Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 160
April 2007 Issue GE2
Pages 85–96
Paper 14341 A. Tabesh
Senior Manager, Nick Taraz
Received 20/07/2005 Ltd, West Vancouver,
Accepted 13/01/2006 Canada
Keywords:
geotechnical engineering/piles &
piling/seismic engineering
Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay
A. Tabesh BE, PhD and H. G. Poulos
The pile designer in a seismically active region will
generally need to estimate the maximum seismically
induced internal moment and shear of the pile in order
to provide adequate strength to maintain the structural
integrity of the pile. In this paper an effort has been
made to provide a simple means of carrying out such an
estimation for a single pile embedded in a homogeneous
clay layer. The results have been presented in the form
of design charts that can be used directly by designers
with no or little computational effort. The variables in
the design charts include the length and diameter of the
pile, the Young’s modulus of the pile material, the
strength and stiffness of the soil, and the factor of safety
against axial failure of the pile. The charts have been
obtained from a time domain analysis of pile–soil
interaction, and are based on the response of the piles to
a range of earthquakes recorded in North America and
Australia.
NOTATION
C matrix of damping coefficients
cu undrained shear strength of soil
D matrix of finite difference coefficients
d pile diameter
Ep Young’s modulus of pile
Es Young’s modulus of soil
FS factor of safety against static axial failure
I matrix of soil displacement influence factors
L pile length
M mass matrix
p lateral pile soil stress
˜u vector of incremental soil displacements at soil–pile
interface
˜ue vector of incremental external soil movements
ä length of pile elements
1. INTRODUCTION
Under the assumption of linear soil behaviour, various
numerical approaches based on both the boundary element
method and the finite element method have been developed to
evaluate the response of single piles and pile groups to
earthquake excitation.1–3 These methods involve the frequency
domain and give the pile response to a single harmonic
excitation. Their application to earthquake motion therefore
requires application of a Fourier transformation. Some of these
approaches are mathematically cumbersome, involve many
Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2
H. G. Poulos
Senior Principal, Coffey
Geosciences Ltd, Lane Cove
West, Australia
BE, DSc(Eng), FIEAust
numerical approximations, and require substantial
computational effort. In addition, not all of these methods yield
similar results, even when the fundamental assumptions are
similar.4
Several simplified approaches for the analysis of single piles
have also been developed that can be used with little
computational effort. Methods based on a Winkler hypothesis
have given results that are often in remarkable agreement with
the more complete mathematical models. Novak,5 for example,
assumed a plane-strain condition at the pile–soil interface, and
several other researchers have obtained the coefficients of their
Winkler models by equating the head displacement of the pile
to the displacement obtained in separate finite element
analyses. In almost all of these methods the primary concern
has been the evaluation of dynamic response of the
superstructure, and the researchers have generally looked at
pile foundations in the same way as they look at surface
foundations: that is, they have been seeking the pile head
impedances and the pile head motions to be used in the
subsequent dynamic analysis of the superstructure. The
evaluation of internal pile response—that is, pile moment and
shear—has often been a secondary issue. Some extensive
parametric studies reported in the literature have focused on
the effects of different factors on pile head impedance and
motion, rather than on the effects on pile internal response,
although this issue has been addressed by some authors. 6–8 The
reason for this appears to be that the focus of attention is the
response of the structure rather than the response of the piles.
In fact, the internal pile response is heavily dependent upon the
dynamic behaviour of the superstructure as well as on the soil,
and this is usually a complex multi-degree-of-freedom system
whose dynamic behaviour changes from case to case.
In this paper an effort has been made to provide a simple
means of making preliminary estimates of maximum bending
moment and shear in single piles embedded in a linearly elastic
homogeneous clay layer and subjected to seismic excitation. It
is of course recognised that real soils do not behave elastically,
but the simplification of the soil model is considered to be
appropriate for preliminary assessment of pile response. If these
preliminary assessments indicate that the piles may experience
excessive moment and shear, then a more accurate method of
assessment will be appropriate. 9 Another possible influencing
factor for piles embedded in sand is liquefaction, which is not
considered herein but which has been studied elsewhere. 10,11
Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 85
 of single piles has been developed under the following
P
assumptions.

Clay layer modulus 5 Es (a) The soil is an ideal elastic, isotropic material.
(b) The stresses developed between the pile and the soil act
normal to the face of the pile, and no account is taken of
H L possible shear stresses developed between the soil and the
Pile modulus 5 Ep sides of the pile.
(c) Each pile element is acted upon by a uniform horizontal
stress p, which is constant across the width of the pile. It is
also assumed that the soil at the back of the pile near the
surface adheres to the pile.

Earthquake excitation The pile (Fig. 1) is modelled as a beam that bends in the
direction of loading, and in determining its displacements use
Fig. 1. Variables used in the development of the design charts is made of the differential equation for bending of a thin beam.
The soil displacements are calculated based on the Mindlin
equation. 12
To develop the design charts herein, a time domain method
(rather than a frequency domain method) has been employed in The analysis is preceded by a seismic free-field (site response)
which the earthquake motion is input, and the moment, shear analysis, which gives the soil movement at the location of the
and relative displacement of the pile are obtained at all time pile element centres at each time step. By assuming that the
steps during the earthquake. The maximum values at any time site consists of horizontally infinite layers, the soil is modelled
during the earthquake have then been extracted and used for the as a multi-degree-of-freedom mass–spring–dashpot system.
design charts. The basic problem considered is shown in Fig. 1.
The pile is discretised into n + 1 elements of equal length ä
The time domain method is first briefly explained below, and except those at the top and the tip, which are of length ä/2,
then the design charts are presented and discussed. and displacement compatibility is enforced between the pile
and soil at the centre of these elements (Fig. 2), which leads to
the following incremental equation. 13
2. DEVELOPMENT OF A TIME DOMAIN METHOD
As the first step in developing the design charts, a benchmark " #
analysis using a time domain method for the seismic analysis [I]
1 ½ M ä 4
Dþ Es ä ˜ug þ
4 f f˜ u€g
Ep I p Ep I p
1
1 ½ C ä4
 ½ I 
1 Es ä4
þ f˜ u_ g
f˜ u_ e g ¼ f˜ue g
2 Ep I p Ep I p
Ue

where [D] is the matrix of finite difference coefficients; I is the

Soil n + 1 by n + 1 matrix of soil-displacement-influence factors,
L i pressure elements of which are evaluated by integration over a
rectangular area of the Mindlin equation for the horizontal
displacement of a point load within a semi-infinite mass; Ep
H and Es are pile and soil Young’s modulus respectively; ä is
element length; f˜ug is the vector of incremental displacement
n11 at the soil–pile interface; f˜ue g is the vector of incremental

4000
Pile head load: kN

3000

L 5 10 m
2000 L 5 20 m
L 5 30 m

1000

0
Diameter

Fig. 2. Pile elements in lateral seismic analysis of single piles. H,

soil layer depth; Ue , profile of external soil movement caused Fig. 3. Pile head loads used in analyses for factor of safety of 3
by earthquake exciting base of layer (diameters range between 0.2 m and 1.5 m)

86 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos
 Earthquake Duration: Maximum Dominant however, requires two
s acceleration: g frequencies: Hz auxiliary points beyond each
of the two ends of the pile:
Newcastle, 1989 18 0.8 0.5–3 the total unknowns are
Newcastle, 1994 22 0.95 0.5–3.5 therefore n + 5. Four other
Cadoux, 1990 4.5 5 3–7 equations can be obtained
Whittier, 1987 20 2.5 1–9
Meckering, 1968 7 2 5–15 from two pairs of boundary
Northridge, 1994 45 0.75 1–3.5 conditions at the pile ends.
Taft, 1969 20 0.45 0.2–5
San Fernando, 1971 40 0.65 0.2–10
The use of the Mindlin theory
in equation (1) is strictly
Table 1. Characteristics of earthquakes analysed valid only for the case of a
homogeneous soil. However,
in the static analysis, it has
external soil movement elements which are obtained from the been found that satisfactory results are obtained for non-
seismic free-field analysis; [M] and [C] are mass and damping homogeneous soil by assuming that the deflection at a point is
matrices; a dot superscript means differentiation with time; and given by the Mindlin equation, using the average value of soil
a (
1) superscript means matrix inversion. modulus, at the influencing and influenced points.

Equation (1) leads to n + 1 equations for n + 1 unknown In general, the Mindlin equation is not valid for dynamic
displacements. Application of this equation to the end nodes, loading, and its dynamic equivalent does not exist in closed

7 7

6 6

5 Es 5 25 MPa 5
Moment: MNm

Moment: MNm

Es 5 50 MPa
4 4
Es 5 100 MPa
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·0 1·0

0·8 0·8
Shear: MN

Shear: MN

0·6 0·6

0·4 0·4

0·2 0·2

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002

0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Design charts for FS ¼ 2, L ¼ 10 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 87
 7 7

6 6

5 Es 5 25 MPa 5
Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
Es 5 50 MPa
4 4
Es 5 100 MPa
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·0 1·0

0·8 0·8
Shear: MN

0·6 0·6

Shear: MN
0·4 0·4

0·2 0·2

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004
Maximum relative
Maximum relative

displacement: m
displacement: m

0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002

0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Design charts for FS ¼ 2.5, L ¼ 10 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

form. However, as noted by Penzien, 14 if the characteristic
wavelength in the soil medium is long compared with the
horizontal distance across the zone of major influence resulting
from interaction, the elastic displacement and stress fields can
still be adequately defined by Mindlin’s theory.
The Mindlin hypothesis does not satisfy the condition of soil
radiation damping, and this must be accounted for separately.
Several formulations for radiation damping, involving a variety
of approximations, are available. The simplest one, presented
by Berger et al., 15 assumes that a horizontally moving pile
cross-section generates solely one-dimensional P-waves
travelling in the direction of shaking and one-dimensional SH-
waves travelling in the direction perpendicular to shaking.
With this assumption the radiation damping has been reduced
to a viscous damping with a simple coefficient. Novak5
presented a frequency-dependent formulation for the radiation
damping in his plane-strain formulation of pile vibrations.
Gazetas and Dobry 16 expanded the work of Berger et al. 15 and
presented a simple frequency-dependent formula for radiation
damping. Kaynia 17 proposed the value 5rs Vs d for radiation
damping in his Winkler method, in which rs is soil mass
density, Vs is soil shear wave velocity, and d is pile diameter.
This value was obtained by matching the head response of a
single pile modelled by the finite element and Winkler models.
All of these formulations provide relatively similar values for
the radiation damping. In the current analysis, Kaynia’s
coefficients are used, mainly because they are rather
conservative and are also frequency independent. In pile
design, extreme care should be taken where radiation damping
is considered. This is because soil layers are not generally
horizontally infinite, the soil is not completely elastic, and its
behaviour can change with seasonal changes in water level, or
the presence of nearby excavations or inclusions. Such effects

88 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos
 7 7

6 6

5 Es 5 25 MPa 5
Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
Es 5 50 MPa
4 4
Es 5 100 MPa
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·0 1·0
0·9 0·9
0·8 0·8
0·7 0·7
Shear: MN

Shear: MN
0·6 0·6
0·5 0·5
0·4 0·4
0·3 0·3
0·2 0·2
0·1 0·1
0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·003 0·003
Maximum relative
displacement: m

Maximum relative
displacement: m

0·002 0·002

0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Design charts for FS ¼ 3, L ¼ 10 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

may significantly reduce the amount of damping due to the
radiation of energy into the unbounded soil domain, as
assumed in the elastic modelling of the soil.
Based on the above approach, a computer program named
SEPAP (Seismic Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Piles) has been
developed by the authors, which can be used for the seismic
analysis of piles, both when the soil is assumed elastic and
when its yielding is taken into account. The details of the
program have been explained elsewhere. 13 The performance of
SEPAP has been verified through extensive comparisons with
other available dynamic methods and various laboratory tests
and field.4,9
Contrary to some computer programs based on the finite
element method, which require extensive 3D mesh generation
and computational effort (e.g. reference 18), the developed
program is based on the boundary element method which
reduces the 3D problem to a soil–pile interface problem. The
significance of this reduction is even more prominent for a
dynamic analysis in which the finite element mesh generally
needs to be very large to accommodate radiation damping and
very dense to allow correct presentation of prominent
frequencies in the ground motion. The other significance of the
developed program is that, being in the time domain, it can
provide the response of the model to the ground motion
directly, in contrast to frequency domain programs, which are
limited to linear problems and are based on linear superposition.
3. THE DESIGN CHARTS
Table 1 summarises details of eight earthquakes that were
selected to develop the design charts, covering a wide range of

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 89
 6 6

5 5
Es 5 25 MPa
4 4
Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
Es 5 50 MPa
3 Es 5 100 MPa 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

2·5 2·5

2·0 2·0
Shear: MN

Shear: MN
1·5 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·008 0·008

0·007 0·007
0·006 0·006
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004
0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002
0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Design charts for FS ¼ 2, L ¼ 20 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

prominent earthquake frequencies. Details of the time history
of the earthquake records, their frequency content and other
information can be found elsewhere. 13
The piles were assumed to have a fixed head (i.e. zero head
rotation), and to be embedded in homogeneous clay layers
with Young’s modulus values of 25, 50 and 100 MPa. The
pile diameters covered the range of values between 0.2 and
1.5 m in 0.1 m increments. Two pile modulus values,
10 000 MPa and 30 000 MPa, were considered, being
representative of timber and concrete respectively. No
account was taken of possible pile cracking during strong
motion, and it was assumed that the pile preserved its
integrity during the excitation.
As shown by Tabesh and Poulos,4,9 the cap mass has a pivotal
effect on the response of the pile. In this analysis the cap mass
was obtained from the computed ultimate load capacity of the
pile, with factors of safety of 2, 2.5 and 3 (see Fig. 3). In an
attempt to provide a common basis of analysis, all the
earthquakes were scaled to a moderate value of maximum
bedrock acceleration of 0.1g. Thousands of analyses were
performed, and maximum values of moment, shear and relative
displacement of the pile were obtained.
The results are presented in Figs 4–12. In these charts FS is the
factor of safety, and Es is the Young’s modulus of the soil. For
each case the charts show the envelopes of the maximum
responses obtained for different earthquakes. The figures are
arranged as follows.
(a) Figures 4–6 are for a pile length of 10 m, with the cap
mass corresponding to a factor of safety of 2, 2.5 and 3
respectively against bearing capacity failure, that is, the

90 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos
 5 5

4 4
Es 5 25 MPa
Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
3 Es 5 50 MPa 3
Es 5 100 MPa
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

2·0 2·0

1·5 1·5
Shear: MN

Shear: MN
1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·008 0·008

0·007 0·007
0·006 0·006
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004
0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002
0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Design charts for FS ¼ 2.5, L ¼ 20 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

maximum load that could be applied to pile under static
conditions.
(b) Figures 7–9 are for a pile length of 20 m.
(c) Figures 10–12 are for a pile length of 30 m.
In using these charts, the following points must be taken into
account:
(a) Each point on the chart represents the envelope of
maximum values obtained for the conditions related to that
point. Two adjacent points on the chart may represent the
maximum values obtained for two different earthquakes
and at different times.
(b) As the analysis is elastic, no account has been taken of
possible soil yielding. It has been shown that the soil
yielding near the pile head during earthquakes may have a
profound effect on the response. 9
(c) For earthquakes with bedrock accelerations in excess of
0.1g, as a first approximation the values obtained from the
design charts can be multiplied by the ratio of maximum
bedrock acceleration to 0.1g. However, for bedrock
accelerations considerably in excess of 0.1g, the results of
this scaling may be inaccurate, as soil yielding near the
pile head may then occur, and this can have a significant
effect on the pile response.
3.1. Key characteristics of behaviour
The following characteristics of behaviour can be discerned
from the charts.
(a) For all cases considered, with an increase in diameter the
values of maximum moment and shear increase.
(b) The maximum value of relative displacement between the
pile head and tip decreases with increasing pile diameter.

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 91
 4·0 4·0

3·5 3·5

3·0 Es 5 25 MPa 3·0

Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
2·5 Es 5 50 MPa 2·5

2·0 Es 5 100 MPa 2·0

1·5 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

2·0 1·5

1·3
1·5 1·1
Shear: MN

0·9

Shear: MN
1·0
0·7

0·5
0·5
0·3

0·1
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 20·1
d: m 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002

0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Design charts for FS ¼ 3, L ¼ 20 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

(c) For all cases considered an increase in pile modulus causes
an increase in pile maximum moment, but the ratio of the
increase is often less than the ratio of increase in pile
modulus.
(d) The pile shear does not substantially increase and
sometimes even decreases with an increase in pile
modulus. Although this may at first appear to contradict
the first conclusion, it should be pointed out that
increasing the diameter increases not only the stiffness of
the pile but also the projected area on which the soil acts
on the pile.
(e) The maximum relative displacement generally decreases
with an increase in pile modulus.
( f ) An increase in soil modulus sometimes decreases and
sometimes increases pile moment and pile relative
displacement and, with the exception of some cases,
decreases pile shear.
(g) The maximum moment and shear usually decrease with an
increase in factor of safety (i.e. a decrease in cap mass).
(h) An increase in pile length often decreases the value of
moment, but has hardly any effect in the case of shear.
An interesting point is that, for the selected peak ground
acceleration of 0.1g, the value of moment is often within a
range that could easily be tolerated by the pile. This means that
a pile that is well designed for static conditions should be able
also to tolerate the effects of such an earthquake. For
earthquakes with higher accelerations the chart values will
proportionally increase.
There are few if any results of case studies published in the
literature that could be compared with the values obtained by
the charts. Finn and Fujita 11 studied a large-diameter (1.5 m)
concrete pile embedded in a liquefiable sand. The value of

92 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos
 3·5 3·5

3·0 3·0

2·5 Es 5 25 MPa 2·5

Moment: MN m
Moment: MN m

Es 5 50 MPa
2·0 2·0
Es 5 100 MPa
1·5 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·8 1·8
1·6 1·6
1·4 1·4
1·2 1·2
Shear: MN

Shear: MN
1·0 1·0
0·8 0·8
0·6 0·6
0·4 0·4
0·2 0·2
0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·008 0·008

0·007 0·007

0·006 0·006
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·005 0·005

0·004 0·004

0·003 0·003

0·002 0·002

0·001 0·001

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Design charts for FS ¼ 2, L ¼ 30 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

maximum moment that they obtained from a finite element
analysis for a fixed-head pile was about 3 MN m. The values
obtained by the charts are between 2.5 and 5 MN m depending
on the soil stiffness. The two cases, of course, are not strictly
comparable, but this comparison shows that at least the order
of magnitude of the results is similar.
3.2. Example
The following example shows how the charts may be used.
A 10 m long concrete pile is embedded in a clay soil with an
average undrained shear strength cu equal to 50 kPa. The
diameter of the pile is 0.3 m and it carries an axial load of
250 kN. What will be the likely moment and shear developed in
the pile during an earthquake with a highest bedrock
acceleration of 0.2g?
A cu of 50 kPa is approximately equivalent to an Es of 50 MPa,
assuming a ratio Es /cu of 1000 for relatively small pile and soil
movements. The ultimate axial load capacity of the pile
obtained from conventional calculations 19 is about 500 kN, so
that the factor of safety for the axial force of 250 kN is about
2. For a concrete pile the modulus value can be taken as
30 000 MPa. For these data, Fig. 4 may be used to estimate the
moment, which is 0.07 MN m. The maximum shear obtained is
0.09 MN. These values are for a maximum bedrock acceleration
of 0.1g, and they may be doubled for a maximum bedrock
acceleration of 0.2g as the analysis is assumed elastic. The
required answers are thus: maximum moment ¼ 0.14 MN m,
maximum shear ¼ 0.18 MN.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has summarised a time domain method for
analysing the response of a single pile to earthquake-induced

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 93
 3·0 3·0

2·5 2·5
Es 5 25 MPa
2·0 2·0
Moment: MN m

Moment: MN m
Es 5 50 MPa

1·5 Es 5 100 MPa 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·4 1·4

1·2 1·2

1·0 1·0

Shear: MN
Shear: MN

0·8 0·8

0·6 0·6

0·4 0·4

0·2 0·2

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·0040 0·0040

0·0035 0·0035

0·0030 0·0030
Maximum relative

Maximum relative
displacement: m

displacement: m

0·0025 0·0025

0·0020 0·0020

0·0015 0·0015
0·0010 0·0010

0·0005 0·0005

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Design charts for FS ¼ 2.5, L ¼ 30 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

lateral ground movements. Using this method, a series of
design charts has been developed to enable estimation of the
maximum bending moment and shear in a fixed-head pile
within a homogeneous soil. These have been derived by taking
the maximum values derived from analyses of a number of
North American and Australian earthquake records, for a peak
bedrock acceleration of 0.1g. Because the analysis is elastic, the
pile responses can be scaled according to the actual peak
bedrock acceleration.
It is emphasised that results presented herein assume purely
elastic pile–soil interaction and purely elastic pile behaviour.
The only element of non-linearity is in the calculation of the
free-field soil movements, which involve an analysis in which
the soil modulus is strain dependent. Caution should therefore
be exercised in extrapolating the results to cases in which the
bedrock acceleration is significantly greater than 0.1g. If
inertial effects are predominant, then linear extrapolation of
the results for 0.1g bedrock acceleration will tend to
underestimate the pile shear forces and bending moments.
However, if kinematic effects dominate, then linear
extrapolation of the results may be conservative and
overestimate pile shears and moments. As mentioned in the
introduction, the main purpose of the design charts is to give a
preliminary indication of the general order of magnitude of
pile response to earthquake excitation, Should these charts
indicate the likelihood of large shears and moments, then it
may be necessary to carry out more detailed analyses in which
non-linearity of soil behaviour, pile behaviour and pile–soil
response are taken into account.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was carried out with the
support of a grant from the Australian Research Council and a

94 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos
 2·5 2·5

2·0 2·0
Es 5 25 MPa

Moment: MN m
Moment: MN m

1·5 Es 5 50 MPa 1·5

Es 5 100 MPa
1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

1·5 1·5

1·3 1·3

1·1 1·1

0·9 0·9
Shear: MN

Shear: MN
0·7 0·7

0·5 0·5

0·3 0·3

0·1 0·1

20·1 20·1
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m

0·0030 0·0030

0·0025 0·0025
Maximum relative
Maximum relative

displacement: m
displacement: m

0·0020 0·0020

0·0015 0·0015

0·0010 0·0010

0·0005 0·0005

0 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
d: m d: m
(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Design charts for FS ¼ 3, L ¼ 30 m: (a) Ep ¼ 10 000 MPa; (b) Ep ¼ 30 000 MPa

scholarship from Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Higher
Education.
REFERENCES
1. KAYNIA A. M. and KAUSEL E. Dynamic behaviour of pile
groups. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, TX, 1982,
pp. 509–532.
2. SEN R., DAVIES T. G. and BANERJEE P. K. Dynamic analysis
of piles and pile groups embedded in homogeneous soils.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1985,
13, No. 1, 53–65.
3. MAMOON S. M. Dynamic and Seismic Behavior of Deep
Foundations. PhD thesis, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 1990.
4. TABESH A. and POULOS H. G. Pseudostatic approach for
seismic analysis of single piles. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2001, 127, No. 9,
757–765.
5. NOVAK M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1974, 11, No. 4, 574–598.
6. FINN W. D. L., THAVARAJ T., WILSON D. W., BOULANGER R. W.
and KUTTER B. Seismic analysis of piles and pile groups in
liquefiable sand. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Symposium on Numercial Methods in Geomechanics, Graz,
1999, pp. 287–292.
7. FINN W. D. L. and THAVARAJ T. Deep foundations in
liquefiable soils: case histories, centrifuge tests and
methods of analysis. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, 2001
(CD-ROM).
8. NIKOLAOU S., MYLONAKIS G., GAZETAS G. and TAZOH T.
Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and
measurements. Géotechnique, 2001, 51, No. 5, 425–440.

Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos 95
 9. TABESH A. and POULOS H. G. The effects of soil yielding on
seismic response of single piles. Soils and Foundations,
2001, 41, No. 3, 1–16.
10. LIYANAPATHIRANA D. S. and POULOS H. G. Seismic lateral
response of piles in liquefying soil. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Enineering, ASCE, 2005, 131, No.
12, 1466–1479.
11. FINN W. D. L. and FUJITA N. Seismic response of large
diameter cast in place concrete piles in layered liquefiable
soils. In Proceedings of the 8th US–Japan Workshop on
Earthquake Resistant Design and Lifetime Facilities and
Counter Measures Against Liquefaction, (BARDET J. P.,
HAMADA M. and O’ROURKE T. D. (eds)). Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering, University at Buffalo,
NY, USA, 2002.
12. MINDLIN R. D. Force at a point in the interior of a semi
infinite solid. Physics, 1936, 7, 195–202.
13. TABESH A. Lateral Seismic Analysis of Piles. PhD thesis,
University of Sydney, Australia, 1997.
14. PENZIEN J. Soil-pile foundation interaction. In Earthquake
Engineering (WIEGEL R. L. (ed.)). Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1970.
15. BERGER E., LYSMER J. and SEED H. B. ALUSH, a Computer
Program for Seismic Response of Axisymetric Soil-
Structure Systems. EERC, University of California,
Berkeley, 1975, Report No. 75-31.
16. GAZETAS G. and DOBRY R. Horizontal response of piles in
layered soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
1984, 110, No. 1, 20–39.
17. KAYNIA A. M. Dynamic interaction of single piles under
lateral and seismic loads. Esteghlal Journal of Engineering,
1988, No. 6, 5–26 (in Persian).
18. WU G. and FINN W. D. L. Dynamic nonlinear analysis of
pile foundations using the finite element method in the
time domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1997, 34,
No. 1, 144–152.
19. POULOS H. G. and DAVIS E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

96 Geotechnical Engineering 160 Issue GE2 Design charts for seismic analysis of single piles in clay Tabesh • Poulos