Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Liquefaction of saturated soil subjected to earthquake loading is
one of the major factors affecting the behavior of pile foundations
and subsequent building failure in seismically active areas. This
has been clearly demonstrated during past earthquakes that have
occurred in the USA e.g., 1989 Loma-Prieta, Japan e.g., 1995
Kobe, and Mexico e.g., 1995 Manzanillo. At many instances,
pile failure in liquefied ground occurred due to the inadequacy of
the pile to sustain large shear forces and bending moments developed during an earthquake event. Hence there is a great demand
for numerical procedures which can be used to predict pile
behavior in liquefying ground during an earthquake event.
Although one-dimensional Winkler models have become
popular for the seismic analysis of pile foundations, most of them
can be used only for the linear analysis of pilesoil interaction in
nonliquefying soil e.g., Novak 1974; Dobry et al. 1982; Kaynia
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Pseudostatic Approach
The pseudostatic methods were presented by Abghari and Chai
1995 and Tabesh and Poulos 2001b for the nonliquefying soil,
and the inertial force acting at the pile head is represented by the
product of the cap-mass and the spectral acceleration Dowrick
1977. By comparing the results given by the pseudostatic method
with the results given by a dynamic finite element analysis, Abghari and Chai 1995 concluded that the inertial force should be
reduced to 25% for the pile deflection and to 50% for the bending
moment and shear force to obtain the results in agreement with
the dynamic finite element analysis. They made this conclusion
by analyzing only one example and the method has not been
generalized. However, they have taken into account the nonlinear
behavior of the soil in their analysis.
Tabesh and Poulos 2001b compared results given by pseudostatic and dynamic analyses for different pile and soil properties.
They applied the full inertial force at the pile head and observed
an excellent agreement with the dynamic analysis for the cases
without cap-mass, but when the cap-mass increased they showed
that the pseudostatic approach overestimates the maximum bending moment and shear force developed in the pile. However, they
carried out an elastic free-field site response analysis and in the
pile analysis the nonlinear behavior of the soil is also not taken
into account.
In the pseudostatic approach proposed by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998 for the pile foundations in the soil deposits subjected
to lateral spreading, inertial force at the pile head has not been
considered to obtain the maximum bending moment and shear
force developed in the pile.
Here the pseudostatic approach has been extended for a liquefying soil, where the degradation of shear modulus of the soil
occurs with the generation of pore water pressure in the soil.
Although spectral acceleration has been used by Abghari and
Chai 1995 and Tabesh and Poulos 2001b, it has been found
that the inertial force at the pile head calculated using the spectral
acceleration, based on the effective stress analysis, is overestimated when the surrounding soil starts to liquefy. The numerical
studies carried out using the dynamic finite analysis show that
when the surrounding soil starts to liquefy, maximum pile head
acceleration closely agrees with the maximum ground surface acceleration. Hence pseudostatic analysis has been carried out by
applying inertial force at the pile head calculated based on the
maximum ground surface acceleration, instead of the spectral
acceleration.
In the pseudostatic approach presented here, maximum pile
bending moment, shear force, and displacement are obtained by
performing a static load analysis for the pile, involving two main
stages as follows.
1. A free-field site response analysis is carried out to obtain the
maximum ground displacement and the minimum effective
vertical stress at each depth of the soil deposit and the maximum ground surface acceleration during the earthquake loading.
2. Next a static load analysis is carried out for the pile, subjected to the maximum free-field ground displacements and
the static loading at the pile head, which is given by the
maximum ground surface acceleration multiplied by the capmass.
Here the maximum ground surface acceleration, minimum effective stress, and the maximum ground displacement at each
depth have been obtained from the free-field site response analysis developed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 2002b,c. The
static load analysis of the pile is carried out by modeling the pile
as a nonlinear beam. Soilpile interaction is modeled using the
method of a beam on a nonlinear Winkler foundation.
Cap-mass at the pile head represents the mass of the superstructure. Although the superstructure supported by pile foundations is a multi-degree of freedom system, in the design of pile
foundations, it is reduced to a single mass at the pile head, to
simplify the analysis. The partial differential equation of a beam
on a Winkler foundation is given by
E PI P
4U P
= KxU f f U P + Mamax
z4
1 + sin
1 sin
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
5.
6.
Gs = G0
1 + 2K0
v
3
100
0.5
MPa
Table 1. Maximum Bending Moment MN m Obtained from Dynamic and Pseudostatic Analyses Dr = 50%
d = 0.3 m
Length
m
15
20
25
30
d = 0.6 m
d = 0.9 m
d = 1.2 m
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
0.13
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.06
0.95
0.14
0.86
0.46
0.57
0.53
0.93
0.46
0.57
0.69
4.11
2.16
2.30
2.50
4.39
2.16
2.55
2.70
12.1
6.08
7.0
7.41
13.4
6.08
7.27
7.41
Table 2. Maximum Bending Moment MN m Obtained from Dynamic and Pseudostatic Analyses Dr = 60%
d = 0.3 m
Length
m
15
20
25
30
d = 0.6 m
d = 0.9 m
d = 1.2 m
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
Dynamic
Pseudostatic
0.12
0.17
0.13
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.10
0.15
0.86
1.20
0.63
0.80
1.05
1.24
0.50
0.70
4.03
5.36
1.98
2.70
4.03
5.36
1.98
2.99
11.0
12.9
5.93
8.31
11.3
12.9
5.93
7.31
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
sity of 2,400 kg/ m3. The soil deposits used for the analysis have
a density of 1,900 kg/ m3, permeability of 5.5e5 m / s, and a friction angle of 30. It is assumed that the water table is 2.0 m below
the ground surface.
First, a free-field site response analysis is carried out to obtain
the maximum soil displacements along the depth of the soil deposit, maximum ground surface acceleration, and the minimum
effective vertical stresses along the depth of the soil deposit. The
1995 Kobe earthquake record given in the companion paper by
Liyanapathirana and Poulos 2005 scaled to 0.25g has been used
as the excitation source. As discussed in a previous section, soil
deposits retain some shear strength even after liquefaction. Therefore, during the free-field site response analysis, effective stress of
the soil is reduced only up to 2% of the initial effective overburden pressure at each depth.
Fig. 2 shows the amount of pore pressure generation, positive
and negative ground displacement envelopes, and the maximum
ground surface acceleration for the four soil deposits considered
for the analysis. The liquefied depth ranges between 6 and 8 m
for these soil deposits.
During the pseudostatic analysis of the pile, the pile head is
assumed to be restrained against rotational movement and the pile
tip is assumed to be restrained against lateral movement. The
cap-mass carried by each pile configuration is calculated based on
the ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in sand with a factor
of safety of 2.5.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Variation of pile moment along depth for a free head pile with
diameters 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 m Dr = 50%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
curred on January 17, 1995, and reported by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998, have been simulated using the pseudostatic approach presented in this paper. Fig. 10 shows the crack
distributions observed in piles after the earthquake. The concrete
piles at bridge Pier 211 are 46 m long and the diameter is 1.5 m.
The water table is 2.0 m below the ground surface and the upper
20 m of this site consists of Masado sand with an initial shear
modulus of 57.8 MN/ m2 and density of 2,000 kg/ m3 Tokimatsu
et al. 1998. Soil liquefaction was observed in the Masado sand
layer below the water table only. Therefore only the top 20 m
layer was analyzed using the effective stress method and incorporating pore pressure generation and dissipation. For this analysis
the cyclic shear strength curve for the Masado sand given by
Ishihara 1997 was used. It was assumed that the base rock had a
density of 2,200 kg/ m3 and shear modulus of 75 GN/ m2. The
lower end of the RC pile was assumed to be fixed while the pile
head was assumed to be fixed to the footing but free to move in
the horizontal direction.
Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PSG College of Technology on 09/28/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
This work is part of a project on Design of Pile Foundations for
Seismically Active Areas funded by the Australian Research
Council and this support is gratefully acknowledged. Also the
writers would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough review and useful comments.
References
Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., and ORouke, T. D. 1997. Centrifuge and
numerical modeling of soil-pile interaction during earthquake induced
soil liquefaction and lateral spreading. Observation and Modeling in
Numerical Analysis and Model Tests in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction ProblemsProc., Sessions held in conjunction with Geo-Logan
97, Logan, Utah, 7690.
Abghari, A., and Chai, J. 1995. Modeling of soil-pile-superstructure
interaction for bridge foundations. Proc., Performance of Deep
Foundations under Seismic Loading, J. P. Turner, ed., ASCE, New
York, 4559.
Broms, B. B. 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 902, 2763.
Davis, R. O., and Berrill, J. B. 1998. Energy dissipation and liquefaction at Port Island, Kobe. Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Earthquake
Eng., 31, 3150.
Dobry, R., Vicente, E., ORourke, M. J., and Rosset, J. M. 1982. Horizontal stiffness and damping of single piles. J. Geotech. Eng. Div.,
Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 1083, 439459.
Dowrick, D. J. 1977. Earthquake resistant design: A manual for engineers and architects, Wiley, New York.
El Naggar, M. H., and Novak, M. 1996. Non-linear analysis for
dynamic lateral pile response. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 154,
233244.
Fuji, S., Cubrinovski, M., Tokimatsu, K., and Hayashi, T. 1998. Analyses of damaged and undamaged pile foundations in liquefied soils
during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Proc., 1998 Conf. on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Seattle, Wash., 2,
11871198.
Ishihara, K. 1997. Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Terzaghi Oration, Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.
Ishihara, K., and Cubrinovski, M. 1998. Performance of large-diameter
piles subjected to lateral spreading of liquefied deposits. Thirteenth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Taipei, Taiwan.
Ishihara, K., and Towhata, I. 1982. Dynamic response analysis of level
ground based on the effective stress method. Soil Mechanics
Transient and Cyclic Loads, G. N. Pande and O. C. Zienkiewicz, eds.,
Wiley, New York, 133171.
Ishihara, K., and Yamasaki, F. 1980. Cyclic simple shear tests on saturated sand in multi-directional loading. Soils Found. 201, 4559.
Kagawa, T. 1980. Soil-pile-structure interaction of offshore structures
during an earthquake. Proc., Annual Offshore Technology Conf.,
Houston, Tex., 235245.
Kagawa, T. 1992. Lateral pile response in liquefying sand. Proc., 10th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, Paper No.
1761.
Kagawa, T., and Kraft, L. M. 1981. Lateral pile response during
earthquakes. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 10712,
17131731.
Kavvadas, M., and Gazetas, G. 1993. Kinematic seismic response and
bending of free-head piles in layered soils. Geotechnique, 432,
207222.
Kaynia, A. M., and Kausel, E. 1982. Dynamic behavior of pile
groups. Proc., Second Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore
Piling, 509532.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 2002a. Numerical model for
seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. Deep Foundation Congress, Orlando, Fl., 274289.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 2002b. Numerical simulation of soil liquefaction due to earthquake loading. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22, 511523.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 2002c. A numerical model
for dynamic soil liquefaction analysis. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
22, 10071015.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 2005. Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
13112, 14661479.
Nogami, T., and Konagai, K. 1988. Time domain flexural response of
dynamically loaded single piles. J. Eng. Mech., 1149, 15121525.
Norris, G. M. 1994. Seismic bridge pile foundation behavior. Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, 1,
27136.
Novak, M. 1974. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can. Geotech. J., 11, 574598.
Penzien, J. 1970. Soil-pile foundation interaction in earthquake engineering, R. L. Wiegel, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Poulos, H. G. 1982. Developments in the analysis of static and cyclic
lateral response of piles. Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, Canada, 11171135.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 2000. A simple method for the seismic
analysis of piles and its comparison with the results of centrifuge
tests. Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
New Zealand, Paper No. 1203.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 2001a. The effect of soil yielding on
seismic response of single piles. Soils Found., 413, 116.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 2001b. Pseudostatic approach for seismic analysis of single piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1279,
757765.
Toimatsu, K., Oh-Oka, H., Satake, K., Shamoto, Y., and Asaka, Y. 1998.
Effects of lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in
the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Reston, Va., 11751186.
Yao, S., and Nogami, T. 1994. Lateral cyclic response of piles in
viscoelastic Winkler subgrade. J. Eng. Mech., 1204, 758775.