Numerical modelling of tension piles

S. van Baars
Ministry of Public Works, Utrecht, Netherlands
W.J. van Niekerk
Ballast Nedam Engineering, Amstelveen, Netherlands

Keywords: Tension piles, shaft friction, installation effect, bearing capacity, case study,
CPT

ABSTRACT: For determinations of the ultimate tension capacity of a piled foundation,

often use is made of empirical relations between soil strength and skin friction. The
disadvantage of these (analytical) methods is that they are in general not very accurate for
most soil conditions. Therefore a numerical method for determination of the ultimate
bearing capacity is presented here. Results were successively compared with actual test
results which were measured during pile tests. It was found that the numerical model
assessed the actual pile bearing capacity more closely than analytical models based on
empirical calculation rules. Therefore lower factors of safety can be accepted. The
behaviour of the (virtual) interface between pile and soil significantly influences the
behaviour of the pile.

1 INTRODUCTION

Foundations of large civil constructions are often loaded in tension. For determination of
the ultimate tension capacity of a piled foundation, often use is made of empirical relations
between soil strength and skin friction. In these methods the actual circumference of the
pile is multiplied by the skin friction that can be generated from the soil as measured in the
laboratory or in situ, e.g. through the results of unconsolidated undrained tests or torvane
tests, which form the basis for su (undrained shear strength) based methods. Other methods
take the in-situ shear strength and stress into account through in-situ measurement of the
soil resistance based on the qc (cone resistance) following from the Dutch CPT tests. It can
be shown that from a substantial amount of pile tests, satisfying relations between qc and su
based methods exist for cohesive soils (Van Niekerk et al. 1998).
These convenient and simple to use methods are considered as analytical. The
disadvantage of the analytical methods is that they are in general not very accurate for
most soil conditions. This is for instant caused by changing soil stresses due to installation
effects. Other inaccuracies can follow from relaxation of soil stresses due to excavations of
normally and over-consolidated soils. Especially granular soils are susceptible to this
phenomenon. During loading of a tension pile, the surrounding soil stress is reduced due to
uplift of the soil mass surrounding the piles. This yields changes in the ultimate bearing
capacity which is often based on empirical values for compression loading. Finally during
construction of cast in situ piles, soil stresses are governed by the concrete pressure during
curing of the concrete. The soil stresses generated from the cast in situ piles are subject to
phenomena related to execution of the piling works, such as the maintained hydraulic head
during and after casting of the concrete.
The accuracy of analytical methods is reduced by not taking into account all these soil
stress related items. Therefore in contrast to the analytical methods a numerical method for
determination of the ultimate bearing capacity is presented here. The presented method
here was used by Van Niekerk (1996 a, b) and Van Baars (1997) for research purposes to
determine the suitability of a finite element model to implement the in-situ stresses after
installation of a pile. Results were successively compared with actual test results which
were measured during pile tests on the De Gaag aqueduct project as a test case for the
Second Beneluxtunnel project. Both projects are situated in the Netherlands.

2 THEORY OF PLAXIS MODELLING

In this paper pile shaft capacity is assessed by subsequently modelling in-situ soil
conditions and soil conditions after driving of the pile. Here it is initially assumed that for
the in-situ soil conditions prior to installation, the soil was considered to be normally
consolidated. This allows for a simple calculation to generate the horizontal and vertical
stresses before installation, according equation 1:
σ h = K0 ⋅ σ v (1)
in which K0 is determined by Poisson’s ratio ν according equation 2:
ν
Ko = (2)
1− ν
For overconsolidated soil other value’s of K0 apply. With these equations the soil stress can
be determined at every point of the FEM mesh, as well on every boundary of the model.
The study of a single, axially loaded pile typically allows for the use of an axi-symmetric
mesh. Since internal stress states of the pile and effects of diameter changes due to loading
(Poisson effect) are neglected, the pile could be modelled by modelling the skin only. It is
proposed here to model the skin by a beam element. This procedure has two advantages
compared to modelling of the pile with elastic soil elements.
Firstly, the number of elements reduces, which allows for faster calculation in especially
versions of Plaxis prior to release 7.0 and secondly, this allows for applying a random
traction load on the boundary where the beam element is put. The possibility to do so,
enables one to use any stress distribution measured on the pile, as for instance proposed by
Lehane and Jardine (1994). In their proposal the radial effective stress on the shaft is
determined by the cone resistance, vertical effective stress and relative penetration depth.
Thus, not only the soil resistance but also the effect of on-going penetration of the pile tip,
and its effect on in-situ stress is modelled.
The in-situ stress acting on the pile can be modelled by applying a traction load on the
mesh boundary as presented in Figure 2. In the (simplified) mesh of Figure 1. interface
elements are situated along the pile shaft. By applying the following steps the stresses after
installation can be generated:
1. Perform an elastic calculation with traction loads on the 'free' boundaries to generate a
stress condition with equal K0 for the entire mesh. The pile is not present yet. Radial
displacements are allowed.
2. Apply additional traction loads along the future pile shaft location to model pile
installation effects.
3. Activate the beam element and lock its position by prohibiting displacements of the
nodes in radial direction (See Figure 4-5.)

The radial stress increase caused by installation has now been introduced in the FEM mesh
correctly. The interface elements next to the pile are subject to a stress greater or at least
different than the original stress and are subject to shear. By applying a pile head
displacement the pile can be loaded.

3 GENERAL PLAXIS RESULTS AND SUITABILITY OF THE MODEL

Shaft capacity of the basic model was compared with the shaft capacity of a modified
model, which differed from the original, by varying the length/diameter ratio, the reference
shear modulus, the internal friction angle, the interface friction angle, the stress state
before and after installation, the presence of a compressible layer, the load direction, the
distance of a reaction force on the soil surface and last but certainly not least, the interface
thickness.
The load displacement curves for all different scenarios have been compared in the study.
As was to be expected from field experience, the general load displacement curve is
initially virtually linear, after which the load needed for additional displacements
decreases. The ultimate shaft capacity is determined as the point were displacements
continue without load increase. The results of varying input parameters that particularly
involve Plaxis modelling are highlighted below.
It was found that the load direction had little effect on the ultimate shaft capacity; the shaft
capacity in tension loading is some 10% lower than it is in compressive loading. It is
considered that this (minor) difference is caused by the difference in principal stress
rotation. The load displacement behaviour of the pile is mainly determined by the
dimensions of the pile and the soil shear modulus. The shaft capacity is mainly determined
by the dimensions of the pile, the radial stress on the shaft, the shaft friction angle, the
degree of consolidation and the interface thickness.
The importance of the interface thickness is caused by the dilatant behaviour of the
interface, which can cause additional radial stress increase. Increase of the interface
thickness led to a significant higher shaft capacity of the pile. Additional information on
dilatancy and the importance of a correct thickness of the dilatant zone can be found in
Houlsby (1991). The influence of the interface is also discussed below in the explanatory
calculation presented.
4 APPLICATION

For economical reasons, in the Netherlands and some surrounding countries, the most
common method of calculation of the ultimate bearing resistance of a pile is the qc method.
In this method the maximum shear force that can be generated along a pile shaft is
determined by the integral of the cone resistance multiplied by a shear factor over the full
height of all relevant layers. The shear resistance factor is dependent on the soil type and
the pile type. The main merit of this method is its simplicity. Based on a CPT test, only an
easy assessment can be made of the total bearing capacity. Its main drawback however is
its large inaccuracy because of its highly empirical basis for shaft resistance factors. Also
no direct relation between the diameter of the CPT cone and the diameter of a pile is
appropriately taking into account the soil displacement and subsequent stressing of the
surrounding soil. Furthermore the effect of stress reduction during retrieval of a tube or
other equipment during installation of cast in situ piles is not considered.
In addition to this, the method does not consider the effect of variation of the concrete
level when not at ground level during installation of a pile, see Lings et al (1994). For
instance, at The De Gaag aqueduct casting of concrete was terminated at 11.5 m below
ground level. In numerical calculations these effects can be considered accurately.

5 CASE VIBROCOM PILE DE GAAG

5.1 Choice of Pile

For the tension pile research near De Gaag 3 Vibro piles, 3 Vibrocom piles, 2 HP piles and
a single steel tubular pile were test loaded. In this paper, cast in situ piles (i.e. Vibro or
Vibrocom piles) are considered, mainly because the in-situ stresses for those piles are
better known than for steel piles. Furthermore it was found later that the w/c ratio of the
concrete used for the Vibro piles was lower than usual, which yielded less stress increase
in the soil than usual. Also air and water intrusions were formed during installation, as
appeared after excavation of the pile. It was therefore considered most interesting to model
the Vibrocom piles.

5.2 Geotechnical profile of De Gaag

Below the used model of the geotechnical conditions are given. Ground level is situated at
NAP -1.6 m. In Sand layer A the ground water table is found at NAP - 4.6 m, whereas in
the higher Holocene layers the ground water table is found at NAP - 3.6 m.

Table 1. Geotechnical model De Gaag - Vibro piling

No. Stratum γ wet G50 cu φ' ψ' ytop
3
[kN/m ] [kN/m2] [kN/m ]2
[deg] [deg] [m to NAP]
6 Clay (+peat) 15 1000 30 - - -1.6
5 Clay (+sand) 16 2000 50 - - -7.6
4 Sand B 19 10,000 1 25 - -11.6
3 Peat 14 1500 80 - - -18.1
2 Clay 18 3000 120 - - -19.1
1 Sand A 20 25,000 1 35 2 -20.1

Measured bearing capacities were compared with manual calculations, the latter based on
CPT results (qc method). CPT results were available in sufficient amounts in contrast to the
amount of direct soil tests to determine strength and stiffness of various layers. Table 1.
therefore contains best estimates that should however be assessed carefully.

5.3 Pile installation

Prior to installation of the Vibrocom piles a casing Ø 1.1 m was driven to NAP - 13.1 m,
during which the casing was cleared. Subsequently Vibro tubes with lost tip (Ø 557/508
mm) were driven to NAP - 28.0 m. Successively an instrumented prefab core (Ø 320 mm)
was installed in the tube and the annular space was filled with concrete mortar. By using
the casing, the pile was not installed in the upper two clay layers. It was considered in
design that these layers would not contribute to the ultimate bearing capacity before the
deeper sand layers has failed (loads in excess of the maximum shear stress in the sand).
For Pile B problems with the piling hammer occurred, which have led to interruptions and
once a maximum delay of 15 minutes. Although no clear indication is found that this pile
has been influenced by these interruptions, the bearing capacity is significantly more than
for Piles A and C.

6 NUMERICAL MODELLING OF THE GEOMETRY

6.1 Soil
For numerical calculations the entire geometry needs to be modelled. In this case the lower
boundary is put at NAP - 36.6 m, whereas the outer boundary of the axi-symmetric mesh is
put at 10 m from the centre line of the pile axis. Calculations are made using 15-noded
triangular elements in between 6 verticals and 15 horizontal mesh lines. Positions of the
mesh nodes are mainly determined by the pile wall (w), pile length (l), boundaries (b), soil
layers (s), additional nodes for weak layers (xw) and additional nodes for the thick soil
layers (xt). In Table 2 the positions are given for the horizontal mesh lines.

Table 2. Horizontals
-36.6 -31.6 -28.0 -26.6 -24.5 -22.6 -20.1 -19.6 -19.1 -18.6 -18.1 -13.1 -11.6 -7.6 -1.6
b xt l xt xt xt s xw s xw s l s s b

For the position of the vertical mesh lines the results of Table 3 apply:

Table 3. Verticals
0 0.258 0.5 1.5 5 10
b w b

Two Plaxis mesh blocks are used, one supporting the pile tip and the other along the first
up to the pile top. In Figures 1-3 the mesh is shown.
6.2 Interface
Much of the pile strength depends on its interaction with the subsoil through the interface
layer. The roughness of this interface is found to be 0.8 to 1.0 times the in situ shear
strength of the soil. In this paper the strength of the interface is taken at 0.9 times the soil
strength.
At NAP -13.1 m a change in the effective soil stresses occurs at the boundary of the casing
and the pile. Since the interface contains only one integration node at this point, there is
only one strain and one stress. Only by applying an additional node this singularity
problem can be avoided. Here this is achieved by applying an extra interface perpendicular
to the previous interface. The new interface needs not to be extended in the mesh. Since
the pore pressure P changes at NAP -20.1 m, also here an additional interface is required.

6.3 Pile
In simple situations the pile can be modelled using one beam element, however here two
beams should be used, i.e. one for the pile shaft (NAP - 13.1 to - 28.0 m) and one for the
casing (NAP - 1.6 to - 13.1 m). These beam elements can be activated during calculations.
In the calculations the casing is put on the same vertical as the tubular pile for
convenience, although the radius in non-equivalent.
To avoid numerical problems, pile stiffness parameters EA and EI shall not be taken to big
in relations to the soil stiffness. However piles should be stiff enough to model actual soil
behaviour.
Figure 1. Connectivity plot Figure 2. Boundary A (soil) Figure 3. Boundary B (mortar)

6.4 Boundary condition A (soil)

Initially the boundary stresses are kept equivalent to the in-situ horizontal effective stress.
To avoid changes in the soil stresses at every change of soil type, it was chosen to apply an
equivalent soil pressures coefficient at rest of K0 = 0.5. Introduction of the stress in the
mesh was done numerically by applying first a load step considering gravity [Mweight =
1]. The soil stresses introduced to the mesh were derived from equations 1 and 2. The
horizontal effective stresses are calculated using:
σ A ' = ( − z γ wet − p) K 0 (3)
where z = depth and p = water pressure.
At pile tip level (NAP -28.0 m) we thus find a maximum horizontal effective stress of
111.75 kN/m2 and a vertical effective stress of 223.5 kN/m2.

To model stress increase from driving of the piles, the horizontal effective stress is
temporarily increased, which is a simplification of complex matter. It can be assumed that
during driving the soil will never react completely passive, which denotes K<Kp. If chosen
to adopt K = 2 then the effective horizontal stress needs to be increased temporarily by a
factor f = K/Ko = 2/0.5 = 4 to model pile driving effects.

6.5 Boundary condition B (mortar)

For the final stage of the installation, it is assumed that the effective stress at the pile shaft
is dependent on the mortar pressures during curing [Load B]. The weight of the mortar is
taken at γmortar = 22 kN/m3. Concrete mortar has been installed to level NAP -13.1 m. Since
the ground water table at this level is 1 m lower than at ground level, while this is not the
case for the fluid mortar, an additional pressure of 10 kN/m2 is accounted for in the deeper
layers starting at NAP - 20.1 m. Thus we find that the support pressure B is dependent on
the depth z:
σ B ' = −( z + 131
. )(22 − 10) {+10} (4)
Near the pile tip (z = NAP -28.0 m) we find a maximum horizontal and vertical effective
stress of 188.8 kN/m2. When the pile would be installed to ground level, the pressure
would be significantly higher:
σ B ' = − ( −28.0 + 16
. ) × (22 − 10) + 3 × 10 = 346.8 kN / m 2 (5)
Effects of higher support pressure are considered later.

7 NUMERICAL MODEL TENSION PILE IN DETAIL

Below is given in detail the procedure for all stages of the numerical test loading of the
pile:
A. Boundary condition A (soil) is activated, while the inner boundary is resisted to move
horizontally. Thus boundary condition A acts only vertically on mesh block no. 1.
Also the weight of the soil elements is activated.
[load A = 1, boundary_x = fixed , Mweight = 1]
B. Casing (Beam II) is activated.
[staged construction, beam II = + ]
C. Inner boundary is released. The upper three nodes resist the casing (Beam II). Below
the casing (place of futur tension pile), boundary condition A satisfies equilibrium.
[below casing: boundary_x = loose]
D. To model stressing of the soil from pile driving, boundary condition A (soil) is
increased by a factor 4.
[load A = 4]
E. By pulling the Vibro tube the soil is unloaded, but also reload by the fluid mortar. The
increased boundary pressure A is replaced at the same time by boundary pressure B
(mortar).
[load A = 0, load B = 1]
F. During curing of the pile, de inner boundary of the mesh is resisted from deforming
horizontally. Beam I ( = tension pile) is activated and Beam II ( = casing) is
deactivated to prevent the latter from being pulled up.
[boundary_x = fixed, staged construction, beam I = +, beam II = -]

The tension pile is now ready to be pulled.

G. All displacements from previous can now be reset (to zero). By applying a forced
displacement to a single node on Beam II (Figure 4 and 5) the pile is pulled out.
[reset displacements, Σ_Mdispl = 0.1]
Figure 4. Boundary conditions Figure 5. Displacement at one node

By multiplying the vertical force (Force y = normal force in Beam I) by 2 π and plotting
this force against the total displacements [Sum-Mdisp], a load displacement curve is
generated, as given in Figure 6.

1800
1600
1400
1200
Force [kN]

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Displacement [m]

Figure 6. Force versus displacement of the tension pile

Failure of the soil appears rather locally, i.e. directly next to the pile shaft (Figure 7).
Plastic points are only found next to the shaft and the pile tip.

A
B

B
B
C
D

τ
D
C τ max
B
B
A = 0.1
C B = 0.3
C C = 0.5
D = 0.7
E = 0.9

Figure 7. Ratio of shear stress to maximum shear stress

8 RESULTS PILE LOAD TESTS

The measured pile bearing capacities as measured at De Gaag strongly deviated from the
empirical calculation results as based on the qc method (pre-calculated), even if qc results
are considered which are taken after installation of the pile (post-calculated), see Table 4.

Table 4. Measured and analytical calculated bearing capacities

Pile Measured Pre-calculated Post-calculated
[kN] [kN] [kN]
A 1800 3260 2960
B 2580 3200 2950
C 1850 3190 2830

According the numerical simulation the ultimate bearing capacity is 1740 kN, which is
only 16% less than the average capacity of the three piles, and only 5% less than the
average capacity of Piles A and C. This means that the numerical results are almost equal
to the measured results.
From additional numerical simulations followed that by increasing the hydraulic mortar
head level to ground level, a bearing capacity of 4200 kN could be achieved, which is an
increase in bearing capacity of 140 %.
8.1 Dynamic pile driving versus static calculation
Computer programs like Plaxis and most others are based on static equilibrium. However
this condition is not to be found during pile driving, from which it can be concluded that
the process itself of pile driving, in principle, can not be modelled accurately. It can
however be considered that pile driving gives more irregular stress distribution after
driving than casting piles in situ. In numerical simulations, only temporarily soil is stresses
additionally to model the pile driving. The assumed stressing of the soil is however
introduced in the mesh.
In the presented simulation here, was found that if the temporary stressing of the soil was
abandoned at all, the ultimate resistance was only 6% lower, which yields that in this case
less accurate modelling of the soil stressing has no significant effects on the results of cast
in situ pile calculations.

8.2 Interface behaviour

In the numerical calculation of the tension pile, an interface is modelled. It can be
questioned whether or not this is justifiable (does this interface exist in reality ?) and
furthermore one can wonder how to model an interface. It was found earlier however (Van
Niekerk 1996a) that the interface strength can increase the ultimate significantly by either
increasing the dilatancy or the virtual thickness, if an Advanced Mohr Coulomb model is
used.
From research performed by, among others, Tejchman and Wu (1995) follows that a rough
steel surface is remarkably well capable of transferring shear stresses from a solid body to
the soil. It follows that rough surfaces need hardly or no shear strength reduction at all.

8.3 Time dependent behaviour

For geotechnical calculations time is usually a major issue, especially for cohesive soils. In
the presented calculation an undrained strength is used rather than a drained strength. For
actual constructions however it might be considered using drained parameters to model
longer time spans of loading, or continuous loading in one direction. It suggested here to
study creep phenomena on the bearing capacity of a tension pile in a similar study as
presented in this paper.

8.4 Differences in stiffness

In the De Gaag case we find mainly cohesive top layers and at greater depth mainly non-
cohesive layers, which is typical for Dutch soils. The deeper layers are stiffer and therefore
considered to fail prior to the upper layers, from which yields that the upper and lower
layers can not resist the tension load at the same time. Therefore the total resistance of the
pile should not be equivalent to the sum of the maximum individual contribution of the soil
layers. However, simulations of the tension pile with a hydraulic mortar head level up to
ground level (with a bearing capacity of 4200 kN) showed that the sum of the individual
contribution was only 1% higher than the total resistance. So the philosophy for pile
constructions with bearing only in deeper layers, contains two mistakes. Firstly, the
contribution of the upper layers hardly need any reduction. Secondly, the higher mortar
head creates a much higher mortar pressure [load B].
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general numerical modelling of test loading of a tension pile proves to be a convenient

research tool. Effects of changes in soil stress, soil stiffness and interface behaviour in
particular can be studied in detail. In relation to this, determination of correct soil
parameters remains an issue of great importance.
From the explanatory case was found that the numerical model assessed the actual pile
bearing capacity more closely than analytical models based on empirical calculation rules.
Therefore lower factors of safety can be accepted, which will reduce the number or size of
the tension piles.
Installation effects and their modelling in numerical models remains an issue of concern.
Dynamics during installation, as well as poor execution of piling works can change soil
parameters beyond the conventional models for assessing pile bearing capacities. Time
dependent effects are generally neglected in empirical models but can be taken into
account in numerical models.
The behaviour of the (virtual) interface between pile and soil influences mostly the
behaviour of the pile. Its presence and properties should be studied more in detail to
determine the actual behaviour of the soil, as should the effects of differences of stiffness
of various subsequent layers.
Ultimately the best way to compare shaft resistance in numerical models and prototypes is
probably comparing load displacement curves. By closely modelling the loading-unloading
from prototypes in computers, soil and pile models can be calibrated, yielding more
information of actual soil conditions and pile bearing capacities.

10 REFERENCES

Baars, S. van. 1997. Case Study: Numerical Modelling of Tension Piles. Report BSW-R-97.48, Dutch
Ministry of Public Works
Houlsby, G.T. 1991 How the dilatancy of soils affects their behaviour. Proc. 10th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics , Balkema Rotterdam, pp. 1189-1202.
Lehane, B.M. and Jardine, R.J., 1994 Shaft Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand: A New Design Approach.
Proc. Boss, July 1994, pp. 23-36
Lings, M.L., Ng, C.W.W. and Nash, D.F.T. 1994, The Lateral Pressure of Wet Concrete in Diaphragm Wall
Panels Cast under Bentonite, Proc. Institution Civil Engineers; Geotechnical Engineering, July 1994, pp.
163-172.
Niekerk, W.J. van. 1996a Modelling of a single tension pile in sand. Plaxis Bulletin, no. 15.
Niekerk, W.J. van. 1996b Calculation of a tension pile, Handout Annual Plaxis Users Meeting (24 April
1996), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niekerk, W.J. van, Rösingh, J.W. and Tonnisen, J.Y. 1998. Performance of bored piles in Lignite, Proc. of
3th International Conference on Bored and Auger Piles, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Tejchman and Wu 1995 Int. Journ. Num. and Anal. Meth. In Geomechanics, vol 19, pp 513-536
Tomlinson, M.J. 1981. Pile design and foundation analysis. London: Viewpoint Publications