Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368 www.elsevier.

com/locate/soildyn

Response of xed offshore platforms to wave and current loading including soil structure interaction
Yasser E. Mostafaa, M. Hesham El Naggarb,*
b a Geotechnical Engineer, Golder Associates, Burmnaby, B.C., Canada Associate Professor and Research Director, Geotechnical Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

Accepted 17 November 2003

Abstract Fixed offshore platforms supported by pile foundations are required to resist dynamic lateral loading due to wave forces. The response of a jacket offshore tower is affected by the exibility and nonlinear behaviour of the supporting piles. For offshore towers supported by clusters of piles, the response to environmental loads is strongly affected by the pile soil pile interaction. In the present study, the response of xed offshore platforms supported by clusters of piles is investigated. The soil resistance to the pile movement is modelled using dynamic p y curves and t z curves to account for soil nonlinearity and energy dissipation through radiation damping. The load transfer curves for a single pile have been modied to account for the group effect. The wave forces on the tower members and the tower response are calculated in the time domain using a nite element package (ASAS). Several parameters affecting the dynamic characteristics of the platform and the platform response have been investigated. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Foundation piles have a signicant effect on the response of xed offshore structures. Bea [1] performed a series of static push-over analyses on a xed offshore platform and found that the rst nine nonlinear events were concentrated in the foundation piles. Mitwally and Novak [2] used a linear analysis to account for the effect of foundation exibility including pile soil pile interaction on the response of offshore structures to random wave loading. El Naggar and Novak [3] considered foundation nonlinearity using an equivalent linear approach. This paper describes an efcient approach to model the response of pile groups supporting a jacket structure to transient loading. The method employs the concepts of dynamic p y curves and dynamic p-multipliers, t z curves and q z curves to model the soil reactions to pile movement. Mostafa and El Naggar [4] have established dynamic p-multipliers to relate the dynamic load transfer curves of a pile in a group to the dynamic load transfer curves for a single pile. The dynamic
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-519-661-4219; fax: 1-519-661-. E-mail addresses: naggar@uwo.ca (M.H. El Naggar); ymostafa@uwo. ca (Y.E. Mostafa). 0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.11.008

p-multipliers were found to vary with the spacing between piles, soil type, peak amplitude of loading and the angle between the line connecting any two piles and the direction of loading [4]. Several parameters such as the foundation exibility, dynamic soil resistance, pile soil pile interaction, soil stiffness, and platform deck mass that affect the dynamic characteristics of the platform and the platform response to wave and current loading have been investigated.

2. Platform description The platform considered in this study is the Kvitebjrn platform shown in Fig. 1. It is currently under construction in the Norwegian section of the North Sea. Water depth at the site is 190 m and the substructure is a piled steel jacket. The Kvitebjrn substructure has four legs supported by vertical steel piles grouped symmetrically around each corner leg. Due to weight limitations for the offshore lift, the jacket is fabricated, towed to the site and lift-installed as two separate structural units. The upper part of the structure is connected to the lower part through a traditional grouted

358

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368 Table 1 Design waves versus return period Return period Wave height Height above Wave period (s) (year) (m) MSL (m) Mean value 90% interval 1 10 100 10,000 22.0 25.3 28.5 36.0 12.8 14.2 16.1 20.4 13.8 14.6 15.3 17.1 12.2 15.5 13.0 16.4 13.6 17.1 15.1 19.1

The weights of the upper and lower parts of the structure are approximately 73,000 and 45,000 kN, respectively. The total weight of the foundation is 53,000 kN and the total weight of the platform is 171,200 kN. The structure is designed to support a maximum operating topside weight of 225,000 kN. The lower part is square shaped with base dimensions 50 m 50 m, is approximately 45 m high and has vertical corner legs. The top part extends from approximately El. 2 145 to El. 8 m and has a constant batter on all sides with square dimensions at the bottom of 50 m 50 m to square dimensions at the top of 25 m 25 m. The jacket is ared on two sides to meet the interface dimension of 22.5 m 30 m towards the topside at El. 21.2 m. These dimensions are held constant from El. 21.2 m to the topside interface elevation of 24.1 m. All elevations are relative to MSL. The jacket is supported on 16 piles with a diameter of 2.438 m arranged in symmetrical groups of four piles per corner leg. Each corner leg has an additional pile with a diameter of 1.372 m to be used for levelling.

3. Environmental data The environmental data are based on STATOIL specications Metocean Design Criteria for Kvitebjrn and are provided by Aker Engineering AS [5,6]. The maximum directional wave heights for the 100-year return period are given in Table 1, including the mean wave period along with the 90% interval. The current associated with the 100-year return period design wave height is given in Table 2. No associated wind has been specied. The thickness of marine
Table 2 Values for associated current Depth below sea-level (m) Fig. 1. Three-dimensional view of the platform. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 190 Current speed (cm/s) 50 50 50 46 42 39 36 32 29

connection and extends to approximately 25 m above the mean sea level (MSL). The jackets lower part is approximately 45 m high and is connected to the pile foundation. The structure is levelled using four levelling piles and is permanently xed on sixteen piles driven to about 90 m penetration depth.

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368 Table 3 General soil layering Soil unit A B C D E F Depth (m) 07.5 7.532 3247 4752 52125.5 .125.5 Soil description Very soft to soft silty, sandy clay Sandy, clayey silt Very stiff to hard silty clay Very dense ne sand Very stiff to hard clay Very hard clay

359

growth is considered to be 20 mm below El. 2 m. The roughness due to marine growth is taken into consideration when determining the coefcients in Morisons equation for wave forces. The average dry density of the marine growth material is considered to be 1300 kg/m3. Morisons equation [7] is used together with the API wave force guidelines [8] to generate the hydrodynamic forces. Drag and inertia coefcients are assumed to be 0.7 and 2.0, respectively, and the wave kinematics are calculated using the Stokes fth-order wave theory.

Fig. 2. (a) Plan showing the pile arrangement in platform leg A-1. (b) Cross-section of the main piles and levelling piles.

360

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

4. Geotechnical information 4.1. Soil prole The soil prole at the tower site consists of a layer of very soft to soft silty clay 7.5 m thick underlain by a layer of sandy, clayey silt that extends to a depth of 32 m below the seabed level. This layer is underlain by a number of layers of very stiff to hard clay that extend to the end of the borehole at a level of 85 m below the seabed level. The foundation design is based on the soil data shown in Table 3 [6]. The results from the cone penetration tests (CPTs) show that a thin sand layer exists at the surface of the seabed in some of the borings. Therefore, local scour of 0.5 m is adopted. No global scour is included in the design. The basis for the assumption is the water depth at the Kvitebjrn jacket location [5,6]. 4.2. Foundation design The jacket is supported on 16 main piles arranged in symmetrical groups of four piles per corner leg. The pile diameter d is 2.438 m and its penetration depth is about

85 m. The pile spacing S centre to centre is 8.4 m (i.e. S=d 3:44). Four levelling piles also support the jacket, one in each corner leg. The levelling piles have a diameter of 1.372 m and a penetration depth of about 49 m. The piles in each group are xed to a rigid cap. Fig. 2a shows a plan of the piles arrangement and Fig. 2b shows longitudinal sections for the main piles and the levelling piles illustrating the variation of the piles thicknesses along their length.

5. Modelling soil reactions The soil resistance to the pile movement is modelled using p y curves and t z curves for lateral and axial loading, respectively. 5.1. p y curves for a single pile The soil response to lateral loading is nonlinear. To model this nonlinearity, pile deformation can be related to soil resistance through nonlinear transfer curves (p y curves). Static p y curves for a single pile can be established using the API guidelines [8].

Fig. 3. (a) Static and dynamic p y curves, (b) dynamic p-multipliers, (c) p y curves for a single pile and a pile in a group and (d) t z curves for single pile and a pile in a group.

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

361

The dynamic p y curves for a single isolated pile are calculated using the equation proposed by El Naggar and Bentley [9] as     0 vy n 1 2 Ps ba0 ka0 C BP a d Cy 1 Pd B s i @ y A y where Pd is the dynamic soil reaction at depth x (N/m), Ps is the static soil reaction obtained from the static p y curve at depth x (N/m), a0 is the dimensionless frequency vd=Vs ; v is the frequency of loading (rad/s), d is the pile diameter (m), y is the lateral pile deection at depth x (m), and a (a 1 in this analysis), b; k; and n are constants that depend on the soil type [9]. Fig. 3a shows typical static and dynamic p y curves. The dynamic soil resistance is modelled using a series of springs and dashpots whose nonlinear stiffness and nonlinear damping constants are established using Eq. (1), and are given by   n  vy Ps ba2 ka0 0 Pa d knl s and cnl 2 y vy

using axial shear transfer functions that depend on local pile deection (t z curves). The soil resistance at the pile toe is modelled using q z curves. Various empirical and theoretical methods are available for developing t z curves. Coyle and Reese [10] present empirical t z curves that are based on the results of model and full-scale pile load tests. Additional t z curves for clays and sands are provided by Vijayvergiya [11] and Reese and ONeill [12]. Theoretical curves described by Kraft et al. [13] may also be used. In this paper, t z curves are constructed using the recommendations given by API [8]. Bea [14] stated that the dynamic axial soil resistance to pile movement due to wave loading and earthquakes (rate effect) is in the range of 1.2 1.8. Briaud and Garland [15] propose a method to predict the behaviour of single piles in cohesive soil subjected to vertical loads applied at various rates. They state that the gain in pile capacity can be given by the following equation:  n Qu1 t 2 4 Qu2 t1 in which Qu1 and Qu2 are the ultimate pile capacities reached in times to failure t1 and t2 , respectively, and n is a viscous exponent that varies from 0.02 for stiff clay to 0.10

5.2. p y curves for pile groups Mostafa and El Naggar [4] present a method for calculating dynamic p y curves for a pile in a group. In this method, the dynamic p y curves for a single isolated pile are modied using an appropriate p-multiplier Pm to calculate the dynamic p y curves for a pile in a group. The p-multiplier depends mainly on the pile spacing to diameter ratio S=d and the pile head displacement to diameter ratio y=d: Using the p-multipliers, the soil model will include only the dynamic p y curves for individual piles, but it also accounts for the group effect. The dynamic soil reaction at a certain depth for a pile in a group, Pg ; is given by Pg Pm Pd 3

where Pm is the p-multiplier and Pd is the dynamic soil reaction at the same depth for an isolated single pile. Fig. 3b shows a chart for p-multipliers for piles installed in clay and Fig. 3c shows dynamic p y curves for a single pile and a pile in a group. The ratio S=d for the main piles of the Kvitebjrn Platform is 3.44. The levelling pile (pile 5 in Fig. 2a) is closer to pile 3, with a spacing S=d 2.35 m. The value of Pm 0:7 for piles 1, 2, and 4, and the value of Pm 0:55 for piles 3 and 5 are established from charts presented in Ref. [4]. 5.3. t z curves and q z curves for a single pile The vertical soil resistance along the pile shaft and at the pile toe is a function of the level and rate of loading. The soil resistance to the vertical movement of the pile is modelled

Fig. 4. Model for soil resistance along the pile shaft and at the pile toe.

362

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

for soft clay. Briaud and Garland [15] state that for values of n within the mentioned range, the pile capacity will be 1.21 2.60 times the static capacity. In this paper, the t values in the dynamic t z curves are taken to be 1.6 times the t values in static t z curves. 5.4. t z curves and q z curves for pile groups Pile soil pile interaction causes an increase in the settlement of the pile group, redistribution of pile stresses and loads [16,17]. Poulos and Davis [17] present charts for the interaction factors for piles under axial static loading. Kaynia and Kausel [18] extend the static interaction factors approach to dynamic loading. They present dynamic

interaction factors in the form of charts as a function of the dimensionless frequency a0 vd=Vs : For S=d 3:44 and a0 < 0:01; the interaction factor is evaluated from Ref. [18] and is found to be 0.5, meaning that the interaction increases the vertical displacement of a pile in the group to twice that of a single isolated pile subjected to the same average load per pile in the group. Therefore, the t z curves along the pile shaft are adjusted using a z-multiplier, zm ; to account for the interaction effect. The displacement zg for a pile in a group is then calculated as follows: zg zm z 5

Fig. 3d shows a sketch for the t z curve for single piles and a pile group.

Fig. 5. Effect of foundation exibility on the top nodal tower response: (a) displacement, (b) velocity and (c) acceleration.

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

363

6. Finite element analysis The structural members of the Kvitebjrn Platform and the foundation piles are modelled using space frame elements in the commercial software ASAS-NL. The space frame element has two nodes, one at each end and each with six degrees of freedom, three translations and three rotations. This paper considers the response of the platform to transient loading due to waves and currents. The loads considered are due to the extreme wave case with a wave height of 28.5 m and a wave period of 15.3 s and the associated current. The direction of the waves is assumed to be 1808 (i.e. the direction of the Z-axis of the platform). The soil resistance along the pile shaft is modelled using sets of lateral and vertical springs whose constants are

evaluated using p y curves and t z curves as described above. The soil is discretized into 34 layers, each layer 2.5 m thick (about one pile diameter). A pair of lateral springs (one on each side of the pile) and a vertical spring represent the horizontal and vertical soil resistance in each layer as shown in Fig. 4. A q z curve is used to model the pile tip resistance.

7. Dynamic characteristics of the tower The deck mass is assumed to be 23,000,000 kg and the structural damping ratio is assumed to be 2% for all the results presented in this section. The hydrodynamic damping derived from the motion of the tower in the water is taken into

Fig. 6. Effect of pilesoilpile interaction on the top nodal response: (a) displacement, (b) velocity and (c) acceleration.

364

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

consideration when applying the Morison equation. Free vibration analysis is performed to evaluate the natural periods and the mode shapes of the tower. The rst two modes are the most important modes. The rst mode is the lateral translation along the X-direction and the second mode is lateral translation along the Z-direction. The rst four natural periods are 3.8, 3.7, 2 and 1.23 s. The free vibration analysis shows that the foundation exibility increases the rst natural period of the platform slightly (4.12 s), shifting it closer to the period of wave loading.

8.2. Effect of pile soil pile interaction Pile soil pile interaction signicantly affects the response of pile groups and the overall response of the platform. The dynamic soil resistance is modelled using dynamic p y curves, t z curves and q z curves for single piles when ignoring group effect. To account for pile soil pile interaction, p-multipliers are used to adjust the dynamic p y curves for a single isolated pile as mentioned above. A value of 0.7 is used for piles 1, 2, and 4 and a value of 0.55 is used for piles 3 and 5. An average z-multiplier of two is used to adjust the t z curves to account for the pile soil pile interaction in the vertical direction. Fig. 6 shows the time histories of the top nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration. It shows that the pilesoil pile interaction increases the top nodal displacement, velocity, and acceleration by about 15% in comparison with the case of no interaction. Fig. 7 shows the response of piles 1, 3, and 5 when the pilesoilpile interaction is considered. The gure reveals that the displacement of pile 3 is greater than that for piles 1 and 5. However, the rotation of pile 5 along the top 10 m of the pile shaft is greater than that for piles 1 and 3. Fig. 8 shows the envelope of axial force, shear force and bending moment along the shaft of pile 1. It is noted that the pile soil pile interaction has a signicant effect on the stresses along the pile shaft. The maximum values of axial force, shear force, and bending moment increased by about 50, 45, and 115%, respectively, due to pile interaction. The maximum bending moment with interaction considered occurs at a depth equal to 12.5 m while the maximum bending moment with no interaction occurs at a depth equal to 15 m (i.e. the interaction slightly shifts the location of maximum bending moment by about a value of one pile diameter). It is important in the design of offshore piles to

8. Platform response to wave and current loading As in Section 7, the maximum operating topside mass of 23,000,000 kg is considered for all the results presented. Dynamic soil resistance and pile soil pile interaction are considered unless otherwise stated. 8.1. Effect of foundation exibility The exibility of the foundation affects the response of the tower to wave loading. To investigate the effect of foundation exibility on the response of the tower, two cases were considered: a xed base and a exible foundation with soil resistance modelled using dynamic p y curves, t z curves, and q z curves. The results are shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 5a shows that the top nodal displacement for the case of a xed tower is about one half that of the top nodal displacement for the case of a exible foundation. Fig. 5b and c shows that the foundation exibility increases the top nodal velocity and acceleration.

Fig. 7. Effect of pilesoilpile interaction on the response along the shaft of different piles: (a) horizontal displacement and (b) rotation.

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

365

Fig. 8. Effect of pilesoilpile interaction on the stresses along the pile shaft: (a) axial force, (b) shear force and (c) bending moment.

determine the location of maximum bending moment because the pile diameter or the pile wall thickness can be reduced below locations of maximum stresses. Fig. 9 shows the stresses along piles 1, 3, and 5 when the pile soil pile interaction is considered. The bending moment and shear force for pile 1 are greater than for piles 3 and 5, but the axial force for pile 3 is greater than that for pile 1. The unequal distribution of the load between the piles and the difference in pile rigidity are attributed to the pile interaction and the arrangement of the piles in the group. 8.3. Effect of dynamic soil resistance Static p y and t z curves are widely used in the design of offshore piles. However, the dynamic resistance of the soil

may differ substantially from the static case, especially for the extreme cases of storms and earthquakes. The effect of the dynamic soil resistance is investigated here. It should be noted that the group effect (i.e. pile soil pile interaction) is considered for both dynamic and static soil resistance. Static p y curves are modelled using nonlinear springs and dynamic p y curves are modelled using nonlinear springs and nonlinear dashpots. The nonlinear stiffness of the springs along the pile shaft is determined using the API recommendations [7], while the nonlinear damping constant of the dashpots is determined from Eq. (2). Fig. 10 shows the effect of dynamic soil resistance on the displacement and rotation along the tower length. It is noted that the dynamic soil resistance signicantly decreases the response of the tower. Fig. 11a and b reveals that the dynamic

Fig. 9. Effect of pilesoilpile interaction on piles 1, 3, and 5: (a) axial force, (b) shear force and (c) bending moment.

366

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

Fig. 10. Effect of dynamic soil resistance on the response along the tower length: (a) displacement and (b) rotation.

soil resistance decreases the maximum pile head displacement and rotation by about 70 and 80%, respectively. Fig. 12 shows the envelope of the stresses along the pile length. The calculated axial force, shear force and bending moment decrease by a ratio of 10, 50, and 60%, respectively, when the soil dynamic resistance is accounted for. 8.4. Effect of properties of top soil layers Two soil proles are considered to investigate the effect of a variety of properties for the top soil layers. The rst prole is shown in Table 3 and the second is the same, but with two clay layers: a clay layer in the top 7.5 m with

cu 5 kPa, 150 0:025 and a clay layer from depth 7.5 to 32 m with cu 40 kPa, 150 0:015: Dynamic soil resistance and pile soil pile interaction are considered in both cases. The weak soil prole results in an increase in the response along the tower height by about 30%. The pile displacement and rotation along the shaft increase by about 135 and 40%, respectively, when the weak soil layers are considered as shown in Fig. 13. The results show that the reduced soil strength of the top soil layer results in a decrease in the pile shear force and bending moment and the location of maximum bending moment is shifted downwards by about 5 m.

Fig. 11. Effect of dynamic soil resistance on the response along the pile length: (a) displacement and (b) rotation.

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

367

Fig. 12. Effect of dynamic soil resistance on the stresses along the pile shaft: (a) axial force, (b) shear force and (c) bending moment.

9. Conclusions This paper reports on a parametric study carried out to investigate the effect of different parameters on the response of a xed offshore platform subjected to transient loading due to extreme wave and current loading. The soil resistance is modelled using p y and t z curves. p- and z-multipliers are used to account for the pile soil pile interaction in a simplied way. The following conclusions are drawn: 1. The foundation exibility increases the natural period of the platform. 2. The foundation exibility results in a signicant increase in the response of the offshore tower. The foundation

exibility also increases the velocity and acceleration at the top node of the tower. 3. Pile soil pile interaction increases the response along the offshore tower height and along the pile length. It alters the response of the tower base and the velocity and acceleration of the top node of the tower. Also, it has a signicant effect on the stresses along the pile shaft especially the bending moment, one of the most important parameters in the design. Therefore, it must be considered when designing closely spaced pile foundations, as in the case considered here. 4. The dynamic soil resistance decreases the response of the tower and the supporting piles. It decreases the stresses at the tower base and the stresses along the pile shafts.

368

Y.E. Mostafa, M.H. El Naggar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 357368

Fig. 13. Effect of soil stiffness on the response along the pile length: (a) displacement and (b) rotation.

Therefore, the static soil resistance normally used in the design of offshore piles leads to substantial overestimation of the design of the whole platform. 5. The properties of the top soil layers have an important effect on the response of the tower and supporting piles. A decrease in the resistance of the upper soil layers results in an increase in the response at the tower base and along the pile shaft and a decrease in the shear force and bending moment along the pile shaft. The location of the maximum bending moment changes with a change in soil resistance.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr Torstein Alm of Aker Kvaerner for providing the rst author with the data for the Kvitebjrn Platform used in this study. Also, the authors would like to thank Mr Paul Schoeld (Century of Dynamics) for making the ASAS-NL software available to them at a reduced price.

References
[1] Bea RG. Earthquake geotechnology in offshore structures. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, No. SOA13, St. Louis, MI; 1991. [2] Mitwally H, Novak M. Response of offshore towers with pile interaction. J Geotech Engng, ASCE 1987;113(7):1065 84. [3] El Naggar MH, Novak M. Inuence of foundation nonlinearity on offshore towers response. J Geotech Engng, ASCE 1996;122(9): 71724.

[4] Mostafa YE, El Naggar MH. Dynamic analysis of laterally loaded pile groups in sand and clay. Can Geotech J 2002;39(6):1358 83. [5] Aker Engineering AS. Kvitebjrn Jacket EPC. Design Premises. Doc. No. C193-AV-N-RA-0001; 2000. [6] Aker Engineering AS. Kvitebjrn Jacket EPC. Design BriefFoundation. Doc. No. C193-AV-N-RA-0005; 2000. [7] Morison JR, OBrien MP, Johnson JW, Schaaf SA. The force exerted by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Trans, AIME 1950;189: 149 54. [8] American Petroleum Institute. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing xed offshore platformsworking stress design. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD. 20th ed. Washington, DC; 1993. [9] El Naggar MH, Bentley K. Dynamic analysis for laterally loaded piles and dynamic p y curves. Can Geotech J 2000;37(6):1166 83. [10] Coyle HM, Reese LC. Load transfer for axially loaded piles in clay. J Soil Mech Found Div, Proc Am Soc Civil Engrs 1966; 92(SM2):126. [11] Vijayvergiya VN. Load movement characteristics of piles. Proceedings of the Ports77 Conference, ASCE, vol. II; 1977. p. 269 84. [12] Reese LC, ONeill M. Criteria for design of axially loaded drilled shafts. Center for Highway Research Report, University of Texas; 1971. [13] Kraft Jr lM, Cox WR, Verner EA. Pile load tests: cyclic loads and varying load rates. J Geotech Engng, ASCE 1981;107(GT1). [14] Bea RG. Dynamic response of piles in offshore platforms. Dynamic response of pile foundations: analytical aspects. Proceedings of a session sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineering Division at the ASCE National Convention; 1980. [15] Briaud JL, Garland E. Loading rate method for pile response in clay. J Geotech Engng, ASCE 1985;111(3):31935. [16] Poulos HG, Chen LT. Group factors for pile-deection estimation. J Geotech Engng Div, ASCE 1979;GT12:1489509. [17] Poulos H, Davis E. Pile foundation analysis and design. New York: Wiley; 1980. [18] Kaynia AM, Kausel E. Dynamic behaviour of pile groups. Second International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, TX; 1982.