## 5 Conclusions  
In this paper, a hexagonal section foundation named the grid pile foundation (GPF) was proposed. The lateral load-displacement relationship of the GPF is investigated using a quasi-static test, while the soil stress characteristics are analyzed using numerical simulations. In addition, this paper analyzes the influence of the lateral load capacity characteristics of the GPF by examining parameters such as soil friction angle, pile Young's modulus, and pile length. A comparative analysis between the pile group foundation and the GPF is applied to a bridge construction project. The main conclusions are as follows:  
1. For the GPF, both the load-displacement curves obtained from the quasi-static test and the numerical simulation demonstrate an outstanding ability to withstand lateral loads. The load-displacement curves for the GPF under lateral loading show a rapid transition from the stiffness stage to the plastic strain stage without reaching the damage stage. In the stiffness stage, the pile behaves flexibly, while in the plastic strain stage, it transforms into a rigid pile. 2. The soil pressure curve indicates that soil stress in the pile core is high at the top and low at the bottom under the same load, and the soil in the head of the pile core is affected by the deformation disturbance of the GPF to produce damage when the lateral displacement reaches 15 mm. In contrast, the stress in the external soil is high at the bottom and low at the top, and the soil at the bottom of the pile core reaches the yield state. The GPF stress pattern shows lateral loading effects, and the soil displacement and stress patterns indicate the active and passive damage zones around the pile. 3. The results of parameter analysis reveal that [PERSON]'s modulus and pile length have a very strong influence on its lateral performance, while the influence of soil friction angle is relatively slight, which indicates that the GPF is suitable for the construction of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Stiffness** & **Pile Group Foundation** & **The GPF** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Stiffness Increase Rate** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\
**(N/m)** & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.8494 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.1831 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 116\% \\ 116\% \\ 145\% \\ \end{tabular} \\
**Z** translation stiffness & 0.1472 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 0.2138 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 45\% \\
**X** rotation stiffness & 0.6655 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 0.8296 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 25\% \\
**Y** rotation stiffness & 0.6655 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 0.8296 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 25\% \\
**Z** rotation stiffness & 0.9499 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 0.1661 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 75\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pile group foundation and the GPF stiffness. large-span bridges. The results of the parameter analysis can provide some theoretical basis for the design and actual engineering construction of the GPF. * The GPF has a much higher lateral translational and rotation stiffness than the pile group foundation, which indicates that the GPF has good load-bearing capacity. Although the above study shows the good lateral load-bearing capacity of the GPF and provides valuable theoretical guidance for designers, the GPF still needs some future work before real-world application in practical engineering. For example, the advantages and drawbacks of the GPF should be discussed compared to the pile group foundations. During the construction process of the GPF, the detailed construction method of the wall joint should be proposed to ensure the whole performance of the proposed GPF. Conceptualization, W.Z. and Y.P. ; methodology, J.Z. ; software, W.Z., H.A. and Y.P. ; validation, Y.P. and J.Z. ; investigation, H.A. ; resources, H.A., C.Z. and J.R.; data curation, J.C. and C.Z. ; writing--original draft preparation, W.Z. ; writing--review and editing, W.Z. and J.C.; supervision, J.Z. and C.Z. ; funding acquisition, J.Z.