Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

Non-Linear Modelling/Analysis of Pile using SAP 2000

Shrabony Adhikary
Research Scholar, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee
For Queries please mail to: shrabonyeq@gmail.com

Step-1 Obtain the ‘p-y’,‘t-z’ and ‘q-z’ curves at different depths along the pile
for the given soil profile

Soil Profile
Depth (m) Soil Type Undrained shear strength Unit weight
(kN/m2) (kN/m3)
0-2 Stiff Clay 80 17
2-8 Stiff Clay 100 18
8-12 Stiff Clay 120 19.5
12-16 Stiff Clay 150 20
16-22 Stiff Clay 180 20
22-40 Stiff Clay 200 21

Laterally loaded Piles in Stiff Clay

As per API (2005) the lateral soil resistance deflection relationship for stiff clay above water
table is nonlinear and in the absence of experimental data the following expression can be used

0.25
p  y 
 0.5  (1)
pu lt  y 50 

where the value of p remains constant beyond y=16y50 in case of stiff clay and y50 =2.5ε50D, is

the deflection at one-half the ultimate soil resistance and  50 =strain at one-half the maximum
difference in principal stresses of undisturbed soil sample.

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

p y
pu lt y50
0 0
0.5 1
0.84 8
1 16
1 ∞

pult can be obtained as described in the following section.

cu Z
pult  3cu  Z  J (2)
D

pult  9cu (3)

Z= depth under consideration, cu is the shear strength at depth Z, and D is the width of the pile. J
is taken as 0.5. pult is calculated at each depth where p-y curve is desired.

Table 1 Representative values of  50 and cu for normally consolidated clay

Consistency of clay cu(kPa)  50

Soft < 48 0.020
Medium 48-96 0.010
Stiff 96-192 0.005

Derivation of ‘p=y’ curve parameters

pult(Eq.2) 283.67 327.33 454.00 505.33 556.67 608.00 659.33 710.67 895.50 955.00
pult(Eq.3) 720.00 720.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 1080.00 1080.00
y50 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
γ 17.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 19.50 19.50
z 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
cu 80.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 120.00 120.00
D 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
J 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
e50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

Axially loaded Piles in Stiff Clay

As per API (2005) piles should be designed for static and cyclic axial loads. The total ultimate
axial load carrying capacity of the pile is provided through soil-pile skin friction and end bearing
resistance of the pile tip, i.e.

QAu  Q fu  Qpu  f As  q Ap (4)

where, Q fu is the skin frictional resistance in kN; Q pu is the total end bearing capacity of the pile

in kN; f is the the unit skin friction in kN/m2 , As is the side surface area of the pile in m2 , q is
the end bearing capacity in kN/m2 , Ap is the gross end area of the pile in m2.

For clay

f   cu (5)

q  9cu (6)

and  = a dimensionless factor, cu is the undrained shear strength of the soil, and the factor  is
computed as per the following equations,   0.5 0.5   1.0 and   0.5 0.25   1.0 , and   1.0,
where   cu / p0 and p0 is the effective overburden pressure

As per API (2005) the analytical expression to find the skin friction capacity of piles is given by

t z z
2  (7)
t max zc zc

where, z is the local pile deflection in m, zc is the relative displacement required and is taken as
0.005 m in case of clay. tmax is the maximum shear stress in kN/m2 and t is the shear stress at
nodal point in kN/m2. The t-z curves as defined in API (2005) are the function of z/D and t/ tmax .

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

z t
D t max
0 0
0.0016 0.3
0.0031 0.5
0.0057 0.75
0.0080 0.9
0.01 1.0
0.02 0.7-0.9
∞ 0.7-0.9

Derivation of ‘t=z’ curve parameters

γ 17.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 19.50 19.50
z 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
cu 80.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 120.00 120.00
po' 17.00 34.00 52.00 70.00 88.00 106.00 124.00 142.00 161.50 181.00
Ψ 4.71 2.35 1.92 1.43 1.14 0.94 0.81 0.70 0.74 0.66
α 0.34 0.40 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.56 0.60 0.58 0.61
f 27.16 32.30 42.46 45.73 48.43 51.48 55.68 59.58 69.61 73.69

As per API (2005) the analytical expression to find pile tip settlement curves is given by

1/ 3
q  z 
   (8)
qmax  zcb 

where, qmax is the maximum bearing stress in kN/m2 ; z is the axial tip deflection of the pile in m
, and zcb is the maximum displacement required to develop qmax. The q-z curves as defined in
API (2005) are the function of z/D and q/ qmax .

z q
D qmax
0.002 0.25
0.013 0.5
0.042 0.75
0.073 0.9
0.1 1

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

Step-2 Define section properties>Link support properties> Add new

properties

Define Multilinear Force-Deformation Parameters in terms of force-displacement curves as

obtained. It is to be noted that the p-y and t-z curves are to be defined in both tension and
compression however, the q-z curves should be defined only for compression.

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee
 Nonlinear Modelling of Pile using SAP 2000

References

American Petroleum Institute (API), 2005. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms. API-RP2A-WSD, Washington, D.C.

Erhan, S., and Dicleli, M. 2014. Effect of dynamic soil–bridge interaction modeling assumptions
on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 66 (0):42-55.

Shirato M, Koseki J, and Fukui J. 2006. A new nonlinear hysteretic rule for winkler type soil-pile
interaction spring that consider loading pattern dependency. Soil Found Jpn Geotech
Soc,46(2):173–88.

Indo-Norwegian Training Programme on

Nonlinear Modelling and Seismic Response Evaluation of Structures
December 14-16, 2014 – Continuing Education Center, IIT Roorkee