3 views

Original Title: Lec-41

Uploaded by BMSF khaliqe

- IGS GN Keller Short Term Course Ver 1
- 2004-Sherstobitoff for 13WCEE in Vancouver
- Facts About Soil Improvement
- Seismic Performance of Shallow-founded Structures on Liquefiable Ground - An Experimental and Numerical Study
- What Determines the Impact of an Earthquake
- 9 - Mitigation of Liquefaction Harard by Dynamic Compaction - Madji Et Al
- 293
- 10girish-IGU
- Canterbury Pile Design Supplementary Guidance
- Liquefaction IIT Roorkee Dec 26 2012
- BPC Foundations and Retaining Walls Catalogue
- 3. Liquefaction Possibilityof Soil Layers During -Thanh-nov-2017-g1-Converted
- Liquification of Embankments
- Soil Improvement
- Zhong_Design of Foundations for Large Dynamic Equipment in a High Seismic Region_2013
- GEER Chile EQ Briefing 1 Bray Rev
- Vibro Compaction
- AppJ
- CE 55-Foundation Engineering Syllabus
- 029.pdf

You are on page 1of 45

Engineering

by

Dr. Deepankar Choudhury

Humboldt Fellow, JSPS Fellow, BOYSCAST Fellow

Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.

Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in

URL: http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dc/

Lecture – 41

Module – 9

Design of Various

Geotechnical Structures

IIT Bombay, DC 2

Seismic Design of Pile

Foundation

IIT Bombay, DC 3

Piles in liquefying soil under lateral loads:

Force method

Non Liquefiable

layer

HNL Pressure

layer burden pressure Pressure

Non-liquefiable

layer

design in liquefying soils

4

Failure theory based on Tokimatsu et al. (1998) :

Inertia force

Bending

moment

Ground

displacemen

t

liquefaction liquefaction after earthquake

liquefaction

force from the superstructure may dominate.

Kinematic forces from the liquefied soil start acting with

increasing pore pressure.

Towards the end of shaking, kinematic forces would dominate

and have a significant effect on pile performance particularly

when permanent displacements occur in laterally spreading soil.

[see Choudhury et al., 2009, Proc. of National Academy of Sciences,

India, Springer, Sec. A] 5

Case-Specific Design of Pile

Foundations under

Earthquake Conditions

EQUIVALENT GROUND

RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Layer No. Stratum Layer thickness (m) Depth SPT ‘N’ value

below GL

(m)

1 Filled up soil 1.5 1.5 10

2 Yellowish loose sand 1.5 3.0 12

1.5 4.5 13

1.5 6.0 16

3 Black clayey soil 2.0 8.0 20

4 Yellowish clayey soil 1.8 9.8 25

EQUIVALENT GROUND

RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Typical Results

8

ANALYTICAL

MODEL

[Phanikanth et al.

(2013), Int. Jl. of

Geomech., ASCE]

passing through liquefied layer

ground deformations

using finite difference technique

Governing Equations for solving the basic differential equation of

laterally loaded pile in liquefied zone is given below:

[Phanikanth et al.

(2013), Int. Jl. of

Geomech., ASCE] [AIJ ( 2001)]

EI = flexural rigidity of pile.

as compared to normal soil condition where there is no liquefaction .

Bending moment in non liquefied and liquefied soil for

free headed single pile with floating tip in Mumbai

[Phanikanth, Choudhury and Reddy, 2013, Int. Jl. of Geomech., ASCE]

Typical effect of thickness of liquefiable soil layer on displacement profile

of free headed single pile with floating tip subjected to 2001 Bhuj motion

[Phanikanth, Choudhury and Reddy, 2013, Int. Jl. of Geomech., ASCE]

Combined Pile – Raft

Foundation (CPRF)

INTRODUCTION

Piled raft foundation(also called composite

foundation) solve:

1. Settlement – through interaction and load

sharing.

2. Differential settlement – raft provide stiffness

against load.

3. Economical - reducing number of piles.

idealized soil profiles, and found that soil

profiles consisting of relatively stiff clays and

relatively dense sands may be favourable for

piled raft foundation.

Construction: 1988 - 1990

Foundation: CPRF

Height: 256 m Messeturm tower, Germany

(Katzenbach et al. 2005)

Foundations of high-rise buildings in Frankfurt am

Main, Germany (Katzenbach et al. 2005)

The subsoil of Frankfurt am Main mainly consists of non homogeneous, stiff and

over consolidated tertiary ”Frankfurt clay” with embedded limestone bands of

15

varying thicknesses.

Deutsche Bank · Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Tower

Lower Sections

0.0 m

-12.8 m

Hydraulic Jacks

Tower 2

Settlement: max. 22 cm / min. 10 cm

Katzenbach et al. (2009)

Messeturm · Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Settlements calculated for a shallow foundation:

s > 40 cm Messeturm · Frankfurt am Main,

z = 0 - 20 m → 75 - 80 % Germany

Settlements:

Bearing concept of a

Combined Pile-Raft Foundation (CPRF)

Katzenbach et al. (2012)

Total resistance of the CPRF:

m

R tot,k s Rpile,k, j s Rraft,k s

j 1

Pile resistance:

Rpile,k, j s Rb,k, j s Rs,k,j s

Raft resistance:

Rraft,k (s) s, x, y dx dy

Analytical study:

Katzenbach et al. (1998) had suggested that designing Combined Pile-Raft

Foundations (CPRF) requires the qualified understanding of soil-structure

interaction.

Total resistance of the CPRF:

Rtotal,k = ΣRpile,k, j + RRaft, k

Pile resistance:

Rpile,k , j s Rb,k , j s Rs ,k , j s

Raft resistance:

Rraft ,k ( s) s, x, y dx dy

s=

CPRF coefficient:

m

R pile , k , j ( s )

j 1

CPRF

Rtot , k ( s )

αCPRF is set between 0.45-0.5519

(Katzenbach et al. 1998).

Three dimensional view of pile group and pile-raft model in ABAQUS

Dynamic loading response: Input acceleration – 1 m/sec2

Input frequency – 1 Hz

54 %

decrease in

36% decrease in

piled raft model

piled raft

model

sinusoidal accelerations

(Eslami et al. 2011) 21

Seismic loading response:

• El- centro acceleration time history was chosen.

• Input acceleration and displacement- 4.21m/sec2 and 37.4 cm.

34% reduction

Acceleration response

22

(Eslami et al. 2011)

Piled raft pile group

9%

reduction

loading

Case Study

Foundation (CPRF)

under Earthquake

Conditions

Case study of pile-raft foundation during 2011 Tohoku earthquake

Yamashita et al. (2011):

Building located at JAPAN PROTON ACCELERATOR RESEARCH COMPLEX (JPARC).

371 PHC piles

Diameter – 0.6m to 0.8m

Earthquake occurred – 44

month after the end of

construction.

the site

Ground acceleration –

3.24 m/s2 and 2.77 m/s2 for

the horizontal and vertical

directions .

Plan of foundation profile with monitoring

devices Profiles of vertical ground displacements

26

Decreased from 0.85 Decreased from 0.67

to 0.82 after the to 0.57 after the

earthquake earthquake

(Yamashita et al. 2012) 27

International Guideline on CPRF – 2012

by

ISSMGE Technical Committee

TC 212 – Deep Foundations

(www.issmge.org)

Seismic Design of

Ground Anchors

IIT Bombay, DC 32

INTRODUCTION

• To mitigate the effect of earthquake Ground Anchors can be used for structures

subjected to uplift / pullout loads.

• Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Ground Anchor is an application of passive earth

pressure theory.

• Problem is more complex under seismic conditions.

33

Selected Available Studies (Static Condition)

Author Method of Analysis Failure plane Seismic Analysis

(1968)

Rowe and Davis (1982) Finite Element -- No

/Experimental

equilibrium/limit analysis

Merifield and Sloan (2006) Limit analysis (Upper and Planar No

lower bound)

Deshmukh et al. (2011) Limit Equilibrium Planar No

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2011) in ASCE GSP 211, pp. 1821-1831 34

Available Studies

(Pseudo-static)

Choudhury and Subba Limit Equilibrium Logspiral Yes

Rao (2004, 2005) (Pseudo-static)

dynamic)

• Scarcity of research and design methods for estimation of vertical uplift capacity of

horizontal and inclined strip anchors under earthquake conditions using both pseudo-

static and pseudo-dynamic approaches. 35

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Very few researchers obtained the uplift capacity of obliquely loaded horizontal

strip anchor and all under static conditions;

•

Meyerhof (1973) Limit equilibrium/ Logspiral No

Model test

(1975)

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in ASCE GSP 225, pp. 185-194.

36

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Meyerhof (1973) Limit Equilibrium Logspiral No

Hanna et al. (1988) Limit Equilibrium Planar No

Choudhury and Limit equilibrium Logspiral Yes

Subba Rao (2005) (Pseudo-static)

Choudhury and Limit equilibrium Logspiral Yes

Subba Rao (2007) (Pseudo-static)

analysis (Pseudo-dynamic)

•It shows the scarcity of research for the obliquely loaded inclined strip

anchors under static condition and yet untouched under the seismic

condition.

37

Kötter’s (1903) equation

Kötter’s (1903) equation gives solution for determining the distribution of soil

reaction on failure plane

dp d

2 p tan sin

ds ds

Where,

dp = differential reaction pressure on the

failure Surface,

ds = differential length of failure surf ace,

p = uniform pressure on the failure surface

d = differential angle,

= angle of failure plane formed by inclination of tangent at the point of interest

with the horizontal

= unit weight of soil and

= soil friction angle 38

Horizontal Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions

•W is the weight of failure

soil block,

• Pp d1 and Pp d3 are the

seismic passive

resistances,

• is soil friction angle,

• B is width and H is depth

of anchor

•Qh and Qv are total

seismic horizontal and

vertical inertial forces

respectively.

The total reaction R1 and R3 on •Simple Planar failure surface. Hence the

the failure surfaces are computed Kötter’s (1903) equation reduces to,

by integrating Kötter’s equation; p sin s 39

Proposed Method by Rangari et al. (2013)

• The mass of the elementary strip is given by;

γBdz

m=

g

• The horizontal and vertical acceleration at any depth z and time t below the

ground surface can be expressed as;

H z H z

ah ( z , t ) ah sin t and av ( z , t ) av sin t

Vs Vp

• Total horizontal and vertical inertial forces acting within the failure zone

(CDEF) can be expressed as,

Bkh Bkv

Qh 2 2

2 cos cos t and Qv 2 2

2 cos cos t

4 4

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological

40

Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.

Proposed Method of Rangari et al. (2013) contd.

where, =TVs is the wavelength of the vertically propagating shear wave, = TVp

is the wave length of the vertically propagating shear wave,

H H

t t

Vs

and Vp

Pud Pp d 1 sin Pp d 3 sin W2 Qv 2

Pud W2 Qv 2

qud 0.5 BF d

B

The net seismic uplift capacity factor,

2 kh

F d 2 Kp d tan 2

2 cos cos t tan

2B

Where, Embedment ratio, = H/B and Kp d is a net seismic passive earth pressure

coefficient 41

Typical Design Charts (Results) for Seismic Uplift Capacity

Factor of Horizontal Shallow Anchors

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological

42

Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.

Comparison of Results

Comparison of ultimate seismic uplift capacity factor (F E = Pud/ B2) for various

values of kh and kv= 0.5 kh for = 30 , = 4 with H/ =0.3 and H/ =0.16.

kh

Pseudo- (2001) Subba Rao

dynamic Pseudo- (2004) Pseudo- Pseudo-

static Pseudo-static static dynamic

0.0 13.27 13.27 12.89 13.01 13.01

0.1 12.59 12.48 12.44 12.12 12.08

0.2 11.90 11.71 11.96 11.25 11.29

0.3 11.14 10.90 11.53 10.39 10.61

0.4 10.21 9.81 11.01 9.56 10.05

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2013) in Geotechnical and Geological

43

Engineering , Springer, Vol. 31(2), pp. 569-580.

Inclined Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions

For a plane failure surface, Kötter’s equation (1903), takes the following form

p sin s

where,

p = uniform pressure on failure

plane

= unit weight of soil

s = represents the distance of failure plane

as measured from ground surface

The total reaction R1 and R3 on the failure surfaces are computed by integrating

Kotter’s equation;

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.

44

Inclined Strip Shallow Anchor under Seismic Conditions

For Design, qudnet can is expressed as,

qudnet 0.5 BF d

Net seismic uplift capacity factor ( F d) can be obtained as;

2 2 2

Fd tan 0.25 tan K P d cos tan tan

2 1 k v sin k h cos

p d

B

coefficient.

The trial value of α1 and α3 are obtained such that the values of Ppγd1 and Ppγd3

should be same obtained from failure wedges CDF and ABE respectively.

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.

45

Typical Design Charts (Results) for Seismic Uplift Capacity

Factor of Obliquely loaded Inclined Shallow Anchors

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp. 9-16.

46

COMPARISION OF RESULTS

literature for =30 , with = 30 and ε =3.

(2005)

kv=0.0kh kv=0.5kh kv=1.0kh kv=0.0kh kv=0.5kh kv=1.0kh

0.1 5.48 5.32 5.16 6.27 5.95 5.61

0.2 5.39 4.76 4.43 6.25 5.62 5.05

0.3 5.28 4.31 3.53 6.13 5.2 4.41

0.4 4.99 3.69 -- 5.94 4.73 --

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp.47

9-16.

COMPARISION OF RESULTS

Comparison for ultimate SEISMIC uplift capacity factor (F E = Pud / B2) for

=0 , ε =1 and kv = 0.0 with results from literature.

0 kh Kumar Ghosh Present

(2001) (2009) study

0.0 1.577 1.577 1.563

0.1 1.566 1.571 1.481

300

0.2 1.544 1.533 1.403

0.3 1.499 1.520 1.329

0.0 1.839 1.839 1.839

0.1 1.832 1.835 1.709

400

0.2 1.815 1.821 1.587

0.3 1.786 1.798 1.472

0.0 2.192 2.192 2.145

0.1 2.187 2.189 1.952

500

0.2 2.174 2.179 1.771

0.3 2.155 2.163 1.601

Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M. (2012) in Disaster Advances, Vol. 5(4), pp.48

9-16.

- IGS GN Keller Short Term Course Ver 1Uploaded byB RAMU
- 2004-Sherstobitoff for 13WCEE in VancouverUploaded byjimmy Andres
- Facts About Soil ImprovementUploaded byCarina Ghita
- Seismic Performance of Shallow-founded Structures on Liquefiable Ground - An Experimental and Numerical StudyUploaded byLau Paupério
- What Determines the Impact of an EarthquakeUploaded byMalia Damit
- 9 - Mitigation of Liquefaction Harard by Dynamic Compaction - Madji Et AlUploaded byAndres Felipe
- 293Uploaded bybalaji-07
- 10girish-IGUUploaded byb_johnp
- Canterbury Pile Design Supplementary GuidanceUploaded byalaluf
- Liquefaction IIT Roorkee Dec 26 2012Uploaded bySaurav Rukhaiyar
- BPC Foundations and Retaining Walls CatalogueUploaded bymylesx66
- 3. Liquefaction Possibilityof Soil Layers During -Thanh-nov-2017-g1-ConvertedUploaded byBiliyanto Rachman
- Liquification of EmbankmentsUploaded byZac Mweb
- Soil ImprovementUploaded byAhmedAlghzawi
- Zhong_Design of Foundations for Large Dynamic Equipment in a High Seismic Region_2013Uploaded byFatihah Fikriyah
- GEER Chile EQ Briefing 1 Bray RevUploaded byJorge Pirela
- Vibro CompactionUploaded byAmy Amyza Aluwy
- AppJUploaded byFrancolt41
- CE 55-Foundation Engineering SyllabusUploaded bypicefeati
- 029.pdfUploaded byNabucodonosor1980
- GDM_Ch-11_Foundation_Design.pdfUploaded byFerdinandAfPane
- Seismic Retrofitting of Columns & FoundationsUploaded byHemant Sonawadekar
- Piling Ageing EffectsUploaded bymantrex
- FOUNDATION DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION IN HONG KONG – PRESENT & BEYOND, Daman Lee HK-Taiwan 2005Uploaded byM Mushanif Mukti
- Topic14-FoundationDesignNotesUploaded byLalima Chatterjee
- Biswas & Naik-Study on Liquefaction of Soil.pdfUploaded bynumspy
- first quake version resources 2015Uploaded byapi-271741889
- Guide to Foundations_2Uploaded byRC Dela Roca
- Document(3)Uploaded byeyigmane
- A Review of Catastrophic Flow Failures of Deposits of Mine WateUploaded byAbraham FIgueroa ARevalo

- Training SAP2000NonLinearAnalysisUploaded byEdwin Eajvil
- Handbook on Cracks in building (causes & prevention)(1).pdfUploaded bySivaramakrishnaNalluri
- Test Method for PileUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Steel BracingsUploaded byLleiLlei
- Steel BracingsUploaded byLleiLlei
- 13_1924Uploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Design of Seismic Isolated Structures From Theory to Practice~tqw~_darksidergUploaded byBojana Ilic-Pucarevic
- Helical Stair - CalculationUploaded byLalima Chatterjee
- Typ Fds SectionUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Release Not Ese Tabs v 1801Uploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- ASCE7-10 Provision for seismic isolationUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Revision of is- 1893 Part 1Uploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- N8 .An-Introduction-to-Seismic-Isolation-R-Ivan-Skinnerl-William-H-Robinson-And-Graeme-H-McVerry.pdfUploaded byDaisy' Ruiz
- duct designUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- 13_1924.pdfUploaded byZeeshaan Bhatt
- Soon ASCE 41-13 - Pekelnicky y Poland.pdfUploaded bymateo3202
- EQ06Uploaded byhansa588
- Test Method for PileUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- ijsrp-p3648Uploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Swhb eBook EngUploaded byshardulkavi
- Guidelines-Hospital-Safety.pdfUploaded byJaganath Rath
- Best Tall Buildings 2016Uploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Brochure WaterstopUploaded bybabuliu
- Concrete Technology, NEVILLE 2nd Edition Book.pdfUploaded byramya_an2411
- ppt-161112044856.pptxUploaded byaltaf_h5
- liquifaction effect.pdfUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Analysis, Design and Estimation of Basement +G+2 Residential BuildingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Non-Linear Static Analysis of Multi-Storied BuildingUploaded byseventhsensegroup
- EQTip24Uploaded byPratik Gautam

- Connected Particles Exercise.pdfUploaded bywolfretonmaths
- Explosive Welding of Titanium Stainless SteelUploaded bygreghes
- 1-7-15 MASTER Mass Clean Energy StandardUploaded byebcne
- Thermal Concepts Evaluation (TCE)Uploaded byScott Skanes
- new labUploaded byravishka
- Aluminum Alloy 5052 and L-C Steel by Laser Roll WeldingUploaded byاحمد عقل
- SG7 Center MassUploaded byHighnataraj
- Portada y Tabla de ...Uploaded byOskar Kamilo Karo
- economics problemsUploaded byEllis Yun
- Integrated Resource PlanUploaded byGabriel Tem Pass
- 17 Fall CE 546 HW1Uploaded bykaranbir123
- Geological Mapping in ExplorationUploaded byDebbie Novalina
- 201012172147420.77799203_1210_Bosch2011SolarProductCatalogUploaded byDustin Denison
- Braj Ke Rang_jaikeshav MishraUploaded byNityam Chourasiya
- 151540185 Rotational Inertia Lab ReportUploaded bybrian
- 1(1)Uploaded byajitpant
- Unit 6 Practice Test (Periodic Table)Uploaded byXazerco Lax
- 05 Refrigeration Compressors a Trane Air Conditioning ClinicUploaded bymaddy_sggs
- ~$ElectrostaticsUploaded byAtul Verma
- Determination of Liquid ViscosityUploaded byYdrel Obsioma
- Transport Phenomena 1(1)Uploaded byAl- Dhaheri
- gasifikasiUploaded byMartha Gamal
- EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF RESIDUAL CO2 SATURATION DISTRIBUTION IN CARBONATE ROCKUploaded byari_si
- Syllabus_GLY5835Uploaded byReza Razdar
- USTET reviewer.docxUploaded bypaulinetricia
- BODY01Uploaded bySophie Mendez
- Brochure RMIT UniversityUploaded byLuis Espinosa
- GeographyUploaded byRavi V Potluri
- Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by GeoengineeringUploaded byJohn Kuhles
- Module 1 - Index Properties of SoilUploaded byAdrian Sinohin