Journal of Earthquake Engineering

© Imperial College Press

SEISMIC DESIGN OF DRILLED SHAFT BENTS WITH SOIL-STRUCTURE

INTERACTION

VINICIO SUAREZ
North Carolina State Univ., Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA

MERVYN J. KOWALSKY
North Carolina State Univ., Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, USA

The Direct Displacement-Based Design method is implemented for performance based seismic
engineering of drilled shaft bents with consideration of soil-structure interaction effects. This was
accomplished by defining an equivalent model that allows the prediction of yield displacement,
displacement ductility and equivalent viscous damping for the in-plane and out-of-plane response of
bents embedded in soft clay and sand. The utilization of the model is simple and requires the input of
geometry, basic soil properties, target performance in terms of top displacement, ductility or strain
limits and seismic demand in the form of displacement response spectra. Examples are presented to
demonstrate the application of the procedure.

Keywords: soil-structure interaction; ductility; equivalent damping, DDBD

1. Introduction
Drilled shaft bents are a type of bridge substructure/foundation system in which columns
are extended from the superstructure continuously below grade (Fig. 1). These structures
are commonly used to resist axial and lateral forces produced by dead, live, wind,
earthquake and impact loads and their response is highly dependent on soil-structure
interaction phenomena.
In the current force-based seismic design practice, damage in bents is controlled by
the use of a force reduction factor that is a function of the importance of the bridge
(AASHTO 2004). The reduction in force is assumed to be equal to the ductility demand
in the system according to the equal displacement approximation (Veletsos and Newmark
1960). However, past research (Hutchison et al. 2004; Suarez 2005) shows that this
assumption is not generally applicable for drilled shaft bents and that soil-structure
interaction affects ductility demand and alters the response.
As an alternative, the application of Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD)
(Priestley 1993) to the design of drilled shaft bents is proposed in this paper. DDBD has
proven to be effective for the seismic design of single and multi degree of freedom bridge
systems (Kowalsky et al. 1995; Dwairi 2005). This research aims to extend DDBD to the
design of column bents with consideration of soil-structure interaction effects by

1
2 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

performing two main tasks: (1) Development of models to estimate the ductility demand
and (2) Assessment of equivalent viscous damping in a soil-column system as a function
of ductility. The application of the proposed method is restricted to bents embedded in
soil idealized as a uniform layer of either sand or soft clay, with an embedded length long
enough to minimize tip displacement. Soft soils have been chosen since soil-interaction
effects such as addition of flexibility and damping are more important in these soils if
compared to bents in stiff soils or rigid foundations.
The method does not account for shadowing effects between shafts and only
considers inertial forces; kinematic forces that arise in the embedded length of the shafts
due to passage of seismic waves are not accounted for. In addition, the procedure does
not consider P-Delta effects since the current seismic design practice avoids these
detrimental effects by limiting the displacement capacity of the bents.

2. Summary of Current Design Practice

Historically, it has been common seismic design practice to simplify the soil-structure
interaction problem by considering the shafts within each bent of a bridge to be fixed at
an estimated depth below the ground surface. This simplification is made in an attempt to
account for the flexibility that the soil adds to the bent while avoiding difficult soil
modeling issues. The embedded length, also called depth to fixity, is typically chosen
from expressions such as those provided by Davison and Robinson (1965). These
equations are semi-empirical and are a result of lateral elastic analyses of soil-pile
systems. Alternately, the depth to fixity is also obtained from the nonlinear lateral
analysis of a single drilled shaft, such that the resultant equivalent model matches either
the stiffness or the maximum moment of the inelastic soil-column system. When
nonlinear analyses are performed, the soil-column system is typically modeled as beam-
on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation where the force-deformation response of the soil
springs (P-y curves) is chosen to best represent the field properties. There are several P-y
models available such as: Matlock (1970) for soft clay or API (1987), for sand.
Once the depth to fixity is defined, the structural engineer designs the bent as if it was
fixed at its base. The design is force-based and a force reduction factor is used to limit the
ductility demand to values that range between two and four depending on the importance
of the structure (AASHTO 2004). This practice, although convenient for its simplicity,
has two main deficiencies:

(i) The use of a force reduction factor that does not account for soil-structure
interaction and its effects on ductility demand and energy dissipation. Previous
studies (Suarez 2005; Hutchison et al. 2004) have shown that the equal displacement
approximation is not generally applicable to pile or drilled shaft bents.
(ii) The definition of an equivalent model based on the determination of a point of
fixity. It is not possible to define a single point of fixity such that the equivalent
model matches the stiffness and moments of the bent in both in-plane and out-of-
plane directions (Chen 1997; Suarez 2005). Substituting the soil-bent system by a
bent fixed at its base without further modifications might result in erroneous
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 3

assessment of design forces. Typically, if the point of fixity is chosen to be deeper

than needed, the period of the structure will be increased resulting in reduction of
seismic forces. However, the longer columns will also develop larger moments.

To overcome these deficiencies this research has focused on the implementation of

DDBD as a tool for Performance Based Seismic Engineering (PBSE) of drilled shaft
bents. DDBD requires the prediction of ductility demand and the corresponding level of
damping at a given target displacement.

P-Delta effects
Pile and drilled shaft bents are more susceptible to P-Delta effects than fixed base
systems due to the flexibility added by the soil. P-Delta effects cause degradation in
strength and could lead to instability and collapse. In current seismic design practice P-
Delta effects are avoided by limiting the displacement capacity so the P-Delta moment
developed in the columns does not exceed a specified fraction of the flexural capacity of
the section. Caltrans (2004) recommends 20% whereas SCDOT (2002) gives a 25% limit
to the ratio of P-Delta moment over moment capacity of the section. A study by
Hutchinson et al. (2004) show that these limits are conservative and suggest that if P-
Delta moments do not exceed 30% of the moment capacity of the section, P-Delta effects
do not severely affect response of the system.

3. Implementation of Direct Displacement Based Design

In DDBD, a nonlinear system is modeled as an equivalent linear system with secant
stiffness and equivalent viscous damping. The procedure yields the strength and stiffness
required by the system to achieve a specified level of performance. The proposed
procedure for column bents is an adaptation of the procedure used for bridge columns
that are attached to a rigid foundation (Kowalsky 1995) and involves the following steps:

(i) Gather input information: Diameter of the shaft and above ground height, material
properties, target performance and corresponding earthquake intensities. The
performance is given as top displacement, ductility or strains limits. The earthquake
intensities are defined by displacement response spectra for different levels of
damping.
(ii) Calculation of displacement ductility for a given target displacement or strains.
This requires the assessment of the location of the plastic hinge, calculation of yield
displacement and plastic displacement.
(iii) Estimation of equivalent viscous damping as a function of displacement
ductility. This requires the use of expressions developed to account for the effects of
soil and member damping.
(iv) Computation of required period, stiffness, and base shear. This step requires the
use of design displacement response spectra for different levels of viscous damping.
(v) Member design following capacity design principles.
4 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

The application of this procedure requires the development of a model that simply
estimates displacement ductility and equivalent damping while capturing the soil
structure interaction effects. Such a model is presented next.

3.1. Equivalent model for displacement ductility calculations

In this paper an equivalent model is proposed for computation of yield displacement,
target displacement, and ductility demands for a single column partially embedded in
soil. Pinned and fixed rotations at the head of the column are considered. The fixed head
condition applies to the in-plane design of a bent when the connection between the
column and the cap beam is rigid and the cap beam is significantly stiffer than the
column. The pinned head condition applies to the out-of-plane design when the
connection between the cap beam and the superstructure is pinned. If the rotation at the
top of a drilled shaft or pile is not restrained it is probable that under seismic attack one
plastic hinge will develop underground at the point of maximum moment. Conversely, if
the rotation at the top is restrained a plastic hinge will likely develop there first.
This equivalent model has been developed to render all the information required for
the application of the DDBD method. The model is largely based on simple elastic beam
theory, and the geometry has been calibrated to account for the nonlinear soil-interaction
effects using the results of a parametric study described at the end of this section.
Some of the parameters used in the model are: The target displacement ∆D which is
the maximum expected lateral displacement that occurs under seismic attack at the top of
the column and is the sum of a yield displacement ∆y, that is assumed elastic, and a
plastic displacement ∆p (Eq. 3.1). Plastic displacement results from plastic rotation θp
once a plastic hinge has developed. It is assumed that θp is concentrated at the center of
the plastic hinges. The ratio between θp and plastic curvature φp at the point of
maximum moment is the plastic hinge length Lp. At a section level the target curvature
φD is the maximum expected curvature and it is the sum of yield curvature φy and plastic
curvature φp. The yield curvature φy can be approximated using Eq. (3.2) as a function of
the yield strain of the longitudinal steel bars εy and the diameter of the shaft D (Priestley
et al. 1996). Displacement ductility µ∆ is the ratio between ∆D and ∆y and curvature
ductility µφ is the ratio between φD and φy.
∆D = ∆ y + ∆ p
(3.1)
2.25ε y
φy = (3.2)
D
Two parametric studies were performed to study the response of pinned and fixed head
column-soil systems. The first study looked at the response under static lateral loads and
the second study focused on the response under earthquake loading. For both studies,
nonlinear single column-soil parametric models were built in OpenSees (McKenna et al.
2004) as shown in Fig. 2. In these models the column was modeled as a series of frame
elements of lengths equal to one quarter of the diameter. The embedded length of the
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 5

column was set as long as 30 column diameters and it was verified during the analysis
that the tip displacements were insignificant. The Hysteretic Bilinear (McKenna et al.
2004) section response model was assigned to the column section with pinching
coefficients of 0.7 for curvature and 0.2 for moment. These coefficients were set to match
the Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteresis rule (Takeda et al. 1970) (previously used in
equivalent damping investigations by Dwairi in 2005). The elastic modulus of concrete
was Ec = 27200 MPa. The cracked moment of inertia Icr was assumed equal to 50% of the
gross moment of inertia. This value is adequate for concrete columns with 2%
reinforcement ratio and subjected to an axial load equivalent to 20% the capacity of the
section Caltrans (2004). The yield curvature φy was obtained from Eq 3.2. The column
diameter ranged from 0.3 m to 2.4 m and the above ground height varied between two
and ten diameters of the column. The parametric matrix is presented as Table 1.
The soil was idealized as a uniform layer of either sand or soft clay with the water
table at ground level. The OpeenSees module PysimpleGen (Brandenberg 2004) was
used to generate P-y elements along the embedded length of the column according to the
Matlock’s P-y model for soft clay under water (Matlock 1970) and to the API P-y model
for Sand (API 1987). The PySimple1 material model (Boulanger 2003) was utilized to
model the soil, this material model is capable of capturing the cyclic response of the soil
including the formation of gaps. Fig. 2 shows the shape of the hysteresis loop for sand
and clay and Table 2 summarizes the soil properties used for each soil type in the
parametric study, where su is the undrained shear strength for clays, ε50 is the strain at
which clay develops half of its compressive strength, w is the total unit weight, φ’ is the
effective friction angle and k is the rate at which the subgrade modulus increases with
depth in sands.

Pinned head drilled shafts

In the proposed model, the nonlinear soil-column system is replaced by a cantilever
column with equivalent length Le that is fixed at its base (Fig. 3). The point of fixity is
located at the point of maximum moment in the soil-column system. The yield
displacement of the equivalent system is calculated with Eq. 3.3. where α is a coefficient
that amplifies the yield displacement of the equivalent cantilever and accounts for elastic
rotation that exists at the underground point of maximum moment and the larger area
inside the curvature pattern in the nonlinear soil-column system.
φ y Le 2
∆y = α (3.3)
3
Figure 3 shows design values for α and Le as a function of the above ground height La,
diameter D of the column and soil type. These charts resulted from the parametric study
described early in this section. The plastic displacement is calculated with Eq. (3.4)
where Lp is plastic hinge length that can be estimated from Eq. (3.5) (Chai 2002).
∆ p = φ p Lp Le (3.4)
6 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

Lp L
= 1 + 0. 1 a ≤ 1.6 (3.5)
D D
Application of DDBD requires the calculation of the displacement ductility. If the
performance is specified in terms of a target top displacement, µD is obtained directly
with Eq. (3.6). If performance is given as a target curvature in the section then µD is
obtained from Eq. (3.7).
∆D
µ∆ = (3.6)
∆y
(φD − φ y ) Lp Le
µ∆ = 1 + (3.7)
∆y

Fixed head drilled shafts

The fixed-head drilled shaft is replaced by a column of equivalent length Le that is fixed
at its based and supported on rollers at the top so the rotation is restrained (Fig. 3). Le is
the same as for a pinned head column but different values of α are used to match the
yield displacement. Both parameters can be found in Fig. 3 and resulted from the
parametric analysis described earlier. The yield displacement is calculated from Eq. (3.8).
Displacements beyond yield consist of a combination of elastic displacement and plastic
displacement due to plastic rotation at the top hinge. As the displacement continues to
increase, the underground moment will reach the yield strength of the column and second
plastic hinge will develop underground. This behavior can not be captured by the
equivalent column in which both hinges develop at the same time. However the plastic
displacement after the top hinge is formed can be estimated as the product of the plastic
rotation at the hinge and a fraction of the equivalent length Le as shown in Eq. 3.9. In this
equation β is a coefficient that affects Le. The parametric study suggested β = 1.68 for the
columns in sand and β = 1.54 for columns in clay without a particular trend with respect
to above ground height and column diameter.
φ yLe 2
∆y = α (3.8)
6
∆ p = φ p L p βLe (3.9)

The plastic hinge length Lp for the column connecting the cap beam can be calculated
from Eq. (3.10) (Priestley 1996). In this equation Li is the distance from the plastic hinge
to the point of contraflexure, fy is the yield strength of the reinforcement steel in MPa,
and dbl is the longitudinal bar diameter in meters. Approximate values for Li were
determined in the parametric study described before and are presented in Fig. 5 along
with the location of soil reaction for pinned head columns. In Eq. (3.10), the first term
represents the spread of plasticity resulting from variation in curvature with distance from
the critical section, and assumes a linear variation in moment with distance. The second
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 7

term represents the increase in effective plastic hinge length associated with strain
penetration into the cap beam.
l p = 0.08 Li + 0.022 f y d bl (3.10)
If performance is given in terms of a target curvature for the section, µ∆ is obtained from
Eq.(3.11) . This equation does not account for the formation of a second plastic hinge
underground since if has been found that for fixed head columns in soft soil, the second
plastic hinge starts to develop after significant damage has occurred in the first hinge.
(φ − φ ) L βL
µ∆ = 1 + D y p e (3.11)
∆y

Comparison with experimental data

The proposed equivalent model is used to predict the yield displacement and ductility in
an RC pile embedded in sand. The comparison is made to a pile lateral load test
conducted by Chai and Hutchison (2002). The test involved the application of a cyclic
lateral load and a constant axial load at the top of a 0.406 m diameter RC shaft partially
embedded in sand with an effective friction angle of φ’ =38°. The column head was free
and the normalized above ground height was La/D = 6. From the data recorded in the
experiment, the yield displacement of the pile was 0.12 m. Also at different levels of
displacement ductility, the curvature ductility at the plastic hinge location was calculated
as shown in Fig. 6.
The application of the proposed equivalent model to this problem is as follows: The
equivalent length of Le/D = 8.4 is obtained from Fig. 4 by entering with La/D = 6. Also,
from the same charts the yield displacement coefficient is α = 2.2. The yield curvature
for the pile section is approximated using Eq. (3.2). Then, using Eq. (3.3) the yield
displacement is calculated ∆y = 0.11 m. The plastic hinge length from Eq (3.5) is Lp =
0.65 m this value is used with Eq. (3.7) to find the displacement ductility for different
levels of curvature ductility with results plotted in Fig. 5 showing good agreement with
experimental results.
The predicted yield displacement was found to be essentially the same as the value
obtained from the test. In the experiment, when the shaft reaches the yield displacement,
the P-Delta moment is 24% of the reported moment capacity of the section which is
around the specified limits below which P-Delta effects can be ignored (Caltrans 2004 ;
SCDOT 2002).

Effect of column strength

It has been shown by others (Priestley 1993) that the flexural strength of a reinforced
concrete section has little influence on its yield curvature and thereof on the yield
displacement of columns. In the parametric study that rendered trends for Le, and α (Fig.
4), the amount of longitudinal reinforcement was not varied for each column section. As
explained before, the cracked section moment of inertia assigned to the different columns
was taken as 50% of the gross inertia assuming a longitudinal reinforcing ratio of 2%. In
8 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

this section of the paper, the results of nonlinear lateral (pushover) analyses of RC shafts
with the same diameter but with different longitudinal steel ratios are compared to the
values predicted using the proposed equivalent model. The purpose of this comparison is
to determine the effect of the amount of longitudinal steel on the values of the yield
displacement and ductility demand in the column.
The pushover analyses were performed using the program MultiPier (Bridge
Software Institute 2000). The diameter of the selected drilled shaft is 0.6 m, the above
ground height is 4.8 m, and the total length is 25 m. The compressive strength of the
concrete was assumed equal to 28 MPa and the elastic modulus equal to 24800 MPa. The
yield strength of the steel was 450 MPa and the elastic modulus is 200000 MPa. The
concrete cover was 0.07 m. The water table was set at the ground level. The soil was
assumed to be clay with a total unit weight of 16 kN and undrained shear strength of 20
kPA and it was modeled using the P-y model for soft clay under water (Matlock 1970).
The rotation of the column’s head was fixed. Four pushover analyses were performed
varying the amount of longitudinal reinforcement from 1% to 4%.
From the information presented above, the yield displacement and ductility can be
estimated using the equivalent model as follows: From Fig. 4 for a fixed headed column
in clay with La/D = 8, Le/D = 11.9 , α = 2, β = 1.54. Using Eq.3.8 the estimated yield
displacement is 0.14 m. Also, using Eq. 3.11 the displacement ductility demand is
calculated for curvature ductility values ranging from 1 to 18. These results are shown in
Fig. 7 and 8 along with the results of the pushover analysis.
Figure 7 shows the force deformation response for the four columns with different
steel ratios. In each curve the yield point is defined from the results of the pushover
analysis as the lateral displacement at which the moment at the top of the column reached
the value of the effective yield moment found for that section on a separate moment
curvature analysis. Also shown in Fig. 7 is the yield point calculated using the equivalent
model. It can be seen that the value predicted with the equivalent model is close to yield
point of the column with 2% steel ratio and not very distant from those of the columns
with 3% and 4%. It can be concluded that the yield displacement is not very sensitive to
the strength of the column and that the equivalent model gives a reasonable prediction.
Fig. 8 compares the levels of curvature ductility at the plastic hinges with the
displacement ductility of the system for the four levels of reinforcement. The same figure
also shows the prediction using Eq. 3.11. It can be observed that there is good agreement
with the values obtained from the pushover analysis. Again it seems that the strength of
the section has little influence in the relation between curvature and displacement
ductility. It is interesting to notice from this example that the curvature ductility demand
and therefore the level of damage at the hinge in the top of the column can reach large
values before a second hinge develops underground.

3.2. Equivalent Viscous Damping

 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 9

During earthquakes, energy is dissipated by inelastic deformation in the soil and plastic
hinging in the shafts. DDBD uses the concept of equivalent viscous damping to model
the energy dissipation in the structure. Numerous studies have investigated the
linearization of the response of single degree of freedom systems using a combination of
stiffness and equivalent damping (Jennings, 1968; Dwairi, 2005; Blandon, 2005), one
such approach utilizes the area of the hysteresis as an indication of equivalent damping
(Jacobson 1930). Recently, work done by Dwari (2005) has indicated that when utilizing
secant stiffness to maximum response, damping is overestimated based on area-based
approach. Instead, Dwairi obtained hysteretic damping by determining the optimum value
of damping to be combined with secant stiffness such that the resulting response matches
a nonlinear time history analysis.
To the knowledge of the authors, no previous research on equivalent viscous damping
for soil-column systems has been conducted. Therefore, in order to implement DDBD, a
parametric study was conducted to investigate the response of single soil-column systems
under earthquake loading with the goal to identify trends that relate hysteretic damping to
displacement ductility following the approach proposed by Dwairi. In the study,
Nonlinear Time History Analyses (NTHA) were performed on single column–soil
models that were built in OpenSees. A set of ten soft-soil earthquake records was applied.
The models were built as detailed in the previous section with the parameters show in
Table 1.
From each NTHA the maximum top displacement and the corresponding
displacement ductility and effective period were obtained. Then, the equivalent hysteretic
viscous damping was found as the viscous damping with which an elastic single degree
of freedom system would have the same maximum displacement as the inelastic system.
No viscous damping was added in the NTHA with the purpose of capturing hysteretic
damping only. Fig. 9 shows the hyperbolic trends that best fitted the results. The curve
fitting was done using an optimization tool to minimize the sum of the squared difference
between the hysteretic damping predicted by the model and the results of NTHA.
Each of the trends shown in Fig. 9 corresponds to a type of soil and head restraint. No
trends were found between hysteretic damping and the height or diameter of the column.
Fig. 9 shows higher levels of damping for columns with pinned heads and for columns in
softer soils. This is expected since for the same level of displacement ductility, pinned
head columns and columns in soft soils displace more, inducing larger deformation in the
soil and therefore resulting in more energy dissipation. Fig. 9 also shows considerable
amounts of hysteretic damping at ductility equal to one. This damping resulted from the
energy dissipated by the soil only and it is related mainly to the deformation in the soil.
Although for µ∆ < 1, equivalent hysteretic damping exists and should be accounted for,
insufficient data was collected from the parametric study as to give any trend that can be
used in DDBD. A detailed description of the parametric study can be found in Suarez
(2005).
It was mentioned before that although viscous damping exists in reinforced concrete
bents, it was not applied to the models in the study such that hysteretic damping could be
10 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

isolated. Viscous damping ξv can be combined with hysteretic damping ζeq,h to get a
design value of equivalent viscous damping ξeq using Eq. (3.12) (Priestley and Grant
2005).
ξ eq = ξ v µ ∆ −0.378 + ξ eq,h (3.12)

3.3. Displacement-based design of a drilled shaft bent in clay

As an example, a drilled shaft bent (Fig. 10) partially embedded in clay is designed in the
in-plane direction. The structure is designed for the AASHTO (2004) design spectrum
with peak ground acceleration A = 0.4 g and soil coefficient S = 2, without exceeding a
damage control curvature in the columns with an upper displacement ductility limit of
three. The bent has three columns with diameter D = 1.2 m, the above ground height is La
= 8 m and it is embedded in a clay with undrained shear strength su = 40 kPa. The bent
supports a weight P = 2500 kN per column. In this example the damage control curvature
has been calculated using Eq. (3.13) (Kowalsky, 2000). For an axial force in the column
P = 2500 kN, compressive strength of concrete f’c = 28 MPa and the gross area of the
column Ag and the diameter D, the damage control curvature φD is 0.05. From Eq. (3.2),
the yield curvature for the section is φy = 0.0038 1/m so the damage control curvature
ductility is µφ = 0.05/0.0038 = 14
⎛ ⎛ P ⎞⎞ 1
φD = ⎜ 0.068 − 0.068⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎟⎟ D
(3.13)
⎜ f '
A
⎝ ⎝ c g ⎠⎠
The next step is to calculate the yield displacement. Since the design is in the in-plane
direction, the yield displacement is going to be calculated for one of the columns
assuming fixed head conditions. Entering in Fig. 4 with La / D = 6.6, it is found that Le
=11.63 m and the yield displacement coefficient α is 2.05. This information is then used
in Eq. (3.8) to find a yield displacement of ∆y = 0.17m.
Next, the displacement ductility that corresponds to the damage control curvature
ductility is calculated using Eq. (3.11) with β = 1.54. The calculated displacement
ductility is µ∆ = 3.8. Since an upper limit of 3 was specified, the target displacement is ∆D
= 3x0.17 = 0.51 m. This value can be also expressed as a drift, 0.51/11.63 = 4.3%
Knowing the ductility demand on the system, the corresponding equivalent viscous
damping can be estimated. The equivalent viscous damping ξeq has two components that
must be added together. From Fig. 9, the hysteretic damping component is ξeq,h = 11.4%.
Assuming that the viscous damping is ξv = 5%, the total equivalent viscous damping is ξeq
= 14.41%. The next step requires entering the displacement response spectra that
corresponds to the design earthquake with 14.41% of damping with ∆D = 0.51 m to find
the required effective period for the equivalent elastic system. Alternately, Eq. (3.15) has
been developed from the AASHTO acceleration response spectra Eq. (3.14) to calculate
the effective period Teff. The term with the square root comes from the Eurocode (1988)
and scales the spectra to the desired level of damping.
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 11

1.2 AS
S aD = 2
(3.14)
T3
.75
⎛ 4π 2 ∆ D 2 + ζ eq ⎞
Teff =⎜ ⎟
⎜ 1.2 ASg 7 ⎟⎠ (3.15)
⎝

In Eq. (3.15) all the parameters have been previously presented with the exception of g
which is the acceleration of gravity. From this equation an effective period Teff = 2.43s is
found. With knowledge of the period and the weight on top the column, the design base
shear acting on one column can be calculated from Eq. (3.17). The first term on the right
side of this equation is the required effective stiffness for the system.

4π 2W
V = ∆D (3.16)
gT 2
Equation 3.16 yields a required lateral strength of V = 866.4 kN per column. This force is
equivalent to 34% of the supported weight. The total design base shear for the bent is the
sum of the required strength for the three columns, that is Vt = 2599 kN. The next step is
to build a model and analyze the structure under the application of the base shear force to
find the internal forces for member design. To do this, analysis software such as
MultiPier (Bridge Software Institute 2004) or Lpile (Ensoft 2004) could be used.
Alternately, knowing that for in-plane design, the plastic hinges are located at top of the
column, the design moment at those points can be estimated as the product of the base
shear force and the distance between the top of the column and the point of inflection.
This distance, taken from Fig. 5, equals 0.57 times Le, therefore the design moment for
the column is Mu = 866.4x0.57x11.6 = 5728.63 kN-m . Finally it was found that a
reinforcement-area ratio of 2.7% is needed such that the moment capacity of the section
at the damage control curvature limit is at least equal to the design moment Mu. Shear
reinforcement in the columns and the reinforcement of cap beam should be designed
according to capacity design principles (Paulay and Priestley, 1993). P-Delta effects
seem not to be of importance in this design since the P-Delta moment is 22% of the
required moment capacity of the section (SCDOT 2002). If this was not the case, the
process should be repeated reducing the target displacement, or the moment capacity
could be increased in proportion to the P-Delta moment to counteract its effects (Priestley
et al. 2006).

Design verification
An Incremental Dynamic Analysis IDA (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002) was carried to
verify the performance of the drilled shaft bent designed with DDBD in the previous
section. IDA is a parametric analysis method that involves applying to a nonlinear model
one or more earthquake records, each scaled to multiple levels of intensity. The result is
one or more curves that relate the first-mode spectral acceleration Sa (or any other
measure of intensity) to maximum displacement (or any other measure of response). IDA
12 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

is recommended for performance verification in DDBD (SEAOC, 2003). The IDA was
performed as follows:

(i) A structural model of the bent and surrounding soil was built in OpenSees. Fig. 11
shows the moment curvature response of the column section as designed and also
shows the bilinear response integrated to the bilinear hysteretic section model in
OpenSees. The soil was modeled using P-y elements as previously described.
(ii) A nonlinear static (pushover) analysis was performed to determine the force-
displacement response and yield point for the structure.
(iii) The fundamental period of the structure was found by performing modal analysis.
This is the first mode period based on initial/elastic properties of the bent and soil.
Then, a set of eight soft-soil earthquake records was made compatible with the
design spectrum. The compatibility was achieved by using wavelet decomposition
(Montejo, 2004)
(iv) NTHAs were conducted. Each of the earthquake records was applied with 12
different scale factors ranging from 0.1 to 1.2. After each analysis was performed,
the maximum top displacement and maximum moment at the top of the columns
were extracted from the output.
(v) Results of IDA are plot in Fig. 12, the X axis shows the maximum top displacement
and the Y axis the first-mode spectral acceleration Sa. The design spectral
acceleration level SaD = 0.73g is also shown as reference. In the IDA plot, each
dotted line corresponds to the results of NTHAs with a particular earthquake and also
shown are the 16%, 50% (mean) and 84% fractile curves as a summary of these
curves. Fig. 12 also includes a capacity curve that was derived from the pushover
analysis.

In Fig. 12 there is a point that shows the intended performance of the structure. During
the application of DDBD, the target displacement was ∆D = 0.51 m. This value is close to
the average displacement of 0.54 m predicted by IDA. The pushover analysis shows a
yield displacement equal to 0.19 m which is 12% more than the yield displacement
estimated during design. Base on this information, it is concluded that the DDBD was
appropriate.
In PBSE more than one performance level must be satisfied. If that is the case,
DDBD should be applied for the different performance levels, then the reinforcement is
designed for the governing case and IDA could be used for verification. One important
feature of IDA is that in a single plot the performance of the structure for different
seismic intensity levels can be checked. Another important feature is that the IDA plots
give an insight into the behavior of the bent. For example, Fig. 11 shows that the IDA
curves depart from the capacity curve at displacement as low as 0.05 m. This point marks
the onset of inelastic behavior and energy dissipation and it is only at 25% of the yield
displacement. The yield displacement ∆y = 0.19 m indicates that the effective yield
curvature has been reached in the columns. An average force reduction factor R can be
calculated at this point or at any level of displacement ductility by dividing the ordinate
of the 50th fractile curve into the ordinate of the capacity curve. The reduction factor at
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 13

the yield point is R = 1.7, at this point the displacement ductility demand is µ∆ = 1. At the
target displacement, R = 2.2 and corresponding to a displacement ductility demand µ∆ =
2.7 approximately. Therefore it can be concluded that the equal displacement
approximation does not apply in this case and also that the force reduction factor of R = 3
(ATC, 1996) commonly used for all bents without consideration of the soil-structure
interaction effects might not be achievable. Furthermore the reduction in force reached in
this example depends on whether or not a top displacement of 0.53 m can be
accommodated without causing damage to the superstructure or connections.

4. Summary and Conclusions

DDBD has been implemented for seismic design of drilled shaft bents. This has required
the development of an equivalent model to predict displacement and ductility while
accounting for soil-structure interaction effects and also, the development of relations for
the estimation of the equivalent viscous damping at different levels of ductility and for
different soils and boundary conditions. These tasks have been accomplished by applying
existing knowledge on DDBD and by performing parametric studies to identify trends in
the response of this type of structure. The verification analyses included in this paper
demonstrate that the proposed design procedure captures the behavior of bents and is
therefore suitable for the application of PBSE. However it is recognized that the approach
has some limitations:

(a) The bents are assumed to be embedded in a single layer of sand or soft clay
(b) The soil should not be prone to liquefaction or lateral spreading
(c) The shafts are assumed to be embedded deep enough to avoid rigid body
rotation
(d) The spacing between shafts is sufficient to avoid shadowing effects
(e) Assuming fixed head or pinned head is acceptable
(f) P-∆ effects, kinematic forces and group effects are not accounted for in design

If these conditions are not met, it is recommended that the proposed procedure be applied
with a pushover analysis of a proper model of the structure to determine the yield
displacement and if needed, the relation between curvature and displacement ductility.
This would of course require an initial assumption of the amount of reinforcement in the
columns.
It is strongly recommended that the design be verified by: 1) IDA, if several
performance levels are to be checked. 2) NTHA with compatible records if only one
performance level is to be checked. 3) Capacity spectrum method (Freeman, 1998) with
the equivalent damping relations proposed here, if methods 1 or 2 can not be
implemented. A flow chart that summarizes the procedure is presented in Fig. 13.
14 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

Conclusions
Soil structure-interaction results in added flexibility and damping but it can not be
concluded that the soil-structure interaction reduces the strength demand in the structure.
If compared to the yield displacement of a column on rigid foundation, the increase of
yield displacement can be as much as four times for pinned head columns and three times
for fixed head columns in sand and it could be more than ten times for pinned head and
six times for fixed head columns in soft clay. The equivalent damping is also
considerably increased as a function of the deformation of the soil. However, the
increment of damping and flexibility has opposite effects on the response of the bent. If
the yield displacement increases, the ductility demand will decrease and this tends to
increase the force demand in the system. Opposite to that, the increase in equivalent
damping and flexibility causes the period to increase and this is likely to cause a
reduction of seismic forces.
The yield displacement depends mainly on the boundary conditions at the top of the
column and on the soil properties. Increasing the diameter of the column in an attempt to
increase the ductility demand has the contrary effect since even though the yield
curvature will decrease, the location of the plastic hinge will be shifted to a deeper point
therefore increasing the equivalent length Le .
The second design example showed that it is not rational to use a fixed value of R as
is done in the current practice. The ductility capacity of the system depends on the
geometry and soil properties and might be limited by allowable displacement limits and
P-∆ effects.

5. Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable discussions and remarks by Professor
Nigel Priestley

6. References
AASHTO [2004] “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials; Washington D.C.
API [1987] “Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms” 17th Ed., API Recommended Practice 2A (RP 2A), American Petroleum Institute.
Applied Technology Council [1996] “ATC-32 Improved seismic design criteria for California
bridges: provisional recommendations”, Redwood City, Calif.
Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] “Equivalent viscous damping equations for direct
displacement-based design” Journal of Earthquake Engineering vol. 9, Special Issue 1,
Boulanger, R.W. [2003] “The PySimple1 Material” http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Brandenberg, S. [2004] “PySimple1gen OpenSees command” http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Bridge Software Institute [2000] “FB-MultiPier Manual, Version 4” University of Florida, USA.
Budek A.M. et al. [2000] “Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridge Drilled-Shaft RC Pile/Columns.”
Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol 126 No. 4
Caltrans [2004] “Seismic Design Criteria” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake_engineering
Chai Y.H. [2002] “Flexural Strength and Ductility of Extended Pile-Shafts I: Analitical Model”,
Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol 128 No 5
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 15

Chai Y.H. and Hutchison T.C. [2002] “Flexural Strength and Ductility of Extended Pile-Shafts II:
Experimental Study” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 128 No 5
Chen Y. [1997] “Assessment on Pile Effective Lengths and Their Effects on Design,”, Computers
& Structures Vol. 62, No. 2.
Davison M.T. and Robinson K.E. [1965] “Bending and buckling of partially embedded piles.”
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Montreal, Canada, pp. 243-246
Dwairi H.M. [2005] “Equivalent damping in support of direct displacement-based design with
applications for multi-span Bridges.” Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Ensoft Inc. [2004] “LPILE Manual” Austin, Texas, USA.
EuroCode 8 [1988] “Structures in seismic regions – Design. Part 1, General and Building” Report
EUR 8849 EN, Commission of European Communities.
Freeman, S.A. [1998] “Development and Use of Capacity Spectrum Method”, Proceedings of 6th
US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, U.S.A., Paper No. 269.
Hutchinson, T.C. et al. [2004] “Estimating inelastic displacements for design: extended pile shaft-
supported bridge structures” Earthquake Spectra 20 (4).
Jennings P.C. [1968] “Equivalent viscous damping for yielding structures” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE 1968; 90(2): 103-116
Kowalsky M.J. [2000] “Deformation Limit States for Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 126 No 8,
Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N., and MacRae, G.A. [1995] “Displacement-based Design of R.C.
Bridge Columns in Seismic Regions”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol.
24, pp. 1623-1643.
Matlock, H. [1970] “Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay”, Paper No.
OTC 1204, Proceedings, Second Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
Vol. 1,. 577-594.
McKenna F et al. [2004] “OpenSees Command Language Manual” htp/opensees.berkeley.edu
Montejo L. [2004] “Generation and analysis of spectrum compatible earthquake time histories
using wavelets”. Ms Thesis, University of Puerto Rico
Paulay and Priestley [1993]. “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings”
Wiley Interscience
Priestley, M.J.N. [1993] “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between design
and reality” Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol 26, No 3
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi G. [1996] “Seismic design and retrofit of bridges” Wiley, N.Y.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Grant, D. N. [2005] “Viscous damping in analysis and design” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol.9, No. Special Issue 1.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., and Kowalsky, M.J. [2006] “Direct Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures” IUSS Press, Pavia (in preparation)
SCDOT [2002] “Seismic Design Specification for Highway Bridges”
SEAOC. [2003] “Revised Interim Guidelines Performance-Based Seismic Engineering” Structural
Engineers Association of California
Suarez, V. [2005] “Implementation of Direct Displacement Based Design for Pile and Drilled Shaft
Bents” Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University.
Takeda T., Sozen M. and Nielsen N. [1970] “Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 96(12): 2557-2573.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. [2002] “Incremental dynamic analysis” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 31-3, 491–514.
16 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

Veletsos, A, Newmark, N.M. [1960] “Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple
systems to earthquake motions” Proceedings of 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 2, pp. 895–912.
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 17

CAP BEAM

IN-PLANE
DISPLACEMENT
OUT-OF-PLANE
DISPLACEMENT

DRILLED SHAFTS

SOIL

Fig. 1. General configuration of drilled shaft bents

18 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

Nonlinear Beam-Column
Element

La
Nonlinear p-y element

Elements
Near-field Far-field
at 0.25 D
Plastic Response Elastic
Pile Node Response
Drag

Plastic Elastic

Closure
Damper

Nonlinear p-y element

a)

1 1 1.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
M / My
P/Pult

P/Pult

0 0
-10 -10 -0.5 0 10
-0.5 0 10 -15 -0.5
-5 5 15

-1 -1
-1.5
y/y 50 y/y 50
φ / φy

b) c) d)

Fig. 2. Details of the finite element model used in parametric analysis. (a) Finite element model of a free-head
shaft, (b) Cyclic response of clay, (c) Cyclic response on sand, and (d) Cyclic response of concrete section
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 19

Table 1. Parametric matrix for dynamic and static

analyses (Refer to table 2 for soil definition)

HEAD D (m) La / D Soils

Pinned 0.3 2 Clay-20
Fixed 0.6 4 Clay-40
0.9 6 Sand-30
1.2 8 Sand-37
1.5 10
1.8
2.4
20 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

Table 2. Definition of soil parameters

CLAYS su (kPa) ε 50 w (kN/m3) P-y model

Clay-20 20 0.020 16 Matlock (1970)
Clay-40 40 0.015 17 Matlock (1970)

SANDS φ' 3
k (kN/m ) w (kN/m )
3
P-y model
Sand-30 30 5500 16.7 API (1987)
Sand-37 37 33200 18.5 API (1987)
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 21

y p
V y p V
Mmax PH

Le Le

PH PH
Mmax
Fixed Base Fixed Base

Bending
Moment Bending
Moment

p-y Springs p-y Springs

PINNED HEAD COLUMN FIXED HEAD COLUMN

Fig. 3. Equivalent models for pinned and fixed head columns

22 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

DRILLED SHAFTS IN SAND DRILLED SHAFTS IN CLAY

14 14
13 FIXED&PINNED φ=30
o 13 FIXED&PINNED su=20kPA
12 12
11 11
10 10
Le/D

9 9
8 8
7 7
6 o 6 FIXED&PINNED su=40kPA
5 FIXED&PINNED φ=37 5
4 4
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10

5.5 5.5
PINNED su=40kPA
5 5
4.5 4.5
o
PINNED su=20kPA
4 PINNED φ=30 4
3.5 3.5
o
3 PINNED φ=37 3
α

2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5 FIXED SHAFTS
1 FIXED SHAFTS 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
La/D La/D

Fig. 4. Le, α for definition of equivalent model.

 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 23

0.57 Le (Clay)
0.52 Le (Sand)

0.40 (Le-La) (Clay)

0.32 (Le-La) (Sand)

Fig. 5. a) Location of soil reaction resultant, b) Location of inflection point

24 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

13
Load test
11
Curvature Ductility

7
Proposed Model
5

1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement Ductility

Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted ductility and experimental data. (Chai and Hutchison 2002)
 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 25

350

300
YIELD DISPLACEMENT FROM 4%
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
250
LATERAL FORCE

3%

200
2%
150

1%
100

YIELD DISPLACEMENT FROM

50
EQUIVALENT MODEL

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

Fig 7. Force-Displacement response of single shafts with different reinforcement ratios

26 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

20
MODEL 3%
18
2%
4%
16
1%
CURVATURE DUCTILITY

14

12
HINGE AT COLUMN HEAD
10
1%
8
3%
6

4 2% UNDERGROUND HINGE
2
4%
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY

Fig. 8. Ductility in single shafts with different reinforcement ratios

 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 27

25
Clay su=20kPA
Clay su=40kPA
20
PINNED-HEAD ROTATION Sand φ=30 ο
Hysteretic Damping %

Sand φ=37 ο
15
Clay su=20kPA
Clay su=40kPA
Sand φ=30 ο
10 Sand φ=37 ο

FIXED-HEAD ROTATION
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement Ductility

Fig. 9. Hysteretic damping trends for pinned and fixed head shafts
28 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

P = 7500 kN

1.2m

5.4 m

EARTHQUAKE
ACTION

Clay su = 40 kPa

Fig. 10. Design example drilled shaft bent

 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 29

6000

5000

40 - 30M
Moment (kN-m)

4000

My = 5700 kN/m 1.2 m

3000
φ 'y = 0.0035 16M @ 200 mm

2000 EIcr = 1597143 kN-m2

fy = 400 MPa
1000 f'c = 21 MPa

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Curvature φ (1/m)

Fig. 11. Moment-Curvature response of column section

30 Suarez V., Kowalsky M.J.

0.9 th th th
16 50 84
Intended Performance ∆ D , SaD
0.8

0.7
Design Spectral Acc.
0.6
Avg. simulated performance
Sa (g)

0.5
Force Reduction Factor = 2.2
0.4

0.3
Capacity Curve
0.2

0.1 ∆y
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Top displacement (m)

Fig. 12. IDA results, Spectral acceleration vs. top displacement

 Seismic Design of Drilled Shaft Bents with Soil-Structure Interaction 31

Start

Does the structure meet the limitations of the

equivalent model? (Section 4)
no yes

Build proper model and perform Define equivalent model: using D,

Pushover analysis La, (su or φ') find Le, α (Fig,3)

Target perfomance given in

terms of top displacement?
yes no

Calculate yield displacement Determine curvature ductility, yield

and displacement ductility displacement and then displacement
ductility Eq. 3.6

Define equivalent SDOF structure: find equivalent viscous

damping, effective period and design base shear

Is it in-plane bent design?

yes no

Estimate the location of inflection point Estimate soil reaction and determine
and calculate required moment required moment capacty underground
capacity (Fig. 5) at top of column (Fig.5)

Design long. Reinforcement for the highest moment demand.

Design shear reinforcement in columns and cap beam
reinforcement following capacity principles.

Perform verification
End analysis

end

Fig. 13. Flow chart of DDBD of drilled shaft bents.