Sei sulla pagina 1di 90

From Piles to Piled Raft Foundation

- Some Observations on Static and Dynamic Analyses

Der-Wen Chang

Department of Civil Engineering


Tamkang University
Tamsui, New Taipei City, Taiwan 25137
E-mail: dwchang@mail.tku.edu.tw

Department of Construction Engineering


National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, April 21, 2016
Why Deep Foundation?
Mega-size/high-rise/heavy-load building on soft soils;
Large lateral and overturning loads;
Large fdt. settlement and differential settlements;
Seismic threats and soil liquefaction induced fdt.
damages.

2
Types of Deep Foundations
Piles and Piers;
Combined Pile Raft Foundation (CPRF);
Caisson;
Barrette (Buttress pile/wall) and Grid Walls.

3
Offshore foundations

1. Soil-Structure-Fluid Interactions must be considered


2. Cyclic loading effects (both static and dynamic) are significant
4
Effects of the steady-state loads

M Dynamics controlled

Mass controlled
1.0
Stiffness controlled

1.0
f / fm
Rotational frequency
0.5fm< f <2fm and Blade Passing frequency
must be avoided
5
Degradation of fdt. Resistance under cyclic loads

P
K1 > K2 1 < 2

+ direction K2
K1

U
- direction

6
Outlines
1. Design procedures and analyses (5)
2. Simplified analysis for seismic behaviors of piles (10)
3. Applications of dynamic pile-to-pile interaction
factors (5)
4. Seismic performance of piles PBEE approach (11)
5. Seismic performance of piles RB approach (6)
6. Design and analyses on CPRF (4)
7. Simplified analysis for seismic behaviors of CPRF (9)
8. Foundation behaviors from analyses (17)
9. Concluding remarks (6)

7
I. Design procedures
and analyses

8
Geotechnical Engineering
Design

Performance-Based Conventional
Design Design

Reliability-Based methods,
Probability-Based methods
Propability-Based methods, Working Stress Design,
Load and Resistance Factor Limite State Design
Design.

Uncertainties of the design must 1. Ultimate Limit State


be analyzed systematically External/Internal
Foundation Capacities
RBM: FORM, FOSM, Monte Carol 2. Serviceability Limit State
Simulation, etc. External/Internal
PBM: PBEE analysis Foundation Serviceability
LRFD: AASHTO

9
Design Flow Chart for Pile Fdt.





























10
Concerns
1. Vertical capacity of single pile;
2. Lateral capacity of single pile;
3. Negative skin friction of single pile;
4. Pull-out resistance of single pile;
5. Liquefaction effects on single pile and grouped piles;
6. Settlement and lateral deflections of single pile;
7. Effects of pile-to-pile interactions on grouped piles;
8. Pile cap design and safety checks on piles and cap.

Problems require further attentions

1. Statically cyclic loads (effects of unload/reload and number of cycles);


2. Dynamically cyclic load (effects of amplitude/period and initial static load);
3. Seismic loading (PGA/duration/dynamic characteristics);
4. Capacities of Piled Raft foundation (external and internal);
5. Serviceability of Piled Raft foundation (external and internal).

11
On PBD and PBSD
PBSD of pile fdt

Performance-Based Design
Physical Tests Numerical Modeling

Foundation Capacities Foundation Deformations


In-situ full scale pile load test, FEM analysis,
Shake table test, FDM analysis,
Uncertainties Centrifuge test, BDWF modeling,
Push-over model test Wave equation modeling

Ground conditions,
Soil properties parameters,
Loads/Displacements of the structure,
Measurements and calculation methods, Factor of safety against seismicity
Method
Site construction methods Medium Design
MCE
earthquake earthquake
PBEE
Mcr / Mmax My / Mmax Mult / Mmax
analysis
Reliability-Based methodsFOSM, FORM, MCS, Monte Carlo
Probability-Based methodsPBEE, Simulation
cal /R cal /R cal /R
LRFD method, Fuzzy Logic, Evidence Theoryetc.
Note: Mcr = moment when concrete crack starts; My = moment when
steel bar yields; Mult = moment when plastic hinge occurs;
Mmax = calculated maximum bending moment; cal =
calculated reliability index; R = required reliability index

12
Pile Design

Conventional Design
(OrdinaryCritical)

PBSD Determine VHDLAr

Concerns NO Seismic PBD ?

YES
PBEE
approach

Conventional Design PGAt from hazard carve


Use LPIPE to compute
McrMyMult

Seismic Design Seismic record in use Choose proper tool Redesign

Calibrate the model

in options (need to
Calibrate a(t) for analysis
parameters

consider soil Find UmaxMmax

liquefaction effects)
Apply PBEE to find
Optional vsUmax and vsMmax

Foundation Capacities OK Compare Mmax


with Mcr/My/Mult
NG

Fdt. Deformations Use McrMy and Mult to find


UmcUmyUmm

Deterministic approach Based on seismic design level


NG
and/or Probability approach ?
Compare Umax with Umc/Umy/Umm
Check Umax<Umc/Umy/Umm

OK
End of Design
13
II. Simplified analysis for
seismic behaviors of piles

14
EQWEAP (EarthQuake Wave Equation Analysis for
Piles)

Seismic pile responses Seismic Free-Field Seismic Pile


Response by LMA Response by WEA

Decoupled motions + Uncoupled analysis

15
WEAP under EQ excitations

Px Px
M (t ) M (t )
Q(t ) Q(t )

Px Cs

M
Ks
V P ( x, t )
2u
x ( Ax)
t 2

V M
V M
x x
Px

Discrete pile segments and equilibriums


16
EQWEAP Formulas Chang et al. (2014)

1. If ground motions were obtained from free-field analysis

2. If seismic earth pressures were given

3. If ground displacement profiles were prescribed

17
EQWEAP Formulas (cont.)
1. For ground motions from free-field analysis:

2. For seismic earth pressures already known:

3. For ground displacement profiles already known:

18
Pile Nonlinearity

Approximate Bouc-Wen Model : M E I 1 M y Z

III

II

Iterative analysis is conducted to modify the EI values according


to M- relationship

19
Effects of Pile Diameter and Ar
on Moment Capacities of pile

4000

20000
Percentage of Steel = 1.94 %

Diameter of Pile = 0.5 m


Diameter of Pile = 1 m 3000
Mu ,u
Moment (kN-m)

Moment (kN-m)
Diameter of Pile = 2 m
15000

2000
10000

Diameter of Pile = 1m
1000
5000 Percentage of Steel = 1.04 %
Mu ,u Percentage of Steel = 1.94 %
Percentage of Steel = 3.04 %

0 0
0.0E+0 4.0E-3 8.0E-3 1.2E-2 1.6E-2 0.0E+0 4.0E-3 8.0E-3 1.2E-2

Curvature (rad/m) Curvature (rad/m)

20
0 0

6 6
Liquefiable Layer Liquefiable Layer

12 12
Depth (cm)

Depth (cm)
18 18

24 24
Soil Parameter Reduction Coefficient PWP Model

Failure occurred at 7 sec Failure occurred at 7 sec

Time at 15 sec Time at 15 sec


30 Time at 25 sec
30 Time at 25 sec

Time at 35 sec Time at 35 sec

36 36
-40 0 40 80 -40 0 40 80
Pile Displacements (cm) Pile Displacements (cm)

Pile displacement at different time step Pile displacement at different time step
from SPRC model from EPWP model
21
0 0

6 6

Liquefiable Layer

Liquefiable Layer
12 12
Depth (cm)

Depth (cm)
18 18

24 24
Direct Earth Pressure Indirect Earth Pressure
Failure occurred at 5 sec Failure occurred at 5 sec
Time at 15 sec Time at 15 sec
30 Time at 25 sec 30 Time at 25 sec
Time at 35 sec Time at 35 sec

36 36
-160 -80 0 80 160 -100 -50 0 50 100
Pile Displacements (cm) Pile Displacements (cm)

Pile displacement at different time step Pile displacement at different time step
from direct earth pressure model from indirect earth pressure model
22
0

6 Liquefiable Layer

12
Depth (cm)

18

24
Observed (No. 9)

Observed (No. 2)

Predicted (Ishihara and Cubrinovski, 2004)

30 Direct Earth Pressure Model (failure occurred at 4.4 sec)

Indirect Earth Pressure Model (failure occurred at 5.4 sec)

PWP Model (failure occurred at 7.0 sec)

Soil Parameter Reduction Coefficient (failure occurred at 7.0 sec)

36
-40 0 40 80
Pile Displacements (cm)

Maximum pile displacement profiles from alternate


modeling of EQWEAP analysis and the field observations 23
Grouped Piles

24
III. Applications of Dynamic
pile-to-pile interaction factors

25
Dynamic pile-to-pile interaction factor

Dobry and Gazetas (1988)

26
Pile-to-Pile Interactions

27
Use of superposition theory

28
Lateral
load
distributions
(Chang et al, 2009)

29
Load ratio
varied at
frequencies
and the
time-
dependent
history
(Chang et al.
2009)

30
IV. Seismic performance of
piles PBEE approach

31
Seismic Performance Requirements
Seismic Performance Concerns for Transportation Structures (after Chen et al., 2006)

Rehabilitation
Performance Safety Serviceability
Short term Long term
structure remained routine monitoring,
Level I same as before not needed
elastic protections
restricted local
recoverable w/ short- urgent remedy method existing remedy method
Level II damages,
term remedies applicable applicable
recoverable
urgent remedies
Replacing elements,
superstructure and main applicable,
structural closed for
Level III body collapse limited
reinforcements constructions
prohibited speed/weight
undertaken
for vehicles
Seismic Performances and Return Periods for Transportation Structures (after Chen et al., 2006)

Bridge pile foundation Underground structures


Hazard Level Embankment
ordinary important ordinary important

S30 Level I Level I Level I

S475 Level III Level III Level II Level III Level II

S2500 N/A N/A Level III N/A Level III

32
Local seismic hazard curve Cheng (2002)

1E+0

PGA (g)
Annual Probability of Exceedance(1/year)



CityTR 30 yr 475 yrs 2500 yrs
1E-1

TR1 TR2 TR3

30yr Taipei 0.12 0.29 0.51

1E-2 Hsinchu 0.12 0.38 0.60


Taichung Taichung 0.14 0.60 0.94


475yr Chiayi 0.20 0.59 0.83
1E-3
Taipei Tainan 0.16 0.51 0.75
2500yr
Kaoshiung 0.12 0.35 0.54
1E-4
Kaohsiung Pingtung 0.15 0.41 0.60

I-lan 0.20 0.45 0.63

1E-5 Hualian 0.21 0.60 0.81


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Intensity Measures, PGA(g) Taitung 0.21 0.57 0.85

If Seismic Design Code is followed, PGAt are 0.06g, 0.24g and 0.32g in
Taipei

33
Probability Method - PBEE Analysis

Total probability P for the occurrence of a event


can be computed as an integral of all the
probabilities that could occur.
For the occurrence of consecutive scenarios such
as a, b and c, the total probability of occurrence P
can be computed as

0.2 0.4 0.6

P = 0.6*0.4*0.2 = 0.048
34
PBEE (Performance Based
Earthquake Engineering) Analysis
A probability based approach suggested by US PEER
Excellent summary can be found in Kramer (2008)
N DM N EDP N IM

DV DV P DV dv DM dm k P DM > dm k EDP edp j


k 1 j 1 i 1


P EDP edp j IM im i IM im i

: Annual Rate (probability) of Exceedance


DV: Decision Variable (costs of the hazard)
DM: Damage Measure (maximum bending moment)
EDP: Engineering Demand Variable (maximum pile displacement)
IM: Intensity Measure (mostly used - PGA)

35
KEY - Seismic Hazard Curve
=P[ IM>im| M =m, R= r] P[M =m] P[R= r]

im k 0 IM
k

36
Demand curve Fragility curve

37
EDP vs IM vs EDP
-k
EDP 1/b k2 2
EDP f EDP, a, b, k, k 0 , k 0 exp 2
a 2b

120 1E+0

Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)


1E-1
Displacement, EDP (cm)

80

1E-2

40

PGA=0.12g
1E-3
PGA=0.29g
PGA=0.51g

0 1E-4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 40 80 120
PGA, IM (g) Displacement, EDP (cm)

38
DM vs EDP vs DM

-k
1
b
k2
1 DM 2

d
DM ( DM ) k 0 exp 2 2 d R D
2 2



a c
2b d

400 1E+1

Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)


1E+0
Maximum Moment (10^2kN-m)

300

1E-1

200

1E-2

100 PGA=0.12g
1E-3
PGA=0.29g
PGA=0.51g

0 1E-4
0 40 80 120 0 200 400 600
Maximum Displacement (cm) Maximum Moment (10^2kN-m)

39
PBEE Analysis I

Annual rate of exceedance vs. Max. pile displacements at various EQ levels


1E+0 1E+0
Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)

Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)


1E-1 1E-1

1E-2 1E-2

1E-3 1E-3

1E-4 1E-4
0 21 40 49 8084 120 0 18 4045 79 80 120
Displacement, EDP (cm) Displacement, EDP (cm)

40
PBD Findings II (Mcr= 7300 kN-m, My= 22100 kN-m, Mult= 29700 kN-m)

Annual rate exceedance vs. Maximum pile moment at various EQ levels


1E+1 1E+1
Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)

Annual Probability of Exceedance (1/year)


1E+0 1E+0

1E-1 1E-1
NG NG

1E-2 1E-2
OK OK
1E-3 OK 1E-3
OK
1E-4 1E-4
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Maximum Moment (10^2kN-m) Maximum Moment (10^2kN-m)
180 100
240 190
270 260

41
Alternative Procedure
From the moment capacities to find
the design probabilities , then use
to determine allowable pile
displacements, Umc, Umy and Mmm

Ductility Index, R =1.5

42
V. Seismic performance of
piles Reliability approach

43
Reliability Approach - MCSM
Probability of failure Pf = nf/ntotal
Assuming normal distribution or log-normal
distribution, reliability index can be
computed from mean value m and standard
deviation of the scenarios.
Variability of seismic records, soil parameters
and the geological conditions could be
considered.
It was found that the seismic input is
especially significant to the results.

44
Monte Carlo Simulation based on
Weighted PGA
For PGAt, compute all the scenarios including
variability of soil parameters and all possible
seismic intensities PGAi PGAt.

The seismic records for the acceleration time


history of the site can be achieved using specific
methods.

Then, Pft at PGAi PGAt = Pfi Wi Total


probability of failure, Pft represents for the total
potential influences of all possible EQs under
the design EQ level is suggested.

45
Calculating the weights
d d dR (a)
PA (a) FA (a) (1 RA (a) ) A
da da da

Design Life = 50 years



1- = cumulated
probability of EQ PGAt

II
III

PGA
46
Weighted Intensities (Chang et al, 2014)
Return Probability of Probability of Numerator of the
PGA
period (%) occurrence for occurrence for central difference Weights
(g)
(year) a > PGA a PGA formula
0.01 1 100.00 1.0 0.000 5.00E-03 2.50E-03
0.02 1.005 99.50 0.995 0.005 1.00E-02 5.00E-03
0.03 1.01 99.00 0.99 0.010 4.95E-01 2.48E-01
0.04 2 50.00 0.50 0.500 7.50E-01 3.75E-01
0.05 4 25.00 0.250 0.750 3.33E-01 1.67E-01
0.06 6 16.67 0.167 0.833 1.25E-01 6.25E-02
0.07 8 12.50 0.125 0.875 6.67E-02 3.33E-02
0.08 10 10.00 0.100 0.900 5.36E-02 2.68E-02
0.09 14 7.14 0.071 0.929 5.00E-02 2.50E-02
0.10 20 5.00 0.050 0.950 2.98E-02 1.49E-02
0.11 24 4.17 0.042 0.958 1.67E-02 8.33E-03
0.12 30 3.33 0.033 0.967 1.31E-02 6.55E-03
0.13 35 2.86 0.029 0.971 9.52E-03 4.76E-03
0.14 42 2.38 0.024 0.976 8.57E-03 4.29E-03
0.15 50 2.00 0.020 0.980 7.42E-03 3.71E-03
0.16 61 1.60 0.016 0.984 6.11E-03 3.06E-03
0.17 72 1.40 0.014 0.986 5.03E-03 2.51E-03
0.18 88 1.14 0.0114 0.9886 3.89E-03 1.94E-03
0.19 100 1.00 0.0100 0.990 3.36E-03 1.68E-03
0.20 125 0.80 0.0080 0.992 3.01E-03 1.50E-03
0.21 143 0.70 0.0070 0.993 1.90E-03 9.51E-04
0.22 164 0.61 0.0061 0.9939 1.73E-03 8.65E-04
0.23 190 0.53 0.0053 0.9947 1.57E-03 7.86E-04
0.24 221 0.45 0.0045 0.9955 1.29E-03 6.47E-04
0.25 252 0.40 0.0040 0.996 1.03E-03 5.14E-04

47
Weighted intensities (continued)
0.26 286 0.35 0.0035 0.9965 9.65E-04 4.83E-04
0.27 333 0.30 0.003 0.997 9.33E-04 4.66E-04
0.28 390 0.26 0.0026 0.9974 8.98E-04 4.49E-04
0.29 475 0.21 0.0021 0.9979 5.64E-04 2.82E-04
0.30 500 0.20 0.002 0.998 2.30E-04 1.15E-04
0.31 533 0.19 0.0019 0.9981 2.61E-04 1.30E-04
0.32 575 0.17 0.0017 0.9983 2.50E-04 1.25E-04
0.33 615 0.16 0.0016 0.9984 3.19E-04 1.59E-04
0.34 704 0.14 0.0014 0.9986 3.75E-04 1.87E-04
0.35 800 0.13 0.0013 0.9987 2.80E-04 1.40E-04
0.36 877 0.11 0.0011 0.9989 2.50E-04 1.25E-04
0.37 1000 0.10 0.0010 0.999 2.05E-04 1.02E-04
0.38 1069 0.09 0.0009 0.9991 1.43E-04 7.15E-05
0.39 1167 0.09 0.0009 0.9991 1.35E-04 6.77E-05
0.40 1250 0.08 0.0008 0.9992 1.29E-04 6.43E-05
0.41 1373 0.07 0.0007 0.9993 1.21E-04 6.05E-05
0.42 1473 0.07 0.0007 0.9993 1.17E-04 5.84E-05
0.43 1635 0.06 0.0006 0.9994 1.13E-04 5.66E-05
0.44 1767 0.06 0.0006 0.9994 9.16E-05 4.58E-05
0.45 1923 0.05 0.0005 0.9995 7.35E-05 3.68E-05
0.46 2031 0.05 0.0005 0.9995 5.85E-05 2.92E-05
0.47 2167 0.05 0.0005 0.9995 5.78E-05 2.89E-05
0.48 2301 0.04 0.0004 0.9996 5.39E-05 2.69E-05
0.49 2453 0.04 0.0004 0.9996 3.04E-05 1.52E-05
0.50 2475 0.04 0.0004 0.9996 7.69E-06 3.84E-06
0.51 2500 0.04 0.0004 0.9996 4.79E-05 2.39E-05

48
Factor of Safety (Chang et al., 2014)
Factor of safety, FP and FR
Method Moderate Design MCE
EQ EQ quakes

PBEE Mcr/Mmax My/Mmax Mult/Mmax

MCSM obt./R obt./R obt./R

Whitman (1984) R = 2.4 for foundations


49
VI. Design and analyses
on CPRF

50
ISSMGE TC212 CPRF Guidelines

51
Load carried by the piles

0.5

The
optimized
design

52
Numerical modeling for Capacities
and Serviceability

P stiff soils

Pall Pult: ultimate load


soft soils
Pall Pult Pall: allowable load
uall uall: allowable displacement
u

1. Ultimate capacity of the foundation could be estimated from


Load-displacement relationship of the foundation.
2. Displacements (or deformations) are controlled to avoid
the Structural damages.
3. Blind guess of the FS is not required.

53
3D FEM analysis as the tool
Examinations of numerical model, material
model, material parameters, loads, environment
and construction procedures

54
VII. Simplified analysis for
seismic responses of CPRF

55
Analyses for Piled Raft Fdt. Poulos (2001)

1. Simplified calculation methods (Poulos-Davis-


Randolph)
2. Approximate computer-based methods
3. Rigorous computer-based methods

Matsumoto (2013)
56
Simplified modeling for seismic
responses of raft fdt.
Uncoupled motions of the slab

Underneath
Impedances

x Subjected to horizontal seismic motion


y
z

57
Motions of equivalent pier

equivalent
pier
pile-soil-pile
elements

58
Analytical/discrete equations

2 2 2
2 = 2 + ( ) + + 1 + 2

, + 1
2 2 + 1
= , + + 1,

1
+ 1, , 1 + , + (, )

2
where = + 2 ; = ; = ; = ; =
2


; x = spatial increment in x direction; t = time increment.

59
Numerical example strip fdt. on piles

60m

300m

60m

Seismic
60m direction
plan view

equivalent
pier
30m 60m 60m 60m 60m 30m

60
Seismic input
(a) (c)
(a)(a)

(b) (d)

3D FEM Modeling

(a) (b)

(c)
61
Comparisons and Observations
(a) 108cm (b)
102cm b)

-102cm
-112cm

62
Influences of bevel angle
y

z

Underneath
Impedances

63
Time efficiency
Method Computer features Computation time (sec)

60 sec
based on time increments of
EQPR 0.0005 sec
analysis (computations required for
CPU: Intel Xeon
EQWEAP analysis is
E3-1231v3
included)
RAM: 16GB
9hr 25min 10sec
3D Midas- for 174780 elements
GTS analysis based on time increments of
0.02 sec

64
VIII. Foundation behaviors
from analyses

65
Study on spread raft on piles
23m

Load distributions of piles 27m

66
v and h affected by loads and S/D

5 5-

Sand-clay-sand model is used in monitoring

67
Vertical displacements of raft

Stage load
w/o consolidation long-term
long-term
w/ consolidation

short-term

68
Horizontal displacements of raft

long-term

short-term

69
Axial loads of piles
Consolidation

70
Skin frictions of piles

Consolidation

71
t-z and Q-z curves

Center Edge

Corner Corner

Edge

Center

72
Lateral resistances along pile shafts

Consolidation Stage loading (undrained)


Stage loading (drained)

73
p-y curves

Center Side edge Front edge

Rear corner Front corner

74
Study on
physical
model data
(Unsever et al., 2014)
Vertical loading

Horizontal loading

75
Axial
forces

Moments Shears

76
Behaviors of piled raft foundation

77
Comparisons on Midas and
EQWEAP analyses

78
PBEE analysis from EQWEAP

OK

OK

NG

79
Behaviors of ring-shaped grouped piles

80
Comparisons on Midas and
EQWEAP analyses

81
PBEE analysis from EQWEAP

OK

OK

OK

82
VIIII. Concluding Remarks

83
On methodologies
1. Accuracy of the pile analysis and design relies on the
knowledge of site soils.
2. The load effects need further investigations.
3. PBD and PBSD became more important to design practice
of deep foundation.
4. Unless the uncertainties of design parameters are
considered, the analysis in monitoring the foundation
behaviors performance-based analysis.
5. Load-displacement relationships of the fdt. should be
analyzed using 3D FEM analysis. Both capacities and
serviceability of CPRF could be revealed.
6. Simplified analyses are very helpful in the stage of
preliminary design.
7. Simplified analyses will make PBSD more accessible.

84
On static foundation behaviors
1. Long-term settlements are larger than short-term
settlements of deep fdt. where soft soils are encountered.
2. Unless time-dependent effects are interested, staged
loads can be used to compute the fdt. displacements.
3. For matrix oriented pile foundation, larger settlements -
fdt. center, smaller settlements - fdt. corners. Loading
patterns of the piles are just the opposite.
4. Load sharing will be significantly affected by S/D and the
length of pile which appear to be the most dominant
factors in design.
5. Loads carried by piles also will be affected by geological
conditions of the site. Sandy soils and clayey soils will
yield different results.

85
On seismic load influences
1. Seismic impacts from the ground soils onto the foundation
should be carefully modeled
2. Seismic load influences to all the piles in grouped pile
foundation and CPRF are about the same.
3. Smaller pile diameter will result in larger relative
foundation displacements w.r.t. the ground.
4. Reducing the length of piles will enlarge the foundation
displacement.
5. The number of piles is highly related to S/D ratio. The
corresponding effects should be monitored carefully.

86
On seismic load influences (contd.)
6. Stiffness and thickness of the softs will not affect much
of foundation displacement when end-bearing piles
were encountered. Nevertheless, stiffer and thicker soft
soils will help to reduce slightly the foundation
displacement.
7. Direction of the horizontal seismic load w.r.t. foundation
seems to be insignificant. Foundation displacements
caused by longitudinal ground excitation is slightly
smaller than those occurred along the transverse
direction.
8. Existence of the superstructure will generally make
smaller foundation displacements. The more rigid the
superstructure is (superstructure displacement becomes
negligible), the less the foundation displacement will be.
87
On PBSD
1. PBEE approach is certainly a good tool to PBSD of pile
foundation and CPRF.
2. Seismic forces is the most dominant design factor
compared to variations of the soil parameters and
geological conditions.
3. Moment capacities could be used to guide the design.
4. Productions of artificial EQs become rather important in
this case.
5. If Reliability Based approach is interested, MCS can be used.
In that case, weights of the IMs must be obtained.
6. Factor of safety of PBSD could be defined. They should be in
similar order from PB and RB approaches.

88
References
Byrne, B. and Houlsby, G. (2013) Foundations for Offshore Wind
Turbines, Supergen Wind, 7th Training Event, U. of Oxford.
Frank, R. (2008) Design of Pile Foundations following Eurocode 7
Section 7. Workshop Eurocodes: background and applications.
Hannigan et al. (2006) Design and Construction of Driven Pile
Foundations- Volume 1, Report FHWA-NHI-05-042.
Orr, T. (2013) Eurocodes: Background and Applications, Worked
Examples Design of Pile Foundations.
Poulos, H.G. (2001) Method of Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations,
TC18 Report, ISSMGE.
Tomlinson M. and Woodard, J. (2008), Pile Design and Construction
Practice,Taylor & Francis.
(2014)

, (2016) ,

(2014) , MOT-IOT-103-
H1DB006a
89
The End
Thanks for your
attentions !

90

Potrebbero piacerti anche