Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soil-Structure Interaction – A Case Study

Mary W. Goodson, 1 SE, M.ASCE and John E. Anderson2, GE, Ph.D., M.ASCE

1. Principal Structural Engineer, CH2M HILL, 155 Grand Avenue Suite 1000, Oakland, CA.
PH:(510)251-2426, Fax(510)622-9128, email: mary.goodson@ch2m.com
2. Principal Geotechnical Engineer, CH2M HILL, 155 Grand Avenue Suite 1000, Oakland,
CA.PH:(510)251-2426, Fax(510)622-9168, email:janders1@ch2m.com

Introduction
The effect of soil-structure interaction has often been neglected in seismic design and
retrofit of structures in the past. For new construction, foundations are often not
included as part of the primary lateral force resisting system. With pile supported
structures, the lateral capacity is determined using an iterative procedure assuming a
linear elastic response. Discounting effects of soil-structure interaction, such as
increased energy dissipation and period shift, has lead to more massive foundations than
may be necessary. For both new design and retrofit of existing structures, accounting
for soil structure interaction can significantly reduce construction efforts and cost. With
a greater knowledge of soil-structure interaction, the seismic behavior of structures can
be more clearly understood. With a greater knowledge of the behavior of the combined
structure and substructure systems, the design or retrofit may then be tailored to meet
project specific seismic performance objectives.
Accounting for soil structure interaction is important for design of new structures as
well as providing seismic retrofit of existing structures. This paper describes a
methodology used to analyze soil structure interaction for a seismic retrofit design. The
retrofit uses calculated energy dissipation through soil structure interaction as an integral
part of the seismic force resisting system. Seismicity, soil profile, and pile length vary
along the entire length of the pipeline undergoing retrofit.
To describe the methodology, pile capacities are established, soil springs developed
and a combination of pushover, time history, and response spectrum analyses used to
describe the expected behavior under anticipated seismic loading.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 The structure that serves as the basis of this paper is an existing large diameter above
grade pipeline. Pile supported pipe bents are spaced at approximately 60 feet (18.3
meters) on center and massive pile supported temperature anchors are located at
approximately 1000 foot (305 meter) intervals. An expansion joint is located midway
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

between the temperature anchors (Figure 1).

Design data was obtained from as-built drawings1. Each pile group consists of at least
four 16-inch square pre-cast concrete piles, with each pile driven on a 3 vertical to 1
horizontal batter, in directions 30 degrees from the perpendicular to the pipeline. In
addition, there are 19 pile groups located at bends in the pipeline and road crossings and
44 pile groups located at temperature anchors. Each of these are supported on groups of
10 to 12 pre-stressed concrete piles. The pipeline is located in a moderate seismic zone.

Figure 1: Typical Elevated Pipeline Geometry

There are three elements to consider in the soil structure interaction study: the
physical capacity of the pile as a structural element, the capacity limiting equilibrium of
the surrounding soil, and the seismic input. All three components play an important part
in establishing the overall structural behavior.

Structure Capacity
As-built Properties
All pile groups are made up of 16-inch (41-cm) square prestressed concrete piles with
properties as listed in Table 1. While cast in place pile extensions were used at a few
locations, none of the piles were cut off during construction. Therefore, the closely
spaced spirals at the top of the piles indicated in Table 1 should be located in the pile cap
connection region.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 Table 1: Precast Concrete Pile Properties

Property
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Section 16 x 16 inch (41 x 41 cm) square pile

Prestress Steel ASTM A-416
Ultimate Strength – 250 ksi (1725 kN/m2)
Initial prestress load (per strand) – 18,900 lbs (84kN)
Final working force – 15,120 lbs (67 kN) per strand
12 wires – 7/16 inch (11 mm)
11-9/16 inch (14 mm) diameter circle
2 inches (50 mm) of cover
Spiral Hoops ASTM A-82
#5 wire
The hoop pitch from the top of the pile is as follows:
s = 1 inch (25 mm) (0-0.5 feet , 0 – 150 mm)
s = 3 inches (75 mm) (0.5 – 4.5 feet, 150 mm – 1.4 m)
s = 6 inches (150 mm) (4.5 feet to 4.5 feet (1.4 m to 1.4 m) from
bottom of pile )
s= 3 inches (0.5 from bottom to 4.5 feet (25 mm to 1.4 m) from
bottom)
s= 1 inch (25 mm) (bottom of pile – 0.5 feet (150 mm) from
bottom)
Design Pre-stress 709 psi (4800 kN/m2)
Concrete Strength f'ci= 3500 psi (at time of prestressing) (24000 kN/m2)
f'c= 5000 psi (34500 kN/m2)
Type II cement.
Pile Cap connection 8 - #8 mild steel reinforcing bars. Total length = 6.5 feet (2 feet
(60cm) into pile cap, 4.5 feet (1.4m) into pile)
Pile Driving Tolerances Degree of orientation and batter - ± 1°
Horizontal location - ± 3 inches (75mm)
Pile top elevation - ± 1 inch (25mm)

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 Pile Behavior and Potential Failure Modes
Pile moment-curvature behavior is largely controlled by confining reinforcement
(spirals). The ductility of a pile, or its ability to deform beyond its elastic limit, is based
upon the ratio of confining reinforcement to confined concrete (spiral steel ratio). The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4A
spiral steel ratio is defined as , where: A equals the spiral area, d equals the spiral
ds
bar diameter, and s equals the spiral pitch. Spiral steel ratios obtained from the pile as-
built drawings are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Pile Ductility Characteristics

Distance from top of Spiral Pitch Spiral Steel Ductility Description

Pile (Feet) Ratio
Inches (mm)

0 – 0.5 1.0 (25) 0.0112 Limited Ductility

0.5 – 4.5 3.0 (75) 0.0037 Limited Ductility

< 4.5 6.0 (150) 0.0019 Brittle

Ductility descriptions are based upon work performed by Banerjee2, and suggest three
types of behavior depending upon steel ratio. Elements with steel ratio less than 0.0035
are considered brittle, elements with a steel ratio between 0.0035 and 0.02 are
considered to have limited ductility, and members with spiral steel ratios larger than
0.020 are considered to have unlimited ductility. Based on these characteristics, the
piles in this study have limited ductility within the top 4.5 feet (1.4 meters). Under
seismic loads, the peak pile moment is expected to occur about 4 to 5 times the width of
the pile (5’-4” to 6’-8” (1.6 – 2.0 meters)) below the pile cap. This region has very little
confining (spiral) reinforcement, is characterized a brittle, and is likely the location
where significant damage will occur.

Pile capacities are calculated using the recommendations in ACI 318-99 and Chapter
6 of FEMA 3563. Lower bound expected material properties are used instead of design
material properties to account for potential component overstrengths and resulting
higher demands on capacity protected elements. An expected concrete compressive
strength (f'ce) of 1.5 x f'c is used to recognize the conservative nature of concrete batch
design and expected strength gain with age. Expected reinforcement yield strength (fye)
is taken as 1.25xfy to account for strain hardening effects. A capacity reduction factor
( ) of 1.0 is used for the evaluation of the existing piles.

Pile Cap Connection

The piles are typically embedded 6 inches (150 mm) into the pile cap and have eight
mild steel dowels that extend into the cap. The moment capacity of this connection is
very complex because both the prestressed and mild steel will likely contribute to the

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 moment resistance. Because the prestress steel is not adequately developed in the cap,
the moment capacity is conservatively based upon the mild steel connection. The
connection moment capacity depends on the axial load delivered through the piles. A
moment-curvature analysis based on lower bound estimates of material properties is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

used to determine the capacity under both tension and compression axial loads. A linear
reduction of the calculated moment capacity as recommended in Section 6.4.5 of FEMA
356 is used to account for the inadequate development length of the mild steel dowels
extending into the cap.

Soil Capacity
The pile capacity in the soil was established using as-built information1, soil boring
logs1, and Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) 4 data obtained along the pipeline alignment.
CPT tests were performed at 20 locations along the alignment. This data and “re-tap”
data obtained during a previous construction project along the pipeline alignment were
incorporated into the determination of pile capacities.
Pile capacities were developed in groups based upon locations of CPT data. For
example, CPT data was obtained at approximately 4000–foot (1.2 km) intervals along
the alignment. Bent supports are spaced at approximately 60-feet (18.3 meters);
therefore, data from a single CPT was interpolated to provide capacities for up to 67
supports. Within any given CPT range, pile lengths as well as soil profiles vary.
Ultimate axial and uplift capacities were established using the soil profiles in
conjunction with both the measured capacity and correlation from Meyerhof.
Soil spring development takes account of global and local components effecting soil
structure interaction. Global properties include liquefaction, group effects, batter, and
soil property uncertainties. Local components include derivation of spring constants and
ultimate strength for analysis. Four soil profiles were used to model the variability along
the alignment. Descriptions of the soil profiles are as follows and illustrated
schematically in Figure 3:

• Soil Profile 1: 8 feet (2.4 meters) of Peat underlain by 19 (5.8 meters) feet of
Sandy Lean Clay followed by the Pleistocene Alluvium.
• Soil Profile 2: 12 feet (3.6 meters) of Peat underlain by 12 feet (3.6 meters)
of Sandy Lean Clay followed by the Pleistocene Alluvium.
• Soil Profile 3: 4 feet (1.2 meters) of Peat underlain by 22 feet (6.7 meters) of
Lean Clay followed by the Pleistocene Alluvium.
• Soil Profile 4: 8 feet (2.4 meters) of Peat underlain by 37 feet (11.3
meters) of medium to dense sand followed by the Pleistocene
Alluvium.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3: Schematic Soil Profile

Structure Demands
The Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) used to analyze the pipeline was a 500-year
return period event. As previously discussed, the soil profile along the 15 mile (24 km)
alignment generally consists of a Pleistocene outcrop, overlain by layers of Holocene
and Peat of varying depth. Because of the length of the project and the soil profile
variability, time histories were generated at three locations along the alignment, one at
each end and one close to the center. The DBE time-histories were generated from a
suite of seven far-field time histories from the SAC database for the Northridge
earthquake for the appropriate soil type. NEHRP firm soil target spectra were obtained
and modified per NEHRP recommendations to reflect the site specific soil types. The
program PROSHAKE was used to scale the time histories with the accelerations

0.7

Period Range - Typical Bents

0.6

0.5
Acceleration - g

Abrahamson - Holt
0.4
Firm soil matching CPT 19
spectrum
CPT 17
0.3
CPT 15

Temperature CPT 13
Bent - Period
0.2 approx
2 secs.

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Peiod - seconds
Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005
Structures Congress 2005
 amplitude scaled to match the NEHRP soil profile specific spectra within the period
range of interest (i.e. that of the typical pipe support bent). The seven scaled time
histories were then used as input for the final design. Design pile forces and
displacements were taken as the average of the results of the seven analyses. A typical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

amplitude scaled response spectrum is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Typical amplitude scaled response spectrum

Design Methodology
General
The model analysis was performed in two steps, a push over analysis to establish a
pile cap force displacement relationship and a nonlinear time history analysis to
represent a typical length of pipe between expansion joints. The results of the nonlinear
analysis were checked using a linear response spectrum analysis.

Push Over Analysis

The push over analysis was performed by creating a three dimensional SAP20005
model to represent a typical support foundation. The model consists of linear elastic pile
and soil spring elements, inelastic hinge elements to represent nonlinear behavior of the
piles and soil, and constraints between the top of the pile elements and the applied load
at the pipe center of gravity. Vertical dead load followed by an incremental lateral load
was applied at the pipe center of gravity. The lateral load was increased until pile
failure. The piles were modeled using 2-foot (60 cm) linear elastic elements with non-
linear P-M-M hinges located at each end. Properties of the nonlinear hinges were
determined using the section analysis software XTRACT. Pile failure was taken as the
curvature associated with a concrete spalling strain of 0.005. Soil springs were modeled
using 1 foot, linear elastic elements with nonlinear axial hinges located at one end.
Three soil springs were placed at the ends of each pile element to represent the axial and
two lateral degrees of freedom for pile deformation. Axial hinge properties were
developed by determining the force displacement relationship for each generalized soil
profile. Soil force-displacement relationships were developed using recommendations
from API 2A-WSD Recommended practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design.6 A typical pile cap force
displacement relationship is illustrated in Figure 5.

Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Three-dimensional SAP2000 models were created to represent a typical configuration

of pipe supports and temperature block between expansion joints. The pipe was
modeled with linear elastic frame elements. Foundations were modeled using SAP2000
NLINK elements to represent the nonlinear force displacement relationship determined

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 from the pushover analysis. The lateral force-displacement relationship was
approximated with a bi-linear representation of the pushover curve
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Linear Response Spectrum Analysis

A linear response spectrum analysis was performed to provide a check of loads

obtained from the nonlinear time history analysis. For each support type, the initial
stiffness was obtained from the pushover curve. Tributary seismic mass was used,
combined with the initial foundation stiffness to determine the initial fundamental period
of the structure and the spectral acceleration obtained from the target response spectra.

250

Pushover Curve

200
Bilinear
Approximation

150
Force (kip)

100

Piles Yielding
at Foundation Disp.=0.57"
Structure Disp.=2.89"
50
Concrete Spalling
Structure Target
at Foundation
Disp.=2.78" (10in50)
Disp.=1.86"
3.20" (2in50)
Structure Disp.=4.24"
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Displacement (in)

Figure 5 Typical Force-displacement/Pushover Curve

Results

A previous elastic analysis that did not take account of soil-structure interaction,
found that nearly one half of the pile groups along the 15-mile (24 km) pipeline
alignment would fail under the Design Basis Earthquake, resulting in installation of
additional piles and construction of pile cap extensions as part of the retrofit strategy.
The analysis described in this paper, in conjunction with the use energy dissipation

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 devises at approximately one-half the bents, resulted in no additional piles at the bents or
anchors for the DBE level event, resulting in a retrofit cost savings of approximately
15%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Acknowledgements
CH2M Hill, Inc. (Oakland, California) was the design engineer-of-record for this
project, but success of this project was made possible through the team effort provided
by many dedicated individuals. Mr. Bruce Maison, (East Bay Municipal Utility
District), Mr. Troy Swenson, Biggs and Cardosa (formally with CH2M HILL) and Ms.
Yoliana Koenida, Paradigm Structural Engineers, (formally with CH2M HILL).

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 References
1. “Mokelumne Aqueduct No. 3 As-Built Drawings”, East Bay Municipal Utility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFOB - Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia on 11/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

District, 375 11th Street, Oakland, CA.

2. “Seismic Performance of Precast Prestressed Concreet Piles,” Banerjee, S.,
Stanton, J.F., and Hawkins, N.M. , ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol 113, No. 2, Feb 1987.
3. “FEMA 356 – Seismic Rehabilitation Prestandard”, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, November 2000.
4. “CPT Data- Mokelumne Aqueduct No. 3”, John Sarmiento and Associates, 3199
Valparaiso Ave., Menlo Park, Ca. 94025,1999.
5. “Recommended Practice for Planning Designing and Construction Fixed Offshore
Platforms – Working Stress Design”, American Petroleum Institute, Production
Department, 211 N. Ervay, Suite 1700, Dallas, TX 75201. December 2000.
6. “SAP 2000 – Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design,” Computers
and Structures International, 1995 University Avenue, Suite 540, Berkeley,
Ca.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005