LOADING OF NONDISPLACEMENT
PILES IN SAND
Rodrigo Salgado
qc qb , qs
Limited data of good quality (lack of
load tests on instrumented piles in
well-characterized soil profiles loaded
to sufficiently large settlements
[1] Salgado 2006, [2] Salgado et al. 2010, [3] Salgado & Prezzi 2007
Purdue Method Ultimate Unit base resistance qb,ult
DR = 26%
DR = 47%
DR = 39%
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 400 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Undrained Triaxial Compression
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR = 39%
DR = 47%
DR = 26%
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 400 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Drained Triaxial Compression
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR=81%, p'0=400kPa
DR=42%, p'0=400kPa
DR=81%, p'0=200kPa
DR=40%, p'0=100kPa
DR=42%, p'0=400kPa
DR=40%,
DR=81%, p'0=100kPa
p'0=400kPa
DR=81%, p'0=200kPa
DR = 54%
DR = 46%
DR = 31%
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 400 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Undrained Triaxial Extension
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR = 54%
DR = 46%
DR = 31%
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 400 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Undrained Simple Shear
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR = 35%
DR = 29%
DR = 24%
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 300 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Undrained Simple Shear
r1 r1 r1
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
Critical-state surface
Critical-state surface Critical-state surface
Normalized plane
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 300 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Undrained Simple Shear
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
'1
Dry-deposited Toyoura sand with p'0 = 300 kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Yoshimine, 1995-1999)
Lines: simulation results
Direct Simple Shear
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR = 73%
DR = 61%
DR = 49%
Air-pluviated Toyoura sand with '11=98.1kPa, '22='33=44.15kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Pradhan et al., 1988)
Lines: simulation results
Direct Simple Shear
LS model (2009) WS model (2015) This study
DR = 73%
DR = 61%
DR = 49%
Air-pluviated Toyoura sand with '11=98.1kPa, '22='33=44.15kPa and various relative densities DR
Gray lines with white dots: experimental results (Pradhan et al., 1988)
Lines: simulation results
Direct Simple Shear
t 1 3
=
s 1 + 3
Air-pluviated Leighton Buzzard sand (type B) with various 'n and relative densities DR
Dots: experimental results (Roscoe, 1970; Stroud, 1971)
Lines: simulation results
Simple Model?
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
Load (kN)
3,000
single-elastic
vs. 2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0.00% 10.00%
Settlement at pile top (%)
DR = 80%
Purdue Sand Model 1G Linear Elastic Model
Simple Model?
400
350
300
Load (kN)
250
MC-total
vs. 200 MC-shaft
150 MC-base
100
50
0
0.00% 5.00% 10.00%
Settlement at pile top (%)
DR = 80%
Purdue Sand Model 1G Mohr-Coulomb Model
Challenges in Computational Simulations
Interface Response (Contact Formulation)
Mesh Distortion
Constitutive Model Integration
Crushing
Complexities in Pile Installation/Loading
Drainage
Fully drained loading in clean sand
Fully undrained loading in pure clay
Pile size versus particle size
Continuum (solid) mechanics applicable if B / D50 large enough (required ratio
different for base and shaft response)
Very large shear strains and rotations near the pile-soil interfaces (mesh
distortion, model integration)
Very large induced mean stresses around the pile base (crushing)
Complex interface response (different relative roughness leads to different
interaction with the soil)
FE Simulation Steps
Meshing
Geostatic step
K0= 0.4 for dense sand, and 0.45 for loose sand
Same unit weight is applied to pile and sand
Loading step
Vertical velocity is applied at the pile head
The velocity is smoothly increased from 0 to 2 mm/s in the
first second
Mesh Configuration for the Three-Dimensional FE Analysis
10 m
Rate (inertial) Effect
The constitutive model is rate-
700
independent
600
Rate (inertia) effects is examined by
using three different loading speeds 500
Load (kN)
2mm/s 300 1cm/s
2mm/s
Oscillations are observed in the load- 200
settlement response when 6cm/s is B = 0.3 m, L = 10 m
100 Ottawa sand, DR =
used; 1cm/s and 2mm/s produce 80%
0
almost the same load-settlement 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
curves, without oscillations Settlement at pile top(%)
Shaft Resistance
35
Surface Roughness
Definition of the maximum roughness Rt and the normalized roughness Rn
Peak
Valley
Rt
Rn =
D50
Low Rn Rough
Rn 1
Shear Band Formation for Different Pile Surface Roughnesses
=/50
0 1
Shear Band Development (Rough Interface)
Contact Modeling
Traditional contact formulation, with Coulomb
friction along the interface, does not capture the
complexities of the response of any of the three
types of interface response
In this presentation, our focus is exclusively on
Pile Sand
Unit Shaft Resistance
The profiles of the unit shaft Unit shaft resistance (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
resistance along depth at several 0
relative settlement levels 1
2
Ottawa sand
3
L = 10 m 4
Depth (m)
B = 0.3 m 5
DR = 80% 6
7
8
9
10
w=0.005B w=0.01B
w=0.017B w=0.03B
w=0.1B
Stress in Shear Band Element vs. Pile Head
Settlement
120.00
100.00
Stress on shaft (kPa)
80.00
60.00 Shear
stress
p'
40.00
B = 0.3 m
20.00 L = 10 m
Ottawa sand
DR = 80%
0.00
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0= 100
Settlement at pile top (%B) kPa
K0 = 0.4
Unit Shaft Resistance
K
0 1 2 3
0
1
2
Profiles of K values along depth at several rela 3
tive settlement levels (L = 10 m, B = 0.3 m, DR 4
Depth (m)
= 80%) 5
6
7
8
9
10
[1] Fioravante, V. (2002). On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand. Soils and foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 42(2), 2333.
[2] Colombi, A. (2005). Physical modeling of an isolated pile in coarse grained soils. University of Ferrara.
[3] Tehrani, F. S., Han, F., Salgado, R., Prezzi, M., Tovar, R. D., and Castro, A. G. (2016). Effect of surface roughness on the shaft resistance of non-displacement piles
embedded in sand. Gotechnique, 2, 115.
Base Resistance
50
Mesh at the pile base
The trial meshes used near the pile base: (a) square pattern elements with the size of 4 cm and (b)
square pattern elements with the size of 3 mm
Pile Pile
4 cm 3 mm
(a) (b)
Mesh density at the pile base
The effect of the mesh density
near the pile base on the
normalized base resistance qb/qc
at different levels of relative
settlement s/B
FE simulation
pile pile
1.6 DIC 2
1.4 verAcal
1.2 1.5
1 verAcal
0.8 1
0.6 horizontal
0.4 0.5
0.2 FE
0 0 DIC
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Pile head displacement (mm) Pile head displacement (mm)
Delayed Base Resistance Development
0
0 1 2 3 4
Preinstallation process in chamber Pile head displacement (mm)
generates base-soil contact that
requires some base movement for
the resistance to kick in (B = 31.75 mm)
Soil response near pile base: shear strain and void ratio
Ottawa sand
DR = 50%
=10 m
(e0 = 0.63) B = 0.3 m
s = 0.1B
Soil response near pile base: mean stress and shear stress
Pile base
Pile base
Ottawa sand
DR = 50%
=10 m
B = 0.3 m
s = 0.1B
Soil response near pile base: plastic strain and plastic dissipation
Ottawa sand
DR = 50%
=10 m
B = 0.3 m
s = 0.1B
qb vs. Settlement
4000 DR 4000 DR
3500 80% 3500 80%
Unit base resistance (kPa)
crushing?
(a) (b)
*qc is determined by Salgado, R., and Prezzi, M. (2007). Computation of Cavity Expansion Pressure and Penetration Resistance
in Sands. International Journal of Geomechanics, 7(4), 251265.
Crushing below the pile base
Unit Base Resistance versus Settlement from
Axisymmetric FE Analyses and Centrifuge Tests
Centrifuge test data from [1]; a = 80g 18
16
Toyoura sand: D50 = 0.22 mm, DR = 90%
Pile diameter B = 10 mm 8
Centrifuge
6 test (Rn=0.45)
Pile length L = 245 mm Centrifuge
4 test (Rn=0.06)
pile surface relative roughness Rn = 0.45 (by FE simulation
2
mechanical turning)
0
A shear band thickness ts = 5D50 = 1.1 mm 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Pile head settlement
was assumed to be the mesh size
E* = equivalent elastic modulus after correction for the model piles cross-sectional area
[1] Fioravante, V. (2002). On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand. Soils and foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 42(2), 2333.
Resistance in Layered Soil Profile
-2B
-B
-0.5B 0B B 2B
Muchas gracias!
VUMAT
Update stress and user-defined state variables from
strain increment/deformation gradient at each Gauss
point
Integration algorithm:
Semi-implicit backward-Euler (cutting-plane) algorithm
adapted with sub-incrementation and error control [1,2]
Stress error tolerance = 10-5
Yield function error tolerance = 10-9
[1] Abbo, a J. (1997). Finite element algorithms for elastoplasticity and consolidation. University of Newcastle.
[2] Loukidis, D., and Salgado, R. (2008). Analysis of the shaft resistance of non-displacement piles in sand. Gotechnique, 58(4), 283296.
Shear Band
Undeformed
element
Pile
Deformed element
Horizontal
expansion
(Dilation)
Crushing of sand particles
Crushing happens when sand is subjected to high mean
stress level p'
For Toyoura sand
Threshold mean stress for crushing: pc' = 5.85 MPa[1]
Maximum mean stress below the pile base p' = 6.7 MPa >
5.85 MPa
Crushing is not considered in the constitutive model
[1] Yao, Y.-P., Yamamoto, H., and Wang, N.-D. (2008). Constitutive Model Considering Sand Crushing. Soils and Foundations, 48(4), 603608.