See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312551243

Dynamic analyses of pile-raft foundation for site-specific earthquake

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 157

1 author:

Kamatchi Palaniyandi
CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre
39 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Performance enhancement of Structures View project

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF ASYMMETRICAL BUILDING WITH DAMPERS & COLLAPSE STATE EVALUATION OF ASYMMETRICAL BUILDING View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamatchi Palaniyandi on 20 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PILE RAFT FOUNDATION
Dynamic Analysis of Pile-Raft Foundation for
Site-Specific Earthquake
Buvaneswari C.1, Kamatchi, P.2
M. E. Project student, 2Principal Scientist , CSIR-Structural Engineering
1
Research Centre CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai
I
n this paper, a methodology for carrying out dynamic analysis
of pile-raft foundation for site-specific earthquake has been
demonstrated with an example of pile-raft foundation of the
Customs office tower at Kandla port. Pile-raft foundation at
Kandla port had tilted due to lateral spreading under liquefac-
tion during January 26, 2001, Bhuj earthquake. Limited studies
on this pile-raft are reported in the literature, however, no study
for site-specific earthquake with numerical simulation of soil is
reported in the literature. In the present study rock level ground
motions for the site-specific scenario earthquake of Mw 7.6 with
seismological parameters of Bhuj earthquake 2001 are generat-
ed using extended finite source stochastic models. Surface level
ground motions are obtained through one-dimensional equiva-
lent linear wave propagation analysis. Two-dimensional numeri-
cal modelling of pile-raft foundation and the sub-soil interactions
are using a finite element program PLAXIS 2D and the dynamic
analyses are carried out for rock level and surface level ground
motions. Settlement of pile-raft and response of soil at different
depths in terms of the settlement, lateral displacement, excess
pore pressure and acceleration are studied for rock and surface
level ground motion. To account for the gentle ground slope re-
ported to be existing on site, dynamic analyses are carried out
for horizontal ground slopes of one degree and five degrees in
addition to the flat ground case and lateral spreading and set-
The Masterbuilder | December 2016 | www.masterbuilder.co.in
tlement of soil observed from the analysis is compared with field
observations reported during Bhuj earthquake.
Introduction
As it is reported in the literature, Bhuj 2001 earthquake has
resulted in huge loss of lives and damage of infrastructure, in-
cluding buildings, dams and bridges in different districts of Gu-
jarat [1,2]. It is reported in the literature [3] that severe ground
deformations in the form of lateral spreading, up to a meter up-
lift, and a meter wide and several meters deep ground cracks
have occurred in between the Wagad fault and Kutch Mainland
fault during Bhuj earthquake. During Bhuj 2001 earthquake,
twenty-two metre tall custom office tower building at Kandla
port had tilted due to lateral spreading caused by liquefaction
[4,5]. It is stated that[4], 12 m sand layer below the 10 m clayey
layer got liquefied and had tilted the entire building. From field
observations during Bhuj earthquake, settlement of the pile tip
of about 45cm for pile-raft of Kandla port and lateral spreading
162
of ground for about 80-100 cm are reported[4]. Studies on Pile-
raft of Kandla port with equivalent static loads[6] for serviceability
and seismic conditions are reported in the literature by model-
ling the soil-structure interaction effects of elastic springs[5]. In
the present study dynamic analyses of typical section of pile-raft
foundation of customs office tower at Kandla port assumed to be
situated on the flat ground and ground with horizontal slope of
one degree and five degree are carried out using computer pro-
gram Plaxis 2D for site-specific scenario earthquake.Due to the
non-availability of information on bedrock depth at Kandla port
site,in the present study site-specific ground motion of Mw 7.6
is generated for hard rock site class with seismological param-
eters[7] of Bhuj 2001 earthquake using extended finite source
stochastic models for the latitude and longitude of Kandla port.
Surface level ground motions are obtained through one-dimen-
sional equivalent linear wave propagation analysis through the 40
m soil overburden.
The 22m high six-floor custom office tower building at Kand-
la is located on the pile-raft foundation of size with 11.45mx-
11.9mx0.5m supported by 32 piles of 0.4m diameter. Each pile is
of length 18m and embedded into 40m depth of soil. Subsoil con-
sists of the soft clayey soil of 10m depth, sandy soil of 12m depth,
brown hard clayey soil of 10m depth and clayey sand of 8m depth.
Two-dimensional numerical modeling of a typical section of pile-
raft with the soil mesh of 151.45 m in the horizontal direction and
40 m in the vertical direction is done and time history dynamic
analysis are carried out with rock and surface ground motions.
In order to account for the gentle ground slope reported to be ex-
isting on site, three slopes of ground viz., 0 degree, 1 degree and
5 degrees are considered for the analysis which are designated
as case 1, case 2 and case 3 hereafter. Through the time history
dynamic analysis, settlement of pile-raft and response of soil at
different depths in terms of the settlement, lateral displacement,
excess pore pressure, and acceleration are obtained for rock and
surface level ground motion and the comparisons are made with
the field observed values reported in literature for all the three
cases.
Methodology
Methodology for carrying out dynamic analysis of pile-raft
foundation involves the steps of generation of site-specific ground
motion, numerical modelling of soil and numerical modelling of
the pile raft as detailed below:

Generation of site-specific ground motion
Due to the scarcity of recorded ground motions, generation
of site-specific artificial strong motions using stochastic models
by identifying major fault zones and propagating seismic waves
generated at these potential sources to the sites of interest are
well accepted in the literature [8-10]. In this process, path effects
and anelastic attenuation effects predicted by the empirical and
theoretical models [10] are used. For source representation,
point source models [11] or finite source models [12] are widely
used. In this paper, artificial ground motions are generated for
Mw 7.6 earthquake with parameters [7]of Bhuj earthquake us-
ing extended finite source stochastic model (EXSIM) proposed by
Motazodian and Atkinson [13]. Peak ground acceleration (PGA)
of ground motion simulated in the present study for rock level is
0.49g which is in close agreement with Amax value reported for
the main shock of Mw 7.6 for stress drop of 200 bars by Singh et
al. [7]. One dimensional equivalent linear ground response analy-
sis has been carried out for the Kandla port site with the available
information on soil overburden for a depth of 40 m(Fig.1) using
computer program SHAKE2000[14]. The PGA of surface level
ground motion obtained for the present study is 0.187g. How-
ever, the surface level peak ground motion reported in literature
for Kandla port by Dash et al., [5] is 0.33g. This deviation may be
due to the non-availability of information about soil layers below
40 m, hence, surface level ground motion obtained through wave
propagation in the present study is scaled to PGA of 0.33g and
adopted for dynamic analysis of pile-raft foundation.
Fig. 1 Typical soil profile adopted for Kandla port
Numerical modelling of soil for pile-raft analysis
The plain strain model of pile-raft foundation has been cre-
ated by soil mesh of 151.45mx40mand the water table is located
at 1.5m from the ground level as per the bore log details avail-
able in the literature [4]. The boundaries of the model are taken
sufficiently far away to avoid the direct influence of the boundary
conditions. The earthquake vibrations are induced by imposing
a prescribed displacement at the bottom boundary. The vertical
component of the prescribed displacement is kept zero. At the far
vertical boundaries, absorbent boundary conditions are applied
PILE RAFT FOUNDATION
to absorb the increments of stresses on the boundaries caused
by dynamic loading. Horizontal fixities (ux=0) are applied at the
vertical boundary and both horizontal and vertical fixities are ap-
plied at the bottom boundary (ux=0, uy=0).For cases 2 and 3 the
entire soil profile and pile-raft system are modelled with inclina-
tions of one degree and five degrees respectively with horizontal
and the ground motion is applied at the bottom of the model.
The clay layers are modelled with Mohr Coulomb (MC) con-
stitutive relation and sand layers are modelled with hardening
soil (HS) constitutive relation [15]. Yield surface of hardening soil
model and Mohr coulomb model are given in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Soil constitutive relation and yield surfaceadopted (a) Mohr-Cou-
lomb model (b) Hardening soil model
Numerical modelling of pile-raft
The front view of six-floor customs office tower building is
shown in Fig. 3a. Dimensions of raft slab, columns and pile are
given in Fig. 3b. The typical section of pile-raft foundation which
supports 12 columns of the building has a cut out for 7.7mx4.7m
as shown in Fig.3c. As it is reported by Dash et al., [5] left and
middle columns are of size 0.25mx0.25 and right columns are of
size 0.45mx0.45m the entire pile raft system consists of 32 nos.
of piles and each pile is 18m long with the diameter of 0.4m. In
an earlier study, three-dimensional modelling of pile-raft with
all the 32 piles has been carried out by authors for static loads
and the axial force, bending moment and settlement variations of
pile-raft and individual piles were studied [6]. In the present study,
dynamic analysis has been carried out for a typical section of the
pile-raft of dimension 11.45mx0.5mraft with three equivalent
piles representing the rigidity of pile groups in the front row as
shown in Fig. 3c using Plaxis 2D Plain strain model. During anal-
ysis, axial loads from superstructure are assumed to be acting on
top of each pile group (equivalent pile) as shown in Fig. 3c in addi-
tion to earthquake load which is applied at 40 m level. Settlement The Masterbuilder | Decemebr 2016 | www.masterbuilder.co.in
response of the pile-raft has been observed for rock and surface
level ground motions and the comparisons are made with values
reported in the literature.
Response of Pile-Raft Foundation
Settlements of the pile-raft at different points along the
length of the raft, are observed from dynamic analyses for rock
and surface ground motions. The settlements and lateral dis-
placements at the left edge and right edge of the raft and the pile
tip for rock and surface level ground motions are given in Table 1.
From the results it is seen that right edge settlements are more
for all the cases compared to left edge settlements. The percent-
age differences in settlements between right edge and left edge
are greater for surface ground motion than that of rock ground
motion. The percentage differences between right edge and left
edge for case 1 and case 2 are similar even though the absolute
settlements are more in case 2 than that of case 1. The right
edge settlement for case 3 is in the order of 98% and 190% more
163
 PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

than that of left edge settlement for rock and surface ground Lateral
motions respectively. Tilting of pile raft by 1.5 degrees and 2.92 displace-
degrees is observed for RGM and SGM respectively in case 3. Settlement (mm)
ment
(mm)
Response of Soil Raft Pile tip raft
As mentioned in the sections above, dynamic response of soil Mid-
Left Right Left Right
dle
is observed for three different cases viz., Case 1, Case 2 and Case edge edge pile pile
pile
3. The deformed shape for the three cases for rock ground mo-
Case RGM 80.8 90.6 81.5 89.5 90 12.9
1 SGM 57 76 57 60.6 74.6 114.7
Case RGM 100 110 103 115 110 82.8
2 SGM 119 157 124 145 154 145
Case RGM 308 610 343 460 597 494
3 SGM 309 897 373 588 867 816
Table 1: Settlement and lateral displacement of raft and equivalent piles

tion (RGM) and surface level ground motions(SGM) are shown in

Fig. 4a-f. As it can be seen in Fig. 4, responses of soil is different
in different sections along the length considered for numerical
study. Other responses of soil viz., settlement, lateral displace-
ment, excess pore pressure and acceleration are observed typi-
cally along a vertical section next to the right edge of the raft foun-
dation indicated as a line in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: Deformed mesh of pile foundation and soil for rock and surface
level ground motion(a) Case 1 – RGM (b) Case 1 –SGM (c) Case 2 –RGM
(d) Case 2 –SGM (e) Case 3 –RGM (f) Case 3 -SGM

Settlements

Settlement time histories at different levels for rock ground

The Masterbuilder | December 2016 | www.masterbuilder.co.in

motion and surface ground motion are shown in Fig5 (a) -(f) for
the three cases considered. Static load from superstructure is
applied at the top of the raft along with earthquake excitation.
Peak values of the settlement after the earthquake shaking are
given in Table 2. The percentage difference in peak settlement
at surface level for case 2 and case 3 with respect to case 1 are
10.5% , 452.6% for rock ground motion and 7.3%, 493.9% for sur-
face ground motion respectively.

Lateral displacement

Lateral displacement time histories at different levels of rock

Fig 3: Details of Pile-raft foundation (a) Front view of Kandla port custom
tower after Bhuj earthquake (b) Structural details of foundation of custom
office building (c) Plan of piled raft showing location of columns, piles and
plan and elevation of the chosen pile row with equivalent pile section for
164
and surface ground motions are given in Fig. 6 (a)-(f) for the three
cases considered. It is seen that for surface ground motions peak
values of lateral displacement are high and variation along the
height is less. This indicates that the entire strata experiences the
lateral displacement of similar order for case 1 and case 2. Peak
lateral displacement for surface ground motion are observed to
be higher compared to peak lateral displacement observed for

2D modelling for dynamic analysis rock ground motion. The percentage difference in peak lateral
 PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

displacement at surface level for case 2 and case 3 with respect

to case 1 are 8.7%, 212.8% for rock ground motion and 17.9%,
35.5% of surface ground motion respectively.

Excess Pore pressure

Excess pore pressure time histories at different levels for

rock and surface ground motions are given in Fig. 7 (a)-(f) for
the three cases considered. Excess pore pressure ratios (EPP)
are obtained and it is observed that in case 3 at the level of 10 m
where, fine sand is located below the clay layer, the EPP values
are more than 1 for both RGM and SGM which indicates the oc-
currence of the phenomenon of liquefaction.
(e) (f)
Fig 6Horizontal displacement time history at different depths of soil
(a)Case 1 –RGM (b)Case 1 –SGM (c)Case 2-RGM (d) Case 2-SGM
(e) Case 3 – RGM (f) Case 3- SGM

Peak ground acceleration

Acceleration time histories at different levels for rock and

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)

(e) (f)
The Masterbuilder | December 2016 | www.masterbuilder.co.in

Fig 5 Settlement time history at different depths of soil (a)Case 1 –RGM
(b)Case 1 –SGM (c)Case 2-RGM (d) Case 2-SGM (e) Case 3 – RGM (f) Case
3- SGM
(e) (f)
Fig. 7 Excess pore pressure at different depths of soil (a)Case 1 –RGM
(b)Case 1 –SGM (c)Case 2-RGM (d) Case 2-SGM (e) Case 3 – RGM
(f) Case 3- SGM

surface ground motions are given in Fig. 8 (a) -(f) for the three
cases considered. Peak ground accelerations observed at 10 m
level are found to be higher for rock ground motion compared to
other layers for all the three cases considered.

(a) (b)
166

(c) (d) (a) (b)

 PILE RAFT FOUNDATION

observed to be 31 and 61 cm respectively, for rock ground mo-

(c) (d) five-degree ground slope model in the present study. It is report-
(e) (f) for case 3 are in closer agreement with the values reported in
Fig. 8 Acceleration time history at different depths of soil (a)Case 1 –RGM
(b)Case 1 –SGM (c)Case 2-RGM (d) Case 2-SGM (e) Case 3 – RGM (f) Case
3- SGM
Conclusions
In the present study, a methodology has been demonstrated
for carrying out dynamic analysis of piled raft foundation for the
site-specific earthquake. The methodology has been demon-
strated for the pile-raft foundation of the Customs office tower
at Kandla port which had tilted due to lateral spreading under
liquefaction during January 26, 2001, Bhuj earthquake of mo-
ment magnitude 7.7. In the present study, numerical modelling
of pile-raft foundation and the sub-soil interactions are done
using two-dimensional finite element program PLAXIS 2D. Dy-
namic analysis is done for the three cases viz., pile-raft in level
ground, one-degree slope ground and five-degree slope ground
for rock level ground motion and surface level ground motion.
Responses of the raft, pile and soil are observed. The settlement
of pile reported in the literature from an analytical study is 35
cm and reported from field survey is 45 cm. From the present
study settlement for case 3, at left and right edge of the raft are
tion and 31 and 90 cm settlement for surface ground motions.
Settlement of pile tips of left and right edge piles is observed to
be 34 cm and 60 cm for rock ground motions and 37 cm and 87
cm settlement for surface ground motions respectively. Tilting of
piled raft by 1.5 degrees and 2.92 degrees is observed for rock
ground motion and surface ground motion respectively for the
ed that lateral spreading of the soil of the order of 80 cm to 100
cm was observed from reconnaissance survey immediately after
the earthquake and lateral spreading of 83 to 91 cm has been
reported from analytical studies. In the present study lateral dis-
placement of the raft is observed to be 49.4 cm for rock ground
motion and 82 cm for surface ground motion. Lateral displace-
ment of the top most layer for the section chosen near the right
edge of the raft for case 3 is 60.7 cm for the rock ground motion
and 89.7 cm for the surface ground motion. Hence simulations
the literature from analytical studies and damage surveys for pile
settlement and lateral displacement. Further, it is reported in the
literature that, the sand layer at 10 m depth at Kandla port got
liquefied during Bhuj 2001 earthquake. In the present study, the
excess pore pressure ratio for case 3 at 10 m level is observed to
be more than 1 for both rock ground motion as well as surface
ground motion indicating the phenomenon of occurrence of liq-
uefaction which is in agreement with the literature.
From the studies made, it is seen that results of the dynamic
analysis of the site-specific earthquake for the pile raft foundation
of Custom tower building at Kandla port situated in the gentle
sloping ground of about 5 degrees are in closer agreement with
the field observed values and analytical study results reported in
the literature. The methodology proposed in this paper can be
adopted for predicting the settlement and lateral spreading of
the foundation and soil for future earthquakes.
Acknowledgement
The support extended by the Director and the Advisor [M],C-
SIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre for carrying out this
work and publishing this paper is highly acknowledged.

Peak lateral Peak excess pore Peak ground

The Masterbuilder | December 2016 | www.masterbuilder.co.in

Layer (m) Peak settlement (mm)

displacement (mm) pressure (kPa) acceleration (m/s2)
Rock Surface Rock Surface Rock Surface Rock Surface
Ground ground Ground ground Ground ground Ground ground
motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion
Top 114 164 194 663 152 132 6.3 4.67
Case 1 10 61 94 159 606 38.8 40.4 10.7 3.61
(Ground 14 43 66 170 596 60.7 81.2 6.82 5.73
level) 22 20 34 183 628 150 277 8.11 4.3
32 3.8 8.4 171 638 50 39.4 11.8 2.95
Top 126 176 211 544 140 142 5.52 4.75
10 58 99 170 520 140 149 12.1 4.93
Case 2
14 46 80 176 548 85.8 201 8.14 3.43
(10slope)
22 20 37.2 184 602 167 208 7.43 4.32
32 0.4 10 172 618 70 45 7.8 2.87
Top 630 974 607 897 60.7 56.1 5.87 5.02
10 78.5 144 367 379 445 758 11.7 4.72
Case 3
14 66.5 131 200 195 81.2 109 9.9 3.94
(50slope)
22 23.2 51 190 171 74.2 75.2 6.8 3.82
32 5.0 12.2 174 151 90 59.7 7.85 3.06
168

Table 2. Peak values of settlement, lateral displacement, excess pore pressure and acceleration at different soil layers for the three cases considered

View publication stats