Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Analysis For Seismic Sps Interaction
Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Analysis For Seismic Sps Interaction
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9
Abstract
A three-dimensional method of analysis is presented for the seismic response of structures constructed on pile foundations. An analysis is
formulated in the time domain and the effects of material nonlinearity of soil on the seismic response are investigated. A subsystem model
consisting of a structure subsystem and a pile-foundation subsystem is used. Seismic response of the system is found using a successivecoupling incremental solution scheme. Both subsystems are assumed to be coupled at each time step. Material nonlinearity is accounted for
by incorporating an advanced plasticity-based soil model, HiSS, in the finite element formulation. Both single piles and pile groups are
considered and the effects of kinematic and inertial interaction on seismic response are investigated while considering harmonic and transient
excitations. It is seen that nonlinearity significantly affects seismic response of pile foundations as well as that of structures. Effects of
nonlinearity on response are dependent on the frequency of excitation with nonlinearity causing an increase in response at low frequencies of
excitation.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soilpile-structure interaction; Pile foundation; Plasticity; Seismic response
1. Introduction
The high level of risk associated with nuclear containment facilities has created the need to undertake rigorous
dynamic analyses, including soil pile-structure interaction
(SPSI), for the design of such complex structures.
Substantial research efforts, e.g. Refs. [1 5] have been
carried out to investigate the kinematic seismic behavior of
single piles and pile groups. Further, several studies by
Makris et al. [6], Mylonakis and Gazetas [7], Guin and
Banerjee [8] have focused on SPSI analyses.
The performance of pile-supported structures (such as
bridges) during recent devastating earthquakes (e.g. Bhuj
Earthquake of 2001, Chi-Chi Earthquake of 1999, and
Kocaeli Earthquake of 1999) has come under scrutiny. The
damage caused to pile foundations during these earthquakes
has emphasized the importance of understanding SPSI.
Moreover, the advances in computer technology justify
the use of rigorous SPSI analysis in many important
practical engineering structures.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-314-935-8220; fax: 1-314-935-4338.
E-mail address: balkrishna@hotmail.com (B.K. Maheshwari).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.01.001
344
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
Fig. 1. Soilpile-structure systems considered in the analyses: (a) a single pile system, (b) a 2 2 pile group system.
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
345
Fig. 2. Three-dimensional finite element quarter models used for the foundation subsystems: (a) a single pile, (b) a 2 2 pile group.
Fig. 3. (a) Block element used for soil and pile, (b) boundary element, (c) space frame element used for the structure.
346
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
Fig. 4. Finite element mesh for the pile group system: (a) top plan, (b) front
elevation with initial pressure distribution.
Fig. 5. Schematic of successive-coupling scheme.
The substructuring technique coupled with a successivecoupling scheme is though approximate for a nonlinear
analysis but quite effective. The effect of this approximation
on the accuracy of the results depends on the size of the time
step considered. For a very small time step T=80 used in
the present analysis, the results converged and no
accumulation of errors was noticed. Further, a fully coupled
system would require enormous computation. Thus, the
additional accuracy, which may not be significant, obtained
at the expense of large computational cost, may not be
justified.
4. Structure subsystem
The structure subsystem may be subjected to nonuniform foundation motion (support excitation) that is
equal to the pile heads motion. The non-uniform foundation
motion is obtained from the coupling kinematic inertial
interaction of the SPS system (Fig. 5).
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
Dt
Dt2
!
4t U_ t
tDt
t
_
U Cs t U
Ug 2 Ks U Ms
2
2Ms Rs
Dt
where Dt is the time step; superscript t indicates the time;
and DU are increments of the dynamic response vector U;
such that tDt U t U DU:
For the nonlinear response of the structure subsystem,
Eq. (2) is formulated using the modified Newton Raphson
iteration scheme. The stiffness and damping matrices, Ks
and Cs ; are replaced by the corresponding tangent stiffness
and damping matrices, t Ks and t Cs ; which are updated at
each time step t: The stiffness and mass matrices of the
structure subsystem are constructed using normal finite
element method procedures. The damping is assumed to be
proportional to the stiffness [8].
For a structure subjected to non-uniform support
motions, the support reactions of the structure depend on
the total displacements of the active DOF U t as well as the
relative displacements of the support DOF Ug : Therefore,
the support forces for non-uniform support motion cases are
different from those for rigid ground motion cases and
should be calculated as shown by [19]:
t
347
5. Foundation subsystem
5.1. Governing equation and solution
The foundation subsystem is composed of piles and the
surrounding soil. The equation of motion for this subsystem
is written as:
MF V CF V_ KF V 2MF RF V b Fp
K
F DV
Dt
Dt2
2MF RF tDt V b t Fp 2 tDt F i21
2 tDt i21 t
V
2 t CF
2 V 2 t V_
Dt
4 tDt i21 t
4 t_ t
V
2 V 2
2 MF
V2 V
Dt
Dt2
5a
348
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
V i tDt V i21 DV i
5b
6a
a 2D=v0
where
6b
J2D
p2a
aps
J1
pa
h
2
J
2g 1 0
pa
7a
where J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor sij ; J2D is the
second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor; pa is the
atmospheric pressure; g and h are material parameters that
p
influence the shape of F in J1 2 J2D space; the parameter h
is related to the phase change point that is defined as the point
where material changes from contractive to dilative behavior
(Fig. 6).
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
349
p
Fig. 6. Shape of yield surfaces in J1 2 J2D space.
aps
h1
jhv2
7b
rp 2400 kg=m3 ;
np 0:25
6. Computerization
The proposed methodology employs the subsystem
concept to reduce the storage space needed for property
matrices. In addition, some effective computer storage
allocation and matrices storage schemes [27] are used to
further reduce the space needed.
A FORTRAN code named 3dNDPILE was developed to
perform the analysis. For nonlinear analysis, three types of
criteria are used simultaneously to examine the solution
convergence, namely the displacement criterion, the out of
balance load criterion and the internal energy criterion [20].
Special procedures are used to ensure the robustness of the
HiSS iterative solution [28] and are further enhanced to deal
with the case when the plasticity parameter l (a constant of
proportionality used to define the flow rule of plasticity
[29]) becomes negative.
The dimensionless yield surface F is assumed to
converge when its absolute value becomes fairly small, i.e.
ABSF , 10210 : For harmonic excitation, the size of the
time step is taken to be T=80 where T is the period of
excitation. The algorithm developed is quite efficient and
economical.
350
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
the soil. This pile head movement is then used as the input
excitation (support displacements) to calculate the response
of the structure. This procedure ignores the feedback from the
structure (the inertial interaction). The analysis is performed
for excitation with different frequencies.
The results are shown in Fig. 7 in terms of
amplifications of response with respect to the input
bedrock motion. The free-field response is also shown in
Fig. 7. It can be observed from Fig. 7 that the kinematic
seismic response of the pile head (without inertial
interaction) follows the free-field ground motion. The
response of the pile foundation increases slightly due to
the inertial interaction but the natural period of the
foundation subsystem increases from about 0.22 to 0.4 s.
The increase in the natural period may be attributed to
increased soil nonlinearity due to the inertial interaction.
It is also noted that the kinematic interaction amplifies
the input motion at the base of the structure for short
period T , 0:3 s excitations. On the other hand, the
kinematic interaction has no effect on the structure
input motion for long period excitations T . 0:4 s:
Fig. 7 also shows that the fundamental period of the
structure increases and the structure peak response decreases
significantly due to the inertial interaction. For the range of
parameters considered in this study, the SPSI elongates the
period of the structure and tends to decrease the peak response.
Guin and Banerjee [8] and Veletsos [32] made similar
observations using frequency domain analyses. Therefore,
these results further verify the model and algorithm.
Fig. 7. Effects of kinematic and inertial interactions on the response of the foundation and of the structure for an elastic soil model.
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
351
Fig. 8. Effect of nonlinearity on the response for a single pile model at different frequencies.
Fig. 9. Effect of nonlinearity on the response for the pile group model at different frequencies.
352
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
Fig. 10. (a) Linear and nonlinear time histories of pile head response for the single pile model, (b) linear and nonlinear time histories of response of the structure
for the single pile model, (c) linear and nonlinear Fourier spectra for the single pile model.
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
353
Fig. 10 (continued )
354
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
Fig. 11. (a) Linear and nonlinear time histories of pile cap response for the pile group model, (b) linear and nonlinear time histories of response of the structure
for the pile group model, (c) linear and nonlinear Fourier spectra for the pile group model.
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356
355
Fig. 11 (continued )
13. Conclusions
The effects of soil plasticity on the seismic response of
SPS systems are investigated using three-dimensional finite
element analyses in the time domain. The analyses involve a
subsystem model and a successive-coupling incremental
scheme. Analyses are performed for both single piles and
pile groups. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The effect of inertial interaction (for the range of
foundations and structure parameters considered) is, in
general, to increase the pile head response but to
significantly decrease the response of the structure.
2. For a harmonic excitation, the soil nonlinearity increases
the pile head and structural responses at low frequencies.
At high frequencies, both the pile head and the structural
responses are slightly affected by the soil nonlinearity.
3. For the transient excitation, soil nonlinearity increases
both the pile head and the structural responses. Smoothed
Fourier spectra show that in general, nonlinearity
increases the responses at low and moderate frequencies
but its effect is negligible at high frequencies.
4. The pile group effect decreases the peak values of the
response for both the harmonic and transient excitations
(i.e. reduces the effect of soil nonlinearity).
Acknowledgements
The research presented here was partially supported by
the Mid-America Earthquake Center under National
Science Foundation Grant EEC-9701785 and the US
Army Corps of Engineers. This support is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors are thankful to Dr Y.X. Cai
for his cooperation.
References
[1] Kaynia AM, Kausel E. Dynamic behavior of pile groups. In:
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods
in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas; 1982. p. 509 532.
[2] Gazetas G. Seismic response of end-bearing single piles. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Engng 1984;3(2):8293.
[3] Sen R, Davis TG, Banerjee PK. Dynamic analysis of piles and pile
groups embedded in homogenous soils. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn
1985;13(1):5365.
[4] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and
damping of floating pile groups. Geotechnique 1988;38:55774.
[5] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pile soilpile interaction. Part II:
Lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1992;21:
14562.
356
B.K. Maheshwari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 343356