Sadek Et Al 2004

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/229701006
A three dimensional embedded beam element for reinforced geomaterials
Article in International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · August 2004
DOI: 10.1002/nag.357
CITATIONS READS
52 839
2 authors, including:
Isam Shahrour
Polytech Lille
309 PUBLICATIONS 2,277 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Fractured rocks View project
Piles Foundation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Isam Shahrour on 18 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2004; 28:931–946 (DOI: 10.1002/nag.357)
A three dimensional embedded beam element

for reinforced geomaterials
Machhour Sadek and Isam Shahrourn,y

Laboratoire de Me!canique de Lille (CNRS URA 1441), Universite! des Sciences et Technologies de Lille,
Polytech-Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France
SUMMARY
This paper presents the formulation and verification of a 3D embedded beam element, which is intended
for numerical modelling of three dimensional problems concerned by reinforced geomaterials. This element
permits analysis of reinforced geomaterial structures with simplified meshes, that do not need to account
for reinforcement orientation. The paper is composed of four sections. Section 1 discusses the need for the
development of a particular beam element for soil reinforcement, which can be easily used in practical
applications. Section 2 describes the mathematical formulation of this element, while Section 3 deals with
its verification on various examples. Section 4 illustrates an application of this element by analysing the
behaviour of a group of micropiles containing inclined elements and subjected to lateral loading. Copyright
# 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: embedded beam; finite element; group; inclination; interface; lateral; micropile; reinforce-
ment
1. INTRODUCTION
Finite element analysis of reinforced geomaterial structures constitutes a challenging task,

because it requires a reliable modelling of the deformational behaviour of the soil, the
reinforcement and the interface between the soil and the reinforcement. The reinforcement is
generally modelled by bar or beam elements, which are incorporated in soil elements.
Conventional bar and beam elements are usually connected to nodes of solid elements.
Consequently, the mesh construction has to recognize and eventually anticipate the proper
geometric distribution of the reinforcement. The consideration of this condition is even more
laborious during the construction of meshes for reinforced geomaterials structures with inclined
reinforcement. Ultimately, it may be impossible to properly address this issue in the
three-dimensional analysis of structures with high reinforcement such as micropiles network
(Figure 1).
n
Correspondence to: I. Shahrour, Laboratoire de M!ecanique de Lille (CNRS URA 1441), Universit!e des Sciences et
Technologies de Lille, Polytech-Lille, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.
y
E-mail: isam.shahrour@eudil.fr
Received 1 August 2002

Revised 4 January 2004
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 24 February 2004
932 M. SADEK AND I. SHAHROUR
Figure 1. Micropiles network.
In order to overcome this difficulty, Diana finite element program offers a special element,
called ‘embedded reinforcement’ whose lines can deviate from the nodes of solid elements [1].
This truss element provides flexible features for the analysis of reinforced geomaterials
structures reinforced by flexible inclusions such as Reinforced Earth system [2] or geotextile-
reinforced earthworks [3]. Analysis of reinforced geomaterials structures with stiff reinforcement
such as micropiles network [4] requires the formulation of an ‘embedded beam element’ that can
withstand bending efforts and can be easily incorporated in existing meshes. This paper presents
the mathematical formulation of this element and its implementation in a finite element
program. It includes also a verification section by comparing this element to the classical beam
element. Further illustration of the performance of this element is highlighted by analysing the
response of a group of inclined micropiles subjected to lateral loading.
2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
2.1. Preliminaries
Figure 2 illustrates a beam element embedded in a three-dimensional solid element. The beam
element has two nodes and six degrees of freedom at each node representing three displacements
u ¼ ðuX ; uY ; uZ Þ and three rotations y ¼ ðyX ; yY ; yZ Þ: The stiffness matrix of the beam element in
the local coordinate ðx; y; zÞ is
!
b
RlðiiÞ RlðijÞ
Rlocal ¼ ð1Þ
RlðjiÞ RlðjjÞ ð1212Þ
Indices b and local refer to beam and local co-ordinate, respectively.
The determination of the stiffness matrix for the beam element in the global co-ordinate ðRbg Þ
is carried out using the transformation matrix ðP Þ; which links the displacement vectors in the
global ðU Þ and local ðuÞ co-ordinates according the following relation:
u ¼ PU ð2Þ
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2004; 28:931–946
THREE DIMENSIONAL EMBEDDED BEAM ELEMENT 933
Figure 2. Illustration of the embedded beam element.
Appropriate calculations of the stiffness matrix for the beam in the global co-ordinate lead to
the following expressions:
0t 1
P g :RlðiiÞ :P g t P g :RlðijÞ :P g
Rbg ¼ @ A ð3Þ
t g
P :RlðijÞ :P g t P g :RlðjjÞ :P g ð1212Þ
!
g
P 0
P ¼ ð4Þ
0 P
the index g refers to the global co-ordinate.
2.2. Perfectly bonded element

The assumption of perfect bonding between the beam element and the solid element allows for
the determination of the nodal displacements of the beam element ðU b Þ in terms of the nodal
displacement of the solid element ðU s Þ: Indeed, the interpolation of the displacements in the
solid element leads to the following relations:
Uib ¼ N s ðXi ÞU s
ð5Þ
Ujb ¼ N s ðXj ÞU s
The index s refers to the solid element; where N s stands for the interpolation matrix in the solid
element; Xi and Xj denote the co-ordinates of the beam nodes.
The set in Equation (5) permits derivation of the expression of the beam nodal displacement
ðU b Þ in terms of the nodal displacement of the solid ðU s Þ:
0 b1
Ui 0 s1
B C U
B Yi C B C
B C
Ub ¼ B C ¼ N bs B@ Yi A
C ð6Þ
B Ujb C
@ A
Yj
Yj
The transformation matrix ðN bs Þ is given by
0 s 1
N ðXi Þ 0 0
B C
B 0 I 0C
B C
N bs ¼ B C ð7Þ
B N ðXj Þ 0
s
0C
@ A
0 0 I
where I designates the identity matrix:
0 1
1 0 0
B C
I ¼B
@0 1 0C
A ð8Þ
0 0 1
The energy of the beam element ðEb ) can be expressed using the nodal displacement vector
ðU b Þ and the stiffness matrix of the beam ðRbg Þ:
Eb ¼ 12 t U b Rbg U b ð9Þ
The use of Equations (6) and (9) leads to the following expression:
0 s1
U
1 s t bs b bs B C
Eb ¼ U Yi Yj N Rg N B C
@ Yi A ð10Þ
2
Yj
Note that Equation (10) can be used for the calculation of the stiffness matrix of the beam
element with respect to the nodal displacement of the solid element:
Rbs t bs b bs
g ¼ N Rg N ð11Þ
2.3. Element with interface slip

Slipping and separation between geomaterials and the reinforcement can significantly affect the
behaviour of reinforced soil. In order to take into consideration this phenomenon, interface
elements are used between the beam and solid elements [5–8]. Interface elements make it possible
to account for a relative displacement between the beam and the solid element, particularly for
slipping behaviour which is of major interest in reinforced soil modelling.
The relative displacement between the beam and the solid element is given by
Duint ¼ ub us ð12Þ
The upper indices b and s are related to the beam and solid elements, respectively. The relative
displacement is linked to the bonding force vector ðF int Þ between the solid and the beam as
follows:
F int ¼ C int Duint ð13Þ
0 1
Kt 0 0
B C
C int ¼ B
@0 Kn 0C
A ð14Þ
0 0 Kn
Kt and Kn denote the stiffness of the interface in the tangential and normal directions. The
behaviour at the interface is assumed to follow the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
The contribution of the interface element to the overall stiffness matrix is given by the
interface stiffness matrix ðRin int
local Þ which links the bonding nodal forces ðF Þ to the nodal
int
displacement vector ðu Þ:
0 1
ubi
B C
B ub C
B jC
F int ¼ Rint B C ð15Þ
local B C
B usi C
@ A
usj
The global displacement ðU int Þ is linked to the local relative displacement vector ðuint Þ through
the following expression:
0 1 0 1
ubi Uib
B C B C
B ub C B Ub C
B jC B j C
B C ¼ P int B C ð16Þ
B sC B sC
B ui C B Ui C
@ A @ A
usj Ujs
0 1
P 0 0 0
B C
B0 P 0 0C
int B C
P ¼B C ð17Þ
B0 0 P 0C
@ A
0 0 0 P
Accordingly, the global interface stiffness matrix is given by
Rint
g ¼P
t int int
Rlocal P int ð18Þ
The displacement vectors ðUis Þ and ðUjs Þ are also linked to the nodal displacements of the solid
element ðU s Þ via the interpolation matrix of the solid element ðN s Þ:
Uis ¼ N s ðXi ÞU s
Ujs ¼ N s ðXj ÞU s ð19Þ
The set in Equation (19) permits the formulation of the nodal displacement of the interface in
terms of the nodal displacement of the solid element ðU s Þ as follows:
0 1
Uib 0 b1
B C Ui
B Ub C
B j C B C
U int ¼ B C int s B b C
B s C ¼ N @ Uj A ð20Þ
B Ui C
@ A Us
Ujs
The transformation matrix ðN int s Þ is given by

0 1
I 0 0
B C
B0 I 0 C
B C
N int s ¼ B C ð21Þ
B0 0 N ðXi Þ C
s
@ A
0 0 N s ðXj Þ
The energy of the interface element ðEint Þ can be expressed using the nodal displacement vector
and the stiffness matrix of the interface:
Eint ¼ 12 t U int Rint
g U
int
ð22Þ
Combining Equations (20) and (22) leads to the following expression:

0 b1
Ui
1 t B C
int s B b C
Eint ¼ Uib Ujb U s N int s Rint
g N @ Uj A ð23Þ
2
Us
which allows for the calculation of the stiffness matrix of the interface in terms of the nodal
displacements of the solid element:
Rint
g
s
¼t N int s Rint
g N
int s
ð24Þ
Formulations for the embedded beam element were implemented in the finite element program
PECPLAS [9]. Calculation of elementary stiffness matrix for the reinforcement is carried out
using Equation (11) for embedded element with perfect bonding, while Equation (24) is used for
the embedded beam element with interface conditions. Calculation is conducted using the initial
stiffness method. An iterative procedure is employed for the distribution of out of equilibrium
forces resulting from plasticity at the interface or in solid elements.
3. VERIFICATION/COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND EMBEDDED

BEAM ELEMENTS
This section presents verification of the embedded beam element by comparing its performances
to the conventional beam element for a problem involving analysis of inclined micropiles
subjected to lateral loading [10].
3.1. Single micropiles under lateral loading

The first example addresses a single micropile embedded in a homogeneous soil layer (Figure 3).
The behaviour of the soil is assumed to be linear elastic with Young’s modulus Es ¼ 100 MPa
and Poisson’s ratio ns ¼ 0:33: The thickness of the soil layer is Hs ¼ 10 m: The micropile
is reinforced by a steel-pipe. It has the following characteristics: inclination to the vertical
axis a ¼ 308; diameter D ¼ 0:25 m; axial stiffness Ep Ap ¼ 1155 MN and flexure stiffness
Ep Ip ¼ 0:89 MN m2 ; the tip of the micropile is located at depth zt ¼ 5 m:
The micropile is subjected to a head horizontal loading Fp ¼ 50 kN: Calculation with the
conventional beam element is performed using the mesh illustrated in Figure 4(a), while
calculation with the embedded beam element is carried out using the mesh illustrated in Figure
4(b). As noted, this mesh is composed of zones with regular elements. Additionally, this mesh is
easy to construct, particularly for cases involving parametric study on the influence of
micropiles inclination on their performance.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between calculations performed with the conventional and
embedded beam elements. It can be observed that the lateral deflection predicted by the
embedded beam element agrees well with that obtained by the conventional element (Figure
5(a)). Comparison of internal forces obtained by the conventional and embedded beam elements
shows also an excellent agreement. These results illustrate the excellent performance of the
embedded element, even when a simple mesh is used. The distribution of the lateral deflection
ðuÞ; shearing force ðT Þ and bending moment ðMÞ shows high concentrations in the upper part of
the micropile ðz ¼ 6DÞ: This concentration is due to the flexibility of the micropile with regard to
the lateral loading. The lateral displacement at the head of the micropile is equal to uhead ¼
0:018D; while the head vertical displacement is vhead ¼ 0:006D: The profile of the axial force ðN Þ
indicates a regular decrease in N with depth from Nhead ¼ 0:5 Fp down to zero.
Figure 3. Example used for the comparison of the conventional and embedded beam elements.
Figure 4. Meshes used for the comparison: (a) conventional beam element; and
(b) embedded beam element.
3.2. Group of two micropiles

The group of micropiles used for the verification of embedded element is illustrated in Figure 6.
It is composed of two micropiles inclined 158 from the vertical axis. Micropiles spacing at the
ground surface is equal to S ¼ 3D: They are connected to a rigid cap (Young’s modulus 210
103 MPa; Poisson’s ratio 0.25) which is subjected to a horizontal force F ¼ 2Fp ð100 kNÞ:
Calculations were performed using the meshes illustrated in Figures 4(a) and (b) for the solid
elements.
Figure 7 gives a comparison of results obtained with the embedded and conventional beam
elements. It confirms the results obtained with the single micropile case, which showed a very
good agreement between the performance of the embedded and conventional beam elements.
The front and rear piles are subjected to equal forces in the lateral direction and to opposite but
equal in magnitude forces in the axial direction. It can be observed that the horizontal load
induces a high axial force in the group at the ground surface, which is equal to Nhead ¼ 1:27 Fp :
The axial force in the micropile decreases uniformly with the depth down to zero. On the other
hand, shear forces are concentrated in the upper part of micropiles. The lateral loading induces
a high bending moment at the micropile-cap connection Mhead ¼ 15:2 kNm: In the embedded
part, the bending moment presents a peak Mpeak ¼ 8:1 kNm; which is about 53% of Mhead : The
shear force is also concentrated in the vicinity of the micropile head. Its maximum value is equal
to Thead ¼ 0:7 Fp : This result indicates that 30% of the lateral load is supported by axial forces.
Figure 5. Verification of the embedded beam element on a single inclined micropile subjected
to lateral loading ða ¼ 308Þ: (a) lateral deflection; (b) axial force; (c) shear force vs depth;
and (d) bending moment vs depth.
Figure 6. Group of micropiles used for the comparative study ðinclination ¼ 158).
4. INFLUENCE OF MICROPILES INCLINATION
The embedded element is used to analyse the influence of micropiles inclination on their
response to lateral loading (see Figure 8). Figure 9 shows results obtained for three inclinations
a ¼ 0; 15 and 308: Results clearly indicate that the micropiles inclination largely affects the
group response to lateral loading. The increase in the pile inclination leads to a significant
reduction in the lateral deflection, which results from an increase in the lateral stiffness of the
micropiles group. The inclination of micropiles allows for a mobilization of the axial stiffness of
micropiles to withstand lateral loading. This result is confirmed by the increase in the axial force
in micropiles, which attains 37% when a changes from 0 to 308: The latter indicates also an
increase of 78% in the lateral stiffness of the group. The inclination has also a beneficial effect on
the bending moment. Indeed, the increase in micropiles inclination induces a decrease in the
bending moment, which attains 65% for Mhead and 73% for Mpeak when a increases from 0 to
308: It has also a significant positive influence on the maximum developed shearing force, which
decreases by 71% when a increases from 0 to 308:
Table I summarizes the influence of micropiles inclination on the head lateral deflections and
on the maximum developed internal forces.
5. GROUPS OF MICROPILES WITH INTERFACE
Calculations were performed with interface element between the soil and micropiles for two
inclinations a ¼ 0 and 308: The interface element is assumed to be purely cohesive ðjint ¼ 0Þ:
The tangential stiffness of the interface is assumed to be equal to the shear modulus of the soil
Kt ¼ Gs ; while a high value is assigned for the interface normal stiffness ðKn ¼ 1000 Kt ). A low
value was assigned to the interface resistance Cint ¼ 30 kPa: Even though this value is not
realistic, it is used herein only to illustrate the influence of a weak interface on the behaviour of a
group of micropiles under vertical and lateral loads.
Figure 10 shows results when the groups of micropiles are submitted to a vertical loading. The
variation of the vertical displacement of the cap ðvÞ with the applied load ðFi Þ is illustrated in
Figure 7. Results comparison for a group of micropiles subjected to lateral force ðinclination ¼ 158Þ:
(a) lateral deflection; (b) axial force; (c) shear force; and (d) bending moment.
Figure 8. Analysis of the influence of micropiles inclination on their response to lateral loading–geometry.
Table I. Influence of micropiles inclination on their response to lateral loading.

Inclination ða ¼Þ 08 158 308
Maximum lateral deflection 2.86 2.41 1.6
ðuhead =DÞ (%)
Maximum axial force 109.5 127 150
ðNmax =Fp Þ (%)
Maximum shear force 100 69.2 28.6
Tmax =Fp (%)
Maximum bending moment
in the Embedded part 12.1 8.1 3.2
Mpeak (kNm)
Head Bending moment 16.6 15.2 5.9
Mhead (kNm)
Figure 10(a). It shows two phases. The first one corresponds to the elastic domain with a linear
relation between the vertical load ðFi Þ and the vertical displacement of the cap ðvÞ: The elastic
limit for the group of vertical micropiles is equal to 210 kN; while it is equal to 190 kN for
inclined micropiles. The second phase corresponds to the plasticity (sliding) at the interface.
Calculations were conducted up to a limit loading which is equal to 210 kN for the group of
inclined micropiles and to 235 kN for the group of vertical micropiles. The latter is very close to
the theoretical bearing capacity of the group of vertical micropiles ð2n pDp Lp Cint Þ which is equal
to 235:7 kN: Figure 10(b) shows the profile of the tangential stress at the interface ðtÞ for two
levels of the vertical load Fi ¼ 104 and 234 kN: It can be observed that for Fi ¼ 104 kN; the
tangential stress at the interface ðtÞ is lower than its resistance ðCint ¼ 30 kPaÞ; this distribution
confirms the elastic behaviour of the group at this level of the load. For Fi ¼ 234 kN; it can be
observed that ðtÞ is equal to the interface resistance, which indicates that this load is equal to the
vertical bearing capacity of the group of micropiles.
Figure 9. Influence of micropiles inclination on their response to lateral loading: (a) lateral deflection;
(b) axial force; (c) shear force; and (d) bending moment.
Figure 11 shows results obtained when the groups of micropiles are submitted to lateral
loading. Results depicted in this figure clearly show that, in the elastic domain, micropiles
inclination induces an increase in both the lateral and axial stiffness of the group. The increase in
Figure 10. Response of a group of micropiles with interface to vertical loading–influence of inclination: (a)
variation of the vertical displacement at the center of the cap with the vertical load; and (b) distribution of
the tangential stress at the interface of the group of vertical micropiles for two levels of loading.
the lateral stiffness is higher than that in the axial direction. It can also be observed that in the
case of a weak interface, micropiles inclination reduces the group bearing capacity. Indeed, the
calculated bearing capacity of the vertical group is about 260 kN; which exceeds by about 35%
that calculated for the group of inclined micropiles. This result is due to the fact that inclination
of micropiles causes an increase in the head axial force ðNhead Þ as discussed earlier. The increase
in Nhead leads to higher tangential stresses at the micropile-soil interface in inclined micropiles
(Figure 11(c).). Consequently, this causes them to fail before vertical micropiles do.
6. CONCLUSION
This paper presented the formulations for an embedded beam element, which offers flexible
features for the analysis of reinforced geomaterial structures. This element permits analysis of
reinforced geomaterial structures with simplified meshes, that do not need to account for
reinforcements orientation. The implantation of this element was verified on analyses performed
on a single and a group of inclined micropiles subjected to horizontal loading. This element was
also used to study the influence of inclination on the behaviour of micropiles group. Results
related to this case indicated that inclination has beneficial effect on the behaviour of micropiles
group under lateral loading. The increase in inclination allows for a significant increase in the
micropiles lateral stiffness and to a notable reduction in both the bending moment and shearing
forces resulting from lateral loading.
Figure 11. Response of a group of micropiles with interface to lateral loading}Influence of inclination:
(a) Variation of the lateral displacement of the cap with the lateral load; (b) variation of the
vertical displacement at the centre of the cap with the lateral load; and (c) distribution of the tangential
stress at the interface for F ¼ 192 kN:
REFERENCES
1. Diana. Finite element analysis. User’Manuel release 7, Element Library, TNO Building and Construction Research,
Netherlands, 1998.
2. Schlosser F, Vidal H. La Terre Arm!ee. Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausse!es 41: 101–144.
3. Koerner RM, Welsh JP. Construction and Geotechnical Engineering Using Synthetic Fabrics. Wiley: NY, 1980;
267 pp.
4. Lizzi F. Reticulated root piles to correct landslides. ASCE Convention, Chicago, October 16–20, Preprint 3370, 1978;
25 pp.
5. Potyondy JG. Skin friction between various soils and construction materials. Ge!otechnique 1961; 11(4):339–353.
6. Brumund WF, Leonards GA. Experimental study of static and dynamic friction between sand and typical
construction materials. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 1973; 1:162–165.
7. Herrmann LR. Finite element analysis of contact problems, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE)
104(EM5): 1043–1057.
8. Desai CS, Zaman MM, Lightner JG, Siriwardane HJ. Thin-layer element for interfaces and joints. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 1984; 8: 19–43.
9. Shahrour I. PECPLAS: un programme de calcul par e! l!ements finis pour la r!esolution des probl"emes de
g!eotechnique. Colloque International Ge!otechnique Informatique. Presses de l’ENPC; Paris, France, 1992; 327–334.
10. Sadek M. Three-dimensional finite element modeling of reinforced soil by micropiles. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Sciences and Technologies of Lille, France, 2002.
View publication stats

Sadek Et Al 2004

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sadek Et Al 2004

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A three dimensional embedded beam element for reinforced geomaterials

Fractured rocks View project

Piles Foundation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A three dimensional embedded beam element

Machhour Sadek and Isam Shahrourn,y

Finite element analysis of reinforced geomaterial structures constitutes a challenging task,

Received 1 August 2002

Figure 1. Micropiles network.

Figure 2. Illustration of the embedded beam element.

the index g refers to the global co-ordinate.

2.2. Perfectly bonded element

2.3. Element with interface slip

The transformation matrix ðN int s Þ is given by

Combining Equations (20) and (22) leads to the following expression:

3. VERIFICATION/COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND EMBEDDED

3.1. Single micropiles under lateral loading

3.2. Group of two micropiles

4. INFLUENCE OF MICROPILES INCLINATION

5. GROUPS OF MICROPILES WITH INTERFACE

Table I. Inﬂuence of micropiles inclination on their response to lateral loading.

View publication stats

Вам также может понравиться