Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEER TEAM Scott Ashford (OSU) Ross Boulanger (UCD) Scott Brandenberg (UCLA)
PEER Guidelines
Caltrans Guidelines
Source: ce.washington.edu
Photo by Yashinsky
Better performance
Better performance
Photos by Yashinsky
Better performance
Photos by Yashinsky
Better performance
Photos by Yashinsky
0.67 PULT
liquefied soil modeled as factored p-y curves (0.10 p-multiplier) 67% of the ultimate passive crust load is applied to the cap no inertial loads are considered performance criteria: piles remain elastic
Crust loaddeformation behavior. How much deformation to reach ultimate passive pressure? Adjustments for non-plane strain behavior. Prediction of crust displacement. Potential restraining effect of the foundation. Potential restraining effect of the superstructure. Contribution of inertial loads to the foundation displacement demand. More specific performance criteria.
Residual strength
Field testing
Caltrans Guidelines
Limitations
Since every project has unique aspects, these guidelines should not be used to constrain or replace engineering judgment.
Software Options
Nonlinear moment-stiffness behavior: xSECTION, XTRACT, LPILE 5, others Soil-foundation interaction: LPILE 5, wFRAME, SAP2000 Slope stability: most commercial codes no special requirements
Caltrans Guidelines
Two design cases considered
Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile
1 1
(Zc D)/T
WT/T
14
Crust
Log-spiral Passive
Crust
Rankine Passive
Matlock (74) soft clay p-yMatlock Su = Sres and 50 = 0.05 model with
Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile
Pile stiffness
Linear case:
EIgroup =(EIsingle)(Npiles)
Nonlinear case:
(See plot)
Mmax
Moment
Moment
Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile
KM 144Kax
Class 100 pile: Kax = 0.75 (400 kips) / 0.25 in = 1200 kips/in
xi
ni xi 2
Kax, ni
Inertial Loads
(1 or 2) x Mo H 0)
Vi =
or
M
o
Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach
Crust loads applied through imposed soil displacement profile
Caltrans Guidelines
Performance Criteria
Cap Displacement Well confined pilings Well confined abutment pilings Poorly confined pilings
*H = column height
Pile Moment
H/20 12 inches
Ma Ma
-
2 inches
Caltrans Guidelines
Two methods of estimating ground displacement
Newmark approach
Caltrans Guidelines
Strain potential approach - hybrid of Faris (2004) and Zhang (2004)
Famp =
6 (L/H)-0.8 for 1
S = ground slope
Caltrans Guidelines
Newmark based approach (Bray and Travasarou, 2007)
Caltrans Guidelines
Foundation restrained ground displacement design case:
Fs
Ky 0.087 0.1 0.13 0.16 0.19 R (k/ft) 0 7 21 36 52 D (in) 7.8 6.1 Fill 3.7 2.4 1.7
Failure Surface
Disp (in) 0 1 2 4 6 8 10
4H (max)
Resistance (R)
Displacement
Caltrans Guidelines
Performance Criteria
Cap Displacement Well confined pilings Well confined abutment pilings Poorly confined pilings
*H = column height
Pile Moment
H/20 12 inches
Ma Ma
-
2 inches
Caltrans Guidelines
Guideline availability:
The new guidelines are available on ARS Online website Technical References Link (http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/) Any questions or concerns, or you cant find the guidelines, contact me at tom.shantz@dot.ca.gov