J. Cent. South Univ.

(2013) 20: 2510−2518

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-013-1763-9

Effects of liquefaction-induced large lateral ground deformation on

pile foundations

WANG Yan-li(王艳丽)1, 2, CHENG Zhan-lin(程展林)1, WANG Yong(王勇)2

1. Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Mechanics and Engineering of Ministry of Water Resources
(Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute), Wuhan 430010, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences), Wuhan 430071, China
© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract: The pile−soil system interaction computational model in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground was established by
the finite difference numerical method. Considering an elastic-plastic subgrade reaction method, numerical methods involving finite
difference approach of pile in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground were derived and implemented into a finite difference
program. Based on the monotonic loading tests on saturated sand after liquefaction, the liquefaction lateral deformation of the site
where group piles are located was predicted. The effects of lateral ground deformation after liquefaction on a group of pile
foundations were studied using the finite difference program mentioned above, and the failure mechanism of group piles in
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground was obtained. The applicability of the program was preliminarily verified. The results
show that the bending moments at the interfaces between liquefied and non-liquefied soil layers are larger than those at the pile’s top
when the pile’s top is embedded. The value of the additional static bending moment is larger than the peak dynamic bending moment
during the earthquake, so in the pile foundation design, more than the superstructure’s dynamics should be considered and the effect
of lateral ground deformation on pile foundations cannot be neglected.

Key words: liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground; pile foundation; large post-liquefaction deformation; finite difference
method

lateral spreading is important towards the safety and

1 Introduction
Liquefaction is known to be a major source of
earthquake-induced damage to structures, and
liquefaction is usually accompanied with large amounts
of lateral and vertical ground deformation [1]. The
effects of soil liquefaction and liquefaction induced
ground deformation have attracted tremendous research
attentions in recent years [2]. Liquefaction-induced large
lateral ground deformation is the main reason for the
damage and failure of pile foundations, as observed in
the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan, the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake in Japan and the 1999
Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, among others [3]. Many
earthquake damage survey results, show that foundation
and building damage caused by liquefaction usually
occurs a few minutes or even a few days after the
earthquake [4]. As a result, study of pile response to
design of pile foundations in liquefiable soils. In order to
evaluate the seismic performance of the piles, many
researchers have investigated pile−soil interaction in
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading of soils through
physical model tests and numerical analyses.
MOTAMED and TOWHATA [5], HAERI et al [6]
researched the response of a group of piles to
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by large scale
shake table tests. PAMUK et al [7] put forward a
remediation of piled foundations against lateral
spreading by passive site stabilization technique in
physical modeling tests. Moreover, numerical simulation
is widely used to analyze the dynamic response of pile
foundation. DASHA et al [8] investigated the importance
of bending−buckling interaction in seismic design of
piles in liquefiable soils using numerical techniques.
CHENG and JEREMIC [9], MAHESHWARI et al [10]
predicted the response of a pile in liquefiable soils by

Foundation item: Project(51109208) supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China; Project(2013M531688) supported by the Postdoctoral
Science Foundation of China; Project(Z012009) supported by the Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences); Project(CKSF2012054) supported by
the Foundation of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, China
Received date: 2012−03−22; Accepted date: 2012−07−06
Corresponding author: WANG Yan-li, PhD; Tel: +86−13797035568; E-mail: wyldhh@126.com
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518 2511
numerical method. LIYANAPATHIRANA and liquefaction in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading
POULOS [11] used a numerical procedure based on the ground is referred to as ys, and the displacement of the
finite element method to investigate pile behavior in pile caused by such displacements is referred to as y. The
sloping ground. ASHOUR and ARDALAN [12] buckling differential equation of a single pile under the
provided a new analysis procedure for the assessment of effect of lateral ground displacement is as follows:
the lateral response of isolated piles/drilled shafts in
d4 y
saturated sands as liquefaction and lateral soil spreading EI  Es ( y  ys )  0 (1)
develop in response to dynamic loading, for example, dz 4
those generated by the earthquake shaking. where EI and z are the stiffness of the pile beam and the
Earthquake-induced lateral deformation can be distance along the pile axis, respectively.
divided into three different situations in liquefaction- Considering the deduction of the horizontal
induced lateral spreading ground, such as smaller resistance coefficient of the liquefied soil, Eq. (1) is
vibration deformation before liquefaction, larger lateral transformed into
deformation caused by vibration after liquefaction and d4 y
EI   L Es ( y  ys )  0 (2)
permanent lateral deformation after the earthquake [13]. dz 4
The response of pile foundations in liquefaction-induced where ψL is the reduction factor of the horizontal
laterally spreading ground is also affected by the three resistance coefficient of the liquefied soil.
different deformation situations. However, previous By centre differential, the following equation can be
analysis methods are based on the earthquake process, derived from Eq. (2):
which suggests that the deformation occurs only during  L Es,i
the earthquake and immediately stops at the earthquake’s yi  2  4 yi 1  (6  h 4 ) yi  4 yi 1  yi  2 
EI
end. The calculated deformations are smaller than the  L Es,i
actual deformations because the calculation includes h4 ys,i (3)
EI
only the two former deformations caused by the
The displacement difference equation of a single
earthquake, without considering the permanent lateral
pile under the effect of lateral ground displacement is
deformation following the earthquake.
shown in the following equation:
Presently, when performing the seismic design of
pile foundations, the influence of the superstructure’s  K p   y   p   Ks   ys  (4)
dynamic response on pile foundations in an earthquake is
were [Kp] is the horizontal stiffness matrix of the pile
simplified to a force applied at the top of the pile
foundation; {y} is the horizontal displacement column
foundation, which ignores the influence of the
vector of the pile foundation under the effect of lateral
foundation’s lateral deformation, especially the influence
ground displacement after liquefaction; {P} is the
of liquefaction-induced large lateral ground deformation.
horizontal load column vector; [Kp], {y}, and {P} can be
In this work, the pile−soil system interaction
determined by the boundary conditions, which can be
computational model for the case of liquefaction-induced
found in Ref. [14].
lateral spreading ground is established by the finite
{ys} is the permanent lateral ground displacement
difference numerical method. Considering an
column vector after liquefaction:
elastic-plastic subgrade reaction method, numerical
methods involving the finite difference approach for {ys}=[ys,−2 ys,−1 … ys,i … ys,n+1 ys,n+2]′ (5)
piles in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground are [Ks] is the horizontal stiffness matrix of the soil:
derived and implemented into a finite difference program.
 ks, 2 
The effects of liquefaction-induced large lateral ground  
 ks, 1 
deformations on the pile foundation’s response are
  
analyzed by the program.  
 Ks    ks,i 
  
2 Pile−soil system interaction computation  
 ks, n 1 
model in liquefaction-induced lateral  ks, n  2 
spreading ground   n  5  n  5

 L Es , i (6)
where ks,i  h 4 (i=−2, −1, 0, … , n+2), such
After an earthquake, pile foundations are mainly EI
that
affected by permanent lateral displacements after
liquefaction. The permanent lateral displacement after {y}=[Kp]−1{{p}+[Ks]{ys}} (7)
2512
The pile foundation under the effect of lateral
ground deformation after liquefaction can be solved by
the revised p−y curve method. The deduction degree of
the ultimate soil resistance caused by the pile group
effect can be considered by a p-multiplier (represented
by the symbol fm) suggested by BROWN (1988), which
is related to pile spacing and stake diameter. Based on
the results of experimental studies of full-scale field tests,
1g model tests, and centrifuge tests on laterally loaded
pile groups, design charts were presented for estimating
p-multipliers as functions of pile group arrangement and
pile spacing by MOKWA and DUNCAN [15]. The p−y
curve of a particular pile in a pile group can be obtained,
and the displacement difference equation of the single
pile in the pile group under the effect of lateral ground
displacement can be obtained. The numerical methods
involving the finite difference approach of a pile in
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground are derived
and implemented into a finite difference program using
MATLAB. The calculation speed is very fast, and the
internal force and deformation curves of each section of
the pile shaft can be easily drawn using the software. To
analyse the stress and deformation characteristics of pile
foundations in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading
ground using the method mentioned above, the key is the
determination of the ground’s lateral deformation after
liquefaction.
3 Analysis of liquefaction-induced lateral
ground deformation
Liquefaction-induced large lateral ground
deformation during an earthquake is a common and
tremendously destructive earthquake damage
phenomenon. Large numbers of earthquake damage
survey data and indoor model test results indicate that
large deformations after liquefaction mainly result from
static shear stresses from the liquefied soil’s dead weight.
The magnitude of static shear stresses greatly affects
liquefied ground’s mode of failure. Depended on the
magnitude of the static shear stresses, the mode of failure
after liquefaction involves either lateral spreading or
flow slide. Practical pile foundation engineering manual
pointed out that lateral spreading and flow slide are
phenomena occurring when liquefiable soil horizontally
slips along the tilted liquid level after liquefaction.
Lateral spreading corresponds to a dip angle of an
inclined plane of less than 5°, and flow slide corresponds
to a dip angle of an inclined plane of more than 5°.
Limited lateral spreading deformations are commonly
observed in nearly horizontal sites with reduced initial
static shear stresses.
From the test study on large deformation
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
characteristics of saturated sand after liquefaction, it is
found that post-liquefaction strain involves three stages:
the low intensive stage, the superlinear strength recovery
stage and the sublinear strength recovery stage, if the
sand is extensional at the end of cyclic loading. During
the low intensive stage, which always occurs for large
deformations, deviatoric stress is almost zero but the
strain greatly increases. During the strength recovery
stage, the strength quickly recovers, as does the
development of soil strain and the soil’s ability to resist
deformation increases gradually. On nearly horizontal
ground, where the initial static shear stress is smaller,
deformation during the strength recovery stage is
relatively limited and much less than the deformation
that occurs during the low intensive stage. For this kind
of situation, the deformation occurring during the
strength recovery stage can be ignored because large
deformations of saturated sand after liquefaction mainly
occur during the low intensive stage.
The axial strain occurring during the low intensive
stage is referred to as ε0 and is closely related to the
maximum double amplitude axial strain after cyclic
loading, εmax, which has a very good relationship with the
safety factor of anti-liquefaction, Fl. When the
anti-liquefaction safety factor is equal to 1, the sample
just liquefies or achieves the shear strain amplitude.
When it is greater than 1, the sample does not liquefy.
When it is less than 1, the sample has already liquefied.
Different anti-liquefaction safety factor values of
liquefaction will lead to different maximum double width
axial strain. Therefore, the axial strain distribution during
the low intensive stage after soil liquefaction along the
liquefaction soil layer can be determined as long as the
distribution of the anti-liquefaction safety factor along
the liquefaction soil layer under a certain seismic load is
determined. The axial strain can be converted into shear
strain as
γ=(1+μ) ε (8)
where μ is the Poisson ratio, γ is the shear strain and ε is
the axial strain. The volumetric strain is zero in the
saturated undrained case. Thus, εν=ε1+2ε3 in
axisymmetric stress conditions, and μ is 0.5, such that
γ=1.5ε.
Using the delamination summation-method, the
distribution of lateral deformation after liquefaction
along the liquefied soil layer can be determined as [16]
n
Dh   ( 0   d )dh   C ( max   entry ) H i (9)
i 1
where γ0 is the shear strain in the low intensive stage; γd
is the shear strain in the strength recovery stage; εmax is
the maximum double amplitude axial strain after cyclic
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
loading; εentry is the threshold value of the maximum
double amplitude axial strain; Hi is soil thickness.
4 Determination of anti-liquefaction safety
factor (Fl)
The anti-liquefaction safety factor is used to
indicate the extent of damage caused by liquefaction,
which can be determined using the dynamic response
analysis method. Based on pile and soil dynamic
interaction analysis during the earthquake, the
distribution of maximum dynamic shear stress (τmax)
corresponding to the soil profile can be obtained, where
the average shear stress (  ) is related to the maximum
dynamic shear stress (τmax) as follows:
  0.65 max (10)
The ratio of equivalent average cycle shear stress
(  /  c ) is the ratio of the average shear stress to the
average principal stress of each unit, the anti-liquefaction
safety factor (Fl) is the ratio of cyclic liquefaction
resistance (  d / 2 c ) to equivalent average cycle shear
stress (  /  c ), and the cyclic liquefaction resistance
(  d / 2 c ) can be evaluated by dynamic triaxial tests.
First, the corresponding equivalent cyclic number (Neq)
with a given earthquake magnitude is determined based
on the relationship between the equivalent cyclic number
and the earthquake magnitude, then the liquefaction
resistance can be determined by the liquefaction curve,
which is used to describe the relationship of the cyclic
stress ratio required to achieve the liquefaction condition
and the vibration number of failure in a corresponding
equivalent cyclic number (Neq).
5 Detailed steps of determination of
liquefaction-induced large lateral
ground deformation
The effects of liquefaction-induced large lateral
ground deformation on pile foundation’s response have
been analysed before. The problem assumes that the
displacement of the non-liquefied soil layer does not
change with depth and that the displacement between the
liquefied soil layer and the overlying and underlying
non-liquefied soil layers is continuous. This work
considers only the displacement of the liquefied soil
layer. The detailed steps for determining the
liquefaction-induced lateral ground deformation are as
follows.
1) Performance of a static triaxial test
The static triaxial test determines the soil
parameters for static analysis before the earthquake.
2513
2) Performance of the static finite element or finite
difference analysis of pile soil interaction
The analysis aims to determine the stress states of
the soil units before the earthquake, which is essential for
determining the soil unit’s anti-liquefaction safety factor.
3) Performance of a dynamic triaxial test
The dynamic triaxial test is used to determine the
soil liquefaction curve and the calculation parameters of
the dynamic constitutive model.
4) Analysis of pile−soil dynamic interaction under a
seismic load
According to the specific engineering site and the
region’s seismic safety requirements, a suitable seismic
wave is selected for pile−soil dynamic interaction
analysis. Using the correct dynamic constitutive model
and considering the nonlinear characteristics of the soil
as well as the occurrence and transformation of the
dynamic pore water pressure, the distributions of the
liquefied soil layer and shear stress of each soil unit at
any time during the earthquake are obtained.
5) Determination of anti-liquefaction safety factor
(Fl)
The distribution of the anti-liquefaction safety
factor along the depth of the liquefied soil layer is
determined according to the results of Steps 2 and 3.
6) Performance of monotonic loading tests on
saturated sand after liquefaction
According to the constitutive model for saturated
sand after liquefaction, the relationship of the axial strain
during the low intensive stage (ε0) and the maximum
double amplitude axial strain after cyclic loading (εmax) is
obtained.
7) Determination of shear strain during low
intensive stage (γ0)
The maximum double amplitude axial strain after
cyclic loading (εmax) is obtained from the anti-
liquefaction safety factor (Fl), and the axial strain during
the low intensive stage (ε0) is obtained from the
maximum double amplitude axial strain after cyclic
loading (εmax), then the shear strain of low intensive stage
(γ0) is obtained from Eq. (8).
8) Determination of liquefaction-induced lateral
ground deformation
The liquefaction-induced lateral ground
deformation along the depth of liquefied soil can be
predicted using Eq. (9).
6 Example analysis
6.1 Calculation model and parameters
The soils in which a pile foundation resides consist
of three layered deposits. The upper and lower layers are
2514 J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
both 5.0 m thick layers of clay, and the middle layer Table 1 Calculated model parameters
comprises liquefiable sand with a thickness of 10.0 m. Parameter Clay Sand Pile Pile cap
Two rows of piles are 3 m apart, and each pile is 18 m Density, ρ/(kg·m ) −3
1 250 1 500 2 500 2 500
long and has a diameter of 1.0 m. The piles extend
Porosity, n 0.52 0.42 — —
through three layers, as shown in Fig. 1, and the platform
size is 12.0 m8.0 m. The top of each pile is fixed. The Cohesion, c/kPa 25 0 — —

input earthquake wave used for calculation is the 0.3g El Internal friction angle,
16 28 — —
φ/(°)
Centro wave, and the duration of the wave is 20 s, as
Bulk modulus, K/MPa 12.2 6.67 1.39×10−4 1.39×10−4
shown in Fig. 2. The stress and deformation of the pile
Shear modulus,
groups in the liquefiable foundation were studied under 4.07 4.0 1.04×10−4 1.04×10−4
G/MPa
seismic loading. The calculated parameters of the soil,
Permeability
piles and pile cap in the model are presented in Table 1. 1×10−8 5×10−3 — —
coefficient, k/(cm·s−1)
Liquefaction is the prerequisite and foundation for the C1=0.80,
occurrence of large deformation after liquefaction. To Liquefaction C2=0.79,
— — —
analyse the effects of liquefaction-induced large lateral parameter C3=0.45,
ground deformation on the pile foundation’s response, C4=0.73

the pile−soil dynamic interaction analysis in liquefied

sites during an earthquake should first be studied, which
will provide computing conditions for large
post-liquefaction deformations.
Fig. 1 Computational model of pile foundation (Unit: m)
6.2 Determination of post-liquefaction permanent
lateral deformation
The pile−soil system static analysis before the
earthquake yields the initial stress field and the initial
pore water pressure field before the dynamic analysis
[17]. Based on the pile−soil dynamic interaction analysis
of the pile group during the earthquake, the seismic shear
stress schedule curve of the soil unit around the pile was
first obtained, and then, the maximum seismic shear
stress of the soil unit was obtained. The cyclic
liquefaction resistance curve of soil determined by the
dynamic triaxial test is shown in Fig. 3. Based on the
relationship between the earthquake magnitude and
equivalent cyclic number presented by SEED, the
earthquake magnitude of the example is equivalent to 7.5,
the equivalent cyclic number is 20, and the
corresponding resistance strength ratio is 0.22. The anti-
liquefaction safety factor (Fl) of the soil units is
determined in Section 5. The relationship between the

Fig. 2 Time history of input ground motion Fig. 3 Cyclic liquefaction resistance curve of soil
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
maximum double amplitude axial strain after cyclic
loading (εmax) and the anti-liquefaction safety factor (Fl)
is shown in Fig. 4. The liquefaction-induced lateral
2515
ground deformation along the depth of liquefied soil can
be predicted from Eq. (9). The liquefaction-induced large
lateral deformation of the sites at which piles are located
is present in Tables 2−4.
As shown in Tables 2−4, the distributions of soil
liquefaction obtained using the anti-liquefaction safety
factors are consistent with those obtained from pile−soil
dynamic interaction analysis. The liquefaction-induced
lateral deformation around Pile 1 is the largest, that of
Pile 2 is the second and that of Pile 3 is the smallest.

6.3 Effects of permanent post-liquefaction lateral

deformation on pile foundations
Based on the pile−soil system interaction
computation model in liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading ground and elastic-plastic subgrade reaction
Fig. 4 Relationship of εmax−Fl method, the finite difference method for piles in the

Table 2 Liquefaction-induced large lateral deformation of site at Pile 1

Soil depth/m
Parameter
−6 −7 −8 −9 −10 −11 −12 −13 −14 −15

Soil unit number 2 736 2 686 2 636 2 586 2 536 2 486 2 436 2 386 2 336 2 286

Average principal stress/kPa 27 262 32 668 37 954 43 206 48 467 53 756 59 150 64 803 71 100 79 009

Maximum seismic shear stress/kPa 11 890 12 230 13 790 14 400 16 260 17 130 18 380 19 340 24 190 25 800

Ratio of equivalent average cycle shear stress 0.28 0.267 0.243 0.233 0.232 0.213 0.203 0.199 0.222 0.223

Safety factor of anti-liquefaction 0.786 0.825 0.905 0.942 0.947 1.033 1.082 1.106 — —

Maximum double amplitude axial strain/% 15.309 13.391 9.406 7.536 7.32 — — — — —

Shear strain of low intensive stage/% 15.817 13.645 9.132 7.015 6.77 — — — — —

Liquefaction-induced large lateral ground

52.379 36.562 22.917 13.785 6.147 — — — — —
deformation/cm

Table 3 Liquefaction-induced large lateral deformation of site at Pile 2

Soil depth/m
Parameter
−6 −7 −8 −9 −10 −11 −12 −13 −14 −15

Soil unit number 701 651 601 551 501 451 401 351 301 251

Average principal stress/kPa 27 084 32 478 37 852 43 199 48 556 53 901 59 503 65 616 72 456 79 848

Maximum seismic shear stress/kPa 11 730 12 080 13 850 15 440 16 650 17 050 17 420 20 120 21 990 25 170
Ratio of equivalent average
0.282 0.242 0.238 0.232 0.223 0.206 0.19 0.199 0.197 0.205
cycle shear stress
Safety factor of anti-liquefaction 0.781 0.91 0.925 0.947 0.987 1.07 1.156 1.104 1.115 1.074

Maximum double amplitude axial strain/% 15.53 9.14 8.393 7.301 5.307 — — — — —

Shear strain of low intensive stage/% 16.068 8.832 7.985 6.748 4.49 — — — — —
Liquefaction-induced large lateral ground
44.124 28.055 19.223 11.239 4.49 — — — — —
deformation/cm
2516 J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
Table 4 Liquefaction-induced large lateral deformation of site at Pile 3
Soil depth/m
Parameter
−6 −7 −8 −9 −10 −11 −12 −13 −14 −15
Soil unit number 701 651 601 551 501 451 401 351 301 251
Average principal stress/kPa 27 182 32 464 37 642 42 750 47 898 53 092 58 449 64 135 70 705 78 195
Maximum seismic shear stress/kPa 9 670 11 700 13 260 14 610 15 610 16 130 16 410 19 140 22 070 23 910
Ratio of equivalent average
0.231 0.234 0.229 0.222 0.221 0.197 0.182 0.194 0.203 0.199
cycle shear stress
Safety factor of anti-liquefaction 0.951 0.939 0.961 0.99 0.995 1.114 1.206 1.134 1.084 1.107
Maximum double amplitude axial
7.08 7.691 6.612 5.142 4.888 — — — — —
strain/%
Shear strain of low intensive stage/% 6.498 7.19 5.968 4.304 4.016 — — — — —
Liquefaction-induced large lateral
27.977 21.478 14.288 8.32 4.016 — — — — —
ground deformation/cm

liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground is used to calculation method of sand in 1974. The skeleton curve
study the effects of liquefaction-induced large lateral (shown in Fig. 6) is expressed as follows:
ground deformation on pile foundation’s response. Soft
clay uses the Matlock p−y curve, and sand uses the Reese
p−y curve; the two curves are both recommended by the
American Petroleum Institute (API).
MATLOCK [18] developed the p−y curve
calculation method for underwater soft clay in 1970. The
skeleton curve (shown in Fig. 5) is expressed as follows:

Fig. 6 Reese p−y curve


 p  k h y, for ok
 1
 y n
 p  p m ( ) , for km (12)
 ym
Fig. 5 Matlock p−y curve
 ( p  pm ) y  ( p m y u  pu y m )
p  u , for mu
 yu  ym
p 0.5( y / y50 )1 / 3 , y  8 y50
 (10)
pu 1, y  8 y50 pm ( y u  ym )
n (13)
y50=Aε50d (11) y m ( p u  pm )

where p is the horizontal resistance of soil acting on the
pile x below the ground (kPa); pu is the ultimate
horizontal resistance per unit area of pile side (kPa); y is
the horizontal deformation of the pile x below the ground
(mm); y50 is the horizontal deformation of the pile when
the horizontal soil resistance reaches half the ultimate
horizontal soil resistance around the pile (mm); ε50 is the
strain when the principal stress difference reaches half
the maximum principal stress difference; A is the
coefficient related to pile diameter; d is the pile width or
diameter (m).
REESE et al [19] put forward the p−y curve
where p is the horizontal resistance of soil acting on the
pile x below the ground (kPa); pu is the ultimate
horizontal resistance per unit area of pile side (kPa); y is
the horizontal deformation of the pile x below the ground
(mm); kh is the initial foundation coefficient. The values
of p and y at the points of k, m and u and the calculation
formula of pu can be found in Ref. [20].
The reduction coefficient for the liquefied layer’s
horizontal resistance coefficient is 1/3. The P-multipliers
(represented by the symbol fm), which account for the
reduced efficiencies caused by the pile−soil−pile
interactions, for Pile 1, Pile 2 and Pile 3 are 0.88, 0.78
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
and 0.72, respectively, as S/D is equal to 4 using linear
interpolation.
6.4 Analysis of results
The additional lateral deformations of group piles
caused by the large post-liquefaction lateral deformations
are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that lateral
deformations at the top of the piles are the largest, and
the deformations decrease with increasing the depth. The
value is larger than the peak lateral deformation during
the earthquake. The lateral deformation of Pile 1 is the
largest, that of Pile 2 is the second, and that of Pile 3 is
the smallest.
The additional static bending moment of group piles
caused by large lateral deformation after liquefaction is
shown in Fig. 8. It is shown that the bending moment at
the pile’s top and the interfaces between liquefied and
non-liquefied soil layers are both larger; even the
bending moment at the interfaces between liquefied and
non-liquefied soil layers is larger than the bending
moment at the pile’s top. The value of the additional
static bending moment is larger than the peak dynamic
bending moment during the earthquake. The additional
Fig. 7 Additional lateral deformation of group piles caused by
large post-liquefaction lateral deformations
Fig. 8 Additional static bending moment of group piles caused
by large post-liquefaction lateral deformations
2517
static bending moment of Pile 1 is the largest, that of
Pile 2 is the second, and that of Pile 3 is the smallest.
The calculation results show that liquefaction-
induced large lateral ground deformation is a factor that
cannot be ignored when evaluating earthquake damage
of pile foundations. The maximum pile bending moment
occurs at the interfaces between liquefied and non-
liquefied soil layers. This is a weak zone of the pile
foundation, and the bending moment of pile shaft may
exceed the ultimate bending strength, which leads to
bending and shear failures.
The calculated results reasonably explain the actual
earthquake damage of the pile foundation caused by
earthquake liquefaction and large post-liquefaction
lateral deformations. Thus, in the design of pile
foundation, the dynamic effect of the superstructure
should not be just considered, and the effect of lateral
ground deformation on pile foundations cannot be
neglected.
7 Conclusions
1) The pile−soil system interaction computational
model in liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ground is
established by the finite difference numerical method.
The analysis method and solution procedure are
obtained.
2) Based on the elastic-plastic subgrade reaction
method, numerical methods involving the finite
difference approach analysing piles in liquefaction-
induced lateral spreading ground are derived and
implemented into a finite difference program. The
mechanism of group piles in liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading ground is obtained. The applicability of the
program is preliminarily verified.
3) The bending moments at the interfaces between
liquefied and non-liquefied soil layers are larger than
those at the pile’s top when the pile’s top is embedded.
The value of the additional static bending moment is
larger than the peak dynamic bending moment during the
earthquake.
4) The calculation results show that liquefaction-
induced large lateral ground deformation is a factor that
cannot be ignored when assessing earthquake damage to
pile foundations. The calculated result reasonably
explains that the actual earthquake damage of pile
foundations is caused from earthquake liquefaction and
large post-liquefaction lateral deformations. Thus, in the
design of pile foundations, the dynamic effect of the
superstructure should not be just considered because the
effect of lateral spreading on pile foundations cannot be
neglected.
2518
References
[1] RAHMANI A, FARE O G, PAK A. Investigation of the influence of
permeability coefficient on the numerical modeling of the
liquefaction phenomenon [J]. Scientia Iranica, 2012, 19(2): 179−187.
[2] PAN Hua, CHEN Guo-xing, SUN Tian, LIU Han-long. Behaviour of
large post-liquefaction deformation in saturated sand-gravel
composites [J]. Journal of Central South University of Technology,
2012, 19(2): 547−552.
[3] DASH S R, GOVINDARAJU L, BHATTACHARYA, S. A case
study of damages of the kandla port and customs office tower
supported on a mat–pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001
Bhuj earthquake [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
2009, 29(2): 333−346.
[4] GU W H, MORGENSTERN N R, ROBERTSON P K.
Post-earthquake deformation analysis of wildlife site [J]. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 120(2): 274−289.
[5] MOTAMED R, TOWHATA I. Mitigation measures for pile groups
behind quay walls subjected to lateral flow of liquefied soil: Shake
table model tests [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
2010, 30(10): 1043−1060.
[6] HAERI S M, KAVAND A, RAHMANI I, TORABI H. Response of a
group of piles to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by large scale
shake table testing [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
2012, 28(7): 25−45.
[7] PAMUK A, GALLAGHER P M, ZIMMIE T F. Remediation of piled
foundations against lateral spreading by passive site stabilization
technique [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2007,
27(9): 864−874.
[8] DASHA S R, BHATTACHARYAB S, BLAKEBOROUGHA A.
Bending-buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in
liquefiable soils [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
2010, 30(1/2): 32−39.
J. Cent. South Univ. (2013) 20: 2510−2518
[9] CHENG ZH, JEREMIC B. Numerical modeling and simulation of
pile in liquefiable soil [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 2009, 29: 1404−1416.
[10] MAHESHWARI B K, NATH U K, RAMASAMY G. Influence of
liquefaction on pile-soil interaction in vertical vibration [J]. Journal
of Earthquake Technology, 2008, 45(1/2):1−12.
[11] LIYANAPATHIRANA D S, POULOS H G. Analysis of pile
behaviour in liquefying sloping ground [J]. Computers and
Geotechnics, 2010, 37(1/2): 115−124.
[12] ASHOUR M, ARDALAN H. Piles in fully liquefied soils with lateral
spread [J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2011, 38(6): 821−833.
[13] ZHANG Jian-min. Effects of large post-liquefaction deformation of
level ground on pile foundation [J]. Journal of Building Structure,
2001, 22(5): 75−77. (in Chinese)
[14] POULOS H G, DAVIS E H. Pile foundation analysis and design [M].
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980, 165−173.
[15] MOKWA R L, DUNCAN J M. Laterally loaded pile group effects
and p−y multipliers [J]. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication,
2001, 113: 728−742.
[16] ZHOU Yun-dong. Laboratory study on large ground deformation
induced by earthquake liquefaction [D]. Nanjing: Hohai University,
2003. (in Chinese)
[17] WANG Yan-li, RAO Xi-bao. Effect of subsoil liquefaction on
analysis of pile−soil dynamic interaction [J]. Advanced Materials
Research, 2011, 261/262/263: 1799−1803.
[18] MATLOCK H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in
soft clay [C]// Proceedings of the Second Offshore Technology
Conference. Houston, Texas, 1970: 577−594.
[19] REESE L C, COX W R, KOOP F D. Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand [C]// Proceedings of the Sixth Offshore Technology
Conference. 1974: 473−485.
[20] YANG Ke-ji, HAN Li-an. Pile foundation engineering [M]. Beijing:
People’s Traffic Press, 1992, 180−182. (in Chinese)
(Edited by YANG Bing)