Search

Previous earthquake events indicate that pile foundations in liquefiable soils are vulnerable to damage due to the coupling of inertial and kinematic effects. Inclined piles are widely applied in structures located in liquefiable soils, but few investigations of the coupling of the superstructure–pile inertial and soil–pile kinematic effects have been conducted. To address this gap, this study adopted a three-dimensional (3D) numerical model to investigate the coupling of inertial and kinematic effects in pile foundations with different inclination angles. The pile head bending moment was employed to represent the pile response, while the soil surface displacement and structure acceleration were utilized to quantify the kinematic and inertial effects. The role of the inclination angle on the interactions between inertial and kinematic effects is herein considered for pile groups. In particular, the inertial effect significantly influences the behavior of pile groups with larger inclination angles, whereas the kinematic effect predominates the pile head moment in vertical pile groups. In this paper, the influence of the pile inclination angle, superstructure configuration, and earthquake intensity on the interactions was investigated. The principal findings revealed that the kinematic effect dominates in the vertical pile group irrespective of the properties of the superstructure, while the inertial effect plays a significant role in the response of the inclined pile groups, especially for superstructures with considerable heights. Practical Applications: Inclined piles are vulnerable to damage due to the interaction of inertial and kinematic effects during earthquakes. This study conducted a series of three-dimensional (3D) finite-element simulations to investigate the interaction of inertial and kinematic effects in pile foundations with different inclination angles. The influence of pile inclination angle, superstructure height, and earthquake characteristics was investigated. In current practices, various codes and pseudostatic methods have been adopted to sum a percentage of the inertia-induced bending moment and another percentage of the kinematic-induced bending moment. This study indicates that under certain conditions, the simple summing of the bending moment induced by the inertial and kinematic effects could be inaccurate. The present study identified several factors that influence the interaction of inertial and kinematic effects on piles with different inclination angles. The inclined piles in liquefied soil, especially for supporting tall and heavy superstructure, attention should be given to the influence of inertial effect on the pile head bending moment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many instances of severe damage to pile foundations and pile-supported infrastructures have been caused by liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during major earthquakes, particularly in coastal areas. The current study conducted a series of shaking table experiments to determine the differences between the responses of a free- and a fixed-head group pile under lateral spreading in the presence of finned and circular protection piles. The results indicated that the maximum bending moment tolerated by nonprotected free-head piles was more than that by fixed-head piles. Also, reductions in bending moments were more significant in free-head piles in the presence of protection piles than in fixed-head piles. The bending moments of front and rear piles under restricted pile head conditions were reduced by about 31% and 21%, respectively, when finned piles were used as protection piles, while they were 34% and 42%, respectively, under free-head conditions. Furthermore, modification factors of recommended lateral pressure distribution along a pile per the current design code were determined for the protected and nonprotected free- and fixed-head pile groups of the current study and it was observed that this modification factor (CL) was highly dependent on the location of piles in a group, pile head conditions, and the presence of protection piles in the lateral spreading analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing simplified procedures for evaluating soil liquefaction potential or for estimating excess pore pressures during earthquakes are typically based on undrained cyclic tests performed on saturated soil samples under controlled loading and boundary conditions. Under such conditions, the effect of excess pore pressure (ue) dissipation and redistribution to neighboring soil layers cannot be accounted for. Existing simplified procedures treat liquefiable layers as isolated soil layers without any boundary conditions even if dense and loose layers are very thin, permeable, and adjacent to each other. However, redistribution is likely to increase and decrease ue in the neighboring dense and loose layers respectively. Until now, no procedure short of fully coupled numerical analysis is available to estimate the importance of redistribution. This paper presents an approximate analytical procedure for assessing the effects of ue redistribution in (1) soil layers that would have liquefied if they were undrained, and (2) soil layers that would have not liquefied even if undrained. It is found that a layer that is initially assumed liquefied under undrained conditions might not even liquefy accounting for the ue redistribution to neighboring layers. On the other hand, a layer initially assumed to not liquefy can develop significant ue and can even liquefy due to pore pressure migration from the neighboring layers. Thus, accounting for redistributed ue is important for liquefaction consequence assessment quantification, particularly in systems that span the depth of these effects like deep foundations. Migration of u toward the tip of a pile can reduce its capacity, even if the tip is embedded in a dense sand layer. On the other hand, if redistribution can result in the reduction of ue in initially assumed liquefied layers, risks associated with liquefaction might be avoided. A criterion is also developed to evaluate the thicknesses of a layer below which redistribution could prevent liquefaction even if the layer is deemed liquefied according to the existing liquefaction-triggering procedures. Finally, the proposed procedure is illustrated by application to selected shaking events of centrifuge tests involving liquefaction of layered soil profiles. The predictions from the procedure matched the centrifuge test results reasonably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shake table experiments are conducted to assess the potential of the polymer injection technique as a liquefaction countermeasure. A large 2.9 m high (10 ft) laminar soil container on a 3.9×1.85 m (13×6 ft) shake table is employed. Mitigation of liquefaction-induced settlement for a shallow foundation is explored. In a series of two shake table experiments, the system response is studied first without (baseline) and subsequently with polymer injected into the liquefiable stratum. Each test is densely instrumented to provide insights into the dynamic response of the soil and foundation system. Furthermore, cone penetration tests (CPTs) are performed pre- and postinjection to assess the extent of soil improvement. Strong base excitation is imparted by the shake table, resulting in liquefaction and excessive foundation settlement in the original baseline test. In the second test, with the polymer injection countermeasure, a significant reduction is observed in the tendency for liquefaction and the resulting foundation settlement. After this test, careful excavation provided additional insights into the polymer's configuration within the deposit, increasing overall soil relative density, confinement and creating solidified paths for the shallow foundation load toward the lower, more competent stratum. As such, these mechanisms have the potential to allow for: (1) an increase in soil resistance to liquefaction, and (2) a significant reduction in settlement of overlying shallow foundations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The damage caused by seismic shaking and liquefaction-induced permanent ground deformation has conventionally been assessed as two separate problems often by different engineers. However, the two problems are inherently linked, since ground shaking causes liquefaction, and liquefaction-induced soil softening affects ground shaking. Modelling both problems within a single numerical model is complex for both the engineer and the software, and most finite element software only have the capabilities to address one of them. To improve the estimates of the seismic performance of buildings on liquefiable soil, a new sub-structuring approach is proposed called the macro-mechanism approach. This approach allows the soil-liquefaction-foundation-structure interaction to be considered in a series of sub-models accounting for the major nonlinear mechanisms of the system at a macro level. The proposed approach was implemented in the open-source finite element software OpenSees and then applied to a case study of a building where significant liquefaction- and shaking-induced damage was observed after the 1999 Mw 7.4 Kocaeli Earthquake. The case study building was also simulated using two different commercial software programs, the finite difference software FLAC, and the finite element software PLAXIS, by two different research teams. A comparison between the results from the macro-mechanism approach compared to full numerical models shows that the macro-mechanism approach can capture the extent of the foundation deformation and provide more realistic estimates of the building damage than full approaches since the FLAC and PLAXIS models consider elastic elements for the building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The performance of road bridges undergoing liquefaction in the foundation soils and substantial lateral spreading during the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes is discussed in this paper. Three, well-documented case studies are presented in detail to illustrate the performance of bridges and their typical damage associated with lateral spreading. The short-span bridges on pile foundations have a very stiff superstructure (deck), which was a key factor in the seismic response of the bridges. It led to a characteristic deformation mechanism for all bridges involving lateral spreading-deck pinning-abutment backrotation with consequent damage to the abutment piles and slumping of the approaches. Overall, road bridges performed relatively well in the 2010-2011 earthquakes compared to other engineering structures, despite the high seismic demands including substantial liquefaction and large kinematic and inertial loads due to spreading and strong ground shaking, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mechanisms that control the seismic liquefaction performance of shallow foundations are identified for the special, still common case of a clay crust separating the foundation from the liquefied ground. For that purpose, foundation response is first analyzed with the nonlinear dynamic finite-difference method and consequently evaluated in connection with published field and experimental evidence. Insight is given into the excess pore-pressure buildup under the foundation, the seismic settlement accumulation, the static-bearing capacity degradation, and the inertia-induced interaction with the superstructure. It is thus shown that a naturally or artificially created nonliquefiable soil crust may effectively mitigate the detrimental effects of liquefaction and allow for a performance-based design of surface foundations, without additional improvement measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]