UseAndAbuseOfSpringsToModelFoundations

Use and Abuse of Springs to
Model Foundations
Rob Day and Joe Muccillo Technical Directors
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
14 Aug 2013
Part 1 The Geotechnical

Viewpoint
Outline
- What is the conflict?

- The limitations of spring models to represent soil
continuum
- The plate load test
- Behaviour of footings/rafts
- Behaviour of vertically loaded piles and pile groups
- Behaviour of laterally loaded piles and pile groups.
- Behaviour of propped sheetpile excavations
Use and Abuse of Springs
August 15, 2013
Page 3
Whats the conflict?
Conflicting points of view
Structural Engineer:
SPRING CONSTANT
August 15, 2013
Page 5
Geotechnical Engineer:
SPRING CONSTANT
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE
REACTION (HIGHLY
VARIABLE WITH
GEOMETRY/LOAD)
August 15, 2013
Page 6
DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY
August 15, 2013
Page 7
DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION
STIFFNESS
DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY
August 15, 2013
Page 8
DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION
STIFFNESS
DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY
NEED TO REACH
A COMPROMISE
August 15, 2013
Page 9
A typical foundation scenario
August 15, 2013
Page 10
Typical Spring Constant Examples
RAFT
LATERAL
PILE
FRAME SUPPORT
August 15, 2013
Page 11
Why do Geotechnical Engineers HATE Springs?
- Soil does not behave like a spring

- The bigger the loaded area the softer the elastic response
per unit area
- Soil behaves inelastically from quite low stress levels and
undergoes extensive plastic yield at higher stresses.
- Hence there is a fear that springs will be used for other
than intended purpose.
August 15, 2013
Page 12
Typical settlement contours under a loaded area
August 15, 2013
Page 13
Footings and Rafts
Uniform load on a raft supported by springs
UNIFORM LOAD q
Ks
August 15, 2013
Page 15
Soil springs from textbooks
Soil
Loose sand
Medium dense sand
Ks, kN/m3
4800 -- 16000
9600 -- 80000
Dense sand
Clayey medium
dense sand
Silty medium dense
sand
Clayey soil
64000 128000
32000 80000
qu
200 kPa (4 ksf)
Bowles - Foundation
Analysis and Design
5th Ed
- The modulus of subgrade reaction
(Ks)
- The units are pressure/deflection
e.g. kPa/m
- Typical values from Bowles book
24000 -- 48000
12000 24000
Clayey soil
200 < qu
400 kPa
24000 48000
Clayey soil
qu > 800 kPa
> 48000
August 15, 2013
Page 16
EASY! WHATS
THE PROBLEM?
August 15, 2013
Page 17
UNIFORM LOAD q
=q/Ks
Ks
August 15, 2013
Page 18
UNIFORM LOAD q
=q/Ks
Ks
CONSTANT LOAD AND DEFLECTION ON
ALL SPRINGS IRRESPECTIVE OF RAFT
SIZE/STIFFNESS
NO BENDING!
August 15, 2013
Page 19
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Plate Load Test
Typically 0.3m diameter

August 15, 2013
Page 20
Uniform load on a RIGID circular plate
UNIFORM LOAD q = 100kPa
0.3m diameter (D)
E = 10MPa,
= 0.3,
c, = ? Assume elastic
Semiinfinite soil
August 15, 2013
Page 21
Elastic pressure response
Half of average
Asymptotes to
infinite
August 15, 2013
Page 22
Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay
Average pressure
Plastic yield
starts at edge:
zero for granular,
~ 2cu for cohesive
August 15, 2013
Page 23
Average pressure
Progressive yield
Ultimate bearing pressure
August 15, 2013
Page 24
Ks = 47,000kN/m3
Integrate area under pressure curve
August 15, 2013
Page 25
Effect of footing size
August 15, 2013
Page 26
For a RIGID CIRCULAR plate at LOW STRAINS
. .(
i.e. INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL

TO DIAMETER OF CIRCLE (D)
August 15, 2013
Page 27
Settlement of RIGID irregular shape
Using a uniform spring analogy a uniform load would settle

by an equal amount at all springs
UNIFORM LOAD q
=q/Ks
Ks
August 15, 2013
Page 28
Settlement of RIGID irregular shape
August 15, 2013
Page 29
Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft
1m Thick
Raft
August 15, 2013
Page 30
Superposition of load
Why does this happen?

Need to understand how the soil and loads interact
Consider a uniform flexible strip load on a deep soil
UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa
1m wide
strip
E = 10MPa,
= 0.3,
Semiinfinite soil
August 15, 2013
Page 31
Single 1m wide strip
Settlement bowl
extends way
beyond footing
Edge of footing
August 15, 2013
Page 32
Nine 1m wide strip loads at 2.5m centres
August 15, 2013
Page 33
Settlement of a strip footing line load

LINE LOAD
P = 100kN/m
= 22mm
LINE LOAD
P = 100kN/m
= 22mm
0.5m wide
strip
E = 10MPa,
= 0.3,
Semiinfinite soil
August 15, 2013
Page 34
2m wide
strip
Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft is superposition of many

small square loads
1m Thick
Raft
August 15, 2013
Page 35
Effect of finite soil depth or layering

UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa
Width B=1m
Depth H
E = 10MPa,
= 0.3,
Rigid Base
August 15, 2013
Page 36
Real Soils not linear elastic purely plastic
- High modulus at very small strains

- Brittle, strain hardening and strain softening behaviour
- Time dependent consolidation
August 15, 2013
Page 37
Consolidation with time
pressure (kPa)
2000
1
1500
0%
1000
2%
500
4%
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
6%
time (min)
500
1000
time (min)
1500
2000
2500
strain
0%
3000
3500
Strain
8%
10%
12%
5%
14%
10%
16%
15%
18%
20%
20%
August 15, 2013
Page 38
10
pressure
100
1000
10000
Non linear stress-strain behaviour
August 15, 2013
Page 39
Conclusions for spread footings and rafts

- At low strains spring stiffness
much higher around edges
than in middle
- Hence higher bending
moments (typically 2 to 3 times
higher for stiff footings at low
strains)
- For eccentric loads uniform
springs over-estimate rotation
(typically by 2 to 4 times)
August 15, 2013
Page 40

- Springs go plastic at lower
stresses near edge than in
middle
- Spring stiffness HIGHLY

DEPENDENT on size of
loaded area
August 15, 2013
Page 41

- Shape of raft affects spring
stiffness distribution
- Adjacent footings can have a

very significant effect on
settlement
August 15, 2013
Page 42
Spring Recommendations For Footings/Rafts:
- DONT use uniform springs

- Vary springs to take into account size and shape of
footing, proximity of other footings and location of spring
relative to centroid and perimeter of raft
- (as a rule of thumb edge spring is about double centre
springs and corner springs three to four times middle
springs).
- Check for highly loaded springs that may have gone
plastic and replace with loads when appropriate.
- ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS.
August 15, 2013
Page 43
Axially Loaded Piles and Pile Groups
Single axially loaded pile
August 15, 2013
Page 45
Interaction between two identical rigid axially loaded

piles
Poulos and Davis
Elastic Solutions
August 15, 2013
Page 46
Interaction between two identical rigid axially loaded

piles
Poulos and Davis
Elastic Solutions
Two identically loaded floating
piles 3 diameters apart settle
approximately 1.5 times as
much as a single pile
August 15, 2013
Page 47
Consider a group of 25 piles at 3D floating in a stiff clay

soil single pile 5mm settle at 500kN
August 15, 2013
Page 48
August 15, 2013
Page 49
August 15, 2013
Page 50
Conclusions for Vertical Piles/Groups:
- Axial stiffness of a single pile is non linear from quite low

load levels
- Interaction effects of pile groups have similar issues to raft
footing interactions.
- Corner/end piles in rigid pilecaps tend to attract much
higher loads (although some pile yield can redistribute
load)
August 15, 2013
Page 51
Spring Recommendations Vertical Piles/Groups:
- For groups of piles sharing a pilecap generally DONT use

uniform springs, especially if floating Need to do pile
group analysis.
- In practice for single pile supports more than about 10
diameters apart with high end bearing interaction tends to
be small
- Check for highly loaded springs that may have gone
plastic and replace with soft springs or loads when
appropriate.
August 15, 2013
Page 52
Laterally Loaded Piles and Pile Groups
Laterally loaded piles
In some ways, a laterally loaded pile can be considered similar to

a strip footing.
BUT, the ground surface and the limit of passive resistance have a
major effect on stiffness near the surface
E = 10MPa,
= 0.3,
August 15, 2013
Page 54
Effect of pile diameter
Remember footing width relationship:
August 15, 2013
Page 55
- Doubling the pile diameter halves pressure for a given

load
- BUT doubling diameter also halves modulus of subgrade
reaction.
- => Net effect is CHANGING PILE DIAMETER DOES
NOT CHANGE THE STIFFNESS of the equivalent spring
in the elastic range.
K = (0.8 to 1.8) Es
where Es in MPa and
K is a spring stiffness in MN/m per metre of pile length
- BUT diameter does increase the passive pressure limit.

August 15, 2013
Page 56

P
Ks=
P/
Ks=
P/
August 15, 2013
Page 57
SINGLE Lateral loaded pile
Passive limit has big effect particularly in sand

D
SAND
K~Es
CLAY
Pmax = 2cuD
Pmax =
3Kp D
3D
Pmax = 9cuD
August 15, 2013
Page 58
Single pile in clay analogy to plate load test
August 15, 2013
Page 59
Laterally loaded pile groups analogy with strip footings
August 15, 2013
Page 60
Interaction between lateral and vertical stiffness

H
displace
>>x
August 15, 2013
displace=x
Page 61
Spring Recommendations Lateral Piles/Groups:
- Same spring irrespective of pile diameter

- Very sensitive to passive limits hence replace springs with
loads in upper parts of piles
- Must consider softer springs for rows of piles.
- Need to also use vertical springs to check mode of
bending
August 15, 2013
Page 62
Ground movement induced loading

Propped Flexible Retaining Walls
Multi-propped, staged diaphragm wall in sand
August 15, 2013
Page 64
Excav. to elev. -3.00 on PASSIVE side
Net Pressure (kPa)

20
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
Depth (m)
Stage 3
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 65
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Net Pressure (kPa)

20
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
Depth (m)
Stage 5
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 66
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Net Pressure (kPa)

20
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
Depth (m)
Stage 7
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 67
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Net Pressure (kPa)

20
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
Depth (m)
Stage 9
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 68
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Net Pressure (kPa)

20
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
Depth (m)
Stage 11
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 69
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
All props wished into place and excavation in single stage

Net Pressure (kPa)
-30
-80
60
0
-20
-60
-100 -140 -180 -220

0
0.000
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6
-8
-8
-8
Depth (m)
-2
-10
20
displacement (m)
-10
Depth (m)
20
Depth (m)
70
Moment (kNm/m)
-10
-12
-12
-12
-14
-14
-14
-16
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-20
August 15, 2013
Page 70
-20
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Spring Recommendations For Retaining Walls:
- Spring analogies are usually not suitable for retaining wall

design particularly when there are multiple construction
stages.
- Retaining wall analysis should generally be carried out by
geotechnical engineer first and then the structural
adequacy and compatibility/interaction checked.
- Waler and anchor design needs to consider 3D effects
August 15, 2013
Page 71
A case study in structural and

geotechnical iteration
The Second Gateway Bridge
Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges Opened May 2010
August 15, 2013
Page 73
Geology (North)
JOIN LINE
(NORTH) ABUTMENT B
SOFT ALLUVIUM
STIFF ALLUVIUM
GRAVEL
FAULT?
ECTING FAULTS
KETTED PILES
DRIVEN OCTAGONAL PRESTRESSED PILES

August 15, 2013
Page 74
FLEXIBLE ROCK SOCKETS
Geology (South)
(SOUTH)
JOIN LINE
2xVERTICAL EXAGGERATION
RESIDUAL/WEAK
ASPLEY-TINGALPA
SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE
WIDE FAULT
COAL SEAMS
BEDDING SHEAR
SPREAD FOOTINGS ON ROCK
STIFF ALLUVIUM
August 15, 2013
INTERSECTING FAULTS
BORED ROCK SOCKETTED PILES
Page 75
Fault weathered to hard clay at Pier 1
August 15, 2013
Page 76
Discovered in construction when structure finalised
- Wide fault zone weathered to hard clay was exposed in

part of the footing excavation.
- Plate load tests indicated bearing capacity and modulus
much lower than adopted in design.
- To avoid pier and deck redesign, resized footing to
provide adequate bearing capacity without significantly
changing rotational stiffness.
- Achieved using an eccentric footing.
- Iterative approach with sensitivity checks.
August 15, 2013
Page 77
Revised Footing Design
August 15, 2013
Page 78
Variable springs calibrated to 2D FE analysis

SETTLEMENT OF RIGID RECTANGULAR FOOTING ON AN ELASTIC LAYER OF FINITE DEPTH
Foundation spring stiffness calibrated against FEAR output for rigid vertically loaded footing of same dimensions
Displacements (mm)
New Gate wa y Bridge

pier 1 13x 11m footing on fault with 2-way loads
SLS (in service ) Case 246
3.575
2.925
14.0-15.0
2.275
13.0-14.0
12.0-13.0
1.625
1.00-1.10
0.90-1.00
11.0-12.0
0.975
0.80-0.90
10.0-11.0
0.325
0.70-0.80
0.60-0.70
Y (L) axis (m)
9.0-10.0
0.50-0.60
-0.325
8.0-9.0
0.40-0.50
-0.975
7.0-8.0
0.30-0.40
-1.625
0.20-0.30
-2.275
2.93
1.83
0.73
m
m
kNm
kNm
kN/mm
kNm2/mm
kNm2/mm
mm
mm/m
mm/m
kPa
kPa
mm
mm
mm
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
-0.38
6.0-7.0
5.0-6.0
4.0-5.0
-2.925
3.0-4.0
-3.575
2.0-3.0
-4.225
1.0-2.0
X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale
-4.875
0.0-1.0
-5.525
3.48
2.93
2.38
1.83
1.28
0.73
0.18
-0.38
-0.93
-1.48
-2.03
-2.58
-3.13
-3.68
-4.23
-4.78
-5.33
-5.88
-6.43
-6.175
-6.98
1.710
-0.321
40859
30973
6072
67614
113830
10.7
0.60
0.27
3911
46
15
5
11
708
165
365
207
1007
4.875
4.225
6.175
5.525
4.875
4.225
3.575
2.925
2.275
1.625
0.975
0.325
Y (L) axis (m)
-0.325
-0.975
-1.625
-2.275
-2.925
-3.575
-4.225
-4.875
-5.525
-6.175
-1.48
m
m
kN
kNm
kNm
m2
5.525
-2.58
1.75
0.00
64,700
38300
10200
0.3575
6.175
Non-Uniform Subgrade Modular Ratio Simulating Fault
-3.68
m
m
m
MPa
-4.78
11
13
23
400
0.3
-5.88
INPUTS
X width of rectangle (B<L)
B
Y length of rectangle
L
depth to rigid layer>10E but H<5B
H
Young's modulus of soil
E
poissons ratio
v
APPLIED LOADS:
Xcoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing)
xp
Ycoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing)
yp
Pvert
Pve rt
Mxz (longitudina l)
Mxz
Myz (transve rse)
Myz
Area of spring
A
LOAD CENTROID PROPERTIES
X coord of weighted spring group centroid
xc
Y c oord of weighted s pring group centroid
yc
Moment Mxz about xc
Mxzc
Moment Myz about yc
Myzc
Z axial stiffness at (xc,yc)
Kzc
XZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc)
Kmxzc
YZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc)
Kmyzc
total axial deflection at (xc,yc)
sc
XZ rotation (longitutudinal)
Rxz
YZ rotation (tra nsverse)
Ryz
Max imum bearing pressure
Minimum be aring pressure
Max imum settlement
Minimum settlement
centre of column se ttle ment
Max imum bearing pressure on fault ma terial
Average pressure on fault material
a verage load on worst fa ult corner over 9 nodes
Meyerhof be aring pressure on south/fa ult
Meyerhof be aring pressure on north rock
-6.98
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Approx. Moments in Longitudinal Direction (kNm/m)
Bearing Pressure (kPa)

6.175
6.175
5.525
5.525
4.875
4.875
4.225
3800-4000
4.225
3.575
3600-3800
3.575
3400-3600
2.925
2.925
3200-3400
2.275
12000-13000
1.625
1.625
11000-12000
2800-3000
0.975
2600-2800
0.975
0.325
2400-2600
0.325
2.275
3000-3200
Y (L) axis (m)
-0.325
2200-2400
2000-2200
-1.625
-2.275
1400-1600
-2.275
3000-4000
-2.925
2000-3000
-3.575
1000-2000
1200-1400
800-1000
-4.225
600-800
-4.225
-4.875
400-600
-4.875
-5.525
200-400
-5.525
0-200
August 15, 2013
Page 79
3.48
2.93
2.38
1.83
1.28
0.73
0.18
-0.38
-0.93
-1.48
-2.03
-2.58
-3.13
-3.68
-4.23
-4.78
-5.33
-5.88
-6.43
-6.175
-6.98
3.48
2.93
2.38
1.83
1.28
0.73
0.18
-0.38
-0.93
-1.48
-2.03
-2.58
-3.13
-3.68
-4.23
-4.78
-5.33
6000-7000
1600-1800
-6.175
-5.88
7000-8000
-0.975
-1.625
-3.575
-6.43
8000-9000
-0.325
1800-2000
1000-1200
-6.98
9000-10000
Y (L) axis (m)
-0.975
-2.925
10000-11000
5000-6000
4000-5000
0-1000
Part 2 The Structural Viewpoint
Outline
- Why do structural engineers need springs
- Types of springs and how we use them
- Examples
Typical Bridge
Gateway Bridge Approach Spans
August 15, 2013
Page 81
Why do Structural Engineers NEED Springs

- Structural model needs to be supported on SOMETHING
- Pinned or fixed supports not realistic.
- High level of redundancy in structure (indeterminant)
- Load transfer and sharing depends on relative stiffness of
both structural elements and supporting ground
- Lots of load cases to be considered (Permanent,
Temporary, Dynamic, different combinations, load factors
etc.)
- Serviceability deflections are often critical
- Cost and Time associated with more rigorous analysis
methods
August 15, 2013
Page 82
Why we LIKE Springs

Behaviour of springs is predictable and easy to understand
Springs are easy to incorporate into the software most
structural engineers use
In a lot of cases structure response is not that sensitive to
the spring values used. (Sensitivity test 50% to 200% x
Spring value)
Use and Abuse of springs
August 15, 2013
Page 83
Types of Springs used by Structural Engineers

Global Springs
- Easy to include in structural models
- Makes use of foundation analysis
software to derive spring stiffness
- As soil behaviour is non linear spring
stiffness depends on load. Therefore
iteration required.
- Interaction between degrees of
freedom can be significant and
requires consideration.
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 84
Column
Equivalent Global Springs

Equivalent Spring
XH
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 85
Equivalent Global Springs

Equivalent Spring
XH + XH
L
EI
+
+
Solve for EI and L
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 86
XH + XM..(1)
M...(2)

Column
Soil Springs (Winkler Springs)

- Soil structure interaction modelled
directly by soil springs
- Pile Cap or spread footing flexibility
can be modelled
- Does not account for pile group effects
- For pile groups foundation stiffness
should be calibrated against pile group
analysis.
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 87

Multi Parameter Models
- Models the effects of shear in soil
- Some models are readily incorporated into standard
frame analysis software. Some are not.
- Continuum analysis may be just as easy
August 15, 2013
Page 88
Typical Bridge Example
Lateral restraint block
Bridge Articulation
Precast deck girders
Elastomeric Bearings
Bored Pile/Column
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 89
Deck restrained laterally by

restraint blocks.
Longitudinally structure
floats on elastomeric
bearings
Deck continuous between

movement joints at abutments

- Longitudinal loads are shared between piers due to shear
deformation of elastomeric bearings
- Column and foundation stiffness also play a part in load
sharing between piers
- Lateral loading transferred through restraint blocks to each
pier
- Load sharing affects design of columns, piles, bearings and
movement joints.
- Structure modelled as 3D frame including piles.
- Winkler spring model works well in this case due to limited
pile group effects
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 90
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 91
Spring replaced
with reaction force
if passive limit
exceeded
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 92

- Deformation behaviour of individual piles should be
calibrated against those of an equivalent laterally loaded
pile
- Need to check whether soil passive limits are reached. If
so then affected springs are removed and replaced with a
force equal to the passive limit. Likely to require iteration.
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 93
Rigid vs Flexible Pile Caps

- Can influence load distribution
in pile groups
Column
Pile Cap
- Pile group analysis software

normally does not consider pile
cap stiffness
- Can be included in structural
model with Winkler springs but
pile group effects not
accounted for.
Presentation Title
August 15, 2013
Page 94
D
Rigid if
L/D < 2
L
Bridge Abutment
August 15, 2013
Page 95
Second Gateway Bridge Layout Overview

- Visually mirrors the
existing bridge
- 1.6km long
- 260m main span, 71m
approach spans.
- Includes pedestrian and
bicycle access.
- First crossing built circa
1985
- New crossing completed in
2010
August 15, 2013
Page 96
Second Gateway Bridge Overview

- Balanced Cantilever construction used for both main river
spans and approach spans
- Range of Foundation Types Used
- Southern Approach Piers - Spread footings on rock
- Main River Spans Up to 24 No. 1.8m diameter
vertical rock socket piles in river pier pile caps
- Northern Approach Piers - 40-45No. Octagonal
prestressed piles in a standardised 2m deep pilecap.
- Piers 14 & 17 - single row of 1.8m dia. rock sockets
to give more flexible foundation.
- Different approach span articulation to existing bridge
August 15, 2013
Page 97
BRIDGE LAYOUT Existing Bridge Articulation

Fixed abutment
Columns pinned top and bottom
Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment
Pinned bearings
August 15, 2013
Page 98
BRIDGE LAYOUT Existing Bridge Articulation

Fixed abutment
Columns pinned top and bottom
All longitudinal loads transferred to abutment
Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment
Pinned bearings
August 15, 2013
Page 99
BRIDGE LAYOUT Second Bridge Articulation

Pot bearing joints spaced 4 to 5 spans
Columns fixed top and bottom
Halving
Joint
Halving
Joint
Columns Fixed top and bottom
August 15, 2013
Page 100
Expansion
Joint
Second Gateway Bridge Articulation

Expansion joints spaced 4 to 5 spans (Up to 350m
apart)
Columns fixed top and bottom
Longitudinal loads shared but extra stresses due to
restraint to creep and shrinkage in concrete
Halving
Joint
Halving
Joint
Fixed connections
August 15, 2013
Page 101
Expansion
Joint
BRIDGE LAYOUT Foundation requirements

- Potential for large stresses in spans due to concrete creep
and shrinkage
- Hence piers and foundations need to be flexible in the
longitudinal bridge direction
- BUT still strong/stiff enough to accommodate construction
loading during deck cantilevering as well as lateral and
vertical loads in service.
August 15, 2013
Page 102
Balanced Cantilever Construction

Precast segment
Pier Segment cast

integrally with pier
Cast in situ stitch pour
Cantilever tendon
Continuity tendon
Cast in situ pier
August 15, 2013
Page 103
Second Gateway Bridge Foundations
August 15, 2013
Page 104
BRIDGE LAYOUT Second Bridge Articulation

Single row of bored rock sockets provides flexible
foundation.
This reduces shrinkage stresses by reducing curvature
and resistance.
Halving
Joint
Fixed connections
August 15, 2013
Page 105
Expansion
Joint
Flexible piles for short piers

- Shorter piers at northern end driven pile group too stiff.
- High stresses would have developed in piers and deck
under creep and shrinkage.
- Adopted single row of 1.8m dia. rock sockets to give more
flexible foundation.
August 15, 2013
Page 106
Second Gateway Bridge Foundations
August 15, 2013
Page 107
Second Gateway Bridge Articulation
Halving
Joint
August 15, 2013
Halving
Joint
Page 108
Expansion
Joint
Use of Springs for Approach Analysis of Approach Spans

- Global springs used at base of piers in approach spans.
- Spring stiffness based on pile group or foundation
analysis
- Spring stiffnesses determined for both short term and long
term loading
- Iterative procedure since spring stiffness depends on load
in foundation (non linear behaviour)
- In practice required different spring stiffness for SLS and
ULS load cases and for long and short term loading.
- Loads so determined were then used in pile group or
foundation analysis to design piles or spread footings.
August 15, 2013
Page 109
Northern Approach Spans Pile Group
August 15, 2013
Page 110
Suggestions for better collaboration:

Structural engineers:
Learn more about how geotechnical engineers do
business
Talk to geotechnical engineer early
Explain the structures and the foundation loads clearly
Check the sensitivity of the critical actions to the
foundation stiffness
Geotechnical engineers:
Learn more about how structural engineers do
business
Seek clarification from structural engineers on what
they are using recommendations for
Be open to using springs when appropriate
August 15, 2013
Page 111
Thank You
email address rob.day@aecom.com

UseAndAbuseOfSpringsToModelFoundations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UseAndAbuseOfSpringsToModelFoundations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Use and Abuse of Springs to

Part 1 The Geotechnical

- What is the conflict?

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Whats the conflict?

Conflicting points of view

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Conflicting points of view

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Conflicting points of view

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Conflicting points of view

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Conflicting points of view

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

A typical foundation scenario

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Typical Spring Constant Examples

August 15, 2013

Why do Geotechnical Engineers HATE Springs?

- Soil does not behave like a spring

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Typical settlement contours under a loaded area

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Footings and Rafts

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Soil springs from textbooks

200 kPa (4 ksf)

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

August 15, 2013

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Plate Load Test

Typically 0.3m diameter

August 15, 2013

Uniform load on a RIGID circular plate

UNIFORM LOAD q = 100kPa

0.3m diameter (D)

August 15, 2013

Elastic pressure response

August 15, 2013

Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay

August 15, 2013

Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay

Use and Abuse of Springs

August 15, 2013