Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
9. Axial Capacity of Pile Groups
Advertisements

Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University.
Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University of.
JP Singh and Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., P.E. Gary Norris, Ph.D., P.E. March 2004 COMPUTER PROGRAM S-SHAFT FOR LATERALLY LOADED.
Seismic Site Response Analysis
Liangcai He Committee in Charge: Professor Ahmed Elgamal, Chair
Calculation of Heave of Deep Pier Foundations By John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E., Hon. M. SEAGS, F. ASCE, Kuo-Chieh (Geoff) Chao, Ph.D., P.E., M. SEAGS, M.
3-D Dynamic Base Shaking Model 2-D Static BNWF Pushover Model
8. Axial Capacity of Single Piles
SHALLOW FOUNDATION NAME: INDRAJIT MITRA
1 Application and Analysis of Helical Piers in Frozen Ground He Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Daniel Schubert, P.E. Hannele Zubeck, Ph.D., P.E. Sean Baginski.
Liquefaction, Kobe Earthquake Matt Greaves, Tom Baker.
Caltrans Guidelines on Foundation Loading Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading Tom Shantz, Caltrans 2010 PEER Annual Meeting.
Large Diameter Open-End Pipe Piles for Transportation Structures Dan Brown, PhD., P.E., D.GE.
Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with
Fundamentals for the Up-and-Coming Bridge Engineer Forces on Beams and Material Properties OSU College of Engineering Summer Institute - Robotics.
Lessons Learned and Need for NEES Instrumented Liquefaction Sites T. Leslie Youd Brigham Young University.
PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting Performance of Improved Ground u Elizabeth A. Hausler and Nicholas Sitar.
Earthquake induced LIQUEFACTION by Jimmy McLauchlan Peat Nicholas Case study: Mexico City, 1985.
In Situ Testing CPT & SPT.
Tim Rushton, Phoebe Martin and Amy Fitzgerald. History  Faulting of an uplifted plateau, between the ‘North American Plate’ and the ‘Cocos Plate’. 
Seismic Retrofit of the Historic North Torrey Pines Bridge Jim Gingery, PE, GE Principal Engineer, Kleinfelder, San Diego PhD Student, University of California.
Experimental & Analytical Studies of Drilled Shaft Bridge Columns Sandrine P. Lermitte, PhD Student Jonathan P. Stewart, Assistant Professor John W. Wallace,
Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University of.
Micropiles Save Drilled Shafts
Soil Pile Group Interaction in FB-MultiPier
2014 National RAC and TRB State Representatives Meeting
Bradley Fleming, Sri Sritharan, & JinWei Huang Iowa State University
Pile Testing and Evaluation for the Sand Creek Byway, Sandpoint, Idaho Presented by Dean E. Harris, P.E., CH2M HILL.
Liquefaction: Behavior Evidence, Prediction, and Prevention.
Liquefaction: Behavior Evidence, Prediction, and Prevention Richard P. Ray, Ph.D, P.E.
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation
FOUNDATION.
1 Field Approach A Test pile of required dimensions is constructed in the field and a load test is conducted to assess the capacity of the pile. This approach.
Soil-Pile Interaction in FB-MultiPier
Liquefaction Analysis For a Single Piled Foundation By Dr. Lu Chihwei Moh and Associates, Inc. Date: 11/3/2003.
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts and Piles Using LPILE
C ONTACT STRESS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING. Introduction 1 Skyscrapers Bridges Dams How are these constructions supported? Why are all these large constructions.
Reference Manual Chapter 9
1 Interpretation and Visualization of Model Test Data for Slope Failure in Liquefying Soil Bruce L. Kutter Erik J. Malvick R. Kulasingam Ross Boulanger.
A Study on Liquefaction Evaluation Using Shear Wave Velocity for Gravelly Sand Deposits Ping-Sien Lin, National Chung-Hsing University Fu-Sheng Chen, China.
Feasibility Level Evaluation of Seismic Stability for Remedy Selection Senda Ozkan, Tetra Tech Inc. Gary Braun, Tetra Tech Inc.
LIQUEFACTION FAILURE OF FOUNDATION - STRUCTURE COLLAPSE.
Session 15 – 16 SHEET PILE STRUCTURES
Dynamic Behaviour of Unsaturated CH soil under Cyclic Loading in Unconsolidated Undrained Conditions 5th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,
Class A Centrifuge Prediction of future SG1 of Full Scale Test with Pile Foundation by Marcelo Gonzalez Tarek Abdoun Ricardo Dobry Rensselaer Polytechnic.
Compaction.
OMAE 2009 Honolulu, HI - May 31 to June
09 March Liquefaction Elected Member Workshop SmartGrowth, TCC Chambers 10 April 2013 Lq. = Liquefaction effects ( inc. lateral spread) Ls= lateral.
Introduction to Soils Testing & Mechanics
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ECG 503 LECTURE NOTE 10 TOPIC : 3
SESSION # 3 STIFFNESS MATRIX FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATION AND SIGN CONVETIONS.
Landfill Installation Considerations: Wind Turbines Presented By: Gary Garfield, PE, LSP URS Corporation Salem, New Hampshire Renewable Closed.
BASICS OF DYNAMICS AND ASEISMIC DESIGN
Microzonation Study of Soil Liquefaction Potential and Damage Wei F. Lee Taiwan Construction Research Institute Ming-Hung Chen National Center for Research.
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF DEEP FOUNDATION WEEK 10 DESIGN OF BORED PILE DESIGN OF GROUP AND RAKE PILE PILE SETTLEMENT.
PILE FOUNDATIONS UNIT IV.
Pile Foundation Reason for Piles Types of Piles
Copyright February 10, Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering Prof. Basuony El-Garhy Geotechnical Engineering and Foundations Civil Engineering.
Deep Foundation Institute Bay Area Rapid Force Pulse Seminar
Bridge Pile Foundation Evaluation for a Soil Remediation Project
Presented By: Sanku Konai
Research Needs: The Academic Perspective
WHAT IS LIQUEFACTION.
Christopher R. McGann, Ph.D. Student University of Washington
Liquefaction Kevin Carr Compression Dilation
Compaction.
Triaxial Compression Test ASTM D-2166 /02
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF MICROPILE SYSTEMS
Table 8. The different focus of teaching contents
Presentation transcript:

Prepared by J. P. Singh & Associates in association with Mohamed Ashour, Ph.D., PE West Virginia University Tech and Gary Norris Ph.D., PE University of Nevada, Reno APRIL 3/4, 2006 Computer Program DFSAP Deep Foundation System Analysis Program Based on Strain Wedge Method

SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING OF SOIL

Current Available Procedures That Assess the Pile/Shaft Behavior in Liquefied Soils (Using the Traditional P-y Curve): 1.Construction of the p-y curve of soft clay based on the residual strength of liquefied sand presented by Seed and Harder (1990) 2.The use of random P mult < 1 to reduce the stiffness of the traditional p-y curve of sand 3.Reduce the unit weight of liquefied sand with the amount of R u (Earthquake effect in the free-field ) and then build the traditional p-y curve of sand based on the new value of the sand unit weight. (proposed by Brown based on Cooper River Test)

Fig. 1Corrected blowcount vs. residual strength (Seed and Harder, 1990)

Pile Deflection, y Soil-Pile Reaction, p Upper Limit of S r using soft clay p-y curve Lower Limit of S r API Procedure Corrected blowcount vs. residual strength, S r (Seed and Harder, 1990) Treasure Island Test Result (Rollins and Ashford) P-Y Curve of Completely Liquefied Soil 19

Post-liquefaction stress-strain behavior of completely liquefied sand ( u c = 3c and R u =1) Axial Strain, Deviator Stress, d Post-liquefaction stress-strain behavior of partially liquefied sand ( u c < 3c and. R u <1) xoxo d = 2 S r Fig. 1 Subsequent undrained stress-strain behavior of sand that has experienced partial or complete liquefaction

A B Fully Liquefied Soil (R u =1) Water Pressure in the Free- and Near-Field Due to the Earthquake Shaking and Equivalent Static Load from the Superstructure Partially Liquefied Soil (R u < 1)

Post-liquefaction undrained stress-strain behavior of completely liquefied Fraser sand R u = 1 R u = 0.88

Fig. 2 Effect of Cyclic Loading upon Subsequent Undrained Stress-Strain Relationship for Sacramento River Sand (Dr = 40%) (Seed 1979)

Validation Example for Pile and Pile Group in Liquefiable soil profile Treasure Island Test Report, Chapter 6

Peak Ground Acceleration (a max ) = 0.1 g Earthquake Magnitude = 6.5 Induced Porewater Pressure Ratio (r u ) = Soil Profile and Properties at the Treasure Island Test Soil-Pile Reaction, p Pile Deflection, y Treasure Island Test Result (Rollins and Ashford) Upper Limit of S r using soft clay p-y curve Lower Limit of S r API Procedure

TREASURE ISLAND TEST

Pile-Head Deflection, Yo, mm P i l e - H e a d L o a d, P o, k N CISS, 0.61 m EI = kN-m 2 Observed Predicted (SWM) Predicted (Com624) N o - L i q u e f a c t i o n Post-Liquefaction (u xs, ff + u xs, nf )

Pile-Head Response (Y o vs. P o ) for 0.61-m Diameter CISS at Treasure Island Test.

API (P mult = 0.3) p-y Curve at 1.5 m Below Ground (0.61-m Diameter CISS )

0.2 m Below Ground 1.5 m Below Ground 3.2 m Below Ground p-y Curve of 0.61-m Diameter CISS in Liquefied Soil. (Treasure Island, After Rollins et al )

p-y Curve Empirical Formula in Liquefied Sand by Rollins et al p (d=324 mm) = A(By) C for D r = 50% where: A = 3 x (z+1) 6.05,B = 2.8 (z+1) 0.11 C = 2.85(z+1) z is depth in (m) y is lateral deflection (mm) p multiplier = 3.81 ln d p = p (d=324 mm) x p multiplier

Pile-Head Response (Y o vs. P o ) for an Isolated m Diameter CISS at Treasure Island Test. Curve # 1 Curve # 2 Pile Load (kN) Deflection at Load Point (mm)

p-y Curve of m Diameter CISS in Liquefied Soil (Treasure Island)

Responses of Individual Piles in a 3 x 3 Pile Group in Non-Liquefied Soil Profile at the Treasure Island Test (Rollins et al. 2005a)

Pile-Head Response (Y g vs. P g ) for a 3 x 3 CISS Pile Group (0.324-m Diameter) at Treasure Island Test. (After Rollins et al. 2005) Deflection at Load Point (mm) Pile Load (kN) Curve # 1 Curve # 2 Curve # 1 Curve # 2

A B, C E p-y Curve of a 3 x 3 Pile Group in Liquefied Soil (Treasure Island, m CISS)

Lateral Soil Spread

Bartlett and Youd, 1995 (Current Practice) SOIL LATERAL SPREADING CHALLANGES: Mobilized Driving Lateral Forces Acting on Piles and Generated by Crust Layer(s) Varying Strength of Liquefied Soil(s) Amount of Soil Lateral Displacement Stress-Strain Behavior of Fully Liquefied Sand Axial Strain, Deviator Stress, d xoxo Soil Lateral Displacement (X o ) in DFSAP

(Ishihara)

Shaft Diameter Shaft Cross Section Liquefied Soil Soil Flow Around LATERAL SOIL SPREAD

Pile head load = 100 kN Pile head moment = 316 kN-m No-Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction + Lateral Spread

Pile head load = 100 kN Pile head moment = 316 kN-m No-Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction + Lateral Spread

Hokkaido Island Test (Ashford et al. 2006, ASCE J.) LATERAL SOIL SPREAD, TEST 1

Hokkaido Island Test (Ashford et al. 2006) LATERAL SOIL SPREAD Peak Ground Acceleration (a max ) = 0.4 g Earthquake Magnitude = 6.0 Induced Porewater Pressure Ratio (r u ) = 1.0

DFSAP m-Diameter Steel Pipe Pile Hokkaido Island Test (Ashford et al. 2006, ASCE J.) LATERAL SOIL SPREAD, ISOLATED FREE-HEAD PILE

DFSAP Hokkaido Island Test (Ashford et al. 2006, ASCE J.) LATERAL SOIL SPREAD, ISOLATED FREE-HEAD PILE

Rotation = 1 Deg. (Not fully fixed) Hokkaido Island Test (Ashford et al. 2006, ASCE J.) 2 X 2 FIXED-HEAD PILE GROUP WITH CAP DFSAP Steel Pipe Pile

Dense Sand Loose Sand Clay = 6 kN/m 3, Dr = 21-35% = 30 o, 50 = 0.01 = 7 kN/m 3, Dr = 69-83% = 36 o, 50 = Cu= 44 kPa = 16 kN/m Pile Cap Length (m) Pile Cap Width (m) Pile Cap Height (m) Pile Spacing (m) Wall Thick. (m) Diameter (m) Pile Length (m) UC Davis, Centrifuge Test (Brandenberg and Boulanger, 2004)

UC Davis, Centrifuge Test on 2 x 3 Fixed-Head Pile Group (After Brandenberg and Boulanger, 2004) Pile Displacement Bending Moment a max = 0.67 gMagnitude = 6.5

p-y Curves at Different Depths for a Lateral Soil Spreading Case (UC Davis Test, a max = 0.3g)

Input Data 1. Shaft/Pile Properties Shaft length and diameter Shaft-head location above ground Moment and axial load at shaft head Type of the shaft cross-section and material Uniaxial fc 28 of concrete Percentage of rebars Percentage of horizontal steel Thickness of steel shell (if any) F y of steel (nonlinear modeling)

Input Data (Continue) 2. Soil properties: Thickness of soil layer of soil layer Effective unit weight of soil ( ) Normal strain of sand at 50% strength, 50% Uniformity coefficient (C u ) Angle of internal friction, (Sand) Undrained shear strength, S u (Clay) Relative density (Dr) Percentage of fines (passing from sieve # 200) Sand grain roundness parameter ( ) 3. Earthquake Magnitude, M Peak ground acceleration, a max

QUESTIONS ????