(2016) Salah M. - Estimation of Dynamic Impedance of The Soil-Pile-Slab and Soil-Pile-Mattress-Slab Systems PDF

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306041747
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance

of the Soil–Pile–Slab and Soil–
Pile–Mattress–Slab Systems
Article in International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics · August 2016

DOI: 10.1142/S0219455417500572
CITATIONS READS
0 157
3 authors, including:
Badreddine Sbartai Daniel Dias

Badji Mokhtar - Annaba Unive… Université Grenoble Alpes
47 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS 201 PUBLICATIONS 1,484
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:
Dynamic response of foundations by BEM-TLM View project
Probabilistic Analysis of the Seismic Response of the foundations View

project
All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Dias on 27 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics
Vol. 17, No. 6 (2017) 1750057 (17 pages)
#.c World Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219455417500572
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance of the Soil–Pile–Slab

and Soil–Pile–Mattress–Slab Systems
Salah Messioud*,§, Badreddine Sbartai†,¶ and Daniel Dias‡,||

by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
*LGCE University of Jijel

BP 98 Ouled Aissa, 18000 Jijel, Algeria
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
†University of Annaba
23000 Annaba, Algeria

‡
3SR Laboratory
Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France
§smessioud@yahoo.fr
¶
bsbartai@hotmail.fr
||danie.dias@ujf-grenoble.fr
Received 30 October 2015

Accepted 4 July 2016
Published 10 August 2016
A 3D ¯nite-element model for the dynamic analysis of soil–pile–slab is presented, with the soil–
pile–mattress–slab interaction included in studying the dynamic behavior of the rigid–pile–
reinforced soils. The soil, piles, and mattress are represented as continuum solids, and the slab is
represented by structural plate elements. Quiet boundaries are placed at the boundaries of the
model to avoid wave re°ection. The formulation is based on the sub-structure method. Di®erent
geometric con¯gurations are studied in terms of dynamic impedance. The numerical results are
presented to show the in°uence of the mattress sti®ness and the pile–soil contact conditions on
the dynamic response of the foundation system. The horizontal and vertical impedances of the
pile foundations are presented with the results compared with those available in previous
studies.
Keywords: Soil–pile–mattress–slab system; dynamic impedance; soil–structure interaction;

numerical model.
1. Introduction
The technique of soil reinforcement has been widely used in the construction of roads
and railways, which has experienced tremendous growth. Partly due to application of
the soil reinforcement technique to engineering works like the nuclear power plants,
the dynamic behavior of pile groups has received a renewed attention. The design of
§ Corresponding author.
1750057-1
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
rigid–pile–reinforced soils comprises two main elements: the rigid piles and a gran-
ular mattress. Using a combination of rigid piles through the soft soil and a granular
mattress placed between the network of rigid piles and the superstructure, the load
transfer mechanism is developed due to the shearing action. The granular mattress
constitutes a zone of energy dissipation for dynamic loading. It can help reduce the
inertial e®ect of the superstructure.1–3 This type of reinforcement has been imple-
mented for the Rion–Antirion bridge.4 The dynamic behavior of rigid piles involves
many parameters, including those of the soft soil, the mattress and hard soil, the
loading characteristics and all the interactions (between the piles, soft soil, hard soil,
mattress and the slab or the superstructure). To determine the dynamic behavior of a
soil–pile–mattress–structure system under dynamic loading, it is important to study
the dynamic behavior of pile groups (Fig. 1).

Determining the response of a deep foundation is basically a wave propagation

problem. Due to the mixed-boundary conditions of the problem (displacement
compatibility with stress distribution underneath the foundation and zero tension
outside), the solution to be sought is complicated, which requires the impedance
functions to be determined ¯rst. Various numerical and analytical methods have
been developed to compute the dynamic sti®ness and seismic response factors of pile-
foundations accounting for the pile–soil–pile interaction. The dynamic analysis of
piles and pile groups (Fig. 1(a)) embedded in a half-space has been treated numer-
ically by several authors using either the frequency-domain boundary-element
method (BEM) in conjunction with di®erent half-space Green's function formula-
tions for the soil, or the ¯nite-element method (FEM) for the piles, considered as
mono-dimensional beam elements.5–7 Also, the coupling of framed structures using
the 3D FEM approaches in the time domain has been presented in Coda et al.8 and
Coda and Venturini,9 in which piles are approximated using a special cylindrical
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) Soil–pile–slab system, (b) Soil–pile–mattress–slab system.
1750057-2
boundary element. A review of the techniques for the dynamic analysis of piles and
pile groups can be found in Ref. 10. Using the BEM for both the soil and piles, more
versatile and rigorous numerical models have been presented. Particularly, more
versatile and rigorous linear numerical models have been developed using the BEM
for both the soil and piles, but with the disadvantage of high computational cost. The
vibration isolation by a row of piles has been analyzed in Refs. 11 and 12 and the
dynamic impedances of pile groups have been studied by Maeso et al.13 Their
common disadvantage is high computational time. The BEM has been used to de-
termine the Green's function, while the FEM is used to model the piles, which are
considered 1D beam elements. The piles are modeled using the FEM as the beam-
type elements based on the Bernoulli hypothesis by Padron et al.14 The system is
sub-structured into the bounded near ¯eld surrounded by an unbounded far ¯eld.
The pile–soil system of the near ¯eld is modeled using the solid ¯nite elements, and
the unbounded elastic soil system of the far ¯eld is modeled using the consistent,
in¯nitesimal, ¯nite-element cell method (CIFECM) in the frequency domain by
Emani and Maheshwari.15
The soil domain is larger than the other dimensions of the problem such that it is
regarded as in¯nite. In order to model the e®ect of wave radiation into the in¯nite
domain on the structural behaviors, several kinds of modeling techniques have been
developed, including the quiet boundaries, transmitting boundary, boundary ele-
ments, in¯nite elements, and system identi¯cation method by Yun et al.29 In this
context, a physical modeling and numerical modeling procedure using the ¯nite-
di®erence elements were used to conduct a nonlinear time–history analysis of the
prototype structure supported by di®erent types of foundations by Hokmabadi
et al.16, Hokmabadi and Fatahi17 and Fatahi and Tabatabaiefar.28
Hatem18 and Okyay19 studied the behavior of the soil–pile–mattress–structure
interaction under seismic loads using ¯nite-di®erence elements with quiet bound-
aries. Okyay et al.20 used a series of dynamic tests conducted on an experimental site
and developed numerical models to interpret the dynamic response of rigid pile-
reinforced soils. A complex modeling of soil–piles–slab was implemented by the ¯nite
element method with quiet boundaries to determine the dynamic behavior of piles by
Messioud et al.21
In this paper, a 3D ¯nite-element model is used for the dynamic-sti®ness coe±-
cients in the time-harmonic domain of the soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab
systems. Di®erent con¯gurations are studied and compared in terms of impedance.
The soil, piles, and mattress are represented as continuum solids, and the slab is
represented by structural plate elements. To simulate a semi-in¯nite elastic space,
quiet boundaries are imposed on the model to avoid wave re°ection. The horizontal
and vertical impedances of pile foundations are presented, and the results are com-
pared with those of the previous studies. Selected numerical results are presented to
show the in°uence of the mattress sti®ness and pile–soil contact conditions on the
dynamic impedance.
1750057-3
2. Modeling of the Dynamic Soil–Pile–Slab and Soil–Pile–Mattress–Slab

Interactions
2.1. Calculation of impedance calculation
A useful and alternative formulation of the superposition theorem can be done by the
substructure technique. This approach leads to a set of equations for the forces
applied at the foundation of the superstructure.22–24 For the case of rigid founda-
tions, the overall problem can be split into some sub-problems.
Consider a ¯nite-element discretization of the soil–structure systems as shown in
Fig. 2(a). The soil and structure have been separated, and the equilibrium between
these two parts is preserved by application of the inertial forces Pb and Pf . The model
is subjected to an arbitrary excitation (using speci¯ed displacements) along the

common boundary (Fig. 2(b)). For a solution in the frequency domain, the matrix
equations relating forces and displacements are
ð! 2 M þ i!C þ KÞU ¼ P ; ð1Þ
where M is the mass matrix, C the damping matrix and K the sti®ness matrix; P and
U are the force and displacement vectors, and ! is the angular frequency. For the
Excavated soil
Structure s
s
Free Field b
Boundary Pb f
b Pf
f
g
g
Pr Pr* r
r
(b)
Dynamic Loading
(a) PZ Viscous Boundary
MY
PX
Free Field
Boundary
15m
2Lx=40m
(c)
Fig. 2. Substructure method. (a) Soil–structure interaction problem, (b) Free ¯eld problem, (c) Dynamic
impedance solution.
1750057-4
sake of simplicity, the frequency dependent complex sub matrices of the dynamic
sti®ness matrix will be denoted by
Kij ¼ K þ i!C ! 2 M; ð2Þ
where Kij are the submatrices of the dynamic sti®ness matrix. The sub-indices above
refer to the following: s for the nodes of the structure, excluding the soil–structure
interface; b for the nodes of the structure along the interface; f for the nodes of the
soil along the same interface; g for nodes of the soil, excluding the interface and
boundaries; and r for the nodes along the boundary. The asterisk refers to the free-
¯eld solution.
Notice that both the free-¯eld problem and the soil–structure interaction problem
are subjected to the same excitation U r . However, in general Pr 6¼ P r unless the

boundary is far away from the structure. In this study, the boundaries of the model
are assumed to be far from the structure to ensure the correct functioning of the
absorbing boundaries. The force–displacement relationship including the soil–
structure interaction and the free ¯eld solution shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) are
then22,24:
2 38 9 8 9
Kff Kfg Kfr <Uf U f = <Pf P f =
4 Kgf Kgg Kgr 5 Ug U g ¼ 0 : ð3Þ
: ; : ;
Krf Krg Krr 0 Pr P r
Condensing the matrix equation above, namely, eliminating all the degrees of free-
dom that are not located in the soil-foundation interface. The system of equations
can be rewritten as
1
ðKff Kfg ðK gg Kgf ÞÞðUf U f Þ ¼ fPf P f g: ð4Þ
The dynamic sti®ness of the soil-foundation system can be given in the following
form:
1
K ¼ ðKff þ Kfg ðK gg Kgf ÞÞ ð5Þ
KðUf U f Þ ¼ Pf P f ð6Þ
in which
Pf ¼ Pb : vector of forces (moments) derived from the inertial e®ect of the
superstructure (Fig. 2(b)),
P f : vector of forces (moments) caused by the movement of free ¯eld,
Uf : vector of displacements corresponding to the soil-foundation interface,
U f : vector of displacements corresponding to the free ¯eld at the soil-foundation
interface, and
ðPf P f Þe i!t
Kð!Þ ¼ ; ð7Þ
ðUf U f Þe i!t
1750057-5
where ðPf P f Þ and ðUf U f Þ are the forces and displacements resulting from the
interaction e®ect. For the system of equations (4), only the force vector Pi e i!t
(harmonic loading) associated with the soil-foundation interface is applied at the
center of the slab, as shown in Fig. 3(c). The contact between the slab and mattress
is assumed to be perfect. The displacement ðUf U f Þe i!t is replaced by the resulting
displacement Ui e i!t at the center of slab (foundation). The dynamic-impedance
matrix is calculated according to the ratio of the applied force and the displacement
calculated at the center of the foundation:
Pi e i!t
Kð!Þ ¼ ; ð8Þ
Ui e i!t
where Pi ¼ fPX ; MY ; PZ g is the vector of the dynamic loads, and Ui ¼ fUX ; Y ; UZ g

the vector of the displacements. The impedance matrix [K] refereed to the rigid
massless foundation is given as
8 9 2 38 9
< PX = KXX KX 0 < UX =
M 4
¼ KX K 0 5 ; ð9Þ
: Y; : Y;
PZ 0 0 KZZ UZ
where the subscripts X, and Z refer to the horizontal, rocking and vertical motions,
respectively. The matrix [K] is symmetric and the cross entries except KX (¼ KX )
in [K] are negligible. The dynamic impedances are presented in the form,
Kij ð!Þ ¼ ½k rij ð!Þ þ ik iij ð!Þ, consisting of a real part k rij and an imaginary part ik iij .
The impedance functions have been normalized with respect to the static-sti®ness
(Ks ), namely,
Kij ð!Þ ¼ Ks ½k 0 ijð!Þ þ ik 00ij ð!Þ: ð10Þ
The dynamic impedances Kij ð!Þ will be obtained in the following sections by a 3D
FEM formulation. A fundamental feature of the calculation code used is the exact
representation of the boundary of the model (Fig. 1), which separates the ¯nite-
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Floating piles, (b) resting piles, (c) anchored piles.
1750057-6
L = piles length
S = distance between axes
S=2m
t = slab thickness
d = diameter of the piles
(c)
Fig. 3. (Continued )
element region from the semi-in¯nite continuum (the free ¯eld). The implementation
of the transient paraxial elastic elements comes primarily from the need to decom-
pose the displacements into the component along the vertical direction of the ele-
ments, corresponding to the P waves, and the component in the horizontal direction
of the element, corresponding to the S waves. Such a discretization allows us to
simulate the viscous dampers distributed along the boundaries of the model. The
inclusion of a viscous damping pseudo-matrix is re°ective of the presence of an
in¯nite domain.
2.2. The physical system

The main objective of the study is to evaluate the dynamic impedance of the soil–
pile–mattress–slab system and to compare it with the soil–pile–slab system. Six
numerical models with three di®erent ¯xing conditions for the pile ends are simulated
(°oating, resting, or anchored piles). All of these ¯xing conditions are used for the
soil–pile–mattress–slab shown in Fig. 3.
3. Validation of the Numerical Model

In order to verify the numerical solution scheme reported in this study, the results for
the vertical sti®ness of a 3 3 pile group (Fig. 4) are compared with those reported
by Padŕon et al.14 In Fig. 4, L denotes the length of piles, and S refers to the distance
between adjacent piles. The lateral and vertical impedances (sti®nesses) of a 3 3
pile group embedded in a homogeneous isotropic viscoelastic half-space, obtained by
the ¯nite element method with the absorbing boundaries are shown from Fig. 5,
where d denotes the diameter of each pile. For a group of piles, it is assumed that the
heads are connected by a rigid slab and that the foundation sti®ness is the algebraic
sum of the contribution of each pile.
1750057-7
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Model of the soil–piles–slab system. (a) Geometry of the quarter model, (b) Extracted piles.
5,00 Present Study

n Number of piles 3,00
s/d=2 Padron
Kszz Static Impedance
4,00 Present Study
2,50
s/d=5
Padron
Real Part Kzz/nKszz
3,00 Present Study

2,00
Real Part Kxx/nKsxx
s/d=10
Padron
2,00
1,50
1,00
1,00
0,00
0,50
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
-1,00
s/d=2 Present Study ª o
0,00
Padron
-2,00 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
s/d=5 Present Study
Padron -0,50
-3,00 s/d=10 Present Study
n Number of piles
Ksxx Static Impedance
ª o
Padron -1,00
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. (a) Vertical and (b) horizontal impedance (Kzz , Kxx of a 3 3 pile group (L=d ¼ 15, S=d ¼ 2 and
S=d ¼ 5).
The material and geometrical properties are the same, as those given in Table 1.
The complex impedances Kij ðao Þ are expressed in the form given by Kaynia,6 Padron
et al.14 and Emani and Maheshwari,15 namely,

Kij ðao Þ ¼ Ks k 0ij ðao Þ þ ik 00ij ðao Þ ð11Þ
where k 0ij ðao Þ, ik 00ij ðao Þ and Ks are the dynamic sti®ness, damping coe±cients and
static-sti®ness of the system, respectively; and ao is the dimensionless frequency,
ao ¼ !d
Cs ; with the shear-wave velocity Cs ¼ 70 m/s.
Table 1. Material and geometrical properties of soil and pile for dynamic analysis.
Modulus of elasticity Poisson Density, Damping Diameter Shear-wave

E (MPa) ratio, v (kg/m3) ratio, of pile d(m) velocity (m/s)
Soft soil 25 0.4 1800 0.05 — 70

Slab and piles 25 000 0.25 2500 0 0.6 —
1750057-8
The dynamic sti®ness matrix Kij of a pile group subjected to a vector of forces
(and moments) applied at the center of the slab is calculated as a function of the
displacement vectors (and rotations) at the same point of application of the vector of
forces (moments). The piles are assumed connected to a slab that is in¯nitely rigid. In
this study, a vertical load is used to determine the vertical impedance, and a hori-
zontal load to determine the horizontal impedance. The displacement response is
obtained by taking the product of the function of the exciting force and the transfer
function amplitude of the displacement. The mechanical properties of the soil layer
and foundation are listed in Table 1. All these properties are adopted from Emani
and Maheshwari15 and Padŕon et al.14
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the results obtained by the numerical
modeling and the results of the literature. Figure 5(a) shows the variation of the
vertical impedance of the 3 3 pile groups, in which the ratio of the distance between
the axes and the diameter of the piles is taken to be equal to 2, 5, and 10; the results
are in good agreement with those obtained by Padŕon et al.14 Figure 5(b) shows the
variation of the dynamic impedance function Kxx versus the dimensionless fre-
quency, and a comparison between the results obtained by the numerical simulation
and those by Padron et al.,14 which indicates well agreement.
4. Numerical Study
The mechanical characteristics (Table 2) of the soft soil, hard soil, piles, rigid piles
and mattress are those used by Okyay.20 The pile length is between 9 and 11 m, the
pile diameter is 0.3 m, and the distance between the pile axes is equal to 2 m. A load-
transfer mattress of 0.60 m thickness is placed on the rigid piles. As for the case of
piles, the mattress is replaced by a rigid-slab of concrete that has a perfect head
connection with the piles (see Figs. 6 and 7).
The choice of the model and the size of the elements is done by considering the
wavelength to minimize the wave distortion. The size of the model is 40 40 15
m3, the height of the compressible layer is 10 m, and the height of the support layer is
5 m. The maximum size of the mesh element allowed for the proper transmission of
waves is equal to 0.4 m. Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer25 show that the size of the elements
Table 2. Geotechnical and mechanical properties for dynamic analysis.
Elements
Characteristic dynamic Piles Slab Hard soil Soft soil Transfer mattress
Modulus of elasticity E (Mpa) 30000 30000 100 10 50–100–500
Density kg/m 3 2500 2500 2000 1600 2000
Damping ratio 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05
Poisson ratio 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.4
Shear-wave velocity (m/s) — — 133.6 47 94.5
1750057-9
used must be less than one tenth of the wavelength , i.e.

Cs !
f¼ with f ¼ ð12Þ
10:l 2
with Cs denoting the shear-wave velocity, l the size of the mesh element, and ! the
frequency of excitation. The maximum frequency considered depends on the maxi-
mum size of the element and the natural frequency of the soil–piles–mattress–slab
system is equal to 2.50 Hz.
To simplify the problem, the soil layers are assumed to be horizontal in a semi-
in¯nite medium. The homogeneous medium is considered as a viscoelastic, isotropic
half-space. An arti¯cial absorbing boundary is imposed at a distance of 20 m from the
edge of the piles, and this boundary should re°ect the distribution of energy re°ected
and transmitted in the medium. The horizontal boundary conditions are placed so as
to prevent wave refraction. The results are presented in terms of the impedance
function, vertical and horizontal, for the three pile ¯xing conditions for the two
systems studied, soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab.
4.1. Numerical model

Figures 6 and 7 show a quarter of the 3D model used in the numerical simulations by
the ¯nite-element software ASTER.26 The numerical analyses were carried out for 30
rigid piles. As for the case of piles, the mattress is replaced by a rigid-slab of concrete
with a perfect connection to the piles. The slab is in contact with the soil for the soil–
piles–slab system and with the mattress for the soil–piles–mattress–slab system,
which has a thickness of 0.5 m. The slab is represented by a structural plate element,
and the structural plate elements are connected with the volumetric elements of the
model (piles, mattress, and soil). The number of the nodes used for the quarter model
is over 250,000.
1 Slab of 0.5m thickness 2 Piles 3 Soft soil Extracted piles

4 Hard soil
Fig. 6. Quarter model of the soil–piles–slab system.
1750057-10
1 Slab of 0.5m thickness 2 Mattress of 0.6m thickness Extracted rigid piles

3 Soft soil 4 Hard soil 5 Rigid piles
Fig. 7. Quarter model of the soil–pile–mattress–slab system.
The dynamic impedance obtained by the ¯nite element method is shown in

Figs. 8–14. The vertical and horizontal impedance functions have been normalized
with respect to the respective single pile static sti®ness (Ks ) times the number (n) of
piles in the group. All the results are plotted versus the dimensionless frequency
ao ¼ !d
Cs . Several results for the soil–pile–mattress–slab system are compared with
those for the soil–piles–slab system.
4.2. E®ect of head and end ¯xing conditions

The variation of the dynamic impedances (Kzz , Kxx ) versus the frequency is shown in
Figs. 8–11. The dynamic impedances of the soil–piles–slab and soil–pile–mattress–
slab systems are calculated by applying a dynamic load at the center of slab of the
models presented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
Figures 8 and 9 show the in°uence of ¯xing condition on the variation of the
vertical dynamic impedance for the soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab
2,00 5,0
Floating Piles Flaoting Piles
4,5
Imaginary Part Kzz/nKszz
1,50 Rested Piles Rested Piles

4,0
Anchored Piles Anchored Piles
Real Part Kzz/NKszz
1,00 3,5
3,0
0,50
2,5
0,00 2,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1,5
-0,50
Frequency (Hz) 1,0
-1,00 0,5 Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-1,50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Vertical impedance Kzz of the soil–piles–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
1750057-11
1,5 4,5
Floating Piles
Rested Piles 4,0 Floating Piles
1,0
Imaginary part Kzz/nKszz

Anchored Piles 3,5 Rested Piles
Real Part Kzz/nKszz
0,5
3,0 Anchored Piles
Frequency (Hz)
0,0 2,5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2,0
-0,5
1,5
-1,0 1,0
-1,5 0,5
Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Vertical impedance soil–pile–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
systems, respectively. These ¯gures show that the dynamic impedances of the two
systems are similar, but the amplitudes are di®erent. They also show the in°uence of
the support layer on the dynamic impedance. The real parts of Figs. 8 and 9 show
that the dynamic sti®ness of the °oating systems is a major factor for the range near
the frequency 9 Hz. For low frequencies, the °oating systems become more amortized,
as shown in the imaginary parts of Figs. 8 and 9. In this case, the maximum values of
the dynamic impedances are given by the °oating system. In general, these ¯gures
show that the anchored systems are more rigid and the vertical dynamic impedances
are a®ected by the ¯xing conditions.
The horizontal dynamic impedances of the soil–piles–slab and soil–pile–mattress–
slab systems are calculated by applying a horizontal load on the half-space model.
The size of the half-model is 40 20 15 m3.
Figures 10 and 11 show that the horizontal impedances are slightly a®ected by
the ¯xing condition. A remarkable di®erence was noted between the °oating system
and the resting and anchored systems for the frequencies starting from 8.5 Hz. In
general, the real and imaginary parts of the horizontal dynamic impedances are
slightly a®ected by the condition of anchoring.
1,0 6,0
5,0 Floating Piles

Imaginary Part Kxx / n Ksxx
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Real Part Kxx / n Ksxx
Rested Piles
-1,0 Frequency (Hz) 4,0
Anchored Piles
3,0
-2,0
Floating Piles
2,0
-3,0 Rested Piles
Anchored Piles 1,0

-4,0
Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-5,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Horizontal impedance Kxx of the piles–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
1750057-12
3,00 9,0
Floating Piles
8,0 Floating Piles
2,00
Imaginary Part Kxx / n Ksxx

Rested Piles
Rested Piles
7,0
1,00 Anchored Piles
Frequency (Hz) Anchored Piles
6,0
0,00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5,0
-1,00
4,0
-2,00 3,0
-3,00 2,0
1,0
-4,00 Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-5,00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Horizontal impedance Kxx of the soil–piles–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary
part.
The dynamic impedances is strongly attenuated at high frequencies, which can

result in the occurrence of resonance peaks and the amplitude of resonance becomes
more damped. The latter case occurs, if the depth of the piles is relatively large.
Increasing the depth of the piles can induce a considerable increase in the contact
surface with the soil. The phenomenon of wave re°ection is then larger. Moreover,
there is an increase of the soil mass that participates in the vibratory movement. In
this case, the horizontal dynamic impedances are strongly a®ected by the inertial
e®ect of the slab and mattress transfer. So, as the soil is amortizing, the movement
will be amortized especially in high frequencies. The dynamic impedances become
negative for high frequencies, caused by the increase of the vibrating mass.
4.3. E®ect of mattress rigidity

In the following ¯gures, the results for the soil–pile–slab system are compared for the
dynamic impedance for the case of resting piles). The quarter-model presented in
Fig. 7 is used. The elasticity modulus of the mattress varies between 50 and
500 MPa.
Figure 12 shows the in°uence of the mattress elastic modulus on the vertical
dynamic impedances. The ¯gure shows that the dynamic impedance increases sig-
ni¯cantly with the rigidity of the mattress for the system with resting piles.
Figure 13 shows that the real part of the dynamic impedance for the soil–pile–
mattress–slab system given an elastic modulus E ¼ 500 MPa is approximate to the
real part of the dynamic impedance for the soil-pile-slab system for lower frequencies.
The increase of the imaginary part following the increase of the rigidity of the
mattress is remarkable. For high modules of rigidity, the soil–pile–slab system
becomes amortized.
Similarly, the horizontal dynamic impedances of the soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–
mattress–slab systems are not a®ected by the ¯xing condition. In order to simplify
the presentation, only the results of the system with resting piles are presented. By
varying the elasticity modulus of the mattress between 50 and 500 MPa, Fig. 14
1750057-13
1,5 6,0
Slab System
1,0 5,0 500MPa

Mattress-Slab System 100MPa
Real Part Kzz/nKszz
0,5
4,0 50MPa
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3,0
-0,5
Frequency (Hz)
2,0
-1,0
Slab System
1,0
500MPa
-1,5 Mattress-Slab System Frequency (Hz)
100MPa
50MPa 0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Vertical impedance for soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab systems (Resting piles). (a)
Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
1,5 6,0
Slab System
1,0 5,0

Real Part Kzz/nKszz
0,5
4,0
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3,0
-0,5
Frequency (Hz)
2,0
-1,0
Slab System
1,0
-1,5 Mattress-Slab System Frequency (Hz)
500MPa
0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Vertical impedance for soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab systems (Resting piles),
E ¼ 500 MPa. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
shows the in°uence of the sti®ness of the transfer mattress on the horizontal dynamic
impedances and compares it with that of the soil–pile–slab system.
Figure 14 shows the in°uence of the rigidity of the transfer mattress on the
horizontal dynamic impedances and a comparison between the impedances of the
systems (soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab). The soil–pile–mattress–slab
system is sti®er than the soil–pile–slab system. The e®ect of the transfer mattress
rigidity is important, the soil–pile–mattress–slab rigidity increases with the modulus
of the mattress.
The in°uence of the ¯xing condition on the dynamic response of the soil–piles–
slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems and the in°uence of the rigidity of the
transfer mattress on the vertical dynamic impedances are presented in Figs. 8–14.
The results obtained showed that the vertical dynamic impedances are more a®ected
by the ¯xing condition (Figs. 8–13). The vertical dynamic impedances of the rein-
forcement system are close to those of the piles for high sti®ness of the transfer
mattress in Fig. 13.
1750057-14
7,0 14,0
Slab System
Slab System
12,0
500MPa
Imaginary Part Kxx / n KSxx

5,0 500MPa Mattress-Slab System 100MPa
50MPa
3,0 10,0
50MPa
Frequency (Hz) 8,0

1,0
6,0
-1,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4,0
-3,0
2,0
-5,0 Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-7,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Horizontal impedance Kxx of soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part,
(b) Imaginary part.
The horizontal dynamic impedances are more a®ected by the rigidity of the
transfer mattress than the vertical dynamic impedance. Figure 14 shows that the
reinforcement system is sti®er than the soil–pile–slab system for the translational
motion. The in°uence of the transfer mattress on the damping coe±cient is marked
by the increase of the imaginary part in response to the increase in the rigidity of the
mattress, as shown in Fig. 14.
5. Conclusion
In this study, a 3D FEM dynamic analysis of the soil–piles–slab and of the soil–piles–
mattress–slab systems is presented. The piles reinforcement groups are embedded in
a homogeneous isotropic visco-elastic soil. In the modeling, the entire soil–pile–slab
and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems are considered in calculating the vertical and
horizontal dynamic impedance functions. The validation of the numerical model is
done by comparison of numerical results with those of the literature, which appears
to be in good agreement. The soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems were
simulated with di®erent head and end ¯xing conditions. The variation of the vertical
and horizontal dynamic impedance as a function of frequency and the in°uence of
¯xing conditions on the dynamic impedances have been studied. The in°uence of the
rigidity of the transfer mattress on the dynamic impedance function was examined.
The results obtained show the importance of the head and end ¯xing conditions of
the piles. The ¯xing conditions a®ect the vertical dynamic impedances for both the
soil–piles–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems. The two °oating systems are
more sensitive to the vertical impedance. The reaction of the soil on the pile–slab and
pile–mattress–slab systems is also important. Toe end ¯xing of the piles and rigid
piles increases the vertical impedance. The horizontal impedances are slightly af-
fected by the ¯xing conditions. The results show that the vertical dynamic impe-
dances are more a®ected by the ¯xing conditions than the horizontal impedances.
The elasticity modulus of the mattress is a signi¯cant parameter; which has a great
1750057-15
in°uence on the dynamic impedances of both directions. The augmentation in the

elasticity modulus of the mattress increases the dynamic sti®ness.
References
1. A. Pecker and J. Garnier, Use of centrifuge tests for the validation of innovative 59.
Concepts in foundation engineering, in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Earthq. Geotech. Eng.,
Lisbon (1999), pp. 433–439.
2. A. Pecker and J. Salencon, Ground reinforcement in seismic area, in Proc. XI Pan-
american Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng. Iguasu (1999) 799–808.
3. R. Dobry, A. Pecker, G. Mavroeidis, M. Zeghal, B. Gohl and D. Yang, Damping/global
energy balance in FE model of bridge foundation lateral response, J. Soil Dynam. Earth.
Eng. 23(6) (2003) 483–495.

4. A. Pecker and J. P. Teyssandier, Seismic design for the foundation of the Rion–Antirion
bridge, Geotech. Eng. 131 (1998) 4–11.

5. A. M. Kaynia, Dynamic sti®ness and seismic response of pile groups, Research Report
R82-03, Order No. 718, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1982).
6. A. M. Kaynia and E. Kausel, Dynamics of piles and pile groups in layered soils, Soil
Dynam. Earth. Eng. 10(8) (1991) 386–401.
7. S. M. Mamoon, A. M. Kaynia and P. K. Banerjee, Frequency domain dynamic analysis of
piles and pile groups, J. Eng. Mech. ASCE. 116(9) (1990) 2237–2257.
8. H. B. Coda, W. S. Venturini and M. H. Aliabadi, A general 3D BEM/FEM coupling
applied to elastodynamic continua/frame structures interaction analysis, Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Eng. 46 (1999) 695–712.
9. H. B. Coda and W. S. Venturini, On the coupling of 3D BEM and FEM frame model
applied to elastodynamic analysis, Int. J. Solids Struct. 36 (1999) 4789–804.
10. D. E. Beskos, Boundary element methods in dynamic analysis: Part II (1986–1999), Appl
Mech. Rev. 50 (1997) 149–197.
11. S. E. Kattis, D. Polyzos and D. E. Beskos, Vibration isolation by a row of piles using a 3D
frequency domain BEM, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 46, (1999) 713–728.
12. S. E. Kattis, D. Polyzos and D. E. Beskos, Modelling of pile wave barriers by e®ective
trenches and their screening e®ectiveness, Soil Dynam. Earth. Eng. 18 (1999) 1–10.
13. O. Maeso, J. J. Aznarez and F. Garcia, Dynamic impedances of piles and groups of piles in
saturated soils, Comput. Struct. 83 (2005) 769–782.
14. L. A. Padron, J. J. Aznarez and O. Maeso, BEM–FEM coupling model for the
dynamic analysis of piles and pile groups, Eng. Anal. Boundary Elements 31(5) (2007)
473–484.
15. P. K. Emani and B. K. Maheshwari, Dynamic impedances of pile groups with embedded
slabs in homogeneous elastic soils using CIFECM, Soil Dynam. Earth Eng. 29 (2009)
963–973.
16. A. S. Hokmabadi, B. Fatahi and B. Samali, Physical modeling of seismic soil-pile-struc-
ture interaction for buildings on soft soils, Int. J. Geomech. 15(2) (2014) 04014046.
17. A. S. Hokmabadi and B. Fatahi, In°uence of foundation type on seismic performance of
buildings considering soil–structure interaction, Int. J. Struct. Stabil. Dynam. 16 (2015)
1550043.
18. A. Hatem, Comportement en zone sismique des piles rigides, analyse de l'interaction
sol–pile–matelas en repartition de structure, Doctoral thesis, Universite des Sciences
et Technologies de Lille. (2009).
1750057-16
19. U. S. Okyay, Etude experimentale et numerique des transferts de charge dans un massif
renforce par inclusions rigides: Application à des cas de chargements statiques et dyna-
miques, Doctoral thesis, Universite Lyon 1 (2010).
20. U. S. Okyay, D. Dias and P. Billion, Impedance functions of °ab foundations with rigid
piles, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30(4) (2012).
21. S. Messioud, U. S. Okyay, B. Sbartai and D. Dias, Dynamic response of pile reinforced
soils and piled foundations, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34(3) (2016) 1–17.
22. E. Kausel, R. V. Whitman, J. P. Morray and F. Elsabee, The spring method for embedded
foundations, Nuclear Eng. Design 48 (1978) 377–392.
23. D. Aubry and D. Clouteau, A subdomain approach to dynamic soil–structure interaction,
in: V. Davidovici, R. W. Clough (Eds.), Recent advances in Earth. Eng. Struct. Dynam.
(1992) 251–272.
24. A. Pecker, Dynamique des sols, Presses de l'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees
(1984).
25. R. L. Kuhlemeyer and J. Lysmer, Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation
problems, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 99(SM5) (1973) 421–427.
26. CODE-ASTER, http://www.code-aster.org/utilisation/non-french.ph.p Non-French
Code Aster Resources.
27. S. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar, B. Fatahi and B. Samali, An empirical relationship to
determine lateral seismic response of mid-rise building frames under in°uence of soil–
structure interaction, The Struct. Design Tall Special Build. 23(6) (2014) 526–548.
28. B. Fatahi and S. H. R. Tabatabaiefar, Fully nonlinear versus equivalent linear compu-
tation method for seismic analysis of midrise buildings on soft soils, Int. J. Geomech.
14(4) (2013) 04014016.
29. C. B. Yun, S. H. Chang, C. G. Seo and J. M. Kim, Dynamic in¯nite elements for soil-
structure interaction analysis in a layered soil medium. International Journal of Struc-
tural Stability and Dynamics 7(4) (2007) 639–713.
1750057-17
View publication stats

(2016) Salah M. - Estimation of Dynamic Impedance of The Soil-Pile-Slab and Soil-Pile-Mattress-Slab Systems PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

(2016) Salah M. - Estimation of Dynamic Impedance of The Soil-Pile-Slab and Soil-Pile-Mattress-Slab Systems PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Estimation of Dynamic Impedance

Article in International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics · August 2016

Badreddine Sbartai Daniel Dias

Dynamic response of foundations by BEM-TLM View project

Probabilistic Analysis of the Seismic Response of the foundations View

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Estimation of Dynamic Impedance of the Soil–Pile–Slab

Salah Messioud*,§, Badreddine Sbartai†,¶ and Daniel Dias‡,||

*LGCE University of Jijel

23000 Annaba, Algeria

Received 30 October 2015

Keywords: Soil–pile–mattress–slab system; dynamic impedance; soil–structure interaction;

the dynamic behavior of pile groups (Fig. 1).

Determining the response of a deep foundation is basically a wave propagation

Fig. 1. (a) Soil–pile–slab system, (b) Soil–pile–mattress–slab system.

2. Modeling of the Dynamic Soil–Pile–Slab and Soil–Pile–Mattress–Slab

is subjected to an arbitrary excitation (using speci¯ed displacements) along the

are subjected to the same excitation U r . However, in general Pr 6¼ P r unless the

where Pi ¼ fPX ; MY ; PZ g is the vector of the dynamic loads, and Ui ¼ fUX ; Y ; UZ g

2.2. The physical system

3. Validation of the Numerical Model

5,00 Present Study

3,00 Present Study

Modulus of elasticity Poisson Density, Damping Diameter Shear-wave

Soft soil 25 0.4 1800 0.05 — 70

Table 2. Geotechnical and mechanical properties for dynamic analysis.

used must be less than one tenth of the wavelength , i.e.

4.1. Numerical model

1 Slab of 0.5m thickness 2 Piles 3 Soft soil Extracted piles

Fig. 6. Quarter model of the soil–piles–slab system.

1 Slab of 0.5m thickness 2 Mattress of 0.6m thickness Extracted rigid piles

Fig. 7. Quarter model of the soil–pile–mattress–slab system.

The dynamic impedance obtained by the ¯nite element method is shown in

4.2. E®ect of head and end ¯xing conditions

1,50 Rested Piles Rested Piles

-1,00 0,5 Frequency (Hz)

Imaginary part Kzz/nKszz

5,0 Floating Piles

Anchored Piles 1,0

Imaginary Part Kxx / n Ksxx

The dynamic impedances is strongly attenuated at high frequencies, which can

4.3. E®ect of mattress rigidity

Imaginary Part Kzz/nKszz

Mattress-Slab System 500MPa

Imaginary Part Kxx / n KSxx

Frequency (Hz) 8,0

in°uence on the dynamic impedances of both directions. The augmentation in the

Eng. 23(6) (2003) 483–495.

bridge, Geotech. Eng. 131 (1998) 4–11.

View publication stats

Você também pode gostar