Numerical Simulation of Pile Foundations in

Liquefiable Soils with a Frozen Crust

AUTCProject#309011

Zhaohui (Joey) Yang, Ph.D.

AssociateProfessor
UniversityofAlaskaAnchorage
May,2010

Acknowledgement
Sponsors

Alaska University Transportation Center (AUTC)

Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities
Alaska EPSCoR

Co-Workers

Prof. J. Leroy Hulsey (UAF)

Dr. Feng Xiong, Dr. Utpal Dutta, Dr. Jens Munk (Faculty,
SOE of UAA)
Mr. Qiang Li, Mr. Gang Xu, and Mr. Ruel Binonwangan
(Graduate Students)

Outline
Introduction
Soil Constitutive Model
Calibration of FE model
Davis centrifuge test description & Simulation results

Model Description
Mesh Effects
Simulation Results
Conclusion

Introduction
Landslide in the Turnagain
Height in the 1964 Great
Alaska Earthquake;

Lateral spreading observed

in the 2002 Denali
Earthquake (Shannon and
Wilson, Inc., 2002).

Introduction
Lateral spreading is particularly damaging if a non-liquefiable
crust rides on top of the liquefied soil. When the ground crust
is frozen, it will greatly impact the liquefaction of underlying
soils as well as the consequences of liquefaction for two
reasons
the frozen ground crust forms a stiff and almost impermeable mass
that restricts up-ward flow of water; and
the frozen crust will likely impose large lateral loads on the bridge
foundation during shaking as well as post-liquefaction lateral
spreading

Soil Constitutive Model

For cohesionless soil, the constitutive model used in
OpenSees is developed based on the multi-yieldsurface plasticity theory (Prevost, 1985).

Calibration of FE model
Description of Centrifuge Test
A centrifuge experiment identified
as PDS01 (Singh et al., 2000)
conducted by the Center for
Geotechnical Modeling at UC
Davis was selected to validate the
FE model.
Selected
Pile

Calibration of FE model
Description of Centrifuge Test
Soil and model parameters from the experiment were used in the
simulation.

Calibration of FE model
Description of Centrifuge Test
Comparison was made for the displacement time history of pile head.
The trend of results from experiment and FE modeling is in good
agreement.
The pile head deflection obtained from experiment and FE model is
44 and 71 cm, respectively.
0.8

Displacement (m)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0

Computed
Experimental
5

10

15

20

Time (sec)

25

30

35

40

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL-PILE

SYSTEM
Test Pile Configuration
Parameter
Total Pile Length (m)
Pile Length Above the
Ground Surface (m)
Pile Embedment (m)
Outside Pipe Diameter (m)
Number of Reinforcing
Bars
Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)
Reinforcing Steel Bar
Diameter (mm)
Longitudinal
Reinforcement Ratio
Clearance between Steel
Pile and Steel Bar (mm)

Value
24
4
21
0.9
8
10
35.81
(#11)
1.58%
65

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL-PILE

SYSTEM
Summary of the Soil Properties
Depth
(m)

Soil
Type

0-0.2

Silt

0.2-1.8

Silt

1.8-2.0

Silt

Season
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
/Summer

Loose
Sand
Medium
Winter
8.0-14.0 Dense
/Summer
Sand
Dense
Winter
14.0-24.0
Sand
/Summer
2.0-8.0

Reference
shear
Mass density
wave
(kg/m3)
velocity
(m/s)
500
1.8x103
200
1,000
1.8x103
200
500
1.8x103
200

Permeabi Friction Cohes

lity
Angle
ion
(m/s)
(deg) (kPa)
1.0 x10-8
1.0 x10-7
1.0 x10-9
1.0 x10-7
1.0 x10-8
1.0 x10-7

27
33
27
33
27
33

0
100
0
100
0
100

1.9x103

180

6.6 x10-5

29

1.9x103

200

6.6 x10-5

37

2.1x103

250

6.6 x10-5

40

Finite Element Model

- Input Motion
The 2002 Denali earthquake recorded at the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System Pump Station #10 is input at the base in
longitudinal direction.
The site is underlain by deep stiff soil.
The record has a duration of 82 sec and a peak acceleration
of 0.3 g.
The analysis was performed to 60 sec.
0.3

Accel, g

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

10

20

30

40

50

Time, Seconds

60

70

80

90

Finite Element Model

- Study of Mesh Effects

Mesh 1
Element Number
= 203

Mesh 2
Element Number
= 739

Mesh 3
Element Number
= 867

Mesh 4
Element Number
= 1219

Finite Element Model

- Study of Mesh Effects
Lateral displacement time histories at the pile center
is used to explore the effect of mesh refinement.
1.2

Displacement (m)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4

0.2
0
-0.2
0

10

20

30

Time (sec)

40

50

60

The results of Mesh 4 and Mesh 5 are very close.

Mesh 4, which is enough to ensure the accurate of the
results, is selected in this study.

Finite Element Model

- Soil Response

Accel (m/sec )

3
1.5 0
0
-1.5
-3
0

Ground surface

m depth

3
1.5 4.4
0
-1.5
-3
0
3
1.5 11
0
-1.5
-3
0
3
1.5 21
0
-1.5
-3
0

10

20

30

m depth

10

20

30

60

40

50

60

Medium Dense Sand

20

30

40

50

60

Dense Sand

m depth

10

50

Loose Sand

m depth

10

40

20

30

Time (Sec)

40

50

60

Acceleration time histories in the soil column with an

unfrozen crust

Finite Element Model

- Soil Response

Accel (m/sec2) Accel (m/sec2)

3
1.5 0
0
-1.5
-3
0

m depth

3
1.5 4.4
0
-1.5
-3
0
3
1.5 11
0
-1.5
-3
0
3
1.5 21
0
-1.5
-3
0

10

Ground surface

20

30

20

30

m depth

10

60

40

50

60

Medium Dense Sand

20

30

40

50

60

Dense Sand

m depth

10

50

Loose Sand

m depth

10

40

20

30

Time (Sec)

40

50

60

Acceleration time histories in the soil column with a frozen crust

Finite Element Model

- Soil Response
'

20

vo

Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)

-20
40

2 m depth
10

20

30

40

50

0
-20
60
40
20
0
-20
100

'

vo

20

4.4 m depth
10

20

30

40

50 'vo

6.8 m depth
10

20

30

40

50

'

vo

50
0
-20
200

11 m depth
10

20

30

40

50

'

vo

100
-200
0

24 m depth
10

20

30

Time (sec)

40

50

60

Excess pore pressure at different depths in the soil

column with a frozen crust

Finite Element Model

- Soil Response
0

Elevation (m)

-5

Non-liquefiable Crust

Loose Sand

-10

Medium
Dense Sand

-15

Dense
Sand
-20
Unfrozen Case
Frozen Case
-25
-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

Displacement (m)

0.8

1.2

Displacement profile for the soil column 5.3 m away

from pile center after earthquake shaking

Finite Element Model

- Soil Response
1.15

Displacement (m)

1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
Frozen Case
Unfrozen Case

0.85
0.8
0

10

Distance from Pile Center (m)

12

Soil surface displacement profile after earthquake

shaking

Displacement (m)

Finite Element Model

- Pile Response
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4

Soil
Pile

0.2
0
0

10

20

30

Time (sec)

40

50

60

Displacement (m)

Unfrozen case
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4

Pile
Soil

0.2
0
0

10

20

30

Time (sec)

40

50

60

Frozen case

Lateral displacement time histories of pile at the

ground surface for both cases

Finite Element Model

- Pile Response
5

Elevation (m)

-5

-10

Unfrozen Crust
Loose
Sand

Medium
Dense Sand
0 sec
10 sec
20 sec
30 sec
40 sec
50 sec
60 sec

-15

-20

-25
-0.5

Frozen Crust

-5

Elevation (m)

Dense
Sand

0.5

Displacement (m)

-10

Loose
Sand
Medium
Dense Sand
0 sec
10 sec
20 sec
30 sec
40 sec
50 sec
60 sec

-15

-20

1.5

-25
-0.5

Dense
Sand

0.5

Displacement (m)

Snapshots of pile deflection for both cases

1.5

Finite Element Model

- Pile Response
5

Elevation, (m)

-5

Unfrozen Crust
Loose
Sand

-5

Medium
Dense Sand

-10

-15

0 sec
10 sec
20 sec
30 sec
40 sec
50 sec
60 sec

Dense
Sand
-20

-25
-14

Elevation (m)

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Bending Moment (kN-m)

Loose
Sand
Medium
Dense Sand

-10

-15

-20

6
x10

Frozen Crust

-25
-14

0 sec
10 sec
20 sec
30 sec
40 sec
50 sec
60 sec

Dense
Sand

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Bending Moment (kN-m)

Snapshots of pile bending moment for both cases

6
x10

Finite Element Model

- Pile Response
5

Elevation (m)

-5

Unfrozen Crust
Loose Sand

-10

Medium
Dense Sand

-15

-20

Dense
Sand
Unfrozen Case
Frozen Case

-25
-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Max. Shear Force (kN)

6
x10

Envelope of pile max. bending moment for both cases

Finite Element Model

- Pile Response
5

Elevation (m)

Unfrozen Crust

-5

Loose Sand

-10

Medium
Dense Sand

-15

Dense
-20 Sand
Unfrozen Case
Frozen Case
-25
-4

-3

-2

-1

Max. Shear Force (kN)

4
x103

Envelope of pile max. shear force for both cases

Thank You!