INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS, vot. 15, 497-511 (1991) AXIALLY LOADED VERTICAL PILES AND PILE GROUPS IN LAYERED SOIL J.T. CHIN AND HG. POULOS* School of Civil and Mining Engineering, Untversity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia SUMMARY ‘A numerical method is described for the analysis of axially loaded vertical piles and pile groups embedded in layered soil. The ‘hybrid’ approach is utilized whereby the single-pile response is represented by Joad-transfer (t-z) curves while the pile-soil-pile interaction is obtained accurately using the analytical solutions of Chan et al. for a two-layered system and in an approximate manner for a Gibson soil. For the single-pile response a simple rational procedure is suggested lor the determination of the averaged r, value (cadial distance at which the shear stress becomes negligible). Solutions are presented and compared with the elastic continuum solutions for such soil profiles. Finally, comparisons with actual field measurements of vertical piles and pile groups embedded in such a soil profile show favourable agreement, INTRODUCTION ‘The conventional load-transfer (t-2) method of anaiysis, first proposed by Coyle and Reese," is, one of the commonly used methods for the analysis of single piles (sce ¢.g., Reference 2). The soil response along the pile is thus represented by a number of load-transfer curves which define the shear stress-vertical displacement response of the soil at each particular depth, The contintlity of the soil domain is ignored, which is the essence of the load-transfer method of analysis. ‘A modified load-transfer analysis was proposed recently by Ooi et al.? where the influence of the normal pile-soil stress due to a dilatant or contractive interface behaviour was taken into account. The method is, however, numerically time-consuming and requires a number of empirical parameters to describe the yielding interface behaviour. In the approach of Chow* for single piles in homogeneous soil the nodal soil stiffness is obtained following the theoretical work of Randolph and Wroth? and the suggestions of Kraft et al. For non-homogencous soil the use of an arbitrary adjusted value for the inhomogeneity factor’ p that gives comparable results to the single-pile elastic continuum solutions has been suggested.” The adjusted new solution for the load-transfer curve can then be utilized in the ‘layer model’ approach for pile group analysis as described by Chow.” For pile group analysis, where the soil continuity between the group piles has to be considered, the conventional load-transfer method therefore cannot be used. To account for the soil continuity between the group piles, a ‘hybrid’ type of approach has been suggested. This approach, originally proposed by Ha® and O'Neill et al,° models single piles using the load-transfer method, while the pile-soi in’s!° solutions for a homogeneous, isotropic elastic half-space. An iterative procedure is required whereby the single-pile load-transfer curves are continuously ‘softened’ as a result of group effects. For non-homogeneous soils an approximate procedure utilizing Mindlin’s solutions!* may be used to © ‘Also Director of Advanced Technology, Coffey Partners International Pty. Ltd., Australia, 0363-9061/91/070497-15807.50 Received 16 May 1990 © 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 30 November 1990498, J.T. CHIN AND H.G. POULOS obtain the pile-soil-pile interaction, Chow*” also presented a ‘hybrid’ analysis in which the pile-soil-pile interaction is considered directly. Nogami and Chen'? described a Winkler soil ‘model for the approximate analysis of pile groups where the pile-soil-pile interaction is confined to independent, uncoupled horizontal soil layers. In this paper a refinement of the procedure presented by Chow? for the single-pile response is presented for the particular cases of a two-layered system and a ‘Gibson’ (with soil modulus increasing linearly with depth) soil profile. The pile-soil-pile interaction is considered directly using the analytical solutions for a two-layered soil and an approximation for the Gibson soil. The present solutions are then compared with the elastic continuum solutions. Finally, a com- parison with field measurements is presented. METHOD OF ANALYSIS ‘The problem of a pile group embedded in a two-layered soil profile is shown schematically in Figure 1. The pile cap is assumed in the present analysis not to be in contact with the ground. The upper soil layer is of thickness h, Young’s modulus E, and Poisson’s ratio v,, overlying an infinite, stiffer lower layer with Young's modulus Ez and Poisson's ratio v2. ‘The pile group problem can be decomposed into two systems, namely (a) the group piles acted upon by external applied loads {Q} and the pile-soil interaction forces {P,} acting on the piles (b) an ‘extended’ layered soil continuum acted upon by the pile-soil interaction forces {P,} at the imaginary pile-soil interface. ‘The group piles are divided into a number of elastic discrete bar elements with an axial mode of deformation. The stiffness matrices of the pile elements (sce e.g, Reference 13) are assembled to give the following load—deformation relationship for the group piles: [K,] {wp} = {Q} + {Po} 0) where [K,] is the assembled stiffness matrix (size n x n) of all elements of the group piles, {wp} is the vector (size n) of deformations of the pile nodes, {Q} is the vector (size n) of external applied toads, {P,} is the vector (size n) of pile-soil interaction forces acting on the pile and n is the total number of nodes. ‘The approach described thus far is similar to that presented elsewhere.'*** The difference between the present method and the continuum methods'*'® is the manner in which the soil flexibility coefficients are evaluated. The present “hybrid” approach models the single-pile re- sponse using load-transfer curves, while the pile-soil-pile interaction is obtained using the same fundamental point load solutions for a layered soil (as utilized by Chin'* and Chow et al.'5). ‘The soil displacement at node i, w,;, due to the pile-soil interaction forces {P,} is given by was DL SiPa @ im where fi is the flexibility coefficient denoting the displacement at node i due to unit interaction force at node j and P,, is the pile-soil interaction force at node j. For the full continuum methods the f;;for all the nodes are evaluated accordingly using elastic solutions (see e.g. References 14 and 16), In the present ‘hybrid’ approach the f,, associated with the same pile for i x j are set to zero, indicating no interaction between nodes of the same pile, which is the basis of the load~transfer analysis, The f; for nodes of a given pile are evaluated using load-transfer curves. The interactions ‘fy between piles are obtained accurately using the analytical solutions of Chan et al.!” for ‘a two-layered soil and in an approximate manner for a Gibson soilPILES IN LAYERED SOIL, 499 upper soil layer = bearing stratur Forces on soil Force on piles Figure 1. Composition of axially loaded pile group The hyperbolic shear stress-shear strain model has been found to adequately represent the non-linear behaviour of most soils (see e.g. References 18 and 19). Following the theoretical work ‘of Randolph and Wroth® and utilizing the hyperbolic soil model as suggested by Kraft et al,° the coefficient fy for the pile shaft, using the tangent modulus approach, can be shown to be given by* a8) Blew —re) n(2=5) hn 2nG,L where B = tofoRr/t1, G; is the initial shear modulus, L is the pile segment length associated with the node, ro is the pile radius, r,, is some empirical distance at which the shear stress in the soil becomes negligible, R,, is the hyperbolic curve-fitting constant for the shaft, to is the pile-soil interface shear stress and 1, is the ultimate shear stress. The flexibility coefficient at the base, f**, is assumed to be given by that of a rigid punch on an elastic half-space. The resultant hyperbolic. tangent flexibility is given by* Su= @ 1 “ FGiro(l = PyRw/ PL where P, is the mobilized base load, F, is the ultimate base load, Rr, is the hyperbolic curve-fitting constant for the base and v is Poisson’s ratio at the pile base, Although the non-linear formulation has been presented, the present paper will be restricting attention to the linear elastic condition. The averaged value for r,, in equation (3) for a homogeneous soil is given by Tm = 25Ip(1—¥) © where p is the inhomogeneity factor. For a homogeneous soil p = 1-0, while for a non-homogen- ous soil p is the ratio of the soil modulus at pile mid-depth to that at the pile base. Approximate expressions for rq for a Gibson soil and for a Gibson soil overlying a stiffer base have also been suggested.?° For other general soil profiles the required r,,-value may have to be determined from a more accurate finite element analysis. ‘As mentioned earlier, Chow* suggested that a suitable r,;value be obtained by arbitrarily varying the factor p so as to obtain comparable results with the full continuum solutions (see e.g. Reference 16). This approach is limited in that a different p-value may have to be used for different @500 J.T, CHIN AND H.G. POULOS pile and soil parameters. In the present approach a more rational procedure is suggested for the particular cases of two-layered and Gibson soil profiles. The rarvaluc is given by: for hk = 0 (ie. homogeneous case), Ym = 2-SIp(1 — v2) © for h = I (ie. end-bearing case) and from Randolph and Wroth,2? Tm = 1{0-25 + [2Sp(1 — v1) — 0-25] 6} a where & = E/E, and his defined in Figure 1. The factor p is 1-0 (for this particular case), which is ‘a measure of the homogeneity of the soil along the pile shaft. The influence of the underlying stiffer layer is accounted for by the factor ¢. For 0 < h < I(.e. socketed case) the present approach assumes a linear decrease of the rj-value from that for h = 0 to that for h = I. Hence the required TarValuc for 0 < h 31 the influence of the stiffer underlying layer is negligible*° and the r,value is taken as that for the homogeneous case, i.e, Pm = 2SIp(1 ~ v1) 0°) For | G) Present solutions. Figure 6 Comparison of solutions for pile groups: (8) interaction factors; (b) load distributions 005 sf fa) E/Et0 , n/de20 VoD, vye025 , «7603 — ov Present method 5 2 B Pile load / ave, pie toad 0 fy © 05 109 "000 For two identical piles in a Gibson soil an approximate procedure is utilized for the pile-soil-pile interaction where the modulus E, is taken as the average of the influenced and influencing nodes. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the interaction factors obtained using the present analysis and the solutions of Banerjee*® and Poulos." As shown, the present solutions are in better agreement with those of Banerjee.°°506 J.T.CHIN AND H.G. POULOS rete = Sarna Nova 7 Pree mee eo = 3 z = 3 § 2a eve vc0o , 5/4230, e/de5 — thin === Present method Number of pies. N ©) Figure 7. Comparison of solutions for pile groups: (a) stiffness reduction factors; (b) normalized group stiffness 10 08 06 04 02 0 10 08 06 04 02 Tl a —Poulos™ Banerjee * Present method a \ 3 neEso/Esy « Kye, /Est vse Figure &, Interaction factors for pile groups in Gibson soil (a) Id = 20, Ky = 10000; (8} Id = 20, Ky = 1005) id Ky = 10000; (did = 40, Ky = 100 It may be noted that comparisons showing the accuracy of the full continuum solutions obtained using the analytical solutions of Chan et al.,"7 for both single piles and pile groups in layered soils, are presented by Chin et alPILES IN LAYERED SOIL 507 COMPARISON WITH FIELD MEASUREMENTS To assess the applicability of the present analysis, a comparison with the field measurements reported by Cole and Stroud*? is presented. Solutions obtained using the full elastic continuum method are also presented for comparison. Cole and Stroud? presented field measurements of rock-socketed bored pile foundations for two blocks of buildings. The plan in Figure 9 shows the layout of the pile foundations while Table HI tabulates the pile diameters and the corresponding dead loads acting on the piles. The ground consisted of about a 5m thickness of fill and silty sandy clay overlying a bearing stratum of siltstones and sandstones. SPT blow counts ranging between 10 and 50 in the upper layer and between 100 and 350 in the bearing stratum were recorded. ‘The embedded lengths of the piles were 6:2 and 5:3 m for blocks A and B respectively, with the pile toes founded at 88 m below ground level. From a back-analysis of a test pile"! the deduced value of E; is 110000 kNm~? with E, taken as 10000 KN m~? (within the range recommended by Poulos and Davis!® for medium-s clay). Poisson's ratios v, and v2 were taken as 0-4 and 03 respectively. For the present elastic analysis the bearing stratum extends from a depth of Sm and the soil parameters E, v, and Ep, v2 are taken as those mentioned earlier. Young’s modulus of the pile material (concrete) is Ep = 25 x 10°kNm™?. All 55 piles of both blocks A and B are analysed directly with the applied dead loads (Table I11) and the pile-soil-pile interaction is limited to 12 pile diameters." This limiting distance for pile-soil-pile interaction is based on tests conducted in F © Boreholes 181 to 5) © Piles (letters are pile references) > Settlement survey point Yj Scale of metres ee) Figure 9, Pile foundations layout plan (after Cole and Stroud?)508 J.T. CHIN AND H.G. POULOS Table III. Pile diameters and dead loads (after Cole and Stroud?) Pile Diameter d Dead load per pile (mm) (kN) a 120 5031 B 760 885 c 760 1470 D 760 1430 E 1060 3061 F 1220 4975 Z 760 1835 K 760 1079 L 560 m3 N 760 mM P 1060 1423 ‘Table IV. Comparison between theoretical and measured settlements of pile groups at Coventry Point Settlement (mm) ‘Computer solution Measured, 15 ———_—__ Measured, end of years after end Pile group o @ @& construction of construction 1 IH 169152 10-15 15-2 2 172 169157 3 B2 25 22 4 BO 218 200 5 2S 212 197 6 48145132 Block B 309-295-276 19-21 27-30 (1) Fall continuum solutions. {@) Present solutions (with solutions of Chan et al for pile-soil-pile interaction) £G) Present solutions (with averaging procedure of Poulos'? for pile-soi-pile interaction) London Clay by Cooke et al.3? which indicate that the interaction is practically zero at a pile spacing of 12 pile diameters. Although the present soil profile is different, this limiting value would perhaps represent a satisfactory practical limit for pile interaction." Table TV shows a comparison of the measured settlements with those obtained using the present analysis and the full continuum solutions. Also shown are the present solutions obtained using the analytical solutions of Chan et al.'7 in conjunction with the average E-value of the influenced and influencing nodes procedure of Poulos!’ for determining the pile-soil-pile interaction. The flexibility coefficient correspond to pile-soil-pile interaction is then obtained using the solutions of Chan et al.” by setting E, = E, = average E-value and Poisson's ratios v: and v2 are taken as 0-40. This is equivalent to utilizing Mindlin’s homogeneous solution with the average E-value, Stiffer solutions are obtained as compared to those where the pile-soil-pile inferactions are obtained accurately (without the averaging procedure of Poulos!) using the analytical solutions of Chan et al.” The computed solutions tend to generally overpredict the settlements measured at the end of construction. Possible reasons for these discrepancies arePILES IN LAYERED SOIL 509 discussed by Chow et al.'* The higher measured settlements 1'5 years after the end of construc- tion have been attributed to creep behaviour of the bearing stratum by Cole and Stroud.3? The present solutions are in good agreement with the full continuum solutions, It may be noted that for piles of equal radius and length the single-pile flexibility coefficients need be formed only ‘once and copied into the globai flexibility matrix corresponding to the identical piles. This reduces the computation time significantly in that the single-pile flexibility coefficients need not be formed each time for each of the other identical piles. The advantage of the present analysis is that the computation time is reduced in forming the single-pile flexibility coefficients, CONCLUSIONS A ‘hybrid’ approach has been described for the analysis of axially loaded vertical piles and pile groups where the single-pile response is represented by load-transfer curves while the pile-soil-pile interaction is obtained using the analytical elastic solutions for a layered soil. Comparisons with existing elastic continuum solutions show reasonably good agreement. The present analysis is also shown to be computationally more efficient than the full continuum analysis. Comparison between theoretical and reported field measurements show general agree- ‘ment, although the theory generally overpredicts the settlements. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first author acknowledges the scholarship provided by the Centre for Geotechnical Research of the University of Sydney. Computing facilities provided by the Cecil Hawkins Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney are also gratefully acknowledged. APPENDIX: NOTATION d pile diameter E, Young's modulus of upper soil layer Eq Young's modulus of lower soil bearing layer FE, Young's modulus of Gibson soil at pile base level E, _ Young's modulus of Gibson soil at the surface E, Young's modulus of pile e socket length of pile [F.1 soil fiexibility matrix fy Soil flexibility coefficient G, shear modulus of Gibson soil at pile base level h thickness of upper soil layer I, __ settlement influence factor [K,] assembled stiffness matrix of group piles UK] soil stiffness matrix [K;] total assembled stiffness matrix of piles and soil K —_ pile-soil stiffness factor (E,/Es) Ky Ep/Eq Ke stiffness of pile group K, stiffness of isolated single pile 1 pile length (h + ¢) N number of piles in group510 2.7. CHIN AND H.G. POULOS n total number of nodes P applied load at pile head P, pile base load Pe applied load on pile group Pg soil reaction load at node j {P,} vector of pile-soil interaction forces acting on pile {P,} vector of pile-soil interaction forces acting on soil {Q} external applied load vector r, radial distance at which shear stress becomes negligible centre-to-centre pile spacing 9} vector of pile deformation {w,} vector of soil deformation 1 J.T. Chin, settlement at pile head settlement of soil at node i distance between pile base and top of lower bearing layer Poisson's ratio of upper soil layer Poisson's ratio of lower soil bearing layer inhomogeneity factor factor to account for stiffer underlying layer Exo! REFERENCES . HM. Coyle and L. C. Reese, ‘Load transfer for axially loaded piles in clay, J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Dic, ASCE, 92, 1-26 (1966), American Petroleum Institute, ‘Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore plateforms’, API RP2A4, 17th edn, 1987, LH. Ooi, C. F. Boey and J, P. Carter, “Modified load transfer analysis of axially loaded piles’, Proc. PILETALK Conf, Kuala Lumpur, 1989. Y.K: Chow, ‘Analysis of vertically loaded pile groups’, Int.j. numer. anal. methods geomech, 10, 59-72 (1986). M. F. Randolph and C. P. Wroth, ‘Analysis ofthe deformation of vertically loaded piles’ J. Geotech. Eng. Dic. ASCE, 104, (GT12), 1465-1488 (1978). L.M. Kraft, R. P. Ray and T. Kagawa, ‘Theoretical t-z curves’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div, ASCE, 107, (GTI), 1543-1561 (98h). Y.K. Chow, ‘Discrete element analysis of settlement of pile groups’, Comput, Struct. 24, 157-166 (1986). H. B. Ha, ‘Analysis of generally loaded nonlinear three-dimensional pile groups considering group effects, Ph.D. Dissertaion, University of Houston, 1976. . M. W. O'Neill, O. I. Ghazzaly and H. B. Ha, ‘Analysis of three-dimensional pile groups with nonlinear soil response and pile-soil-pile interaction’, Proc. 9th. Offshore Technology Conf, Vol. 2, 1977, pp. 245-256. R. D. Mindlin, ‘Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid’, Physics,7, 195-202 (1936) H.G. Poulos, ‘Settlement of single piles in non-homogeneous soil, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 105, (GTS), 627-641 4979), ‘T, Nogami and H. L. Chen, ‘Simplified approach for axial pie group response analysis, J. Geotech. Eng. Div, ASCE, 110, (GTS), 1239-1255 (1984). 1M. Smith, Programming the Finite Element Method, with Application to Geomechanics, Wiley, Chichester, 1982. inalysis of piles and pile groups embedded in a layered half-space’, Master of Engineering Thesis, National University of Singapore, 1988. Y.K. Chow, J. T. Chin, ¥. C. Kog and $. L. Lee, ‘Settlement analysis of socketed pile groups’, J. Geotech, Eng. Div, ASCE, 116, (GT8), 1171-1184 (1950) H. G. Poulos and E. H. Davis, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley, New York, 1980, K.S. Chan, P, Karasudhi and 8. L. Lee, ‘Force at a point in the interior of layered elastic half-space’ Int. J Solids ‘Struct, 10, 1179-1199 (1974), R.L Kondner, ‘Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils’, J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Din, ASCE, 89, (SM1), 115-143 (1963). 2. R.L. Kondner and J. S, Zelasko, “A hyperbolic stress-strain formulation for sands’, Proc. 2nd. Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Vol. 1, 1963, pp. 289-324,PILES IN LAYERED SOTL SAL 20. M. F. Randolph and C. P. Wrath, ‘A simple approach to pile design and the evaluation of pile tests’, ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 670, 1979, pp. 484-499, 21. H. G. Poulos, ‘Pile behaviour—theory and application’, Géotechnique, 39, 365-415 (1989). 22. El. Robinsky and C.F. Morrison, ‘Sand displaccment and compaction around model fiction piles’, Can. Geotech, J 1, 81-93 (1968) 23. HG. Poulos, ‘Cyclic axial pile response—alternative analyses’, ASCE Spec. Conf. on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, Austin, 1983, pp. 403-421, 24. H.G. Poulos, ‘Cyclic axial loading analysis of ples in sand’, J. Geotech, Eng. Div. ASCE, 115, (GTS), 836-852 (1989). 25. 26. 1. 5. C. ¥. Les, ‘The behaviour of grouted piles in offshore foundations’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney, 1988. Y. K. Chow, ‘Analysis of axially loaded piles in layered soil, J. Inst. Eng, Malaysia, No. 35, 56-63 (1984). . P. K. Banexice and T. G. Davies, ‘Analysis of pile groups embedded in Gibson soil, Proc. 9th, Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Vol. 1, Tokyo, 1977, pp. 381-386. 28. R. Butterfield and R. A. Douglas, ‘Flexibility coefficients for the design of piles and pile groups’, CIRIA Tech. Note 108, 1981. 29. B.El-Sharnouby and M. Novak, ‘Static and low frequency response of pile groups’, Can. Geotech, J.,22, 79-94 (1985). 30. P. K. Banerjeo, "Analysis of axially and laterally loaded pile groups’, in C. R. Seott (ed), Developments in Soil ‘Mechanics, Applied Science, 1978. 31. J.T. Chin, ¥. K. Chow and H. G. Poulos, ‘Numerical analysis of axially loaded vertical piles and pile groups’, Comput. Geotech, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 273-290 (1990). 32. K. W. Cole and M. A. Stroud, Rock socket piles al Coventry Point, Market Way, Coventry’, Symp. on Piles in Weak Rock, ICE, London, 1977, pp. 47-62. 33. R. W. Cooke, G. Price and K. Tart, “Jacked piles in London Clay: interaction and group behaviour under working conditions’, Géotechnique, 30, 97-136 (1980).