© All Rights Reserved

0 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Lectures on Classical Mechanics-3
- Cm2 Solutions
- Projectile Impact on Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plate 2006
- PhD RobuffoGiordano [0]
- 1
- HOOKE'S LAW
- The Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity - Myths and Reality 0809.0097v2
- Column Bases Manual
- Hojman EquivalentLagrangian JMathPhys 22 1414 (1)
- RM E Getting Started DIN
- Intermediate Dynamics.pdf
- Eurock 2014_Upscaling elastic moduli in Copenhagen Limestone
- Elastic Constants2
- lec9
- Approximate design method for piled raft foundations
- Hamiltonian Mechanics
- Feedback Control of DynamicB
- Energy Shaping Inertia Wheel Pendulum
- PMR12015FU1
- circular_tanks.xls

You are on page 1of 17

107]

M . S H A D L O U a n d S . B H AT TAC H A RYA †

A set of formulas for the dynamic stiffness of a pile (spring and dashpot coefficients) to use in inertial

interaction analysis is proposed, utilising elastodynamic solutions. The method is based on solving a

Lagrangian system of coupled equations for the pile and the soil motions for a range of vibration

frequencies and also by considering the vertical, radial and angular stresses on the pile–soil interface.

The solution extensively uses Bessel functions of the second kind and results are compared with

finite-element models and field pile load tests. A dimensionless frequency related to the well-known

active length of pile is proposed to separate inertial and kinematic interactions. A formula is also

proposed for estimation of the active length of a pile in a two-layered soil. A specific depth is

introduced beyond which soil layering does not have any appreciable effects on dynamic stiffness. It

is commonly (rather arbitrarily) assumed that the first natural frequency of soil strata differentiates

radiation (geometric) damping from hysteretic (material) damping for both types of interactions of the

pile–soil system. In contrast, this paper proposes a new formulation based on relative pile–soil

stiffness and frequency of the pile head loading to differentiate these two classes of damping

behaviour. The application of the formulation is shown through an example.

One of the important parameters for dynamic analysis of a tion behind the study is to develop a robust, but also

soil–pile system using the beam-on-dynamic Winkler foun- numerically efficient framework for computation of dynamic

dation (BDWF) method is the dynamic stiffness of soil–pile Winkler coefficients of pile–soil elements.

elements. To obtain the bending moment in a pile affected

by inertial or kinematic loading, and to analyse the behav-

iour of a superstructure supported on a pile embedded in a BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW OF DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

layered soil, the accuracy of estimation of the pile–soil OF PILES

stiffness is very important (e.g. see Mylonakis et al. (1997) Because the analysis of pile behaviour using the modulus

for linear soil–pile interaction effects and Liyanapathirana & of subgrade reaction approach requires knowledge of its

Poulos (2010) for liquefied ground). variation along the pile, Biot (1937), Vesic (1961), Davisson

The popular plane strain assumption developed by Novak & Gill (1963) and Bowles (1997) proposed a constant

(1974) and Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) is based on the subgrade modulus for each layer of soil. Broms (1964)

translational vibration of a cylindrical rigid disc, embedded presented a model for subgrade reaction varying with depth.

in a solid continuum. Owing to the nature of the formula- Based on the one-dimensional (1D) wave propagation ideali-

tion, the dynamic stiffness of each layer is represented by a sation (Lysmer & Richart, 1966; Berger et al., 1977),

unique value related to soil and pile properties, and the Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) developed a simple model for

effects of shear distortion between each layer are ignored. radiation damping coefficient comparable with the plane

Kavvadas & Gazetas (1993) proposed a spring coefficient strain case of a single pile embedded in different strata

for one- and two-layer soils considering kinematic inter- (Novak, 1974; Nogami & Novak, 1977; Dobry et al., 1982;

action obtained from back analysis of the pile bending Dobry & Gazetas, 1988; Makris & Gazetas, 1992). Yoshida

moment from the finite-element model. Damping coefficients & Yoshinaka (1972), Roesset (1980), Kavvadas & Gazetas

are usually represented by hysteretic or radiation coeffi- (1993), Mylonakis (2001) and Sica et al. (2011) proposed

cients. The radiation damping formulation (see Table 1) other types of dynamic stiffness characterised by a function

proposed by Gazetas & Dobry (1984a, 1984b) is the main of elastic modulus of each layer. Kagawa & Kraft (1980)

assumption in many research investigations (e.g. see Mylo- developed plane strain dynamic stiffness valid for one-layer

nakis et al. (1997), Liyanapathirana & Poulos (2010) and soil and validated the spring coefficient proposed by Yoshida

Dezzi et al. (2010)). In the current research, this parameter & Yoshinaka (1972), and the radiation damping model

will be evaluated for three-dimensional (3D) soil–pile dy- proposed by Berger et al. (1977). Tokimatsu & Nomura

namic interactions, and a new formulation will be proposed (1991) and Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2004) proposed a reduc-

for one- and two-layer soils. The plane strain dynamic tion factor depending on pore-water pressure generation for

stiffness proposed in the current research can be distin- considering dynamic resistance from liquefiable strata. A

guished from other research because of the consideration of summary of the aforementioned research findings is shown

in Table 1.

January 2014. ELASTODYNAMIC FORMULATION

Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor. Theory and assumptions

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. A single pile of length Lp and diameter Dp modelled by

† Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Euler–Bernoulli beam theory and surrounded by an

Surrey, UK. n-layered, isotropic, linear elastic soil is considered for the

1

2 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

Table 1. Some recommendations for Winkler-type spring and dashpot coefficients of cylindrical piles

0:108 1:108

: Es 1

Biot (1937) 1 315 Es –

Ep 1 2

0:836 Es 1=12

Vesic (1961) Es –

1 2 Ep

Lysmer & Richart (1966) – 2rs Dp (V s þ V p )

Davisson (1970) and Prakash & Sharma (1990) 67S u –

1:67 Es 1=12

Yoshida & Yoshinaka (1972) Es –

1 Ep

2

8 " #

>

> V La 5=4 3=4 1=4

>

s < 2rs Dp V s 1 þ V s

>

4

a0

Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) 1 , 1:2Es 2k x þ

ø > 3=4

>

>

> 1=4

: 4rs Dp V s a0

4

Dobry & O’Rourke (1983) 3Gs –

1=8 1=8

3 Es Lp

Kavvadas & Gazetas (1993) Es –

1 2 Ep Dp

1=8

Es

Mylonakis (2001) 6 Es –

Ep

Undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils. Note also that E is Young’s modulus of soil; E is equivalent elastic modulus of pile; is

s p s

hysteretic damping of soil material; Dp is pile diameter; V La is the so-called Lysmer analogue wave velocity; is Poisson ratio of soil.

problem, see Fig. 1(a) for details. Hamilton’s principle for a and W is the work done by external loading. In order to

conservative system states that the integral of the difference solve this equation, it is assumed that the displacement of an

between kinetic and potential energies yields to a zero individual point can be described by the following displace-

variation. According to the Lagrangian theorem, the Lagran- ment vector obtained from the separation of variables in

gian function (L) is given by equation (1). cylindrical coordinates

8 9 8 9

u º cos(Ł)eiøt >

L ¼ T UT þ W (1) >

< r> = > < (z) (r) =

u(z,t,r,Ł) ¼ uŁ ¼ º(z) j(r) sin(Ł)eiøt (2)

where T is kinetic energy and U T is total potential energy, >

: > ; > : >

;

which also contains the strain energy stored in the system, uz 0

M(ω,t)

P ⫽ Po eiωt P ⫽ Po eiωt

N

P(ω,t) Layer 1

2r0 kx

Layer 1 H1 Layer 2

Layer 2 H2 Cx

⫽

...

L r

Layer j Hj

Layer n Hn Layer n

Layer n ⫹ 1

Half-space

Fictitious

pile

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Statement of the problem: (a) theoretical model; (b) inertial interaction and Winkler coefficients

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 3

where º(z,t) , (r) , j(r) are horizontal pile displacement at the strain tensor in cylindrical coordinates and after some

depth z and time t, horizontal soil displacement factor manipulations, the following equation is obtained for the

(longitudinal displacement) in radial direction located at a strain energy function stored in soil elements

radius r from the pile axis, and horizontal soil displacement

factor in circumferential direction located at a radius r ð1

1 ð" 2

@

from the pile axis, respectively. ø is the frequency of U T;1 ¼ (ºs þ 2Gs ) º2

interest. Equation (2) is similar to the form presented by 2 @r

0 r0

Basu et al. (2009) if dynamic terms (eiøt ) are omitted. In

this study, it is assumed that vertical displacement of the

soil is neglected. Ł is the angle between the radius of an @ º 2

þ 2ºs ( þ j)

individual element and the loading direction. In order to @r r

link the pile motion to a specific element, the following

boundary conditions are applied to each individual infinite- º 2

8 8 r

< (r) ¼ 1 < (r) ¼ 0 2

r ¼ r0 ) and r ! 1 ) (3) 2 @j 2 @j þ j

: j ¼ 1 :j ¼ 0 þ Gs º 2Gs º

(r) (r) @r @r r

0 < Ł , 2 (4) 2 #

@º

The above equations imply that the pile and soil displace- þ Gs (j þ ) r dr dz

2 2

@z

ments possess equal value around the pile in radial and

circumferential directions, and that the soil displacements ð rð0

1 2

@º

vanish at infinity. U T;2 ¼ Gs (j2 þ 2 )r dr dz

2 @z

Lp 0

of the system can be divided into pile and soil separately and ð rð0

1 2

j(0<r<r0 ) ¼1,(0<r<r0 ) ¼1

@º

is expressed as follows !¼ Gs 2r dr dz (9)

8 2 @z

> Lp 0

<Lðp

1 2

T¼ p º_ dz ð

1 2

2>: r2 @º

0 ¼ 0

Gs dz

9 2 @z

Lp

ð 2ð 1

1 ð >

=

2

þ º_ (2r cos2 (Ł) þ j2r sin2 (Ł))rs r dr dŁ dz

>

0 0 r0

; where Gs ¼ Gs (1 þ 2is ) and ºs ¼ ºs (1 þ 2is ) are complex

Lame’s constants (Roesset & Angelides, 1980) of the soil

(5)

layer. s ¼ 0:5 tan( ) is material damping and is loss

angle. Equation (9) expresses the strain energy for the

fictitious pile.

Potential energy of the system. The potential energy of the The third term of the potential energy of the system is

system is composed of three separate terms: (a) the flexural the work done by the external pile-head loading. It is

strain energy stored in the pile; (b) the strain energy stored in assumed that the pile is subjected to horizontal force,

any individual soil element; and (c) the work done by the bending moment and axial load on the pile head (compres-

external pile-head loading. The strain energy of the pile is sion force is positive) and the work done can be expressed

given by as follows

Lðp 2 2

1 dº ð 2

1

UT ¼ EP I P dz (6) dº 1 dº

2 dz2 W ¼ Pºjz¼0 M þ N dz (10)

0

dz z¼0 2 dz

0

Using the theory of elasticity, the strain energy of a solid

element can be expressed by the strain energy density func- P is the translational horizontal load, M is the bending

tion stored in soil around the pile and a fictitious pile moment acting at the pile head and the third term is the

(extension of the original pile) extension in cylindrical work done by axial force (N) applied at the pile head.

coordinates (Fig. 1(a)) It may be noted that equation (10) considers the

axial–lateral interaction effects of axial load. Owing to

ð 2

1 ð1 ð ð 2

1 ð ðr0 the generalised nature of equation (10), it is possible to

1 1

UT ¼ Tij ij r dr dŁ dz þ Tij ij r dr dŁ dz solve the soil–pile system for all kinds of pile head

2 2

0 0 r0 Lp 0 0 loading.

¼ U T;1 þ U T;2

(7)

Equation of motion for the system. The Lagrangian form of

where ij is the i, j component of stress tensor and ij is the action expressed in equation (1) can be obtained by

i, j component of strain tensor of the soil element. Owing to substituting equations (5), (8), (9) and (10)

4 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

ðð Lðp half-space, the pile motion is solved by considering the optimi-

1 2 sation problem owing to the free boundary condition case. So,

S¼ L dz r dr ¼ p º_ dz

2 for the aforementioned equations, Euler–Lagrange equations

0

and transversality conditions must be satisfied simultaneously

ð1

1 ð Lðp 2 by assigning A(z) ¼ B(z) ¼ C (z) ¼ D(r) ¼ E(r) ¼ 0 in the follow-

2 1 d2 º ing equation, abbreviated from equations (13), (14) and (15)

þ º_ ( þ j )rs r dr dz

2 2

EP I P dz

2 2 dz2 8 Ð

0 r0 0

> ( A(z)

(z) ) þ B(z)

(z) þ C (z)

9(z) ¼ 0

8 <

< ð ð

> 11 2 D(r) (r) ¼ 0 (16)

@ >

[(ºs þ 2Gs ) º2 :

E(r) (r) ¼ 0

>

:2 @r

0 r0

þ 2ºs ( þ j) þ (ºs þ 3Gs ) 2 ( þ j)2

@r r r

2 º(z,t) ¼ º(z) eiøt (17)

2 @j 2 @j þ j

þ Gs º 2Gs º

@r @r r

2 ) Substituting equation (11) into equation (13) and using

@º equation (17)

þ Gs (j2 þ 2 )]r dr dz

@z

Lðp

2 3 n h i o

2 ð

1 2

r0 @º Ep I P º+

(z) þ ˆº0

(z) þ (p þ )ø º

(z¼0,Lp ) dz

2

64 2 Gs dz7 5 þ Pºjz¼0

@z 0

Lp

ð

1

ð 2

1 þ ˆº (0z) þ ( ø2 )º

(z¼Lp ,1) dz

dº 1 dº

M þ N dz Lp

dz z¼0 2 dz

0 z¼Lp z¼1

(11) þ ˆº9(z) þ Ep I P º-

(z)

(z¼0,Lp ) jz¼0 þ ˆº9(z)

(z¼Lp ,1) jz¼Lp

z¼L

In the above equation, the superimposed dot ( _ ) and þ Ep I P º0(z)

9(z¼0,Lp ) jz¼0 p þ P

(z) jz¼0 M

9(z) jz¼0 ¼ 0

superimposed dash ( 9 ) represent the derivation with respect (18)

to time (temporal) and z (spatial) aspects respectively and

the equation can be simplified by a short, compact form as

described in equation (12).

ðð where

S¼ _ º9z , º0z , , j, 9r , j9r )dz r dr

L(z, r, º, º, (12) (

ð

1 2

d d dj

Because the above Lagrangian comprises three kinds of ¼ r(ºs þ 2Gs ) þ 2( þ j) ºs Gs

functions (º(z,t) , (r) , j(r) ), the Euler–Lagrange equation of dr dr dr

r0

the action S could be separated by equations (13), (14) and

(15) as 2 )

8 " 9 1 2 dj

ð <1

1 ð # =

þ (ºs þ 3Gs )( þ j) þ rGs

r dr

dr

@L @ @L @ @L @ 2 @L

þ 2

(z) dz 8 " #

: @º @z @º9z @t @ º_ @z @º0z ; > Ð

1

r0 0 >

> N rGs ( þ j )dr

2 2

0 < z , Lp

z¼1 z¼1 >

>

>

< r0

@L @ @L @L

dr þ

(z) þ

9 ˆ¼

@º z0 z¼0

( z)

@º9z @z @º0z > " #

z¼0 >

> Ð

1

>

: N r rGs ( þ j )dr þ r0 Gs

>

>

2 2 2

Lp < z , 1

þ P

(z) z¼0 M

9(z) z¼0 ¼ 0 0

(13) 8 1

8 9 > Ð

ð

ð >1

1 > >

> rrs (2 þ j2 )dr 0 < z , Lp

< @L @ @L = @L r¼1 >

>

< r0

(r) dr dz þ (r) ¼0

>

:r @ @r @9r >

; @9r r¼r0 ¼

>

> Ð

1

0 0 >

>

: rrs ( þ j )dr þ r0 rs

> 2 2 2

Lp < z , 1

(14) r0

8 9

1 ð

ð >1< >

= (19)

@L @ @L @L r¼1

(r) dr dz þ (r) ¼0

>

:r @j @r @j9r >

; @j9r r¼r0

0 0 One can then write the corresponding equation for the

(15) pile embedded in n-layered soil overlying the half-space, as

shown in Appendix 1. To extend the formulation to soil

Because the soil motion is restricted by fixed boundary motion, the following system of differential equations needs

conditions and the pile motion is a free boundary condition at to be solved

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 5

8

1ð > 1d d dj S 1 S 3 (S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j)

1d d dj S 1 S 3 >

> S1 r þ

S1 r þ >

>

r dr dr dr r >

> r dr dr dr r r2

>

>

r0 < (S þ S ø2 ) ¼ 0

4 5

> 1d

> dj d S 1 S 3 (S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j)

(S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j) (20) >

> S r

(S 4 þ S 5 ø ) (r) dr

2 >

> 3

r 2 >

> r dr dr dr r r2

>

:

(S 4 þ S 5 ø2 )j ¼ 0

d (23)

þ (r) S 1 r þ S 2 ( þ j)jr¼1

r¼r0 ¼ 0

dr

1ð Owing to the displacement vector (equation (2)), the

1d dj d S 1 S 3 following dilatational and rotational strains have been devel-

S3 r oped as

r dr dr dr r

r0 8

>

> 1 d(rU r ) 1 dU Ł 1 d(r) j

< ¼ þ ¼ þ

(S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j) (21) r dr r dŁ r dr r

(S 4 þ S 5 ø 2

)j (r) dr (24)

r2 >

>

:w ¼ 1 d(rU Ł ) 1 dU r 1 d(rj)

¼ þ

r dr r dŁ r dr r

dj r¼1

þ (r) S 3 r þ S 2 ( þ j)jr¼r0 ¼ 0

dr Substituting equation (24) into equation (23) results in

8

>

> d S 3 dw

where > S1

< (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0

dr r dŁ

(25)

ð

1 >

> S 1 d dw

>

: þ S3 (S 4 þ S 5 ø )j ¼ 0

2

S 1 ¼ (ºs þ 2Gs )º2 dz r dŁ dr

0

The above equation can be represented by introducing the

following potential functions

ð

1

8 8

S2 ¼ ºs º2 dz >

> d 1 d >

> d

< Ur ¼ þ < ¼ þ

dr r dŁ dr r

0 ) (26)

>

>

: UŁ ¼ 1 d d >

>

: d

j¼

ð

1 r dŁ dr r dr

S3 ¼ Gs º2 dz (22)

Finally, combining equations (25) and (26) gives

0

(

S 1 =2 (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0

ð

1 2 (27)

dº S 3 =2 (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0

S4 ¼ Gs dz

dz

0 where =2 is Laplacian in polar coordinates. Equation (27)

can be solved by Bessel functions as follows

ð

1

(28)

0 ¼ ½A2 I 1 (sr) þ B2 K 1 (sr)

where

8

Solution of the system equations. The formulation presented >

> S 4 þ ø2 S 5

>

< ¼ q2

in the previous section demonstrates that soil and pile S1

motions are coupled because of their coefficients. To solve (29)

>

> S 4 þ ø2 S 5

the above coupled system, the first trial for soil motion’s >

: ¼ s2

coefficients (S1 to S5 ) needs to be estimated, then the soil and S3

pile motions can be evaluated, and finally through iterations where I j ([]) and K j ([]) are modified Bessel functions of the

S1 to S5 can be obtained. Minimising the difference between first and second kind respectively of the order j. Because the

assumed and obtained S1 to S5 , it is possible to obtain the modified Bessel function of the first kind is exponentially

updated constant parameters, accurate soil motion and pile growing function, it is assumed that A1 and A2 will be zero

motion for any individual frequency. Each layer of soil is to provide the infinity boundary conditions represented in

characterised by a system of coupled differential equations equation (3). Finally, and j can be rewritten as follows

(equations (20 and (21)). On the other hand, a pile segment in

each layer will require the solution for a differential equation 1

¼ ½B1 K 1 (qr) B2 K 1 (sr) B1 qK 0 (qr)

(or partial differential equation in time-domain analysis). So r

there is one system of differential equations and n + 1 partial (30)

1

differential equations for the soil and pile motions, respec- j ¼ B2 sK 0 (sr) ½B1 K 1 (qr) B2 K 1 (sr)

tively. r

The boundary condition introduced in equation (3) must

be satisfied, so the constant parameters B1 and B2 will be

Soil motion and dynamic stiffness. The system of differential calculated. Differentiation of equation (30) with respect to

equations describing the soil motion is as follows radius yields equation (31).

6 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

d 1

¼ ½B1 qK 0 (qr) B2 sK 0 (sr) w⫽

dr r 10

m

2 m

40

þ 2 ½B1 K 1 (qr) B2 K 1 (sr) þ B1 q2 K 1 (qr) L⫽

r

(31)

dj 1

¼ ½B1 qK 0 (qr) B2 sK 0 (sr)

dr r

2

þ ½B1 K 1 (qr) B2 K 1 (sr) B2 s2 K 1 (sr)

r2

and the plane-strain dynamic stiffness of the soil–pile

system (equation (33)) can be written as

H ⫽ 20 m

2ð

0

And,

" #

p(z) d dj

K (z) ¼ ¼ r0 (ºs(z) þ 2Gs(z) ) Gs(z)

º(z) dr r¼r0 dr r¼r0

(33)

The above system of equations can conveniently be solved

by conventional mathematical tools. Fig. 2. Comparisons with 3D finite-element model (in this figure,

pile diameter has been scaled by two times the real value)

Validation

Validation by comparing with finite-element model. Finite-

element analyses have been carried out to evaluate the research is shown in Table 3, which clearly shows the

validity of the proposed method. The open system for efficiency of the present formulation.

earthquake engineering simulation (Opensees) based 3D

finite-element code for pile foundations in elastic media

(Mazzoni et al., 2006) has been used to analyse the validity

Validation by comparing with experimental pushover loa-

of the developed solution. Fig. 2 depicts the 3D finite-

ding. McClelland & Focht (1958) performed a static push-

element model. Soil is modelled as a linear elastic material

over test together with external bending moment on a pile in

and a free head pile is subjected to dynamic pushover lateral

normally consolidated clay. Details of soil and pile properties

load. Pile displacement and bending moment have been used

have been back-calculated by Randolph (1981) (see also Basu

as benchmarks for the proposed solution. Table 2 shows the

et al. (2009)). This pile was loaded by a lateral force

detail of the soil and pile properties. This sample shows

P ¼ 300 kN, bending moment M ¼ 265 kN m and zero

the result of a single pile embedded in elastic half-space. The

axial loading. Randolph (1981) analysed this example with a

boundaries of the soil model in the finite-element model were

finite-element model assuming a linear variation of soil shear

extended to a horizontal distance of 50Dp from the centre of

modulus with depth (circa 0.8z MN/m3 ) and Poisson ratio of

pile to avoid spurious wave reflection into the system. (Seed

0.3. The same assumptions for soil and pile properties are

& Lysmer (1978) proposed 25 Dp for this limitation.) Fig. 3

considered in this research. Fig. 7 compares the results

illustrates the pile displacement for static and dynamic

obtained from field measurement, finite-element model and

pushover tests where the dynamic test was carried out for a

the current analysis. A very close match is evident.

vibration frequency of 21.06 Hz (as high-frequency vibra-

tion). Fig. 4 demonstrates pile bending moment for the tests.

It is observed that the proposed method provides an

acceptable match with the 3D finite-element model. Figs 5 APPLICATION OF THE FORMULATION

and 6 on the other hand, plot the normalised soil Inertial interaction

displacement ( and j) as defined in equation (2) against When a pile is vibrating loaded at its top, it imparts

normalised radial distance from the pile centre at t ¼ 0 and energy to the system. Part of the energy is then transferred

t ¼ 0:285 s, which correspond to static and dynamic loading, to the soil and it eventually decays spatially with depth (Fig.

respectively. These figures represent the validity of the model 1), as well as radially. Depending on the soil properties near

with respect to reduction of soil displacement at distances the pile top, large bending moments are generated at and

from the pile centre. The comparison of the computation time below the pile head. The parameters that are required in the

between the 3D finite-element model and the presented analysis are

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 7

0 0

2 2

4

4

Depth: m

Depth: m

6

6

8

8

10

⫺0·001 0·001 0·003 0·005

10

Displacement: m ⫺20·0 20·0 60·0

(a)

Bending moment: kN m

(a)

0

2

Present research

4

Finite-element model

Depth: m

4

Depth: m

6 Present research

6

Finite-element model

8

10

⫺0·001 0·001 0·003 0·005

Displacement: m

(b)

10

⫺20·0 20·0 60·0

Fig. 3. Pile displacement in respect of different types of pile head

Bending moment: kN m

vibration: (a) static pushover test; (b) dynamic pushover test with

(b)

vibration frequency 21.06 Hz

Fig. 4. Pile bending moment in respect of different types of pile

(a) loading (vibration frequency, magnitude and type of head vibration: (a) static pushover test; (b) dynamic pushover test

with vibration frequency 21.06 Hz

loading)

(b) soil properties

(c) length of pile affected by pile-head loading.

hysteretic and radiation regions. Meanwhile, the previous

A formulation should link all of the above parameters and model of dynamic stiffness can be calculated from the

propose robust spring and damping coefficients for inertial presented form by a transfer matrix. Since k x and cx are

interaction, as shown by equation (34). frequency dependent, two normalised coefficients (S x1 and

( ) 0 1( ) S x2 ) are suggested to make the regression analysis straight-

kx 3 @ 1 2s a0 A S x1 forward; these are presented by design charts. a0 ¼ ørp =V s

¼ Gs 2 s r p (34)

cx 2 S x2 is a dimensionless frequency.

ø Vs Two values of frequency are considered for normalising

purposes and to present the results: (a) zero frequency,

Equation (34) has some advantage over the conventional which represents static stiffness, S x1(ø¼0) , and (b) high-

dynamic stiffness model (k x þ iøC x ) in the sense that effects frequency point, which may be characterised by full radia-

of material damping (s ) are subtracted from dashpot and tion damping as S x2(ø!1) : It may also be noted that these

spring coefficients to better evaluate those parameters in the normalising parameters consider material properties to

8 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

1·0 1·0

0·8

0·6

0·6 0·4

φ(r)

φ

0·2

0·4

0

0·2 ⫺0·2

⫺0·4

0 20 40 60 80

0 r/r0

0 20 40 60 80 (a)

r/r0

(a)

0·4

0

0·2

⫺0·2 0

⫺0·4 ϕ(r)

Finite-element model

⫺0·4 Current research

ϕ

Finite-element model

⫺0·6 ⫺0·6

⫺0·8

⫺0·8

⫺1·0

0 20 40 60 80

r/r0

⫺1·0 (b)

0 20 40 60 80

r/r0 Fig. 6. Bi-normalised longitudinal displacement of soil in

(b) dynamic pushover loading (t 0.285 s) at: (a) longitudinal plane

crossing pile centre at ground level (ö); (b) transverse plane

Fig. 5. Bi-normalised longitudinal displacement of soil in static j)

crossing pile centre at ground level (j

pushover loading at: (a) longitudinal plane crossing pile centre at

ground level (ö); (b) transverse plane crossing pile centre at

j)

ground level (j Strictly speaking, inertial and kinematic interactions

simultaneously affect the pile behaviour in seismic zones.

Applying the superposition method, it is possible to separate

reduce design charts. Two kinds of loading (quasi-static and kinematic and inertial interaction and solve each problem

dynamic) are considered by defining two margins in zero individually (Makris & Gazetas, 1992; Mylonakis et al.,

and high frequencies. Hence three important parameters will 1997). Although this assumption is strictly valid for a linear

be investigated hereafter, namely: (a) static spring coefficient system, it can also be applied to a moderately non-linear

(S x1(ø¼0) ), (b) radiational dimensionless frequency (a0r ) for system as an engineering approximation. Kinematic inter-

transferring quasi-static loading to dynamic loading and (c) action is applied through the soil motion during the earth-

radiation damping at high-frequency vibration (S x2(ø!1) ). quake, and inertial interaction is applied by D’Alembert

Finite-element (no. of elements: 6930) CPU: Intel core 2 duo RAM: 4 GB 46 min

Present research CPU: Intel core 2 duo RAM: 4 GB 21 s

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 9

Pile displacement: mm

influenced by frequency, represented by radiation dimension-

⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25

0 less frequency (which is dependent on Ep =Es ).

The definition of radiation dimensionless frequency (a0r )

in terms of active length of pile (Lac ), is given by

rp

5 Lac ¼ (36)

2a0r

Figure 8 plots the regression analysis to present the

10 Experimental results radiation dimensionless frequency as a function of Ep =Es :

Depth: m

Current research 0:23

Ep

15 Lac ¼ 2:78 Dp (37)

Es

20

proposed for the homogeneous and the inhomogeneous layer

(e.g. see Randolph, 1981; Gazetas & Dobry, 1984a; Davies

& Budhu, 1986; Gazetas, 1991; Fleming et al., 1992; Syn-

25 gros, 2004) to estimate the active length of pile. A compari-

son between the proposed formulation and the previous

Fig. 7. Comparison of measured displacements in experiment

with current study

research is provided in Fig. 9. The proposed formulation is

similar to Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) and Syngros (2004).

Although active length of pile embedded in homogeneous

and inhomogeneous strata is well investigated, effects of soil

forces at the pile-head mass and superstructure. According layering on active length of pile is poorly understood and a

to these two distinct interactions, the natural period of the formulation does not exist in the literature. The current

soil stratum and the fundamental period of the soil–pile– section focuses on this aspect.

superstructure system are two critical points where detrimen- The top layer mostly influences the pile behaviour and

tal forces and bending moments on pile or pile-cap are most hence the active pile length. The following equation has

likely to occur.

0·16

Radiation dimensionless frequency. There is an accepted a0r ⫽ 0·28 (Ep/Es)⫺0·23

0·12

definition for active pile length (Lac ), beyond which the pile

is assumed to behave as an infinitely long pile, and can be

estimated by pushover static loading. In this section, an

attempt has been made to obtain the active length for a0r 0·08

dynamic pushover loading, and relate this to radiation

dimensionless frequency. Blaney et al. (1976) introduced

the fundamental (shear) frequency of the stratum,

0·04

ø1 ¼ V s =2Lp , to demonstrate the starting point of the

radiation damping for a pile clamped at bed-rock. This

assumption is widely used in practice. Dobry et al. (1976),

Velez et al. (1983) and Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) proposed 0

an alternative starting point for radiation damping as follows 10 100 1000 10 000

Ep/Es

:

V s Lp 0 5

ø1 ¼ 1:2 (35) Fig. 8. Dimensionless frequency of the starting point for radiation

Lp Dp damping as a function of (EP /ES ). Note that EP is not the Young’s

modulus of the pile but the equivalent modulus

It can be shown that the margin between first and second

phases (quasi-static and dynamic) of pile vibration can be

30

characterised by Ep =Es , as the soil and pile properties will Gazetas & Dobry (1984)

influence the starting point of radiation damping. It is also Davies & Budhu (1986)

25

observed that the drop of spring coefficient may also be Gazetas (1991)

represented by a dimensionless frequency in the plane strain

20 Fleming et al. (1992)

model developed by Nogami & Novak (1977) and Gazetas

Syngros (2004)

& Dobry (1984a). Furthermore, Poisson ratio and material

Lac/Dp

damping of the soil media do not have any considerable 15 Present research

effects on radiation dimensionless frequency, a0r : This point

(radiation frequency relevant to a0r ) depicts the drop of 10

spring coefficient and a margin for changing material damp-

ing to geometric damping so it can be presented as a 5

function of maximum active length. This parameter can also

separate two conventional viewpoints on the soil–pile inter- 0

10 100 1000 10 000

action problem, called the kinematic and inertial inter- Ep/Es

actions. It means that kinematic interaction will be

influenced by fundamental shear frequency of the stratum Fig. 9. Comparison between present and previous research stud-

(which is independent of Ep =Es ), but inertial interaction is ies on active length of pile embedded in one layer of soil media

10 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

1·7

been proposed for the active length of pile in a two-layer Ep/Es ⫽1000

soil

Ep/Es ⫽10 000

0:23 1·5

Ep

Lac ¼ 2:78Dp (38)

Es1

1·3

where

[δ1]ω⫽0

1·1

H 1 Es2

¼ f

unloading/reloading

, (39)

granular materials

Lac1 Es1

Cement-treated

0·9

Soils under

In the above equations, Es1 represents the Young’s mod-

silty sand

ulus of the top layer of the stratum. Lac1 is the active length 0·7

of pile calculated using equation (37), which represents the

expected active length of pile if the full stratum is covered

by a top layer. Fig. 10 presents the modification factor (). It 0·5

0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5

shows that when the bottom layer is stiffened, the active νs

length decreases. (a)

Once Lac is obtained, it is possible to back-calculate the

radiation dimensionless a0r using equation (36). νs ⫽ 0·45, L/D ⫽ 40

3·5

Proposed spring

Static stiffness (Sx1( ø¼0) ) coefficient – inertial

It can be shown that the dynamic stiffness is a function of 3·0

Mylonakis (2001) –

the vibration frequency, H 1 =L, Es2 =Es1 and Ep =Es1 for fixed- kinematic

head piles under lateral dynamic loading. Static Winkler

modulus (k x ) is proposed (equation (40)) to overcome the 2·5

[δ1]ω⫽0

fitting problems

k x ¼ 1:5Gs S x1(ø¼0) ¼ 1(ø¼0) Es (40) 2·0

where 1 represents a coefficient considering static pushover

loading for a pile embedded in a one-layer soil profile

overlying a half-space, and Es is the elastic modulus of the 1·5

top layer. ¼ (=1 ) is a correction factor to take into

account soil layering. For long, flexible piles, 1 can be Gazetas & Dobry (1984)

obtained by way of the following equation, which is formu- 1·0

100 1000 10 000

lated by regression analysis Ep/Es

0:1 (b)

Ep

1(ø¼0) ¼ 3 1

: f (s ) (41)

Es1 Fig. 11. Static spring coefficient for long flexible piles:

(a) variations plotted against Poisson ratio of soil; (b) relationship

where f (s ) is a function of the Poisson ratio of soil. Figs between pile–soil stiffness ratio and spring coefficient, and its

11(a) and 11(b) show the relations between 1 and its comparison with transient analysis

variables, such as pile–soil stiffness ratio (Ep =Es ) and soil

Poisson ratio. If the effect of Poisson ratio is neglected,

f (s ) ¼ 1: Fig. 11(b) also shows the difference between static For two-layered soils, there is another factor, , which is

Winkler coefficient for inertial and kinematic interactions for a function of H 1 =Lac1 and Es2 =Es1 , and can be obtained

soils having Poisson ratio of 0.45. from Fig. 12. As can be observed, there is a critical depth

that either amplifies or reduces the spring coefficient, de-

1·2

Es2/Es1

pending on the location of the interface. It may also be

noted that the effects of layering on static spring coefficient

1·0 of the soil–pile system may be neglected for H 1 . 0:7Lac1 ,

1

hence the proposed equation (equation (40)) is valid for

pushover loading of long and flexible piles where H 1 is less

0·8

than 0:7Lac1 : For instance, this range of top layer thickness

2 is around 8Dp for Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000: It is shown that, for most

χ 0·6 field applications, the top layer dictates the pile behaviour

where its thickness is greater than 0:7Lac1 :

5

0·4

10 Radiation damping coefficient

0·2

Figure 13 plots the solution for S x2(a0 ¼1) for a wide range

∞ of Poisson ratio of soil (s ) and damping (s ). It is assumed

(rather arbitrarily) that radiation damping corresponds to

0 a0 ¼ 1, but it is proposed in this paper that radiation

0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 damping should be limited by a finite value. The damping

H1/Lac1

coefficient suggested can be obtained from equation (42),

Fig. 10. The modification factor of active length of pile for the obtained through non-linear regression analysis of the results

case of a two-layer stratum presented in Fig. 13.

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 11

1·8 0:911s

0·5 Vc ¼ : Vs (43)

3 2 5s

1·6 0·75

2

The above two equations provide a new form of radiation

damping when compared to the previous research (a sum-

Es2/Es1 4

1·4 mary of the other damping formulations is given in Appen-

6 dix 2).

8 Figure 14 shows a non-dimensional plot of the variation

μ 1·2

of the Sx2 parameter for a range of non-dimensional frequen-

10

cies. Damping coefficient (S x2 ) for a range of a0 < a0r is

1·0

suggested as S x2 ﬃ 7s for one-layer soil strata and

S x2 ﬃ 2:5s for two-layered soil. It is worth noting that

S x2 ﬃ 0 represents the case of a clamped pile-tip

0·8 (Lp < Lac1 ). This estimation shows that, for dimensionless

frequencies (a0 ) less than the radiation dimensionless fre-

quency (a0r ) of the soil–pile system, the damping coefficient

0·6 is also contributed by hysteresis material damping. This

0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0

H1/Lac1 form of damping coefficient provides a conservative form

rather than the actual one because (a) S x2(a0 ¼a0r ) is greater

Fig. 12. Effects of layering on static spring coefficients than 2:5s and (b) S x2(a0 ¼0) at zero dimensionless frequency

goes to infinity. In the figure, a0n is conveniently introduced

3·0 δs ⫽ 2%

to show the transition from mixed hysteretic-radiation phase

to full radiation phase.

Original data Following a regression analysis on single- and multi-layer

Fitted equation soil data for the range of dimensionless frequencies greater

than a0n , radiation damping is given by following the equa-

2·5 tion for case 1 (single layer)

1=5

Sx2(a0⫽¥)

2·0

S x2 ¼ S x2(a0 ¼1) (45)

a0n is proposed to be roughly equal to or greater than 3a0r :

0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5

νs

Dynamic Winkler coefficients of one- and two-layer soil

(a) strata for various Ep =Es have been normalised and are

2·5 represented in Figs 15 and 16. Hysteretic damping has

considerable effects on spring coefficient (S x1 ). This effect

has been incorporated in Figs 15 and 16 by normalising

2·3 coefficient Æs , given by equation (46)

νs ⫽ 0·45

Æs ¼ (Æ9s 1)a0 þ 1 (46)

2·1

where Æ9s can be obtained from Fig. 17. It may be noted that

for static loading ø ¼ 0, and subsequently Æs ¼ 1 implies

Sx2(a0⫽¥)

1·9

Sx2

Mixed Radiation

νs ⫽ 0·005 phase phase

1·7 Sx2(a0⫽∞)

phase

1·3 1

0·01 0·1

δs

(b)

Multi-layered soil

Fig. 13. Radiation damping coefficient: (a) as a function of soil 7δs

Poisson ratio; (b) as a function of soil material damping

Sx2(a0⫽∞)

Vc : :

S x2(a0 ¼1) :

¼ 1 76 1 þ (1:186e0 777s 0:186e5 713s ) 2·5δs a0

Vs

Sx2(a0⫽∞)

(42) 1 a0n ∞ a0r

⬵3

a0r

12 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

δs ⫽ 2%

1·5 δs ⫽ 2%

1·2

1·1

1·0

Sx2 /Sx2(a0⫽∞)

Sx1 /αsSx1(ω⫽0)

1·0

Ep/Es ⫽ 100

0·5

Ep/Es ⫽ 500

0·9

Ep/Es ⫽ 1000

Ep/Es ⫽ 10 000

0·8 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

a0 /a0r a0 /a0r

(a) (b)

1·2 1·5

Reference (Es2/Es1) ⫽ 1

1·1 0·2

Es2/Es1 ⫽ 2,

0·3

H1/Lac1 ⫽

1·0 1·0

0·4

Sx2/Sx2(a0⫽∞)

Sx1/αsSx1(ω⫽0)

0·6

0·9

0·8 0·5

0·7

0·6 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a0 /a0r a0 /a0r

(a) (b)

1·2 1·5

Reference (Es2/Es1) ⫽ 1

0·2

1·1

Es2/Es1 ⫽ 5,

0·3

H1/Lac1 ⫽

1·0 1·0

0·4

Sx2/Sx2(a0⫽∞)

Sx1/αsSx1(ω⫽0)

0·6

0·9

0·8 0·5

0·7

0·6 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a0 /a0r a0 /a0r

(c) (d)

Fig. 16. Dynamic stiffness of two-layer soil media over half-space: (a), (b) normalised spring coefficients; (c), (d) normalised damping

coefficients (Ep /Es1 1000, äs 2%)

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 13

1·8

have a constant shape and it is difficult to show a unique

relation. Depending on the pile diameter and the shear wave

νs ⫽ 0·45

velocity of the top layer of soil, a0r will separate the phases

of interest for dynamic stiffness.

1·6

foundations

A concrete pile (0.6 m dia. and 20 m long) supporting a

α⬘s

1·4

bridge pier is embedded in a two-layer homogeneous over-

νs ⫽ 0·005

consolidated soil stratum overlying the half space. It is

necessary to estimate the amplification of deck displacement

considering the flexibility of the foundations. Using the

1·2

formulation derived in the third and fourth sections of this

paper on the ‘Elastodynamic formulation’ and its applica-

tion, the dynamic behaviour of the soil–pile–superstructure

system is predicted for the problem shown in Fig. 18

1·0 (Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000, Es2 =Es1 ¼ 2). For the first layer, the shear

0·01 0·1 wave velocity is on the order of 70 m/s. T 1 is the first

δs

natural period of a fixed-base supported bridge, which is 2 s.

Fig. 17. Effects of hysteretic damping of soil on spring coefficient

Details of the calculations are shown in Appendix 3 and the

of soil–pile system results are summarised here.

damping. The active length of the pile for the two-layered

no effect of hysteretic damping on the spring Winkler coef- soil has been estimated through equations (37) and (38), and

ficient. Fig. 17 plots the results for two extreme Poisson found to be 5.4 m. Radiational dimensionless frequency (a0r )

ratios and linear interpolation is proposed for intermediate has been estimated to be 0.0873. The range where hysteretic

points. Also linear interpolation can be carried out for behaviour is expected is given by

Ep =Es not included in Fig. 15. Obtaining S x1 and S x2 for

two-layer soil strata requires more calculations. Since these 2rp

0 < a0 ¼ < 0:0873

coefficients vary with H 1 =Lac1 , Ep =Es1 and Es2 =Es1 , and Fig. TV s

16 is valid for a special case Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000, two parameters which corresponds to the range of periods as

are defined by ¼ H 1 =Lac1 and ¼ Ep =Es1 to simplify the

interpolation, and Figs 15 and 16 may be used. The follow- 0:307 s < T , 1

ing equation is recommended for interpolation

For a free-field earthquake motion having predominant

S ,1000 S period less than 0.3 s (frequency greater than 3 Hz), the

S , ¼ (47)

S 1000 energy of motion is expected to be dissipated by radiation

where damping. It may also be noted that by reducing the pile

diameter (making the pile more flexible), the share of energy

S ,1000 ¼ ½ f ¼ H 1 , ¼ Ep ¼1000 (48) dissipated by the radiation phase will increase.

Lac1 Es1

Es1

Static spring coefficients for first and second layer.

S ¼ ½ f ¼1, ¼ Ep (50)

Es1

k x1 ¼ 1:633Es1 ¼ 40:825 MPa

in which f ¼ S x1 =Æs S x1(ø¼0) if obtaining the spring coeffi- k x2 ¼ 1:633Es2 ¼ 81:65 MPa

cient is the aim of the calculation, and f ¼ S x2 =S x2(Æ0 ¼1) if

the damping coefficient is being sought.

T1,st ⫽ 2 s

DISCUSSION

Normalised spring coefficients have the same shape for δst ⫽ 5%

Hst ⫽ 10 m

a0 < a0r , as shown in Figs 15 and 16, and this unique form

EstIst ⫽ 2EpIp

is independent of layering effects of soil. Hence the afore- Es1 ⫽ 25 MPa

mentioned region of normalised dimensionless frequency can H1 ⫽ 2·5 m Layer 1 νs1 ⫽ 0·4

be categorised as a quasi-static stiffness or quasi-static be-

haviour of the pile, and dynamics does not have any consid- ρs1 ⫽ 1800 kg/m3

erable effects on this phase. This inference further reinforces δs1 ⫽ 5%

Dp ⫽ 0·6 m

the initial assumption made in this research about the

separation between two phases of dynamic stiffness: (a) Es2 ⫽ 50 MPa

Lp ⫽ 20 m Layer 2

phase I, which has quasi-static properties and is called the νs2 ⫽ 0·4

hysteretic part, and (b) phase II, which introduces the Ep ⫽ 25 GPa

ρs2 ⫽ 1800 kg/m3

dynamic properties and is termed the radiation part. Phase I

is the result of inelastic response of the soil and phase II is ρp ⫽ 2500 kg/m3 δs2 ⫽ 5%

the result of waves emanating from the soil–pile interface to

infinity. In contrast to phase 1, the dynamic part does not Fig. 18. Bridge–pier system supported on pile foundation

14 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

Once the dynamic stiffness of the soil–pile system has Ep elastic modulus of equivalent pile

been obtained (see Appendix 3) and the BDWF model EP I P flexural rigidity of pile

solved, it is possible to obtain the dynamic response. Fig. 19 Es elastic modulus of soil overlying half space

shows the amplification of the deck displacement through an Es1 elastic modulus of top layer of soil in two-layer soil

inertial interaction phenomenon. It is shown that the period Es2 elastic modulus of second layer of soil in two-layer

media

of the bridge pier considering the interaction phenomena is eiøt dynamic steady state term

around 40% greater than the period of the fixed-base system. Gs shear modulus of soil

This methodology can also be applied for other kinds of G s complex Lame’s constant of soil layer

dynamic interactions, such as traffic loading, wind loading H1 depth of top layer of soil

or any vibration on superstructures (offshore wind turbines). IP pile moment of inertia

I j ([]), K j ([]) modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind,

respectively, of the order j

CONCLUSION K (z) dynamic plane strain stiffness of pile

kx spring coefficient

Inertial interaction of soil and pile has been shown to be Lp , L pile length

important for layered strata and it was found that the pile Lac active length of pile

behaviour is mostly influenced by the soil properties of the Lac1 active length of pile relevant to top layer of soil in

top layer. Spring and damping coefficients of soil–pile multi-layered soil

elements have been proposed for carrying out beam-on- M bending moment acting at pile head

dynamic Winkler foundation (BDWF) type analysis using P translational horizontal load

normalising factors obtained through rigorous elastodynamic p(z) traction force per unit length affected on pile

solutions. The proposed formulation for a static spring coef- q specific distance in radial-longitudinal direction away

ficient considers wide ranges of Poisson ratio and soil–pile from pile centre

r radius from pile axis

stiffness ratio. The well-known concept of ‘active length of

rp , r0 pile radius

pile’ is proposed for layered soil. It has been shown that Su undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils

inertial interaction alters the spring coefficients for the cases S x1 dynamic spring coefficient in this study

where the top-layer thickness of the soil is less than 70% of S x2 damping coefficient new formulation in this study

the active length. A new radiation damping coefficient based S x2(a0 ¼1) radiation damping coefficient

on a proposed wave velocity has been suggested. s specific distance in radial-transverse direction away

from pile centre

T kinetic energy

UT total potential energy

NOTATION Vc wave velocity represented for radiation damping

A1 , A2 arbitrary constants

V La Lysmer analogue wave velocity

a0 dimensionless frequency

Vp P-wave velocity of soil

a0n dimensionless frequency relevant to transition from

Vs shear wave velocity of soil

mixed-material geometric damping to fully geometric

W work done by external loading

damping

Æs normalising coefficient

a0r radiation dimensionless frequency

frequency-independent coefficient for static spring

B1 , B2 arbitrary constants

s hysteretic damping of soil material

Cx damping coefficient

ij i, j component of strain tensor of soil element

Dp pile diameter

loss angle

(z) small variation of pile displacement

20

Ł angle between radius of individual element and

Soil–pile–superstructure interaction loading direction

18 Fixed-base system

ºs complex Lame’s constant of soil layer

º(z,t) horizontal pile displacement at depth z and time t

16

non-dimensional factor to take into account layering

into spring coefficient

p mass per unit length of the pile

14

s , Poisson ratio

Amplification factor

rs soil density

12

ij i, j component of stress tensor of soil element

non-dimensional factor to take into account layering

10

into active length formulation of pile

(r) small variation of soil displacement in radial-

8

longitudinal direction

scalar function of Helmholtz equation

6

j(r) horizontal soil displacement factor in circumferential

direction located at a radius r from pile axis

4

(r) horizontal soil displacement factor (longitudinal

displacement) in radial direction at radius r from pile

2 axis

ø rotational frequency of vibration (rad/s)

0 ø1 fundamental shear frequency of the stratum (rad/s)

0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8

T/T1 vector function of Helmholtz equation

(r) small variation of soil displacement in radial-

Fig. 19. Amplification factor of bridge deck considering SSI transverse direction

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 15

APPENDIX 1. PILE MOTION FOR A PILE EMBEDDED ºi jz¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i ¼ ºiþ1 jz¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i (57)

IN n LAYERED SOIL OVER HALF SPACE

dºi dºiþ1

This appendix provides the necessary details for the solution of ¼ (58)

dz z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i dz z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i

the equations presented in the third section of the paper on

‘Elastodynamic formulation’. ˆi º9i þ Ep I P º- i

z¼H þH þH þþH

1 2 3 i

Euler–Lagrange equations and transversality conditions are as (59)

follows ¼ ˆiþ1 º9iþ1 þ Ep I P º-iþ1 z¼H þH þH þþH

1 2 3 i

ð1

H

n h i o

Ep I P º i0 z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i ¼ Ep I P º i0þ1 z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i (60)

1(z) þ ˆ1 º01(z) þ 1 (p þ 1 )ø º1

(z1 ) dz

Ep I P º+ 2

H 1ð

þH 2

for the continuous displacement and rotation of the pile element at

n h i o interfaces.

þ 2(z) þ ˆ2 º 02(z) þ 2 (p þ 2 )ø º2

(z2 ) dz

Ep I P º+ 2

At pile tip

H1

ˆn º9n(Lp ) þ Ep I P º-

n(Lp ) ¼ ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(Lp ) (61)

Lðp

n Ep I P º n0z¼Lp ¼ 0 (62)

þ þ Ep I P º+

n(z) þ ˆn º 0n(z)

H 1 þH 2 þþH n1 Equation (61) should be adopted for boundary condition at infinite

h i o depth of the soil stratum. Hence the motion of half-space (fictitious

þ n (p þ n )ø2 ºn

(zn ) dz pile) has been calculated by

ˆnþ1 º0nþ1 þ (nþ1 ø2 nþ1 )ºnþ1 ¼ 0 (63)

ð

1

þ ˆnþ1 º0nþ1(z) þ (nþ1 nþ1 ø2 )ºnþ1

(znþ1 ) dz Considering its solution and its condition at infinite depth, the

Lp

boundary condition at the bottom of the fictitious pile is represented

by

hpﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃi

þ (P ˆ1 º91(z) Ep I P º 1-(z) )

(z1 ) z¼0 þ (Ep I P º 01(z) M)

9(z1 ) z¼0

ˆn º9n(Lp ) þ Ep I P º-

n(Lp ) þ (nþ1 ø2 nþ1 )ˆnþ1 ºn(Lp ) ¼ 0

þ ˆ1 º91(z) þ Ep I P º 1-(z)

(z1 ) ˆ2 º92(z) þ Ep I P º-

2(z)

(z2 ) z¼H

1

(64)

þ Ep I P º 02(z)

9(z2 ) Ep I P º01(z)

9(z1 ) z¼H

1

þ ˆ2 º92(z) þ Ep I P º 2-(z)

(z2 ) ˆ3 º93(z) þ Ep I P º-

3(z)

(z3 ) z¼H þH APPENDIX 2. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON OF

1 2

RADIATION DAMPING AT HIGH DIMENSIONLESS

þ Ep I P º 03(z)

9(z3 ) Ep I P º02(z)

9(z2 ) z¼H þH þ FREQUENCY

1 2

Proposed formulation

þ ˆn1 º9n1(z) þ Ep I P º n-1(z)

(zn1 )

2s rp

cx ¼ 1:5Gs S x1 þ S x2 ¼ 2:35Dp rs V s S x2

ˆn º9n(z) þ Ep I P º n-(z)

(zn ) z¼H þH þþH ø Vs

1 2

n1

Vc

þ Ep I P º 0n(z)

9(zn ) Ep I P º0n1(z)

9(zn1 ) z¼H þH þþH 1=5

¼ 4:1Dp rs V s a0 1þ

: :

(1:186e0 777s 0:186e5 713s )

1 2 n1 Vs

þ ˆn º9n(z) þ Ep I P º n-(z)

ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(z)

(65)

(zn ) (znþ1 ) z¼Lp

So it can be rewritten as

þ ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(z)

(znþ1 ) ¼0

z¼1

cx 1=5 Vc : :

(51) ¼ 4:1a0 1þ (1:186e0 777s 0:186e5 713s )

Dp rs V s Vs

The above equation describes the differential equations of the pile

(66)

motion for each layer and their boundary conditions. As shown, the

typical form of the above differential equation of pile motion Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) suggested a simple form following

surrounded by layer ‘i’ is as follows " #

h i cx 1=4 V La 5=4

Ep I P º+ i(z) þ i (p þ i )ø ºi(z) ¼ 0

i(z) þ ˆi º0

2

(52) :

¼ 1 4a0 1þ (67)

Dp rs V s Vs

This form of ordinary fourth-order differential equation can be

solved numerically. Since the pile and soil are linear elastic where V La is the Lysmer analogue wave velocity

materials, the frequency domain provides an efficient solution and 3:4

is given by V La ¼ Vs (68)

(1 ıs )

1i zi 2i zi 3i zi 4i zi

ºi(z,ø) ¼ Ai e þ Bi e þ Ci e þ Di e (53)

where

vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ APPENDIX 3. APPLICATION EXAMPLE: STEPS FOR

u

uˆi ˆ2 4Ep I P i ø2 ( þ i ) ANALYSING SOIL–PILE INTERACTION IN BDWF

t i p

(1,4)i ¼ (54) MODELS AND FURTHER DETAILS OF THE WORKED

2Ep I P OUT EXAMPLE

To extend the above solution to pile motion, the following Step 1: Estimation of the active length of pile considering

boundary conditions should be considered. layering

At pile head (z ¼ 0) Using equation (37), the active length of pile relevant to the first

layer (Lac1 ) is calculated by

ˆ1 º91(z¼0) þ Ep I P º 1-(z¼0) ¼ P(t) ¼ P0 e iøt

(55) 0:23

Ep :

and Lac1 ¼ 2:78Dp ¼ 2:78 3 0:6 3 (1000)0 23 ¼ 8:17 m

Es1

Ep I P º 10(z¼0) ¼ M (t) ¼ M 0 eiøt (56)

For H 1 =Lac1 ﬃ 0:3, the active length of pile will be modified by

At interface of layers equation (38) to consider layered strata

16 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA

0:23 2 3

Ep :

( ) 1 2s a0 ( )

Lac ¼ 2:78Dp ¼ 2:78 3 0:6 3 0:66 3 (1000)0 23 ¼ 5:4 m k x1 3Es1 6 7 S x1

Es1 ¼ 4 2s rp 5

C x1 4(1 þ s ) S x2

ø Vs

2 3

( ) 1 2s a0 ( )

Step 2: Estimation of radiation-dimensionless frequency to k x2 3Es2 6 7 S x1

separate hysteretic and radiation damping ¼ 4 2s rp 5

C x2 4(1 þ s ) S x2

Using equation (36), radiation dimensionless frequency can be ø Vs

estimated as follows

The dynamic stiffness can now be represented by a fourth-order

rp 3 0:3 ordinary differential equation as a BDWF model (following equa-

a0r ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:0873

2Lac 2 3 5:4 tions as shown in Fig. 1(b)), or modelled in some commercial

So the range of where hysteretic behaviour (i.e. dissipated energy) software (such as SAP2000 (2004), see for example Dash et al.

of the soil–pile system is expected is given by (2010)) and run for different vibration frequencies.

1 þ (k x1 þ iøC x1 mp ø )y1 ¼ 0

2

2rp Ep I p y+

0 < a0 ¼ < 0:0873

2 þ (k x2 þ iøC x2 mp ø )y2 ¼ 0

TV s Ep I p y+ 2

which corresponds to the range of periods as These ordinary differential equations can be solved by initial and

0:307 s < T , 1 boundary conditions on the pile head, and at the interface of two

layers, respectively (Kavvadas & Gazetas, 1993).

As the fixed-base period of the superstructure is greater than the

threshold period (0:307 s), a quasi-static pile vibration is expected.

Step 7: Estimation of deck response

It is assumed that the bridge pier and deck is like a lumped-mass

Step 3: Obtaining static spring coefficient (kx ) cantilever–beam supported on a pile foundation. Est I st (the rigidity

Following equation (40), equation (41), and Fig. 12, the static of the pier bridge) is assumed to be 2 times that of the pile.

spring coefficient will be calculated for the first and second layer as

a general form, which maintains the consistency condition as follows

k x ¼ 1(ø¼0) Es REFERENCES

where Basu, D., Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. (2009). A continuum-based

0:1 model for analysis of laterally loaded piles in layered soil.

Ep : Géotechnique 59, No. 2, 127–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/

1(ø¼0) ¼ 3:1 ¼ 1:1 3 3:1 3 (1000)0 1 ¼ 1:633 geot.2007.00011.

Es1

Berger, E., Mahin, S. & Pyke, R. (1977). Simplified method for

So the static spring coefficients for first and second layers will be evaluating soil–pile structure interaction effects. Proceedings of

k x1 ¼ 1:633Es1 ¼ 40:825 MPa 9th offshore technology conference, Houston, TX, pp. 589–598.

Biot, M. A. (1937). Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic

k x2 ¼ 1:633Es2 ¼ 81:65 MPa foundation. J. Appl. Mech., ASME 4, No. 1, A1–A7.

Blaney, G. W., Kausel, E. & Roesset, J. M. (1976). Dynamic

stiffness of piles. In Numerical methods in geomechanics (ed.

Step 4: Obtaining dynamic spring coefficients (Sx1 ) C. S. V. Desai), pp. 1001–1012. Blacksburg, VA, USA: ASCE.

Following equation (40), the static component S x1(ø¼0) will be Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design. Singapore:

McGraw-Hill.

k x1 k x2 1:633 3 2(1 þ s )

S x1(ø¼0) ¼ : ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:97 Broms, B. (1964). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soil.

1 5Gs1 1:5Gs2 1:5 J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 90, No. 2, 123–156.

For the ranges of a0 < a0r , equation (49) can be written as Cubrinovski, M. & Ishihara, K. (2004). Simplified method for

analysis of piles undergoing lateral spreading in liquefied soils.

Æs ¼ (Æ9s 1)a0 þ 1 ¼ (1:07 1)a0 þ 1 ! 1 < Æs < 1:006 Soils Found. 44, No. 5, 119–133.

which is negligible. Dynamic spring coefficients can be obtained Dash, S., Bhattacharya, S. & Blakeborough, A. (2010). Bending–

from Fig. 16(a), noting that S x1(ø¼0) ¼ 0:97, and therefore buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in liquefi-

able soils. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng 30, No. 1–2, 32–39.

S x1 Davies, T. G. & Budhu, M. (1986). Nonlinear analysis of laterally

0:8 < < 1 ! 0:776 < S x1 < 0:97

Æs S x1(ø¼0) loaded piles in heavily overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique 36,

No. 4, 527–538, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.4.527.

Davisson, M. & Gill, H. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in layered

Step 5: Obtaining damping coefficient (Sx2 ) soil system. ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89, No. 3, 63–94.

As discussed in Step 2, the pile behaviour is in pseudo-static Davisson, M. T. (1970). Lateral load capacity of piles. In Highway

phase, therefore the effects of radiation on the dissipated energy of Research Record, pp. 104–112. Washington, DC, USA:

the system are negligible (depending on the natural period of Research Board, National Academy of Science.

vibration). According to Fig. 14, the damping coefficient is constant Dezzi, F., Carbonari, S. & Leoni, G. (2010). Kinematic bending

for the required range of dimensionless frequency and is given by moments in pile foundations. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng

30, No. 3, 119–132.

S x2 ¼ 2:5s ¼ 2:5 3 0:05 ¼ 0:125 Dobry, R. & Gazetas, G. (1988). Simple method for dynamic

stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Géotechnique 38,

where s is the material damping of soil.

No. 4, 557–574, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1988.38.4.557.

In this example, the radiation damping coefficient is not

Dobry, R. & O’Rourke, M. J. (1983). Discussion on seismic

applicable. However, it may be required for some cases, for

response of end-bearing pile by Flores-Berrones, R. and Whit-

example, machine foundations or a pile supported in liquefied

man, R. V. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 109, No. 5, 778–

ground.

781.

Dobry, R., Oweis, I. & Urzua, A. (1976). Simplified procedure for

estimating the fundamental period of a soil profile. Bull. Seis-

Step 6: Total dynamic stiffness (kx þ iøcx ) and soil–pile mol. Soc. Am. 66, No. 4, 2193–1321.

interaction model Dobry, R., Vicente, E., O’Rourke, M. & Roesset, J. (1982).

Following equation (34), the dynamic stiffness for the top layer Horizontal stiffness and damping of single piles. J. Geotech.

and bottom layer can be easily obtained by Engng Div. 108, No. 3, 439–459.

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 17

Fleming, W. G., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. & Elson, W. K. vibrating piles. Int. J. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics 5,

(1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edn. Glasgow, UK: Surrey No. 3, 249–261.

University Press. Novak, M. (1974). Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can.

Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibration. In Foundation engineer- Geotech. J. 11, No. 4, 574–591.

ing handbook (ed. H. Y. Fang), pp. 553–593. New York, NY, Prakash, S. & Sharma, H. D. (1990). Pile foundations in engineer-

USA: Van Nostrand Reinholds. ing practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Gazetas, G. & Dobry, R. (1984a). Horizontal response of piles in Randolph, M. F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral

layered soils. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 110, No. 1, 20–40. loading. Géotechnique 31, No. 2, 247–259, http://dx.doi.org/

Gazetas, G. & Dobry, R. (1984b). Simplified radiation damping 10.1680/geot.1981.31.2.247.

model for piles and footings. J. Engng Mech. 110, No. 6, 937– Roesset, J. M. (1980). The use of simple models in soil–structure

956. interaction. In Civil engineering and nuclear power, paper 10-3.

Kagawa, T. & Kraft, L. (1980). Lateral load–deflection relationships New York, NY, USA: ASCE.

of pile subjected to dynamic loadings. Soils Found. 20, No. 4, Roesset, J. M. & Angelides, D. (1980). Dynamic stiffness of piles.

19–36. In Numerical methods in offshore piling, pp. 75–81. London,

Kavvadas, M. & Gazetas, G. (1993). Kinematic seismic response UK: Institution of Civil Engineers.

and bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Géotechnique 43, SAP2000 (2004). Integrated software for structural analysis and

No. 2, 207–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.207. design. Berkeley, CA, USA: Computer and Structures Inc.

Liyanapathirana, D. & Poulos, H. (2010). Analysis of pile behavior (CSI).

in liquefying sloping ground. Comput. Geotech. 37, No. 1, 115– Seed, H. B. & Lysmer, J. (1978). Soil structure interaction analyses

124. by finite elements – state of the art. Nucl. Engng and Design

Lysmer, J. & Richart, F. E. (1966). Dynamic response of footing to 46, No. 2, 349–365.

vertcal loading. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 92, No. SM1, Sica, S., Mylonakis, G. & Simonelli, A. (2011). Transient kinematic

65–91. pile bending in two-layer soil. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng

Makris, N. & Gazetas, G. (1992). Dynamic pile–soil–pile inter- 31, No. 7, 891–905.

action. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Engng Syngros, C. (2004). Seismic response of piles and pile-supported

Struct. Dynamics 21, No. 2, 145–162. bridges piers evaluated through case histories. PhD thesis, The

Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F. & Fenves, G. (2006). Open system for City College and the Graduate Center, City University of New

earthquake engineering simulation user manual. See http:// York, New York, NY, USA.

opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual/ (accessed Tokimatsu, K. & Nomura, S. (1991). Effects of ground deformation

17/03/2014). on pile stresses during soil liquefaction. J. Struct. Construction

McClelland, B. & Focht, J. A. (1958). Soil modulus for laterally Engng, AIJ 426, 107–113 (in Japanese).

loaded piles. Trans. ASCE 123, 1049–1063. Velez, A., Gazetas, G. & Krishnan, R. (1983). Lateral dynamic

Mylonakis, G. (2001). Simplified model for seismic pile bending at response of constrained head piles. J. Geotech. Engng 109, No.

soil layer interfaces. Soils Found. 41, No. 4, 47–58. 9, 1063–1081.

Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A. & Gazetas, G. (1997). Soil–pile– Vesic, A. (1961). Bending of beam resting on isotropic elastic solid.

bridge interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft J. Engng Mech. Div. 87, No. 2, 35–53.

soil. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics 26, No. 3, 337–359. Yoshida, I. & Yoshinaka, R. (1972). A method to estimate modulus of

Nogami, T. & Novak, M. (1977). Resistance of soil to horizontally horizontal subgrade reaction for pile. Soils Found. 12, No. 3, 497.

- Lectures on Classical Mechanics-3Uploaded byAbhijit Kar Gupta
- Cm2 SolutionsUploaded byEric Kumi Barimah
- Projectile Impact on Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plate 2006Uploaded byHemant Chouhan
- PhD RobuffoGiordano [0]Uploaded byaco_n
- 1Uploaded byTrần Bé Thêu
- HOOKE'S LAWUploaded byIznifaiznur Faiznur
- The Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity - Myths and Reality 0809.0097v2Uploaded byforizsl
- Column Bases ManualUploaded byphuongkq832
- Hojman EquivalentLagrangian JMathPhys 22 1414 (1)Uploaded byRh Espindola
- RM E Getting Started DINUploaded byOrlando Lopes
- Intermediate Dynamics.pdfUploaded byMarjoni Imamora
- Eurock 2014_Upscaling elastic moduli in Copenhagen LimestoneUploaded byNatasa Katic
- Elastic Constants2Uploaded byravish kumar
- lec9Uploaded bymahendran
- Approximate design method for piled raft foundationsUploaded byAnirudh Sharma
- Hamiltonian MechanicsUploaded bypasha khan
- Feedback Control of DynamicBUploaded bylsantos2012
- Energy Shaping Inertia Wheel PendulumUploaded bySalomón Castaño
- PMR12015FU1Uploaded byAlexander Illidge Araujo
- circular_tanks.xlsUploaded byDipak Borsaikia
- 2D Nonlinear Analysis of Asphaltic Concrete -Core -PAPER-5Uploaded byMilton César Aroní Llantoy
- Download FileUploaded byA.K.M Shafiq Mondol
- 11 Performance of Ceramic Waste Aggregate on Properties of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA).pdfUploaded bynw__ay
- Hasil Perhitungan Plaxis RembesanUploaded byagung setiono
- Estimation of Asphalt Concrete Fatigue Curves – a Damage Theory Approach 2008 Construction and Building MaterialsUploaded byMoslem Aghapour
- Chpt02 Mabel FundamentalsUploaded bynader
- Some_Properties_of_Single_Metal_Cr - [Bridgman_P.W.]_(BookFi.org).pdfUploaded byTaiana Bonadio
- 143Uploaded byseif17
- 10749-Article Text PDF-30111-3-10-20180322.pdfUploaded byTogi Huta
- RC Pile CapUploaded bytri

- hardrockDSslope.xlsUploaded byshadabg04
- Engineering and Geotechnical techniques for shoreline erosion managementUploaded byshadabg04
- Specification for Railway Formation.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- Comparision Between Results of Dynamic and Static Moduli of SoilUploaded byshadabg04
- Job Pile design-450 (R1).pdfUploaded byprudencehp
- Materials TableUploaded byTeo Malancu
- Burland and BurbidgeUploaded byAtul Kumar
- Jet grout - Kimpritis-T-2014-MPhil-ThesisUploaded byshadabg04
- Embankment Settlement Eng-tipsUploaded byshadabg04
- A_novel_approach_to_predicting_Youngs_mo.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- IGC_2016_paper_180Uploaded byshadabg04
- 02.ru.enUploaded byshadabg04
- Pile SpringUploaded byshadabg04
- 3430Uploaded byshadabg04
- Pile Foundation Notes DesignUploaded bySnow Yoshima
- AAZ-ASRAO-SP-2011.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- CPT Guide 6th 2015.pdfUploaded byAnonymous IIwfvRaO78
- Timber ManualUploaded byspiderlance
- Piles and pile foundation, settlements of pile foundation.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- Settlement analysis of modeled wooden piles in clay.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- Groundwater and artificial recharge investigations around proposed Devi Rasa Boutique hotel site-Amer-Rajasthan-Green Systems (2010).pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- Rainwater_Harvesting_Trainers_Manual.pdfUploaded byAnonymous iTzCnM
- CanalsUploaded byVibhash Pathania
- Wrana-2015-4Uploaded byJorge Eduardo Pérez Loaiza
- geo.pdfUploaded byelahi1979
- Cross hole test - handout.pdfUploaded byshadabg04
- Critical Factor of Safety Plot in Seismic ConditionUploaded byshadabg04

- LaterANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILEally Loaded Pile-PrakashUploaded byfarhadasemi
- Ultraform_brochureUploaded bykocakpolimer
- Timber Activity Prob 1 N 2Uploaded byWico Malalad
- 91751123-Solucionario-Capitulo-13-Paul-E-Tippens.pdfUploaded byJean Carlo Sánchez
- 859872_ch26.pdfUploaded bybookpp
- 13chapter 3aUploaded byAlbert Nguyen
- SOM Unit-I 2011-2012Uploaded byVeeraraj Alagarsamy
- Cement and Concrete Research Volume 25 issue 7 1995 - Pierre Richard; Marcel Cheyrezy - Composition of reactive powder concretes.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Santos
- Modeling of Fiberglass Reinforced Epoxy Composites in LS-DYNAUploaded bypoloko7
- Bond Strength of Normal-to-LightweightUploaded byjcuscatuga
- 38m WT Blade DesignUploaded byNemanja Komatinovic
- material spec sheets.pdfUploaded byVũ Giang
- Flac Phase2Uploaded bypbldzcms
- PBEEtoolbox_UnivLub-ExamplesofapplicationsUploaded byCem Demir
- Gate_XE_2019Uploaded byRudra Mishra
- McCabe and Sheil ASCE IJGUploaded byKasim Baručija
- Hi PaveUploaded byglmuralidhar
- FEMAP Basics TutorialUploaded byDhruv Solanki
- TensileUploaded byTharinya Sellathurai
- Design and Control of Pig Operations Through PipelinesUploaded bypedriim
- well known experimentsUploaded byPatel yogesh top
- Hooke's LawUploaded byAreeb Ahmad
- 23.IJMPERDFEB201923Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Strength of Materials - Nptel_iitrUploaded byDrAnkuran Saha
- Paper 2 Past Questions From Elasticity - CompletedUploaded byrajudevis
- Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of URM - EditableUploaded byMoisi Ionut
- PONTEGGI.pdfUploaded byTufano Grosso
- Strength of Materials 2 Marks All 5 UnitsUploaded bydhiyaneswaran
- Bending testUploaded byArundevSArundevS
- Finite Element MethodsUploaded bypraneeth4a

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.