Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Yang et al.
ABSTRACT
The p-y curve method, which can account for the non linear behavior of soil, is used for
modeling dynamically loaded pile foundations in pseudo-static analysis. The p-y curves for static
loading conditions are frequently applied even for seismic loading conditions with slight
modifications without further verification, because dynamic p-y curves for seismic loading
conditions have not been well established. In this study a series of 1g shaking table tests were
carried out at various conditions of acceleration frequency, acceleration amplitude for an input
load, flexural stiffness of a pile shaft and mass at the pile head. The experimental p-y curves for
each test condition were evaluated, from which dynamic p-y backbone curves were produced. As
a result, two limit backbone curves, due to the large scattering of the test data, were specified as
lines connecting the boundary peak points of the experimental p-y curves. In order to represent
the upper and lower limit backbone curves numerically, empirical equations were developed for
the initial stiffness kini and the ultimate capacity pu of soils as a function of the friction angle and
confining stress. The applicability of the dynamic p-y backbone curves suggested in this study
was evaluated based on the test results of other researchers cited in literature. Also, the backbone
curves were compared with the p-y curves that are currently used in practice.
Yang et al.
INTRODUCTION
In seismic design of a pile foundation, pseudo-static analysis is widely used to convert
dynamic loads to equivalent static loads. Among the diverse methods of modeling foundations
for pseudo-static analysis, the p-y curve method considering non linear soil behavior is most
frequently used in practice. For static loading conditions, ONeil and Reeses p-y curves
(1,2,3) ,obtained from various full scale pile load tests, are commonly used, and they are applied
even for seismic loading conditions with slight modifications without strict verification due to
the lack of well-established dynamic p-y curves for seismic conditions. Research has shown that
p-y curves for static loading conditions are not applicable to dynamic loading conditions (4, 5).
Various p-y curves applied in pseudo-static analysis for seismic design are summarized in
TABLE 1.
TABLE 1 Existing P-y Curve Methods
Reference
p = Apu tanh(
API(1),
ONeill(2)
Remarks
kz
y)
Apu
Reese(3)
NCHRP(6)
y
pd = ps + 02 + a0
, pd pu
d
N/A
where nk , ak , n p , a p = constants
Note) N/A: Not available
In this study a series of 1g shaking table tests were carried out for various conditions of
acceleration frequency, acceleration amplitude for input load, flexural stiffness of a pile shaft and
mass at the pile head. P-y curves for each test conditions were evaluated and dynamic p-y
backbone curves for pseudo static analysis were obtained, and compared with p-y curves used in
practice. The applicability of the dynamic p-y backbone curves suggested in this study was
evaluated based on the test results of other researchers cited in literature.
Yang et al.
Values
Material
Embedded depth (cm)
Outer diameter (cm)
Thickness (cm)
Elastic modulus (Gpa)
Flexural rigidity (kgf-cm2)
Mass (kg)
Jumoonjin sand, characterized as clean and uniform sand, was used in these tests. The
properties of Jumoonjin sand are listed in TABLE 3. The sand layer was prepared by pouring dry
sand into the soil box in 5 steps, and then, in each step, the poured sand was compacted carefully
by shaking the table with 0.4g sine wave vibration at 10 Hz to obtain the relative density of 80%.
TABLE 3 Properties of Jumoonjin Sand
USCS
SP
D10
(mm)
0.38
D50 (mm)
Cu
Gs
0.58
1.68
2.65
d,max
(t/m3)
1.66
d,min
(t/m3)
1.33
FIGURE 1 shows the test set-up with the schematic of the layout for instrumentation. A
model pile was fixed to the bottom of the soil box to reproduce an actual pile in weathered rock.
The pile was positioned first and then soil was poured to make the soil-pile system. The pile cap
was located 11cm above the subsurface, and its mass was changed to generate different inertial
forces. The pile was instrumented by bonding miniature strain gauges in pairs at seven locations
along the pile to measure the bending moment. At the same depths as the gauges, accelerometers
were set up to monitor the free field displacement of the soil. LVDT and another accelerometer
were set up at the pile cap to monitor the displacement and inertial force of the superstructure.
An input sine wave of 0.09g ~ 0.4g amplitude and 3Hz ~ 15Hz frequency was applied at the base
of the soil box for about 4 seconds.
Yang et al.
Accelerometer
Strain Gauge
LVDT
11
4
8
12 unit : cm
16
20
32
24
26
Loading
frequency (Hz)
6, 12
6
3,6,9,12,15
6
Loading
amplitude (g)
0.09, 0.154, 0.3, 0.4
0.154, 0.4
0.154, 0.4
0.154, 0.4
Pile
stiffness (ratio)
1
1
1
1, 0.72, 0.53
Surcharge
load (kg)
96
0, 64, 96, 192
96
96
Yang et al.
technique. To remove noise data in calculating the time history of p-y values, band pass filtering
was performed by Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis.
To obtain the relative displacement ( y ) for the dynamic p-y curve, the soil movement
( ysoil ), obtained from the free field accelerometers, was subtracted from the pile displacement
( y pile ) at each time step. FIGURE 2 shows the horizontal displacements of the pile and soil at the
loading amplitude of 0.4g for the loading frequency of 6Hz.
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0
Displacement (cm)
20
40
60
80
100
Depth (cm) 120
Pile
Soil
Yang et al.
p(N/cm) 30
p-y (3.75D)
p(N/cm) 40
p-y (3.75D)
EI
96kg
30
20
10
0.72EI
20
0.53EI
10
0
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
64kg
192kg
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
y(cm)
-10
0.00
-10
0.10
0.20
0.30
y(cm)
-20
-20
-30
-30
-40
p-y (3.75D)
p-y (3.75D)
0.3g
6Hz, 0.4g
0.4g
0.154g
20
20
10
10
6Hz, 0.154g
9Hz, 0.4g
0.09g
12Hz, 0.4g
15Hz, 0.4g
0
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
-10
0.10
0.20
0.30
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
y(cm)
y(cm)
-10
-20
-20
-30
-30
(c) For different amplitudes of input acceleration (d) For different frequencies of input
acceleration (6Hz, 96kg)
(0.4g, 6Hz)
Yang et al.
14
12
3Hz
6Hz
12Hz
Lower limit
Upper limit
50
45
p(N/cm)
3Hz
6Hz
12Hz
Lower limit
Upper limit
p(N/cm)
40
10
35
30
25
20
15
10
2
y(cm)
0
0.00
y(cm)
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
(5)
(6)
Yang et al.
70
60
1.25D
3.75D
7.5D
pu/ D (N/ cm 2 )
10
15
20
25
p(N/cm)
Best- fit
50
40
3
z/ D
30
20
10
6
7
y(cm)
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
(7)
Since the K values are correlated with the confining stress ( ' ) (11), Equation 8 was
used as the basic equation for finding the best-fit curve on the K - ' plane.
'
K = APa
Pa
0.5
(8)
100
200
300
400
500
0
0.05
Best- fit
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
FIGURE 6 Subgrade reaction modulus for 0.01D deflection vs. confining stress (For lower
limit p-y backbone curve)
Yang et al.
10
'
Lower Limit p-y Backbone curve: K = 208.31Pa ( N / cm 2 )
Pa
(9)
0.5
'
Upper Limit p-y Backbone curve: K = 333.48 Pa ( N / cm 2 )
Pa
Now, the initial slope ( kini ) can be calculated by the following equation.
Kpu
kini =
D
pu K
100
(10)
(11)
14
12
3Hz
6Hz
12Hz
p ( N /c m )
S ug g e st(M i n)
S ug g e st (M a x )
1 .2 5 D
U p p er lim it
10
8
L ow er lim it
N C H R P 6H z
4
J a p an
0 .0 0
y(c m )
A P I C y clic
0
0 .1 0
0 .2 0
0 .3 0
0 .4 0
0 .5 0
Yang et al.
11
45
40
3Hz
6Hz
12Hz
Sug g e st (M in)
Sug g e st (M a x )
3 .75 D
p (N /c m )
35
30
U pp er lim it
25
20
L ow er lim it
15
10
A P I C yclic, N C H R P 6H z
Jap an
y(c m )
0
0 .0 0
0 .1 0
0 .2 0
0 .3 0
0 .4 0
0 .5 0
3Hz
6Hz
Su g g e st (M i n)
70
S u g g e st (M a x )
7 .5 D
p ( N /c m )
60
50
A P I C yclic, N C H R P 6H z
U pp er lim it
L ow er lim it
40
30
20
Japan
10
y(c m )
0
0 .0 0
0 .1 0
0 .2 0
0 .3 0
0 .4 0
0 .5 0
Yang et al.
12
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
Measured
20
40
API Cyclic
Depth(cm)
Upper Limit
60
Lower Limit
Japan
NCHRP
80
100
120
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0
Measured
20
Upper Limit
API Cyclic
40
Depth(cm)
Japan, NCHRP
Lower Limit
60
80
100
120
Yang et al.
13
300
250
upper limit
200
z=1.8m
150
z=1.2m
z=0.6m
lower limit
100
z=0m
50
0
10
20
30
40
Displacement y (mm)
300
upper limit
250
200
z=1.8m
lower limit
150
z=1.2m
z=0.6m
100
z=0m
50
0
10
20
30
40
Displacement y (mm)
300
upper limit
250
200
z=1.8m
150
lower limit
z=1.2m
z=0.6m
100
z=0m
50
0
10
20
30
40
Displacement y (mm)
FIGURE 9 Comparison of the suggested dynamic p-y backbone curves with test results of
Chenaf et al. (12)
FIGURES 10(a), (b), (c) and (d) show the results of the dynamic pile load tests
performed by Ting et al. (5) using a pneumatic shaking machine on Seal Beack silty fine sand
under saturated condition. In the figures, regression lines for their data points are shown with the
upper and lower limit backbone curves. The comparison of the regression lines with the
backbone curves show that the regression line for a depth of 1D (D: Diameter of pile) is located
between the two curves (FIGURE 10(a)), while the line for a depth of 2D is approximately in
accord with the upper limit p-y backbone curve (FIGURE 10(b)). The lines obtained for depths
below 2D (FIGURE 10(c) and (d)) fail to fall in between the upper and lower limit backbone
curves but were located close to the upper limit p-y backbone curve. In these comparisons, the
suggested upper and lower limit p-y backbone curves are thought to have given meaningful
results.
Yang et al.
14
FIGURE 10 Comparison of the suggested dynamic p-y backbone curves with test results of
Ting et al. (5)
Pseudo-static analysis was conducted using the p-y backbone curves to predict the results
of the dynamic pile load tests performed in the centrifuge. FIGURE 11 shows the bending
moment curve obtained from the centrifuge (13) together with the curves obtained by the
pseudo-static analysis. The comparison of the three curves indicates that the pseudo-static
analysis provides a good estimate of the bending moment against depth.
Yang et al.
15
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
Experiment
Depth(m)
10
15
20
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
25
30
35
FIGURE 11 Comparison of test results of Kotthaus et al. (13) with pseudo-static analysis
CONCLUSIONS
A series of 1g shaking table tests were performed to obtain dynamic p-y curves for use in
pseudo-static analysis of earthquake-loaded pile foundations. Based on the test results, the
following conclusions are drawn.
1. Dynamic p-y backbone curves were produced as two limit lines (upper and lower limits)
connecting the boundary peak points of experimental p-y curves.
2. To represent the backbone curves numerically, empirical equations were developed for
the initial stiffness ( kini ) and the ultimate capacity of soil ( pu ) as a function of the
friction angle of the soil and the confining stress.
3. The existing p-y curves used for dynamically loaded piles predicted soil resistances that
were much smaller than the measured values (smaller than one half of the measured
ones) at shallow depths of the piles. The lateral behavior of piles at shallow depths is of
utmost importance.
4. The applicability of the proposed dynamic backbone curves was confirmed based on the
comparisons with the test results of various researchers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is supported by National Research Laboratory Program (ROA-2007-000-1004-0),
which is supervised by Ministry of Education Science and Technology, MEST.
REFERENCE
1. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing fixed offshore platforms. API Recommended Practice 2A (RP-2A), 17th edition.,
1987.
2. ONeill. M. W., and Murchinson, J.M. An evaluation of p-y relationships in sand. Rep.
Prepared for American Petroleum Institute,Washington,D.C.,1983.
3. Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R. and Koop, F.D. Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand.
Proceedings of the VI Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1974, pp.473-485.
Yang et al.
16
4. Dou, H., and Byrne, P.M. Dynamic response of single piles and soil-pile interaction.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1996, Vol.33, pp.80-96.
5. Ting, J.M., Kauffman, C.R., Lovicsek, M. Centrifuge static and dynamic lateral pile
behaviour. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1987, Vol.24, pp.198-207.
6. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile
groups. NCHRPReport461, Transportation Research Board-National Research Council, 2001.
7. Japan Road Association (JRA). Specification for highway bridges, 2002.
8. Hetenyi, M.. Beams on elastic foundation, University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI,
1946
9. Kondner, R.L. Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils. J. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Div., ASCE, 1963, 89(1), 115-144
10. Byung Tak Kim, Nak-Kyung Kim, Woo Jin Lee, and Young Su Kim. Experimental loadtransfer curves of laterally loaded piles in Nak-Dong river sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, Vol. 130, No. 4, April 1.
11. Janbu, N. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial test. Proceedings of
the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Wiesbaden,
Germany, 1963, Vol1. pp. 19-25
12. N.Chenaf, J.L. Chazelas & L.Thorel. Comparison of dynamic and cyclic behavior of piles in
sand submitted to horizontal loading: Centrifuge tests. Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
6thICPMG06, Vol2, 2006, pp.979984.
13. M.Kotthaus, T.Grundhoff & H.L.Jessberger. Single piles and pile rows subjected to static
and dynamic lateral load. Proceeding of the international conference centrifuge 94, 1994,
pp.497502.