Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02429-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Analysis of Foundation Settlement Interaction

among Multiple High‑Rise Buildings
Harry G. Poulos

Received: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 10 March 2023 / Published online: 5 April 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract This paper aims to develop a relatively all buildings are supported on foundations extending
simple approach to examining the interaction among to a relatively stiff layer, the interaction effects tend
multiple foundation systems for closely spaced high- to be relatively small. However, if one or more of the
rise structures, termed here “urban forests”, and to buildings is founded on a relatively short foundation
assess the extent to which this interaction can influ- system, interaction effects may be more significant.
ence the foundation performance of a building within An example is provided to illustrate the application of
this “forest”. To simplify the analysis and avoid the approach.
undue numerical complexity, each foundation sys-
tem is modelled as an equivalent pier, representing Keywords Analysis · Foundations · Interaction ·
the deep foundations, the connecting mat or raft, and Numerical analysis · Settlement · Tall buildings
the soil contained within the piled raft system. The
behaviour of a single equivalent pier is considered
first, with the surrounding foundations being rep- 1 Introduction
resented by an axisymmetric smeared ring outside
the pier. After examining some general behavioural The development of urban areas to accommodate
characteristics, a simplified approach using the con- burgeoning populations has led to the construction of
cept of interaction factors is developed to facilitate high-rise buildings that are concentrated in relatively
estimation of settlement interaction between multi- close proximity. This trend appears to be acceler-
ple adjacent foundations. The accuracy of this sim- ating, and may result in the formation of what may
plified approach is assessed via comparison with the be termed “high-rise urban forests”, consisting of
axisymmetric approach. The significance of the inter- a group of closely-spaced buildings that are tall and
action among foundations is examined for some sim- slender (Cardno 2022). One of many examples of
ple cases. It is found that the settlement interaction such a collection of buildings is shown in Fig. 1. It
depends largely on the characteristics of the founda- is well-recognized that wind loadings on such build-
tions surrounding the building being examined. When ings are influenced significantly by the proximity and
orientation of surrounding buildings, as is the seismic
response (Kato and Wang 2022), but when designing
H. G. Poulos (*) the foundations for such buildings, there has been a
Tetra Tech Coffey, Sydney Australia & Emeritus Professor tendency to focus on each building as an individual
of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Camperdown,
isolated structure. However, there is anecdotal evi-
Australia
e-mail: [email protected] dence to suggest that the foundation systems of

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2816 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Fig. 1  Example of closely-spaced high rise buildings

closely-spaced tall buildings can influence each other

via interaction through the soil.
In this paper, a simplified analysis will be devel-
oped to enable a rapid estimation to be made of these
inter-building interaction effects. First, an idealized
axi-symmetric finite element analysis will be under-
taken to try and understand some of the interaction
characteristics. Then, a simplified approach will be
described that relies on the concept of interaction fac-
tors among foundation systems represented by equiv-
alent piers. It will be demonstrated that this approach
provides an adequate and convenient means of assess- Fig. 2  Simplified model of multiple foundations (axi-symmet-
ric)
ing whether interaction effects are likely to be impor-
tant, without having to do a full three-dimensional
finite element analysis. It also enables the examina- for the purposes of understanding the behavioural
tion of the effects of progressive construction around characteristics of such systems, and for making pre-
a structure, and the evolution of differential settle- liminary assessments, it appears more efficient to
ments as the construction of the surrounding build- simplify the problem to one in which the following
ings proceeds. assumptions are made:
Introduce the concept of multiple high-rise tow-
ers in congested urban environments and the concept 1. The foundation system for the building being
of “high-rise urban forests” (see article by Catherine examined is modelled as an equivalent pier.
Cardno). 2. The foundations surrounding this examined sys-
tem are modelled as “smeared pier rings”.

2 Approximate Analysis Via Axi‑Symmetric To avoid undue complexity, yet retain some ele-
Finite Element Simulation ment of reality, all of the foundation systems are
assumed initially to be identical, and are located in a
In principle, the interaction among multiple founda- two-layer soil profile. Figure 2 illustrates this simpli-
tion systems can be carried out via a three-dimen- fied representation of multiple foundations.
sional finite element analysis in which each pile The Young’s moduli of the equivalent pier and the
within each foundation system is modelled. However, smeared pier ring can be estimated approximately

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2817

by ignoring the effect of the soil and considering the Table 1  Example analyzed
stiffness of the piles only. The equivalent modulus of Quantity Value
the central pier, ­Ep1, is then calculated as follows:
Pile length, L (m) 40
Ep1 = n1 ⋅ Ep ⋅ Ap ∕(𝜋 ⋅ D2 ∕4) (1) Equivalent pier diameter, D (m) 50
Spacing between central and adjacent smeared pier 5
where ­n1 = number of piles in the central group, ring, s (m)
­Ep = Young’s modulus of an individual pile, Young’s modulus of layer 1 (MPa) 20
­Ap = cross-sectional area of each pile, D = diameter of Young’s modulus of layer 2 (MPa) 100
equivalent central pier. Young’s modulus of piles (MPa) 30,000
Similarly, the equivalent modulus of the adjacent Average spacing/diameter of piles 3
smeared pier ring, ­Ep2, is: Applied loading on each pier, p (kPa) 300

Ep2 = n2 . Ep .Ap ∕AR (2)

where ­n2 = number of piles in the smeared pier ring, surrounding the central pier. Each pier consists of
and ­AR = area of smeared pier ring, = 218 piles 1 m diameter, spaced at about 3 m centre
to centre.
AR = [𝜋 (1.5D + s)2 − (0.5D + s)2 (3)
( ]
From Eq. (1), the equivalent Young’s modulus of
the central pier is 2616 MPa.
where s = average centre-to-centre spacing between
The average loading on the smeared pier ring has
piles.
to take account of the fact that only the areas occu-
In most cases, the effect of the Young’s modulus
pied by the 4 piers are loaded. Thus, for the smeared
of the equivalent piers will be small, as the length of
pier ring, the average loading, ­p1, is found to be as
the equivalent pier in relation to the diameter will be
follows:
small, typically less than 5 for most tall buildings.
P1 = [n.p.𝜋D2 ∕4]∕AR (4)
2.1 Limitations of the Adopted Approach
where p = average pressure on each foundation, and
It is important to recognize that, in an axisymmetric n = number of piers within the smeared pier ring = 4
analysis, it is implicitly assumed that all of the adja- in this case.
cent piers are loaded simultaneously. In reality, this In this case, ­p1 is found to be 136 kPa.
would be highly unlikely to occur, as surrounding The number of piles in the pier ring is
buildings would be constructed at different times and ­n2 = 4*218 = 872, and from Eq. 2, the Young’s modu-
would be likely to have different loadings. Further- lus of the smeared pier ring is 1189 MPa.
more, the foundation dimensions would be unlikely to
be identical. 2.3 Example Results—Equal Pier Lengths
The effects of having unequal lengths of equivalent
piers are examined subsequently in this paper after Figure 3 shows the finite element mesh developed
the evolution of a simplified approach. for the example analysis. It contains 32,087 nodes
and 3957 elements. The lateral extent of the mesh
2.2 Example Analyzed is 250 m and the vertical extent is 200 m. The upper
layer is divided into two sections to enable later con-
As an example, the case described in Table 1 has sideration of piers of unequal length.
been analyzed using the program PLAXIS. To avoid The analysis involved simulation of two stages:
undue complication at this stage, both the soil strata
and the piers are assumed to behave elastically. Pois- 1. Loading of the central pier, giving the settlement
son’s ratio for both layers is assumed to be 0.3. of the building of interest under its own loading;
It is also assumed that there are 4 identical and 2. Subsequent loading of the adjacent smeared pier
equally loaded equivalent piers symmetrically ring, giving the settlements of the central pier and

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2818 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Fig. 3  Finite element mesh

the smeared pier ring at the end of load applica- the adjacent buildings has resulted in an increase
tion. in settlement, in this case, of almost 200%. Thus,
the overall final settlement of the central pier is
For the case where the central pier and the adjacent about 215 mm.
smeared pier ring are of equal length, referred to here 3. The settlement of the smeared pile ring is not uni-
as Case 1, Fig. 4 shows the computed settlement pro- form, but tends to be larger adjacent to the central
file when the centre pier is loaded, while Fig. 5 shows pier and smaller at the outer edges. This result is
the profile of additional settlements after the adjacent surprising, as it might be expected that the pres-
smeared pier ring is loaded. ence of the central pier would tend to inhibit the
From these figures, the following points can be settlement of the smeared pier ring.
noted:

1. Under its own loading, the central pier settles 2.4 Effect of Unequal Pier Lengths
about 75 mm and the settlement profile away
from the pier reduces rapidly with increasing dis- To obtain some indication of the effects of having
tance. interacting equivalent piers of different lengths, two
2. Under the loading of the adjacent smeared pier additional analyses have been carried out:
ring, a very significant increase in settlement of
the central pier occurs, with the additional settle- 1. Case 2: a shorter central pier (20 m long) adja-
ment being about 140 mm. Thus, the loading of cent to a longer (40 m) smeared pier ring.

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2819

Fig. 4  Case 1: settlement profile when 40 m long centre pier loaded

2. Case 3: a longer (40 m) central pier adjacent to a 1. The least total settlement occurs when the cen-
shorter (20 m) smeared piled ring. tral and smeared outer piers are the same length
(Case 1).
In each case, the upper layer is 40 m deep. Thus, 2. When the central pier is shorter (Case 2), its set-
Case 2 represents a central foundation that may be tlement (173 mm) is increased considerably as
shorter than it should be and surrounded by deeper compared with the longer case (75 mm).
foundations, while Case 3 represents a deeper founda- 3. When the central pier is shorter, the additional
tion system surrounded by a series of less deep foun- settlements due to the longer smeared pier ring
dations. All piers are assumed to be loaded equally are slightly larger than for the case of all piers
with an average vertical pressure of 300 kPa. being of equal length.
The computed settlement profile for the central 4. The additional settlements due to the surrounding
pier in Case 2 is shown in Fig. 6, while the additional piers are greater when the smeared pier ring is
settlements due to loading of the adjacent smeared shorter than the central pier (Case 3). In this case,
pier ring are shown in Fig. 7. The corresponding pro- the additional settlements are increased substan-
files for Case 3 are shown in Fig. 3 (the centre pier is tially, both beneath the central pier and beneath
the same as for the previous case) and in Fig. 8 for the the smeared pier ring. The computed additional
effect of the loading of the adjacent shorter smeared settlement beneath the central pier is 131 mm,
pier ring. as compared with 75 mm when the smeared pier
The preceding figures suggest the following char- ring is longer. In addition, the settlement differ-
acteristics of behaviour:

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2820 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Fig. 5  Case 1: profile of additional settlements after 40 m long outer smeared pier ring loaded

ence across the smeared pier ring is significantly consequences of multiple foundation interaction, they
greater than in the other two. have significant limitations in terms of:
5. The latter finding can be of practical importance
as it implies that, even though a foundation may 1. Not being able to simulate sequential loading of
be relatively deep, if shallower foundations are surrounding foundations.
constructed and loaded around it, the central 2. Not being able to handle non-symmetrical
pier may experience a significant increase in set- arrangements of foundations;
tlement. In other words, in this case at least, it 3. Requiring all surrounding foundations to be iden-
appears that the stiffness of the surrounding piers tical, even though they can be different to the
tends to have the main influence on the additional central foundation being considered.
settlements of the central pier. 4. Not being able to simulate the differential settle-
ments at various points across the whole founda-
Table 2 summarizes the computed settlements for tion footprint.
each of the three cases.
Consequently, it is desirable to seek an alterna-
tive approach that is more flexible and that can be
3 Development of a Simplified Analysis Approach calibrated against the axisymmetric analyses set out
above. In addition, it would be desirable that the
While the axisymmetric finite element analyses out- method should be implemented without the use of
lined above can provide useful indications on the complex software.

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2821

Fig. 6  Case 2: settlement profile when shorter centre pier loaded

To this end, an attempt has been made to develop 3.1 Representation of Pile Group as an Equivalent
a simpler method involving the use of interaction Pier
factors between foundations, an approach that paral-
lels the interaction factor approach that is frequently Ideally, an equivalent pier representing a pile group
used in the analysis of pile groups. In the proposed should have a similar ultimate capacity and stiffness
simplified analysis, the following procedure is to that of the group. As discussed by Poulos (1994),
followed: in utilizing the equivalent pier approach, the follow-
ing points should be noted:
1. The foundation system of each tower is simplified
and represented as an equivalent pier. 1. Ideally, the diameter of the equivalent pier, D,
2. The interaction between pairs of piers is consid- should be such that it has an equal surface area
ered to estimate the settlement of a pier due to (shaft and base) to the enclosed “block” of piles
loading on adjacent piers. and soil. For a block of square plan of dimen-
3. Superposition is applied in an approximate man- sions BxB, D will be between 1.13B (for equal
ner to consider the settlement distribution within base area) and 1.27B (for equal shaft perimeter).
a multiple high-rise development area. From a practical viewpoint, it may be adequate to
adopt an average D = 1.2B in this case.
Each of the above steps is described in more 2. The equivalent Young’s modulus of the pier is
detail below. taken as the area-weighted average value of the

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2822 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Fig. 7  Case 2: profile of additional settlements after longer outer smeared pier ring loaded

pile—soil block. If the stiffness of the soil is dis- from the estimated ultimate shaft and base resist-
regarded, and the average centre to centre spacing ances of the pile group.
of the piles is s, the equivalent pier modulus, ­Epe,
is approximated as: The axial stiffness of the equivalent pier can be read-
ily computed from a numerical analysis or from elas-
Epe ≈ Ep ⋅ (d∕s)2 ⋅ 𝜋∕4 (5) tic-based solutions such as those presented by Poulos
(1994). These latter solutions will be reproduced later
where ­Ep = Young’s modulus of the piles and d =
in the paper.
pile diameter.
In most cases, the equivalent pier is likely to be rela-
3.2 Interaction between Identical Piers
tively short, so that the pier is relatively rigid and
the effect of E
­ pe is minor.
The concept of settlement interaction factors between
3. In selecting the Young’s modulus of the bear-
two piles was introduced by Poulos (1968). Using this
ing stratum, considerations needs to be given to
approach, the additional settlement, D­ SI,j at an exist-
the effects of pile installation. An average value
ing pier i due to an identical newly-constructed pier j,
(weighted with respect to the relative depth
can be expressed as follows:
below the pier base) should be used.
4. For a non-linear analysis, equivalent shaft and DSi,j = Pj ⋅ 𝛼ij ∕Kj (6)
base resistances for the pier should be computed

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2823

Fig. 8  Case 3: profile of additional settlements after shorter outer smeared pier ring loaded

Table 2  Summary of computed settlements from PLAXIS analyses (all piers loaded equally)
Case Computed settlement mm
Central pier Inner edge of smeared Outer edge of
pier ring smeared pier
ring
Settlement Additional settlement Total settlement Settlement when Settlement when
when centre pier when smeared ring smeared ring smeared ring
loaded loaded loaded loaded

Case 1: all piers of equal 75 69 144 78 72

length
Case 2: centre pier shorter 173 75 248 79 72
than smeared ring
Case 3: centre pier longer 75 131 206 202 132
than smeared ring

where ­Pj = load on pier j The effects of diffraction described by Mylona-

𝛼ij = interaction factor for spacing between centre kis and Gazetas (1998) were not considered because
of pier j and a point A on pier i. of the relatively short length of the equivalent piers.
Kj = stiffness of pier j.

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2824 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

As discussed below, such effects did not appear to interaction factor 𝛼 and the distance, r, from the pier,
be significant. as shown in Fig. 9, thus indicating that the effects of
diffraction are not significant. The curve labelled as
3.3 Superposition of Settlement Increments “CLAP” has been obtained from a pile group analysis
program based on DEFPIG (Poulos 1990), while the
If all the equivalent piers are identical, then then the curve labelled “PLAXIS” has been obtained from the
overall settlement of pier i, ­Si, after the construction computed settlement profile shown in Fig. 3.
of a number (n) of adjacent piers is the summation The following approximate expression for the
of the settlement of Pier i under its own load, ­S0, plus interaction curves in this case can be derived from
the additional settlements due to each of the adjacent curve fitting:
piers, i.e.:
𝛼 ≈ 1.15.exp(−1.25r∕D) (9)
Si = S0 + ΣPj .𝛼ij ∕Kj (7)
For the shorter 20 m long piers, the computed
where ­S0 = settlement of pier i under its own load interaction factors from the PLAXIS analysis are
shown in Fig. 10.
= Pj ∕Kj (7a) The corresponding approximate expression for the
interaction curves in this case from curve fitting is as
and ­Pj = load on Pier j and ­Ki = stiffness of pier j.
follows:
3.4 Estimation of Interaction Factors 𝛼 ≈ 3.1.exp(−2.5r∕D) (9a)

The interaction factor 𝛼 can be computed via a bound-

ary element analysis similar to that employed by Pou-
los (1968). Alternatively, it may also be estimated 4 Assessment of Superposition Approximation
from an axisymmetric finite element analysis finite
element analysis such as PLAXIS, using the follow- 4.1 Identical Piers
ing approximation:
To assess the accuracy of the approximate superposi-
𝛼 = DS ∕S0 (8) tion approach described above, a finite element analy-
sis has been carried out of a circular pier surrounded
where ΔS = soil settlement at a distance r from the
by 4 identical and symmetrically circular piers. The
loaded pier, at mid-depth of the pier, and S
­ 0 = settle-
additional settlement of the central pier after all piers
ment of the pier under its own load.
have been loaded has been obtained from this analysis
For the case of piers of identical dimensions con-
and compared with that computed from the superpo-
sidered above (length = 40 m, diameter = 50 m), both
sition approach. Figure 11 shows the case analyzed.
approaches give very similar relationships between

Case 1 - 40m Long Pier 1

0.7 0.9
0.8
0.6
Interac on Factor
Interacon Factor

0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4 0.5
0.3 CLAP 0.4
0.2 PLAXIS 0.3
0.1 0.2
0 0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 0
r/D 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
r/D
Fig. 9  Comparison of interaction factors via CLAP and
PLAXIS for Case 1; 40 m long Piers Fig. 10  interaction factors for 20 m long Piers

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2825

As shown in Table 3 for Case 1, the computed

additional settlement of the central pier after the outer
smeared pier ring is loaded is 69 mm. In using the
superposition approach (Eq. 9) and the interaction
curves in Fig. 9, to allow for the stiffness of the pier,
an average of the central and edge settlements has
been used. The computed additional settlement of the
central pier is then found to be 88 mm. Thus, in this
case, the interaction factor approach is conservative
and tends to over-estimate the additional settlements
due to the surrounding piers.

4.2 Non‑Identical Piers

The two simplified cases (Cases 2 and 3) discussed in

Fig. 11  Case examined (axi-symmetric) relation to Table 2 have been considered for this eval-
uation. When applying the superposition approach to
Table 3  Comparison of computed settlements for identical consider the interaction among non-identical piers,
piers there are a number of possible assumptions that could
Analysis used Computed be made in relation to the stiffness of the influencing
settlement piles and the interaction factors, and some of these
mm are summarized in Table 4.
PLAXIS axi-symmetric 69 For each of the options listed in Table 4, the con-
Superposition approach 88 sequent computed additional settlements using the
superposition approach are shown in Table 5. Also
shown, for comparison, are the values from the
In the finite element analysis, the piers surrounding PLAXIS analyses (shown in bold) from Table 2.
the central pier have been represented by a “smeared” From the comparisons in Table 5, it is concluded
circular pier ring. The equivalent piers representing that:
the pile groups are all 50 m in diameter and 40 m
deep. The distance between the central pier and the 1. There is a tendency for the interaction factor
surrounding ring of piers is 5 m and the average approach to be conservative, except for Option 2
applied pressure on each pier is p = 300 kPa (equiva- of Case 3;
lent to about a 30-storey building). The axial stiffness 2. For piers of dissimilar length, the influencing
of the pier is found to be 7820 MN/m. piers have the dominant effect;
In the finite element analysis, the average pressure 3. The best agreement appears to be achieved when
on the surrounding ring, p­ 1, is obtained by dividing the interaction analysis uses the stiffness of the
the total load on the 4 outer piers by the area of the influencing piers, and the average interaction fac-
ring, and is found to be 136 kPa. tors for the influencing and influenced piers.

Table 4  Summary of some Option no Stiffness of interacting piers used Interaction factors used
possible assumptions for
pile stiffness and interaction 1 Influencing piers Influencing piers
factors
2 Influencing piers Average for influencing & influenced pier
3 Influenced pier Influencing piers
4 Influenced pier Average for influencing & influenced pier
5 Mean of influenced and influencing piers Average for influencing & influenced pier

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2826 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Table 5  Computed Option no Computed additional settlement of centre pier (mm)

additional settlements due
to loading of smeared pier Case 2: centre pier shorter than outer Case 3: center pier longer
ring smeared ring than outer smeared ring

1 88 153
2 77 177
3 153 88
The bold figures are to 4 177 77
distinguish the values from 5 107 107
the PLAXIS analysis from PLAXIS 75 170
the approximate analysis

The average stiffness, K, of a single pier within an

elastic layer and bearing on a layer of equal or greater
stiffness can be expressed as follows:
K = D ⋅ Es ∕Is (10)
where D = diameter of equivalent pier
Es = average Young’s modulus of soil along the
pier.
Is = factor depending on L/de and Eb/Es and plot-
ted in Fig. 12
Eb = average Young’s modulus of bearing stratum
within two diameters below the pier base.
L = pier length.
The average settlement, S­ 1, of the equivalent pier
under its own load can then be calculated as:
Fig. 12  Factor Is for single pier stiffness
S1 = P∕K (11)

5 Practical Application of the Approach

5.2 Pier Interaction Factors
To facilitate the application of the proposed approach
without complex computer analyses, some solutions PLAXIS has been used to obtain some generic inter-
for single pier stiffness and interaction factors are pre- action factors for simple cases involving a pier within
sented below. an upper layer, having Young’s modulus E ­ s, founded
on a lower layer of equal or greater stiffness, with a
5.1 Axial Stiffness of a Single Equivalent Pier Young’s modulus E ­ b. Figures 13(a to d) show com-
puted values of the basic interaction factor 𝛼 versus
In general, the axial stiffness of a single equivalent radial distance from the centre of the pier (r/D), for
pier can be computed from a finite element analy- four values of length to equivalent diameter (L/D) of
sis. If the ground profile can be idealized as a two- the pier, and for four values of ­Eb/Es.
layer system, then the solutions developed by Poulos Check calculations were made with the program
(1994) from finite element analyses for the settlement RS2, and almost identical results were obtained for
of an axially loaded pier within an elastic layer with the values of 𝛼 obtained from PLAXIS.
Young’s modulus E ­ s and bearing on a stratum with Figures 14(a to d) show corresponding plots of 𝛼
a Young’s modulus E ­ b can be used. The geometry versus r/D for the four ratios of ­Eb/Es.
of the system and the resulting curves are shown in From Figs. 13 and 14, the following characteristics
Fig. 12. can be noted:
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2827

Fig. 13  Basic interaction factors for two identical equivalent ▸ L/D=2.5

piers. a L/D = 2.5; b L/D = 1.5; c L/D = 0.5; d L/D = 0 1.000
0.900

Basic Interac on Factor

0.800
(a) 𝛼 decreases as r/D decreases, as would be 0.700
Eb/Es=1
expected. 0.600
0.500
(b) 𝛼 tends to decrease as the ratio ­Eb/Es increases, 0.400
Eb/Es=2

i.e. there is less interaction between piers founded 0.300

on a stiffer stratum than in a homogeneous soil. 0.200
Eb/Es=5

(c) 𝛼 tends to increase as L/D increases, i.e. deeper 0.100

Eb/Es=10
0.000
piers experience more interaction than more shal- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
low piers. r/D

(d) There is very little interaction for distances in (a)

excess of 5D. L/D=1.5
1.000
0.900
To simplify the use of these curves, a base case 0.800

Basic Interac on Factor

has been selected, for L/D = 1.5 and E ­ b/Es = 2, and 0.700

the relationship between interaction factor (denoted 0.600

Es2/Es1=1
0.500
here as 𝛼0) and r/D has been plotted in Fig. 15. 0.400
Es2/Es1=2

Then to allow for different values of L/D, an 0.300

Es2/Es1=5

approximate correction factor F ­ 1 has been derived 0.200 Es2/Es1=10

0.100
as the ratio of the interaction factor for L/D to the 0.000
value for the base case, for a spacing of r/D = 1.5. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A similar correction factor, ­F2, has been derived for r/D

(b)
the effect of the base modulus ratio E ­ b/Es. These
correction factors are plotted in Figs. 16 and 17 L/D=0.5
respectively. 1.000
0.900
Thus, the interaction factor is then expressed
Basic Interac on Factor

0.800
(approximately) as: 0.700
0.600
Es2/Es1=1
𝛼 = 𝛼0 .F1 .F2 (12) 0.500
Es2/Es1=2
0.400
Es2/Es1=5
By curve fitting of the graphs in these three figures, 0.300
0.200 Es2/Es1=10
the following approximate relationships are derived: 0.100
0.000
𝛼0 = 1.681.exp(−1.222r∕D) + 0.038 (13) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
r/D
(c)
F1 = 0.835.exp(0.237.L∕D) − 0.191 (14)
Surface Foo ng
1.000
(15)
( )
F2 = 2.337.exp −1.055.Eb ∕Es + 0.718 0.900
0.800
Basic Interac on Factor

0.700
0.600
0.500
5.3 Extension to Interaction Among Multiple 0.400
Dissimilar Equivalent Piers 0.300
0.200
0.100
When the equivalent piers within the group are not all 0.000
identical, the settlement of a point A on an equiva- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
r/D
lent Pier i due to load ­Pj on Equivalent Pier j is again
(d)
given by Eq. 6. This assumes that the settlement of

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2828 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

Eb/Es=1 1.000
1 0.900
Selement Interac on Factor

Selement Interacon Factor

0.8 0.800
0.700
0.6 L/D=2.5
0.600
0.4 L/D=1.5
0.500
L/D=0.5
0.2 0.400
L/D=0.1
0 0.300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.200
r/D 0.100
(a)
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Eb/Es=2
1 r/D
Selement Interac on Factor

0.8
Fig. 15  Basic interaction Factor 𝛼0 for base case (L/D = 1.5,
0.6 L/D=5 ­Eb/Es = 2)
0.4 L/D=3
L/D=1
0.2
1.6
L/D=0.1
0 1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.2
r/D Correcon Factor F1
(b) 1

0.8
Eb/Es=5
1 0.6
Selement Interac on Factor

0.8 0.4

0.2
0.6 L/D=2.5
0
0.4 L/D=1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
L/D
L/D=0.5
0.2
L/D=0.1
0 Fig. 16  Correction factor ­F1 for L/D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
r/D
(c)
1.8
Eb/Es=10
1.6
1
Selement Interac on Factor

0.9 1.4
Correcon Factor F2

0.8 1.2
0.7
1
0.6 L/D=2.5
0.5 0.8
0.4 L/D=1.5
0.6
0.3 L/D=0.5
0.4
0.2
L/D=0.1
0.1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
r/D Eb/Es

(d)
Fig. 17  Correction factor ­F2 for base modulus ratio ­Eb/Es
Fig. 14  Basic interaction factors for two identical equivalent
piers. a ­Eb/Es = 1; b ­Eb/Es = 2; c ­Eb/Es = 5; d ­Eb/Es = 10

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2829

Pier i depends on the stiffness of the influencing pier The evolution of settlement will be calculated at
and the average interaction factor for the influencing the centre and at each of the corners of T0. Because
and influenced piers. of the simplified nature of the analysis, the settlement
For the entire group, the settlement of point on of T0 under its own loading is (approximately) uni-
pier i is then given by Eq. 7. This is of course an form, but settlements due to the adjacent towers will
approximation, but probably adequate for a first be dependent on the distance between the tower cen-
estimate. tre and the point in question.
The simplification of the problem proceeds as
follows:
6 Example of the Application of the Approach
1. Developing the equivalent pier for each tower
To illustrate the application of the proposed approach foundation: Assuming that the piles occupy
to a somewhat more realistic case, the example illus- the area of the tower footprint, the area is
trated in Fig. 18 has been considered. In this example, 50 × 50 = 2500 ­m2, so that the equivalent diam-
a cluster of 7 identical towers are to be constructed, eter is (2500 ∗ 4∕𝜏)0.5 = 56.4 m. The length L is
with the central tower (T0) being constructed first, 40 m, so that L/D = 0.71.
and then the remaining towers (T1 to T6) being con- 2. Develop an equivalent 2-layer soil profile:
structed in turn. Each tower has an average service-
ability loading of 0.3 MPa (equivalent to about a
The average Young’s modulus along the
30-storey building), and occupies a square footprint
length of the piles, E
­ s, can be approximated as
of 50 m by 50 m. The buildings are in close proxim-
(20x20 + 20x100)/40 = 60 MPa. Thus, ­Eb/Es
ity, being spaced 5 m apart.
= 100/60 = 1.67. For the above values of L/D
The ground conditions consist of a 20 m deep layer
and ­Eb/Es, from Figure 11, ­Is ≈ 0.33.
of medium clay with an average long-term Young’s
modulus of 20 MPa, overlying a 180 m deep layer of
stiffer residual clay with a long-term Young’s modu- 3. From the chart in Fig. 12, and Eq. 10:
lus of 100 MPa. The foundation system of each tower K = 56.4 × 60/0.33 = 10,255 MN/m.
consists of a series of bored piles with a total length 4. The average settlement, S ­ 0, of tower T0 under
of 40 m, i.e. founded 20 m into the residual clay layer. its own loading can be estimated using Eq. 11:
­S0 = 0.3 × ­502/10255 = 0.073 m = 73 mm.
5. The influence of the adjacent buildings can now
be considered. The settlement calculations points
are the centre of T0 and the four corners of that
tower. The effect of Tower T1 is considered first,
and the calculations are shown in Table 6 where
values of the spacing from the centre of T1 to
each of the calculation points are shown. The
corresponding values of interaction factors, com-
puted from Eqs. 12 to 15, are shown, and then
the overall additional settlement at each of these
points is computed from Eq. 7.
6. Similar tables can be set up for the effects of the
other towers, T2 to T6. These calculations are
carried out most effectively via a program such
as MATHCAD, and Table 7 summarizes the final
outcome of the calculations carried out. Fig-
ure 18 summarizes the evolution of settlements at
each of the five points considered, with the load-
Fig. 18  Configuration of tower cluster

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 2830 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831

300 The following characteristics can be seen from

250 Point 0 Fig. 19:
Point A
Selement mm

200
• Significant additional settlements are induced
150 Point B below T0 due to loading on the adjacent towers.
100 Point C The final settlement is almost 4 times the settle-
ment of T0 under its own loading.
50 Point D
• The settlements below T0 are uniform at the start
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PLAXIS (all towers and finish of the loading sequence, but not at inter-
loaded)
Aer Loaded Tower No. mediate stages.
• Significant differential settlements are induced
Fig. 19  Evolution of computed settlements at various points below T0 during the loading process of the adja-
below T1 cent towers. In this example, the largest differ-
ential settlement occurs between Points D and A
after Tower T3 has been constructed and loaded
Table 6  Calculations for effect of tower T1 on tower T0 (82 mm between Points B and C), and is in excess
Calcula- Distance r r/D Interac- Additional of the initial uniform settlement of T0.
tion point from centre tion factor settlement due • In the simple case considered, where the tower
of T1 (m) 𝛼ij to T2 (mm) configuration around the tower of interest is sym-
metrical, the differential settlements will eventu-
O (centre) 55 0.975 0.549 36
ally become zero or near-zero. However, in cases
A 39.1 0.692 0.759 50
where asymmetric adjacent towers are present, or
B 39.1 0.692 0.759 50
there is a marked difference between the loadings
C 83.8 1.486 0.312 20
on the adjacent towers, there will be a residual dif-
D 83.8 1.486 0.312 20
ferential settlement of the original tower.

ing stages representing the loading of Towers T0 7 Conclusions

to T6 in turn.
7. Also shown in Fig. 18 is the results of a PLAXIS This paper has set out an approximate approach of
axisymmetric analysis for the final stage after estimating the interaction among groups of tall tower
all buildings have been loaded. It can be seen foundations. This approach involves the simplification
that this computed settlement is about 25 mm of the foundation system of each building to an equiv-
smaller than that computed via the approximate alent circular pier, and extends the interaction factor
approach, thus confirming the earlier finding that approach initially developed for pile groups. It should
the approximate approach is likely to provide be noted that the present analysis does not account for
somewhat conservative results. the effects of the strain level on the ground stiffness,
and may therefore tend to over-estimate interaction
effects. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the approach at

Table 7  Calculations for Calculation Additional settlement after tower loaded (mm)
effect of all towers on tower point
T0 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

O (centre) 73 109 140 172 208 239 271

A 73 123 145 161 181 213 273
B 73 123 182 214 235 251 273
C 73 93 110 132 181 241 273
D 73 93 126 185 235 257 273

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:2815–2831 2831

least provides a rational means of assessing whether Declarations

multiple building interaction effects are likely to be
Conflict of interest The authors is not aware of any compet-
important or not. ing interests.
For the relatively short piers likely to be relevant
to tall tower foundations, the interaction factors have Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
been computed from axisymmetric analyses using mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
PLAXIS. An axisymmetric PLAXIS analysis has also use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
been used to assess the accuracy of the approximate original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
approach and has revealed that the latter may provide tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
a somewhat conservative assessment of the additional images or other third party material in this article are included
settlements. However, a more satisfactory assessment in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
of the accuracy of the approach must await a com- included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
parison with a more rigorous full three-dimensional intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
finite element analysis. the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
It seems clear that the additional settlements of the from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
original foundation of interest are controlled largely
by the following factors:
References
1. The loading on the adjacent foundations;
2. Their distance from the original foundation; Chow, H.S. and Poulos, H.G. (2023). Analysis of foundation
3. The axial stiffness of the influencing foundation. settlement interaction among multiple high-rise buildings.
Proc Aust—New Zealand Conf Geomechanics, Cairns, in
Significant differential settlements may be induced press.
Blessmann J, Riera JD (1985) Wind excitation of neighbouring
below a tower during the loading process of the adja- tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 18(1):91–103
cent towers, depending on the sequence of construc- Cardno, C. A. (2022) Future forests. Civil Eng, March/April
tion of these towers. Where the subsurface conditions issue, ASCE.
are uniform over the site and surrounding area, and Kato B, Wang G (2022) Seismic site-city interaction analysis of
super-tall buildings surrounding an underground station: a
the tower configuration around the tower of inter- case study in Hong Kong. Bull Earthq Eng 20:1431–1454
est is symmetrical, and the loadings and foundation Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (1998) Settlement and additional
systems are identical, the differential settlements will internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil. Geotech-
eventually become relatively or near-zero. However, nique 48(1):55–72
Poulos HG (1968) Analysis of the settlement of pile groups.
in cases where asymmetric adjacent towers are pre- Geotechnique 18:449–471
sent, or there is a marked difference between the load- Poulos HG (1990) DEFPIG user’s manual. Centre for Geot.
ings on the adjacent towers, there will be a residual Research, University of Sydney
differential settlement of the original tower. Such a Poulos HG (1994) Settlement prediction for driven piles and
pile groups. Vert Horizl Deformns Foundns Embank-
residual settlement may be significant if the surround- ments Geotech Spec Publ ASCE NY 2:1629–1649
ing tower foundations are less stiff than the original
foundation. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
Acknowledgements The author is grateful to his colleague affiliations.
Patrick Wong for his helpful comments.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by

CAUL and its Member Institutions. The author has received
support from Tetra Tech Coffey.

Data Availability Data related to this research can eb made

available on written request to the author.

Vol.: (0123456789)
13