DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF HALLOW

STEEL MODEL PILES UNDER VERTICAL

EXCITATIONS

BY
K . JANARDHAN
Roll No: 1533006
GEO TECHNICAL ENGINEERING

1
Under the guidance of Under the CO- guidance of
Dr. AVIJIT BURMAN Prof. SS CHOUDHARY
Asst. Professor Asst. Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

 INTRODUCTION

 LITERATURE REVIEW

 OBJECTIVE

 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

 THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION

 EVALUATIONS OF NONLINEAR RESPONSE

 CONCLUSIONS
 INTRODUCTION

 Pile foundations are the part of a structure used to carry and

transfer the load of the structure at some depth below ground
surface.

 Pile foundations are often used to support such dynamic load

when soil conditions at the site indicate that shallow
foundations will result in unacceptable amount of permanent
settlement.
CONT..

 Piles subjected to dynamic loads are due to:

(a) Machine induced vibration
(b) Earthquake
(c) Ocean wave

 Primary objectives to use piles for machines is to reduced vibration

amplitudes to an acceptable limit.

 A comprehensive study involving both the dynamic testing of pile

foundations and theoretical study is described.
LITERATURE REVIEW

 Dynamic response of pile foundations

* Theoretical study

* Experimental study
Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations:
Theoretical study

 Methods of analysis :

 Winkler foundation model

 Mass-spring-dashpot model

 Equivalent cantilever method,

 Novak’s Continuum approach

 Finite element method

 LITERATURE REVIEW (Analytical)
.

METHODS YEAR AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

1980 Kagawa and Kraft Develops a nonlinear dynamic Winkler model

Soil-pile interaction models for dynamic loading and

Nogami, Otani and formulated solutions for axial and lateral response
1992
Winkler Foundation Chen
Model Dynamic winkler model for the response of single and
2002 Mylonakis and group pile in a soil layer subjected to vertical excitation
Gazetas
Based on the assumption of the isotropic elastic soil,
2010 Demin and Yungen Modified Winkler Foundation Model is established

Mass-spring-dashpot model was introduce for pile

1962 Barkan foundation

Presented a new method considering the machine-pile

1971 Madhav, Rao, and foundation-soil system as two-degrees-of freedom
Madhavan,
Mass-spring-dashpot
Single degree of freedom model to relate the case damping
model
2001 Michael and Charles to the hysteretic damping ratio of soil and pile materials.

Presented a simplified known model of a finite discrete

2010 Tatietse pile element, in the form of a mass-spring damper model
 LITERATURE REVIEW (Analytical)
.

METHODS YEAR AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

Singh, Donovan, and Used the concept of the equivalent cantilever method to
1971 Jobsis analyze the single and group piles including batter piles
for all six degrees of freedom.

Investigated the embedded piles by using the equivalent

Equivalent cantilever
2004 Sivakumar cantilever method as a column with a base fixed at some
method
distance below the ground surface.

The soil-pile system is reduced down to an equivalent

2007 Jung et al. cantilever beam-column whose length can be expressed
as a function of surrounding soil properties and the
rigidity of piles.

The theoretical nonlinear parameters (stiffness, damping

1971 Novak and effective mass) are predicted using the theoretical
approach from the measured dynamic frequency-
Novak continuum amplitude response curves
approach
Approximate method for vertical vibration of pile group
1982 Sheta and Novak by using the continuum method.

The method accounted for dynamic interaction of piles

1990 Novak and Han in a group, weakening of the soil around the pile due to
high strain, soil layering and arbitrary tip conditions.
 LITERATURE REVIEW (Analytical)
.

METHODS YEAR AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

Developed a 3-D finite element model that considers

2000 Bentley and El Naggar the soil nonlinearity, discontinuity conditions at the
soil pile interface, energy dissipation, and actual in-
situ stress conditions to evaluate the kinematic soil-
pile interaction.

Used a 3-D FE model to obtain the pile response

2004 Maheshwari et al. under seismic excitation with a load applied to the
pile cap
Finite Element Method

Presented a two-dimensional soil-pile interaction

2006 Ayothiraman and finite element model to predict the pile response
Boominathan subjected to dynamic lateral loads.

Used a 3-D BEM (Boundary Element Method) -

2008 Padron, Aznarez, and FEM coupling model to study the dynamic behavior
Maeso of pile foundation in elastic layered soils in presence
of rigid bedrock.
Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations:
Experimental Study

 With the emergence of the new theories for dynamic analysis of pile
foundations it became essential to verify their applicability by
means of experimental data.

 Various types of dynamic tests of piles were conducted. They differ

primarily according to the size of the piles, test medium, and its
technology application.
 Experimental Study

 Modeling Considerations

 Full scale field test

 Small prototype field test

 Small scale laboratory test

 LITERATURE REVIEW (Experimental)
.

TYPE OF TESTS YEAR AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

Conducted steady state dynamic lateral load tests on

1984 Gle and Woods full-scale pipe piles in the field

Conducted tests on single pile and observed responses

Puri and Prakash were compared with calculated response using the
Full scale field test 1992
Novak’s continuum approach.

Manna and Conducted tests on single and group piles for both
2009 Baidya vertical and horizontal vibrations

Richards, Rollins, Investigated embedded pile-to-cap connections for

2011 and Stenlund concrete-filled pipe piles.

Conducted dynamic tests with small pile foundations in

1976 Novak and Grigg the field. The test data were compared with theoretical
predictions

Performed the dynamic tests on 13 model pile groups at

Small prototype field 1997 Burr, Pender, and two separate sites, one with soft soil and another with
test Larkin stiff soil.

Dynamic load tests were conducted on small scale proto

2010 Manna and Baidya type pile
 LITERATURE REVIEW (Experimental)
.

TYPE OF TESTS YEAR AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

1982 Krishnamurthy, Investigated the effect of skin friction of pile groups on

Tokhi, and Beg resonant frequency subjected to vertical vibration by
conducting model tests on pile group in the laboratory.

Small scale laboratory

test Fellenius and Altaee As explained a “Critical Depth” appears when the
1995
residual load acting on the pile at the start of the static
loading test.

2010 Roesen and Conducted a six small-scale tests to evaluate the pile-
Thomassen soil interaction for non-slender mono piles in sand
subjected to lateral loading.
 OBJECTIVE

 To study the complex nonlinear behaviour of single and group piles

(3-pile group, 2 × 2-pile group, and 2 × 3-pile group) under vertical
vibration involving both experimental and analytical investigations.

 To study the effects of various influencing parameters, namely,

eccentric moment, static load and dynamic response of single pile and
different group piles.

 To determine the effective soil-pile system mass, stiffness and damping

of piles from observed frequency-amplitude response curves of vertical
vibration tests.
 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

 The dynamic pile tests were performed at IIT Delhi and all the tests
results are taken from that experimental site.

 In the field bore holes were made and soil samples were collected.

 Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out in the field and the
SPT-N value was determined at different depths of the soil strata.

 Soil samples were collected from the field and its engineering
properties were determined by laboratory tests.
.

 DESCRIPTION OF PILE:
 Material – Hollow steel pile
 Length – 3 m
 Outer Diameter – 0.114 m
 Thickness – 0.003 m

 DESCRIPTION OF VIBRATION SETUP INSTRUMENT:

 Mechanical Oscillator
 Tachometer
 Speed Control Unit
 Data Acquisition System
 Strain gages
 Acceleration pickup
.

Fig. 1 Complete experimental setup

Source: B.Manna, SS Choudhary “ prediction of nonlinear characteristics of hollow
steel single pile under vertical vibrations ”, Indian geotechnical conference.
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of soil-pile system
 Table 1. TEST DATA

Pile length Type of pile test No. of pile Eccentric Static load
used Moment

3m Single pile 1 0.868 12 kN

1.269
1.631 14 kN
1.944
3m Group pile 3 0.868 12 kN
1.269
1.631
1.944

3m Group pile 2×2 0.868 12 kN

1.269
1.631 14 kN
1.944

3m Group pile 2×3 0.868 12 kN

1.269
1.631 14 kN
1.944
 THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION

 The methodology of the inverse problem formulated by Novak (1971)

has been used in the present study.

0.16
𝐴 𝑇 = 0.139

0.14

0.12 𝐴𝑇
= 0.098
2
Amplitude (mm)

𝑊2
0.1
𝑊1 Ω
0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02
𝑊𝑇 = 30
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency (Hz)

Fig.3 Graphical calculation for back bone curve (for single pile
with 12 kN static load)
 The variation of the undamped natural frequencies Ω(A) with
amplitude is described by the backbone curve.

Ω(A) = 12
(Where, ω1 and ω2 are the frequencies corresponding to the points of interaction
between the response curve)

 The restoring force is obtained by:

F ( A)  Ameff 2
(Where F(A) is a restoring force, A is a amplitude of response curve, and meff is the
effective mass of the system)
Formulas for nonlinear parameters
0.5
1 w2  w1    
2

 At Amplitude = Damping is calculated as: D  2   1
 
  T 
2 w0 w

1 m.e T
 Vibrating mass is given by meff 
2 D AT 0

F ( A)
 Stiffness is given by, K e ( A) 
A

 Back calculate response curve ,

 w 
m.e 
Amplitude   w0 
2
  w 
2
  
2

meff 1      2 D  w

  w0    w0 
 
EVALUATIONS OF NONLINEAR RESPONSE

 The frequency-amplitudes curves were back calculated using the

theory of nonlinear vibration with the calculated nonlinear parameters
of soil-pile system.

 The backbone curve Ω was constructed for each response curve by

intersecting the experimental response curves by a trace of lines.

 The back calculated response curves were compared with the field
test results.
Single pile at 12 kN static load

0.45
W.e=0.868 Nm Static Load =12 kN
0.4 W.e=1.269 Nm
W.e=1.631 Nm
0.35
W.e=1.944 Nm

0.3 symbol - Test data

Calculated
Amplitude (mm)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.4 Experimental and back calculated response of single pile under

vertical vibration
CONT..
6000

static load = 12 kN

5000

4000
Restoring force (N)

3000
W.e = 0.868 Nm

2000
W.e =1.269 Nm

W.e =1.631 Nm

1000 W.e = 1.944 Nm

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Vertical displacement (mm)

Fig.5 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..

Table 2. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 1443.40 0.22 28.93

1.269 864.78 0.37 23.28

1.631 781.04 0.38 21.60

1.944 612.47 0.46 12.80
2. Single pile at 14kN static load
0.4
Static load =14 kN
W.e = 0.868 Nm
0.35 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
0.3 W.e = 1.944 Nm
symbol- Test data
0.25 - calculated
Amplitude (mm)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.6 Experimental and back calculated response of single pile under

vertical vibration
CONT...

4500

4000
Static load =14 kN
3500

3000
Restoring force (N)

2500

2000
W.e = 0.868 Nm

1500 W.e = 1.269 Nm

W.e = 1.631 Nm
1000
W.e = 1.944 Nm
500

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Amplitude (mm)
Fig.7 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement
CONT..

Table 3. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 1201.57 0.30 30.34

1.269 899.88 0.39 17.82

1.631 758.86 0.45 12.32

1.944 596.08 0.54 10.31
3 – pile group at 12 kN static load

0.2
Static load = 12 kN
0.18 W.e = 0.868 Nm
W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
0.16 W.e = 1.944 Nm

0.14
Symbol - Test data
- Calculated
Amplitude (mm)

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.8 Experimental and back calculated response of 3-pile group under

vertical vibration
CONT..
12000
Static load = 12 kN

10000

8000
Restoring force (N)

6000

4000 W.e = 0.868 Nm

W.e = 1.269 Nm

2000 W.e = 1.631 Nm

W.e = 1.944 Nm

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.9 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..

Table 4. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 2540.50 0.382 138.65

1.269 1785.57 0.426 117.98

1.631 1554.57 0.445 85.38

1.944 1411.32 0.457 73.26
3 – pile group at 14 kN static load
0.18
W.e = 0.868 Nm Static load = 14 kN
0.16 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
0.14 W.e = 1.944 Nm

Symbol - Test data

0.12
- Calculated
Amplitude (mm)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.10 Experimental and back calculated response of 3-pile group

under vertical vibration
CONT..

9000

8000
Static load = 14 kN
7000

6000
Restoring force (N)

5000

4000
W.e = 0.868 Nm
W.e = 1.269 Nm
3000
W.e = 1.631 Nm
2000 W.e = 1.944 Nm

1000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.11 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..
Table 5. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 2015.79 0.31 128.02

1.269 1797.18 0.43 111.61

1.631 1763.32 0.44 104.62

1.944 1555.58 0.46 799.61
2 × 2 pile group at 12 kN static load

0.16
W.e = 0.868 Nm Static load =12 kN
0.14 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
W.e = 1.944 Nm
0.12
Symol - Test data
- Calculated
0.1
Amplitude (mm)

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.12 Experimental and back calculated response of 2 × 2 pile

group under vertical vibration
CONT..

7000
Static load 12 kN
6000

5000
Restoring force (N)

4000

3000

W.e = 0.868 Nm
2000 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.269 Nm
1000
W.e = 1.944 Nm

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.13 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..

Table 6. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 2313.00 0.39 105.45

1.269 2012.97 0.40 99.05

1.631 1684.70 0.47 78.14

1.944 1638.95 0.48 65.02
2 × 2 pile group at 14 kN static load
0.14

W.e = 0.868 Nm Static load = 14 kN

0.12 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
0.1 W.e = 1.944 Nm

Symbol - Test data

Amplitude (mm)

0.08 - Calculated

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.14 Experimental and back calculated response of 2 × 2 pile group

under vertical vibration
 CONT..
7000
Static load 14KN

6000

5000
Restoring force (N)

4000

3000
W.e = 0.868 Nm

W.e = 1.269 Nm
2000
W.e = 1.631 Nm
W.e = 1.944 Nm
1000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.15 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

Table 7. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 2312.28 0.31 119.76

1.269 2137.51 0.45 101.51

1.631 1830.49 0.50 73.64

1.944 1814.37 0.51 71.60
 2 × 3 pile group at 12 kN static load
0.14

W.e = 0.868 Nm
Static load =12 kN
0.12 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
W.e = 1.944 Nm
0.1
Symbol - test data
Amplitude (mm)

- calculated
0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.16 Experimental and back calculated response of 2 × 3 pile

group under vertical vibration
CONT..
16000

14000
Static load 12 kN

12000
Restoring force (N)

10000

8000
W.e = 0.868 Nm
6000
W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
4000
W.e = 1.944 Nm
2000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.17 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..

Table 8. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 3333.04 0.29 306.49

1.269 3262.52 0.35 282.00

1.631 2399.49 0.38 198.83

1.944 2264.25 0.39 159.88
2 × 3 pile group at 14 kN static load

0.18

W.e = 0.868 Nm Static load = 14 kN

0.16 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
0.14 W.e = 1.944 Nm

0.12 Symbol - Test data

- calculated
Amplitude (mm)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Frequency(Hz)

Fig.18 Experimental and back calculated response of 2 × 3 pile

group under vertical vibration
CONT..

12000

Static load =14 kN

10000

8000
Restoring force (N)

6000

W.e = 0.868 Nm
4000 W.e = 1.269 Nm
W.e = 1.631 Nm
W.e = 1.944 Nm
2000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Amplitude (mm)

Fig.19 Pile restoring force characteristic versus pile displacement

CONT..

Table 9. Nonlinear parameter of soil-pile system under vertical vibration

Exciting Effective
Stiffness
moment mass Damping
(kN/mm)
(Nm) meff (kg)

0.868 2251.23 0.370 160.52

1.269 2159.21 0.372 119.98

1.631 1847.32 0.396 103.72

1.944 1516.45 0.479 850.44
 Comparison between the single pile, 2 × 2 pile group, 2 × 3
pile group and 3 – pile group with respect to single pile

Table 10.Variation of response with respect to single pile at Ws = 12 kN

Test results Theoretical results

Number of Resonant Resonant Resonant Resonant

piles frequency amplitude frequency amplitude
(increased by) (decreased by) (increased by) (decreased by)

3- pile group 46% 55.60% 60.64% 57.39%

2 ×2 pile group 51.85% 61.2% 63.01% 61.91%

2 ×3 pile group 72.68% 71.06% 68.76% 70.50%

 Table 11. Variation of response with respect to single pile at Ws=14 kN

Number of Test results Theoretical results

piles Resonant Resonant Resonant Resonant
frequency amplitude frequency amplitude
(increased by) (decreased by) (increased by) (decreased by)
3- pile group 58% 55.60% 72.60% 57.28%
2 ×2 pile group 60.5% 61.81% 77.34% 63.74%

2 ×3 pile group 81.5% 52.45% 89.54% 67.30%

 CONCLUSIONS

 The resonant frequencies were decreased with increasing excitation

intensity and also the amplitudes were not exactly proportional to
the excitation intensity due to the nonlinear characteristics of soil-
pile system.

 It was found that the calculated damping values were increased with
the increase of excitation intensities. However, the effective mass
and average stiffness values were decreased with increase of
excitation intensities.

 In the curve between restoring forces and vertical displacements, it

can be observed that the overall stiffness of the system decreases
with the increase of eccentric moments.
 The back calculated response curves were compared with the field
test results. It was found that the theoretical back calculated
response curves were in close agreement with the field test data.
 REFERENCES
 Barkan, D.D. (1962), “Dynamics of Bases and Foundations”, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1962.
 Bentley, K. J. and El Naggar, M. H. (2000), “Numerical analysis of kinematic
response of single piles”, Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 37(6), pp. 1368-1382.
 Boominathan, A., and Ayothiraman, R. (2006), “Dynamic behaviour of
laterally loaded model piles in clay”, Geotech. Eng. J., Proc. of ICE, 158, pp.
207-215.
 Bowles, J. E. (1997),“Engineering Properties of Soils and their Measurement”,
McGraw-Hill Education, Edition 4.
 Burr, J. P., Pender, M. J., and Larkin, T. J. (1997), “Dynamic Response of
Laterally Excited Pile Groups”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 1,
 Chu, L. M, and Zhang, L. M (2011),“ Centrifuge Modeling of Ship Impact
Loads on Bridge PileFoundations”, ASCE, Journal of Geot. and Geoenv.
Engg., pp. 405-420.
 Demin, W. and Yungen, X. (2010),“Horizontial Resistance of the Pile-Soil
Based on the Modified Winkler Foundation Model, ICEEE, pp. 1-20., R. and
 Fellenius, B. H. and Altaee, A. (1995), “The critical depth – How it came into
being and why it does not exist”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering Journal,
 Gle, D. R., and Woods, R. D. (1984), “Predicted Versus Observed Dynamic
Lateral Response of Pipe Piles”, Proc., 8th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 6, pp. 905-912.
 Kagawa, T., and Kraft, L. (1980), “Seismic p-y Responses of Flexible Piles”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. 8, pp. 899-918.
 Krishnamurthy, D. N., Tokhi, V. K., and Beg, M. R. (1982), “Effect of Skin
Friction on the Natural Frequency of Pile Groups Subjected to Vertical
Vibration”, Proc., Conference Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Southampton, pp. 457-470.
 Madhav, M. R., Rao, N.S.V.K., and Madhavan, K. (1971), “Laterally loaded
piles in elasto-plastic soil”, Soils and Foundations, 11(2), pp. 1-15.
 Maheshwari, B. K., Truman, K. Z., El Naggar, M. H., and Gould, P.L. (2004),
“Three-dimensional nonlinear analysis for seismic soil-pile-structure
interaction”, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 24, pp. 343-356.
 Manna, B., and Baidya, D. K. (2009),“Dynamic vertical response of model
piles – experimental and analytical investigations”, Int J Geotech Eng, 3,
pp. 271-287.
 Manna, B., and Baidya, D. K. (2010),“Nonlinear dynamic response of pile
foundations under vertical vibration”, Soil Dyn. and Earthq. Eng., 30(6),
pp. 456 - 469.
 Michael, L. Z., and Charles, W. W. N. (2001), “A Possible Physical Meaning
of Case Damping in Pile Dynamics”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 38,
pp. 83-94.
 Nogami, T., Otani, J., and Chen, H. (1992), “Nonlinear Soil-Pile Interaction
Model for Dynamic Lateral Motion”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 89-106.
 Novak, M. (1971), “Data Reduction From Non-linear Response Curves”,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, pp. 1187-1198.
 Nogami, T., and Novak, M. (1976), “Soil-Pile Interaction in Vertical
Vibration”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
4, No. 3, pp. 277-294.
 Padron, L. A., Aznarez, J. J., and Maeso, O. (2008),“Dynamic analysis of piled
foundations in stratified soils by a BEM-FEM model”, Soil Dyn. Earthq Eng,
28, pp. 333-346.
 Puri, V. K., and Prakash, S. (1992), “Observed and Predicted Response of Piles
under Dynamic Loads”, In: Piles under Dynamic Loads, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 34, ASCE, pp. 153-169.
 Roesen, H. R., and Thomassen, K. (2010),“Small-Scale Laterally Loaded Non-
Slender Monopiles in Sand”, Research thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark
 Singh, P. J., Donovan, C. N., and Jobsis, A. C. (1977), “Design of Machine
Foundations on Piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division”, Vol.
103, GT8, pp. 863-877.
 Sivakumar, M., Arockiasamy, M., and Butrieng, N. (2004),“State-of-the-Art of
Integral Abutment Bridges: Design and Practice”, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.
497–506.
 Sheta, M., and Novak, M. (1982), “Vertical Vibration of Pile Groups”, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 570-590.
 Scott, R. F., Liu, H. P. and Ting, J. (1977),“Dynamic pile tests by centrifuge
modeling”, Proc. 6th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., New Delhi, India, Vol. 4,
pp. 199-203.
 Scott, R. F., Ting, J., and Lee, J. (1982a), “Comparison of centrifuge and full-
scale dynamic pile tests, Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng.,
Southampton, Vol. 1, pp. 299-309.
 Tatietse, T. T., Ohandja, L. M. A., and Alain, T. D. (2010),“Theoretical and
experimental state of the art of piles driving in Cameroon, EJGE, pp. 1-19.