Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Effect of top soil liquefaction potential on the seismic response

of the embedded piles
Noha E. El Fiky a,⇑, Kamal G. Metwally b, Adel Y. Akl a
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Beni-Suef University, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: 3D model was performed using the ANSYS program to investigate the behaviour of piles embedded in a
Received 24 December 2018 liquefiable area during earthquakes. The model contained a CPT215 element that has an additional
Revised 22 February 2020 degree of freedom for water pressure. Two components of the movement were employed to the model
Accepted 14 March 2020
for EL-CENTRO earthquake, 1940. The results showed good model accuracy compared to the previous
Available online 15 May 2020
tests. When the model was subjected to horizontal movement only, the lateral pile displacement
decreased with the increase of top non-liquefiable layer thickness and vice versa. Whereas when both
Keywords:
horizontal and vertical component of motions were applied to the model; the lateral pile displacement
Liquefaction
ANSYS
increased significantly in the case of the top non-liquefiable depth is 3 m only, and the vertical pile dis-
Earthquakes placement increased with the reduction of top layer thickness. The presence of top liquefiable layer is
Ground motion very influential on the lateral pile displacement as it increased by 120%.
Pile Ó 2020 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams
Failure University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Displacement licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction earthquake [3]. A well-known case of failure after Nigatta earth-

Pile foundations are one of the most widely used types of foun-
dations in civil engineering and have often been used in liquefiable
grounds. The collapse of piles in Liquefiable soil has been noticed
after many strong earthquakes; despite taking a massive factor of
safety in piles design [1]. The case histories of pile failure in such
conditions are divided into two categories: bending collapse and
vertical collapse. Bending failure is occurred in the form of the lat-
eral flow of the soil after earthquakes, while vertical failure hap-
pens in the form of settlement or buckling [2].
Some examples of pile failures that were regarded as a result of
lateral impact: were the collapse of 605A bridge foundation and
the failure of Showa Bridge. 605A Bridge failed in, 1946, Alaska
earthquake, the collapse occurred at which the superstructure
was not constructed yet, the pile head inclined by 15° after the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: noha.el91@eng1.cu.edu.eg (N.E. El Fiky), kghamery@eng.bsu.
edu.eg (K.G. Metwally).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
quake, 1964, was the collapse of Showa Bridge, [4] indicated that
about 7–8 m of soil had liquefied during the shaking, resulting in
1–2 m of lateral spreading soil. However [5] informed that the lat-
eral spreading assumption can’t clarify the bridge failure; as the
pile collapsed at the second 70 after the beginning of shaking,
while the soil spreading began at the second 38, so [5] recom-
mended that the pile may collapse due to the resonance between
the bridge and the ground motion. Another instances for vertical
failure, was the settlement observed for Juan Pablo II Bridge after
Chile earthquake 2010 [6], and the one has seen for the piles of a
road bridge after the California earthquake [7], also the piles of
Yachyio Bridge experienced an excessive settlement during the
Nigatta earthquake as reported by [8].
The liquefaction has an essential effect on the modal pile
parameters; such as natural frequency and damping ratio. [9]
investigated the influence of liquefaction on changing these
parameters through a shaking table test, the test results clarified
that the damping ratio increased by 20% after soil liquefaction,
and the natural frequency decreased considerably for the pile-
supported system due to the lack of lateral resistance provided
by the soil. [10] studied the impact of softened soil on a spectral
acceleration. It has been noticed that the acceleration response
reduced; as at full liquefaction the soil stiffness decreased due to
the increase of pore water pressure. Subsequently, the high-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.03.002
2090-4479/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
924 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931
frequency component of motions cannot be transmitted to the
ground surface; therefore the natural period increased and the
acceleration response reduced as displayed in Fig. 1.
The forces acting on the pile in seismic conditions are not only
that comes from soil deformation that called kinematic interaction,
but also that one arising from the oscillations of the superstructure
that named inertial interaction. [12] illustrated the loads are acting
on pile foundations during the liquefaction process as follows:

Before the vibration of the superstructure, the pile may be
imposed to track the movement of the soil according to its flex-
ural rigidity (EI). At that time pile will be exposed to the kine-
matic force due to soil deformation and subsequently bending
moment may be generated.

When the superstructure begins to oscillate, the inertial force
will be produced, this force will be transmitted to pile cap as
lateral force and overturning moment; afterwards pile cap will
transfer the moment as the axial load in a pile.

While vibration lasts pore water pressure will accumulate, and
thus soil begins to liquefy. Shaft resistance provided by lique-
fied soil will be missed, the base layer has to carry the extra load
if this layer cannot afford this additional load, settlement failure
will happen.

While the liquefied soil losses its resistance, the pile acts as an
unsupported column at this time and will buckle if its slender-
ness ratio is significant, in addition to the decrease of bending
stiffness due to the onset of plastic yielding. The situation
would become worse if the ground were inclined as lateral
spreading will occur, pile acts as a beam-column element at
that time.
[13] studied the influence of kinematic and inertia force on pile
stresses using of shaking table tests of models embedded in a liq-
uefiable soil and a dry soil. The test models showed that values of
bending moment and shear force were significantly magnified as a
result of soil liquefaction. [14] informed about the interaction
between the two forces through centrifuge tests; consisted of a sin-
gle pile and 3x3 pile groups embedded in dry sand. The response of
a pile was reported to be affected by the pile location in the pile
group in case of the test models were exposed to kinematic force
only or kinematic and inertia force. These findings were also con-
sistent with the ones of [15,16].
The bending mechanism was widely accepted as a possible
technique of failure after many earthquakes; a competent witness
Fig. 1. The influence of soil liquefaction on an acceleration response [11].
was the observed lateral spreading [17–19] and permanent defor-
mation as reported by [20,21]. However, this assumption of failure
cannot illustrate the pile failure, because the bending failure
assumption considers a pile as a laterally loaded beam element
that will fail due to lateral soil flow only. Although the pile may fail
due to buckling instability when it loses its lateral support as it acts
as a long column [1], a lot of studies have been carried out to
understand the buckling instability more closely such as [22,23].
The interaction between bending technique and buckling mecha-
nism had also reported by [24].
2. Numerical modelling
Liquefaction of soil exposed to seismic load is considered one of
the most significant factors influencing pile behaviour. History of
piles failure during the previous earthquakes has clarified the
inability of piles to afford large bending moments resulting in an
earthquake. So there is a significant requirement for performing
numerical modelling that can reflect a realistic behaviour of piles
during soil liquefaction. Analyses of piles in such conditions have
varied from simple analyses to more complicated ones. In this
study a 3D finite element model was performed using ANSYS pro-
gram R.18.1 to represent a pile-soil system in seismic conditions
leading to soil liquefaction.
2.1. Model elements
2.1.1. Pile element
SOLID65 element type was used for simulating the pile element.
It can be defined by eight nodes each one has three degrees of free-
dom that is translations in all directions of motion. Moreover;
SOLID65 also has three rebar properties that can simulate the
behaviour of reinforcement.
2.1.2. Soil element
A fundamental principle that is utilised to describe the accept-
able media behaviour is the effective stress principle. It classifies
the transition of applied stresses into the porous media to two
parts: (1) a portion of the applied stresses are transferred to pore
fluid causing pore fluid change and fluid flow, (2) the other part
of the applied stresses are transmitted to solid Skelton resulting
in deformation of soil skeleton. The behaviour of fluid flow and
porous media are coupled as they affect each other. So it is neces-
sary to use element type having the ability not only to model soil
skeleton but also to model pore water pressure. Especially, when
the problem of interest is soil liquefaction owing to pore water
pressure increase. So, a new element type was applied here in this
research that is CPT215. Instead of the SOLID65 element type that
has been commonly used for soil model in ANSYS, CPT215 has an
advantage of modelling water pressure as it has an extra degree
of freedom for pore water pressure at corner nodes (DOF: UX,
UY, UZ, PRES) accordingly it will be useful for the research
problem.
2.1.3. Contact element
The contact element used in this research was CONTA174; it
was employed to model the interaction between pile and sur-
rounding soil. The target surface TARGE170 and the other deform-
able surface. CONTA174 has an essential feature as; it has an
additional degree of freedom to model the pore fluid pressure,
DOF: UX, UY, UZ, TEMP, TTOP, TBOT, VOLT, MAG, and PRES. Five
surface to surface contact elements were employed here between
the soil and the opposite part of the pile as shown in Fig. 2. The
mathematical algorithm that describes the interface element beha-
 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931
Fig. 2. Contact element positions in the 3D model.
viour was an Augmented Lagrange algorithm. The contact force is
given as follows:
F normal ¼ K normal  X penetration þ k
F tangential ¼ K tangential  X sliding þ k
where F normal is the contact force,K normal is the normal stiffness, and
X penetration is the amount of the contact penetration into the target,
whileF tangential is the tangential contact force, and X sliding is the sliding
distance. The term, k, is an estimate of the Lagrange multiplier, and
the accuracy of this estimate improves at every step. The higher
normal stiffness amountK n , the lower penetration distance X p and
vice versa, however if the normal stiffness is very high the solution
may not be converged because it leads to model instability and pro-
duce an ill-conditioning global matrix. On the other hand, low nor-
mal stiffness leading to large X p will produce an inaccurate solution,
so the normal stiffness should be set in order to produce an accept-
able X p that results in an accurate converged solution.
2.2. Model description
The soil profile, the mechanical properties of soil, and the
applied load on the pile are based on the model carried out by
[25]. The soil layers were: loose dry sand layer, 0.5 m, rested on
a loose sand layer, 6.0 m, followed by medium dense sand,
6.5 m, and the bottom layer was very dense sand of 27 m thickness
Fig. 3. Soil profile of the model [25].
925
as displayed in Fig. 3, the mechanical properties of soil layers are
shown in Table1.
2.2.1. Loads and boundary conditions
The pile embedded in the soil profile shown earlier was
assumed to carry an applied concentrated mass on its top. This
concentrated mass was considered as a simple representation of
a load applied on the pile top coming from the superstructure that
was 4000 kN/m2. To reduce the model computational time; the ax-
symmetric property was utilized subsequently, the half of the
finite element model was executed only, 20 m  10 m, as shown
in Fig. 4. The model was constrained as follows: the bottom x-z
plane was restricted in the y direction, while the two side x-y
planes were restricted in the z direction, the back y-z plane was
restricted in the x direction, and the front y-z plane at which the
model was cut, a symmetric boundary condition was applied on it.
2.3. Ground motion selection
The ground motion used to investigate the influence of horizon-
tal and vertical ground motions on the pile was (ELCENTRO, 1940)
earthquake. The time history for horizontal and vertical accelera-
ð1Þ tion is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 respectively. For the horizontal
record, the peak value was 3.417 m/s2= 0.35 g while the peak ver-
ð2Þ tical ground motion was 1.233 m/s2 that equals 0.13 g as displayed
in the graphs.
3. Equations used for soil liquefaction simulation
To well simulate the pile behaviour during soil liquefaction, it’s
important to consider the most influential factors within the lique-
faction process as much as possible. The factors considered in this
study were divided into two parts: (1) part related to what factors
that lead to liquefaction occurrence, (2) part related to what factors
happened as a result of liquefaction state. The factors that lead to
soil liquefaction were: the increase in pore water pressure due to
earthquake load, the decrease of particles effective stress that
may close to zero, and hence the decrease of soil shear strength.
On the other hand, one of the factors happening owing to liquefac-
tion was an increase of coefficient of permeability during liquefac-
tion. The following sections present the abovementioned factors
minutely.
3.1. Accumulation of pore water pressure
[26] developed the equation proposed by [27] which was pre-
dicted according to the obtained results from a cyclic shear stress
test on saturated sand. To capture the generation of pore water
pressure during a cyclic test, the incremental and the total raise
of pore water pressure are:

a
c !
sN d Pi C1
DUN ¼ ð1  UN1 Þ   f ðeÞ   þ C4  C 1
pN1 Pa Nc2 þ c3 :N
ð3Þ
UN ¼ UN1 þ DUN ð4Þ
where DUN : the incremental rise in pore pressure divided by the
initial mean effective pressure pi ¼ ðr1 þ r2 þ r3 Þ=3 within the
0 0 0
Nth cycle, UN ; UN1 : are the total residual pore pressure within
the soil divided by pi at the ending of N and N-1 cycles respectively.
sN : is the Shear stress at N cycle,pN1 : mean effective confining
stress at the ending of N-1 cycle. For cycle number 1, UN1 ¼ 0:0,
subsequently UN ¼ DUN calculated by Eq. (3). The parameter a is
equal to 2.4 before the sudden generation of pore pressure, stage
926 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931

Table 1
Mechanical properties of soil layers [25].

Soil type Soil type SPT-N value pbð KN Þ psubð KN Þ KN

Eðm 2Þ
Dr (%) U0
m3 m3

1 Dry Loose Sand 8–13 17 7 3.0E4 35 32

2 Saturated loose sand 8–13 18 8 2.5E4 35 35
3 Medium dense sand 23–30 19 9 1.0E5 60 35
4 Dense sand 45 and more 20 10 2.0E5 85 40

is given as: ðeÞ ¼ ð2:17  eÞ2 =ð1 þ eÞ, d = 0.632.ln (N) 3.87 where e
 c
is a void ratio and N is a number of cycles. The part PPai is incorpo-
rated into the equation in order to consider the level of initial con-
solidation pressure Pi relative to the atmospheric pressure Pa , and
c = 0.034 N + 0.68, c2 ; c3 and c4 are constants that equal 1.8, 2,
and 0.015, respectively. Whereas c1 is a sand dependent parameter
that is taken here as a value of 52 for both stages 1 & 2 and for stage
3 is ðpsN1
4:4
N
Þcritical . The critical stress ratio is defined as the ratio at
which stage 2 is ended at about 30% of excess pore pressure value
U=Pi .
As mentioned earlier, the propagation of pore water pressure
can be computed using the cyclic shear test. So, it is necessary to
convert the earthquake time history load to a time history of cyclic
shear stress. The methodology used for this purpose was intro-
duced by [28]. It is based on modelling the soil column as a rigid
Fig. 4. An ax-symmetric finite element model.
body subjected to horizontal excitement, and then the cyclic shear
stress is computed as:
rv0ðzÞamax
scyc ðzÞ ¼ 0:65rd ðzÞ ð5Þ
g

Fig. 5. horizontal component of EL-CENTRO, 1940, S00E.

Fig. 7. Equivalent number of shear stress cycles [28].

Fig. 6. vertical component of EL-CENTRO, 1940.

1 and stage 2, while it has a value of 6.8 for stage 3 (after the sudden
d
rise of pore pressure). The term f ðeÞ is the void ratio function; it
measures the effect of density on the excess pore pressure amount Fig. 8. Equivalent regular shear stress time history for EL-CENTRO earthquake.
 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931 927

as a rigid body as it is assumed. The equal number of cycles having a

value of s_cyc calculated by Eq. (5) can be given from Fig. 7.
Based on this method EL-CENTRO earthquake of a magnitude
7.1 has some equivalent cycles about 11.7 cycles computed from
Fig. 7, and the equivalent regular shear stress time history for EL-
CENTRO earthquake with N = 11.7 and with shear stress value
scyc calculated from Eq. (5), scyc = 84.77 kN=m2 as shown in Fig. 8.

3.2. Reduction of soil stiffness

The stiffness of the soil is expected to degrade owing to the liq-

Fig. 9. Chart indicates the model procedure after each cycle.
where scyc is the amplitude of the equivalent regular shear stress,
r_(v0(z)) is the total vertical stress that equals pt  z where pt is
the total weight of the soil at the soil depth z, amax is the maximum
ground acceleration, and r d is the reduction factor computed by Eq.
(6) [29] that accounts the soil flexibility; as the soil behavior is not
uefaction process. The parameter representing the soil stiffness is
the secant shear modulus, Gs . It equals the cyclic shear stress
divided by cyclic shear strain; The decrease of soil shear modulus
is strongly related to the propagation of pore water pressure.
[30] produced a relation between Gs and pore pressure accumula-
tio, the equation of the curve is: GsN =Gs1 = 0.9948 ((x)2) +
2.004(x) + 0.0094 where Gs1 is the initial shear modulus at cycle
number 1, and GsN is the shear modulus at cycle number N, and
the parameter x = (1  U N /r3 ).
3.3. Change of permeability due to liquefaction
The permeability is an important characteristic affecting the
pore pressure accumulation, an increase of coefficient of

Fig. 10. Excess pore pressure curve concerning some cycles.

Fig. 11. Pile head displacement for models: loose1, loose2 and loose3.
928 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931

Fig. 13. Pile head displacement for models: dense1, dense2 and dense3.

Fig. 14. Lateral pile displacement for loose1-Model for: H and H&V movements.

Fig. 15. Lateral pile displacement for loose2-Model for: H and H&V movements.

ability during soil liquefaction and dissipation phase using a

dynamic analysis; the predicted equations seem to be compatible
to be used with Eq. (3), as it is also a function of pore pressure
increase as follows:

kb
¼ 1 þ ða  1Þxr u 1 in buildup stage and dissipation stage
Fig. 12. Pile displacement time histories for models: loose1, loose2 and loose3. ki
ðru < 1:0Þ ð6Þ
permeability is expected during soil liquefaction. As the flow track
of water during liquefaction is shorter than the one before liquefac- where kb is the coefficient of permeability during pore pressure
tion as reported by [31]. [32] investigated the variation of perme- generation,ki is the initial coefficient of permeability before
 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931 929

oscillation,r u is the excess pore pressure divided by the initial effec- 5. Model verification
tive stress, and (a = 20, 1 ¼ 1:0).
The model was verified in the form of pore pressure accumula-
4. Model procedure tion and pile displacement curves, the generation of pore pressure
after each cycle was compared with the results from [26] cyclic test
The 3D model was first solved as a static analysis to make sure as shown in Fig. 10.
of the correct formulation of the finite element model. Afterwards;
the model was prepared for a transient analysis step, the cyclic
6. Parametric study
shear stress was applied to the model base that is shown in
Fig. 8. The procedure steps are summarised in Fig. 9; some critical
The parametric study aimed to understand the behaviour of a
issues should be kept in mind during the solution that is:
pile under the different factors that may influence the pile
response. The factors considered here were: the effect of the top
(i) Each cycle of an applied shear stress time history should be
crust layer whether it was loose or dense sand in case of the level
separately solved; to obtain the raise of pore water pressure
ground model, and the effect of increasing the liquefiable soil
after each one.
depth. All the factors mentioned above were discussed in case that
(ii) The parameter pN1 is the resultant effective stress from the
the model was exposed to horizontal excitation only or a combina-
last solved cycle, and so does the parameterUN1 . For
tion of horizontal and vertical movements.
instance U3 ¼ U2 þ DU3 ; and DU3 ¼
 a  c The upper non-liquefied layer was studied by changing the top
s3 d Pi
p
 f ðeÞ  Pa
 ð C1
3c3 þc3 3
þ c 4  c 1 Þ, layer of 0.5 m by other one having a depth varying from 1 m to 3 m.
2

(iii) if the resultant effective stress isn’t reduced after each cycle The material properties of the top non-liquefied dry loose sand
as it is expected, the changing of biot coefficient that appears layer were similar to the material property of the layer number 1
in Eq. (7) may lead to the target value, where r is the parti-
0 that is presented in Table 1.while the top layer had the character-
cle effective stress, r is the total stress, and p is the pore fluid istics of layer number 4 in case of studying the influence of top
pressure. The following APDL code is used for defining biot non-liquefied dense sand layer.
coefficient -TB, PM, 2, BIOT and TBDATA, 1, 1.0, where the
number 1.0 is the maximum biot coefficient value and the 6.1. The influence of top crust layer (horizontal movement)
number 2 indicates to the material property number.
The results showed a decrease of pile head displacement with
r ¼ r  ap
0
ð7Þ an increase of top dry loose layer thickness. As pile displacement
varied from a value of 0.68 m to 0.448 m to the other value of

Fig. 16. Lateral pile displacement and soil displacement for loose3-Model for: H and H&V movements.
930 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931
Fig. 17. Vertical pile displacement for initial model.
0.2723 m, in case of the top layer thickness (h) had a value of 1.0 m,
2.0 m, and 3.0 m, respectively as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. On the
other hand, the pile head displacement was remarkably reduced
with the presence of top non-liquefied dense sand strata as shown
in Fig. 13. The model having the top loose thickness layer of 1 m is
denoted as ‘loose1’, and the one is having the top thickness of 2 m
referred to as ‘loose2’, while the one having crust thickness of 3 m
is ‘loose3’.
6.2. The influence of top crust layer (horizontal and vertical
movements)
The cases investigated earlier when the model was subjected to
horizontal movement, were employed again under the combina-
tion of horizontal and vertical excitation. When the pile response
in the case that model was subjected to horizontal movement only,
H, was compared with the other case that model was subjected to
Fig. 18. Comparison between lateral pile displacements in case of the top layer is
liquefiable and non-liquefiable.
Fig. 19. Comparison between lateral pile displacements in case of the bottom layer
is partially liquefiable and non-liquefiable.
horizontal and vertical movements, H&V. It has been noticed that
the horizontal pile displacement changed slightly for (loose1-
Model), and (loose2-Model) as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. While
the horizontal pile displacement increased significantly for
(loose3-Model) by about 80% from 0.27 m to 0.486 m as shown
in Fig. 16. This increase may be due to the increase of the stresses
from 381.11 kN/m2 under the impact of horizontal and vertical
movements to the value of 672.6 kN/m2 under the influence of hor-
izontal movement only.
On the other hand, the situation was different for the vertical
displacement; it was found that the vertical pile displacement
decreased with an increase of top layer thickness in (H&V) case.
The values of vertical pile displacement in case of (H&V) are almost
the same compared to the ones in (H) case; however, the most sig-
nificant value was obtained in case of the top layer thickness was
equal to 0.5 m as displayed in the displacement time histories of
Fig. 17.
6.3. The influence of top and bottom liquefiable layer existence
The presence of top liquefiable layer affected the pile response
significantly; the model with a top liquefiable layer of 1.0 m was
compared by the same one having a top non-liquefiable layer.
The lateral pile displacement increased mainly from about
0.54 m to 2.15 m Fig. 18. On the other hand when the bottom layer
was partially liquefied, the pattern of pile displacement was differ-
ent from the same model with the bottom non-liquefied layer.
 N.E. El Fiky et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 11 (2020) 923–931
However, the pile head experienced the same displacement value
as shown in Fig. 19.
7. Conclusions
3D model was performed using the ANSYS program to investi-
gate the seismic effect on a single axially loaded pile in case of soil
liquefaction. After the model was validated, some parameters were
considered to study the pile behaviour more closely. These param-
eters were: the effect of top crust layer whether it was loose of
dense sand and the impact of the increased liquefiable soil thick-
ness in the pile and soil displacements, the following conclusions
were obtained:
In the case of the model was exposed to horizontal movement
only, the top non-liquefiable layer affects the pile response regard-
ing lateral pile displacement as:
1. The increasing of top layer thickness played an essential role in
reducing the pile head displacement as it decreased from
0.685 m to 0.272 m for Loose1-Model and Loose3-Model
respectively; while for Dense-Model, the pile head displace-
ment lowered significantly to a value of 0.04 m.
In the case of the model was subjected to horizontal and vertical
movements the pile behaviour was as follows:
1. The lateral pile displacement changed slightly for Loose1-Model
and Loose2-Model, while For Loose3-Model the situation was
different. As the horizontal pile displacement increased up to
80%, from 0.272 m in case of the model was subjected to hori-
zontal movement only to 0.486 m in case of the model was
exposed to horizontal and vertical movements.
2. The maximum soil displacement around the pile in case of the
model was subjected to horizontal movement only occurred at
the liquefiable layer near to the interface between the liquefi-
able and non-liquefiable one. However in the case of the model
was subjected to horizontal and vertical movements, the
extreme soil displacement value extended to the upper non-
liquefiable strata.
3. The pile was subjected to considerable vertical displacement in
case that it was exposed to horizontal and vertical movements,
for the top non-liquefiable layer thickness of 0.5 m. As the ver-
tical pile displacement reached 0.2 m compared to the value of
0.15 m under the effect of horizontal movement only, the
increase was about 33%.
4. The existence of top liquefiable layer is very influential on the
lateral pile displacement as it increased by 120% from 0.52 m
to 2.2 m. On the other hand, the increasing of liquefaction depth
has varied the pattern of horizontal pile displacement, how-
ever; the pile head displacement was the same.
It is important to mention that the model used in the study is
capable for estimating the post-earthquake residual deformation,
and the pore water pressure generation during earthquake. How-
ever the model is not able to predict the pile behavior in the post
liquefaction process, or namely the process at which the pore
water pressure is dissipated after the oscillations have ended.
References
[1] Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG. A critical review of methods for pile design
in seismically liquefiable soils. Bull Earthq Eng 2008;6(3):407–46.
[2] Wang R. Analysis of seismic single pile response in liquefiable ground. In single
piles in liquefiable ground. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2016. p. 55–89.
[3] Ross G, Seed H, Migliacio R. Performance of highway bridge foundations in the
great Alaska earthquake of 1964. Committee on the Alaskan Earthquake of the
931
Division of Earth Sciences National Research Council. The Great Alaska
Earthquake of 1964. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1973.
[4] Iwasaki T. Soil liquefaction studies in Japan: state-of-the-art. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng 1986;5(1):2–68.
[5] Bhattacharya S, Tokimatsu K, Goda K, Sarkar R, Shadlou M, Rouholamin M.
Collapse of Showa Bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake: a quantitative
reappraisal on the failure mechanisms. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2014;65:55–71.
[6] Yen WHP, Chen G, Buckle I, Allen T, Alzamora D, Ger J, et al. Post-earthquake
reconnaissance report on transportation infrastructure: impact of February 27,
2010, Offshore Maule earthquake in Chile (No. FHWA-HRT-11-030); 2011. p.
46–50 [chapter 4].
[7] Stewart JP, Brandenberg SJ. Preliminary report on seismological and
geotechnical engineering aspects of the April 4, 2010, MW 7.2 El Mayor-
Cucapah (Mexico) earthquake. Report of the National Science Foundation-
Sponsored Geoengineering Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Team;
2010.
[8] Fukuoka M. Damage to civil engineering structures. Soils Found 1966;6
(2):45–52.
[9] Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S. Modal analysis of pile-supported structures
during seismic liquefaction. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(1):119–38.
[10] Youd TL, Carter BL. Influence of soil softening and liquefaction on spectral
acceleration. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(7):811–25.
[11] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or
detrimental?. J Earthquake Eng 2000;4(03):277–301.
[12] Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG, Bolton MD. An alternative mechanism of pile
failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes. Geotechnique
2004;54:203–13.
[13] Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M. Effects of inertial and kinematic interaction on
seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2005;25(7):753–62.
[14] Hussien MN, Karray M, Tobita T, Iai S. Kinematic and inertial forces in pile
foundations under seismic loading. Comput Geotech 2015;69:166–81.
[15] Kaynia AM, Mahzooni S. Forces in pile foundations under seismic loading. J Eng
Mech 1996;122(1):46–53.
[16] Janalizadeh A, Zahmatkesh A. Lateral response of pile foundations in
liquefiable soils. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2015;7(5):532–9.
[17] Abdoun T, Dobry R. Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral spreading.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22(9):1051–8.
[18] Dobry R, Abdoun T, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH. Single piles in lateral spreads: Field
bending moment evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(10):879–89.
[19] Su L, Tang L, Ling X, Liu C, Zhang X. Pile response to liquefaction-induced
lateral spreading: a shake-table investigation. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2016;82:196–204.
[20] Finn WDL, Fujita N. Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis and design
issues. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22(9):731–42.
[21] Hamada M. Performances of foundations against liquefaction-induced
permanent ground displacements. In: Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering; 2000. p. 1754–61.
[22] Bhattacharya S, Bolton M. Errors in design leading to pile failures during
seismic liquefaction; 2004.
[23] Bhattacharya S. Safety assessment of existing piled foundations in liquefiable
soils against buckling instability. ISET J Earthquake Technol 2006;43
(4):133–46.
[24] Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A. Bending–buckling interaction as a
failure mechanism of piles in liquefiable soils. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2010;30(1):32–9.
[25] Mokhtar ASA, Abdel-Motaal MA, Wahidy MM. Lateral displacement and pile
instability due to soil liquefaction using numerical model. Ain Shams Eng J
2014;5(4):1019–32.
[26] Konstadinou M, Georgiannou VN. Prediction of pore water pressure generation
leading to liquefaction under torsional cyclic loading. Soils Found 2014;54
(5):993–1005.
[27] Ishibashi I, Sherif MA, Tsuchiya C. Pore-pressure rise mechanism and soil
liquefaction. Soils Found 1977;17(2):17–27.
[28] Seed HB, Idriss IM, Makdisi F, Banerjee N. ~1975!. –Representation of, irregular
stress time histories by equivalent uniform stress series in liquefaction
analysis.k Rep. No. EERC 75-29. Berkeley, Calif.: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering, Univ. of California.
[29] Kayen RE, Mitchell JK, Seed RB, Lodge A, Nishio SY, Coutinho R. Evaluation of
SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential
assessment using Loma Prieta data. In: Proc., 4th Japan-US Workshop on
Earthquake-Resistant Des. of Lifeline Fac. and Countermeasures for Soil
Liquefaction, vol. 1; 1992, May. p. 177–204.
[30] Dobry R, Ladd RS, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D. Prediction of pore water
pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic
strain method, vol. 138. Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of Standards;
1982 [chapter 5].
[31] Ueng TS, Wang ZF, Chu MC, Ge L. Laboratory tests for permeability of sand
during liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2017;100:249–56.
[32] Shahir H, Pak A, Taiebat M, Jeremić B. Evaluation of variation of permeability in
liquefiable soil under earthquake loading. Comput Geotech 2012;40:74–88.