Intro

Shaking Table Scale Model Tests of Nonlinear
Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction In Soft Clay

by
Philip James Meymand
B.A. (Georgetown University) 1984

B.S. (University of Massachusetts, Lowell) 1993
M.S. (University of California, Berkeley) 1994
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Engineering-Civil Engineering
in the
GRADUATE DIVISION
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Committee in charge:
Professor Michael F. Riemer, Chair
Professor Raymond B. Seed
Professor Lane R. Johnson
Fall 1998
The dissertation of Philip James Meymand is approved:
________________________________________________
Chair
Date
________________________________________________
Date
________________________________________________
Date
University of California, Berkeley

Fall 1998
Abstract
SHAKING TABLE SCALE MODEL TESTS OF NONLINEAR
SOIL-PILE-SUPERSTRUCTURE INTERACTION IN SOFT CLAY
by
Philip James Meymand
Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering-Civil Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Michael F. Riemer, Chair
A significant number of cases of damage to piles and pile-supported structures

during earthquakes have been observed, but few instrumented records of the response and
performance of such structures during earthquakes have been obtained. To expand the
database of pile performance during strong shaking, a series of scale model shaking table
tests of model piles in soft clay was performed. This research effort had the goals of
providing insight into a variety of seismic soil-pile-supestructure interaction (SSPSI)
topics, and generating a data set with which to calibrate advanced SSPSI analysis tools
being developed at U.C. Berkeley in a parallel effort.
Principles of scale model similitude were used to derive a set of model scaling
relationships that recognized the dynamic and nonlinear nature of SSPSI. A specialized
flexible wall test container was designed to allow the soil to respond in the same fashion as
the free-field, unencumbered by boundary effects.
The shaking table reasonably
reproduced both one-directional and two-directional input motions, and trends of model
site response were consistent with free-field behavior; the motions amplified from base to
surface and were coherent across the site. Site characterization included laboratory and
1
in-situ testing to establish the undrained shear strength and shear wave velocity profiles.
One-dimensional equivalent linear dynamic response analyses were successfully used to
simulate the model free-field response, indicating that the model soil-container system
adequately reproduced free-field site conditions.
The single piles were seen to respond with components of inertial and kinematic
interaction, with the inertial components producing upper bound bending moments. The
response of pile groups was highly frequency dependent, which calls into question the
applicability of applying pseudo-static analyses to such problems. Pile cap and free field
motion variations illustrated wave scattering effects and the necessity of developing
modified foundation input motions for substructuring analyses. Moderate effects of pile
cap embedment were observed, particularly in contributing to pile group rocking stiffness.
The influences of two-directional shaking were seen to be minimal, as structural
inertial forces tended to resolve the motion to a strong axis for the simple single degree of
freedom models tested. For single piles, full perimeter soil resistance was not engaged, as
the piles preferentially followed gaps developed in previous cycles. P-y curves derived
from the static and seismic test data compared very well to those recommended by API.
Degrading behavior due to hysteresis and gapping was observed, softening the nearsurface response below API stiffness values, indicating that gapping is an important
feature to model. The application of system identification techniques yielded estimates of
single pile and pile group flexible base frequencies and damping factors, which differed
significantly from the fixed base assumption. Damping for the single piles and groups was
computed to be a function of load level.
Estimates of pile head lateral stiffness derived from a suite of pile head loading tests
differed over a wide range, and were a function of loading level and consequent soil-pile
nonlinearity. The methods examined for computing dynamic stiffness from elastic theory
provided unrealistically high estimates of stiffness for the model tests. Appropriately
selected secant stiffness values from the static lateral load tests provided more realistic
descriptions of the observed soil-pile dynamic response for moderate levels of shaking.
ATC-32 chart solutions provided marginally acceptable lower bound pile head stiffness
estimates for very strong shaking events.
____________________________
Michael F. Riemer, Thesis Advisor
____________________________
Date
For Alice
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract........................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xii
List of Tables.............................................................................................................. xxix
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... xxxi
CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH............................................................... 1
1.1
Introduction................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Overview of Observed Pile Response During Earthquakes .......................... 6
1.3
Research Needs and Research Objectives .................................................... 8
1.4
Organization of the Thesis........................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 OBSERVED PILE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE.................................... 12

2.1
Observed Pile Damage in Earthquakes ...................................................... 12

2.1.1
San Francisco 1906 ..................................................................... 12
2.1.2
Alaska 1964 ................................................................................ 16
2.1.3
Niigata 1964 ............................................................................... 25
2.1.4
Off-Tokachi 1968........................................................................ 31
2.1.5
San Fernando 1971 ..................................................................... 31
2.1.6
Off-Miyagi Prefecture 1978......................................................... 32
2.1.7
Mexico City 1985 ....................................................................... 33
2.1.8
Loma Prieta 1989........................................................................ 36
2.1.9
Costa Rica 1991.......................................................................... 40
2.1.10
Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) 1995 ................................................... 44

iv
2.2
2.3
Measured Pile Response In Earthquakes ................................................... 52

2.2.1
Building and Industrial Structures in Japan .................................. 53
2.2.2
Building Structures in California.................................................. 60
2.2.3
Bridge Structures ........................................................................ 64
Summary of Observed Pile Performance and Potential Failure Modes........ 72
CHAPTER 3 SSPSI ANALYTICAL METHODS........................................................ 75

3.1
3.2
Analytical Methods ................................................................................... 75

3.1.1
Beam-on-Elastic Foundation ....................................................... 82
3.1.2
Beam-on-Winkler Foundation ..................................................... 84
3.1.3
Elastic Continuum....................................................................... 97
3.1.4
Finite Element Methods ............................................................ 101
3.1.5
Pile Group Effects..................................................................... 104

(a)
Pile Group Interaction Methods..................................... 107
(b)
Pile Group Complete Dynamic Analyses ........................ 116
Building Code Provisions........................................................................ 125

3.2.1
Uniform Building Code/SEAOC Recommendations .................. 125
3.2.2
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program ..................... 126
3.2.3
Mexico City Building Code ....................................................... 128
3.2.4
Peoples Republic of China Aseismic Building Design Code ...... 128
3.2.5
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice ............... 129
3.2.6
Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges ........... 130
3.2.7
FHWA Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations............ 133
3.3
3.4
3.2.8
Japanese Design Specifications of Highway Bridges .................. 134
3.2.9
New Zealand Bridge Design Specifications................................ 135
Current State-of-the-Practice SSPSI Design and Analysis Applications ... 136

3.3.1
National Survey ........................................................................ 137
3.3.2
ASCE Workshop ...................................................................... 138
3.3.3
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge ........................................... 139
3.3.4
San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge .............................................. 140
3.3.5
Continuous Column-Shafts........................................................ 141
3.3.6
Caltrans Simplified Method ....................................................... 142
3.3.7
Alemany Interchange Retrofit.................................................... 142
3.3.8
Mercer Slough .......................................................................... 143
3.3.9
WSDOT Study.......................................................................... 145
3.3.10
Alaskan Way Viaduct................................................................ 147
3.3.11
Caltrans Liquefaction Mitigation ............................................... 148
3.3.12
Port Mann Bridge ..................................................................... 149
Summary of SSPSI Analytical Methods................................................... 150
CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORK............................................... 151

4.1
Introduction............................................................................................ 151
4.2
Full Scale Pile Test Programs.................................................................. 151

4.2.1
Field Single Pile Lateral Load Tests........................................... 152
4.2.2
Field Pile Group Lateral Load Tests .......................................... 157
4.2.3
Field Pile Dynamic Tests ........................................................... 163
vi
4.3
4.4
Model Scale Pile Test Programs.............................................................. 171

4.3.1
Model Pile Head Loading Tests................................................. 172
4.3.2
Model Pile Dynamic Tests......................................................... 182
4.3.3
Model Pile Centrifuge Tests ...................................................... 186
4.3.4
Model Pile Shaking Table Tests ................................................ 200
Summary of Experimental Findings ......................................................... 210
CHAPTER 5 ONE-G SCALE MODELING .............................................................. 212

5.1
5.2
5.3
Introduction............................................................................................ 212
5.1.1
Theories of Scale Model Similitude ........................................... 213
5.1.2
Scale Model Similitude As Applied to Soil Mechanics ............... 217
5.1.3
Scale Modeling Methodology and Implied Prototypes .............. 223
5.1.4
Scale Modeling Factors for Shaking Table Testing .................... 225
Model Soil Design .................................................................................. 227

5.2.1
Identification of Soil Modeling Criteria...................................... 228
5.2.2
Definition of Prototype Soil Parameters..................................... 229
5.2.3
Model Soil History.................................................................... 230
5.2.4
Development of Model Soil....................................................... 233
Model Pile Design................................................................................... 242

5.3.1
Identification of Pile Modeling Criteria...................................... 242
5.3.2
Definition of Prototype Pile Parameters..................................... 244
5.3.3
Development of Model Pile....................................................... 245
5.3.4
Four Point Loading Test ........................................................... 249
vii
CHAPTER 6 SHAKING TABLE TEST PROGRAM ................................................ 250

6.1
Introduction Test Objectives ................................................................ 250
6.2
Earthquake Simulator Facility ................................................................. 251
6.3
Model Testing Container......................................................................... 254
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.3.1
Numerical Modeling of Container Effects.................................. 255
6.3.2
Small Scale Container Shaking Table Tests ............................... 257
6.3.3
Full Scale Container Design and Construction ........................... 259
Test Instrumentation ............................................................................... 262

6.4.1
Accelerometers ......................................................................... 262
6.4.2
Strain Gages ............................................................................. 264
6.4.3
Wire Potentiometers.................................................................. 266
6.4.4
Signal Conditioning and Data Acquisition System ..................... 267
6.4.5
Data Precision and Accuracy..................................................... 269
Model Construction ................................................................................ 270

6.5.1
Model Soil Mixing and Placement ............................................. 271
6.5.2
Installation of Single Piles and Pile Groups................................ 273
6.5.3
Instrumentation......................................................................... 277
Test Parameters ...................................................................................... 282

6.6.1
Selection of Input Motions........................................................ 282
6.6.2
Pile Head Loading Tests............................................................ 285
6.6.3
T-Bar Tests............................................................................... 287
6.6.4
Shear Wave Velocity Tests........................................................ 289
viii
6.6.5
Schedule of Test Conditions...................................................... 290
CHAPTER 7 SHAKING TABLE TEST RESULTS .................................................. 300

7.1
Introduction .................................................................................... 300
7.2
Shaking Table Performance..................................................................... 301
7.3
7.2.1
Replication of Command Signals ............................................... 301
7.2.2
Acceleration Response of Table Degrees of Freedom ............... 304
Soil Column Response ............................................................................ 307

7.3.1
Site Amplification ..................................................................... 308
7.3.2
Coherence of Motions............................................................... 308
7.3.3
Vertical Accelerations ............................................................... 311
7.4
Sine Sweep Tests.................................................................................... 314
7.5
Kinematic vs. Inertial Pile Response ........................................................ 316
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.5.1
Test 1.15................................................................................... 316
7.5.2
Test 2.24................................................................................... 320
Pile Group Frequency Response.............................................................. 323

7.6.1
Test 1.26................................................................................... 323
7.6.2
Test 2.37................................................................................... 327
Pile Cap Embedment Effects ................................................................... 330

7.7.1
Test 1.37................................................................................... 330
7.7.2
Test 2.55................................................................................... 333
Pile Group and Single Pile Subjected to 2-D Shaking .............................. 336
7.8.1
Test 2.46................................................................................... 336
ix
7.9
Pile Raft Foundation Performance........................................................... 340

7.9.1
Test 1.37................................................................................... 340
7.10 Effects of Water/Scour on Pile Group Response ..................................... 341

7.10.1
Test 1.46................................................................................... 343
7.11 Summary of Experimental Findings ......................................................... 345

CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS... 348
8.1
Introduction.. .................................................................................. 348
8.2
Soil Shear Strength Profile ...................................................................... 348
8.3
8.2.1
T-Bar Tests............................................................................... 348
8.2.2
UUTX Tests ............................................................................. 350
8.2.3
Vane Shear Tests ...................................................................... 352
8.2.4
Best Estimate Strength Profiles ................................................. 353
Shear Wave Velocity Profile ................................................................... 354

8.3.1
Phase I Hammer Blow Tests ..................................................... 354
8.3.2
Phase II Hammer Blow Tests .................................................... 355
8.3.3
Baseline Shear Wave Velocity Profiles ...................................... 357
8.4
Model Soil Modulus Degradation and Damping Curves .......................... 360
8.5
Container Performance and Observed Free Field Response...................... 362
8.6
Pile Head Loading Tests ......................................................................... 372

8.6.1
Static Lateral Load Tests .......................................................... 372
8.6.2
Pile Head Impact Test ............................................................... 374
8.6.3
Pile Head Forced Vibration Tests .............................................. 378
8.6.4
Pile Head Static Axial Loading Test .......................................... 378
8.6.5
Pile Head Cyclic Axial Loading Test ......................................... 379
8.7
Pile Group Effects................................................................................... 382
8.8
2-D Shaking Effects................................................................................ 385
8.9
Experimental P-Y Curves........................................................................ 389

8.9.1
Static P-Y Curves ..................................................................... 394
8.9.2
Dynamic P-Y Curves................................................................. 394
8.10 System Identification............................................................................... 397

8.11 Pile Head Stiffness .................................................................................. 403
8.12 Conclusions..................................................................................... 408
CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 411
9.1
Scope of Research .................................................................................. 411
9.2
Research Findings and Recommendations ............................................... 412
9.3
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................... 416

9.3.1
Data Mining.............................................................................. 416
9.3.2
Improved Test Procedures ........................................................ 417
9.3.3
Future Shaking Table Research Topics...................................... 418
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 420
APPENDIX A
Similitude For Model Tests in a 1-g Gravitational Field.................... 458
APPENDIX B
Model Pile Design Spreadsheet ........................................................ 459
APPENDIX C
Analysis of Seismic Response of Cylindrical Tank ............................ 460
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Base Shear Coefficient......... 2
Figure 1.2 - Comparison of 1985 Mexico City Earthquake SCT Response
Spectra with 1997 NEHRP Code Recommendations........................................................ 2
Figure 1.3 - Schematic of Modes of Single Pile Seismic Response................................... 5
Figure 1.4 - Potential Failure Modes for Pile Group Foundations Subjected
To Seismic Shaking ......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.1 - Regions Most Intensively Damaged During the 1906 San
Francisco Earthquake, and the Historic Shoreline (after Seed et al., 1990) ..................... 13
Figure 2.2 - Ground Failure during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake in the
Vicinity of the U.S. Post Office at Mission and Seventh Streets (after Wood, 1908)....... 14
Figure 2.3 - Failure of Pile Supported Pier of the Salinas Bridge during the 1906
San Francisco Earthquake (after Wood, 1908) ............................................................... 15
Figure 2.4 - Collapse of Timber Pile Supported Railroad Bridge at Moss
Landing due to Lateral Spreading during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake
(after Wood, 1908) ........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.5 - Deformation of Pile Supported Inverness Piers due to Lateral
Spreading during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (after Wood, 1908) ..................... 15
Figure 2.6 - Collapse of Snow River Bridge 605 due to Liquefaction during
the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake (after Ross et al., 1969) ................................................... 17
Figure 2.7 - Liquefaction Induced 15 degree Tilt of Snow River Bridge 605A
Foundations during the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake (after Ross et al., 1969)..................... 17
Figure 2.8 - Collapsed Concrete Deck of Bridge 629 over the Placer River
Penetrated by Timber Piles during the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake
(after Ross, et al., 1969) ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.9 - Wreckage of Portage Creek Bridges, adjacent to Alaskan
Railroad Grade and Bridges, during the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake
(after Kachadoorian, 1968) ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.10 - Collapsed Bridges over the Twentyninemile River during the
Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 (after Ross et al., 1969)..................................................... 19
xii
Figure 2.11 - Collapsed Twentyninemile River Bridge with Timber Piles Punched
through Deck during the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 (after Ross et al., 1969) .............. 19
Figure 2.12 - Collapsed Kenai River Bridge with Piles Punched through
Concrete Deck during the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 (after Ross et al., 1969) ............ 20
Figure 2.13 - Sheared Rail Piles on Scott Glacier Bridge 6 during the Alaskan
Earthquake of 1964 (after Kachadoorian, 1968)............................................................. 20
Figure 2.14 - Million Dollar Bridge Collapse during the Alaskan Earthquake
of 1964 (after Kachadoorian, 1968) ............................................................................... 21
Figure 2.15 - Collapsed Deck of Flagg Point Bridge 331 due to LiquefactionInduced Settlements during the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964
(after Ross et al., 1969) ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2.16 - Damage Intensity during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake Related to
SPT Blowcount and Foundation Embedment Depth
(after Seed and Idriss, 1966) .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.17 - Liquefaction Induced Collapse of Showa Bridge during the 1964
Niigata Earthquake (after Iwasaki, 1972) ....................................................................... 27
Figure 2.18 - Permanent Deformation of Pile Extracted from Showa Bridge
Foundation during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (after Iwasaki, 1972) ........................... 27
Figure 2.19 - Cracked Precast Reinforced Concrete Piles from Yachiyo Bridge
during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (after Fukuoka, 1966) ............................................ 28
Figure 2.20 - Liquefaction Related Settlement of Pile Supported Sakae Bridge
during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (after Kawakami and Asada, 1966) ........................ 28
Figure 2.21 - Piles Supporting the NHK Building Sheared by Lateral Spreading
during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (after Hamada, 1991)............................................. 29
Figure 2.22 - Damage Pattern to Foundation Piles Supporting the Niigata Family
Courthouse during the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (after Hamada, 1991) .......................... 30
Figure 2.23 - Correlation of Pile Damage to Site Conditions at a) Niigata
Family Courthouse and b) NHK Building during the Niigata Earthquake
(after Doi and Hamada, 1992)........................................................................................ 30
Figure 2.24 - Failure at Connection Detail Between Drilled Shaft and
Bridge Column at the Golden State Freeway/ Foothill Freeway Interchange
during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (after Penzien, 1971).................................... 32
xiii
Figure 2.25 - Types of Foundations Used in the Soft Soil Deposits of Mexico
City (after Mendoza and Auvinet, 1988) ........................................................................ 34
Figure 2.26 - Ten Story Pile Supported Building founded on Soft Soils during
the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake: a) Elevation including Geotechnical Conditions;
b) Overturned Structure (after Mendoza and Auvinet, 1988).......................................... 35
Figure 2.27 - Highway 1 Crossing Struve Slough near Watsonville Collapsed
during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, with Pile Punching through Deck
(after Seed et al., 1990) ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 2.28 - Formation of Gap Adjacent to One of the Piles Supporting the
Collapsed Struve Slough Crossing during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
(after Seed et al., 1990) ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 2.29 - Flexural Shear Failure of Pile to Bent Connection of the Struve
Slough Crossing during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (after Seed et al., 1990)........ 37
Figure 2.30 - Damaged Batter Piles at Port of Oakland 7th Street Terminal
during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (after SEAOC, 1991) ..................................... 39
Figure 2.31 - Damaged Batter Piles at Port of San Francisco Piers 27 & 29
during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (after SEAOC, 1991) ..................................... 39
Figure 2.32 - Liquefaction Induced Rotation of Rio Banano Bridge Pile Cap
during the 1991 Costa Rican Earthquake (after Priestly et al., 1991) .............................. 41
Figure 2.33 - Preferential Damage to Front Batter Piles of Rio Banano Bridge
Figure 2.34 - a) Failure of Rio Viscaya Bridge Piles during the Costa Rican
Earthquake; b) Liquefaction Failure of Rio Viscaya Bridge
(after Priestly et al., 1991).............................................................................................. 42
Figure 2.35 - Rio Bananito Bridge Liquefaction Failure during the 1991 Costa
Rican Earthquake (after Priestly et al., 1991) ................................................................. 42
Figure 2.36 - Rotation of Caissons Supporting Rio Bananito Rail Bridge during
the 1991 Costa Rican Earthquake (after Priestly et al., 1991) ......................................... 43
Figure 2.37 - Tilting of Rio Bananito Rail Bridge due to Foundation Failure
Figure 2.38 - Sheared Concrete Piles Supporting a Railroad Trestle at the
Almirante Port during the 1991 Costa Rican Earthquake (after Priestly et al., 1991)....... 43
xiv
Figure 2.39 - Collapsed Section of Hanshin Expressway ............................................... 44

Figure 2.40 - Response Spectra Recorded in Vicinity of Collapsed Hanshin
Expressway Illustrating Effects of Period Lengthening due to Foundation
Flexibility on Increased Structural Forces (after Gazetas and Mylonakis, 1998).............. 45
Figure 2.41 - Collapsed Pile Supported Ramp Structure at the Higashi-Kobe
Ferry Pier during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995) ...................... 45
Figure 2.42 - Nonexistent Connection Details Between Failed Piles and Pile
Cap Supporting the Higashi-Kobe Ferry Pier (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995) ...................... 46
Figure 2.43 - Inadequate Connection Details Between Failed Piles and Pile
Cap Supporting the Higashi-Kobe Ferry Pier (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995) ...................... 46
Figure 2.44 - Differential Settlement Between Pile Supported Roadway on
Port Island and Surrounding Ground during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake
(after U.C. Berkeley, 1995)............................................................................................ 46
Figure 2.45 - Concrete Pile Sheared at Head on Port Island during the 1995
Kobe Earthquake (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995)................................................................ 48
Figure 2.46 - Relative Soil-Pile Movement Leaving Gap Around Pile on
Rokko Island during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995) ................. 48
Figure 2.47 - Collapsed Span of Nishinomiya Bridge during the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake (after U.C. Berkeley, 1995) ......................................................................... 48
Figure 2.48 - Lateral Spreading Damage to Pile during the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake (after Tokimatsu et al., 1996) ...................................................................... 51
Figure 2.49 - Pile Damaged by Superstructure Inertial Forces during the
1995 Kobe Earthquake (after Tokimatsu et al., 1996) .................................................... 51
Figure 2.50 - Progression of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction and Pile Bending
Moments During Liquefaction (after Tokimatsu et al., 1998) ......................................... 51
Figure 2.51 - a) Apartment House Instrumentation Plan and Site Conditions;
b) Pile Cap to Free Field Transfer Function (after Kawamura and Ikeda, 1981) .............. 54
Figure 2.52 - a) Petrochemical Plant Towers Instrumentation Plan and Site
Conditions; b) Pile Cap to Free Field Transfer Function (after Hagio et al., 1980) .......... 55
Figure 2.53 - a) Spherical Tank Structure Instrumentation Plan; b) Pile Cap to
Free Field Transfer Function (after Hamada and Ishida, 1980)........................................ 56
xv
Figure 2.54 - a) Eleven Story Apartment House Instrumentation Plan and Site
Conditions; b) Pile Cap to Free Field Transfer Function (after Ohta et al., 1980) ............ 57
Figure 2.55 - a) Two Story Reinforced Concrete Building Instrumentation Plan and
Site Conditions; b) Pile Cap to Free Field Transfer Function (after Abe et al., 1984) ...... 58
Figure 2.56 - LNG Storage Tank Pile Bending Stain and Ground Surface Velocity
Spectra at Two Tank Liquid Heights (after Tsujino et al., 1987) .................................... 59
Figure 2.57 - LNG Storage Tank Pile Bending and Axial Stain Spectra at Two
Tank Liquid Heights (after Tsujino et al., 1987)............................................................. 59
Figure 2.58 - Hollywood Storage Building Parking Lot/Basement Transfer Function
during the 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (after Fenves and Serino, 1992).............. 61
Figure 2.59 - Imperial County Services Building Ground Level to Free Field Transfer
Function during the 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake (after Hadjian et al., 1990)........... 62
Figure 2.60 - Meloland Road Overpass Free Field and Base of Pier Fourier Amplitude
Spectra during the 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake (after Werner et al., 1987)............. 65
Figure 2.61 - Ohba Ohashi Bridge: a) Bridge Elevation and Soil Conditions; b)
Instrumentation Plan (after Ohira et al., 1984); c) Pile Cap to Free Field Transfer
Function (after Gazetas et al., 1993) .............................................................................. 67
Figure 2.62 - a) Hayward BART Section Pier Base to Free Field Longitudinal
Transfer Function; b) Transverse Transfer Function (after Tseng et al., 1992) ................ 70
Figure 3.1 - Pile Curvature Profile Derived from Site Response Analysis
(after Margasson and Holloway, 1977) .......................................................................... 76
Figure 3.2 - Flexible Pile Stiffness Matrix (after Kriger and Wright, 1980) .................... 77
Figure 3.3 - Selection of Secant Stiffness Value at Design Level Displacement
from Nonlinear Soil-Pile Force-Displacement Curve (after Kriger and Wright, 1980) ..... 77
Figure 3.4 - Substructuring Concept: a) Definition of Problem; b) Decomposition
into Inertial and Kinematic Interaction Problems; c) Two-step Analysis of Inertial
Interaction (after Gazetas, 1984).................................................................................... 78
Figure 3.5 - Soil-Pile Load Displacement Diagrams for Various Modes of
Loading (after Mosikeeran, 1990).................................................................................. 80
Figure 3.6 - Rigid Versus Flexible Pile Behavior (after Kulhawy and Chen, 1995) ......... 81
xvi
Figure 3.7 - Rigid Pile Lateral Loading Resistance Components (after Kulhawy
and Chen, 1995) ............................................................................................................ 81
Figure 3.8 - Lateral Loading Near Surface Passive Wedge Geometry and
Soil-Pile Forces (after Reese, 1958) ............................................................................... 86
Figure 3.9 - Definition of P-Y Concept with a) Pile at Rest; b) Laterally
Loaded Pile Mobilizing Soil Resistance (after Thompson, 1977) .................................... 86
Figure 3.10 - Typical Family of P-Y Curves, Progressively Stiffer with
Depth (after Meyer and Reese, 1979)............................................................................. 86
Figure 3.11 - Characteristic Shape of P-Y Curve in Soft Clay for a) Static
Loading; b) Cyclic Loading (after Matlock, 1970).......................................................... 87
Figure 3.12 - SPASM 8 a) Soil-Pile-Superstructure Model; b) Variation
in Load-Deflection Behavior versus Depth (after Matlock and Foo, 1978) ..................... 89
Figure 3.13 - SPASM 8 Sub-element Nonlinear Spring Model (after
Matlock and Foo, 1978) ................................................................................................ 89
Figure 3.14 - SPASM 8 a) Soil-Pile Gapping Model; b) Force-Displacement
Behavior (after Matlock and Foo, 1978) ........................................................................ 89
Figure 3.15 - Characteristic Shape of P-Y Curve in Sand (after Reese et al., 1974) ....... 90
Figure 3.16 - Characteristic Shape of P-Y Curve in Stiff Clay for a) Static
Loading; b) Cyclic Loading (after Reese et al., 1975)..................................................... 90
Figure 3.17 - Lateral Bearing Capacity Factor Np with Respect to Normalized
Depth (after Stevens and Audibert, 1979) ...................................................................... 93
Figure 3.18 - Hysteretic Backbone Curve (after Kagawa and Kraft, 1981) .................... 93
Figure 3.19 - PAR Analytical Model (after Bea et al., 1984) ......................................... 94
Figure 3.20 - Nogamis Beam-on-Winkler Foundation Soil-Pile Interaction
Model (after Nogami et al., 1988).................................................................................. 95
Figure 3.21 - Nogamis Inner Field and Near Field Soil-Pile Models for:
a) Vertical Excitation; b) Horizontal Excitation (after Otani et al., 1991)........................ 95
Figure 3.22 - Nogamis Far Field Soil-Pile Models for: a) Vertical Excitation;
b) Horizontal Excitation (after Nogami et al., 1988)....................................................... 95
xvii
Figure 3.23 - One- and Two-Dimensional Radiation Damping Models

(after Gazetas and Dobry, 1984) .................................................................................. 100
Figure 3.24 - Pile Group Interaction as Function of Pile Spacing
(after Bogard and Matlock, 1983)................................................................................ 104
Figure 3.25 - Components of Pile Group Response Under Lateral Loading
(after ONeill and Dunnavant, 1985) ............................................................................ 106
Figure 3.26 - Pile Group Unit Load Transfer Method
(after Bogard and Matlock, 1983)................................................................................ 109
Figure 3.27 - Vertical and Horizontal Dynamic Pile Interaction Factors
(after Kaynia and Kausel, 1982).................................................................................. 111
Figure 3.28 - Normalized Horizontal and Vertical Dynamic Stiffness and
Damping of 4x4 Pile Group in Soft Soil (after Kaynia and Kausel, 1982) ..................... 112
Figure 3.29 - Distribution of Horizontal and Vertical Forces in 4x4 Pile
Group in Soft Soil Medium (after Kaynia and Kausel, 1982) ........................................ 112
Figure 3.30 - Generalized Pile Head/Free Field Transfer Function for
Kinematic Interaction (after Fan and Gazetas, 1991) .................................................... 114
Figure 3.31 - Schematic of Three-Step Procedure for Computing Pile-Soil-Pile
Interaction (after Makris and Gazetas, 1992) ............................................................... 114
Figure 3.32 - Substructuring Method for Seismic Soil Pile Superstructure
Interaction Analysis (after Gazetas et al., 1993) ........................................................... 115
Figure 3.33 - Separation of SSPSI Analysis into Kinematic and Inertial
Interaction Components (after Waas and Hartmann, 1981) .......................................... 117
Figure 3.34 - a) Definition of Transfer Function; b) Transfer Function without
Building Mass for Soft Soil; c) Transfer Function without Building Mass for
Stiff Soil; d) Transfer Function for Different Building Masses in Stiff Soil
(after Waas and Hartmann, 1981) ................................................................................ 117
Figure 3.35 - Example of Substructuring Approach (after Kagawa, 1991)................... 119
Figure 3.36 - Soil Displacements due to Ring Loading (after Kagawa, 1991) .............. 119
Figure 3.37 - Dynamic Response of Pile Supported Foundation Indicating
Influence of Group Effects and Weak Zone (after Sheta and Novak, 1982) .................. 120
xviii
Figure 3.38 - Platform Response to Wave Loading with Pile Group Interaction
both Considered and Neglected (after Mitwally and Novak, 1987) ............................... 121
Figure 3.39 - Nonlinear Model for Dynamic Axial Response of Single Pile
(after El Naggar and Novak, 1994b) ............................................................................ 122
Figure 3.40 - Nonlinear Model For Dynamic Lateral Response of Pile Groups
(after El Naggar and Novak, 1995) .............................................................................. 122
Figure 4.1 - Example of Pile Load Test Set Up for Combined Lateral and
Axial Load (after ASTM, 1996)................................................................................... 152
Figure 4.2 - Characteristic Fixed Head Laterally Loaded Pile Bending Moment
Pattern (after Matlock, 1962)....................................................................................... 154
Figure 4.3 - P-Y Curves Developed from Static and Cyclic Lateral Load
Tests on 24-in Diameter Pile in Stiff Clay (after Reese et al., 1975).............................. 155
Figure 4.4 - Static Lateral Load Test Results for Piles at Dry and Flooded
Bay Mud Sites, Superimposed with COM624P Predicted Response
(after Gill, 1968).......................................................................................................... 156
Figure 4.5 - Field Pile Group Load Test Results Indicating Preferential Load
Distribution to Leading Piles (after Holloway et al., 1982) ........................................... 160
Figure 4.6 - Field Pile Group Load Test Results Depicting; a) Cyclic
Degradation of Resistance; b) Distribution of Load by Row
(after Brown et al., 1987) ............................................................................................ 161
Figure 4.7 - Dynamic Pile Response from Forced Vibration Tests: a) Linear
Response; b) Nonlinear Response due to Removal of Supporting Soil Near
Pile Head (after Petrovski and Jurokovski, 1973)......................................................... 165
Figure 4.8 - Field Pile Forced Vibration Test Set Up (after Scott et al., 1982) ............. 168
Figure 4.9 - Field Pile Forced Vibration Test and Earthquake Observation:
a) Test Set Up and Seismometer Arrangement; b) Forced Vibration Test
Results Illustrating Influence of Lateral Support Condition; c) Structure
to Free Field Transfer Function for Three Backfill Cases; d) Observed
and Computed Response Spectra for Seismic Event (after Kobori et al., 1991) ............ 170
Figure 4.10 - Stress Fringe Patterns of Rigid Cylinder Laterally Translating
in Elastic Medium (after Matlock and Ripperger, 1957) ............................................... 174
xix
Figure 4.11 - a) Schematic of Pot Test; b) Typical Loading Cycle with Slack
Zone while Traversing Gap (after Matlock, 1962)........................................................ 175
Figure 4.12 - Model Pile Head Loading Test Bending Moment Diagram:
a) Variation with Overburden Pressure; b) Dynamic and Static Loading
(after Gaul, 1958) ........................................................................................................ 176
Figure 4.13 - Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Model Pile p-y
Curves (after Allen and Reese, 1980) ........................................................................... 177
Figure 4.14 - Shear Zone Behavior in Axially Loaded Model Pile in Remolded
Clay (after Matlock et al., 1982) .................................................................................. 178
Figure 4.15 - Shear Transfer Behavior During Cyclic Axial Loading of Model
Pile in Remolded Clay (after Matlock et al., 1982) ....................................................... 179
Figure 4.16 - Shear Transfer Under Progressively Increasing Displacements
During Cyclic Axial Loading of Model Pile in Remolded Clay
(after Matlock et al., 1982) .......................................................................................... 179
Figure 4.17 - Group Efficiency As a Function of Pile Spacing As Determined
by Model Pile Tests (after Cox et al., 1983) ................................................................. 179
Figure 4.18 - Diagram of Laterally Loaded Model Soil-Pile Displacement
Vectors Obtained by X-Ray Technique Illustrating Gap Infill in Sand and Open
Gap in Clay (after Kishida et al., 1985) ........................................................................ 180
Figure 4.19 - Layout of 102 Model Pile Group Subjected To Dynamic Testing
(after Novak and El Sharnouby, 1992) ......................................................................... 184
Figure 4.20 - Experimental Model Pile Group Horizontal Response Curve
Compared With Theoretical Models: P, Equivalent Pier; K, Kaynia and Kausel
Interaction Factors; and W, Waas and Hartmann Direct Analysis (after Novak
and El Sharnouby, 1992).............................................................................................. 185
Figure 4.21 - Representation of Centrifuge Testing Scheme (after Scott, 1994)........... 187
Figure 4.22 - Laterally Loaded Model Pile Centrifuge Test Data Compared with
Prototype Results of Mustang Island (MI) Test (after Scott, 1981) .............................. 191
Figure 4.23 - Centrifuge Test Model Pile Forced Vibration Displacement
and Bending Moment Response Compared with Prototype (P9) Test Results
(after Scott et al., 1982)............................................................................................... 191
xx
Figure 4.24 - Influence of In-Flight Pile Installation on Subsequent Load

Deformation Response of Model Pile in Centrifuge Test (after Craig, 1985)................. 193
Figure 4.25 - Laminar Box for Centrifuge Testing (after Hushamand et al., 1988) ....... 195
Figure 4.26 - Centrifuge Modeling of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Sand:
a) Effect of Relative Density on Group Capacity; b) Load Distribution By Rows;
b) Effect of Pile Spacing on Total Lateral Resistance; d) Influence of Acceleration
Level During Driving on Total Lateral Resistance (after McVay et al., 1994) ............... 197
Figure 4.27 - Comparison of Centrifuge Test Experimental and DRAIN-2D
Computed Acceleration Response Spectra at Pile Head and Superstructure
(after Wang et al., 1998).............................................................................................. 199
Figure 4.28 - SSPSI Shaking Table Model: a) Influence of Three Foundation
Conditions on Superstructure Response; b) Comparison of Experimental and
Recorded Seismic Response (after Mizuno and Iiba, 1982) .......................................... 204
Figure 4.29 - Comparison of Shaking Table Model Pile Liquefaction Response
to Analytically Computed Fourier Amplitude Spectra (after Nomura et al., 1991) ........ 206
Figure 4.30 - Fourier Spectra Illustrating Effect of Viscous Damping Device in
Shaking Table Model Test of Pile Foundation (after Yamamoto et al., 1992) ............... 207
Figure 4.31 - Shaking Table Model Pile Group Interaction Factor Versus Pile
Spacing, Experimental Data, and as Computed by a Variety of Methods
(after Sreerama, 1993) ................................................................................................. 209
Figure 5.1 - Scale Model Constitutive Behavior Described by Stress and Strain
Scaling Factors (after Rocha, 1957) ............................................................................. 218
Figure 5.2 - Critical State Soil Mechanics Concept of Geometrically Similar
Stress Paths for Prototype A1Z1 and Model A2Z2 (after Roscoe, 1968)......................... 218
Figure 5.3 - Tangent Modulus Formulation for Scale Modeling of Soil
Constitutive Behavior (after Iai, 1989) ......................................................................... 219
Figure 5.4 - Definition of Model Soil Properties Based on Steady-State Line
(after Gibson, 1996)..................................................................................................... 222
Figure 5.5 - Scale Modeling Methodology of Implied Prototypes ................................ 224
Figure 5.6 - Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with the Undrained Shear
Strength (Static) of Shallower Cohesive Soils (after Dickenson, 1994)......................... 230
xxi
Figure 5.7 - Model Soil Undrained Shear Strength Versus Water Content
As Determined by Various Researchers (after Lazarte, 1996)....................................... 233
Figure 5.8 - Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test Results
For Model Soil Mixture with 20% Fly Ash at Four Water Contents ............................. 235
Figure 5.9 - Model Soil Undrained Shear Strength Versus Water Content
of Clay Fraction........................................................................................................... 235
Figure 5.10 - Model Soil Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
Results Showing Effects of Strain Rate and Confining Pressure (after Gruber, 1996) ... 237
Figure 5.11 - Bay Mud Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
Results Showing Effects of Strain Rate and Confining Pressure (after Gruber, 1996) ... 237
Figure 5.12 - Ratio of Undrained Shear Strength at Dynamic (4.5 in./min.) and
Static (0.045 in./min.) Strain Rates for Model Soil in Unconsolidated-Undrained
Triaxial Compression Tests (after Gruber, 1996).......................................................... 237
Figure 5.13 - Shear Wave Velocity Versus Cure Age for Model Soil Specimens
with Varying Fly Ash Contents (after Wartman, 1996)................................................. 240
Figure 5.14 - Void Ratio Versus log Pressure for Constant Rate of Strain
Consolidation Test of Model Soil Specimen................................................................. 240
Figure 5.15 - Theoretical Lower and Upper Bound Moment-Curvature Relations
for Prototype Pile as Determined by COM624P ........................................................... 248
Figure 5.16 - Diagram of Four-Point Loading Test of Model Pile................................ 248
Figure 5.17 - Theoretical and Experimental Moment-Curvature Relations for
2 Diameter x 0.028 Wall Aluminum Tube Model Pile ............................................... 248
Figure 6.1 - Shaking Table Layout .............................................................................. 252
Figure 6.2 - Comparison of Free-Field Soil Response in Four Model Containers
(after Fiegel, 1995) ...................................................................................................... 255
Figure 6.3 - Evolution of Model Container Design for this Research Project ............... 256
Figure 6.4 - Comparison of Free-Field Soil Response of Rigid and Flexible
Wall Model Containers with Prototype Condition ........................................................ 256
Figure 6.5 - Small Scale Model Container Testing on Davis Hall Shaking Table .......... 257
xxii
Figure 6.6 - Site Response in Small Scale Model Container Illustrating

Correlation Between Observed and Computed Response ............................................. 258
Figure 6.7 - Pressure Test of Rubber Cylinder for Design of Band Spacing ................. 260
Figure 6.8 - Full Scale Container Mounted on Shaking Table, with Support
Struts, and Soil Mixer/Pump in Background ................................................................ 261
Figure 6.9 - Calibration Record of Typical IC Sensors 3022-005g Accelerometer ....... 263
Figure 6.10 - IC Sensors Accelerometer Mounted in Protective Case and 3-D Array... 264
Figure 6.11 - Section Showing Model Pile Strain Gage Locations Relative to
Ground Surface and Position of Supestructure Accelerometers .................................... 265
Figure 6.12 - Diagram of Wheatstone Bridge for Detecting: a) Pile Bending
Strains; b) Pile Axial Strains (after Gohl, 1991)............................................................ 266
Figure 6.13 - Shaking Table Control Console.............................................................. 268
Figure 6.14 - As-Placed Model Soil Water Content During a) Phase I; b) Phase II ..... 271
Figure 6.15 - Sand Gradation Curve for Bearing Stratum in Phase II........................... 272
Figure 6.16 - Schematic of Chemgrout Mixer/Pump.................................................... 273
Figure 6.17 - Model Pile Installation Through Template.............................................. 274
Figure 6.18 - Design Detail of 3x3 Pile Group............................................................. 275
Figure 6.19 - Installation of 3x3 Pile Group ................................................................ 276
Figure 6.20 - Phase I Accelerometer Array ................................................................. 278
Figure 6.21 - Phase II Accelerometer Array ................................................................ 278
Figure 6.22 - Acceleration, Velocity, and Displacement Time Histories, and
Acceleration Response Spectra for the Yerba Buena Island Record 90 Degree
Component from the Loma Prieta Earthquake (YBI90) ............................................... 284
Figure 6.23 - Acceleration, Velocity, and Displacement Time Histories,and
Acceleration Response Spectra for the Port Island Downhole Array -79 meter
Record North 00 East Component from the Kobe Earthquake (KPI79N00). ................ 285
xxiii
Figure 6.24 - Sinsweep Consisting of 65 Second Duration Record Sweeping at

4 Octaves Per Minute from 0 to 20 Hz with Ramped Transitions at the Beginning
and End of Signal ........................................................................................................ 285
Figure 6.25 - Single Pile Lateral Load Test 2.20g at Maximum Deflection .................. 286
Figure 6.26 - Pile Group Lateral Load Test 2.31 at Maximum Deflection.................... 287
Figure 6.27 - Cyclic Axial Load Test 2.20b Setup ....................................................... 287
Figure 6.28 - Surface Hammer Test to Determine Shear Wave Velocity Profile........... 290
Figure 6.29 - Model 1.1 Layout with Four Single Piles................................................ 293
Figure 6.30 - Model 1.2 Layout with Two 3x3 Pile Groups......................................... 293
Figure 6.31 - Model 1.3 Layout with Two 3x3 Pile Groups and One Pile
Raft Foundation........................................................................................................... 294
Figure 6.33 - Model 1.5 Layout with No Piles............................................................. 295
Figure 6.34 - Model 2.1 Layout with No Piles............................................................. 297
Figure 6.35 - Model 2.2 Layout with Nine Single Piles................................................ 298
Figure 6.37 - Model 2.4 Layout with One 5x3 Pile Group and Single Pile ................... 299
Figure 7.1 - Shaking Table Response Spectra for YBI90 Input Motions...................... 302
Figure 7.2 - Shaking Table Accelerometer Layout....................................................... 302
Figure 7.3 - Shaking Table Response Spectra for KPI79N00 Motions......................... 303
Figure 7.4 - Test 2.37 Shaking Table Accelerometer Time Histories ........................... 305
Figure 7.5 - Test 2.37 Shaking Table Accelerometer FFTs .......................................... 306
Figure 7.6 - Test 2.24 Soil Accelerometer Array #1 Time Histories and FFTs ............. 309
xxiv
Figure 7.7 - Test 1.18 Soil Accelerometer 5%Damped Response Spectra.................... 310
Figure 7.8 - Comparison of Vertical Accelerations for Soil Deformation Modes.......... 312
Figure 7.9 - Test 2.46 Accelerometer 5% Damped Response Spectra and Transfer
Function ...................................................................................................................... 313
Figure 7.10 - Test Series 2.2 Sine Sweeps, Pile Resonant Frequency Response ........... 315
Figure 7.11 - Test 2.26 Gap Formed Around Pile S2................................................... 315
Figure 7.12 - Test Series 1.1 Setup ............................................................................. 316
Figure 7.13 - Test 1.15 Pile Head Accelerometer Time Histories and FFTs ................. 318
Figure 7.14 - Test 1.15 Pile Bending Moment Envelopes ............................................ 319
Figure 7.15 - Test 1.15 Pile Head:Free-field Transfer Functions .................................. 319
Figure 7.17 - Test 2.24 Pile Head Accelerometer Time Histories and FFTs ................. 321
Figure 7.19 - Test 2.24 Pile Head:Free-field Transfer Functions .................................. 323
Figure 7.21 - Test 1.26 Accelerometer/Strain Gage 5% Damped Response Spectra .... 325
xxv

Figure 7.34 - Test 2.46 a) Longitudinal, b) Lateral Pile Bending Moment Envelopes... 339
Figure 7.35 - Test Series 1.3 Pile Raft Foundation ...................................................... 341
Figure 7.38 - Test 1.46 Accelerometer Time Histories ................................................ 345
Figure 8.1 - T-Bar Device Being Pulled Out of Soil at Conclusion of Test................... 349
Figure 8.2 - Phase I T-Bar and Vane Shear Test Results and Undrained Shear
Strength Profile ........................................................................................................... 350
Figure 8.3 - Phase II T-Bar and Vane Shear Test Results and Undrained Shear
Strength Profile ........................................................................................................... 351
Figure 8.4 - Model Soil UUTX Laboratory Test Results ............................................. 352
Figure 8.5 - Effect of Strain Rate on Laboratory Vane Shear Testing of Model Soil .... 353
Figure 8.6 - Test 1.13 Base Impact Shear Wave Velocity............................................ 355
Figure 8.7 - Test 2.10 Surface Impact Shear Wave Velocity Test; Stack 1
Blow 1 Unfiltered and Filtered Time Histories with Shear Wave Arrivals Identified...... 356
Figure 8.8 - Phase I Shear Wave Velocity Inferred Profile.......................................... 358
Figure 8.9 - Phase II Hammer Blow Test and Inferred Shear Wave Velocity Profiles .. 358
Figure 8.10 - a) Phase I ; b) Phase II Soil Peak Acceleration vs. Site Resonant
Frequency Illustrating Trends of Soil Degradation and Recovery.................................. 359
xxvi
Figure 8.11 - Model Soil Modulus Degradation and Damping Curves ......................... 361
Figure 8.12 - Model Soil Container in Motion During Strong Shaking ........................ 363
Figure 8.13 - a) Test 2.13 and b) 2.14 Stack 1 Site Response vs. SHAKE91
Predicted Spectra......................................................................................................... 366
Figure 8.19 - Static Lateral Load Tests 1.1 and 2.2 vs. COM624 Predicted
Deflection and Bending Moments, with Secant Pile Head Stiffnesses ........................... 373
Figure 8.20 - Test 2.20e Pile S6 Head Impact Frequency Response............................. 376
Figure 8.21 - Test 2.20e Pile S6 Head Impact Test Free Vibration Response............... 376
Figure 8.22 - Test 2.20d Pile S5 Forced Vibration Spectral Analysis ........................... 377
Figure 8.23 - Test 2.20a Pile S1 Static Axial Load-Deflection and Failure Criterion .... 379
Figure 8.24 - Test 2.20a Pile S1 Static Axial Tip Pressure-Deflection (Q-z) Curve...... 379
Figure 8.25 - Test 2.20b Pile S3 Cyclic Axial Load-Deflection Response .................... 380
Figure 8.26 - Axial Load Cycling Effects for Test 2.20b Pile S3................................... 380
Figure 8.27 - Derivation of Pile S3 T-z Curves from Cyclic Axial Test Tensile
Loading Segment......................................................................................................... 381
Figure 8.28 - Test 2.31 Pile Group Static Lateral Load Test Load vs. Strain
Gage Response ............................................................................................................ 384
xxvii
Figure 8.29 - Test 2.31 Pile Group Average Head Load vs. Test 2.20g Single
Pile Load-Deflection Curves and Secant Stiffnesses ..................................................... 384
Figure 8.30 - Longitudinal and Lateral Components of Free-Field Surface
Ground Motion During 2-D Shaking Test 2.46 ............................................................ 387
Figure 8.31 - Gap Developed Around Single Pile S2 During 2-D Shaking Test 2.46.... 387
Figure 8.32 - Test 2.46 S2 Two Dimensional Shaking Response ................................. 388
Figure 8.33 - Test 2.46 S1Two Dimensional Shaking Response .................................. 388
Figure 8.34 - Test 1.11 Pile 6 Experimental vs. API Static P-Y Curves ....................... 392
Figure 8.35 - Test 2.20g Pile 6 Experimental vs. API Static P-Y Curves ..................... 393
Figure 8.36 - Test 1.15 Pile 1 P-Y Analysis Window................................................... 395
Figure 8.37 - Test 1.15 Pile 1 Experimental vs. API Cyclic P-Y Curves ...................... 395
Figure 8.38 - Test 1.18 Pile 1 P-Y Analysis Window................................................... 396
Figure 8.39 - Test 1.18 Pile 1 Experimental vs. API Cyclic P-Y Curves ...................... 396
Figure 8.40 - Test 1.15 Pile 1 System Identification .................................................... 401
xxviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Criteria for Pile Rigidity (after Kulhawy and Chen, 1995).............................. 81
Table 4-1 Field Pile Group Lateral Loading Tests ....................................................... 158
Table 4-2 Field Pile Dynamic Loading Tests ............................................................... 166
Table 4-3 Model Pile Loading Tests............................................................................ 173
Table 4-4 Model Pile Dynamic Loading Tests ............................................................. 183
Table 4-5 Model Pile Centrifuge Tests ........................................................................ 189
Table 4-6 Model Pile Shaking Table Tests .................................................................. 201
Table 5-1 Identification of SSPSI Primary System Modes and Associated Variables.... 225
Table 5-2 Scaling Relations for Primary System Variables Expressed in Terms of the
Geometric Scaling Factor ..................................................................................... 226
Table 5-3 Selected Properties of San Francisco Bay Mud............................................. 229
Table 5-4 Chemical Composition of Class F and Class C Fly Ashes.............................. 239
Table 5-5 Mechanical Properties of Candidate Model Pile Materials............................ 246
Table 6-1 Model Series 1.1 Instrumentation................................................................ 279
Table 6-9 Model Test Series 1.1 ................................................................................. 291
xxix
Table 6-10 Model Test Series 1.2 ............................................................................... 291

Table 8-1 System Identification Single Pile Flexible Base Frequency and Damping....... 402
Table 8-2 System Identification Pile Group Frequency and Damping............................ 403
Table 8-3 Estimates of Pile Lateral Dynamic Stiffness .................................................. 404
Table 8-4 Test Series 1.1 Single Pile Head Stiffness Estimates ..................................... 406
xxx
Acknowledgments
This research could not have been possible without the collaboration and support of a
number of individuals, and I would like to extend my sincere thanks to them. My two coadvisers Dr. Michael Riemer and Dr. Raymond Seed provided a wealth of ideas and
encouragement, and were always available to discuss this work. I would particularly like
to thank Dr. Riemer for his hands on assistance with all aspects of the testing program.
Dr. Seeds mentorship and inquisitiveness will always be valued, and I greatly appreciate
the opportunities he has given me to become involved with other aspects of his work. I
have also enjoyed the insightful contributions of Dr. Lane Johnson to this research and
greatly appreciate his efforts in reviewing this manuscript.
Other members of the U. C. Berkeley Civil Engineering faculty were particularly
helpful with specific areas of this work. Dr. Juan Pestana provided valuable input to both
the analytical and experimental components of this project. Dr. Bob Bea granted early
support, lent his pile expertise, and generously allowed the use of his private library. Dr.
Greg Fenves assisted with a variety of problems relating to earthquake structural
engineering. Dr. Steven Glaser reviewed and made positive suggestions to the signal
processing and system identification portions of this research. Dr. Nicholas Sitar provided
the inspiration to use Kevlar bands for the test container. In addition to the above
mentioned individuals, I would also like to recognize Dr. Jon Bray, Dr. Richard Goodman,
Dr. James Mitchell, Dr. Steve Mahin, Dr. Fahrang Ostadan, Dr. Norm Abrahamson, and
Dr. John Lysmer for their contributions to my outstanding education and experience as a
graduate student at U.C. Berkeley.
xxxi
I am grateful to the staff of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

Center for helping to bring this project to realization. Dr. Andrew Whittaker, Mr. Don
Clyde, Dr. Amir Gilani, Mr. Wes Neighbor, Mr. Changri Yin, and Mr. Kevin Mercer were
an exceptionally professional and cooperative team to work with, and all made valuable
contributions to the success of the experimental program. I particularly want to thank Mr.
Don Clyde for his tireless efforts in operating the shaking table, and also allowing me to
share his office. Dr. Gilani was of great assistance in the design and construction of the
flexible wall test container. I am very grateful to Mr. Kevin Mercer for his hard work and
dedication to the project, and without whom the testing would not have proceeded as
smoothly as it did. Mr. Todd Merport and Mr. Bill McCracken in the Department of Civil
Engineering also provided valuable assistance with early stages of the experimental work.
Dr. Jon Stewart of the University of California Los Angeles was an initial collaborator
on this project, and has been a source of continued advice and friendship, and a prime
contributor to the system identification analyses made in this research. At the University
of California Davis, Dr. Dan Wilson, Dr. Bruce Kutter, Dr. Ross Boulanger, and Dr.
Doug Stewart provided input on various aspects of the experimental program.
Dr.
Stewarts T-bar method proved very useful for model site characterization, and Dr.
Wilson was especially helpful in sharing his work regarding the calculation of p-y curves
from experimental data.
The friendship and collaboration with a number of my fellow students has been
invaluable. Mr. Thomas Lok has been a tremendous partner in this work, from mixing
clay to deriving analytical expressions, and contributing his energy and good nature to
every aspect of this research project. Dr. William Gookin provided critical input data for
xxxii
the site response analyses by testing model clay samples with his cyclic triaxial device.
Mr. Joseph Wartman performed a valuable study on the effects of fly ash on the model
soil, and assisted with mixing clay for the experiments. Mr. Christopher Hunt and Mr.
Carlton Grizzle also lent their efforts to the task of mixing clay soil for the tests. Ms.
April Gruber conducted a series of laboratory tests that was instrumental in the
development of the model soil. Ms. Giovanna Biscontin unraveled the mystery of shearing
velocity with her vane shear testing work. Ms. Laurie Gaskins has been a helpful source
of information regarding system identification and signal processing.
The PEER Center library was an excellent resource for the prodigious literature
review conducted as part of this dissertation, and Mr. Chuck James and Ms. Cecily Sobey
were of great assistance in that regrard. I would also like to thank Dr. Eduardo Kausel of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Mark Lauby of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Ms. Frances Brown of Shell Development Corp, Dr. Jose Roesset of
the University of Texas at Austin, and the staff of the Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute for their kind assistance in obtaining research materials.
I would also like to thank Mr. Paul Scheller, Mr. Alfred Weinmann, and Mr. Detlef
Menke of Bauer Spezialtiefbau for introducing me to the world of foundation engineering,
and Dr. John Ting of the University of Massachusetts Lowell for his excellent coursework
in soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. I am also grateful to Mr. Noel Wong, Dr.
Lelio Meija, and Dr. Bob Green of Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, for the
opportunity to work as a geotechnical earthquake engineer.
Support for this research was provided by the California Department of
Transportation under contract number DOT-RTA59A130, which is gratefully
xxxiii
acknowledged. In addition, a number of individuals provided valuable suggestions for this

research, including Dr. Abbas Aghari, Dr. Cliff Roblee, Mr. Tom Shantz, Mr. Ken
Jackura, and Mr. Dan Speer.
Words are not enough to thank my family for the support they have given me during
this long and sometimes difficult journey. My wife Alice has kept me going through it all,
with her patience, encouragement, and love, and helping me to keep life in balance.
Without her, I would not be able to achieve or enjoy these successes. Though they may
not quite realize it yet, Emily and Leila are sources of great joy that sustain me and help
keep life in perspective. Finally, I want to thank my mother for her love and support, and
for instilling in me the value of learning and providing me outstanding opportunities to do
so throughout my life.
xxxiv

Intro

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Intro

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Shaking Table Scale Model Tests of Nonlinear

Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction In Soft Clay

B.A. (Georgetown University) 1984

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

The dissertation of Philip James Meymand is approved:

University of California, Berkeley

A significant number of cases of damage to piles and pile-supported structures

The shaking table reasonably

Overview of Observed Pile Response During Earthquakes .......................... 6

Research Needs and Research Objectives .................................................... 8

Organization of the Thesis........................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2 OBSERVED PILE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE.................................... 12

Observed Pile Damage in Earthquakes ...................................................... 12

San Francisco 1906 ..................................................................... 12

Alaska 1964 ................................................................................ 16

Niigata 1964 ............................................................................... 25

San Fernando 1971 ..................................................................... 31

Off-Miyagi Prefecture 1978......................................................... 32

Mexico City 1985 ....................................................................... 33

Loma Prieta 1989........................................................................ 36

Costa Rica 1991.......................................................................... 40

Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) 1995 ................................................... 44

Measured Pile Response In Earthquakes ................................................... 52

Building and Industrial Structures in Japan .................................. 53

Building Structures in California.................................................. 60

Bridge Structures ........................................................................ 64

Summary of Observed Pile Performance and Potential Failure Modes........ 72

CHAPTER 3 SSPSI ANALYTICAL METHODS........................................................ 75

Analytical Methods ................................................................................... 75

Beam-on-Elastic Foundation ....................................................... 82

Beam-on-Winkler Foundation ..................................................... 84

Finite Element Methods ............................................................ 101

Pile Group Effects..................................................................... 104

Pile Group Interaction Methods..................................... 107

Pile Group Complete Dynamic Analyses ........................ 116

Building Code Provisions........................................................................ 125

Uniform Building Code/SEAOC Recommendations .................. 125

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program ..................... 126

Mexico City Building Code ....................................................... 128

Peoples Republic of China Aseismic Building Design Code ...... 128

American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice ............... 129

Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges ........... 130

FHWA Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations............ 133

Japanese Design Specifications of Highway Bridges .................. 134

New Zealand Bridge Design Specifications................................ 135

Current State-of-the-Practice SSPSI Design and Analysis Applications ... 136

National Survey ........................................................................ 137

ASCE Workshop ...................................................................... 138

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge ........................................... 139

San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge .............................................. 140

Continuous Column-Shafts........................................................ 141

Caltrans Simplified Method ....................................................... 142

Alemany Interchange Retrofit.................................................... 142

Mercer Slough .......................................................................... 143

WSDOT Study.......................................................................... 145

Alaskan Way Viaduct................................................................ 147

Caltrans Liquefaction Mitigation ............................................... 148

Port Mann Bridge ..................................................................... 149

Summary of SSPSI Analytical Methods................................................... 150

CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORK............................................... 151

Full Scale Pile Test Programs.................................................................. 151

Field Single Pile Lateral Load Tests........................................... 152

Field Pile Group Lateral Load Tests .......................................... 157