238 DISCUSSIONS

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of vertically

loaded pile groups
OTTAVIANI, M. (1975). Ghotechnique 25, No. 2, 159-174

H. G. Poulos, University of Sydney, Australia

The Author has demonstrated the application of the finite element method to the problem of
settlement of pile groups and has presented some interesting results for the distribution of stress
around a group. As mentioned by the Author, such results are useful in clarifying the
mechanism of load transfer from the piles to the surrounding soil and from that point of view,
are very worthwhile. However, the considerable effort of data preparation and the high cost
(especially if non-linear soil behaviour is to be considered) may render such finite element
analyses uneconomical for obtaining predictions of pile group settlement and load distribution
for most practical cases.
An approximate method of analysing pile group behaviour has been developed (Poulos,
1968; Poulos and Mattes, 1971) which enables the settlement behaviour of a pile group to be
related to that of a single pile. This method utilizes superposition of two-pile ‘interaction
factors’ to obtain a value of the settlement ratio R, for any pile group. This method, although
approximate, appears to give theoretical results which are in reasonable agreement with the
results of model and field tests on pile groups (Poulos, 1974; Koerner and Partos, 1974).
Factors such as pile compressibility, finite layer depth and soil heterogeneity can be readily
allowed for. In addition, the method can incorporate pile-soil slip and allow for the pile cap
being in contact with the surface (Davis and Poulos, 1972). To carry out the pile group
analysis, a computer program called GROUP has been developed. This program computes the
two-pile interaction factors at a number of spacings and, by interpolation, superposes for the
settlement of each pile or pile cap unit in terms of the loads on the units. If the load distribu-
tion within the group is known, the settlement of each pile or pile cap unit is then evaluated
directly. If the pile cap is rigid, the resulting simultaneous equations are solved for the
unknown loads and the rigid group settlement.
Using the program just referred to, I have analysed the pile groups considered by Ottaviani.
For each pile length, the analysis of a group, for three values of h, took approximately 5 min
of central processor time on the CDC Cyber 72 computer. The total input data comprised
43 cards. The pile cap has been assumed to be rigid and in contact with the soil. Compari-
sons between the two sets of solutions for group settlement for the 40 m piles are shown in
Fig. 1. In this case, my analysis gives a slightly smaller settlement than does Ottaviani’s, the
difference becoming greater as the pile stiffness increases. For h-2000, the discrepancy be-
tween the two solutions is only however about 5%.
A corresponding comparison for the groups of 20 m piles is shown in Fig. 2. In this case,
my values are much greater than Ottaviani’s, for both groups. The marked discrepancy be-
tween the solutions is very surprising in view of the good agreement shown in Fig. 1 and also
between the solutions of Ottaviani and myself for a single pile (for both the 20 m and 40 m
long piles).
In an attempt to clarify the discrepancy, two possible sources of inaccuracy in my approxi-
mate approach were then examined.
(a) the assumption of the validity of superposition of two-pile interaction factors;
(b) the use of the Steinbrenner approximation for taking account of finite layer depth.

Downloaded by [] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DISCUSIONS 239

400. Settlomont

300 -

6’

- - Ottovionl

Fig. 1. Comparisons between solutions for 3a group, L =“40 m

700
-- Ottaviani

Sottloment

6’

0 500 1000 1500 2000

h

Fig. 2. Comparisons between solutions for groups of 20 m Fig. 3. Comparison of effects of H/L
long piles

To investigate the first possible source, a full analysis was carried out for the 32 groups for
the case h=2000. In this analysis, all nine piles were considered (in a manner similar to that
described by Pichumani and D’Appolonia, 1967) and no assumption of superposition of two
pile interaction was necessary. A program called AXPILE was used to evaluate the solutions
which are shown in Figs 1 and 2. The solutions correspond almost exactly to those obtained
by the GROUP analysis, thus confirming the validity of the superposition assumption.
The second possible source of inaccuracy was examined by carrying out analyses for values
of H/L up to 4. Any error involved in the Steinbrenner assumption should decrease as H/L
increases. For L=20 m and h= 800, the solutions for the 32 group are compared in Fig. 3.
The solutions are not in good agreement, even for the larger values of H/L=4, for which case
my solution is about 40% greater than Ottaviani’s.
It therefore appears that the accuracy of Ottaviani’s solutions for the 20 m piles is open to
question. Also, his contention that, for the same H/L, the 32 group of 40 m piles settles more
than a similar group of 20 m piles, is intuitively illogical, and his explanation for this apparent
phenomenon is not convincing. I should appreciate any comments from the Author which
could clarify the lack of agreement between the two sets of solutions for the 20 m pile groups.

Downloaded by [] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 240 DISCUS!JIONS

Author’s reply to Poulos

Poulos points out a discrepancy between my results using three-dimensional finite elements
and his results obtained by using Mindlin’s solution with regard to the settlements of pile
groups. For H/L= 1.5, lack of agreement has been shown for pile groups 3 x 3 and 5 x 3 with
20 m long piles whilst good agreement appears to be found for the 3 x 3 group with 40 m
long piles. Dr Poulos questions therefore the accuracy of my results for 20 m long piles
especially since the 3 x 3 group settlements are in this case smaller than the settlement obtained
for 40 m long piles. The results obtained by Poulos for the same case show instead that the
settlements are almost the same for both pile lengths.
In my opinion differences of the order of those shown by Poulos between results obtained
by the two different methods are not surprising given the simplifying assumptions inherent in
either method employed. In the specific case there may also be some difficulties to reproduce
exactly the same geometry since I have considered square piles which can cause problems to
find the equivalent values of D and of S/D; furthermore the cap has an overhang of 05 m, is
not rigid but has the elastic properties of the piles, and is 3 m thick which increases, especially
for the 20 m long piles, the overall stiffness of the structure. The settlements obtained for the
40 m long piles which agree with the results of Poulos are in my opinion less accurate than those
obtained for the 20 m long piles since the finite element mesh used in the former case is much
grosser because it has been obtained by doubling the height of all the elements except for the
cap elements. In general the finite elements analysis will probabIy give settlements results
smaller than those obtained using Mindlin’s theory; this fact was shown for the single pile
analysis (curves 2’ and 3 in Fig. 3 of the Paper) and is due to the averaging of stresses (curves
4 and 5 in Fig. 5 of the Paper) which occurs because of the approximation of the continuum
medium by a finite element mesh however detailed.
As for the methods based on Mindlin’s theory, apart from the superposition principle, the
assumptions which may lead to inaccuracies of the settlement results are that of considering
an axisymmetrical distribution of the shear stresses around the piles of the group (Fig. 14 of
the Paper) and the lack of compatibility between the radial deformations of the compressible
piles and of the soil around them.
Complete stresses distributions in the soil, in the cap, and in the piles obtained using the
Mindlin theory could, of course, be very useful to assess the accuracy of the method in com-
parison with the finite element results. The methods based on Mindlin’s theory can certainly
give a reliable estimate of the settlements of pile groups when dealing with homogeneous soils.
The finite elements, on the other hand, are very useful even in the elastic field to compute the
settlements when dealing with irregularly layered media, as often is the case, and can be
successfully used to assess, for example, the obviously important effects of the installation of
the piles.
It remains an open question, for lack of sufficient reliable experimental data, which of the
two methods considered above will give the best approximation to real field values.
I am grateful to Dr Poulos for pointing out the need for further more detailed analyses of the
finite element results I have presented and for offering the opportunity for an interesting
discussion on the important problem of pile group analysis.

REFERENCES
Davis, E. H. & Poulos, H. G. (1972). The analysis of pile raft systems. Ausr. Geomech. Jnl G2, No. 1,21-27.
Koerner, R. M. & Partos, A. (1974). Settlement of building on pile foundation in sand. Jnl Gear. Engng Div.
Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 100, No. GT3, 265-278.
Pichumani, R. & D’Appolonia, E. (1967). Theoretical distribution of loads among the piles in a group. Proc.
Third Panamerican Conf. SoiI Mech, Caracas 1,547-564.

Downloaded by [] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 DISCUSSIONS 241
Poulos, H. G. (1968). Analysis of the settlement of pile groups. Ghotechnique 18, No. 4,449-471.
Poulos, H. G. (1974). Some recent developments in the theoretical analysis of pile behaviour. Soil mechanics
-new horizons, 237-279. Ed. I. K. Lee. London: Buttenvorths.
Poulos, H. G. & Mattes, N. S. (1971). Settlement and load distribution of pile groups. Aw. Geomech. Jnl
Gl, No. 1, 18-28.

Boundary wedges in two-dimensional passive soil failure

HETTIARATCHI, D. R. P. and REECE, A. R. (1975). Gkotechnique 25, No. 2, 197-220.

J. L. Juste, ETS Arqnitectura, University of Seville

Hettiaratchi and Reece state that all the assumptions and limitations specified under the
section ‘Basic assumptions’ in their 1974 paper also apply to the present analysis. In the
quoted paper they say, ‘Soil obeys the associated flow rule of the theory of plasticity and the
velocity field corresponds to the stress field.’
Although the Authors make the lower side of the kinematic wedge (slip line) parallel to the
direction of the interface movement, it is clear that they are actually considering a non-
dilating (v-0) material. On the other hand, they make this slip line coincide with a stress
characteristic. This kind of behaviour might occur in materials at the critical state (Salas
and Justo, 1971; Mandl, 1971).
Near the tip of the interface the critical state must have been reached at peak passive pres-
sure, owing to the large shear strains (Rowe and Peaker, 1965; Kerisel, 1972; Bassett, 1972).
All the experimental evidence quoted by the Authors actually sustains the v=O hypothesis
near the tip of the interface. In the tests performed by Rowe and Peaker (1965) and Rowe
(1969) on translating walls it is possible to follow the mobilization of 6 with wall movement.
In Fig. 1 the values of 6 corresponding to maximum passive pressure have been drawn as a
function of the direction of translation of interface, and are compared with the line obtained

I
' Denren"d citation about
top (James,197l;Roscoe.1970)
. Looserand 1

. Densesand
+ LWK sand I
Tranrlrrion
(Rowe and Peaker.1965; Rowe.
1969)
6"

Hettiaratchi
and Reece (1975)with4 ~4,”
l- Sf
r---+- --

-so;40 -30 -20 ,-I0 0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 8" *

/ / _lo _ Direction of interface

oftranslation
/
/
/ -20 -

,+’ -30

Fig. 1. Comparison of measurements of 8 and theory assuming critical state and coincidence of slip sarface and
stress characteristic at interface

Downloaded by [] on [12/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.