09/05/2012

Soil–
Soil–Foundation
Foundation–
–Structure
Interaction

PART A

TYPES  of   FOUNDATION

D
D B
L
d B

PILES CAISSONS FOOTINGS

L/d > 7 D / B 1 – 5 D / B 1

1
 09/05/2012

INTRODUCTION
to
Soil–Foundation
Dynamics.

Basic Concepts

y x 1

z 6

3
5
2
stiffnesses

F1/δ1 ≡ Kv (ή Kz ): Vertical M5/θ5 ≡ Kθ,rx

Rocking
g
F2/δ2 ≡ KH,x Horizontal M4/θ4 ≡ Kθ,ry
F3/δ3 ≡ KH,y M6/θ6 ≡ Kt ( ή Krz ): Torsion

2
 09/05/2012

HORIZONTAL  and   ROCKING   Stiffness

Foundation  Plan 2 B x
2 L K H = Q / uH
K R = M /θ

Foundation–Soil    x
Section G , ν, ρ

Springs  + Dashpots:  Physical  Interpretation (Vertical  Mode)

rigid, massless
Pz (t) =  Pz e i ω t

Pz
uz =
Cz Kz Kz + i ω Cz

e iωt =
Pz e  Kz z uz + Cz uz
uz(t) = uz e i ω t !
i ω t + i ω C u e i ω t
Pz e i ω t = Kz  uz e  z z

3
 09/05/2012

Springs  + Dashpots:  Physical  Interpretation (Vertical  Mode)

Pz (t) =  Pz e i ω t

Pz
uz =
Cz Kz Kz + i ω Cz

Complex Dynamic Stiffness K =   Kz + i ω Cz

Complex  Dynamic Stiffness

Kz  =  Kz k (ω)
STATIC STIFFNESS

Definition  of  Stiffness  and  Damping  of a Foundation – Soil  System
No uo
Mo
Qo
wo ro

Qo 8
KH ≡ = GR , C H ∝ Vs R 2
uo 2 ν
Mo
∝
4
KR ≡ = 3(18 ν ) GR 3 , C R VLα R
ro
No 4
KV ≡ = GR , CV ∝ VLα R 2
Wo 1 ν

4
 09/05/2012

 VERTICAL Dynamic  Stiffness  Coefficient
10
6
1 4
kz L/B=
1.2

 0.4 a
0 2
SWAYING (y)
 VERTICAL =
B
6 L/ 10
6
1 ky 4
1 2
1
1
kz

0
Fine saturated b
soils,  0.5 a 0
0 1 2
0 1 2 B
B a0 V
a0 V s
s

The Recognised Effects of SS I

~
Τ  > Τ
H K, β Kx ~
β > β
KR
Structure on Structure on
RIGID COMPLIANT
Base Ground

5
 09/05/2012

W/g
h W

rigid
i id
G, ν

2π W ~ 2
Tst  T 
g k st g
1
2 /2
~  k kh 
T  T 1   
 KH KR 
~ ~

β  β st T / T 3  f h /R , T~ / T, προφιλ 

~
β > β
H K, β
K, β KX

~
KR

Fixed-base
Fi db Structure
St t on
T > T
structure flexible base

3 3

~ ~
β
2
T 2
T β 1

1 0

~
0 1 2 1 1.5 2

K / KX T/T

6
 09/05/2012

SEISMIC CODES:
Smooth ‘‘Average’’ Response Spectrum

Sa
β ΔV < 0

A ~β

T ~
T Period

INTRODUCTION
to
Soil–Foundation–Structure
Interaction.

Basic Concepts

7
 09/05/2012

Sι
S
Α

Inertial
Loading
Kinematic
Loading

8
 09/05/2012

The PROBLEM
Sα
Sα
Αs
Αp Τ

Soil – Pile – Structure Interaction

G1

G2

9
 09/05/2012

Kinematic Response

Ground
Deforms

Inertial Response

m Sa

10
 09/05/2012

KINEMATIC  RESPONSE:
Interplay  between  pile  and  soil under 
seismic–wave  motion  of  surrounding  soil:

Piles are stressed , by developing
Curvatures + moments
Curvatures + moments
both  at greater depths and the fixed head

SEISMIC   PILE   BENDING

“crust”
movement
SOFT
LAYER
seismic
 waves LIQUEFIED
 LAYER
1

STIFF
LAYER
FIRM
LAYER

inertial kinematic liquefaction

induced

11
 09/05/2012

Kinematic Pile Moments:

d=1m
0

V1 = 120 m/s
5

V2 = 480 m/s 10

15
0 1 2
Aegion: 0.54 g max M : MN m

Soil  Modelling  and  Methods  of  Analysis

The  soil  as  a  continuum  (usually elastic)
 Analytical  solutions  [ few ]
 Numerical  solutions : with  Finite Elements, 
Boundary Elements, 
Hybrid Methods

Soil  reactions  from  independent  Winkler  Springs:
 Analytical Solutions  (for linearly‐elastic springs)
 Numerical solutions (for nonlinear and inelastic springs)

Widespread  use  of p–y  curves

12
 09/05/2012

Analysis  in  2  Steps
Α Β

k Ground
Response
c

Ground Response Soil – Pile Interaction

13
 09/05/2012

WINKLER  MODEL
Uff Up
free-field motion pile motion

Layer 1 V1 , 1 , 1
soil

pile

ki (z)
Layer i Vi , i , i
c i (z)

vertical shear waves

Example of comparison: Pile Displacement: m

FEM vs. Winkler (BDWF).
Kinematic, Free–Head Pile

AS exp(iωt)

V1 H1
L
H2
V2

H3 AR exp(iωt)

Pile bending moment: MN m

14
 09/05/2012

HARMONIC PILE BENDING STRAINS

0
0 V1 / V2 = 1/4
V1 / V2 = 1/ 2
depth z / d

10
10

fixed-head pile
20
free-head pile
20
0
0 40 80 V1 / V2 = 1/10
pile bending strain ep ( 10-4)

10
L / d = 20
Ep / E1 = 5,000

20
Nikolaou & Gazetas (1997) 0 40 80
pile bending strain ep ( 10-4)

Simple Crude Expression for the KINEMATIC

Bending Moment
at the Interface of 2 layers ( V1 ≠ V2 )

0.65 0.50
 Ep  V 
0.30
L
M  0.042  C  d 3         2 
d   E1   V1 

Shear Stress at Interface ≈ AS ρ1 H1

(Use with caution)

Nikolaou & Gazetas 1997

15
 09/05/2012

3 Case Histories
ffrom Japan:
p

(1) Obha Ohashi Bridge Piles

(2) Konan High School Pile

(3) Ervic Building

KINEMATIC DISTRESS of an ACTUAL PILE

in Futsisawa, Japan, during an Earthquake

Adapted
p from : Tazoh et al ((1994))

• Ohba Ohashi Bridge Pier Foundations

• Heavily instrumented PILES (L = 26 m)

in extremely SOFT organic clay
• Recorded numerous small and moderate
motions

16
 09/05/2012

VALLEY of OΗΒΑ - ΗΑSΗΙ

( Yokohama )

The Bridge: OΗΒΑ

TOMH P5 Ρ6
P6 P7 P8
H1 BR2

V BR3
BR1

BS1 BS2 BS3

GS1
GS1
VS = 60 m/s
25
30 m

m
GB4

GB2 GB3 GB1

GB1

17
 09/05/2012

Modelling with Finite Elements

( ABAQUS ) and Spectral Elements ( AHNSE )

The Ohba–Ohashi Bridge and the

Instrumentation of Ground and Footing (Pier 6)

GB3
accelerographs GB1 GB2

18
 09/05/2012

Ohba–Ohashi Bridge: Strain Gauges in two piles in Pier 6

64 piles
(32 battered,
32 vertical)
L = 22 m

19
 09/05/2012

Earthquake Records at Ohba-Ohashi Bridge

MJMA = 6 , R = 42 km
0.12 0.12 g surface ( GS1 )
0.06
A:g

0
-0.06
-0.12
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.12
t:s
base ( GB1 )
0.06
A:g

0
-0.06 0.03 g
-0.12
0 5 10 15 20 25
t:s

20
 09/05/2012

(near head) (2/3 depth)

(1/3 depth) (full depth of soft

soil)

(soft-stiff soil interface)

Evidently, the large bending strain

at the depth of ≈ 22 m is the result
of the sharp “impedance contrast”
at that location: intreface between
soft and very stiff soil.
As can be seen from the plot of
next slide, it is purely the product
of kinematic distress.

21
 09/05/2012

good performance of theory !

active length c of a (flexible) pile

uo

uo DEFINITION

c
L
“ idle ”
part

d c L

22
 09/05/2012

active length c of a (flexible) pile

Static Loading [ Gazetas 1991 ]

c ≈ 1.5d (Ep /Es)0.25 ①

c
L
H c ≈ 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.22 ②
c ≈ 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.20 ③
Es Es Es

d Es d Es
diameter
* *

z z z
① ② ③

KINEMATIC DISTRESS of an ACTUAL PILE

in Hokkaido Japan during an Earthquake

Adapted from : Y. Miyamoto & K. Koyamada (2007)

• Tokachi-oki Earthquake 2003 , M = 7.9

• Konan Junior High School ( R = 240 km ):

footings on piles
accelerograms: at 0 m and 153 m depth !!

23
 09/05/2012

TOKACHI-oki 2003 Earthquake: M = 7.9 ....

2003 / 09 / 26

KONAN High School

Accelerograph Array 
N
50 m

High School

24
 09/05/2012

SOIL LAYERS and PHC (d=0.40 m) PILE

0.35 g 60 90 190 Vs [ m/s ]

Peat 0m
6m
Shear wave
Clay velocity

20 m
Sandy
Silt 30 m

0.05 g 400 m/s

153 m
Sandstone

ACCELEROGRAMS

» 0.35 g
cm / s2
Recorded at
Ground Surface

Recorded at -153 m
cm / s2
(“Input” Motion)

» 0.05 g sec

50 100 150

25
 09/05/2012

Response Spectra ( 5 % damping)

±0m

0.35 g
‐ 153 m
0.05 g

[Draw  the  analogy with the Mexico City 1985 
spectra of the motions recorded at
SCT (soil surface) versus UNAM (“rock” outcrop) !! ]

Vs (m/s)
0 Peat 60
6
Clay 90

20 m
Silty Sand 190

30
Gravel

40 320

26
 09/05/2012

Results of Analysis: ELASTIC  PILE

1
My = yield
moment
of pile
section

We thus would expect the pile to have

been damaged at the depth of 20 m

Indeed the pile was extracted

Indeed,
from the ground, and a crack was
seen at ≈ 20 m ! It was a
complete crack
crack, extending
throughout the hollow cylindrical
cross–section of the pile

27
 09/05/2012

E
N S
W
Sketch of observed cracks

GL ‐20.0 m 0.1 mm pile

GL ‐20.3 m 1 mm crack

GL ‐20.5 m
0.1 mm

24.8 m FIELD EVIDENCE

ERVIC BUILDING

RF 28.4 m

N
Pile B
46.6 m

7F
Pile A

Building accelerometer
GL
Ground accelerometer
B1F
strain Dynamic strain transducer
transducer

soil Y
a
Z Pile A
b
Y d X
GL –39 m
Pile B c

28
 09/05/2012

CASE STUDY : Yokohama, Japan

EARTHQUAKE EVENT
Location – Tokyo Bay Area (N35o12’; E139o48’)
Time – February
Febr ar 2,2 1992
Magnitude – M = 5.9
Focal depth – D = 93 km
Epicentral distance – R = 32 km
Peak Acceleration – A = 0.05 g

ANALYSIS
Dominant Surface Acceleration Period – 1 sec
Fundamental Soil Period – 1 sec
Nonlinear effects – minor

Soil Profile & Transducers Locations

SPT shear wave velocity
blowcounts Vs (m/s)
0 20 40 200 400
0 Fill
s = 1.6 Mg/m
3

Alluvial W.T.
Sand

A1
10
low strain A2

A3
strain
pth : m

Alluvial
20 Clay compatible

s = 1.5 Mg/m3 A4
dep

30
interface 1 A5
Sand with Clay
s = 1.6 Mg/m 3

Tuffaceous Clay
Clay with Sand interface 2
40 Gravel A6
Mudstone
s = 1.6 Mg/m
3
Fine Sand
Mudstone

29
 09/05/2012

Measured / Predicted Spectra

X direction Y direction
0.15
-2 m -2 m
computed computed
A : g

0.10 elastic elastic

 = 5%  = 5%
50 50
0.05
spectral acceleration SA

SHAKE PI = 30
SHAKE,
SHAKE, PI = 30
0.00
0.15
-2 m -2 m
recorded recorded
0.10

0.05

0.00
0.15
-40 m -40 m
recorded recorded
0.10

0.05

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
period T : s period T : s

Measured / Predicted Pile Strains

peak pile bending strain ( 105 )
0 2 4 0 2 4
0
X direction Y direction

A1
computed 10 active A2
pile
measured length A3
strain
pth : m

corner pile compatible,

PI = 30 strain
measured 20
center pile elastic compatible,
 = 5% PI = 30 A4
elastic
dep

 = 5%
30
A5

A6
40

30
 09/05/2012

Inertial Response

m Sa

Pile Head Fixity Conditions

“Free-Head”
“Fixed-Head”
Piles
Piles H
H Ho

L L L

θα
θα = θρ
Μ
Q
Q
M

θρ

31
 09/05/2012

(1) Transmitting the Shear Force, Qo

[ We ignore for the time being the (generally

significant) pile
pile––to–pile interaction ]
to–

Qο
Horizontal Force on each pile:

Qo
Q1 =
n
6

(2) Transmitting the Moment , Μo

Two mechanisms:

(α) Axial Forces (b) Bending Moments

ΜΑΔ ΜΚΡ
Μ1
x1
F1 F2 F3
+
Fi = (θo xi) KV ΜΚΡ = 6 Μ1 = 6 KΜ θo
MΑΔ = 2F1x1 + 2F3x3 =
2
= 2(θ
2(θox1KV)x1 + 2(
2(--θox1KV)(
)(--x1) = 4 x1 KV θo

32
 09/05/2012

y0
M0 θ0 ph(z) = f(y)
Q0 y

z z z
d

ph(z) = ks y
ph(z)

a
ks= tan a
y(z)

active length c of a (flexible) pile

uo

uo DEFINITION

c
L
“ idle ”
part

d c L

33
 09/05/2012

active length c of a (flexible) pile

Static Loading [ Gazetas 1991 ]

c ≈ 1.5d (Ep /Es)0.25 ①

c
L
H c ≈ 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.22 ②
c ≈ 1.5 d (Ep /Es* )0.20 ③
Es Es Es

d Es d Es
diameter
* *

z z z
① ② ③

(b)
Characteristic Dimensionless
Elastic Results:

STIFFNESS MATRIX
att pile
il hhead
d
[ for Flexible Piles]

34
 09/05/2012

KMH
Es KHH KHM KMM
1 1

z
Homogeneous Layer
KHH ≅ Es d ( Ep /Es )0.21
KMM ≅ 0.15Es d 3 ( Ep /Es )0.75
KMH = KHM ≅ - 0.22Es d 2 ( Ep /Es )0.50

KMH
Es KHH KHM KMM
1 1
d Es
*

z
‘‘Gibson ’’ Soil: [ Gazetas 1991 ]

KHH ≅ 0.6 Es d ( Ep / Es* )0.35

KMM ≅ 0.15 Es d 3 ( Ep / Es* )
0.80
KMH = KHM ≅ - 0.17 Es d 2 ( Ep / Es * )
0.60

35
 09/05/2012

α0 = ωd / VS

Frequency
(rad/sec)

36
 09/05/2012

Pile – Pile Interaction

(Pile Group Effects )

37
 09/05/2012

3 x 3 PILE GROUP

5
DYNAMIC
EFFICIENCY FACTOR

K(group) /9 K(one)
1
STATIC
0
Values
0.2 – 0.3

-3

ω d / VS

38
 09/05/2012

But what about

Nonlinear + Layerd Soil ?

The Winkler Spring model

offers perhaps the best available
practical solution!

3 reasons for the particular success

of Winkler model for piles (as compared with shallow fdns):
1) Theoretical: Real

Real
Winkler

Winkler

2) Theoretical + Practical :

k1 which k?
k2
k3
k4

39
 09/05/2012

3) Practical : Availability of a wealth of nonlinear Winkler

springs for a variety of soils , based on full-scale and
laboratory experiments:

p–y curves (non-linear

(non linear springs)

p kοd

kεd

Two types of independent

Winkler springs:
springs

1. Linearly Elastic Springs

2 Nonlinear Springs
2.
( p – y curves)

40
 09/05/2012

The Elastic Winkler Model

REACTION of
soil per unit
y
length:

p = p(y)
(y)= ky
y
k
k = kεd ≈ ES

Lateral Winkler “Springs” + “Dashpots”

Axial Winkler “Springs” + “Dashpots”

41
 09/05/2012

Lateral Pile Response (displacements, moments):

Winkler model

Free head pile : F e -λz cos λz

F
y(z) =
2 Ep Ip λ3
F -λz
Μ(z) = - e sin λz
λ
4
Fixed head pile (θ = 0) : λ =  ( k / 4 Ep
M Ip )F e -λz
F y(z) = (cos λz + sin λz)
4 Ep Ip λ3
F -λz
Μ(z) = - e (sin λz – cos λz)
2λ

1
Slice

τrθ σr
σrο
p
Κο σvο y
Resultant of soil tractions
per unit length: p = ∫(σr cosθ + τrθ sinθ ) R
dθ

42
 09/05/2012

p – y curves :

p
y p
p pult
y kοd
p
y
kεd
p
y y
9 Su d
pult ³ { 3K P γzd

U ltimate Load

ΦΡΕΑΤΑ
Pile Slice p
Pοult  9Su D ÷ 12Su D
ρ ια κ ο ≈

Surface Sq. Footing Ppο ρult  6SuD

ια κ ο ≈

43
 09/05/2012

3-D Passive Resistance of Limited Height Wall

q

h Fp h

ELEVATION
Fp
1 

p
Fp  μ   h 2  q h  b  p
2 
5

Fp 4

b 3
μp
2

0
0
1 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PLAN h/b

p – y curves:

p
y p
p
kοd
pοριακό
y
p
y
kεd
p
y y
pοριακό ³{ 9 Su d
3KP γ z d

44
 09/05/2012

p − y and Μ − κ curves with BWGG

100 100
p : kN / m
80 BWGG 80 BWGG
60 Reese 60 Matlock
40 40

20 Sand 20 Soft Clay

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

100 800
p : kN / m

80 BWGG

M : kNm
m
600 BWGG
60 M tl k
Matlock
400
BIAX
40

20 Stiff Clay 200

RC
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
y:m κ:1/m

Example: Elastic–Plastic
Approximation of the p–y curves
Fo p
Es
2d 3Kp γ z1 d
2d z1 Es(z1) Es(z
( 1)
4d z2 Es(z2)
4d 3Kp γ z2 d
γ, φ Es(z2)

12d z3 Es(z3) 3Kp γ z3 d

Es(z3)
12d
y

20d z

45
 09/05/2012

Fo 1 2 2d
p 1 2 3

2d 3
4d
4d

12d
12d
y

20d z
1. Nearly Elastic Response
2. Slightly Inelastic
Response
3. Strongly Inelastic Response

1 2 y p M
3

7 m

20 m
1. Nearly Elastic
Response
2. Slightly Inelastic
Response
3. Strongly Inelastic Response

46
 09/05/2012

Resulting Fo – yo Response

1720 3

Fo 1150 2

(kN)
770 1

2 4.5
yο : cm
10

Soil–
Soil–Foundation–
Foundation–Structure
Interaction

PART B

47
 09/05/2012

y x 1

z 6

3
5
2
stiffnesses

F1/δ1 ≡ Kv (ή Kz ): Vertical M5/θ5 ≡ Kθ,rx

Rocking
g
F2/δ2 ≡ KH,x Horizontal M4/θ4 ≡ Kθ,ry
F3/δ3 ≡ KH,y M6/θ6 ≡ Kt ( ή Krz ): Torsion

HORIZONTAL  and   ROCKING   Stiffness
y

2
2 B x
Foundation  Plan
2 L
K H = Q / uH
M
K R = M / θ
Q
Foundation–Soil    x
Section G , ν, ρ

48
 09/05/2012

Springs  + Dashpots:  Physical  Interpretation (Vertical  Mode)

rigid, massless
Pz (t) =  Pz e i ω t

Pz
uz =
Cz Kz Kz + i ω Cz

e iωt =
Pz e  Kz z uz + Cz uz
uz(t) = uz e i ω t !
i ω t + i ω C u e i ω t
Pz e i ω t = Kz  uz e  z z

Springs  + Dashpots:  Physical  Interpretation (Vertical  Mode)

Pz (t) =  Pz e i ω t

Pz
uz =
Cz Kz Kz + i ω Cz

Complex Dynamic Stiffness K =   Kz + i ω Cz

Complex  Dynamic Stiffness

Kz  =  Kz k (ω)
STATIC STIFFNESS

49
 09/05/2012

For every mode of vibration : K i

Complex  Dynamic Stiffness K Z =   KZ + i ω CZ

KZ  =  KZ k Z (ω)
STATIC STIFFNESS

k Z (ω) =  Dynamic 
S iff
Stiffness Coefficient
C ffi i

Complex  Dynamic Stiffness K i =   Ki + i ω Ci

i = z , x , y , rx , ry , t

STATIC  STIFFNESSES  on  HALFSPACE
CIRCLE, R STRIP,  2B

50
 09/05/2012

2L

G, ,  2B
Arbitray  Foundation  Shape
y x
Static K K
MODE
Shape (2Β ,2L, Ab ) SQUARE (2Β x 2B)

2GL
Kz = ( 0.73 + 1.54  0.75 ) 4.54 G B
z 1- Kz = 1-
 = Ab / 4 L2

y 2GL 9GB
2 -  ( 2 + 2.5 
Ky = 0.85 ) Ky =
2-

0.2
x Kx = Ky 0.75 -  G L ( 1- B / L ) Kx = Ky

0.25 B 3.6 G B3
rx Kθ,rx = G I 0.75
bx ( L) ( 2.4+0.5 ) Kθ,rx = 1-
1- B L

G
[ 3 ( BL ) ]
0.15
ry Kθ,ry = Ibx 0.75 Kθ,ry = Kθ,rx
1-

B 10
t Kt = G Jt 0.75 [4 + 11 ( 1 -
L
) ] Kt = 8.3 G B3

 VERTICAL Dynamic  Stiffness  Coefficient
10
6
1 4
kz L/B=
1.2

 0.4 a
0 2
SWAYING (y)
 VERTICAL =
/ B 10
6 L 6
1 ky 4
1 2
1
1
kz

0
Fine saturated b
soils,  0.5 a 0
0 1 2
0 1 2 B
B a0 V
a0 V s
s

51
 09/05/2012

2 c VERTICAL
Radiation  Dashpot  Coefficients  
L/B= 

y
10
cz 1.0
ROCKING (rx)
4
1
1 1.2
crx L / B = 1 2 4 6 10
2 B c z (  = 0.5)
c z (  = 0.5) 0.5
c zc z( (
  0.4)
0.4)
1.0
x
  0.4 2L
2 L 0 a 10 2
e
0 0.0

1.0 L / B = 
SWAYING (y) 10
6
L/B= 
  0.5
2L cry 4
2 2B
10   0.3 x 0.5
2
cy 6
4 y
2 1
1 f
ROCKING (ry)
d 0.0
0
B
0 1 2

a0 V
0 1 2
 B
a 0  Vs s

B
Cya0=(ρVs VS A) cy
 Crx = (ρ VL J) crx

Surface Foundations Homogeneous
Homogeneous  Halfspace Halfspace
G, , 
Table I

Vibration Static Stiffness Dynamic Stiffness Coefficient Radiation Coefficients

Mode Dynamic ; .(0k
K Stiffness K ()k(=)K  (a )
0  2) C() , c()
General shape
2GL
( 0.73 +1.54 0.75 Cz = (  Vs Aw ) cz
Vertical Kz = 1-
0 75 )
 = Ab / 4 L2
kz = kz (L / B, , a0 )  Graph a
z Rectangular (2L x 2B x d)
cz = cz (L / B, , a0 )  Graph c
4.54 G B
Kz = 1-
2GL
( 2 + 2.5 0.85 ) Cy = (  Vs Ab ) cy
Horizontal General Ky = 2- ky = ky (L / B, a0 )  Graph b
y Rectangular Ky =
9GB
cy = cy (L / B, a0 )  Graph d
2-
0.2
Horizontal General Kx = Ky 0.75 -  G L ( 1- B / L )
kx  1 Cx   Vs Ab
x
Rectangular Kx = Ky

G L 0.25 B
Rocking General Krx = Ibx 0.75 ( B ) ( 2.4+0.5 ) Crx = ( VLa Ibx) crx
1- L
krx  1 – 0.2 a0
rx
Rectangular Krx =
3.6 G B3 crx = crx (L / B, a0 )  Graph e
1-
G 0.15
Rocking General Kry =
1-
Ibx 0.75 [ 3 ( BL ) ]  < 0.45 kry  1 – 0.3 a0 Cry = ( VLa Iby) cry
ry 0.3
cry = cry (L / B, a0 )  Graph f
  0.5 kry  1 – 0.25 a0 (
L
Rectangular Kry = Krx B )
Torsion
General Kt = G Jt 0.75 [4 + 11 ( 1 - B
L
10
) ] kt  1 – 0.14 a0
Ct = ( Vs Jt) ct
ct = ct (L / B, a0 )  Graph g
t Rectangular Kt = 8.3 G B3

52
 09/05/2012

Graphs Accompanying Table I

y

2
 VERTICAL B
10
6
x 1.0
1 4 2L
ROCKING (rx)
kz crx
z L / B = 1 2 4 6 10
0.5
 
00.4
4 a
0 2 c VERTICAL
e
0.0
 VERTICAL
L/B=
1
6
1.0 L / B = 
10
1
cz 10
4 6
kz 1
cry
1 1.2 4
cz (= 0.5) 0.5
0
Fine saturated cz (0.4) 2
1.0
soils,  0.5 a
1
 0.4 a10 f
0 2
0
2 ROCKING (ry)
SWAYING (y) 0.0
SWAYING (y) L/B= TORSION
10
1.0
ky 6
4 L/B= 2L
2 2  0.5
1 6
1 10  0.3
2B
x ct 4
ct
cy 6
4 y
0.5
3
2 2
1
b
d 1
0
0 1 2 0 g
B 0 1 2 0.0
a0 V B 0 1 2
s a0 V B
s a0 V
s

Effect  of  Bedrock  at  Shallow  Depth

(“Soil–Stratum Over Rock” )

53
 09/05/2012

STRATUM  over  BEDROCK

0.5 R
1.5 R

4 R

54
 09/05/2012

Surface  Foundation       
Homogeneous
Homogeneous  Stratum  over  Bedrock H Stratum
G, , 
Circular Foundation
Foundation Shape
Radius
Radius B =BR = R Rectangular
Circular Foundation Foundation
2B ´ 2L (L > B)
Strip Foundation
2L  
4GR ¾ kz
VerticalVertical,
Mode z Kz = 1-
(1 + 1.3 R ) Kz = 21G- L [0.73 + 1.54( BL ) ] x  0.73 G
((1 + 3.5 B )
H
2L 1- H

Static B/H
Lateral, y / x Ky =
8GR
2-
(1 + 0.5 R ) x ( 1+ ) ky
stiffness H 0.5 + B / L
 2 G (1 + 2 B )
2L 2 - ) H

K Rocking, rx / ry 8GR 3
krx = 3 (1 - ) (1 + 0.17 R )
H krx
= 2 (1
GB2
(1 + 0.2 B )
3 2L - ) H
Torsional, t kt = 16 G R (1 + 0.10 R )
3 H

Dynamic z kz = kz (H / R, a0 )  Graph III-1 kz = kz (H / R, L / B, a0 )  Graph III-2

stiffness
ky = ky (H / B, a0 )  Graph III-3
coefficient
coe ce t y or x ky = ky ((H / R,, a0 )  Graph
p III-1
k() rx , ry , t k (H / R )  k () ;  = rx, ry, t
krx  krx ()

Radiation z Cz (H / B) 0 , f < fc ; Cz (H / B) 0.8 Cz () , f  1.5 fc

dashpot VLa 3.4 Vs
fc = , VLa =
coefficient y , x Cy (H / B)  0 , f < 3/4 fs ; Cy (H / B)  Cy () , f > 4/3 fs 4H  (1 – )

C() rx , ry Crx (H / B)  0 , f < fc ; Crx (H / B)  Crx () , f > fc fs =

Vs
4H
t Ct (H / B)  Ct ()

Circular Foundation Homogeneous

H Stratum
Radius B = R G, , 

4GR
Static vertical stiffness Kz = 1-
(1 + 1.3 R )
H
Dynamic stiffness
kz = kz (H / R, a0 )  Graph III-1
coefficient
Cz (H / B) 0 , f < fc
Radiation dashpot
coefficient Cz (H / B) 0.8 Cz () , f  1.5 fc
VLa 3.4 Vs
fc = , VLa =
4H  (1 – )

55
 09/05/2012

KY =   KY + i ω CY KY =  KY kY (ω)

CY
kY ρV S A
1 1

0 0
f f
VS / 4 H VS / 4 H

Graphs Accompanying Table III

III-1 CIRCLE III-2 RECTANGLE III-3 STRIP
1.5
1.5
1.0
H/B=4
1.0 H/B=2
L/B=1
1.0  kz kz
kz 0.5
05 2 0.5
05
4
0.5
4
 0.3  4
0.0
0.0
H/R=2
 0.3  0.3
0.0
1.0
H/B=2
1.5
kz
1
0.5 1.5
1.0  2 8
 0.3 4
ky = kz 4 0.0 1.0

0.5
H/R=2 ky 4
0.5
 0.4 1.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
kz  0.4
H/B=2
0.5 0.0
R 1
a0 V
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
 0.3
s
B
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
a0 V
 s
B
a0 V
s

56
 09/05/2012

CAISSON
Foundations

PART C

Static and Dynamic

Soil−CAISSON
Interaction

(Linear and Non‐Linear)

57
 09/05/2012

TYPES  of   FOUNDATION

D
D B
L
d B

PILES CAISSONS     FOOTING

L / d 7 D / B 1 – 5 D / B 1

Examples of Caisson Foundations

51m 217m 51m

Kobe Port Island

33

15
990m
990 m
P3 P4

P1 P2 P5 P6

TAGUS P7

8888
m

58
 09/05/2012

Simple Methods Used in Practice

k =?
Specified
Displacement Winkler Elasticity
Pattern

2 Ways  of  Viewing  the  the

CAISSON

1) as  an Embedded  Foundation

2) as  a Large–Diameter  Rigid  Pile

59
 09/05/2012

the CAISSON as  an

Embedded  Foundation

(Linear  Response
Linear Response)

Foundation Embedded in Halfspace

Static Kemb P
D

1 2/3 2B
Kz, emb = Kz, surf [1 + D [
(1 + 1.3  )·] 1 + 0.2 A
(A ) ]
w
(2L)
21 B
b
VERTICAL
z 2GL
Kz,surf = ( 0.73 +1.54  0.75 )
1- AW = area of
surface
 = Ab / 4 L2 in contact

D Aw 0.4
[
Ky, emb = Ky, surf 1 + 0.15 √
B
] · [1 + 0.52 ( Bh L2
)] Full Contact :
HORIZONTAL
y Ky,surf =
2GL
( 2 + 2.5  0.85 ) AW = (4B + 4L)D
2-

 = Ab / 4 L2

60
 09/05/2012

Partially/Fully  Embedded  Foundations
Homogeneous  Halfspace

Vibration
Mode
Static Stiffness
Dynamic K
Stiffness Kemb () = K (0  xa k emb
k () ; emb 2)
()
Dynamic Stiffness Coefficient Radiation Coefficient
Cemb()
emb emb 0

Fully embedded General shape

D
1 D
kz, emb = kz, surf [1 – 0.09 ( B )3/4 a02] Cz, emb = Cz, surf +  Vs Aw
Kz, emb = Kz, surf [1 + (1 + 1.3 )]  0.4
21 B
2/3
In a trench Cz, surf  Table I
x [1 + 0.2 ( Aw
Ab ) ] D 3/4
kz, tre = kz, surf [1 – 0.9 ( B ) a02]
Vertical
z  = Ab / 4 L2 Fully embedded , L/B  1 - 2 Rectangular (2L x 2B x d)
D
kz, emb = kz, surf [1 – 0.09 ( B )3/4 a02] Cz, emb = 4  VLa B L cz
Kz, surf  Table I
= 0.5
Fully embedded , L/B > 3 + 4  Vs (B + L) d
D
kz, emb = kz, surf [1 – 0.35 ( B ) 1/2a03.5]
General shape
Cy, emb = Cy, surf +
D +  Vs Aws +  VLa Awce
Ky, emb = Ky, surf 1 + 0.15  x
[ B ]
Horizontal Estimate from accompanying Aws = soil-shearing area
Aw 0.4
x, y x [1 + 0.52 ( h
B L2
) ] graphs (L/D, D/B, d/B) Awe = soil-compressing area

Ky, surf  Table I Rectangular

Cy, emb = 4  VLa B L cz
+ 4  Vs Cy, emb s B d + 4  VLa L d

Graphs Accompanying Table {Embedded}

2 2
L/B=2 L/B=2

ky P kx
D
1 1
1
2B 1
(2L) 2
2

0 0

2 2 2
L/B=6 L/B=1 L/B=6

0
ky ky = kx kx
1 1 1
1
1
2
2
2

0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
a0 a0 a0

61
 09/05/2012

the CAISSON as  a

Large–Diameter  Rigid  Pile

(Non
Non–Linear Response)
Linear  Response

Soil Nonlinearity Interface

Nonlinearities

τrz τrz

σr σr

τ σr τ σr

θc ux θc ux

62
 09/05/2012

SOIL REACTIONS
Μ Μ
Q
Q
PILE:
only
l
Lateral
Stresses
CAISSON
Lateral
+
Vertical
Stresses

Soil – Caisson Interaction

Α. Interface
A B C

B. Near Field

C. Far Field

63
 09/05/2012

EXAMPLES of STRUCTURES on
CAISSON Foundations
51m 217m 51m

Kobe Port Island

33

15
990 m
990 m
P3 P4

P1 P2 P5 P6

TAGUS P7

8888
m

Soil Nonlinearity Soil + Interface

Nonlinearities

τrz τrz

σr σr

τ σr τ σr

θc ux θc ux

64
 09/05/2012

SOIL REACTIONS
Μ Μ
Q
Q
PILE:
only
l
Lateral
Stresses
CAISSON
Lateral
+
Vertical
Stresses

SOIL REACTION of CAISSON

M Lateral
V Surface
D1 ψ 2

p x ( z )  0 σ r cos ψ  τ r ψ sin  r d 
r
2
2 B
z mθ ( z )  0 τ r z   cos ψ d
Section
2
τrz
D
τrψ σr τrψ
Base
τrz B σr
B
Vb  0 2
2
0  τ z r cos ψ  τ zψτsin ψ  r d dr
σr rz
2
0 σ z cos ψ  r d dr
B
M b  0 2 2

σz

65
 09/05/2012

LATERAL STATIC LOADING

“Winkler” Model M0
u0
V0

kx φb
px
D

kθ
mθ

KM KH Vb
Mb
B

Horizontal Force Equilibrium :

D ~ ~
V0 ( t )  m uc( t )  0 k x ( z ) u( z ,t ) dz  K H ub ( t )  0

Moment Equilibrium Around Base (z = 0)

Dολ
M 0 ( t )  V0 ( t ) Dολ  J c φ
c ( t )  m uc( t ) 
2
D ~ D~ ~
0 k x ( z ) u( z ,t ) z dz  0 kθ ( z )φ( t )dz  K M φ( t )  0

F
Force—Displacement
Di l t Relation
R l ti (Stiff
(Stiffness M ti )
Matrix)
 ~ ~ D 
 V βάσης   K HH  m 
2
K HM  m  2   u b 
base 2
  2  
M base
βάσης   ~ D ~ 2 D  φb 
K HM  m  2  K MM  J c   m
2
 2 4 

66
 09/05/2012

STATIC SPRING CALLIBRATION

BASE SPRINGS
4Gb 8 G b3
KH  KM 
2 - 3 1 - ν)
DISTRIBUTED SPRINGS
EMBEDDED FOUNDATION
THEORY D M
(Gazetas et al, 1987, 1989) Q

2b
3 5

0
2
-5

-10
1
kx / Es = f (D ,B) -15
kθ / Es B2 = f (D ,B)
0 -20
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
D/B D/B

Analytical Relations for Elastic Springs

(Gerolymos & Gazetas, 2000)

Square Caisson
0.13 1.313
 D  D
k x  1.68   Es k  1.23   Es D 2
B B

Circular Caisson

0.13 1.477
 D  D
k x  1.37   Es k   0 .9   Es D 2
B B

67
 09/05/2012

Soil – Caisson Interaction

Α. Interface
A B C

B. Near Field

C. Far Field

“Winkler” Model
BWGG for Caissons

68
 09/05/2012

Medium—Scale Field Load Test of Caisson

( EPRI, 1981 )
M
03m
0.3 Thick. γ Su

Clay 1.68 20.6 75

4.1 m
y
Clay
1 38
1.38 22 100

0.76 22 170
Soft
m kN/m3 kPa
1.52 m Schist

Static Loading of Caisson : Β = 1.5 m, D = 4 m,

in Clay
5

4
Μ : MNm

2.5 BWGG
Recorded
(EPRI, 1981)
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
θ: rad

69
 09/05/2012

Soil Reaction p : kN / m

-500 -250 0 250 500

0

1
z:m
2

3
Recorded for 0.6 Mu
4
(EPRI, 1981)

BWGG

Dynamic Field Load Test of Caisson

M = 2000 sin (12 t)

03m
0.3 Thick γ Su

Clay 1.68 20.6 75

4.1 m

Clay 1 38
1.38 22 100
0.76 22 170
Soft
m kN/m3 kPa
1.52 m Schist

70
 09/05/2012

400 400
z = 0.3 m z = 0.65 m

Fs : kN / m
Fs : kN / m 200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
ux : m ux : m
400 200
z=4m
N/m

z=4m

Mb : kkNm
200 100
Fs : kN

0 0

-200 -100

-400 -200
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
ux : m φ : rad

2000
Kinematic Response
MTOP : kNm

1000 excitation : Sepolia (Athens 1999)

0
ubase : m
-1000
0.04
0 04 uTOP : m
-2000
0.02
0 4 8 12 16
u:m

2000 t:s 0
MTOP : kNm

1000
-0.02

0
-0.04
0 4 8 12 16
-1000
t:s
-2000
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
uTOP : m

71
 09/05/2012

400 400
z = 0.3 m z = 0.65 m

Fs : kN / m
Fs : kN / m 200
200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
ux : m ux : m
400 200
z=4m
N/m

z=4m

Mb : kkNm
200 100
Fs : kN

0 0

-200 -100

-400 -200
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
ux : m φ : rad

400 400
z = 0.3 m z = 0.65 m
Fs : kN / m
Fs : kN / m

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16

400
z=4m
400 z=4m
N/m

200
Nm

200
Fs : kN

Mb : kN

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16
t:s t:s

72
 09/05/2012

Batter  Piles under 
Seismic  Loading

3D-
3D -FE Modelling
Group with vertical piles Asymmetric group with inclined pile

Symmetric group with inclined piles

73
 09/05/2012

3. Loading

Kinematic Kinematic
Loading +
Inertial Loading

Normalized Maximum Bending Moment with respect to the

group of fixed
fixed--head vertical piles – Lefkada
-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0

2 2

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 Fixed 10 Hinged
12 12

14 14

16 16
Vertical Pile
Vertical Pile Inclined Pile
Inclined Pile

74
 09/05/2012

Normalized Maximum Bending Moment of the Pile with

respect to the Fixed
Fixed-
-Head Vertical Pile - Lefkada
-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0

2 2

4 4

6 6

8 8

Fixed
10 10
Hinged
12 12

14 14

16 16

Kinematic
Inertial
Total

Spectral Accelerations at the Deck

Fixed pile-to-cap connection Hinged pile-to-cap connection
4 4

0.85 1.0
3 3
SA : g

2 2

1 1

0.73 0.85
0.85
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2

T:s
Vertical pile group Asymmetric pile group Symmetric pile group

75