2012 Mondal Et Al SDEE Simplified Seismic Analysis

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236635056
Simplified seismic analysis of soilwellpier

system for bridges
ARTICLE in SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING JANUARY 2012
Impact Factor: 1.3 DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
150
96
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Goutam Mondal
Amit Prashant
University of British Columbia - Okanagan
Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar
13 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
41 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Goutam Mondal

Retrieved on: 17 August 2015
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges

Goutam Mondal a, Amit Prashant b, Sudhir K. Jain b,n,1
a
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, UP 208016, India

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, GJ 382424, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 15 February 2011
Received in revised form
21 July 2011
Accepted 8 August 2011
Seismic analysis of soilwellpier system was carried out using three different approaches to evaluate
their comparative performance and associated complexities. These approaches were (a) two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL), (b) two-dimensional equivalent-linear (2D-EqL), and (c) one-dimensional
springdashpot (1D). Soil was modeled as 2D plane-strain elements in the 2D-NL and 2D-EqL
approaches, and as springs and dashpots in the 1D approach. Nonlinear behavior of soil was captured
rigorously in the 2D-NL approach and approximately in the remaining two approaches. Results of the
two approximate analyses (i.e., 2D-EqL and 1D) were compared with those of the 2D-NL analysis with
the objective to assess suitability of approximate analysis for practical purposes. In the 1D approach,
several combinations of Novaks and Veletsos springs were used to come up with a simplied 1D
model using three types of springdashpots. The proposed model estimates the displacement and force
resultants relatively better than the other 1D models available in literature.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Well foundations (also known as caisson foundation) are
frequently adopted in the Indian subcontinent and other countries like Japan, USA, Thailand, etc., for the deep foundation of
railway and highway bridges on rivers. Because of its large cross
section and high rigidity, such foundations are often believed to
be safe foundation systems against earthquake. However, it was
observed during recent earthquakes that structures supported on
such foundations also suffered damage during moderate to severe
earthquakes mainly because of the large permanent displacement
associated with soil liquefaction. For example, many structures
supported on well foundations sustained severe damage during
1995 Kobe earthquake. In India, many such bridges are located in
the high seismic region where moderate to severe earthquakes
are expected to occur. Therefore, seismic analysis should be
performed for the design of new bridges and retrotting of the
existing bridges supported on well foundation.
In practice, well foundation is analyzed by modeling soil as twodimensional (2D) plane-strain element or one-dimensional (1D)
springdashpot (also named as 1D model herein). However, in these
analyses, effect of soil nonlinearity is generally ignored or sometimes considered approximately. Out of these two approaches, 1D
approach is widely used in practical purposes. The main advantage
Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 7923972574; fax: 91 7923972622.

E-mail address: skjain.iitk@gmail.com (S.K. Jain).
1
Formerly Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, UP 208016, India.
of the 1D approach over the 2D is that the former is very efcient

and easy to implement in design ofces than the latter. However,
most of the 1D springdashpot models available in the literature are
intended mainly to the exible pile foundation or shallow foundation except for a few of these models [13], which were specically
developed for relatively rigid embedded structures like well foundation. Japanese code [3] specied a Winklers spring model with six
types of springs for the stability check of well foundation. However,
since damping is not considered (in absence of dashpots), this model
often overestimates the force and displacement responses of well
and pier. Gerolymos and Gazetas [1] proposed 1D model with four
types of springdashpots considering soil and interface nonlinearity.
However, since this model comprehensively considers the issues
related to soilstructure interaction, it requires many parameters
and therefore it may not be suitable for practical purposes. Varun
et al. [2] proposed a simplied model with three types of spring
dashpots for well foundation embedded in linear soil. In this
formulation, material damping in soil was not considered. All the
simplied models (e.g., 1D and 2D-EqL) have some limitations,
which stem from the assumptions associated with them. It is of
interest to see if these models are suitable to analyze well foundation embedded in saturated cohesionless soil susceptible to liquefaction. For this purpose, three types of approaches were considered:
(a) two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL), (b) two-dimensional
equivalent-linear (2D-EqL), and (c) one-dimensional springdashpot
(1D). Results of both the approximate approaches (2D-EqL and 1D)
were compared with those of the rigorous one (i.e., 2D-NL) to study
the performance and the computational efciency of the approximate
approaches. In the 1D approach, various combinations of Novaks [4]
0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Please cite this article as: Mondal G, et al. Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
Table 1
Parameters for constitutive model.
Superstructure
Pier
11.35m
1
G.L.
5.3 m
Parameters
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Depth
Type of soil
Unit weight (t/m3)
Poissons ratio
Gra (kN/m2)
0 m20 m
Medium sand
1.9
0.33
7.5 104
331
0.1
271
0.07
0.4
2
10
0.01
1
20 m50 m
Medium-dense sand
2.0
0.35
1.0 105
371
0.1
271
0.05
0.6
3
5
0.003
1
50 m100 m
Dense sand
2.1
0.35
1.3 105
401
0.1
271
0.03
0.8
5
0
0
0
fb
50 m
Well
Direction of
Earthquake
Motions
3.3 m
gmax c
fPTd
Contrace
Dilat1f
Dilat2f
Liquefac1g (kN/m2)
Liquefac2h
Liquefac3i
18 m
Note:
11 m
Fig. 1. Geometry of the well foundation and piers analyzed in the present study.
and Veletsos [5,6] springs were considered and parametric study was
performed to propose a 1D model with three types of spring
dashpots by simplifying expressions of Novaks spring coefcients.
2. Geometry of the model and earthquake motions

Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the bridge substructure system
and cross-sectional dimensions of its components. The bridge
substructure system consisted of a typical double-D cellular well
foundation supporting two hollow circular piers on its top. The
height of each pier was 13.47 m, and the depth of well foundation
was 50 m. Load on the pier cap due to bridge deck and live load
was 3000 kN. The soil prole considered in the present study
consisted of three layers of cohesionless soil with bedrock underneath. The bedrock was assumed at 100 m depth from the ground
surface. The properties of soil in these layers are shown in Table 1.
Such a bridge substructure and soil system is considered to be
typical for bridges in alluvial rivers in India and believed to be
representative of similar such structures. Because of the uncertainty associated with the design ground motion, variation of
ground motions was preferred over that of geometry of the
foundation and properties of soil layers. Therefore, nine earthquake motions recorded at different geographical locations were
selected for the seismic analysis (Table 2). These ground motions
represent different source mechanisms and epicentral distances.
These were recorded at ground level at rock-outcrop as free-eld
motions during strong earthquakes with magnitude 6.5 and
above. The ground motions with PGA ranges from 0.1 g to 0.3 g,
0.3 g to 0.5 g, and 0.5 g to 0.7 g were scaled to PGA values of 0.2 g,
0.4 g, and 0.6 g, respectively. These three sets of ground motions
were termed as low, moderate, and severe ground motions, as
shown in Table 2. Seismic motion was assumed to be along the
direction of trafc (i.e., in the longitudinal direction).
3. Two-dimensional (2D) nonlinear analysis

Seismic analysis of the soilwellpier (SWP) system is inherently
a three-dimensional (3D) problem. It is known that 2D modeling
underestimates the dynamic-spring coefcient and overestimates
the radiation damping [7]. Luco and Hadjian [8] studied the
feasibility of modeling 3D linear soil-structure-interaction problem
a
Gr is the reference shear modulus specied at conning pressure of
80 kN/m2.
b
f is the angle of internal friction.
c
gmax is the octahedral shear strain at which the maximum shear strength is
reached.
d
fPT is the phase transformation angle.
e
Contrac is a non-negative constant dening the rate of shear induced volume
contraction
f
Dilat1 and Dilat2 are non-negative constants dening the rate of shearinduced volume increase.
g
Liquefac1 is the pressure below which cyclic mobility takes place.
h
Liquefac2 is the maximum amount of perfectly plastic shear strain developed
at zero effective connement during each loading phase.
i
Liquefac3 is the maximum amount of biased perfectly plastic shear strain
accumulated at each loading phase under biased shear loading conditions.
by 2D plane-strain representation. By comparing the response of a

rigid shallow foundation of circular shape and a strip footing placed
on elastic half-space as obtained from the 2D and 3D analyses, they
demonstrated that it was possible to obtain approximately the
natural frequencies of the system, but the radiation damping
associated with the low-frequency modes was signicantly overestimated, which may underestimate the response parameters.
Watanabe and Tochigi [9] simulated the shaking table test on
soilfoundationstructure system using 2D FE model and demonstrated that the 2D FE analysis could represent the main features of
the system when mass and stiffness of the superstructure and
substructure were divided by the width of the foundation perpendicular to the direction of excitation. Seed and Lysmer [10] compared the seismic response of a nuclear power plant by modeling it
using 2D and 3D FE formulations. They showed that the 2D analysis
underestimates the response of superstructure and substructure.
However, all the above studies were for shallow foundations
resting on linear and elastic soil. Therefore, further research is
needed to verify these limitations for deep foundations and
inelastic soil. Despite the best effort, a similar study comparing
the response of 2D versus 3D modeling for deep foundation with
inelastic soil could not be found in the literature. Moreover,
seismic analysis of a 3D FE model of the SWP system with soil
nonlinearity is very cumbersome and computationally expensive.
Jeremic et al. [11] performed seismic analysis of 3D FE model of a
pile-supported viaduct considering linearelastic soil. Gerolymos
and Gazetas [12] performed 3D analysis of a small size circular
well foundation (depth 6 m and diameter 3 m) considering soil
nonlinearity; however, coarse mesh was used since they did static
and dynamic analyses by applying sinusoidal motion at the top of
the well. Recently, Elgamal et al. [13] performed seismic analysis
of a bridge supported on pile foundation using a pilot 3D FE
model considering nonlinear soil and with coarse mesh and the
analysis took 40 h to complete. Therefore, considering the
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Table 2
Ground motions considered for the seismic analysis of soilwellpier system.
Level
Earthquake
Mwa
Station
PGA (g)
Component
Epicentral distance (km)
Symbol for ground motion
Low
Northridge, 1994
Turkey, 1999
Uttarkashi, 1991
Chi-Chi, 1999
Loma Prieta, 1989
Northridge, 1994
Chi-Chi, 1999
Northridge, 1994
Petrolia, 1992
6.7
7.1
7.0b
7.6
6.9
6.2
7.6
6.7
7.8
LA-Grifth Park Observatory, (USGS 141)

Lamont 531
Bhatwari, India
CWB 99999 CHY041
Corralitos (CDMG 57007)
UCSB 99999 LA 00
CWB 99999 TCU071
DWP 77 Rinaldi Receiving Station
CGS-89156
0.289
0.117
0.246
0.302
0.479
0.388
0.655
0.633
0.685
270
90
355
90
90
90
0
318
90
25.4
27.7
19.3
51.2
7.2
14.4
15.4
10.9
4.5
L1
L2
L3
M1
M2
M3
S1
S2
S3
Moderate
Severe
Note:
a
b
Mw Moment magnitude.
Surface wave magnitude (Ms).
Pier
Rigid massless
outrigger
0
Well
-25
-50
-75
Radiation
boundary
Y
Z
100
0
v3
u3
u4
50
25
75
100
150
v2
2 u
2
v4
125
1
v1
u1
u1
v1
1
v2
2
u2
Fig. 2. Details of the nite element model of soilwellpier (SWP) system.

(a) Finite element discretization of the SWP system, (b) Plane-strain element for
soil, (b) Plane-strain element for at the boundaries and (d) Beam-column element
for well and pier.
complexity of analyzing rigorous 3D FE model, 2D representation

of the foundation soil was used in the present study by assuming
plane-strain condition. Further, this 2D model is able to capture,
at least qualitatively, the key aspects of the effects of soil
nonlinearity (liquefaction) on the overall seismic response
mechanism of the SWP system. One may note that even though
this 2D model may have somewhat underestimated the seismic
response of pier and well, it has captured many important aspects
of the seismic behavior.
Fig. 2 shows the FE discretization of half of the SWP system. In
the dynamic behavior of a bridge substructure, the superstructure
stiffness does not contribute signicantly [14], and hence only the
mass of the superstructure was applied at the pier cap. Hydrodynamic mass was not considered in the present study. The mass
of water and sand inside the well foundation was though
incorporated. In the 2D FE model, soil domain was discretized
using four-noded, bilinear, isoparametric nite elements with two
degrees of freedom (DOF) at each node. Soil was analyzed under
plane-strain condition. Well foundation and piers were discretized

using two-noded linear beam-column elements with three DOF at
each node. Massless rigid beam-column elements were added to
the embedded part of the well foundation to account for the width
of the well foundation along the earthquake motion. Interface
nonlinearity (i.e., gapping and sliding at the soilwell interface)
was ignored since it does not have signicant inuence in the
design force resultants and displacements of well foundation [15].
In other words, the soilwell interfaces were assumed to be
perfectly-bonded. Viscous boundary proposed by Lysmer and
Kuhlemeyer [16] was used as radiation boundary at the two vertical
boundaries and at the base of the FE model. Ground motion was
applied at the base of the FE model in the form of equivalent shear
force proportional to velocity of incident wave motion [17]. Seismic
analysis of the SWP system was performed in open source code
OpenSees, the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation,
developed specially to simulate the performance of structural and
geotechnical systems subjected to earthquake motions [18].
In two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL) analysis, the soil
response was simulated using elasto-plastic pressure-dependent
multi-yield surface (nested-yield surface) constitutive model
(PressureDependMultiYield model) available in OpenSees
[1820]. In this model, a set of DruckerPrager nested yield
surfaces with a common apex and different sizes were used to
simulate nonlinear behavior of undrained cohesionless soil. The
values of the parameters required for the constitutive model are
taken from the table given in the users manual [19]. Soil damping
was primarily captured through hysteretic energy dissipation,
and therefore, no other damping was considered.
The numerical model in OpenSees was validated with
SHAKE2000 [21] to check the adequacy of the mesh size and
time step considered for the seismic analysis, and to verify the
effectiveness of LysmerKuhlemeyer (LK) radiation boundaries.
Since SHAKE2000 can perform only free-eld analysis (i.e., only
soil layers in absence of structure), the FE model in OpenSees was
modied by excluding the piers and replacing the well foundation
by soil elements. Verication was carried out under the north
south component of the horizontal acceleration (PGA0.314 g)
recorded at El Centro during 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake
(Fig. 3a). Effectiveness of the LK boundary was veried by
assuming soil to be linearelastic and undamped to check the
performance of LK boundary in the worst scenario. Further
details of the verication can be found elsewhere [22].
Fig. 3bd shows comparison of the acceleration response
histories obtained from OpenSees and SHAKE2000 at ground
surface, 25 m depth and 50 m depth, respectively. The acceleration response histories obtained from both the procedures
matched satisfactorily throughout the duration of the motion.
However, peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) values were
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Acceleration (g)
0.8
Input Motion
0.4
0
PGA = 0.319g
-0.4
-0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.8
10
15
Time (s)
20
0.4
0
-0.4
-10
-0.8
-20
0.8
At -20 m
0.4
0
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
At -50 m
0.4
0
25
30
Peak Horizontal Acceleration (g)
At 0 m
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-30
Depth (m)
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-0.4
-90
-0.8
0
5
Time (s)
SHAKE
10
-100
OpenSees
Fig. 3. Comparison of acceleration response of soil obtained from free-eld analysis in SHAKE and OpenSees for the El-Centro motion (a) input motion (b)(d) acceleration
response histories at specic points (e) variation of peak horizontal acceleration with depth.
underestimated in OpenSees by 6%, 1%, and 2%, respectively, at

ground surface, 25 m depth and 50 m depth. Hence, such small
variations in the peak responses were considered acceptable.
Moreover, the variation of PGA along depth as obtained from
the two models also matched well (Fig. 3e). Therefore, it was
concluded that dimensions of the nite elements and time step
considered during the seismic analysis were adequate, and the
LK boundaries were effective in eliminating reection of spurious waves.
Analysis was performed in several steps to simulate the initial
condition of the SWP model. In the rst step, gravity analysis was
performed for the self-weight of soil and weight of the embedded
portion of well by assuming the soil as linearelastic. In this step,
the vertical boundaries of soil domain were restrained in
horizontal direction only, and the base of FE model was restrained
in both vertical and horizontal directions to develop the desired
conning pressure to all the soil elements. In the second step, the
soil constitutive model was switched from linearelastic to
elasto-plastic. The new equilibrium state under gravity was
obtained iteratively. In the third step, self-weight of pier, well
cap, and other gravity loads were applied statically to the nonlinear soil model. Reaction forces at the boundary nodes were
obtained at the end of gravity analysis. In the fourth step, all the
restraints along the boundary nodes were removed and the
reaction forces obtained from the gravity analysis of the SWP
system were statically applied at the corresponding nodes. This
state of the model was assumed to be the initial condition of
the SWP system for the seismic analysis. In the fth step, both
horizontal and vertical radiation dampers were added at the
nodes of lateral boundaries and base boundary. These dampers
were zero-length elements with two nodes; one node was

connected to the boundary node and the other node was xed
in space. Finally, seismic analysis of the SWP system was performed by applying horizontal seismic excitation in the form of
effective nodal forces applied at the base of the computational soil
domain.
The six response parameters, namely, the maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT), the maximum shear force
in pier (SFP) and well (SFW), and the maximum bending moment in
pier (BMP) and well (BMW) were obtained from the 2D-NL analysis
and compared with those obtained from the 2D-EqL and 1D
analyses, as discussed in the subsequent sections to evaluate the
performance of the simpler models (i.e., 2D-EqL and 1D models).
4. Two-dimensional (2D) equivalent-linear analysis

4.1. Method of analysis
In the two-dimensional equivalent-linear approach (2D-EqL),
the FE model was similar to the 2D-NL model except the analysis
being linear in the former. In this approach, the soil nonlinearity
was considered indirectly using the equivalent-linear (or effective) soil properties (shear modulus G and damping z). These soil
properties were obtained from the free-eld analysis of soil
column (without the foundation structure) subjected to a given
input earthquake motion at the column base using the commercial software SHAKE2000 [21]. SHAKE2000 uses 1D wave propagation theory to iteratively calculate the level of maximum
strain in soil and determines the equivalent-linear properties of
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
similar type of soil. In the present study, these were obtained

from the procedure proposed by Zhang et al. [24]. Fig. 4 shows the
variation of shear modulus (normalized with the maximum shear
modulus Gmax) and damping ratio with shear strain at different
levels of conning pressure (p0 ). Ideally, these curves should be
calculated for each layer corresponding to p0 of that layer.
However, for simplicity, only ve sets of G/Gmax and damping
ratio curves representing p0 6 kN/m2, 25 kN/m2, 80 kN/m2,
200 kN/m2, and 500 kN/m2 were used in this study by following
the method suggested by Stokoe et al. [27]. The parameter Gmax
(in kN/m2), which is required to estimate G from the G/Gmax curve,
can be obtained from Eq. (1):
0 d
p
Gmax Gr 0
1
pr
soil at any desired depth. The above two steps of the 2D-EqL
approach (i.e., 1D analysis in SHAKE and 2D linear analysis in
OpenSees) signicantly reduce the computational time from the
single step 2D-NL analysis.
Since the properties G and z depend upon the shear strain level
in soil, their variations with shear strain are needed during the
free-eld analysis in SHAKE. These variations are generally
evaluated from laboratory test. However, in absence of laboratory
test, these can be estimated from empirical relationships available
in the literature [2326], or from the experimental results of a
G/Gmax
0.8
where Gr is the shear modulus at reference conning pressure of

pr0 ( 80 kPa), and d ( 0.5) is a positive constant dening the
variation of G as a function of instantaneous effective conning
pressure p0 .
In linear time-domain analysis, the stressstrain curve of soil
is linear, and therefore, hysteretic energy dissipation does not
occur. However, the energy dissipation in soil was approximately
captured through the equivalent-linear damping zeff in soil
obtained from the SHAKE analysis. This damping in soil was used
in the form of mass and stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping.
Rayleigh damping coefcients were determined by considering
two target modes, ith and jth with damping ratio zeff following the
concept proposed by Hudson et al. [28]. Damping in structure was
assumed to be 5% of the critical damping. The ground motions in
this analysis were applied by following the same procedure as in
the 2D-NL analysis.
0.6
2
0.4
p = 6 kN/m (0m2m)
2
p = 25 kN/m (2m7m)
2
p = 80 kN/m (7m20m)
0.2
0
104
20
p = 200 kN/m (20m50m)
p = 500 kN/m2 (50m100m)
103
102
Shear Strain (%)
101
100
p = 6 kN/m2 (0m2m)
Damping Ratio (%)
p = 25 kN/m (2m7m)
15
p = 80 kN/m2 (7m20m)
p = 200 kN/m2 (20m50m)

2
p = 500 kN/m (50m100m)
10
4.2. Comparison of 2D equivalent-linear and 2D nonlinear analyses

Displacement and force responses at different locations in pier
and well foundation from the 2D-EqL analysis were compared with
those from the 2D-NL analysis. The percentage error is shown in
Fig. 5. It was observed that the error in the maximum absolute
displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT) was satisfactorily
estimated by the 2D-EqL analysis with a maximum error within 10%
except in S1 motion. In S1 motion, the observed error was 24% and
16% in DPT and DWT, respectively. However, the average absolute
5
0
104
103
102
Shear Strain (%)
101
100
Fig. 4. Shearstrain dependent (a) shear modulus reduction curves, and

(b) damping curves used in the 2D-EqL in SHAKE [24].
30
15
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
0
15
Error (%)
30
30
15
0
15
30
30
15
0
15
30
Response Parameters
DPT
DWT
SFP
SFW
BMP
BMW
Fig. 5. Bar chart of percentage error in the maximum responses (i.e., maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear force in pier (SFP) and
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) in the 2D-EqL analysis as compared to the 2D-NL analysis.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Shear Force (MN)

25
50
75
Bending Moment (MNm)

500
1000
100 0
1500
0
S1
S1
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2DEql
2DNL
1DProposed
Fig. 6. Comparison of envelopes of the maximum force resultants (a) shear force and (b) bending moment along the depth of well foundation obtained from
two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL) model, two-dimensional equivalent-linear (2D-EqL) model, and 1D proposed model for severe motion S1.
Superstructure mass
Distributed translation
springs (kx, cx)
.
.
.
Displacement
time histories
error and the associated standard deviation (SD) were 8.9% and 5.7%,
respectively, for DPT, and 7.4% and 4.5%, respectively, for DWT. The
maximum error in the force resultants (both shear force and bending
moment) in both pier and well foundation were within 27% while
the average absolute error was about 13% with SD of 7%. The
maximum error in all the response parameters considered in this
study was limited to 27% while the average absolute error was 11%
with SD of 7%. Moreover, envelopes of the maximum shear force
along the depth of well foundation match considerably (Fig. 6(a)).
Similar match was also observed in the maximum bending moment
envelopes of well foundation (Fig. 6(b)). It is worth mentioning that
a point in an envelope is obtained by estimating the maximum
response parameter (e.g., shear force) at that location during the
earthquake; thus any two points (i.e., responses) on the envelopes
may not occur at the same instant of time. In general, it can be
inferred that equivalent-linear analysis can satisfactorily estimate
response of well foundation for small to severe earthquakes in spite
of the approximations involved in the analysis.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pier
Distributed
rotational
springs (k, c)
Well
Rotational base
springs (kb, cb)
Translational base
spring (kbx, cbx)
Fig. 7. 1D model with four types of springdashpot connected in parallel. Note: all
the springs are connected with dampers in parallel. However, dampers are not
shown for clarity.
5. One-dimensional (1D) springdashpot model

5.1. Method of analysis
In the 1D springdashpot model, a model combining Novaks
and Veletsos springs was used as a basic model. These two
springs were used in this study since Novaks springs are widely
acceptable for the deep foundations and Veletsos springs are
often used for rigid footings resting on homogeneous half-space.
Several combinations of these springs were used for the parametric study. Details of the models are described below.
Novak et al. [4] proposed the following dynamic impedances
or complex stiffness of unit length of soil when an innitely long
rigid cylinder is embedded in homogeneous soil and subjected to
translational and rotational modes of vibration independently
assuming plane-strain condition along the length of the cylinder:
Kx GSx1 a0 , n,D iSx2 a0 , n,D
Ky Gr02 Sy1 a0 ,Ds iSy2 a0 ,Ds
where Kx and Ky are the dynamic impedance of soil for translational and rotational vibrations, respectively; r0 is the radius of
the circular cylinder or equivalent radius of the foundation with
other cross sections; a0 r0 o=Vs denotes the dimensionless
frequency; o is the circular
frequency; Vs represents the shear
p
wave velocity of soil; i 1; Sx1 and Sx2 are the real and the
imaginary parts, respectively, of the dimensionless complex
stiffness for horizontal vibration; similarly, Sy1 and Sy2 are the
real and the imaginary parts, respectively, of the dimensionless
complex stiffness for rocking; n is Poissons ratio, and D is the
material damping. The real (kx and ky) and the imaginary parts
(cx and cy) of the impedance functions represent the stiffness and
damping coefcients (both material damping of soil and radiation
damping), respectively, of the complex spring (spring and dashpot
connected in parallel). Therefore, the following stiffness and
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
where
(
damping coefcients are obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3):

kx GSx1 a0 , n,D
G
Sx2 a0 , n,D
cx o
)
4
9
ky Gr02 Sy1 a0 ,Ds =
Gr
cy o0 Sy2 a0 ,Ds ;
These coefcients are frequency (o) dependent; however, for

simplicity, the stiffness and damping coefcients were evaluated
corresponding to the predominant frequency of input motion
(i.e., o oip).
In the present study, the springs and dashpots with coefcients obtained from Eq. (4) were connected in parallel and
distributed throughout the embedment depth of well shaft as
shown in Fig. 7. Similarly, Eq. (5) was used to obtain the
coefcients of distributed rotational springs along the embedment depth of well shaft (Fig. 7).
For a well foundation of nite depth embedded in a layered
soil, the coefcients in Eqs. (4) and (5) were assumed to be valid.
In other words, the stiffness and damping coefcients per unit
depth of a particular layer were obtained by assuming that a rigid
well foundation of the same cross section but innite depth was
embedded in a homogeneous half-space with property of that
layer. The same assumption has been made by Novak and AboulElla [29] for exible pile embedded in layered soil.
Unlike pile where the lateral soil reaction is the sole resisting
mechanism during earthquake, in well foundation base reaction
also plays an important role along with the lateral reaction as the
resisting mechanism. Since, solution of Novak et al. [4] was for the
innitely long foundation, concept of base springs was not there.
Therefore, springs at the well base were introduced in this study
to model the base resistance mechanism of the nite depth of
well foundation considered in this study. The following expressions for the dynamic impedance of rigid circular foundation
resting on surface of elastic homogeneous medium proposed by
Veletsos and co-authors [5,6] were used as the coefcients of the
concentrated translational and rotational springdashpot system
at the well base:
9
=
cbx
8Gr0
2n
8Gr0 0:6a0
2n U o
kby
8Gr03
0
31n Ukby
cby
8Gr03
0:35a30 >
31n U o1 a2 ;
kbx
;
9
>
=
k0by
10:2a0
for a0 r 2:5
0:5
for a0 4 2:5
The parameter n is the Poissons ratio of soil at well base. The

above four-springdashpots model consisted of (a) distributed
translational springdashpots along the well shaft, (b) distributed
rotational springdashpots along the well shaft, (c) the concentrated base translational springdashpot, and (d) the concentrated base rotational springdashpot. One end of all the springs
was connected to the well foundation. The other end of all the
rotational springs (i.e., springs b and d) was xed in space while
that of the translational springs (i.e., springs a and c) was
subjected to earthquake motions in the form of displacement
history corresponding to that soil layer estimated from the
equivalent-linear analysis in SHAKE. In fact, the xed end of the
rotational springs should be subjected to dynamic rotation ye(t)
( due(t)/dz, where due(t) is the differential displacement of the
top and bottom nodes of the layer and dz is the thickness of the
layer) imposed by the horizontal displacement prole. However,
for simplicity, small amount of dynamic rotation at the end of the
rotational springs was neglected in this study.
The spring and dashpot coefcients used in Eqs. (2)(7) are
based on linear soil. In order to consider soil nonlinearity,
approximately, the spring coefcients were estimated using the
equivalent-linear properties of soil (G and z) obtained from 1D
wave propagation analysis in SHAKE, as discussed earlier.
5.2. Comparison of 1D and 2D-NL analyses
Table 3 illustrates nine different 1D models obtained by
different combinations of the springs and dashpots as discussed
in the previous section. In 1D-1, all the four sets of springs were
considered and dashpots were neglected while in 1D-2 all the
springs and dashpots were considered. The models 1D-3 and 1D-4
were developed from 1D-2 by reducing the damping coefcients
to 10% and 20%, respectively, of that considered in 1D-2. The
reduction in damping is due to the presence of frequency cut-off
for radiation damping when natural period of the SWP system is
more than the fundamental period of the soil strata [12,30,31].
In such a case, the radiation damping is signicantly small as
compared to its half-space value.
Fig. 8 shows the percentage error in the maximum displacement and force resultants in pier and well foundation obtained
from these analyses. The percentage error was estimated based
on the 2D-NL analysis. About 75% error was observed in the
response parameters in model 1D-1, which neglected dashpots.
The model 1D-2, which considered full damping, resulted in
about 50% error in the maximum force and displacement
Table 3
Types of 1D springdashpot models analyzed in the present study.
Springs type
Kx
Cx
Ky
Cy
Kbx
Cbx
Kb y
Cby
Remarks
1D-1
1D-2
1D-3
1D-4
1D-5
1D-6
1D-7
1D-8
1D-Proposed
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
PR
NV
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
PR
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
PR
NV
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
PR
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
No dashpot
All springs and dashpots
Dashpot coefcients are 10% of the half-space value
Dashpot coefcients are 20% of the half-space value
No base rotational spring and dashpot
No base translational spring and dashpot
No base springs and dashpots
No distributed rotational springs and dashpots
Proposed distributed springs with no base rotational spring
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Note: NV Novak springs; VS Veletsos springs; PR Proposed.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Error (%)
200
150
100
50
0
50
L1
M1
S1
200
150
100
50
0
50
L2
M2
S2
200
150
100
50
0
50
L3
M3
S3
1D1
1D2
1D3
1D4
1D1
DPT
DWT
1D2
1D3
Types of Analysis
SFP
1D4
SFW
1D1
1D2
1D3
1D4
BMW
BMP
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the analysis using four types of 1D models.
Shear Force (MN)

0
25
50
75
100
500
1000
1500
0
S1
S1
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2DNL
1D2
1D3
1D4
Fig. 9. Comparison of envelopes of the maximum force resultants, (a) shear force and (b) bending moment, along the depth of well foundation obtained from the twodimensional nonlinear (2D-NL) model and three one-dimensional springdashpot models (1D-1, 1D-2, and 1D-3) for severe motion S1.
responses of pier and well foundation. However, the models

1D-3 and 1D-4 with reduced damping indicated about 730%
and 720% maximum error, respectively. Envelopes of the maximum force resultants (shear force and bending moment) of well
obtained from the 1D models were also compared with those
obtained from the 2D-NL model. Fig. 9 shows such comparison for
the case of S1 motion. The best agreement was observed in case of
model 1D-4.
From the above discussion, it was concluded that the coefcient
of dashpots should be limited to 20% of that for foundation
embedded in half-space when the natural period of the SWP system
is more than the fundamental period of the soil prole, which
is used. Therefore, the model 1D-4 was used as a basis for the
subsequent analysis to study the effect of individual springs on the

response of well foundation. Since the ground motion was applied in
the horizontal direction only, the distributed horizontal springs were
dominant over the other springs. Therefore, the individual signicance of the other three types of spring was studied.
5.3. Effect of base rotational springdashpot
The effect of rotational springdashpot (kby, cby) 1D-5 at well
base on the response of well and pier was studied by comparing
the results of models 1D-5 and 1D-4. The model 1D-5 was
prepared by removing the base rotational spring and dashpot
from the model 1D-4. It was observed that the magnitudes of
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
Error with respect to 1D4 (%)
Shear Force (MN)
40
10
20
30

40 0
200
400
600
800
20
10
20
20
30
40
1D5
DPT
1D6
1D7
Types of Analysis
DWT
SFP
SFW
1D8
BMP
40
50
0
BMW
Fig. 10. Effect of different spring components on the maximum responses (i.e.,
maximum displacement at pier top (DPT) and well top (DWT); maximum shear
force in pier (SFP) and well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP)
and well (BMW)).
10
20
30
40
Depth (m)
error in the maximum force and maximum displacement

responses of well foundation and piers were less than 5% in
absence of base rotational springdashpot (Fig. 10). Comparison
of shear force envelopes obtained from these two models (1D-4
and 1D-5) shows that the envelopes almost overlapped each
other (Fig. 11(a)). Similarly, the maximum bending moment
envelopes of well foundation obtained from these two models
also compared well with each other except near the base of the
well foundation where the model 1D-5 estimated slightly lower
value of the maximum bending moment as compared to model
1D-4 (Fig. 11(b)). Therefore, it can be inferred that the base
rotational spring and dashpot can be removed without causing
signicant error in the response parameters. Hence, one can use a
model with only three types of springdashpots.
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
5.4. Effect of base translational springdashpot
10
To study the inuence of translational spring and dashpot at

well base (kbx, cbx), the maximum displacement and maximum
force responses of model 1D-6 were compared with those of the
model 1D-4. The model 1D-6 was prepared by removing the base
translational spring and dashpot from model 1D-4. It was
observed that the displacement responses (i.e., DPT and DWT)
were reduced by only 5% and the maximum force resultants in
well foundation and pier were reduced by 10% to 13% in absence
of base translational spring and dashpot (Fig. 10). However, the
envelopes of the maximum shear force were highly underestimated near the base of the well foundation (Fig. 11c). Therefore,
one should not neglect the base translational spring during the
seismic analysis of the SWP system.
20
5.5. Combined effect of base translational and rotational

springdashpots
The combined effect of the base springdashpots (both translational and rotational) were studied by analyzing the well
foundation using only distributed springdashpots (kbx, cbx and
kby, cby) along the well shaft (in model 1D-7) and comparing the
results with those of the model 1D-4. In absence of base spring
dashpots (both translational and rotational), the maximum values
of the displacement at pier cap (DPT) and well cap (DWT) were
reduced by 8% to 10%. Similarly, magnitudes of the maximum
shear force and bending moment were reduced by about 9% in
pier and about 15% in well foundation. Moreover, the maximum
shear force and bending moment below the central half of well
foundation were underestimated if base springs were neglected
(Fig. 11(e) and (f)). Therefore, the combined effect of the
30
40
50
1D4
1D6
1D5
1D7
1D8
Fig. 11. Effect of individual springdashpots on the maximum shear force and
maximum bending moment envelopes of well foundation: (ab) base rotational
springdashpot (Kby Cby), (cd) base translational springdashpot (Kbx Cbx),
(ef) both translational and rotational base springdashpots (Kbx Cbx, Kby Cby),
(gh) rotational distributed springdashpots (KyCy).
translational and rotational base springdashpots is signicant

and cannot be neglected.
5.6. Effect of distributed rotational springdashpots along well shaft
The effect of distributed rotational springdashpots (ky, cy)
was studied by analyzing the model 1D-8 and comparing the
results with those of the model 1D-4. The model 1D-8, which was
prepared by excluding the distributed rotational springdashpots
from model 1D-4, resulted in overestimation of the maximum
displacement of pier cap and well cap by about 20% and the
maximum force resultants in well foundation and pier by about
12% (Fig. 10). The envelopes of the maximum shear force in well
foundation obtained from the analysis using the models 1D-8 and
1D-4 vary signicantly (Fig. 11(g) and (h)). Therefore, it can be
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
10
20
15
= 0.4
Sx2
Sx1
3
= 0.3
= 0.4
= 0.3
10
1
0
5
0
6
5
4
S1
S2
3
3
2
2
1
0
1
0
0.5
1
a0 = r0/Vs
1.5
= 5%
0.5
= 10%
1
a0 = r0/Vs
1.5
Proposed
Fig. 12. Stiffness (Sx1 and Sy1) and damping parameters (Sx2 and Sy2) for translational and rotational springs proposed by Novak et al. [4] along with the simplied
parameters proposed in the present study.
concluded that the distributed rotational springs and dashpots

have signicant inuence in the response of well foundation
and pier.
Superstructure mass
Distributed translational
springs (kx, cx)
Pier
6. Proposed 1D model
Distributed
rotational
springs (k, c)
Displacement
time histories
In the previous section, it was concluded that when the natural

period of the SWP system is more than the fundamental period of
the soil strata, the coefcient of dashpots should be reduced to
about 20% of that for foundation embedded in half-space. It was
also observed that the rotational base spring and dashpot may be
neglected without causing signicant error in the estimation of the
maximum displacement and force resultants in well foundation
and pier.
Based on the above ndings, a springdashpot model consisting
of (1) distributed translational springdashpots, (2) distributed
rotational springdashpots, and (3) a base translational spring
dashpot is proposed (Fig. 13). The spring and dashpot parameters
in Eqs. (4) and (5) have been simplied by some linear approximation of these parameters with dimensionless frequency (a0). Fig. 12
shows that the translational spring stiffness parameter Sx1 proposed
by Novak et al. [4] depends on the dimensionless frequency (a0) and
n. However, in the frequency range of interest (0.5oao1.5), Sx1 can
be assumed to be independent of a0 and n. Hence, Sx1 is crudely
approximated to be equal to 3.5. However, the translational damping parameter Sx2 almost linearly varies with a0. Neglecting the
effect of n on Sx1, it is proposed that Sx2 E10a0. Similarly, the
rotational spring and damping parameters have been simplied as
Sy1 E3.00.75a0 and Sy2 E3a0. The proposed simplied expressions
of the Novaks spring coefcients are plotted in Fig. 12 along with
the original expressions. Summary of the proposed springdashpots
coefcients is shown in Eqs. (8)(10)
)
kx 3:5G
8
0
cx 2Ga
o
Well
Translational base
spring (kbx, cbx)
Fig. 13. Proposed 1D model with three types of springdashpots. Note: all the
springs are connected with dampers in parallel; however, dampers are not shown
for clarity.
9
ky Gr02 3:00:75a0 =
cy
0:6Gr02 a0
kbx
cbx
8Gr0
2n
8Gr0 0:12a0
2n U o
9
=
;
10
Results of analysis of the well foundation using the proposed

three-spring model (model 1D-Proposed) were compared with those
obtained from the 2D-NL analysis. The values of percentage error in
the response parameters were also compared with those for 2D-EqL
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
11
60
30
0
30
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
Error (%)
60
60
30
0
30
60
60
30
0
30
60
2DEqL
1D4
1DProposed
PT
2DEqL
1D4
1DProposed
Types of Analysis
WT
SF
SFW
2DEqL
BM
1D4
1DProposed
BMW
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the various approaches.
and 1D-4 analyses (Fig. 14). It was observed that the proposed model
satisfactorily estimates the maximum force and maximum displacement responses in pier and well foundation; the maximum percentage error in the response parameters was within 30% except for the
motion S3. Moreover, the values of the percentage error for the
proposed model and the model 1D-4 match well with each other.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the effects of simplication of
Novaks [4] spring and dashpot coefcients, and the base rotational
spring on the maximum force and displacement responses of pier and
well foundation are not signicant.
7. Performance of some other existing 1D models

As stated earlier, there are only a few springdashpot models,
available in the literature, which were developed specically for
the seismic analysis of well foundation. In the previous discussion,
the distributed translational and rotational springs and dashpots
proposed by Novak et al. [4] were used to analyze the SWP system
and a simplied model with three types of springs was proposed.
In this section, three other 1D models were studied; one model
was based on the recommendation of Japanese code [3], and the
other two were proposed by Gerolymos and Gazetas [1] and Varun
et al. [2]. Fig. 15 illustrates the comparison of spring and dashpot
coefcients of the soil layer considered in this study. It was
observed that the value of translational spring coefcient kx
specied in JRA [3] was signicantly higher in comparison to those
of the other three models. Values of the coefcients ky, cx, and cy
obtained from these models signicantly varied from each other. It
is worth noting that the dashpot coefcient of the rotational
springs (cy) proposed by Gerolymos and Gazetas [1] and Varun
et al. [2] attained negative values. The negative values of cy may
sometimes cause convergence problem during time history analysis. Since these models were developed specically for frequency
domain analysis, their application in the time domain may not be
suitable.
Performance of the above springdashpot models was checked

by analyzing the SWP system using these models and comparing
results with those of the 2D-NL analysis. The coefcient cy
proposed by Gerolymos and Gazetas [1] and Varun et al. [2]
was assumed to be zero when it attained a negative value. It was
observed that the proposed model performed considerably well in
comparison to the other models considered in this study. Signicant error (more than 50%) was observed in the displacement
and force response parameters of well foundation and pier for
models proposed by Gerolymos and Gazetas [1] and Varun et al.
[2] (Fig. 16). In a few cases, the JRA model, which does not
consider dashpots, also estimated the responses satisfactorily.
However, it signicantly overestimated (error4100%) the maximum shear force and maximum bending moment in pier for the
motions L2, M1, S1, and S2.
8. Computational efciency of different approaches

Computational efciency of the 2D-NL, 2D-EqL, and 1D
approaches was compared to study the acceptability of the
available approaches in design ofces. It was observed that the
computational time required for the above three approaches were
15 h, 6 h, and 5 min for the L1 motion. Hence, one can imagine
that the 3D SWP model with appropriate model parameters may
take signicantly long time for the execution under seismic loading. Although there was no signicant difference in the estimated
response parameters, computational efciency of the 2D-EqL
analysis was about three times better than that of the 2D-NL
analysis. On the other hand, the 1D springdashpot model required negligible computational time as compared to the 2D-NL
and 2D-EqL analyses. However, the 1D approach is comparatively
less accurate than the 2D-EqL model. Therefore, one should
choose correct approach depending on the importance of the
problem. In general, 1D approach can be chosen for rst hand
answer and 2D-EqL approach may be chosen for detailed analysis.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
12
Kx (kN/m) 106
4
8
K (kN.m) 108
1
2
12
Cx (kN.s/m) 104
1
2
3
4
C (kN.m.s) 107
2
1
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
3
10
20
30
40
50
Novak et al. [4]
Gerolymos and Gazetas [1]
JRA [3]
Varun et al. [2]
Fig. 15. Comparison of spring and dashpot coefcients of distributed side springs obtained from various 1D models.
9. Summary and conclusions

Seismic response of soilwellpier (SWP) system was
performed by three approaches, namely, two-dimensional nonlinear (2D-NL), two-dimensional equivalent-linear (2D-EqL), and
one-dimensional springdashpot (1D) approaches. Out of these
three approaches, the 1D approach is the simplest one and it is
easy to implement in design ofces. Nine earthquake motions with
peak ground acceleration ranging from 0.2 g to 0.6 g were used to
represent the variations in ground motion parameters. Displacement and force responses obtained from the 2D-EqL analysis were
compared with those determined by the rigorous 2D-NL analysis.
In the 1D approach, various 1D models combining springs proposed by Novak et al. [4], and Veletsos and co-authors [5,6] were
prepared and used to analyze the SWP system. Results obtained
from these models were compared with the results of 2D-NL
model. Based on this study, the coefcients of Novaks springs
were further simplied and a three-springdashpot model was
proposed. The proposed model consisted of distributed translational and rotational springdashpots along the well shaft and
concentrated base translational springdashpot. The proposed
model estimated relatively well the seismic response of the SWP
system. Performances of some other 1D springdashpot models
specically developed for well foundation were also studied. Based

on the present study, the following conclusions can be made:
1) The 2D-EqL approach, which is simpler and computationally
more efcient than the 2D-NL approach, can be very useful for
the seismic analysis of well foundation though it considers soil
nonlinearity approximately. Such analysis may cause up to
30% error in design displacement and force resultants in pier
and well foundation. However, computationally, it is about
three times more efcient than the 2D-NL analysis.
2) For routine work in design ofces, engineers may use the 1D
springdashpot model, which requires negligible computational
time as compared to the 2D analyses (both 2D-NL and 2D-EqL).
In this model, radiation damping should be considered otherwise
displacement and force responses may be overestimated.
3) For long span bridges supported on well foundation, the
natural period of the SWP system is generally more than the
fundamental period of the soil. In this case, the use of radiation
damping for half-space may lead to underestimation of displacement and force resultants in well foundation and pier.
In such a situation, it is recommended that the coefcient of
dashpots should be reduced to 20% of that for foundation
embedded in half-space. The spring and damping coefcients
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
200
13
L1
M1
S1
L2
M2
S2
L3
M3
S3
100
0
100
Error (%)
200
100
0
100
200
100
0
100
Proposed
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Varun
et al. [2]
Proposed
DPT
DWT
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Types of Analysis
SFP
SFW
Varun
et al. [2]
BMP
Proposed
JRA [3]
Gerolymos
and
Gazetas [1]
Varun
et al. [2]
BMW
well (SFW), and maximum bending moment in pier (BMP) and well (BMW)) obtained from the 1D analysis.
should be estimated based on the equivalent-linear properties

of soil.
4) One can use the proposed model, which consists of three types
of springdashpots and ignores base rotational springdashpot
to analyze approximately the well foundation embedded in
soil. The proposed model estimated the displacement and
force resultants in pier and well foundation relatively better
than the available 1D models. In a few cases, the JRA springs
[3] also estimated the responses satisfactorily.
In the present study, seismic analysis was performed on a

typical well foundation embedded in a layered cohesionless soil.
Considering the fact that such foundations may be located in
different seismic zones and may be subjected to different intensities of earthquake motion, the present study focuses on the
variation of ground motions. Further comprehensive research is
needed to study the inuence of the geometry of the foundation and
properties of soil layers on the conclusions drawn in this paper.
Seismic analysis of the SWP system is a 3D problem, which has
been represented as a 2D plane-strain problem in this paper.
Despite the limitations of the 2D model, it is able to capture (at
least qualitatively) the key aspects of the effects of soil nonlinearity (liquefaction) on the overall seismic response mechanism of the SWP system. More comprehensive research may be
needed in future for carrying out seismic analysis of 3D SWP
model with nonlinear soil.
Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledge Poonam and Prabhu Goel
Foundation at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur for the nancial
support in conducting the present study.
References
[1] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Winkler model for lateral response of rigid caisson
foundations in linear soil. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26:34761.
[2] Varun, Assimaki D, Gazetas G. A simplied model for lateral response of large
diameter caisson foundationslinear elastic formulation. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2009;29:26891.
[3] JRA. Specications for Highway Bridges, Part IV: Substructures. Japan: Japan
Road Association; 2002.
[4] Novak M, Nogami T, Aboul-Ella F. Dynamic soil reactions for plane strain case.
J Eng Mech Div, ASCE 1978;104:9539.
[5] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech
Found Div, ASCE 1971;97:122748.
[6] Veletsos AS, Verbic B. Basic response functions for elastic foundations. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1974;100:189202.
[7] Wolf JP, Meek JW. Insight on 2D versus 3D modelling of surface foundations
via strength of materials solutions for soil dynamics. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 1994;23:91112.
[8] Luco JE, Hadjian AH. Two-dimensional approximations to the threedimensional soilstructure interaction problem. Nucl Eng Des 1975;31:
195203.
[9] Watanabe H, Tochigi H. Model vibration test concerning the dynamic
interaction of soil structure system followed by sliding and separation and
their numerical simulation. Proc JSCE 1986:31927. [368-I-5].
[10] Seed BH, Lysmer J. Soilstructure interaction analyses by nite elements
State of the art. Nucl Eng Des 1978;46:34965.
[11] Jeremic B, Kunnath S, Xiong F. Inuence of soilfoundationstructure interaction on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct. Eng Struct 2004;26:391402.
[12] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Static and dynamic response of massive caisson
foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities validation and results.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26:37794.
[13] Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte JP. Three-dimensional seismic response of
Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. J Struct Eng 2008;134:
116576.
[14] Chang CY, Mok CM, Wang ZL, Settgast R, Waggoner F, Ketchum MA, et al.
Dynamic soilfoundationstructure interaction analysis of large caissons,
MCEER-00-0011. New York: Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of Buffalo; 2000.
[15] Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain SK. Signicance of interface nonlinearity on seismic
response of well-pier system in cohesionless soil. Earthquake Spectra, in press.
[16] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for innite media. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1969;95:85977.
[17] Joyner WB, Chen ATF. Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65:131536.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002
14
[18] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, et al. Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation: user command-language manual,
version 1.7.3. Berkeley: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Center, University
of California; 2006. /http://opensees.berkeley.eduS.
[19] Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees soil models and solid-uid fully coupled
elements: users manual, Version 1. San Diego: University of California; 2008.
[20] Yang Z. Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation
and liquefaction. PhD thesis. New York: Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, Columbia University; 2000. 255 p.
ez GA. Users manual of SHAKE-2000: a computer program for the 1-D
[21] Ordon
analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problems. GeoMotions;
2004, 310 p. /http://www.shake2000.comS.
[22] Mondal G. Seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges. PhD thesis.
Kanpur: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur; 2011.
[23] Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. PhD thesis. Austin: University of Texas at
Austin; 2001.
[24] Zhang J, Andrus RD, Juang CH. Normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio relationships. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131:45364.
[25] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response
analyses. Report no. EERC 70-10. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1970.
[26] Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB. Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for
cohesive soils. Report no. EERC-88/15. Berkley: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California; 1988.
[27] Stokoe KH II, Hwang SK, Darendeli MB, Lee NJ. Correlation study of nonlinear
dynamic soil properties. Final Report to Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, SC; 1995.
[28] Hudson M, Idriss IM, Beikae M. Users manual for QUAD4M: a computer
program to evaluate the seismic response of soil structures using nite
element procedures and incorporating a compliant base. Davis, USA: University of California; 1994.
[29] Novak M, Aboul-Ella F. Impedance functions of piles in layered media. J Eng
Mech Div, ASCE 1978;104:64361.
[30] Wolf J, Song C. To radiate or not to radiate. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1996;25:142132.
[31] Meek J, Wolf J. Insights on cutoff frequency for foundation on soil layer.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:65165.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002

2012 Mondal Et Al SDEE Simplified Seismic Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Mondal Et Al SDEE Simplified Seismic Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Simplified seismic analysis of soilwellpier

University of British Columbia - Okanagan

Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar

Available from: Goutam Mondal

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Simplied seismic analysis of soilwellpier system for bridges

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, UP 208016, India

Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 7923972574; fax: 91 7923972622.

of the 1D approach over the 2D is that the former is very efcient

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

2. Geometry of the model and earthquake motions

3. Two-dimensional (2D) nonlinear analysis

by 2D plane-strain representation. By comparing the response of a

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Epicentral distance (km)

Symbol for ground motion

LA-Grifth Park Observatory, (USGS 141)

Fig. 2. Details of the nite element model of soilwellpier (SWP) system.

complexity of analyzing rigorous 3D FE model, 2D representation

plane-strain condition. Well foundation and piers were discretized

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Peak Horizontal Acceleration (g)

underestimated in OpenSees by 6%, 1%, and 2%, respectively, at

were zero-length elements with two nodes; one node was

4. Two-dimensional (2D) equivalent-linear analysis

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

similar type of soil. In the present study, these were obtained

where Gr is the shear modulus at reference conning pressure of

p = 200 kN/m (20m50m)

p = 500 kN/m2 (50m100m)

Damping Ratio (%)

p = 200 kN/m2 (20m50m)

p = 500 kN/m (50m100m)

4.2. Comparison of 2D equivalent-linear and 2D nonlinear analyses

Fig. 4. Shearstrain dependent (a) shear modulus reduction curves, and

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Shear Force (MN)

Bending Moment (MNm)

5. One-dimensional (1D) springdashpot model

Ky Gr02 Sy1 a0 ,Ds iSy2 a0 ,Ds

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

damping coefcients are obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3):

These coefcients are frequency (o) dependent; however, for

The parameter n is the Poissons ratio of soil at well base. The

Note: NV Novak springs; VS Veletsos springs; PR Proposed.

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Shear Force (MN)

Bending Moment (MNm)

responses of pier and well foundation. However, the models

subsequent analysis to study the effect of individual springs on the

Error with respect to 1D4 (%)

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Shear Force (MN)

Bending Moment (MNm)

error in the maximum force and maximum displacement

5.4. Effect of base translational springdashpot

To study the inuence of translational spring and dashpot at

5.5. Combined effect of base translational and rotational

translational and rotational base springdashpots is signicant

G. Mondal et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

concluded that the distributed rotational springs and dashpots