Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 169 Issue GE2 Geotechnical Engineering 169 April 2016 Issue GE2
Pages 129–138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.15.00025
DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an Paper 1500025
Received 05/02/2015 Accepted 08/10/2015
oil tank in Iraq
Published online 05/02/2016
Kumar and Choudhury Keywords: dynamics/geotechnical engineering/piles & piling

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

DSSI analysis of pile

foundations for an oil tank
in Iraq
Ashutosh Kumar MTech Deepankar Choudhury PhD
PhD Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India; Adjunct Professor, Academy of Scientific
and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi, India (corresponding author:
dc@civil.iitb.ac.in)

Seismic analysis and design of pile foundations in weak soil strata to support oil tanks are of great importance to
geotechnical practitioners. This paper presents an actual field study and dynamic soil–structure interaction (DSSI)
analysis for an oil tank foundation design in weak soil strata for the Kafza site in Iraq, which is located in a seismically
active region. For the particular in situ soil profile, a pile group foundation is proposed comprising a 24·1 m dia. by
1·5 m thick pile cap connecting together 89 piles, each pile being 800 mm in diameter and 26 m long. The foundation
system was modelled using the finite-difference-based geotechnical program Flac3D to carry out detailed DSSI
analysis. Field pile load test data for a static analysis were used for validation of the Flac3D model. The outcome of a
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment was used to estimate target input motions resulting in maximum bending
moments of 114 kN.m and maximum settlement of 21·9 mm for piles under dynamic conditions. The results obtained,
comprising total and differential settlements and bending moments, were used for the final design of the proposed
pile foundation and can be used for similar practical applications.

Notation 1. Introduction
Ap , A s base and surface areas of the pile Oil-storage tanks are important components of lifeline and
c cohesion at pile tip industrial facilities and are generally used at power plants, refi-
ci average cohesion of ith layer neries, airports and other places of national importance. In
E modulus of elasticity addition, a high percentage of these storage tanks are located
fck characteristic strength of concrete in seismically prone areas and hence are vulnerable to failure
G shear modulus in an earthquake event. Damage associated with such failures
Ki coefficient of earth pressure at ith layer is catastrophic, causing huge losses of both lives and property.
Kn , K s normal and shear stiffness at pile interface The seismic design of oil storage tanks is thus of paramount
L length of pile importance. During an earthquake event, failure modes such
Ms secant modulus as elephant’s foot buckling and excessive foundation settlement
N60 standard penetration test (SPT)-N value corrected are encountered in the piled foundations near the base of a
for 60% energy tank. These failures can be attributed to an increase in com-
Nc, Nq bearing capacity factors pressive load on the tank walls, excessive sloshing of the tank
PD effective overburden pressure at pile tip fluid and liquefaction of the underlying subsoil. Examples
PDi effective overburden pressure for ith layer include the 1964 Niigata, 1964 Alaska, 1971 San Fernando
Qu ultimate capacity of pile and 1999 Kocaeli earthquakes in which huge losses were
S factor defined in Equation 3 experienced when storage tanks containing combustible
αi adhesion factor for layer i materials failed, leading to extensive uncontrolled fires. With
γ shear strain amplitude the enormous extent of damage, earthquake engineers were
γp′ effective unit weight of pile compelled to incorporate the influence of seismic forces in the
ΔL spatial element size analysis and design of oil storage tanks located in seismically
Δεvd volumetric decrease vulnerable areas.
δ soil–pile friction angle
λ wavelength Local soil conditions, topography and characteristics of the
μ Poisson’s ratio earthquake input motion often dictate the selection of foun-
ϕ friction angle dation systems in seismically active areas. When the shallow

129
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
soil strata at a particular site have low bearing capacity and are
located in a seismically vulnerable region, which is the case for
the Khor Al Zubair port (Kafza) site in Iraq, a pile foundation
is the preferred choice of foundation for oil tanks. The behav-
iour of pile foundations under the impact of seismic forces can
be characterised as a complex soil–structure interaction, which
has additional significant impact if the piles pass through soil
that can experience liquefaction or cyclic mobility. In such
cases, liquefaction-induced lateral ground spreading is an
important factor in failures of pile foundations in liquefaction-
prone areas (Abdoun and Dobry, 2002; Abdoun et al., 2003;
Ishihara, 1997; Phanikanth et al., 2013; Tokimatsu et al.,
1998). However, Bhattacharya (2003), Dash et al. (2010) and
Chatterjee et al. (2015) identified buckling instability as
another possible failure mechanism, especially when piles are
subjected to vertical load combined with a lateral load on the
pile head. Various researchers have studied and analysed the
behaviour of pile foundations in liquefiable soil using exper-
imental, analytical and numerical procedures. Bhattacharya
et al. (2004) proposed an alternative mechanism based on pile
buckling for predicting the failure of piles in liquefiable soil
deposits during an earthquake. It is clear that analysis of such
foundations for oil tanks to ensure safety in seismically active
regions is a major concern for geotechnical practitioners.
In the work reported here, a dynamic soil–structure interaction
(DSSI) analysis was carried out in order to understand the be-
haviour of an oil tank foundation under static and seismic
loading conditions using the finite-difference based computer
program Flac3D (ICG, 2009). The analyses were based on the
results of a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA)
and geotechnical investigations of the Kafza site in Iraq.
2. Site location
The site is located approximately 40 km south of Basrah in the
free trade zone at Kafza in Iraq (latitude 47°92′94″N and
longitude 30°03′42″E). Kafza is Iraq’s third largest port in
terms of size and goods shipped to the port of Basrah. SKA
Energy planned to build a fuel oil storage tank capable of
storing and distributing 20 000 t of fuel. The oil tank foun-
dation has to be constructed in the terminal plots 2–3–4 next
to existing plot 1 near Um Qasr port on a tributary of
the Shatt-el-Arab River in South Iraq, as shown in Figure 1.
The site is located on the Arabian tectonic plate, which is
subducted below the Eurasian plate, resulting in the
formation of the Zagros mountain range in Iran (Agard et al.,
2011). The thickness of the earth’s crust is about 45 km in the
region.
3. Local site conditions and geotechnical
properties at SKA terminal
Local soil at the site comprises four layers and the ground-
water table is located at a depth of 2·5 m below existing
ground level. The in situ soil includes a 2 m deep fine to
medium calcareous silica sand fill having a standard
130
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury
penetration test (SPT)-N60 value of 48 overlying very soft to
soft clay with intermediate to high plasticity (plasticity index
of 15–30%) and an SPT-N60 value varying from 2–7, up to
20 m depth. This is followed by a 4 m thick very stiff thinly
bedded clay layer with an SPT-N60 value of 49 and then, at
greater depth, a dense to very dense sand layer.
4. Loading details of the oil tank
foundation
For the 15 m high and 23·15 m dia. oil tank, a pile foundation
was considered suitable for the ground conditions. The loading
details are shown in Table 1.
5. Static design of the pile foundation
The static design of the pile foundation was carried out as per
IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 4) (BIS, 2010). Shaft resistance for the fill
layer was ignored and negative skin friction (down-drag) was
considered for the soft clay layer. Through an iterative pro-
cedure, a pile of length 26 m and diameter 800 mm was
obtained. The factored ultimate vertical load carrying capacity
of each pile was found to be 2052 kN considering shaft resist-
ance for the remaining two layers and end bearing, as per the
expression for ultimate bearing capacity
X
Qu ¼ ½ðαi ci þ Ki PDi tan δÞAs
þ ðcNc þ PD Nq ÞAp
1:
 Ap Lγ′p
in which Qu is the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile, αi is
the adhesion factor for the ith layer, δ is the soil–pile friction
angle, ci is the average cohesion of the ith layer, c is the cohe-
sion at the pile tip, Ki is the coefficient of earth pressure at the
ith layer, PDi is the effective overburden pressure for the ith
layer, PD is the effective overburden pressure at the pile tip, γp′
is the effective unit weight of pile, L is the length of the pile,
Ap and As are the base and surface areas of the pile, respect-
ively, and Nc and Nq are bearing capacity factors.
A group interaction factor of 0·65 was selected on the basis of
the degree of soil homogeneity, the slenderness ratio and pile
spacing as per Randolph and Wroth (1979). Thus, a factored
ultimate load of 1333 kN was obtained. Considering the
importance of the structure, moments induced due to wind
loading and the seismic vulnerability of the Kafza region, the
ultimate load was further reduced by 50% (a safety factor of
2·0). Thus, a net allowable load of 665 kN was assumed for the
pile foundation, and this was the deciding factor in determining
the numbers of piles required to support the tank.
6. Numerical modelling of in situ soil
and pile
The in-field condition of the oil tank foundation was simulated
using Flac3D:4·0 (ICG, 2009), which is a three-dimensional
explicit-finite-difference-based computer program performing
Lagrangian analyses for engineering mechanics computations.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

47°52’58·8”E 47°53’2·4”E

30°10’55·2”N

30°10’55·2”N
N

4
Plot 2
1m
29 68

30°10’51·6”N

30°10’51·6”N
Warehouse
Mets
Plot 2 Plot 3
12 000 m2 16 000 m2
Plot 1
2
8m
20 05

47°52’58·8”E 47°53’2·4”E

on
ati
oc
el
Sit

Figure 1. Location of SKA oil tank terminal site in Iraq

boundaries and the size of the brick elements, which helps to

Description
Total empty weight: kN
Operating weight: kN
Hydrotest weight: kN
Shear wind: kN
Moment wind: kN.m
Table 1. Loading details for oil tank foundation in Iraq
Eight-noded brick elements, available in the standard library of
Flac3D, were used to model the soil. A conventional constitu-
tive soil model based on a Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion
was chosen. Standard fixities were assigned, wherein the sides
were restricted to move laterally and the base was restrained in
all directions. To avoid undesirable boundary effects, the lateral
dimensions of the soil model were kept about four times the
radius of the pile cap from its periphery. A mesh optimisation
study was carried out to determine the extents of the model
reduce computational effort. The soil model (120 m long,
120 m wide and 60 m deep) was created using the radial brick
1400
option embedded in Flac3D, as shown in Figure 2. A 1 m
51 000
wide zone adjacent to the foundation footprint was used to
62 000
model the soil–pile interaction. Selection of the width of this
160
zone was based on convergence of the results, simulations of
1200
the field load tests and ease of numerical computation. The in
situ soil was modelled in four layers and the geotechnical prop-
erties of each layer are given in Table 2. A sensitivity analysis
was carried out to select the appropriate stiffness parameter
for each soil layer.
The piles were modelled as structural elements with six degrees
of freedom per node, with each pile having 26 nodal elements.
A pile was modelled in such a way that it could take load
through shaft resistance as well as end bearing. The skin
fiction component was modelled by placing shear and normal
coupling springs at the pile–grid interface, the properties of
which are a function of spring stiffness, exposed perimeter,

131
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

Silica sand (0–2 m)

Soft clay (2–20 m)
Stiff clay (20–24 m)
Dense sand (24–60 m)

60 m
12
0m

Z m
Y 120
X

Figure 2. Three-dimensional view of pile layout, soil layers

(shown, top to bottom, in the same order as in the key) and pile
group model in Flac3D

Layer Depth: m Soil type Soil unit weight: Cohesion: Friction angle, ϕ: Modulus Poisson’s Permeability:
γ, kN/m3 c, kPa degrees of elasticity, ratio, μ m/s
E: kPa

1 0–2 Dense sand 17·6 0 30 50 000 0·30 4·37  10−4

2 2–20 Very soft clay 16·7 10 0 10 000 0·49 1·26  10−9
3 20–24 Stiff clay 16·7 250 0 70 000 0·35 2·21  10−10
4 24–60 Very dense sand 18·6 0 35 60 000 0·30 6·95  10−5

Table 2. Input soil parameters in Flac3D chosen from experimen-

tal results for the pile design

interface cohesion and friction angle. The cohesion and friction at the interfaces were calculated as per Timoshenko and
angle at the interface was taken as per IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 4) Goodier (2002). To include end bearing effects between the
(BIS, 2010). The normal stiffness (Kn) and shear stiffness (Ks) pile tip and the soil grid below the pile, a normal yield spring

132
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

Material Concrete grade Young’s modulus: kPaa Poisson’s ratio, ν Diameter: m Length or
thickness: m

Pile M35 29 500 000 0·15 0·8 26

Pile cap M35 29 500 000 0·15 24·1 1·5

a
= 5000( fck)1/2, as per IS 456 (BIS, 2000)

Table 3. Input parameters chosen in Flac3D for modelling pile

and pile cap

in the axial direction was defined and attachment conditions Vertical load: kN
were set. The compressive strength of the spring was equal to 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
the end bearing resistance of the pile, calculated as per IS 2911 0
(Part 1/Sec 4) (BIS, 2010). The pile cap was modelled with Field results
2
shell elements, which are triangles of uniform thickness lying Flac3D results
between three nodal points. Each pile and shell element 4
Vertical settlement: mm

behaves as a linearly elastic material. The properties of the pile

6
cap and the piles are shown in Table 3.
8
Before installing piles in the soil model, a static gravity analysis
10
was performed to establish the in situ ground stresses.
Geostatic stresses corresponding to the initial conditions were 12
calculated by hand to be 1094 kPa at the bottom and 0 kPa at
top, which were in close agreement with the values computed 14
by Flac3D. 16

6.1 Time step 18

Convergence of the results in Flac3D depends on the incre-
mental time step and the related equilibrium error. The latter
is defined as the ratio of the maximum unbalanced force for all
grid points in the model to the average applied force for all the
grid points. For the convergence of numerical problems, it is
necessary to integrate the governing equation with time in an
incremental manner. The time step of the solution should be
sufficiently small for accurate simulation of the dynamic load.
In the present analysis, the model time step was 10−6 s.
7. Field pile load tests and validation of the
Flac3D model
A vertical pile load test as per ASTM D 1143-81 (ASTM,
1995a) and a lateral pile load test as per ASTM D 3966-90
(ASTM, 1995b) were conducted on bored piles of diameter
800 mm and length 26 m using test loads of 3000 kN and
180 kN, respectively. The test loads were chosen based on the
estimated ultimate capacity of the pile. In the tests, the pile
settled by a maximum of 15·78 mm and the maximum lateral
displacement was 0·91 mm in the lateral load test. For vali-
dation of the developed numerical model, back analysis in
Flac3D was carried out to simulate the test results. A single
fixed-headed pile was modelled and loading similar to the field
conditions was applied. Figure 3 shows that the pile was calcu-
lated to settle by a maximum of 14·61 mm, which is in good
Figure 3. Pile load test results obtained in field and in Flac3D:
compression pile load
agreement with the actual field measured value. Figure 4
shows the lateral load–displacement curve obtained in the field
and simulated in Flac3D. The tests results and the pattern
obtained numerically are in good agreement with the field test
results and this can therefore be considered as validation of the
present numerical model for the pile and thus the same model
can be adopted for further analyses.
Figure 5 shows the bending moment response along the pile
length with an increase in lateral load. It can be observed that
there is a sharp decrease in bending moment with change in
soil stratification from dense to soft and then to stiff clay. This
shows the dependency of the pile bending moment on the stiff-
ness of the soil.
8. Modelling of the pile group foundation
Based on the load required to be supported and the geotechni-
cal properties of the soil, a pile group consisting of 89 piles,
each 800 mm in diameter and 26 m long, arranged in five
rings was designed for the oil tank foundation. A circular pile

133
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

Lateral load: kN The loads given in Table 1 were considered and the piles were
0 50 100 150 200 ‘wished’ in place.
0

0·1 8.1 Results for static loading conditions in Flac3D

An axisymmetric view of the Z-displacement contour of the
0·2
pile group under static loading is shown in Figure 6.
Lateral displacement: mm

0·3 A maximum displacement of 23·3 mm can be observed at the

centre of the foundation while 16·3 mm displacement is
0·4
observed near the periphery, giving 7 mm of differential settle-
0·5 ment. The rotational displacement from the centre to the edge
Δ/L = 7/12 050 = 5·81  10−4, which is less than the permissible
0·6
limit for storage tanks of < 1/300 (Bowles, 1997). A stress con-
0·7 Field test results centration is shown near the tip of the piles, which may be due
Flac3D results to the modelling of the pile as end bearing. The axial load at
0·8
the pile head varies from a maximum of 697 kN to a
0·9 minimum of 478 kN. This variation may be due to the increase
in the confinement effect and the pile–soil interaction from the
1·0
periphery to the centre of the pile cap.
Figure 4. Pile load test results obtained in field and in Flac3D:
lateral pile load 9. Modelling the dynamic soil–structure
interaction (DSSI)
The dynamic option in Flac3D permits analysis of soil–
structure interaction brought about by ground shaking. It
Bending moment: kN.m involves the use of dynamic soil parameters such as modulus
0 20 40 60 80 100 reduction curves and damping ratio with an optional form of
0 damping called hysteretic damping that incorporates the
damping ratio and secant modulus as a function of cyclic
shear strain. The pore pressure, which builds up during
5 dynamic loading, is also captured using the Finn model
(Byrne, 1991) based on the resistance of a soil mass subjected
to volumetric straining. A generated acceleration–time history
10 for the site was used as an input at the base of the soil model
for both cases involving the absence and the presence of the
Pile length: m

foundation system. A free-field ground response analysis was

15
Lateral load
30 kN
20
25
30
Figure 5. Bending moment variations along the pile length
cap of 24·1 m diameter and 1·5 m depth was also provided.
The characteristic strength of the pile and pile cap concrete
was chosen to be 35 N/mm2. As shown in Figure 2, pile 89
was the central pile, with the first ring comprising piles 25, 47,
69 and 88. Figure 2 also details the other rings and an overall
representation of the modelled pile group with the pile cap.
carried out to check the cyclic mobility of the in situ soil.
Further analysis was then carried out with the foundation in
position and its response in terms of pile settlement, axial load
60 kN and bending moment is reported.
100 kN
120 kN 9.1 Input acceleration–time history
150 kN The uniform hazard response spectrum (UHRS) for an earth-
180 kN quake return period of 2475 years (maximum credible earth-
quake (MCE)) was chosen as the target response spectrum
based on the results of the PSHA. PSHA uses a homogeneous
Poisson process by considering seismic zoning, earthquake
recurrence and ground motion attenuation. A synthetic earth-
quake acceleration–time history for the MCE was developed
by using the wavelet-based time domain modification program
RspMatchETD (Ordonez, 2012). Based on fault type, fault
length and peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the considered
site, a seed accelerogram from the 1994 Northridge earthquake
was selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center database (PEER, 2010). The target response
spectrum at bedrock level and the seed accelerogram were then
used to develop the acceleration–time history to be used as the

134
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

Contour of Z-displacement: m
–3·3626 × 10–4
0·0000
2·0000 × 10–3
4·0000 × 10–3
6·0000 × 10–3
8·0000 × 10–3
1·0000 × 10–2
1·2000 × 10–2
1·4000 × 10–2
1·6000 × 10–2
1·8000 × 10–2
2·0000 × 10–2
2·2000 × 10–2
2·3388 × 10–2

Z
Y
X

Figure 6. Axisymmetric view of Z-displacement (in m) contour

obtained in Flac3D, showing displacement increasing towards
the centre

input motion in Flac3D. A similar procedure for obtaining 1·1

proper input acceleration for a specific site was adopted by
1·0
Desai and Choudhury (2015). The duration and PGA of the
developed earthquake motion were 54 s and 0·15g, 0·9
respectively. 0·8
0·7
9.2 Dynamic soil properties 0·6
G/Gmax

Material damping in soil is generally caused by its viscous

0·5 Flac3D input (depth 0–2 m)
properties (i.e. friction and development of plasticity). The role
0·4 Seed and idriss (1970) (depth 0–2 m)
of damping in a numerical model is to incorporate energy
Flac3D input (depth 2–24 m)
losses in a natural system when subjected to seismic load. The 0·3 Sun et al. (1988) (plasticity index 20–40%),
default hysteretic damping was developed from the S-shaped (depth 2–24 m)
0·2
curve of secant shear modulus versus logarithm of cyclic shear Flac3D input (depth 24–60 m)
strain, which can be represented by a cubic equation with zero 0·1 EPRI (1993) (depth 24–60 m)

slope at both low and high strain. Thus, the secant shear 0
modulus Ms is given by 0·0001 0·001 0·01 0·1 1
Cyclic shear strain: %

2: Ms ¼ S 2 ð3  2SÞ 0S1
Figure 7. Modulus reduction curves chosen for soil models at
different depths in Flac3D
and

L2  L
3: S¼
L2  L1
The parameters L1 and L2 are extreme values of logarithmic
shear strain (log10 γ) – that is, values at which the tangent of
the slope becomes zero. Thus, setting L1 = − 3 and L2 = 1
means that the S-shaped curve will extend from a lower cyclic
shear strain of 0·001% (10−3) to an upper cyclic strain of 10%
(101). Based on these formulations, numerical fits were chosen
for the input parameters in Flac3D and fitted curves for
dynamic soil properties were obtained, as shown in Figure 7.
9.3 Soil constitutive model for dynamic modelling
Flac3D contains a built-in constitutive model, called the Finn
model (Byrne, 1991), which incorporates the formula of Byrne
(1991) into the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model formula for
volumetric straining under the application of cyclic loading in
saturated conditions in which all soil layers are considered to
be undrained. This model captures the basic mechanism that
can lead to liquefaction and cyclic mobility in sand and clay
like materials, respectively. The empirical relation shown in
Equation 4 (Byrne, 1991) associates the increment of volume

135
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
Volume 169 Issue GE2 oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury

decrease Δεvd with the cyclic shear-strain amplitude γ 9.6 Free-field analysis of soil model
The soil model was analysed under the chosen acceleration–


Δεvd εvd time history, which was applied at its base in order to capture
4: ¼ C1 exp C2
γ γ the response of soil under cyclic mobility in the absence of the
foundation. The pore water pressure ratios at different depths
in the clay layer (i.e. 5 m, 10 m and 15 m below the normal
in which
ground level) were obtained. It was found that the soil at 5 m
5: C1 ¼ 05C1c depth had a pore water pressure ratio of 0·85 at the end of the
54 s long input earthquake motion. This value being fairly
close to 1 (pore pressure ratio = 1) means full cyclic mobility
was achieved and this suggests that the soil may experience
moderate cyclic mobility at shallow depth. At depths of 10 m
6: C1c ¼ 87ðN60 Þ125
and 15 m from the normal ground level, the pore pressure
ratios were 0·65 and 0·55, respectively, decreasing with an
increase in depth. This result suggests that the soil is safe
7: C2 ¼ C2c against cyclic mobility for the chosen acceleration–time history
at depths greater than 5 m.

9.7 Results of dynamic analysis of pile group

8: C2c ¼ 04=C1c
The values of (C1, C2) for layers 1 to 4 were estimated as
(0·03, 5·80), (0·76, 0·26), (0·03, 6·11) and (0·03, 5·96)
respectively.
9.4 Element size used in present study
To avoid numerical distortion of propagating waves in the
dynamic analysis, the spatial element size (ΔL) must be smaller
than one tenth of the wavelength (λ) associated with the
highest frequency component of the input wave (Kuhlemeyer
and Lysmer, 1973)
foundation
Vertical dynamic settlement at the centre of the pile cap was
found to be 21·9 mm; at the periphery, it was around
15·5 mm, giving a differential settlement of 6·4 mm. The
overall decrease in settlement compared with the static case
may be due to a strain-hardening effect in the soil under
dynamic loading. The rotational displacement from the centre
to the edge was 5·31  10−4, which is less than the permissible
limit and indicates that the performance of the pile cap would
be satisfactory. Figure 8 shows the axial force contour for the
pile group. A maximum axial load of 1690 kN was obtained

λ
9: ΔL 
10
Pile X-component force: N
Considering this criterion, the element size was considered –3·6267 × 105
–2·0000 × 105
small enough to allow seismic wave propagation in the present 0·0000
2·0000 × 105
study. 4·0000 × 105
6·0000 × 105
8·0000 × 105
1·0000 × 106
1·2000 × 106
9.5 Boundary conditions for dynamic analysis 1·4000 × 106
1·6000 × 106
Many geotechnical problems can be idealised by assuming that 1·6895 × 106

regions remote from the zone of interest extend to infinity. A

dynamic wave propagates in all directions. In order to model
an infinite medium, computer programs truncate the medium
to a finite size by using artificial boundaries. Flac3D provides
free-field conditions at the model boundaries in order to
prevent any undue reflections of the seismic waves. The lateral
boundaries of the main grid are coupled to the free-field grid
Z
by viscous dashpots. At the boundaries, the plane wave propa- Y
gating upwards suffers no distortion due to the presence of X
free-field conditions and this simulates the behaviour of wave
propagation in an infinite medium. The free-field condition Figure 8. Contours of axial force (in N) induced in piles under
consists of four plane free-field grid points on the side of the seismic loading
model and four column free-field grids at the corners.

136
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
at the periphery and loads reduce gradually from the edge to
the centre, with a minimum value of 619 kN at the centre. The
maximum bending moment observed at the head of the pile
was 114 kN.m.
10. Conclusions
Three-dimensional non-linear finite-difference analyses that
incorporate the dynamic soil–structure interaction of a pile
group for an oil tank foundation were carried out using
Flac3D. The accuracy of the developed numerical model was
ensured by comparing the model results with field pile load
test results – these validated the numerical model results both
qualitatively and quantitatively. For the free-field analysis, the
variation of pore water pressure ratio with depth below the
surface under the chosen input motion indicated the occur-
rence of partial cyclic mobility at shallow depth. Piles near the
periphery were subjected to maximum axial loads of 697 kN
and 1690 kN under static and seismic conditions, respectively.
It is to be noted that the factored ultimate load carrying
capacity of a single pile was 2052 kN. The pile group was sub-
jected to a maximum rotational displacement of 5·81  10−4,
which is lower than the permissible limit for oil storage tanks.
The axial loads and rotational displacements under static and
seismic conditions were below the permissible limits, indicating
satisfactory service performance.
This study highlights the importance of numerical modelling
techniques in understanding the behaviour of pile group foun-
dations involving complex soil–structure interactions under
static as well as dynamic loading conditions. The developed
model can be used for designing foundations for oil-storage
tanks under similar conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Dr Jaykumar Shukla and
Prof. D. L. Shah of University of Baroda, India for their con-
tributions to the static design of the pile group for this industry
project, funded by Chemie Tech. India Ltd.
REFERENCES
Abdoun T and Dobry R (2002) Evaluation of pile foundation
response to lateral spreading. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 22(9–12): 1051–1058.
Abdoun T, Dobry R, O’Rouke TD and Goh SH (2003) Pile
response to lateral spreads: centrifuge modeling. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE
129(10): 869–878.
Agard P, Omrani J, Jolivet L et al. (2011) Zagros orogeny: a
subduction-dominated process. Geological Magazine
148(5–6): 692–725.
ASTM (1995a) D 1143-81: Standard test method for pile under
axial compression load. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury
ASTM (1995b) D 3966-90: Standard test method for pile under
lateral load. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
Bhattacharya S (2003) Pile Instability During Earthquake
Liquefaction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG and Bolton MD (2004)
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable
soil deposit during earthquake. Géotechnique 54(3):
203–313.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2000) IS 456: Plain and
reinforced concrete – code of practice, 4th Revision.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
BIS (2010) IS 2911: Design and construction of pile
foundations – code of practice, 2nd revision. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Bowles JE (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Byrne P (1991) A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-
pressure model for sand. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
St. Louis, MO, USA, pp. 47–55.
Chatterjee K, Choudhury D and Poulos HG (2015) Seismic
analysis of laterally loaded pile under influence of vertical
loading using finite element method. Computers and
Geotechnics 67: 172–186.
Dash SR, Bhattacharya S and Blakeborough A (2010) Bending–
buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in
liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 30(1–2): 32–39.
Desai SS and Choudhury D (2015) Site-specific seismic ground
response study for nuclear power plants and ports in
Mumbai. Natural Hazards Review ASCE 16(4): 04015002.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) (1993). Guidelines for
site specific ground motions. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, TR-102293.
ICG (Itasca Consulting Group (2009) FLAC3D: Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua Version 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group,
Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Ishihara K (1997) Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe
earthquake: Terzaghi oration. Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 2047–2073.
Kuhlemeyer RL and Lysmer J (1973) Finite element
method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal
of Soil Mechanics & Foundations ASCE 99(SM5):
421–427.
Ordonez GA (2012) RspMatchETD – A Pre-Processor and
Post-Processor for RspMatch 2005 and RspMatch 2009.
Geomotions, LLC, Lacey, WA, USA.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center) (2010)
PEER Ground Motion Database. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA.
137
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
Phanikanth VS, Choudhury D and Reddy GR (2013) Behavior of
single pile in liquefied deposits during earthquakes.
International Journal of Geomechanics ASCE 13(4):
454–462.
Randolph MF and Wroth CP (1979) An analysis of the
vertical deformation of pile groups. Géotechnique 29(4):
423–439.
Seed HB and Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors
for dynamic response analysis. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California Berkeley,
Report No. EERC 70-10.
Sun JI, Golesorkhi R and Seed HB (1988). Dynamic moduli and
damping ratios for cohesive soils. Earthquake Engineering
138
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
DSSI analysis of pile foundations for an
oil tank in Iraq
Kumar and Choudhury
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
USA, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15.
Timoshenko SP and Goodier JN (2002) Theory of
Elasticity, 3rd edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Education,
Maidenhead, UK.
Tokimatsu K, Oh-oka H, Satake K, Shamoto Y and Asaka Y
(1998) Effects of lateral ground movements on failure
patterns of piles in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu
earthquake. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics III (Dakoulas P, Yegian M and Holtz RD
(eds)). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
USA, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75,
pp. 1175–1186.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.