Sei sulla pagina 1di 37

Caltrans Guidelines on Foundation Loading Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading

Tom Shantz, Caltrans


January 28, 2011 NACGEA Workshop

PEER TEAM Scott Ashford (OSU) Ross Boulanger (UCD) Scott Brandenberg (UCLA)

PEER Guidelines

Project Participants and Organization

CALTRANS TEAM Tom Shantz Internal Review Team

Caltrans Guidelines

Lessons from history.

Source: ce.washington.edu

Showa Bridge, Niigata (1964)

Nishinomiya-ko bridge, Kobe (1995)

Photo by Yashinsky

Puente Tubul, Chile (2010)

Better performance

Shukugawa Bridge, Kobe (1995)

Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Heisei Bridge, Sabaichi River, Niigata (2007)

Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Kaiun Bridge, Sabaichi River, Niigata (2007)

Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Rinko Yasaka Bridge, Ugawa River, Niigata (2007)

Caltrans current practice per Memo to Designer 20-15.

Crust Liquefied Dense

0.67 PULT

liquefied soil modeled as factored p-y curves (0.10 p-multiplier) 67% of the ultimate passive crust load is applied to the cap no inertial loads are considered performance criteria: piles remain elastic

Issues the Guidelines Team sought to address

Fill Liquefiable Soil Dense Soil

Crust loaddeformation behavior. How much deformation to reach ultimate passive pressure? Adjustments for non-plane strain behavior. Prediction of crust displacement. Potential restraining effect of the foundation. Potential restraining effect of the superstructure. Contribution of inertial loads to the foundation displacement demand. More specific performance criteria.

The team must confront challenging issues


Pile pinning effect

Crust pile cap interaction

Residual strength

Estimation of crust displacement

Static vs. dynamic loading

Kinematic and inertial load combination

Strategy: Where possible, rely on test results.

NIED Shake Table: Elgamal (2003)

UC Davis centrifuge: Boulanger, Chang, Brandenberg, Armstrong, and Kutter (2006)

Field testing

Port of Takachi Tests by Ashford (2002)

Extend test results with numerical modeling

Fill in gaps with judgment

Caltrans Guidelines
Limitations
Since every project has unique aspects, these guidelines should not be used to constrain or replace engineering judgment.

Software Options
Nonlinear moment-stiffness behavior: xSECTION, XTRACT, LPILE 5, others Soil-foundation interaction: LPILE 5, wFRAME, SAP2000 Slope stability: most commercial codes no special requirements

Caltrans Guidelines
Two design cases considered

Fill Liquefiable Soil Dense Soil

Unrestrained ground displacement

Foundation restrained ground displacement

Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

1 1

(Zc D)/T

WT/T

14

Crust

Log-spiral Passive

Crust

Rankine Passive

Liquefied Sand Case A

Liquefied Sand Case B

Adjustment for wedge effect by Ovensen (1964). Kw ~ 1.3

pgroup =(psingle)(Npiles)(mp) or pgroup =(psoft clay)(Npiles)


mp = 0.0031N + 0.00034N2

Matlock (74) soft clay p-yMatlock Su = Sres and 50 = 0.05 model with

Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

Pile stiffness
Linear case:

EIgroup =(EIsingle)(Npiles)
Nonlinear case:

(See plot)

Mmax
Moment

(a,Ma) a= 12 y Ma = 1.1 Mmax y


Curvature Stiffness (EI)

Moment

Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

KM 144Kax

Class 100 pile: Kax = 0.75 (400 kips) / 0.25 in = 1200 kips/in

xi
ni xi 2

Kax, ni

Inertial Loads
(1 or 2) x Mo H 0)

Vi =

Mi =Mo (LPILE 5: Mi Fcapi=0.65 PGA mcap

or

M
o

Abutment Case: assume inertial loads are zero

Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile

Combination of kinematic and inertial loading

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

Combination of kinematic and inertial loading

Caltrans Guidelines
Performance Criteria
Cap Displacement Well confined pilings Well confined abutment pilings Poorly confined pilings
*H = column height

Pile Moment

Pile Shear SDC 3.6 SDC 3.6

H/20 12 inches

Ma Ma
-

2 inches

Caltrans Guidelines
Two methods of estimating ground displacement

Strain potential approach

Newmark approach

Caltrans Guidelines
Strain potential approach - hybrid of Faris (2004) and Zhang (2004)

Adjustment for open face conditions


2
for L/H < 4

Hmax = Hmax . Famp

Famp =

6 (L/H)-0.8 for 1

4 < L/H < 9 for 9 < L/H

Adjustment for near-flat conditions

S = ground slope

Caltrans Guidelines
Newmark based approach (Bray and Travasarou, 2007)

PGA based on 975 year hazard

Caltrans Guidelines
Foundation restrained ground displacement design case:

Fs
Ky 0.087 0.1 0.13 0.16 0.19 R (k/ft) 0 7 21 36 52 D (in) 7.8 6.1 Fill 3.7 2.4 1.7

Failure Surface

Liquefiable Soil Dense Soil

Disp (in) 0 1 2 4 6 8 10

Shear (kips) 0 338 659 1220 1540 1680 1750

Avg (kips) 0 169 332 554 751 906 1027

Equivalent constant shear

4H (max)
Resistance (R)

(2) (3) (1)

Displacement

Caltrans Guidelines
Performance Criteria
Cap Displacement Well confined pilings Well confined abutment pilings Poorly confined pilings
*H = column height

Pile Moment

Pile Shear SDC 3.6 SDC 3.6

H/20 12 inches

Ma Ma
-

2 inches

Caltrans Guidelines
Guideline availability:
The new guidelines are available on ARS Online website Technical References Link (http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/) Any questions or concerns, or you cant find the guidelines, contact me at tom.shantz@dot.ca.gov