Modeling Foundations in RS

Piled Raft Modeling in RS3

Deep foundation piles are commonly used to increase foundation stability and to increase the bearing
capacity of structural systems. The design and analysis of these piles may be done using a finite element
program, and as numerical modeling becomes more common in geotechnical engineering and design, it
becomes increasingly important to understand the accuracy, and limitations, of numerical modeling tools.
This article looks at a number of piled raft models in RS3 and consists of the
following three sections, Vertically Loaded Pile in Clay, Piled Raft Foundation in
Sand and Piled Raft Foundation in Multiple Material Strata.

Model geometry and mesh for

vertically loaded pile in clay

Piled raft foundation in sand

Piled raft foundation in multiple

material strata

Vertically Loaded Pile in Clay

The model in this first section is based on a paper
recently presented at the DFI Conference 2013,
which discusses a verification study for RS3 of a
pile in clayey soil. The verification was based on
a field study by Han and Ye (2006). In addition, a
parametric analysis was carried out to examine
the influence of different input parameters on the
numerical results. The effects of interface stiffness, skin resistance, and soil modulus parameters
on load-displacement and axial force response are
investigated.

A plastic Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used,

and residual values were equal to initial values.
The pile properties are summarized in Table 2. The
base normal stiffness and unit weight are assumed
values.

Model Details
The in-situ soil profile consisted of three horizontal layers; properties for each layer are summarized in Table 1.
Table 2: Pile strength and Stiffness parameters
Table 1: Soil Material Properties

Multilinear Skin Friction was defined by a function

of maximum skin traction with depth. The skin
traction plot, shown in Figure 1, was derived from
the undrained shear strength plot by assuming
that skin resistance is proportional to undrained
shear strength.
In order to avoid boundary condition effects, as
well as minimize computation time, a number of
initial analyses were carried out to determine the
appropriate model size. A square 10x10m model,
14.6m deep, was chosen after the preliminary
analyses.

Figure 1: Multilinear skin traction function

The model geometry and mesh are shown in Figure 2.

A total of 3,417 nodes and 20,198 four-noded tetrahedral elements were used. The mesh was customized
to be denser near the pile. For the pile itself, a nonconforming, embedded element was used. This element
introduces
nodes at points
of intersection
between the
pile element
and tetrahedral
elements.

Figure 2: Base model geometry and finite element mesh

The vertical pile load was applied at a rate

of 10kN/h. In terms of groundwater conditions, initially the water table was set
at the pile head. The ground surface was
treated as a free drainage surface in the
analysis, and a fully coupled stress and
pore pressure analysis was carried out.

Model Verification
The base model accuracy was established
by comparing both the load-displacement
and axial force responses. Figure 3 compares the
pile load-displacement response from the field
study and finite element model.
In both the field study and numerical analysis,
plunging occurs at 135kN (in the analysis, nonconvergence indicated failure), verifying the loaddisplacement results obtained by RS3 .
The axial force response was also used to verify
the base model. Strains measured in the field
were converted to axial force and compared to
RS3 results. Figure 4 provides the verification of
the base model for axial force response.
Figure 4: Comparison
of axial force response
for base model

Figure 3:
Comparison of
load-displacement response
for base model

Parametric Analysis
Interface stiffness, skin resistance, and material
property parameters are examined. All parametric
analysis results were compared to the base model
analysis results only.
A selection of results from the parametric analyses
are summarized in Figures 5 and 6. The main conclusions of these analyses were the following:
s Both linear and C-Phi skin resistance methods significantly
decrease pile capacity in the
cases analyzed

Figure 5: Effect of linear skin resistance on load-displacement response

s An increase in the soil modulus

decreases downward displacement prior to failure and increases axial force resistance
along the pile
s A decrease in modulus increases
displacement and decreases
axial resistance
For the full set of conclusions, see the paper
published in the DFI (2013).

Figure 6: Effect of c-phi skin resistance method on load-displacement response

Piled Raft Foundation in Sand

The previous section presented the

results of a finite element parametric
analysis of a single vertically loaded pile.
In this section, 3D modeling of a piled
raft foundation is discussed, highlighting
the foundation analysis capabilities of
RS3. The model and material properties
are adapted from Ryltenius (2011).
Shown is a brief parametric investigation on the effect of pile spacing. Three Figure 7: Raft foundation geometry and
different pile layouts were investigated, sample pile layout
and a raft foundation with no piles was
also examined. The model geometry is illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. The
piled raft is seated on a layer of soft clay, with the water table located
three meters below the ground surface. A uniform load of 30kN/m2 is
applied to the raft.
Figure 9 (see next page) illustrates the displacement profile along the
centre of the model for each pile layout. Figure 10 shows the effect of
pile spacing on the axial force in the piles (the corner pile in each model
was chosen for comparison purposes).

Figure 8: Model geometry (in z-direction)

Displacement and axial force contours can also be examined to quickly see the effect that the pile layout has on the
results. Deformed displacement contours, on an XZ plane in the centre of each model are compared in Figure 11.
In creating the models, changing the pile layout was
straightforward, since the pile pattern vertical and horizontal spacing can be quickly changed in the Edit Pile Pattern
On Ends dialog. The ease with which pile layouts can be
modified makes running a number of parametric analyses
quite simple. In the same way, the pile length, orientation,
and direction can be easily modified for additional analyses.

Figure 9: Effect of pile layout on z-displacement

Figure 11: Comparison of displacement contours for

different pile layouts

Figure 10: Effect of pile layout on pile axial force

Piled Raft Foundation in

Multiple Material Strata
In the previous set of parametric analyses, we
examined the effect of pile layout on the behaviour of a piled raft foundation on a single material.
This problem looks at 8x8m un-piled and piled raft
foundations on sandy soil. Figure 12 illustrates the
entire model, while Figure 13 shows the pile layout.

Figure 13:
Typical raft
configuration

Figure 12: 8x8m piled raft foundation

The subsurface consists of five different types of

soil and a static water level of 3.5m below ground
surface. Rock is assumed to be 30m below ground
surface, which is considered as a rigid boundary
in this analysis. The soil profile is summarized in
Table 3.

Table 3: Material layer elevations

The following four cases were examined:

Case 1 - 8m8m un-piled raft with varying
thickness: 0.25m, 0.4m, 0.8m, 1.5m, and
3m. The vertical load intensity is 215kN/m2
Case 2 - 15m15m un-piled raft with varying thickness: 0.25m, 0.4m, 0.8m, 1.5m, and
3m. The vertical load intensity is 215kN/m2
Case 3 - 8m8m piled raft with varying
thickness: 0.25m, 0.4m, 0.8m, 1.5m, and
3m. The vertical load intensity is 215kN/m2
and pile spacing is 3d.

Figure 14: Bending moment of piled raft with different raft thicknesses

Case 4 - Piled raft with varying pile spacing: 3d, 4d, 5d, 6d, and 7d. For each pile spacing the raft size changes
proportionally and the vertical loading intensity of 215kN/m2, 430kN/m2, and 645kN/m2 is applied.
Figure 14 highlights some of the results obtained for Case 3. Bending moments obtained with different raft
thicknesses are compared.

Figure 15 examines the bending moments obtained with different pile layouts. Notice that the
pile layout has a much larger effect on the bending
moment than raft thickness.

References:
Han, J., Ye, S. (2006). A field study on the
behavior of micropiles in clay under compression and tension. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
43(1), 19-29.
Ryltenius, A. (2011) FEM Modelling of Piled Raft
Foundations in Two and Three Dimensions. Masters Dissertation. Geotechnical Engineering, Lund
University.
Sethna, E., Yacoub, T., Dang, K., and Curran, J.
(2013). Finite Element Parametric Analysis of
Vertically Loaded Pile in Clay. Presented in DFI.
RS3 Verification: Piled Raft Foundation in Sand

Figure 12: Bending moment of piled raft with uniform load of 215kN/m2