Numerical analysis on seismic response and failure mechanism of articulated pile−structure system in a liquefiable site from shaking-table experiments

doi:10.1007/s11709-024-0958-5

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (7) : 1117-1133 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-024-0958-5

Numerical analysis on seismic response and failure mechanism of articulated pile−structure system in a liquefiable site from shaking-table experiments

Pengfei DOU^1,², Hao LIU², Chengshun XU²(

), Jinting WANG¹, Yilong SUN², Xiuli DU²

¹. Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
². Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

Download: PDF(7649 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

This study investigates the seismic response and failure mode of a pile−structure system in a liquefiable site by employing a numerical simulation model combined with the shaking-table results of a soil−pile−structure dynamic system. The pile and soil responses obtained from the numerical simulations agreed well with the experimental results. The slopes of the dynamic shear-stress–shear-strain hysteretic curves at different positions also exhibited a decreasing trend, indicating that the shear strength of the soil in all parts of the foundation decreased. The peak acceleration of the soil and pile was not clearly amplified in the saturated sand layer but appeared to be amplified in the top part. The maximum bending moments appeared in the middle and lower parts of the pile shaft; however, the shear forces at the corresponding positions were not large. It can be observed from the deformation mode of the pile-group foundation that a typical bending failure is caused by an excessive bending moment in the middle of the pile shaft if the link between the pile top and cap is articulated, and sufficient attention should be paid to the bending failure in the middle of the pile shaft.

Keywords numerical simulation soil liquefaction pile foundation shaking-table experiment seismic responses failure model

Corresponding Author(s): Chengshun XU

Issue Date: 06 August 2024

Cite this article:

Pengfei DOU,Hao LIU,Chengshun XU, et al. Numerical analysis on seismic response and failure mechanism of articulated pile−structure system in a liquefiable site from shaking-table experiments[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(7): 1117-1133.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-024-0958-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2024/V18/I7/1117

Fig.1 Overview image of test setup [44].

Fig.2 Soil–pile−structure dynamic system: (a) shaking-table test; (b) numerical simulation model.

Fig.3 Geometry and discretization of the soil–pile−structure dynamic system.

Tab.1 Soil properties for the Mohr–Coulomb constitutive model in FLAC3D

Fig.4 Grain composition of the fine sand used in the shaking-table test.

Tab.2 Model parameters for the SANISAND constitutive model in FLAC3D

Fig.5 Time history and the Fourier spectrum of Wolong ground motion record in Wenchuan earthquake.

Fig.6 Vertical stress diagram of end-bearing friction pile.

Fig.7 Connection between piles and the pile cap: (a) in the experiment; (b) in the numerical model.

Fig.8 Schematic diagram of free-field boundary.

Fig.9 Time histories of pore−water pressure ratio at different positions in simulation model and the experiment: (a) simulation depth 0.35 m; (b) simulation depth 0.85 m; (c) simulation depth 1.35 m.

Fig.10 Time histories of pore−water pressure ratio at different positions in simulation model and the experiment: (a) simulation depth 0.35 m; (b) simulation depth 0.6 m; (c) simulation depth 0.85 m; (d) simulation depth 1.1 m; (e) simulation depth 1.35 m.

Fig.11 Soil-acceleration time histories of SAA2 in the experiment and the corresponding measuring points at different depths in the numerical model: (a) SAA2-6 and simulation depth 0.15 m; (b) SAA2-5 and simulation depth 0.45 m; (c) SAA2-4 and simulation depth 0.75 m; (d) SAA2-3 and simulation depth 1.05 m; (e) SAA2-2 and simulation depth 1.35 m; (f) SAA2-1 and simulation depth 1.65 m

Fig.12 Distribution comparison of soil-acceleration amplification coefficient.

Fig.13 Shear-stress–shear-strain curves of soils at different depths in numerical simulation and the experiment: (a) depth 0.45 m; (b) depth 0.75 m; (c) depth 1.05 m; (d) depth 1.35 m.

Fig.14 Shear-stress–shear-strain curves of soils at different depths from 0 to 10 s in numerical simulation: (a) depth 0.45 m, G = 11.16 kPa; (b) depth 0.75 m, G = 14.41 kPa; (c) depth 1.05 m, G = 17.04 kPa; (d) depth 1.35 m, G = 19.27 kPa; (e) depth 0.45 m, G = 5.34 kPa; (f) depth 0.75 m, G = 8.34 kPa; (g) depth 1.05 m, G = 11.24 kPa; (h) depth 1.35 m, G = 13.69 kPa; (i) depth 0.45 m, G = 2.09 kPa; (j) depth 0.75 m, G = 3.33 kPa; (k) depth 1.05 m, G = 5.83 kPa; (l) depth 1.35 m, G = 8.65 kPa; (m) depth 0.45 m, G = 2.26 kPa; (n) depth 0.75 m, G = 5.51 kPa; (o) depth 1.05 m, G = 9.11 kPa; (p) depth 1.35 m, G =13.57 kPa; (q) depth 0.45 m, G = 4.18 kPa; (r) depth 0.75 m, G = 9.34 kPa; (s) depth 1.05 m, G = 13.97 kPa; (t) depth 1.35 m, G = 16.79 kPa.

Fig.15 Comparison of soil shear modulus at various depths between in the vicinity of pile (dotted line) and far away from pile (solid line).

Fig.16 Pile acceleration time histories of SAA1 in the experiment and numerical model: (a) depth 0.15 m-experiment and simulation; (b) depth 0.45 m-experiment and simulation; (c) depth 0.75 m-experiment and simulation; (d) depth 1.05 m-experiment and simulation; (e) depth 1.35 m-experiment and simulation; (f) depth 1.65 m-experiment and simulation.

Fig.17 Distribution comparison of soil-acceleration amplification coefficient.

Fig.18 Acceleration time history curves at each measuring point in the superstructure in numerical simulation and the experiment: (a) X3a and X3a_simulation; (b) X2a and X2a_simulation; (c) X1a and X1a_simulation.

Fig.19 Sketch layout of location and the elevation view of strain gauges.

Fig.20 Bending-moment–response-time histories of the piles: (a) M1 simulation and experiment; (b) M2 simulation and experiment; (c) M3 simulation and experiment; (d) M4 simulation and experiment; (e) M5 simulation and experiment; (f) M6 simulation and experiment; (g) M7 simulation and experiment; (h) M8 simulation and experiment; (i) M9 simulation and experiment.

Fig.21 Envelope diagram of bending moment and shear force amplitude of pile shaft in the numerical simulation and the experiment: (a) bending moment of pile shaft; (b) shear force amplitude of pile shaft.

Fig.22 Pile-group deformation mode from numerical calculation model and experimental results: (a) numerical simulation model; (b) shaking-table experiment results.

1	M HamadaS YasudaR IsoyamaK Emoto. Study on liquefaction-induced permanent ground displacements and earthquake damage. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1986, 376(6): 221–229 (in Japanese)
2	X Wang, J Chen, M Xiao. Seismic damage assessment and mechanism analysis of underground powerhouse of the Yingxiuwan Hydropower Station under the Wenchuan earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 113: 112–123
3	Y Biao. Chinese reactions to disasters in Japan: From the great Kanto earthquake to the great east Japan earthquake. In: Natural Disaster and Reconstruction in Asian Economies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. 2013, 67–75
4	Research Council National. Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press, 1985
5	S C Fu, F Tatsuoka. Soil liquefaction during Haicheng and Tangshan earthquake in China: A review. Soil and Foundation, 1984, 24(4): 11–29 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.24.4_11
6	J F Bird, J J Bommer. Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Engineering Geology, 2004, 75(2): 147–179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.05.006
7	N Yoshida, H Watanabe, S Yasuda, S Mora Castro. Liquefaction-induced ground failure and related damage to structures during 1991 Telire-Limon, Costa Rica, Earthquake. Journal of JSCE, 1992, 1(1): 181–193
8	W D Finn, N Fujita. Piles in liquefiable soils: Seismic analysis and design issues. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 22(9): 731–742 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00094-5
9	S M Haeri, A Kavand, I Rahmani, H Torabi. Response of a group of piles to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by large scale shake table testing. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2012, 38: 25–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.02.002
10	R S Meera, K Shanker, P K Basudhar. Flexural response of piles under liquefied soil conditions. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2007, 25(4): 409–422 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-006-9118-z
11	K Shanker, P K Basudhar, N R Patra. Buckling of piles under liquefied soil conditions. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2007, 25(3): 303–313 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-006-9111-6
12	C S Xu, P F Dou, X L Du, M Hesham El Naggar, M Miyajima, S Chen. Large shaking table tests of pile-supported structures in different ground conditions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 139: 106307 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106307
13	S Adhikari, S Bhattacharya. Dynamic instability of pile-supported structures in liquefiable soils during earthquakes. Shock and Vibration, 2008, 15(6): 665–685 https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/149031
14	S Yao, K Kobayashi, N Yoshida, H Matsuo. Interactive behavior of soil–pile-superstructure system in transient state to liquefaction by means of large shake table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 24(5): 397–409 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.12.003
15	S Nishimura, I Towhata, T Honda. Laboratory shear tests on viscous nature of liquefied sand. Soil and Foundation, 2002, 42(4): 89–98 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.42.4_89
16	D Lombardi. Dynamics of pile-supported structures in seismically liquefiable soils. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Bristol: University of Bristol, 2014
17	D J Varnes. Slope Movement Types and Processes. Transportation Research Board Special Report. 1978, 11–33
18	S Haldar, G L S Babu. Failure mechanisms of pile foundations in liquefiable soil: Parametric study. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2010, 10(2): 74–84 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2010)10:2(74
19	T Abdoun, R Dobry, Thomas D O’Rourke, S H Goh. Pile response to lateral spreads: centrifuge modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003, 129(10): 869–878 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:10(869
20	V S Phanikanth, D Choudhury, G R Reddy. Behavior of single pile in liquefied deposits during earthquakes. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013, 13(4): 454–462 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000224
21	L Su, L Tang, X Z Ling, N P Ju, X Gao. Responses of reinforced concrete pile group in two-layered liquefied soils: Shake-table investigations. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science A, 2015, 16(2): 93–104 https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A1400093
22	K Tokimatsu, H Suzuki, M Sato. Effects of inertial and kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 25(7–10): 753–762 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.018
23	Z Cheng, B Jeremić. Numerical modeling and simulation of pile in liquefiable soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 29(11–12): 1405–1416 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.008
24	P K Esfeh, A M Kaynia. Numerical modeling of liquefaction and its impact on anchor piles for floating offshore structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 127: 105839 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105839
25	T Kagawa, M Sato, C Minowa, A Abe, T Tazoh. Centrifuge simulations of large-scale shaking table tests: case studies. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(7): 663–672 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:7(663
26	K Tokimatsu, Y Asaka. Effects of Liquefaction-Induced ground displacements on pile performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 1998, 38: 163–177 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.38.Special_163
27	S DashtiJ BrayM RiemerD Wilson. Centrifuge experimentation of building performance on liquefied ground. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics Congress IV, 2008, 1–10
28	R Motamed, I Towhata, T Honda, K Tabata, A Abe. Pile group response to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading: E-defense large shake table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 51(3): 35–46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.04.007
29	M E Stringer, S P G Madabhushi. Axial load transfer in liquefiable soils for free-standing piles. Geotechnique, 2013, 63(5): 400–409 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.078
30	D Lombardi, S Bhattacharya. Evaluation of seismic performance of pile-supported models in liquefiable soils. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(6): 1019–1038 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2716
31	C MansourA SteinbergN Matasovic. Analysis, design and construction of the supporting structure and wharf retrofit for a new shiploader at the port of Long Beach, California. In: Ports 2004: Port Development in the Changing World. Houston, TX: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004, 1–9
32	A Barari, M Bayat, M Saadati, L B Ibsen, L A Vabbersgaard. Transient analysis of monopile foundations partially embedded in liquefied soil. Geomechanics and Engineering, 2015, 8(2): 257–282 https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2015.8.2.257
33	M H Rayhani, M Hesham El Naggar. Centrifuge modeling of seismic response of layered soft clay. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 5(4): 571–589 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9047-0
34	M H Rayhani, M Hesham El Naggar. Numerical modeling of seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2008, 8(6): 336–346 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:6(336
35	M C Papadopoulou, E M Comodromos. Response evaluation of horizontally loaded pile groups in clayey soils. Geotechnique, 2012, 62(4): 329–339 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.045
36	E M Comodromos. Response evaluation of axially loaded fixed head pile groups using 3d nonlinear analysis. Soil and Foundation, 2004, 44(2): 31–39 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.44.2_31
37	E M Comodromos, C T Anagnostopoulos, M K Georgiadis. Numerical assessment of axial pile group response based on load test. Computers and Geotechnics, 2003, 30(6): 505–515 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(03)00017-X
38	E M Comodromos, S V Bareka. Response evaluation of axially loaded fixed-head pile groups in clayey soils. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2009, 33(17): 1839–1865 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.787
39	A S Hokmabadi, B Fatahi, B Samali. Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 2014, 55: 172–186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.08.011
40	P K Esfeh, A M Kaynia. Earthquake response of monopiles and caissons for offshore wind turbines founded in liquefiable soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 136: 106213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106213
41	K Chatterjee, D Choudhury, A Murakami, K Fujisawa. P-y curves of 2 × 2 pile group in liquefiable soil under dynamic loadings. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2020, 13(13): 585 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05608-z
42	K Chatterjee, D Choudhury, V D Rao, H G Poulos. Seismic response of single piles in liquefiable soil considering P-delta effect. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17(6): 2935–2961 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00588-2
43	C S Xu, P F Dou, X L Du, M Hesham El Naggar, M Miyajima, S Chen. Seismic performance of pile group-structure system in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil from large-scale shake table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 138: 106299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106299
44	P F Dou, C S Xu, X L Du, M Hesham El Naggar, S Chen. Experimental study on seismic instability of pile-supported structure considering different ground conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2021, 147(11): 04021127 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002632
45	Y F Dafalias, M T Manzari. Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change effects. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2004, 130(6): 622–634 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:6(622
46	Z ChengY F DafaliasM T Manzari. Application of SANISAND Dafalias-Manzari model in FLAC3D. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International FLAC/DEM Symposium. Hangzhou: Itasca Symposia, 2013
47	M Taiebat, Y Dafalias. SANISAND: Simple anisotropic sand plasticity model. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2008, 32(8): 915–948 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.651
48	J Ramirez, A R Barrero, L Chen, S Dashti, A Ghofrani, M Taiebat, P Arduino. Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2018, 144(10): 04018073 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001947
49	Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. User Manual for Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions (FLAC3D), Version 5.0, 2012
50	C S XuP F DouX L DuJ Y HanS Chen. Large-scale shaking table model test of liquefiable free field. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2019, 40(10): 3767–3777 (in Chinese)

[1]	Lei WANG, Shengyang ZHOU, Xiangsheng CHEN, Xian LIU, Shuya LIU, Dong SU, Shouchao JIANG, Qikai ZHU, Haoyu YAO. Experimental and numerical investigation of the flexural performance of channel steel-bolt joint for prefabricated subway stations[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(6): 918-935.
[2]	Ruohan LI, Yong YUAN, Hong CHEN, Xinxing LI, Emilio BILOTTA. Seismic responses of an intensively constructed metro station-passageway-shaft structure system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(5): 760-775.
[3]	Deepthi SUDHI, Sanjit BISWAS, Bappaditya MANNA. Development of design charts to predict the dynamic response of pile supported machine foundations[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(4): 663-679.
[4]	Yang YANG, Xingyi ZHU, Denis JELAGIN, Alvaro GUARIN. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics based numerical study of hydroplaning considering permeability characteristics of runway surface[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(3): 319-333.
[5]	Shuanglong LI, Limin WEI, Jingtai NIU, Zhiping DENG, Bangbin WU, Wuwen QIAN, Feifei HE. Time-dependent deviation of bridge pile foundations caused by adjacent large-area surcharge loads in soft soils and its preventive measures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(2): 184-201.
[6]	Weiguo LONG, Wenfan LU, Yifeng LIU, Qiuji LI, Jiajia OU, Peng PAN. Lateral shear performance of sheathed post-and-beam wooden structures with small panels[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 1117-1131.
[7]	Dongning SUN, Baoning HONG, Xin LIU, Ke SHENG, Guisen WANG, Zhiwei SHAO, Yunlong YAO. Numerically investigating the crushing of sandstone by a tooth hob[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(6): 964-979.
[8]	Wenchang SUN, Nan JIANG, Chuanbo ZHOU, Jinshan SUN, Tingyao WU. Safety assessment for buried drainage box culvert under influence of underground connected aisle blasting: A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 191-204.
[9]	Sahand KHALILZADEHTABRIZI, Hamed SADAGHIAN, Masood FARZAM. Uncertainty of concrete strength in shear and flexural behavior of beams using lattice modeling[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 306-325.
[10]	Tiange ZHANG, Xuanyi ZHOU, Zhenbiao LIU. Numerical simulation of rime ice accretion on a three-dimensional wind turbine blade using a Lagrangian approach[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(12): 1895-1906.
[11]	Yu DIAO, Yiming XUE, Weiqiang PAN, Gang ZHENG, Ying ZHANG, Dawei ZHANG, Haizuo ZHOU, Tianqi ZHANG. A 3D sliced-soil–beam model for settlement prediction of tunnelling using the pipe roofing method in soft ground[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(12): 1934-1948.
[12]	Jiaxin HE, Shaohui HE, Xiabing LIU, Jinlei ZHENG. Structural design and mechanical responses of closely spaced super-span double tunnels in strongly weathered tuff strata[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 685-703.
[13]	Mahmood AHMAD, Xiao-Wei TANG, Jiang-Nan QIU, Feezan AHMAD, Wen-Jing GU. Application of machine learning algorithms for the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 490-505.
[14]	Alipujiang JIERULA, Tae-Min OH, Shuhong WANG, Joon-Hyun LEE, Hyunwoo KIM, Jong-Won LEE. Detection of damage locations and damage steps in pile foundations using acoustic emissions with deep learning technology[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 318-332.
[15]	Huayang LEI, Yajie ZHANG, Yao HU, Yingnan LIU. Model test and discrete element method simulation of shield tunneling face stability in transparent clay[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 147-166.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed