Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
T
= + +
& &
(1a)
0 f Hp p S U Q
p T
= + + &
&
(1b)
where M is the total mass matrix, U the displacement
vector, B the strain-displacement matrix, the effective
stress tensor (determined by the soil constitutive model
described below), Q the discrete gradient operator
coupling the solid and fluid phases, p the pore pressure
Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Dynamic Pile Behavior in
Liquefied Ground
Jinchi Lu
1
, Liangcai He
1
, Zhaohui Yang
1
, Tarek Abdoun
2
and Ahmed Elgamal
1
1
Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, USA
2
Geotechnical Centrifuge Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
vector, S the compressibility matrix, and H the
permeability matrix. The vectors
s
f and
p
f represent
the effects of body forces and prescribed boundary
conditions for the solid-fluid mixture and the fluid phase
respectively.
In equation (1a) (equation of motion), the first term
represents inertia force of the solid-fluid mixture,
followed by internal force due to soil skeleton
deformation, and internal force induced by pore-fluid
pressure. In equation (1b) (equation of mass
conservation), the first two terms represent the rate of
volume change for the soil skeleton and the fluid phase
respectively, followed by the seepage rate of the pore
fluid. Equations (1a) and (1b) are integrated in the time
domain using a single-step predictor multi-corrector
scheme of the Newmark type [5,9]. In the current
implementation, the solution is obtained for each time
step using the modified Newton-Raphson approach [5].
SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
The second term in equation (1a) is defined by the
soil stress-strain constitutive model. The finite element
program incorporates a soil constitutive model [5,11-13]
based on the original multi-surface-plasticity theory for
frictional cohesionless soils [14]. This model was
developed with emphasis on simulating the liquefaction-
induced shear strain accumulation mechanism in clean
medium-dense sands [6,7,12,13,15]. Special attention
was given to the deviatoric-volumetric strain coupling
(dilatancy) under cyclic loading, which causes increased
shear stiffness and strength at large cyclic shear strain
excursions (i.e., cyclic mobility).
The constitutive equation is written in incremental
form as follows [14]:
) ( :
p
E & & & =
(2)
where & is the rate of effective Cauchy stress tensor, &
the rate of deformation tensor,
p
& the plastic rate of
deformation tensor, and E the isotropic fourth-order
tensor of elastic coefficients. The plastic rate of
deformation tensor is defined by:
p
& = P L , where P is
a symmetric second-order tensor defining the direction of
plastic deformation in stress space, L the plastic loading
function, and the symbol denotes the McCauley's
brackets (i.e., L =max(L, 0)). The loading function L is
defined as: L = Q: & / H
where H
is the plastic
modulus, and Q a unit symmetric second-order tensor
defining yield-surface normal at the stress point (i.e., Q=
f f / ), with the yield function f selected of the
following form [16]:
0
) ( ) ) ( ( : ) ) ( (
2
3
2
0
2
0 0
=
+ + + = p p M p p p p f s s
(3)
in the domain of 0 p . The yield surfaces in principal
stress space and on the deviatoric plane are shown in Fig.
1. In equation 3, s p = is the deviatoric stress
tensor, p the mean effective stress, a second-order
kinematic deviatoric tensor defining the surface
coordinates, and M dictates the surface size. For
cohesionless soil,
0
p is a small positive value (1.0 kPa in
this paper) such that the yield surface size remains finite at
0 = p for numerical convenience (Fig. 1). For cohesive
soil,
0
p is related to cohesion. In the context of multi-
surface plasticity, a number of similar surfaces with a
common apex form the hardening zone (Fig. 1). Each
surface is associated with a constant plastic modulus.
Conventionally, the low-strain (elastic) moduli and plastic
moduli are postulated to increase in proportion to the
square root of p [14].
The flow rule is chosen so that the deviatoric
component of flow P = Q (associative flow rule in the
deviatoric plane), and the volumetric component P
defines the desired amount of dilation or contraction in
accordance with experimental observations. Consequently,
P
defines the degree of non-associativity of the flow
rule and is given by [5]:
P
1 ) / (
1 ) / (
2
2
+
=
(4)
Where p = /
2 / 1
) : ) 2 / 3 (( s s is effective stress ratio,
is defined by a
new rule [5,12], which maintains the original Mroz [19]
concept of conjugate-points contact. Thus, all yield
surfaces may translate in stress space within the failure
envelope.
SIMULATION OF CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENT
Centrifuge Experiment
In the centrifuge test reported by Abdoun [4], a single
pile model (model 3, Fig. 3) was tested to simulate the
response of the pile foundation subjected to the lateral
pressure of a liquefied soil due to lateral spreading. The
experiment was conducted using the rectangular, flexible-
wall laminar box container shown in Fig. 3. The soil
profile consists of two layers of fine Nevada sand
saturated with water: a top liquefiable layer of relative
density, Dr = 40% and 6m prototype thickness, and a
bottom slightly cemented nonliquefiable sand layer with
a thickness of 2m. The prototype single pile is 0.6m in
Fig. 3: Lateral spreading pile centrifuge model in two-layer soil
profile, model 3 (modified after [20])
diameter, 8m in length, has a bending stiffness, EI = 8000
kN/m2, and is free at the top. The model has an inclination
angle of 2 and is subjected to a predominantly 2Hz
harmonic base excitation with a peak acceleration of 0.3g.
The results of the test were documented in [4].
Numerical Modeling
The centrifuge test was simulated using the above-
described three-dimensional finite element program
CYCLIC. As shown in Fig. 4, the soil domain and the
single pile were discretized using 3D 8-node brick
elements. A half mesh configuration is used due to
geometrical symmetry. The boundary conditions were (i)
dynamic excitation was defined as the recorded base
acceleration, (ii) at any given depth, displacement degrees
of freedom of the downslope and upslope boundaries were
tied together (both horizontally and vertically using the
penalty method) to reproduce a 1D shear beam effect [5],
(iii) the soil surface was traction free, with zero prescribed
pore pressure, and (iv) the base and lateral boundaries
were impervious.
A static application of gravity (model own weight)
was performed before seismic excitation. The resulting
fluid hydrostatic pressures and soil stress-states served as
initial conditions for the subsequent dynamic analysis [7].
Fig. 4: Finite element mesh of model 3
With a mild inclination of 2, model 3 attempts to
simulate an infinite slope subjected to shaking parallel to
the slope [21]. However, it was noted that, in the
centrifuge test, the soil surface gradually lost the slope
and became level during the shaking phase. To simulate
such behavior of losing the surface slope, a horizontal
component of gravity varying with time was applied to
the finite element simulation. The load-time history of the
applied horizontal gravity component was calculated
based on the recorded lateral displacement at ground
surface (the second subplot in Fig. 7).
Figs. 5-8 display the computed and recorded lateral
accelerations, displacement, and pore pressures. In
general, good agreement was achieved between the
computed and recorded responses. At 2m depth,
accelerations virtually disappeared after about 4 seconds
due to liquefaction (A4, Fig. 6). Liquefaction was
reached down to a depth of 5.0m (Fig. 8), as indicated by
the pore-pressure ratio r
u
approaching 1.0 (r
u
= u
e
/
v
where u
e
is excess pore pressure, and
v
initial effective
vertical stress). The Nevada sand layer remained liquefied
until the end of shaking and beyond. Thereafter, excess
pore pressure started to dissipate.
The mild inclination of model 3 imposed a static
shear stress component (due to gravity), causing
accumulated cycle-by-cycle lateral deformation. The
recorded and computed u
e
histories both displayed a
number of instantaneous sharp pore pressure drops after
initial liquefaction (Fig. 8). These drops coincided with
the observed and computed acceleration spikes that
occurred exclusively in the negative direction.
-0.2
0
0.2
A1 (3.0m)
Experimental
Computed
-0.2
0
0.2
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
A
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
(
g
)
A2 (7.0m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
0
0.2
A3 (Input)
Time (sec)
Fig. 5: Model 3 recorded and computed acceleration time
histories (along the laminar box boundary)
-0.2
0
0.2
A4 (2.0m)
Experimental
Computed
-0.2
0
0.2
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
io
n
(
g
)
A5 (4.0m)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
0
0.2
A6 (7.0m)
Time (sec)
(Experimental data unavailable)
Fig. 6: Model 3 recorded and computed acceleration time
histories (in the soil)
0
10
20
30
40
LVDT1 (Pile head)
Experimental
Computed
0
20
40
60
80
100
Surface (near LVDT2(.25m))
0
20
40
60
80
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
D
i
s
p
la
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
c
m
)
2.0m (near LVDT3(2.5m))
0
20
40
60
80
4.0m (near LVDT4(3.75m))
-8
-4
0
4
8
LVDT5 (6.0m)
0 5 10 15 20 25
-8
-4
0
4
8
LVDT6 (7.0m)
Time (sec)
Fig. 7: Model 3 recorded and computed lateral displacement
time histories
The permanent lateral displacement of the ground
surface after shaking is approximately 100cm. All lateral
displacements occurred in the top 6.0m within the
liquefiable sand layer. The top graph of Fig. 7 shows the
recorded and computed pile lateral displacement at the soil
surface during and after shaking. The computed pile
lateral pile lateral displacement increased to 40cm, and
decreased to approximately 20cm at the end of shaking,
indicating relative movement between pile and soil. The
bottom slightly cemented sand layer, as indicated in Fig.
7, did not slide with respect to the base of the laminar box.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
r
u
= 1.0
E
x
c
e
s
s
p
o
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
K
P
a
)
PP1 (1.0m)
Experimental
Computed
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
10
20
30
40
50
PP2 (5.0m)
Time (sec)
Fig. 8: Model 3 recorded and computed excess pore pressure
time histories
CONCLUSIONS
A 3D finite element study of dynamic pile response in
liquefied ground was presented in this paper. The results
from numerical simulation were compared to related
centrifuge testing results. In general, good agreement was
achieved between the computed and recorded responses.
The calibrated numerical model will be useful in
conducting additional parametric investigations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The reported research was supported in part by the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center,
under the National Science Foundation Award Number
EEC-9701568, and by the National Science Foundation
(Grant No. CMS0084616). This support is most
appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Mizuno. "Pile damage during earthquakes in japan (1923-
1983)." in Proc. Session on Dynamic Response of Pile
Foundations, T. Nogami, ed., ASCE, Atlantic City, April 27,
1987, pp. 53-77.
[2] T. Matsui, and K. Oda. "Foundation damage of structures." Soils
and Foundations, Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of
the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, January,
, 1996, pp. 189-200.
[3] K. Tokimatsu, and Y. Aska. "Effects of liquefaction-induced
ground displacements on pile performance in the 1995
hyogoken-nambu earthquake." Soils and Foundations,
Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17,
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, No. 2, September,
1998, pp. 163-178.
[4] T. Abdoun. "Modeling of seismically induced lateral spreading of
multi-layered soil and its effect on pile foundations," Ph.D.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, New York, 1997.
[5] E. Parra. "Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground
deformation including cyclic mobility and dilation response
in soil systems," Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 1996.
[6] Z. Yang, and A. Elgamal. "Influence of permeability on
liquefaction-induced shear deformation." J. Engineering
Mechanics, vol. 128, no. 7, 2002, pp. 720-729, ASCE.
[7] A. Elgamal, Z. Yang, and E. Parra. "Computational modeling of
cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response." Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, 2002,
pp. 259-271.
[8] M. A. Biot. "The mechanics of deformation and acoustic
propagation in porous media." Journal of Applied Physics,
vol. 33, no. 4, 1962, pp. 1482-1498.
[9] A.H.C. Chan. "A unified finite element solution to static and
dynamic problems in geomechanics," Ph.D. Thesis, U.
College of Swansea, U. K., 1988.
[10] O. C. Zienkiewicz, A. H. C. Chan, M. Pastor, D. K. Paul, and T.
Shiomi. "Static and dynamic behavior of soils: A rational
approach to quantitative solutions: I. Fully saturated
problems." Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Series
A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 429, 1990, pp.
285-309.
[11] Z. Yang. "Numerical modeling of earthquake site response
including dilation and liquefaction," Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia
University, New York, NY, 2000.
[12] A. Elgamal, Z. Yang, E. Parra, and A. Ragheb. "Modeling of
cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils." Int. J.
Plasticity, vol. 19, no. 6, 2003, pp. 883-905.
[13] Z. Yang, A. Elgamal, and E. Parra. "A computational model for
cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation." J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 129,
no. 12, 2003, ASCE.
[14] J.H. Prevost. "A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless
soils." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 4, no.
1, 1985, pp. 9-17.
[15] A. Elgamal, E. Parra, Z. Yang, and K. Adalier. "Numerical
analysis of embankment foundation liquefaction
countermeasures." J. Earthquake Engineering, vol. 6, no. 4,
2002, pp. 447-471.
[16] A. Elgamal, Z. Yang, E. Parra, and A. Ragheb. "Modeling of
cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils." International
Journal of Plasticity, vol. 19, no. 6, 2003, pp. 883-905.
[17] K. Ishihara, F. Tatsuoka, and S. Yasuda. "Undrained deformation
and liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses." Soils and
Foundations, vol. 15, no. 1, 1975, pp. 29-44.
[18] S. Lacy. "Numerical procedures for nonlinear transient analysis of
two-phase soil system," Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University,
NJ, U.S.A., 1986.
[19] Z. Mroz. "On the description of anisotropic work hardening." J.
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 15, 1967, pp. 163-175.
[20] T. Abdoun, and R. Dobry. "Evaluation of pile foundation response
to lateral spreading." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, vol. 22, no. 9-12, 2002, pp. 1051-1058.
[21] R. Dobry, and V.M. Taboada. "Experimental results of model no.2
at rpi." in Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Verification of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil
Liquefaction Problems, Vol. 2, Aarulanandan K, Scott RF
eds., Rotterdam: Balkema, 1994, pp. 1341-1352.