1 Cilamce2014-0156 - 15605

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF AXIALLY LOADED PILE IN
ELASTO-PLASTIC SOILS
Jorge Luis Palomino Tamayo

lpt.jorge@gmail.com
CEMACOM, Computational Mechanical Center, Engineering School, Federal University of
Rio Grande do Sul
Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99-3o Floor, 90035-190, RS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Armando Miguel Awruch
Incio Benvegnu Morsch
amawruch@ufrgs.br
morsch@ufrgs.br
PPGEC Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering School, Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul
Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99-3o Floor, 90035-190, RS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Abstract. In this work, a simple three-dimensional (3D) numerical model based on the
displacement finite element method has been developed to simulate nonlinear response of
piles under axial loading. Material nonlinearity of the soil is accounted for by using classical
elasto-plastic soil models such as Drucker-Prager and Von Mises. Interface elements are
included in the model for properly modeling slipping at the soi-pile interface. The behavior of
the interface follows a Mohr-Coulomb elasto-plastic law where separation at the soil-pile
interface is also allowed. On the other hand, pile elements are allowed to have a high
strength and these can be considered to remain elastic through analysis. After validation of
the numerical model with experimental data, a parametric study is carried out to address the
influence of some factors such as dilatancy and effect of interface element. Finally, present
results are compared with those obtained through an axisymetrical bi-dimensional numerical
model proposed by another author.
Keywords: pile-soil interaction, elasto-plastic soil, finite element.
CILAMCE 2014
Proceedings of the XXXV Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering
Evandro Parente Jr (Editor), ABMEC, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil, November 23-26, 2014
Finite element modeling of axially loaded pile in elasto-plastic soil
1 INTRODUCTION
Interface element divides the space between two bodies that interact mechanically or
hydraulically. Examples of this are the interfaces that exist in dissimilar material such as those
presented in problems of pile-soil interactions. The discontinuous behavior of the interface
has been modeled using restrictions or connecting dissimilar element with springs. Some
researchers consider the interface as a continuum with a small thickness, those which can be
represented by finite elements with failure planes. Also, some special finite elements have
also been used successfully in the pass (Goodman et al., 1968; Snyman and Martin, 1991). In
this work, a zero-thickness interface finite element in conjuction with the penalty method is
used to model problems of pile-soil interaction in elasto-plastic soils under axial loading.
The soil spatial domain is represented by 8-node hexahedral finite elements besides a
constitutive law of the Drucker-Prager or Von Mises type. Because the finite element
formulation of the hexahedral element is very classical, it is not repeated here and the reader
can consult some texts of the topic (Smith and Griffiths, 2014). In relation to the soil
constitutive models used here, these are also very classical and their formulations and
parameters can be found in some geotechnical books (Chen and Mizuno, 1990; Smith and
Griffiths, 2014). In this work, an emphasis is given only to the formulation of the contact (or
interface) element. Finally, validation of the implementation of the numerical model is given
by solving some classical problems of pile-soil interaction such those presented in Wang and
Sitar (2004).
2 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL AND FINITE ELEMENT ELEMENT

FORMULATION FOR INTERFACE ELEMENT
2.1 Constitutive model

The formulation presented here is based on the work of Lee and Lin (1991) and Sarkar
(2009). The interface element modifies its status (open, closed or slipping) as the external
loading is applied. The local stresses at the element integration point are the normal stress n
and the shear stresses 1 and 2 , whose magnitudes are obtained since the local relative
displacements defined according to the local system shown in Fig. 1. This local system is
formed by the unit vectors e 1 , e 2 and e 3 .
Figure 1. Local system at integration point for interface element
CILAMCE 2014
Tamayo J. L. P., Awruch A. M., Morsch I. B
The stresses can be obtained since the current state of each integration point as follows:
a) When the point under consideration is open:
n = k n u n > 0 and 1 = 2 = 0 . (1)
where k n is a normal stiffness (penalty value) in the direction of the vector e3 . In that way,
the local stiffness matrix is defined as follows:
kb 0 0

k L = 0 0 0 (2)
0 0 0
where kb is a stiffness constant chosen arbitrarily to avoid convergence problems.

b) When the point under consideration is closed, but not slipping:
s = ( ) + ( )
pred 2
1
pred 2
2 n . (3)
where 1pred = k s u1 and 2pred = k s u 2 are the shear stresses acting in the element plane and
calculated through a friction coefficient , shear stiffness k s (penalty), and the relative
displacements u1 and u 2 according to the tangential directions 1 e 2 of the local system.
Hence, the local stiffness matrix is defined in the following way:
k n 0 0

kL = 0 ks 0. (4)
0 0 k s
c) When the point under consideration is closed and slipping:
s = ( ) + ( )
pred 2
1
pred 2
2 > n . (5)
With stresses corrected according to theory of plasticity as:

u1 u2
n = k n u n ; 1 = ( n ) e 2 = ( n ) . (6)
u1 2 + u 2 2 u1 2 + u 2 2
The local stiffness matrix is defined in the following way:

2
(
u1 + u 2
2 3/2
) 0 0

kL =
kn
(
u1 u1 2 + u 2 2 ) .u n .u 2 2 .u n .u 2 .u1 . (7)
(u 1
2
+ u2 2 )
3/2
(
2
u 2 u1 + u 2
2
) .u n .u1 .u 2 .u n .u1 2

2.2 Interface element via finite elements

The present interface element is composed of two linear or quadratic surfaces, these
surfaces connect the faces of the adjacent elements during a fracture process. These two
surface are initially in contact in an undeformed state (zero thickness), opening each other as
the adjacent elements deform. The relative displacement of the faces of the element yield
normal and shear relative displacements that in turn create a stress state according to the
adopted constitutive law (open-closed relationships as defined before) for the material. In
addition, the interface element presents three degree of freedom at each node.
CILAMCE 2014
2.2.1 Geometry of the element

The geometry of the two surfaces is described iso-parametrically in terms of the nodal
coordinates in the following manner:
x n xm

X = y =
N i ym .
z m=1 z
(8)
m
where n is equal to the half of the number of the interface element nodes ( n = 4, for an 8-
node element). The shape functions in a natural coordinate system for a 4-node quadrilateral
element are given by the following expressions:
1
Nm = (1 + m )(1 + m ) m = 1, 2 ,3,4 . (9)
4
where m e m are the natural coordinates of node m . An orthonormal system is created for
each integration point along the surface element as shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2. Surfaces of the 8-node interface element
One axis is perpendicular to the surface element ( e 3 ) while the other two are tangential to
this surface ( e e e ). The natural coordinate system is defined in the following manner:
V, V, e , e ,
e = , e = and e3 = . (10)
V, V, e , e ,
where comma denotes differentiation and the vectors e e e can be orthogonalized to define
an element local system since vectors e1 e e2 are known, in the following manner:
e1 =
2
2
(e e ) and e2 =
2
2
(e + e ) (11)
= [e1 e 2 e3 ]T . (12)
with,
CILAMCE 2014
e + e e 3 e
e = and e = . (13)
e + e e 3 e
2.2.2 Cinematic
For an 8-node interface element as shown in Fig. 2, the displacement of upper surface
( usup , defined by nodes 5 to 8) and the bottom surface ( uinf , defined by the nodes 1 to 4) are
determined in the following manner:
uinf = N1u1 + N 2 u2 + N 3 u3 + N 4 u4 . (14)
usup = N 1u5 + N 2 u6 + N 3 u7 + N 4 u8 . (15)
where um = [u xm u my u zm ] with m = 1,2,3..8 is the global displacement vector of node m and N m

T
is the shape function for node m defined in Eq. (9). The displacements at the upper and
bottom surfaces can be expressed in the local coordinate system as follows:
L
uinf = T .uinf . (16)
L
u sup = T .usup . (17)
where the transformation matrix was defined previously in Eq. (12) and it is a function of
the natural coordinates ( e ) at the element surface. The relative displacements between
these surfaces are defined in the following manner:
u1

u r = u 2 = usup
L L
uinf . (18)
u
n
Due to the fact that the relative displacement varies in the surface of the element, this can
present opening or partial closing. The anterior equations can be written in the following
matrix form:
u r = BI .u . (19)
with,
u = [u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8 ]T . (20)
B I = [N1 . N 2 . N 3 . N 4 . N1 . N 2 . N 3 . N 4 . ] . (21)
The equilibrium between stresses, q = [ n 1 2 ]T , and internal forces can be defined for a
given iteration i , in the following way:

P i = B I T q i dV
V
. (22)
with
B . (23)
T
K Ii = I k Li B I dV
V
where the local element stiffness matrix kL is defined in Eq. (2), Eq. (4) e Eq. (7) according
to the status of the integration point.
CILAMCE 2014
3 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
The prediction of the present numerical model is compared with the results of an
experimental test carried out at Berkeley University and whose results were published in
Wang and Sitar (2004). The structure is composed of a circular concrete pile of 5.8 m of
length and 0.762 meters of diameter. This pile is embedded in heterogeneous soil layer
composed of sand and clay. The pile is loaded vertically at its head with a maximum value of
2600 kN. In the numerical model, it is supposed that the soil is composed of a uniform soil
layer with an average shear undrained strength equal to 84 kPa. This soil is normally
consolidated with an earth pressure lateral coefficient of K o =0.5. The axisymetrical finite
element mesh used in Wang and Sitar (2004) is depicted in Fig. 3, where perfect adherence is
considered at soil-pile interface. Properties are listed in Table 1. The base of the mesh is
restricted in all directions while vertical movement in only allowed in the lateral faces. Here,
the pile is considered to be represented by an elastic constitutive model.
5.8 m
12.2 m
6.2 m
Figure 3. Axisymetrical mesh used in Wang and Sitar (2004)
In order to guarantee an adequate prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity of the
system, the initial state of stress must be obtained properly. For this purpose, an initial elastic
linear analysis was carried out with a Poissons coefficient equal to v = K o /(1 + K o ) and
considering that mass density of the soil is applied to all elements in the mesh (including
those of the concrete pile). After the initial state of stress is obtained, soil elements are
modified in order to behave nonlinearly with the Von Mises model while concrete properties
are attributed to pile elements. In this work, the problem was modeled with the finite element
mesh shown in Fig. 4a. In Fig. 4b, the deformed mesh at the end of the analysis is shown for
maximum load of 2600 kN. In Fig. 5 is compared the progress of the settlement at the head of
the concrete pile as loading is increased, obtained with the present numerical model and those
of the experiment. Numerical results obtained in Wang and Sitar (2004) are not shown here
for clarity (they are identical to those obtained here). The consideration of a uniform soil layer
CILAMCE 2014
seems to be adequate as the numerical settlements follows those of the experimental work for
all load levels.
Table 1. Material properties
Material Properties Units

3
Soil Specific weight s = 20 kN/m
Elasticity modulus Es = 1x105 kPa
Poisson's coefficient s = 0.49
Undrained shear strenght Su = 84 kPa
Hardening modulus H = 1000 kPa
3
Concrete Specific weight c = 23 kN/m
Elasticity modulus Ec = 20x106 kPa
Poisson's coefficient c = 0.1
a) Axisymetrical mesh b) Deformed mesh (m)

Figure 4. Finite element mesh for axisymmetric analysis and its deformed shape
2500
2000
Axial load (kN)
1500
1000
Present analysis
500
Experimental
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Settlement (m)
Figure 5. Axial load versus settlement
CILAMCE 2014
This first axisymmetric analysis allow the numerical model to be calibrated for the
outcoming analysis and get confidence in the way in which the initial stresses were
calculated. As it can be seen in Fig. 4, due to the fact that a refined mesh has been used at the
soil-pile interface, the numerical model can reproduce a kind of slip behavior in this zone. In
fact, in Wehnert and Vermeer (2004), it is concluded that comparable results are obtained for
a refined finite element mesh without contact elements and those obtained for a coarse finite
mesh but with special contact elements at the soil-pile interface.
After validation of the numerical model with the previous analysis, in Wang and Sitar
(2004) is carried out a parametric study for a similar problem, but now considering the effect
of interface behavior. In Wang and Sitar (2004), the same geometry, finite element mesh and
procedure for obtaining initial stresses were used. New material properties are listed in Table
2. In this work, a three dimensional finite element mesh composed of 9360 hexahedral
elements are used to model the concrete pile and soil mass, while 237 quadrilateral contact
elements are used to model the soil-pile interface as shown in Fig. 6. The maximum number
of linear equations to be solved is 30337. The constitutive model used in Wang and Sitar
(2004) is the Drucker-Prager soil model, but with different approximations to the Mohr-
Coulomb hexagon at the deviatoric plane. In this work, a Drucker-Prager version is used in
which its transversal section at the deviatoric plane passes through all vertices of the Mohr-
Coulomb hexagon.
a) Finite element mesh b) Pile c) Interface
Figure 6. Finite element mesh for soil, pile and soil-pile interface
In this way, some differences are expected between presents results and those obtained in
Wang and Sitar (2004) due to the use of different finite element meshes (three-dimensional
and axisymmetric, respectively), different initial stresses (horizontal initial stresses in an
axisymmetric mesh are radial while these are cartersian in a three-dimensional mesh), type of
contact element and due to the shape of the Drucker-Prager model in the deviatoric plane.
CILAMCE 2014
Table 2. Material properties
Material Properties Units

3
Soil Specific weight s = 14 kN/m
Elasticity modulus Es = 1x105 kPa
Poisson's coefficient s = 0.3
Cohesive value c = 0.0 kPa
Friction angle = 36 o
Dilatancy angle = 36 or 0 o
3
Concrete Specific weight c = 23 kN/m
Elasticity modulus Ec = 20x106 kPa
Poisson's coefficient c = 0.1
Interface Normal stiffeness kn = 615384.615 kPa/m
Shear stiffness ks = 447103.094 kPa/m
Friction coefficient = 0.73
In Fig. 7, the deformed finite element mesh as well as the detail of the slipping process
that take place at pile-soil interface are shown. The contact elements are located along the
length of the concrete pile with a friction coefficient equal to = tan , where is the friction
angle of the soil. In Fig. 8, 9 and 10 are shown the development of the shear stresses in the
vertical direction and its corresponding plastic deformations for loads of 125 kN, 250 kN and
375 kN, respectively. The presence of plastic deformations at the head of the pile (see Fig. 8)
for an axial loading of 125 kN, implies that in this zone, the yield stress of the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion has been reached and hence some slip occurs. As the load is increased, shear stresses
progresses up the tip of the pile. Finally, for load of 375 kN, almost the whole interface is
plastic with exception of base located at the tip of the pile.
a) Deformed mesh (m) at the end of the analysis b) Deformed mesh at XZ plane
CILAMCE 2014
c) Detail of slipping at pile head d) Detail of contact at the tip of the pile
Figure 7. Deformed mesh (magnification factor: 10)
a) Shear stresses (kPa) b) Plastic strains (m)

Figure 8. Shear stresses and plastic strains for 125 kN of axial load

CILAMCE 2014

In Fig. 11, the progress of the settlement at the pile head as loading increases is shown for
two cases: a) with contact elements and b) without contact elements and for two types of
soils, one with a dilatation angle of 36o and another with dilatation angle of 0o. Also in this
figure, are compared the numerical results obtained in this work with those obtained in Wang
and Sitar (2004). From the results is concluded that the difference between these two soils is
diminish when contact elements are used. That is, Drucker-Prager plasticity in soil elements
adjacent to the pile is replaced by a Mohr-Coulomb failure type when contact elements are
used at the interface (Wang and Sitar, 2004). Otherwise, the computational cost and numerical
instability grows considerably when contact elements are used. In all curves, the three-
dimensional response is more rigid with a greater bearing ultimate capacity in relation to the
axisymmetric analysis of Wang and Sitar (2004).
Present analysis 1200

= 36 Wang e Sitar (2004)
1200
for all
cases
1000 1000
Axial load (kN)
Carga axial (KN)
800 800
600 600
400 =36 (without interface) 400

=36 (with interface) =36 (without interface)
200 =0 (without interface) 200 =36 (with interface)
=0 (with interface) =0 (without interface)
=0 (with interface)
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Settlement (m) Settlement (m)
Figure 11. Axial force versus settlement
This last fact has been also investigated by El-Mossallamy (2013), where several
numerical analyses were carried out using PLAXIS program in the modeling of soil pile
systems embedded in clayed elasto-plastic soils. In that work, axial load versus settlement
curves were compare for three-dimensional and axisymetrical cases. For instance, in Fig. 12,
is reproduced some of the results of that reference. For a detailed explanation of the problem,
geometry and properties, the reader is referred to that work. As it can be seen from Fig. 12,
CILAMCE 2014
again the ultimate bearing capacity predicted by the three-dimensional model is greater with a
more rigid pattern at higher loading stages.
Figure 12. Axial force versus settlement (El-Mossallamy, 2013)
CONCLUSION
In this work, a three-dimensional numerical model for analyzing pile-soil interaction
problems in elasto-plastic soil under axial loading is presented. In this formulation, the soil
and the pile are model with 8-node hexahedral elements while the soil-pile interfaces are
modeled with special contact element of zero thickness. The pile is considered to be elastic,
the soil is elasto-plastic and follows a constitutive law of Drucker-Prager or Von Mises type
and a Mohr-Columb criterion is used for simulating slipping at the interface. Firstly, the
numerical model is validated with some experimental results. Good agreement is obtained
between these results in terms vertical displacements at the head of the pile. Then a brief
study is carried out to investigate the effect that the interface elements have in the system
response when a soil with an associated and non-associated flow rule are used. The
differences in response between these two soil diminish considerably when contact element
are used. Otherwise, three-dimensional numerical modeling always predicts stiffer responses
and greater ultimate bearing capacity when compare with an equivalent finite element
analysis, but considering and axisymmetrical finite element mesh.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by CAPES and CNPq
for the development of this work.
CILAMCE 2014
REFERENCES
Chen, W.F., & Mizuno, E., 1990. Nonlinear analysis in soil mechanics: theory and
implementation. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
EL-Mossallamy, A., 2013. Single pile and pile group in overconsolidated clay. Plaxis 3D
Foundation, validation manual, pp. 1-14.
Goodman, R.E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T.L., 1968. A model for the mechanics of Jointed
Rock. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations, vol. 94, n. 3, pp. 637659.
Lee, S.H., & Lin, T. L., 1991. Self-adaptive gap/friction element in MSC/NASTRAN. MSC
World Users Conference, pp. 130.
Sarkar, R., 2009. Three Dimensional Seismic Behaviour of Soil-Pile Interaction with
Liquefaction. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee /Roorkee.
Smith, I.M., & Griffiths, D.V., 2014. Programming the Finite Element Method. John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd.
Snyman, M.F., & Martin J.B., 1991. A simple formulation of a dilant joint element governed
by coulomb friction. Engineering Computations, vol. 8, n. 3, pp. 215229.
Wang, G., & Sitar, N., 2004. Numerical analysis of piles in elasto-plastic soils under axial
loading. Proceedings of the 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, pp. 1-8.
Wehnert, M., & Vermeer, P.A., 2004. Numerical analysis of load tests on bored piles. 9th
NUMOG, Otawa, Canada.
CILAMCE 2014

1 Cilamce2014-0156 - 15605

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1 Cilamce2014-0156 - 15605

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF AXIALLY LOADED PILE IN

Jorge Luis Palomino Tamayo

Keywords: pile-soil interaction, elasto-plastic soil, finite element.

2 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL AND FINITE ELEMENT ELEMENT

2.1 Constitutive model

Figure 1. Local system at integration point for interface element

where kb is a stiffness constant chosen arbitrarily to avoid convergence problems.

c) When the point under consideration is closed and slipping:

With stresses corrected according to theory of plasticity as:

The local stiffness matrix is defined in the following way:

2.2 Interface element via finite elements

2.2.1 Geometry of the element

Figure 2. Surfaces of the 8-node interface element

where um = [u xm u my u zm ] with m = 1,2,3..8 is the global displacement vector of node m and N m

Table 1. Material properties

Material Properties Units

a) Axisymetrical mesh b) Deformed mesh (m)

a) Finite element mesh b) Pile c) Interface

Table 2. Material properties

Material Properties Units

Figure 7. Deformed mesh (magnification factor: 10)

a) Shear stresses (kPa) b) Plastic strains (m)

a) Shear stresses (kPa) b) Plastic strains (m)

a) Shear stresses (kPa) b) Plastic strains (m)

Present analysis 1200

Carga axial (KN)

400 =36 (without interface) 400

Figure 11. Axial force versus settlement

Figure 12. Axial force versus settlement (El-Mossallamy, 2013)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai