Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461

DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9597-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Depth of Fixity of Piles in Clay Under Dynamic Lateral

Load
R. Ayothiraman • A. Boominathan

Received: 19 May 2011 / Accepted: 17 November 2012 / Published online: 15 December 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract Dynamic experiments were carried out on

List of symbols
instrumented model aluminium single piles embedded
d Outer diameter of pile
in clay of different consistencies to study its bending
Ep Young’s modulus of pile material
behaviour under lateral loads. Piles with different
f Frequency of excitation
length to diameter ratios were used. Dynamic lateral
fn Natural frequency of soil-pile system
load of different magnitudes ranging from 7 to 30 N at
F0 Magnitude of dynamic load
wide range of frequencies from 2 to 50 Hz were
Gs Maximum dynamic shear modulus of soil
applied. The load transferred to the pile, pile head
Ic Consistency index of clay
displacement and the strain variation along the pile
L Pile length
length were measured using a dedicated data acqui-
Lf Depth of fixity
sition system. Static lateral load tests were also
Lfd Depth of fixity under dynamic loads
performed to investigate the magnification of dynamic
Lfs Depth of fixity under static loads
response of piles in clay. It is found that the maximum
Md Dynamic Magnification Factor
bending moment due to dynamic load is magnified by
Vs Shear wave velocity
about 1.5–4 times in comparison to the static load for
Z Depth along the pile length
short piles but about 9 times for long piles. Depth of
q Saturated soil density
fixity and effective pile length is also largely amplified
under dynamic loads, thus indicating that a pile which
behaves as a flexible pile under static load, may not
exhibit flexible behaviour under dynamic load.
1 Introduction
Keywords Bending moment  Clay  Dynamics 
Depth of fixity  Magnification  Pile The lateral capacity and stiffness of piles are mainly
dependent upon characteristics of top soil layers
present within a few meter depths, which are generally
R. Ayothiraman (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute soft clay or loose sand that exhibit nonlinear behav-
of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India iour. In addition to the static loads, piles are also
e-mail: araman@civil.iitd.ac.in subjected to earthquakes, bomb blasts, operation of
machines and hammers, construction operations,
A. Boominathan
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute quarrying, fast moving traffic, wind, or loading due
of Technology Madras, Chennai, India to wave action of water, which are dynamic in nature

123
448
and predominantly acting in lateral direction. Design
of pile foundations to resist lateral loads is primarily
based on the limiting deflection criteria considering
the safe operation of the superstructure. The deflection
may be amplified or de-amplified under dynamic
loads, which depends on the dynamic characteristics
of the soil–pile system. Consequently, a careful
engineering analysis of lateral pile deflections under
anticipated static and dynamic loads become a crucial
step in the satisfactory design and performance of pile
foundations.
A number of rigorous mathematical solutions for
static soil–pile interaction problems have been
reported in Poulos and Davis (1980). The dynamic
response analysis of pile foundations is a problem of
wave propagation in soil media, which has two
important aspects: wave reflection/refraction phenom-
ena and radiation damping, which is quiet complex to
simulate in the model. Additionally the development of
gaps at pile–soil interface during dynamic loading
increases the complexity. With these difficulties, a
comprehensive rigorous solution, which could take
into account all these aspects, is highly intricate.
However, in the last few decades, significant research
has been undertaken in understanding the fundamental
characteristics of pile foundation behaviour under
lateral loads. Various methods were developed assum-
ing linear soil behaviour, among which, the semi-
analytical elastic continuum approach (Novak 1974;
Novak and El-Sharnouby 1983) is commonly used in
practice to determine the stiffness and damping
constants of single piles. However, the field and
laboratory investigations carried out on piles embed-
ded in clay, sand and sandy clay sites by various
authors (Prakash and Chandrasekaran 1973; Novak
1985; Blaney and O’Neill 1986, 1989; El-Marsafawi
et al. 1992; Han and Vaziri 1992; Nogami et al. 1992;
Puri and Prakash 1992; Crouse et al. 1993; Dou and
Byrne 1996; Halling et al. 2000; Anandarajah et al.
2001; Boominathan et al. 2002; Pak et al. 2003;
Boominathan and Ayothiraman 2005, 2006, 2007a, b)
show large difference between observed and estimated
values due to nonlinear behaviour of soil and gapping
at the pile–soil interface. Kuhlemeyer (1979) was one
of the first who attempted to study the dynamic soil–
pile interaction adopting simple 2D finite element
method, but recently Wu and Finn (1997) and Sawant
and Dewaikar (1999) developed quasi-3D FEM and 3D
FEM respectively for analyzing the seismic/cyclic
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
response by using simple nonlinear models like bi-
linear model or equivalent linear models. In recent
years, Gazetas and Dobry (1984), Saha and Ghosh
(1986), Nogami et al. (1992), Badoni and Makris
(1996), El Naggar and Novak (1996), El Naggar
(1997), El Naggar and Bentley (2000), Arduino et al.
(2002), Mostafa and El-Naggar (2002) and Kucukar-
slan and Banerjee (2003) developed models by
accounting nonlinear behaviour of soil and gapping.
Except a few models, the rest have mainly focused on
the estimation of dynamic constants (namely, stiffness
and damping constants) of the soil–pile system. But, it
is well known that the depth of fixity is an important
parameter in the analysis/design of laterally loaded
piles (Konagai 2005), which is solely dependent on the
bending behaviour of piles. More recently, Kavvadas
and Gazetas (1993), Mylonakis (1995), Gazetas and
Mylonakis (1998), Mylonakis (2001), Gerolymos and
Gazetas (2005) developed simplified models to study
the kinematic bending behaviour of piles based on
Beam–on–Dynamic–Winkler–Foundation (BDWF)
models with linear behaviour of soil. The use of these
simplified models is restricted to the situation where
linear soil behaviour prevails, and not appreciable to use
where the soil nonlinearity governs the pile response.
Makris and his co-workers approximately accounted
the soil nonlinearity in their simplified models to study
the pile response including bending behaviour of piles
subjected to seismic loading. Therefore, use of their
models to study the dynamic soil–pile interaction to the
inertial loads (particularly, machine-induced dynamic
loads) may result in large discrepancy in the predicted
response. More importantly, the validity of these
simplified models needs to be re-looked.
Literature on the experimental studies exclusively
on model piles embedded in clays under lateral
dynamic loads and parametric studies are very limited
(Agarwal 1973; Novak and Grigg 1976; Hassini 1990;
Finn and Gohl 1992; Georgiadis et al. 1992). This
available limited experimental data on dynamic pile
response of piles in clay does not provide a good basis
for calibration and validation of the available nonlin-
ear models. Boominathan and Ayothiraman (2005,
2007a) carried out experiments on model piles in clay
subjected dynamic lateral loads and Boominathan and
Ayothiraman (2007a) proposed an equation to predict
the depth of fixity (depth of maximum bending
moment) under dynamic loads. Comparison of static
and dynamic bending behaviour of piles embedded in
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461 449

soft clay is also presented by Boominathan and Table 1 Properties of clay

Ayothiraman (2007b) and found that the response of Properties Value
piles under dynamic loads is largely amplified for piles
in soft clay. However, it is known that effect of soil– Grain size distribution
pile parameters on amplification of pile response Gravel (%) 1.0
including depth of fixity is important to understand for Sand (%) 25.0
generalizing the solution. Therefore, there is a need to Silt (%) 32.5
address this issue by carrying out experimental Clay (%) 41.5
investigations in understanding the bending behavior Specific gravity 2.54
of piles under static and dynamic lateral loads for piles Atterberg limits
embedded in different consistencies of clay and Liquid limit (%) 74.0
accordingly the controlled experimental investigations Plastic limit (%) 26.0
were carried out in a laboratory. This paper presents Plasticity index (%) 48.0
magnification of pile behaviour in clay under dynamic Water content (%) for
lateral loads by comparing the static and dynamic Ic & 0.0 75
response measured from respective experiments. Ic = 0.15 67
Ic = 0.30 60
Ic = 0.60 45
2 Materials Used Undrained shear strength (kN/m2) for
Ic & 0.0 3.5
2.1 Soil Ic = 0.15 9.3
Ic = 0.30 13.7
Clay collected from a site in Chennai city was used in Ic = 0.60 31.6
the study. The physical and engineering properties of
the clay samples were determined through laboratory
tests as per standard procedures. The undrained shear stiffness of the soil–pile system. The various criterions
strength of clay was determined by conducting normally adopted to classify the rigid pile behaviour
laboratory vane shear test and unconfined compression and flexible pile behaviour is summarized in Boomi-
(UCC) test on remoulded soil sample prepared at nathan and Ayothiraman (2007b) and accordingly it is
different consistency indices (Ic) of clay as per the found that piles having L/d = 10 and 20 behaves as
procedure recommended by ASTM standards. The rigid piles embedded in very soft and medium stiff
laboratory vane shear test was used for all consistency clay, but L/d = 20 as intermediate piles in medium
indices, but the UCC test was used only for consis- stiff clay. However piles having L/d [ 28 behave as
tency indices, Ic = 0.30 and 0.60. The summary of flexible piles at all consistencies of clay considered.
index and engineering properties of clay are presented The model pile of required L/d ratio was fabricated. A
in Table 1. The soil is classified as Fat clay with sand conical driving shoe was fixed at the pile tip to
(CH) in accordance with D2487 (ASTM 2003). The facilitate easy installation of piles and to prevent soil
water content determined at different consistencies of plugging into the hollow model piles. A pile cap
clay is also given in Table 1. weighing 3.1 N was attached to the pile head to
simulate the static vertical load on piles.
2.2 Pile
2.2.2 Pile Instrumentation and Calibration
2.2.1 Pile Modelling and Fabrication
Pile was instrumented using foil-type electrical strain
Aluminium pipes having an outer diameter of 25 mm gauges having resistance 120 ± 1.2 X fixed in quar-
and wall thickness of 3 mm were used. Length to ter-bridge arrangement along the pile length to record
diameter ratio (L/d) of pile (10, 20, 30 and 40) was the pile deflection and bending moment. The strain
considered so as to cover the behaviour of both short gauges were fixed using adhesives at the marked
rigid piles and long flexible piles based on the relative locations after cleaning the surface. The Teflon wires

123
450 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461

were connected to the strain gauges and taken through conventional method (rope and pulley arrangement) in
the pile. A multi-meter is used to check the resistance a model test container having circular cross-section of
values to ensure proper connection. Then a thin elastic diameter 600 mm and height of 1,200 mm. Two dial
membrane was wound at each location of strain gauges: one placed at pile cap measured the pile head
gauges to ensure the strain gauges are waterproof. deflection and another one close to the soil surface
Details of a typical instrumented model pile are shown measured the ground level deflection. The instru-
in Fig. 1. Instrumented model piles were calibrated by mented pile measured the static bending moment
performing simple bending test and the relation variation along the pile length.
between the bending moment and measured strain
values for each depth location on the pile were 3.2 Dynamic Experiments
correlated. The calibration constant of strain gauges
for all piles was found as 0.051 Nm/unit strain and In order to minimize the reflection of waves from
almost same for all strain gauges, except in few cases conventionally used rigid square tanks in lab experi-
with an error of ±1.0 %, which is negligible. ments, Elastic Half Space Simulation (EHSS) was
developed at Soil Dynamics laboratory of IIT Madras to
conduct dynamic lateral load tests on model piles, by
3 Experimental Setup and Instrumentation applying the analogy given by Stokoe and Woods
(1972). The simulated Elastic Half Space testing facility
3.1 Static Experiments consists of a test tank of size 2.0 9 2.0 9 .5 m,
boundary element and an absorbing element, which is
For pile foundations subjected to lateral loads, it is shown in Fig. 2. The tank wall was made of hollow
observed from the literature that boundary effect is cement blocks of about 250 mm thickness. The bound-
more predominant within 10 times the pile diameter ary element consists of mild steel basket in logarithmic
from pile periphery (Narasimha Rao et al. 1998). arc spiral shape and wrapped around with a geomem-
Hence, the static lateral load tests were conducted by brane sheet, which separates the soil from the absorbing
element as well as maintains the constant moisture
content of clay. The geomembrane was made to the
STRAIN GAUGE
WIRES required logarithmic arc shape with the mild steel basket
STRAIN GAUGE
PILE CAP
WIRES by hot air welding. After welding, fiberglass coating was
applied to bond the mild steel basket with welded
200
geomembrane and it was checked for water leakage. The
space between the masonry wall and the boundary
1
100
A element was tightly packed with sawdust. The efficacy
100
2 PILE WALL of the EHSS was verified and it is found that the
ALUMINIUM
STRAIN GAUGE
PILE OF
K=2.0
simulated EHSS is every efficient in minimizing the
3 25mm O.D.
R=120
100 wave reflection and representing the ideal elastic half
4 DETAILS AT A
space conditions prevailing in the field (Boominathan
100
750 OD
and Ayothiraman 2007b). A 100 N capacity electro-
100
5 ID OD = 25mm
ID = 19mm
dynamic exciter was attached to the pile cap such that it
produced steady-state sinusoidal dynamic lateral load.
6
100 PILE WALL A 2 kN capacity Hottinger Baldwin Measurement
3 mm THICK
7 (HBM) load cell attached between the pile cap and
100
25
25
exciter was used to measure the load transferred to the
CONICAL
50 8
SHOE 15
60° pile head and HBM Linear variable differentiable
B transformers (LVDT) capable of measuring the differ-
DETAILS AT B
ent range of displacements: ±2 and ±5 mm fixed on the
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm
pile cap were used to measure the time history of pile
Fig. 1 Typical instrumented model pile (after Boominathan head displacement (Fig. 3). The instrumented model
and Ayothiraman 2007b) pile measured the bending moment along the pile length

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
Fig. 2 Elastic half space simulation (EHSS)
under dynamic lateral load. A data acquisition system
(DAS) consisting of HBM MGC plus multichannel
digital carrier frequency amplifier system and a Pentium
II PC with DAS card and software ‘‘GeniDAQ’’ was
used to observe and measure automatically the load
transferred to the pile head, pile head displacement, and
the strain along the pile length.
4 Test Procedure
4.1 Clay Bed Preparation and Pile Installation
Clay was mixed with required amount of water to get
the particular consistency index. Uniformly mixed
clay was placed and hand-packed in the test tank in
several layers of 15 cm thick, and each layer was
tamped with a needle-like wooden template to remove
the entrapped air and 100 % degree of saturation was
ensured. Soil samples were collected from the test tank
(EHSS) at various depths as well as in the radial
directions for confirming the homogeneity of clay bed
as adopted by Katagiri and Imai (1994). Water content
test was carried out on collected soil samples and it
was found that the water content was almost constant,
which ensured the homogeneity of clay.
Cross-hole test was carried out in the EHSS to
determine the shear wave velocity of clay (Vs). The
tests were conducted at various depths of EHSS: 0.25,
0.50, 0.75 and 1.00 m. The measured shear wave
velocity ranges from 39 m/s for very soft clay to
129.4 m/s for medium stiff clay. The dynamic shear
modulus of clay was evaluated using the equation:
Gs ¼ qVs2 where q is the mass density of soil
451
12
10 11
1 2
6 5
3 4
7 Test Tank
80°
8 (2.0 × 2.0 × 1.5 m)
Clay
Not to Scale
SawDust
1. Loading Frame
2. MS Angle
3. Electro-Dynamic Exciter
4. Load Cell
5. Displacement Transducer (LVDT)
6. Pile Cap
7. Aluminium Model Pile
8. Strain Gauges
9. MS Basket covered with Impermeable Geomembrane
10. Excitation Amplifier
11. Multi-Channel Carrier Frequency Amplifier System
12. Data Acquisition System
Fig. 3 Dynamic lateral load test setup with Data Acquisition
System (after Boominathan and Ayothiraman 2007b)
determined in situ (EHSS) using cylindrical barrel
method. The in situ density measured at different
depths of soil bed is nearly same, which confirms the
homogeneity of the prepared clay bed. The average
dynamic shear modulus of clay at different consisten-
cies of clay ranges from 3 to 36 MPa and it was found
that the shear modulus of clay remains almost constant
with the depth of EHSS, which also proves the
homogeneity of prepared clay bed.
The instrumented pile was installed into the
prepared homogeneous clay bed by gently pushing it
vertically. This generally disturbs and reduces the soil
strength in the vicinity of pile due to thixotropic nature
of clay and hence sufficient time must be allowed for
the soil to regain its strength. In the present study, vane
shear tests were carried out on remoulded clay samples
immediately after the disturbance and ‘, 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5 h after the disturbance to examine the thixotropic
nature of clay. It is found that the remoulded clay
sample gains its strength with time and the strength
remain constant with time after 3.0–4.0 h for different
123
452
consistencies of clay and hence, each test was carried
out after 5 h of installation of the pile.
4.2 Static Tests
The static lateral load was applied in increments up to
ultimate stage and the lateral deflection of the pile was
measured. Strain gauge readings were recorded for
each increment of load by the DAS. Vertical settle-
ment of pile was also measured by the dial gauges
positioned at the pile cap for few tests and was found to
be negligible. The tests were conducted on piles with
length to diameter ratios (L/d) of 10, 20, 30 and 40,
embedded at different consistencies of clay.
4.3 Dynamic Tests
Steady-state sinusoidal lateral vibration was applied to
the pile head using the electro-dynamic exciter. The
magnitude of the load was controlled and varied using
the excitation amplifier. Under the constant magnitude of
dynamic load, the frequency of excitation (f) was varied
from 2 to 50 Hz. The load transferred to the pile head, the
pile head displacement, and dynamic strain along the pile
length was measured using the data acquisition system.
An AGILENT digital storage oscilloscope was used to
cross- check the load and amplitude measurements.
After the completion of one test on pile, the pile was
pulled out from the EHSS. The clay was excavated for
about 30 cm (12 times pile diameter) distance from the
center of the pile and up to 10 cm (4 times pile diameter)
below the pile tip. The clay was refilled in the EHSS with
same moisture content so as to ensure and maintain
constant consistency of clay through out the testing
phase. As reported by Prakash and Puri (1998), the
magnitude of unbalanced dynamic forces resulting from
machineries is usually in 20–30 % of the static forces.
Hence the magnitude of dynamic forces considered in
the study (F0: 7, 14, 21, and 30 N) was arrived from the
safe/working static forces on the piles. Tests were carried
out at these magnitudes of lateral vibration.
5 Analysis and Discussion of Results
5.1 Static Pile Response
Lateral load–deflection behaviour is measured from
static experiments and typical behaviour is shown in
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
1400
Ic = 0.60; Ep/Gs = 1983
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
L/d = 30
1050
L/d = 40
Lateral Load, N
700
350
0
0 4 8 12 16
Deflection, mm
Fig. 4 Load—deflection curves for different pile length at
Ic = 0.60
Fig. 4 for pile at medium stiff clay (Ic = 0.60). It is to
be reminded here that the static lateral load tests were
conducted with an objective of determining the
magnification of pile response to dynamic lateral load.
It is seen from Fig. 4 that there exists an ambiguity of
determining the pile deflection corresponds to a load
equal to dynamic load (F0 = 7–30 N). Therefore, the
load—deflection curves are expanded up to the range
of magnitude of dynamic load and the expanded
curves are shown in Fig. 5. It is depicted from the
figure that the load–deflection curves are steadier
within the dynamic load compared to the load—
deflection curve shown up to the ultimate load. The
static deflection values obtained from this figure for
different piles embedded at various consistencies were
measured to determine the dynamic amplification
factor under dynamic load. A typical variation of static
bending moment of piles with L/d = 10 at Ic = 0.30
and L/d = 40 at Ic = 0.15 and Ic = 0.60 plotted
against the normalized depth (z/d) is shown in
Fig. 6. The normalized depth (z/d) is the ratio of the
depth (z) at which strain is measured to the pile
diameter (d). Though the bending moment was
measured at different load intervals up to the ultimate
load, the BM up to applied maximum dynamic load is
only given with an intention for comparison with the
bending moment under dynamic loads. It is observed
from Fig. 6 that the bending moment increases
gradually with depth to the maximum value and then
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461 453

(a) 60 Bending Moment, N - m

Ic = 0.15; Ep/Gs = 10319 (a)
0 2 4 6
L/d =10 0
L/d = 20
L/d = 30

Normalized Depth (z/d)

45
L/d = 40
Lateral Load, N

5
30 Ic = 0.30; L/d=10

Fo =7 N
Fo =14 N
Fo =21 N

15 Fo =30 N

10

Bending Moment, N - m
0
(b) 0 2 4 6 8
0
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6
Deflection, mm

Normalized Depth (z/d)

8

(b) 60
Ic = 0.30; Ep/Gs = 4275
16
L/d = 10
Ic = 0.15; L/d=40
L/d = 20
24 Fo=7N
L/d = 30
45
L/d = 40 Fo =14N
Lateral Load, N

32 Fo =21N
Fo =30N

30 40

Bending Moment, N - m
(c) 0 4 8 12 16
0
15
Normalized Depth (z/d)

0 16
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 Ic = 0.60; L/d=40

Fo =7N
Deflection, mm 24
Fo =14N

Fig. 5 Expanded load–deflection curve for different pile length Fo =21N

32
at a Ic = 0.15 and b Ic = 0.30 Fo =30N

tends to zero, close to or above the pile tip. It is found
that the maximum static bending moment occurs at a
depth of about 4–15 times the pile diameter from the
surface of the clay bed for piles embedded at different
consistencies of clay.
5.2 Dynamic Pile Response
5.2.1 Frequency Response Curve
The compliance (i.e. the ratio of the displacement to
the force applied or also known as inverse of stiffness)
40
Fig. 6 Typical variation of static bending moment with
normalized depth for a pile a L/d = 10 at Ic = 0.30; b L/d =
40 at Ic = 0.15; c L/d = 40 at Ic = 0.60
at all dynamic force values were calculated and a
typical compliance versus frequency plot for a pile
(L/d = 30) embedded in soft clay (Ic = 0.15) is
presented in Fig. 7. For a typical linear system, the
displacement is linearly proportional to the force and
hence the variation of compliance with frequency at
all forces must become a single curve. It is very clear

123
454
from Fig. 7 that the occurrence of distinguishable
compliance curves and peaks at different natural
frequencies prove the prevalence of nonlinear
response of the soil particularly in the low frequency
to resonance region. A similar finding was also
reported by Badoni and Makris (1996) based on the
nonlinear spring-dashpot model. However, it is
observed from the present study that for piles embed-
ded at medium stiff clay, compliance at all magnitudes
of force tend to merge and the peaks occur more or less
at one frequency, which indicates that the degree of
nonlinearity decreases with increase in the modulus of
clay.
5.2.2 Natural Frequency
The natural frequency of the soil–pile system (fn)
obtained from the frequency response curves at
various consistencies of clay varies from 11.5 to
30.0 Hz. The variation of natural frequency of the
soil–pile system with modulus ratio (Ep/Gs) at low
magnitude of force F0 = 7 N is shown in Fig. 8. The
modulus ratio is defined as the ratio of Young’s
modulus of the pile material to the maximum dynamic
shear modulus of clay. Fig. 8 clearly indicates that the
natural frequency of the soil–pile system increases
significantly with the decrease in the modulus ratio
(Ep/Gs), i.e. with an increase in the shear modulus of
clay. This is mainly attributed to the increase of
stiffness of the soil–pile system with an increase in the
shear modulus of clay. However, at very high modulus
ratio, i.e. for piles embedded in very soft clay
(Ic & 0.0), the variation of natural frequency with
0.015
Ic = 0.15; L/d = 30
Fo = 7N
Compliance, mm/N
Fo = 14N
0.010
Fo = 21N
Fo = 30N
0.005
0.000
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency, Hz
Fig. 7 Typical compliance versus frequency plot for a pile with
L/d = 30 at Ic = 0.15
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
40
L/d = 10
L/d = 20
Natural Frequency, Hz
30
L/d = 30
L/d = 40
20
10
0
1000 10000 100000
Modulus Ratio (Ep / Gs)
Fig. 8 Measured natural frequency of soil–pile system at
different consistencies of clay
length to diameter ratio of piles is constant, which
reflects that the soil–pile system vibrates practically at
same frequency irrespective of the pile length. This is
mainly attributed to the stiffness degradation resulting
from the strong nonlinear behaviour at very soft
consistency of the clay. It can also be depicted from
the figure that the measured natural frequency of the
soil–pile system is about 30 Hz for the pile with L/d =
40, embedded in medium stiff clay. The natural
frequency of full-scale soil–pile system measured by
Puri and Prakash (1992) ranges from 27.5 to 34 Hz, for
the pile with L/d = 42 embedded in stiff clay. This
indicates that the natural frequencies obtained from
the lab experiments conducted on model piles nearly
simulate the field conditions.
5.2.3 Dynamic Magnification Factor
The static deflection of the pile corresponding to the
magnitudes of dynamic load was obtained from the
load–deflection curve and the dynamic magnification
factor, (Md), i.e. the ratio of dynamic displacement
amplitude to the static deflection for the respective
lateral load was evaluated. A typical variation of
dynamic magnification factor with frequency for a pile
(L/d = 20) embedded in soft clay (Ic = 0.15) is given in
Fig. 9. The figure shows that for the piles embedded in
soft clay, the peak amplitude is magnified by about 1.8
times than the static displacement at low magnitude of
50
the dynamic load, F0 = 7 N and about 0.7 times at
F0 = 30 N. It indicates the reduction in the rate of
increase of magnification with an increase in the
magnitude of dynamic load due to the occurrence of
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
2.0
Dynamic Magnification Factor
Ic = 0.15; L/d = 20
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30
Frequency, Hz
Fig. 9 Typical dynamic magnification factor versus frequency
plot for L/d = 20 at Ic = 0.15
large hysteretic damping resulting from the strong
nonlinear behaviour of soft clay. This finding is
consistent with the observations made on all piles. The
variation of peak dynamic magnification factor with the
modulus ratio for piles with L/d = 10 and 40 at low and
high magnitude of dynamic load (F0 = 7 and 30 N) is
given in Fig. 10. The figure shows that for the piles
embedded in very soft clay, the peak amplitude is
magnified by about 7 times the static displacement at
low magnitude of the dynamic load, F0 = 7 N and
about 5 times at F0 = 30 N. It is very interesting to
observe from the figure that the peak dynamic magni-
fication factor drastically decreases with the decrease in
the modulus ratio (i.e. with an increase in the shear
modulus of clay) for all piles. This is attributed to the
combined effect of increase in the stiffness and damping
of the clay. This shows that even slight changes in
consistency of clay (natural moisture content of clay) in
field by any suitable method, the DMF could be reduced
significantly. It could also be inferred from Fig. 10 that
the reduction in the rate of increase of magnification
with an increase in the magnitude of dynamic load due to
the occurrence of large hysteretic damping resulting
from strong nonlinear behaviour of very soft clay (high
modulus ratio). However, as the consistency increases
from soft to medium stiff clay, the effect of magnitude of
dynamic load on the rate of reduction of peak magni-
fication factor decreases.
5.2.4 Bending Moment Profile
It is found from the experimental study that the
maximum dynamic strain/BM occurs at fundamental
455
Peak Dynamic Magnification Factor
8
L/d = 10; Fo = 7 N
Fo = 7N L/d = 40; Fo = 7 N
6
Fo = 14N L/d = 10; Fo = 30 N
Fo = 21N L/d = 40; Fo = 30 N
Fo = 30N
4
2
0
40 50 1000 10000 100000
Modulus Ratio (Ep / Gs)
Fig. 10 Peak dynamic magnification factor versus modulus
ratio plot for L/d = 10 and 40
natural frequency of the soil–pile system (Boomina-
than and Ayothiraman 2007a). It is also found that the
frequency dependency of dynamic strain or bending
moment (BM) is more predominant at depths close to
depth of maximum BM. This is due to the fact that
large inertial forces are mobilized near the resonance
region because of large amplitude of vibration. The
occurrence of maximum dynamic BM at the funda-
mental frequency of the system is also reported based
on various studies: finite element studies by Krishnan
et al. (1983) and Beam–on Dynamic–Winkler–Foun-
dation (BDWF) approach by Kavvadas and Gazetas
(1993) and Mylonakis (2001).
The BM under dynamic load was obtained from the
measured strain at the natural frequency of the soil–
pile system by multiplying the calibration factor
obtained from calibration of strain gauges. The typical
variation of BM with normalized depth for a piles with
L/d = 10 at Ic = 0.30 and L/d = 40 at Ic = 0.15 and
Ic = 0.60 is given in Fig. 11. It is worthy of note from
Fig. 11a&b that the dynamic BM towards the pile tip
does not attain zero, because of vibration of pile even
near the pile tip. But, it is seen from Fig. 6a that the
BM under static lateral load attains maximum and
reduces towards zero near the pile tip. This indicates
that even the lower parts of the pile can affect the pile
head response due to dynamic nature of lateral load.
However, it is inferred from Fig. 11c that for long
piles embedded in medium stiff clay, the BM reaches
zero value well above the pile tip. This leads to a
conclusion that as the stiffness of clay increases, effect
of inertial interaction due to dynamic nature of loading
reduces on the behaviour of piles.
123
456 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461

5.2.5 Maximum Bending Moment Bending Moment, N - m

(a) 0 5 10 15 20 25
0
In general, it is known that the pile deflections and

Normalized Depth (z/d)

bending moments are magnified under dynamic load. Ic = 0.30; L/d=10; f = 18 Hz
2
To determine the magnification of bending moment, Fo=7N

the bending moment profile obtained for dynamic Fo =14N

4 Fo =21N
lateral loads is compared with the bending moment
Fo =30N
profile obtained for static loads in respective soil–pile-
6
loading conditions. A typical bending moment profile
for a pile with L/d = 40 embedded in medium stiff 8
clay and subjected to a load of magnitude, F0 = 30 N
is shown in Fig. 12. It can be easily inferred from the 10
figure that the bending moment under dynamic lateral
load is magnified at all depths. Also maximum Bending Moment, N - m
(b)
0 10 20 30 40
dynamic BM occurs at much deeper depth, compared 0
to depth of maximum static bending moment, which
indicates that the depth of fixity is amplified under

Normalized Depth (z/d)

8
dynamic load.
The maximum BM ratio, i.e. the ratio of maximum 16
dynamic BM to the maximum static BM calculated for Ic=0.15; L/d=40; f=22Hz

all piles embedded at different consistencies of clay 24 Fo=7N

are presented in Table 2. It is found from the table that Fo =14N

the maximum BM moment under dynamic load is 32 Fo =21N

always magnified for all tested piles embedded at very Fo =30N

soft to medium stiff consistencies of clay. It could be 40

seen from Table 2 that the BM under dynamic loads is Bending Moment, N - m
magnified by about 1.65 times the static BM for piles (c) 0 40 80 120
0
embedded in very soft clay. The maximum BM ratio
of long piles is much higher than that of short piles and
Normalized Depth (z/d)

the maximum dynamic BM is magnified as high as
about 9 times for piles embedded at a consistency
index, Ic = 0.30. The magnification of maximum BM
under dynamic load is mainly because of large inertial
force mobilized and passive resistance along the
increased active pile length under dynamic loads.
The variation of maximum bending moment ratio with
pile length and modulus ratio is shown in Fig. 13. It
can be easily depicted from the figure that the
maximum bending moment ratio increases signifi-
cantly with an increase in pile length and the modulus
of clay (i.e. as the modulus ratio reduces) up to the
consistency index, Ic = 0.30. Figure 13 also shows
that the maximum dynamic BM is magnified by about
1.5–4 times the maximum static BM for short piles
(L/d B 20), whereas for long piles (L/d = 30 and 40),
the maximum dynamic BM is magnified significantly
by about 9 times. It is due to the fact that larger passive
resistance is mobilized along the increased active
length of the pile under dynamic loads. The rate of
8
16
Ic = 0.60; L/d=40; f = 30 Hz
24
Fo=7N
Fo =14N
32 Fo =21N
Fo =30N
40
Fig. 11 Typical variation of dynamic bending moment with
normalized depth of pile a L/d = 10 at Ic = 0.30; b L/d = 40 at
Ic = 0.15; c L/d = 40 at Ic = 0.60
magnification of maximum bending moment under
dynamic load reduces at high magnitude of dynamic
load and for piles embedded in medium stiff clay
because of the higher rate of increase in the maximum
static bending moment. Similar observation on mag-
nification of bending moment under cyclic/dynamic
loading were reported by many authors (Kagawa and

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461 457

Bending Moment, N-m Table 2 Maximum bending moment ratio

0 100 200
0 Modulus L/ Maximum BM ratio
ratio d
F0 = 7 N F0 = 14 N F0 = 21 N F0 = 30 N

24278 10 1.45 1.38 1.48 1.53

10 20 1.25 1.31 1.37 1.34
Normalized Depth (z/d)

30 1.65 1.49 1.42 1.24

40 1.38 1.33 1.27 1.18
10319 10 2.23 1.96 1.67 1.68
20 20 2.13 1.69 1.57 1.39
L/d = 10 (Dynamic)
30 4.03 3.43 3.32 2.88
L/d = 20 (Dynamic)
L/d = 30 (Dynamic) 40 3.95 3.56 3.46 2.92
L/d = 40 (Dynamic) 4275 10 3.70 4.07 4.77 4.95
L/d = 10 (Static)
30 20 3.64 3.90 3.95 4.03
L/d = 20 (Static)
L/d = 30 (Static) 30 8.79 7.70 7.32 6.81
L/d = 40 (Static)
40 7.95 7.58 7.53 7.09
1983 10 3.16 3.08 3.05 3.14
40
20 3.16 3.15 3.22 3.66
Fig. 12 Comparison of static and dynamic bending moment 30 7.13 6.86 6.66 6.64
profile for piles in medium stiff clay 40 6.95 6.23 6.07 5.99

Kraft 1980; Krishnan et al. 1983; Kavvadas and
Gazetas 1993; Sawant and Dewaikar 1999) based on
analytical/semi-analytical/numerical studies. Thus,
the results of this study based on experimental
investigation on instrumented piles provide a good
basis for validating these analytical/semi-analytical/
numerical models.
5.2.6 Depth of Fixity
Depth of fixity (Lf) is defined as length of pile
measured from the ground surface at which bending
moment is maximum. It should also be noted that the
depth of fixity is very important for long flexible piles
only. Hence, in the present study, it is assumed that the
depth of maximum bending moment measured for
long piles (L/d = 30 and 40) are discussed. The
variation of depth of fixity with modulus ratio for all
piles subjected both static and dynamic load is shown
in Fig. 14. It is clearly seen from the figure that the
depth of fixity under dynamic load (Lfd) varies from 6
to 24 times the pile diameter, but for static loads the
effective pile length (Lfs) ranges from 4 to 15 times the
pile diameter from the surface of the clay bed. This
indicates an increase of depth of fixity length under
dynamic loads. This is mainly because of large inertial
components mobilized under dynamic loads near
resonance that need to be transferred to deeper depth,
which necessitates the requirement of additional pile
length under dynamic loads. It can be concluded here
that many piles, which exhibit a flexible (length-
independent) static behaviour cannot be considered as
flexible under dynamic loads at frequencies near
resonance. Similar observation was reported based on
numerical studies by Velez et al. (1983) and Krishnan
et al. (1983). It is found that the depth of fixity is
always lesser than the effective pile length (i.e. pile
length from surface at which deflection is zero) (Dou
and Byrne 1996; Boominathan and Ayothiraman
2007a). There is no equation available in literature
for estimation of depth of fixity under dynamic loads,
but there are equations for estimating effective pile
length under static and dynamic loads based on
analytical/semi-analytical methods (Krishnan et al.
1983; Velez et al. 1983; Gazetas 1991). For compar-
ison, it is assumed that the depth of fixity is approx-
imately equal to effective pile length and results of
present study are compared with equations reported in
literature. Figure 14 presents the variation of normal-
ized depth of fixity (i.e. ratio of depth of fixity, Lf to
pile diameter, d) with modulus ratio. It is found from
Fig. 14 that the existing equations fairly predict the
depth of fixity under static lateral loads. It is also
inferred from the figure that though these equations
estimate depth of fixity under dynamic loads with a
fair accuracy for piles in medium stiff/stiff clay, they

123
458 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461

(a) 12 40
Ic=0.60; Ep/Gs= 1983 L/d = 30 (Dynamic)
Fo = 7 N L/d = 40 (Dynamic)

Norm. Depth of Fixity

Fo = 14 N
Maximum BM Ratio

30 L/d = 30 (Static)
Fo = 21 N
8 L/d = 40 (Static)
Fo = 30 N
Proposed Eqn (1)
Gazetas (1991) (dynamic)
20
Krishnan et al. (1983) (dynamic)
Velez et al. (1983) (dynamic)
4 Krishnan et al. (1983) (static)
10 Velez et al. (1983) (static)
Broms (1964) (static)

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Length to Diameter Ratio (L/d) Modulus Ratio (Ep/Gs)
(b) 10 Fig. 14 Effect of modulus ratio on depth of fixity under static
L/d = 10
and dynamic lateral loads
L/d = 20
Maximum BM Ratio

L/d = 30
L/d = 40
5
0
1000 10000
Modulus Ratio (Ep / Gs)
Fig. 13 Effect of a pile length and b modulus ratio on
maximum bending moment ratio
significantly underestimate the depth of fixity for piles
in soft to very soft clay. Hence the following empirical
equation is proposed by curve fitting method and
multiple regression analysis for estimation of depth of
fixity under dynamic loads:
 0:29
Lfd Ep
 1:24 ð1Þ
d Gs
where Lfd is the depth of fixity under dynamic lateral
load, d is the pile diameter, Ep is the Young’s modulus
of pile material, Gs is the low-strain shear modulus of
clay. The regression coefficient (R2) of 0.8484 was
obtained for the above equation. Also, it is to be noted
that the above equation is developed based on the
experimental results of hollow piles and as a function
of outer pile diameter and hence respective correction
factor must be applied when it is used for solid piles.
The depth of fixity ratio, i.e. the ratio of depth of
fixity length under dynamic loads (Lfd) to depth of
fixity under static loads (Lfs) is calculated for long piles
embedded at different consistencies of clay and its
variation with modulus ratio is shown in Fig. 15. It is
seen from the figure that the depth of fixity under
dynamic loads is 1.6 times higher than the effective
pile length under static loads for piles in very soft clay,
whereas 2–2.5 times higher for piles in medium stiff
clay. Although the depth of fixity under dynamic loads
is less for piles in medium stiff to stiff clay compared
100000 to piles in soft clay, the depth of fixity ratio, i.e. the
magnification of depth of fixity under dynamic loads is
larger for piles in medium stiff clay. This could be due
to the fact that the depth of fixity of piles in soft clay
under static loads increases drastically and thus
bringing down the magnification effect for piles
embedded in very soft clay. The effective pile length
(depth of fixity) ratio determined using empirical
equations proposed by Krishnan et al. (1983) and
Velez et al. (1983) is also plotted in Fig. 15. It is found
from the figure that though these equations show
similar trend, i.e. reduction of depth of fixity ratio with
increase of modulus ratio, they underestimate the
magnification of depth of fixity/effective pile length
under dynamic loads for all consistencies of clay.
Hence the following empirical equation is proposed by
multiple regression analysis for estimation of ratio of
effective pile length under dynamic and static lateral
loads:
 0:12
Lfd Ep
 5:91 ð2Þ
Lfs Gs
where Lfs is the depth of fixity under static loads, and
other parameters are as defined earlier. The regression
coefficient (R2) of only 0.485 was obtained for the
above equation, which means that the above equation

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
4 •
L/d = 30
L/d = 40
Depth of Fixity Ratio
Proposed Eqn (2)
Velez et al. (1983)
Krishnan et al. (1983)
2 remains practically the same for piles in very soft
0 clay.
1000 10000
Modulus Ratio (Ep/Gs)
Fig. 15 Variation of dept of fixity ratio (dynamic to static) with
modulus ratio
gives nearly an average estimate of ratio of effective
pile length. It is to be noted that the above results are
based on 1-g tests conducted at low confining stress
conditions and thus the results need to be verified and
modified as and when a more reliable data is made
available based on either centrifuge or full-scale
experiments on instrumented piles embedded in clay.
6 Summary and conclusions
To investigate the effect of soil–pile characteristics on
the dynamic bending behaviour of piles, comprehen-
sive dynamic experiments were carried out on small-
scale single pile in a simulated Elastic Half Space
facility fabricated specially for this purpose. Piles
having different L/d ratios were embedded in very soft
to medium stiff clay. Piles were subjected to sinusoi-
dal lateral load ranging from 7 to 30 N at wide range of
frequency of excitation (2–50 Hz). The load trans-
ferred to the pile, pile head displacement and strain
variation along the length of pile were measured using
a dedicated Data Acquisition System. Static lateral
load tests were also conducted on piles to establish the
magnification of dynamic response of piles. Based on
these comprehensive experimental studies, the fol-
lowing major conclusions are drawn:
• In the measured frequency response curves, the
nonlinearity prevails more in low frequency to
resonance region. Piles behave nonlinearly at wide
range of consistencies of clay, but the degree of
nonlinearity decreases with the increase in the
consistency of the clays.
459
Consistency of clay and pile length significantly
influences the natural frequency of the soil–pile
system. Though the natural frequency substan-
tially increases with pile length and shear modulus
of clay at low magnitude of dynamic load, it
clay, which implies that the soil–pile system
vibrates at one natural frequency. It also reflects
the degradation of stiffness resulting from strong
nonlinear behaviour at very soft consistency of
100000
• Peak displacement amplitude of piles under
dynamic loads is magnified as high as about 7
times the static amplitude for piles embedded in
very soft clay, but the magnification reduces
drastically as the consistency changes from very
soft to medium stiff state. This substantiates that
by altering the consistency of the clay in the field to
a small extent by appropriate ground improvement
technique, a significant reduction in magnification
can be achieved.
• Bending behaviour of pile, i.e. bending moment
profile indicates that bending moment is largely
amplified at all depths and the maximum bending
moment occurs at much deeper depth compared to
static bending behaviour of pile.
• Depth of fixity under dynamic loads is about
1.5–2.7 times greater than the depth of fixity under
static loads. This indicates an increase of depth of
fixity/effective pile length under dynamic loads. It
subsequently lead to the condition that the piles
that exhibit a flexible (length-independent) static
behaviour cannot be considered as flexible under
dynamic loads at frequencies near resonance.
• Based on the comprehensive experimental data,
empirical equations are developed to determine the
depth of fixity under dynamic lateral loads and
depth of fixity ratio under dynamic and static loads
directly.
• The maximum dynamic BM is magnified by about
1.5–4 times in comparison to the static case for
short piles and about 9 times for long piles
embedded in soft clay due to mobilization of large
passive resistance with an increased effective pile
length.
These results were obtained from the experimental
studies on piles embedded in clay at low effective
confining pressures. The findings related to magnification
123
460
of maximum bending moment, effective pile length and
the proposed empirical equations may be verified further
and modified accordingly as and when a more reliable
data is made available based on either centrifuge or full-
scale experiments on instrumented piles.
References
Agarwal SL (1973) Discrete element analysis and its experi-
mental verification for vertical piles under dynamic lateral
loads. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on
soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Moscow, vol
2, 3/2, pp 9–12
Anandarajah D, Zhang J, Gnanaranjan G, Ealy C (2001) Back–
calculation of Winkler foundation parameters for dynamic
analysis of piles from field-test data. Proceedings of NSF
international workshop on earthquake simulation in geo-
technical engineering, pp 1–10
Arduino P, Kramer SL, Li P, Baska DA (2002) Dynamic stiff-
ness of piles in liquefiable soils. Research Report No:
T9903—Task A4, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Washington
Badoni D, Makris N (1996) Nonlinear response of single piles
under lateral inertial and seismic loads. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 15:29–43
Blaney GW, O’Neill MW (1986) Measured lateral response of
mass on single pile in clay. J Geotech Eng ASCE
112(4):443–457
Blaney G, O’Neill MW (1989) Dynamic lateral response of a
pile group in clay. Geotech Test J ASTM 12:22–29
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2005) Dynamic behaviour of
laterally loaded model piles in clay. Geotech Eng J
158(4):207–215
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2006) Dynamic response of
laterally loaded piles in clay. Geotech Eng J
159(3):233–241
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2007a) Measurement and
analysis of horizontal vibration response of pile founda-
tions. Shock Vib 14(2):89–106
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R (2007b) An experimental study
on static and dynamic bending behaviour of piles in soft
clay. Geotech Geol Eng 25(2):177–189
Boominathan A, Ayothiraman R, Elango J (2002) Lateral
vibration response of full scale single piles. Proceedings of
9th international conference on piling and deep founda-
tions, France, pp 141–146
Crouse CB, Kramer SL, Mitchell R, Hushmand B (1993)
Dynamic tests of pipe pile in saturated peat. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 119:1554–1567
D2487-00 (2003) ASTM Standard classification of soils for
engineering purposes (Unified Classification System)
Dou H, Byrne PM (1996) Dynamic response of single piles and
soil-pile interaction. Can Geotech J 33(1):80–96
El Naggar MH (1997) Horizontal and rotational impedances for
radially inhomogeneous soil media. Can Geotech J
34:408–420
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
El Naggar MH, Bentley KJ (2000) Dynamic analysis for later-
ally loaded piles and dynamic p–y curves. Can Geotech J
37:1166–1183
El Naggar MH, Novak M (1996) Nonlinear analysis of dynamic
lateral pile response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15:233–244
El-Marsafawi H, Han YC, Novak M (1992) Dynamic experi-
ments on two pile groups. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118:
576–592
Finn WDL, Gohl W (1992) Response of model pile groups to
strong shaking. In: Prakash S (ed) Piles under dynamic
loads, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No: 34,
pp 27–55
Gazetas G (1991) Foundation vibrations. Foundation engineering
handbook, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinholds, pp 553–593
Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Horizontal response and piles in
layered soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(1):20–40
Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (1998) Seismic soil-structure interaction:
new evidence and emerging issues. Proceedings of 3rd inter-
national conference on geotechnical earthquake engineering
and soil dynamics, ASCE, Seattle, vol 2, pp 1119–1174
Georgiadis M, Anagnostopoulos C, Saflekou S (1992) Cyclic
lateral loading of piles in soft clay. Geotech Eng 23:47–60
Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2005) Phenomenological model
applied to inelastic response of soil–pile interaction sys-
tems. Soil Found 45(4):119–132
Halling MW, Womack KC, Muhammad I, Rollins KM (2000)
Vibrational testing of a full-scale pile group in soft clay.
Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake
engineering, New Zealand, Paper No: 1745
Han Y, Vaziri H (1992) Dynamic response of pile groups under
lateral loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 11:87–99
Hassini S (1990) Static and dynamic behaviour of pile groups.
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Kagawa T, Kraft LM (1980) Lateral load-deflection relation-
ships of piles subjected to dynamic loadings. Soil Found
20(4):19–36
Katagiri M, Imai G (1994) A new in-laboratory method to make
homogeneous clayey samples and their mechanical prop-
erties. Soil Found 34(2):87–93
Kavvadas M, Gazetas G (1993) Kinematic seismic response and
bending of free head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique
43(2):207–222
Konagai K (2005) Data archives of seismic fault-induced
damage. Soil Dyn Eartq Eng 25:559–570
Krishnan R, Gazetas G, Velez A (1983) Static and dynamic
lateral deflection of piles in non-homogeneous soil stratum.
Geotechnique 33(3):307–325
Kucukarslan S, Banerjee PK (2003) Behavior of axially loaded
pile group under lateral cyclic loading. Eng Struct
25:303–311
Kuhlemeyer RL (1979) Static and dynamic laterally loaded
floating piles. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 105(2):289–304
Mostafa YE, El-Naggar MH (2002) Dynamic analysis of later-
ally loaded pile groups in sand and clay. Can Geotech J
39:1358–1383
Mylonakis G (1995) Contributions to static and seismic analysis
of piles and pile-supported bridge piers. Ph.D. Dissertation,
New York, State University of New York at Buffalo
Mylonakis G (2001) Simplified model for seismic pile bending
at soil layer interfaces. Soil Found 41(4):47–58
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:447–461
Narasimha Rao S, Ramakrishna VGSTK, Babu Rao M (1998)
Influence of rigidity on laterally loaded pile groups in
marine clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
124(6):542–549
Nogami T, Otani J, Konagai K, Chen HL (1992) Nonlinear soil-
pile interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. J Geo-
tech Eng ASCE 118(1):89–106
Novak M (1974) Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can
Geotech J 11(4):574–598
Novak M (1985) Experiments with shallow and deep founda-
tions. In: Gazetas G, Selig ET (eds) Vibration problems in
geotechnical engineering, ASCE, pp 1–26
Novak M, EI-Sharnouby B (1983) Stiffness and damping con-
stants of single piles. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 109:961–974
Novak M, Grigg RF (1976) Dynamic experiments with small
pile foundations. Can Geotech J 107:372–385
Pak RYS, Ashlock JC, Abedzadeh F, Turner N (2003) Com-
parison of continuum theories with measurements for piles
under dynamic loads. Proceedings of 16th ASCE engi-
neering mechanics conference, University of Washington,
Paper No: 156
Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and
design. Wiley, New York
461
Prakash S, Chandrasekaran V (1973) Pile foundations under
dynamic lateral loads. Proceedings of 8th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Moscow, vol 2, pp 199–202
Prakash S, Puri VK (1998) Foundation for machines: analysis
and design. Wiley, New York
Puri KV, Prakash S (1992) Observed and predicted response of piles
under dynamic loads. In: Prakash S (ed) Piles under dynamic
loads, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 34, ASCE, pp 153–169
Saha S, Ghosh DP (1986) Dynamic lateral response of piles in
coupled mode of vibration. Soil Found 26(1):1–10
Sawant VA, Dewaikar DM (1999) Analysis of pile groups
subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Indian Geotech J
29:191–220
Stokoe KH, Woods RD (1972) In-situ shear wave velocity
measurement by cross-hole test. J Soil Mech Found Eng
Div ASCE 98(5):951–979
Velez A, Gazetas G, Krishnan R (1983) Lateral dynamic
response of constrained-head piles. J Geotech Eng ASCE
109:1063–1081
Wu G, Finn WDL (1997) Dynamic elastic analysis of pile
foundations using finite element method in the frequency
domain. Can Geotech J 34(1):34–43
123