Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Der-Wen Chang
2
Types of Deep Foundations
Piles and Piers;
Combined Pile Raft Foundation (CPRF);
Caisson;
Barrette (Buttress pile/wall) and Grid Walls.
3
Offshore foundations
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.
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.
11
On PBD and PBSD
PBSD of pile fdt
Performance-Based Design
Physical Tests Numerical 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)
YES
PBEE
approach
in options (need to
Calibrate a(t) for analysis
parameters
liquefaction effects)
Apply PBEE to find
Optional vsUmax and vsMmax
OK
End of Design
13
II. Simplified analysis for
seismic behaviors of piles
14
EQWEAP (EarthQuake Wave Equation Analysis for
Piles)
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
17
EQWEAP Formulas (cont.)
1. For ground motions from free-field analysis:
18
Pile Nonlinearity
III
II
19
Effects of Pile Diameter and Ar
on Moment Capacities of pile
4000
20000
Percentage of Steel = 1.94 %
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
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
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)
36
-40 0 40 80
Pile Displacements (cm)
24
III. Applications of Dynamic
pile-to-pile interaction factors
25
Dynamic pile-to-pile interaction factor
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)
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
If Seismic Design Code is followed, PGAt are 0.06g, 0.24g and 0.32g in
Taipei
33
Probability Method - PBEE Analysis
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
P EDP edp j IM im i IM im i
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
45
Calculating the weights
d d dR (a)
PA (a) FA (a) (1 RA (a) ) A
da da da
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
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
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)
Matsumoto (2013)
56
Simplified modeling for seismic
responses of raft fdt.
Uncoupled motions of the slab
Underneath
Impedances
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
66
v and h affected by loads and S/D
5 5-
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
73
p-y curves
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