Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A 3D Numerical Investigation on Seismic Behavior of Sleeved-Pile with Soil–Rubber Mixture in Foundation of Structures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The installation and maintenance of buildings mounted on deep piles employing the seismic isolation system could be problematical and costly for structural applications. Regarding mentioned issue, seismic isolation using sleeved-pile while considering the damping behavior of the soil–rubber mixture as the only source of damping have been proposed. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects and performance of sleeved-pile with soil–rubber mixture on the response of the system. Numerical modeling of soil–pile-structure system is conducted using Abaqus software. Three models have been investigated including 5, 10 and 15 floors representing low-, mid- and high-rise buildings in both conventional system and sleeved-pile with sand–rubber mixture. The results have shown that this system has reduced the inter-story drift and the horizontal acceleration on the foundation and structures consequently reducing the created forces in the structure. The advantages of the proposed system have been laid in reduction of initial construction costs by the device eliminations such as various types of dampers, easy access to resources, the lack of high technology requirement and the simultaneous elimination in both seismic control of structures and environmental protection problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ronald L. Mayes, Design of structures with seismic isolation. Seismic Design Handbook by F. Naeim, Chapter 13

  2. Ishimaru Sh, Niiya T, Morikawa K, Uotsu T, Yamazaki S, Yoshida A (1999) A feasibility study for seismic isolation by use of a soil–pole-structure system. Part1: fundamental concept and results of static load tests

  3. Kelly JM, Naeim F (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boardman PR, Wood BJ, Carr AJ (1983) Union house-across braced structure with energy dissipaters. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 16(2):83–97

    Google Scholar 

  5. Charleson AW, Wright PD, Skinner RI (1987) Wellington central police station, base isolation of an essential facility. Proc Pac Conf Earthq Eng N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng N Z 2:377–388

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ishimaru Sh, Hata I, Shimomura Y, Ikeda Y, Ishigaki H, Ogushi Y (2004) A feasibility study of new type seismic isolation—composed system of piles covered by pipes and dampers with partial soil improvement. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Canada, 2004

  7. Humphrey D, Sandford T (1993) Tire chips as lightweight subgrade fill and retaining wall backfill. In: Proceedings, recycling ahead, Denver

  8. Youway S, Bergado DT (2004) Numerical analysis of reinforced wall using rubber tire chips–sand mixtures as backfill material. Comput Geotech 31:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tweedie J, Humphrey D, Sandford T (1998) Tire shreds as lightweight retaining wall backfill: ASCE active conditions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(11):1061–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ASTM D4767-11 (2011), Standard test method for consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, www.astm.org

  11. CEN (2010) Materials produced from end of life tyres—specification of categories based on their dimension(s) and impurities and methods for determining their dimension(s) and impurities, European Committee for Standardization, CEN/TS 14243:2010, Brussels

  12. Mahmoudi M, Komak Panah A (2012) Investigation on the cyclic parameters of soil-rubber mixed material for using in seismic isolation of structures, Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of M. Sc, Tarbiat Modares University, 2012 (in Persian)

  13. Pistolas GA, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2018) Dynamic behavior of granular soil materials mixed with granulated rubber: effect of rubber content and granularity on the small-strain shear modulus and damping ratio. Geotech Geol Eng 36:1267

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pistolas GA, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2018) Dynamic behavior of granular soil materials mixed with granulated rubber: influence of rubber content and mean grain size ratio on shear modulus and damping ratio for a wide strain range. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shariatmadari N, Karimpour-Fard M, Shargh A (2018) Undrained monotonic and cyclic behavior of sand-ground rubber mixtures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17(3):541–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu Q, Jia Ma W, Liu Q, Zhao K, Chen G (2021) Dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of rubber-sand mixtures with a wide range of rubber content. Mater Today 27:102341

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tsang HH (2008) Seismic isolation by rubber–soil mixtures for developing countries. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:283–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsang HH (2009) “Geotechnical seismic isolation”, earthquake engineering: new research, New York. Nova Science Publishers Inc, US

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tsang HH, Pitilakis K (2019) Mechanism of geotechnical seismic isolation system: analytical modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 122:171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsang HH, Lo SH, Xu X, Sheikh MN (2012) Seismic isolation for low-to-medium-rise buildings using granulated rubber–soil mixtures: numerical study. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:2009–2024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pistolas GA, Pitilakis K, Anstsidis A (2020) A numerical investigation on the seismic isolation potential of rubber/soil mixtures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:683–704

    Google Scholar 

  22. Komak Panah A, Khoshay A (2015) A new seismic isolation system: sleeved-pile with soil-rubber mixture. IJCE 13(2):124–132

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wolf J (1998) Soil-structure interaction analysis in time domain. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G (2011) Linear soil-structure interaction of coupled wall-frame structures on pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(9):1296–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayashi Y, Takahashi I (2004) Soil-structure interaction effects on building response in recent earthquakes. In: Proc 3rd UJNR workshop on soil-structure interaction, USGS, Vallombrosa Center, Menlo Park, CA

  26. Hokmabadi A, Fatahi B, Samali B (2015) Physical modeling of seismic soil-pile-structure interaction for buildings on soft soils. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000396,04014046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tabatabaiefar S, Fatahi B (2014) Idealisation of soil-structure system to determine inelastic seismic response of mid-rise building frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Luo C, Yang X, Zhan C, Jin X, Ding Z (2016) Nonlinear 3D finite element analysis of soil–pile–structure interaction system subjected to horizontal earthquake excitation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 84:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kramer SL, Paulsen SB (2004) Practical use of geotechnical site response models. In: International workshop on uncertainties in nonlinear soil properties and their impact on modeling dynamic soil response, PEER Center Headquarters, Richmond, CA 2004

  30. Kaklamanos J, Bradley BA, Thompson EM, Baise LG (2013) Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site-response analyses using Kik-net. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(3):1733–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ching J-Y, Glaser SD (2001) 1D time-domain solution for seismic ground motion prediction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 127(1):36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lu XL, Li PZ, Chen B, Chen YQ (2005) Computer simulation of the dynamic layered soil-pile-structure interaction system. Can Geotech J 42:742–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bentley KJ, Naggar MHE (2000) Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single piles. Can Geotech J 37:1368–1382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Byrne PM, Naesgaard E, Seid-Karbasi M (2006) Analysis and design of earth structures to resist seismic soil liquefaction. In: Proceedings of the 59th Canadian geotechnical conference & 7th joint CGS/IAH-CNC groundwater specialty conference, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–24

  35. Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B (2014) Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-risebuildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Comput Geotech 55:172–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bilotta E, Sanctis E, Di Laora R, D’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2015) Importance of seismic site response and soil–structure interaction in dynamic behaviour of a tall building. Geotechnique

  37. Bourgeois E, de Buhan P, Hassen G (2012) Settlement analysis of piled-raft foundations by means of a multiphase model accounting for soil-pile interactions. Comput Geotech 46:26–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bagheri M, Jamkhaneh ME, Samali B (2018) Effect of seismic soil–pile–structure interaction on midand high-rise steel buildings resting on a group of pile foundations. Int J Geomech 18:04018103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99:421–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rayhani MH, El Naggar MH (2008) Numerical modeling of seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil. Int J Geomech 8(6):336–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Decourt L (1991) Load-deflection prediction for laterally loaded piles based on N-SPT values. In: Proc. of 9th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, international society for soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, pp 549–556 (1991)

  42. 2800 Code (2014) Seismic resistant design of buildings—code of practice. Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran: 4st.revision

  43. Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of Building Publications Office of the European Union 2012 Scientific and Technical Research series—ISSN 1831-9424 ISBN 978-92-79-23068 4

  44. Zdravkovic L, Kontoe S (2008) Some issues in modelling boundary conditions in dynamic geotechnical analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics, India, 2008.

  45. Du X, Zhao M (2010) A local time-domain transmitting boundary for simulating cylindrical elastic wave propagation in infinite media. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:937–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zienkiewic OC, Emson C, Bettess P (1983) A novel boundary infinite element. Int J Numer Meth Eng 19(3):393–404

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Joo CW (2004) Seismic behavior of micropiles. Civil Engeering Department Washington State University, 2004 (M.Sc. thesis)

  48. Nor AHM, Yahuda AH, Pakir F (2015) Analysis of lightweight concrete ‘cakar ayam’ foundation for road construction using PLAXIS 3D foundation software. Apply Mech Mater 695:729–733

    Google Scholar 

  49. Belinchon P, Sorensen KK, Christensen R (2016) A case study of the interaction between a pile and soft soil focusing on negative skin friction using finite element analysis. In: Proceedings of 17th Nordic geotechnical meeting, challenges in nordic geotechnic, NGM 2016, Icelandic Geotechnical Society, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 513–522

  50. Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS (2015) Site response, soil-structure interaction and structure-soil-structure interaction for performance assessment of buildings and nuclear structures. In: Technical Report MCEER-15-0002, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

  51. Idriss IM, Seed HB (1968) Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. J Soil Mech Found Div 94:1003–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maheshwari BK, Truman KZ, Gould PL, El Naggar MH (2005) Three dimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of single piles using finite element model: effects of plasticity of soil. Int J Geomech 5(1):35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Skempton AW, MacDonald DH (1956) The allowable settlement of buildings. Proc ICE 5(3):737–784

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hokmabadi A, Fatahi B, Samali B (2012) Recording interstorey drifts of structures in time-history approach for seismic design of building frames. Aust J Struct Eng 13(2):175–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. AS1170.4 (2007) Structural design actions—earthquake actions in Australia. NSW, Australia: Standards Australia

  56. BSSC (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, 1997 edition, Part 1: provisions and Part 2: commentary. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  57. ASCE7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers

  58. Chopra AK (1995) Dynamics of structures: theory and application to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil and Foundation Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Pooya Zia

  2. Department of Soil and Foundation Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Komak Panah

Authors
  1. Pooya Zia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Komak Panah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pooya Zia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zia, P., Panah, A.K. A 3D Numerical Investigation on Seismic Behavior of Sleeved-Pile with Soil–Rubber Mixture in Foundation of Structures. Indian Geotech J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-024-00935-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-024-00935-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation