Interaction studies on Soil-Foundation System for RCC Space

Frames
by
N.Jitendra Babu
Regd No: 13302014
Research Scholar
Department of Civil & Engineering
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation

Under the Guidance of

Dr. B.Kameswara Rao1 & Dr.Ravi Kumar Reddy2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation1
Kallam Hara Nadha Reddy Institute of Technology2

1
 Outline

• Introduction
• Literature Survey
• Scope
• Problem Statement
• Objectives & Proposed Methodology
• Analytical Setup
• Outcomes
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Publications
• Acknowledgements

2
 Introduction

• The conventional method of structural analysis adopted for practical design

of most of the framed structures is done assuming the footings to be fixed or
hinged.

• Multistorey frames are a three dimensional lattice structure. It is the global

identity of the structure that manages the load; not local contributions. A
multistorey frame is a statically indeterminate structure.

• The analysis of structural frames is governed by the provisions of clause

22.4 of IS 456[l9].

• The ability of the multistorey frames to resist lateral forces depends upon
the rigidity of the beam - column joint. When the connections are fully rigid,
the structure as a whole is capable of resisting lateral forces in any
direction. At each joint, the structural members meeting there bear the share
of the total load acting at that joint in proportion to its relative stiffness.

3
• The effect of compressibility of soil and flexibility of foundation is ignored.

• In reality the superstructure, foundation and soil is an integral system and

compressibility/flexibility of one affects the stresses and strains in the other.

• The analysis of interaction between such deformable bodies occupies a

prominent place in both applied mathematics and engineering literature.

• Such an analysis may be more expensive and may be necessary only for
large and very important structures(like an atomic reactor structure which is
to be crack free).

• Unlike behavior of steel and concrete the soil is extremely non-linear in the
sense that its strength and stiffness behavior depends on stress level.
Hence a good under standing of the material behavior (constitutive model)
of the soil is essential for any numerical analysis of the soil - structure
interaction problems.
4
 Soil-Structure Interaction

• There are many parameters that affect the response of a structure to ground
excitations such as
– shape,
– size and geometry of the structure,
– type of foundation,
– soil characteristics etc .
• When the seismic waves passes on the surface, structural base swings back
and forth, resulting in differential displacements.
• Under gravity loads beams of the frame undergo bending, resulting in
stretching and shortening at various locations. Depending on the severity of
earthquake, the seismically induced bending moment may be of much higher
magnitude than that due to gravity loads.

5
• The load from the superstructure is transferred to the surrounding soil through the
foundation which nominally is a raft or pile or mat.
• The Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) effects refer to the influence of the supporting
soil medium on the behavior of the structure when it is subjected to different types
of loads.
• Soil Structure interaction can be static when the structure is subjected to static
loads and dynamic, when dynamic loads are acting on the structure.

6
• Even though interaction occurs between the structure, foundation and supporting
soil medium for all types of loading, it is more critical in the case of seismic loads.
• Hence the term soil structure interaction has now become acknowledged along with
seismic loads.

7
Soil Constitutive Relation Modeling

Soil is a complicated material that behaves :

1. Non-linearly and often shows anisotropic.
2. Time dependent behavior when subjected to stresses.
3. soil behaves differently in primary loading, unloading and reloading.
4. It exhibits non-linear behavior well below failure condition with stress
dependent stiffness.
5. Soil undergoes plastic deformation.
6. It is inconsistent in dilatancy.
7. Soil also experiences small strain stiffness at very low strains and
upon stress reversal.
These above general behavior made the soil modeling not possibly
being accounted for in simple elastic-perfectly plastic.

8
1. MOHR-COULOMB

9
2.ANSYS HARDENING SOIL
MODEL

10
3. HYPER-ELASTIC MODEL

11
A short overview of the Softening Soil model
Features of the model :

• Most natural clayey deposits, as well as lime/cement treated clayey

soils, exhibit strain-softening behavior, which can affect, for example,
the stability of an embankment and the bearing capacity of a foundation
on this kind of ground.

• Failure of soil under a foundation normally occurs progressively, and in

order to simulate the progressive failure phenomenon, strain-softening
material behavior should be considered.

12
• Modeling Strain-softening

13
• Soil model with strain softening behavior:
The plastic strain causes a decrease in the yield
stress as shown below. Soils with densely packed
grains are strain softening because disturbance during
sharing causes the grains to move apart causing dilation.

14
• Soil model with Elastic–Perfectly Plastic behavior:
For relatively low-medium risk projects, an
assumption may be made that the stress-strain response
can be represented by two straight lines, to describe an
initial linear elastic stiffness (OA) and the yield stress or
strength at failure during plastic straining (AB).

15
 Literature Survey

SI. No Author Title Findings

1 Force-Deformation relations from Euler- The results were expressed in terms of
Bernoulli beam theory on a frame with non- temperature-dependant stability and bowing
linear thermo-mechanical analysis subjected functions.Structural members were
P Ravi
to fire discretized with 2D mesh for thermal analysis
Prakash
and for structural analysis line elements were
(2017)
use dbase don structural stiffness. This
analysis has resulted in efficient predicting
the response of RCC frames.
2 Umer Farooq RCC Frames using Fine Element Analysis Has done research using ANSYS on RCC
(2015) Frame using Fine Element Analysis and the
results were compared with experimental test
data for RC beams. From the study it was
concluded that FEA gives efficient results in
analysing the frames. Algorithms developed
with FEA were observed to be in line with
experimental data.
3 Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction in The effect of soil-structure interaction on a
Framed Structure four storeyed, two bay frame resting on pile
and embedded in the cohesive soil is
Janardhan
examined. The effect of different pile
Shanmugam
diameters on the response of superstructure is
(2015)
evaluated. The responses of the superstructure
considered include storey displacements at
respective storeys.

16
 Literature Survey

SI. No Author Title Findings

4 The effect of soil structure interaction is taken
into account by assuming it as vertical and
horizontal soil spring (winkler soil spring).
Lateral subgrade modulus and vertical
subgrade modulus of soil (KH and Kv) is
Thadapaneni Analysis of Pile Foundation Subjected to calculated as per is code 2911. The lateral
Kanakeswarar Lateral and Vertical Loads load analysis is carried out in FEM (Finite
ao (2017) Element Method) Staad pro soft ware, L Pile
software & by empirical equations (Brom’s
method and Vesic’s method). The above
problem solved as per the Brom's method
mentioned in IS 2911 and comparative results
are also presented.
5 Anusha Analysis of Pile subjected to Lateral Loading A detailed study on the response of pile
George (2015) in Clay modeled using ANSYS foundations in cohesion less and cohesive soil
subjected to lateral loading. The soil
structural interaction analysis of a single
laterally loads pile is carried using ANSYS
software. In this method the pile is considered
as a flexible beam on the elastic foundation
and soil is replaced as a series of elastic,
closely spaced but independent springs. Pile
behavior in uniform clay soils as well as in
sand layer in clay deposit were analyzed and
cross compared to theoretical results for
validation. Linear elastic model of pile was
used for modelling the piles.
17
 Literature Survey

SI. No Author Title Findings

6 Experimental study on pile foundation under The seismic soilstructure interaction involves
vertical and lateral loads the investigation of the collective response of
the structure, the fondation and its
surroundings, to a pre-determined free-Field
ground motion. In thisinvestigation pile
fondation is analyzed for earthquake loads.
Dhanasri A
The piles are modeled in SOLIDWORKS
(2020)
software and analyzed in ANSYS
workbench.The vertical and lateral load is
applied on long pile. Due to impact of lateral
force huge overturning and displacement
occurred in long pile, combined with small
ground displacements.
7 Ravikumar C The effect of soil structure interaction for an Conventional design and nonlinear finite
Reddy (2013) RCC frame with plinth beam supported on element analysis was done for the frame and
pile group embedded in cohesionless soil. was compared with conventional analysis
results. Factors such as shears, moments,
drifts and rotations were drawn for
comparision study. From the results and
comparision statement it was concluded that
decrease in rigidity of plinth beam reduces
the shear force and bending moment of frame.
Also it was concluded that soil structure
interaction should be considered in designing
of frames

18
 Research Gap

• Large number of studies were done on soil-structure interaction of frames

resting on different types of soils.

• Many researchers has considered Plane frames confining to single storey.

Analytical studies has been done for those frames considering the physical
and engineering parameters.

• In this study space frame with 5 storey height was proposed for study on
Interaction effects.

19
 Research Significance

• When a space frame is being designed for EQ resistance, there is a

probability of development of internal stresses on the foundation system.
• These stresses developed in the soil mass shows an impact on foundation
system which might result in overturning or shear failure of foundation
system which was being neglected by design engineers mostly.
• Studying about the soil mass behavior in terms of stresses and their effect
on performance of structural system gives a scope in effective design of
frames.
• This study concentrates on effect of soil stresses on foundation system
thereby on super structure resting on various foundations.

20
 Problem Statement

• From the research gap it was proposed to consider a 3 dimensional space

frame of G+5 storey.
• Foundation system was considered in two cases as isolated footings and
Pile foundation.
• Soil under the foundation system is soft clayey soil and all the parameters
required for the study were determined through experimental
investigations.
• Considering both the support conditions i.e., Isolated Footing and Pile
Foundation system for the RCC frame, analysis was done for performance
and response of structure.
• The response of the structure for the support conditions was carried and
compared

21
 Methodology

Phase – I Modelling of Soil and Framed structrue

Phase – II Modelling of RCC frame with Isolated footings & Pile System resting on
clayey soil

Phase – III Static Structural analysis of RCC frames neglecting Soil Structrue
Interaction

Phase – IV Static Structural analysis of RCC frames considering Soil Structrue

Interaction
Modal analysis and SRSS analysis of RCC Frames for all the boundary
Phase – V
conditions

Phase – VI SRSS analysis of RCC Frames for all the boundary conditions

22
 Objectives
• The aim of this research is to study the interaction effects of soil and structure
foundation system and efficiency of type of foundation with the following
objectives.

– To analyse the effect of soil stresses on foundation and structure system.

– To find out the optimum foundation system for soft clays under soil structure
interaction effects.

– To determine the maximum deformation under modal behavior of RCC Frame with
isolated and pile footings under interaction effects.

– To study the Response of RCC Frame with isolated footings and pile frame under
relative displacement and maximum total deformation of structure considering the
relative density and frequency relation Peak Ground Motion.

23
 Proposed Methodology
Constitutive Models

• For a general parametric study, to highlight the effect of other

parameters, a simpler constitutive model may be sufficient.

• Any assumption other than a linearly elastic model for the soil and
foundation /structural material, would involve unduly large number of
parameters and make such parametric study very difficult.

• Hence soil and other materials have been assumed to be linearly

elastic in most of the work reported in this project.

24
Numerical Techniques

• For the work reported herein ANSYS finite element software has
been used.

• In most of the work reported, Quadratic iso-parametric soild

elements have been used to model soil, footing and superstructure.

• These elements are shown to model the flexure behaviour

satisfactorily, in addition to modelling general elastic behaviour.

25
Checks
• The solutions obtained using numerical methods like FEM are
‘approximate’ ones. The accuracy depends essentially on the mesh
layout in the case of elastic analysis.
• Three dimensional frames with Isolated Footing and Pile foundation
system has been considered for analysis.
• Five storey frame (G+4) of 12m X 16m width and 3 m floor height
was considered for this study.
• Response of the frame such as frequency and deformation,
moments and shears were analysed and compared.
• Mode shapes were found and total deformation for each frequency
was determined.
• The total run time for static analysis was 30 minutes to 1 hour and
for Modal & SRSS analysis was 30 minutes to 45 minutes counting
the run time as approximately 1 hour 30 minutes.
26
 Analytical Setup
• Modelling
Soil:
• Soil is modelled as solid member
assigning all possible mechanical
properties such as Young’s
modulus, poison’s ratio, ultimate
compressive strength and density Sl. Property Un Observed Value
No it
of soil etc.
1 Density Kg 1700
• Footing and soil mass junction i.e., /
Cu.
bonding is assigned once after m
modelling the frame depending on 2 Poisson’s 0.3
the available options in respective Ratio
software. 3 Young’s Mp 27
Modulus a
• Soil is modelled as elastic solid 4 Ultimate Mp 11
mass with fixed support Compres a
sive
considering lateral displacements Strength
are allowed. 27
Ansys Mapping for Static, Modal and RS Analysis

Analysis Definition in ANSYS R18.2

Property Definition in ANSYS

R18.2

28
Structure:
• Beams, Columns and Footngs were modelled as quadratic iso-
parametric solid elements.
• Size of beams and column members was considered as 0.38m X 0.38m
• Thickness of slab is considered as 0.15m.

29
 Properties of Concrete and Reinforcement
Sl.No Property Unit Observed Observed Value-
Value- Reinforcement
concrete
1 Density Kg/Cu.m 2500 7850
2 Poissons Ratio 0.15 0.3
3 Youngs Mpa 30000 2E+05
Modulus
4 Ultimate Mpa 30 -
Compressive
Strength
5 Ultimate MPa 460
Tensile
Strength

30
Parameters
• Concrete, Reinforcement and Soil properties were defined in
material properties prior to modelling in ansys work bench.

• Drucker-prager theory was adopted for soil model assuming soil

mass as elastic linear material.

• Fixed supports were assigned at the bottom of soil model and for
every column footing junction in rigid frame model.

• Pile supports were modelled as linear iso-parametric elastic

elements allowing horizontal displacements under loading.
• Loads were calculated as per IS 875 and IS 1893 and were
assigned as gravitational loads and SRSS factors.

31
Meshing
Meshing is used to converge all members into number of parts or
volumes called “Elements” to define the parametric shape of all the
members equally such that each and every elements acts in a similar
way of bearing the load/ displacement.
Types of meshing:
1. Defining or diverging the members depending on the number of
parts to be meshed. Any member of any length is divided into
number of desired elements. ( No. of parts are defined as input)
2. Defining the elements based on the desired size of element.
(Element length is defined as input)

32
 Contact Region
• In any modelling program, contact region has to be assigned for bonding
between structure and subsurface. Contact region is developed or assigned
by a pair called point and target, whereas point is structure and target is
subsurface (Soil medium).

Soil-Foundation-Structure Contact

33
OUTCOMES

34
 Static Analysis
• Static Structural Analysis of Rigid Frame and Pile Frame
neglecting Interaction Effects

Shear Diagram Bending Diagram Total Deformation

RCC Frame with Isolated footings neglecting SSI Effects

35
Shear Diagram Bending Diagram Total Deformation

RCC Frame with Pile footings neglecting SSI Effects

36
 Static Analysis Neglecting Interaction Effects
Sl.N Description RCC Frame with Isolated RCC Frame with Pile
o Footing Footing
Min. Max. Min. Max.

1 Axial Force -0.0035e5 kN 2.812 kN -0.0067e5 4.9501

kN kN
2 Shear Force 0.00176 kN 21.156 kN 0.00156kN 77.781
kN
3 Bending Moment 0.00038 kN.m 22.744 kN.m 0.00038 29.869
kN.m kN.m
4 Total Deformation 0 mm 1.8932 mm 0 mm 2.419
mm
5 Direct Stress -2.45 MPa 0.019476 MPa -4.6 MPa 0.03428
MPa
6 Minimum Combined -2.8 MPa 0.00749 MPa -5.58 MPa 0.0244
Stress MPa

7 Maximum Combined -2.43 MPa 1.58 MPa -4.59 MPa 2.2674

Stress MPa

37
• Static Structural Analysis of Rigid Frame and Pile Frame
considering Interaction Effects

Shear Diagram Bending Moment Diagram Total Deformation Diagram

RCC Frame with Isolated footings considering SSI Effects

38
Shear Diagram Bending Moment Diagram Total Deformation Diagram

RCC Frame with Pile Foundation considering SSI Effects

39
Static Analysis Considering Interaction Effects
Sl.N Description RCC Frame with Isolated Footing RCC Frame with Pile
o Footing
Min. Max. Min. Max.

1 Axial Force -0.00353 e5 kN 2.828 kN -0.00102 e6 2.3075

kN kN
2 Shear Force 0.00055 kN 21.038 kN 0.00917 kN 35.6 kN

3 Bending Moment 0.00321 kN.m 22.697 kN.m 0.0243 23.66

kN.m kN.m
4 Total Deformation 0 mm 5.383 mm 0 mm 82.005
mm
5 Direct Stress -2.44 MPa 0.1959 Mpa -7.089 MPa 1.59 MPa

6 Minimum Combined Stress -2.841 MPa 0.008274 Mpa -27.89 MPa 0.89 Mpa

7 Maximum Combined Stress -2.422 MPa 1.587 MPa -4.83 MPa 26.69
MPa

40
 Discussion On Static Analysis
From the above results, it can be observed that,
• The total deformation of pile footing was grater than that of frame with isolated
footing in both the cases.

• Deformation has increased with interaction effects of soil structure in pile

foundation by 16 times which is due to the coupled effects of soil stresses on pile
system.

• Also Direct stresses and combined stresses has been increased in pile foundation
system compared to isolated footing system in considering SSI effects.

• The shear force, Bending moments was shown no impact due to soil structure
interaction effects.

41
 Modal Analysis
• Modal Analysis was conducted on RCC frame for all the cases to study the mode
shapes and deformation occurred with respect to the frequency of the frame.

• First 10 modes were opted to study the behaviour. As the frame members were
modelled as iso-parametric elastic members, stresses and high deformations were
switched off so that the total run time was reduced by 20 hours and it took 45
minutes run time for one cycle

42
• Modal Analysis of Rigid Frame and Pile Frame neglecting
Interaction Effects

Total Deform-1 Total Deform-2 Total Deform-1 Total Deform-2

RCC Frame with Isolated footings & Pile Foundation neglecting SSI Effects

43
 Frequency vs. Deformation of Frames neglecting
Interaction Effects

RCC FRAME WITH ISOLATED RCC FRAME WITH PILE

FOOTINGS FOUNDATION
Mode Frequenc Deformation (mm) Mode Frequenc Deformation (mm)
No. y (Hz.) No. y (Hz.)
1 1.276 0.00159 1 1.325 0.001612
2 1.2986 0.001588 2 1.3461 0.001613
3 1.5033 0.002524 3 1.5554 0.00256
4 3.9587 0.001555 4 4.0049 0.001501
5 4.0186 0.001557 5 4.0503 0.001488
6 4.6448 0.002475 6 4.5383 0.002074
7 6.9589 0.001608 7 5.2784 0.000905
8 7.0297 0.001607 8 5.2961 0.0009422
9 8.1043 0.002539 9 5.4964 0.001593
10 10.124 0.001597 10 5.5166 0.001092
44
• Develop Graph for slide 42

45
Modal Analysis of Rigid Frame and Pile Frame considering
Interaction Effects

Total Deform-1 Total Deform-2 Total Deform-1 Total Deform-2

RCC Frame with Isolated footings & Pile Foundation considering SSI Effects

46
 Frequency vs. Deformation of Frames considering
Interaction Effects

RCC FRAME WITH ISOLATED RCC FRAME WITH PILE

FOOTINGS FOUNDATION
Mode Frequenc Deformation (mm) Mode Frequenc Deformation (mm)
No. y (Hz.) No. y (Hz.)
1 1.2793 0.0015901 1 0.10106 0.0019745
2 1.3018 0.0015886 2 0.11592 0.0019378
3 1.5058 0.002523 3 0.38387 0.0025484
4 3.9675 0.001554 4 1.4025 0.0014065
5 4.0269 0.001557 5 1.895 0.0025621
6 4.6515 0.0024746 6 2.7755 0.0022846
7 6.4253 0.000995 7 4.0014 0.0023411
8 6.9704 0.001607 8 4.5264 0.0027032
9 7.0403 0.001606 9 4.8033 0.0023738
10 8.1129 0.002539 10 5.9212 0.002455
47
• Develop Graph for slide 45

48
 Discussions
• From the graphs and tables, it can be observed that, deformation has been
increasing with increase in frequency.
• From the above tables, it was observed that the frequency of isolated footing
system is greater than that of pile system in both the cases i.e., neglecting and
considering SSI effects.
• The deformation is also proportional and becoming optimal at mid of the analysis.

• The main aim of this modal analysis is to find out the frequency of each mode and
its deformation in total.

• The frequency is used to calculate the time period and its relative dispalcements so
as to perform response spectrum analysis.

49
Response Spectrum Analysis

50
2001 Bhuj Earth Quake, INDIA

51
1994,Holiday Inn, Van Nuys

Recorded Ground Motion (Holiday Inn, Van Nuys 1994)

52
RCC Frame with Isolated Footing neglecting
SSI Effects
Frequency and Displacement for
SRSS Analysis as per 2001 BHUJ
EQ
Frequency Dispalcement (m)
1.276 3.05E-04
1.2986 2.94E-04
1.5033 2.19E-04
3.9587 3.17E-03
4.0186 3.08E-03
4.6448 2.30E-03
6.9589 1.03E-03
7.0297 1.05E-03
8.1043 7.56E-03
10.124 8.60E-03

Total Deformation observed from SRSS Analysis is 0.0013104 m

53
RCC Frame with Isolated Footing considering
SSI Effects
Frequency and Displacement for
SRSS Analysis as per 2001 BHUJ
EQ
Frequency Dispalcement (m)
1.2793 3.06E-04
1.3018 2.95E-04
1.5058 2.21E-04
3.9675 3.19E-03
4.0269 3.08E-03
4.6515 2.30E-03
6.4253 1.02E-03
6.9704 1.04E-03
7.0403 7.05E-03
8.1129 7.64E-03

Total Deformation observed from SRSS Analysis is 0.0013242 m

54
RCC Frame with Pile Footing neglecting SSI
Effects
Frequency and Displacement for
SRSS Analysis as per 2001 BHUJ
EQ
Frequency Dispalcement (m)
1.325 3.07E-04
1.3461 3.14E-04
1.5554 2.71E-04
4.0049 3.24E-03
4.0503 3.09E-03
4.5383 2.29E-03
5.2784 9.20E-04
5.2961 9.18E-04
5.4964 5.99E-03
5.5166 6.10E-03

Total Deformation observed from SRSS Analysis is 0.003153 m

55
RCC Frame with Pile Footing considering SSI
Effects
Frequency and Displacement for
SRSS Analysis as per 2001 BHUJ
EQ
Frequency Dispalcement (m)
0.10106 1.00E-04
0.11592 1.20E-04
0.38387 1.00E-03
1.4025 3.09E-04
1.895 3.10E-04
2.7755 3.19E-04
4.0014 3.00E-03
4.5264 2.28E-03
4.8033 2.41E-03
5.9212 6.15E-03

Total Deformation observed from SRSS Analysis is 0.006093 m

56
 Discussion
• Ground Acceleration Vs. Time graph is considered in performing the
response spectral analysis.
• Spectral Dispalcement vs. Time period is considered to estimate the
displacement. Relative displacement values were used as input for SRSS
( Single Point Response Spectrum Analysis).
• In this type of analysis the total frame was assumed as SDOF system as
and then SRSS anlaysis was opted for this study.
• From the above results, The total deformation of pile system under
interaction effects was observed to me naximum of all the cases and the
magnitude was 0.006093 m.

57
 CONCLUSION
From the above results, it was concluded that
• The response of the structure changes significantly in the soil-structure-interaction
analysis when compared to the noninteractive analysis.
• The effect of soil- structure interaction on top displacement of the frame is quite
significant. Total deformation is less for the fixed base condition and increases in
the range of 1.89mm to 82 mm when the effect of SSI is taken into consideration
for fixed base and pile foundation system.
• The impact of soil pressure and lateral loads effects the foundation system
increasing in the moments and deformations of the total foundation-frame system.
• The diameter of piles are fixed so that the total deformation in all the case can be
compared clearly.
• Spectral Response (Deformation) is less for the conventional analysis, i.e., fixed
base condition and increases in the range of 193 – 465 % when the effect of SSI is
taken into consideration for fixed base and pile foundation system.

58
• The Normal stresses at the interaction surface between soil and structure decreases
in SSI analysis, when considered for gravity loads only. This is due to coupling of
horizontal displacements between the footing and soil.

59
 References
1.Edward Tsudik. (2013), Analysis of Structures on Elastic Foundation, J Ross Publishing.
2. Selva Durai, A.P.S. (1979), Elastic analysis of Soil Foundation Interaction, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company.
3. Wolf, J.P. (1985), Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
4. IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Criteria of Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – General
Provisions and Buildings, Fifth Revision, BIS New Delhi
5. Balaam, N.P, Poulos, H.G, and Booker, J.R (1975). "Finite Element Analysis of the Effects of
Installation on Pile Load-settlement Behaviour" Geotech.Eng., Vol. 6, No.1.
6. Bowles, J.E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, NewYork. Chellis, R.D.
(1961). Pile Foundations, McGraw Hill, New York. Desai, C.S. (1974). "Numerical Design-
Analysis for Piles in Sands," J. Geotech.Eng. Div., ASCE,Vol. 100, No. GT6.
7. Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay," Proc.
2ndOffshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Vol. 1.
8. Matlock, H, and Reese, L.C. (1960). "Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles,"
JSMFD, ASCE, Vol. 86, N. SMS, Part 1. [5] Matlock, H., and Reese, L.C. (1961).
"Foundation Analysis of Offshore Supported Structures, "Proc. 5th Int. Conf. SM and FE,
Vol. 2

60
 References
8.Rafał F. Obrzud, GeoMod Consulting Eng. “On the use of the Hardening Soil Small Strain
model in geotechnical practice”.
9.Addenbrooke, T., Potts, D., and Puzrin, A. The influence of pre-failure soil stiffness on the
numerical analysis of the tunnel construction. Géotechnique, 47(3):693–712, 1997.
10.Schanz, T., Vermeer, P., and Bonier, P. (1999). Formulation and verification of the Hardening
Soil model. In Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1999.
11.Kok Sien Ti, et al, “A Review of Basic Soil Constitutive Models for Geotechnical
Application”, EJGE.

61