Sie sind auf Seite 1von 71

FE Simulation of Installation and Loading of a Tube-Installed Pile

Syawal SATIBI, MSc. Ayman ABED, MSc. Chuang YU, Dr. Martino LEONI, Dr. Pieter A. VERMEER, Prof. Dr.-Ing.

2007 Institutsbericht 29 des Instituts fr Geotechnik Herausgeber P. A. Vermeer

Der Institutsbericht ist Eigentum des IGS und darf deswegen nur mit dem Einverstndnis des IGS ausgeliehen und kopiert (auch auszugsweise) werden.

Table of Content
List of Symbols..........................................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1Pile Load Test in Wijchen .................................................................................................1 1.2 Analysis of Displacement Pile..........................................................................................1 2. Material Properties and Geometry..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Material Model for Soil ....................................................................................................4 2.2 The Mohr-Coulomb Interface Model ...............................................................................8 2.3 Finite Element Mesh and Initial Soil Condition.............................................................11 3. K-Pressure Method ............................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Pile Installation with K-pressure Method.......................................................................13 3.1.1 Stress-Controlled Cavity Expansion using Elasticity..............................................14 3.1.2 Returning Stresses to Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface. .............................................16 3.2 Pile Loading after K-pressure Method ...........................................................................20 4. Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion Method ..................................................... 25 4.1 Pile Installation with Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion................................25 4.2 Pile Loading after Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion ....................................27 5. Increased Ko Method.......................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Pile Installation...............................................................................................................30 5.2 Pile Loading....................................................................................................................30 6. Influence of Dilatancy Cut-off........................................................................................... 34 6.1 Preliminary Considerations ............................................................................................34 6.2 Parameters for Dilatancy Cut-off in Interface ................................................................35 6.3 Parameters for Dilatancy Cut-off in Surrounding Soil...................................................36 6.4 Pile Load Test Simulation which Includes Dilatancy Cut-off........................................37 6.5 Increased Ko with Dilatancy Cut-off...............................................................................38 7. Influence of Small Strain Stiffness.................................................................................... 39 7.1 Parameters for HS-Small Model ....................................................................................39 7.2 Pile Load Test Simulation with HS-Small Model ..........................................................40 8. Sensitivity Analyses ............................................................................................................ 42 8.1 Parametric Studies on the Stiffness Parameters of the Hardening Soil Model. .............42 ref 8.1.1 The Influence of E50 on the Load-Settlement Curve..............................................42
ref 8.1.2 The Influence of Eoed on the Load-Settlement Curve.............................................45

ref 8.1.3 The Influence of Eur on the Load-Settlement Curve .............................................47 8.2 Parametric Study on the Small Strain Stiffness Parameters ...........................................48 8.3 Influence of Mesh Size ...................................................................................................49 8.3.1 The Mesh Size as Used in the Previous Calculations.............................................49 8.3.3 The Effect of Varying Mesh Bottom Boundary ......................................................53 8.3.4 The Effect of Varying Mesh Side and Bottom Boundaries (combination) .............56 8.3.5 Optimum Mesh Size ................................................................................................58 9. Best-fit Parameters............................................................................................................. 59

10. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 62 11. References ......................................................................................................................... 63 i

List of Symbols
Small Greek letters

w 1p e in vp vpc vol p 0.7 e in sat unsat ' cs in m in ur 1' ' 2 ' 3 ' in es
r

ref the parameter for cap hardening which is linked to Eoed the pile-soil interface friction angle the plastic strain in the major principal stress direction the elastic interface normal strain

the plastic volumetric strain plastic volumetric strain due to compression the volumetric strain unit weight a function of plastic strains the shear strain at the G/ Go =0.7 the elastic interface shear strain the saturated soil unit weight the unsaturated soil unit weight the effective internal fiction angle the critical state friction angle the interface friction angle

the mobilised volume friction angle Poissons ratio the interface Poisons ratio the unloading-reloading Poissons ratio the effective major principal stress the effective intermediate principal stress the effective minor principal stress the effective normal stress in the interface the radial stress from elastic solution the radial stress the initial radial stress a vertical effective stress the initial vertical stress the hoop stress the hoop stress from elastic solution the initial hoop stress Shear stress the soil dilatancy angle the interface dilatancy angle mobilised angle of dilatancy

r0 es 0

'v 'vo

in m

Capital Greek letters a plastic multiplier

ii

Small Latin letters c' cin e0 emax emin f le m nc pref p


pp pr p r' q ~ q

the effective cohesion the interface cohesion the initial void the maximum void ratio the minimum void ratio a function of stress the average element size the power law parameter a global coarseness factor a reference pressure +2 +3 ) stress invariation 1 3 ( 1 the isotropic preconsolidation pressure the boundary pressure on the cavity wall the radial pressure applied on the cavity wall

for a triaxial conditions 1 3 '1 +( 1) ' 2 '3


the maximum shear strength the distance to cavity center settlement a shear band thickness the virtual interface thickness for the interface element the outer geometry dimensions the depth below the ground surface

qf r s t tin xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax z


Capital Latin letters
e Cin D E Ein oed Ein Eo ref Eoed Esurface ref Eur

the elastic compliance matrix the pile diameter Youngs Modulus the interface Elastic stiffness interface oedometer (constrained) modulus the initial Youngs modulus the tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading at reference stress Youngs modulus at the surface the unloading /reloading stiffness at reference stress the reference stiffness modulus corresponding to the reference stress p ref shear modulus interface shear modulus initial shear modulus the maximum small strain shear modulus at a particular reference pressure the ratio of radial stress to the initial vertical stress (r/'vo) the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest the coefficient of lateral earth pressure for normally consolidated soil the pile embedment length the maximum shear strength reduction interface parameter iii

ref E50 G Gin Go

Goref K Ko K onc L R Rinter

1. Introduction
1.1Pile Load Test in Wijchen

Several pile load tests on small diameter piles (D = 18 cm), which are called HSP micropiles with embedment depth of 6.25 m have been supervised by the Institute for Geotechnical Engineering and the Institute for Material Testing of Stuttgart University. The test site was in Wijchen, the Netherlands. The soil at the site consists of well packed fluvial layers of medium fine to coarse sand and gravel, which were deposited during the Pleistocene era (Vermeer and Schad, 2005). The tested piles are installed by jacking a steel tube at constant speed, if necessary supported by vibration. Once the tube has reached the required depth, the tube is withdrawn and high slump concrete is pumped continuously into the cavity. The tube withdrawal can only start when a predetermined minimum concrete pressure has been reached. In order to determine the carrying capacity of the piles, several load tests have been performed. Figure 1.1 presents the data from the load-settlement measurements. In the figure, the whole measured data are plotted, which include the creep phases, where the initial and end settlements at maintained load steps are recorded.

Load, Q (kN) 0 Pile head settlement, s (mm) 0 100 200 300 400

10

20 Pile 24 (Measured) 30 Pile 36 (Measured)

Figure 1.1: Load-settlements measurement of HSP Micropile load tests (Van der Stoel et al., 2005)
1.2 Analysis of Displacement Pile

Due to the growing acceptance of numerical analysis in geotechnical problems, the finite element method is being used more and more in piled foundation design, for example by El-Mossallamy, 2006. Particularly for displacement piles, the numerical analysis consists of two parts: First, the numerical simulation of pile installation and second the simulation of pile loading. On considering the pile installation phase one has to distinguish between precast piles and cast-in-place piles. All the piles may be displacement piles or partial displacement piles and create an increase of the radial stress around the piles. However, apart from that precast-pile installation also creates residual shear stress along the pile shaft and an initial 1

mobilisation of the point resistance. In the present study, we consider the numerical installation of cast-in-place (partial) displacement piles, such as the Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles (Peiffer et al., 1993) and the screw piles (Van Impe,1994). To simulate a pile penetration properly, one needs an advanced numerical analysis which takes into account large strain. Chopra and Dargush (1992) wrote the following about such pile installation: Classical finite-element algorithms used in analysing the behaviour of soils assume that small strain occurs in the soils due to the applied loads. However, the assumption is no longer valid for problems involving the penetration of large scale cylindrical objects such as piles, into the soil. The excessive movement of the medium, particularly around the boundaries of the pile, during the embedment process causes substantial alterations in the geometry of the solution domain. As a result, strains are no longer linearly related to displacement gradients in such regions, and the equilibrium equations must be modified to take into account these changes in geometry. Of course, irreversible plastic deformation is also prevalent. In addition to that, it might be added that dynamic effects due to pile driving or pile vibration also need to be taken into account. Moreover, it may be added that such a large strain analysis needs a constitutive model that is advanced on the topic of large deformation and density changes. Therefore, large strain numerical analyses have been applied for pile penetration by researchers (Henke and Grabe, 2006; Mabsout et al.,1999; Wieckowsky, 2004). As yet, the results of large strain numerical analyses are still deviating from the experimental data (Dijkstra et al., 2006). Furthermore, due to the lack of availability of the code for large strain numerical algorithm, the complexity of the analysis and excessive computational time-cost, large strain FE-analysis is from the point of view of practical engineers not yet popular. No doubt that the major effect of a particular pile installation procedure is the resulting stress field around the pile. Indeed, bored piles will hardly disturb the initial geostatic stress field, but the installation of displacement piles creates an increase of the radial stress around
' (e.g. Lancellotta, 1995), where pr' is the the pile. One uses the expression of pr' = K vo

' radial pressure applied on the cavity wall, vo is the initial effective overburden stress and K

is a constant which depends on the soil, the diameter of the pile and the installation procedure. If direct empirical data on K is missing, its value will be back-analysed from a pile loading test. Even in times of growing computer power and advanced numerical modelling, pile loading tests remain of utmost importance as even advanced numerical models need field calibration. Hence, it is not believed that numerical models will ever be suited for the analysis of pile foundation without field calibration. On having field data on the K-value, it is no longer necessary to simulate the precise pile installation process. Instead, the back-analysed K-value can be used to initialise the appropriate stress field around the pile. The simplest procedure would be to use the backanalysed K-value as a Ko-value, i.e. as a coefficient for the at rest lateral pressure all around the soil. However, it will be shown that this gives highly non-realistic stress fields. On the other hand, it will be shown that realistic stress fields can be obtained by cylindrical cavity 2

expansion up to the appropriate K-value. This simplified simulation of pile installation involves a small strain FE-analyses and it is consequently within the realm of practical engineering. Considering cavity expansion, one has the option of using either a stress-controlled expansion or a displacement-controlled one. Moreover, one has the option of using various different constitutive models in the numerical simulation of a cylindrical cavity expansion. Some such possibilities will be investigated in this study. This study focuses on tube-installed displacement piles. Such piles (or stone columns) are installed by jacking or vibrating a closed-bottom tube into the ground. Upon withdrawal of the tube, the cavity is filled with concrete (or stones), so there is no skin friction due to installation. The aim of this study is to find methods to account for the effects of installation and demonstrate a feasible way of FE-displacement pile analyses for engineering practice.

2. Material Properties and Geometry

In numerical analysis, material behaviour of the soil and pile are represented by material constitutive models. The material behaviour of the pile is considered to be linear elastic with parameters as given in Table 2.1. The soil behaviour follows the so-called the Hardening Soil model as briefly described in Chapter 2.1. Table 2.1: Pile Parameters (Linear Elastic) Parameters Values 23.5 0 15000

Unit weight ( ) Poissons ratio ( ) Youngs Modulus (E )

[kN/m ]
3

[ - ] [ MPa ]

2.1 Material Model for Soil

The Hardening-Soil model is an elasto-plastic model for simulating the behaviour of both soft and stiff soils (Schanz and Vermeer, 1998). The model accommodates stress-dependent stiffness of soil, which is according to a power law. Stiffness equations as applied in the model are:
ref c' cot '+ '3 E50 = E50 c' cot '+ p ref

ref c ' cot '+ '1 Eoed = Eoed c ' cot '+ p ref

ref c' cot '+ '3 Eur = Eur c' cot '+ p ref

(2.1)

where:

1' is the effective major principal stress


and the following model parameters are being used

' 3 is the effective minor principal stress

m
ref E50

is the power law parameter which value is around 1 for clay and 0.5 for sand is the reference stiffness modulus corresponding to the reference stress p ref . It is determined from a triaxial stress-strain-curve for a mobilization of 50% of the maximum shear strength qf (see Figure 2a)

ref Eoed

is the tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading at reference stress (see Figure 2b) is the unloading /reloading stiffness at reference stress (see Figure 2a) is a reference pressure is the effective cohesion is the effective internal fiction angle 4

ref ur

pref c' '

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.1: Description of stiffness parameters (a) Hyperbolic deviatoric stress-axial strain relationship for primary loading for a drained triaxial test with
' (b) Characteristic curve of an oedometer constant confining pressure 3

test The hardening soil model incorporates two yield surfaces which are shear hardening yield surface and compression (cap) hardening yield surface (Figure 2.2). Both yield surfaces are not fixed in the principal stress space. They may expand due to plastic straining. For the sign convention, as usual in geotechnical engineering, compression is taken as positive and tension is negative. Soil shear hardening follows a yield function as expressed below:

f = f p
where f is a function of stress and p is a function of plastic strains. with
f = q 1 1 2q E50 1 q qa Eur

(2.2)

p = (2 1p vp ) 2 1p
where: 3 for a triaxial conditions q = 1

1p is the plastic strain in the major principal stress direction vp is the plastic volumetric strain
for the plastic straining, it adopts a non-associated plasticity with plastic potential in triaxial conditions taking the form as follows:
g=

'1 '3
2

'1 + '3
2

sin m

(2.3)

m is mobilised angle of dilatancy, which is calculated using the equation by Rowe (1962):

Shear hardening yield surface

Cap hardening yield surface

Figure 2.2: The Hardening soil model yield surfaces for shear hardening and compression hardening in p-q space
sin m = sin m sin cs 1 sin m sin cs

m and cv are the mobilised and critical state friction angles respectively. They are
calculated using the formula as below:

sin m =

1 3 + 3 2c cot 1

and

sin cv =

sin sin 1 sin sin

' and are the peak friction angle and dilatancy angle. As for the compression (cap)
hardening yield surface, the formulation of the yield function is as follows: f = ~2 q + ( p + c cot ' ) 2 ( p p + c cot ' ) 2 +2 + 3 ) p = 1 3 ( 1 ~ = ' +( 1) ' ' q 1 2 3 (2.4)

with

3 + sin 3 sin

'2 is the intermediate principal stress, which is '2 = '3 in a triaxial loading condition. ~ reduces to ' ' for compression and ( ' ' ) for Thus p is 1 3 ( + 2 ) and q
1 3 1 3 1 3

extension. is an auxiliary model parameter. It is related to the coefficient of lateral earth pressure for normally consolidated soil K onc . In the Plaxis code, the default value of K onc is
6

equal to 1 sin ' . However, one can specify the value of K onc . The isotropic preconsolidation pressure pp determines the position of the yield surface in the stress space. The relation between plastic volumetric strain vpc with the isotropic preconsolidation pressure pp is formulated in the hardening law formulation as below:

pc v

ref = 1 m p

pp

1 m

(2.5)

ref ref , therefore, in plaxis finite element code, instead of , Eoed the parameter is linked to Eoed

is used as an input parameter. The determines the shape (the steepness) of the cap yield surface. To determine the plastic volumetric strains, an associated plasticity is adopted, which means the plastic potential is equal to the yield function, g = f . For more detail of the hardening soil model and its implementation into the plaxis code, the reader is referred to Brinkgreve et al. (2002) and Schanz, Vermeer and Bonnier (1999). Input Parameters for the soil used in this study are shown in Table 2.2, where unsat is the unsaturated soil unit weight. The soil unit weight of 17 kN/m3 represents a humid soil. is the soil dilatancy angle, ur is the unloading-reloading Poissons ratio. The dilatancy cut-off is an option to limit the soil dilation, but in most calculations, it is unlimited. Dilatancy cut-off will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. These soil material parameters are based on a preliminary study of the pile load tests results.

Table 2.2: Soil Parameters for the Hardening-Soil model computations Parameters Values 17 17 17 51 0.5 1 35 3 0.2 0 Not active

unsat
E
ref 50 ref Eoed

[kN/m ]
3

[ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ ] [ ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ - ]

ref Eur

c' '

ur
Tensile strength Dilatancy cut off

2.2 The Mohr-Coulomb Interface Model

Direct soil-pile interaction is modelled by interface elements. The interface elements follow Mohr-Coulomb constitutive behaviour as described in Figure 2.3a for a constant normal stress. The parameters for the interface Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model are cin , in , in, in and Ein, which are the interface cohesion, friction angle, dilatancy angle, Poisons ratio and Elastic stiffness respectively. Another important parameter for the interface element is the virtual interface thickness tin. As for the interface stiffness, it can be specified as a linear elastic stiffness or non-linear elastic stiffness. If a non linear elastic interface stiffness is used, the interface stiffness is stress level dependent following the power law with Ein proportional
' to the effective normal stress in as expressed below:

cin cot in + 'in Ein = E c cot + p ref in in


ref in

(2.6)

ref where Ein is an input parameter. The elastic interface incremental strains can be expressed in

terms of incremental interface stresses as follows:


e e in in = Cin

(2.7)

or in matrix form:
' oed e in 1 / Ein in 0 e= 1 / Gin in in 0

(2.8)

e e e is the elastic interface normal strain, in is the elastic interface shear strain and Cin where in

denotes the elastic compliance matrix expressed in term of interface oedometer (constrained)
oed modulus Ein and interface shear modulus Gin. with

Gin =

Ein , 2(1 + in )

oed Ein = 2Gin

1 in 1 2 in

(2.9)

The elasto-plastic behaviour follows the Mohr-Coulomb yield function with non associated plastic potential as expressed below:
' f in = in tan in + cin in , ' gin = in tan in in

(2.10)

following the basic equations of elasto-plastic modelling, one can write that:

e p in in in = e + p in in in

(2.11)

n n where in is the total interface normal strain, defined as in = tin is the interface tin with tin

normal displacement and in is the total interface shear strain, which is defined as
is the interface slip displacement. Figure 2.3b shows the deformation in = tin tin with tin
p p mechanism of the interface element. The plastic part of the interface strains in and in can be

expressed in following formulas:


p in =

gin g p , in = in ' in in

(2.12)

where s a plastic multiplier. Hence, the total incremental stress-strain formulation can be written as follows:
e e p e in = Din in in in in = Din ( ) = Din (

gin ) in

(2.13)

e where Din is the elastic interface stiffness matrix as follows:

E oed e = in Din 0

0 Gin

(2.14)

In order to solve the plastic multiplier , one needs a consistency equation. For the case of perfect plasticity, it is expressed as below:
= f in in = 0 f in in
T

(2.15)

thus, it yields: 1 f in e in = Din d in


T

with

f e g in oed d = in Din = Ein tan in tan in + Gin in in

(2.16)

which gives the final result for the total stress-strain relationship as follows:
in with in = M in
e M in = Din

e Din

gin f in e Din in in

(2.17)

Table 2.3: Parameters for the Interface Parameters


ref ref Ein = Eur

[ MPa ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ ] [ ] [ - ] [ mm ] [ kPa ] [ - ]

Values 51 0.5 1 35 3 0.45 16 0 Not active

cin

in in in
tin Tensile strength Dilatancy cut off

where is equal to 0 in elastic condition and equal to 1 in elasto-plastic condition. Equation 2.17 can be written in matrix form as below:
' n 1 tin in = M in in tin tin

(2.18)

with
oed oed (1 ) Ein tan in tan in + Ein Gin M 11 = d
2

M 12 =

oed Ein tan inGin

d
(2.19)

M 21 =

oed Ein tan inGin

M 22 =

oed 2 (1 )Gin + Ein tan in tan inGin d

When the pile has a rough surface, the shear strength is to be equal to the shear strength of the soil. This implies that cin and in are equal c and respectively. If the interface is not entirely rough then the interface shear strength is less than the soil shear strength. For the present analysis the interface is entirely rough with parameters listed in Table 2.3. Within the Plaxis code in is preset to be 0.45 and it can not be changed. The Plaxis program offers two possibilities of inputting the other interface parameters, i.e. as direct input or indirect input of interface properties. Direct input of interface parameters gives flexibility on the input of the parameters. This is particularly important for very cohesive soil, as the interface cohesion should always be close to zero. The indirect input of the interface properties uses the properties of the surrounding soil and the so-called strength reduction interface parameter Rinter. It yields:

10

in
tin
' cin + in tanin

' in

Gin

tin

in

in

n tin

1
in

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.3: (a) Shear stress and shear strain relationship for interface at constant normal stress (b) The interface deformation mechanism
Gin = Rinter Gur ,
2

with

Gur =

ref Eur 2(1 + ur )

cin = Rinter c ' , tan in = Rinter tan ' and in = 0 for Rinter < 1; otherwisein =

(2.20)

As for the interface thickness tin, the Plaxis program applies the default value of 0.1 times the average element size of the elements along the interface. However, it can be specified independently.

2.3 Finite Element Mesh and Initial Soil Condition

The numerical analyses are done using finite element method in axisymmetric condition. Figure 2.4 shows the finite element mesh used for the analyses. The mesh is refined along the shaft and at the bottom of the pile where the stress gradient is expected to be high. The elements used are 6 nodes elements with 3 Gaussian integration points per element. The initial in-situ soil condition is geostatic stress state with a vertical effective stress of 'v = unsat z, where z is the depth below the ground surface. For the corresponding horizontal stress, it yields 'h = Ko 'vo. The Ko value is taken according to the Jakys formula Ko = 1-sin ' for normally consolidated soil. For ' = 35, this gives Ko = 0.426. The ground water table is far below the surface; hence the water table is set at the bottom side of the mesh. As for the boundary condition, horizontal displacement is prevented everywhere. Vertical displacements are prevented at the bottom of the mesh as shown in Figure 2.4.

11

0.5D = 9 cm

3m
Take care!. The mesh is too narrow for a proper pile calculation. However, this study focuses on pile installation procedures rather than the precise modelling of the pile loading, in which the size of the mesh is not that important.

L=6.25 m

10 m

Figure 2.4: Geometry and finite element mesh

12

3. K-Pressure Method
The increase of radial stress due to pile installation is a major concern in the analysis of a displacement pile. One of the assumptions for the radial stress increase due to pile installation is that radial stress r increases according to a constant K-value times the initial vertical stress 'vo, where K is pr/'vo. Kulhawy (1984) suggests a range of 0.75 K 2 for analytical calculation of pile shaft capacity. One of the research findings on numerical analyses of a jacked pile performed by Henke and Grabe (2006) also shows that the radial stress increases almost linearly with depth following a constant K-value after installation. For a particular loose sand and a pile diameter of 30 cm, they obtained a K-value of 1.25. The increase of radial stress due to pile installation can be created by applying horizontal stresses with
' p r' = K vo . This procedure is showed in the following sections.

3.1 Pile Installation with K-pressure Method

In this study, the pile installation process will be simulated using stress controlled expansion of a cylindrical cavity. This process can be described as follows: First in-situ soil conditions are set as described in Section 2.3. After that, elements are removed to create a cavity along the centre line and subsequently a radial stress is imposed to the cavity wall. This radial stress increases with depth according to pr = K 'vo, where K is taken to be 3.5 for the present calculation. This value is taken based on the results of preliminary pile load calculations being not repeated in this study. In addition to the prescribed radial stress, at the bottom of the cavity, a vertical stress of 'v = unsat L is applied, where L is the pile embedment length. After imposing the radial stress, the pile material is placed into the cavity. At the same time, the radial stress as well as the vertical stress at the bottom of the cavity are removed.

300

Radial stress
250

Vertical stress Hoop stress

Stresses, ' (kPa)

200

Plastic zone
150

Elastic zone

100

50

0 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 Distance from pile centre, r (m)

Figure 3.1: Stresses at 4 m depth after imposing K-Pressure with K=3.5 and using the Hardening Soil model 13

In the above process, the Hardening Soil model as described in Section 2.1 might directly be applied. However, on using the Hardening Soil model, the cavity expansion is significantly non-uniform. Moreover, on using the Hardening Soil model for the installation process, vertical effective stress in the soil would significantly be decreased in the plastic zone around the cavity, as shown in Figure 3.1. However, it is doutbfull that the decrease of vertical stress is realistic.

3.1.1 Stress-Controlled Cavity Expansion using Elasticity

In order to minimize a disturbance of the vertical stress, the soil stiffness will be taken to increase linearly with depth. This gives a reasonably uniform cavity expansion as can be seen in Figure 3.2a. As the finite element code used for the analysis does not allow an input of zero stiffness. An arbitrary small value of 110 8 kPa is applied as Youngs modulus at the surface (Esurface). The Young modulus of the elastic material increases with an arbitrary amount of 5000 kPa per meter depth. The Poissons ratio () of the material is zero, which is chosen aiming to have no vertical deformation during the cavity expansion.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.2: (a) Deformed mesh (b) vertical stress shading of elastic material after imposing K-Pressure with K=3.5

14

250 200 150 100 50 0 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6

Stresses, ' (kPa)

Radial stress FE-calcultiaon Vertical stress FE-calcultiaon Hoop stress FE-calcultiaon Radial stress Elastic solution Hoop stress Elastic solution

res es

r v

-250

Distance from pile centre, r (m)

Figure 3.3: Stresses of elastic material at 4 m depth after imposing K-Pressure with K=3.5 The results of the finite element analysis shows a perfectly constant vertical stress even in the region close to the cavity as shown in Figure 3.2b. As for the evolution of vertical, radial and hoop stress with distance from the centre-line, these are indicated in Figure 3.3. For the cylinder cavity expansion, the analytical solutions for stress field can be obtained as the following equations (Vesic, 1972):

es = 0 ( pr 0 )
where

R2 r2

es = r 0 + ( pr r 0 )
r

R2 r2

(3.1)

es es
r

is the hoop stress from elastic solution is the radial stress from elastic solution is the initial hoop stress is the initial radial stress

0 r0

pr is the boundary pressure on the cavity wall R=0.5D is the cylinder cavity radius r is the distance to cavity center

As shown in Figure 3.3, the calculated radial stress and hoop stress have a good agreement with the results from elastic solution. It shows that the numerical calculations are valid.

15

3.1.2 Returning Stresses to Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface.

On using an elastic constitutive model, the stresses due to K-pressure will be violating the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This will give problems later when the elastic constitutive model for the soil will be replaced by the Hardening Soil model. As an alternative to the elasticity model, an elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model with increasing stiffness with depth is applied. The data for the Mohr-Coulomb model are presented in Table 3.1. However, the decrease of vertical stress still occurs, although it is less pronounced than using directly the Hardening Soil model. Table 3.1: Mohr-Coulomb soil Parameters for installation simulation Parameters
unsat sat
dE/dy Esurface

[kN/m ] [kN/m3]
3

Values 17 17
5000

[KN/m2/m] [ kPa ] [ kPa ] [ ] [ ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ - ]

c' '

110 8 1 35 0 0 0 Not active

Tensile strength Dilatancy cut off

200

MC model for entire cavity expansion 150 Stresses, ' (kPa) elastic expansion with MC-correction

100

50

0 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 Distance from pile centre, r (m)

Figure 3.4: Vertical stresses from different soil models at 4 m depth after Imposing Kpressure

16

The installation process is therefore best simulated by imposing the radial K-pressure on an elastic soil and subsequently replacing it with Mohr-Coulomb (MC) material. On using the latter procedure only a small disturbance of vertical stress around at a distance of 0.6 m from the centre-line is observed as shown in Figure 3.4.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.5: (a) The vertical stress, (b) mobilised shear strength shading after MC correction
300 Radial stress Vertical stress Hoop stress Stresses, ' (kPa) 200

250

r v

150

100

50

0 0 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6 2 Distance from pile centre, r (m)

Figure 3.6: Stresses at 4 m depth after MC correction with K=3.5 (Elastic cavity expansion with MC-correction) 17

Figures 3.5a and 3.6 show a hardly disturbed vertical stress after MC correction. The radial and hoop stresses at 4 m depth appear to be very similar to the ones obtained from the HS model (Figure 3.1). From Figure 3.5b, it is shown that the soil strength in a large zone around the pile is fully mobilised due to cavity expansion.

(a) (b) Figure 3.7: The principal stress directions after MC correction, (a) Around pile head, (b) Around pile bottom

(a) deformed mesh 18

(b) horizontal displacement

Figure 3.8: Displacements after MC-correction The principal stress directions along the pile shaft shown in Figure 3.7 are not rotated, showing that there is no shear at the pile shaft. This is in agreement with the fact that there is no shear stress occurs as the tube is withdrawn and the pile material is placed into the cavity. This case would be different if the pile is driven. The installation process using elastic material and corrected by Mohr-Coulomb computation forms a reasonably uniform horizontal displacement along the pile cavity as aimed (Figure 3.8a). After elastic cavity expansion followed by MC correction, the pile material is then placed into the cavity and the soil elements are switched from the MC model to the Hardening Soil model. On removing the imposed K-pressure, the pile will be loaded by the soil and this leads to some compression of the pile and a slight reduce of the K-pressure. However, because the stiffness of the pile is high, the reduction of the K-pressure is observed to be very small; it reduces from K = 3.5 down to K 3.49.

19

3.2 Pile Loading after K-pressure Method

After pile installation process, the loading is performed using displacement control. The displacement is prescribed at the pile head. Referring to test procedures specified in the report by Van der Stoel et al. (2005), the pile loading is stopped if the pile head settlement is more than 20% of the pile diameter. Based on this, a prescribed pile head settlement is taken as 35 mm. The soil model used in this pile loading process is the Hardening Soil model. The calculated load-settlements curve is shown in Figure 3.9. It is in good agreement with the measured ones, which is not a surprise as the soil parameters used are based on a preliminary study of the pile load tests. In Figure 3.9, the measured data are plotted without including the data from the creep phases, which is commonly done for plotting loadsettlements curve. The calculated load at 35 mm pile head settlement is 384 kN. At 35 mm pile head settlement, the calculated load-settlement curve is still showing an increasing trend, meaning that it has not yet reached failure in a mechanical sense. Failure in mechanical sense occurs if the derivative (dQ/ds) of the load-displacement curve is zero or negative. In Chapter 6, it will be shown that the dilation of interface and soil material causes the continuing increase of the pile skin resistance as observed in Figure 3.9. So far, no limitation to the maximum amount of dilatancy has been applied and the influence of socalled Dilatancy-Cut-Off will be discussed later in Chapter 6. Apart from the load-settlement curve, it is also important to see the resistance components of the pile, which are the skin resistance and the base resistance. As shown in Figure 3.9, up to a load of 200 kN almost 100% of the load is taken by the skin resistance and at a settlement of 35 mm the load is still mainly taken by the skin resistance (about 90%). A pile with this type of behaviour is generally known as Skin Friction pile.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Pile head settlement, s (mm) 100 200 300 400

10

20

Q base

Q total Q skin
P24 (measured)

30 P36 (Measured)

Figure 3.9: Simulated and measured load-settlement curve (K=3.5)

20

Figure 3.10: Mobilised shear strength of the soil for s = 35 mm The mobilised shear strength contours of soil at 35 mm pile head settlement as shown in Figure 3.10 are slightly different from the ones after installation process (Figure 3.5b). The stresses at 35 mm pile head settlement are shown in Figure 3.11.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3.11: Principal stresses at three zones of depth after loading (a) upper part, (b) middle part, (c) bottom part of pile embedment

21

Shear stress, (kPa)


Sh e ar stre ss (Kp a)
100 150 0 50 200 250

Ra dia l stre ss 'x r x (Kpa )


0 100 200 300 400

Radial stress, p (kPa)

-0,5

- 0,5

At 35 mm settlement
-1,5

- 1,5

-2,5

- 2,5

-3,5

- 3,5

Reduction of r due to rotation of principal stress directions


Initial

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

Depth z(m) Depth, (m)

-4,5

D e p t h ( m )

D e p th(m )

- 4,5

-5,5

- 5,5

-6,5

Reduction of r due to trap-door effect

K .5 =3
K= 6 2 .6

- 6,5

Figure 3.12: Interface stresses for 35 mm pile head settlement The distribution of shear stress in the interface as shown in Figure 3.12 have a curved shape which is in agreement with the shape of skin friction distribution, as first published by ONeil and Reese (1972) and Vesic (1970). The smooth curves of the shear and radial stresses as shown in Figure 3.12 represent polynomial functions that give a least square fit to the zigzagging computed stress distributions. The polynomial functions used in this case are of fourth order. As for the ultimate skin resistance of a pile, it is calculated according to the formula below:
Qskin = D tan w where K D w 'vo L is the ratio of radial stress to the initial vertical stress (r/'vo) is pile diameter is the pile-soil interface friction angle is the initial vertical stress is pile embedment length

L 0

pr' dz = D tan w

L 0

' K vo dz

(3.2)

In practice K is often assumed to be constant with depth, for example as described by Lancellotta (1995), although Figure 4.2b shows that this is not the case. For such situation, it is possible to introduce an average K-value. It can be back calculated as follows:

K average =

0 L

pr' dz
' vo dz

(3.3)

22

1. Downward movement of trap-door 2. Downward displacement of soil 3. Developed arching

F
Pile head settlement

Arching effect

Soil displacement Compression underneath pile base

Figure 3.13: Description of trap-door effect (a) Terzaghi sand box (b) Pile loading The integral of the radial stress can be obtained by numerical integration. The integral of initial vertical stresses can be evaluated analytically to give 0.5 unsat L2 . In this analysis Kaverage at the end of loading is found to be 2.66. Hence, K drops from K=3.5 after installation down to Kaverage = 2.66 for a settlement of s = 35 mm. The significant reduction of the radial stresses at around the bottom of the pile is caused by so-called trap-door effects. Terzaghi (1936) explained this effect with his experiment on a sand box with a trap-door at the base of the box (Figure 3.13a). As long as the downward movement of the trap-door remains very small, it merely produce a vertical expansion of the lower part of the body of sand located above the trap-door. As a result of this deformation, the sand located on both side of this body is allowed to expand laterally, thus reducing the lateral stress in this area. A similar effect also occurs to the pile loading as first introduced by Vesic (1963) and Touma and Reese (1974). The pile base settlement drags down the soil at the side of the pile. The vertical stretching of soil at the pile side just above the base causes the reduction of vertical stress. The radial stress also reduces as this soil is in a failure state with Mohr-stress cirlce moving to the apex. The soil below the pile base displaces to the side of the pile, which then forms a kind of arching effect around the pile base as described in Figure 3.13b. In addition to that, the reduction is also induced by the reorientation of principal stress directions due to the developed shear stress (skin friction) along the pile shaft. This reduction of radial stress is particularly shown at around the middle part of the pile as shown in Figure 3.12. The evolution of radial stresses with respect to shear stresses at the soil next to the interface at 2.4 m and 3.4 m depth as presented in Figure 3.14. The figure shows that radial stresses reduce due to the mobilised shear stresses. After some decrease, the radial stress starts to increase again due to interface and soil dilatancy. Figure 3.15 shows the deformed mesh after pile loading up to s = 35 mm. It can be seen that along the pile-soil interface, the nodes of pile elements and the nodes of soil element nodes are not in the same position showing that some slip along the interface occurs. Moreover, the soil elements next to the interface are significantly distorted due to shear deformation in the soil. The width of the significantly distorted zone implies a numerical shear band of the finite element mesh. 23

98

Shear stress, (kPa)

78 Shear stress (kPa)

3.4 m depth 2.4 m depth

58

38

18

-2 75 100 125 150 175 200

Radial stress, r (kPa)

Radial stress (kPa)

Figure 3.14: Evolution of radial stress at a point next to interface at 2.4 m and 3.4 m depth

Figure 3.15: Deformed mesh at s = 35 mm

24

4. Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion Method


Another method for simulating pile installation is using displacement-controlled cavity expansion. This is done by prescribing a uniform horizontal displacement on a cavity wall. This method has been used by Debats et al. (2003) for simulating the installation of stone column and by Dijkstra et al (2006) for simulating a driven pile installation.

4.1 Pile Installation with Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion

This pile installation procedure can be described as follows: the process is started with setting the initial conditions as explained in Section 2.3. After that, pile elements are removed to create a cavity along the centre line and subsequently the cavity wall is expanded uniformly by prescribing a horizontal displacement. In addition to that, a vertical stress ( 'v = unsat L ) is applied at the bottom of the cavity, where L is the pile embedment length. After the displacement-controlled cavity expansion process, the pile material is placed into the cavity. On doing so, the prescribed horizontal displacement as well as the vertical stress at the bottom of the cavity are removed. In this process, the Hardening Soil model is directly applied during the installation process. This is done because this is the simplest installation procedure and the cavity expansion is enforced to be uniform. Furthermore, it is also aimed to compare results from simplest installation procedure with the previous accurate procedure. Figures 4.1a and b show block failure mechanism of the surrounding soil due to the uniform expansion of cavity with a usual mesh and a widened mesh respectively. The corresponding load-displacement curves are shown in Figure 4.1c. The forces were obtained from the calculation in kN per radian and they have been multiplied by 2 to obtain the total forces acting inside the whole cavity. The displacement-controlled cavity expansion applied for the pile installation simulations is very small.
10000

Kaverage = 50
Total Radial Force on cavity wall (kN)
8000

Widened geometry
6000

Kaverage = 30 Current geometry

4000

2000

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Horizontal displacement, ux (mm)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4.1: (a) Block failure mechanism with a usual mesh (b) with widened mesh (c) The corresponding applied forces 25

Radial stress, pr (kPa)


0 100 200 300 400

Ra dia l stre ss (Kpa )

KK 0 5 10 15 20

-0,5

- 0 ,5

-1,5

After uniform cavity expansion


- 1,5

Depth (m) Depth, z (m)

Depth Depth, z (m) (m)

-2,5

Uniform cavity expansion Kaverage = 3.69

- 2 ,5

D epth (m )

-3,5

K-pressure (K= 3.5) Initial

- 3 ,5

K = 3.69

-4,5

- 4 ,5

-5,5

- 5,5

-6,5

- 6 ,5

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.2: (a) Interface radial stresses and (b) K-values A prescribed horizontal displacement of 1.1 cm, which corresponds to about 25% volumetric strain, is taken for the present calculations. This value is based on a preliminary study on the pile loading tests. As can be seen in Figure 4.2a, the interface radial stress differs quite noticeably from the ones by a K-pressure method. The developed radial stress due to displacement-controlled cavity expansion is not increasing linearly with depth as in K-pressure. The radial stress is higher at the top part of pile embedment and the K-values are not constant with depth. The K values, which are in accordance to the developed radial stresses, are significantly higher at the top part of pile embedment and decreasing to a relatively constant value with depth at the bottom part of pile embedment. As in the previous chapter, the curves in Figure 4.2 are obtained from the best-fit polynomial functions. In this study the polynomial function curves of the fourth order are used for representing the stress distributions and the third order for Figure 4.2b particularly. In practice, K-value is often assumed to be constant. On assuming a constant value of K with depth, Kaverage can be calculated using Equation 3.3 in Section 3.2 to find 3.69. Figures 4.3a and b show the comparison between the vertical stress shading after displacement-controlled cavity expansion and after elastic expansion with MC-correction in the K-pressure method. After displacement-controlled cavity expansion process, the pile material is then placed into the cavity and the prescribed displacement as well as the vertical stress at the bottom are removed. On doing so, the pile is compressed by the soil. However, since the stiffness of the pile is high, the compression gives only an extremely small effect to the stress condition of the soil. 26

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.3: (a) Vertical stress shading after displacement-controlled cavity expansion with the Hardening Soil model, (b) Vertical stress shading after MCcorrection from K-pressure method.

4.2 Pile Loading after Displacement-Controlled Cavity Expansion

After the installation process, pile loading is performed. Similarly to the K-pressure method, the loading is conducted using displacement control, i.e. by prescribing a vertical displacement at the pile head. On using the material properties as listed in Table 1 the calculated load-settlement curve is in good agreement with measured data as shown in Figure 4.4. This is no surprise, since the properties and the expansion are based on the results of a previous preliminary study.
Load,Q (kN) 0 0 Pile head settlement, s (mm) 100 200 300 400

10

20

Q base

Q total Q skin
Pile 24 (Measured)

30

Pile 36 (Measured)

Figure 4.4: Measured and calculated load-settlement curves from loading after displacement-controlled cavity expansion 27

Shear stress, (kPa)


She ar stress (Kpa)

Radial stress, pr (kPa)


Ra dia l stre ss (Kpa )
150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

50

100

300

350

400

-0,5

-0,5

-1,5

-1,5

at 35 mm settlement After uniform cavity expansion

-2,5

-2,5

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

Depth (m) Depth, z D e p t h( m )

Depth (m)

-3,5

-3,5

-4,5

-4,5

Initial

K
K

=3

. 69

-5,5

-5,5

= 68 2.

-6,5

-6,5

Figure 4.5: Interface stresses at s = 35 mm after displacement-controlled cavity expansion The calculated load at 35 mm pile head settlement is found to be about 385 kN. The corresponding resistance components show practically the same evolution as the ones found in K-pressure method. Again, up to the load of about 320 kN, the load is almost fully taken by the skin resistance. Figure 4.5 shows that the shear stress increases upon pile loading whereas the radial stress decrease, especially at the lower part of the pile. The decrease of the radial stresses relates both to the trap-door effect and the rotation of principal stress directions as explained in Section 3.2.
Ra dia l stre ss
0 50 100 150

Radial stress, p r (kPa) (Kpa )


200 250 300

- 0,5

- 1,5

Uniform cavity expansion

- 2,5

Depth, z (m) Depth (m) D e p t h( m )

- 3,5

K-pressure

- 4,5

- 5,5

= 68 2. 66 2.

K =

- 6,5

Figure 4.6: Comparison of radial stresses after loading from K-pressure and displacement-controlled cavity expansion at s = 35 mm 28

Similarly to K-pressure method, K-value can be back calculated and is found in this case to decrease from K = 3.69 to K = 2.68. With K-pressure method the K-value was found to decrease from 3.5 down to 2.66. Similar K-value has also been found by Aboutaha et al. (1993). From their experimental study of a load test on a jacked pile in medium dense sand, K-value of about 2.6 to 2.7 was observed. As shown is Figure 4.6, the radial stress distribution after loading with displacementcontrolled cavity expansion in the installation process is slightly different from the curve with installation process using K-pressure. The radial stress from displacement-controlled cavity expansion is higher around pile top and lower around pile tip. However, the integral of radial stresses at 35 mm settlement after both installation processes give almost the same value. The curves representing the stress distributions in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 are polynomial curves of the fourth order.

29

5. Increased Ko Method
The easiest method for simulating the radial stress increase due pile installation is the use of an increased Ko value as for instance used by Russo (2004). However, it should be realized that if Ko is increased, not only the radial stress is increased but also the hoop stress. This does not represent an expansion of a cavity due to pile jacking as obtained the K-pressure method and the displacement controlled cavity expansion. As for the other methods of pile installation, the value of the increased Ko should be taken carefully. In this study, several calculation results for different increased Ko values will be presented.

5.1 Pile Installation

The installation process begins with setting the initial conditions of the soil as motioned in Chapter 2 except for the Ko value. The Ko value of the soil down to the depth of pile embedment is increased to a certain value to obtain higher horizontal stress. Below the pile embedment depth, the Ko value of the soil is set according Jakys formula, Ko = 1-sin ' for normally consolidated soil. After that, the pile is installed. Due to increased Ko, the horizontal stresses, which include radial and hoop stresses are increased to the same value. The increase covers the whole area where increased Ko is applied. As mentioned before, this is not the case in the true installation process, which follows cavity expansion behaviour. In a cavity expansion, hoop stress should decrease at the same amount as the radial stress increase in the elastic region and then increases differently with radial stress in the plastic region. Moreover, the stresses change only to some distance surrounding the pile due to the cavity expansion. In spite of those drawbacks in the installation process, it is of beneficial to observe the results of load-settlement behaviour after loading the pile and to compare them to the previous results.

5.2 Pile Loading

The loading is done using displacement control by prescribing a vertical displacement at the pile head. Similarly to the previous methods, a prescribed vertical displacement of 35 mm is applied. In the loading the soil model used is the Hardening Soil model as described in Section 2.1. It can be seen from Figure 5.1 that the shapes of the computed load-settlement curves differ significantly from the measured ones. Load-settlement curves from increased Ko equal 1 and 2 match the measured curves in the very beginning, but not further. For the increased Ko = 3, the curve differs from the measured ones by far. The use dilatancy cut-off would improve the computed load-settlement curve significantly as will be shown in Section 6.5.

30

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Pile Head Settlement, s (mm) Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured) 10 100 200 300 400 500 600

20

Ko = 0.426

K=

Ko

K =2

=3

30

Figure 5.1: Load-settlement curves for different values of increased Ko

Figure 5.2 shows a load-settlement curve from increased Ko equal 1.5, which gives almost the same load at s = 35 mm as the measured one. However, for smaller settlement, the skin friction is not high enough to fully take the applied load compared to the skin frictions from the previous methods shown in Figure 3.7 and 4.4.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Pile head settlement, s (mm) 100 200 300 400

10

20

Q-base

Q-total

30

P 36 measured P 24 measured

Q-skin

Figure 5.2: Measured and simulated load-settlement curves from Ko = 1.5

31

Shear stress, (kPa) She ar s tr e s s (Kpa)


0
0 100 200

Radial s tr e s s (Kpa) Radial stress, pr (kPa)

50

100

150

200

250

-0,5

-0,5

At 35 mm settlement
-1,5

-1,5

-2,5

-2,5

Depth, Depth, z(m) z (m) Depth (m)

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

K-Pressure
Inc

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-3,5

-3,5

rea sed Ko =1

-4,5

-4,5

.5

-5,5

-5,5

-6,5

-6,5

Figure 5.3: Interface stresses at 35 mm settlement with increased Ko = 1.5 The deformed mesh (Figure 5.4a) seems relatively similar to the results from the previous methods. However, the interface stresses and the mobilised shear strength are significantly different. Instead of decreasing, the radial stress increases due to the pile loading compared to the one from K-pressure method as shown in Figure 5.3. During the loading of the pile, the radial stress can only increase due to the dilatancy. Soil dilatancy seems to play a major role in the increased Ko method. Therefore, the influence of dilatancy as will be described in detail in Chapter 6 should become an important consideration. The mobilised shear strength region around the pile bottom as presented in Figure 5.4b is larger than the ones from the previous methods.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.4: (a) Deformed mesh, (b) Mobilised shear strength shading at s = 35 mm after loading from Ko = 1.5 32

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.5: Principal stress at 35 mm settlement, (a) Around pile top, (b) Around pile bottom Figure 5.5 shows the principal stresses, which are relatively similar along the interface region to the ones from K-pressure method. However, the increased radial stresses for the whole soil in this method are completely different from the previous methods. Based on the above mentioned considerations, in general, it can be seen that the increased Ko method does not seem to be able to simulate such a cavity expansion at the pile installation process.

33

6. Influence of Dilatancy Cut-off


After extensive shearing, dilating materials arrive in a state of critical density where dilatancy has become fully mobilised. This phenomenon of soil behaviour is included in the HardeningSoil model, which is implemented in Plaxis finite element code by means of a so-called Dilatancy Cut-off.

6.1 Preliminary Considerations

In order to specify this behaviour, the initial void e0, the minimum void ratio emin, and the maximum void ratio emax, of the material are required. As soon as the volume change results in a state of maximum void, the mobilised dilatancy angle m, is automatically set back to zero, as indicated in Figure 6.1 (Brinkgreve et al., 2002)

vol

Figure 6.1: Resulting strain curve for a standard drained triaxial test including dilatancy cutoff The limitation of dilatancy follows the criteria: sin m = sin m sin cs 1 sin m sin cs for e < emax

sin m = 0

dilation

for e = emax

(6.1)

where m is the mobilised friction angle and cs is the critical state friction angle. On using the logarithmic strain measure, the void ratio is related to the volumetric strain vol, by the relationship
vol = ln e 1+ e 1+ = ln 1 + e0 1 + e0

(6.2)

where compression is considered positive. 34

For small strains, it yields e/(1+e0) < 0.1 and one obtains the usual small strain definition,

vol

e 1 + e0

(6.3)

6.2 Parameters for Dilatancy Cut-off in Interface

The piles as considered in this study have a very rough interface with the surrounding soils. This implies the occurrence of a more or less usual shear band around the pile. Soil shear bands have a thickness of about 10-12 times d50, where d50 is the average grain size of the soil. Unfortunately, no grain size distribution is available. However, for a medium fine to coarse sand, it can be assumed that the d50 is around 0.4 mm. Thus, the shear band thickness is found to be about 4 mm. It is further assume that the void ratios of the sand are as follows:
emin = 0.40 , emax = 0.90 , eo = 0.65

This sand can therefore dilate no more than e = 0.9 0.65 = 0.25 . For a shear band this implies:
max vol =

emax = 0.15 1 + eo

For a shear band thickness of t = 4 mm, this implies that


max = 0.6 mm tmax = t vol

(6.4)

The finite element mesh being used involves an interface thickness of tin = 16 mm, which is beyond the real interface thickness of 4 mm. The thick FE-interface may dilate up to
max tin = 0.6mm . In order to achieve that, the volumetric interface strain has to be restricted to

the low value of


max vol = max tin 0.6 = = 0.0375 tin 16

In order to realize this dilatancy cut-off, the following emax will be input in the model.

emax = e0 + emax = 0.65 + 0.06 = 0.71

35

Thus, the input parameters for the dilatancy cut-off in the FE-interface are emin = 0.40 , emax = 0.71 and eo = 0.65 .

6.3 Parameters for Dilatancy Cut-off in Surrounding Soil

The dilatancy cut-off parameters for the surrounding soil are calculated in similar way to the previous section. Hence we have treal = 4mm and tmax = 0.6 mm . The finite element mesh being used involves a numerical soil elements shear band as shown in Figure 6.2, which is observed from the thickness of distorted mesh region along the pile, of tnumeric = 30 mm. This numerical shear band is beyond the real interface thickness of 4 mm. As for the thin real shear
max band, the thick numerical shear band may dilate up to tnumeric = 0.6mm . In order to achieve

that, the volumetric strain of the numerical shear band has to be restricted to the low value of
max vol = max tnumeric 0.6 = = 0.02 tnumeric 30

In order to realize this dilatancy cut-off, the following emax will be input in the model for the surrounding soil.

emax = e0 + emax = 0.65 + 0.03 = 0.68 0.7


Thus, the input parameters for the dilatancy cut-off in the model for the surrounding soil are emin = 0.40 , emax = 0.7 and eo = 0.65 .

tnumeric
Numerical shear band

Figure 6.2: Numerical shear band

36

6.4 Pile Load Test Simulation which Includes Dilatancy Cut-off

The load test simulation follows the K-pressure procedure described in Chapter 3. The dilatancy cut-off is only applied at the pile loading. The Hardening Soil model is used in this calculation. Figure 6.3 presents load-displacement curves for a non-dilating soil with = 0 and dilatant soil with = 3o.
Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Pile head settlement, s (mm) 10 20 100 200 300 400 500

=0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Dilatancy Cut-Off

Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured)

= 3o

Figure 6.3: Effects of dilatancy and dilatancy cut-off on load-settlement curve Load-settlement curve from soil without dilatancy drops suddenly after the load of 300 kN, which implies that the skin friction has been fully mobilised. The very small increase of loads with settlements after the sudden drop is due to some increase of base resistance.

Shear stress (kPa) 0 0 50 100 150 200

-1

-2

= 3o, Without cut-off = 3o, With cut-off

Depth, z (m)

Depth (m)

-3

-4

=0

-5

-6

-7

Figure 6.4: Shear stress along the interface for s = 35 mm 37

The effect of dilatancy cut-off is also significant as shown in Figure 6.3. If the dilatancy cutoff is applied, the load-settlement curve after the sudden drop at around 320 kN does not continuously increase as without applying the dilatancy cut-off. There is another drop at a load around 380 kN, after that part the soil around the pile is not dilating anymore. The small increase of the load after this part relates to the increase of base resistance. As shown in Figure 6.4, the shear stress distributions between the soil with and without dilatancy cut-off show only a very small difference at s = 35mm. On the other hand the difference between dilating and non-dilating soils is quite significant showing that dilatancy plays a major role in the resistance of a pile.

6.5 Increased Ko with Dilatancy Cut-off

In Section 5.2, it has been shown that dilatancy plays a significant role in pile loading after increased Ko. Figure 6.5 show the load-settlement curve from increased Ko = 2.9 with dilatancy cut-off. The dilatancy cut-off parameters for the interface and soil used for the calculation are as specified in Section 6.2 and 6.3. It can be seen that the dilatancy cut-off improve significantly the fitting of the measured data.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 100 200 300 400

Settlement, s (mm)

10

20
Pile 24 (Measured)

30

Pile 36 (Measured)

Figure 6.5: Load-settlement curve from Ko = 2.9 with dilatancy cut-off

38

7. Influence of Small Strain Stiffness


The behaviour of soil at small strains has been studied by many researchers for example Seed and Idriss (1970), Burland (1989), Atkinson (2000), Benz (2006) and found to be an important phenomenon in geotechnical engineering problems. At small strain levels most soils exhibit a higher stiffness than at engineering strain levels, this stiffness varying nonlinearly with strain. The soil stiffness decays as the strain increases. The importance of the high stiffness at small strains and its use in geotechnical engineering has also been shown by Benz (2006). His work has lead to the development of Hardening Soil Small (HS-Small) model. The HS-Small model is a small strain stiffness extension of Hardening Soil model that accounts for higher stiffness of soils at small strains. The maximum soil stiffness at small strain implemented in HS-Small model is the initial soil stiffness Eo as shown in Figure 7.1. As for the limit lower value of stiffness for small strain, it is taken as equal to the unloadingreloading stiffness modulus as observed in classical laboratory testing. Since then the model returns back to the original Hardening Soil model.

1 3 E50 Eur
3

Eo

Eo Eo

1
Axial strain 1

Figure 7.1: Stiffness moduli in triaxial stress-strain curve

7.1 Parameters for HS-Small Model

As the HS model is an extension of Hardening Soil model to incorporate the small strain stiffness behaviour, only two additional material parameters are needed from the parameters for the Hardening Soil model. The additional material parameters are Goref and 0.7, where Goref is the maximum small strain shear modulus at a particular reference pressure. 0.7 denotes the shear strain, at which the shear modulus G is decayed to 70 percent of its initial Go- value. Since these two new parameters can not be obtained from standard geotechnical laboratory testing, Benz (2006) presents in his work several correlations for the small strain parameters. Based on that, the small strain properties for this case study are obtained. For a medium dense sand, the initial Youngs modulus Eo may for instance be assumed to be about 3 times the unloading-reloading modulus Eur. For Eur = 51 MPa, this gives Eo = 3 51 = 153 MPa . Go is equal to Eo /2(1+) which gives Go = 153/2(1+0.2) = 63.75 MPa. For sand at a reference 39

pressure of 100 kPa,

0.7 tends to be in the range between 1 104 to 2 104 . For the present

calculation a value of 1 104 is used which gives better fit load-settlement curve to the measured data. Therefore, Goref = 63.75 MPa and 0.7 = 1 104 are used as the additional input parameters in the HS-Small model.

7.2 Pile Load Test Simulation with HS-Small Model

The Pile installation follows the K-pressure method described in Chapter 3. However, instead of Hardening Soil model, the Hardening Soil Small model is applied. As can be seen in Figure 7.2, the additional small strain stiffness causes the loadsettlement curve to be slightly higher than the one using the Hardening Soil model which is as expected. Up to a load of 300 kN the HS-Small model gives a more curvature to the loadsettlement curve. Computational results on deformed mesh and mobilised shear strength as well as principal stress directions appeared to be very similar to those from the HScomputations. Therefore such data are not presented again. The difference between the HS-Small model and the Hardening Soil model can also be seen in the case of unloading-reloading. Figures 7.2a and b also show unloading-reloading curves from the Hardening Soil and the HS-Small model respectively. In contrast to the HS model, the HS-Small model gives some hysteresis. The load reversal due to unloading causes the irregular directions of the principal stresses along the interface as shown in Figure 7.3 which is due to isotropic state of stresses.

Load, Q (kN)
0 0 100 200 300 400 0 0 100

Load, Q (kN)
200 300 400

Pile head settlement, s (mm)

10

Pile head settlement, s (mm) Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured) Hardening model

10

20

20

30

30

Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured) HS Small


40

40

(a)

(b)

Figure 7.2: Load-settlement curves with unloading-reloading (a) HS model (b) HSSmall model

40

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7.3: Principal stress direction at several parts of pile embedment after unloading (a) upper part (b) middle part (c) bottom part The change of stresses along the pile shaft due to unloading and reloading is presented in Figure 7.4. Due to unloading the shear stress reduces to a total value of zero and increases again to its maximum distribution after reloading. Radial stress along the interface changes due to unloading reloading. After the unloading, the radial stress decreases and due to the reloading the radial stress increases again to the same amount as in the previous loading phase.
Shear stress, She ar s tre s s (k(kPa) Pa)
-50 0 0 50 100 150 200
0 0 50

Radialstress stress, p r (kPa) Radial (kPa)


10 0 15 0 200 250 300

Reloading to s = 30 mm
-1

Reloading to s = 30 mm
-1

Loading to s = 30 mm

Loading to s = 30 mm

-2

-2

Unloading

Depth (m) Depth, z (m)

Depth (m)

-3

Depth, z (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Unloading

-3

-4

-4

-5

-5

-6

-6

-7

-7

Figure 7.4: Stresses along the interface for different loading phases (a) Shear stresses (b) Radial stresses

41

8. Sensitivity Analyses
Numerical analyses using an advanced soil constitutive model involve more soil parameters than using a simple one. In order to understand the influence of soil parameters on the results of pile loading calculations, a series of parametric studies has been done. In this case, it is focused on the stiffness parameters of the Hardening Soil model and the small strain stiffness parameters of the HS-Small model. In addition to that, the influence of mesh boundary conditions on the calculations is also performed.

8.1 Parametric Studies on the Stiffness Parameters of the Hardening Soil Model.

In the Hardening Soil model, there are three soil stiffness parameters that determine the
ref ref ref behaviour of soil which are E50 , Eoed and Eur . The parametric studies are performed by

varying each of these stiffness parameters independently with respect to their base values that
ref are specified in Table 2.2. Moreover, the influence of Eoed with difference dilatancy angles

on pile loading calculations is also investigated. The effects of varying the parameters are evaluated through the load-settlement curves of the pile loading calculations. In this parametric study, the variable values are listed in Table 8.1. The other parameters are the same as specified in Table 2.2. The installation procedure applied for the studies follows the K-pressure method as explained in Chapter 3. Table 8.1: Values for the parametric studies Parameters
ref E50
ref Eoed

Unit
[ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ MPa ]

Base values 17 17 51

Variable Values 10 and 25 10 and 30 35 and 100

ref Eur

ref 8.1.1 The Influence of E50 on the Load-Settlement Curve

ref The load-settlement curves of pile loading calculations with different E50 are shown in

ref Figure 8.1. It can be seen that influence of varying E50 -values is not very significant on the

load-settlement curves. The load-settlement curve can be divided into two parts; the first part is the skin friction dominated part (settlements lower than about 12 mm) and the second part is the part dominated by base resistance and additional skin friction due to dilatancy
ref (settlement larger than about 12 mm). On increasing the E50 , the slope of the first parts of

the curves decrease slightly while the slope of the second parts remain the same. 42

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Settlement, s (mm) 100 200 300 400

10

ref E50 = 10 MPa

20

ref E50 = 17 MPa

30

ref E50 = 25 MPa

ref on the load-settlement curve Figure 8.1: The influence of E50

The calculated load capacity at s = 35 mm decreases slightly. It can be said that varying the
ref value of E50 has a small influence on the pile-skin resistance and almost no influence on the

pile-base resistance. In the Hardening soil model, the stiffness parameters influence the yielding behaviour of the soil. As has been explained in Chapter 2, the hardening soil model incorporates two yield surfaces, which are shear hardening yield surface and compression (cap) hardening yield surface. As shown in Figure 8.2, the shear hardening zone decreases quite noticeably with the
ref ref increase of E50 . This does not reflect the less significant influence of the E50 . However, not

only the size of shear hardening zone but also the intensity of the soil shear hardening that is important.

Shear hardening

ref = 10 MPa (a) E50

ref (b) E50 = 17 MPa

ref (c) E50 = 25 MPa

ref Figure 8.2: Shear hardening zones for different E50 after loading (at s = 35 mm)

43

120

1 3
80

2 4 6

5 6 3 4

q = ( '1 - '3 ) (kPa)

40

2
0 0

1
15 30 p' (kPa) 45 60 75

ref Figure 8.3: Stress paths during pile loading at several soil stress points for E50 = 17 MPa.

During pile loading, the shear hardening zones keep changing as can be seen in Figure 8.4. The zones decrease up to settlement of around 12 mm, which is in the first part of the load-settlement curve. The decrease of the shear hardening zone at settlement up to 12 mm is due to the reduction of radial stress, which leads to a slight unloading at some particular zones. The reduction of radial stress has been explained in Section 3.2. The increase of shear hardening zone afterward is due to the dilation of soil. As can be seen in Figure 8.3, the stress paths show that the intensity of the shear hardening is low in most of the soil stress points. Only in the area close to around the middle part of the pile, the intensity of shear hardening is high. This explains the less significant
ref influence of E50 .

Shear hardening

s = 2 mm

s = 4 mm

s = 8 mm s = 10 mm s = 11 mm s = 12 mm s = 14 mm s = 35 mm

ref Figure 8.4: Evolution of shear hardening zones during pile loading with E50 = 17 MPa

44

ref 8.1.2 The Influence of Eoed on the Load-Settlement Curve

ref The influence of Eoed on the load-settlement curves is very significant as can be seen from

ref Figure 8.5b. The larger Eoed , the stiffer the soil behaves. In contrast to the effect of increasing
ref ref the E50 , the calculated load capacity at s = 35 mm increases as the Eoed increases. From the

curves, it can be seen that the calculated loads at the end of the low settlement parts (at s
ref around 12 mm) increase quite noticeably with the increase of Eoed . However, the slopes of the

second parts of the curves seem to be similar which suggests that in this particular case, the
ref influence of increasing the value of Eoed is not significant on the base resistance.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 100 200 300 400


0 0 100

Load, Q ( kN) 200 300 400

Settlement, s (mm)

10

10

20

ref E oed = 10 MPa

20

ref E oed = 10 MPa

ref E oed = 17 MPa


30

ref E oed = 17 MPa ref E oed = 30 MPa

ref Eoed = 30 MPa

30

(a)

(b)

Load, Q ( kN) 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

10

ref Eoed = 10 MPa


20

ref Eoed = 17 MPa ref Eoed = 30 MPa

30

(c)
ref Figure 8.5: The influence of Eoed on the load-settlement curve with (a) = 0 (b) =

3 (c) = 10 45

Cap hardening

ref around 10 Mpa Figure 8.6: Typical cap hardening regions after pile loading from Eoed

ref Figures 8.5a, b and c show load-settlement curves of different Eoed with dilatancy
ref angles of 0o, 3o and 10o respectively. It can be seen that the Eoed influence the slopes of the

first parts of the curves and the dilatancy angles influence the slopes of the second parts of the curves.
ref The typical compression hardening zone after pile loading for Eoed around 10 MPa is

shown in Figures 8.6. Almost the entire soil yields on the cap after pile loading. Furthermore, as can be seen in Figure 8.3 in the previous section, most of the soil yield on the cap and the
ref intensities of the cap hardening are also noticeable. Hence, the influence of Eoed is very

significant. The evolution of cap hardening zone during pile loading is shown in Figure 8.7. The zone keeps changing during the pile loading. Up to settlement of around 10 mm, the zone decreases due to slight unloading of the soil as mentioned before. Afterward, it increases again. The re-increase of the zone is because the soil is compressed due to dilatancy. It can be concluded that the influence of the cap hardening is very significant due to the fact that the zone of cap hardening is large and the intensity of the cap hardening is high.
Cap hardening

s = 2 mm

s = 6 mm

s = 8 mm

s = 10 mm s = 11 mm s = 12 mm s = 14 mm s = 35 mm

ref Figure 8.7: The evolution of cap hardening zone during loading with Eoed = 17 MPa

46

ref 8.1.3 The Influence of Eur on the Load-Settlement Curve

ref As shown in Figure 8.8, the effect of Eur on the load-settlement curve seems to be similar to

ref ref the effect of E50 . As the Eur increases the slope of the first parts of the load-settlement curves
ref decrease and the total load capacity at s = 35 mm decrease. The influence of the Eur on the

calculations of pile loading seems to be not very significant. The evolution of the elastic zone during pile loading is shown in Figures 8.9. In consistent with the evolution of the shear and cap hardening zone, the elastic zone expands up to settlement of around 10 mm and decreases afterward. The expansion of the elastic zone is due to the slight unloading as the radial stress decreases at low settlements part and it decreases again afterward due to soil dilatancy. To this end, it has been shown that, the
ref parameter Eur influences the elastic response of the soil.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 Settlement, s (mm) 100 200 300 400

10

ref Eur = 30 MPa

20

ref Eur = 51MPa

30

ref Eur = 100 MPa

ref on the load-settlement curve Figure 8.8: The influence of Eur

Elastic zone

s = 2 mm

s = 6 mm

s = 8 mm

s = 10 mm s = 11 mm s = 12 mm s = 14 mm s = 35 mm

ref Figure 8.9 : The evolution of elastic zone during loading with Eur = 51 MPa

47

8.2 Parametric Study on the Small Strain Stiffness Parameters

The parametric studies are performed by varying the small strain stiffness parameters 0.7 and Eo independently. The definition of the parameters is described in Section 7.1. Apart from the small strain stiffness parameters, all parameters are kept the same as listed in Table 2.2. As can be seen in Figure 8.10, the increase of Eo decreases the slope of the first parts of the load-settlement curves and increases the load capacity of the pile at s = 35 mm.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0
Settlement, s (mm)

100

200

300

400

10

E0 = 76.5 MPa
20

E0 = 153 MPa
30

E0 = 255 MPa

Figure 8.10: The influence of Eo on the load-settlement curve with 0.7 = 1 104

Load, Q (kN) 0 0 100 200 300 400

Settlement, s (mm)

10

0.7 = 1.0 10 4
20

0.7 = 1.5 10 4 0.7 = 3 10 4

30

Figure 8.11: The influence of 0.7 on the load-settlement curve with Eo = 3 Eur = 153 MPa Although the difference is not so large, it can be seen that the larger 0.7, the smaller the slope of the first parts of the curves and the more curvature the curves as shown in Figure 8.11.

48

8.3 Influence of Mesh Size

In finite element method, the choice of mesh size (the width and the depth of mesh boundaries) affects the accuracy of the calculation results. When involving too small mesh size, the results will be affected significantly by the imposed mesh boundaries. However, a large mesh size will be time-consuming during calculation. In this chapter the influence of mesh size on the numerical results is investigated. The concept of evaluating the effect of varying mesh size is that the stresses are evaluated at the boundaries for the initial conditions, before and after loading. On varying the mesh size, the average element size is kept to be relatively similar. In Plaxis, the average element size, le, is calculated from the outer geometry dimensions (xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax) and a global coarseness factor nc as defined below:
le =

(xmax xmin )( ymax ymin )


nc

(8-1)

Very coarse : Coarse : Medium : Fine : Very fine :

nc = 25 nc = 50 nc = 100 nc = 200 nc = 400

around around around around around

50 elements 100 elements 250 elements 500 elements 1000 elements

If the stress differences are small enough, it can be considered that the mesh boundaries have no influence anymore to the calculated results. In addition to that, the difference of the resulting load-settlement curves is also evaluated.

8.3.1 The Mesh Size as Used in the Previous Calculations

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the width and the depth of the mesh used in the previous calculations (usual mesh) boundaries are 3 m and 10 m respectively. The calculated loadsettlement fits the measured data well as shown in Figure 3.9 on using K-pressure method. However, the parameters are not the best-fit parameters for the case since the boundaries give some influence on the results. Figure 8.12a shows that there is a slight difference of vertical stresses along side boundary at the initial conditions, before loading and after loading. The maximum difference is about 10 kPa. The radial stresses along side boundary also show some difference at the three stages as shown in Figure 8.12b.

49

Vertical stress (kPa)


0 0 50 100 150 200 0

Radial stress (kPa)


50 100 0

Width (m)
1 2 3

100

-2

-2 120

-4

-4 Vertical stress, (kPa) 140

Depth, z (m)

Depth (m)

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

After loading
-6

Before loading

-6

Initial conditions

After loading

160

Before loading

Initial conditions

-8

Initial conditions

-8

Before loading

180
-10

-10

After loading
-12

-12

200

(a) (b) (c) Figure 8.12: Stresses at the boundaries from usual mesh (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary It can be seen that the difference of radial stresses occurs at depth below 5 m. From Figure 8.12c, the vertical stress after loading increases by around 10 kPa compared to that before loading. This means that the usual mesh size is small for an accurate pile analysis. Therefore, a reasonably larger mesh size is required especially for obtaining the best-fit parameters.

8.3.2 The Effect of Varying Mesh Side Boundary

In the following analyses, the bottom boundary of 10 m is kept constant and the width of side boundary is varied from 3 m to 10 m.
Load (kN) 0 0
Settlement (mm)

100

200

300

400

10 3 m width 6 m width 8 m width 30 10 m width

20

Figure 8.13: Load settlement curves from different widths of mesh side boundary

50

Vertical stress (kPa)


0 50 100 150 200 0

Radial stress (kPa)


20 40 60 80 0 1

Width (m)
2 3 4 5 6

100

-2

-2 120

-4 After loading Depth, z (m) Depth (m) -6 Before loading -8 Initial conditions -10 Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

-4 After loading Vertical stress, (kPa) 140

-6 Before loading

160

Before loading

Initial conditions

-8 Initial conditions 180 -10

After loading

-12

-12

200

(a) (b) (c) Figure 8.14: Stresses at the boundaries for 6 m width mesh side boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary The load-settlement curves of pile loading calculations with different widths are shown in Figure 8.13. It can be seen that influence of varying width-values is not very significant on the load settlement curves. However, for width of 3 m, the curve is slightly lower than others.
Vertical stress (kPa)
0 50 100 150 200 0

Radial stress (kPa)


20 40 60 80 0 1

Width (m)
2 3 4 5 6

100

-2

-2 120

-4 After loading Depth, z (m) Depth, z (m)


Depth (m)

-4

After loading Vertical stress, (kPa) 140

-6 Before loading -8 Initial conditions

Depth (m)

-6 Before loading

Before loading 160

Initial conditions

-8 Initial conditions 180

-10

-10

After loading

-12

-12

200

(a) (b) (c) Figure 8.15: Stresses at the boundaries for 8 m wide mesh side boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary

51

Vertical stress (kPa)


0 50 100 150 200 0

Radial stress (kPa)


20 40 60 80

Width (m) 0 100 2 4 6 8 10

-2

-2 120

-4

After loading Depth,Depth z (m)(m)

-4

After loading Vertical stress, (kPa) 140

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

-6 Before loading

-6 Before loading

Before loading 160 Initial conditions

-8

Initial conditions

-8

Initial conditions After loading

180 -10 -10

-12

-12

200

(a) (b) (c) Figure 8.16: Stresses at the boundaries for 10 m wide mesh side boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary From Figures 8.14 to 8.16, it can be seen that the varying width has a small influence on the stresses at the boundaries. The stresses at the boundaries, for a 8m or more width of mesh side boundary 8 m or wider, are hardly changed from initial conditions to after loading. Figure 8.17 presents the calculated loads at the settlement of 15 mm and 35 mm from different widths of mesh side boundary. In consistent with Figure 8.13, varying the width of mesh side boundary gives only a small difference in the calculated loads, particularly for the mesh side boundary of 8 m wide and 10 m wide.
Width of mesh side boundary (m) 2 300
Calculated loads (kN)

10

350

s = 15 mm s = 35 mm

400

450

Figure 8.17: Calculated loads at settlement of 15 mm and 35 mm with different width

52

8.3.3 The Effect of Varying Mesh Bottom Boundary

In this case, the width of the side boundary of 3 m is kept constant and the depth of the bottom boundary is varied. The results of the calculated load-settlements from different depths of mesh bottom boundaries are evaluated. As can be seen from Figure 8.18, the difference between the load-settlement curves for different depths is quite significant. The larger the depth, the larger the slope of the curves at the loads up to about 330 kN. After the load of about 330 kN, the differences of load settlement curves with varying depth become much smaller. On varying only the mesh bottom boundary and keeping the side boundary of 3 m, the results do not show a trend of convergence. It seems that the narrow side boundary with free movement on the vertical direction influence the calculation results significantly. Figure 8.19 presents the settlements from different depth of mesh bottom boundary at a load of 300 kN. It shows that the settlements are significantly different. Varying the depth of the bottom boundary has a noticeable influence on the stresses at the boundaries as shown in Figures 8.20 to 8.22. On using the mesh side boundary 3 m wide, increasing the depth of the bottom boundary does not eliminate the vertical and radial stress difference along side boundary before and after loading. The difference of vertical stress along bottom boundary before and after loading is still significant with increasing depth. Therefore, a combination of widening the side boundary and deepening the bottom boundary are needed to obtain an optimum mesh size for an accurate calculation results as well as minimum calculation time cost.

Load (kN) 0 0 5 Settlement (mm) 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 m depth 15 m depth 20 m depth 30 m depth 100 200 300 400

Figure 8.18: Load settlement curves with varying depth for geometry width 3 m

53

Depth of bottom boundary (m) 5


Settlements at load of 300 kN (mm)

10

15

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

Figure 8.19: Settlement at load of 300 kN with different depths

Vertical stress, (kPa)


0 50 100 150 200 0

Radial stress, (kPa)


20 40 60 80 100 0

Width (m)
1 2 3

100

-2

-2 120

-4

After loading

-4 Vertical stress, (kPa) After loading 140

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

-6 Before loading Initial conditions -8

Depth, z (m) Depth (m)

Before loading -6

-8

Initial conditions

160

Before loading Initial conditions

180 -10 -10 After loading -12 -12 200

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8.20: Stresses at the boundaries for 10 m depth bottom boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary

54

Vertical stress (kPa) 0


0

Radial stress (kPa) 300 0


0 50 100 150 0

Width (m)
1 2 3

100

200

200

-3

-3

220

Depth, z (m)

Depth, z (m)

-6

After loading

-6 After loading

Vertical stress, (kPa)

240 Before loading Initial conditions

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-9

Before loading Initial conditions

-9

Before loading

260

-12

-12

Initial conditions

After loading 280

-15

-15

300

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8.21: Stresses at the boundaries for 15 m depth bottom boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary

Vertical stress, s(kPa)


0 100 200 300 400 0

Radial stress, s (kPa)


50 100 150 200 0

Width (m)
1 2 3

300

-5 After loading

-5 After loading

320

Before loading -10 Depth (m) Depth, z (m) Before loading Depth, z (m) Vertical stress, (kPa) -10 Depth (m) Before loading 340

Initial conditions

Initial conditions -15

-15 Initial conditions

360

After loading

-20

-20

380

-25

-25

400

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8.22: Stresses at the boundaries for 20 m depth bottom boundary (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stress along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary

55

8.3.4 The Effect of Varying Mesh Side and Bottom Boundaries (combination)

In this section, both of the width and the depth of the mesh boundaries are changed, and the effects of the changes are investigated. From Section 8.3.2, it was obvious that with a mesh width of 8 m, the stresses at the boundaries are reasonable unchanged at initial condition, before loading and after loading. Moreover, the load-settlement curve are almost the same if the mesh side boundary is 8 m or wider. Therefore, mesh side boundary of 8 m wide is used and the depth of bottom boundary is varied to find the optimum depth. Figure 8.23 shows load-settlement curves from mesh side boundary of 8 m wide and with different depths of bottom boundary. The curves are almost coincidence, although the curve from 10 m deep bottom boundary seems to be slightly different. Furthermore, as can be seen from Figure 8.24, the calculated loads at settlement of 35 mm also converge to a value of about 400 kN. As can be seen in Figures 8.25 and 8.26, the stresses at the boundaries at initial condition, before and after loading can be considered relatively unchanged. The Figures show that the vertical and radial stresses along side boundary at the three stages with different depth are almost the same. The vertical stresses along bottom boundary show a very small difference at the three stages, which can be ignored.

Load, Q (kN) 0 0
Settlement, s (mm)

100

200

300

400

10

20

30

13 m 15 m 18 m 20 m 10 m

depth depth depth depth depth

Figure 8.23: Load settlement curves from mesh geometry of 8 m wide and varying depths

56

8 350 Load at 35 mm (kN)

12

Depth of bottom boundary (m) 16

20

24

400

450

Figure 8.24: Load at settlement of 35 mm with different depths

Vertical stress (kPa)


0 50 100 150 200 250

Radial stress (kPa)


0 50 100 150 0 2

Width (m)
4 6 8

150

-3

-3

170

After loading After loading Vertical stress, (kPa) -6 Depth, z (m) Depth (m) Depth, z (m) Depth (m) -6 190

-9 Initial conditions

-9 Initial conditions

210

Before loading Initial conditions

-12 Before loading

-12 Before loading

230 After loading

-15

-15

250

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8.25: Stress at the boundary with geometry of 13 m depth (a) Vertical stress along side boundary (b) Radial stress along side boundary (c) Vertical stress along bottom boundary

57

Vertical stress, (kPa)


0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0 20

Vertical stress, (kPa)


40 60 80 100 120 200 0 2

Width (m)
4 6 8

-3

-3

220

Vertical stress, (kPa)

After loading
-6 -6

After loading

240

Depth, z (m)

Before loading Initial conditions

Depth, z (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Before loading
-9

-9

Before loading

260

Initial conditions

After loading Initial conditions


-12 280

-12

-15

-15

300

(a) Figure 8.26:

(b)

(c)

Stresses at the boundaries for 15 m deep bottom boundaries (a) Vertical stresses along side boundary (b) Radial stresses along side boundary (c) Vertical stresses along bottom boundary

8.3.5 Optimum Mesh Size

In the previous sections, it was found that the usual mesh size is not large enough for accurate pile analyses. For simulating the stress fields due to pile installation with K-pressure method and displacement controlled cavity expansion method, a larger mesh size is needed. Usually, the size of mesh is related to pile diameter. However, in this case, it seems that size of mesh is related to the pile length. It is found that, on simulating a displacement pile a mesh with width of slightly larger than the pile length and depth of about 2 times the pile length is required. Therefore, in this particular study, the optimum mesh size for accurate analyses of a displacement pile is using a mesh with 8 m wide and 13 m deep. The average element size for the mesh is 285 mm. The detail of the mesh geometry will be shown in the next chapter for determining the best-fit parameters.

58

9. Best-fit Parameters
As has been shown in the previous chapter, the usual mesh size is too small for an accurate pile analyses. Therefore, the parameters used previously are not the best-fit parameters. In this chapter, the best-fit parameters are to be obtained by fitting the measured load-settlement curves. On doing so, the parameters are varied within a reasonable range. The best-fit parameters to be obtained are the soil parameters as mentioned in Chapter 2. In addition to that, small strain stiffness parameters are also included. Therefore, the calculations are performed using the HS-Small model. The optimum mesh size, which is suggested in Section 8.3.5, is used for the calculations. The mesh has a width of 8 m and depth of 13 m. The mesh is refined along the pile shaft and pile tip where the stress gradient is expected to be high. The average element size is 285 mm. Figure 9.1 shows the mesh geometry for the best-fit parameters calculations. As for the calculation procedure, it follows the K-pressure method. Figure 9.2 shows the best fit calculated load-settlement curve. It is found that the K-value applied for obtaining the best fit curve is 3.2 with the set of best-fit parameters as listed in Table 9.1. In addition to that, the dilatancy cut-off is activated in the interface with dilatancy cut-off parameters emin = 0.40 , emax = 0.685 and eo = 0.65 .

0.5D = 9 cm

8m

L=6.25m

13 m

Figure 9.1. Finite element mesh for the best-fit parameters calculations

59

Load, Q (kN) 0 0
Settlement, s (mm)

100

200

300

400

10

20 Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured) 30

Figure 9.2. Best-fit load settlement curve

Table 9.1: Best-fit soil parameters for computations with the HS-Small model Parameters Values 17 15 11 45 0.5 0.1 36 6 0.2 62.63

unsat
ref E50 ref Eoed

[kN/m ]
3

[ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ ] [ ] [ - ] [ MPa ] [ - ] [ kPa ]

ref Eur

c' '

ur
G0ref

0.7
Tensile strength

0.5 104 0

For compasions, if the small strain stiffness is not taken into account , the calculation is done using the Hardening Soil model. On doing so, and using the same procedure and geometry, the best fit parameters obtained from the curbe fitting are different. The best fit curve from calculations using Hardening Soil model is shown in Figure 9.3 and the coresponding set of best-fit parameters is listed in Table 9.2.

60

Load, Q (kN) 0 0
Settlement, s (mm)

100

200

300

400

10

20

Pile 24 (Measured) Pile 36 (Measured)

30

Figure 9.3. Best-fit load settlement curve Table 9.2: Best-fit soil parameters for computations with the Hardening Soil model Parameters Values 17 16 16 65 0.5 0.1 36 5 0.2 0

unsat
E
ref 50

[kN/m ]
3

[ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ - ] [ kPa ] [ ] [ ] [ - ] [ kPa ]

ref Eoed
ref Eur

c' '

ur
Tensile strength

61

10. Conclusions
The major effect of a displacement pile installation in sand is the increase of the radial stress around the pile, which later increases the pile capacity. This study is aimed to find methods to account for effects of installation process of a tube-installed displacement pile i.e. the increase of radial stress with zero skin friction between the pile and soil after installation. Three methods of simulating the increase of radial stress in the surrounding soil by FEM have been considered: the K-pressure method, displacement controlled cavity expansion method and increased Ko method. The first two methods would seem to be reasonably appropriate methods for simulating displacement pile installation whereas the increased Ko method was found to be a less appropriate method. Increased Ko method generates a nonrealistic stress field around the pile after the installation process.
' On using K- pressure method radial stress along the pile side, it yields K vo , where K

is a constant. The K value is back calculated from the measured load-settlement curves. Hence, a pile load test is needed to calibrate the K-pressure method. This method gives reasonable stress fields. On using the displacement-controlled cavity expansion, the increase of radial stress is induced by applying a prescribed horizontal displacement on a cavity wall. The horizontal displacement is back-calculated from a measured load-settlement curves. The K value resulting from this method is not constant. However an average K value can be back calculated. Realistic stress fields after cavity expansion and pile loading are obtained, although they are slightly different from the results of K-pressure method. Although both methods give reasonable results for a displacement pile analysis the Kpressure method is more favourable. This is because the increase of radial stress with a constant K value, which is often assumed in common practice is directly back-calculated from the pile load test measurement. The interface elements are important for the simulation, especially when the soil is very cohesive as the interface cohesion should be close to zero. Moreover, the interface elements are highly important when considering prefabricated displacement piles. This study also includes the effect of small strain stiffness to pile loading calculations. For this, the HS-Small model has been used. The HS-Small model which is the extension of the Hardening soil model, requires two extra parameters which are Eo and 0.7. It was found that small strain stiffness parameters give better curvature of the load-settlement curve. Moreover, hysteresis due to unloading-reloading cycle is more obvious on using the HSSmall model. In addition to that, on using the HS-Small model the sensitivity on choosing the boundary conditions is less when compared to other model without small strain stiffness. Hence, the use of the HS-Small model is recommended.

62

11. References
Aboutaha, M., De Roeck, G., Van Impe, W. F. (1993). Bored versus displacement piles in sand-experimental study. Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger Piles. ed. Van Impe, Balkema, Rotterdam, 157-162. Atkinson, J. H. (2000). Non-linear soil stiffness in routine design. Gotechnique, 50: 487-508. Benz, T. (2006). Small strain stiffness of soils and its numerical consequences. PHD Thesis, Institut for Geotechnical Engineering, University of Stuttgart. Brinkgreve, R. B. J. editor. (2002) PLAXIS, 2D Version 8. AA. Balkema. Burland, J. B. 1989. Ninth Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Lecture: Small is beautiful the stiffness of soils at small strains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 499516. Chopra, M. B., Dargush, G. F. (1992). Finite-element analysis of time-dependent largedeformation problems. Int. J. for Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech.,16:101-130. Debats, J. M., Guetif, Z., Bouassida, M. (2003). Soft soil improvement due to vibrocompacted columns installation. Int. workshop on geotechnics of soft soils-theory and practice, Vermeer, Karstunen & Curdy(eds). Dijkstra, W. J., Broere, van Tol, A. F. (2006). Numerical investigation into stress and strain development around a displacement pile in sand. In Schweiger (Ed.), Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (pp. 595-600). London: Taylor & Francis Group. El-Mossallamy, Y. (2006). Numerical analyses of pile foundation in complex geological conditions. In Schweiger (Ed.), Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (pp. 619-625). London: Taylor & Francis Group. Henke S., Grabe J. (2006): Simulation of pile driving by 3-dimensional Finite-Element analysis. Proceedings of 17th European Young Geotechnical Engineers' Conference, Zagreb, Crotia, ed. by V.Szavits-Nossan, Croatian Geotechnical Society, 215-233. Kulhawy, F. H. (1984). Limiting tip and side resistance: Fact or fallacy. Proc., Symp. on Design and Analysis of Pile Found., ASCE, New York, 80-98. Lancellotta, R.(1995).Geotechnical Engineering. A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield. Mabsout, E. M. et al. (1995). Study of pile driving by finite-element method. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Volume 121, Issue 7, 535-543. Mabsout, E.M. (1999). Pile Driving by Numerical Cavity Expansion. International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, Volume 23, Issue 11, 1121-1140. ONeil, M. W., Reese, L. C. (1972). Behaviour of bored piles in Beaumont clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division 98, No. SM2, 195-213. 63

Peiffer, H., Van Impe, W.F., Cortvrindt, G. and Bottiau, M. (1993). Evaluation of the influence of pile execution parameters on the soil condition around the pile shaft of a PCS pile, Proc. of 2nd Int. Conference on Deep Foundations on Bored and Augered Piles, Ghent, Balkema. Russo, G. (2004). Full-scale load tests on instrumented piles. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering 157, Issue GE3, 127-135. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., (1970). Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses: Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A. (1998). On the stiffness of sands. Geotechnique 48,383-387. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. and Bonnier, P.G. ( 1999). The hardening soil model: Formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics-10 years of plaxis, Balkema, Rotterdam. Terzaghi, K. (1936). Stress distribution in dry and in saturated sand above a yielding trapdoor. Proceeding of the International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Bd.1. Cambrigde, 307-311. Touma, F. T., Reese, L. C. (1974). Behaviour of bored pile in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Devision 100, No. GT7, 749-761. Van Impe, W.F. (1988). Considerations on auger pile design. Proc. of 1st 2nd Int. Conference on Deep Foundations on Bored and Augered Piles, Ghent, Balkema. Van der Stoel, A. E. C., Klaver, J. M., van Dijk, S. (2005). Test HSP Wijchen. Rapport no 04079a, Voorbij Funderingtechnieken BV, Amsterdam. Vermeer, P. A., Schad. H. (2005). HSP pile loading tests in Wijchen. Inspection Report, Institut for Geotechnical Engineering, University of Stuttgart. Vesic, A. S. (1963). Bearing capacity of deep foundation in sand. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Highway Research Record, No. 39, 112-153. Vesic, A. S. (1970). Test on Instrumented piles, Ogeechee river site. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Devision 96, No. GT2, 561-584. Vesic, A. S. (1972). Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. Proc. ASCE, J. Soil Mech. Diu., 98, 265-290. Wehnert, M., Vermeer, P.A. (2004). Numerical analyses of load tests on bored piles. Proceedings 9th Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics (NUMOG IX), Ottawa, Canada, pp. 505-511, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Leiden, 2004.

64

Wieckowsky, Z. (2004). The material point method in large strain engineering problems. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 193, pp. 4417-4438.

65

Appendix

(a) Loading to settlement of 30mm

(b) Unloading

(c) Reloading to settlement of 35mm

Figure i: Shear stress distribution along the interface at different loading phases

(a) 30mm

(b) Unloading

(c) 35mm

Figure ii: Radial stress distribution along the interface at different loading phases

66