Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering – Schweiger (ed.

)
© 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 0-415-40822-9

Prediction of pile group response using a simplified non-linear

finite element model

Bryan A. McCabe
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Barry M. Lehane
Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper presents predictions from a finite element 2-D axisymmetric modelling approximation
for a small pile group employing the BRICK constitutive (non-linear) soil model, and examines the suitability
of this model to the prediction of the response of a pile group at a soft clay site near Belfast, Northern Ireland. The
study indicates that, despite some limitations, this approach captures both the non-linearity of the load-displacement
behaviour and the relative stiffnesses of group piles much better than commonly used linear elastic predictions.

1 INTRODUCTION of applications. Various pile group analysis methods

An ideal analysis of a closely spaced pile group would
be capable of capturing the following facets of its
behaviour:
(i) potential changes in shear stiffness of the soil
close to a pile group due to other neighbouring
installations
(ii) consideration of the unified response of the pile
group – soil system
(iii) large pile groups with non-standard pile geom-
etries and pile layouts
(iv) the highly non-linear stiffness response exhibited
by many soils.
Despite recent significant theoretical advances,
such as the Strain Path Method (Baligh 1985) and the
Contact Surface Method (Einav & Klar 2003), a
thorough understanding of the local effective stress
changes associated with single pile installation remains
elusive. Additional stress changes on group piles
imposed by neighbouring installations are even more
uncertain, and useful experimental data are quite scarce
(Koizumi & Ito 1967, O’Neill et al 1982, McCabe &
Lehane 2003).
In determining the load-settlement behaviour of a
pile group, each of the items (ii), (iii) and (iv) referred
to above imposes significant drains on computational
resources, to the extent that complete consideration of
all three is currently not an option for geotechnical
practice. Finite Element Analysis is the most rigorous
and versatile analysis tool available, but the computa-
tional effort required limits its use to all but the simplest
have evolved from dilutions of items (ii) and (iv); these
are summarized by Randolph (1994) and others.
This paper examines the role played by soil stiffness
non-linearity in the prediction of pile group response
by using the OASYS SAFE finite element programme.
The model output is interpreted in the context of data
from a programme of full scale load tests on instru-
mented driven single piles and pile groups at a soft
estuarine silt site near Belfast, Northern Ireland
(McCabe & Lehane 2006).
2 BELFAST PILE TEST PROGRAMME
2.1 Site characterization
An instrumented pile test programme was conducted
by the authors (while both at Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland) at a geotechnical test bed near Belfast. The
site comprises approximately 7.5 m of lightly over-
consolidated estuarine organic soft silty clay (known
locally as sleech), for which typical properties are
shown in Table 1. The sleech is overlain by
1.0–1.5 m
of granular made ground and underlain by medium
dense sand at
8.5 m depth.
Small-strain stiffness measurements (using Hall
effect transducers) from Ko consolidated undrained tri-
axial tests on 54 mm diameter Geonor piston samples
indicated the marked reduction in shear stiffness with
strain shown in Figure 1. In this figure, the secant shear
stiffness Gsec is normalized by the mean effective stress
at the commencement of shearing (po
).

589
Table 1. Typical properties of the sleech.

Clay friction (%) 20  10

Fines content (%) 90  5
Water content (%) 60  10
Plasticity index (%) 35  5
Organic content (%) 11  1
Peak vane strength (kPa) 22  2
Yield stress ratio 1.1 to 2.0
Friction angle (o) 33  1

500
Figure 2b. Load test arrangement.
400

The single piles and pile groups were loaded in

Gsec/p'0

300
compression using conventional Kentledge dead weight
(Figure 2b). The group piles were loaded through a
200
pre-fabricated steel cap standing
0.5 m free of the
ground surface (Figure 2a). All pile heads were
100 equipped with load cells and displacement transducers.
Load tests were carried out using a maintained load
0 test procedure, with increments not exceeding 15% of
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 pile capacity, in conjunction with a threshold ‘creep’
Axial strain (%) rate of 0.24 mm/hr.

Figure 1. Variation of Gsec/p
o with axial strain.

3 OASYS SAFE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

3.1 Validation of axisymmetric model

Figure 2a. Pile group configuration.
2.2 Pile and load test details
Precast square concrete piles, 250 mm in width (B),
were driven to a depth of 6.0 m in the sleech. Reference
is made to the single pile S1 and pile groups G1 and
G2 as described in McCabe & Lehane (2006). The
groups comprised four ‘corner’ piles driven at the cor-
ners of a square of 1.0 m side after a ‘centre’ pile had
been installed at the centre-point of the square (Figure
2a). The average centre to corner pile spacing to width
ratio (s/B) was 2.8.
An axisymmetric model of pile group G1 was set up
in OASYS SAFE, in which the axis of the centre group
pile coincided with the axis of symmetry of the model
space (Figure 3). The four corner piles could not be
defined in discrete locations, so their spacing from
the pile group centre was represented by the circumfer-
ence of a cylinder of radius 2.8B. It is acknowledged
that the load-displacement behaviour of the corner piles
cannot be modelled in this way, but it was anticipated
(and subsequently verified) that the influence they
would have on the centre pile would nevertheless be
realistic. The centre pile (of square cross-section) was
modelled as a circular pile with an equivalent shaft area.
Shaft load on the corner piles was modelled by
applying shear stresses to the cylindrical surface, with
appropriate scaling for the difference in surface area
between four discrete pile shafts and the cylindrical
surface. Base load on the corner piles was modelled
by applying vertical pressures to a circular annulus at
a depth of 6.0 m, with equivalent scaling for base area.
Initial trials with the model, assuming a linear elastic
soil, indicated that the load-displacement response
predicted by SAFE for a single pile (i.e. when no load
is placed on the corner piles) was in excellent agree-
ment with predictions using the analytical linear elastic
solution of Randolph & Wroth (1978). Likewise,

590
 40
shearing in triaxial
30 compression

Deviator stress q (kPa)

20 consolidation, swelling
and sampling
10 start of
history
shearing
0
0 10 20 30 40
-10

-20 shearing in
triaxial extension
Figure 3. SAFE finite element mesh. -30
Mean effective stress p' (kPa)
when the centre and corner piles were loaded together
in a linear elastic soil, the load-displacement response Figure 4. BRICK predictions of triaxial behaviour.
of the centre pile of the SAFE group was found to
agree very well with PIGLET (Randolph 2002) pre-
dictions. Both rigid and flexible caps were modelled.
200
These outcomes gave confidence that the approximate BRICK Triaxial compression
180
model used was a reasonable method of accounting
160 Triaxial extension
for the interactive loads and settlements to which an Measured
interior group pile might be subjected. 140
120
Gsec/p'

4 OASYS BRICK SOIL MODEL
The BRICK constitutive model (Simpson 1992) is a
non-linear elastic plastic soil model; the 3-D version
described in Lehane & Simpson (2000) was employed
here. OASYS provide a single element programme for
this model in addition to its inclusion in the SAFE
finite element code. The BRICK model requires spe-
cification of:
(i) prior stress/strain history of the deposit,
(ii) tangent shear stiffness (Gt) degradation with shear
strain (), referred to as ‘string data’ and
(iii) compressibilities at very low strains and at higher
strains.
The material’s friction angle (
) is a function of the
specified Gt vs.  variation; see Simpson (1992).
Before applying the BRICK model to the FE prob-
lem, its ability to replicate measured triaxial behav-
iour was assessed using the single element BRICK
programme.
The stress history of the sleech was modelled as
normal consolidation (Ko  0.5) with subsequent
swelling to the current in-situ overconsolidation ratio
of 1.2 (which was representative of the average value
in the sleech encountered by the piles). The BRICK
modelling of the triaxial test also accounted for the loss
in effective stress induced by sampling; see Figure 4.
The development of an S-shaped relationship
between tangent shear modulus (Gt) and shear strain
() was based upon a measured seismic shear modu-
lus (Go) of 10.5 MPa combined with the triaxial data
presented in Figure 1.
100
80 Measured
60
40
20 BRICK
0
0.1 1 10
Shear strain γ (%)
Figure 5. BRICK predictions of triaxial stiffness.
The final Gt- relationship chosen was that which
offered the best prediction of the measured triaxial
behaviour – to include the angle of friction, undrained
stress path and the undrained strength  (Figure 4),
and estimate of Gsec/p
as a function of  (Figure 5).
Reasonable matches were obtained. Some deviation
between the measured and predicted Gsec/p
values
in triaxial extension is noted. This is partly because
of the assumption in BRICK that the shear stiffness
varies with the mean effective stress level (p
) at
all strain levels (noting that Go varies approximately
with p
0.5).
This S-shaped curve was then converted into the
‘string format’ shown in Table 2 (Go  initial shear
modulus).
Other parameters derived from triaxial and oedome-
ter testing are presented in Table 3. The values of g
and  were not measured, but the output was found
to be relatively insensitive to their values. The reader
is referred to Simpson (1992) and Lehane & Simpson
(2000) for a full description of these parameters.

591
Table 2. BRICK string data. 70
SAFE/BRICK single pile
Shear strain () 60

Pile head load (kN)

Step Gt/Go ( ‘string length’) 50
measured
1 0.95 0.000001 40 single pile S1
2 0.80 0.000015 measured centre
3 0.47 0.0001 30 pile of G1
4 0.15 0.0004 20
5 0.075 0.0009 SAFE/BRICK centre pile
6 0.035 0.004 10
7 0.025 0.011
0
8 0.015 0.03 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 0.005 0.06
10 0 0.1 Pile head displacement (mm)

Figure 6. Belfast load tests – measurements and SAFE/

BRICK predictions.
Table 3. BRICK parameters.
5 SAFE/BRICK RESULTS
Parameter Value Details

/l  e 0.104   Slope of normal consolidation 5.1 Single pile S1

line in void ratio (e) – mean A direct comparison between the measured load-
effective stress (p
) space displacement behaviour of single pile S1 and the cor-
/l  e 0.020  Slope of recompression line in
e–p
space
responding SAFE/BRICK prediction is presented in

0.0017 Small strain equivalent of , Figure 6.

defined as p
/Kmax
(Kmax  small strain bulk modulus)
 0.2 Poisson’s ratio
M 1.3 Drucker-Prager failure criterion
g,  1.0 Effect of overconsolidation on soil
stiffness
5 STAGES OF ANALYSIS
The SAFE/BRICK analysis was carried out in a num-
ber of distinct stages to recreate as closely as possible
the sequence of events occurring at the site from soil
deposition to pile loading. These stages are identified
below:
(i) ‘Deposition’ of sleech from ground level to the
rigid (sand) boundary at 8.5 m depth
(ii) Transformation of the top 1.2 m of material
to ‘made ground’, treated as an elastic Mohr
Coulomb material with drained Young’s modulus
E  25 MPa and friction angle 
 33°
(iii) Transformation of appropriate elements along the
axis of symmetry into a linear elastic material
with the properties of concrete
(iv) Compressive pile loading was applied by impos-
ing pressure loads on line elements (on the head
of the centre pile and along corner pile shaft
cylinder and base annulus) and noting the corre-
sponding displacements. The load-displacement
behaviour reported in subsequent figures is rela-
tive to the start of stage (iv).
The exactness of the agreement is somewhat fort-
uitous, given that the installation of the piles is not
modelled in SAFE/BRICK (i.e. the piles are wished-
in-place piles). Nevertheless, the single pile stiffness
is captured reasonably well up to 40 kN or approx-
imately two-thirds of the single pile’s capacity. Deviation
between prediction and measurement at higher loads
is partly due to the fact the SAFE/BRICK makes no
provision for slip at the interface between pile and
soil. Importantly, the non-linear shape of the load-
displacement curve is captured very well.
5.2 Pile group G1
Figure 6 also presents measurements and SAFE/
BRICK predictions of the load-displacement response
of the centre pile of group G1. The non-linearity of
the centre pile’s behaviour is modelled as well as that
of the single pile, and the measured ‘relative’ stiffnesses
are also reflected accurately to loads well in excess of
typical working levels.
The significance of this result can be put in context
by comparing the non-linear predictions in Figure 6
with the linear elastic PIGLET predictions in Figure 7.
The PIGLET predictions assume a rigid pile cap, which
is consistent with the uniform settlement experienced
by all five piles of G1. Under a typical working load
of
30 kN, the single pile head displacement is
predicted correctly when a constant shear modulus
(G) of 3.5 MPa is assigned to the soil. However, at the
same load per pile head, and with the same value of
G assumed for the soil within group G1, Figure 7

592
 40 1
0.9
0.8
Pile head load (kN)

30 PIGLET
0.7

w/wmax
0.6
dashed lines: PIGLET
predictions with G = 3.5 MPa
0.5
20 SAFE/BRICK
0.4 range measurements from G2
single pile S1 0.3
corner pile of G1 0.2
10 centre pile of G1
single pile PIGLET 0.1
corner pile PIGLET 0
centre pile PIGLET 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 s/Deq
Pile head displacement (mm)
Figure 8. Interaction factors – measurements and PIGLET
Figure 7. Belfast load tests – measurements and PIGLET predictions.
predictions.
before, during and after group installation and (ii) by
loading one corner pile of a new group (G2) alone
illustrates that PIGLET overpredicts the settlement of and comparing with the single pile (S1).
the centre pile by 75% and an corner pile ‘average’ by
33%. These overestimates lead to a predicted group
stiffness efficiency (g) of 0.25 compared to the meas-
ured efficiency of 0.45  0.05 (McCabe & Lehane
2006). Such a gross underestimate of stiffness is a
consequence of the assumption of a linear elastic soil
stiffness in PIGLET, which leads to overestimates of
the extent to which piles interact under load.
Castelli & Maugeri (2002) recognized the import-
ance of soil stiffness non-linearity and proposed the
following expression for stiffness efficiency, based on
a modified ‘equivalent pier’ approach:
(1)
where D is the diameter of one pile and Dg is the diam-
eter of the plan area of a pile group (Dg  2[Ag/
]0.5; However,  measurements are very scarce, and
Ag  plan area of group). The empirical constant 
was back-figured from a database of pile group load
tests, with the authors recommending   0.15 for
design. However, application of eqn. (1) leads to an
5.3 Interaction factors
When loaded piles are in close proximity, their dis-
placement fields may overlap. The displacement inter-
action between piles is quantified by interaction factors
(), where:
(2)
with wmax the displacement at the head of any loaded
pile and w is the displacement that this induces on a
neighbouring pile. McCabe & Lehane (2006) present
measurements of , determined by loading one corner
pile of group G2 and monitoring the displacements
on the load-free piles.
approximations to  for design are often made by try-
ing to predict the decay of displacement w/wmax in the
ground around an isolated single pile – obviously
without the ‘reinforcement’ to the ground that nearby
unconservative g  0.79. The foregoing clearly illus-
trates the difficulties associated with a realistic pre-
diction of pile group settlement, and that realistic
predictions are only likely to be obtained when non-
0.5), where
linear constitutive soil models are used in conjunction
with an undiluted continuum analysis such as Finite
Element modelling.
While this simple SAFE/BRICK model is only cap-
able of predicting load interaction and not installation
effects, it still models the measured pile stiffnesses
well. The success of the prediction suggests that the
centre pile is not subject to significant additional instal-
lation effects over and above a single pile. McCabe &
Lehane (2006) have already demonstrated this experi-
mentally at the Belfast site by two independent methods:
(i) total stress sensors on the centre pile of G1 monitored
593
piles would provide.
The measured values of  are shown in Figure 8 as
a function of the spacing normalized by the equivalent
diameter of a circular pile (Deq  2B/
s/Deq  0.5 represents the pile-soil interface.
The range plotted reflects small variations in 
with load level. Corresponding predictions of w/wmax
around a single pile using PIGLET and the SAFE/
BRICK non-linear model are also included.
It is clear that the SAFE/BRICK model produces a
more realistic estimate than PIGLET of the steep
decay of w/wmax with displacement from a pile, and is
consistent with trends shown by 2-D finite element
analyses performed by Jardine et al (1986). Within
the range of values attributed to the SAFE/BRICK
predictions in Figure 8, the value of w/wmax was
found to reduce with both depth and increasing load
level – trends that would require further more detailed
investigation.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper highlights the strong bearing that soil stiff-
ness non-linearity has on the load displacement per-
formance of a pile group. In particular, it illustrates that
a 2D simplification of a pile group coupled with an
accepted non-linear constitutive model can yield more
realistic predictions than linear elastic models or other
empirical analyses.
REFERENCES
Baligh, M.M. 1985 Strain Path Method, Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering Division, ASCE 111, No. GT9,
1108–1136
Castelli, F. & Maugeri, M. 2002 Simplified Nonlinear
Analysis for the Settlement Prediction of Pile Groups,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 128(1), 76–84
Einav, I. & Klar, A. 2003 An Approach for Nonlinear
Contact Surface Analysis and Application to Pile Installa-
tion, Proceedings BGA International Conference on Foun-
dations, Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice,
Dundee, 259–268
Lehane, B.M. & Simpson, B. 2000 Modelling Glacial Till
under Triaxial Conditions using a BRICK Soil Model,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, 1078–1088
594
Jardine, R.J., Potts, D.M., Fourie, A.B. & Burland, J.B. 1986
Studies of the Influence of Nonlinear Stress Strain
Characteristics in Soil-Structure Interaction, Geotechnique,
36(3), 377–396
Koizumi, Y. & Ito, K. 1967 Field Tests with Regard to Pile
Driving and Bearing Capacity of Piled Foundations, Soils
and Foundations 7, No. 3, 30–53
McCabe, B.A. & Lehane, B.M. 2003 Stress Changes associ-
ated with Driving Pile Groups in Clayey Silt, Proceedings
XIII European Conference in Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 2, 271–276
McCabe, B.A. & Lehane, B.M. 2006 Behaviour of Axially
Loaded Pile Groups Driven in Clayey Silt, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: ASCE,
Vol. 132, No. 3, 401–410
O’Neill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A. & Audibert, J.M.E. 1982
Installations of Pile Group in Overconsolidated Clay,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 108, No. GT11
Randolph, M.F. 1994 Design Methods for Pile Groups and
Piled Rafts, XIII International Conference in Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, Vol. 5, 61–82
Randolph, M.F. 2002 PIGLET: Analysis and Design of Pile
Groups Users’Manual, Version 4–2, University of Western
Australia, Australia
Randolph, M.F. & Wroth, C.P. 1978 Analysis of Deformation
of Vertically Loaded Piles, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 104, No. 12, 1465–1488
Simpson, B. 1992 Retaining Structures: Displacement and
Design: 32nd Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, 42, No. 4,
541–576