Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 763–781 | Cite as

A Three Dimensional Comparative Study of Seismic Behaviour of Vertical and Batter Pile Groups

  • Rajib SarkarEmail author
  • Nishant Roy
  • Arun Serawat
Original paper
  • 228 Downloads

Abstract

To a practicing foundation engineer, the performance of batter pile under seismic conditions still remains a questionable prospect. The contradictory findings reported by various investigators with regard to the performance of batter piles add to this dilemma. This calls for a rigorous three-dimensional investigation to evaluate seismic behavior of batter pile groups. In this study, a comparative assessment of three-dimensional seismic behavior of a 2 × 2 vertical and batter pile groups having batter angle of 15° was carried out using a full three-dimensional finite element code developed in MATLAB (Sarkar 2009). The effects of centre to centre spacing of piles and soil modulus values were investigated. Idealized soil profiles having constant and triangular variation of soil modulus were adopted for the study. Results of analyses for both the vertical and batter pile groups are presented in terms of dynamic stiffness and kinematic interaction factors. Results indicate better seismic performance of batter pile groups in comparison to that of vertical pile groups. To demonstrate the importance of the findings, a five-storied portal frame structure supported separately on vertical and batter pile groups were considered and analyzed for El-Centro Earthquake (1940) time history. The difference in structural response considering vertical and batter pile groups is highlighted.

Keywords

Seismic response Pile groups Batter pile Dynamic stiffness Kinematic interaction factor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author likes to acknowledge the guidance of Prof. B. K. Maheshwari, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee in developing the Finite Element code used here. The second and third author acknowledges the financial support provided by MHRD, Government of India. The authors also appreciate the support from the Head of Department, Department of Civil Engineering, MNIT Jaipur for providing necessary support and assistance.

References

  1. Association Française de Génie Parasismique AFPS (1990) Recommendations AFPS 90. Presses des Ponts et Chausseés, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Awoshika K, Reese LC (1971) Analysis of foundation with widely spaced batter piles. Research report 117-3F, project 3-5-68-117, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME (1989) Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Eurocode (2000) Structures in seismic regions, Part 5: foundations, retaining structures, and geotechnical aspects. Seismic Eurocode EC8, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerolymos N, Giannakou A, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2008) Evidence of beneficial role of inclined piles: observations and summary of numerical analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 6(4):705–722. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-9085-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghasemzadeh H, Alibeikloo M (2011) Pile-soil-pile interaction in pile groups with batter piles under dynamic loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:1159–1170. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giannakou A, Gerolymos N, Gazetas GM, Tazoh T, Anastasopoulos I (2010) Seismic behavior of batter piles: elastic response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000337 Google Scholar
  8. IS 875 (Part 2) (1987) Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Bureau of Indian Standard, Manak BhawanGoogle Scholar
  9. Kavazanjian E (2006) A driven pile advantage: batter piles. Pile Driver 4:21–25Google Scholar
  10. Kaynia AM, Kausel E (1982) Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups. Research report no. R82-03. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  11. Kubo K (1965) Experimental study of the behavior of laterally loaded piles. In: Proceedings, sixth international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Montreal, vol 2, pp 275–279Google Scholar
  12. Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech, ASCE 95(4):859–875Google Scholar
  13. Maheshwari BK, Sarkar R (2011) Seismic behavior of soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefiable soils: parametric study. Int J Geomech ASCE 11(4):335–347. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 ASCE 5(1):35–44. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:1(35) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MATLAB (2015) Reference manual, version R2015a(8.5.0.197613), The MathWorks, Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Medina C, Padron LA, Aznarez JJ, Maeso O (2015) Influence of pile inclination angle on the dynamic properties and seismic response of pile supported structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:196–206. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (1998) Vertical vibration and additional distress of grouped piles in layered soil. Soils Found 38(1):1–14. doi: 10.3208/sandf.38.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Okawa K, Kamei H, Zhang F, Kimura M (2007) Seismic performance of group-pile foundation with inclined steel piles. Advances in deep foundations. In: Y. Kikuchi (ed) International workshop on recent advances of deep foundations (IWDPF07) 1–2 February 2007, Port and Airport Research Institute, Yokosuka, Japan. Taylor & Francis 2007. doi:  10.1201/9780203938416
  19. Padron LA, Aznarez JJ, Maeso O, Santana A (2009) Dynamic stiffness of deep foundations with inclined piles. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:1053–1070. doi: 10.1002/eqe.1000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Padron LA, Aznarez JJ, Maeso O, Saitoh M (2012) Impedance functions of end bearing inclined piles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 38:97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poulos HG (2006) Raked piles-virtues and drawbacks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:795–803. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:6(795) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Priestley N, Singh J, Youd T, Rollins K (1991) Costa Rica earthquake of April 22, 1991. Reconnaissance report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Oakland CA 91(02):59–91Google Scholar
  23. Rajashree SS, Sitharam TG (2001) Non-linear finite element modeling of batter piles under lateral load. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127:604–612. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:7(604) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SAP (2000): V10.1. Integrated software for structural analysis and design. Computer and Structures Inc (CSI), Berkeley, California, USA, August 2004Google Scholar
  25. Sarkar R (2009) Three dimensional seismic behaviour of soil-pile interaction with liquefaction. Ph.D. thesis, IIT Roorkee, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Sarkar R, Maheshwari BK (2012) Effects of separation on the behaviour of soil-pile interaction in liquefiable soils. Int J Geomech ASCE 12(1):1–13. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)DhanbadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMNIT JaipurJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations