Ver discusiones, estadísticas y perfiles de autor de esta publicación en: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315535260

la interacción dinámica de la estructura del suelo pilares del

puente soportado en bases bien

Artículo · Junio ​2017

DOI: 10.1016 / j.soildyn.2017.03.005

CITACIONES LEE

0 22

4 autores:

Ronkoyel Tarafdar

Investigador independiente Investigador independiente.

57 PUBLICACIONES 154 CITACIONES 5 PUBLICACIONES 2 CITACIONES

VER EL PERFIL VER EL PERFIL

Ambarish Ghosh Shambhu Dasgupta

Instituto Indio de Ciencias de la Ingeniería y T ... Instituto Indio de Tecnología de Kharagpur

45 PUBLICACIONES 458 CITACIONES 41 PUBLICACIONES 215 CITACIONES

de Calcuta Ver proyecto Indrajit Chowdhury

VER EL PERFIL VER EL PERFIL

Algunos de los autores de esta publicación también están trabajando en estos proyectos relacionados:

Evaluación del desempeño de los materiales del lecho del río Brahmaputra para uso en la construcción de la carretera terraplén,

subrasante y subbase Ver Proyecto

Evaluación de Riesgos sísmicos, Microzonificación y Evaluación de vulnerabilidad, riesgo y Socio impactos económicos para la Ciudad

Todo el contenido de esta página siguiente fue subido por Indrajit Chowdhury 05 de abril de 2017.

El usuario ha solicitado la mejora del archivo descargado. Todas las referencias en el texto subrayada en azul se añaden al documento original y que están vinculados a las publicaciones

en ResearchGate, lo que le permite acceder y leer inmediatamente.

 Dinámica de Suelos e Ingeniería Sísmica 97 (2017) 251-265

listas de contenidos ofrecidos en ScienceDirect

Dinámica de Suelos e Ingeniería Sísmica

revista Página de inicio: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

la interacción dinámica de la estructura del suelo pilares del puente soportado en bases bien

Indrajit Chowdhury un , Ronkoyel Tarafdar segundo , Ambarish Ghosh do , Sambhu P. Dasgupta re , •

un Instituto Indio de Ciencia y Tecnología de Ingeniería, Shibpur, Howrah, India
segundo Miembro del Instituto de Ingenieros Civiles, Reino Unido

do Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Instituto Indio de Ciencia y Tecnología de Ingeniería, Shibpur, Howrah, India
re Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Instituto Indio de Tecnología de Kharagpur, Kharagpur, Bengala Occidental, India

INFORMACIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO ABSTRACTO

palabras clave: Por tanto acero y RCC Puentes pasar ríos o arroyos, práctica común en muchos países es proporcionar pozos concretas de apoyo a las vigas del puente.
Así fundación de análisis Para muchos puentes que son estratégicamente importantes en términos de defensa o el comercio, es esencial que les permita seguir funcionando incluso
modal muelle de puente después de un fuerte terremoto golpea la estructura. El presente estado de la técnica para el diseño de fundación bien todavía se estropea con una serie de
funciones Puzrevsky DSSI
incertidumbres donde un pseudo análisis estático simplista de su respuesta solamente prevalece, aunque es un hecho bien conocido que las cargas de super
estructura, carácter de suelo y su STI ff Ness juega un papel importante en la de fi Ning sus características dinámicas. El presente documento es, pues, un
intento de presentar un modelo de análisis dinámico tratando de satisfacer a un número de tales de fi deficiencias como antes citada y también proporcionan un
modelo práctico (susceptibles de diseñar o FFI aplicación ce) que puede ser utilizado para estimar el muelle, así y la interacción dinámica del suelo

1. Introducción
fundaciones así también llamados cajones a menudo son desplegados para apoyar una serie de
puentes importantes de todo el mundo. Verrazano Narrows, puente de Oakland Francisco-bay San
en EE.UU., Puente Rokko Island en Japón, río Mahanadi y ferrocarril del Kolaghat en la India son
algunos de los puentes que se han construido en las grandes fundaciones así diámetro.
Diseño y construcción de tales bases así y muelles normalmente se llevan a cabo según las
recomendaciones de los códigos de los países respectivos y algunos de los códigos más utilizados
son el IRC 6,45 y 78 [1 - 3] , AASHTO [4] , CALTRANS [5] Y Eurocódigo 8 Parte 2 y 4 [6] . El
procedimiento de diseño adaptado por muchos de estos códigos para análisis sísmico es bastante
simplificada fi ed (aunque la percepción popular es que es conservadora), y pasa por alto una serie
de cuestiones cruciales como:

En todos estos casos la super-estructura o la cubierta superior está soportado sobre muelles 1. Haciendo caso omiso de peso propio de muelle, mientras que el cálculo de su período de tiempo.

masivas, que a su vez se apoyan en cajones de gran diámetro que transfieren la carga al suelo de 2. Haciendo caso omiso de las características de deformación de cizallamiento de la columna de muelle, como en

fundación. muchos casos, especialmente para Florida yovers con altura variable en función de relación de esbeltez del

Debido a la gran diámetro (5 - 12 m) y la profundidad (15 - 30 m o incluso más) de los cajones, que muelle, esto puede así dominar el comportamiento dinámico del muelle.

hace tiempo se supone que las fundaciones así son demasiado masiva e ITS ff ser un ff ected por
cualquier vibración ya sea debido a tra mover FFI c o un terremoto. Así, la mayoría de los códigos de 3. inercial y la interacción cinemática del muelle con el pozo y su suelo circundante.
práctica asume el muelle puente de soporte de la superestructura para ser fi fijos en la parte superior
del pozo.
el presente trabajo se proponen dos modelos matemáticos basados ​en la que muchas de estas
Sin embargo, las observaciones sobre el comportamiento de algunos de los puentes en los últimos limitaciones en términos de análisis terremoto pueden ser superados para llegar a un resultado
terremotos como el de Loma Prieta (EE.UU.) 1989, Kobe (Japón) 1999, Nepal 2015 (en Nepal y la India), realista. El análisis es de carácter analítico y no requiere ningún software de propósito especial para
se encuentra que el supuesto de que el muelle ser utilizado y bien puede llevarse a cabo en el software de utilidad para fines generales como,
fi jado en su base ciertamente no es realista. A pesar de ser enorme, así fundaciones son signi fi cativamenteMATHCAD, MATLAB o incluso una hoja de cálculo, si es necesario.
una ff ejada por las ondas que se propagan durante un terremoto que una ff refleja la respuesta del pilar
de un puente a su vez.

• Autor correspondiente.

Correos electrónicos: ixchowdh@gmail.com (I. Chowdhury), Ronkoyel.Tarafdar@petrofac.com (R. Tarafdar), ambarish@civil.iiests.ac.in (A. Ghosh),
dasgupta@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in (SP Dasgupta).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.03.005
Recibió el 16 de marzo de de 2016; Recibido en forma 17 de enero 2017 revisado; Aceptada 7 de marzo de 2017
0267-7261 / © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. Todos los derechos reservados.
I. Chowdhury et al. Dinámica de Suelos e Ingeniería Sísmica 97 (2017) 251-265

Nomenclatura [PAG] vector de carga; r s

relación de esbeltez; R
UN Área de sección transversal muelle; do x, do θ Radio de giro, factor de reducción de respuesta; S re, S un
Amortiguamiento del suelo en la traducción y balanceo; [DO] amplitud y la aceleración espectral; T
La amortiguación de la matriz; Periodo de tiempo; T mi, T segundo, T s mi ff caz, flexión y cizalladura del período de tiempo del modo
s
do Ti Constante de período de tiempo en modo de cizallamiento; respectiva-
segundo
do Ti Constante de período de tiempo en modo de flexión; re tivamente;

Diámetro de fundación bien, la reacción de carga Dead fro superestructura; re F u si Amplitud de muelle en el modo i; V s
Cizallamiento velocidad de la onda; V si

Profundidad de la fundación así; mi Shear en muelle en el modo i; W re

profundidad de base integrada; mi Cargar desde la cubierta superior;

El módulo de Young; F Y, Y metro expresión general de di ff ecuación diferencial; z

Fuerza horizontal en la punta del muelle; gramo Eje vertical; Z
Aceleración debida a la gravedad; GRAMO factor de zona;

módulo de corte del suelo o de haz; MARIDO α metro Parámetro que varía con número de modo;
Altura del muelle; yo β factor de código;

factor de importancia o el momento de inercia del muelle; II δ de estática Florida exión;

interacción inercial; KI δt δ, δ segundo

, s Delaware Florida reflejo de total de haz, en flexión y modo de cizallamiento
interacción cinemática; J θ respectivamente;

momento de inercia; k φ yo vector Eigen en i º modo;

Sti ff ness; K mi, K segundo, K s STI equivalentes, de flexión y de corte ff ness γs γ, do
Densidad del suelo y el hormigón;

respectivamente; [K] η factor de corrección de cizalla;

Sti ff ness matriz; metro κ yo Modal factor de participación de las masas en i º modo;

masa; λ Una función;

masa modal en i º modo; METRO F μ metro Parámetro que varía con número de modo;
metro yo
ρ do densidad de masa de hormigón;
Masa de la fundación; METRO si
ω Frecuencia natural;
Momento en el muelle en el modo i; [METRO]
ωmiω
, ωsegundo
, s mi ff reflexivo, flexión y modo de cizallamiento frecuencias naturales;
matriz de masa; norte
ζ xζ, Amortiguamiento modal relación en la traducción y balanceo.
Número de golpes en un ensayo SPT; pag x θ

vector de carga modal;

2. La práctica como en la tendencia de la superestructura considerada como una masa concentrada en su cabeza (ver
Figura 1 ). La masa inercial del propio muelle se ignora. Por encima de expresión es similar a lo que
Antes de presentar los modelos matemáticos para el análisis de dicho sistema, la práctica como se ha propuesto en [4,5] que recomienda una expresión
en la tendencia [1 - 3] Y otros códigos utilizados a nivel internacional [4 - 6] son brie Florida y revisado.

recomendaciones presentes en [1 - 3] para el diseño de puentes menores de fuerza sísmica se re F

T = 0,32
basan en un estudio realizado por Murthy y Jain [7] a cerrar la brecha entre [1] y el estado del arte de (2)

la práctica internacional tan frecuente e hizo un signi fi la mejora no puede / modi fi cación a [1] , En
aquí re y F son los mismos que de fi definida en la ecuación. (1) , Excepto que los valores están en unidad de FPS.
comparación con su versión anterior.

La base de estas expresiones es en realidad T = 2 mk π / donde m es

El estudio y posterior recomendación están en línea con procedimiento como amueblado en [4,5]
Lumped la masa estimada en la parte superior del muelle y k la ITS ff ness del muelle en modo
y es casi análoga en la filosofía.
fundamental.
En el presente estudio, a pesar de una serie de recomendaciones se hicieron en di ff Erent
Código japonés JRA Parte V [8] también recomienda una expresión similar en la naturaleza y
aspecto del diseño del puente bajo carga sísmica como la adaptación de di ff factor de reducción de la
está dada por.
respuesta Erent (R) para di ff Erent partes del puente, el desarrollo de las bisagras de plástico, etc.
T = 2.01 δ . aquí δ = de estática Florida reflexión en la punta del muelle debido a lateral
propiedades de amortiguación, dicha relación se encuentran restringidos a la respuesta sísmica de la
carga en metros. Esto bien puede derivarse de la expresión
parte puente muelle y sólo su fundación.
T = 2 mk π / → 2 π δ g /. Asumiendo g = 9,81 m / s 2. Uno puede fácilmente llegar
en la ecuación como se propone en el código japonés.
según [1] , Se calcula el tiempo-período de muelle en modo fundamental
Esto demuestra de nuevo que el modelo idealizado utiliza para calcular período de tiempo en
de la expresión
este caso es también un solo grado agrupado masa invertida tipo péndulo, como se utiliza en [1 - 6] .

DF
T = 2 1000
Figura 1 espectáculos de pilares de puentes típicos desplegados en la práctica para apoyar la superestructura de
(1)
un puente / Florida yover.

En la Ec. (1) , = D reacción carga muerta de la superestructura en kN. F = Para el modelo de masa concentrada como se muestra en Figura 1 , Haciendo caso omiso de la inercia

Fuerza horizontal en kN, que se aplica en el centro de la masa de la superestructura para un mm de
horizontal Florida reflexión del puente a lo largo considerado dirección de la fuerza horizontal.
En este contexto, hay que señalar que el código no ha declarado si usamos un haz de tipo
Euler-Bernoulli o un tipo de viga de Timoshenko para el cálculo de F. La práctica general es utilizar
vigas haciendo caso omiso de la deformación por cizallamiento.
La base de la ecuación. (1) es, obviamente, asumiendo que el pilar de un puente como un elemento
que tiene un solo grado de libertad fi fijos en su base, con la carga
mi ff ect de muelle, se puede argumentar es conservadora, ya que la masa añadida de muelle solamente
pasará a alargar el período de tiempo, que, o bien reducir la aceleración espectral o incluso puede
permanecer invariable, dependiendo de la geometría de muelle y la carga de la superestructura. Sin
embargo, como de Florida reflexión, momento y cortante son proporcionales al cuadrado del periodo de
tiempo será
límite inferior. La masa muelle también se debe incorporar en la expresión período de tiempo para
llegar a un resultado realista.
En un particular, Florida yover, muelles de soporte (que tienen mismo diámetro / anchura) pueden
tener di ff Erent altura. Por lo general son más altos en el centro

252
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

Fig. 1. Typical bridge piers deployed in practice and its analytical model.

del puente, mientras que progresivamente se hace más corta en ambos extremos. Por lo tanto dependiendo
de la altura y el diámetro del muelle, la deformación por cizallamiento puede signi fi cativamente una ff ect la
respuesta dinámica vis a vis momento en amplitud y cizalla. este correo ff ect ha sido completamente ignorado
en las ecuaciones. (1) , (2) y el código japonés.
Para una mejor estabilidad estructural y también de ser estéticamente más agradable, en muchos
países ahusada muros de corte como se muestra en las secciones 2 - 2 ( Figura 1 ) Están siendo cada vez
más utilizado. El cálculo de F para este tipo de muros de corte se convierte en di FFI culto para la
adaptación en las Ecs. ( 1 - 2 ). Por último, teniendo en cuenta el muelle es una estructura de tipo péndulo
invertido, momentos y cizallas en base a modo fundamental no sólo puede ser adecuada, como una
mayor contribución modo puede ser digno de mención computación. Todas las referencias citadas
anteriormente no tienen recomendaciones / directrices sobre la forma de calcular los períodos de mayor
tiempo-, posiblemente dejando a un ordenador para hacer el slogging. En lo que se refiere a la
interacción suelo-estructura dinámica (DSSI), ambos [4] y [5] han hecho ninguna referencia directa a ella,
aunque ambos posiblemente han tratado de considerar la ampli sitio local fi catión mediante la extensión
de la zona de pico de la curva del espectro de respuesta como una función de STI suelo ff Ness. El mismo
principio se ha adaptado en [1]
shall be taken into consideration.
In reference [6] Part 4, vide clause 5.4.2, it has also recommended that pier supported on
caissons (well foundations), appropriate spring sti ff ness and damping to be considered for analysis of
both inertial (II) and kinematical interaction (KI) e ff ect. Sub-Clause 6P of section 5.4.2 has also cited
conditions under which considering KI is mandatory.
However what would be appropriate values of spring and damping, and how to consider the II
and KI e ff ect, code has not given any speci fi c directive.
Thus, [6] though provides a much superior recommendation than
[4] and [5] in terms of DSSI e ff ect, the issue yet remains somewhat open. When possibly a more
speci fi c and explicit guideline of how to consider the e ff ect of II and KI, what should be the appropriate
spring and damping sti ff ness to be considered for a caisson foundation like one cited in [20] and [23] would
certainly improve upon the procedure suggested.

3. Proposed method

además.
Before getting into DSSI aspect of the problem, fi xed base dynamic response of the pier is
La curva de espectro de respuesta siguió en [1] es como se muestra en Figura 2
evaluated fi rst, and in the process it is examined if it is possible to improve upon the expression as
para tres tipo de suelo. Las curvas se trazan para amortiguamiento estructural 5%.
cited in Eqs. (1) and
Como se ve en la curva de un pilar de un puente soportado en bases de descanso en terreno
(2) .
blando ( norte ≤10) dónde N = número de cantidad de golpes en un ensayo SPT, se espera que tenga
For a bridge pier like as shown in Fig. 1 , considering the pier fi xed at base (i.e. at the top of
una aceleración espectral 50% más que una misma base que descansa sobre roca ( norte ≥30). el ampli fi Se
foundation), it may be assumed to behave as a cantilever beam whose equation of free vibration
espera catiónico para ser 20% más cuando la base está descansando en el suelo medio ( norte ≥15).
under fl exure can be expressed as

Sin embargo, hay ambigüedades en este enfoque. Se observa a partir Figura 2 que hasta T = 0,7
44 22
s, estructuras descansando sobre la roca, el suelo intermedio o blando (no licuado fi capaz), todos están ∂∂=∂∂
EI u ρA u
sujetos a misma aceleración. Un número de estudios llevados a cabo anteriormente en DSSI han z t (3)
demostrado que la ITS ff
here ρ= mass density of beam material, A= cross sectional area E=
estructuras que descansan sobre terreno blando muestra signi fi ampli no puede fi catiónico (Dowrick
Young's modulus of beam, I = Moment of inertia of the beam, u=
[9] ).
displacement in lateral direction. Let u z t ( , ) = ( ) ( ),Ythen
z q tbased on
Del mismo modo para una fi estructura basada fijo que tiene período de tiempo fundamental T = 0,8 s
separation of variable technique, Eq. (3) can be separated into two linear di ff erential equation and one
dicen que se espera que experimente una aceleración espectral de
of which is
1.5 gramo with 5% damping on rock. However, if placed on softer soil considering soil structure
interaction will show an elongation in time period (depending on the soil sti ff ness) and the spectral
value could well reduce, depending on the time period and level of damping imposed by the soil.

Other than this, no provision has been kept for DSSI in [1,4] and
[5] , where code has recommended special investigation for near fi eld sites (mentioning the e ff ect of
DSSI herein), but what and how to carry out this investigation, code has remained tactically reticent.

Reference [6] on the contrary has dealt the issue more realistically, where time and again in di ff erent
place they have stressed the importance of DSSI. In Clause 4.1.4 of [6] the code has speci fi cally
recommended that - under action of a unit load, when the soil fl exibility contributes to more than 20%
de fl ection of the pier tip, DSSI e ff ect

Fig. 2. Response spectrum curve as per IRC 206 (2010) for di ff erent soil.

253
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

••• 44 ••• Table 1

4
EI d Y − λY =0 Value of factor C Tb for fi rst three modes**.
dz

Mode Ω= 1 Ω= 2 Ω= 4 Ω= 6 Ω= 8 Ω= 10
where

2 1 4.033 5.422 7.461 9.053 10.403 11.598

4 ρAω
λ = 2 0.384 0.394 0.399 0.401 0.402 0.402
EI (4)
3 0.121 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122

Generic solution to this equation is given by

* * Intermediate values can be linearly interpolated without any significant errors
Y C= sin 1+ cos +λz C 2
λz C 3
sinh + λz C
cosh 4
λz (5)
b for di ff erent values of Ω are furnished in Table 1 for
Values of C Ti
Imposing the appropriate boundary conditions for a cantilever beam ( Fig. 1 ):
fi rst three modes.
Eq. (15) will give an accurate value of time period of the bridge pier which is tall and slender,
We have the shape function as
when fl exural deformation predominate, but would underestimate the response, when pier height is
μz μz ••• μz μz •••
short and rigid where shear deformation would predominate or for intermediate height when both fl exure
m m m m
Ym = sin − sinh − m
cos − cosh
H Hα H H (6) and shear deformation plays almost an equal role in its dynamic behavior.

here m= number of modes 1,2,3, ………. ∞

2m
−1
μm=1.875, 4.694, 7.855, π for m ≥4 and
2

μ μ
α = sin + sinh
m m 3.1. Shear deformation behavior of the pier
m
cos +μcosh
m
μm (7)
For a cantilever shear beam (which is usually short and wide) fi xed at base of uniform area A,
Eq. (6) is actually the eigenvectors of the beam and is expressed as
equation of free vibration is expressed as
μz μz ••• μz μ z •••
i i i i
f ( z) = sin − sinh − cosi − cosh ∂∂=∂∂
22 22
ib
H Hα H H (8) Gu ρu
c
z t (16)
Here superscript ‘ b ′ stands for bending and subscripts i stands for mode numbers 1,2,3 ….
22 22
∂ ∂u= 1 ∂ ∂ u
→
2
Based on Rayleigh's technique as per Hurty and Rubenstein [10] , it z Vs t (17)
can be shown that sti ff ness matrix of the pier can be expressed as
here
H
G = Dynamic shear modulus of the bridge pier material, ρ c= Mass density of bridge pier material, V
∫
″ ″
[K
] =EI f ( z) f ( z) dz
ib jb
0 (9) s= Shear wave velocity of the bridge pier material, G = ρ c. V s 2.

Considering the fl anged pier cap plus dead and live load from top deck acts as a mass (W d/ g),
Solving Eq. (17) , it can be shown (Chowdhury and Dasgupta [13] )
lumped at the tip of pier, the mass matrix can be expressed as (Meirovitch [11] )
that Eigen vector of the problem can be expressed as

H
i πz
γA f = cos (2 − 1)
∫
c d ib
[M
]= f ( z) f( ) + z dz W g f H f H ( ) ( ) is
2H (18)
ib jb jb
g 0 (10)
here superscript s stands for the term shear and subscript i stands for mode 1,2,3 ….
here
E = Young's modulus of bridge pier material, A = Area of cross section of pier, I= Moment of inertia
Based on Rayleigh's technique it has been shown [13] that sti ff ness matrix of the system for
of pier cross section, γ c = Weight density of pier material, H = Height of pier, W d= Load coming from the
such shear beams can be expressed as
top deck on the pier, g = Acceleration due to gravity, i= Mode number
H
[K
]= ηGA ∫ f
is
′ ( )z f
js
′ ( )z dz
(19)
1,2,3 …. 0

Considering ξ= z/H, we convert Eqs. (9) and (10) from global to natural co-ordinate when we
Eq. (19) in natural co-ordinate ξ= z/H can be expressed as
have
ηGA
EI 1
[K
]= ∫ f ′ ( )ξ f ′ ( )ξ dξ
∫
″ ″
[K
]= f ( ξ) f ( ξ) dξ H 01
is js
(20)
30 ib jb
H (11)
Mass matrix in natural co-ordinate can be expressed as
γ AH
∫
c d ib
[M
]= f ibξ f( ξ) dξ
()W + gf
jb
f
(1) (1)
jb γ AH ••• •••
g (12)
∫
c
01
[M
]= f ( ξ) f ( ξ) dξ + Ωf (0) f (0)
is js is js
g 01 (21)
γ AH ••• •••
∫
c
→ [M
]= f ibξ f( ξ) dξ
( ) Ωf
+
jb ib
f
(1) (1)
jb In Eq. (20) , η is the shear correction factor for the pier cross section and is dependent on shape
g 01 (13)
of the pier cross section. Values of η, for di ff erent type of pier cross sections can be obtained from
Here Ω is ratio of the mass lumped at its tip ( W d/ g) to that of mass of pier itself. various standard references for e.g. Shames and Dym [14] . Considering the general Eigen value
problem φ
Considering the general Eigen value problem φ [K
]{ } = [ ]{ } andλ M φ [K
]{ } = [ ]{ } andλ M φ
solving the same by Jacobi's method (Bathe [12] ), one can obtain [ λ], solving the same by Jacobi's method, one can obtain [ λ], and knowing
and knowing ω = λ and T = 2 /π ω
, when we fi nally have ω = λ and T = 2 /π ω fi nally have
, we

π λ H 2γ A c γH
T ib =2 π c2
EIg T is =2
ib (14) λ is ηGg (22)

2 c
→ T ibC H
= γ ATi b → =T isC H Ti s
EIg (15) V sη (23)

254
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

Table 2 solution for time periods for the fi xed based bridge pier and is more accurate then the formulation
Value of factor C Ts for fi rst three modes**. furnished in code which also restricts itself to fundamental mode only.

Mode Ω= 1 Ω= 2 Ω= 4 Ω= 6 Ω= 8 Ω= 10
As per modal response analysis
1 7.171 9.383 12.712 15.337 17.574 19.558
Sa 2
2 1.731 1.789 1.823 1.836 1.842 1.846 Sd =
3 0.909 0.916 0.92 0.922 0.922 0.923 ω (30)

here S d = modal amplitude, S a= spectral acceleration corresponding to time period T, and ω= natural
* * Intermediate values can be linearly interpolated without any significant errors.
frequency of the system when ω= 2 π/ T.

s for di ff erent Thus as per norms as prescribed in IS 1893 [18] amplitude of vibration is expressed as
here V s= Shear wave velocity of concrete and values of C Ti
values of Ω are as furnished in Table 2 . Time-period of fl exure and shear deformation can now be
combined as explained hereafter. Sai 2
S di =4 ei
πT
2
(31)
If a load vector P is applied on a body, displacement of the body due to bending as well as shear
ai 2
deformation [14] can be expressed as, u si = 4κ iβ S [ fξ
] { ( )}
ei ib T ib
πTφ
2
(32)
δt = +δ b δs (24)
••• 2 •••
••••
SaiTei
2 •••• •• d f ξibdξ( ) ••

where, δ t = total displacement of the system; δ b = displacement due to bending; and δ s = displacement M =− κ iβ EI [φ ]
zi 2 2 ib T 2
H 4π
(33)
due to shear.
Eq. (24) can be expressed as
••• 3 •••
••••
SaiTei
2 •••• •• d f ξibdξ( ) ••

P P P V zi = − κ iβ EI [φ ]
3 ib T
=+ H 4π
2 3

Ke K Ks (34)
b (25)

where •••
here, P= m u × ̈ where u ̈ = acceleration induced on the lumped mass m;
K b and K s are sti ff ness due to bending and shear deformation, respectively and K e is the e ff ective sti ff ness •••
∫ { }φ{ ( )} + f{ ξ} {dξ(1)}
Ωφ f ib
combining the shear and 01 ib T ib ib T

κi =
fl exural deformation. ••• 2 2 •••

Taking out the common factor u ̈ , Eq. (25) can be expressed as ∫ [{ }φ{ ( )}]
ib T
f ibξ dξ Ω+φ[{ } ib T ib
f (1)]
01
(35)
mK
/ =me/ +
K /m K b s (26)
here κ i for fi rst three modes for di ff erent values of Ω are shown in

2 2 2 Table 3 .
→ 1/ ω e = 1/ ω b
+ 1/ ω s (27)
κ i is the modal mass participation factor, and β= ZI/ 2 where Z =
where ω e= combined frequency of the system due to bending and shear; ω b= frequency due to bending Zone factor I = Importance factor. Thus for di ff erent mode, amplitude, shear and moment over height
only; ω s= frequency due to shear only. of the pier can be obtained from Eqs.
(31) to (33) and SRSS values for n number of modes can be obtained from the equation
Eq. (27) is actually the classical Dunkerley's equation [15] by which combined frequency of
multi-body systems can be derived by treating each system in isolation and is often used in Dynamic

∑
2
soil structure interaction (DSSI) problems (Chowdhury and Singh [16] ). Eq. (27) fi nally yields ℵ( )t = ℵ i( ) t
i n=1 (36)

here ℵ( )t = ( ), u st V t M tb ( )or b
( ) as the case may be, are the SRSS values of

T ei
2
= +T bi
2
T si
2
(28) amplitude shear or moment respectively.

Substituting Eqs. (15) and (23) in Eq. (28) , one can have the
4. Dynamic soil structure interaction of pier with well foundation
combined e ff ective time period T ei as

3 • 2 •
•••• s ••••
p C Ti 2(1 + ) ν Investigation on soil-structure interaction e ff ect between well and pier has not drawn much
TeiC =W H Ti b
1+
EIg ••• 2 •••
C Ti b
ηr s attention, though considerable research has been carried out on behavior of rigid caissons/cylindrical
(29)
foundation embedded in soil under earthquake force.
here
W p = weight of the pier, γ c. A.H, r s = slenderness ratio of pier (H/R), Thakkar et al. [19] studied the inertial e ff ect of well on overall response of the pier-well system.
R = radius of gyration of pier cross section ( I =AR 2), ν= Poisson's ratio and η= shear correction factor. They used a lumped mass stick model for this study considering both the pier and the foundation.

Validity of coupling of the type as shown in Eqs. (24) to (29) has already been tested against
detailed two and three-dimensional fi nite element analysis (Chowdhury et al. [17,40] ) and has been
found to be in excellent agreement.
Eq. (29) which is the general equation of time-period considering combined e ff ect of fl exure and
shear is of particular interest, as it explains the e ff ect of shear deformation that goes on to elongate
the time period of the pier. It is observed from Eq. (29) that it is strongly dependent on slenderness
Gerloymos and Gazetas [20] used a Winkler type model for dynamic soil structure interaction of
rigid caisson foundation under seismic loading for linear analysis. In this work the focus was more on
estimating a realistic value of the soil springs that can be used to estimate the foundation's dynamic
response. The validation of soil springs were carried out by comparing the results against three
dimensional fi nite element analyses. Mandal and Jain [21] made a study on pier and well interaction
in non-linear domain to assess the load capacity of pier. Chowdhury et al. [22] used a fi nite beam on
elastic foundation without considering the shear deformation e ff ect to determine the e ff ect of well and

ratio r s. As R reduces, the component r s soil on overall dynamic response of the pier. The results showed that considering pier well and soil
interaction there was an ampli fi cation in moment and shear values in pier cross
increase rapidly (in terms of its square), and for large values of r s
makes the second term within the parenthesis insigni fi cant when
fl exural mode dominates the response.
One can also say with certainty that Eq. (29) is a more general

255
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

Table 3
Value of factor κ i for fi rst three modes**.

Mode Ω= 1 Ω= 2 Ω= 4 Ω= 6 Ω= 8 Ω= 10

1 0.409 0.309 0.379 0.375 0.373 0.372

2 − 0.319 − 0.404 − 0.453 − 0.471 − 0.48 − 0.486
3 0.45 0.472 0.485 0.49 0.492 0.494

* * Intermediate values can be linearly interpolated without any significant errors

sections. It demonstrated that the fi xed based assumption of the pier as recommended in codes is
certainly not realistic.
Varun et al. [23] also developed a simpli fi ed model for lateral response of large diameter caisson
foundation. Using a macroscopic model of the well foundation, they developed spring sti ff ness for
both rigid and semi-rigid foundation validating the same against detailed Fig. 4. Mathematical model adapted for simpli fi ed model.

fi nite element analysis. in ground. Under what condition does a well foundation behaves as a rigid block or otherwise, there
Other than this, sti ff ness and damping for shallow embedded cylindrical foundations has also are no guidelines in [1] – [ 6] , though in practice in most cases spring sti ff ness are derived based on
been developed by Novak and Beredugo [24] , Kausel and Roesset [25] , Wolf [26] , Dominguez [27] , foundation to be in fi nitely sti ff.
Gazetas [28] , Gazetas and Dobry [29] , Mita and Luco [30] and others that has extensive application in
industry. However, most of these researches are focused on developing e ff ective spring and damping In [20] it has been pointed out that for caissons when D D / ≤ 4.0
f
sti ff ness of the embedded footing and the response is sought for an external dynamic load which is the foundation behaves as rigid foundation, for D D f
/ = 3.0 − 8.0 the
harmonic in nature like that in a machine foundation. well foundation behavior is semi rigid while for D D f
/ > 8.0 the
foundation is fl exible and behaves mostly like long pile. Here D f=
Depth of foundation (refer Fig. 4 ) and D= Diameter of the well foundation. Most of the well foundations
constructed around the world, the aspect ratio D D
Tsigginios et al. [31] were possibly the fi rst to do a systematic DSSI analysis for a pier well ( f
/) is somewhere between 2 and 8.
foundation system under seismic load based on numerical analysis, though the problem was fi rst Let M bi and V bi be the base shear and moment on top of the foundation in i th mode from the
attempted long back analytically by Tajimi [32] in Japan. super structure pier considering its base is fi xed.

As shown in Fig. 3 is a typical bridge pier supported on well foundation. Two mathematical Equation of equilibrium along with well foundation can then be expressed as
models are presented herein.

• A simpli fi ed model
•
Mm
f
+ i
( MZ
f b m h+ ii ) • •••••• •••
uθxi i

• A generalized solution •••

( MZ
f b m h+ J M iZi ) θ
+ fb
2
+ m ihi
2

•••C ••••••uθxi•••i ••• ••••••uθxi•••i ••• •••

xC K xK 0 V bi
+00 + =
4.1. Simpli fi ed model 0 M bi
θ θ (37)

In this case mathematical model perceived is as shown in Fig. 4 . In Eq. (37) M f= Mass of foundation, J θ= Mass moment of inertia of the foundation, Z b is c.g. height
The well foundation is assumed as a rigid cylinder partially embedded of foundation only from center of

Fig. 3. Bridge pier supported on well foundation.

256
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

sti ff ness, h i= c.g. height of e ff ective mass and can be expressed as px t(k) ( )• 1 + •••••••••
− ζ xωxt
•• 1−1 ζζx 2
M biV /D bi + qxt( ) = e sin ω x 1− ζ xt
and m i is modal mass contribution from pier plus
f. •••
+
ωx i x
superstructure in i th mode and is expressed as

2
Vbi − cos ωx 1 − ∼ ζ xt
m i
= (49)
•••ZI•••
× Sai
2R
(38) Proceeding in identical fashion, one can derive

here Z, R and I are code factors and S ai is spectral acceleration of the pθt (k) ( )• 1 + − ζ θωθt
•••••••••
•• 1−1 ζζθ 2
q θt ( ) = e sin ω 1− ζ θt
fi xed based pier in i th mode. •••
+
θ
ωθ i θ
Eq. (37) can be expressed in compact matrix notation as
2
− cos ω 1 − ∼ ζ θt
[M
]{ ̈ U
} +C[ U
]{ K
̇}+
U [ ]{ } = { } P (39) θ

(50)

For un-damped free vibration considering the right hand side as zero we have
Now, let eigen vector ϕ [ ] for the translation and rocking mode be
expressed as

([ ]K−M[ ] ω iϕ2 ) [ ] = 0 (40) •••φ φ φ φθx •••

[ ϕ] = xx
xθ θθ (51)
Here i= 1,2. ω i are natural frequencies of the system while ϕ [ ] is a 2 × 2
matrix representing the eigen vectors of the system. Then for translation and rocking mode the foundation amplitude is expressed as
Now considering U { } =i { } ( ) φ qi ti . Where q i( t) is time dependent
amplitude in generalized co-ordinate in i th mode.
••• φxxq xt φ( )q(•••) and [ ••• q θt φ( q) (•
φ θx
Eq. (39) can thus be expressed as i i
[ U x]= Uθ]=
•
t • •
t ) •

••
xθ x θθ θ (52)
]{ } ̈ ( )φ+q[ t]{ } ̇ ( ) + [ ]{
[M C } ( )φ=q{ t} K φi q t i P (41)
i i i i

As per theory as proposed by Veletsos and Meek [33] it has been shown by Chowdhury et al. [34]
Pre multiplying Eq. (41) by φ {}
i T we have that dynamic ampli fi cation due to DSSI can be fi nally expressed as

{ }φ[ ]{ } (M) + { }φ[ q]{t} ( ) φ C φ q ti

iT i i iT
u xu
+ { }φ[ ]{ } (K) = { φ} {q}t φi T P (42) AF =1++ hθ
iT i i

s
us (53)

Based on theory of vibration Eq. (42) can be expressed as

In Eq. (53) u s= Fixed based amplitude of the pier at its c.g. height

q i ̈t( ) + 2 ζωq
2 h i, u x is the translational displacement of the foundation and θ=
i i ti ̇ ( ) + ω i q t i ( ) = ( ) pi t (43)
Rotational amplitude of the foundation.
Eq. (43) gives two uncoupled equations Thus for the present problem

2 φxxq xt ( ) + ()
qẍt( ) + 2 ζ xωx xq t ̇ ( ) + ω xqx t ( ) = ( ) pxt (44) AF =1+ h iφxθqx t
xi
u si u si (54)
And
Eq. (54) can be expressed in an expanded format as
2
q θ̈t( ) + 2 ζ θωθ qθ t ̇ ( ) + ω θqθt ( ) = ( ) pθt (45) •
φxx px t(k) ( )• 1 + − ζ xωxt
•••
•• 1−1 ζζx
AF xi
=1+ ∼ •••
e
Solution of Eq. (44) will give u si •••
ωx +
i x

••• ••• •••••••••

− ζ xωxt 2 2 2 2
qxt( ) = e A ωcos x
1 − + sin
ζx Bω x
1− ζ xt ×sin ωx 1− ζ xt − cos ωx 1− ζ xt

2
+ (p)/t ω (46)
• •
φxθ
•
px t(k) ( )• 1 + •••
x x M biV − ζ xωxt
•• 1−1 ζζx
+ ∼ •••
e
••• •••
bi
u si •••
ωx +
Imposing the boundary conditions (i) at t= 0, q x ( t)= 0 and (ii) at t= 0 i x

dq xt (dt)/ = Sdωx fi nally gives •••••••

2 2
×sin ωx 1− ζ xt − cos ωx 1− ζ xt
• ••• •••••• ••• (55)
px tx(ω) 1 + − ζ xωxt
•• 1−1 ζζx 2
qxt( ) = •••
e sin ω x 1− ζ xt
2
+ x In Eq. (55) the subscript x to the term AF depicts translational mode of the foundation while
superscript i depicts i th mode of the superstructure.
2
− cos ωx 1− ζ xt
(47)
For rocking mode proceeding in identical fashion we derive

Now imposing the frequency dependency soil springs on the dominant modal frequency of the •
φ θx pθt (k) ( )• 1 + − ζ θωθt
•••
•• 1−1 ζζθ
super-structure we have AF =1+ ∼ e
θi •••
u si •••
ωθ + θ
i
• •••
pxt(ω) (1 − ) + − ζ xωxt
•• 1−1 ζζx
•••••••
qxt( ) = e 2 2
2 22 2
•••
+ ×sin ω θ
1− ζ θt − cos ω θ
1− ζ θt
x
(2 rx ζ xr x ) 1 + x
•••

•••••• • • •
2 2 M biV φ θθ pθt (k) ( )• 1 + •••
1−1 ζζθ
× sin ωx 1− ζ xt − cos ωx 1− ζ xt − ζ θωθt
••

+ ∼ •••
e
••• •••
(48) bi
u si •••
ωθ + θ
i

Now considering the denominator outside the bracket as k ω ( ) ∼i - xthe 2 2

•••••••
×sin ω 1− ζ θt − cos ω 1− ζ θt
frequency dependent sti ff ness of the system in uncoupled mode Eq. θ θ
••• (56)
(47) can be expressed in a more condensed form as

257
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

The resultant ampli fi cation factor can thus be expressed as expressed as

2
AF r = 1 + ( AF xi
− 1) + ( AF θi
− 1) (57) πz
u n
= κ nβanSnT cos(2 −n 1) 2
Hs
2
4π (60)
The logic behind Eq. (57) is that say if the foundation is completely
fi xed (i.e. resting on rock) then both AF x and AF θ will have value 1.0. But SRSSR value would be here u n= amplitude in n th mode. S an= spectral acceleration for the free
1.732 which is not logical as it should remain 1.0 in this case (i.e. no ampli fi cation). Thus for any value fi eld time period T n in n th mode

of AF x β= Code factor ZI/ 2 and κ = n modal mass participation factor and can
and AF θ > 1.0 we deduct 1.0 and then do ABSSUM to arrive at a realistic result. Direct SRSS will be expressed as 8/( π+ 2), − 8(3 π − 2) and 8/(5 π+ 2) for fi rst three modes of vibration for G constant with
overestimate the response. depth.
It is observed in this case that the ampli fi cation factor due to DSSI is a ff ected by the scaling Based on de fi nition of modal analysis acceleration generated within the ground varying with
vectors that give a coupled response. depth can thus be expressed as
Eq. (32) – ( 34) multiplied by this ampli fi cation factor will give the augmented value of amplitude πz
u ̈= κ nβS cos(2 −n 1) 2
moment and shear due to soil structure interaction. n an
Hs (61)

In the proposed procedure considering basic concept of modal analysis is adapted, it is apparent Thus at z= 0, u ̈=
n
κ nβS
an and at a depth e below scour level as shown

that the analysis is linear when we assume perfect bondage between the soil and the well where no in Fig. 4

slippage occurs and the strain is deemed low. For major earthquakes, the strain can be large πe
u ̈=
ne
κ nβS
an cos(2 −n 1) 2
(especially near the surface) and would result in sti ff ness degradation and augmentation of damping Hs (62)
of soil. It is possible to fi t this phenomenon within the above frame work by a special free fi eld
Thus acceleration over the embedded depth e can be averaged out as
analysis, when the reduced G value and the enhanced damping ratio can be derived and considered
to compute K x, K θ, C x, C θ
•••
n πe •••
̈=
u nd 12 κ nβS
an 1 + cos (2 − 1)
2H s (63)
and use them in Eq. (37) .
One may refer to Chowdhury et al. [35] for more details on the procedure of determining the Thus under free fi eld motion the waves generated within the soil would try to move the
reduced G and augmented damping ratio catering to this behavior of soil. foundation and superstructure with an acceleration u ̈

nd as shown in Fig. 4 inducing a lateral force

In the present paper spring and damping values as suggested in
Vi M=u× ̈ T nd (64)
[26] has been used in the analysis.
and a moment about center of sti ff ness as

4.2. E ff ect of kinematical interaction M iM=u× ̈ T nd

× Zc (65)

here Z c= Distance of the common center of gravity of the foundation and superstructure measured
When earthquake waves propagate through soil, the soil starts vibrating in di ff erent modes φ φ
from the center of sti ff ness and M T=
, ......... . φ as shown in Fig. 4 . This is
n
1 2
Total mass from super structure and the foundation.
termed free fi eld vibration of soil and is how the soil is expected to vibrate in absence of any structure
Equation of equilibrium with respect to Fig. 4 can now be expressed as
supported on it. However, when a structure is supported on a foundation especially an embedded
foundation like a pile group or a caisson, due to presence of foundation wave patterns are altered,
thus modifying the soil deformation and inducing additional strain in soil. This results in scattering of • M M+ MZ •
f f b M h+ D
(+) f M
seismic waves and seismic response to which the foundation is subjected to di ff er from that of the free 2 2
MZ
f b M h+ D
( +J )M Z M h Df M h D M
+ fb +(+) (+) f
fi eld motion. θ f

••••
• M h( +
D) f M ••••
•

• •C
xC C
••• uθx ••• • • •••uθ •••
••• x
For a long fl exible foundation like a pile, the pile follow the deformation characteristics of the ••
× + 0•••
00 θ 0
ground, but when the foundation is rigid/semi rigid like that of caisson as in present case, the free fi eld ••
us
••
us
••
00 s
motion and the foundation displacement can di ff er signi fi cantly.
• •K
xK K • • ••• ••• VM •••
uθx ••• ii
•••• • ••

The analysis is done in two steps here. As a fi rst step the free fi eld response of the site is + 0•••0 0 θ 0 =0
us •• ••
computed without the caisson present. This free fi eld response generates Shear and moment on the 00 s (66)
well foundation, is then imposed on the caisson spring and dampers to fi nally compute the response
In Eq. (66) only fi rst mode of the super-structure is considered as it has been shown ( [22], [33]
of the pier.
and [34] ), that it is the fundamental mode that has major contribution. The structural sti ff ness K s can
be considered simply as 3 EI/H 3 and M is the mass from top deck plus e ff ective self-weight of pier.
For vertically propagating shear waves equation of equilibrium for the site as shown in Fig. 4 can
be expressed as

2 2 2
∂ ( u, ,x)z t ∂ ( u, ,x)z t uxzt Solving Eq. (66) one can determine u s the structural deformation due to kinematical interaction
+ =1∂(,,)
2 2 2 2
∂x ∂z Vs ∂t (58) thus additional force the pier experience is

For the soil mass having depth H s over bedrock and extending to in fi nity in horizontal direction it
V KI = . K su (67)
can be shown that the free fi eld time period of the medium can be expressed as s

Moment due to kinematical interaction at any depth z along pier height is expressed as

4 H(2ns −
Tn =
1) Vs (59) M KI
V =× KI
z (68)

In Eqs. (58) and (59) , V s is the shear wave velocity of the soil medium. These forces now are to be added to inertial interaction forces to determine the total force.

It has been shown [35] that amplitude of vibration of the site can be One may note that kinematical interaction e ff ect was fundamentally

258
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

Table 4
Values of coefficient C T for various soil pro fi les. 5. For G=G 0( 1+ z/H) 2

Mode → 1 2 3 ••• πz πz πz •••

u ̈=
1
κ nβS
a 1
1.0 cos 2 + 0.109 cos 3 2 + 0.00955 cos 5 2
H H H (73)
G=G 0( z/H) 5.19 2.133 1.228
G=G 0( z/H) 0.5 4.486 1.668 1.005
The modal mass participation factor κ n for fi rst three modes are as furnished in Table 5 .
G=G 0( z/H) 2 7.826 3.301 1.66
G=G 0( 1+z/H) 3.094 1.095 0.66
G=G 0( 1+z/H) 2 2.421 0.906 0.545

4.3. Generalized model for pier and well foundation

developed, while estimating the dynamic response of piles (Waas and Haartman [36] , Wolf and Von
Primary assumption made in the previous model was that the well foundation is in fi nitely rigid.
Arx [37] , Novak [38] ).
For a solid concrete block, this would certainly be true. In reality, the well is actually a hollow shell,
However, in all these cases the mass of pile is ignored. Thus in such case the load vector is
whose weight is increased by fi lling it up with available river sand. Thus depending on its geometry
computed by approaching the problem considering the foundation sti ff ness and multiplying the same
and shell thickness it may behave as a rigid,
by the free
fi eld displacement of the site [20] . For a well foundation the mass is signi fi cant and cannot be
fl exible or even a semi rigid foundation i.e. as explained in Section 4.1 , the semi-rigid model is valid
neglected, and it becomes computationally much simpler to derive the load vectors from the basic
when 3 ≤ / ≤D8fD .
expression:
Considering there are no guidelines in existing codes to assess the rigidity of the well foundation,
Force ( P) = m × a and moment ( M) = P × z. It can be proved that the load vector approached
a generalized formulation is certainly necessary that can take care of this issue automatically during
from sti ff ness or from inertia gives same result as at any point of time for a dynamic analysis P • K × δ= m
computation. The endeavor in this section is to provide such a formulation.
× a.
The derivation of free fi eld response was shown for G constant with depth. But in most cases G is
found to vary with depth when considering the characteristics of the di ff erential equation changes, it a ff
A generalized model for the pier and semi rigid well foundation is shown in Fig. 5 .
ects the time period as well as the acceleration.

In this case the well is considered as a deformable body, with two base springs representing
These values have been computed earlier [34] , and are tabulated
translation ( K x) and rotation K ( θ )of soil
below for ready reference.
below well plug, that are attached to the base.
Considering T=C T.( H s/ V s) value of C T for di ff erent type soil are furnished in Table 4 . The
To start with, the well is considered as a fi nite beam on elastic foundation that also has
acceleration for di ff erent types of soil is as expressed below
considerable shear rigidity.
The general solution for such rigid beams on elastic foundation can be represented by
Karnovsky and Lebed [39]
1. For G= G 0( z/H)
u (z ) = C 0V0pz( ) + C 1V1 pz
()+ C 2V2pz( ) + C 3V3pz( ) (74)
••• πz πz
u ̈=
1
κ nβS
a 1
−0.971. cos 2 − 0.217. cos 3 2 − 0.086. cos 5 2
H H here
u(z)= displacement of body in horizontal direction and varies with depth z;.
πz •••

H (69)
C 0, C 1, C 2, C 3= integration constants;.
s eff
p = k D4 an interaction parameter, and is function of relative
4 EI
2. For G= G 0 z H /
sti ff ness of the well and surrounding soil.
••• πz πz πz ••• k s= dynamic sub-grade modulus of soil;.
u ̈= κ nβS
a 1
−1.0 cos 2 − 0.079 cos 3 2 − 0.013 cos 5 2
1
H H H E= Young's modulus of well material;.
I= moment of inertia of well cross section;.
(70)

3. For G=G 0( z/H) 2

••• πz πz πz •••
u ̈=
1
κ nβS
a 1
1.0 cos 2 + 0.427 cos 3 2 + 0.177 cos 5 2
H H H

(71)

4. For G=G 0( 1+ z/H)

••• πz πz πz •••
u ̈=
1
κ nβS
a 1
1.0 cos 2 + 0.051 cos 3 2 + 0.00161 cos 5 2
H H H

(72)

Table 5
Values of κ n for fi rst three modes.

Mode → κ1 κ2 κ3

G=G 0( z/H) − 1.534 1.27 0.529

G=G 0( z/H) 0.5 − 1.586 − 1.159 0.531
G=G 0( z/H) 2 1.480 0.864 0.465
G=G 0( 1+ z/H) 1.571 1.126 0.513
G=G 0( 1+ z/H) 2 1.581 1.143 0.536
Fig. 5. A generalized model for the pier and semirigid well foundation.

259
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

D e ff= e ff ective width of well expressed as πD

0.5 w;. ••••
α V α2 V
( )2α−α( ) 2 ( •••• ••• •••
3
φ z( ) =
D w= diameter of well;. 2
V22α (V) α− V( )α(V))1αz 3
H
V 0( pz), V 1( pz), V 2( pz), V 3( pz)= Puzrevsky functions and are expressed as
•••• •••• ••• •••
V2α( ) − 2 ( )α2V( α 1
+ 3
α V22α (V) α− V( )α(V))1αz 3
H (87)
V0pz
( ) = cosh( )cos( );pz pz (75)

Considering ξ = / z H , Eq. (87) can be expressed in natural co-

V1 pz
( ) = 1 2 [cosh( )sin( ) + pz
sinh( )cos(
pz )]; pz pz ordinate as
(76)
•••• ••••
α V α2 V
( )2α−α( ) 2 ( 3
V2pz
( ) = sinh( )sin( ); pz pz φ (ξ ) = ( )
(77) 2
V22α (V) α− V( )α(V))1αξ V α3

•••• ••••
2
( ) − 2 ( )α2V( α 1
V3pz
( ) = 1 2 [cosh( )sin( ) − pz
sinh( )cos(
pz )]. pz pz + 3
( )
(78) α V22α (V) α− V( )α(V))1αξ 3

→ (φ) =
ξ AV 2αξ
( ) + ( BV 3αξ ) (88)
when the pier induces dynamic moment due to earthquake the well will deform as semi rigid
cantilever beam when the boundary conditions are. Eq. (88) is the shape function when the well is fully embedded, however due to scour as it is
embedded up-to a depth H e we have
k sDeff
He44

• At z= 0, u(z)= 0 and u ′( z)= 0

α e=
4 EI
when

• At z=H, u(z)=u H and u ′( z)= u H/ H for very small rotations ••••

α eV α2 ( )2 − ( e) 2 ( V3α e
••••
φe ξ( ) = 2
( e
)
αe V22α ( ) e− ( ) ( ))
V1 α Ve α V3 α ξe V α
For u= 0 at z= 0 we have C 0= 0 and for u ′= 0 at z= 0 we have C 1= 0. Now considering α pH
= we have •••• ••••
2
( ) e− α eV α2 ( )1 e
+ 3
( e
)
αe 2( V22α ( ) e− ( ) ( ))
V1 α Ve α V3 α ξe
u (z ) = C 2V2α (z ) + 33
( )
HCVαz H (79) → (φ) =
ξ A eV α2 (ξ ) + BV α (ξ )
e e e 3 e (89)

s eff 4 4
where α = k D H a dimensionless number. The sti ff ness of well in fundamental mode can thus be expressed as
4 EI
Now considering at z=H u =u H and u ′= u H/ H we have two equations H He

∫
2 2
K EI
w = ∫ φ ″z e(dz
) + k sDeff φez (dz
)
C 2V2α (C) V
+α ()=H u 0 0 (90)
33 (80)

Eq. (91) in natural co-ordinate can be expressed as

and
4

uH EIα
2()+ 2()=H K =4
e
∫ ∫ φ ″ξ e(dξ) k D H
2
C 2αH V α C 1αH V α w 3 01
3 2
(81) H
ηee 2
+ φsξeffdξe ()
Eq. (80) and (81) can be expressed in matrix form as 0 (91)

• V2α( ) V3α( )V( • uH 4

CC2 EIα e
•••
2
= u HH •• → =K4w ∫ ∫ [ A eV α0 (ξ e
) + BV α( ξ dξ
e 1 e
)]
αH 2 1 αH 2 2 3 01
••• α ) V α( ) •••••• ••• H
3
••• • (82)
η •••
e 2
+ k sDeffHe [ A eV α2ξ( e
) + BV
e
α3ξ( dξe ) ]
Solution of Eq. (82) fi nally gives 0
(92)

••• V3α H u•••Δ

αH V2 α( ) − ( ) H here η e is the ratio of embedded depth to full depth of well H e/ H, where
C 2
= 2
(83) η
0 ≤ ≤ 1.0 .
e

Eq. (93) can be written in a simpli fi ed compact form as

and
4
EIα e 31
•••
K w
=4 [ I+1 ηI ]→ k sDeffHe eη I [+ ηeI 2 ]
αH V α V2α H u•••Δ H
3 e 2
(93)
C 3
=−2()+()H 1
(84)
Eq. (93) can be expressed as

Here EI b
K wb
=4
Hχ
3
(94)
2[
Δ αH
= V α V α V α22 ( ) − ( ) ( )]1 3
(85) where χ =(α +I
b 41
ηeI 2 )is a sti ff ness coe ffi cient and the superscript b
stands for the term bending. Here
Now substituting the value of C 2 and C 3 in Eq. (81) we fi nally have η
e 2
∫ ∫
2
I1 = [ A eV α0 (ξ e
) + BV α( ξ dξ
e 1 e
)] and I2 = [ A eV α2ξ( e
) + BV
e
α3ξ( dξe ) ]
01 0
•••
α V α2 V
( )2α− ( ) ••• ••• ••• are integration constants that can be computed numerically.
u z( ) = 3
V 2αz
uH HΔ H

•••
V2α( ) − 2 ( )α V α HΔ ••• ••• ••• 4.4. Sti ff ness due to shear deformation
1
+ V 3αz
H (86)
Considering the large diameter of well the well shaft can have signi fi cant sti ff ness in shear
Eq. (96a) , is a dimensionless term and is the shape function of well deformation. Equation of equilibrium in this case can be expressed as
deformation and can be expressed as

260
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

22
grade modulus of soil k s and is derived hereafter.
ηGA d u + k sDeffu =0
dz (95)

here G= shear modulus of well. A= area of cross-section of well k s=

dynamic sub-grade modulus.
Eq. (95) is a standard second order linear di ff erential equation whose solution can be expressed 4.6. Determination of dynamic sub grade modulus k s
as

u (z ) = cosC+ sin qz D qz (96) For a rigid cylinder embedded in ground the lateral sti ff ness is expressed as [23]

here q = k sDeffGA/ a standard parameter. Now considering β qH = ,

Eq. (96) can be expressed as ••• •••
Gr ν0 e
K x
=8
βz βz 2−1+ r0 (105)
u (z ) = cosC + sin
HD H (96a)

where the fi rst term within the bracket depicts the sti ff ness from bearing and the second term
Applying the boundary condition at z= 0 u= 0 we have C= 0. Again
represents the sti ff ness from the foundation wall.
considering at z=H u =u H we have D u = / sin
H
β . From which we have

u z( ) = 1 •••βz
•••
Thus ignoring the fi rst term and assuming e=dz an in fi nitely small segment, we can express Eq. (105)
uH sin sin
β H (97) as

Converting Eq. (97) to natural co-ordinate and also taking the embedment up to depth H e we
Gdz ν
have dK x
=8
2− (106)

••• β z •••
e
φesξ( ) = 1 Thus the second term of Eq. (92) that represents soil sti ff ness can be expressed as
β
sin sin
e
H (98)

here β = k sDeffHe 2GA / where e stands for embedment and superscript

e
GH νe η
e
∫
2
s stand for shear. K soil
=8 [ A eV α2ξ( e
) + BV
e
α3ξ( dξe ) ]
2− 0 (107)
The shear sti ff ness of the well can be expressed as

H He
Equating this to the second term of Eq. (92) one fi nally obtains
∫
2 2
K ws
= ηGA ∫ ( φ′ ) (es) + z dz k sDeff (φ
) (z)dz
es
0 0
G
η ks = 16
ηGA e
∫ πD (2 − ) ν (108)
2 2
→ K ws
= ∫ (φ
′ (ξ))
dξ k D H +
es s eff (φ
( ))ξ dξ
H 01 0
es
(99)

Considering the shape functions are simple in this case can be analytically solved directly which fi here G= dynamic shear modulus of soil, ν= Poisson's ratio of soil, D=

nally gives diameter of well.

2 • • •
ηGAβ e
β
e 1 βη β
eee
K ws
= 2 sin 1 + sin 2 + ••• − sin 2 ••••
2 2 e
Hβ ••• 2β ηeη 2 •••
e e (100)

Eq. (100) can be expressed in a compact form as 4.7. Consideration of mass and damping value of the well

ηGA s
K ws
=2 The mass matrix of the well can be expressed as
Hχ (101)

Here γeffAH γeffAH

∫
2
M w
= [ φebz(dz
)] → 3
.
2 • • •
g 01 gI (109)
s
βe β
e 1 βη β
eee
χ = sin 1 + sin 2 + ••• − sin 2 ••••
2 2 e
βe ••• 2β ηeη 2 •••
e (102) here γ =eff e ff ective density that represents the total weight of well and river sand inside it including
all other fi xtures connected to it.
The damping matrix is expressed as
4.5. Consideration of e ff ective sti ff ness

γD HV η
e γD HV
∫
2
s eff e s s eff e s
Now considering Eqs. (24) –( 26) the e ff ective sti ff ness of the well can be expressed as C w
= [ φebz(dz
)] → I3.
g 0 g (110)

1=1+1 A more re fi ned damping matrix based on principle of embedded foundation as furnished in [26] can
K we K wb
K ws (103) be used. Taking the damping value of a rigid embedded foundation valid over an elemental depth dz
of the semi rigid well foundation, the same can be integrated over the full depth
Substituting Eqs. (93) and (101) in (103) will fi nally give

• • of caisson when one fi nally gets

αe 2
EI 1 C xi
= 11.368( GR H
eff
V /)s ∫ [ φ ibz (dz
)] , here α H H
e
=/ e
. Here G= dynamic
b 0
K =4
we 3
••• ••• shear modulus of soil, R e ff= e ff ective radius of well ( D e ff/ 2), V s= shear wave velocity. For further details
Hχ 16(1 + ) ν
b
χχ
••••1 + ••••
ηλ
2 s on this, one may refer to [17] where the expression has been derived explicitly. To this, one may add
• • (104)
the structural damping to compute the fi nal damping value of the soil structure system that will absorb
In Eq. (104) , λ H r =/ the slenderness ratio of the well shaft. ν= away any waves that get re fl ected back from the foundation wall.
Poisson's ratio and η= Shear correction factor for hollow circular shell. It will be observed that when
the well is wide and short, shear deformation signi fi cantly a ff ects the sti ff ness as λ is small.
The equilibrium equation under superstructure moment and shear with respect to center of sti ff ness
The only value that needs to be computed now is the dynamic sub- can now be expressed as

261
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

•• ••
MM
w
+ s
MZ
w bM h+H s
(+) M w
••• 2 2 •••
MZ
w bM h+H J M
s
(Z+ M
) hHMZM
θ
+ wb + ( + )s wb

w
MZ
wb M w

••• ••• • •C
xC C0 0 0 • • •••
x x •••
•••
× θ + •••
θ 0 θ
••••
•• u •• u w
w 00 w

• •K
xK K0 0 0 • • ••• ••• VV HMV •••
x ••• b
•••• • ••

+ •••
θ 0 θ = b
+ b
u w •• ••
00 we b (111)

In Eqs. (109) –( 111) M s= mass of super-structure or pier, Z b is c.g. height of base and is expressed
as

∫ ∫ ξφ eb
ξ dξ
( ) (φ)ξ H
01
Z b
=

01 be (112)

h M= V /
b b, the c.g. height of pier. J θ= moment of inertia of the well foundation about Fig. 7. Bridge pier supported on caisson foundation.
8 Gr
2 −ν0 , K= 8 Gr
3(1νθ−3) , C = 3.054 Gρr ν
its c.g. K = x θ x
2 −04 ,

Gρr ν
C θ= 1.33 Table 6
2−θ8
r 0 and r θ are radius of well foundation G= dynamic shear modulus of soil ρ= mass density of soil. Fixed based time period of the pier.

Mode 1 2 3
Considering we are using the SRSS value of the superstructure moment and shear the dominant
frequency of the applied load is obviously the fundamental mode. Thus computing the displacement IRC 06 (2010) 0.256 – –
by standard modal analysis technique cited earlier, total displacement at Proposed method considering fl exure only[Vide Eq. 0.264 0.014 0.0043
(14) ]
Proposed Method considering combined fl exure and 0.271 0.017 0.0061
c.g. height of well is given by
shear[ Vide Eq. (29) ]

u wtot( ) =(u
) +wt ( ) + xt Z bθ t ( ) (113)

Thus ampli fi cation factor for the moment and shear in well is expressed as

xtu Z bθw t (u) (

AF wt ( ) = 1 + ( )
t w( )+ t ) (114)

Thus while designing the section the forces in well and has to be multiplied by the peak value AF w.
Moment and shear along the well shaft is expressed as

2
EIα ••• ••• ••• ••• ••••••
e e e
M z
=2 20
+ CV
31
αz Fig. 8. Bending moment diagram of the fi xed based pier IRC-06 versus proposed method.
H
2
HCVαz H (115)

3
EIα He ••• ••• ••• ••• ••••••
e e
Vz = 2 2 − CV
23
αz + CV
30
αz
H
3
H (116)

Fig. 9. Comparison of bending moment with and with shear deformation e ff ect.

where

••• M H 22 3
V bH EIα •••
b
V0α( ) e− 3
V1α( ) e
2 EIα e 22 e
C2 = and
e
V02α ( ) e+ ( ) ( )V1 α V α 3 e

• 2 3 •
MbH VbH EIαe
V α( ) e+ V α( ) e
•••2 EIαe 23 30 •••
22
C3 =
e
V02
α ( ) e+ ( V1α V α) ( 3) e

Fig. 6. Mathematical model for kinematical interaction of semi rigid well foundation.

262
I. Chowdhury et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265

motion of soil. Thus in this case the mathematical model conceived is as shown in Fig. 6 . The
equilibrium equation in this case is expressed as

• MMM+ Z Ms h H MM •
w w .b + ( + )s w s

2 2
M sh( H
+ )J M Z M h Hθ M
+ Z MwhbH M+ ( + )s wb s
(+)0

w
MZ
wb M w

• M
•••••
s
M sh( H
+) 0 Ms •••••
•

• • •CCCCC 0 •
x x x •••

0 θ 0 0
••• θ •••
× +00 θ
w 00 w
+− s s
w
••
•••• ••
••• uus ••• Cs ••• uus
• 0 0− Cs • ••••
Fig. 10. Variation of Dynamic ampli fi cation factor with time, fi rst three modes.

• KKK 0 •
x • VM •
x ••• bb
0 θ 0 0
••• •••
+00 θ = 00
00 we
+ −k p kp
••
w
••
••• uu ••• •••
••••• s
0
•••••• 0− k kp •
p
(117)

Solving Eq. (117) one can fi nd out u w and u s from which the nodal forces can be computed from
the expression

•••VV
••• • K + −k−p k • •••••• •
uuw s
w we p
= ••
p k kp
••• p (118)

5. Results and discussion

To elaborate the procedure a bridge pier in Assam (India) supported on a circular well foundation
is taken up as a case study. The dimensions of the well and the pier are as shown in Fig. 7 . Shown in
Fig. 11. Variation of Bending moment considering DSSI and fi xed based analysis.
Fig. 7 is basic dimension of the well foundation and the pier. The well is partially fi lled up with
saturated compacted river sand up to the scour line level. The dead plus relevant live load coming
from the top deck is 3200 kN. The grade of concrete used is M25. Bottom plug is M20. The soil
consists of loose fi ne river sand of SPT value of 8 at scour level with relative density increasing
progressively with depth having N value ≥50 at 25 m below scour line. Average density of sand is 19
kN/m 3. Shear wave velocity of soil was observed to be 145 m/s at scour level and 550 m/s at base of
well plug giving an average shear wave velocity of 347.5 m/s over the well shaft.

As per IS-1893(2002) the site is Zone V having Z= 0.36 and

Importance factor =1.5. The response reduction factor considered is
R= 3.0.
Computed weight of well foundation (including sand inside) =11381 kN. Center of gravity of well
Fig. 12. Variation force on pier considering fi xed base and DSSI. only=10.58 m above bottom of well. Center of gravity of the full system=16.33 m above bottom of well.

4.8. Kinematical Interaction of well and pier The fi xed base time periods of the pier, computed by di ff erent methods are as shown in Table 6 .

When the well foundation is considered as a rigid block we had as per Eq. (65) and (66) , force The comparative bending moment diagram considering proposed dynamic analysis and method
induced at the center of sti ff ness due to the as proposed in code is as elaborated

Fig. 13. Moment diagram of the complete pier and well in tandem.

263
I. Chowdhury et al.
Fig. 14. Shear diagram of the complete pier and well in tandem.
Table 7
Deflection at pier tip.
Foundation type Tip deflection
Rigid 12 mm
Semi rigid 26 mm
hereafter in Fig. 8 .
Fig. 8 clearly shows that method proposed in [1,4,5] for fi rst mode response would all
underestimate the moment in pier.
Code recommendation underestimates the moment by as much as 40% at the base of pier
compared to proposed method. Considering only fi rst mode dynamic analysis, it underestimates the
moment by about 14%, this possibly emphasis the importance of considering e ff ects of higher modes
as well as inertial e ff ect of pier, in computation of moments and shears.
The variation in moment considering fl exure only and considering both fl exure and shear
deformation is shown in Fig. 9 . It is observed that in this particular case as slenderness ratio of the
pier is about 14, shear deformation a ff ects both shear and moment signi fi cantly. Considering only the
fl exural e ff ect the dynamic moment is underestimated by about 17%, and shear force is
underestimated by about 6%.
Considering soil structure interaction the ampli fi cation factor obtained by Eqs. (55), (56) and (57) ,
for fi rst three modes varying with time is shown in Fig. 10 . The maximum ampli fi cation factors
obtained for the fi rst three modes are 1.05, 1.567 and 1.52 respectively. The predominant rocking in
second and third mode gives higher ampli fi cation in this case however lower modal mass
participation still makes the fundamental mode fi nally governing.
The variations of moments in pier considering all the methods considered herein are as shown in
Fig. 11 . It is evident from Fig. 12 that DSSI augments the fi xed based response. In this case the
ampli fi cation on SRSS value is almost two times compared to code values. In Fig. 11 MDSSI case-1
is when the well foundation is considered as rigid and case-2 depicts when well foundation is
considered fl exible. From Fig. 11 it is apparent that MDSSI (case-1) > MDSSI (case-2) > MSRSS the fi
xed based response. Flexibility in the foundation reduces the moment and shear force to certain
extent, however the system still experience more force than a
fi xed based case which goes on to highlight the importance in considering DSSI e ff ect for pier- well
combination.
The variation of shear force in pier is as shown Fig. 12 . In Fig. 12 it is again observed that shear
force values are ampli fi ed due to DSSI e ff ect.
Considering the well as a semi rigid body the complete moment and shear over the length of pier
and well are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 . In Figs. (13) and (14 ,) z/H> 0 represents the pier part and z/H
< 0 represents the well foundation part.
The kinematical interaction gives a very interesting insight to the problem. The tip de fl ections of
the pier, considering the well behaving as a rigid and semi-rigid foundation are given in Table 7 .
264
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265
The results shown in Table 7 are logical, as because the foundation being rigid the tip de fl ection
is lower, compared to semi-rigid case. However force induced in the pier is 2400 kN vis-à-vis 492 kN
only when the well is considered as rigid and semi rigid respectively.
In the latter case as the well foundation is subjected to deformation absorbs signi fi cant energy
thus transferring lower forces to the pier.
Thus from above one can infer that structures supported on deep heavy foundations can be
subjected to signi fi cant force due to kinematic interaction and thus foundations in such cases should
preferably be conceived in a manner so that its mass is reduced as much as feasible.
6. Conclusion
An analytical solution is presented herein that demonstrate the limitations as prevalent with state
of the art as suggested in codes.
The paper also emphasizes on the importance of considering soil structure interaction for such
deeply embedded foundations that signi fi cantly a ff ects the superstructure behavior.
It also furnishes a general solution to cater to the deformation in well foundation when depending
on well geometry the well will behave as either a rigid, semi-rigid deformable body for which no
solution exists till date.
The model can also take into cognizance of scenario analysis if liquefaction occurs at soil
surface/scour line as the sti ff ness formulation of the well foundation considers partial embedment.
Non-linear behavior of soil subjected to site-speci fi c spectra analysis, e ff ect of hydrodynamic
force above scour line and that for saturated soil, would highly add to our knowledge base on such
foundations and is the authors' future endeavor.
References
[1] IRC:06. Standard speci fi cations and code of practice for road bridges. Section II
Loads and Stresses. Indian Roads Congress; New Delhi India; 2010. [2] IRC:45. Recommendations for
estimating the resistance of soil below the maximum
scour level in the design of well foundations for bridges. Indian Roads Congress; New Delhi India; 1992. [3]
IRC:78. Standard speci fi cations and code of practice for road bridges, foundations
and substructures. Indian Roads Congress New Delhi India; 2000. [4] AASHTO. Standard Speci fi cation for
seismic design of Highways Bridges. American
Authority of State Highway and Transport O ffi cials. Washington USA; 1992. [5] CALTRANS. Bridge design
speci fi cation. California Department of Transportation
Sacramento California USA; 1991. [6] Eurocode 8 Part 2and 4 . Design of structures for
earthquake resistance-
bridgesBelgium. Brussels; 2010 .
[7] Murty CVR, Jain SK. A study on seismic design codes for highway bridges. Research
report #3 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur India; 1997. [8] JRA part V
Design Speci fi cations of Highway bridges for seismic design in Japan. [9] Dowrick DJ. Earthquake resistant design
and risk reduction. NY, USA: John Wiley
Publication; 2009 .
[10] Hurty W, Rubenstiein MF. Structural dynamics. India, New Delhi, India: Prentice
Hall; 1967 .
[11] Meirovitch L. Elements of vibration analysis. New Delhi, India: Allied Publishers;
2001 .
[12] Bathe KJ. Finite element analysis in engineering procedures. New Delhi: Prentice
Hall of India; 1980 .
[13] Chowdhury I, Dasgupta SP. Dynamic Earth Pressure on Rigid Unyielding Walls
under Earthquake Forces Indian Geotechnical Journal Vol-37 No-2 April pp. 81 –
93; 2007. [14] Shames IH, Dym CL. Energy and fi nite element method in structural mechanics.
New Delhi, India: New Age Publishers; 1995 .
[15] Dunkerley S. On The Whirling and Vibration of Shafts. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society, London, UK 185: pp. 279 – 360; 1894. [16] Chowdhury I, Singh JP. Do DSSI
attenuate Dynamic response of building?
Proceeding 14th International symposium on earthquake engineering Roorkee India; 2010.
[17] Chowdhury I, Tarafdar R, Ghosh A, Dasgupta SP. Dynamic response of cylindrical
structures with coupled soil structure interaction Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Europe. May;
2016.
[18] IS-1893. Code of practice for earthquake resistant design of buildings. Bureau of
Indian Standards. New Delhi India; 2002. [19] Thakkar SK, Dubey RN, Singh JP. E ff ect of Inertia of
embedded portion of well
foundation on seismic response of bridge structure. 12th symposium on earthquake
I. Chowdhury et al.
engineering, I.I.T. Roorkee, India; pp. 1055 – 1061; 2002. [20] Gazetas G, Gerolymos N. Winkler model
for lateral response of rigid caisson
foundations in linear soil. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2006;26:347 – 61 .
[21] Mandal G, Jain SK. E ff ect of Non-Linearity in Pier and Well Foundation on Seismic
Response of Bridges 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[22] Chowdhury I Singh JP, Tilak R. Seismic response of well foundation with dynamic
soil structure interaction. Proceedings 15th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering 2012 Lisbon
Portugal; 2012. [23] Varun Assimaki D, Gazetas G. A simpli fi ed model for lateral response of large
diameter caisson foundations - Liner elastic formulation. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29:268 – 91 .
[24] Novak M, Beredugo YO Novak M. Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of
embedded footings. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1972 .9 #4; 1972. [25] Kausel E, Rosset JM. Dynamic
sti ff ness of circular foundation. J Eng Mech Div
ASCE 1975, 98(SM12) 1975:770 – 85 .
[26] Wolf JP. Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction in Time Domain. N.Y.,USA: Prentice
Hall; 1985 .
[27] Dominguez J. Dynamic sti ff ness of rectangular foundations Research Report 78-20
MIT USA; 1978. [28] Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations; State of the art. J Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 1983;1983(2):2 – 42 .
[29] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations. J Geotech
Eng ASCE 1986 112 #GT2 1986 .
[30] Mita A, Luco JE. Dynamic response of square foundations embedded in elastic half
space. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1989;8(2):54 – 67 .
265
View publication
publication stats stats View
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97 (2017) 251–265
[31] Tsigginos C, Gerolymos N, Assimaki D, Gazetas G. Seismic response of bridge pier
on rigid caisson foundation in soil stratum. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2008;7:33 – 44 .
[32] Tajimi H. Dynamic analysis of a structure embedded in an elastic stratum.
Proceedings IVth world conference in earthquake engineering Chile; 1969. [33] Veletsos AS, Meek JW.
Dynamic behavior of building foundation systems. Research
Report #20, Department of Civil engineering Rice University Houston USA; 1974. [34] Chowdhury I, Tarafdar
R, Ghosh A. An analytical solution to kinematic and inertial
interaction of building with deep basements. , In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference in structural
mechanics in reactor Technology Manchester
U.K; 2015.
[35] Chowdhury I, Tarafdar R, Ghosh A, Dasgupta SP. Sti ff ness degradation and
damping augmentation of soil under earthquake loading. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol.20 Bundle9 Oklahama USA; 2015. [36] Waas G, Hartmann HG. Seismic analysis of pile foundations including
pile soil pile
interaction. Proceedings VIIIth world conference in earthquake engineering, San Francisco, USA; 1984. [37] Wolf
JP, Von Arx GA. Horizontally ravelling waves in a group of piles taking pile-
soil pile interaction into account. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1982;16(2):235 – 7 .
[38] Novak M. Pile under Dynamic Loads. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference in recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering St Louis USA Paper # SOA14; 1991.
[39] Karnovsky I, Lebed O. Formulas for structural dynamics. N.Y., USA: McGraw-Hill
publication; 2001 .
[40] Chowdhury I, Singh JP. Behaviour of Gravity type retaining wall with generalized
back fi ll [USAMay]Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Taylor and Francis Publication; 2015 .