This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dynamic Analysis of Pile Foundations
:
Effects of Material Nonlinearity of Soil
Bal Krishna Maheshwari
Asst. Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering,
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, U.A. 247 667, India (Formerly
doctoral student Saitama University, Japan)
bkmahfeq@iitr.ernet.in
Hiroyuki Watanabe
Formerly Professor, Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama,
Japan
ABSTRACT
Due to soilstructure interaction effects, the dynamic response of pilesupported structures is
strongly dependent on the behavior of soilpile system. A rational design of such structures
requires adequate analysis of the soilpile system. At strong ground excitations behavior of
soil surrounding the piles is nonlinear. In this paper, a simplified and computationally
efficient technique is presented to incorporate the material nonlinearity of soil in the dynamic
analysis of piles. Approach is based on Green’s function formulation and a hyperbolic model
is used to define the nonlinear stressstrain relationship for the soil. Effects of material
nonlinearity of soil, on the free field response, the seismic response and the impedance
functions of pile foundation, are investigated. Analysis is performed both for a single pile and
a pile group. It was observed that both seismic response and impedance functions are
significantly affected by the nonlinear behavior of the soil media.
KEYWORDS: Soilpile interaction, material nonlinearity, hyperbolic model, seismic
response, impedance functions.
INTRODUCTION
The response of pile foundations is greatly affected by the behavior of soil media, in which piles
are embedded. Considerable research has been conducted for the analysis of pile groups (e.g.,
Novak 1974, Wolf and Von Arx 1978, Kaynia and Kausel 1982, Gazetas 1984). In most of the
literature, the behavior of the soil is assumed elastic. During strong ground excitation such as
caused by earthquakes this assumption is not valid. The performance of highway bridges
(founded on piles) in recent strong earthquakes such as Kobe (1995), Kocaeli (1999), Chichi
(1999), Bhuj (2001) demonstrated that nonlinear behavior of soil media should be taken into
account in the design of pile foundations.
A few researchers have incorporated material nonlinearity of soil in the dynamic analysis of pile
foundations. Nogami et al. (1992) used a Nonlinear Beam on Winkler Foundation model in the
time domain. In much of the previously published research, the nonlinearity in the soil is typically
modeled using discrete system of mass, spring and dashpot. Using such models, it is difficult to
properly represent damping and inertial effects of continuous semiinfinite soil media. Further
full coupling in the axial and lateral directions is difficult to consider.
Recently few advanced plasticity based nonlinear soil models were employed in the time domain
with finite element method to introduce material nonlinearity of soil. For example, Bentley and El
Naggar (2000) considered DruckerPrager soil model while Maheshwari et al. (2004 and 2005)
employed HiSS soil model for this purpose. While these sophisticated models along with finite
element technique are capable of modeling nonlinear behavior (plastic characteristics), however
their computational demand is quite high. Further, these models are applicable for limited types
of soils.
Figure 1. Hyperbolic StressStrain Relationship of Soil Media (Ishihara 1996)
During moderate earthquakes, shear strains in soil media fall in the medium range (10
5
to 10
3
)
and the behavior of the soil becomes elastoplastic. In this range of strains shear modulus and
damping ratio, both of which depend on the level of strain are the key parameters to properly
model the soil medium. In this range of strain behavior of soil medium can be best defined by
hyperbolic stressstrain relationship (Fig. 1). Applicability of this model for representing different
soils is widely demonstrated (e.g. Hardin and Drnevich 1972, Ishihara 1996). In this paper, this
model is used to formulate the material nonlinearity of soil for the dynamic analysis of pile
foundations.
For the linear pile analysis a threedimensional rigorous approach based on boundary integral
method (Green’s function formulation) and proposed by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) is used.
Hyperbolic soil model is incorporated using equivalent linearization technique (Watanabe 1978).
Two types of sites namely homogeneous and inhomogeneous are considered in the analyses.
First, effects of nonlinearity on free field response are observed. Then effects of nonlinearity on
seismic response and impedance functions of soilpile system are investigated by comparing
linear and nonlinear (equivalent linear) responses. Both a single pile and a pile group are
considered. It is assumed that there is no loss of bond between soil and pile.
Figure 2. Proposed Model for the SoilPile System for Nonlinear Analysis
Nodes Considered
s
d
L
Soil
Seismic Excitation
Piles
Viscoelastic Layers
Halfspace
MODELING
Soil is a semiinfinite medium and modeled as a viscoelastic layered halfspace (Fig. 2).
Properties of soil may vary from layer to layer but they are assumed constant in a particular layer.
Piles are also divided into segments with numbers and segment lengths matching that of the soil
layers. The centroid of each segment and the pile tips define the number of nodes under
consideration. Here for simplicity, it is assumed that pile ends (tips) are resting on the halfspace
and seismic excitation is due to vertically propagating shear waves.
Both a single pile and a 2*2 pile group are considered in the analyses. For the group, 4 piles in a
square configuration is used with center to center pile spacing s equal to 5d, where d is the
diameter of the piles. Also for the group it is assumed that all pile heads are connected through a
rigid massless pile cap.
FORMULATION
Threedimensional dynamic analyses for the soilpile system are performed for two situations. In
first case, behavior of soil is assumed elastic. This linear analysis also used to determine the
maximum shear strains in different layers of soil. In second case, the properties of the soil (in
different layers) are modified using hyperbolic stressstrain relation. Second case is an iterative
process (equivalent linearization) and repeated till soil properties get converged. These are
described in detail below.
Linear Analysis
A rigorous threedimensional approach proposed by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) has been used for
the linear analysis. This approach fully takes into account the coupling between the horizontal
and vertical modes of vibration. Effects of pilesoilpile interaction, which is very important in
the case of pile group, are also considered. A brief formulation for this approach is presented
here, details can be found in Kaynia (1982).
Three basic wave equations are solved through Fourier and Hankel transformations, and Green’s
functions. Thus the displacement fields due to uniform barrel and disk loads associated with soil
pile interaction forces are computed. These functions yield the dynamic soil flexibility matrix,
which is combined with the pile flexibility matrix derived by solving the beam equations. After
certain manipulations and applying boundary conditions, a relationship relating forces at pile
heads (and pile tips) with the displacements at these points are obtained which is described as:
e e e e
P U K P + =
(1a)
where P
e
and U
e
are the force and displacement vector respectively, referred to the end of the
piles (i.e. pile heads and pile tips). K
e
is an equivalent stiffness matrix representing the dynamic
stiffness of the soilpile system and
e
P is a load vector due to seismic effects; these are defined
as:
  ¢ ¢
1
p s
T
p e
) F F ( K K
÷
+ + =
(1b)
U ) F F ( P
1
p s
T
e
÷
+ ÷ = ¢
(1c)
Where U represents the seismic displacement in the medium which is equal to free field
displacement, and matrices: F
s
= Soil flexibility matrix when there is no pile in the medium; F
p
=
Pile flexibility matrix for clamped end piles; K
p
= Pile stiffness matrix relating forces at the end
of piles with end displacements; ¢ = Shape function matrix relating displacement at any point on
pile with the end displacements.
Shear Strains
The shear strains in the soil medium are required to check the nonlinear behavior of soil. Initial
values of shear strains are determined assuming the elastic behavior of soil. Determination of the
strains at a desired point requires the displacements at the point under consideration, as well as in
the near vicinity of this point. This is performed using equations 1 with following additional
steps:
SoilPileInteraction Force
First using equation 1 the degrees of freedom related to pile tips are eliminated by applying
appropriate boundary conditions at pile tips (e.g. zero displacements for end bearing piles; zero
moments for floating piles). Next using the compatibility conditions between the pile heads and
pile cap the seismic response of the pile foundation is determined using equation 1a with the fact
that the resultant of pile head forces on pile foundation is zero. Subsequently, using compatibility
conditions between the pile heads and pile cap, the displacements at the end of the piles U
e
are
determined. Then force vector P at soilpile interface can be determined from:
) U U ( ) F F ( P
e
1
p s
÷ + =
÷
¢
(2)
Displacements in the vicinity of Pile
Once the force vector P is known, the displacement at any point in the vicinity of pile in all the
three directions can be computed using the relation:
P F U U
s
' + =
(3)
where
s
F' denotes the soilflexibility matrix derived for the distance at which displacements are
desired when the source point of disturbance is the axis of the pile. Using Eq. 3, the
displacements in soil media for a homogeneous site are derived as shown in Fig. 3 (shown for top
five layers, out of 15 layers considered) where the horizontal distance is normalized with the
radius r
0
of the pile. It can be seen that displacement decreases away from the pile.
Figure 3. Variation of Lateral Displacement in Different Layers with Horizontal Distance
Shear Strains in the Soil Media
Once the displacements are known at the various points in different directions, the shear strains
for the planes perpendicular to z axis (vertical) are computed by the following relations:
x
w w
z
u u
xz
A
÷
+
A
÷
=
0 1 0 2
¸
(4a)
y
w w
z
v v
yz
A
÷
+
A
÷
=
0 3 0 2
¸
(4b)
where u, v and w are the displacements in the x, y and z directions, respectively, and the subscript
denotes the location of points with subscript (
0
) for the point where strains are calculated. For
computation,
0
r z y x = A = A = A is taken, where r
0
is equal to the radius of the pile. Out of these
shear strains, the larger one is selected to carry out the iterations. For horizontal vibration (caused
by vertically propagating shear waves) the motion in the horizontal (x) direction being
considerably higher, the major shear component comes out to be the first one.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of shear strains (major) in the top five layers with the horizontal
distance at a particular frequency. It can be observed that the shear strain diminishes as one goes
away from the pile, hence the strain calculated at a distance equal to 1.5 r
0
is taken as a
representative strains in the soil media where strains are maximum in most of the layers. Strains
just near the pile surface may be higher (than those computed at r = 1.5 r
0
) but it may have
influence of the surface of the pile and for iterations strains in soil are required (not in pile),
therefore this distance (r = 1.5 r
0
) is justified.
Horizontal Distance / r
0
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
u
i
n
c
m
Figure 4. Variation of Shear Strain in Different Layers with Horizontal Distance
Nonlinear Soil Model
Nonlinearity of soil is treated using hyperbolic model, defined by following equations (Hardin
and Drnevich 1972):
r
G
G
¸ ¸ +
=
1
1
max
(5a)
r
r
D
D
¸ ¸
¸ ¸
+
=
1
max
(5b)
Where G and D represent the shear modulus and damping at a particular strain ¸, while G
max
and
D
max
represent the maximum values of G and D, respectively. ¸
r
represents the reference strain for
the given soil media (Fig. 1), Ishihara (1996).
Equivalent Linearization Technique
To perform the seismic analysis for harmonic excitations, seismic displacements in soil are
computed at the midpoints of each layers with the given soil properties. Next, shear strains are
computed in soil media in each layer at each frequency of loading and the process is repeated for
all the frequencies under consideration. Out of these values of shear strains, maximum one (for
each layer) is selected for the iterations. Using equations 5, new properties (shear modulus and
damping) of the soil media for each layer are computed for a strain equal to 2/3 of the maximum
shear strain (Kramer 1996). Since the properties of the soil medium are changed now, shear
Horizontal Distance / r
0
S
h
e
a
r
S
t
r
a
i
n
¸
x
z
(
*
1
0

4
)
strains are calculated again for the input motion. Properties are again modified for new strain
values. The process is repeated until the properties of the soil medium get converged. The
nonlinear (equivalent linear) response is the response computed using the converged properties of
the soil medium. The criteria of convergence of soil properties are determined from the difference
in the shear modulus in two consecutive cycles, and assumed to be stable if:
05 . 0
1
s
÷
÷
i
i i
G
G G
(6)
Computerization
A FORTRAN code was developed to perform the analysis. The program has different modules,
e.g. for free field response, impedance functions, pile head response etc. As the formulation for
the analysis is in the frequency domain, to perform the analysis for transient motion (a real
earthquake), the FFT and inverse FFT algorithm have been employed. Computation is done in
double precision, and dynamic stiffness of soil that is generally complex requires use of the
complex data type. Its real part represents the spring stiffness and imaginary part represents
damping. Complex dynamic stiffness of the soil requires most of the other quantities such as
impedance function and response to be complex.
VERIFICATION OF THE MODEL AND ALGORITHM
As a rigorous approach is used, verification of the model and algorithm developed is imperative.
This is performed by comparing the results obtained from present algorithm (for linear analysis)
with those published in literature. Fig. 5 shows the variation in dynamic stiffness with frequency
for horizontal and vertical mode of vibration for a single pile and a 2*2 pile groups (with three
different spacing). Both real and imaginary parts are shown in the dimensionless form. When
these results are compared with those presented by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) a good agreement
is found. Trend of the results are in very good agreement. Verification of model and algorithm
was also performed for rocking and torsional modes of vibrations as well as for seismic response
and all found in good agreement (Maheshwari 1997).
DATA USED IN COMPUTATION
Two types of sites namely homogeneous and inhomogeneous are considered in the analysis (Fig.
6). For the homogeneous site, the initial shear modulus and the damping ratio from top to bottom
is assumed constant. For inhomogeneous site, the initial shear modulus is assumed linearly
increasing from top to bottom. The properties of the halfspace are assumed to be the same for
both sites.
Figure 5. Variation in Horizontal (subscript x) and Vertical (subscript z) Dynamic
Stiffnesses of a Single Pile and 2*2 Pile Groups (for three different spacings) with
Frequency of Excitation (a
0
). Top figures show real part (stiffness K) and bottom figures
show imaginary part (damping  C).
The soil is assumed to be typical sand with the following properties:
; 4 . 0 ; m / kg 1680 ; 05 . 0 D ; MPa 50 E
3
s s
= = = = v µ
where E
s
, D, µ
s
and v are the initial Young’s modulus (at ground surface), initial damping ratio,
the mass density and Poisson’s ratio for soil, respectively. For the hyperbolic model, following
constants are used:
; 10 6 . 3 ; 29 . 0 D ; MPa 60 G
4
r max max
÷
× = = = ¸
The piles are assumed to be of concrete with the following properties:
; m 1 d ; m 15 L ; m / kg 2400 ; GPa 25 E
3
p p
= = = = µ
where E
p
, µ
p
, L and d are the Young’s modulus, the mass density, length and diameter of pile,
respectively.
Figure 6. Soil Profiles used in the Analyses.
EFFECTS OF NONLINEARITY
Linear and nonlinear (equivalent linear) responses of the pile foundations are computed. Results
are presented in following three subsections:
Free Field Response
Since nonlinearity of the soil media is the major concern, and the behavior of the free field soil
greatly affects the overall response of the soilpile system, therefore free field response is first
investigated. This response is not only frequency dependent but also depends very much on the
properties of the site.
Figure 7 shows the linear and nonlinear freefield response (at the ground surface) when a
harmonic excitation (of amplitude 0.2 cm) is applied laterally at the base of an inhomogeneous
site. It can be seen that with reference to the natural frequency of the soil stratum, at low
frequencies nonlinearity increases the response as much as 20% while at high frequencies it
decreases the same as much as by 50%. Also, the peak value of nonlinear response occurs
relatively at low frequency due to softening of soil. There is a cutoff frequency at which both
linear and nonlinear responses are equal.
To verify these results, the effect of shear modulus and damping is investigated in Figs. 7b and
7c, respectively. In Fig. 7b, the response is derived for the converged value of the shear modulus
while setting damping to original value. In Fig. 7c, the response is derived for the modified value
of the damping while setting shear modulus to original value. It is clear from these figures that the
shear modulus (which decreases during linearization process) increases the response but material
damping (which increases during linearization process) decreases the response. Therefore, it is
the combined effect of these two parameters that governs the response in Fig. 7a.
Figure 7. Linear and Nonlinear Free Field Responses of Soil with Frequency of
Excitation: (a) Response for an Inhomogeneous Site (b) Effect of Shear Modulus (c)
Effect of Damping
Seismic Response of the Pile Foundation
The seismic excitation causes horizontal displacement and rotation of the pile cap. The amplitude
of the applied harmonic excitation should be high enough to cause shear strains such that it
induces the material nonlinearity in soil. Figs. 8a and 8b shows the linear and nonlinear response
(at pile head) of a single pile for inhomogeneous and homogeneous sites, respectively. The trend
of the results is similar to that observed with the free field response. Nonlinearity is increasing the
response at lower frequencies and decreasing at higher frequencies. Also, due to nonlinearity, the
peak value of the response occurs at a lower frequency. It can also be observed that effect of
Frequency (Hz)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Inhomogeneous Site
(a)
(b)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Effect of Shear Modulus
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Effect of Material Damping
(C)
nonlinearity is higher for inhomogeneous site where response is increased by about 30% at low
frequencies of excitation. For homogeneous site many peaks are introduced in the response due to
sharp change in the stiffness at the junction of soil layers and half space (Wolf 1985). These
peaks appeared to decrease the effect of nonlinearity.
Figure 8. Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Response for a Single Pile (a) For an
Inhomogeneous Site (b) For a Homogeneous Site
Figs. 9a and 9b show this comparison for a 2*2 pile group where the response is observed at the
pile cap. Spacing between piles is assumed to be five times the diameter of the pile. The results
have similar trend, as was the case for a single pile, except that more peaks are introduced due to
interaction effects. From Figs. 8a,b and 9a,b it can also be observed that effect of material
nonlinearity is larger for a single pile than for a pile group, particularly for a homogeneous site. It
appears that interaction effect among piles is diminishing the effect of nonlinearity. Similar
conclusion was derived by Maheshwari et al. (2004) using a finite element model in the time
domain.
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Inhomogeneous Site
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Homogeneous Site
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Response for a 2*2 Pile Group (a) For an
Inhomogeneous Site (b) For a Homogeneous Site
Impedance Functions
Impedance functions are the dynamic stiffness of the soilpile system at the pile cap. The
derivation of these functions does not require seismic motion, and thus free field motion is not
needed. A harmonic excitation of given force amplitude is applied at the pile head in the direction
in which impedance function is sought. The amplitude of this excitation should be high enough to
cause nonlinearity in the soil. Impedance functions can be obtained by applying a load (in a
specified direction) on the pile head or pile cap and noting the complex displacement (in the
direction of the load) at the same point. The complex impedance function is defined as:
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Inhomogeneous Site
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
m
Frequency (Hz)
Homogeneous Site
(a)
(b)
0 0
U / P ) ( S = e
(7a)
where P
0
and U
0
are the amplitude of the force excitation and complex displacement amplitude,
respectively for a particular direction for which impedance function is sought. The impedance
function obtained from Eq. 7a is a complex quantity and can be separated in to real
(corresponding to stiffness) and imaginary parts (corresponding to damping). Both are frequency
dependent i.e.
) ( ) ( ) ( e e e ic k S + =
(7b)
Figure 10. Linear and Nonlinear Impedance Functions of a Single Pile (Inhomogeneous
Site)
Frequency (Hz)
K
s
x
/
E
s
*
L
Imaginary Part of Stiffness
K
s
x
/
E
s
*
L
Real Part of Stiffness
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
E
q
.
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
Equivalent Damping Ratio
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 11. Linear and Nonlinear Impedance Functions of a 2*2 Pile Group
(Inhomogeneous Site)
Alternatively this impedance function can be written as:
) 2 1 )( ( ) (  e e ' + = i k S
(7c)
K
s
x
/
E
s
*
L
Real Part of Stiffness
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
K
s
x
/
E
s
*
L
Imaginary Part of Stiffness
Frequency (Hz)
E
q
.
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
Equivalent Damping Ratio
(a)
(b)
(c)
where ' is equivalent damping ratio, and using Eqs. 7b and 7c, it can be derived as:
) ( 2 / ) ( e e  k c = ' (7d)
This equivalent damping ratio is frequency dependent and represents a measure of the equivalent
damping (it includes effect of both material and radiation damping) in the soilpile system, in
contrast to the frequency independent hysteretic damping ratio of the soil media only.
Fig. 10 shows the real and imaginary parts of the impedance functions for lateral vibration of a
single pile for both the linear and nonlinear cases. K
sx
represents the dynamic stiffness of the soil
pile system of a single pile referred to its head. It can be noted from this figure that nonlinearity
decreases both real and imaginary parts of the soilpile system. But reduction in the real part
(stiffness) is much larger compared to that in the imaginary part (damping), where nonlinearity is
reducing the stiffness as much as by 60%. Also it can be observed that stiffness is reducing at all
frequencies of excitation and variation with frequency is not significant as observed for the
seismic response. Similar observation was made by Maheshwari et al. (2004). Also Fig. 10c
shows the equivalent damping ratio (derived using equation 7d) for the linear and nonlinear cases.
As expected from the real and imaginary part, this has higher values for the nonlinear case as
compared to the linear case at all frequencies.
Figure 11 shows the impedance functions for a 2*2 pile group with pile spacing five times the
diameter of the pile. Results show the same trend as observed in the case of a single pile but at
low frequencies effect of nonlinearity was not significant. Also the equivalent damping ratio is
higher for nonlinear case except for the certain frequencies where there is not much change in the
real part of the stiffness.
These results can be explained by the fact that the softening of soil occurs due to nonlinear
effects. When nonlinear effects of the soil are considered, then the value of shear modulus
decreases for higher values of shear strain decreasing the impedance functions of the soilpile
system. At higher values of strains, the damping ratio of the soil media increases, increasing
equivalent damping ratio of the soilpile system.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a new approach is proposed to model the material nonlinearity of soil media for
dynamic analysis of pile foundations. The following conclusions may be derived with the results
presented:
Effects of nonlinearity on the free field response depend very much on the frequency of
excitation. At low frequencies response is increased as much as by 20%. This free field response
has a significant effect on the total response of the soilpile system.
In general at lower frequencies (as compared to the natural frequency of the soilpile system),
material nonlinearity of the soil increases the seismic response as much as by 30%. At higher
frequencies the reverse is true. Also, the peak in the nonlinear response occurs at a lower
frequency as compared to the linear case. This is valid for a single pile as well as for a pile group.
1. Material nonlinearity reduces both the real and imaginary parts of the dynamic stiffness but the
reduction in the real part is comparatively larger. Due to nonlinearity, the equivalent damping ratio
of the soilpile system increases. Effect of nonlinearity on the real part of the dynamic stiffness is
not much changed with frequency of excitation.
2. In general, effect of nonlinearity was greater for a single pile, compared to a 2*2 pile group. It
appears that group effect diminishes the effect of nonlinearity.
Since seismic response and dynamic stiffness are very important parameters in the design of pile
foundations, analyses presented here may have wide practical significance. For example, the low
range of frequency where seismic response is increased as much as 30% due to nonlinearity is the
range of interest for earthquake loading for a soilpile system. The results presented have direct
implications in the design of pile foundations or in general design of pile supported structures.
The design will be more rational and safe if the effects of material nonlinearity are considered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research work presented here was performed at Saitama University, Japan and supported by
Monbusho fellowship for doctoral research by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture,
Government of Japan. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Bentley, K.J., and M.H. El Naggar (2000) “Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single
piles,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp 13681382.
2. Gazetas, G. (1984) “Seismic response of endbearing single piles,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 8293.
3. Hardin, B.O., and V.P. Drnevich (1972) “Shear modulus and damping in soils: equation and
curves,” J. of Soil Mech. and Foundation Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, pp. 667692.
4. Ishihara, K. (1996) “Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics,” Clarendon Press, Oxford.
5. Kaynia, A.M. (1982) “Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups,” Dept. of Civil
Eng., Research Report R 8203, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
6. Kaynia, A.M., and E. Kausel (1982) “Dynamic behavior of pile groups,” 2
nd
Int. Conf. on
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas, pp. 509532.
7. Kramer, S.L. (1996) “Geotechnical earthquake engineering,” Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
8. Maheshwari B.K. (1997) “Soilstructure interaction on the structures with pile foundation: three
dimensional nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile foundation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Saitama
University, Japan.
9. Maheshwari, B.K., K.Z. Truman, P.L. Gould, and M.H. El Naggar (2005) “Threedimensional
nonlinear seismic analysis of single piles using FEM: effects of plasticity of soil,” International
Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3544.
10. Maheshwari, B.K., K.Z. Truman, M.H. El Naggar, and P.L. Gould (2004) “Threedimensional
nonlinear behavior of pile groups using finite element method in the time domain.” Canadian
Geotechnical J. Vol. 41, pp. 118133.
11. Nogami, T., J. Otani, K. Konagai, and H.L. Chen (1992) “Nonlinear soilpile interaction model
for dynamic lateral motion,” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 89106.
12. Novak, M. (1974) “Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 574598.
13. Watanabe, H. (1978) “A consideration on equivalent linearization method of stressstrain
hysteresis of soils under cyclic loading,” Technical report no. E 377007, Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan.
14. Wolf, J.P. (1985) “Dynamic Soilstructureinteraction,” PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
15. Wolf, J.P. and G.A. von Arx (1978) “Impedance functions of a group of vertical piles,” Proc. of
the Specialty Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, Pasadena,
California, pp. 10241041.
© 2005 ejge
literature, the behavior of the soil is assumed elastic. During strong ground excitation such as caused by earthquakes this assumption is not valid. The performance of highway bridges (founded on piles) in recent strong earthquakes such as Kobe (1995), Kocaeli (1999), Chichi (1999), Bhuj (2001) demonstrated that nonlinear behavior of soil media should be taken into account in the design of pile foundations. A few researchers have incorporated material nonlinearity of soil in the dynamic analysis of pile foundations. Nogami et al. (1992) used a Nonlinear Beam on Winkler Foundation model in the time domain. In much of the previously published research, the nonlinearity in the soil is typically modeled using discrete system of mass, spring and dashpot. Using such models, it is difficult to properly represent damping and inertial effects of continuous semiinfinite soil media. Further full coupling in the axial and lateral directions is difficult to consider. Recently few advanced plasticity based nonlinear soil models were employed in the time domain with finite element method to introduce material nonlinearity of soil. For example, Bentley and El Naggar (2000) considered DruckerPrager soil model while Maheshwari et al. (2004 and 2005) employed HiSS soil model for this purpose. While these sophisticated models along with finite element technique are capable of modeling nonlinear behavior (plastic characteristics), however their computational demand is quite high. Further, these models are applicable for limited types of soils.
Figure 1. Hyperbolic StressStrain Relationship of Soil Media (Ishihara 1996) During moderate earthquakes, shear strains in soil media fall in the medium range (10 5 to 103) and the behavior of the soil becomes elastoplastic. In this range of strains shear modulus and damping ratio, both of which depend on the level of strain are the key parameters to properly model the soil medium. In this range of strain behavior of soil medium can be best defined by
Proposed Model for the SoilPile System for Nonlinear Analysis . this model is used to formulate the material nonlinearity of soil for the dynamic analysis of pile foundations. For the linear pile analysis a threedimensional rigorous approach based on boundary integral method (Green’s function formulation) and proposed by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) is used. effects of nonlinearity on free field response are observed. Hyperbolic soil model is incorporated using equivalent linearization technique (Watanabe 1978). First.g.hyperbolic stressstrain relationship (Fig. Both a single pile and a pile group are considered. Two types of sites namely homogeneous and inhomogeneous are considered in the analyses. 1). It is assumed that there is no loss of bond between soil and pile. Hardin and Drnevich 1972. Ishihara 1996). In this paper. Then effects of nonlinearity on seismic response and impedance functions of soilpile system are investigated by comparing linear and nonlinear (equivalent linear) responses. Applicability of this model for representing different soils is widely demonstrated (e. Piles Nodes Considered Viscoelastic Layers L Soil s d Seismic Excitation Halfspace Figure 2.
.
pile heads and pile tips). 4 piles in a square configuration is used with center to center pile spacing s equal to 5d. are also considered. it is assumed that pile ends (tips) are resting on the halfspace and seismic excitation is due to vertically propagating shear waves. In first case. these are defined as: K e K p T (Fs Fp ) 1 (1b) . Also for the group it is assumed that all pile heads are connected through a rigid massless pile cap. Ke is an equivalent stiffness matrix representing the dynamic stiffness of the soilpile system and Pe is a load vector due to seismic effects. These are described in detail below. Effects of pilesoilpile interaction. The centroid of each segment and the pile tips define the number of nodes under consideration. For the group. where d is the diameter of the piles.e. Both a single pile and a 2*2 pile group are considered in the analyses. details can be found in Kaynia (1982). After certain manipulations and applying boundary conditions. the properties of the soil (in different layers) are modified using hyperbolic stressstrain relation. referred to the end of the piles (i. A brief formulation for this approach is presented here. These functions yield the dynamic soil flexibility matrix. Here for simplicity. Second case is an iterative process (equivalent linearization) and repeated till soil properties get converged. Piles are also divided into segments with numbers and segment lengths matching that of the soil layers. Thus the displacement fields due to uniform barrel and disk loads associated with soilpile interaction forces are computed. This linear analysis also used to determine the maximum shear strains in different layers of soil. which is very important in the case of pile group. which is combined with the pile flexibility matrix derived by solving the beam equations. FORMULATION Threedimensional dynamic analyses for the soilpile system are performed for two situations. This approach fully takes into account the coupling between the horizontal and vertical modes of vibration.MODELING Soil is a semiinfinite medium and modeled as a viscoelastic layered halfspace (Fig. a relationship relating forces at pile heads (and pile tips) with the displacements at these points are obtained which is described as: Pe K e U e Pe (1a) where Pe and Ue are the force and displacement vector respectively. 2). In second case. Linear Analysis A rigorous threedimensional approach proposed by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) has been used for the linear analysis. Three basic wave equations are solved through Fourier and Hankel transformations. behavior of soil is assumed elastic. and Green’s functions. Properties of soil may vary from layer to layer but they are assumed constant in a particular layer.
out of 15 layers considered) where the horizontal distance is normalized with the radius r0 of the pile. Using Eq. 3. This is performed using equations 1 with following additional steps: SoilPileInteraction Force First using equation 1 the degrees of freedom related to pile tips are eliminated by applying appropriate boundary conditions at pile tips (e. zero moments for floating piles). Kp = Pile stiffness matrix relating forces at the end of piles with end displacements. the displacements in soil media for a homogeneous site are derived as shown in Fig. the displacements at the end of the piles Ue are determined. the displacement at any point in the vicinity of pile in all the three directions can be computed using the relation: U U FsP where Fs denotes the soilflexibility matrix derived for the distance at which displacements are desired when the source point of disturbance is the axis of the pile. zero displacements for end bearing piles. using compatibility conditions between the pile heads and pile cap. Determination of the strains at a desired point requires the displacements at the point under consideration. = Shape function matrix relating displacement at any point on pile with the end displacements.g. as well as in the near vicinity of this point. Subsequently. Initial values of shear strains are determined assuming the elastic behavior of soil. It can be seen that displacement decreases away from the pile. . Fp = Pile flexibility matrix for clamped end piles. 3 (shown for top five layers. Shear Strains The shear strains in the soil medium are required to check the nonlinear behavior of soil. Next using the compatibility conditions between the pile heads and pile cap the seismic response of the pile foundation is determined using equation 1a with the fact that the resultant of pile head forces on pile foundation is zero. Then force vector P at soilpile interface can be determined from: P (Fs Fp ) 1 (U e U) (2) Displacements in the vicinity of Pile Once the force vector P is known.Pe T (Fs Fp ) 1 U (1c) Where U represents the seismic displacement in the medium which is equal to free field displacement. and matrices: Fs = Soil flexibility matrix when there is no pile in the medium.
5 r0) is justified. For horizontal vibration (caused by vertically propagating shear waves) the motion in the horizontal (x) direction being considerably higher. the larger one is selected to carry out the iterations. Strains just near the pile surface may be higher (than those computed at r = 1. Fig.5 r0) but it may have influence of the surface of the pile and for iterations strains in soil are required (not in pile). respectively. the major shear component comes out to be the first one. For computation. Variation of Lateral Displacement in Different Layers with Horizontal Distance Shear Strains in the Soil Media Once the displacements are known at the various points in different directions. y and z directions. 4 shows the variation of shear strains (major) in the top five layers with the horizontal distance at a particular frequency. Out of these shear strains. . and the subscript denotes the location of points with subscript (0) for the point where strains are calculated. therefore this distance (r = 1.5 r0 is taken as a representative strains in the soil media where strains are maximum in most of the layers. v and w are the displacements in the x. It can be observed that the shear strain diminishes as one goes away from the pile. x y z r0 is taken. the shear strains for the planes perpendicular to z axis (vertical) are computed by the following relations: xz yz u 2 u0 w1 w0 z x v2 v0 w3 w0 z y (4a) (4b) where u. hence the strain calculated at a distance equal to 1.Lateral Displacement u in cm Horizontal Distance / r0 Figure 3. where r0 is equal to the radius of the pile.
Out of these values of shear strains. Equivalent Linearization Technique To perform the seismic analysis for harmonic excitations. Next. Using equations 5. maximum one (for each layer) is selected for the iterations. 1). while Gmax and Dmax represent the maximum values of G and D. new properties (shear modulus and damping) of the soil media for each layer are computed for a strain equal to 2/3 of the maximum shear strain (Kramer 1996). Variation of Shear Strain in Different Layers with Horizontal Distance Nonlinear Soil Model Nonlinearity of soil is treated using hyperbolic model. shear strains are computed in soil media in each layer at each frequency of loading and the process is repeated for all the frequencies under consideration. seismic displacements in soil are computed at the midpoints of each layers with the given soil properties. shear .Shear Strain xz (*104) Horizontal Distance / r0 Figure 4. defined by following equations (Hardin and Drnevich 1972): G 1 Gmax 1 r (5a) (5b) r D Dmax 1 r Where G and D represent the shear modulus and damping at a particular strain . r represents the reference strain for the given soil media (Fig. Since the properties of the soil medium are changed now. respectively. Ishihara (1996).
pile head response etc. The program has different modules. Fig. Verification of model and algorithm was also performed for rocking and torsional modes of vibrations as well as for seismic response and all found in good agreement (Maheshwari 1997).g. The criteria of convergence of soil properties are determined from the difference in the shear modulus in two consecutive cycles. e. Properties are again modified for new strain values. the initial shear modulus is assumed linearly increasing from top to bottom. to perform the analysis for transient motion (a real earthquake). impedance functions. Its real part represents the spring stiffness and imaginary part represents damping. 6). VERIFICATION OF THE MODEL AND ALGORITHM As a rigorous approach is used. 5 shows the variation in dynamic stiffness with frequency for horizontal and vertical mode of vibration for a single pile and a 2*2 pile groups (with three different spacing). Both real and imaginary parts are shown in the dimensionless form. Computation is done in double precision. and dynamic stiffness of soil that is generally complex requires use of the complex data type. DATA USED IN COMPUTATION Two types of sites namely homogeneous and inhomogeneous are considered in the analysis (Fig. The nonlinear (equivalent linear) response is the response computed using the converged properties of the soil medium. This is performed by comparing the results obtained from present algorithm (for linear analysis) with those published in literature. the FFT and inverse FFT algorithm have been employed.05 Gi (6) Computerization A FORTRAN code was developed to perform the analysis. the initial shear modulus and the damping ratio from top to bottom is assumed constant. When these results are compared with those presented by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) a good agreement is found. for free field response. Complex dynamic stiffness of the soil requires most of the other quantities such as impedance function and response to be complex.strains are calculated again for the input motion. For inhomogeneous site. and assumed to be stable if: G i G i 1 0. The properties of the halfspace are assumed to be the same for both sites. verification of the model and algorithm developed is imperative. . As the formulation for the analysis is in the frequency domain. Trend of the results are in very good agreement. The process is repeated until the properties of the soil medium get converged. For the homogeneous site.
C). Variation in Horizontal (subscript x) and Vertical (subscript z) Dynamic Stiffnesses of a Single Pile and 2*2 Pile Groups (for three different spacings) with Frequency of Excitation (a0). The soil is assumed to be typical sand with the following properties: .Figure 5. Top figures show real part (stiffness K) and bottom figures show imaginary part (damping .
D max 0. respectively. r 3. initial damping ratio. L and d are the Young’s modulus. d 1m. following constants are used: G max 60 MPa. s and are the initial Young’s modulus (at ground surface). the mass density.4. 0. respectively. p.29. Figure 6. D. The piles are assumed to be of concrete with the following properties: E p 25 GPa.6 104 . where Es. the mass density and Poisson’s ratio for soil. Results are presented in following three subsections: . For the hyperbolic model. Soil Profiles used in the Analyses. EFFECTS OF NONLINEARITY Linear and nonlinear (equivalent linear) responses of the pile foundations are computed. D 0. length and diameter of pile. s 1680 kg / m3 . L 15 m.05. p 2400 kg / m3 .E s 50 MPa. where Ep.
It can be seen that with reference to the natural frequency of the soil stratum. To verify these results. the peak value of nonlinear response occurs relatively at low frequency due to softening of soil. There is a cutoff frequency at which both linear and nonlinear responses are equal.Free Field Response Since nonlinearity of the soil media is the major concern. at low frequencies nonlinearity increases the response as much as 20% while at high frequencies it decreases the same as much as by 50%. In Fig. . the response is derived for the converged value of the shear modulus while setting damping to original value. In Fig. 7b and 7c. Also. It is clear from these figures that the shear modulus (which decreases during linearization process) increases the response but material damping (which increases during linearization process) decreases the response. and the behavior of the free field soil greatly affects the overall response of the soilpile system. Therefore. it is the combined effect of these two parameters that governs the response in Fig. the response is derived for the modified value of the damping while setting shear modulus to original value. therefore free field response is first investigated. Figure 7 shows the linear and nonlinear freefield response (at the ground surface) when a harmonic excitation (of amplitude 0. 7a. respectively.2 cm) is applied laterally at the base of an inhomogeneous site. the effect of shear modulus and damping is investigated in Figs. This response is not only frequency dependent but also depends very much on the properties of the site. 7c. 7b.
The trend of the results is similar to that observed with the free field response. It can also be observed that effect of . the peak value of the response occurs at a lower frequency. Figs. 8a and 8b shows the linear and nonlinear response (at pile head) of a single pile for inhomogeneous and homogeneous sites. due to nonlinearity. Nonlinearity is increasing the response at lower frequencies and decreasing at higher frequencies. respectively.(a) Inhomogeneous Site Displacement in cm Frequency (Hz) (b) Effect of Shear Modulus (C) Effect of Material Damping Displacement in cm Displacement in cm Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Figure 7. The amplitude of the applied harmonic excitation should be high enough to cause shear strains such that it induces the material nonlinearity in soil. Linear and Nonlinear Free Field Responses of Soil with Frequency of Excitation: (a) Response for an Inhomogeneous Site (b) Effect of Shear Modulus (c) Effect of Damping Seismic Response of the Pile Foundation The seismic excitation causes horizontal displacement and rotation of the pile cap. Also.
Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Response for a Single Pile (a) For an Inhomogeneous Site (b) For a Homogeneous Site Figs. 8a.b and 9a. 9a and 9b show this comparison for a 2*2 pile group where the response is observed at the pile cap. Similar conclusion was derived by Maheshwari et al. . The results have similar trend. particularly for a homogeneous site.nonlinearity is higher for inhomogeneous site where response is increased by about 30% at low frequencies of excitation. It appears that interaction effect among piles is diminishing the effect of nonlinearity. as was the case for a single pile. From Figs. Spacing between piles is assumed to be five times the diameter of the pile. except that more peaks are introduced due to interaction effects.b it can also be observed that effect of material nonlinearity is larger for a single pile than for a pile group. These peaks appeared to decrease the effect of nonlinearity. (2004) using a finite element model in the time domain. For homogeneous site many peaks are introduced in the response due to sharp change in the stiffness at the junction of soil layers and half space (Wolf 1985). (a) Inhomogeneous Site Displacement in cm Frequency (Hz) (b) Homogeneous Site Displacement in cm Frequency (Hz) Figure 8.
Impedance functions can be obtained by applying a load (in a specified direction) on the pile head or pile cap and noting the complex displacement (in the direction of the load) at the same point.(a) Inhomogeneous Site Displacement in cm Frequency (Hz) (b) Homogeneous Site Frequency (Hz) Figure 9. The complex impedance function is defined as: . Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Response for a 2*2 Pile Group Inhomogeneous Site (b) For a Homogeneous Site Displacement in cm (a) For an Impedance Functions Impedance functions are the dynamic stiffness of the soilpile system at the pile cap. and thus free field motion is not needed. The derivation of these functions does not require seismic motion. A harmonic excitation of given force amplitude is applied at the pile head in the direction in which impedance function is sought. The amplitude of this excitation should be high enough to cause nonlinearity in the soil.
S ( ) k ( ) ic( ) (7b) . The impedance function obtained from Eq. Both are frequency dependent i.S() P0 / U 0 (7a) where P0 and U0 are the amplitude of the force excitation and complex displacement amplitude. 7a is a complex quantity and can be separated in to real (corresponding to stiffness) and imaginary parts (corresponding to damping).e. respectively for a particular direction for which impedance function is sought.
Damping Ratio Equivalent Damping Ratio Frequency (Hz) Figure 10.(a) Real Part of Stiffness Ksx/Es*L Frequency (Hz) (b) Imaginary Part of Stiffness Ksx/Es*L Frequency (Hz) (c) Eq. Linear and Nonlinear Impedance Functions of a Single Pile (Inhomogeneous Site) .
Linear and Nonlinear Impedance Functions of a 2*2 Pile Group (Inhomogeneous Site) Alternatively this impedance function can be written as: S ( ) k ( )(1 2i ) (7c) .(a) Real Part of Stiffness Ksx/Es*L Frequency (Hz) (b) Imaginary Part of Stiffness Ksx/Es*L Frequency (Hz) (c) Eq. Damping Ratio Equivalent Damping Ratio Frequency (Hz) Figure 11.
and using Eqs. Also it can be observed that stiffness is reducing at all frequencies of excitation and variation with frequency is not significant as observed for the seismic response. When nonlinear effects of the soil are considered. 1. It can be noted from this figure that nonlinearity decreases both real and imaginary parts of the soilpile system.where is equivalent damping ratio. In general at lower frequencies (as compared to the natural frequency of the soilpile system). At higher values of strains. Results show the same trend as observed in the case of a single pile but at low frequencies effect of nonlinearity was not significant. (2004). Also Fig. Fig. At low frequencies response is increased as much as by 20%. then the value of shear modulus decreases for higher values of shear strain decreasing the impedance functions of the soilpile system. Also the equivalent damping ratio is higher for nonlinear case except for the certain frequencies where there is not much change in the real part of the stiffness. Ksx represents the dynamic stiffness of the soilpile system of a single pile referred to its head. Figure 11 shows the impedance functions for a 2*2 pile group with pile spacing five times the diameter of the pile. 7b and 7c. the peak in the nonlinear response occurs at a lower frequency as compared to the linear case. Similar observation was made by Maheshwari et al. the damping ratio of the soil media increases. This is valid for a single pile as well as for a pile group. The following conclusions may be derived with the results presented: Effects of nonlinearity on the free field response depend very much on the frequency of excitation. At higher frequencies the reverse is true. This free field response has a significant effect on the total response of the soilpile system. increasing equivalent damping ratio of the soilpile system. But reduction in the real part (stiffness) is much larger compared to that in the imaginary part (damping). Due to nonlinearity. where nonlinearity is reducing the stiffness as much as by 60%. it can be derived as: c( ) / 2k ( ) (7d) This equivalent damping ratio is frequency dependent and represents a measure of the equivalent damping (it includes effect of both material and radiation damping) in the soilpile system. These results can be explained by the fact that the softening of soil occurs due to nonlinear effects. Also. 10 shows the real and imaginary parts of the impedance functions for lateral vibration of a single pile for both the linear and nonlinear cases. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this paper a new approach is proposed to model the material nonlinearity of soil media for dynamic analysis of pile foundations. this has higher values for the nonlinear case as compared to the linear case at all frequencies. As expected from the real and imaginary part. 10c shows the equivalent damping ratio (derived using equation 7d) for the linear and nonlinear cases. material nonlinearity of the soil increases the seismic response as much as by 30%. the equivalent damping ratio . in contrast to the frequency independent hysteretic damping ratio of the soil media only. Material nonlinearity reduces both the real and imaginary parts of the dynamic stiffness but the reduction in the real part is comparatively larger.
3544..” 2nd Int. It appears that group effect diminishes the effect of nonlinearity. Gould. (1996) “Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Hardin. Cambridge.Z.O.H. Kausel (1982) “Dynamic behavior of pile groups. and V.” Prentice Hall. 2. compared to a 2*2 pile group.” J. Vol. 2.. pp. pp 8293. 667692. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Maheshwari B. and M. K.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. ASCE. Vol.. Gazetas. MIT. Texas.K. ASCE. Oxford. Truman. P.D. No. G. For example.” Ph. (1982) “Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups. (1984) “Seismic response of endbearing single piles. Inc. Ishihara.. Drnevich (1972) “Shear modulus and damping in soils: equation and curves. of Civil Eng. Japan and supported by Monbusho fellowship for doctoral research by the Ministry of Education. 6. . In general.K. K. Effect of nonlinearity on the real part of the dynamic stiffness is not much changed with frequency of excitation. (1996) “Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics.. Government of Japan.M. Vol. and Culture.H. Upper Saddle River. REFERENCES 1. Research Report R 8203. 509532. B.M.L. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling. 5. Kramer. pp 13681382.” Dept. 5. No. (1997) “Soilstructure interaction on the structures with pile foundation: threedimensional nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile foundation. Science. Vol. MA.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Maheshwari. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research work presented here was performed at Saitama University. El Naggar (2000) “Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single piles. of Soil Mech.. 7. B. Austin. Bentley. K. and Foundation Div.J. 2.” Clarendon Press. and M. 37. New Jersey. 4. 1.P. A. Conf. 3. dissertation. Japan. S. and E. Kaynia. 98. Since seismic response and dynamic stiffness are very important parameters in the design of pile foundations.” International Journal of Geomechanics. 3. A..L. effect of nonlinearity was greater for a single pile. pp. 9. The design will be more rational and safe if the effects of material nonlinearity are considered. Saitama University. the low range of frequency where seismic response is increased as much as 30% due to nonlinearity is the range of interest for earthquake loading for a soilpile system. 8. pp.of the soilpile system increases. El Naggar (2005) “Threedimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of single piles using FEM: effects of plasticity of soil. The results presented have direct implications in the design of pile foundations or in general design of pile supported structures. analyses presented here may have wide practical significance. Kaynia.
ASCE. 15. El Naggar. K. Chen (1992) “Nonlinear soilpile interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. 4. J. Pasadena.L. No. Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry. J.” Canadian Geotechnical J.K.P. Novak.” J. Japan. Geotech. M. (1978) “A consideration on equivalent linearization method of stressstrain hysteresis of soils under cyclic loading. M.” PrenticeHall.H.Z. (1985) “Dynamic Soilstructureinteraction. Watanabe. pp. 10241041. Truman. (1974) “Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. © 2005 ejge . Gould (2004) “Threedimensional nonlinear behavior of pile groups using finite element method in the time domain. von Arx (1978) “Impedance functions of a group of vertical piles. H. 118. Otani.” Proc. 12. pp.A. Englewood Cliffs. Vol. and G. Engrg. 13. ASCE. Wolf. Wolf..10. pp. 118133. 11.. Vol. 1.. of the Specialty Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. and H. K.P. 11. Konagai.. Inc. New Jersey. California.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. T. Maheshwari. 14. No. 574598. J. and P.L. pp. Vol. Nogami. E 377007. 41. 89106. B.” Technical report no.