influence of soil pile interaction on...

INFLUENCE OF SOIL PILE INTERACTION ON

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR IN SANDY CONDITION

MAHDY KHARI

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

INFLUENCE OF SOIL PILE INTERACTION ON

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR IN SANDY CONDITION

MAHDY KHARI

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Civil Engineering)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

FEBRUARY 2014

iii

TO MY PARENTS

TO MY LOVELY WIFE

TO MY SONS-POUYA& PARHAM

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to many

individuals who have contributed towards my understanding and thoughts. In

particular, I would like to first thank my main supervisor, Professor. Dr. Khairul

Anuar Kassim, for his guidance and support during the course of my research. I

am also very thankful to my co-supervisors Professor Dr. Azlan Bin Adnan and

Associate Professor Dr. Ramli Nazir for their guidance, advices and motivation.

Without their continued support and interest, this thesis would not have been the

same as presented here.

I wish to take the opportunity to extend my most sincere gratitude to my

family for their priceless support and confidence in me without which I would

never see this moment. I hereby would like to express my love and deep

appreciation to my mother and my father for every single day that they did not

have me beside them. Most significantly, I would like to give my greatest thanks

to my lovely wife and two sons, Pouya and Parham, during my doctoral study.

Without my wife, I would not be able to achieve or enjoy these successes. Last

but not least, I would like to praise the almighty ALLAH for giving me the

strength to face different challenges in life.

v

ABSTRACT

Damages of structures supported by deep foundations due to complete or partial collapse have demonstrated paramount importance of the understanding of Soil-Pile Interaction (SPI). Kinematic interaction is due to the presence of pile foundation in the ground. Several methods are available to determine the kinematic interaction. Among these approaches, the method of Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) is widely used in research practices. In the BNWF method, soil and pile are modeled as nonlinear springs and linear finite elements, respectively. Stiffness coefficient of spring is evaluated based on load-transfer approach, often known as p-y curve method. On the other hand, the pile group and the single pile behavior are usually different owing to the impacts of the pile-to-pile interaction known as shadowing effects. Shadowing effects are the condition where there is an overlapping of the stress zones. The p-y curve of single pile can be used in pile group based on p-multiplier concept. Many investigators have developed p-y curves for sandy and clayey soils. However, these developed curves do not account some parameters such as relative density of sandy soil and side friction. This research has developed a new p-y curve for single pile under lateral loading through a comprehensive experimental investigation on Johor Bahru Sand. A good estimation of soil properties in the laboratory was required to simulate natural soil condition. In this study, sand samples prepared using new Mobile Pluviator designed to achieve of the desired relative densities ranging from 10% to 98%. A series of 12 different configurations of piles groups investigated in loose and dense sandy conditions to evaluate the piles interaction effects. The p-y multiplier factor was determined for the piles in the group based on distribution of load applied among the pile groups. The results of different configurations of pile group showed that the ultimate lateral load increased by 53% in increasing of spacing center-to-center piles (s) from 3D to 6D (D=pile diameter) owing to the reduction of pile group interaction effects that improve the performance of the pile group efficiency. A ratio of s/D more than 6 was large enough to eliminate the effects of pile group interaction. The new p-y curve exhibits a lower initial stiffness compared to the p-y curves from previous researchers. The maximum values of displacement and seismic acceleration of the structure occurred almost at the same time for existing and new p-y curves, but the new p-y curve can determine the seismic behavior under the strong earthquakes more accurate than the existing curves because of the higher ultimate lateral resistance.

vi

ABSTRAK

Kerosakan struktur-struktur yang disokong oleh cerucuk asas dalam yang

disebabkan oleh keruntuhan sepenuhnya atau keruntuhan separa menunjukkan bahawa adalah amat penting untuk memahami Interaksi antara Tanah-Cerucuk (Soil-Pile Interaction-SPI). Interaksi Kinematik dalam SPSI adalah disebabkan oleh kehadiran cerucuk asas di dalam tanah. Beberapa kaedah boleh digunakan untuk mengenalpasti interaksi kinematik berkenaan. Antara kaedah-kaedah ini, Kaedah Rasuk pada Asas Bukan Linear Winkler (Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation-BNWF) merupakan kaedah yang paling meluas digunakan dalam kajian. Dalam Kaedah BNWF, tanah dimodelkan sebagai spring bukan linear manakala cerucuk pula dimodelkan sebagai elemen terhingga linear. Pekali kekukuhan dinilai berdasarkan pendekatan pemindahan beban, kerapkali dikenali sebagai kaedah lengkungan p-y. Sifat cerucuk berkumpulan dan cerucuk tunggal selalunya berbeza disebabkan kesan bayang disebabkan interaksi dalam cerucuk berkumpulan. Kesan bayang ini merupakan satu keadaan di mana terdapat pertindihan zon-zon tekanan. Lengkungan p-y untuk satu cerucuk tunggal boleh digunakan untuk cerucuk berkumpulan berdasarkan konsep pendaraban beban, p. Ramai penyelidik telah membina lengkungan p-y untuk tanah berpasir dan tanah liat. Walaubagaimanapun, lengkungan-lengkungan ini tidak mengambil kira ketumpatan relatif dan geseran sisi tanah berpasir. Kajian ini telah menghasilkan satu lengkungan p-y baru untuk cerucuk tunggal di bawah bebanan mengufuk melalui kajian eksperimen yang komprehensif pada pasir di Johor Bahru. Satu anggaran yang tepat berkenaan sifat-sifat tanah dalam makmal diperlukan untuk mengsimulasikan keadaan tanah yang semula jadi. Dalam kajian ini, penyediaan sampel pasir dilakukan menggunakan Mobile Pluviator yang direka khas bagi mencapai ketumpatan relatif antara 10% ke 98%. Satu siri yang terdiri dari 18 konfigurasi berbeza cerucuk berkumpulan dalam pasir yang longgar dan padat dikaji untuk menilai kesan interaksi dalam cerucuk berkumpulan. Faktor pendarab p-y untuk cerucuk-cerucuk di dalam kumpulan dikenalpasti berdasarkan agihan beban antara cerucuk berkumpulan berkenaan. Keputusan dari konfigurasi yang berbeza menunjukkan bahawa beban mengufuk muktamad meningkat sebanyak 53% dalam peningkatan jarak pusat-ke-pusat cerucuk dari 3D kepada 6D (D=garispusat cerucuk) disebabkan oleh pengurangan kesan interaksi cerucuk berkumpulan yang meningkatkan keberkesanan cerucuk berkumpulan berkenaan. Nisbah s/D melebihi 6D adalah cukup besar untuk menyingkirkan kesan-kesan cerucuk berkumpulan. Lengkungan p-y baru yang dihasilkan mempamerkan nilai pekali kekukuhan awal yang lebih rendah berbanding lengkungan-lengkungan p-y daripada penyelidik-penyelidik terdahulu. Lengkungan p-y yang lama dan baru menghasilkan nilai pesongan dan pecutan seismik yang sama tempohnya bagi sesebuah struktur. Lengkungan p-y yang baru walaubagaimana pun mampu menghasilkan sifat seismik yang lebih tepat dibawah gegaran yang kuat berbanding lengkungan p-y yang lama kerana mampu mengambil kira rintangan sisi muktamad yang lebih tinggi.

vii

TABLES OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE

PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES xx

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Research 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study 6

1.4 Scope of the Study 6

1.5 Significance of the Study 7

1.6 Organization of Thesis 8

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Analytical Methods of Soil Pile Interaction 10

2.2.1 BNWF Method 11

2.2.2 Pile Group Effect 26

2.2.3 Previous Analytical Methods of Soil Pile Interaction 33

viii

2.2.4 Free-Field Site Response Analysis 39

2.2.5 Definition of Earthquake 42

2.2.6 SPI in the Superstructures using the BNWF Method 44

2.3 Experimental Methods of Soil Pile Interaction 51

2.3.1 Experimental Tests on Pile under Lateral Loading 52

2.4 Review of Sand Samples’ Preparation 60

2.5 Summary 64

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 65

3.1 Introduction 65

3.2 Research Instruments 66

3.2.1 Experimental Modeling 69

3.2.2 New p-y Curves 75

3.2.3 Numerical Modeling 76

3.3 Data Analyses 78

4 SAND SAMPLES’ PREPARATION USING MOBILE

PLUVIATOR 80

4.1 Introduction 80

4.2 Mobile Pluviator Apparatus 81

4.3 Sand Properties and Testing Procedure 84

4.4 Results of the Tests Conducted 86

4.5 Summary 93

5 PILE SPACING EFFECTS UNDER LATERAL LOADING 94

5.1 Introduction 94

5.2 Test Equipment 95

5.2.1 Soil Tank 96

5.2.2 Soil Properties 97

5.2.3 Instrumentation and Lateral Loading Device 99

5.2.4 Pile and Pile Cap 102

5.3 Soil Sample Preparation 104

5.4 Test Procedure 105

5.5 Results and Discussion 108

5.6 Ultimate Lateral Resistance 114

ix

5.7 Group Efficiency 116

5.8 Summary 120

6 DEVELOPMENT OF p-y CURVES OF LATERALLY LOADED

PILES 121

6.1 Introduction 121

6.2 Experimental Work 121

6.3 Model Pile and Instrumentation 122

6.4 Test Procedure 126

6.5 Results and Discussion 127

6.6 Development new p-y Curve 134

6.7 Comparisons with Existing p-y curves 140

6.8 p-multipliers Factor 143

6.9 Summary 146

7 NUMERICAL MODELING OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF

SUPERSTRUCTURE USING NEW p-y CURVES 147


7.2 Model Description 147

7.3 Pile and Soil Stiffness Modeling 150

7.4 Acceleration time histories at Nodes Level 154

7.5 Results of Analysis 157

7.6 Summary 175

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 176


8.2 Conclusions 176

8.3 Recommendations for Future Research 179

REFERENCES 180 Appendices A-C 189-207

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO.

TITLE PAGE

2.1 Criteria for Pile Behavior 14 2.2 Active Length under Dynamic Loading for

Preliminary Estimations (after Dobry and Gazetas, 1984)

14 2.3 Pile Cross Section Shape Factor (after Dobry and

Gazetas, 1984)

14 2.4 Typical values of ε50 17 2.5 Representative Values for Clays 17 2.6 Summary of procedure in Sand Curves

(after Reese et al., 1974)

19 2.7 Summary of procedure in developing c-φ Soils 22 2.8 Experimental Values of β to the average Shear Strain 26 2.9 Summary of the full scale Pile Group tests and the

back calculated p-multipliers (after Rollins et al. 2006b)

30 2.10 Full scale test performed by Rollins et al. (2006a) 31 3.1 The tests performed on Group Piles 71 3.2 The tests performed in Single Pile 74 4.1 Properties of the three types of testes soils 86 5.1 Ultimate Lateral Load in Experimental Tests 115 6.1 Gauge constants obtained from the tests 126 6.2 P-multipliers in Model Groups 144 7.1 Peak Acceleration in the based fixed structure 159 7.2 Peak Displacement of the structure 162

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO.

TITLE PAGE

1.1 Collapse Twenty nine mile River Bridge supported on Timber piles in the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake

3

1.2 Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Coefficient for Base Shear

4

1.3 Comparison of 1985 Mexico City Earthquake SCT Response Spectra with NEHRP (1997) Code Recommendations

5 1.4 Free Field Response Analysis 5 2.1 BNWF method in soil-pile interaction 12 2.2 Uncoupled and coupled methods

(after Abghari and Chai, 1995)

13 2.3 Contrast of Flexible and Rigid behavior of Pile; (a)

Rigid (b) Flexible (after Kulhawy and Chen,1995)

13 2.4 Definition of p-y curve concept 15 2.5 Characteristic shape of p-y curves in soft clay,(a) static

loading; (b)cyclic Loading (after Matlock, 1970)

16 2.6 Characteristic shape of p-y curves in stiff clay (a)

Static loading; (b) cyclic loading (after Reese et al., 1975)

18 2.7 Characteristic shape of p-y curve in sand

(after Reese et al., 1974)

19 2.8 Values of coefficients Ās , Āc, Bs and Bc , 20 2.9 Coefficients used in the API sand curves

(Ins. API, 1987)

21 2.10 Characteristic shape of the p-y curves for c- φ soils

(after Reese et al.,1974)

21 2.11 1-d and 2-d radiation damping models

(after Gazetas and Dobry, 1984)

24 2.12 Shadowing phenomenon in the pile group

(after Walsh,2005)

27 2.13 Pile group unit transfer method

(after Bogard and Matlock,1983)

28 2.14 Load-deflection curves for single pile and group

(after Brown et al., 1987)

29 2.15 Concept of p-multiplier (after Brown et al., 1988) 30 2.16 Terms used in pile group arrangements

(after Mokwa, 1999)

32

xii

2.17 Proposed p-multiplier design curves (after Mokwa, 1999)

32

2.18 Soil-pile-superstructure model in SPASM8 (after Matlock et al. 1979)

34

2.19 Hysteretic Backbone Curve and Analytical Model (after Kagawa and Kraft,1981)

35

2.20 Novak’s Soil-Pile Model in Layered Medium (after Novak and Sheta, 1982)

36

2.21 Nogami Model for SPI (after Nogami and Konagai, 1988)

37

2.22 Elements of the proposed model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of lateral response of piles (after El Naggar and Novak, 1996)

38 2.23 Thavaraj model 39 2.24 Iterative Procedure for the ELM 40 2.25 γeff and γmax in the ELM 41 2.26 Uncoupled method for the soil-pile-bridge interaction

(after Abghari and Chai, 1995)

45 2.27 Modified Penzien-type model

(after Sun and Goto, 2001)

46 2.28 Schematic of Model Developed

(after Sun and Zhang, 2004)

47 2.29 Penzien J model (after Xiao et al. 2010) 48 2.30 Schematic of BNWF model and Layered soil

(after Soneji and Jangid,2008)

49 2.31 The model used in the single-column bent on pile

(after Gerolymos et al., 2009)

50 2.32 Overall structural system of a pile foundation

(after Earthquake Resistance Design Codes in Japan, 2000)

51 2.33 Side view of load test setup(after Kim et al., 2004) 53 2.34 Outline of the experimental device (after Sun and

Zhang, 2004)

54 2.35 Schematic Drawing for Static Fixed head Test

(after Kim and Yoon, 2011)

55 2.36 Side view of layout for dynamic loading

(after Yang et al., 2011)

56 2.37 Cross Section of layout of system

(after Chau et al., 2009)

57 2.38 Schematic Drawing for Static Fixed-head Test

(after Murono et al., 2011)

58 2.39 Three type of traveling sand spreader

(after Walker and Whitaker, 1967; Chapman, 1974; Jacobsen, 1976)

63 3.1 Flow Chart of Experimental Tests 67 3.2 Flow Chart of Numerical Modeling 68 3.3 Model Pile 71 3.4 Pluviator Apparatus for the Sand Sample Preparation 73

xiii

3.5 Holes patterns of the shutter plate 73 3.6 Schematic view for Single Pile 74 3.7 Terms used in pile group arrangements 76 3.8 Proposed model for the soil-pile-superstructure

interaction

77 4.1 Mobile Pluviator System; a) Mobile Pluviator b):

Shutter Plates

84 4.2 Grain Size Distribution Curves of the three Soils used

in this study

85 4.3 H distance versus Relative Density;(a) Soil A; (b) Soil

B; (c) Soil C

88 4.4 H distance versus Relative Density at different holes’

patterns

89 4.5 Porosity versus Relative Density; (a) Soil A; (b) Soil

B; (c) Soil C

90 4.6 Relative Density versus F distance at different

porosities; (a) Soil B; (b) Soil C

91 4.7 Shutter Porosity distance versus Relative Density

(Effect of Varying F on H); (a) Soil A; (b) Soil B; (c) Soil C

92 5.1 Photographs of whole of Test System 96 5.2 Photographs of Soil Tank 97 5.3 Gradation Curve of the Johor Bahru Sand 98 5.4 Direct Shear Test results; (a) Dr 30%, (b) Dr 75% 99 5.5 Side View of lateral loading device 100 5.6 Set up LVDTs in Lateral Load direction 100 5.7 Set up Load Cell in lateral loading device 101 5.8 Strain Gauge and Coating 101 5.9 Model Pile and Pile Cap; (a) Model Pile; (b) Piles

Fixed to cap

103 5.10 Model Pile instrumented in group 103 5.11 Gradation Curve of the Johor Bahru Sand 104 5.12 The two shutter plates used for Dr=30% and 75% 105 5.13 Typical Test Procedure in 3x3 Pile Group 113 5.14 Pile Group Configurations and Pile Spacing Ratio 107 5.15 Lateral load VS Deflection Diagram for Single Pile 109 5.16 Lateral load VS Deflection Diagram for T3433 109 5.17 Lateral load VS Lateral Deflection (3x3 Pile Group;

s/d=6; SP=single pile)

110 5.18 Lateral load VS Lateral Deflection (3x3 Pile Group;

s/d=3;SP=single pile)

110 5.19 Lateral load VS Lateral Deflection (2x2 Pile Group;

s/d=6; SP=single pile)

111 5.20 Lateral load VS Lateral Deflection for three-Piles

in series layout; (a) Dr=75% (b) = Dr=30%

112

xiv

5.21 Lateral load VS Lateral Deflection for three Piles in Parallel layout; (a) Dr=75% (b) = Dr=30%

113

5.22 Ultimate lateral load VS Pile Spacing; (a) Dr=75% (b) Dr=30%

116

5.23 Comparison of Group Efficiencies 118 5.24 Group Efficiency VS Spacing Ratio of Piles;

(a) Dr=75% (b) Dr=30%

119 5.25 Group Efficiency VS Number Piles;

(a) Dr=75% (b) Dr=30%

119 6.1 Experimental Set up for Single Pile; (a) Schematic

view (b) Photograph

122 6.2 Pile Roughed using Fine Sand 123 6.3 LVDTs set up on Pile Cap 124 6.4 Schematic and Photograph of Pile Calibration 125 6.5 Relationship between Strain and Moment Fitted

Straight Line

125 6.6 Pile and Pile cap set up in Soil Box; (a) Pile located in

Soil Box; (b) Soil Box filled before the Test

127 6.7 (a) Bending Moment versus Depth Test 44;

(b) Deflection versus Depth Test 44







130 6.11 Values of Bending Moment versus Depth under

Lateral Load; (a) 29.34 N;(b) 39.43N

132 6.12 Max. Bending Moment versus Lateral Load;

(a) Dr=30%; (b) Dr=75%

133 6.13 Deflection at Ground Surface versus Lateral Load;

(a) Dr=30% (b) Dr=75%

134 6.14 Typical fitted and Experimental load-deflection

curves (T44) in different Depth for Johor Bahru Sand; Note: (OB: Observed Data; Eq.: Fitted Curves)


curves (T45) in different Depth for Johor Bahru Sand; Note: (OB: Observed Data; Eq.: Fitted Curves)


curves (T47) in different Depths for Johor Bahru Sand; Note: (OB: Observed Data; Eq.: Fitted Curves)


curves (T48) in different Depths for Johor Bahru Sand; Note: (OB: Observed Data; Eq.: Fitted Curves)

138 6.18 Experimental p-y Curves of smooth and rough piles at

different Depths for Johor Bahru Sand; (a) Dr=75% (b) Dr=30%

139

xv

6.19 Experimental p-y Curves in different relative densities with different Depths for Johor Bahru Sand; (a) Smooth (b) Rough

140 6.20 Comparison of p-y curves obtained with previous

studies at the depth of 6D

142 6.21 New and Existing of Soil-Pile Reactions for Johor

Sand at a strain of 5% (y/D)

143 6.22 p-y curve for T3032/3(3x3-group pile) and T44

(single pile) in Dr =75% using p-multiplier

145 6.23 p-y curve for T4240 (3x1-group pile) and T45

(single pile) in Dr =30% using p-multiplier

145 7.1 General view of BNWF method 148 7.2 Modeling of Soil-Pile-Structure using Mechanical

Elements in ANSYS

149 7.3 3x3 pile group changed to 3x1 piles 150 7.4 Acceleration time histories selected as input motions;

(a) EQ.1; (b) EQ.2; (c) EQ.3

151 7.5 Perspective view of Pile Group modeled 152 7.6 Shear Modules versus Depth; (a) Loose Sand (b)

Dense Sand

153 7.7 Acceleration time histories at Ground Surface in Loose

Sand Deposit: (a) EQ.1 (b) EQ.2 (c) EQ.3

155 7.8 Acceleration time histories at Ground Surface in Dense

Sand Deposit: (a) EQ.1 (b) EQ.2 (c) EQ.3

156 7.9 Deformed shape of Structure Base Fixed in Domain

Mode

157 7.10 Deformed shape of Structure with Soil and Pile in

Domain Mode

158 7.11 Displacement time histories at Structure Based Fixed

Input Motions Directly Entered; (a) EQ.1, (b) EQ.2, (c) EQ.3

160 7.12 Acceleration time histories at Structure Based Fixed

Input Motions Directly Entered; (a) EQ.1, (b) EQ.2, (c) EQ.3

161 7.13 Displacement time histories at structure based on

Loose Sand Input Motions free field analysis; (a) EQ.1, (b) EQ.2, (c) EQ.3

163 7.14 Acceleration time histories at structure based on Loose

Sand Input Motions free field analysis; (a) EQ.1, (b) EQ.2, (c) EQ.3

164 7.15 Acceleration and Displacement time histories structure

under EQ.1; p-y curve calculated by API


under EQ.1; p-y curve calculated by AUTHOR


under EQ.2; p-y curve calculated by API


under EQ.2; p-y curve calculated by AUTHOR

170

xvi

7.19 Acceleration and Displacement time histories structure under EQ.3; p-y curve calculated by API

171

7.20 Acceleration and Displacement time histories structure under EQ.3; p-y curve calculated by AUTHOR

172

7.21 Maximum Displacements versus Depth along Pile 174 7.22 Maximum Bending Moment versus Depth along Pile

in EQ.1

174

xvii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Vs - Shear wave velocity

Gmax - Maximum shear modulus

γd max - Maximum dry unit weight

γd min - Minimum dry unit weight

Pu - Ultimate lateral resistance

p - Soil-pile reaction

y - Pile deflection

SPI - Soil pile interaction

BNWF - Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation

la - Active length

Es - Young’s modulus of soil

Ep - Young’s modulus of pile

D - Pile diameter

yc - One-half the ultimate soil resistance

ε50 - Strain for 50% of the ultimate stress

Cu - Undrained shear strength

USCS - Unified Soil Classification System

z - depth

ν - Poisson’s ratio

Ke - Initial elastic stiffness

φ - Friction angle

σp - Passive earth pressure

Cr - Radiation damping coefficient

Vs - S-wave

Vp - P-wave

ρs - Density of soil

Vla - Lysmer’s wave velocity

LVDT - Linear Variable Differential Transducers

xviii

a0 - Dimensionless frequency factor

Cm - Material damping

ζ - Material damping ratio

fm - p-multiplier factor

ω - Frequency of loading

ELM - Equivalent linear method

NLM - Nonlinear method

γeff - Effective shear strain

e - Void ratio

γmax - Maximum shear strain

σ0 - Principal effective stress

f-f - Free-Field

FEM - Finite element method

BEM - Boundary element method

EI - Flexural rigidity

D50 - Mean size of soil particles

S - Distance between hopper and diffuser system

H - Distance between diffuser system and sand surface

Hcrit - Critical falling height

M(z) - Bending moment curve

kini - Initial stiffness

Pi - Number of shutter plate

Dr - Relative density of soil

Cu - Uniformity coefficient

SR - Spacing ratio

η - Group efficiency

QLG - Ultimate lateral capacity of pile group

QLS - Ultimate lateral capacity of single pile

λ - Gauge constant

M - Moment

ε - Strain

kp - Passive earth pressure

xix

API - American Petroleum Institute

EQ1 - Earthquake number 1



f - Fundamental frequency

I - Inertia moment

PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration

xx

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

TITLE PAGE

A Data obtained from Mobile Pluviator 189 B Data obtained from calibration of the strain gauges 197 C Data obtained from the single pile 200

CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Many great cities are built on flat lands containing a thick layer of sediment

such as basins, river, deltas or valleys. Superstructures such as tall buildings,

important structures and bridges sometimes in these cities are founded on fluvial and

alluvial soil deposits that are weak and/or inherently soft (Chau et al., 2009). For this

reason, the superstructures are supported by deep foundations to transfer dead and

dynamic loads through shallow deposits of loose soils to deeper and denser soils

which have enough strength without excessive ground settlements. Therefore, the

evaluation of the superstructure’s behavior subjected to lateral loads is known as a

key concern for the designers. Obviously, the superstructure behavior supported by

pile and rigid foundations differs because of the soil-pile-superstructure interaction

(Finn . et al., 2011).

Piles transfer vertical and horizontal forces. On the type of superstructure

supported by piles, there are different causes of lateral loads. For examples, wind

gusts are common causes of lateral load for transmission towers and tall buildings. In

these structures, the lateral loads are known as the primary cause. In cases of bridge

piers, the horizontal forces are due to wind movement and traffic. Seismic motions

are the most important lateral loads since pile damages have demonstrated during

earthquake.

2

The mechanism’s load transfer vertically and horizontally is necessary for

design. In the transfer of lateral loads, pile behaves as a loaded beam in a transverse

manner. In such conditions, a part of pile moves horizontally in the load direction.

The soil in front of the pile resists against the pile’s press so as strain and stress are

developed in soil and consequently the Soil-Pile Interaction (SPI) occurs. Therefore ,

the Soil-Pile Interaction (SPI) plays a very important role in the superstructure’s

behavior subjected to lateral excitations because in most studies on superstructure,

the foundation is assumed as rigid (embedded in solid rock) while it is supported by

piles foundations. Consequently, the mechanism of SPI for the pile damages need to

be further examined (Tseng and Penzien, 2003).

As mentioned above, the seismic motions are the most important lateral load

in the SPI. Earthquake waves propagate through the soil deposit and affect the pile

foundations and structures resting on the ground surface. The effects of soil-

superstructure interaction and local soil conditions on the pile’s motion have been

observed during the major earthquakes (Figure 1.1). The strong earthquakes have

demonstrated the role of soil-structure interaction on the piles. Observations of the

major earthquake of Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 are other learning options. The

piles’ Cypress Freeway were founded in stiff to the soft soils. The local soil

conditions were the main reason for the failure mechanisms. The San Francisco

Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed due to structural failure. The spectral accelerations

were amplified four times and damaged the structures and foundations (Housner,

1989).

3

Figure 1.1 Collapse Twenty nine mile River Bridge supported on Timber Piles

in the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake (after Meymand,1998)

The behavior of the structure under dynamic loads depends on the interaction

between the structure, pile foundations and local soil. The effects of this interaction

were highlighted in the early 1960s where the foundations of equipment were

designed. The influence of soil-structure interaction can be more significant when the

structure is supported by pile foundations in sand with different densities. So that, the

modern structure codes consider the dynamic soil and structure interaction in the

structure supported by pile foundations in cohesionless soils. Therefore, the effects of

different relative densities and soil-pile interaction are important in complete

understanding of the seismic behavior in sandy conditions. Briefly, much is yet to be

learned analytically on the subject before having a complete important insight of the

parameters in SPI problems.

1.2 Statement of the Research

The importance of SPI can be demonstrated through the observations of

damages in the structures owing to partial or complete collapse under lateral loads.

4

Generally, it is common to ignore the SPI effects for simplifying design of

structures due to a series of reasons. For example, flexibility pile is considered as a

conservative design assumption because the period of structure is lengthened and the

structural forces decrease in comparison with a fixed base case (Figure 1.2).

Although this assumption may be correct in some cases, in 1985 Mexico City

earthquake, the acceleration values were higher than the spectral values related to

some building codes at the high periods (NEHRP, 1997b) (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.2 Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Coefficient for Base Shear

(after Fenves et al.,1992)

It is somewhat more common that the free field response is predicted on the

ground surface and these predicted motions are applied to the fixed base of the

structure (Figure 1.4). In fact, the soil’s response to foundation or the foundation’s

response of soil is not taken into account. Although recently building and bridge

codes, state that the soil-pile-structure interaction shall be considered in design, it

requires a substantial amount of expertise in idealizing the actual system.

5

Figure 1.3 Comparison of 1985 Mexico City Earthquake SCT Response Spectra

with NEHRP (1997) Code Recommendations

Figure 1.4 Free Field Site Response Analyses

The pile movement under axial load is simply because it moves downward.

Base and shaft resistances increase the limit values so that the pile suffers excessive

vertical deflection. On the other hand, piles under lateral loads may bend or rotate. In

addition, the rigid and flexible pile behavior is different owing to the applied load.

Therefore, the flexible pile subjected to lateral load is more complex. Unfortunately,

there is a lack of well-documented soil-pile interaction case histories during the

earthquakes in cohesionless soil(Finn, 2005). For fulfillment of this goal, it is

6

essential to carry out the soil-pile interaction in cohesionless soil with different

relative densities.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

With this background and statement, the main goals are to understand the

effects of sand densities on the seismic behavior of the structure supported by pile

foundations. The main objectives of this study are as follows:

To develop the physical model of the soil-pile interaction in sand with

different relative densities using Mobile Pluviator.

To investigate the effects of piles’ spacing on the pile-soil-pile interaction.

To establish new static p-y curves from the physical model in sandy soil.

1.4 Scope of the Study

The majority of the piles that have been damaged during the lateral loads

such as earthquake and wind were due to the soil-pile-structure interaction (SPSI).

However, the number of the investigations about SPSI is few and they are mostly

focused on the liquefaction problems. The reported herein attempts to develop new

load-deflection relationship for single pile. A series of different configurations of

piles were performed to evaluate the single and grouped pile behavior at two

different relative densities. The tests were conducted in dried sand with loose and

dense densities. Flexible pile behavior was considered in this study. The preinstalled

piles were subjected to statically lateral loads applied at the level of the ground

model. The new soil-pile reaction against deflection curves (known as p-y curve)

were developed for single pile in the two relative densities of sand in Johor Bahru.

Due to the lack of shaking table in a physical model of soil-pile-structure interaction

subjected to dynamic loads, the interaction was modeled in numerical analysis under

7

the seismic motions. Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) was used to

model the soil-pile-structure interaction and the seismic behavior of the

superstructure was estimated based on new and existing p-y curve. The acceleration

and displacement time histories of the structure were considered in numerical

analysis for the evaluation of the structure’s behavior. In this thesis:

To model the soil-pile interaction a new model of BNWF method was simulated

by ANSYS code.

To spread out the experimental data, a series of the static tests were performed in

the laboratory scale.

Model piles were scaled with the Penang Second Crossing’ piles.

Sandy soil properties from Johor Bahru. were used for the numerical part and the

laboratory tests.

To develop the new p-y curve, the two relative densities of sandy soil (loose and

dense) were considered.

The sand samples were prepared using pluviation method by new designed

mobile pluviator.

The three seismic motions were selected as input motion from Sumatra Island

and Kobe-Japan.

The new p-y curves were verified by API curves in the numerical model.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Significant damages of the piles due to partial or complete collapse of piers

have been observed. A large number of the pile foundations have been found to be

damaged and failed under lateral loads such as wind and seismic motions. The

following benefits from the study may be included:

A more realistic design with SPI considering, may reduce damages of structure

thus can reduce cost.

This study evaluates the effect of density changes on the SPI.

8

This study provides the alternative methods to develop the SPI by other

researchers.

1.6 Organization of Thesis

The thesis is organized into 8 chapters. The first chapter presents a brief

background on the soil-pile interaction and the necessity to understand the

mechanisms associated with this process. In additional, the Chapter 1 provides a

description of the problem, scope and layout of this dissertation.

Chapter 2 consists of a comprehensive survey of soil-pile interaction and the

effects of this interaction on the seismic behavior of the superstructure. It provides a

review on Beam Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) method and the effects of

pile spacing on the pile group behavior. In addition, the existing methods the sand

sample’s preparation is presented in Chapter 2. The research methodology, theory

and application of the proposed data are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.Chapter 4

describes the used method to prepare the sand sample using the new apparatus in this

research. The method is suitable to prepare the samples in large area. In Chapter 5,

the behavior of single pile and grouped are described. The different parameters such

as the sand density and the different configurations of piles in group are discussed.

Chapter 6 describes the behavior of single pile under the lateral loading. The new p-y

curve are developed to evaluate the seismic behavior of the structure. Chapter 7

presents the numerical analysis of the SPI using a finite element method. The

structure behavior is evaluated by using the new p-y curve and the existing curves.

Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the experimental and numerical findings and make

recommendations for future research.

180

REFERENCES

Abghari, A., & Chai, J. (1995). “Modeling of Soil-Pile -Superstructure Interaction for Bridge Foundations. In: Loading, P.o.D.F.U.S. (Ed.), Geotech. Spec. pp. 45-49.

ANSYS (2009). User's Manual. Ashford, S. C., & Juirnarongrit, T. (2003). Evaluation of pile diameter effect on

initial modulus of subgrade reaction. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 129 (3), 234-242.

Badoni, D., & Makris, N. (1996). Nonlinear response of single piles under lateral inertial and seismic loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 15 (1), 29-43.

Bardet, J. P., Ichii, K., & Lin, C. H. (2000). EERA-a computer program for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits. University of Southern California.

Bentley, K. J., & El Naggar, M. H. (2000). Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37 (6), 1368-1382.

Berger, E., Mahin, S. A., & Pyke, R. (1977). Simplified method for evaluating soil–pile–structure interaction effects. In Proceedings of the 9th Offshore Technology Conference 589-598. Houston, Texas.

Bieganousky, W. A., & Marcuson, W. F. (1976). Uniform Placement of Sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 102 (GT3), 229-233.

Bierschwale, M., Coyle, H., & Bartowkewitz, R. (1981). Lateral load tests on drilled shafts founded in clay. In: ASCE, D.P.C. (Ed.). pp. 98-113.

Bogard, D., & Matlock, H. (1983). Procedures for the Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft Clay. Proc. Conf. Geotech. Practice in Offshore Eng. 499-535. Austin.

Boulanger, R. W., Curras, C. J., Kutter, B. L., Wilson, D. W., & Abghari, A. (1999). Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125 (9), 750-759.

Broms, B. (1964a). Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils. soil Mechanics and Foundation Div 90 (3), 27-63.

Brown, D. A., O'Nill, M. W., Hoit, M., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H., & Chakraborty, S. (2001). Static and Dynamic Lateral Loaidng of pile groups. National Cooperative Highway Reasearch Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.

Brown, D. A., Reese, L. C., & O'Neill, M. W. (1987). CYCLIC LATERAL LOADING OF A LARGE-SCALE PILE GROUP. Journal of geotechnical engineering 113 (11), 1326-1343.

181

Budek, A. M., Priestley, M. J. N., & Benzoni, G. (2000). Inelastic seismic response of bridge drilled-shaft RC pile/columns. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (5), 510-517.

Castelli, F., & Maugeri, M. (2009). Simplified approach for the seismic response of a pile foundation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135 (10), 1440-1451.

Chaemmangkang, P. (2001). Behavior of Batter Piles in Sand. PhD Thesis.: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Chai, Y. H. (2002). Flexural strength and ductility of extended pile-shafts. I: analytical model. Structure Eng. 128 (5), 586-594.

Chapman, G. A. (1974). A Calibration Chamber for Field Test Equipment. The First European Symposium on Pentration Testing 116-130. Blackburg,Virigina.

Chau, K. T., Shen, C. Y., & Guo, X. (2009). Nonlinear seismic soil-pile-structure interaction:Shaking table tests and FEM analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2), 300-310.

Chen, H. T., Lee, C. J., & H.W., C. (1998). The traveling pluviation apparatus for sand specimen preparation. Centrifuge98 143-148.

Davies, T., & Budhu, M. (1986). Nonlinear Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Heavily Overconsolidated Clay. Geotechnique 36 (4), 527-538.

Della, N., Arab, A., Belkhatir, M., Missoum, H., Bacconnet, C., & Boissier, D. (2010). Effetc of The Structure On The Behavior Of Chelf Sand. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENIA 2, 5-15.

Dobry, R., & Gazetas, G. (1984). Dynamic stiffness and damping of foundations by simple methods. Vibration problems in geotechnical engineering. ASCE, New York. pp. 77-107.

Dobry, R., O'Rourke, M. J., Roesset, J. M., & Vicente, E. (1982). Horizontal Stiffness and Damping of Single Piles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 108 (GT3), 439-459.

Dunnavant, T. W., & O’Neill, M. W. (1985). Performance analysis and interpretation of a lateral load test of a 72-inch-diameter bored pile in overconsolidated clay.

Eid, W. K. (1987). Scaling Effect in Cone Penetration Testing in Sand. PhD Thesis.: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

El Naggar, M. H., & Bentley, K. J. (2000). Dynamic analysis for laterally loaded piles and dynamic p-y curves. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37 (6), 1166-1183.

El Naggar, M. H., & Novak, M. (1994). Nonlinear axial interaction in pile dynamics. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering - ASCE 120 (4), 678-696.

El Naggar, M. H., & Novak, M. (1995). Nonlinear lateral interaction in pile dynamics. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 14 (2), 141-157.

El Naggar, M. H., & Novak, M. (1996). Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 15 (4), 233-244.

El Naggar, M. H., Shayanfar, M. A., Kimiaei, M., & Aghakouchak, A. A. (2005). Simplified BNWF model for nonlinear seismic response analysis of offshore piles with nonlinear input ground motion analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42 (2), 365-380.

182

El Sharnouby, B., & Novak, M. (1990). Stiffness constants and interaction factors for vertical response of pile groups. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27 (6), 813-822.

EN (2005). 1998-5 Design of structures for earthquake resistance: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, Belgium.

Erdal, U., & Laman, M. (2011). LATERAL RESISTANCE OF A SHORT RIGID PILE IN A TWO-LAYER COHESIONLESS SOIL. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENIA 2, 19-43.

Finn L., W. D., Pandey, H. B., & Ventura, C. E. (2011). Modeling soil-foundation-structure interaction. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS. Wiley online Liberary. pp. 47-62.

Finn, L. W. D. (2005). A Study of Piles during Earthquakes: Issues of Design and Analysis. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. springer. pp. 141-234.

Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., & Elson, W. K. (1992). Piling Engineering. Surrey University Press, London.

Focht, J. A., Jr., & Koch, K. J. (1973). Rational analysis of the lateral performance of offshore pile groups. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Offshore Technology Conference. Dallas.

Folica, B., & Folica, R. (2009). ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC INTERACTIONS SOIL-FOUNDATION–BRIDGE TRUCTURES FOR DIFFERENT FOUNDATIONS. In: Security, N.S.f.P.a.S.S.C.E. (Ed.), Coupled Site and Soil-Structure Interaction Effects with Application to Seismic Risk Mitigation. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009.

Franke.E. (1988). Group action between vertical piles under horizontal loads. Deep foundations on bored and auger piles 83-93. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Gandhi, S., & Selvam, S. (1997). Group Effect on Driven Piles under Lateral Load. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (8), 702-709.

Gazetas, G., & Dobry, R. (1984). Horizontal Response of Piles in Layered Soils. Journal of geotechnical engineering 110 (1), 20-40.

Gerolymos, N., Drosos, V., & Gazetas, G. (2009). Seismic response of single-column bent on pile: Evidence of beneficial role of pile and soil inelasticity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 7 (2), 547-573.

Gerolymos, N., & Gazetas, G. (2005). Phenomenological model applied to inelastic response of soil-pile interaction systems. Soils and Foundations 45 (4), 119-132.

Gohl, W. B. (1991). Response of Pile Foundations to Simulated Earthquake Loading: Experimental and Analytical Results. PhD Thesis.: University of British Columbia.

Hardin, B. O., & BLack, W. l. (1968). Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay. SOIL Mechanics and Foundation Div. 94 (SM2), 353-369.

Housner, G. W. (1989). Competing against time. Governer Deumejian of California, Governer's Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthqauke.

Huangfu, F.-M., Wang, Y.-Q., & Zhang, J. (2003). Behavior of pile under combined axial and lateral loading. Harbin Institute Technilogy 35 (6), 743-746.

183

Iai, S. (1989). Similitude for Shaking Table Tests on Soil-Structure-Fluid Model in 1g Gravitational Field. Soils and Foundations 29 (1), 105-118.

Idriss, I., & Sun, J. (1992). User’s Manual for SHAKE 91. Idriss, I. M., & Seed, H. B. (1968). Seismic response of horizontal soil layers.

SOIL Mechanics and Foundation Div. 94 (sm4), 1003-1031. Ins.API, A. p. (1987). Recommended practice for planning, designing, and

constructing fixed offshore platforms. In: Practice, A.R. (Ed.). Jacobsen, M. (1976). On Pluvial Compaction of Sand. In: Fundering, L.f. (Ed.).

Unversity of Alborg,Danmark. JSCE (2000). Dynamic Analysis and Earthquake Resistant Design: Methods of

Dynamic Analysis. Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Balkema, Rotterdam. p. 304.

Kagawa, T., & Kraft Jr, L. M. (1980). Lateral Load-Deflection Relationships of Piles Subjected to Dynamic Loadings. Soils and Foundations 20 (4), 19-36.

Kagawa, T., & Kraft, L. (1981). Lateral Pile Response During Earthquakes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 107 (12), 1713-1731.

Karmer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Jersey. pp. 230-240.

Kaynia, A. M., & Kausel, E. (1982). Dynamic behaviour of pile groups. Second International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling.

Kildalen, S., & Stenhamar, P. (1977). Internal Report NGI Laboratory Sand Rainer. In: 51505-15 (Ed.). Norwegian Geotechnical, Olso-Norway. p. 20.

Kim, B. T., & Yoon, G. L. (2011). Laboratory Modeling of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Sand. CIVIL ENGineering 15 (1), 65-75.

Kimiaei, M., El Naggar, M. H., Shayanfar, M. A., & Aghakouchak, A. A. (2004). Non linear seismic pile soil structure interaction analysis of piles in offshore platforms. Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE 9-16. Vancouver, BC.

Kuerbis, R., & Vaid, Y. P. (1988). Sand Sample Preparation-The Slurry Deposition Method. Soils and Foundations 28 (4), 107-118.

Kulhawy, F., & Chen, Y. (1995). A Thirty Year Perspective of Broms’ Lateral Loading Models, as Applied to Drilled Shafts. Proc. Bengt Broms Symposium in Geotech. Eng 225-240. Singapore.

Kuwabara, F. (1991). Settlement behavior of non-linear soil around single piles subjected to vertical loads. Soil Foundation 31 (1), 39-46.

Lam, I., & Chang, L. (1995). Dynamic Soil-Pile Interaction Behavior in Submerged Sands. Earthquake-Induced Movements and Seismic Remediation of Existing Foundations and Abutments. pp. 110-135.

Lam, P., & Kapuskar, M. (1998). Modeling of Pile Footings for Seismic Design. In: (NCEER), T.R.N.C.f.E.E.R. (Ed.). pp. 110-136.

Lee, M., & Finn, W. (1978). DESRA-2: Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential. In: 38 (Ed.), Soil Mechanics.

Liu, G. (2009). VERIFICATION OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY BASED LIQUEFACTION CRITERIA USING CENTRIFUGE MODEL. PhD Thesis.: Case Western Reserve University.

184

Liyanapathirana, D. S., & Poulos, H. G. (2005a). Pseudostatic approach for seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131 (12), 1480-1487.

Liyanapathirana, D. S., & Poulos, H. G. (2005b). Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131 (12), 1466-1479.

Lok, M. H. (1999). Numerical modeling of seismic soil-pile-superstructure interaction in soft clay. PhD Thesis. United States -- California: University of California, Berkeley.

Lok, T. M., & Pestana, J. M. (1996). numerical modeling of the seismic response of single piles in a soft clay. 4th Caltrans Seismic Research workshop, Sacramento, California.

Lysmer, J., & Richart, F. E. J. (1955). Dynamic Response of Footings to Vertical Loading. Soil MEchanics and Foundation Division 92 (SM1), 65-91.

Makris, N., & Gazetas, G. (1992). Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 21 (2), 145-162.

Mandolini, A., Russo, G., & Viggiani, C. (2005). Pile foundations: Experimental investigations, analysis, and design. Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 117-213. Osaka.

Masing, G. (1926). Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung Beim Messing. Proceeding, 2nd international congress of applied mechanics. Zurich, Switzerland.

Matlock, H. (1970). Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Proc. 2nd Offshore Technology Conf. 577-594. OTC 1024,Houston.

Matlock, H., Bogard, D., & Lam, I. (1981). BMCOL 76: A Computer Program for the Analysis of Beam-Columns Under Static Axial and Lateral Loading. Earth Technology Corp.

Matlock, H., Foo, S., Tsai, C., & Lam, I. (1979). SPASM 8 - A Dynamic Beam-Column Program for Seismic Pile Analysis with Support Motion. Fugro, Inc.

McClelland, B., & Focht, J. (1958). Soil Modulus for Laterally Loaded Piles. Transactions of the ASCE 123 (2954), 1049-1086.

Meyerhof, G., Yalcin, A., & Mathur, S. (1983). Ultimate Pile Capacity for Eccentric Inclined Load. Journal of geotechnical engineering 109 (3), 408-423.

Miura, K., Kaynia, A. M., Masuda, K., Kitamura, E., & Seto, Y. (1994). Dynamic behaviour of pile foundations in homogeneous and non- homogeneous media. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23 (2), 183-192.

Miura, S., & Toki, S. (1982). A SAMPLE PREPARATION METHOD AND ITS EFFECT ON STATIC AND CYCLIC DEFORMATION-STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF SAND. Soils and Foundations 22 (1), 61-77.

Mokwa, R. L. (1999). Investigation of the Resistance of Pile Caps to Lateral Loading. PhD Thesis.: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Mostafa, Y. E., & El Naggar, M. H. (2002). Dynamic analysis of laterally loaded pile groups in sand and clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39 (6), 1358-1383.

Mostafa, Y. E., & El Naggar, M. H. (2004). Response of fixed offshore platforms to wave and current loading including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (4), 357-368.

185

Mulilis, J. P., Seed, H. B., Chan, C. K., Mitchll, J. K., & Arulanadan, K. (1977). Effetcs of sample preparation on sand liquefaction. Geotechnical Engineering Division 103 (2), 91-108.

Murono, Y., Nishioka, H., & Nogami, T. (2011). Seismic p-y Model of Pile Foundation Taking into Acount Soil-Nonlinearity. pp. 45-50.

Narasimha Rao, S., Ramakrishna, V. G. S. T., & Babu Rao, M. (1998). Influence of rigidity on laterally loaded pile groups in marine clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (6), 542-549.

NEHRP (1997). recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.

Nogami, T., & Konagai, K. (1988). TIME DOMAIN FLEXURAL RESPONSE OF DYNAMICALLY LOADED SINGLE PILES. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 114 (9), 1512-1525.

Nogami, T., Otani, J., & Chen, H. (1992). Nonlinear Soil-Pile Interaction Model for Dynamic Lateral Motion. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 118 (1), 89-106.

Novak, M. (1974). Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 11 (4), 574-598.

Novak, M. (1978). SOIL-PILE-FOUNDATION INTERACTION. v (2), 309-315.

Novak, M., & Howell, J. F. (1977). TORSIONAL VIBRATIONS OF PILE FOUNDATIONS. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 103 (4), 271-285.

Novak, M., & Sheta, M. (1980). Approximate Approach to Contact Effects of Piles. Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations, 53-79.

O’Neill, M., & Gazioglu, S. (1984). An Evaluation of P-Y Relationships in Clays. O’Neill, M., & Murchison, J. (1983). An Evaluation of P-Y Relationships in

Sands. University of Houston. Oteo, C. S. (1972). Displacements of vertical pile group subjected to lateral loads.

5TH EUR.Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. 397-405. Madrid,Spain. Ovesen, N. K. (1979). The Scaling law Realationship-Panel discussion. 7th Eur.

Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg. 319-323. Brighton,U.K. Patra, N., & Pise, P. (2001). Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Pile Groups in Sand.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (6), 481-487.

Penzien, J., Scbeffey, C. F., & Parmelee, R. A. (1964). Seismic analysis of brides on long piles. American Society of Civil Engineers 90 (3), 223-254.

Phillips, C., & Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009). Damping formulation nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 1143-1158.

PMB (1979). SPSS Phase 2, Final Report. To Shell Oil Co. Polito, C. P., & Martin II, J. R. (2003). A reconcilition of the effetcs of non-

plastic fines on the liqueifaction resistance of sand reported in literature Earthquake Spectra 19 (3), 635-651.

poulos, H. (1971). Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles: Part 2 - Group Piles. soil mechanics and Foundation Div. 97 (5), 733-751.

Poulos, H. G. (2006). Ground movements—A hidden source of loading on deep foundations. Proc., Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep Foundations 2-19. J. Lindenberg, M. Bottiau, A. F. Van Tol, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Poulos, H. G., & Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design.

186

Poulos, H. G., & Hull, T. S. (1989). Role of analytical geomechanics in foundation engineering. 1578-1606.

Prakash, S. (1962). BEHAVIOR OF PILE GROUPS SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS. PhD Thesis. United States -- Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Prakash, S., & Kumar, S. (1996). Nonlinear Lateral Pile Deflection Prediction in Sands. Journal of geotechnical engineering 122 (2), 130-138.

Rad, N. S., & Tumay, M. T. (1986). Effect of Cementation on the cone pentration resistance of sand. Use fo In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Eng. Speciality Conf., Virigina.

Randolph, M. F. (1981). Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading. Geotechnique 31 (2), 247-259.

Reese, L., Cox, W., & Koop, F. (1974). Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand. Proc. 6th Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 2080, Houston.

Reese, L., Cox, W., & Koop, F. (1975). Field Testing and Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Stiff Clay. Proc. 7th Offshore Technology Conf. 671-690. OTC 2312, Houston.

Reese, L. C. (1984). Behaviour under lateral loading of piles supporting offshore structures.

Reese, L. C., Isenhower, W. M., & Wang, S.-T. (2006). Analysis and design of shallow and deep foundations. John Wiley and Sons Institute.

Reese, L. C., Wright, S. G., & Aurora, R. P. (1984). ANALYSIS OF A PILE GROUP UNDER LATERAL LOADING. ASTM Special Technical Publication 56-71.

Rollins, K. M., Johnson, S. R., Petersen, K. T., & T.J., W. (2003a). Static and dynamic lateral load behavior of pile groups based on full-scale testing. 13th International Conference on Offshore and Polar Drilling 8.

Rollins, K. M., Olsen, K. G., Jensen, D. H., Garrett, B. H., Olsen, R. J., & Egbert, J. J. (2006a). Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (10), 1272-1283.

Rollins, K. M., Olsen, R. J., Egbert, J. J., Jensen, D. H., Olsen, K. G., & Garrett, B. H. (2006b). Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: Load tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (10), 1262-1271.

Rollins, K. M., Peterson, K. T., & Weaver, T. J. (1998). Lateral load behavior of full-scale pile group in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (6), 468-478.

Sanchez, S. I. (1982). Static and dynamic stiffness of single piles. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., & Seed, H. B. (1972). SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1970). Soil moduli and damping factors dynamic response analyses. EERC.

Sen, R., Davis, T. G., & Banerjee, P. K. (1985). Dynamic analysis of piles and pile groups embedded in homogenous soils. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 13, 53-65.

Smith, T. (1987). Pile Horizontal Soil Modulus Values. Journal of geotechnical engineering 113 (9), 1040-1044.

187

Soneji, B. B., & Jangid, R. S. (2008). Influence of soil–structure interaction on the response of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28, 245-257.

Standardisation., E. C. f. (2003). EN1998-5: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance,. Part 5: Foundations, Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects.

Stevens, J. B., & Audibert, J. M. E. (1979). Stevens, J. B. and Audibert, J. M. E. Proc. Of the XI Annual Offshore Technology Conference, 397-403. Houston,Texas.

Sun, L., & Goto, Y. (2001). NONLINEAR ANALYSIS ON INTERACTION OF SOIL-PILE FOUNDATION UNDER STRONG EARTHQUAKE.

Sun, L., & Zhang, C. (2004). IMPROVEMENT OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS TAKING ACCOUNT OF PIER-PILE-SOIL INTERACTION. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Tamori, S. I., Iiba, M., & Kitagawa, Y. (2000). DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF SOIL-PILE-BUILDING INTERACTION SYSTEM IN LARGE STRAIN LEVELS OF SOILS. 12WCEE 8.

Tang, L., Ling, X., Xu, P., Gao, X., & Wu, L. (2009). Case Studies for Shaking Table Tests on Seismic Soil-Pile Group-Bridge Structure Interaction in Liquefiable Ground. ICCTIP2009:Critical Issues in Transportation Systems Planning, Development, and anagement 934-941.

Taylor, T. A. (1988). Centrifuge modeling of projectile penetration in granular soils PhD Thesis.: Washengton State

Thavaraj, T. (2000). Seismic analysis of pile foundations for bridges. PhD Thesis. Canada: The University of British Columbia (Canada).

Tseng, W.-S., & Penzien, J. (2003). Bridge Engineering Handbook. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Vaid, Y. P., & Negussey, D. (1984). Relatively Density of Pluviated Sand Samples. Soils and Foundations 24 (2), 101-105.

Vipulanandan, C., Wong, D., Ochoa, M., & O’Nill, M. W. (1989). Modelling of Displacement Piles in Sand Using a Pressure Chamber. Foundation Engineering Proceedings Congress 526-541.

Wakai, A., Gose, S., & Ugai, K. (1999). 3-D elasto-plastic finite element analysis of pile foundations subjected to lateral loading. Soils and Foundations 39 (1), 97-111.

Walker, B. P., & Whitaker, T. (1967). An Apparatus For Forming Beds of Sands for Model Foundation Tests. Geotechnique 17 (2), 161-167.

Walsh, J. M. (2005). Full-scale lateral load test of a 3 x 5 pile group in sand. PhD Thesis.: Brigham Young University.

Wang, S., Kutter, B. L., Chacko, M. J., Wilson, D. W., Boulanger, R. W., & Abghari, A. (1998). Nonlinear seismic soil-pile structure interaction. Earthquake Spectra 14 (2), 377-396.

Wilson, D. (1998). Soil-pile superstructure interaction in liquefying sand and soft clay. PhD Thesis.: University of California.

Wu, G., & Finn, W. D. L. (1997). Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34 (1), 44-52.

XIAO, L., LI, C. J., & QIANG, S. (2010). Influence of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction on Seismic Response of Long Span Suspension Bridge. ICCTP2010.

188

Yang, E., Choi, J., Kwon, S., & Kim, M. (2011). Development of Dynamic p-y Backbone Curves for a Single Pile in Dense Sand by 1g Shaking Table Tests. CIVIL ENGineering 15 (5), 813-821.

Yoo, M., Han, J., Choi, J., Jung, W., & Kim, M. (2012). Comparison of Lateral Pile Behavior under Static and Dynamic Loading by Centrifuge Tests. GeoCongress 2012 2048-2057. U.S.A.

Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., & Juang, C. H. (2005). Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio Relationships. Gotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (April), 453-467.

Zhang, J., & Makris, N. (2002). Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossing including soil-structure interaction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31 (11), 1967-1991.

Zlatovic, S., & Ishihara, K. (1997). Normalized behavior of very loose non-plastic soils:effetcs of fabric. Soils and Foundations 37 (4), 47-56.

influence of soil pile interaction on...

Documents