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

Whats the conflict?

Conflicting points of view

Structural Engineer:
SPRING CONSTANT

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 5

Conflicting points of view

Structural Engineer:

Geotechnical Engineer:

SPRING CONSTANT

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE
REACTION (HIGHLY
VARIABLE WITH
GEOMETRY/LOAD)

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 6

Conflicting points of view

Geotechnical Engineer:
DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 7

Conflicting points of view

Structural Engineer:

Geotechnical Engineer:

DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION
STIFFNESS

DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 8

Conflicting points of view

Structural Engineer:

Geotechnical Engineer:

DEPENDS ON FOUNDATION
STIFFNESS

DEFLECTIONS UNDER
KNOWN LOAD AND
GEOMETRY

NEED TO REACH
A COMPROMISE

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 9

A typical foundation scenario

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 10

Typical Spring Constant Examples

RAFT

LATERAL
PILE

FRAME SUPPORT
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 11

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.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 12

Typical settlement contours under a loaded area

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 13

Footings and Rafts

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

UNIFORM LOAD q

Ks

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 15

Soil springs from textbooks

Soil
Loose sand
Medium dense sand

Ks, kN/m3
4800 -- 16000
9600 -- 80000

Dense sand
Clayey medium
dense sand
Silty medium dense
sand
Clayey soil

64000 128000
32000 80000

qu 200 kPa (4 ksf)

Bowles - Foundation
Analysis and Design
5th Ed
- The modulus of subgrade reaction
(Ks)
- The units are pressure/deflection
e.g. kPa/m
- Typical values from Bowles book

24000 -- 48000

12000 24000

Clayey soil

200 < qu 400 kPa

24000 48000

Clayey soil
qu > 800 kPa

Use and Abuse of Springs

> 48000

March 16, 2016

Page 16

Structural Engineer:
EASY! WHATS
THE PROBLEM?

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 17

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

UNIFORM LOAD q
d=q/Ks
Ks

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 18

Uniform load on a raft supported by springs

UNIFORM LOAD q
d=q/Ks
Ks
CONSTANT LOAD AND DEFLECTION ON
ALL SPRINGS IRRESPECTIVE OF RAFT
SIZE/STIFFNESS
NO BENDING!
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 19

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Plate Load Test

Typically 0.3m diameter

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 20

Uniform load on a RIGID circular plate

UNIFORM LOAD q = 100kPa

0.3m diameter (D)

E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
c, f = ? Assume elastic
Semiinfinite soil
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 21

Elastic pressure response - Theoretical

Half of average

Asymptotes to
infinite
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 22

Elastic pressure response Finite Difference

Av. 300kPa

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 23

Elastic pressure response - Theoretical

0.6 x average

1.8 x average

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 24

Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay

Average pressure
Plastic yield
starts at edge:
zero for granular,
~ 2cu for cohesive
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 25

Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay

Average pressure

Progressive yield
Ultimate bearing pressure

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 26

Elastic plastic response for a stiff clay

Ks = 47,000kN/m3

Integrate area under pressure curve

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 27

Elastic plastic response Finite Difference

0.3m Rigid Plate E=10MPa v=0.3
30

25

average 300kPa

Load (kN)

20
elastic

15

surface sand phi=35

100mm deep san d phi=35

10

clay cu=50 v=0.3

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)

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 28

Elastic plastic response Finite Difference

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 29

Elastic plastic response Finite Difference

SAND 6mm Deflection Av 100kPa
Ground
heaving

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 30

Elastic plastic response Finite Difference

SAND 6mm Deflection Av 100kPa

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 31

Elastic plastic response Finite Difference

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 32

Effect of footing size

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 33

Effect of footing size

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 34

For a RIGID CIRCULAR plate at LOW STRAINS

. .(

i.e. INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL

TO DIAMETER OF CIRCLE (D)

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 35

RIGID CIRCLE VARY DIAMETER FINITE DIFFERENCE

Av 300kPa
0.3m dia. 6mm

Av 300kPa
0.6m dia. 11mm

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Not double
As rigid
boundaries
at 1.2m

Page 36

Settlement of RIGID irregular shape

50mm

35mm

10m

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 37

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 38

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft

Av 300kPa
RIGID

300kPa
FLEXIBLE

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 39

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft

1m Thick
Raft

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 40

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,
c, f = ? Assume elastic

Semiinfinite soil
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 41

Single 1m wide strip

Settlement bowl
extends way
beyond footing

Edge of footing

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 42

Nine 1m wide strip loads at 2.5m centres

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 43

Settlement of a strip footing line load

LINE LOAD
P = 100kN/m
d = 22mm

0.5m wide
strip

LINE LOAD
P = 100kN/m
d = 22mm

E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
c, f = ? Assume elastic

Semiinfinite soil
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 44

2m wide
strip

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 45

Settlement of a FLEXIBLE raft is superposition of many

small square loads

1m Thick
Raft

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 46

Effect of finite soil depth or layering

UNIFORM LOAD = 100kPa

Width B=1m
Depth H

E = 10MPa,
u = 0.3,
c, f = ? Assume elastic

Rigid Base

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 47

Real Soils not linear elastic purely plastic

- High modulus at very small strains

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 48

Consolidation with time

pressure (kPa)

2000
1

1500

0%

1000
2%
500
4%
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6%

time (min)

500

1000

time (min)
1500
2000

2500

strain

0%

3000

3500

Strain

8%
10%
12%

5%

14%

10%

16%

15%

18%

20%

20%

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 49

10

pressure
100

1000

10000

Non linear stress-strain behaviour

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 50

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)

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 51

Conclusions for spread footings and rafts

- Springs go plastic at lower
stresses near edge than in
middle

- Spring stiffness HIGHLY

DEPENDENT on size of
loaded area

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 52

Conclusions for spread footings and rafts

- Shape of raft affects spring
stiffness distribution

- Adjacent footings can have a

very significant effect on
settlement

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 53

Spring Recommendations For Footings/Rafts:

- DONT 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.
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 54

Axially Loaded Piles and Pile Groups

Single axially loaded pile

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 56

Interaction between two identical rigid axially loaded

piles
Poulos and Davis
Elastic Solutions

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 57

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 58

Consider a group of 25 piles at 3D floating in a stiff clay

soil single pile 5mm settle at 500kN

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 59

Centre pile settles approx

10 times as much as single pile

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 60

Group settles 9 times as much as single pile

Corner piles attract over double average load

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 61

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)

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 62

Spring Recommendations Vertical Piles/Groups:

- For groups of piles sharing a pilecap generally DONT 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.
- ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS.
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 63

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,
c, f = ? Assume elastic

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 65

Effect of pile diameter

Remember footing width relationship:

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 66

Effect of pile diameter

- 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.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 67

Effect of pile diameter

P

Ks=
P/d

Ks=
P/d

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 68

SINGLE Lateral loaded pile

Passive limit has big effect particularly in sand

D
SAND

K~Es

CLAY
Pmax = 2cuD

Pmax =
3KpgD
3D

Pmax = 9cuD

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 69

Single pile in clay analogy to plate load test

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 70

Laterally loaded pile groups analogy with strip footings

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 71

Interaction between lateral and vertical stiffness

H

displace
>>x

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

displace=x

Page 72

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
- ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 73

Ground movement induced loading

Propped Flexible Retaining Walls

Multi-propped, staged diaphragm wall in sand

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 75

Excav. to elev. -3.00 on PASSIVE side

Net Pressure (kPa)

20

-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

Depth (m)

Stage 3

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 76

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Excav. to elev. -6.00 on PASSIVE side

Net Pressure (kPa)

20

-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

Depth (m)

Stage 5

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 77

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Excav. to elev. -9.00 on PASSIVE side

Net Pressure (kPa)

20

-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

Depth (m)

Stage 7

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 78

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Excav. to elev. -12.00 on PASSIVE side

Net Pressure (kPa)

20

-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

Depth (m)

Stage 9

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 79

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Excav. to elev. -15.00 on PASSIVE side

Net Pressure (kPa)

20

-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

Depth (m)

Stage 11

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 80

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

All props wished into place and excavation in single stage

Net Pressure (kPa)
-30

-80

60
0

-20

-60

displacement (m)

-100 -140 -180 -220

0

0.000
0

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

Depth (m)

-2

-10

Use and Abuse of Springs

20

-10

Depth (m)

20

Depth (m)

70

Moment (kNm/m)

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

-20

-20

March 16, 2016

Page 81

-20

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

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
- ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNERS.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 82

A case study in structural and

geotechnical iteration
The Second Gateway Bridge

Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges Opened May 2010

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 84

Geology (North)

JOIN LINE

(NORTH) ABUTMENT B

SOFT ALLUVIUM
STIFF ALLUVIUM
GRAVEL

FAULT?

ERSECTING FAULTS

SOCKETTED PILES
Use and Abuse of Springs

DRIVEN OCTAGONAL PRESTRESSED PILES

March 16, 2016

Page 85

FLEXIBLE ROCK SOCKETS

Geology (South)

(SOUTH)

JOIN LINE

2xVERTICAL EXAGGERATION

RESIDUAL/WEAK

ASPLEY-TINGALPA
SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE
WIDE FAULT

COAL SEAMS

BEDDING SHEAR

SPREAD FOOTINGS ON ROCK

Use and Abuse of Springs

STIFF ALLUVIUM

March 16, 2016

INTERSECTING FAULTS
BORED ROCK SOCKETTED PILES

Page 86

Fault weathered to hard clay at Pier 1

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 87

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.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 88

Revised Footing Design

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 89

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)

New Gate wa y Bridge

pier 1 13x 11m footing on fault with 2-way loads
SLS (in service ) Case 246

3.575
2.925

14.0-15.0

2.275

13.0-14.0
12.0-13.0

1.625

1.00-1.10
0.90-1.00

11.0-12.0

0.975

0.80-0.90

10.0-11.0

0.325

0.70-0.80
0.60-0.70

Y (L) axis (m)

9.0-10.0

0.50-0.60

-0.325

8.0-9.0

0.40-0.50

-0.975

7.0-8.0

0.30-0.40

-1.625

0.20-0.30

-2.275

2.93

1.83

0.73

m
m
kNm
kNm
kN/mm
kNm2/mm
kNm2/mm
mm
mm/m
mm/m
kPa
kPa
mm
mm
mm
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa

-0.38

6.0-7.0
5.0-6.0
4.0-5.0

-2.925

3.0-4.0

-3.575

2.0-3.0

-4.225

1.0-2.0

X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale

-4.875

0.0-1.0

-5.525
3.48

2.93

2.38

1.83

1.28

0.73

0.18

-0.38

-0.93

-1.48

-2.03

-2.58

-3.13

-3.68

-4.23

-4.78

-5.33

-5.88

-6.43

-6.175
-6.98

1.710
-0.321
40859
30973
6072
67614
113830
10.7
0.60
0.27
3911
46
15
5
11
708
165
365
207
1007

4.875
4.225

6.175
5.525
4.875
4.225
3.575
2.925
2.275
1.625
0.975
0.325
Y (L) axis (m)
-0.325
-0.975
-1.625
-2.275
-2.925
-3.575
-4.225
-4.875
-5.525
-6.175
-1.48

m
m
kN
kNm
kNm
m2

5.525

-2.58

1.75
0.00
64,700
38300
10200
0.3575

6.175

Non-Uniform Subgrade Modular Ratio Simulating Fault

-3.68

m
m
m
MPa

-4.78

11
13
23
400
0.3

-5.88

INPUTS
X width of rectangle (B<L)
B
Y length of rectangle
L
depth to rigid layer>10E but H<5B
H
Young's modulus of soil
E
poissons ratio
v
APPLIED LOADS:
Xcoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing)
xp
Ycoord of Pvert (relative to centre of footing)
yp
Pvert
Pve rt
Mxz (longitudina l)
Mxz
Myz (transve rse)
Myz
Area of spring
A
LOAD CENTROID PROPERTIES
X coord of weighted spring group centroid
xc
Y c oord of weighted s pring group centroid
yc
Moment Mxz about xc
Mxzc
Moment Myz about yc
Myzc
Z axial stiffness at (xc,yc)
Kzc
XZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc)
Kmxzc
YZ rot stiffness about (xc,yc)
Kmyzc
total axial deflection at (xc,yc)
sc
XZ rotation (longitutudinal)
Rxz
YZ rotation (tra nsverse)
Ryz
Max imum bearing pressure
Minimum be aring pressure
Max imum settlement
Minimum settlement
centre of column se ttle ment
Max imum bearing pressure on fault ma terial
Average pressure on fault material
a verage load on worst fa ult corner over 9 nodes
Meyerhof be aring pressure on south/fa ult
Meyerhof be aring pressure on north rock

-6.98

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION

X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale

Approx. Moments in Longitudinal Direction (kNm/m)

Bearing Pressure (kPa)

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

12000-13000

1.625

1.625

11000-12000

2800-3000

0.975

2600-2800

0.975

0.325

2400-2600

0.325

2.275

3000-3200

Y (L) axis (m)

-0.325

2200-2400
2000-2200

-1.625

-2.275

1400-1600

-2.275

3000-4000

-2.925

2000-3000

-3.575

1000-2000

1200-1400
800-1000

-4.225

600-800

-4.225

-4.875

400-600

-4.875

-5.525

200-400

-5.525

0-200

X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale

X (B) axis (m) not to relative scale

March 16, 2016

Page 90

3.48

2.93

2.38

1.83

1.28

0.73

0.18

-0.38

-0.93

-1.48

-2.03

-2.58

-3.13

-3.68

-4.23

-4.78

-5.33

-5.88

-6.43

-6.175
-6.98

3.48

2.93

2.38

1.83

1.28

0.73

0.18

-0.38

-0.93

-1.48

-2.03

-2.58

-3.13

-3.68

-4.23

-4.78

-5.33

6000-7000

1600-1800

-6.175
-5.88

7000-8000

-0.975

-1.625

-3.575

-6.43

8000-9000

-0.325

1800-2000

1000-1200

-6.98

9000-10000

-0.975

-2.925

Use and Abuse of Springs

10000-11000

Y (L) axis (m)

5000-6000
4000-5000

0-1000

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 92

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
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 93

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
- 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

Column

Equivalent Global Springs

Equivalent Spring
DXH

M
DqM

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 96

Equivalent Global Springs

Equivalent Spring
DXH + DXH

DqH + DqH
L
EI

+
+

DXH + DXM..(1)
DqH + DqM...(2)

Solve for EI and L

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 97

Equivalent Global Springs

kX

Presentation Title

kY

kq

kX

1.3E6

1.2e8

kY

7.2E5

kq

1.2e8

1.0e6

March 16, 2016

Page 98

Off-Diagonal
terms
represents
interaction
between
degrees of
freedom

Types of Springs used by Structural Engineers

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.

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 99

Types of Springs used by Structural Engineers

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 100

Typical Bridge Example

Lateral restraint block

Bridge Articulation
Precast deck girders

Elastomeric Bearings

Bored Pile/Column

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 101

Deck restrained laterally by

restraint blocks.

Longitudinally structure
floats on elastomeric
bearings

Deck continuous between

movement joints at abutments

Typical Bridge Example

- 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
Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 102

Typical Bridge Example

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 103

Typical Bridge Example

Spring replaced
with reaction force
if passive limit
exceeded
Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 104

Typical Bridge Example

- 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.

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 105

Rigid vs Flexible Pile Caps

- Can influence load distribution
in pile groups

Column
Pile Cap

- Pile group analysis software

normally does not consider pile
cap stiffness
- Can be included in structural
model with Winkler springs but
pile group effects not
accounted for.

Presentation Title

March 16, 2016

Page 106

D
Rigid if
L/D < 2
L

Bridge Abutment

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 107

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
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 108

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

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 109

BRIDGE LAYOUT Existing Bridge Articulation

Fixed abutment
Columns pinned top and bottom

Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment

Pinned bearings

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 110

BRIDGE LAYOUT Existing Bridge Articulation

Fixed abutment
Columns pinned top and bottom
All longitudinal loads transferred to abutment

Halving joint
Fixed
Abutment

Pinned bearings

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 111

BRIDGE LAYOUT Second Bridge Articulation

Pot bearing joints spaced 4 to 5 spans
Columns fixed top and bottom

Halving
Joint

Halving
Joint

Columns Fixed top and bottom

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 112

Expansion
Joint

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
Joint

Halving
Joint

Fixed connections

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 113

Expansion
Joint

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.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 114

Balanced Cantilever Construction

Precast segment

Pier Segment cast

integrally with pier

Cast in situ stitch pour

Cantilever tendon

Continuity tendon

Cast in situ pier

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 115

Second Gateway Bridge Foundations

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 116

BRIDGE LAYOUT Second Bridge Articulation

Single row of bored rock sockets provides flexible
foundation.
This reduces shrinkage stresses by reducing curvature
and resistance.
Halving
Joint

Fixed connections

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 117

Expansion
Joint

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.

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 118

Second Gateway Bridge Foundations

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 119

Second Gateway Bridge Articulation

Halving
Joint

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Halving
Joint

Page 120

Expansion
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.
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 121

Northern Approach Spans Pile Group

Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 122

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
Use and Abuse of Springs

March 16, 2016

Page 123

Thank You

email address rob.day@aecom.com