2. Complexity of the Soil Structure Interaction Problem The Soil-Foundation-Structure Problem involves Kinematic Soil-Foundation Interaction occurring during large (cyclic and permanent) ground deformations as well as Inertial Foundation-Structure Interaction occurring during shaking all of which take place while the soil and possibly structural properties degrade with time.

4. Major Causes of Damage Ground Shaking Site Response Near Fault Effects Ground Deformation Liquefaction Related Soft Soil Related

5. 2001 Bhuj Earthquake

6. Damage to Floating and End Bearing Piles 1964 Niigata Earthquake

8. Hanshin Expressway Route 5 1995 Kobe Earthquake Permanent Horizontal Displacement of Bridge Piers vs Distance to Waterfront Permanent Horizontal Displacements of Bridge Piers versus Free Field Ground Displacement

9. Important Factors to be considered in Solution of the Complex SSI Problem Thickness and properties (shear strength and passive pressure) of soil strata Geometry and Properties of Foundation Elements Restraining stiffness and strength of Structural Elements Pile Types - Vertical or Batter/End Bearing or Floating

10. Limit Equilibrium Evaluation of Land Road Bridge Foundation 1987 Edgecumbe, New Zealand Earthquake

11. Limit Equilibrium Method for Design of Deep Foundation subjected to Lateral Spreading (Japan Road Association, 1996)

12. NEAR FAULT RESPONSE SPECTRA

13. Port of Oakland - Berth 37 Damage Calibration Study using FLAC Analyses 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

14. Berth 37 - Cross Section

15. Berth 37 - Damage Calibration Study Calibration Target Deformations Permanent Horiz. Deck Displacement = 2 - 4 inches Permanent Horiz. Soil Deformation = 6 inches Visible Damage to the Piles Damage to the Piles at Depth ?

16. SUMMARY OF PILE TOP DAMAGE BERTH 37 - LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE Note: Pile Integrity Testing suggests some E-Row piles may be damaged below the liquefiable layer.

17. Orbital Plots of Loma Prieta Records - Port of Oakland (Acceleration) (Velocity) (Displacement) Input Time History to FLAC Model

18. Photo of Pile Top Damage

19. FLAC Model of Berth 37

20. Contours of Horizontal Slope Displacement HG F E D C B A

21. Contours of Vertical Slope Displacement HG F E D C B A

22. Pile Displacement Vector Diagram Permanent Horizontal Deck Displacement = 0.30 feet (feet) Berth 37 (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF

23. 1 2 3 4 Pore Pressure Monitoring Locations Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF Berth 37 (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) B D E F G H A C

24. Pore Pressure Ratios Time (Seconds) Berth 37 Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) Pore Pressure Ratio 4 3 1 2

25. Soil Deformation Time History Near Top of Batter Pile Liquefaction triggered, soil deformation occurs Cyclic motions, no liq.

26. Pile Top Shear Time History - Waterside Batter Pile Inertia Loading Kinematic Loading

27. Berth 37 Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) Time (Seconds) Axial Force at Pile/Deck Connection, Pile Row H -336 kip Axial Force per foot pile spacing (lb) 480 kip

28. Bending Moment at Pile/Deck Connection, Pile Row H 60 ft-kip Mp = 60 ft-kip Berth 37 Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) Time (Seconds) Moment per foot pile spacing (ft/lb)

29. Time (Seconds) Horizontal Deck Displacement Time History Displacement (Feet) Berth 37 Loma Prieta, S r = 400 PSF (Pre-Loma Prieta Condition) 3.6 inches 4.4 inches

30. Moment Diagram, Sr=400 psf

34. Computer Program DFSAP D eep F oundation S ystem A nalysis P rogram developed using Strain Wedge Method for Washington State Department of Transportation for Analysis of Laterally and Axially Loaded Group of Shafts and Piles

37. What are the differences between the SWM approach and the p-y method?

39. Laterally Loaded Pile as a Beam on Elastic Foundation (BEF) y p ( E s ) 1 ( E s ) 3 ( E s ) 4 ( E s ) 2 p p p y y y ( E s ) 5 p y M o P o P v

40. LARGE DIAMETER SHAFT z T y p S o i l - S h a f t H o r i z o n t a l R e s i s t a n c e S o i l - S h a f t S h e a r R e s i s t a n c e T i p R e a c t i o n D u e t o S h a f t R o t a t i o n N e g l e c t e d w i t h L o n g S h a f t s P o M o P v T P o o M o o P v y F P v M t F v F P F P F v F v V t F t

41. The p-y method provides a unique p-y curve for the equal diameter piles in the same soil regardless of the pile’s EI EI & D = 1 ft 0.1 EI & D = 1 ft

42. Variation of soil reaction with the change of the footing stiffness (EI) as presented by Terzaghi (1955) and Vesic (1961) q per unit area B C L q 0.5q K r =  K r = 0 Rigid Footing, K r =  Flexible Footing, K r = 0 Footing H (1-  2 s ) E P H 3 6 (1-  2 P ) E s B 3 K r =

43. The p-y method provides a unique p-y curve for the equal diameter piles in the same soil for piles with free- or fixed-head conditions Load Test by Kim et al. (ASCE J., 2004) to Show the Effect of Pile-Head Fixity on the p-y curve SW Model Analysis

44. Laterally Loaded Pile as a Beam on Elastic Foundation (BEF) Effect of Structural Element Cross-Sectional Shape on Soil Reaction P P K 1 K 2 4 ft 4 ft

46. Horizontal and Vertical Growth in the Soil Passive Wedge Pile Pile Pile head load P o Successive mobilized wedges  m  m Mobilized zones as assessed experimentally

47. Simplified SW Model 6 P o Soil Strain  = y/d , From Triaxial Test Concept , and Stress-Strain Curve,  d =  h , Stress Level= SL & Mobilized friction angle =  m d y x Y o h  m  m  m Pile Real stressed zone F 1 F 1 Triaxial test principle stresses A  Side shear (  ) p = CD *  h + Pile Side Shear (b) Force equilibrium in a slice of the wedge at depth x p Plane taken to simplify analysis (i.e. F 1 ’s cancel) C D A  h d Horizontal Slice (c) Forces at the face of the soil passive wedge (Section elevation A-A) ds dx   h  h * CD * dx =  * CD * ds sin  m  VO  m K  VO Y o h x H i i Sublayer i+1 Sublayer 1  Vertical Slice Beam on Elastic Foundation

48. L = SHAFT LENGTH T = (EI/f ) 0.2 f = Coefficient. of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Varying Deflection Patterns Based on Shaft Type h = 0.69 X o X o Zero Crossing Deflection Pattern Linearized Deflection Y o  Long Shaft L/T  4 X o > h > 0.69 X o X o Zero Crossing Y o  Linearized Deflection Intermediate Shaft 4 > L/T > 2 Zero Crossing h = X o Y o  Deflection Pattern Short Shaft L/T  2 

49. Different Pile/Shaft Cross-Sections Considered in The SWM Program

51. SWM Validation Example Single Shaft

52. UCLA/CALTRANS TEST

53. Measured and Predicted Shaft Response of the Las Vegas Test (8-ft Diameter and 32-ft long Shaft) P o COM624P

54. P o 15 ft 4 ft Stiff Clay Su = 5500 psi R/C Shaft Measured and Predicted Shaft Response of the Southern California Test (Pier 1) 0.0095 5500 0 130 22 Clay Layer 1  50 ** S u (psf)  (deg.)  (pcf) Thickness (ft) Soil type Soil layer

55. Pile/Shaft Group

58. y p p group = P mult x p single p single Pile in a group Single pile (P mult. ) 1 = (P mult. ) 2 = (P mult. ) 3 =

59. The Overlapping of Passive Soil Wedges and the Interaction among the Piles in a Group at any Step of Lateral Loading 6 Pile Group Analysis in SWM Model No P-multiplier)

60. Horizontal Passive Wedge Interference in Pile Group Response Pile Pile Overlap of stresses based on elastic theory (and nonuniform shaped deflection at pile face) Overlap employed in SW model based on uniform stress and pile face deflection (P o ) g (P o ) g Uniform pile face movement

61. Horizontal (Lateral and Frontal) Interaction for a Particular Pile in a Pile Group at a Given Depth 8

64. Treasure Island 3 x 3 Pile Group Test (Rollins et al., ASCE J., No. 1, 2005)

66. Shaft B1 Shaft B2 The Taiwan Test by Brown et al. 2001

67. Traditional p-y curves were modified using LPILE to match the measured p-y data (Brown et al. 2001)

68. 0 40 80 120 160 200 P i l e H e a d D e f l e c t i o n , Y o , m m 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 P i l e H e a d L o a d , P o , k N M e a s u r e d ( B r o w n e t a l . 2 0 0 1 ) P r e d i c t e d ( S W M o d e l ) N o V . S i d e S h e a r W i t h V . S i d e S h e a r S i n g l e 1 . 5 - m - D i a m e t e r Shaft (B1) F r e e - h e a d

70. Pile Cap Effect and Pile Deflection Patterns

71. y Cap Passive Wedge Pile/Shaft Group with Cap Pile Passive Wedges

73. Loading Direction

74. 3 x 3 SHAFT GROUP FREE-HEAD

75. 3 x 3 SHAFT GROUP FIXED-HEAD

76. Effect of Pile-Head Conditions on Cap Resistance at the Same Deflection Value in DFSAP Piles + Cap Piles Cap 320 Piles + Cap Piles Cap 410 Free-Head Fixed-Head

77. Piles/Shafts in Sloping Ground

78. Piles/Shafts in Sloping Ground m tan  m  m D D h  m m C B  x   m (h-x) tan h-x Lateral Load Different Failure Planes Sloping Ground

79. 10 Degree Sloping Ground 0 Degree Sloping Ground

80. Effect of Ground Slope on Pile/Shaft Lateral Response

81. Soil Liquefaction and p-y curves for liquefied soils

82. Current Available Procedures That Assess the Pile/Shaft Behavior in Liquefied Soils (Using the Traditional P-y Curve): 1. Construction of the p-y curve of soft clay based on the residual strength of liquefied sand presented by Seed and Harder (1990) 2. Reduce the unit weight of liquefied sand with the amount of R u (Earthquake effect in the free-field ) and then build the traditional p-y curve of sand based on the new value of the sand unit weight.

83. Pile Deflection, y Soil-Pile Reaction, p Upper Limit of S r using soft clay p-y curve API Procedure Corrected blowcount vs. residual strength, S r (Seed and Harder, 1990) P-Y Curve of Completely Liquefied Soil Lower Limit of S r Treasure Island Test Result (Rollins and Ashford)

85. Effect of Cyclic Loading upon Subsequent Undrained Stress-Strain Relationship for Sacramento River Sand (Dr = 40%) (Seed 1979)

87. Peak Ground Acceleration (a max ) = 0.1 g Earthquake Magnitude = 6.5 Induced Porewater Pressure Ratio (r u ) = 0.9 - 1.0 Soil Profile and Properties at the Treasure Island Test S h a f t W i d t h x x L o n g i t u d i n a l S t e e l Steel Shell Soil-Pile Reaction, p Pile Deflection, y Treasure Island Test Result (Rollins and Ashford) Upper Limit of S r using soft clay p-y curve Lower Limit of S r API Procedure

88. 0 100 200 300 400 P i l e - H e a d D e f l e c t i o n , Y o , m m 0 100 200 300 400 500 P i l e - H e a d L o a d , P o , k N C I S S , 0 . 6 1 m E I = 4 4 8 3 2 0 k N - m 2 O b s e r v e d P r e d i c t e d ( S W M ) P r e d i c t e d ( C o m 6 2 4 ) N o - L i q u e f a c t i o n P o s t - L i q u e f a c t i o n ( u x s , f f + u x s , n f )

89. Pile-Head Response (Y o vs. P o ) for 0.61-m Diameter CISS at Treasure Island Test

90. p-y Curve of 0.61-m Diameter CISS in Liquefied Soil ( Treasure Island, After Rollins et al. 2005) 0.2 m Below Ground 1.5 m Below Ground 3.2 m Below Ground

91. p-y Curve Empirical Formula in Liquefied Sand by Rollins et al. 2005 p (d=324 mm) = A(By) C for D r = 50% where: A = 3 x 10 -7 (z+1) 6.05 , B = 2.8 (z+1) 0.11 C = 2.85(z+1) -0.41 z is depth in (m) y is lateral deflection (mm) p multiplier = 3.81 ln d + 5.6 p = p (d=324 mm) x p multiplier

92. p-y Curves for loose and dense sand for M=6.5 and amax=0.35g

93. Loose Sand Profile for Three Levels of Earthquake M=4.5, amax=0.15g; M=5.0, amax=0.25g; M=6.5, amax=0.35g

94. Lateral Soil Spread

96. (Ishihara)

97. Clay Shaft Diameter Clay Liquefiable Soil “ Full” Pile-Soil Response Under Lateral Soil Spread Liquefiable Soil “ Partial” P o A x i a l L o a d M o M o M o Phase I y p P-y Curve for Fully Liquefied Soil y p P-y Curve for Partially Liquefied Soil y p P-y Curve for Non- Liquefied Soil y p Lateral Spread Effect P-y Curve for Crust Layer Phase II

98. Comparison of Pile Behavior for - As Is Condition - Liquefaction - Liquefaction with Lateral Spread

99. Pile head load = 100 kN Pile head moment = 316 kN-m No-Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction + Lateral Spread

100. Pile head load = 100 kN Pile head moment = 316 kN-m No-Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction + Lateral Spread

101. UC Davis, Centrifuge Test (Boulanger et al. 2003, and Brandenberg and Boulanger 2004) Dense Sand Loose Sand Clay  = 6 kN/m 3 , Dr = 21-35%  = 30 o ,  50 = 0.01  = 7 kN/m 3 , Dr = 69-83%  = 36 o ,  50 = 0.004 Cu= 44 kPa  = 16 kN/m 3 14.3 9.2 2.2 4.6 0.051 1.17 23.5 Pile Cap Length (m) Pile Cap Width (m) Pile Cap Height (m) Pile Spacing (m) Wall Thick. (m) Diameter (m) Pile Length (m)

102. UC Davis, Centrifuge Test on 2 x 3 Fixed-Head Pile Group (After Brandenberg and Boulanger, 2004) Pile Displacement a max = 0.67 g Magnitude = 6.5 Bending Moment

103. Niigata Court House Bld. 0.35-m-Diam. RC Pile, 1964 Niigata EQ, Yoshida and Hamada, 1991

104. Niigata Court House Bld. 1964 Niigata EQ 0.35-m-Diam. RC Pile (Yoshida and Hamada, 1991)

105. SWM Analysis Based on Shaft Length

106. h = 0.69 X o X o Zero Crossing X o > h > 0.69 X o X o Zero Crossing Zero Crossing h = X o Deflection Pattern Linearized Deflection Y o Y o Y o    Linearized Deflection Deflection Pattern Long Shaft L/T  4 Intermediate Shaft 4 > L/T > 2 Short Shaft L/T  2  L = SHAFT LENGTH T = (EI/f ) 0.2 f = Coefficient. of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Varying Deflection Patterns Based on Shaft Type

108. T P o M o P v y 75 ft 6 ft P v = 100 kip P o = 150 kip M o = 800 kip-ft L/T = 3.1 Intermediate Shaft Soil Profile – S5 Short Shaft Analysis Intermediate Analysis Short Shaft Analysis Intermediate Analysis

109. T P o M o P v y 90 ft 6 ft P v = 100 kip P o = 150 kip M o = 800 kip-ft L/T = 4.0 Long Shaft Soil Profile – S5 Short Shaft Analysis Long Shaft Analysis

110. Effect of Soil Liquefaction on Response of Shafts of Different Lengths Effect of Shaft Length and Soil Layers on p-y Curve at Certain Depth

111. T P o M o P v y 65 ft 6 ft P v = 100 kip P o = 800 kip M o = 3000 kip-ft M EQ = 6.0 Soil Profile – S7 Liquefaction

112. T P o M o P v y L 6 ft Soil Profile – S5 Shaft-Length Effect on the p-y Curve P-y Curve at 5 ft depth P-y Curve at 20 ft depth

113. T P o o M o P v y 90 ft 6 ft P v = 100 kip P o = 800 kip M o = 3000 kip-ft M EQ = 6.0 Soil Profile – S7 Liquefaction

114. T P o M o P v y 65 ft 6 ft Soil Profile – S7 Liquefaction Effect of Soil Profile (Liquefaction) on the p-y Curve at the Same Depth

115. Pile and Pile Group Stiffnesses with/without Pile Cap

116. Loads and Axis F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 X Z Y F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 M 2 M 3 X Z Y

118. Shaft Deflection, y Line Load, p y P, M > y P + y M y M y P y P, M y p ( E s ) 1 ( E s ) 3 ( E s ) 4 ( E s ) 2 p p p y y y ( E s ) 5 p y M o P o P v Nonlinear p-y curve As a result, the linear analysis (i.e. the superposition technique ) can not be employed Actual Scenario

120. Pile Load-Stiffness Curve Linear Analysis Pile-Head Stiffness, K11, K33, K44, K66 Pile-Head Load, P o , M, P v P 1, M 1 P 2, M 2 Non-Linear Analysis

121. P L P v M (K22) (K11) (K66) x x K11 0 0 0 0 0 0 K22 0 0 0 0 0 0 K33 0 0 0 0 0 0 K44 0 0 0 0 0 0 K55 0 0 0 0 0 0 K66  1  2  3  1  2  3 (K11) = P L /  1 (K22) = P v /  2 (K33) =  M  3 Group Stiffness Matrix (p v ) M (p v ) M (p v ) Pv (p v ) Pv P L P v (1) M (p L ) PL (Fixed End Moment)

122. THANK YOU!!!