Static Pushover Analyses of Pile Groups in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground in Centrifuge Tests

• Published in: Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 2007-09, Vol.133 (9), p.1055-1066
• Main Authors: Brandenberg, Scott J, Boulanger, Ross W, Kutter, Bruce L, Chang, Dongdong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Buildings. Public works; Earthquakes; Earthwork. Foundations. Retaining walls; Exact sciences and technology; foundations; Geotechnics; guidelines; Q1; Seismic activity; Soil; Soil mechanics. Rocks mechanics; Structure-soil interaction; TECHNICAL PAPERS
• ISSN: 1090-0241; 1943-5606
• DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:9(1055)

Monotonic, static beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) methods are used to analyze a suite of dynamic centrifuge model tests involving pile group foundations embedded in a mildly sloping soil profile that develops liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during earthquake shaking. A single set of recommended design guidelines was used for a baseline set of analyses. When lateral spreading demands were modeled by imposing free-field soil displacements to the free ends of the soil springs (BNWF_SD), bending moments were predicted within −8% to +69 (16th to 84th percentile values) and pile cap displacements were predicted within −6 to +38% , with the accuracy being similar for small, medium, and large motions. When lateral spreading demands were modeled by imposing limit pressures directly to the pile nodes (BNWF_LP), bending moments and cap displacements were greatly overpredicted for small and medium motions where the lateral spreading displacements were not large enough to mobilize limit pressures, and pile cap displacements were greatly underpredicted for large motions. The effects of various parameter relations and alternative design guidelines on the accuracy of the BNWF analyses were evaluated. Sources of bias and dispersion in the BNWF predictions and the issues of greatest importance to foundation performance are discussed. The results of these comparisons indicate that certain guidelines and assumptions that are common in engineering design can produce significantly conservative or unconservative BNWF predictions, whereas the guidelines recommended herein can produce reasonably accurate predictions.