1D FEA of laterally loaded pile: inclusion of moving soil
1D FEA of laterally loaded pile: inclusion of moving soil
(OP)
Hi,
I've got a 1D finite element beam-column model working which I use to analyse laterally loaded piles. The only thing left that I want to implement is a way to model moving soil, e.g. from landslides. The usual way to do this is by including so-called 'y-shifts' in the model. My understanding of these 'y-shifts' is that they are simply an offset to the p-y springs. Is that correct?
I ask as I've also seen an implementation of y-shifts which involves an additional mass matrix. So the |mM|.{y} term in the full FEM equation becomes:
|mM|.{y - y0}
Where:
|mM| = Mass matrix
{y} = Displacement vector (y1, θ1, y2, θ2)
{y0} = Displacement vector for moving soil (y01, θ01, y02, θ02)
Should I get the same result if I simply offset the p-y springs? Moreover, is that what {y - y0} in the above equation means?
I've got a 1D finite element beam-column model working which I use to analyse laterally loaded piles. The only thing left that I want to implement is a way to model moving soil, e.g. from landslides. The usual way to do this is by including so-called 'y-shifts' in the model. My understanding of these 'y-shifts' is that they are simply an offset to the p-y springs. Is that correct?
I ask as I've also seen an implementation of y-shifts which involves an additional mass matrix. So the |mM|.{y} term in the full FEM equation becomes:
|mM|.{y - y0}
Where:
|mM| = Mass matrix
{y} = Displacement vector (y1, θ1, y2, θ2)
{y0} = Displacement vector for moving soil (y01, θ01, y02, θ02)
Should I get the same result if I simply offset the p-y springs? Moreover, is that what {y - y0} in the above equation means?





RE: 1D FEA of laterally loaded pile: inclusion of moving soil
Supposing that is correct, what I want to know is if that means when my pile is not loaded (so: y - y0 = 0), would I have soil reaction but no bending moment or shear force? This seems counter intuitive though could be a result of considering relative pile-soil movement as opposed to total movement.
Does this make sense? I realise my OP was a little confusing and this post might also be.
RE: 1D FEA of laterally loaded pile: inclusion of moving soil
Essentially the moving soil is incorporated as an additional load. You multiply your shape functions (for each integration point with the relevant weighting) by your distributed load for that element to get the moving soil load vector (F1, M1, F2, M2). The distributed load is dependent on the amount the soil has moved (i.e. the y-shift). You can determine this load using the intersection of the y-shift on the p-y curve.
The form of the calculation is quite similar to the |mM| matrix calculation except you don't multiply a shape function by another shape function and you multiply the vector by a distributed load rather than multiplying the matrix by the soil stiffness.
Doing the above ensures that, even when the pile is not loaded with a horizontal load or moment, there is still loading on the pile from moving soil. So my second post above can be ignored.
RE: 1D FEA of laterally loaded pile: inclusion of moving soil