Use and Abuse of Springs To Model Foundations PDF

Use and Abuse of Springs to
Model Foundations
Rob Day and Joe Muccillo – Technical Directors

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
13 Oct 2014
Part 1 – The Geotechnical
Viewpoint
Outline
- What is the conflict?

- The limitations of spring models to represent soil
continuum
- The plate load test
- Behaviour of footings/rafts
- Behaviour of vertically loaded piles and pile groups
- Behaviour of laterally loaded piles and pile groups.
- Behaviour of propped sheetpile excavations
Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 3

What’s the conflict?
Conflicting points of view
Structural Engineer:
“SPRING CONSTANT”

Structural Engineer: Geotechnical Engineer:

“SPRING CONSTANT” “MODULUS OF SUBGRADE
REACTION” (HIGHLY
VARIABLE WITH
GEOMETRY/LOAD)

Geotechnical Engineer:
“DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY”


“DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION “DEFLECTIONS UNDER
STIFFNESS” KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY”


“DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION “DEFLECTIONS UNDER
STIFFNESS” KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY”
NEED TO REACH
A COMPROMISE

A typical foundation scenario

Typical Spring Constant Examples
RAFT LATERAL
PILE
FRAME SUPPORT
Why do Geotechnical Engineers HATE Springs?
- Soil does not behave like a spring

- The bigger the loaded area the softer the elastic response
per unit area
- Soil behaves inelastically from quite low stress levels and
undergoes extensive plastic yield at higher stresses.
- Hence there is a fear that springs will be used for other
than intended purpose.

Typical settlement contours under a loaded area

Footings and Rafts
Uniform load on a raft supported by springs
UNIFORM LOAD q
Ks

Soil springs from textbooks Bowles - Foundation
Analysis and Design
5th Ed
Soil Ks, kN/m3 - The modulus of subgrade reaction
Loose sand 4800 -- 16000 (Ks)
Medium dense sand 9600 -- 80000
- The units are pressure/deflection
Dense sand 64000 – 128000 e.g. kPa/m
Clayey medium 32000 – 80000
dense sand - Typical values from Bowles’ book
Silty medium dense 24000 -- 48000
sand
Clayey soil
qu £ 200 kPa (4 – ksf)
12000 – 24000
Clayey soil
200 < qu £ 400 kPa
24000 – 48000
Clayey soil
qu > 800 kPa
> 48000

Structural Engineer:
“EASY! – WHAT’S
THE PROBLEM?”

UNIFORM LOAD q
d=q/Ks
Ks

UNIFORM LOAD q
d=q/Ks
Ks
CONSTANT LOAD AND DEFLECTION ON

ALL SPRINGS IRRESPECTIVE OF RAFT
SIZE/STIFFNESS
– NO BENDING!
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction – Plate Load Test
Typically 0.3m diameter

Uniform load on a RIGID circular plate
UNIFORM LOAD q = 100kPa
0.3m diameter (D)
E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
c, f = ? Assume elastic
Semi–infinite soil
Elastic pressure response - Theoretical
Half of average
Asymptotes to
infinite

Elastic pressure response – Finite Difference
Av. 300kPa

Elastic pressure response - Theoretical
0.6 x average
1.8 x average

Elastic – plastic response for a stiff clay
Average pressure
Plastic yield
starts at edge:
– zero for granular,
~ 2cu for cohesive

Average pressure
Progressive yield
Ultimate bearing pressure

Ks = 47,000kN/m3
Integrate area under pressure curve

Elastic – plastic response – Finite Difference
0.3m Rigid Plate E=10MPa v=0.3

30
25
average 300kPa
20
Load (kN)
elastic
15
surface sand phi=35
100mm deep san d phi=35
10 clay cu=50 v=0.3
5 average 140kPa
average 100kPa
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Displacement (mm)


SAND – 6mm Deflection Av 100kPa
Ground
heaving

SAND – 6mm Deflection Av 100kPa

CLAY – 14mm Deflection Av 280kPa
v=0.3 (bigger for v=0.5)

Effect of footing size

Effect of footing size
3m pad has 1/10 Ks of 0.3m pad

For a RIGID CIRCULAR plate at LOW STRAINS
. .( )
i.e. INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL

TO DIAMETER OF CIRCLE (D)

RIGID CIRCLE VARY DIAMETER – FINITE DIFFERENCE
Av 300kPa
0.3m dia. 6mm
Av 300kPa
0.6m dia. 11mm Not double
As rigid
boundaries
at 1.2m

Settlement of RIGID irregular shape
50mm 35mm
10m

Settlement of RIGID irregular shape
Using a uniform spring analogy a uniform load would settle

by an equal amount at all springs
UNIFORM LOAD q
d=q/Ks
Ks

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft
Av 300kPa
RIGID
300kPa
FLEXIBLE

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft
1m Thick
Raft

Superposition of load
• Why does this happen?

• Need to understand how the soil and loads interact
• Consider a uniform flexible strip load on a deep soil
UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa
1m wide
strip
E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
Single 1m wide strip
Settlement bowl
extends way
beyond footing
Edge of footing

Nine 1m wide strip loads at 2.5m centres

Settlement of a strip footing line load
LINE LOAD LINE LOAD

P = 100kN/m P = 100kN/m
d = 22mm d = 22mm
0.5m wide 2m wide

strip strip
E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
RIGID STRIP VARY WIDTH – FINITE DIFFERENCE
30kN/m (100kPa)
0.3m strip 5.8mm
30kN/m (50kPa)
0.6m strip. 4.5mm
Not same
As rigid
boundaries
at 3m

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft is superposition of many
small square loads
1m Thick
Raft

Effect of finite soil depth or layering
UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa
Width B=1m
Depth H E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
Rigid Base

Real Soils not linear elastic – purely plastic
- High modulus at very small strains

- Brittle, strain hardening and strain softening behaviour
- Time dependent consolidation

Consolidation with time
2000
pressure
1500 1 10 100 1000 10000
pressure (kPa)
0%
1000
2%
500
4%
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 6%
time (min)
8%
Strain
time (min) 10%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0%
12%
5% 14%
strain
10% 16%
15% 18%
20% 20%

Non linear stress-strain behaviour

Conclusions for spread footings and rafts
- At low strains spring stiffness

much higher around edges
than in middle
- Hence higher bending

moments (typically 2 to 3 times
higher for stiff footings at low
strains)
- For eccentric loads uniform

springs over-estimate rotation
(typically by 2 to 4 times)

- Springs go plastic at lower

stresses near edge than in
middle
- Spring stiffness HIGHLY

DEPENDENT on size of
loaded area

- Shape of raft affects spring

stiffness distribution
- Adjacent footings can have a

very significant effect on
settlement

Spring Recommendations For Footings/Rafts:
- DON’T use uniform springs

- Vary springs to take into account size and shape of
footing, proximity of other footings and location of spring
relative to centroid and perimeter of raft
- (as a rule of thumb edge spring is about double centre
springs and corner springs three to four times middle
springs for deep uniform soils).
- Check for highly loaded springs that may have gone
plastic and replace with loads when appropriate.
- ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS.
Axially Loaded Piles and Pile Groups
Single axially loaded pile

Interaction between two identical rigid axially loaded
piles
Poulos and Davis
Elastic Solutions

Interaction between two identical rigid axially loaded
piles
Poulos and Davis
Elastic Solutions
Two identically loaded floating
piles 3 diameters apart settle
approximately 1.5 times as
much as a single pile

Consider a group of 25 piles at 3D floating in a stiff clay
soil – single pile 5mm settle at 500kN

Centre pile settles approx
10 times as much as single pile

Group settles 9 times as much as single pile
Corner piles attract over double average load

Conclusions for Vertical Piles/Groups:
- Axial stiffness of a single pile is non linear from quite low

load levels
- Interaction effects of pile groups have similar issues to raft
footing interactions.
- Corner/end piles in rigid pilecaps tend to attract much
higher loads (although some pile yield can redistribute
load)

Spring Recommendations Vertical Piles/Groups:
- For groups of piles sharing a pilecap generally DON’T use

uniform springs, especially if floating – Need to do pile
group analysis.
- In practice for single pile supports more than about 10
diameters apart with high end bearing interaction tends to
be small
- Check for highly loaded springs that may have gone
plastic and replace with soft springs or loads when
appropriate.

Laterally Loaded Piles and Pile Groups
Laterally loaded piles
• In some ways, a laterally loaded pile can be considered similar to

a strip footing.
• BUT, the ground surface and the limit of passive resistance have a
major effect on stiffness near the surface
E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
= +

Effect of pile diameter
• Remember footing width relationship:

- Doubling the pile diameter halves pressure for a given

load
- BUT doubling diameter also halves modulus of subgrade
reaction.
- => Net effect is CHANGING PILE DIAMETER DOES
NOT CHANGE THE STIFFNESS of the equivalent spring
in the elastic range.
K = (0.8 to 1.8) Es
where Es in MPa and
K is a spring stiffness in MN/m per metre of pile length
- BUT diameter does increase the passive pressure limit.

P P
Ks= Ks=
P/d P/d
d d

SINGLE Lateral loaded pile
• Passive limit has big effect particularly in sand
D
SAND CLAY
Pmax = 2cuD
Pmax =
K~Es 3KpgD
3D
Pmax = 9cuD

Single pile in clay – analogy to plate load test

Laterally loaded pile groups– analogy with strip footings

Interaction between lateral and vertical stiffness
H H
displace displace=x
>>x

Spring Recommendations Lateral Piles/Groups:
- Same spring irrespective of pile diameter

- Very sensitive to passive limits hence replace springs with
loads in upper parts of piles
- Must consider softer springs for rows of piles.
- Need to also use vertical springs to check mode of
bending

Ground movement induced loading
Propped Flexible Retaining Walls

Multi-propped, staged diaphragm wall in sand

Stage 3 Excav. to elev. -3.00 on PASSIVE side
Net Pressure (kPa) Moment (kNm/m) displacement (m)

70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20


70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20


70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20


70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20


70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20

All props wished into place and excavation in single stage

70 20 -30 -80 60 20 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180 -220 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
-8 Depth (m) -8 -8
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
-20 -20
-20

Spring Recommendations For Retaining Walls:
- Spring analogies are usually not suitable for retaining wall

design particularly when there are multiple construction
stages.
- Retaining wall analysis should generally be carried out by
geotechnical engineer first and then the structural
adequacy and compatibility/interaction checked.
- Waler and anchor design needs to consider 3D effects

A case study in structural and
geotechnical iteration –
The Second Gateway Bridge
Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges Opened May 2010

Geology (North)
(NORTH) ABUTMENT B
JOIN LINE
SOFT ALLUVIUM
STIFF ALLUVIUM
GRAVEL FAULT?
ERSECTING FAULTS
SOCKETTED PILES DRIVEN OCTAGONAL PRESTRESSED PILES FLEXIBLE ROCK SOCKETS

Geology (South)
(SOUTH)
2xVERTICAL EXAGGERATION
JOIN LINE
RESIDUAL/WEAK
ASPLEY-TINGALPA
STIFF ALLUVIUM
SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE
COAL SEAMS
WIDE FAULT BEDDING SHEAR
INTERSECTING FAULTS
SPREAD FOOTINGS ON ROCK BORED ROCK SOCKETTED PILES

Fault weathered to hard clay at Pier 1

Discovered in construction when structure finalised
- Wide fault zone weathered to hard clay was exposed in

part of the footing excavation.
- Plate load tests indicated bearing capacity and modulus
much lower than adopted in design.
- To avoid pier and deck redesign, resized footing to
provide adequate bearing capacity without significantly
changing rotational stiffness.
- Achieved using an eccentric footing.
- Iterative approach with sensitivity checks.

Revised Footing Design

Variable springs calibrated to 2D FE analysis
SETTLEMENT OF RIGID RECTANGULAR FOOTING ON AN ELASTIC LAYER OF FINITE DEPTH
Foundation spring stiffness calibrated against FEAR output for rigid vertically loaded footing of same dimensions Displacements (mm)
PROJECT New Gate wa y Bridge
DESCRIPTION pier 1 13x 11m footing on fault with 2-way loads
SLS (in service ) Case 246
INPUTS
6.175
X width of rectangle (B<L) B 11 m 5.525
Y length of rectangle L 13 m Non-Uniform Subgrade Modular Ratio Simulating Fault
depth to rigid layer>10E but H<5B H 23 m 4.875
Young's modulus of soil E 400 MPa
poissons ratio v 0.3 4.225
6.175
APPLIED LOADS: 5.525 3.575
Xcoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing) xp 1.75 m 4.875
Ycoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing) yp 0.00 m 4.225 2.925 14.0-15.0
Pvert Pve rt 64,700 kN 3.575
2.275 13.0-14.0
Mxz (longitudina l) Mxz 38300 kNm 2.925
Myz (transve rse) Myz 10200 kNm 2.275 12.0-13.0
1.625
1.00-1.10 1.625
Area of spring A 0.3575 m2 0.90-1.00 11.0-12.0
LOAD CENTROID PROPERTIES 0.975 0.975
X coord of weighted spring group centroid xc 1.710 m 0.325 0.80-0.90 10.0-11.0
Y (L) axis (m)
Y c oord of weighted s pring group centroid yc -0.321 m -0.325 0.70-0.80 0.325 9.0-10.0
Moment Mxz about xc Mxzc 40859 kNm -0.975 0.60-0.70 Y (L) axis (m)
-1.625 0.50-0.60
-0.325 8.0-9.0
Moment Myz about yc Myzc 30973 kNm
-2.275
Z axial stiffness at (xc,yc) Kzc 6072 kN/mm 0.40-0.50 -0.975 7.0-8.0
-2.925
XZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc) Kmxzc 67614 kNm2/mm -3.575 0.30-0.40 6.0-7.0
YZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc) Kmyzc 113830 kNm2/mm -4.225 0.20-0.30
-1.625
total axial deflection at (xc,yc) sc 10.7 mm 5.0-6.0
-4.875 -2.275
XZ rotation (longitutudinal) Rxz 0.60 mm/m -5.525 4.0-5.0
YZ rotation (tra nsverse) Ryz 0.27 mm/m -6.175 -2.925
Max imum bearing pressure 3911 kPa
3.0-4.0
-6.98
-5.88
-4.78
-3.68
-2.58
-1.48
-0.38
0.73
1.83
2.93
Minimum be aring pressure 46 kPa -3.575 2.0-3.0
X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale
Max imum settlement 15 mm
-4.225 1.0-2.0
Minimum settlement 5 mm
centre of column se ttle ment 11 mm 0.0-1.0
-4.875
Max imum bearing pressure on fault ma terial 708 kPa
Average pressure on fault material 165 kPa -5.525
a verage load on worst fa ult corner over 9 nodes 365 kPa
Meyerhof be aring pressure on south/fa ult 207 kPa -6.175
0.18
0.73
1.28
1.83
2.38
2.93
3.48
-6.98
-6.43
-5.88
-5.33
-4.78
-4.23
-3.68
-3.13
-2.58
-2.03
-1.48
-0.93
-0.38
Meyerhof be aring pressure on north rock 1007 kPa
X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale
Bearing Pressure (kPa) Approx. Moments in Longitudinal Direction (kNm/m)
6.175 6.175
5.525 5.525
4.875 4.875
4.225 3800-4000 4.225
3.575 3600-3800 3.575

3400-3600 2.925
2.925
3200-3400
2.275 2.275 12000-13000
3000-3200
11000-12000
1.625 2800-3000 1.625
10000-11000
0.975 2600-2800 0.975
9000-10000
0.325 2400-2600 0.325 8000-9000
Y (L) axis (m) 2200-2400 Y (L) axis (m)
-0.325 -0.325 7000-8000
2000-2200
-0.975 -0.975 6000-7000
1800-2000
5000-6000
-1.625 1600-1800 -1.625
4000-5000
-2.275 1400-1600 -2.275 3000-4000
1200-1400
-2.925 -2.925 2000-3000
1000-1200
-3.575 -3.575 1000-2000
800-1000
0-1000
-4.225 600-800 -4.225
-4.875 400-600 -4.875
-5.525 200-400 -5.525
0-200
-6.175 -6.175
0.18
0.73
1.28
1.83
2.38
2.93
3.48
0.18
0.73
1.28
1.83
2.38
2.93
3.48
-6.98
-6.43
-5.88
-5.33
-4.78
-4.23
-3.68
-3.13
-2.58
-2.03
-1.48
-0.93
-0.38
-6.98
-6.43
-5.88
-5.33
-4.78
-4.23
-3.68
-3.13
-2.58
-2.03
-1.48
-0.93
-0.38
X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale

Part 2 – The Structural Viewpoint
Outline
- Why do structural engineers need springs

- Types of springs and how we use them
- Examples
• Typical Bridge
• Gateway Bridge Approach Spans

Why do Structural Engineers NEED Springs
- Structural model needs to be supported on SOMETHING

- Pinned or fixed supports not realistic.
- High level of redundancy in structure (indeterminant)
- Load transfer and sharing depends on relative stiffness of
both structural elements and supporting ground
- Lots of load cases to be considered (Permanent,
Temporary, Dynamic, different combinations, load factors
etc.)
- Serviceability deflections are often critical
- Cost and Time associated with more rigorous analysis
methods
Why we LIKE Springs
‒ Behaviour of springs is predictable and easy to understand

‒ Springs are easy to incorporate into the software most
structural engineers use
‒ In a lot of cases structure response is not that sensitive to
the spring values used. (Sensitivity test – 50% to 200% x
Spring value)
Use and Abuse of springs March 16, 2016 Page 94

Types of Springs used by Structural Engineers
Global Springs
- Represent stiffness of foundation
- Easy to include in structural models Column
- Makes use of foundation analysis

software to derive spring stiffness
- As soil behaviour is non linear spring
stiffness depends on load. Therefore
iteration required.
- Interaction between degrees of
freedom can be significant and
requires consideration.
Presentation Title March 16, 2016 Page 95
Equivalent Global Springs
Equivalent Spring
DXH
DqM

Equivalent Spring
DXH + DXH
DqH + DqH
L
EI
+ = DXH + DXM…..(1)
+ = DqH + DqM…...(2)
Solve for EI and L

kX kY kq
Off-Diagonal
terms
kX 1.3E6 0 1.2e8
represents
interaction
between
degrees of
kY freedom
0 7.2E5 0
kq 1.2e8 0 1.0e6

Column
Soil Springs (Winkler Springs)
- Soil structure interaction modelled
directly by soil springs
- Pile Cap or spread footing flexibility
can be modelled
- Does not account for pile group effects
- For pile groups foundation stiffness
should be calibrated against pile group
analysis.

Multi Parameter Models
- Models the effects of shear in soil
- Some models are readily incorporated into standard
frame analysis software. Some are not.
- Continuum analysis may be just as easy

Typical Bridge Example
Lateral restraint block

Bridge Articulation
Precast deck girders

- Deck restrained laterally by
restraint blocks.
Elastomeric Bearings - Longitudinally structure

“floats” on elastomeric
bearings
- Deck continuous between
Bored Pile/Column movement joints at abutments

- Longitudinal loads are shared between piers due to shear

deformation of elastomeric bearings
- Column and foundation stiffness also play a part in load
sharing between piers
- Lateral loading transferred through restraint blocks to each
pier
- Load sharing affects design of columns, piles, bearings and
movement joints.
- Structure modelled as 3D frame including piles.
- Winkler spring model works well in this case due to limited
pile group effects

Spring replaced
with reaction force
if passive limit
exceeded

- Deformation behaviour of individual piles should be

calibrated against those of an equivalent laterally loaded
pile
- Need to check whether soil passive limits are reached. If
so then affected springs are removed and replaced with a
force equal to the passive limit. Likely to require iteration.

Rigid vs Flexible Pile Caps
- Can influence load distribution

in pile groups Column
Pile Cap
- Pile group analysis software
normally does not consider pile D
cap stiffness
- Can be included in structural Rigid if
model with Winkler springs but L/D < 2
pile group effects not
L
accounted for.

Bridge Abutment

Second Gateway Bridge Layout Overview
- Visually mirrors the

existing bridge
- 1.6km long
- 260m main span, 71m

approach spans.
- Includes pedestrian and

bicycle access.
- First crossing built circa

1985
- New crossing completed in

2010

Second Gateway Bridge Overview
- Balanced Cantilever construction used for both main river
spans and approach spans
- Range of Foundation Types Used
- Southern Approach Piers - Spread footings on rock
- Main River Spans – Up to 24 No. 1.8m diameter
vertical rock socket piles in river pier pile caps
- Northern Approach Piers - 40-45No. Octagonal
prestressed piles in a standardised 2m deep pilecap.
- Piers 14 & 17 - single row of 1.8m dia. rock sockets
to give more flexible foundation.
- Different approach span articulation to existing bridge

BRIDGE LAYOUT – Existing Bridge Articulation
• Fixed abutment
• Columns pinned top and bottom
Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment
Pinned bearings

BRIDGE LAYOUT – Existing Bridge Articulation
• Fixed abutment
• Columns pinned top and bottom
• All longitudinal loads transferred to abutment
Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment
Pinned bearings

BRIDGE LAYOUT – Second Bridge Articulation
• Pot bearing joints spaced 4 to 5 spans

• Columns fixed top and bottom
Halving
Joint Halving
Expansion
Joint
Joint
Columns Fixed top and bottom

Second Gateway Bridge Articulation
• Expansion joints spaced 4 to 5 spans (Up to 350m
apart)
• Columns fixed top and bottom
• Longitudinal loads shared but extra stresses due to
restraint to creep and shrinkage in concrete
Halving
Expansion
Joint Halving Joint
Joint
Fixed connections

BRIDGE LAYOUT – Foundation requirements
- Potential for large stresses in spans due to concrete creep

and shrinkage
- Hence piers and foundations need to be flexible in the
longitudinal bridge direction
- BUT still strong/stiff enough to accommodate construction
loading during deck cantilevering as well as lateral and
vertical loads in service.

Balanced Cantilever Construction
Precast segment Pier Segment cast Cast in situ stitch pour

integrally with pier
Cantilever tendon
Continuity tendon
Cast in situ pier

Second Gateway Bridge Foundations

BRIDGE LAYOUT – Second Bridge Articulation
• Single row of bored rock sockets provides flexible
foundation.
• This reduces shrinkage stresses by reducing curvature
and resistance.
Halving
Expansion
Joint
Joint
Fixed connections

Flexible piles for short piers
- Shorter piers at northern end – driven pile group too stiff.

- High stresses would have developed in piers and deck
under creep and shrinkage.
- Adopted single row of 1.8m dia. rock sockets to give more
flexible foundation.

Second Gateway Bridge Foundations

Second Gateway Bridge Articulation
Halving
Expansion
Joint Halving Joint
Joint

Use of Springs for Approach Analysis of Approach Spans
- Global springs used at base of piers in approach spans.

- Spring stiffness based on pile group or foundation
analysis
- Spring stiffnesses determined for both short term and long
term loading
- Iterative procedure since spring stiffness depends on load
in foundation (non linear behaviour)
- In practice required different spring stiffness for SLS and
ULS load cases and for long and short term loading.
- Loads so determined were then used in pile group or
foundation analysis to design piles or spread footings.
Northern Approach Spans Pile Group

Suggestions for better collaboration:
Structural engineers:
• Learn more about how geotechnical engineers do
business
• Talk to geotechnical engineer early
• Explain the structures and the foundation loads clearly
• Check the sensitivity of the critical actions to the
foundation stiffness
Geotechnical engineers:
• Learn more about how structural engineers do
business
• Seek clarification from structural engineers on what
they are using recommendations for
• Be open to using springs when appropriate
Thank You
email address rob.day@aecom.com

Use and Abuse of Springs To Model Foundations PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use and Abuse of Springs To Model Foundations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use and Abuse of Springs to

Rob Day and Joe Muccillo – Technical Directors

- What is the conflict?

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 3

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 5

Structural Engineer: Geotechnical Engineer:

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 6

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 7

Structural Engineer: Geotechnical Engineer:

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 8

Structural Engineer: Geotechnical Engineer:

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 9

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 10

- Soil does not behave like a spring

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 12

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 13

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 15

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 16

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 17

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 18

CONSTANT LOAD AND DEFLECTION ON

Typically 0.3m diameter

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 20

UNIFORM LOAD q = 100kPa

0.3m diameter (D)

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 22

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 23

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 24

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 25

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 26

Integrate area under pressure curve

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 27

0.3m Rigid Plate E=10MPa v=0.3

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 28

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 29

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 30

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 31

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 32

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 33

3m pad has 1/10 Ks of 0.3m pad

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 34

i.e. INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 35

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 36

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 37

Using a uniform spring analogy a uniform load would settle

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 38

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 39

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 40

• Why does this happen?

UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 42

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 43

LINE LOAD LINE LOAD

0.5m wide 2m wide

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 45

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 46

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 47

- High modulus at very small strains

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 48

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 49

Use and Abuse of Springs March 16, 2016 Page 50

- At low strains spring stiffness