Advertisement

Effect of Soil Spatial Variability on Lateral Response of Well Foundation Embedded in Linear Elastic Soil

  • Ramyasri Rachamadugu
  • Sanshrit Singhai
  • Gyan VikashEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)

Abstract

This paper presents, the effect of soil spatial variability on response of laterally loaded well foundation embedded in linear elastic soil medium. The spatial variation of elastic modulus of soil along embedment depth of the foundation is modeled using random field theory. Elastic modulus of soil is considered to be random variable that follows Log-Normal probability distribution. Monte Carlo simulation technique is used to generate various random realization of spatial variability of elastic modulus of soil. Random realization is done for different values of coefficient of variation of elastic modulus with different spatial correlation distance. A finite element model is developed for laterally loaded well foundation embedded in linear soil. The finite element model is then coupled with the random field of elastic modulus of soil to analyze effect of soil spatial variability on the response of well foundation under different values of lateral load. The results obtained from this study indicate that spatial variation of soil elastic properties has small effect on lateral response of well foundation irrespective of magnitude of lateral load.

Keywords

Spatial variability Random soil Lateral load Well foundation 

References

  1. 1.
    Fenton GA (1994) Error evaluation of three random field generators. J Eng Mech ASCE 120(12):2478–2497.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1994)120:12(2478)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenton GA, Griffiths DV (2002) Probabilistic foundation settlement on a spatially random soil. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 128(5):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006) Winkler model for lateral response of rigid caisson foundations in linear soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006) Static and dynamic response of massive caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities-validation and results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain SK (2016) Earthquake safety in India: achievements, challenges and opportunities. Bull Earthq Eng 14(5):1337–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9870-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mondal G, Prashant A, Jain SK (2012) Significance of interface nonlinearity on seismic response of well-pier system in cohesionless soil. Earthq Spectra 28(3):1117–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ponnuswamy S (2008) Bridge engineering, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suchomel R, Masin D (2009) Comparison of different probabilistic methods for predicting stability of a slope in spatially variable c-ϕ soil. Comput Geotech 37:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varun, Assimaki D, Gazetas G (2009) A simplified model for lateral response of large diameter caisson foundations—linear elastic formulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramyasri Rachamadugu
    • 1
  • Sanshrit Singhai
    • 1
  • Gyan Vikash
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Shiv Nadar UniversityGautam Buddha NagarIndia

Personalised recommendations