DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS
2008
Learning Outcomes
Comprehend the basics of soil dynamics as related to soilstructure interaction modeling Know the major field tests that are used for evaluating the dynamic soil properties Design shallow and pile foundations for rotary machine and seismic loads Know the major steps for determining the seismic stability of cantilever and gravity retaining walls Apply the capacity spectrum method for evaluating the seismic performance of large caissons
LECTURE NOTES
M.H. EL NAGGAR M.NOVAK
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA, N6A 5B9
Course Content
1. Basic Notions: Mathematical models , degrees of freedom , types of dynamic loads, types of foundations, excitation forces of machines. 2. Shallow Foundations: Definition of stiffness , damping and inertia , circular and non circular foundation , soil inhomogeneity, embedded footings , impedance function of a layer on half-space. 3. Pile Foundations: PHe applications, mathematical models, stiffness and damping of piles, pile groups, impedance functions of pile groups, nonlinear pile response, pile batter.
4. Dynamic Response of Machine Foundations: Response of rigid foundations in 1 OaF, effects of vibration, coupled response of rigid foundations, 6 OaF response of rigid foundations, response of structures on flexible foundations.
5. Dynamic Response of Hammer Foundations: Types of hammers and hammer foundations, design criteria , stiffness and damping of different foundations, mathematical models, impact forces , response of one mass foundation, response of two mass foundation, impact eccentricity, structural design .
6. Vibration Damage and Remedial Measures Damage and disturbance, problem assessment and evaluation , remedial principles, examples from different industries, sources of error. 7. Computer Workshop - DYNA5 Types of foundations, types of soil models, types of load , types of analysis and types of output, practical considerations, computer work on DYNA5.
BASIC NOTIONS
BASIC NOTIONS
Statics deals with forces and displacements that are invariant in time. Dynamics considers forces and displacements that vary with time at a rate that is high enough to generate inertia forces of significance. Then, the external forces, called dynamic loads or excitation forces , produce time dependent displacements of the system called dynamic response. This response is usually oscillatory but its nature depends on the character of the dynamic forces as well as on the character of the system. Thus , one system may respond in different ways depending on the type of excitation. Conversely, one type of excitation can cause various types of response depending on the kind of structure . Mathematical models. The systems considered in dynamics are the same as those met in statics, i.e. buildinqs, bridges, towers, dams, foundations, soil deposits etc. For the analysis of a system a suitable mathematical model must be chosen. There are two types of models, which differ in the way in which the mass of the structure is accounted for. In distributed mass models, the mass is considered as it actually occurs, that is, distributed along the elements of the structure . In lumped mass models the mass is concentrated (lumped or discretized) into a number of points. These lumped masses are viewed as particles whose mass but not size or shape is of importance in the analysis. There is no
rotational inertia associated with the motion of the lumped masses and translational displacements suffice to describe their position. Between the lumped masses the structural elements are considered as massless . Examples of distributed and lumped mass models are shown in Fig. 1.1. As the number of concentrated masses increases,
the lumped mass model converges to the distributed model. In rigid bodies (Fig. 1.1c), mass moment of inertia is considered as well as mass .
Figure 1.1
--
-~
-A......
.::IL
t
(b) lumped mass models
.,
(c)
- I.:
rigid bodies
Degrees of freedom
The type of the model and the directions of its possible displacements determine the number of degrees of freedom that a system possesses. The number of degrees of
----~- --
.:
I,
---------
---
- -- -- -
)~
l, ;'
r:
must be specified in order to define the position of the system at any time. One lumped mass has three degrees of freedom in space corresponding to three possible
translations, and two degrees of freedom in a plane. If a lumped mass can move only either vertically or horizontally it has one degree of freedom. Thus, if the vertical motion of a bridge is investigated using a model with three lumped masses and axial deformations are neglected, there are three degrees of freedom (displacements). However, a rigid body such as a footing has significant mass moments of inertia and hence rotations have to be considered as well . Three possible translations and three possible rotations represent six degrees of freedom for a rigid body in space . A distributed mass model can be viewed as a lumped mass model with infinitesimal distances between adjoining masses . Such a system has an infinite number of degrees of freedom . This does not necessarily complicate the analysis however.
--------
Periodic Loads can be produced by centrifugal forces due to unbalance in rotating and
reciprocating machines, shedding of vortices from cylindrical bodies exposed to air flow
and other mechanisms. The simplest form of a periodic force is a harmonic force. Such a force may represent the components of a rotating vector of a centrifugal force in the vertical or horizontal directions.
_t
If the vector P rotates with circular frequency w, the orientation of the vector at time t is given by the angle wt (Fig. 1-2) The components of the vector P in the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively, are:
P; (t)
= Psin(wt)
p,,(t) = PCOS({tJt)
These forces are harmonic with amplitude P and frequency to. The period measured in seconds is T
=Znk,
which follows from the condition that in one period one complete The frequency measured in cycles per
f=~=~
T
21f
Consider now the joint effect of two harmonic forces having different amplitudes P1 and P2 , different frequencies
(01
and
W2
r .-
t,
r
,'"'1
I
;r,.
(
"
. ,I
. f
)
j
"
I
"
,I 1
I
( I
I
J
I
7
. I
-,
The time history of the resultant can be generated by projecting the resulting, rotating vector R horizontally. The character of the time history depends on the ratio of the
amplitudes, the ratio of the frequencies and the phase shift. When the two frequencies are equal, the resultant force is harmonic (Fig. 1.3a). When the frequency ratio
W2 /W1
is
an irrational number, the resultant force is not periodic (Fig. 1.1 b). When the ratio
0)2 /OJ1
is a rational number, the resultant force is periodic but not harmonic (Fig. 1.1 c). However, the envelope of the resultant force is always periodic. When the two frequencies and the two amplitudes do not differ very much, a phenomenon called beating occurs; the force periodically increases and diminishes, similarly to Fig. 1.3b, with frequency of the peaks being
W2 - W1
In general, a periodic function can be represented by a series of harmonic components whose amplitudes and frequencies can be established using Fourier analysis. Therefore, knowledge of the harmonic case facilitates the treatment of more complicated types of excitation.
'.1
( .
r,
-(
r
('
./'
/
I
--
-
"'
""
'
/
I
\
\
-,
.-
\.../.
a)
,/
--t
,,
P, (t)-:.A sin wit ~ (f)"B sin(w2t fJr)
b}
,/
.......
P, =P2
6)2
e
W, . 1, 188. . "
",
-,
-,
\,
/
/
'\
'\
\
I
I
\ \
'\J
I I
\
--,\
I
w{
,,
/
/
",'\
\,
.....
P, (t) ~ P, sm
~ (I )~f3
W, t
""'--
P'="S ~
wr!,5w,
sin(w2t.,.. Jf)
c)
the foundation response, T (Fig. 1.5). Such loading is characteristic of impacts associated with the operation of hammers and presses . The limited duration of the impact makes it possible to base the analysis of the response on the consideration of the collision between two free bodies.
approach over the deterministic approach is that the analysis covers all events having the same statistical features rather than one specific time history .
10
P(f)
p( t)
. _.
'-r
k
(
(.,
fJt
1J.f T - 1/0
o
P(f)
t
Figure 1.6: Random loading
Sp(f)
o
a) Time History
Frequency, f
b) Power Spectrum
11
Types of foundations.
Machine foundations are designed as block foundations, wall foundations, mat foundations or frame foundations. Block foundations, the most common type, and wall foundations behave as rigid bodies . Mat foundations of small depth may behave as elastic slabs. Sometimes the foundation features a joint slab supporting a few rigid
blocks for individual machines. The foundations can rest directly on soil (shallow foundations) or on piles (deep foundations). response . The type of foundation may result in considerable differences in
The vibration of rigid foundations is characterized by three translations, u, v, w and three rotations,
S, \V, 11 - These
(Cartesian) axes X, Y, Z. The origin of this system is most conveniently placed in the joint centre of gravity (CG) of the foundation and the machine (Fig. 1.7). The orientation of the axis and the signs of all displacements and forces are governed by the right-hand rule. The translations u, v, wand the forces P, , P, positive if they follow the positive directions of the axis. The rotations
I
P, are
S, 'V' 11 and
moments Mx , My ,Mz are positive if they are seen to act in the clockwise direction when looking in te positive directions of the corresponding axis, i.e. away from the origin .
12
Z,w,F;
13
14
w
-I
~/1:::\.-~,
(-{-0)(_-'
/'1" ........ :r::J:l' r:.... , , / _+1 ~ IY '-.! -"'",H ;,. ~ ~ . .., . :" .~': . ' ,,,
I I
~.
<,
/'~
. ~:
. ~i'/ ,.
~ .I '
'/
~.
'
..
I
II'
tlJ
-
,......
16
u. . _
JIf
fJ1
--
l.P
ll.tc
..
/.
117
..
r1J
-.
_..__ ... ,
,
,
r ~~---"'1
iI
.
I
I
. .
I
.... ..
eli'
;------I
,
)
"
.
I
15
PAD
FOUNDATION
BLOCK
16
:.. l,]t'
~ ~ t - - -l,,-
- - - - - - -----r ... .
~
'."
'
-~"1
-11-
Figure 1.15: Pile Supported R.C. Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator
- _. "/4"-
17
" -~
-"
r I
r-. t - - - - - - ,
I
Ii
a) elevation view
_7-~ ~-~.L
I
~ :
. I
b) plan view
18
Figure 1.17: Very Light Steel Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator
'- ' -
...... -.--
- - I
- --
_. -
- '-'-'I
'"~
I I I I I
= -l
--..;;;::;:_,o::::. ::~1'l~;:;;>
-. ... _- --r---
-(#,... . ,
~-
---- -
-- - -
J~
.)~
~ /, ~~ ~~i'~~~~r~&{1,/ ~0;1
/I'lI4
19
e xWe .....
(I
(V
.l....t. "
c'
~o
"-'1..
= In rotating machines the excitation forces stem from centrifugal forces associate
':;"'/-with
ru
"",J <
residual unbalances. Their magnitude can be estimated on the basis of balancing experiments or experience. The centrifugal force is represented by vertical and horizontal forces, the amplitude P for rigid rotors is usually defined as:
'" \ \.,\ .1 :
rl ('~ '
Q. . \
7
'I .
ftf, e.
~ ,
I." J
t ' l ( ".. )
and co = circular frequency of rotation. The magnitude of e is typically a fraction of a " . tr . C; , .( millimeter such a s,I Q1-0~rnrn.]
I ! ,
{ it
In reciprocating machines the excitation forces stem from inertial forces and centrifugal forces associated with the motion of the pistons, the fly wheel and the crank mechanism . Many of these forces can be balanced by counterweights but often, higher harmonic components and couples remain unbalanced. In design situations the
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The design of foundations for vibrating equipment is always governed by displacement considerations. The displacement of foundations subjected to dynamic loads depends on i) the type and geometry of the foundation ; ii) the flexibility of the supporting ground; and iii) the type of the dynamic loading. The main objective of the design is to limit the response amplitudes of the foundation in all vibration modes to the specified tolerance. Usually the tolerance is set by the machine manufacturer to ensure a satisfactory performance of the machine and minimum disturbance for people working in its
immediate vicinity.
cases is to limit vibration propagating from the footing into the surroundings.
DESIGN CRITERIA
\ .. I
"
Factors that may be included in the design requirements . 1 ,_ static requirements for bearing capacity and settlement.
.
'
}
ij~ ~ .
(
, I .... ' :
~
ot"
\
'
C'
_.
,1 -. ft
limiting velocity limiting acceleration maximum dynamic magnification factor maximum transmissibility factor resonance conditions 3. Possible modes of vibration
vertical; horizontal; torsional; rocking; pitching and possibility of coupled modes.
4. Possible fatigue failures in the machine, in the structure, or in connections.
5. Environmental considerations physical and physiological effects on people effects on nearby sensitive equipment possible resonance of structural components consideration of foundation isolation 6. Economy initial cost
L
1 ./ ''rI
,J
,I
I
\
I
.-- '
I '
~ 1'.'
2]
I"
i.,
+ .
Ir1
('"
!
\
\
I
..\
1
, '( .1
~. . r: ,-.
I .
, (1
"
~
l~
1 2
I ,
','r,'
{ (,' I
r<Ri i(t--{
c
-T
(,
2- Establishing the soil profile and determining the soil properties required for the analysis (Shear modulus, mass density, Poisson's ratio and material damping ratio). 3- Select the type and trial dimensions of the foundation and with clients input , establish the performance criteria.
r
1,. '1
4- Compute the dynamic response of the trial foundation (step 3) supported by the given soil profile (step 2) due to the estimated load (step 1) and compare the response with the performance criteria. If the response is not satisfactory, modify the dimensions of the foundation (step 3) and repeat the analysis until satisfactory design is achieved .
~
~
(~
,
;..
.."
DESIGN INFORMATION
To carry out the design of a foundation system to support a vibration producing equipment, certain loading and site parameters must be known or evaluated. The
information required for the design can be generally categorized into three main groups: machine properties, soil and foundation parameters, and environmental requirements.
22
Machine Properties The machine properties required for the determination of the loading function include: 1- Outline drawing of machine assembly 2- Weight of machine and its rotor components (or head for hammers) 3- Location of center of gravity both vertically and horizontally 4- Speed ranges of machine and components or frequency of unbalanced primary and secondary forces 5- Magnitude and direction of unbalanced forces both vertically and horizontally and their points of application 6- Limits (tolerance) of deflection (total or differential) and vibration amplitudes to satisfy the machine functions. To calculate the magnitude of the unbalanced forces, the eccentricity of the rotating parts is required . Arya et aI., 1979 give some guidelines to establish the design
~ ',
'If
'~
\
Soil and Foundation Parameters Knowledge of the soil formation (soil profile) and its properties is required for the dynamic analysis. The information is to be obtained from field borings (or soundings)
\ . '{J
~"
and laboratory tests. The following parameters are required for the dynamic analysis : density of soil, "/' or mass density, p. 1- Poisson's ratio, v.
2- shear modulus of soil, G, at several levels of strain.
3- material damping ratio, 0, at several levels of strain .
23
,)
"-
~ "'l
0....
",'
,,/'
,;:<.
'"'l
-~
F
(-
V'
6J "
/ )
6'
/ '
,.
' {..
'&
'. c
I (
jt -,
I.
,J
2- base dimensions for the machine and other components attached to it.
3- type of foundation system to be used (recommended by the geotechnical consultant) .
~, ( ~ L
, f
For piled
.l
/
c
foundations, the number of piles, pile geometry (diameter or width and cross-sectional area), pile length and spacing between piles are required on top of the configuration of the foundation block. 5- the material properties of the foundation (unit weight of the concrete or steel, the Poisson's ratio and elastic modulus).
n /
.s:
Environmental Requirements
(l
r "'~ !
L
The machinery produces vibrations that may travel to the neighboring vicinity.
If the
vibration amplitudes are significant, some measures have to be taken to minimize the environmental impact of the machine (this is a major concern for shock producing equipment). On the other hand, there can be some situations where the machine is installed in the vicinity of vibration sources such as quany blasting, vehicular traffic or in a seismic active area. In this case , the information requested should include the character of the vibration and the attenuation at the installation site . The effects of seismic forces have to be addressed using special techniques that deal with the wave propagation and ground response analyses.
24
The dynamic response of foundations, just as the response of other systems, depends on stiffness and damping -characteristics. This chapter presents a general introduction to this subject and a summary of approaches and formulae that can be used to evaluate the stiffness and damping of shallow foundations. structures with shallow foundations are shown in Fig. 2.0. Figure 2.0: Typical Structures with Shallow Foundations a) offshore rigs Examples of
Ice
c) buitdings
; ... -
-~ . ~
-~ _. .-~ ...
24
d) machine foundations
Stiffness
The basic mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis of various systems is a lumped mass with a spring and dashpot (Fig. 2.1). If the mass, rn, is free to move in only one direction, e.g. vertical, it is said to have one degree of freedom. The behavior of the mass depends on the nature of both the spring and the dashpot. Figure 2.1: Basic Model of Single Degree of Freedom System
+v
~
T
k .'---;---~-' ----1--~.-
~V
==
c=J c
The spring, presumed to be massless, represents the elasticity of the system and is characterized by the stiffness constant k. The stiffness constant is defined as the
25
force that would produce a unit compression (or extension) v of the spring in the positive direction of the displacement of-the mass . For displacements other than unity, the force in the spring (the restoring force) is kv. In dynamics, displacements vary with time, t, and thus v = v(t). However, because the spring is massless, the stiffness constant is equal to static stiffness k
kv, is independent
p (f)
. .
m s -,
?0'Y..J" ;///.
r- --
k = canst. k
"
FREO UElvCY W
b)
c)
Now apply the same concept of stiffness definition to a harmonically vibrating column, which possesses mass and has its mass distributed along its length (Fig. 2.2a) . For an approximate analysis at low frequency, the distributed mass can be replaced by a concentrated (lumped) mass m., This mass is attached to the top of the column and the column itself can be considered massless (Fig. 2.2b). Consequently, the stiffness of this massless column can be described by a static stiffness constant, kst, which is independent of the frequency . The elastic force in the column just below the mass is kstv for any displacement, v. However, the total restoring force generated by the column at the top of the lumped mass is the sum of the elastic force in the column and the
26
inertial force of the mass. If the displacement varies in harmonic fashion, such that;
vet) = V cas( CO t)
in which v is the displacement amplitude and
CD
(2.1 )
is the frequency, the acceleration is:
(j--Ilf
~~
~ ~ .f.
I
J I V
"
- r[
In the absence of damping, the relation between the external harmonic force and the displacement is:
Stiffness, being the constant of proportionality between the applied force displacement, becomes :
'H
JO
and
. l ~....... '
1. ',C:
"_'
f'- ~.
o
""
v
~t
i,.-"",~
Iii
'./ .
-~
..
i
t r
( ~: ......)
"
CA..
.;1.-
tV"
c:
(2.2)
-;...
(I
Thus, with vibration of an element having distributed mass, the dynamic stiffness constant generally varies with frequency. At low frequency this variation is sometimes close to parabolic as the example considered here and presented in Fig. 2.2c suggests. The column used in this example may be a column of soil and it thus appears obvious that a soil deposit may feature stiffness constants that are frequency dependent. The magnitude and character of the effect of frequency depends on the size of the body,
27
vibration mode, soil layering and other factors. Another way of accounting for the parabolic variation of dynamic stiffness with frequency is to add the lumped mass , rn., representing the mass of the supporting medium, to the vibrating mass, m and consider the stiffness as constant and equal to the static stiffness. Equation 2.2 suggests this approach . However. a quadratic parabola only in some cases can represent the variation of dynamic stiffness with frequency and the added mass is not the same for all vibration modes . For these reasons, it is usually preferable to consider dynamic stiffness as frequency dependent and to forego the added mass. Finally , if the frequency range of interest is not very wide, it is often
sufficient to replace the variable dynamic stiffness by a constant representative of the true stiffness in the vicinity of the dominant frequency (Fig. 2.2c)
Damping
The dashpot in the model shown in Fig. 2.1 represents damping caused by energy dissipation. Like the restoring forces, the damping forces oppose the motion but the energy dissipated through damping cannot be recovered. A characteristic feature of damping forces is that they lag the displacement and are out of phase with the motion. In soils, the energy of vibration is dissipated through two mechanisms: propagation of elastic waves away from the source and inelastic deformation of soil. The former mechanism results from the practical infinity of the soil medium and is referred to as geometric or radiation damping. It is close to viscous in character. Inelastic deformation of soil manifests itself in the form of a hysteretic loop and is considered as material or hysteretic damping .
28
. dv cv=c dt
(2.3)
in which c is the constant of viscous damping. The damping constant c is defined as the force associated with a unit velocity. Viscous damping describes quite well the resistance p of viscous fluids to motion of subrnerqed bodies, hence the term. To
commemorate the scholars who were the first to extensively employ this type of damping model, viscous damping is also known as Kelvin or Voigt damping . If the mass indicated in Fig. 2.1 vibrates in a harmonic fashion described by Equation 2.1, the viscous damping force is:
cv = -CVoOJ sineOJt)
(2.4)
and its amplitude (peak value) is cVO(J). Hence, for a given constant c and displacement amplitude vo. the amplitude of the viscous damping force is proportional to frequency (Fig. 2.3).
C)
iL-----
o
<t
~
HYSTERUIC
FREOUUJCY W
Hysteretic or material damping results from the dissipation of energy due to the
29
imperfect elasticity of real materials, which under cyclic loading, exhibit a hysteretic loop (Fig. 2.4) . The amount of energy dissipated is given by the area of the hysteretic loop. For most materials, including soil, the amount of the dissipated energy depends on strain (displacement) but is essentially independent of frequency just as the hysteretic damping shown in Fig. 2.3. Figure 2.4: Hysteretic Loop
T
The hysteretic loop implies a phase shift between the stress and strain because there is a stress at zero strain and vice versa as can be seen from Fig. 2.4. Thus, the basic stress-strain relations of elasticity such as r
= Gy
have to be extended to
accommodate the phase shift . This is conveniently achieved by the introduction of the complex shear modulus in which the real shear modulus G is complemented by an imaginary (out-of-phase) component Gr. Then, the complex shear modulus can be defined as:
G* =G+iG'=G(l+i
G')
G
(2.5)
The dimensionless ratio G'/G may be expressed in terms of the "loss angle" 0 such that
tan(5)
G' G
(2.6)
30
/l = -
G'
2G
1 -tan(tS) 2
With these dimensionless measures of material damping, the complex shear modulus IS
G* = G(l + itan(6))
(2.7)
= G(l + i2/l)
The magnitude of the material damping can be established experimentally using the hysteretic loop and the relation
/l=-.
4JZ" W
sw
(2.8)
in which I1W is the area enclosed by the hysteretic loop and W is the strain energy (Fig. 2.4) , a typical value of is 0.05 (5%). The material damping of soils is constant for small strains (y ~10-2%) but increases with strain due to the nonlinear behaviour of soils . Conversely, the shear modulus decreases with strain. The terms material or hysteretic damping are usually meant to imply frequency independent damping. If material damping proportional to frequency is to be described, the definition of the complex modulus can be modified by replacing
constant. Such damping would actually be viscous as in Eq. 2.4 . In experiments, the difference between the two types of material damping can be clearly recognized in the area: of the hysteretic loop measured at a constant level of strain at different frequencies (Fig. 2.5). Such experiments indicate that frequency independent hysteretic damping is much more typical of soils than viscous damping because the area of the
31
hysteretic loop does not grow in proportion to frequency. Figure 2.5: Hysteretic Loops at 2 Different Frequencies:
T
a) Hysteretic
b) Viscous
established total stiffness was divided by the base area to define the so-called subgrade modulus, which was considered to depend only on the type of soil. Sometimes
corrections were introduced to allow for some variation of subgrade modulus with base area and the direction of vibration. Alternatively to the experimental method, stiffness constants were obtained by means of static analysis of the continuum and damping was estimated . Presently, the prevalent trend is to obtain the stiffness and damping of foundations using dynamic analysis of a three dimensional or two dimensional continuum representing the soil medium . The continuum is modeled as an elastic or viscoelastic halfspace whose surface limits the extent of the soil medium. The halfspace can be homogeneous or nonhomogeneous (layered) and isotropic or anisotropic. The
32
governing equations are solved analytically or by means of numerical methods such as the finite element method. The analytical solutions were initiated by Reissner (1936) and have undergone rapid development since then. Many researchers contributed to this development: Bycroft, 1965; Luco and Westman, 1971; Veletsos and Verbic, 1973; Kobori et al, 19 71 to name only a few. The finite element method was applied to the dynamics of a continuum by Lysmer and
Kuhlerneyer, 1969, Kausel et al., 1975 and others. The refinement of both the analytical
and numerical techniques and the extension of their versatility contributed greatly to the increase in the popularity as well as the credibility of the continuum approaches. Although further improvements and corrections of these approaches are needed, their principal advantages are that they account for energy dissipation through elastic waves (geometric damping), provide for systematic analysis , and describe soil properties by constants, which can be established by independent experiments. In the continuum approaches, the stiffness and damping constants of foundations are obtained by the theoretical determination of the relationship between a harmonic force acting on a massless disc resting on the surface of the halfspace and the resulting displacement of the disc. considered complex, i.e. For mathematical convenience, the harmonic force is
is circular frequency. The resulting displacement of the disc is also complex, Canceling the time function eicot from P(t)
=v eiu)t.
brevity,
the relation between the applied force and displacement is obtained as:
33
(2.9a) in which the complex stiffness (impedance function) is (2.9b) The complex stiffness has a real part K1 = ReK and an imaginary part
K2 =
ImK. The
real part represents the true stiffness and defines directly the stiffness constant of the base
k=K 1 =ReK
(2.10)
The imaginary part of the complex stiffness, K2 describes the out-of-phase component and represents the damping due to energy dissipation in the halfspace. Because this damping generally grows with frequency, resembling viscous damping as in Fig. 2.3, it can also be defined in terms of the constant of equivalent
VISCOUS
damping
2 c=--= --
(j) (j)
lInK
(2.11)
k + iaic
(2.12)
P
or
(k + ioicyv
(2.13)
P = kv + CV
in which both k and c are real and
(2.14)
v:::
dv/dt is velocity.
34
Jt the damping force in Eq. 2.13 becomes equations for harmonic motion For v(t)= voeiG
iaicv - ito cv 0 e
i (()t
\1 t- . Co
C'.
--.
J -
, V
I
I
r:
l'
I.
The stiffness K as well as the constants k and c generally depends on frequency and other factors. The elastic halfspacetheory indicates that the effect of frequency can be lumped with a few other factors into dimensionless frequency,
r .
(2.15)
in which R = radius of the base , Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil and p = mass density of the soil.
Material damping can be incorporated into the stiffness and damping of the
footing in a few ways. The most direct way is to introduce the complex shear modulus (or, more generally, complex Lame's constants) into the governing equations of the soil medium at the beginning of the analysis and to carry out the whole solution with material damping included. Another way is to carry out the purely elastic solution first and to introduce material damping into the results of the elastic analysis by means of the correspondence
35
consists of the replacement of the real modulus G by the complex shear modulus G* (Eq. 2.7). This replacement must be done consistently wherever G occurs in the results of the elastic solution. This implies even in the shear wave velocity V s and the dimensionless frequency given by Eq. 2.15 which, consequently, also become complex. Therefore, all functions which depend on ao are complex as well. The substitution of G* can easily be done if analytical expressions for the stiffness K or constants k and care available from the elastic solution. With the material damping included, the constants K1 , K2 and k, c have the same meaning as before but depend also on tano (or (3). The above procedures for the inclusion of material damping into an elastic solution are accurate but not always convenient. When the elastic solution is obtained using a numerical method, the impedance functions are obtained in a digital or graphical form and analytical expressions are not available . Then, an approximate approach is often used whereby the complex modulus replaces only the real modulus occurring in front of the dimensionless expressions for stiffness and damping but not in the dimensionless frequency ao. Thus for the complex stiffness described using the true stiffness and damping constants of Eq. 2.12 hysteretic damping may be accounted for by multiplying the complex stiffness evaluated without regard to material damping by
(1 + i2(3) to give:
K,
(k + iOJc) (1 + i2fJ)
(2.16)
(2.17)
Defining again the true stiffness as kh = ReKh and the constant of equivalent viscous
36
damping as ch = ImK/w, the stiffness and damping constants incorporating material damping are:
k h -:=k-2j3cOJ
Ch =C+-
(2.18a)
2f3k
OJ
(2.18b)
in which k and c are calculated assuming perfect elasticity with c accounting only for geometric damping. Comparison with the accurate approach indicates that the approximate Eqs. 2.18 give sufficient accuracy at low dimensionless frequencies but that the accuracy deteriorates with increasing frequency. Eqs. 2.18 are very illustrative. They indicate that material damping reduces stiffness but increases damping. The degree of these effects depends on the magnitude of material damping and on whether this damping is defined as hysteretic (by the constant p) or as viscous (by Ww) These effects are shown in Fig. 2.6. The effect of frequency independent hysteretic damping is shown as well as the effect of material damping proportional to frequency (viscous damping). The assumption of viscous damping may overestimate the effect of material damping particularly at high
frequencies . The constant hysteretic damping results in the equivalent viscous damping constant 2Pk/w which varies with frequency and approaches infinity for co
---t
O.
37
\
\ / HYSTERETIC .....
--~----
..... "
NO MAT. DAMPING
- --------
"
FREQUENCY
2.2 Stiffness and Damping of Shallow Foundations Using the theory of the elastic halfspace and assuming linearity, stiffness and damping
------
constants can be evaluated for various shapes of the foundation base and different types of soil medium. However, the basic case is one of a circular disc. The results of the theory can be used even for non-circular shapes if an equivalent circular base of suitable radius replaces the real noncircular base. The radius of the equivalent circular base , the equivalent radius for brevity, is usually determined by equating the areas of the actual and equivalent bases for vertical and horizontal translation, the moments of inertia (second moment of area) for rotation in the vertical plane (rocking) and the polar
38
following equivalent radii are obtained for rectangular bases having dimensions a and b (Fig. 2.7): Figure 2.7: Notation for Calculation of Equivalent Radii of Rectangular Bases
tZ,W
:
-t
. I
R
"
~C"
<,
lb --p,u
---i
~if.t
/ 7 7 / / / / / / / 1 / // / / /
I
X,U
777 - --
/
./
..1
Y,v a
.1
R=f!
R=~ 31Z"
Iff
2.19a
Rocking
2.19b
Torsion
-4
'7 - ,
ab(a 61r
2+b 2 )
2.19c
For rocking, two different equivalent radii are needed for the horizontal directions. The equivalent radius works very well for square areas and quite well for rectangular
39
areas with ratios alb of up to 2 (Kobori et aI., 1971) With increasing ratio alb, the accuracy of this approach decreases. For very long foundations the assumption of an infinite strip foundation may be better suited.
Surface Foundations
For circular bases or equivalent circular bases the complex stiffness Kj associated with direction i can be expressed in terms of the true stiffness constant, kj ~ r l.: ' 1.(,", '- r r. : 'c _ I. and damping constant, c as: /'/ --..~
.
(2,20)
s, =k[kj'(ao)+iaoc\(ao)J
-
in which k, is static stiffness, ao = dimensionless frequency and k'j and e'i are stiffness and the damping constants normalized as follows :
k' .=
I
k.
I
Ie I
c'.=~c"
I
v
I
k .R
(2.21)
In the case of an isotropic homogeneous halfspace, the static stiffness constants for the vertical translation, v, horizontal translation sliding) u, rocking, and torsion, n, are
k = 4GR
v
1 -v
(2.22a)
8GR
2-v
(2.22b)
8GR 3
k= - - (2.22c) V I 3(1- v)
40
(2.22d) in which v is Poisson's ratio. These expressions are approximate and torsion in particular can be in error because, in reality, the torsional stiffness can be affected by slippage of the foundation . There is also a small coupling stiffness between 'V and u but this can usually be neglected . The normalized, dimensionless stiffness and damping constants kr and
Ci
are shown in Fig. 2.8. Figure 2.8 indicates how the stiffness and
damping constants vary with dimensionless frequency, ao, and Poisson's ratio, v, and suggests the frequency ranges in which the constants can approximately be taken as frequency independent. The horizontal motion is most favourable in this respect. The most frequently used frequency range for machine foundations is from ao
=0.5 to about
2.0 but higher dimensionless frequencies are also met, e.g. with large turbine generators, compressors or buildings . For the results plotted in Fig. 2.8, material damping was neglected . Yet it is important in some cases, particularly for rocking and torsion. Also, analytical
expressions or numerical data are needed for more detailed calculations . Such expressions as well as tabulated data can be found in the papers by Luco and Westmam (1971), Veletsos and Wei (1971), Veletsos and Verbie (1973), Veletsos and Nair (1974) and Wong and Lueo (1978). For impedance functions of foundations
resting on the surface of a viscoelastic halfspace, analytical expressions incorporating material damping in a more accurate way than Eqs. 2.18 are given in the appendix.
41
Figure 2.8: Dimensionless Stiffness and Damping for Circular disk on Surface of
Homogeneous Halfspace (Velestos and Verbic, 1974; Vetestos and Nair,1974:
Poisson's Ratio v = 0, 1/3 J "'12 )
'-, (I .
I
.
It'
~--- _. -
..
-:.c,_-- ."
t.
~\
\.
k'
u .
\
,
--t. . :-rr:
,~."
t
I
M~ -=- -j1
\
..... e
I 2 1_ .
'0
cr
c' v
0)
:.::::..:.:..::...._ .. --~
U~'rl?
- _ ., ..
ao
~.'
t} L--y-----.~-.__-.-~
"--~_,_-____;::----:-~......, .
x' 11
0'
0 .'
' .:!.
"
d) disk in torsion
L,
r: . . .
<1:5
I
I
~r
42
Inhomogeneity - In real situations, the soil shear modulus often increases with depth due to increasing confining pressure, i.e., the soil is not homogeneous. A
theoretical study by Werkle and Waas (1986) has shown that in such cases the geometric damping can be greatly reduced compared to that of an homgeneous halfspace. This may explain the fifty percent reduction in damping observed in field experiments (Novak, 1970).
Embedded Foundations Most footings do not rest on the surface of the soil but are partly embedded. Embedment is known to increase both stiffness and damping but the increase in damping is more significant. These effects of embedment were observed in early experiments by Novak (1964) and by others. It is very difficult to extend the elastic halfspace solution to include embedment although progress has been made. The finite element approach is well suited to the determination of stiffness and damping of embedded foundations and has been used by a number of investigators, e.g. Urlich and Kuhlemeyer (1973) and Kausel and Ushijima, 1979) An approximate but versatile approach can be formulated using the assumption that the soil reactions acting on the base of an embedded foundation can be taken as equal to those of a surface foundation (halfspace) and the reactions acting on the footing sides as equal to those of an independent layer overlying the halfspace (Fig . 2.9). The evaluation of the reactions of the layer can be simplified even further if they are calculated using the assumption of plane strain .
43
C1 ,h
.1f
ut
C ' '
I.
2R
.1
This means that these reactions are taken as equal to those of a rigid, infinitely long, massless cylinder undergoing a uniform motion in an infinite, homogeneous medium. This assumption can also be interpreted as meaning that the layer is composed of independent, infinitesimally thin layers. This concept was first employed by Baranov (1967) and was further developed by Novak and his associates (Novak and Beredugo, 1972; Beredugo and Novak, 1972; Novak and Sachs , 1973). It was found that this approximate approach works quite well and that its suitability and accuracy in creases with increasing frequency . The plane strain approach to the side reactions has many advantages: it accounts for energy radiation through wave propagation , leads to closed form solutions and allows for the variation of soil properties with depth. It can also allow for a slippage zone around the footing (Novak and Sheta, 1980; Lakshmanan and Minai, 1981). Finally, the approach is very simple and makes it possible to utilize the well established
44
solutions of surface footings since the effect of the independent side layer actually represents an approximate correction of the halfspace solutions for the embedment effect. The side reactions are described by complex, frequency dependent stiff nesses for a unit length of the embedded cylinder in a way analogous to the surface disk For a unit length of the embedded cylinder; vertical stiffness (2.23a) horizontal stiffness
K,
rocking stiffness
(2.23b)
(2.23c) torsional stiffness (2.23d) In these expressions, the shear modulus Gs and material damping 0 = tano are those of the side layer which may represent the backfill. The dimensionless parameters SJ and 8 2 relate to the real stiffness and the damping (out of phase component of the stiffness), respectively. They all depend on the dimensionless frequency,
45
in which psis the mass density of the side layer. Only the horizontal stiffness depends on Poisson's ratio, v. The mathematically accurate analytical expressions for the parameters 8 1 and 52 are given by the author et al. (1978) . The variation of parameters 8 1 and 8 2 with frequency is shown in Fig. 2.10. For the embedment I, the total stiffness is Kd. Figure 2.10: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Side Reactions (5/2 Novak et al. 1978)
= Siz i a o;
~6
z;
"' . t~
"'- 0.2
ot-I-------c,,--~o
0.5
-I
0.'
1.0
~
I ""'- r , - - ----,
o:J
~
r0 """,
1 1
,
i
0 '
~~ 1-1 ~ i
4
~ . J
::1
= .
~5
O!5 ,
) .(1
r ' I''''
'/>
It may be seen in Fig. 2.10 that as ao ---+ 0 the stiffness parameters 8 v 1 and 8 u 1 vanish. This is a consequence of the plane strain assumption. For practical application,
46
this may be empirically corrected by extending a suitable. nonzero value of Sj such as S1(ao=0.3), towards the origin as shown later herein. Such a correction is needed only for bodies featuring a very small diameter. The stiffness constants of the side layer Kv and K, depend on the radius R only through the dimensionless frequency Go = RwNs This seemingly, surprising result is, however, correct for plane strain and has been confirmed by finite element analysis. The versatility of the plane strain approach can be enhanced further if a cylindrical weakened zone is considered around the footing to account, in an approximate way, for the lack of bond between the footing and soil, non-linearity due to high strain or different properties of the backfill. With the weakened zone , the side reactions are still described by Eqs. 2.23 except that parameters S1,2 are modified. These more general parameters are available in Novak and Sheta (1980). The most prominent effect of the weakened zone is a reduction of radiation damping, which increases with frequency. The inclusion of the weakened zone may improve the agreement considerably between theory and experiment. The complex stiffness of embedded foundations can be evaluated approximately by adding the stiffness generated by footing sides and defined by Eqs. 2.23 to that generated in the base and given by Eqs. 2.20. For the vertical direction and torsion, the total stiffness and damping of the embedded foundation thus implies a simple addition of the two reactions. For the horizontal direction and rocking, coupling between the two motions has to be considered .
47
I Soil
Cohesive
Side Layer
SuI = 4.1 SuI = 4.0 S"2 = 10.6 SI/2 = 9.1 SIJI 2 =1.8
Halfspace
CUI = 5.1 C,I! = 4.7 CIJI] =4.3 CIJII =3 .3
! Granular
; ;
i
Rocking
~
; ; ; ;
Cohesive Granular
S.... I = 2.5
Torsion
I Cohesive
I
I
S"I = 10.2
S"2 = 5.4
C'I[ =4.3
= 0.7
Vertical
= 2.7
Sv2
:=
6.7
Cv1
= 7.5
C"2 = 6.8
C,.! = 5.2
CV2 = 5.0
An embedded footing implies a body of a certain depth and therefore, a horizontal translation is resisted not only by horizontal soil reactions but also by moments. This gives rise to coupling between translation and rotation and the
::::
corresponding "off-diagonal" or cross stiffness and damping constants such as k UIfI and
CU \jT
klflu
= cljiu, For coupled horizontal and rocking motion the qeneration of the stiffness
48
......-
..--...
- - -,-,
r'
c .. .j. :::--
1
I
lj!~------~
(e)
Y.,u
(a)
t,:
Stiffness
~j
or damping
Cij
indicate the force acting at the reference point in the direction i and associated with a sole unit displacement or unit velocity in the direction j. Applying the sign convention indicated in Fig. 2.11c, the stiffness and damning constants of embedded footings are: For vertical vibration
V,
(2.24b)
49
For coupled horizontal translation u and rocking \!f the stiffness constants are:
(2.26a)
(2.26b)
G t5 2 2 +_ s t5(-+ ~-t5~)S ] G 3 R2 R ul
CUll
(2.27a)
(2.27c)
50
In the equations, the embedment ratio 0= I/R, where I is the embedment deptl and Yc = the vertical distance of the reference point CG from the base. Parameters C relate to the reactions acting in the base and can be extracted from Eq. 2.20. Their variation with frequency can be seen from Fig. 2.8 Parameters S relate to the side reactions and are given by Eqs. 2.23. They are shown in Fig. 2.10. Parameters C and S are frequency dependent. However, given all the
approximations involved in modeling dynamic soil behaviour it is often sufficient to select suitable constant values to represent the parameters, at least over a limited frequency range of interest. Such constant values are suggested in Table 2.2. The
values are given for cohesive soils as well as granular soils with Poisson's ratio presumed as 0.4 and 0.25 respectively . The values shown in Table 2.2 correspond to dimensionless frequencies between 0.5 and 1.5, which are typical of average machine foundations . For other dimensionless frequencies numerically more accurate values can be computed. If a large frequency-range is of importance, parameters C and S
should be considered as frequency dependent and calculated from the forming expressions . Such expressions are given in polynomial form in Beredugo and Novak (1972), and in the Appendix to this chapter. Material damping is not included in Table 2.2 but it can be accounted for either accurately, i.e. evaluating parameters C and S with regard to material damping, or approximately by means of Eq. 2.18. Equations 2.24 to 2.27 hold for cylindrical footings that feature only one radius , R. For rectangular footings} the equivalent radius for translation, R, differs from that for rocking, R, as Eqs. 2.19 suggest and this should be incorporated into constants k'l'o/ and
51
CIjI'lf
whose generation implies both sliding and rocking . Hence, for rectangular footings,
(2.28a)
-o~)S R u2 ]
IfI
(2.28b)
For the torsional costants k'l'l and ~'1 the radius given by Eq. 2.19c should be used. These measures are, of course, approximate but the solution for rectangular embedded bodies is particularly difficult and the theory is approximate anyway. Experiments indicate that the theoretical values of stiffness and damping coefficients should be adjusted.
Adjustment of Theoretical Values First, experience has shown that the theory tends to considerably overestimate the damping in the vertical direction (Novak, 1970) . This is caused by the usual presence of interfaces between soil layers that reflect the waves back to the vibrating
52
body, reducing geometric damping. An empirical reduction of C v2 (D=O) to about one half of the values valid for homogeneous halfspace appears advisable for practical applications. On the other hand, the first resonant amplitudes of coupled response of surface footings to horizontal forces are often overestimated by several hundred percent if material damping is neglected. This discrepancy can be eliminated by the inclusion of material damping, desirable because of the low level of radiation damping in rocking. Torsional response is often predicted very poorly because of slippage. Slippage reduces stiffness and increases damping of surface foundations, (Weissmann, 1971) but reduces damping of embedded foundations (Novak and Sachs, 1973). The inclusion of the weakened zone around the footing may improve the agreement between the theory and experiments (Novak and Sheta , 1980.). On the whole, embedment effects are often overestimated because soil stiffness (shear modulus) diminishes toward the soil surface due to diminishing confining pressure. This is particularly so for backfill with which no stiffer surface crust is present and whose effects are always much less pronounced than those of undisturbed soil. The lack of confining pressure at the surface often leads to separation of the soil from the foundation and to the creation of a gap, as indicated in Fig. 2.9, which signi ficantly reduces the effectiveness of embedment. Considering an effective embedment depth smaller than the true embedment can be used as an approximate correction for this effect.
53
damping decreases or even vanishes. These effects can be seen from Fig. 2.12 in which the stiffness and damping parameters are plotted in dashed lines for layers of different depth, h, with material damping neglected . These parameters were calculated from the results due to Warburton (1957). The parameters for the halfspace and side layers are also shown for comparison. (The subscript v is deleted.) Similar behaviour is observed in other vibration modes as well and is confirmed by more general solutions of layered med [a presented by Bycroft (1956), Luco (1974) and others .
54
Figure 2.12: Stiffness and Damping Parameters for Vertical Vibr ation of Footings on Halfspace and Strata of Limited Depth (ro =R)
- -L
12- _
, , 'F' .
Ii" 10
L_
' - ----'----'
o o L--L--'------'-
0.2
--->O.4
0 .6
0.8
1.0
0"
1.2
1.4
FREOUENCY
(f:
w :E -a. cr:.
5 I
lJ1
c~
Itl l ,
=CD,,, = 0,5)
- - - - - -
( b)
0 .2
0.4
0 .6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1-4
DlI,,'.E NSIONLE5S
FREOU ENCY
55
It can be seen from Fig. 2.12 that the geometric damping of strata is quite small or even absent at low frequencies. Then, material damping may be the principal cause of energy dissipation. It can be evaluated using Eq. 2.18b. Studies of the behaviour of strata suggest that geometric damping may completely vanish if the frequency of interest, e.g. the excitation frequency, is lower than the first natural frequency of the soil layer (Kobori et aI., 1971; Nogami and Novak, 1976). For a homogeneous layer with soil shear wave velocity V s the first natural frequencies are
OJ,
= Jr
2h
~ ~2(1
u)
1-2v
(2.29 a)
remains because no progressive wave occurs to generate geometric damping in the absence of material damping and only a very weak progressive wave occurs in the presence of material damping. The damping parameters
8 2 generated 82
by material
damping alone can be established from Eqs. 2.23 by neglecting complex shear modulus defined by Eq. 2.7 for Gs . This yields constant damping parameters
(2.30a)
56
S v2 =2/3 Svl
Qo
Wh
(2.30b)
and
Wv ,
correction is most important for both the vertical and horizontal directions in which the geometric damping of the halfspace is highest. Figure 2.13: Correction of Parameters Su and Sv for Low Frequencies
Stiffness and damping from finite element solutions. Other theoretical approaches
and formulae for embedded foundations have also been reported, most of which were obtained using the finite element method. The results were evaluated by Roesset (1980) who also compared the stiffness constants obtained by Elsabee (1977) and Kausel and Ushijima (1978) with those of the writer described by Eqs. 2.24 to 2.27. For a halfspace (H ---7 0:), v = 0.4 and Yc
57
Table 2.3: Comparison of Stiffness Constants for Embedded Foundations (after Roesset, 1980; 8 = IIR)
Stiffness kw Elsabee - Kausel
4GR (I + 0.470) I-v
3
Novak
4GR (1 + 0.415)
1- v
3
kTl T 1
16GR 3 8GR
(1 + 2.400)
kuu
2-v
klj/\{'
3
2-v
(1 + 2.05)
(.1 + 0.805)
3
8GR
3(1- v)
ku'l1
1.6GI (l + 0.470 ) I-v
3(1- v)
8GR
2GI (I + 0.415)
1- v
Given all the approximations involved , the agreement between the two solutions is very good except for the rocking constant
k'V~ ,
obtained from the Elsabee formula than from the author's over most of the embedment ratio range. With respect to this agreement, Eqs. 2.24 to 2.27 appear quite adequate for practical application and have the advantage of allowing for the various corrections discussed. Recently, a number of efficient solutions for embedded foundations were formulated using the boundary element or boundary integral methods (e.g., Kobayashi and Nishimura, 1983; Wolf and Darbre, 1984, Karabalis and Beskos, 1985). A few investigators using the finite element method have studied embedment in a layer of Limited thickness. The static stiffness for the horizontal and rocking modes was
58
derived by Elsabee (1977) and the vertical and torsional modes were derived by Kausel and Ushijima (1979) . The empirical expressions derived by these authors for the static stiffness of circular foundations embedded in a homogeneous soil layer of total depth H are:
k ==8GR(1+~~)(1+26)(1+~~)
uu
2-v
2H
4H
(2.31 a)
(2.31b)
(2.31 c)
k;
16 3 k ll Tj == -GR (1 + 2.678) 3
(2.31 e)
These stiffnesses are referred to the centre of the base and are valid for 0 = fIR.::: 1.5,
I/H .::: 0.75 and R/H .::: 0.5 . It may be noticed that the first factor in all the expressions
except ku vr is the static stiffness of a circular disk on the surface of the halfspace given by Eqs. 2.22. Complex dynamic stiffnesses are then defined as
(2.32)
59
in which
k are the static stiffnesses determined by Eqs. 2.31, k' and c' are
p is material damping
ratio of soil. Kausel and Ushijima recommend taking k' and c'
as equal to the halfspace functions except for the function c' in the low frequency range. The stiffness functions are shown in Fig. 2.14. In the low frequency range, the stiffness functions of layers differ substantially from those of the halfspace because the geometric damping vanishes below the first layer resonance (Fig. 2.14).
Figure 2.14: Stiffness Functions for Embedded Foundations (after Elsabee) a) embedded foundation - finite layer b) surface foundation - finite layer c) surface foundation - halfspace
.
o
o
5~ ,
a
2 , l.--...L 1_ --'-::---7'-::-0.4 0.2 0 .3
!_ .... _
-J1
O.!
'"
-=-'":::-
0 .5 f
'[ __ (~a
b
71" ;
e,
lfI
"i
1
05
00
,2
't;
0. 2
0. 3
0.4
0.5 f o
'0
r ~--oo
~
~
0 .3 0.4
-----,..-.....
0.1
--- ,~
0 .2
fo
SWAYING
ROC K iN G
In this range, Kausel and Ushijima suggest estimatin g the radiation damping coefficient
60
as
c=
aj3t; t;<1
1- (1- 2j3)t;2'
with the parameter a. depending on the mode of vibration and the frequency ratio shown in Table 2.4 Table 2.4
a.
s as
fff u f/fv
flf v
f/f u
The natural frequencies of the layer fu and fv are evaluated using Eqs. 2.29 with the total depth H substituted and f = w/2n. However, it would be safe to ignore Then,
material damping can be established as a fraction of stiffness, giving the complex part of stiffness (2.33a) and the damping coefficient
(2.33b) Similar data on embedded foundations can be found in Kausel et al. (1978) and
61
Gazetas (1983) presented a detailed review of stiffness and damping constants available for foundations . With the stiffness and damping constants established using the approaches outlined above, the response of footings and structures to dynamic loads can be predicted. The methods suitable to this end will be presented later.
In this case, the footing base rests on the surface of a shallow layer underlain by a halfspace (Fig, 2,15a and b), The layer may be uniform (Fig. 2.15c) or non-uniform with linearly varying shear wave velocity (Fig. 2.15d). The halfspace is homogeneous. The footing can also be embedded in overlying layers as shown in Fig. 2.15b, The properties of the embedded layers may vary independently. The layer under the footing base and the halfspace should satisfy the conditions mentioned later. The base soil reaction is calculated using equivalent shapes, the impedances are evaluated approximately using equivalent dimensions obtained by equating the geometric properties of the base area of the actual footing with those of a square base. The effect of embedment is evaluated using the plane strain theory as described for embedded foundations. The impedance functions may undulate as depicted in Fig. 2,16
Note on Limitation The impedance functions are exact for the ratio of layer thickness to halfwidth of the square footing (H/a) equal to 0.5, 1,2,3 and 4 for uniform layers (Fig. 2.15c) and equal to 2,3,4,5 and 10 for nonuniform layers (Fig. 2.15d), If the ratio (H/a) doesn't coincide with one of the above values, choose the closest (H/a) ratio avallable (interpolation is not implemented because of the strong non-monotonic variations at high frequencies).
62
Accurate values of stiffness and damping are used at frequencies equal to 0.10, 0.25,0.50 ..., 4.75 and 5.0 times (Vs 'fa) where Vs' is the shear wave velocity at footing base level and a is halfwidth of the square base(or the equivalent square base). For a frequency less than 0.10 Vs'la , use the minimum value (0.10 Vs'/a) and for frequencies in the range (0.10-5.0) Vs'/a, a linear interpolation is implemented . If the frequency is greater than 5 (Vs'/a) use the maximum value of 5 (Vs'/a). Poisson's ratio of the
halfspace is assumed to be 0.33 and two values for Poisson's ratio of the layer are available 0.33 and 0.45 (select the closer one for your actual value). The material
damping of soil is assumed 0.03 and 0.05 for the layer and the halfspace, respectively. Vs' is the shear wave velocity at footing base. Three values for the shear wave velocity ratio are available 0.8, 0.6 and 0.3. If a different value is encountered set it the closest one. The ratio of unit weight of the halfspace to that of the layer is assumed 1.13.
Figure 2.15: Rigid Footing Resting on Composite Medium
a) Surface Footing
b) Embedded Footing
d) Non-Uniform Profile
layer
/ / . / / . / , ./
'./././
halfspace halfspace
63
.z.
:c
10
H / c
>
2.
0 .3
9
8 7 6
v :: 0.33
J ,
-E
Q)
\....
Q)
0....
o \.... o
UJ
(f) (l)
'+ '+
~
(f)
o (l) n::::
o
- 1
v
o
1
.3
= JJ. G j V
J
\....
H/
= 2.
v
20
= 0.33
: . -
- 2 c-~
i .
H
Q)
~
Q)
0
"
E
0
c,
IS
1 ft.
!
I
i
,
en
'+~
(f) ())
r
10
! : il
LJ
U1 >..
'
c
CJl
S ....
r
I
E
0
t
0
.3
64
KVV,
~
o
N
N
~
o
o
0
0>
CD
i
~
a
'
a
o
en
I
I i .
I I
I I
I
::t:
<,
0
,
I
t-.:
.
.
,
/I
1>.. (
n
Do
IIA
(,..l
p..J _
ooool'l
oP
o~
/j. l i // I /
a
0
\/ : : I I I to/co
0 -
/P
o.
ro
:1
(jj
0
:::J
(D
(j) (j)
/0
V1 /l/
..
/-
/-
-,
ctl ..Q
-q
:f / ! /i /. i V/
o
HI
\jf
e l(>
ru
'< (.,.l
0 0
:J
//~
/. !\1 I- i r
l>.,
II
8
(j)
/
........ ~
<
0
i \i
I
Ul'
V /1\
-~
/\
<
0
" II
-
III
-, g ",,< 3
::.;
\
1'_
\-"" "
f
(,I
VI
II
,/\
. co
0'< ~
"'
:c
I
~
L
Q)
-.J
Q)
5
4
0....
(IJ
o L o
(J)
H/o = 0 .5
Uniform Loyer
v s'
1~O
Q)
....... :;:;
(j')
C .......
/v = 0.8
0 .33
2.0
3.0
4 .0
0-0
. t . ..
a::::
o o
Q)
].1 '=
b,-"
. : 2S
Y::
~
~
f
HI
0 _
0.5
1.0
2.0
e-e
0-0
(l)
20
3.0
4.0
Q) E
15
] t t
r
i
~J
c
;y
.....
\0
/v = 0 .8
E
o
v'= 0 .33
66
"4
H / a = 2.
J
L
21
v = 0.33
___ Uniform Loyer
____ Nonuniform Loyer
18
Q)
""""' Q)
15
12
E
I
IL
en
(f) Q)
9
6
.)
0.3
C
"
"
(/)
""""'
0
Q)
n:.:
-.3
0
1
:2
H/ a
I
=:
2.
II
= 0.33
W
-'-'
o o
E
en en
20
Q.J
C
"
"
--'
(/)
C
o
C
10
en o o
1 2 3
67
Interaction between footings Interaction between adjoining footings is sometimes important. evaluated using the paper by Triantafyllidis and Prange (1989). It can be
TRIAL SIZING OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS The design of a shallow foundation for a centrifugal or reciprocating machine starts with trial dimensions of the foundation block (Step No .3 in the design procedure). The trial sizing is based on guidelines derived from past experience.
The following guidelines may be used for the trial dimensions of the foundation block: 1. Generally, the base of the foundation should be above the GWT. resting on competent native soil (no backfill or vibration-sensitive soil). It should be
r "
I .
2. The mass of the block should be 2-3 times the mass of the supported centrifugal
\ "
machine, and 3-5 times the supported reciprocating machine. 3. The top of the block should be 0.3 m above the elevation of the finished floor.
./'/
/\~ . )
\
4. The thickness of the block should be the greatest of 0.6 rn, the anchorage length of the anchor bolts and 1/5 the least dimension of the footing. / "
\ ./ 5. The width should be 1-1.5 times the vertical distance from the base to the machine centreline to increase damping in rocking mode. ./
6. The length is estimated from the mass requirement and estimated thickness and width of the foundation . maintenance purposes . The length should then be increased by 0.3 m for
68
7. The length and width of the foun dation are adjusted so that the centre of gravity of the machine plus equipment lies within 5% of the foundation dimension in each direction , from the foundation centre of gravity.
8. It is desirable to increase the embedded depth of the foundation to increase the damping and provide lateral restraint as well. 9. If resonance is predicted from the dynamic analysis, increase or decrease the mass of the foundation to change its natural frequency (try to undertune for rotating machines and overtune for reciprocating machines).
Important note: trial dimensions are only preliminary and a complete dynamic analysis
must be carried out to check that the performance is within the acceptable limits . If the predicted response from the dynamic analysis exceeds the tolerance set by the manufacturer, the foundation dimensions have to be adjusted and the dynamic analysis be repeated until satisfactory performance is predicted .
I
L
o
t
,
L
"
I.
t, 'J
/
69
70
Medium, " Nuclear Engineering and Design 31, pp. 204-217. Luco, J.E. and Westmann, R.A. (1971) - "Dynamic Response of Circular Footings," J. Eng. Mechanics Div., ASCE, EMS, pp. 1381-1395. Lysmer, J. and Kuhlerneyer , R.L. (1969) - "Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media ," J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 95, No. EM4, pp. 859-877. Nogami, T. and Novak, M . (1976) - "Soil-Pile Interaction in Vertical Vibration," International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, No.3, January-March, pp. 277-293 . Novak, M. (1960) - "The Vibrations of Massive Foundations on Soil," Publications of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, No. 20, Zurich, pp. 263 281. Novak, M. (1970) - "Prediction of Footing Vibrations," J. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, May, pp. 837-861 . Novak, M. (1974) - "Effect of Soil on Structural Response to Wind and Earthquake," Inter. J. Earthquake Engineering and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 3, No.1, pp, 79-96. Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O. (1972) - "Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings," J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE , SM12, December, pp. 1291-1310. Novak, M., Nogami, T. and Aboul-Ella, F. (1978) - "Dynamic Soil Reactions for Plane Strain Case, J. Engrg. Mech . Div., ASCE, Vol. 104, No. EM4, pp, 953-959. Novak, M. and Sachs, K. (1973) - "Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded Footings," Inter. J. Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 2, No. 11, p. 33 . Novak, M. and Sheta , M. (1980) - "Approxiniate Approach to Contact Problems of Piles, "Proc. Geotech. Engrg. Div. ASCE National Convention , Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects,"October, pp. 53-79. Reissner, E. (1936) - "Stationare, Axial-Symmetrische Durch Eine SchQttelnde Masse Erregte Schwingungen Eines Homgenen Elastischen Halbraumes," Ingenieur-Archiv, Vol. 7, Part 6, December, pp. 381-396. Thomson, W.T. and Kobori, T. (1963) Dynamical Compliance of Rectangular Foundations on an Elastic Half-Space," Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASIC , Vol. 30. Triantafyllidis, T. and Prange, B. (1989) - "Dynamic Subsoil-Coupling Between Rigid, Circular Foundations on the Halfspace," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 9-21.
71
Ulrich, C.M. and Kuhlermyer, R.L. (1973) - "Coupled Rocking and Lateral Vibrations of Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical J., 10, pp. 145-160. Veletsos, A.S. and Nair, V.V.D. (1974) - '" Torsional Vibration of Viscoelastic Foundation," J. Geotech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT3, March, pp. 225-246. Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B. (1973) - "Vibration of Viscoelastic Foundations," J. Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 2, pp. 87 ~1 02. Veletsos, A.S. and Wei, Y.T. (1971) - "Lateral and Rocking Vibration of Footings," J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, SM9, September, pp. 1227-1248. Warburton, G.B. (1957) - "Forced Vibration of a Body on an Elastic Stratum," J. Applied Mechanics, March, pp. 55-58. Weissman G. (1971) - " Torsional Vibration of Circular Foundations," J. Soil Mech. Founds. Div., ASCE, SM9, Sept., pp. 1293-1316. Werkle, H. and Waas, G. (1986) - "Dynamic Stiffness of Foundations on In homogeneous Soils," Proc. 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, September 1986. Wolf, J.P. and Darbre, G.R. (1984) - "Dynamic-Stiffness Matrix of Soil by the Boundary Element Method: Embedded Foundations," Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 12, pp. 401-416. Wong , H.L. and Luco, J.E. (1978) - "Tables of Impedance Functions and Input Motions for Regular Foundations," Univ . of Southern California, Dept. of Civil Engrg., Report No. CE78-15, p. 92. Wong , H.l. and Luco, ...I.E. (1985) - "Tables of Impedance Functions for Square Foundations on Layered Media," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 64-81.
72
Vertical stiffness
(2.34)
Horizontal stiffness
(2.35)
Rocking stiffness
(2.36)
Torsional stiffness
(2.37) The cross stiffness is less significant and can be neglected. In Eqs. 2.34 to 2.37, R = disc radius , G
= the
= RwN s where
Vs
= shear wave
velocity of the soil below the disc . The viscoelastic solution by Veletsos and Verbic (1973) yields the following closed form expressions that incorporate the effect of frequency and material damping:
Horizontal parameters
Rocking parameters
73
(2.39)
where
(2.40)
and
(2.41 )
where
Vertical parameters
+ I. a o (~R'+I r 4 + 'II" + -D )]
2
ao
(2.42)
Xv and \J.fv in Eq. 2.42 are calculated from Eqs. 2.40 and 2.41 by replacing the
coefficients ~i with the coefficients Yi in the expressions of X~J and 'P1jI. cr, ~i and Yi are numerical coefficients which depend on Poisson's ratio, v, as shown in Table 2 .5.
74
Table 2.5:
Values of
o.i ,
~i
and Yi
v=O
0.1
Uz
~1
pz
Y1
Y2 Y 3
14
Torsional parameters
(2.43)
where
b, [R' +
= 1- ------::::'::::--------
R'+
~ R /_(b, ao)](b,ao)'
a ) + (b2 a0 )2 2 0
(2.44)
2~~'-!(b 2
and
75
(2.45)
The constants bl and b2 are taken as (Veletsos & Nair 1974): b- = 0.425 and b2 = 0.687.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: Calculation of Stiffness and Damping Constants of a Machine Foundation The stiffness and damping constants of the shallow foundation shown in Fig. 2.17 are to be evaluated for the data given below:
1.The Machine:
Weight Height of horizontal excitation 2000 Ib (88.96 x1 03N)
12 ft (3.657 m)
2.The Footing:
R.C. density
Dimensions:
a= 10 ft (3.048 m)
b= 16 ft (4.87 m)
c= 8 ft (2.44 m)
height of centroid of system (Yc) 4.75 ft (1.448 rn)
76
r------
I
I
I
~
Y e
-~
~
I-
u,
(\J
Yc
= I.45m =4 .7 5 ft
rri
E \Cl co
-il:CG ~
1 I
l"~
'<t '<t
(\J
X ~
/ / ////
/ / / // / /.
. / / / // / /
"
U
/// / / /77
I ,
!
b = 4 .87 m ( 16 f r)
~l
(
,
I
I
Px(r)
I
- I
- - 1z:-t) - - - -
~ 17
~
o
>
4 .877m ( 1 6 ft )
77
3. The Soil : Unit weight (y) Unit mass (p) Shear wave velocity (Vs ) Material damping (tanc) Poisson's ratio (v) 100 Ib/ft (15.714x10N/m) 3.105 slug/ft (1602 kg/m) 492.1 fUsec (150 m/sec) 0.1 0.25
Solution
The stiffness and damping constants will be calculated for the following vibration modes:
3. Torsional mode.
Translation :
Ru , R" =
V -; == 2.174 m == 7.132 ft
lab
Rocking:
R'I'
A~
=v 3"; =1.96 m =6.43 ft
78
RTI:::
ab (a 2 + b 2 ) 6Jr
:::
G = p V} :::
CASE (1) - SHALLOW FOUNDATION Shallow foundation overlying a deep homogeneous soil layer (halfspace) with no embedment.
Su 2
equal to zero (Le. no embedment cont ribution) and reading the values of the other
constants CV1, C"2'" from Table 2.2 for granular soil the stiffness and damping constan ts are:
Vertical Motion :
= 3.604x10 7 x 2.174 x 5.2
=4.074x108 N/m
= 2.788x10 7 Iblft
= (2 .174)2 x (1602 x 3.60 x 10 7)1/2 x 5
>
s 3 .887x10 Iblftlsec
79
Coupled Motion: =3.604x10 7 x 2.174 x 4.7 = 3.683x10 N/m = 2.520x10 Ib/tt ;::: (2.174) 2.403x10 5 x 2.8
7
8
= 2.403x10 5 [(1.96) x 0.5 +(2.174} x (- ) - x 2.8] ;::: 1.15x10 7 Nrn/rad/sec 1.97x106Ib .ftJrad/sec
1.45"1 2.17
>
= -5.34x10 8 N/rad
=-1.199x10 8Ib/rad
CUl{/
=- '\j P G Ru
r:-;::;
YcCu 2
80
Torsion:
k'7'1 :::;;
GR~ C'11
=2~ =0.1)
Use Eqs, 2.18. For hysteretic material damping frequency w is needed. If the footing response is to be evaluated for a given operating frequency this operating frequency is substituted for w. If whole response curves are to be calculated, the frequency is better taken as equal to the natural frequencies of the footing, l.e.
(0
WI.
The natural frequencies are calculated in Chapter 4, in which the effect of material damping on the stiffness and damping constants of the footing is accounted for.
81
) . .,
Ilrrl'U:."~
'"'I......... _. _
Examples of pile supported structures are shown in Fig. 3.0. Figure 3.0: Examples of Pile Supported Structures a) offshore towers b) nuclear reactors
;
i
.IU
'-1.\
~~
J
r<--'"'
i
" eI
I
t:
o.
'""--'
~J
I
r.:
J
-._. .
"--'-
_.
"-'-
.:.;
"...
-.
o ~
c) buildings
d) machine foundations
I
i
I
1
I
I I I
i I
,
;
I
I
Stiffness and damping of piles are affected by interaction of the piles with the surrounding soil. In the past, consideration of this interaction was limited to the
Q '1
determination of the length of the so-called equivalent cantilever which was a free standing bare pile shorter than the embedded pile. Pile damping was estimated . More recent approaches consider soil-pile interaction in terms of continuum mechanics and account for propagation of elastic waves. The solution is conducted
using a few approaches as shown in Fig. 3.1; the continuum approach (Tajimi, 1969; Kobori et aI., 1977; Novak and Nogami, 1977), the lumped mass model (Penzien, 1964; Matlock et al., 1978) and the finite element method (Kuhlemeyer,1976; Blaney et aI., 1976; Wolf and von Arx, 1978). More recently, the boundary element, or boundary integral, method has also been used, e.g. by Davies et al. (1985). Such studies indicate that dynamic soil-pile interaction modifies pile stiffness making it, in general, frequency dependent and generates geometric damping as with shallow foundations. In groups of closely spaced piles, the character of dynamic stiffness and damping is further complicated by interaction between individual piles known as pile-soil-pile interaction or the group effect. It is useful therefore to discuss single piles first. Small amplitudes and linear behaviour are assumed in most of the studies referred to.
LUt:PED
MASS
FEr"
.. .
------,-~-i-IT:...........~\.J\.<---
kI-
..
..
., .
I----eE
HE-a-r\Nl'1
U .
H T
I
j
J
I
I
I ,
84
3.1 Single Piles Dynamic behaviour of embedded piles depends on frequency and the properties of both the pile and soil. The pile is described by its length, bending and axial stiffness, tip and head conditions, mass and batter . Soil behaviour depends on soil properties and their variation with depth and layering.
Hc :::'::on ,-" I
Rot.a :.i on
Tc r5 . ~.::>;}
As with shallow foundations, the prediction of the response of pile supported footings and structures requires knowledge of dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. These properties can either be described in terms of complex stiffness (impedance functions) as in Eq. 2.9a, that is as K
constant of equivalent viscous damping , c. , as in Eq. 2.12. The single subscript indicates the properties of a single pile. The constants ki
constants can be determined experimentally or theoretically. The latter approach is preferred because experiments, though very useful, are difficult to generalize. In the theoretical approaches, dynamic stiffness is generated by calculating the forces needed
85
to produce vibration of the pile head having a sole, unit amplitude in the prescribed direction (Fig. 3.2 Such theoretical studies have shown (Novak, 1974) that the stiffness constants, ki and the constants of equivalent viscous damping, c, of single piles can be described for individual motions of the pile head as follows: Vertical translation:
(3.1a)
Horizontal translation:
(3.1b)
(3 .1 c)
(3.1d)
Torsion:
k - R p TJ -
G J
I.
7]1 ,
e7]
= V j,
s
GpJ
7]2
(3.1e)
In these expressions, Ep is the Young's modulus of the pile, A and I its crosssectional area and moment of inertia (second moment of area) respectively and R pile radius or equivalent radius; GpJ is torsional stiffness of the pile. Finally, the symbol f 1 ,2
86
represents dimensionless stiffness and damping functions whose subscript 1 indicates stiffness and 2 indicates damping. dimensionless parameters: (1) dimensionless frequency ao = wRNs , (2) the relative stiffness of the soil and pile, which can be described either by the modulus ratio G/E p or velocity ratio v =V s /VC in which V s
:::;
These functions
depend
on the following
and v,
where PP
=pile
mass density, (3) the mass ratio (4) the slenderness ratio l/R in which I :::; pile length (5) material damping of both the soil and pile. Finally, the functions f also depend on the tip condition , fixity of the head and the variation of soil and pile properties with depth. For a mathematically accurate A method
suitable for such calculations and accounting for an arbitrary soil profile was presented by Novak and Aboul-Ella (1978) and extended to include pile separation due to lack of bond between the pile and soil by the writer and Sheta (1980). These solutions are based on the plane strain soil reactions defined by Eqs. 2.23 and an efficient computer program, DYNA5, facilitates their use. However, all factors affecting the function f are not of equal importance in all situations. Often some of them can be neglected, making it possible to present
numerical values of functions f for some basic cases in the form of tables or charts.
87
The effect of dimensionless frequency can be seen from Fig. 3.3. The real pile stiffness (Fig. 3.3a) diminishes with frequency quickly if the soi) is very weak relative to the pile (curve 1). This happens when the soil shear modulus is very low or when the pile is very sturdy.
Figure 3.3: Example of Variation of Pile Vertical Stiffness with Frequency and Soil Stiffness (Nogami and Novak, 1976)
1.2tC 0.8
.....
V)
1.0
o ;;. o.or
or
o ,. 0.04
b,. w/lFIRST NAT URAL FRE O.
Q) ; . 0 .08
@
0 0
0 .8
THE Pfl.El
0.6 0.4
O.Z
k kif STATICAL U
I.
RE AL PART
VI
o
0 .6 0 .6 FREOUE NCY b l
1.0
VI
...
'
I
.~
z ...
0.2
0 .4
....
'"
0 .6
....
'-
0 .4
.... '0.2
- 0 ,4
- 0 .6
0 ,4 j 0 .6 D OOZ
Y
V>
0 .2
, 0 .a L..
0 .4
0 .6 0 .6 FRECUENCY b,
1.0
l.z
For slender piles in average soils, dynamic stiffness can be considered to be practically independent of frequency as indicated by curves 2 and 3. The troughs visible on curves 2 and 3 are caused by soil layer resonances but they completely disappear for higher values of soil material damping , 0 = tano. The imaginary part of stiffness (pile damping) grows almost linearly with frequency and therefore can be represented by constants of equivalent viscous damping
Cj
independent. Only below the fundamental natural frequencies of the soil layer given by Eqs. 2.29 does geometric damping vanish and material damping remains the principal source of energy dissipation; then the soil damping can be evaluated using Eq. 2.30b.
88
The disappearance of geometric damping may be expected with low frequencies, shallow layers and/or stiff soil. Apart from these situations , frequency independent
viscous damping constants and functions f 2 which define them, are sufficient for practical applications. The mass ratio PP is another factor whose effect is limited to extreme cases. Pile stiffness and damping changes significantly with the mass ratio only for very heavy piles (Novak and AbouJ-Ella, 1978b). The Poisson's ratio effect is very weak for vertical vibration, absent for torsion and not very strong for the other modes of vibration unless the Poisson 's ratio approaches 0.5 and frequencies are high. The effect of Poisson's ratio on parameters f 1,2 can be further reduced if the ratio E/Ep rather than G/Ep is used to define the stiffness ratio.
Figure 3.4: Comparison of Vertical Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Floating Piles with End Bearing Piles (Novak, 1977, ao
=0.3)
D Ob ,..
\
\
- - fl OA ""O PIl[
- - [NO
\
\
,
a~AFl'I'j(; PIL.
I ,? l OA....PIN al
\
\
" ....
40
Pll.
__ ~'"'r-- -
- '\.----
I
~c
&0
lDO
Sl C N O <: R N ~S S {f
89
The slenderness ratio, I/R, and the tip conditio n are very impo rtant for short piles particularly in the vertical direction in which the piles are stiff . Floating piles have lower stiffness but higher damping than end bearing piles (Fig. 3.4). In the horizontal direction, the piles are very flexible and consequently parameters f 1,2 become practically independent of pile slendemess (length) and the tip condition for I/R ratios greater than about 25 if the soil medium is homogeneous (Fig. 3.5 ). If soil stiffness diminishes upward , as in Gibson's medium, parameters f 1,2 level off at higher I/R ratios.
Figure 3.5: Variation in Stiffness and Damping Parameters with Slenderness for Pinned Tip and Fixed Tip Piles (Novak, 1974, ao
= 0.3)
- - P!NNED TlP
<:> Z
~
-- - - ", XE D r IP
~~ ~
o .Olr
I r
J
o L.
o
10
,/ \
)(
...
''-..,..
.
U1
f
,
:30
,
~o
20
40
2./R
The above observations suggest that the most important factors controlling the stiffness and damping functions f 1.2 are: the stiffness ratio relating soil stiffness to pile stiffness, the soil profile and, for the vertical direction , the tip condition.
90
With the qualifications outlined above, stiffness and damping parameters f 1.2 appearing in Eqs. 3.1a to 3.1e are given for a few basic cases in Table 3.1 and Figs. 3.6 and 3.7. All data are given for homogeneous media as well as parabolic variation of soil shear modulus with depth and vertical piles of circular cross-section. For other cross sections, the same data can be used after an equivalent pile radius has been established. This radius relates to soil reactions and is therefore best evaluated from Eq. 2.19a in which a and b are external dimensions such as width and depth; A, I and J are used as they really are. Table 3.1 gives parameters f 1.2 for horizontal translation and rocking for piles whose slenderness ratio ZlR
~
f 1,2 depend strongly on slenderness and tip condition. Fig. 3.6 gives the vertical parameters for end bearing piles while Fig. 3.7 corresponds to floating (friction) piles. All data were calculated using the program
PILAY2 and are numerically accurate for ao ;:::0.3, Pp ;:::1, tans (soil) 0.01 . The functions fu~. 2 give the values for pinned head piles.
91
Figure 3.6: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Vertical Response for End Bearing Piles
20 tI1
..J
~ ~ O.O~ I
.:<
/T/
]"T
" ,~
~ .
o.0 2 C-
2~OO ~
( I -------'
80
!-!
o _ _ -:.- :
- -=c--i
40
L~ O'O~
1 00
20
60
0 .1 0
I I
I
f V1
....l._
f V2
, I
..,: .... Q:
u,
0..
(j)
0.0 6
\-----1~--.,.L+--
0::
...J
I-
0
\f)
500
0::
~ <!
u
...J
<: CD 0 0<:
0::
]
/
r77~~
'777777
GSOll
c,
<:r:
00
92
Torsional parameters are needed less often because they are significant only for caissons and small groups of very massive piles. They can be found in Novak and Howell (1977 1978). The data given in Table 3.1 and Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 are from the
I
paper by Novak and EI Sharnouby (1983) in which the effect of limited stratum depth is also described. For more general soil properties, i.e. arbitrary layering , the functions f 1.2 have to be calculated using the approaches mentioned above. (Program DYNA5 is available)
Table 3.1 Stiffness and damping parameters of horizontal response (UR>25 for homogeneous soil and LlR>30 for parabolic soil ~rofil~) j
I ( . t
r
U . ~ , r,"
f",2
IT
b
Ep/G
filii
fd
-0.0217 -0.0429 -0.0668 -0.0929 -0.1281 -0.0232 -0.0459 -0.0714 -0.0991 -0.1365 -0.0144 -0.0267 -0.0400 -0.0543 -0.0734 -0.0153 -0.0284 -0.0426 -0.0577 -0.0780
fU1
0.0042 0.0119 0.0236 0.0395 0.0659 0.0047 0.0132 0.0261 0.0436 0.0726 0.0019 0.0047 0.0086 0.0136 0.0215 0.0020 0.0051 0.0094 0.0149 0.0236
fu l P
0.0021 0.0061 0.0123 0.0210 0.0358 0.0024 0.0068 0.0136 0.0231 0.0394 0.0008 0.0020 0.0037 0.0059 0.0094 0.0009 0.0022 0.0041 0.0065 0.0103
F c2
fU 2
0.0107 0.0297 0.0579 0.0953 0.1556 0.0119 0.0329 0.0641 0.1054 0.1717 0.0060 0.0159 0.0303 0.0491 0.0793 0.0067 0.0177 0.0336 0.0544 0.0880
ful
0.0054 0.0154 0.0306 0.0514 0.0864 0.0060
0.0171
0.0339 0.0570 0.0957 0.0028 0.0076
0.0147
0.0241
0.0398
0.0031
0.0084
0.0163 0.0269 0.0443
IT
10000 0.25 2500 1000 500 250 1 0.4 10000 so i1 2500 homo 1000 500 250 10000 0.25 2500 1000 500 250 bSQlil 0.4 10000 2500 parab 1000 500 250
0.2135 0.2998 0.3741 0.4411 0.5186 0.2207 0.3097 0.3860 0.4547 0.5336 0.1800 0.2452 0.3000 0.3489 0.4049 0.1857 0.2529 0.3094 0.3596 0.4]70
0.1577 0.2152 0.2598 0.2953 0.3299 0.1634 0.2224 0.267 7 0.3034 0.33 77 0.1450 0.2025 0.2499 0.2910 0.3361 0.1508 0.2101 0.2589 0.3009 0.3468
-0.0333 -0.0646 -0.0985 -0.1337 -0.1786 -0.0358 -0.0692 -0.1052 -0.1425 -0 .1896 -0.0252 -0.0484 -0.0737 -0.1008 -0.1370 -0.0271 -0.0519 -0.0790 -0.1079 -0.1461
93
Figure 3.7: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Vertical Response for Floating Piles
0 .:0
~-'-----.,--
0 .08
PILE
94
Piles are usually used in groups. The behaviour of the group depends on the distance between the piles . When the distance between the piles is large, say twenty diameters or more, the piles do not affect each other and the group stiffness and damping are simple sums of contributions from the individual piles. If, however, the piles are closely spaced , they interact with each other and this pile-soil-pile interaction or group effect exerts considerable influence on the stiffness and damping of the group. These two basic situations may be treated separately.
When the spacing between the piles is large, their interaction can be neglected and the stiffness and damping of the group are determined by the summation of stiffness and damping constants of the individual piles. In the vertical and horizontal directions this is straight-forward; for coupled sliding and rocking as well as torsion, the position of the reference point such as the centre of gravity , CG, and the arrangement of the piles in plan comes into play. For example , the group stiffness and damping in rotation derives from the horizontal, vertical and moment resistances of individual piles because the unit displacement \V = 1 occurs at the reference point (Fig. 3.8).
95
Figure 3.8: P Ie Displacements for Determination of group Stiffness and Damping Related to Rctatlon e
=1
- .-.:..------
~
Sf
~..ti.
J ).....' --:'-
fA c.-.
:?
1.t
I {' .c
_\..
Uh :::
Ye, a vertical
'IIh ;::
group, the unit twist '11 ::: 1 applied at CG twists the pile by the same angle and translates
the head horizontally by a distance equal to (Fig.3.9) . With these
considerations, and the notation of Figs. 3.8 and 3.9 the stiffness and damping
constants of the pile group for the individual directions are as follows:
Vertical translation:
(3.2a)
r
(3.2b)
r
96
t" III
r
I
1 7)
I
'-~'
uHorizontal translation:
. ~.
c ..
.
(3.3a)
I~ ({"
, "
A '"
...
(
(3.3b)
,
, (/
- ,
" If ,
klf/If/
\~. /
(3.4a)
'i _
<....
2 + c; x, + Cu Y c2_2Cc Yc )
(3.4b)
kryry
= L [kry ~ ku ~y + zj )]
r
r
/' . r'
;\ . . ....-
(3.6a)
(3.6b)
The summation extends over all the piles. The distances x r, z. and Yc refer to the reference point as indicated in Fig. 3.8. The torsional constants k l1 and ct') can usually be
97
kc
and k, has to be evaluated for pinned head piles. Only the vertical constants labeled v are the same for fixed as well as pinned heads.
Figure 3.9: Pile Displacements for Determination of Group Stiffness and Damping in Torsion 11
'J
'- ":
1
I
.J
\ \
Banerjee (1978) as well as Butterfield and Banerjee (1971). These studies indicate that the main results of static pile interaction are an increase in settlement of the group , the
98
' ,.
I
IJVr;'v J
(u
'"
'j
{
I) \
\
I
~1 ':
-flil ._ I '
C,- of
I
redistribution of pile stresses and, with rigid caps, redistribution of pile loads. The studies of dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction are only recent and few in number. Various approaches have been used, all limited to linear elasticity: the finite element method (Wolf and von Arx, 1978, 1981), a semi analytical solution (Waas and Hartmann , 1981), the boundary integral procedure (Aubry and Chapel, 1981) and approximate analytical solutions (Nogami, 1980 and Sheta and Novak, 1982). These studies suggest a number of observations; dynamic group effects are profound and differ considerably from static group effects. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles groups vary with frequency and these variations are more dramatic than with single piles. Group stiffness and damping can be either reduced or increased by pile-soil-pile interaction. These effects can be demonstrated if the group stiffness and damping are described in terms of the group efficiency ratio GE defined as:
.~ , :~
.~
,\
I
Ll
i1
i.e. GE
=~roup II. k,
IJ
where k is stiffness of individual piles considered in isolation. When the pile-sail-pile interaction effects are absent GE = 1. The group efficiency damping can be defined in the same way. For the basic group of two piles, the group efficiency of vertical stiffness of two end bearing piles is presented in Fig. 3.10. The efficiency ratio is shown for different dimensionless frequencies and varying dimensionless separation sId in which s is the distance between the piles and d their diameter. The static efficiency calculated by
99
group efficiency. However, as the frequency increases, the group efficiency starts to fluctuate about unity. This fluctuation is even stronger for damping for which the group efficiency can be either much greater or much smaller than unity (Fig. 3.11). The weakened zone around the pile, characterized by the ratio Gm IG and tm JR, in which Gm and tm are the shear modulus and thickness-of the weakened zone , has a strong influence on damping.
r.
"-~
'.
,
. r-.
100
Figure 3.10: Group efficiency of vertical stiffness of two end bearing piles for varying pile separation (sId) and different frequencies (ao) (Sheta & Novak, 1982)
U'>
....;
0-
, ";
4
,
VERTi CAL
E N D 8 :'RI N G
1'""7'>
\.81
!:1:- ~_ ---~
uJ
L/ D"2S DO
-l ~.:. 1 ,-- s ~ -J
<:
n..
~ c: =""
~-o _o,
, --~----,----""",,-----,-----'------r-'
0-
1 O.
_.-.--_ .--., -
20
30
+0
s id
Figure 3.11 : Group Efficiency of Vertical Stiffness and Damping of Two Floating
Piles for Different Separations and Weakened Zones Around Piles (rO
=R)
~o
~
t
c.'a
-1 0
1 ~ C.
t / :l
r l. O;' ''
1. ,
~r: .
30.
,_ .0
s Id
101
Another remarkable feature of dynamic behaviour of pile groups is the oscillatory variation of stiffness and damping with frequency (Fig. 3.12) . Curves numbered 4 and 5 were calculated including pile-soli-pile interaction while for the other curves this interaction was neglected. Different soil profiles were considered as well as a This zone
composite soil medium that incorporates the weakened zone (curves 5).
reduces the sharp peaks observed in the homogeneous medium (curve 4) but does not eliminate them. Obviously, dynamic group-effects are quite complex and there is no simple way of alleviating these complexities. The use of suitable computer programs appears necessary to describe the dynamic group stiffness and damping over a broad frequency range. However, a thorough experimental verification of the phenomena
indicated by theoretical analysis is still lacking. The only simplifications available are the approximate approach due to Dobry and Gazetas (1988) in which the interaction problem is reduced to the consideration of cylindrical wave propagation . The replacement of the group by an equivalent pier, considering the dynamic interaction as equal to static interaction or using dynamic interaction factors. The equivalent pier cannot yield the peaks shown in Fig. 3.12, may be applicable only for very closely spaced piles and may overestimate the damping (Novak and Sheta, 1982). The static interaction may be sufficiently accurate for
dynamic analysis if the frequencies of interest are low and especially if these frequencies are lower than the natural frequencies of the soil deposit given by Eqs . 2.29 .
102
Figure 3.12: Variation of (a) Stiffness and (b) Damping of Group of Four Piles with Frequency and Soil Profile (Sheta and Novak, 1982)
...
\0 ;
"2 .
f';
~
z
ir '-ec
-~
I:
,.
'"
~
<"00
,0
.0
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r"'ro", ...cy
~ .
Or.>
'_='~A ~
_ _.;.,
IT:.
"'e" k
rf.a',o.J"~C
~-r. ~.;1I4"'S I
s.r: }
103
The interaction factors for both axial and lateral loading can be found in the form of charts in Poulos and Davis (1980). Some of them are shown in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14. Fig. 3.13 gives the interaction factors for the vertical direction,
Ctv,
length to diameter ratio, lid. Soil stiffness variation with depth is accounted for by the ratio p ::: the average shear modulus, Gave /shear modulus at the pile base, and G1 The relative stiffness of the pile and soil is defined by the stiffness ratio A. = Ep I Gl. There is an approximately linear relationship between offshore structures,
Ct can Ctv
and Ig (sId).
a;
0.5 In(l/ s) ( I In --
for s ::; I
(3.7)
dp
For lateral loading, the pile behaviour depends on 4L- h e length of the upper part of the pile which deforms appreciably under lateral loading. estimated as (see Randolph , 1981) This critical length may be
(3.8)
In which R
=pile radius
and Ge
the critical length, Ie. A few iterations may be needed to find corresponding values of Ge.
G
c
depth z = [cf4. Then, the interaction factors for horizontal translation, u, and rotation , 'V,
104
a uf:::::
Gc
(3.9)
ar;;H = a uH , a/f/.!vf :; ; ; a uH
in which a allowed);
a'llH auf
= horizontal
auH
= rotation
angle between the direction of the loading and the line connecting the pile centres (Fig. 3.14) When the interaction factor, a, calculated exceeds 1/3, its value should be replaced by:
a' = 1-
2 -J27a
U ---7 00
Eqs. 3.8 and 3.9 and the charts make it possible to correct the group stiffness given by Eqs. 3.2 to 3.6 for the interaction effects using the interaction factors as flexibility coefficients normalized by the flexibility of the isolated pile f
=1/k.
105
Figure 3.13: Interaction Factors for Vertically Loaded Piles (Poulos, 1979)
J
x lD~
)., = Ep/G
O!
et"
il L
0 .6
P =0.)
G,
o 0]
' f~
'
f) :
- -'"
I
os
I
- -' ---hl )
..nl. /dl
0t 01[-- __
-
p; 0.5
- ---.
1
L.,vc )
{J =
075
. _-~- - "'''''''J
a.V
C&
L" 11 /0 1
0 .&
O.L
--'
0.1
Q
--'--~
---.
p= I
' - r - .::--:::
. ..
o
10 1
lie = to
Ib J 1/d =2s
l c)
l/d -::
50
-"'?"
k "'"
(. ~
Q.\
t L'
("
I"
C '
<,
'r
106
Figure 3.14: Interaction factors for Horizontally Loaded Fixed-Headed Piles (Randolph and Poulos, 1982)
o.e
~l
0.7 ' \
0 .(,
~,\
'Ff
I
~B
x
4-
~.
~----
0.5
\ \
+\
+1\ +
Of.
... \
\
\
++,
...
\
X X
C.l
++
Xx
x ~
__
20
12
11..
16
18
pde- spacIng
~ ~(~) r _/' G
c
For the vertical stiffness of a symmetrical pile group, a very simple formula results from this consideration if it is assumed that all piles carry the same load. Then, the group stiffness may be estimated as
(3.11)
r
in which k, is the vertical stiffness of the isolated pile, available from Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 and
Uv
are the interaction f actors between a reference pile, it and pile r with r = 1, 2,
107
... .n where n is the number of piles. The reference pile should not be in the centre or at the periphery and has aii = 1. If a-rigid cap is assumed which implies the same displacements for all piles but different individual stiffnesses, a somewhat different formula is obtained (Novak, 1979), i.e.
(3.12)
r
::::
air . This matrix [airJ lists the interaction factors a between any two piles and all diagonal terms aii
= 1. The
usually not great. For the horizontal stiffness, the approximate correction may be done in a similar fashion, using factors
a.uf
or C1. u H.
For rotation of a thin rigid cap , the rocking stiffness comes primarily from the vertical stiffness of the piles. This part of the group stiffness becomes (Novak, 1979)
klf'If' = k;
LL
r
Cir Xi X,.
(3.13)
in which x is the horizontal distance of the pile from the axis of rotation. For thick caps, these corrections can be introduced into Eq. 3.4a . For torsion of the cap ignoring the contribution from individual pile twisting, the group stiffness can be written analogously as:
(3.14)
in which x and z are the pile coordinates indicated in Fig. 3.9; if C1.ir(x} and air(z), horizontal
108
interaction factors between piles i and r in direction X and Z, respectively, elements in [eir J = [airr
1 .
Sjr
are the
Another approach to the application of the interaction factors to stiffness evaluation was formulated by Randolph and Poulos (1982) who presented formulae particularly well suited to offshore pile groups . Examples of the group effect on the efficiency ratio evaluated by means of Eqs. 3.12 to 3.14 are shown in Figs. 3.15.
Figure 3.15; Static Group Efficiency Ratio for Groups of 4 and 16 piles: Vertical, Horizontal, Torsional, and Rocking Modes (Novak, 1979)
-' = CI
= 25
sic
:J
_
16
_ _ _ M O' __ _ _ . ,_ __
P il ES
_
.~
--= _
"-4 _
,~ ~ _, _ _
. ~~~-------==a_I_
.. . )1:.--
:{==--~--- H
- r-- - - -
~---
....
. -=: =:::~
. . . _ , -_,----,-_
I
-I5~
si d
109
The static procedure does not offer any guidance as to the effect of interaction on group damping. Indications are that group interaction usually increases the damping ratio (not necessarily the damping constant c). To account for this approximately, the group damping constants may be taken as:
A better estimate may be obtained using dynamic interaction factors discussed below. Additional discussion of the above formulae for pile group stiffness will be given later.
Evaluation of Group Effects Using Dynamic Interaction Coefficients To extend the interaction factors approach to dynamic situations, Kaynia and Kausel (1982) presented charts for dynamic interaction. In the solution, the soil reactions acting on the piles were evaluated numerically. The dynamic interaction factor is a dimensionless, frequency dependent complex number, aU
110
can be used in lieu of static interaction factors in Eqs. 3.12 and 3.13. This substitution yields complex group stiffnesses, k = k1 + ik2 whose imaginary part defines the group damping constant c = k2 I
(I).
frequency is often obtained. A derivation of all the complex stiffness constants including the coupling terms is described for flexible caps, rigid caps and piles with separation (gapping) in full detail in Novak and Mitwally (1987). In this paper, the closed form
formulae for group complex stiffness analogous to Eqs. 3.12 to 3.14 are derived. For example, analogous to Eq.3-12, the vertical dynamic group stiffness is:
(3.15)
r
Sjr
matrix [ar 1 = [s] in which the matrix [a] lists all the complex dynamic interaction factors air between any two piles in the group. For purely horizontal vibration, the Eq 3.15 also holds . Equations 3.11 and 3.12 hold for both vertical stiffness and horizontal stiffness with pertinent values SUbstituted. Eq. 3.11, which is easy to use, is accurate if all the piles carry the same load; otherwise, it can be used as approximate assuming that the pile loads are equal. In the latter case, the results somewhat depend on the choice of the reference pile. Equations 3.12 to 3.14 are accurate for rigid caps but require matrix inversions. To further illustrate how the simpler solution by Eq. 3.11 is formulated for dynamic analysis consider a group of n piles whose displacements and loads are identical. As in the case of a doubly symmetrical group of four, with vertical (or
111
iU2
a lJ ..
.t,
f
where f ij , is the complex dynamic deflection of pile j due to harmonic loading of pile j and
is the static deflection of a single pile due to its own load . Assume further, that the
The total response of each pile is the sum of the displacement due to its own loading, v11, and the displacements caused by the loading of the other piles, Vij , Omitting the common time factor, exp (kot), the total displacement of one pile can be written as:
where f
=f / I
=I /
= the
inverse of single pile complex impedance, K (p. 3.2). For the definition of group stiffness, all pile displacements v == 1. Then , the force on one pile Pi, is equal to the stiffness of one pile, i.e.
P,
I
= k. = ~ f
I
t' + La l )
)':=2
11
The group stiffness is a sum of individual pile stiffnesses. Introducing the single pile
112
static stiffness
k =1.., f
nk
(3.16)
In which
a = !r.~) +
L
)=2
11
a 1j (I ) ,
b = 1(;) +
L
)=2
a lj (2)
where the subscripts (1) and (2) indicate the real and imaginary parts of f and a1j respectively. From K G the true group stiffness follows as kG :: Re KG and the
coefficient of equivalent viscous damping cG :: ImK GI co Formulae analogous to Eq.3 .15 can be readily formulated for other vibration modes as long as the pile loads can be assumed to be either equal or proportional. More general formulae not limited by these assumptions are given by EI Naggar and Novak (1995). If the interaction factors were defined as dynamic deflections,
j, k would
be
replaced by dynamic stiffness and f :: 1 in Eq. 3.16 ; f:: 1 also for static loading . The interaction factor approach would be mathematically accurate, if the interaction factors, and the single pile properties were calculated with all piles present in the system, which is not normally done . Nevertheless, the results are quite adequate for most applications . More significant errors, overestimating the interaction effects,
may occur in the vertical response of endbearing piles (EI Sharnouby and Novak 1985).
113
Figure 3.16: Interaction Curves for Horizontal and Vertical Displaceme t of Pile 2 due to Horizontal and Vertical Force on Pile 1 (Kaynia & Kausel, 1982) (ao = droNs )
~ ' d = 15
u O.er
I x.Fx
0 .510.4
( s" 0 .0)
0 .5
o.4L
0 .3 0.2
0 .1
,/
IU;t.Fx
0 .3
0 .2
0.1
0 ,0
~ ~::l-0.4
-oll~T"'----""'~~ r~,
,/
>
~!
10
"-=:! -----;-;f"
...
t
- 0.5 __ . .
0 ,0
0 .0
_ O. 2
[,,-
..,
'0
0.5
1.0
0 .0
0 .5
1.0
00
0.7
0,4
0.3
."i'eoI po r t
-- - 0.1
i ma go part
- 0 .2
- 0 .3
- 0 .4 - 0.5 <-_ _ 0 .0
I'
0.5
La
_ hori zont al displ acement of pi le 2 due to horizontal fo rce on pile 1 ~ ver t i c al displace ~ent of pile 2 due to ve rtical 'f or ce on pile 1.
00
114
Figure 3.17: Interaction Curves for Rotation of Pile 2 due to horizontal Force and Moment on Pile 1 (Kaynia and Kausel, 1982)
(ao
~
:
=droNs)
= 0 il)
i5 ,
t:.. s
Ep
= 10 -
.. s
;: p
1 -'l. ::' }. :; j
03
L:J; M
';
. - Co
( 8 : C.Ol
0 .2
(6=7Tf2l
0.1
/' ./ /'
0 .5 0 0
Rea l
. 15 ) . 10
1.0
L rn n q . PorI
Po r t
I c;.xM x
( B = O.Ol
~=2
d
o .J
-0.05 - 0 . 10 - 0 . 1 5 L0 .0
..!I
( $ = 11/2)
-'
0 .5
1.0
0 .5
1.0
00
115
3.3 LARGE DISPLAC EMENTS For large displacements, piles behave in a nonlinear fashion, which manifests itself by the lack of proportionality between the applied force and displacement. It is very difficult to incorporate nonlinearity into rigorous dynamic solutions based on continuum consideration; the inclusion of the weakened zone around piles or the adjustment of soil shear modulus and damping according to strain level are about the only practical corrections available. The finite element method could handle nonlinearity but the solution is very costly and inaccurate. The most practical model for nonlinear analysis is the lumped mass model in which the soil stiffness and damping are discretized and represented by isolated springs and dashpots featuring various nonlinear characteristics. Such models are popular in offshore technology where large displacements are expected. An example of the
nonlinear lumped mass model is shown in Fig. 3.18. The lumped mass models can reproduce the complex nonlinear behaviour observed in experiments. However, the
selection of nonlinear elements beforehand is difficult and group effects have not been incorporated in these models as yet. A useful FEM study of pile behaviour under large displacements is reported by Trochanis et al. (1988) who investigated static monotonic and cyclic loading on single piles and a pair of piles.
1)6
Figure 3.18: (a) Lumped Mass Model of Pile, (b) Observed Cyclic ReactionDeflection Characteristics (Matlock et al., 1978)
, I I I
I
\
I I
//
rt.!
rt
I
I FI crd
\ D:lmpil'l9
,\~ ri
\~L.! \\
\ \
R ~;]:!Ion
\]....>-..-ol.
9s
a)
b)
117
Pile Batter
Pile batter (Fig. 3.18a) can be accounted for approximately by calculating first the pile stiffnesses for a vertical pile, assembling them as the stiffness matrix [K J in element coordinates and transforming this matrix into global coordinates being horizontal and vertical (Novak 1979). This gives the pile stiffness matrix
(3.16)
in which the transformation matrix, [T] depends only on direction cosines. When the horizontal coordinate axis lies in the plane of the batter (Fig. 3.18a), the transformation matrix is:
cosa sma
[T];::= - sin a cosa
[
~]
cos aK Uli + Sln- aK ww
2 .?
? -
(3.17)
x;
K""
lJW
U lfI
K ww
K\I'It!
K ww =
KIf/
][
cosa sina(K11/I -KwJ cos a K1fIU] ? sin - a K + cos- a K W H ' sina K'I/II
lJU
sina K'I/'I
(3.18)
The element impedance 'functions, are calculated assuming that the pile is vertical ;
Il8
I ~
7
The design of a deep foundation for a centrifugal or reciprocating machine starts with trial dimensions of the pile cap, and size and configuration of the pile group (Step No.3 in the design procedure). The trial sizing is based on guidelines derived from past
experience . The following guidelines may be used for trial sizing the pile cap: 1. The pile cap (block) mass should be 1.5-2.5 times the mass of the centrifugal machine and 2.5-4 times the mass of the reciprocating machine. 2. The top of the cap should be 0.3 m above the elevation of the finished floor. 3. The thickness of the block should be the greatest of 0.6 m, the anchorage length of the anchor bolts and 1/5 the least dimension of the block. 4. The width should be 1-1.5 times the vertical distance from the base to the machine centreline to increase damping in rocking mode . 5. The length is estimated from the mass requirement and estimated thickness and width of the block. The length should then be increased by 0.3 m for maintenance purposes.
119
6. The length and width of the block are adjusted so that the centre of gravity of the machine plus equipment lies within 5% of the block dimension in each direction, from the block centre of gravity. 7. It is desirable to increase the embedded depth of the foundation to increase the damping and provide lateral restraint as well. The following guidelines may be used for the trial configuration of the pile group: 1. The number and size of piles are selected such that the average static load per pile
~
2. The piles are arranged so that the centroid of the pile group coincides with the centre of gravity of the combined structure and machine. 3. If battered piles are used to provide lateral resistance (they are better than vertical piles in this aspect), the batter should be away from the pile cap and should be symmetrical. ;/
\ ; :
I
/ o/'V<
J
V 'I/'
~'
4. If piers are used, enlarged bases are recommended. 5. Piles and piers must be properly anchored to the pile cap for adequate rigidity (common assumption in the analysis).
Important note: trial dimensions are only preliminary and a complete dynamic analysis must be carried out to check that the performance is within the acceptable limits. If the predicted response from the dynamic analysis exceeds the tolerance set by the manufacturer, the foundation dimensions have to be adjusted and the dynamic analysis be repeated until satisfactory performance is predicted .
120
REFERENCES (Piles) Aubry, D. and Chapel, F. (1981) - "3-D Dynamic Analysis of Groups of Piles and Comparisons With Experiment," SMIRT , Paris, pp. 9. Banerjee, P.K. (1978) - "Analysis of Axially and Laterally Loaded Pile Groups ," Chapter 9 in "Developments in Soil Mechanics ," Ed. C.R. Scott, Applied Science Publishers , London, pp.317-346. Blaney, G.W., Kausel, E. and Poesset, J.M .' (1976) - "Dynamic Stiffness of Piles," 2nd Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Geomech., ASCE, New York, P. 1001. Butterfield , R. and Banerjee , P.K. (1971) - "The Elastic Analysis of Compressible Piles and Pile Groups ," Geotechnique, Vol. 21, pp. 43-60. Davies, T.G., Sen, R and Banerjee , P.K. (1985) - II Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups in Inhomogeneous Soil," J. of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12, December, pp. 1365-1379. Kaynia, A.M. and Kausel, E. (1982) - "Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups," 2nd Int. Conf. on Num. Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas . Kobori, T., Minai, Rand Baba, K. (1977) - "Dynamic Behaviour of a Laterally Loaded Pile," 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Tokyo, Session 10, 6. Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1979) - "Static and Dynamic Laterally Loaded Piles," J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT2, pp. 289-304. Matlock, H., Foo, H.C. and Bryant, L.M. (1978) - "Simulation of Lateral Pile Behaviour Under Earthquake Motion," Proc. Am. Soc . Civ. Engrgs. Specialty Conf. on Earthq. Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Pasadena, Calif., II, pp. 600-619 . Mitwally, H . and Novak, M. (1987) - "Response of Offshore Towers With Pile Interaction," J. of Engrg. Mech., Vol. 113, No.7, July, pp. 1065-1084. Nogami, T. (1980) - " Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Pile Groups in Inhomgeneous Soil," Proc. of Session on Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects, ASCE Nat. Conv., Oct., pp. 31-52. Nogami, 1. and Novak, M. (1976) - "Soil-Pile Interaction in vertical vibration," J. Earthq. Engrg. & Struct. Dyn., Vol. 4, pp . , 277-293. Novak, M. (1974) - "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. II, pp. 574-598.
121
Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. EM1, February, pp. 153-168. Novak, M. (1979) - "Soil Pile Interaction Under Dynamic Loads," Proceedings of International Symposium on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, London , England, May, pp. 41-50. Novak, M. and About-Ella, F. (1978a) - "Impedance Functions of Piles in Layered Media," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. EM3, Proc. Paper 13847,June, pp.643-661 . Novak, M and Aboul- Ella, F. (1978b) - "Stiffness and Damping of Piles in Layered Media", Proc. Earthg. Engrg. and Soil Dyn., ASCE Specialty, Conf., Pasadena, California, June 19-21, pp. 704-719.
1
Novak, M. and Grigg, R.F. (1976) - "Dynamic Experiments With Small Pile Foundations", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, No.4, November, pp. 372-385. Novak, M. and Howell, J.F. (1977) - "Torsional Vibration of Pile Foundations", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT4, April, pp. 271-285. Novak, M. and Howell, J.F. (1978) - "Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations in Torsion" , Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT5, pp. 535-552. Novak, M. and Nogami , T. (1977) - "Soil Pile Interaction in Horizontal Vibration", Int. J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 5, July-Sept., No.3, pp. 263-282. Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980) - "Approximate Approach to Contact Problems of Piles", Proc. Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE National Convention "Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects", Oct. 30, pp. 53-79 Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1982) - "Dynamic Response of Piles and Pile Groups", 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas, April. Novak, M. and EI Sharnouby, B. (1983) - "Stiffness and Damping Constants of Single Piles", J. Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE , July . EI Sharnouby, B. and Novak, M. (1985) - "Static and Low Frequency Response of Pile Groups", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, NO.1 . Penzien, J., Scheffey, C.F. and Parmelee, R.A. (1964) - "Seismic Analysis of Bridges on Long Piles", J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, EM3, pp. 223-254. Poulos, H.G. (1968) - "Analysis of Settlement of Pile Groups", Geotechnique, Vol. 18,
pp. 449-471.
Poulos , H.G . (1971) - "Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles II - Pile Groups", J. Soil
122
Mech . Foundations Div.,ASCE, 97 (SM5), pp. 733-751. Poulos, H.G. (1974) - Technical Note, J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT2, Feb., pp. 185-190. Poulos, H.G. (1979) - "Group Factors for Pile-Deflection Estimation", J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, GT12, pp. 1489-1509. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Foundations Analysis and Design", John Wiley and Sons, p. 397. Novak, M and EI Shamouby, B. (1984) - "Evaluation of Dynamic Experiments on Pile Groups ," J. Geotech. Engrg, Vol. 110, No.6, June, pp. 738-756. Novak, M- and Mitwally, H. (1987) - "Random Response of offshore Towers With Pile-Soil-Pile Interaction ," Proc. of 6th Inter-national Symposium on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (CMAE), Houston , @s, March, Vol. 1, pp. 329-336. Poulos, H.G. and Randolph, M.F. (1982) - "A Study of Two Methods for Pile Group Analysis," J. Geot. Engrg. Div., ASCE. Randolph, M.F. (1981) - "The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading" Geotechnique, 31(2), pp. 247-259. Randolph, M.F. and Poulos, H.G. (1982) - "Estimating the Flexibility of Offshore Pile Groups ," Proc. of the Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling", Univ. Of Texas , Austin, May, p. 16. Roesset, J.M. (1980) - "Stiffness and Damping Coefficients of Foundations." Proc. of Session on Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects' ASCE National Convention , Florida, Oct., pp. 1-30. Sheta, M. and Novak, M. (1982) - "Vertical- Vibration of Pile Groups," J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE , Vol. 108, No. GT4, April, pp. 570-590. Tajimi, H. (1969) - "Dynamic Analysis of a Structure Embedded in an Elastic Stratum" , Proc. 4th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering , Chile. Waas , G and Hartmann , H.G. (1981) - "Pile Foundations Subjected to Dynamic Horizontal Loads," European Simulation Meeting "Modelling and Simulation of large Scale Structural Systems, Capri, Italy, Sept pp. 17 (also SMIRT , Paris). Wolf, J.P. and von Arx, G.A. (1978) - "Impedance Functions of a Group of Vertical Piles," Proc . ASCE Specialty Conf. on Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena, Calif., II, pp. 1024-1041.
123
Wolf, J.P., von Arx, G.A., de Barros, F.e.p. and Kakubo, M. (1981) - "Seismic Analysis of the Pile Foundation of the Reactor Building on the NPP Angra 2", Nuclear Eng. and Design, Vol. 65, No.3, pp. 329-341. Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. (1988) - "Sirnple Method for Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Floating Pile Groups, " Geotechnique 38, No.4, pp. 557-574 . Trochanis, A.M., Bielak, J and Christiano , P. (1988) - "A Three - Dimensional Nonlinear Study of Piles Leading to the Development of a Simplified Model," Research report R 88-176, Dept. of Civil Eng., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. EI Naggar, M.H. and Novak, M., 1996. Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile response. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15, No.4, pp. 233-244. EI Naggar, M.H. and Novak, M., 1995. Non-linear lateral interaction in pile dynamics. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , Vol. 14, No.2, pp. 141-157.
124
Example:
Evaluate the stiffness and damping constants of the pile foundation shown in Fig. 3.19. The footing is the same as the one used in the example in Chapter 2, and thus has the same mass, mass moments of inertia and the position of the centroid . The soil is also the same for comparison.
The Soil: Homogeneous Unit weight (y) Unit mass (p) Shear wave velocity 0Is) Material damping (tan8) Poisson's ratio (v) 100 Iblft 3 (15.714x10 3 N/m)
0.1 0.25
The Piles:
End bearing piles - 8 soft wood piles
Unit weight (y) Pile length (I) Effective radius (ra) Cross-sectional area (A) 48 Ib/ft3 (7542 N/m3 )
35 ft (10.668 m)
0.4166 ft (0.127 m)
0.5454 ft2 (0.05067 m2)
0.02366 ft4 (2.043x10-4 rn")
s,
Pile eccentricity (x-)
125
a) Single Pile
v =1/3
Pile slenderness ratio
Ep/Gs
250
=II R = 0.127
10.66
= 84
Parameters fv1 fV2 follow from Fig. 3.6 for end bearing piles in homogeneous soil as:
then
= 8.276 X 10
\'
0.0506 (0.058)
0.127
= 1.915x1 08 N/m
=1.31x1 07 Ib/ft
c
v
= 8.276 x 10
x 0.0506 (0.097)
150
= 2.716x10 5 N/m/sec
= 1.85x104 Iblftlsec
126
r----------l
1
I
I
J
,
I
--r-!
Py{t ) I
I
Y e
-
I
l
..-.
u,
~
I I
.. C\I
Yc : 1.4 sm j
- -~if; '....
. E "' r.. v.
I()
-r/
u
E:
7/
I I!
i
I
I
I
:4'1
5
/ /
tt 1
/
rri
J
~
'.3 8 1rn
--i::
:.3 '1m
y J
I
I
I
r/
/ /
/1I1
,
I
I
I
"
/
1
)
1 /
J:
1.37 rn
4 .5 ft ' 0. ::8 1'":1 , I
I
1 .3 7m
I ,
W ty
,
4 fr
i
'-l
1.25 ft
4.5ft
4 .5 tt
b : 4. 87 m
L2 5 !t
: fl
.. I
:.22 m
,
a. 3 m
~
4 ft
I f!
{ 16
t , ) ._ -
---:
_r~x(t) ;
Ze
,
-@l ,
I
;
-43'
__
J.37 m
_
-$4'
TJ
~7
~"'
f l)
- o/~
a.38 m
fT\
I- 1-
1.37m
~I
1. 3 7 m
,a.38m
: 1
1..
. - '-'-----...,
127
Coupled horizontal and rocking motion: Assume fixed head piles. Using Table 3.1 for Ep IG s = 250 and homogeneous soil profile the parameters are obtained for v = 1/3 by interpolation . This gives for a single pile:
R2~.
1:
112
(0.5261)
(0.127)
= 654.0 Ib ftlrad/sec
Cuu
=""" L.J C
r
Horizontal:
k vv
C vv
:=
I. k;
r
r
=8
Rocking:
r
= 8 [3.767 + 271.6 x 1.22 2 + 114.31
X
129
Coupling:
=8 x (-1.387X10
) -
(8 x 5.716x10 4 x 1.448)
r
= 8 (-16.34X10 3 ) -8 x 1.143x10 5 x 1.448
= 4 x 114.34 x 7.68
130
Gave - 1 - PG
Coefficients a y are obtained from Fig. 3.14 taking A = 300 , p = 1 and interpolating for lid
= 42. Taking an inner pile (2) as reference, the interaction coefficients are:
Pile
(sid) (In sid)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.68
--
1.68 2.37 2.39 2.26 2.39 2.67
kw = 0.479
131
For damping,
Cvv
~
L c, ~ 1.487x105 Ib/fUsec
Coupled horizontal and rocking motion: A correction is made only for the most important stiffness, kuu. For the ratio
E ~
the interaction coefficients, evaluated by means of Eq. 3.9a for the direction X, are listed below: Pile
S (ft)
~+(~r
4.97
auf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.5
--
90
--
4.97 9.94 10.16 8.83 10.16 12.48
--
90 90 30
0
30 48
132
Thus,
~
k'uu
Example 2: Evaluation of Groups Impedance Using Dynamic Interaction Factors a) Approximate approach using Eq. 3.16 Evaluate the vertical impedance function for the pile group given in Fig. 3.19 using dynamic interaction coefficients from Fig. 3 .16 for frequency (co = 87.26 rn/s. The dynamic interaction factor o: =Cl.1 +
iCt.2
S1
and V s = 150
is defined on p. 3.25.
r.
150
Pile No .2 is chosen as reference pile. The factors c , obtained by interpolation considering even the far piles are given in the following Table A.
133
Table A Pile
SId
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.04 - 0.26t 0.984 - 0.122t 0.04 - 0.26t -0.128 - 0.12t -0.13-0.12t -0.10 - 0.13t -0.13-0.12t -0.20 - Ot
Notice that even the contributions from the far piles are significant.
J;
=1/Kv
134
+ ==
.Jv
1.915xl0
8 ::::
5.222 x 10- m / N
0
1" ::::
.J v
==
0.984 _ i 0.122
K"G =
In + aI '
. J
j=1
=n
a +b-
b ')
substituting
if + l:alj =
j=2
0.376 - i 1.132
8
b) Accurate evaluation of group stiffness and damping using the interaction matrix, Eq.
3.15.
All the complex interaction coefficients are assembled in the interaction matrix [a] shown in Table B. The group stiffness is obtained from the sum of all elements matrix [c] by Eq.3.15, giving in the
135
=6.143x1 0
The approximate values are 4.05 x 108 for stiffness and 1.4 x 107 for damping. The approximate approach avoids matrix inversion but considerably underestimates stiffness in this case. Examples of the effects of dynamic pile interaction on harmonic response of foundations are shown in Figs . 3.20 and 3.21.
Figure 3.20: Horizontal and Rocking Response of Foundation by Fig 3.19 to Harmonic Horizontal Excitation.
136
Figure 3.21: Comparison of Coupled Response with that of One OOF System under Horizontal Excitation
w o
::: j
-J
0
=> - ,
~ ...i
~ ~ ~ ~ i
I fi
{ ' '\
-1
II" I
~ ~l
~--. : : J: C
:< ~
o
,~l
1
I
II
I
. 1
.\
I
r ii !,~ !
~l
, I '\
i t - SDJF, No rnt.e::=-action
\
~ ~i
:::
N l
<:>
J/
I .
/JM ~ \
~ I~ \
\
\ 11
eoupled
!,' ~\
so
~ ~ '- w
'
v.()t ion
SrY"'.~
e,
~"
I::1te;.ac::.ion
Tnt,:>..- cci,~ __ 5~_ ~,
3C
eo
;20
: :N
l Bli
2!C
2H
137
Harmonic loading is shown in Fig. 1.2. It represents the basic case of periodic loading and can be described as
pet) = P coset
where P force amplitude and co excitation frequency.
convenience, an auxiliary imag inary component may be added making the excitation force complex. Denoting the imaginary unit i is described as the complex harmonic force
pet)
=p ei ~)l= P (cosot +
/sincot)
(4.2)
(4.3)
in which
139
SIn 'f/
where
=
~
or tan If' = 2 2 va + b a
I
4.1 RESPONSE OF RIGID FOUNDATIONS IN ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM The governing equation of the motion is obtained by adding the excitation force to the right side of the equation of free vibration. With viscous damping the governing equation for motion v(t) is:
mv
+ ell + kv = Pei(J)(
(4.4)
Because the excitation force is complex, the response is also complex. The lmaginary part of the solution will be labeled by
j
excitation force is of interest. The particular integral that gives the steady-state solution is:
(4.5)
V1+iv2.
(4.6)
in which
a (lOJ =
, )
k - mOJ + uo c
2.
140
(, J
{~
-f
II J..J
[ 1-1
' ' /.
', 0'1
is known as the admittance (or transfer function) of the system. The reciprocal of a(ico) defines the impedance of the system .
? v unc . )= k <mor azm (
For a massless body, m = 0 and the impedance takes the form of complex stiffness defined for various systems in Chapter 2. The admittance is the ratio v I P while the impedance is P I vc . Note a
= k-mco 2
and b =
-Q)C
(P) X a + ib a - ib a + ib
1
a + ib P = e p 2 2 a +b r
in which
tan=-=
b a
-we ? k mor'
r
(4 .7)
17'
\
I
V=
~(k - m (
p
2 )
.:
oJ
+ OJ2 C 2
-_1
141
(4.8b)
The stiffness and damping constants k and c often depend on frequency, k k(co), c
>
range. Then , the response has to be calculated from Eq. 4.8 . However, if k and care frequency independent or can be considered as such in the frequency range of interest, Eq. 4.8 can be rearranged into a more convenient form. By taking k in front of the radical and denoting
co;
kim
and
(4.9)
<
r
Vst
-~
. ~
in which
:;:;
P/k :;:; the static displacement and c :;:; dynamic amplification (or
magnification) factor,
&
= ----r========= (4.10)
... . - 1.......
This factor is equal to the ratio of the amplitude of the response to the static displacement. The phase shift
142
(4.11)
The particular solution describing the steady-state response to the real excitation force given by Eq . 4.1 is v(t) = v cos (cot + ) (4.12)
The complete solution is obtained by adding the complementary solution of the homogeneous equation [P(t) = 0] of Eq. 4.4 , which was found before, and becomes v(t) = v cos (cot + ) + Voe-at sin (co'ot + 4'0) (4.13) The
complementary solution describes transient motion, which usually dies out due to damping , and is of little importance .
In applications involving random vibrations somewhat is different notation is often used.
The particular integral (4.5) is written as:
vet) =
where
k-s mco
~.
e i CV f
+Z())C
= P H()))e icvt
k
(4.14)
(4.15)
in which lHI =
]43
v(t) = p IH(w)1 k
and its real part is:
ei(OJt+)
cv
The variation in the amplification factor e, Eq. 4.10 and phase shift
frequency is shown in Fig. 4.2a. The response starts from s = 1, i.e. from static displacement and, depending on the magnitude of damping, builds up into a response peak centred around the resonant frequency co = factor, given by Eq. 4.10, reduces to
Wo
E=
1 2D
(4.16)
The amplification factor at resonance depends only on damping and becomes infinite if damping vanishes . For small values of damping, the resonance amplification is great and the response far exceeds the static response. The phase shift ranges from 0 to 180 degrees and at resonance is -90 degrees (-71: I 2) for all values of damping. Above resonance the amplitudes diminish and approach zero as
(L)
approaches infinity.
]44
Figure 4.2; Dimensionless Response to Harmonic Loads (dynamic amplification factor and phase shift) a) constant force excitation
', t
,~
( J {..
"
.L
\)
)' r
' .1 1 .....
1 (
c.
l ' r
P(t )
-- P
o C O S "lt
"
.' I
' /
(A r
3.0
4 .0
~.o
b) quadratic excitation
_ me ~~ _. , ..... a;, 2 .-.. _C )S u.. t
, J
\"'
P ( t)
"
' 1--~--IlJl-\tI-;-----I
.!!
r_ 9Q9
0
o -
...
. " ,
- I G
;.
z.c
i
~. O
3_0
4 .0
E ' ::>
J QJ
IE
II
1.0
u
Quadratic excitation.
excitation force whose amplitude P is constant. In many practical cases, the amplitude
145
of the excitation force is not constant but depends on the square of frequency. This is so with excitation stemming from centrifugal forces of unbalanced rotating masses, unbalances of reciprocating mechanisms, harmonic ground motion or vortex shedding. An unbalanced mass me rotating with an eccentricity e and circular velocity (J,) produces a centrifugal force
(4.18) which is a harmonic force with frequency dependent amplitude. Substitution of this amplitude P =mee(J,)2 into Eq. 4.10 gives the response amplitude
V=
(4.19)
in which the reduced eccentricity p = mee I m and the dynamic amplification factor of quadratic excitation is
(4.20)
The variation in the dynamic amplification factor s' with frequency is shown in Fig. 4.2b. The response amplitude starts from zero, grows to the resonant amplitude
v=p
at (J,)
1 2D
(4.21)
=(J,) 0 and then asymptotically approaches p. Thus , the dynamic amplification e'
146
ranges from zero to 1/2D at resonance and finally to 1 at high frequencies. Examination of the response peaks reveals that the actual maximum of the amplification factor exceeds the value of 1/2D occurring at
00
= 000 and is
with quadratic excitation. Thus the true peak may appear below or above the undamped resonant frequency co
147
Figure 4.3: Response Curves for Constant Amplitude Exc'tation and Quadratic Excitation
q u adz e c i c fo rce
constant force
cirn
l
v =V1 + ivz
According to Eq. 4.3, this amplitude is also
(4.22)
and
(4.23)
Thus
148
and the real part of this motion is vet) = v cos (cot + ) The relation between complex and real amplitude is useful in many degrees of freedom. The theory of one degree of freedom can be used for vertical translation and rotation about the vertical axis (torsion); very approximately, it is also applicable to horizontal translation of very flat footings and rocking of tall footings about base axis. In cases involving rotation, mass moment of inertia, I, replaces mass, rn, in the above formulae and displacement, v, is replaced by the pertinent rotation. The basic formulae for mass moments of inertia are given below. The formulae are for rectangular bodies and cylindrical bodies; m is the mass of the body.
o[
--- ---r-----Ix-X
V
.Z
I
I
x = 12
( a +b
I Xl
mx
--
-:_-~-_.:- - I. ,
,.,.
--:- j-X
__'-_ x
d
= m
2 d 8
m
2
----X'
x
Xl
2 2 d h + m(16 12)
I
h-1
+ mx
149
The theory outlined above can be used to analyze the response of shallow foundations and pile foundations. The needed stiffness and damping constants can be evaluated using the approaches described in Chapters 2 and 3. As an example, the response amplitudes are examined for the machine foundation shown in Fig. 4.5. Using Eq. 4.8a, the vertical and torsional amplitudes are evaluated for different types of foundation and quadratic excitation described by Eq. 4.17. The response curves established are shown in Figs. 4.6 to 4.8. The amplitudes are given in a dimensionless form which actually corresponds to the dynamic amplification factor,
E',
150
Figure 4.5: Machine Foundation Used with Piles and Without Piles in Examples (1ft
=O.3048m)
Figure 4.6: Vertical Response of (A) Pile Foundation, (B) Embedded Pile
Foundation, (C) Shallow Foundation, and (D) Embedded Shallow Foundation (Bx
= m I p Rx3
= 5.81,
Novak, 1974a)
r'
....
I'"
J.
, ... I
~'
'.
1r
JI-' .
_ ......:.._--:!':---:-.t._...
20
60 80 1 00
f R E ~ U EN C Y <oJ (/lAO/S)
.J........-. .. ,..,J
':20
140
rGO
'I.
~
I'
1.,1 l"
~'"
lj
' .... f
151
'J
1-
V' ,o .
,J
c
Pa~bolic
,J
J-
Soil Profile, and (2) Embedded Pile Foundation with Homogeneous Soil Profile and (3) Shallow Foundation Without Embeddment
L0
".' I
L, - r:
_.. - t. .
u ..J .... ,
.J ,
.1J
!
I _
::::;,
J
0=. cn-i
2:
CI:
o !
,.
(, '
-ioo
2S Ci
ft1
Figure 4.8 : Torsional Response of (1) Pile Foundation and (2) Shallow Foundation
152
4.2 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF VIBRATION Using the above formula, the intensity of the vibration can be predicted; the effects of the vibration can then be evaluated. This evaluation includes the dynamic stresses in the structure, foundation and soil as well as settlement of the soil, physiological effects and effects on the operation of equipment. Physiological effects depend displacement amplitude. essentially on vibration velocity rather than
= frequency.
effects may be assessed using Fig. 4.9. Additional data on human susceptibility are given in Chapter 5 and in Richart et al. (1970). Some allowable amplitudes, established with regard to machine operation, are suggested in Table 4.1. The noise levels to be expected are indicated in Table 4.2.
4.2.1 Transmissibility Damping is favourable because it reduces resonant amplitudes but it has the undesirable effect of increasing the forces transmitted into the foundation of the system and its vicinity. To illustrate this point, consider a general case of harmonic vibration vet) in one degree of freedom resulting from excitation by a harmonic force. pet) = P coseot The steady-state response of the system is vet) ::
V
cos (rot + 4
(4.24 )
153
Figure 4.9: Human Susceptibilty to Vibration (after Reiher and Meister; amplitudes
in inches and mm)(1in = 25.4 mm)
( in)
( ;r.r..;
I
I
i !
!
I
I
I
: II I I'
I
I
I
i !I I. I :I
I
0. :: 5
I
!
I
! i !I
II : I II II
!
1
:
I
i I
!
i
I
0 ,0 0 1
~_-:----t'-"'-:_-'l.c---;'
I ! . I I! :: I .:
I
l' , I II I i I
I
I "
O,OOOl L - --------.:.-------.:.- , I iI
E
lI
~
l,;
:...t: . _ _'
-'
I I
l-
I ~ :' I I ! I!I I I i !I ~
I
:
I ;
:
I
I
II
I i : [
: 0
;II II
' \
'N '!II
0
..
: !
I
I ,
i I I
I
.I
I .
-I
: I
I!.
: J
"
J :
I! . ' . I ; II
10
I i
0 . 0 (8 ] 5
1 00
( II : )
F'r oq u c ri c y , C . ?S.
154
Table 4.1 Limit vibration amplitudes for machine foundations (in mm)
1) Reciprocating engins with crank drive (diesel engins, piston compressors, fram e saws etc .) 1) ton 2) Hammers: foundations Anvil 2) ton anv il 3) ton heads 3) Crushers & Mill s 4) Turbornachinery 1) RPM ~ 3,000 2) RPM .~ 1,500 3) RPM ~ 750 1,000 -3000 RPM < 100 KW 5) Electric Motors 1,500 RPM> 100 KW 1,000 RPM> 100 KW 750 RPM 600 RPM 500 RPM 6) Factory Machines Lathe, drilling machines Shaper, milling machines Grinders , precise lathe 7) Paper Machines (according to make & component)
0.20 1.2 1.0 2.0 0.30 0.025 = 1 mil 0.050 0.100 0.050 0.090 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.01 0.003 0.008 to 0.025
Table 4.2 Noise Levels of Typical Machines That Range Above 90 dB Machine Hydraulic pres s Pneumatic press Wing bar drop press Swagger Shell press Mechanical power press Header Drop hammer Automatic screw machine Circular saw Ball mill Grinder Average dB level 130 130 128 108 - 118 98 - 112 98 - 110 101 - 105 99 -101 93 - 100 100 99 80-95
155
p
Va = - &
(4.25)
where k is stiffness and n is the dimensionless dynamic amplification factor which depends on the natural frequency w 0 and damping ratio D according to the equation
c = -r===========
(4.26)
The total force transmitted into the supporting medium results from both the restoring force and the damping force and is
F(t)
k vet) + c v(t)
(4.27)
With the motion given by Eq. 4.24, the expression for transmitted force becomes
F(t)
This is a sum of two harmonic motions having different amplitudes, the same frequency and a phase difference of 90 degrees. Thus, the transmitted force is also harmonic and its amplitude is
(428)
Upon substituting for the amplitude from Eq. 4.25 and realizing that
156
(4.29)
With constant excitation amplitude P, the transmitted force varies with frequency and damping as shown in Fig. 4.10 in which the dimensionless ratio FJP, called transmissibility, is plotted . Damping reduces the transmitted force in the resonance region but increases it for frequencies w>
.J2 COo.
3t-------:~....I....---+-----+------==-l
2 t-------ti:.......+"'+-i---+-----+----l
i:""' .
e::----.~~-_+_--_____ll----_i
With excitation stemming from the rotation of unbalanced masses , the force amplitude
157
is proportional to the square of frequency (4.30) where me and e are the unbalanced mass and its eccentricity, respectively . P can be rewritten as
P
in which p
=:
mee =--m()) In
2 = p k( ca J2
())o
---7
0)
(4.31 )
co and m
=:
k I ulo
The
---7
00,
transmitted force. This normalized transmitted force F/(pk) is shown in Fig. 4.11. The increase in the transmitted force due to damping for co >
J2
Wo
is quite dramatic.
Hence, for low tuned foundations, high damping is unfavourable. The ratio F/P is the same as that shown in Fig. 4.10. Figure 4.11: Normalized Transmitted Force with Quadratic Excitation
~ , "'\.~\
,' j
, V
\\
I D=O
0.5
3t-----+,&.f---';t----:-f'---"'7"----""7"-l
\1
'.
\.
ll-_*~-=-------------I
158
Rigid foundations are constructed as rigid or hollow blocks . Their motion in space is described by three translations and three rotations and consequently they have six degrees of freedom. The six components of the motion are, in general. coupled. However, there is usually at least one plane of symmetry and this reduces the coupling between individual components of the motion. Two vertical planes of symmetry
decouple the six degrees of freedom into four independent motions: vertical translation, torsion around the vertical axis, and two coupled motions in the vertical planes of symmetry; the latter motions are composed of horizontal translation (sliding) and rotation (rocking). The coupled motion in the vertical plane represents an important case because it results from excitation by moments and horizontal forces acting in the vertical plane. The motion is treated most conveniently if the centre of gravity of the footing and the machine considered together is taken as the reference point (origin of coordinates). Then, the horizontal sliding u (t) and rocking
\jI
indicated in Fig. 4.12 in which the positive directions of the two components are indicated . For the analysis, inertia forces, stiffness constants, and damping constants must be established first.
159
x.o
b
-..
,Y,v a
machine. No additional mass to account for soil inertia is needed because this effect is taken care of by the variation of stiffness constants with frequency and the generation of geometric (radiation) damping. occur. The mass moment of inertia is calculated in a standard way. If the footing is of a simple rectangular shape with the dimensions shown in Fig. 4-12, the mass moment of inertia of the footing-machine system is: In a massless medium, these two factors would not
(4.32)
In this formula, the mass moment of inertia of the machine about its own axis is neglected because it is usually small compared to that of the footing.
160
I J
II
r---_..
-..
_.._ / ~ __ T\Tk"ttu,, /
v J,e ! '
R~
. t.
~t_
~ ~
-;I '~
' I
. . . . . -t-tI
VJJ=I
/
-/
-k u
b)
jv
JJ c l
-...:;:
-......~R= ku Yc
a)
kljlu ,
for translation and rotation at the centre of the base of the footing , transformed to the new reference point , the centre of gravity, CG. If the stiffness constants referred to the centre of the base are ku and k1jl' the stiffness constants referred to CG are:
kuu = k u
in which Yc > 0 if CG lies above the level for which ku and k., is are defined (this is the base in the cases considered in Figs. 4.12 and 4.13). Equations 4.32 are evident from
161
the geometry indicated in Fig. 4 .13 in which the reactive forces generated in the medium under the base due to unit displacement of the CG are also shown. surface foundations the constants For
foundations , the resultant expressions are described by Eqs. 2.26. For pile foundations, Eqs. 3.3 to 3.5 apply. If the footing is supported by an elastic layer of cork, rubber or other material whose Young's modulus is E, shear modulus G, and thickness d. the stiffness constants of the base are
k, = GA I d
kv
(4.33a) (4.33b)
=El z I d
In which A = base area and Iz = second moment of base area about the axis parallel to z. These constants are to be substituted into Eqs. 4.32 . The damping constants are evaluated in the same manner. Thus , the formulae for damping are obtained from those for stiffness by replacing constants k by c in Eqs. 4.32. The resultant expressions are given in Chapters 2 and 3.
(4.34a) (4.34b)
amplitude , M, derives from the horizontal force and possibly from an independent excitation moment , Me, and is
162
M = pYe + Me
(4.34c)
in which Ye
=the vertical distance between the horizontal force and the centre of gravity
of the machine-footing system. With the mass, stiffness and damping constants established, the governing equations of the coupled motion, composed of the horizontal translation, u(t), and the rotation in the vertical plane, \jf(t), can be written by expressing the conditions of dynamic equilibrium of the foundation in translation and rotation. Applying Newton's
second law and recalling the basic definitions of the stiffness and damping constants, the governing equations of the coupled motion are (4.35a) (4.35b) in which the dots indicate differentiation with respect to time, kUl v = kljlu, the sake of brevity, u(t) = u and ~J(t)
CUIjI
~u
and for
=\!J.
[rn]{ii}+[C]{Ll}+[k]{u} = {PCt)}
(4.36a)
in which the diagonal mass matrix, the displacement vector and the force vector are
[m] =[
(4.36b)
[k] =
lk
uu
k tf/l~
[CUll
C'1/U
(4.36c)
163
otion
The governing equations, Eqs. 4.35 or 4.36a,of the coupled motion can be solved using two approaches: the direct solution and modal analysis. Both methods lead to closed form formulae and are easy to use.
Direct Solution
The direct solution is mathematically accurate and is suitable with stiffness and damping constants which are frequency dependent or independent. For mathematical convenience, the harmonic excitation described by Eqs. 4.34 may be complemented by imaginary components iP and iM to yield pet) = P (cos rot + isin rot) = P exp (kot) M(t) = M (cos rot + isin cot) = M exp (ioit) (4.37a) (4.37b)
With this complex excitation, the particular solutions to Eq. 4.36a are also complex and can be written as
{u
(4.38)
and \lie are complex displacement amplitudes. Substitution of Eqs. 4.38 into
P= (kuu -
These equations are readily solved using Kramer's rule. Introduce the auxiliary constants
164
(4.40)
(4.41 a)
(4.41b)
(4,42a)
IJf
'l' c
/3& 1 1 2 &1
+ &2
&1
+ &2
(4.42b)
165
As in
\jf
are:
(4.43a)
(4.43b)
When the motion is excited by a moment alone, P = for the real amplitudes result:
u=M
(4.44a)
If/ = M
(4.44b)
The phase shifts between the excitation forces and the response follow from Eq. 4.23 as
(4.45a)
(4.45b)
Dropping the imaginary components of the response labelled by i, the real motion of the centre of gravity is:
u(t) = U cos (rot + >u)
(4.46 a) (4.46b)
From Eqs. 4.43 or 4.44 the response amplitudes are readily evaluated. Beredugo and
166
Novak (1972) formulated this closed form solution. For very high frequencies it may be advantageous to divide all constants a, large numbers. As in the case of uncoupled modes, dimensionless amplitudes
p and
(4.47) may be introduced to facilitate the presentation and analysis of the response to forces whose amplitudes are constant. This is the case of force amplitudes independent of frequency or force amplitudes evaluated for a certain operating frequency. With excitation due to unbalanced forces of rotating or reciprocating machines, the force and moment amplitudes are proportional to the square of frequency as described by Eq. 4.17. If the excitation is caused by an unbalanced rotating mass me acting at a height Ye above the centre of gravity, then
in which e = rotating mass eccentricity; the ratio M / P = Yeo The dimensionless vibration amplitudes are, in the case of frequency variable excitation,
m Au =u
me ' e
(4.48)
The uncoupled modes of vibration in one degree of freedom are special cases of the solution described . It may be noted that an alternative direct calculation may be formulated in which the complex amplitudes u, and
\jIc
beforehand. This approach leads to four simultaneous equations with real coefficients;
167
however, the computation requires more time and a closed form solution woul d be inconvenient. From the motion of the centre of gravity, the horizontal and vertical
components of the motion experienced by the surface of the footing can be determined. The upper edge of the footing experiences vertical amplitude amplitude u, that are:
Ve
and horizontal
Ve
= If! ~ , U e = U
+ (b - y JIJI
\jf
In the last formula , the phase difference between u and dimensions of the footing (Fig. 4.12).
4.3.4 Examples of Coupled Response
Examples of the coupled response calculated from Eqs. 4.43 are shown in Figs. 4.14 to 4.17. The foundation is the one shown in Fig. 4.5, the excitation is quadratic and the footing is founded either directly on soil or on piles. Frequency independent stiffness and damping constants are assumed. Figs. 4.14 and 4.15 show comparisons between pile foundations and shallow foundations. As can be seen, pile foundations provide less damping than shallow
foundations . Fig. 4 .16 shows the response of the shallow foundation calculated for different soil shear wave velocities . For this more heavily damped embedded Fig. 4.17 shows the
effect of soil stiffness on the response of pile foundation . As can be seen , the variation of resonance amplitudes with soil stiffness follows different patterns for shallow and pile foundations . Similar parametric studies can be conducted for various foundation conditions described in Chapters 2 and 3.
168
Figure 4.14: Horizontal Component of Coupled Footing Resposne to Horizontal Load. ( (Bx
r
I
-
20
. .1. ..
I
I
--- --
.....
'Wz
40
FREQUENCY w (RAD / S )
( '0\. "t
';
169
~i
'1.
.,.
>-< , Cl
I L I
I
2 :
IV
s '" f>,
IE
?
<{
I..L! 0
I i
i
I i :
::::>
--l n,
::E
<{
z, ~
l-
I
0
a::
~
i
.......A'.:..-! = ...:-_ _ ... __..l '
-'-_ _---'
20
40
60
80
.cc
:2 0
140
160
FREQUENCY w ( RAD / S )
'0
i .J ~ ,
~ (
170
Figure 4.16: Horizontal and Rocking Components of Coupled Response of Embedded Foundation for Different Shear Wave Velocities of Soil (e IR = O.4 granular soil)
J
to
:c
mjsec
tL.
.....
...J
a: .
a:;
:s::o
....
. z:
o
Q;.
N -0
-.:
w
N
dl'"1
100
200
FREQUENCY
300
(RAD {ANS)
400
100
200
FFlEOUENCI
300
mRO 1!=INS)
400
SOC
t
(
f~~,- 'i)
I
JJO
.""
he
1 ./
1.
L~
&'1.-< r(
I
t I'J - . ,
(
'_:7
t,
-,,~
~, /
.' 0 (.." ,
.~
j 1"1 ' r
{/
, , L: . ( .
I
If'I ~' .r
VI
/;/
I~
(.
/"
,J(
t -. . e (
)
(;
<,
~ .)
, c.-'
't ..
'I'
"
(Ie
"
-I
I )
171
Figure 4.17: Effect of Soil Stiffness on Horizontal Comp onent of Coupled Response of Pile Foundation
" \ _. , 1\
o
Lfl
(\J
I'
GRANULAR SOIL
V s
225 m/sec
1-1 1 : ---
vs -'"
150 m/sec
('
'
I
\
.. ..
v5
= 75 m/sec
J :'/(Ij~: '
- 1 '_
t\.. . .,
.'
UJ
,.--- 75 m/sec
l.<
;'
/-----Z
O ~~-.......- _ - r
/ ; - 150 m/sec
'
'-
. ' (.
225. m/sec
r - -_ _, - - _ " " - -_ _
--r
.-_----,
~. 0
100 .0
400.0
172
4.3.5 Modal Analysis of Coupled Response When the stiffness and damping parameters of the foundation are presumed to be frequency independent, a different approach to coupled response , known as modal analysis, is very suitable. The principal advantages of this approach are that it yields natural frequencies and damping ratios in addition to amplitudes and that the algebra involved is very simple. The method is described in more detail in Novak (1974a,b). First, the natural frequencies and modes of free vibration are calculated. These follow from the solution of the eigenvalue problem . The equations for the natural frequencies and modes follow from EqsA.39 by putting the damping coefficients Cuu, cIjIO/ and well as P and M equal to zero. This yields, in terms of real amplitudes,
cu~
as
k uu [
. 2 mea
k if/'ll
kU lf/
(4.50)
and
(02
{tJ
2 1,2
(4.51)
0=
a . =_ ) =
) UE).
u.
-k UIf/ k _ mOJ 2 j
IIlI
(4.52)
with j
=1 or 2. (These equations provide a quick check of (OJ. With correct values of (01,2
173
both equations give the same results.) The two modes represent rotations abou t two two different points, as shown in Fig. 4.18.
... .
,I,
"' __ "t' l
,
, I
I
I
~',I, f 't" l
1
P(t) M(t)
Ii
ii
I I
1st mode
2 n d Mode
The generalized force amplitudes, producing response in one mode each (Fig . 4.19), are:
Pj = P
Uj
+ M 'Vi
(4.54 )
and 'Vj and can be chosen to an arbitrary scale; e.g.1 and thus
174
Uj
= aj
2 )
_I
Cll
:::>
l
-l
LoU 0
::t I
<t <t
-l
0..
q~uz
a
0
i ,J
~ 90"
The two modal damping ratios pertinent to the vibration modes are, from Eq. 21 in Novak (1974b), (4.56) in which damping constants c are given in Chapters 2 and 3.Then,the footing translation and rocking are:
2
u(t)
"q .u . sin(wt+J.) ~ J J
j =[
(4.57a)
175
:2
(4.57b)
(4.58)
2Dj {t}/
1- ca/
/
(.!
1m.
J
])2
.J
(4.59)
/ CI) .
With respect to the phase difference between and translation u and rocking
\jf
~1
and
~2
Eqs. 4.60 give results usually very close to those obtained by direct calculation from
Eqs, 4.43, particularly if the damping is small and the resonance peak is well pro
nounced. This can be seen from Figs. 4.20 to 4.22. The difference seen is due to the inaccuracy of the modal damping evaluation but is not very significant because the dynamic amplification is quite small when the error is large. The greatest advantage of modal analysis occurs when calculating the maximum amplitude in the first or second resonant peaks of the coupled motion. When the
damping of the resonating mode is not too large and the response curve shows a peak, the contribution of the nonresonant modal component to the resonant amplitude can be
176
components is close to 90 degrees (see Fig. 4.19). Then, the resonant amplitudes of the coupled motion at resonance j
r,
2D.M.w~ ) ) )
P) lf) lfr,j - 2. D .M .w 2
) ) )
(4.61b)
Figure 4.20: Sliding Component of Coupled Response Computed Directly (exactly) and by Means of Modal Analysis (for foundation shown in Figure 4.5)
EXAC T ' AN A l y S I S
MODAL ANALYS I S, O .. 4.6 02 E O. 4. 6 3a
...J
o
N
2'
! W, . !) I = 5 .9 % I .
I
w2 , O
2 :
I :,
I
.,~
20
40
60 80 10 0 FREOU ::NCY w ( R A D I S )
12 G
177
EXACT ANALYS IS
4 . 6 Cb
EO. 4..63b
ol,.-~=--L---..L_L.--
_ _l - - - ' - - - - - - - _ - L _ _-L-_ _
J-.._---'
160
20
40
60 80 FREQUENCY w
i OO
( R ;:D ! S~
12 0
140
The resonant amplitudes calculated from these very simple equations are shown as crosses (+) in Figs. 4.14 and 4.15. The agreement between the accurate and approximate values is quite good in this case. The agreement can be further improved by the vector addition of the non-resonating modal generalized coordinate obtainable from Eq. 4.58. With the omission of damping, allowable because of large differences between
0)1
and
0)2,
O)j are
(4.62a)
178
(4.62b)
Because the phase shift between the resonating and non-resonating modes is close to 90 degrees, the resonant amplitudes are approximately
'")
"j u
U ;,j
+ U ,~,k
(4.63a)
J
'J
I-D ~
v: .+ 'fI
! ')
r ,J
n ,k
I-DJ~
in which k
(4.63b)
*j.
The inclusion of the damping in the denominator yields the approximate value of the maximum resonan t amplitude instead of the somewhat smaller amplitude at frequency (OJ. (The maximum amplitude does not appear exactly at (OJ as can be seen in Fig. 4.3). Equations 4.63 yield an even better estimate of the resonant amplitudes than Eqs. 4.61 . The amplitudes calculated from Eqs. 4.63 are shown in Figs. 4.20 and 4.21 where the complete response curves, obtained directly and by means of modal analysis , are also plotted . The agreement between the two approaches is very good .
179
i
I
I
i
. ...,
e; i
Ii
1 \
EX'-I'='l k.. 'l.04 1 y s l. .s
1'\oda-l A. n alysu
. ,
... ~.' -i
a; ,..-.
"
~ 1
f
:::0
: '; ' ; ' \1 :' , . "
..,..; :
~ - 1
1
:=:c::: !
~(~ l
I
--'
! ,
Cl
u . .;
SC.
, : :2 0 . 'J
~gc . o
, ;< ';0. 0
300. Q
9 C; C ; M,\ 5 / ~ C C l
180
When the foundation has fewer than two planes of symmetry, the response is coupled in three or more degrees of freedom . The governing equations have the form of Eq. 4.36. The displacements a re sought as u(t)
= Uc exp (kot),
obtained using a suitable computer program such as DYNA5 (Novak et al., 1999). Examples of the response are given in Novak and Sachs (1973). approaches are described in Arya et al. (1979). Some other
181
O~
The Footing:
R.C. density:
Dimensions: a = 10 ft (3.048 m) b
= 16 ft (4.87 m)
4.75 ft (1.448 m)
182
Exciting Forces:
Excitation forces occur due to rotor unbalances and act in the vertical direction Y , the horizontal direction X and as a moment about axis Z and are: Px (t) P y (t)
Mz (t)
Ye
=7.25ft = 2.20m
The results will be shown in dimensionless form so mae will not be given. The foundation is the same as the one used in the examples in Chapters 2 and 3. The stiffness and damping constants are evaluated for the shallow foundation on pages 2.42 to 2.46 and on pages 3.33 to 3.38 for the pile foundation.
The response will be calculated for the following vibration modes: 1. 2. 3. Vertical mode Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration Torsional mode.
183
Figure 4.2~
r------
/
I
I
---l I I
I
T,
I
I
I
I
Y e
X;;
~
E
'1" N
~
11
'/ /
1.381 m
I.
1.37m
1.25 f r
4.5 ft
1.
, I
, y
1 .37 m
I w .!.
I
1 1 ////// ///
I
!I
'/ /
:.37 m
J.o.~8 ! rn
0.3m\
1.22m
4ft
4.5
tt
4 .5ft
.~ .
b" 4 .87rn
(i6~t ) ..._._. __
--1
1.25ft
I" . If!
"$ I,
'w w
2.
ill
\J../
4'
----~Ze
I
YJ
~ (t)
3'
1fJ
,.,
E
7 7
C\}
, T :::
..... ,
<D
~I
~
r0
0
I-~I~ ;..
-$:
'J
-07-, I
~I -o/~
E r<> 0
a.38m
I.
1.37rn
.~..
1.37 m
)fl'",
1.37 m
0.38 m fa:_ .~
b = 4.877m!!6 fl)
184
5.68x10 6 N/m/sec
{O o =:
~;;;
{k =:
(00
= 82.3 rad/sec
D = 0.10
CW 'i'=
1.1Sx10 7Nm/rad/sec
185
Eq. 4.51 as
(1) 1 ;::
(02
The modes (Eq. 4.52) are a- ::: 2.61, a2 ::: -0.638 Modal damping ratios (Eq, 4.56) are 0 1 0.135, O2 = 0.299
CD
=COo
Vertical Vibration:
>
Torsional Vibration:
k~1]
>
1.124x10
61b
ft / rad / sec
186
Coupled Motion:
For the first mode ro ::::
W1,
(0 ::::
W 2
c'
till
c + 213 k
11 11
I~ U
c'
'If~
=c
'If~
k'. =k
1I~
u~
-2j3c
u~
OJl
>
For comparison the values obtained with material damping neglected are shown in brackets .
187
V ertical Motion:
kw
=3.708x10 8 N / m
Cw
=6.306x1 06 N/ m / sec
COo
c o = .jk;;;
= 0.528 (0.454)
=1.752x1 09 N m / rad
VIII
C ll ll
COo =
D = 0.1776 (0.10)
CO2
a1
=2.631 (2 .61)
a2
=- 0.632 (-0.638)
0 1= 0.188 (0.135)
D2 = 0.563 (0.30)
Response to Harmonic Loading The Vertical and Torsional Amplitudes: the amplitudes follow from Eq . 4.9. With Py
188
Coupled Motion:
Using the direct analysis, the horizontal and rocking amplitudes follow from Eqs. 4.43 .
These are shown in Fig. 4.26 as dimensionless horizontal amplitudes and
Figure 4.24: Effect of Soil Material Damping on Vertical Amplitude of Shallow Foundation : 1) soil material damping neglected and (2) soil material damping included
w
0
::::J
I-
'"
a:.
L...
....J
{l)
0
-~
~-- .<.
a: ..: ur
>
5'0
90
189
included
w "]
= .: ~
(0
a: G ......
'"
N
6'C
9'0
. ... '-'
~C: '"
.ec
I S :.C. J
190
Figure 4.26: Horizontal and Rocking Components of Coupled Response to Horizontal Loads: (1) material damping neglected and (2) material damping included
c
on
:::>
l
w o
CJ
.,J
n, :L
a:
. -;
'
.....
a:
-.J
:c:
a::
50
90
lZO
I SO
.ac
~o
90
120
I ~O
18 0
210
f RE.QUE NC Y [RAD. I SE C. )
J 91
1) Vertical Vibration:
a) Pile-soil-pile interaction neglected:
kw :;:; 15.32x10 8 N 1m
<Do ::::: 126.3 rad I sec,
0=0.0896
Cw = 21 .732 X 10 N
5
I m I sec
=7.310x10 8 N I m
87.13
0)'0=
0=0 .0618
2) Coupled Response:
a) Pile interaction neglected:
kuu = 45.728x10 N I m
klll\!,
C UU
= 9.1472x10 N I m I sec
6
3.616x 10 N m I rad
k UIjI
=-7.73Jx1 08 N I rad
k'lVlI' == ~1jI
192
c'UII'
ClJ\V
Response After obtaining the stiffness and damping constants for both cases, the response to harmonic loads is obtained in the same way as in the case of shallow foundation . The results are plotted in Fig. 4.27 for the vertical response and in Fig. 4.28 for the coupled response to horizontal excitation.
Figure 4.27: Vertical Response of Pile Foundation: (1) pile interaction neglected and (2) pile interaction included
(2)
Cl ::::J
c
~
(1 )
l :J
CL
k n;
LI)
a:
U
..J
...
t:)
l-
a: W >
-
0
II)
'------
sa
=====
leo
210
so
90
120
lS0
193
Figure 4.28: Horizontal and Rocking Response of Foundation Harmonic and Horizontal Excitation
by Fig
~ .19 to
.(;.
,~
When the rigid foundation is of general shape , the response is in six degrees-of freedom, three translations and three rotations, all of them, possibly, coupled . These directions are indicated and labelled in Fig. 4.29. The stiffness and damping constants of the footing are best established for the elastic centre of the base (C.B.) first and then transferred to the centre of gravity (C.G.) of the footing-machine system , analogously to the coupled constants of a 2 DOF system by Eqs. 4.32a, band c. Thus, the individual stiffness constants kij and damping constants
Cij,
194
refer to the centre of gravity and strictly satisfy the basic definition according to which
K ij
is the external force to be applied in the nodal direction i when there is a sole unit vibration amplitude to occur in direction j. The positive directions for forces and displacements are indicated by arrows in Fig. 4.29 . For embedded foundations, details on the coupled impedance functions can be found in Novak and Sachs (1973). For shorter writing, describe the stiffness and damping properties in terms of impedance functions Kij. Then, the typical governing equations in the directions X and
\V, being conditions of dynamic equilibrium of forces and moments in the two directions
where dots indicate differentiation with respect to time. Figure 4.29: Notations and Sign Convention for Rigid Footing
,;
/'
Pz.
f-----
I I
/'
/'
P.
2 Y,v
I ~-L.:.r-:-+-----...J[-"::'--+-~
X, u
z,w
195
Similar equations can be written in the other four directions. In Eqs. 4.64, li = mass moment of inertia in direction i and Dij = products of inertia. The effect of the latter is usually small unless the asymmetry of the footing is very large. displacements and rotations in a vector, Listing all the
{u} = [u v
{P(t)} = lpx(t)
ljI
SY
/v(.(t)
(4.65a)
Py(t)
Pz(t)
M y(t)
Al z(t)J (4.65b)
the impedance matrix can be readily written and the governing equations expressed in the standard matrix form, i.e.
{pCt) }
(4.66)
= 0 and [K] = [k] . Assume that the stiffness matrix is frequency independent. Then, the particular solution for all displacement in Eq. 4.65a is {u(t)} = (u) sin cot, where (u) lists displacement amplitudes and co is the unknown natural frequency. Substituting the particular solution into Eq. 4 .66 yields
([k] -
0) 2
[mJXu } = {a}
(4.67)
Eq. 4.67 represents the classical eigenvalue problem whose solution yields six natural
]96
subroutine such as IINROOT" in the IBM Scientific Subroutine Package or the subroutine "GVCSP" in the IMSL Mathematical Subroutines Package. If the stiffness and damping matrices are taken as frequency dependent, the eigenvalue problem becomes a nonlinear one and its solution is more difficult. The natural frequencies can be more easily identified from the response curves of the undamped or lightly damped system to harmonic excitation .
{P(t)}
{u(t)} = {u}e;(lj{
197
where {u}
This is a system of linear algebraic equations for the complex amplitudes that can be solved using the IMSL package or any other. Alternatively, both the complex impedance functions and the amplitudes can be split into their real and imaginary parts, i.e.
[K] = [k ] + i OJ [ C]
,{u} =
{u] } + i {u2 }
(4.70)
Substituting Eq. 4.70 into Eq. 4.69 and realizing that both the real part and the imaginary part of the latter equation must vanish, two coupled equations for the real (ul) and (U2 ) are obtained, which can be written as
(4.71)
The dimension of the problem is doubled to 12 x 12 but all is real. Consequently, the solution is easily obtained by Gaussian elimination or any of the basic subroutines available such as "SIMQII" in the IBM package. In either situation , after {U1} and {uz} have been established, the real amplitudes and phase shifts follow analogously to Eqs. 4.22 and 4.23. An example of the coupled response in 6 OOF is shown in Fig. 4.30 . The figure shows the vertical response and rotation about the horizontal axis X for an irregularly shaped, large compressor foundation exposed to harmonic unbalanced forces and moments. Notice that all six possible resonances need not be discernible. (The vertical response is shown for the edge of the footing.)
198
Figure 4.30: Response of an Irregular Compressor Foundation in 6 OOF in Vertical Translation (Z) and Rotation about Horizontal Axis X. (30m layer of clay overlying bedrock)
LlJ
(f)
<0 cr.. Ul
~
Do
"
o
o
o
. o
C"
~
>(
o .......
f f
....,
0 ~
...
L:.L:
.....: a
x
I
0 co
:1
)
r" 35 'r--" , ~ "I 10 is
I I i l l
50
55
66
6S
]C
Fr:EOUEl-IC )'
R:A.O . ISEC .
199
CI
o ...,
,.....
1:
0 0
CD
z;
0
0
~ ,g
X
..."
,::,
....
-e, ;
CJ
<""I
~
.J
(I:
I r-J
..:
;::
~ I)
I
0
'" r'
c: 0-
'f
10
15
20
FREQUUlC Y
-------_._-----
l-
. ._ - - _._.-.. .. _ .._ ---- -_ ._ _._- ---j'
X~
46 m
if
j
- - ---&
200
KUI/
s;
[K] =
KI/f/1 K IN
K,.;
~
(4.72)
.;
Thus, the response decouples into two coupled motions in 2 OOF, each comprising a horizontal translation and rotation in one vertical plane, a vertical motion in 1 OoF and a rotation about the vertical axis. Such a situation often exists or may be assumed to be approximately valid simplifying the analysis. Oecoupling into six 1 OOF systems could only be valid for a very thin doubly symmetrical mat, not a practical foundation. (If the foundation is very thin it is flexible, not rigid as assumed here.)
201
4.31.
Each column
(a) or all flexible columns rest on one common rigid mat (b).
Figure 4.31: Structure Foundations in the Form of (a) individual spread footings and (b) common mat
: l
a)
b)
can be described by the same 2 x 2 impedance matrix as used in the analysis of rigid footings in par . 4.2 .2 and included in Eqs . 4.35 and appearing as the first submatrix in Eq .4.72. This foundation impedance matrix can be introduced into the governing equations of the structure and the governing equation written in the standard form
[m]{ii}+[K]{u}
{pet)}
(4.73)
For individual spread footings, each supporting one column, the mass matrix lists all the lumped masses including the footing and the global impedance (stiffness) matrix is obtained by superimposing the footing impedance matrix on the structure
202
[K] = f[K s ]
l
[K fJ]J
(4.74)
For a frame on a common mat, schematically represented in Fig. 4.32, a somewhat different procedure can be followed. Figure 4.32: Building on Mat Foundation
G:
o
. i
. . :: "
-
,
o
I\( ;-I
For each of the floors (masses m, to mn) one condition of horizontal equilibrium is written giving n equations. If the structure is a shear building or if the structure matrix was condensed eliminating floor rotations, the total number of degrees of freedom is (n+2) where n
203
translation,
Ub
by
writing the equilibrium condition of the building as a whole in the horizontal direction and rotation, respectively . Then , denoting the mass matrices and floor relative
displacements
[m]
{m }T {mh}T
{m}
n
{mh}
It
m: Lm i
I
Lmihi
I
" Lmjh j
I
" 2 1+ Lmjh
J
rl
ub
'1/
[Kl {O}T
{O}
KUI/ KIf/lI
{O}
{u}
Ub
;
K/{/V/
= {pet)}
(4.75)
{O}T
1/1
The matrix [K] lists all the stiffness and damping constants of the structure and {OJ is the null vector. The total mass matrix is not diagonal, however. The mass moment of inertia includes all floors and the mat is
Matrices [m] and [K]s are matrices the structure would feature in case of a rigid
204
foundation. The foundation submatrix 2 x 2 is clearly separated from the rest. Notice the relative displacements
Uj
rotated axis of the building. {pet)} is the vector of the horizontal loads on the building. When the motion of the structure results from horizontal ground motion ug(t) , the acceleration ii 8 (t) is added to 4.75 becomes
n
itb
with the only result being that the right side of Eq.
{P}
= -[ {m}
LmihilT iig(t)
1
More details on this analysis can be found in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1983). The effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of buildings resting on various types of both shallow and deep foundations is examined in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1984) . The inclusion of piles into the analysis of a frame structure supported by a flexible mat is discussed in Aboul-Ella and Novak (1980). A large amount of data on soil-structure interaction is available in the proceedings of conferences on earthquake engineering.
205
2. the maximum bearing pressure (static + dynamic) should be less than 75% of the allowable pressure of the soil.
(static + dynamic) should be less than 75% of the design capacity of the pile . 3. comparison to tolerance for dynamic behaviour which includes a) maximum vibration amplitudes, see figure; b) maximum velocity (co x displacement amplitude) and acceleration (ol x displacement amplitude), see fiqure ; c) maximum magnification factor, should be less than 1.5 at resonance; d) possible resonance conditions, the operating frequency of the machine should not be within 20% of the resonance frequency (damped or undamped). 4. Consideration of possible fatigue failure in the machine components and connections. 5. Consideration of environmental requirements and physiological effects on workers. Sometimes, a factor of safety (FS) could be used to account for the relative importance of the machine to overall plant operation. The predicted amplitude is multiplied by a service factor (safety factor) FS (1.5-2) to obtain an effective vibration amplitude. The following figures and tables may be used to check the compliance of the vibration amplitudes with different design requirements. 1. Figure 4.33 shows dynamic response limits in terms of limiting "single amplitude" vibration at any frequency. The figure has 5 zones of sensitivity shown by persons
(standing and subjected to vertical vibration). 2. Figure 4.34 may be used to establish permissible horizontal vibration amplitudes for rotating machinery. 3. Figure 4.35 shows the response spectra for the structures; displacement, velocity, and acceleration vs frequency . The lines labelled "Rausch" are the same as the limits
206
for safe operation of machines and foundations , (Fig. 4.33). The cross-hatched area gives possible structural damage which may be caused by steady state vibrations . 4. Figure 4.36 shows the vibration standards for high-speed machines. 5. Figure 4.37 shows the vibration limits for foundations supporting turbomachinery. 6. Table 4.3 gives suggested limits of peak velocities for various categories of operation.
207
Figure 4.33 General limits of vertical vibration ampli udes for a particular frequency
FREQUENCY.
+
o
CPM
.Shaded line represents limits for safe operation of machines and foundations (not for satisfactory operation) . Dotted lines are limits associated with blasting . Do not apply to steady state vibration.
208
j.
1: :. ..{/'
~
J . ,
I,
(UC
t.
"
" Vt ('j ~
j
~lt-lC"~\'o J tv [- _~ j:l
I t
~ /:~ '~'
0.10
O
-/
..-......,
Ie
.>
~.,
I "~
j '
C,. t1
,I
",
r
\" V E
... li I z: z: !C a ... > ..
III
':~
4
0
a ... -=
:::
~" ~(;)
\-0
001
III
:t
L
..
0
..J ..J
III
... z: z:
A.
~
.
4
..J
JI
0.001
0
N
It
%
t! Z
-=
~
0.0001 100
III
1000
'REQUENCY
10,000
CP.
E D C B
A
Dangerous, shut it down immediately Failure is ncar, Correct very quickly. Faulty, correct quickly. . ' i ' \ . Minor faults. No faults, typical of new equipment.
(,
'C'
r:
209
Frequency.
epa
210
6O ...........Q...--I----I--.........- - - t - - - - t
4000
SPEED, RPM
\
,
-'
(
211
256
0 0 0
...
'28
.-;
<,
~
UJ
?'>
"1(
...
&t
<Q
~.(
~
E
~
....J
Q..
32
-e
16
S;
UJ
:s
0..
UJ
UJ 0
Z 0
E
a:l
>
1--1
5
\
320
L
( \ '
212
Machine Operation
Extremely smooth Very smooth Smooth Very good Good Fair Slightly rough Rough Very rough
REFERENCES
Aboul -Ella, F. and Novak, M. (1980) - "Dynamic Response of Pile Supported Frame Foundations," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 106, No. EM6, December, pp. 1215-1232. Arya , S.C., O'Neill , M.W. and Pincus, G. (1979) - "Design of Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines," Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division, Houston, Texas, p. 191. Baxter, R. L. and Bernhard, D. L. (1967) . "Vibration Tolerances for Industry", ASME Paper 67-PEM-14, Plant Engineering and Maintenance Conference, Detroit , MI, April.
213
Beredugo, Y.a. and Novak, N. (1972) - "Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration of Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 477-97. Novak, M. (1974a) - "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol, II, pp. 574-598 . Novak , M. (1974b) - "Effect of SoH on Structural Response to Wind and Earthquake," International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3, No.1 , pp.7996. Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O. (1972) - "Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE , SM12, December, pp. 1291-1310. Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1983) - "Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Damping of Structures," Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 11, pp . 595-621. Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1984) - "Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Dynamic Behaviour of Buildings," Proc. 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Vol, 111, San Francisco, pp. 721-728. Novak, M. and Sachs, K. (1973) - "Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded Footings," International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 11, 33. Novak, M., EI Naggar, M. H., Sheta, M., EI-Hifnawy, L., El-Marsafawi, H., and Ramadan , 0 ., 1999. DYNA5 a computer program for calculation of foundation response to dynamic loads. Geotechnical Research Centre, The University of Western Ontario, London , Ontario. Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, R.D. (1970) - "Vibrations of Soils and Foundations," Prentice-Hall, lnc., Englewood Cliffs, U.S.A. Urlich, C.M. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1973) - "Coupled Rocking and Lateral Vibrations of Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 10, pp. 145-160.
214
FOUNDAnONSFORSHOCKPRODUaNG
MACHINES
Shock producing machines generate dynamic effects which essentially differ from those of rotating and reciprocating machines and the design of their foundations, therefore, requires special consideration.
5.1 Introduction
Many types of machines produce transient dynamic forces that are quite short in duration and can be characterized as pulses or shocks. Typical machines producing this type of load are forging hammers, presses, crushers and mills. The forces generated by the operation of these machines are often very powerful and can result in many undesirable effects such as large settlement of the foundation, cracking of the foundation , local crushing of concrete and vibration. Excessive vibration may impair the operation of the facility and the health of the workers, cause damage to the frame of the machine and expose the vicinity to unacceptable shaking transmitted through the ground. Some machines operate with fast repeating shocks and consequently, the effects of vibration may be aggravated by resonant amplification of amplitudes such as is the case with rotating or reciprocating machines. The objective of the foundation design is to alleviate these hazards and secure optimum operation of the facility. Hammers are most typical of the shock-producing machines and therefore this report is limited to them. This is not a serious limitation, however, because the design and analysis of the other shock producing machines follow criteria that are in many respects similar to those applied to hammers.
213
There are many types of hammers. According to their function, they can be divided into forging hammers (proper) and hammers for die stamping. Forging hammers work free material into the desired shape while die stamping hammers shape the material using a mould or matrix. According to their mode of operation , hammers can be classified as drop, steam and pneumatic, although other systems are also used. More details on the various types can be found in Major (1962) Because of the powerful blows generated, hammers are mounted on block foundations of reinforced concrete separated from the floor and other foundations . The basic elements of the hammer foundation system are the frame, head (tup), anvil and foundation block (Fig.5.1). The frame of forging hammers is separated from the anvil. In die stamping hammers, the frame is usually connected to the anvil to give the system rigidity and precision of blows.
214
The forging action of hammers is generated by the impact of the falling head against the anvil , which is a massive steel block. The head is allowed to fall freely or in order to obtain greater forging power, its velocity is enhanced using steam or compressed air. The size of the hammer can be judged by the weight of the head, which ranges from a few hundred pounds to several tons . The intensity (energy) of the blows can be expressed as a product of the head weight and the height of the drop or the equivalent height of the drop. Only a part of the impact energy is dissipated through plastic deformation of the material being forged and conversion into heat. The remaining energy must be dissipated in the foundation and soil. this end. In small hammers, the anvil is sometimes mounted directly on the foundation (Fig.5.2a). This is done for the sake of simplicity and hard shocks . The main drawback of this arrangement is that the concrete under the anvil suffers from the shocks and, depending on the hammer type , also from high temperature. Repairs often may be necessary. To reduce the stress in the concrete and shock transmission into the frame, viscoelastic suspension of the anvil is usually provided (Fig. 5.2b). This may have the form of a pad of hard industrial felt, a layer of hardwood or, with very powerful hammers, a set of special isolation elements such as coil springs and dampers. Such a Different foundation arrangements are used to
suspension reduces the impact of the anvil on the foundation by prolonging the path of the anvil and by energy dissipation through hysteresis and plastic deformation .
2J5
GA P
(c)
( d)
The foundation block is most often cast directly on soil as indicated in Figs - 5.2a and b. When the bearing capacity of soil is not sufficient or undesirable settlement is anticipated, the block may be installed on piles. When the transmission of vibration and shock forces in the vicinity and adjoining facilities is of concern, a softer mounting for the foundation may be desirable. This can be achieved by supporting the block on a pad of viscoelastic material such as cork or rubber (Fig-5.2c) or on vibration isolating elements such as rubber blocks or steel springs possibly combined with dampers (Fig. 5.2d) . A trough, which adds to the cost, is needed to protect these elements. The material of the pads must be able to resist fatigue as well as moist environment due to condensation and must have a long lifetime. Rubber pads should
216
have grooves or holes to allow lateral expansion because the Poisson's ratio of rubber is 0.5. Slabs of solid rubber are quite incompressible. The gap around the footing, which rests on a pad (Fig-5.2c), may be filled with a suitable soft material which allows the block to vibrate freely but prevents blockage of the gap by debris.
.' .
D
..
4
II"
"
..
# ...
d.
..
4.
. .... ..
..
-. -.
~.
...
a)
b)
With springs, the space around the footing must be wide enough to provide access for installation, inspection and replacement. This is necessary because springs sometimes crack. However, access space is not always available. For reasons of easy access and convenience, the springs are sometimes positioned higher up and the footing is suspended on hangers or cantilevers (Figs. 5.3a,b). Such a design is more complicated and costly. Careful reinforcement of the cantilevers for shear is necessary. The soft suspension of the footing block on pads or isolators is particularly efficient on stiff soils. It increases the vibration amplitude of the block but reduces the force transmitted into the soil. Additional damping, if provided, is very useful because it reduces the vibration amplitude. The inertial block is sometimes deleted and the anvil
217
suspen ded directly on isolators (GERB). More complicated foundations are sometimes designed to protect the frame of the hammer from shocks which can hinder the operation and cause fatigue cracks . To interrupt the flow of shock waves into the frame, additional joints with viscoelastic pads or elements (Fig. 5.4) separate the upper part of the block from the rest. Klein and Crockett (1953) describe the example shown in Fig. 5.4b .
Figure 5.4: Schematic of Foundation with Additional Joints to Protect Hammer Frame: (a) outline and (b) prototype
..........
".
.-
,""' ,\
". '
/ ~ 7 ~ ~.
/"
'~ '
b)
The hammer foundation must be designed so as to facilitate efficient operation of the hammer without failure and cause minimum disturbance to the environment. This general objective may be achieved if the vibration amplitude, settlement, physiological effects, and all stresses remain within acceptable limits. In addition, resonance should be avoided with high-speed hammers.
218
For foundations built on soils susceptible to settlement, such as saturated sands, smaller amplitudes are desirable. On the other hand, larger amplitudes may sometimes be admitted for large hammers provided they satisfy the criteria for physiological effects and settlement. Amplitudes larger than about 0.16 in (4 mm) can impair the operation of the hammer, however.
2]9
velocity may be considered a criterion in the moderate frequency range typical of hammers. The amplitude of vibration velocity can be calculated approximately as (5.1) In which
Vrn =::
the maximal (peak) displacement and roo ::: the natural circular frequency
of the foundation. Various authors (see Richart et. al. 1970) have collected many data on human perceptibility. The data given by the German Code DIN4025 and shown in Table 2 are useful in that they provide an indication of perceptibility of vibration as well as the effect of vibration on work. The data are shown as a function of the physiological factor K calculated as
K =O.80vm
for vertical vibration and
-'
>
oJ'!(
I
r.A. "
~'.
,OJ I
(5.2a)
(5.2b) for horizontal vibration; V m is peak vibration velocity in mm/s (1 inch 25.4 mm) . For
>
machines operating intermittently, the effect on work may be one category lower than that given by the calculated value of K.
l"
(\
I
(
;' l (.'
.,
(
"
'.
r
1
rI
10---
_I
. "tI
- ,
[~\
II
rjr}
"
\ !-
~/ l
r
0
<
0"
v\
,.
J\
220
K (m/s) 0.1
0.1 - 0.3
Not affected
0.3 - 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 10
Unpleasant, can be tolerated for one hour, not tolerable for more than one hour
10- 30
Barely possible
Intolerable
Impossible Impossible
221
Another physiological effect is noise. Hammers are noisy and have a level of noise of about 100 db (decibel) but some presses are even noisier.
5.3.3 Stresses Stresses in all parts of the foundation have to remain within allowable limits. This includes compressive stresses in the pad and the concrete underlying it; bending, shear and punching shear stresses in the block, and finally, the stresses in the soil or piles as well as in the vibration absorbers , if used. Dynamic stress is repetitive and can cause fatigue . This effect can be accounted for by lowering the static allowable load or by multiplying the dynamic stress by a fatigue factor. recommended for all parts of the system. Steel springs are also subject to fatigue, particularly when they have initial cracks. installed. Temperature effects can contribute to the decay of the pad under the anvil and the underlying concrete because the temperature of the anvil can rise to as high as 1000C (2120F) with hot forging. To eliminate this possibility, the springs should be X-rayed before they are
A fatigue factor
J.!
=3
is often
'- I .
5.3.4 Foundation Settlement
c
r
I
1-'
"' \
Settlement can be a serious problem with hammer foundations. Where the soil is unreliable in this respect, piles or absorbers should be considered (Figs .5.2c, d and 5.3). Piles limit the settlement by transmitting the loads to deeper strata while
absorbers reduce the settlement by reducing the forces transmitted to the soil.
222
choice of the weight of the foundation block. Assuming that the anvil weight is about twenty times the weight of the head, Go, the weight of the block. G, can be estimated using the formula (Rausch, 1950)
(5.3)
in which Co
= the
:=
1.8.37 ft/s (5.6 m/s). Smafler masses can be used if the response is limited by special measures such as shock absorbers. As for the general layout of the foundation, it is desirable that the centreline of the anvil and the centroid of the base area lie on the vertical line passing through the centre of gravity of the footing with the hammer. Misalignment and eccentric blows can result in tilting of the foundation and differential settlement
223
'1 GJ
t'.
6 I l,l
' ,'
.l
,I
Vr
- .ff
r
-va -e -a(r-roJ
~
\
/
r:
iJ
""".J. {~ _
"I
",I
fc-~ ,
~
,
<,
"
"'--"
'
axis of the foundation (Fig. 5.5) and a = empirical coefficient accounting for the effect of soil hysteresis (viscosity) . Experiments indicate the values of a range from 0 to 0.15 fr1 (0 to 0.05 rn") or more for r in ft or m, respectively.
,
I
_ ,lo
( ---
'c
<, . \
l~_ ,
/ / 7 / 7 7 7
~_ro_
.-:.... r
_
I
The propagation of surface waves is characterized by soil particle motion, which is a retrograde ellipse whose vertical axis is greater than its horizontal axis. This pattern is obtained from theory even when the original disturbance acts only vertically as in the case of a hammer foundation. However, the physical properties of the soil medium
differ considerably from the ideal properties assumed in the elastic half-space theory. Consequently, the motion actually observed usually differs from the theoretical pattern. In particular, the horizontal amplitudes are often greater than the vertical ones . Thus, it may be assumed for practical calculations that the ground motion in the vicinity of the
224
foundation has vertical amplitude predicted by Eq.5.4 and horizontal amplitude of about the same magnitude. Then, the response of a structure located near the hammer foundation can be predicted using the methods of structural dynamics. The effect of ground motion may be augmented by dynamic amplification of the structural response.
The prediction of the response of the hammer foundation requires the description of the stiffness and damping of the foundation and the pad under the anvil. Foundation on Soil Stiffness and damping of foundations supported on soil can be evaluated using the approaches described in Lecture 2. For a rectangular base, the equivalent radius can be established as
(5.5)
in which a and b are the width and length of the base respectively. The vertical stiffness, k, and damping, c, of a foundation are defined as forces associated with a unit amplitude and unit vibration velocity, respectively. For an
embedded foundation, stiffness and damping constants can be evaluated approximately by Eqs. 2.24 as
(5.6a)
225
(5.6b)
Here, C 1 and
respectively, derived from the medium under the base (the elastic half-space) or a stratum . S1 and
derived from the reactions of the layer lying above the level of the base (Fig.5.6) and acting on the vertical sides of the footing . G = soil shear modulus and p = mass density of the half-space while Gs ,
ps
are the shear modulus and mass density of the side layer
(backfill), respectively. Mass density is unit weight , y, divided by gravity acceleration, g. Finally, I =.embedment depth.
Figure 5.6: Embedded Foundation
--r---.,I
--.'
"'(:7,
. s. ,.
. .. .
7
SEPARATION '
0 ,
.. _
P
_0
0
'
"
7
r
.
"
. . .t . ,5,',2 .
I
J
pO
'... <i?
~
D-
:, '
"
0 -
#
0" .. 0
, '
",'
..
~.
t~ Gs Ps . ' , . . .. ~ . l
~
(7
t:J
'2
~..
.-
226
The parameters C and S depend on the dimensionless frequency. However, the analysis can be simplified if the frequency dependent parameters are replaced by suitably chosen frequency independent constants. For the range of dimensionless
frequencies typical of hammers (0.5 to 1.5), such constants can be taken from Table 2.1. Adjustments of the theoretical values are desirable . To be on the safe side, it appears advisable to divide the theoretical values of Cy2 shown in Table 2.1 by a factor of about two . The second correction involves embedment effects. The theory indicates that embedment provides a significant source of geometric damping and contributes also to stiffness. However, with the heavy vibration typical of hammers, the soil may separate from the footing sides and a gap may occur-as indicated in Fig. 5.6. This gap is likely to develop close to the surface where the confining pressure is not sufficient to.maintain the bond between the soil and the foundation. The separation may be accounted for approximately by considering an effective embedment depth , I, smaller than the actual embedment depth, L. The effective depth, of course , depends oh conditions. The best bond is obtained when the block is cast directly into the excavation . Another way of accounting for footing separation is to assume a weakened zone around the footing (Novak and Sheta, 1980) When the footing is cast in forms and then backfilled, the backfill shear modulus and density are usually lower than the original values. accurately, the ratios
ps
227
Soil
eterlel Damping
Foundation stiffness and damping are also affected by soil material damping .
The material damping of soil is hysteretic and independent of frequency. veniently described using the complex shear modulus
It is con
G* = G + iG' = G (1 + itan8)
in which i = -..j-l , tanf
rrr':
(5.7)
= G' / G with
complex soil modulus . Another measure of material damping is the damping ratio 1/2 tane.
p=
Material damping can be incorporated using the correspondence principle of viscoelasticity. In the sense of this principle, the shear modulus, G, in Eqs. 5.6 has to be replaced by the complex shear modulus defined by Eq. 5.7. After some manipulation , the stiffness and damping constants including material damping become
kh
c;
=
=
k - tan 6' C OJ
C+ tan 8 k/ OJ
(5.8a) (5.8b)
in which k and c are evaluated from Eqs. 5.6 without regard to material damping. As Eqs. 5.8 suggests, material damping reduces the stiffness but increases the total damping. However, with a half-space, i.e. a deep layer under the footing, these effects on vertical vibration are small and can be neglected. With shallow layers, the incorporation of material damping is important because the geometric damping is quite small, as can be seen in Fig. 2.12, or may not materialize at all if the first natural frequency of the hammer foundation is lower than the first natural frequency of the soil layer . Thus, the evaluation of the damping provided by
228
shallow layers should commence with a comparison of these two natural frequencies. The procedure is described in Lecture 2.
Soil Properties
The magnitude of material damping depends on the type of soil and increases with strain. It ranges from 0.05 to 0.20 with a typical value of tano being about 0.1.
Shear modulus of soil (or shear wave velocity) depends on the type of soil, the level of strain and confining pressure. The shear wave velocity of most soils ranges from 300 to
1,000 ftIs (90 to 300 rn/s) and should be established by field or laboratory experiments.
Because of the strong effects of confining pressure and strain , the shear modulus entering the calculations should be established for a representative reference position. Such positions are suggested in Fig. 5.6. With deep embedment, the effect of confining pressure variation with depth can also be accounted for by dividing the depth I into sections and using different Gs in each of them .
Pile Foundations
Vertical stiffness and damping of a foundation supported by a group of piles can be evaluated using the procedures described in Lecture 3.
When the foundation block is suspended by a pad of viscoelastic material (Fig.5 .2c), the vertical stiffness constant of the block is
229
kp
in which E,
(5.9 a)
=Young's
The damping constant, calculated in terms of the complex modulus as in the case of a shallow soil layer (Eq..5.8b), is
(5.9b)
(00 ::::
block calculated with kp. A variety of reinforced cork, rubber and other materials are available with a broad choice of Young's moduli for each of them. For cork, Young's modulus and material damping vary with the make and static stress (load); typical values may be about
Ep = 2700 psi
>
19162 kPa
tan8p
= 0.05
However, the effectiveness of the pad does not derive from its properties alone but depends also on the stiffness of the soil supporting the trough . The two elastic media, the pad and the soil, act in series and have a total flexibility of
1 1 F=-+
kp
(5.10)
in which the soil stiffness k can be calculated from Eq. 5.6a using the dimensions of the trough. The joint stiffness of the two media is kt
= 1 / F which yields
230
(5.11)
This equation indicates that the pad is effective and worth the expense only if the soil is much stiffer than the pad, i.e. when k kp .
Absorbers.
Absorbers can be installed as shown in Figs. 5.2d and 5.3. Rubber elements or steel springs combined with dampers are used. They can be selected from available lines or made to order (GERB) . The total stiffness and damping of a set of absorbers is the sum of the individual contributions. Absorbers provide the softest suspension and greatest reduction in forces transmitted into the vicinity. Their effectiveness also depends on the stiffness of the soil as expressed by Eq. 5.11.
231
degrees of freedom (independent displacements) depends on the foundation type and on whether the blow of the head acts along the centreline of the system or eccentric ally. The mathematical models which can be used are shown in Fig. 5.7. In many foundations, the anvil rests on an elastic pad as indicated in Fig. 5.2b. Then, a two-mass model shown in Fig. 5.7c is adequate. With e = 0, this model has two degrees of freedom and is most often used in hammer foundation design. Most practical cases can be analyzed on the basis of the models shown in Figs. 5.7a and c and therefore, further discussion focuses on these models. For a given model whose
properties have been established as outlined above, the response depends on the magnitude and nature of the impact- forces.
232
=degrees of
HEAD
~I
BLOCK
~ .
I
mo
I
!
,P
Tv
//
~ e p
orn
ex
rn
mt)f
3 DOF
( b)
Tv
~
ANV~Ll71~7Xh j ,kn
i
oor
(a
HEAD
ANVIL
me
mme
" T v,
1<1
Tv}
me
BLOCK
k2
T
k;s
V2
TV3
3 OaF
(d )
TROUGH
2
DOF
(c )
233
The energy of the impact is determined by the weight of the head, which is given, and its impact velocity . The foundation response to the impact also depends on the time history of the force resulting from the impact.
For gravity hammers, the head falls freely. The maximum velocity just before the impact is
(5.12)
in which g
=gravity acceleration equal to 32.2 fUs 2 =9.81 m/s2 , ho =the drop height and
n = correction factor <1, characterizing the efficiency of the drop. With steam hammers this factor stems primarily from the resistance of the exhaust steam. For well adjusted hammers, n should be close to unity. Power hammers are the prevalent variety and are all double-acting. They utilize the steam or compressed air not only to lift the head but also to accelerate its fall. The impact velocity of such hammers is
CO
= n 2g hs
+PSJ Go (1
(5.13)
in which h, = the length of the stroke, p the mean pressure on the piston (in psi or kPa) , S = the area of the piston and Go the weight of the hammer head . The correction factor of these hammers is lower with the average quoted value being about 0.65 .
234
The hammer head moving with impact velocity Co has a momentum moCo if ma = Go Ig is the mass of the head. During the impact with the anvil, part of this momentum is reinvested in the rebound of the head and the rest is transferred to the anvil in the form of a pulse. This pulse is a transient force , P(t), of short duration, tp The time history of the pulse and its duration depend on the conditions of forging and are to a high degree random; little is known about them. However, the total power of the pulse follows from the theorem of conservation of momentum. The duration of the pulse, tp , is very short, in the order of 0.01 or 0.02 sand is usually much shorter than the fundamental period of the foundation, T. It can be shown (Novak, 1983) that the foundation response decreases as the pulse duration increases and that for ratios of tplT lower than about 0.1, the peak response is practically independent of pulse duration and equal to that obtained with an infinitely short pulse. Even for durations tp
than the maximum . With real pulse duration of 0.02s, the ratio 0.2 1 0.02 = 10 which implies that for natural frequencies smaller than 10 cps (Hz), the infinitely short pulse yields a satisfactory prediction. For frequencies higher than this limit, the infinitely short pulse overestimates the real response and its assumption is, therefore, conservative. Thus, it appears possible to predict the response using the assumption of an infinitely short pulse. When the pulse is very short, it expires before the system starts moving and the resultant motion is free vibration triggered by initial velocity .
235
ASS FOUNDATIO S
When the anvil is rigidly mounted (Fig.5.2a) and the hammer blow does not act eccentrically, the one-degree-of-freedom model shown in Fig.5.7a is sufficient to analyze the response. The response is obtained as a solution of the governing differential equation that expresses the dynamic equilibrium of inertia, damping and restoring forces. With the notation of Fig. 5.7a, the governing equation of the response v= v(t) is
mv+cv+kv- 0
in which m
(5.14)
= the
mass of the foundation with the anvil and frame; c and k are the
stiffness and damping constants evaluated e.g. from Eqs. 5.6. Finally,
v= d2 V Idt2 and
C, can be written as
(5.15)
vet)
in which
-e UJ'o
-Dro
0
SIn UJot
236
D=
c 2.Jkm
is the damping ratio. With small damping, (i)'o =0 CUo The initial velocity,
C,
between the head whose mass is rn, and the foundation having mass m. Because the pulse resulting from this collision is presumed to be infinitesimally short, the restoring and damping forces have not been activated during the collision. Consequently, the
collision is governed by the relations valid for two free bodies. The impact velocity of the head, Co , follows from Eqs. 5.12 or 5.13 while the velocity of mass m is zero at the beginning of the collision . Conservation of momentum requires (5.18) in which c'o and
C are the
after the collision. For these two unknowns, Eq. 5.18 is not sufficient and one more equation is required. This equation is obtained by introducing the coefficient of restitution, k., defined by Newton as the ratio of relative velocity after the impact to relative velocity before the impact, i.e.
c- C'o
(5.19) From Eqs. 5.18 and 5.19, the initial velocity of the foundation is:
(5.20)
The coefficient kr depends on the material of the bodies and ranges from 0 for plastic
237
collisions to 1 for perfectly elastic collisions. For hammers, the lowest k, occurs when forging nonferrous materials for which it is close to zero. For hot forging, kr is about
0.25 but increases as the material gets colder. For cold forging, k, is about 0.5 (Barkan , 1962). Thus, kr = 0.5 may represent the adequate mean value for design purposes. Occasionally, the impact occurs with the sample absent, yielding the highest k, and hardest shock . With the velocity
Ccalculated
complete response is determined. A few examples of the response are plotted in Figs. 5.8 and 5.9. A foundation without an anvil pad modeled according to Fig. 5.7a is assumed to be supported either by soil (Eqs. 5.6) or by eight timber piles (Eq. 3.11) with all other conditions being the same. The pile supported foundation exhibits smaller
peak amplitudes, a higher natural frequency and smaller damping than the soil supported (shallow) foundation (Fig. 5.8). If the piles were used in two different types of soil, the stiffer soil would reduce the response amplitudes and increase the natural frequency even more (Fig . 5.9). The maximum (peak) displacement occurs at a time, tm r for which dv/dt = O. This condition yields
1 .JI-D 2 t = -arctan - - -
m ID (v
o
(5.21)
v
2
damping is not very large, tm ;; X T and the peak displacement becomes " ... 7!- D (5.22)
v=-e
0)0
"
238
Figure 5.8: Response of Hammer Foundation Supported (A) directly by soil and (8) by eight piles
"
,r ... .
IoP ' I,
... (
SOlL
0.30
o.~o
;;,
"'.J
o
Figure 5.9: Response of Pile Supported Hammer Foundations for Two Types of Soil: (A) shear wave velocity V s and (b) shear wave velocity 2Vs
... ~
.... Z
QJ
D. '0
I
'" u '" a:
-'
<L
a'>
"0 o
239
= FlAb where
piles, the maximum dynamic load on one pile is, on average, F (1) = FIn (5.24)
where n = the number of piles . If group interaction effects are significant, the load is not distributed evenly and Eq. 5.24 gives the average load. The effect of dynamic stresses on the soil or piles is to be evaluated with respect to fatigue. When the anvil is mounted on an elastic pad, a two mass system should be used to analyze the response .
240
Figure 5.10: Hammer foundation as a two masses system and its vibration modes
a)
,
b)
c)
HEAD
MOOE 1
MODE 2
ANVIL
kl
vI
W\ r - - - - -.,
Wz
r
il V
I
r
rr::
--,
1-- --1
~ ~
-+v2
BLOCK
mZ
Undamped Vibration If the duration of the collision between the hammerhead (mass ma) and anvil is short relative to the natural periods of the system, the impact of the head will be followed by free vibration of both masses, V1(t) and V2(t). The governing equations of motion follow from Newton's second law in the sense that the product of each mass and its acceleration must be equal to the sum of all forces acting on the mass and thus
l:~~-~~~J ~2'
(5.25)
the governing equations of the motion become
241
(5.26)
These are two coupled , homogeneous differential equations of the second order with constant coefficients . Hence, complete solutions for the unknown displacements V1(t) and V2(t) can be written as sums of two independent particular solutions. Because the system is undamped and linear, particular solutions can be expected to be harmonic with an unknown frequency. (OJ , as in the case of free undamped vibration in one degree of freedom, and written as (5.27)
(5.28b) These are algebraic homogeneous equations for constants V1 and V2. When the stiffness constants are frequency independent, the solution of Eqs. 5.28 represents the "eigenvalue problem" . A nontrivial solution exists only if the determinant of the coeffi cients of Eqs . 5.24,~ vanishes, i.e.
1
(529)
242
of displacements V1 I V2 can be calculated . The ratios represent the undamped vibration modes and are from Eq. 5.28a and b, respectively
for j = 1 or 2
(5.30)
(This relation can be used to check the correctness of (01 , and ~) To distinguish the vibration amplitudes of the two modes, double subscripts are introduced. The first subscript identifies the amplitudes of mass m1 or m2; the second subscript indicates the frequency and mode with which the amplitude Vu is associated . The two ratios, Eq.5 .30, characterize the vibration modes shown in Figs.5.10b and c. In the first mode, the two masses vibrate in phase; in the second mode, the two masses vibrate in antiphase. Because the two natural frequencies are different, Eqs. 5.27 give two different particular solutions and the complete solution to Eq. 5.26 can be written as
(5.31)
Amplitudes Vij are determined from initial conditions which are V1(0)
= 0 , V2(0) =0
c follows from
(5.32a) (5.32b)
v = dVj(t) I dt
5.20, as
(5.33)
243
where mo, Co are the mass and impact velocity of the hammer head respectively and k, is the coefficient of collision.
(5.34)
the four amplitudes determining the solution described by Eqs. 5.31 are
(5.35a)
(5.35b)
(5.35c)
(5.35d)
for the foundation. The motion of each mass has two harmonic components whose amplitudes are in the ratios given by Eq. 5.30 or Eqs. 5.35. For a foundation with a rather stiff anvil pad , an example of the response of both the anvil and the foundation is shown in Fig. 5.11a. The anvil oscillates about the instantaneous position of the foundation block. For a softer anvil pad , the contribution of the second vibration mode is much more significant as can be seen in Fig. 5.12a. (The calculation is given later in an example)
244
Figure 5.11: Response of Two Mass Hammer Foundations with Stiff Anvil Pads: (a) undamped and (b) damped (Dl
10
I.
5
FOurH.lATtON
~
~
:50
~ ~
~
zo
100
-e;
~5
{a)
- 10
.... .5
~
~ o
""'-5
20
(b)
In( l-lE-ll
60
100
Figure 5.12: Response of Two Mass Hammer Foundations with Elastic Anvil Pad: (a) undamped and (b) damped (D1 =51% and D2
10
~ ~o
"
~
-5
(e)
-10
~o .....
~
-5
:r .
(b)
245
Because
(;)2
(;)1
approximately 5,36) and the amplitude of the total motion of the anvil (5.37) However, the stress in the pad does not depend on the absolute magnitude of the motion but only on the relative displacement between the anvil and the block. As Fig. 5.12a- suggests, the relative peak displacement of the anvil is (5.38) The amplitudes
Vij
are given by Eqs. 5.35, The peak displacements given by Eqs. 5.36
to 5.38, represent the upper bound because damping, neglected thus far, reduces the amplitudes as is shown in the next paragraph.
Damped Vibration In the two mass model, damping is defined by the constants
C1
and
C2
(Fig.
5.10a) . It could be introduced into the governing equations of the motion but the accurate solution gets more complicated. It is more convenient to predict the damped response approximately using the notions of modal analysis and modal damping outlined for structures by Novak (1974b) . The foundation response comprises the two vibration modes shown in Fig. 5.10. The damping ratio associated with vibration in each of these modes can be evaluated by means of an energy consideration if it is assumed that the damped mode is
246
approximately the same as the undamped mode. This consideration yields the damping ratio associated with the foundation vibration in the jth mode (Novak, 1983)
(5.39)
in which the generalized mass of mode j (5.40) where j =1, 2. In Eq. 5.39, the damping constant of the anvil, 5.9 and the damping constant of the foundation ,
C2, C1,
and
(:)2
C1, C2
and
V2j
arbitrary modal amplitudes complying with Eq. 5.30 may be used in Eq. 5.39; in this case, one amplitude can be chosen for each mode, e.g . V1j = 1, and the other calculated using the ratio aj. If the frequency CO2 and
V22
(:)1
V11 ~ V21
V12
and
Consequently, Eq. 5.39 simplifies to approximate expressions for modal damping ratios,
(5.41)
247
in which
Realizing that Eqs.5.31 represent the superposition of vibration modes, the damped vibration of the anvil and the foundation block can be written as
(5.42)
in which
V1j
and
V2j
are the undamped amplitudes established from Eqs . 5.35 and the
damping ratios Dj are given by either Eq. 5.39 or Eq. 5.41. The damped natural frequencies
An example of the damped oscillation described by Eq. 5.42 is plotted in Figs. 5.11b and 5.12b . The damped response shown pertains to the same foundation as were used to exemplify the undamped response. The only difference is the inclusion of damping . Even the modest damping incorporated smooths the response quickly, eliminating the second harmonic component in the case of a stiff anvil pad but not with a soft pad. The peak displacements are approximately
1 ~1-D12 t m, =-arctan--- D
CUj
1
(5.44a)
where
248
(5.44b) The peak relative displacement of the anvil, determining the stress in the anvil pad, is approximately
~(VI2 + h20~
them is approximately ,
9S -\l ~' ,
--~~;2 -\
(5.45)
The total peak force transmitted into the ground (or piles) comprises the restoring force and the damping force and, with respect to the 90 degree phase shift between
/ v(
<:'(
( , . \ \ r .v
)
in which
2 v }
~k 2
~+
( ,
, ) 2
CzOJ}
--
,~
~ ~l
( '
(5.46)
/
:=
V2j
are the modal contributions to V2 obtained from Eq. 5.42 or 5.43; thus, V2
The above approach can readily be extended to include more complicated systems shown in Fig. 5.7d .
The damping ratios, Dj obtained from the energy consideration can be verified by introducing the damping constants,
5.26, and solving the complex eigenvalue problem. The modal damping ratios calcu
249
with those
calculated from Eq. 5.39. This agreement indicates that the energy consideration yields the same damping as the complex eigenvalue approach. (More details on the complex eigenvalue approach may be found in Novak and EI Hifnawy, 1983.)
(5.48)
va = -
" C
OJ a
(5.49)
(5.50)
250
(5.51 )
in which the collision coefficient kr reflects the behavior of the pad and may be taken as approximately 0.6. The undamped amplitude of the foundation is
(5.52)
(5.53)
In this approach, damping is usually ignored but could be included as in one degree of freedom using Eq. 5.41 for damping and Eq. 5.15 for amplitudes. The stress in the soil and the anvil pad is obtained using Eqs. 5.23 and 5.47 , usually with the omission of damping. This simple approach, proposed by Rausch
251
velocity, C . Conservation of momentum requires (5.54a) for the vertical translation and (5.54b) for rotation where I is the mass moment of inertia of the anvil. The third equation needed can be written using Newton's definition of the restitution coefficient,
kr.
In this
case, this definition includes the contribution of the angular velocity to the relative velocity after the collision,
C+ e\jf - c'a,
yielding
(5.54c)
(5.55)
(5.56)
= 0, Eq. 5.55 reduces to Eq. 5.33 and 'Jf = O. For a one mass foundation (Fig. 7a), mass
Consequently, the
two mass foundation has six degrees of freedom. The response , obtained by means of the complex eigenvalue analysis as described in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1983) , is shown in Fig. 5.14. Depending on conditions, the horizontal translation and rocking can be quite significant.
253
Nit)
00
It)r
roN
~L
14:T~z
V z
" '"
6.56
(2.0 0 )
~"' " -,
I
3 .28
FT
Lrn)
I r - -'"
(2.00)
( 1.00 )
( 5.00 )
16 .40
.- -'--
----'--
' - - - -
-- ----_..- -
254
Figure 5.14: Three Components of Response for the eccentric foundation shown in Fig 5.13 (amplitudes in inches, rocking in radians, time in seconds)
U)
C\l l
4u.
-<
U'>
{a) VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
=
N
I. W
_U'>
U)
.
. I c ) ROCKING
255
5.11 RESPONSE FOR KNOWN IMPACT FORCE If the time history of the impact force, P(t), is known, the response can be predicted accurately using those methods of structural dynamics that are suitable for transient loads . The following methods are well-suited to this end: The Duhanel integral in combination with modal analysis and numerical integration , fast Fourier transform , and direct integration of the governing differential equations such as the Wilson method.
All these methods presume the use of the computer and are described in A special Fourier analysis is described in Lysmer and
Richart (1966) . The complex eigenvalue approach is particularly efficient as described by EI Hifnawy and Novak (1984). All these methods work very well. However, their practical usefulness in the
hammer foundation analysis is limited by the lack of reliable information on the time history of the impulse force , its inevitable randomness and variability. Finally, because the initial velocity approach is bound to give the upper bound estimate, it seems quite sufficient to use this method for design purposes .
5.12 STRUCTURAL DESIGN The moments and shear forces generated in the foundation block also must be evaluated. The static forces and moments follow from the equilibrium between the gravity loads and soil resistance as in usual foundation design. The dynamic forces are complex but can be approximately evaluated from the
256
equilibrium between the impact force passing through the pad, Fa, and the inertia forces , Pi, acting on the mass of the footing and distributed in proportion to its mass (Fig. 5.15). For the geometry depicted in Fig. 5.15 , the equilibrium is
The forces Pi and F I 2 result in shear forces and moments in the planes I and II which can be readily evaluated . Special attention should be paid to shear reinforcement in the cross section I and horizontal reinforcement under the anvil. The latter reinforcement is needed because of the horizontal tensile forces resulting from the concentrated pressure of the anvil. When the shear stress is high, the shear reinforcement is sometimes designed for inertia forces acting not only up but also down in anticipation of stress reversal. The basic reinforcement is shown in Fig. 5.16.
257
ri
258
1) Hammer
Weight of head (tup, Go)
Weight of anvil (G 1)
Weight of frame mounted on
the block (G F)
Impact velocity of head (eo)
Frequency of blows
Coefficient of restitution (k.)
50000 lbs (22680 kg) 21.33 ft Is (6.5 m I s) 3000 lbs (1361 kg) 60000 lbs (27216 kg)
40 to 90 c/min
0.5
3. Backfill
Shear modulus (G s ) 0.5G
259
0.75y
0.25
Thickness (d)
Young's modulus (Ep)
Pad dimensions
Area (Ap)
Material damping (tanop)
Allowable stress
6 in (0.1524 m) 15000 psi (103,43 MPa) 6.56 ft x 4.92 ft (2m x L5m) 32.28 ft2 (3.00m2) 0.10
500 psi (3,45 MPa)
150 Ib / ft3 (2400 kg 1m 3 ) 16,4ftx 13.12 ft (5m X 4m) 215.57 ft2 (20m 2) 8.2 ft (2.5m)
260
l(")
-,ro 0
N
in
0'
N
St tiT .1
PA D
a)
'-"
l.O
FT
(rri)
I~
4 .92 {1.50}
6.56
(2.00)
I-
4 .92
{l.50}
1
~I
r-----
16.40
(5 .00 )
ot[)
-N '<;1"'':::
ol.O
.q: ....:.
-N
261
Solution
MASSES Mass of the anvil: rn- ::: G1 I g::: 60000 132.2 = 1863.35 Ib2 1ft Weight of the block: Gb
Gb
The weight of the block seems adequate. Total foundation weight G t ::: Go + G1 + Gf + Gb = 3.0 + 60.0 + 50.0 + 248 .78 :: 361.78 Mass of the foundation block:
mb:::
G b Ig
Mass of the frame: mf::: 50000/32.2 ::: 1552.8 Ib2 1ft Mass of the block with the frame:
m2 :::
k1 ::: kp ::: Ep Ap I d ::: 15000 x 144 x 32.281 0.5 = 1.395 x 1081b 1ft Stiffness of the embedded foundation (Eq. 5.6a)
262
Yo
~~ = -!16.4x13.12/1r = 8.28ft
= 5.20 I 8.28
= 0.63
= 4.668x1 07 Ib I ft
= 6.7.
263
3000
= (1+0.5) [3000 + 60000 ] 21.33
= 1.52 ft / s Natural -frequency of the anvil with rigid soil (Eq. 5.50)
m~ =~= 1.395x10
=7.4865x10 4
1863.35
The approximate value of the maximum relative displacement of the anvil (Eq. 5.49)
Va =
c=
OJ a
ap
Fp Ap
:=
a-~
a -
- - ~Ap
- 32.28/
60000
/ 144
_ 12 91 . - . pSI
kr = 0.6.
= (1 + 0.6)
265
k2
(m1 + m 2 )
This exceeds the recommended limit of 0.05 in (Table 5.1) but may be reduced due to damping . Dynamic force on soil
:=
8~ =3x1363.1 =4089.4lb/ ft
266
(52
== (52 +
All stresses and amplitudes appear to be adequate. The design need not be changed at this stage and the more detailed analysis can be started.
DETAILED ANALYSIS Natural frequencies: The stiffness constants of the coupled system (eq. 5.25) are k 11 :: k 1 :: 1.395x 10 8 lb 1ft
:: 1.8618x1 08 Ib I ft Masses:
rn, :: m2::
267
= 0.0520 in
V12
= 0.0494 in
V21
= 0.0494 in
= -0.0105 in
V22
'Or
C11
C12
=27.408
0.01052 = 5.570
Damping Ratios (Eq. 5.39) 01 = (2 x 64.41 x 27.408r 1[2.1658 (0.0520 - 0.0491)2 + 6.496
X
0.0491
2]
x 10
= 0.44 = 44%
02 = (2 x 301.3 x5.57)-1[0.4630 (0.0494 - 0.0105)2 + 6.496 X 0.0105 2] x 10 ::: 0.070 = 7% Check of the modal damping using the approximate Eqs. 5.41:
5
D,
and with C1
= 45%
= C12
D2
With the damping established the total response can be calculated from Eq.5.42. For both the anvil and the foundation , the damped response is plotted in Fig.5-12b. It can be seen that damping has a significant effect on the magnitude and character of the response. The peak displacements can be established from Fig. 5.2b or calculated separately. The character of the response plotted in Fig. 5.12 differs from that shown in Figure 5.11. The difference is primarily due to the difference in the stiffness of the anvil
269
pad.
Figure
~ ig .
5.12
corresponds to a moderately soft pad. With the soft pad, the contribution of the second mode is greater and the time history of the response is more irregular. The peak displacements, if not established from the time history, have to be established considering both vibration modes for the footing as well as the anvil.
The peak displacement of the foundation occurs at the time (Eq. 5.44a)
=
m
1 ~1- D I _ . -arctan
f
(VI
DI
.J1- 0.5106
0.4425
0 019 S =.
'"
<0.05 in. OK
Without damping the amplitude was 0.06 in. The peak displacement of the anvil
270
"-
Vj
"
Without damping the amplitude was 0.10 in. With damping included, the amplitudes are within acceptable limits. The peak relative displacement of the anvil taken as approximately equal to the first amplitude of the anvil response in the second mode would be (Eq. 5.45)
~ O. 074
2
Va
(O.0494+0.010S)e
=O.OS3in.
This amplitude of the relative displacement of the anvil is smaller than 0.08 in allowable according to Table 5.1 . This maximum is also smaller than 0.067 in obtained in the pre liminary analysis. The force transmitted to the ground by the first harmonic component is (Eq.5 .46)
F?
= 0.03
12
~(4 .668x107)2+(6.485xI05x57.916)2
.
= 1.627 x 105 Ib
This is less than the value of 2.933x10 5 found in the preliminary analysis. The contribution from damping is significant. Comparison of these results with those obtained using the approximate, preliminary analysis indicates that the preliminary analysis gives very good estimates . Thus, the preliminary calculation of stresses need not be repeated.
27]
REFERENCES
Barkan , D.D. (1962). "Dynamics of Bases and Foundations ," McGraw-Hili Book Co., lnc., Chapter 5, pp. 185-241. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1975) . "Dynamics of Structures," McGraw-Hili, p. 634. EI Hifnawy, L. and Novak, M. (1984). "Response of Hammer Foundations to Pulse Loading," Int. J. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 124@132 . GERB, "Vibration-isolation Systems," Published by GERB, 1000 Berlin 51, P. 91. Klein, A.M. and Crockett, J.H.A. (1953). "Design and Construction of a Fully Vibration Controlled Forging Hammer Foundation ," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, January, pp. 421-444. Lysmer, J. and Richart, F.E. (1966) . "Dynamic Response of Footings to Vertical Loading," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE , Vol. 92, SMP, pp. 65-91. Major, A. (1962). "Vibration Analysis and Design of Foundations for Machines and Turbines," Collet's Holdings Limited, London, Chapters XII and XIII, pp. 221-269. Novak , M. (1983). "Foundations for Shock-Producing Machines ," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 141-158. Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980). "Approximate Approach to Contact Problems of Piles," Proc. of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE National Convention "Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations : Analytical Aspects ," October, Florida, pp. 53-79. Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1983). "Vibration of Hammer Foundations ," International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 43-53 . Prakash, S. (1981) . "Soil Dynamics ," McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 426. Rausch , E. (1950). "Maschinen Fundamente ," VDI-Verlag, Dusseldorf, (in German), Chapter 6, pp. 107-232. Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, RD. (1970). "Vibrations of Soils and Foundations," Prentice-Hall, lnc., p. 414. Srinivasulu, P. and Vaidyanathan, C.V. (1976). "Handbook of Machine Foundations," Tata McGraw-Hili Pub!. Co. Ltd., New Delhi, Chapter 4, pp . 103-134 .
272
Vibration damage and disturbance can be categorized into the following main groups.
6.1.1 Operational Disturbance in the Technical Process Disturbances in technical processes due to vibration may cause deterioration in product quality and/or a reduction in production capacity. The clients will reject lower quality products, which translates into economic losses and may ultimately lead to a total loss of the market.
6.1.2 Damage to Machinery Damage to machinery can result in stoppages that may cause large economic losses. The extent of the damage depends on the duration of the stoppage, the
importance of the machine for the whole operation and on the size and output of the industrial plant. The disruption of operations could result in daily losses in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a manufacturing facility, a mining operation, a large sawmill, a large paper making machine or a few millions of dollars in a nuclear power plant.
6.1.3 Personal Discomfort Human susceptibility to vibration is related to vibration velocity. As the vibration velocity increases, the level of discomfort increases. The working environment could be annoying or even painful at higher vibration levels. Consequently, the work is affected
274
and in some situations becomes impossible. Unpleasant working environment results in reduced productivity and sometimes health hazards for the workers.
6.1.4 Damage to the Ground, Foundations and Buildings Some foundations are built on soils susceptible to settlement, such as saturated sands, which can be a serious problem. Large settlements and/or differential settlement may lead to malfunctioning of the machine and/or increased wear of machine components. These conditions may result in lower quality products an/or increased maintenance cost. Dynamic stresses due to machine vibrations are repetitive in nature and can cause fatigue. This can affect the foundation elements and/or the buildings . Vibration induced cracks could cost a lot of money over the years in repairing concrete structures and foundations. Operation disruptions and production losses could also accompany these repair costs.
6.1.5 Disturbance Outside the Industrial Area Vibration disturbance outside the industrial area can result in costly and drawn out disputes with people living nearby and with the environmental health authorities. It may also affect the quality and productivity of nearby precise operations in the same facility.
275
the desired result at the lowest cost. The main approach is to define and evaluate the relationship between force and motion. The approach is simple but the number of parameters is large and they often difficult to determine.
The dynamic forcing function is not generally known . As discussed previously, different machines produce different types of dynamic loading , and often the manufacturer does not define these loads. Also, the material properties in existing installations are often insufficiently known. This means that even if vibration amplitudes (displacement, velocity or acceleration) can be measured, it is generally extremely difficult to find theoretical solutions. It is therefore necessary to employ a practical
procedure consisting of a suitable combination of measurements and calculations, the general method being adapted to the problem encountered in each individual case . The method can be illustrated with the aid of the vibration model of one degree of freedom . The complex relationship between mass, stiffness, damping and the motion of the system shows that the task of finding suitable remedial measures in conjunction with harmful vibrations is not amenable to an unambiguous solution. Figure 6.1 shows the components of the simplified one degree of freedom model.
ill
k
Figure 6.1
276
The governing equation of motion for that simple dynamic system is given by
(6.1)
It can be seen easily that the dynamic response of this system can be altered by the modification of one or more terms in the equation of motion of the model , i.e. by the modification of: elastic forces (spring force, kw) damping forces (dash pot force, cw) inertia forces (mass inertia force, mw) disturbing forces (dynamic forcing function, P(t)) Each one of the above modifications can be induced in different ways, depending on the kind of machine, foundation and substructure. For instance; 1. Increasing the surface area and/or the mass of the foundation can alter the spring force and the damping force . This alters the dynamic properties of the substructure (improving the soil or increasing the number of piles), connecting the foundation to some other foundation or improving the stiffness of the foundation block using grouting and/or post-tensioning. The dynamic stiffness is primarily important in the case of undertuned foundations. 2. Increasing or decreasing the mass of the foundation block can alter the mass inertia forces. This applies primarily to overtuned foundations. 3. The disturbing force can be altered by balancing rotating machines, balancing mass forces in machines with crankshafts mechanisms, changing the speed of revolution, etc. It must be noted that the task is complicated by the fact that alteration of one parameter
277
also causes a change of other parameters in an unfavourable direction, reduce the overall effect of a primary remedial measure.
which can
(6.2)
where m 3.
Evaluate the dynamic forcing function. This step depends on the type of machine in question. For centrifugal and reciprocating machines, the unbalanced force can be estimated from the dynamic balancing process. For impact producing machines or any other machinery that cause transient or random force, the force is backfigured from vibration measurements. In this procedure, the displacement, velocity or acceleration (normally velocity or acceleration) is measured. The
278
measured time history is digitized and using a recurrence type numerical integration and or differentiation procedure, other vibration quantities are obtained (e.g. if velocity time history is measured , then displacement and acceleration time histories are obtained using integration and differentiation of the velocity time history, respectively) . The dynamic forcing function is then evaluated using the single degree of freedom equation, given by Eq. 6. 1. 4. In order to verify the accuracy of the developed parameters, the obtained forcing function is used to compute the response time history for the same system. The comparison between the measured and computed values should verify the evaluated parameters.
279
soil improvement, pile grouting, addition of piles. 2. Measures for preventing the propagation of vibration: these measures include the provision of expansion joints, the construction of trenches, and the construction of sheet pile walls (or other obstacles in the ground) surrounding the source of disturbance. 3. Measures for alleviating the harmful effects of vibration on building structures, other machines and components: the objective of these measures is to modify the dynamic characteristics of the affected building. These measures comprise alteration of the mass, damping and stiffness of the bUilding components, analogous to the measures applied to the machine foundations.
Because of the complexity of the problem, it is difficult to give general recommendations as to the way that the work should be executed. In principle, it is
280
desirable for the supplier of machinery to specify all dynamic forces and for the structural engineer to state how the different requirements have been complied with. The following summary of the causes of documented cases of damage is therefore given by way of illustration.
6.4.1 Procurement
It is very rare for dynamic conditions and requirements related to them to be specified in conjunction with the procurement of: - The services of consultants for design - Contractors - Machinery and equipment - Control during implementation of the project - Checking at the time of commisioning and during the guarantee period . Experience shows at the same time that, in the cases when vibration specifications were drawn up on the basis of actual conditions, the common types of vibration damage or disturbance did not occur. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it is the lack of appropriate dynamic specifications in conjunction with procurement which is the fundamental cause of the many defects that result in vibration damage. The absence of regulations and specifications relating to vibrations in documents is one of the reasons for inadequate interaction between the parties involved. These difficulties are reinforced by complicated channels of communication, particularly in cases where machinery is delivered from abroad . It is therefore essential that liability in
281
the event of defects should be regulated by some for m of vibration clause in the tender and contract. The importance of the form of the form of tender, with regard to the number of parties involved in the tendering process etc. must be pointed out. insurance matters should be sorted out between the parties in good time before the contract is finished.
6.4.2 Design
In many cases, the primary cause of defects is lack of consideration of dynamic loading or propagation of vibrations. This also applies when new machines are installed in existing industrial plants or where existing machines are repositioned . This failure to take vibrations into consideration is due to various factors , such as: Inadequate data from the machinery supplier. Failure to carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigations. Lack of knowledge, lack of design recommendations, etc. The following faults may occur during planning, design and sizing of the foundation: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) Choice of the wrong loading model. Choice of the wrong analytical model. Inadequate or faulty calculations. Faulty design of the machine foundation. Inadequate supporting foundation. Choice of the wrong construction material or the wrong grade . Choice of the wrong structure and/or defective construction .
282
_'. l ev
'
I
I
I I
I
r
~(
~
i f
I
(~
A ')
"
I '
283
284
BASIC GEOTECHNICAL
EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES
.,.----(rust
Epicenter
Ground Surface
Focus or hypocenter
1.2.1.1 P waves
The first kind of body wave is the P wave or primary wave . This is the fastest kind of seismic wave. P waves generally travel twice as fast as S waves and can travel through any type of material. They travel as shown in Figure 1-3 in a manner as it spreads out; it alternately pushes and pulls the rock in the direction of propagation. P waves are generally felt by humans as a bang or thump. The speed of P waves is determined in terms of the elastic properties of the material they travel through as:
v = [M
p
Vp
(1.1)
where pthe mass density of the material and M is is the constrained modulus defined according to the theory of elasticity as:
(1.2)
where E is Young's modulus and u is Poisson's ratio. Speed of P waves ranges from 5 km/s to 7 km/s in typical earth's crust.
1.2.1.2 S waves
They are also known as secondary, shear, or transverse waves, cause shear deformations as they travel through a material. S waves do not travel as rapidly through the Earth's crust and mantle as do primary waves; they can travel only through solids. During their travel , they displace the ground perpendicularly to the direction of propagation, alternately to one side and then the other as shown in Figure 1-4 so that the motion of an individual soil particle is perpendicular to the direction of S wave travel. The direction of particle movement is used to divide S waves into two components , SV (vertical plane movement) and SH (horizontal plane movement) . The speed of S waves is determined as:
!;-
I V.
_
=1* 1
7
~- ,
(1.3)
where G is the shear modulus of the soil medium, also referred as the initial or maximum value of the shear modulus when the soil deposit is not yet affected by the cyclic earthquake loading. Speed of S waves ranges from 3 km/s to 4 km/s in typical Earth's crust. Seismologists determine approximately the distance from a location to the origin of a seismic wave by taking the difference of arrival time from the P wave to the S wave in seconds and multiply by 8 kilometers per second.
PWave
r
I
,
"
Compressions
l
f
Undisturbed medium
I I
,
'"' t':
:~ .$t
"' ;-:
.y
I f
,,
,.
I
I
I I
I
. , ~..;
~!;;
~"; ' I
;~
~J:
,
~.
,
.'
,,,
~l".
i~
~ ~
~~
.
'
"
;,,,,
I ~ ~~'t ~
.
:-:~
~
:
.~
~
~
-.:.~
,~
...
~
I,
;;: ,~
I~
<; I ~
' ~. ' '';
S,;
v,;; .,c,
;<>'" l , 'f ., ~
..
~~
~ i$"?~ ~:
~'
. '"
... .
' I)
:'; "
:..: "
"
1 1",';'
.""
"
,
~
"" I K',~
:: .~
l{.f( i
,:;.
,;.;
,~
>1
.,
.~
.o!
.'f"
'<l.<
"" 'ok
I;.;.; "
"
-.
'>
"
"
;~
" , I,. ,.
, .
?,:
,..
"
f,
ec
"
'"
"E
.'
'"
"
i"i: k.
L Dilatations--l
5 Wave
~r r.Jt:I: ~ .Tu-lA/IT. .
/l'~./-
. "
~7 ~ T :J;
AI
, HIIIIIIIII
I I I 1 I
r-:
'Y,...
(I
I I
I /
1)."
"
, ~ I'
,
.,
'
~r--,
,~,~~~ r~ , ~~1' ~-~~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~t ~ . ~ ~ I" .' ~ : v 1 io" ~ ""r.; ~ ~ l.-' k"... . I"~ ~;- ~
,~~ ~~//~~~
, .~
I~ ~ ~ ~
, /
:'\
, ~~~
~
if-.
-~
(~~
"
;' ~~ '
~,
,' , ,
";
"
, ~.
~ ,~~//
.........c;..,..,
~, .~ ~~/~
''--_ ~ ____
~~~~
J ,~,~ ~//
t.
. _~
K" _ :"
~_~
~
~~ . , ~ '
// f J ~
" ,if
".~~ '
'.
\;
,- "
Double Ampllltude
Wavelenatgttn. ...
-,__":..... '
.':.
!J
"I
II
...., V
'>
Surface waves result from the interaction between body waves and surficial layers of the earth . They travel more slowly than body waves. They usually have the strongest vibrations and probably cause most of the damage done by earthquakes. There are two types of surface waves : Rayleigh waves and Love waves.
r .
(.
The severity of an earthquake can be expressed irlc several ways. The magnitude of an earthquake, usually expressed by the Richter scale, is a measure of the amplitude of the seismic waves. The scale is logarithmic so that a recording of 7, for example, indicates a disturbance with ground motion 10 times as large as a recording of 6. Earthquakes with a Richter value of 6 or more are commonly considered major. The moment magnitude of an earthquake , which is commonly used nowadays, is a measure of the amount of energy released. This scale assigns a magnitude to the earthquake in accordance with its seismic moment as:
M
w
=:
(1.4)
where Mw is the moment magnitude, and Mo (dyn-cm) is the seismic moment, a parameter directly related to the size of the earthquake source and quantified as:
Mo
=:
JlAD
(1 .5)
where Jl is the rupture stress of the material along the fault, A is the rupture area, and D is the average amount of slip. The seismic moment is a measure of the work done by the earthquake .
Rayleigh Wave
"
,.
, ' 1';;
It!'
Love Wave
r-F!'A
I I I
11/\
I
III I I / I A / I I I I I / I I I I ! ! / ! ! I!IIA
r-..
I I I
f.
,ffl'~
PA
rfT/\
I I
- "'.
The intensity, as expressed by the Modified Mercalli scale, is a subjective measure of damage to works of man, and of human reaction to the seismic event. The Modified Mercalli Scale expresses the intensity of an earthquake's effects at a certain location in values ranging from I to XU. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the condition of "l -- Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions," to "XII -- Damage total". Evaluation of earthquake intenslty can be made only after eyewitness reports and results of field investigations are studied and interpreted.
Transform faults are found where plates slide past one another without creating new material or overriding each other. The San Andreas fault, along the coast of California and northwestern Mexico is an example of a transform-fault plate boundary. Earthquakes at transform faults tend to happen at shallow depths and form fairly straight linear patterns. 1.4.2 Shallow Crustal Sources
ShaHow faults may exist in the form of fractures in the earth's crust in which the rock on one side of the fracture has measurable movement in relation to the rock on the other side. They may extend from the ground surface to depths of several tens of kilometers. The presence of a shallow fault does not necessarily mean that an earthquake can be expected. On the other hand, an inactive fault in an area does not guarantee that this area is immune of earthquakes.
Bouvet Is,
ANTARcnc PLATE
n. :
ANTARCTIC PLATE
'1;;':'"
..
"t.' ... _
of""
,0
.'
,.
",,, 0
Voicanic centers (hot spots )
_I- ..~.
II
J.' ."
Regions afdeep
Piate boundary
..l..6...A. Subduction
zone
Ridge axis
Transform fault
na nhcuakes
The Seattle fault, Puget Sound fault, and Tacoma Fault in Western United States are some examples of the shallow crustal sources. 1.4.3 Intraplate Sources Earthquakes can also occur within plates, although plate-boundary earthquakes are much more common . As the subducting plate overrides another , stresses and physical changes in the subducting plate may produce large devastating earthquakes. The New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 and the 1886 Charleston earthquake occurred within the North American plate. Other examples are the 1949 Olympia and 1965 Seattle-Tacoma events. 1.4.4 Other Sou rces In addition to rupture of the rock at plate boundaries and faults, there are other sources of seismic activity that produce smaller earthquakes . These sources include shallow earthquakes associated with volcanic activities, seismic vibrations produced by detonation of chemical or nuclear explosives, and '. J r/'(/.. ~ reservoir induced earthquakes. e 'r r~ c. ~ '1 .UJ . (
i
/0
Earthquake ground motions are usually characterized by its peak values, duration, frequency content, Arias intensity, and root-mean-square of acceleration. These parameters control the extent of damage a structure may undergo during an earthquake. These parameters are briefly discussed below:
1.5.2.1 Peak Ground motion Values
Because of their natural relationship to inertial forces, peak horizontal accelerations (PHGA) are the most commonly measure of the amplitude of ground motions. Peak vertical ground acceleration (PVGA), Peak horizontal
II
ground velocity (PHGV), and peak horizontal ground displacement (PHGD) are also used in some engineering applications. As an example, PHGD is more significant than PHGA in the analyses of some structures such as tunnels, and underground pipelines. Peak ground motion values are influenced by a number of factors such as: the earthquake magnitude, distance from the source, local soil conditions, style of faulting, and the variation in geology along the travel path. Peak ground motion values such as PHGA are related to these parameters through attenuation relationships. Attenuation relationships are usually based on statistical analyses of recorded data. Since they are primarily dependent on source conditions and fault mechanism, different relationships were developed for different zones in western United States to reflect different natures of seismic sources. On the other hand, few attenuation relationships, which are based on theoretical models, are available for eastern and central United States due to the little number of recorded motions.
6
'4
I :z:
uJ
lU
2 0
S-2
...J
~
8-4
-6 0 0.4
~
4 4
12 TIME (sec)
16
20
24
'0
~
0.2 0.0
g
D
uj .Q.2
0
>
-0.4
12 TIME (sec)
16
20
24
0.06 ]: 0.04 .
In
~ ~
!Z w
15-0.04
-0.06
12 TIME (sec)
16
20
24
Figure 1-8. A typical corrected accelerogram and the integrated velocity and displacement
1.5.2.3 Duration
The duration of earthquake ground motion has a significant role on the seismic damage of structures. The number of load reversals during an earthquake is responsible for the material strength degradation of certain structures. It is also responsible for the liquefaction of soil during earthquakes. Duration is usually determined as the strong portion of the accelerogram, and there are different procedures for evaluating such portion. The bracketed duration as shown in Figure 1-11 (Bolt 1969) is defined as the time interval between the first and last acceleration peaks greater than a specified value usually taken as 0.059. Since there is no standard method for determining the duration, the selection of a procedure will depend mainly on the purpose of the intended application.
13
! I
250
I
I Q)
~
::
200
'E.
ce
I Q)
E 150
100
't
' l
. ~
i Q,
I~
! I
50
0
~
10 15 Frequenw (Hz)
20
25
r
I
I .
II
Natural period
~."
.-:::
of vibration
I I '
j
v-,-,, -r. ~ : 'J
......
,
. ~ ~ .. : .
.r-
/
I
-,'... . ,:. p ;: / I
/
I
/
I
/.
/
V.
14
0.4
-0.4
Bracketed Duration
=If).~
40
sec
10
20
30
50
TIME {sec)
(1.7)
where 9 is the acceleration of gravity and tf is the duration of the ground motion. Arias (1970) demonstrated that this integral is a measure of the total energy of the acceleroqram.
15
'
(1 .8)
' . where u(t), u(t) ,andu(t) are acceleration, velocity and displacement respectively . L ' 'w ~ t- 1.6.1.1 Free Damped vibration of SDOF system: Under free vibration the natural frequency of the system is defined as:
?l
'I., -=: - "(. :J
(1.9)
The viscous damping of the system c is a measure of the energy dissipated in a cycle of vibration . There is a critical value of damping cer, below which the system will be in the state of oscillatory motion . Mathematically , the critical damping coefficient is expressed in terms of the system mass and natural frequency as: c
C(
(1.10)
16
aJ
!:)
-A.-".
4 "
.;L'!..
Figure 1-12. (a) Distributed models, and (b) lumped mass models
acn
17
The damping ratio is the ratio of the system's damping to the critical damping:
(1 .11)
If the damping ratio is less than one, the system is defined as under-damped. The motion of an under-damped system is oscillatory but not periodic, the amplitude of vibration is not constant during the motion but degreases for successive cycles. Nevertheless, the oscillation occurs at equal intervals of time as shown in Figure 1-14. If the damping ratio is more than one the system is defined as over-damped , and , for a ratio equals one, the system is defined as critically damped . The resulting motion for both systems is not oscillatory but decays exponentially with time to zero . The logarithmic decrement is a useful tool that free vibration provides for determining the damping ratio . According to Figure 1-15, the logarithmic decrement is defined as:
S=
In(~J =
un + 1
~1- (/
2ns
(1.12)
Rearranging allows the damping ratio to be determined from the logarithmic decrement as:
S/2n
[1 + (S/2nY
I"
s
(1.13)
For small values of 8, can be taken as 8/2n , and if the decay is slow, it may be easier to compare amplitudes of several cycles instead of successive amplitudes. In this case the logarithmic decrement is evaluated as:
O~~ln(u~:J
8 = 1/ 22In(.36/ .05) = 0.0897,
this gives
~
(1.14)
For example, suppose the oscillation in free vibration decayed from amplitude of 0.36 in. to 0.05 in. in 22 cycles. Then the logarithmic decrement would be:
= 0.0143.
18
19
(dynamic) rotations around the same axes. We consider separately the response of the foundation for each degree of freedom, hence the SDOF model is utilized for the calculation of the impedance functions, as will be shown in chapter 2, in terms of foundation geometry, soil properties, and soil damping. The energy of vibration in soils is dissipated through two mechanisms: the inelastic deformation of soil and the effect of propagation of the reflected seismic waves away from the structure. Inelastic deformation of soil is considered as material or hysteretic damping and expressed in terms of the energy dissipated hysteretically by the slippage of grains with respect to each other. The effect of wave propagation is close to viscous in character and is referred as geometric or radiation damping
(
J
,
where (N]) 60 is the corrected standard penetration resistance; N is the measured standard penetration resistance ; C E is the correction factor for hammer energy ratio, Cs. is a correction factor of borehole diameter; CR is the correction factor for samplers with or without liners; and CN is an overburden correction factor calculated as:
~'
j
,
\
I
20
Figure 1-17. SPT sampler (1-16a) where cr~ is the effective vertical stress in (US) ton/tt or (1-16b)
where Yt is the total unit weight of soil, Yw is the unit weight of water, d is the depth to sample, and dw is the depth to ground-water level. The initial tangent shear modulus Gmax is related to the corrected standard penetration resistance (Nr) 60 for sand using the following empirical formula adopted by FEMA 356 (Seed ~t al 1985):
G max :: 20,OOO(N] )601/3 ~cr~ \ _ - ('.
L.'
,j
" (
(1-18)
21
Table 1-1 Corrections to SPT (Youd and Idriss , 1997) Factor Equipment Variable Safety Hammer Energy Ratio Donut Hammer
-
Term
CE
G..
-eI
Borehole Diameter
\..
l
r -'
:,::;v "' ''' :
I
CB
1.0
Rod Length
CR
Sampling Method
Cs
1.0
1.2
1.7.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) In a CPT test, the cone penetrometer (Figure 1-18) is pushed into the ground at a standard velocity of 2 cm/s (0.8 in/s) and data is recorded at regular intervals (typically 2 or 5 ern) during penetration . The standard cone penetrometer has a conical tip of 10 cm 2 (1 .55 in 2 ) area, which is located below a cylindrical friction sleeve of 150 cm 2 (23.3 in2 ) surface area. The tip as well as the friction sleeve are connected to load cells to record the tip resistance qc and the sleeve friction resistance fs during penetration, and the friction ratio FR defined as FR =fJ qc(Figure 1-19). The initial tangent shear modulus Gmax is related to the penetrometer tip stress using the following empirical formulas (Kramer 1996). For sand:
22
(1-19)
G max: 406(q c )0.695 e -1.1 30 G max , qc, and a~, in equations 1-19 and 1-20 are calculated in kPa.
(1-20)
23
s
7
s
J
...
!
I i
I I
I
. ' -'
: .
.. ...
:s
1
I
i I
~
. ,..
.~
;;It
35.6
rnm
5 AdjuRtment r ing I'J W~te tp~ lXJ r bushi ng 7 Cable S Connection I'r'ilh rods
Friction
resistance
(tons/ft)
6 4 2 0
2 468
I
!
:::: .c
Q)
-a. a
10
1 ......;..,.....J, ... . .
. ~=====~.!C; . . . . .. . . ' . ..
20 30
T ~
.
:
..
. . r: .
. .
e O ; ..
40
_ __ _ ;
. o w w
.:. . . . .
50
60
. ' 0 ... .
. ... :
- . - ~ ----_
... . .
24
A significant advantage of this method is that with a single sounding test , one can obtain information for the stratigraphy of the site, the initial tangent shear modulus of different layers, as well as static strength parameters. A limitation of this method is that it may not be adequate for some types of soils containing coarse gravels
25
-- -/"m (13fl)
Lm (l3ftl
[mpQct
+
TfQnsduc~
- --
I'"
~ 1
I
I
...
I _
J'
"J I
~
~ ~
....
.
)
26
._-----~ ----------_.~.~--
_-_ ..
,.
~-
V. (m/s)
<h
[bar)
lQl
o"'--<::_.........,,........._~_
,..
' "'9:J.'ft;,w:"W7~~~
z
~
Il.
~~s~
/
Soi.",ic CPT
. .
E
e
s
_
...,.--
---I::>
._ - - - - -_." ._ - -_ .._._ ..
_ .~_._--
27
.5v .:
'7-
. cD
l
"
..
.(.,
.s,
\. .f
6. For periods less than or equal to To, the design spectral acceleration, Sa, shall be defined by:
Sa = 0.60-T + 0.4080s
Sos To
(1-22)
Note that for T ;;; 0 seconds, Sa shall be equal to the effective peak ground acceleration. 7. For periods greater than or equal to To and less than or equal to Ts. the design spectral acceleration shall be defined by:
Sa =Sos
(1-23)
8. For periods greater than Ts , the design response spectra! acceleration, Sa, shall be defines by:
S = 8 01
a
(1-24)
The steps involved in the development of the design spectrum are displayed in Figure 1-23.
28
Table 1-2. Values of Fa for different values of spectral acceleration (LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges 2004) Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods Site Class Ss::;; 0.25 g A B C
D
S5
Ss ~ 1.25 g
Table 1-3. Values of Fv for different values of spectral acceleration (LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges 2004) Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods Site Class
51::;; 0.10 g 51
= 0.20 9
0.8 1.0 1.6 2.0 3.2
51
=0.30 9
0.8 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.8
51 = 0.40 9
51 ~ 0.50 9
A B C
29
I I I
SOS == FaS s
S01 == FvS 1
TO T ==O.2Ts
PGA
._ - - j-
---
:
:
. \
\
!! , ' '
:
I \
"
s . . S01
SOS
I So1 - ~ -I - T
I_l: I
-- - -- -_ . _ . . . .~:=--_
~,, ;
-. i ._ _
TO 02 T s
1.0
30
Meanwhile, the area of hysteresis loop has expanded, indicating an increased dissipation of energy resulting from sliding at particle contacts, hence, the equivalent linear hysteretic damping ratio ~ is larger than~o . Therefore, the bigger the cyclic shear strain, the smaller the equivalent shear modulus G and the larger the equivalent damping ratio ~ as illustrated in Figure (1-25). Two different levels of site-specific seismic site response analysis are available. In levell, the simplified methods recommended by codes are usually followed. As an example , FEMA-356 established six classes of sites for seismic depending on their shear wave velocities. According to this classification sites range from hard rock (class A) to peats and organic clays (class F). Table 1-1 illustrates the recommended values for the effective shear modulus to account for the non linear behavior of soils for different sites and peak ground accelerations. The recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges (2004) also recommends for regions of low-to-moderate seismicity (PGA<0.3g), a value of G=0.5 G max while for regions of moderate-to-high Seismicity (PGA> 0.5g), a value of G = 0.25 Gmax is recommended. Both FEMA-356 and LRFD guidelines request level II, which is a dynamic site response analysis , for organic soils (class F). Dynamic site response analysis is also requested for major projects and critical facilities when global time history analysis is mandated to establish the ground motions at the foundation levels.
I
Typically, a one dimensional soil column that extends from the ground surface to bedrock is used to model the soil profile. Two dimensional soil profiles may also be used in special cases such as basins. The soil layers in a one dimensional model are characterized by their unit weighs, maximum shear wave velocities and by relationships defining the nonlinear shear stress-strain relationships of the soils such as the one shown in Figure 1-24. The computer program SHAKE originally developed by Schnabel et al. (1972) and updated by ldriss and Sun (1992)under the name SHAKE91, is the most commonly used computer program for one dimensional equivalent-linear seismic site response analysis . The program requires a set of properties (shear modulus, damping and total unit weight) to be assigned to each sublayer of the soil deposit. The analysis is conducted using these properties and the shear strains induced in each sublayer is calculated. The shear modulus and damping values for each sublayer are then modified according to the relationship relating these two properties to shear strain. The analysis is conducted iteratively until strain-compatible modulus and damping values are reached.
31
G-eao-GIIIO.Il
Mol'c.ooic toadin9 Q,jry.
Figure 1-24. Equivalent linear representation of the soil hysteretic cyclic stress strain behavior
O.S l---- --
_i__
-~-+---.
.. f---+--
--I-- .- -
~
C)
o E
x:
0.6
--+-----+-~.----------,P__----+-----l 1 5 i!
t
1 0.41--- - - 1..- - -
c: .&
-j- ---;f--'\'-.;-------'f------ -
10
e o
O.2t-----~+_--+ +_---+__'"
- -
-:--
0001
0 .01
Shear SJroin -
O.i %
Figure 1-25 Typical shear modulus and damping relationships used in equivalent linear soil
32
Table 1-4. Effective shear Modulus Ratio (G/G max) after FEMA-356
Effective Peak Acceleration 0.40 50S SITE CLAS5 0.40 50S = 0 A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 50S = 0.1 0.40 50S = 0.4 0.40 5DS 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.60 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.50 0.05 1.00 0.90 0.60 0.10
=0.8
B
C
0
E
*
*
site response
*
and
*
dynamic
33
The increase in pore pressure causes a reduction in the shear strength, which in certain cases may be totally lost. In such cases soil will behave like a viscous fluid, and in some earthquakes liquefaction appeared in the form of sand fountains . Structures founded on liquefiable sands may settle, tilt, or even overturn during earthquakes due to loss of bearing capacity as a consequence of soil liquefaction. Examples of failures of structures due to liquefaction during the 1964 Niigata Japan earthquake and the 1999 Izmit Turkey earthquake are illustrated in Figures 1-26 and 1-27.
1.9.1 How Liquefaction Build-up during Earthquakes
Seismic shear waves during its passage through different soil layers will tend to compact loose saturated sand deposits, and thus decrease its volume . If these deposits cannot drain rapidly, there will be a gradual increase of pore water pressure and decrease of the effective stress of soil with increasing the ground shaking. Since the shear strength of cohesionless soils is directly proportional to the effective stress, liquefaction will occur at the point when the pore water pressure becomes equal to the total overburden pressure . At this stage there will not be any shear strength for the soil, and it will tend to boil like a fluid.
1.9.2 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation
The LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges (2004) recommend that no evaluation of liquefaction hazard potential at a site be done if the following conditions occur: The distance from the ground surface to existing or potential ground water level is more than 15 m. Bedrock underlies the site. The soil is clayey with particle size < 0.005 mm greater than 15% A simplified procedure for the evaluation of liquefaction potential was originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971, 1982) with subsequent refinements by Seed et al. (1985, and 1990). The procedure compares earthquake cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at a certain depth of a cohesionless stratum to the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), which is defined as the cyclic stress ratio required inducing liquefaction for that given depth. This evaluation procedure uses correlation between the liquefaction characteristics of soils and field tests such as the Standard Penetration Test. The procedure involves the following basic steps: Determine the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). During an earthquake, the soils will be subject to cyclic shear stresses induced by the ground shaking. The average cyclic stress ratio (CSR) may be estimated by the following formula: CSR==
(1-25)
Go
34
Figure 1-26. Failure of the Kawagishi-cho apartment buildings following the 1964
Niigata earthquake due to soil liquefaction (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)
Figure 1-26. Failure of a building following the 1999 Izmit Turkey earthquake (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)
35
o0
3 (0)
6(20)
0.1
02 03 0.4 05
0.9 1.0
::= '-'
E
tU
9(30)
12(40)
15(50)
18(60)
0..
. . .. . .
21 (70)
24(80)
27(90)
30 (l 00)
.. . ..... . . . .
...
. . . ..
. .
'
l--...;.....L...---J.~.a...;...~:.......;....L_...o...-..;...a...----JI.-.-""""'--..I
Figure 1-27. Stress reduction coefficient rd versus depth curves (youd and ldrlss , 1997)
36
Where amax is the maximum acceleration at the ground surface; <Yo is the total overburden pressure at depth under consideration; a'a is the effective overburden pressure at depth under consideration; and rd is a stress reduction factor coefficient can be calculated using Figure 1-27 as a function of depth. Alternatively, a site-specific response analysis of the ground motions to determine the maximum earthquake-induced shearing stresses at depth for use directly in equation (1-25). Evaluate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). Values of CRR were originally established from databases for different sites where liquefaction effects were or were not observed following past earthquakes . The experiential chart defining values of CRR as a function of the corrected standard penetration resistance (N,) 60 for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes is depicted in Figure 1-28 (Youd and ldriss, 1997), with magnitude adjustment factors presented in Figure 1-29. Calculate the factor of safety against liquefaction as FS= CRR/CSR. This ratio should be greater than 1.0 to preclude the development of liquefaction.
37
0.6
.2 '
u r. I
,
I
15
I
s, 5
~~ !l
0.5
r
tl
~
4~ ~
,
I I
~o
I I I I
,
I I
I
I
I
I
I I t
....tQ
~
'"
.~
0.4
I
,,---1
I
.Jl
0.3
.~
10
. lZ
,
.;!
60-
JO
;,
IQ
20
C O.2
IQ "10
~o~.. o
j/ V ~. '
I
, "~
J
,
I
1
I
t
I
~.A~o
~] iJ:
"YJ @
,"a.
II
'0
O'-'tYJ
FINESCOl\'TENT:?; 5%
"')0 .
~~
o
AdjllStmenl
0
A
20
30
40
Figure 1-28. Curve Recommended for Determining CRR from SPT Data (Youd and Idriss, 1997)
4j
3.5
3
25
1.S
.... .
~
o
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Earthquake Magnitude. Mw
Figure 1-29 Magnitude scaling factors for the SPT data (youd and Idriss, 1997)
38
0.6
Volumetric strain (%)
0.5
1054 3
0.5
II
0.4
~
a:
0.3
0.2
0.1
.' .. .'
,.~ ~
:0.2 .. . . .. .. .. t.: . . .0.1 . . . .... . .. . . . . . '. . . . . ....... . . .... . . . .. ... ..... . . . .. ...... . . .. .. .. ..
.
# #
#
.9
."
10
20
30
40
50
(N1)SO
Figure 1-30. Estimation of post-liquefaction volumetric strain from SPT data and cyclic stress ratio for saturated clean sands and rnaqnitude > 7.5 (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987)
39
Figure 1-31. lateral spread following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake in Tempoyama Park Osaka (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)
Figure 1-32. Lateral spreading in Granada Hills at Rinaldi St. (Granada Hills, California) following the 1994 Northridge earthquake (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)
40
For free-face conditions: Log OH = - 16.3658 + 1.1782 M - O.9275Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.6572 Log W + 0.3483Log T15 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15) -0.9224 050 1 5 (1-26) For ground slope conditions: Log OH = - 15.7870 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275 Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.4293 Log S + 0.3483 Log T 1 5 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15) - 0.9224 050 15 (1-27) where, OH is the estimated lateral ground displacement in meters; M is the moment magnitude of the earthquake; R is the horizontal distance from the seismic energy source, in kilometers; W is the ratio of the height (H) of the free face to the distance (L) from the base of the free face to the point in question, in percent; T15 is the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with corrected blow counts,(N1)60, less than is, in meters; F15 is the average fines content (fraction of sediment sample passing a No. 200 sieve) for granular [ayers included in T 15 in percent; 050,5 is the average mean grain size in granular layers included in T 1 5 , in mm; and S is the ground slope , in percent. The LRFO guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges (2004) recommends using this approach only for screening of the potential for lateral spreading , as the uncertainty associated with this method is generally assumed to be too large. Alternatively, more rigorous methods such as the Newmark sliding block analysis can be used to assess the potential of post-liquefaction lateral spreading at a site.
I
41
rearranges loose sand grains into a more compact state. After the machine reaches the required depth of compaction, granular material, usually sand, is added from the ground surface to fill the void space created by the vibrator. A compacted radial zone of granular material is created. In-situ improvements of soils by using additives such as the stone column technique. The stone column technique, also know as vibro-replacement, is a ground improvement process where vertical columns of compacted aggregate are formed through the soils to be improved. These columns result in considerable vertical load carrying capacity and improved shear resistance in the soil mass. Stone columns are installed with specialized vibratory machines. The vibrator first penetrates to the required depth by vibration and air or water jetting or by vibration alone. Gravel is then added at the tip of the vibrator and progressive rising and repenetration of the vibrator results in the gravel being pushed into the surrounding soil. The soil-column matrix results in an overall mass having a high shear strength and a low compressibility Grouting or chemical stabilization. These methods can improve the shear resistance of the soils by injection of chemicals into the voids. Common applications are jet grouting and deep soil mixing. Designing for liquefaction may be accomplished by the use of deep foundations which are usually supported by the soil or rock below the potentially liquefiable soil layers. These designs would need to account for additional forces that would develop because of potential settlement of the upper soils that could occur due to Iiquefaction.
1.10 References
Arias, A (1970) " A measure of earthquake intensity, ~ Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts , pp. 438-483 Bolt, B.A. (1969) "Duration of strong motion, "Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, pp. 1304-1315. Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L. (1992). "Empirical analysis of horizontal ground
displacements generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spread, "Technical
Report NCEER-92-0021 , National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
Buffalo, New York .
FEMA (2000). "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings", FEMA-356 , Federal Emergency Management. Washington, D.C.
ldriss, I.M. and Sun, J.I. (1992). "SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits , "User's Guide, University of California, Davis, 13pp.
42
Kramer, S.L. (1996), "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering," Prentice-Hen, Inc ., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 653 pp. MCEERJATC (2003) "Recommended LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges", MCEERIATC 49, Applied Technology Council and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Schnabel, P.R, Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. (1972). "SHAKE: computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered sites," Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1970)."Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses," Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vo1.107, NO.SM9, pp.1249-1274. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, RM. (1985). "Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No.11, pp.1016-1032. Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1990). "SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength," Proceedings. H.B. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, University of California Berkley, Vol. 2, pp.351-376 . Tokimatsu , K. and Seed, H.B. (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering , ASCE, Vol. 113, No.8, pp.861-878. Youd, T.L. and Idriss I.M (1997) Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Report NCEER 97-22, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York.
43
SEISMIC DESIGN OF
SHALLOW
FOUNDATIONS
45
46
real part represents the elastic stiffness (spring constant) of the soil-foundation system and its imaginary part represents both the material and radiation damping in the soil-foundation system. At small strain levels typically material damping ratio ~ associated with foundation response is on the order of 2% to 5%. Radiation damping is close to viscous damping behavior. and is frequency dependent. Considering the range of frequencies and amplitUdes in earthquake ground motions compared to machine foundations, it is reasonably to ignore the frequency dependence of the stiffness as well as the damping parameters. There are two methods for evaluating the dynamic impedance functions for a shallow foundation that are commonly used in practice. The first is based on the approximate solution for a circular footing rigidly connected to the surface of isotropic homogeneous elastic half-space. adopted by FHWA (FHWA-1995). which provides the static stiffness constants for each degree of freedom. The second approach is based on the more rigorous mathematical approaches. Evaluation of the stiffness coefficients using the equivalent circular footing is carried out in four steps as follows: Step 1: Determine the equivalent radius for each degree of freedom, which is the radius of a circular footing with the same area as the rectangular footing as shown in Figure 2-2: ro
r0
r1 -
---=--z....:.....:.-
31t
_R
ro
r2 -
_ [16(B)3(L) 31t
]1/4
(2-1-d)
_[16(B +L r0 -R t - ---=---'61t
2 2>]1I4
(2-1-e)
Step 2: Calculate the stiffness coefficients for the transformed circular footing for vertical translation ksv , horizontal (sliding) translations ksh1 and ksh2 , rocking, kr , and torsion, k t
k sv
_ 4GR v
1-u 2-u
(2-2-a)
(2-2-b)
47
Foundation forces
Uncoupled stiffnesses
/ : RECTANGULAR
FOOTlNG
I-
-~
I
J
I
I
I
~------if--"""'y
I I I I
co
N
2l
--t--EQU1VALENT
CIRCULAR FOOTING
48
(2-2-c)
where, G and v are the dynamic shear modulus and Poisson's ratio for the soil foundation system. Step 3: Multiply each of the stiffness coefficients values obtained in step 2 by the appropriate shape correction factor C1 from figure 2-3 (Lam and Martin 1986). This figure provides the shape factors for different aspect ratios LIB for the foundation . Step 4: Multiply the values obtained from step 3 by the embedment factor ~ using Figure 2-4 for values of D/R :5:0.5, and Figure 2-5 for D/R > 0.5 (Lam and Martin 1986). D in these figures is the footing thickness . The second approach for calculating the impedance functions for the soil foundation system is based on the results of rigorous formulations (Gazetas 1991). This approach is adopted by FEMA-356. Using Figures 2-6 and 2-7, a two-step calculation process is required. First, the stiffness terms are calculated for a foundation at the surface. Then, an embedment correction factor is calculated for each stiffness term. The stiffness of the embedded foundation is the product of these two terms. According to Gazetas , the height of effective sidewall contact, d, in Figure 2-7 should be taken as the average height of the sidewall that is in good contact with the surrounding soil.
(2-3)
In this expression : C = cohesion property of the soil bearing capacity factor depending on angle of internal friction, ' Nc , Nq ,N.( and evaluated as:
N = eittan<ptan (4 5+ % )
2 q
Nc
N y = 2(N q +l)tan<p
Sc, Sq Sr = footing
t
49
1 .20..,.------------------------~__.
u
tlJ ri
t-
. ,
L.
I....
W
<:
1.10
-c
a...
~
1,<l5
-T""---....--- ---....------------:----....
2,0- .
!
~~~~ J-f
.
. ,
R_
. :
co
w ::2' o w
0.5
O/R
Figure 24. Embedment factors for foundations with D/R :5,'; 0.5
50
EMBEDMENT FACTOR ~
-----.-.-.-....-.-.-
IS
Figure 2-5. Embedment factors for foundations with D/R > 0.5
51
Degree of Freedom
Translation along x-axis
K
Translation along z-axis
y,su"
2 _. v -').
GB [..,
:
Rocking about y-axis
s ur =
7~:[0.4(~) + 0.1 ]
3
K
Torsion about z-axis
.r .v. SUI'
GB [0.47
1 -- v
(L)2 .4 + 0.034J B
KZZ, s ur
52
Degree of Freedom
P y
P x
:0=
~z
I-'xx
r:l.
[1 + 2\
d[
~yy =1+1.4L
Torsion about z-axis
~z:
1 + 2.6 1 + L
B ( B)(d)O.9
Kemb = ~
53
/
\
'~QJ. '
f
,r
I ;r-
- I ,
'."
J (/
. :(. ,.
J . ',
c'
"
-.
'
-.
(c;
Strip Rectangle
(q
(r
1.0
B Nq 1+- L Nc
1.0
B 1+-tan$
1.0
1-0.4
B
Circle or square
N 1+-3.
Nc
1+ tan $
0.6
Earthquakes will induce moments and horizontal loads in addition to the traditional vertical loads applied to a shallow foundation. To represent the combined effect of the seismic forces and moments a resultant load that may have to be inclined and applied eccentrically can be applied in lieu of the seismic vertical forces, seismic horizontal forces, and seismic moments. Therefore, a procedure is established to account for load inclination , and load eccentricity of footing. Through this procedure, the general bearing capacity equation of shallow footing is adjusted to account for these effects.
2.3.1. Evaluation of the Dynamic Bearing Capacity using equivalent static methods
This procedure is carried out in three steps as follows : Step 1: compute the seismic vertical loads , seismic horizontal loads, and seismic moments imposed to the footing. These seismic loads and moments can be taken directly from the results of a global dynamic response analysis of the structure with the soil-foundation-interaction SFI effects represented in the structural model. For each direction , these forces are then combined into a single resultant force with an inclination angle ~ with respect to the vertical and eccentricities, eb and elfor both lateral and longitudinal directions. Step 2: calculate the equivalent dimensions for the footing to account for the load eccentricity, which is caused by the seismic moments applied to the foundation in both directions. The vertical load can be transferred to an eccentric position defined by eb =Mt/Q and el =M/Q, where Q is the central vertical load due to seismic load plus other service loads; Mb and M;: : seismic moments about the short and long axes of the footing; and eb and el eccentricities of the load Q
54
about the centroid of the footing in the direction of the short and long axes respectively. It is known from basic principles of strength of materials that if the eccentricity in one direction is less than 1/6 of the foundation's length in that direction, the footing is in compression throughout. As eccentricity exceeds this value, a loss of contact occurs. The concept of effective width was introduced by Meyerhof (1953) who proposed that at the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation , it could be assumed that the contact pressure is identical to that for a centrally loaded foundation but of reduced width. Highter and Anders (1985) who complemented Meyerhof earlier work and provided design charts for four cases of a footing subjected to two-way eccentricity depending on the magnitudes of el/Land eb/B :
Casel: el/L ~ 116 and et/B ~ 1/6. The effective area for this condition is shown in Figure 2-8, where:
A' =..!..B1L1 2
(2-5a)
in which:
B, =B(1.5- 3:
1
Effective
area
L= L (1.5 _ 3e, I
\. L }
(2-5c)
The effective length L', is the larger of the two dimensions, that is B1 or
L 1. So, the effective width is B'::; A'/L'
Case 1/ : O<e~L < 0.5 and eb/B < 116.
I
L
L1
The effective area for this case is shown in Figure 2-9a, where:
(2-6a)
j
B
I(
..I
in which, the magnitudes of L 1 and L2 can be determined from Figure 2-9b . The effective width is
(2-6b)
=L1 or L2
(whichever is larger)
(2-6c)
55
Effective area
- --+~"'~r/?f--
I
,
(a)
O.5~--.......------.----.........- -.........--..,
e!JB=
0.167 0.1
O.3~r+-+-~~~~~~~:---rO'~--4
0.06
0.04
0.11----+---
For
56
2.(B 1 + B 2)L 2
(2-7a)
(2-7b)
L' =L
(2-7c)
Case IV: eJL < 1/6 and <ebl'B< 1/6. Figure 2-11 a illustrates the effective
area for this case, which can be quantified as:
A'
(2-8a)
A'
B'=-
(2-8b)
L' = L
(2-8c)
Step 3: adjust the bearing capacity equation for inclination and eccentricity. Load inclination factors are added to equation 2-6 to count for load inclination as follows:
qU11
Ny~yA y
(2-9)
where ACT Aq , and A.{ are load inclination factors calculated as (Vesic 1970, Hunt 1986):
A_[1- V +8'L'ccot~ H ]m
q -
(2-10a)
A
"I
=[1-----V +B'L'ccot~
]m+1
(for c and ~soil)
(2-10b)
A = /" c
q
1-A
N c tan~
q
(2-10c)
57
Effective area
I...
B--~
edt->
,-.......-+--0.1671----+-----1
0.1
0.08
O.31-H-+-~~~~~~~~-O.06----l
0.04 0.02
POo ..
~
0\
';)
0.1 eill- =
0.4
BtIB, BzlB
-_.-
.. ..
- - ---~)---------------_....
58
.....---B--~ )or 1
~~ffl?:t---+-.Effective
area
(a)
0.20 For 0 btai taimng B 2/B
\0
O.-l~
.-l "'1'
0.02 = eJ.1L
0.2
0.4
1.0
B 2/B, LVL
(b)
Figure 2-11. Effective area for two-way eccentricity case 4
59
A =1C
mH B'L'cN C
(for c soil)
(2-10d)
where H :::: horizontal component of load, V = vertical component of load, and m is an exponential factor relating B/L or LIB ratios as follows: For load on short side: (2+B/L) mb = -7-( 1-+-B-/ L -+) For load on long side:
ml =
(2-10e)
(2+L/B) (1+L/B)
2.3.2. Evaluation of the Dynamic Bearing Capacity using modified bearing capacity factors
Prakash (1981) proposed new bearing capacity factors that are functions of the angle of internal friction of soil 4> and the eccentricity eb of the footing, and expressed in terms of the ratio of eccentricity eb to width B of the footing. The loss of contact of the footing width with increases in eccentricity was accounted for while evaluating the new bearing capacity factors henceforth called dynamic bearing capacity factors . The dynamic bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq N, have been plotted in Figures 2-12 through 2-14, to be used in lieu of the calculated values using equation 2-4. Prakash (1981) also proposed the following values for the dynamic bearing shape factors to be used with the dynamic bearing capacity factors:
Sy
(2.11a) (2.11b)
(2.11c)
= qultBL
(2-12)
where L is the length of footing. If seismic moment loading is present in addition to the vertical load, FEMA-356 assumes, based on earlier studies (Bartlett 1976) that the ultimate moment capacity, Me, is dependent on the ratio of the vertical
60
load to the vertical capacity of the soil. This theory assumes a rigid footing and
that the contact stresses are proportional to vertical displacement and remain elastic until the vertical capacity is reached. Hence, a factor of safety, FOS, can be defined as FOS= qUlt/q where q is the vertical contact stress according to the vertical load on footing. If the factor of safety is greater than 2, uplift will occur prior to plastic yielding of the soil. On the other hand, if FOS is less than or equal to 2 the soil at the toe yields v\before uplift starts.
I I
I
I
.e/S c 0.4
0.3
0.2
o.r
0.0
'E "
~
:; 20 I-,f-I.~~.,L+----+-----=---+---l----+---!----l----L--:------l
c:
'-c "
c:
'"
10l-l--Jr+-I--I+--+----+---+-- t - ---:-----1----t
9 " 4(f
e/B
Nc
0.0
D .l 0.2
0.3
94.83
. 66.60 S4.45
36.30
0.4 10 .. 20
18,15
90
10~'
40
50
50
70
80
Cohesion factor No
Figure 2-12 . Bearing capacity Factor Nc vs. ~ and e/B (After Prakash 1981)
0-2
-s
" 0.1
0.0
.~
!i ~
30l--+--A-7I'~A",.e.=---_+----l----+-.....,._-r__--t--_+_-______j
~ 201-J-,fN.~ --_+--_+_--+--+---1_--t---L_:;:;_-_j
:: s t:
.,
c:
C,
<:
N~
Figure 2-13. Bearing capacity Factor Nq vs. ~ and e/B (After Prakash 1981)
61
.1:. " Q)
40
etB '"
I 0.4
!
0.3 0.2
0.1'
I
I
, 0.0
=
~
.~
,.,---
30
, ,
.
:;: 20
o
I1l ~
c <i
to
o
V
o
10
I
20
30 40 50 60 70
4J=40etB
0.0 0,1
Ny
0,2 0.3
QA
80
4.62 100
110
90
Figure 2-14. Bearing capacity Factor Nl' vs. 4> and e/B (After Prakash 1981) On the basis of these assumptions, the moment capacity of a rectangular footing can be expressed as:
M QL(l-_l_J
=
c
FOS
(2-13)
I
..... 1;.
..
- .
where Q = the vertical loading on footing and L is the length of footing in the direction of bending. 2.3.4 Richards method for dynamic bearing capacity This procedure was developed by Richards et aJ (1993) and is the only method that directly correlates the dynamic bearing capacity of the foundation to the earthquake parameters . This theory assumes that seismic settlements of shallow foundations on granular soils that are not attributable to liquefaction can be explained in terms of seismic degradation of bearing capacity. This procedure as shown in Figure 2-15 uses a simplified Coulomb's failure mechanism extended to dynam ic earthquake situation. According to this theory, the dynamic bearing capacity for a strip foundation can be evaluated as: (2-14)
62
P /'
/' /'
H::BtonpA
-----
Y/'(OrOndfl
~---r----
H/tonpp
-I
Figure 215. Simplified Coulomb's failure surface for dynamic bearing capacity evaluation .
where, qUE is the dynamic ultimate bearing capacity; NeE, NOE , and NyE are dynamic bearing capacity factors evaluated in terms of the angle of internal friction of soil, and the earthquake acceleration ratio. Figure 2-16 shows the variations of the dynamic bearing capacity factors as a ratio of the static values determined by equation 2-7 with earthquake acceleration ratio tan 8 for different values of soil friction angle ~, where:
tan 8
=-.JSL I-k
v
(2-15)
where, kh is the horizontal coefficient of acceleration due to the earthquake, and k" is the vertical coefficient of acceleration due to the earthquake. The seismic settlement of sand soils according to this theory can be evaluated as:
SEq
= O.174- i
y2 k*
Ag A
tanPA
(2-22)
in which, V = Peak or pseudo-velocity response spectrum (m/sec): A = acceleration coefficient for the design earthquake ; g = acceleration due to gravity rn/sec"); k~ settlement; and PA
(9.81
= critical acceleration coefficient for incipient foundation = the inclination angle of the failure surface's active wedge
region with respect to the horizontal as shown in Figure 2-15. The values of k~ and PA can be obtained from Figures 2-17 and 2-18 respectively .
63
NcEINeS
1 .0
'.0
0.8
'.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
fone =
~
l-kr
(0)
(b)
(cJ
3.0
<...
/.0
tl:
~
<:J ..... o
o0
, , I
0.1
,(~ ~ l~~
' , ',
/.0
, , ,, , , ,
. ~ 4.0
V'l
0.2
0.3
0 .4 0
0.3
0 .4
"0 Vi
3.0 3.0
2.0r
2.0
~o
~o
(c) ~ .. 30o
[ 1 I I ,
I . ,
t,
I ,
I !
of . . .
( d): 40o
I
I!
J (
0.1
rJ2
Q.3
0.4 0
1<; - -
0 ./
0.2
a3
0.4
64
2.0 r----r----r----r----,------r---..--,
1.5
0.5
0./
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2.3 Example1
Calculate the stiffness coefficients for a strip foundation for the purposes of seismic analysis. The width of the foundation is 5m and the length is 20 m. The distance from ground level to the bottom of the foundation is 5 m and the thickness Is 1 m. The estimated static load on the footing was 35000 Kn. The soil is a deep gravelly sand deposit with angle of internal friction 38, and dry unit Borings were taken and groundwater was not weight equals16 kNfm 3 . encountered. The standard penetration resistance of the layer has been determined to be 21 blows per 300 mm using a standard sampler, a drill rig with a safety hammer efficiency of 60%, a drill rod of length 10m, and a borehole of diameter 127 mm (5 inches). The effective peak acceleration for the site was determined to be 0.35 g. Use the approximate solution for a circular footing resting on the surface of elastic half-space .
65
5o/ufion
DATA:
Foundation width
B:= S'm
l- := 20m
Foundation lenqth
1/ := ? m
d:= l -m
y := ;6 :? m
v := 0,:-70'
~ := '58deCl
~a:;:::
r
Unit weight
of soil
i KN '
Ang le
of internal friction
O~(
.:/'?
N;= 21
y.t/
'1 \
r /
c = 80kPa
Overburden correction factor
CN := 9,18 ---;;CN
=
tWa
( eo.uatim! - 1 6b)
1 .09'5
66
/j
Ce
:=
1 .0
, since safety hammer is 6010 efficient , since diameter is 5 in. (127 mm)
.slnce rod length is 10m
.since standard sampler used
/i'
C~ :=
.
/
Rod length:
, / Sarnpling method
C5
1 .0
N60 = 22.962
( equaJ:,ict11 -
I?)
STEP 2: Evaluate shear modulus f rom the information of the 3PT test
I
Maxlrnu rn (initiaI) shear rnodu Ius
U ." := 200ClO.N60' .j m
(J,
p 5T
{Ama)'..
r.
For effective peak ground accel eration of 0.4 and site class C Table 1-1
Rf
:=
O,BO
u = B9002MPa
STEP 3: Evaluation of the equiivalent radiUS for each de gree of fre edom
Translational modes
r? ,_ _
"'1 .-
~
1t
67
Rocking modes
I?
Iv v>
i '
'. ~ I --"
-z;
\0.28
I
'''n .- [
?Jt)
~
I? . ,_
\O.2So
I
)
IY 2 -
( eqJaLion2 - ld)
Rr2 =
Torsional mode
Rr. = 1 5.782 m
STEP 4 : Calculate the stiffness coefficients for the transforrned circular footing
assume axis x is parallel to the length. and yaxis is parallel to the width
4G,i(v
Vertical translation
~v:=-
I-v
K~;v
Kshi :=
B'~'Rn
2-v
~h i
5M N = 2A:?? x 10
111
~h2 := ~hJ
68
8 -.:A.R,.?
Rocking about transverse axis
k,., ,; :=
'
( eo..uatll7.12 - 2()
3 ( I - v ) -rn
6 MN krl = 1.0756 x 1 0
m
~2 :=
8 (..1 f. R "r2'
2 ( eCitJati0'l2 - 2c)
3( I - v )
1Jl
? MN K 0 -' r2 = 1.92 x 1
m
l uT5ion
I.
KJ,
:=
1 6 f. v - .(..1.
3 2 m
1(.7
( eo.u8tim2 - 2d)
kt = 1.24:? x 1 0 -"
m
STEP 5: Evaluation of th e shape f actors a. for each mode The shape fa ctors are ca lculated from Figure 2- 3 for LIB = 4
a v := a t:=
/,. MN
1,13 1 .1 1
ahl :=
1.1 7?
v.. r1 .= i ,IBe, .
;
a h2 := 1 .06
a r 2 := i.1 6
Qf or
each mode
The embedment fa ctors are calculat ed from Figure 2-4 for d=lm and R values f or each mode
ratiO:=
vertical
from figure 2-4
, .
R v
ratio = 0 .117
f rans!atiCf'al
d
RJ(i
J3h := 1 .2?
69
rat io
d
ratio =
0.062
1 .08
~ rI :=
rali o ._ .
t(r2
J3 r2
:= i.2'-3
ratio
rat io
= 0 .015
1 .26
~ t :=
STEP 7: Evaluate the ad justed st iffn ess co efficients based on shape and embedment f actors _
Vertical
K va = 5.8i9 x;O
7M N
rn
= ./ ,:/ \/ x
..-::\{)
N 1 0 -:.c. ./ M
j
"na -
._
kr j .N !. Ct v.. n
t-' :'":
70
k.ta
2.4 Example2
'=
z;
N'N
Following seismic response analysis for the problem in example 1, the following estimates of the peak dynamic forces acting on the foundation are as follows: Vertical force = 6500 kN Horizontal force in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the footing Moment about the longitudinal axis Moment about the transverse axis
=12500 kN
Horizontal force in the direction of the transverse axis of the footing = 14000 kN
=42000 kNm
=83000 kNm
5 01ufion
If the estimated static load on the footing was 35000 kN, evaluate the dynamic bearing capacity of the foundation
DATA:
Foundation width
B:= 5>-r;.
[.,:=
Foundation 1611gth
Depth from groulld surface foundation thickness Unit weight of soil
20m
i7 := 7-m
d := l-m
'Y
kN := :6
rn
~ :=
58deC]
V5 := ?:70 00kN
71
Step 1: Evaluate seismic f orc es Vertical se ismic force Horizontal seismic force in the transverse direction Horizontal seism ic force in the longitudinal direction Moment about the t r ansverse axis Moment about the longitudinal axis
VD:= 6e700kN
H i := 1 4000 -kN
H~ := j 2::?OOlN
Mf := B?OOOkNm
p I\- := 42000-kNm
Step 2: Calcu late equiva lent dimensions to account for load eccentricity
M..I
el := -
Vs+ Vr;
Ecc entricity in t he longItudinal direction
et:= -
V5 + Vr;
e iII!
"=
e. c
= !.0 1 2m
ell = 0 .1
'. L .
e~
Ratio
of eccentricity in th e transverse
since ei/L < 116 and O<et/B < 0.5, use case iii Figure 2-10 ratio
of B1/B
( f iO iJrel - lOb)
ratio of 52/5
Distance 51 in Figure 10 -a
f?1= 4.2e7 m
B2 = l.OSm
=
Effective area
Effe ctive width
e7? m
I~
L.
Effective length
l d := ~
= 20 m
72
Step 3 : Evalu ate t he dynamic bearing capacity inclu ding incli nat ion and ecce nt ricity Consider case of horizonta l load acting on t ho transverse direc t ion Bearing capacity f actors
Nq ._
e lt tal (
~)
.( tan ( "17
.deC! + .? .(j)) ) 2
Nq
Q 'I ," 48 .7 J)
t~ t . 2 ( l~ q + I) -tan ( ep)
Ny = 78 .024
( eqJat.icn
2-
"1-)
Shap e f actors
(,y
= 0.9
( fable 2 - I)
L.
'- '
B
111
'l1
:=
1+
f?
1.8
L.
'}.. 0. :=
Clult
2,70 1 x 1 0
!:.Pa
f5 .-
fS
5.269
73
%It
7 = 5.12 x 1 0 kPa
P5 := ----;::::::=======
f5 = 4.5140'
Step 4: Check slid ing resistance Interface friction angle between soil and concr ete The friction capac ity The factor of safety is then given by:
Rf = L957 x ;0 .kN
kf f5 :=-
HI
f5 = 1.582
74
2.5
eferences
II
ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings volume 1," A TC 40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Bartlett, P.E., (1976) , "Foundation rocking on a clay soil, " Report no. 154, M.E. thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand . FEMA (2000) . "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", FEMA-356 , Federal Emergency Management. Washington, D.C. FHWA (1995) "Seismic retrofitting manual for highway bridges," Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibrations, Chapter 15 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.553-593. Highter, W.H., and Anders, J.C. (1985) . "Dimensioning footings subjected to eccentric loads," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.8, pp.659-665. Hunt, R.E. (1986), "Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices," McGraw Hill, inc ., New Jersey, 729 pp. Lam, I.P. and Martin, G.R. (1986), "Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations," Report No. FHWAIRD-86-102, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, McLean , Virginia , 167 p. Meyerhof, G.G. (1953), "The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric loads, u Proceedings :rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1 ppA40-445.
Prakash, S. (1981), "Soil dynamics," McGraw Hill, Inc., New Jersey, 426 pp.
Richards, R., Jr., Elms, D.G., and Budhu, M. (1993). "Seismic bearing capacity
and settlements of foundations," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 119, NoA, pp.662-674.
Vesic, A.S. (1973)" Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Chapter
3 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 1st edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.553-593 .
75
SEISMIC EVALUATION
OF
76
3.1 General
Pile foundations generally consist of pile groups connected to a pile cap with pile diameters usually less than or equal to 24 inches . Pile foundations are preferred under the following conditions: The upper soil layers are weak or susceptible to liquefaction; Excessive scour is likely to occur; or Future excavation is planned in the vicinity of the structure .
Essentially, the seismic response of piles requires consideration of six degrees of freedom ; that is, three translational components and three rotational components. The lateral soil reactions are usually mobilized along the top 5 to 10 pile diameters . The axial soil resistances, however, develop at greater depths . Hence, the axial and lateral capacities of piles are considered to be uncoupled. In general, seismic design of pile foundations is a three-step process , which includes determination of the seismic demands, evaluation of the pile foundation capacities, and finally comparing demands to capacities and assessing the seismic response of the foundation . For a proper determination of the seismic demand, it is imperative to estimate precisely the foundation stiffness to be included in the overall structural model for determination of the demands. The seismic response of a pile group foundation depends on the response of individual piles under both lateral and axial loads and on the lateral response of the pile cap. It is conventional to compare the lateral displacements under seismic loads to acceptable levels of displacements dictated by the design criteria of the project. In assessing the vertical response of pile foundations under vertical seismic loads, the pile loads are compared to the compressive capacities of the piles and any potential uplift.
77
K .", 0
0 0
0 0
-K
0 0 0
.~oy
0 0 0 0 0
s;
0
;
0
Kzz
0 0 0
-KByx
0
Ko,y 0
0
s:
0 0
(3-1 )
Key
0
s;
in which, Kxx, Kyy are the lateral stiffnesses; Kzz is the axial stiffness; and Kxeyand Kyo x are corresponding coupled stiffnesses between shear and overturning moment. There are two methods for modeling the behavior of pile groups for seismic response studies, the soil-pile stiffness as will be explained in the following subsections. 3.2.1 Coupled Pile Foundation Stiffness Matrix In this method, a quasi dynamic analysis for the pile group is conducted by applying loading (either as forces or displacements) at the interface node between the superstructure and foundation model using linearized properties for the soils. Linearized properties for a single pile can be achieved by assuming secant foundation stiffness at 0.5 to 0.65 of peak deflection (Lam et al., 1998). A stiffness matrix can be obtained by prescribing a unit deformation vector for each degree of the six degrees of freedom, while keeping the other five degrees zero. The resultant force vector corresponding to each unit deformation vector can be used to form the corresponding column vector in the stiffness matrix. The stiffness matrix must be positive definite otherwise, numerical problems may be expected when the stiffness matrix is implemented in the overall structural model. One way to ensure that the stiffness matrix is positive definite is to invert it and check that the diagonal elements in the inverted (compliance) matrix are positive values . Programs such as LPILE (Reese et at., 1997) and FLPIER (Hoit and McVay, 1996) may be used to establish the foundation stlffness matrix or the nonlinear load deformation characteristics of the pile group. 3.2.2 Simplified Procedure for Pile Group Stiffness Matrix This simplified method involves five basic steps (Lam et al. r 1991) as follows: 1. Determine the stiffness coefficient of a single pile under lateral loadinq, 2. Determine the stiffness coefficient of a single pile under axial loading. 3. Superimpose the stiffness of individual piles to obtain the pile group stiffness. 4. Solve for the stiffness contribution of the pile cap. 5. Superimpose the stiffness of the pile cap to the pile group.
78
Lam and Martin (1986) came to a realization that lateral load-deflection characteristics representtng the overall stiffness of the soil-pile system are dominated by the elastic pile stiffness over the nonlinear soil behavior. Moreover, the localized zone of influence is limited to the upper five to ten pile diameters. Hence, they concluded that linear solutions may be adequate for pile stiffness evaluations. They developed single-layer pile-head stiffness design charts for lateral loading as presented in Figures 3-1 to 3-4 for the no embedment case and in Figures 3-5 to 3-7 for the embedded pile case. These charts are applicable for piles up to 24 inches. Two parameters are required to define the soil-pile system: the pile bending stiffness, EI, and the coefficient of variation f of soil reaction modulus Es with depth. The coefficient f has units of force/unit volume. Recommendations for the values of f in sand have been published (Terzaghi, 1955; O'Neill and Murchison, 1983) and shown in Figure 3-8. Values for piles in clay soils are given in Figure 3-9 (Lam et al., 1991). Examination of these charts yields the following observations : 1. Average value of soil conditions for the upper five pile diameters should be used when reading values from these charts. 2. Embedment effects on stiffness are larger for slender piles and tend to reduce for stiffer piles. For a depth increase from 0 to 3 m (0 to 10ft), the stiffness is likely to increase by almost 150% for rigid piles and 350% for slender piles. 3. The effect of the embedment depth is greater in dense sands than for slightly compact sand. 4. The lateral stiffness reduces by changing the boundary condition of the pile-to-cap connection from fully restrained to partially restrained condition. Hence, a realistic representation of the pile-head connection is very significant and often of the same importance of the selection of soil parameters.
Step 2: Single Pile under Axial Load
A graphical procedure that gives the axial stiffness coefficient and includes soil layering and slippage along the sides of the pile was developed by Lam and Martin (1986) and consists of the following steps: Compute the axial soil load displacements relationships by assuming a rigid pile condition. This step can be done by calculating the ultimate pile capacity using conventional procedures (Figures 3-9 and 3-10) for skin friction and end-bearing capacities for the different soil layers.
79
:: 1071--De~~.~gl
-
, 10
~
00
6 -
: -
1111l1l
I I JI l I !
10 10
10 11
10 ' 2
I
I
./
K- 1.07SS-E-1 T3
T= (~al )1/5
Figure 3-1.Lateral pile-head stiffness for fixed-head condition (Lam and Martin 1986).
80
l//:
s :.0
~ .,..
~
......
1010
: ' /
....0< h
./
~ r;; ~~
~V
'/
~ ~
fa CD c: !E CJ)
'iii
:I
10
~~
"//
'/
~R '"
<,
~0
Kr-
r-,
{=2OO f-100
V// /v
1/
c:
0
~/, V
r-,
" <,
~1:;60
a::
10 8
//
~
'/
~v v
V
~v
r-, "'=5
"f -10
1:;0.5 ~ ~':;1
1=0.1
1/
!/'/'/
Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction Modulus wtlh Deoth. f (IbJIn 3 )
J 1
I
K = 1.499"E-1
I I I I r
T3
T= (Ef-
yl!
81
./':
~ ~ ~:-/'
~
1/ ./
J
./
/ h l<:/
~
......::
/./
"x
.><;,.
>< ".,
?
~
:
/ / ' ".
~ ~;...;
v
./ ./
1/
"",?";
y,. X
'./
"
v ./
1.....-:
~ ~
~
~~
<,
><
'" <>
A.
I~
t?
V
V/ V/
.r-; <,
t>
') P<;-.."
/v ~ L::: "'v
:1.0'
~ ::::
:
./
vV'
V'
~"
t'-.. -, r-...
-7
17
.,,
/'
"7'
-: -:
1010
t>
eoefl. of Varia on of SoH Ree.ction Modulus with Depth, f {lblln S } T [TTTTIT I T 1 111111
1=80 1=60
'"
,=
1=20 r- f= 10 ~ 1= 5
t-.. f = 1 r-..
f~40
1=0.5 f = 0..1
10' 1
1012
BendingStiffness, EI (lb-ln2 )
I
I
/
I
1
!--......IiI
J t I
82
8
as
~ 10 6 "d c
v
L:::
--:::. r;::; v
.---: __
I:;:::~
V
-::::---
"'"
-'"
......-
...----: v
....v
\:12( \f\
V'\ '\
"C
(I)
J: I
V
10 5
-:: ,.,/'
v
V
i--'
.......V
V
,......
...,)t'\\ \
\l\\\f\
f\ f=200 1\ f= 150 f=100 I' f= 80 1\ f= 60 1 \ f;;;;4O
,I-'
I--"
It:
,g
G)
...
tZ
>
v
as ...
(I)
~ en
V
4 10
a;
~~~;ijg~~~*mt~~~mJ~l\~\.\ :
....V
V V I--'
I--'
---v
I\.
,
1\
---VI--"
l\\
f;;;;20 f= 10
1\ f= 5
1\\
\.
-I
~-+--H--H++++--t-+-+-H-+l+il---+-+-H-t+tH--"n\ 1\
-+---I---t-+++1I-+tt---f--I--H-+-Hf+---L---J.......I..-JL....I..Lu.J----'1 \
I
I
I I
1 1
Figure 3-4. Lateral pile-head stiffness for free-head condition (Lam and Martin 1986).
83
10 7 : Embedment
I I I I I
I I
Co
t: ~ .0
~
--.
'C
ee
-
::
- - - - - 51
- 10'
- 10 6 ~
.
""
"...
...
...
I ....
".
co
CD
f=100_~
~ 10
ct) tI)
CD .~
--
.,
...........
...
,," ...
...
-' ......
~
--'" "...
....
...
+:
c:
CD
CiS
~
m c 10 4
0
~
CI)
-
v
.....
~
_.....
".
e- :_
1-/ v~
...
...
...
....
~
10 3
~--'"
....
>
......
1
......
Coeff. of Variation 01 Soil reaction MOdulus with D9eth, f llb/in 3 )
I
I I I I1III
..
.....
""
10
10
J I I 1III
10
11
10
12
Figure 3-5. Lateral embedded pile-head stiffness for fixed-head cond ition
(Lam and Martin 1986)
84
I I III
= :
Embedment 0'
"'C
a:
I
.~
c:
- - -
l.t?
/?
m 1010
A.
V
v:
V .1,,1
,.
i-'..~
~
.0
,.,
C :.;:;..
~
Q)
<I:l
v?ft< ~
10 9
v ".
~~
~~
k?
tf'
III
(J) (J)
~.~~
v.~7
~;.
~~
........
.....
~,
E
:.;:::0
1= ~
tottt-
(J)
b)
E 0
a::
c::
m
10 8
h
/~
1"I.-
1/,tP
'~
~tv
vii' ~
v~
r-.
<,
I'
f = 10
f=1
t-
f =0.1 ~
I-
1= rt-
~'l
,,9
~
I-
J I I 1'111
I II I '
10 10
1011
1012
/77
r r-
Embedment Deplh
118
. ,(I
711~
u
Figure 3-6. Embedded pile-head rotational stiffness (Lam and Martin 1986).
85
IIIII
Embedment
-
-
!
~
"'
<,
.... f= 1
f= 0.1
1Il1
T T T TTTlT
Pt :::Kl).D+KMe
M l = K~eD+ Kea
Figure
3~7 .
86
aoo
Friction Angle, ~
~
80
-+-------L.------L..----t------+-.----;
:;.
~
c:
t
60
c:
:E CD o
'u
Q)
o <D
U
::::J
~ -t------r----r-----t-'!SJr~
~
CIJ
20 -+-----t-----+-r--"""'1:I'''''''"------t------j
O-+----f-----+----+------+-----;
20
40
60
80
100
87
o
6)'100 c:
2 4
8
STIFF
15
VERYBTIFF
so
HARD
!
~
13
vary Soft
80
... en
CD
~ eo
:J C/)
.c .5
ttl
C)
~
'C
c: 40 -1----..---
15
20-+--
8
o
=z::
2 3 Cohesion (ksf)
Figure 3-8. Recommended coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus (f) with depth of cohesive soils.
88
Two pile load displacement curves can be developed based on the published skin-friction and end-bearing pile displacement relationships . The following two forms can be used as follows:
F = Fmax(2~~cr -~)
(3-2) (3-3)
Where, Fmax and Q max are the ultimate skin friction and point resistance of the pile; Z is the displacement at any loading stage; Zcp and Zcf are the ultimate displacement of the pile corresponding to the ultimate point resistance and ultimate skin friction resistance can be evaluated (Vesic 1977) as follows: (3-4) where C p is an empirical coefficient that ranges from 0.02 to 0.05 the pile diameter; L is the embedded length of pile; and qo is the ultimate point stress
(3-5)
where 0 is the diameter of the pile; and C, is an empirical coefficient evaluated as: (3-6) ii The resulting load-displacement curve can then be obtained by summing the skin friction and end bearing capacities at each axial displacement. This curve represents the state of an axially-rigid pile and is a lower bound on the actual pile displacements. Calculate the flexible pile load displacement curve from the rigid pile solution . This can be achieved by adding an additional component of displacement at each load level Q to determine the axial displacement at the pile head due to the compression of the pile under axial load but neglecting the surrounding soil. This displacement is given by:
iii
89
LJ
Ll
'V
'0
G . (1
11
$1
Total
Zol'lt!
LJ
length.
L
etc,
Zolle of constant
resis(MC e
etc.
B. Diameter
Qcap (- J == P, N q At +
L1
t- I
Downward CaPJtcitv
I:
P
F di Pi
tan
i= I
"i
a ,'i
L;,
r, = L
t _J
Lz
'Yi
L() +- 20B
i=O
F Ji:;; Effective horiz. stress factor for downward load (Coefficient of skin Iriction) PI';:: Effective vert. stress at depth i i
Pi
=L
'Lj
rj
5 P @ Lv';' 20 B
8, =
a l ==
j~O
t-I
Upward Capacity
Qcap(+)
F ui Pi tan 0i as
Lt
i= I
Where F u,' Effective horiz.. stress factor for uaward load " other parameters as for downward capacity
90
+ Q""""~J '
WL. Density
Cohesion
C ;l
'Yl ;
L:
Tmal length,
Y.
c,
L}
Zone ofconstant resistance
etc.
etc.
B. Diameter
L,
l-l
Downward Capacity
Where c
I
Qcap (-) =
Ct
N c At +
l:
C ai
as
i=1
N. = Bearing capacity factor
A J :; Bearing area at tip
C
,.. = Cohesion strength of soil at depth i a. = Surface area of pile/pier per unit length
Upward Capacity
Qcap (+) ~
l-l
eai
as i;
:'= 1
91
(degrees)
~7
26
Dr;",'en Pil~
:18
1,5
so
21
10
~1
52
-5~
S4
5$
5$
ss
59
40+
1115
10
5
24
12
29
35
17
/32
21
50
62
30
77 1 86
120
!
Drihed ?ier
14
25
38
43
60
s
20
0 .75
0-75
~
<)
concrete
T1mbel"
Table 3-3. Pile horizontal stress factors, Fdi and Fui(NAVFAC 1986)
Pile/Pier TYpe Downward upward
FuJ
Fe!i
low
Driven Hpile
Drive
high
10
lOW
high
0.5
0.5 1.0
1.5
0.4 0 .7
0.3
0.6 1 .0
straight
I
I
1.5
2.0
0 .9
I
I
1.0
1 .3
0-3
0 .5
04
COhesion, ct
low high
Ad11es1on, C3
luw
high
I
very sort
SOft limber and Concrete
a
2S0
250
500
0
2 S0
118C
250
480
Mec: . sti ff
Stiff
sao
'1 000
:l0C'Q
1000
200ll
4000
750
750 950
0
:150
I
I 1
9$0
very St!ff
verv sost
Soft:
1300
0
250
250
SOO
1000
250
460
7CC
720
Ste el
Med. Stiff
500
1COO
2000
I
460
Stiff
2000
7CO
very St iff
4000
no
750
92
o = QL
C
AE
(3-7)
where Q = axial load; L = length; and AE =axial rigidity of pile. The flexible pile solution can then be obtained by adding Dc from equation 3-6 to the rigid-pile load displacement curve at pile loads that correspond to the rigid pile load displacement curve. This curve is an upper bound on the actual pile displacements. iv The actual solution is bounded by the rigid and flexible load-displacement solutions derived in steps ii and iii and depends on the nature of the soil pile system . Hence, the actual axial load displacement curve can be obtained by averaging the curves from steps ii and iii for the rigid and the flexible pile solutions. The actual pile stiffness can be evaluated by determining a value for the pile secant stiffness from the load displacement curve obtained in step iv over the range of expected displacements. The pile secant stiffness is used as the equivalent axial stiffness coefficients in the pile stiffness matrix. Expected displacements can be obtained from the range of expected axial loads which would be in the range of 50 to 70 percent of the ultimate pile capacity.
The steps involved In this procedure are illustrated in an example shown in Figure 3-9. In this example the equivalent stiffness was taken at an expected load of 70% (195 kip) of the ultimate pile load (278 kips). The corresponding displacement was determined to be 0.125 in. It should be noted that the range of displacements can also be set by the design engineer according to the project's design criteria. The recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges recommend the following simple equation for the determination of the axial stiffness of the pile: \
L
J.',
Kv
1.25-PL
E A
I :
c'
-/
\,
(3-8)
This equation and the computer solution for the stiffness of this problem were posted on Figure 3-11 for comparison with the above procedure. It can be shown that the above solution represent a best estimate for stiffness calculation. Equation 3-7 will always yield a stiffer pile in the axial direction . FLPIER software was used to determine an equivalent stiffness for the same axial load level used above .
93
300
r--~--------.r--------,----------,---------,
STEP 3 200
-._
-_.
~
15
150 - '
.. --- --., ---~ ~ - --------j . ---- ---.. -- , ,, _ ," _ j_ ... _ _ "_ ._ \_ _ ... ";~~:= curve
STEP 5 : : J
~
_
STEP 4
. :
/ :
--
100 ..
.'"
~'
" . _ -l _
' .0
'
-. ,K
. '"
' 0.
' 0.
.. . .
Rigid pile solution - - Rexible pile solution Correct solution ........AxiaJ pile stiffnes
LRFD-Sa..UTfOO
cavPUTER S(1lJT1O',1
0.5 0.75
oe----------;---------;-----------!
o
0.25
Displacement (in)
Figure 3-11. Steps involved in determining the pile axial stiffness coefficient
94
The stiffness of the single pile can be used to establish the pile group stiffness matrix. If the pile group consists of vertical piles, the stiffness summation procedure is relatively straight forward. The stiffness for the translational displacement terms (the two horizontal and the vertical displacements) and the cross-coupling terms can be obtained by multiplying the corresponding stiffness components of an Individual pile by the number of piles. It is worth mentioning that a unit rotation at the pile cap wilt introduce translational displacements and corresponding forces at each pile head (e.g. vertical forces for rocking rotation and lateral pile forces for torsional rotation), which will work together among the piles and will result in an additional moment reaction on the overall pile group . ln general, the axial stiffness of the piles will dominate the rotational stiffness of the group. Therefore, the rotational stiffness terms require consideration of this additional stiffness component. The following equation (Lam et ai, 1992) can be used to develop the rotational terms of a pile group:
KRG
= N K RP + L.K&1S~
n=1
In which, KRG and KRP are the rotational stiffness of the pile group and an individual pile respectively; N is the number of piles in the pile group; Kon is the translational stiffness coefficient of an individual pile (axial for group rocking stiffness and lateral for group torsional stiffness); and Sn is the distance between the nth pile and the axis of rotation.
STEP 4: Stiffness Contribution of the Pile Cap
In addition to the component of soil resistance acting on piles, a pile foundation may experience additional resistances due to soil acting on the pile cap. These resistances include: (i) passive pressure acting on the front face of the pile cap; (ii) side shears acting on the two vertical side surfaces of the pile cap; and (iii) base shear acting on the bottom of the pile cap. Because of potential interaction between the pile cap and the supporting piles, shear forces at the bottom of the pile cap and the two side surfaces can be ignored . Therefore, the passive pressure soil resistance on the vertical pile cap face is the only component that can be added to the stiffness and resistance obtained from the pile members. This is contingent on stable level ground conditions . The pile cap stiffness can be estimated as the ultimate soil capacity divided by an estimated displacement to mobilize this capacity . Centrifuge tests (Gadre , 1997) showed that the deflection level to reach the ultimate pile cap capacity occurs at about 0.02 times the embedment depth. This equivalent linear secant stiffness can be added to the stiffness of the piles. Methods of estimating the ultimate passive pressure capacity of a pile cap are illustrated in Figure 3-12.
95
SolI Parametam
Cohesion c.
Shear Strength
Friction an Ie
(J
L
Passive PressUrB 0 Effective
Overburden
Pf888U1V
on Pile Cap
~~ = Y'Z
'1
Zm + 2 c
96
Step 5: Superimpose the Stiffness of the Pile Cap to the Pile Group
The resultant pile cap stiffness obtained from step 4 can be added to the diagonal latera! translational stiffness coefficients in the pile group stiffness matrix for the total pile group~pile cap stiffness matrix. 3.2.3 Pile Group Effects The above procedure does not account for group effects which relate to the influence of the adjacent piles in affecting the soil support characteristics. Full scale tests by a number of investigators demonstrate that the lateral capacity of a pile in a pile group may be less than that of a single pile due to the interaction between closely spaced piles in the group (group efficiency). As the pile spacing reduced, the reduction in lateral capacity becomes more pronounced. In general, pile spacing of less than three to five pile diameters are necessary before the effects of pile interaction becomes significant in practical terms. Type and strength of soil, number of piles, and loading level are other factors that may affect the efficiency and lateral stiffness of the pile. Moreover, in addition to group effect, gapping and potential cyclic degradation were also subject of many investigations (e.g., Brown et aI., 1987, McVay et aI., 1995). It has been shown that a concept based on p-multiplier applied on the standard static loading p-y curves can work reasonably to account for pile group and cyclic degradation effects.
5o/ufion
Uee ~if7P!ified procedure for pile qroup ~f ifffle7?
~inq/e
pilelafera! 51iffflC5~
Jr := 510 .f7f7
0 := ' Jr
o = 1,'5'5
f7
en
1---<::>,
I
I
I
0" A~T~;;;;-ffA V~ -
x
!---+
~m
3.
_. J _._ ..,
1.
--f--:-:---r.
I
im I
: [ -1
-- . -.
-.. .
t . to-15 m
I
iO ,75 m
GWT
0.3'"
I '
~ rl
I l
<:>
.' II .
-,;-Y
1
I
8.5m
": A
M
,(1')1 I:
-
:
i.
I I _ _ L
+ , -+-----,--
_t__
i I
II" r ; i, r _ .
2.0m
' '_ ..
. _.l--... . _
3.0m
-{
NOT TO SCALE
4.0",
Section A-A
98
'
fra~/afional 5Iiff~?
/(yy :;::
~ Ibf IJ 10 '- .
In
82 (f
Rolafional5fiffoc?? aboul x-x [ron Iiao: 5.-0 (or ("'1(; Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr?enT = 82 (I
/(ex
= (;1191 (1.
rad
kN
EIyy
;:: 1/121
kN (1
fran?lafional 51if(oc?? Inlocal x-x [ron [iqore 5~'5 (or ("",1(; Ib/lr6 and e(1bedr?enT 82(1
P'
/(xx :=
~ Ibf ID 10 .
In
R0Iaflonal51Iffnc:>:> abcoi y-y [ron [iqore 5-(; (or (~20 Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr?enT 82 (f
d
/(e
:= 2,/
10
8 , /bf m
rad
99
EIyy = /7727 kN f?
~
Trandaflonal 511ffoc55 in local y-y [ron [iqure 5-5 (or (,,:>20 Ib/lrO and ef?bedf'lenf ~ 82 (f
I(xx.
;=
/D /0 .
in
1M
RoIaflonal 5liffoc5~
I(ey :=
2.1 10 in rad
kN
(1-
1M
I(ey
= 25727
rad
I(xey := 52
/0 Ibf
11-254- kN
5irl{//e pile I1xjal51i!(OC~5 Calwlafion of pilevllif?ale capacity Dafa: DepfhalSWT Hz:= 8:5f?
Thickne::o of
100
rhidne~~
H;.
'
:= :!J of?
"'I 0= 18'5 .
;.
kN
f?
1/x b -
8 . 1 ;.
/'7
tAl
12
;=;c;; o~
{'1
kN
Fd
dp
:=
:=
10
12.28 -ln
Wf :=
IZ,ZC;;'5
-in
WI;:::
051
/'7
I\f
0./
2
f'1
N(/ :=86
o := 2-0 -deq
101
Erredive
~fre:x>
of fop of
eMIr
GV'lr
r Z := r, + Yl:vb .nz
r z = 12~.4-;;
kFa
Effedive ~rex> of pile lip
f'1 := f' Z
f', =
+ y Z~b
-tJ;J
Pt =157 I..n,,; - ----'
1~/.o2
kFa
r oin! Rc:>i~af)Ce
op
GirOJrJ. lire:a// rt
= 1;;/~,4- kN
102
UI/if'lafe: d/~p1ace:f'lCfIf
Zd = 02
P oin!(e:~bl(jr= OJNe:
rJ/'I
0
.00'5
o 'I
101
0'5'5
./0'5
2.51
2-'74
:571
2'5'5
XJ'5
1!/0'5
(0)
4-20 682
J:;I'5 J:;I'5 )
x := coo
:;130'5 '71:;
'7.%'7 20
y :=coo
1 '500 r -
-,-
, - - - - - - ,-
--,
1000
O L-
---'---
-...L-
- --'-
- -'
20
103
0
ZI ;:= 0 ,0'5 om 0 .2 of'7/')
0
164
'I
00CY'5
O~'
4!/0
'521
./0'5
coo
2'5'5
::=
%4
%4
50'5
(0 )
tzo
!/BO'5 9509 20
5kin Frfdfon!? c~;:;fafKX C UNe
I I
564 564
%4 %4- )
::= coa
(I )
;:= coa
100
I
obfaincd by!:JJmirK} fhe: din (ridion anderJ bearfrK} copoalte aI oxh axial di!>P/accncrtl,
0 0.00'5
'I
21/
D5'5
./0'5
01!/
81'5
2'5'5
(0 )
X
9W
cor ::=
:= cor
50'5
15~
~80'5
981
IU'5 1'5!/8 1819 1819 }
104
y ;:= cor
< /}
9509
20
0 0 ,00'5
,0 '5'5
0
211
')
f,15
81'5
./0'5 ,2'5'5
x := cor
960 984
124-'5 1'558 1819 1819 )
(0)
(1)
cor :=
50'5
150'5 5.80'5
y:= cor
95f,9 20
2000
1'500
~ ~
~
_Y_l000
'500
Oi------..L.---......L.----L---~
10
20
x
Di:?pJocet?CfJ1 (f'lf'i)
105
Flexible pileXJ!ulion /~ ochieYcd by:!Vf'7I'?/rq ibepilehead di~placer?Cnf of eachloadleYd 10 lheriqid pile::dulion Area of pileeedion
0pi! := (0 Z11 6i5 8/'5
/8i9
/819 ) iN
106
o
0.'5/6
1::;2'5
o '\
211
61;;
8/'5
1,61
Ac ;=
v;:=
207
2.16
960 984
/21-'5
1'5;;8
/819
k(O) (I)
;;66
z
:~
I1c
6.1
12.9
2;;.5'5 /819 )
I1dl.ld :301u/ion
1'500
'"'
8
-.l
~
I:l
--/000
z
y v
~
'500
6raphlcd ~iffnc~ :>oIu/ion i~ oblaincd by dderrJlninq a vdoe for lhe pile: xcad diffrt=" (or lhe odod =/ufion al10X of fheullinak oxjdpile: capacity
L\ := 2.62
rJrJ
/Uiolpile: ::Nfocx>
f1
107
n :=G
50/
:=
0:1 (7
"XX6 := n"xx
KXX6
= 10'507G.I (7
=
xN
r. '('(6
kN 1'5/GI4-Y5
("J
('1
KXeY6 :: 8540'5.8G
xl\!
KYeX6 = 221'521.4-4- kN
KeX6 = 18829'50.GI
kN
('1.
rad
KeY6 = 4078908.1'5
('1.
kN rad
r. eZ6 = 2'5/4-:5G,4-'5
kN
('1.
rod
108
:5 focz fhe bridqc i~ fo be buill oaoso a krqe flood plaIn corrlr/buflon of fk f'OX'~ re!>idance of Ik pile cop10 Ik lafad ~iff~ CQflrof befaken
ido = rr.:iderafion
10"5076.1
0
1'516/4'.1'5
0 0
~0/2-66~,12
0
2 2./'521.#
-1 882.9'50.6 1
0
0
K . '
0
22.1'52./,4-4
0
/882C;X;.6/
0
0
4018908.1'5
0
- /882.9 '50.6 1
0 0 0
0 0
0
0
2.'514-%.4-'5 )
3.4 References
Brown, D., Reese , L. and O'Niell, M.(1987), "Cyclic lateral loading of a large scale pile," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE , Vol. 113, No.11. Gadre, A. (1997), "lateral responseof pile-cap foundation systems and seat-type bridge abutments in dry sand, Ph.d. Dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Hoit, M.L and McVay , M.C., (1996), FLPIER User's Manual, University of Florida, Gainsville. Florida . Lam, I.P. and Martin , G .R. (1986), "Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations," Report No. FHWAIRD-86-102, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia, 167 p. Lam, LP., Kapuskar, M., and Chaudhuri,D . (1998) "Modeling of pile footings and drilled shafts for seismic design" Technical Report MCEER-98-0018, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo , New York. Lam , I.P. Martin , GR. , and Imbsen, R. (1991) , "Modeling bridge foundations for seismic design and retrofitting," Transportation Research Record 1290. LPILE (1995), "Program lPILE Plus, Versiuon 2.0" Ensoft Inc., Austin , Texas,
:fId
Matlock, H.(1970), "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay", Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 1, Houston , pp.579-594.
McVay, M.C., O'Brien, M., Townsend, F.C., Bloomquist, D.G., AND Caliendo, J.A. (1998), "Numerical analysis of vertically loaded pile qrcups ," ASCE Foundation Engineering Congress, Northwestern University, Illinois, pp.675-690.
109
McVay, M.C., Casper, R. and Shang, T.(1995),"Lateral response of three-row groups in loose to dense sands at 3D and 50 Pile Spacing," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, NO.5. NAVFAC, (1986), "Foundations & Earth Structures, " Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual 7.02. O'Neill , M.W. and Murchison, J.M . (1983), "An evaluation of p-y relationships in sands", Report No. PRAC 82-41-1 to THE American Petroleum Institute Terzaghi, K. (1955), "Evaluation of coefficients Geotechnique, vol. 5, No.4, pp.297-326. of subgrade reaction",
Vesic, A.S. (1977}, " Design of pile foundations", Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
110
-
--
112
loads on retaining walls. The most commonly methods used in practice are outlined below.
KAO'~ -2C~KA
(4-1)
where O'~ is the vertical effective stress at the point of interest, c is the cohesive strength of the soil, and KA is the coefficient of minimum active earth pressure evaluated as;
1+sincj)
~)
(4-2)
For the case of backfills inclined at angle ~ to the horizontal, the following equation can be used to compute 1<.4; K =
A
(4-3)
For dry cohesionless soil backfill conditions, Rankine theory predicts triangular active pressure oriented parallel to the backfill surface. The active earth pressure resultant, Pa , acts at a point located H/3 above the base of a wall of height H with magnitude: .
1 2 PA =-KAyH
(4-4)
The wall pressures under maximum passive conditions are given by:
pp = KpO'~ + 2c~Kp
(4-S)
- 1+sin~ Kp - tan
1-sincj)
2(45 +cj)) 2
(4-6)
113
cos p-
~COS2 (3 -
COS
(4-7)
<j)
The passive earth pressure thrust, Pp , acts a point located H/3 above the base of a wall of height with magnitude:
1 2 Pp =-KpyH
(4-8)
Active and passive pressure distributions for various backfill strength characteristics are illustrated in Figure (4-1). It is important to note that the presence of water in the backfill behind a retaining wall influences the effective stresses and hence the lateral earth pressures acting on the wall. Therefore the hydrostatic stress due to the water must be added to the lateral earth pressure.
in which 0 is the angle of interface friction between the wall and the soil can be determined using Table 4-1, and p and are as shown in Figure 4-2a.
For maximum passive conditions, equation 4-8 can be used to determine the passive thrust with the passive earth pressure coefficient calculated as: (4-10)
114
GRANUl.AR SOIL
COHESIVE SOIL, NO
FRICTtoN.AL RESISTANCE
ACTIV PRESSURES
~A1~
I.. 'OfF,r.'\\.
KA;TAN2(4S-~)
~:ICAYZ
/ ..~O
9.. ...
~~==X:
P"
Zo :~<:/r
O'A:i)'Z-ZC
PA:~yH2lt
Zg.i-f>TAH (45+~f2.)
J- ,2
< ) l(
""
.... "V
Kp:DH2(4$"~)
~1'Z.2C
a'p'KpYZ
ppfl(p1'tt2/z
Pp'
TYH2 +ZCH
(45+eW2)
Figure 4-1. Rankine active and Passive earth Pressure Distributions For Backfills with Various Combinations of Frictional and Cohesive Strength (NAVFAC 1982).
115
~
(b)
(a)
Figure 4-2. Wedge of Soil and assumed Failure Surface for Calculation of
Coulomb Active Earth Pressure Coefficient
116
-,
_-.
~.,d,.
....... __
~H"~.,
~.....
. ""M'-'
,.",_>
INTERFACE MATERIALS
Clean sound rock Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand 1 Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse
sand, silty or clayey gravel Clean fine sand, silly or clayey fine to medium sand " Fine sandy silt, nonplastic sill Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidaled clay
Medium stiff and stiff ciav and siltv clav
Steel sheet piles against Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well graded rock fill with spalls Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single size hard rock fill Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay Fine sandy silt nonplastic silt Formed concrete or Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures. concrete sheet piling against well graded rock fill with spalls Mass concrete against
INTERFACE FRICTION
ANGlEfD
35
29-31
24-29
19-24
17-19
22-26
17-19
22
17
14
11
22-26
Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture. single size hard rock fill Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with sin or clay Fine sandv silt, nonolastic silt
17-22
17
14
35
33
29
26
17
117
118
II
Tr
it"
I!
iii
i.
V II
,
.,;
~
&
i
i
~
i
21 I I til
.;
If .51-~ONE ..""".
!!!.6,,~
...
'I
A"". ' -
...... ....... _ _
,.
..........
~ A ij .3 ~
III
I [
""~
---.......
.... __J .
~
..... ........
i""""oo.'
..... . __
1""'110.
~~'
I
~
r-'
.21
'0
I. I 1 I f
I I I
J
.t
F~.d:
.~~
~B
II
I I . J ... 1 10 ! ,
! I I I I
[:').:T~'li-ir I ~=I.e=-~ - -
Figure 4-3. Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients Using Logaritmic Spiral Method for the Case of a Sloping Wall (NAVFAC 1982)
119
-81+
I(p
9O,01---l-.....-' 8OC,'-4---I-
7OOt-+-++-4-t+--I-A--I-l
fOO I---!-----+.
5QO t--t--;-'-+-+HYh~.{.A'
40.0 1---+--:"'...-1
30.0 I
,~~
4..' I ;;( I
Y.J
V::+- I
M ~"-,6
2.0
iJ!~~~ftftrrt-HH14Jll{J/<l-r;"'$ ~L
i
"
... ,
n,
'0
20
30
40
45
Figure 4-4. Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients Using Logaritmic
Spiral Method for the Case of a Sloping Backfill (NAVFAC 1982)
120
.2:
o " a
(l)
"'0
.....
::J
tv
in which:
'If =
and:
tan-1[~] 1-k
v
{4-12}
ktJ
= ~KAE'YH2(1-ky)
(4-13)
where, PAE is the active thrust and includes the static component in addition to the dynamic increment, 'Y is the total unit weight of the backfill, and H is the wall height. In some cases the base of the retaining wall is embedded to some depth within the foundation soil. Effects of emebedment include the development of passive restraint against sliding. In order for the passive restraint to be mobilized some deformations must be developed. For the passive seismic limit state:
PpE
~ KpE'YH2(1- ky)
(4-14)
(4-15)
It should be noted that the value of KpE calculated using equation 4-15 increases considerably with increasing the wall/soil friction angle (), Hence the value of this angle should be selected carefully to avoid unconservative values for KpE.
122
I~'
'I
Jc
He
Figure 4-6. Forces acting on a wall retaining c~~ soil and subjected to a seismic load The active thrust that includes the static component in addition to the dynamic increment can be evaluated according to this method as:
(4~16)
In which y is the total unit weight of the backfill; H is the height of retaining wall free from cracks; q is a unit surcharge per unit area; C is the cohesion of the soil; and Nay, Naq , and Nae are earth pressure coefficients can be calculated as follows: N = (n r +1/2)(tana+tanO)+n/tanO [cos(a+cjl)+khsin(a+c\l)] ~ ~na+O+cjl+~
(4~17a)
123
N
aq
(4-17b)
N
ac
sin(a. + e+ ell + 0)
(4-17c)
Where, nr = HdH is the ratio of the height of the retaining wall with cracks to the height free from cracks. Other variables are defined as illustrated in Figure 4-6. It is important to note that the earth pressure coefficients are expressed in terms of the angle of inclination of the failure surface a, which makes the solution indeterminate. Hence, a number of potential failure surfaces must be analyzed to determine the critical failure surface. Location of the failure surface, according to the upper-bound limit analysis, will be such that the least amount of resisting force will bring it about (Le., the failure surface is the one that produces the greatest active thrust or the smallest passive thrust). Application of this method and comparison with the Mononobe-Okabe method are illustrated by an example. Example 1: Let us assume a retaining wall of height Hi = 6m inclined at 10 with the vertical and retains soils with unit weight y= 1.732 T/m 3 C ::: 0.5 11m2 and <P ::: 30. Assume the wall is located in a seismic zone for which the design seismic coefficients are: kh=O.1 and kv=.06. For comparison purposes, we will first not consider in our solution the soil cohesion and the vertical seismic coefficient. Solution is illustrated through the follOWing spreadsheet as follows:
6ivenOaia ttekjlrl tt of rdalnlncj wall Un# wek]frl of fhe badJill Arrjle of In/erna frld/oln of badflll
Co~/on
ttl :=6,.,
., :=
1.1:52-
.!....
,.,~
, :=XJdt:4
C:=~z
f?
of bacillI!
Irdlnaflon of wall wifh fhe velNcai ttor/rorlal x/!>f'lic codflcienf Verf/cal xl!>f'llc codflclerl Irlerface anejle bdween !>OIl and wall f?;odfll! Irdlnaflon
0:= 10.dec;
Kh:= 0.1
Kv:"'O.o
5 := 21- dt!:tJ (fab/e4--f).
Ii
:= Odeej
124
:=
deq
9
KItE
;==
(co~ (.
co::> (V
KItE F/IE
== 0.4-~8
:== 0.'5
.KItEyt1/(/-kv)
= 14-.2-64- -
r
f?
(e:quafion4--I:?)
Prakadrt1e:fhod
11~5U/'1e
n:=OO
5e1e:d failure: 5Urface:~ 50 thai their inc/ina/ion anqle:!> ranqe: approxlnafely frof? to (45++)
.0
NolB ,a):= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f>in(B( a))
[Cn + ,~).(lanC a) + Ian (9)) + n2. .fan (9)].(CO~ (a + +) + kh'~in( a + 4 (equafJon 4--/1aJ
co~( a
Nac(B ,a)
:=
. (
B a.
))
F/tE(a):=yt1, .Na/B,a)
(equalion 4-~/G)
125
P/rC(a)::::
9.4 10.9
r
f1
F/t(u)
<..
"'"
It can be observed that in the absence of the soil cohesion C ,the surcharge q, and the vertical seismic inertia force, Prakash method conforms to the Mononobe-Okabe method. Consider now the M-O equation with the effect of vertical seismic coefficient:
kv :=006 6012
(CO!}
Kh I
'1/ := afan ( I -k ) v
f(1rE :=
'1/ =
dt:r;
(equaf/on 4-~/2)
(~
9 '1/)}2
f(Ae =0.4-0
f'!Ie.
= 1~,'518
r
rJ
(equal/on 4-~/~)
It can be observed that kv when taken as one-half to two thirds the value of kt" affects PAE by less than 10% (almost 5% in this example). Seed and Whitman (1970) concluded that vertical accelerations can be ignored when the M-O method is used to estimate PAE for typical wall design which agrees with the assumptions of Prakash method. Consider now the effect of soil cohesion in the Prakash method:
126
ze
411
tfc=!f?
(Fiqure4--f)
n=02
=:>e:Ied failure 5Ur(ace5!XJ fhaf fheir inc/ina/Ion afk:Jle. rafk:Je appro4rJafdy (rof?
+0 to (45+,0)
C05( a.
(equafion4--l1c)
Nac(B ,a) :=
B a
))
P,A.E(a) =
rJ
P/le(U)
16.7- ~
15.9 14.2 10.9
5.4
It can be observed that the M-O method underestimates the seismic pressures on the walls which retain cohesive soils behind them.
127
The static component is known to act at H/3 above the base of the wall. According to Seed and Whitman (1970), the dynamic component can be taken at approximately O.6H. Hence, the total active thrust will act at a height h above the base of the wall calculated as: h = PAH/3+aPAE (O.6H)
(4-19)
PAE
4.3.4 Effect of Saturation on Lateral Earth Pressure
For saturated earth-fill, the saturated unit weight of the soil shall be adopted in equation 4-13. For submerged earth-fill, Matsuzawa et al. (1985) developed a procedure to modify the M-O method to account for the presence of pore-water within the backfill. According to this method the excess pore-water pressure in the backfill is represented by the pore pressure ratio, ru defined as :
r. = uexcess .
u 0'3c
(4-20)
where, Uexcess is the excess pore water pressure due to liquefaction during the seismic event and O'~c is the effective confined stress. The active soil thrust acting on a wall can be quantified from equation 4-13 using the following modifications for the unit weight Y and the angle 'I' as follows:
Y =Ysub(1-ru)
'I' = tan-1[
Ysat kh ] Ysub(1-ru)(1-k v
(4-21)
(4-22)
The total thrust shall be calculated as the sum of the soil thrust and an equivalent hydrostatic thrust based on a fluid of unit weight
Yeq
= 'Yw + ruYsub
(4-23)
128
For partially submerged backfills, the soil thrusts may be calculated using an average unit weight as follows:
'Yav = '}..2 'Ysat
+ (1- A,2}Yd
(4-24)
in which 1I.is the ratio of the height with saturated soil to the total height of the bacfill.
(4-27)
The seismic bearing capacity according to this method can be expressed in terms of seismic bearing capacity factors and quantified as:
1 '}'8N Pd = CNCE + qN qE + 2 yE
(4-28)
Where, q is the overburden due to depth of the footing; C is the cohesion of the foundation soil; '}' is the unit weight of the foundation soil; B' is equal to 8-2e, where B is the width of the footing and e is eccentricity computed as described below; 0 is the depth of embedment of the footing; and Pd is the seismic bearing pressure. The seismic to static bearing capacity factors (NqE/N qs , NeE/Nes, NYE/N"fS) are expressed in terms of the friction angle of the foundation soil.tV. seismic acceleration coefficient, ~, and shear transfer coefficient, n. These ratios are
129
PAl:
T
h
T
Y c
\
t
D
1
I...
&f~F
N
B
1
I
PpE
~l
130
Phi = 30 degree
Phi = 35 degree
Phi = 40 degree
II)
Z
Z
0"
0.6
0"
0.5
1.0
0.01 02 0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0
1.0
kh
1.1 1.0
I
1=1
1=2
0.9
0.8
l/l= 10
(,) 0.71
f/)
" .~
~4>= 10
0
Z
-
~y,
\~
\
\2d'
20
~
0.4
0.3
~\
\ \ 30
02
0.1
'\
\30
'40
t ' , ,
\.400
0.0
~.2
kh
(~)
NcE/Ncs
131
Phi = 30 degree
Phi
=35 degree
Phi = 40 degree
00' '0.0
, 0.2
0.4
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(c) NYe/Nys
132
displayed in Figure 4-8. The ratio for NcelN cs is presented in terms of the friction factor f F/Nkh n tan(~)/~, instead of n.
The effective stress must be used to compute q in the second term and the submerged unit weight must be used in the third term of equation 4-28, if the foundation is submerged above the base of the footing. If the foundation is submerged below the base of the footing an equivalent unit weight must be used in the third term of equation 4-28 as:
'Yeq
= 'Ysub(1-Z/B)+ y(Z/B)
(4-29)
I
where Z is the depth to the ground water surface below the base of the footing and B is the width of the footing. If Z is greater or equal to B, then 'Yeq 'Y.
The seismic bearing capacity is evaluated by comparing the seismic vertical force resultant at the base of the retaining wall to the seismic bearing capacity of the foundation soils computed with equ~tion 4-28 with eccentricity e computed as:
e="2-
B Mnet N
(4-30)
in which, N is the vertical force resultant determined using equation 4-26, and Moat is the net moment of forces about the toe of the wall (point C in Figure 4-17) calculated as MR-Mo1 where Mo is the overturning moment computed with reference to Figure 4-17 as: Mo = khWYc +PAE cos(5 w +8)h+PpE sin(ow -8 2 )(0/3)(tan82 ) and the resisting moment can be computed as:
~ =
(4-29)
(4-30)
4.5 Seismic Stability of Retaining Walls The safety factor against seismic induced bearing capacity failure as: F:'C = PdB' (4-31) N The wall is considered stable under seismic induced loss of bearing capacity if the computed factor of safety F:'c for the peak acceleration is equal to or greater than one.
133
M O
(4-32)
The wall is considered stable with respect to overturning if the computed factor of safety is equal to or greater than one. 4.6 Seismic Displacements of Retaining Walls Estimation of the permanent displacement of retaining walls is necessary for performance based seismic design. Richards and Elms (1979) method is used for the estimation' of this allowable permanent displacement. According to this method, the fevel of acceleration that is just large enough to cause the wall to slide on its base is defined as the yield acceleration defined as:
ay = an'l'b -
[t
.I.
PAECOS(O+9)-PAESin(o+9] W 9
(4-33)
where, ~b is the angle of internal friction of the soil beneath the wall's base. This method works with the M-O method for calculation of PAE. Hence, the solution of equation 4-33 must be obtained iteratively because the M-O method requires that ay be known. According to this method, the permanent displacement is quantified as:
dperm
(4-34)
where,
Example 2: Check the seismic stability of the reinforced concrete cantilever wall shown in Figure 4-9 for the maximum considered earthquake (2500 years return period). The wall is located near Memphis, Tennessee (350 3' latitude, _90 0 O' longitude). The site consists mainly of coarse sand of unit weight 18 kN/m3. The average initial shear modulus up to a depth of 100 meters is 180 MPa.
5olufion For a5i1e localion: ~O ~' Ialifude, 9000' IOl7t:Jifude, and a 2'500 year!>!??, fhe 5horl period 5pedral acceleralion of bedrock (rorl fhe U,5, 6eoloqical ?UNey !>ife (hHp:// earlhc,uake,u!>tJ!>.eJov/)
134
--
O.6m
-7!!!&/l1I:,
<1>=30
r =18.00 kN/m3
7.5m
I 3'
121
Irveraqe ~ear f'?Odulu~ Un!f wek;hf of 50/1 Un/f weicjhf of concrde Irveraqe *ar wave vdocily
B=6m
y:=18
~
f?
kN
y c = 2;;,%;;
kN
f?
~
rI
~
V,,:=
J 6~.q
V ~ = ;;1;;.1%
180 ro/f> <' V ~ <' ;;6~ I'll~ ~ife if> dG:Jf>/fied G:J D
F Q := 1,264
5D~ :=F o 55
(Tablel - 2)
50!>
=0.84-1
cj
kh:= 2,~.q
505
kh = 0;:;
kv:=OO
tf := 1.'5 .f?
tfelc;hf tf
of rela/nine; wall
135
Ef'lkdnenl depth
Widfhofbax Wall fhlckne~!} Wldlhalloe
~ax Ih/ck~!}
t1
r:= ~.('I
:= 0.6('1
f? := 6f'I
f?, := 01f'I
T,
:= 0.':5 '('1
/ft7tJle of IrJerna frldloln of backlitl Inc/ina/Ion of wall wilh fhe venied Inferface at7tJle k/wa:n !>OIl and wall Irlefface at7tJle belween !XJil and foundallon f?acJ!illlrd/naflon
:= X)
de:<!
9 := O.de:<!
aw := 0 da:;
(conxNaflve Q!}~I)f'Iplion)
8 f := !JO deq
fl
:= Odeq
KA :::: O,!;!J!J
(equal/on 4-J7)
kh ')
'" := alan
( I-kv )
(equallon 4-~/2)
K~:::::
~~-m~8-+-cjl~.-~~n(~+--~fl---",\)rr
(eo~ (0: + 9 + '" ),co~(fl _ 9))
(equallon4-~II)
1+
(equaflon 4--/~)
136
f(PI:
'co~ (8 w - 9 + '1').
(~ _ OJ)
)]
_
/(PE = Z~28
PPt: := 0,'5 f(Pt:y .11/ .(1 -kv) PPt: = 188,'581 IN f'J
(eC/ualion4--I/)
(e:qualion4--I!'J)
CalQJlallon ofwdqhf!>
WI WZ W.'
:=
:= (11- T,).Tyc
l~
:=
t?T,yc
t?/
f;Z
=
n
~.
.'5T + t?,
~'
:=.'5.t?
f;! :=
(I1-T,)
Z
+ T,
4 f'J
t?Z
T,
:=-
= 02'5 f?
w"' .~
X =!'J,Z4-'5 f?
Y = .'(:/52 f?
137
Applicaf/on poinf
I!J( := /(At: -/(II
11 Kit";; +AJ(0611
h ---.- - - /(IJE
Check for dJdlng along fhe box But?rKJIion of drivlnej force!>
h = ;;,414
IVJ
Fd
:= PIlE
+kh'W
F d = '568Bf7 kN
IVJ
8uf?f1aflon of rt:~/dinc;force:!>
N:=W
F r := PrE + Nlan (ar)
N = 16/.8'54-
IN
f'I
F r = 628.444
IN
I'?
F8 ~ := F d
Fr
F8:>
::=
1./0'5
O/(
11/
HI( := PrE'""3" + Wx
Overlurniinc; f'IOf?enf
HI( = 2.661
10~ kN
f'I
.(1
110 := FAt:.h+khW,Y
Ho
=
2.004 x 10 kN
f?
f'I
F8 o
:=
HI(
Ho
F8 0
1:!J28
nK
138
-14TJ
n = 0,86~
Nqe./Nq~
N qr := 02-'5
~ .d,,9' + i
N yr :=
'1
:>
= 18,"f01
(e;quafion:2 - f
0)
NqC
:=
NqrNq:> Ol),?'5
NqC
4,6
Nye./Ny~
(by inferpo/afionfiqure4-8c)
Ny:> NyC
Ny:>
22.402
(equafion
2 - rb)
:=
NyrN y:>
NyC =2J28
eccenfrlcify
fJo
5ei~jc lif?iI fo bearinq pre~t:XJre
:=
fJ - 2- ecc
f;o = /,726
/
f?
139
l~
_11 _ _.L!
~1~
_~
. : _ _ L.- _ _ ,....._
(JI
.. ~
....,---r-r
_.1#
F 5~ ._ Pdf?D vC .-
F 5f?C = 0,6:58
COf?pu!ed fador of Mdy for xi!>f?ic beadnej capacily i5 le5!> fhan one. rherefore lo!>!> of beadncj capacify and filfinq of fhe wall i!> o.peded dUrinej fhe 2500 year earfh4uake. ttencel xi!>f?ic rdrofif i!> required. /(drofil ?fraf!!ZJY,' Place a lieback fhrouc;h fhe wal15fef? fo reduce drivinq I'1OMenf!> and Increax Xi5f?ic beadnej capacify.
1.0 m
tD'U'-1~~---'-"
- - _.._ _....
F,.cos 15'
r _______________
F.. sin15
T
w
vJ
/
~
.
I I
PAE
L-__.. , ...
1,
""."".,,,,F""""""""
"-""
I !
,
16.5m
j
n:= 0.'5
(3 := 20 deq
PItE + kh' W -PPE -n-W-fan(+)
Flie:
Flie:
1"54.4-4-1 kN
f?
140
Nere/Nq~
N qr
:= 0,40
NqE := Nq(.Nq~
Nye/Ny~
N q: = 1.!J6
N yr
:=
02-0
Ny: := NyrNy~
NyE =4.48
l10r := NO
N := W + Flie~in(rJ)
eccenfricily
N
!?
= 8/4,616 kN
f'7
ecc :=
I1Rr- N OT
2 N
ecc = 0,99> r?
!?O == 4.021
f'7
Pd!3Jo
F5fX,:== N
F5e;c
2,162
141
5.1 General
Caissons are very large concrete boxes that are excavated or sunk to a predetermined depth. They are used usually for the construction of bridge piers or other heavy waterfront structures, and they often become advantageous where water depths exceed 10 to 12 m. Caissons are divided into three major types: (1) open caissons, (2) box caissons -(or closed caissons), and (3) pneumatic caissons. Open caissons are concrete shafts with the top and bottom open during construction. This type is provided at the bottom as shown in Figure 5-1 with a cutting edge. After the caisson is sunk into place, soil from the inside of the shaft is removed through a number of openings by grab buckets until the bearing level is reached. Once the bearing stratum is reached, concrete is poured into the shaft, under water, to form a seal at the bottom. After the concrete has matured, the caisson is pumped dry and filled with concrete. This method does not guarantee thorough cleaning and inspection of the bottom. Box caissons as shown in Figure 5-2 are cast on land with spaces open for buoyancy. They are then transported to the construction site and gradually sunk by filling the inside with sand, ballast, or concrete. Pneumatic caissons are closed at top and open at bottom. Overburden materials are excavated by hand or machine from a working chamber while compressed air is used to keep water from entering the chamber. Penetration depth below water is limited to about 40 m (130 ft) as higher pressures are beyond human endurance. Despite of their higher cost as compared to the other two methods, this method of construction yields proper bearing stratum and concrete will be of adequate quality. A common feature of caissons produced by the three methods is that they are massive structures that respond to seismic loads in a primarily rocking mode about the base plus some translations.
143
lJ:I~r
A
Section
at A-A
L
i
..
'I
.,.
,"
_---.J
"
t
~
. !
, j
Water Level _ -=
....... , ....
/)707/;:;:""
"
"
Cutting Edge
D.Ll
Section
at A-A
'--'-'"1"'" --
A I
,_f
it
f~
'J
Water Level
1" I:,
j
' ~A
.J
11;<0
71~1'
tI
:'
n7)~)i~
Soil
.-.JI-;- -J 1
Figure 5-2. Box Caisson
144
145
(a)
! ,
~~umm\
---
---+
Spring element with ~ apping property to simulate ~ assive pressure on side wall s
Seismic Excitatio
.........
~-.
\
!
Seismic Excitation
~rl
..J~
/
~,
~~
~E
seismic
xcitalion
(-
.....,....,...,.
//
Spring element with gapping property to simulate normal contact pressure
T-r11111
.
I I I i l l 1
(b)
...... ......
~------
caisson
146
o
P(X) = 2W (X-A+L) L2B
0< XA-L)
(5-1) (A-L)< X< A
where, W is the total buoyant dead load of the caisson, A is the width of the caisson, and L is the portion of the width in contact with soil.
147
ca' e:
"T1
CD
(J1
o ID ., -,
(')U1
I-.---~li!<-- I - - - - - -......1
~ "T10
O::s Cir U1
U1 CO 0
< x
~ :'. .:
!i-.--CD
IX
I
:t C"c. S.co -, .,
",:~
..I
:
~~ ~~
0,
::s
ID
<0
,
0" 0" ." ..
~.: j: . ::'
.. .. ,. t
~ ..
m
,"
'
0
"
,:. r 'QO'
);>--....
.::'
"
'~':',: :.. ~
".~
'i=*
" a
, ,
.
.'
.:. ...:t't:.
-<
-<
co U1
: .F "....
.....
'"
Q)
TIt 11
. ..
'
x
:
. .....
.'. :: ...
'
".:
'.'
....
"
1. o i 1.
m ::s
"'U
'IS
;of';'';.":
< Ci)"
1 I - - - - o I - - -... 111"1011
:E
Ix
3'
::s
co
U1
00
c.
C"
' -"
cr
A(X) =-2-(x-A+L) L: Bk
2W
o< x
< A
(5-2)
In which k is vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (unit pressure required to produce a unit deflection) associated with the rocking mode. By assuming that the caisson's base is free to rock on a surface of elastic half space, with no side pressure effects, and imposing conditions of onset of rocking ( i.e. L=A), the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction k is evaluated:
= 12~ay
(5-3)
AB
in which, KOx is the rocking stiffness of the base about the longitudinal axis evaluated as (Gazetas, 1991):
Key = ~~ [0.4(~)+O.1]
The overturning moment Mo =
(54)
Where G and v are the soil's shear modulus and Poisson's ratio respectively.
WA (1- 3 2) A. yh 3BK 2 a +6 p
=
where a UA is the ratio of the portion of width under contact to the total width, y is the buoyant unit weight of soil, h is the embedded depth of the caisson, B is the length of the base, and Kp is the coefficient of Rankine passive earth pressure calculated according to equation 4-6 as: 1+sin+ =tan 2(45 ++) K = 1-sin+ 2
p
(5-6)
A. is a coefficient to determine the increase in the coefficient of passive earth pressure at different stages of loading determined as:
{~a
0y= A(A) =
L
2W o,2A 2 Bk
(5-7)
Therefore, by varying the value of ex. from 0 to 1, a moment rotation relationship can be established for the caisson. The case of ex. = 1 represents the condition of
149
=0
The primary mode of deformation is rocking about the caisson's base accompanied by translation of the portion of the base in contact with the soil. Thus, the resultant inertia load for this mode is located at a vertical distance Ho to the base, henceforth called the effective moment arm, which can be obtained by summing the moment of masses about the center of rotation at the base:
Ho ; ; ; ~4H" +A
12
(5-9)
Where, H is the total height of the caisson. At any stage during rocking the ba~e shear can be quantified as the sum of the ultimate force to induce sliding and an additional force required to produce rocking:
o Vx ;;;;;;J.lW-P+
M Ho
(5-10)
Where, P is the passive resistance at the front side and J.l is the interface friction angle between the caisson's base and the soil. The total displacement at the top of caisson is the sum of displacement due to rocking and displacement at the base:
L\x=
JJ.w -P K +H8
:xx
(5-11)
in which, Kxx is the stiffness of the base interacting with the soil in the transverse direction, evaluated according to the elastic half-space theory (Gazetas 1991) as:
(5-12)
It is important to note that the uplift is the only source of nonlinearity in this method. as no soil nonlinearities are considered for the soil beneath the caisson base. This method can be used in lieu of the detailed local finite element modeling to develop the lateral load displacement relationships to be implemented in global models.
150
Calculate the half-space transverse and rocking stiffness coefficients, Kxx, and Key for the caisson base (equations 5-12 and 5-4). Calculate the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction k using equation 5-3. Assume a value for the ratio of the portion of width under contact to the total width a.. Calculate the overturning moment Mo using equations 5-5 to 5-7. Determine the rotation associated with the overturning moment from equation 5-8. Determine the caisson's base shear from equation 5-10. Calculate the total displacement at the top of caisson as the sum of the nonlinear displacement due to rocking and the linear displacement at the base from equation 5-11. Change the value of a. and resume steps from iv to viii.
ix.
T=2
(5-13)
If it is assumed that the caisson can be modeled as a rigid single-degree-of freedom system vibrating in a mode in the direction of the application of the pushover force, then any point on the capacity curve can be converted to the corresponding point Sail Sdi on the capacity spectrum using the equation:
Sal
=~
V;
and
Sdi
= Ax
(5-14)
Through this method the performance of the structure is estimated graphically as the point where the capacity curve intersects with the elastic demand spectrum curve. The following example is given to illustrate the method.
5.3 Example
A caisson foundation was designed to support a suspension bridge tower in Tacoma Washington. The dimensions are 24.4 x 39.6 m. the height is 74.5 m
151
with an embedment depth of 22.5 m. The soil is silty sand with unit weight of 19.6 Kn/m 3 . The total buoyant weight of the caisson was estimated as 1023 MN. The results of the cross-hole seismic survey test indicated that the average shear wave velocity of the soil foundation is estimated as 305 m/sec. Estimate the seismic performance of this caisson during a potential earthquake.
denand ~pedrun:
Ux lhe nelhod explained in xdion 1,8 fo develop Ihe de!?iqn re!>ponx !>pedrun,
Fronlhe U5, 6eo/oqica/ xNey web !>ile Ihe 0,2 xcond 51 I-xeond ~pedra/ aeee/eraflon!> 5/, and peak qround acee/eralion P61t were delemined a~:
0:12- q
~ 0,'55
PSIt
5ince fhe averaqe !>hear wave ve/ocily i!> !J0'5 M1!> Ihe !>ife i!> cla:?!?ified a!? ealeqory D, rhe !?ile eoefficienl:;:, 1'5 de/emined frof? r able!? (1'2-) and (I,!J) at>:
Fa"" /,0/6
Fv"" /''58 Calcu/ale Ihe de!?iqn earlhquakere!?ponx t>pedra/ acce/eralion al t>horl period 5D:::- a nd al'-xcond period, 501
501>~ /,0/6X
501 ""
1.2-lq ~ 1,25 q
Con!?lrud Ihe ~% danpinq de:5iqn !?pedfUf1 u!>inq equalion!> 1'2-2Ihrouqh /,24-, rhe de::.5iqn re!?pon!?C !?pedrun I!? depided in Fiqure '5'4-.
152
IA
1.2
v ~
0.8 0.6
~ O.~
0.2
a
0
2Period (::ec)
FiCJurc ~~4-. 'X Darlpif7CJ De5iCJn R c!:>po~ :5pcdrurl for T ocorJa WO!>hlnc;fon 5fep 2: E::>faUidl fhe Pudrover Cu/V.e:
Follow fhe !:>fep::> in ::edion 5.2.210 develop fhe capacily cUNe:
rJAfA:
f oundatiGfl width
Fcul1dati(ifJ lenqth
A = 24.?B4m
B=
v :=
~.624m
P01550115 ratio
5hear wave velOCIb1
Unlt wt of soil
a,??
V5:=
?o?~
5
Y
/'. . Y
Cj
= 19,6?6 kN
m
:?
MalC.imUm shear
modulus
tAmax'= -.
v52
153
--(
~ffective
moment arm
HO :=
J(4.H
Z +A )
12
HO = 4?J,89Bm
CtA [
rad
k. := 12.
Kay
A'? 18
The pU!5hover CUNe I!:> depided In Fiqure 5-5, II? dlown in fhe fiqure fhe re!5pon!5e fran 0 fo It ;!:> linear wilh un/lom dlf:>fribulion of file pre!:>?Ure on fhe cai!5!50d!:> box. 5lidlnc; !:>/arf!:> 10 occur of point It and con/lIVe!:> up 10 polnf ~J whree if I!:> occonpanled by rockinq frof'7 ~ fa C,
J
154
BOJ,CX::O
.'"'"-'-'
__ . "--,,....... ,
600,CX:O f
\ t'
:::;;z; .........
. -:-1' -~.-,-~.
- ..
1
i
3
~
4<X),CX::O +-1------
~
2<X>.CX::O
+t
o. o
0.2'
0.7
1J1$p/ac.eJrent ( m:>
0.17
FiCJure ~~~. Exal"lp/e of a f'udlover CUNe for a Cai!:Jf>On. 5fep 5: E!:Jfab/if:>h fh~.._ ...r;;.qJ?Cl{;!.fy... 2f?t;d[(!.tL0u.Ne and Check Perfomonce the capacily !:Jpedrun CUNe if:> dif:>played in FiCJure ~-6, II i~ ~hONn fhaf in fhb reCJion fhe caif:>=>on f1ay experience ~one f:>/idinq under a pofenfial earfhquake. Neverfh/e~~J rocki!1CJ ('1oy nof occur.
IA 1.2
\
!
,
11
I
-IJ~
1 ;
I
~... ~~
..
-a
-{'
0.8
;
\
,.-
1
I ,
I
~:
....... k-,""'
I :
:
'" ww_
0,6
Q-r
V
----I
I
--- ;
..
-S:-Q.
rq
v', S"lA.
- I
_ .._.---!
("') ~~
,
~
0.2
/
;
,
,
-----'r---..-1-._........_...................
,:;>.\
Jb
r'\-+('}",e (' c~
---=
.-_ ............................... ....
"
)
12 Cvvt.
Qh.
Fic)
IAJ ~ XA~
155
5.4 References
Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibrations, Chapter 15 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.553-593. Mahaney, J.A., Paret, T.F., Kehoe,B.E., and Freeman, S.A. (1993) "The capacity spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Lorna Prieta earthquake, "National Earthquake Conference, Memphis.
156