Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Permeable piles: An alternative to improve the performance of driven

piles
Pengpeng Ni a, Sujith Mangalathu b, Guoxiong Mei c,⇑, Yanlin Zhao c
a
GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
b
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
c
Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety of Ministry of Education, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the soil displacements and excess pore pressures induced by driven piles using a
Received 2 September 2016 combined 3D finite and infinite element approach. The analyses are compared with analytical evaluations
Received in revised form 1 November 2016 and field measurements. Consolidation analysis is conducted to illustrate the variation in pore pressure
Accepted 24 November 2016
with time. A technique of drilling drainage holes on the pipe pile is proposed in this paper to accelerate
Available online 2 December 2016
the dissipation of pore pressure to improve the performance of displacement piles. It has been noticed
that optimal performance of piles can be obtained by assigning openings in piles within the bottom
Keywords:
50% of the pile length.
Finite elements
Infinite elements
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Permeable piles
Driven piles
Pore water pressure
Consolidation

1. Introduction measurements or controlled laboratory conditions. Bozozuk et al.

Piles can be installed by driving (displacement piles) or insert-
ing (non-displacement piles), and the stress state and the devel-
oped pore water pressure in the surrounding soil differ
significantly based on the installation method. In the case of
non-displacement piles, a relatively uniform stress condition is
formed due to the presence of casing and drilling mud. Design of
such piles relies on empirical correlations [1]. On the other hand,
a great amount of uncertainty exists in the design of displacement
piles, since the driving mechanism is project-specific, where the
soil-pile interaction (i.e., displacements, strains and stresses) is
altered by geological conditions, pile properties and installation
procedures. For displacement piles, a foundation pit is often exca-
vated prior to pile driving to minimize the radial displacement and
ground heave at shallow depth, especially in soft soil layers. Pore
water pressure must also be carefully controlled during the instal-
lation of displacement piles to reduce the settlement at greater
depth.
Empirical evaluation of displacement piles is generally carried
out based on experimental evidence, either from field
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pengpeng.ni@queensu.ca (P. Ni), sujithmss@gatech.edu
(S. Mangalathu), meiguox@163.com (G. Mei).
[2] measured the soil disturbance of sensitive marine clay in an
in situ pile driving project. They found that vertical heave could
be at a distance as far as approximately 39 times the pile diameter
(d), and the developed pore water pressure was 35–40% higher than
the overburden stress during the installation, which was dissipated
8 months after completion of the project. In addition to these con-
servative estimations, pore pressure cells [3] and piezocones [4]
had been used in full scale field tests. An influencing zone of 3d
was reported, where undrained shear strength of sensitive clay
changed due to excess pore pressure, but a full dissipation was
observed after 25 days [3]. Field observations of Cooke et al. [5]
demonstrated that ground heave occurred up to a depth of about
10d, below which the soil behaviour was governed by settlement
and radial displacement. A recent field testing program provided
evidence that the excess pore water pressure could be generated
in a range of 15d from the pile and the radial displacement occurred
within a distance of 3d [6]. Laboratory tests have been conducted to
evaluate the displacement pattern around driven piles. For exam-
ple, image-based geomechanics facilitated understanding of the
penetration mechanism in plane-strain calibration chamber tests
[7]. Centrifuge techniques were used for the analysis of heave/set-
tlement of energy piles due to thermal loading [8].
The complexity of analysis of displacement piles lies in the
unpredictability of soil deformation (i.e., ground heave at shallow

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.11.021
0266-352X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87
depth and settlement at greater depth) and the pore water pres-
sure development. The Cavity expansion method (CEM) [9] is a
typical closed-form solution for the analysis of the soil-pile interac-
tion problem. Vesic [10] proposed the CEM and Randolph and
Wroth [11] initially used this method for evaluating the consolida-
tion behaviour around a driven pile. Different derivations have
been developed based on the CEM, such as stress rotation analysis
[12]. An alternative approach using the strain path method has
been developed by Baligh [13] for floating piles, which was further
improved to predict ground movement induced by pile driving
[14,15]. Load transfer function was also derived for axially loaded
piles [16]. However, this type of analysis depends heavily on the
choice of spring stiffness. The limitation of the spring-based
approach has been identified for similar buried structures, where
the use of springs calibrated for high stiffness pipelines could
result in very conservative estimate of bending behaviour [17],
and over- and under-estimated axial force on flexible pipes in loose
[18] and dense sand [19], respectively.
Numerical techniques have been used greatly to facilitate the
analysis of driven piles including geometric nonlinearity, material
nonlinearity, and soil-pile interaction. The source-sink technique
was developed to predict ground heave [20,21]. Boundary element
analysis enabled 3D coupled evaluation of vertical piles subjected
to passive loading [22]. Koumoto and Kaku [23] performed 3D
finite element analysis for static cone penetration into clay.
Advanced modelling techniques have been proposed to tackle
complex interaction behaviour between pile and soil, such as intro-
ducing 1D wave equation analysis in piles (WEAP model) for wave
propagation analysis during pile driving [24], using the MEPI-2D
model (a Mohr Coulomb oriented failure criterion accounts for
strain softening) to evaluate installation effects for driven piles
[25], formulating analysis in an updated Lagrangian framework
for calculating large deformations associated with pile driving
[26,27], developing a Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) approach
for simulation of pile jacking [28] and implementing Convected
Particle Domain Interpolation (CPDI) based on the Material Point
Method (MPM) to trace material displacement during pile driving
[29].
In this paper, a 3D finite element model with infinite element
boundary conditions has been developed in the Dynamic/Explicit
analysis mode of ABAQUS to address large mesh distortions in
the vicinity of the pile. Numerical simulation is calibrated against
soil displacement responses and pore water pressures during pile
driving obtained from analytical solutions and experimental mea-
surements. The consolidation behaviour with time is also evalu-
ated. Excess pore water pressure dissipates with time after pile
installation, so that the bearing capacity of the pile can be further
mobilized based on the principle of effective stress. Measures that
can accelerate soil consolidation could potentially help the driven
pile to reach its maximum resistance in a shorter time span. There-
fore, an alternative is proposed to improve the performance of pipe
piles by drilling drainage holes around the pile circumference. An
extra drainage path is allowed in the lateral direction at the pile.
Numerical calculations are used to evaluate the efficacy of the pro-
posed strategy. Further parametric study has been conducted to
investigate the most efficient location and ratio of permeable area
on the pile.
2. Pile driving analysis
2.1. Soil displacement
A pile foundation provides resistance to support the vertical
load transmitted by the superstructure. Therefore, it is a general
practice to calculate the soil displacement due to loading in the
79
vertical direction (major principal stress, r1), which induces the
increase in the minor principal stress (r3). Additionally, pile driv-
ing causes the increase in r3 due to cavity expansion [9,11] around
the pile and the variation in r1 needs to be determined.
During the pile driving process, the increase in vertical stress
(Dr1) due to lateral expansion (increase in horizontal stress,
Dr3) may exceed the overburden stress, which causes the occur-
rence of ground heave. At greater depths, the induced vertical
stress is less than the overburden stress, so that the soil will settle
and move laterally (see Fig. 1). By drawing an analogy to an
expanded cylindrical cavity, Randolph [1] suggested that the pile
driving process occurs under undrained conditions. The radial dis-
placement, dr, at final installation can be estimated as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dr ¼ r  r 2  r 20 ð1Þ
in which, the value r0 represents the pile radius and r corresponds
to the distance from the pile centreline.
2.2. Pore water pressure
For saturated elastic-perfectly plastic materials, pore water
pressure increment can be evaluated from the Henkel equation
based on cavity expansion theory [9]. The Henkel pore water
parameter a can be substituted by the Skempton pore pressure
coefficient A as follows:
a ¼ 0:707  ð3A  1Þ ð2Þ
The excess pore water pressure around the pile circumference
in the plastic zone (i.e., the radius of the plastic zone is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rp ¼ r 0 E=½2ð1 þ lÞcu  as a function of pile radius r0 and soil
parameters including the modulus of elasticity E, the Poisson’s
ratio l, and the undrained shear strength cu) is subsequently esti-
mated as:
 
Du Rp
¼ 2 ln þ 1:73A  0:58 ð3Þ
cu r
The maximum pore pressure occurs at the soil-pile interface,
where the distance from the pile r is then reduced to r0.
 
Dumax E
¼ ln þ 1:73A  0:58 ð4Þ
cu 2ð1 þ lÞcu
3. Numerical method
Different modelling techniques have been developed to solve
the convergence problems to simulate pile driving, where exces-
sive distortions of element mesh in the close vicinity of the pile
often occur. Advanced numerical tools, such as the updated
Lagrangian framework [26,27], Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL)
approach [28] and Convected Particle Domain Interpolation (CPDI)
method [29], are effective to provide solutions for 2D plane strain
Pile tip Soil
Driving
Radial
Vertical Cavity expansion
Fig. 1. Displacement of the surrounding soil due to cavity expansion.
80 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87
analysis. However, the increased computational efforts in terms of
time and hardware requirements hinder their application in full 3D
analysis. In this paper, a powerful Dynamic/Explicit analysis in the
finite element program ABAQUS has been generated to perform
large displacement simulations. Its ability to model quasi-static
processes has been demonstrated for pipelines subjected to differ-
ential ground motion, as long as the kinetic energy is controlled to
be a small portion of internal energy [30].
3.1. Stresses in the elastic soil mass due to surface pressure
In order to analyze the pile driving problem, an adequate large
soil domain and suitable boundary conditions need to be modelled.
This section presents calculations for stresses and settlements
within a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic, weightless, elastic
half-space subjected to a Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) on
the ground surface. This problem is chosen, because the closed-
form solution is available, against which calculations from finite
element analysis can be compared. Interested readers are directed
to Bowles [31] and Das [32] for further details about the soil
responses using Newmark integration of the Boussinesq solution
for a half-space under a point load.
The width and length of rectangular surface load (a UDL of
100 kPa) were considered as 0.25 m and 0.5 m respectively. The
soil had a Young’s modulus of 60 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of
0.3. The behaviour below the UDL at depth up to 3 m was
considered, because the theoretical derivations are only effective
up to 5 times the UDL size [31] (i.e., 5  0.5 m = 2.5 m). Due to
the symmetry of the investigated problem, only one quarter of
the elastic soil and the surface load were modelled. A short para-
metric study has been conducted to determine the model size,
where soil blocks of 5 m  5 m  5 m, of 10 m  10 m  10 m
and of 15 m  15 m  15 m were simulated. The model size had
a minimal influence on the results of the analyses once the ratio
between the model size and the UDL size was greater than 5, being
consistent with the observations for the soil-pipe interaction prob-
lem [30]. The choice of a 5 m block was used thereafter to evaluate
the effects of boundary conditions.
Surface load spreads within the soil to a certain distance from
the UDL. Therefore, a fine mesh can be used in the vicinity of the
UDL, and coarser one at a distance. The soil was characterized
using 8-node linear hexahedral elements (C3D8R), while it was
switched to 8-node linear infinite elements (CIN3D8) for elements
at boundaries. Fig. 2 illustrates the mesh discretization for the pile
(a) (b)
Pile Pile
1
1
2 3
Z 4
X Z
Y
Y X
Fig. 2. Mesh discretization for the pile driving analyses.
driving problem in a subsequent section, where the pile was
replaced by a UDL in this investigation. The free boundary condi-
tion was applied at the ground surface (i.e., surface 1). Elements
at surfaces 2 and 3 were C3D8R and symmetric boundary condition
was used. At a distance from the UDL, infinite elements (CIN3D8)
were used (i.e., surfaces 4, 5 and 6).
Different numerical techniques were considered, such as finite
element modelling using increased model size and infinite element
modelling. When the model size was 15 m, almost identical results
compared to theoretical evaluations were obtained. For the model
size of 5 m, although there was a small difference in the results, the
computational efforts were reduced significantly. The comparison
of stresses and settlements below the UDL calculated from infinite
element analyses and evaluated by the closed-form solution is
illustrated in Fig. 3. It can be seen from that the results from the
numerical model are in perfect agreement with the theoretical
solutions. For example, at a depth of 1 m, the stress and settlement
evaluated by the infinite element modelling with 5 m model size
lie within 2.3% and 0.5% of values calculated from the analytical
solution. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the choice of
model size, mesh discretization and boundary conditions for sub-
sequent pile driving analysis.
3.2. Displacements of driven piles
This section presents the calibration of the pile driving model,
where a discrete rigid part was employed to characterize the pile.
The influence of driving on pile strength was neglected. The
selected pile had a diameter of 0.6 m and an embedment length
of 18 m. A smoothened treatment of the pile tip was conducted
and an offset of 0.001 m was assigned between the pile centreline
and the symmetric boundary of the soil, in order to facilitate the
convergence of the calculation (see Fig. 4). Note that the current
study used the 3D finite element mesh as given in Figs. 2 and 4
is just a schematic illustration of the modelling strategy. A porous
elastic and clay plasticity model was used to represent the soil fol-
lowing the Modified Cam Clay constitutive relationship. The prop-
erties of the soil were determined from triaxial tests [33] and can
be seen in Table 1.
A model size of 24 m was used, corresponding to 40 times the
pile diameter. This choice was to consider the approximate
influencing range for a driven pile, which could be as far as
approximately 39d [2]. Infinite elements at a far distance can also
help to eliminate boundary effects. The combined finite and
(c)
Pile
3 4
5
Z
Y
6X
 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87 81

Stress below the corner of UDL Stress below the center of UDL
(a) 0 (b) 0

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
−1 −1

−2 −2
Theoretical solution
Numerical results
−3 −3
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress (kPa) Stress (kPa)

(c) Settlement below the corner of UDL (d) Settlement below the center of UDL
0 0
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
−1 −1

−2 −2

−3 −3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Settlement (mm) Settlement (mm)
Fig. 3. Comparison between calculated responses of a semi-infinite elastic half-space and numerical analyses.

Axis of symmetry Reference point infinite element mesh developed for the analysis is illustrated in
Fig. 2. The soil-pile interaction was characterized by contact ele-
Pile element ments with zero thickness. The interface friction coefficient was
Smoothened pile tip r0 = 0.25 m calculated as tan / ¼ 0:36, which fell within the range 0.2–0.4 for
buried pipelines that had negligible effects on the interaction beha-
Drainage boundaries viour [30]. The separation between the soil and the pile was
allowed in the model. A symmetric boundary condition was also
applied to the pile. A displacement-controlled scheme was used
to push the pile into the soil.
The obtained vertical and radial displacement profiles at a dis-
tance of r = 0.5 m from the pile are presented in Fig. 5. Excessive
Radius of 0.3 m mesh distortions occurred in the close vicinity of the pile and the
choice of r = 0.5 m was to avoid the influence of relative soil-pile
slippage. The positive and negative values of vertical displacement
Depth

in Fig. 5a indicate ground heave and settlement respectively. The

depth of ground heave reached to approximately 5 m from the
ground surface, below which settlement occurred due to the verti-
cal component of pile movement (see Fig. 1). It is interesting that
Radius of 0.08 m
the radial displacement was smaller above the depth of 5 m (see
Fig. 5b), where heave governed the soil behaviour. At greater
Offset of 0.001 m depths, soil response was dominated by the combination of settle-
ment and radial displacement due to cavity expansion. It is consis-
Width tent with the observations of a multi-column composite
Fig. 4. A schematic illustration to show the modelling strategy of pile tip and foundation by Abusharar et al. [34], where the upper soil experi-
drainage conditions. enced heave and the lower part settled.

Table 1
Modified Cam Clay model parameters of soil [33].

Effective unit weight, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, Cohesion, Friction angle, Undrained shear strength,
c0 (kN/m3) E (MPa) l c (kPa) / (°) cu (kPa)
10 2 0.35 1.8 20 25
Logarithmic Logarithmic plastic Tensile limit Stress ratio at Void ratio Hydraulic conductivity,
bulk modulus, j bulk modulus, k critical state, M at NCL, e1 k (m/s)
0.002 0.045 0 1.04 1.06 109
82 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87

(a) 0 (b) 0
2 2
4 Settlement 4
6 Heave 6
8 8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
−0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Vertical displacement (m) Radial displacement (m)
Fig. 5. Displacement of the surrounding soil (r = 0.5 m): (a) vertical and (b) radial.

(a) (b) 0.3

0
Depth of ground heave (m)

Numerical results
Radial displacement (m)

1 0.25 Theoretical solution

2 0.2

3 0.15

0.1
4
0.05
5
Numerical results 0
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance from the pile, r (m) Distance from the pile, r (m)
Fig. 6. Calculated soil responses: (a) depth of ground heave and (b) radial displacement.

The numerical analyses showed a larger depth of ground heave tion of 6  103 cm2/s. Numerical analysis was carried out using
as the distance from the pile decreased (Fig. 6a). At r = 0.5 m, the a model size of 5 m (i.e., more than 20d).
depth of ground heave was about 5.5 m. This is consistent with The measured changes in pore water pressure at 6.1 m depth
the suggestion of Cooke et al. [5] that heave could occur up to a [4] are compared to numerical calculations at 6 m depth in Fig. 7.
depth of 10d (i.e., 6 m). At approximately r = 12 m, there was no
heave at the ground surface. Fig. 6b compares the radial displace-
ments as a function of the distance from the pile at greater depths 100
(i.e., 15 m) obtained from numerical and analytical calculations. It
Pore pressure changes (%)

can be seen that larger radial deformations occurred within a dis- 80

tance of 2 m from the pile, and became negligible at 12 m (i.e.,
20d). Therefore, a model size of 20d is regarded to be sufficient
for the influencing range during pile driving. 60

40
3.3. Pore pressure changes of driven piles

The ability of the developed numerical tool to evaluate pore 20 Measurements

pressure changes during pile diving is assessed using the experi- Calculations
mental measurements of Roy et al. [4]. Their field tests were con-
0
ducted on the St. Alban site, 80 km west of Quebec City. The test 10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
pile was 7.6 m long with an outer and inner diameter of 219 mm
Time (s)
and 203 mm, respectively. In the field test, soft soil of silty clay
mixed with organics had an average water content of 80%, an Fig. 7. Comparison between measured pore water pressure changes and numerical
undrained shear strength of 18 kPa and a coefficient of consolida- calculations.
 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87
For short-term consolidation (less than 105 s or 1 day), the
undrained behaviour was captured well as the difference between
calculations and measurements was less than 6.0%. The developed
numerical model slightly overestimated the field testing data for
long-term consolidation (e.g., the calculated and the measured val-
ues differ by about 16.8% at 3.5  105 s or 4 days). In general, the
modelling of pore pressure dissipation by the developed numerical
method is satisfactory.
4. Improvement of the performance of driven piles
A typical pipe pile of 10 m long with a diameter of 0.5 m is con-
sidered as a case study in the following analyses. The dissipation of
pore water pressure has a significant impact on soil response and
will be investigated in detail. In general, the zone of excess pore
water pressure could range from 10 to 20 times the pile diameter,
being consistent with the experimental evidence of about 15d [6].
A model size of 10 m was therefore selected, which corresponded
to a distance of 20d from the pile. To eliminate boundary effects,
a 20 m depth was modelled, which was 2 times the pile length.
4.1. Responses of driven piles
Soil displacement profiles at a distance of r = 3r0 during pile
driving are plotted in Fig. 8, where the influence of installation
can be seen clearly. The general trend of soil deformation is similar
when the pile is driven to different depths. It is interesting that the
depth of ground heave did not change during the installation pro-
cess. The maximum settlement occurred right above the pile tip, as
well as the maximum radial displacement. Soil responses reduced
to zero rapidly at greater depths below the pile tip (at approxi-
mately 15 m), which demonstrated that the model depth was
sufficient.
After completion of pile driving, both the vertical and radial dis-
placements were derived at different distances from the pile.
Fig. 9a illustrates that the soil near the ground surface was heaving
whereas the lower part was settling. The magnitude of vertical
deformation was larger at smaller distance from the pile (e.g.,
the maximum heave at the ground surface at r = 3r0 was about
two times the value at r = 6r0). The maximum settlement was
observed at the pile tip, which was also a decreasing function of
the distance from the pile. Fig. 9b presents that although the radial
(a) 0
Settlement
2 Heave
4 4
6 6
Depth (m)
8 8
10
12
14
16 Driving to 2.5 m
Driving to 5 m
18
Driving to 10 m
20
−0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0 0.02
Vertical displacement (m)
Fig. 8. Soil displacement profile at a distance of r = 3r0 during pile driving: (a) vertical and (b) radial.
83
displacements varied near the ground surface, there were no dra-
matic changes from 4 m to 10 m depth. Both the vertical and radial
deformations reduced with depth below the pile tip and the influ-
encing zone reached approximately at depth of 15 m (5 m or 10d
below the pile).
Variations of radial displacement with the distance from the
pile are reported in Fig. 10. The general trend of numerical calcula-
tions is consistent with theoretical solution, where a nonlinear
degradation of radial deformation can be seen. Beyond a distance
of r = 1.5 m, the radial displacement was minimal and the soil
could be considered to behave in the elastic range [9]. This coin-
cides with the observation of Hwang et al. [6] that the influencing
zone of radial displacement was within a distance of 3d. At the pile
tip, the radial displacement was zero, which was increased initially
with the distance and decreased afterwards. Note that, this mech-
anism cannot be captured by cavity expansion theory.
Pore water pressure changes were evaluated in Fig. 11 for the
installation effect during the pile driving process and the influence
of the distance from the pile after completion of pile driving. The
developed excess pore pressure increased with depth, and peaked
near the pile tip. Due to the short time span of installation,
undrained response was dominant. Suction (i.e., negative pore
pressure) occurred at the ground surface and it dissipated with
time. After installation, it is anticipated that larger pore pressure
occurs at a smaller distance from the pile. Below the pile tip, the
pore water pressure was not reduced to zero, since there was not
enough time for consolidation.
Comparison of pore water pressure changes estimated from
analytical and numerical approaches is given in Fig. 12. The two
methods provide reasonable agreement, where a nonlinear reduc-
tion of pore pressure with the distance from the pile can be
observed. At approximately 7.5 m, pore pressure was reduced to
a very small value, which corresponded to an influencing zone of
excess pore pressure at a distance of about 15d from the pile as
reported by Hwang et al. [6].
4.2. Comparing the consolidation behaviour between driven and
permeable piles
Due to pile driving, excess pore water pressure is developed
within the surrounding soil as illustrated in Fig. 13a. The consoli-
dation behaviour is critical, since pore pressure dissipates with
(b) 0
2
Depth (m)
10
12
14
16 Driving to 2.5 m
Driving to 5 m
18
Driving to 10 m
20
0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Radial displacement (m)
84 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87

(a) 0 (b) 0
Settlement
2 2

4 4
Heave
6 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
8 8

10 10

12 12

14 14

16 r = 3r0 16 r = 3r0
r = 4r0 r = 4r0
18 18
r = 6r0 r = 6r0
20 20
−0.06 −0.04 −0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Vertical displacement (m) Radial displacement (m)
Fig. 9. Soil displacement profile at different distance from the pile (driving to 10 m): (a) vertical and (b) radial.

0.3 time, which influences the bearing capacity of piles significantly.

Theoretical solution The average degree of consolidation, Uavg, is therefore calculated
Radial displacement (m)

0.25 Numerical, z = 0 m [32] using

Numerical, z = 3 m R zh
ut dz
0.2 Numerical, z = 8 m U av g ¼ 1  R 0zh ð5Þ
u0 dz
Numerical, z = 10 m 0
0.15
where u0 and ut are the initial pore water pressure and the value at
any time t, respectively; and the parameter zh represents the thick-
0.1
ness of soil layer. The integration means that the responses at all
nodes in finite element analysis need to be considered.
0.05
Variations of the average degree of consolidation with time are
then calculated as presented in Fig. 14. The surrounding soil is
0
compacted to a denser state (i.e., void ratio decreases) due to the
0 1 2 3 4 vibration induced by pile driving, which may improve the perfor-
Distance from the pile, r (m) mance of the pile. Based on the principle of effective stress, dissi-
pation of excess pore pressure with time after installation will
Fig. 10. Variation of radial displacement with distance from the pile. enhance the bearing capacity of the pile. Therefore, measures that

(a) 0 (b) 0
2 2

4 4

6 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

8 8

10 10

12 12

14 14

16 Driving to 2.5 m 16 r = 3r
0
Driving to 5 m r = 4r0
18 18
Driving to 10 m r = 6r
0
20 20
−50 0 50 100 150 −50 0 50 100 150
Pore water pressure (kPa) Pore water pressure (kPa)
Fig. 11. Pore water pressure profile: (a) at a distance of r = 3r0 during pile driving and (b) at different distance from the pile.
 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87 85

200 (a) Drainage boundaries (b) Drainage boundaries

Theoretical solution
Pore water pressure (kPa)

Numerical, z = 9 m
150 Numerical, z = 10 m
Segment a

Pile Segment b Pile

100
Segment c
Segment d Permeable area
50

0 Soil Soil
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from the pile, r (m)
Fig. 12. Variation of pore water pressure with distance from the pile.

Fig. 15. Drainage conditions for permeable piles.

(a) (b)
by using an equivalent permeability near the shaft to stimulate
the effect of holes that do not form a continuous drainage bound-
Drained water ary. However, such a study is beyond the scope of current paper
and further studies are needed to address this.
Driving Drainage path Fig. 14 compares the computed average degree of consolidation
with time from analyses of normal and permeable piles. In this
investigation, the permeable area is along the full length of the pile.
The effectiveness of extra drainage boundary can be seen clearly.
Accumulation For a specific average degree of consolation, it requires less time
of excess pore for the permeable pile than that for the normal pile. After comple-
water pressure
tion of pile driving, the average degree of consolidation around the
normal pile is lower. The consolidation curve of the permeable pile
is always on the left, which indicates that this technique could
Drainage hole potentially improve the bearing capacity of the pile.
In order to better interpret the efficacy of the proposed strategy
Fig. 13. Schematics of (a) normal pile and (b) permeable pile. of a permeable pile, an improved average degree of consolidation,
Uimp, is calculated as

tperm
0 U imp ¼ 1  ð6Þ
t norm

20 where tperm and tnorm indicate the consolidation time for permeable
and normal piles respectively.
At different average degree of consolidation, the improved effi-
Uavg (%)

40 ciencies are estimated as given in Fig. 16. The advantage of a per-

meable pile to accelerate pore pressure dissipation is obvious,
60 especially at the early stage of consolidation (e.g., at Uavg = 20%,
Uimp = 68%). This reduces the time required for consolidation signif-
icantly, such that the permeable pile can have a higher bearing
80 Normal pile capacity in a short time span. With the increase of the average
Permeable pile degree of consolidation, the effect of improvement by the proposed
100 scheme becomes less remarkable.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (s) 4.3. Parametric study of permeable piles

Fig. 14. Comparison of the average degree of consolidation.

can accelerate consolidation are sought to improve the ability of a
normal pile to provide maximum resistance in a shorter time span.
Similar to vertical drains [35], the concept of a permeable pile is
proposed in this paper as an alternative to a normal pile to provide
an extra drainage path. As schematically shown in Fig. 13b, drai-
nage holes (i.e., permeable area) can be drilled around the pile cir-
cumference, so pore water pressure can dissipate through these
openings. It is assumed in the current study that the pile shaft is
completely permeable. The modelling can be improved further
The permeability of drainage boundaries is actually finite, but
not a constant. It depends on soil properties and real-time pore
water pressure. In general, with the decrease in pore pressure,
the permeability reduces [11]. This explains why the beneficial
effect of permeable piles is degraded with time. Further numerical
analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence of various
parameters on the efficacy of permeable piles, such as hydraulic
conductivity, and location and ratio of permeable area.
The driving process of permeable piles is the same as normal
piles, where undrained behaviour is dominant. The variation of
pore water pressure is dependent on pile diameter and installation
86 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87

80 0

70
20
60
Uimp (%)

Uavg (%)
50 40

40
60
30 Segment a
Segment b
20 80 Segment c
Segment d
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Uavg (%) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time (s)
Fig. 16. The improved average degree of consolidation.
Fig. 18. The influence of location of preamble area on the average degree of
consolidation.

method, which is not affected by drainage conditions too much.

Therefore, it is not necessary to design piles based on the initial
pore water pressure. However, piles could behave differently when 70
they are embedded in soils with different permeability. Three Uavg = 20%
groups of analyses were performed to investigate the influence of 60
hydraulic conductivity on the average degree of consolidation. Uavg = 40%
Fig. 17 shows that permeable piles can always accelerate soil con- Uavg = 60%
Uimp (%)
solidation compared to normal piles. For the soil around permeable 50
piles, less time was required to reach a certain average degree of
consolidation. The consolidation curve moved to the left when 40 Uavg = 80%
the hydraulic conductivity increased, which corresponded to an
enhanced dissipation of pore water pressure.
The influence of location of permeable area is investigated to 30
optimize design. Fig. 15a illustrates the analyses with different
segment of pile length modified as a drainage boundary (e.g., if 20
drainage is allowed at segment a, segments b, c and d are imper- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
meable). The results of average degree of consolidation with time Permeable area ratio (%)
are presented in Fig. 18. The consolidation curves of all four models
Fig. 19. The influence of permeable area ratio on the improved average degree of
were similar. However, the most notable effect was obtained when
consolidation.
the drainage condition was altered at segment d, where less time
was required for the surrounding soil to reach a certain level of
The ratio of permeable area is then studied to provide an opti-
consolidation. This is consistent with the observations from both
mal solution. Fig. 15b depicts the location of openings within the
the numerical simulations and the calibration chamber tests of
bottom of the pile length, which varies from 20%, 30%, 50%, 60%
Song and Voyiadjis [27], where pore pressure changed drastically
to 80% of the pile length in this investigation. The improved aver-
at greater depths along a penetrating object. The permeable area
age degree of consolidation of permeable piles compared to normal
is therefore suggested to be placed near the pile tip to improve
piles was calculated as a function of permeable area ratio as shown
the dissipation of pore water pressure, so that the maximum bear-
in Fig. 19. At different average degree of consolidation, the
ing capacity of the pile can be mobilized at early stages of
observed consolidation was increased with openings. The increase
construction.
rate was dramatic when the permeable area ratio was raised from
20% to 50%, beyond which a steady state was obtained. At the early
0 stage of consolidation, the improvement in consolidation was more
apparent. For example, at Uavg = 20%, an opening of 20% provided
20 an improved value of Uimp = 52%; an opening of 50% had a Uimp of
Pe

No

64%; and an opening of 80% resulted in a Uimp of 66%. The corre-

rm

rm

sponding values were Uimp = 35%, 52% and 55% for an opening of
ea

al
Uavg (%)

40
ble

pil

20%, 50% and 80% at Uavg = 60%, respectively. Overall, the perme-
e
pil

able area is suggested to be placed within the bottom 50% of the

e

60 pile length.
k = 10−7 m/s
80 k = 10−8 m/s 5. Conclusions
−9
k = 10 m/s
In this paper, the installation process of displacement piles has
100
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7 been studied numerically using a 3D finite element model. The soil
is characterized as a Modified Cam Clay material using 8-node lin-
Time (s)
ear hexahedral elements (C3D8R). Theoretical derivations of stress
Fig. 17. The influence of hydraulic conductivity on the average degree of and settlement in the elastic soil mass due to surface pressure are
consolidation. used to calibrate the numerical tool. A model scale of 20d is found
 P. Ni et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 84 (2017) 78–87
to be adequate to minimize boundary effects. The far field bound-
aries are then modified using 8-node linear infinite elements
(CIN3D8) to further eliminate errors associated with the modelling
strategy. Considering the symmetry of the problem, a quarter pile
is modelled as a discrete rigid part. The developed simulation
method can address large mesh distortions during pile driving,
and provide reasonable estimates of soil responses compared to
analytical solutions and field measurements.
The consolidation behaviour is subsequently evaluated using
the calibrated numerical tool. An alternative measure that could
accelerate dissipation of excess pore pressure is proposed in this
paper. Drilling drainage holes (i.e., permeable openings) on the
pipe pile could potentially provide an extra drainage path. Compar-
isons between normal and permeable piles demonstrate that soil
consolidation is improved significantly when permeable piles are
used, especially at the early stage of installation. A parametric
study is performed to investigate the influence of parameters. A
higher hydraulic conductivity within the soil is found to be benefi-
cial to the reduction in pore pressure. The permeable area is sug-
gested to be placed within the bottom 50% of the pile length to
optimize the efficacy of the proposed scheme.
Acknowledgements
This work had been supported by the National Science Fund for
Excellent Young Scholars (Grant No. 51322807) and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51578164), and
by the Ministry of Education of China through the Changjiang
Scholars Program to Dr. Guoxiong Mei.
References
[1] Randolph M. Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. Geotechnique
2003;53(10):847–76.
[2] Bozozuk M, Fellenius BH, Samson L. Soil disturbance from pile driving in
sensitive clay. Can Geotech J 1978;15(3):346–61.
[3] Roy M, Blanchet R, Tavenas F, Rochelle PL. Behaviour of a sensitive clay during
pile driving. Can Geotech J 1981;18(1):67–85.
[4] Roy M, Tremblay M, Tavenas F, Rochelle PL. Development of pore pressures in
quasi-static penetration tests in sensitive clay. Can Geotech J 1982;19
(2):124–38.
[5] Cooke R, Price G, Tarr K. Jacked piles in London Clay: a study of load transfer
and settlement under working conditions. Geotechnique 1979;29(2):113–47.
[6] Hwang J-H, Liang N, Chen C-H. Ground response during pile driving. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(11):939–49.
[7] White D, Bolton M. Displacement and strain paths during plane-strain model
pile installation in sand. Géotechnique 2004;54(6):375–97.
[8] Ng C, Shi C, Gunawan A, Laloui L, Liu H. Centrifuge modelling of heating effects
on energy pile performance in saturated sand. Can Geotech J 2015;52
(8):1045–57.
87
[9] Yu HS. Cavity expansion methods in geomechanics. Springer Science &
Business Media; 2013.
[10] Vesic AS. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J Soil Mech Found Div
1972;98(sm3).
[11] Randolph MF, Wroth C. An analytical solution for the consolidation around a
driven pile. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1979;3(3):217–29.
[12] Salgado R, Mitchell J, Jamiolkowski M. Cavity expansion and penetration
resistance in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1997;123(4):344–54.
[13] Baligh MM. Strain path method. J Geotech Eng 1985;111(9):1108–36.
[14] Poulos H. Effect of pile driving on adjacent piles in clay. Can Geotech J 1994;31
(6):856–67.
[15] Sagaseta C, Whittle AJ. Prediction of ground movements due to pile driving in
clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(1):55–66.
[16] Ni P, Song L, Mei G, Zhao Y. A generalized nonlinear softening load transfer
model for axially loaded piles. Int J Geomech; 2016 [in press].
[17] Saiyar M, Ni P, Take WA, Moore ID. Response of pipelines of differing flexural
stiffness to normal faulting. Géotechnique 2016;66(4):275–86.
[18] Weerasekara L, Wijewickreme D. Mobilization of soil loads on buried,
polyethylene natural gas pipelines subject to relative axial displacements.
Can Geotech J 2008;45(9):1237–49.
[19] Wijewickreme D, Karimian H, Honegger D. Response of buried steel pipelines
subjected to relative axial soil movement. Can Geotech J 2009;46(7):735–52.
[20] Chow Y, Teh C. A theoretical study of pile heave. Geotechnique 1990;40
(1):1–14.
[21] Sagaseta C. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss.
Geotechnique 1987;37(3):301–20.
[22] Xu K, Poulos H. 3-D elastic analysis of vertical piles subjected to ‘‘passive”
loadings. Comput Geotech 2001;28(5):349–75.
[23] Koumoto T, Kaku K. Three-dimensional analysis of static cone penetration into
clay. In: Proc 2nd European symp on penetration testing; 1982. p. 635–40.
[24] Masouleh SF, Fakharian K. Application of a continuum numerical model for
pile driving analysis and comparison with a real case. Comput Geotech
2008;35(3):406–18.
[25] Said Id, De Gennaro V, Frank R. Axisymmetric finite element analysis of pile
loading tests. Comput Geotech 2009;36(1):6–19.
[26] Sheng D, Eigenbrod KD, Wriggers P. Finite element analysis of pile installation
using large-slip frictional contact. Comput Geotech 2005;32(1):17–26.
[27] Song CR, Voyiadjis GZ. Pore pressure response of saturated soils around a
penetrating object. Comput Geotech 2005;32(1):37–46.
[28] Qiu G, Henke S, Grabe J. Application of a coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
approach on geomechanical problems involving large deformations. Comput
Geotech 2011;38(1):30–9.
[29] Hamad F. Formulation of the axisymmetric CPDI with application to pile
driving in sand. Comput Geotech 2016;74:141–50.
[30] Ni P, Moore ID, Take WA. Numerical modeling of normal fault-pipeline
interaction and comparison with centrifuge tests. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng;
2016 [in press].
[31] Bowles J. Foundation analysis and design. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996.
[32] Das BM. Principles of foundation engineering. Pacific Grove, California: PWS
PUBLISHING, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; 1999.
[33] Li T. Analysis of finite element about compacting effect of piles by considering
dynamic penetration process. Yangzhou, China: Yangzhou University; 2012
[MASc thesis].
[34] Abusharar SW, Zheng J-J, Chen B-G. Finite element modeling of the
consolidation behavior of multi-column supported road embankment.
Comput Geotech 2009;36(4):676–85.
[35] Hird C, Moseley V. Model study of seepage in smear zones around vertical
drains in layered soil. Geotechnique 2000;50(1):89–97.