Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236635056
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
150
96
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Goutam Mondal
Amit Prashant
13 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
41 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 15 February 2011
Received in revised form
21 July 2011
Accepted 8 August 2011
Seismic analysis of soilwellpier system was carried out using three different approaches to evaluate
their comparative performance and associated complexities. These approaches were (a) two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL), (b) two-dimensional equivalent-linear (2D-EqL), and (c) one-dimensional
springdashpot (1D). Soil was modeled as 2D plane-strain elements in the 2D-NL and 2D-EqL
approaches, and as springs and dashpots in the 1D approach. Nonlinear behavior of soil was captured
rigorously in the 2D-NL approach and approximately in the remaining two approaches. Results of the
two approximate analyses (i.e., 2D-EqL and 1D) were compared with those of the 2D-NL analysis with
the objective to assess suitability of approximate analysis for practical purposes. In the 1D approach,
several combinations of Novaks and Veletsos springs were used to come up with a simplied 1D
model using three types of springdashpots. The proposed model estimates the displacement and force
resultants relatively better than the other 1D models available in literature.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Well foundations (also known as caisson foundation) are
frequently adopted in the Indian subcontinent and other countries like Japan, USA, Thailand, etc., for the deep foundation of
railway and highway bridges on rivers. Because of its large cross
section and high rigidity, such foundations are often believed to
be safe foundation systems against earthquake. However, it was
observed during recent earthquakes that structures supported on
such foundations also suffered damage during moderate to severe
earthquakes mainly because of the large permanent displacement
associated with soil liquefaction. For example, many structures
supported on well foundations sustained severe damage during
1995 Kobe earthquake. In India, many such bridges are located in
the high seismic region where moderate to severe earthquakes
are expected to occur. Therefore, seismic analysis should be
performed for the design of new bridges and retrotting of the
existing bridges supported on well foundation.
In practice, well foundation is analyzed by modeling soil as twodimensional (2D) plane-strain element or one-dimensional (1D)
springdashpot (also named as 1D model herein). However, in these
analyses, effect of soil nonlinearity is generally ignored or sometimes considered approximately. Out of these two approaches, 1D
approach is widely used in practical purposes. The main advantage
0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Table 1
Parameters for constitutive model.
Superstructure
Pier
11.35m
1
G.L.
5.3 m
Parameters
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Depth
Type of soil
Unit weight (t/m3)
Poissons ratio
Gra (kN/m2)
0 m20 m
Medium sand
1.9
0.33
7.5 104
331
0.1
271
0.07
0.4
2
10
0.01
1
20 m50 m
Medium-dense sand
2.0
0.35
1.0 105
371
0.1
271
0.05
0.6
3
5
0.003
1
50 m100 m
Dense sand
2.1
0.35
1.3 105
401
0.1
271
0.03
0.8
5
0
0
0
fb
50 m
Well
Direction of
Earthquake
Motions
3.3 m
gmax c
fPTd
Contrace
Dilat1f
Dilat2f
Liquefac1g (kN/m2)
Liquefac2h
Liquefac3i
18 m
Note:
11 m
Fig. 1. Geometry of the well foundation and piers analyzed in the present study.
and Veletsos [5,6] springs were considered and parametric study was
performed to propose a 1D model with three types of spring
dashpots by simplifying expressions of Novaks spring coefcients.
a
Gr is the reference shear modulus specied at conning pressure of
80 kN/m2.
b
f is the angle of internal friction.
c
gmax is the octahedral shear strain at which the maximum shear strength is
reached.
d
fPT is the phase transformation angle.
e
Contrac is a non-negative constant dening the rate of shear induced volume
contraction
f
Dilat1 and Dilat2 are non-negative constants dening the rate of shearinduced volume increase.
g
Liquefac1 is the pressure below which cyclic mobility takes place.
h
Liquefac2 is the maximum amount of perfectly plastic shear strain developed
at zero effective connement during each loading phase.
i
Liquefac3 is the maximum amount of biased perfectly plastic shear strain
accumulated at each loading phase under biased shear loading conditions.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Table 2
Ground motions considered for the seismic analysis of soilwellpier system.
Level
Earthquake
Mwa
Station
PGA (g)
Component
Low
Northridge, 1994
Turkey, 1999
Uttarkashi, 1991
Chi-Chi, 1999
Loma Prieta, 1989
Northridge, 1994
Chi-Chi, 1999
Northridge, 1994
Petrolia, 1992
6.7
7.1
7.0b
7.6
6.9
6.2
7.6
6.7
7.8
0.289
0.117
0.246
0.302
0.479
0.388
0.655
0.633
0.685
270
90
355
90
90
90
0
318
90
25.4
27.7
19.3
51.2
7.2
14.4
15.4
10.9
4.5
L1
L2
L3
M1
M2
M3
S1
S2
S3
Moderate
Severe
Note:
a
b
Mw Moment magnitude.
Surface wave magnitude (Ms).
Pier
Rigid massless
outrigger
0
Well
-25
-50
-75
Radiation
boundary
Y
Z
100
0
v3
u3
u4
50
25
75
100
150
v2
2 u
2
v4
125
1
v1
u1
u1
v1
1
v2
2
u2
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Input Motion
0.4
0
PGA = 0.319g
-0.4
-0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.8
10
15
Time (s)
20
0.4
0
-0.4
-10
-0.8
-20
0.8
At -20 m
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
At -50 m
0.4
0
25
30
At 0 m
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-30
Depth (m)
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-0.4
-90
-0.8
0
5
Time (s)
SHAKE
10
-100
OpenSees
Fig. 3. Comparison of acceleration response of soil obtained from free-eld analysis in SHAKE and OpenSees for the El-Centro motion (a) input motion (b)(d) acceleration
response histories at specic points (e) variation of peak horizontal acceleration with depth.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
soil at any desired depth. The above two steps of the 2D-EqL
approach (i.e., 1D analysis in SHAKE and 2D linear analysis in
OpenSees) signicantly reduce the computational time from the
single step 2D-NL analysis.
Since the properties G and z depend upon the shear strain level
in soil, their variations with shear strain are needed during the
free-eld analysis in SHAKE. These variations are generally
evaluated from laboratory test. However, in absence of laboratory
test, these can be estimated from empirical relationships available
in the literature [2326], or from the experimental results of a
G/Gmax
0.8
0.6
2
0.4
p = 6 kN/m (0m2m)
2
p = 25 kN/m (2m7m)
2
p = 80 kN/m (7m20m)
0.2
0
104
20
103
102
Shear Strain (%)
101
100
p = 6 kN/m2 (0m2m)
p = 25 kN/m (2m7m)
15
p = 80 kN/m2 (7m20m)
10
5
0
104
103
102
Shear Strain (%)
101
100
30
15
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
0
15
Error (%)
30
30
15
0
15
30
30
15
0
15
30
Response Parameters
DPT
DWT
SFP
SFW
BMP
BMW
Fig. 5. Bar chart of percentage error in the maximum responses (i.e., maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear force in pier (SFP) and
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) in the 2D-EqL analysis as compared to the 2D-NL analysis.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
100 0
1500
0
S1
S1
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2DEql
2DNL
1DProposed
Fig. 6. Comparison of envelopes of the maximum force resultants (a) shear force and (b) bending moment along the depth of well foundation obtained from
two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL) model, two-dimensional equivalent-linear (2D-EqL) model, and 1D proposed model for severe motion S1.
Superstructure mass
Distributed translation
springs (kx, cx)
.
.
.
Displacement
time histories
error and the associated standard deviation (SD) were 8.9% and 5.7%,
respectively, for DPT, and 7.4% and 4.5%, respectively, for DWT. The
maximum error in the force resultants (both shear force and bending
moment) in both pier and well foundation were within 27% while
the average absolute error was about 13% with SD of 7%. The
maximum error in all the response parameters considered in this
study was limited to 27% while the average absolute error was 11%
with SD of 7%. Moreover, envelopes of the maximum shear force
along the depth of well foundation match considerably (Fig. 6(a)).
Similar match was also observed in the maximum bending moment
envelopes of well foundation (Fig. 6(b)). It is worth mentioning that
a point in an envelope is obtained by estimating the maximum
response parameter (e.g., shear force) at that location during the
earthquake; thus any two points (i.e., responses) on the envelopes
may not occur at the same instant of time. In general, it can be
inferred that equivalent-linear analysis can satisfactorily estimate
response of well foundation for small to severe earthquakes in spite
of the approximations involved in the analysis.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pier
Distributed
rotational
springs (k, c)
Well
Rotational base
springs (kb, cb)
Translational base
spring (kbx, cbx)
Fig. 7. 1D model with four types of springdashpot connected in parallel. Note: all
the springs are connected with dampers in parallel. However, dampers are not
shown for clarity.
where Kx and Ky are the dynamic impedance of soil for translational and rotational vibrations, respectively; r0 is the radius of
the circular cylinder or equivalent radius of the foundation with
other cross sections; a0 r0 o=Vs denotes the dimensionless
frequency; o is the circular
frequency; Vs represents the shear
p
wave velocity of soil; i 1; Sx1 and Sx2 are the real and the
imaginary parts, respectively, of the dimensionless complex
stiffness for horizontal vibration; similarly, Sy1 and Sy2 are the
real and the imaginary parts, respectively, of the dimensionless
complex stiffness for rocking; n is Poissons ratio, and D is the
material damping. The real (kx and ky) and the imaginary parts
(cx and cy) of the impedance functions represent the stiffness and
damping coefcients (both material damping of soil and radiation
damping), respectively, of the complex spring (spring and dashpot
connected in parallel). Therefore, the following stiffness and
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
where
(
)
4
9
ky Gr02 Sy1 a0 ,Ds =
Gr
cy o0 Sy2 a0 ,Ds ;
cbx
8Gr0
2n
8Gr0 0:6a0
2n U o
kby
8Gr03
0
31n Ukby
cby
8Gr03
0:35a30 >
31n U o1 a2 ;
kbx
;
9
>
=
k0by
10:2a0
for a0 r 2:5
0:5
for a0 4 2:5
Table 3
Types of 1D springdashpot models analyzed in the present study.
Springs type
Kx
Cx
Ky
Cy
Kbx
Cbx
Kb y
Cby
Remarks
1D-1
1D-2
1D-3
1D-4
1D-5
1D-6
1D-7
1D-8
1D-Proposed
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
PR
NV
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
PR
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
PR
NV
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
PR
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
No dashpot
All springs and dashpots
Dashpot coefcients are 10% of the half-space value
Dashpot coefcients are 20% of the half-space value
No base rotational spring and dashpot
No base translational spring and dashpot
No base springs and dashpots
No distributed rotational springs and dashpots
Proposed distributed springs with no base rotational spring
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Error (%)
200
150
100
50
0
50
L1
M1
S1
200
150
100
50
0
50
L2
M2
S2
200
150
100
50
0
50
L3
M3
S3
1D1
1D2
1D3
1D4
1D1
DPT
DWT
1D2
1D3
Types of Analysis
SFP
1D4
SFW
1D1
1D2
1D3
1D4
BMW
BMP
Fig. 8. Bar chart of percentage error in the maximum responses (i.e., maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear force in pier (SFP) and
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the analysis using four types of 1D models.
25
50
75
100
500
1000
1500
0
S1
S1
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2DNL
1D2
1D3
1D4
Fig. 9. Comparison of envelopes of the maximum force resultants, (a) shear force and (b) bending moment, along the depth of well foundation obtained from the twodimensional nonlinear (2D-NL) model and three one-dimensional springdashpot models (1D-1, 1D-2, and 1D-3) for severe motion S1.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
40
10
20
30
200
400
600
800
20
10
20
20
30
40
1D5
DPT
1D6
1D7
Types of Analysis
DWT
SFP
SFW
1D8
BMP
40
50
0
BMW
Fig. 10. Effect of different spring components on the maximum responses (i.e.,
maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear
force in pier (SFP) and well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP)
and well (BMW)).
10
20
30
40
Depth (m)
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
1D4
1D6
1D5
1D7
1D8
Fig. 11. Effect of individual springdashpots on the maximum shear force and
maximum bending moment envelopes of well foundation: (ab) base rotational
springdashpot (Kby Cby), (cd) base translational springdashpot (Kbx Cbx),
(ef) both translational and rotational base springdashpots (Kbx Cbx, Kby Cby),
(gh) rotational distributed springdashpots (KyCy).
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
10
20
15
= 0.4
Sx2
Sx1
3
= 0.3
= 0.4
= 0.3
10
1
0
5
0
6
5
4
S1
S2
3
3
2
2
1
0
1
0
0.5
1
a0 = r0/Vs
1.5
= 5%
0.5
= 10%
1
a0 = r0/Vs
1.5
Proposed
Fig. 12. Stiffness (Sx1 and Sy1) and damping parameters (Sx2 and Sy2) for translational and rotational springs proposed by Novak et al. [4] along with the simplied
parameters proposed in the present study.
Superstructure mass
Distributed translational
springs (kx, cx)
Pier
6. Proposed 1D model
Distributed
rotational
springs (k, c)
Displacement
time histories
Well
Translational base
spring (kbx, cbx)
Fig. 13. Proposed 1D model with three types of springdashpots. Note: all the
springs are connected with dampers in parallel; however, dampers are not shown
for clarity.
9
ky Gr02 3:00:75a0 =
cy
0:6Gr02 a0
kbx
cbx
8Gr0
2n
8Gr0 0:12a0
2n U o
9
=
;
10
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
11
60
30
0
30
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
Error (%)
60
60
30
0
30
60
60
30
0
30
60
2DEqL
1D4
1DProposed
PT
2DEqL
1D4
1DProposed
Types of Analysis
WT
SF
SFW
2DEqL
BM
1D4
1DProposed
BMW
Fig. 14. Bar chart of percentage error in the maximum responses (i.e., maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear force in pier (SFP) and
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the various approaches.
and 1D-4 analyses (Fig. 14). It was observed that the proposed model
satisfactorily estimates the maximum force and maximum displacement responses in pier and well foundation; the maximum percentage error in the response parameters was within 30% except for the
motion S3. Moreover, the values of the percentage error for the
proposed model and the model 1D-4 match well with each other.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the effects of simplication of
Novaks [4] spring and dashpot coefcients, and the base rotational
spring on the maximum force and displacement responses of pier and
well foundation are not signicant.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
12
Kx (kN/m) 106
4
8
K (kN.m) 108
1
2
12
Cx (kN.s/m) 104
1
2
3
4
C (kN.m.s) 107
2
1
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
3
10
20
30
40
50
Novak et al. [4]
Gerolymos and Gazetas [1]
JRA [3]
Varun et al. [2]
Fig. 15. Comparison of spring and dashpot coefcients of distributed side springs obtained from various 1D models.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
200
13
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
100
0
100
Error (%)
200
100
0
100
200
100
0
100
Proposed
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Varun
et al. [2]
Proposed
DPT
DWT
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Types of Analysis
SFP
SFW
Varun
et al. [2]
BMP
Proposed
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Varun
et al. [2]
BMW
Fig. 16. Bar chart of percentage error in the maximum responses (i.e., maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear force in pier (SFP) and
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the 1D analysis.
Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledge Poonam and Prabhu Goel
Foundation at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur for the nancial
support in conducting the present study.
References
[1] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Winkler model for lateral response of rigid caisson
foundations in linear soil. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26:34761.
[2] Varun, Assimaki D, Gazetas G. A simplied model for lateral response of large
diameter caisson foundationslinear elastic formulation. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2009;29:26891.
[3] JRA. Specications for Highway Bridges, Part IV: Substructures. Japan: Japan
Road Association; 2002.
[4] Novak M, Nogami T, Aboul-Ella F. Dynamic soil reactions for plane strain case.
J Eng Mech Div, ASCE 1978;104:9539.
[5] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech
Found Div, ASCE 1971;97:122748.
[6] Veletsos AS, Verbic B. Basic response functions for elastic foundations. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1974;100:189202.
[7] Wolf JP, Meek JW. Insight on 2D versus 3D modelling of surface foundations
via strength of materials solutions for soil dynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 1994;23:91112.
[8] Luco JE, Hadjian AH. Two-dimensional approximations to the threedimensional soilstructure interaction problem. Nucl Eng Des 1975;31:
195203.
[9] Watanabe H, Tochigi H. Model vibration test concerning the dynamic
interaction of soil structure system followed by sliding and separation and
their numerical simulation. Proc JSCE 1986:31927. [368-I-5].
[10] Seed BH, Lysmer J. Soilstructure interaction analyses by nite elements
State of the art. Nucl Eng Des 1978;46:34965.
[11] Jeremic B, Kunnath S, Xiong F. Inuence of soilfoundationstructure interaction on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct. Eng Struct 2004;26:391402.
[12] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Static and dynamic response of massive caisson
foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities validation and results.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26:37794.
[13] Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte JP. Three-dimensional seismic response of
Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. J Struct Eng 2008;134:
116576.
[14] Chang CY, Mok CM, Wang ZL, Settgast R, Waggoner F, Ketchum MA, et al.
Dynamic soilfoundationstructure interaction analysis of large caissons,
MCEER-00-0011. New York: Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of Buffalo; 2000.
[15] Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain SK. Signicance of interface nonlinearity on seismic
response of well-pier system in cohesionless soil. Earthquake Spectra, in press.
[16] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for innite media. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1969;95:85977.
[17] Joyner WB, Chen ATF. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65:131536.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
14
[18] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, et al. Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation: user command-language manual,
version 1.7.3. Berkeley: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Center, University
of California; 2006. /http://opensees.berkeley.eduS.
[19] Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees soil models and solid-uid fully coupled
elements: users manual, Version 1. San Diego: University of California; 2008.
[20] Yang Z. Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation
and liquefaction. PhD thesis. New York: Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, Columbia University; 2000. 255 p.
ez GA. Users manual of SHAKE-2000: a computer program for the 1-D
[21] Ordon
analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problems. GeoMotions;
2004, 310 p. /http://www.shake2000.comS.
[22] Mondal G. Seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. PhD thesis.
Kanpur: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur; 2011.
[23] Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD thesis. Austin: University of Texas at
Austin; 2001.
[24] Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH. Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131:45364.
[25] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response
analyses. Report no. EERC 70-10. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1970.
[26] Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB. Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for
cohesive soils. Report no. EERC-88/15. Berkley: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California; 1988.
[27] Stokoe KH II, Hwang SK, Darendeli MB, Lee NJ. Correlation study of nonlinear
dynamic soil properties. Final Report to Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, SC; 1995.
[28] Hudson M, Idriss IM, Beikae M. Users manual for QUAD4M: a computer
program to evaluate the seismic response of soil structures using nite
element procedures and incorporating a compliant base. Davis, USA: University of California; 1994.
[29] Novak M, Aboul-Ella F. Impedance functions of piles in layered media. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1978;104:64361.
[30] Wolf J, Song C. To radiate or not to radiate. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1996;25:142132.
[31] Meek J, Wolf J. Insights on cutoff frequency for foundation on soil layer.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:65165.
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002