Search

Monotonic, static beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) methods are used to analyze a suite of dynamic centrifuge model tests involving pile group foundations embedded in a mildly sloping soil profile that develops liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during earthquake shaking. A single set of recommended design guidelines was used for a baseline set of analyses. When lateral spreading demands were modeled by imposing free-field soil displacements to the free ends of the soil springs (BNWF_SD), bending moments were predicted within −8% to +69 16th to 84th percentile values and pile cap displacements were predicted within −6 to +38%, with the accuracy being similar for small, medium, and large motions. When lateral spreading demands were modeled by imposing limit pressures directly to the pile nodes (BNWF_LP), bending moments and cap displacements were greatly overpredicted for small and medium motions where the lateral spreading displacements were not large enough to mobilize limit pressures, and pile cap displacements were greatly underpredicted for large motions. The effects of various parameter relations and alternative design guidelines on the accuracy of the BNWF analyses were evaluated. Sources of bias and dispersion in the BNWF predictions and the issues of greatest importance to foundation performance are discussed. The results of these comparisons indicate that certain guidelines and assumptions that are common in engineering design can produce significantly conservative or unconservative BNWF predictions, whereas the guidelines recommended herein can produce reasonably accurate predictions.

Laterally spreading nonliquefied crusts can exert large loads on pile foundations causing major damage to structures. While monotonic load tests of pile caps indicate that full passive resistance may be mobilized by displacements on the order of 1–7% of the pile cap height, dynamic centrifuge model tests show that much larger relative displacements may be required to mobilize the full passive load from a laterally spreading crust onto a pile group. The centrifuge models contained six-pile groups embedded in a gently sloping soil profile with a nonliquefied crust over liquefiable loose sand over dense sand. The nonliquefied crust layer spread downslope on top of the liquefied sand layer, and failed in the passive mode against the pile foundations. The dynamic trace of lateral load versus relative displacement between the “free-field” crust and pile cap is nonlinear and hysteretic, and depends on the cyclic mobility of the underlying liquefiable sand, ground motion characteristics, and cyclic degradation and cracking of the nonliquefied crust. Analytical models are derived to explain a mechanism by which liquefaction of the underlying sand layer causes the soil-to-pile-cap interaction stresses to be distributed through a larger zone of influence in the crust, thereby contributing to the softer load transfer behavior. The analytical models distinguish between structural loading and lateral spreading conditions. Load transfer relations obtained from the two analytical models reasonably envelope the responses observed in the centrifuge tests.

Deep soil mixing (DSM) to form in-ground shear walls has been used to remediate against the potential effects of earthquake-induced liquefaction on many projects. A grid pattern of soil-cement walls act as a confined shear box, which can provide additional shear stiffness and strength for sites to withstand liquefaction. Current design practice for DSM grids commonly relies on the strain compatibility assumption, where the DSM walls and confined soil are assumed to experience the same shear strain. In this paper, the distributions of shear stresses and strains in liquefiable soil deposits treated with DSM grids are investigated using three-dimensional linear elastic finite-element analyses of unit cells. Parametric analyses are performed for a range of geometries, relative stiffness ratios, and dynamic loadings. These linear elastic results provide a baseline against which future nonlinear modeling results can be compared, but they are also sufficient for demonstrating that shear stress reductions are less than predicted by the assumption of shear strain compatibility. Modifications to the shear strain compatibility equation are presented, which improve its agreement with the results of these analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]