EVALUATION OF CURRENT PRACTICE FOR ANALYSIS OF PILE GROUPS UNDER SEISMIC LOADING

W.D. Liam Finn1 and Thuraisamy Thavaraj2

ABSTRACT Semi-empirical methods are widely used in the seismic response analysis of pile foundations because the complexity of the problem precludes 3-D dynamic finite element analysis. The most common approach for the analysis of pile foundations is the use of nonlinear Winkler springs and dashpots to simulate the interaction between piles and soil. The properties of these springs are specified by p-y curves. The most widely used curves are those recommended by the American Petroleum Institute. In order to include the effects of inertial interaction with the superstructure, a very simplified foundation-superstructure model is employed in the analysis. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of p-y curves and the simplified foundationsuperstructure model in simulating the response of pile foundations. The p-y curve approach is shown to be potentially unreliable. The simplified model is shown to work very well provided the pile foundations undergo very little rotation of the pile cap and the pile foundation is analyzed using a simplified nonlinear continuum model of the soil-foundation system. INTRODUCTION Seismic soil-structure interaction analysis involving pile foundations is one of the more complex problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering. The analysis involves modelling pile-soil-pile interaction, the effects of the pile cap, nonlinear soil response and inertial interaction with the superstructure. Commercial structural analysis programs can not include the pile foundations directly. Therefore in the seismic analysis of bridges and buildings on pile foundations, various semi-empirical procedures are widely used. Dynamic nonlinear finite element analysis in the time domain using the full 3-dimensional wave equations is not feasible for engineering practice at present because of the time needed for the computations. However, by relaxing some of the boundary conditions associated with a full 3D analysis, it is possible to get reliable solutions for nonlinear response of pile foundations with greatly reduced computational effort. The results are very accurate for excitation due to horizontally polarized shear waves propagating vertically (Finn and Wu, 1994). A full description of this method, including numerous validation studies, has been presented by Wu and Finn (1997a,b). The method is incorporated in the computer program PILE-3D. The most common approach for the analysis of pile foundations is to use nonlinear Winkler springs with dashpots to simulate soil stiffness and damping. Some organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API, 1993) gives specific guidance for the development of nonlinear pressure-deflection (p-y) curves with depth as a function of soil properties. These recommendations are based on static or slow cyclic loading field tests. The API p-y curves are most widely used in engineering practice. The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has adopted a simplified model of a bridgefoundation system that facilitates taking nonlinear soil behaviour and inertial interaction between foundation soils and superstructure into account (Abghari and Chai, 1995). The foundation pile group is represented by a single pile that supports a concentrated mass corresponding to its proportion of the total static force carried by the group. The mass is supported in a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system with a period equal to the first mode period of the superstructure assuming fixed supports. The function of the SDOF system is to model approximately the inertial contribution of the superstructure to the response of the pile foundation. The interaction between the soil and the pile is modelled using Winkler springs and dashpots with properties
1 2

Anabuki Chair of Foundation Geodynamics, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Japan University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

equivalent to p-y curves. The pile head is maintained fixed against rotation. This model is designated simplified-pile-superstructure model (SPSM). SIMPLIFIED 3D SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF PILE FOUNDATIONS The basic assumptions of the simplified 3D analysis are illustrated in Figure 1. Under vertically propagating shear waves the soil undergoes primarily shearing deformations in xOy plane except in the area near the pile where extensive compressional deformations develop in the direction of shaking. The compressional deformations also generate shearing deformations in yOz plane. Therefore, the assumptions are made that dynamic response is governed by the shear waves in the xOy and yOz planes and compressional waves in the direction of shaking, Y. Deformations in the vertical direction and normal to the direction of shaking are neglected. Comparisons with full 3D elastic solutions confirm that these deformations are relatively unimportant for horizontal shaking. Applying dynamic equilibrium in Y-direction, the dynamic governing equation of the soil continuum in free vibration is written as s 2v 2v 2v * 2v + G * 2 + G * 2 =G z y x 2 t 2 (1) Figure 1 : Quasi-3D model of pile-soil response.

where G* is the complex modulus, v is the displacement in the direction of shaking, s is the mass density of soil, and is a coefficient related to Poisson's ratio of the soil. Piles are modelled using ordinary Eulerian beam theory. Bending of the piles occurs only in the yOz plane. Dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction is maintained by enforcing displacement compatibility between the pile and soils. Nonlinear soil behaviour is modelled using a variation of the equivalent linear approach used in the SHAKE program (Schnabel and Seed, 1972) that includes soil yielding. Potential slip between the pile and the soil is modelled by using contact elements with friction angles corresponding to the maximum mobilized friction angle between the pile and the soil. Pile gapping is taken into account by not allowing tension to occur in the contact elements. As these elements approach gapping, displacement occurs with very low default modulus and compressive stress. A finite element code PILE-3D (Finn and Wu, 1994; Wu and Finn, 1997a,1997b) was developed to incorporate the dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction theory described previously. SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE PILE PILE-3D Analysis PILE-3D was used to analyze the seismic response of a single pile in a centrifuge test conducted at the California Institute of Technology. Details of the test may be found by Finn and Gohl (1987). Figure 2 shows the soil-pile-structure system used in the test. The system was subjected to a nominal centrifuge acceleration of 60 g. A horizontal acceleration record with a peak acceleration of 0.158g is input at the base of the system. The distribution of shear moduli was measured prior to shaking, while the centrifuge was in flight, using bender elements. The computed and measured moment distributions along the pile at the instant of peak pile head deflection are shown in Figure 3. The moments computed by PILE-3D agree quite well with the measured moments. The peak moment predicted by PILE-3D is 344 kNm compared with a measured peak value of 325 kNm.

2 soil s urfa ce

-2 D e pth (m )

-4

-6

-8 M e asure d C om pu ted -P IL E 3D C om pu ted -A P I p-y -6 00 -400 -20 0 0 B e nding M o m e nt (kN .m ) 20 0

-10 -1 2

Figure 2 : The layout of the centrifuge test for a single pile. Analysis Using API p-y Curves

Figure 3 : Comparison of measured computed bending moments.

and

A dynamic analysis of the foundation-superstructure system was also conducted using the p-y curves prescribed by the American Petroleum Institute (API, 1993) to model the soil-pile interaction. These p-y curves are defined by the equation, kH P = 0.9p u tanh y 0.9p u (3)

where pu is the ultimate bearing capacity at depth H, k 2 is the initial modulus of subgrade reaction, y is the lateral deflection, and H is the depth. The relative so il su rfa ce 0 density of the sand surrounding the pile is Dr = 38%. This corresponds to a k of approximately 15000 kN/m3 according to the API recommendations. The analysis -2 shows that the p-y curves were much too stiff under strong shaking. The distribution of moments for a value -4 of k = 15000 kN/m3 is shown in Figure 3. A reasonable approximation to the peak moment in the pile is -6 obtained using k = 2500 kN/m3, which is only 1/6 of the value recommended by API (1993). In another test -8 in the same sand, run at a very low peak acceleration of 0.04 g, the API stiffness k = 15000 kN/m, gives a very M e as u re d good approximation to the measured bending moments -1 0 C o m pu ted , p -y (Figure 4). The response in this case was almost elastic k h = 1 50 0 0 k N /m 3 and the initial stiffness controls the response. These -12 results suggest that the initial stiffness of the API p-y -2 5 0 25 50 75 100 curves is reasonable, but that the curves do not head B e nd in g M o m e n t (k N .m ) away fast enough from the initial tangent at the origin. Therefore, stiffness at close to the initial value is being Figure 4 : Comparison of measured and computed pile moments for near elastic response mobilized over too large a displacement range under strong shaking. using API procedure.
D e pth (m )

In view of the widespread use of p-y curves in engineering practice, it would seem necessary to investigate their reliability by more centrifuge tests and dynamic field studies. It should be noted that the API p-y curves have been shown to be fairly unreliable also in predicting the response to static and slow cyclic loading tests in the field (Murchison and ONeill, 1984; Gazioglu and ONeill, 1984). SPSM AND FULL GROUP ANALYSES The CALTRANS SPSM model, together with soil and pile properties is shown in Figure 5.

S u pe rstructu re P a ram eters

M a ss, M s = 50 M g N atura l F requ ency of S D O F syste m , f = 4 H z

S o il P rop erties
U n dra ined S he ar S tre ngth , S u = 5 0 kP a U n it w eigh t, s =18 kN /m 3 S he ar M od ulu s, G m ax = 50 M P a

P ile
F re e F ield S oil

P ile P rop erties

F le xural R igidity, E I U n it w eigh t, p D ia m ete r, D L e ngth, L E p /E s =5 00
p / s = 1.4

= 1 310 kN m 3 = 25 kN /m 3 = 0.5 m = 9m

L/d

>1 5 = 0.4

H om og en eo us C la ye y S oil

N on line ar S prin gs and D a sh pots

Figure 5 : Simplified pile-superstructure model. The seismic response analysis based on p-y curves has been shown to be unreliable. However, the CALTRANS representative pile concept is a very attractive computational feature. Therefore the concept is evaluated below by treating the foundation soil as a nonlinear continuum in both the representative pile and full pile group analyses using PILE-3D. In this way, the representative pile concept can be tested against full group analysis under identical foundation conditions. Figure 6 shows the comparison of bending moment profiles for the two different pile groups and the single pile. The bending moment profiles from the (22) and (44) analyses do not deviate much from the moment profile in the single pile analysis. The difference in the peak moment is less than 8%. The shear force profiles show similar behaviour. It is evident from Fig. 6 that the group effect does not appear to be a significant factor in the response of the different pile groups analyzed here even though the piles are spaced at two diameters, centre to centre. M a xim u m B e n d in g M o m e n t (kN m ) 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2 D e p th (m ) 4 6
S in gle P ile

8 10

2 x2 G ro u p 4 x4 G ro u p

Figure 6 : Comparison of pile moment profiles.

Table 1 shows the lateral stiffnesses of the single pile and the pile groups both under initial elastic conditions and at the time of maximum straining at which the minimum lateral stiffness is mobilized. Table 2 shows the group factor, calculated as a ratio of group stiffness over the single pile stiffness multiplied by the number of piles in the pile group. It was 0.61 for (22) pile group and 0.31 for (44) pile group under elastic conditions. The group effect corresponding to the minimum stiffnesses for the (22) pile group is 0.76 and for the (44) pile group is 0.41. The same spacing was used in both pile groups and the group effect increased with the number of piles in the pile group as expected. Also, there is a reduction in the group effect during the periods of strong shaking at which the pile foundations reached their minimum stiffnesses. This is in keeping with the general perception that the range of pile to pile interaction is reduced as the soil behaviour becomes nonlinear. Despite the group interaction effects, the bending moment and shear force responses were not significantly affected. The reason for this behaviour is explained below. Table 1 : Lateral stiffnesses of single pile and pile groups Type of Pile Foundation Single Pile (22) Group Pile (44) Group Pile Initial Elastic Lateral Stiffness (MN/m) 183 444 921 Minimum Lateral Stiffness (MN/m) 35 106 228 Reduction in Stiffness (%) 81 76 76

Table 2 : Group effect corresponding to initial elastic and minimum lateral stiffnesses Group Effect, Kgroup/(n*Ksingle) Initial Elastic Stiffnesses Minimum Stiffnesses 0.61 ~0.76 (22) Group Pile, K22 0.31 ~0.41 (44) Group Pile, K44 *n is the total number of piles in the pile group. Type of Pile Foundation The fundamental frequencies of the three pile foundation systems were determined corresponding to the initial stiffnesses and the minimum stiffnesses that occur during the time of strongest shaking. The frequencies are shown in Table 3. Although the group effects on foundation stiffnesses of the pile groups are significant, the differences in the global system frequencies of the pile groups are not significantly different from the frequency of the single pile system under either elastic or nonlinear response. The maximum difference is about 15%. This is due to the fact that the global system frequencies result from the combined stiffnesses of the superstructure and pile foundation rather than the stiffness of the pile foundation alone. In this study the superstructure stiffness dominates the predominant system frequency. The similarity in frequencies of the different superstructure-foundation systems is responsible for the similarity in outputs. Table 3 : First mode frequency of the superstructure-pile foundation system Type of Structure Single Pile- Superstructure (22) Group Pile -Superstructure (44) Group Pile -Superstructure First Mode Frequency (Hz) Initial Minimum 3.66 1.89 3.45 1.82 3.07 1.61

CALTRANS adjusts the results of the SPSM for group effects using a group reduction factor. Since group effects need to be incorporated during the dynamic analysis as they affect the nonlinear response, their use after the event may not be appropriate. The results of the evaluation study suggest that the SPSM model concept for the analysis of pile foundations is only valid if the system frequency of the representative pile-superstructure model and the frequency of the full foundation-superstructure model are approximately the same. This is likely to occur only when the stiffness of the support structures of the bridge dominates the system frequency. For this to

happen, the support structures must be much more flexible than the pile foundation in the degree of freedom under consideration. Parametric studies using many earthquakes with different frequency contents would be desirable to explore how full foundation system frequencies compare with representative pile system frequencies for typical bridges and foundation soils. Such studies would allow the reliability of the representative pile concept to be evaluated properly. The problems associated with system frequencies and p-y curves can be avoided if PILE-3D or any other program is used that can treat the soil as nonlinear continuum and model the whole pile group conveniently enough for engineering practice. Effects of Pile Cap Rotation
M a xim u m B e n din g M o m en t (k N m ) 0 1 0 00 2000 3 00 0

In line with the CALTRANS procedure, the 0 evaluation analyses were conducted with the assumption that the pile cap was fully restrained 2 against rotation. The analyses were repeated without preventing rotation of the pile cap. In these latter analyses, the only restraint on the pile cap is 4 provided by the moments on the pile cap caused by the axial forces in the piles. 6 Profiles of maximum bending moments are shown in Fig. 7. In this case there is very poor S ing le P ile agreement between results of analyses based on the 8 2x2 G ro u p representative single pile concept and the full group analyses, even though the foundation soils are 4x4 G ro u p 10 treated identically for all three systems. It would seem that the differences in computed rotations may be primarily responsible for the differences in Figure 7 : Comparison of pile moment profiles. moments from the representative pile and full pile foundation group analyses. Therefore the representative pile concept is probably not appropriate for small pile groups that can not effectively restrain the pile cap. However for large pile groups, the rotational restraint of the pile cap by the axial forces in the pile may be sufficient to approximate a fixed condition. Parametric studies to establish a limiting pile group size are necessary. REFERENCES Abghari, A. and Chai, J.(1995), Modeling of soil-pile-superstructure interaction for bridge foundations, Performance of Deep Foundations Under Seismic Loading, ASCE Geot. Special Publ. No. 51, pp. 45-59. API (1993), Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. Finn, W.D. Liam and Gohl, W.B. (1987). Centrifuge model studies of piles under simulated earthquake loading from dynamic response of pile foundations - experiment, analysis and observation. ASCE Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 11, pp. 21-38. Finn, W.D. Liam and Wu, G. (1994), A recent development in the static and dynamic analysis of pile groups, Proc. of the Annual Symp. of the Vancouver Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC, May 1994, pp. 1-24. Gazioglu, S. M. and O'Neill, M.W. (1984), An evaluation of p-y relationships in cohesive soils, Proc. of the ASCE Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE National Convention, San Francisco, California, Oct. 1-5, 1984, Edited by J.R. Meyer, pp. 192-213. Murchison, J.M. and O'Neill, M.W. (1984), An evaluation of p-y relationships in cohesionless soils, Proc. of the ASCE Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE National Convention, San Francisco, California, Oct 1-5, 1984, Edited by J. R. Meyer, pp. 174-191. Wu, G. and Finn, W.D. Liam (1997a), Dynamic elastic analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the frequency domain, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 34-43. Wu, G. and Finn, W.D. Liam (1997b), Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 44-52.
D e p th (m )