Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering
by
Dr. Deepankar Choudhury
Humboldt Fellow, JSPS Fellow, BOYSCAST Fellow
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
URL: http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dc/

Lecture – 41
 Module – 9

Seismic Analysis and

Design of Various
Geotechnical Structures
IIT Bombay, DC 2
Seismic Design of Pile
Foundation

IIT Bombay, DC 3
 Piles in liquefying soil under lateral loads:

Force method
Non Liquefiable
layer

qNL = Passive earth

HNL Pressure

Liquefiable HL qL =30% of over

layer burden pressure Pressure

Non-liquefiable
layer

JRA (1996): Idealisation for pile

design in liquefying soils

4
 Failure theory based on Tokimatsu et al. (1998) :

Inertia force Inertia force

Inertia force
Bending
moment
Ground
displacemen
t

I) During Shaking before I) During Shaking after III) Lateral movement

liquefaction liquefaction after earthquake
liquefaction

 Prior to the development of pore water pressure, the inertia

force from the superstructure may dominate.
Kinematic forces from the liquefied soil start acting with
increasing pore pressure.
Towards the end of shaking, kinematic forces would dominate
and have a significant effect on pile performance particularly
when permanent displacements occur in laterally spreading soil.
[see Choudhury et al., 2009, Proc. of National Academy of Sciences,
India, Springer, Sec. A] 5
Case-Specific Design of Pile
Foundations under
Earthquake Conditions
 EQUIVALENT GROUND
RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Typical Bore hole data for MBH# 1: Mangalwadi site, Mumbai

Layer No. Stratum Layer thickness (m) Depth SPT ‘N’ value
below GL
(m)
1 Filled up soil 1.5 1.5 10
2 Yellowish loose sand 1.5 3.0 12
1.5 4.5 13
1.5 6.0 16
3 Black clayey soil 2.0 8.0 20
4 Yellowish clayey soil 1.8 9.8 25

5 Greyish hard rock - >9.8 -

See Phanikanth (2011), PhD Thesis, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India. 7

 EQUIVALENT GROUND
RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Typical Results

Amplification of acceleration vs. depth (m)

8
 ANALYTICAL
MODEL
[Phanikanth et al.
(2013), Int. Jl. of
Geomech., ASCE]

Model considered for single Pile

passing through liquefied layer

Soil-pile analysis considering

ground deformations
using finite difference technique

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Governing Equations for solving the basic differential equation of
laterally loaded pile in liquefied zone is given below:

[Phanikanth et al.
(2013), Int. Jl. of
Geomech., ASCE] [AIJ ( 2001)]

y = lateral displacement of pile; z = depth from ground;

EI = flexural rigidity of pile.

Tokimatsu et al. 1998

Sf is scaling factor varying from 0.001 to 0.01 (Ishihara and Cubrinovski,1998)

as compared to normal soil condition where there is no liquefaction .

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Bending moment in non liquefied and liquefied soil for
free headed single pile with floating tip in Mumbai
[Phanikanth, Choudhury and Reddy, 2013, Int. Jl. of Geomech., ASCE]

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Typical effect of thickness of liquefiable soil layer on displacement profile
of free headed single pile with floating tip subjected to 2001 Bhuj motion
[Phanikanth, Choudhury and Reddy, 2013, Int. Jl. of Geomech., ASCE]

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Combined Pile – Raft
Foundation (CPRF)

Under Earthquake Conditions

 INTRODUCTION
Piled raft foundation(also called composite
foundation) solve:
1. Settlement – through interaction and load
sharing.
2. Differential settlement – raft provide stiffness
against load.
3. Economical - reducing number of piles.

Poulos et al. (2001) has examined a number of

idealized soil profiles, and found that soil
profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays and
relatively dense sands may be favourable for
piled raft foundation.
Construction: 1988 - 1990
Foundation: CPRF
Height: 256 m Messeturm tower, Germany
(Katzenbach et al. 2005)
 Foundations of high-rise buildings in Frankfurt am
Main, Germany (Katzenbach et al. 2005)
The subsoil of Frankfurt am Main mainly consists of non homogeneous, stiff and
over consolidated tertiary ”Frankfurt clay” with embedded limestone bands of
15
varying thicknesses.
Deutsche Bank · Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Tower

Lower Sections

0.0 m

-12.8 m
Hydraulic Jacks

Tower 2

Height: 162 m Tower 1

Settlement: max. 22 cm / min. 10 cm
Katzenbach et al. (2009)
Messeturm · Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Settlements calculated for a shallow foundation:
s > 40 cm Messeturm · Frankfurt am Main,
z = 0 - 20 m → 75 - 80 % Germany

Settlements:

→ Combined Pile-Raft Foundation (CPRF) Katzenbach et al. (2009)

 Bearing concept of a
Combined Pile-Raft Foundation (CPRF)
Katzenbach et al. (2012)
Total resistance of the CPRF:

m
R tot,k s Rpile,k, j s Rraft,k s
j 1

Pile resistance:
Rpile,k, j s Rb,k, j s Rs,k,j s

Raft resistance:
Rraft,k (s) s, x, y dx dy
Analytical study:
Katzenbach et al. (1998) had suggested that designing Combined Pile-Raft
Foundations (CPRF) requires the qualified understanding of soil-structure
interaction.
Total resistance of the CPRF:
Rtotal,k = ΣRpile,k, j + RRaft, k
Pile resistance:
Rpile,k , j s Rb,k , j s Rs ,k , j s
Raft resistance:
Rraft ,k ( s) s, x, y dx dy

s=
CPRF coefficient:
m
R pile , k , j ( s )
j 1
CPRF
Rtot , k ( s )
αCPRF is set between 0.45-0.5519
(Katzenbach et al. 1998).
Three dimensional view of pile group and pile-raft model in ABAQUS

(Eslami et al. 2011) 20

Dynamic loading response: Input acceleration – 1 m/sec2
Input frequency – 1 Hz

54 %
decrease in
36% decrease in
piled raft model
piled raft
model

Comparison of acceleration and bending moment response of under

sinusoidal accelerations
(Eslami et al. 2011) 21
 Seismic loading response:
• El- centro acceleration time history was chosen.
• Input acceleration and displacement- 4.21m/sec2 and 37.4 cm.

piled raft pile group

34% reduction

Acceleration response
22
(Eslami et al. 2011)
 Piled raft pile group
9%
reduction

Horizontal displacement response under El- centro seismic

loading

(Eslami et al. 2011) 23

 Case Study

Combined Pile – Raft

Foundation (CPRF)
under Earthquake
Conditions
Case study of pile-raft foundation during 2011 Tohoku earthquake
Yamashita et al. (2011):
Building located at JAPAN PROTON ACCELERATOR RESEARCH COMPLEX (JPARC).

Pile raft foundation

371 PHC piles
Diameter – 0.6m to 0.8m
Earthquake occurred – 44
month after the end of
construction.

Epicenter -270 km from

the site
Ground acceleration –
3.24 m/s2 and 2.77 m/s2 for
the horizontal and vertical
directions .

Yamashita et al. (2011) 25

Plan of foundation profile with monitoring
devices Profiles of vertical ground displacements

Yamashita et al. (2011) (Yamashita et al. (2012)

26
Decreased from 0.85 Decreased from 0.67
to 0.82 after the to 0.57 after the
earthquake earthquake

Pile P1 Ratio of load carried by pile Pile P2

(Yamashita et al. 2012) 27
 International Guideline on CPRF – 2012
by
ISSMGE Technical Committee
TC 212 – Deep Foundations
(www.issmge.org)

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

 Seismic Design of
Ground Anchors

See, Rangari, S. M. (2013), PhD Thesis, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India.

IIT Bombay, DC 32
 INTRODUCTION
• To mitigate the effect of earthquake Ground Anchors can be used for structures
subjected to uplift / pullout loads.
• Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Ground Anchor is an application of passive earth
pressure theory.
• Problem is more complex under seismic conditions.

33
 Selected Available Studies (Static Condition)
Author Method of Analysis Failure plane Seismic Analysis

Meyerhof and Adams Limit Equilibrium Logspiral No

(1968)
Rowe and Davis (1982) Finite Element -- No
/Experimental

Murray and Geddes (1987) Experimental/Limit --- No

equilibrium/limit analysis

Kumar (1999) Method of slices Logspiral No

Merifield and Sloan (2006) Limit analysis (Upper and Planar No
lower bound)
Deshmukh et al. (2011) Limit Equilibrium Planar No

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2011) in ASCE GSP 211, pp. 1821-1831 34
 Available Studies

Author Method of Analysis Failure plane Seismic Analysis

Kumar (2001) Upper bound limit analysis Planar Yes

(Pseudo-static)
Choudhury and Subba Limit Equilibrium Logspiral Yes
Rao (2004, 2005) (Pseudo-static)

Ghosh (2009) Upper bound Limit analysis Planar Yes (Pseudo-

dynamic)

Rangari et al. (2012) Limit Equilibrium Planar Yes (Pseudo- static)

• Scarcity of research and design methods for estimation of vertical uplift capacity of
horizontal and inclined strip anchors under earthquake conditions using both pseudo-
static and pseudo-dynamic approaches. 35
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Very few researchers obtained the uplift capacity of obliquely loaded horizontal
strip anchor and all under static conditions;

Author Analysis Method Failure plane Seismic Analysis

•
Meyerhof (1973) Limit equilibrium/ Logspiral No
Model test

Das and Seeley Model Test --- No

(1975)

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in ASCE GSP 225, pp. 185-194.
36
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Author Analysis Method Failure plane Seismic Analysis

Meyerhof (1973) Limit Equilibrium Logspiral No
Hanna et al. (1988) Limit Equilibrium Planar No

Maiah et.al (1986) Empirical relation --- No

Choudhury and Limit equilibrium Logspiral Yes
Subba Rao (2005) (Pseudo-static)
Choudhury and Limit equilibrium Logspiral Yes
Subba Rao (2007) (Pseudo-static)

Ghosh (2010) Upper bound limit Planar Yes

analysis (Pseudo-dynamic)

•It shows the scarcity of research for the obliquely loaded inclined strip
anchors under static condition and yet untouched under the seismic
condition.
37
 Kötter’s (1903) equation

Kötter’s (1903) equation gives solution for determining the distribution of soil
reaction on failure plane

dp d
2 p tan sin
ds ds
Where,
dp = differential reaction pressure on the
failure Surface,
ds = differential length of failure surf ace,
p = uniform pressure on the failure surface
d = differential angle,
= angle of failure plane formed by inclination of tangent at the point of interest
with the horizontal
= unit weight of soil and
= soil friction angle 38
Horizontal Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions
•W is the weight of failure
soil block,
• Pp d1 and Pp d3 are the
seismic passive
resistances,
• is soil friction angle,
• B is width and H is depth
of anchor
•Qh and Qv are total
seismic horizontal and
vertical inertial forces
respectively.
The total reaction R1 and R3 on •Simple Planar failure surface. Hence the
the failure surfaces are computed Kötter’s (1903) equation reduces to,
by integrating Kötter’s equation; p sin s 39
Proposed Method by Rangari et al. (2013)

• Consider failure block above the anchor.

• The mass of the elementary strip is given by;
γBdz
m=
g

• The horizontal and vertical acceleration at any depth z and time t below the
ground surface can be expressed as;
H z H z
ah ( z , t ) ah sin t and av ( z , t ) av sin t
Vs Vp
• Total horizontal and vertical inertial forces acting within the failure zone
(CDEF) can be expressed as,
Bkh Bkv
Qh 2 2
2 cos cos t and Qv 2 2
2 cos cos t
4 4

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological
40
Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.
Proposed Method of Rangari et al. (2013) contd.

where, =TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating shear wave, = TVp
is the wave length of the vertically propagating shear wave,
H H
t t
Vs
and Vp

The gross pullout capacity (Pud) is given by;

Pud Pp d 1 sin Pp d 3 sin W2 Qv 2

•The net seismic uplift capacity of anchor, qudnet

Pud W2 Qv 2
qud 0.5 BF d
B
The net seismic uplift capacity factor,
2 kh
F d 2 Kp d tan 2
2 cos cos t tan
2B
Where, Embedment ratio, = H/B and Kp d is a net seismic passive earth pressure
coefficient 41
Typical Design Charts (Results) for Seismic Uplift Capacity
Factor of Horizontal Shallow Anchors

a. Using Pseudo-Static approach b. Using Pseudo-Dynamic approach

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological
42
Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.
 Comparison of Results

Comparison of ultimate seismic uplift capacity factor (F E = Pud/ B2) for various
values of kh and kv= 0.5 kh for = 30 , = 4 with H/ =0.3 and H/ =0.16.

Ghosh (2009) Kumar Choudhury and Present study

kh
Pseudo- (2001) Subba Rao
dynamic Pseudo- (2004) Pseudo- Pseudo-
static Pseudo-static static dynamic
0.0 13.27 13.27 12.89 13.01 13.01
0.1 12.59 12.48 12.44 12.12 12.08
0.2 11.90 11.71 11.96 11.25 11.29
0.3 11.14 10.90 11.53 10.39 10.61
0.4 10.21 9.81 11.01 9.56 10.05

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological
43
Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.
 Inclined Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions
For a plane failure surface, Kötter’s equation (1903), takes the following form

p sin s

where,
p = uniform pressure on failure
plane
= unit weight of soil
s = represents the distance of failure plane
as measured from ground surface

The total reaction R1 and R3 on the failure surfaces are computed by integrating
Kotter’s equation;

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.
44
Inclined Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions
For Design, qudnet can is expressed as,
qudnet 0.5 BF d
Net seismic uplift capacity factor ( F d) can be obtained as;
2 2 2
Fd tan 0.25 tan K P d cos tan tan
2 1 k v sin k h cos

where, embedment ratio, H and K is net seismic passive earth pressure

p d
B
coefficient.

Critical angle of failure planes:

The trial value of α1 and α3 are obtained such that the values of Ppγd1 and Ppγd3
should be same obtained from failure wedges CDF and ABE respectively.

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.
45
 Typical Design Charts (Results) for Seismic Uplift Capacity
Factor of Obliquely loaded Inclined Shallow Anchors

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.
46
 COMPARISION OF RESULTS

Comparison of net SEISMIC uplift capacity factor (F d) with results from

literature for =30 , with = 30 and ε =3.

kh Choudhury and Subba Rao Present study

(2005)
kv=0.0kh kv=0.5kh kv=1.0kh kv=0.0kh kv=0.5kh kv=1.0kh

0.0 5.85 5.85 5.85 6.28 6.28 6.28

0.1 5.48 5.32 5.16 6.27 5.95 5.61
0.2 5.39 4.76 4.43 6.25 5.62 5.05
0.3 5.28 4.31 3.53 6.13 5.2 4.41
0.4 4.99 3.69 -- 5.94 4.73 --
Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp.47
9-16.
 COMPARISION OF RESULTS

Comparison for ultimate SEISMIC uplift capacity factor (F E = Pud / B2) for
=0 , ε =1 and kv = 0.0 with results from literature.
0 kh Kumar Ghosh Present
(2001) (2009) study
0.0 1.577 1.577 1.563
0.1 1.566 1.571 1.481
300
0.2 1.544 1.533 1.403
0.3 1.499 1.520 1.329
0.0 1.839 1.839 1.839
0.1 1.832 1.835 1.709
400
0.2 1.815 1.821 1.587
0.3 1.786 1.798 1.472
0.0 2.192 2.192 2.145
0.1 2.187 2.189 1.952
500
0.2 2.174 2.179 1.771
0.3 2.155 2.163 1.601
Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp.48
9-16.