Numerical Analyses of Load Tests on Bored Piles

M. Wehnert & P.A. Vermeer

Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany

ABSTRACT: A back analysis of a load test of a bored pile is shown. This short large diameter bored pile was
tested in Germany and results for the total resistance as well as results for the base and the shaft resistance are
available. In the FE-analysis the pile is assumed to be linear elastic and for the subsoil three different constitutive models are used, i.e. the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model, the Soft-Soil model, which is based on the
modified Cam-Clay model, and the advanced Hardening-Soil model. These models are introduced briefly. In
a first step the influence of the mesh and of interface elements is discussed. Finally the results of the three
models are compared with the results of the pile load test.
1 INTRODUCTION
The acceptance of numerical analyses in geotechnical problems is growing and finite element calculations are more and more used in the design of foundations. In particular for the design of piled raft
foundations. Nevertheless the bearing capacity of a
single pile is most usually determined by pile load
tests or by empirical methods. For this reason numerical analyses of a load test on a bored pile in stiff
clay are shown in full detail and modelling aspects
will be discussed. In the paper the influence of several variables on the load-settlement behaviour of
the pile are discussed, i.e. the mesh dependency as
well as the effect of interface elements. Different
constitutive models are used to simulate the mechanical behaviour of the soil. Finally the results of
the numerical analyses are compared with the results
of the pile load test.
2 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
In this chapter the constitutive models used in the
analyses are briefly introduced. The pile behaviour
is assumed to be linear-elastic, the soil behaviour is
described by the Mohr-Coulomb (MC), by the SoftSoil (SS) as well as by the Hardening-Soil (HS)
model.
The yield condition is for all the three models an
extension of Coulombs friction law to general states
of stress. This Mohr-Coulomb yield condition is
specified by the friction angle and the cohesion c.
In addition the dilatancy angle is used to model diNUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

latant behaviour. In contrast to the MC model, a cap

type yield surface is introduced in the SS and the HS
model to model irreversible strains due to primary
isotropic compression. This yield cap describes an
ellipse in the p-q-plane. In the Cam-Clay type SS
model the tops of all ellipses are located on the critical state line with slope M. In the SS model this Mline is not necessarily related to critical state as in
the modified Cam-Clay model (Burland 1965), but
the modified cam clay model is obtained as a special
case (Brinkgreve & Vermeer 1998). In the HS model
a different cap is used. Here the top of the ellipses
lies on the q-axis. Furthermore, the HS model involves a family of subsequent shear yield surfaces.
They can expand up to the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface to model irreversible strains due to deviatoric
loading (Schanz 1998).
The models result in different stress strain curves.
The MC model is an elastic perfectly-plastic model,
while in the SS model a logarithmic relation between the volumetric strain v and the mean effective stress p is introduced and the HS model shows
a hyperbolic stress-strain relationship between the
axial strain and the deviatoric stress in primary triaxial loading. The basic ideas of these models are
shown in Figure 1.
As elastic parameters the MC model requires at
least two out of the following parameters, i.e. E
(Youngs modulus), (Poissons ratio), Eoed (oedometer stiffness) and G (shear modulus). Whereas
the SS model needs 2 and the HS model 3 stiffness
parameters. The stiffness in the MC model is constant, while the stiffness of the SS and HS model is
stress dependent. The stress dependency for the HS
1

model follows the approach by Ohde (1939) and

Janbu (1963).

E oed = E

ref
oed

c cot + 1

ref
c cot + p

c cot + 3
E50 = E
ref
c cot + p

c cot + 3
Eur = E
ref
c cot + p

ref
ur

(3)

v v 0 = * ln( p p0 )

(4)

Because of the usage of the volumetric strain v instead of the void ratio Equation 4 involves the modified compression index * instead of the compression index (Burland 1965). The modified swelling
indey * determines the elastic behaviour during
unloading and reloading (Equation 5).
s s 1-

ne

e li

ur
fail

1
e

mb
ulo
Co
r
h
Mo
elastic region

s s 1-

M
1
k

1
ln p

s s 1-

mb
ulo
Co
r
h
Mo
elastic region

s s 1-

asymptote

ne

e li

ur
fail

ne

e li

1
E50
ulo

Eur
1

mb

ur
fail

-Co
ohr

elastic region

Figure 1. Basic ideas of the MC (top), the SS (middle) and the

HS (bottom) model; p = (1 + 2 + 3)
NUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

-0.5 m

-5.0 m
4.0m

4.0m

-10 m

1.3

(2)

The SS model includes a linear stress dependency.

When plotting a stress-stiffness curve from an oedometer test one gets a line of the form Eoed = /*
This leads to the logarithmic relationship between
the volumetric strain v and the mean effective stress
p in the SS model.

s s 1-

-3.5 m GW

(1)

Eoed is the oedometer stiffness being defined as a

tangent stiffness modulus. The other two stiffness
parameters E50 and Eur are related to standard
drained triaxial tests (Figure 1).
E50 is the confining stress dependent stiffness
modulus for primary loading and Eur the confining
stress dependent Youngs modulus for unloading
and reloading.
ref
50

Leveling

0.5 m each

Figure 2. Loading device and measuring fixture

v v 0 = * ln( p p0 )

(5)

When using interface elements to model the soilstructure-interaction, the shear strength in the interface could be reduced by a factor Rinter. Thus the
strength of the interface (ci, i) is:

ci = Rinter cSoil , tani = Rinter tanSoil

(6)

For more details to the models the interested reader

is referred to Brinkgreve & Vermeer (1998).
3 PILE LOAD TEST
The pile load test was conducted by Sommer &
Hammbach (1974) to optimize the foundation design
of a highway bridge in Germany. The subsoil consists of tertiary sediments. These are stiff, overconsolidated clays with a plastic limit of wp = 0.2, a liquid limit of wl = 0.8 and a water content of w = 0.22.
The groundwater table is 3.5 m below the surface.
The tested pile has a diameter of 1.3 m and a
length of 9.5 m. The loading system consists of two
hydraulic jacks and a reaction beam, which is supported by 16 anchors. The applied loads, the settlement of the pile head and the base resistance were
measured (Figure 2). The soil parameters for the calculations were taken from El-Mossallamy (1999)
and are shown in Table 1. The modified compression index was calculated out of the oedometer stiffness (Equation 7) using Eoed at a reference stress pref
of 100 kPa. With this value of pref one gets exactly
Eoedref.
For the ratio between * and * the same ratio as between Eoedref and Eurref was chosen. Eurref is approximately 3 times higher than Eoedref. So * must be 3
times smaller than *.
2

given. The curves for the calculations with interface

elements are mapped in the left graph and the curves
for the calculations without interface elements are
mapped in the right graph. For clarity only the results for the MC and the HS model for the very fine
(vf) and for the very coarse (vc) mesh are shown.
Similar results were found with the SS model. These
results are not shown here due to the lack of space.

Table 1. Required parameters for the calculation

Stiff clay
Pile
20.0
25.0

[kN/m3]
c
[kN/m2]
20.0

[]
20.0

[]
0.0
K0NC
[-]
0.8
ur /
[-]
0.2 / 0.3
- / 0.2
[MN/m2]
45.0 / 60.0
- / 30,000
E50ref / E
ref
Eoed
[MN/m2]
33.0
Eurref
[MN/m2]
90.0
[-]
0.003
*
*
[-]
0.001
m
[-]
0.5
Rinter
[-]
1.0
-

(7)

To study the mesh dependency 6 analyses were performed, i.e. three different calculations with interface elements and three without interface elements
one with a very fine, one with a medium coarse and
one with a very coarse mesh. The very fine and the
very coarse mesh are shown in Figure 3. The results
are illustrated for the MC model in Figure 4 and in
Figure 5 for the HS model. In the figures the load
settlement curves for the base resistance Rb, for the
shaft resistance Rs and for the total resistance R are
NUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

0
Settlement [mm]

Load [MN]
3
1
2

20
40

Rb

Rs

60

Load [MN]
3
2
4

20
40

60
80

80

with interface

no interface

Rb for a very fine mesh

Rb for a very coarse mesh

Rs for a very fine mesh

Rs for a very coarse mesh

R for a very fine mesh

R for a very coarse mesh

Figure 4. Mesh dependency for the MC model with interface

elements (left) and without (right)

Load [MN]
3
1
2

20
40

Rb

Rs

60

Settlement [mm]

3.1 Mesh dependency

Figure 3. A very fine and a very coarse mesh for calculations

without interface elements

Settlement [mm]

All FE calculations were performed with an axissymmetric mesh. The radius of the domain is 9 m
and the height is 15 m. 6-noded triangular elements
with a second order interpolation for displacements
and three Gauss points for the numerical integration
were used. Analyses with interface elements as well
as analyses without interface elements were carried
out.
Each calculation is divided into 9 phases. In the
first phase the initial soil stresses are generated.
Then the pile is wished in place by changing the parameter sets in the elements that represent the pile.
The pile weight is larger than the soil weight so that
the state of stress is slightly changed. This simple
approach is often used to model the installation
process of a bored pile. Katzenbach & Arslan (1995)
showed that the change of the in-situ stress state next
to the pile shaft is only marginal while installing a
bored pile with a casing.
In phase 3 the displacement were set to zero and
the loading begins. The loading is simulated by a
prescribed displacement of 2, 4, 8, 16, 30, 70 and
130 mm at the pile head. When using interface elements, the strength of these elements is not reduced
(Rinter = 1). Moormann (2002) performed experiments with a similar soil and rough concrete surfaces typical for bored piles. For these configurations he found that there is no considerable reduce
for both the friction and the cohesion.

Settlement [mm]

ref
* = 100 Eoed

Load [MN]
3
2
4

20
40

60
80

80

with interface

no interface

Rb for a very fine mesh

Rb for a very coarse mesh

Rs for a very fine mesh

Rs for a very coarse mesh

R for a very fine mesh

R for a very coarse mesh

Figure 5. Mesh dependency for the HS model with interface

elements (left) and without (right)
3

3.2 Results of the different models for the load test

The results for the MC, the SS and the HS model are
now compared. Interface elements were used in all
analyses. Figure 6 shows the load settlement curves
for the base resistance Rb and the total resistance R
in the left chart and for the shaft resistance Rs in the
right chart for the three models.
Comparing the curves of the base resistance it is
obvious that all curves have the same shape. But the
MC model behaves stiffer than the HS model and
the SS model behaves even stiffer than the MC
model. This is due to the different formulation of the
oedometer stiffness in the different models. In the
MC model a constant stiffness is used, while in the
SS and the HS model a stress dependent stiffness is
included. This stress dependency is linear for the SS
model (m = 1) and parabolic for the HS model
(m = 0.5). As a consequence the stiffness of the SS
and the HS model is the same for a vertical stress of
100 kPa. For higher stresses Eoed is higher in the SS
model than in the HS model. As a consequence one
gets a higher base resistance for the same settlement
with the SS model, as seen in Figure 6. Considering
the significant different models it would seem that
for the base resistance the choice of a constitutive
model is not as important as the right choice of the
stiffness.
0

Load [MN]
3
1
2

0
Settlement [mm]

Settlement [mm]

0
20
40

60

Load [MN]
3
1
2

20
40

60
80

80

base and total resistance

Rb for the MC model

shaft resistance
Rs for the HS model

Rb for the SS model

R for the MC model

Rb for the HS model

R for the SS model

Rs for the MC model

R for the HS model

Rs for the SS model

Figure 6. Base resistance Rb, total resistance R (left) and shaft

resistance Rs (right) for the MC, the SS and the HS model
NUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

Horizontal Stress [kPa]

0
-30 -60 -90 -120

Settlement [mm]

Settlement [mm]

One can easily see the advantage of interface elements. The difference between calculations with a
very fine and a very coarse mesh is especially for the
shaft resistance negligible. Only for the base resistance one can observe a small difference, because
for the coarse mesh there is only one element underneath the pile base. For calculations without interface elements this difference is much bigger, but still
not as big as for the shaft resistance. For a pile head
settlement of 130 mm (0.1 D) Rs is for the very
coarse mesh four times higher than for the very fine
mesh.

20
40

60

Horizontal Stress [kPa]

-30 -60 -90 -120 -150

20
40

60
80

80
s
s
s

xx

for MC at a depth of 2.5 m

s

xx for SS at a depth of 2.5 m

xx

for HS at a depth of 2.5 m

xx

for MC at a depth of 7.5 m

xx for SS at a depth of 7.5 m

xx

for HS at a depth of 7.5 m

Figure 7. Horizontal stress xx next to the pile shaft at a depth

of 2.5 m (left) and 7.5 m (right)

Comparing the shaft resistance one observes also

differences in the results of the three models. The
shaft resistance for the MC and the SS model is increasing more or less linear up to a peak. Whereas
the peak value of Rs is higher for the SS model. In
the HS model there is no linear increase. The shape
of the curve is hyperbolic and the peak value is even
higher than for the SS model. After the peak the
shaft resistance is decreasing a bit for all models.
Above all the difference in the peak value of the
shaft resistance and the hyperbolic shape for the HS
model is surprising. In all calculations interface elements were used. The behaviour of interfaces is described with an elastic-plastic model in the FE-code
used in the calculations. To distinguish between
elastic and plastic behaviour the Coulomb criterion
(Equation 8) is used.
f = n tani + ci

(8)

Where i is the friction angle and ci the cohesion of

the interface element calculated from the strength of
the soil using Equation 6. For both the MC as well
as the SS and the HS model the strength is the same,
so also i and ci are the same. Thus only the normal
stress n at the pile shaft could result in different
peak values of the shaft resistance. One could explain this, when comparing the horizontal stresses in
two points next to the pile shaft. In Figure 7 the development of the horizontal stresses at a depth of 2.5
and 7.5 m over the pile head displacement is shown.
It is obvious that xx for the HS model is increasing
during the load test up to a settlement of approximately 16 mm much more than for the SS model,
while xx for the MC model is nearly constant. This
increase is due to the deviatoric and volumetric
hardening in the HS model. Both the SS and the HS
model account for overconsolidation. In these analyses OCR is equal to 1, because of missing data on
soil testing. In the literature only an increased value
for K0NC was found and also used in the calculations.
Therefore one gets directly plastic strains when the
loading of the pile begins. For very small settlements
(1 and 2 mm) there are for both models only stress
points on the cap. With increasing settlements the
4

deviatoric hardening in the HS model starts which is

not included in the SS model. So one gets in the HS
model deviatoric and volumetric hardening next to
the pile shaft, whereas in the SS model one gets only
the volumetric hardening and in the MC model there
is no hardening at all.
The difference in the shape of the load settlement
curve for the shaft resistance is also referred to the
shear hardening in the HS model. That there is pure
shear at the pile shaft, like in a direct shear apparatus, one can see in the rotation of the principal
stresses (Figure 8) and in the vertical and horizontal
stresses at the shaft. After a few millimeters of settlement the vertical stress near the pile shaft is exactly as big as the horizontal stress. Thus it is important to model the plastic shear strains before failure
in a correct way, which is only possible with the HS
model. Therefore the MC and the SS model behave
stiffer in the beginning of the load test than the HS
model (peak of Rs at a settlement of 4 to 8 mm for
MC and SS and at a settlement of 16 mm for HS).
F

settlement
due to F

skin
friction
arching

compression
beneath the tip

-75

Shear stress [kPa]

-50
-25

3.3 Comparison of test data and FE calculation

-4
-6

Depth [m]

-2

-8
-10

Figure 8. Arching around the pile tip: Principle sketch (top

left), skin friction (bottom left) and principle stresses (right) for
the SS model at a pile head displacement of 70 mm
Distance from pile shaft [m]
0.5
1.5
1
2

20
40
60
measurements

80

0
Settlement [mm]

Settlement [mm]

This is also visible when looking on the settlements of the soil next to the pile shaft. Figure 9
shows the settlements in the soil at a depth of 0.5 m
and 5 m for a pile head displacement of 70 mm. It is
obvious that the soil in the calculation with the MC
and the SS model behaves much stiffer than with the
HS model. At a depth of 0.5 m the pile settles nearly
70 mm while the soil next to the pile settles only
7 mm for the MC model, 18 mm for the SS model
and 61 mm for the HS model. Thus in the interface
there is a relative settlement of 63 mm for MC,
52 mm for SS and only 9 mm for HS. The difference
between MC and SS can be explained by the higher
shear modulus of the interface element. This shear
modulus in the HS model is also lower than in the
SS model, but because of the plastic strains due to
deviatoric hardening the soil next to the pile behaves
much softer.
The decrease of the shaft resistance after the peak
is well known out of tests and is also visible in
Figure 6. This can be explained with arching (Franke
1976 and Touma & Reese 1974) and is shown in
Figure 8. The arching causes a decrease in stresses
in the soil next to the shaft above the tip. This is
shown in the right diagram in Figure 7 for all models. The decrease in the horizontal stress at a depth
of 7.5 m starts at a pile settlement of 8 mm for MC
and SS and at 16 mm for HS. The effect of the arching is also shown in Figure 8. As an example the
contribution of the skin friction along the shaft and
the principle stresses for the SS model are mapped at
a pile head settlement of 70 mm.

Distance from pile shaft [m]

0.5
1.5
1
2

20
40
60
measurements

80
settlements at a depth of 0.5 m

settlements at a depth of 5.0 m

MC model at a depth of 0.5 m

MC model at a depth of 5.0 m

SS model at a depth of 0.5 m

SS model at a depth of 5.0 m

HS model at a depth of 0.5 m

HS model at a depth of 5.0 m

Figure 9. Settlements in the soil at a depth of 5 m for a pile

head displacement of 70 mm
NUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

The results of the FE calculations are now compared

with the results of the pile load test. In Figure 10 the
load settlement curve of the base resistance, the total
resistance and the shaft resistance for the MC and
the HS model as well as the results of the pile load
test (PLT) are shown. The results of the SS model
are not mapped because of the clarity and because
the conclusions, which can be drawn out of the
comparison, for the MC model count also for the SS
model. It is obvious that the results of the HS model
match the pile load test quite well. Only the inclination of the curve for the base resistance and therefore
also for the total resistance at bigger settlements is
not that good. The results of the MC and the SS
model are not as good as of the HS model, when
comparing them with the pile load test. The MC and
the SS model underestimate the shaft resistance and
overestimate the base resistance. The problem with
the inclination of the base resistance is also visible.
Comparing the settlements of the soil next to the
pile (Figure 9) it is observable that the MC and the
SS model result in the same settlements whereas the
HS model causes bigger settlements which are closer
to the measured values.
5

Load [MN]
3
1
2

0
Settlement [mm]

Settlement [mm]

0
20
40

60

Load [MN]
3
1
2

20
40

60
80

80

base and total resistance

shaft resistance

Rb from pile load test

Rs for the HS model

Rb for the MC model

R from pile load test

Rb for the HS model

R for the MC model

Rs from pile load test

R for the HS model

Rs for the MC model

Figure 10. Results of the pile load test, of the MC and of the
HS model for the base and the shaft resistance (left) and for the
total resistance (right)

4 CONCLUSION
A back analysis of a pile load test in a stiff clay was
presented using three different models to describe
the soil behaviour. Results were presented for the
base, the shaft and the total resistance.
First of all the importance of interface elements
was shown. Especially for the shaft resistance the results of a calculation without interface elements
were heavily mesh dependent. When using interface
elements the mesh dependency is negligible. For the
base resistance, one needs at least two or three elements at the pile tip to get rid of the mesh dependency.
In the second part of this paper three different
constitutive models were used. For the base resistance, the differences between computational results
appeared to be remarkably small. For all three models, the shape of computed load-displacement curves
is more or less the same. The choice of the constitutive model is thus not that important for the base resistance. The most significant thing for the modelling of the base resistance is the right choice of the
soil stiffness. Parameter selection is especially important as one has to consider also possible disturbances of the soil at the pile tip due to the installation process of the pile. It would seem that this effect
is especially important for pile tips in sand. As yet
we examined one such a pile numerically (Wehnert
& Vermeer 2004) to find considerable base disturbance.
Results for the shaft resistance appear to depend
significantly on the choice of the constitutive model.
For small settlements the MC and the SS model lead
to the same curve and behave too stiff. The peak
value for the SS model is a bit bigger than for MC
and a bit smaller than for HS. Another thing to consider for the shaft resistance is the modelling of the
dilatant behaviour of soil in sand and gravel. In this
NUMOG 9th 25-27 August 2004, Ottawa, Canada

example the dilatancy angle is zero and therefore

this problem is not visible. But for problems with a
dilatancy angle unequal to zero a dilatancy cut-off is
essential. Brinkgreve (1994) showed this for tension
tests on piles.
Comparing the results of the three models with
the results of the pile load test, the HS model would
seem to be the best. But it is necessary to perform
more back analyses of pile load tests to give general
recommendations.
REFERENCES
Brinkgreve, R. 1994. Geomaterial Models and Numerical Analysis of Softening. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology.
Brinkgreve, R. & Vermeer, P.A. 1998. Plaxis Version 7. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Burland, J.B. 1965. The Yielding and Dilating of Clay. (Correspondence) Gotechnique Vol. 15: 211-214.
El-Mossallamy, Y. 1999. Load settlement behavior of large diameter bored piles in over-consolidated clay. In G.N.
Pande, S. Pietruszczak & H.F. Schweiger (eds), Numerical
Models in Geomechanics; Proceedings of the 7th intern.
symp., Graz, 1-3 September 1999. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Franke, E. 1976. Pile foundations single piles. Proceedings of
the 6th ECSMFE, Wien, VOL. 2.1: 83-102.
Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determioned by oedometer and triaxial tests. Proc. ECSMFE, Wiesbaden,
VOL. 1:19-25.
Katzenbach, R. & Arslan, U. & Holzhuser, J. 1995. Geotechnische Meberwachung des 300 m hohen CommerzbankHochhauses in Frankfurt am Main. Proceedings PfahlSymposium 95. Mitteilungen des Institutes und der Versuchsanstalt fr Geotechnik der Technischen Universitt
Darmstadt: Heft 48: 233-244.
Moormann, C. 2002. Trag- und Verformungsverhalten tiefer
Baugruben in bindigen Bden unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Baugrund-Tragwerk- und der BaugrundGrundwasser-Interaktion. Mitteilungen des Institutes und
der Versuchsanstalt fr Geotechnik der Technischen Universitt Darmstadt: Heft 59.
Ohde, J. 1939. Zur Theorie der Druckverteilung im Baugrund.
Der Bauingenieur Vol. 20: 451-459.
Schanz, T. 1998. Zur Modellierung des mechanischen Verhaltens von Reibungsmaterialien. Mitteilungen des Instituts fr
Geotechnik der Universitt Stuttgart: Heft 45.
Sommer, H. & Hammbach, P. 1974. Gropfahlversuche im
Ton fr die Grndung der Talbrcke Alzey. Der Bauingenieur Vol. 49: 310-317.
Touma, F.T. & Reese, L.C. 1974. Behavior of bored piles in
sand. Proceedings of the ASCE Vol.100 NO.GT7: 749-761.
Wehnert, M. & Vermeer, P.A. 2004. Numerische Simulation
von Probebelastungen an Grobohrpfhlen. Proceedings of
the 4th Kolloquium Bauen in Boden und Fels, Ostfildern
TAE: 555-565