Aiktcthesis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/339999760
PILE SOIL INTERACTION BY FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN ABAQUS

Supervisor(s): Anjuman-I-Islam's Kalsekar Technical Campus
Thesis · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35897.31848
CITATIONS READS
0 414
4 authors, including:
Mohd Atique Barudgar

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Daily and Seasonal variation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) over a tropical coastal metropolitan station Mumbai. View project
Graduate Final Year thesis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Atique Barudgar on 18 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PILE SOIL INTERACTION BY FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD IN ABAQUS
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

of the degree of Bachelor of civil engineering
by
Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz 13CES07

Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah. 13CES08
Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique 13CES11
Mr. Khan Abid Noor 13CES20
Supervisor(s):
Prof. Dada.S.Patil
Department of Civil engineering

School of Engineering and Technology
Anjuman-I-Islam’s Kalsekar Technical Campus

Plot No. 2 & 3, Sector-16, Near Thana Naka, Khandagaon
New Panvel, New Mumbai 410206,
2016-2017
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz (13CES07), Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed
Shafeeque Ah. (13CEs08), Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique (13CEs11) and Mr. Khan Abid
Noor (13CEs20) are the students of Semester-VIII of B.E. Civil has satisfactorily completed
and delivered a special topic, seminar report on “Soil-Pile Interaction by Finite Element
Method in Abaqus” in partial fulfilment for the completion of the B.E. in Civil Engineering
course conducted by the University of Mumbai in Anjuman-I-Islam’s Kalsekar Technical
Campus, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai, during the academic year 2016-2017
Prof. Dada.S.Patil
(Guide)
Dr. R. B. Magar Dr. Abdul Razak Hunnutagi

(HOD) (Director)
ii
PROJECT REPORT APPROVAL FOR B. E
This B. E. Project Part-A entitled “Pile Soil Interaction by FEM in Abaqus” Mr.
Ansari Azhar Niyaz (13CES07), Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah.
(13CES8), Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique (13CES11), Mr. Khan Abid Noor
(13CES20) by Dada.S.Patil is approved for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering
in Civil Engineering.
Examiners
1. …………………………
2. …………………………
Supervisors:
1. …….…………………….
2. …………………………
Chairman
………………………………
Date: 5-May-2017
Place: Panvel
iii
DECLARATION
We Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz (13CES07), Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah.
(13CES8), Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique (13CES11), Mr. Khan Abid Noor
(13CES20) Civil engineering student of Anjuman Islam Kalsekar Technical Campus,
hereby declare that I have completed the project titled Soil-Pile Interaction by Finite Element
Method in Abaqus during the academic year 2016-2017. I declare that this written submission
represents my ideas in my own words and where others' ideas or words have been included, I
have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to
all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or
falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. I understand that any violation of the
above will be cause for disciplinary action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from
the sources which have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not
been taken when needed.
Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz(13CES07)
Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah(13CES8)
Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique(13CES11)
Mr. Khan Abid Noor(13CES20)
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is to express our sincerest regards to our project Guide, Prof. Dada.S.Patil for their valuable
inputs, valuable, guidance, encouragement, whole-hearted cooperation throughout the duration
of our project.
We deeply express our sincere thanks to our Head of Department Dr. R. B. Magar and our
Director Dr. Abdul Razak Hunnutagi for encouraging and allowing us to present the project
on the topic “Pile Soil Interaction by Finite Element Method in Abaqus” in partial
fulfilment of the requirements leading to the award of Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree.
We take this opportunity to thank all our Professors and non-teaching staff who have directly
or indirectly helped our project, especially Prof. Shaikh Wasim. We pay our respects and love
to our parents and all other family members and friends for their love and encouragement
throughout our career.
Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz
Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah.
Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique
Mr. Khan Abid Noor
(Semester- VII &VIII, B.E. Civil)
AIKTC- New Panvel
Navi Mumbai.
v
ABSTRACT
Soil is a complex, heterogeneous material, having a strongly nonlinear response under action
of external load. Due to this the constitutive laws associated to various soil types (cohesive,
non-cohesive, saturated or unsaturated etc.) are continuously developed and improved. Analysis
of soil had been and still a very challenging task for geotechnical engineers throughout the
world. This is due to the non-linear behavior of soil and inability of constitutive relations in
predicting exact behavior of soil. To overcome these difficulties in analysis, there is various
material models has been developed with more complex constitutive relationship. Material
models such as Mohr-Coulomb model uses very complex constitutive relationship. Solution of
this complex partial differential equation is tedious and time consuming process, hence Finite
Element Method is used to solve these equations.
Present study focuses on the settlement analysis of pile foundation in a cohesive soil by using
Mohr- Coulomb model. In addition to settlement analysis, this study also incorporates soil-
structure interaction between pile and soil. The results obtain after the analysis shall be
compared with analysis without soil-structure interaction and conclude the suitability of using
Soil-Structure interaction in pile settlement analysis.
KEY WORDS: Constitutive relationship, Mohr-Coulomb Model, Finite Element Method,

Soil-Structure Interaction
vi
CONTENTS
1
Project Report Approval for B. E iii
Declaration iv
Acknowledgement v
Abstract vi
Contents vii
List of figures ix
List of tables x
Abbreviation Notation and Nomenclature xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Abaqus 2
1.2 Finite element method (F.E.M) 2
1.2.1 Historical Background 3
1.2.2 Basic Steps 5
1.2.3 Advantages of the finite element method over other numerical methods 6
1.2.4 Constitutive model: theory and implementation 7
1.3 Objective of project 18
1.4 Scope of project 19
Chapter 2 Literature Review 20
Chapter 3 Methodology 30
3.1 Finite element modelling 31
3.1.1 Mesh and boundary conditions 31
3.1.2 Constitutive modelling 32
Chapter 4 Validation to Software 33
4.1 General 33
4.2 Module 34
4.2.1 The part module 34
4.2.2 The Property module 34
4.2.3 The Assembly module 35
4.2.4 The Step module: 35
4.2.5 The Load module: 35
4.2.6 The Mesh module: 36
4.2.7 The Job module: 39
4.2.8 The Sketch module: 39
4.3 Contours 40
4.4 X–Y data 40
4.5 Result 41
Chapter 5 Analysis and results 43
5.1 Analysis on pile 43
vii
5.1.1 Effect of different size of mesh of pile 43
5.1.2 Effect of the diameter of the pile 46
Chapter 6 Conclusion 48
References 50
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:1 Transverse Isotropy coordinate axes convention .................................................... 10

Figure 1:2 Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria ................................................................................ 14
Figure 1:3 Domain used in the definition of the flow rule ....................................................... 15
Figure 3:1 (i)Typical finite element mesh (ii)Pile soil interface modelling (a) no slip (b) slip
(c) Coulomb’s frictional law............................................................................................. 32
Figure 4:1 Part module ............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4:2 Property Module ..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4:3 Boundary condition ................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4:4 Mesh ........................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 4:5 Slave mesh .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 4:6 Master mesh ............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 4:7 Deformed shape ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4:8 Displacement v/s Load ............................................................................................ 41
Figure 4:9 Stress blub ............................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4:10 Terzaghi’s shear failure zones............................................................................... 42
Figure 3:2 Load vs Settlement curve of the pile (for different mesh size) ............................... 45
Figure 3:3 Settlement of pile model ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 3:4 Settlement of the Pile (cross section) ...................................................................... 46
Figure 3:5 Load vs Settlement curve (Increase in Diameter) ................................................... 47
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3:1 Properties of Materials 30

Table 3:2 Loading analysis with different mesh size 44
x
ABBREVIATION NOTATION AND NOMENCLATURE
FEM - Finite Element Method
FEA - Finite Element Analysis
FDM - Finite Difference Method
xi
Chapter 1 Introduction
When piles are subjected to various type of loadings like static, dynamic, or inclined, lateral
loads it undergoes settlement which imparts or tends soil to undergo change in its properties
like change in dilation angle or changes in stress in dominated part which in recent years
analyzed by usual methodologies and by constitutive partial differential equations.
Relative movements between bodies in contact are described either by a local high velocity
gradient or by a kinematic discontinuity. In both cases, the development of a nonlinear behavior
within contact, inducing a very slow rate of convergence of the global solution except for
models of thin layers. Two major kinds of constitutive equations are used for modelling the
soil-structure interface behavior, often associated with the Finite Element method. The first
one considers the soil-structure interface as a thin continuum (Desai, 1981; Ghaboussi et al.,
1973), thus the thickness of the interface elements should then be specified. In the second
approach, the interface zone is replaced by a two-dimensional continuum (Boulonand
Jarzebowski,1991; Genset al.,1989) subjected to kinematic discontinuities and exhibiting
tangential as well as normal displacement jumps. Most interface models were employed
in Elastic–plastic form by Boulon, Gens, Desaian Ghaboussi his paper aims at investigating
pile–soil interaction through changing pile–soil interface coefficient and studying this
phenomenon for the settlement of pile, shear stress and forces in the pile. The numerical
1
modelling is going to be carried out by means of the Finite Element method as it allows for
modelling complicated nonlinear soil behavior and various interface conditions, with different
geometries and soil properties.
1. Excess pore pressure: Ability to deal with excess pore-pressure phenomena. Excess pore
pressures are computed during plastic calculations in undrained soil.
2. Soil-pile interaction: Interfaces can be used to simulate intensely shearing zone in contact
with the pile, with values of friction angle and adhesion different to the friction angle and
cohesion of the soil.
3. Better insight into soil-structure interaction.
4. Soil model: It can reproduce advanced constitutive soil models for simulation of non-linear
behavior.
1.1 Abaqus
Abaqus/CAE is a complete Abaqus environment that provides a simple, consistent interface for
creating, submitting, monitoring, and evaluating results from Abaqus/Standard and
Abaqus/Explicit simulations. Abaqus/CAE is divided into modules, where each module defines
a logical aspect of the modelling process; for example, defining the geometry, defining material
properties, and generating a mesh. As you move from module to module, you build the model
from which Abaqus/CAE generates an input file that you submit to the Abaqus/Standard or
Abaqus/Explicit analysis product. The analysis product performs the analysis, sends
information to Abaqus/CAE to allow you to monitor the progress of the job, and generates an
output database. Finally, you use the Visualization module of Abaqus/CAE (also licensed
separately as Abaqus/Viewer) to read the output database and view the results of your analysis.
1.2 Finite element method (F.E.M)
A finite element method (abbreviated as FEM) is a numerical technique to obtain

an approximate solution to a class of problems governed by elliptic partial differential
equations. Such problems are called as boundary value problems as they consist of a partial
differential equation and the boundary conditions. The finite element method converts the
2
elliptic partial differential equation into a set of algebraic equations which are easy to solve.
The initial value problems which consist of a parabolic or hyperbolic differential equation and
the initial conditions (besides the boundary conditions) cannot be completely solved by the
finite element method. The parabolic or hyperbolic differential equations contain the time as
one of the independent variables. To convert the time or temporal derivatives into algebraic
expressions, another numerical technique like the finite difference method (FDM) is required.
Thus, to solve an initial value problem, one needs both the finite element method as well as the
finite difference method where the spatial derivatives are converted into algebraic expressions
by FEM and the temporal derivatives are converted into algebraic equations by FDM.
1.2.1 Historical Background
The words "finite element method" were first used by Clough in his paper in the Proceedings
of 2nd ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineering) conference on Electronic Computation
in 1960. Clough extended the matrix method of structural analysis, used essentially for frame-
like structures, to two-dimensional continuum domains by dividing the domain into triangular
elements and obtaining the stiffness matrices of these elements from the strain energy
expressions by assuming a linear variation for the displacements over the element. Clough
called this method as the finite element method because the domain was divided into elements
of finite size. (An element of infinitesimal size is used when a physical statement of some
balance law needs to be converted into a mathematical equation, usually a differential equation).
Argyris, around the same time, developed similar technique in Germany. But, the idea of
dividing the domain into a number of finite elements for the purpose of structural analysis is
older. It was first used by Courant in 1943 while solving the problem of the torsion of non-
circular shafts. Courant used the integral form of the balance law, namely the expression for the
total potential energy instead of the differential form (i.e., the equilibrium equation). He divided
the shaft cross-section into triangular elements and assumed a linear variation for the primary
variable (i.e., the stress function) over the domain. The unknown constants in the linear
variation were obtained by minimizing the total potential energy expression. The Courant's
3
technique is called as applied mathematician's version of FEM where as that of Clough and
Argyris is called as engineer's version of FEM.
From 1960 to 1975, the FEM was developed in the following directions:
(1) FEM was extended from a static, small deformation, elastic problems to
 dynamic (i.e., vibration and transient) problems,

 small deformation fracture, contact and elastic -plastic problems,
 non-structural problems like fluid flow and heat transfer problems.
(2) In structural problems, the integral form of the balance law namely the total potential energy
expression is used to develop the finite element equations. For solving non-structural problems
like the fluid flow and heat transfer problems, the integral form of the balance law was
developed using the weighted residual method.
(3) FEM packages like NASTRAN, ANSYS, and ABAQUS etc. were developed.
The large deformation (i.e., geometrically non-linear) structural problems, where the domain
changes significantly, were solved by FEM only around 1976 using the updated Lagrangian
formulation. This technique was soon extended to other problems containing geometric non-
linearity:
 dynamic problems,
 fracture problems,
 contact problems,
 elastic-plastic (i.e., materially non-linear) problems.
Some new FEM packages for analyzing large deformation problems like LS-DYNA, DEFORM
etc. were developed around this time. Further, the module for analyzing large deformation
problems was incorporated in existing FEM packages like NASTRAN, ANSYS, ABAQUS etc.
4
1.2.2 Basic Steps
The finite element method involves the following steps.

First step, the governing differential equation of the problem is converted into an integral form.
These are two techniques to achieve this:(i) Variational Technique and (ii) Weighted Residual
Technique. In variational technique, the calculus of variation is used to obtain the integral form
corresponding to the given differential equation. This integral needs to be minimized to obtain
the solution of the problem. For structural mechanic’s problems, the integral form turns out to
be the expression for the total potential energy of the structure. In weighted residual technique,
the integral form is constructed as a weighted integral of the governing differential equation
where the weight functions are known and arbitrary except that they satisfy certain boundary
conditions. To reduce the continuity requirement of the solution, this integral form is often
modified using the divergence theorem. This integral form is set to zero to obtain the solution
of the problem. For structural mechanics’ problems, if the weight function is considered as the
virtual displacement, then the integral form becomes the expression of the virtual work of the
structure.
In the second step, the domain of the problem is divided into a number of parts, called as
elements. For one-dimensional (1-D) problems, the elements are nothing but line segments
having only length and no shape. For problems of higher dimensions, the elements have both
the shape and size. For two-dimensional (2D) or axis-symmetric problems, the elements used
are triangles, rectangles and quadrilateral having straight or curved boundaries. Curved sided
elements are good choice when the domain boundary is curved. For three-dimensional (3-D)
problems, the shapes used are tetrahedron and parallelepiped having straight or curved surfaces.
Division of the domain into elements is called a mesh.
In third step, over a typical element, a suitable approximation is chosen for the primary variable
of the problem using interpolation functions (also called as shape functions) and the unknown
values of the primary variable at some pre-selected points of the element, called as the nodes.
Usually polynomials are chosen as the shape functions. For 1-D elements, there are at least 2
nodes placed at the end-points. Additional nodes are placed in the interior of the element. For
2-D and 3-D elements, the nodes are placed at the vertices (minimum 3 nodes for triangles,
minimum 4 nodes for rectangles, quadrilaterals and tetrahedral and minimum 8 nodes for
parallelepiped shaped elements). Additional nodes are placed either on the boundaries or in the
interior. The values of the primary variable at the nodes are called as the degrees of freedom.
5
To get the exact solution, the expression for the primary variable must contain a complete set
of polynomials (i.e., infinite terms) or if it contains only the finite number of terms, then the
number of elements must be infinite. In either case, it results into an infinite set of algebraic
equations. To make the problem tractable, only a finite number of elements and an expression
with only finite number of terms are used. Then, we get only an approximate solution.
(Therefore, the expression for the primary variable chosen to obtain an approximate solution is
called an approximation). The accuracy of the approximate solution, however, can be improved
either by increasing the number of terms in the approximation or the number of elements.
In the fourth step, the approximation for the primary variable is substituted into the integral
form. If the integral form is of variational type, it is minimized to get the algebraic equations
for the unknown nodal values of the primary variable. If the integral form is of the weighted
residual type, it is set to zero to obtain the algebraic equations. In each case, the algebraic
equations are obtained element wise first (called as the element equations) and then they are
assembled over all the elements to obtain the algebraic equations for the whole domain (called
as the global equations).
In this step, the algebraic equations are modified to take care of the boundary conditions on the
primary variable. The modified algebraic equations are solved to find the nodal values of the
primary variable.
In the last step, the post-processing of the solution is done. That is, first the secondary variables
of the problem are calculated from the solution. Then, the nodal values of the primary and
secondary variables are used to construct their graphical variation over the domain either in the
form of graphs (for 1-D problems) or 2-D/3-D contours as the case may be.
1.2.3 Advantages of the finite element method over other numerical

methods
 The method can be used for any irregular-shaped domain and all types of boundary
conditions.
 Domains consisting of more than one material can be easily analyzed.
6
 Accuracy of the solution can be improved either by proper refinement of the mesh or by
choosing approximation of higher degree polynomials.
 The algebraic equations can be easily generated and solved on a computer. In fact, a
general purpose code can be developed for the analysis of a large class of problems.
FEM is best method for analysis of complex geometry structure for better and high accuracy
analysis by method of discretization and meshing. FEM is applicable to 1D, 2D as well as 3D
model analysis. Modelling of complex geometries and shape is easy. Boundary conditions can
be easily incorporated in FEM. It is easy to control the accuracy by refining the mesh or using
higher order elements. FEM is commonly introduced as a special case of Galerkin method. The
process, in mathematical language, is to construct an integral of the inner product of the residual
and the weight functions and set the integral to zero. In simple terms, it is a procedure that
minimizes the error of approximation by fitting trial functions into the PDE. The residual is the
error caused by the trial functions, and the weight functions are polynomial approximation
functions that project the residual. The process eliminates all the spatial derivatives from the
PDE, thus approximating the PDE locally with
A set of algebraic equations for steady state problems,
A set of ordinary differential equations for transient problems.
FEA is a good choice for analyzing problems over complicated domains (like piles, raft
footings), when the domain changes (as during a solid state reaction with static boundary), when
the desired precision varies over the entire domain, or when the solution lacks smoothness. For
instance, in a pile settlement simulation it is possible to increase prediction accuracy in
"important" areas like the top portion of pile as it is subjected to loadings and reduce it in its
middle portion (thus reducing cost of the simulation) and thereby again increasing prediction
accuracy at bottom of pile.
1.2.4 Constitutive model: theory and implementation
There are eleven basic constitutive models provided in FLAC Version 5.0, arranged into null,
elastic and plastic model groups:
7
Null model group

null model
A null material model is used to represent material that is removed.
The stresses within a null zone are set to zero; no body forces (e.g., gravity) act on these zones.
The null material may be changed to a different material model at a later stage of the simulation.
In this way, backfilling an excavation, for example, can be simulated.
Elastic model group
The models in this group are characterized by reversible deformations upon unloading; the
stress strain laws are linear and path-independent.
Elastic, Isotropic model
The elastic, isotropic model provides the simplest representation of material behavior. This
model is valid for homogeneous, isotropic, continuous materials that exhibit linear stress-strain
behavior with no hysteresis on unloading.
In this model, the relation of stress to strain in incremental form is expressed by Hooke’s law
in plane strain as:
∆σ11 = α1 ∆e11 +α2 ∆e22
∆σ22 = α2 ∆e11 +α1 ∆e22
∆σ12 = 2G ∆e12 (∆σ21 = ∆σ12)
∆σ33 = α2 (∆e11 +∆e22)
where α1 = K +(4/3) G;
α2 = K −(2/3) G;
K = bulk modulus; and
G = shear modulus.
∆eij = (1/2*(∂ui/∂xj + ∂uj/∂xi) ∆t
∆eij = the incremental strain tensor;
ui = the displacement rate;
∆t = time step;
In plane stress, these equations become;
∆σ11 = β1 ∆e11 +β2 ∆e22
∆σ22 = β2 ∆e11 +β1 ∆e22
∆σ12 = 2G ∆e12 (∆σ21 = ∆σ12)
∆σ33 = 0
where β1 = α1 −(α22/α1); and
8
β2 = α2 −(α2 2/α1).
For axisymmetric geometry:
∆σ11 = α1 ∆e11 +α2 (∆e22 +∆e33)
∆σ22 = α1 ∆e22 +α2 (∆e11 +∆e33)
∆σ12 = 2G ∆e12 (∆σ21 = ∆σ12)
∆σ33 = α1 ∆e33 +α2 (∆e11 +∆e22)
Elastic, Transversely isotropic model

The elastic, transversely isotropic model gives the ability to simulate layered elastic media in
which there are distinctly different elastic moduli in directions normal and parallel to the layers.
The elastic moduli are defined as follows:
E1 (or Ex) - modulus of elasticity in plane of isotropy
E2 (or Ey) - modulus of elasticity in plane perpendicular to plane of isotropy
G12 (or Gxy) - cross-shear modulus between plane of isotropy and perpendicular plane (i.e., xy-
or yz-plane)
G13 (or Gxz) - shear modulus in plane of isotropy
ν21 (or νyx) - Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x-direction in plane of isotropy related
to the normal strain in the y-direction in the perpendicular plane due to uniaxial stress in the y-
direction
ν31 (or νzx) - Poisson’s ratio for the normal strain in the x-direction in the plane of isotropy
related to the normal strain in the z-direction due to uniaxial stress in the z-direction
A transversely isotropic elastic material is characterized by five independent constants (or
moduli).
For a transversely isotropic body whose plane of isotropy lies within the xz-plane, the following
relations apply:
E3 = E1 (or Ez = Ex)
ν31 = ν13 (or νzx = νxz)
ν23 = ν21 (or νyz = νyx)
G23 = G12 (or Gyz = Gxy)
G13 = E1/2(1 + v31) (or Gxz = Ex/2(1 + vzx)
V12 = v21 E1/E2 (or vxy = vyx Ex/Ey)
9
Figure 1:1 Transverse Isotropy coordinate axes convention

(xz-direction is plane of isotropy)
There are limitations on the variations in elastic properties (Amadei 1982). The
following restrictions apply:
Ex > 0
Ey > 0
Gxy > 0
νxy2 ≤ 1
νxz2 ≤ 1
(1−νxz) − (2Ex νyx2) /Ey ≥ 0
For a general orthotropic elastic body, the stress-strain equations are given by Lekhnitskii
(1981, p. 34):
∆e11 = S11 ∆σ11 +S12 ∆σ22 +S13 ∆σ33 + S16 ∆σ12
∆e22 = S12 ∆σ11 +S22 ∆σ22 +S23 ∆σ33 + S26 ∆σ12
∆e33 = S13 ∆σ11 +S23 ∆σ22 +S33 ∆σ33 + S36 ∆σ12 …. (1)
∆e23 =1/2[(S44 ∆σ23) + (S45 ∆σ13)]
∆e13 =1/2[(S45 ∆σ23) + (S55 ∆σ13)]
∆e12 =1/2[(S16 ∆σ11) + (S26 ∆σ22) + (S36 ∆σ33) + (S66 ∆σ12)]
A state of plane stress with respect to the xy-plane is obtained by setting

∆σ33 = ∆σ13 = ∆σ23 = 0
10
In equation (1) This gives:

∆e11 = S11 ∆σ11 +S12 ∆σ22 +S16 ∆σ12
∆e22 = S12 ∆σ11 +S22 ∆σ22 +S26 ∆σ12
∆e12 =1/2 (S16 ∆σ11 +S26 ∆σ22 +S66 ∆σ12)
Which can be written as:
The stress-strain relations can easily be found by inverting the matrix.

A state of plane strain in the xy-plane is obtained from Eq (1) by setting
∆e33 = ∆e13= ∆e23 = 0
This results in:
∆e11 = 11∆σ11 +S12∆σ22 +S13∆σ33 +S16∆σ12
∆e22 = S12∆σ11 +S22∆σ22 +S23∆σ33 +S26∆σ12
0 = S13∆σ11 +S23∆σ22 +S33∆σ33 +S36∆σ12
0 = S44∆σ23 +S45∆σ13
0 = S55∆σ13 +S45∆σ23
∆e12 =1/2(S16∆σ11 +S26∆σ22 +S36∆σ33 +S66∆σ12)
which can be written
The stress-strain relations can be obtained by inverting the matrix.
Plastic model group

All plastic models potentially involve some degree of permanent, path-dependent deformations
(failure); a consequence of the nonlinearity of the stress-strain relations. The different models
in FLAC are characterized by their yield function, hardening/softening functions and flow rule.
The yield functions for each model define the stress combination for which plastic flow takes
place. These functions or criteria are represented by one or more limiting surfaces in a
generalized stress space with points below or on the surface being characterized by an
incremental elastic or plastic behavior, respectively. The plastic flow formulation in FLAC rests
11
on basic assumptions from plasticity theory that the total strain increment may be decomposed
into elastic and plastic parts, with only the elastic part contributing to the stress increment by
means of an elastic law. In addition, both plastic and elastic strain increments are taken to be
coaxial with the current principal axes of the stresses (only valid if elastic strains are small
compared to plastic strains during plastic flow). The flow rule specifies the direction of the
plastic strain increment vector as that normal to the potential surface; it is called associated if
the potential and yield functions coincide, and non-associated otherwise. See Vermeer and
deBorst (1984) for a more detailed discussion on the theory of plasticity.
For the Drucker-Prager, Mohr-Coulomb, ubiquitous-joint, strain-softening and bilinear-
softening ubiquitous models, a shear yield function and a non-associated shear flow rule are
used. For the double-yield model, shear and volumetric yield functions, non-associated shear
flow and associated volumetric flow rules are included. In addition, the failure envelope for
each of these models is characterized by a tensile yield function with associated flow rule. The
modified Cam-clay model formulation rests on a combined shear and volumetric yield function
and associated flow rule. The Hoek-Brown model uses a nonlinear shear yield function and a
plasticity flow rule that varies as a function of the stress level.
In FLAC, the out-of-plane stress is taken into consideration in the formulation that is expressed
in three-dimensional terms. All models are based on plane-strain conditions, with the exception
of the strain-softening model, which is also available in a plane-stress option. Note also that all
plasticity models are formulated in terms of effective stresses, not total stresses.
Drucker-Prager model
The Drucker-Prager plasticity model may be useful to model soft clays with low friction angles;
however, this model is not generally recommended for application to geologic materials. It is
included here mainly to perform it comparison with other numerical program results.
The failure envelope for this model consists of a Drucker-Prager criterion with tension cutoff.
The shear flow rule is non-associated and the tensile flow rule is associated. For a detailed
description of the model see, for example, Chen and Han (1988).
12
Mohr-Coulomb model
The Mohr-Coulomb model is the conventional model used to represent shear failure in soils
and rocks. Vermeer and deBorst (1984), for example, report laboratory test results for sand and
concrete that match well with the Mohr Coulomb criterion.
The failure envelope for this model corresponds to a Mohr-Coulomb criterion (shear yield
function) with tension cutoff (tensile yield function). The shear flow rule is non-associated and
the tensile flow rule is associated.
In the FLAC implementation of this model, principal stresses σ1, σ2, σ3 are used, the out-of-
plane stress, σz, being recognized as one of these. The principal stresses and principal directions
are evaluated from the stress tensor components and ordered so that (recall that compressive
stresses are negative)
σ1 ≤ σ2 ≤ σ3 …. (1)
The corresponding principal strain increments ∆e1, ∆e2, ∆e3 are decomposed as follows
∆ei = ∆eie + ∆eiP i = 1,3 …. (2)
where the superscripts e and p refer to elastic and plastic parts, respectively, and the plastic
components are nonzero only during plastic flow. The incremental expression of Hooke’s law
in terms of principal stress and strain has the form
∆σ1 = α1∆e1e +α2(∆e1 +∆e3e)
∆σ2 = α1∆e2e +α2(∆e1 +∆e3e) (3)
∆σ3 = α1∆e3e +α2(∆e1e +∆e2e)
where α1 = K +4G/3 and α2 = K −2G/3.
Yield and Potential Functions

With the ordering convention of Eq. (1), the failure criterion may be represented in the plane
(σ1, σ3) as illustrated in Figure below.
13
Figure 1:2 Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria
The failure envelope is defined from point A to point B by the Mohr-Coulomb yield function
fs = σ1 − σ3Nφ +2c√Nφ
and from B to C by a tension yield function of the form
ft = σt –σ3
where φ is the friction angle, c, the cohesion, σt, the tensile strength and
Nφ = (1+sin φ) / (1−sin φ)
Note that only the major and minor principal stresses are active in the shear yield formulation;
the intermediate principal stress has no effect. For a material with friction, φ = 0 and the tensile
strength of the material cannot exceed the value σtmax given by
σtmax =c/tan φ
The shear potential function gs corresponds to a non-associated flow rule and has the form
gs = σ1 −σ3 Nψ
where ψ is the dilation angle and
Nψ = (1+sin ψ) / (1−sin ψ)
The associated flow rule for tensile failure is derived from the potential function gt, with
gt = − σ3
The flow rules for this model are given a unique definition in the vicinity of an edge of the
composite yield function in three-dimensional stress space by application of a technique,
illustrated below, for the case of a shear-tension edge. A function h (σ1, σ3) = 0 is defined which
is represented by the diagonal between the representation of f s = 0 and f t = 0 in the (σ1, σ3)
plane (see Figure 2.8). This function has the form
h = σ3 –σt +αp (σ1 –σp)
where αP and σP are constants defined as
14
αP =√1 + Nφ2 + Nφ
and
σP = σt Nφ −2c√Nφ
Figure 1:3 Domain used in the definition of the flow rule
ubiquitous-joint model
The ubiquitous-joint model is an anisotropic plasticity model that includes weak planes of
specific orientation embedded in a Mohr-Coulomb solid.
In this model, which accounts for the presence of an orientation of weakness (weak plane) in a
FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model, yield may occur in either the solid or along the weak plane, or
both, depending on the stress state, the orientation of the weak plane and the material properties
of the solid and weak plane.
In the FLAC implementation, use is made of a technique by which general failure is first
detected and relevant plastic corrections are applied as indicated in the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb
model description. The new stresses are then analyzed for failure on the weak plane and updated
accordingly. The criterion for failure on the plane consists in a local form of the Mohr-Coulomb
yield condition with tension cutoff, the local shear flow rule is non-associated, and the local
tension flow rule is associated. The FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model was addressed above;
developments related to plastic flow on the weak plane are outlined in this section.
strain-hardening/softening model
The strain-hardening/softening model allows representation of nonlinear material softening and
hardening behavior based on prescribed variations of the Mohr-Coulomb model properties
(cohesion, friction, dilation, tensile strength) as functions of the deviatoric plastic strain.
15
This model is based on the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb model with non-associated shear and
associated tension flow rules, as described earlier. The difference, however, lies in the
possibility that the cohesion, friction, dilation and tensile strength may harden or soften after
the onset of plastic yield. In the Mohr-Coulomb model, those properties are assumed to remain
constant. Here, the user can define the cohesion, friction and dilation as piecewise-linear
functions of a hardening parameter measuring the plastic shear strain. A piecewise-linear
softening law for the tensile strength can also be prescribed in terms of another hardening
parameter measuring the plastic tensile strain. The code measures the total plastic shear and
tensile strains by incrementing the hardening parameters at each time step and causes the model
properties to conform to the user-defined functions.
bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model

The strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model allows representation
ofmaterialsofteningandhardeningbehaviorforthematrixandtheweakplane based on prescribed
variations of the ubiquitous-joint model properties (cohesion, friction, dilation, tensile strength)
as functions of deviatoric and tensile plastic strain. The variation of material strength properties
with mean stress canal so be taken into account by using the bilinear option.
Thebilinearstrain-hardening/softeningubiquitous-
jointmodelisageneralizationoftheubiquitousjoint model described in above model. In the
bilinear model, the failure envelopes for the matrix and joint are the composite of two Mohr-
Coulomb criteria with a tension cutoff that can harden or soften according to specified laws. A
non-associated flow rule is used for shear-plastic flow and an associated flow rule for tensile-
plastic flow.
The softening behaviors for the matrix and the joint are specified in tables in terms of four
independent hardening parameters, two for the matrix and two for the joint, which measure the
amount of plastic shear and tensile strain, respectively. In this numerical model, general failure
is first detected for the step and relevant plastic corrections are applied. The new stresses are
then analyzed for failure on the weak plane and updated accordingly. The hardening parameters
are incremented if plastic flow has taken place and the parameters of cohesion, friction, dilation
and tensile strength are adjusted for the matrix and the joint using the tables.
16
double-yield model
The double-yield model is intended to represent materials in which there may be significant
irreversible compaction in addition to shear yielding, such as hydraulically-placed backfill or
lightly-cemented granular material.
modified Cam-clay model

The modified Cam-clay model may be used to represent materials when the influence of volume
change on bulk property and resistance to shear need to be taken into consideration, such as soft
clay.
The modified Cam-clay model is an incremental hardening/softening elastoplastic model. Its
features include a particular form of nonlinear elasticity and a hardening/softening behavior
governed by volumetric plastic strain (“density” driven). The failure envelopes are self-similar
in shape and correspond to ellipsoids of rotation about the mean stress axis in the principal
stress space. The shear flow rule is associated; no resistance to tensile mean stress is offered in
this model. See Roscoe and Burland (1968) and Wood (1990) for a detailed discussion on the
modified Cam-clay model. (For convenience, we drop the qualifier “modified” in the following
discussion. Recall that all models are expressed in terms of effective stresses. In particular, all
pressures referred to in this section are effective pressures.)
Hoek-Brown model
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion characterizes the stress conditions that lead to failure in intact
rock and rock masses. The failure surface is nonlinear and is based on the relation between the
major and minor principal stresses. The model incorporates a plasticity flow rule that varies as
a function of the confining stress level.
There are also six time-dependent (creep) material models available in the creep model option
for FLAC (see Section 2 in Optional Features), and two pore-pressure generation models
available in the dynamic analysis option (see Section 3 in Optional Features).
Input parameters to all of these built-in models can be controlled via FISH to modify the
behavior of the models. For example, a nonlinear, elastic model can be created by making the
elastic modulus a function of confining stress (see Section 3.7.8 in the User’s Guide).
Duplicates of several of the built-in elastic and plastic models are provided as FISH functions;
these are described in Section 3 in the FISH volume and contained in the “\FISH” directory.
Users may modify these files as they see fit, or use them as a basis for creating their own
17
constitutive models (see Section 2.8 in the FISH volume). See “HYP.FIS” in Section 3 in the
FISH volume for an example FISH constitutive function of a nonlinear elastic, hyperbolic
model.
The stresses within a null zone are set to zero; no body forces (e.g., gravity) act on these zones.
The null material may be changed to a different material model at a later stage of the simulation.
In this way, backfilling an excavation, for example, can be simulated.
2.3 Elastic Model Group
The models in this group are characterized by reversible deformations upon unloading; the
stress strain laws are linear and path-independent.
2.3.1 Elastic, Isotropic Model
In this model, the relation of stress to strain in incremental form is expressed by Hooke’s law
in plane strain as:
1.3 Objective of project
a) To create material model for cohesive soil by using Mohr-Coulomb model in ABAQUS-
2016
b) To validate the material model and FEM method results by using Terzaghi’s failure theory
and principle stress concept.
c) To carry settlement analysis of group pile in cohesive soil by considering Soil-Pile
interaction.
d) To carry settlement analysis of group pile in cohesive soil without considering Soil-Pile
interaction.
d) To compare results of analysis with and without Soil-Pile interaction.
e) To conclude the suitability of using Soil-Pile interaction in settlement analysis of Piles.
18
1.4 Scope of project
a) The analysis of piles will be done in only in cohesive soil with uniform stratification
b) Mohr-Coulomb model is used for settlement analysis and validation purpose. This model
uses a linear plastic stress-strain curve; in reality the stress strain behavior is non-linear plastic
in case of cohesive soil.
c) Finite Element method will be employed for analysis with static loading conditions.
d) This study does not include the effect for drainage condition in settlement analysis.
e) The friction parameters used for Soil-Pile interaction are assumed to constant and Pile Load
Vs pile settlement curve is assumed to be linear.
19
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Kazimierz Józefiaka
Year of publication-2015
The objective of this paper is to model a soil-pile system using FEM implemented in Abaqus
software. The numerical results of pile bearing capacity and pile settlement were compared with
static load test results of CFA piles carried out during construction of Lazienkowska tract
flyover in Warsawand with engineering analytical calculations according to Euro code 7and
Polish Standard Code.
Finite element model was used to perform bearing capacity calculations. The problem was run
in 2 steps. During the first step geostatic equilibrium was achieved. In step 2, coupled analysis
was invoked and the pile displacement was applied using the vertical speed boundary condition
to force the top surface to move 0.01m/min.
The finite element analysis with simple constitutive models and parameters’ estimation shows
quite good agreement with the field test settlements for the loading part. Significant difference
20
is seen for the unloading. Comparing curves for µ=∞ and tied nodes, one can see that the “elastic
slip” related to contact formulation has some impact on results. For FEM analysis involving
pile settlement the proper identification of the pile shaft-soil interface is of great importance.
However, the real interface behavior is complicated and not fully understood. Elimination of
the “elastic slip” for friction formulation involves using Lagrange multiplayers. It is not
computationally efficient and the results presented herein show that it does not necessarily
improve agreement with test data. The FEA provides very safe estimation of bearing capacity.
Often bearing capacity of piles is achieved at a displacement which is destructive for an
engineering structure. Because of that, experience is needed in order to reduce bearing capacity
values calculated assuming full mobilization of shaft friction.
Ahmed Abdel
In this paper a lateral displacement of 2 cm was applied to the top of the pile while maintaining
a zero slope in a guided fixation. A combined lateral and axial load of 300 kN was also studied.
The paper compared between the bending moments and lateral displacements along the depth
of the pile obtained from the FD solutions and FE analyses. A parametric study was conducted
to study the effect of crucial design parameters such as the modulus of elasticity of soil and the
number of nonlinear soil springs that can be used to model the soil. A good agreement between
the results obtained by the FE models and the FD solution was observed. Also, the FE models
were capable of predicting the pile–soil interaction for all types of soft soil
Mohammed Mahdi jalali

The impact of loading on the pile displacement was explored applying Mohr Coulomb as well
as Hard-soil behaviour laws. The measurements based on the Mohr-Coulomb Behaviour Law
are much more accurate compared to those performed through Hard soil Behaviour Law
(Graphs 1 to 4), when the appropriate interface is taken into consideration. However, the results
21
of Graphs 4 to 7 shows that hard soil Behaviour Law is more accurate and precise compared to
Mohr-Coulomb Behaviour law, when the interface is less effective.
In Mohr-Coulomb Behaviour Law, the shear stress is measured more accurately when the
appropriate interface coefficient is taken into consideration (Figures 4 to 7). While the interface
coefficient is less effective, the Hard soil Behaviour Law measures the shear stress more
accurately.
By Mounir E. Mabsout
Results from the computational driving of a concrete pile below a prebored hole (referred to as
a "prebored" pile for convenience) in an undrained, normally consolidated clayey soil are
presented. The analysis uses a nonlinear, finite-element model that simulates the penetration of
the pile into the soil. The response of the pile-soil system is examined at various preboring
levels. A comparison between the responses of normally consolidated clays with various
strengths is discussed. The influence of pile-soil friction and tip bearing on the response is also
investigated.
R.P. Cunha
A semi analytical procedure is presented and used herein to compute the settlement and the
normal force distribution of axially loaded concrete bored piles. These piles were constructed
in the tropical soil of the city of Brasília, which is a typical lateraled and collapsible clayey
material of the Brazilian Central Plateau. They were constructed under differing construction
procedures, which have influenced in their final behaviour, in terms of load x settlement curves.
The paper demonstrates that with the use of well-established soil parameters for this
geotechnical material, with a sound theoretical model & numerical tool, it is possible to simulate
reasonably well the in situ behavior of the bored piles.
22
K. Johnson, P. Lemckea et. al

In this paperwork, 3D finite element modelling was used to explore the effect of pile shape,
sand properties, pile length and loading conditions on the capacity of a pile. Using trends
discovered by these simulations design charts were developed to aid consultants when
determining the bearing capacity for oblique interaction for square piles. It was found through
a carefully planned sensitivity analysis that sand properties and pile shape can influence the
capacity of a pile extensively.
C. J Lee and Charles W. W Ng

Year of publication- 2004
The investigation of down drag has attracted far less attention than the study of drag load over
the years. In this paper, several series of two-dimensional axisymmetric and three-dimensional
numerical parametric analyses were conducted to study the behaviour of single piles and piles
in 333 and 535 pile groups in consolidating soil. Both elastic no-slip and elasto-plastic slip at
the pile–soil interface were considered. For a single pile, the down drag computed from the no-
slip elastic analysis and from the analytical elastic solution was about 8–14 times larger than
that computed from the elasto-plastic slip analysis. The softer the consolidating clay, the greater
the difference between the no-slip elastic and the elasto-plastic slip analyses. For the 535 pile
group at 2.5 diameter spacing, the maximum down drag of the center, inner, and corner piles
was, respectively, 63, 68, and 79% of the maximum down drag of the single pile. The reduction
of downdrag inside the pile group is attributed to the shielding effects on the inner piles by the
outer piles. The relative reduction in downdrag (Wr) in the 535 pile group increases with an
increase in the relative bearing stiffness ratio (Eb /Ec), depending on the pile location in the
group.
R. L. Raper
One numerical technique that could be used to predict soil compaction is the finite element
method (FEM). linear elastic parameters for each element in the model. Incremental leading
23
was used by the finite element model to gradually load the soil so that these linear parameters
could be varied many times ever the loading period. The finite element model was compared
with data obtained from soil bin research. Results showed that a flat disc load was modelled
well but a spherical disc load was not.
Suleyman Kocak
A simple three-dimensional soil structure interaction (SSI) model is proposed. First, a model is
developed for a layered soil medium. In that model, the layered soil medium is divided into thin
layers and each thin layer is represented by a parametric model. The parameters of this model
are determined, in terms of the thickness and elastic properties of the sublayer, by matching, in
frequency wave number space, the actual dynamic stiffness matrices of the sublayer when the
sublayer is thin and subjected to plane strain and out-of-plane deformations with those predicted
by the parametric model developed in this study. Then, by adding the structure to soil model a
three-dimensional finite element model is established for the soil structure system. For the
floors and footings of the structure, rigid diaphragm model is employed. Based on the proposed
model, a general computer software is developed. Though the model accommodates both the
static and dynamic interaction effects, the program is developed presently for static case only
and will be extended to dynamic case in a future study. To assess the proposed SSI model, the
model is applied to four examples, which are chosen to be static so that they can be analyzed
by the developed program. The results are compared with those obtained by other methods.
B. Pallavi Ravishankar
Year of Publication – 2013
Tall asymmetric buildings experience more risk during the earthquakes (Ming, 2010). This
happens mainly due to attenuation of earthquake waves and local site response which get
transferred to the structure and vice versa. This can be well explained by the Dynamic Soil
Structure Interaction (DSSI) analysis. In this research paper 150 m tall asymmetrical building
24
with two different foundation systems like raft and pile is considered for analysis and assuming
homogeneous sandy soil strata results are studied for input of Bhuj ground motion (2001, M=
7.7). The response of structure in terms of SSI parameters under dynamic loading for a given
foundation system has been studied and compared to understand the soil structure interaction
for the tall structures. It has been clearly identified that the displacement at top is more than that
at bottom of the building and stresses are more at immediate soil layer under foundation than
the below layers.
Abdoullah Namdar
The soil mechanic laboratory results help in accurate soil foundation design and enhancement
failure mitigation. The mixing soil design has been used in many geotechnical engineering for
soil improvement. In this paper, several types of soil foundations have been made from mixed
soil. The bearing capacity of soil foundations by using mixed soil parameters and change
footing dimensions have been calculated. 180 footings, placed on 15 soil foundation types have
been designed. It is assumed the underground water has not effect to bearing capacity of soil
foundation. The results of numerical analysis and mixed soils technique have been combined.
The numerical analysis has supported mixed soil design, and introduced an appropriate result
for soil foundation design. The effects of mixed soil on depth and width of footing have been
compared. The mixed soil design influenced numerical analysis result, and economically, soil
foundation design helps to select the appropriate dimensions of footings. The result of
numerical analysis supports geotechnical and structural engineering codes, predicts structural
stability with different age, natural hazard and prevention as well as it is useful in understanding
safe bearing capacity of soil foundation behavior.
To accurate understanding failure mitigation of soil foundation, the numerical analyses of

several soil foundations and results of mixed soil technique have been employed. 180 footings
have been designed placing them on 15 soils foundation types. It has been observed that the
mixed soil technique has the ability to predict soil foundation behavior. The results show soil
parameters control footing dimensions. The effect of mixed soil on footing depth and width
have been compared. The soil mineralogy and morphology govern safe bearing capacity of soil
foundation and size of concrete foundation. The result of numerical analysis supports
25
geotechnical and structural engineering codes, natural hazard prediction, prevention and
understanding soil foundation behavior, predicts structural stability with different age.,. The
methodology in this research work supports the application of mixed soil in designing soil
foundation. To extent this research work, the role of mixed soil design in stress path can be
investigated.
Thevaneyan K. David
This paper presents background information relevant to the modelling of soil-structure
interaction. The interaction between the structural element (i.e. pile foundation or abutments)
and the soil medium is believed to have the potential to alter considerably the actual behaviour
of any structure. Modelling of the structural element is rather simple and straightforward when
compared to modelling the structure in interaction with soil. It is known that the structural
analysis simplifies soil behaviour, while geotechnical analysis simplifies structural behaviour.
The choice of an appropriate soil constitutive model may have significant influence on the
accuracy of soil-structure interaction analyses. A 2D finite element analysis on a pile-cap-pile-
soil model replicating actual field work was performed in this paper using OASYS SAFE to
further substantiate the choice of an appropriate soil constitutive model for the purpose of soil-
structure interaction modelling.
However, studies revealed that the hyperbolic stress-strain relationships, developed, provide a
simple model which encompasses the most important characteristics of soil stress-strain
behaviour, using data from conventional laboratory tests. Due to its simplicity, applicability to
drained and undrained
problems, and the availability of a database of hyperbolic stress-strain parameters, the
hyperbolic model is frequently used in soil-structure interaction problems. The model has been
successfully applied to a variety of soil-structure interaction problems. It is also recognized that
whatever constitutive model is chosen for the soil, the best confirmation of its predictive
capacity comes from the comparison with measurements taken from real structures, since the
more complex a constitutive law is, the larger is the set of parameters involved in its definition.
26
Anuj chandiwala
Year of Publication-2013
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of structures using piled rafts as the
foundation to reduce the overall and differential settlements. For cases where a piled raft is
subjected to a non-uniform loading, the use of piles with different sizes can improve the
performance of the foundation. Extensive research work has been performed in the past to
examine the behavior of piled rafts. However, most of the research was focused on piled rafts
supported by identical piles, and the use of non-identical piles has not received much attention.
In this paper, the behavior of piled raft is examined by the use of a computer program MIDAS
GTS based on the finite layer and finite element methods. The finite layer method is used for
the analysis of the layered soil system. The finite element method is used for the analysis of the
raft and piles. Full interaction between raft, piles and soil which is of major importance in the
behavior of piled rafts is considered in the analysis. Among the four different types of
interaction present in the piled raft foundation. The interaction between piles plays an important
role. Two dimensional (2D) finite element analysis of un-piled and piled raft foundations with
sandy soil. For the un-piled raft, the normalized settlement parameter (IR) for the raft sizes of
8mx8m and 15mx15m ranged as 1.03-1.17mm and 0.66- 0.83mm respectively. In the case of
the piled raft with raft thickness of 0.25, 0.40, 0.80, 1.50, 3.0m, the corresponding maximum
settlements are 66, 64, 63.7, 63mm. The results of these analyses are summarized into a series
of design charts, which can be used in engineering practice.
Further, it can be concluded that the foregoing simple example demonstrates the following
important points for practical design:
• The raft thickness affects differential settlement and bending moments, but has little effect
on load sharing or maximum settlement.
• Piles spacing plays an important role on the performance of piled raft foundation. It affects
greatly the maximum settlement, the differential settlement, the bending moment in the raft,
and the load shared by the piles.
• To reduce the maximum settlement of piled raft foundation, optimum performance is likely
to be achieved by increasing the length of the piles involved. While the differential settlement,
the maximum bending moment and the load sharing are not affected much by increasing the
pile lengths.
27
Dr. Hussein A. Shaina

Pile foundations are commonly used to resist vertical and lateral loads applied to structures.
Usually, these kinds of loads will act together to form a combination of loads, such as oblique
forces that have a component of vertical and lateral forces. Predicting the behavior of piles
subjected to oblique loads still remains a challenging task to geotechnical engineers. In this
paper, results of numerical simulation of vior of piles as embedded in cohesion less soil under
oblique loads are presented by using ABAQUS. For the cohesion less soil, the Mohr-Coloumb
constitutive law has been used to simulate the surrounding soil while the linear elastic model is
used for modelling of the pile. The interactions between the pile and the surrounding soil are
modelled thoroughly using contact elements based on slave-master concept. The results are
shown in terms of load/displacement curves for the components of vertical and the lateral
loading portions in different inclination angles. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are
given concerning the design of piles under oblique loads.
The finite element models used in this paper allowed the investigation into the response of the
pile under oblique loads. A 3D numerical model is developed with ABAQUS software is used
to in this investigation. This study provides a comparison of common techniques for analysis
of single piles subjected to oblique loads in different inclination angle. The piles were subjected
to variously inclined loads (α=30o, 45o, 60o), with α measured from the horizontal direction.
The following conclusions are drawn from the present investigation:
1. The stiffness of pile is almost affected on the behavior of pile subjected to combine
vertical and lateral loading (oblique loads).
2. The vertical and horizontal loads level itself strongly depends on the load inclination angle
(α).
3. The ultimate vertical pile capacity of the pile is decreased by additional horizontal loading.
Dr Omar-al-Farouk
The piled raft is a geotechnical composite construction consisting of three elements: piles,
28
raft and soil. It is suitable as a foundation for large buildings. This paper presents an analysis
of piled raft foundation, included material nonlinearity and soil structure interaction. An
efficient computer program in FORTRAN 90is developed for this analysis. A 20 node
isoperimetric brick element has been used to model pile, raft, soil and interface materials. Thin
layer interface element has been used to model the contact zone between the pile and soil, and
between raft and soil. The behavior of the piled raft material is simulated by using a linear
elastic model. However, the behavior of soil and interface materials is simulated by an elasto-
plastic model by the use of Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Some of the variables of piled-raft
system, related to settlement and differential settlement in sandy soil, have been studied, where
the length of piles and distance between piles an effective role in reducing both settlement and
differential settlement of foundation system. Also increasing the thickness of raft foundation
reduces the effectiveness of additional piles for the purpose of reducing differential settlement.
1. The computer code developed is found to be very useful and can be used for wide range of
applications in many soil and soil-structure interaction problems.
2. The three-dimensional nonlinear and linear finite element model, which was adopted in the
present work, is suitable for predicting the behavior of a soil-pile-raft system. The numerical
results were in good agreement with available experimental load-settlement results throughout
the entire range of behaviour.
3. From numerical investigations, the main effective factors on the behavior of a piled-raft
foundation were, pile length, pile spacing, pile diameter, number of piles, total piles area, and
raft thickness.
4. Pile length has a significant influence in reducing both central and differential settlements. It
is observed that it is possible to reduce the settlement more than (40%) with pile length equals
to (80%) of soil layer depth.
5. Piles/Raft area ratio has a significant effect on reducing settlement, (75%) of settlement
reduction can be obtained with a Piles/Raft area ratio in the range of (0.15-0.2).
6. Increasing of raft thickness reduces the effect of adding piles for controlling differential
settlement. Raft thickness has a very small effect on reducing settlement ratio for the central
settlement
29
Chapter 3 Methodology
A methodology for analyzing pile-soil interaction under static load has been discussed. Three
dimensional mathematical modelling of pile-soil system has been carried out in finite element
analysis package Abaqus considering surface to surface interactions at the interface. Soil and
Pile both have been modelled using 8-noded brick elements (C3D8R). Soil strata have been
idealized with elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model whereas piles have been idealized to
behave linearly elastic. Some important modelling techniques and analysis sequences have been
suggested for better numerical convergence for this nonlinear solid to solid contact problem.
Vertical load settlement behavior of single pile is obtained from analysis and compared with
published field test result, showing a reasonable agreement. Load displacement behavior of
another field test comprising of single pile and pile-group subjected to lateral loads is modelled
and compared with test results.
Table 3:1 Properties of Materials

r E µ γ C Φ
(MPa) kN/m³ (kPa) (degree)
Soil 200 0.3 19 100 0
Pile 25000 0.2 24 - -
30
Problem Statement
Types of soil: Clay
Angle of internal friction: 0°
Effective cohesion: 100 N/mm²
Seepage condition: undrained condition
Material model: Mohr-coulomb model
Method of analysis: Finite element analysis
Type of pile: Friction pile
Pile material: Concrete (M30)
No of Pile: 9
Size of pile: Length-10m & Diameter-30mm
Arrangement of pile in group: square type
Loading condition: static
3.1 Finite element modelling
3.1.1 Mesh and boundary conditions
The behavior of the Pile-Soil was investigated by carrying out 3D numerical analysis. Six-node
triangular elements were used to represent piled elements. Fig. (1) shows a typical finite element
mesh used in this numerical study. The parameters for a series of the static finite element
analyses are pile sizes and number of piles. Material properties of pile and undrained soil
parameters are tabulated in table below.
31
3.1.2 Constitutive modelling
The material behavior of the soil was modelled with a Mohr-Coulomb model, and to simplify
the analysis process, average values of material parameters (as mentioned above) were adopted
for the soil layer. Since the piles have great Young’s modulus in comparison with the soil, they
remain in elastic range. Due to the aforementioned reason, they were modelled with a non-
porous linear elastic model. The modelling techniques used for the pile-soil interface were
generally divided into two types: thin layer element and slip element. The former was used by
Jeong et al. (2004) and Lee et al. (2010), in which the slip behavior between the adjacent
surfaces could be considered. The latter was used by Reul and Randolph (2004) and a middle
layer is used to model the interface using the behavior of the soil. In this case when a slide
occurs, the shear stress (τ) will be created in the interface and the relationship between shear
force and normal pressure P’ is governed by a modified Coulomb’s friction theory. In this paper,
the pile-soil interface was modelled by slip elements. The schematic diagram of pile-soil
interface elements with undrained parameters is shown in Fig. (2).
Figure 3:1 (i)Typical finite element mesh (ii)Pile soil interface modelling (a) no slip (b)
slip (c) Coulomb’s frictional law
32
Chapter 4 Validation to Software
4.1 General
Abaqus is a complete environment that provides a simple, consistent interface for creating,
submitting, monitoring, and evaluating results from Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit
simulations which works on Finite element method. Abaqus is divided into modules, where
each module defines a logical aspect of the modelling process; for example, defining the
geometry, defining material properties, and generating a mesh which constitute to form a Finite
element model. We move from module to module, we build the model from which Abaqus
generates an input file that we submit to the Abaqus/Standard or Abaqus/Explicit analysis
product. The analysis product performs the analysis using FEM, sends information to Abaqus
to allow us to monitor the progress of the job, and generates an output database with more
precision and accuracy.
Problem statement:
Types of soil: Clay
Angle of internal friction: 0°
Effective cohesion: 100 N/mm²
Bearing capacity of soil: 160 N/mm²
Seepage condition: undrained condition
Material model: Mohr-coulomb model
33
Method of analysis: Finite element analysis

Dilation angle: 0°
Poisson ratio: 0.33 N/mm²
Modelling of software:
4.2 Module
4.2.1 The part module
Parts are the building blocks of an Abaqus/CAE model. We use the Part module to create each
part, and we use the Assembly module to assemble instances of the parts.
Figure 4:1 Part module
4.2.2 The Property module
We use the Property module to define materials, define beam section profiles, define sections
and assign sections.
34
Figure 4:2 Property Module
4.2.3 The Assembly module
We use the Assembly module to create and modify the assembly. A model contains one main
assembly, which is composed of instances of parts from the model as well as instances of other
models.
4.2.4 The Step module:
We use the Step module to create analysis steps, specify output requests, specify adaptive
meshing, and specify analysis controls.
4.2.5 The Load module:
We use the Load module to define and manage the following prescribed conditions:
35
 Loads
 Boundary conditions
Figure 4:3 Boundary condition
4.2.6 The Mesh module:
The Mesh module contains tools that allow us to generate meshes on parts and assemblies
created within Abaqus/CAE. In addition, the Mesh module contains functions that verify an
existing mesh.
4.2.6.1 Understanding the role of the Mesh module
The Mesh module use to generate meshes on parts and assemblies created within Abaqus/CAE.
Various levels of automation and control are available so that we can create a mesh that meets
the needs of analysis. As with creating parts and assemblies, the process of assigning mesh
attributes to the model—such as seeds, mesh techniques, and element types—is feature based.
As a result, we can modify the parameters that define a part or an assembly, and the mesh
attributes that we specified within the Mesh module are regenerated automatically.
The Mesh module provides the following features:
36
 Tools for prescribing mesh density at local and global levels.

 Model colouring that indicates the meshing technique assigned to each region in the
model.
 A variety of mesh controls, such as:
 Element shape
 Meshing technique
 Meshing algorithm
Figure 4:4 Mesh
37
Figure 4:5 Slave mesh
Figure 4:6 Master mesh
38
4.2.7 The Job module:
We use the Job module to create and manage analysis jobs and to view a basic plot of the
analysis results. We can also use the Job module to create and manage adaptivity analyses and
co-executions.
4.2.7.1 Understanding the role of the Job module
Once we have finished all of the tasks involved in defining a model (such as defining the
geometry of the model, assigning section properties, and defining contact), we can use the Job
module to analyse model. The Job module allows we to create a job, to submit it for analysis,
and to monitor its progress. If desired, we create multiple models and jobs and run and monitor
the jobs simultaneously.
4.2.8 The Sketch module:
Sketches are two-dimensional profiles that are used to help form the geometry defining an
Abaqus/CAE native part. We use the Sketch module to create a sketch that defines a planar
part, a beam, or a partition or to create a sketch that might be extruded, swept, or revolved to
form a three-dimensional part. This chapter explains how we use the tools within the Sketch
module to create, modify, and manage sketches.
We use the Visualization module to view model and the results of analysis.
we use the Sketch module to create and manage two-dimensional profiles that are not associated
with a feature; these profiles are known as stand-alone sketches. Stand-alone sketches can be
incorporated in the current sketch, and they will overlay any existing geometry.
Undeformed shape
An undeformed shape plot displays the initial shape or the base state of model.
Deformed shape
39
A deformed shape plot displays the shape of model according to the values of a nodal variable
such as displacement.
Figure 4:7 Deformed shape
4.3 Contours
For an output database, a contour plot displays the values of an analysis variable such as stress
or strain at a specified step and frame of analysis. For a model in the current model database, a
contour plot displays the value of a load, a predefined field, or an interaction at a selected step
of model. The Visualization module represents the values as customized coloured lines,
coloured bands, or coloured faces on model.
4.4 X–Y data
An X–Y plot is a two-dimensional graph of one variable versus another.
40
4.5 Result
The Visualization module provides graphical display of finite element models and results. It
obtains model information from the current model database or model and result information
from an output database.
1) By using this software, we find the displacement force with respect to time in the form of
graph as shown below.
Figure 4:8 Displacement v/s Load
41
2) Stress bulb also getting by this software with stress readings database as shown as in figure.
Figure 4:9 Stress blub
3)Terzaghi’s shear failure zones also be formed by software as show below.
Figure 4:10 Terzaghi’s shear failure zones
Looking at these three results, we can conclude that the material model works properly.
42
Chapter 5 Analysis and results
5.1 Analysis on pile
5.1.1 Effect of different size of mesh of pile
The pile soil model has been prepared in ABAQUS as show in figure and load has been
applied in the form of pressure of the top of the pile cap as shown in figure
In order to get the most accurate results mesh sensitivity analysis has to be done to find out right
size of mesh. Following sizes has been made and analysed and load vs settlement curves has
been plotted.
43
Table 5:1 Loading analysis with different mesh size
Load Load for 30 Load for 25 Load for 20

(kN) mm mesh mm mesh mm mesh
size (m) size (m) size (m)
0 0 0 0
50 0.005 0.008 0.009
100 0.018 0.010 0.014
150 0.016 0.014 0.021
200 0.020 0.018 0.026
250 0.025 0.022 0.031
300 0.032 0.027 0.034
350 0.032 0.036 0.038
Loads condition and modelling is kept as per the modelling and analysis is done. load is
increased at rate of 50kN.In addition to that a conversion study is done by taking various
mesh size i.e. 20 mm 25 mm and 30 mm mesh size. From observation it can be concluded
that, the load vs settlement comes close to experimental results at mesh size 25 mm. hence
here after modelling of soil is done by using 25 mm mesh size.
44
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30 mm mesh size 20 mm experimental results 25 mm mesh size
Figure 5:1 Load vs Settlement curve of the pile (for different mesh size)
Figure 5:2 Settlement of pile model
45
Also from the graph it can be seen that the settlement is linear with respect to the load. This
indicates the behaviour of the Mohr-Coulomb model is valid, Because Mohr-Coulomb shows
linearity in any settlement and deflection analysis.
Figure 5:3 Settlement of the Pile (cross section)
5.1.2 Effect of the diameter of the pile
In order to study the effect of diameter on pile settlement, diameter of the pile has been
increased by 10 % and analysis has been done. Following graph shows decrease in the
settlement due to increase in the diameter.
46
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 5:4 Load vs Settlement curve (Increase in Diameter)
The above graph shows the decrease in the settlement due to increase in the pile diameter.
The decrease in the settlement is about 15% with increase in diameter of 10 %.
47
Chapter 6 Conclusion
 The pile soil model is very complex and difficult to simulate; it requires very high
degree of accuracy in defining the soil structure interaction behaviour.
 One of the best way to define the Soil Structure Interaction Fem based model is to
create a friction surface model on pile and soil by using interaction module in
ABAQUS.
 The interaction behaviour depends upon the coefficient of friction between soil and
pile and has a very high value in case of sandy granular soil.
 The Fem analysis is subjected to mesh sensitivity and proper mesh sensitivity study
has to be done in order to validate the results.
 Usually finer mesh giver more accurate results as show in the above analysis but
results keep on distorting after an optimum value of mesh density.
 The settlement behaviour of pile depends upon type of soil, length of pile and diameter
of the pile.
 Incense in the diameter of the pile decrease the settlement. And vis versa.
48
Future Scopes
 All the analysis is the thesis work has been done by using Mohr-Coulomb Model,
other models can also be used to check their validity in determining the pile
settlement.
 Pour water pressure has not been considered while doing the analysis, for better results
pour water pressure can be simulated in FEM.
 Also for this thesis effect of length of the has not been considered, it, may be shown
that with increase in the length there is a subsequent decrease in the pile settlement.
49
REFERENCES
1. Dr. hussein.A.shaia, Dr. Sarmad A. Abbas (2015), Three dimensional analysis response of
pile subjected to oblique loads.
2. Johnson, K. et al. (2006). Modelling the load–deformation response of deep foundations

under oblique loading.
3. Kazimierz Józefiak et. al(2015), Numerical modelling and bearing capacity analysis of pile
foundation
4. Mohammad Mahdi Jalali et. al(2012), Using Finite Element method for Pile-Soil Interface
(through PLAXIS and ANSYS) .
5. Thevaneyan K. David et. al.(2015), Finite Element Modelling of Soil-Structure Interaction
6. Dr desai, notes on Application of Finite Element and Constitutive Models.
7. R. L. Raper et. al(2010), Prediction of soil stresses using the finite element method
8. Ioannis ANASTASOPOULOS et. al.(2012), Non-linear soil-foundation interaction:

numerical analysis
9. http://cedb.asce.org
10.Abdoullah Namdar, Xiong feng(2009), Evaluation of safe bearing capacity of soil

foundation by using numerical analysis method.
50
View publication stats

Aiktcthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aiktcthesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aiktcthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

PILE SOIL INTERACTION BY FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN ABAQUS

Thesis · May 2017

Mohd Atique Barudgar

Graduate Final Year thesis View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz 13CES07

Department of Civil engineering

Anjuman-I-Islam’s Kalsekar Technical Campus

Dr. R. B. Magar Dr. Abdul Razak Hunnutagi

Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz(13CES07)

Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah(13CES8)

Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique(13CES11)

Mr. Khan Abid Noor(13CES20)

Mr. Ansari Azhar Niyaz

Mr. Ansari Junaid Ahmed Shafeeque Ah.

Mr. Barudgar Mohd Atique Sadique

Mr. Khan Abid Noor

(Semester- VII &VIII, B.E. Civil)

AIKTC- New Panvel

KEY WORDS: Constitutive relationship, Mohr-Coulomb Model, Finite Element Method,

Figure 1:1 Transverse Isotropy coordinate axes convention .................................................... 10

Table 3:1 Properties of Materials 30

FEM - Finite Element Method

FEA - Finite Element Analysis

FDM - Finite Difference Method

1.2 Finite element method (F.E.M)

A finite element method (abbreviated as FEM) is a numerical technique to obtain

1.2.1 Historical Background

 dynamic (i.e., vibration and transient) problems,

1.2.2 Basic Steps

The finite element method involves the following steps.

1.2.3 Advantages of the finite element method over other numerical

1.2.4 Constitutive model: theory and implementation

Null model group

Elastic, Transversely isotropic model

Figure 1:1 Transverse Isotropy coordinate axes convention

A state of plane stress with respect to the xy-plane is obtained by setting

In equation (1) This gives:

The stress-strain relations can easily be found by inverting the matrix.

which can be written

The stress-strain relations can be obtained by inverting the matrix.

Plastic model group

Yield and Potential Functions

Figure 1:2 Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria

Figure 1:3 Domain used in the definition of the flow rule

bilinear strain-hardening/softening ubiquitous-joint model

modiﬁed Cam-clay model

1.3 Objective of project

1.4 Scope of project

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Mohammed Mahdi jalali

K. Johnson, P. Lemckea et. al

C. J Lee and Charles W. W Ng

To accurate understanding failure mitigation of soil foundation, the numerical analyses of

Dr. Hussein A. Shaina

Table 3:1 Properties of Materials

3.1 Finite element modelling