IRJET-Effect of Non-Linear Soil Types on Seismic Response of Bridge Pier Supported on Well Foundation

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 06 | June -2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 6.171 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1474
EFFECT OF NON-LINEAR SOIL TYPES ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF BRIDGE
PIER SUPPORTED ON WELL FOUNDATION
Abdullah Khan1, Rohit Rai2
1,2Maharishi University of Technology and management, Lucknow, UP
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - For both steel and RCC Bridges passing rivers or
creeks, common practice in many countries is to provide
concrete wells to support the bridge girders. Formanybridges
that are strategically important in terms ofdefense ortrade, it
is essential that they remain functional even after a strong
earthquake hits the structure. The present state of the art for
design of well foundation is still marred with a number of
uncertainties where a simplistic pseudo static analysis of its
response only prevails, though it is a well-knownfactthatload
from super structure, character of soilanditsstiffnessplays an
important role in defining its dynamic characteristics. The
present paper is thus an attempt topresentadynamicanalysis
model trying to cater to a number of such deficiencies as cited
above and also provide a practical model (amenable to design
office application) that can be used to estimate the pier, well
and soil’s dynamic interaction
Keywords Well Foundation, Bridge Pier, Non Linear Soil ,
Seismic Anaysis , Earthquake “Effect Of Non-Linear Soil Types
On Seismic Response Of Bridge Pier Supported On Well
Foundation”
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are one of the most destructive natural hazard
and have been occurring continually all over the globe. A
large magnitude earthquake may last for less than a minute,
but can kill and injure a large numberofpersonsanddestroy
huge number of buildings and other structures leaving
behind the survivors reeling for a decade or so. It is neither
possible to control or restrict anearthquake nortopredict as
to where and when an earthquake would occur nor what
would be its magnitude. Therefore, the only option left is to
reduce or eliminate the consequences i.e. damages due to
earthquakes. Bridge componentsaredesignedformorethan
a life time along with the expectation that the behaviour of
all the members, structural or non-structural, shall remain
intact [1]. But over the past centurythestudyofbehaviourof
the structural components subjected to various hazards,
such as earthquake, has revealed that components did not
behave as expected or desired [2]. Many times the
unexpected behaviour had been attributed to undesired
behaviour of soil supporting the structure. For determining
the seismic response of structures, a common practice is to
assume the structure to be fixed at the base, implying free
field motion at the base of bridge pier. But this is far from
truth when structure is supported on other typesofmedium
because in reality, soil is not always stiff. Studiesdoneon the
past earthquakes such as 1985 Mexico City, 1995 Kobe, and
2011 Christchurch earthquakes have shown the importance
of accounting for the soil-structure interaction to estimate
the seismic response of superstructures, where otherwise
the loss of life and property isunavoidable.Theconventional
assumption of structures considering rigid foundation were
abandoned gradually while soil flexibility was taken into
consideration in the seismic analysis. Accordingly, various
studies were done across the globe and various methods for
considering flexibility of soil and inertial effects of structure
were developed and was termed as soil-structure
interaction[3] [4]. Majority of the developed methods were
based on empirical derivations or had serious shortcomings
that limited their ability to properly model the phenomena.
The soil was modelled with distributed spring damper
elements. The incorporation of soil flexibility was proven to
affect the behaviour of various structural elements. To
characterize dynamic stiffness model of embedded
foundations dynamic stiffness constants and radiation
damping coefficients were developed. Dynamic coefficients
for translation and rotation of base of foundation were also
developed [5]. The development of these models made it
possible to predict the seismic behaviour for structures on
foundations having elastic medium. NEHRP Recommended
seismic Provisions provided guidance for consideration of
SSI effects in forced-based procedures for several decades
but these procedures were not found to be of significant use
in practice. Practical application of SSI gained momentum
after publication of FEMA 440 which provided practitioners
with procedures to incorporate the effects of soil-structure
interaction in pushover type analyses. The extensive
parametric studies considering flexible foundation resulted
in reduced structural stresses,largertotal displacements and
more flexible systems resulting in reduced structural cost
and could be duly accounted for [5] [6]. In later studies
foundation uplift was also found to affect the behaviour of
structure and consequently, simple practical procedures to
account for such effects were developed [7].Bridgepiersand
abutments are the most critical elements for the integrity of
superstructuresduringearthquakes.Studieswereconducted
and an easy to use approach was developed to analyse the
longitudinal bridge pier response to seismic excitations in
horizontal direction. SDOF models were developed having
identical response amplitudes to that of MDOF systems [6].
The idealised design spectra with increased fundamental
period and effective damping to account forSSIincodeslead
invariable to reduced shear force but it was shownthatan in
certain seismic and soil conditionanincreaseinfundamental
natural time period due to SSI may actually have a
detrimental effect on seismic demand.Thiscontradiction put
a question mark to the popular belief of beneficial effects of

SSI by various authors [8] while assessing the effects of SSI
on inelastic bridge piers.
2 Objective
Complexity in the analysis considering soil-structure
interaction and unavailability of validated standard
techniques results in ignoringtheinfluenceofthefoundation
for the structural design. The main challenge for soil-
structure interaction incorporation is that the two
disciplines of geotechnical and structural engineering meet
simultaneously. Design of structures including SSI needs no
emphasis. Researchers have developed various models
employing different techniques and tools to properly
address the issues associated with the complexities while
incorporating SSI [6] [9] [10] [11] [12]. For simplicity of
analysis nonlinear soil foundation-structure interaction can
be represented with simple non-linear springs where the
nonlinear interaction between the substructure the
superstructure can be artificially prevented.
The present study titled “Effect of non-linear soil types on
seismic response of bridge pier supported on well
foundation” was formulated with main objectives as
To study top displacement and base shear/moment
demands of varied bridge piers height with total weight of
embedded portion of well for different soil typesandseismic
zones.
To study the effects of soil-structure interaction on the
design base shear/moment for bridge pier.
3 Scope of Study
The analytical work for the analysis of bridge pier on well
foundation and to assess the effects of soil-structure
interaction has been analysed by Force Based Method. The
reinforced concrete bridge pier of varying heights (6m, 9m,
12m, 15m, 18m, 21m and 24m) and constant diameter of
2.5m was considered. The weight of super-structure
transferred to the bridge pier top was taken as 7100 kN.
One case were considered for this study:Withtotal weightof
embedded portion of well. To assess the effects of SSI
analysis was done for bridge pier with fixed base and then
for well foundation for the case of weight of embedded
portion of well foundation. Foundations are supported and
surrounded by soils which influence the seismic responseof
the structure. The foundation soils were considered
homogeneous and of three types: hard, mediumandsoftand
their characteristics were used in the analysis. The site
where the structure is located also influences the seismic
response of the structure and this effect is dependent on the
probability of expected seismic severity at the site.
According to Indian codes to account for this effect, seismic
zone factor of 0.16, 0.24 and 0.36 were considered for zone-
III, IV and V respectively. Also the scope ofstudyisdescribed
by Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Scope of the study
4 Structure of thesis
The entire thesis has been organized into five chapters,
which in turn, have been divided into sections and
subsections.
Chapter one includes the theoretical background, objective
and scope of the work to be carried out and structure of
thesis.
Chapter two presents the review of previous work carried
out on soil-structure interaction on deep foundations and
development of Force Based Design method with previous
work done on it.
Chapter three includes the procedure for computation of
dynamic stiffness for considering well soil interaction and
the explanation of Force Based Method for seismic analysis
of structures. Force Based MethodiscurrentlyusedinIndian
seismic design code.
Chapter four presents the results of the seismicanalysis.The
analysis has been carried out for the case: case-Iconsidering
total weight of well embedded portion of well. Comparison
of base shear, base moment and top displacement has been
done for varying pier height and their results along-with the
observations have been presented. The assessment of soil-
structure interaction and soil-structure index is also
presented in this chapter.
Being the last chapter, presents the conclusions formulated
from the analytical work. Future research works that could
be carried out have also been recommended.
5 Literature Review
5.1 Soil-Structure Interaction
Priestley et al. (1979) studied the dynamic response of
bridge piers modelled as single-stem and double stem
subjected to natural and synthetic records of earthquake
ground motions considering foundation flexibility. The

extended leg of the pier under the ground was modelled
replacing the soil by an equivalent springsystem.The plastic
hinge behavior of the pier was modeled by a bilinear
moment curvature loop. The ductility demands were
calculated considering different foundation flexibility and
compared with the rigid foundation case. The study
concluded that curvature ductility factor demand is
increased while displacement ductility demand is reduced
due to foundation flexibility. The results of single stem
bridge pier showed that additional damping due to soil
yielding had no significant effect on reducing dynamic
response [13].
Chopra et al. (1983) developed simplified analysis
procedures to consider the beneficial effects of foundation-
mat uplift for computation of seismic responseofstructures,
which respond essentially as SDOF systems in their fixed
condition. The analysis procedures were presented for
structures attached to rigid foundation supported on rigid
soil or flexible foundation soil being modelled astwospring-
damper elements. Winkler model had been used with
distributed spring-damper elements on viscoelastic half
space to model the foundation. Base shear anddisplacement
for an uplifting structure were computed directly from the
response spectrum using acceleration.Inpractical structural
design for estimating base shear and displacement this
simplified analysis procedure could be made use of to a
certain degree of accuracy. Structural response analysis is
repeated for a range of parametersto establishdesignvalues
for foundation design. The procedure presented could be
used for such repetitive analysis. It was found that the base
shear values decreased due to foundation mat uplift for a
wide range of time period. However, it was found that for
short period structures base shear demand increaseddue to
foundation mat uplift, especially on stiff soils [7].
Spyrakos (1990) attempted to estimate the effect of soil-
structure interaction on the seismic response of bridgesand
its significance for design of bridge pier placed on
homogeneous deep soil strata oronshallowsoil strata overa
rigid bedrock against horizontal earthquake excitations. The
bridge wasmodeledasthree-degree-of-freedomsystemwith
mass concentrated at deck level. The deck wasconsidered to
be rigid and the equivalent stiffness as springs and
equivalent damping as dampers were used to model
impedances of foundation soil (horizontal and rotational
spring with associated dampers) to account for soil-
structure-interactioneffects. Theanalysiswascarriedout for
the longitudinal response of the bridge in horizontal
direction. The results of analysis showed reduction in base
shear values due to soil-structure-interaction effects. The
reduction in structural stresses led to theconclusionthatSSI
effects should be accounted for in the seismic design for
reduction in design costs [6].
Spyrakos (1991) has studied the effects of soil-structure-
interaction on the response of bridge piers with circular
foundation placed on homogeneous deep or shallow soil
stratum overlying rigid bedrock subjected to horizontal
seismic excitations. The soil supported bridge pier with
circular foundation was modeled as spring and damper
elements in the horizontal and rotational directions. The
material, hysteretic and radiation damping ratios were also
considered. The study revealed that the consideration of
soil-structure-interaction caused significant reduction of
base shear and consequent decrease in structural stresses
effecting economy in structural cost [14].
Gazetas (1992) presented a set of dimensionless chart and
algebraic formulas for readily estimating the dynamic
impedances (dynamic stiffness (K) and damping (C)
coefficients) for foundations oscillating harmonically in
homogeneous half-space. All modes of vibration (significant
translational and rotational modes) possible, a range of
Poisson’s ratio and a range of frequencies were considered.
Two numerical examples were used to illustrate the use of
these formulas and charts and to explain clearly the role of
foundation shape and its embedded depth on radiation
damping for various modes of vibration. However, the
formulas and charts validfora constantdepthofembedment
and for a solid base of foundation. These formulas can be
used as a reference in practice and for interpreting the
results considering multi-layered and nonlinear analyses.
During initial calculations for preliminary design these
formulas and charts could be made use of [15].
Ciampoli and pinto (1995) investigated effects of soil-
structure interaction on dynamic response of bridge piers
responding in inelastic range and considering the maximum
required ductilities in the critical ranges of superstructure.
The study was conducted on single cantilever bridgecolumn
with inertial mass at the top representing realistic case of
bridge pier of various shapes and height on spread
foundations. A large number of parameterswereconsidered
and in total 240 caseswere examinedwithductilitydemands
ranging between 1.5 and 7. Due to wide band frequency and
high intensity of seismic motion the response of bridgepiers
were found to be well within inelastic range and maximum
curvature ductility was found to be in the order of 7. It was
found that displacement ductility demand for piers
decreased by SSI effects. This effect was defined in terms of
the difference between total displacements and
displacement with fixed base. The results were proved to be
valid for cases in which soil compliance took lowest values
but compatible with the response spectrum. The results
were also valid for spectral acceleration being close to the
upper bound of response spectrum in areas of high
seismicity [16].
Carlo et al. (2000) have studied the effect of soil-structure-
interaction effects on the seismic response of bridge pier
with circular shallow foundation. The pier was modeled as
linear beam elements, distributed masses and mass
proportional viscous damping. The material nonlinearity
was considered in a rigid-plastic hinge withhardeningatthe
base of pier. The soil was idealized as a linear elastic half
space, modeled aslumpedparameter.Thestudyshowedthat
the soil structure interaction effect increases the period of

vibrating structures, decreases the base shear values and
increase the displacements at the pier top. The decrease in
base shear indicates conservative design while increased
displacement at the pier top emphasizes careful design of
connections and bearings [17].
Thakkar et al. (2002) have studied the effect of the inertia
forces associated with the embedded portion of the well
foundation on the seismic response of structures with well
foundation. Three scenarios (with full mass, half mass and
without mass of embedded portion of well)wereconsidered
for the analysis of 7 bridges and parameters, such as base
shear, base moment and top displacementofthebridgepiers
were compared. Important conclusions arrived at are:
consideration of full mass may lead to 4% to 15% larger
response compared to 50% mass and the foundation mass
has larger effect on seismic response in soft soil than rock
type strata and also for flexible substructure [18].
Sextos et al. (2003) have developed a general purpose
computer model which uses comprehensive methodology
for the seismic analysis of reinforced concrete bridges
considering soil-structure-interaction. The model iscapable
of modifying time histories, spring-dashpot coefficients at
each support accounting spatial variability, local site
conditions and nonlinear behaviour of soil and structural
component. This model can be used in any standard Finite
Element software without any special dynamic SSI or
inelastic features of soil, foundation and superstructure. All
stages of the developed model have been validated with
available models/procedure and test results establishing
confidence in its application as well as results. The dynamic
response of 20 different bridges were examined by the
authors for various cases and for complexities involved in
the analysis and were presented in a companion paper [19].
Jeremic et al. (2004) have presented the effect of soil-
structure interaction on the seismic response of highway
bridges. The analysis also included the inelastic behaviour of
soil as well as the structure components. The study has
shown that the displacement demandincreasedasa resultof
additional soil-foundation flexibility while the effect on
superstructure could be beneficial or detrimental would
depend on the characteristic of motion. However, in most of
the cases it was found that soil-foundation-structure
interaction had beneficial effects on seismic response of
structure. It was shown that it is almost impossible to arrive
at general conclusions about the behaviour of soil-
foundation structure interaction during seismic motions. An
approach to simulate soil-foundation-structure interaction
using domain reduction method was presented as an
alternative to non-linear analysis incorporating soil-
foundation-structure interaction [20].
Mergos and Kawashima (2005) havestudiedtheinfluence of
foundation uplift on the seismic response ofbridgepier with
special attention to the modifications of rocking response
under biaxial and tri-axial excitationwithrespecttouni-axial
excitation. The results have shown that inelastic rocking of
footing gives isolation effect on the bridge response while
the beneficial effect of biaxial excitation on isolation effect
depends on the characteristic of ground motion.Thevertical
component of earthquake has negligible effect on isolation.
The isolation effect of foundation rocking increases as the
size of footing and yield strength of the underlying soil
decreases [21]
Gerolymos and Gazetas (2006) investigated static, dynamic
and cyclic response of Caisson foundation embeddedinnon-
linear inhomogeneous soil with loading applied at the top.
Caisson was modelled on a generalised Winkler model by
four types of inelastic springs and dashpots: horizontal
springs along the circumference,rotational springsalong the
circumference, vertical spring at the base and rotational
spring at the base. The static and dynamic response of
Caisson foundation was studied using soil nonlinearity and
interface nonlinearity. Two cases were studied: one
considering soil non-linearity and other consideringsoil and
interface nonlinearities. The test revealed that interface
nonlinearity significantly affects the inertial response of
caisson. The results of the model were satisfactorily
compared with the results from 3D FE analysis [10].
Mylonakis et al. (2006) investigated the collapse of a
segment of the elevated Hansin Expressway during 1995
Kobe earthquake. The issues examined were: seismological
and geotechnical information at the site; free-field soil
response; response of foundation-superstructure system
with soil-structure interaction and its comparison with
earlier studies without soil-structure interaction. Results of
studies showed multiple role of soil that consequent the
collapse. These were: soil deposit modified the bed rock
motion to the extent that the resulting motion of the surface
became detrimental to the structure, the vibration
characteristic of the bridge was changed by the soil and
foundation reach in the region of stronger response and the
fundamental mode was altered by the compliant foundation
so as to induce larger response. All these effectsputtogether
might have caused inelastic seismic demand more than
double of that for the fixed base piers [22]
Gerolymos and Gazetas (2006) have presented a nonlinear
Winkler model for the analysis of static, cyclic and dynamic
response of bridge piers supported on caisson foundations.
To account for the nonlinear soil reaction along the
circumference and on the base of caisson, four types of
springs and dashpots have been made use of : nonlinear
lateral translational springs and dashpots to consider
horizontal soil reaction; nonlinear rotational springs and
dashpots to consider moment producedby thevertical shear
on the perimeter of the caisson-soil interface; nonlinear base
shear translational spring and dashpot to consider
horizontal shearing force at the base of caisson and a
nonlinear base rotational spring to consider horizontal
shearing force at the base of caisson and moment produced
by normal pressures on the base of the caisson. The springs
and dash pots models also are used to consider the effects of
soil failure, separation and gapping of caisson and soil,

radiation damping and loss of strength and stiffness due
material softening and pore-water pressure generation
[9].The model was validated using 3-D finite element
analysis as well as experimental study carried out by EPRI.
The numerical analyses using developed model showedthat
the interface nonlinearities has significant effect on inertial
response of a caisson [10].
Gerolymos and Gazetas (2006) have developed a general
purpose multi-spring Winkler model for static and dynamic
analysis of lateral response of bridge piers supported on
rigid caisson foundation of circular, square or rectangular
cross-section in homogeneouselastic soil.Toincorporatethe
effect of soil-structure-interaction,fourtypesofspringswere
considered. The spring and dashpot modulus were
calibrated using elastic theory of embeddedrigidfoundation
and the developed model was validated using 3-D finite
element analysis and the seismic restudy using the model
showed that it could capture the important phenomena
related to soil-structure-interactionand waveflitteringeffect
for frequencies larger than the first natural frequency of the
soil deposit [23].
Mondal and Jain (2008) have carried outseismic response of
bridge piers supported on well foundation using 2D finite
element method considering nonlinearity in piers and well
as well as soil-well-interaction effects. Three cases of
embedment length were considered for analysis with two
earthquake motions in longitudinal direction considering
structureandinterfacenonlinearity.Theseparationbetween
soil and well was modelled by compression only gap
elements. The analysis was carried out in two steps: first,
given time history was analysed to obtain the motion at the
base of finite element model and use this motion in finite
element model of soil-well-piersystem.Linearandnonlinear
analyses were carried out for different scour depth using
two time histories. Linear analysis showed considerably
higher bending moment demands exceeding the capacities
by 20% to 70% in piers and 30% to 75% in well. The
nonlinear pier with linear well did not show considerable
reduction in force response of well. The nonlinearity of pier
and well showed significant reduction of 15% to 50%
rotational ductility demand in pier demanding adequate
rotational ductility for well emphasizingtheneedtoincrease
the capacity of well. [24].
Tsigginos et al. (2008) have developed an analytical method
for the seismic analysis for bridge piers supported on rigid
caisson foundation embedded in homogenous soil.
Translational and rotational distributed springs and
dashpots to simulate soil-caisson interaction have been
introduced. Closed-form solution for vertical s-wave
excitations were given in the frequency domain. Results of
the proposed methods were compared with finite element
analysis as well as other available methods and found to be
in good agreement showing its reliability [11].
Varun et al. (2009) have developeda simpleanalytical model
for lateral seismic response of large diameter caisson
foundations. Winkler model was employed to represent the
soil resistance mechanism at the circumferenceandthebase
of the caisson. Basically, four types of springs: translational
and rotational at the circumference and similar at the base
have been used. The effect of rotational spring at the base
was found to be negligible and hencethreespring model was
considered and expressions were developed for them in
terms of the ratio of the embedded depth of the caissonto its
diameter and the loading frequency. The results of static
analysis of the caisson embedded into multi-layered soil by
the developed model were compared to the finite element
3D model and they matched quite well. For the prediction of
forced vibration and transientseismicresponse, expressions
were developed for foundation stiffness matrix and
kinematic effects. The free field pier response transfer
functions for translation and rocking motion induced by
seismic excitationswerecomputedbythedevelopedmethod
as well as 3D finite element model. The comparison of
results showed that the simplified three spring model could
be applied to capture the important response parameters
like frequency content and evaluation of time history
variation. The Winkler spring functions used in the
developed model are applicable for linear elastic medium
without material damping [12].
Kausel (2010) demonstrated the history of soil-structure
interaction. Analysis considering soil-structure interaction
started early in 19th century and progressed rapidly during
second half of the century and with the advent of various
computer analytical methods, simulation tools and Finite
Element procedures there is a rapid increase in use of soil
flexibility in seismic analysis, especially for nuclear power
plant and offshore structure design. Various programs
developed that have been used widely were SHAKE, SASSI,
LUSH and CLASSI became meansforsolvinganypractical SSI
problem. Later SSI problem was being solved considering
linear elastic springs usingsoil stiffnesstomodel Inertial and
kinematic interactions. Over the years various static
procedures considering linear behaviour of soil and the
progress over the years has been presented [25].
Mondal et al. (2012) have studied soil-well interface
nonlinear behaviour under earthquake motion and its effect
on the seismic response of soil-well-pier system. Analyses
were carried out using 2-D finite element model for full and
partial embedment conditionsofwell.Thewell wasassumed
to be embedded in cohesion-less soil. The analysis
considered the soil in dry and submerged states. The results
of analyses were compared with those obtained for
perfectly-bonded interface. It was found that the interface
nonlinearity caused marginal reductionindisplacement and
force resultantsanditsnon-considerationgivesconservative
values [26].
Chowdhury et al. (2012) have presented an analytical model
for the seismic analysis of a bridge pier supported on well
foundation considering soil-well-pierinteraction.Themodel
has been illustrated with an example of bridge supported on
well foundation. The results show that soil-well interaction

amplifies the response of fixed base pier and this effect
increases with decreasing soil stiffness. The fundamental
mode associated amplification are most critical [27].
Mondal et al. (2012) presented the seismic analyses of a
bridge pier with well foundation by three approaches: 2D
nonlinear, 2D equivalent linear and one dimensional spring
dashpots. The nonlinear model deals with nonlinear
behaviour more rigorously than the other two. The
comparative studies showed that equivalent model is
simpler and efficient than nonlinear but my cause an error
up to 30% in design displacement and force resultants. One
dimensional spring-dashpot model generally used in design
offices must consider radiation damping otherwise
displacement and force responses could be overestimated.
For the bridges having fundamental periods more than that
of fundamental period of soil, consideration of radiation
damping causes underestimation of responses [28].
Drosos et al. (2012) have carried out experimental
investigation of the effectiveness of foundation rocking on
the seismic response of the slender bridge pier. To this end,
three alternative designed foundations considered were:
large, medium and small having seismic factor of safety as
1.07, 0.55 and 0.43 respectively. Performance studies were
conducted through monotonic and slow cyclic pushover
loading. The test results showed that rocking foundation
could provide protection to structure during earthquake
shaking [29].
Zafeirakos et al. (2013) have compared the response of over
and under designed caisson foundations and also
investigated the effect of nonlinearity developed into the
caisson on the seismic demand of the superstructure. The
caisson is embedded into twolayersoil stratumand3Dfinite
element incremental dynamic analyses were conducted
using 10 earthquake motions consideringsoil andstructural
nonlinearities. The study showed that drift and ductility
demands were less in case of under designed caisson than
that of over designed one; the maximum transmitted
acceleration to superstructure formed a plateau and
settlement and rotation weremoreincaseofunderdesigned
foundation compared to that of over designed. Overall, the
under designed caisson foundationshowedhighstaticfactor
of safety [30].
Liu et al. (2013) have carried out experimental studies to
evaluate the effects of foundation rocking and yielding of
columns on the seismic response of the structures. Four
types model tests subjected to a suit of earthquakes were
carried out. The studies portrayed that balanced design
(when foundation rocking and structural yielding occur
simultaneously) controls seismic response and greatly
reduce the structural ductility demand while footings with
restrained rocking demand more ductility on structure. The
rocking dominated foundations significantly reduce the
seismic demand on superstructures leading to greater
protection. But the rocking capacityoffoundationmorethan
twice the structural fusereducesthefoundationrotation and
thereby increased demand on the structure [31].
Gazetas et al. (2013) have studied the response of rigid
footings (circular, square, strip and rectangular with
different aspect ratios) under undrained conditions. Three
stages of foundation states: initial elastic-fully bonded to
nonlinear with partially uplifting and ultimate stage of soil
bearing failure. The soil was modelled as an inelastic
homogenous deposit. Based on the studies, simple formulas
and charts have been developed for all stages of response in
terms of non-dimensional parameters [32].
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 General
Earlier chapter were introduction, in which general
introduction of soil-structure interaction, objective and
scope of work. In the second chapter what was the earlier
work which was carried out related to thetopicispresented.
In the third chapter calculation of spring constant and force
based procedure is also discussed in this chapter. In the
fourth chapter result is discussed. Conclusion being the last
chapter conclusion of the work is discussed.
6.2 Base Shear
The base shear values of well foundation increase for the
maximum cases in all the zones for hard, medium and soft
soil.
While replacing linear soil spring to non-linear soil spring
base shear values decreases. But decrease in base shear is at
a slow rate upto fifteen number of replaced springs in most
of the cases and after that base shear starts decreasing
rapidly.
The decrease in base shear is due to flexibility because while
using non-linear soil springs it provides more flexibility to
the soil.
For the greater pier heights i.e. for 21m abd24m base shear
values are increasing after certain numberofnom-linearsoil
springs are replaced.
The increase in base shear is due to time period, when time
period lies between 2 to 5secondsbaseshearincreases. with
increasing pier height.
It is also observed that base shear also increase with
increase in zone factor for all type of soil i.e. hard, medium
and soft.
6.3 Base Moment
Base moments of well foundation increase sharply from 6m
to 18m pier height and for greater heights it becomes
constant in most of the cases for all the zones considered i.e.
Z-III, Z-IV and Z-V.

After replacing linear soil spring to non-linear soil springs
base moment for the pier heights of 6m and 9m is almost
constant upto ten number of springs are replaced for all
types of soil i.e. hard, medium and soft then it starts
decreasing at a slow rate upto fifteen number of springs are
replaced and if more springs are added then base moments
decreases rapidly for above mentioned height for all the
zones considered. For all type of soil i.e. hard, medium and
soft for the pier heights of 12m, 15, and 18m is almost
constant upto sixteen number of springs are replaced and
above that base moment base moments starts decreasing
rapidly for above mentioned height for all consideredzones.
For the pier heights of 21m initially base moment is almost
constant when ten number of springs are replaced, after
replacing more springs base moment starts decreasing
slowly upto the sixteen number of springs are replaced and
then it starts decreasing rapidly after replacement of more
springs for all considered zone.
For the pier height of 24m initially base moment is almost
constant when ten number of springs are replaced, after
replacement of more springs base momentstartsdecreasing
slowly upto the sixteen number of springs are replaced and
then it starts increasing rapidly after replacement of more
springs for Z-III, Z-IV and Z-V.
The variation of base moment almost similar to the base
shear because it is obtained by multiplyingbaseshearvalues
to the height gives the moment.
6.4 Top Displacement
Top displacements increase with increasingpierheightinall
seismic zones and for all types of soil i.e. hard, medium and
soft soil.
It also increases from hard to soft soil and with increasing
zone factor.
Top Displacements are goes on increasing when linear soil
springs are replaced by non-linear soil springs but when
upto the sixteen number of springs are replaced top
displacement increases slowly after that if more springs are
replaced then top displacement increasing rapidlyforall the
pier heights and for all the types of soil andforall considered
seismic zones.
7 Suggestions for Future Research
This work was carried out considering non-linear soil
properties. But, in reality soil as well as surface both does
not behave linearly. The work can be carriedoutconsidering
surface non linearity.
Only case were considered for the analysis considering total
mass of embedded portion of well. Analysis can also be
performed considering half mass of embedded portion of
well and also by neglecting total mass of embedded portion
of well. The mass of embedded portion of well can also be
varied with respect to height and for this code provisions
could be made use of.
Single bridge pier was considered in the analysis which is
not practically applicable, to get more realistic resultspanof
bridge pier could also be considered along with well
foundation and considering soil structure interaction.
REFERENCES
[1] IRC SP 60: An approach documentforassessmentof
remaining life of concrete bridges, Indian Road Congress,
New Delhi, 2002.
[2] M. Yashinsky, R. Oviedo, S. Ashford, F. L. Gabaldon,
and M. Hube, “Performance of Highway and Railway
Structure during the February 27, 2010 maule Chile
Earthquake,” 2014.
[3] R. Reitherman, “Earthquakes that have initiatedthe
development ofearthquake engineering,”Bull.NewZeal.Soc.
Earthq. Eng., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 145–157, 2006.
[4] K. Kawashima and S. Unjoh, “The Damage of
Highway Bridges in the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake
and Its Impact on Japanese Seismic Design,” J. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 505–541, 1997.
[5] R. A. Parmelee and R. J. Kudder, “Seismic soil-
structure interaction of embedded buildings,”Proc. of the
Fifth World Conf. on Earthquake Eng. pp. 1941 - 1950, 1974.
[6] C. C. Spyrakos, “Assessment of SSI on the
longitudinal seismic response of short span bridges,” Eng.
Struct., vol. 12, pp. 60–66, 1990.
[7] A. K. Chopra, C. Solomon, and S. Yim, “Simplified
earthquake analysis of structures with foundation uplift,” J.
Struct. Eng., vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 906–930, 1985.
[8] G. Mylonakis and G. Gazetas, “Seismic soil-structure
interaction: Beneficial or Detrimental?,” J.Earthq.Eng.,vol.4,
no. 3, pp. 277–301, 2000.
[9] N. Gerolymos and G. Gazetas, “Winkler model for
lateral response of rigid caisson foundations in linear soil,”
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 26, pp. 347–361, 2006.
[10] N. Gerolymos and G. Gazetas, “Development of
Winkler model for static and dynamic response of caisson
foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities,” Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng., vol. 26, pp. 363–376, 2006.
[11] C. Tsigginos, N. Gerolymos, D. Assimaki, and G.
Gazetas, “Seismic response of bridge pier on rigid caisson
foundation in soil stratum,” Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., vol. 7, pp.
33–44, 2008.
[12] Varun, D. Assimaki, and G. Gazetas, “A simplified
model for lateral response of large diameter caisson

foundations — Linear elastic formulation,” Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng., vol. 29, pp. 268–291, 2009.
[13] M. J. . Pristley, R. Park, and N. K. Heng, “Influence of
Foundation Compliance on the Seismic Response of Bridge
Piers,” Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., vol. 12, no.1,pp.22–
34, 1979.
[14] C. C. Spyrakos, “Seismic behavior of bridge piers
including soil-structure interaction,”Comput.Struct.,vol.43,
no. 2, pp. 373–384, 1992.
[15] G. Gazetas, “Formulas and Charts for Impedances of
Surface and Embedded Foundations,” J. Geotech. Eng., vol.
117, no. 9, pp. 1363–1381, 1992.
[16] M. Ciampoli and P. E. Pinto, “Effects of soil-structure
interaction on inelastic seismic response of bridge piers,” J.
Struct. Eng. ASCE, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 806–814, 1995.
[17] G. DE Carlo, M. Dolce, and D. Liberatore, “Influence
of soil-structure interaction on the seismic response of
bridge piers,” in Twelfth World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, 2000, pp. 1–8.
[18] C. Paper, S. Thakkar, J. Pratap,S.Independent,andT.
Roorkee, “Effect of Inertia of Embedded Portion of Well
Foundation on Seismic Response of Bridge Substructure,”in
12th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, 2002, no. July
2015, pp. 1055–1061.
[19] A. G. Sextos, K. D. Pitilakis, and A. J. Kappos,
“Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for
spatial variability of ground motion , site e ects and soil –
structure interaction phenomena . Part 1 : Methodology and
analytical tools,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 32, pp. 607–
627, 2003.
[20] B. Jeremic, S. Kunnath, and L. Larson, “Soil–
Foundation–Structureinteractioneffectsinseismic behavior
of bridges,” Proc. of the13thWorld Conf. on Earthq. Eng.,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Pap. no. 294, pp. 1 - 11, 1 - 6 Aug.,
2004.
[21] P. E. Mergosand K.Kawashima,“Rockingisolationof
a typical bridge pier on spread foundation,” J. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 9, no. Sp. Iss. 2, pp. 395–414, 2005.
[22] G. Mylonakis, C. Syngros, G. Gazetas, and T. Tazoh,
“The role of soil in the collapse of 18 piers of Hanshin
Expressway in the Kobe earthquake,” Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn., vol. 35, pp. 547–575, 2006.
[23] N. Gerolymos and G. Gazetas, “Static and dynamic
response of massive caisson foundations with soil and
interface nonlinearities — validation and results,” Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng., vol. 26, pp. 377–394, 2006.
[24] G. Mondal and S. K. Jain, “Effect of Nonlinearity in
Pier and Well Foundation on Seismic Response of Bridges,”
in Proceedings of the Fourteenth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2008.
[25] E. Kausel, “Early history of soil – structure
interaction,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 30, pp. 822–832,
2010.
[26] G. Mondal, A. Prashant, andS. K.Jain,“Significanceof
interface nonlinearity on the seismic response of a well-pier
system in cohesionless soil,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 1117–1145, 2012.
[27] I. Chowdhury, J. P. Singh, and R. Tilak, “Seismic
response of well foundation with dynamic soil structure
interaction,” Proc. of theFifthteenth world conf. on
Earthquake Eng., Lisboa,24 - 28 Sept., 2012.
[28] G. Mondal, A. Prashant, and S. K. Jain, “Simplified
seismic analysis of soil-well-pier system for bridges,” Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 42–55, 2012.
[29] V. Drosos, T. Georgarakos,M.Loli,I.Anastasopoulos,
O. Zarzouras, and G. Gazetas, “Soil—Foundation—Structure
Interaction with Mobilization of Bearing Capacity: An
Experimental Study on Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental
Eng., no. November, pp. 1369–1386, 2012.
[30] A. Zafeirakos, N. Gerolymosn, and V. Drosos,
“Incremental dynamic analysis of caisson-pier interaction,”
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 48, pp. 71–88, 2013.
[31] W. Liu, T. C. Hutchinson, B. L. Kutter, M.
Hakhamaneshi, M. A. Aschheim, and S. K. Kunnath,
“Demonstration of Compatible Yielding between Soil-
Foundation and Superstructure Components,” J. Struct. Eng.
ASCE, vol. 139, pp. 1408–1420, 2013.
[32] G. Gazetas, I. Anastasopoulos, O. Adamidis, and T.
Kontoroupi, “Nonlinearrockingstiffnessoffoundations,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 47. Elsevier, pp.
83–91, 2013.
[33] A. S. Elnashai, “A very brief history of earthquake
engineering with emphasis on developmentsinandfromthe
British Isles,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, vol. 13, pp. 967–
972, 2002.
[34] G. J. Beattie, L. M. Megget, and A. L. Andrews, “The
historic development of earthquake engineering in New
Zealand,” Proc. of the Fourteenth WorldConf.onEarthquake
Eng., Beijing, China, 12-17 Oct., 2008.
[35] S. K. Jain and N. C. Nigam, “Historical developments
and current status of earthquake engineering inIndia,”Proc.
of the 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng.,Auckland, New
Zealand, Pap.no. 1792,30thJan. - 4thFeb.,2000.
[36] A. Soyluk and Z. Y. Harmankaya, “The History of
Development in Turkish Seismic Design Codes,” Int. J. Civ.
Environ. Eng., vol. 12, no. 01, pp. 25–29, 2012.

[37] AASHTO"LFRD bridge design specifications,"
Washington, DC, 2012.
[38] JRA, “Specifications for highway bridges, part-v
Seismic Design," Japan Road Association, 2002.
[39] EuropeanCommitteeforStandardization,“Eurocode
8 - design for structures for earthquake resistance - part 2:
bridges,” EN 1998 - 2 : 2005, 2010.
[40] NZS 1170.5, “Structural design actions part 5:
earthquake actions -New Zealand," Standards New Zealand,
2004.
[41] BHRC, "Iranian code of practiceforseismic resistant
design of buildings, Std. No. 2800, 3rd Ed.," Building and
Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran 2015.
[42] C. Rojah, “An investigation of structural response
modification factors,” Proc. of the Ninth World Conf. on
Earthquake Eng., vol.5, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, pp. 1087 -1092,
2 - 9 Aug., 1988.
[43] W. K. Tso and N. Naumoski, “Period-dependent
seismic force reduction factors for short-period structures,”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 568–574, 1991.
[44] Newmark and Hall, “Seismic design criteria for
nuclear reactorfacilities,”Proceedings4th WorldConference
on Earthquake Engineering. 1969.
[45] R. M. Riddell and N. . Newmark, “Statistical Analysis
of the Response of Nonlinear Systems Sujected to
Earthquake",” in Structral Research Series No.
468,Department of Civil Engineering, University of lllinois,
1979.
[46] A.A.Nassar and H. Krawinkler,“Seismic demandsfor
SDOF and MDOF systems,” John A Blume Earthquake Eng.
Center,Department of Civil and Environ. Eng., Stanford
University, Report no. 95, 1991.
[47] E. Miranda and V. V. Bertero, “EvaluationofStrength
Reduction Factors for Earthquake-Resistantdesign,”Earthq.
Spectra, vol. 10, no. No. 2, 1994.
[48] B. Borzi and A. S. Elnashai, “Refined force reduction
factors for seismic design,” Eng. Struct., vol. 22, no. 10, pp.
1244–1260, 2000.
[49] G. Watanabe and K. Kawashima,“Evaluationofforce
reduction factor in seismic design.,” in 34th Joint meeting
panel on wind and seismic effects, Gaithersburg, 2002.
[50] A. J. Kappos, T. S. Paraskeva, and I. F. Moschonas,
“Response Modi fi cation Factors for Concrete Bridges in
Europe,” vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1328–1335, 2013.
[51] M. J. N. Priestley, J. P. Singh, T. Y. Leslie, and K. M.
Rollins, “Bridges,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 7, no. s2. pp. 59–
91, 1991.
[52] I. Anastasopoulos, N. Gerolymos, and G. Gazetas,
“Possible Causes of the Collapse of an Approach Span of the
Nishinomiya-ko Bridge : Kobe 1995,” Proc. 4 th Hell. Conf.
Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. Athens, pp. 83–90, 2001.
[53] C. Edwards, “Thailand Lifelines after the December
2004 Great Sumatra Eartquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami,”
Earthq. spectra, vol. 22, no. s3, pp. 641–659, 2006.
[54] “Standard Specification and Code of Practice for
Road Bridges, Section-VII Foundations andSubstructure,”in
IRC: 78-2000, .
[55] “Recommendation for Estimating the Resistance of
Soil below the Maximum Scour Level in the Design of Well
Foundations of Bridges.,” in IRC: 45-1972, .
[56] R. J. Garde and U. C. Kothyari, “scour around bridge
piers,” in PINSA 64, A, No.4, 1998, pp. 569–580.
[57] K. S. Kwak and J. L. Briaud, “Case study: An analysis
of pier scour using the SRICOS method,” KSCEJ.Civ.Eng.,vol.
6, no. 3, pp. 243–253, 2002.
[58] A. M. Negm, G. M. Moustafa, Y. M. Abdalla, and A. A.
Fathy, “Control of Local Scour Around Bridge Piers Using
Current Deflector,” in Thirteenth International Water
Technology Conference, Hurghada, Egypt, 2009, pp. 1711–
1722.
[59] M. Beg and S. Beg, “Scour Reduction around Bridge
Piers : A Review,” Int. J. Eng. Invent., vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 7–15,
2013.
[60] G. Mylonakis, S. Nikolaou, and G. Gazetas, “Footings
under seismic loading : Analysis and design issues with
emphasis on bridge foundations,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol.
26, pp. 824–853, 2006.
[61] Y. O. Beredugo and M. Novak, “Coupled Horizontal
and Rocking Vibration of EmbeddedFootings,”Can.Geotech.
J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 477–497, 1972.
[62] R. A. Parmelee and R. J. Kudder, “Seismic soil-
structure interaction of embedded buildings,” inFifthWorld
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1974, pp. 1941–
1950.
[63] J. Wolf, Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis in Time
Domain. Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998.
[64] IS 2950 part 1(1981), Code of practice for design
and construction of Raft Foundations (Fourth reprint2004).
Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
[65] IS: 2911 Part-1/Section-1 (2010), “Code of practice
for design and construction of pile foundations”, Bureau of
Indian standards, New Delhi, India. 2010.

[66] IS: 1893 (part 3)“Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures” : Bridges and Retaining Walls, vol.
1893, no. August. 2014.
[67] IRC 112-2011, “Code of practice for concrete
bridges”, The Indian Road Congress. New Delhi, India.

IRJET-Effect of Non-Linear Soil Types on Seismic Response of Bridge Pier Supported on Well Foundation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET-Effect of Non-Linear Soil Types on Seismic Response of Bridge Pier Supported on Well Foundation (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET-Effect of Non-Linear Soil Types on Seismic Response of Bridge Pier Supported on Well Foundation