Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DOI 10.1007/s10518-005-1241-3
W. D. LIAM FINN
Kagawa University, 2217-20 Hayashi-cho, Takamatsu 761-0396 Japan. University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
(Tel: 81-87-864-2170; Fax: 81-87-864-2188; E-mail: nn@eng.kagawa-u.ac.jp)
practice that recognize that design, especially preliminary design, will always be based on
simplied procedures.
Key words: case histories of pile failures, centrifuge testing of piles, dynamic effective stress
analysis, pile cap stiffnesses, piles in liqueable soils, pseudo-static analysis of pile groups,
seismic response of pile groups
1. Introduction
In 1999, on appointment to the Anabuki Chair of Foundation Geodynam-
ics at Kagawa University, I was given the opportunity to make a compre-
hensive study of pile foundations in liqueable and non-liqueable soils.
The study was supported by Anabuki Komuten, a major construction rm
in Western Japan. The rm constructs many buildings on reclaimed land
susceptible to liquefaction and use pile foundations extensively. Therefore
the research was focussed on the behaviour of pile foundations during
earthquakes in both liqueable and non-liqueable soils. The research study
focussed on three aspects of the pile foundation design process: determin-
ing the moments, shears and displacements for design, characterizing the
pile cap stiffness matrix so that the effects of the pile foundation on the
response of the superstructure could be included adequately in a computa-
tional model of the superstructure and assessing the reliability of the sim-
plied methods used in practice for the seismic analysis of pile foundations.
The seismic response of pile foundations to strong earthquake shaking
is a very complex process that is controlled by inertial interaction between
superstructure and pile foundation, kinematic interaction between founda-
tion soils and piles, and the non-linear stressstrain behaviour of soils. At
some sites, high seismically induced pore-water pressures (PWP) or lique-
faction add to the complexity. Over the years, a series of simple analytical
procedures have evolved for solving the various design problems associated
with pile foundations subjected to earthquake motions. These procedures
are simple because they model pilesoil interaction by Winkler springs and
ignore one or more of the signicant factors listed above that control seis-
mic response.
Simplied procedures are an essential feature of seismic design and are
here to stay. In the case of the seismic design of structures, simplied pro-
cedures are the tools for code regulated designs. However, in this case, the
simplied procedures are continually re-validated and improved over time
by tests on large scale model structures on shake tables, analysis of fail-
ures during earthquakes and by parametric studies using sophisticated non-
linear nite element analyses. The improved procedures appear in updated
building codes. In the structural environment, simplied methods are a
convenience for design and more sophisticated, conrmatory analyses can
be conducted on the nal design, if considered necessary. In the case of
performance based design, the proposed design is checked by a non-linear
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 143
Chang (1937) appears to have been the rst to introduce the concept of
critical pile length. He recognized that the upper layers of soil contributed
most to resistance against lateral loads and suggested that the constant soil
modulus, Es , should be taken as the value at one third of the modulus at
the critical depth, in effect recommending a characteristic modulus. Using a
modulus backgured from the test data, which inherently included non-lin-
ear effects of the loading, he showed that his model of pilesoil interaction
could simulate the results of Feagins tests satisfactorily.
This method, designated Changs method, is still widely used today and
appears in the latest Japanese codes with a yield cut-off. The soil modulus
is given in Japanese codes as a function of the standard penetration resis-
tance, N. Computer programs readily allow a variable Es corresponding to
the distribution of N values. Liqueable layers are assigned either zero or
a very low modulus in practice.
layers. Results from the analyses of pile foundations in these types of sites,
which will be presented later, clearly demonstrate the importance of kine-
matic moments in these conditions.
The response of the foundation soils to strong seismic shaking is
non-linear. The soil moduli degrade with strain, resulting in a reduction
in soil stiffness and therefore greater displacements under load. The simpli-
ed analysis is non-linear but it takes into account only the non-linearity
induced by the inertial loads from the superstructure. The very signicant
degradation in stiffness caused by the seismic ground motions is neglected
in the calculation of pile response.
Centrifuge test data by Wilson (1998) illustrates the uncertainty associ-
ated with pseudo-static analysis. He reports on three centrifuge tests on a
medium dense sand with Dr = 55%. These tests were part of a study of pile
response in liqueable sands but in these tests the PWP developed during
shaking were so low as to have no signicant effect on pile response. The
PWP, as a percentage of effective overburden pressure, were 20%, 11% and
4%. The piles experienced high inertial loads so that pilesoil interaction
was non-linear. Wilson found that the p-ordinate of the py curves had to
be multiplied by 2 in order for the results of pseudo-static analysis to pro-
vide a good match to the recorded data.
There is no generally accepted way for taking the effects of seismically
induced PWP into account in the simplied method. In the case of lique-
faction, it has been suggested that the p-ordinates of the py curves be
reduced by factors in the range 0.30.1. In the case of surface liquefaction,
the pile has been assumed sometimes to be free standing over the liqueed
depth. In Japanese practice using Changs elastic method, the lateral stiff-
ness is set to zero or a low value in the liqueed layers. The emerging state
of practice for liqueable soils will be discussed in more detail in a later
section.
best practice was to use non-linear py curves for the individual piles in
the group and describe the interaction between the piles by elastic interac-
tion factors.
The advent of centrifuge testing showed the limitations of the elastic
interaction factors and an elastic approach in general. Barton (1982) was
the rst to document the unequal distribution of loads between rows of
piles in sand. She found that, for pairs of piles spaced at two diameters, the
front pile carried 60% of the applied load. Two different approaches were
developed for inferring group performance from analysis of a single pile.
The simplest approach is based on the concept of group efciency. Pinto
et al. (1997) conducted centrifuge static model tests of 3 3 pile groups in
sands with relative densities ranging from 17% to over 90%. They found
that the group efciency for free headed piles, at a centre to centre spacing
(s) of three times the diameter (d) or s/d = 3, was about 0.73, at displace-
ments of 75 mm. For s/d = 5, the efciency was about 0.9. In applications,
the efciency is often taken in the 0.70.8 range.
Rollins et al. (1998) conducted a full-scale test on a 3 3 pile group in
clay. The piles were closed-end steel pipes with a wall thickness of 9.5 mm
and were driven to a depth of 9.1 m. A single pile was also driven about
1.8 m from the group. The efciency of the group was found to be in the
range 0.40.5. This is considerably smaller than the values quoted by Pinto
et al. (1997) for sand.
The second approach to the analysis of group response uses p-multipli-
ers. The p-multiplier is a reduction factor that is applied to the p-term in
the py curve for a single pile to simulate the behaviour of piles in the
group. For the 3 3 group, Pinto et al. (1997) found the multipliers to be
0.8, 0.45 and 0.3 for the leading, middle and trailing rows respectively of
piles in sand with a relative density of 55%. Brown and Bollman (1996)
recommend the factors in Table I for design. The factors are representa-
tive of signicant pile head displacements of the order of 10% of the pile
diameter.
Rollins et al. (1998) backgured p-multipliers from their full-scale test in
clay to be 0.6, 0.38 and 0.43. These multipliers are at the low end of the
p-multipliers obtained from other available full-scale tests and the third
Row spacing Front row 2nd Row 3rd and More rows
row shows a higher multiplier than the second row. Clearly p-multipliers
and group efciencies are quite dependent on site conditions, soil types and
the details of stratication. A very signicant nding from the Rollins test
is that the bending moments in piles in the group were 50100% higher
than in the single pile and that the location of maximum moment was
deeper.
model automatically includes the hysteretic damping of the soil. The vis-
cous dashpot represents radiation damping which is specied by the damp-
ing coefcient proposed by Gazetas et al. (1993).
If a secant modulus approach is used to model non-linear response, then
a viscous damper is required to model hysteretic material damping. The
damping coefcient, cm , is given by
cm = 2s khsecant / (2)
where s is the damping ratio, khsecant is the secant modulus and is the
circular frequency. This model is used later to analyse the response of pile
foundations in centrifuge tests.
displacement criterion, this top down analysis neglects the stiffness changes
caused by kinematic interaction and seismic ground motions. The evalu-
ation of pile cap stiffnesses is considered later in connection with bridge
foundations.
Figure 4. Strain dependence of moduli and damping after (Seed and Idriss, 1970).
strength of the soil and no tension is allowed to develop between the soil
and the pile, allowing gapping to occur, when appropriate.
In the motion of pile groups, rocking and translation are coupled. The
rocking stiffness develops due to the resistance of the piles to vertical
movement as shown partially in Figure 5. The rocking stiffness must be
updated continuously during the analysis to reect any changes in soil
properties. The simplied horizontal model cannot do this directly since it
is unidirectional. The difculty is overcome by switching the mode of calcu-
lation back and forth between horizontal and vertical. In the vertical mode
at any time t, the program calculates the rocking stiffness corresponding
to the current strain eld and hence the current degraded properties of the
soil. It then switches back to the horizontal analysis and after updating the
rocking stiffness proceeds to calculate response for the next time interval.
154 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 7. The layout of the centrifuge test for a single pile (Finn, 1999).
density of 38%. Two tests will be discussed here. In the rst test, the
input motions had a peak acceleration of 0.158 g, which gave moderately
strong shaking and generated signicant non-linear response. The horizon-
tal input acceleration record for the second test was 0.04 g. This motion
level was chosen to ensure essentially elastic response. The distribution of
156 W. D. LIAM FINN
shear moduli with depth was measured prior to shaking, while the centri-
fuge was in ight, using bender elements. Therefore, accurate initial shear
moduli of the foundation soil were available for use in the analyses.
applied at the pile head, and the resulting equations were solved to obtain
the complex valued pile impedances. The impedances were evaluated at the
surface of the sand. The time histories of the stiffnesses (the real part of
the impedances) are shown in Figure 10.
The dynamic stiffnesses of the single pile during the specied input
motions decreased dramatically as the level of shaking increased (Fig-
ure 10). The stiffnesses experienced their lowest values between about 10
and 14 sec, when the maximum accelerations occurred at the pile head. It
can be seen that the lateral stiffness component Kvv decreased more than
the rotational stiffness K or the coupled lateral-rotational stiffness Kv .
The equivalent damping coefcients increased with the level of shaking.
The time histories of stiffnesses in Figure 10 show clearly the difcul-
ties in selecting a single spring value to represent the lateral or rotational
stiffness of a pile foundation. To make a valid selection, one would need
to know which segment of the ground motion was most critical in control-
ling the seismic response of the structure. A spring based on the minimum
lateral stiffness would represent the mobilized stiffness during the period of
very strong shaking and would be more critical for longer period modes or
structures. Clearly, the time variation in stiffness and damping provides a
useful guide to the selection of the discrete springs and dashpots required
by commercial structural analysis software. In a later section, a quantita-
tive procedure for getting the best estimate of the single valued spring to
represent the time histories will be developed.
The computed and measured moment distributions along the pile at the
instant of peak pile head deection are shown in Figure 11. The moments
computed by PILE-3D agree quite well with the measured moments.
158 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 11. Comparison of measured bending moments with moments from different
analyses (Finn, 1999).
Results from py analyses presented in the next section are also shown in
Figure 11.
Figure 12. Measured and computed pile moments for near elastic response using API
procedures.
was essentially elastic and the tangent moduli stiffnesses of API would
be expected to apply. A tangent stiffness, k = 15, 000 kN/m3 , is required
to give the very good approximation to the measured moments shown in
Figure 12. This value is about 10% higher than the value associated with
a Dr = 38% in Figure 1 (k = 13, 500 kN/m3 ).
The strong shaking test with peak input acceleration of 0.158 g was
analysed using the initial tangent modulus back gured from the elastic
test. The resulting moment distribution is shown in Figure 11 above. The
peak bending moment is about 50% too large. The analysis was repeated
using a modulus k = 2 500 kN/m3 . This is signicantly less than Terzaghis
secant modulus for Dr = 38% from Figure 1 for a sand above the water
table. The prediction of peak moment is much better now but the moments
in the bottom half of the pile are greatly over-predicted. The initial tangent
moduli in the API curves seem clearly to be too stiff for the analysis of
strong shaking. The Terzaghi moduli seem more appropriate, although in
this case, they too seem to be a little too stiff. However another assump-
tion regarding the initial stiffness, the assumption that it is constant with
depth, can be shown to have a signicant affect on response.
Both the API and Terzaghi moduli of subgrade reaction are assumed to
be constant with depth. The analysis was repeated following the suggestion
of Gazetas and Dobry (1984) that the k value should vary with depth H
and the Youngs modulus Emax at depth H with kH = Emax and is a con-
stant. Thavaraj (2001) found the range in to be 0.91.3.
160 W. D. LIAM FINN
The shear wave velocity distribution in the centrifuge test was measured
during ight and, therefore, accurate values of the shear modulus, G, were
available. Emax was estimated for two values of Poissons ratio, = 0.2 and
0.3. The resulting moment distributions are shown in Figure 13. In these
analyses = 1.0. This approach to estimating the initial stiffness, gives a
better approximation to the measured bending moments, when using the
standard API py curves. For = 0.2 and = 1.0, both the maximum
moment and the entire moment distribution are very good.
The results of these analyses demonstrate the potential unreliability of
a dynamic computational model based on standard py curves for seis-
mic response analysis. The analyses suggest that the standard py curves
developed on the basis of data from static and slow cyclic loading tests
have limitations for seismic response analyses. The API initial stiffnesses
appear to be too high for non-linear response analysis and the Terzaghi
initial stiffnesses too soft for essentially elastic response. The suggestion of
Gazetas and Dobry (1984) that the initial stiffness be considered to vary
with depth and to be proportional to the soil modulus seems to make
a major improvement in the response predictions, especially if the stiff-
nesses are estimated from measured in situ moduli. On important projects,
it is likely that shear wave velocity data will be available for estimat-
ing moduli from seismic cone tests or cross-hole or down-hole seismic
tests.
Figure 14. Simplied pile-superstructure model (after Abghari and Chai, 1995).
that the group effect does not appear to be a signicant factor as far as
moments and shears are concerned for the different pile foundation-super-
structure systems analysed here. The distribution of deections along the
pile show more variation, as shown in Figure 17. Group effects appear to
be different in the dynamic environment from those quantied for the static
environment. One should be cautious about relying too readily on group
effect parameters obtained from static tests or static analyses.
Figure 18. Comparison of pile moment proles with pile group cap rotation.
Figure 19. Comparison of shear force proles with pile group cap rotation.
Single pile 35
(2 2) Group pile 106 0.76
(4 4) Group pile 228 0.41
Initial Minimum
Figure 21. Performance levels for seismic design (modied from Shapiro et al., 2000).
Figure 23. Distribution of initial shear moduli at site of AASHTO (1983) bridge
and of effective shear moduli from a SHAKE free-eld analysis.
of the depth with values of zero at the surface and 213 MPa at 10 m
depth (Figure 23). The variations of shear moduli and damping ratios with
shear strain are those recommended by Seed and Idriss (1970) for sand.
The surface soil layer overlies a hard stratum at 10 m. For the PILE-
3D nite element mesh, the surface layer was divided into 10 sub-layers
of varying thicknesses. Sub-layer thicknesses decrease towards the surface
where soilpile interaction effects are stronger. 900 brick elements were
used to model the soil around the piles and 64 beam elements were used
to model the piles. The input acceleration record used in the study was the
rst 20 sec of the N-S component of the free eld accelerations recorded at
CSMIP Station No.89320 at Rio Dell, California during the April 25, 1992
Cape Mendocino Earthquake. The power spectral density of this accelera-
tion record shows that the predominant frequency of the record is approx-
imately 2.2 Hz.
damping components are always obtained also during the analyses. The
stiffnesses are calculated rst without taking into account inertial interac-
tion between the superstructure and the pile foundation. This is the usual
condition in which stiffness is estimated either by static loading tests, static
analysis or by elastic formulae. The stiffnesses are calculated also tak-
ing the inertial effects of the super-structure into account. In this latter
case, both kinematic and inertial interactions are taken into account. Since
the entire pile group is being analysed, pilesoilpile interaction is auto-
matically taken into account under both linear and non-linear conditions.
Therefore the usual difcult problem of what interaction factors to use or
what group factor to apply is avoided.
Figure 24. Time history of lateral and cross-coupled stiffness under strong shaking.
Figure 26. Stick model of the bridge with the foundation springs and dashpots.
Figure 34. Spectral accelerations of AASHTO bridge for four different foundation
conditions.
Figure 35. Spectral displacements of AASHTO bridge for four different approxima-
tions to foundation conditions.
other two cases the moduli were uniform but different. Three different
pile/soil modulus ratios, Ep /Es , were used. The foundation parameters for
the study are shown in Table IV.
Case No. of piles Gmax prole Siffness ratio, Spacing ratio, Depth ratio, Density Ratio,
Ep /Es S/D L/D p /s
Parameter Values
Figure 38. Period shift for bridge-foundation system as a function of relative lateral
stiffnesses of super-structure and pile foundation.
The mass, height and diameter of the pier were also varied. The param-
eters characterizing the pier and the super-structure are given in Table V.
The calculated foundation stiffnesses for the six cases are shown in
Table VI.
The results are shown in Figure 38, where the non-dimensional period
ratio, TP /TF , is plotted against the non-dimensional stiffness ratio, KPS /KLF .
182 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 39. Main span of the Queensborough Bridge showing the river (S1 , N1 )
and the abutment piers (S2 , N2 ) (Ventura et al., 1994a).
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 183
Figure 40. Typical piers and a nite element pier model of Queensborough Bridge
(Ventura et al., 1994a).
Figure 41. Sensitivity of computed transverse frequencies to soil spring stiffness (Ven-
tura et al., 1994b).
investigation conducted at pier S1 . Since soil data was not available for
piers S2 , N1 and N2 , the translational and rotational stiffnesses of S1 were
scaled in proportion to the areas and second area moments of inertia of
their bases to provide estimates of their stiffnesses.
A series of ambient vibration studies (AVS) of the Main Span were con-
ducted before the retrot work started by Ventura et al. (1994a,b). Mode
shapes and modal frequencies were determined from the ambient vibra-
tion data. The experimental and analytical rst three frequencies of trans-
verse vibration are shown in Figure 41. The sensitivity of these analytical
frequencies to variations in the initial moduli is also shown in Figure 41,
where variations in the moduli are expressed as multiples of the initial
184 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 42. Transverse mode between piers S19 and S23 and displacements at S21 (19)
(Ventura et al., 1994b).
values. For an accurate prediction of the rst transverse mode, the initial
moduli need to be doubled. But the rst modal frequency based on the ini-
tial moduli is quite good; it is 85% of the measured frequency.
For the higher frequencies the soil properties needed adjustment. The
relative insensitivity of all frequencies to very high multiples of the initial
soil moduli arises from the fact that the system frequencies depend not on
foundation stiffnesses alone but on the combined stiffnesses of the founda-
tion and super-structure, as discussed earlier.
The use of ambient vibration data to adjust the initial stiffnesses of the
foundations is based on the tacit assumption that the structural modelling
needs no adjustment. Ambient vibration can also provide valuable data on
potential displacement patterns of a bridge.
Additional lateral vibration measurements were taken at selected piers
to verify the frequencies of the lateral modes of vibration. The transverse
mode shape between piers S19 and S23 in the South Approach is shown
in Figure 42. Two piers showed signicant translation during the AVS. The
pile cap of pier S21 had a lateral translation that was 40% of the trans-
lation of the deck. The pile cap is supported by 25, 14 m long, untreated
timber piles that penetrate 14 m of peat to bed on ne sand. The low trans-
lational stiffness of the pile cap is consistent with the low stiffness of the
peat. The lateral motion at pier S21 is shown in Figure 42 and the coupling
of the different modes of displacement is evident.
Figure 43. Displacements in Niigata during the 1964 earthquake (Hamada et al., 1986).
186 W. D. LIAM FINN
displacements were very damaging to pile foundations and caused the fail-
ure of two major bridges.
Damage to a pile under a building in Niigata caused by about 2 m of
ground displacement is shown in Figure 44. The damage occurred at the
boundary between liqueed and non-liqueed soil.
The complete shearing of a pile supporting a warehouse on Port Island
by about 2 m of ground displacement during the 1995 Kobe earthquake is
shown in Figure 45. These piles were designed for vertical loads only and
could not carry large moments and shears. Their only function was to con-
trol settlement.
However piles can be designed to carry the moments and shears gen-
erated by earthquake shaking or post-liquefaction ground displacements.
Figure 46 shows a bridge on pile foundations. The foundation soils lique-
ed during the 1983 Nihon-Kai-Chubu earthquake. This led to a failure of
the approach embankments by lateral spreading but the pile foundations
survived without damage.
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 187
Figure 45. Shearing of a pile by ground displacement in Kobe earthquake, 1995 (Finn,
1999).
A pile supporting a crane rail on Port Island, just offshore of Kobe City,
is shown in Figure 47.
The ground moved about 1.0 m in this location after liquefaction
occurred during the Kobe earthquake. The relative motion between the
ground and the pile is clearly evident in Figure 47. However the pile was
designed to carry signicant shears and moments from crane loading and
survived without damage.
Figure 47. Undamaged pile supporting a crane rail in ground that moved more than
1.0 m (Finn, 1999).
Table VII. Classication of pile damage (Adapted from Matsui and Oda, 1996).
Damage Many cracks with Many cracks with Some cracks Almost
description concrete separation concrete separation with separation no cracks
all over pile near pile top near top
Figure 48. Lateral load test on 1 m diameter CDIH pile (Kimura et al., 1994).
television (BHTV) cameras. The BHTV system was very effective, even hair
cracks could be observed in the images.
Non-destructive methods such as velocity logging, impact wave and elec-
tromagnetic wave methods were also used.
Matsui and Oda (1996) found that pile damage correlated with sub-soil
conditions. Damage was largely conned to areas of liquefaction with and
without lateral ow of liqueed soil. Despite the extensive liquefaction and
the severe damage to the elevated super-structures, damage to the CIDH
piles was negligible. The most extensive damage was along the No. 5 Bay
Route of the Hanshin Expressway: 11% B, 37% C and 52% D. On the No.
3 Kobe route, the damage was 16% C and 84% D. There was no instance
of A category damage. Matsui and Oda (1996) explained cracking pattern
as follows. The cracks near the top of the pile are to be expected as this
is usually the location of maximum moment. The cracks lower down the
pile occur at the location of the second largest moment, at an interface
between soft/liqueed soils and a harder formation or where there is an
abrupt change in the density of reinforcement.
The comments on the residual capacity of the damaged piles in Table VII
were based on tests conducted on CDIH piles, 1 m in diameter, by the
Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation in 1993 (Kimura et al., 1994). The
tests involved single piles and a 3 3 pile group. Data from a typical load
test is shown in Figure 48. The piles showed cracking at around 10 cm of
displacement. At 40 cm displacement, the piles still retained sufcient lat-
eral capacity. A photo of the external condition at the head of one of
these piles corresponding to a displacement of 40 cm is shown in Figure 49.
190 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 49. Damage to 1 m diameter CDIH pile at 40cm displacement (Kimura et al.,
1994).
Clearly the CDIH piles behaved very well, more particularly as they
were designed for much less intense ground shaking than they experienced
during the Kobe earthquake.
The review of case histories has clearly demonstrated the design prob-
lems posed by pile foundations in liqueed soils. To cope with these prob-
lems it is essential to have a reliable method of calculating the effects of
earthquake shaking and post-liquefaction displacements on pile founda-
tions. Methods for analysis and design introduced tentatively into practice
since 1995 and of ndings from extensive research programs involving case
histories, full-scale tests and shake table and centrifuge tests in recent years
will be reviewed critically with the aim of presenting an integrated up to
date assessment of the state of the art.
Figure 51. Design pressures against piles in laterally owing liqueed soils (JRA,
1996).
Figure 52. Centrifuge test on pile in owing soil (Dobry and Abdoun, 2001).
Figure 53. Computed and measured pile moments (Dobry and Abdoun, 2001).
194 W. D. LIAM FINN
that the moments in the pile were dominated by the lateral pressures from
the cemented layer. They found the force model to be useful.
Figure 55. Calculated pile displacements for specied ground ow (Finn, 1999).
Figure 57. Japanese computational model for pile groups (JRA, 1996).
FL 1/3 0 x 10 0 1/3
10 < x 20 1/3 1/3
1/3 < FL 2/3 0 x 10 1/3 2/3
10 < x 20 2/3 2/3
2/3 < FL 1 0 x 10 1/3 1
10 < x 20 1 1
Figure 59. Comparison of standard py curves with curves back-gured from test
data at depths of (a) 0.2 m and (b) 2.3 m from a full-scale pile test (Weaver et al.,
2001).
Figure 60. Comparison of standard py curves with curves back-gured from centri-
fuge data (Wilson et al., 2000).
200 W. D. LIAM FINN
for the large number of water wave generated stress cycles associated with
a major offshore storm and are probably not applicable to the far fewer
signicant stress cycles associated with earthquake shaking. Comparison of
measured and computed responses led to a number of important conclu-
sions. The three most important ones are quoted verbatim below.
The recorded responses of the three single piles and the one group of
two piles could be modelled within the range of parameter variations that
were studied, but all the responses could not be accurately modelled with
the same set of input parameters.
The parameter studies also showed that the standard adjustments to py
relations for cyclic loading would have resulted in substantial under-predic-
tion of lateral loads from the clay layer.
The calculated bending moments were more sensitive to the strength and
py parameters for the upper clay and sand cover layers, and less sensitive
to the p-multiplier assigned to the liqueed layer.
These ndings pose clear warnings for anyone contemplating analyses of
piles in laterally spreading soils using the standard North American py
curves. The crucial factors seem to be; the dominating role of the non-
liqueable layer, the inappropriateness of using the standard cyclic loading
reduction factors for earthquake shaking and the large uncertainty associ-
ated with the results of any analysis.
Some of the problems of arriving at a generally acceptable set of
Winkler non-linear py curves for analysis of post-liquefaction deforma-
tions in liqueable soils arise from the assumed form of the curves. If the
form is incompatible with the actual stressstrain behaviour of the soil,
problems in simulating the responses of different pile foundations with one
set of py curves is not surprising. The North American py curves are
concave downwards and this is not compatible with the post-liquefaction
undrained behaviour of liqueed sand under monotonic loading which is
concave upwards (Figure 58)
Figure 62. Flow chart for design of piles in spreading soil (after MCEER/ATC, 2003).
Figure 63. pilesoil relative displacements in fully liqueable soil (after MCEER/ATC,
2003).
Figure 65. Determining compatible pile pinning forces (after Martin, 2004).
intersection of the two curves gives the equilibrium state for the pile foun-
dation. If the displacement meets the performance objective, the retrotted
foundation is satisfactory. The guidelines allow the designer to use more
204 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 67. Cross-section of Sardis Dam showing liqueable zones and treated zone.
most easily constructible and offering the best quality assurance. An eleva-
tion view of the pinning design is shown in Figure 69.
Initially a uniform distribution of piles over the remediation area was
analysed to obtain an overall view of how load would be shared among
the piles after liquefaction. An effective stress non-linear dynamic analysis
was rst carried out using the program TARA-3 (Finn et al., 1986). This
analysis gave time histories of moments, shears and deections. A static
analysis was then conducted using TARA-3 FL to determine the effect of
the static thrust of the upstream slope after liquefaction of the weak hor-
izontal layer. In this analysis the strengths and stiffnesses were gradually
reduced from pre-earthquake values to values consistent with the seismi-
cally induced PWP and the residual strengths of fully liqueed soils. The
distribution of peak static moments is shown in Figure 70.
A major portion of the load is carried by the line of piles that is clos-
est to the dam crest. The peak moment is nearly double that of the next
line of piles. This occurs because there is no pile cap to transmit load ef-
ciently between piles. Transmission of load depends on pile deformations.
Although it is possible to design for this load distribution, there is clearly
a risk of a chain reaction failure, if the piles in the rst group should fail.
Therefore the pile spacing was decreased for the rst three rows and the
206 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 70. Distribution of peak moments from thrust of upstream slope after lique-
faction.
Figure 71. Plan view of pinning piles at Sardis Dam (Finn et al. 1998).
piles in these rows were designed for the moments and shears in the lead-
ing row. A plan view of the nal layout of piles is shown in Figure 71.
The time history of dynamic moments in the piles in the leading row
nearest the crest of the dam is shown in Figure 72. The design moment for
the leading three rows of piles was the sum of the static moment and 67%
of the peak dynamic moment.
This case history is a good example of how useful a continuum anal-
ysis can be in giving a designer a detailed picture of how the structure
is likely to behave in different circumstances and to alert him to poten-
tially dangerous phenomena. Any continuum analysis with a reasonably
representative constitutive model can provide this function, at least qual-
itatively. To guarantee a measure of reliability in quantitative predictions,
the method of analysis should be validated by data from other than labo-
ratory element testing. Centrifuge testing provides the best environment for
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 207
Figure 72. Time history of dynamic moments in the leading row of piles (Finn et al.,
1998).
Figure 74. Instrumented pile for single pile test (Wilson, 1998).
viscosity of this pore uid is about ten times greater than pure water to
ensure proper scaling. Saturation was conrmed by measuring the compres-
sive wave velocity from the top to the bottom.
The model dimensions and the arrangement of bending strain gauges
for the single pile and the 2 2 group are shown in Figures 74 and 75,
respectively. Model tests were performed at a centrifugal acceleration of
30 g.
The responses of the single pile and the 2 2 pile group to the Santa
Cruz acceleration record obtained during the 1989 Loma Prieta earth-
quake, scaled to 0.49 g, are described and analysed here.
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 209
Figure 75. Instrumented test piles and superstructure for 2 2 pile group (Wilson
et al. 1998).
into 9 layers. The single pile was modelled with 28 beam elements. 17 beam
elements were within the soil strata and 11 elements were used to model
the free standing length of the pile above the soil. The super-structure mass
was treated as a rigid body and its motion is represented by a concentrated
mass at the centre of gravity. A rigid beam element was used to connect the
superstructure to the pile head.
The small strain shear moduli, Gmax , were estimated using the formula
proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970).
0.5
Gmax = 21.7 kmax Pa m /Pa (5)
Figure 81. Comparison of measured and computed bending moments at two depths.
Figure 82. Comparison of measured and computed maximum moments along the pile.
214 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 83. Comparison of measured and computed maximum bending moments along
the piles in the 2 2 pile group.
conditions and pile are shown in Figure 84. Slightly idealized site condi-
tions are shown in Figure 85. The soils in the upper 10 m are expected to
liquefy or develop high-PWP during the design earthquake.
The mass mounted on the pile in Figure 85 represents the mass
equivalent of the static reaction force carried by the pile. The purpose in
placing the mass on the pile is to model approximately the inertial inter-
action between the super-structure and the pile foundation. It is mounted
on the pile head by a massless support with a stiffness that ensures a
period of vibration of 1.4 sec corresponding to the estimated fundamen-
tal period of the prototype structure. Dynamic effective stress analyses
of this system include both inertial and kinematic interactions and the
effects of high PWP and liquefaction. Analyses were also conducted with-
out including the mass of the superstructure. These latter analyses give
the kinematic deections and moments. In all these analyses, the non-lin-
earity of the soil and the effects of seismic PWP are taken into account
by adjusting the soil properties continuously for current PWP and shear
strains.
The peak acceleration of the input acceleration record is 0.25 g and is
amplied to 0.4 g at the surface. The surface accelerations become negligi-
ble after liquefaction has occurred.
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 215
Figure 86. Maximum moments along the pile; pile head free to rotate (Finn, 1999).
Figure 87. Maximum moments along the pile; pile head xed against rotation (Finn,
1999).
considered the most critical condition. Results are shown for two condi-
tions; the pile head is xed against rotation because of the large grade
beams used in Japan to tie together the pile foundations of the building
and the pile head is essentially free to rotate which is closer to North
American practice which uses much lighter grade beams. The large grade
beams are very effective in controlling displacements because the end x-
ity against rotation mobilizes much higher inherent pile stiffness. The max-
218 W. D. LIAM FINN
imum moment occurs at the pile head, when the pile head is xed against
rotation, but very signicant moments also occur at the boundary between
the softer and stiffer soils. When the pile head is not xed against rota-
tion, the maximum moment occurs at the boundary between the stiffer and
softer soils. This moment is approximately equal to the pile head moment,
when the pile head is xed against rotation. The displacements are more
than twice as large when the pile head is free to rotate.
These results suggest that when designing piles or evaluating pile
foundations in potentially liqueable soils for earthquake loading, it is
important to make a realistic assessment of pile head restraint against rota-
tion and to be aware of the potential for large moments at the interfaces
between soft and hard layers.
Figure 91. Pile displacements for specied pile head rotational restraints.
Figure 92. Pile displacements for limiting pile head rotational restraints.
interfaces, wherever the soil and pile maintain contact during earthquake
shaking. Signicant moments and shears may develop in the pile in order
to maintain this compatibility requirement as shown in Figures 98 and 99.
In the case of the stiff upper layer, the moments are about twice as large as
for the case with no such layer. In both cases, the moments are of the same
order as when the inertial mass is incorporated. This indicates that, for
these conditions, the kinematic moments dominate the moment response
224 W. D. LIAM FINN
Figure 98. Kinematic moments along the pile with no stiff upper layer.
Figure 99. Kinematic moments along the pile with stiff upper layer.
tive stresses in the layer, Moments from kinematic analyses only are shown
in Figures 100 and 101 for the cases where the pile head is free to rotate
and is xed against rotation. The results for no non-liqueable surface
layer are also shown for comparison in each case.
When the pile is free to rotate, the kinematic moment at the bound-
ary between the soft soils and the stiff soils below is increased 50% by
Figure 101. Distribution of kinematic moments: pile head xed against rotation.
226 W. D. LIAM FINN
the presence of the surface crust. When the pile head is xed against
rotation, the pile head moment is increased by 75% and the moment at
the boundary between soft and stiff soils is increased by 50%. Thus the
effects of a nonliqueable surface layer can have a major effect on the
dynamic moments and shears in the piles. The pile needs to be analysed
by a method that can pick up these effects. The analyses also make clear
that kinematic interaction should not be routinely neglected as in the basic
pseudo-static analysis procedure. Therefore the preferred type of analysis, if
a py model is to be used, is the dynamic model, which includes the effect
of ground motions.
16. Summing up
16.1. Single pile analysis: non-liqueable soils
In engineering practice, the moments, shears and deections in a pile foun-
dation caused by earthquake shaking are calculated using a pseudo-static
analysis in which the pilesoil interaction is modeled by non-linear springs.
The most commonly used springs are the non-linear py curves recom-
mended by the American Petroleum Institute. The py curves were devel-
oped for monotonic and slow cyclic loading conditions by correlation with
full-scale eld tests and achieved their present form by the mid-seventies.
Two major studies in the mid-eighties, involving data from 35 monotonic
tests and 19 cyclic loading tests of piles in sands and clays, concluded that
the py constitutive model gave poor predictions and was fairly unreliable.
The model has not been calibrated for seismic loading conditions and can-
not be expected to perform better in the seismic environment.
In pseudo-static analysis, the foundation is loaded by the base moment
and shear from the super-structure. This top down analysis neglects two
important features of seismic response: kinematic interaction between pile
and soil and the effects of the ground motions on the stiffness of the foun-
dation soils. Kinematic moments are important whenever there is a sharp
difference in stiffness between adjacent layers. It is particularly important,
when a site which experiences liquefaction, has a non-liqueable layer at
the surface. In these conditions, there can be a big increase in moment
demand. The potential importance of kinematic moments is recognized by
Eurocode 8: Part 5 which species the conditions under which kinematic
interaction should be taken into account.
The shear modulus of soil is strain dependent. Therefore shear strains
generated by strong shaking can cause signicant reduction in soil stiffness.
The top down pseudo-static analysis takes into account only the stiffness
reduction due to the inertial loads, neglecting the effects of ground motions
on soil stiffness. These omissions further degrade the predictive capability
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 227
of the pseudo-static approach. Data from centrifuge tests show that the
py curves may need considerable adjustment to match recorded response
parameters with some adjustment factors reaching a value of 2.
The py based analysis can be improved to cope more effectively with
kinematic interaction and ground motion effects. If an appropriate distri-
bution of ground displacements is applied as input to the ends of the near
eld py springs, a useful approximation to kinematic interaction can be
achieved in a pseudo-static analysis. An appropriate displacement distribu-
tion might be, for example, the distribution when the surface displacement
is a maximum which can be obtained easily by a SHAKE analysis. If a
dynamic Winkler model is used, the time histories of ground motions at
the locations of the py curves can be used as input and kinematic inter-
action and ground motion effects are included. The residual problems with
reliability are now conned to the constitutive model itself.
Analyses of centrifuge tests using the dynamic py model suggest that
the API curves are too stiff for the analysis of strong shaking. The pre-
diction of maximum moment is improved by using the Terzaghi subgrade
moduli in the equations for the py curves, rather than the API moduli
but the general distribution of moments along the pile is still not well pre-
dicted. The MCEER/ACT recommendations for the design of bridge foun-
dations support the view that the use of the Terzaghi subgrade moduli for
analysis is the more appropriate of the two options currently in use. Lim-
ited centrifuge test data suggests that by assuming that the modulus of sub-
grade reaction at any depth is proportional to the soil modulus at the same
depth signicantly improves prediction of response.
There is little published data on how well these methods predict seismic
responses of pile groups. API, which does offer recommendations for sin-
gle pile analysis, does not recommend a method for group analysis. It sug-
gests that the designer use two or more appropriate methods with upper
and lower bounds on soil properties. Then, armed with an appreciation of
the uncertainties involved, the designer is advised to use his judgment for
the structural design of the foundation.
Acknowledgements
The nancial and material support of Anabuki Komutem is gratefully
acknowledged. The major cited contributions of former PhD. Students
W.B. Gohl, G. Wu and T. Thavaraj are deeply appreciated. The help of
Noboru Fujita, Research Assistant, was invaluable in the analyses of the
CIDH piles and in putting this paper together. The support and patience
of my wife, Tomris, made it all possible.
References
AASHTO (1983) Guide Specications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials, Washington, DC, USA.
Abghari, A. and Chai, J. (1995) Modeling of soilpile superstructure interaction for bridge
foundations, Performance of Deep Foundations under Seismic Loading. ASCE Geotech-
nical Special Publication No. 51, pp. 4559.
API (1993) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms, American Petroleum Institute.
ATC-3 (1978) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings
(ATC-306), The Applied Technology Council, Redwood, California.
ATC (1996) Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommen-
dations, ATC 32, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Bardet, J.P., Tobita, T., Mace, N. and Hu, J. (2002) Regional modeling of liquefaction
induced ground deformation. Earthquake Spectra 18(1), 1946.
Barton, Y.O. (1982) Laterally loaded model piles in sand: Centrifuge tests and nite element
analyses. PhD. Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
Brandenburg S.J., Singh, P., Boulanger, R.W, Kutter. B.L. (2001) Behavior of piles in laterally
spreading ground during earthquakes. CDROM Proc. 6th CALTRANS Seismic Research
Workshop, Sacramento, CA.
Brandenburg, S.J., Boulanger, R.W., Chang, D. and Kutter, B.L. (2005) Mechanisms of load
transfer between pile groups and laterally spreading non-liqueed crust layers, Proceed-
ings, International Symposium on Earthquake Engineering Commemorating 10th Anniver-
sary of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (ISEE Kobe 2005), Abstract Volume, p 59.
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 231
Brown, D.A. and Bollman, H.T. (1996) Lateral behavior of a pile group in sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 114(11), 12611276.
Byrne, P.M. (1991) A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure model for sand. In:
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Eng. and Soil Dynam-
ics, St. Louis, Report 1.24, Vol. 1, pp. 4756.
Chang, Y.L. (1937) Discussion of lateral pile loading tests. Transactions of ASCE 102, 272
278.
Dobry, R. and Abdoun, T. (2001) Recent studies of centrifuge modeling of liquefaction and
its effect on deep foundations. In: S. Prakash (ed.), 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, pp. 2631, San Diego CA.
Dobry, R., Taboada, V. and Liu, L. (1995) Centrifuge modeling of liquefaction effects dur-
ing earthquakes. In: K. Ishihara (ed.), Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
3, pp. 12911324, Tokyo, Japan.
ECN (2003) prEN 19985:2003, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance,
Part 5: Foundations, Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects, European Commission
for Standardisation.
Feagin, L.W. (1937) Lateral pile loading tests. Transactions of ACSE 102.
Finn, W.D. Liam (1999) Lessons from recent earthquakes on foundation performance, design
and analysis, In: Proc., Inaugural Anabuki Chair Symposium, Faculty of Engineering, Kag-
awa University, FEKU TN009.
Finn, W.D. Liam, Lee, K.W. and Martin, G.R. (1977) An effective stress model for lique-
faction. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Proc. Paper, 13008, 103,
517533.
Finn, W.D. Liam and Gohl, W.H. (1987) Centrifuge model studies of piles under simulated
earthquake loading. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Dynamic Response of Pile Founda-
tions: Experiment, Observation and Analysis, ASCE Special Technical Publication.
Finn, W.D. Liam and Yogendrakumar, M. (1988) Tara-3FL: computer program for the anal-
ysis of large strain ow deformations, Report, Soil Mechanics Group, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Finn, W.D. Liam, Thavaraj, T., Wilson, D.W., Boulanger, R.W. and Kutter, B. (1999) Seismic
analysis of piles and pile groups in liqueable sand. In Proceedings, 7th International Sym-
posium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, NUMOG VI, Graz, pp. 287292, Austria,
September.
Finn, W.D. Liam and Thavaraj, T. (2001) Deep foundations in liqueable soils: case histo-
ries, centrifuge tests and methods of analysis. In CD-ROM Proceedings, 4th Int. Conf. on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego,
CA, March 2631.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1992) Piling Engineering, second edi-
tion. Blackie and Son, Glasgow, UK.
Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R. (1984) Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. Journal of
Geotechnology Engineering, ASCE, 110(1), pp. 2040.
Gazetas, G., Fan, K. and Kaynia, A. (1993) Dynamic response of pile groups with different
congurations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 12: 239257.
Gazioglu, S.M. and ONeill, M.W. (1984) An evaluation of py relationships in
cohesive soils. In: J.R. Meyer (ed.), Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Analysis and
Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE National Convention, San Francisco, California, Oct.
15, 1984.
Gohl, W.B. (1991) Response of pile foundations to simulated earthquake loading: experi-
mental and analytical results. PhD. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
232 W. D. LIAM FINN
Hamada, M., Yasuda, S., Isoyama, R. and Emoto, K. (1986) Study on Liquefaction Induced
Permanent Ground Displacements. Association for Development of Earthquake.
Liu, L. and Dobry, R. (1995) Effect of liquefaction on lateral response of piles by centri-
fuge tests. National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) Bulletin, 9(1),
pp. 711.
JRA (1996) Specications for Highway Bridges, Part V, Seismic Design. Japan Road Associ-
ation.
JWWA (1997) Seismic Design and Construction Guidelines for Water Supply Facilities. Japan
Water Works Association, Tokyo.
Imbsen, R.A. and Penzien, J. (1986) Evaluation of Energy Absorption Characteristics of High-
way Bridges under Seismic Conditions, Vol. I. Report No. EERC-1984/17, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kagawa, T. and Kraft, L. (1980) Seismic py response of exible piles. Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, ASCE, 106, GT8, 899919.
Kimura, M., Kosa, K. and Morita, Y. (1994) Full-scale failure tests on laterally loaded
group piles. In: Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice incorporating PILE-
TALK International 94, Singapore, pp. 147154.
Lam, I and Martin, G.R. (1986) Seismic design of highway bridge foundations, Vol. II, Design
procedures and guidelines. Report No. FHWA/RD-86/102, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Virginia.
Liu, l. and Dobry, R. (1995) Effect of liquefaction on lateral response of piles by
centrifuge tests. National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research. (NCEER) Bulletin,
9(1), 711.
Martin, G.R. (2004) The seismic design of bridges geotechnical and foundation design
issues. In: Proc., ASCE Specialty Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Transporta-
tion Projects, Vol. 1 pp. 137166, Los Angeles, July, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion, No. 126.
Martin, G.R., W.D. Liam Finn and H.B. Seed (1975) Fundamentals of liquefaction under
cyclic loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 101 (GT5) 423438.
Masing, G. (1926) Eigenspannungen und verfestigung beim messing. In: Proc., 2nd Int. Con-
gress of Applied Mechanics, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matsui, T. and Oda, K. (1996) Foundation damage of structures. Special Issue of Soils and
Foundations, pp. 189200, Japanese Geotechnical Society, January.
Matlock, H. (1970) Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Proc., 2nd
Annual Offshore Technology Conf, Houston, Tex. pp. 577594.
Matlock, H., Foo, S.H.C. and Bryant, L.M. (1978) Simulation of lateral pile behavior under
earthquake loading. In Proc., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE Specialty
Conference, pp. 601619, Pasadena, California.
MCEER/ATC (2003) Recommended LFRD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of High-
way Bridges, Part I: Specications, Part I: Commentary and Appendices. MCEER/ATC49.
MCEER Report No. MCEER-03SP03, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Murchison, J.M. and ONeill, M.W. (1984) An evaluation of py relationships in cohe-
sionless soils, In J.M. Meyer (ed.), Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Analysis and
Design of Pile Foundations, pp. 174191, ASCE National Convention, San Francisco, Cal-
ifornia, Oct 15.
ONeill M.W. and Murchison, J.M. (1983) An Evaluation of py relationships in Sands. A
report to the American Petroleum Institute, PRAC 82-41-1.
Pinto, P., McVay, M. and Lai, P. (1997) Centrifuge testing of plumb and battered pile groups
in sand. In Proc., Transportation Research Board, 17th Annual Meeting, pp. 117, Wash-
ington, Disrict of Columbia, Paper No. 551.
A STUDY OF PILES DURING EARTHQUAKES 233
PMB Engineering (1988) Par Pile Analysis Program, PMB Engineering, San Francisco, Cal-
ifornia.
Poulos, H.G. (1971) Behaviour of laterally loaded piles: I-single piles and II- pile groups.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Divsion, ASCE, 97(SM5), 711731, 733751.
Ramos, R., Abdoun, T. and Dobry, R. (1999) Centrifuge modeling effects of super-structure
stiffness on pile bending moments due to lateral spreading. In Proc., ASCE Symposium
on Analysis and Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction, pp.
599608.
Randolph, M.F. (1981) The response of piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique 31(2): 247259.
Reese, L.C., Cox, W.R. and Koop, F.D. (1974) Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand.
Proc., 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conf, Houston, Tex., Paper No. 80.
Rollins, Kyle M., Peterson, Kris T. and Weaver, Thomas J. (1998) Lateral load behavior of
full scale pile group in clay. Journal of Geotechnology and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 124(6), 468478.
Shapiro, D., Rojahn, C., Reavely, L.D., Smith, J.R. and Morelli, U. (2000) NEHRP Guide-
lines and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Earthquake Spectra 16(1),
pp. 227240.
Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H.B. (1972) SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earth-
quake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites. Report No. EERC72-12, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1970) Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response
Analysis. Report #EERC70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Terzaghi, K. (1955) Evaluation of coefcient of subgrade reaction, Geotechnique 5(4), 297326.
Thavaraj, T. (2001) Seismic analysis of pile foundations for bridges. PhD. Thesis, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M. and Tang, Y. (1988) Design approaches for soilstructure inter-
action. In Proc. 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo.
Veletsos, A.S. and Wei, Y.T. (1971) Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 97(SM9), 12271248.
Ventura, C.E., Felber A.J. and Prion H.G.L. (1994a) Dynamic Evaluation of a Medium
Span Bridge by Modal Testing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Short and Medium Span Bridges, pp. 545556, Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 811.
Ventura C.E., Felber A.J. and Stiemer S.F. (1994b) Dynamic Characteristics of Bridges by
Experimental Investigations of Ambient Vibrations Queensborough Bridge. In Proceed-
ings, 5th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, pp. 733742, Chi-
cago, Illinois, July.
Wallace, J.W., Moehle, J.P. and Martinez-Cruzado, J. (1990) Implications for the design of
shear wall buildings using data from recent earthquakes. In Proc. 4th U.S. National Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, CA.
Weaver, T.J., Ashford, S.A. and Rollins, K.M. (2001) Development of py curves for a 0.6 m
diameter CISS pile in liqueed sand, CDROM Proc. 6th CALTRANS Seismic Research
Workshop, Sacramento, CA.
Wilson, D.W. (1998) Soil-pile superstructure interaction in liquefying sand and soft clay.
PhD. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley. CA.
Wilson, D.W., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L. and Abghari, A. (1995) Dynamic centrifuge
tests of pile supported structures in liqueable sand. In Proc National Seismic Conf. on
Bridges and Highways. Sponsored by Federal Highways Admin. and CALTRANS, San
Diego, CA.
234 W. D. LIAM FINN
Wilson, D.W., Boulanger, R.W. and Kutter, B.L. (2000) Observed lateral resistance of lique-
fying sand. Journal of Geotechnology and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(10).
pp. 898906.
Wu, G. and Finn, W.D. Liam (1997a) Dynamic elastic analysis of pile foundations using
the nite element method in the frequency domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34(1),
3443.
Wu, G. and Finn, W.D. Liam (1997b) Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using
the nite element method in the time domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34(1), 4452.
Yoshida, N, and Yoshida, H. (1986) TARA-3: A computer program to compute the response
of 2-D embankments and soil-structure interaction systems to seismic loading. Report,
Soil Mechanics Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC Canada.
Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M. and Bartlett, S.F. (1999) Revised MLR equations for predicting
lateral spread displacement. In Proc., 7th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant
Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Technical Report
MCEER-990019, MCEER, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.