4.6 Article

Transverse seismic response of end-bearing pipe piles to S-waves

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nag.3374

Keywords

analytical solution; dynamic soil-pile interaction; pipe pile; seismic response

Funding

  1. Open Fund of Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area of Ministry of Education [LNTCCMA-20210110, LNTCCMA-20220108]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52178318, 52008059]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2021J011056]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a method for the seismic analysis of open-ended pipe piles, considering the kinematic interaction between the pile and its surrounding soil. It investigates the sensitivity of pipe piles' seismic response to different parameters and finds that bending stiffness governs their seismic behavior. The presented solution offers a low-cost alternative for preliminary seismic design.
This paper presents a method for the seismic analysis of open-ended pipe piles subjected to vertically propagating S-waves, that considers kinematic interaction between the pipe pile and its external and internal soil. Following the presentation of the elastodynamic continuum model, which is based on the assumptions of linear elastic soil response and uniform soil conditions, we employ the derived solution to investigate the sensitivity of the seismic response of pipe piles to certain key problem parameters, such as pile slenderness or the relative stiffness of the pipe pile compared to its surrounding soil. We demonstrate that the bending stiffness of pipe piles is governing their seismic response, and that thin-walled pipe piles offer the best material usage versus seismic performance ratio. The presented solution offers a low-cost alternative to complex numerical simulations for preliminary seismic design purposes, such as the selection of optimal pipe pile section geometry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available