Tschuchnigg Lebeau Validation Emb Pile PDF

FE-Analysis of piled and piled raft foundations
Jean-Sbastien LEBEAU
April - August 2008
Abstract
In the last few years the number of piled raft foundations especially those with few piles, has
increased. Unlike the conventional piled foundation design in which the piles are designed to carry
the majority of the load, the design of a piled raft foundation allows the load to be shared between
the raft and piles and it is necessary to take the complex soil-struture interaction eects into account.
The aim of this paper is to describe a nite element analysis of deep foundations: piled and mainly
piled raft foundations. A basic parametric study is rstly presented to determine the inuence of
mesh discretisation, of materials - loose or dense sand -, of dilatancy and interface elements. Then
the behavior of piled raft foundations is analysed in more details using partial axisymmetric models
of one pile-raft.
We continue by preparing a more sophisticated 3D study to take into account the complex pilepile interaction which occured when the pile spacing is small. So the possibilies of employing the
embedded pile concept as implemented into Plaxis 3D foundations is investigated.
Finally, some
clues about the group eect are indicated.
Key words: Piled raft foundation, piles, embedded pile, volume pile, hardening soil
model
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to express my gratefulness to Professor Helmut F. Schweiger for giving me
the opportunity to work on geotechnical issues at the Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering of Graz University of Technology.
This paper was made possible by the great contribution of my supervisor Dipl.-Ing Franz Tschuch-
nigg. I am indebted to him for his friendly supervision and guidance throughout the period of my
traineeship. I deeply thank him because he conveyed me a better understanding of nite element
modeling and analyses.
I also would like to thank my French professor, Yvon Riou for getting me in touch with the Institute.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to all the people I met here who made my ve months
stay in Austria very enjoyable.
Contents
1
Introduction
Preliminary studies
2.1
Single pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.1
Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.2
Boundaries conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.3
Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.4
Meshes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.5
Load control and calculation steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Results
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.1.2.1
Mesh dependency
11
2.1.2.2
Comparison between distributed loads and prescribed displacement
14
2.1.2.3
Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
2.1.2.4
Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Pile-raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.2.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.2.1.1
Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.2.1.2
Boundaries conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2.1.3
Materials properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2.1.4
Meshes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
2.2.1.5
Load control and calculation steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Results
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
2.1.2
2.2
2.2.2
Presentation of calculations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
2.2.2.1
Mesh dependency
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
2.2.2.2
Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
2.2.2.3
Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Analysis of 2D models
24
3.1
Single-pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.2
Pile-Raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.2.1
Load-displacement curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
3.2.2
Variations of Skin friction and Normal Stresses along the pile
. . . . . . . . .
29
3.2.3
Analysis of the
factor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Kpp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Kpp
3.2.3.1
Denition of
3.2.3.2
Methodology to calculate
3.2.3.3
Comparison and evolution of
3.2.3.4
Evolution of
3.2.3.5
Evolution of
Kpp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kpp
for dierent geometries:
37
. . . . .
39
Kpp
for dierent materials and dilatancy . . . . . . . .
41
Kpp
for dierent values of Rinter
42
. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.4
Eciency of a piled-raft foundation in comparison with a raft foundation
. .
44
3.2.5
Analysis of the pile behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
3.2.5.1
Base resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
3.2.5.2
Skin resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
3.2.5.3
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
Preliminary studies of 3D models
49
4.1
Volume pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
4.1.1
Finite element models
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
4.1.2
Results
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
4.1.2.1
Load-displacement curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
4.1.2.2
Variations of skin friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
4.1.2.3
Some remarks about parameters
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
Embedded pile-raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
4.2.1.1
61
4.2
Embedded pile
4.2.1
Finite element models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
CONTENTS
4.2.1.2
Embedded pile with
linear skin friction distribution
4.2.1.3
Embedded pile with
multilinear skin friction distribution
4.2.1.4
Embedded pile with
layer dependent skin friction distribution
4.2.1.5
Comparison of the three options: Linear, multilinear and layer de-
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
5.2
63
69
73
pendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Group eect
5.1
CONTENTS
82
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
5.1.1
Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
5.1.2
Finite element model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
5.2.1
Vocabulary details
86
5.2.2
Load-displacement curves
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
5.2.3
Displacement proles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
5.2.4
More precise analysis of group 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
5.2.5
Conclusion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion
98
Chapter 1
Introduction
In traditional foundation design, it is customary to consider rst the use of shallow foundation such
as a raft (possibly after some ground-improvement methodology performed). If it is not adequate,
deep foundation such as a fully piled foundation is used instead. In the last few decade, an alternative
solution has been designed: piled raft foundation. Unlike the conventional piled foundation design in
which the piles are designed to carry the majority of the load, the design of a piled raft foundation
allows the load to be shared between the raft and piles and it is necessary to take the complex
soil-struture interaction eects into account.
The concept of piled raft foundation was rstly proposed by Davis and Poulos in 1972 and is now
used extensively in Europe, particularly for supporting the load of high buildings or towers. The
favorable application of piled raft occurs when the raft has adequate loading capacities, but the
settlement or dierential settlement exceed allowable values. In this case, the primary purpose of
the pile is to act as settlement reducer.
The aim of this paper is to describe a nite element analysis of deep foundations: piled and mainly
piled raft foundations. A basic parametric study is rstly presented to determine the inuence of
mesh discretisation, of materials - loose or dense sand -, of dilatancy and interface elements. Then
the behavior of piled raft foundations is analysed in more details using partial axisymmetric models
of one pile-raft.
We continue by preparing a more sophisticated 3D study to take into account the complex pilepile interaction which occured when the pile spacing is small. So the possibilies of employing the
embedded pile concept as implemented into Plaxis 3D foundations is investigated.
clues about the group eect are indicated.
Finally, some
Chapter 2
Preliminary studies
- 2D axisymmetric models In order to prepare a more sophisticated analysis a large number of calculations have been performed in axisymmetric conditions. This approach oered the possibility to study with reasonable
calculation times the inuence of mesh discretisation, dilatancy and interface elements for a single
pile and a pile-raft. The dierent models and conclusions are presented in this part.
2.1
Single pile
2.1.1 Presentation of calculations

2.1.1.1
Geometry
In order to analyze the behavior of the single pile, a model has been made in PLAXIS V8 using an
axisymmetric model. A working area of 20 m width and 40 m depth has been used. At the axis
of symmetry the pile has been modeled with a length of 15 m and a diameter of 0,8 m. The soil
is modeled as a single layer of sand with properties are described in 2.1.1.3). The ground water is
located at 40 m below the soil surface. In this way
we did not take into account the water
inuence. Along the length of the pile an interface has been modeled. We extended this interface
1
to 0,5 m below the pile inside the soil body to prevent stress oscillation in this sti corner area.
We added two clusters close to the pile to enrich easily the mesh in this more moving area.
This longer interface will enhance the exibility of the nite element mesh in this area and will thus prevent
non-physical stress results. However, these elements should not introduce an unrealistic weakness in the soil according
to
PLAXIS V8
manual.
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
2.1.1.2
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Boundaries conditions
We used the standard xities PLAXIS tool to dene the boundaries conditions. Thus these boundaries conditions are generated according to the following rules:
Vertical geometry lines for which the x-coordinate is equal to the lowest or highest x-coordinate
in the model obtain a horizontal xity (ux
= 0).
Horizontal geometry lines for which the y-coordinate is equal to the lowest y-coordinate in the
model obtain a full xity (ux
= uy = 0).
Figure 2.1: Global geometry of the axisymmetric model of the single pile
2.1.1.3
Material properties
The constitutive model used for the
soil - sand - is the Hardening soil model. The main advantage
of this constitutive law is its ability to consider the stress path and its eect on the soil stiness and
its behavior. We used two dierent types of sand : one loose and the other dense. We also varied
the dilatancy value.
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
For the concrete pile, a linear elastic material set was applied.
The parameters of all this materials are summarized in the following table:
Parameter
Symbol
Loose sand
Dense sand
Concrete (pile)
Material model
Model
Hardening Soil
Hardening Soil
Linear Elastic
Unsaturated weigth
17
19
25
kN/m
Saturated weigth
unsat
sat
20
21
25
kN/m
Permeability
20 000
60 000
Stiness
ref
E50
ref
Eoed
ref
Eur
20 000
60 000
1E5
1,8E5
Power
0,65
0,55
Poisson ratio
ur
0,2
0,2
2/0
8/0
32
38
0,1
Friction angle
y
f
Cohesion
cref
0,1
Lateral pressure coe.
K0
1-sin
Failure ratio
Rf
0,9
Dilatancy
1-sin
Unit
-
3
3
m/day
kN/m
3E7
kN/m
kN/m
0,2
0,9
kN/m
-
Table 2.1: Materials parameters
2.1.1.4
Meshes
To study the mesh dependency 3 analyses were performed: one with a coarse, one with a medium
and one with a very ne mesh. For each one we considered 6 models varying the interface elements.
Thus we played around the Rinter coecient
2 from 0,1 to 1.
This factor relates the interface strength (wall friction and adhesion) to the soil strength (friction angle and
cohesion)
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 2.2: A very ne mesh for calculations with interface elements
Coarse
Medium
Very ne
Number of elements
611
1848
4365
Number of nodes
5215
15 389
36 019
Elements
15-node
Table 2.2: Information on the generated meshes
2.1.1.5
Load control and calculation steps
To assign a load at the top of the pile we considered two approaches: one with prescribed displace-
ment, one with distributed loads.

With prescribed displacement we impose a certain displacement at the top of the pile whereas with
distributed loads we impose a force; results should be the same.
2.1.2 Results
Remark: All the following curves are plotted for the node point located at the top right side of
the pile.
10
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 2.3: Node point selected for load-displacement curves
2.1.2.1
Mesh dependency
By analysing all the calculations made, we can conclude that for each material - loose or dense sand
-
the curves have the same shapes for calculations performed with coarse, medium and
very ne mesh. Nevertheless, we can observe that with ner meshes, we have unphysical premature
soil body collapsing. The following gure illustrates this conclusion with some examples.
11
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
Figure 2.4: Mesh dependency for the
loose sand -
=2
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
- and dierent values for Rinter
les : Geo2Load_Mesh 1/2/3_Rinter0,1/0,7/1_Psi2_HS.plx
To avoid this premature failure we decided to restart the medium and very ne calculations switching
o the arc length control procedure. But we now observed convergence problems with more or less
important oscillations.
These oscillations occurred for important displacements (from 20 cm) whatever the material, mesh
or Rinter value.
However, the global shape of the load-displacement curve seems to stay realistic
even if there are these stairs.
12
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
Figure 2.5: Mesh dependency for the
CHAPTER 2.
loose sand -
=2
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
- and dierent values for Rinter
les : Geo2Load_Mesh 2_Loose_Rinter0,1/0,7_Psi2_HS(_alc=OFF).plx
Figure 2.6: Inuence of arc length control for the loose sand - =2 - and Rinter =0,7/0,1
parameters: mesh1= coarse, arc length=ON; mesh2= medium, arc length=OFF; mesh3= Very ne, arc
length=OFF;
13
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
The gure 2.6 enables us to conrm that the mesh dependency is negligible for this model.
2.1.2.2
Comparison between distributed loads and prescribed displacement
The previous paragraph was based on les with the load approach. We did the same calculations with
the displacement approach. By comparing these two approaches we can conclude that
the shape
of the load-settlement curves is exactly the same in each case . Moreover, there are less
oscillations with prescribed displacemen t than with distributed loads. There are no stairs' ' even
with an important displacement. So because it limits this problem of big oscillations,
prescribed
displacement seems to be better to study a single pile. The following picture illustrates
these conclusions.
Figure 2.7: Distributed loads and prescribed displacement, comparison for the
loose sand -
- and Rinter =0,1/0,4/0,7
les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Rinter0,1/0,4/0,7_Psi0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx
14
=0
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Remark: The gure 2.7 shows us the settlement with the load [kN] whereas in the previous section
2
we plotted the settlement with the distributed load [kN/m ]. To compare the two approaches we have
to:
Distributed load: Multiply the distributed load [kN/m ] by the area of the pile to get the total
force (Rtot ) [kN].
Prescribed displacement: Read out the force value in Plaxis output [kN/rad] and multiply it
by 2
to get the total force (Rtot ) [kN]
Now we can try to interpret the stairs of the load approach by comparing with the same calculations
done with the prescribed displacements.
Figure 2.8:
Comparison Displ and Load approaches for the loose sand
=0
- No interface
medium mesh
les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Loose_RinterNo_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx
15
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
Figure 2.9: Comparison Displ and Load approaches for the loose sand
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
=0 - R=1 medium mesh
les : Geo2Disp/Load_Loose_Mesh 2_Rinter1_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx
As we can see on gures 2.8 and 2.9, it is impossible to deduce correctly the normal shape from the
distributed load curves by interpreting the oscillations. Sometimes, the prescribed displacement
curve is under the distributed load one, sometimes it is in the middle. So
we have to interpret
with caution the shape of the stairs part of the distributed load curves.
2.1.2.3
Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter
We varied the way to model the pile to sand interface by changing the Rinter value and doing a model
without interface. We also performed one calculation by drawing an interface in Plaxis input and
unselected it in Plaxis calculation.
We can conclude that the choice of the value for Rinter is not negligible when you model
a single pile. As we can see in the table, for the same load, the settlements increase by more than
40 % between R=0,4 and 0,1, 80% between R=0,7 and 0,4 and 600 % between R=1 and 0,7 for
loose sand.
Load=2000 kN
Settlement [cm]
Rinter =0,1
22,5
Rinter =0,4
15,7
Rinter =0,7
8,6
Rinter =1
1,2
Table 2.3: Settlements of the single pile for loose sand,
16
=2
and Rtot =2000 kN
2.1.
SINGLE PILE
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
As we could expect the load-displacement curves have almost the same shape for models with R=1
and without interface.
We also noticed that unselecting the interface lead to false results with
premature failure (see red following curve) or an unrealistic behavior. So

the Plaxis input
the interface drawn in
must be selected in the calculations steps. The following curves sum up all these
conclusions.
Figure 2.10: Load-settlement curves for Loose sand,
=2
and coarse mesh
les : Geo2Load_Mesh1_Loose_Rinter0,1/0,4/0,7/1/Unselected/No_Psi=2_HS.plx
2.1.2.4
Inuence of the dilatancy
We tested two values of dilatancy
displacement with a high
for both materials: (
value than without dilatancy.
17
30)
and 0. As expected, we have less
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 2.11: Inuence of dilatancy for dense sand, mesh medium
les : Geo2Load_Mesh2_Dense_Rinter0,4/0,7_Psi8/0_HS_ALCo.plx
2.2
Pile-raft
2.2.1 Presentation of calculations

2.2.1.1
Geometry
We performed the same calculations as we have done with the single pile model using an axisymmetric model of a pile-raft foundation.
As we did for the single pile, the pile has been modeled with a length of 15 m and a diameter of
0,8 m at the axis of symmetry. We added a slab in concrete with a thickness of 0,5 m. The soil is
also modeled as a single layer of sand with the same properties as the single pile. The ground water
is located at 40 m below the soil surface. In this way
we did not take into account the water
inuence. Along the length of the pile an interface has been modeled. We extended this interface
to 0,5 m below the pile inside the soil body to prevent stress oscillation in this sti corner area.
18
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
2.2.1.2
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Boundaries conditions
We also used for this study the standard xities PLAXIS tool (see 2.1.1.2).
2.2.1.3
Materials properties
The parameters of all the materials are recalled in the following table:
Parameter
Symbol
Loose sand
Dense sand
Concrete
Material model
Model
Hardening Soil
Hardening Soil
Linear Elastic
Unsaturated weigth
17
19
25
kN/m
Saturated weigth
unsat
sat
20
21
25
kN/m
Permeability
20 000
60 000
Stiness
ref
E50
ref
Eoed
ref
Eur
20 000
60 000
1E5
1,8E5
0,65
0,55
Power
Poisson ratio
ur
0,2
0,2
2/0
8/0
Friction angle
y
f
32
38
Cohesion
cref
0,1
0,1
K0
1-sin
Failure ratio
Rf
0,9
Dilatancy
1-sin
Unit
-
3
3
m/day
kN/m
3E7
kN/m
kN/m
0,2
kN/m
0,9
2.2.1.4
Meshes
To study the mesh dependency 3 analysis were also performed: one with a coarse, one with a medium
and one with a very ne mesh. For each one we considered 6 models varying the interface elements.
Thus we varied the Rinter coecient from 0,1 to 1. We also performed one batch of calculation with
6-nodes instead of 15 nodes.
Coarse
Medium
Very ne
Coarse
Number of elements
459
1417
3012
903
Number of nodes
4246
12 578
25 708
Elements
15-node
19
2211
6-node
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
2.2.1.5
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Load control and calculation steps
To assign a load at the top of the slab we considered in this case only a distributed load
Figure 2.12: Details about a pile-raft geometry with the axisymmetric model, Very ne mesh
2.2.2 Results
Remark: All the following curves are plotted for the node point A, situated at the top right side
of the pile, under the slab (see gure 2.12).
2.2.2.1
Mesh dependency
By analysing all the calculations made, we can conclude that for each material - loose or dense
sand -
the curves have exactly the same shapes for calculations performed with coarse,
medium and very ne mesh.
20
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 2.13: Example, Mesh dependency for the pile raft model with loose sand,
=2,
Rinter =0,7
les : Geo1_Mesh1/2/3_loose_Rinter0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
2.2.2.2
Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter
We varied the way to model the pile to sand interface by changing the Rinter value and doing a model
without interface.
As we can see in the table and on the following curve
the way you model the interface has a
negligible inuence on the settlements.

Sand
Mesh
Loose
Coarse
Dense
Coarse
2
8
Rinter =0,4
Rinter =0,7
Rinter =1
-34,3 cm
-33,0 cm
-32,4 cm
-13,6 cm
-13,2 cm
-13,0 cm
Table 2.6: Settlements with dierent values of Rinter for load=1000 kN/m
21
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 2.
Table 2.7: Load-settlement curves for Loose sand,
=2
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
and coarse mesh
les : Geo1_Mesh1_loose_Rinter0,1/0,4/0,7/1/NO_Psi2_HS.plx
2.2.2.3
Inuence of the dilatancy
We tested two values of dilatancy ( ) for both materials: 2 and 0 for the loose sand, 8 and 0 for
the dense sand.
We can conclude that the inuence of the dilatancy is negligible for this
model even for the dense sand.
Sand
Mesh
Loose
Coarse
Loose
Coarse
Dense
Coarse
Dense
Coarse
2
0
8
0
Rinter =0,4
Rinter =0,7
Rinter =1
-34,3 cm
-33,0 cm
-32,4 cm
-34,4 cm
-33,0 cm
-32,4 cm
-13,6
-13,2
-13,0
-13,7
-13,2
-13,1
Table 2.8: Settlements with dierent values of Rinter for load=1000 kN/m
22
2.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 2.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 2.14: Inuence of dilatancy for dense sand, mesh coarse
les : Geo1_Mesh1_dense_Rinter0,4/0,7_Psi8/0_HS.plx
23
Chapter 3
Analysis of 2D models
- Behavior of a pile and a pile-raft In chapter 2 we made conclusions about how to dene eciently and correctly an axisymmetric
model of a single pile and a pile-raft. Now we present other calculations performed by taking these
preliminary practical conclusions into account.
In design of piled rafts, design engineers have to understand the mechanism of load transfer from
the raft to the piles and to the soil. It requires to take complex interactions into account such as:
pile-soil interaction, raft-soil interaction, pile-raft interaction and pile-pile interaction.
The aim of this chapter is to have a better understanding of the pile and raft behavior and to check
the ability of the software to model such complex interactions. In this part, we only modeled a single
pile with a raft so we did not take into account the pile-pile interaction.
3.1
Single-pile
In the previous calculations we simulated an axial load test on a bored pile. We get the following
load-displacement curve:
24
3.1.
SINGLE-PILE
CHAPTER 3.
ANALYSIS OF 2D MODELS
Figure 3.1: Axial load curve for a single-pile
le : Geo2Disp_Mesh2_loose_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
Now we observe the mobilisation of the skin friction (qs ) with dierent loads.
Figure 3.2: Evolution of the Skin friction with the load (Rtot)
25
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Rb [kN ]
Rs [kN ]
Rs
Rb
s = 1cm
s = 8cm
s = 15cm
140
906
1380
1050
1044
1040
7,5
1,15
0,75
Table 3.1: Evolution of the skin and base resistance with settlements
That shows that the maximum skin friction is already reacted when 1,0 cm settlements occur (see
gure 3.1). Further, the skin resistance stays the same.
3.2
Pile-Raft
Key questions that arise in the design of piled rafts concern the relative proportion of load carried
by raft and piles. It depends on the geometric parameters of the pile and of the raft.
We performed four new models based on the rst geometry described in chapter 2 to interpret the
raft and pile inuence .
Figure 3.3: Some geometric parameters
The
Pile-Raft I
is the geometry described in details in the chapter 2
26
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Paramater
Symbol
Pile-Raft I
Pile-Raft II
Diameter of the pile
dpile
Lpile
Lraf t
Hmodel
traf t
0,8 m
0,8 m
15 m
15 m
2 m
5 m
Length of the pile

Width of the raft
Depth of the model
Thickness of the slab
Lraf t
dpile
40 m
40 m
0,5 m
0,5 m
2,5
6,25
Table 3.2: Parameters of the rst set of calculations
Figure 3.4: Details of Pile-Raft I and II
27
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Paramater
Symbol
Pile-Raft V
Pile-Raft III
Pile-Raft IV
dpile
Lpile
Lraf t
Hmodel
traf t
1,5 m
1,5 m
1,5 m
Length of the pile

Width of the raft
Depth of the model
30 m
30 m
30 m
4,5 m
9 m
18 m
60 m
60 m
60 m
1 m
1 m
1 m
12
Lraf t
dpile
Table 3.3: Parameters of the second set of calculations
Figure 3.5: Details of Pile-Raft V, III and IV
We tested all these geometries with the materials loose and dense sand , with and without dilatancy
and varying the value of Rinter .
Rinter is very limited.

that there is
The outcome was that the inuence of dilatancy and of
We also performed these calculations with 3 dierent meshes to conrm
no mesh dependency. We tryed to have next the pile the same mesh coarseness in
See table n2.4
28
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
each model in order to compare precisely the dierent models. The load is a distributed load applied
on the slab and the boundaries conditions are those described in chapter 2.
In this study we did
not take into account the ground water.

Remark: As we did in chapter 2, all the load-displacement curves are plotted for the node point
A, situated at the top right side of the pile, under the slab (see gure 2.12).
3.2.1 Load-displacement curve

As we see on the following gure, the load-displacement curve for a pile-raft and a single pile is
completely dierent.
Figure 3.6: Load settlement curve for pile and pile-raft foundation
les : Geo1/1Bis/2load_Mesh1_loose_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
3.2.2 Variations of Skin friction and Normal Stresses along the pile
For each model we plotted the skin friction and the normal stresses along the pile. This procedure
gave us the possibility to illustrate how the load transfer works when the load increases. All the
following curves concern
dense sand with
=8 and Rinter = 0, 73 .
According to Plaxis manual this Rinter value is the most common to model standard situations
29
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Remark: All these gures are plotted by selecting the interface in the Plaxis output. In order to
get something comparable from one model to an other, we subtracted the rst phase with the pileactivation for each load steps plotted. Thus the Skin friction or Normal Stresses that we present
here are only due to the load and the weight of slab .
Figure 3.7: Evolution of the skin friction with the load for the Pile-raft I (
le : Geo1_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
30
dpile
lraf t
= 2, 5)
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.8: Evolution of the skin friction with the load for the Pile-raft II (
dpile
lraf t
= 6, 25)
le : Geo1Bis_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
On the previous gures we can easily see that the mobilization of skin friction of a pile in a piled-raft
foundation is completely dierent from the one of with a single pile. For the model Pile-Raft II with
a big spacing
pile
( lraf
= 6, 25),
t
the slab has a strong inuence on the shear stress distribution along the
pile. We notice an increase of shear stresses at the top of the pile, just under the slab. In this case,
the slab increases locally the normal stress, so the shear stresses increase in this area provoking this
peak in the top area of the pile.
For the model Pile-Raft I, the slab does not participate to the load transmission because we do not
dpile
see such a peak in the distribution: The spacing (
lraf t = 2, 5) is too small and almost all the load
goes to the pile. Nevertheless, the slab has an inuence too because the distribution is dierent from
the one for the single pile. There is an important mobilization of skin friction in the lower part of
the pile and no mobilization in the top part.
As we can see on the following curves the shape of the normal stresses is in compliance with these
observations about the shear stresses.
31
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.9: Evolution of the normal stresses with the load for the Pile-raft I (
dpile
lraf t
= 2, 5)
le : Geo1_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
Figure 3.10: Evolution of the
dpile
normal stresses with the load for the Pile-raft II ( l

raf t
le : Geo1Bis_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
32
= 6, 25)
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
We now plotted the Skin friction for the second set of calculation.
These curves plotted for the geometries with a 30 m length pile and a 1,5 m diameter conrme theses
comments.
Figure 3.11: Evolution of the skin friction with the load for the Pile-raft V (
le : Geo1Cinq_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
33
dpile
lraf t
= 3)
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.12: Evolution of the skin friction with the load for the Pile-raft III (
dpile
lraf t
= 6)
le : Geo1Ter_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
Figure 3.13: Evolution of the skin friction with the load for the Pile-raft IV (
le : Geo1Quater_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi2_HS.plx
34
dpile
lraf t
= 12)
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
For the model Pile-raft IV - biggest spacing - with a 1000 kN/m2 loading (gure 3-12), there is
positive shear stresses on some centimeters in the top part of the pile . This eect should be studied
in further research.
By plotting the same curves for the dierent materials -loose and dense sand- and dierent values
for
we can conclude both dilatancy and materials have very few inuence on the normal stresses
and the skin friction distribution.
Figure 3.14: Evolution of the skin friction with dilatancy
les : Geo1Bis_Mesh1_Dense_R=0,7_Psi0/8_HS.plx
35
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.15: Evolution of the skin friction with dense or loose sand
les : Geo1Bis_Mesh1_Dense/Loose_R=0,7_Psi0_HS.plx
3.2.3 Analysis of the K factor

pp
The previous curves in the last section let us understood some aspects of the behaviour of a piledraft foundation.
We easily saw that the bigger the spacing is the more the raft acts in the load
transmission. We are now going to describe these observations in a more precise way by calculating
the pile/raft stress repartition.
In Austria and Germany a common approach consists in calculating the
3.2.3.1
The
Kpp
Denition of
Kpp 4
factor.
Kpp
factor is the ratio between the load carried by the pile and the total load applied on the
piled raft foundation.Thus it gives us a precise idea of the proportion of load carried by the pile and
by the raft.
Kpp =
Rpile
Rtot
with:
In English, Kpp (Kombinierte-Pfahl-Plattengrndung) means piled-raft-foundation
36
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Rpile = Rb + Rs =
Rtot =Total
Load carried by the pile
5 [kN]
load =Distributed load on the slab + weigth of the slab =
Rraf t + Rpile
6 [kN]
So it means that:
If
Kpp = 1
, all the load is carried by the pile
If
Kpp = 0
, all the load is carried by the raft
We will also use the (1-Kpp ) coecient which represents the proportion of load carried by the raft.
Rraf t
(1-Kpp )= R
tot
Remark: Again the weight of the pile is not taken into account.
3.2.3.2
Methodology to calculate
The simplest way to calculate
Kpp
Kpp
with Plaxis 2D consists in realizing a cross section under the
slab and reading out the normal stresses on this cross section. Then we just have to sort the normal
stresses which are into the pile and into the soil.
Remarks:
In order to get an accurate value for
Kpp
we need to take care of:
Making a cross section which crosses as much stress points as possible because the value is
obtained from extrapolation.
Making a cross section not too close to the slab because the junction Slab/pile is a high stress
variation area and singularities could occur (take 10 cm to 20 cm under the slab usually leads
to accurate values).
The following example explains in detail this methodology.
5
6
Rb =Base resistance of the pile [kN]; Rs =Skin

Rraf t =Load carried by the raft [kN]
resistance of the pile [kN]
37
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Example: calculation of
In this case, we have
Rtot =
Kpp for Pile-Raft I, Load=1000 kN/m2 , Dense sand, mesh medium,=8:

2
1000.area + weigth of the slab = 3180 kN/m
Figure 3.16: Cross sections for Pile-raft I
We rst made the cross section n1 just under the slab. We get the normal stresses as we can see
on the prole normal stresses for cross section n1.
Figure 3.17: Normal stresses for cross section n1
38
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
From the values of this prole we calculated
Rtot = 3704kN
Rpile
and
Rtot .
We found:
Rpile = 3687
, thus there is an error of 16 % for Rtot . In this way we overestimate
Rpile
kN and
and
Rtot
because of the unrealistic high normal stress value at the interface.

So we started again with the cross section n2.
This one is not directly under the slab, thus we
avoid the singular area. Moreover the soil weigth added is negligible in comparison with the load.
Now we have the following distribution:
Figure 3.18: Normal stresses for cross section n2
Here we calculate:
Rpile = 3127
kN and
Rtot = 3151kN.
There is an error of only 1 % for Rtot .
Thus crossing the section in this way is more accurate.

We nally nd for this example
3.2.3.3
0,99.
Comparison and evolution of
With a small spacing (
Kpp for dierent geometries:
W idthraf t
Diameterpile =2,5 or 3) it seems that the raft takes a small part of the load. In
these cases, we calculated an
With a bigger spacing (
Kpp =
Kpp equal
to 0,99 for all load.
W idthraf t
Diameterpile =6; 6,25 or 12), we can notice that:
The stress repartition between the raft and the pile evolves with the loading. The higher the
loading is, the more the stress is shared. With a load between 0 and 200 kN/m
2 everything
goes mostly to the pile (1 <Kpp < 0,8). From 200 kN/m the raft has a stronger inuence.
39
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
The bigger the spacing is, the more load the raft takes.
In each case the curves converge to an equilibrium state, around
Kpp =
0,5 for Pile-Raft II and
Kpp =
Kpp =0,65
for Pile-Raft III,
0,2 for Pile-Raft V.
The pile obviously carries more load by increasing the length of the pile (compare the geometries Pile-Raft II and III).
Figure 3.19: Inuence of geometry on
Kpp
for loose sand,
=2,
Name
Lengthpile
Diameterpile
Widthraf t
R=0,7, mesh medium.
W idthraf t
Diameterpile
Pile-Raft I
15 m
0,8 m
2 m
2,5
Pile-Raft II
15 m
0,8 m
5 m
6,25
Pile-Raft V
30 m
1,5 m
4,5 m
Pile-Raft III
30 m
1,5 m
9 m
Pile-Raft IV
30 m
1,5 m
18 m
12
Table 3.4: Reminder, basic parameters of each geometry
40
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Rtot
[kN/m ]
25 + Slab
250 + Slab
500 + Slab
1000 + Slab
Pile-Raft I
0,99
0,99
0,99
0,99
Pile-Raft II
0,95
0,65
0,57
0,52
Pile-Raft V
0,99
0,99
0,99
0,99
Pile-Raft III
0,96
0,85
0,71
0,62
Pile-Raft IV
0,66
0,29
0,22
0,19
Table 3.5: Few values of
3.2.3.4
Evolution of
Kpp
for loose sand,
=2,
R=0,7
Kpp for dierent materials and dilatancy
As we can see on the following curves, the material - loose or dense dand - and the dilatancy have
a negligible inuence on the stress repartition in the piled-raft foundation.
Figure 3.20: Inuence of material on
41
Kpp ,
Pile-raft II, R=0,7
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.21: Inuence of the dilatancy on
3.2.3.5
Evolution of
Kpp ,
Pile-raft II, R=0,7
Kpp for dierent values of Rinter
In this sub-section we present the evolution of
Kpp
with the load (gure 3.19) and the displacement
(gure 3.20) for dierent Rinter values. In both cases, the tendency is exactly the same. We only
added with the displacement because it is also a common presentation in the literature.
Concerning the inuence of Rinter on
Kpp
we can conclude that the part of the load carried by
the pile decreases when we reduce the interface strength factor. It is an expected behavior because
by reducing the Rinter value we decrease the maximum amount of mobilization of the skin friction
along the pile .
On the interface,
Rinter .( n .tansoil +csoil )
42
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.22: Inuence of
Figure 3.23: Inuence of
Rinter
Rinter
on the evolution of
on the evolution of
43
Kpp
Kpp
with the load, Pile-raft II, R=0,7
with the displacement, Pile-raft II, R=0,7
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
3.2.4 Eciency of a piled-raft foundation in comparison with a raft foundation

To evaluate the eciency of a piled-raft foundation in comparison with a raft foundation it is interresting to compare the settlements with and without a pile. So, we performed one new calculation
for each geometry putting just the raft without the pile. Then we calculated the
coecient.
Denition
is the ratio between the settlements which occured without pile (Uraf t ) and with the settlements
which occured with a pile (Upile+raf t ):

raf t
= Upile+raf
t
Thus, we necessarily have
As expected, the evolution of

high value for
the value of
Kpp
and if
w1
the pile is useless.
with the load has the same tendency as
Kpp
. When we have a
the pile carries most of the load and thus acts a lot against displacements. So
is high.
On the contrary, when the raft carries a big part of the load - for example with Pile-Raft IV - the
settlements are very close to those observed with a raft only.
For the model Pile-Raft II in which we have a good sharing of the load, we have a
value from 1,15
to 2,1.
Figure 3.24: Evolution of
with the load, Loose sand
44
=2
- Mesh Medium Rinter =0,7
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Rtot
25
200
500
Pile-Raft I
2,4
2,15
2,0
1,8
Pile-Raft II
2,1
1,3
1,2
1,15
Pile-Raft V
3,1
2,5
2,5
2,2
Pile-Raft III
2,6
1,65
1,4
1,3
Pile-Raft IV
1,5
1,15
1,1
1,0
[kN/m ]
Table 3.6: Few values of
for loose sand,
Figure 3.25: Comparison between the evolution of
and
1000
=2,
R=0,7
for Pile-Raft II, loose,
=2,
R=0,7
3.2.5 Analysis of the pile behavior

The bearing capacity of a pile consists of the base resistance (Rb ) and the skin resistance (Rs ). Now
we study in detail these two forces in order to have a better idea of the pile behavior for dierent
geometries.
3.2.5.1
Base resistance
The method to calculate

part,
Rb
is the same as for
Rtot .
We made a cross section under the pile. In this
we considered only the contribution of the distributed load by subtracting the two
rst phase with the pile and raft activation.

On the next gure, we can see the evolution of the base resistance with the load for the model
Pile-Raft I and II. The curves are both approximatively linear. It means that in our cases the part
of the total load (Rtot ) carried by the base of the pile is approximatly constant.
45
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Now we compare the
Rbase
Rb with
the load for Pile-Raft I and II, dense sand,
3.2.5.2
=8
for the pile-raft I and the single-pile.
Figure 3.27: Comparison of Pile-Raft I and Single Pile, evolution of
and II, dense sand,
Rb with
the load for Pile-Raft I
=8
Skin resistance
The skin friction proles presented previously give us the possibility to work out the skin resistance
Rs .
As we did for
Rb
we only considered in this section the contribution of the distributed load by

46
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
subtracting the constribution of the pile and of the raft.
3.2.5.3
Rs with
the load for Pile-Raft I and II, dense sand,
=8
Conclusions
The following curves sum up the
Rbase , Rskin
and
Rraf t
proportions for various models.
Figure 3.29: Repartition of the forces into the single-pile, dense sand,
47
=8
3.2.
PILE-RAFT
CHAPTER 3.
Figure 3.30: Repartition of the forces into pile for Pile-Raft I, dense sand,
=8
Figure 3.31: Repartition of the forces into pile for Pile-Raft II, dense sand,
=8
48
Chapter 4
Preliminary studies of 3D models

- From 2D axisymmetric models to 3D models We previously studied the behavior of one pile-raft foundation.
Nevertheless the load settlement
behavior of piles in a pile group is usually observed to be totally dierent from the behavior of
a corresponding single pile.
This group eect cannot be studied with axisymmetric models and
consequently it requires performing calculations with Plaxis 3D foundation.

In order to prepare the group eect analysis, we rstly tested the dierent Plaxis 3D foundation
tools to model a pile: the volume pile and a new feature, the embedded pile. These comparisons are
presented in this chapter.
Remark about the mesh dependency:

The previous calculations with axisymmetric models showed a negligible mesh dependency. We also
checked that 6-node coarse meshes lead to the same load-displacement behavior as 15-node ne
meshes.
Due to the bigger size of working areas in 3D models we cannot use eciently ne meshes. Thus,
we will perform calculations from coarse to medium meshes. The results should be realistic because
of the low sensitivity of the mesh renement observed in 2D.
Remark about the mesh generation:

To create a mesh with Plaxis 3D foundation we rstly generate a 2D mesh on a horizontal work
plane.
When the 2D mesh is satisfactory, the 3D mesh is generated from the 2D mesh.
Since
there is no vertical renement option, badly shaped elements with a higher vertical than horizontal
dimension could occur. To get a satisfactory vertical renement, we added multiple work planes in
the input, then when the 3D mesh is generated from the 2D one, these additional planes are taken
into account and the vertical size of the elements is adapted from their spacing. In this way we get a
good medium 3D mesh with a local 3D renement under the slab and at the pile bottom (see gure
4.1).
49
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
4.1
CHAPTER 4.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES OF 3D MODELS
Volume pile
The volume pile is a common Plaxis 3D foundation option to model a pile.
4.1.1 Finite element models

To start this study, all the previous geometries (Pile-Raft I, II, III, IV, V) were modeled using Plaxis
3D foundation. The working area was adapted in each case to have the same raft area with 3D and
with axisymmetric models.
Actually the raft area with axisymmetric models is circular whereas it is a square raft in 3D. Thus
in 2D, the raft area is given by the following formula:
Araf t2D = (
Lraf t2D 2
) [m2 ]
2
The 3D width raft is obtained by taking the square root of 2D area raft as followed:
Lraf t3D
p
= Araf t2D =
q
L
( raf2t2D )2
[m]
In this way, the area of the 3D raft is equal to the one in 2D:
Araf t3D = Araf t2D
[m ]
Figure 4.1: Comparison between the axisymmetric and 3D raft shapes
The pile is modeled as a volume pile and we selected the massive circular pile type. Interfaces are
modeled along the pile with a
Rinter = 0, 7.
The soil consists of a single layer of dense sand with
the same properties as the sand we used previously. The load is modeled as a distributed load on the
slab. Two dierent meshes with dierent levels of renement were applied to the rst two geometries.
Only a medium one was used for the remaining geometries. The following tables and gures sum
up the most important parameters used.
Name
Thicknessslab
Depthmodel
Lengthpile
Diameterpile
Widthraf t
W idthraf t
Diameterpile
Pile-Raft I
0,5 m
40 m
15 m
0,8 m
1,8 m
2,25
Pile-Raft II
0,5 m
40 m
15 m
0,8 m
4,4 m
5,5
Pile-Raft V
1 m
60 m
30 m
1,5 m
4 m
2,7
Pile-Raft III
1 m
60 m
30 m
1,5 m
8 m
5,3
Pile-Raft IV
1 m
60 m
30 m
1,5 m
16 m
10,6
Table 4.1: Basic parameters of each geometry
50
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Parameter
Symbol
Dense sand
Concrete
Unit
Material model
Model
Hardening Soil
Linear Elastic
Unsaturated weigth
unsat
sat
19
25
kN/m
21
25
kN/m
Saturated weigth
Permeability
Stiness
ref
E50
ref
Eoed
ref
Eur
m
0,55
Poisson ratio
ur
0,2
Friction angle
y
f
Cohesion
cref
0,1
K0
1-sin
Failure ratio
Rf
0,9
Dilatancy
m/day
kN/m
3E7
kN/m
1,8E5
Power
60 000
60 000
kN/m
0,2
8
38
kN/m
-
Figure 4.2: Details about a pile-raft geometry in 3D, medium mesh (Pile-raft IV)
51
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Number of 15-noded elements

Medium
Fine
Pile-Raft I
12 610
31 290
Pile-Raft II
22 230
31 464
Pile-Raft V
17 574
Pile-Raft III
22 134
Pile-Raft IV
24 186
4.1.2 Results
Remark: As we did for axisymmetric models all the following load-settlement curves are plotted
for the node point located at the top right side of the pile, under the slab.
Figure 4.3: Position of the node point A
4.1.2.1
Load-displacement curves
We plotted the load-displacement curve for each geometry. Then we compared these curves with
the associated axisymmetric curves.
In each case, we noticed a good match with the 3D volume
pile -raft and the associated axisymmetric models.

Moreover the gures 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 conrm that the mesh dependency is negligible.
52
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.4: Load-displacement curves comparison for Pile-Raft I, dense sand,
=8
Figure 4.5: Load-displacement curves comparison for Pile-Raft II, dense sand,
=8
53
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.6: Load-displacement curves comparison for Pile-Raft IV, dense sand,
4.1.2.2
=8
Variations of skin friction
Remarks:
All the following gures are plotted by selecting the interface in Plaxis output. For Pile-Raft I
and II (respectively for Pile-Raft V and IV) we plotted the interface along the line (resp.
0, 75); Y [15;0] (respec. [30; 0]); Z = 0 (resp. Z = 0 ) -.
X = 0, 4
In order to get something
comparable from one model to an other, we subtracted the rst phase from the pile for each
load steps plotted. Thus the skin friction presented in this part are only due to the load and
the weight of the slab .
Then, we compared the 3D volume pile proles with the axisymmetric ones.
They are not
strictly comparable because the shape of the raft area is not the same. Nevertheless a com-
parison stays relevant as we choose the same area for every models.
Results of 3D volume pile models are in a very good aggreement with those we got with axisymmetric
calculations. We observed almost the same shape of skin friction for each Pile-Raft le.
54
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
Figure 4.7:
CHAPTER 4.
Axisymmetric and 3D volume pile skin friction curves, Pile-Raft I, Dense,
= 8,
Axisymmetric and 3D volume pile skin friction curves, Pile-Raft II, Dense,
= 8,
Rinter = 0, 7
Figure 4.8:
Rinter = 0, 7
55
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
Figure 4.9:
CHAPTER 4.
Axisymmetric and 3D volume pile skin friction curves, Pile-Raft V, Dense,
= 8,
Rinter = 0, 7
Figure 4.10: Axisymmetric and 3D volume pile skin friction curves, Pile-Raft III, Dense,
= 8,
Rinter = 0, 7
We can also notice that there are more oscillations in the lowest part of pile with the 3D volume
pile models than with 2D axisymmetric models. These non-physical stress oscillations are due to
56
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
the high peaks in stresses at the bottom of the pile. As we can see on gure 4.11, we can reduce
these numerical inaccuracies by lengthening the interface at the bottom of the pile (+0,5 m).
Figure 4.11:
Reduction of oscillations by lengthening the interface, Pile-raft III, Dense,
= 8,
Rinter = 0, 7
By analysing in more details the load repartion for each model we can conclude that not only the
skin friction but also the base resistance ts well.
Axisymmetric Pile-Raft II
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
2270
3513
6026
Rbase
[kN]
1671
3094
5720
1,36
1,13
1,05
Rskin
Rbase
Volume Pile-Raft II
Rskin
Rbase
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
[kN]
2058
[kN]
1858
3491
6520
1,1
0,94
0,88
Rskin
Rbase
3288
5745
Table 4.4: Comparison between volume and axisymmetric pile raft II
57
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Remarks: The following values have been calculated without subtracting the weight of the pile
and of the raft. For the volume pile, we estimated Rbase and Rskin by reading in Plaxis output the
normal force values N at the top and at the bottom of the pile. Then we considered that: Rbase =
Nbottom and Rskin = Ntop -Nbottom .
4.1.2.3
Some remarks about parameters
We also varied the value of
both dilatancy and
Rinter
Rinter
and
with some 3D volume pile models. We can conclude that
have little inuence on results.
Figure 4.12: Load-displacement curves for Pile-Raft I for dierent values of
58
Rinter , dense sand, =8
4.1.
VOLUME PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.13: Load-displacement curves for Pile-Raft III for dierent values of
, dense sand, Rinter =
0, 7
Figure 4.14: Skin friction with the load for
=8
59
and 0, Pile-Raft III, Dense sand, Rinter
= 0, 7
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
4.2
CHAPTER 4.
Embedded pile
An embedded pile is a pile composed of beam elements that can be placed in arbitrary direction
in the sub-soil (irrespective from the alignment of soil volume elements) and that interacts with
the sub-soil by means of special interface elements. The interaction may involve a skin resistance
as well as a foot resistance.
Although an embedded pile does not occupy volume, a particular
volume around the pile (elastic zone) is assumed in which plastic soil behaviour is excluded. The
size of this zone is based on the (equivalent) pile diameter according to the corresponding embedded
pile material data set. This makes the pile almost behave like a volume pile. Nevertheless, when
creating embedded piles no corresponding geometry points are created. Thus, contrary to volume
pile, embedded piles do not inuence the nite element mesh as generated from the geometry model.
So the mesh renement is lower and we save calculation time.
In contrast to what is common in the Finite Element Method, the bearing capacity of an embedded
pile is considered to be an input parameter rather than the result of the nite element calculation.
Plaxis gives us the possibility to enter the skin resistance prole in three ways:
Linear: The user enters the skin resistance at the pile top and the skin resistance at the pile
bottom. The skin resistance is dened as linear along the pile. This way of dening the pile
skin resistance is mostly applicable to piles in a homogeneous soil layer.
Multi-linear:
The skin resistance is dened in a table at dierent positions along the pile.
Multi-linear can be used to take into account inhomogeneous or multiple soil layers with
dierent properties and, as a result, dierent resistances.
Layer dependent, can be used to relate the local skin resistance to the strength properties of
the soil layer in which the pile is located, and the interface strength reduction factor
Rinter ,
as dened in the material data set on the corresponding soil layer. Using this approach the
pile bearing capacity is based on the stress state in the soil, and thus unknown at the start of
a calculation. Nevertheless an overall maximum resistance can be specied before to avoid an
undesired too high value at the end.
We performed another set of calculations by modeling the previous geometries using embedded
piles. This study gave us the possibility to test the reliability of this new feature to model pile-raft
structures.
4.2.1 Embedded pile-raft

For this study, we focused our calculations on the two rst geometries named Pile-Raft I and PileRaft II. We took exactly the same geometries by using embedded piles instead of volume piles. We
See
Plaxis manual
for more details about embedded piles
60
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
considered the pile to raft connection as rigid. As mentioned previously the capacity of the pile is an
input parameter for an embedded pile so we had to dene the most relevant skin friction distribution
and base resistance. This is the reason why we tested each possibility oered by Plaxis to try to
congure in a proper way this new tool.
4.2.1.1
Finite element models
The parameters we examined for the embedded pile are the same as those desribed previously for
the volume pile. We performed calculations for only one material, the dense sand with Rinter
= 0, 7.
The load is modeled as a distributed load on the slab. Two dierent meshes with dierent levels of
renement had been used. The following tables sum up the most important parameters.
Name
Thicknessslab
Depthmodel
Lengthpile
Diameterpile
Widthraf t
W idthraf t
Diameterpile
Pile-Raft I
0,5 m
40 m
15 m
0,8 m
1,8 m
2,25
Pile-Raft II
0,5 m
40 m
15 m
0,8 m
4,4 m
5,5
Table 4.5: Basic parameters of each geometry
Parameter
Symbol
Dense sand
Concrete (slab)
Unit
Material model
Model
Hardening Soil
Linear Elastic
Unsaturated weigth
unsat
sat
19
25
kN/m
21
25
kN/m
Saturated weigth
Permeability
Stiness
ref
E50
ref
Eoed
ref
Eur
m
0,55
Poisson ratio
ur
0,2
Friction angle
y
f
Cohesion
cref
0,1
K0
1-sin
Failure ratio
Rf
0,9
Dilatancy
3E7
kN/m
kN/m
0,2
8
38
Table 4.6: Soil parameters
61
m/day
kN/m
1,8E5
Power
60 000
60 000
kN/m
-
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Parameter
Name
Value
Unit
Youngs modulus
7
3.10
kN/m
Weight
kN/m
Properties type
Type
Massive circular pile
Diameter
dpile
0,8
Length
Lpile
15
3
3
Table 4.7: Material properties of the embedded pile
Number of 15-noded elements

Medium
Fine
Pile-Raft I
16 048
36 120
Pile-Raft II
14 300
36 800
Table 4.8: Information on generated meshes
Figure 4.15: Details about an embedded pile-raft geometry in 3D, ne mesh, pile-raft II
62
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Remark:
As we did previously all the following load-settlement curves are plotted for the same node
point A located at the top right side of the pile, under the slab.
Concerning the skin friction proles, we read out the
Tskin 2
value [kN/m] by selecting the
Tskin by the perimeter of the pile to get the

2
skin friction qs [kN/m ]. In order to get something comparable from one model to an other,
embedded pile in Plaxis output. Then we divided
we subtracted the rst phase from the pile for each load step plotted. Thus the skin friction
that we present here are only due to the
load and the weight of the slab.
We also read out the pile foot force Ff oot
3 [kN] by selecting the embedded pile in the Plaxis
output. Thus we compared this value with the base resistance values found with axisymmetric
models.
4.2.1.2
Embedded pile with
linear skin friction distribution
For this rst set of calculations we dened linear skin friction distribution using unrealistic high
values (see gures bellow).
Skin friction distribution
linear
[-]
Ttop,max
2000
[kN/m]
Tbot,max
2000
[kN/m]
Fmax
10 000
[kN]
Table 4.9: Linear skin friction distribution n1 for Pile-Raft I and II
The
Skin force
Tskin ,
expressed in the unit of force per unit of pile length, is the force related to the relative
displacement in the piles rst direction (axial direction)
The pile foot force Ff oot , expressed in the unit of force, is obtained from the relative displacement in the axial
pile direction between the foot of the pile and the surrounding soil.
63
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Thus we got the following results:
Figure 4.16: Load-displacement curves for Pile-raft I, dense sand,
=8, Rinter = 0, 7
Figure 4.17: Load-displacement curves for Pile-raft II, dense sand,
=8, Rinter = 0, 7
64
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Load=1000 kN/m2
Settlement [cm]
axisymmetric Pile-Raft I
-13,2
Embedded Pile-Raft I_Medium
-14,8
Embedded Pile-Raft I_Fine
-15,8
axisymmetric Pile-Raft II
-19,1
Embedded Pile-Raft II_Medium
-19,6
Embedded Pile-Raft II_Fine
-19,9
Table 4.10: Settlements for the dierent models for 1000 kN/m , Dense sand,
=8, Rinter = 0, 7
We can conclude that the mesh inuence seems to be still quite negligible.
We also notice that axisymmetric curves are not in a very good agreement with embedded pile curves.
Thus, we note a dierence of around 15% in the settlements for axisymmetric and embedded ne
Pile-Raft I (with Load=1000 kN/m ).

Now we observe the skin friction prole for these models:
= 8,
65
Pile-Raft I, Dense sand, Rinter
= 0, 7
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
= 8,
Pile-Raft II, Dense sand, Rinter
= 0, 7
When we compared these embedded pile skin friction proles with the axisymetric ones we notice
that they are very dierent. We cannot observe the increase under the slab we described previously
in the 2D analysis. Thus the mobilization of such a dened embedded pile is dierent.
So we decided to change our linear skin friction distribution using more realistic values. We dened
these values from the axisymetric skin friction proles.
specifying this new input information:
66
Thus we performed new calculations by
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
linear
[-]
Ttop,max
620
[kN/m]
Tbot,max
620
[kN/m]
Fmax
2260
[kN]
Table 4.11: Linear skin friction distribution n2 for Pile-Raft I
linear
[-]
Ttop,max
1110
[kN/m]
Tbot,max
1110
[kN/m]
Fmax
8300
[kN]
Table 4.12: Linear skin friction distribution n2 for Pile-Raft II
67
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
The load-displacement curves we got with these new parameters are almost strictly the same as
those we had with the linear skin friction n1. However, we can observe some dierences in the
skin friction proles:
Figure 4.20: Skin friction with the load for Pile-Raft I, Dense sand,
= 8,
Rinter
= 0, 7
Figure 4.21: Skin friction with the load for Pile-Raft II, Dense sand,
= 8,
Rinter
= 0, 7
68
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
For the lowest load, the proles are exactly the same for the distribution -n1 or n2- . Nevertheless,
with the highest load and the input linear skin friction distribution n2 , the skin friction reaches
the input value and stops growing.
To conclude we can say that neither linear skin friction distribution n2 nor linear skin friction
distribution n1 leads to a skin friction prole in aggrement with the realistic one.
4.2.1.3
Embedded pile with
multilinear skin friction distribution
For this second set of calculations we tested three dierent
multilinear skin friction distributions.
Input:
The multilinear skin friction distribution n1 is a quite simple but realistic multilinear distribution:
Skin friction distribution : Multilinear
Depth [m]
Tmax [kN/m]
Depth [m]
Tmax [kN/m]
565
800
-14,75
565
-14
800
-15
-15
Fmax [kN ]
2260
Fmax [kN ]
8300
Table 4.13: Multilinear skin friction distribution n1 for Pile-Raft I (left) and II (right)
69
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
The multilinear skin friction distribution n2 is the same as multilinear skin friction distribution
n1 with Tmax =0 kN/m instead of 1 in the depth equal to 15m.
Finally the multilinear skin
friction distribution n3 is a more complex multilinear distribution designed from the axisymetric
skin friction prole as followed:
Depth [m]
Tmax [kN/m]
-8
15
-10,5
156
-13,5
302
-14,6
515
-15
Fmax [kN ]
8300
Depth [m]
Tmax [kN/m]
-1,2
315
-2,15
290
-10,2
430
-12,1
553
-14
804
-15
Fmax [kN ]
8300
Table 4.14: Multilinear skin friction distribution n3 for Pile-Raft I (left) and II (right)
Output:
We noticed that the behaviors observed with distributions n1 and 2 are exactly the sames. More
precisely, the load-displacement curves and the shear stresses distributions we got with n1 and
n2 are completly equal.
70
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
When we compare the n1&2 load-displacement curve with the axisymmetric one, we see that they
do not t very well. There is a dierence of 12,5% (Pile-Raft I) and 7% (Pile-Raft II) in settlements.
Figure 4.22: Load-displacement curves for multilinear n1/2 embedded and axisymmetric pile-raft I
Figure 4.23: Load-displacement curves for multilinear n1/2 embedded and axisymmetric pile-raft
II
Concerning distribution n3, the load-settlement curve is almost the same as for distribution
n1/2.
71
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Load=25 kN/m
Load=500 kN/m
Load=1000 kN/m
-5,4 mm
-110 mm
-191 mm
Multilinear n1/2 Emb Pile-Raft II
-5,6 mm
-112 mm
-204 mm
-5,6 mm
-115 mm
-210 mm
Multilinear n3 Emb Pile-Raft II
Table 4.15: Comparison Load/Settlements for dierent Pile-Raft II inputs
Finally by plotting the shear stresses distributions for each case, no multilinear skin resistance input
yields to the realistic skin friction mobilization we calculated with the axisymmetric models.
72
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.24: Evolution of skin friction for dierent models and loadings
4.2.1.4
Embedded pile with
layer dependent skin friction distribution
For this third set of calculations we tested the

update on plaxis website, when using
layer dependent
option. According to a recent
the layer dependant skin resistance for the embedded
piles, while leaving the linear skin resistance values to their defaults, the calculation kernel will show
a "severe divergence" error message.
This severe divergence is caused by the zero values for the
linear skin resistance, though they do not have any inuence on the layer dependant skin resistance.
To overcome this error, users are advised to set the linear skin resistance values to some values not
These linear skin resistance values

will not have an inuence on the layer dependant values for the skin resistance. 4
equal to zero, and then activate the layer dependant option.
We perfomed some tries.
Input:
For the layer dependent distribution n1 we let the default values suggested by Plaxis.
Skin friction distribution: Layer dependent

Tmax [kN/m]
100 000
Fmax [kN]
10 000
Table 4.16: Layer dependent distribution n1, parameters
Plaxis website,
Known issues 3D Foundation 2.1, 26-03-2008

73
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
As we explained in the introduction of this section, we did not let the default values for the linear
skin resistance. We input
1.
For the layer dependent distribution n1bis we used the values as described in the previous table,
but we input
2000 for the linear skin resistance.
We tested with
dense sand, Rinter
= 0, 7.
Output:
The layer dependent distribution n1 and the layer dependent distribution n1bis perfectly match.
It conrmed that
these linear skin resistance values do not have an inuence on the layer
dependent results. We just need to write a value not equal to zero in linear to use correctly the
layer dependant option.
Figure 4.25: Comparison of load-displacement curves
Moreover, the skin distribution prole is in a perfect agreement for the layer dependent distribution
n1 and n1Bis. We also have a quite good match with the axisymmetric prole.
If we calculate the dierence of skin friction at half a pile between the axisymmetric and layer
dependent results :
7,5m = qs2D (7, 5m) - qs3D (7, 5m)

74
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
We get for a load equal to 500 kN/m ,
7,5m ' 25kN/m2 .
Figure 4.26: Evolution of skin friction, Pile-raft II
We performed another calculation with the parameters of the so called layer dependent distribution
n1 . We just changed the Rinter value from 0,7 to 1.

We compare the load-displacement behavior on the following gures.
75
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.27: Comparison of load-displacement curves
The load-displacement curves we got for the layer dependent distribution n1 with
to one with Rinter
= 0, 7
Rinter = 1
is close
but not exactly equal. In each case, they are not in good aggrement with
the axisymmetric results. We have a dierence of around 12,5 % (Pile-Raft II) in the settlements
for a distributed load equal to 1000 kN/m .
Load=25 kN/m
= 0, 7
Rinter = 1
Layer dependent 1 - Rinter

Layer dependent 2 -
Load=500 kN/m
Load=1000 kN/m
-5,4 mm
-110 mm
-191 mm
-5,6 mm
-126 mm
-215 mm
-5,6 mm
-123 mm
-213 mm
Table 4.17: Comparison Load/Settlements for dierent Pile-Raft II inputs
For each input distributions we also plotted the skin friction distributions. In each case, the skin
distribution prole is in quite good agreement with the axisymmetric prole, particularly with the
layer dependent distribution n1 with
Rinter = 1.
76
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.28: Evolution of skin friction for dierent inputs, Pile-raft II
We get for a load equal to 1000 kN/m ,
16kN/m2 with Rinter
7,5m ' 77kN/m2
with Rinter
= 0, 7
and
7,5m '
= 1.
The layer dependent distribution option seems to be the best way for embedded piles to get skin
friction distributions with realistic shapes. Nevertheless further tests must be done to really determine
the inuence of the virtual value we need to input in linear skin resistance when we use the layer
dependant option.
4.2.1.5
Comparison of the three options: Linear, multilinear and layer dependent
We now compare the three approaches in order to determine which approach is the best for analysing
piled raft foundations.
Load-displacement behavior:
Concerning the load-displacement behavior, the linear embedded pile raft is the closest to the axisymmetric model. However for common geotechnical displacements (max. 10 cm), whatever the
input option for the embedded pile is, the load displacement curve stays quite reasonably close to
the axisymmetric one with a dierence of around more or less 1 cm.
77
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Load=25 kN/m
Load=500 kN/m
Load=1000 kN/m
Axisymmetric
-5,4 mm
-110 mm
-191 mm
Linear embedded
+3,7 %
+0,9%
+3,7%
Multilinear embedded
+3,7 %
+4,5%
+12%
Layer dependent embedded
+3,7 %
+14,5%
+12,6%
Table 4.18: Displacement with the load, for Pile-Raft II
Figure 4.29: Load-displacement curves for Pile-Raft II
Pile-raft behavior:
According to the skin friction distributions presented previously, we saw that the mobilization of the
embedded pile-raft foundation and the axisymetric pile-raft foundation is dierent. So we analysed
in more details the load repartion for each model.
The following values have been calculated by
subtracting the weight of the pile and of the raft .
78
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
386
2038
3281
5794
Rbase
[kN]
82
1482
2905
5531
Kpp
0,95
0,72
0,63
0,57
Rskin
Rbase
4,73
1,38
1,13
1,05
Linear n2 Emb. Pile-Raft II
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
430
3638
6218
10 074
Rbase
[kN]
12,7
95,3
230
631
Kpp
0,9
0,76
0,66
0,55
Rskin
Rbase
33,9
38,2
27
16
Multilinear n1 Emb. Pile-Raft II
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
411
3471
6232
8585
Rbase
[kN]
23
211
414
848
Kpp
0,88
0,75
0,66
0,48
Rskin
Rbase
18,1
16,4
15
10,1
Layer dependent n2 Rinter
= 0, 7 Emb. Pile-Raft II
25 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
438,3
2760,9
3756,7
Rbase
[kN]
16,9
570,4
967,6
Kpp
0,99
0,34
0,24
Rskin
Rbase
25,9
4,84
3,88
Layer dependent n2 Rinter
Rskin
Rbase
= 1 Emb. Pile-Raft II
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
[kN]
3930,8
5729,2
[kN]
526,6
935,8
Kpp
0,45
0,33
Rskin
Rbase
7,46
6,12
Table 4.19: Rraf t ,Rskin ,and Rbase repartition for dierent models of Pile-Raft II (Dense sand,
79
=8)
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Figure 4.30: Evolution of skin friction, Load=500 kN/m2
Figure 4.31: Evolution of skin friction, Load=1000 kN/m2
Remark
For these previous gures we substracted
the weight of the pile and of the raft .
80
4.2.
EMBEDDED PILE
CHAPTER 4.
Axisymmetric Pile-Raft I
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
50,3
451,5
812,5
1426
Rbase
[kN]
35,8
335,1
783
1768
Kpp
0,99
0,99
0,99
0,99
Rskin
Rbase
1,41
1,35
1,04
0,81
Linear n2 Emb. Pile-Raft I
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
Rskin
[kN]
74
747
1463
2863
Rbase
[kN]
4,6
35
85,1
203
Kpp
0,99
0,98
Rskin
Rbase
16
21,4
17,2
14,1
Multilinear n1 Emb. Pile-Raft I
Rskin
Rbase
25 kN/m
250 kN/m
500 kN/m
1000 kN/m
[kN]
67
697
1400
2792
[kN]
65,2
123,5
252
Kpp
0,97
0,97
0,97
0,97
Rskin
Rbase
7,6
10,7
11,3
11,1
Table 4.20: Rraf t ,Rskin ,and Rbase repartition for dierent models of Pile-Raft I (Dense sand,
The linear and multilinear embedded pile models seem to lead to realistic values of
we calculated values of
Kpp
very close to the axisymmetric ones.
Kpp .
=8)
Actually
The main problem remains
the mobilization of the base resistance because whatever the input is, we underestimate
Rbase
with embedded piles in comparison with 2D models.

Moreover, the skin friction of embedded piles seems to be overestimated in comparison with chapter 2
except the calculations with the layer dependent skin resistance. But with this approach we always
got too much settlements.
To conclude we can say that
with embedded pile option we did not manage to calculate
the pile raft behavior we observed with volume piles or axisymmetric models.
81
Chapter 5
Group eect
- Analysis of the group eects in piled raft foundations The previous models gave us a rst idea of a piled raft foundation behavior.
These models took
into account the pile-soil interaction, the raft-soil interaction and the pile-raft interaction but not
the pile-pile interaction. Yet when the piles spacing is small, a partial geometry with a single pile
and one section of the raft is not accurate enough. We must consider the pile-pile interaction and
design more complex models with a group of piles.
In this chapter, we present some observations about the group eect in a piled raft foundation.
5.1
We studied a piled raft foundations with 66 piles.
Thus by using symetries we modeled only 9
piles. To study the inuence of pile length and diameter as well as spacing between piles we designed
ve dierent geometries.
82
5.1.
PRESENTATION OF CALCULATIONS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.1: 66 piled raft foundation, we model the red delimited quarter only
5.1.1 Geometry
The following pictures present the global geometry of our models.
83
5.1.
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.2: Model of one quarter of one piled raft foundation (66 piles)
84
5.1.
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
The main geometric paramaters of this study are presented in this gure:
Figure 5.3: Some geometric parameters
From this scheme, we designed ve dierent geometries:
Paramater
Symbol
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
dpile
0,8 m
0,8 m
0,8 m
Length of the pile
Lpile
15 m
15 m
30 m
Lpile
dpile
18,75
18,75
37,5
Length of the pile group
Lg
8,75 m
16,8 m
16,8 m
Depth of the model
Hmodel
50 m
50 m
80 m
traf t
1,5 m
1,5 m
1,5 m
Spacing between piles
2,5 m ('3dpile )
4,8 m (6dpile )
4,8 m (6dpile )
Paramater
Symbol
Group 4
Group 5
dpile
Lpile
1,5 m
1,5 m
30 m
30 m
45
45
15,75 m
31,5 m
80 m
80 m
Length of the pile

Length of the pile group
Depth of the model
Lpile
dpile
Lg
Hmodel
traf t
a
1,5 m
1,5 m
4,5 m (3dpile )
9 m (6dpile )
Table 5.1: Geometric parameters for each model
85
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
For each group we also performed the same calculations without the piles in order to evaluate the
piled raft eciency in comparison with a raft foundation ( -factor).
5.1.2 Finite element model

We modeled the piles with the volume pile option. Moreover, we generated for each model a medium
mesh with around 50 000 elements (see gure 5.2). Finally, the load is a distributed load applied on
the slab.
We tested only the dense sand material, with
Rinter =0,7
and
=8.
Parameter
Symbol
Dense sand
Concrete
Unit
Material model
Model
Hardening Soil
Linear Elastic
Unsaturated weigth
19
25
kN/m
Saturated weigth
unsat
sat
21
25
kN/m
Permeability
Stiness
ref
E50
ref
Eoed
ref
Eur
Power
0,55
ur
0,2
Friction angle
y
f
Cohesion
cref
0,1
K0
1-sin
Failure ratio
Rf
0,9
Dilatancy
m/day
kN/m
3E7
kN/m
1,8E5
Poisson ratio
60 000
60 000
kN/m
0,2
8
38
kN/m
-
Table 5.2: Material properties
5.2
Results
5.2.1 Vocabulary details

Please note that in the following sections we will distinguish four types of pile depending on their
position in the group:
the center pile is pile A
the middle piles are piles B, D, E

86
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
the corner pile is pile I
the edge piles are piles C and G
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.4: Name of each pile
Remark: To plot the load displacement curves we selected the node point located in the center of
the upper face of each pile.
5.2.2 Load-displacement curves

For the so called center pile, edge piles and corner pile of the group 1 and 2 we read out the Rpile value
and the corresponding pile settlements for each load steps. We got the following curves:
Figure 5.5: Displacement of the pile with Rpile , group 1
87
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.6: Displacement of the pile with Rpile , group 2
These curves are in agreement with the shape described in books.

For the other models, we plotted the load-settlement curves for the raft.
We also compared the
behavior with the closest single pile-raft model. As these partial geometries have not exactly the
same geometric parameters (see previous chapter) they are not entirely comparable but give us some
clues to interpret the group behavior.
Figure 5.7: Load-displacement curves for Group 4
88
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.8: Load-displacement curves for Group 5
Whatever group we examine the settlement behavior of each pile is not really dierent from one pile
to another. The whole behavior is very sti and we could propably improve our models by varying
the parameters of the raft in order to have a less sti behavior.
5.2.3 Displacement proles

A cross section has been performed as described in the following gure. It gives us the possibility
to observe vertical displacements (uy ) around center, middle and edge piles. All these cross sections
are performed for a distributed load equal to 1000 kN/m .
89
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.9: A, B, C piles cross section
Figure 5.10: Group 1 (left) and Group 2 (right) cross sections
90
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.11: Single pile-raft II cross section
Figure 5.12: Group 4 (left) and Group 5 (right) cross sections
91
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.13: Single pile-raft III
We notice that the displacement behavior around middle and center piles for groups with a large
spacing (group 2 and 5) is quite comparable and in good agreement with the associated single pileraft model. On the other hand, with the small spacing groups (group 1 and 4) the settlements are
dierent from one pile to another.
In each case the behavior of the edge pile cannot be compared with the one of the associated single
pile-raft model because the raft is larger in the area of the edge pile.
5.2.4 More precise analysis of group 5

We estimated Rbase and Rskin by reading out in Plaxis output the normal force values N at the top
and at the bottom of the pile. Then we considered that: Rbase = Nbottom and Rskin = Ntop -Nbottom .
The value from Nbottom are not the highest value of the normal force along the pile but this value
normally occurs a bit above the pile toe (around -29,5 m).
These values give us an idea of the real base and skin resistance.
92
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Group 5
Center pile
Middle piles
edge piles
corner pile
Single pile-raft III
Rskin [kN]
12 281
12 732
13 060
13 092
24 268
Rbase [kN]
23 400
22 526
23 318
22 228
21 500
Rskin + Rbase
35 681
35 258
36 378
35 320
45 768
Rskin
Rbase
0,52
0,57
0,56
0,59
1,12
Table 5.3: Base and skin resistance for dierent piles
Remark:
Paramater
Symbol
Group 5
Pile-Raft III
dpile
Lpile
1,5 m
1,5 m
30 m
30 m
45
45
1,5 m
1 m
9 m (6dpile )
8 m (5,3dpile )
Length of the pile
Lpile
dpile

traf t
a
Table 5.4: Main geometric parameters
We noticed that each pile of the group seems to be mobilizated in the same way (around the same
values of
Rskin
and
Rbase
). But the mobilization of skin resistance appears to be lower than for a
single pile-raft. The skin friction proles we see in the following pictures conrm these observations.
This low skin friction mobilization is due to pile-pile interaction.

We represented the skin friction prole in four directions for the center, middle and corner piles of
group 5. We added the skin friction proles for the single pile-raft III (in blue).
93
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.14: Skin friction prole for the center pile, Load=1000 kN/m
94
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.15: Skin friction prole for a middle pile, Load=1000 kN/m
95
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
Figure 5.16: Skin friction prole for the corner pile, Load=1000 kN/m
96
5.2.
RESULTS
CHAPTER 5.
GROUP EFFECT
5.2.5 Conclusion
So, we can notice that the behavior of a pile in a pile raft foundation is dierent from the single pile
raft.
(6
The pile-pile interaction seems not to be negligible even with a quite big spacing
draf t ).
Nevertheless, we did not have enough time to perform a more precise study. Our models seem to be
too sti and we can easily improve this studies by modifying the raft parameters for instance. This
section only give some clues to start a more relevant work about the pile-pile interaction.
Remark:
A last calculation has been perfomed with Group 2. We reduced the raft stiness from Eref
2 to E
ref
kN/m
= 1.106
kN/m . We get the following load displacement curves:
Figure 5.17: Load-settlements curves group 2 with Eref
97
= 1.106
kN/m
= 3.107
Chapter 6
Conclusion
This work led us to both practical and more general conclusions.
In chapter 2 a parametric study has been performed. Some remarks about how to design axisymmetric single pile or pile-raft models with Plaxis can be done.
For a single pile:
The importance of interface elements was shown. The input value for Rinter changes the load
settlement curves
The mesh dependency is negligible
Prescribed displacement seems to be better than load control to study a single pile
By using load control, premature failures can occur. We can prevent this problem switching
arc-length control o. But without arc-length control, oscillations can appear. We observed
we have to interpret with caution the shape of these numerical inacuracies.
For a single pile-raft:
The mesh dependency is negligible
The input value for Rinter do not have an important inuence
Dilatancy do not have an important inuence
In chapter 4 we tested some 3D Plaxis tools to model piles: volume pile and embedded pile. The
results observed with volume piles are in a very good agreement with the ones of axisymmetric
models.
On the other hand, the use of embedded pile to model piled-raft foundations was more
dicult.
We did not manage to calculate the pile raft behavior we had observed with
98
CHAPTER 6.
CONCLUSION
volume piles or axisymmetric models. The main problem remains the mobilization of
the base resistance because whatever the input is, we underestimate
Rbase
with embedded piles
in comparison with 2D models.
Chapter 3 and 5 were focused on the analysis of the load repartition in piled-raft foundations. The
ability of Plaxis to model the complex pile-raft-soil interaction was conrmed.
We observed the
main aspects of the pile-raft behavior that are usually described in books. We noticed
that:
The stress repartition between the raft and the pile evolves with the loading. The higher the
loading is, the more the stress is shared. With a load between 0 and 200 kN/m
2 everything
goes mostly to the pile (1 <Kpp < 0,8). From 200 kN/m the raft has a stronger inuence.
The bigger the spacing is, the more load takes the raft.
In each case the raft and pile load sharing converges to an equilibrium state
The pile obviously carries more load by increasing the length of the pile
We started a more sophisticated analysis of the total structure with a three dimensional model to
take the pile-pile interactions into account. We noticed that the behavior of a pile in a piled raft
foundation is dierent from the single pile raft model.
There is a reduction of the skin friction
mobilization due to a group eect. We did not have enougth time left to pursue in more details
the improvement of these models.
This nal chapter gives some basic clues to perform a deeper
analysis of pile-pile interactions in piled-raft foundations. This eect should be studied in further
researches.
99
Bibliography
[1]
Brinkgreve R.B.J (2006). Plaxis, Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, user
manual. Delft University of Technology & Plaxis b.v, The Nederlands. Balkema, Rotterdam.
[2]
Y. El-Mossalany. Single pile and pile group in overconsolidated clay, Plaxis 3D foundation /
validation Version 2. Ain shams University
[3]
Y. El-Mossalany. Pile raft foundation in frankfurter clay, Plaxis 3D foundation / validation

Version 2. Ain Shams University
[4]
H. K Engin. Validation of embedded piles, the Azley Bridge pile load test, Plaxis 3D foundation
/ validation Version 2. Middle-East Technical University
[5]
F. Tschuchnigg and H. Schweiger. Application of the ground anchor facility, Plaxis 3D

foundation / validation Version 2. Graz University of Technology
[6]
M. Wehnert and P.A. Vermeer. Numerical Analyses of Load Tests on Bored Piles. University
of Stuttgart
100

Tschuchnigg Lebeau Validation Emb Pile PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tschuchnigg Lebeau Validation Emb Pile PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FE-Analysis of piled and piled raft foundations

April - August 2008

clues about the group eect are indicated.

Load control and calculation steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison between distributed loads and prescribed displacement

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Load control and calculation steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Variations of Skin friction and Normal Stresses along the pile

Comparison and evolution of

for dierent geometries:

for dierent materials and dilatancy . . . . . . . .

for dierent values of Rinter

Eciency of a piled-raft foundation in comparison with a raft foundation

Analysis of the pile behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preliminary studies of 3D models

Finite element models

Variations of skin friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some remarks about parameters

Finite element models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Embedded pile with

linear skin friction distribution

Embedded pile with

multilinear skin friction distribution

Embedded pile with

layer dependent skin friction distribution

Comparison of the three options: Linear, multilinear and layer de-

Finite element model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

More precise analysis of group 5

2.1.1 Presentation of calculations

we did not take into account the water

The constitutive model used for the

soil - sand - is the Hardening soil model. The main advantage

Lateral pressure coe.

Table 2.1: Materials parameters

Table 2.2: Information on the generated meshes

Load control and calculation steps

ment, one with distributed loads.

Figure 2.3: Node point selected for load-displacement curves

Figure 2.4: Mesh dependency for the

- and dierent values for Rinter

les : Geo2Load_Mesh 1/2/3_Rinter0,1/0,7/1_Psi2_HS.plx

even if there are these stairs.

Figure 2.5: Mesh dependency for the

- and dierent values for Rinter

les : Geo2Load_Mesh 2_Loose_Rinter0,1/0,7_Psi2_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

Comparison between distributed loads and prescribed displacement

- and Rinter =0,1/0,4/0,7

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Rinter0,1/0,4/0,7_Psi0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

force (Rtot ) [kN].

to get the total force (Rtot ) [kN]

Comparison Displ and Load approaches for the loose sand 

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Loose_RinterNo_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

=0 - R=1  medium mesh

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Loose_Mesh 2_Rinter1_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter

Table 2.3: Settlements of the single pile for loose sand,

and Rtot =2000 kN

and without interface.

premature failure (see red following curve) or an unrealistic behavior. So

the interface drawn in

clues about the group eect are indicated.

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inuence of the dilatancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

for dierent geometries:

for dierent materials and dilatancy . . . . . . . .

for dierent values of Rinter

Eciency of a piled-raft foundation in comparison with a raft foundation

Lateral pressure coe.

- and dierent values for Rinter

les : Geo2Load_Mesh 1/2/3_Rinter0,1/0,7/1_Psi2_HS.plx

even if there are these stairs.

- and dierent values for Rinter

les : Geo2Load_Mesh 2_Loose_Rinter0,1/0,7_Psi2_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Rinter0,1/0,4/0,7_Psi0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

Comparison Displ and Load approaches for the loose sand

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Mesh 2_Loose_RinterNo_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

=0 - R=1 medium mesh

les : Geo2Disp/Load_Loose_Mesh 2_Rinter1_Psi=0_HS(_alc=OFF).plx

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter

Inuence of the dilatancy

Figure 2.11: Inuence of dilatancy for dense sand, mesh medium

Lateral pressure coe.

medium and very ne mesh.

Inuence of the interface coecient Rinter

negligible inuence on the settlements.

Inuence of the dilatancy

Figure 2.14: Inuence of dilatancy for dense sand, mesh coarse

raft and pile inuence .

Table 3.2: Parameters of the rst set of calculations

The outcome was that the inuence of dilatancy and of

We also performed these calculations with 3 dierent meshes to conrm

From the values of this prole we calculated