Subsoil

Relative density
Parameter 15.000 20.000
C' 0.000 0.000
ɸ'(˚) 30.250 31.000
E50ref (Mpa) 8.708 9.859
9.000 12.000
Eoed (Mpa)
ref
8.708 9.859
9.000 12.000
Eur (Mpa)
ref
26.124 29.577
27.000 36.000
Vur 0.200 0.200
Pref 100.000 100.000
Rf 0.900 0.900
KoNC 1.919 1.404
m 0.495 0.510
ψ 0.250 1.000

Experimental Design

A load–settlement behavior
i Effect of pile spacing
S/Dp = 3, 5, 7, 9
Lp = 20 m
Unpiled raft 1 UR simulation
Piled raft for 4 , 9 number of piles
NC for 4 & 9 Np
constant subsoil and cushion stiffness of NC
Constant subsoil stiffness for PR
Curves to be obtained: load settlement(Wr/Br) % Vs applied load for both UR, PR & NC
4 simulation NC04 with 3, 5, 7, 9 S/Dp
4 simulation PR04 with 3, 5, 7, 9 S/Dp
ii Effect of Subsoil and Cushion Stiffnes
NP= 9
Lp =7, 14 & 20 m
Variable cushion and subsoil stiffness
each single subsoil stiifness with different cushion stiffness for each pile len
for example for NC
Subsoil stiffness
18.5 Mpa

Do the same for the rest subsoil stiffness

 For comparsion purpose PR with Lp=20 m for each subsoil & UR for each subsoil
for 4 subsoil stiffnesses 48

Total of 72 simulations
iii Effect of Number of Piles
NP = 0, 4, 9, 16 & 25
LP = 20

S/Dp = 5

Constant cushion and subsoil stiffness

For both PR & NC

Single raft only with constant subsoil stiffness

total of 4 Nc , 4PR & 1 UR
iv Cushion Thickness
0.25 to 1.5
Np =4, 9 ,16, 25 Vertical stress
Load settlement
16 simulations

B vertical stress behavior of piles along their lengths

1 Effect of pile spacing
vertical stress versus depth relative to pi
S/Dp = 3, 5, 7 & 9 for different spacing for both connected
8 simulation for 4 piles And 8 simulation for for 4 and 9 number of piles for constant

2 Effect of Pile Length

9 piles with s/d = 5
pile length 7, 14, 20
for both NC and PR
6 simulations
3 Effect of subsoil & cushion stiffness
9 piles both NC&PR Foundation
Lp = 20 m

variable subsoil stiffness & constant cushion stiffness for NC

for 4 subsoil stiffnesses PR 4 NC + 4 PR =8

only for NC
Variable cushion stiffness & constant subsoil stiffness
Sub total 148 simulation

C Load Sharing and Carrying Mechanism of piles

Load sharing Ratio
1 Effect of pile spacing
NC&PR
20 m length pile
Variable spacing S/Dp = 3, 5, 7, 9
4 and 9 piles
constant subsoil and cushion stiffness
2 Effect of Number of Piles
4, 9 ,16 & 25 piles for both NC & PR
S/Dp = 5
constant subsoil and cushion stiffness
3 Effect of Pile Length
4,9 & 16 piles
S/Dp = 5
constant subsoil and cushion stiffness
pile length variabler from 7,14 & 20 m
4 Cushion stiffness
4, 9, 16 & 25 piles for NC only
S/Dp = 5
variable cushion stiffness

Saidel et al. (2010) a range of most of the input parameters necessary for the HS
and HSS Model is given.

E50 ref was varied in values of 0.5E50 ref = 600N, 1.0E50 ref = 1200N and1.5E50 ref = 1800N .

HS1
HS2
HS3
HS4
load–settlement behavior
 Subsoil
Relative density
30.000 45.000 60.000 75.000 85.000 90.000 100.000 35.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
32.500 34.750 37.000 39.250 40.750 41.500 43.000 33.250
12.638 18.342 26.619 38.633 49.522 56.069 71.872 14.309
18.000 27.000 36.000 45.000 51.000 54.000 60.000 21.000
12.638 18.342 26.619 38.633 49.522 56.069 71.872 14.309
18.000 27.000 36.000 45.000 51.000 54.000 60.000 21.000
37.914 55.025 79.858 115.899 148.566 168.206 215.616 42.926
54.000 81.000 108.000 135.000 153.000 162.000 180.000 63.000
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000
0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
0.116 1.191 1.644 0.000 0.909 1.613 1.832 0.034
0.540 0.585 0.630 0.675 0.705 0.720 0.750 0.555
2.500 4.750 7.000 9.250 10.750 11.500 13.000 3.250

Variation of stiffness for sandy Dr(%)

HS1 Average for range of loose
HS2 Average for range of medium dense
HS3 Average for range of dense sand
HS4 Average for range of very dense sand

for both UR, PR & NC

4 simulation NC09 with 3, 5, 7, 9 S/Dp
4simulation PR09 with 3, 5, 7, 9 S/Dp

n stiffness for each pile length

ple for NC
cushion stiffness Pile legthTotal simulation
30 7 12 NC for single subsoil stiffness
52 14
78 20
104
 UR for each subsoil
NC 12 PR 12 UR

72 simulations

9 simulations required

spacing
ress versus depth relative to pile length(Z/L)
nt spacing for both connected and nonconnected
9 number of piles for constant cushion and subsoil stiffness
total of 16 simulations

8 simuation

4 simulation for 4 different cushion stiffnesss

spacing

for the HS
..\Literatures\Embedded pile\3D Finite Element Modelling of Deep Foundations Employing an
eep Foundations Employing an Embedded Pile Formulation.pdf