09/05/2012

Soil
Soil
Foundation
Foundation
Structure
Interaction
PART

TYPESofFOUNDATION

d
PILES
L/d > 7

CAISSONS
D / B 1 5

FOOTINGS
D / B 1

09/05/2012

INTRODUCTION
to
SoilFoundation
Dynamics.
Basic Concepts

y
z

6
4
3
2

stiffnesses

F1/1 Kv

F2/2 KH,x
F3/3 KH,y

Vertical

M5/5 K,rx

Horizontal

M4/4 K,ry

Kz ):

M6/6 Kt

Rocking
g

( Krz ): Torsion

09/05/2012

HORIZONTALandROCKINGStiffness
y

FoundationPlan

2B

2L

FoundationSoil
Section

K H =Q/uH
K R =M/
x

G,,

Springs+Dashpots:PhysicalInterpretation (VerticalMode)

Pz (t) =Pz ei t

rigid, massless

Cz

Pz e
e it =
uz(t)= uz ei t

Kz

uz=

Pz

Kz + i Cz

Kzz uz + Cz uz
!

i t + i C u ei t
Pz ei t = Kzuz e
z z

09/05/2012

Springs+Dashpots:PhysicalInterpretation (VerticalMode)

Pz (t) =Pz ei t

Cz

Kz

Pz

uz=

Kz + i Cz

Complex Dynamic Stiffness K =Kz + i Cz

ComplexDynamicStiffness
Kz=Kz

k ()

STATIC STIFFNESS

DefinitionofStiffnessandDampingofaFoundation SoilSystem
Mo

No

uo

Qo
wo

Qo
8
=
GR , C H
uo 2

KH
KR
KV

ro

Mo
= 3(18 ) GR 3 , C R
ro

No
4
=
GR
Wo 1

CV

Vs R 2
VL R

VL R 2

09/05/2012

10

DynamicStiffnessCoefficient

VERTICAL
6

kz

4
L/B=

1.2

0.4

VERTICAL
6

L/

ky

SWAYING (y)

10

4
2
1

kz
0
Fine saturated
soils, 0.5

b
a

0
0

B
a0 V
s

a0 V
s

The Recognised Effects of SS I

K,

~
>
~
>

Kx
KR

Structure on
RIGID
Base

Structure on
COMPLIANT
Ground

09/05/2012

W/g
W

h
rigid
i id
G,

Tst

2
g

W
k st

~ 2
T

g
2

k
kh
~

T T 1
KH
KR

~
~
st T / T

K,

3 f h /R , T~ / T,

KX

Structure
St
t
on
flexible base

1
0

~
>

~
T >

~
T

/2

K,
KR

Fixed-base
Fi
db
structure

0
1

K / KX

~
T/T
1.5

09/05/2012

SEISMIC CODES:
Smooth Average Response Spectrum

Sa

V < 0

Period

INTRODUCTION
to
SoilFoundationStructure
Interaction.
Basic Concepts

09/05/2012

S
S

Kinematic
Loading

Inertial
Loading

09/05/2012

The PROBLEM

S
s

Soil Pile Structure Interaction

G1
G2

09/05/2012

Kinematic Response

Ground
Deforms

Inertial Response

m Sa

10

09/05/2012

KINEMATICRESPONSE:

Interplaybetweenpileandsoil under
seismicwavemotionofsurroundingsoil:
Pilesarestressed,bydeveloping

Curvatures + moments
Curvatures+moments
bothatgreaterdepths andthefixedhead

SEISMICPILEBENDING
crust
movement
SOFT
LAYER

seismic
waves

LIQUEFIED
LAYER

STIFF
LAYER
FIRM
LAYER

inertial

kinematic

liquefaction
induced

11

09/05/2012

Kinematic Pile Moments:

d=1m
0
V1 = 120 m/s

V2 = 480 m/s

10

15

Aegion: 0.54 g

max M : MN m

SoilModellingandMethodsofAnalysis
Thesoilasacontinuum (usuallyelastic)
Analyticalsolutions [ few]
Numericalsolutions : with FiniteElements,

BoundaryElements,
HybridMethods

SoilreactionsfromindependentWinklerSprings:
AnalyticalSolutions(forlinearlyelasticsprings)
Numericalsolutions(fornonlinearandinelasticsprings)

Widespreaduseof

pycurves

12

09/05/2012

Analysisin2Steps

Ground
Response

c
GroundResponse

Soil PileInteraction

13

09/05/2012

WINKLERMODEL
Up

Uff

pile motion

free-field motion
Layer 1

V1 , 1 , 1

soil

pile
ki (z)

Layer i

Vi , i , i
c i (z)

vertical shear waves

Example of comparison:

Pile Displacement: m

FEM vs. Winkler (BDWF).

Kinematic, FreeHead Pile
AS exp(it)
V1

H1

L
H2
V2
H3

AR exp(it)

Pile bending moment: MN m

14

09/05/2012

HARMONIC PILE BENDING STRAINS

0
V1 / V2 = 1/4

depth z / d

V1 / V2 = 1/ 2
10
10
fixed-head pile
free-head pile

20
0

40

80

20
0

V1 / V2 = 1/10

pile bending strain ep ( 10-4)

10
L / d = 20
Ep / E1 = 5,000
20
Nikolaou & Gazetas (1997)

40

80

pile bending strain ep ( 10-4)

Simple Crude Expression for the KINEMATIC

Bending Moment
at the Interface of 2 layers ( V1 V2 )

L
M 0.042 C d 3
d

0.30

Ep

E1

0.65

V
2
V1

0.50

Shear Stress at Interface AS 1 H1

(Use with caution)
Nikolaou & Gazetas 1997

15

09/05/2012

3 Case Histories
ffrom Japan:
p
(1) Obha Ohashi Bridge Piles
(2) Konan High School Pile
(3) Ervic Building

KINEMATIC DISTRESS of an ACTUAL PILE

in Futsisawa, Japan, during an Earthquake
Adapted
p
from : Tazoh et al ((1994))

Ohba Ohashi Bridge Pier Foundations

Heavily instrumented PILES (L = 26 m)

in extremely SOFT organic clay

Recorded numerous small and moderate

motions

16

09/05/2012

VALLEY of O - S
( Yokohama )

The Bridge: O

TOMH

P6
6

P5
H1

P7

P8

BR2
BR3

BR1

BS1

BS2

BS3

25
m

30 m

GS1
GS1

VS = 60 m/s

GB4
GB2

GB3

GB1
GB1

17

09/05/2012

Modelling with Finite Elements

( ABAQUS ) and Spectral Elements ( AHNSE )

The OhbaOhashi Bridge and the

Instrumentation of Ground and Footing (Pier 6)

accelerographs

GB1

GB2

GB3

18

09/05/2012

OhbaOhashi Bridge: Strain Gauges in two piles in Pier 6

L = 22 m

64 piles
(32 battered,
32 vertical)

19

09/05/2012

Earthquake Records at Ohba-Ohashi Bridge

A:g

MJMA = 6 , R = 42 km
0.12
0.06
0
-0.06
-0.12

A:g

surface ( GS1 )

0.12 g

0.12
0.06
0
-0.06
-0.12

10

t:s

15

20

25

base ( GB1 )
0.03 g

10

15

20

25

t:s

20

09/05/2012

(near head)

(1/3 depth)

(2/3 depth)

(full depth of soft

soil)

(soft-stiff soil interface)

Evidently, the large bending strain

at the depth of 22 m is the result
of the sharp impedance contrast
at that location: intreface between
soft and very stiff soil.
As can be seen from the plot of
next slide, it is purely the product
of kinematic distress.

21

09/05/2012

good performance of theory !

active length c of a (flexible) pile

uo

uo

DEFINITION

L
idle
part
d

22

09/05/2012

active length c of a (flexible) pile

Static Loading

[ Gazetas 1991 ]

c 1.5d (Ep /Es)0.25

c 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.22

c 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.20

Es

Es
d
diameter

Es

Es
d

Es

KINEMATIC DISTRESS of an ACTUAL PILE

in Hokkaido Japan during an Earthquake
Adapted from : Y. Miyamoto & K. Koyamada (2007)

Tokachi-oki Earthquake 2003 , M = 7.9

Konan Junior High School ( R = 240 km ):

footings on piles
accelerograms: at 0 m and 153 m depth !!

23

09/05/2012

TOKACHI-oki 2003 Earthquake: M = 7.9 ....

2003 /09/26

KONAN High School

N

AccelerographArray
50 m

HighSchool

24

09/05/2012

SOIL LAYERS and PHC (d=0.40 m) PILE

0.35 g

190

60 90

Vs [ m/s ]

0m

Peat

6m

Shear wave
velocity

Clay

20 m

Sandy
Silt

30 m

0.05 g

400 m/s

153 m
Sandstone

ACCELEROGRAMS
0.35 g

Recorded at
Ground Surface

cm / s2

Recorded at -153 m
(Input Motion)

cm / s2

0.05 g
50

sec
100

150

25

09/05/2012

Response Spectra ( 5 % damping)

0m

0.35 g

153 m

0.05 g

[DrawtheanalogywiththeMexicoCity1985
spectraofthemotionsrecordedat
SCT(soilsurface)versusUNAM(rockoutcrop)!!]

Vs (m/s)

Peat

60

6
Clay

20

90

m
SiltySand

190

30
Gravel

40

320

26

09/05/2012

ResultsofAnalysis:ELASTICPILE
1

My = yield
moment
of pile
section

We thus would expect the pile to have

been damaged at the depth of 20 m

Indeed the pile was extracted

Indeed,
from the ground, and a crack was
seen at 20 m ! It was a
complete crack
crack, extending
throughout the hollow cylindrical
crosssection of the pile

27

09/05/2012

E
W

Sketch of observed cracks

GL20.0m

0.1mm

GL20.3m

1mm

GL20.5m

24.8 m

pile
crack

0.1mm

FIELD EVIDENCE
ERVIC BUILDING

RF

28.4 m

46.6 m

N
Pile B

7F

Pile A

Building accelerometer

GL

Ground accelerometer
B1F

Dynamic strain transducer

strain
transducer

soil

Y
a

Pile A

Y
GL 39 m

Pile B

28

09/05/2012

CASE STUDY :

Yokohama, Japan

EARTHQUAKE EVENT
Location Tokyo Bay Area (N35o12; E139o48)
Time February
Febr ar 2,
2 1992
Magnitude M = 5.9
Focal depth D = 93 km
Epicentral distance R = 32 km
Peak Acceleration A = 0.05 g
ANALYSIS
Dominant Surface Acceleration Period 1 sec
Fundamental Soil Period 1 sec
Nonlinear effects minor

Soil Profile & Transducers Locations

SPT
blowcounts
0

20

40

shear wave velocity

Vs (m/s)
200

400

Fill

s = 1.6 Mg/m

Alluvial
Sand

W.T.

A1

10
low strain

A2

dep
pth : m

A3

20

strain
compatible

Alluvial
Clay

s = 1.5 Mg/m3

30

interface 1
Sand with Clay

40

Tuffaceous Clay
Clay with Sand
Gravel
Mudstone
Fine Sand
Mudstone

A4

A5

s = 1.6 Mg/m

interface 2
A6
s = 1.6 Mg/m

29

09/05/2012

Measured / Predicted Spectra

Y direction

X direction

spectral acceleration SA
A : g

0.15

-2 m
computed

elastic

0.10

= 5%

50

0.05

-2 m
computed

elastic
= 5%
50

SHAKE PI = 30
SHAKE,
SHAKE, PI = 30

0.00
0.15

-2 m
recorded

-2 m
recorded

-40 m
recorded

-40 m
recorded

0.10
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

period T : s

1.0

period T : s

Measured / Predicted Pile Strains

peak pile bending strain ( 105 )
0

X direction

computed

measured
center pile

20

Y direction

A1

10

dep
pth : m

measured
corner pile

strain
compatible,
PI = 30
elastic
= 5%

active
pile
length
strain
compatible,
PI = 30

A2
A3

A4

elastic
= 5%

30

40

A5

A6

30

09/05/2012

Inertial Response

m Sa

Pile Head Fixity Conditions

Fixed-Head

Free-Head
Piles
H

Piles

Ho

Q
Q
M

31

09/05/2012

(1) Transmitting the Shear Force, Qo

[ We ignore for the time being the (generally

pile
to
to
pile interaction ]
significant) pile

Q
Horizontal Force on each pile:
Q1 =

Qo
n

(2) Transmitting the Moment , o

Two mechanisms:
() Axial Forces

(b) Bending Moments

x1
F1 F2

F3

Fi = (o xi) KV

= 6 1 = 6 K o

M = 2F1x1 + 2F3x3 =
2

= 2(
2(ox1KV)x1 + 2(
2(--ox1KV)(
)(--x1) = 4 x1 KV o

32

09/05/2012

y0

M0

Q0
z

0
z

ph(z)

= f(y)

ph(z) = ks y

ph(z)

ks= tan a

y(z)

active length c of a (flexible) pile

uo

uo

DEFINITION

L
idle
part
d

33

09/05/2012

active length c of a (flexible) pile

Static Loading

[ Gazetas 1991 ]

c 1.5d (Ep /Es)0.25

c 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.22

c 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.20

Es

Es
d
diameter

Es
d

Es

Es

(b)
Characteristic Dimensionless
Elastic Results:
STIFFNESS MATRIX
att pile
il h
head
d
[ for Flexible Piles]

34

09/05/2012

KMH

KHH

Es

KHM

KMM
1

Homogeneous Layer
KHH Es d ( Ep /Es )0.21
KMM 0.15Es d 3

( Ep /Es )0.75

KMH = KHM - 0.22Es d 2

KMH

KHH

Es

KHM

( Ep /Es )0.50

KMM
1

Es
*

z
Gibson Soil:

[ Gazetas 1991 ]

/ Es* )0.35
0.15 Es d 3 ( Ep / Es* )

KHH 0.6 Es d ( Ep
KMM
0.80

KMH = KHM - 0.17 Es d 2 ( Ep

0.60

/ Es * )

35

09/05/2012

0 = d / VS

Frequency
(rad/sec)

36

09/05/2012

Pile Pile Interaction

(Pile Group Effects )

37

09/05/2012

3 x 3 PILE GROUP
5

DYNAMIC
EFFICIENCY FACTOR

K(group) /9 K(one)
STATIC
Values
0.2 0.3

1
0

-3

d / VS

38

09/05/2012

But what about

Nonlinear + Layerd Soil ?

The Winkler Spring model

offers perhaps the best available
practical solution!

3 reasons for the particular success

of Winkler model for piles (as compared with shallow fdns):
Real

1) Theoretical:
Real

Winkler

Winkler

2) Theoretical + Practical :

k1
k2
k3
k4

which

k?

39

09/05/2012

3) Practical : Availability of a wealth of nonlinear Winkler

springs for a variety of soils , based on full-scale and
laboratory experiments:

py

curves (non-linear
(non linear springs)

kd
kd

Two types of independent

Winkler springs:
springs
1. Linearly Elastic Springs
2 Nonlinear Springs
2.
( p y curves)

40

09/05/2012

The Elastic Winkler Model

REACTION of
soil per unit
length:

p = p(y)
(y)= ky
y
k

k = kd ES

Lateral Winkler Springs + Dashpots

Axial Winkler Springs + Dashpots

41

09/05/2012

Lateral Pile Response (displacements, moments):

Winkler model

F e -z cos z
y(z) =
2 Ep Ip 3

Free head pile :

(z) =

Fixed head pile ( = 0) :

F -z
e sin z

Ip )F e -z
y(z) =
4 Ep Ip 3
(z) =

k / 4 Ep

(cos z

+ sin z)

F -z
e (sin z cos z)
2

1
Slice

r
v

Resultant of soil tractions

per unit length:

p = (r cos + r sin ) R
d

42

09/05/2012

p y curves :
p

pult

kd

y
y

kd

pult

U ltimate

Pile

Slice
Surface Sq. Footing

9 Su d

{ 3K

zd

Load

p
Pult
9Su D 12Su D

Pp ult
6SuD

43

09/05/2012

3-D Passive Resistance of Limited Height Wall

q
h

Fp

ELEVATION

Fp

Fp h 2 q h b
2

Fp

3
2
1
0

0
1

PLAN

21 3

h/b

9 10

p y curves:
p
p
p

y
y
y

kd
kd

p { 9 Su d

3KP z d

44

09/05/2012

p y and curves with BWGG

100

p : kN / m

100
80

BWGG

80

60

Reese

60

Matlock

40

40

Sand

20

0.02

Soft Clay

20

0
0.04

0
0.06 0

100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

800

80

BWGG

60

M tl k
Matlock

M : kNm
m

p : kN / m

BWGG

40

Stiff Clay

20

BWGG
BIAX

600
400

RC

200
0

0
0

0.1

y:m

0.2

0.3

0.01

0.02

:1/m

0.03

Example: ElasticPlastic
Approximation of the py curves
Fo
2d
4d

Es
z1
z2

z3

2d

3Kp z1 d
Es(z
( 1)

Es(z1)
Es(z2)

,
12d

4d

3Kp z2 d
3Kp z3 d

Es(z3)

12d

Es(z2)
Es(z3)

y
20d

45

09/05/2012

Fo

2d

2d
4d

4d
12d
12d

y
20d

z
1.
2.

Nearly Elastic Response

Slightly Inelastic
Response
3.
Strongly Inelastic Response

1 2

3
7 m

20 m
1. Nearly Elastic
Response
2.
Slightly Inelastic
Response
3. Strongly Inelastic Response

46

09/05/2012

Resulting

Fo yo Response

1720

Fo 1150

(kN)
770

4.5

y :

cm

10

Soil
Soil
Foundation
FoundationStructure
Interaction
PART

47

09/05/2012

y
z

6
4
3
5

stiffnesses

F1/1 Kv

F2/2 KH,x

Vertical

M5/5 K,rx

Horizontal

M4/4 K,ry

Kz ):

F3/3 KH,y

M6/6 Kt

Rocking
g

( Krz ): Torsion

HORIZONTALandROCKINGStiffness

y
x

2
2B
FoundationPlan
2L
M

Q
FoundationSoil
Section

K H =Q /uH
K R = M /
x

G,,

48

09/05/2012

Springs+Dashpots:PhysicalInterpretation (VerticalMode)

Pz (t) =Pz ei t

rigid, massless

Cz

Kz

Pz e
e it =
uz(t)= uz ei t

uz =

Pz

Kz + i Cz

Kzz uz + Cz uz
!

i t + i C u ei t
Pz ei t = Kzuz e
z z

Springs+Dashpots:PhysicalInterpretation (VerticalMode)

Pz (t) =Pz ei t

Cz

Kz

uz=

Pz

Kz + i Cz

Complex Dynamic Stiffness K =Kz + i Cz

ComplexDynamicStiffness
Kz=Kz

k ()

STATIC STIFFNESS

49

09/05/2012

For every mode of vibration : K i

ComplexDynamicStiffness K Z =KZ+ i CZ
KZ=KZ

k Z ()

STATIC STIFFNESS

k Z () =Dynamic
S iff
StiffnessCoefficient
C ffi i
ComplexDynamicStiffness K i =Ki + i Ci

i = z , x , y , rx , ry , t

STATICSTIFFNESSESonHALFSPACE
CIRCLE,R

STRIP,2B

50

09/05/2012

2L

G, ,

ArbitrayFoundationShape

2B

Static K
Shape (2 ,2L, Ab )

MODE

Kz =

SQUARE (2 x 2B)

2GL
( 0.73 + 1.54 0.75 )
1-

Kz =

= Ab / 4 L2

Ky =

G I 0.75
bx
1-

K,rx =

K,ry =

ry

( L)

G
Ibx 0.75
1-

10

( 2.4+0.5

kz

K,rx =

[ 3 ( BL ) ]
0.15

3.6 G B3
1-

K,ry = K,rx

B 10
) ]
L

Kt = 8.3 G B3

4
L/B=

1.2

0.4

=
B 10
/
L

VERTICAL
6

B
)
L

DynamicStiffnessCoefficient

VERTICAL
6

9GB
2-

Kx = Ky

0.25

Kt = G Jt 0.75 [4 + 11 ( 1 -

4.54 G B
1-

Ky =

Kx = Ky 0.75 - G L ( 1- B / L )

rx

2GL
0.85 )
2 - ( 2 + 2.5
0.2

ky

SWAYING (y)
6

4
2
1

kz
0
Fine saturated
soils, 0.5

b
a

0
0

a0 V
s

B
a0 V
s

51

09/05/2012

VERTICAL

RadiationDashpotCoefficients

L/B=

10

cz

1.0

ROCKING (rx)

crx

1.2

2B

c z ( = 0.5)
c z ( = 0.5)

c zc z( (
0.4)
0.4)

1.0

2L
2L

0.4

a 10

L / B = 1 2 4 6 10

0.5

0.0
1.0 L / B =

SWAYING (y)

L/B=

cy

2B

0.3

10
6
4

cry

2L

0.5

10
6
4

0.5

1
1

0.0

a 0

B
Vs

B
a0 V
s

SurfaceFoundations
HomogeneousHalfspace
Vibration
Mode

Homogeneous
Halfspace
G, ,

Dynamic Stiffness Coefficient

Static Stiffness

Dynamic
)
K Stiffness K ()k(=)K
; .(0k
(a
0 2)
General shape

Vertical
z

Kz =

2GL
1-

kz = kz (L / B, , a0 ) Graph a

4.54 G B
1-

Ky =
Horizontal General
y
Rectangular Ky =

2GL
2-
9GB
2-

Table I

Radiation Coefficients
C() , c()
Cz = ( Vs Aw ) cz

0 75 )
( 0.73 +1.54 0.75
= Ab / 4 L2

Rectangular (2L x 2B x d)
Kz =

Crx = ( VLJ) crx

Cya0=(Vs VSA) cy

f
ROCKING (ry)

( 2 + 2.5 0.85 )

ky = ky (L / B, a0 ) Graph b

cz = cz (L / B, , a0 ) Graph c
Cy = ( Vs Ab ) cy
cy = cy (L / B, a0 ) Graph d

0.2

Kx = Ky 0.75 - G L ( 1- B / L )

Horizontal General
x

Rectangular

Rocking
rx
Rocking
ry
Torsion
t

General Krx =
Rectangular
General

Cx Vs Ab

kx 1

Kx = Ky
G
1-

Krx =
Kry =

Rectangular

L
Ibx 0.75 ( B

0.25

G
1-

Ibx 0.75

0.15

[ 3 ( BL ) ]

Kt = 8.3 G

B3

B
L

10

Crx = ( VLa Ibx) crx

krx 1 0.2 a0

crx = crx (L / B, a0 ) Graph e

< 0.45 kry 1 0.3 a0

0.5

Kry = Krx

General Kt = G Jt 0.75 [4 + 11 ( 1 Rectangular

B
L

( 2.4+0.5

3.6 G B3
1-

kry 1 0.25 a0 (
kt 1 0.14 a0

Cry = ( VLa Iby) cry

L
B

0.3

cry = cry (L / B, a0 ) Graph f

Ct = ( Vs Jt) ct
ct = ct (L / B, a0 ) Graph g

52

09/05/2012

Graphs Accompanying Table I

y

10

VERTICAL
6

ROCKING (rx)

crx

z

0
0.4
4

0.5
VERTICAL

VERTICAL

0.0

L/B=

kz

1.0 L / B =

10

cz

cry

1.2

cz (= 0.5)

cz (0.4)

Fine saturated
soils, 0.5

1.0

1
a10

ROCKING (ry)

0.0
SWAYING (y)

10
6

cy
b

0.3

2B

ct
ct

x
y

4
3

0.5

1
1

0
0

a0 V
s

TORSION

2L

0.5

2
1

L/B=

1.0

L/B=

SWAYING (y)
10

0.5

0.4

10
6

ky

L / B = 1 2 4 6 10

1.0

2L

kz

0
0

B
a0 V
s

0.0
0

a0 V
s

EffectofBedrockatShallowDepth

(SoilStratumOverRock )

53

09/05/2012

STRATUMoverBEDROCK

0.5R
1.5R

4R

54

09/05/2012

SurfaceFoundation
HomogeneousStratumoverBedrock

Circular Foundation
Foundation
Circular Foundation
Foundation Shape
Radius
BR = R Rectangular
2B 2L (L > B)
Radius B =
z
VerticalVertical,
Mode

Static
stiffness
K

Lateral, y / x

Kz =
Ky =

4GR
1-
8GR
2-

(1 + 1.3 R )
(1 + 0.5 R )

kz

B/H
1+
0.5 + B / L

G
0.73
((1 + 3.5 B )
1-
H

2L

ky

2 G (1 + 2 B )
2 - )

2L

Rocking, rx / ry

8GR
krx = 3 (1 - ) (1 + 0.17 R )
H

Torsional, t

3
kt = 16 G R (1 + 0.10 R )

krx
2L

kz = kz (H / R, a0 ) Graph III-1

y or x

ky = ky ((H / R,, a0 ) Graph

p III-1

rx , ry , t

k (H / R ) k () ; = rx, ry, t
Cz (H / B) 0 , f < fc

kz = kz (H / R, L / B, a0 ) Graph III-2
ky = ky (H / B, a0 ) Graph III-3
krx krx ()

(H / B) 0.8 Cz () , f 1.5 fc

Radiation
dashpot
coefficient

y , x

Cy (H / B) 0 , f < 3/4 fs ; Cy (H / B) Cy () , f > 4/3 fs

C()

rx , ry

Crx (H / B) 0 , f < fc ; Crx (H / B) Crx () , f > fc

; Cz

fc =

Circular Foundation
Radius B = R

Static vertical stiffness

Kz =

Dynamic stiffness
coefficient

VLa
4H

, VLa =
fs =

Ct (H / B) Ct ()

3.4 Vs
(1 )

Vs
4H

Homogeneous
Stratum
G, ,

4GR
1-

(1 + 1.3 R )
H

kz = kz (H / R, a0 ) Graph III-1

Radiation dashpot
coefficient
fc =

GB2
= 2 (1
(1 + 0.2 B )
- )
H

Dynamic
stiffness
coefficient
coe
ce t
k()

Strip Foundation
2L

[0.73 + 1.54( BL ) ] x

Kz = 21G- L

Homogeneous
Stratum
G, ,

VLa
4H

Cz (H / B) 0 , f < fc

Cz (H / B) 0.8 Cz () , f 1.5 fc
, VLa =

3.4 Vs
(1 )

55

09/05/2012

KY =KY+

i CY

KY=KY

kY ()

CY

kY

V S A

f
VS / 4 H

f
VS / 4 H

Graphs Accompanying Table III

III-1 CIRCLE

III-3 STRIP

III-2 RECTANGLE

1.5

1.5

H/B=4

1.0

2
4

05
0.5

kz

0.3

0.5

05
0.5

4
0.0

0.3

0.0

H/B=2

1.0
1.5

kz

ky = kz

0.0

8
1.0

ky

H/R=2
0.4

0.0
0.0

1.5

2
4

0.3

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

a0 V
s

1.5

2.0

kz

H/B=2

0.4

0.5

0.0
0.0

1
0.3

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

H/B=2

kz

0.0

H/R=2

0.3

1.0

L/B=1

kz

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

B
a0 V
s

a0 V
s

56

09/05/2012

CAISSON
Foundations

PART

Static and Dynamic

SoilCAISSON
Interaction

(LinearandNonLinear)

57

09/05/2012

TYPESofFOUNDATION

PILES

CAISSONS

L / d 7

D / B 1 5

FOOTING
D / B 1

Examples of Caisson Foundations

51m

217m

51m

Kobe

Port Island

33
15
990
m
990m

P3

P1

P4

P2

P5

TAGUS

P6
P7

8888
m

58

09/05/2012

Simple Methods Used in Practice

Specified
Displacement
Pattern

k =?
Winkler

Elasticity

2 WaysofViewingthethe

CAISSON
1) asan EmbeddedFoundation
2) asa LargeDiameterRigidPile

59

09/05/2012

the CAISSON asan

EmbeddedFoundation

(LinearResponse
Linear Response)

Foundation Embedded in Halfspace

P

Static Kemb
1
Kz, emb = Kz, surf [1 + D
21 B

(1 + 1.3 )] 1 + 0.2

2B
(2L)

VERTICAL

2/3

A
(A ) ]
w

Kz,surf =

2GL
( 0.73 +1.54 0.75 )
1-

AW = area of
surface
in contact

= Ab / 4 L2

Ky, emb = Ky, surf 1 + 0.15

HORIZONTAL

Ky,surf =

D
B

] [1 + 0.52 ( Bh

2GL
( 2 + 2.5 0.85 )
2-

Aw
L2

0.4

)]

Full Contact :

AW = (4B + 4L)D

= Ab / 4 L2

60

09/05/2012

Partially/FullyEmbeddedFoundations
HomogeneousHalfspace
Dynamic Stiffness Coefficient
Static Stiffness
Dynamic
Stiffness Kemb
(
) = K (0 xa k emb
()
k () ; emb
2)
K

Vibration
Mode

emb

emb

Radiation Coefficient
Cemb()

Fully embedded

General shape
D

Kz, emb = Kz, surf [1 +

x

Vertical
z

[1 + 0.2 (

1 D
21 B
Aw
Ab

(1 + 1.3 )]

kz, emb = kz, surf [1 0.09 ( B

)3/4 a02]

) ]

= Ab / 4 L2

Cz, surf Table I

Fully embedded , L/B 1 - 2

D

kz, emb = kz, surf [1 0.09 ( B

Kz, surf Table I

kz, emb = kz, surf [1 0.35 ( B

D
B

Rectangular (2L x 2B x d)

)3/4 a02]

Cz, emb = 4 VLa B L cz

= 0.5

Fully embedded , L/B > 3

Horizontal
x, y

Cz, emb = Cz, surf + Vs Aw

0.4

In a trench
D 3/4
kz, tre = kz, surf [1 0.9 ( B ) a02]

2/3

+ 4 Vs (B + L) d

) 1/2a03.5]
General shape
Cy, emb = Cy, surf +
+ Vs Aws + VLa Awce

Ky, emb = Ky, surf 1 + 0.15 x

[1 + 0.52 (

h
B

Aw
L2

Estimate from accompanying

graphs (L/D, D/B, d/B)

0.4

) ]

Aws = soil-shearing area

Awe = soil-compressing area
Rectangular
Cy, emb = 4 VLa B L cz

Ky, surf Table I

+ 4 Vs Cy, emb s B d + 4 VLa L d

Graphs Accompanying Table {Embedded}

2

L/B=2

L/B=2

ky

kx

2B
(2L)

2
0

0
2

L/B=1

L/B=6
0

ky
1

L/B=6

ky = kx

kx

1
2

2
0

0
0

a0

a0

0
0

a0

61

09/05/2012

the CAISSON asa

LargeDiameterRigidPile

(Non
NonLinear
LinearResponse
Response)

Interface
Nonlinearities

Soil Nonlinearity

rz

rz
r

r
c

ux

r
c

ux

62

09/05/2012

SOIL REACTIONS

PILE:

only
l
Lateral
Stresses
CAISSON
Lateral
+
Vertical
Stresses

Soil Caisson Interaction

. Interface
A

B. Near Field

C. Far Field

63

09/05/2012

EXAMPLES of STRUCTURES on

CAISSON Foundations

51m

51m

217m

Kobe

Port Island

33
15
990 m
990
m

P3

P4

P2

P1

P5

P6

TAGUS

P7

8888
m

Soil + Interface
Nonlinearities

Soil Nonlinearity

rz

rz
r

r
c

ux

r
c

ux

64

09/05/2012

SOIL REACTIONS

PILE:

only
l
Lateral
Stresses
CAISSON
Lateral
+
Vertical
Stresses

SOIL REACTION of CAISSON

M

Lateral
Surface

D1

p x ( z ) 0 r cos r sin r d
2

2
B
m ( z ) 0 r z cos d
2

Section

rz

D
rz

r
Base

r
B

Vb 0

M b 0

0
2

z r cos zsin
r d dr
rz

2
2
0 z cos r d dr

65

09/05/2012

LATERAL STATIC LOADING

Winkler Model

M0
V0

u0

kx

px

k
m

KM

KH

Vb

Mb

Horizontal Force Equilibrium :

V0 ( t ) m uc( t )

~
~
k x ( z ) u( z ,t ) dz K H ub ( t ) 0

Moment Equilibrium Around Base (z = 0)

2
D~
~
~
k x ( z ) u( z ,t ) z dz 0 k ( z )( t )dz K M ( t ) 0

c ( t ) m uc( t )
M 0 ( t ) V0 ( t ) D J c
D

F
ForceDisplacement
Di l
t Relation
R l ti
(Stiff
(Stiffness
M ti )
Matrix)
~
2
K HH m
V

base

D
~
M base
K HM m 2

u b

2
2
2 D b
J c m
4

D
~
K HM m 2
2
~
K MM

66

09/05/2012

STATIC SPRING CALLIBRATION

BASE SPRINGS
4Gb
2 -

KH

KM

8 G b3
3 1 - )

DISTRIBUTED SPRINGS
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION
THEORY
(Gazetas et al, 1987, 1989)

M
Q

D
2b

5
0

-5
-10

kx / Es =

-15

f (D ,B)

k / Es B2 =

-20
0

D/B

f (D ,B)
3

D/B

Analytical Relations for Elastic Springs

(Gerolymos & Gazetas, 2000)

Square Caisson
D
k x 1.68
B

0.13

Es

D
k 1.23
B

1.313

Es D 2

Circular Caisson
D
k x 1.37
B

0.13

Es

D
k 0 .9
B

1.477

Es D 2

67

09/05/2012

Soil Caisson Interaction

. Interface
A

B. Near Field

C. Far Field

Winkler Model
BWGG for Caissons

68

09/05/2012

MediumScale Field Load Test of Caisson

( EPRI, 1981 )
M

03m
0.3
Clay

Thick.

Su

1.68

20.6

75

1 38
1.38

22

100

0.76

22

170

4.1 m
y
Clay

1.52 m

Soft
Schist

kN/m3 kPa

Static Loading of Caisson : = 1.5 m, D = 4 m,

in Clay
5

: MNm

4
2.5

BWGG
Recorded
(EPRI, 1981)

0
0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

: rad

69

09/05/2012

Soil Reaction p :
-500
0

-250

250

kN / m
500

z:m

2
3

Recorded for 0.6 Mu

(EPRI, 1981)

BWGG

Dynamic Field Load Test of Caisson

M = 2000 sin (12 t)

Thick

Su

Clay

1.68

20.6

75

Clay

1 38
1.38

22

100

0.76

22

170

03m
0.3

4.1 m

1.52 m

Soft
Schist

kN/m3 kPa

70

09/05/2012

400

z = 0.3 m

Fs : kN / m

Fs : kN / m

400
200
0

z = 0.65 m

200
0

-200

-200

-400
-0.04

-0.02

0.02

-400
-0.04

0.04

-0.02

z=4m

200
0

-100

-400
-0.04

-0.02

0.02

-200
-0.02

0.04

ux : m

2000

MTOP : kNm

z=4m

100

-200

-0.01

0.01

: rad

0.02

Kinematic Response
excitation : Sepolia (Athens 1999)

1000
0

-1000

ubase : m
uTOP : m

0 04
0.04

-2000
4

12

16

t:s

2000
1000

-0.02

-0.04
0

-1000
-2000
-0.04

0.02

u:m

MTOP : kNm

0.04

200

Mb : kkNm

Fs : kN
N/m

400

0.02

ux : m

ux : m

12

16

t:s
-0.02

0.02

0.04

uTOP : m

71

09/05/2012

400

z = 0.3 m

Fs : kN / m

Fs : kN / m

400
200
0

-200
-400
-0.04

-0.02

0.02

ux : m

0
-200
-400
-0.04

0.04

-0.02

Mb : kkNm

z=4m

200
0

-200
-400
-0.04

400

0.04

-0.02

0.02

z=4m
0
-100
-200
-0.02

0.04

400

z = 0.3 m

Fs : kN / m

Fs : kN / m

0.02

100

-0.01

200
0

0.01

: rad

ux : m

0.02

z = 0.65 m

200
0

-200

-200

-400

-400
0

12

16

12

16

z=4m

400

z=4m

400
200

Mb : kN
Nm

Fs : kN
N/m

ux : m

200

400

Fs : kN
N/m

z = 0.65 m

200

0
-200

200
0

-200
-400

-400
0

t:s

12

16

12

16

t:s

72

09/05/2012

BatterPiles under
SeismicLoading

3D3D
-FE Modelling
Group with vertical piles

Asymmetric group with inclined pile

Symmetric group with inclined piles

73

09/05/2012

3. Loading
Kinematic

Kinematic

Loading

+
Inertial Loading

Normalized Maximum Bending Moment with respect to the

group of fixed
fixed--head vertical piles Lefkada
-0.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-0.2
0

Fixed

10

10

12

12

14

14

16

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hinged

16
Vertical Pile

Vertical Pile
Inclined Pile

Inclined Pile

74

09/05/2012

Normalized Maximum Bending Moment of the Pile with

respect to the Fixed
Fixed-Head Vertical Pile - Lefkada
-0.5
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-0.2
0

Fixed

10

0.2

0.4

10

12

12

14

14

16

16

0.6

0.8

1.0

Hinged

Kinematic
Inertial
Total

Spectral Accelerations at the Deck

Fixed pile-to-cap connection

Hinged pile-to-cap connection

0.85
3

1.0

SA : g

0.73

0.85
0.85

0
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

T:s
Vertical pile group

Asymmetric pile group

Symmetric pile group

75