piles i and j.
Eq. 1 can be written for each pile in the group, thus giving a total of n equations,
which together with the equilibrium equation, can be solved for two simple cases:
1. Known load on each pile, in which case the settlement of each pile can be
computed directly. In this case, there will usually be differential settlements
among the piles in the group.
2. A rigid (non-rotating) pile cap, in which case all piles settle equally. In this
case, there will be a uniform settlement but a non-uniform distribution of load
in the piles.

In the original approach, the interaction factors were computed from boundary
element analysis and plotted in graphical form. They usually took the form of plots of
interaction factor versus the ratio of pile spacing to diameter (s/d). Also, the
interaction factors were applied to the total flexibility S1 of the pile, including both
elastic and non-elastic components of the single pile settlement.

Pile i

Plan of
pile
group

sij
Pile j

Figure 1. Superposition via the Interaction Factor Method

In recent years, simplified or closed-form expressions for the interaction factors
have been developed, thus enabling a simpler computer analysis of group settlement
behaviour to be carried out. For example, Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) have
developed the following simplified expressions for the interaction factor, in one of
the following forms:
= A (s/d) B

(2a)

= {C + D ln (s/d)}

(2b)

where A,B,C,D = fitting parameters.

For four typical field cases analyzed by Mandolini and Viggiani, the values of
A ranged between 0.57 and 0.98, while the range of B was 0.60 to 1.20. For one
other case, values of C= 1.0 and D = -0.26 were computed. They also assumed that
no interaction occurred beyond a certain limiting value of pile spacing.
Some Developments in the Interaction Factor Method, and Practical
Implications
The original interaction factors published by Poulos (1968) were based on the
assumption that the soil was a homogeneous elastic medium, having a constant
modulus with depth. This was clearly a great simplification of reality, and in
subsequent years, some significant improvements and extensions have been made to
the original interaction factor method, among the most important being:
1. The consideration of non-uniform soil modulus with depth;
2. The consideration of the influence of the bearing stratum on which the pile is
founded;

3. The consideration of the fact that the soil between the piles may be stiffer than at
the pile-soil interface, because of the small strain levels existing between the piles;
4. Consideration of the interaction between two dissimilar piles;
5. The effect of compressible underlying layers;
6. The application of the interaction factor to only the elastic component of the single
pile flexibility (e.g., Randolph, 1994), and the consequent incorporation of nonlinearity of single pile response within the interaction factor for the effect of a pile
on itself (Mandolini and Viggiani, 1997).
The significance of these developments is reviewed below. For consistency, the
general case illustrated in Figure 2 will be considered. This involves a simplified but
realistic situation in which piles are driven through a less competent layer on to a
stiffer bearing stratum.

PG

STANDARD VALUES:
E1
fS1

L = 25m

d = 0.75m

E1 = 25 MPa
E1 = 100 MPa
fS1 = 60 kPa
fb2 = 4 MPa
Epile = 30 000 MPa

E2
fb2

Figure 2. Simplified Case Analysed

Influence of Non-Homogeneity of the Soil Layer. Figure 3 compares relationships
between interaction factor and s/d for three cases: a homogeneous soil layer with a
constant modulus Es with depth, a soil where the surface modulus is 3 times that at
the base, and a non-homogeneous soil layer whose modulus varies linearly with depth
from zero at the surface (a Gibson soil), but which has the same average modulus
as the uniform layer. It can be seen that the interaction factor for the nonhomogeneous soil layers is less than that for the uniform layer, thus implying that, if
the value of for a uniform layer is applied to a non-uniform layer, the group
settlement may be over-estimated.
Influence of the Stiffness of the Bearing Stratum. Figure 4 shows an example of the
effect of the stiffness of the bearing stratum Es2 as a multiple of that of the overlying

soil, Es1. It can be seen that reduces as the stiffness of the bearing stratum (relative
to that of the soil) increases. Thus, the presence of a hard layer at the base of a soil
layer can substantially reduce the interaction factor and damp out its effect at
relatively small pile spacings. The use of solutions for a deep layer may thus lead to
significant over-estimates of pile interactions and hence, pile group settlements.
Mylonakis and Gazetas 1998) and Guo and Randolph (1999) have developed closedform expressions for the interaction factor, in which the important effect of the finite
thickness of a soil layer can be taken into account.
It should be noted that Mylonakis and Gazetas (1998) have also considered
the issue of a stiffer bearing stratum and the reinforcing effect of the piles themselves,
and have introduced a diffraction factor by which the conventional interaction
factor should be corrected. Details are also given by Randolph (2003) who describes
this work as a seminal advance.
0.6

Es0/EsL=1
0.5

Interaction Factor

Eso/EsL=3
0.4

Es0/EsL=0
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

10

15

20

25

Spacing / Diameter

Figure 3. Influence of Soil Modulus Distribution on Interaction Factors

0.6

Es2/Es1=1
Es2/Es1=2
Es2/Es1=4
Es2/Es1=10
Es2/Es1=100

Interaction Factor

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

10

15

20

25

Spacing / Diameter

Figure 4. Influence of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Interaction Factors

Influence of Stiffer Soil Between the Piles. It is now well-recognized that the
stiffness or modulus of a soil mass decreases with increasing strain level. For a group
of piles, it would be expected that the strain level will increase as the pile-soil
interface is approached, and thus, the stiffness of the soil at the pile-soil interface is
smaller than that between the piles at some distance from the pile shafts. By assuming
very simplified distributions of the soil modulus with distance from the pile shafts,
Poulos (1988) demonstrated that the presence of the stiffer soil between the piles can
lead to a significant reduction in the interaction factor between two piles, while
Poulos (1989) has demonstrated that such an approach can give more satisfactory
agreement with the results of field tests on a pile group in clay (ONeill et al, 1982).
This issue will be pursued later in this paper in relation to a case study.
Influence of Dissimilar Piles. When dealing with piles of different length or
diameter, the approximations developed by Hewitt (1988) have been employed.
These may be summarized as follows:
(a) For piles i and j of different diameter:
ij jj

(3)

(b) For piles i and j of different length:

For Li > Lj,
For Li < Lj,

ij ( ii + jj )/2

(4a)

ij jj

(4b)

where

Li and Lj = length of influenced pile i and influencing pile j respectively

ii = interaction factor for 2 piles of length Li
jj = interaction factor for 2 piles of length Lj .
It must be emphasized that these approximations may not always be accurate,
especially if the two piles being considered are of different length and diameter, or if
there are great differences in the length and diameter of the two piles. More detailed
approximations have been presented by Randolph (2003) for piles of the same length
but different diameters, and by Wong (2003) for a variety of cases involving different
pile lengths, diameters and founding conditions.

The effects of compressible underlying layers.

It has been recognized for some
time that the presence of soft compressible layers below the pile tips can result in
substantial increases in the settlement of a pile group, despite the fact that the
settlement of a single pile may be largely unaffected by the compressible layers.
Some examples of such experiences include the chimney foundation reported by
Golder and Osler (1968) and the 14 storey building described by Peaker (1984).
Poulos et al (2002) and Poulos (2005) have shown that, as might be expected,
the larger the group (and therefore the width of the pile group), the greater is the
effect of the underlying compressible layer on settlement. It is clear that if the

presence of such compressible layers is either not identified, or is ignored, the pile
group settlements can be several times those which would be predicted for the group
bearing on a continuous competent stratum. Conversely, if proper account is not
taken of stiffer layers below the pile tip, or the increase in soil/rock stiffness with
decreasing strain level, then group settlements can be over-estimated. This issue will
be discussed further in relation to the case studies described later in this paper.
Influence of Applying Interaction Factors to only the Elastic Components of
Settlement of Adjacent Piles.
Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) and Randolph
(1994) have argued that the interaction factor should only be applied to the elastic
component of settlement of an adjacent pile, since the plastic component of
settlement is due to a localized phenomenon and is not transmitted to the adjacent
piles. In this case, the settlement of a pile i in the group is then given by:
n
w = (P S )
i j = l av 1e ij

(5)

where S1e is the elastic flexibility of the pile.

By further assuming that the load-settlement behaviour of the pile is hyperbolic,
Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) express the interaction factor, ii, for a pile i due to
its own load as:

ii = 1 /(1 R f P / Pu ) q

(6)

where Rf = hyperbolic factor (taken as unity); P = load on pile i; Pu = ultimate load

capacity of pile i; q = analysis exponent = 2 for incremental non-linear analysis and 1
for equivalent linear analysis.
Figure 5 shows computed load-settlement curves for a 16-pile group subjected to
axial loading. Two cases are shown:
1. For interaction factors applied to the total settlement of each pile;
2. For interaction factors applied only to the elastic (recoverable) component of
settlement of each pile.
It can be seen that the settlement in the first case is greater than that from the
second approach, and that the difference is considerably increased as the applied load
increases. It would appear desirable to employ the approach suggested by Mandolini
and Viggiani (1997) and Mandolini et al (2005), as their work indicates that better
agreement with measured group behaviour when Eqs. 4 and 5 are used than when the
traditional approach (Eq. 1) is used.
Incorporation Of Ground Movements And Pile Cap Rotation
There are a number of cases in which a pile group will be subjected to uneven loading
and to the effects of externally-imposed ground movements. In such cases, account
must be taken of the influence of the ground movements on the group settlement and
also of the effects of the rotation of the pile cap. As shown by (Poulos, 2002), use can
again be made (albeit approximately) of the interaction factor method of pile group
analysis. Assuming that the connection of the piles to the pile cap is effectively

pinned, the increment in settlement of a typical pile i in the group can be expressed as
follows:
n

Si =

j ij / K j

+ i Sff i + x (x i x r ) + y (y i y r )

(7)

j =1

where Pj = increment of load on a pile j in the group; n = number of piles in group;

ij = interaction factor for effect of pile j on pile i; Kj = axial pile head stiffness for
pile j; Sffi = incremental movement of the head of pile i due to tunnelling-induced
ground movements; i = reduction factor for group effects ( 1.0); x = incremental
rotation of pile cap in x-direction; xj = x-coordinate of pile j; xr = reference xcoordinate; y = incremental rotation of pile cap in y-direction; yj = y-coordinate of
pile j; yr = reference y-coordinate.
Eq. 7 can be written for all piles in the group, giving a total of n equations. In
addition, the conditions of vertical and moment equilibrium must be satisfied. Thus,
the following three additional equations apply:
n

VG =

(8)

j =1
n

M x =

P (x
j

(9)

(10)

x r VG x g x r

y r VG y g y r

j =1
n

M y =

P (y
j

j =1

where VG = applied vertical load increment on group; Mx = applied moment

increment on group, in x-direction; My = applied moment increment on group, in ydirection; xg, yg = coordinates of point of vertical load application. A total of n+3
equations can thus be derived, the solution of which gives the n values of axial pile
load, the common incremental group settlement at the reference point (xr, yr), and the
incremental rotations x and y in the x- and y-directions respectively.
In applying the above analysis, the following assumptions have been made:
Group effects on the ground movement - induced pile movements have been
ignored, i.e. the factor i = 1.0.
The analysis is carried out incrementally, so that a complete sequence of events
can be simulated.
Typically, an event sequence consists of initial loading of the group, followed by
the imposition of pile head movements caused by the ground movements. These
pile head movements can be applied in stages, and can also arise from various
sources.
The pile head stiffness of pile j, Kj, is a hyperbolic function of the pile load level,
Pj / Pu, where Pu = ultimate pile load capacity. Thus, the incremental pile head
stiffness is given by:

K j = K jo 1 R f Pj / Puj

)2

(11)

where Kjo = initial tangent stiffness of pile j; Rf = hyperbolic factor (0 Rf 1); a

value of 0.75 has generally been adopted for the present calculations; Pj = current
load in pile j; Puj = ultimate load capacity of pile j.
If the pile load reaches the ultimate load capacity, the incremental pile head
stiffness for the following increment is set to a small fraction (typically 0.1%) of
the initial pile head stiffness.
The initial tangent pile head stiffness is computed from the simplified expressions
developed by Randolph and Wroth (1978).
Non-homogeneous soil profiles are treated as equivalent uniform profiles, via the
approximation suggested by Poulos (1989).
The interaction factors are computed via approximate curve-fitting expressions of
the type suggested by Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) (see Eqn. 2a).
The above analysis can also be used to analyze the behaviour of a pile group in
which there are dissimilar or defective piles. In this case, the non-uniformity of
stiffness will give rise to a rotation of the pile cap. If the pile-cap connections are
pinned, there will simply be a re-distribution of axial pile loads. However, if the
piles are rigidly attached to the cap, then there will also be bending moments induced
in the piles (Poulos, 1997).
Applicability Of Simple Pile Group Analysis Methods
Equivalent Raft Method. The equivalent raft method has been used extensively for
estimating pile group settlements. It relies on the replacement of the pile group by a
raft foundation of some equivalent dimensions, acting at some representative depth
below the surface. There are many variants of this method, but the one suggested by
Tomlinson (1986) appears to be a convenient and useful approach. In Tomlinsons
approach, the representative depth varies from 2L/3 to L, depending on the assessed
founding conditions; the former applies to floating pile groups, while the latter value
is for end bearing groups. The load is spread at an angle which varies from 1 in 4 for
friction piles, to zero for end bearing groups. Once the equivalent raft has been
established, the settlement can be computed from normal shallow foundation
analysis.
Poulos (1993) has examined the applicability of the equivalent raft method to
groups of friction piles and also end bearing pile groups. He concluded that the
equivalent raft method gives a reasonably accurate prediction of the settlement of
groups containing more than about 16 piles (at typical spacing of 3 pile diameters
centre-to-centre). This is consistent with the criterion developed by van Impe (1991),
who has concluded that the equivalent raft method should be limited to cases in
which the pile cross-sections exceed about 10% of the plan area of the group.
Thus, at the very least, the equivalent raft method is a very simple and useful
approach for a wide range of pile group geometries, and also provides a useful check
for more complex and complete pile group settlement analyses.
Much of the success of the equivalent raft method hinges on the selection of
the representative depth of the raft and the angle of load spread. Considerable
engineering judgement must be exercised here, and firm rules cannot be employed

without a proper consideration of the soil stratigraphy. Poulos et al (2002) have

explored this issue in more detail.
90

80

Group Load MN

70

60

50

40

30

Mandolini & Viggiani (1997)

20

10

Conventional Approach

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Settlement mm

Figure 5. Effect of Basis of Analysis on Group Load-Settlement Behavior

Equivalent Pier Method. In this method, the pile group is replaced by a pier of
similar length to the piles in the group, and with an equivalent diameter, de, estimated
as follows (Poulos, 1993):

d e (1.13 to 1.27) . ( AG ) 0.5

(12)

where AG = plan area of pile group, including the soil between the piles.
The lower figure is more relevant to predominantly end bearing piles, while the larger
value is more applicable to predominantly friction or floating piles.
Poulos (1993) and Randolph (1994) have examined the accuracy of the
equivalent pier method for predicting group settlements, and have concluded that it
gives good results. Poulos (1993) has examined group settlement as a function of the
number of piles, for a group of end bearing piles. Solutions from the computer
program DEFPIG, the equivalent raft method and the equivalent pier methods were
compared, and for more than about 9 piles, the settlements given by all three methods
agreed reasonably well.
Randolph (1994) has related the accuracy of the equivalent pier method to the
aspect ratio R, of the group, where:
R = (ns / L) 0.5

(13)

where n = number of piles; s = pile centre-to-centre spacing; L = pile length.

The equivalent pier method tends to over-predict stiffness for values of R less
than about 3, but the values appear to be within about 20% of those from a more
accurate analysis for values of R of 1 or more, provided that the pile spacing is not
greater than about 5 diameters.

10

Piled Raft Foundations

Piled raft foundations are often used where it is necessary to improve the bearing
capacity or to reduce the differential deflections in the foundation of a structure.
Hemsley (2000) describes various methods of analysis that have been devised to
predict the behaviour of such foundations, ranging from simple hand based methods
up to complex numerical approaches. A critical issue in the analysis of piled raft
foundations is to consider all four components of foundation interaction: pile-pile;
pile-raft; raft-pile, and raft-raft. As demonstrated by Poulos (2002), ignoring these
interactions can lead to a very serious over-estimate of the stiffness of the foundation,
and a corresponding under-estimation of settlements and differential settlements.
For preliminary estimates of piled raft behaviour, a convenient method of
estimating the load-settlement behaviour has been developed by combining the
approaches described by Poulos and Davis (1980) and Randolph (1994). As a
consequence, the method is described as the Poulos-Davis-Randolph (PDR) method.
The method is described in detail by Poulos et al (2002), and involves two main
steps:
1. Estimation of the ultimate load capacity of the foundation.
2. Estimation of the load-settlement behaviour via a simple tri-linear relationship.
Using this simplified approach, the load settlement curves for a raft with
various numbers of piles can be computed with the aid of a computer spreadsheet or a
mathematical program such as MATHCAD. In this way, it is simple to compute the
relationship between the number of piles and the average settlement of the
foundation. Poulos et al (2002) and Mandolini et al (2005) have demonstrated that the
simplified approach agrees well with three-dimensional numerical analyses, at least
until significant plastic flow occurs within the soil.
Assessment of Soil Stiffness For Pile Settlement Calculations

For estimations of pile settlement, the key geotechnical parameter is the stiffness of
the soil. If the analysis is based on elastic continuum theory, the soil stiffness can be
expressed by a Youngs modulus Es or shear modulus Gs. Both the magnitude and
distribution of these moduli are important. It is clear that Es (or Gs) are not constants,
but depend on many factors, including soil type, initial stress state, stress history, the
method of installation of the pile, the stress system and stress level imposed by the
pile and the pile group, and whether short-term or long-term conditions are being
considered.
Four stress regimes are operative within the soil surrounding a group of
vertically loaded piles, as pointed out by Poulos et al (2002), and the following four
different values of Youngs modulus were distinguished:
1. The value Es for the soil in the vicinity of the pile shaft. This value will tend to
influence strongly the settlement of a single pile and small pile groups.
2. The value Esb immediately below the pile tip. This value will also tend to influence
the settlement of single pile and small pile groups.
3. The small-strain value, Esi, for the soil between the piles. This will reflect the small
strains in this region and will affect the settlement interaction between the piles.

11

4. Es for the soil well below the pile tips (Esd). This value will influence the settlement
of a group more significantly as the group size increases.
The first and third values (Es and Esi) reflect primarily the response of the soil
to shear, while the second and fourth values (Esb and Esd) reflect both shear and
volumetric strains. Es and Esb will both be influenced by the installation process, and
would be expected to be different for bored piles and for driven piles. On the other
hand, Esi and Esd are unlikely to be affected by the installation process, but rather by
the initial stress state and the stress history of the soil. As a corollary, the method of
installation is likely to have a more significant effect on the settlement of a single pile
(which depends largely on Es and Esb) than on the settlement of a pile group, which
may depend to a large extent on Esi and Esd.
The issue of the estimation of the soil modulus values has been discussed at
length by Randolph (1994), Poulos (1994), Mayne (1995), and Mandolini and
Viggiani (1997). Yamashita et al (1998) suggest that, for a purely elastic analysis, a
typical value of modulus of about 0.25 to 0.3 times the small-strain value can be used.
Poulos et al (2002) have discussed the selection of elastic moduli for various
foundation types. For a a soil in which the initial shear modulus is 500 times the
undrained shear strength, the approximate ratios of secant modulus to the initial
(maximum) modulus for axially loaded piles is about 0.4 for a factor of safety of 3
and about 0.3 for a factor of safety of 2.
For more satisfactory assessment of soil stiffness, it is usually preferable to
carry out in-situ tests in which the soil is loaded in the same manner as the foundation
loads it. Thus, for example, for axially loaded piles, the results of a conventional pile
load test can be interpreted to obtain equivalent modulus values for use in predicting
the settlement of other piles or pile groups in the same ground conditions.
Examples of Problems With Group Settlement Estimation
Emirates Project, Dubai. The Emirates Project is a twin tower development in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The towers are triangular in plan, with a face
dimension of approximately 50 m to 54 m. The taller Office Tower has 52 floors and
rises 355 m above ground level, while the shorter Hotel Tower is 305 m tall. The
foundation system for both towers involves the use of large diameter piles in
conjunction with a raft. Poulos and Davids (2005) discuss this project in detail.
The geotechnical model for foundation design under static loading conditions
was based on the relevant available in-situ and laboratory test data, and is shown in
Table 1. The ultimate skin friction values were based largely on laboratory constant
normal stiffness direct shear tests, while the ultimate end bearing values for the piles
were assessed on the basis of correlations with UCS data (Reese and ONeill, 1988).
The values of Youngs modulus were derived from the data obtained from the
following tests:
seismic data (reduced by a factor of 0.2 to account for a strain level appropriate
to the foundation);
resonant column tests (at a strain level of 0.1%);
laboratory stress path tests;
unconfined compression tests (at 50% of ultimate stress).

12

While inevitable scatter existed among the different values, there was a
reasonably consistent general pattern of variation of modulus with depth.
Considerable emphasis was placed on the laboratory stress path tests, which, it was
felt, reflected realistic stress and strain levels within the various units. The values for
the upper two units were obtained from correlations with SPT data.
In order to provide some guidance on the expected behaviour of the piles
during the test pile program, Class A predictions of the load-deflection response of
the test piles were carried out and communicated to the main consultant prior to the
commencement of testing. These predictions were made using the simplified
boundary element program PIES (Poulos, 1990), which was capable of incorporating
non-linear pile-soil response, and of considering the effects of the reaction piles. The
input parameters for the predictions were those used for the design (Table 1).
Comparisons between predicted and measured test pile behaviour were made after the
results of the tests were made available and revealed a fair measure of agreement.
The predicted settlements slightly exceeded the measured values, and the maximum
load of 30 MN reached exceeded the estimated ultimate load capacity of about 23
MN.
Geotechnical Model for Emirates Towers
Layer
Undrained
Drained
Youngs
Thickness
Youngs
m
Modulus
Modulus
MPa
MPa
Silty Sand
5
40
30

5
125
100
Calcareous
14
700
500
Sandstone
Silty Sand
10
125
100
Calcisiltite
20
500
400

16
90
80

10
600
600

Table 1.
Stratum

Ultimate
Shaft
Friction
kPa
18
73
200

Ultimate
End
Bearing
MPa
0.1
1.5
2.3

150
450
200
450

1.9
2.7
2.0
2.7

For the prediction of settlement of the of the piled raft foundation systems for
the towers, the same geotechnical model was used as for the prediction of the
settlement of the test piles. In the final design, the piles were primarily 1.2 m
diameter, and extended 40 or 45 m below the base of the raft. In general, the piles
were located directly below 4.5 m deep walls which spanned between the raft and the
Level 1 floor slab. These walls acted as webs which forced the raft and Level 1slab
to act as the flanges of a deep box structure. This deep box structure created a
relatively stiff base to the tower superstructure, although the raft itself was only 1.5 m
thick Conventional pile capacity analyses were used to assess the ultimate
geotechnical capacity of the piles and raft. In additional to the conventional analyses,
more complete analyses of the foundation system were undertaken with the computer
program GARP (Poulos, 1994). This program utilized a simplified boundary element
analysis to compute the behaviour of a rectangular piled raft when subjected to
applied vertical loading, moment loading, and free-field vertical soil movements. The

13

raft was represented by an elastic plate, the soil was modelled as a layered elastic
continuum, and the piles are represented by hyperbolic springs which can interact
with each other and with the raft. Beneath the raft, limiting values of contact pressure
in compression and tension were specified, so that some allowance could be made for
non-linear raft behaviour. In addition to GARP, the program DEFPIG (Poulos and
Davis, 1980) was used for the pile stiffness values and pile-pile interaction factors,
and for computing the lateral response of the piles.
For the analysis of settlements under the design loads, the same values of
Youngs modulus were used as for the single piles. The time-settlement predictions
were based on the predicted final settlement, an assumed rate of construction, and a
rate of settlement computed from three-dimensional consolidation theory.
The
reasonable agreement obtained between prediction and measurement had given rise to
expectations that a similar level of agreement would be obtained for the foundation
systems for the two towers.
Measurements were available only for a limited period during the construction
process, and these are compared with the predicted time-settlement relationships in
Figure 7 for typical points within the Hotel Tower. To the authors disappointment, it
was found that, for both towers, the actual measured settlements were significantly
smaller than those predicted, being only about 25% of the predicted values after 1012 months.
T im e ( m o n th s )
1998
0

10

11

12

Settlement (mm)

T4

10

M e a s u re d

20

P re d ic t e d

T15

30

40

50

Figure 7. Predicted and Measured Time-Settlement Behavior of Hotel Tower

The disappointing lack of agreement between measured and predicted

settlement of the towers prompted a post-mortem investigation of possible reasons
for the poor predictions. At least four such reasons were examined:
1. Some settlements may have occurred prior to the commencement of
measurements;
2. The assumed time-load pattern may have differed from that assumed;
3. The rate of consolidation may have been much slower than predicted;
4. The interaction effects among the piles within the piled raft foundation may have
been over-estimated.

14

Of these, based on the information available during construction, the first

three did not seem likely, and the last was considered to be the most likely cause.
Calculations were therefore carried out to assess the sensitivity of the predicted
settlements to the assumptions made in deriving interaction factors for the piled raft
analysis with GARP. In deriving the interaction factors originally used, it had been
assumed that the soil or rock between the piles had the same stiffness as that around
the pile, and that the rock below the pile tips had a constant stiffness for a
considerable depth. In reality, the ground between the piles is likely to be stiffer than
near the piles, because of the lower levels of strain, and the rock below the pile tips is
likely to increase significantly with depth, both because of the increasing level of
overburden stress and the decreasing level of strain. The program DEFPIG was
therefore used to compute the interaction factors for a series of alternative (but
credible) assumptions regarding the distribution of stiffness both radially and with
depth. The ratio of the soil modulus between the piles to that near the piles was
increased to 5, while the modulus of the material below the pile tips was increased
from the original 70 MPa to 600 MPa (the value assessed for the rock at depth). The
various cases are summarized in Table 2.
C u rv e N o .

M o d u lu s o f
L a y e r b e lo w
M Pa

M o d u lu s o f S o il
b e tw e e n P ile s
to N e a r - P ile Va l u e s

1
2
3
4
5

90
90
200
700
700

1 .0
5 .0
5 .0
5 .0
1 .0

0 .4
1

Interaction Factor

0 .3
2
0 .2

5
3

0 .1

10
s/d

20

50

100

Figure 8. Influence of Analysis Assumptions on Interaction Factors

Figure 8 shows the computed relationships between interaction factor and

spacing for a variety of parameter assumptions. It can be seen that the original
interaction curve used for the original predictions lies considerably above those for
more realistic assumptions. Since the foundations analysed contained about 100 piles,
the potential for over-prediction of settlements is considerable, since small
inaccuracies in the interaction factors can translate to large errors in the predicted
group settlement.

15

Revised settlement calculations, on the basis of these interaction factors, gave

the results shown in Table 2. The interaction factors used clearly have a great
influence on the predicted foundation settlements, although they have almost no
effect on the load sharing between the raft and the piles. The maximum settlement,
for Case 4, is reduced to 29% of the value originally predicted, while the minimum
settlement was only 25% of the original value. If this case were used for the
calculation of the settlements during construction, the settlement at Point T15 after
10.5 months would be about 12 mm, which is in reasonable agreement with the
measured value of about 10 mm.
Table 2. Summary of Revised Calculations for Hotel Tower
Case
Modulus
Ratio of
Max.
Min.
below 53
max. to
Settlement Settlement
m MPa
near-pile
mm
mm
modulus
Original
80
1
138
91
calculations
Case 2
80
5
122
85
Case 3
200
5
74
50
Case 4
600
5
40
23
Case 5
600
1
58
32

% Load
on Piles
93
93
92
92
92

High-Rise Building in the Middle East.

Figure 9 shows the foundation plan for
the piles supporting a new high-rise building in one of the Gulf states of the Middle
East. The foundation system was designed as a piled raft, and one of the design
criteria was to limit the axial load in the piles to the assessed single pile safe working
load (11.3MN) under the action of the working loads acting on the structure. For the
analysis of the pile load and settlement distribution, the computer program GARP
was again employed. The geotechnical model was developed on the basis of borehole
data, insitu pressuremeter test data, and unconfined compression test data, and is
summarized in Table 3.
On the basis of the parameters shown in Table 3, the proposed 20m long,
1.2m diameter piles were estimated to have an ultimate pile capacity in compression
of about 46 MN and an initial axial pile head stiffness in compression of 2360 MN/m.
Analyses were undertaken to compute the settlement and pile load distribution
within the foundation system, taking account of the flexibility of the raft foundation.
The computer program GARP was employed, using a finite element formulation to
model the raft and idealizing the piles as non-linear interacting springs. A raft
thickness of 3.0m was used in the analyses, with the finite element mesh for the raft
having a total of 1638 elements and 5105 nodes.
In the initial GARP analyses, the computed axial loads were quite variable
and were in some cases tensile, despite the fact that the loading was compressive. It
was suspected that these unexpected and intuitively unacceptable results could be due
to the computed pile settlement interaction factors being too large, due to the deep
layer of more compressible weak limestone formation being present below the pile
tips. Subsequently, the interaction factors were re-computed, taking account of the

16

fact that the Youngs modulus of the weak limestone formation would tend to
increase with depth because of the decreasing strain levels below the foundation. The
consequent interaction factors were considerably smaller and the results of the GARP
analyses were then much more intuitively acceptable. Figure 10 compares the two
sets of interaction factors obtained.
Pile Locations

25

28 20

27

29

31

35

34

15

30

37

32
33

36

38

11
12

10
10

16

40

41

15

17

18

21

23

y-coordinate

42

47

22
25

46
49

24

20

-20

43

44

19

-30

39

114

14
13

26

-10

45

50

48
51

52

113

0
0

69

53
54

10
88

81

70

59

83

30
84

85

-5

58
56

20

82
55

87
90

71

89

91

86
93

57
60

61
62

72
65

64

74

66

63

-10

73
-15
75

68

67

76
77

95

-20
80

92

101
100

94

102

99

96
106

103
105

110

107

78

97
98

104
109
108

79
-25

111

112

-30
x-coordinate m

Figure 9. Pile Foundation Layout for Middle East Tower

Table 3. Summary of geotechnical model adopted for tower analyses

Material

Layer
Thickness
m

Es
(axial)
MPa

Es
(lateral)
MPa
1000

Ultimate
Skin
Friction
KPa
560

Ultimate
End
Bearing
MPa
15

Ultimate
Lateral
Pressure
MPa
15

Limestone

10

1500

Shale

5.5

600

400

600

10

10

Weak
Limestone(1)
Weak
Limestone(2)

20

300

200

400

4.8

4.8

66

150

100

3.4

3.4

17

The results for settlement and pile load are summarized in Table 3, and the following
observations can be made:
1. With the modified interaction factors, all piles carried compressive loads
under dead + live loading. The maximum pile load was about 11.3 MN, which
was in fact the maximum allowable load specified.
2. The computed settlements with the modified interaction factors are
considerably smaller than the originally computed values.
With the original interaction factors, the proposed design would be deemed to
be unacceptable, because the maximum pile load is almost twice the allowable value,
whereas with the revised interaction factors, the design would be deemed to be
acceptable, as the computed maximum load is equal to the allowable value.

0.6

Original
Values
Revised
Values

Axial Interaction Factor

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Spacing / Diameter s/d

Figure 10. Influence of Analysis Assumptions on Interaction Factors

Middle East Tower

It seems clear that design criteria requiring the maximum pile load to be
limited to the allowable load is fraught with uncertainty and the resulting design is
highly dependent on the assumptions made within the pile group analysis used. Such
a sensitivity is highly undesirable and thus such criteria should be discarded. They are
not only unnecessarily conservative, but they also reward a designer who uses a
simplistic analysis in which pile-soil-pile interaction is ignored. In that case, under
purely axial loading, all piles carry equal load, and so the load at which the piles
reach their limiting load is a maximum. In fact, it is well-known and recognized that
the load distribution within a pile group is not uniform.

18

Table 4: Summary of analysis for Middle East tower

Quantity
(Dead + Live Load)
Maximum Pile Load (MN)
Minimum Pile Load
(MN)
Maximum Settlement
(mm)
Minimum Settlement
(mm)

Value with Original

Interaction Factors
21.7

Value with Modified

Interaction Factors
11.3

-7.3

3.4

94

67

25

18

Conclusions

This paper has attempted to trace the development of the interaction factor method of
group settlement analysis and to identify some aspects which may cause mispredictions to be made. Particular care must be taken to avoid over-estimation of the
interaction factors, especially if it assumed that the soil mass is uniform and has a
constant modulus with depth, the extent of over-estimation of the interaction factors
(and hence of pile group settlement) can be very large. Examples have been given of
cases involving large pile groups in which the settlement was over-estimated by a
factor of 4 or so. Subsequent analyses revealed that inappropriate assumptions were
made about the soil profile in obtaining the interaction factors.
The paper has summarized assessments of the capabilities of conventional
methods of analysis and design, and has concluded that both the equivalent raft
method, and the equivalent pier method have their uses. They are best used for
estimates of the overall settlement but are not suitable for predicting the detailed
distributions of settlement and pile load within the group.
Some foundation designers incorporate a requirement that the pile loads must
not exceed the safe working load of a single pile. This requirement can lead to
difficulties because the pile load distribution depends very strongly on the interaction
factors used in the group analysis. The larger the interaction factors, the greater is the
non-uniformity of the pile load distribution, and thus the greater is the computed
maximum pile load. Thus, an over-conservative design can result from the use
inappropriate interaction factors. It is the authors opinion that such design criteria
involving a limit on the computed pile load, should be discarded. They are
unnecessarily conservative and in fact reward a designer who uses a simplistic
analysis in which pile-soil-pile interaction is ignored. In that case, under purely axial
loading, all piles carry equal load, and so the load at which the piles reach their
limiting load is a maximum. In fact, it is well-known and recognized that the load
distribution within a pile group is not uniform.
A significant gap between research and practice remains in the assessment of
appropriate soil stiffness values for pile settlement calculations. In many cases, the
soil stiffness plays a much more important role in settlement prediction than does the
method of analysis.

19

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive comments of John C. Small.

References

Golder, H.Q. and Osler, J.C. (1968). Golder, H.Q. & Osler, J.C. 1968. Settlement of
a furnace foundation, Sorel, Quebec. Can. Geot. Jnl., 5(1): 46-56.
Guo W.D. & Randolph, M.F. 1997. Vertically loaded piles in non-homogeneous
soils. Int. Jnl. Num. Anal. Methods in Geomechs., 21: 507-532.
Hewitt, C.M. (1988). Cyclic response of offshore pile groups. PhD thesis, Univ. of
Sydney, Australia.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., Gutwald, J., Holzhuser, J. & Quick, H. 1997. Soilstructure-interaction of the 300m high Commerzbank in Frankfurt am Main
Measurements and Numerical studies. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechs. Found.
Eng., Hamburg. 2: 1081-1084.
Mandolini, A. & Viggiani, C. 1997. Settlement of piled foundations. Gotechnique,
47(4): 791-816.
Mandolini, A., Russo, G. and Viggiani, C. (2005). Pile foundations: experimental
investigations, analysis and design. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. Geot. Eng.,
Osaka, Vol. 1, 177-213.
Mayne, P.W. 1995. Application of G/Gmax modulus degradation to foundation
settlement analysis. Proc. US-Taiwan Workshop on Geotech. Collaboration, Nat.
Science Foundn., Washington, and Nat. Science Council, Taipei, 136-148.
Mylonakis, G. & Gazetas, G. 1998. Settlement and additional internal forces of
grouped piles in layered soil. Gotechnique 48(1): 55-72.
ONeill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A. and Mahar, L.J.(1982). Load transfer mechanisms in
piles and pile groups. Jnl. Geot. Eng., ASCE, 106(GT12): 1605-1623.
Reese, L.C. and ONeill, M.W. (1988). Drilled shafts: construction procedures and
design methods. US Dept. Transportation, Washington DC, Publication No. FHWAH1-88-042.
Peaker, K.R.(1984). Lakeview tower: a case history of foundation failure. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Case histories in Geot. Eng., Ed. S. Prakash, Univ. of Missouri Rolla, 7-13.
Poulos, H.G. (1968). Analysis of the settlement of pile groups. Geotechnique,
18:449-471.

20

Poulos, H.G. (1988). Modified calculation of pile group settlement interaction. Jnl.
Geot. Eng., ASCE, 114(6): 697-706.
Poulos, H.G. 1989. Pile behaviour - Theory and application. 29th Rankine Lecture.
Gotechnique. 39:365-415.
Poulos, H.G. (1990). PIES Users Manual. Centre for Geotechnical Research,
University of Sydney, Australia.
Poulos, H.G. 1993. Settlement of bored pile groups. Proc. BAP II, Ghent, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 103-117.
Poulos (1994) Poulos, H.G. 1994a. An approximate numerical analysis of pile-raft
interaction. IJNAMG, 18: 73-92.
Poulos, H.G. 1994b. Settlement prediction for driven piles and pile groups. Spec.
Tech. Pub. 40, ASCE, 2: 1629-1649.
Poulos, H.G. (2002). Prediction of behaviour of piled building foundations due to
tunnelling operations. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Geot. Aspects of Tunnelling in Soft
Ground, Toulouse, Preprint Volume, 4.55-4.61.
Poulos, H.G. (2005). Pile behavior Consequencees of Geolgical and construction
imperfections. 40th Terzaghi Lecture, Jnl. Geot. & Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 131(5):538563.
Poulos, H.G., Carter, J.P, and Small, J.C. (2002). Foundations and retaining
structures research and practice. State of the Art Lecture, Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechs, Found. Eng., Istanbul, 4: 2527-2606.
Poulos, H.G. and Davids, A.J. (2005). Foundation design for the Emirates Twin
Towers, Dubai. Can. Geot. Jnl., 42:716-730.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. New
York, John Wiley.
Randolph, M.F. 1994. Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. 13th
Int. Conf. S.M. & Found. Eng., 5: 61-82.
Randolph, M.F. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. 43rd
Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, 53 (10): 847-875.
Randolph, M.F. & Wroth, C.P. 1978. Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded
piles. Jnl. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(GT12): 1465-1488.

21

Tomlinson, M.J. 1986. Foundation design and construction. 5th Ed., Harlow,
Longman.
Van Impe, W.F. 1991. Deformations of deep foundations. Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. SM
& Found. Eng., Florence, 3: 1031-1062.
Wong, S.C. (2003). Application of piles to pavement and embankment construction.
PhD thesis, Univ. of Sydney, Australia.
Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M. and Yamada, T. (1998). Simplified method for analysing
piled raft foundations. Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, ed. W/.F. van
Impe, Balkema, Rotterdam, 457-464.

22