Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 23 August 2013
Received in revised form
13 March 2014
Accepted 18 March 2014
Available online 12 April 2014
In the seismic response of a structurepilesoil system, a kinematic response due to the forced
displacement of the surface ground is important, especially in a soft ground, together with the inertial
response due to the inertial forces from superstructures. In this paper it is shown that a response
spectrum method in terms of complex modal quantities can be used in the evaluation of the maximum
kinematic and inertial seismic responses of the structurepilesoil system to the ground motion dened
at the engineering bedrock surface as an acceleration response spectrum. The notable point is that the
kinematic response, the inertial response and the total response can be evaluated by the same analysis
model and method by changing the model parameters. Then it is discussed which of the simple sum or
the SRSS of the kinematic and inertial responses is appropriate even in resonant cases for the evaluation
of the maximum pile-head bending moment. It is concluded through many examples that the validity of
the simple sum or the SRSS depends on the relation between the fundamental natural period of the
surface ground and that of the superstructure while an averaged evaluation is valid in resonant cases.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Response spectrum method
Structurepilesoil system
Complex modal combination
Kinematic effect
Inertial effect
Superposition rule
Bedrock input
1. Introduction
1.1. Conventional method for estimating seismic pile response
For the pile design under earthquake loading, the method for
predicting the pile response is important. In the evaluation of the
bending moment in a pile, both the effect of the forced displacement of a free-eld ground (action 1) and the effect of the inertial
force from a superstructure (action 2) as shown in Fig. 1 have to be
taken into account in an appropriate manner (for example [111]).
However these two effects have different characteristics and it
seems difcult to include these in a simple way keeping a
reasonable accuracy. Conventionally the following two methods
have been used in practice.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.03.014
0267-7261/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
nite element system, a continuum model or physical experiment). The earthquake ground motion is input into the engineering bedrock. Although the nite element method has much
exibility, it has the following issues to be resolved when used
in the practical design.
(1) Three-dimensional analysis of soil and pile elements requires
huge computational load and resources.
(2) Deformation compatibility between soil and pile elements is
difcult to satisfy and requires a constraint on the selection of
nite elements [12]. For example the program FLUSH [13]
uses a linear displacement in soil elements and a cubic
displacement in pile elements which result in the deformation
incompatibility.
37
Fig. 1. Effect of the forced displacement of free-eld ground (action 1) and the
effect of the inertial force from superstructure (action 2).
Fig. 2. Kinematic effect and inertial effect in the evaluation of pile-head moment in the conventional static method.
38
Fig. 3. Kinematic effect and inertial effect in the evaluation of pile-head moment in the dynamic method.
10
damping ratio=0.05
8
6
safety limit
level input
S A = 5.12/T
damage limit
level input
S A = 1.024/T
0.16
0.5
0.64
1.5
2.5
natural period(s)
Fig. 4. Two-level acceleration response spectra at engineering bedrock surface for
the evaluation of the seismic safety of low and medium-rise buildings lower than
60 m in Japanese seismic-resistant design code (Standard Building Law in Japan).
39
Fig. 5. Three approaches to using acceleration response spectra at the engineering bedrock surface; (a) amplication of response spectrum, (b) overall interaction system,
(c) substructure model subjected to multiple inputs.
u1
super-structure
m1
k1
uG
mG
free-field
kG
ground
kI
interaction
spring
u0
m0
kinematic response uK
0 as
u0 u0I uK
0
By summing up Eqs. (A1a) and (A1b) in Appendix A and substituting Eq. (1) into the remaining equation, the following relation
holds.
1
I
K
mi u g u i kI u0I uK
0 uG kP u0 u0 0
i0
kP
pile
K
From the denitions of uI
0 and u0 , the following two equations as
the constituents of Eq. (2) are derived.
1
I
mi u g u i kI uI
0 kP u0 0
(2) The combination rule was not clear in the range of resonance
between the natural period of the superstructure and that of
the ground in the previous research.
(3) The proposal of the method for evaluating the dynamic inertial
effect without the time history response analysis using the
total system (Sections 2 and 4).
(4) The use of the overall system with a single input instead of the
multi-input model enabled the application of the simple
response spectrum method.
(5) The simultaneous analysis of kinematic and inertial effects by
the unied response spectrum method (unied analysis model
and method: the previous research is an analysis of experimental data (not the proposal of response analysis methods)).
3a
i0
K
kI uK
0 uG kP u0 0
3b
R
mi u g u i kI uR
0 kP u0 0
i0
R
uR
0 and u1 in Eq. (4) denote the responses of masses m0 and m1
respectively of the structurepile model with the rigid free-eld
ground under u g . The maximum value of the rst term of Eq. (4)
indicates Q R and this value can be computed from the response of
the model with the rigid free-eld ground under u g . The analysis
of the relation between Eqs. (3a) and (4) seems useful for the
development of a new evaluation method for the inertial response
of piles (see Section 4). On the other hand, Eq. (3b) implies that
uK
0 can be computed for the massless superstructure model under
the input uG .
The explanation in this section is for providing the fundamental
concept for decomposing the total response into kinematic and
inertial parts. In the subsequent sections, the equivalent soil
stiffness evaluated in the analysis of the free-eld ground is used.
A more detailed analysis (multi-input model including local soil
nonlinearity) is shown in Section 6.2 for comparison.
40
GL- 0
GL- 0
sand
SPT value=2
sand
Ground A
10
SPT value=4
Depth (m)
clay
Depth (m)
SPT value=6
SPT value=3
10
15
clay
20
SPT value=2
25
sand
15
SPT value=14
sand
20
25
SPT value=22
30
30
clay
SPT value=3
SPT value
clay Engineering Bedrock =44
35
40
Ground B
clay
100
200
300
400
500
40
SPT
value
=66
clay
Engineering Bedrock
35
0
100
200
300
400
500
1.2
0.4
0.35
stiffness
of clay
damping ratio
of sand
0.8
0.3
0.25
stiffness
of sand
0.6
0.2
damping ratio
of clay
0.4
0.15
0.1
0.2
0
-6
10
damping ratio
Fig. 7. Soil proles of two ground models A and B and SPT values [10].
0.05
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
shear strain
Fig. 8. Dependence of shear moduli and damping ratios on the strain level [24].
i
ij
ij
ij
i
sk ; ck ; ss ; cc ; sc are given in Appendix B [20]. The effective
shear strain in the k-th soil layer is evaluated by k eff
0:65 k max .
41
i1j1
s
o
n
n n
ij j
i ij j
i ij j
Q max
Y i
s ss Y s 2Y s sc Y c Y c cc Y c
i1j1
where
i
i
i
i i
i i
Z i
s EI SDs Re ; Z c EI SDc Re
i
8a; b
i
i
i
i
i
Y i
s EI SDs Re ; Y c EI SDc Re
9a; b
10
10
damage limit level/
stiffness ratio
(spectrum method)
damage limit level/
stiffness ratio
(SHAKE)
15
20
25
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
This relation has been validated from the fact that the sum of
the super-structure inertial forces in the total response is
depth (m)
depth (m)
In Eqs. (8) and (9), EI is the bending stiffness of the pile and i is
the curvature component at the pile head in the i-th complex
i
eigenmode. is the derivative of the curvature component with
respect to the pile axial coordinate at the pile head in the i-th
complex eigenmode.
In order to investigate the accuracy of the present method
using the dynamic Winkler-type spring, a single pile of diameter1.0 (m) and length 20 (m) in a homogeneous semiinnite ground of shear wave velocity 100 (m/s) and damping
ratio 0.05 has been analyzed in [10]. It has been demonstrated
through the comparison with the thin-layer method [2527] that
the present method using the dynamic Winkler-type spring has a
reasonable accuracy.
In addition, for investigating the accuracy of the present
method, the comparison with the continuum model [23] has been
made. A two-story shear building model on a surface ground of
two soil layers (depth of each soil layer 10 (m), shear wave
velocity 100 (m/s), 200 (m/s) from the top, pile diameter 1.5
(m)) has been analyzed in [10]. It has been disclosed that a fairly
good correspondence can be seen in the case of using the Rayleigh
damping and this supports clearly the validity of the present
FEM model.
30
Ground A
35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
G/G 0
0.8
Ground B
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
G/G 0
Fig. 9. Convergent shear modulus ratio to the initial one (damage limit level): response spectrum method and SHAKE for one simulated motion [24].
42
5
10
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
20
25
30
35
30
40
0.1
0.2
20
25
Ground A
0
15
0.3
35
Ground B
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
damping ratio
damping ratio
Fig. 10. Convergent damping ratio (damage limit level): response spectrum method and SHAKE for one simulated motion [24].
damping ratio
2-story
SA 0:64 6:0T
6-story
SA 1:6
16-story
10-story
hysteretic
damping ratio
2-story
T o 0:16 s
0:16 s r T r 0:64 s
SA 1:024=T
radiation
20-story
0:64 s oT
11
16-story
20-story
6-story
10-story
Fig. 11. Relation between the fundamental natural period of the ground and that of
the building model and the constituents of damping mechanisms: (a) ground
model A, and (b) ground model B.
5. Numerical examples
5.1. Design earthquakes at engineering bedrock surface
The design earthquake ground motion mentioned in Section 1.3
is employed here. In the seismic-resistant design code, elastic
design is required for the damage-limit level motion (the maximum spectral acceleration for damping ratio 0.05 dened for the
engineering bedrock surface motion as outcropping motion is 1.6
(m/s2)) and inelastic design is allowed for the safety-limit level
motion (the maximum spectral acceleration for damping ratio 0.05
is 8 (m/s2)). The design acceleration response spectrum SA (in m/s2
The damping ratios derived here are substituted into the term
of the hysteretic damping and the following radiation damping
is added to those ones [1,2].
(
"
)
54 #
1
2kx 1 ds V s
Vc
1 d 4
1
cx
Vs
G
kx
Vs
1 Z 2G
12
0
5
kinematic
total
inertial
10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
43
20
25
15
20
30
25
35
2-story (Ground B)
2-story (Ground A)
30
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
5
kinematic
total
inertial
10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
2 10
20
25
15
20
30
25
35
6-story (Ground A)
6-story (Ground B)
40
30
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
0
5
5
kinematic
total
inertial
10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
2 10
20
25
15
20
30
25
35
10-story (Ground B)
10-story (Ground A)
30
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
Fig. 12. Maximum bending moment distribution of the pile due to the kinematic response, the inertial response and their total response. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
44
0
5
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
kinematic
total
inertial
10
20
25
15
20
30
25
35
16-story (Ground A)
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
16-story (Ground B)
30
4 10
6 10
8 10
0
5
kinematic
total
inertial
10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
2 10
20
25
15
20
30
25
35
20-story (Ground B)
20-story (Ground A)
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
30
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
Fig. 15 shows the accuracy of the simple (direct) sum and the
SRSS evaluations. The simple sum and the SRSS are dened by
Simple sum inertial response kinematic response
13
14
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
45
20
25
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
20
30
25
35
2-story (Ground A)
40
0
2-story (Ground B)
30
2 10
1 10
2 10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
1 10
20
25
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
20
30
25
35
6-story (Ground A)
40
0
6-story (Ground B)
30
2 10
1 10
2 10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
depth (m)
depth (m)
1 10
20
25
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
20
30
25
35
10-story (Ground A)
40
0
1 10
2 10
10-story (Ground B)
30
0
1 10
2 10
Fig. 13. Maximum shear force distribution of the pile due to the kinematic response, the inertial response and their total response. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
46
15
20
kinematic
total
inertial
10
depth (m)
depth (m)
kinematic
total
inertial
10
25
15
20
30
25
35
16-story (Ground A)
40
0
16-story (Ground B)
30
1 10
2 10
2 10
1 10
kinematic
total
inertial
10
15
20
25
kinematic
total
inertial
10
depth (m)
depth (m)
15
20
30
25
35
20-story (Ground A)
40
0
1 10
20-story (Ground B)
30
2 10
1 10
2 10
Fig. 14. Maximum pile-head bending moment due to the kinematic effect and that due to the inertial effect for 2, 5, 10, 16 and 20-story buildings with pile diameter 1.5 m
(ground A and ground B).
(direct) sum and the SRSS. On the other hand, when T G 4 T B , the
simple sum provides a better estimation in general. In case of
T G o T B , the SRSS gives a better estimation. However, when T B is
near T G , the proposed response spectrum method should be used.
The simple sum often provides too conservative results.
47
Fig. 15. Comparison of the maximum pile-head bending moment for pile diameter 1.5 m among (i) simple (direct) sum of kinematic and inertial responses, (ii) SRSS of
kinematic and inertial responses and (iii) total (true) one. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
Fig. 16. Maximum pile-head bending moment due to the kinematic effect and that due to the inertial effect for 2, 5, 10, 16 and 20-story buildings with pile diameter 1.0 m
(ground A and ground B).
Fig. 17. Comparison of the maximum pile-head bending moment for pile diameter 1.0 m among (i) simple sum of kinematic and inertial responses, (ii) SRSS of kinematic and
inertial responses and (iii) total (true) one. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
48
Fig. 18. Maximum pile-head bending moment due to the kinematic effect and that due to the inertial effect for 2, 5, 10, 16 and 20-story buildings with pile diameter 2.0 m
(ground A and ground B).
Fig. 19. Comparison of the maximum pile-head bending moment for pile diameter 2.0 m among (i) simple sum of kinematic and inertial responses, (ii) SRSS of kinematic
and inertial responses and (iii) total (true) one. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
diameter is 1.5 (m). It can be observed that, while the amplication of the safety-limit level motion from the damage-limit level
motion is ve, the response amplication is much smaller than
ve. This may result from the increase of damping and the
nonlinear amplication effect due to change of equivalent soil
stiffness.
Fig. 23 shows the accuracy of the simple (direct) sum and the
SRSS evaluations. It can be observed that, while the simple sum
provides a better estimation in general in the case of T G 4T B , the
SRSS gives a better estimation in the case of T G o T B . It can also be
understood that in some cases the total response is smaller slightly
than the SRSS evaluation and larger slightly than the simple sum.
However its difference may be negligible.
It may be concluded that the seismic response of the maximum
bending moments and shear forces in piles can be evaluated
efciently and reliably by the proposed response spectrum
method with an appropriate understanding of kinematic and
interaction components. Furthermore the superposition method
of the kinematic and inertial pile responses has been made clear
for any relationship between the fundamental natural period of
the super-structure and that of the ground.
The appropriateness of using the xed-base natural period
instead of the coupled model natural period should be discussed.
The coupled natural period of the 2-story building model on
Ground A (rather soft ground) under the damage-limit level input
5
10
15
Ground A
20
25
30
35
40
depth (m)
depth (m)
10
49
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Ground B
15
20
25
30
35
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
G/G0
G/G0
Fig. 20. Convergent shear modulus ratio to the initial one (safety limit level): response spectrum method and SHAKE for one simulated motion [24].
Ground B
Ground A
10
15
20
25
depth (m)
depth (m)
10
15
20
25
30
30
35
40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
damping ratio
35
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
damping ratio
Fig. 21. Convergent damping ratio (safety limit level): response spectrum method and SHAKE for one simulated motion [24].
is 0.305 (s) and that under the safety-limit level input is 0.307 (s).
Therefore the effect of the coupled natural period on the combination between inertial and kinematic effects seems to be negligible.
50
Fig. 22. Maximum pile-head bending moment due to the kinematic effect and that due to the inertial effect for 2, 5, 10, 16 and 20-story buildings under safety-limit level
motion (ground A and ground B).
Fig. 23. Comparison of the maximum pile-head bending moment under safety-limit level motion among (i) simple sum of kinematic and inertial responses, (ii) SRSS of
kinematic and inertial responses and (iii) total (true) one. (a) Ground A, (b) Ground B.
51
10
10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Fig. 24. 12-story steel building with 20 piles at Yokohama in Japan [23].
20
20
30
30
40
40
100
200
300
400
500
0.5
1.5
2.5
-5
Computed (elastic)
Computed (strain compatible)
Measured corner pile
Measured center pile
Fig. 25. (a) Shear wave velocity prole of the ground, (b) comparison of the peak pile bending strain computed by the analytical model including the present Winkler-type
soil element with that recorded during an earthquake in 1992 [23].
clear that the pile group effect reduces the soilpile spring
stiffness in general. As shown in Section 6.3, while the increase
of the soilpile spring stiffness leads to the reduction of the pile
52
(2) The kinematic response, the inertial response and the total
response can be evaluated by the same analysis model by
changing the model parameters. This is an advantageous
feature of this paper. Since the forced displacement of the
free-eld ground (action 1) and the inertial force from the
super-structure (action 2) are two major actions, action 1 can
be performed by specifying zero masses in the super-structure
and foundation and action 2 can be attained by specifying the
zero displacement of the free-eld ground (by specifying rigid
stiffness for free-eld ground) with a modication factor for a
total inertial force.
(3) The accuracy of the simple (direct) sum or the SRSS of the
kinematic response and the inertial response has been investigated numerically for the evaluation of the maximum pilehead moment. The validity of the simple sum or the SRSS
depends on the relation between the fundamental natural
period of the surface soil ground and that of the superstructure. In the case where the fundamental natural period
of the superstructure is shorter than that of the surface
ground, the simple sum is appropriate. On the other hand, in
the case where the fundamental natural period of the superstructure is longer than that of the surface ground, the SRSS is
appropriate. Although this general property is known partially
in the practical design [6,8,9], more comprehensive investigation has been conducted.
(4) When the fundamental natural period of a superstructure is
close to that of the surface soil ground, the actual total
response of the pile-head moment tends to become an average
value of the simple sum and the SRSS. Even in this case, the
proposed unied response spectrum method plays an important role.
(5) When the nonlinear property of soil is considered, the proposed response spectrum method provides a reasonable
accuracy under the damage-limit level input both for the
maximum pile bending moment and the distribution in its
depth direction. On the other hand, the proposed response
spectrum method provides a reasonable accuracy under the
safety-limit level input only for the maximum pile bending
moment. The distribution in its depth direction exhibits a
slightly deteriorated one.
7. Conclusions
The conclusions may be summarized as follows:
(1) A response spectrum method in terms of complex modal
quantities can be used in the evaluation of the maximum
kinematic and inertial seismic responses (pile-head moment)
of a pilesoil model to a ground motion dened at the
engineering bedrock surface.
spring and
input (acceleration,
dashpot
velocity, displacement)
free-field
ground
engineering bedrock
Fig. 26. Response analysis model.
5
Present response
spectrum method
Multi-input model
(Nonlinear
time-history)
15
Present response
spectrum method
Multi-input model
(Nonlinear
time-history)
10
depth (m)
depth (m)
10
20
15
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
2-story (Ground A)
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
2-story (Ground A)
5
40
0
2 10
4 10
Fig. 27. Comparison of pile bending moments between the present response spectrum method and the multi-input model with nonlinearity ((a) damage-limit level input
and (b) safety-limit level input; ground A; 2-story building model).
10
Safety-limit level
Damage-limit level
soil-pile spring force [kN]
53
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5
-10
-10
-5
10
deformation [mm]
deformation [mm]
Fig. 28. Hysteretic behavior of non-linear soilpile spring at ground surface level (top spring) with respect to deformation ((a) damage-limit level input and (b) safety-limit
level input; ground A; 2-story building model).
0
5
damage limit
stiffened 3 springs
(100 multiples)
depth (m)
10
15
20
Acknowledgments
25
30
35
2-story (Ground A)
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
0
5
depth (m)
A1a
m0 u g u 0 k1 u1 u0 kI u0 uG kP u0 0
A1b
mG u g u G kI u0 uG kG uG 0
A1c
kinematic
total
inertial
10
Appendix A
15
mG b m0 ; m1
A2a
20
kG b kI ; kP ; k1
A2b
25
mG u G kG uG mG u g
30
35
2-story (Ground A)
40
0
2 10
4 10
6 10
8 10
A3
A4a
m0 u 0 k1 u1 u0 kI u0 kP u0 m0 u g kI uG
A4b
54
Appendix B
j p
j 2
M mi ;
K ki
i1
2
6
mi 4
0
mi
m 4
i
7
6
5; k i 4
0
where
2
A5a; b
i1
1=3mi
soil
1=6mi
soil
1=6mi
soil
1=3mi
soil
5; k 4
i
A6a; b
ksoil
ksoil
i
ksoil
ksoil
3
5
A7a; b
In Eq. (A6a, b), mi and ki are the element mass and stiffness
i
matrices, respectively, of the i-th layer and mi
i hi ; ksoil Gi =hi .
soil
The damping matrix C is described by
N
2 i
ki Cb
A8
C
G1
i1
j 2
M C Kuj 0:
A9
A10a
A10b
j j j i
j
u i
j T M j j T M j 1
A12a
j T M j 0
A12b
j
Eq. (A12a) is equivalent to u Mu 1 (u ; the complex conjugate of uj ) and Eq. (A12b) is another normalization condition
j
independent of Eq. (A12a). From these conditions, the vectors
j
and can be determined.
For the sake of compact expression, the following complex
participation factor for the j-th eigenvibration is introduced
[10,21].
u M1
1
;
uj T Muj 1 j i
A15a
j 2 ujT Kuj
A15b
j
j j
i
i
i
i
i
sk SDs Re fuk uk 1 g;
A16a
i
i
i i
i
ck SDc Im fuk uk 1 g:
A16b
A17a
q
i 2
j 2
ij
cc
4aij bij cij = dij 1 h 1 h ;
A17b
q
j 2
ij
:
sc
4aij i bij 2D j 2 = dij 1 h
A17c
ssij denotes the correlation coefcient between the mode i and the
ij
mode j in the sine-sine spectrum. sc
indicates that in the sineij
cosine spectrum and cc denotes that in the cosine-cosine
g in t u g d
A19b
where
j T
A11b
A14
C i t
A11a
jT
2d uj T Muj
1 h
7
5
1 uj T Cuj
0
k
A13
g i t
g in t
i
D
i i
e h t
i
D
i i
e h t
sin i
D t
cos i
D t
A20a
A20b
i
Si
Ds is equivalent to the displacement response spectrum and SDc is
assumed to be also equivalent to the latter. This assumption seems
to be valid in the period range to be discussed here. The parameter
ui
in Eq. (A16) denotes the component in the i-th complex
k
eigenvector ui corresponding to the k-th nodal displacement uk
p
i 2
i
and i
1h .
D
Appendix C
In order to investigate the accuracy and reliability of the
present response spectrum method, a comparison has been made
for an actual building with piles [29]. The overview of the
building-pile model in Yokohama, Japan is shown in Fig. 24. This
References
[1] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE 1984;110(1):2040.
[2] Kavvadas M, Gazetas G. Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head
piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 1993;43(2):20722.
[3] Miyamoto Y, Fukuoka A, Adachi N, Sako Y. Pile response induced by inertial
and kinematic interaction in liqueed soil deposit. J Struct Construct Eng, AIJ
1996;482:5362 (In Japanese).
[4] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. Soilpilebridge seismic interaction:
kinematic and inertial effects. Part I; soft soil. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
1997;26:33759.
[5] Boulanger RW, Curras JC, Kuter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soilpile
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 1999;125(9):7509.
[6] Murono Y, Nishimura A. Evaluation of seismic force of pile foundation induced
by inertial and kinematic interaction. In: Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No.1496; 2000.
[7] Dobry R, Abdoun T, O'Rourke TD, Goh SH. Single piles in lateral spreads: eld
bending moment evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2003;129
(10):87989.
[8] Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M. Effects of dynamic soilstructure interaction
on pile stress. J Struct Construct Eng, AIJ 2005;587:12532 (In Japanese).
[9] Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M. Effects of inertial and kinematic interaction on
seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2005;25:75362.
[10] Kishida A, Takewaki I. Response spectrum method for kinematic soilpile
interaction analysis. Adv Struct Eng 2010;13(1):18197.
55