See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324532655

Why do pile-supported bridge piers and not abutments collapse in liquefiable

soils during earthquakes?

Conference Paper · April 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 2,104

3 authors, including:

Subhamoy Bhattacharya Harvey Burd

University of Surrey University of Oxford
324 PUBLICATIONS 6,842 CITATIONS 163 PUBLICATIONS 3,664 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Subhamoy Bhattacharya on 15 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and

Retrofit of Foundations

Tokyo, Japan, April 3~4, 2007

Sponsored by
Earthquake Engineering Committee of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers
Hellenic Society for Earthquake Engineering

Co-sponsored by
Japanese Society of Civil Engineering

Published by
Japan Society of Civil Engineers

@2007 Japan Society of Civil Engineers

All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storages and
retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the publisher.

978-4-8106-0620-1

Printed by WACO Co., Ltd.

 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

Why do pile-supported bridge piers and not abutments collapse in

liquefiable soils during earthquakes?

A. A. Kerciku1, S. Bhattacharya2 and H. J. Burd3

1
Balliol College (University of Oxford)
2
Departmental Lecturer in Engineering Science (University of Oxford)
3
University Lecturer in Engineering Science (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Failures of pile-supported bridges are still observed in liquefiable soils after most major earthquakes. In such
bridge failures, it is commonly observed that piers (intermediate supports) collapse, whilst the
abutments (end supports) remain stable. This paper investigates the reasons behind such occurrence.
Analytical investigations form the basis of this study. The pile-supported bridge structure has been
modelled as multi-frame system where the pile foundation forms the columns of the frame. The piles
are modelled as Fixed-Sway propped cantilevers where the propping action is provided by the
longitudinal stiffness of bridge deck. Previous research into the failure mechanisms of piled foundations
showed that buckling instability and bending are feasible failure modes. In contrast, this study investigates the
interaction between the bending and buckling failure modes. The importance of such interaction has been
highlighted by considering the failure of the well-documented collapse of the Showa Bridge during the 1964
Niigata earthquake.

INTRODUCTION

Roads and bridges are vital parts of the

infrastructure and therefore should remain in
working condition even after any natural
disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
This is to facilitate the relief operations. Most
small to medium span bridges founded on
seismically liquefiable deposits (loose to
medium dense sands) are supported by pile
foundations. Failure of these pile foundations
has been observed in the aftermath of the
majority of recent strong earthquakes such as
the 1995 Kobe earthquake (JAPAN), the 1999
Kocheli earthquake (TURKEY) and the Bhuj
earthquake (INDIA). It has widely been
accepted that liquefaction-related effects are
the cause of these failures. It is a common
observation in liquefaction-related bridge failure
that piers (intermediate supports) collapse,
whilst the abutments (end supports) remain
stable, see for example Figs 1 and 2. Fig 1 Fig 1: Collapse of the Showa Bridge, crossing the
Shinano River as a result of the 1964 Niigata
shows the collapse of the Showa bridge after earthquake (JAPAN), After NISEE
the 1664 Niigata earthquake, while Fig 2 shows
the collapse of the Million Dollar bridge after the The main aim of this study is to discuss why
1964 Alaska earthquake. it is that intermediate bridge supports seem
particularly prone to failure.

440
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

Current understanding of pile failure pile foundations supporting bridge piers are
The most commonly adopted current predominantly designed to support the vertical
hypothesis of pile failure is based on a bending loads only.
mechanism. It is hypothesised that large inertial
and kinematic lateral loads produce bending
moments which exceed the capacity of the pile.
The inertial lateral loads are the result of the
earthquake induced inertial effects of the
superstructure and the kinematic loads are due
to flow of the soil following liquefaction and
strength degradation. The later effect, is
referred to by Krammer (1996) as “lateral
spreading”.
Fig 3: JRA (1996 or 2002) code of practice showing the
idealization for seismic design of bridge foundation.

Fig 4 presents the schematic diagram of a

typical two span bridge showing the abutment
and pier foundations. From static equilibrium,
for a multiple span bridge having similar span
lengths, abutments support a vertical load equal
to one-half of the vertical load supported by a
pier.

Fig 2: Collapse of the Million Dollar bridge, crossing the

former Copper River, following the 1964 Alaska
earthquake. After U.S. Geological survey data
series 1995

The Japanese Code of Practice (JRA 2002)

has incorporated this understanding of pile
failure and as shown in Fig 3. The code advises
practicing engineers to design piles against Fig 4: Schematic diagram of a typical two span bridge
showing the abutment and pier foundations.
bending failure assuming that the non-liquefied
crust offers passive earth pressure to the pile
Typically, the lateral load carrying capacity
and the liquefied soil offers 30% of the total
of a pile is 10 to 20% of the axial load capacity.
overburden pressure. Other codes such as the
Therefore, for a typical multiple span bridge
USA code (NEHRP 2000) and Eurocode 8, part
having similar span lengths, the number of piles
5 (1998) also focus on the bending strength of
supporting an abutment is larger than the
the pile. This simply treats piles as beam
number of piles supporting a pier.
elements and assumes that inertial lateral loads
As it can be observed from Fig 1 and 2,
and lateral spreading cause the bending failure
collapse of pile-supported bridges in seismically
of the pile.
liquefied soils is often characterised by tilting or
failure of pier(s) and the subsequent collapse of
Inconsistency between the current
understanding and the observed failure patterns
the bridge deck(s). It is worthwhile to note that
In bridge design, the number of piles in these examples bridge piers collapsed whilst
required to support an abutment is governed the abutments remained stable.
partially by lateral load considerations since the Bhattacharya et al (2005) have shown that
abutment has to retain earth and fills of the the pile foundations supporting the Showa
approach roads; as well as vertical load Bridge piers (Fig 1) satisfy the JRA code (1996
considerations of the deck. On the other hand or 2002) against bending due lateral spreading

441
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

by a factor of approximately two. However,

these piles actually collapsed during the 1964
Niigata earthquake. Taking into account the
conservatism behind the JRA design method,
the collapse of the Showa Bridge suggests that
the failure of pile foundations may be influenced
by axial loads effects. This is in contrast to the
current design methods which concentrate on
lateral loads.

Buckling instability as an alternative explanation

Failure Explanation
Structurally, piles are slender columns with
lateral support from the surrounding soil. The
typical length to diameter ratio of most piles is in
the order of 25 to 100. When axially-loaded
piles lose lateral soil support due to liquefaction,
they behave like load bearing slender structural
members. Bhattacharya and Bolton (2005)
suggest that axially loaded piles may collapse
as a result of buckling instability due to the
removal of the soil bracing effects. This
hypothesis has been verified using dynamic
centrifuge testing and analysis of field case
records.
As the length of the pile increases, the
allowable load on the pile (from geotechnical
considerations) also increases due to the
additional shaft friction and the enhanced base
capacity offered at greater depths. On the other
hand, following Euler’s formula, the buckling
load (if the pile were laterally unsupported by
soil) decreases inversely with the square of its
length. Fig 5 shows a typical plot for the
variation of allowable load P and buckling load
(if unsupported) Pc of a pile against length of
the pile. Therefore if a pile is unsupported
beyond a certain depth, buckling instability
becomes a possible failure mechanism.
Earthquakes impart lateral loads on structures.
Subsequently, the lateral loads lead to
considerable lateral displacements of piles in
liquefied soil, and to an increase of the effect of
out-of-line vertical forces. This is often termed
as the P-Δ effect. For large displacements and
vertical loads, the P-Δ effect can be a
significant contributor to the total bending
moment generated in pile foundations in
liquefied soil. Therefore, the analysis of the
interaction between the bending and buckling
failure modes are considered important in
understanding the behaviour of pile foundations
in liquefiable soils.
Fig 5: Allowable load and buckling load (if unsupported)
for a typical pile, Bhattacharya and Bolton (2004)
THE P-Δ EFFECT
The P-Δ can be described as a second
order geometrical effect which produces an
additional overturning moment. This effect is
discussed, for example in Wilson and
Habibullah (1987). For a cantilever column the
P-Δ effect is governed by the axial load and the
lateral deflection of the tip.
To illustrate the P-Δ effect, a cantilever
beam under the action of axial and lateral loads
is considered, as shown Fig 6. This might
represent a pile under the combined action of
axial and lateral loads, in the absence of soil
support. For illustration purposes, the cantilever
pile is modelled as a rigid bar-spring system
with the spring k representing the lateral
stiffness of the strut, where k is the lateral load
necessary to produce a unit tip displacement:
3EI
k=
L3
E is the pile’s Young’s modulus, I its second
moment of area and L the cantilever’s length.
Two moment-equilibrium analyses are carried
out for the rigid bar-spring system:
a) First, a first order analysis, which omits the
geometrical and axial load effects (P-Δ
effect).
b) Second, a second order analysis, which
incorporates the P-Δ effect.

442
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

it is necessary to include the P-Δ effect in the

bending moment calculations as well as any
concurrent moments produced by lateral
spreading or inertial loads.

ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS
In this section we will formulate a simple
analysis, which investigates the conditions
necessary for failure at first yield of a pile
foundation in liquefied soil.
Fig 6: The P-Δ effect: A cantilever can be modelled as a
rigid bar-spring model. k is the structural stiffness Modelling the Piles
of the cantilever. To gain an understanding of the behaviour
of pile foundations in liquefied soils the authors
In a first order analysis, the tip displacement, have modelled the piles as beam-columns with
Δ is assumed to be small and moment various boundary conditions. In practice, the
equilibrium is independent of the axial load P. boundary condition of the pile depends on the
By taking moments about the bottom hinge: depth of embedment below the liquefied soil
and the moment restraint at the pile cap. For a
0 = FL − (kΔ) L bridge foundation in liquefied soil the bridge
deck imposes a lateral restraint on the pile head.
It is assumed that the liquefied soil
F = kΔ (1) possesses no lateral resistance, and that, as
suggested by Bhattacharya et al (2005), piles
However, if a second order analysis is are fixed in the non-liquefied strata at an
applied, geometric change has to be taken into appropriate depth. The different boundary
account - by taking moments about the bottom conditions combinations can be identified.
hinge and manipulating we can write: These combinations often encountered i
practise are shown in Fig 7 (a), (b) and (c).
PΔ ⎛ P⎞
F = kΔ − = ⎜ k − ⎟Δ (2)
L ⎝ L⎠

Eq 2 shows that, by including the P-Δ effect the

overall stiffness of the system is reduced by P/L.
In a cantilever column the term PΔ contributes
to the overall bending moments and is
significant only when the ratio Δ/L is relatively
large. In structural engineering, the P-Δ effect is
minimized by making the columns stiff or by
using cross bracing. Fig 7(a): Bridge pile model: Fixed-Free boundary
For piles in liquefiable soils, the Δ/L ratio conditions, Due to the lack of moment resistance at the
can be considerable due to the following pile cap, the pile tip is free to translate and rotate
reasons:
(a) Earthquakes induce lateral inertial or
kinematic loads which impart large
displacements to the superstructure and the
pile tips.
(b) Seismic liquefaction reduces the ability of
soil to provide lateral support to the pile.

Iwasaki (1984) suggests that large pile

deflections in the order of metres are observed
in sites where liquefaction occurred. Therefore,

443
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007
Fig 7(b): Bridge pile model: Fixed-Sway boundary
conditions. Due to moment resistance at the pile cap, the
pile tip is free to translate but not rotate
Fig 7(c): Bridge pile model: Fixed-Sway boundary
conditions when a non-liquefied crust is present. Due to
moment resistance provided by the non-liquefied crust, the
pile tip is free to translate but not rotate
For most bridges the connection between
the pile cap and piers is usually stiff and
moment resisting. This implies that the pile
head is free to translate but is unlikely to rotate
at the top. Therefore, the most appropriate
model for an end bearing pile fixed at some
Fig 8: Pile model: Fixed-Sway boundary conditions.
444
depth in the non-liquefied soil layer, below the
liquefiable layer, and supporting structures
(bridges and buildings) is a fixed-sway
cantilever as described Fig 7(b) and (c).
The lateral and axial loads (inertial and
kinematic) acting on a bridge are shown in Fig 8.
qC(x) is the crust soil stratum passive earth
pressure, qL(x) is the distributed load due to the
soil lateral spreading and H , F and M are the
earthquake inertial vertical and horizontal
loading and applied moment. Further, P is the
permanent axial load on the piles due to the
bridge live and dead loads and the spring k
represents the lateral restraint imposed by the
bridge deck and the other piles supporting the
bridge. For simplicity, the combined effect of the
lateral loads may be modelled as the action of
one concentrated load F, as shown in Fig 8.
General analysis
In this section the interaction between the
bending and buckling failure modes is analysed.
The bending moment experienced by the pile is
dependent on the action of the lateral loading
and the P-Δ effect, whilst the buckling stability
is a function of its geometrical and material
properties. In this section the governing
differential equations for the stability of the
system is formulated and solved. For the
purpose of this analysis the action of the
vertical and moment inertial loads has been
neglected. Fig 9 shows the fixed-sway
cantilever model considered in this section.
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

FL ⎛ 2 ⎛ αL ⎞ ⎞
⎜⎜ tan⎜ ⎟ − 1⎟⎟
P ⎝ αL ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠ (6)
Δ=
kL 2k ⎛ αL ⎞
1− + tan⎜ ⎟
P αP ⎝ 2 ⎠

To explain how the applied loads are related

to the pile failure we need to investigate the
load combination as the end reaction moment
M0 (from Eq 5) reaches a maximum allowable
value My, the bending moment at first yield. Eq
6 may be rewritten as:

Fig 9: Pile model: a Fixed-Sway cantilever

FL ⎛ ⎛ P ⎞ κ ⎛ P ⎞⎞
The equilibrium equation for the above = β ⎜⎜1 − κ ⎜ c ⎟ + ⎜ c ⎟ ⎟⎟ (7)
system is:
2M p ⎝ ⎝ P ⎠ β ⎝ P ⎠⎠
⎛π P ⎞
tan ⎜⎜ ⎟
d 2v ⎝ 2 P ⎟
c ⎠ ; P =
π 2 EI kL
EI = − Pv − Fx + kΔx + M 0 (3) where β = c 2
and κ =
d x2 π P L Pc
2 Pc
where Mo is the end moment reaction, k is the
lateral stiffness experienced by the pile due to In Fig 10 the non-dimensional relationship
the interaction with the rest of the structure and between FL/2Mp and P/Pc is plotted as a
EI is the flexural stiffness of the pile. x is the function of increasing non-dimensional lateral
depth below the soil surface, v is the stiffness κ. For each specific curve, the area
displacement measured as shown in Fig 9, and confined by the curve and the axes represents
Δ is the maximum lateral displacement the safe design region, whilst the area outside
(measured at the bottom of the pile). The these borders represents the unsafe design
ordinary differential equation is solved in a region.
general form and the unique solution is found
by applying the boundary conditions for slope
and displacement at x=0:

M0 F F − kΔ M
v=− cos αx + sin αx − x + 0 (4)
P αP P P

where α = P EI .

By assuming system symmetry, the end

reaction moments at x=0 and x=L are
equivalent and equal to M0. Therefore, from
static equilibrium the end moment reaction can
be expressed as:

1
M0 = [(F − k Δ )L + P Δ ] (5)
2
Fig 10: Non-dimensional design chart for different values
of k.
By applying the boundary conditions for slope
or displacement at x=L to Eq. (4):

445
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

As κ increases, the curve tends to cross the
P/Pc axis at 4.
The bridge deck stiffness
This section aims to describe the lateral
restraint experienced by piles as a result of
interaction with the rest of the bridge structure.
This is necessary in order to complete
aforementioned model and respective design
framework with a methodology for estimating
the lateral stiffness k and corresponding non-
dimensional stiffness κ.
A pile supported bridge structure can be
modelled as multi-frame system as shown in
Fig 11(a), where each element Pi represents
the i-th pile from the left. The piles, modelled as
Fixed-Sway cantilevers, experience restraint to
lateral movement (in the longitudinal direction of
the bridge) due to the lateral stiffness imposed
by the other piles and the longitudinal stiffness
of bridge deck. To evaluate the stiffness
experienced by each pile it is necessary to
model the structure in Fig 11(a) as the spring-
system described in Fig 11(b), where the
displacement of node i represents the tip
displacement of pile Pi, i.e. the pile head
displacement.
In Fig 11(b) ω and ω* represent the lateral
stiffness (load required to produce a unit lateral
displacement of the head) of the pier piles and
the abutment piles respectively.
12 E p I 12 E p * I *
ω= and ω* =
L3 L3 *
where E is the Young’s modulus of the pile, I is
the second moment of area, L is the distance
from the tip of the pile to its assumed fixity point
and E*, I*, and L* are the respective
dimensions of the abutment piles. Finally, λ
represents the longitudinal stiffness of the
bridge deck.
E d Ap
λ=
Ld
where Ap is the cross sectional area of the deck,
Ed is the deck’s Young’s modulus and Ld is the
length of the deck slab. The spring-stiffness
experienced by each pile Pi is the sum of the
stiffness due to the springs on the left kLi and
the stiffness due to the springs to the right kRi.
The magnitude of kLi and kRi is dependent on
the parallel and series sum of the individual λ, ω
and ω* springs. Table 1 summarises the value
of kLi and kRi at various nodes i.

Table 1: Left and right stiffness of experienced by

the piles

1
Spring stiffness equation
i
kLi kRi

1
1 ω* 1
+
1
λ ω + k Ri +1
1 1
+ω
2,3,4 … n-2 1 1 1 1
+ +
λ k Li −1 λ ω + k Ri +1
1 1
+ω
n-1 1 1 1 1
+ +
λ k Li −1 λ k Rn
Fig 11: The multi-frame structure in (a) represents a
bridge in liquefied soil. This structure can be 1
modelled by the system in (b). The systems in (b) n 1
+
1 ω*
and (c) are equivalent. λ k Ln −1
1
Assuming that each deck span is identical and that the pier-
piles also are all identical

446
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

The total stiffness experienced by pile Pi is
the parallel sum of springs kLi and kRi as shown
in Fig 12(c), where kTi:
kTi = k Li + k Ri
From the equations in Table 1, it is possible
to evaluate the stiffness experienced by the
piles for some pile supported bridges. Some
typical combinations of deck, pier piles and
abutment piles stiffness, and the corresponding
restraint experienced by individual piles have
been summarised in Table 2.
the piles (as it might apply to abutments
designed mainly to serve as earth retaining
structures), the stiffness experienced by the
piles is dependent on its location along the
(8)
bridge, as shown in Fig 12. In this case the
central piles experience the lowest stiffness,
whilst the edge piers (P2 and Pn-1) experience a
stiffness n/4 times larger.
THE FAILURE OF THE SHOWA BRIDGE
In this section the authors investigate the
failure of the Showa Bridge during the 1964
Niigata earthquake. A summary of the bridge
failure and current understanding is followed by
the authors’ critique of the assumptions made in
the failure hypothesis. Finally, using the
analytical tools presented earlier, the authors
have attempted to explain the reasons why the
pier piles failed and the abutments remained
stable.

Background and current explanation of the

failure
The Niigata earthquake, with epicentre in
Niigata, Japan, occurred on the 14th of June
Fig 12: Variation of the lateral stiffness experienced by 1964 and registered 7.5 on the righter scale.
the bridge piles, for ω* >> ω and Located some 55 km from the epicentre,
λ/ω>10000. crossing the Shinano River, the Showa Bridge
was one of the three bridges which collapsed
It is interesting to note that when the completely as a result of the earthquake.
abutment stiffness is much larger than that of

Table 2: Stiffness experienced by the piles and applicability to the design method in Fig 10 for the various bridge design
combinations

Abutment pile Pier pile to deck Equivalent lateral stiffness Equivalent lateral non-dimensional
stiffness, ω* stiffness ratio, λ/ω experienced by pile Pi, kTi stiffness κi
E d Ap ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ E d Ad L ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
⎜ + ⎟ ⎜ + ⎟
>10000 Ld ⎝ i − 1 n − i ⎠ π 2 Ld EI ⎝ i −1 n − i ⎠
ω* >> ω for i=2,3,4, … n-1 for i=2,3,4, … n-1
12 EI
<0.0001 L3 0
for all i for all i
12nEI 12(n − 1)
>10000 L3 π2
for all i for all i
ω* =ω
12 EI
<0.0001 L3 0
for all i for all i

447
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007
Fig 13: Showa Bridge detail: Soil Liquefaction profile. Adapted from Hamada and O'Rourke (1992). The soil behind the
left abutment is subjected to lateral spreading and creates a hinge near the abutment.
The collapse of the Showa Bridge has been
one of the central case histories in the study
liquefaction induced failure during the Niigata
earthquake. Most studies (Fukuoka (1966),
Hamada and O'Rourke (1992), and Yasuda and
Berrill (2000)), suggest that lateral spreading
was the direct cause of failure.
Reliable eyewitnesses quoted by Horii
(1966) suggest that the 303.9 m long and 24 m
wide superstructure collapsed 1-2 minutes after
the peak ground acceleration (PGA) had
ceased. Evidence suggests that the
phenomenon of delayed pile foundation failure
is typical for failure due to liquefaction related
effects. As showed in Fig 13 the sequential
collapse initiated when piers P5 and P6
collapsed in opposite directions. As a result
girder E fell in the river. Immediately afterwards,
in a domino effect, girders F, D, C and B
partially fell in the river. Hamada and O'Rourke
(1992) estimated the ground liquefaction profile.
As shown in Fig 14 the soil liquefied to a
maximum depth of 10 m below the riverbed and
to a maximum depth of approximately 5 m
below the riverbed near the left abutment.
Fig 14: Showa Bridge detail Adapted from Ishihara
(1984)
Based on the delayed collapse of the bridge,
Fukuoka (1966) and Hamada and O'Rourke
(1992) discard the possibility of collapse due to
448
seismic inertial loading on the basis that
earthquake motion had stopped. Using aerial
photography Hamada and O'Rourke (1992)
studied the lateral spreading of liquefied soil
during the Niigata earthquake. They observe
that the riverbank to the left of the Showa
Bridge moved by 4 m towards the river centre.
Based on this information the authors
concluded that lateral spreading caused the
bending failure of the piles P5 and P6 and the
subsequent collapse of the bridge girders.
Qualitative Argument
Whilst it is clear that lateral spreading
occurred around the left riverbank, there is no
evidence that the riverbed (directly underneath
the bridge) was significantly affected by lateral
spreading. In fact a potential energy argument
can prove the contrary: Liquefied soil will
attempt to flow towards a form of lower potential
energy. Therefore, liquefied soil on a slope will
flow downwards collecting at the end of the
slope, and liquefied soil behind a discontinuity
such as an abutment wall will tend to flow
across the discontinuity in order to reach a
lower potential energy form. As shown in Fig 14
the liquefied soil of the riverbed underneath the
Showa Bridge is already in its lowest energy
from and therefore will not spread laterally. It is
reasonable to believe that the lateral flow from
the left riverbank heaved close to left abutment,
and the soil near piles P5 and P6 remained
largely stationary. In support of this argument is
the fact that piers P5 and P6 collapsed in
opposite directions. Had lateral spreading
caused the bending failure of the piles, they
would have collapsed in the same direction.
Conclusively, it is reasonable to believe that the
flow of the lateral spreading of the soil on the
left bank of the river did not significantly affect
the collapsed the Showa Bridge pier piles.
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007
The structural stability of the pile
foundations was first put into question by
Bhattacharya and Bolton (2004). The authors
estimated the critical Euler buckling load
assuming the liquefied soil offer no lateral
restraint to a pile. It is shown that the factor of
safety against buckling instability of the piles
was close to one. Evidence of longitudinal
scratches provided by Horii (1966) suggests
that there was significant relative motion
between the girders and the pier-caps. These
displacements led to permanent geometrical
imperfections in the pile, and acted as a
catalyst to the P-Δ effect.
In the context of a new failure hypothesis it
is reasonable to believe that the liquefaction
front travelling from top to bottom reached a
critical depth a few moments after the PGA. At
this critical depth, the combination of
superstructure loading, earthquake imposed
imperfections (in the form of pile tip
displacement), and reduced lateral support form
the liquefied soil, resulted in the collapse of the
Showa Bridge.
Quantitative analysis
The analysis below aims to quantitatively
define the role that the bending and buckling
failure modes played in the 1964 collapse of the
Showa Bridge. More specifically the reason why
pier piles P5 failed and the left abutment piles AL
remained stable. According to Hamada and
O'Rourke (1992), as shown in Fig 14 the soil
underneath the Showa Bridge liquefied, to a
maximum depth of 10 m. Further to this Iwasaki
(1984) suggests that the bridge piers and
abutments were both supported on similar pile
bents (9 single-row piles of 609 mm diameter).
As shown in Fig 13 the Showa bridge deck
composed of panels, each alternatively resting
on roller and fixed supports. For the purpose of
this analysis we will assume the lateral loads
were large enough to overcome the roller
friction and therefore there was no lateral
restraint to the movement of the piles. In Table
2 this corresponds to “ω* =ω” and
“λ/ω>10000”. Therefore, each pile of the piers
and abutments pile bents can be analysed
separately using the modelling guidelines
suggested, and the design chart of Fig 10, for
κ=0.
449
The loads acting on the piles are:
a) Lateral load F (in the longitudinal bridge
direction), which is a result of the earthquake
induced permanent displacement
b) The bridge self weight P.
Finally, by assuming that the soil poses no
lateral restriction, piles P5 and AL can be
modelled as shown in Fig 15.
Fig 15: Showa Bridge pile model as a fixed sway
cantilever
As shown in Fig 16, Iwasaki (1984), the left
abutment moved by about 0.1 m towards the
centre of the river. Further, it can be estimated
from detail drawings in Iwasaki (1984) that the
maximum allowable pile crown displacement for
pier P5 during the earthquake, such that it would
not fall off the pier-cap, was 0.5 m. This
displacement information and the detailed
design data summarised by Bhattacharya et al
(2005) can be used to back-calculate the lateral
force that was necessary to cause the
displacements in question. By modifying Eq 5,
the lateral load necessary to cause the
observed displacement can be found by:
Δ
F= (15)
2 Pc ⎛π P ⎞ L
tan⎜⎜ ⎟−
π P Pc ⎟ P
⎝2 ⎠
The magnitude of the axial load acting on the
abutment piles is approximately 30% that of the
axial loads acting on the piles. This is because
abutments support only one half of the 14 m
girder (as shown in Fig 13), whilst each pile
supports one 27 m long girder.
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007

Fig 16: Deflections of the pile caps according to Iwasaki (1986)

Using this information we can now derive foundations in liquefied soils. As a final remark
P/Pc and FL/2My. To investigate the behaviour it is interesting to note that, as shown in Fig 17,
of the pile with respect to yield failure we plot pile P5 is designed safely against buckling or
the data points P/Pc and FL/2My in the design bending taken as isolated failure modes.
chart of Fig 10. The computed numerical values However, it is an unsafe design when buckling
for the loads and corresponding moments are and bending are considered as interactive
presented in Table 3, and the non-dimensional failure mechanisms.
data points plotted in Fig17.
As shown in Fig 17 the design of the Table 3: Bending moment and buckling calculations
for pile P6 and the abutment piles
abutment piles (as for the assumptions made) is
safe by a satisfactory margin, whilst the design
Numerical values
of the pile P5 is unsafe. The P-Δ effect for P5 is References
Variable Left abutment
responsible for 20% of the total bending Pile P5
piles
moment. In the abutment piles, due to smaller From Fig 16,
lateral displacements and axial loads, the P-Δ Δ (m) 0.50 0.10 according to
Iwasaki (1986)
effect in is only responsible for 3% of the net 1 Bhattacharya
P (N) 750000 205000
bending moment. Therefore, the contribution of (2005)
Hamada and
the P-Δ effect is 6 times larger on P5 than on AL. EI (Nm )
2 16000000
160000000 O'Rourke
0
Further, the axial load in the pier-pile P5 is (1992)
Bhattacharya
approximately 3.5 times larger than the axial L (m) 21 17
2
(2005)
load in the abutment-pile AL, and the P5 lateral F (N) 82178 37632 Eq (20)
load in is approximately twice the AL lateral load.
FL (Nm) 1725737 639749
This suggests that the contribution of the P-Δ 3 Bhattacharya
effect to the net bending moment increases My (Nm) 629000 629000
et al (2005)
rapidly with P and F. 4 Bhattacharya
Pc (N) 895000 1366035
et al (2005)
Had the pier pile P5 head moved only by 0.4 P/Pc 0.838 0.150
m the design would still have proven to be FL/2Mp 0.533 0.197
unsafe (FL/2Mp=0.274, P/Pc=0.197). The 1
taken as 35% of the 750000 N load acting on the piers, which
unsatisfactory design performance of the pier would correspond to the weight that half of the 13m girder
piles compared to the abutment piles is due to imposed on each pile.
2
Estimated from Fig. 8 p3-21, depth of fixity taken as 6D, where D
the larger axial loads acting on the piers – the is the pile diameter.
result of supporting a larger portion of the girder. 3
My=σI/y for σ=500MPa
4 2 2
This emphasizes the important role that axial Buckling load for a Fixed-Sway cantilever, Pc=π EI/L ,
calculated using data in Bhattacharya et al (2005).
loads play in the performance of piled

450
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007
Fig 17: Design chart for piles in liquefied soils, modelled
as the Fixed-Sway cantilever of Fig 13. The data
points for the design performance of the
abutment pile AL and pier pile P5.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The axial loads can be one of the major
contributors to the collapse of pile
foundations in liquefied deposits. The axial
loads contribute directly to the bending
moment through the P-Δ effect, and also act
as an important destabilising factor –
indirectly affecting the magnitude of Δ. It
was demonstrated by re-analysing the
performance of the abutment piles and the
pier piles of the Showa Bridge that the
contribution of the P-Δ effect to the net
bending moment increases rapidly with the
axial and lateral loads. Therefore, the P-Δ
effect should be included in the bending
moment calculations while analysing the
effects of lateral spreading and/or inertial
loads. It has been shown that P-Δ is more
pronounced in bridge piers. This may
explain the observation that bridge piers
collapse while the abutments remain stable.
2. Designers should investigate the interaction
of the failure due to the bending and
buckling modes. The study shows that a
piled foundation in liquefied soil may be
designed safely against the buckling and the
bending modes but can be unsafe when the
two failure modes may interact.
3. The restraint offered by bridge decks to the
bridge foundations (abutments and piers)
may vary depending on the configuration of
the bridge, relative stiffness of the piles and
the deck. A methodology to estimate the
451
lateral restraint offered by the bridge deck to
the bridge foundation has been proposed.
For certain bridge configuration, the restraint
offered by the deck is lowest in the middle of
the bridge.
4. Lateral spreading is not of the major
contributor to the failure of the Showa
Bridge. It is reasonable to believe that the
flow of the lateral spreading of the soil on
the left bank of the river did not significantly
affect the collapsed piles of the Showa
Bridge. The combination of superstructure
loading, initial imperfections and reduced
lateral support form the liquefied soil
resulted in the collapse of the Showa Bridge.
The Showa Bridge failed due to lack of
structural stability of the piled foundations.
REFERENCES
Bartlett, S. F. and Youd, T. L. (1992) Empirical
Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement
Generated by Liquefaction Induced Lateral
Spreads Tech. Rept. NCEER 92-0021, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
Buffalo, NY, USA.
Yasuda S. and Berrill, J.B. (2000) Observations of
the earthquake response of foundations in soil
profiles containing saturated sands, Proc Geo
Eng2000 Conf. Melbourne,,
Bhattacharya S. and Bolton M. D. (2004). Errors in
design leading to pile failures during seismic
liquefaction. Proceedings of the 5th International
conference on case histories in earthquake
engineering, New York, USA
Bhattacharya S., Bolton M. D. and Madabhushi S. P.
G. (2005). A reconsideration of the safety of piled
bridge foundations in liquefied soils. Soils and
Foundations. Vol. 45, No. 4, p13-24.
Eurocode 8: Part 5 [1998]. Design provisions for
earthquake resistance of structures- foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical aspects,
European Committee for standardization, Brussels.
Fukuoka M., (1966). Damage to civil engineering
structures. Soils and Foundations, Vol. VI, No. 2,
p45-52.
Hamada M., and O'Rourke T. D. (1992). Case
studies of liquefaction and lifeline performance
during past earthquakes – Volume 1: Japanese
 Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations
Published by Japan Society of Civil Engineers @2007
case studies. Technical Report NCEER-92-0001,
National Centre for Earthquake Engineering
Research, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Horii K. (1968). General report on the Niigata
earthquake. Tokyo Electrical Engineering College
Press. Part 3: Highway Bridges, p431-450.
Horne M. r. and merchant W. (1965). “The stability of
frames”. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK
Iwasaki T. (1984). A case history of bridge
performance during earthquakes in Japan. Int'l
Conf. Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering.
University of Missouri-Rolla, Vol. 3, p981-1008.
Iwasaki T. (1986). Soil liquefaction studies in Japan,
State-of-the-art. Technical Memorandum No. 2239,
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan,.
JRA [1996]. Japanese Road Association,
Specification for Highway Bridges, Part V, Seismic
Design.
452
View publication stats
Kawakami F. and Asada A. (1966). Damage to
ground and earth structures by the Niigata
earthquake of June 16, 1964. Soils Foundations,
Vol. VI, No. 1a, p14-30.
Krammer, S. L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall New Jersey
NISEE: National Information Services for earthquake
engineering, University of California Berkley
U.S. Geological survey data series, DDS-21, 1995.
Earth Science photographs from U.S. Geological
survey Library
Wilson E. L. and Habibullah A. (1987) Static and
Dynamic Analysis of Multi-story Buildings Including
P-Delta Effects, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 3, No. 3
.