Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9597-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 19 May 2011 / Accepted: 17 November 2012 / Published online: 15 December 2012
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
List of symbols
d
Outer diameter of pile
Ep Youngs modulus of pile material
f
Frequency of excitation
fn
Natural frequency of soil-pile system
F0 Magnitude of dynamic load
Gs Maximum dynamic shear modulus of soil
Ic
Consistency index of clay
L
Pile length
Lf
Depth of fixity
Lfd Depth of fixity under dynamic loads
Lfs Depth of fixity under static loads
Md Dynamic Magnification Factor
Vs Shear wave velocity
Z
Depth along the pile length
q
Saturated soil density
1 Introduction
Keywords Bending moment Clay Dynamics
Depth of fixity Magnification Pile
R. Ayothiraman (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: araman@civil.iitd.ac.in
A. Boominathan
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
123
448
123
response by using simple nonlinear models like bilinear model or equivalent linear models. In recent
years, Gazetas and Dobry (1984), Saha and Ghosh
(1986), Nogami et al. (1992), Badoni and Makris
(1996), El Naggar and Novak (1996), El Naggar
(1997), El Naggar and Bentley (2000), Arduino et al.
(2002), Mostafa and El-Naggar (2002) and Kucukarslan and Banerjee (2003) developed models by
accounting nonlinear behaviour of soil and gapping.
Except a few models, the rest have mainly focused on
the estimation of dynamic constants (namely, stiffness
and damping constants) of the soilpile system. But, it
is well known that the depth of fixity is an important
parameter in the analysis/design of laterally loaded
piles (Konagai 2005), which is solely dependent on the
bending behaviour of piles. More recently, Kavvadas
and Gazetas (1993), Mylonakis (1995), Gazetas and
Mylonakis (1998), Mylonakis (2001), Gerolymos and
Gazetas (2005) developed simplified models to study
the kinematic bending behaviour of piles based on
BeamonDynamicWinklerFoundation (BDWF)
models with linear behaviour of soil. The use of these
simplified models is restricted to the situation where
linear soil behaviour prevails, and not appreciable to use
where the soil nonlinearity governs the pile response.
Makris and his co-workers approximately accounted
the soil nonlinearity in their simplified models to study
the pile response including bending behaviour of piles
subjected to seismic loading. Therefore, use of their
models to study the dynamic soilpile interaction to the
inertial loads (particularly, machine-induced dynamic
loads) may result in large discrepancy in the predicted
response. More importantly, the validity of these
simplified models needs to be re-looked.
Literature on the experimental studies exclusively
on model piles embedded in clays under lateral
dynamic loads and parametric studies are very limited
(Agarwal 1973; Novak and Grigg 1976; Hassini 1990;
Finn and Gohl 1992; Georgiadis et al. 1992). This
available limited experimental data on dynamic pile
response of piles in clay does not provide a good basis
for calibration and validation of the available nonlinear models. Boominathan and Ayothiraman (2005,
2007a) carried out experiments on model piles in clay
subjected dynamic lateral loads and Boominathan and
Ayothiraman (2007a) proposed an equation to predict
the depth of fixity (depth of maximum bending
moment) under dynamic loads. Comparison of static
and dynamic bending behaviour of piles embedded in
449
Table 1 Properties of clay
Properties
Value
1.0
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
25.0
32.5
Clay (%)
41.5
Specific gravity
2.54
Atterberg limits
Liquid limit (%)
74.0
26.0
48.0
75
Ic = 0.15
67
Ic = 0.30
60
Ic = 0.60
45
2 Materials Used
3.5
2.1 Soil
Ic = 0.15
9.3
Ic = 0.30
Ic = 0.60
13.7
31.6
2.2 Pile
2.2.2 Pile Instrumentation and Calibration
2.2.1 Pile Modelling and Fabrication
Aluminium pipes having an outer diameter of 25 mm
and wall thickness of 3 mm were used. Length to
diameter ratio (L/d) of pile (10, 20, 30 and 40) was
considered so as to cover the behaviour of both short
rigid piles and long flexible piles based on the relative
123
450
STRAIN GAUGE
WIRES
STRAIN GAUGE
WIRES
PILE CAP
200
100
1
A
100
100
100
PILE WALL
ALUMINIUM
PILE OF
25mm O.D.
STRAIN GAUGE
K=2.0
R=120
DETAILS AT A
OD
ID
750
100
100
100
50
OD = 25mm
ID = 19mm
6
PILE WALL
3 mm THICK
7
25
CONICAL
SHOE
25
15
60
B
DETAILS AT B
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm
123
451
12
10
11
2
3 4
7
8
Test Tank
80
Clay
Not to Scale
SawDust
4 Test Procedure
1. Loading Frame
2. MS Angle
3. Electro-Dynamic Exciter
4. Load Cell
5. Displacement Transducer (LVDT)
6. Pile Cap
7. Aluminium Model Pile
8. Strain Gauges
9. MS Basket covered with Impermeable Geomembrane
10. Excitation Amplifier
11. Multi-Channel Carrier Frequency Amplifier System
12. Data Acquisition System
123
452
1400
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
L/d = 30
1050
L/d = 40
700
350
0
0
123
12
16
Deflection, mm
Fig. 4 Loaddeflection curves for different pile length at
Ic = 0.60
(a)
453
60
Ic = 0.15; Ep/Gs = 10319
(a)
L/d =10
Bending Moment, N - m
0
0
L/d = 20
Lateral Load, N
L/d = 30
45
L/d = 40
30
5
Ic = 0.30; L/d=10
Fo =7 N
Fo =14 N
Fo =21 N
Fo =30 N
15
10
Bending Moment, N - m
(b)
0
0.2
0.3
0.5
(b)
60
Ic = 0.30; Ep/Gs = 4275
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
L/d = 30
Lateral Load, N
45
0.6
Deflection, mm
L/d = 40
0.0
16
Ic = 0.15; L/d=40
24
Fo=7N
Fo =14N
Fo =21N
32
Fo =30N
40
30
Bending Moment, N - m
(c)
12
16
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
Deflection, mm
Fig. 5 Expanded loaddeflection curve for different pile length
at a Ic = 0.15 and b Ic = 0.30
15
8
16
Ic = 0.60; L/d=40
24
Fo =7N
Fo =14N
Fo =21N
32
Fo =30N
40
123
454
Compliance, mm/N
Fo = 7N
Fo = 14N
0.010
Fo = 21N
Fo = 30N
0.005
10
20
30
40
50
Frequency, Hz
123
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
30
L/d = 30
L/d = 40
20
10
0
1000
10000
100000
0.000
40
Natural Frequency, Hz
455
2.0
Ic = 0.15; L/d = 20
Fo = 7N
1.5
Fo = 14N
Fo = 21N
Fo = 30N
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
Frequency, Hz
8
L/d = 10; Fo = 7 N
L/d = 40; Fo = 7 N
L/d = 10; Fo = 30 N
L/d = 40; Fo = 30 N
0
1000
10000
100000
natural frequency of the soilpile system (Boominathan and Ayothiraman 2007a). It is also found that the
frequency dependency of dynamic strain or bending
moment (BM) is more predominant at depths close to
depth of maximum BM. This is due to the fact that
large inertial forces are mobilized near the resonance
region because of large amplitude of vibration. The
occurrence of maximum dynamic BM at the fundamental frequency of the system is also reported based
on various studies: finite element studies by Krishnan
et al. (1983) and Beamon DynamicWinklerFoundation (BDWF) approach by Kavvadas and Gazetas
(1993) and Mylonakis (2001).
The BM under dynamic load was obtained from the
measured strain at the natural frequency of the soil
pile system by multiplying the calibration factor
obtained from calibration of strain gauges. The typical
variation of BM with normalized depth for a piles with
L/d = 10 at Ic = 0.30 and L/d = 40 at Ic = 0.15 and
Ic = 0.60 is given in Fig. 11. It is worthy of note from
Fig. 11a&b that the dynamic BM towards the pile tip
does not attain zero, because of vibration of pile even
near the pile tip. But, it is seen from Fig. 6a that the
BM under static lateral load attains maximum and
reduces towards zero near the pile tip. This indicates
that even the lower parts of the pile can affect the pile
head response due to dynamic nature of lateral load.
However, it is inferred from Fig. 11c that for long
piles embedded in medium stiff clay, the BM reaches
zero value well above the pile tip. This leads to a
conclusion that as the stiffness of clay increases, effect
of inertial interaction due to dynamic nature of loading
reduces on the behaviour of piles.
123
456
Bending Moment, N - m
123
10
15
20
25
Ic = 0.30; L/d=10; f = 18 Hz
2
Fo=7N
Fo =14N
Fo =21N
Fo =30N
6
8
10
Bending Moment, N - m
(b)
10
20
30
40
8
16
Ic=0.15; L/d=40; f=22Hz
24
Fo=7N
Fo =14N
32
Fo =21N
Fo =30N
40
Bending Moment, N - m
(c)
40
80
120
(a)
16
Ic = 0.60; L/d=40; f = 30 Hz
24
Fo=7N
Fo =14N
32
Fo =21N
Fo =30N
40
457
100
Modulus
ratio
24278
10
10319
20
30
L/d = 10 (Dynamic)
L/d = 20 (Dynamic)
L/d = 30 (Dynamic)
L/d = 40 (Dynamic)
L/d = 10 (Static)
L/d = 20 (Static)
L/d = 30 (Static)
L/d = 40 (Static)
4275
1983
40
L/
d
Maximum BM ratio
F0 = 7 N
F0 = 14 N
F0 = 21 N
F0 = 30 N
10
1.45
1.38
1.48
1.53
20
1.25
1.31
1.37
1.34
30
1.65
1.49
1.42
1.24
40
1.38
1.33
1.27
1.18
10
2.23
1.96
1.67
1.68
20
2.13
1.69
1.57
1.39
30
4.03
3.43
3.32
2.88
40
3.95
3.56
3.46
2.92
10
3.70
4.07
4.77
4.95
20
3.64
3.90
3.95
4.03
30
8.79
7.70
7.32
6.81
40
7.95
7.58
7.53
7.09
10
3.16
3.08
3.05
3.14
20
3.16
3.15
3.22
3.66
30
7.13
6.86
6.66
6.64
40
6.95
6.23
6.07
5.99
123
458
(a) 12
L/d = 30 (Dynamic)
Fo = 7 N
Fo = 14 N
Fo = 21 N
Fo = 30 N
Maximum BM Ratio
10
20
30
40
50
Maximum BM Ratio
100000
123
L/d = 40 (Static)
Proposed Eqn (1)
Gazetas (1991) (dynamic)
20
10
0
1000
10000
100000
1000000
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
L/d = 30
L/d = 40
10000
L/d = 30 (Static)
(b) 10
0
1000
L/d = 40 (Dynamic)
30
459
L/d = 30
L/d = 40
Proposed Eqn (2)
Velez et al. (1983)
Krishnan et al. (1983)
0
1000
10000
100000
123
460
References
Agarwal SL (1973) Discrete element analysis and its experimental verification for vertical piles under dynamic lateral
loads. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on
soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Moscow, vol
2, 3/2, pp 912
Anandarajah D, Zhang J, Gnanaranjan G, Ealy C (2001) Back
calculation of Winkler foundation parameters for dynamic
analysis of piles from field-test data. Proceedings of NSF
international workshop on earthquake simulation in geotechnical engineering, pp 110
Arduino P, Kramer SL, Li P, Baska DA (2002) Dynamic stiffness of piles in liquefiable soils. Research Report No:
T9903Task A4, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Washington
Badoni D, Makris N (1996) Nonlinear response of single piles
under lateral inertial and seismic loads. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 15:2943
Blaney GW, ONeill MW (1986) Measured lateral response of
mass on single pile in clay. J Geotech Eng ASCE
112(4):443457
Blaney G, ONeill MW (1989) Dynamic lateral response of a
pile group in clay. Geotech Test J ASTM 12:2229
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2005) Dynamic behaviour of
laterally loaded model piles in clay. Geotech Eng J
158(4):207215
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2006) Dynamic response of
laterally loaded piles in clay. Geotech Eng J
159(3):233241
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2007a) Measurement and
analysis of horizontal vibration response of pile foundations. Shock Vib 14(2):89106
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2007b) An experimental study
on static and dynamic bending behaviour of piles in soft
clay. Geotech Geol Eng 25(2):177189
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R, Elango J (2002) Lateral
vibration response of full scale single piles. Proceedings of
9th international conference on piling and deep foundations, France, pp 141146
Crouse CB, Kramer SL, Mitchell R, Hushmand B (1993)
Dynamic tests of pipe pile in saturated peat. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 119:15541567
D2487-00 (2003) ASTM Standard classification of soils for
engineering purposes (Unified Classification System)
Dou H, Byrne PM (1996) Dynamic response of single piles and
soil-pile interaction. Can Geotech J 33(1):8096
El Naggar MH (1997) Horizontal and rotational impedances for
radially inhomogeneous soil media. Can Geotech J
34:408420
123
461
Prakash S, Chandrasekaran V (1973) Pile foundations under
dynamic lateral loads. Proceedings of 8th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Moscow, vol 2, pp 199202
Prakash S, Puri VK (1998) Foundation for machines: analysis
and design. Wiley, New York
Puri KV, Prakash S (1992) Observed and predicted response of piles
under dynamic loads. In: Prakash S (ed) Piles under dynamic
loads, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 34, ASCE, pp 153169
Saha S, Ghosh DP (1986) Dynamic lateral response of piles in
coupled mode of vibration. Soil Found 26(1):110
Sawant VA, Dewaikar DM (1999) Analysis of pile groups
subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Indian Geotech J
29:191220
Stokoe KH, Woods RD (1972) In-situ shear wave velocity
measurement by cross-hole test. J Soil Mech Found Eng
Div ASCE 98(5):951979
Velez A, Gazetas G, Krishnan R (1983) Lateral dynamic
response of constrained-head piles. J Geotech Eng ASCE
109:10631081
Wu G, Finn WDL (1997) Dynamic elastic analysis of pile
foundations using finite element method in the frequency
domain. Can Geotech J 34(1):3443
123