Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hassan 2018 Winkler Model For Pile Seismic Anal
Hassan 2018 Winkler Model For Pile Seismic Anal
HBRC Journal
http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj
KEYWORDS Abstract Beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) analysis of pile foundation subjected to
Pile foundation; vertically propagating earthquake ground motions is presented in this paper. The BNWF is consid-
Seismic analysis; ered a simplified approach that is capable to model nonlinear soil-pile-structure interaction. Soil
Winkler model; nonlinearity is simulated by p-y curves according to American Petroleum Institute (API) procedure.
p-y method The analyses are carried out using the open source finite element platform OpenSees. Results are
verified against centrifuge experiments and numerical finite element simulations published in the lit-
erature. In this paper pile tip and head constraints effects on bending moments and displacement
responses are investigated. Three types of pile tip constraints are applied: floating, end bearing,
and fixed supports. Pile top constraint is modeled as either free or fixed head. Three different earth-
quake ground motions are applied in the model. Effect of superstructure mass is investigated for the
three considered earthquake records and the different assumed pile end and head constraints. The
results indicate significant influence of pile tip and head constraints on pile bending moment and
displacement responses. A significant effect of superstructure mass on the analyses results is also
observed. The analyses show that earthquake record characteristics remarkably influence pile
response behavior. Different earthquake records scaled to the same peak ground acceleration give
different pile seismic responses.
Ó 2017 Housing and Building National Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
11.6 m long and 11.0 m embedded depth. The outer pile diam- be exactly what is used in practice. The pile was extended
eter was 400 mm and wall thickness was 30 mm. Young’s mod- 0.60 m above ground level and two constraints were used for
ulus of pile material was 2.06 1010 kg/m2. The pile cap mass pile head: free and fixed. End bearing tip node was restrained
was 24,231 kg in the prototype and superstructure mass was against vertical displacement, whereas total fixation was
19,008 kg. The soil was dense sand with density = 1500 kg/ assigned for fixed pile tip. Floating tip was simulated by
m3, shear modulus = 5.1 106 kg/m2, Poisson’s ratio = 0.33, assuming a q-z spring at pile end node. This was implemented
and friction angle = 38°. Fig. 2 shows a comparison between in OpenSees by the command QzSimple1 [19]. Required
experimental results, computed BNWF by this study, and parameters to apply this command were qult = ultimate capac-
computed FEM values by Hussien et al. [12]. It may be noted ity of the spring material and z50 = displacement at which
that computed values by the proposed BNWF agree fairly well 50% of qult is mobilized. The two parameters were determined
with both experimental and numerical FEM results. by procedure outlined in Meyerhof [21].
Soil layer considered in the model was medium sand with
Model development properties shown in Table 1 which shows also properties of
the reinforced concrete pile and superstructure mass (M).
A reinforced concrete pile of diameter 0.6 m was used in the Three ground motions were applied: Imperial Valley 1979,
model as shown in Fig. 3. Three pile tip constraints were Kobe 1995, and Tottori 2000. Characteristics of these ground
assumed: floating, end-bearing, and fixed tip. It is worth noting motions are shown in Table 2 and their response spectra are
that considered pile tip constraints are idealized for the pur- shown in Fig. 4. The three ground motions were scaled to have
pose of studying their effects on pile behavior and may not an equal peak ground acceleration (PGA = 0.36 g). The
ground motion records were obtained from PEER NGA
Strong Motion Database (http://www.peer.berkeley.edu).
0
-2
Depth (m)
COMPUTED (BNWF) -4
Table 1 Soil and pile parameters.
MEASURED -6
-8 Property Value
COMPUTED (FEM)
-10 Soil density 1500 kg/m3
-12 Soil friction angle 30°
-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 Pile diameter 0.60 m
Moment (kg.m) Pile Young’s modulus 2.5 109 kg/m2
Pile Poisson’s ratio 0.15
Figure 2 Comparison of Centrifuge, FEM (Hussien et al. [12], Superstructure mass (M) 100,000 kg
and BNWF results).
10 2
Depth (m)
FIXED TIP -4
Kobe 0.1 END BEARING -6
Toori
FLOATING TIP -8
0.01
-10
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s) -12
-0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005
Figure 4 Response spectra considered for earthquakes (damping Lateral Deflecon (m)
ratio = 5%).
Figure 7 Pile lateral deflection responses due to imperial valley
earthquake.
2
0
-2
Kobe, 1995
Depth (m)
-4
Imperial Valley, 1979
-6
Toori, 2000
-8
-10
Figure 5 Moment responses for imperial valley earthquake.
-12
-0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005
2 Lateral Deflecon (m)
0
-2 Figure 8 Lateral deflection due to considered earthquakes for
Depth (m)
Fig. 7 shows pile displacement response for Imperial Valley Figure 9 Fixed versus free head pile response due to imperial
earthquake. As noted in the bending moment response, tip valley earthquake.
320 A.M. Hassan
[2] C.L. Reese, W.F. Van Impe, Single Pile and Pile Groups Under
Lateral Loading, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Balkema, 2011.
[3] M.H. El-Naggar, K.J. Bentley, Dynamic analysis for laterally
loaded piles and dynamic p-y curves, Canad. Geotechn. J. 37
(2000) 1166–1183.
[4] S.J. Brandenberg, P. Singh, R.W. Boulanger, B.L. Kutter,
Behavior of piles in laterally spreading ground during
earthquakes, in: Proceedings of the 6th Caltrans Seismic
Research Workshop, CA, 2001, pp. 2–106.
[5] W.D.L. Finn, N. Fujita, Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis
and design issues, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22 (2002) 721–742.
[6] N. Allotey, M.H. El Naggar, Generalized dynamic Winkler
model for nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis, Canad.
Figure 10 Superstructure mass effect on imperial valley earth- Geotechn. J. 45 (4) (2008) 560–573.
quake moment responses. [7] F. Castelli, M. Maugeri, Simplified approach for the seismic
response of pile foundation, Am. Soc. Civil Eng., ASCE J.
The applied earthquake was Imperial Valley. The influence of Geotechn. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (10) (2009) 1440–1451.
pile head constraint conditions is significant on bending [8] R.J. Armstrong, R.W. Boulanger, M.H. Beaty, Equivalent static
moment values and pattern as clearly indicated in Fig. 9. analysis of piled bridge abutments affected by earthquake-
induced liquefaction, ASCE J. Geotechn. Geoenviron. Eng. 140
(8) (2014) 1–10.
Superstructure mass effect
[9] M. Kimiaei, M.A. Shayanfar, M.H. El Naggar, A.A.
Aghakouchak, Nonlinear response analysis of offshore piles
Effect of superstructure on pile seismic response is taken into under seismic loads, in: Proceedings of 13th World Conference
account by considering different superstructure masses (0, on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August
50 103 kg, and 100 103 kg) applied to end-bearing piles 1–16, 2004, Paper No. 3056.
for Imperial Valley earthquake. A significant effect of super- [10] R. Zhong, M. Huang, Winkler model for dynamic response of
structure mass on bending moment values was observed. Pile composite caisson-piles foundations: lateral response, J. Soil
bending moment values increased by increasing superstructure Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 55 (4) (2013) 182–194.
[11] L. Fernandez, J. Aviles, D. Muria-Vila, Fully and partially toe-
mass as indicated in Fig. 10.
restrained piles subjected to ground motion excitation, J. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 39 (2012) 1–10.
Summary and conclusions [12] M.N. Hussien, T. Tobita, S. Iai, Experimental and FE analysis
of seismic soil-pile-superstructure interaction in sand, in:
The simplified BNWF method was used to investigate pile tip Annuals of Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto
University, Japan, 2010, No 53B:299–306.
and head constraints and superstructure mass effects on seis-
[13] American Petroleum Institute Recommended practice for
mic pile responses. Pile tips were assigned three constraints:
planning, design, and constructing fixed offshore platforms,
floating, end-bearing, and fixed. Pile head was assumed either API RP 2A-WSD, Washington, DC, 2007.
free or fixed. The superstructure is represented by a lumped [14] F. McKenna, G.L. Fenves, M.H. Scott, B. Jerermic, Open
mass at the pile top. Superstructure effect was accounted for System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. <http://
by considering three mass values: 0, 50 103, and opensees.berkely.edu>, 2000.
100 103 kg. Three earthquakes were applied in the analyses: [15] G. Wu, W.D.L. Finn, Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile
Imperial Valley, Kobe, and Tottori. foundations using finite element method in the time domain,
For the cases, soil parameters, and earthquake motions Cand. Geotechn. J. 34 (1997) 44–52.
considered in this study, the following conclusions may be [16] C. McGann, P. Arduino, OpenSees examples, University of
Washington, <http://opensees.berkely.edu>, 2006.
drawn:
[17] L.C. Reese, W.R. Cox, F.D. Koop, Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand, in: Proceedings of the 6th Offshore Technology
BNWF model proved to be efficient method of modeling Conference, Houston, Texas, 1974, Paper 2080, pp. 473–483.
pile seismic analysis. [18] R.W. Boulanger, The PySimple1 material, 2003, <http://
Pile bending moment and lateral deflection shape and val- opensees.berkeley.edu>.
ues are remarkably influenced by pile ends restrain and [19] Mazzoni, F. MacKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, et al.
superstructure mass. OpenSees command language manual, Open System for
Pile seismic responses are dependent on the earthquake Earthquake Engineering Simulation, 2006, <http://opensees.
applied in the analysis. Different responses may be obtained berkely.edu>.
by applying different ground motions although scaled to [20] I.M. Idris, J.I. Sun, User’s manual for SHAKE91, a computer
program for equivalent linear seismic response analysis of
the same PGA.
horizontally layered soil deposits, in: Center for Geotechnical
Modeling Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA, 1992.
References [21] G.G. Meyerhof, Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations, Am. Soc. Civil Eng., ASCE J. Geotech. Eng.
[1] D.S. Liyanapathirana, H.G. Poulos, Seismic lateral response of Division 102 (3) (1976) 195–228.
piles in liquefying soil, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. ASCE J. Geotechn.
Eng. 131 (12) (2005) 1466–1479.