Anda di halaman 1dari 8

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 for Seismic Analysis of Piles


in Liquefying Soil
D. S. Liyanapathirana, M.ASCE,1 and H. G. Poulos, F.ASCE2
Abstract: The performance of pile foundations during an earthquake significantly influences the integrity of structures supported by
them. Therefore, in the overall seismic design process of the structures, modeling of the soilpile-superstructure interaction is an essential
part. Although finite element based coupled analysis of the soilpile-superstructure interaction models have the potential to provide
accurate results, they are computationally expensive and often complex to utilize. In practice, many geotechnical engineers tend to use
simple methods for obtaining the internal response of piles subjected to earthquake loading. Therefore this paper presents a simple
pseudostatic approach where a single pile is considered, including the contribution of the superstructure to the pile and the interaction
between the pile and the soil. The method involves two main steps. First a nonlinear free-field site response analysis is carried out to
obtain the maximum ground displacements along the pile and the degraded soil modulus over the depth of the soil deposit. 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
based on the maximum ground surface acceleration. The method has been verified using an independent dynamic pile analysis program
developed by the writers for the seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. It is demonstrated that the new method gives good estimates
of pile bending moment, shear force, and displacement, despite its relative simplicity. The method is then used to compute the response
of pile foundations during the Kobe 1995 earthquake and some centrifuge tests found in the literature where extensive soil liquefaction has
been observed. Very good agreement is observed between computed and recorded pile bending moments.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1090-02412005131:121480
CE Database subject headings: Seismic analysis; Piles; Liquefaction; Earthquakes.

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

Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil, Mining and Environmental


Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong, Northfields Ave., Wollongong, NSW
2522, Australia.
2
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty. Ltd. and Emeritus
Professor of Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering J05, Univ. of
Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 23, 2002; approved on August 17, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 12, December 1, 2005. ASCE, ISSN 10900241/2005/12-14801487/$25.00.

and Kausel 1982; Kavvadas and Gazetas 1993. Winkler models


that take into account the nonlinear soil behavior have been developed by Penzien 1970; Kagawa 1980; Kagawa and Kraft
1981; Norris 1994; El Naggar and Novak 1996; Nogami and
Konagai 1988; and Tabesh and Poulos 2000, 2001a but they
lack the ability to predict pile behavior when the soil around the
pile starts to liquefy.
For the seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil, Winkler
type models have been developed by Kagawa 1992; Yao and
Nogami 1994; Fujii et al. 1998; and Liyanapathirana and
Poulos 2005. Although these models are one-dimensional, a dynamic finite element analysis has to be carried out to obtain the
pile response in liquefying soil.
Recently, pseudostatic approaches for the seismic analysis of
pile foundations have emerged. In pseudostatic approaches, a
static analysis is carried out to obtain the maximum bending moment and shear force developed in the pile due to earthquake
loading. These methods are attractive for design engineers when
compared to difficult but more complex dynamic analyses. For
piles in nonliquefying soil Abghari and Chai 1995 and Tabesh
and Poulos 2001b have developed pseudostatic approaches.
When liquefaction is of concern, the stiffness of the soil is dramatically reduced and the effect of the reduced stiffness should be
incorporated in the analysis. Therefore in this paper a pseudostatic
approach, which requires relatively little computational effort, is
presented for the analysis of piles in liquefying soil. Results obtained from the pseudostatic approach are compared with the results given by a dynamic analysis and centrifuge data and despite
its simplicity, the pseudostatic approach results, which are in good
agreement.

1480 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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

where E P = Youngs modulus of the pile material, I P = inertia of


the pile, U P = pile displacement, U f f = free-field lateral soil displacement, Kx = spring coefficients of the Winkler model,
M = cap-mass, and amax = maximum ground surface acceleration.
Eq. 1 is solved using the finite element method.
The spring coefficients of the Winkler model have been obtained by integrating Mindlins equation over a rectangular area
as explained in the companion paper by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 2005. At each depth, the spring coefficients are calculated
based on the minimum effective stress obtained from the freefield site response analysis.
Usually it is assumed that the liquefied soil does not have any
stiffness. However, due to the stiffness contrast between the pile
and the liquefied soil, computationally it is difficult to carry out
an analysis with a near-zero shear modulus. Therefore in the numerical studies, a lower limit has been set for the initial effective
vertical stress, below which effective vertical stress is not allowed
to decrease and pore pressures are not allowed to build up. By
analyzing field data recorded at the Port Island site during the
Kobe 1995 earthquake, Davis and Berril 1998 reported that the
shear wave velocity of the liquefied region is about 25 m / s. Ishihara and Towhata 1982 also suggested that since shear stress
application during earthquakes is multidirectional, even when
shear stresses are reduced to zero in one direction, there will
always be some shear stress left in the soil. This was demonstrated in the rotational simple shear tests performed by Ishihara
and Yamasaki 1980. During the one-dimensional free-field site
response analyses carried out by Ishihara and Towhata 1982,
this lower limit of effective stress is set at 3% of the initial effective overburden pressure.
The degradation of soil modulus gives rise to nonhomogeneity
of the soil profile, even if it was initially homogeneous. The use
of the Mindlin equation is of course approximate for soils, which
are not homogeneous and isotropic, but can give results of adequate accuracy for many cases of nonuniform soil profiles
Poulos 1982.
The nonlinear behavior of soil at the pilesoil interface has
been modeled using a plastic slider in series with spring coefficients of the Winkler model, which represents the lateral pressure
at the pilesoil interface, as shown in Fig. 1. This lateral pressure
is monitored and an iterative procedure is used to keep it below
the ultimate lateral pressure of the soil. According to Broms
1964, for noncohesive soils, the ultimate lateral pressure is
given by
Pu = 3v

1 + sin
1 sin

In this model, displacement of the soil adjacent to the pile wall is


represented by the displacement of the plastic slider, which is
different from the displacement of the soil away from the pile

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1481

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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.

in Step 1. The maximum soil displacement profile calculated


in Step 1 is applied to the pile through these springs as
shown in Fig. 1.
A plastic slider is used in series with each spring to limit the
pressure at the pilesoil interface to the ultimate lateral pressure given by Eq. 2.
A nonlinear static load analysis is carried out to obtain the
profile of maximum pile displacement, bending moment, and
shear force along the pile by applying the lateral force at the
pile head calculated in Step 3 and the maximum soil displacement profile along the pile calculated in Step 1 simultaneously to the pile as shown in Fig. 1.

Verification of the Proposed Method


Fig. 1. Beam on Winkler foundation model for pseudostatic analysis

represented by the maximum displacement at each depth obtained


from the free-field site response analysis.
The calculation steps involved in this new approach can be
summarized as below.
1. First, a free-field site response analysis is performed by taking into account the pore pressure generation and dissipation
in the soil deposit due to the earthquake loading. From this
analysis, the maximum ground surface acceleration, maximum ground displacement along the length of the pile, and
the minimum effective stress level attained during the
seismic activity can be obtained.
2. The superstructure is modeled as a concentrated mass at the
pile head. Generally the superstructures supported by pile
foundations are multi-degree of freedom systems, but in the
design of pile foundations, the superstructure is reduced to a
single mass at the pile head to simplify the analysis.
3. The lateral force to be applied at the pile head is the capmass multiplied by the maximum ground surface acceleration obtained from the free-field site response analysis, as
shown in Fig. 1.
4. The pilesoil interaction is modeled using springs as shown
in Fig. 1. Spring coefficients are calculated by integrating the
Mindlins equation as described by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 2002a, 2005, using the minimum shear modulus corresponding to the minimum effective vertical stress calculated

The proposed pseudostatic approach has been verified for soil


deposits with uniform relative density and for two-layer soil deposits using the dynamic benchmark analysis described in the
companion paper by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 2005.
Soil Deposits with Uniform Relative Density
In this section the proposed pseudostatic approach has been verified for soil deposits with uniform relative density. Results have
been obtained for a soil deposit with 50% relative density by
changing the length of the pile and the diameter of the pile. It is
assumed that the pile extends down to the bottom of the soil
deposit. The shear modulus of the soil is assumed to vary with the
effective stress level of the soil as shown below

Gs = G0

1 + 2K0
v
3
100

0.5

MPa

where v = effective stress level of the soil, K0 = coefficient of


earth pressure at rest, and the initial shear modulus, G0, is assumed to be 30.
Tables 1 and 2 show the maximum pile bending moment obtained for different pilesoil configurations. The depth of the soil
deposit ranges between 15 and 30 m and the pile diameter ranges
from 0.3 to 1.2 m as given in Table 1. The concrete piles used for
the analysis have a Youngs modulus of 3 104 MPa and a den-

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

1482 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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. 2. Amount of pore pressure generation and free-field


displacement along the depth of the soil deposit and the maximum
ground surface acceleration

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.

Fig. 3. Variation of pile moment, shear, and displacement along


depth for 15 m pile with diameters 0.3 and 1.2 m Dr = 50%

Despite its simplicity, Table 1 shows that the pseudostatic


analysis gives results in close agreement with the benchmark dynamic analysis. The agreement between results is not only confined to the point of maximum bending moment but occurs along
the whole length of the pile. Fig. 3 shows the maximum positive
and negative bending moment, shear force, and displacement envelopes along the pile obtained from the dynamic analysis, for the
15 m pile with 0.3 and 1.2 m diameters, given in Table 1 during
the earthquake loading. These figures also show the maximum
bending moment, shear force, and displacement obtained from the
pseudostatic analysis, and they demonstrate the close agreement
between the dynamic and pseudostatic analyses along the length
of the pile. It is interesting to see that in some parts, the static
profile matches with the maximum positive envelope and in other
parts, it matches with the maximum negative envelope.
In Fig. 4, the maximum bending moment and shear force profiles along the 15 m long pile with Dr = 50% are given for a free
head pile where the pile extends 1 m above the ground surface.
The maximum ground surface acceleration, pore pressure ratio,
and ground displacements at each depth are given in Fig. 2a.
The concrete pile used for the analysis and the soil have the same
properties as in the previous analysis. Maximum bending moment
profiles are given for pile diameters of 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 m.
When carrying out the pseudostatic analysis, the pile head is assumed to be at the ground surface. Hence in addition to the iner-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1483

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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%

Fig. 5. Variation of pile moment and shear along depth for a 15 m


pile with diameter 0.3 m with and without cap-mass Dr = 50%

Two-Layer Soil Deposits


tial force, the moment due to eccentricity of the inertial force
acting at the pile head is applied to the pile in the pseudostatic
analysis. Here the inertial force at the pile head is given by the
product of capmass and the ground surface acceleration. The capmass is calculated based on the ultimate load carrying capacity of
piles in sand with a factor of safety of 2.5. The agreement between dynamic and pseudostatic analyses confirms that, irrespective of the boundary conditions at the pile head and the pile tip,
the pseudostatic approach can be used to estimate the internal
response of the pile.
Fig. 5 shows the internal response for the 0.3 m diameter and
15 m long pile without cap-mass and with a 50 t cap-mass,
founded in the soil deposit shown in Fig. 4a. In Fig. 3a the
internal response for the same pile is given when the cap-mass is
20 t. When the pile does not carry a cap-mass, excellent agreement between the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses can be observed in Fig. 5. With the increase in cap-mass, the agreement
between the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses reduces and the
pseudostatic method overestimates the maximum pile bending
moment. In the proposed pseudostatic method, the inertial force
based on the maximum ground acceleration and the maximum
ground displacement profile is applied to obtain the internal pile
response. In the dynamic analysis, the maximum free-field ground
displacment will not occur in phase with the maximum ground
surface acceleration. As a result, the pseudostatic method overestimates the maximum pile bending moment in some cases compared to the pile response predicted by the dynamic benchmark
analysis.
Although results are given here only for some selected cases,
the method has given reasonable agreement with the dynamic
analysis for different soil conditions and pile configurations. It has
been found that the maximum values are given at the same depth
and the difference in magnitude is less than 25%, which is generally acceptable for practical pile design purposes.

In this section the psedostatic method proposed in a previous


section has been verified for two-layer soil deposits with a nonliquefying soil layer overlain by a liquefying soil. The relative
density of the liquefying soil is 50% and that of the nonliquefying
layer is 90%. For the Dr = 50% case, the friction angle is 30 and
G0 Eq. 3 is 30 MPa, while for the Dr = 90% case, friction angle
is 35 and G0 is 35 MPa. It is assumed that both layers have a
density of 1,900 kg/ m3 and permeability of 5.5e5 m / s. The
water table is considered to be at the ground surface.

Fig. 6. Maximum ground displacement envelopes along the depth


and maximum ground surface acceleration for layered soil deposits

1484 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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. 7. Variation of pile bending moment along depth for a 25 m


long pile with diameter 0.6 m in a two-layer soil deposit

Fig. 8. Variation of pile bending moment along depth for a 25 m


long pile with diameter 0.9 m in a two-layer soil deposit

The total thickness of the two-layer soil deposit is 25 m and


the analysis is carried out by varying the thickness of the top
liquefying soil layer. The four cases considered have top liquefying layers of 4, 8, 12, and 16 m. The 1995 Kobe earthquake
record scaled to 0.25g shown in Fig. 3 has been used as the
excitation source.
The free head piles used for the analysis extends up to the
bottom of the soil deposit and the spring coefficients used to
represent pilesoil interaction are calculated based on the minimum effective stress at each depth obtained from the free-field
site response analysis. Two pile diameters are considered, 0.6 and
0.9 m, and each pile carries a cap-mass of 8.4 104 and 1.66
105 kg, respectively. The concrete piles used for this analysis
have a Youngs modulus of 3 104 MPa and a density of
2,400 kg/ m3.
Fig. 6 shows the positive and negative ground displacement
envelopes and the maximum ground surface acceleration obtained
from the free-field site response analysis. Figs. 7 and 8 show the
bending moment along the pile obtained from the pseudostatic
approach and the maximum positive and negative bending moment envelopes obtained from the benchmark analysis for piles
with diameters 0.6 and 0.9 m, respectively. It can be seen that for
all cases, the maximum bending moment given by the pseudostatic approach reasonably agrees with those given by the
dynamic bench mark analysis.

Hyogoken-Nambu 1995 earthquake reported by Ishihara and


Cubrinovski 1998.
The centrifuge test by Abdoun et al. 1997 was carried out to
study the pile response during lateral spreading. Details of this
test are given in the companion paper by Liyanapathirana and
Poulos 2005. Fig. 9 shows the maximum bending moment envelope obtained from the pseudostatic analysis and the measured
maximum bending moments at several depths during the centrifuge test. In this case, pile does not carry a cap-mass and pile
head is free. Therefore the pseudostatic analysis is carried out by
applying only the maximum free-field ground displacements at
each depth along the pile. It can be seen that the calculated values
agree well with the values recorded during the centrifuge test.
The field measurements made in the piles at Pier 211 in
Uozakihama Island after the Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake oc-

Comparison with Field and Centrifuge Data


In this section, the proposed pseudostatic method has been used to
estimate the maximum bending moments developed in a pile used
for a centrifuge test carried out by Abdoun et al. 1997 and the
bored piles at Bridge Pier 211 in Uozakihama Island after the

Fig. 9. Comparison of maximum bending moment along pile with


centrifuge data from Abdoun et al. 1997

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1485

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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. 12. Bending moment of the pile at Bridge Pier 211 in


Uozakihama Island calculated from the pseudostatic approach and
Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998 results with = 1 102
Fig. 10. Cracks observed in the piles at bridge pier 211 in
Uozakihama Island Ishihara and Cubrinovski with permission, 1998

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.

Fig. 11 shows the maximum ground displacement at each


depth obtained from the site response analysis and the free-field
ground displacements used by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998.
During the earthquake, only the ground surface displacements
were recorded. Based on these data, the lateral ground surface
displacement at the vicinity of bridge Pier 211 was about 1.0 m,
which agrees well with the maximum ground surface displacement obtained from the numerical model. Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998 used a cosine function through the liquefied layer
down to a depth of 20 m to distribute the ground surface displacement, as shown in Fig. 11. There is a slight discrepancy between
this assumed displacement distribution and the displacement distribution obtained from the numerical model.
Fig. 12 shows the maximum bending moment profile along the
pile obtained from the pseudostatic approach and those calculated
by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 1998. The predictions made by the
pseudostatic approach agree well with Ishiharas results. The
yield moment for these piles was about 5 MN m. The computed
maximum bending moment profile exceeds the yield moment
near the pile head and around the boundary between the liquefied
and nonliquefied layers. This is consistent with the location of
cracks observed after the earthquake shown in Fig. 10.

Conclusions

Fig. 11. Maximum ground displacement at each depth obtained from


the site response analysis and estimated by Ishihara and Cubrinovski
1998 based on field measurements

This paper has described a pseudostatic approach that can be used


to compute the maximum bending moment and shear force developed in a pile founded in liquefying soil. An effective-stressbased free-field site response analysis is first carried out and the
resulting ground displacements, degraded soil stiffness, and inertial force at the pile head, based on the cap-mass and the maximum ground surface acceleration, are applied to the pile statically
to obtain the internal pile response. The spring coefficients of the
Winkler model used in the pseudostatic analysis are derived from
Mindlins equations.
The results presented in the paper suggest that the new method
has promise in practical applications. For a few cases the new
method overestimated the pile bending moment and shear force
but the values were within 25% of those obtained from the dynamic analysis. Both dynamic and pseudostatic analyses give
peak values at the same locations. Also the pseudostatic method
has been verified for two layer soil deposits with liquefying and

1486 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

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.

nonliquefying soil layers. The pile performance observed during a


centrifuge test and a real earthquake has been simulated using the
pseudostatic approach. It is found that the pile response calculated
from the pseudostatic approach is consistent with the observed
pile behavior.

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.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1487

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai