Acta Geotechnica
DOI 10.1007/s11440-016-0487-z
RESEARCH PAPER
Numerical analysis of the seismic inertial and kinematic effects
on pile bending moment in liquefiable soils
Rui Wang1 • Xing Liu1 • Jian-Min Zhang1
Received: 16 February 2016 / Accepted: 16 August 2016
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract In an effort to study the seismic pile moment
induced by the combined structure–pile inertial and soil–
pile kinematic effects for single piles and pile groups in
liquefiable ground, an extensive series of 3D finite element
simulations are conducted in this paper. The roles that
lateral inertial and kinematic interactions play on the pile
moment are found to differ in different soil–pile–structure
systems. Inertial structure force and kinematic soil dis-
placement of the same direction could cause pile head
moments of the same or opposite directions depending on
the rotational constraint at the pile head. Kinematic inter-
action has a dominating influence on the pile moment for
pile foundations with pile head rotation constrained by the
existence of a pile cap, while inertial interaction is strongly
influential for free-head piles. The coupling of inertial and
kinematic interactions depends on the soil–pile–structure
system configuration and the magnitudes of the inertial
structure force and the kinematic soil displacement. Many
current pseudo-static methods for calculating the seismic
pile moment through summing a percentage of the kine-
matic induced moment with another percentage of the
inertial induced moment could produce very inaccurate
results under certain conditions.
Keywords Inertial  Kinematic  Liquefaction  Pile
moment  Seismic
& Jian-Min Zhang
zhangjm@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
1 the kinematic and inertial loading of the same direction
School of Civil Engineering/State Key Laboratory of
Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic
Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
1 Introduction
Pile foundations in liquefiable ground have shown to be
susceptible to failures in strong earthquakes over the past
50 years (e.g. [27, 28, 38, 45, 47, 51, 53, 58]). These
failures were consequences of not only the inertial forces
from the superstructures, but also the kinematic forces from
the soil, which is particularly detrimental in liquefiable
ground due to the significant deformation associated with
liquefaction. Extensive studies have been dedicated to both
the structure inertia considering foundation–structure
interaction (e.g. [26, 29, 39, 40]) and the force–displace-
ment relationship of soil–pile interaction (e.g.
[11, 13, 19, 22, 41, 43, 44]).
While the individual inertial and kinematic components
are important to the seismic soil–pile–structure response,
and still require further understanding, another critical yet
puzzling question that has drawn increasing attention is
how the inertial and kinematic effects combine to generate
the dynamic pile moment, especially in liquefiable grounds
[6, 30]. Various design codes and pseudo-static analysis
methods have adopted distinctly different approaches in
combining the inertial and kinematic effects. The Chinese
Technical Code for Building Pile Foundations directly
superimposes the peak structure inertial with the peak soil
deformation to calculate the peak moment of piles [33].
The Caltrans guidelines suggest that the peak pile demand
can be estimated by summing 100 % of the kinematic
demand with 50 % of the inertial demand, which would
provide a rough account for the fact that the peak kinematic
and inertial demands may not occur simultaneously [14].
The Caltrans guidelines also point out that in some cases
may have opposite effects [14]. The AASHTO design
specifications assume that pile moments are mainly
123

induced by lateral loads from the superstructure and thus
use only the inertial forces in pseudo-static design [4, 5].
Abghari and Chai [2] proposed that 25 or 50 % of the peak
inertial force should be combined with the peak kinematic
displacement for the calculation of peak pile response,
depending on whether the pile deflection or moment was
being calculated. Tabesh and Poulos [48] showed that
using the full peak inertial force worked well in their
pseudo-static analysis. Liyanapathirana and Poulos [34]
suggested many of the above method overestimates the
inertial effects in liquefiable ground, and the maximum
ground surface acceleration should be used as the structure
acceleration to calculate the inertial force.
Observations from dynamic tests, including shaking
table tests and centrifuge shaking table tests, have been
conducted to shed more light on this issue. Based on results
from shaking table tests on piles in dry and saturated sands,
Tokimatsu et al. [50, 52] suggested that the inertial force
and ground displacement are in phase when the natural
period of the superstructure is less than that of the ground,
which is always true for liquefied ground, while being out
of phase elsewise. If the inertial and kinematic effects are
in phase, the maximum pile moment occurs when the
inertial force and ground displacement are both at their
peaks and acting in the same direction, else the maximum
pile moment occurs when neither is at a maximum [52].
However, Adachi et al. [3] showed that in liquefied ground,
where the natural period of the superstructure is supposedly
less than that of the ground, the maximum inertial force
and kinematic displacement may not act on the pile
simultaneously. Brandenberg et al. [10] and Chang et al.
[15] suggested that during liquefaction, the phasing of the
inertial and kinematic effects is affected by the pile foun-
dation configuration.
The discrepancies in the observed test results and among
various design methods indicate that further investigation
is needed to understand roles and influence of the seismic
structure inertial and soil kinematic effects, especially the
coupling of the inertial and kinematic effects for piles in
liquefiable ground. Recent developments in dynamic
numerical simulation methods for piles in liquefiable
ground can provide an important means to conduct such
investigations. Boulanger et al. [7] and Brandenberg et al.
[12] developed dynamic p–y materials for soil–structure
interaction in non-liquefiable and liquefiable grounds,
respectively. Finn and Fujita [25] used an equivalent linear
model for soil and beam elements for piles in their 3D finite
element simulations of piles in liquefiable ground. Cheng
and Jeremic [17], Lu et al. [35] and Chang et al. [16] used
plasticity models [20, 24] for sand in their simulation
methods and used various different techniques to connect
the beams representing the piles to the soil elements in
order to reflect the geometric properties of the piles. Wang
123
Acta Geotechnica
et al. [54] developed a fully 3D simulation method for piles
in liquefiable ground by using second-order hexahedron
elements for piles to capture both its physical geometry and
bending and used a unified plasticity model for large post-
liquefaction shear deformation of sand [55] to give a good
account for the behaviour of saturated sand under seismic
loading. The simulation method developed by Wang et al.
[54] was validated against a series of centrifuge shaking
table tests on single piles in liquefiable ground, and the
numerical simulation results showed good agreement with
the test measurements. These numerical methods allow for
the possibility of conducting extensive controlled simula-
tion programs to study the influencing factors in the cou-
pling of the inertial and kinematic effects.
This study aims to advance the understanding of the
seismic pile moment induced by the combined structure–
pile inertial and soil–pile kinematic effects for single piles
and pile groups in liquefiable ground through numerical
simulation, which is not yet clearly understood, with sig-
nificant variations in the design recommendations in vari-
ous codes and discrepancies between experimental
observations. The subject is of special importance for the
seismic design of pile foundations in liquefiable ground,
where significant kinematic interaction between soil and
pile occurs, along with the force induced by the inertial
load from the superstructure. As the seismic inertial and
kinematic interaction in pile foundations is a complicated
issue and is dependent on many factors, this paper only
looks to provide analysis of the roles, influence and cou-
pling of the inertial and kinematic effects in some very
basic configurations. Exhaustive investigations into the
many possible factors of influence and full replication of
actual pile foundation setups are not within the scope of the
current study. The 3D finite element simulation method
developed by Wang et al. [54] is briefly presented in
Sect. 2 along with the simulation setups and typical sim-
ulation results. A plasticity model developed by Wang
et al. [55] within the bounding surface plasticity frame-
work, which reflects the cyclic mobility of sand and cap-
tures the generation and accumulation of shear strains at
liquefaction, is used to provide a high fidelity physical
representation of the soil–pile system. The roles of inertial
and kinematic interactions under some typical pile foun-
dation configurations are clarified in Sect. 3, determining
the conditions for inertial force and kinematic displacement
of the same direction to act together or against each other
in generating pile moment. Section 4 investigates the
influence of inertial and kinematic interactions in single
piles and pile groups through a controlled simulation pro-
gram, where the inertial force from the structures and the
soil deformation is altered. The coupling of inertial and
kinematic interactions is discussed in detail in Sect. 5
through analysing the correlation and phase difference
Acta Geotechnica
between structure acceleration and pile moment and soil
displacement and pile moment.
2 Simulation of seismic pile response
2.1 Simulation method
In this study, the finite element modelling method for piles
in liquefiable ground developed by Wang et al. [54] is
adopted in the numerical simulations. The simulations
follow a staged modelling procedure to allow the model to
achieve a proper initial hydrostatic state prior to seismic
loading. First, the soil block representing the ground
without piles is modelled with drainage through the soil
surface, the bottom surface constrained in all three direc-
tions, and the side boundaries constrained in the horizontal
direction perpendicular to the side. After consolidation is
completed in the first step, pile and interface elements are
inserted to replace the soil elements at the specified loca-
tion, and another gravity step is subsequently carried out to
account for settlement and consolidation caused by pile
insertion. Upon completion of the initial gravity stages to
generate the initial stress state, the seismic simulation is
conducted by inputting the ground motion at the base of the
model, and boundary condition of the corresponding nodes
on the two sides of the model in the shaking direction is
changed to share the same DOF, forming a tied boundary
condition.
In order to appropriately reflect the kinematic soil–pile
interaction in liquefiable ground, the unified plasticity model
for large post-liquefaction shear deformation of sand
developed by Wang et al. [55] is used. The constitutive
model functions within the frameworks of bounding surface
Fig. 1 Simulation of undrained cyclic torsional test for Toyoura sand at Dr = 60 % (Wang et al. [55], with permission from Elsevier)
plasticity [21] and complies with critical state soil mechanics
to achieve a unified description of saturated sand for pre- to
post-liquefaction stages under monotonic and cyclic loading
based on the post-liquefaction deformation mechanism
proposed by Zhang and Wang [59], through appropriate
formulations for the dilatancy of sand. The model has been
validated against a wide range of monotonic/cyclic drained/
undrained laboratory tests and has shown great capabilities
in providing unified description of sand behaviour under the
considered conditions [55]. Figure 1 shows the simulation of
an undrained cyclic torsional test on Toyoura sand using the
model, exhibiting its advantages in reflecting the dilatancy of
sand during cyclic loading and in capturing the generation of
shear strain during liquefaction. The constitutive model is
numerically implemented using the cutting-plane stress
integration scheme [46], with the Pegasus procedure [23]
adopted in the determination of stress projection and a tan-
gent matrix transformation technique [56] used for sym-
metrisation, to achieve stable and efficient numerical
performance. Hexahedron elements with u-p formulation
[61] are used for solid–fluid coupling analysis in the simu-
lations. Since the simulations conducted in this study are all
on piles in level ground, the shear strain within the soil is
limited, and thus large strain formulation is not applied on the
element formulation level.
The piles are simulated using several rows (4–6) of
second-order hexahedron elements along the bending
direction, an approach that has been proven to be able to
capture the deflection and bending moment of piles [54].
A nonlinear model [18] is used for the soil–pile interface
in this study, and the gapping between the sand and pile
interface is not considered as experimental observations
have not shown such occurrences in liquefiable sand
[1, 9].
123

Fig. 2 Simulation of a centrifuge shaking table test on a single pile in
liquefiable ground: a acceleration at ground surface; b excess pore
pressure at 1.2 m depth, 4.0 m from pile; c pile moment at 0.45 m
depth; d pile moment at 2.25 m depth (Wang et al. [54], with
permission from Elsevier)
The simulation method for piles in liquefiable ground
has been shown by Wang et al. [54] to be capable of
reproducing the results of a series of centrifuge tests. Fig-
ure 2 shows the simulation results against the results from
a centrifuge shaking table test on a single pile in level
liquefiable ground, and the simulated ground acceleration,
excess pore pressure, and pile bending moment time his-
tories showed good agreement with the test results. Readers
interested in the detailed validation of the constitutive
model and the FEM simulation method in this study should
refer to the previous studies by Wang et al. [54, 55].
2.2 Simulation setup
Three typical soil–pile–structure system configurations are
investigated in this study, including a single pile with
embedded pile cap configuration, a single pile without pile
cap configuration, and a pile group with embedded pile cap
configuration. Although the single pile configurations in
this study are not typical in practice, they are designed to
123
Acta Geotechnica
provide the most basic cases for the analysis of inertial and
kinematic interactions for piles with pile head free and
fixed against rotation. The findings from these simplified
configurations can provide the basis for understanding for
more complex and realistic problems, which is shown for
the pile group configuration. The three different configu-
rations are not intended to be able to exhaustively reflect all
the possible setups of pile foundations, but rather to pro-
vide three representative cases which cover free-head pile,
fully fixed-head pile (the large rigid pile cap provides
almost full rotational constraint for the pile head), and pile
group setups. For example, the pile head constraint will
always fall somewhere between been free and fully
constraint.
The ground is simulated using the plasticity model for
large post-liquefaction shear deformation of sand devel-
oped by Wang et al. [55] with the model parameters of
Fujian sand, and the piles and pile caps are simulated using
an isotropic linear elastic model with the material param-
eters of aluminium following Wang et al.’s [55] centrifuge
tests. The detailed material parameters are provided by
Wang et al. [54, 55]. The finite element model for the
single pile configurations is shown in Fig. 3a, and only half
of the entire model is used to take advantage of the sym-
metry of the problem. The only difference between the two
single pile configurations is the existence of the pile cap,
which is designed to analyse the effect of pile head con-
straint on inertial and kinematic effects. For the single pile
configurations, the pile is 6 m long with a square cross
section of 0.3 m 9 0.3 m, and the ground consists of a 5 m
Dr = 50 % layer overlying a 2.5 m Dr = 80 % layer. The
superstructure in the single pile configurations is 3 m tall
with over 90 % of its mass concentrated in the block sitting
at the top (Fig. 3a), which follows the settings of the near
single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure used in the
centrifuge tests by Wang et al. [55]. The pile cap in the
single pile model is 0.3 m thick and 2.7 m long by 2.7 m
wide. The finite element model for the pile group config-
uration is shown in Fig. 3b, and again only half of the
entire model is used due to symmetry. The 16 piles in the
pile group are 16 m long each with the same cross section
as that in the single pile model, and the distance between
two adjacent piles is 1.1 m (Fig. 3c), which is 3.67 times
the side of the pile. The ground consists of a 14 m
Dr = 50 % layer overlying an 8 m Dr = 80 % layer. The
superstructure is the 10-m-tall SDOF structure. The pile
cap in the pile group setup is 2 m thick, 5.2 m long, and
5.2 m wide (Fig. 3c).
In order to investigate the seismic inertial and kinematic
effects on piles in liquefiable ground and clarify the cou-
pling mechanisms of the two effects, an extensive con-
trolled simulation program is specifically devised as shown
in Table 1. For each of the three different configurations
Acta Geotechnica

Table 1 Simulation program

Model Model ID Simulation Mass (t) G0
configuration performed

Single pile Cm5.4G200 Static, 5.4 200

with pile dynamic
cap Cm10.8G200 Dynamic 10.8 200
Cm0.108G200 Dynamic 0.108 200
Cm1.08G200 Dynamic 1.08 200
Cm16.2G200 Dynamic 16.2 200
Cm21.6G200 Dynamic 21.6 200
Cm32.4G200 Dynamic 32.4 200
Cm10.8G150 Dynamic 10.8 150
Cm10.8G250 Dynamic 10.8 250
Cm10.8G300 Dynamic 10.8 300
Single pile NCm2.55G200 Static, 2.55 200
without dynamic
pile cap NCm1.7G200 Dynamic 1.7 200
NCm0.017G200 Dynamic 0.017 200
NCm0.17G200 Dynamic 0.17 200
NCm0.85G200 Dynamic 0.85 200
NCm3.4G200 Dynamic 3.4 200
NCm5.1G200 Dynamic 5.1 200
NCm1.7G150 Dynamic 1.7 150
NCm1.7G250 Dynamic 1.7 250
NCm1.7G300 Dynamic 1.7 300
Pile group PGm300G200 Static, 300 200
dynamic
PGm30G200 Dynamic 30 200
PGm150G200 Dynamic 150 200
PGm900G200 Dynamic 900 200
PGm1500G200 Dynamic 1500 200
PGm3000G200 Dynamic 3000 200
Fig. 3 Finite element simulation models: a single pile; b pile groups; PGm300G150 Dynamic 300 150
c pile group arrangement PGm300G250 Dynamic 300 250
PGm300G300 Dynamic 300 300
(single pile with/without pile cap and pile group), besides The model ID represents the setup of each model, C, NC, and PG
the dynamic simulations conducted under seismic loading, represents single pile with pile cap, single pile without pile cap, and
the roles of the structure inertial force and soil kinematic pile group, respectively. The subscript in ID indicates the mass of
superstructure and the elastic shear modulus parameter of the soil
deformation on pile moment are also qualitatively studied model. Static simulations include simulations that apply lateral force
by applying lateral forces on the structures and displace- on structures and deformation on soil, respectively. Mass is the mass
ment profiles on the ground in static simulations on models of the structure in the model, and G0 is the elastic shear modulus
Cm5.4G200, NCm2.55G200, and PGm300G200. Note that in the parameter of the soil model
static simulations, the soils are at the initial consolidated
state and do not go through liquefaction, which is not without changing the dynamic motion of the structure (i.e.
expected to quantitatively reproduce the pile moment the stiffness of the structure is changed through changing
generated during dynamic analysis. The influence of the the modulus of the supporting column in correspondence to
inertial effects in each setup is studied through dynamic the mass). The influence of the kinematic effects in each
simulations on models with different superstructure mass setup is studied through dynamic simulations on models
values, for example on models Cm0.108G200, Cm1.08G200, with different soil elastic shear modulus parameter (G0)
Cm5.4G200, Cm10.8G200, Cm16.2G200, Cm21.6G200, and values, for example on models Cm10.8G150, Cm10.8G200,
Cm32.4G200. The natural period of the structure remains Cm10.8G250, and Cm10.8G300. By altering the elastic shear
constant in these models so as to change the inertial force modulus parameter (G0) of the sand, the kinematic

123

deformation of the ground is changed. This controlled
variable simulation program is designed to separate the
influences of the inertial and kinematic effects as clearly as
possible. A total of 6 static simulations and 29 dynamic
simulations on 29 models are conducted in this study
(Table 1).
2.3 Typical simulation results
The ground acceleration and excess pore pressure histories
at various depths in the ground from the dynamic simula-
tion of model PGm300G200 are shown in Fig. 4. Compared
with the input acceleration, the ground surface motion is
strongly attenuated due to the liquefaction of the soil
(Fig. 4a), which is often observed in centrifuge shaking
table tests (e.g. [49]). The same input acceleration time
history is used for all the dynamic simulations in this paper
(Fig. 4b). The soil in the top medium dense layer reached
liquefaction during shaking (Fig. 4c), with the excess pore
pressure ratio ru = 1 after about 7.5 s, while the soil in the
bottom dense layer did not reach liquefaction (Fig. 4d).
Typical stress paths and stress–strain relationship from
Fig. 4 Typical seismic ground acceleration and excess pore pressure
response from model PGm300G200: a ground surface acceleration;
b input acceleration at the base of the model; c excess pore pressure at
2 m depth; d excess pore pressure at 18 m depth
123
Acta Geotechnica
model PGm300G200 are presented in Fig. 5, where the soil
reaches liquefaction at 4 m depth (Fig. 5a), and significant
shear strain occurs at zero effective stress, while the
effective stress only drops to around 40 kPa at 16 m depth
(Fig. 5b). The seismic ground response of the single pile
models follows similar patterns to those shown in Figs. 4
and 5 and has been discussed in more detail by Wang et al.
[54].
The pile head moment histories and peak bending
moment distributions in models Cm5.4G200 and NCm2.55G200
are provided in Fig. 6, representing the typical seismic pile
moment responses in the dynamic simulations of single
pile models. The maximum moment in the pile for both the
single pile with and without pile cap settings occurs at the
pile head. The peak pile moments in these two setups occur
almost at the same time (Fig. 6a, b), but in different
directions, even though the input seismic motions for the
two setups are identical.
The pile head moment history and peak bending
moment distribution in pile number 8 (Fig. 3c) in the pile
group of model PGm300G200 are shown in Fig. 7. The
maximum moment occurs at the pile head, and similar to
the single pile with pile cap setup, the maximum pile
moment is negative. The bending moments in the other
piles are 10–20 % smaller than that of pile number 8 with
similar time history and distribution patterns. In this paper,
only the bending moment of pile number 8 in the pile group
is analysed, with the distribution of load among the piles in
the group out of the scope of study.
These typical dynamic ground and pile moment
responses in single pile with and without pile cap, and pile
group configurations, exhibit the simulation method’s
capability in reproducing the seismic pile response of piles
in liquefiable soil and lay ground for the analysis of inertial
and kinematic effects.
3 Role of inertial and kinematic effects
The typical simulation results in the previous section show
that under the same input motion, the single pile with and
without pile cap configurations experience peak pile
moment at almost the same time at the pile head, but of
different directions. This raises questions about the roles
that structure inertial force and soil kinematic deformation
play on the pile bending moment.
3.1 Single pile with pile cap
Figure 8 plots the pile head moment (maximum moment in
the pile) against the structure acceleration and soil surface
displacement in model Cm5.4G200 of the single pile with pile
cap configuration, representing the inertial and kinematic
Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 5 Simulated stress–strain relationship from model PGm300G200: a 4.0 m from ground surface, 4.0 m from pile; b 16.0 m from ground
surface, 4.0 m from pile

Fig. 6 Typical single pile moment response: a pile head moment history in model Cm5.4G200 (with pile cap and super-structure); b pile head
moment history in model NCm2.55G200 (without pile cap); c snapshots of the bending moment distribution along the pile in models Cm5.4G200
and NCm2.55G200, taken at the instances when peak bending moment occurred

interactions, respectively. In this model, the pile head
moment is positively correlated with the structure accel-
eration (i.e. negatively correlated with structure inertial
force) and is negatively correlated with the soil surface
displacement. The correlation of pile head moment with
the soil surface displacement is stronger than that with the
structure acceleration. When the pile head moment is at its
peak value (negative), the structure acceleration is close to
its peak negative value (positive inertial force), while the
soil surface displacement is close to its peak positive value.
The roles of structure inertial force and soil deformation
can be looked into through applying a positive lateral force

123

Fig. 7 Typical pile group moment response in model PGm300G200:
a pile head moment history of pile number 8; b snapshots of the
bending moment distribution along pile number 8, taken at the
instances when peak bending moment occurred
Fig. 8 Relationship between a structure acceleration and pile head
moment (reflecting inertial interaction), and between b soil surface
displacement and pile head moment (reflecting kinematic interaction)
in model Cm5.4G200
on the structure and a positive soil lateral displacement
profile on the ground separately in two static simulations
conducted on the model (Fig. 9). Figure 9a shows that
when a positive lateral force is applied on the structure, the
pile head is subjected to a positive bending moment, which
is opposite to the trend in Fig. 8a. When a positive soil
displacement profile is enforced on the boundaries of the
ground, as shown in Fig. 9b, a negative bending moment
occurs at the pile head, similar to the pattern in Fig. 8b.
123
Acta Geotechnica
Comparing the static simulation results in Fig. 9 with the
dynamic results in Fig. 8, it is clear that in this model, the
kinematic soil deformation plays a dominating role on the
pile moment, while the structure inertial force works
against the kinematic effect. It should be pointed out that
the static simulations can only provide a qualitative
understanding of the roles of inertial and kinematic effects,
as the soil properties and the combination of the two effects
changes during the dynamic simulation. During the
dynamic simulation, the effective stress within the sand is
generally lower than the initial value due to the build-up of
excessive pore pressure, however, as Wang et al. [55]
observed, the near field sand experiences significant dila-
tion that increases the effective stress, suggesting that it is
inappropriate to neglect the lateral force applied by the soil
on the pile in the liquefied layer, which is qualitatively
reflected in Fig. 9b.
3.2 Single pile without pile cap
The relationships between the pile head moment and the
structure acceleration and soil surface displacement in
model NCm2.55G200 of the single pile without pile cap
configuration shown in Fig. 10 are opposite to those from
the dynamic simulation of the single pile with pile cap
configuration. In this model, the pile head moment is
negatively correlated with the structure acceleration (i.e.
positively correlated with structure inertial force) and is
positively correlated with the soil surface displacement.
The correlation between the pile moment and the structure
acceleration is slightly stronger than that between the pile
moment and the soil surface displacement. The structure
acceleration and soil surface displacement are close to the
maximum negative and positive values, respectively, when
the pile head moment is at its positive maximum. This
means that under inertial and kinematic effects of the same
direction, the single pile without pile cap configuration
experiences pile head moment of the opposite direction to
the configuration with pile cap. Similar to the static sim-
ulations on the single pile with pile cap configuration, a
positive lateral force is applied on the structure and a
positive soil lateral displacement profile is applied on the
soil in two static simulations. Figure 11 shows that a pos-
itive pile head moment is generated with positive lateral
force on the structure, while the soil displacement profile
only generates an insignificant amount of positive pile head
moment, with the maximum moment occurring at the
middle of the pile. Again, the static analysis only provides
a qualitative representation of the direction of pile moment
caused by the kinematic and inertial effects. Based on both
dynamic and static analysis for the single pile without pile
cap configuration, the inertial effect strongly dominates the
pile moment at the pile head.
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 9 Pile moment caused by a applying a static positive lateral force on the structure in model Cm5.4G200, b applying a static positive
deformation profile on the soil in model Cm5.4G200
Fig. 10 Relationship between a structure acceleration and pile head
moment (reflecting inertial interaction) and between b soil surface
displacement and pile head moment (reflecting kinematic interaction)
in model NCm2.55G200
3.3 Pile group
Figure 12 displays the pile head moment in pile number 8
(maximum moment in the pile group) against the structure
acceleration and soil surface displacement in model
PGm300G200 of the pile group configuration, which follow
similar patterns as those of the single pile with pile cap
configuration. Figure 13 shows that a positive lateral force
on the structure generates positive pile head moment in pile
number 8, and a positive soil deformation profile generates
negative pile head moment in pile number 8. The other
piles in the group respond in the same way as the pile
number 8, but with smaller pile head moments. For this
model, the kinematic soil deformation plays a dominating
role on the pile moment, while the structure inertial force
works against the kinematic effect. The similarities
between the pile group configuration and the single pile
with pile cap configuration are not surprising as in both
cases the pile head is constrained from rotation due to the
existence of a near rigid pile cap.
These analyses show that the roles of inertial and
kinematic effects are different in different soil–pile–struc-
ture system configurations, and depending on the configu-
ration, the kinematic and inertial loading of the same
direction may cause bending moment to be of the same or
opposite directions. The difference in the roles of inertial
and kinematic effects on the dynamic pile moment for the
pile setups with and without pile cap is caused by the
different constraint conditions at the pile head, which has
been discussed by Wang et al. [55] by analysing the
deflection of the pile. For the setup with pile cap, the
rotation of the pile head is restricted. The negative pile
head moment caused by positive soil displacement is
mostly due to the translational movement of the pile cap
and the pile head, and the positive lateral force on the
structure generates a positive moment at the base of the
structure, subtracting from which the portion that is carried
by the pile cap remains the portion carried by the pile head.
For the setup without pile cap, the positive lateral force
generates a positive moment acting entirely on the pile
head. The pile head moment caused by soil deformation in
this study echoes the experimental findings by Poulos et al.
[42] for free-head and fixed-head (fixed against both rota-
tion and displacement) single piles in dry sand. Experi-
mental and numerical studies on laterally loaded piles have
123

Fig. 11 Pile moment caused by a applying static positive lateral force on the structure in model NCm2.55G200, and b applying a static positive
deformation profile on the soil in model NCm2.55G200
Fig. 12 Relationship between a structure acceleration and pile head
moment (reflecting inertial interaction) and between b soil surface
displacement and pile head moment (reflecting kinematic interaction)
in model PGm300G200
also shown the difference in pile moment caused by pile
head constraint (e.g. [31, 32, 36, 37, 60]). However, lateral
loads are directly applied at the pile head in most of these
studies, not accounting for the bending moment generated
by the lateral force acting on the structure at some
elevation.
4 Influence of inertial and kinematic effects
Upon acquiring a clear understanding of the roles of iner-
tial and kinematic effects in the pile configurations in this
study, it is then important to answer the question of how
much influence the inertial and kinematic effects have on
the dynamic pile bending moment in such configurations.
123
Acta Geotechnica
4.1 Single pile with pile cap
For the single pile with pile cap configuration, Fig. 14a–c
shows the influence of structure mass on peak pile moment,
structure acceleration, and soil surface displacement based
on the results from dynamic simulations on models
Cm0.108G200, Cm1.08G200, Cm5.4G200, Cm10.8G200, Cm16.2G200,
Cm21.6G200, and Cm32.4G200. These models have exactly the
same settings for the soil, pile, and pile cap, but the mass of
the superstructure is changed accompanied by the change
in structure stiffness, so as to retain constant structure
height and natural period. In this way, the motion of the
soil–pile–structure system remains largely unchanged, as
indicated by the negligible variations in the results of peak
structure acceleration and soil surface displacement among
the 7 models shown in Fig. 14b, c. The change in the peak
pile moment is then almost solely induced by the change in
structure mass and hence peak inertial force. The pile
absolute value of peak pile head moment decreases with
increasing structure mass (Fig. 14a), meaning that an
increase in inertial force from the superstructure could
actually lead to a decrease in pile moment, which is
counter-intuitive. However, if we consider the findings
from the previous section that the structure inertial force
works against the kinematic effect and the pile head
moment in this configuration, such a trend is then quite
understandable. In this series of simulations, when the
structure mass changed by 300 times from 0.108 to 32.4 t,
the peak pile moment merely reduced by 60 % from
Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 13 Pile moment caused by a applying static positive lateral force on the structure in model PGm300G200 and b applying a static positive
deformation profile on the soil in model PGm300G200

Fig. 14 Influence of structure mass on a peak pile moment, b peak structure acceleration, c peak soil surface displacement, and influence of soil
shear modulus parameter G0 on d peak pile moment, e peak structure acceleration, and f peak soil surface displacement in single pile models with
pile cap

123

Fig. 15 Influence of structure mass on a peak pile moment, b peak structure acceleration, c peak soil surface displacement, and influence of soil
shear modulus parameter G0 on d peak pile moment, e peak structure acceleration, and f peak soil surface displacement in single pile models
without pile cap
-88 kNm to -35 kN. These results show that the inertial
effects on pile moment in the single pile with pile cap
configuration are actually beneficial in terms of reducing
pile bending moment, but the influence is somewhat lim-
ited. The small influence of the inertial force is similar to
the in situ measurements obtained by Yamashita et al. [57].
The influence of kinematic soil deformation on pile
bending moment for the single pile with pile cap configu-
ration is investigated by altering the soil elastic shear
modulus parameter (G0) value in models Cm10.8G150,
Cm10.8G200, Cm10.8G250, and Cm10.8G300 (Fig. 14d–f). By
changing G0 value from 150 to 300, the peak soil surface
displacement reduces from 3.4 to 1.3 cm (Fig. 14f). The
62 % decrease in peak soil surface displacement causes the
peak pile moment to reduce from -88 to -28 kNm, by
68 % (Fig. 14d). This indicates that for the single pile with
pile cap configuration, the soil kinematic deformation is
highly influential to the pile moment, and limiting the soil
deformation serves as a valid way to reduce the seismic
pile bending moment. It should be noted out that the
change in G0 value also caused the peak structure accel-
eration to change from -3.1 to -4.3 m/s2; however, as
analysed in the influence of inertial effects, such a small
change in inertial force would not significantly affect the
pile moment. It should be pointed out that the change in
123
Acta Geotechnica
soil elastic shear modulus parameter (G0) value would not
only change the displacement of the soil, but would be
expected to influence the soil–pile interaction stiffness,
which is not looked into in this study.
4.2 Single pile without pile cap
For the single pile without pile cap configuration, dynamic
simulations on models NCm0.017G200, NCm0.17G200,
NCm0.85G200, NCm1.7G200, NCm2.55G200, NCm3.4G200, and
NCm5.1G200 are conducted to investigate the influence of
inertial effect by changing the structure mass while keeping
its natural period constant, with the results shown in
Fig. 15a–c. In these simulations, the change in structure
mass had negligible effect on the soil surface displacement
(Fig. 15c), and the peak structure acceleration only
increased slightly from -4.8 to -5.7 m/s2 when the
structure mass increases from 0.017 to 5.1 t (Fig. 15b). In
contrast to the single pile with pile cap setup, the change in
structure mass has a strong influence on the peak pile
moment. When the structure mass increases by 6 times
from 0.85 to 5.1 t, the peak inertial force (mass times peak
acceleration) increases by 6.7 times from 4.3 to 29.1 kN,
the peak pile moment increased by 7.2 times from 9.3 to
66.7 kNm (Fig. 15a). However, when the structure mass is
Acta Geotechnica
small enough, 0.85 t in this case, the maximum pile
moment no longer appears at the pile head; hence, the
change in structure mass has almost no influence on the
peak pile moment, as in the simulation results of model
NCm0.017G200 and NCm0.17G200. These results show that
when the structure inertial force is strong enough for the
peak pile moment to occur at the pile head in the single pile
without pile cap configuration, the dynamic pile moment
increases almost linearly with increasing peak inertial
force.
The influence of kinematic effects for the single pile
without pile cap configuration is investigated through
dynamic simulations on models NCm1.7G150, NCm1.7G200,
NCm1.7G250, and NCm1.7G300 (Fig. 15d–f) with different soil
elastic shear modulus parameter (G0) values. Similar to the
configuration with pile cap, when G0 value is changed from
150 to 300, the peak soil surface displacement reduces
from 3.4 to 1.5 cm (Fig. 15f). This 56 % decrease in soil
surface displacement only leads to a 10 % decrease in peak
pile moment (Fig. 15d), which is probably mostly caused
by the 17 % decrease in structure acceleration (Fig. 15e),
based on the previous understanding of the influence of
inertial effects. This shows that the soil kinematic defor-
mation has little influence on the dynamic pile moment in
the single pile without pile cap configuration, since for a
free rotational pile head, the soil displacement alone does
Fig. 16 Influence of structure mass on a peak pile moment, b peak structure acceleration, and c peak soil surface displacement, and influence of
soil shear modulus parameter G0 on d peak pile moment, e peak structure acceleration, and f peak soil surface displacement in pile group models
not generate significant moment at the pile head, as shown
in Fig. 11b. However, if the inertial force from the struc-
ture is small enough that the maximum pile moment does
not occur at the pile head, the influence of kinematic effects
would be expected to be more significant.
4.3 Pile group
In the pile group configuration, similar to the single pile
with pile cap configuration, inertial effects have limited
influence on the pile moment, while kinematic effects are
much more influential. The influence of inertial effects is
shown in Fig. 16a–c (models PGm30G200, PGm150G200,
PGm300G200, PGm900G200, PGm1500G200, and PGm3000G200),
when the structure mass increases by 100 times from 30 to
3000 t, the peak inertial force from the structure increases
by 70 times (mass times peak acceleration, Fig. 16b), while
the peak pile moment only changes by 23 %, decreasing
from -56 to -43 kNm (Fig. 18a). Figure 16d–f shows that
when the peak soil surface displacement decreases by 24 %
from 6.7 to 5.1 cm by changing the soil elastic shear
modulus parameter (G0) value in models PGm300G150,
PGm300G200, PGm300G250, and PGm300G300 from 150 to 300,
the peak pile moment decreases by 38 % from -59.6 to
-36.7 kNm. Although the change in G0 also influences the
structure acceleration, the analysis on the influence of
123

inertial effects shows that this change in structure accel-
eration would not significantly influence the peak pile
moment.
The above analyses show that for single pile and pile
group configurations with the rotation of the pile head
constrained by the pile cap, kinematic effects have a
dominating influence on the pile moment, which echo the
actual measurements during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
reported by Yamashita et al. [57]. For the single pile
without pile cap configuration, inertial effects dominantly
influence the pile moment.
5 Coupling of inertial and kinematic effects
An important aspect in understanding the seismic inertial
and kinematic effects on pile bending moment in liquefi-
able soils is the coupling of inertial and kinematic inter-
actions. Cross-correlation analysis between structure
acceleration and pile moment, and between soil surface
displacement and pile moment time history data, based on
signal processing, can provide a means to quantify the
correlation and phase difference between inertial and
kinematic interactions. The cross-correlation coefficient of
two discrete time series of data f and g can be calculated as
[8]:
Pn
def t¼1 f ½tg½t þ D
ðf  gÞ½D ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 Pn Pn
t¼1 f ½tf ½t t¼1 g½tg½t
where t is the index of the data point in the series ranging
from 1 to n, and D is the lag. Equation 1 always yields a
coefficient value between -1 and 1 inclusive, where 1
represents total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and
-1 is total negative correlation. When D = 0, Eq. 1
measures the linear correlation between two original time
series. By calculating the cross-correlation coefficient for
lag ðn  1Þ  D  n  1, the time lag between the two
correlated time series can be determined as the lag at which
the maximum absolute value of cross-correlation coeffi-
cient is obtained.
5.1 Single pile with pile cap
Figure 17 depicts the relationships between the pile head
moment (maximum moment in the pile) and the structure
acceleration, and between the pile head moment and the
soil surface displacement in models Cm21.6G200 and
Cm32.4G200 of the single pile with embedded pile cap con-
figuration. Comparing the results for model Cm21.6G200 in
Fig. 17a with those for model Cm5.4G200 in Fig. 8, it can be
seen that when the structure mass increases from 5.4 to
21.6 t, the correlation between inertial force and pile
123
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 17 Relationship between structure acceleration and pile head
moment (inertial interaction) and between soil surface displacement
and pile head moment (kinematic interaction) in models
a CHm21.6G200 and b CHm32.4G200
moment becomes stronger, while the correlation between
kinematic deformation and pile moment becomes slightly
stronger. However, if the mass of the structure further
increases to 32.4 t as in model Cm32.4G200, the correlations
between both inertial and kinematic effects and pile
moment become less significant (Fig. 17b).
ffi ð1Þ
Results from cross-correlation analysis between the
structure acceleration and the pile moment time histories,
and between the soil surface displacement and the pile
moment time histories in Fig. 18a, b, for models
Cm0.108G200, Cm1.08G200, Cm5.4G200, Cm10.8G200, Cm16.2G200,
Cm21.6G200, and Cm32.4G200, quantify the observations in
Fig. 17. At small structure masses, the pile moment has an
almost perfect negative correlation with the kinematic soil
displacement, with a correlation coefficient of -0.95
(Fig. 18a). This correlation for kinematic interaction
becomes less significant as the mass of the structure
increases, with the coefficient becoming 0.15 for model
Cm32.4G200 (Fig. 18a). The time lag between soil displace-
ment and pile moment time histories also increases from
0.02 to 0.22 s (Fig. 18b). The correlation coefficient
between the structure acceleration and the pile moment
time histories is only 0.51 for model Cm0.108G200, and
increases with increasing structure mass to reach a maxi-
mum of 0.78 for model Cm21.6G200, but decreases to 0.36 as
the structure mass further increases to 32.4 t in model
Cm32.4G200. The time lag between the structure acceleration
and the pile moment changes from -0.1 to 0.1 s as the
structure mass increases. Note that when the structure mass
is very small, the structure stiffness is also very small, and
thus the time lag between structure acceleration does not
Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 18 Correlation coefficient and time lag of structure acceleration and pile head moment (inertial interaction), and of soil surface
displacement and pile head moment (kinematic interaction) in relationship to structure mass and soil elastic shear modulus parameter G0 for
single pile models with pile cap

necessarily diminish as the structure mass becomes

smaller.
Cross-correlation analyses on models Cm10.8G150,
Cm10.8G200, Cm10.8G250, and Cm10.8G300 show that the stiff-
ness of the soil, and hence the kinematic deformation, also
affect the correlations for inertial and kinematic interac-
tions (Fig. 18c, d). The kinematic deformation shows
stronger correlation with the pile moment with higher soil
stiffness; for model Cm10.8G300, the correlation coefficient
reaches -0.97 with 0 time lag. However, the inertial force
has stronger correlation with the pile moment in soil with
lower stiffness; for model Cm10.8G150, the correlation
coefficient is 0.83 with 0 time lag.
For the single pile with embedded pile cap setup, the
coupling of inertial and kinematic interactions is strongly
influenced by the magnitudes of both the structure inertial
force and the soil kinematic deformation.
5.2 Single pile without pile cap
For the single pile without pile cap configuration, Fig. 19
shows that in model NCm0.017G200 when the structure mass
is smaller than that in model NCm0.85G200 in Fig. 10, the
correlations between the pile moment and the structure
acceleration, and between the pile moment and the soil
surface displacement, become much weaker. The weaker
correlations in this model are to be expected, as the max-
imum pile moment does not occur at the pile head, but at
3.5 m depth. When the structure mass is small enough so
Fig. 19 Relationship between structure acceleration and pile moment
(inertial interaction) and between soil surface displacement and pile
moment (kinematic interaction) in model NCm0.017G200
that the maximum pile moment does not occur at the pile
head, the structure acceleration and the soil surface dis-
placement have almost no correlation with the pile moment
with large time lags (Fig. 20). However, if the structure
mass is large enough, the pile moment has a correlation
coefficient of around -0.85 and almost no time lag with
structure acceleration and has a correlation coefficient of
around 0.75 and little time lag with the soil surface dis-
placement, irrespective of the structure mass. Changes in
soil elastic shear modulus parameter (G0) value in models
NCm1.7G150, NCm1.7G200, NCm1.7G250, and NCm1.7G300
cause insignificant effects on the coupling of inertial and
kinematic interactions. For the single pile without pile cap
setup, it would be acceptable to consider the inertial and
kinematic interactions to work in phase in designing for the
pile moment.

123

Fig. 20 Correlation coefficient and time lag of structure acceleration
and pile head moment (inertial interaction), and of soil surface
displacement and pile head moment (kinematic interaction) in
relationship to structure mass for single pile models without pile cap
Fig. 21 Relationship between structure acceleration and pile head
moment (inertial interaction) and between soil surface displacement
and pile head moment (kinematic interaction) in models
a PGm30G200 and b PGm1500G200
5.3 Pile group
For the pile group configuration, Fig. 21 plots the rela-
tionships between the pile head moment (maximum
moment in the pile) and the structure acceleration, and
between the pile head moment and the soil surface dis-
placement in models PGm30G200, and PGm1500G200. Com-
pared with results in Fig. 12 for model PGm30G200, the
123
Acta Geotechnica
correlations for inertial interaction are weaker for both the
models with small and large structure masses, while the
correlations for kinematic interaction remain relatively
strong. The correlation coefficient and time lag for the pile
group setup are similar to those of the single pile with pile
cap setup. The correlation coefficient between the structure
acceleration and the pile moment increases with increasing
structure mass when the structure mass is smaller than
300 t, reaching a maximum of 0.68, but decreases when
structure mass increases beyond 300 t (Fig. 22a). The time
lag between structure acceleration and pile moment chan-
ges from -0.1 to 0.16 when the structure mass increases
from 30 to 3000 t (Fig. 22b). The correlation coefficient
between the soil surface displacement and the pile moment
remains greater than -0.95 except for model PGm3000G200,
where the coefficient drops to -0.87 (Fig. 22a). The time
lag for kinematic interaction changes from -0.04 to 0.02 s
as the structure mass increases from 30 to 3000 t
(Fig. 22b). For both the pile group and single pile config-
urations with embedded pile cap, as the structure mass
increases, the inertial effect plays a more significant role on
the dynamic response, and the correlation between the
structure acceleration and pile moment becomes stronger,
while that between the soil displacement and pile moment
becomes weaker. However, if the inertial effect increases
beyond a certain point, because the inertial and kinematic
effects work against each other in generating pile moment,
the dynamic pile moment becomes out of phase with both
the effects, and the peak pile moment does not occur
concurrently with the peak of either effect. For the pile
group (Fig. 22c, d), the kinematic deformation shows
stronger correlation with the pile moment with higher soil
stiffness, while the inertial force has stronger correlation
with the pile moment in soil with lower stiffness. However,
the influence of the stiffness of the soil, and hence the
kinematic deformation, on the coupling of inertial and
kinematic effects is less significant than that for the single
pile with pile cap configuration. The similarities between
the pile group response and that of the single pile with pile
cap configuration shows that the roles, influence, and
coupling of inertial and kinematic effects obtained from the
basic single pile configuration can be used to aid the
understanding of the dynamic response of more compli-
cated and realistic pile foundation configurations.
The analyses on the coupling of inertial and kinematic
effects indicate that it would be inaccurate to simply
combine the inertial force and kinematic displacement
using a certain coefficient to calculate the pile moment, as
is currently done in many pseudo-static design methods.
For example, in model PGm3000G200, the pile moment
would certainly be overestimated by summing the absolute
value of the pile moment caused by the peak inertial force
and that caused by the peak kinematic displacement, as the
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 22 Correlation coefficient and time lag of structure acceleration and pile head moment (inertial interaction) and of soil surface displacement
and pile head moment (kinematic interaction) in relationship to structure mass and soil elastic shear modulus parameter G0 for pile group models
inertial force acts against the kinematic displacement in
this setup. However, due to the phase difference between
the inertial force and the pile moment, the pile moment
would be underestimated if the absolute value of the pile
moment caused by the peak inertial force is subtracted
from that caused by the peak kinematic displacement. The
soil–pile–structure system configuration and the magni-
tudes of both the structure inertial force and the soil
kinematic deformation could all have significant impact on
the coupling of inertial and kinematic interactions.
6 Discussion and conclusions
The seismic inertial and kinematic effects on pile bending
moment in liquefiable soils are studied in this paper
through an extensive series of numerical simulations using
a 3D finite element simulation method developed by Wang
et al. [55], providing new insights into the inertial and
kinematic interactions. However, due to the complexity of
the dynamic soil–structure–pile response problem, the
analysis in this study is far from exhaustive. Factors such as
structure height and stiffness, pile stiffness, pile cap stiff-
ness, and seismic motion are all expected to affect the
roles, influences, and coupling of inertial and kinematic
interactions, and should be further investigated in future
studies in order to aid the development of design
guidelines.
For example, Tokimatsu et al. [52] showed in their
shaking table test on piles with embedded pile cap that
inertial force and soil displacement of the same direction
generate pile head moment of the same direction,
contradicting the findings in this study. This discrepancy is
caused by the difference in structure height. In Tokimatsu’s
experiment, the superstructure is very low, while the
models used in this study have relatively high structures.
The height of the structure could affect the pile moment
generated by inertial and kinematic interactions, which is
not investigated in detail in this study.
The stiffness of the pile cap has also been considered to
be an important aspect of consideration for the analysis of
pile foundations [6]. The pile caps used in this study are
near rigid. However, if the pile cap becomes more flexible,
the constraint against rotation that it enforces on the piles
becomes less significant and could alter the inertial and
kinematic interactions significantly. The stiffness of the
pile cap and the pile load distribution within the pile group
should also be given more attention in future studies.
The current study enhances the understanding of the roles,
influence, and coupling of lateral structure–pile inertial
interaction and lateral soil–pile kinematic interaction. Three
typical soil–pile–structure system configurations, including
a single pile with embedded pile cap configuration, a single
pile without pile cap configuration, and a pile group with
embedded pile cap configuration, are investigated. Models
with different structure mass and soil stiffness are simulated
to study the principal factors influencing the inertial and
kinematic interactions. Although these configurations do not
fully represent the wide range of possible design setups in
practice, they provide a basis for understanding the beha-
viour of more complicated setups. However, it is acknowl-
edged that the extrapolation of the findings in this paper for
more complicated setups would ideally require more
experimental and numerical efforts.
123

The analyses in this study show that the roles that inertial
structure force and kinematic soil displacement play on the
bending moment of the pile differ in different configurations.
In the single pile and pile group with embedded pile cap
configurations of this study (with relatively tall structure and
stiff pile cap), inertial structure force and kinematic soil
displacement of the same direction cause opposite pile head
moment. While for the single pile without pile cap configu-
ration, inertial structure force and kinematic soil displace-
ment of the same direction generate pile head moment of the
same direction. For single pile and pile group configurations
with the rotation of the pile head constrained by the pile cap,
kinematic effects have a dominating influence on the pile
moment, while for the single pile without pile cap setup,
inertial effects dominantly influence the pile moment. These
differences in the roles and influence of inertial and kine-
matic interactions are mainly caused by the difference in pile
head rotational constraint.
For the single pile and pile group with embedded pile
cap configurations in this study, the coupling of inertial and
kinematic interactions is strongly influenced by the mag-
nitudes of both the structure inertial force and the soil
kinematic deformation. For these two configurations, sim-
ply assuming the inertial structure force and kinematic soil
deformation to be in sync or out of phase could lead to
over-conservative or over-optimistic estimates of the
dynamic pile moment. However, for the single pile without
pile configuration, it seems reasonable to assume that the
inertial and kinematic interactions work in sync to cause
the dynamic pile moment.
Finally, it should be acknowledged that the findings
obtained in this study are limited by the capability of the
constitutive models and numerical methods used. For
example, large deformation formulation is not applied in
the finite element simulations, the coupled soil-fluid anal-
ysis is based on the u–p formulation which omits the inertia
of the pore fluid, and the constitutive model used also tends
to underestimate the post-liquefaction reconsolidation set-
tlement of sand compared to centrifuge model tests. These
factors could potentially affect the accuracy of certain
aspects of the numerical results; however, the overall
conclusions should still hold true.
Acknowledgments The work in this paper was funded by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51678346 and
51038007) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(2015M570106 and 2016T90099).
References
1. Abdoun T, Dobry R, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH (2003) Pile response
to lateral spreads: centrifuge modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 129(10):869–878
123
Acta Geotechnica
2. Abghari A, Chai J (1995) Modeling of soil–pile–superstructure
interaction for bridge foundations. In: Proceedings, performance
of deep foundations under seismic loading. ASCE, New York,
pp 45–59
3. Adachi N, Suzuki Y, Miura K (2004) Correlation between inertial
force and subgrade reaction of pile in liquefied soil. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) (2010) LRFD bridge design specifications,
3rd edn. American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) (2014) Guide specifications for LRFD
seismic bridge design, 2nd edn. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington,
DC
6. Badelow F, Poulos HG (2015) Geotechnical foundation design
for some of the world’s tallest buildings. In: Proceedings of the
fifteenth Asian regional conference on soil mechanics and
geotechnical engineering, Fukuoka
7. Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A
(1999) Seismic soil–pile–structure interaction experiments and
analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(9):750–759
8. Box GEP, Jenkins GM (1970) Time series analysis: forecasting
and control. Holden-Day series in time series analysis. Holden-
Day, San Francisco
9. Brandenberg SJ (2005) Behavior of pile foundations in liquefied
and laterally spreading ground. PhD thesis. University of Cali-
fornia at Davis, Davis, CA
10. Brandenberg SJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Chang D (2005)
Behavior of pile foundations in laterally spreading ground during
centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(11):1378–1391
11. Brandenberg SJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Chang D (2007)
Static pushover analyses of pile groups in liquefied and laterally
spreading ground in centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
133(9):1055–1066
12. Brandenberg SJ, Zhao M, Boulanger RW, Wilson DW (2012) p–
y plasticity model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of piles in
liquefiable soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(8):1262–1274
13. Budhu M, Davies TG (1987) Nonlinear analysis of laterality
loaded piles in cohesionless soils. Can Geotech J 24(2):289–296
14. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2013)
Guidelines on foundation loading and deformation due to lique-
faction induced lateral spreading. California
15. Chang S, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Brandenberg SJ (2005)
Experimental observations of inertial and lateral spreading loads
on pile groups during earthquakes. In: GeoFrontiers conference,
No 133. Geotechnical Special Publication, Austin
16. Chang S, Boulanger RW, Brandenberg SJ, Kutter BL (2013)
FEM analysis of dynamic soil–pile–structure interaction in liq-
uefied and laterally spreading ground. Earthq Spectra
29(3):733–755
17. Cheng Z, Jeremic B (2009) Numerical modeling and simulation
of pile in liquefiable soil. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(11):1405–1416
18. Clough GW, Duncan JM (1971) Finite element analyses of
retaining wall behaviour. J Soil Mech Found Div
97(12):1657–1673
19. Cubrinovski M, Kokusho T, Ishihara K (2006) Interpretation
from large-scale shake table tests on piles undergoing lateral
spreading in liquefied soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
26(2–4):275–286
20. Dafalias YF, Manzari MT (2004) Simple plasticity sand model
accounting for fabric change effects. J Eng Mech 130(6):622–634
21. Dafalias YF, Popov EP (1975) A model of nonlinearly hardening
materials for complex loading. Acta Mech 21(3):173–192
Acta Geotechnica
22. Dobry R, Abdoun T, O’Rourke TD, Goh SH (2003) Single piles
in lateral spreads: field bending moment evaluation. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 129(10):879–889
23. Dowell M, Jarratt P (1972) The, ‘‘Pegasus’’ method for com-
puting the root of an equation. BIT Numer Math 12(4):503–508
24. Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E (2002) Computational modeling of
cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 22(4):259–271
25. Finn WDL, Fujita N (2002) Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic
analysis and design issues. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9–12):731–742
26. Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (1998) Seismic soil–structure interac-
tion: new evidence and emerging issues. In: Proceedings of a
speciality conference, geotechnical earthquake engineering and
soil dynamics III, vol 75. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion, pp 1119–1174.
27. Hamada M (1992) Large ground deformations and their effects
on lifelines: 1964 Niigata earthquake. Case studies of liquefaction
and lifelines performance during past earthquake. Technical
report NCEER-92-0001, National Centre for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research, Buffalo
28. Ishihara K (1997) Terzaghi oration: geotechnical aspects of the
1995 Kobe earthquake. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Hamburg, pp 2047–2073
29. Jeremić B, Kunnath S, Xiong F (2004) Influence of soil–foun-
dation–structure interaction on seismic response of the I-880
viaduct. Eng Struct 26(3):391–402
30. Khosravifar A, Ugalde J, Travasarou T (2015) Design of piles in
liquefied soils for combined inertial and kinematic demands. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on earthquake
geotechnical engineering (6ICEGE), Christchurch
31. Kramer SL (1991) Behavior of piles in full-scale field lateral
loading tests. WA-RD 215.1, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Virginia
32. Lin SS, Liao JC (2006) Lateral response evaluation of single piles
using inclinometer data. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
132(12):1566–1573
33. Liu JL, Gao WS, Qiu MB (2010) Application handbook for the
technical code for building pile foundations. China Architecture
and Building Press, Beijing (In Chinese)
34. Liyanapathirana DS, Poulos HG (2005) Pseudostatic approach for
seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 131(12):1480–1487
35. Lu J, Elgamal A, Yan L, Law KH, Conte JP (2011) Large-scale
numerical modeling in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Int J
Geomech 11(6):490–503
36. Matlock H, Reese LC (1961) Foundation analysis of offshore pile
supported structures. In: Proceedings of the 5th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 2,
Paris, pp 91–97
37. Matsui T (1993) Case studies on cast-in-place bored piles and
some considerations for design. Deep Foundation on Bored and
Auger Piles, Rotterdam, pp 77–101
38. Motosaka M, Mitsuji K (2012) Building damage during the 2011
off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake. Soils Found
52(5):929–944
39. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interac-
tion: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3):277–301
40. Novak M (1974) Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can
Geotech J 11(4):574–598
41. Poulos HG, Davis EH (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design.
Wiley, New York
42. Poulos HG, Chen LT, Hull TS (1995) Model tests on single piles
subjected to lateral soil movement. Soils Found 35(4):85–92
43. Reese LC, Matlock H (1956) Nondimensional solutions for lat-
erally loaded piles with soil modulus assumed proportional to
depth. In: Proceedings of the VIII Texas conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Austin
44. Rollins KM, Gerber TM, Lane JD, Ashford SA (2005) Lateral
resistance of a full-scale pile group in liquefied sand. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 131(1):115–125
45. Ross G, Seed, HB, Migliacio R (1973) Performance of highway
bridge foundations in the great Alaska earthquake of 1964.
Committee on the Alaskan Earthquake of the Division of Earth
Sciences National Research Council. The Great Alaska earth-
quake of 1964. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
46. Simo JC, Ortiz M (1985) A unified approach to finite deformation
elastoplastic analysis based on the use of hyperelastic constitutive
equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 49(2):221–245
47. Stewart JP, Brandenberg SJ (2010) Preliminary report on seis-
mological 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
48. Tabesh A, Poulos HG (2001) Pseudostatic approach for seismic
analysis of single piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(9):757–765
49. Taboada VM, Dobry R (1993) Experimental results of Model No.
1 at RPI. In: Proceedings, international conference on verification
of numerical procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction
problems, vol 1, pp 3–17
50. Tokimatsu K (2003) Behaviour and design of pile foundations
subjected to earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the twelfth Asian
regional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engi-
neering, pp 1065–1096, Singapore
51. Tokimatsu K, Hiroshi O, Satake K, Shamoto Y, Asaka Y (1998)
Effects of lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in
the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake. In: Proceedings of a
speciality conference, geotechnical earthquake engineering and
soil dynamics III, vol 75. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publica-
tion, pp 1175–1186
52. Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M (2005) Effects of inertial and
kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of pile with embedded
foundation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:753–762
53. Tokimatsu K, Tamura S, Suzuki H, Katsumata K (2012) Building
damage associated with geotechnical problems in the 2011
Tohoku Pacific earthquake. Soils Found 52(5):956–974
54. Wang R, Zhang JM, Wang G (2014) A unified plasticity model
for large post-liquefaction shear deformation of sand. Comput
Geotech 59:54–66
55. Wang R, Fu P, Zhang JM (2016) Finite element model for piles in
liquefiable ground. Comput Geotech 72:1–14
56. Xiong WL (1986) Symmetric formulation of tangential stiff-
nesses for non-associated plasticity. Appl Math Mech
7(11):1043–1052
57. Yamashita K, Hamada J, Onimaru S, Higashino M (2012) Seis-
mic behavior of piled raft with ground improvement supporting a
base-isolated building on soft ground in Tokyo. Soils Found
52(5):1000–1015
58. Yen WP, Chen G, Buckle I, Allen T, Alzamora D, Ger J, Arias JG
(2011) Post-earthquake reconnaissance report on transportation
infrastructure: impact of the February 27, 2010, Offshore Maule
earthquake in Chile. FHWA-HRT-11-030, Federal Highway
Administration, Virginia
59. Zhang JM, Wang G (2012) Large post-liquefaction deformation
of sand, part I: physical mechanism, constitutive description and
numerical algorithm. Acta Geotech 7(2):69–113
60. Zhang L, McVay MC, Lai P (1999) Numerical analysis of lat-
erally loaded 3 9 3 to 7 9 3 pile groups in sands. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 125(11):936–946
61. Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Schrefler BA, Shiom T
(1999) Computational geomechanics with special reference to
earthquake engineering. Wiley, Chichester
123