36 views

Uploaded by Bridgit Bocage

save

You are on page 1of 9

UNDER SEISMIC LOADING

Shoichi NAKAI1, Hideyuki MANO2 and Takashi MATSUDA3

**1 Department of Urban Environment Systems, Faculty of Engineering, Chiba University
**

Yayoicho 1-33, Inageku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

Email: nakai@tu.chiba-u.ac.jp

2 Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation

Etchujima 3-4-17, Kotoku, Tokyo 135-8530, Japan

Email: mano@sit.shimz.co.jp

3 Student, Design and Architectural Science, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Chiba University

Yayoicho 1-33, Inageku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

Email: kurosuna@pollux.tu.chiba-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a study on the behavior of piled raft foundations under dynamic/static horizon-

tal loading. The finite element analysis was used for the dynamic loading. It was found from the

analysis that: the change of the impedance function due to adding piles to the raft is relatively small

but the foundation input motion is affected significantly, the contribution of the raft accounts for 60

to 80 per cent of the load bearing ratio. Based on this result, a simplified method of static analysis

which is intended for use in the practical design has been proposed. In the analysis, three different

interactions, i.e. raft to pile, pile to raft and pile to pile interactions, are separately taken into consid-

eration. The examination has indicated that the method can give results which compare to those

obtained from the dynamic analysis.

Keywords: Piled Raft Foundation, Soil-Structure Interaction, Finite Element Analysis, Approximate

Analysis, Design

1 INTRODUCTION

The piled foundation is normally used when constructing buildings on soft soils. The spread foundation, however,

becomes an alternative when appropriate load bearing soil layers do not exist. In the latter case, from the viewpoint

that the excessive settlement and differential settlement have to be avoided, the use of a composite foundation is

becoming very popular in recent years. This composite foundation consists of a spread foundation, usually a raft

foundation, and a relatively few number of friction piles and is called a piled raft foundation. In the case of the piled

raft foundation, the load bearing mechanism is fairly complex because the load is transmitted to the ground through

the raft and the piles.

**The vertical load bearing mechanism has been extensively investigated by a number of researchers by applying the
**

elasticity theory [Poulos, 1994; Randolph, 1994] and the finite element method [Yamashita, 1998]. Based on these

results, piled raft foundations are becoming popular in practical use [Yamada, 1998].

The load bearing mechanism under horizontal loading or during earthquakes, however, has not been studied in

detail. This is partially because piled raft foundations are considered as raft foundations in the current design

practice. Since the behavior of the piled raft foundation during earthquakes is considered fairly complex due to the

dynamic interaction among the raft, the piles and the ground, the design procedure should include the effect of this

mechanism in a certain manner.

The objective of this paper is to investigate the possibility of the design method of the piled raft foundation against

earthquakes. An extensive study of the piled raft behavior during dynamic loading is first made and based on its

results a simplistic elasticity based procedure is then proposed.

1

0 0. 2.0 0.1 0. the pile-soil system.2 Solid Elements 1.3 0. i.5 0.6 Beam Elements H After Hasegawa 長谷川の解（虚部） 1.e.0 Foundation Input Motion UP/UG Real Part After Hasegawa.0 1.5m GL = 0 Pile 1x1 Piles 2x2 15m Piles 3x3 1m Pile: Soil: Ep = 20594MN/m2 Vs = 150m/s νp = 0. foundation input motions.0 0.167 νs = 0.4 0.0 0.2 Imaginary Part 0.1 Method of Analysis In the analysis.8 Real Part Solid Elements 2 D Beam Elements 0. 1993 Impedance KH (x 10 MN/m) 2.5t/m 3 h = 0.3 0.6 0. The three dimensional finite element analysis based on the dynamic substructure method has been used to compute impedance functions.2 Analysis Model Dynamic properties and the finite element mesh layout used in the analysis are shown in Figure 1. The diameter of 5m 5m 5m 5m 5m 5m GL = S/2 2.5m S=5m 2.03 h = 0.4t/m 3 ρs = 1.4 Imaginary Part 0. is assumed as a linear elastic body.6 Nondimensional Frequency ω B/V Nondimensional Frequency ωB/Vs s (a) Horizontal Impedance Function (b) Foundation Input Motion Figure 2 Comparison between Solid Elements and Beam Elements 2 ..1 0.0 0. A computer code ACS SASSI was used and the analysis was made in the frequency domain.2 0.4 0. the rest of the system.45 ρp = 2. load bearing ratios and stress distributions along the pile. 2 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION The dynamic behavior of the piled raft foundation placed on the uniform elastic soil is studied based on the three dimensional finite element analysis.03 Figure 1 Analysis Model (Finite Element Mesh Layout) 3.5 0.0 0. the raft is considered as a massless rigid body.2 0. 2.

in which the distance between piles is set to 5 m The embedment of the raft foundation has been considered in addition to the non-embedded case.0 Real Part Real Part 5.5 2. as shown in Figure 1.5 Nondimensional Frequency ω b/Vs Nondimensional Frequency ω b/Vs (a) Raft with No Embedment (b) Raft with Embedment Figure 4 Foundation Input Motion 3 .5 2.0 Impedance KH/Gb Impedance KH/Gb 杭2×2 Piles 3x3 Piles 3x 3 杭3×3 15.0 杭3×3 15.the pile is 1 m and the length of the pile is 15 m.0 0. Accord- ing to this study.0 0.0 Imaginary Part Imaginary Part -0.5 1.5 Nondimensional Frequency ω b/Vs Nondimensional Frequency ω b/Vs (a) Raft with No Embedment (b) Raft with Embedment Figure 3 Horizontal Impedance Function 1.0 0. Piles are often modeled as beams in the finite element analysis due to its flexural characteristics. The reason is because a pile modeled as a beam has very small diameter hence it tends to have small resistance.2 0. and Vs the shear wave velocity of the soil.3 Impedance Functions Figure 3 shows the impedance function KH of the piled raft foundation. However.0 0.5 2.0 10. In the figure.2 Real Part Real Part 1.0 Foundation Input Motion UP/UG Foundation Input Motion UP/UG 0.0 1. The raft is square and has 1.0 Pile 1x 1 25.0 杭1×1 杭1×1 Piles 2x2 Piles 2x 2 杭2×2 20. b the half-width of the raft.0 Imaginary Part Imaginary Part 0.5 1.0 2.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.2 0. Figure 2 shows impedance functions and foundation input motions of single piles. G represents the shear modulus of the soil. the direct use of a beam as a pile in conjunction with solid elements as soils is not appropriate in the dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis.0 2. It is confirmed by this result that the beam element modeling underestimates the impedance function and overestimates the foundation input motion. 4 (2 x 2) or 9 (3 x 3) piles.6 杭1×1 Piles 2x2 Piles 2x2 杭2×2 杭2×2 0.2 -0.8 Pile 1x1 Pile 1x1 0.8 0.0 30.0 0.0 1.0 Pile 1x 1 25.0 2. since beams do not occupy any volumes in the three dimensional space.4 Piles 3x3 Piles 3x3 杭3×3 杭3×3 0.2 1.5 1.0 10.0 5.5 0.0 0. piles are modeled by solid elements in this paper. 30. 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.6 杭1×1 0.

the ratio be.4 ground/the base of the foundation.6 From this figure.8 ance function. 2x2 Piles. the difference is relatively small.8 Pile Head Raft .5 Load Bearing Ratio Raft .4 Figure 5 shows the load bearing ratio. Forced Vibration 2. This tendency becomes more appar. 0.6 2. 0. the normalized impedance function decreases with the Load Bearing Ratio increase of the number of piles. it is observed that the real part of the 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Frequency (Hz) (c) Raft with Embedment. Load Bearing Ratio 0. This tendency is the same between two cases. Raft . The bending moment of the pile was ob. In the case of embedded foundations.2 case of the incident wave..Front/Back tween the resistance of the raft and that of the piles.Base Pile Head 0. i.0 very little with the increase of the number of piles. UP. 2x2 Piles. 0. This tendency becomes vague in the 0. each of which was computed by integrating the element 0.Base of the pile. of the raft foundation at Frequency (Hz) the ground surface level due to the vertically incident S wave with respect to the response.e. but the value is still large at the upper part of the pile. Incident Wave Figure 5 Load Bearing Ratio 4 . Forced Vibration From this figure.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 computed as the response.Side Raft .0 From this figure. 0.Front/Back ing the resulting slope of these elements. especially when the frequency is low. Raft . it is seen that the impedance increases 1.0 Figure 6 depicts the distribution of the bending moment Raft .From this figure. it is observed that the bending mo- ment is large at the upper part of the pile near the 0. 0.8 ent when the foundation has embedment.6 Stress Distribution of Pile 1. (a) Raft with No Embedment. Raft 0.4 Foundation Input Motions Pile Figure 4 shows the foundation input motion which is 0.2 2. 0.6 Pile 1x1 杭1×1 from the fact that the embedment is kept constant while Piles 2x2 杭2×2 increasing the size of the raft and the number of piles. UG. This may be resulted 0.4 Piles 3x3 杭3×3 However. Load Bearing Ratio 0. indi- cating the small contribution of the piles to the imped. it is found that the raft bears most of 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Frequency (Hz) the load and the frequency has little influence on the ratio.0 foundation input motion decreases with increasing fre- quency while the imaginary part increases as the fre- quency increases. impedance analysis and incident wave analysis.2 stresses in the horizontal direction.Side tained by placing very soft beam elements and extract. (b) Raft with Embedment. of the free field also at the ground surface level.

0 5.05 Hz 0.72 Hz -15.86 Hz -10.10 0.05 Hz 0.10 0.4 0.0 5.0 0.2 0.86 Hz -10.8 1. an approximate method of analysis of the piled raft founda- tion under static lateral loading is proposed [Mano and Nakai.20 Bending Moment (tf*m) Bending Moment (tf*m) (a) 2x2 Piles / Raft with No Embedment / (b) 2x2 Piles / Raft with Embedment / Forced Vibration Forced Vibration 0.00 0.72 Hz -15.05 Hz -10. 0. (2) influence of the piles under lateral loading on the raft.0 -15.0 0. Based on this.20 0.0 Bending Moment (tf*m) Bending Moment (tf*m) (c) 2x2 Piles / Raft with No Embedment / (d) 2x2 Piles / Raft with Embedment / Incident Wave Incident Wave Figure 6 Distribution of Bending Moment of the Pile 5 .86 Hz 11.0 -5.6 0.0 Depth (m) Depth (m) 0.00 0.15 0.4 0.05 Hz 5.72 Hz 11.0 -15.0 Depth (m) Depth (m) 0.0 0.15 0.0 -5. In the proposed method.05 0.0 -5. 3 APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATION 3.0 0.1 Method of Analysis It has been pointed out from three dimensional finite element analysis that the load bearing ratio is almost fre- quency independent and that the bending moment of the pile is large near the ground surface/the base of the raft which is quite similar to the static case.72 Hz 11.8 1.05 0.2 0.0 -5.0 0. 2000].0 11. Secondary effects other than these are neglected in the analysis. Thus.6 0. as shown in Figure 7.0 0. the following interactions are considered in the analysis: (1) influence of the friction at the base of the raft on the piles.0 -10.86 Hz 5.0 0. and (3) influence of the piles under lateral loading on other piles. the raft-pile-soil interaction system is divided into two: a raft foundation on the surface of the ground and piles installed in the ground.

This can be done by dividing the raft foundation into a number of small elements and applying the same displacement to each element.3. as shown in Figure 8. Resulting reaction forces of the elements represent the distribution of the friction.1 Raft to Pile Interaction The deflection due to the friction at the base of the raft can be obtained by a) computing the displacement in the ground along the pile shaft (note: piles do not exist) due to the friction at the base of the raft placed on the ground surface. Influence factors between arbitrary two elements can be obtained by applying the theory of elasticity [Mogami. the distribution of the friction at the base of the raft should be determined in the first place.1. In order for this. and then b) computing the deflection of the pile due to this ground movement. 1977]: δ j i = Irθ qi a(1 + ν s ) Irθ = − {( A + B) cos θ + ( A − B) sin θ } 2 2 πEs ν s a r r r r 2 2 2 A= 2 2 − 2 1 + E k − 1 − 2 + 2 K ( k ) ( ) 3r a a a a a{ B = (2 − ν s ) 1 + E( k ) + 1 − K ( k ) r a r } (1) 2 4r a k = (1 + r a)2 Q QR QPi QPj r Element j Irθ δ ji + Element i θ a Loading Piled Raft Raft Piles Pressure qi =P i /πa2 Direction (Friction Pi ) Figure 7 Decomposition of Piled Raft Foundation Figure 8 Subdividing Raft into Elements under Horizontal Loading Soil Spring Pile i Pile j 1 Resistance ∆Pj Pile i Displacement 1 k k m Subgrade Reaction Subgrade Reaction Displacement due to Subgrade Reaction m Figure 9 Pile to Raft Interaction Figure 10 Pile to Pile Interaction 6 .

or the friction force of the raft due to this distributed load by subdividing the raft into small elements and applying the theory of elasticity. δR. As in 3.where K and E are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind. ν is the Poisson’s ratio of the ground and Jn is a Bessel function of the n-th order. can be obtained by summing up the contributions.2 Pile to Raft Interaction In this step. due to this displacement again based on the Winkler model.e. The deflection of the pile due to this ground movement can be computed based on the so-called Winkler model. G is the shear modulus of the ground. and b) compute the deflection of the pile. and b) computing the displacement of the raft.1. δj. 1977].1.2. Once the distribution of the friction force is determined. This can be done by: a) computing the distribution of the subgrade reaction along the pile based on the Winkler hypothesis. the displacement of the raft. 3. θ. δji. Suppose the bearing load of the raft is QR and that of each pile is QPi (i=1 ~ n). The horizontal displacement u at an arbitrary point (r. i.3 Pile to Pile Interaction This considers the interaction among piles. { } qa u = 0 (C + D) cos θ + (C − D) sin θ 2 2 4G ∞ 1 ∫ (2ν + ξ z)e J1 (ξ a ) J 2 (ξ r )dξ − ξz C=− (2) 0 ξ ∞ 1 ∫ {ξ z − 2(2 − ν )}e J1 (ξ a ) J 0 (ξ r )dξ − ξz D= 0 ξ where. due to a unit lateral load is computed. a beam on elastic subgrade [Kishida and Nakai. Pi. R QR i =1 n (3) uPi = ∑δ Pi . The schematic illustration of the procedure is shown in Figure 9. the displacement along the pile shaft in the ground due to this force can then be computed again by the theory of elasticity.4 Load Bearing Ratio The load bearing ratio between the raft and the piles can be obtained by combining previously developed relation- ships. hence the load bearing ratio between the raft and the piles. Pj QPi + δ Pi . The displacement of Element j. R QR j =1 Considering additional compatibility and equilibrium conditions: u R = uP1 = uP 2 = L = uPn n (4) ∑Q Pi + QR = Q (Q: Total Horizontal Load ) i =1 it is possible to come up with the two bearing loads. Pi QPi + δ R . δR. Pi. z) in the ground due to a distributed horizontal load q0 in a circular area of the radius a on the surface of the ground is given by [Mogami. from other elements. Based on this. then the displacement uR of the raft and the deflection uPi at the head of each pile can be expressed by the following equations: n uR = ∑δ R . The procedure is illustrated in Figure 10.1. respectively. R. δPj. 7 . 3. the displacement of the raft and the friction force of the raft due to a unit horizontal load acting at a pile head is computed. the procedure is the following: a) compute the distribution of the subgrade reaction along the pile due to a unit horizontal load at its head based on the Winkler hypothesis. 3.1. 1977].

2 Deflection and Bending Moment of Piles B Ep = 2.4 bedded part located deep in the ground. and (C) the deflection of other piles through -5 -5 Depth (m) Depth (m) the ground. 4 (2 x 2) or 9 (3 x 3) piles.3. for the deflection at -10 -10 the pile head. (B) and (C) are 55%. From this figure. The result compares to that of the dynamic analysis which is shown in -10 -10 Figure 5.333 the effect of each interaction on the behav- νp =0. it is found that contribu- tions due to (A). 3. The properties of the soil and the piles are the same as those shown in Figure 11. It is also pointed out from Figure 13 that the contribution of the corner piles is twice as large as that of the center pile. indicating the group pile effect. -15 -15 fluence even at the pile head.2 Load Bearing Ratio Moment due to Base Friction Moment due to Load at Head Moment due to Other Piles Figure 13 shows the load bearing ratio for 0 0 the piled raft foundations with 1.0 4. s/B = 10 Since the computational procedure of the L/B =25 proposed method consists of the three in.0 0. 800 teraction phases.ν s νs =0. -15 -15 -200 0 200 400 0 40 80 Bending Moment (kN•m) Bending Moment (kN•m) 4 CONCLUSIONS (c) Ep/Es=8000 (d) Ep/Es=800 In this paper. However. the behavior of the piled raft foundation under dynamic/static horizon. the Deflection (cm) Deflection (cm) effect of the bearing load at the pile head is small as is expected.0 0. The percentage of (A) for the bending moment is a little smaller than this value.νp L B = 60cm. a piled raft foundation with 4 (2x2) piles. it is seen -5 -5 Depth (m) Depth (m) that the load bearing ratio of the raft goes down gradually with increasing the num- ber of piles. as shown in Figure 11. Figure 12 Deflection and Bending Moment due to Interaction 8 .2. Total Deflection Deflection due to Base Friction has been examined.167 ior of the piled raft foundation.1 Effect of Interaction on Pile Figure 11 Dynamic Properties of Analysis Model Deflection and Bending Moment In order for this. respectively. For the em. it is possible to examine E s .2 0. Figure 12 shows the Deflection due to Load at Head deflection and the bending moment of the Deflection due to Other Piles pile due to: 0 0 (A) the friction force at the base of the raft. 30% and 15%. (B) the bearing load at the head of the pile. (a) Ep/Es=8000 (b) Ep/Es=800 Total Moment 3.0 2. s/2 s Ep/Es =8000. this fact indicates that the friction force has a fairly large in. 0.058×103MN/m2 Ep.2. From this figure.

1994 Randolph. 87-92. ISSMGE TC18 JGS member’s meeting on Piled rafts. 243-245. Vol.9 110. F. T. The percentage is even higher when the foundation has embedment. “An approximate numerical analysis of piled-raft interaction”.. Pile Load (kN) 109. Figure 13 Load Bearing Ratio REFERENCES Hasegawa. “Design Methods for Pile Groups and Piled Rafts”. Journal of Structural Engineering. and Nakai. The extent to which it increases is relatively small due to the smaller number of piles. K. H.0 Based on this result.18. 61-82. Vol.9 of Raft: 0. “Large Deflection of a Single Pile under Horizontal Load”. Conf. Kisoko. No.. M. 1994 Yamada. 103. (3) As for the foundation input motion. 9th Int. i. can be examined separately in de- tail.66 examination has indicated that the method can give results which Center Side 1 compare to those obtained from the dynamic analysis. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. It is also pointed out that three different interactions. of Raft: 0. Gihodo. 1998 (in Japanese) Yamashita.74 of Raft: 0. 2000 Mogami. Eng. pp. 73-92. “An Example of Piled Raft Foundation in Building Design. No. Dissertation. (ed). “A Fundamental Study on the Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups Based on Elastic Wave Propaga- tion Theory”. raft to pile. 46B. on Soil Mech. 26. pile to raft and pile to pile interactions.. 1998 9 . 5.. 100-103. Conf. 43-50. 5. H. et al. “Analyses of Piled raft Model Provided by ISSMGE TC-18 Part2 : Estimation by three-dimen- sional finite analysis”. SS10.e. 1977 Poulos. “An Approximate Analysis for Stress of Piles in a Laterally Loaded Piled Raft Founda- tion”. H.. pp. and Nakai. 1993 (in Japanese) Kishida.tal loading has been examined. 1977 Mano.7 as the number of piles increases. 13th Int. pp. T.2. Vol. S. Proc.G. a simplified method of static analysis which is Side 2 Corner Load Bearing Ratio intended for use in the practical design has been proposed.. Journal for Numerical and ana- lytical Method in Geomechanics. Vol. Int. pp. pp. It was found from the analysis that Loading Direction Loading Direction (1) Solid elements rather than beam elements are preferable for modeling piles in the finite element analysis. S.69 (4) The contribution of the raft accounts for 60 to 80 per cent of Loading Direction the load bearing ratio. Proc. and Found. pp. Soil Mechanics. the real part decreases and Load Bearing Ratio Load Bearing Ratio the imaginary part increases as the frequency increases.8 (2) The impedance function of the piled raft foundation increases 90. The 68.2 142.. M.

- lec11- DESIGN OF OFFSHORE STRUCTUREUploaded byDinesh Radhakrishnan
- Trunnion Calc r6Uploaded byChirag Shah
- CT3150_2010_2011_3e%2B4e%20v3Uploaded byhoessepoes
- is.8147.1976Uploaded byagrawalnitesh
- Dynamic Response for Continuous SystemsUploaded byDarsHan MoHan
- Rc_piles - OkaUploaded byTee Bun Pin
- Lecture 20 – ColumnsUploaded byQuang Hoành Lê
- Dougherty Mills Structural Foundation ReportUploaded bybmc5287
- Nonlinear Analysis of Pile Driving and Ground Vibrations in Saturated Cohesive Soil Using FEM_DissertationUploaded bySupachai Jaingam
- Pedoman Pkl D-III 2013(1)Uploaded byMuanam Nurul
- Structural Notes2,3Uploaded bysoumyadeb
- pipe line calculationUploaded bysamirbendre1
- 3 a Review of Requirements on Ground Investigation and Load Test for Foundation Piles in Singapore by Er Dr Yet Nai SongUploaded byFCW
- Syllabus.pdfUploaded byNasir
- Friction capacity of soilUploaded bykushaljp
- Build Over GuideUploaded byJohn Dakota
- Shear Locking and HourglassUploaded byviniciusads
- 4 Pure BendingUploaded byBharat Jajoria
- Strength of Materials [Part I & II] - TimoshenkoUploaded byJuan David Zapata Oliveros
- The assessment of the risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavations - J BurlandUploaded byFederico Singh Amadineep
- tp-DesignContainerYardPortBalboa.pdfUploaded byadamaso09

- BS 4 Part 1 - 80 (Structural Steel Sections)Uploaded byJithesh.k.s
- 11c - Pile Cap Details - Structural (1)Uploaded byAnthony Federico
- Technical Specification Main WarehouseUploaded byadr_kharisma
- Construction Materials for Coastal StructuresUploaded byDoğuş Onur Bayram
- Chapter 10Uploaded byIzam Fatima
- Iss29 Art2 - 3D FE Analysis of a Deep ExcavationUploaded byThai Phong
- Sesam 2017 Release DocumentationUploaded byfaraj405
- 11046697Uploaded byAli Al Rubaie
- Pile Head Stress CalculationsUploaded bysivapathamuthu
- Capping Beam SystemUploaded byAnonymous spNlhAQxC6
- PPV MeasurementUploaded byBernard Perera
- 700 Structures and HydraulicsUploaded bylongreach717
- Blooms Taxonomy CivilUploaded byDilipKumarAkkaladevi
- Document(3)Uploaded byeyigmane
- CSCS test questions and answersUploaded bynov_luana
- Liquefaction - Short Course Damage to Buidling Foundations - Leslie YoudUploaded byioan_nebunu
- ch12sdUploaded byKS Deepak
- Book1.xlsxbrbrbrUploaded byHoque joynul
- Profit & Loss Report - Structures & Bridge No. 1Uploaded byFaiz Ahmad
- Cast in Situ Pile Method StatementUploaded byManal Patel
- ICAGE 2011 Program Final 20111031Uploaded byd-bhat
- Pune Dsr07 08Uploaded byNilesh Parulekar
- Geotechnical ConferenceUploaded byHanamant Hunashikatti
- SOR GandhinagarUploaded byRakesh7770
- Micro Pile MSUploaded byYam Balaoing
- BG 22H.pdfUploaded byBimo Saputro
- UFCUploaded bySirHumptyDumpty
- Basf - Ape SystemUploaded bydixmit
- DiscussionUploaded byAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- Geo Tech Engg II 8th SemUploaded byjeetendrasidhi