The numerical analysis of many geotechnical problems involves a high number of structural elements, leading to extensive modelling and computational effort. Due to its exceptional ability to circumvent these obstacles, the embedded beam element (EB), though originally intended for the modelling of micropiles, has become increasingly popular in computational geotechnics. Recent research effort has paved the way to the embedded beam element with interaction surface (EB-I), an extension of the EB. The EB-I renders soil–structure interaction along an interaction surface rather than the centreline, making it theoretically applicable to any engineering application where beam-type elements interact with solid elements. At present, in-depth knowledge about relative merits, compared to the EB, is still in demand. Subsequently, numerical analysis are carried out using both embedded beam formulations to model deep foundation elements. The credibility of predicted results is assessed based on a comprehensive comparison with the well-established standard FE approach. In all cases considered, the EB-I proves clearly superior in terms of mesh sensitivity, mobilization of skin-resistance, and predicted soil displacements. Special care must be taken when using embedded beam formulations for the modelling of composite structures.
Fig. 14. Description of the FE analysis model "Wien Mitte": (a) Model configuration and (b) side/3D view of pile-raft system.
This article was published in a special issue of Processes: "Numerical Modeling in Civil and Mining Geotechnical Engineering" (2021), and available as open access here:doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9101739
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Granitzer, A.-N.; Tschuchnigg, F. Practice-Oriented Validation of Embedded Beam Formulations in Geotechnical Engineering. Processes 2021, 9, 1739. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9101739