EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTIONIN THE ANALYSIS OF BERTHING STRUCTURES

S. Madhuri
Research Scholar, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

S. A. Sannasiraj
Assistant Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

R. Sundaravadivelu
Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India ABSTRACT Berthing structures are used for loading and unloading of cargo in ports and harbors and thus, these are essential components in ports and harbors. The piles used to support berthing structures experience various types of loads such as dead load, live load, water pressure, earth pressure and seismic force etc. A two-dimensional iterative analysis has been carried out using STAAD- Pro on the Cargo berth of Kandla port, which is in very severe seismic zone. The structure is analyzed with springs to represent soil structure interaction around the pile. The same structure is also analyzed with the assumption of prescribed fixity depth 1 GENERAL LAYOUT 1.1 Soil structure interaction Cargo berth of Kandla port in India, is taken for the analysis. The two-dimensional finite element model with the assumption of no plastic spring is shown in Fig.1. 1.2 Fixity depth concept The structure is re-analyzed with prescribed fixity depth below the dredge level. IS 2911(Part 1/Sec2)1979 recommends a fixity depth of 5D. However, different fixity depths are adopted such as 3D, 5D, 7D, 9D, 10D and 11D, where D is the diameter of the pile. Using the natural period of each case, seismic force is estimated. 2 ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC FORCE AS PER IS 1893 (PART-1): 2002 2.1 Base Shear method VB , Base shear is estimated as given below. VB where, VB = Seismic base shear. = Ah W = Z Ah = Design horizontal seismic oefficient=

Z Sa I 2 g R

= Seismic zone factor (zone II represents low and zone V represents very severe seismic intensities) Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient. (Based on the type of soil, Sa/g vs. natural period of the structure is taken from Fig.2 as per IS 1893 (Part-1):2002.) I = Importance factor. R = Reduction factor. 2.2 Analysis with springs The structure is modeled with springs below the dredge level. The modulus of sub grade reaction for a pile is calculated using Vesic, 1961 (Bowels, 1974) equation as given below. ks =

1.3 E s D 4 E s 12 D Eb I b 1 s 2 Modulus of sub grade reaction. Pile diameter.

where, ks D = =

Es = Youngs modulus of soil. = Youngs modulus of the pile material. Eb = Moment of inertia of the pile cross Ib section. = Poissons ratio of the soil. s The Top(KT), intermediate (KI) and bottom (KB) spring stiff nesses can be calculated using Newmarks distribution. KT = (DL/24)*(7ks(1)+6ks(2)-ks(3)) KI = (DL/12)*(ks(i-1)+10ks(i)+ks(i+1)) = (DL/24)*(7ks(n)+6ks(n-1)-ks(n-2)) KB L is the segment length. A two-dimensional static analysis of the structure has been performed, by considering the plasticity of the soil just below the dredge level. Based on the support reaction at the springs and the passive resistance of the soil, the soil structure idealization is modified by removing the plastic springs in the plastic zone. The natural period and seismic force are estimated for the modified soil structure idealization. This iterative procedure is repeated till convergence in time period and seismic force is obtained. The natural period and corresponding seismic force for the subsequent iterative analysis are given in Table1. Fig.3 presents natural period and corresponding seismic force at the each iteration.
Table 1. Natural period and corresponding seismic force for the subsequent iterative analysis. Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Natural period T (sec) 0.51 0.75 0.90 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.07 Seismic force on each pile kN 1434.53 1041.37 866.50 780.40 743.80 734.50 722.58

natural period is shown in Fig.4. It is observed that the natural period increases and seismic force decreases with the increase in fixity depth. 3 DISCUSSION A comparison between spring stiffness analysis and fixity depth analysis is carried out. The fixity depth versus seismic force is shown in Fig.5. Seismic force obtained after the final iteration is also shown in Fig.5. 4 CONCLUSIONS The fixity depth concept recommended as per IS 2911(Part 1/Sec2)-1979 for the static analysis of the structure using fixity depth assumption for estimating the natural period and calculation of seismic force as per IS 1893(Part-1): 2002, is observed to over predict the seismic force. Based on the above study following conclusions are arrived. 1. The fixity depth concept assuming 5D as fixity depth considering site-specific soil condition, the seismic force on each pile is obtained as 1434 kN.

2. 3.

Assuming all the springs are elastic, natural period is estimated as 0.51 sec and the seismic force on each pile is estimated as 1434 kN. 4. In the iterative analysis, considering the plastic spring of soil, the natural period is estimated as 1.07 sec and the seismic force on each pile is estimated as 722.58kN. Hence, it is recommended to consider the plasticity of the soil while estimating the natural period and seismic force on each pile.

2.3 Analysis with fixity depth concept The structure is re-analyzed with prescribed fixity depth below the dredge level. IS 2911(Part 1/Sec2)1979 recommends a fixity depth of 5D. However, different fixity depths are adopted such as 3D, 5D, 7D, 9D, 10D and 11D, where D is the diameter of the pile. Using the natural period of each case, seismic force is estimated. The fixity depth versus

Figure 1. Two-dimensional finite element model with the assumption of all the springs are elastic.

Figure 2. Response spectra for rock, medium and soft soil sites.

Figure 4. Fixity depth versus natural period and seismic force.

Figure 5. Fixity depth versus seismic force. Figure 3. Iteration versus natural period and seismic force.

5 REFERENCES 1. 2.
Bowels, J. E-Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1974. IS 2911(Part 1/Sec2)-1979 Indian Standard Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundation, Part-1, BIS, New Delhi. IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002 Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, BIS, New Delhi.

3.