CHAPTER 6

SHAKING TABLE TEST PROGRAM

6.1 Introduction Test Objectives The purpose of performing shaking table scale model tests as part of this research was twofold. First, the tests were designed to provide qualitative insight into a variety of SSPSI problems, as will be examined in Chapter 8 of this dissertation. Secondly, the tests were conducted with the intent of generating a data set with which to calibrate an advanced numerical analysis tool for SSPSI being developed at U.C. Berkeley, which is the subject of current work by Lok (1999). The shaking table tests were conducted in two phases, in November/December 1997, and July/August 1998. The intervening time period was used to analyze the Phase I test data, consult with the research sponsor (Caltrans), make improvements in the testing procedures, and focus Phase II testing on matters of particular interest to the sponsor. The issues and objectives addressed in the Phase I test series included the following: Evaluate free-field site response to verify model container performance, Examine inertial and kinematic interaction for single piles, Contrast pile group rocking and translational response, and frequency effects, Consider the influence of pile cap embedment on lateral and rocking stiffness, Study performance of pile raft foundations, and Simulate wave loading with impounded water to induce scour in soil-pile gaps. The subjects of Phase II testing included: Revisit free-field site response performance,

250

Revisit the pile cap embedment issue, Investigate pile group effects, Consider applicability of 2-D analysis to 3-D response (biaxial input motions), and Compare single pile and pile group stiffness derived from static and dynamic head loading tests with the seismic response of similar structures. This chapter will describe the shaking table test facility, the development of the

model testing container, test instrumentation and data acquisition, and provide a description of the overall test plan and the procedures followed for setting up the shaking table scale model tests.

6.2 Earthquake Simulator Facility The shaking table tests were performed on the newly upgraded earthquake simulator at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) at the University of California Richmond Field Station. This shaking table was originally brought on line in 1970 in a uniaxial configuration, but has recently been retrofitted to provide for six controlled degrees of freedom, thus allowing for two- and three-dimensional input motions. This unique capability permits deformation modes not presently attainable in centrifuge model testing. The testing platform measures 20 ft x 20 ft in plan, is 1 ft thick, and weighs approximately 100,000 lbs. The platform is constructed from a combination of reinforced and prestressed concrete, stiffened by transverse ribs to inhibit bowing or warping, and is supported by 8 vertical and 8 horizontal actuators located in a pit beneath the table (see Figure 6.1). The 1 ft gap between the shaking table and the pit wall is sealed by a continuous vinyl-covered nylon fabric. In operation, the pit is sealed off and

251

pressurized, so that the total mass of the table and model is supported by the differential air pressure, thereby floating the table and relieving load on the actuators (1.5 psi counteracts the weight of the bare table). The actuator forces are counteracted by a massive foundation, which consists of a reinforced open box structure with 5 ft thick walls.
32' 20'

Plan

10'

5' Section

Figure 6.1 - Shaking Table Layout The shaking table is driven by hydraulic actuators equipped with servo-valves. The (8) 70 kip horizontal actuators are 10.5 ft long, and the (4) 25 kip and (4) 75 kip vertical actuators are 8.67 ft long. The positions of the actuator pistons are controlled by means of an electronic closed-loop displacement feedback system, supplemented by velocity and force feedback signals to improve performance characteristics. The MTS multiple channel feedback analog control system allows the table to run under

252

acceleration, velocity, and displacement control.

The shaking table has a maximum

payload of 130 kips, and the table performance is a function of both the payload and different limiting factors over the frequency band. At frequencies lower than 1 Hz, the table motion is limited by the maximum actuator stroke of 5 in. At intermediate

frequencies from 1 4 Hz, the servo-valves can accommodate table velocities in excess of 25 in/sec. At higher frequencies the force capacities of the actuators limit table

accelerations to 2.5 g (all specifications for longitudinal axis). Vertical capacities are 2 in displacement, 15 in/sec velocity, and 4.0 g acceleration. Shaking table-structure interaction causes the frequency content of the table response to be altered from that of the command signal, near the resonant frequency of the test structure. This is particularly undesirable since the purpose of many earthquake simulation tests is to excite the structure at its resonant frequency. Rinawi and Clough (1991) made a study of the U.C. Berkeley shaking table before the recent upgrade and found that significant table-structure interaction was limited to cases of testing tall and heavy models, where large overturning moments could cause undesirable table pitch, twist, and roll motions. The effect of table-structure interaction was seen to result in a lower system frequency and increased damping. In an earlier study, Rea et al. (1977) found that foundation compliance affects the frequency response of the shaking table only at low frequencies, the magnitude of which depends on the transmissibility function of the foundation with respect to the table. Characterization of the new table configuration is an ongoing process and preliminary results seem to substantiate earlier findings, which is favorable to the short and relatively lightweight models used in this research. 6.3 Model Testing Container

253

Physical modeling of soil deposits requires a container to support the model soil, and the container/model contact imposes boundary conditions that do not exist in the prototype condition. A successful container design allows the model the freedom to deform under seismic loading in the same manner as the prototype free-field soil deposit, and minimizes the influence of boundary conditions. For this research project it was desired to take advantage of the shaking tables unique capabilities and for the model container to provide full 3-D motion. Other container design goals included rendering correct response over the range of test conditions, including shear failure of the soil. Fiegel (1995) performed centrifuge testing of four model containers filled with dry sand subjected to 1-D seismic shaking to investigate the performance of the different designs. The containers tested included 3 flexible types, an equivalent shear beam, a hinged plate, a laminar box, and a fixed end design. The different response of the four containers is summarized in Figure 6.2, which shows that the fixed end design has adequate performance when the stiffness contrast between the soil (in this case dense sand) and the wall is not great. Fiegel used the hinged plate container for further

centrifuge studies of the seismic response of soft clay deposits. For this research project studying soft soil response, the simple shear deformation mode achieved by flexible containers was recognized as a necessary feature. The model container was therefore designed with a cylindrical geometry to provide 3-D capability, and was designed to be laterally flexible in simple shear to allow multi-directional shear deformation. But the container was also required to be radially stiff, to prevent lateral bulging and vertical pumping of the soil mass. The model container was designed to have constant wall stiffness over its height, suitable for cohesive soils whose stress-strain

254

response is independent of confining pressure.

Figure 6.2 - Comparison of Free-Field Soil Response in Four Model Containers (after Fiegel, 1995)

6.3.1 Numerical Modeling of Container Effects Lok (see Riemer and Meymand, 1996) performed numerical modeling of various container designs with the computer code QUAD4M to explore the flexible cylinder design. The benchmark case was a 40 ft deep deposit of San Francisco Bay Mud, and three hypothetical model container configurations containing model soil were also excited with the same base input seismic motion. The container configurations were modeled in two dimensions, and consisted of a rigid-wall box, a box with inclined rigid walls, and a flexible-wall box; these are shown in Figure 6.3. The box with inclined rigid walls was thought to have the potential of trapping and attenuating reflected wave energy in the tapered end zones. The flexible-wall box was assigned a modulus slightly higher than that of the soil to reflect its confining properties. The results of the QUAD4M analysis are shown in the 5% damped response spectra of the acceleration time history recorded at the

255

center of the soil surface (Figure 6.4), with all results plotted at model scale. This analysis clearly demonstrated the advantage of a flexible-wall container over rigid-wall designs in replicating the prototype response. Results for soil response at other points nearer the wall, deeper in the soil, etc., showed the same trend.
1 level ground
40 ft.

2
5 ft.

20 ft. 3.75 1

Bay Mud Prototype 3

Winged Model Box 4

5 ft. 5 ft.

rigid walls

Rigid Wall Box

Flexible Wall Barrel

Figure 6.3 - Evolution of Model Container Design for this Research Project
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.01

Damping = 5%

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Wing Wall Box Rigid Wall Box Prototype Flexible Wall Barrel:
Gwall = 50 ksf, Gsoil = 30 ksf

0.1

10

Period (Sec.)

Figure 6.4 - Comparison of Free-Field Soil Response of Rigid and Flexible Wall Model Containers with Prototype Condition 6.3.2 Small-Scale Container Shaking Table Tests To test the feasibility of the flexible cylinder design, a small-scale mock-up was

256

conceived and built from simple hardware store parts. Although only intended as a demonstration tool, the mock-up was tested on the small shaking table in Davis Hall to evaluate and refine the container design. In fact, between May and September 1996, five generations of this mock-up container were tested, with each version an improvement on the former. It consisted of a 3/32 in thick rubber membrane formed into a 16 in diameter cylinder 18 in tall, with an integral bottom, and surrounded by Kevlar bands. This cylinder was attached at the top to a 26 in outer diameter plywood ring, which was in turn supported by steel rods with universal joints at top and bottom. Six rods bolted to a bottom ring in the first version, and four rods bolted directly to the shaking table in later designs. The base connection details were improved in each version, and finally consisted of a steel plate over the rubber base bolted directly to the shaking table. The small-scale test container is shown during shake table testing in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5 - Small Scale Model Container Testing on Davis Hall Shaking Table

257

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Test 2.03 - 3 Hz. Base Input Surface Response 1 Surface SHAKE91

0 0.01 0.10 Period (sec) 1.00 10.00

Figure 6.6 - Site Response in Small Scale Model Container Illustrating Correlation Between Observed and Computed Response Dozens of tests were performed on the five model containers, with a variety of sinusoidal and earthquake input motions. The models consisted of soft soil, stiff over soft soil, and soft over stiff soil site profiles. Single model piles were included in three of the test containers, and accelerometers were deployed to measure soil, container, and pile head accelerations. The tests and model components were not designed or conducted in accordance with scale model similitude. The computer codes SHAKE91 and QUAD4M were used to simulate the experimental results. A consistent result initially obtained was that the model containers exhibited amplification of response through the soil column at both the site period and input excitation period, whereas the numerical analyses predicted amplification only at the site period. Much attention was devoted to improving the base fixity of the model container design, which did result in decreased amplification of the input period, but did not eliminate it entirely. It was realized that additional efforts must be made to decrease system compliance at the base and in the connections, as well as to isolate the soil from the top ring by not filling the container to the top, and to provide a

258

more flexible wall. A comparison of the observed response and the response simulated with SHAKE91 for a later test is shown in Figure 6.6. While the small-scale model container tests did not afford perfect validation of the design concept, invaluable insight into full-scale container design details was gained, along with important experience with instrumentation and data acquisition and processing techniques.

6.3.3 Full Scale Container Design and Construction To translate the design concept into a working detailed design for the model container, it was necessary to estimate the forces in the system in order to size the components. Work done by Veletsos (1984) on the seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks was used as the basis for estimating the wall pressures and hoop stresses in the model container. This analysis is contained in Appendix C, and as it assumes both convective and hydrostatic components of dynamic response, it is conservative for this application. To determine the structural loads on the top ring and rod/universal joint assemblies, it was assumed that the shear strips on the interior of the container would carry loads into the structure equal to the peak shear strength of the soil multiplied by the surface area of the shear strips. Kevlar bands were selected that would carry the hoop stresses in the walls of the container, but it was also necessary to determine the allowable spacing between the bands. Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger (1959) give a solution for the deflection of a banded cylindrical shell subject to constant internal pressure. This solution requires a value for the modulus of the shell, which in our case was unknown (and is not a manufacturers specification due to rubbers highly nonlinear stress-strain response). Two

259

series of tests were performed to establish the modulus of the in neoprene rubber intended to be used as the membrane material. The first was a wide strip tension test in which 6 in wide specimens of the neoprene were loaded in tension to establish the material specific stress-strain response. The second test was a very unique experiment consisting of a 3 in diameter closed end neoprene cylinder 8 in tall, fabricated with rigid external bands spaced from 1 - 4 in. The cylinder was pressurized through the top cap and deflections at the midpoints between bands were measured (see Figure 6.7). From these two tests a modulus for the specific membrane material was established, and a 2 in spacing between the Kevlar bands was determined adequate to prevent excessive bulging of the model container during dynamic loading.

Figure 6.7 - Laboratory Pressure Test of Rubber Cylinder for Design of Band Spacing

260

The full-scale container confines a soil column 7 ft in diameter up to 7 ft in height, and is shown in Figure 6.8. The external cross-bracing is for temporary support while building the models and is removed during testing. The top ring and base plate are constructed from 5/8 in thick steel plate. The top ring is supported by four extra heavy wall 2 7/8 in diameter steel pipes with heavy-duty universal joints connecting the pipes to the top ring and the shaking table, thereby providing the model with full translational and rotational freedom, but preventing bending of the soil column. A in thick cylindrical 40 durometer neoprene rubber membrane is bolted to the top ring and base plate with compression rings. Woven Kevlar bands 2.0 in wide and 0.072 in thick are arrayed circumferentially around the exterior of the membrane. This high strength and high

Figure 6.8 - Full Scale Container Mounted on Shaking Table, with Support Struts, and Soil Mixer/Pump in Background

261

tensile modulus Kevlar material is manufactured by Bally Ribbon Mills and has a minimum breaking strength of 12,000 lbs. The combination of the rubber membrane and the Kevlar bands provides the desired container properties of lateral flexibility and radial stiffness. Full-length textured geomembrane strips (40 mil GSE HyperFrictionFlex) are hung in an alternating pattern from the top ring and base plate around the inner circumference of the rubber membrane. These 6 in wide strips provide a path for complementary shear stresses developed in the soil to be carried in the container. The base plate of the container was roughened by epoxying a high friction coating containing angular crushed gravel pieces onto its surface.

6.4 Test Instrumentation Three types of data were desired to be obtained from the shaking table tests, and therefore three classes of instrumentation were required. Accelerations of the soil mass, pile heads, pile caps, superstructures, and model container required a general purpose accelerometer sensor. Displacements of the pile heads, pile caps, and superstructures could best be obtained by wire potentiometers fixed to reference frames mounted off the shaking table. Bending and axial strains in the model piles were to be recorded by resistance-type strain gages. The option of measuring pore pressure data in the soil was not pursued as the scale model was designed for undrained conditions.

6.4.1 Accelerometers As part of the test program, it was necessary to obtain accelerometers that could be placed in the soil mass of saturated clay. In addition to being waterproof, the selection

262

criteria for the accelerometers were high sensitivity, DC response, small size, and economy. Solid-state piezoresisitive accelerometers (model 3022-005g) manufactured by IC Sensors, were found to provide excellent performance at a low cost, although a separate watertight case had to be fabricated for each unit. These accelerometers consist of a micromachined silicon mass suspended by multiple beams from a silicon frame. Piezoresistors in the beams change their resistance as the motion of the suspended mass stresses the beams. The sensing elements are arranged in a Wheatstone bridge

configuration and supplied with an excitation voltage, thereby canceling off-axis, temperature, and other spurious inputs. These accelerometers are critically damped with a resonant frequency in the range of 1 KHz, and a flat response past 300 Hz, as can be seen in the typical calibration record shown in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9 - Calibration Record of Typical IC Sensors 3022-005g Accelerometer The accelerometers were mounted in specially fabricated anodized aluminum watertight cases and attached to 3 x 4 in thin plexiglass cards, in order to increase the surface area for resistance to twisting in place in the soil. Pile head and structure

accelerometers were fixed in their cases directly to the structures. As the aluminum cases were hollow inside, the net mass of the accelerometers relative to the soil displaced, and the structures was negligible. For 2-D and 3-D accelerometer stations in the soil, the

263

plexiglass cards were glued together with orthogonal faces. An open case with the accelerometer sensor visible and a 3-D station are shown in Figure 6.10.

Figure 6.10 - IC Sensors Accelerometer Mounted in Protective Case and 3-D Array

6.4.2 Strain Gages The model piles were instrumented with temperature-compensated bonded electrical resistance foil strain gages to detect bending and axial strains. Each

instrumented pile was equipped with seven pairs of strain gages fixed to opposing faces of the aluminum tube at the positions shown in Figure 6.11. This gage configuration was employed to provide adequate resolution of the expected pile strain profiles, which is normally concentrated in the upper 1/3 of the pile. The gages were oriented on the tension and compression faces of the model pile with respect to the direction of shaking to detect bending strains, and 90 degrees from this axis to detect axial strains. Several

model piles were fabricated with gages on all four faces so that bending and axial strains could be simultaneously recorded in a single pile.

264

Superstructure

S1T

Column S1FR S1B

depth below ground surface 8" 12" 18"

S1RR Pile Cap

Piles
30"

48"

60" 66"

Bearing Layer Base Plate

Figure 6.11 - Section Showing Model Pile Strain Gage Locations Relative to Ground Surface and Position of Supestructure Accelerometers The exterior of the model piles was prepared by cleaning and sanding the gage locations. Micro-Measurements Group model CEA-13-125UW-120 strain gages were fixed to the exterior of the model piles with M-Bond 200, and lead wires were soldered and passed through small holes in the pile wall and routed through the interior of the piles. The gage and wire assemblies were covered by a multi-step surface treatment consisting of M-Coat A polyurethane, M-Coat B nitrile rubber, and M-Coat J protective coatings.

265

Wheatstone bridge gage completion circuits for both axial and bending strain configurations were mounted on the top ring of the test container, which were in turn wired into the data acquisition system. The half bridge configuration shown in Figure 6.12a is such that bending of the pile causes equal and opposite resistance changes in the two active gages, and the net voltage output doubles the voltage change across each arm of the bridge. Compressive or tensile strains result in a net voltage output of zero. The half bridge configuration shown in Figure 6.12b is such that axial straining of the pile causes equal resistance changes in the two active gages, and the net voltage output doubles the voltage change across each arm of the bridge. Bending strains result in a net voltage output of zero.

(a) (b) Figure 6.12 - Diagram of Wheatstone Bridge for Detecting: a) Pile Bending Strains; b) Pile Axial Strains (after Gohl, 1991)

6.4.3 Wire Potentiometers The wire potentiometers used to measure displacements were model PT101-30A manufactured by Celesco Transducer Products. The wire pots consist of a primary and secondary coil assembly and magnetic core which, when displaced along the axis and within the core of the coil assembly, produces a voltage output proportional to the displacement. The moving core is fixed to a tensioned spool of fine wire with a travel length of 15 in. The wire pots were mounted on stiff reference frames positioned off the

266

shaking table, and the end of the tensioned spool was linked to an extension wire which was connected to the superstructure model at the point of interest. As it was desired to isolate translational displacement from bending displacements, pairs of wire pots were deployed with a fixed vertical separation and attached to a stiff mast which was mounted to the model superstructure.

6.4.4 Signal Conditioning and Data Acquisition System The data acquisition system was managed by the integrated software package Autonet, which is run on a network of desktop computers and interfaces with the MTS shaking table control system. The amount of instrumentation used for the model tests was constrained by the availability of signal conditioners, with a maximum of about 144 channels of data acquired for any given test. The shaking table has built in acceleration and displacement sensors, which occupy the first 16 data channels. Constant input

excitation voltages were supplied to the accelerometers, strain gages, and wire potentiometers, and their outputs were amplified using Pacific model 8255 signal conditioners/amplifiers. The signal conditioner low pass filters were set at 100 Hz for all data channels. The analog to digital conversion was performed by a Preston model GMAD-2A multiplexer with 15 bit resolution and a throughput of 300 KHz. The

sampling rate for the model tests was normally 200 Hz, but rates up to 2.5 KHz were used for the hammer blow tests. Time delay between channels and waveform aliasing were therefore not of concern. The interpolation of the analog waveform from the digitized data is known to be accurate up to the Nyquist frequency, which is equal to one-half the sampling rate. Resolution of the model test data to 100 Hz reflects information in the

267

prototype up to 35 Hz, which was judged adequate for the purposes of this research. The shaking table data acquisition and control console is shown in Figure 6.13.

Figure 6.13 - Shaking Table Control Console Each accelerometer and wire potentiometer was individually calibrated before installation. The accelerometers were calibrated in the field of gravity with a two point calibration method. The wire pots were calibrated with gage blocks also with a two point calibration method. The pile strain gages were calibrated by shunt resistors. An online calibration check was performed just before each shaking table test through the data acquisition system, thereby identifying any malfunctioning or miswired sensors. With the calibration routine embedded in the data acquisition system, the acquired data was automatically transformed into engineering units of g (acceleration), strain (bending and axial strain), and inches (displacement). Overall the performance of the accelerometers and wire pots was excellent, and the strain gages had a failure rate of < 5%, primarily due to chemical attack of the fly ash in the model soil. The test data was processed with the software program Matlab, and automated and interactive routines were written that provided for immediate visualization and analysis of test results.

268

6.4.5 Data Precision and Accuracy Sabnis et al. (1983) provide a detailed discussion of Accuracy and Reliability of Structural Models. They point out various factors over the entire course of the scale modeling process that may affect the model confidence level. In the model design phase, similitude and size effects may affect the model, though chapter 5 of this dissertation has outlined the careful development of the scale modeling process employed for this test program. In the manufacture of materials phase, imperfections or overstrength may alter the scale model performance during testing. For these reasons, component proof testing and in-situ testing have been employed in this test program to verify the actual model material properties. In the model construction phase, installation procedures and

boundary conditions may result in different stress conditions between model and prototype. The design of the model container has endeavored to minimize the influence of boundary conditions, and the model pile installation procedure was designed to mimic that of the prototype. The loading phase is another source of variability between model and prototype, although the philosophy has been taken that minor variations between the command signal and actual input are acceptable, so long as the actual input to the system is known and recorded. Instrumentation errors may occur in the deployment of the sensors, the sensing, or data recording. The effect of the sensor on the model is an issue to be considered. Uncertainty arising from the interpretation of the model data is primarily due to human error, which may also occur in human-written computer algorithms used in processing the data. Finally, extension of the model test data to the prototype must again utilize scale model similitude; as previously noted, the best application of scale models is to gain insight into prototype behavior, not to derive precise prototype performance.

269

Scale model test data is more appropriately used to calibrate analytical models at the model scale. The sources of error arising from instrumentation consist of inherent sensor accuracy and sensor deployment; the instrumentation used in this research provided high precision. The IC Sensors accelerometers are rated with a flat response from zero to in excess of 300 Hz, well beyond the frequency range of interest for these tests, and with a maximum nonlinearity < 0.2%. The positioning of the accelerometers in the soil was accomplished by manual surveying methods, which if not perfectly orthogonal to the axis of shaking, could result in a reduced output signal. And individual accelerometer arrays could possibly have experienced small permanent movements during the course of testing. But even a 10 degree off-axis shift would result in a signal reduction < 1.5%. The strain gage transverse sensitivity is specified as 1.2 0.2 %, and inaccurate gage mounting or pile driving not perfectly perpendicular to the axis of shaking could potentially result in very small signal distortions. The wire potentiometers are rated with a linearity within 0.1%.

6.5 Model Construction The model container was filled with model soil once for each test phase. Each test phase included five series of tests on the model setups described below in section 6.6.4. Each model was disassembled the day after testing, and the piles were removed and the holes backfilled with model soil. Model piles for the subsequent setup were driven the following day, and approximately five days elapsed until the following tests to allow for the beneficial effects of model soil thixotropy. The model setups were positioned such

270

that each installation utilized a different part of the container and the soil mass in the vicinity of the piles being tested was relatively undisturbed by previous models.

6.5.1 Model Soil Mixing and Placement Phase I of the test program commenced with erecting the model container on the shaking table and placing a 6 in layer of stiff model soil as a bearing stratum. This stiff model soil had originally been mixed at 130 % water content but it had been spread out and allowed to air dry for two weeks; consequently it was very heterogeneous but overall it was fairly dry and chunky (this material was never formally characterized). Over the course of the next 8 days, 13 batches of model soil were mixed and pumped into the container. The plot of water content for 2 samples from each of the 13 batches shown in Figure 6.14a illustrates the batch consistency, except for the first batch which included excess water in the pump; the plot of water content for the second test phase is shown in Figure 6.14b. In Phase II, a 6 in layer of sand was compacted with a plate vibrator and saturated to form the bearing stratum, and 12 batches of model soil were placed in 5 days to fill the container. The sand gradation curve is shown in Figure 6.15.
170 150 140 130 120 110 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Batch 9 10 11 12 13

170 Water content (%) 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Batch 9 10 11 12

Water content (%)

160

(a) (b) Figure 6.14 - As-Placed Model Soil Water Content During a) Phase I; b) Phase II

271

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10

particle size (mm)

Figure 6.15 - Sand Gradation Curve for Bearing Stratum in Phase II A continuous progressive cavity mixer/pump was specially constructed for the project by ChemGrout, and is depicted in Figure 6.16. This pump design was inspired by equipment originally constructed by Arango-Greiffenstein (1971), but was adapted for the special requirements of this project. The mixer/pump consists of a 30 ft3 hopper with a funnel shaped bottom that directly feeds into a progressive cavity pump. The pump returns the material to the top of the hopper, or upon completion of mixing, a valve is opened sending the material through a 3 in diameter discharge hose. The mixing action is achieved by the material simply passing through the pump. An optimum mixing procedure was achieved by trial and error, and consisted of adding all the water to the hopper, then adding proportional amounts of kaolinite and bentonite while circulating the mix, and at the final stage before pumping, adding the fly ash, which had a dramatic stiffening effect. Several hours of mixing was found to be required to break down bentonite clumps and to achieve a reasonable mix consistency. In Phase II, this process was expedited by inserting an electric paddle mixer into the soil mix. The model soil mix was at the limit of pumpability, and lower water contents or higher fly ash contents could not be sustained.

% finer by weight

272

The consistency of the model soil discharged into the test container was such that all the material had to be hand packed to minimize voids. In both testing phases, the container was filled to a height of 6 ft, leaving a 1 ft gap between the top of the model soil and the container top ring. In this fashion, the soil mass was isolated from inertial forces imposed by the top ring of the container during shaking. The top of the model container was sealed with plastic sheeting between tests and small amounts of water were sprayed on the model soil to counteract surface dessication.

Dry material hopper Pressure lid

30 CF Tank

Hydraulic controls Electrical Controls Progressive cavity pump

I O I O

B D

BF4

Electric motor & hydraulic pump

Figure 6.16 - Schematic of Chemgrout Mixer/Pump

6.5.2 Installation of Single Piles and Pile Groups After strain gaging and attachment of gage lead wires, aluminum conical tips were fitted to the model piles to provide a closed end condition. Pile locations were surveyed and the model piles were driven into the soil in single or group configurations through an

273

18 in tall template to ensure location and verticality (Figure 6.17). The template was constructed with special cutouts to accommodate the irregular profile of piles with external strain gages. For pile groups, holes were pre-excavated in the model soil to accept the pile cap after pile installation. A 200 lb lead weight was suspended from the overhead crane and provided the mass to push the piles to refusal. A nylon pile head driving adapter was crafted and utilized to protect the strain gage lead wires protruding from the pile head during driving.

Figure 6.17 - Model Pile Installation Through Template

274

Figure 6.18 - Design Detail of 3x3 Pile Group As the model piles were instrumented with external strain gages, the gages and their multi-layer protective coatings constituted protrusions on the surface of the piles up to 2 in long and in thick. For this reason the piles could not be driven through a cap, but a cap had to be fit over the piles. A permanent pile cap/pile group construction would not provide flexibility for instrumenting different piles in the groups, and casting concrete or cement grout around a group would be too time consuming. For this reason modular pile caps were designed that allowed temporary but robust pile to cap connections. Another design objective was to utilize standard steel and pipe sections, and avoid custom fabrication of each pile cap and pile connection. The pile caps were constructed from 6 in deep steel tube sections 5/16 in thick, either 12 in wide for a 2x pile group or 18 in wide

275

for a 3x pile group. Figure 6.18 illustrates a 3x3 pile group cap design. This tube section was cut to an 18 in length, and 9 holes 2 1/8 in diameter were cut in both top and bottom faces of the tube in a 3d (6 in) center-to-center spacing. This pile spacing was adopted as typical of Caltrans pile group design. On the top face of the tube, 4 threaded studs were welded around each pile opening, and a single coupling was welded to the center of the cap to attach a column. The 9 pile openings were then lined with 2 in diameter copper tubing, and the entire tube section was then filled with cement grout.

Figure 6.19 - Installation of 3x3 Pile Group

276

After the model piles were installed, a pile cap was lowered by the crane and fit over the group (see Figure 6.19). The tolerance between the outer diameter of the model piles and the inner diameter of the copper sleeves was very close, and aligning all the piles was an intricate process. Connectivity of the piles to the cap was provided by a 6 in long pipe nipple threaded to a flat face flange with 4 bolt holes. The pipe nipple outer diameter was built up by several layers of strapping adhesive tape, so that the pipe nipple could be wedged inside the model piles and provide a strong connection. The flange hole pattern fit precisely over the threaded studs welded on the pile cap, and the flange was bolted down finishing the connection. Columns of various lengths and stiffness were provided by steel pipe sections and couplings. Each pile head mass consisted of two steel channel sections C15x33.9, 26 in long, tensioned together and sandwiching the requisite lead weights to achieve the desired head mass. The bottom channel had a coupling welded to it so that it could easily attach to the pipe column.

6.5.3 Instrumentation During Phase I soil placement, 23 accelerometers were deployed in 4 vertical arrays in the soil as diagrammed in Figure 6.20. Figure 6.21 depicts the 23 soil

accelerometers in 2 vertical arrays used in Phase II. Accelerometers were also attached to the pile caps and head masses to detect translation and rocking motions. Wire

potentiometers were fastened to the pile head masses and rigid reference frames off the shaking table. Tables 6-1 6-8 summarize the instrumentation (not including soil

accelerometers) deployed during Phase I and Phase II testing.

277

23 el 0 22 15 20 21 19 16 18 17 el -6"

14 13

12 11

el -24"

10 9

8 7

el -48"

6 1 5 stack 1

4 2 3

el -75"

stack 2 stack 4

stack 3

Principal Axis of Shaking

Figure 6.20 - Phase I Accelerometer Array

23 22 20 19 18 16 17 15 14 el -30" el -18" 21 el 0 el -8"

13

12 11 el -48"

10 9 7 4 8 6 2 5 1 stack 1 stack 2 3 el -60" el -66" el -72" el -75"

Principal Axis of Shaking

Figure 6.21 - Phase II Accelerometer Array 278

Table 6-1 Model Series 1.1 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 1 pile head accelerometer (in plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 1 pile head accelerometer (in plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile head accelerometer (in plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile head accelerometer (in plane)

S2

S3

S4

Table 6-2 Model Series 1.2 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 4 superstructure wire pots (2 in plane and 2 out of plane) 1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane)

S2

Table 6-3 Model Series 1.3 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 3 pile cap accelerometers (in plane and 2 rocking), 1 superstructure accelerometer (in plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 3 pile cap accelerometers (in plane and 2 rocking), 1 superstructure accelerometer (in plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 3 pile cap accelerometers (in plane and 2 rocking), 1 superstructure accelerometer (in plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane)

S2

S3

279

Table 6-4 Model Series 1.4 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
2 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 2 piles w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane and out of plane, 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 4 superstructure wire pots (2 in plane, 2 out of plane) 2 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 2 piles w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane and out of plane, 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane)

S2

Table 6-5 Model Series 2.2 Instrumentation Structure

S1 S2

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs axial strain gages, 1 pile head DCDT (vertical) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 1 pile head DCDT (vertical), 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 pile head wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7 pairs bending strain gages, 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane),

S3 S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

280

Table 6-6 Model Series 2.3 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 3 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 3 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane)

S2

Table 6-7 Model Series 2.4 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 6 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 2 piles w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 4 superstructure wire pots (2 in plane and 2 out of plane) 1 pile w/ 14 pairs bending strain gages (7 in plane/7 out of plane) 2 pile head accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 4 pile head wire pots (in plane and 2 out of plane)

S2

Table 6-8 Model Series 2.5 Instrumentation Structure

S1

Sensors
1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 3 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane) 1 pile w/ 7pairs bending strain gages and 7 pairs axial strain gages, 3 piles w/ 7pairs bending strain gages, 1 pile w/ 7 pairs axial strain gages, 4 pile cap accelerometers (in plane, out of plane, and 2 rocking), 2 superstructure accelerometers (in plane and out of plane), 2 superstructure wire pots (in plane)

S2

6.6 Test Parameters 281

To achieve the objectives outlined in section 6.1, the shaking table model tests were designed as self-contained studies of particular SSPSI topics. This approach was taken as it was realized that the shaking table could not achieve perfect test to test repeatability with regard to input motions. During each phase of the test program, the test container was filled with model soil and the same soil deposit was used for all tests during that particular phase of testing. In each of the two phases of the test program, 5

independent model setups were made and a series of tests was performed on each model.

6.6.1 Selection of Input Motions Three levels of excitation were desired for the soil-pile scale model tests. A low level sine sweep signal was intended as a diagnostic of the system resonant frequencies and stiffness properties; an acceleration level of < 0.05 g was targeted to ensure that response remained in the elastic range. A mid range signal with an MHA of about 0.2 g was desired to impart an intermediate level excitation. Finally, a strong shaking record with an MHA > 0.5 g was sought to induce nonlinear site and superstructure response, typical of design level events in regions of high seismicity. As the model site profile represented soft clay overlying a thin stiff soil layer overlying bedrock, motion recorded on bedrock was defined as the test input signal criterion. Preliminary test runs of the bare shaking table and the table with a 30 kip mass (roughly corresponding to the model mass) indicated that the table could be tuned to best reproduce particular input motions. For this reason, single mid level and high level motions were selected rather than a suite of input motions. In addition, the soil-pile models were expected to degrade with each test event, and therefore a parametric study of

282

multiple excitations typical of structural model tests was not deemed appropriate. These tests also indicated that the ability of the shaking table to reproduce the command signal was reasonable, but not perfect. Other researchers have implemented techniques of

command signal compensation to achieve better table performance (Hwang et al., 1987). But modification of the command signal could potentially result in other unforeseen table response distortions; for this reason, careful tuning of the feedback control system was accepted as the best approach to optimize the command signal reproduction. Most

importantly, the test instrumentation would record the table response and the actual input to the system; as long as this was known and reasonable, this comprised sufficient input data for further simulation and analysis. A number of candidate records were examined for their suitability as input motions, with MHA, displacement time history, and 5% damped response spectra as the primary selection criteria. These included sets of synthetic records developed by Dr. Bruce Bolt and Dr. Norm Abrahamson for the analysis of Hayward and San Andreas fault scenarios for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Ultimately the two records selected were actual recordings from recent earthquakes. They consisted of the Yerba Buena Island record 90 degree component from the Loma Prieta earthquake (YBI90), and the Port Island downhole array -79 m record north 00 east component from the Kobe earthquake (KPI79N00). The acceleration, velocity, and displacement time histories, and acceleration response spectra for these two records are shown in Figures 6.22 and 6.23. The YBI90 record has a predominant frequency of 1.5 Hz, a time step of 0.02 sec, and an MHA of 0.07 g, which for this testing program was scaled to 0.2 and 0.3 g. The KPI79N00 record has a predominant frequency of 2.9 Hz, a time step of 0.01 sec, and an

283

MHA of 0.69 g, which was scaled from 0.1 to 1.4 g for this testing program.

In

accordance with the scaling relations derived in section 5.2.1, the time steps of these two records were divided by ()0.5, or 2.828, resulting in time scales compressed relative to the original records. These single component input motions were used for uni-directional shaking in Phase I tests; the horizontal orthogonal component to these motions was added for biaxial shaking in selected Phase II tests as noted. The low level sine sweep motion consisted of a 60 sec duration record sweeping at 4 octaves/min from 0 to 20 Hz with ramped transitions at the beginning and end of the signal; this signal is shown in Figure 6.24.

Acceleration (g)

0.08

0.3

-0.08 8 0 -8 2 0 -2 0 20 40

5% Damped Spectral Acceleration

Velocity (in/sec)

0.2

0.1

Displacement (in)

0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Time (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 6.22 - Acceleration, Velocity, and Displacement Time Histories, and Acceleration Response Spectra for the Yerba Buena Island Record 90 Degree Component from the Loma Prieta Earthquake (YBI90)

284

Acceleration (g)

0.8

1.5

-0.8 30 0 -30 10 0 -10 0 10 20 30

5% Damped Spectral Acceleration

Velocity (in/sec)

0.5

Displacement (in)

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Time (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 6.23 - Acceleration, Velocity, and Displacement Time Histories, and Acceleration Response Spectra for the Port Island Downhole Array -79 meter Record North 00 East Component from the Kobe Earthquake (KPI79N00).
0.05

Acceleration (g)

0.00

-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Time (sec)

Figure 6.24 - Sinsweep Consisting of 65 Second Duration Record Sweeping at 4 Octaves Per Minute from 0 to 20 Hz with Ramped Transitions at the Beginning and End of Signal 6.6.2 Pile Head Loading Tests Five types of pile head loading tests were performed on single pile and pile group models to correlate pile head stiffness values derived from those tests with the observed seismic performance of similar models. Static lateral load tests were performed on single piles in Phase I and Phase II, and on a 3x3 pile group in Phase II (see Figures 6.25 and 6.26). A lateral load was applied by means of a cable and pulley system incrementally

285

loaded with steel plates; pile head or pile cap deflections and pile bending moments were recorded. A pile head impact test was conducted on a single pile in Phase II, and consisted of a hammer laterally striking the pile head and recording the free vibration and pile bending moment response. In a crude fashion, this is analogous to lateral statnamic pile tests. Forced vibration tests were carried out on a single pile in Phase II. For these tests an electrodynamic horizontal shaker manufactured by Acoustic Power Systems (model 129) was mounted to the pile head or pile cap and a 27.5 lb mass was excited with a frequency sweep ranging from 0 to 20 Hz. The pile head and bending moment response was recorded, with the peak amplitude of response indicating the resonant frequency of the soil-pile system. Finally, static and cyclic axial loading tests were performed on single piles in Phase II (Figure 6.27). For these tests, a pneumatic actuator was attached to the pile head in a vertical orientation. The static incremental loading test was carried to an ultimate load of 350 lbs, and the cyclic tests consisted of 10 cycles of alternating tensile/compressive loading at 3 increasing load levels. Pile head load and deflection and pile axial strains were recorded.

Figure 6.25 - Single Pile Lateral Load Test 2.20g at Maximum Deflection

286

Figure 6.26 - Pile Group Lateral Load Test 2.31 at Maximum Deflection

Figure 6.27 - Cyclic Axial Load Test 2.20b Setup 6.6.3 T-Bar Tests T-bars were pre-positioned in the test container and the model soil placed around the T-bars for later determination of the continuous soil strength profile versus depth. The T-bar method was originally introduced by Stewart and Randolph (1991), who applied it

287

to both field investigations and centrifuge testing procedures. The T-bar used for this project consisted of a in diameter steel cross bar, 3 in long, attached at a right angle to a in diameter vertical steel shaft 9 ft long, thus forming a T. The cross bar was positioned at the base of the model and the top of the shaft protruded out of the model soil and was threaded into a 250 lb load cell. The whole assembly was then pulled out of the soil by an overhead crane, thus acquiring continuous load resistance data of the bar segment translating through the soil. The T-bar was pulled at constant rate (Chapter 8 includes a discussion of T-bar rate effects) and over a known distance, so positional measures were not required. T-bar test results make use of the plasticity solution for the limiting pressure acting on a cylinder moving laterally through cohesive soil, as described by Randolph and Houlsby (1984). This analysis assumes full closure of the soil behind the cylinder such that gapping or suction do not occur, and ignores bar end effects and the influence of the relatively small cross-section presented by the shaft. The solution expresses the limiting force acting on an infinitely long cylinder as: SU = P Nb d (6.1)

where SU is the undrained shear strength of the soil, P is the force per unit length acting on the cylinder, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and Nb is the bar factor, which varies from 9 to 12, and is a function of the bar roughness/adhesion. Randolph and Houlsby (1984) recommend a value for Nb of 10.5 for general applications. Four T-bars were inserted in each model container so that continuous soil strength profiles could be obtained at various stages during the test program.

288

6.6.4 Shear Wave Velocity Tests The model soil shear modulus profile is a crucial component of site response and soil-pile interaction analyses. Shear wave velocity is related to shear modulus by:
V S= G

VS =

(6.2)

Laboratory testing of the model soil indicated distinct relationships between shear wave velocity and water content, and undrained shear strength, though laboratory samples and actual model conditions could be expected to have some variability. For this reason, insitu determination of the soil shear wave velocity profile was carried out. The in-situ test procedure consisted of striking the base of the container with a sledgehammer with the intent of generating shear waves in the soil. The differential arrival times of these shear waves would be detected by the accelerometer arrays in the soil, and knowing the distance between accelerometers, in-situ shear wave velocities could then be computed. As will be discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, the Phase I results were not conclusive, and the Phase II test procedures attempted to improve the fidelity of this test procedure. Phase II shear wave velocity testing used vertically denser accelerometer arrays, higher data sampling rates (>1000 Hz), and a cushioned hammer blow, which provided a lower frequency input. The test series 2.1 shear wave velocity tests were performed in a container devoid of piles, thereby eliminating alternate travel paths for the wave energy. Most importantly, the Phase II shear wave velocity tests were made by horizontally striking a plate coupled to the soil surface, which resulted in signals with more clearly identifiable P- and S-waves (see Figure 6.28).

289

Figure 6.28 - Surface Hammer Test to Determine Shear Wave Velocity Profile 6.6.5 Schedule of Test Conditions A typical test series for an individual model consisted of a T-bar test, a hammer blow test, a sinesweep test, the YBI90 motion, another sinesweep test, the KPI79N00 motion, another sinesweep test, and a final hammer blow test (both KPI79N00 in Phase II). The complete test series for a given model was conducted in a single day, with progressively increasing levels of excitation. In all, 6 YBI90, 6 KPI79N00, 2 wave loading, 13 sinesweep, 19 hammer blow, 5 T-bar, 12 pile driving, and 1 static lateral load test were conducted during Phase I; the schedule of Phase I tests is provided in Tables 6-9 6-13. Phase II tests included 14 KPI79N00, 17 sinesweep, 12 hammer blow, 4 T-bar, 2 static lateral load, 4 dynamic head loading, and 2 axial head loading tests; these are summarized in Tables 6-14 6-18. Model 1.1 consisted of four single piles with head masses ranging from 6.5 lbs to 160 lbs; this layout is shown in Figure 6.29. Model 1.2 contained two 3x3 pile groups, both with the same superstructure head masses, one with an 18 in tall column, and the

290

other with a 54 in tall column (Figure 6.30). Model 1.3 included two 3x3 pile groups with identical columns and head masses, but one had a trench excavated around its perimeter to remove the pile cap lateral soil resistance (Figure 6.31). A third pile raft foundation was also included in this model, which consisted of a pile cap for a 3x3 pile group, but with only one pile in the center of the cap. Model 1.4 had two 2x2 pile groups both with identical columns and head masses and pile caps above the ground surface, but one had water impounded around the pile cap and piles (Figure 6.32). Model 1.5 was a site response test with no piles or structures (Figure 6.33).

Table 6-9 Model Test Series 1.1 Test ID

1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18

Test Description
Static lateral load test on pile S4 T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.2 g Sinesweep test Hammer blow test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.35 g

Table 6-10 Model Test Series 1.2 Test ID

1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27

Test Description
T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.2 g Hammer blow test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g Sinesweep test

291

Table 6-11 Model Test Series 1.3 Test ID

1.30 1.31a 1.31b 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39a 1.39b

Test Description
T-Bar test Hammer blow test below table Hammer blow test above table turn on vertical pressure Sinesweep test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.2 g Hammer blow test above table Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g Sinesweep test Hammer blow test above table Hammer blow test below table

Table 6-12 Model Test Series 1.4 Test ID

1.40a 1.40b 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49a 1.49b

Test Description
hammer blow test below table hammer blow test above table Sinesweep test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.2 g Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g Sinesweep test 1 Hz. Wave loading scaled to 0.35 g 1 Hz. Wave loading scaled to 0.35 g Sinesweep test Hammer blow test above table Hammer blow test below table

Table 6-13 Model Test Series 1.5 Test ID

1.50 1.51a 1.51b 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.510a 1.510b

Test Description
T-Bar test hammer blow test below table hammer blow test above table Sinesweep test YBI90 input motion scaled to 0.2 g hammer blow test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g hammer blow test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 1.05 g KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 1.4 g Sinesweep test hammer blow test above table hammer blow test below table

292

TBar Test S1 2D
1D Accel Stack 1 x 2 Layers

S2 2D
2D Accel Stack 3 x 4 Layers

1D Accel Stack 2 x 2 Layers

S3 1D
2D Accel Stack 4 x 5 Layers +Vertical

S4 1D

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.29 - Model 1.1 Layout with Four Single Piles

1D Accel Stack 1 x 2 Layers

1D Accel Stack 2 x 2 Layers

2D Accel Stack 3 x 4 Layers

P1Lat P7Lat P2Axial P5Lat

P12Lat P3Lat P11Axial P4Lat

P9Lat P8Axial

2D Accel Stack 4 x 5 Layers +Vertical

P6Lat P10Axial

3x3 Pile Group S1 H/B = 3 TBar Test

3x3 Pile Group S2 H/B = 1

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.30 - Model 1.2 Layout with Two 3x3 Pile Groups 293

Single Pile Raft S3 H/B = 1

P11Lat

1D Accel Stack 1 x 2 Layers

1D Accel Stack 2 x 2 Layers

2D Accel Stack 3 x 4 Layers

P1Lat P7Lat P2Axial P5Lat

P12Axial P3Lat

P4Lat

P9Lat P8Axial

2D Accel Stack 4 x 5 Layers +Vertical

P6Lat P10Axial

3x3 Pile Group S1 H/B = 1 No Cap Embedment

3x3 Pile Group S2 H/B = 1 TBar Test

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.31 - Model 1.3 Layout with Two 3x3 Pile Groups and One Pile Raft Foundation

2x2 PIle Group S1

P2Axial P1Lat

2x2 Pile Group S2 w/Water

P3Lat P4Axial

P7Axial

P8Lat

P5Lat P6Axial

1D Accel Stack 1 x 2 Layers

1D Accel Stack 2 x 2 Layers

2D Accel Stack 3 x 4 Layers

2D Accel Stack 4 x 5 Layers +Vertical

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.32 - Model 1.4 Layout with Two 2x2 Pile Groups 294

TBar Test

1D Accel Stack 1 x 2 Layers

1D Accel Stack 2 x 2 Layers

2D Accel Stack 3 x 4 Layers

2D Accel Stack 4 x 5 Layers +Vertical

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.33 - Model 1.5 Layout with No Piles In Phase II, model 2.1 re-enacted the free-field site response test with no piles or structures, and contrasted uniaxial and biaxial shaking (Figure 6.34). Model 2.2 included 9 single piles; five with head masses ranging from 6.5 to 160 lbs, which were subjected to base shaking, and four additional piles subjected to head loading tests before shaking. These tests included a static lateral load test, a dynamic head lateral impact test, a forced vibration head loading test, a static axial loading test, and a cyclic axial loading test (Figure 6.35). Model 2.3 consisted of two identical 3x3 pile groups, one of which was subjected to a static lateral loading test before shaking (Figure 6.36). Model 2.4 contained a 5x3 pile group and a single pile that were subjected to biaxial shaking (Figure 6.37). Finally, model 2.5 contained two identical 2x2 pile groups, one with and one without pile cap embedment, subject to biaxial shaking (Figure 6.38).

295

Table 6-14 Model Test Series 2.1 Test ID

2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19

Test Description
Hammer blow test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.1 g KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.3 g Sinesweep test KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.1 g biaxial KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.3 g biaxial Sinesweep test Hammer blow test

Table 6-15 Model Test Series 2.2 Test ID

2.20a 2.20b 2.20c 2.20d 2.20e 2.20f 2.20g 2.21 2.22a 2.23a 2.23x 2.22b 2.23b 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28

Test Description
Static axial load test on pile S1 Cyclic axial load test on pile S3 Forced vibration test on pile S5 Forced vibration test on pile S5 Dynamic head impact test on pile S6 Forced vibration test on pile S5 Static lateral load test on pile S9 T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test Sinesweep test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.25 g Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g Sinesweep test Hammer blow test

Table 6-16 Model Test Series 2.3 Test ID

2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39

Test Description
Static lateral load test on pile group S1 T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.25 g Sinesweep test KPI79N00 input motion scaled to 0.7 g Sinesweep test Hammer blow test

296

Table 6-17 Model Test Series 2.4 Test ID

2.41 2.42 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48

Test Description
T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.25 g biaxial Sinesweep test KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.7 g biaxial Sinesweep test Hammer blow test

Table 6-18 Model Test Series 2.5 Test ID

2.50 2.51 2.52 2.53 2.54 2.55 2.56 2.57 2.58 2.59

Test Description
T-Bar test Hammer blow test Sinesweep test KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.25 g biaxial Sinesweep test KPI79 input motions scaled to 0.7 g biaxial Sinesweep test Hammer blow test KPI79 input motions scaled to 1.0 g biaxial KPI79 input motions scaled to 1.0 g biaxial

2D Accel Stack x 9 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

2D Accel Stack x 5 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.34 - Model 2.1 Layout with No Piles

297

TEST SERIES 2.2 LAYOUT

S1 static axial

S2

S7 S3 cyclic axial
2D Accel Stack x 9 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

S9 static lateral

S4
2D Accel Stack x 5 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

S8

S5 forced vibration

S6 impact

TBar Test

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.35 - Model 2.2 Layout with Nine Single Piles

TBar Test

P1Long P2Long P11Long P7Long

3x3 Pile Group S1 H /B = 3

P8Axial P12Axial

2D Accel Stack x 8 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

2D Accel Stack x 4 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

3x3 Pile Group S2 H /B = 3

P4Long P10Axial P6Axial

P5Long P3Long

P9Long

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.36 - Model 2.3 Layout with Two 3x3 Pile Groups 298

S2 2-D

P1Long P2Lat

P12Long P10Long P9Long P4Axial P11Long

P7Long P8Lat P3Lat

2D Accel Stack x 8 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

P6Axial

P5Lat

5x3 Pile Group S1 H/B =3

2D Accel Stack x 4 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

TBar Test

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.37 - Model 2.4 Layout with One 5x3 Pile Group and Single Pile

P1Axial

P7Axial

TBar Test

P2Long

P8Long

2x2 Pile Group S1 H/B = 2 No Cap Embedment

2D Accel Stack x 8 Layers + Vert Surface Accel

2x2 Pile Group S2 H /B = 2

2D Accel Stack x 4 Layers + Vert Surface Accel
P4Long P3Long

P6Axial

P5Axial

Shaking Axes

Figure 6.38 - Model 2.5 Layout with Two 2x2 Pile Groups 299