CHAPTER 1

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH

1.1 Introduction Deep foundations consisting of driven or drilled-in piles and piers are routinely employed to transfer axial structural loads through soft soils to stronger bearing strata at depth. These foundation elements may also be subject to transient or cyclic lateral loads arising from earthquake, wind, wave, blast, impact, or machine loading. The coincidence of major pile-supported structures sited on soft soils in areas of earthquake hazard results in significant demands on these deep foundations. Possible resonance effects between longer period soft soil sites, which may amplify ground motions, and large structures can exacerbate the problem. Liquefaction and/or strain-softening potential in these soft soils can impose additional demands on pile foundation systems. Historically, it has been common seismic design practice to ignore or simplify the influence of pile foundations on the ground motions applied to the structure. This is generally accepted as a conservative design assumption for a spectral analysis approach, as the flexible pile foundation results in period lengthening and increased damping, and consequent decreased structural forces relative to a fixed base case (see Figure 1.1). However, in extreme cases such as the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, period lengthening can result in increased spectral values relative to current code specifications (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1 - Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Coefficient for Base Shear (after Fenves and Serino, 1992) It is somewhat more common to evaluate pile integrity during seismic loading, though this too is accomplished with simplified and non-standardized analysis methods. However, in observations of pile performance during earthquakes, two principal facts emerge: pile foundations do affect the ground motions the superstructure experiences, and piles can suffer extreme damage and failure under earthquake loading. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine these two facets of this complex soil-structure interaction problem.
1.4 1.2

1985 Mexico City SCT 1997 NEHRP Site Class D 1997 NEHRP Site Class E

Acceleration (g)

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.01

0.1

10

Period (sec)

Figure 1.2 - Comparison of 1985 Mexico City Earthquake SCT Response Spectra with 1997 NEHRP Code Recommendations

Unfortunately, there is a lack of well-documented seismic soil-pile response case histories, and of these cases very few include piles that have been instrumented to record dynamic response. This limited database of measured pile performance during

earthquakes does not provide a good basis for calibration and validation of the available analytical methods developed for seismic soil-pile-superstructure interaction problems. Centrifuge and shaking table model tests have therefore been used to augment the field case histories with laboratory data obtained under controlled conditions. The vast

majority of centrifuge and shaking table model tests have studied soil-pile seismic response in cohesionless soils with liquefaction potential. But many pile foundations supporting critical structures are sited on soft clays, which have the potential for cyclic strength degradation during seismic loading. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge sited on San Francisco Bay Mud is a prime example. The principal characteristics of seismic soil-pile-superstructure interaction (SSPSI) for an individual pile are illustrated schematically in Figure 1.3. The system components include the superstructure, the pile cap, the pile(s), the soil (here idealized into near field and far field domains), and the seismic energy source. The modes of system interaction include kinematic, inertial, and physical interaction, and radiation damping, and are described below. Kinematic interaction is the seismic response of the soil profile transmitted to the pile foundation, which attempts to deform with the soil, and results in the superstructure experiencing a different ground motion than the free-field soil.

Inertial interaction consists of structural inertial forces being transferred to the pile foundation. These forces impose lateral loads which are concentrated near the pile head, and axial loads, if a rocking mode of the structure is present.

Important physical interaction between the pile and soil occurs before and during seismic loading. During initial pile installation and loading, soil displacement, load transfer, and downdrag forces set up a unique stress state in the pile and surrounding soil, upon which any seismically-induced stresses will be superimposed. During

seismic loading, gaps may open between the soil and the pile near the ground surface; in cohesionless soils, the gap may fill in and be compacted; however in cohesive soils, the gap may stand open, resulting in a reduction of soil-pile lateral stiffness. If submerged, water alternately drawn in and ejected from the gap during each load cycle may scour the soil adjacent to the pile, resulting in a further reduction of stiffness. Radiation damping occurs due to the stiffness contrast between the soil and pile. Piles vibrate at much higher frequencies than the surrounding soil, but soil-pile contact forces the soil to also vibrate at these high frequencies, resulting in the transmission of high frequency energy away from the pile into the surrounding soil. Radiation damping is most

pronounced at high frequencies and low levels of soil damping, and cannot propagate through gaps opened between the pile and soil. The pile cap can also be an important source of radiation damping.

Figure 1.3 - Schematic of Modes of Single Pile Seismic Response The high degree of system coupling between the modes and components of interaction illustrate the complexity of SSPSI; the seismic response of piles installed in group configurations add another layer of complexity. It is apparent that for systems with strong nonlinear response, a fully-coupled analysis technique may be desirable. Such an analysis can evaluate how the development of nonlinearity in one system component affects the demands on another, which may potentially contribute to more reliable and economical design practice. This is in contrast to the commonly used dynamic substructuring

methods, which are more fully discussed in section 3.1, and can essentially be characterized as averting fully-coupled analysis of nonlinear system interaction.

1.2 Overview of Observed Pile Response During Earthquakes Many cases of damage to piles and pile-supported structures have been observed in earthquakes, and to a lesser degree, instrumented records of pile and pile-supported structural performance have been obtained. Taken together, these qualitative and

quantitative observations have formed a framework for understanding SSPSI, albeit an incomplete one. Just as site response was accentuated in the Loma Prieta earthquake, individual earthquakes have imparted specific lessons about SSPSI, and no doubt future events will continue to incrementally advance the state of knowledge. Chapter 2 includes a review of observed pile seismic performance, but an overview is presented here to highlight modes of pile seismic response and failure. From instrumented case histories, it has been found that SSPSI commonly results in spectral deamplification of pile cap motions relative to free-field motions. This

deamplification typically occurs at periods less than the period of the composite soil-pilestructure system, and varies greatly in amplitude. At low levels of shaking, kinematic interaction is seen to dominate the system response; period lengthening and increased radiation damping of the system are responsible for dissipating energy and deamplifying motions up to the resonant period. With the onset of stronger shaking, near-field soil modulus degradation and soil-pile gapping limit radiation damping, and structural inertial forces predominate, lessening the effects of spectral deamplification. As system

components yield, the system period further lengthens and radiation damping is effectively suppressed.

STIFF SOIL PILE PULLOUT FROM CAP PILE FAILURE AT HEAD IN SOFT SOIL FLEXURE AND/OR SHEAR PILE FLEXURE/SHEAR FAILURE AT STIFFNESS CONTRAST

PILE CAP FAILURE BEARING CAPACITY OR TENSION PULL-OUT FAILURE EXCESSIVE LATERAL DEFORMATIONS

Figure 1.4 - Potential Failure Modes for Pile Group Foundations Subjected to Seismic Shaking Particular modes of damage and failure include those related to both kinematic and inertial interaction (see Figure 1.4). Loss of lateral soil support has been observed to occur due to liquefaction of cohesionless soils or strain softening of cohesive soils near the pile head. When combined with large structural inertial loads, excessive displacements and bending strains concentrated near the pile head have developed and resulted in pile damage, frequently at the pile to cap connection. Another common liquefaction hazard arises from the large loads that laterally spreading soil deposits exert on piles, which has frequently resulted in pile and structural damage. When soils along the length of the pile soften due to liquefaction or strain softening, piles have experienced a loss of bearing capacity, and if combined with a rocking mode induced by superstructure inertial forces, the piles frequently undergo settlement, punching, or tensile pull-out failure. Piles may also be subject to damaging bending strains at interfaces between soil layers of strong

impedance contrast. This contrast may be provided by soft and stiff soil layers, or by soil layers that undergo liquefaction or strain softening under earthquake loading. Finally, battered (inclined) piles can form relatively stiff lateral resistance systems, and attract forces that the pile head and/or pile cap cannot sustain.

1.3 Research Needs and Research Objectives As will be shown in Chapter 2, there is a significant history of observed SSPSI effects, having often resulted in pile and/or structural damage or failure. Many of these case histories have been recorded in liquefiable cohesionless soils, but the potential for adverse performance of pile-supported structures founded on soft, strain sensitive cohesive soils is also of great concern. The empirical case histories have provided

important qualitative data regarding SSPSI effects, but the paucity of quantitative data has not contributed to advancing the practice. To fill the gap, researchers have utilized an arsenal of field and laboratory test procedures to investigate SSPSI problems. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 4, these experimental procedures have primarily focused on individual segments of SSPSI, with varying degrees of rigor and success. Similarly, the disparate analytical tools that have been developed are generally uncoupled from the overall system response; these substructuring methods have historically been driven by the necessity of computational efficiency and by the artificial barrier between geotechnical and structural analysis. With this background, several research needs are clear with respect to SSPSI. With the great concentration of research effort on the performance of pile-supported structures in liquefiable soils, a strong need exists to examine SSPSI in strain-sensitive

cohesive soils. Shaking table experiments provide an excellent opportunity to augment the limited database of SSPSI in soft clays, and afford the ability to do so under controlled and varied conditions. Importantly, such experiments can be designed to simulate the fullycoupled behavior of the soil-pile-superstructure system, and fully-coupled analytical methods can be applied to the results. The development and calibration of advanced fullycoupled numerical tools is the subject of parallel work at U.C. Berkeley (Lok, 1999). The following topics are therefore identified as tractable by shaking table experiments, and constitute the focus of this research program: soil-pile-superstructure coupled response in soft clay during strong shaking, elastic and nonlinear pile group interaction, applicability of 1-D analysis to 2-D excitations, pile cap embedment contribution to pile group impedance and group performance, single pile and pile group stiffness derived from static and dynamic head loading tests compared with the seismic response of similar structures, and degradation of soil resistance due to water scour in soil-pile gap during cyclic loading.

1.4 Organization of the Thesis Chapter 2 consists of a comprehensive survey of pile performance in earthquakes. The first section details observations from ten major earthquakes in the twentieth century that, together, manifested virtually all modes of pile damage and failure under seismic loading. The second section reports case histories of measured seismic response of

instrumented pile supported structures, and in some cases, instrumented piles; both building structures and bridges are included. Taken together, the empirical observations and instrument records constitute an empirical framework for understanding SSPSI and potential failure modes.

The current state-of-the-art with respect to SSPSI is addressed in Chapter 3. First, a review of analytical methods for the static, cyclic, and dynamic response of single piles and groups under lateral loading is presented. Second, a survey of building code

provisions is made to illustrate the lack of consensus on incorporating SSPSI effects into practice. To further illustrate this point, a third section details a number of case histories that take a variety of design approaches to account for SSPSI. Chapter 4 is a review of previous experimental work dealing with lateral pile response conducted in both field and laboratory settings. The test conditions range from small model piles to full scale shafts, and encompass a variety of soil conditions, and an assortment of loading schemes. The experimental work to date has focused on subcomponents of the overall SSPSI problem, and has done a great deal to validate and/or refine theoretical SSPSI models; however, true state-of-the-art test procedures are still emerging. Chapter 5 discusses the theory of scale model similitude and the development of scale modeling criteria for the shaking table testing program. Design, fabrication, and properties of the model soil and model piles used in the testing program are described, with commentary on the compromises inherent in the scale modeling process. Chapter 6 describes the shaking table test program, focusing on the development of the model container. Test parameters, instrumentation, and testing procedures are specified. Chapter 7 qualitatively reports the results of the shaking table test series. Soil and structure accelerations, displacements, and bending and axial strains measured in the model piles are contrasted for different model configurations. Also included is a

discussion of the shaking table performance and the model container response.

10

Analysis of the results is presented in Chapter 8, which first establishes the in-situ soil properties and then examines model soil free-field site response. The suite of pile head loading test results is then compared to theoretical performance. Pile group effects are investigated through the results of the static lateral group test, and the effects of twodimensional shaking are analyzed. System identification techniques are employed to

determine flexible base period and damping factors of the model structures, which are compared to the fixed base idealization. Pile performance is analyzed with respect to experimentally-derived static and cyclic p-y curves. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the experimental findings and makes recommendations for future research.

11