SOIL PILE STRUCTURE

INTERACTION
Under Guidance of
Dr S S Quadri

By Anup Shirhatti
Contents
 Forces Acting on pile
 Axially loaded piles
 Laterally loaded piles
 Understanding Soil pile behaviour
 S il pile
Soil il structure iinteraction
i
 Case Study
Introduction
 Analysis and design of piles under the different types
of loading usually start with the understanding of the
soil-pile interaction process

 Forces acting on piles

 Axially loaded piles

 Laterally loaded piles

 Load – displacement behavior

Axially
y loaded p
piles [1]

 Piles are usually designed for full

capacityi which
hi h iis the
h maximumi lload
d the
h
pile can support without failure. The
maximum allowable stress on a pile
section should not exceed the allowable
limits. A pile under axial compression may
reach one of the following four limit
states.
 1 Structural
1. S l failure
f il off the
h pile
il b body
d suchh
as crushing or yielding.
 2. Stability failure due to buckling.
 3 Bearing
3. B capacity failure
f l off the
h soill
under the pile
 4. Excessive pile settlement
Laterally
y loaded p
piles [1]

 Lateral loads on piles usually come from different

sources like
 wind pressure,
 horizontal live loads
 earth and water pressure induced lateral soil movements
such as construction, excavation, tunneling activities and
blasts etc to the near by site of the piles, and earthquake
effects.
 Piles under lateral loads must be designed to withstand
these loads or any combinations of loads without
failing. Piles in groups are normally subjected to a
combination of both axial and lateral loads.
Forces Acting
g on pile
p [1]

 Piles may be subjected to different kinds of forces

during handling and while they are in service. Piles
must be designed to handle loads without
damage.
 (a) Crushing under the permanent design load,
 (b) Crushing caused by impact force during
driving,
 (c) Bending stresses due to horizontal forces,
f
 (d) Bending stresses due to curvature in the pile.
 Load – displacement
p behavior [1]

 The Winkler approach,

pp also called the sub grade
g reaction
theory, is the oldest method for predicting pile deflections
and bending moments. The pile is modeled as a beam while
the surrounding soil is modeled using continuously distributed
springs
i and dddashpots
h t (if dynamic
d i loads
l d are underd
consideration) as shown in the Fig.3 below .
Understanding
g Soil Pile Behavior
 Analytical methods for predicting lateral
deflections, rotations and stresses in single piles can
be done by y following
g approaches
pp :
 Elastic continuum approach
 Winkler approach
 Finite element method.
 Boundary Element Approach
Elastic continuum approach[1]

 The pile is assumed to be a vertical strip of length L,

width D (or diameter, D, for a circular pile), and
flexural stiffness EpIp. It is divided into n+1 elements
and each element is acted upon p byy a uniform
horizontal stress p. The horizontal displacements of the
pile are equal to the horizontal displacements of the
soil. The soil displacements
p are expressed
p as:

The finite difference form of the beam bending equation is used to determine
the pile displacements.
displacements The form of the equation varies depending on the
pile-head boundary conditions
Winkler approach
pp [4]

 The Winkler approach,

also called the sub grade
reaction theory, is the
oldest method for
predicting pile deflections
and bending moments.
The ppile is modeled as a
beam while the
surrounding soil is
modeled using g
continuously distributed
springs and dashpots
Soil p
pile interaction [6]

 The graphs depict the behavior of pile

Soil p
pile structure interaction
 Practice to consider footings
g fixed
 Reality, supporting soil medium can deform.
 May decrease the overall stiffness of the structural system
 May increase the natural periods of the system.
system
 The extent of fixity offered by the soil at the bases of the
structures
 d
depends
d on the
th load
l d transferred
t f d from
f the
th structure
t t to
t the
th soil
il
 p g [4]
Calculation of Springs
Subgrade modulus method

 Stiffness Value Calculation

 Es = 5(N+15) in kg/cm2
 B = width of Pile
 B = Soil Modulus
 Ep
p = Modulous of pile
p material (for
(
concrete = 5000*√fck,
√ where fck=
compressive strength of concrete)
 Ip = moment of inertia of member
 Ks = 00.65
65 (ES * B^4
B 4 / Ep / Ip) ^
1/12 X Es / (1-µ^2) in kg/cm2
 [10]
Novak’s Method

 piles are reduced to equivalent

cantilevers. Such analyses,
y , take account
of vertical and torsional loading as well
as lateral loads. However, some
uncertainty may arise in some of these
analyses
y regarding
g g the structural
approximation of the group.
 An approximate estimate of the behavior
of a group under dynamic lateral
loading may be obtained by analyzing a
single pile under such loading and then
allowing for group effects on the basis of
a static
Novak’s Method
[10]
Finite element analysis
y [5]

 An of the system
y of building
g frame and pile
p
foundation was presented. By this methodology, a
building frame was analyzed separately with the
assumption
i off fixed
fi d column
l bases.
b Later,
L equivalent
i l
stiffness was derived for the foundation head and
used in the interaction analysis of the frame to
include the SSI effect. Here presented an interaction
analysis for the building frame resting on the pile
group using a coupled approach, i.e., by
considering the system of building frame - pile
foundation - soil as a single combined unit
Modeling
g of substructure
 The pile cap is modeled using the 4-node
elements as shown The lateral displacements
elements,
u and v in the X and Y directions are
included to account for the membrane
effect, while to consider the bending effect,
g
three degrees of freedom are included at
each node, namely, the transverse Membrane action
displacement w, and rotations about the X
and Y axes, θx and θy respectively.
Together with two in plane displacements, u
and vv, there is a total of 5 degrees of
freedom at each node. The numbers of
degrees of freedom for the beam element Bending Action
and plate element at each de are the same
q
Consequently,y, the requirement
q of inter-
element compatibility between adjacent
plate and beam elements is duly taken into
account.
Modeling
g of substructure
Case Study
y [3]
Case Study
y
A three dimensional single storied building frame resting on
three-dimensional
pile foundation as shown in Fig. is considered for the study.
The frame, 3 m high, is 10 m × 10 m in plan with each bay
of Dimensions 5 m × 5 m. m The slab
slab, 200 mm thick
thick, is
provided at the top as well as at the floor level. The slab at
the top is supported by beams, 300 mm wide and 400 mm
d
deep, which
hi h iin turn rest on columns
l off size
i 300 mm × 300
mm. While dead load is considered according to unit weight
of the materials of which the structural components of the
frame are made up for the parametric study presented
here, a lateral load of 1000 kN is assumed to act at the
three ppoints of the frame, as shown in the figure
g
Pile Properties
p
Soil Properties
p
 • Young’s
g modulus of elasticityy (Es):
( ) 4267 kN/m2/
 • Poisson’s ratio (μ): 0.45
 The proposed numerical procedure adopted in the analysis for
analyzing the foundation requires the value of modulus of sub
grade reaction. In absence of reliable data for this modulus, it
is required to be judiciously selected, IS: 2911
2911-1979
1979 has
suggested the range of 3200-6500 kN/m3 for the values of
Kh. Moreover, Tomlinson (1977) suggested the relationship
b t
between Kh and d Es
E tot be
b Kh = 1.66
1 66 Es.
E Hence,
H based
b d on these
th
considerations, the value of Kh is assumed to be 6667 kN/m3.

Pile Configurations
g

Pile Configurations  The configurations

Th fi ti off
pile foundation
considered in the
present study include
groups
g oups of
o two
wo piles
p es
 and three piles with
series arrangement
g
(G2PS and G3PS) and
parallel arrangement
(G2PP and
End conditions

 The effect of various

end conditions, such as
free tip, pinned tip
and fixed tip
Results of the case Study
y
The Finite Element Model

The Super structure is a familiar Frame

Calculated spring
p g constants
Es =
5(N+15) Ksi
K Level depth (m) N in N/mm2 N/mm2 KikN/m Ki kN/m Kv
3158.849
k1 -1.8 1.8 29 21.582 19.499 2704.095 2704.095 302
3144 132
3144.132
k2 -2.1 2.1 23 18.639 16.636 4146.892 4146.892 652
4315.596
k3 -2.4 2.4 30 22.0725 19.980 4923.317 4923.317 193
4738.273
k4 -2.7 2.7 29 21.582 19.499 4886.781 4886.781 952
5264.748
k5 -3 3 29 21.582 19.499 4934.484 4934.484 836
5081.788
k6 -3.3 3.3 24 19.1295 17.110 4337.317 4337.317 668
5543 769
5543.769
k7 -3.6 3.6 24 19.1295 17.110 4193.834 4193.834 456
7181.826
K8 -3.9 3.9 31 22.563 20.461 5543.021 5543.021 806
Input design data

Material Data Load Data

 1. Material properties:  . Live Load

 Floor =4 kN m^2
 Young’’ modulus
Y d l off elasticity
l ti it E  Roof =3.0 KN/ m^2
= 2500 KN/m^2  . Member properties
 Column size = 0.3x0.6
 Density of Reinforced  Beam size = 0.23x0.45
concrete = 25 kn/m
kn/m^33  EARTHUAKE LOAD : As A per IS1893(part1)
IS1893( 1)
 . Dead load  Type of soil : Type 2, medium as per IS1893
 Typical storey height :3.2
 Floor finishes =1.0 kN m^2  Earthquake live load : As per 7.31-25% of live
 R f Fi
Roof Finishes
i h =1.0
1 0 KN/ m^2 ^2 l d (floor)
load (fl )
 Seismic zone : 3
 Slab = 3.0 kN/m^2  Type of use : public
 Calculation of Seismic load (Equivalent
static
t ti lload)
d)
storey  Seismic weight of floor Wi Height of floor hi (m) Wih^2  QI (kN)

7 2512.41 22.4 1,260,624.96  0.33 372.7

6 2512.41 19.4 945,569.22  0.25 655.05

5 2512.41 16.4 675,736.79  0.18 858.34

4 2544.81 13.4 456,945.41  0.12 993.87

3 2544.81 10.2 264,761.64  0.07 1072.93

2 2544.81 7 124,695.51 
124,695.51 0.03 1106.81

1 2642.01 3.8 38,150.57  0.01 1118.1

SUM 17813.64 3,766,484.09 

Vertical distribution of lateral load, f1 =Vb x

 Results of Displacements
p

Bending moment in beams along X

Bending moment in beams along X 
SSI direction(kNm)

Maximum Displacements
Maximum Displacements

SSI X Y Z

With 126.825 57.95 119.225

without  115.81 12.704 95.5304

%
%Variation 9.5
9 5 44.336
336 24.806
806
The effect of SSI on the top displacement of the frame is quite significant. The displacement
is less for fixed base condition and increases by 24.806 to 44.336% when the SSI effect is
incorporated. As against 26 to 47% of ingle and chore[3] There the loads were high but
for only one storey but here loads are for equivalent static load(seismic) for 7 storey
 Results of beam

Bending moment in beams along X 
direction(kNm)
SSI T
Top middle
iddl B tt
Bottom
With 15.2 46.3 111
without  46.3 63.2 116
%Variation  ‐67 ‐27 ‐11

The effect of SSI is significant on bending moment also. The SSI is found to increase the
maximum negative bending moment by 54.7% when compared with the67% of ingle
and chore absolute maximum bending moments calculated on the premise of fixed
column
conclusion
 The effect of SSI on the top displacement of the frame is quite significant.
Th displacement
The di l t is
i lless ffor fixed
fi d base
b condition
diti and d increases
i by
b 24.806
24 806
to 44.336% when the SSI effect is incorporated.
 2. The effect of SSI is significant on bending moment also. The SSI is found
to increase the maximum negative g bending
g moment byy 54.7% when
compared with the absolute maximum bending moments calculated on the
premise of fixed column bases.
 3. The hogging moment in columns in the leading row decreases while that
in all other columns Increases
Increases. The positive moment in the central column in
the intermediate row increases and in all other columns decreases.
 4. The effect of SSI is observed to be minimal for columns placed in the row
on the left hand side, while for columns on the right hand side, it reaches the
maximum.
i
 5. The parameters like configuration of pile group, number of piles and
diameter of pile, and end conditions for the pile tip have significant effects
on the variation of bending g moment in superstructure
p columns
References

1. Puthapatt Chakradhar Babu (2006),“Response analysis of piles under lateral loads”, Mtech
thesis Delhi college of engineering
2. J.E.Bbowles (1997),“Foundation analysis and design” McGraw-hill international fifth edition.
3. H.s. Chore, R.k. Ingle and V.A. Savant (2010) “building frame - pile foundation - soil
interaction analysis: a parametric study” interaction and Multiscale mechanics, vol. 3, no. 1
(2010) 55
55-79
79
4. “Trevor David Smith,” pile horizontal soil modulus value Asce journal of geotechnical
engineering, vol.113, no. 9, September, 1987.
5. Liu,Lee,Yong (2004)“a new finite element model for soil pile interaction” Asce
6
6. Mohamed Ashour and g. g Norris modeling “lateral
lateral soil-pile
soil pile response based on soil-pile
soil pile
interaction “journal of geotechnical and geo environmental engineering / may 2000
7. Poulos and Davies(1980),”pile foundation analysis and design”
8. Resse, William (2007)”Single piles and pile groups under lateral loading” Newyork
9. ATC-40
10. Milos Novak “Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles” 1974 Canadian geotech journal