Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKayden Ayre Modified about 1 year ago

1
Numerical Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Analysis Using OpenSees Hyung-Suk Shin Pedro University of Washington Steven L. Kramer Mahadevan Ilankatharan Bruce L. UCdavis

2
Outline Centrifuge test 1 Bent & Bridge Model Experimental and numerical Results Centrifuge test 2 Oriented Bent Model Experimental and numerical Results Conclusion

3
Centrifuge Test 1 1 / 52 scale

4
Centrifuge Test 1 Shaking direction

5
Centrifuge Test 1 Shaking direction

6
Soil - Nevada sand - Dry soil - Dr = 80 % - Unit weight = kN/m 3 - ρ d = 1.66 Mg/m 3

7
Pile

8
Input motion Northridge 1994

9
Interaction model p-y spring t-z spring q-z spring Soil model in OpenSees Pressure dependent multi yield elasto-plastic material model (by Elgamal and Yang) Interface spring model in OpenSees 1-D nonlinear springs (by Boulanger) y p pult (Reese 1974) y50 (API 1993) Pile model in OpenSees Nonlinear fiber beam column element

10
Bent Model & Simplification

11
Experimental & Numerical Results (Single bridge bent)

12

13
2 soil column model

14
Experimental & Numerical Results (Single bridge bent) (a) 1 soil(b) 2 soil Maximum bending moment Ground surface

15
Two-Span Bridge Model & Simplification equal DOF Bridge deck

16
Experimental & Numerical Results (Two-Span Bridge)

17
0.25g 0.40g (a) short bent(b) long bent(c) medium bent

18
Experimental & Numerical Results (Two-Span Bridge) short bent long bent medium bent short bent medium bent long bent (a) centrifuge(b) OpenSees Increasing intensity

19
Centrifuge Test 2 1 / 52 scale

20
Centrifuge Test 2

21
Oriented Bent Model & Simplification Decompose base motion ax base Calculate freefield motions based on decomposed base motions Apply absolute freefield motions to a series of p-y springs ay ax

22
3D Bent Structure & Soil ax base * cos( )ax base * sin( )

23
Experimental & Numerical Results (free field motion) 0.5m 2.6m 5.9m 21.1m

24
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) y x axax a y1 z 0 o 30 o 60 o 90 o

25
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) y x axax z 0 o 30 o 60 o 90 o

26
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) y x a y1 z 0 o 30 o 60 o 90 o

27
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) yy xx zz y x -z

28
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) 0 o 30 o 60 o 90 o

29
Future work Increasing stiffness Increasing diameter

30
Conclusion Traditional p-y curves work well for the dynamic soil-pile- structure interaction analysis of dry sand. Vertical rocking motion of the bridge bent should be included in the analysis to capture the correct structural response. Simplified coupled bridge models using one soil column for each bent provides a good estimation. The maximum bending moment of the individual bent in a full bridge occurs at different depths and changes with input motion intensities. Simplified angled bridge models using decomposed free field motions capture well the primary structural response.

31
Questions or comments !

32

33
Experimental & Numerical Results (Oriented Bents – 0 o, 30 o, 60 o, 90 o ) 0 o 30 o 60 o 90 o

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google