Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI 10.1007/s10706-016-9999-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
S. Banerjee (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: subhadeep@iitm.ac.in
M. Joy
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: mail2sban@gmail.com
D. Sarkar
Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering and
Science University, Shibpur 711103, India
e-mail: sban345@gmail.com
1 Introduction
Many major cities such as, Shanghai, Bangkok,
Mumbai, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and Singapore are
built overlying soft clay. As a result many important
inland and offshore structures such as bridges, port and
harbours, tall structures like water tanks, chimney etc.
are supported on pile foundations to achieve the
required bearing capacity. In such situations, the
response of pile and surrounding soil subjected to
earthquake loading is an important factor affecting the
integrity of infrastructures.
In past, there are various analytical, experimental
and numerical studies reported on the response of piles
subjected to seismic loading. Nikolaou et al. (2001)
and Tabesh and Poulos (2007) presented design charts
and empirical forms of bending moments and shear
forces developed along the pile length during the
passage of seismic waves through soil. They have also
suggested that the response of soil-pile system is
generally affected by the soil and pile modulus, the
peak ground acceleration, the frequency of base
excitation and the superstructure loading (Kavvadas
and Gazetas 1993; Nikolaou et al. 2001; Tabesh and
Poulos 2007).
However it was noted that the majority of the
research in this field is concentrated to the seismic
123
0.9 m
Kaolin clay
13.25 m
500 mm sand
layer for
drainage path
25 m
14.25 m
7.5 m
1.0 m
Pile in crosssection
12.50 m
123
Range
16
66
80
40
Compression index
0.55
Recompression index
0.14
1.36 9 10-8
13
0.9
28.89
Flexural rigidity,
EI (kN m2)
3,545,002
13
0.9
28.89
4,285,785
13
0.9
28.89
10,308,351
Flexible beam
Type
Mass-1
368
Mass-2
605
Mass-3
863
1
0.8
G/G max
0.6
0.4
PI=200
.
PI=100
. PI=50
. PI=30
. PI=15
PI=NP
0.2
0
1E-06
1E-05
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
123
0.05
PGA-1 = 0.022g
0
0
20
40
60
80
-0.05
Time (sec)
-0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.06
0.15
0.04
0.1
0.02
0
-0.02
10
15
20
25
Time (sec)
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.04
10
15
20
25
Time (sec)
-0.1
-0.06
-0.15
(a)
Clay surface
Top of raft
Input base motion (PGA-3)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
(b)
Amplification
Clay surface
Top of raft
1.5
1
0.5
0.05
0
0
Period (sec)
(c)
Fig. 5 Acceleration time histories, response spectra and
amplification computed for solid stainless steel piles with added
mass (Mass-3) subjected to the ground motion of PGA-3.
123
Period (sec)
(d)
a Acceleration time history at clay surface, b acceleration time
history at top of raft, c response spectra, d amplification
1000
2000
3000
10
12
14
Fig. 7 Computed
maximum bending moment
envelope for three pile types
of different flexural
rigidities with added mass
(Mass-1) subjected to:
a PGA-1 and b PGA-3
200
400
600
-1000
10
12
14
0.9m hollow
steel piles
EI=3545002 kNm2
0.9m hollow
steel piles filled with PCC
EI=4285785 kNm2
0.9m solid
steel piles
EI=10308351 kNm2
(a)
-1000
1000
2000
3000
10
12
14
(b)
123
2.
3.
3 Formulation of Dimensionless Parameters
Review of literature suggests that the response of clay
and piles subjected to seismic loading is affected by
various factors such as pile modulus, soil modulus,
slenderness ratio, natural frequencies of clay layer and
pileraft, superstructure mass, density of the soil and
peak ground acceleration (Kavvadas and Gazetas 1993;
Nikolaou et al. 2001; Tabesh and Poulos 2007; Banerjee
2010). In the present study, five dimensionless groups
involving different parameters are identified as follows:
1.
X Ep Ip
l3a
123
2a
G
q
4.
5.
4 Parametric Study
A total of 27 numerical simulations involving three
different pile types, superstructural masses and ground
motions were carried out to establish semi-empirical
formulations for amplification at clay surface, top of
raft and maximum bending moment in pile.
4.1 Amplification at Clay Surface (As)
A detail regression analysis shows that the amplification at clay surface can be expressed as an exponential
function (Fig. 8) of above mentioned dimensionless
groups as shown in Eq. 4a and 4b.
As 1:228 e57802x
where;
4a
y = 1.228e57802x
R = 0.773
2
1
0
0
0.000005
0.00001
0.000015
0.00002
0.000025
!0:05
0:4
Tp
m
fb 0:6
7
x
PGA
qrp3
Ts
f0
4b
By substituting, f0 (=1/Ts)
0:4
x Tp Ts 0:2 PGA7
m
qrp3
!0:05
fb 0:6
4c
6a
!0:02
0:4
0:2
Tp
m
fb 0:05
Lp
0:3
z
PGA
qrp3
Ts
f0
d
6b
Equation 6a, 6b suggests that that the stiffness ratio is
the main factor affecting the maximum bending moment
response of the pile. It also shows that the maximum
bending moment increases with the pile modulus, peak
ground acceleration and super-structural load. This is in
accordance with the findings of Nikolaou et al. (2001),
Tabesh and Poulos (2007) and Kang et al. (2012).
123
123
7
where as is the free field acceleration, q1 is the density
of top soil (soil layer 1), h1 is the height of the layer 1,
l/d is the slenderness ratio of the pile, Ep is the modulus
of elasticity of pile, E1 is the modulus of elasticity of
layer 1, V1 and V2 are the shear wave velocities of layer
1 and 2 respectively. In the present study, the soil layer
is homogenous. Hence, V1/V2 = 1 and h = 13 m
(corresponding to the prototype pile length).
It can be observed from Fig. 14 that the agreement
between the proposed correlation and the formulation
by Nikolaou et al. (2001) is fairly good. The slight
deviations that is observed may be attributed to the
Table 4 Different cases considered for the comparison with Poulos and Tabeshs (1996) analysis
Sl. No.
12
30,000
50
Diameter (m)
0.6
Meckering (1968)
0.9
1.2
4
5
12
30,000
50
1.5
0.9
1.2
1.5
12
30,000
30
0.6
Whittier (1987)
Newcastle (1994)
123
6 Conclusion
The foregoing discussion suggests that the response of
clay and piles subjected to seismic loading is affected
by various factors such as pile modulus, soil modulus,
slenderness ratio, natural frequencies of clay layer and
pileraft, superstructure mass, density of the soil and
peak ground acceleration. Several major conclusions
can be inferred from the present study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
123
5.
References
Banerjee S (2010) Centrifuge and numerical modelling of soft
claypileraft foundations subjected to seismic shaking.
Ph.D. Thesis. National University of Singapore, Singapore
Banerjee S, Goh SH, Lee FH (2007) Response of soft clay strata
and claypileraft systems to seismic shaking. J Earthq
Tsunami 1(3):233255
Bathe KJ (1996) Finite element procedures. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Upper Saddle River
Goh TL (2003) Stabilization of an excavation by an embedded
improved soil layer. Ph.D. Thesis. National University of
Singapore, Singapore
Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in
soils: design equations and curves. J Geotech Eng Div
ASCE 98(7):667692
Kang MA, Banerjee S, Lee FH, Xie HP (2012) Dynamic soil
pileraft interaction in normally consolidated soft clay
during earthquakes. J Earthq Tsunami 6(3):12500311
125003131
Kavvadas M, Gazetas G (1993) Kinematic seismic response and
bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique
43(2):207222
Nikolaou S, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Tazoh T (2001) Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and field
measurements. Geotechnique 51(5):425440
Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and
design. Wiley Inc., New York
Poulos HG, Tabesh A (1996) Seismic response of pile foundations: some important factors. In: Proceedings of the 11th
WCEE Paper No. 2085
Snyder JL (2004) Full scale test lateral load tests of a 3 9 5 pile
group in soft clays and silts. M.Sc. Thesis, Brigham Young
University, USA
Tabesh A, Poulos HG (2007) Design charts for seismic analysis
of single piles in clay. Proc ICE (UK) Geotech Eng
160(GE2):8596
Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(1):89107
Wilson DW (1998) Soilpilesuperstructure interaction in liquefying sand and soft clay. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
California, Davis, California, USA
Yu Y, Lee FH (2002) Seismic response of soft ground. In:
Proceedings of the ICPMG02, pp 519524
Zhu H, Chang MF (2002) Load transfer curves along bored piles
considering modulus degradation. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 128(9):764774