Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Reed L. Mosher
H. Wayne Jones
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi
SYNOPSIS: The seismic response of a pile-supported structure is formulated by the approach developed
by the first author.
Using this formulation, some of the crude approximations frequently used in the
seismic response analysis of a soil-pile-structure system are examined.
Those involved in the
analysis procedure are assessed under the linear elastic condition.
A commonly used nonlinear soil
model for the dynamic pile response analysis is also assessed.
It is found that those approximations
routinely used in the analysis procedure and numerical modelling can cause significant errors in the
computed response of a pile-supported structure.
INTRODUCTION
fp
(1)
where u
vector containing displacements at the
piles; uo
free-field displacement; 1 = unit
vector; f
flexibility matrix of the system
(soil); and p
vector containing soil-pile
interaction forces.
The nonlinearity caused by
the soil-pile interaction affects only the
diagonal terms of the matrix f.
Novak
(1975)
has developed an approach to
analyze the dynamic response of linear elastic
single pile foundations within the frame of the
Winkler's hypothesis.
Nogami and his colleagues
have extended this approach for nonlinear pile
foundations and pile groups, including 1) linear
elastic pile foundations in the frequency-domain
analysis (Nogami, 1980; Nogami, 1983; Nogami,
198 5) , 2) nonlinear pile foundations in the
frequency-domain analysis
(Nogami and Chen,
1987a), 3) linear elastic pile foundations in the
time-domain analysis (Konagai and Nogami, 1987;
Nogami and Konagai, 1986; Nogami and Konagai,
1988a) and 4) nonlinear pile foundations in the
time-domain analysis (Nogami and Konagai, 1987b;
Nogami et al., 1988b; Nogami et al., 1991).
This approach has been verified by various
people (e.g. Sanchez-Salinero, 1983; Nogami,
1983; Roesset, 1984) and is used herein for the
assessment of the approximations frequently used
in the seismic response analysis of pilesupported structures.
lf.
f~ORIZONTl\T.
SLICE
~-
----
-.> Plt.T.F:S
SYSTF'.MS
Fig. 1
931
a4
EI
-i- u
+ m
dt
( 6)
where U
vector containing the
lateral
displacement (U) and rotational displacement (<l>}
of the rigid cap; P
vector containing the
lateral force (P} and moment (M} applied at the
rigid cap by the super-structure motions; Kf =
stiffness matrix of the pile group attached to a
rigid cap; and ~P = force produced at the cap by
the free-field soil motion, containing a and ~.
-p
(2)
a2
-EA ~ + m
dz
-p
For
simplicity,
the
super-structure
is
considered to be a mass attached to the top of
the pile cap.
Combining the structure and Eq.4,
the equation of motion of the pile-supported
super-structure
subjected
to
the
seismic
excitation is written as
( 7}
where M9
mass of super-structure.
split into
(3)
where a and b
constants determined by the
boundary conditions of the free-field soil; uo(H)
= bedrock displacement; and y = W/v 3 with (J) =
circular frequency and v 3 = shear wave velocity
of soil
(8)
where U = U1 + U2.
Eq. 8 is interpreted such
that the motions, U1, are transmitted to excite
the super-structure and generate the feedback
motions, U2,
(second equation) and that the
transmitted
motions,
U1,
are the seismic
responses of pile foundation at the cap without
any super-structure according to the first
equation. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.
u (z)
n~l
(4)
u(z}
Approximate Methods
Various approximations are
adopted in the seismic response analysis of
pile-supported structures.
Those often used are
1}
no pile-soil-pile interaction for a pile
group,
2}
frequency independent spring and
dashpot for the Winkler subgrade model and 3}
analysis by applying the free-field ground
=!~neiA"z+ Bne-iA.nz~n
n=l
'C'(output)
__!_
u u
J/111/7111/1//
UQ (
-1
-1
d
d
-d
(<J>(z),EI P(z),EI M(z})= ( dzu(z},-Ju(z},--2 u ( z
dz
dz
-]
P (z}
__Q
dz
H ){input)
II
>)
u u
Ot (output)
(5}
EA
Eq. 7 can be
u(z)
---
/11111//11/11
UQ (H)
(input)
O(output.)
o-o 1
o,
J;
0 1 (input.)
932
61"
0
60 6
0
0-
9-rTu: r:Rnur
klp!'l
kfp!Pft
wC'fp.ht
Fig. 3
r.
2
(klps/ft )
3R.4(i
65
192. )I
AX
r.
576.92
r.
s
(I)
2. 5
(2)
(3)
(')
(5)
10.2
20.)
4R. 3
(6)
61.0
)J.l
2
(klps/ft )
BX
ex
I 2. 7
50.9
IOI. 7
165. J
JR. I
I 52.6
.105. I
'95. 9
2~ 1.6
305.1
9l5.t.
72'' 7
s
s
= o. 3
~
o. 05
y
= I 10 pes
JJIJI))))fi,~
12
HO!!oGENEOUS PROFJLF.S
ProfileA At B. C
JNHOIIOGENF.OIJS PROFILES
R -
Fig. 4
ll.,B,C
Fig. 5
0
0
....
__ ...
I
I
......
__ .....
10
<!
.
z
The
above
listed
first
approximation
is
introduced by defining the model parameters for
a single cylinder in the medium rather than a
group of cylinders.
The second is introduced by
using the soil model parameters defined at (J) =
0. 02 v 5 /ro for all frequencies, in addition to
the conditions used in the first approximation:
ro = radius of pile and v 5 = shear wave velocity
of the medium.
;2
'"..,
"'
u
u
"'
"'u0
:'i
"'!-<"'
:0
0.
F.
-8
-10
0
Conditions
Considered
Pile
foundations
considered include those made of a single pile
and 3x3 piles attached to a rigid cap (Fig. 3).
10
Tlt!F. (~F:r..)
Fig. 6
933
( 9)
The stiffness
than homogeneous profiles.
parameters of single-pile foundations vary very
little with frequency but the damping parameters
low
at
frequency
with
decrease
rapidly
Transmitted motions and impedance
frequencies.
functions for 9-pile groups in profiles B and BX
Similar trends as
are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
those observed for single-pile foundations can
be seen in the transmitted motions but the
rotational ones are much smaller than those for
The pile-soil-pi le
the single-pile foundations.
interaction effects in the transmitted motions
are negligibly small at very low frequencies and
become more pronounced at higher frequencies.
The pile-soil-pi le interaction affects far more
damping
and
stiffness
the
significant ly
parameters than the transmitted motions.
Seismic responses of the structures supported by
single piles are computed for harmonic bedrock
motions by the relatively rigorous method and
The approximate method
the approximate method.
adopts crude approximation s including frequency
independent soil model and use of the free-field
The
ground surface motion as input U1 motion.
computed results for profiles B and BX are shown
Those approximatio ns appear to be
in Fig. 11.
acceptable for the piles in homogeneous soil but
overestimate the response for the piles in
seismic
Similarly,
soil.
inhomogeneo us
responses of the structures supported by 9-pile
harmonic bedrock
for
computed
are
groups
Two different approximate methods are
motions.
In the first approximate
used in this case.
method, the frequency independent soil model is
used and also no pile-soil-pi le interaction
In the second
effects are taken into account.
ground
free-field
the
approximate method,
surface motion is used for U1 in addition to
1.6
'. 6
1.2
!.2
O.R
0. A
10
_ _ t. _ _ t _ _ _ j
70
__!.._._....L____l__L_~.--1---
t\!!l'LI l!rDF.
Nll'J.J!IJI)f:
12
"8
g~
g
~
!<
'"~
----
----
PHASE S!IIFI
10
-2on
'
''
' I'
-220
13
<;IJIF"I
12
~
~
('c
t'I!ASE
;::
"'
~
,.....
'"w"'
"':?.
AX
_ _ L__L_
2
),
''
'
~x __ ) , ex-/',
L_'-..1_~~ -lf>O
10
p.
,
FRF/)UFt!CY i'AF:Arlr.IER,
Fig. 7
4~r::.W
0
0
----------
"
/
"
::i
~
~
BX
ex
4-
AX
0
0
12
l2
10
"
i
0.02
FRF.QtlENC.Y Pi\Rflf-1f.TER
Fig. 8
IN T'ROFIJ.f.
30 <o
1.?:
o.of:l
O.OR
1.6
C/\PI'F.D 9-Pt!.F CROUP
o.or.
1.6
"
1.2
;::"
0
0.8
~
~
':!
!<
0.8
':!
~
3
0.4
L._L_
_t__[_
16
16
--MIPI.TT(J!lr:
12
0.4
--
Ar!I'L !TilDE
12
I~
\ilTHO!lT lNTERA\.TION
I r1! TNTERACTJ()N
W1Til
FREQUF:NCY PARAHnER,
Fig. 9
FRF.QUF.NCY l'fiRMIETF:R.
0.10
I'ROFIJ.F. B
PROF"ll.l~
10
0.8
R-o1fh
PROFILF.: B
0.8
--k
I
I
I
I
0.6
I
1
\ \
r-7
'-
"
'>.;-~-----
' '-
0.,
a
o. 2
'-
NO TNIERACTJON
FRF:QllF.NCY PARM!ETEil,
0. I
0.1
0.2
0. I
0. 2
0. I
0.)
0.2
FRF.QUF.NCY PARAHF.H:P:,
~-~ td
0.1
-~-~ ru
PROF !I.E RX
~
II
II
II
32
I
I
"
0
0
0
,,
I
I
I
I
0
0
I
I
~- ~ ,_
~,
NO
Fig.
10
~~ (.,,)
'\\NO INfFRAr.rtON
/,.- '-.......
___ __/_....:>-..,
........ /
(
o.)
0.2
FREQUENCY PMM!HF.R,
--\----.......
tJO IN I i'~RACl I ON
I Nl F.RA:'1" I ON
o.!
FREQUENCY PARM!F.TF:R,
"'
R=-10r
2' I
I
0
0
PROFII,E RX
~~
(.o.J
0.1
--o. 3
o. 2
FREQUENCY ffd{N!F.TF:R,
~~LV
936
PROFIJ,F. R
l''HII' f I.E RX
RE:J.Tl.TIVF:LY
R I GORO!JS H8THOD
---FRF:Q. JNDEl'F.tm. SO!l.ST!I"F.
TRANSMIT1Ell Hfll"TON lDF.NTI(",/'11.
TO FRF:E-Flf.LD f'lOTlfiN
''
'
'~
~--
FRF.QUF.NCY FARAHF.TF.R
Fig.
11
FRF:QUF.NCY PARAMETER
rROFJ!.F. R
R " 10 r
,.....
/j
I,
..---
NO INTF:RACTION
FRF.Q. 1NtlEPF.Nn. SOJT, STIFF.
"ITRASN!'ITE!l N()'l ION lDENTJr.AL
10 FREF.-flf.LO Mn1 ION
'"
1\
I.
\
'"'
:~
I
I
\\
C<
\\
I
I
I
I
\'
FRF.QUF.NCY PARJ\HETF.R.
inhomogeneous
profile.
I\
/
I
I
I
'w
. /~
I
............
12
r\
'
Fig.
R 10 r
~
~
//
I'
FROFJJ,E HX
'
RF:LJI.TIVELY
RIGOROUS HF.THOD
NO 1 NTERACTJON
FREQ. DF.PENI). SOli. STIFF.
/
/
/
;::-..._
:-....
...._/
2 H
it~-!'! W
FREQIJF.NCY rARMIETER.
than
the
homogeneous
the ring.
Details ot those systems can be tound
in the papers by the first author contained in
the references.
937
0.020-
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.005
ffi
0.000
::!
"~ -0.005
~
0.010
"'~
REI.ATIVF.I.Y
R I GDROUS METHOD
"'"
!;;
e!
0.015.
;:;
0.015
-0.005
;':
-0.010-
-0.010-
-0.015
-0.020
0.020
"'~
0.010
~
~
0.005-
i
::!
"'~ -0.005
-0.005
~ -0.010
~ -0.010
-0.015
-0.015.
-0.020 - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - . l 6
4
2
0
-10
Fig. 13
0.020
0.020
TN rROFI!.F. "
0.015
RF:1.1\TIVF:l.Y
0.010-
0.005
"'ffi
10
q-rli.F: GROtlr
,.,"'
TH1f:(SF.C.)
TJHF.(SF.C.)
"
HF:THOD
0.015 -
0.010
ffi
7\rPROX.
..
"'
MF.THOD
APPROX.
0.015
"
10
f!HF.(Sf.C.)
0.020
"'"
rTMF.(SF.C,)
R I GO ROllS
t-1F.TI!Qf)
..
0.015
~~
"'
0.010
E
ffi
0.005
RELATIVEJ;'i
R tGOROUS Mf:THOD
::! -0.005
~
~ -0.005 .
~ -0.010
~ -0.010
-0.015
-0.015
----'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____t.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l.~---'--
-0.020
10
'! !tlF.(SH".)
lJHE(SF.C.)
0.020
0.020
""'
0.015
0.010
~
~
0.005
1\PF'ROX.
HETHOD
-0.015
-0.020 L__ _ _. __ _ _, __ _ _. __ _ _, __ _-...J
10
8
6
2
0
----L--~---L---___J
10
Tntf,(SF.C,)
TlHF.(SFC.)
Fig. 14
Motions
Responses of Structure s Supported by 9-Pile Groups to Random Bedrock
938
OJ(B)
OJ(A)
Pr (A)
Pi'(A)
Pi"(A)
<
OJ (A)
Pi.
ci
Pi
o 0 =0.2
o 0 ~0.02
30
LI~-C "s=o.3
20
20
Linear Syslem
<t
Pi'(B)
Pi"(B)
Real Port
,'
CD
Linear
_,
Syslem<
,.,.,.,.-
-CD--~
1
Real Port
tr
<
30 -
--"''
.,
Pr (9)
Pi': Pi due to
nonlinear damp
OJ (B)
P = Pr + ipi
Fig. 15
\.-
10
--
,"r.--
,.~
ci
-- ---
<t
15
<t
<t
CD.
:/
...-~
_-::::-::.::-~cD@ - 0.02
Gop ({3=0.7)
/@Degradation ( 8= n-0.3)
dl
~
~~~-CD.@.@
------- ------
_ __.__ _...._____J _ _ L_ _ _J
0.02
0.04
0.04
Fig. 16
(f)
Imag. Part
10-
CD Jnelaslic;
:
ci
5 -
~--L--~ ____J____
_
j_~
Gap ( /3=0.7)
10
ci
~---
CD Inelastic
,\!0/
----------------------- (])' .@
..,..,.,..//
~/
10
CD..@
15
lmog. Part
,'
CONCLUSIONS
Seismic responses of pile-suppo rted structures
are formulated with the approach developed by
the first author.
Approxima tions frequently
used in the seismic response analysis of pilesupported structures are assessed by using this
formulatio n.
Some of the routinely used
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this paper was sponsored
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station.
939
REFERENCES
Konagai, K. and T. Nogami (1987), "Time-Domain
Axial Response of Dynamically Loaded Pile
Groups", J. Enrg. Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 113,
No. EM3: 417-430.
Matlock, H., S.H. Foo and L.-L. Bryant (1978),
"Simulation of Lateral Pile Behavior", Proc.
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE,
Pasadena, July: 600-619.
Nogami, T. (1980), "Dynamic Stiffness and
Damping of Pile Groups in Inhomogeneous Soil",
ASCE Special Technical Publication on Dynamic
Response of Pile Foundation: Analytical Aspect,
October: 31-52.
Nogami, T. (1983), "Dynamic Group Effect in
Vertical Response of Piles in Group", J.
Geotech Engrg, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. GT2: 228243.
Nogami, T. (1985), "Flexural Response of Grouped
Piles Under Dynamic Loading", Int. J.
Earthquake Engrg. and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
13, No.3: 321-336.
Nogami, T. and K. Konagai (1986), "Time-Domain
Axial Response of Dynamically Loaded Single
Piles", J. Engrg. Mechanics, Vol. 112, No. EMl:
1241-1252.
Nogami, T. and H. L. Chen (1987), "Prediction of
Dynamic Lateral Response of Nonlinear Single
Pile Foundation", ASCE Special Technical
Publication on Experiment, Analysis and
Observation, April: 39-52.
Nogami, T. and K. Konagai (1987b), "Dynamic
Response of Vertically Loaded Nonlinear Pile
Foundations", J. Engrg. Mechanics, Vol. 113,
No. EM2: 147-160.
Nogami, T. and K. Konagai (1988a), "Time-Domain
Flexural Response of Dynamically Loaded Single
Piles", J. Engrg. Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 114,
EM9: 1512-1513.
Nogami, T., K. Konagai and J. Otani (1988b),
"Nonlinear Pile Foundation Model for TimeDomain Dynamic Response Analysis", Proc. 9 th
World Conf. Earthq. Engrg., Vol. 3, TokyoKyoto, Aug. : 593-598.
Nogami, T., J. Otani K. Konagai and H. J. Chen
(1991), "Nonlinear Soil-Pile Interaction Model
for Dynamic Lateral Motion", J. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, to appear.
Novak, M. (1975), "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping
of Piles", J. Can. Geotech. Engrg., NRC of
Canada, Vol. 11, No. 4: 574-698.
Roesset, J. M. (1984), "Dynamic Stiffness of
Pile Group", ASCE Special Technical Publication
on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations,
October: 263-286.
Sanchez-Salinero , I. (1983), "Dynamic Stiffness
of Pile Group", Geotechnical Engineering Report
GR83-5, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. Texas at
Austin, July.
940