Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Group

by

Navale A. V.
Under the Guidance of

Prof. Solanki C. H. (SVNIT, Surat)

1
 Contents
I) Subgrade Reaction Approach
II) Elastic Continuum Approach
III) Finite Element Method
IV) Parametric Study and Results
V) Observations
VI) Flow Chart of Proposed Work

2
I) Subgrade Reaction Approach
a) Linear analysis
-Laterally loaded pile as elastic beam on elastic foundation.
- The soil behavior on the basis of Winkler’s hypothesis
-Soil as a set of elastic spring acting separately
Kh = p/y
Palmer and Thompson

3
General equation

Final equation

4
Winkler Model

5
b) Non-Linear analysis
- Use of p-y curves
-Numerical Finite Difference Method

- Construction of p-y curves

Soft clay – Matlock
Stiff clay – Reese
Sand – Reese, Cox & Koop

6
Family of p-y Curves

7
II) Elastic Continuum Approach

- soil considered as an elastic continuum .

- based on Mindlin's (1936) closed from solution
- Pile is assumed to be a thin rectangular vertical strip of width
d, length l and constant flexibility EI
- possible horizontal shear stresses developed between the soil
and the sides of pile are neglected
- The pile is divided into n +1 elements, all being of length δ
except those at top and tip, which are of length δ/2 .
- Soil & pile displacements are equated
- Sufficient equations are obtained by using appropriate
equilibrium conditions and solved.

8
III) Finite Element Method

- A more precise tool

- Soil continuity, soil nonlinearity, pile-soil interface behavior,
and 3-D boundary conditions.
- Rigorous method

9
Steps of Finite Element Method

1. Elements Discritisation
Pile –Element

10
Different Soil Elements

11
Interface Element

12
2. Primary Variable Approximation - Displacement

3. Element Equations
[k]e {δ}e = {F}e
4. Global Equations
 K    F 
Skyline technique

5. Boundary Conditions

Normal stresses at transmitting boundary are zero

6. Solution of Global Equations

13
 Incorporation of Non Linearity

Pile as linear elastic

Soil as elastic plastic

element equations
[k]e {δ}e = {F}e

14
For Pile

15
 Invarients
- Stress vector are dependent on direction of co-ordinate axes

- Mean Effective stress

p, = 1/3( σ1’ + σ2’ + σ3’ )

- Deviatoric stress
J = 1/(sq.root (6)) x {sq. root [(σ1’- σ2’)2 + (σ2’ - σ3’)2 + (σ3’ - σ1’)2]}

- Lode’s angle
ϴ = tan-1{1/((sq.root (3) x (2x((σ2’ - σ3’)/ (σ2’ - σ3’)-1)

16
- Stress diagonal is line in which σ1’ = σ2’ = σ3’

- Deviatoric plane is plane perpendicular to stress diagonal

- Yield function is function of stress and state parameters

- separates the elastic and plastic states of stresses in the body
under consideration.

- Plastic potential function is function of stress and vector of

stress parameters.
- defines the direction of plastic straining when yielding occurs
(flow rule).

- Hardening softnening rule defines how the stress parameters

vary with plastic straining.

17
 For Soil

For perfectly plastic material, A = 0

18
 Von-Mises Yield Criterion

- Graphical representation of von Mises yield criteria in

deviatoric plane.
- Appears as circular cylinder whose central axis coincides
with space diagonal.
-It is approximation to the Tresca yield function
expressed in terms of J'2and material constant K as,

19
Drucker-Prager and Mohr Coulomb Yield Criterion

-An approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb law

-Expressed as

20
 Mohr Coulomb Yield Criterion

Modified Mohr Coulomb Yield Criterian

21
 Limitations of Elastic Perfectly Plastic
Models
• Some basic features (e.g. hardening /
softening) can’t be modeled
• If associated flow rules are adopted, they
predict excessive dialatancy during yield.

22
 Critical State Models
• Cam Clay and Modified Cam Clay Models
• Roscoe et al. (1958) -behavioral frame work of
soil based on concept of critical state and
existence of state boundary surface.

23
Behaviour of clay under isotropic
compression
υ + λ (ln p’) = υ1
(virgin consolidation line)

υ + κ (ln p’) = υs
(swelling line)

24
Yield surface above swelling line

Cam clay model

modified Cam clay model

- Hardening Rule
25
Cam clay model modified Cam clay model

State boundary surface

26
 Volumetric behavior of Cam clay models

A point C is the final state for a soil taken to

failure, independent of initial conditions

27
Limitations of Cam clay model

28
Original critical state formulation is based on
laboratory results from conventional triaxial test and
is developed in terms of q (= σ1’- σ3’) and p’.

For numerical analysis

1. the models are generalized to full stress space by
effectively replacing q by J.
2. Mj should be replaced by g(ϴ), where,

29
Final equations

Cam clay model

Modified Cam clay model

30
 Nonlinear Solution Algorithm

1. Apply incremental load and solve for incremental

displacement.
F   K  u
2. Update the total displacements by adding incremental
displacement .
ui  ui 1  u

3. Set me=0, where me indicates number of yielded elements.

31
4. For each element, set mp=0 (number of yielded points within
the given element), obtain the element incremental
displacement vector from global incremental displacement
vector.

5. For each Gauss point, compute the incremental stress and

total stress for ith increment from following relations,

e   D    B   e
Ti e  Ti 1e  e

Check for yield, if the point have not yielded then go to

next Gauss point, else, set mp= mp+ 1, and calculate
extra stress over yield stress, {Δσ}ext

32
  ext  D  Dep   e
Set total stress at yield level,

 Ti  e
  Ti    ext
e

Update the additional force vector to be applied in next

iteration

F e    B T   ext dV

V

Complete loop over the Gauss points of the element

6. If mp > 0, then assemble load vector and set me = me + 1.

7. Repeat Step 4 to 6 for all the elements.
8. If me = 0, then not a single element have yielded, go to next
load level. 33
9. If me > 0, then check for convergence using following
displacement criteria.

ed   q  q  
q 
2 2 2
 i 1 
 
i i

where, ed = displacement norm, qi = total

displacement at the ith iteration and ui-1 = total
displacement at the i-1th iteration

If the convergence criterion is satisfied, then apply next

load increment. If a convergence criterion is not satisfied
then repeat the procedure from step 1 to step 9 till the
displacements are converged.

34
IV) Parametric Study and Results
Properties of Soil
Poisson’s, ratio,µs= 0.4
Modulus of elasticity, Es = 10000 kPa to 40000 kPa
Yield stress, y =100 kPa
Density, s = 18 kN/m3
Properties of Pile:
Poisson’s, ratio, µp = 0.3
Modulus of elasticity Ep = 25 GPa
Diameter of pile, D = 1 m, 0.9 m, 0.8 m, 0.7 m & 0.6 m.
L/D ratio = 20
s/D ratio = 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6
Density p= 25 kN/m3
Properties of Interface Element:
Normal stiffness, Kn = 1.0 x106 kN/m
Tangential stiffness Ks= 1000 kN/m 35
 4500

4000

3500

s/D = 3
3000
s/D = 4
Load (kN)

2500
s/D = 5
2000
s/D = 2

1500
s/D = 6

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different s/D ratio using

Von Mises yield criteria

36
 4500

4000

3500

3000

s/D = 3
Load (kN)
2500
s/D = 2
2000
s/D = 4
1500
s/D = 5
1000
s/D = 6
500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different s/D ratio using

Drucker Prager outer yield criteria

37
 4500

4000

3500

3000
s/D = 3
Load (kN)

2500
s/D = 2

2000 s/D = 4

1500 s/D = 5

1000 s/D = 6

500

0
-15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different s/D ratio

using Drucker Prager inner yield criteria

38
 4500

4000

3500

3000
s/D = 2
Load (kN)

2500
s/D = 4
2000
s/D = 5
1500
s/D = 6
1000
s/D = 3

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different s/D ratio using

Mohr Coulomb yield criteria

39
 4500

4000

3500

3000
Series1
Load (kN)

2500
s/D = 3

2000 s/D = 2

s/D = 4
1500
s/D = 5

1000 s/D = 6

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different s/D ratio using

modified Mohr Coulomb yield criteria

40
 Comparison of displacement for different pile spacing

Yield Criteria s/D =2 s/D =3 s/D =4 s/D =5 s/D =6

Von Misses 212.89 132.67 83.96 58.25 44.04
Drucker Prager outer 87.55 61.59 47.58 37.83 31.86
Drucker Prager inner 128.46 85.88 64.62 50.54 40.69
Mohr Coulomb 36.65 30.16 25.81 22.81 20.55
Modified Mohr Coulomb 38.55 29.83 25.17 21.83 19.65

41
 4500.00000

4000.00000

3500.00000

3000.00000

Series1
Load (kN)

2500.00000
E = 10000 kPa

2000.00000 E = 20000 kPa

E =30000 kPa
1500.00000
E =40000 kPa
1000.00000

500.00000

0.00000
-10 10 30 50 70 90 110
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different soil modulus using

Drucker Prager outer yield criteria

42
 4500.00000

4000.00000

3500.00000

3000.00000
Series1
Load (kN)

2500.00000
E = 10000 kPa
2000.00000 E = 20000 kPa

E =30000 kPa
1500.00000
E =40000 kPa
1000.00000

500.00000

0.00000
-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different soil modulus using

Drucker Prager inner yield criteria

43
Comparison of displacement for different soil modulus

Soil Modulus (kPa)/ 10000 20000 30000 40000

yield criteria
Drucker Prager outer 100.75 61.59 46.54 38.39
Drucker Prager inner 141.44 88.58 67.25 55.65

44
 4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000
D =0.6m
Load (kN)

2,500
D =0.7m
2,000
D =0.8 m

1,500 D =0.9m

1,000 D =1m

500

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Displacement (mm)

Load – displacement comparison for different diameter using

Drucker Prager outer yield criteria

45
 4500.00000

4000.00000

3500.00000

3000.00000 Series1

D =0.6m
2500.00000
D =0.7m

2000.00000 D =0.8 m

D =0.9m
1500.00000
D =1m

1000.00000

500.00000

0.00000
0 50 100 150 200 250

Load – displacement comparison for different diameter using

Drucker Prager inner yield criteria

46
 Comparison of displacement for different Pile Diameter

Pile Diameter (m)/ 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

yield criteria
Drucker Prager outer 188.55 136.20 101.63 78.32 61.59
Drucker Prager inner 278.32 223.45 162.42 117.94 88.58

47
 OBSERVATIONS

1. Pile displacement reduces with increase in pile spacing

2. Pile displacement reduces with increase in soil modulus.
3. Pile displacement reduces with increase in pile diameter.

48
 FLOWCHART OF PROPOSED WORK
Analysis of laterally loaded pile group

Horizontal ground Ground with slope

Static linear analysis Static linear analysis

Static non-linear analysis with

1.Vonmises model Static non-linear analysis by any one
2.DrugerPrager model model
3.Mohr –Coulumb model
4.Cam Clay model
5.HISS model
HISS

Parametric study by Cam Clay model &

HISS Model Parametric study by selected mode
1. Effect of LID ratio
2. Effect of diameter of pile
3. Effect of S/D ratio
4. Effect of configuration i.e. square ,
rectangular, triangular & Hexagon

Dynamic linear analysis for Harmonic

Dynamic linear analysis for Harmonic load and parametric study
load and parametric study

Dynamic non-linear analysis for Dynamic non-linear analysis for

Harmonic load and parametric study Harmonic load and parametric study
49
Thank you

50