## 4 Results and Discussion  
### Group Pile Lateral Load Capacity  
The failure mechanism occurred as usual (Figure 8). Pile bending occurs to the right (passive wedge) from a depth of 0.00-10.00 m. It is appropriate that the small diameter pile shows a wedge failure up to 5D at a shallow depth with deflection decreasing to zero at more than 8D below the soil surface [4]. Figures 9-11 shows a graph of the lateral load that the pile can withstand and the value of the deflection. If the pile is given a load of 542.453 kN for condition 690.240 kN for condition 2, and 822.309 kN for condition 3, the combination lateral loads effect, pile stiffness, and soil stiffness effect on a 3D single pile analysis with a square pile cap can withstand a load of 300 kN lower than the given load under these three conditions. In the pile group analysis, if the pile is given a load of 7051.887 kN for condition 1, 8973.120 kN for condition 2, and 10,690.011 kN for condition 3, the acceptable load for the first row of piles has a value of 300 kN, which is more considerable than the three loading conditions of the single pile can withstand; the second and third row are almost the same, and the fourth-row pile is 200 kN lower than the three loading conditions of the single pile can withstand. The value of the lateral capacity above is within safe limits because the ultimate lateral bearing capacity of the pile (P\({}_{\rm{ult}}\)) happ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Parameters** & **Symbol** & **Unit** & **MH** & **SM** & **SM** & **MH** & **CL-ML** \\ \hline Depth & & M & 17.50–20.00 & 20.00–23.50 & 23.50–26.50 & 26.50–29.50 & 29.50–30.00 \\ Material model & & & Mohr– & Mohr– & Mohr– & Mohr– & Mohr– \\ Behavior type & & & Coulumb & Coulumb & Coulumb & Coulumb & Coulumb \\ Density above water table & \(\gamma_{\rm{unsat}}\) & kN/m\({}^{3}\) & 10.065 & 15.419 & 16.652 & 10.179 & 11.196 \\ Density below & \(\gamma_{\rm{sat}}\) & kN/m\({}^{3}\) & 15.614 & 19.191 & 20.252 & 16.288 & 16.349 \\ Water table & \(\gamma^{\prime}\) & kN/m\({}^{3}\) & 5.807 & 9.384 & 10.445 & 6.482 & 6.543 \\ Poisson ratio & V & & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.4 \\ Cohesion & C & kN/m\({}^{2}\) & 19.221 & 9.12 & 0.588 & 21.673 & 3.825 \\ Friction angle & \(\varphi\) & \(\circ\) & 18.8 & 40.9 & 51.75 & 17.19 & 40.9 \\ R\({}_{\rm{inter}}\) & & & 1.00 & 0.611 & 0.417 & 1.00 & 0.611 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._  
Figure 8: Failure mechanism of the group pile. Figure 9: Lateral load capacity vs. deflection (**a**) P\({}_{\text{S1}}\), P\({}_{\text{G1}}\), (**b**) P\({}_{\text{S2}}\), P\({}_{\text{G2}}\), (**c**) P\({}_{\text{S3}}\), P\({}_{\text{G3}}\). Figure 10: Lateral load capacity vs. deflection (**a**) E\({}_{\text{p1}}\) = 20.75 MPa, (**b**) E\({}_{\text{p2}}\) = 29.05 MPa, (**c**) E\({}_{\text{p3}}\) = 37.35 MPa. When viewed as a single pile, it can be seen from the lateral resistance that the pile in the group pile analysis with an asymmetrical pile cap can withstand a load more considerable than the single pile on the first row of piles, and the lateral resistance on the  
Figure 11: Lateral load capacity vs. deflection (**a**) E\({}_{\text{sl}}\) = [PERSON] et al. [23], (**b**) E\({}_{\text{s2}}\) = [PERSON] and [PERSON] in Hammam and Eliwa [22], (**c**) E\({}_{\text{s3}}\) = [PERSON] and [PERSON] [24]. single pile has a magnitude that is almost the same as the 3D analysis of the group pile on the second row of piles with a difference of 1-10% (Table 5). However, if the lateral resistance is multiplied by the total number of piles (13 piles), then the overall lateral resistance of the single pile analysis is more excellent than that of the pile group analysis. The 3D finite element of the single pile and group pile indicates a linear relationship between pile stiffness and lateral resistance, where the increase in pile stiffness will increase the lateral resistance (Figure 10). Pile stiffness affects pile response by changing soil mobilization alongside the pile.