PROCEeDING INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY 2017 aU lies a acento} CCE] fe Technology and Maintenance Organized by March 16-17,2017 ed Faculty of Engi Hasanuddin University, Indonesia‘Proceedings of International Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 1617, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SPUN PILE UNDER CONSTANT AXIAL AND REVERSE FLEXURAL LOADING CANDRA IRAWAN Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia Corresponding author, email: candra irawan.iis@gnail.con, IGUSTIPUTU RAKA, Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluk Nopember, Surabaya, 60111, Indonesia RUDY DIAMALUDDIN; Department of Chil Engineering, Hasanuddin University, Gowa 92119, Indonesia PRIVO SUPROBO Department of Chil Engineering, Institut Teknologl Sepuluk Nopember, Surabaya, 601111, Indonesia GAMBIRO. PT Wijaya Karya Beton, Tok, Bekasi, 17411, Indonesia In this this study, reversed flexural esting combincd with two levels constant axil loa, 40 tons (0.08 f6°Ag) and 80 tons (0.16 {"Ag), was conducted to ova displacement ductility factor and damage level of spun ple. The reslt of testing showed that the average ductility was 45 and 2.5 for tested pile under 0.08%'Ag and 0.16 Ag axial load, respectively. According 1 Japan's fede und NEHRP 2000 requitemen, both of ple were eateyrized as element wit seismie performance 1 and appropiate to be applied o low seismic sk are Even spun pile was widely used for ple foundation, ties this ivestgation result shoved that tested spun ple was prohibited to be applied on moderate or high seismic isk rea Keywords: Spu pile, ductility facto, seismic performance. 1. Introduction The results of investigation after Earthquake in Japan showed that severe damages were occurred not only on upper structure but also sub structure, ic. foundation. Especially spun pile, totally damaged was appeared when some researchers conducted excavation post-carthquake. E.g. after Miyagiken-oki earthquake 1978 and Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) earthquake 1995 some spun pile foundation underwent severe damaged shown at Figure 1, respectively. The failure was caused by flexure, shear, compression or combination of these forces (Kishida et al., 1980 and Mizuno et al., 1996). (@). Miyagiken-oki earthquake 1978 (b) Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) earthquake 1995 Figure 1. Spun pile damage after earnquake(Kshida cca, 1980 and Mizuno ca, 1996). Lessons learmed of earthquakes suggested that pile foundation should be designed as ductils member (Muguruma et al, 1995). Some codes of seismic design provision were established. Japan’s code “Seismic Design Code for Railway Structures” and American’s code *NEHRP 2000” stipulated that pile foundations 35Proceedings of Intemational Symposium on Conerete Technology (SCT 2017) March 16-17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia were required to had particular ductility factor value in accordance with scismic risk level of pile’s applied location (Hawkin and Ghosh, 2000 and Takase et al., 1999), ‘This study was experimentally conducted to investigate the ductility level and seismic performance of spun pile, Furthermore, a further analysis related with suitable seismic risk designation of spun pile was discussed. The results of this study were expected to be reference in seismic design of spun pile. Investigated spun pile had 400 mm in diameter and 100 mm in wall thickness. Prestressing bar used 1027.1 mm PC bar producing prestressing stress 4.6 Mpa on pile section. Transverse reinforeement was provided by wire 3.2. mm in diameter with 100 mm in spacing (ps 0.24%). ‘Spun pile was widely used for foundation although some requirements were not fulfilled as well as investigated pile. The effective prestressing stress of tested piles section Was 4.6 MPa. It was not produced again since Miyagiken-oki earthquake 1978, In Japan the required prestressing stress was 8 MPa dan 10 MPa (Muguruma et al 1995). Confinement reinforcement strictly stipulated by codes to obtain ductile behavior of pile foundation. ATC 1978 chapter 7 required the minimum of confinement steel ratio for seismic performance category C was 0.12f"/fyh, ic. p, 0.96%. Nevertheless, this requirement was not applicable to hollow-core piling sections such ‘as spun pile (Sheppard, 1983). Moreover, ATC 1978 clearly prohibited the using of precast-prestressed piles (0 resist flexural caused by earthquake motion for seismic performance category D. 2. Literature review 2A. Seismic performance and value of ductility factor of pile foundation Seismic design concept of pite foundation is designated not only to ensure that pile’s member had adequate strength to resist the seismic force but also to provide sufficient performance of piles to maintain their strength during an intense earthquake. The first stage to design pile foundation under seismic load was determining the deformation of total system, pile and soil interaction, during seismic occurred using pushover anelysis method. Furthermore, designing pile had sufficient seismic performance, strength and ductility, as required by previous structural analysis (Takase etal, 1999). ‘The seismic performance of foundation in Japan was consist of three levels, i.e. seismic performance I (SPI), seismic performance II (SPIL) and seismie performance Ill (SPILL), While, according to NEHRP 2000 the seismic performance of pile was called as seismic design category consisted of three levels, seismic design category B and A corresponding to SPI, seismic design category C corresponding to SPI, seismic design category D, E and F corresponding to SPIII. (Takase etal, 1999 and Hawkin and Ghosh, 2000), In seismic design concept of pile foundation, seismic performance of pile foundation was confirmed by the stability level of pile. This ability level is determined by considering the strength and the deformation of soil and pile members. ‘The summary of limit values of ductility factor for pile according to Japan's code and NEHRP 2000 was shown at Table 1. Both of codes required the minimum ductility factor ji, provided by pile foundation was 8 for high seismic risk. Pile foundation for moderate scismic risk required i. was 4 and 5 for NEHRP 2000 and Japan's Code, respectively. ‘Table 1, State of ple foundation and ductility factor acording to seismic performance levels, Takase ea, 1999) Seismic Stability level of Limit values of coun Damage formance pile foundation ductility factor Saeco level SPI Tevel | 1 Pile foundation do not yield. DLT Although pile foundation yield, they . Ck 5; maintain a sufficient bearing capacity. PY? ‘Although pile foundation reach the SPL Level 3 8 limit sate, super structures donot DL3 collapse. “Table 2 Limit vues of ductility fsctor according to NEHRP 2000, (Hawkin and Gosh, 2000) Seismicrisk Seismic design Limit values of ‘categor catego ductility factor Tow ‘AandB _ Norequirement moderate c 4 high D,E and F 8Proceedings of laternational Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 16 ~ 17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia 2.2, Damage level of pile foundation Generally, the nonlinear property of pile members is depicted by moment and curvature, An example of nonlinear property model for a pile due to moment and axial load was shown at Figure 2. Three level damages ‘of pile section was described. The maximum limit for damage level 1 is until pile’s section was yielding. While, range strength between yield and maximum strength point is the area for damage level 2, Subsequent to maximum load, pile is expected to maintain its strength at damage level 3 stage. (Takase et al, 1999), MyDamage Damage Damage level level 2 be by om ond Figure 2. Bending moment and curvaure relationship fora pile member, 3. Methodology 3A. Detail of specimens Four specimens were ested in this study. These specimens were divided into two groups. First, wo specimens designated as S-TB-] and S-TB-2 were spun piles tested under reversed flexural loading combined with 40 tons (0.08fe"Ag) axial load. While, second group was two specimens named as S-TB-3 and S-TB-4 were subjected to 80 tons (0.16fe"Ag). The diameter of specimen is 400 mm with 100 mm of thickness, as shown at Figure 3. Ten bars of PC bar 27.1 mm were embedded to pile as prestressing reinforcement. Whereas, transverse reinforcement used @3.2 mm ‘wire with spacing 100 mm, Pile section and detail of reinforcement was shown at Figure 3 + 100 + 290 —-L- ioo 4) Pile dimension and detail of reinforcement ») Produced pile section Figure 3, Cros section and eiafosement’s details of specimen ‘Tensile properties of PC bar 7.1 mm in diameter was shown at Figure 4a. Its area is 39.6 mm2. Modulus of clasticity of PC bar was 220,267 Mpa. Yield and ultimate stress are 1,387 MPa and 1,455 MPa, respectively. While, the yield and ultimate strain are 6,998 microstrain and 22,529 microstrain, respectively. With concrete compressive strength is $4.4 MPa, initial pre-stressing strain applied to pile’s section is 5000 microstrain each PC bar. After releasing, this strain caused stress on pile’s section 4.6 MPa. 37Proceedings of International Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 1617, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia ‘Tensile properties of wire for spiral reinforcement 3.2 mm in diameter was shown at Figure 4b. Its area is 8.0 ‘mm2, Modulus of elasticity of PC bar was 222,200 Mpa. Yield and ultimate stress are 681 MPa and 818 MPa, respectively. While, the yield and ultimate strain are 3,067 microstrain and 5,219 microstrain, respectively. 1500 1500 ~~ Spiral 1 1200 1200 > Spiral 2 Spiral 3 q soo 3900 += Kdealization & = a coo PC bar | 8 ooo ° ~ PC bar 2 ° PC bar 3 300 300 + ealization ° 0. © 10000 20000 30000 40000 © — 10000 20000 30000 40000 Strain (microstrain) Strain (microstrain) a) PC bar's stress-strain b) Wite’s stress strain Figure 4 Tensile tes-stain relationship of PC ba and spiral reinforcement 3.2. Loading setup ‘Spun pile was tested as simply supported in vertical position as shown at Figure 5. Constant axial loads, 40 tons (0.08 fe"Ag) and 80 tons (0,16 fe’Ag), applied using 3,000 KN oil jack mounted on top section of spun pile Pressure force was generated by oil pump and controlled using pressure gauge. To transmit axial load from jack to pile section, upside pin support was designed to can movable vertically. While, reverse flexure load applied in the middle span of spun pile using 1,500 kN actuator. Ee tn FAC ') Implementation in laboratory a) Test setup schematic view Figure 5. Test setup of specimen and loading system for cyl Mexural with axa ond testing, The lateral load controlled by lateral displacement was recorded by 100 mm Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT), Based on the displacement was obtained the value of drift ratio, a ratio between lateral displacement and shear span (I/2), at the middle length of specimen. According to ACI 374-1-05, the sequence 38Proceedings of Intemational Symposium on Conerete Technology (SCT 2017) March 16~17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia cycles of drift ratio for reverse cyclic loading was shown in (Figure 6). Constant reverse displacement was repeated three cycles. Value of drift ratio was increasing until the pile failed. 4 220 0.78 02 035 0s Drift ratio (%) h 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 Cycles Figure 6. The Scquence of dit ratio (ACT 347-1-05). 4. Result and Discussion 4.1, Ductility factor of spun pile under 40 tons (0.08fe'Ag) ‘The hysteresis curve of load-displacement relationship of tested spun pile under combined reversed flexural and. constant axial load was shown at Figure 7 until Figure 10. Two cases were analyzed from these curves, ie. fi regarded the ductility factor and second related with seismic performance of spun pile. 400 250 300 200 150 Z 200 100 5 Fi so = 26 og =z 30 2 g-100 Es S500 ; -100 2 “ -40 30 -20 -10 0 10 2 30 40 Displacement, mm Figure 7. Load (moment) ~ displacement relationship STB 400 ~ 250 i al} 2} 83} a0) 5 150, eye 100 § < 100 30 Zo og 3-100 50 B 3 S 2 1008 (3-200 “150 300} -200 400 250 40-30-20 -10 00 10 20 30 40 Displacement, mm Figure 8. Loud (momen) - displacement relationship $-T3-2 ‘As shown at Figure 7 and Figure 8, due to reversed flexural loading combined with 40 tons ((08f¢’Ag) ‘compression axial load S-TB-1 and S-TB-2 had similar result. S-TB-1 was yielded at displacement 5.25 mm and 6.65 mm for push and pull lateral load, respectively. Whereas, maximum load was reached at displacement 39Proceedings of International Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 16~ 17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia 25.17 mm and 27,62 mm, respectively. The ductility factor of S-TB-1 was 4.8 and 4.2, obtained by divided ‘maximum and yield displacement. Specimen $-TB-2 was yielded at displacement 6.3 mm. Whereas, maximum Toad was reached at displacement 26.3 mm and 25.9 mm, respectively. The ductility factor of S-TB-2 was 4.2 nd 4.9. From this analysis was obtained the average ductility factor for spun pile under 40 tons (0.08f¢"Ag) ‘compression axial load was 4.5. 4.2. Ductiity factor of spun pile under 80 tons (0.16fe'Ag) As shown at Figure 9 and Figure 10, due to reversed flexural loading combined with 80 tons (0.16fe’A8) compression axial load S-TB-3 and $-TB-4 had similar result, S-TB-3 was yielded at displacement 10 mm for push and pull lateral load. Whereas, maximum load was reached at displacement 21.9 mm and 23.8 mm, respectively. The ductility factor of S-TB-3 was 22 and 2.4, Specimen S-TB-4 was yielded at displacement &.0 mmm, Whereas, maximum load was reached at displacement 22,2 mm and 22.8 mm, respectively. The ductility factor of §-TB-4 was 2.8, From this analysis was obtained the average ductility factor for spun pile under 80 tons (0.16fe°Ag) compression axial load was 2.5. 400 250 ~ iso Zz" 100 E = 100 3 3 0 o 3 i i 4 & “10 2 bead -150 a) fs fu2 {nl -200 400 250 4 30 20 -10 0 10 2 30 40 Displacement, mm Figure 9. Loud (moment) = slasment relationship S-TB-3 400 250 300 200 3 150 = % 200 one ¥ 100 so 2 = 0 o & 2 -100 50 3 4 2 el 100 -200 8 ee foo" | -200 -400 250 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Displacement, mm Figure 10, Load! (moment) displacement restonship $-TB-4 4.3, Damage level of spun pile ‘The nonlinear property of spun pile under flexure and axial load was shown at Figure 11 and Figure 12. The skeleton curve of moment-load of tested spun pile under figured damage process of specimens. The analysis of this curves was accorded to level of axial load and divided into two parts, i.c. range of damage level analysis and ‘moment capacity analysisProceedings of Intemational Symposium on Concrete Technology (ISCT 2017) March I6~ 17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia 250 200 150 100 ‘Moment (kN.m) 400-300-200 -10 0 1 =2 30 40 Displacement (mm) Figuce 11, Damage level $-TB-1 and $-TB.-2 under 40 tons (0.08f°A) asia ond 250 200 150 Moment (kN.m) 40-300 20-10 0 0 20 © 30 40 Displacement (mm) Figure 12, Damage level S-TB-3 and S-TB-4 under 80 tons (0.16°Ag) axial oad Damage level 1 was started from zero load until piles were yielded. The comparison of yield displacement between specimens under 40 tons (0.08fe"Ag) and 80 tons (0.16fe'Ag) axial load was shown at Figure 13a, The higher axial Toad caused the pile section had longer yield displacement, Whereas, theultimate displacement was decreased duc to the increasing of axial load as shown at Figure 13b. Therefore, the increasing of axial load improved the range of damage level | and reduce the range of damage level 2, The range of damage level 3 was hot as large as damage level 1 and 2, thus it was ignored, the behavior of moment and displacement of tested piles was bilinear consisted of damage level 1 and 2. Tn accordance with moment capacity of pile, the increasing of axial load was improved the flexural earacity of tested spun pile, both in terms of cracking, yielding and ultimate moment. As shown at Figure 14, compare with pile under 40 tons (0.08f¢°Ag) axial load, the of cracking yielding and ultimate moment of pile under 80 tons (0.16fe" Ag) was increasing 32%, 23% and 11%. ‘Actually, the tested piles had adequate capacity to increase ther strength. However, the detailing ofthese pile should be improved in order to increase the inelastic ductility. 41Proceedings of Intemational Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 16 ~ 17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia 1s 30 ~ ah Ev En E | 18 +: al eS f° a a 5 ° ° $-1B-1 §-TB2 S-TB-3 $-7B4 $-1B.1 §-TB2 S-1B3 S-TB-4 Pash = Pull ‘Push =Pul a) Yielding b) Ultimate Figur 13 Comparison ye and ligt spacemext, 200 200 ; 175, 175 = = ' z 150 Zz 150 J 1as = 12s E i E 100 0 2 = 15 75 30 so STB §-1B2 §-TB.3 S-TB4 $-1B-1 $-1B2 S-TB3 S-TB4 ‘Push =Pul Pull = Push 2) Cracking by Yielding 200 Vs iso z i” 5 100 2 1% 50 $-1B-1 STB §-1B3 S-1B4 Push =Pall ) Ultimate Figure 14 Comparison of erack, yield and ultimate momen,Proceedings of International Symposium on Conerete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 1617, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia 44, Ductility analysis according to seismic codes requirement ‘The analysis of seismic performance of spun pile was conducted by comparing the ductility factor of tested piles with code requirements. As discussed in previous analysis on 4.1. and 4.2. , the ductility factor of span pile ‘was less than 5, for 0.08fe"Ag specimens was 4.5 and 0.16fe"Ag specimens was 2.5. as shown at Figure 15, these ductility factor were included low seismic risk use range. Therefore, tested pile was appropriate to be used on low seismic area. According to Japan's code, the ductility less than 5 was described as spun pile with seismic performance 1, In application, due to seismic load this pile was prohibited to be yielded. Further research was required in order to spun pile had higher ductility and permissible to be used on moderate high seismic risk area. r Bs 3 moderate seismie risk i oon - q S = Nene 2000-4 = a4 , ee a ae eae ee aera Craton 1. Analysis of damage level (DL) of spun pile showed that the increasing level of axial load could extend the range of DLI of spun pile. Nevertheless, low axial load increased the range of DL2. 2, The result of testing showed thatthe average ductility was 4.5 and 2.5 for tested pile under 0.08fe"Ag. and 0.16f"Ag axial load, respectively. 3. According to Japan’s code and NEHRP 2000 requirement, both of pile were categorized as element ‘with seismic performance 1 and appropriate to be applied on low seismic risk area. Even spur pile was ‘widely used for ple foundation, from this investigation result showed that tested spun pile was prohibited to be applied on moderate or high seismic risk area. Further research was needed to obtain spun pile that had high ductility and could be applied on high seismic risk area, Acknowledgement The aubors gtflly aeknowiedge PT Wijaya Karya Beton, Tbk. for funding the rescarch, through research colaboration among ITS Surabaya, UNHAS Makassar and PT Wijaya Karya Beton, Tbk. Contract No: KU.09.09/WB- 0A.1763/2014, 098SK/LB3/XI1/2014, 028/UN4.8/TS-LSB/PM0S/2014. 2, The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education Republic of Indonesia for the Doctoral ‘Scholarship forthe first author. References ACI Committee 318M (2014), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Conerete Institute, Farmington Hills, ACI Committee 347.1 (2005), Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary, American Concrete Institute. Applied Technology Council (1978), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Hawkins, NIM. and Ghosh, S.K, (2000), “Proposed Revisions to 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Precast Concrete Structutre”, PCI Journal, page 34~44. 43Proceedings of Intemational Symposium on Concrete Technology (ISCT 2017) March 16~ 17, 2017, Makassar, Indonesia Kishida, H., Hanazato, T. and Nakai, S, (1980), “Damage of reinforced precast piles during the Miyagi-Ken-Oki earthquake of June 12, 1972,” Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, Istanbul, Turkey. Mizuno, H.,liba, M., and Hirade, T. (1996), “Pile Damage during 1995 Hyougoken-Nanbu Earthquake in Japan,” Proceeding of Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Enginecring Paper No. 977, Muguruma, H., Nishiyama, M. and Watanabe, F. (1995), “Lessons Learned from the Kobe Earthquake: A Japanese Perspective”, PCI Journal, page 28-42. ‘Takase, N., Ikegame, M., Tanamura, S., Nishimura, A. and Kondou, M. (1999), “Seismic Design of Pile Foundation”, QR of RTRI Vol. 40 No.3, page 152-157.