Advertisement

Piled Foundations

  • Milutin SrbulovEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.7k Downloads
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 20)

Abstract

EN 1998-5 (2004) specifies that the effects of dynamic soil-structure interaction shall be taken into account when P-δ effects are important (i.e. the bending moment caused by axial force times column deflexion), for structures with massive or deep-seated foundations, such as bridge piers, caissons and silos, for slender tall structures, such as towers and chimneys, and for structures supported on very soft soil, with average shear wave velocity less than 100 m/s. The code also states that piles and piers shall be designed to resist the following two types of action effects:

(a) Inertia forces from the superstructure.

(b) Kinematic forces arising from the deformation of the surrounding soil due to passage of seismic waves.

Keywords

Shear Wave Velocity Pile Group Bridge Pier Peak Horizontal Acceleration Kinematic Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. API RP2A-WSD (2000) Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms – working stress design – 21st edn. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D1143 Standard test method for piles under static axial compressive load. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American National Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM D3966 Standard test method for piles under lateral loads. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American National Standards InstituteGoogle Scholar
  4. Berrill JB, Christensen SA, Keenan RP, Okada W, Pettinga JR (2001) Case study of lateral spreading forces on a piled foundation. Geotechnique 51(6):501–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  6. EN 1998-1 (2004) Eurocode 8 – design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. EN 1998-5 (2004) Eurocode 8 – design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenves GL, Desroches R (1994) Response of the Northwest connector in the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes. Report UCB/EERC-94/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, College of Engineering, University of California at Berkley, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenves GL, Filippou FC, Sze DT (1992) Response of the Dumbarton bridge in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Report UCB/EERC-92/02, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, College of Engineering, University of California at BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Finn WDL, Fujita N (2002) Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis and design issues. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22:731–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (1998) Seismic soil-structure interaction: new evidence and emerging issues. In: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics III – volume 2. Proceedings of a specialty conference, University of Washington. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 75Google Scholar
  12. Hadjian A, Fallgen R, Lau L (1990) Imperial County services building revisited: a re-evaluation with pile-soil-structure interaction. In: The 4th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, vol 3, Palm Springs, pp 835–844Google Scholar
  13. Hamada M (1992) Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines: 1964 Niigata earthquake. In: Hamada M, O’Rourke T (eds) Case studies of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earthquakes – volume 1: Japanese case studies. Technical report NCEER-92-0001, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  14. Idriss IM (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In: Duncan JM (ed) Proceedings of H. Bolton Seed memorial symposium, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, British Columbia, vol 2, pp 273–289Google Scholar
  15. Japan Road Association (2002) Specifications for highway bridges, part V: seismic design. PWRI, JapanGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins WM (1989) Theory of structures, chapter 3. In: Blake LS (ed) Civil engineer’s reference book – 4th edn. Butterworth, Oxford, UK, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  17. Kojic S, Trifunac MD, Anderson JC (1984) A post-earthquake response analysis of the Imperial County services building in El Centro. University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, report No CE 84-02, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee VW, Trifunac MD, Feng CC (1982) Effects of foundation size on Fourier spectrum amplitudes of earthquake accelerations recorded in buildings. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1(2):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Makris N, Badoni D, Delis E, Gazetas G (1994) Prediction of observed bridge response with soil-pile-structure interaction. ASCE J Struct Eng 120(10):2992–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendoza M, Romo M (1989) Behaviour of building foundations in Mexico City during the 1985 earthquake: second stage. In: Bertero V (ed) Lessons learned from the Mexico earthquake. Publication 89-02. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 66–70Google Scholar
  21. Meymand PJ (1998) Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil-pile-structure interaction in soft clay. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA (http://nisee.berkeley.edu/meymand/files/)
  22. Nikolaou S, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Tazoh T (2001) Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and field measurements. Geotechnique 51(5):425–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohira A, Tazoh T, Dewa K, Shimizu K, Shimada M (1984) Observations of earthquake response behaviours of foundation piles for road bridge. In: Proceedings of the 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol III, San Francisco, CA, pp 577–584Google Scholar
  24. Porcella RC (1984) Geotechnical investigations at strong motion stations in the Imperial Valley, California. Report USGS-OFR-84-562. US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Romo MP, Seed HB (1986) Analytical modelling of dynamic soil response in the Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985. In: Proceedings, ASCE international conference on the Mexico earthquakes – 1985, Mexico City, pp 148–162Google Scholar
  26. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. ASCE J Soil Mech Foundation Div 107:1249–1274Google Scholar
  27. Srbulov M (2010) Simple considerations of kinematic and inertial effects on piles during earthquakes. Ingegneria Sismica XXVII(2):7–19Google Scholar
  28. Stephenson WJ, Lomnitz C (2005) Shear wave velocity profile at the Texcoco strong motion array site, Valley of Mexico. Geofisica Int 44:3–10Google Scholar
  29. Werner SD, Beck JL, Levine MB (1987) Seismic response evaluation of Meloland road overpass using 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake records. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 15:249–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson DW (1998) Soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefying sand and soft clay. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis (http://www.cgm.ucdavis.edu/publications/ucdegm9804.pdf)
  31. Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. PTR Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang J, Makris N (2001) Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil-structure interaction. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre report 2001/02 (http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2001/reports_2001.html)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UK

Personalised recommendations