Kinematic Bending Moments in Square Pile Groups

Francesca Dezi1 and Harry Poulos, Dist.M.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper describes kinematic seismic interaction analysis of square pile groups in homogeneous soil deposits, focusing on bend-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing moments induced by the transient motion. Analyses were performed by means of a three-dimensional (3D) numerical procedure able to
account for both pile–soil–pile interaction and radiation damping. The seismic motion was defined by an artificial accelerogram at the outcrop-
ping bedrock, and one-dimensional (1D) propagation analyses were performed to define the free-field motion within the deposits. An extensive
parametric study was conducted to determine the effects of different variables, such as the soil properties, the bedrock location, the number of
piles, and the pile spacing, on the dynamic response of pile-group foundations. Bending moments obtained from the analyses of the pile group,
both at the pile head and at the interface separating soil layers, were normalized with respect to the single-pile bending moments, allowing for
the proposal of a new design formula for the estimation of the kinematic bending moments in the most stressed pile of the group, starting from
the knowledge of the single-pile response. The proposed formula was used, in conjunction with some simplified approaches that allow estima-
tion of the single-pile response, to evaluate bending moments in the analyzed pile groups. The adequacy of the formula for design purposes is
demonstrated. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000747. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Design formulas; Kinematic bending moments; Pile groups; Pile–soil–pile interaction.

Introduction interaction. Such a procedure is based on the superposition principle

The seismic behavior of pile groups has been actively investigated
in recent years, focusing on the mechanisms of pile–soil–pile inter-
action (Gazetas et al. 1991; Gazetas et al. 1993; Mylonakis et al.
1997; Mylonakis and Gazetas 1999; Cairo et al. 2005; Padrón et al.
2007; Ghazavi et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2014), to evaluate seismic
actions induced in piles by the propagation of seismic waves and to
define design actions for pile-supported structures.
The response of pile foundations subjected to earthquake load-
ing is highly influenced not only by the movement of the superstruc-
ture (inducing inertial actions), but also of that of the adjacent soil
(kinematic interaction). Conventional design approaches generally
disregard kinematic interaction effects resulting from seismic-wave
propagation through the soil deposit and account only for inertial
forces arising from the oscillation of the superstructure. Although
stresses produced by inertial interaction may be the main cause of
damage at the pile head, the effects of the kinematic interaction may
induce severe damage at interfaces between soil layers character-
ized by different stiffnesses. The importance of soil–structure inter-
actions has been extensively recognized in modern seismic codes,
such as Eurocode 8 EN 1998-1 (CEN 2004), which recommend to
design foundations and superstructures to resist both inertial and ki-
nematic forces. One of the more versatile methods is that based on
the substructuring technique (Wolf 1985), on the basis of which ki-
nematic and inertial interaction effects may be approached inde-
pendently, separating the effects caused by kinematic and inertial
1
Assistant Professor, Università di San Marino, 47890 Repubblica di
San Marino, San Marino (corresponding author). E-mail: francesca.dezi@
unirsm.sm
2
Senior Consultant, Coffey Geotechnics, Level 19, Tower B, Citadel
Tower, 799 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, New South Wales 2067,
Australia. E-mail: harry_poulos@coffey.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 1, 2015; approved
on May 27, 2016; published online on August 8, 2016. Discussion period
open until January 8, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
that is for linear or linear-equivalent systems.
The dynamic response of pile-group foundations subjected to
earthquakes (kinematic interaction) is generally studied by means
of sophisticated models that are able to account for the pile–soil–
pile interaction, together with hysteretic and geometric damping.
Finite-element programs, in which both the soil and the piles are
modeled, are often adopted for this purpose but can result in time-
consuming analyses and are generally not popular among professio-
nal engineers with limited time and budgets.
With reference to single piles, many authors have tried to sim-
plify the problem, proposing simplified approaches and analytical
formulations for the estimation of kinematic stress resultants (e.g.,
among others, Basack and Sen 2013; Bradley et al. 2008; Di Laora
et al. 2013; De Sanctis et al. 2010; Sica et al. 2011; Carbonari et al.
2016), and very few field experiments on full-scale piles under
dynamic lateral loading are present in the literature (e.g., among
others, Dezi et al. 2012, 2013; Larosche et al. 2013; Abd Elaziz and
El Naggar 2015). Concerning dynamic investigation of pile groups,
an early theoretical analysis of pile–soil–pile interaction was con-
ducted by Wolf and Von Arx (1978), who solved the pile–soil–pile
interaction problem by means of the finite-element formulation in
cylindrical coordinates. Waas and Hartmann (1981) developed an
analogous approach to account for the pile–soil–pile interaction,
employing transmitting boundaries to reduce the solution costs.
Ettouney et al. (1983) presented a semianalytical solution in which
the pile group and the adjacent soil are discretized into horizontal
layers, whereas the soil within the pile group is accounted for by
means of an assemblage of frequency-dependent coupled reactions.
Kaynia and Kausel (1982) further improved the accuracy by consid-
ering cylindrical loads together with the consistent stiffness matrix
of layered media to account for the far field. They formulated the
concept of dynamic interaction factors as an extension of the exten-
sively adopted static interaction factors (Poulos 1971). In this
approach only two piles are considered at a time, and the group
properties are obtained by superposition. The dynamic response of
pile groups obtained from interaction factors was also presented by
Dobry and Gazetas (1988). More recently, Padrón et al. (2007)

© ASCE 04016066-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 presented a combined finite-element/boundary-element method,
Dezi et al. (2009) presented a finite-element approach in which pile–
soil–pile interaction and the radiation phenomena are taken into
account by means of elastodynamic Green’s functions, and Elahi et
al. (2010) presented a pseudostatic method for the estimation of the
maximum stress resultants in pile groups subjected to seismic
actions, starting from the free-field soil movements caused by the
earthquake.
It is important to point out that pile capacity may be influenced
by strain softening and degradation of soil strength and stiffness
during earthquakes. Therefore, in seismic areas, the design of piles
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
square pile groups. In this procedure, the problem equations are
expressed in the frequency domain, assuming as forces and dis-
placements the Fourier transforms of the respective time-domain
quantities. The equilibrium condition of the piles subjected to exter-
nal, interaction, and inertia forces is formulated in weak form by the
Lagrange-D’Alembert principle, and a numerical solution is obtained
using the finite-element method.
Analytical Model

should take in consideration not only soil–structure interaction A generic group of n piles with a circular cross section is eval-
effects (bending moments resulting from the kinematic and inertial uated in a right-handed reference system frame {0; x1, x2; z}, as
interaction), but also these aspects of real soil behavior. Pender can be seen from Figs. 1(a–d). The piles, with length L and diame-
(1995) presented a review of the main issues to be addressed in the ter d, are modeled through a Euler–Bernoulli beam embedded in a
design of foundations that may be subjected to earthquake loading multilayered soil profile, and the displacements, at a generic
and the various design analysis techniques available in the litera- depth z, are described in the frequency domain by the complex
ture, highlighting areas where further development is needed. A valued vector
useful set of design principles and advice for the seismic design of
foundations can be also found in EN 1998-1 (CEN 2004). uT ðv ; zÞ ¼ ½ uT1    uTl    uTn  (1)
This paper deals with kinematic bending moments resulting
from the soil deformations during seismic events and presents sim- whose subvectors ul(v ; z) are constituted by the displacement com-
plified formulas for the assessment of the maximum kinematic ponents of the lth pile along the directions x1, x2, and z.
bending moments in piles within square pile groups, starting from Strains of each pile, obtained by suitably deriving the displace-
the knowledge of bending moments on a fixed-head single pile. ments, can be grouped as
Formulas refer to both the pile head and the pile cross section at the
interface between different soil layers with high-impedance con- ~ T
DuT ðv ; zÞ ¼ ½ Du ~ T
   Du ~ T
   Du (2)
1 l n
trast. Correlation factors between bending moments arising in the
single pile and the group were obtained by fitting results of an where D ~ is the formal differential operator that, when applied to dis-
extensive parametric investigation in which different square pile
placement vector ul, gives the curvatures and overall normal strain
groups and different soil profiles were investigated. In particular,
of the lth pile according to
for each soil profile of the parametric investigation the procedure
proposed by Dezi et al. (2009) was used to perform the analyses,
2 
~ T ðv ; zÞ ¼ ∂ ul1  ∂ ul2 ∂ul3
2
considering different square pile groups and the fixed-head single Du l (3)
pile. Kinematic bending moments obtained from the single-pile ∂z2 ∂z2 ∂z
analyses were used to normalize moments for the groups, thus quan-
tifying the group effect for the specific soil profile. For the external forces acting all along the pile shaft, the resul-
tants of these forces can be grouped as

Dynamic Interaction Analysis of Pile-Group sT ðv ; zÞ ¼ ½ sT1    sTl    sTn  (4)

Foundations
When a seismic action induces the motion in Eq. (1) to the pile
This section briefly summarizes the numerical procedure proposed group, inertia forces v 2Mu(v ; z) develop that originate from the
by Dezi et al. (2009) used for the kinematic interaction analysis of mass M of the pile group.

Fig. 1. Soil–foundation system decomposition: (a) the global problem; (b) ground motion; (c) interaction forces in the soil; (d) interaction forces act-
ing on the foundation system

© ASCE 04016066-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 2 3
Considering a linear elastic behavior for piles, the bending ðxm  xl Þs1
lm ðym  yl Þs1
lm 0
moments and axial forces of each pile, grouped in the vector r, can Rlm 4
¼ ðyl  ym Þs1 ðxm  xl Þs1 05 (12)
lm lm
be calculated by 0 0 1
rðv ; zÞ ¼ KDuðv ; zÞ (5)
is a matrix that describes the geometry of the problem, where slm is
where K is the stiffness matrix of the pile group. the distance between the lth pile, of coordinates (xl, yl), and the mth
The following equilibrium condition can be obtained by equat- pile, of coordinates (xm, ym). Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7), the
ing external and internal works according to the Lagrange- following expression may be obtained:
D’Alembert principle: ^ v ; zÞsðv ; zÞ
uðv ; zÞ ¼ uff ðv ; zÞ  Dð (13)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ðL ðL
KDuðv ; zÞ  D^ ^ ðzÞdz
u ðzÞdz ¼ sðv ; zÞ  u and therefore the resultants of the forces acting all along the pile
0 0
shaft become

ðL sðv ; zÞ ¼ KS ðv ; zÞ½uðv ; zÞ  uff ðv ; zÞ (14)

þv 2
^ ðzÞdz 8^
Muðv ; zÞ  u u 6¼ 0 (6)
where KS is the soil impedance matrix and is defined as the inverse
0
^
of D.
By substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (6), the global equilibrium con-
Assuming that the soil behaves linearly and no gap develops at
dition may be derived as
the soil–pile interface, the pile and soil displacements are related by
the following compatibility relationship: ðL ðL ðL
ðL KDu  D^ ^ dz þ v 2 Mu  u
u dz ¼  KS u  u ^ dz
uðv ; zÞ ¼ uff ðv ; zÞ  Dðv ; z ; zÞsðv ; z Þd z (7) 0 0 0

0 ðL
^ dz 8^
þ KS uff  u u 6¼ 0 (15)
where the soil displacements at the pile locations are obtained by
0
superimposing the induced free-field displacements uff [Fig. 1(a)]
on those resulting from pile–soil–pile interaction [Fig. 1(b)]. The
kernel Dðv ; z ; zÞ is obtained by assembling submatrices Dlm(v ; z , z),
which include the elastodynamic Green’s functions. Once the Finite-Element Solution
Green’s functions are assigned, the pile–soil–pile dynamic interac-
Eq. (15) can be solved using the finite-element method and discre-
tion and the radiation phenomena are defined.
tizing the piles into E elements. By grouping the e-element nodal
A significant simplification can be introduced with the Baranov
displacements of the pile group in de and expressing the interpolat-
assumption; assuming the soil to be constituted by infinite inde-
ing polynomials in N, Eq. (15) can be written as
pendent horizontal layers, being d (z – z ), the Dirac’s delta function,
E ð E ð
the kernel assumes the following simplified form: Le Le
X X
^ e dz ¼ 
KðDNÞd  ðDNÞd
e ^ e dz
KS Nde  Nd
^ v ; zÞd ðz  z Þ
Dðv ; z ; zÞ ¼ Dð (8) e¼1 e¼1
0 0

^ lm are expressed by
Submatrices D E ð E ð
Le Le
X X
þv 2 ^ dz þ
MNde  Nd
e
^ dz 8d
KS uff  Nd ^ 6¼ 0
e e
^ lm ðv Þ ¼ RT Wlm ðv ÞRlm Dðv Þ
D (9) e¼1 e¼1
lm
0 0
(16)
where

Dðv Þ from which the following complex linear system of equations can
" # be derived:
kh ðv Þ  iv ch ðv Þ kh ðv Þ  iv ch ðv Þ kv ðv Þ  iv cv ðv Þ
¼ diag 2 ; ; ðKG  v 2 MG þ ZG Þ d ¼ f (17)
kh ðv Þ þ v 2 c2h ðv Þ kh2 ðv Þ þ v 2 c2h ðv Þ kv2 ðv Þ þ v 2 c2h ðv Þ
(10) where KG and MG represent the global stiffness and mass of the
piles; and ZG(v ) is the global impedance of the deposit. These
is the diagonal dynamic compliance matrix of the soil whose ele- matrixes are derived by considering the e-elements of all the piles.
ments are defined as the displacements of the point where a unit- The nodal displacements are grouped in vector d(v ), and the
amplitude harmonic load is applied (Makris and Gazetas 1992, actions caused by the free-field ground displacements are repre-
1993). The matrix RTlm Wlm Rlm describes the displacement attenu- sented by vector f (v ). A master node is assumed at the pile heads
ation between two points m and n within the layer, where to simulate the rigid cap connection. The nodal displacements of the
piles can be written as
Wij ðxÞ ¼ diag½w0 ðx; slm Þ; wp =2 ðx; slm Þ; wv ðx; slm Þ (11) 2 3
dF
is constituted by the attenuation functions (Dobry and Gazetas d ¼ A4  5 (18)
1988; Makris and Gazetas 1992) and dE

© ASCE 04016066-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 where A is the geometric matrix; and dF and dE are the displace- Model Effectiveness in Estimating Pile Kinematic
ments of the cap and the embedded piles, respectively. Considering Bending Moments
Eq. (18), Eq. (17) then becomes
The procedure just described was applied to calculate kinematic
2 32 3 2 3 bending moments in square pile groups after first performing a linear
ZFF jZFE dF fF
4 – – –j – – 54  5 ¼ 4  5 (19) one-dimensional (1D) site-response analysis to obtain the seismic
ZEF jZEE dE fE shaking along the piles. To validate this procedure, some results were
compared with those derived from a three-dimensional (3D) finite-
element model in which the soil domain was modeled as a parallele-
where piped having a 100  100 m square base and a depth of 30 m (Fig. 2)
2 3 with fixed restraints at the base. The mesh was suitably refined near
ZFF jZFE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 – – –j – – 5 ¼ AT ðKG  v 2 MG þ ZG ÞA the soil–bedrock interface and in the portion of soil around the piles.
(20)
The formation of gap along the soil–pile interfaces was excluded,
ZEF jZEE
and the behavior of the system was considered as linear elastic. The
seismic action (acting along the x1 direction) was defined at the out-
2 3 cropping bedrock and consisted of an artificial accelerogram match-
fF ing the Eurocode 8 Type 1 elastic response spectrum for Type A soil
4  5 ¼ AT f (21) (CEN 2004). The acceleration time history applied at the bedrock
fE level during dynamic analyses was then obtained by performing a lin-
ear deconvolution of the artificial accelerogram.
The system in Eq. (19) permits the dynamic analysis of the For the sake of brevity, only some of the results derived from the
whole soil–foundation system. By solving the system, the stress 3D finite-element model are described here and compared with those
resultants within each pile of the group may be evaluated by means achieved with the proposed procedure. In particular, the results for a
of 3  3 pile group having 24-m-long piles of diameter d = 1 m, embed-
ded in a two-layer soil profile (as shown in Fig. 2) are reported. Piles,
rðv ; zÞ ¼ KDNðzÞde ðv Þ (22) at a spacing of 3d, are assumed to behave linearly, with a Young’s
modulus Ep = 3  107 kPa and a mass density r p = 2.5 Mg/m3.
This approach can be adopted once the free-field displacements Furthermore, the single fixed-head pile is also considered.
along the depth of the soil deposit are known. The soil nonlinearity Envelopes of bending moments along the single pile and three
may be accounted for during both site response and kinematic inter- piles of the group are presented in Fig. 3.
action analysis by adopting an equivalent linear approach where the Results achieved with the procedure just described show good
soil properties (stiffness and damping) are chosen to be consistent agreement with those obtained by the refined 3D model. This quali-
with the effective level of shear strain induced by the seismic fies the procedure as reliable in estimating kinematic stress resul-
action. tants in piles. Thus, the case studies that follow were analyzed with

100 m 100 m
30 m

30 m

x3 x3
x2 x2
x1 x1
d=1m d=1m
Soil deposit
Vs = 100 m/s
Soil deposit ρ = 1.5 Mg/m3 Soil deposit
18 m

18 m
24 m

24 m

ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%

Bedrock Bedrock

Fig. 2. Refined 3D finite-element models

© ASCE 04016066-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 d=1m d=1m
-1600 M [kNm] 1600 -1600 M [kNm] 1600 -1600 M [kNm] 1600 -1600 M [kNm] 1600
0 0

6 6

12 12

18
z [m] 18

z [m]
3D solid model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dezi et al. 2009

30 30

Fig. 3. Comparison of kinematic bending moments

Vs
z z ρ z z Vs
ν = 0.4 ρ
ξ = 5% ν = 0.4
h
24 m ξ = 5%

bedrock

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Case study: (a) homogeneous soil profile; (b) two-layered soil deposit

the reported approach rather than the more advanced but also time-
Table 1. Deposit Parameters
consuming 3D finite-element method.
Parameter Value

Parametric Study Vs (m/s) 100, 200, 400

An extensive parametric investigation was conducted to investigate
the effects of kinematic interaction on bending moments in square
pile groups. Different square pile groups and different soil profiles
were investigated, considering both floating and end-bearing pile
groups.
The seismic action was defined at the outcropping rock by means
of artificial accelerograms, and the motion at the bedrock level
(within motion) was calculated, accounting for the deformability of
the above deposit. Next, a linear 1D site-response analysis was car-
ried out to define the free-field motion along the piles. The numeri-
cal approach presented in Dezi et al. (2009) was applied to investi-
gate the kinematic interaction phenomenon in square pile groups.
To guarantee convergence and to capture the propagation of waves
with a frequency up to 10 Hz, in the softest soil deposit, piles were
discretized into 1-m-long elements.
Analysis Cases
With reference to floating single piles and square pile groups, the ho-
mogeneous soil deposits depicted in Fig. 4(a) were considered, hav-
ing mass density r and shear wave velocity Vs as reported in Table 1
and Poisson’s and damping ratios  = 0.4 and j = 5%, respectively.
r (Mg/m3) 1.5, 1.7, 2.0
h (m) 6, 12, 18, 24
For the end-bearing single piles and square pile groups, the soil
profile was constituted by a superficial deposit, with thickness h,
mass density r , and a shear wave velocity Vs (Table 1), overlying
the seismic bedrock characterized by mass density r b = 2.5 Mg/m3
and shear wave velocity Vsb = 800 m/s [Fig. 4(b)]. The Poisson’s ra-
tio of the superficial deposit  was equal to that of the rock stratum
 b = 0.4. The deposit damping was assumed to be j = 5%, whereas
for the bedrock j b = 2.5% was assumed.
In all cases, piles were assumed to be 24 m long, with a diameter
d = 1 m, and characterized by Young’s modulus Ep = 30,000 N/mm2
and mass density r p = 2.5 Mg/m3. The pile length was considered
constant in all the analyses for theoretical convenience, even if this
implied that the pile embedment in bedrock was in some cases (h = 6
and 12 m) over the practical values. However, from previous investi-
gations, the effect of the embedment length on kinematic bending
moments was found to be not relevant for embedments greater than
3d (Dezi et al. 2010a). In the analysis, 2  2, 3  3, 4  4, and 5  5
pile groups characterized by three different pile spacing s were con-
sidered (s/d = 2, 3, 5), for a total number of 39 analyses for floating

© ASCE 04016066-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 piles and 117 analyses for end-bearing piles. This parametric investi-
gation accounted for a large number of possible two-layer soil
deposits, allowing the evaluation of pile bending moments for differ-
ent layer interface positions and soil properties.
Furthermore, some preliminarily analyses were conducted to
investigate the effect of soil nonlinearity on the seismic response of
the soil–foundation system and in particular on kinematic bending
moments.
Seismic Motion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The parametric investigation was developed by considering as seis-
mic action an artificial accelerogram matching the elastic response
spectrum Type 1 for ground Type A and peak ground acceleration
(PGA) = 0.25 g as suggested by EN 1998-1 (CEN 2004). This was
linearly deconvoluted to obtain the input motions at the bedrock
level for each soil deposit and then applied in one of the two princi-
pal directions of the pile groups. Fig. 5 shows, for all the investi-
gated deposits, the response spectra obtained at the bedrock level
starting from the outcrop motion. In each graph, related to soil
deposits with different shear wave velocity, the response spectra
reported were obtained by considering different values of thickness
h. As expected, deamplifications of the spectral acceleration values
were manifest with respect to the response spectra at the rock out-
crop in all the cases.
Preliminary Analyses of Effects of Soil Nonlinearity
In this section some preliminarily analyses conducted to investigate
the effect of soil nonlinearity on the seismic response of the soil–
foundation system, and in particular on kinematic bending moments,
are presented. The seismic action was defined at the outcropping
bedrock, as reported in the previous section, and then linearly decon-
voluted to obtain the input motion at the bedrock level.
A 1D linear-equivalent site-response analysis was performed to
obtain the free-field motions within the soil deposit corresponding
to the nodes of piles in the finite-element discretization.
The soil nonlinear behavior, namely, the decrease of the normal-
ized shear modulus and the increase of damping ratio with the shear
strain, was described by standard curves suggested by Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) for a plasticity index Ip = 30%.
Furthermore, soil–foundation interaction analyses were per-
formed by considering a reduced soil modulus in the definition of
the local impedance, along with the maximum shear strains
obtained by the local site-response analysis within the deposit (anal-
ogously to Basack and Dey 2012).
In particular, a 3  3 pile group with s/d = 3 and having 24-m-
long piles of diameter d = 1 m was considered. The investigated soil
0.7
h= 6 m
h = 12 m
Sa [g]
h = 18 m
h = 24 m
0.4
0.3 Rock outcrop
0.2
Vs = 400 m/s Vs = 200 m/s
0.1
ρ = 2.0 Mg/m³ ρ = 1.7 Mg/m³
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 T [s] 2.0 0.0 0.5
Fig. 5. Response spectra obtained by means of a 1D linear deconvolution for all the investigated soil profiles
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 04016066
deposits were characterized by a superficial soft layer having thick-
ness h = 12 m and shear wave velocity Vs = 100 and 200 m/s overly-
ing the seismic bedrock. Fig. 6 shows the envelopes of bending
moments along the single pile and three piles of the group in the
cases of linear and linear-equivalent soil behavior.
Results for bending moments obtained considering the nonlinear
soil behavior were greater than those obtained with linear soil
behavior, especially in the case of Vs = 100 m/s, where the maxi-
mum bending moment at the pile head was almost 40% higher for
both the single pile and piles of the group. At the deposit–bedrock
interface, the maximum bending moment from the nonlinear (linear-
equivalent) analysis was 80% greater for the single pile and 40%
for piles of the group. However, because soil nonlinearity affects
both the group and the single-pile responses, the relative effects
of soil nonlinearity on the normalized bending moments result
were mitigated, as shown in Tables 2–5. Accordingly, given the
many uncertainties that are present in all geotechnical predic-
tions, it appears adequate to adopt the normalized results (ratio of
group to single-pile behavior) from a linear analysis for practical
applications.
Results of the Parametric Study
General Observations
Piles were subjected to different bending moments depending on
their location within the group: edge piles were more stressed than
inner piles, and corner piles were generally the most stressed.
Fig. 7 shows the envelopes of the absolute bending moments
induced by kinematic interaction within the single fixed-head pile
and one corner pile of the investigated pile groups with s/d = 3.
Results obtained for each soil deposit considered in the parametric
analysis are illustrated in the graph. Because of the symmetric shape
in the pile cross section, the absolute values of the bending moments
may be reported without sensible loss of information. It can be
observed that, as already seen in previous applications, for end-
bearing piles, there was a clear peak in the proximity of the interface
separating soil layers, whereas the maximum bending moment for
floating piles was registered at the head of the piles. The value of
the bending moment at the interface separating soil layers (deforma-
ble soil and rigid bedrock) increased as the upper soil layer thick-
ness increased, whereas that at the pile head decreased. For low val-
ues of the upper soil layer thickness, the bending moment at the pile
head could assume values analogous to or even greater than those at
the interface separating soil layers, and the diagram shape presents
two peaks (one at the pile head and the other at the interface separat-
ing soil layers) instead of one (at the bedrock interface). It is impor-
tant to point out that kinematic bending moment values are greatly
dependent not only on the depth to bedrock but also on the
Rock outcrop Rock outcrop
Vs = 100 m/s
ρ = 1.5 Mg/m³
1.0 1.5 T [s] 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 T [s] 2.0
04016066-6 Int. J. Geomech.
 0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 1600
0
h = 24 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6
Vs = 200 m/s
ρ = 1.5 Mg/m³

12
Single
Pile 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pile 2
Pile 5
18

z [m]
Linear Non-linear
soil behavior soil behavior
24
0 M [kNm] 2600 0 M [kNm] 2600
0
h = 24 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6
Vs = 100 m/s
ρ = 1.5 Mg/m³

12

18
z [m]

Linear Non-linear
soil behavior soil behavior

Fig. 6. Envelopes of bending moments obtained accounting for the nonlinear soil behavior compared with those obtained with the linear soil
behavior

Table 2. Normalized Bending Moments at the Pile Head in the Case of Table 5. Normalized Bending Moments at the Bedrock Interface in the
Vs = 100 and 200 m/s for Linear Soil Behavior Case of Vs = 100 and 200 m/s for Nonlinear Soil Behavior

Parameter Pile 1 Pile 3 Pile 5 Parameter Pile 1 Pile 3 Pile 5

M/Msingle (Vs = 200 m/s) 1.12 1.11 1.09 M/Msingle (Vs = 200 m/s) 0.72 0.69 0.65
M/Msingle (Vs = 100 m/s) 1.12 1.06 1.01 M/Msingle (Vs = 100 m/s) 0.57 0.54 0.51

mechanical characteristics of the upper soil layer with respect to

that of the bedrock. In fact, in the cases of the upper soil layer char-
Table 3. Normalized Bending Moments at the Pile Head in the Case of
Vs = 100 and 200 m/s for Nonlinear Soil Behavior
acterized by Vs = 100 m/s and Vs = 200 m/s, the bending moment
values were much greater than those obtained for the upper soil
Parameter Pile 1 Pile 3 Pile 5 layer characterized by higher Vs.
M/Msingle (Vs = 200 m/s) 1.19 1.17 1.14
Effects of the Pile Number on the Kinematic Bending Moment
M/Msingle (Vs = 100 m/s) 1.10 1.07 1.15
In the case of end-bearing piles, the group effect on the maximum
bending moments is clearly evident in Fig. 7 in correspondence of
depth h1 (where the seismic bedrock is located); with respect to results
of the single fixed-head pile, bending moment in the corner pile gener-
Table 4. Normalized Bending Moments at the Bedrock Interface in the ally decreased as the number of piles in the group increased.
Case of Vs = 100 and 200 m/s for Linear Soil Behavior
At the pile head, the group effect was less significant, and reduc-
Parameter Pile 1 Pile 3 Pile 5 tions of the bending moments, with respect to the single-pile case,
were evident only in the case of a near-surface bedrock location (h =
M/Msingle (Vs = 200 m/s) 0.72 0.69 0.64
6 m). Considering floating piles, the kinematic bending moment in
M/Msingle (Vs = 100 m/s) 0.74 0.71 0.67
the corner piles of the groups was very similar to that of the single

© ASCE 04016066-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 24 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12
Single
2x2
3x3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4x4
18 5x5
z [m]
Vs = 100 m/s Vs = 200 m/s Vs = 400 m/s
ρ = 1.5 Mg/m³ ρ = 1.7 Mg/m³ ρ = 2.0 Mg/m³
24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 18 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12

18
z [m]

Bedrock
24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 12 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12

18
z [m]

24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
h= 6 m 0
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%

6
Bedrock

12

18
z [m]

24

Fig. 7. Effects of pile number on the kinematic bending moments

© ASCE 04016066-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 24 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12
Single
s/d = 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

s/d = 3
18 s/d = 5
z [m]
Vs = 100 m/s Vs = 200 m/s Vs = 400 m/s
ρ = 1.5 Mg/m³ ρ = 1.7 Mg/m³ ρ = 2.0 Mg/m³
24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 18 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12

18
z [m]

Bedrock
24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
0
h = 12 m
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6

12

18
z [m]

24
0 M [kNm] 1600 0 M [kNm] 800 0 M [kNm] 250
h= 6 m 0
ν = 0.4
ξ = 5%
6
Bedrock

12

18
z [m]

24

Fig. 8. Effects of s/d ratio

© ASCE 04016066-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 pile within the whole pile length, and slight reductions were visible
only for the upper soil layer characterized by Vs = 100 m/s.
Effects of Pile Spacing
Fig. 8 shows the envelopes of the absolute kinematic bending
moments within the single fixed-head pile and one corner pile of the
3  3 pile group for different s/d ratios. With a reduction in the s/d
ratio, the group effect became more marked, and the diagrams show
a decrease of the kinematic bending moments at both the pile head
and at the bedrock level.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
With reference to end-bearing groups with s/d = 3, Figs. 10–12
show the normalized kinematic bending moments at the pile head
and at the interface separating soil layers for deposits having shear
wave velocity Vs equal to 400, 200, and 100 m/s, respectively. Dots
are used to plot results of each pile, and lines are adopted to connect
the maximum values attained for each group that has a practical in-
terest from the design point of view. With an increase in the number
of piles constituting the group, the results generally became more
scattered.
External piles, and particularly corner piles, are generally char-
acterized by greater bending moments, whereas inner piles are pro-

tected. With reference to the 5  5 group, it can be observed that in

Simplified Formulas
In this section, empirical formulas to estimate the maximum bend-
ing moment attributable to kinematic interaction within square pile
groups (both at the pile head and at the interface separating soil
layers), starting from the relevant bending moment in the single
fixed-head pile, are presented.
A representative set of piles was selected for each group (Fig. 9),
and the relevant bending moments were normalized with respect to
those resulting from the single-pile analysis.
some cases (e.g., deposits with h = 12 and 18 m and Vs = 400 m/s),
bending moment at the head of the innermost pile (13) was approxi-
mately 30% lower than that in the corner one.
In many cases, a reduction of approximately 20–25% was observed
at both the pile head and the interface separating soil layers as a
result of group effects. With reference to the maximum values,
mostly attained at the corner piles, specific trends of the normalized
bending moments were clearly evident at both the pile head and at
the interface separating soil layers; with reference to the single-pile
bending moments, increments of the kinematic bending moments

Investigated pile 21 22 23 24 25

13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20

9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15
7 8 9

3 4 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 9. Sets of monitored piles

h=6m h = 12 m h = 18 m
1.5
Pile head Pile head Pile head
M/Msingle

6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1 13 8 7 3 2
1
13 8 7 3 2
1
5 21 6 21 6 21
1 5 21 5 21
1 1

0.5

0
1
Bedrock interface Bedrock interface Bedrock interface
1 1 1
M/Msingle

5 21 5 21 5 21
6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1 6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1 6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1

0.5

2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 10. End-bearing piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head and at the interface separating soil layers for Vs = 400 m/s and s/d = 3

© ASCE 04016066-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 h=6m h = 12 m h = 18 m
1.5
Pile head Pile head Pile head
1
13 8 7 3 2
621

M/Msingle
1 1
5 2 13 8 7 3 2
6 21
5 21 621 13 8 7 3 2 1 1 5 21
1 1

0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
1
Bedrock interface Bedrock interface Bedrock interface
1 1
M/Msingle

1
5 21 5 21 5 21
621 621 6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1
13 8 7 3 2 1 13 8 7 3 2 1

0.5

2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 11. End-bearing piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head and at the interface separating soil layers for Vs = 200 m/s and s/d = 3

h=6m h = 12 m h = 18 m
1.5
Pile head Pile head Pile head
M/Msingle

6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1 1
5 2
1 13 8 7 3 2
6 21
1 5 21
5 21 621 13 8 7 3 2 1 1
1

0.5

0
1
Bedrock interface Bedrock interface Bedrock interface
1 1
M/Msingle

1 5 21 5 21
5 21 6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1 6 21
621 13 8 7 3 2 1 13 8 7 3 2 1

0.5

2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 12. End-bearing piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head and at the interface separating soil layers for Vs = 100 m/s and s/d = 3

were observed (considering the most stressed pile of the group)
with an increase in the number of piles constituting the group,
whereas at the interface separating soil layers, bending moments in
the most stressed pile of the group decreased when the number of
piles increased.
Furthermore, very similar curves were obtained for different
shear wave velocities and bedrock locations.
With reference to floating piles, Fig. 13 shows the normalized ki-
nematic bending moments at the pile head for pile groups having
s/d = 3, for which previous considerations hold.
Figs. 14 and 15 compare the maximum normalized bending
moments obtained by considering all the analysis cases. As already
observed, with reference to a specific s/d ratio, curves obtained by
considering different values of shear wave velocities were very sim-
ilar (for both the pile head and the interface separating soil layers),
except those relevant to deposits with a surface bedrock (h = 6 m),
for which interactions within moments arising at the head and at the
interface separating soil layers were expected. Slight differences
were observed by changing the s/d ratio; clearly, greater group
effects were obtained for s/d = 2. Furthermore, the dependency of

© ASCE 04016066-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 1.5
Vs = 400 m/s Vs = 200 m/s Vs = 100 m/s

M/Msingle
621 13 8 7 3 2 1 13 8 7 3 2 1
6 21 13 8 7 3 2 1
5 21 5 21 6 21
1 1 5 21
1

0.5

0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 13. Floating piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head for s/d = 3

h=6m h = 12 m h = 18 m
1.5
M/Msingle

s/d = 2

s/d = 3

s/d = 5

0.5 Vs = 100 m/s

Vs = 200 m/s
Vs = 400 m/s
Pile head Pile head Pile head
0
1
M/Msingle

0.5

Bedrock interface Bedrock interface Bedrock interface

2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 14. End-bearing piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head and at the interface separating soil layers for different Vs and s/d ratio

1.5
M/Msingle

0.5
s/d = 2
s/d = 3
s/d = 5
Vs = 400 m/s Vs = 200 m/s Vs = 100 m/s
0
2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5

Fig. 15. Floating piles: normalized bending moment at the pile head

the normalized maximum bending moments on the bedrock loca- shaking, the soil nonlinear behavior and the possible formation of
tion was only slightly evident for deposits with h = 12 and 18 m. soil–pile gaps must be taken into account.
It is worth noting that with the assumption that both the soil and However, such phenomena are expected to affect both the group
piles behave linearly, the values of normalized bending moments and the single-pile response, thus mitigating effects on the normal-
are independent of the seismic intensity. For high levels of seismic ized bending moments.

© ASCE 04016066-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 1.4 30% 20% 10% 1.0 30% 20% 10%

1.2
0.8

Proposed formula for α

Proposed formula for α

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2
0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 Theoretical α 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 Theoretical α 0.8 1.0
(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Comparison of theoretical values of factor a and formula (24) results at (a) pile head and (b) interface separating soil layers

From these and previous results, an empirical expression for cal- formula will lead to an underestimation of the maximum bending
culating the bending moments, both at the head and at the interface moment in the piles of the group (assuming the results obtained
separating soil layers, can be derived as follows: from the numerical procedure to be the benchmarks). The errors
  obtained are commonly accepted in practice (approximately 10% in
s the gray region).
Mmax ¼ M a n;
G S
(23)
d

where MmaxG
is the maximum bending moment arising in the piles of
Accuracy of the Proposed Formula
the group at the head or at the interface separating soil layers; MS is
The accuracy of the proposed formula in Eq. (23) was evaluated by
the relevant single-pile bending moment; a is the group factor
comparing results with those obtained from the analytical procedure
depending on the number of piles and the pile spacing; and n is the
number of piles constituting the square group. MS has to be deter- presented in the previous sections (benchmarks). All cases of the
mined from a dynamic analysis or by means of simplified methods parametric investigation were taken into account, and the maximum
available in the literature. The following expressions are proposed kinematic bending moments in single piles were evaluated as fol-
for the group factor a: lows: (i) starting from the simplified formulas proposed by Dezi et
al. (2010a), which allow the prediction of the maximum moments
     
s s s of an end-bearing pile by knowing the PGA suggested by EN 1998-
a n; ¼a log ðnÞ þ b (24) 1 (CEN 2004) in the case of soil Type A, the shear wave velocity of
d d d
the deposit, the pile diameter, and the upper soil layer thickness;
and (ii) by means of the static equivalent approach proposed by
in which coefficients a and b assume different expressions depend-
Dezi et al. (2010b).
ing on the considered pile cross section. For the pile head
Fig. 17 shows comparisons between the theoretical and esti-
   0:28 mated values of the maximum bending moments at the pile head
s s
a ¼ 0:16 (25a) and at the interface separating soil layers. The simplified formula of
d d
Dezi et al. (2010a), used for the evaluation of the single-pile
response, is reproduced here for completeness
   0:23
s s PGA
b ¼ 0:58 (25b) MS ffi MR ef ðVs 400Þ (27)
d d 0:25g

whereas for the interface separating soil layers In Eq. (27) the reference bending moment MR and the function f
assume different expressions for the pile head and the cross section
   0:3
s s at the soil–bedrock interface. Regarding the maximum bending
a ¼ 0:12 (26a) moment at the interface separating soil layers
d d
MR ¼ ð77:7d3 þ 409d2  192d þ 24:5Þð0:0009h2
   0:04
s s
b ¼ 0:88 (26b) þ 0:068h  0:2Þ (28a)
d d

Fig. 16 shows the comparison between the theoretical values of f ¼ ð0:000124h  0:01106Þð0:05d þ 0:864Þ (28b)
factor a and values resulting from the application of Eq. (24); the
gray regions are those in which the application of the proposed whereas for maximum bending moment at the pile head

© ASCE 04016066-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 104 104

Design formula M [kNm]

Design formula M [kNm]

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30% 30%
1 1
4
1 Theoretical M [kNm] 10 1 Theoretical M [kNm] 104
(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Comparison of theoretical values of bending moments and formula (23) results [MS estimated with Dezi et al. (2010b)] at (a) pile head and
(b) interface separating soil layers

104 104
Design formula M [kNm]

Design formula M [kNm]

30% 30%
1 1
4
1 Theoretical M [kNm] 10 1 Theoretical M [kNm] 104
(a) (b)

Fig. 18. Comparison of theoretical values of bending moments and formula (23) results [MS estimated with Dezi et al. (2010b)] at (a) pile head and
(b) interface separating soil layers

MR ¼ ð85d3  85:75d2 þ 30:93d  3:37Þð0:000133h2
 0:00042h þ 1:091Þ
f ¼ ð0:000067h  0:0113Þð0:07d þ 1:002Þ
Fig. 18 shows the results obtained by using the static equivalent
method proposed by Dezi et al. (2010b) to estimate the single-pile
response; the contribution of only the first vibration mode of the de-
posit was considered in the applications. The errors obtained are
commonly accepted in practice and are largely compensated for by
the simplicity of applying the proposed formula.
Conclusions
Simplified formulas for estimating the maximum kinematic bend-
ing moments arising in piles within square groups were proposed,
starting from the prior knowledge of bending moments in single
piles (that may be obtained adopting analytical formulations or sim-
(29a)
plified approaches available in the literature). These formulas were
calibrated by fitting results of an extensive parametric investigation
(29b) in which different square pile groups and different soil profiles were
investigated. The numerical procedure proposed by Dezi et al.
(2009) was used to perform the kinematic interaction analyses.
It has been shown that soil nonlinearity has a relatively small
effect on the relative responses of the group to single piles, and
because of the many uncertainties that are present in all geotechnical
predictions, it appears adequate to adopt the normalized results (ratio
of group to single-pile behavior) for linear analysis in practical
applications.
The main conclusions derived from the parametric investigation
are as follows:
• With reference to the single pile, at the interface separating
soil layers the kinematic bending moment in the most stressed
pile of the group decreases as the number of piles in the group

© ASCE 04016066-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016066

 increases, whereas at the pile head, the bending moment gener-
ally increases, as a consequence of the group effect.
• s/d has a minor effect on bending moments, even if, as expected,
the group effect increases with a decrease in the s/d ratio.
•
External piles experience greater stresses than inner piles. In
groups with a high number of piles (e.g., 4  4 and 5  5
groups), stresses in the piles diminish from the edge to the
inner piles; corner piles are generally the most stressed piles in
the group, whereas those in the group core are protected.
• Comparisons of estimated bending moments, obtained from
the proposed formula, with the analytical solutions appear to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Technology - Mumbai (IITM) on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be very satisfactory for design purposes.
References
Abd Elaziz, A., and El Naggar, M. (2015). “Performance of hollow bar
micropiles under monotonic and cyclic lateral loads.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001279, 04015010.
Basack, S., and Dey, S. (2012). “Influence of relative pile-soil stiffness and
load eccentricity on single pile response in sand under lateral cyclic
loading.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 737–751.
Basack, S., and Sen, S. (2013). “Numerical solution of single pile subjected
to simultaneous torsional and axial loads.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000325, 06014006.
Bradley, B., Cubrinovski, M., and Dhakal, R. P. (2008). “Performance-
based seismic response of pile foundations.” Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Geotechnical special publication 181,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–11.
Cairo, R., Conte, E., and Dente, G. (2005). “Interaction factors for the analy-
sis of pile groups in layered soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(525), 525–528.
Carbonari, S., Morici, M., Dezi, F., and Leoni, G. (2016). “Analytical evalu-
ation of impedances and kinematic response of inclined piles.” Eng.
Struct., 117, 384–396.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “EN 1998-1:
Design of structure for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seis-
mic actions and rules for buildings.” Eurocode 8, Brussels, Belgium.
De Sanctis, L., Maiorano, R. M. S., and Aversa, S. (2010). “A method for
assessing bending moments at the pile head.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 39, 375–397.
Dezi, F., Carbonari, S., and Leoni, G. (2009). “A model for the 3D kine-
matic interaction analysis of pile groups in layered soils.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(11), 1281–1305.
Dezi, F., Carbonari, S., and Leoni, G. (2010a). “Kinematic bending
moments in pile foundations.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 30,
119–132.
Dezi, F., Carbonari, S., and Leoni, G. (2010b). “Static equivalent method
for the kinematic interaction analysis of single piles.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 30, 679–690.
Dezi, F., Gara, F., and Roia, D. (2012). “Dynamic response of a near-
shore pile to lateral impact load.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 40,
34–47.
Dezi, F., Gara, F., and Roia, D. (2013). “Experimental study of near-
shore pile-to-pile interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 48,
282–293.
Di Laora, R., Mylonakis, G., and Mandolini, A. (2013). “Pile-head kine-
matic bending in layered soil.” Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(3), 319–337.
© ASCE 04016066-15
Int. J. Geomech., 04016066
Dobry, R., and Gazetas, G. (1988). “Simple methods for dynamic stiffness
and damping of floating pile groups.” Geotechnique, 38(4), 557–574.
Elahi, H., Moradi, M., Poulos, H. G., and Ghalandarzadeh, A. (2010).
“Pseudostatic approach for seismic analysis of pile group.” Comput.
Geotech., 37(1–2), 25–39.
Ettouney, M. M., Brennan, J. A., and Forte, M. F. (1983). “Dynamic
behavior of pile groups.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1983)109:3(301), 301–317.
Gazetas, G., Fan, K., and Kaynia, A. (1993). “Dynamic response of pile
groups with different configurations.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
12(4), 239–257.
Gazetas, G., Fan, K., Kaynia, A. M., and Kausel, E. (1991). “Dynamic inter-
action factors for floating pile groups.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:10(1531), 1531–1548.
Ghazavi, M., Ravanshenas, P., and El Naggar, M. H. (2013). “Interaction
between inclined pile groups subjected to harmonic vibrations.” Soils
Found., 53(6), 789–803.
Kaynia, A. M. and Kausel, E. (1982). “Dynamic behavior of pile groups.”
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 509–532.
Larosche, A., Cukrov, M., Sanders, D., and Ziehl, P. (2013). “Prestressed
pile to bent cap connections: Seismic performance of a full-scale
three-pile specimen.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0000560, 04013012.
Makris, N., and Gazetas, G. (1992). “Dynamic pile–soil–pile interaction.
Part II: Lateral and seismic response.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
21(2), 145–162.
Makris, N., and Gazetas, G. (1993). “Displacement phase differences in a
harmonically oscillating pile.” Geotechnique, 43(1), 135–150.
Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G. (1999). “Lateral vibration and internal forces
of grouped piles in layered soil.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(1999)125:1(16), 16–25.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A., and Gazetas, G. (1997). “Soil-pile-bridge seis-
mic interaction: Kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: Soft soil.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(3), 337–359.
Padrón, L. A., Aznárez, J. J., and Maeso, O. (2007). “BEM-FEM coupling
model for the dynamic analysis of piles and pile groups.” Eng. Anal.
Boundary Elem., 31(6), 473–484.
Pender, M. J. (1995). “Earthquake-resistant design of foundations.”
Keynote address Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, PCEE95,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Poulos, H. G. (1971). “Behavior of laterally loaded piles. II: Pile groups.” J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(SM5), 733–751.
Sica, S., Mylonakis, G., and Simonelli, A. L. (2011). “Transient kinematic
pile bending in two-layer soil.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 31(7),
891–905.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:
1(89), 89–107.
Waas, G., and Hartmann H. G. (1981). “Analysis of pile foundations under
dynamic loads.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology, Vol. K, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Wang, J., Zhou, D., and Liu, W. (2014). “Horizontal impedance of pile
groups considering shear behavior of multilayered soils.” Soils Found.,
54(5), 927–937.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil-structure-interaction, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wolf, J. P., and Von Arx, G. A. (1978). “Impedance function of a group of
vertical piles.” Proc., Specialty Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, Vol. 2. ACSE, Reston, VA, 1024–1041.
Int. J. Geomech.