CHAPTER 7

SHAKING TABLE TEST RESULTS

7.1 Introduction This chapter qualitatively presents the results of the shaking table test program, reserving quantitative analysis for the next chapter. As previously described, the shaking table tests were designed so that each test setup provided contrasting conditions of at least two, and in some cases up to five, structural models. In this manner direct inferences about the effect of superstructure inertial forces, pile cap embedment, etc., could be made. It is clearly impossible to present the complete experimental results in this dissertation, and therefore representative details are reported. The results are presented in the form of acceleration (and bending strain) time histories, and fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) and 5% damped response spectra of these time histories. Data processing and filtering of the acceleration records has consisted solely of zeroing the mean value and baseline correcting each record. These operations were found to have a negligible effect on the data, indicating permanent deformations were insignificant. In addition, bending moment envelopes computed from the model pile strain gages are plotted. The bending moment envelope is defined by the absolute peak strain at each gage during the excitation; it is not equivalent to the actual bending moment diagram at the time step when the peak strain is recorded. To remove low frequency drift from the strain gage records, a digital highpass Butterworth filter was applied with a passband of 0.5 Hz, a stopband of 0.1 Hz, a passband attenuation of 3 dB, and a stopband attenuation

300

of 20 dB. In rare instances a passband of 1 Hz and a stopband of 0.5 Hz were employed. Fifth order polynomials were fit to the bending moment data points, except in cases of gage failure when fewer data points dictated the use of lower order polynomials.

7.2 Shaking Table Performance An essential component of high quality experimental results is superior performance of the shaking table. The table performance can be evaluated with respect to the following criteria: How well did the shaking table replicate the command signal ? Was the table response repeatable ? Was the table motion well-controlled or were other degrees of freedom engaged ? These questions are to be considered in the context that though the table response may not have precisely matched the command signal, recording the actual table performance provides sufficient input data for numerical simulations of the tests.

7.2.1 Replication of Command Signals The shaking table is an analog controlled servo-hydraulic system that is sensitive to such factors as atmospheric conditions, warm-up procedures, test-specific table balance settings, etc. It proved to be moderately consistent in its ability to reproduce signals from one test to the next. Figure 7.1 plots the YBI90 command signal response spectra with the shaking table response spectra from all six YBI90 tests superimposed. The table response is computed as the average of the H41 and H23 accelerometers (see Figure 7.2 for the table instrumentation plan) and the spectra have been normalized to the unscaled command amplitude, 0.067 g (input amplitudes 0.14 0.28 g). The table response match

301

to the command signal is good, particularly at the predominant period of the record. The under-response of the table at periods greater than 0.3 seconds is somewhat surprising, though the variations in high frequency response are not.
0.3

Table Command Table Response

Acceleration (g)

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Figure 7.1- Shaking Table Response Spectra for YBI90 Input Motions, Damping = 5 %

V4

H3-4

V3

H4-1

H2-3

Lateral

Longitudinal

V1

H1-2

V2

Figure 7.2 - Shaking Table Accelerometer Layout (dimensions in ft); H are horizontal accelerometers and V are vertical accelerometers
302

3.0

Table Command Table Response

Acceleration (g)

2.0

1.0

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Figure 7.3 - Shaking Table Response Spectra for KPI79N00 Motions, Damping = 5% Figure 7.3 presents the KPI79N00 command signal response spectra with 20 KPI79N00 table response spectra overlain, all normalized to the unscaled command amplitude, 0.69g (input amplitudes 0.06 1.06 g). The table response is computed as the average of the H41 and H23 accelerometers for Phase I tests and the average of the H12 and H34 accelerometers for Phase II tests. The spectral match is consistent for periods greater than 0.5 sec. In the range of maximum energy and the predominant period, from 0.05 to 0.5 sec, the table response shows moderate variability, both under- and overreproducing the command signal. At high frequencies the table was generally unable to reproduce the full amplitude of the single high frequency acceleration spike in the Kobe record, as evidenced by the 0.01 sec period spectral accelerations ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 g for the majority of the records. And for two test events very severe twist accelerations

303

resulted in large average horizontal accelerations being calculated; these records constitute the two upper bound table response spectra.

7.2.2 Acceleration Response of Table Degrees of Freedom It is instructive to examine the response of the individual table degrees of freedom to understand some of the table response variability previously noted. Table twist is defined as H12 H34 about the longitudinal axis and H41 H23 about the lateral axis; table pitch is computed as (V1+V2) (V3+V4) and table roll is (V2+V3) (V1+V4). As these response quantities are defined at the accelerometer positions at the edges of the shaking table, the actual twist, pitch, and roll experienced by the models is approximately 36 % of the table response (3 ft model radial position/8.25 ft table accelerometer radial position). Table accelerometer time histories (modified twist, pitch and roll) for a representative 1-D shaking test are shown in Figure 7.4. Figure 7.5 depicts the corresponding FFTs for these time histories, indicating the frequency characteristics of these motions. In a perfectly responding system the H12 and H34 accelerometers should both reproduce the command signal, and all other degrees of freedom should be stable. This was certainly not the case, and important differences can be seen in these two longitudinal motions. The H12 motion has greater energy above 8 Hz than the H34 motion, though both records have greater high frequency energy than the command signal. This is

manifested in the generation of out of plane (H23 and H41) and twist accelerations, both of which have peak amplitudes at approximately 10 Hz. The amplitude of the twist motion is not negligible, and the twist accelerations translate into

304

0.6 H12

0.6

H34

0.0

0.0

-0.6 0.6 H41

-0.6 0.6 H23

0.0

0.0

-0.6 0.6 V1

-0.6 0.6 V2

0.0

0.0

Acceleration (g)

-0.6 0.6 V3

Acceleration (g)

-0.6 0.6 V4

0.0

0.0

-0.6 0.6 Longitudinal Twist

-0.6 0.6 Lateral Twist

0.0

0.0

-0.6 0.6 Pitch

-0.6 0.6 Roll

0.0

0.0

-0.6 0 3 6 9 12

-0.6 0 3 6 9 12

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Figure 7.4 - Test 2.37 Shaking Table Accelerometer Time Histories

305

0.02 H12

0.02

H34

0.00 0.02 H41

0.00 0.02 H23

0.00 0.02 V1

0.00 0.02 V2

Acceleration (g)

0.00 0.02 V3

Acceleration (g)

0.00 0.02 V4

0.00 0.02 Longitudinal Twist

0.00 0.02 Lateral Twist

0.00 0.02 Pitch

0.00 0.02 Roll

0.00 0 10 20 30 40

0.00 0 10 20 30 40

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.5 - Test 2.37 Shaking Table Accelerometer FFTs

306

out of plane components of motion in the vicinity of the models. The four vertical table accelerometers recorded relatively small motions, but they were out of phase, and very moderate pitch and roll motions resulted, with peak amplitudes at approximately 23 Hz (beyond the model range of interest). In summary, the shaking table performed adequately in reproducing the command motions. Minor variability between command and response can be accepted when the response is recorded and fully characterized. The model geometric scaling factor of 8 demanded that the shaking table reproduce high frequency motions by controlling very small displacements, an apparent limitation of the table. This variability in table The

performance may therefore be partially attributable to magnitude dependence.

unwanted out of plane, twist, pitch, and roll motions consistently appeared throughout the shaking table test series, and are a source of greater concern. The implications of these spurious motions to the one-dimensional site response idealization will be explored in greater detail in sections 7.3 and 8.4 of this dissertation.

7.3 Soil Column Response The recorded soil column response will be compared with analytical site response models in section 8.4, but this section will first consider trends of experimental site response. Site response amplification in a dense accelerometer array for a Phase II test will be examined, the coherence of site response will be considered for four vertical arrays in a Phase I test, and the issue of vertical accelerations will be studied for a Phase II test.

307

7.3.1 Site Amplification It is now a well-established fact of geotechnical earthquake engineering that soil deposits can amplify the seismic rock motion through the soil column toward the surface. Soft clay deposits are known to particularly amplify shaking, though very strong shaking may attenuate surface motions due to soil nonlinearity and stiffness degradation (Idriss, 1990). It is also postulated that such motions may even induce shear failure in the soil deposit. The same amplification characteristics and nonlinear behavior are desired in the model soil column. Figure 7.6 depicts accelerometer time histories and FFTs for array #1 in shaking table test 2.24. The trend of amplification from base (0.22 g) to surface (0.44 g) is obvious, and the transformation of energy content is significant. The FFT energy

concentration at 8.2 Hz in deeper instruments directly correlates to the 8.2 Hz acceleration spike in the KPI79N00 input motion. But above a depth of 30 in, energy at 3.4 Hz begins to dominate. This frequency reflects the fundamental site period, and this topic will be further addressed in section 8.4.

7.3.2 Coherence of Motions The model soil container is intended to approximate one-dimensional site response, which requires that ground motions be identical at all points on any horizontal plane. To evaluate whether the model soil column is behaving in this manner, the coherence of accelerometer response spectra from Phase I tests is considered. Figure 7.7 superimposes response spectra from four accelerometer arrays at five elevations from test 1.18. The excellent agreement for the spectra recorded in the plane of shaking confirms

308

0.5 Elev 0 0.0 -0.5 0.5 Elev -8 0.0 -0.5 0.5 Elev -18 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0.5 Elev -75 0.0 -0.5 0 3 6 9 12

0.02

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.02

Elev -30

0.00 0.02

Acceleration (g)

Elev -48

Acceleration (g)

0.00 0.02

Elev -60

0.00 0.02

Elev -66

0.00 0.02

Elev -72

0.00 0.02

0.00 0.02

0.00 0 5 10 15 20

Time (sec)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.6 - Test 2.24 Soil Accelerometer Array #1 Time Histories and FFTs

309

2.0 In Plane Elev 0

0.4 Out of Plane Elev 0

0.0 2.0 In Plane Elev -6

0.0 0.4 Out of Plane Elev -6

0.0 2.0

0.0 0.4

Acceleration (g)

0.0 2.0 In Plane Elev -48

Acceleration (g)

In Plane Elev -24

Out of Plane Elev -24

0.0 0.4 Out of Plane Elev -48

0.0 2.0 In Plane Elev -74

0.0 0.4 Out of Plane Elev -74

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.7 - Test 1.18 Soil Accelerometer 5%Damped Response Spectra

310

the coherence of motions across the site. The out of plane spectral peaks at 10 Hz indicate that table twist is contributing to these motions, which as expected vary in amplitude by radial position of the instrument. These analyses were performed for all Phase I tests and the results consistently confirmed these trends of site response coherence.

7.3.3 Vertical Accelerations Vertical accelerations were observed at the soil surface in the model tests, ranging in amplitude from 20 to 50 % of the horizontal motion, and were higher frequency in character. The sources of vertical acceleration in the model tests are threefold. The first source is vertical accelerations of the shaking table itself, including table pitch and roll. Such motions may generate compression waves in the soil that appear as vertical accelerations at the soil surface. A second source of surface vertical accelerations is surface waves generated at the soil surface and at the soil/model container interface. Modeling such phenomena is beyond the scope of this work. A third source of surface vertical accelerations relates to the deformation mode of the soil column. The model soil container was specifically designed to allow the model soil deposit to respond in the same manner as a free-field soil deposit, characterized by a simple shear deformation mode. The inclusion of shear strips to carry complementary shear stresses was intended to sustain this mode, and minimize soil column bending. The container deformation mode could be expected to introduce a vertical component to the soil column, imposing a pseudo-simple shear deformation mode, as shown in Figure 7.8 One method of evaluating the soil deformation mode is to examine the vertical

311

accelerations at the top of the soil column. Assuming a rigid and horizontal base, it is evident that vertical accelerations should be in phase for the pseudo-simple shear mode and perfectly out of phase for the column bending mode (see Figure 7.8).

a) pseudo-simple shear deformation mode

b) column bending deformation mode

Figure 7.8 - Comparison of Vertical Accelerations for Soil Column Deformation Modes Unfortunately, a rigid base condition does not exist as evidenced by the table pitch and roll motions; this greatly complicates understanding the observed vertical accelerations. Nonetheless, Figure 7.9 plots surface and base horizontal and vertical response spectra for two accelerometer arrays in test 2.46, and the transfer function estimate and transfer function phase for the two surface vertical accelerometers. The phase diagram clearly demonstrates that these motions are strongly out of phase, implying that some soil column bending is occurring. The small amplitude and higher frequency of vertical base accelerations suggest that this source is a minor contributor to surface vertical accelerations. The effect of the soil deformation mode on soil column site

response will be evaluated in Section 8.4.

312

10.0 Surface V1:V2 Transfer Function

180

Surface V1:V2 Phase

Amplitude

1.0

Degrees
0 20

0.1

-180

Frequency (Hz)

0
4.0

Frequency (Hz)

20

4.0 Soil Surface Vertical 1

Soil Surface Vertical 2

0.0 4.0 Soil Surface Horizontal 1

0.0 4.0

Soil Surface Horizontal 2

Acceleration (g)

0.0 4.0 Table (V1 + V4) / 2

Acceleration (g)

0.0 4.0 Table (V2 + V3) / 2

0.0 4.0 Soil Base Horizontal 1

0.0 4.0 Soil Base Horizontal 2

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.9 - Test 2.46 Accelerometer 5% Damped Response Spectra and Transfer Function

313

7.4 Sine Sweep Tests A sine sweep signal was used as a diagnostic tool to investigate the changes in pile head and pile group frequency response over the course of testing. The sine sweep tests bracketed each earthquake shaking test, so that trends of degrading pile head stiffness could be tracked. These input motions were manually controlled for small amplitude shaking (< 0.05 g), intending to limit soil-pile vibrations to the elastic range so that pile head resonant frequencies would correlate to pile head stiffnesses. But the small

amplitude base input motions generated fairly large pile head accelerations due to site amplification and structural resonance effects. For example, sine sweep test 2.27 had a MHA of 0.05 g, which was amplified to 0.15 g at the soil surface, and the five pile head accelerations varied from 0.11 to 0.34 g. These moderate acceleration levels could be expected to induce soil-pile nonlinearity in the immediate vicinity of the pile, compromising the direct calculation of pile head stiffness values. Nonetheless, the change in pile head resonant frequencies from test to test should still be indicative of degrading pile head stiffness due to the earthquake shaking events. Figure 7.10 charts a histogram of pile head resonant frequencies from three sine sweep tests which bracketed earthquake shaking tests 2.24 and 2.26 scaled to 0.22 and 1.0 g, respectively. The pile head resonant frequency is defined as the frequency

corresponding to the peak amplitude of the FFT of the pile head acceleration time history. All five pile head resonant frequencies declined over the course of testing, indicating increasing foundation flexibility and degrading stiffness due to soil-pile nonlinearity developed during the earthquake shaking tests. The changes in pile head resonant

frequency were most pronounced for the S2, S4, and S8 structures, which with heavier

314

head masses experienced stronger inertial interaction and resultant near surface soil-pile gapping and softened zones around the pile heads (see Figure 7.11). The S7 and S6 structures were lightly loaded and thereby dominated by kinematic soil-pile interaction, with less nonlinear soil-pile response and changes in pile head resonant frequencies.

12 10.3510.35 10.1910.19 9.26 10.02

Frequency (Hz)

6.26 4.31 3.59 2.26

5.8 3.8 3.82

S2 S4 S8 S7 S6

3.38 1.51

0 Sin223b Sin225 Sin227

Figure 7.10 - Test Series 2.2 Sine Sweeps, Pile Resonant Frequency Response

Figure 7.11 - Test 2.26 Gap Formed Around Pile S2

315

7.5 Kinematic vs. Inertial Pile Response As previously established, SSPSI consists of components relating to superstructure inertial forces and kinematic forces exerted by the soil on the pile. As detailed in Chapter 3, it is common practice to decouple these factors and separately analyze inertial and kinematic interaction for their relative contributions to SSPSI. A corollary question is whether the relative proportions of inertial and kinematic interaction are magnitude dependent. It is therefore useful to discern these components from the model tests and examine the decoupling assumptions. Single pile test series 1.1 and 2.2 offer the best opportunity for isolating these mechanisms of SSPSI.

Figure 7.12 - Test Series 1.1 Setup 7.5.1 Test 1.15 Figure 7.12 shows the model setup for test series 1.1, with the primary shaking axis indicated by the arrow; the pile head masses were 160 lbs (S1), 100 lbs (S2), 25 lbs

316

(S3), and 6.5 lbs (S4). The pile head acceleration time histories and FFTs for test 1.15 are plotted in Figure 7.13. This test subjected the model to the YBI90 motion with a MHA of 0.16 g, resulting in a free-field MHA of 0.26 g and pile head peak accelerations ranging from 0.35 (S4) to 0.77 g (S1). Note the strong similarity of the S3 and S4 FFTs to the free-field soil response FFT. Figure 7.14 displays the bending moment envelopes for these four piles. Clearly S1 and S2 were dominated by inertial forces from the superstructure masses, which induced large bending moments near the pile heads. The location of maximum bending moment for the S3 and S4 piles, however, occurred at a depth of 30 in, indicating that kinematic forces from the soil produced the largest stresses in these piles. To further validate kinematic interaction effects, Figure 7.15 plots transfer function estimates, transfer function phase, and coherence functions for the S1 and S4 pile head accelerations to the free-field soil response. The S1:free-field transfer function, phase, and coherence show poor correlation, whereas the S4:free-field transfer and coherence functions are near unity and strongly in phase. It is therefore very interesting to note that for this single pile case (S4), wave scattering effects are negligible and the foundation input motion is nearly equivalent to the free-field ground motion. A second important observation is that this particular soft clay profile would be expected to intensify kinematic interaction through strong site response amplification, yet pile demands arising from inertial interaction exceeded the kinematic demands, except for the very lightly loaded piles. As will next be shown with the higher magnitude Test 2.24, these effects appear to be independent of shaking intensity.

317

1.0 S1

0.04

0.0

-1.0 1.0 S2

0.00 0.04

0.0

-1.0 1.0

0.00 0.04

Acceleration (g)

0.0

-1.0 1.0 S4

Acceleration (g)
0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 15

S3

0.0

-1.0 1.0 Free Field Soil

0.0

-1.0 0 5 10

10

15

20

Time (sec)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.13 - Test 1.15 Pile Head Accelerometer Time Histories and FFTs

318

Depth (ft)

S1 - Pile 1 S2 - Pile 3
5

S3 - Pile 5 S4 - Pile 6

6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.14 - Test 1.15 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes

10 S1:FF Transfer Function 10 1 0.1 0.01 180 S4:FF Transfer Function

Amplitude

1 0.1 0.01 180

S1:FF Phase

S4:FF Phase

Degrees

Degrees
S1:FF Coherence Function

-180 1.0

-180 1.0 S4:FF Coherence Function

0.5

0.5

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.15 - Test 1.15 Pile Head:Free-field Transfer Functions

319

7.5.2 Test 2.24 The setup for test series 2.2 is shown in Figure 7.16; for these tests the pile head masses were 160 lbs (S2), 120 lbs (S4), 80 lbs (S8), 40 lbs (S7), and 6.5 lbs (S6). This pile head mass distribution was intended to better differentiate the transition from kinematic to inertial interaction as a function of pile axial load. Figure 7.17 plots pile head and free-field acceleration time histories and FFTs for test 2.24, which subjected the model to the KPI79N00 record with a MHA of 0.22 g. The free-field soil MHA was 0.51 g, and the pile head accelerations ranged from 0.63 (S6) to 1.32 g, with the unexpected result that the maximum response was achieved by the lightly loaded S7 pile. Examining the S7 FFT, it is apparent that resonance with the predominant period of the input motion (8.2 Hz) strongly amplified the structural response, closely resembling damage patterns to a narrow frequency band of structures in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.

Figure 7.16 - Test Series 2.2 Setup

320

1.5 S2

0.1

0.0

-1.5 1.5 S4

0.0 0.1

0.0

-1.5 1.5 S8

0.0 0.1

0.0

Acceleration (g)

-1.5 1.5 S7

Acceleration (g)

0.0 0.1

0.0

-1.5 1.5 S6

0.0 0.1

0.0

-1.5 1.5 Free Field Soil 0.0

0.0 0.1

-1.5 0 3 6 9 12

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

Time (sec)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.17 - Test 2.24 Pile Head Accelerometer Time Histories and FFTs

321

The pile bending moment response of test 2.24 is depicted in Figure 7.18, and similar trends to test 1.15 are noted. Inertial interaction is seen to induce large bending moments in the upper sections of all piles except S6. Kinematic forces dominate pile S6 but are noticeable at depth for all piles. Finally, Figure 7.19 presents a transfer function analysis of pile head S2 and S6 and free-field accelerations. Again, the lightly loaded S6 pile exhibits much better correlation, coherence, and phase agreement to the free-field ground motion than the heavily loaded S2 pile, thereby confirming kinematic interaction effects. Unfortunately the transition from inertial to kinematic interaction as a function of axial load could not be clearly established from these tests, as the strongly resonant response of the S7 pile obscured the behavior in the range of interest. It can be inferred from the tests, however, that for these endbearing piles in soft clay, inertial interaction dominates the response except for piles with very low axial loads. Other single pile tests with base input accelerations up to 1.0 g support this conclusion.
0

Depth (ft)

S2 - Pile 2
4

S4 - Pile 4 S8 - Pile 8
5

S7 - Pile 7 S6 - Pile 6

6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.18 - Test 2.24 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes

322

10

S2:FF Transfer Function

10

S6:FF Transfer Function

0.1 180

S2:FF Phase

0.1 180

S6:FF Phase

Degrees

Degrees
S2:FF Coherence Function

-180 1.0

-180 1.0 S6:FF Coherence Function

Amplitude

0.5

0.5

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

0.0 0 5 10 15 20

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7.19 - Test 2.24 Pile Head:Free-field Transfer Functions 7.6 Pile Group Frequency Response Extending the study of inertial interaction effects to pile group response, a Phase I earthquake shaking test with two comparable 3x3 pile groups but different superstructures will be analyzed. Secondly, the response of two identically configured 3x3 pile groups and superstructures, one of which was first subjected to a static lateral load test carried to large deformations, will be contrasted in a Phase II shaking test.

7.6.1 Test 1.26 Test series 1.2 can be thought of as subjecting two foundations with the same stiffness to different inertial forces. Although the superstructure lumped masses of the S1 and S2 pile groups were identical (406 lbs), the different column heights imparted unique frequency characteristics to the two groups (see Figure 7.20). The input motion consisted

323

of the KPI79N00 record with a MHA of 0.42 g, resulting in a free-field soil MHA of 0.64 g. The response spectra of 54 in tall column S1 group (H/B = 3) and the 18 in tall column S2 group (H/B = 1) are displayed in Figure 7.21. The S2 superstructure, pile cap, and cap rocking peak accelerations exceeded the corresponding S1 response quantities. The

amplitude of spectral accelerations for the pile caps and superstructures of the two groups were similar, but the frequency content was quite different. The S1 superstructure

responded at 1.5 Hz, and the S2 superstructure at 7 Hz. The pile cap spectra appear to be composites of both free-field and superstructure motions for the respective groups, signifying wave scattering and the necessity of accounting for modified foundation input motions.

Figure 7.20 - Test Series 1.2 Setup

324

4.0 S1 Superstructure

4.0 S2 Superstructure

0.0

0.0 S1 Pile Cap

Acceleration (g)

4.0

4.0 S2 Pile Cap

Acceleration (g)
0.0 4.0

0.0 4.0 S1 Pile Cap Rocking S2 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 5000 Pile 8 Axial

0.0 5000 Pile 10 Axial

strain

0 10000 Pile 9 Bending

10000 Pile 6 Bending

strain

Acceleration (g)

Free Field Soil

Acceleration (g)

4.0

strain
0 4.0 Free Field Soil 0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0

strain
0

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.21 - Test 1.26 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

325

Although the S1 group experienced lower peak accelerations, its longer period motion translated into higher superstructure spectral accelerations and much higher forces being transmitted to the piles, as evidenced by the bending and axial strain spectra (computed for the uppermost gages in each pile). To further illustrate this point, Figure 7.22 illustrates bending moment envelopes for piles from the two groups. The S1 piles can be seen to have experienced much larger bending moments near the pile head than the S2 group, consistent with the pile head fixity condition. This test demonstrated the sensitivity of SSPSI to frequency effects (resonance); it is questionable whether pseudostatic methods of analysis could capture such response.
0

Depth (ft)

S1 - Pile 7 S1 - Pile 5
3

S1 - Pile 9 S1 - Pile 1

S2 - Pile 3 S2 - Pile 4 S2 - Pile 6

S2 - Pile 12

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.22 - Test 1.26 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes

326

7.6.2 Test 2.37 In contrast to test series 1.2, test series 2.3 examined the response of two pile groups with different foundation stiffnesses to similar inertial forces. The static lateral preloading of group S1 to large deformations was observed to cause soil-cap yielding and gapping, which would be expected to also extend into the upper segments of the piles, and therefore reduce the group stiffness. This static test will be analyzed in Section 8.7.

Figure 7.23 - Test Series 2.3 Setup The setup for test series 2.3 is shown in Figure 7.23, with the lateral loading cable attached to group S1 (which was removed for earthquake shaking tests). Head masses of 806 lbs were fixed to each group at the top of 36 in tall columns. The KPI79N00 input motion MHA was 0.53 g, resulting in a free-field MHA of 1.07 g. Figure 7.24 depicts the acceleration and strain gage response spectra for the S1 and S2 pile groups. The nonintuitive result from this test is that the virgin group exhibited higher peak accelerations

327

4.0 S1 Superstructure

4.0 S2 Superstructure

0.0 4.0

0.0 4.0 S1 Pile Cap

Acceleration (g)

0.0 4.0 S1 Pile Cap Rocking

Acceleration (g)

S2 Pile Cap

0.0 4.0 S2 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 2000 Pile 8 Axial

0.0 2000 Pile 10 Axial

strain

0 6000 Pile 1 Bending

6000 Pile 3 Bending

strain

0 4.0

strain
0 4.0

strain
0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Acceleration (g)

Free Field Soil

Free Field Soil

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.24 - Test 2.37 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

328

than the preloaded group, 40 % higher at the cap and 20 % higher at the superstructure. This result can be explained by recognizing that the preloading did more than degrade the S1 group stiffness, it partially base-isolated the group by soil softening and gapping around the piles and cap. In this fashion, kinematic interaction was unable to transmit the full intensity of the seismic loading to the S1 pile group. Otherwise, superstructure, pile cap, and cap rocking spectral accelerations were similar, except for high frequency noise in the S2 superstructure instrument, possibly due to a loose accelerometer mount.
0

Depth (ft)

S1 - Pile 2 S1 - Pile 1
3

S1 - Pile 7 S1 - Pile 11

S2 - Pile 5 S2 - Pile 3 S2 - Pile 9

S2 - Pile 4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.25 - Test 2.37 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes The stronger response of the S2 group induced higher inertial force bending moments in the piles, as seen in the bending strain spectra and in the bending moment envelopes presented in Figure 7.25. The S1 group piles exhibited higher axial strains, perhaps due to decreased group rocking stiffness as a result of the static preloading. The maximum bending moments for S1 piles occurred deeper than for S2 piles, which could be

329

a result of the S1 preloading inducing reduced lateral soil-pile resistance in the upper portions of the S1 piles.

7.7 Pile Cap Embedment Effects The contribution of pile cap resistance to pile group static and dynamic response is not well-established, and several test configurations were designed to evaluate these effects. Test series 1.3 was set up to contrast the response of a fully embedded 3x3 pile group and that of a 3x3 group with cap base-soil contact but no cap side-soil contact. Test series 2.5 consisted of two 2x2 pile groups, one with full pile cap embedment, the other with no pile cap side- or cap base-soil contact. In both test series the pile groups had identical column heights and head masses, thereby imparting similar inertial forces to the different foundation conditions. In practice, consolidation settlements are commonly assumed to provide separation between the pile cap base and the soil. Though this configuration was not explicitly modeled, the relative contributions of pile cap base-soil and cap side-soil contact can be evaluated from these tests.

7.7.1 Test 1.37 The layout of test series 1.3 is shown in Figure 7.26; the S3 group is a pile raft foundation which will be described in section 7.9, but was expected to exert no differential effect on structures S1 and S2 in these tests. The S1 and S2 structures consisted of 406 lb head masses atop 18 in tall columns. After both groups were installed, a 6 in deep trench was excavated around the S1 group to relieve all contact between the side of that pile cap and the surrounding soil. Test 1.37 consisted of the KPI79N00 input motion with a MHA

330

of 0.45 g, resulting in a free-field MHA of 0.59 g. Figure 7.27 plots the acceleration and strain gage response spectra for the S1 and S2 pile groups. The pile cap, cap rocking, and pile bending responses were very similar for both groups, though the slightly higher foundation stiffness of group S2 with full cap embedment appears to have resulted in an incrementally larger high frequency (8.2 Hz.) response than S1. This response propagated into the pile axial response, which is seen to be much stronger for the S2 group pile than the S1 group pile. Notably this strain contrast was only present for the top gages; all other gages in these two piles had similar values. Finally, examining the bending moment envelopes in Figure 7.28 reveals very similar bending strains in the S1 and S2 piles, except for the case of pile 1, which is positioned at the front center of group S1, and has no corollary S2 pile. Shadowing effects appear to have attenuated bending moments in this pile at mid-depth. The principal conclusion from this test series is that pile cap side-soil contact exerted only a minimal effect on the dynamic response of the pile groups.

Figure 7.26 - Test Series 1.3 Setup

331

4.0 S1 Superstructure

4.0 S2 Superstructure

0.0

0.0

Acceleration (g)

4.0

4.0 S2 Pile Cap

Acceleration (g)

S1 Pile Cap

0.0 4.0 S1 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 4.0 S2 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 2000 Pile 8 Axial

0.0 2000 Pile 10 Axial

strain

0 2000 Pile 5 Bending

2000 Pile 4 Bending

strain

Acceleration (g)

Free Field Soil

Acceleration (g)

4.0

strain
0 4.0 Free Field Soil 0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0

strain
0

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.27 - Test 1.37 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

332

Depth (ft)

S1 - Pile 7 S1 - Pile 5
3

S1 - Pile 9 S1 - Pile 1

S2 - Pile 3 S2 - Pile 4 S2 - Pile 6

S3 - Pile 11

0.0

0.5

1.0

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.28 - Test 1.37 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes 7.7.2 Test 2.55 With the recognition that pile cap side-soil contact exerted little influence on the pile group response in test series 1.3, it was perceived that pile groups mobilize cap resistance in rocking, and therefore pile cap base-soil contact could potentially be a more critical component of group stiffness. To explore this concept, test series 2.5 contrasted the response of fully embedded 2x2 group S2 to non-embedded group S1 (Figure 7.29). These two groups had 600 lb head masses mounted on 24 in tall columns, and were subjected to the KPI79N00 motion with a MHA of 0.53 g in test 2.55. Figure 7.30 plots the accelerometer and strain gage response spectra for this test, which had a free-field soil MHA of 1.22 g. The S1 and S2 pile caps had nearly equal peak accelerations, but the higher spectral response of the S1 pile cap, cap rocking, and pile axial strains is consistent with the expected rocking flexibility of this group due to no cap base-soil contact. The

333

S2 superstructure response exceeded the S1 response due to frequency effects; the higher frequency rocking energy at the S1 pile cap did not intensify the superstructure motions. The S2 superstructure motion in turn generated higher S2 pile bending strains, as can be seen in Figure 7.31.

Figure 7.29 - Test Series 2.5 Setup The overall conclusion to be drawn from these tests was that pile cap base-soil contact was a more significant contributor to pile group stiffness than pile cap side-soil contact. But frequency effects remain important; shorter columns or lighter head masses in test 2.55 could have resulted in S1 superstructure response exceeding S2. It is also interesting to consider how these effects would manifest for friction piles as opposed to the end-bearing condition in these tests; stronger rocking response and a greater sensitivity to cap embedment conditions would likely result. Finally, it is important to consider that pile caps in the field are normally surrounded by stiffer soils, either due to dessication or compaction of surface fills, and cap resistance may therefore be more pronounced in the field than for these homogeneous soft model clay deposits.

334

6.0

S1 Superstructure

6.0

S2 Superstructure

0.0 6.0

0.0 6.0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 6.0 S1 Pile Cap Rocking

Acceleration (g)

S1 Pile Cap

S2 Pile Cap

0.0 6.0 S2 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 2000 Pile 1 Axial

0.0 2000 Pile 6 Axial

strain

0 6000 Pile 2 Bending

6000

strain
0 Pile 8 Bending 0

strain
0 6.0

strain
6.0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Acceleration (g)

Free Field Soil

Free Field Soil

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.30 - Test 2.55 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

335

Depth (ft)

S1 - Pile 8
4

S1 - Pile 2 S2 - Pile 3
5

S2 - Pile 4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.31 - Test 2.55 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes 7.8 Pile Group and Single Pile Subjected to 2-D Shaking Test series 2.4 was devised to subject a 5x3 pile group and a single pile to twodimensional shaking. The single pile head mass, 80 lbs, was selected to provide the same load as the pile group average head load (1200 lbs 15 piles). This section will highlight the response of the group and single pile to 2-D strong shaking. Group interaction and two-dimensional shaking effects will be analyzed in Chapter 8.

7.8.1 Test 2.46 The setup for test series 2.4 is depicted in Figure 7.32, with the arrow indicating the strong axis of 2-D shaking. The 1200 lb S1 head mass was fixed to a 54 in tall column. Test 1.46 consisted of the KPI79N00 record with a MHA of 0.58 g on the longitudinal axis, and the KPI79N90 record with a MHA of 0.34 g on the lateral axis.

336

These motions amplified to free-field MHAs of 1.10 and 0.50 g, respectively. Figure 7.33 reveals that the S2 pile head motions were more severe than the S1 pile group motions at the cap or superstructure. The long period S1 superstructure did not strongly respond to the higher frequency ground motions, and in fact the S1 cap accelerations

Figure 7.32 - Test Series 1.4 Setup exceeded the superstructure accelerations by 60 %. The longitudinal and lateral

components of structural response were proportional to the longitudinal and lateral input motions. The amplitudes and frequencies of the S1 superstructure and S2 pile head motions drove the pile bending strains, as can be seen from the gage response spectra. The bending moment envelopes for the single and group piles are displayed in Figure 7.34. In the longitudinal direction, S1 exterior pile 10 had a similar peak bending moment

337

8.0 S1 Superstructure Long

8.0

S2 Pile Head Long

0.0 8.0 S1 Superstructure Lat

Acceleration (g)

0.0 8.0 S2 Pile Head Lat

Acceleration (g)

0.0 8.0 S1 Pile Cap Long

0.0

0.0 8.0 S1 Pile Cap Lat

0.0 8000 Pile 7 Bending 8000 Pile 1 Bending

strain

strain
0 Free Field Soil Long 8.0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Acceleration (g)

8.0

Free Field Soil Lat

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.33 - Test 2.46 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

338

Depth (ft)

a) Longitudinal
3

S1 - Pile 7 S1 - Pile 11

S1 - Pile 12 S1 - Pile 9 S1 - Pile 10

S2 - Pile 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Bending Moment (K-in)

0

Depth (ft)

b) Lateral S1 - Pile 8
4

S1 - Pile 3 S1 - Pile 5

S2 - Pile 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Bending Moment (K-in)

Figure 7.34 - Test 2.46 a) Longitudinal and b) Lateral Pile Bending Moment Envelopes

339

to S2 pile 1 near the surface. At intermediate depths, the S2 pile had larger bending moments, displaying an envelope characteristic of its free head condition. At deeper elevations, some of the group pile bending moments exceeded the single pile bending moments. In the lateral direction, similar trends were observed, though notably the

amplitudes of bending moments in the two directions were similar. This is in contrast to the structural acceleration response, which will be studied in more detail in Section 8.8.

7.9 Pile Raft Foundation Performance Pile rafts are a special class of composite mat-pile foundations designed to control settlements in clays. There is scant information published on the response of such

foundations to seismic loading. A 3x3 group pile cap was installed over a single pile in test series 1.3 to simulate an element of a larger raft foundation with sparsely placed piles (Figure 7.35). The superstructure head mass was arbitrarily selected, and in retrospect, should have been sized to match the other pile groups in the test, thereby allowing for better comparison of response.

7.9.1 Test 1.37 Figure 7.36 plots the acceleration and strain gage response spectra for structures S2 and S3 in test 1.37 (section 7.7.1 compared the S1 and S2 response in this test). The S2 pile cap was fully embedded with a 406 lb mass on an 18 in tall column; the S2 cap was also fully embedded, with a 162 lb mass on an 18 in tall column. The input and free-field MHAs for the KPI79N00 record were 0.45 and 0.59 g, respectively. The central single pile of the S3 structure provided an axis of rotation for the fairly strong rocking response

340

observed in this group.

These rocking motions caused stronger superstructure

accelerations and higher pile bending moments than experienced by the S2 group. Figure 7.28 presented the bending moment envelopes for test 1.37, where larger bending moments in the upper section of the S3 pile can be identified.

Figure 7.35 - Test Series 1.3 Pile Raft Foundation As previously noted it is difficult to draw conclusions from comparisons of the S2 and S3 response in this test. Both the foundation conditions and the superstructure inertial forces are different, and in fact the S3 rocking behavior does not well represent the expected performance of a pile raft foundation. It may however be possible to derive the pile cap rocking stiffness from this test; that exercise is reserved for Chapter 8.

7.10 Effects of Water/Scour on Pile Group Response Pile foundations are routinely deployed in marine environments for offshore platforms, river crossings, and wharf structures. Scour at the mudline degrades pile lateral resistance over the long term, but there also exists the question of whether limited duration lateral loading events due to wave or seismic forces can induce dynamic scour.

341

6.0 S2 Superstructure

6.0

S3 Superstructure

0.0 6.0

0.0 6.0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 6.0 S2 Pile Cap Rocking

Acceleration (g)

S2 Pile Cap

S3 Pile Cap

0.0 6.0 S3 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0 3000.0 Pile 4 Bending

0.0 3000.0 Pile 11 Bending

strain

0.0 6.0

Acceleration (g)

0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Acceleration (g)

Free Field Soil

strain
0.0 6.0 Free Field Soil 0.0 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period (sec)

Period (sec)

Figure 7.36 - Test 1.37 Accelerometer and Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra

342

This mechanism is thought to consist of water infilling and being ejected and eroding soil in the soil-pile gap during lateral cyclic or dynamic loading, thereby degrading lateral resistance and inhibiting damping. Test series 1.4 was designed to investigate

cyclic/dynamic scour by arranging two identical pile groups with the piles exposed at the mudline, and with water impounded around one of the groups.

7.10.1 Test 1.46 The setup for test series 1.4 is shown in Figure 7.37, with a plexiglass chamber around group S2 impounding water 4 in deep. These 2x2 groups supported 24 in tall columns with 406 lb head masses. In addition to earthquake shaking tests, two tests simulating the effects of wave loading were performed. Test 1.46 consisted of

approximately 60 cycles of manually controlled 1 Hz sine sweep excitation, ramped up to a MHA of 0.26 g. These groups exhibited very strong resonant response during the test, with superstructure transient displacements over 8 in. The time histories for the S1 and S2 pile caps, superstructures, and cap rocking accelerations for this test are shown in Figure 7.38. These response quantities, and the pile bending moment envelopes (which are not shown) are nearly identical, as they were for all tests in this series. There are several possible explanations for this result. After two seismic loading and two wave loading tests, the soil around both pile groups had mounded up, but was constrained by the plexiglass chamber around S2. This condition of restraint may have offset any softened response due to scour. A second explanation for the apparent non-effect of scour could be that the short time the water was impounded around the piles did not sufficiently allow for softening of the soil so that

343

it could be scoured. In addition, the 60 cycles of wave loading may be too short duration to induce this effect. Another possibility is that the high plasticity model soil may not be erosive. A final explanation could be that cyclic/dynamic scour is insignificant.

Figure 7.37 - Test Series 1.4 Setup

1.0 S1 Superstructure 1.0 S2 Superstructure

0.0

0.0

-1.0

-1.0

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

1.0 S1 Pile Cap

1.0 S2 Pile Cap

0.0

0.0

-1.0 1.0 S1 Pile Cap Rocking

-1.0 1.0 S2 Pile Cap Rocking

0.0

0.0

-1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

-1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Figure 7.38 - Test 1.46 Accelerometer Time Histories

344

7.11 Summary of Experimental Findings In conclusion, the series of shaking table soil-pile model tests was extremely successful. The feasibility of studying SSPSI problems with 1-g scale modeling techniques was demonstrated, and a rich data set was generated that offers many opportunities for detailed study. A number of interesting problems were investigated, and important

insights to SSPSI were gained. The shaking table performed reasonably well, though some inherent limitations were apparent. The table does not offer strict repeatability, and its high frequency response, particularly at small displacements, imparts distortions. Other table modes of twist, pitch, and roll are present, and serious efforts should be made to correct these instabilities. Nonetheless, as long as the input motions are recorded and characterized, the shaking table offers the possibility to perform high quality scale model testing, well-suited to analytical evaluations and modeling. The model container designed for these tests also appears to have met its performance goals, as evidenced by the positive trends of site response and site coherence. The question of whether soil column bending or any other factors affected the ability of the model to replicate one-dimensional site response will be addressed in more detail in the next chapter. Both free-field and pile group models were subjected to 2-D shaking, and the applicability of 1-D analysis to these results will be examined in chapter 8. Pile group effects for a 5x3 pile group subjected to 2-D shaking will also be investigated in the next chapter.

345

Sine sweep tests verified anticipated trends of decreasing pile head and pile group stiffness during the course of testing, and provided an index of degradation of the model soil. Soil-pile nonlinearity that developed during the sine sweeps prevented the calculation of pile head stiffness values from resonant frequencies determined in these tests. Both kinematic and inertial interaction components of SSPSI were observed in the single pile model tests, and the inertial component of response dominated in most cases. Only for single piles with light axial loads did kinematic effects cause maximum bending moments; this result may vary for a pile embedded in a non-uniform soil profile with a strong inter-layer stiffness contrast. Pile head fixity controlled pile bending moment

patterns, with characteristic bending moment envelopes observed for the single pile (freehead) and pile group (fixed-head) tests. The frequency response and resonant vibration characteristics of the model structures exerted a major influence on their response, which in turn drove foundation bending and axial force demands. Resonance of the superstructure natural period with the ground motion/site period stimulated strong response, and the ability of pseudo-static analysis methods to adequately capture and predict such effects is questioned. Wave scattering effects were observed for pile group foundations, indicating that free-field ground motions are not suitable inputs for pile cap motions. This necessitates the calculation of a foundation input motion for substructured analyses, or the use a fully-coupled SSPSI model. In one case, static lateral preloading of a pile group softened the foundation stiffness to the extent that it was partially base isolated and exhibited smaller response than the analagous group that had not been preloaded.

346

The influence of pile cap embedment on dynamic response was tested with various cap configurations, and cap base-soil contact was found to be a greater contributor to lateral resistance than cap side-soil contact. Tests with additional cap configurations are necessary to validate this result. The dynamic rocking stiffness of the 3x3 pile cap alone may be computed from the pile raft foundation test results. Experiments designed to evaluate the performance of pile raft foundations and the effect of dynamic scour were inconclusive. However these tests do offer the possibility of studying cyclic degradation of lateral resistance under medium term (60+ cycles) loading. In addition to site response, pile group effects, and 2-D shaking, the next chapter will compare pile head stiffness values obtained from the pile head loading tests and system identification analyses with observed dynamic response. Static and dynamic p-y curves will also be computed from the experimental data.

347