See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265410626

Development of API Soil Models for Studying Soil- Pile Interaction Analysis
Using FB-MultiPier

Article

CITATIONS READS

3 841

7 authors, including:

Marc Hoit Elia Bollmann

North Carolina State University University of St.Gallen
46 PUBLICATIONS 528 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Hoit on 01 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BSI Research Report

June 2007

Development of API Soil Models for Studying Soil-

Pile Interaction Analysis Using FB-MultiPier

Investigators: Marc Hoit, Ph.D.

Jae H. Chung, Ph.D.
Scott J. Wasman, E.I.
Henry T. Bollmann, P.E.

Bridge Software Institute

Department of Civil & Coastal Engineering
College of Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station

Bridge Software Institute

University of Florida
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes six new soil models which have recently been incorporated into
the FB-MultiPier computer program. The new soil models were developed by the Bridge
Software Institute at the University of Florida according to the American Petroleum
Institute Recommended Practice 2A LRFD (API RP 2A LRFD) in order to address
specific needs of practicing design engineers. This report provides the basic input
parameters for API Sand/Clay soil models, validation of the API soil curves, fundamental
assumptions in the analysis, and case study for analysis/design of those types of soil-
structure interaction models used herein. As a further aid for the usage of FB-MultiPier
there are tutorials and a user’s guide posted on the BSI web site: http://bsi-web.ce.ufl.edu.

Bridge Software Institute 2

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary of Input Parameters for API Soil Models........................................................4

1.1 Axial Load Transfer (T-Z) Curves...........................................................................4
1.2 Tip Load-Displacement (Q-Z) Curves ....................................................................4
1.3 Lateral Soil Resistance-Deflection (P-Y) Curves ....................................................5

2. Validation of FB-MultiPier API Soil Models..................................................................6

2.1 Lateral soil response curves (P-y) of API sand soil model......................................6
2.2 Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) of API sand soil model ................................7
2.3 Lateral soil response curves (P-y) of API clay soil model.......................................9
2.4 Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) of API clay soil model ...............................10

3. Case Study and Comparison ..........................................................................................12

3.1 Case 1: Lateral soil-structure interaction analysis using an API sand soil model .12
3.2 Case 2: Axial soil-structure interaction analysis using an API sand soil model....13
3.3 Case 3: Lateral soil-structure interaction analysis using an API clay soil model..15
3.4 Case 4: Axial soil-structure interaction analysis using an API clay soil model ....17
3.5 Case 5: Lateral soil-structure interaction analysis using a multi-layered API soil
model............................................................................................................................19
3.6 Case 6: Combined lateral/axial soil-structure interaction analysis using a multi-
layered API sand soil model ........................................................................................20

4. Summary and Conclusion ..............................................................................................21

5. References......................................................................................................................22

Appendix A. Showcase FB-MultiPier Analysis ................................................................23

Appendix B. Application of the API Soil Models in FB-MultiPier ..................................24

Bridge Software Institute 3

1. Summary of Input Parameters for API Soil Models

1-1. Axial Load Transfer (T-Z) Curves

API Clay Model (Refer to G.4.2 API RP2A LRFD)

• c, undrained shear strength of soil
• γsoil, total unit weight of soil

Note: based on total unit weight of soil input, an effective unit weight of soil, i.e.,
γ'soil = γsoil - γwater, is calculated for effective overburden pressure, which is subsequently
used to compute a variable used in Equation G.4-3 of API RP2A LRFD.

API Sand Model (Refer to G.4.3 API RP2A LRFD)

• γsoil, total unit weight of soil
• φ, internal friction angle that is used to approximate δ, friction angle between the soil
and pipe wall, e.g., δ = φ − 5 deg.
• K, dimensionless coefficient of lateral earth pressure
• f ult, ultimate (limiting) unit skin friction

Note: based on total unit weight of soil input, an effective unit weight of soil, i.e.,
γ'soil = γsoil - γwater, is calculated for effective overburden pressure, which is subsequently
used to compute the skin friction using Equation G.4-5 of API RP2A LRFD.

1-2. Tip Load-Displacement (Q-Z) Curves

API Clay Model (Refer to Section G.7.3 API RP2A LRFD)

• Pile end condition :
Plugged – a gross sectional area is used to compute ultimate end bearing capacity
Unplugged – a cross sectional area is used to compute ultimate end bearing capacity
• γsoil, total unit weight of soil
• c, undrained shear strength of soil

API Sand Model (Refer to Section G.7.3 API RP2A LRFD)

• Pile end condition :
Plugged – a gross sectional area is used to compute ultimate end bearing capacity
Unplugged – a cross sectional area is used to compute ultimate end bearing capacity
• γsoil, total unit weight of soil
• φ, angle of internal friction that is used to compute Nq, dimensionless bearing capacity
factor, using an equation from Section G.13.3 API RP2A LRFD
• q ult, ultimate (limiting) unit end bearing

Bridge Software Institute 4

Note: based on total unit weight of soil input, an effective unit weight of soil, i.e.,
γ'soil = γsoil - γwater. is computed and subsequently used to compute overburden pressure
and ultimate unit end bearing.

1-3 Lateral Soil Resistance-Deflection (P-Y) Curves

API Clay Model (Refer to Section G.8.2 API RP2A LRFD)

• c, undrained shear strength of soil
• γsoil, total unit weight of soil
• εc, strain at one-half the max stress on laboratory undrained compression tests of
undisturbed soil samples.
• Short-term cyclic loading option
Note:
(1) Effective unit weight is internally computed for Equation G.8-1 of API RP2A LRFD
(2) Dimensionless empirical constant ‘J’ used in Equation G.8-1 of API RP2A LRFD is
set equal to a value of 0.5 , which is recommended for Gulf of Mexico clay soils.
(3) For a case where static equilibrium has been reached under cyclic loading, the lateral
soil resistance-deflection (P-y curves) may be simulated using the cyclic loading option.
It is noted that a current FB-MultiPier modeling approach in soil-structure interaction
analysis is based on either cyclic loading (number of cycles is greater than zero) or static
loading (number of cycles is equal to zero).

API Sand Model (Refer to Section G.8.6 API RP2A LRFD)

• γsoil, total unit weight of soil
• k, subgrade modulus: a value can be chosen from Figure G.8-2 API RP2A LRFD.
• φ, angle of internal friction that is used to compute C1, C2, and C3, coefficients. The
graphs provided in Figure G.8-1 API RP2A LRFD are curve-fitted as a function of φ.
• Short-term cyclic loading option

Note:
(1) Based on total unit weight of soil input, an effective unit weight of soil, i.e., γ'soil = γsoil
- γwater is computed and subsequently used to compute overburden pressure and ultimate
lateral resistance.
(2) For a case where static equilibrium has been reached under cyclic loading, the lateral
soil resistance-deflection (P-y curves) may be simulated using the cyclic loading option.
It is noted that a current FB-MultiPier modeling approach in soil-structure interaction
analysis is based on either cyclic loading (number of cycles is greater than zero) or static
loading (number of cycles is equal to zero).

Bridge Software Institute 5

2. Validation of FB-MultiPier API Soil Models
2-1. Lateral soil response curves (P-y) of API sand soil model

Lateral soil response curves (P-y) obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
GROUP 7.0 are plotted for the API sand soil type and presented at three various
depths shown in Figure 1. Pile dimensions and soil properties are given in Section 3.

API Sand P-y Curves

Depth = 2.205 m

GROUP FB-Multipier
600.0
500.0
P (KN/m)

400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
y (m)

(a) P-y plots at a depth of 2.2 m

API Sand P-y Curves
Depth = 25.35 m

GROUP FB-Multipier

12000.0
10000.0
P (KN/m)

8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
y (m)

(b) P-y plots at a depth of 25.4 m

API Sand P-y Curves
Depth = 37.48 m

GROUP FB-Multipier

25000.0
20000.0
P (KN/m)

15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
y (m)

(c) P-y plots at a depth of 37.5 m

Figure 1 Soil reaction for a laterally loaded pile

Bridge Software Institute 6

2-2. Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) of API sand soil model

Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
APILE 4.0 are plotted for API sand soils and presented at three various depths shown
in Figure 2. Pile dimensions and soil properties are given in Section 3.

It is assumed that the friction angle between the pipe wall and soil, δ, is determined in
FB-Multipier by subtracting 5° from the angle of internal friction in sand, δ = φ - 5°,
which is based on feedback from engineers at Exxon. For comparison purposes of
axial soil response, φ of 30.75° is used for FB-MultiPier T-z model whereas φ of 30°
is used for the APILE 4.0 T-z model. It is evident that the APILE 4.0 T-z model does
not use the relationship: δ = φ - 5°.

Although the two sets of Q-z curves are not identical, their general form is in good
agreement. Because the Q-z curve of FB-MultiPier has been developed using a
piecewise linear curve obtained from Section G.7.3 of API RP 2A LRFD with
fourteen significant figures in a double precision, the interpretation of the piecewise
linear relationship between the normalized displacement (abscissa) by pile diameter
and the corresponding end bearing load may cause this minor discrepancy at the early
stages of loading. However, the agreement shown in Figure 2 suggests a degree of
validity in the relationships presented by both FB-MultiPier and APILE.

API Sand T-z Curves

Depth = 2.205 m

APILE FB-Multipier
10.0
8.0
T (KPa)

6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040
Displacement, z (m)
(a) T-z plots at a depth of 2.2 m
Figure 2 Soil reaction for an axially loaded pile

Figure 2 continued on the next page.

Bridge Software Institute 7

 Figure 2 cont.

API Sand T-z Curves

Depth = 25.35 m

APILE FB-Multipier
100.0
80.0
T (KPa)

60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040
Displacement, z (m)
(b) T-z plots at a depth of 25.4 m

API Sand T-z Curves

Depth = 37.48 m

APILE FB-Multipier
100.0
80.0
T (KPa)

60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040
Displacement, z (m)
(c) T-z plots at a depth of 37.5 m

API Sand Q-z Curves

Depth = 48.5 m

APILE FB-Multipier
25000.0
20000.0
Q (KN)

15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Displacement, z (m)
(d) Q-z plots at the tip of pile

Figure 2. Soil reaction for an axially loaded pile

Bridge Software Institute 8

2-3. Lateral soil response curves (P-y) of API clay soil model

Lateral soil response curves (P-y) obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
GROUP 7.0 are plotted for the API clay soil type and presented at three various
depths shown in Figure 3. Pile dimensions and soil properties are given in Section 3.

API Clay P-y Curves

Depth = 2.205 m

GROUP FB-Multipier
250
200
P (KN/m)

150
100
50
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
y (m)

(a) P-y plots at a depth of 2.2 m

API Clay P-y Curves
Depth = 25.35 m

GROUP FB-Multipier

500.0
400.0
P (KN/m)

300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
y (m)

(b) P-y plots at a depth of 25.4 m

API Clay P-y Curves
Depth = 37.48 m

GROUP FB-Multipier

500
400
P (KN/m)

300
200
100
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
y (m)

(c) P-y plots at a depth of 37.5 m

Figure 3 Soil reaction for a laterally loaded pile

Bridge Software Institute 9

 Since the API clay soil model described as a piecewise linear curve in API RP 2A
LRFD is not available in GROUP 7.0, a submerged soft clay model of GROUP 7.0 is
used for comparison purpose. The submerged soft clay model describes soil reaction
for a laterally loaded pile in a hyperbolic relationship.

2-4. Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) of API clay soil model

Axial soil response curves (T-z, Q-z) obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
APILE 4.0 are plotted for the API clay soil type and presented at three various depths
shown in Figure 4. Pile dimensions and soil properties are given in Section 3. It is
noted that a value of 0.9 is used for the normalized residual shear stress (t/tres) in the
FB-Multipier for validation purpose. The end condition of a pile is assumed as
unplugged for Q-z validation. This takes into account the annulus of the pile tip for
the determination of the ultimate end bearing capacity.

API Clay T-z Curves

Depth = 2.20 m

Apile FB-Multipier
10.0
8.0
T (KPa)

6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement, z (m)
(a) T-z plots at a depth of 2.2 m

API Clay T-z Curves

Depth = 25.35 m

APILE FB-Multipier
25.0
20.0
T (KPa)

15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement, z (m)
(b) T-z plots at a depth of 25.4 m

Figure 4 Soil reaction for an axially loaded pile

Figure 4 continued on the next page.

Bridge Software Institute 10

 Figure 4 cont.
API Clay T-z Curves
Depth = 37.48 m

APILE FB-Multipier
25.0
T (KPa) 20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Displacement, z (m)
(c) T-z plots at a depth of 37.5 m
API Clay Q-z Curves
Depth = 48.5 m

APILE FB-Multipier
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
Q (KN)

40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Displacement, z (m)

(d) Q-z plots at the tip of pile

Figure 4 Soil reaction for an axially loaded pile

Bridge Software Institute 11

3. Case Study and Comparison
3-1. Case 1: Lateral soil-pile interaction analysis using API sand soil
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a single layer of API sand soil is
subjected to incremental lateral loads at the pile head shown in
Figure 5.
Pile dimension and properties:
Outer Diameter 2.4384 m
Thickness 0.0508 m
Unit Weight 77 kN/m3
Length 51.55 m
Yield Stress 415000 kPa
Modulus 200000000 kPa

Figure 5 FB-MultiPier lateral soil-structure interaction analysis model

Lateral loads are incrementally applied to the head, ranging from 1,000 KN to 10,000 KN.
Lateral displacements at the pile head obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
GROUP 7.0 are plotted in Figure 6.

API Lateral Sand

12000

10000

8000
Load (kN)

Group 7.0
6000
FB-Multipier

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Pile Head Displacement (m)

Figure 6 Lateral load-displacement results

Bridge Software Institute 12

3-2. Case 2: Axial soil-pile interaction analysis using API sand soil
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a single layer of API sand soil is
subjected to incremental axial loads at the pile head shown in
Figure 7.
Pile dimensions and properties are the same as used in Case 1. P

Figure 7 FB-MultiPier axial soil-structure interaction analysis model

Axial loads are incrementally applied to the pile head, ranging from 2,500 KN to 42,500
KN. Vertical displacements at the pile head obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and
APLIE 4.0 are plotted in Figure 8. The agreement in results is reasonable, but differences
are observed and shown in Figure 8a. Particularly, predicted axial behavior of API sand
soil can vary noticeably with respect to the values of the dimensionless coefficient of
lateral earth pressure (i.e., ratio of horizontal to vertical normal effective stress). In order
to demonstrate, two different values of the coefficient, i.e., 0.8 and 1.0, are used in both
FB-MultiPier and APILE simulations. Results obtained from FB-MultiPier simulations
show that full displacement piles (plugged) or open-ended piles (unplugged) can be
modeled using a value of either 1.0 or 0.8, which is according to Equation G.4-5 of API
RP 2A-LRFD 93, whereas no significant differences are observed in simulations using
APILE 4.0 (Figure 8b).

Bridge Software Institute 13

 API Axial Sand

40000

35000

30000

25000
Load (kN)
APILE 1.0
20000 FB-Multipier K = 1.0
FB-Multipier K = 0.8
15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Pile Head Displacement (m)

(a) PY curve comparison

API Axial Sand
APILE Prediction
40000

35000

30000

25000
Load (kN)

20000
K= 1.0 K = 0.8
15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Pile Head Displacement (m)

(b) Results from APILE simulations

Figure 8 Axial load-displacement results

Bridge Software Institute 14

3-3. Case 3: Lateral soil-pile interaction analysis using API clay soil
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a single layer of API clay soil is
subjected to incremental lateral loads at the pile head shown in
Figure 9.
Pile dimension and properties are same as used in Case 1.

Figure 9 FB-MultiPier lateral soil-structure interaction analysis model

Lateral loads are incrementally applied to the head, ranging from 250 KN to 2,500
KN. Lateral displacements at the pile head obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12
and GROUP 7.0 are plotted in Figure 10.

API Lateral Clay

3500

3000

2500
API Clay
Load (kN)

2000 FB-Multipier
Soft Clay Submerged
Group 7.0
1500
Soft Clay < WT
FB-MultiPier
1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Pile Head Displacement (m)

Figure 10 Lateral load-displacement results

It is noted that the lateral behavior of the API clay soil is modeled as piecewise linear
P-y curves in FB-MultiPier whereas the same type of clay model is not available in
GROUP 7.0. Instead, a hyperbolic P-y curve model (submerged soft clay) of GROUP
7.0 is used (Also see Section 2-4 for the difference in soil reaction predicted by FB-

Bridge Software Institute 15

 MultiPier beta V4.12 and GROUP 7.0). For comparison purpose, additional
simulations using an existing hyperbolic P-y curve (submerged soft clay model of
FB-MultiPier) are performed. It is evident that the lateral behavior of the API clay
soil is softer than that of submerged soft clay models of both FB-MultiPier and
GROUP.

Bridge Software Institute 16

3-4. Case 4: Axial soil-pile interaction analysis using API clay soil
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a single layer of API clay soil is
subjected to incremental axial loads at the pile head shown in
Figure 11.
Pile dimension and properties are same as used in Case 1. P

Figure 11 FB-MultiPier axial soil-structure interaction analysis model

Axial loads are incrementally applied to the head, ranging from 600 KN to 6,000 KN.
Axial displacements at the pile head obtained from FB-MultiPier beta V4.12 and APILE
4.0 are plotted in Figure 12.

API Axial Clay

7000

6000

5000
Axial Load (kN)

4000
APILE
FB-Multipier
3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Displacement, z (m)

Figure 12 Axial load-displacement results

To ensure the accuracy of the numerical solution, a parametric sensitivity study is

performed using several different tolerances by trial and error. Since APILE 4.0 does not
provide an option for user’s specified tolerance in a control parameter, the length of
element in APILE models is used as a means to mimic a tolerance used for a force

Bridge Software Institute 17

equilibrium check in FB-MultiPier, i.e., tolerance = 0.01 KN. However, minor
differences are observed where the applied load approaches a failure load. As a result,
even minor differences in the length of element will yield significantly different predicted
displacements at a near-failure load (Figure 12).

Bridge Software Institute 18

3-5. Case 5: Lateral soil-pile interaction analysis using a multi-layered API clay/sand
soil model
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a double-layer of API clay and sand
soils is subjected to a lateral load at the pile head shown in
Figure 13.
Pile dimensions and properties are the same as used in Case 1.

Figure 13 FB-MultiPier multi-layered soil-structure interaction analysis model

Case 5 represents an extreme lateral load for the soft upper clay layer. The 7500 kN
load is possible because of the strong sand layer located beneath the clay. This
loading develops the plastic bending moment in the pipe pile equal to 130,591 kN-m
at 26.5 meters below the soil surface. The near equal lateral displacements of the
cantilever pile, 1.33m for FB-Multipier beta Version 4.12 and 1.29m for GROUP
Version 7.0, demonstrates that the soil-pile lateral stiffness modeled by the two
computer programs compare very well. The difference in displacement prediction is
believed to be due to a different numerical solution procedure and a tolerance used in
convergence checks in the programs. Additional simulations are conducted using
different tolerances and results are presented in the table given below.

Load (KN) Displacement (m) Model Tolerance (KN)

0.92 GROUP 0.05
5500 0.85 FB-MultiPier 0.01
0.82 GROUP 0.0001
1.50 GROUP 0.05
7500 1.33 FB-MultiPier 0.01
1.29 GROUP 0.0001

Bridge Software Institute 19

3-6. Case 6: Combined lateral/axial soil-structure interaction analysis using a multi-
layered API sand soil model
Problem description: A single pile embedded in a double-layer of API sand soil is
subjected to both lateral and axial loads at the pile head shown
in Figure 14.
Pile dimensions and properties are the same as used in Case 1.

Figure 14 FB-MultiPier soil-structure interaction analysis model for a combined

loading condition
Case 6 represents a two-layer sand model and a combination of axial load (25,000kN)
and lateral load (9000 kN) is applied to validate the soil – pile stiffness represented in
FB-Multipier beta Version 4.12 against GROUP Version 7.0. The lateral load is selected
so as to develop the first yield moment in the pipe-pile. Note that the lateral load is
considerably larger than the lateral load (7500KN) which would develop the plastic
moment in case 5, where the weak clay layer is present in the surface layer.

Loads and corresponding displacements of the pile head are investigated and presented in
the table below. Although minor discrepancies are observed, it is considered mainly due
to numerical issues related to convergence (tolerance). Additional simulations using
different tolerances and results are compared in three different load cases. Displacements
predicted by FB-Multipier beta Version 4.12 and by GROUP Version 7.0 demonstrate
that both the soil-pile lateral/axial stiffness modeled by the two computer programs is in
good agreement.

Lateral Load (KN) 4500 7500 9000

Vertical Load (KN) 25000 25000 25000
FB-MultiPier
0.08 0.20 0.28
Lateral Displ. (m)
FB-MultiPier
0.13 0.13 0.13
Vertical Displ. (m)
GROUP
0.08 0.19 0.30
Lateral Displ. (m)
GROUP
0.11 0.11 0.11
Vertical Displ. (m)

Bridge Software Institute 20

4. Summary and Conclusion

Six soil curves that represent the behaviors of the API sand and clay soils have been
implemented and validated. Using FB-MultiPier, soil-pile interaction has been
investigated in connection with the development of the API sand and clay soil models.
The numerical model presented here also accounts for three important factors involved in
load transfer of piles: (1) pile end condition, (2) the concept of equivalent depth, and (3)
effects of effective vertical stress on soil behavior of sub-layer soils in determination of
ultimate resistance of sub-layer soil in vicinity of the interface.

The new soil models presented here offer an improved tool for studying multidimensional
soil-pile interaction subjected to various loading conditions. In addition, it serves as a
basis for developing improved FB-MultiPier soil models. For example, one factor
influencing soil behavior under dynamic loading, i.e., soil gap forming, is currently being
investigated for the application of the FB-MultiPier soil models to seismic analysis. In the
future, an enhanced soil model incorporating such effects may be implemented once
additional experimental data become available.

Bridge Software Institute 21

5. References

Hoit, M., McVay, M., Hays, C., (2007) FB-MultiPier Version 4.11 User’s manual,
Bridge Software Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida.

American Petroleum Institute, (1993) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing

and Constructing Fixed Offshore Plattforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design,
API Recommended practice 2A-LRFD, 1st edition.

Bowles, J.E., (1996) Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill
Company, New York, NY.

Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Vasquez, L., (2006) Analysis of a Group of piles Subjected to
Axial and Lateral Loading, GROUP Version 7.0 Technical manual, Ensoft, Inc.,
Austin Texas.

Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Vasquez, L., (2004) A Program for the Analysis of the Axial
Capacity of Driven Piles, APILE Plus Version 4.0 Technical manual, Ensoft, Inc.,
Austin Texas.

Bridge Software Institute 22

Appendix A

Showcase model: soil-pile interaction analysis using FB-MultiPier

Problem description: A single pile embedded in soil that consists of 16 layers of both
sand and clay soil is subjected to multiple load at the pile head
shown in the figure below.
Pile dimensions and properties are the same as used in the case study in Section 3.

The soil properties provided by Mr. Patrick Wong are used to develop the model.
Comparison is made between results obtained from the new API soil models and
existing soil models “Sand (Reese)” and “Soft Clay (below water table)” of FB-
MultiPier. In general, the lateral soil resistance of the API sand soil model seems
greater than that of an existing sand model “Sand (Reese)” of FB-MultiPier. The pile
head displacements in lateral and vertical directions are given in the table.

Lateral Displacement Y-rotation Vertical Displacement

(m) (radian) (m)
Analysis results
from using the new 0.283 -0.231 0.012
API soil models
Analysis results
from using the 0.329 -0.250 0.012
existing soil models

Bridge Software Institute 23

Appendix B

Application of API Soil Models in FB-MultiPier

Select the Soil Page.

Choose a soil Type.

Bridge Software Institute 24

Select each of the four soil models: Lateral, Axial, Torsional, and Tip.

Enter properties for each soil Model. To do this, click on the soil model,
then click the edit button. (The Soil Table can also be used to enter all soil
properties)

Bridge Software Institute 25

To display a soil curve, select the desired soil model.

Then click a node on pile in the Soil Edit Window.

Bridge Software Institute 26

 This will display a curve at the elevation of the selected node.

Bridge Software Institute 27

View publication stats