0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

16 visualizzazioni16 pagineFeb 03, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

16 visualizzazioni16 pagine© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

Abstract: The combined pile–raft foundation (CPRF) has been widely recognized as economic and rational foundation for high-rise build-

ings when subjected to vertical loading because of its effectiveness in load sharing by both raft and pile components. This results in smaller

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

total and differential settlements with a reduced number of piles as compared with group piles. Until recently, the behavior of CPRF when sub-

jected to lateral and real earthquake loading conditions in addition to vertical loads has not been well understood as a result of the complexities

involved in the interaction of the pile, soil, and raft under such loading considerations. In the present study, an attempt has been made to inves-

tigate the behavior of CPRF with the use of centrifuge testing and a numerical model under pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions car-

ried out with ﬁnite-element software. After successful validation of the present CPRF model with both centrifuge and numerical model results,

the same model was used for further study under El-Centro 1979, Loma Prieta 1989, Bhuj 2001 and Sikkim 2011 real earthquake pseudostatic

loading and real acceleration–time history. The maximum displacement and bending moment were observed at the pile head, which is attribut-

able to the rigid ﬁxity of the piles with the raft. The crossover point in the bending moment proﬁle was observed at shallow depths for all cases

of loading. The occurrence of the resonance condition that yielded maximum horizontal displacement of the CPRF as a result of one of the

input motions is also highlighted in the present study. The difference in the response of soil just below the raft of the CPRF and at the far ﬁeld

indicated that near-ﬁeld and far-ﬁeld ground motions were not in tandem. A case study on an existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower,

Frankfurt am Main, Germany, is also presented. The existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower was modeled and analyzed under static and pseu-

dostatic loading conditions. Obtained results show good correlation with the static ﬁeld-measured results. Results in terms of bending

moment in piles, total settlements, and normalized lateral displacement (u/D) are reported. The present ﬁndings are useful because they pro-

vide broader understanding of the response of the CPRF under pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)

GM.1943-5622.0000637. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Author keywords: Pile; Earthquakes; Numerical analysis; Bending; Displacement; Raft foundation.

static loading have been published by International Society of Soil

The combined pile–raft foundation (CPRF) has been recognized as Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) (Katzenbach

an economic and sustainable foundation system for two decades. and Choudhury 2013). Horikoshi et al. (2003a) used centrifuge

This recognition is partly a result of the use of piles below the raft modeling to understand the behavior of CPRFs, pile groups, and

foundation as a settlement reducer, which leads to considerable eco- raft foundations under static vertical and horizontal load. Horikoshi

nomic savings without compromising the safety and performance et al. (2003b) reported the response of CPRFs and pile groups with

of the foundation system (Poulos 2001). Burland et al. (1977) ﬁrst different connection conditions of piles under centrifuge shaking ta-

discussed the rational and efﬁcient design approach to introduce ble tests. Matsumoto et al. (2010) performed 1-g testing and ana-

piles below the raft foundation in cases where settlement was higher lyzed the behavior of raft foundations alone, pile groups, and

than the permissible limit. Some of the concepts for the design of CPRFs under lateral load. Basack and Dey (2012) presented the

CPRFs have been reported by Randolph (1994), Horikoshi and response of an eccentrically loaded single pile by varying the pile–

Randolph (1998), and Kakurai (2003). Further, design code for soil stiffness using the boundary element method. Banerjee et al.

CPRFs has been published (AIJ 2001), and guidelines for the design (2014) examined the seismic response of ﬁxed headed piles by

using centrifuge tests and numerical modeling. Hokmabadi et al.

(2015) performed shaking table tests to investigate seismic soil–

1 pile structure interaction for buildings founded on soft soil. Zheng

Ph.D. Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of

Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. Email: ashusingh@ et al. (2015) analytically investigated the response of piles under

iitb.ac.in rectangular, semisinusoidal, and triangular impulse loads.

2

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Researchers have also investigated the long-term response of piles

Bombay, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; Adjunct Professor, in layered soil deposits (Kog 2015; Zhang et al. 2015). Kumar et

Academy of Scientiﬁc and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi 100 al. (2015) presented the seismic response of pile for an oil tank

025, India (corresponding author). E-mail: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in foundation using PLAXIS 3D. Kumar and Choudhury (2016) per-

3

Professor and Director of Institute and Laboratory of Geotechnics, formed dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis of pile founda-

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technical Univ. Darmstadt, tions using FLAC3D 4.0. Phanikanth and Choudhury (2014) used

Darmstadt 64287, Germany. E-mail: katzenbach@geotechnik.tu-darmstadt

an elastic-continuum approach to investigate the response of later-

.de

Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 4, 2015; approved on

ally loaded single piles embedded in cohesionless soil. Various

November 19, 2015; published online on February 8, 2016. Discussion pe- other researchers have used ﬁnite-element techniques to investi-

riod open until July 8, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for gate soil–structure interaction (Dezfooli et al. 2015; Ladhane and

individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Sawant 2015; Liu et al. 2015; Salciarini et al. 2015). In many

Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. countries, the CPRF concept has been successfully applied to

actual buildings, and ﬁeld observations have been reported studies provide the evidence of prehistoric earthquakes with mag-

(Yamashita et al. 1993; Katzenbach et al. 2000, 2005; Katzenbach nitude (Mw = 6.7) in the Lower Rhine embayment (Camelbeeck

and Moormann 2001; Yamada et al. 2001; Yamashita et al. 2011; and Meghraoui 1998; Camelbeeck et al. 2000; Vanneste et al.

Yamashita et al. 2012). Dash et al. (2009) reported the plausible 2001). These earthquake events were the main objectives behind

causes of failure of CPRFs during the 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. The the analysis of the existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower in the pres-

studies analyzing the response of CPRFs subjected to lateral load ent study. The main purpose of conducting a ﬁnite-element simula-

and real earthquake acceleration–time history are very few and tion of the centrifuge model and a case study was to gain a broader

await further investigation. understanding of the behavior of CPRFs under earthquake loads,

In the present study, a generalized CPRF system derived from which, to date, is not very well understood. The CPRF responses

numerical studies performed by Eslami et al. (2011) and experimen- obtained through this study may be useful in the actual design of

tal studies performed by Horikoshi et al. (2003a,b) was modeled such foundation systems encompassing the inﬂuence of earthquake

with the ﬁnite-element-based geotechnical software PLAXIS 3D

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(version 5.10) and analyzed under static, pseudostatic, and

dynamic loading conditions. Further, the CPRF of the existing

Messeturm Tower of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, was modeled. Numerical Modeling of the CPRF

After successful validation of the present model with available

ﬁeld-measured results, the same model was analyzed under differ-

Numerical Modeling of Soil, Pile, and Raft components

ent pseudostatic loading conditions. Although Germany is not

among the most earthquake-hazard-prone regions of the world, it Fig. 1 provides a schematic representation of the CPRF showing the

has experienced several earthquakes in the past. The most signiﬁ- point of application of load and discretized ﬁnite-element mesh,

cant earthquake was in Albstadt in 1978 (Mw = 5.1), which devas- along with its dimensions. The soil model, which had dimensions of

tated approximately 9,000 structures and caused total losses of 28 m 28 m 16 m, was developed with the use of 10-noded tetra-

about 63 million euro (Kreibich et al. 2014). Recent paleo-seismic hedral soil elements. A conventional Mohr-Coulomb constitutive

model, available in the standard library of PLAXIS 3D, was used to Horikoshi et al. (2003 a,b). Successive loading was applied to the

model the Toyoura sand. Standard ﬁxities were assigned wherein foundation system in the form of vertical pressure applied to the top

the sides were restricted to lateral movement and the base was of the CPRF.

restrained in all directions. A square raft of 4 m width and 1 m thick-

ness was modeled as a plate element. Four ﬁxed headed piles, each Results and Discussions for Static Loading Conditions

9 m in length, 500 mm in diameter, and having a center-to-center Obtained in PLAXIS 3D

spacing of 2 m, was modeled with the use of the embedded pile ele-

ment option inbuilt in PLAXIS 3D, as shown in Fig. 1. It is to be Total vertical resistance provided by the piles was approximately

noted that all of the properties of the Toyoura sand, piles, and raft 2,760 kN. This value provided the CPRF coefﬁcient, deﬁned as the

were taken as provided by Horikoshi et al. (2003 a,b) and Eslami et ratio of resistance provided by the group of piles to the total resist-

al. (2011); these properties are listed in Table 1. A medium-sized ance attributable to external load, of 0.47, which bears close resem-

mesh was generated with 25,624 soil elements and 37,906 nodes blance with the value noted by Horikoshi et al. (2003a). Fig. 2 illus-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

having average element size of 70 cm. The selection of the mesh trates the contour of vertical settlement, which had a maximum

size was based on convergence of results, simulations of the centri- value of 2.1 cm. The obtained result is in close agreement with

fuge tests results, and ease of numerical computation. The load Horikoshi et al. (2003b), who reported a vertical settlement of 1.5

applied to the model was 5,862.5 kN, which is equal to the raft mass cm under a similar loading condition. It was also observed that the

of 4.69 kg under the centrifugal acceleration of 50 g as reported by deformation attributable to vertical loading extended nearly 3 times

from the boundary of the raft laterally and 1.5 times the length of

Table 1. PLAXIS 3D Input Parameters Used in the Present Study of the

the pile vertically. This was an important observation in selecting

CPRF (Data from Horikoshi et al. 2003a,b and Eslami et al. 2011) the boundary for the numerical model.

Analysis of CPRF under Pseudostatic Loading

Material Toyoura sand Concrete Aluminum Condition

Young’s modulus (GPa) 0.04 41.7 70

One of the practical and conventional design techniques is to

Poisson’s ratio ( m ) 0.3 0.2 0.35

replace the seismically induced load with an equivalent static hori-

Unit weight (kN·m3) 16.3 24 27

zontal load on the foundation unit that is equal to the seismic

Friction angle ( f ) 31 — —

coefﬁcient times the total vertical load. This load is called the pseu-

Dilation angle ( c ) 1 — —

dostatic load in the present study and was applied at the level of

Cohesion (kN·m 2) 10 — —

the raft component of the CPRF. A similar approach was

followed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005) to investigate ranges. The seismic coefﬁcient for different earthquake events

the response of piles in liquefying soil deposits. Fig. 3 shows was directly multiplied by the vertical load to obtain the equiv-

the details of the real acceleration–time history, along with the alent static horizontal load, without considering any ampliﬁca-

peak ground acceleration (PGA) of different earthquake input tion resulting from the presence of the soil layer; this was an

motions, used for the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses. The assumption of the present ﬁnite-element analysis (FEA).

earthquake acceleration–time histories were chosen such that Table 2 provides a brief description of the pseudostatic load

the maximum seismic acceleration coefﬁcient and total duration applied to the CPRF.

observed during an earthquake event mostly fall in these

0.1 0.2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.15

Mw= 7.7 Mw= 7.9

0.05

0.1

0.05

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0

0 20 40 60 80 0

0 40 80 120 160

-0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.1

-0.2 Time (sec)

Time (sec)

-0.15 -0.25

(a) (b)

0.3 0.4

PGA= 0.279g 0.3 PGA= 0.43g

0.2 Mw= 6.9 Mw= 6.7

0.2

0.1 0.1

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0

0 0 10 20 30 40

0 10 20 30 40 -0.1

-0.1 -0.2

-0.3

-0.2

-0.4

Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

-0.3 -0.5

(c) (d)

Fig. 3. Acceleration–time history of different earthquake input motion: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta 1989; (d) El-Centro 1979

Earthquakes

Earthquake strong-motion parameters Bhuj 2001 Sikkim 2011 Loma Prieta 1989 El-Centro 1979

Peak ground acceleration (g) 0.106 0.201 0.279 0.43

Bracketed duration (sec) 12.44 25.35 15.17 17.64

Maximum horizontal load applied to generic CPRF (kN) 621.4 1178.4 1635.6 2520.8

Maximum horizontal load applied to CPRF of Messeturm tower (MN) 192.7 365.5 507.4 782.0

Note: Bracketed duration is the duration (time) between the ﬁrst and last exceedances of seismic acceleration of 0.05 g in the acceleration–time history of

earthquake motion.

The percentage of pseudostatic load shared by the pile founda- was observed that the maximum proportion of load was shared by

tion varied from 62 to 76% under different pseudostatic loading the pile foundation under pseudostatic loading conditions, which is

conditions and increased with an increase in pseudostatic loading. It unlike under vertical loading conditions, in which the raft takes the

-0.005 0.005 0.015 0.025 0.035 0.045

0

0.1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2

0.3

Normalized depth (z/L)

0.4

0.5

0.6

El-Centro 1979

0.7 Loma Prieta 1989

Bhuj 2001

0.8

Sikkim 2011

0.9

1

(a)

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

0

4

Depth (m)

El-Centro 1979

6

Loma Prieta 1989

Bhuj 2001

7

Sikkim 2011

9

(b)

Fig. 4. Proﬁles: (a) normalized horizontal displacement; (b) bending moment along the pile length under different pseudostatic loading conditions

1 3

0.8

0.6 2

Acceleration (m/sec2)

Acceleration (m/sec2)

0.4

1

0.2

0 0

-0.2

-0.4 -1

-0.6

-2

-0.8

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-1 -3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (Sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)

0.25 0.8

0.2 0.6

0.15 0.4

Acceleration (g)

0.1 0.2

Acceleration (g)

0.05 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0 -0.2

0 20 40 60 80

-0.05 -0.4

-0.1

-0.6

-0.15

Time (Sec) -0.8

Time (Sec)

-0.2

-1

(a) (b)

0.8 1.5

0.6

1

0.4

0.5

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.2

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

-0.2

-0.5

-0.4

-1

-0.6

Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

-0.8 -1.5

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Acceleration–time history of different earthquake motions obtained at the top of the CPRF: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta

1989; (f) El-Centro 1979

maximum proportion of the vertical load. This observation is simi- contains dampers in the normal and shear directions to absorb any

lar to that reported by Matsumoto et al. (2004, 2010). Figs. 4 (a) and undue reﬂection of seismic waves. To avoid numerical distortion of

(b) show the normalized horizontal displacement and bending the propagating wave in the dynamic analysis, the mesh size (DL)

moment variation along the pile length. For all piles, the maximum must be smaller than one-tenth to one-eighth of the wavelength

bending moment and normalized lateral displacement were associated with the highest-frequency component of the input wave

observed near the pile head, which increased with an increase in the (Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer 1973). Considering the these criteria, the

seismic acceleration coefﬁcient. It was observed that the piles element size chosen was small enough to allow smooth propagation

attained maximum horizontal displacement values (u) of 0.7, 2, 3.8, of all input earthquake motions.

and 4.5% of the pile diameter (D) under Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, The fundamental frequency (v r ) of a CPRF having four piles is

Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 pseudostatic loading, calculated with the following expression, as per Kang et al. (2012):

respectively. However, the allowable horizontal displacement of rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

EI

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vr ¼ 2 (1)

of the pile diameter (u/D = 0.01) (JRA 2002). It was also observed mraft L3

that the positive bending moment developed near the top of the pile,

which progressively reduced to negative and then to zero at the pile where v r is the fundamental frequency of the CPRF; EI is the ﬂex-

tip. The crossover point of the bending moment from negative to ural rigidity of the pile, taken as 127,935.60 kN·m2; L is the length

positive was observed at shallow depths and followed a similar pat- of pile, taken as 9 m; and mraft is the mass of the raft, taken as 432

tern under all pseudostatic loading conditions. This observation is kN. The fundamental frequency and time period of the CPRF were

similar to that reported by Poulos and Davis (1980), Gazetas taken as 1.27 Hz and 0.78 sec, respectively. The fundamental fre-

(1984), and Phanikanth et al. (2013a). quency and time period of the soil model were calculated from T ¼

4H=VS (Kramer 1996), where H is the soil model thickness, taken

Analysis of CPRF under Dynamic Loading as 16 m;p and Vsﬃ is the shear wave velocity of the soil model, calcu-

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

lated as G= r , where G is the shear modulus of soil and r is the

Inherent soil properties, such as viscosity, frictional, and plasticity density of soil. The fundamental frequency and time period for the

properties, generally cause material damping in a soil mass. The present soil model was obtained as 1.5 Hz and 0.66 sec,

role of damping in numerical analyses is to reproduce energy losses respectively.

under dynamic loading. In present case, dynamic damping was

modeled with the Rayleigh damping option provided in PLAXIS

Results for Dynamic Analysis

3D. The value of damping was chosen as 5%, which is a typical

value of damping for geologic material (Kramer 1996). Many geo- Fig. 5(a) shows the input sinusoidal acceleration applied at the base

technical problems can be idealized by assuming that regions of the soil model with an amplitude of 1 m/sec2 and frequency of 1

remote from the zone of interest extend to inﬁnity, where dynamic Hz, which was used as an input for the dynamic centrifuge test, the

waves propagate in all directions. To model an inﬁnite medium, a same as that applied at the base of the numerical model. The maxi-

computer program truncates it to a ﬁnite size with the use of artiﬁ- mum acceleration obtained at the top of the CPRF was 2.8 m/sec2,

cial boundaries. PLAXIS 3D provides a viscous boundary that as shown in Fig. 5(b). The acceleration response at the top of the

4 1.6

3.5

Loma Prieta 1989

Loma Prieta 1989

Bhuj 2001

3 Bhuj 2001 1.2

Sikkim 2011

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Sikkim 2011

Spectral Acceleration (g)

2.5 1

2 0.8

1.5 0.6

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Period (Sec) Period (Sec)

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Response spectrum: (a) just below the raft of the CPRF; (b) soil top (far ﬁeld) under different earthquake input motions

CRPF reported by Horikoshi et al. (2003b) and Eslami et al. (2011) illustrate the response spectrum of all earthquake input motions just

was 2.7 m/sec2 and 2.65 m/sec2, respectively. The CPRF experi- below the raft of the CPRF and at the far ﬁeld. It can be observed

enced residual horizontal displacement (after the end of shaking du- that maximum ampliﬁcation just below the raft of the CPRF for the

ration) of 1.78 cm, which is in close agreement with the values Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979

reported as 2 cm and 2.8 cm by Horikoshi et al. (2003b) and Eslami earthquake input motions occurred at the predominant period of

et al. (2011), respectively. It was observed that the present seismic 1.09, 1.3, 0.71, and 0.44 sec, respectively. It is to be noted that the

analysis results are in close agreement with the centrifuge test predominant period of the Loma Prieta 1989 spectral response was

results as compared with the numerical analysis results reported by 0.71 sec, which is closer to the fundamental period of the CPRF

Eslami et al. (2011). The obtained results for both static and (0.78 sec). Hence, the condition of resonance occurred for this

dynamic cases simulated the FEA results both quantitatively and earthquake motion. It is also noted that the response spectrum of the

qualitatively, which can be considered as good validation of the Sikkim 2011 earthquake input motion shifted to the right side as

present model. compared with all other earthquake response spectra, which may be

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6 illustrates the acceleration response of the CRPF under all attributable to the characteristics of the input motion, such as dura-

earthquake input motions. The maximum acceleration values tion and frequency content, which was higher in former case.

obtained at the CPRF top under the Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Furthermore, the maximum acceleration observed at the far ﬁeld

Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 earthquake input motions were was signiﬁcantly lower than that of near ﬁeld, indicating strong

0.24, 0.78, 0.79, and 1.04 g, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. The interaction between pile, raft, and soil. Similar behavior was

maximum acceleration observed at the CPRF top for the El-Centro observed by Banerjee et al. (2007) and Kang et al. (2012). Fig. 8

1979 earthquake input motion closely matches the result reported illustrates the normalized horizontal displacement of the CPRF dur-

by Eslami et al. (2011), with a value of 0.96 g. Ampliﬁcation was ing real earthquake events, and shows that the Bhuj 2001, Sikkim

observed for all cases of earthquake input motion. Figs. 7(a) and (b) 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 input motions attained

0.06 0.035

0.03

0.04

Normalize horizontal disp. (u/D)

0.02 0.02

0.015

0

0 20 40 60 80 0.01

-0.02

0.005

-0.04 0

0 40 80 120 160

-0.005

-0.06

-0.01

Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

-0.08 -0.015

(a) (b)

0.14 0.04

0.12

0.03

Normalized horizontal disp. (u/D)

0.1

Normalized horizontal disp. (u/D)

0.08

0.02

0.06

0.04 0.01

0.02

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

-0.02

-0.01

-0.04

-0.06

-0.02

-0.08 Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

-0.1 -0.03

(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Normalized horizontal displacement–time history under different earthquake motion obtained at the top of the CPRF: (a) Bhuj 2001; (b) =

Sikkim 2011; (c) Loma Prieta 1989; (d) El-Centro 1979

maximum horizontal displacement values (u) of 5.5, 2.8, 13.3, and higher PGA. This may be because the predominant period of the

3.2% of the pile diameter (D). It is interesting to note that the nor- Bhuj 2001 response spectrum (1.09 sec) was closer to the resonance

malized horizontal displacement obtained under the Loma Prieta condition as compared with the Sikkim 2011 response spectrum

1989 earthquake motion was the greatest as compared with all other (1.3 sec). It can be concluded that input motion characteristics and,

normalized displacements observed under other input motions. The most importantly, the condition of resonance play a signiﬁcant role

reason for this may be attributed to the condition of resonance, in the response of the foundation system. Liyanapathirana and

which did not occur in all other cases. It was also observed that nor- Poulos (2005), Choudhury et al. (2009), Phanikanth et al. (2013a,

malized horizontal displacement was greater in the case of the Bhuj b), Chatterjee et al. (2015a,b), and Choudhury et al. (2014), among

2001 earthquake input motion as compared with the Sikkim 2011 others, also reported the signiﬁcant role of the nature of the earth-

earthquake input motion, although the Sikkim 2011 motion had a quake in the response of the pile.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. View of Messetrum Tower and arrangement of piles (adapted from Katzenbach et al. 2005)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

10

20 Hyperbolic Variation

30 Linear Variation

Plaxis Input

40

Depth (m)

50

60

70

80

90

100

Table 3. Properties of Frankfurt Clay and Limestone as an Input Parameter in FEA (Data from Berth 1970 and Reul 2000)

Values

Parameters Symbol/unit Frankfurt clay Frankfurt limestone

2

Young’s modulus E(MN·m ) as per Eq. (4) 2,000

Poisson’s ratio m 0.25 0.2

Saturated unit weight g (kN·m3) 19 22

Friction angle f (°) 20 15

Drained cohesion c (kN·m2) 20 1,000

Secant stiffness E50 (kN·m2) 70,000 —

Tangent stiffness E50 (kN·m2) 70,000 —

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ur (kN·m ) 210,000 —

Power for stress level dependency m 0.85 —

Reference stress kN·m2 100 (default) —

Failure ratio Rf 0.9 (default) —

Table 4. Material Properties of Raft and Piles Used in FEA Calculation

(Data from Reul 2000) Successful prediction of the response of foundations is highly de-

pendent upon the subsoil strength and deformation parameters. The

Parameters Symbol/Unit Raft Pile

use of soil parameters whose values are close to in-situ conditions is

2

Young’s modulus E (MN·m ) 34,000 25,000 the key requirement for getting better results, which should always

Poisson’s ratio m 0.2 0.2 correspond to reality. Hyperbolic variation in the soil modulus has

Unit weight g (kN·m3) 25 25 been observed in Frankfurt clay, as per experimental test data

reported by Reul (2000), and is well predicted with Eq. (2).

It is to be noted that the normalized horizontal displacement

z 30

results in the pseudostatic analysis varied marginally with those of E ¼ 45 þ tanh þ 1 0:7 z (2)

15

the dynamic analysis. The reason for this may be attributable to the

fact that dynamic analysis considers the natural frequency of the

where E is the elastic modulus in MN·m2; and z is soil depth in m.

soil media, the resonance frequency of the CPRF, and the character- From the back calculation of the settlements of raft foundations

istics of the earthquake input motion, which are ignored in the sim- of high-rise buildings in Frankfurt, Amann (1975) gave a linear var-

ple pseudostatic design, in which only the PGA of the input motion iation of elastic modulus along the clay depth as per Eq. (3).

is considered.

E ¼ 7ð1 þ 0:35 zÞ (3)

Case Study on Existing CPRF of Messeturm Tower where E is the elastic modulus in MN·m2; and z is soil depth in m.

Frankfurt clay was modeled using the hardening soil (HS) model

General Information of Frankfurt Subsoil and option available in the standard library of PLAXIS 3D, which is

Messeturm Tower based on the hyperbolic relation between axial strain and deviatoric

stress and also considers the stiffness dependency with conﬁning

Frankfurt am Main is located on the eastern boundary of the pressure, as per Eq. (4).

Mainzer basin in the western part of Germany. The subsoil of

m

ref c cos f s 3 sin f

Frankfurt am Main consists of homogeneous, stiff, and overconsoli-

E50 ¼ E50 (4)

dated tertiary Frankfurt clay with an embedded limestone band of c cos f þ pref sin f

varying thicknesses (Katzenbach 1981). The layer extends to the

east and the southeast of Frankfurt at an inclination of 2 to 3° to the where E50ref

is the reference stiffness modulus corresponding to the

northwest (Romberg and Katzenbach 1986). Messeturm Tower was reference conﬁning pressure. The actual stiffness depends on the

constructed on the eastern side of the Frankfurt exhibition area in minor principal stress (s 3 ), which is conﬁning pressure in the tri-

the Friedrich-Ebert place during the years 1988–1990. The height axial test. The amount of stress dependency is given by power

of the tower is 256.5 m, with an ofﬁce area of 63,000 m2. The tower law (m). Shear strength parameters, such as cohesion (c) and fric-

has a CPRF as its foundation system. The tower’s CPRF consists of tion angle ( f ), are used as per Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.

a square raft of width 58.8 m of varying thickness, from 6 m at the The stiffness parameter in the FEA was chosen as per the relation-

center to 3 m at the edges, and 64 bored piles having a uniform di- ship established by Amann (1975) and Reul (2000), as shown in

ameter of 1.3 m but varying in length. The piles are arranged into a Fig. 10.

three-ring pattern. The inner ring consists of 16 piles of 34.9-m Because the same model was to be analyzed under pseudostatic

length, the middle ring pile consists of 20 piles of 30.9-m length, loading, a symmetric modeling procedure was adopted to reduce

and the outer ring pile consists of 28 piles of 26.9-m length. Fig. 9 computational time. The total thickness of the soil model was taken

shows the existing Messeturm Tower and provides a schematic as 130 m, including 74.8 m of Frankfurt clay layer and 55.2 m of

view of the CPRF and the pile arrangement. Further details of meas- Frankfurt limestone layer, as per the quarter symmetric model pre-

urements and monitoring of the CPRF of Messeturm Tower can be sented by Reul (2000). Frankfurt limestone was modeled with a

found in Sommer et al. (1990), Sommer and Hoffmann (1991), and Mohr-Coulomb model. The dimensions of the model boundary

Sommer (1993). were chosen to avoid any deformation near the boundary. The soil

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parameters for numerical analysis are listed in Table 3, as per Berth having dimensions of 58.8-m length and 29.4-m width was mod-

(1970) and Reul (2000). eled. The properties of raft and piles are given in Table 4. Fig. 11

shows the three-dimensional (3D) symmetric mesh of the soil and

CPRF model, and it also depicts the inner, middle, and outer potion

Numerical Modeling of Pile and Raft Component of of the raft and the inner, middle, and outer rings of piles. The total

CPRF load of 1,818.7 MN, which includes the weight of the building and

The piles were modeled as embedded pile elements and the raft was self-weight of the raft, was applied in the form of vertical pressure

modeled as a plate element. To simulate a symmetric condition, 33 to the top of the CPRF (Reul 2000). Previous studies also used this

piles were modeled as having 8 inner-ring piles of 34.9-m length, concept for application of a lumped mass of superstructure onto the

foundation unit (Tabesh and Poulos 2007; Castelli and Maugeri

10 middle-ring piles of 30.9-m length, and 15 outer-ring piles of

2009), along with design codes such as AASHTO (1993).

26.9-m length. All piles were modeled as having a uniform diameter

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of 1,300 mm, except for the two edge piles, which were modeled as

having a diameter of 650 mm. Half of the existing raft foundation Results for Static Loading Conditions

Fig. 12 shows the contour of the settlement proﬁle, which had a

Total load (MN) maximum value of settlement of 16.95 cm. Fig. 13 shows the load–

0 500 1000 1500 2000 settlement curve obtained through FEA and the ﬁeld-measured

0 value, which bear close resemblance with each other. The maxi-

mum settlement obtained through FEA was 16.95 cm, and settle-

2 ment measured in the ﬁeld on December 17, 1998, was 14.4 cm.

Sommer et al. (1990) reported that if only the raft foundation was

4 used, the settlement would be around 40 cm. A maximum settle-

ment of 17.4 cm was reported by Reul (2000) through analysis per-

6

formed in Abaqus 5.8, which is close to the obtained result in the

Settlement (cm)

8

present study. Fig. 14 illustrates the settlement proﬁle in Frankfurt

clay obtained after FEA and ﬁeld measurements; it can be

10 observed that the measured proﬁle is a close match with the pres-

ent FEA results. The total vertical load taken by all the piles was

FEA approximately 760 MN, which gives the CPRF coefﬁcient a value

12

of 0.42, which is close to the ﬁeld-measured value of 0.43 as men-

14 Field measured tioned by Reul (2000). Figs. 15 and 16 illustrate the pile load–distri-

(17.12.1998) bution curve for the inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles and the re-

16 sistance–settlement curve for the inner- and outer-ring piles for both

the FEA and the ﬁeld-measured value, and show that the ﬁeld-meas-

18 ured value is a close match with the FEA results. Table 5 shows a

comparison of the results obtained through the present FEA with

20

measured values. From the static analyses results, it is observed that

Fig. 13. Load–settlement curve the FEA results of the CPRF simulate the in-situ measurements rea-

sonably well, both qualitatively and quantitatively, thus validating

the present numerical model. Hence, the same numerical model was

used to analyze the behavior of the CRPF of the Messeturm Tower

Sz / smax (%) under different pseudostatic loading conditions.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

2 Analysis and Results for Pseudostatic Loading

Condition

12 Pseudostatic loading derived from Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma

Prieta 1989, and El-Centro 1979 earthquake input motions was

22

applied to the top of the CPRF in the positive x-direction. The

details of the applied pseudostatic loading are given in Table 2.

Fig. 17 shows the normalized horizontal displacement along the

Depth (m)

32 pile length for the inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles under the

Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and 1979 El-Centro

earthquake loadings. It was observed that normalized displacement

42 increased with an increase in the magnitude of earthquake loading,

had maximum value at the pile head, and reduced to zero at the pile

FEA

52 tip for all three ring piles. The CPRF attained horizontal displace-

ment values (u) of 2, 5, 7, and 13% of the pile diameter (D) in the

Field measured

(26.07.1991) cases of Bhuj 2001, Sikkim 2011, Loma Prieta 1989, and El-Centro

62 1979 pseudostatic loading. Fig. 18 presents the bending moment

proﬁle along the pile length under static and different earthquake

loading conditions for all three rings. The maximum bending

Fig. 14. Settlement distribution along depth of Frankfurt clay

moment was observed at the top of the pile as a result of the rigidity

of the connection between the raft and the pile. It was also observed

Load (MN)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0

10

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20

Field measured (26.07.1991)- Inner ring pile

30

FEA- Middle ring pile

Field measured (26.07.1991)- Middle ring pile

35

FEA- Outer ring pile

Field measured (26.07.1991)- Outer ring pile

40

Fig. 15. Pile load distribution along pile length for inner-, middle-, and outer-ring piles

Resistance (MN)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

6

Settlement (cm)

10

12

FEA- Inner ring pile

14 Field measured (17.12.1998)- Inner ring pile

Field measured (17.12.1998)- Outer ring pile

18

that a positive bending moment developed near the top of the pile,

which progressively reduced to negative and then to zero at the pile Table 5. Comparison of Results Obtained through FEA and Field

Measurements

tip. The crossover point from negative to positive was observed at

shallow depths. Field-measured FE (%)

Parameters value calculation difference

CPRF coefﬁcient 0.43 0.42 2.32

Conclusions

Settlement (cm) 14.4 16.95 –17.7

Pile load (inner ring) (MN) 9.7 10.87 –12.06

In the present study, 3D nonlinear analysis was carried out using

Pile load (outer ring) (MN) 7.8 8.77 –12.43

PLAXIS 3D to investigate the behavior of a generic CPRF under

pseudostatic and dynamic loading conditions. It is to be noted that dynamic centrifuge tests and studies using Abaqus 5.8 reasonably

FEA to investigate the behavior of CPRFs under seismic loading well, which was considered as good validation of the present model.

requires a great amount of computational time and space, but to es- Thereafter, pseudostatic and dynamic analyses were carried out

tablish conﬁdence in the design and to model such important foun- under different earthquake loading conditions. It was observed that

dations in conditions close to those of the ﬁeld, such rigorous analy- the pile share of maximum percentage of pseudostatic load varied

ses are required. The numerical study simulated the trend of from 62 to 76%, which is unlike the case in vertical loading. The

0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15

0

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10

Depth (m)

El-Centro 1979 - Outer ring pile

20 Loma Prieta 1989 - Inner ring pile

Loma Preita 1989- middle ring pile

Loma Prieta 1989 - Outer ring pile

25 Bhuj 2001- Inner ring pile

Bhuj 2001 - Middle ring pile

Bhuj 2001 - Outer ring pile

30 Sikkim 2011- Inner ring pile

Sikkim 2011- Middle ring pile

Sikkim 2011 - Outer ring pile

35

Fig. 17. Normalized horizontal displacement along pile length for different cases of pseudostatic loading

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

0

10

Static- Middle ring pile

Static- Outer ring pile

Depth (m)

El-Centro 1979- Middle ring pile

El-Centro 1979 - Outer ring pile

20 Loma Prieta 1989 - Inner ring pile

Loma Prieta 1989- Middle ring pile

Loma Prieta 1989- Outer ring pile

25 Bhuj 2001- Inner ring pile

Bhuj 2001- Middle ring pile

Bhuj 2001- Outer ring pile

30 Sikkim 2011- Inner ring pile

Sikkim 2011- Middle ring pile

Sikkim 2011- Outer ring pile

35

Fig. 18. Bending moment along pile length for different cases of static and pseudostatic loading

resonance condition was observed under the Loma Prieta 1989 Banerjee, S., Goh, S. H., and Lee, F. H. (2007). “Response of soft clay strata

earthquake motion, which yielded higher acceleration and horizon- and clay-pile- raft systems to seismic shaking.” J. Earthquake Tsunami,

tal displacement in the CPRF as compared with all other input 1(3), 233–255.

Banerjee, S., Goh, S. H., and Lee, F. H. (2014). “Earthquake induced bend-

motions. The response spectrum led to the postulation that the soil

ing moment in ﬁxed head piles in soft clay.” Geotechnique, 64(6),

below the raft of the CPRF and the soil at the far ﬁeld were not 431–446.

moving in tandem as a result of the strong interaction of soil, pile, Basack, S., and Dey, S. (2012). “Inﬂuence of relative pile-soil stiffness and

and raft. The results obtained through pseudostatic analysis var- load eccentricity on single pile response in sand under lateral cyclic

ied marginally with those of the dynamic analysis because the loading.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 30(4), 737–751.

considerations of natural frequency of soil media and input Berth, H. (1970). “Das Tragverhalten des Frankfurter Tons bei im Tiefbau

motion characteristics were included in the dynamic analysis, auftretenden Beansprunchungen.” Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für

whereas the pseudostatic analysis considered only the PGA of the Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, Heft 4 (in German).

Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B., and De Mello, V. F. B. (1977). “Behaviour of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

input motions.

foundation and structures.” Proc., 9th ICSMFE, Vol. 2, International

The case study on numerical modeling of the CPRF of the exist-

Society for Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 495–

ing Messeturm Tower revealed the signiﬁcance of the raft founda- 546.

tion in load sharing under vertical loading considerations. The nor- Camelbeeck, T., Alexandre, P., Vanneste, K., and Meghraoui, M. (2000).

malized horizontal displacement and bending moment proﬁle “Long-term seismic activity in regions of present day low seismic activ-

showed maximum value at the pile head, which decreased along the ity: The example of Western Europe.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 20,

length of pile. The current study highlights the importance of nu- 405–414.

merical modeling techniques in understanding the behavior of Camelbeeck, T., and Meghraoui, M. (1998). “Geological and geophysical

CPRFs involving complex soil–structure interaction under static, evidence for large paleoearthquakes with surface faulting in the Roer

Grabe (northwest Europe).” Geophys. J. Int., 132, 347–362.

pseudostatic, and dynamic loading conditions.

Castelli, F., and Maugeri, M. (2009). “Simpliﬁed approach for the seismic

response of a pile foundation.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT

Notation .1943-5606.0000107, 1440–1451.

Chatterjee, K., Choudhury, D., and Poulos, H. G. (2015b). “Seismic analy-

The following symbols are used in this paper: sis of laterally loaded pile under inﬂuence of vertical loading using ﬁnite

C ¼ cohesion; element method.” Comput. Geotech., 67, 172–186.

d ¼ pile diameter; Chatterjee, K., Choudhury, D., Rao, V. D., and Mukherjee, S. P. (2015a).

E ¼ elastic modulus; “Dynamic analyses and ﬁeld observations on piles in Kolkata city.”

Geomech. Eng. Int. J., 8(3), 415–440.

ref

E50 ¼ reference stiffness modulus;

Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V. S., Mhaske, S. Y., Phule, R. R., and

FEA ¼ finite-element analysis; Chatterjee, K. (2014). “Seismic liquefaction hazard and site response for

G ¼ shear modulus; design of piles in Mumbai city.” Indian Geotech. J., 45(1), 62–78.

H ¼ height of soil model; Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V. S., and Reddy, G. R. (2009). “Recent advan-

I ¼ moment of inertia; ces in analysis and design of pile foundations in liqueﬁable soils during

L ¼ pile length; earthquake: A review.” Proc., Indian Natl. Sci. Acad., 79(2), 141–152.

m ¼ stress dependency factor; Dash, S., Govindaraju, L., and Bhattacharya, S. (2009). “A case study of

mraft ¼ mass of raft; damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Ofﬁce tower supported on a

Mw ¼ moment magnitude; mat–pile foundation in liqueﬁed soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.”

PGA ¼ peak ground acceleration; Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 29(2), 333–346.

Pref ¼ reference confining pressure; Dezfooli, M., Abolmaali, A., and Razavi, M. (2015). “Coupled nonlinear ﬁ-

nite-element analysis of soil–steel pipe structure interaction.” Int. J.

u ¼ lateral displacement;

Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000387, 04014032.

T ¼ fundamental time period; FLAC3D 4.0 [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,

Vs ¼ shear wave velocity; MN.

z ¼ soil depth; Eslami, M. M., Aminikhah, A., and Ahmadi M. M. (2011). “A comparative

DL ¼ mesh size; study on pile group and piled raft foundations (PRF) behavior under

m ¼ Poisson’s ratio; seismic loading.” Comp. Meth. Civil Eng., 2(2), 185–199.

r ¼ density of soil; Gazetas, G. (1984). “Seismic response of end-bearing single piles.” Soil

s 3 ¼ minor principal stress; Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 3(2), 82–93.

f ¼ soil friction angle; Hokmabadi, A. S., Fatahi, B., and Samali, B. (2015). “Physical modeling of

c ¼ soil dilation angle; and seismic soil-pile-structure interaction for buildings on soft soils.” Int. J.

Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000396, 04014046.

v r ¼ resonance frequency.

Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T., and

Fukuyama H. (2003a). “Performance of piled raft foundations subjected

to static horizontal loads.” Int. J. Phys. Model., 3(2), 37–50.

Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T., and

References Fukuyama, H. (2003b). “Performance of piled raft foundations sub-

jected to dynamic loading.” Int. J. Phys. Model., 3(2), 51–62.

AASHTO. (1993). AASHTO Guide for design for pavement structures, Horikoshi, K., and Randolph, M. F. (1998). “A contribution of optimum

Washington, DC. design of piled rafts.” Geotechnique, 48(3), 301–317.

Abaqus 5.8 [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Providence, RI. JRA (Japan Road Association). (2002). Speciﬁcation for highway bridges:

AIJ (Architectural Institute of Japan). (2001). Recommendation for design Seismic design, PartV, Tokyo.

of building foundation, Tokyo (in Japanese). Kakurai, M. (2003). “Study on vertical load transfer of piles.” Doctoral the-

Amann, P. (1975). “Über den Einﬂuß des Verformungsverhaltens des sis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo (in Japanese).

Frankfurter Tons auf die Tiefenwirkkung eines Hochhauses und die Kang, M. A., Banerjee, S., Lee, F. H., and Xie, H. P. (2012). “Dynamic soil-

Form der Setzungsmulde.” Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für pile-raft interaction in normally consolidated soft clay during earth-

Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der TH Darmstadt, 15 (in German). quakes.” J. Earthquake Tsunami, 6(3), 1250031-1–1250031-12.

Katzenbach, R. (1981). “Entwicklungstendenzen beim Bau under der Poulos, H. G. (2001). “Piled raft foundations: Design and applications.”

Berechung Oberﬂächennaher Tunnel in bebautem Stadtgebiet.” Geeotechnique, 51(2), 95–113.

Mitteilungen der Versuchsanstalt für Bodenmechanik und Grundbau Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design,

der TH Darmstadt, Heft 24 (in German). John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U., and Moormann, C. (2000). “Piled raft founda- Randolph, M. F. (1994). “Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts.”

tion projects in Germany.” In Design applications of raft foundations, Proc. 13th ICSMFE, Vol. 5, International Society for Mechanics and

J. A. Hemsley, ed., Thomas Telford, London, 323–392. Geotechnical Engineering, London, 61–82.

Katzenbach, R., Bachmann, G., Boled- Mekasha, G., and Ramm, H. (2005). Reul, O. (2000). “In situ-Messungen und numerische studien Zum

“Combined pile-raft foundation (CPRF): An approximate solution for Tragverhalten der Kombinierten Pfahl-plattengtündung.” Mitteilungen

the foundation of high rise buildings.” Slovak J. Civ. Eng., 3, 19–29. des Institutes und der versuchsanstalt für Geotechnik ser Technischen

Katzenbach, K., and Choudhury, D. (2013). “ISSMGE combined pile-raft Universität Darmstadt, Heft 53 (in German).

foundation guideline.” Deep foundations, International Society for Romberg, W., and Katzenbach, R. (1986) “Steifenkraftmessungen an teifen

Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 1–28. Baugruben in tertiären Kalken.” Proc. 8, Dinau-Europäische Konfernz,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Ropar on 01/30/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Katzenbach, R., and Moormann, C. (2001). “Recommendations for the Nürnberg, DGEG, Essen, Germany, 31–35 (in German).

design and construction of piled rafts.” Proc., 15th Int. Conf. on Soil Salciarini, D., Ronchi, F., Cattoni, E., and Tamagnini, C. (2015).

Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, International Society for “Thermomechanical effects induced by energy piles operation in a small

Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, London, 2. piled raft.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000375,

Kog, Y. (2015). “Axially loaded piles in consolidating layered soil.” Int. J. 04014042.

Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000523, 04015039. Sommer, H. (1993). “Development of locked stresses and negative shaft re-

Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, sistance at the piled raft foundation- Messeturm Frankfurt am Main.”

New Jersey. Proc., Deep Foundations on Bored und Auger Piles, Balkema,

Kreibich, H., et al. (2014). “A review of multiple natural hazards and risks Rotterdam, Netherlands, 347–349.

in Germany.” Nat. Hazards, 74(3), 2279–2304. Sommer, H., and Hoffmann, H. (1991). “Load-settlement behavior of the

Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and Lysmer, J. (1973). “Finite element method accuracy fair tower (Messeturm) in Frankfurt am Main.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on

Ground Movement and Structures, Pentech Press, London, 612–627.

for wave propagation problems.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(5), 421–

Sommer, H., Katzenbach, R., and DeBeneditis, C. (1990). “Last-

427.

Verformungsverhalten des messeturmes Frankfurt am Mai.” Vorträge

Kumar, A., and Choudhury, D. (2016). “DSSI analysis of pile foundations

der Baugrundtagung in Karlsruhe, DGGT, Essen, Germany, 371–380

for an oil tank in Iraq.” Proc., ICE Geotechnical Engineering, in press.

(in German).

Kumar, A., Choudhury, D., Sukla, J., and Shah, D. L. (2015). “Seismic

Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. (2007). “Design charts for seismic analysis of

design of pile foundation by using PLAXIS3D.” Disaster Adv., 8(6), 33–

single piles in clay.” Proc., ICE—Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 160,

42.

Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 85–96.

Ladhane, K., and Sawant, V. (2015). “Effect of pile group conﬁgurations on

Vanneste, K., et al. (2001). “Surface-rupturing history of the Bree fault

nonlinear dynamic response.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM scarp, Roer Valley graben: Evidence for six events since the late

.1943-5622.0000476, 04015013. Pleistocene.” J. Seismol., 5(3), 329–359.

Liu, Y., Wang, X., and Zhang, M. (2015). “Lateral vibration of pile groups Yamada, T., Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M., and Tsukatani, H. (2001). “Long-

partially embedded in layered saturated soils.” Int. J. Geomech., 10 term behaviour of tall building on raft foundation constructed by top-

.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000406, 04014063. down method.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice, CI-

Liyanapathirana, S., and Poulos, H. (2005). “Pseudostatic approach for seis- Premier Pte Ltd., Singapore, 411–417.

mic analysis of piles in liquefying soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Yamashita, K., Hamada, J., Onimaru, S., and Higashino, M. (2012).

10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:12(1480), 1480–1487. “Seismic behavior of piled raft with ground improvement supporting a

Matsumoto, T., Fukumura, K., Horikoshi, K., and Oki, A. (2004). “Shaking base-isolated building on soft ground in Tokyo.” Soils Found., 52(5),

table test on model piled rafts in considering inﬂuence of superstruc- 1000–1015.

tures.” Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech., 4(3), 21–38. Yamashita, K., Kakurai, M., Yamada, T., and Kuwabara, F. (1993).

Matsumoto, T., Nemoto, H., Mikami, H., Yaegashi, K., Arai, T., and “Settlement behaviour of a ﬁve-story building on piled raft foundation.”

Kitiyodom, P. (2010). “Load tests of piled raft models with different Proc., 2nd Int. Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on Bored

pile head connection conditions and their analyses.” Soils Found., 50(1), and Auger Piles, Vol. 2, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 351–356.

63–81. Yamashita, K., Yamada, T., and Hamada, J. (2011). “Investigation of settle-

Phanikanth, V. S., and Choudhury, D. (2014). “Single piles in cohesionless ment and load sharing on piled rafts by monitoring full-scale structures.”

soils under lateral loads using elastic continuum approach.” Indian Soils Found., 51(3), 513–532.

Geotech. J., 44(3), 225–233. Zhang, J., Cui, X., Huang, D., Jin, Q., Lou, J., and Tang, W. (2015).

Phanikanth, V. S., Choudhury, D., and Reddy, G. R. (2013a). “Behavior of “Numerical simulation of consolidation settlement of pervious concrete

single pile in liqueﬁed deposits during earthquakes.” Int. J. Geomech., pile composite foundation under road embankment.” Int. J. Geomech.,

10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000224, 454–462. 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000542, B4015006.

Phanikanth, V. S., Choudhury, D., and Srinivas, K. (2013b). “Response of Zheng, C., Ding, X., and Sun, Y. (2015). “Vertical vibration of a pipe pile in

ﬂexible piles under lateral loads.” Indian Geotech. J., 43(1), 76–82. viscoelastic soil considering the three-dimensional wave effect of soil.”

PLAXIS 3D 5.10 [Computer software]. PLAXIS BV, Netherlands. Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000529, 04015037.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.