ALERT2013 Martinelli Tamagnini

Modeling SSI on piled foundations:
the effects of kinematic interaction
Mario Martinelli
Claudio Tamagnini
Introduction
EMBEDDED PILES under seismic loadings
1. The transit of seismic waves through the soil

during earthquakes may cause significant
strains. If embedded piles are present,
curvature will be imposed to the piles by soil
movement, which will generate bending
moments along the entire pile length
2. Due to the stiffness mismatch between the
foundation and the surrounding soil, the pile
is unable to comply with the free-field soil
deformation pattern. Therefore, the
Foundation Input Motion (FIM) is in
general different from the free-field motion.
M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013
Introduction
PILE DAMAGES
Niigata Earthquake, 1964 (M = 7.5)
Pile extraction
from the soil
Pile damages
Introduction
PILE DAMAGES
Friuli Earthquake, 1976 (M = 6.5)
Udine-Carnia-Tarvisio highway
Bridge on Ledra river: failure at the pile head
Introduction
PILE DAMAGES
Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989 (M = 6.9)
Watsonville viaduct (Seed et al., 1990)
Collapse of inclined piles (SEAOC,1991)
Pile collapse
Soil-pile detachment
Introduction
PILE DAMAGES
Costa-Rica Earthquake, 1991 (M = 7.7)
Collapse of Rio Viscaya bridge
(Priestly et al., 1991)
Collapse of Rio Banano bridge

(Priestly et al., 1991)
Introduction
PILE DAMAGES
Observations (field, laboratory, and computer simulations) showed that kinematic pile
bending may be severe in the case of piled foundations constructed in weak soil
conditions (mostly near interfaces separating soil layers of sharply different stiffness)
and on the pile head in presence of a stiff restraining cap
Recently technical regulations (in particular Eurocode 8) prescribes to compute
bending moments due to kinematic interaction when all of the following conditions
occur simultaneously:
the ground profile is of type D, S1 or S2, and contains consecutive layers of sharply
differing stiffness;
the zone is of moderate or high seismicity;
the structure is of importance class III or IV.
Introduction
KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

The approaches suggested in the technical literature for the kinematic interaction effects
are summarized in three different categories:
1. Approaches based on the results of freefield, 1d wave propagation analyses (pile
follows exactly the soil displacements without considering SSI). (Margason, 1975;
Margason et Holloway, 1977; NEHRP recommendations, 1997)
It assumes (1/ ) = (1/ )
(1 / R) ff = a ff / Vs2
Introduction

Margason et Holloway, 1977; NEHRP recommendations, 1997)
It assumes (1/ ) = (1/ )
(1 / R) ff = a ff / Vs2
Drawbacks:
No frequency content, pile-soil relative stiffness and damping parameters are taken
into account ;
since aff increases as approaching the ground level,

=
(true only
,
for no-rotation head piles but wrong for free-rotation head piles);
This Approach not valid for layered soil (soil curvature at interface separating soil layers
of different stiffness tends to infinity) and applying this formula slightly above or below
the interface may underestimate the pile curvature. (Nikolaou et al., 2001)
Introduction

Margason et Holloway, 1977; NEHRP recommendations, 1997);
2. Approaches based on simplified numerical methods which consider the pile as a beam
on a dynamic Winkler foundation (BDWF), characterized by a given distribution of
stiffness and damping coefficients with depth. These approaches allow to account for
soilpile interaction, stiffness discontinuities along the pile axis (i.e., layered soils), and
different boundary conditions at the pile ends [Mylonalis, 2001; Nikolaou et al. 2001];
10
Introduction

Margason et Holloway, 1977; NEHRP recommendations, 1997);
2. Approaches based on simplified numerical methods which consider the pile as a beam
on a dynamic Winkler foundation (BDWF), characterized by a given distribution of
stiffness and damping coefficients with depth. These approaches allow to account for
soilpile interaction, stiffness discontinuities along the pile axis (i.e., layered soils), and
different boundary conditions at the pile ends [Mylonalis, 2001; Nikolaou et al. 2001];
3. Approaches based on continuous medium: use the finite element (FE) or boundary
element (BE) approximations to integrate the dynamic equations of motion [Cairo and
Dente, 2007; Dezi et al., 2009; Maiorano et al., 2009; Di Laora, 2009; Martinelli, 2012].
11
Introduction

At the interface between two layers
number of practical design methods
The approaches ( 2, 3) have been used to derive a
All these methods:

are based, in most cases, on relatively simple linear or nonlinear elastic soil models;
completely neglect the possible effects of the solid skeletonpore water interaction in
saturated soils.
The objectives of this work:

1. influence that the use of advanced constitutive models on SSI and in particular the
impact of the development and dissipation of during the earthquake event on
soil deformations and pile loads;
2. to use the results of advanced numerical simulations as benchmarks to evaluate
the predictive capabilities of the simplified analysis methods
12
Summary
Review of some simplified design methods

The problem examined: single pile on a twolayer soil
-
Problem geometry and seismic input

Constitutive model adopted and soil properties
Finite element model and analysis program
Selected results
Performance of simplified methods
Concluding remarks
13
Summary

-

Selected results
Concluding remarks
14
Review of Simplified Design Methods
Dobry & ORourke (1983)

This model is based on the following assumptions:
1. the soil in each layer is homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic;
2. both layers are thick enough so that boundary effects do not influence the response at
the interface between the two soils;
3. the pile is linear elastic and its axis is vertical;
4. perfect adhesion is assumed at the pilesoil interface;
5. the soil is subjected to a uniform static shear stress, , which generates a constant
shear strain within each layer;
6. the displacements are small.
M max = 1.86( E p I p )
3/ 4
G F
1/ 4
1
1
F = F (G2 / G1 )
15
Dobry & ORourke (1983)

This model is based on the following assumptions:
1. the soil in each layer is homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic;
2. both layers are thick enough so that boundary effects do not influence the response at
the interface between the two soils;
3. the pile is linear elastic and its axis is vertical;
4. perfect adhesion is assumed at the pilesoil interface;
5. the soil is subjected to a uniform static shear stress, , which generates a constant
shear strain within each layer;
6. the displacements are small.
M max = 1.86( E p I p )
3/ 4
G F
1/ 4
1
1
F = F (G2 / G1 )
No dynamic effect!
16
Mylonakis (2001)
Improvements with respect to Dobry and ORourke (1983):
the seismic excitation imposed at the base of the soil
prole is an harmonic displacement with frequency ;
both radiation and material damping are taken into
account by considering a viscoelastic Winkler model for
the soil reaction to the horizontal pile displacements;
The two layers in the soil prole are of nite thickness.
maximum pile bending strain
as the representative quantity
p =
M max d
EpJ p 2
17
Mylonakis (2001)
Improvements with respect to Dobry and ORourke (1983):
the seismic excitation imposed at the base of the soil
prole is an harmonic displacement with frequency ;
both radiation and material damping are taken into
account by considering a viscoelastic Winkler model for
the soil reaction to the horizontal pile displacements;
The two layers in the soil prole are of nite thickness.
maximum pile bending strain
as the representative quantity
p =
M max d
EpJ p 2
1. closed-form solution of the bending moment at the interface in harmonic

STEADY-STATE conditions

h
strain transmissibility p
= 2c 4 1
1 0 d
=(
1/ 4
k
2
1
(c c + 1) 3 E 1c(c 1) 1
p
2. TRANSIENT:
p

E G h
= p , p , 2 , 1
1 dyn 1 0 E1 G1 d
= 1.0 1.5
18
Nikolaou et al. (2001)

M max ( ) = c A
L
A=d
d
3
Vertically
propagated shear
waves
0.3
Ep

E1
0.65
V2

V1
0.5
= 0.042 c =a s 1H1
as
Acceleration at ground level
19

M max ( ) = c A
L
A=d
d
3
Vertically
propagated shear
waves
0.3
Ep

E1
0.65
V2

V1
0.5
= 0.042 c =a s 1H1
as
20

M max ( ) = c A
L
A=d
d
3
Vertically
propagated shear
waves
0.3
Ep

E1
0.65
V2

V1
0.5
= 0.042 c =a s 1H1
as
2. TRANSIENT loading
= M max (t ) / M max ( ) = f ( N c , resonance)

21
Maiorano et al. (2009) and Sica et al. (2011)

From Nikolaou et al. (2001) expression
Straight to Transient Loading
L
A=d
d
3
0.3
Ep

E1
= 0.007
= 0.053
0.65
V2

V1
M max (t ) = c A
0.5
c = 1G1
Is from 1D
site response
FEM (VERSAT-P3D) - Maiorano et al. (2009)

BDWM - Sica et al. (2011)
22

L
A=d
d
3
0.3
Ep

E1
= 0.007
= 0.053
0.65
V2

V1
M max (t ) = c A
0.5
c = 1G1
Is from 1D
site response

23

L
A=d
d
3
0.3
Ep

E1
= 0.007
= 0.053
0.65
V2

V1
M max (t ) = c A
0.5
c = 1G1
Is from 1D
site response

Di Laora et al. (2012)

a new semi-analytical relation calibrated on FEM parametric study results
0,25
1 E
0,5
p
p = 1
+ (c 1)
h
2 1 E1
d
= 0,93 1
24
Summary

- Problem geometry and seismic input
- Constitutive model adopted and soil properties
- Finite element model and analysis program
- Selected results
Concluding remarks
25
Geometry
Based on EN 19981 (EC8) soil prole classication: class D.

Pile length (in each layer) is larger than active length
Long pile
Pile head free to rotate

Pile Youngs modulus Ep = 24 GPa
26
Seismic input
ACC4
ACC9
A number of recordings of real accelerograms considered and scaled in order to obtain a

series of (on average) spectrumcompatible accelerograms with the response spectrum (EC8)
for soil type A.
27
The Constitutive model: Dafalias & Manzari (2004)

Critical state Framework (State Parameter: = e ecs )
4 Surfaces: YS, BS, CSS and DS
YS - a cone with vertex in the origin of the stress space
el
el
Inside YS: hypo-elastic behavior D = D ( , e, , G0 )
The movement of YS constrained by

Bounding Surface (BS) function of .
Projection rule -->
Hardening evolution law=f
& = f [( b ), c1, c 2, in ]
in is updated if ( in )n < 0
b
28
The constitutive model

Other two surfaces:
DS : Dilatancy = 0
CS : Critical state condition
The shape of each surface is f() : Van Eekelen (1980)
BS and DS = f()
<0
>0
=0
M d < M c < M b
M b < M c < M d
M d = M c = M b
29

Two surfaces:
DS : Dilatancy = 0
CS : Critical state condition
The plastic flow direction R

deviatoric part Rd normal to the CSS at
Isotropic part D function of
d d = : n and
z&
fabric-dilatancy tensor evolution

on the dilatancy coefficient D
represents an important feature of this
constitutive model that can capture
the undrained response of sand
material under cyclic loading
30

Md,0
Md and Mb are defined as a
q
function of the updated .
In the figures they are
plotted as function of the
initial 0.
M
Mb,0
Loose Sand
0 > 0
p
p
0 = e ecs > 0
31

Md,0
TXCIU test
M
Mb,0
Monotonic loading
Loose Sand
0 > 0
p
p
Md and Mb = f()
32

q
Mb,0
M
Md,0
Dense Sand
0 < 0
e
p
p
0 = e ecs < 0
Md and Mb = f()
33

TXCIU test
Monotonic loading
Mb,0
M
Md,0
Dense Sand
0 < 0
e
p
p
Md and Mb = f()
34

Undrained Simple shear test
Cyclic loading
e
Dense Sand
0A < 0B < 0
(Medium- Dense) B
(Dense) A
35

Cyclic loading
Dense Sand
0A < 0B < 0
State A
Dense
36

Cyclic loading
Dense Sand
0A < 0B < 0
State B
State A
Dense
Medium Dense
37

q (kPa)
q (kPa)
a(%)
p (kPa)
q (kPa)
q (kPa)
p (kPa)
Dafalias & Manzari (2004) a(%)
38
Soil properties
Soil1
(Nevada Sand)
Soil2
(State parameter)
K = variable
K = 1.0e-2 m/s
(modif. Toyoura Sand)
initial stress state centered

with respect to the YS
Initial Fabric
z=0
39
FE model and analysis program
Soil1
Soil2
Additional beams for soil-pile

connection (No interface element)
Soil: 264 8noded isoparametric hexahedral elements (u-p formulation)

Pile: Twonoded, linear elastic beam
40
Soil1
Soil2

41
Soil1
Soil2
Periodic boundary conditions
Impervious (no flow)
42
Soil1
Soil2
43
Soil1
Soil2
0 : Drained Conditions
44
Soil1
Soil2
Soil1 Undrained Conditions

45
Soil1
Soil2
Consolidation
46
Summary

- Problem geometry and seismic input
- Constitutive model adopted and soil properties
- Finite element model and analysis program
- Selected results
Concluding remarks
47
Selected Results: The hydraulic conditions

Effect of the Hydraulic
conditions
(Analysis: r1, r2 and r3)
ACC4
48

conditions
ACC4
Reference analysis
49

conditions
ACC4
Reference analysis
50

conditions
ACC4
Mmax increases as the
permeability of Soil1
decreases ( increases)
51

ACC4
Consolidation
Undrained
Drained
The time at which Mmax is

attained is significantly
different!
52
Soil1
Soil2
(Negative values of u are due to soil contraction)
Even if both soil layers are

relatively dense, positive excess
pore water pressures are
generated in the upper layer due
to the high contractancy of
Nevada sand
u decrease upwards;
u remains quite large
close to the bottom
drainage boundary (ow
downwards impervious
boundaries)
Due to the high K of soil2,
the excess pore pressure in
this layer are constant.
53
Soil1
Soil2
u decrease upwards (boundary condition)

54
Soil1
Soil2
For Soil1: u (Consolidation) < u (Undrained)
55
Soil1
Soil2

For Soil2: u (Consolidation) > u (Undrained)
56
Soil1
Soil2
Large water flow

(Soil1 -> Soil2)
Small water flow

(Soil1 -> Soil2)
For Soil2: u (Consolidation) > u (Undrained)
57
Soil1
Soil2
58
Soil1
Soil2
59
Soil1
Soil2
60
FF motion
Pile head motion (Pile is flexible)

Soil1
Soil2
61
FF motion Pile head motion (Pile is flexible)

Big difference in the response spectrum
depending on the hydraulic conditions (soil
Stiffness changes)
Soil1
Soil2
62
FF motion Pile head motion (Pile is flexible)

Big difference in the response spectrum
depending on the hydraulic conditions (soil
Stiffness changes)
Differently from what is typically observed in
piles with xed rotation at the head
Sa,pile > Sa,ff (pile head free to rotate)
Soil1
Soil2
63
Selected Results: The Seismic input
(Analysis: r2 and r5)
64
ACC4 is characterized by the largest

peak in acceleration
Arias Intensity
65

peak in acceleration
Arias Intensity
Caution in using simplied models
to estimate Mmax which characterize
the seismic input in terms of peak
acceleration at ground surface only!
66
Summary

-

Selected results

Concluding remarks
67
The simplified methods
68
The input data: 1D Linear Elastic site response analysis

The input data for each simplified method is obtained from a linear equivalent site
response analysis performed with the code EERA
The stiffness degradation and damping curves obtained by simulating a series of
cyclic simple shear tests (Drained and Undrained) with the Dafalias & Manzari
(2004) model.
1 modulus decay curve is considered for Drained conditions

2 different modulus decay curves are considered for Undrained conditions
(extremely high tendency of shear stiffness to increase for larger than 103)
69
1D site response results

FEM
EERA
70

FEM
EERA
The real material response is more dissipative than that provided by the
simple nonlinear model implemented in EERA.
71

Results at
the end of
analysis
EERA
FEM
In Soil2: EERA and FEM results appear in substantial agreement

In Soil1: the EERA simulations tend to underestimate signicantly the
It is also interesting to note that the EERA results appear quite sensitive to the adopted
shear modulus decay curve.
72
Simpl. Meth. Predictions FEM Results
Mmax is the maximum bending moment predicted by each simplied method

FEM
M max
is the corresponding maximum bending moment obtained from the 3d
FE simulations with the Dafalias & Manzari model
73
Summary

-

Selected results
Concluding remarks
74
Concluding Remarks
Conclusions
series of 3d, fully coupled dynamic consolidation analyses have been used to
investigate the kinematic interaction effects in the classical problem of a single end
bearing pile immersed in a twolayer soil profile with a significant stiffness
The results of the numerical simulations clearly show that :
significant pore pressure buildup can occur under seismic conditions even in soils
with relatively high permeability and density.
u build-up can have an important effect in determining the response of the soilpile
system
The results of the numerical simulations have also been used to assess the predictive
capabilities of a number of simplified methods for the evaluation of
at the
stratigraphic contact between the two layers.
Di Laora et al. --> the best performance overall
the predictive capabilities of currently available design procedures
appears relatively satisfactory in drained conditions
some care must be taken in Undrained or partially Undrained conditions
75
Modeling SSI on piled foundations:

the effects of kinematic interaction
Mario Martinelli
Claudio Tamagnini

ALERT2013 Martinelli Tamagnini

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALERT2013 Martinelli Tamagnini

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling SSI on piled foundations:

the effects of kinematic interaction

EMBEDDED PILES under seismic loadings

1. The transit of seismic waves through the soil

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Bridge on Ledra river: failure at the pile head

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Watsonville viaduct (Seed et al., 1990)

Collapse of inclined piles (SEAOC,1991)

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Collapse of Rio Banano bridge

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

since aff increases as approaching the ground level,

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

KINEMATIC INTERACTION ANALYSIS

The approaches ( 2, 3) have been used to derive a

All these methods:

The objectives of this work:

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of some simplified design methods

Problem geometry and seismic input

Performance of simplified methods

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of some simplified design methods

Problem geometry and seismic input

Performance of simplified methods

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Dobry & ORourke (1983)

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Dobry & ORourke (1983)

Review of Simplified Design Methods

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of Simplified Design Methods

1. closed-form solution of the bending moment at the interface in harmonic

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Nikolaou et al. (2001)

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Acceleration at ground level

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Nikolaou et al. (2001)

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Acceleration at ground level

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Nikolaou et al. (2001)

Acceleration at ground level

= M max (t ) / M max ( ) = f ( N c , resonance)

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Maiorano et al. (2009) and Sica et al. (2011)

FEM (VERSAT-P3D) - Maiorano et al. (2009)

M. Martinelli and C. Tamagnini ALERT 2013

Review of Simplified Design Methods

Maiorano et al. (2009) and Sica et al. (2011)