Numerical Analysis Validation Using Embedded Pile

Practice-Oriented Validation of Embedded Beam Formulations in Geotechnical Engineering

“…Since beam elements are superimposed on the solid domain, and therefore overlap the soil, the beam unit weight represents a delta unit weight to the surrounding soil [11]. Noteworthy, this differs from previous interpretations of the embedded beam unit weight documented in [27,30,31,62], where the unit weight is assigned with the actual unit weight of the volume pile; as a consequence, this approach leads to an overestimation of the soil-structure unit weight. To realistically approximate the kinematics at the pile head, the uppermost connection point is considered as free to move and rotate, relative to the surrounding soil.…”

“…Due to its deficiency to capture the effect of pile installation in the surrounding soil, it is further recommended to apply the EB framework for the modelling of piles undergoing inconsiderable installation effects, such as non-displacement piles or, more specifically, piles which are constructed using casings [12]. Applications of EBs are reported for single piles under compression [19] and tension [20], pile rows [21], pile groups [22,23], rigid inclusions [24], connected [25][26][27][28][29] and disconnected piled rafts [13]. Despite aforementioned recommendations regarding its field of application, and due to its exceptional ability to simplify the modelling process, EBs were found eligible for the modelling of almost any type of geotechnical reinforcement interacting with solid elements: Abbas et al investigated both the lateral load behaviour [30] and the uplift loadcarrying mechanism [31] of inclined micropiles modelled by means of EBs.…”