Scholars' Mine
International Conferences on Recent Advances in 1995  Third International Conference on Recent
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Dynamics & Soil Dynamics
Ignatius Po Lam
Earth Mechanics, Inc., Fountain Valley, CA
Recommended Citation
Martin, Geoffrey R. and Lam, Ignatius Po, "Seismic Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and Geotechnical Issues" (1995).
International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 10.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/03icrageesd/session16/10
This Article  Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder.
For more information, please contact scholarsmine@mst.edu.
1\ Proceedings: Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
~ April 27, 1995; Volume Ill, St. Louis, Missouri
SYNOPSIS Research on soilpilestructure interaction under dynamic loading over the past 20 years has led to a
variety of analysis approaches of varying complexity to address a range of dynamic problems. Many of these analysis
approaches have been adapted for use for the seismic design of pile foundations. In this paper, the various analysis
methods are only briefly reviewed. The focus of discussion is on design concepts and issues more routinely used or
encountered by structural engineers during seismic design of new or retrofitted pile foundation systems representative
of those used for bridges and buildings.
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this paper, is to focus on design concepts (7) What are the pile seismic design criteria  bearing
and issues related to the seismic design of pile capacity/settlement/uplift/structural pile damage?
foundation systems representative of those typically used
for bridges and buildings. Pile foundations for such fPIE:R No. 1 tpt[~ No. 2
structures, as shown for example in Figures 1 and 2, are 46 520 00 000 70 000
normally required in the presence of softer more
compressible soils, where design concerns relate to
bearing capacity and allowable settlement. However,
from a seismic design point of view, several other
design aspects must be considered, including:
(1) How are the free field earthquake ground motions '511,1'1' INf)
(1828)
Cl,.\.'1"
1491
engineer. The structural engineer, while recognizing the
complexity of the problem with respect to both the
analytical difficulties associated with a soilpilestructure
interaction problem under dynamic loading and variable
soil stratigraphy, generally needs a relatively simple and
pragmatic solution to the problem. This approach also
provides an economic means for investigating the
sensitivity of earthquake induced structural loading to
uncertainties in foundation design parameters.
1492
( 1) An analysis of the influence of the stiffness and machine foundations, where the higher frequencies of
geometry of a massless foundation system on the free loading lead to radiation damping, and foundation
field ground motion, leading to modified structural stiffness is strongly frequency dependent. In addition,
input motions at the pile cap level (kinematic amplitudes of vibration are generally small, and the
interaction). assumption of an elastic soil may not be unreasonable.
(2) An analysis of the frequency dependent impedance However, soilpile interaction under earthquake induced
characteristics of the foundation system under cyclic inertial loading, can lead to strongly nonlinear soil
loading, in the form of a foundation stiffness matrix. behavior particularly in the vicinity of the pile interface.
Whereas nonlinear interface springs and sliding
(3) An analysis of the inertial response of the structure elements can be coupled to elastic continuum solutions to
to the pile cap input motions (from step 1), using the obtain modified impedance functions such as in the
pile cap stiffness matrix to account for foundation studies described by Nogami et. al. (1992). The use of
compliance (inertial interaction). the above approach becomes impractical for more
routine structural design under seismic loading.
Fortunately, given the relatively low frequency range of
earthquake inertial loading and the nature of
THE WHOLE SYSTEM 1. Kinematic Seismic Response
representative pile foundation systems for bridges and
buildings, stiffness functions are in most cases essentially
freefield motion
frequency independent, and static loading stiffness
"fj(t)=U~
values are often a reasonable approximation. In
addition, the radiation damping component of energy
loss arising from wave propagation away from the
foundation is considerably reduced at lower frequencies,
particularly in the presence of nonlinear soil behavior.
~ Whereas fully coupled nonlinear solutions to the
u,(tFU/"" u (t)=U e'"" seismic loading problem using finite element methods
1 1
ground input motion
are theoretically possible and have been used to a limited
seismic waves
extent, the analytical complexity is again very daunting
and impractical for routine design.
2. Pile Group Dynamic Impedances 3. Superstnucture Inertial Response
(and distribution of inertial loading Given the complexity of nonlinear coupled models, the
to individual piles)
Winkler model, represented by a series of independent
or uncoupled lateral and axial springs (linear or non
linear) simulating soilpile interaction in the lateral and
axial directions, provides the most convenient means of
analyzing the response of pile foundation systems to
=
: nr"" :
................................ 
. . Uk(t) 4
'..../ $.(t)
1493
!AI (81 !Cl
I I I
I I 1
_\I \'..
><::::
I
'..!.  ::::,
'y_::X
!___ '
\
sa
*""G FREEFIELD
MOTION
Lateral Soil
Reochon, p
Displacement,
Rs,R. Se AND STARE DETERMINED FROM THE 3 0 PLATFORM y
ST
ALL PILES
r
...
..,...
larsianal Soli
Reachon, T
1494
their implications compared and discussed.
~Jj
resultant pilehead load versus pilehead deflection
2 curves are plotted in Figure 8 for the three pilehead
connections. In practice, it is commonly assumed that
3 the freehead and the fixedhead pile assumptions serve
Yt as extreme bounds. The solutions support this
4 assumption as the loaddeformation curve for the
partially restrained case falls between the free and the
fixed head cases. However, this assumption is invalid
for peak moment, as discussed below.

etc.
100
7
80 FIXED
1495
solutions are based on the recommendations given by
6000 API for design of long offshore piles. Additional beam
FIXED column solutions are solved and presented below with
FREE the py curves modified to account for a number of soil
5000
I pile interaction aspects associated with earthquake
I considerations. The partiallyrestrained pilehead
I condition is chosen for the sensitivity studies. The
I RESTRAINED resultant beamcolumn solutions of pilehead load versus
4000 deflection curves are compared to the bench mark case
I / previously described, and are presented in Figure 11.
II / Some general comments of these comparisons are
briefly discussed below.
3000
I /
r
80 F
II /
2000 I /
60
/1 /
/ .
1000
/
/. /
~ .Y'
~
20
20 o 60 80 100
1496
of the gap effect. However, gapping effects could be E. =fz (I)
more significant for clays, where cyclic loading could where
lead to progressively increasing gap depths at the pile Es = the stiffness of the support spring in
head. force per unit length
per unit deflection,
(c) Degraded py Curve. During cyclic and earthquake f =a coefficient which depends on the
loading, the soil resistance may be progressively density or friction
degraded by the effects of cyclic loading. The soil angle (see Figure 12), and
resistance on the py curves are reduced to half of the z = depth from grade level.
benchmark case, to arbitrarily account for potential
cyclic degradation effects. The resultant pilehead load The values of f recommended by Terzaghi as shown in
deflection curve is shown in Figure 11, and is Figure 12, are smaller than those recommended by
significantly reduced especially at the small deflection Reese et. al. (1975). The value recommended by Reese
range. et. al. corresponds to the initial tangent stiffness of the
loadtransfer characteristics. The value recommended
(d) Liquefaction Effects. For loose sand deposits, the by Terzaghi corresponds to the secant stiffness of the
soil beneath the water table can potentially liquefy load transfer behavior at typical design load levels.
during an earthquake, resulting in a loss of soil
resistance. To simulate a liquefaction condition, the py
curves at zero to five feet depth were removed.
..
,
FRICTION ANGLE.$'
~
VEAY MEDIUM VERY
0 DENSE
However, the soilsupport curves below fivefoot depth 0
LOOSE
were kept the same as the benchmark case. The Recommended DY Terzaghl. 1955
resultant pilehead loaddeflection solutions are (After O'Neill and Murchison. 1983)
presented in Figure 11. The pilehead stiffness is ~
z

C)
significantly reduced, especially at the small deflection ><
co
ll~
range. However, the loaddeformation curve becomes CQ
more linear, indicating that a higher proportion of the .:1
....__.,
pilehead deflection is associated with the compliance of ..._t C)
1497
Es=k+kz
0 1
where
ko = 0.6c/ ec
g
i 6.0 1t++,.Lf~:z::.......j
k1 =  0.2
 ( r +J 
ec D
cJ
Jc is empirical constant (0.250.5)
z is the depth below the grade level
...
X
D is the pile diameter
...' c is the undrained shear strength
0
"'1Urt & is the strain amplitude at onehalf of the
peak deviatoric stress level
1498
100 OLOWCOUNT (BLOWS/fT)
0 2 4 8 15 30
.
fi'
{jJ"'
~ {jJ
0
~
4.0 ~
"'"z
w "
;::
"'0::".J D. 1 0 It {jJ
wo
2.0 o<D
..: ( 1{LI/1M 1)
a:
''
"'
::0
{jJ
6!in)
LINEAR SOIL
R~ACTION  '"
z
z
0
0
......:',~(,
~\.~
;:: ~
!AI FIXEDHEAD CONDITION
., /.'t
HYPERBOLIC
PvCURVE a:., /.~\.0~
;>
~'\)~
~~
0..:
 40 f++t7"+i "
~ "'uo
0
~ 5
5
u
3.0 f+1~:..__t7''ti
0 2 3
COHESION (ksr)
4
a:
...c
0
~ 2.0 f.A?Cbo""'7"'~i
Figure 15 Coefficient of Variation of Subgrade Modulus
X
w
With Depth for Clay
.J
0::
where the stiffness coefficients K~ and K8 , represent the
force per unit horizontal deflection with zero rotation,
and the moment per unit rotation with zero deflection at
the pile head, respectively. The cross coupling
coefficient K 58 represents either the moment needed to
(81 FREEHEAD CONDITION maintain zero rotation on unit deflection or the force
required to maintain zero displacement on unit rotation
Figure 14 Comparisons of Linear and NonLinear at the pile head.
Solutions for Clay (Lam and Martin 1986)
Pile head stiffness coefficients K 6, Ka and K 68 are shown
PileHead Stiffness Matrix in Figures 16 through 18 as a function of the bending
stiffness of the pile EI and the coefficient of variation f
For structural seismic response evaluations, the of soil reaction modulus E. with depth, for cases where
development of an equivalent linear pile head stiffness the pile head is fixed and is located at the ground
matrix reflecting the relationship between applied pile surface. In most cases where pile groups are used for
head lateral loads and moments and corresponding foundation support, pile heads are embedded beneath the
lateral deflections and relations is a necessary step. surface. The effect of embedment on the coefficient K 6
Whereas computer programs using site specific py is shown in Figure 19.
curves may be used to determine equivalent linearized
pile h~ad stiffn~ss co_efficie?ts, it is of interest to develop To illustrate the use and implications of the above
graphical relat10nsliips usmg the linearized subgrade graphs, we consider a standard cast insitu reinforced
modulus simplifications described above, for concrete pile commonly used by The California
preliminary design or sensitivity evaluations. The pile Department of Transportation (16 inch diameter, EI =
9
head stiffness relations may be expressed by the 9.7xl0 in 2lb). Assuming a sandy soil (c)> = 30) and
equati_ons: fixed head .conditions, from Figure 12, the coefficient f
= 10 1b/cu.4 in and from Figure 16, the lateral stiffness
P r = K~ o + K69 c)> (2) K 6 = 4x10 lb/in. From Figures 17 and 18, the rotational
stiffness k 8 = 2.3xl0 8 inlb/rad and the cross coupling
Mr =K69 o + K8 c)> (3) stiffness K 68 = 2.3x10 6 lb. If the embedment depth is 5
ft., K~ increase to 8xl04 lb/in (as determined from
Figure 19), which is twice the value for no embedment.
1499

0
z 0>
0
CD
'
::.::~ v
0 f 200
V:::: vf;::;;
k;:::: lh~
~~
0 : f 150
<( CD co
f
100~
_J
L.J 0
::r:
~g ""'
f
0
f v v "'
L.J
":": k< l:;:: v __.v ""'
~
.......
~..<' ~
t......
~
.,.,
0
......:::::1:::: ~ I' t>< v V1
V1 ~ v
b::;~ ~ ~I" K:
Vl '''
Vl z ('
L.J t......
z t...... 0
t...... ;=: I 200
V1 f 150
!::=:
1
Vl
v  kl' ~ v <..=> :7 ;;<
f  100
v 18::~f
40 :z: f  80
_J
<( 0
l. . . . ...v v 20 ::::;
a..
~~ "/ <" ~ f =
=
60
~v ~
[7 40
~
z 10 f
0 f 5
::::>
0
<C>
............ !' f = 20
0
;=: f 1 u f =5 10
<(
_J
Vl
....... f
f
0.5
0.1
(/)
(/)
I f
f
=
= 0.5
1
z<( 0 f = 0.1
=
1 "'0 v 1 Coelf. of Voriolion of Soil R:'fclion
Modulus with Oeplh, I (l.B/111 )
a::
u
/
,_....... " f =
'I
I()
v Coeff. of Variation of Soil Refction
Po.~
T
C..
z<(
A

Ci
~ r;
0
<(
=
CD
0
0
_J
z EMBEDMENT
I
.:::::. o

z
.:=.. 0<
m
' s
::.:: "' R> I?~ ~
   10'
Vl
Vl "'0
:?<X i><t>
/5( p<.. ....,
"" <D
0 I 100
_...... v v
Lo.J
z I  200
0
<>:
._.., ',
Lo...
t......
;=:
U1
~~
/ f'o. f'o.
1'..
I 
I
r
f
100
= 60
= 10
= 51
I
0
._..,
X ~

"" '\.l. v
_J
= ;:;:
v v
~ ~
I
~~ __. L~
<(
z 00
I = 0.5 ~.,.,
......
0
;=:
0
I = 0.1 Vl 0
._..,

Vl
<(
1 z
.....
0
= ~
.....
~
;=:
U1
l::::: L 1..::::: v
l. L~ [......l. ~
[' Coeff. of Variation of Soil Re~ction ...J
A~
0 Modulus with Depth, f (LB/IN
'I
) <(
z
0
0
I = 10
10 9 10 10 1011 10 12
;=:
<(
f =1
...J
T
1010 lOll 10 12
BENDING STIFFNESS, El (LB!N 2 )
1500
If the pile is pinned at the pile head, the zero pile he~d
10
moment leads to the following relationship between plle
head rotation e and deflection 8:
~
1 6
<{
0:: FREE
From this example, it can been seen that the lateral PILE
stiffness can vary significantly depending on both pi~e ~
UJ
04
head connection fixity and embedment depth, agam z F
lL
reinforcing the conclusion that pile head bound~
conditions are of more significance than the prec1se
selection of soil parameters.
lL
Effects of Liquefaction
0
Another major lateral loading problem encountered by 0 2 4 6 8 10
designers is that of pile design in liquefiable soils. TIME (SECS)
Generally, the liquefaction problem affects surficial soil
layers (say in the upper 30 to 50 feet) of a loose sand Figure 20 Lateral Stiffness Degradation with Pore
deposit. Very often zero lateral soil resistance (i.e. py Water Pressure Increase and Liquefaction (Finn and
resistance in pile analysis) is assumed for the liquefied Martin, 1980)
soil layers. In many cases, if the soil liquefies (to depths
greater than 20 feet), foundation design using Whereas pore pressures generated by free field
conventional smaller diameter piles becomes virtually earthquake response are likely to dominate degradation
impossible and the only recourse would be to perform effects, the earthquake induced cyclic inertial interaction
site remediation or to use very large diameter drilled of the pile with the surrounding soil will also tend to
shafts which are difficult to construct in liquefiable sites. generate localized pore pressure increases around the
pile head. The effects of such pore pressure increases
Progressive increases in free field pore water pressures are illustrated in tests described by Scott et. al (1982).
in saturated sands arising from earthquake loading, will In these tests, an instrumented 24 inch steel pipe pile
lead to similar progressive reductions in lateral pile embedded in saturated sand was subjected to dynamic
resistance. The effects of such reductions on pile head lateral loads by the use of two counterrotating mass
stiffness have been illustrated by Finn and Martin (1980) vibratory shakers as shown in Figure 21. Loading rates
by considering the case of a 48 inch diameter steel pipe were in the range 18 hertz. Free field pore pressure
pile embedded in 30m of loose sand overlying a firm measurements indicated that partial liquefaction
alluvium. Progressive increases in freefield pore occurred close to the pile head (small sand boils were
pressures under earthquake loading as a function of observed along with some subsidence at the ground
depth were generated by the dynamic effective stress surface). Figure 22 illustrates representative back
response program DESRA (Lee and Finn, 1978), calculated cyclic py curves from the test results, (Ting,
leading to liquefaction to a depth of about 10 ft. after 10 1987). Note the strain softening, hysteric and gapping
seconds of shaking. Initial py curves were established phenomena at shallow depths and the nearly linear
using API criteria. The slopes of the py curves at the behavior at depths of 56 pile diameters.
origin were then degraded as a function of the
reductions in the square root of the vertical effective Figure 23 presents the measurements in pile head
stress, while for deflections greater than D/60 (D = pile stiffness during the vibratory test as shown by the load
diameter) where strength characteristics dominate deflection measurements from two series of tests: (i) at a
lateral resistance, the py curve was degraded in relatively lower cyclic load (Test No. 6)of 2.47 kips and
proportion to the vertical effective stress, leading to (ii) at a higher cyclic load (Test No. 9) of 6.12 kips. In
zero resistance in liquefied zones. The influence of the addition to the two points showing measurements from
degradation on lateral stiffness (normalized by initial the vibratory tests, a series of hindcast beamcolumn
stiffness) for fixed and freehead conditions and for a analyses were conducted and are also shown in figure
range of pile head deflections, is shown in Figure 20. 23. The solid line presents results of the nonlinear
Liquefaction to a depth of about 10 feet after 10 beamcolumn analyses using the py curve approach
seconds, reduced the lateral stiffness to about one third using conventionally adopted soil parameters for the site
of initial stiffness values. soil condition (i.e. a friction angle of 35 degrees and a
1501
~.~Coe~ff~ic~ie~n~l0
Ill
VARIATION
of
0.. LINEAR
SUEIGRADE
"' ~
D FROM NONLINEAR Sltffness
w N ANALYSIS USING wilh Deplh
z CONVENTIONAL
:::;
0
:::>
REESE'S py CRITERIA f =
:::;: (FRICTION ANGLE = 35 DEG., , 50 pci
W D INITIAL TANGENT MODULl____IJ~SED ON f=80 ,,._Pcl)' pci
40
E; ~ .......
/
/
/
/
..........
..................

~
.........
,...
v ./
./
"/~ ......................
",/./,.....
,....
.,... .....
.,... .........

....,..../,................ .,....
...... ......
0..
< ~~/  CYCLIC VIBRATION TEST AT
0 BTI"'AIN TUIE 1} CONNEC'TIO TO P'OI"frrool 0 3 AXIS ACCELERQt.,HTER / 6.12 K LOAD
0 STIIlAI ... TUII 2
I P'U\.L IAtDOIB
0 LVOT, ;tl'"' S'TI'\01(1. :M'' ABO\I'i Of\OUNO
0 PtiZOMETIIIl, I' DEEP, 11'' P:AOM I"ILE LVOT, .tl" IT~.:::E, 1'2" A.0\1( QROUND 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K_L~O~A,D_____~
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
0 l"tllZOMETllll, J' 0.111". 1 1" I'AOM l"tLf.
@
DIAL OAUO!, VIPHICAL ,_.0\IE,_.ENT
@
lllANQE A lltiM.OMETE Jll.
lllANQU~ SEiauQMETf.R
DEFLECTION AT 36IN ABOVE MUD LINE (INCH)
0 PIIZOMITI Ill, J' OIIP'. 1!1 .. ' P' AO .. P'ILI
1502
interaction including freefield liquefaction effects. 53.7 kip was developed from a test (Calibration PSOl
test) representing the upper bound pile head load for a
Preliminary results have been presented by Liu and zero pore pressure. The calibration of point of 10 kip
Dobry (1995). Figure 24 shows the configuration of the was developed from a test representing the lower bound
RPI centrifuge tests. A model pile (0.375 inches in pile head load when the soil resistance is zero. The four
diameter or 15 inches diameter in the prototype scale pile head load values in between the bounding cases
under a 40g acceleration) was embedded in a saturated represent the data obtained from four series of
sand deposit where the sand was prepared to a relative centrifuge experiments where the shaking amplitudes
density of 60 percent. The sand box was placed on a were varied from 0.06g to 0.40g to achieve various
shaking table and shaken to achieve various degrees of levels of pore pressure ratio at the onset of the pile load
pore pressure ratio. The test pile was laterally loaded test.
immediately at the end of shaking to observe the py
response of the liquefied soils. Instrumentation included As shown in the figure the pore pressure ratios
lateral load and deflection measurements, strain gages to generally increase with depth. At the 0.40g shaking
measure pile moment at various depths and pore amplitude level, the entire soil mass has achieved a fully
pressure measurements in the free field. liquefied condition corresponding to a pore pressure
Accelerometers were also installed within various points ratio of 1. Based on hindcase analyses, we conclude that
in the soil to monitor the acceleration response during the pile head stiffness is most sensitive to the upper 5
shaking of the soil box. The soil samples were saturated feet of soil mass and therefore, the observed pile head
with a deaired waterglycerin mixture to retard the pore stiffness would largely be a function of the pore
pressure dissipation immediately following shaking. pressure measurement at 2.8 feet. This is further
The dissipation rate was adjusted to 10 times slower than confirmed by the trends in the three pilehead force
would be expected using pure water. versus pore pressure ratio curves as they are
extrapolated to a zero pore pressure ratio (shown as
dashed lines). It can be observed that the trend at the
2.8 ft. pore pressure measurement provides a reasonable
extrapolation to the upperbound pile head force of 53.7
.. kip.
I Saturated Sand
Strain Gages
0
0~,
l
Dr= 60% <O \ PRIO!{ TO SHAKING (PSlll TEsT)
',\ PROJECTED
''. ~ fROM CURVE
""~;~::::: SHAPES BASED
0
0
\::::~ ON RPI DATA
2.4 I 6g ==== Base Shaking \ ', , POINTS
~20"~~
"'
1503
Continuing analysis of test data will provide more load transferdeflection curves associated with each of
insight as to the nature of stiffness degradation during the above forms of soil resistance.
free field pore pressure build up. The data will also (Al PILESOIL MODEL
provide insight as to the question of residual undrained
strength following liquefaction. The availability of a
small residual strength to py curves in liquefied soils,
has a big impact on pile performance under lateral
AXIAL LOAD AXIAL LOAD 1/
LOAO. 0
,..r:
1>.
shear walls for buildings when subjected to lateral w
0
loading.
1504
In addition to the ultimate side friction and endbearing 8000
capacity, some assumptions need to be made to develop
the load transferdisplacement relationships (for both 7000 ..... 
side friction and end bearing) to evaluate the overall pile
behavior. The form of the load transferdisplacement 6000
relationship is again complex, and there is no uniform z '
'
agreement on the subject. One empirical approach is = 5000  PREDICTED BY PILSET
 MEASURED
for example, described by Heydinger (1989). A bi 0
<( /
linear modeling approach for tz and qz curves is 0
...J
4000 '
'
described by Trochanis et. al. (1987). However the load ...J
I I I I I I I lji I I I I I I I I 1
Where: 20 40 60 80
VERTICAL PILE TOP DISPLACEMENT (mm)
f = unit friction mobilized along a pile
segment at displacement, z, Figure 27 Computed versus Measured Axial Pile
Response using the Program PILSET (After Gohl,
fmax =maximum unit friction, and 1993)
zc = the critical movement of the pile ultimate pile capacity (skinfriction and endbearing)
segment at which fmax is fully mobilized. and loaddisplacement relationships. Computer
solutions can be used for a rigorous nonlinear solution.
A zc value of 0.2 is recommended for all soil types. However, an approximate nonlinear graphical solution
method has been presented by Lam and Martin ( 1984,
End Bearing: q = ( ~ ) 113
~.. (6) 1986), and is described below. The procedure is
c
schematically shown in Figure 28 (for a 70ft. long, 1ft.
where: diameter pipe pile embedded in sand, <1> = 30) and
involves the following steps:
qmax = maximum tip resistance
q= tip resistance mobilized at any value of z < zc, and (1) Soil LoadDisplacement Relationships. Sidefriction
and endbearing loaddisplacement curves are
zc critical displacement corresponding to qmax. constructed for a given pile capacity scenario
(accumulated skinfriction and ultimate tip resistance).
A zc value of 0.05 of the pile diameter is recommended. Various forms of curve shape recommended by
researchers can be used to develop the above load
Analysis Methods for Axial Loading on Piles displacement curves. Vijayvergiya's recommendation
(1977) was adopted (for simplicity) in the example
A computer approach can again provide the most shown in Figure 28 (skin friction is assumed mobilized
convenient means of solving axial pile behavior. Many at a displacement of 0.2 inches, and end bearing at a
of the well established computer programs such as displacement of 0.5 times the pile diameter).
BMCOL 76 and, PILSET (Olsen, 1985) allow for
prescription of the tz curves at various depths along the (2) Rigid Pile Solution. Using the above load
length of the pile (e.g., at the boundaries of each soil displacement curves, the rigid pile solution can be
layer) and will automatically perform interpolations to developed by summation of the sidefriction and the
develop support curves at all the pile stations. The tz endbearing resistance values at each displacement along
curves for side friction are usually assumed symmetrical the loaddisplacement curves.
and the qz curve at the pile tip nonsymmetric (see
figure 26). An example of the use of the program (3) Aexible Pile Solution. From the rigid pile solution,
PILSET to compute the axial pile lead load versus the flexible pile solution cab be developed by adding an
deflection curve for a 78m long 915mm O.D. steel pipe additional component of displacement at each load level
pile is shown in Figure 27 (after Gohl, 1993). Q to reflect the pile compliance. For the most flexible
pile scenario, corresponding to a uniform thrust
distribution along the pile shaft, the pile compliance is
Uncertainty in axial soilpile interaction analysis relates given by:
largely to uncertainties in soil parameters including the
1505
displacement of the pile will occur for the above
Pile Compliance oc = QL/AE (7) condition.
Where L is the pile length; A is the crosssectional area, A described by Gohl (1993), as an even simpler
and E is the Young's modulus of the pile. approximation, pile head stiffness values under normal
loading (not exceeding the capacity) may be expresse~ as
(4) Intermediate Pile Stiffness Solution. The "correct" some multiple ex of AEIL with the constant ex depending
solution, as indicated by the computer solution in Figure on the proportions of shaft and end beari~g resistance
28, is bounded by the above rigid pile and flexible pile mobilized. For example, a lower bound stiffness AEIL
solutions. In most cases, a good approximation can be would be appropriate for an end bearing pile on rock
developed by averaging the loaddisplacement curves with negligible shaft friction. Values of ex closer to 2
for the rigid and the flexible pile solutions. The above would be reasonable for friction piles with negligible
graphical method can be used to solve for the load end tip resistance.
displacement curve for any combination of pile/soil
situation (endbearing and friction piles) as well as any
t..,,'
AXIAL
pile type or pile material. CYCLIC LOAD
LOAD
COMPRESSIVE CAPACITY
/
0
l.f)
(\J
..1
_j
a:o
...... Cl 4J..;;,..j1
X
a:
TIP RESISTANCE CURVE:
1/3
Q ~x(ZIZc)
1506
11' determined. To illustrate the procedure, the idealized
1' 6"
pile group shown in Figure 30 is used, assu~ng a fixed
@ ~ E9 pile head condition. The stiffness coeffictents under
4'
 lateral and axial loading for a single pile were
4'
@
. .
,~ E9
11.
1' Diameter determined using the linearized procedures previously
described, as illustrated in Figures 16  18 and Figure
1'6'
@ ~ E9 28. The resulting stiffness coefficients are shown
tabulated in Table 1. Note that the torsional stiffness of
a single pile can usually be assumed zero.
1507
N
generally considered as an uncoupled footing to
determine stiffness contributions to the group stiffness
Rg = N RP + I: K sn S/ matrix. Elastic solutions are often used to determine
n= I
equivalent linear stiffness coefficients in translational,
where Rg and RP are the Rotational Stiffness of the pile vertical and rocking deformation modes, using
group and an individual pile, respectively. N is the No. published solutions where soil is treated as an elastic
of piles in the pile group. K sn is the appropriate medium. However, as for pile loading problems, it is
stiffness coefficient of an individual pile (vertical or difficult to establish appropriate elastic constants to use
lateral) and sn is the spacing between the nth pile and the because of nonlinear soil response.
point of loading (center of the pile group).
The above procedure for a pile group does not account Figure 32 Lateral Stiffness and Capacity  Effect of Pile
for the "group effects" which relate to the influence of Cap
the adjacent piles in affecting the soil support
characteristics. There exists a wide range of opinions To clarify the nature of the nonlinear loaddeformation
among geotechnical engineers on the significance of the characteristics of pile caps under lateral loading
"group effects". The importance of "group effects" including passive capacity, it is clear that more
would depend on many factors including the experimental data is needed either from field load tests
configuration of the pile group (number of piles, or centrifuge tests. Abcarius (1991) presents lateral
spacing, direction of loading in relation to the group load tests results on pile group foundations excavated to
configuration), soil types and pile installation methods. expose the footings of the Cypress Viaduct damaged
during the Lorna Prieta earthquake. Two adjacent
In the case of lateral loading, a py multiplier or footings were jacked against each other as shown in
interaction coefficient approach is often used to soften Figure 33, which also shows results interpreted by Lam
py curves to reflect shadowing effects at close pile and Martin (1993) as load per pile versus deflection.
spacing. The interaction factors defined by Poulos and The nominal design stiffness of piles was 40 kip/inch
Davis ( 1980) based on elastic continuum solutions over and the nominal lateral capacity, 40 kips.
predicted the group effect where the effects of
nonlinearity localize deformations near the pile shaft. The above tests did not include contributions from
Where nonlinear behavior occurs, pile spacings of less lateral passive pressures. Ideally, in conducting field
than about 3 5 pile diameters (depending on the above load tests, progressive footing excavation should be
factors) are generally necessary before the effects of considered so resistance components could be isolated by
pile interaction become significant inpractical terms .. sequential testing. Such a process is presently being
Experimental studies by Brown et. al. (1988) and utilized in model pile cap tests being conducted in the
McVay et. al. (1995) provide useful data on py Rensselar Polytechnic Institute centrifuge. In these tests
multipliers for close pile spacing in sands. The latter model aluminum pile caps (approximately 4ft. x 4 ft. x
studies indicate about a 20% effect for pile spacing of 3 2' 6" deep in prototype scale) are embedded to a depth
diameters. a 3 ft. in a dense sand. Representative test results,
(Dobry (1995), are shown in Figure 34, where cyclic
Influence of Pile Cap lead amplitudes were progressively increased to levels
where passive capacity was reached. Similar tests are
In many cases, the stiffness of a buried pile cap, being conducted to progressively remove side wall
particularly in the lateral direction, can have a effects to separate stiffness contributions. A final test
significant if not dominant influence on the stiffness of sequence will be conducted to include support by
the pile group as a whole. In the case of lateral calibrated piles.
stiffness, contributions arise from passive resistance on
the vertical face, and tractional resistances from the Battered Piles
sides and possibly the base of the pile cap , as shown in
Figure 32. For practical purposes, a pile cap is Battered pile group systems are often used to provide
1508
Prototype lateral load vs. displacement for test CBSP
10 Pil~s 12 Pii~s
{C~nter Footing) (R,g!>1 Fooling)
0
<( C)
y c/
N
0_.
C)
1509
of 138 tons was used to simulate the vertical load, which design of a battered pile system, the shear force and
corresponded to 75 percent of the ultimate axial pile moment at the pile cap is often assumed to be reacted
capacity. This is higher than normal practice, but was primarily by the axial forces in battered piles due to an
used to illustrate potential impacts of moment loading on assumed axial pile stiffness. As a result the piles may
axial capacity. not be designed for bending. This is clearly erroneous
for non end bearing piles, where for a battered pile
system, significant lateral load is taken out in bending
The computer programs used to solve the problem are
due to lower axial stiffnesses. For a given lateral load
described by Lam and Martin (1984). The two series of
(say 50 kips) the resulting bending moment for the
pile group solutions are presented in Figures 36 and 37
battered pile system is indeed lower than the vertical
for the pile group under a lateral force and moment
pile group. However, a significant bending moment
loading, respectively. As shown in Figure 36, the
remains on the pile member. The above results suggests
lateral load versus pile group displacement for the
that bending moment in a battered pile system should
battered pile group is 30 percent stiffer than the
not be neglected. Even if the pileheads are designed
corresponding vertical pile group curve. The axial
for free head condition at the pile cap, significant
compliance of the pile in this example problem is
bending moment can potentially occur at a deeper depth.
largely due to the deformation of the soil. For some
other situations, for example, if the pile tip is embedded 10
into bedrock, the axial stiffness of the pile can be
dramatically increased, and the lateral stiffness of a pile
group can be significantly stiffened by the battered z
effect.
"'
150 ::::
0
(/}
0
""
H 
0
5
"" f
z
g; 1 00 "'
:E
0

0
"'z
 "~\~
:L
''
0
5 
~
_;::..,..
:
 "":::>
0
0:
''
 I I
// : I
// I I
v J I
GROUP ROTATION (0.01 RADIAN)
15 VERTICAL
zH DISPLACEMENT
I
""
H
""
0
:; 10
~
E<
z
"'E
!f 5
0
<
"'
:r
~ s 10
H
c..
GROUP MOMENT (1000 KIPIN)
1510
shown. The vertical displacement of the pile group is connection details and the pile member are adequate to
associated with the plunging failure of the compression enforce the failure to take place in the soil. The pile has
pile, where the combined axial loading from dead been assumed to be a 50 ft. long, 12 inch concrete pile
weight and moment mobilizes the full axial capacity. A driven into uniform medium sand which has a design
significant amount of displacement could potentially be load capacity of 45 tons per pile. The adopted ultimate
irrecoverable. Hence normal seismic design should capacity values (i.e. 180 kip compression and 90 kips
allow for axial loading from seismically induced uplift) are the default values commonly assumed by
moment (that is, axial capacity not to be exceeded by Caltrans in seismic retrofit projects for the 45ton class
dead plus seismic load) unless permanent displacements pile. In the example it is assumed that the footing has
of the pile group can be tolerated. This is discussed been designed for a static factor of safety of 2, or the
further below. piles are loaded to half of the ultimate compression
capacity prior to the earthquake loading condition.
Moment Rotation Capacity ,3 X .3' ;. 9' .3 X 4 PILE FOOTING
.r:
PILES
The lateral stiffness of pile groups is often the focus of 0 0 0
50FT LONG
attention in seismic design of bridge foundations. 12IN CONCR. PILE
However, experience gained from recent research has O<B(OD(O IN
UN!rORt.C t.eEDIU"
2 )( .3'
provided evidence that the momentrotational 0 0 0 = 6' SAND
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY
characteristics of a pile group can have a more = 90 K/PILE
dominating effect on the response of the overall ULTI"ATE COt.CPRESSIVE
In a high seismicity region, the foundation design (e.g. WEIGHT =! 1,080 KIPS
the number of piles and the size of the pile cap or pile
footings) is often controlled by the earthquake load case. loiOioiENT
design.
Figure 38 Pile Footing Configuration for Moment
Rotation Study (Lam, 1994)
The momentrotational characteristics and the capacity
of a pile footing depends on the following factors:
1511
The lower part of Figure 38 presents various capacity of soil strengths can be significant. Typically, the most
criteria for the pile footing. Under conventional likely cause of foundation failure would be some form
practice, the moment capacity of the pile footing would of permanent rotation of the pile group if the size of the
be 2,700 ft.kip. This capacity arises from assuming a footing and the number of piles are inadequate.
linear distribution in pile reaction across the pile Therefore, it is of importance to have a better
footing. The moment capacity of 2,700 ft.kip is limited appreciation of the magnitude of foundation rotation
by the ultimate compressive capacity value of the most that is tolerable by the pile supported structure,
heavily load pile (180 kip per pile) while maintaining particularly for retrofit seismic design, where
vertical equilibrium of the overall pile group (i.e. static unnecessary conservation can be expensive.
load of 1,080 kips). The bottom of Figure 38 presents
the moment capacity that can be achieved from a 4X3 PILE FOOTING ULTIMATE W:OW:ENT CAPACITY
nonlinear momentrotation analysis of the pile footing, ULT[MATE PILE CAPACITY FRON NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
l ~g ~ ~~~i~ESSION ~ ~.gsgo~Yi'MIONAL CAPACITY
where as the moment load increases above the PILES LOADED TO 90k STATIC r;
conventional capacity, nonlinear loaddisplacement COMPRESSIVE LOAD
the final value very quickly within a few cycles of 0.010 0.000 O.O!JV'_.. 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050
loading. However, at the higher cyclic moment load of 0 ,""
0
4,000 ft.kip, progressive settlement of the footing can .S
occur and within about four cycles of loading, the 4.000 It kip
CYCUC MOMENT
footing can settle almost 5 inches. The momentrotation
relationship also indicates that some level of permanent
rotation of the footing will likely occur even if the load
is symmetric between positive and negative cyclic ~+~...~~
/
:0.010 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030
moment. The potential for the permanent rotation is ROTATION (radian)
0.040 0 050
1512
A number of design and analysis issues have been Texas, May 1977, Paper No. 2955.
identified and discussed in the paper, which have
significant influence on design analyses and practice. Dobry, R., (1995), Personal Communication.
These include:
Finn, W. D. Liam, and Martin, Geoffrey R., (1980),
Effects of pile installation methods "Offshore Pile Foundations in Sand Under
Effects of pile fixity Earthquake Loading", Applied Ocean Research, Vol.
Effects of pile stiffness (intact versus cracked) 2, No.2, 1980, pp. 8184.
The effects and role of the pile cap
The effects of free field and localized liquefaction Finnio, Richard J. (Ed.), (1989), "Predicted and
Moment rotation capacity Observed Axial Behavior of Piles", ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 23.
There is clearly a need for practical research to address
these issues, to provide improved seismic design Gazetas, G., et. al., ( i 992), "Seismic PileGroup
guidelines. Structure Interaction", ASCE National Convention,
Proceedings Specialty Session on "Piles Under
Finally, there is also a clear need for improved Dynamic Loads", Geotechnical Special Publication
communication between the geotechnical engineer No. 34, pp. 5694.
responsible for providing guidance on soil parameters
and pile stiffness characteristics for design, and the Goh, A. T. C., and Lam, T. S. K., (1998), "Lateral
structural engineer. We as geotechnical engineers, need Load Tests on Some Bored Piles in Singapore",
to develop an improved appreciation of structural design Proceedings, Fifth Australia New Zealand
issues and the constraints provided by structural analysis Conference on Geomechanics, Sydney, 1988.
methods. This will provide the means for improving
and optimizing simplified design methods which we Gohl, W. B., (1993), "Response of Pile Foundations to
recommend to the structural engineer. Earthquake Shocking  General Aspects of Behavior
and Design Methodologies", Seismic Soil/Structure
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Interaction Seminar, Canadian Society for Civil
EngineeringNancouver Structural Engineers Group,
The research on which this paper is partially based, was Vancouver, May 1993.
supported by the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Hadjian, A. H. et. al., (1992), "Dynamic SoilPile
Buffalo, through a grant from the FHWA (FHWA Structure Interaction  The State of Practice", ASCE
Contracts DTFH6192C00106 and DTFH6192C National Convention, Proceedings Specialty Session
00112). on "Piles Under Dynamic Loads", Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 34, pp. 127.
We thank Adriana Gutierrez and Ping Qui who typed
the manuscript. Heydinger, Andrews G., (1989), "Prediction of Driven
Pile Behavior Using Load Transfer Functions", ASCE
REFERENCES Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 23.
Abcarius, Jack L., (1991), " Lateral Load Test on Lam, Ignatius Po, ( 1994), "SoilStructure Interaction
Driven Pile Footings", Proceedings, Third Bridge Related to Piles and Footings", Proceedings of the
Engineering Conference, Denver, Colorado, 1991. Second International Workshop on the Seismic Design
of Bridges, Queenstown, News Zealand, August,
American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended 1994.
Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms. API, Washington, D.C., Lam, Ignatius Po, and Martin, Geoffrey R., (1992),
13th Edition, 1982. "Geotechnical Considerations for Seismic Design and
Retrofitting of Highway Bridges", Transportation
Bogard, Dewaine, and Matlock, Hudson, (1977), "A Research Board Annual Conference, Washington
Computer Program for the Analysis of Beam D.C., 1992.
Columns Under Static Axial and Lateral Loads",
Ninth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Lam, Ignatius Po, and Martin, Geoffrey R., (1984),
Houston, Texas, May 1977, Paper, No. 2953. "Seismic Design for Highway Bridge Foundations",
Proceedings, Lifeline Earthquake Engineering:
Bryant, Larry M., and Matlock, Hudson, (1977), "Three Performance Design and Construction, ASCE
Dimensional Analysis of Framed Structures with Convention, October 1984, San Francisco.
Nonlinear Pile Foundations", Proceedings, Ninth
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Lam, Ignatius Po, and Martin, Geoffrey R., (1986),
1513
"Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations", Nogami, T., Otani, J., and Chen, H. L., (1992), "
FHWA Report Nos. FHWA/RD86/101, FHWA/RD Nonlinear SoilPile Interaction Model for Dynamic
86/102, FHWA/RD86/103, 1986. Also available Lateral Motion", Journal of the Geotechnical
from NTIS Nos. PB87133062/XAB, PB88 Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp.
157276/XAB and PB88157284/XAB. 89106.
Lam, Ignatius Po, Martin, Geoffrey R., and Imbsen, Novak, M., (1991), "Piles Under Dynamic Loads",
Roy, (1991), "Modeling Bridge Foundations for Proceedings, Second International Conference on
Seismic Design and Retrofitting", Proceedings, Third Recent Advances on Geotechnical Earthquake
Bridge Engineering Conference at Denver, Colorado, Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Rolla, Missouri, Vol.
March 1013, 1991. 3, pp. 24332456.
Lee, M. K. W., and Finn, W. D. Liam, (1978), O'Neill, M. W., and Gazioglu, S. M., (1984), "An
"DESRA2: Dynamic Effective Stress Response Evaluation of py Relationships in Clays", A Report
Analysis of Soil Deposits With Energy Transmitting to the American Institute (PRAC 82412), April
Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction 1984, University of Houston  University Park,
Potential", Soil Mechanics Series, No. 38, Department Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report
of Civil Engineering, University of Vancouver, B. C. No. UHCE843.
Liu, L., and Dobry, R., (1995), "Effect of Liquefaction O'Neill, M. W., and Murchison, J. M., (1983), "An
on Lateral Response of Piles by Centrifuge Model Evaluation of py Relationships in Sands", A Report
Tests", National Center for Earthquake Engineering to the American Petroleum Institute (PRAC 82411),
Research, Buffalo, Bulletin, January 1995. May 1983.
Makris, N., Badoni, D., Delis, E., and Gazetas, G., Olson, R. E., (1985), "PILSET Program User's
(1994), "Prediction of Observed Bridge Response Manual", Department of Civil Engineering,
with SoilPileStructure Interaction", Journal of University of Texas at Austin.
Structure Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 10,
October 1994. Pender, M. J., (1993), "ASeismic Pile Foundation
Design Analysis", Bulletin of the New Zealand
Matlock, H., and Lam, Ignatius Po, (1980), "Design of National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
Pile Foundations", Proceedings, International 26, No. 1, March 1993, pp. 49161.
Symposium of Marine Soil Mechanics, Mexico,
February 1980. Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., (1980), Pile Foundation
Analysis and Design, Wiley.
Matlock, H., Foo, S. H. C., and Bryant, L. M .. (1978),
"Simulation of Lateral Pile behavior Under Reese, L. C., (1985), "Documentation of Computer
Earthquake Motion", Proceedings, Earthquake Program LPILEl", Ensoft Inc., Austin, Texas.
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE Specialty
Conference, Pasadena, California, pp. 601619. Reese, L. C., and Welch, R. C., (1975), "Lateral
Loading of Deep Foundations in Clay", ASCE,
Matlock, H., Martin, Geoffrey R., Lam, Ignatius Po, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
and Tsai, C. F., (1981), "SoilPile Interaction in GTI, July 1975, pp. 633649.
Liquefiable Cohesionless Soils During Earthquake
Loading", Proceedings, International Conference on Reese, Lyman C., William R. Cox, and Francis D.
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Koop, (1974), "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, Sand", Proceedings, Sixth Annual Offshore
Vol. 2, April 1981. Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 1974,
Paper No. 2080.
Matlock, Hudson, (1970), "Correlations for Design of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay", Proceedings, Scott, R. F., Tsai, C. F., Steussy, D., and Ting, J. M.,
1970 Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. (1982), "FullScale Dynamic Lateral Pile Tests", OTC
1204. 4203, 14th Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 435450.
Meyerson, W. D., O'Rourke, T. D., and Miura, F.,
(1992), "Lateral Spread Effects on Reinforced Ting, J. M., (1978), "Full Scale Cyclic Dynamic Lateral
Concrete Pile Foundations", Proceedings, Fifth U.S.  Pile Response", ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical
Japan Workshop on Earthquake Disaster Prevention Engineering Division, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 3045.
for Lifetime System, Tsukuba, Japan, October 1992.
Vijayvergiya, V. N., (1977) "LoadMovement
1514
Characteristics of Piles", Paper Presented in the Port
77 Conference, Long Beach, California, March 1977.
1515