Seismic LRFD for Pile Foundation Design

Steve Kramer
Juan Carlos Valdez
University of Washington

Benjamin Blanchette
Hart-Crowser

Jack Baker
Stanford University
Acknowledgments

California Department of
Transportation – Tom Shantz

Washington State Department of

Transportation – Tony Allen
Goal of Project

• Develop framework for evaluation of load and resistance factors

for pile foundation design using PEER PBEE concepts

• Framework is to allow design for pile cap movement (vertical,

horizontal, rocking) based on design return period for limit state
exceedance in any seismic environment

• Put framework in format where DOT foundation engineers can

investigate effects of various assumptions regarding
uncertainties on load and resistance factors

• Framework will be used in AASHTO code development process

to illustrate benefits of PBEE approach to load and resistance
factor development
Current LRFD Procedure (simplified)

• Develop design spectrum – for selected return period

• Perform structural analyses

• Check that capacity > demand for structure

• Design foundations
Apply forces from structural analysis to foundation
Check foundation capacity
Maximum force(s) < available resistance(s)
Maximum displacement(s) < allowable displacement(s)
Performance-based framework

• Capacity and demand factors can be obtained from Cornell idealization

assumptions

• Process requires hazard curve and ability to predict response given

ground motion level, i.e.

EDP | IM

where EDP = pile cap displacement / rotation

IM = Sa(To), etc.
Complicating Factors

All bridges are different

Pile foundations have –
Different static loads
Vertical
Horizontal (2)
Moment (2)
Different dynamic loads
Vertical
Horizontal (2)
Moment (2)

Pile foundations can have –

Different group configurations
Different pile lengths
Different pile cap dimensions
Complicating Factors

All sites are different

Conditions favoring end-bearing piles
Conditions favoring friction piles
Geometric and material variability / uncertainty

Checking procedures needed

Must be simple, straightforward
Force-based – check force demands against capacities
Displacement-based – check displ. demands against allowable displacements
To advance practice, procedures must be displacement-based
Design should imply certain reliability w/r/t exceedance of displ level
Permutations Ground motion
hazards
Multiple ground motion levels
Ground motions

Multiple time histories

Bridge
configurations

Multiple bridge configurations

x y z x y
Pile group Multiple response measures (EDPs)
configurations

Multiple pile group configurations

Dynamic
response

Multiple dynamic load cases –

Static loading Multiple
5 loads for each
static
conditions load
states – Dynamic loading
5 loads conditions
for each
Permutations Ground motion
hazards
Multiple ground motion levels
Ground motions

Multiple time histories

For 5 hazard levels, 5 bridge configurations,
5 pile groups, 4 initial load levels, 3 hazard
Bridge levels, and 100 simulations with 40 input
configurations motions, we need 30,000,000 EDP
calculations.
Multiple bridge configurations

x y z x y
Pile group Multiple response measures (EDPs)
configurations

Multiple pile group configurations

Dynamic
response

Multiple dynamic load cases –

Static loading Multiple
5 loads for each
static
conditions load
states – Dynamic loading
5 loads conditions
for each
Permutations

For 5 pile groups, 4 initial load levels, and

100 simulations with 40 input motions, we
need a little more than 400,000 EDP
calculations.

x y z x y
Pile group Multiple response measures (EDPs)
configurations

Multiple pile group configurations

Dynamic
response

Multiple dynamic load cases –

Static loading Multiple
5 loads for each
static
conditions load
states – Dynamic loading
5 loads conditions
for each
Performance-Based Framework

How do we take advantage of a performance-based framework in development

of load and resistance factors?

We need to be able to predict a hazard curve for the EDPs of interest, which will
consist of pile cap displacements/rotations

Normally, we predict EDPs from ground motion intensity measures

EDP (edp)   G  EDP | IM dIM

Response model –
includes soil,
foundations, and bridge
Performance-Based Framework

How do we take advantage of a performance-based framework in development

of load and resistance factors?

We need to be able to predict a hazard curve for the EDPs of interest, which will
consist of pile cap displacements/rotations

We can subdivide response model into two components

EDP (edp)   G  EDP | LM G  LM | IM  dIM

Pile cap Pile cap

response loading model
model – – consists of
includes soil bridge model
and
foundation
Performance-Based Framework

How do we take advantage of a performance-based framework in development

of load and resistance factors?

We need to be able to predict a hazard curve for the EDPs of interest, which will
consist of pile cap displacements/rotations

We can subdivide response model into two components

EDP (edp)   G  EDP | LM G  LM | IM  dIM

Pile Pile
Engineering Demand cap Load cap Intensity
Parameter, EDP response Measure, LM load Measure, IM
model model
Performance-Based Framework

How do we take advantage of a performance-based framework in development

of load and resistance factors?

We need to be able to predict a hazard curve for the EDPs of interest, which will
consist of pile cap displacements/rotations

We can subdivide response model into two components

EDP (edp)   G  EDP | LM G  LM | IM  dIM

Pile Pile
Engineering Demand cap Load cap Intensity
Parameter, EDP response Measure, LM load Measure, IM
model model

From structural analysis – assume computed

loads are median loads, assume ln LM|IM
Performance-Based Framework

How do we take advantage of a performance-based framework in development

of load and resistance factors?

We need to be able to predict a hazard curve for the EDPs of interest, which will
consist of pile cap displacements/rotations

We can subdivide response model into two components

EDP (edp)   G  EDP | LM G  LM | IM  dIM

Pile Pile
Engineering Demand cap Load cap Intensity
Parameter, EDP response Measure, LM load Measure, IM
model model

From pile group response analyses – OpenSees

models of pile groups under multiple initial load states
subjected to multiple motions
Computing Load Measure, LM | IM

How do we evaluate pile group response to dynamic loading?

Compute representative structural response to input motion – LM|IM

Choose structural configuration and build model – SAP / OpenSees

Compute foundation stiffnesses – from OpenSees results

Compute foundation damping – DYNA4

Apply input motions at ends of springs

Compute pile cap deflections

Check foundation stiffness and iterate until

compatible with displacements

Compute vertical load, horizontal loads (2),

and overturning moments (2) at top of pile cap
Computing Load Measure, LM | IM

How do we evaluate pile group response to dynamic loading?

Compute representative structural response to input motion – LM|IM

Choose structural configuration and build model – SAP

Compute foundation stiffnesses – from OpenSees results

Compute foundation damping – use DYNA4

Apply input motions at ends of springs

Compute pile cap deflections

LM|IM
Check foundation stiffness and iterate until
compatible with displacements

Compute vertical load, horizontal loads (2),

and overturning moments (2) at top of pile cap
Input to OpenSees Model

Loading Histories

ATC-49 Bridge 4
W= 725 k, H = 20 ft
To = 0.5 sec
P/f’cAg = 0.10
3 x 3 group of 24” piles in clay

SAP model – fiber

model for column
allows yielding
Input to OpenSees Model

Ground motions

Suite of 45 three-component NGA ground motions identified

Representative of softer
Class C to stiffer Class D
(270-560 m/sec)

Binned over three

magnitude ranges, three
distance ranges

Epsilon for Sa(0.5) and

Sa(1.0) near zero
FN
Input to OpenSees Model

Ground motions

Suite of 45 three-component NGA ground motions identified

Representative of softer
Class C to stiffer Class D
(270-560 m/sec)

Binned over three

magnitude ranges, three
distance ranges

Epsilon for Sa(0.5) and

Sa(1.0) near zero
FP
Input to OpenSees Model

Ground motions

Suite of 45 three-component NGA ground motions identified

Representative of softer
Class C to stiffer Class D
(270-560 m/sec)

Binned over three

magnitude ranges, three
distance ranges

Epsilon for Sa(0.5) and

Sa(1.0) near zero
UP
Computing Pile Group Response, EDP | LM

How do we evaluate pile group response to dynamic loading?

Compute pile group response to loading histories – EDP|LM

OpenSees pile model

Matlab script developed to automate

OpenSees model development

N x M pile group at spacing x, y

Arbitrarily thick pile cap

Pile segment length definable

Piles can be linear or nonlinear (fiber)

p-y, t-z, Q-z behavior by Boulanger model

OpenSees Model Results

Computed response

Initial vertical force, Q = 0.6Qult

~ 5 mm Vertical
displacement

Horizontal
displacement

Rocking
rotation
OpenSees Model Results

Computed response

Multiple motions – how should response be characterized?

Multiple measures of force and displacement are involved

Pre-earthquake static demand

+ peak dynamic demand

Pre-earthquake static demand

OpenSees Model Results

Computed response

Multiple motions – how should response be characterized?

Multiple measures of force and displacement are involved

Dynamic
loading
OpenSees Model Results

Computed response

Multiple motions – how should response be characterized?

Multiple measures of force and displacement are involved

Dynamic
loading
OpenSees Model Results

Computed response

Multiple motions – how should response be characterized?

Depends on how design is to be checked

If force-based, we need to predict udp (or udm) as function of Fps/Fult

If displacement-based, need to predict udp (or udm) as function of ups

OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Curve is qualitatively similar

to Makdisi-Seed curve
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Vertical
displacement
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Horizontal
displacement
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Rocking
rotation
OpenSees Model Results

Displacement-based approach

Check based on relationship between permanent displacement, wdp, and

pseudo-static displacement, wps

Requires user to
estimate pseudo-
static displacements
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Vertical
displacement
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Horizontal
displacement
OpenSees Model Results

Force-based approach

Check based on relationship between peak force, Qps, and capacity, Qult

Rocking
rotation
Framework Development

Model development

Need to be able to predict dynamic displacements/rotations given

Initial static loading
Dynamic loading

Letting the loading be represented by pseudo-static load ratios

 Vx ,d Vx ,d Qd M x ,d M y ,d 
udp , vdp , wdp , x,dp , y ,dp   f  , , , , 

 V y , s V y , s Qs M x , s M y , s 

or, using pseudo-static displacements

u dp 
, vdp , wdp ,  x ,dp , y ,dp   f u ps , v ps , w ps ,  x , ps ,  y , ps 
Framework Development

Framework development

Develop probabilistic IM – LM – EDP relationship

Actual pile Computed pile

displacement displacement

Computed pile Pile Soil Pile-soil int. Load

displacement properties , properties , properties , measure
D
L
EI
Strength-based
My
Pile driving formula-based
Qult
Wave equation-based
Pile load test-based
Framework Development

Framework development

Develop probabilistic IM – LM – EDP relationship. First – EDP |LM

Actual pile Computed pile

displacement displacement

Computed pile Pile Soil Pile-soil int. Load

displacement properties , properties , properties , measure

FOSM-based collapse
Computed pile Load
displacement measure

Actual pile Load

displacement measure
Framework Development

Framework development

Develop probabilistic IM – LM – EDP relationship. Next – LM|IM

Actual load Computed

measure load measure

Computed Structural Foundation Foundation Intensity

load measure properties , stiffness , damping , measure

FOSM-based collapse
Computed Intensity
load measure measure

Actual load Intensity

measure measure
Framework Development

Framework development

Develop probabilistic IM – LM – EDP relationship

Pile Load Load Intensity

displacement measure measure measure

Pile Intensity
EDP
displacement IM
measure

Capacities

Load and resistance factors

Summary

Performance-based design concepts can be implemented in LRFD format

Form is familiar to practicing engineers
Additional analyses should not be required

For pile foundations, development process is complicated by

Wide range of bridge types, geometries, properties, …
Wide range of pile foundation types, geometries, properties, …
Wide range of initial, static loading conditions
Wide range of dynamic responses
Number of uncertain variables

Introduction of intermediate variable, LM, can allow efficiency in number of

cases requiring analysis

Results will provide useful tool for exploring consequences of various

implementation decisions on load and resistance factors
 Thank you

You’re welcome