Pseudostatic Approach for Seismic Analysis of Piles

in Liquefying Soil
D. S. Liyanapathirana, M.ASCE,1 and H. G. Poulos, F.ASCE2

Abstract: The performance of pile foundations during an earthquake significantly influences the integrity of structures supported by
them. Therefore, in the overall seismic design process of the structures, modeling of the soil–pile-superstructure interaction is an essential
part. Although finite element based coupled analysis of the soil–pile-superstructure interaction models have the potential to provide
accurate results, they are computationally expensive and often complex to utilize. In practice, many geotechnical engineers tend to use
simple methods for obtaining the internal response of piles subjected to earthquake loading. Therefore this paper presents a simple
pseudostatic approach where a single pile is considered, including the contribution of the superstructure to the pile and the interaction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.

between the pile and the soil. The method involves two main steps. First a nonlinear free-field site response analysis is carried out to
obtain the maximum ground displacements along the pile and the degraded soil modulus over the depth of the soil deposit. Next a static
load analysis is carried out for the pile, subjected to the maximum free-field ground displacements and the static loading at the pile head
based on the maximum ground surface acceleration. The method has been verified using an independent dynamic pile analysis program
developed by the writers for the seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil. It is demonstrated that the new method gives good estimates
of pile bending moment, shear force, and displacement, despite its relative simplicity. The method is then used to compute the response
of pile foundations during the Kobe 1995 earthquake and some centrifuge tests found in the literature where extensive soil liquefaction has
been observed. Very good agreement is observed between computed and recorded pile bending moments.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:12共1480兲
CE Database subject headings: Seismic analysis; Piles; Liquefaction; Earthquakes.

Introduction
Liquefaction of saturated soil subjected to earthquake loading is
one of the major factors affecting the behavior of pile foundations
and subsequent building failure in seismically active areas. This
has been clearly demonstrated during past earthquakes that have
occurred in the USA 共e.g., 1989 Loma-Prieta兲, Japan 共e.g., 1995
Kobe兲, and Mexico 共e.g., 1995 Manzanillo兲. At many instances,
pile failure in liquefied ground occurred due to the inadequacy of
the pile to sustain large shear forces and bending moments devel-
oped during an earthquake event. Hence there is a great demand
for numerical procedures which can be used to predict pile
behavior in liquefying ground during an earthquake event.
Although one-dimensional Winkler models have become
popular for the seismic analysis of pile foundations, most of them
can be used only for the linear analysis of pile–soil interaction in
nonliquefying soil 共e.g., Novak 1974; Dobry et al. 1982; Kaynia
1
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil, Mining and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong, Northfields Ave., Wollongong, NSW
2522, Australia.
2
Senior Principal, Coffey Geosciences Pty. Ltd. and Emeritus
Professor of Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering 共J05兲, Univ. of
Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 23, 2002; approved on August 17, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 12, December 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2005/12-1480–1487/$25.00.
and Kausel 1982; Kavvadas and Gazetas 1993兲. Winkler models
that take into account the nonlinear soil behavior have been de-
veloped by Penzien 共1970兲; Kagawa 共1980兲; Kagawa and Kraft
共1981兲; Norris 共1994兲; El Naggar and Novak 共1996兲; Nogami and
Konagai 共1988兲; and Tabesh and Poulos 共2000, 2001a兲 but they
lack the ability to predict pile behavior when the soil around the
pile starts to liquefy.
For the seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil, Winkler
type models have been developed by Kagawa 共1992兲; Yao and
Nogami 共1994兲; Fujii et al. 共1998兲; and Liyanapathirana and
Poulos 共2005兲. Although these models are one-dimensional, a dy-
namic finite element analysis has to be carried out to obtain the
pile response in liquefying soil.
Recently, pseudostatic approaches for the seismic analysis of
pile foundations have emerged. In pseudostatic approaches, a
static analysis is carried out to obtain the maximum bending mo-
ment and shear force developed in the pile due to earthquake
loading. These methods are attractive for design engineers when
compared to difficult 共but more complex兲 dynamic analyses. For
piles in nonliquefying soil Abghari and Chai 共1995兲 and Tabesh
and Poulos 共2001b兲 have developed pseudostatic approaches.
When liquefaction is of concern, the stiffness of the soil is dra-
matically reduced and the effect of the reduced stiffness should be
incorporated in the analysis. Therefore in this paper a pseudostatic
approach, which requires relatively little computational effort, is
presented for the analysis of piles in liquefying soil. Results ob-
tained from the pseudostatic approach are compared with the re-
sults given by a dynamic analysis and centrifuge data and despite
its simplicity, the pseudostatic approach results, which are in good
agreement.

1480 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

 Pseudostatic Approach
The pseudostatic methods were presented by Abghari and Chai
共1995兲 and Tabesh and Poulos 共2001b兲 for the nonliquefying soil,
and the inertial force acting at the pile head is represented by the
product of the cap-mass and the spectral acceleration 共Dowrick
1977兲. By comparing the results given by the pseudostatic method
with the results given by a dynamic finite element analysis, Ab-
ghari and Chai 共1995兲 concluded that the inertial force should be
reduced to 25% for the pile deflection and to 50% for the bending
moment and shear force to obtain the results in agreement with
the dynamic finite element analysis. They made this conclusion
by analyzing only one example and the method has not been
generalized. However, they have taken into account the nonlinear
behavior of the soil in their analysis.
Tabesh and Poulos 共2001b兲 compared results given by pseudo-
static and dynamic analyses for different pile and soil properties.
They applied the full inertial force at the pile head and observed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.
an excellent agreement with the dynamic analysis for the cases
without cap-mass, but when the cap-mass increased they showed
that the pseudostatic approach overestimates the maximum bend-
ing moment and shear force developed in the pile. However, they
carried out an elastic free-field site response analysis and in the
pile analysis the nonlinear behavior of the soil is also not taken
into account.
In the pseudostatic approach proposed by Ishihara and Cubrin-
ovski 共1998兲 for the pile foundations in the soil deposits subjected
to lateral spreading, inertial force at the pile head has not been
considered to obtain the maximum bending moment and shear
force developed in the pile.
Here the pseudostatic approach has been extended for a lique-
fying soil, where the degradation of shear modulus of the soil
occurs with the generation of pore water pressure in the soil.
Although spectral acceleration has been used by Abghari and
Chai 共1995兲 and Tabesh and Poulos 共2001b兲, it has been found
that the inertial force at the pile head calculated using the spectral
acceleration, based on the effective stress analysis, is overesti-
mated when the surrounding soil starts to liquefy. The numerical
studies carried out using the dynamic finite analysis show that
when the surrounding soil starts to liquefy, maximum pile head
acceleration closely agrees with the maximum ground surface ac-
celeration. Hence pseudostatic analysis has been carried out by
applying inertial force at the pile head calculated based on the
maximum ground surface acceleration, instead of the spectral
acceleration.
In the pseudostatic approach presented here, maximum pile
bending moment, shear force, and displacement are obtained by
performing a static load analysis for the pile, involving two main
stages as follows.
1. A free-field site response analysis is carried out to obtain the
maximum ground displacement and the minimum effective
vertical stress at each depth of the soil deposit and the maxi-
mum ground surface acceleration during the earthquake load-
ing.
2. Next a static load analysis is carried out for the pile, sub-
jected to the maximum free-field ground displacements and
the static loading at the pile head, which is given by the
maximum ground surface acceleration multiplied by the cap-
mass.
Here the maximum ground surface acceleration, minimum ef-
fective stress, and the maximum ground displacement at each
depth have been obtained from the free-field site response analy-
sis developed by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 共2002b,c兲. The
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1481
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.
static load analysis of the pile is carried out by modeling the pile
as a nonlinear beam. Soil–pile interaction is modeled using the
method of a beam on a nonlinear Winkler foundation.
Cap-mass at the pile head represents the mass of the super-
structure. Although the superstructure supported by pile founda-
tions is a multi-degree of freedom system, in the design of pile
foundations, it is reduced to a single mass at the pile head, to
simplify the analysis. The partial differential equation of a beam
on a Winkler foundation is given by
冉 冊
⳵ 4U P
E PI P = Kx共U f f − U P兲 + M共amax兲 共1兲
⳵z4
where E P = Young’s modulus of the pile material, I P = inertia of
the pile, U P = pile displacement, U f f = free-field lateral soil dis-
placement, Kx = spring coefficients of the Winkler model,
M = cap-mass, and amax = maximum ground surface acceleration.
Eq. 共1兲 is solved using the finite element method.
The spring coefficients of the Winkler model have been ob-
tained by integrating Mindlin’s equation over a rectangular area
as explained in the companion paper by Liyanapathirana and Pou-
los 共2005兲. At each depth, the spring coefficients are calculated
based on the minimum effective stress obtained from the free-
field site response analysis.
Usually it is assumed that the liquefied soil does not have any
stiffness. However, due to the stiffness contrast between the pile
and the liquefied soil, computationally it is difficult to carry out
an analysis with a near-zero shear modulus. Therefore in the nu-
merical studies, a lower limit has been set for the initial effective
vertical stress, below which effective vertical stress is not allowed
to decrease and pore pressures are not allowed to build up. By
analyzing field data recorded at the Port Island site during the
Kobe 1995 earthquake, Davis and Berril 共1998兲 reported that the
shear wave velocity of the liquefied region is about 25 m / s. Ishi-
hara and Towhata 共1982兲 also suggested that since shear stress
application during earthquakes is multidirectional, even when
shear stresses are reduced to zero in one direction, there will
always be some shear stress left in the soil. This was demon-
strated in the rotational simple shear tests performed by Ishihara
and Yamasaki 共1980兲. During the one-dimensional free-field site
response analyses carried out by Ishihara and Towhata 共1982兲,
this lower limit of effective stress is set at 3% of the initial effec-
tive overburden pressure.
The degradation of soil modulus gives rise to nonhomogeneity
of the soil profile, even if it was initially homogeneous. The use
of the Mindlin equation is of course approximate for soils, which
are not homogeneous and isotropic, but can give results of ad-
equate accuracy for many cases of nonuniform soil profiles
共Poulos 1982兲.
The nonlinear behavior of soil at the pile–soil interface has
been modeled using a plastic slider in series with spring coeffi-
cients of the Winkler model, which represents the lateral pressure
at the pile–soil interface, as shown in Fig. 1. This lateral pressure
is monitored and an iterative procedure is used to keep it below
the ultimate lateral pressure of the soil. According to Broms
共1964兲, for noncohesive soils, the ultimate lateral pressure is
given by
Pu = 3␴⬘v 冉 1 + sin ␾⬘
1 − sin ␸⬘
冊 共2兲
In this model, displacement of the soil adjacent to the pile wall is
represented by the displacement of the plastic slider, which is
different from the displacement of the soil away from the pile
 in Step 1. The maximum soil displacement profile calculated
in Step 1 is applied to the pile through these springs as
shown in Fig. 1.
5. A plastic slider is used in series with each spring to limit the
pressure at the pile–soil interface to the ultimate lateral pres-
sure given by Eq. 共2兲.
6. A nonlinear static load analysis is carried out to obtain the
profile of maximum pile displacement, bending moment, and
shear force along the pile by applying the lateral force at the
pile head calculated in Step 3 and the maximum soil dis-
placement profile along the pile calculated in Step 1 simul-
taneously to the pile as shown in Fig. 1.

Verification of the Proposed Method

Fig. 1. Beam on Winkler foundation model for pseudostatic analysis
The proposed pseudostatic approach has been verified for soil
deposits with uniform relative density and for two-layer soil de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.

represented by the maximum displacement at each depth obtained
from the free-field site response analysis.
The calculation steps involved in this new approach can be
summarized as below.
1. First, a free-field site response analysis is performed by tak-
ing into account the pore pressure generation and dissipation
in the soil deposit due to the earthquake loading. From this
analysis, the maximum ground surface acceleration, maxi-
mum ground displacement along the length of the pile, and
the minimum effective stress level attained during the
seismic activity can be obtained.
2. The superstructure is modeled as a concentrated mass at the
pile head. Generally the superstructures supported by pile
posits using the dynamic benchmark analysis described in the
companion paper by Liyanapathirana and Poulos 共2005兲.
Soil Deposits with Uniform Relative Density
In this section the proposed pseudostatic approach has been veri-
fied for soil deposits with uniform relative density. Results have
been obtained for a soil deposit with 50% relative density by
changing the length of the pile and the diameter of the pile. It is
assumed that the pile extends down to the bottom of the soil
deposit. The shear modulus of the soil is assumed to vary with the
effective stress level of the soil as shown below

冢 冣
0.5
foundations are multi-degree of freedom systems, but in the 1 + 2K0
design of pile foundations, the superstructure is reduced to a ␴⬘v
3
single mass at the pile head to simplify the analysis. Gs = G0 MPa 共3兲
100
3. The lateral force to be applied at the pile head is the cap-
mass multiplied by the maximum ground surface accelera- where ␴⬘v = effective stress level of the soil, K0 = coefficient of
tion obtained from the free-field site response analysis, as earth pressure at rest, and the initial shear modulus, G0, is as-
shown in Fig. 1. sumed to be 30.
4. The pile–soil interaction is modeled using springs as shown Tables 1 and 2 show the maximum pile bending moment ob-
in Fig. 1. Spring coefficients are calculated by integrating the tained for different pile–soil configurations. The depth of the soil
Mindlin’s equation as described by Liyanapathirana and Pou- deposit ranges between 15 and 30 m and the pile diameter ranges
los 共2002a, 2005兲, using the minimum shear modulus corre- from 0.3 to 1.2 m as given in Table 1. The concrete piles used for
sponding to the minimum effective vertical stress calculated the analysis have a Young’s modulus of 3 ⫻ 104 MPa and a den-

Table 1. Maximum Bending Moment 共MN m兲 Obtained from Dynamic and Pseudostatic Analyses 共Dr = 50% 兲
d = 0.3 m d = 0.6 m d = 0.9 m d = 1.2 m
Length
共m兲 Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic
15 0.13 0.12 0.86 0.93 4.11 4.39 12.1 13.4
20 0.07 0.06 0.46 0.46 2.16 2.16 6.08 6.08
25 0.10 0.95 0.57 0.57 2.30 2.55 7.0 7.27
30 0.14 0.14 0.53 0.69 2.50 2.70 7.41 7.41

Table 2. Maximum Bending Moment 共MN m兲 Obtained from Dynamic and Pseudostatic Analyses 共Dr = 60% 兲
d = 0.3 m d = 0.6 m d = 0.9 m d = 1.2 m
Length
共m兲 Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic Dynamic Pseudostatic
15 0.12 0.12 0.86 1.05 4.03 4.03 11.0 11.3
20 0.17 0.16 1.20 1.24 5.36 5.36 12.9 12.9
25 0.13 0.10 0.63 0.50 1.98 1.98 5.93 5.93
30 0.16 0.15 0.80 0.70 2.70 2.99 8.31 7.31

1482 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.
Fig. 2. Amount of pore pressure generation and free-field
displacement along the depth of the soil deposit and the maximum
ground surface acceleration
sity of 2,400 kg/ m3. The soil deposits used for the analysis have
a density of 1,900 kg/ m3, permeability of 5.5e−5 m / s, and a fric-
tion angle of 30°. It is assumed that the water table is 2.0 m below
the ground surface.
First, a free-field site response analysis is carried out to obtain
the maximum soil displacements along the depth of the soil de-
posit, maximum ground surface acceleration, and the minimum
effective vertical stresses along the depth of the soil deposit. The
1995 Kobe earthquake record given in the companion paper by
Liyanapathirana and Poulos 共2005兲 scaled to 0.25g has been used
as the excitation source. As discussed in a previous section, soil
deposits retain some shear strength even after liquefaction. There-
fore, during the free-field site response analysis, effective stress of
the soil is reduced only up to 2% of the initial effective overbur-
den pressure at each depth.
Fig. 2 shows the amount of pore pressure generation, positive
and negative ground displacement envelopes, and the maximum
ground surface acceleration for the four soil deposits considered
for the analysis. The liquefied depth ranges between 6 and 8 m
for these soil deposits.
During the pseudostatic analysis of the pile, the pile head is
assumed to be restrained against rotational movement and the pile
tip is assumed to be restrained against lateral movement. The
cap-mass carried by each pile configuration is calculated based on
the ultimate load carrying capacity of piles in sand with a factor
of safety of 2.5.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1483
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.
Fig. 3. Variation of pile moment, shear, and displacement along
depth for 15 m pile with diameters 0.3 and 1.2 m 共Dr = 50% 兲
Despite its simplicity, Table 1 shows that the pseudostatic
analysis gives results in close agreement with the benchmark dy-
namic analysis. The agreement between results is not only con-
fined to the point of maximum bending moment but occurs along
the whole length of the pile. Fig. 3 shows the maximum positive
and negative bending moment, shear force, and displacement en-
velopes along the pile obtained from the dynamic analysis, for the
15 m pile with 0.3 and 1.2 m diameters, given in Table 1 during
the earthquake loading. These figures also show the maximum
bending moment, shear force, and displacement obtained from the
pseudostatic analysis, and they demonstrate the close agreement
between the dynamic and pseudostatic analyses along the length
of the pile. It is interesting to see that in some parts, the static
profile matches with the maximum positive envelope and in other
parts, it matches with the maximum negative envelope.
In Fig. 4, the maximum bending moment and shear force pro-
files along the 15 m long pile with Dr = 50% are given for a free
head pile where the pile extends 1 m above the ground surface.
The maximum ground surface acceleration, pore pressure ratio,
and ground displacements at each depth are given in Fig. 2共a兲.
The concrete pile used for the analysis and the soil have the same
properties as in the previous analysis. Maximum bending moment
profiles are given for pile diameters of 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 m.
When carrying out the pseudostatic analysis, the pile head is as-
sumed to be at the ground surface. Hence in addition to the iner-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Variation of pile moment along depth for a free head pile with Fig. 5. Variation of pile moment and shear along depth for a 15 m
diameters 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 m 共Dr = 50% 兲 pile with diameter 0.3 m with and without cap-mass 共Dr = 50% 兲

Two-Layer Soil Deposits

tial force, the moment due to eccentricity of the inertial force In this section the psedostatic method proposed in a previous
acting at the pile head is applied to the pile in the pseudostatic section has been verified for two-layer soil deposits with a non-
analysis. Here the inertial force at the pile head is given by the liquefying soil layer overlain by a liquefying soil. The relative
product of capmass and the ground surface acceleration. The cap- density of the liquefying soil is 50% and that of the nonliquefying
mass is calculated based on the ultimate load carrying capacity of layer is 90%. For the Dr = 50% case, the friction angle is 30° and
piles in sand with a factor of safety of 2.5. The agreement be- G0 关Eq. 共3兲兴 is 30 MPa, while for the Dr = 90% case, friction angle
tween dynamic and pseudostatic analyses confirms that, irrespec- is 35° and G0 is 35 MPa. It is assumed that both layers have a
tive of the boundary conditions at the pile head and the pile tip, density of 1,900 kg/ m3 and permeability of 5.5e−5 m / s. The
the pseudostatic approach can be used to estimate the internal water table is considered to be at the ground surface.
response of the pile.
Fig. 5 shows the internal response for the 0.3 m diameter and
15 m long pile without cap-mass and with a 50 t cap-mass,
founded in the soil deposit shown in Fig. 4共a兲. In Fig. 3共a兲 the
internal response for the same pile is given when the cap-mass is
20 t. When the pile does not carry a cap-mass, excellent agree-
ment between the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses can be ob-
served in Fig. 5. With the increase in cap-mass, the agreement
between the pseudostatic and dynamic analyses reduces and the
pseudostatic method overestimates the maximum pile bending
moment. In the proposed pseudostatic method, the inertial force
based on the maximum ground acceleration and the maximum
ground displacement profile is applied to obtain the internal pile
response. In the dynamic analysis, the maximum free-field ground
displacment will not occur in phase with the maximum ground
surface acceleration. As a result, the pseudostatic method overes-
timates the maximum pile bending moment in some cases com-
pared to the pile response predicted by the dynamic benchmark
analysis.
Although results are given here only for some selected cases,
the method has given reasonable agreement with the dynamic
analysis for different soil conditions and pile configurations. It has
been found that the maximum values are given at the same depth
and the difference in magnitude is less than 25%, which is gen- Fig. 6. Maximum ground displacement envelopes along the depth
erally acceptable for practical pile design purposes. and maximum ground surface acceleration for layered soil deposits

1484 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Variation of pile bending moment along depth for a 25 m Fig. 8. Variation of pile bending moment along depth for a 25 m
long pile with diameter 0.6 m in a two-layer soil deposit long pile with diameter 0.9 m in a two-layer soil deposit

The total thickness of the two-layer soil deposit is 25 m and
the analysis is carried out by varying the thickness of the top
liquefying soil layer. The four cases considered have top liquefy-
ing layers of 4, 8, 12, and 16 m. The 1995 Kobe earthquake
record scaled to 0.25g shown in Fig. 3 has been used as the
excitation source.
The free head piles used for the analysis extends up to the
bottom of the soil deposit and the spring coefficients used to
represent pile–soil interaction are calculated based on the mini-
mum effective stress at each depth obtained from the free-field
site response analysis. Two pile diameters are considered, 0.6 and
0.9 m, and each pile carries a cap-mass of 8.4⫻ 104 and 1.66
⫻ 105 kg, respectively. The concrete piles used for this analysis
have a Young’s modulus of 3 ⫻ 104 MPa and a density of
2,400 kg/ m3.
Fig. 6 shows the positive and negative ground displacement
envelopes and the maximum ground surface acceleration obtained
from the free-field site response analysis. Figs. 7 and 8 show the
bending moment along the pile obtained from the pseudostatic
approach and the maximum positive and negative bending mo-
ment envelopes obtained from the benchmark analysis for piles
with diameters 0.6 and 0.9 m, respectively. It can be seen that for
all cases, the maximum bending moment given by the pseudo-
static approach reasonably agrees with those given by the
dynamic bench mark analysis.
Hyogoken-Nambu 1995 earthquake reported by Ishihara and
Cubrinovski 共1998兲.
The centrifuge test by Abdoun et al. 共1997兲 was carried out to
study the pile response during lateral spreading. Details of this
test are given in the companion paper by Liyanapathirana and
Poulos 共2005兲. Fig. 9 shows the maximum bending moment en-
velope obtained from the pseudostatic analysis and the measured
maximum bending moments at several depths during the centri-
fuge test. In this case, pile does not carry a cap-mass and pile
head is free. Therefore the pseudostatic analysis is carried out by
applying only the maximum free-field ground displacements at
each depth along the pile. It can be seen that the calculated values
agree well with the values recorded during the centrifuge test.
The field measurements made in the piles at Pier 211 in
Uozakihama Island after the Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake oc-

Comparison with Field and Centrifuge Data

In this section, the proposed pseudostatic method has been used to

estimate the maximum bending moments developed in a pile used
for a centrifuge test carried out by Abdoun et al. 共1997兲 and the Fig. 9. Comparison of maximum bending moment along pile with
bored piles at Bridge Pier 211 in Uozakihama Island after the centrifuge data from Abdoun et al. 共1997兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1485

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.
Fig. 10. Cracks observed in the piles at bridge pier 211 in
Uozakihama Island 共Ishihara and Cubrinovski with permission, 1998兲
curred on January 17, 1995, and reported by Ishihara and Cubrin-
ovski 共1998兲, have been simulated using the pseudostatic ap-
proach presented in this paper. Fig. 10 shows the crack
distributions observed in piles after the earthquake. The concrete
piles at bridge Pier 211 are 46 m long and the diameter is 1.5 m.
The water table is 2.0 m below the ground surface and the upper
20 m of this site consists of Masado sand with an initial shear
modulus of 57.8 MN/ m2 and density of 2,000 kg/ m3 共Tokimatsu
et al. 1998兲. Soil liquefaction was observed in the Masado sand
layer below the water table only. Therefore only the top 20 m
layer was analyzed using the effective stress method and incorpo-
rating pore pressure generation and dissipation. For this analysis
the cyclic shear strength curve for the Masado sand given by
Ishihara 共1997兲 was used. It was assumed that the base rock had a
density of 2,200 kg/ m3 and shear modulus of 75 GN/ m2. The
lower end of the RC pile was assumed to be fixed while the pile
head was assumed to be fixed to the footing but free to move in
the horizontal direction.
Fig. 11. Maximum ground displacement at each depth obtained from
the site response analysis and estimated by Ishihara and Cubrinovski
共1998兲 based on field measurements
1486 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.
Fig. 12. Bending moment of the pile at Bridge Pier 211 in
Uozakihama Island calculated from the pseudostatic approach and
Ishihara and Cubrinovski 共1998兲 results with ␤ = 1 ⫻ 10−2
Fig. 11 shows the maximum ground displacement at each
depth obtained from the site response analysis and the free-field
ground displacements used by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 共1998兲.
During the earthquake, only the ground surface displacements
were recorded. Based on these data, the lateral ground surface
displacement at the vicinity of bridge Pier 211 was about 1.0 m,
which agrees well with the maximum ground surface displace-
ment obtained from the numerical model. Ishihara and Cubrin-
ovski 共1998兲 used a cosine function through the liquefied layer
down to a depth of 20 m to distribute the ground surface displace-
ment, as shown in Fig. 11. There is a slight discrepancy between
this assumed displacement distribution and the displacement dis-
tribution obtained from the numerical model.
Fig. 12 shows the maximum bending moment profile along the
pile obtained from the pseudostatic approach and those calculated
by Ishihara and Cubrinovski 共1998兲. The predictions made by the
pseudostatic approach agree well with Ishihara’s results. The
yield moment for these piles was about 5 MN m. The computed
maximum bending moment profile exceeds the yield moment
near the pile head and around the boundary between the liquefied
and nonliquefied layers. This is consistent with the location of
cracks observed after the earthquake shown in Fig. 10.
Conclusions
This paper has described a pseudostatic approach that can be used
to compute the maximum bending moment and shear force devel-
oped in a pile founded in liquefying soil. An effective-stress-
based free-field site response analysis is first carried out and the
resulting ground displacements, degraded soil stiffness, and iner-
tial force at the pile head, based on the cap-mass and the maxi-
mum ground surface acceleration, are applied to the pile statically
to obtain the internal pile response. The spring coefficients of the
Winkler model used in the pseudostatic analysis are derived from
Mindlin’s equations.
The results presented in the paper suggest that the new method
has promise in practical applications. For a few cases the new
method overestimated the pile bending moment and shear force
but the values were within 25% of those obtained from the dy-
namic analysis. Both dynamic and pseudostatic analyses give
peak values at the same locations. Also the pseudostatic method
has been verified for two layer soil deposits with liquefying and
 nonliquefying soil layers. The pile performance observed during a
centrifuge test and a real earthquake has been simulated using the
pseudostatic approach. It is found that the pile response calculated
from the pseudostatic approach is consistent with the observed
pile behavior.
Acknowledgments
This work is part of a project on “Design of Pile Foundations for
Seismically Active Areas” funded by the Australian Research
Council and this support is gratefully acknowledged. Also the
writers would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough re-
view and useful comments.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on 05/27/14. For personal use only.
Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., and O’Rouke, T. D. 共1997兲. “Centrifuge and
numerical modeling of soil-pile interaction during earthquake induced
soil liquefaction and lateral spreading.” Observation and Modeling in
Numerical Analysis and Model Tests in Dynamic Soil-Structure Inter-
action Problems—Proc., Sessions held in conjunction with Geo-Logan
’97, Logan, Utah, 76–90.
Abghari, A., and Chai, J. 共1995兲. “Modeling of soil-pile-superstructure
interaction for bridge foundations.” Proc., Performance of Deep
Foundations under Seismic Loading, J. P. Turner, ed., ASCE, New
York, 45–59.
Broms, B. B. 共1964兲. “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 90共2兲, 27–63.
Davis, R. O., and Berrill, J. B. 共1998兲. “Energy dissipation and liquefac-
tion at Port Island, Kobe.” Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Earthquake
Eng., 31, 31–50.
Dobry, R., Vicente, E., O’Rourke, M. J., and Rosset, J. M. 共1982兲. “Hori-
zontal stiffness and damping of single piles.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div.,
Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108共3兲, 439–459.
Dowrick, D. J. 共1977兲. Earthquake resistant design: A manual for engi-
neers and architects, Wiley, New York.
El Naggar, M. H., and Novak, M. 共1996兲. “Non-linear analysis for
dynamic lateral pile response.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 15共4兲,
233–244.
Fuji, S., Cubrinovski, M., Tokimatsu, K., and Hayashi, T. 共1998兲. “Analy-
ses of damaged and undamaged pile foundations in liquefied soils
during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake.” Proc., 1998 Conf. on Geotechni-
cal Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Seattle, Wash., 2,
1187–1198.
Ishihara, K. 共1997兲. “Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe Earth-
quake.” Terzaghi Oration, Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.
Ishihara, K., and Cubrinovski, M. 共1998兲. “Performance of large-diameter
piles subjected to lateral spreading of liquefied deposits.” Thirteenth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Taipei, Taiwan.
Ishihara, K., and Towhata, I. 共1982兲. “Dynamic response analysis of level
ground based on the effective stress method.” Soil Mechanics—
Transient and Cyclic Loads, G. N. Pande and O. C. Zienkiewicz, eds.,
Wiley, New York, 133–171.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2005 / 1487
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:1480-1487.
Ishihara, K., and Yamasaki, F. 共1980兲. “Cyclic simple shear tests on satu-
rated sand in multi-directional loading.” Soils Found. 20共1兲, 45–59.
Kagawa, T. 共1980兲. “Soil-pile-structure interaction of offshore structures
during an earthquake.” Proc., Annual Offshore Technology Conf.,
Houston, Tex., 235–245.
Kagawa, T. 共1992兲. “Lateral pile response in liquefying sand.” Proc., 10th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, Paper No.
1761.
Kagawa, T., and Kraft, L. M. 共1981兲. “Lateral pile response during
earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 107共12兲,
1713–1731.
Kavvadas, M., and Gazetas, G. 共1993兲. “Kinematic seismic response and
bending of free-head piles in layered soils.” Geotechnique, 43共2兲,
207–222.
Kaynia, A. M., and Kausel, E. 共1982兲. “Dynamic behavior of pile
groups.” Proc., Second Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore
Piling, 509–532.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共2002a兲. “Numerical model for
seismic analysis of piles in liquefying soil.” Deep Foundation Con-
gress, Orlando, Fl., 274–289.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共2002b兲. “Numerical simula-
tion of soil liquefaction due to earthquake loading.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng., 22, 511–523.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共2002c兲. “A numerical model
for dynamic soil liquefaction analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
22, 1007–1015.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共2005兲. “Seismic lateral re-
sponse of piles in liquefying soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131共12兲, 1466–1479.
Nogami, T., and Konagai, K. 共1988兲. “Time domain flexural response of
dynamically loaded single piles.” J. Eng. Mech., 114共9兲, 1512–1525.
Norris, G. M. 共1994兲. “Seismic bridge pile foundation behavior.” Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, 1,
27–136.
Novak, M. 共1974兲. “Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles.” Can. Geo-
tech. J., 11, 574–598.
Penzien, J. 共1970兲. Soil-pile foundation interaction in earthquake engi-
neering, R. L. Wiegel, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Poulos, H. G. 共1982兲. “Developments in the analysis of static and cyclic
lateral response of piles.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, Canada, 1117–1135.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 共2000兲. “A simple method for the seismic
analysis of piles and its comparison with the results of centrifuge
tests.” Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
New Zealand, Paper No. 1203.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 共2001a兲. “The effect of soil yielding on
seismic response of single piles.” Soils Found., 41共3兲, 1–16.
Tabesh, A., and Poulos, H. G. 共2001b兲. “Pseudostatic approach for seis-
mic analysis of single piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共9兲,
757–765.
Toimatsu, K., Oh-Oka, H., Satake, K., Shamoto, Y., and Asaka, Y. 共1998兲.
“Effects of lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in
the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake.” Proc., Geotechnical Earth-
quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Reston, Va., 1175–1186.
Yao, S., and Nogami, T. 共1994兲. “Lateral cyclic response of piles in
viscoelastic Winkler subgrade.” J. Eng. Mech., 120共4兲, 758–775.