Solutions for Foundation Systems Subjected to Earthquake Conditions

Abstract

Soil–structure interaction plays an important role in dynamic behaviour of a foundation under combined static and seismic loadings. This paper describes a few case histories with field studies of deeply embedded bridge foundations to showcase the earthquake induced lateral effects using finite element framework. Rigorous dynamic approach with detailed numerical analysis for large diameter pile foundation and pseudo-static approach for rigid caisson foundation presented in this study demonstrated the functionality of foundation systems in seismic conditions. Efficacy of barrettes over piles as a cost-effective foundation solution in high-rise buildings has also been discussed by obtaining higher resistance under static condition. Finally, an analytical methodology considering three-dimensional passive wedge developed in front of the rigid caissons is presented for estimating the ultimate soil resistance under seismic condition. Closed-form expressions to determine seismic passive earth pressure coefficient and its distribution along caisson length for different embedment ratio have been explained here that can be adopted in practice to analyse foundation systems subjected to earthquake condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

References

  1. 1.

    Poulos HG, Badelow F (2015) Geotechnical parameter assessment for tall building foundation design. Int J High Rise Build 4(4):227–239

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Poulos HG (2017) Tall building foundation design. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Katzenbach R, Leppla S, Choudhury D (2016) Foundation systems for high-rise structures. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D, Reddy GR (2013) Behaviour of single pile in liquefied deposits during earthquakes. Int J Geomech 13(4):454–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zhang Y, Salgado S, Dai G, Gong W (2013) Load tests on full scale bored pile groups. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, paper no. 2119

  6. 6.

    Manoj S, Choudhury D, Alzaylaie M (2020) Value engineering using load-cell test data of barrette foundations: La Maison, Dubai. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers: geotechnical engineering, ICE. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.19.00246

  7. 7.

    Zhang LM (2003) Behavior of laterally loaded large-section barrettes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(7):639–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    IRC 45 (1972) Recommendations for estimating the resistance of soil below the maximum scour level in the design of well foundations of bridges. IRC, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Biswas S, Choudhury D (2020) Behavior of caisson foundations under lateral loading in layered cohesive soil. In: Geo-congress 2020: foundations, soil improvement, and erosion, geotechnical special publication no. GSP, vol 315. ASCE, USA, pp 23–32

  10. 10.

    IS 1893-Part 1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Duncan JM, Buchignani AL (1976) An engineering manual for settlement studies. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex

  13. 13.

    Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(11):1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    EPRI (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions, early site permit demonstration program, vol. 1, RP3302, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

  15. 15.

    PLAXIS 3D v2017.01 Suite (2017) Computer software. PLAXIS BV, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    PLAXIS3D (2017) Material models manual. Plaxis BV, Delft, pp 45–52

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hoek E, Brown ET (1988) The Hoek–Brewn failure criterion. In: The proceedings of 15th Canadian rock mechanics symposium, pp 31–38

  18. 18.

    Hudson M, Idriss IM, Beikae M (1994) User’s manual for QUAD4M. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Patil M, Choudhury D, Ranjith PG, Zhao J (2018) Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 82:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Poulos HG (2009) Tall buildings and deep foundations–middle East challenges. In: Proceedings of 17th international conference of soil mechanical geotechnical engineering, Amsterdam, vol 4, pp 3173–3205

  21. 21.

    Charif KH, Najjar SS (2010) Side friction along drilled shafts in weak carbonate rocks. The art of foundation engineering practice—guide, pp 190–204

  22. 22.

    Russo G, Abagnara V, Poulos HG, Small JC (2013) Re-assessment of foundation settlements for the Burj Khalifa. Dubai Acta Geotech 8(1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006) Winkler model for lateral response of rigid caisson foundations in linear soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):347–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006) Development of Winkler model for static and dynamic response of caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain SK (2012) Simplified seismic analysis of soil–well–pier system for bridges. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 32(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    IS 6403 (1981) Indian standard code of practice for determination of breaking capacity of shallow foundations, New Delhi

  27. 27.

    IRC 78 (2014) Standard Specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section: VII. Foundation and Structure, IRC

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Makra A (2013) Evaluation of the UBC3D-PLM constitutive model for prediction of earthquake induced liquefaction on embankment dams, M.Sc thesis, TU Delft

  29. 29.

    Muszynski MR, Olson SM, Hashash YM, Phillips C (2014) Repeatability of centrifuge tests containing a large, rigid foundation subjected to lateral spreading. Geotech Test J 37(6):1002–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Olson SM, Hashash YM, Muszynski MR, Phillips C (2017) Passive wedge formation and limiting lateral pressures on large foundations during lateral spreading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(7):04017027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ashour M, Norris G, Pilling P (1998) Lateral loading of a pile in layered soil using the strain wedge model. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(4):303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bowman ER (1958) Investigation of the lateral resistance to movement of a plate in cohesionless soil. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

  33. 33.

    Kim Y, Jeong S, Lee S (2010) Wedge failure analysis of soil resistance on laterally loaded piles in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(7):678–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lancellotta R (2007) Lower-bound approach for seismic passive earth resistance. Géotechnique 57(3):319–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Biswas S, Choudhury D (2018) Seismic soil resistance for caisson design in sand. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 172(1):67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bellezza I, D’Alberto D, Fentini R (2012) Pseudo-dynamic approach for active thrust of submerged soils. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 165(5):321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bellezza I (2015) Seismic active earth pressure on walls using a new pseudo-dynamic approach. Geotech Geol Eng 33(4):795–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Rajesh BG, Choudhury D (2017) generalized seismic active thrust on a retaining wall with submerged backfill using a modified pseudodynamic method. Int J Geomech 17(3):06016023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Steedman RS, Zeng X (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Géotechnique 40(1):103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Choudhury D, Nimbalkar S (2005) Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method. Géotechnique 55(9):699–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ebeling RM, Morrison EE (1992) The seismic design of waterfront retaining structures. Technical report no. ITL-92-11, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Washington, DC

  43. 43.

    Škrabl S, Macuh B (2005) Upper-bound solutions of three-dimensional passive earth pressures. Can Geotech J 42(5):1449–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Soubra AH, Regenass P (2000) Three-dimensional passive earth pressures by kinematical approach. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):969–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to acknowledge the funding received from L&T Construction Infrastructure IC, India, and Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. (BRPNNL), Govt. of Bihar, India, to carry out some of these industrial Projects with soil investigation reports and other necessary input data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepankar Choudhury.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choudhury, D., Biswas, S., Patil, M. et al. Solutions for Foundation Systems Subjected to Earthquake Conditions. Indian Geotech J (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00508-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Soil–structure interaction
  • Pile
  • Caisson
  • Barrette
  • Earthquake