Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 15 (1996) 29-43

Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0267-7261(95)00027-5 0267-7261/96/$15.00
ELSEVIER

Nonlinear' response of single piles under lateral

inertial and seismic loads
Deepak Badoni & Nicos Makris
Department of Civil ,Engineering and Geological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA

(Received 17 April 1995; accepted 21 July 1995)

A macroscopicmodel that consists of distributed hysteretic springs and frequency

dependent dashpots is utilized to model the lateral soil reaction and a practical
method based on one-dimensional finite element formulation is developed to
compute the nonlinear response of single piles under dynamic lateral loads. The
model is physically motivated, adequate for cohesive and cohesionless soils, and
involves standard geotechnical parameters. Only two parameters have to be
calibrated by fitting experimental data. Hysteretic and radiation damping are
modeled realisticallywithin the practical range of amplitudes and frequencies.The
model is calibrated and validated against five well instrumented full-scaleexperi-
ments and typical values for the range of the model-parameters are provided.
Subsequently, the developed model is utilized to study the nonlinear seismic
response of single piles. Finally, the developed method and the calibrated model
are used to predict the inertial and seismicresponse of one of the piles used in the
foundation of the Ohba bridge near Tokyo, Japan.

INTRODUCTION have been conducted with the finite element method. 6

In the last two decades, several numerical and analytical
methods have been developed to compute the dynamic
stiffness and seismic response factors of pile-foundations
accounting for pile-soil-pile interaction. Most of these
methods assumed linear viscoelastic response of the
surrounding soil. Nevertheless, under moderate and
strong seismic loading, pile-foundations undergo large
displacements and the behavior of the soil-pile system
can be strongly nonlinear.
Realistic modeling of tile nonlinear dynamic response
of the pile-soil system is very important, especially for
the dynamic analysis of highway-bridges, overcrossings
and ramps, several of which experienced significant
damage in the recent 199'4 Northridge earthquake. 1 In
most cases the bents and end-abutments of the above-
mentioned elevated structures are supported on pile
groups. Although we know little about the significance
of the pile-foundation-dynamics to the total response of
a freeway overcrossing,2 there is ample documentation of
pile distress and failure in the literature. Mizuno 3 reports
on 28 cases involving seismic pile failure in Japan,
CNEL-ENEL4 documents pile rupture under two
bridges during the 1976 Fruili, Italy, earthquake and
Ross et al. 5 describe numerous failures of piles support-
ing bridges during the 1964 Alaska earthquake.
Studies on the nonlinear dynamic response of piles
29
The finite element method, which requires discretization
of the pile and the surrounding soil, although powerful,
is computationally very expensive; and therefore cannot
be efficiently combined with structural dynamics codes
that compute the response of the superstructure. In
contrast, the Winkler foundation model is a versatile
and economical approach, since the problem of pile-
soil interaction becomes one-dimensional. A Winkler
foundation model was adopted by Nogami et al. 7 who
also studied the nonlinear pile response under dynamic
lateral loading. They proposed a six-parameter general-
ized Kelvin model together with a lumped 'consistent'
mass that involves an arbitrary value of some radius, in
order to model the distributed soil reaction on the pile.
Recently, E1 Naggar & Novak 8 presented a similar shaft
model that combines springs, sliders and dashpots to
approximate the behavior of the pile-soil interface, the
'inner' field and the 'outer' field. Their model is restricted
to vertical motion only, and requires the value of the
radius of the 'inner' field. Furthermore, the ascending
and descending branches of the resulting hysteretic loop
are described by two different equations. Any reversal of
the loading must be detected, and the proper equation
relating force to displacement must be used, resulting in a
quite complex procedure.
The most comprehensive study on the nonlinear
response of piles using a Winkler foundation model is
30 D. Badoni, N. Makris
probably that ofTrochanis et al. 9 who utilized a model of
viscoplasticity, better known as the Boue-Wen
model, 1°-12 to describe the force-displacement relation
of distributed nonlinear springs that approximate the soil
reaction on the pile. Their study concentrated on the
static and quasi-static (zero-frequency limit) loading of
piles, and for this type of loading it was shown that the
Bouc-Wen model predicts well the response of a variety
of soil-pile systems.
Herein the distributed nonlinear spring described by
the Bouc-Wen model is combined with a distributed
viscous dashpot placed in parallel. The presence of the
damper makes the model very efficient for the prediction
of the pile response under dynamic loads since it
accounts realistically for the energy that radiates out-
ward. It should be noted that in the original formulation
of his model, Trochanis 13 had included the presence of
the dashpot. In this paper, a physically motivated
formulation is developed so that most of the parameters
of the proposed nonlinear frequency-dependent Kelvin
model are readily associated with the physical soil
parameters. For instance, the Young's modulus, the
undrained shear strength (in the case of cohesive soils),
and the angle of internal friction (in the case of cohesion-
less soils) are explicit parameters of the proposed model.
Furthermore, while hysteretic damping is accounted for
by the Bouc-Wen model, the distributed damping
coefficient that models radiation damping is provided
through a realistic frequency dependent expression 14
which has been modified to allow for some reduction
when nonlinear behavior prevails. Accordingly, the
proposed model at the limit of small frequencies
collapses to the solitary nonlinear spring studied by
Trochanis et al., 9 and at the limit of small amplitudes
collapses to the linear frequency-dependent Kelvin
model which has been used with success for the pre-
diction of the linear inertial and seismic response of piles
and pile-groups. 15 18
In this paper a systematic examination of the per-
formance of the proposed model in predicting the lateral
response of single piles under inertial and seismic loading
is presented. Five well instrumented full-scale experi-
ments are selected where the single pile response was
recorded beyond the elastic limit. The proposed model is
shown to be capable of predicting the experimental data
with desirable accuracy, and the developed model is
subsequently used to compute the nonlinear seismic
response of single piles. Finally, the proposed method-
ology is used to compute the nonlinear dynamic response
of one of the piles used in the foundation of the Ohba
bridge near Tokyo, Japan.
PARAMETERS OF THE MACROSCOPIC
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
The problem studied herein is that of a single pile
embedded in a layered soil and subjected to lateral
motion. The pile is considered as a linear elastic beam
with circular cross-section area, Ap, diameter, d, moment
of inertia, Ip, Youngs modulus, Ep, and mass density pp.
The surrounding soil is considered to be an inhomo-
geneous deposit having shear wave velocity, Vs, density,
ps, shear strength, S, or angle of internal friction q~, that
vary with depth. The soil-pile interface is modeled as a
Winkler foundation interacting with the pile through
continuously distributed nonlinear springs and linear
dashpots as sketched in Fig. 1.
The problem of developing a macroscopic model that
suitably predicts the response of a structural or mechan-
ical system does not have a unique solution. Different
constitutive models might approximate, within some
tolerance, the response of a system for some range of
the frequency-spectrum and amplitude-intensities if their
parameters are appropriately calibrated. Nevertheless,
constitutive models can vary from arbitrary mathe-
matical expressions that happen to fit experimental
data to physically motivated force-displacement rela-
tions. Also, some constitutive models are more attractive
than others because of their simplicity, the physical
meaning of some of their parameters, their validity
over large frequency-spectra and load-intensities, and
their consistency at limiting cases.
The above reasons have motivated for the formulation
of the constitutive model proposed herein, which is a
continuously distributed nonlinear spring in parallel with
a frequency dependent linear dashpot. This model is the
extension at large deflections of the linear Kelvin model,
and the extension at finite frequencies of the hysteretic-
type nonlinear spring utilized by Trochanis et al. 9 The
force resulting from the nonlinear spring alone is given
by
Fs = a K y + (1 - a ) K y o ( (1)
where y is the pile deflection at the location of the spring,
M(t)
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of dynamic nonlinear pile-soil
interaction.
 Nonlinear response of single piles
K is some reference stiffness, a is a parameter that
controls the post yielding stiffness, Y0 is the value of
pile deflection that initiates yielding in the spring, and ~ is
a hysteretic dimensionless quantity that is governed by
the following equation
Yo~ + 7[)[~[~[ n-' +/3)1(I n - A) = 0
In the above equation/3, 7, n and A are dimensionless
quantities that control the shape of the hysteretic loop.
The hysteretic model of (1) and (2) was originally
proposed by Bouc l° for n = 1, and subsequently
extended by Wen 11'12, and used in random vibration
studies of inelastic systems. The expressions given by
(1) and (2) are preferred to similar expressions used by
Trochanis et al., 9 since in the present formulation the
hysteretic parameter ff is dimensionless whereas in Tro-
chanis' formulation, ff has dimensions of length.
It can be easily shown 19 that when A = 1 in (2),
parameter K in (1) becomes the small-amplitude elastic
distributed stiffness, and parameter a becomes the ratio
of the post to pre-yielding stiffness. Based on this
observation, in all the subsequent analysis A = 1. By
eliminating the time variable in eqn (2) one obtains
d¢
Y0 d)---~= 1 + (/7 4- 7)( n
in which the (-4-) sign depends on whether the values o f )
and ( are positive or negative. For a monotonic displace-
ment input the maximum value of ( is obtained when
d ( / d y = 0, and by virtue of (3) this maximum takes the
value
( 1 ~ l/n
~max = ~ - - ~ ]
Returning to eqn (1) we note that the maximum value
of the spring reaction, Jq, is reached when y and
take their maximum value. For example, during virgin
initial loading, F~,max is reached at the first loading-
reversal-point (d~/dy = 0)
/ 1 \ll,
Fs,ma x = o z K y m a , + ( 1 - - o ~ ) K y o t - ~ - ' ~ )
The maximum force given by (5) must be equal to the
ultimate lateral soil reaction per unit length of pile. For
cohesive soils, theoretical studies based on the theory of
plasticity 2° give that under plane-strain conditions the
lateral soil reaction is
Fs,max(Z) =/kg(z)d
where S(z) is the shear strength of the soil at depth z, d is
the pile diameter and ), is a dimensionless quantity
9 - 1 4 2 < A < 11.940, where the lower limit 9.142=
6 + 7r is for a perfectly smooth pile and the upper limit
11.940 = 4x/2 + 27r is for a perfectly rough pile. The
theoretical values for Aderived by Randolph & Houlsby 2°
for plane-strain conditions do not differ much from the
31
value A = 9 that was proposed by Broms 21 after experi-
mental and theoretical studies.
At shallow depths, the plane-strain assumption is
inappropriate because of the non-zero vertical deforma-
tion of the soil during lateral motion of the pile. Accord-
ingly, near the surface parameter ), assumes smaller
(2)
values. Broms 21 proposed a value of A = 2 near the
surface whereas Matlock 2z used A = 3. Between the
surface and large depths the value of A increases pro-
gressively as plane-strain conditions prevail. Matlock 22
assumed a simple form for the increment of A between
the minimum value )~min = 3 and )~max = 9:
O"z Z 6d
A(z) = 3 + s Z< w (7)
%d
S(z) + J
6d
A(z)=9, z_> ~7s (8)
S(z) + s
The second term in eqn (7) gives the increase with depth
due to overburden pressure, and the third term repre-
sents the restraint that even a weightless soil around a
pile would provide against upward flow of the soil. The
value of parameter J in (7) must be determined empiri-
(3) cally. Matlock 2 reported that studies on the Sabine
profile indicated that a value of J of approx. 0.5 is
satisfactory, whereas a lower value of about 0"25 fits
the Lake Austin data somewhat better.
Broms 23 also proposed an analytical expression for the
ultimate value of Fs,max for cohesionless soils
1 + sin q~
Fs'rnax(Z) = #Tsd 1 - sin~b z (9)
(4)
where 7s = Psg is the specific weight of the soil, d is the
pile diameter, 4~is the angle of internal friction measured
from drained triaxial or direct shear test, z is vertical
distance from the surface, and # is a parameter for which
Broms 23 assumed the value # = 3. In the case where the
deposit is saturated, the buoyant specific weight should
be used.
Following Broms work, 23 other researchers elaborated
(5) on the mechanisms that develop when the soil surround-
ing the pile fails. Reese et al., 24 using soil mechanics
theory and a wedge-type failure near the surface, pre-
sented expressions more sophisticated than eqn (9) to
approxima{e the ultimate soil resistance near the ground
surface and at a depth. Nevertheless, in this study the
expression proposed by Broms 23 is preferred because of
its simplicity, since it involves only one parameter
(6)
compared to the expressions proposed by Reese
et al., 24 which involve three parameters. However, the
formulation presented herein is not restricted to the use
of a specific expression that approximates soil resistance,
and the best possible available expression should be used.
The plastic soil behavior (no hardening) at large pile-
deflections indicates that the ultimate post yielding
stiffness of the soil is zero; and therefore, the parameter
32 D. Badoni, N. Makris
a in eqn (5) is set equal to zero. Furthermore, from eqn
(4) which gives the upper bound of ¢ we see that if
fl + 7 = 1 then [¢[ _< 1. This is a convenient formulation
extensively used in base-isolation studies. 19 Accordingly,
with a -- 0,/3 + 7 = 1 and the combination of (5) with
(6) and (9), the force resulting from the nonlinear spring
and given by (1) reduces to
Fs(z ) = A(z)S(z)d¢, for cohesive soils
Fs(z ) = #%d 11Z+ sin~z(,
si--~¢
for cohesionless soils
The value # = 3 reported by Broms 21 is an assumption
based on experience. Herein, n and J in (10) or n and # in
(11) are parameters of the model to be calibrated from
experimental data. Furthermore the value of parameter
fl in eqn (2) has minor significance and is taken equal to
0"4 throughout this analysis.
Under lateral loading, the small-amplitude stiffness K,
of the soil reaction in eqns (1) and (5) can be approxi-
mated realistically 14'17'18 by
K ~ l'2Es
where Es is the Young's modulus of the soil.
The dimensionless hysteretic quantity ~, in (10) is
provided by (2), in which Y0 (value of pile-deflection at
which yielding initiates in the spring), is given by
.,, s(z) . force resulting from the dashpot also has to be valid for
yo(z) = At z ) ~ a , for cohesive soils
%d 1 + sin q5
yo(z) = # l'2Es(z) 1 - sin~bz' for cohesionless soils
In the proposed model (eqns (10) or (11) and (2)) the
parameters to be determined are n and J for cohesive
soils, or n and # for cohesionless soils. The remaining
parameters, %, Es, S, ~b, are standard geotechnical
parameters obtained from field or laboratory tests.
Parameters n and J or # are calibrated by fitting
experimental data from static monotonic, or zero-
frequency cyclic tests. This is an interesting result, since
in our formulation all of the model-parameters of the
nonlinear spring are frequency independent and can be
calibrated readily from quasi-static monotonic tests.
For the static and quasi-static (zero-frequency limit)
loads studied by Trochanis et al. 9 the Bouc-Wen model
given by (1) and (2) was shown to be capable of
predicting well the nonlinear response of a variety of
soil-pile systems. Under strong static loading, energy is
lost in the vicinity of the pile-soil interface because of the
hysteretic behavior of the soil, whereas radiation damp-
ing is zero since the frequency is zero. The same energy-
loss mechanism prevails under quasi-static cyclic loading
since again radiation damping is practically zero and all
the induced energy is dissipated through hysteresis.
Accordingly, for this zero-frequency-limit loading the
nonlinear distributed spring alone utilized by Trochanis
et al. 9 is sufficient to model the response.
Under dynamic loading (finite frequencies), part of the
input energy is dissipated through hysteresis in the
vicinity of the pile-soil interface, and the remaining
energy radiates outwards. In this case, the nonlinear
(10) spring alone is not sufficient to model realistically the
response, since the radiation damping is of viscous type.
This insufficiency motivated the addition of the viscous
dashpot in parallel with the nonlinear spring as shown in
Fig. 1, to model radiation damping. Of course, one could
(11)
adjust the parameters of the Wen's model at some
frequency to incorporate the energy loss due to radia-
tion into the hysteretic loop generated by the nonlinear
spring. Nevertheless, this will result in poor modeling,
since the radiation damping is frequency dependent; and
therefore, at some other frequency the parameters of the
nonlinear spring should be re-adjusted. Moreover, the
incorporation of all the energy loss into one hysteretic
loop implies that all of the energy is dissipated at the
pile-soil interface with no waves propagating outwards.
(12) Such a crude approach removes from the model the
capability to study the pile-soil-pile-interaction effect
and eventually the nonlinear group response. Accord-
ingly, for the case of dynamic loading the presence of a
frequency dependent dashpot is needed in the model.
A good candidate for the expression that describes the
(13) small-amplitude motions. At this linear range, theoreti-
cal studies on the damping coefficient of single piles 14-16
show that the resulting force stemming from radiation
damping should be of the form
(14) F a = [Oao°25ps Vsd]j~ (15)
where the term within the brackets is the distributed
frequency dependent damping coefficient c( ao) = Qao °'25
ps Vs d, ao = ~ d / V s is a dimensionless frequency, and the
coefficient Q is given by the expression
[ 3-4 ] 1"25/7r)0"75 (16)
Q=2 1 + 7r(1 ~us) \4]
where us is the Poisson's ratio of the soil.
The expression for Q given by (16) is derived from a
simple 'cone' model 14'25 which resembles Novak's
model 16 but does allow for some non-zero vertical
deformation of the soil during lateral motion, as is
appropriate due to the presence of the stress-free surface
and the non-uniformity with depth of pile deflections. At
shallow depths, (say less than three diameters) the
expression given by (16) can be replaced simply by
Q = 3 (see Ref. 14).
Under harmonic vibrations with frequency, Lo,eqn (15)
yields a force proportional to wy. Nevertheless, when the
response becomes nonlinear (y > Y0), the force generated
from radiation damping does not increase considerably
compared to the maximum damping force that develops
 Nonlinear response of single piles
under linear conditions. Accordingly, in order to account
for large pile deflections under harmonic excitation, eqn
(15) is refined to
Fd = Oao 0"25psVsdw (Y)
where
(Y)=Y0 fory>y0
and
(y)=y fory<y0
With this formulation, the nonlinear spring eqn (10) or
(11), and the dashpot eqn (17), of our constitutive model
are consistent with the viscoelastic analysis at the limit of
small-deflections and the plasticity analysis at the zero-
frequency limit. The performance of this model in
predicting the measured dynamic nonlinear lateral
response of a variety of soil-pile systems is investigated
in the sequel.
The proposed method, developed herein for lateral
pile motion, can be used without difficulty to model the
nonlinear response of piles under axial vibration. The
bearing capacity equations (equivalent to eqns (6) and
(9)) for axial pile motion are available in the geotechnical
literature and are also summarized by El Naggar &
Novak. 8
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION FOR P I L E -
SOIL SYSTEM
With the macroscopic nonlinear model developed in the
previous section, the dynamic pile-soil interaction prob-
lem reduces to the analysis of a beam supported on a
nonlinear Winkler foundation. Under dynamic head
loading, dynamic equilibrium of the pile gives
Eplp y(z, t) + m - ~ y ( z , t) - Fs(z , t) - Fa(z, t) = 0
where z is the spatial coordinate along the pile, and t is
time. Fs and Fd are the spring and dashpot reactions on
the pile given by (10) or (11) and by (17), respectively.
With the developed finite element formulation, the
solution of (20) which is coupled with (2), is possible
by considering the variation of soil properties along the
pile-length. Furthermore, the portion of the pile that
protrudes above the ground surface together with head
and tip boundary conditions can be modeled in a simple
and realistic manner. Details of the solution procedure of
the discretized equations can be found elsewhere. 26
PREDICTION OF FULl, SCALE EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS
The efficiency of the proposed model is demonstrated by
33
predicting the experimentally measured single pile
response. Five well instrumented full-scale experiments
are selected where the pile response was recorded beyond
the elastic limit.
(17)
(A) Cohesive soils
(18)
Dynamic response of pile in saturated peat
Kramer et al. 27 conducted lateral monotonic and cyclic
(19) tests on a cylindrical steel pile installed in the Mercer
Slough peat near the eastern shore of Lake Washington
in Bellevue, Washington. Subsequently, Crouse et al. 28
completed the experimental investigation on the same
pile by conducting lateral dynamic harmonic and quick-
release tests. The subsurface material of the Mercer
Slough consisted of 14"9m thick peak deposit over
medium dense sand. The soil properties and pile
characteristics are summarized in Table 1. For more
information the reader is referred to the original
references. 27,28
Figure 2 (top) compares the predicted head-force-
displacement curve based on eqn (10) against experi-
mental data from monotonic lateral loading. 27 The
agreement is very good. The profile of the Young's
modulus, E~, and that of the undrained shear strength,
Su, are also illustrated in Fig. 2, where the values shown
are those reported from experimental measurements.
The computed response (solid line) is obtained with
n = 1 and J = 0.5. The calibrated model was then used
to predict the dynamic response of the single pile. Figure
2 (center and bottom) compares the prediction of the
model for the dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients
of the pile against experimental data reported by Crouse
et al. 28 The damping coefficient of the pile was computed
via the expression
WD
c(cv) -- 7r;vy2ax (21)
(20)
where WD is the area of the force-displacement loop at
the pile head and Ymax is the maximum pile-head dis-
placement. This area corresponds to the sum of the
hysteretic and radiation damping. It should be noted
however, that the amplitude, P0 = 1.5 kN, of the applied
load during the harmonic test was very low compared to
the lateral load needed to generate nonlinear response
(P ~ 20 kN); and therefore, the response shown in Fig. 2
(center and bottom) is linear. Accordingly, in this case
WD is the energy lost primarily due to radiation. The
storage stiffness of the pile, K1, was subsequently
obtained from the expression
(22)
\ k,Ymax,/ ~,Try2ax.])
where P0 is the amplitude of the imposed force.
34 D. Badoni, N. M a k r &

Table 1. Constitutive model parameters for single pile

Test/Year Soil properties Pile characteristics Model
parameters
Cohesive soils J n
Kramer et al., 1990 us = 0'49 L= 14"9m 0"5 1.0
Crouse et al., 1993 V~(tip) = 30 m/s d= 0.20 m
p~ = 1.12mg/m 3 t= 0-0064m
Eplp = 3.81 × 103 kN-m2
Brown et al., 1987 us = 0-49 L= 13.4m 0"15 0"25
Blaney & O'Neill, 1986 V~(tip) = 115 m/s d= 0.273 m
p~ = 2-1 mg/m 3 t= 0-0093 m
Eplp = 7.3 x 10 3 kN-m 2
Cohesionless soils # n
Brown et al., 1988 us = 0"48 L = 13.1 m 5"0 3'0
(sand) VAtip) = 160 m/s d = 0.273 m
Ps 1.6 mg/m 3 t = 0.0093 m
Eplp = 7.3 × 103 kN-m 2
Jennings et al., 1984 us = 0'49 L = 6.75 m 5"0 3"0
Vs(tip) = 125 m/s d = 0.45 m
Ps l'6mg/m3 t = 0.010m
Eplp = 0-8 x 105 kN-m 2
Ting et al., 1987 us = 0"48 L = 9.75m 3'0 2"0
V~(tip) = 70m/s d = 0.61 m
p~ = 2.0 mg/m 3 t = 0.013 m
Eplp = 2.2 × 105 kN-m 2

The computed dynamic stiffness and damping of the
pile (at the ground surface) are plotted with dotted lines
on Fig. 2. At low frequencies the storage stiffness reaches
a value of approx. 750 kN/m, which is in agreement with
the static stiffness reported by K r a m e r et al. (630 kN/m).
At moderate frequencies (2-3 Hz) the computed values
of the dynamic stiffness and damping are approximately
twice the experimental values reported by Crouse et al. 28
These experimental values have been extracted from
acceleration records recorded on a steel platform sup-
ported by the pile at 0"712 m above the ground surface.
Crouse et al. reported that in order to extract the
dynamic stiffness of the pile at the ground surface, they
assumed that the above ground portion of the pile
responded as a rigid body. The solid lines on Fig, 2 are
the values of the stiffness and damping computed by
taking into account the flexibility of the protruded
portion of the pile above the ground surface. In eqn
(22), P0 is the amplitude of the horizontal force applied
on the pile by the mass-shaker and Ymax is the amplitude
of the total pile displacement at the platform level.
Evidently, the flexibility of the protruded portion of the
pile above the surface reduces the stiffness of the pile-soil
system resulting in better agreement with the values
reported by Crouse et al. 28
The dashed line on Fig. 2 (center and bottom) plots the
equivalent linear dynamic stiffness and damping gener-
ated when a harmonic force with amplitude P0 = 20 k N
is applied at the level of the mass shaker. For this
amplitude of loading the pile response is nonlinear;
resulting in a reduced equivalent linear stiffness and an
augmented equivalent-linear damping.
Dynamic response o f pile in stiff clay
Full-scale static and dynamic experiments on a cylindri-
cal steel pile embedded in a stiff overconsolidated clay
have been conducted by Blaney & O'Neill 29 at the
University of Houston. Details on the upper and lower
values of undrained shear strength and Young's modulus
of the deposit can be found in the original reference.
Herein, the average distribution of the undrained shear
strength reported by Brown et al. 3° in a subsequent study
on the same profile, is used. This average distribution of
the shear strength, is depicted in Fig. 3 (top) together
with the average value used for the Young's modulus
which is equal to Es = 600Su. This relatively small value
of Young's modulus (for soil dynamics studies) is
actually in good agreement with experimental data,
since it corresponds to values of the Young's modulus
greater than those measured via the self-boring pressure-
meter (SBP) test, but smaller than those obtained with
the cross-hole test.
The prediction of the proposed model for monotonic
loading is compared in Fig. 3 (top) against experi-
mental data. The computed response (solid line) was
obtained with n = 0.25 and J = 0.15. Subsequently, the
calibrated model was used to predict the dynamic
response of the single pile. The only available experi-
mental result on the dynamic response of the pile is a
frequency response curve (transfer function). For a
load controlled test with amplitude P0, the transfer
function is defined as
_ y _ 1 (23)
H(w) Po K1 + iK2 - m ~
 Nonlinear response o f single piles 35

30 lOO

9o
t~ 25
<
r.rJ
,-r-
~: ro

i,- l S ~ sc
~" 4c
~ lO
3(

<
~1c

f
o o~,~ o11 oA5 o:~ 0.25 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0. 3 .035
DISPLACEMEr~TATTHEPILEHEAD(m) D I S P L A C E M E N T AT T H E PILE H E A D (m)

0,014

I000] , , , 'Po= 1.5~N at g~und su~ace ' '...... 0.012 ~ ~2.95m\

8001........................................................................................ o o 4cg I--2.21m\
0.01 - - 1.43m

:°oL o o ~0.82m I
,., | ...... _8o o o_ _ _o_ % o _o..o_ _~_ o_ _ _ _% _ _ 0.008
200 i" - - r%~, ~ O-k.,fi -
/
0| I i i i i i i i i o.oo,
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2,6 2,8
FREQUENCYO"h)
0.004 0 0

25I.........
~ 2o " ~ - "~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
P o = 1.SkN at g r o u n d surface t 0.002 0

,5| .............. Po~20~_. . . . _j 01

0
i
0,5
i
1
i
1.5
J
2
i
2.5
l
3 3,5
I
4
'
415

~0~__ Po= LSk~ ..... o ~ o l FREQUENCY(Hz)

5~ oo . . . . 0 1
Fig. 3. Top: Comparison of predicted head-force-displace-
0 1
1
i
1.2
1
1.4
i
1.6
i
1.8
i ,
2
i
2.2
i
2.4
i
2.6
i
2.8
i
3
ment curve (solid line) with the experimental data (points) from
F R E Q U E N C Y fHz) Brown et al. 3° Bottom: Comparison of predicted transfer
function (solid line) with recorded data (points) from Blaney
Fig. 2. Top: Comparison of predicted head-force-displace- & O'Neill. 29
ment curve (solid line) with the experimental data (points) from
Kramer et al. 27 Bottom: Comparison of the predicted dynamic
stiffness and damping coefficients with the experimental data
(points) from Crouse et al. 28 low frequencies up to 1.5Hz the prediction of the
response is good. Nevertheless, the prediction shows a
resonance frequency at 1.7Hz, whereas the recorded
where y is the complex-valued displacement recorded resonance frequency is at 2"1 Hz. It should be mentioned
when the force reaches its maximum. K] is the storage that the pile protruded 0.82 m above the ground and the
stiffness of the pile (real part) given by (22),/(2 -- wc(w), location of the center of mass of the pile-cap and the
is the loss stiffness of the pile (imaginary part), and m is carriage that supported the vibrator was at 2.21 m above
the above-ground-mass of the cap. Using the time the ground surface. Furthermore, the horizontal driving
domain formulation pre,;ented herein under harmonic force was apparently measured at 2.95m above
loading with frequency w, the resulting amplitude of an the ground surface. Sensitivity studies based on our
equivalent linear transfer function is analysis showed that the response of the pile-soil
system is much more sensitive to the values of the
J
above ground stiffness and the location of the point of
IH(~)} : 1 I application of the driving force, rather than to the values
of the mechanical parameters of the distributed soil
~(y~)2 // Wo-~2 i ._Z_~- springs and dashpots.
- k--~max j - m w 2 + 7rymax

(24)
(B) Cohesionless soils
Again, in this experiment,, the amplitude of the excitation
force is only 2-67 kN, and the response of the pile is The majority of well instrumented, nonlinear, full scale
restricted in the linear range. Figure 3 (bottom) com- experiments on single piles embedded in sands are static
pares the predicted response from (24) against the or quasi-static, with the exception of the work conducted
measured transfer function by Blaney & O'Neill. At by Ting. 31 Nevertheless, before presenting the single pile
36 D. Badoni, N. Makris

response under true dynamic loading, the performance p-y C U R V E AT z = . 9 0 9 m p-y C U R V E AT z = l . 2 2 m

of our model is examined against the data from two well

instrumented quasi-static full scale experiments.
12C
'20I
I OC / o 1oo
/
Monotonic loading o f pile in medium dense sand 3 /
/

sol
Brown et al. 32 tested a hollow pile with 27.3 cm outer I
diameter and 0.93cm wall thickness. The pile was Z
~ 6c 6o}
initially driven in stiff clay which was excavated to a
depth of 2-9 m and sand was backfilled around the pile.
Because the sand extends to a depth of slightly more than
10 pile diameters, the response of the pile is expected to
depend only on the presence of the sand. The average dry
density after compaction was about Ps = 1"57g/cm3.
2C
4o}

2o~

ol
/
0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01
Results from direct shear tests indicated that the com- D E F L E C T I O N (m) D E F L E C T I O N (m)

pacted sand has an angle of internal friction, ~b = 38.5 °.

For more details the reader is referred to the original
reference. The value of the Young's modulus was not
reported, and a typical linearly increasing distribution
was assumed.
Figure 4 (top) compares the prediction of the present
model (eqn (11)) for the head force-displacement curve
against experimental data from monotonic lateral load-
ing. The computed response (solid line) is obtained with
n = 3 and # = 5. Figure 4 (bottom) compares the result-
ing distributions of bending moments against recorded
Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted p - y curves (solid line), with the
experimental data (points) of Brown et al. 32 At two pile depths.
data. The agreement of our predictions with recorded
data are very good. To further demonstrate the capabil-
ities of our model, Fig. 5 illustrates the distributed soil
resistance (force/length) as a function of pile deflection
at two distinct depths: z - - - 0 . 9 0 9 m = 3.33d, and z =
1-22 m - - 4 . 4 7 d . The agreement of this prediction with
the measured values is also very encouraging.

12o
n= 3 .
g5
. . .
~o
. .
_
Cyclic loading o f pile in saturated silty sand
Jennings et al. 33 tested two 45"0 cm steel hollow piles with
1"0 cm wall thickness and 8.25 m length. Both piles were
embedded 6"50 m below the ground level. The piles were
installed in the flood plain of the Hunt River about 1 km

i
f,1
upstream from where the river discharges into Well-
~ 60
ington Harbor, New Zealand. Two consolidated
~4o undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measure-
ments were performed at a strain rate of 0" 1% min and
indicated zero cohesion and an angle of internal friction
z=13.1m I 1 2 0 138.5
of q~ = 35 °. The reported dry density is % = 1.65 g/cm 3.
/ i / More details about field investigation and laboratory
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
DISPLACEMENT AT THE PILE HEAD (m) measurements can be found in the paper by Jennings
et al. 33
o
250

n=3
p,=5
200

E iso f o

E s (MPa) ~)o

100 35
r~

-2
so

I
"100 ~o
- 0
,
50
.
100 150 35
BENDING MOMENT (kN-m) ," i , i i i
°o o.oos 0.01 o.01s 0.02 o.oas 0.o3 o.03s 0.~ o.04s
DISPLACEMENTATGROUNDLEVEL(m)
Fig. 4. Comparison of predicted (solid line) head-force dis-
placement curve (top), and static bending moment profile Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted head-force displacement curve
(bottom) against the experimental data (points) of Brown (solid line) with the experimental data (points) from Jennings
et al. 32 e t al. 33
 Nonlinear response of single piles 37

"' P=4OkN "' ~P--40kN f=2.1 Hz

o o
1 .1 I -1 Es (MPa)
z--0m_ I "~ o
2 .2}
0t
3 31
,= -4~
11
s -S[ .2¸ 2t
(; 3 31
g
-o.o= -o.b, O O.O1 0.02 -IOO -s'o o so oo 41:9.75m~30 ~ l
4
" P=120kN "~[P=120kN u.] n=2
>. 5 51 g=3
11 6
Z 71 ' 0=31°
© .7
¢3 al
> 41
.8
©
<~ sl 9
e~
-0.01 -0.;05 0.(105 0.01 -100 -50 0 50 100
-0.04 -0.02 o 0.02 o.o= I -=do o aoo DEFLECTION (m) BENDING MOMENT (kN-m)

-' "P=200kN P=200kN Fig. 8. Comparison of predicted dynamic deflection and bend-
ing moment profiles (solid line) with the experimental data of

./..-
il
Ting. 31 The applied force on the pile-head is 11 kN.

computed response (solid line) is obtained for n -- 2 and

#=3.
To further investigate the capabilities of our method,
-o.b~ ! o.bs -s~o o soo
the soil pressure (Fs + Fd)/d is computed at different
DEFLECTION (m) BENDING MOMENT (kN-m)
depths. Figure 9 compares the predicted soil pressure vs
Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted static deflection and bending pile deflection loops against the recorded data. Although
moment profiles (solid line) with the experimental data (points) our model cannot capture the apparent gapping effect,
of Jennings e t al. 33 the agreement is indeed very encouraging since both
stiffness and damping are well predicted even at the
Figure 6 compares the predicted head force-displace- local scale. It is interesting to note that although pile
ment curve against experimental data. The profile of the deflection decreases with depth, the resulting pressure at
Young's modulus used is also shown in the figure. The two diameters depth (right plot) is larger than the
computed response (solid line) is obtained with n = 3
and/z = 5. Figure 7 shows experimental data and pre-
dicted values for the displacement profile (left) and f=2.1 Hz
bending moments (right), due to a nominal lateral p-y LOOP AT z= 0.61 m p-y LOOP AT z= 1.22m
force of 40, 120 and 200kN. The recorded data are 40 40r
from two different piles (o: East pile; *: West pile). The ?
proposed model predicts very well the response for all 30F
three levels of loading.
2O 20[
i / i
/ .
Dynamic response of pile in saturated sand 10}
Ting 31 conducted a detailed study on the dynamic
response of a single pile driven into a dense, saturated, 0l
silty fine sand located at Seal Beach, California.
-113 -101
Standard penetration tests blowcounts at the site i ,
¢,0
averaged 13. Details on the experimental setup can be -213 -201 ¢ ®

found in the original paper. The soil Young's modulus is i I"

assumed to increase linearly with depth having a value of -3C -301
30 MPa at depth of 9.75 m (location of the pile tip). The
-4(3 -402
angle of internal friction for the sand is reported to be 0 5 0
DEFLECTION (mm) DEFLECTION (mm)
4 ~ = 3 1 °.
Figure 8 compares the computed dynamic deflections Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted (solid line) dynamic soil
and bending moments :along the pile against experi- reaction at frequency f = 2.1 Hz against the recorded data
mental data. The comparison is indeed excellent. The from Ting. 31
38 D. Badoni, N. Makris
resulting pressure at one diameter depth (left plot). This
is because the Young's modulus increases linearly with
depth and at large deflections the response becomes
nonlinear and little incremental pressure develops. The
proposed model captures these local details with
accuracy.
Table 1 summarizes the soil properties, pile character-
istics and the values of the calibrated model-parameters
from the five full scale experiments studied herein. The
purpose of Table 1 is also to provide a realistic range for
the values of n, J and #. Recall that parameters n
controls the transition from the linear to the nonlinear
range and parameters J and # are associated with the
strength of a cohesive and cohesionless soil respectively
(see eqns (10 and (11)). It is observed that for cohesive
soils n _< 1 and 0.15 < J _< 0.5, whereas for cohesionless
soils 2 < n < 3 and 3 < # < 5. It is interesting to note
that the values of parameter J obtained by Matlock 22
after fitting experimental data were: J = 0.25 for the
Lake Austin profile and J = 0.50 for the Sabine profile.
These values reported by Matlock lie within the range of
values obtained from this study. Of course, more
experiments are needed to establish with confidence the
range of values for the model parameters. Nevertheless,
the present study provides some useful values which are
used for the prediction of the nonlinear dynamic
response of a pile embedded in the Ohba-Ohashi soil
profile.
NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE
While an extremely flexible pile might simply follow the
seismic motion of the ground, real piles with finite
bending rigidity 'resist' the induced soil deformation,
generating additional soil strains in their vicinity. As a
result, the incident seismic waves are scattered and the
seismic excitation to which the pile-foundation is
effectively subjected differs from that of the free field
motion. Analysis of the linear kinematic response of
single pile and pile groups has been studied by many
researchers (see Refs 17, 18, 33-35, and references
therein). However, linear analysis is limited to small
displacement gradients, and fails to describe the stress-
and displacement-fields in the vicinity of piles when
excited by strong seismic motions.
The problem studied herein is that of a single pile
subjected to strong lateral motion because of the passage
of vertical shear waves. The seismic loading considered
produces horizontal harmonic oscillations at a 'free-field'
point of the deposit, i.e. at a point unaffected by the
presence of the piles. Around the piles the 'perturbed'
wave field is a complicated combination of incident
waves reflected at the surface, and waves diffracted by
the piles. At the limit of linear elastodynamics a rigorous
method of solution to this three-dimensional dynamic
boundary value problem has been presented by Kaynia
& Novak 35 based on the earlier work developed by
Kaynia & Kausel. 36 In the case of strong loading,
where the deformation level near the pile-soil interface
is large and linear elasticity fails to realistically represent
the displacement and stress fields, the problem becomes
even more complicated, and rigorous three-dimensional
dynamic formulation using theories of viscoplasticity
becomes a formidable task. Work in the context of
dynamic viscoplasticity has been conducted by Cheng
et al., 37 where it was shown that even for a two-
dimensional plane-strain case, the computational effort
is indeed very large. In contrast, the Winkler foundation
model is a versatile and economical approach, since
the problem of pile-soil interaction becomes one-
dimensional.
The developed formulation is used herein to compute
the nonlinear seismic response of the single pile. The free-
field soil displacement is imposed as a support motion to
the distributed nonlinear springs and frequency depend-
ent dashpots; and the pile response is computed using the
developed, one dimensional finite element formulation.
Details on the implementation of the method are pre-
sented by Badoni. 26
The effects of the nonlinear soil-pile kinematic inter-
action are portrayed in the form of two kinematic
response factors
l y(0)l and I~ ]J(0)ld (25)
Iy-- u(O) ' u(O)
plotted as functions of the frequency factor, a 0 -- ~d/Vs,
where y(0) is the pile head displacement and u(0) is the
free-field surface displacement.
When the pile-soil response is nonlinear, the number
of physical and geometrical parameters that affect the
system response is large, and it is more practical to study
individual cases. Herein, the nonlinear kinematic
response factors are computed for different levels of
nonlinearity, for both free-head and fixed-head piles.
The level of nonlinearity is measured through the ratio
Ug/d where Ug is the amplitude of the input motion at
the pile tip.
Figures 10 and l l depict values of the kinematic
response factors Iy and I¢ for fixed- and free-head piles
embedded in the cohesive profiles reported by Kramer et
al. 27 and Crouse et al., 28 for three values of the ratio
Ug/d = 0.01, 0.1 and 1"0. The linear seismic response of
the piles is also computed with the developed method
(solid line) and is compared with the 'rigorous' solution
using the formation developed by Kaynia & Kause136
(stars).
Herein, for the computation of the seismic free-field
motion the profile of cohesive soils was assumed homo-
geneous, although the shear modulus near the surface
assumes smaller values than its value at a few diameters
depth. For a homogeneous soil deposit excited at the
base with motion Ug = Ug exp(iwt), the amplitude of the
 Nonlinear response o f single piles 39

n=l ..•. BEM

n=l __ LINEAR
I=0.5 .r--o.5 _ _ _
1
1.6 • ... t ~ da-- l"
0.8 l • .i

,"-.~ 0.6!

0.4
0.6 J

0.2

o~ 0.1 0.T- 0.3 0.4 0.5 0,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.S
rod rod
a0 = V a0= -V-S
s

n--0.25 n=l ,, N BEM

•" LINEAR
JM).15 o.25 r--o.5 ___ u=.,~.o~.
tr~/d= O. l
...... [¥d= 1
0.8 0.2

~ . ~ 0.6 -.e-o.1~ : / - - 7 2 : ~
M m ~ BEN
0.4 --- g,__%o, 0.1 , ~ ~3~,' , ,/'~

0.2
~d: ,
o5 o.1 o.2 ola o14 o.s G( 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
rod rod
a0= ~-
S
ao= V-S
Fig. 10. Displacement kinematic response factors for fixed-head Fig. ll. Displacement(top)and rotation(bottom)kinematic
pile embedded in soft peat, Kramer et al., 27 (top), and medium response factors for free-head pile embedded in soft peak,
stiffclay, Blaney & O'Neill, 29 (bottom). Kramer et al. 27

free-field motion is approximated by
u(z) = Uecos(_:_0vL~
\v, / long and 10.8m wide. The bridge piers are supported
In Figs 10 and 11, the maximum head response of the
pile surrounded by yielding soil exceeds the response of
the same pile surrounded by linear elastic soil. The
kinematic displacement :factor tends to fluctuate with
frequency and in some cases the pile head deflection
exceeds the free-field surface displacement. This behavior
together with Table 1, the nonlinear dynamic response
of a single pile embedded in the Ohba-Ohashi soil profile
near Tokyo, Japan is computed.
The Ohba bridge is located in Fujisawa City near
(26) Tokyo. It is supported by eleven piers and is 485m
on pile foundations. For instance, pier 6 is supported on
an 8 × 8 = 64 group with steel piles (32 batter and 32
vertical). The piles have diameter = 0.6 m, length = 22 m
SOIL TYPE V~(m~) Ps (Mg/m3) S~ (kN/m 2)
50

is reminiscent of the linear seismic response of piles

embedded in soil deposits containing a thin, soft top 50

layer. 34 This similarity in behavior should not be surpris-

70
ing, since the yielding portion of the soil near the surface
behaves to some extent as an equivalent linear soft top
layer.

P R E D I C T I O N OF PILE R E S P O N S E IN THE
OHBA-OHASHI SOIL PROFILE
!m
Using the method developed in the previous section Fig. 12. Profile of the Ohba-Ohashi soil deposit.
40 D. Badoni, N. Makris

and wall thickness = 0.009 m (for the vertical piles) and Po=400 kN
J=0.6 J=0.1
0"012 m (for the batter piles). The river runs between pier 50C 5O0

f= 0.01 H; f= 0.01 H z
6 and pier 7 and the soil profile obtained from a bore hole 40C 400

30C

near pier 6 is shown in Fig. 12. The top layers through

5J
20C

which the piles penetrate consist of soft alluvial strata of I0C

humus and silty clay with shear wave velocity ranging

from 50 to 60 m/s. The total thickness of the alluvium is -20C -200

-30C -300
about 22m. The underlying substratum of alluvial -40C -400

deposits consists of stiff clay and sand with shear wave -50_~
-0.05 0.05 -50_8
~OC
velocity of about 400 m/s. 400 f=0.1 Hz f= 0.1 Hz
Figure 13 plots the head force-displacement curves 30~

predicted with the developed model using the soil

2oa ~ ~~ 20~
10c
loo
properties summarized in Fig. 12, parameter n = 1 and o - -
-1 oc -10
parameter J -- 0.1 and 0.6. Parameter n was taken equal
to one, since the soft deposit of the Ohba-Ohashi area
-zoo

-300
-°12
-400
resembles the Mercer Slough peat, 27 for which the -5o_~
-5°-8~- -0.05 o o.o~
calibration of the model resulted: n = 1 and J = 0.5. A 500
f= 1.0 H z 400 f= 1.0 H z
single experimental value reported from a full-scale test

/1
300 3OO

conducted by Shimizu Corporation is also depicted. This 200 200 i

experimental point was taken at y ( 0 ) = 0.02m and noo

provides little information on the nonlinear behavior of -1 oo

the pile. 200

-300
-200

-300

Figure 14 plots computed force-displacement loops at -400

the pile head for three selected frequencies ( f = 0.01, 0' 1 -5o8'~ ~.06 0 0.0~ 0.~ -5? 8 -o.o~ o o

and 1.0 Hz), amplitude of applied force, P0 = 400kN,
with J--- 0.6 (left)and J = 0.1 (right). Figure 15 portrays
the resulting force-displacement loops due to a harmo-
nic force with amplitude P0 = 800 kN. It is interesting to
note that in both Figs 14 and 15 the shape of the loop
tends towards that of an ellipse as frequency increases.
This is because as frequency increases, radiation damp-
ing increases and the associated linear response prevails
over the nonlinear hysteretic response. Furthermore, as
the radiation damping force increases, the amplitude of
the pile deflection decreases (for the same amplitude of
applied force) and nonlinear effects are further sup-
pressed. In addition, in this case where n = 1, there
is a continuous transition in the nonlinear response even
at small deflections (see Fig. 13). Accordingly, as pile
I09C
D I S P L A C E M E N T (m) D I S P L A C E M E N T (m)
Fig. 14. Dynamic head-force-displacement loops under har-
monic force with amplitude P0 = 400kN of a single pile
embedded into the Ohba-Ohashi soil deposit.
deflections are getting smaller with increasing frequency,
the apparent (secant) stiffness of the distributed spring
increases. This explains the slight increment in the slope
of the force-displacement loops as frequency increases
(see Fig. 15).
Figure 16 plots the resulting equivalent storage
stiffness (eqn (22)) and damping coefficient (eqn (21))
as a function of frequency for three values of the
amplitude of the applied force, P0 = 10,400 and
800kN. Referring to Fig. 14, the force amplitude
P0 --- 10kN was selected in order to obtain the limiting

900 j~ case of linear response. The results obtained with our

40C
N
~ o.os 0.1 o.~s 9.2 0.2s o.3 o.35 o.4 9.,~
DISPLACEMENT AT THE PILE HEAD (m)
Fig. 13. Predicted monotonic head-force-displacement curves
for two values of soil strength, with n = 1.
method (continuous line) are compared with the
'rigorous' solution obtained with the formulation
developed by Kaynia & Kause136 (points). The results
from the two methods are in good agreement. When the
force amplitudes P0 = 400kN and P0 = 800kN, the
resulting pile response is nonlinear. It is interesting to
note that as frequency increases pile deflection
decreases and the storage stiffness, K1 increases, while
the damping coefficient decreases, tending toward the
values obtained from linear analysis.
Figure 17 plots the nonlinear kinematic response
9.5 factors of a fixed-head pile embedded in the Ohba
profile for three values of the ratio Ug/d = 0.01, 0"1
and 1"0, and two values of J = 0.1 and 0"6. The com-
puted linear response of the pile (solid line) is compared
 Nonlinear response of single piles 41

Po=800 kN
J--0.6
J=0.6 J=0.1 1 m , .........
. . f = .0 . 0 1.H z !. . .
,,o<. ,,oo f = 0 0. 1 Hz
0.8
400 ~ 400
=O0 2OO

o 0
-200 -200
o., u d .o, :
~oo -4O0
4oo -600 ~d- I
-eoo -BOO 0.2 •
_I oo.~ -0.:~ 0 O.=S 05 -I 0 .C"~'.5 .0.25 0 0.25 0.5
1o o o =00
0.5
eoo f=0.1Hz ~ 1 :°° f = 0 " l H f ~ , O~ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

eoo ~od
"
4oo

2oo
o
-2oo
/ °:
::o:
r
/ "
a0 ----- -~-~s

C) -400
n=l
~soo
J=0.1
I - ::-LL _ : _ . : : ......
. e ( ~ '

-"°°8:n -o.=n o.~,5 0.5 ° -°8.5 ,o.ks o o.=5 o.~

1ooc 1ooo
..o,: f= 1:OH z H .I of--1o .0 z
.oo [ "~1 ,.-Z" o.e .,,.,, "'- :2L-.,
0.4 ~ Udd--O.Ol _ ~ "

.'20 ii -=oo .~°' / 0.2

.... ~,i=b.f
....... I ~ d = l
"
.
N
.~oc -eoo.
-800 ~ . e o o
011 0:2 0:3 0:4 0.5
- I oo- 8 .0.=6 0 ==S 0.5 "IO__,S -0." 6 0.25 0.5

DISPLACEMENT(m) DISPLACEMENT
(rn) rod
a 0 = VZ
Fig. 15. Dynamic head-force-displacement loops under har-
monic force with amplitude P0 = 800kN of a single pile Fig. 17. Displacement kinematic response factors for fixed-head
embedded into the Ohba-Ohashi soil deposit. pile embedded in the Ohba-Ohashi soil profile.

with the rigorous solution by Kaynia & Kause136 (stars). nonlinear behavior amplifies the values of kinematic
Finally, Fig. 18 plots the nonlinear displacement and response factors at moderate frequencies.
rotation kinematic response factors for a free-head pile
for three values of the ratio Ug/d -- 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 and
J = 0.6. The general trend in both Figs 17 and 18 is that
CONCLUSIONS

A macroscopic viscoelastoplastic model which consists

J=0.6 J---O. 1 of distributed hysteretic springs and frequency depen-
40 • • 40
P~=I0 kN
dent dashpots in conjunction with one-dimensional finite
x element formulation was found capable of predicting the
~ 20 20
dynamic nonlinear response of single piles under lateral
loads. The model is physically motivated and involves
standard geotechnical parameters. Only two parameters
5 10 15
have to be calibrated by fitting experimental data. The
0 5 10 15
predictions of the calibrated model are in very good
agreement with a variety of measured values from five
10
full-scale experiments. The developed method and the
p0=800 kN
calibrated model were used to predict the inertial and
seismic response of the single pile in the Ohba-Ohashi
~mmw soil profile, Tokyo, Japan. At low frequencies, the non-
L) linear pile response prevails. However, as frequency
5 10 15
increases the component of the soil reaction due to
5 10 15
FREQUENCY (Hz) F R E Q U E N C Y (Hz) radiation damping increases and the nonlinear charac-
teristics of the response are less pronounced. Nonlinear
Fig. 16. Dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients of a single behavior amplifies the kinematic response factors at
pile embedded into the Ohba-Ohashi soil deposit for three
different values of load amplitudes. moderate frequencies.
42 D. Badoni, N. Makris

n=l interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. J. geotech

J=0.6 engng, ASCE, 1992, 118, 89-106.
8. E1 Naggar, M. H. & Novak, M. Non-linear model for
1.5 dynamic axial pile response. J. geotech engng, ASCE, 1992,
118, 89-106.
9. Trochanis, A., Bielak, J. & Christiano, P. Simplified model
1:
for analysis of one or two piles. J. geotech engng, ASCE,
1994, 120, 308-29.
0.5 _ _ LINEAR 10. Bouc, R. Modele mathematique d' hysteresis. Acustica,
1971, 21, 16-25 (in French).
I" 11. Wen, Y.-K. Approximate method for nonlinear random
0'.I 0'.2 0'.3 014 -b.5
vibration. J. engng mech. div. ASCE, 1975, 101, EM4, 389-
401.
oJd
12. Wen, Y.-K. Method for random vibration of hyster-
ao = V-
S etic systems. J. engng mech. div. ASCE, 1976, 102, EM2,
249-63.
13. Trochanis, A. A three-dimensional nonlinear study of piles
0.5 n=l
leading to the development of a simplified model. Thesis
J=0.6
0.4 ~ BEM
presented to Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
_ _ LINEAR ....... >
-" r .
:'. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
_ _ _ U g d - - O . O i

u~dd= o.l . -

• Doctor of Philosophy, 1988.

o.a trod= ~
0.2
O.1 " ~ Canadian geotech. J., 1974, 11, 574-98.
% 0.1 0'.2
a°=
Fig. 18. Displacement (top) and rotation (bottom) kinematic
response factors for free-head pile embedded in the Ohba-
Ohashi soil profile.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Partial financial support for this project has been
provided by Shimizu Corporation, Japan (Grant No.
NCEER/RF150-7014A to N C E E R ) , and by the Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences,
University of Notre Dame.
REFERENCES
1. Moehle, J. P. Preliminary report on the seismological and
engineering aspects of the January 17, 1994 Northridge
earthquako~ Report No UCB/EERI-94/01 1994.
2. Makris, N., Badoni, D., Delis, E. & Gazetas, G. Prediction
of observed bridge-response with soil-pile-structure inter-
action. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 1994, 2992-3011.
3. Mizuno, H. Pile damage during earthquakes in Japan. In
Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations, ed. T. Nogami,
ASCE pp. 53-78, 1987.
4. CNEL-ENEL, Contribution of the study of the Fruili
earthquake of May 1976, Rome, Italy, (1976).
5. Ross, A. G., Seed, B. H. & Migliaccio, R. Bridge founda-
tions in the Alaska earthquake. J. soil mech. found engng.
ASCE, 1969, 95.
6. Angelides, D. & Roesset, J. M. Nonlinear lateral dynamic
stiffness of piles. J. geotech, engng., ASCE, 1981, 107,
1443-60.
7. Nogami, T., Otani, J. &Chen, H. L. Nonlinear soil-pile
. .,' . . . . - - - --. ~.~..~-: 14. Dynamic head-force-displacement loops under harmonic
force with amplitude P0 = 400kN of a single pile
'~ embedded into the Ohba-Ohashi soil deposit.
15. Novak, M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles.
16. Novak, M., Nogami, T. & Aboul-Ella, F. Dynamic soil
reaction for plain strain case. J. engng mech. div ASCE,
o'.a 014 0.5
1978, 104, 1024-41.
rod 17. Makris, N. & Gazetas, G. Dynamic pile-soil-pile inter-
~s action. Part II: Lateral and seismic response. Earthq.
Engng. Struct. Dynam., 1992, 21, 145-62.
18. Makris, N. Soil-pile interaction during the passage of
Rayleigh waves: An analytical solution. Earthq. Engng.
Struct. Dynam., 1994, 23, 153-67.
19. Constantinou, M. C. & Adnane, M. A. Evaluation of two
models for yielding systems. Report to NSF, Dept. Civil
Engrn, Drexel University, PA, 1987.
20. Randolph, M. F. & Houlsby, G. T. The limiting pressure
on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Geotech-
nique, 1984, 34, 613-23.
21. Broms, B. B. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J.
soil mech Fdns Div. ASCE, 1964, 90, SM2, 27-63.
22. Matlock, H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded
piles in soft clay. Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Paper
No. OTC1204, pp. 1-577-594, 1970.
23. Broms, B. B. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.
J. Soil mech Fdns Div. ASCE, 1964, 90, SM3, 123-56.
24. Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R. & Koop, F. D. Analysis of
laterally loaded piles in sand. Proc. Offshore Technology
Conf., Paper No. OTC 2080 pp. 473-84, 1974.
25. Wolf, J. P. Cone models for pile foundation. Piles Under
Dynamic Loads. ed. S. Praakash, GT Div. ASCE, New
York, 1992.
26. Badoni, D. Nonlinear analysis of piles under inertial and
seismic loading. Master thesis, University of Notre Dame,
IN, 1995.
27. Kramer, S. L., Satari, R. & Kilian, A. P. Evaluation of in
situ strength of a peat deposit from laterally loaded pile test
results. Transportation Research Record, No 1278,
Transp. res. board, Washington, D.C., pp. 103-109, 1992.
28. Crouse, C. B., Kramer, S. L., Michell, R. & Hushmand, B.
Dynamic test of pipe in saturated peat. J. geotech, engng,
ASCE, 1993, 119, 1550-67.
29. Blaney, G. W. & O'Neill, M. W. Measured lateral response
of mass on single pile in clay. J. geotech, engng, ASCE,
1986, 112, 443-57.
30. Brown, D. A. Reese, L. C. & O'Neill, M. W. Cyclic lateral
 Nonlinear response of single piles
loading of a large scale pile group. J. geotech, engng, ASCE,
1987, 113, 1326-43.
31. Ting, J. M. Full-scale cyclic dynamic lateral pile responses.
J. geotech, engng, ASCE, 1987, 113, 30-45.
32. Brown, D. A., Morrison, C. & Reese, L. C. Lateral load
behavior of pile group in sand. J. geotech, engng, ASCE,
1988, 144, 30-45.
33. Jennings, D. N., Thurston, S. J. & Edmonds, F. D. Static
and dynamic lateral loading of two piles. Proc. 8th WCEE,
San Francisco, CA, (3), pp. 561-68, 1984.
34. Gazetas, G., Fan, K., Tazoh, T., Shimizu, K., Kavvadas,
M. & Makris, N. Seismic pile-group-structure interaction.
43
Piles under Dynamic Loads, ed. S. Prakash. Geotechnical
Special Publication No 34, pp. 56-93, 1992.
35. Kaynia, A. M. & Novak, M. Response of pile foundations
to Rayleigh waves and to obliquely incident body waves.
Earthq. Engng. Struct. Dynam., 1992, 21, 303-18.
36. Kaynia, A. M. & Kausel, E. Dynamic stiffness and seismic
response of pile groups. Research Report, Dept. of Civil
Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
37. Cheng, F.-P., Roesset, J. M. & Tassoulas, J. L. Dynamic
response of circular foundations in an elastoplastic
medium. Geotech, Engng. Report, GR 86-3, Dept. Civil
Engrg. Univ. Texas Austin, Austin, TX, 1986.